1689 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 GIFT OF 
 
 Alfred C. Barnes 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■™ 
 
 
 ""^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN 
 
 U. S. A, 
 
 (t*r 
 
 NO. 232, 1 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 BS2585 .M86 1889 
 
 Practical commentary on the Gospel accor 
 
 Clin 
 
 3 1924 029 341 876 
 

The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029341876 
 
A PRACTICAL COMMENTARY 
 
 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 
 
WORKS BY DR. MORIS ON. 
 
 EXPOSITION OF THE NINTH CHAPTER 
 
 OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. A New Edition re- 
 written ; to which is added an Exposition of the Tenth Chapter. 8vo, 
 price 7^. 6d. 
 
 *^ It exhibits all Dr. Morison's soundness of judgment without which 
 well-known excellencies — clearness, no man, however able, can tnake a good 
 fulness, strength, combined with that expositor." — "Methodist Recorder." 
 
 ST. PAUL'S TEACHING ON SANCTIFICA- 
 
 TION,' A Practical Exposition of Romans vi. 8vo, cloth, 
 price 4f. dd, 
 
 " Dr. Morison's unfolding of the of which those who best know the 
 force and bearing of each word in the dangers and difficutties of such a work 
 sacred text is admirable. We thank will be prompt to recognise. We 
 him heartily for an able and admir- heartily recommend this * practical ex- 
 able piece of expository work, the value position.' " — " Methodist Recorder. " 
 
 "An admirable specimen of the lead the lay mind to the m.6st exact 
 manner in which a thoroughly in- scrutiny of the words and thoughts of 
 structed and vivacious teacher can his text." — "The Expositor." 
 
 A PRACTICAL COMMENTARY ON THE 
 
 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO' ST. MATTHEW. Fifth Edition. 
 Svo, I4f. 
 
 A PRACTICAL COMMENTARY ON THE 
 
 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. Fifth Edition. 
 
 Svo, I2J. 
 
 The Opinions of Three Commentators : 
 
 ' ' We are happy to call attention to is a marvellous display of learning 
 this painstaking and exhaustive work, and labour." — Rev. C. H. Spurgeon 
 No student can well do without it. It in "Sword and Trowel." 
 
 ** This great work is a long way theological opinions, has declared it to 
 
 beyond and above our criticism. The be one of the ablest expositions of Holy 
 
 unanimous verdict of the best judges, Scripture produced in any age or 
 
 of men differing most widefy in their nation'' — Rev. J. Agar Beet. 
 
 " Dr. Morison's Commentaries on have contributed to the interpretation 
 St. Matthew and St. Mark are siTn- of these sacred ' memoirs, ' and in 
 ply invaluable. With immense la- so far as it is of value has given it a 
 bour he has gathered together all place in his work." — Rev. Samuel 
 that previous comm-entators, ancient Cox, D. D. , in " The Expositor.'* 
 and modern, foreign and native. 
 
 London: HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, Paternoster Row. 
 
PRACTICAL COMMENTARY 
 
 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES MpRISON, D.D., 
 
 AUTHOR OF 
 
 "Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew^' etc. 
 
 SIXTH EDITION 
 
 HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 
 
 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 MDCCCLXXXIX. 
 
 All Rights Reserved.\ 
 
Butler & Tanner, 
 
 The Selwood Printing Works, 
 
 Frome, and London. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAOIt 
 
 Pkbpatory Notjs ix — xi 
 
 luxKODUciioN. (Pages xiii. to Ixxx.) 
 
 § 1. Gospel and Gospels xiii 
 
 § 2. Title op St. Mark's Gospel xiii 
 
 § 3. The Name 'Mark' xv 
 
 § 4. Si. Mark the Evangelist the 'John Mark' op the 
 
 Acts of the Apostles xv 
 
 § 5. Covert Eeference to the Evangelist in the body 
 
 op the Gospel xvii 
 
 § 6. The Eelation op the Apostle Peter to the Gospel: 
 
 Patristic Evidence. (Pages xix. to xxxiv.) 
 
 (1.) Testimony of Jerome xx 
 
 (2.) Testimony of Epiphanius xx 
 
 (3.) Testimony of Eusebius xxi 
 
 (4.) Testimony of Origen • . • ' . . . . sxi 
 
 (6.) Testimony of TertuUian xxii 
 
 (6.) Testimony of Clemens of Alexandria .... xxii 
 
 (7.) Testimony of Irenseus xxiv 
 
 (8.) Testimony of Justin Martyr xxvi 
 
 (9.) Testimony of Papias xxviii 
 
 § 7. Eelation op the Gospel to the Apostle Peter: in- 
 ternal Evidence xxxiv. — xxxviii 
 
VI CONTENTS. 
 
 P161I 
 
 § 8. The Inner Eelation op the Gospel to the Synoptic 
 Gospels op St. Matthew and St. Luke. (Pages 
 xxxviii. to Ixi.) 
 
 Augustine's theory xxxviii 
 
 Griesbaoh's theory xli 
 
 Dr. Henry Owen xlv 
 
 The Tiibingen School xIt 
 
 Ewald's theory xlvii 
 
 Gaussen's solution xlviii 
 
 The Eichhorn theory 1 
 
 The ' Mark-hypothesis ' liv 
 
 General observations on the problem .... Ivii 
 
 Gieseler's hypothesis Ix 
 
 § 9. Date op the Gospel. (Pages Ixi. to Ixvi.) 
 
 Common view Ix 
 
 Patrizi, Storr, Berks .... .... Ixiii 
 
 Volkmar Ixiv 
 
 Tubingen School Ixiv 
 
 Data for approximative date Ixvi 
 
 § 10. The Place op the Gospel's Publication and the Lan- 
 guage IN which it was okiginallt written .Ixvii. — Ixix 
 
 § 11. The Plan, Aim, and Style op the Gospel . . Ixix. — Ixxii 
 
 § 12. Iniegbitt op the Gospel Ixxii 
 
 § 13. The Topical Position op St. Mark's Gospel in the 
 
 group of Gospels Ixxiii 
 
 § 14. The Contents op the Gospel .... Ixxiv. — Ixxs 
 
 Exposition op the Gospel 1-470 
 
 Index to the Exposition . . .... 471^81 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 The following Commentary on the Gospel according to St. 
 Mark, though latently complementive of the author's Com- 
 mentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, is yet 
 entirely ' self contained.' There are, indeed, occasional 
 references to some fuller discussions or expositions in the 
 Commentary on St. Matthew ; but the thread of continuous 
 exposition in St. Mark is never suspended or broken off. 
 The author conceives that he was not entitled to postulate 
 the reader's possession of the earlier volume ; and he 
 imagines that it would have been a blunder in the structure 
 of his present work, had it imposed, even on those readers 
 who possess the companion volume, the irksome task of 
 turning to it, and turning it up, ere they could ascertain 
 his opinion on any particular passage in St. Mark. 
 
 In thus endeavouring to avoid a 'rock' on which many 
 had struck, the author was not unmindful that there was 
 a little malstrom-hke ' Charybdis ' on the other side of 
 ' Scylla,' no less dangerous to navigators. Hence he has 
 been on his guard not to allow any of the materials which 
 have done duty in the Commentary on St. Matthew to float 
 silently away into the whirlpool of circulatory repetition, 
 in order to do double service in expounding the coincident 
 representations in St. Mark. He hopes that whatever else 
 his readers may miss in the present volume, they will find 
 
PEEFATOBT NOTE. 
 
 throughout fresh veins of representation and illustration, 
 the result of fresh labour and research. 
 
 In St. Mark's Gospel, moreover, there is a pervading 
 peculiarity of phraseology, (inartificial indeed, yet idiosyn- 
 cratic,) which to the lover of delicate tints and flickers of 
 presentation affords a continual incentive to fresh investi- 
 gation. Hence, in truth, much of the charm, as also much 
 of the difficulty, in expounding St. Mark. The charm is 
 intensified if the conviction can be substantiated, (as it 
 undoubtedly can, provided the sum of the existing evidence 
 be impartially weighed,) that St. Peter's teaching within 
 the circle of "the early catechumens was the chief fountain- 
 head from which St. Mark drew the substance and even 
 the minutiae of his Gospel. The flicker of St. Peter's 
 subjective conceptions is thus passing before us as we read. 
 It is a fact fitted to stimulate. We feel as if we should 
 not like to let slip any of that subtle essence, or quint- 
 essence, of mind which made the primary observations of 
 the chief of the Lord's personal attendants distinctive as 
 well as distinct, and his subsequent reminiscences and 
 representations invariably vivid and frequently picturesque. 
 
 "Whether attributable to St. Peter's tenacity of memory, 
 or to that unique element in his dialect which made his 
 manner of speech, like that of every other original mind, 
 peculiarly his own, or whether merely attributable to the 
 reproductive idiosyncrasy of the writer, ' vexed expressions ' 
 abound in St. Mark, and give ample scope for patient, yet 
 exciting, research. 
 
 There are ' vexed ' questions in addition, belonging to the 
 department of Introduction, as distinguished from Expo- 
 sition. In particular, there is the question of the genetic 
 
PEEFATOEY NOTE. XI 
 
 inter-relationship of the three Synoptic Gospels, a subject 
 around which a pecuUarly thorny and ' vexatious ' thicket, 
 or rather forest, of literature has, during the past eighty 
 or ninety years, been growing up. Into this forest the 
 expositor is invited to enter, the moment he passes from 
 one to another of the synoptic narratives. 
 
 In this new edition of his Commentary the author has, 
 with as much care as was possible to him, revised the 
 whole contents ; and he hopes that it may prove a help to 
 students, preachers, Sunday school teachers, and other 
 lovers of Bible exegesis. 
 
 He may add that he has taken counsel throughout of 
 the English Revised version ; but he has been gratified to 
 observe that a very large proportion of the Eevisionists' 
 emendations had been anticipated in the author's previous 
 editions. 
 
 Flokentinb B»kk House, 
 Glasgow. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 TO THE 
 
 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 
 
 § 1. Gospel and Gospels. 
 
 It is a matter of interest and significance that, in the biblical 
 records, we have not only gospel bnt Gospels. 
 
 We have gospel, rnnning like a golden thread throngh the whole 
 Bible, connecting history, precept, proverb, prophecy, and binding 
 the entire constitnents of ' the volume of the Book ' into nnity. 
 We should certainly have had no Bible at all, had there been no 
 gospel. 
 
 Bnt in particular portions of the progressive revelation the 
 golden gospel line becomes doubled as it were, or trebled, or multi- 
 plied in some still higher ratio. The whole texture of certain 
 paragraphs or larger sections gleams and glows with gospel. Such 
 are the Messianic Psalms. Such is the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. 
 And such, of course, are the four Gospels of the New Testament. 
 The gospel is so efflorescent in these Gospels that the lovers of the 
 Bible have, from a very early period of the Christian era, agreed to 
 call them, ' par excellence,' the Gospels. 
 
 § 2. Title of St. Mark's Gospel. 
 
 The Gospel ascribed to St. Mark was neither by himself, nor by 
 the subsequent compilers of the New Testament canon, designated 
 the Gospel *</' Marh. The word gospel was not specifically em- 
 
TNTUODDCTION. 
 
 ployed, in the time of the evangelists, to denote a particular hind of 
 hook or biography. It had a more generic import. It meant good 
 news ; and just because it had that meaning, it was specially applied 
 by Christians to the best of all good news, the news regarding Jesus 
 Christ as the Divine Saviour of sinners. 
 
 Hence the united compositions of the four evangelists were often, 
 in the post-apostolic ages, called collectively the Gospel?- And each 
 evangelical record in particular was the gospel ' according to ' the 
 particular evangelist who compiled it. The gospel in each case was 
 one, ' the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God ' (Mark i. 1) ; but 
 it was that one gospel under the peculiar phase of a particular 
 biographical presentation. 
 
 Hence the phrase ' according to.' It is not, as some critics have 
 contended, precisely equivalent to •' of,' for the gospel was not re- 
 garded as an emanation from the mind of the writer.'' It was not, 
 in its essence, the product of any human compiler or composer ; 
 but, as delivered by the evangelists, it assumed in its form as dis- 
 tinguished from its essence, a peculiar phase in harmony with the 
 size, shape, and symmetry of 'the earthen vessels ' in which it was 
 ' handed out,' that it might be ' handed on.' 
 
 In the great majority of manuscripts, inclusive of the Alexan- 
 driae, the title of the Gospel according to St. Mark is either sub- 
 stantially, or entirely, the same as in our common English version. 
 In the Syriac Philoxenian version the word hoiy is introduced 
 before the word Gospel, and the phrase according to is merged : the 
 Mohj Gospel of Mark. In the Syriac Peshito version there was an 
 attempt, though not remarkably felicitous, to do more justice to 
 the idea suggested by the preposition ; the Holy Gospel, the Announce- 
 ment of Mark the Evangelist. 
 
 It is noteworthy that iu the two most venerable manuscripts ex- 
 tant, the Sinaitic and the Vatican, the title is fragmentary. It is 
 simply According to Mark ; it being assumed apparently that the 
 entire fasciculus of the compUatious of the four evangelists was but 
 one manifold Gospel. 
 
 > See, for instance, Tertullian De Baptismo, c. 15 ; and compare Ircnseus, 
 Adv. Haireses, iii. 11, and Origen's Comment, in Joannem, vol. iv., p. 98, cd. 
 Delarue (xal ri dXTjffws dia Teff<rd,puii In ianv dayyiXiov). See also Grlesbach's 
 Comme.ntarius Criticus, Partioula ii., p. 202. 
 
 2 See Introduction to the Gospel according to Matthew, § i. 
 
THE NAME 'MARK.' 
 
 § 3. The Name 'Maee.' 
 
 Maecus or Mark was a Latin name, and became a common Latin 
 proenomen, as, for instance, 'Marcus' TuUins Cicero. The diminu- 
 tife Marcellus was a surname of the Clandian family. A dis- 
 tingnished member of that family, Marcus Clanditis Marcellus, 
 defeated Hannibal at Nola. Cicero has an oration ' Pro Marco 
 Marcello.' 
 
 The evangelist Mark however was, notwithstanding his Latin - 
 name, a Jew. His entire Gospel bewrays his nationality, and 
 breathes the spirit of an Israelite who, though delivered from 
 Jewish narrowness and bigotry, was still ' an Israelite indeed.' In 
 the letter too, as well as the spirit of his composition, the marh of a 
 Jewish mind is indelibly impt^ssed.i 
 
 The reason why the evangelist either assumed, or got imposed on 
 him, his Latin name is now unknown ; probably he found it con- 
 venient, when out in the wide world, to wear a Gentile name. It 
 might be even to himself, as well as to his friends, and to all with 
 whom he had to do, a significant badge, indicating that he was now 
 a Christian cosmopolite. 
 
 Perhaps it was for a similar reason that Saul of Tarsus, after he 
 got rid of the spiritual fetters which the Palestinian Jews were per- 
 petually imposing on him, and had got fairly under weigh in the 
 career of his Gentile apostolate, called himself Paul, a word signifi- 
 cant in Latin, and honourable in the estimation of all who could 
 enumerate the most illustrious of the Roman families. 
 
 Marcus or Mark may have been at first a mere surname added to 
 the original Jewish name of the evangelist ; and then by and by it 
 may, from casual or conventional circumstances, have acquired such 
 a peculiar emphasis as at length to supersede and finally extinguish 
 its Hebrew forerunner. (See next Section.) 
 
 § 4. St. Mark, the Evangelist, the John Mark 
 OF THE Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 Grotius^ was of opinion that the evangelist was not ' John, whose 
 surname was Mark,' the son of that Mary of Jerusalem to whose 
 
 1 See, for instance, the construction in chap. i. 7, vii. 25. 
 
 2 Proeemium i» Marcum. 
 
XVI INTEODUCTION. 
 
 house Peter betook himself, on the night when he was so marvel- 
 lously liberated from prison. (Acts xii. 12.) The distinguished 
 critic was 'moved,' he says, to this opinion, partly by the fact that 
 ' the ancients ' never call our evangelist John, and partly by the 
 fact that they never speak of him as the traveUing compamon of 
 Barnabas and Paul, but invariably as the attendant and interpreter 
 of Peter. Calov in Germany, though always differing, as much as 
 he ever could, from the great Dutchman, agreed with him in this 
 opinion;' as did Cave ^ in' England, and Cotelier in rrance,^ and 
 some other able men, such as a-Lapide and Tillemont. Fetter 
 hesitated a little, but on the whole swung in the opposite direction. 
 In more modern times the same opinion has been occasionally re- 
 vived, as by Schleusner, Kienlen, Da Costa, and Patrizi in his great 
 work I)e EvangeUisJ" 
 
 But there is no good reason for calling in question the unanimous 
 tradition of 'the ancients,' that Mark the evangelist was 'John 
 whose surname was Mark.' 
 
 De "Wette unites the voices of all the Christian ages when he 
 says, "The Mark to whom ecclesiastical tradition ascribes the 
 " second Gospel is undoubtedly the John, or John Mark, of the Acts 
 "of the Apostles."^ Dr. Davidson, though not believing that the 
 second Gospel was really the composition of Mark, says : " It is pro- 
 " bable that the Mark, to whom the second Gospel is commonly 
 " assigned, is the same who is called John (Acts xiii. 5, 13) and 
 "John Mark (Acts xii. 12, 25 ; xv. 37)." 7 
 
 True, ' the ancients,' of whom Grotius speaks, uniformly call him 
 Mark, not John. But naturally so, for there were many con- 
 spicuous Johns in the early Christian circles. In the New Testa- 
 ment writings the tendency of the surname to displace the original 
 Hebrew name is noteworthy. In Acts xii. 12, the first passage in 
 which the bearer of the names is expressly referred to, he is called 
 ' John, whose surname was Mark ' ; and in the 25th verse this double 
 appellation is repeated. In the succeeding chapter, ver. 5 and 
 
 > Biblia Illustrata, in loo. 
 
 2 Scriptorum Ecc. Historia Literaria, vol. i., 24. 
 
 3 Constitutiones Apostolorum, ii. 57, note 36. 
 
 * The author of the largest Commentary ou Mark, in two volumes folio, 1661. 
 6 Lib. i., cap. ii., Quastio 1. See also the first Appendix to his Commcntariuin 
 in Marcum, 
 6 Lehrhuch des N. I., § 99. 
 T- Introduction, to N. T., vol. ii., p. 76, ed. 1868. 
 
WAS ST. MARK THE JOHN MARK OF ' THE ACTS ' ? xvii 
 
 13, he is referred, to tmder his original Hebrew name exclusively, 
 John. Then in chap. xv. 37 he is once more called ' John, whose 
 surname was Mark.' But ia the 39th verse of the same chapter he 
 is called simply Mark. And this is the only name that is given 
 him in the remaining passages of the New Testament : Col. iv. 10 ; 
 2 Tim. iv. 11 ; Philem. 24 ; and 1 Pet. v. 13. The remark of Jerome 
 on the third of these passages is equally applicable to the rest, ' I 
 think that the Mark here mentioned is the author of the Gospel.' ^ 
 
 As to the fact that ' the ancients,' when referring to St. Mark as 
 the writer of tlie second Gospel, signalize exclusively his mioisterial 
 relation to the apostle Peter, as distinguished from his correspond- 
 ing relation to Barnabas and Paul, nothing was more natural. 
 
 He was for a season, indeed, the companion of Barnabas and 
 Paul. See Acts xii. 25, xiii. 5. But he got wearied of that re- 
 lationship, or of the work which it entailed, and returned to his 
 mother's house. (Acts xui. 13.) Some of ' the ancients ' use 
 strong language in reference to this retreat, and ascribe to him a 
 kind of spiritual ' poltroonery.' ^ Moreover, when Barnabas and 
 Paul were subsequently arranging for another joint tour, Mark 
 was ready to join them ; but Paul objected, while Barnabas insisted, 
 " and the contention was so sharp between them that they departed 
 " asunder one from the other ; and so Barnabas took Mark, and 
 " sailed unto Cyprus, and Paul chose Silas and departed." (Acts 
 XV. 36-40.) As was to be expected however of good men and true, 
 this ' coolness,' as Grotius calls it, at once between Paul and Barna- 
 bas and between Paul and Mark, passed away, so that Mark was 
 restored to intimate and confidential relations to the apostle. In 
 the Epistle to Philemon (ver. 24) the apostle names Mark as one of 
 his ' fellow-labourers.' In Col. iv. 10 he says, " Mark, sister's son 
 " to Barnabas, — touching whom ye received commandments ; if he 
 " come unto you, receive him, — saluteth you." And then in 2 Tim. 
 iv. 11 the apostle says again, when now near the very close of his 
 
 1 " Maroum ponit, quem puto Evangelii conditorem." — Comment, in Phile- 
 monem, in loc. " Es ist hochst wajbrsoheinlich," says Miehaelis, " dass Marcus 
 " der Evangelist, der Sohn Petri, und der Gefahrte Pauli, eine Person gewesen 
 •• iBt."—Einleitung in N. B., p. 1051, Ula. ed. 
 
 '^ Hence the remarkable expression of Hippolytiis, in the recently recovered 
 PhilosopJmmena, vii. 18, MdpKos 6 /coXojSoSoktuXos. See also the Prologue in the 
 Codex Amiatinus, 'amputasse sibi post fidem ^JoMicem dicitur.' Consult Tre- 
 gelles' Canon Muratorianus, p. 75. 
 
 C 
 
XVIU INTEODTJOTION. 
 
 terrestrial career,"' Take Mark, and 'bring him with thee, for he is 
 " profitable to me for the ministry." 
 
 Still, as neither Paul nor Barnabas was able to supply, at first 
 hand, the full historic details that were essential to a biographical 
 Gospel, it is not to be wondered at that Mark, having either a pur- 
 pose, or an instinct, leading him in the direction of an evangelist, 
 should attach] himself to Peter, and derive from him the informa- 
 tion which he has embodied in his Gospel. And it is still less to be 
 wondered at that 'the ancients,' who spoke of him, and felt 
 interested in him, solely on account of his Gospel, should bring 
 exclusively into view, so far as his authorship was concerned, his 
 ministerial relation to Peter. 
 
 It is certain moreover that St. Peter was, from a very early 
 period, on terms of the greatest intimacy with Mark and his mother. 
 See Acts xii. 11—17. Not unlikely it might be by his preaching on 
 the day of Pentecost, or subsequently, that both the lady and her 
 son became acquainted with the true career and character of the 
 Saviour. And it is probably for this reason that we are to account 
 for the peculiarly endearing manner in which St. Peter refers to 
 the evangelist, at the conclusion of his First Epistle, " The church 
 " that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you ; and 
 " so doth Marie my son." There is no reason for doubting that it is 
 our Mark, and Paul's Mark, who is thus so affectionately men- 
 tioned. But there is less than none for imagining, with Henmann ^ 
 and Credner,^ or half imagining, with Pott,^ that he was Peter's 
 literal son. 
 
 § 5. coveet ebferbnoe to the evaugelist in the body of the 
 
 Gospel. 
 
 It is probable that the evangelist makes a covert reference to 
 himself in the body of his Gospel. 
 
 His whole narrative indeed, like that of St. Matthew, is remark- 
 ably impersonal. Both the writers retire behind their themes, and 
 shut themselves out of view. They are so absorbed ' objectively ' 
 in their narrations, that they become ' subjectively ' obUvious of 
 themselves. 
 
 1 
 
 ■ Nothiger Anhang zur Erklarung Marci, pp. 736, 737. He rejoices over the 
 imagination, as over a brilliant discovery. 
 2 Minleitung in das N.T.,%% 48, 237. 
 ^ Annotationes in 1 Pet. v. 13. 
 
COVEET EEFEEENCB TO THE ETANGELIST. XIX 
 
 Nevertheless it is in the highest degree probable that St. 
 Matthew refers to himself by name in the 9th verse of the 11th 
 chapter of his Gospel, and to his home in the 10th verse. It is 
 almost certaia too that St. John refers to himself, as one of the 
 two disciples spoken of in the 1st chapter of his Gospel, ver. 35-38. 
 It is certaia that it is of himself that he speaks in chap. xiii. 23, 
 xix. 26, as ' the disciple whom Jesus loved.' 
 
 We believe that it is, in like manner, to himself that St. Mark 
 refers when, in chap. xiv. 51, 52, he makes mention of 'a young man ' 
 who had been aroused out of bed by the uproar connected with the 
 conveyance of Jesus from Gethsemane to the residence of the high 
 priest. Full of youthful impetuosity, he had rushed, it seems, 
 out of the house with only ' a linen sheet thrown around him,' to 
 see what the disturbance was about. The incident was so trifling, 
 intrinsically, that we can scarcely conceive of it being recorded by 
 the evangelist unless he had some private reason for its insertion. 
 But if it touched the vital turning point of his spiritual career we 
 can at once understand why he should delight to link it on, and 
 thus in a modest and covert way to attach his own personal and 
 spiritual history to the great events he was recording. It is 
 worthy of being noted, in addition, that it is not likely that he 
 should have learned the unimportant incident from either Peter 
 or any other of the apostles, for in the immediately preceding verse 
 he states that ' they had aU forsaken ' the Lord ' and fled.' ^ 
 
 § 6. The REDiTiON of the Apostle Petee to the Gospel : 
 Patkistic Evidence. ' 
 
 It was the almost unanimous conviction of ' the fathers ' that 
 the apostle Peter's oral discourses were the special source, or wcll- 
 
 1 See Commentary, in loo. " Why was a ciroumstauoe apparently so trifling," 
 asts GresweU, " and certainly so irrelevant, inserted'iu the midst of so grave an 
 " aoeouut ? If the young man was the lyriter of the account, and an eye-witness 
 " of the transaction at the time ; partly implicated himself in the danger of our 
 " Saviour ; mistaken for a follower or disciple, when not really such ; afterwards 
 " converted to the faith ; and finally St. Mark the evangelist ; I think he might 
 "naturally look upon this as the most interesting circumstance of his life ; and 
 " its introduction into the rest of the account, under such circumstances, be- 
 " comes anything but foreign or irrelevant." — Dissertations on the Harmony oj 
 the Gospels, vol. i., p. 100, ed. 1837. 
 
XX INTRODUCTION. 
 
 spring, from wHcli St. Mark drew the information which is com- 
 niTinicated in his Gospel. 
 
 Not that we need to suppose that he learned nothing from others. 
 He would have ample opportunities in his mother's house and else- 
 where for getting information from the other apostles and their 
 coadjutors, companions, and acquaintances. The little paragraph too 
 regarding himself (§ 5) would of course he contributed directly by 
 himself to himself. But still it was the current report and belief 
 of antiquity that he drew upon St. Peter in particular for the great 
 body of the facts which he records. 
 
 (1) Jerome, who flourished toward the close of the fourth cen- 
 tury and the beginning of the fifth, says in his Catalogue of 
 Illustrious Men : " Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, wrote a 
 " brief Gospel, at the request of the brethren in Rome, in accord- 
 " ance with what he had heard related htj Feter. This Gospel, when 
 "read over to Peter, was approved of, and published by his 
 " authority, to be read in the churches." ^ Putting no stress upon 
 minutise of details in this statement, and bearing in miud that a fact 
 when got hold of was liable, in the course of manipulation and 
 transmission, to be unduly stretched and inconsiderately applied ; 
 still it is evident that Jerome had got handed down from the 
 ' fathers ' who preceded him, that Mark was indebted, for the con- 
 tents of his Gospel, to the communications of Peter. 
 
 In his Letter to Hedibia he tersely represents St. Peter as the 
 narrator, and St. Mark as the writer, of the Gospel.^ 
 
 (2) Stepping ' back from Jerome, we come to Epiphanius, who 
 flourished just a little earlier. He says : " But immediately after 
 " Matthew, Mark, having hecome an attendant of the holy Peter in 
 " Home, had committed to him the tosh of setting forth the Gospel. 
 " Having completed his work he was sent by the holy Peter into 
 " the country of the Egyptians." ^ The dependence of the evan- 
 
 I " Marcus, discipulus et interpres Petri, juxta quod Petrum referentem 
 " audierat, rogatus Eomje a fratribus, breve soripsit Evangelium. Quod cura 
 
 " Petrus audisset, probavit, et eoolesiia legeudum sua authoritate edidit." De 
 
 Viris lUustriius, cap. viii. 
 
 ' "Maroum; eujue Evangelium, Petro narrante, et illo scribente, compoBitum 
 est." (Cap. xi.) 
 
 " Euflys 6^ fitrk rbv 'M.aTBaXov &k6\ov6os yefo/xcvos 6 M.dpKos Tip ayl;f Tihpv 
 (V "Siijiri, iiriTpiirerai, ri ei}a7')Aioc iKBiaBai. k.t.\, — Haresis, 41, p. 428. 
 
THE RELATION Of ST. PETER TO THE GOSPEL. XXI 
 
 gelist on the apostle is the substrate, and indeed the sum and 
 substance, of this statement. 
 
 (3) Eusebius preceded Epiphanius, and flourished toward the 
 close of the third century and the beginning of the fourth. He 
 says, in his Evangelical Demonstration, that though the apostle 
 Peter " did not undertake, in consequence of excess of diffidence,^ 
 "to -write a Gospel, yet it had all along been currently reported 
 " that Mark, who had become his familiar acquaintance and attend- 
 " ant, m.ade memoirs of his discourses concerning the doings of 
 " Jesus." ^ The distinguished ' father ' then proceeds, after some 
 other details, to take notice of the fact that there is in Mark's 
 Gospel a minute and particular account of St. Peter's lamentable 
 denial of his Lord. After -which account he adds : " It is Mark 
 " indeed who writes these things. But it is Peter who testifies them 
 " concerning himself ; for all the contents of Marie's Gospel are re- 
 " garded, as memoirs of Peter's discourses." ^ "We need not press the 
 remark regarding Peter's ' excess of modesty.' It was probably 
 suggested to Eusebius by the representations of Clemens of Alexan- 
 dria,* and may have been a subjective conjecture rather than a 
 historical fact. But it is obvious that he got handed down to him 
 as a fact that Mark, in the representations of his Gospel, is to a 
 large extent but the echo of the narrations of Peter. 
 
 (4) Origen flourished before Eusebius, in the early part of the 
 third century. In his Commentary on the Gospel according to 
 Matthew he mentions that there were four unchallenged and un- 
 challengeable Gospels received throughout the universal church. 
 " The second of them," he says, " is that according to Mark, who 
 " composed it under the guidance of Peter, who therefore, in his 
 " Catholic Epistle, acknowledged the evangelist as his son, saying, 
 " The co-elect in Babylon saluteth you, and Mark my son." ^ We 
 
 ' Si' ei/\a/3eias irrfpiSoXijy. ^ 
 
 ^ To&rov MdpKos yvuipiiJ,Oi koX ^oitijtijs 'feyovi>i airoiJ,vrjfioi>eS(rai. \iyeTai ras toS 
 H^pov vepl Tuv irpa^eav ToO ItjcroS SioX^fcij. — Demonstratio Evangelica, lib. iii., 
 0. 5, p. 320. 
 
 ' Mo/)Kos fiiv ravra ypi,<j)ei.' JUrpoi 5k ravra irepX kavrov /laprvpel' irduTa ykp to, 
 wapb. MapKifi TUV U^rpov SiaX^^euv elvai X^yerai iirop.vrifji.oveip.aTa. — Id., p. 121. 
 
 ■• See Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, lib. ii., o. 15, and lib. vi., e. 14. 
 
 ' The original is preserved in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, lib. vi., cap. 
 25 : Se&repoy Si ri Karb. MdpKov, iSis Hirpos iipriyfiaaTo aiT(f, iroi^fiaavra, k.t.\. It 
 is thence transferred by Delarue into his edition of Origen's Works, vol. iii., 
 p. 440. 
 
XXU INTRODUCTION. 
 
 must not press the sequence that is intimated here in the inferential 
 ' therefore ' ; but the special relationship of the evangelist to the 
 apostle is unequivocally and unwaveringly asserted. 
 
 (5) TertuUian preceded Origen. He was born at Carthage 
 about the year a.d. 160. Converted from heathenism when be- 
 tween thirty and forty years of age, his greatest literary activity 
 was in the early part of the third century. In his book Against 
 Mardon, which was published in the year 207 or 208, he enumerates 
 the four authoritative Gospels,! noting that we have two of them, 
 namely those of John and Matthew, 'from apostles,'^ and other two, 
 namely those of Luke and Mark, ' from apostolicals.' ^ He vindi- 
 cates in particular the apostolical authority of the Gospel according 
 to Luke, and then he adds, " the same authority of the apostolic (or, 
 " in other words, the primitive) churches will likewise endorse the 
 " other Gospels which have been handed down to us in their integrity 
 " from these churches, I mean those of John and Matthew ; not 
 " excluding that also which was published by Mark, for it may he 
 "ascribed to Peter, ivhose interpreter Mark was." ^ 
 
 (6) Clemens of Alexandria, one of TertuUian's contemporaries, 
 has also something to say of St. Mark, and his intimate connection 
 as an evangelist with the apostle Peter. In a passage of his Hypo- 
 typoses, preserved in the History of Busebius, he says : — " The 
 "occasion for writing the Gospel according to Mark was as 
 " follows : After Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome, 
 " and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present 
 " entreated Marh, as one who had for long attended the apostle, and 
 " who Tcnew by heart what he had said, to reduce to writing what had 
 " been spoken to them. Mark did so, and presented to his petitioners 
 "his Gospel. When Peter became cognisant of thiff, he neither 
 "laid an interdict on the undertaking nor urged its fulfilment.".^ 
 
 ' Lib. iv., u. 2. 
 
 2 " Ex apostolis." 
 
 3 " Ex apostolicie." 
 
 * "Eadem auotoritas eoolesiarum apostolioarum oseteris quoque patrocinabitur 
 " evangeliis, quse proinde per illas, et seoundnm illas, habemus, — Joaunis dico 
 "et Matthsei; licet et Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur cujus interpres 
 "Marcus." — Advemis Marcibnem, lib. iv., c. 5. 
 
 * ToO Tlerpov STi/ioirLg. iv 'Pii/ni Ktipi^avros rbv \6yov, koX Ilyfu/iOTi rh eiayyk- 
 Xtoi' i^emoiiToi, rods irapovTas 7roXXoi>s Sxras TropaKoXeirot rbv MdpKov, (ij fii> 
 dKoXovB-qffavra alrrif wo^liuBev koI p.e/j.vri/J.hoi' t&v XexSePTUf, ava.ypi.\paj. ra 
 
THE RELATION OP ST. PETER TO THE GOSPEL. xxiii 
 
 Eusebius makes, in an earlier part of Ms History, another refer- 
 ence to the representations of Clemens. " So charmed were the 
 "Romans with the light that shone in upon their minds from the 
 " discourses of Peter, that, not contented with a single hearing and 
 "the Tiva-voce proclamation of the truth, they urged with the 
 "utmost solicitation on Mark, whose Oospel is in circulation, and who 
 "was Peter's attendant, that he would leave them in writing a record 
 " of the teaching which they had received hy word of mouth. They 
 " did not give over till they had prevailed on him ; and thus they 
 "became the cause ^ of the composition of the so-called Gospel 
 " according to Mark. It is said that when the apostle knew, by 
 " revelation of the Spirit, what was done, he was pleased with the 
 "eagerness of the men, and authorized the writing to be read in 
 " the churches." ^ There has been considerable discussion on the 
 relation of the last statement in this quotation to the remark at 
 the close of the preceding quotation.^ De Wette * and Fritzsche ^ 
 are positive that there is absolute contradiction ; Credner ^ con- 
 cedes that there is, attributing it however to the reproductive 
 representation of Eusebius. But de Valois thinks, apparently with 
 reason, that the two statements are not irreconcilable ; '^ although 
 he fails to lay his hand precisely on the principle of conciliation, 
 the supposition of ' successive stages ' in the case. The apostle's diffi- 
 dence, or repugnance, in relation to the writing of a Gospel is 
 assumed. He is not therefore at the outset of the enterprise made 
 acquainted with Mark's intention. By and by, nevertheless, he 
 finds out what is going on ; yet remains neutral, neither dissuading 
 nor encouraging. At length, when the finished work is submitted ' 
 to his inspection, it m.eets his approval, so that he sanctions it as a 
 correct representation of the substance of his own statements. 
 Such seems to be the view entertained by Clemens of the apostle's 
 
 dpri/ieva, iroiiiaavTa Si rb eda.yye\cov, fieraSoSi/cu tois deo/iimis airoS. "Oirep 
 ivtyvovra rbv Xlerpov, irparpeTTiKus p^rire KoiKvaai /tifre irporpe^aaSau — Bccles. 
 Hist. , lib. vi., c. 14. 
 ' ahlovs. 
 
 2 Eceles. Hist., lib. ii., c. 15. 
 
 3 See Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel ffisiors/, Part II., chap, xxii., pp. 
 212-218 of vol. ii., ed. 1788. 
 
 ^ Lehrbuch, § 98, p. 172. 
 
 5 Prolegomena in Ev. Marci, § 2. 
 
 6 Einleitung, § 51, p. 113. 
 
 ' Annotatio in Euseb. Hist., \i. 14. 
 
XXIV INTEODtJCTION. 
 
 relation to the Gospel. The dependence of the evangelist npon St. 
 Peter for the snbstance of his narrations is the central idea, and 
 the only one probaWy to which we should attach historic weight. 
 
 (?) We go back now to Irenseus, Bishop of Lyons in Ganl, but 
 andoubtedly a native of the East. He flourished in the latter half 
 of the second century ; and was, as he tells ns himself,! g, young 
 disciple of Polycarp, who was personally acquainted with the 
 apostle John. We are therefore now treading on the border land 
 of the apostolic age. 
 
 This celebrated father, like Origen and Tertullian, makes par- 
 ticular reference to the four accredited evangelists. For even in 
 his day, it would appear, they stood apart from all competitors, on 
 their own quadruple pedestal. 
 
 In the beginning of the third book of his Treatise against Heresies ^ 
 he mentions that after the apostles ivere clothed with the power of the 
 Holy Spirit, and fully furnished for the worh of universal evangeliza- 
 tion, they ' went out ' (exierunt) to the ends of the earth, preaching the 
 gospel. Matthew went eastward to those of Hebrew descent, and 
 preached to them in their own tongue, in which language he also pub- 
 lished a writing of the Gospel ; ^ while Peter and Paul went westward, 
 and preached, and founded the church, in Borne. " But," adds he, 
 '' after the departure of these, Marie the disciple and interpreter of 
 "Peter, even he, delivered to us in writing the things which ivere 
 ^^ preached by Peter.''' And Luke, the attendant of Paul, set down in 
 " a book the gospel as preached by him." 
 
 It has been debated among critics, what can be meant by the 
 expression, " after the departure of these." Grabe would interpret it 
 thus, after the departure of Peter aiid Paul from Bome.^ Mill 
 strongly advocated the same view.® G. Gottlob Hofmann contended 
 for it too,'' and Kuinol.^ Patrizi also leans toward it.^ But such 
 
 ' See quotation from Hs Letter to Florinus in Eusebiua's Eccles. Hist., v. 20. 
 •^ Chapter 1, preserved in Eufinus's Latin translation. The original Greek 
 of the most important part of it is preserved in Eusebius's Eccles. Hist., v. 8. 
 ■* KoL ypa(p7]v e^^veyxev ei5a77eX/ou. 
 
 * fieri, 5J tt/k roiruiv i^oSov, MapKOS o i^adrp-i]! koX ^p/tiji/eurijs Hirpov, koX 
 airbs ri irb IleTpov Kr]pv(r(T6fii,eva iyypi^as tjiuv irapadeSaice.- 
 
 * See his note in his edition of Irenseus, p. 199. 
 
 6 Prolegomena in Nov. Test., § 101. 
 
 7 Introductio in Nov. Test., o. xiii., p. 170. 
 
 8 Prolegomena in Marcum, § 2. 
 
 ' De Evangeliis, vol. i., pp. 37, 38. 
 
THE RELATION OF ST. PETER TO THE GOSPEL. XXV 
 
 an interpretation seems to involve a somewliat aimless or insignifi- 
 cant specification. 
 
 If it had been possible to carry back tlie reference to tbe expres- 
 sion " they ^ went out' to the ends of the earth," so as to suppose that 
 Irenaeus was informing ns that it was after the ' exodus ' or final 
 dispersion of the apostles, and thus at a late stage of the apostolic 
 epoch, that St. Mark wrote his Gospel, several difficulties affecting 
 the harmony of the various representations of ' the fathers ' would 
 be met. 
 
 But it is probable, nevertheless, that we may be shut up to 
 accept the view of de Valois,i endorsed as it is by the united 
 judgments of Father Simon,^ Michaelis,^ Eichhorn,* Bertholdt,^ 
 Hug,^ Credner,'' Guericke,^ Ebrard,^ Klostermann,!" ^"6188,^^ that 
 the expression means, after the ' decease ' of these apostles. Eiohhorn 
 ingeniously suggests that the word ' departure ' or ' exodus ' is used 
 in allusion to what is said in 2 Pet. i. 15, " I will endeavour that 
 "you may be able, after my decease (literally departure) to have 
 " these things always in remembrance." ^^ If this interpretation be 
 accepted, then we have, as regards the precise date of St. Mark's 
 Gospel, and the consequent authentication of its contents by the 
 apostle Peter, a representation which conflicts with that which we 
 have foxmd in Jerome, Epiphanius, Origen, and Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus. But it may be admitted, as we have already intimated, 
 that in minute details of things ' the fathers ' made free to vent 
 their subjective subsumptions, assumptions, applications, and divi- 
 nations, while yet the historic substance, or substrate, of the 
 information handed down to them, and thence passed on, was a 
 matter of indisputable validity. 
 
 We are not sure however that the real testimony of Irenaeus has 
 been conclusively ascertained. Christophorson, the author of an 
 
 ' See his note in his Eusebius, p. 172, Migoe's ed. 
 
 3 Historia Gritica Textus N. T., i., o. 10. 
 
 3 Einleitung in den N. B., § 141, p. 1054, 4th ed. 
 
 * Einleitung, § 119, p. 607, 2nd ed. 
 
 5 Einleitung, § 335, p. 1281, 3rd ed. 
 
 « Einleitung, Zweiter Theil, § 16, p. 61, 4th ed. 
 
 ' Einleitung, § 54, p. 118. 
 
 » Gesammtgeschichte, § 15, p. 139, 1st ed. 
 
 » Wisserachaftliche Kritik, § 133, p. 795, 2nd ed. 
 
 '" Markusevangelium, p. 336. 
 
 11 Marcusevangelium, p. 4. 
 
 '2 Einleitung, vol. i., pp. 607, 603. 
 
XXVI INTEODTJCTION. 
 
 admiraUe Latin version of Eusebins's Ecclesiastical History, first 
 publistied in 1570,i proposed to alter the text to the following 
 effect, after the publication of this? that is, after the puilication of 
 Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, as spoken of in the preceding sentence. 
 Grotins accepted the alteration.^ But de Valois expresses his 
 astonishment at such an extraordinary emendation, ' not knowing,' 
 as he says, on what gronnd Christophorson conld ventnre to suggest 
 it.* Yet it is a remarkable fact that in the ' Hypothesis,' or 
 Prefatory Note to Victor of Antioch's Commentary on the Gospel 
 according to Marie (sometimes ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria),^ 
 the same turn is given to Irensens's observation. The entire quo- 
 tation runs thns : " After the -publication of the Gospel according to 
 " Mattheiv,^ Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, even he, 
 " delivered to ns in writing the things that were preached by 
 "Peter." If this reading is no survival or echo of the original 
 statement of Ii-ensens, it is at all events evidence that at a very 
 early period some difficulty was found with the text as it now 
 stands. 
 
 Whatever, however, may have been the exact expression or idea 
 of IrenEBUs, he is indisputably at one with the fathers who suc- 
 ceeded him, in ascribing to the apostle Peter the materiel out of 
 which the Gospel according to St. Mark was compiled. 
 
 (8) Going back from Irenseus we come to Justin Martyr, who 
 flourished in the first half of the second century. Though not 
 making so frequent quotations from the Gospel of St. Mark as he 
 undoubtedly does, recent objections notwithstanding, from the 
 Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, yet he does sometimes quote 
 from our evangelist. And there is a remarkable passage in his 
 Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, in which he uses an incidental expres- 
 sion, of some significance and importance for our present purpose. 
 He is referring, in his own ingeniously theorizing way, to the fact 
 that our Lord imposed the name Peter upon the chief of the 
 apostles, and the name Boanerges upon James and John. The 
 
 > See Ittig's Preface to his Historiee Ecclesiastics Secundi Seculi Selecta 
 Capita. 
 ^ jtierct 5^ toiJtou t^v ^K5otnv. 
 ' Procemium in Marcum. 
 
 * Note on Eusebius's Eccles. Hist., v. 8. 
 
 » See first volume oi Cramer's Catena, pp. 259-447 
 
 * /Aera ttjv tov /carot MaT&aiov ^iayyeXiov ^Kdoaiv, 
 
THE RELATION OF ST. PETEE TO THE GOSPEL. XXTli 
 
 imposition of this latter name is recorded hy Mark alone. But Justin 
 speaks of the matter in the following terms : " And when it s said 
 " that He imposed on one of the apostles the name Peter, and when 
 " this is recorded in ' his Memoirs,' with this other fact that Me named 
 ' the tv>o sons of Zehedee Boanerges, which means 8ons-of -Thunder, 
 "this is a sign that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, 
 "and Auses, Jesus (i.e. Oshea, Joshua}."^ 
 
 Justin thus speaks of the record of St. Peter's change of name 
 as being in ' his Memoirs.' In whose Memoirs ? Lardner ^ and de 
 Wette ' say, in Christ's. Lang and Maranus, in their Latin ver- 
 sions, slar over a decision, translating 'in the apostolical Memoirs.' 
 But Schwegler,* NortoUj^ and Smith of Jordanhill^ legitimately 
 contend that the reference of the pronoun must be to St. Peter 
 himself, ' in Peter's Memoirs.' In many other passages Justin 
 speaks of the Memoirs of the apostles, meaning invariably the Me- 
 moirs emanating from the apostles, that is to say, the Gospels, which 
 he thus recognised as all, directly or indirectly, of apostolic origin, 
 and consequently of apostolic authority. With him the genitive 
 connected with the word Memoirs is constantly the genitive of 
 authorship, and not of the subject matter on which the authorship 
 is exercised. In other words, he never speaks of Christ's Memoirs, 
 but always of the apostles' Memoirs (concerning Christ). 
 
 Smith contends that the apostle Peter was literally the literary 
 author of the Primitive Gospel, the New Testament ' Prot^vangel,' 
 the Urevangelium as it is called by the Germans. It was composed, 
 he assumes, in Aramaic. St. Matthew and St. Luke derived from 
 it, he supposes, by simple translation, a large proportion of their 
 materials ; while St. Mark translated it entire, only adding to his 
 version some minutise, such as the title in the first verse of the first 
 chapter, and the epilogue of twelve verses which forms the con- 
 clusion of the , last chapter. It is, as Smith conceives, because of 
 this translation that Mark is so frequently called, as by Jerome, 
 
 * Kol rb eliretv fiercavofiaKevat. airrbv Jlerpov ^va tCiv iiiroaTbXttiv, nal yeypdfpdaL 
 iv Tois dTro/u'rifioyei/uKriv airoS ■yeyevriixivov Koi TOvro, /Jterd, toO. k. t, X. — § 106, 
 Migne's ed. 
 
 2 Credibility of the Gospel History, v. ii., chap. x. : Works, 70I. ii., p. 121, ed. 
 1788. 
 
 3 Lehrbuch des N. T., § 66. 
 
 ■• Das naehapostolische Zeitalter. vol. i., p. 221. 
 ' Genuineness of the Gospels, to!, i., p. 131. 
 
 * Dissertation on the Origin and Connection of the Gospels, p. Ixxii. 
 
XSvm INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Tertullian, Irenseus, aad Papias, the interpreter, that is, the translator 
 of Peter. 
 
 It is an ingenious tteory. But we cannot accept it, for this, were 
 there no other reason, that the Gospel, if really Peter's, could never 
 have got to be universally ascribed to Mark. The great name of 
 Peter would never have been eclipsed, and indeed annihilated, behind 
 the name of Mark, if Mark did nothing more than merely translate 
 the apostle's Gospel into Greek. 
 
 The exceptional representation of Justin is no evidence to the 
 contrary; neither is the somewhat analogous representation of 
 Jerome, in the first chapter of his Oatalogue of Illustrious Men, in 
 which he says of Peter, " But the Gospel according to Mark, who 
 " was his disciple and interpreter, is also spoken of as his." ^ These 
 statements are obviously to be explained as free and easy applica- 
 tions of the principle, that the cause of the cause is the cause of the 
 caused. St. Peter's relation to the Gospel was something like that 
 of a literary grandfather. 
 
 Hilgenfeld's theory is, up to a certain point, in accordance with 
 Smith's. He supposes that Justin had no knowledge of our 
 canonical Mark, but quoted from a real Qospel of Peter, which was, 
 says he, "if you will, the original Mark," only "richer." The 
 canonical Mark, as he conceives, was but an epitome or abstract 
 (Auszug).^ But is it not ' passing strange ' that the entire Christian 
 community should so prefer the impoverished epitome, that they 
 allowed it, without a single word of remonstrance or of murmur, 
 or even of remark, on the part of any of the churches or any of the 
 disputatious fathers, not merely to supersede the ' rich ' apostolic 
 original, but also to become its burial place and the everlasting 
 Lethe of its existence ? It looks like a ' miracle ' in the history of 
 the church. 
 
 (9) We go farther back still than to Justin Martyr. We go to 
 Papias, who flourished in the earliest part of the second century. 
 He was, says Irenseus,' the companion of Polycarp,* one of the 
 disciples of John the Apostle. He was himself the disciple of 
 
 ' "Sed et Evangelium juxta Maroum, qui auditor ejus et interprea fuit, 
 " hujus dicitur." 
 
 .2 Kritische Untersuchungen uber die Evangelien Justin's, pp. 278, 279. See 
 also his Markus-Evangelium, pp. 93-117. 
 
 ' See Eusebius's Eccles. Hist., iii. 39. 
 
 * JloKvKapTov iraipos. 
 
THE RELATION OF ST. PETER TO THE GOSPEL. xxix 
 
 anotlier Jolin,! John the Presbyter, who was ' a disciple of the 
 Lord.' 2 From this veteran, and from such other seniors or patri- 
 archs as he cotdd meet with, he eagerly collected, (but not with 
 much discrimination of judgment it would appear,^) all the apostolic 
 fragments of things on which he could lay his hands, " all that 
 " could be remembered, in particular, of the sayings of Andrew, or 
 " Peter, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or 
 " any other of the Lord's disciples." He thus raked together, amid 
 some important items of information, many tittles and trifles of 
 tradition, which he afterwards elaborated and published in his 
 Interpretation of the Lord's Oracles, a work consisting of five books.* 
 It has perished, whether happily or unhappily it might be difficult 
 to determine, for its contents would no doubt be unequal. But 
 Eusebius has preserved in his Ecclesiastical History what the worthy 
 compiler recorded, from the lips of John the Presbyter, concerning 
 the Evangelist Mark. It seems to have been one of the most 
 important ' anecdotes ' in the work. 
 
 " The Presbyter said this : Mark, having heconie the interpreter of 
 " Peter, wrote accurately whatever he " recorded.^ He did not 
 " present however in regular order the things that were either 
 " spoken or done by Christ ; for he had not been a personal auditor 
 " or follower of the Lord. But afterwards, as I said, he attached 
 " himself to Peter, who gave instructions according to the neeessi- 
 " ties of his hearers, but not in the way of making an orderly 
 " arrangement of the Lord's words. So that Mark committed no 
 " error in thus writing such details of things as he recorded ; for 
 " he made conscience of one thing, not to omit on the one hand, and 
 "not to misrepresent on the other, any of the details which he 
 " heard." '^ These things, says Eusebius, are left on record by 
 Papias concerning Mark. 
 
 • 'ladwov d/coixTT'^s. 
 
 2 Klostermann, after Zabn and Eiggenbaoh, supposes that Jolin the Presbyter 
 is just John the Apostle (Markusevangelium, p. 326). Unhkely. 
 
 ^ acjibSpa yap toi fffUKpbs Siv rhv vouv. Eusebius, loe. cit. 
 
 ■* Eusebius, loc. cit. 
 
 ' That is, Mark; not Peter, as Mr. Badiuel contends (En^Ksft JJmfiu;, xiii., 
 p. 276). 
 
 So should i/ivrifi^i'eva-e he rendered, aocording to the favourite usage of 
 Eusebius. Cruse renders it thus ; and Dunster, and Badinel. Bemembered is 
 the translation of de Valois, Lardner, Michaelis, Eouth, Thiersch, Meyer, 
 Klostermann, Weiss. 
 
 '' Kai Touro irpeff^vTepos ^"Keye' "MapKos ^h eppjjvevTTjs Herpov y€p6fiepo7, 6'ffa 
 
XXX INTEODTJCTION. 
 
 They embody, notwithstanding the medium through ■which they 
 were handed down to the historian and posterity, the most im- 
 portant ecclesiastical information in reference to the evangelist that 
 has come to us from post-apostolic antiquity.^ They embrace 
 almost all that is reliable in the testimonies of the succeeding 
 ' fathers ' ; and, as there is nothing intrinsically improbable in the 
 record, there seems to be no valid reason why we should discard or 
 ignore its testimony. Everything in it, on the contrary, is in 
 harmony with the most trustworthy of the results that are attain- 
 able by inward examination of the texture of the Gospel, and its 
 peculiar relation, as regards matter, method, and phraseology, to the 
 two other Synoptics. 
 
 It will be noticed that Mark is called the interpreter of Peter. It 
 is the first instance on record of the ' use of that expression ; and 
 it is to be attributed, we presume, not so much to Papias himself 
 as to his informant, John, who, we may conclude, found it circu- 
 lating among the compeers and immediate successors of the evan- 
 gelist. 
 
 What is the meaning of the designation ? A much debated 
 point. 
 
 Eichhorn,^ Bertholdt,' Kuinol,* Neudecker,' and many others, 
 assume that the apostle felt himself unequal to the effort Of using 
 the Greek language freely, while engaged in preaching the gospel. 
 He would be accustomed therefore, they suppose, to preach in 
 Aramaic ; and St. Mark would be employed by him as his inter- 
 preter, or 'dragoman,'^ to render his addresses into Greek. It is 
 an unlikely supposition. 
 
 Bleek saw its unlikelihood ; but, attaching the same radical 
 meaning to the word, conjectured, as Wilhelm Wilcke had done 
 
 ilivfiixovevaev , &Kpi.^m lypatj/ev, oi /levroi, rd^ci to iirb roC xpi-^rov ^ XexSfira fj 
 TT/jox^f '''■o' ofre 7^/) ■fjKovce toC KVplov, oiire irap-riKoKoiBriaey aiircp, iarepov ok, us 
 ^<tyt)V, IIcTpp, OS Tvpbs T&s X/Uf'tts ^TTOieiro tAs StSaiTKaXlas, dXV oix HxTTep aivra^iv 
 Tdv KvpMKWv iroiou/tevos X67wy Hare oiSiv ij/xapre MapKos, ofirus ft'ia ypa-J/as us 
 d.Tep.vijp.oi'eviTev. ''Evbs ybjp ^oiiftraro irpavoi.a.v, tov p.'rjdiv Siv iJKOva-e irapaXiweiv j) 
 ^eitrairBal n h airrois. — EuseMus, Eccles. Hist., iii. 39. 
 ' See Olshauseu's Echtheit der Evangelien, p. 101. 
 
 2 Einleitung, § 117, p. 597. 
 
 3 Einleitung, § 334, p. 1277. 
 * Prolegomena, § 2, 
 
 5 Lehrbuch, § 30, p. 226. 
 
 6 Eiohhorn's word. 
 
THE RELATION OP ST. PETER TO THE GOSPEL. XXXI 
 
 before ]iim,i tliat it ■would be when tbe apostle's hearers rinderstood 
 Latin alone that he would need a dragoman.^ That dragoman ho 
 presumes to have been St. Mark. Also an unlikely supposition. 
 
 Schenkel, attaching the same radical import to the word, com- 
 bines the two preceding conjectures. He supposes that the apostle, 
 although having considerable experience in speaking to foreigners, 
 could not use fluently either the Greek or the Latin tongue, at 
 least for lengthened discourse, and that he hence employed St. 
 Mark, for both languages, as the translator of his addresses.^ Like- 
 wise unlikely, as gathering up into itself the separate unlikelinesses 
 of the two preceding conjectures. 
 
 Smith of Jordanhil], still attaching the same radical idea to the 
 word, and supposing therefore that Mark was so called simply be- 
 cause he was ' the Translator of Peter,' imagined, as we h^ve re- 
 marked in a former page,* that he received the appellation because 
 he translated into Greek the apostle's Aramaic Gospel.^ An 
 equally unlikely conjecture, built on the basis of a conjecture more 
 unlikely still. 
 
 Jerome's idea was better, though not entirely satisfactory. He 
 assumed that Peter, ' like Paul,' was not satisfied with his own 
 proficiency in Greek, and hence took advantage, so far as his 
 written communications were concerned, of the superior acquire- 
 ments of a qualified amanuensis. " Paul therefore," he tells us, 
 " employed Titus as an int&iyreter ; just as the blessed Peter em- 
 " ployed Mark, whose Gospel was composed by the latter out of the 
 " narrations of the former. And the two epistles also," he con- 
 tinues, "which are ascribed to Peter, differ from one another in 
 " style and character and verbal structure ; from which fact it is 
 " evident that he had been constrained to make use of different 
 " interpreters." ^ Jerome thus understood by the word ' interpreter ' 
 an amanuensis who expressed in Ms own improved phraseology the 
 ideas that were dictated to him. 
 
 1 Tradition und Mythe, p. 50. 
 
 - Einleitung, pp. 112, 113, ed. 1862. 
 
 2 Das Charakterbild Jesu, p. 332. 
 ■* See page xxvii. 
 
 5 Dissertation, p. Ixxiii. 
 
 ^ "Habebat ergo Titum interpretem : siout et beatus Petrus Maroum, oujus 
 " Evangelium, Petro narrante, et illo scribente, oompositum est. Denique et 
 "duae Epistolae quae feruntur Petri, stylo iuter se et charaetere discrepant, 
 " Btruoturaque verborum." Note narrante, not dictante. — Epist. cxx, o. x. (ad 
 Hedibiam.) 
 
XXXU INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Meyer approves of Jerome's views, and suggests the word secre- 
 ia/ry as an approximative synonym for the term employed by the 
 •fathers.'i Dean Alford adopts the suggestion. ^ Holtzmann too,^ 
 and Dr. Davidson.* But there is not a particle of evidence iq 
 all antiquity, that St. Mark was a greater master of Greek than 
 the apostle St. Peter. If one might form an estimate from a com- 
 parative examination of the writings of the two authors, St. Mark 
 was by no means more versant than St. Peter iu ' the vsisdom ' of 
 any kind of ' words.' St. Peter's connection moreover, at once by 
 birth and by residence, with such a Gentilised region as Galilee, 
 and his free intercourse with such Gentile individuals as Cornelius, 
 constitute a sufficient guarantee that he would possess, for all prac- 
 tical purposes, a sufficient ' working ' acquaintance with the Greek 
 language. 
 
 Dunster thinks that the expression means the editor in writing, or 
 publisher to the world, of the oral discourses of Peter.^ But this con- 
 ception of the case seems neither to be in harmony with the essential 
 import of the term, nor with the ideas that were prevalent among 
 ' the fathers ' regarding the work of our evangelist. 
 
 Michaelis strikes the right vein : " When Mark is called Peter's 
 "Interpreter or Hermeneut, we must not think of a translator. 
 " Peter had no need of such a helper ; and in truth he writes Greek 
 " much better than Mark. But we should understand the word in 
 " a sense analogous to what it bears when applied to Mercury, the 
 " interpreter of the gods, the messenger, that is to say, who commu- 
 ' nicated to mortals what the gods had commissioned him to com- 
 " municate. So Mark was, as it were, the message bearer of Peter, 
 " an under teacher, who taught others what he had heard from Peter, 
 " or what had heen entrusted to him hij Peter." ^ 
 
 This, we believe, comes very near the ' mark ' regarding the 
 rationale of the designation given to St. Mark. It was not so much 
 
 ' Einleitung, § 1. 
 
 '^ Prolegomena, chap, iii., § 1. 
 
 3 Die Synoptischen Evangelien, p. 367. 
 
 ■* Introduction, vol. ii., p. 79. 
 
 5 He refers to Milton's use of the word in reference to Uriel, in Far. Lost, 
 iii., 657. See his able Discursory Considerations on the Supposed Evidence of 
 the Early Fathers that Matthew's Gospel was first written, pp. 77, 78. 
 
 6 " Er ist Bote Petri, ein Unterlehrer, der andere das lehret, was er von Petro 
 " gehort hat, oder ihm von Petro aufgetragen ist, und so werde ioh es iibersetzen, 
 "nicht wie andere gethan hahen, VoUmetsahei."— Einleitung, § 141, p. 1052. 
 
THE RELATION OF ST. PETEE TO THE GOSPEL. XXxiij 
 
 apparently because of any general assistance rendered to the apostle 
 jn the discharge of the ordinary duties of the apostolate, as because 
 of the specific relation of the contents of his Gospel to the mind of 
 St. Peter, as their literary source, that St. Mark was called the 
 apostle's Interpreter or Hermeneut. Unlike St. Matthew and St. 
 John, he wrote at second hand, atud drew his secondary iaspiration 
 from ' the chief of the apostles.' The events which he narrated, 
 and the discourses and Divine remarks which he recorded, were 
 communicated to him by St. Peter. And thus, in the matter of his 
 biographical account of the Saviour, he was St. Peter's interpreter. 
 This, we may add, is the view that is taken of the expression by 
 Fritzsche,! Thiersch,^ and Klostermann.^ 
 
 "We may remark, ere we leave this testimony of Papias, that 
 what the Presbyter says regarding the absence of a strict ' order ' 
 ui the contents of St. Mark's Gospel must not be stretched so 
 tightly, and therefore so unreasonably, as it was co-ordiaately by 
 Schleiermacher* and Credner.^ They drew from the expression the 
 inference that the writing referred to by Papias could not be our 
 present canonical Gospel, which is at least as well ordered through- 
 out as the other Gospels, but must have been some pre-existent 
 compilation of a less developed and more miscellaneous character. 
 ' Fragmentary' is Schleiermacher's word.^ And changes have been 
 eagerly rung on it, and, in particular, on the idea that underlies it, 
 by a numerous array of critics, who have the misfortune to imagine 
 that it is in the interest of truth that they should find some lever 
 or other that might enable them to shake the reliability of the 
 Gospel history. But John the Presbyter did not mean that there 
 was no ' order ' in the composition of St. Mark. Not even did he 
 mean that there was no observance of chronological order. The 
 Gospel is orderly ; and the events recorded are grouped on a basis 
 of true chronology. But it is nevertheless of the highest moment 
 that the modern critic should bear in mind the truth of the Presby- 
 ter's observation. There was no attempt, on the part of the evangelist. 
 
 ' " Ees Petri, verba Marci." — Prolegomena, § i., p. 26. 
 
 2 Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Standpuncts fiir die Kritik der N, T. 
 Schriften, p. 181. 
 '' Das Markusevangelium, p. 329. 
 1 Studien und Kritiken, 1832, pp. 735-768. 
 5 Einleitung, § 57, pp. 128, 124. 
 8 Einleitung, § 68, p. 250. See also § 67. 
 
 d 
 
XXXIV INTEODUCXION. 
 
 to introduce exact historic order into the details of his narrative. There 
 ■was no attempt at a strictly scientific chronology. It wonld be 
 doing the evangelist the greatest injustice to endeavonr to impose 
 it on his narrations. He allowed himself, like St. Peter in his dis- 
 conrses to the catechumens, scope and latitude in grouping. His 
 work was not meant to be annalistio, or historically complete. But 
 all that it aimed at was realized to perfection. It was meant to be 
 the gospel in a biographical form ; and it is therefore a Gospel. Like 
 the other, Gospels it is the announcement, and unpretending pre- 
 sentation, of some of the salient doings and sayings of Him who, 
 in His own living presence in our nature, in our world, and in the 
 world of glory, is Himself the Everlasting Gospel of the grace of 
 God. 
 
 § 7. Relation op the Gospel to the Apostle Petee : 
 
 Inteenal Evidence. 
 
 There is certainly nothing in the contents or texture of St. 
 Mark's Gospel which can decisively determine that it was drawn 
 from the wellspring of St. Peter's discourses. 
 
 But, on the other hand, there is nothing that is, in the least 
 degree, at variance with the patristic tradition. 
 
 Here and there, moreover, phenomena of representation occur, as 
 also, in some cases, phenomena of omission, or thiags ' conspicuous 
 by their absence,' which admit of felicitous explanation on the 
 hypothesis of a peculiarly intimate relationship to Peter. 
 
 It is not to be doubted indeed that all the synoptic Gospels bear, 
 to a considerable degree, the impress of this, apostle's idiosyncrasy. 
 He was the leader of the original twelve; he was their chosen 
 spokesman; he would be their chief speaker. The forms con- 
 sequently in which he put his descriptions of his ocular and auri- 
 cular observations would naturally become models to the rest of 
 the circle, or moulds in which their public representations of what 
 they themselves, as well as he, had seen and heard, would take 
 definitive shape. His image would be unconsciously stamped on 
 the whole currency of their ministrations. 
 
 Nevertheless, each of his brethren would, in his individual exhibi- 
 tions of the facts which constitute the biographical contents of the 
 Gospel, contribute something out of his own individuality. Hence 
 there would be differences in setting, differences in grouping, dif- 
 ferences in modes of expression, differences in the admission oi 
 
RELATION OF THE GOSPEL TO ST. PETEE. XXXV 
 
 omission of scenes or minuter details. In such an original mind 
 moreover as that of John there would be an amount of peculiarity 
 that would entirely overlap, or perhaps completely supersede, the 
 distinctive one-sidedness of Peter's presentations, or the parallel re- 
 placements, modifications, and additions of the rest of the apostles. 
 
 No wonder therefore that critics in general should have agreed to 
 class the first three canonical Gospels as ' synoptic,' ■•■ setting St. 
 John's apart on a pedestal by itself. No wonder moreover that a 
 considerable school of investigators, of whom more hereafter, should 
 have conceived that St. Mark must have borrowed from St. Mat- 
 thew. No wonder that another considerable school should have 
 . imagined that he borrowed from both St. Matthew and St. Luke. 
 And no wonder, in addition, that still another school should have 
 contended, reversely, that it was on St. Mark that St. Matthew and 
 St. Luke unitedly drew for the main body of their materials. Un- 
 doubtedly they did derive a large amount of the contents of their 
 Gospels from the copious wellspring from which St. Mark still 
 more directly drew. 
 
 When we assume, in accordance with the emphatic testimony of 
 ' the fathers,' that St. Mark drew .directly from the discoursings of 
 St. Peter, then we understand how it comes to pass that it is in his 
 pages that we have the most particular account of that lamentable 
 denial of his Lord, of which the apostle was guilty (chap. xiv. 30, 
 31, 54, 66-72). On no other person's memory would the minute 
 particulars of the prediction, and of its unanticipated fulfilment, be 
 so indelibly engraven. It is also noteworthy that while the very 
 severe rebuke which our Lord administered to St. Peter, in the 
 neighbourhood of Csesarea Philippi, is faithfully and circumstan- 
 tially recorded in St. Mark's pages (chap. viii. 33), the splendid 
 eulogium and distinguishing blessing, which had been previously 
 pronounced, are as it were modestly passed by. (See Matt. xvi. 
 17-19.) Doubtless the great apostle would not be guilty of mak- 
 ing frequent or egotistic references to such marks of distinction. 
 It is likely, says Eusebius, that Peter maintained silence on these points; 
 Jience the silence of Mark? 
 
 Then the very house which he occupied in Capernaum, though in 
 the other synoptic Gospels simply called Peter's or Simon's, is in St. 
 
 1 They can, to a large extent, be exhibited in a synopsis of parallel columns. 
 See, for instance, Griesbach's Synopsis. 
 - Demonstratio Evangelica, iii. 5, p. 121. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Mark's called ' the house of Simon and Andrew ' (i. 29). It is as if 
 the evangelist were reproducing the statement that would naturally 
 drop from the Ups of the apostle, ' the house that was occupied hy 
 my brother and me.' Then again, when, in the account of the trans- 
 figuration, we read of St. Peter's proposal to erect three tabernacles, 
 it is naively added, 'for he wist not what to say' (ix. 6). One 
 almost hears the apostle rehearsing the whole matter ; and, when 
 coming to the project of erecting the tabernacles, he would pause 
 and add something to the following effect : " I iliought I should say 
 "something; hut really I did not Imow what to say, I was so con- 
 " founded and overwhelmed toith awe. In the end J~ actually said 
 " something foolish." This latter part of his account is reproduced 
 in St. Luke's narrative (ix. 33). The way too in which the angel, 
 who appeared to the women in the empty sepulchre, makes refer- 
 ence to the faithless apostle strikes us as peculiarly touching, if it 
 be regarded as reproduced by the evangelist from the lips of the 
 apostle himself, ' Tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you 
 into Galilee* (xvi. 7). The apostle would delight to give emphasis 
 to the semi-redundfint clause, involving, as it did, the forgiving 
 mercy of the Master he had so shamefully mistrusted and denied. 
 
 There are besides, throughout the entire Gospel, multitudes of 
 minute graphic touches, which bewray the evangelist's connection 
 with some peculiarly observant eye-and-ear-witness, such as the 
 apostle no doubt would be. For instance, the personal looks and 
 gestures of our Lord are more frequently specified than in either of 
 the other synoptic Gospels. (See chap. i. 31 ; ui. 5, 34 ; v. 32 ; vii. 
 33, 34 ; viii. 12, 33 ; x. 27.) Then there are such vivid circumstan- 
 tialities as the ' pillow ' in the boat (iv. 38), the ' green grass ' at 
 passover time on the hill side (vi; 39), the ' roundabout road' from 
 Bethany to Bethphage (xi. 4), the colt tied 'outside,' not inside, the 
 quadrangle of the owner's house fxi. 4), and the ' one loaf ' which 
 the flustered disciples had with them on the sea (viii. 14). These 
 are singularly luminous points. 
 
 The two other synoptic evangelists record, as well as St. Mark, 
 the little children scene. But St. Mark alone makes mention of the 
 interesting circumstance that our Lord, in blessing the little ones, 
 'folded them in His arms' (x. 16). He alone too mentions that, 
 on another occasion, the same gentle 'embrace' was given to the 
 little child, who was set in the midst of the disciples as the model 
 of an unambitious spirit (ix. 36). Something of the same motherly 
 tenderness of spii-it was displayed in our Lord's treatment of the 
 
EELATION OF THE GOSPEL TO ST. PETEE. XXXvii 
 
 little girl of twelve years of age, wliom. He restored to life. Not 
 only did He ' take lier by the hand ' in the act of reviving her, as 
 both St. Matthew and St. Luke, as well as St. Mark, record ; He 
 spoke to her, as we learn from St. Mark alone, in her own familiar 
 mother- tongne, Talitha cumi (v. 41). Peter was present (v. 37), 
 and would hear. 
 
 The circumstantialities connected with the case of the woman who 
 came behind and touched the hem of the Saviour's garment have all 
 along, in Christian circles, excited the special interest of the pious. 
 They are given by St. Mark more graphically, and in fuller detail, 
 than by the other evangelists (v. 24-34) . And so, to a noteworthy 
 extent, is the history of the cure of the demoniac lad at the base of 
 the mount of transfiguration. The whole scene is drawn to the 
 life ; but when we come to that notable home- thrust so felicitously 
 dealt by our Lord, and with such readiness, by which He turned 
 back on the stupefied father the ' If it he possible to Thee,' we can- 
 not doubt that we are listening to the report of one who had been 
 just such a keen and tenacious observer as we picture the apostle 
 Peter to have been. (See ix. 23, and Gommentary in loc.) 
 
 There are other vivid circumstantialities, agreeing well with the 
 idea that St. Peter was drawn upon : for instance, the taunt which 
 the Nazarenes threw at our Lord, ' the carpenter ' (vi. 3) ; the name 
 of the blind beggar at Jericho, evidently ' a character,' ' Bartimseus 
 • (x. 46) ; the earnest bilingual address, ' Abba-Pather,' in. the 
 Lord's agony prayer in Gethsemane (xiv. 36) ; and that little insig- 
 nificant, yet most significant, particular in the cornfield scene, un- 
 happily slurred over both by Luther and in King James's English 
 version, but incontestably bewraying the autopticity of the narrator, 
 ' they began to make a. way ' (ii. 23, and see Gommentary). It is 
 enough. We would only specify, in conclusion, one other incidental 
 circumstantiality. When Peter got a place at the fire, in the court 
 of the high priest's house, he had, we are told in St. Mark's nar- 
 rative, his face, unfortunately or fortunately, ' to the light,' so that 
 his features stood out in full relief (xiv. 54). Who so likely to 
 remember the fact, and to give it emphasis, as Peter himself ? 
 
 In short, if we assume the patristic tradition regarding the 
 apostle's relation to St. Mark, we find the contents and texture of 
 the Gospel to be, without a jar at any point, in perfect accord with 
 the idea. 
 
xxxviu introduction. 
 
 § 8. The Inner Relation op the Gospel to the Synoptic 
 Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke. 
 
 The oldest ecclesiastical writers say notMng regarding the inner 
 relation of our Gospel to the other two synoptic Gospels. But 
 Augustine speculated on the subject. Assuming the chronological 
 anteriority of St. Matthew's Gospel, he imagined that St. Mark 
 followed his predecessor on foot as it were, only taking shorter cuts, 
 or abbreviating the evangelical narrative as he went along.^ " He 
 "has," says Augustine, "nothing in his Gospel which he shares with 
 " John alone. He has very little that is peculiar to himself. He has 
 " still less in common with Luke alone. But he has very much in 
 " common with Matthew, often expressed too in just so many, and 
 " indeed the very same, words. In these instances he sometimes 
 " accords with Matthew alone, and sometimes with the other 
 " Gospels in addition, when they run parallel with Matthew." ^ 
 
 Augustine had somewhat minutely observed the remarkable corre- 
 spondences and variations of the four Gospels, though he speculated 
 no further regarding their inner inter-relationship. It is a fact that 
 there are no correspondences that are peculiar to St. Mark and St. 
 John. It is also a fact that there are but few incidents in the life 
 of our Lord, and but few of His discourses or remarks, that are 
 recorded by St. Mark alone. It is likewise a fact that there is still 
 less that is peculiar to St. Mark and St. Luke as a pair. Bichhorn,^ 
 followed by Bertholdt,* specifies only five paragraphs of this de- 
 scription, four of which are very brief. The five are these : (1) 
 Mark i. 21-28, Luke iv. 31-37 ; (2) Mark i., 35-39, Luke iv. 42-44 ; 
 (3) Mark iii. 7-19, Luke vi. 12-16 ; (4) Mark iv. 21-29, Luke viii. 
 16-18 ; (5) Mark xii. 41-44, Luke xxi. 1-4. 
 
 Eichhorn has made a mistake in specifying the third of these para- 
 graphs, for it is almost as fully given in Matthew x. 1-4 as in 
 Luke vi. 12-16. There is a mistake too in the fourth specification, 
 for ver. 21-25 of chap. iv. have their homologues as really in 
 
 1 " Marcus eum subsecutus, tanquam pedissequiis et breviator ejus videtur." 
 — Consensus Evangelistarum, i. 2. 
 
 2 " Cum solo quippe Joanne, nihil dixit ; solus ipse, perpauoa ; cum solo Luca, 
 " pauoiora ; cum Matthaeo vero, pluiima, et multa pene totidem atque ipsis 
 "verbis, sive cum solo, siTe cum cseteria consonanto."— Consensus Ew., ut 
 supra. 
 
 ' Einleitung, vol. i., § 70, p. 348. 
 " Einleitung, vol. iii., § 301, p. 1103. 
 
INNER RELATION TO THE OTHER SYNOPTICS. XXXIX 
 
 Matthew (v. 15, x. 26, vii. 2, xxv. 29), as in Luke ; and ver. 26-29 
 liave nothing in either Lnke or Matthew that is analogous. So 
 that only three peculiar paragraphs remain. Of these, it is merely 
 the first, and longest, in which there is a verbal agreement. And 
 that verbal agreement is complete only in two verses, namely 
 the 24th and 25th of Mark, and the 34th and 35th of Luke. In 
 these two verses, however, the phraseology is all hut identical, 
 absolutely so in the Received or Erasmian text. 
 
 Ferdinand C. Baur gives a list of the peculiar coincidences of St. 
 Mark and St. Luke, somewhat different from Eichhorn's. He has 
 Eichhom's first, second, and fifth instances. But he has other three, 
 viz.: (1) Mark iii. 7-12, Luke vi. 17-19; (2) Markix. 38-40, Luke 
 ix. 49, 50 ; (3) Mark xii. 38-40, Luke xx. 45-47.1 Let them be 
 accepted. Augustine was right in saying that the precise correspond- 
 ences that are found between St. Mark and St. Luke, without homo- 
 logues in St. Matthew and St. John, are few, fewer indeed than the 
 peculiarities in incident or discourse that are found in St. Mark 
 alone. 
 
 He is also correct in saying that the correspondences between St. 
 Mark and St. Matthew are very numerous. If we take, for instance, 
 such a work as Griesbach's Synopsis of the three Synoptic Gospels, we 
 find that, in a sum total of a hundred and fifty sections into which 
 he subdivides his Synopsis, there are between sixty and seventy in 
 which there are marked correspondences between St. Matthew and 
 St. Mark. If again we take, let us say, Robinson's Harmony of the 
 Four Gospels, we find that in the hundred and seventy-three sections 
 into which he distributes the harmonised narrative, there are above 
 eighty in which the harmony of St. Mark and St. Matthew is re- 
 garded as evident. 
 
 Augustine therefore was correct in the general result of his 
 collation. 
 
 But there are insuperable objections to his theory of the genetic 
 relationship of St. Mark's Gospel to St. Matthew's. His great name 
 indeed bore down, for many centuries, so far as the Western church 
 was concerned, everything like opposition to his view ; only there 
 were now and again put forth, tentatively, small tinkering efforts 
 to reconcile St. Mark's ' footman '-relationship to St. Matthew with 
 the ' interpreter '-relationship to the apostle Peter ascribed to him 
 by the other fathers. Even after the Revival of letters, and the sub- 
 
 1 Markusevangelium, p. 114. 
 
xl 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 sequent genesis and development of a somewliat independent spirit 
 of Mblical criticism and theological inquiry, Augustine's opinion 
 remained for long comparatively unchallenged. Le Fevre d'Etaples 
 however, -with his characteristic independence, strongly opposed it.^ 
 But Erasmus acquiesced in it.*' And so did even Wetstein, in his 
 day, though he made some little allowance for the independent in- 
 fluence of Peter's instructions.' 
 
 It is however an utterly indefensible theory, and has been long 
 abandoned by all critics, as a crudity of nascent speculation. It 
 would account indeed for the minute verbal correspondences that 
 sometimes occur in the two Gospels, as for instance in Matthew 
 xxiv. 4-36 and Mark xiii. 5-32. But it can never account for the 
 divergences of phraseology, which also frequently occur ; and the 
 divergences in order too. Still less can it afford a clue to a prin- 
 ciple of omission, that would account for the absence of some of the 
 most interesting contents of St. Matthew's narrative. And yet less 
 stm can it account for the multitudes of vivid touches in details, 
 which are present in St. Mark but wanting in St. Matthew, and 
 which have all the appearance of ' autopticity ' ; such for instance 
 as the circumstantialities connected with the cure of the demoniac 
 lad at the foot of the mount of transfiguration (chap. ix. 14-29). 
 And then the theory not only fails, it entirely founders, when the 
 fact is taken into account that there are incidents, discourses, and 
 remarks, found in St. Mark, of which there are no traces whatso- 
 ever in St. Matthew. See, for instance, the remarkable parable 
 contained in chap. iv. 26-29 ; and the remarkable miracles recorded 
 in chaps, vii. 31-37 and viii. 22-26. See also the fact of the 
 pairing of the apostles when sent out on their first apostolical tour 
 (vi. 7). See likewise those great deep utterances in chaps, iv. 22, 
 iv. 28, ix. 23, ix. 40, ix. 49 ; and those remarkable expressions in 
 chap. vii. 3 and xiv. 41: all of which are peculiar to St. Mark. 
 
 When we take the sum total of these details of things into con- 
 sideration, we cannot hesitate to come to the conclusion that Koppe 
 was right in the title of his Dissertation, published in 1782, Maris 
 not the Abbreviator of Matthew.^ 
 
 ' Commentarius in Marfium; Procemlum, fol. 216, ed. 1522. 
 2 Annotationes in Marcum ; Prooemium, in all the editions. 
 ' Novum Testamentum ; Prooemium in Maroum. 
 
 * Marcus non Epitomator Matthai ; published in Pott and Rupert's Sylloge, 
 vol i., pp. 35-69. 
 
INNEE EELATION TO THE OTHER SYNOPTICS. xli 
 
 Neither did the evangelist, as Griesbaoh imagined,! cut and cull 
 Ms narrative, in an alternating manner, out of the two Gospels of St. 
 Matthew and St. Imke. It is an extremely artificial and mechanical 
 theory. And yet the distirigtiished critic actually supposed that he 
 could reproduce the precise zig-zag process that was pursued by 
 the evangelist, as he elaborated his Gospel out of the two anterior 
 Gospels lying before him. 
 
 St. Mark had resolved, according to Griesbaoh, to compile out of 
 the two a shorter account than either, and to make it suitable for 
 Gentile readers. That was his general determination. 
 
 He then started with St. Matthew, to whose leadership he in- 
 tended to adhere in the main. He omitted however, at the outset, 
 the whole contents of the first and second chapters, as having no 
 immediate reference to the public ministry of Christ. Coming 
 down therefore to the third chapter, he passed carefully along its 
 course, and thence down to the 22nd verse of the fourth chapter, — 
 appropriatiag the facts recorded in that stretch, and condensing 
 the substance of the narrative into the first twenty verses of his 
 own first chapter. 
 
 Then, looking forward to the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of 
 St. Matthew, and noticing that they contained a long and ' verbose ' 
 discourse^ — the Sermon on the Mount — which he wished, as Fer- 
 dinand C. Baur expresses it, ' completely to ignore,' ' — he turned 
 to "St. Luke. Following the thread of this evangelist's narrative, 
 he comes to chap. iv. 31, which seems to refer to the same period 
 that is spoken of toward the close of that paragraph of St. Matthew 
 which he had already turned to account. He goes on therefore 
 with St. Luke iv. 31-44, reproducing that paragraph into ver. 
 21-39 of his own first chapter. Then he looks forward to St. Luke 
 V. 1-11, which seems to him to be not unlike what he had already 
 recorded ia ver. 16-20 out of St. Matthew iv. 18-22. He there- 
 fore pretermits that paragraph ; but makes use of what follows 
 from V. 12 to the end of the chapter, and thence on to vi. 11. All 
 this he reproduces in his own Gospel, throughout chaps, i. 40-45 ; 
 ii. 1-28 ; iii. 1-6. 
 
 Then he thinks it time to go back to St. Matthew, where he 
 finds in chap. xii. 14 a parallel statement to his own in chap. 
 
 ' Gommentatio qua Marci Evangelium totum e Matthcsi et Luca: commentariis 
 deeerptum esse monstratur. See pp. 358-425 of his Opuscula Academica, vol. ii. 
 
 2 " Nimis enim verbosa videbatur ei." — p. 371. 
 
 3 " Er die Bergrede vbllig ignorirte " — Markusevangelium, p. 148. 
 
xlii IHTBODUCTION. 
 
 iii. 6. Hence, for some inexplicable reason, he spins ont a paragraph 
 consisting of ver. 7-12 in his own third chapter, to correspond 
 with Ter. 15 and 16 of Matthew xii. But noticing that what 
 follows in St. Matthew is a quotation from the Old Testament, he 
 feels as it were repelled,^ and turns once more to St. Luke, taking 
 up the narrative where he had formerly left it, and transferring, 
 in his own way, ver. 12-16 of chap. vi. into ver. 13-19 of his own 
 chap. iii. Then he seems to have got wearied of St. Luke, and 
 turned to St. Matthew once more, and made use of xii. 22-32 in 
 his own iii. 20-30. 
 
 He tTien passes over ver. 33-45 in St. Matthew, as containing 
 matter that he did not wish ; but instead of turning abruptly on 
 that account to St. Luke, as might have been expected, he repro- 
 duces, in that portion of his own narrative which extends from 
 chap. iii. 31-35 to chap. iv. 1-20, what he found in Matthew xii. 
 46-50 and xiii. 1-23. Then he turns once more to St. Luke, 
 and makes use of viii. 16-18 in his own iv. 21-25. After which 
 he reverts again to St. Matthew xiii. 24-30; but in place of 
 reproducing the parable there contained he is reminded, by the 
 expression 'lohile the men slept,' of another parable in which not 
 the ' men,' but the hushand-' man,' slept, and so he inserts it instead, 
 in iv. 26-29. Then he copies from St. Matthew once more, repro- 
 ducing St. Matthew's two verses, xiii. 31, 32, into his own three, 
 iv. 30, 31, 32. After that, passing over the little parable in the 
 33rd ver. of St. Matthew, he condenses what he finds in the 34th 
 and 35th verses into his own statement as contained in his ver. 
 33 and 34. And at length, ' fatigued ' with the multitude of St. 
 Matthew's parables, ' he bids good-bye for a little ' to his chosen 
 leader,^ and, betaking himself again to St. Luke, resumes the thread 
 of narrative which he had let go when he turned to St. Matthew 
 xiii. 24. He finds, however, on resuming the thread, that he had 
 already obtained out of St. Matthew what corresponds to St. Luke 
 viii. 19-21, and hence he passes on to the following paragraphs, in 
 ver. 22-25, and ver. 26-56. These he reproduces in his own 
 chap. iv. 35-41, and chap. v. 1-43. Then he once more relents, 
 though still only half recovered frotn the inundation of parables,^ 
 and turns to St. Matthew xiii. 53-58 : etc., etc., etc. 
 
 1 " Conanlto omittit locum prophetas oomm. 17-21 laudatum." p. 372. 
 
 2 "Cum vero MatthiBus porro parabolia adderet parabolas, Maroua velut 
 ' fatigatus huno ducem aliquantisper Talere jussit." — p. 374. 
 
 3 " Maroum nimia parabolum Matthiei cap. 13 oopia quasi obrutum, Lucca 
 
INNER RELATION TO THE OTHEE SYNOPTICS. xliii 
 
 Enough ! 
 
 As a theory of genetic relationship, this hypothesis is, to the last 
 degree, unlikely. Certainly, it entirely fails to give a sufficient 
 reason for its hop-and-skip principle of transition from the one 
 Gospel to the other. It also equally fails to account for those 
 peculiarities of incident, discourse, and remark, which are found in 
 St. Mark alone. Griesbach says that these occupy in all only about 
 twenty-four verses.^ But this is utterly unreal, when we add the 
 copious circunastantialities, which besprinkle the Gospel through- 
 out, to the sections which deal with scenes that have no parallels 
 in either St. Matthew or St. Luke.^ The theory likewise fails to 
 account for those characteristic touches of description, which impart 
 vividness, by single flashes, to the scenes depicted, and suggest that 
 the evangelist must be drawing on the reports of some eye-witness, 
 who had the tact of felicitously seizing, in what he saw and heard, 
 points of irradiation and salient items of detail. Then too it 
 entirely fails to account for the thorough homogeneousness, all 
 through the Gospel, of the evangelist's style of composition, — 
 simple, artless, and homely though that style confessedly is.^ If 
 he had been borrowing his materiel, alternately, from the writings 
 of St. Matthew and .St. Luke, one would have expected, as the un- 
 avoidable result of his double dependence, to find, in alternative 
 sequence, a certain reflection, distinct or dim, — a ' nuancirung ' at 
 least, — of the two different styles, to which the pendulum of his 
 attention successively turned. But there is no such alternation of 
 reflection or ' shade. And thus the theory again breaks down ; as 
 it also conspicuously does, when one attempts, in consistency with 
 
 " se adjnnxisse comitem vidimus. Verumtamen cum Matthasum potissimum 
 " sibi elegisset, ad cujus ductum memorabilia Christi scripto cousignaret, jam 
 " ad Matthseum suum redit." — ^p. 375. 
 
 •• " Marcus totum libellum suum, si viginti et quatuor circiter commata, quae 
 " de sua penu addidit, exoipias, e Matthsei et Lucte oommentariis compilavit." — 
 p. 369, also p. 380. 
 
 2 See the detailed evidence in Willes's Specimen Hermeneuticum de iis, quce 
 ah U7U) Marco sunt narrata, aut copiosius et explicative ah eo, quam a ctsteris 
 Evangelistis, exposita. There is a summary in pp. 188-192. See also August 
 Knobel de Evangelii Marci Origine, pp. 29-56. 
 
 ' " Of all the New Testament writers," says Miohaelis, " none appear to 
 " have given themselves less concern, than Mark, concerning elegance of 
 " diction and purity of Greek." (Unter alien Schriftstellern des N. T. scheint 
 Jceiner um die Zierde der Bede, und urn die Beinigkeit des Griechischen weniger 
 bekiimmert gewesen zu lein, als Marcus.) — Einleitung, § 147, p. 1076. 
 
xliv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 it, to acooTint for tlie many mimite diversities wMch, amid the 
 multitudes of mimite coincidences, mottle the representations of St. 
 Mark, and stamp them -with a phase that is entirely his own. 
 
 The theory is certainly untenable. But as it is positive on the 
 one hand, and completely removed from the region of mystical 
 haze on the other ; as it happily stirred the stagnant waters of 
 criticism, and disturbed the old, shallow, self-arrogating hypothesis 
 of St. Mark's exclusive dependence on St. Matthew; as it was 
 wrought out moreover, and propounded, by an author renowned for 
 ability, learning, critical acumen, and independence of judgment ; 
 it was, although amid much contention and opposition, exten- 
 sively espoused. Saunier, in particular, elaborately defended it 
 in a special treatise on The Sources of Marie's Gospel.''- Sieffert 
 too defended it ; though he tried to reconcile it with the testimony 
 of Papias regarding the relationship of the Gospel to the teachings 
 of the apostle Peter.^ Fritzsche also espoused it zealously, and 
 made it the basis of his Commentary on Mark, — a commentary re- 
 markable alike for scholarly ability and for critical tyranny of tone. 
 It was asserted moreover in the most positive manner imagiuable 
 by Evanson, in his Dissonance of tlie Four generally received Evan- 
 gelists.^ It is contended for by Dr. Davidson ; only he postulates, 
 in addition, that the unknown evangelist must have made use of 
 " the primitive Mark, or Petrine Gospel, referred to by Papias." * 
 Strauss too accepted it with eagerness as demonstrated.^ He 
 found it to be subservient to his own ulterior critical aim, — ^for it 
 is obvious that there could be no place for the mythical theory of 
 the Gospel-History, if St. Mark's Gospel- Writing rested directly on 
 the authority of an actual eye-and-ear- witness, such as the apostle 
 Peter. Strauss therefore, in his later work, persists in his ad- 
 herence to the theory of Griesbach.^ Gfrorer also, as might be 
 expected from his kiaship of spirit to that of Strauss, accepts it, 
 
 1 Ueber die Quellen des Evangeliums des Marcus. (1825. ) 
 
 2 Prolusio, qua diverscs recentiorum criticorum senteiUite de fontibus Evangelii 
 St. Marci antiqmssimce traditionis ecclesiastics ope conciliantur (1829). See 
 also his subsequent Abhandlung uber den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen 
 Evangeliums (1832), p. 178. The former -work is little known eyen in Germany. 
 
 3 He represents Mark's narrative as "compiled entirely of passages copied, 
 " often literally, either from the Gospel called Matthew's, or Luke's "—p. 212 of 
 1st ed. (1792), or p. 275 of 2nd ed. (1803.) 
 
 * Introduction, vol. ii., pp. 90-103. 
 
 ' " 1st zur Evidenz erhohen." — Leben Jesu, vol. i., § 12, p. 65, ed. 1835. 
 
 • Leben Jesu filr das deutsche Volk (1864), p. 86. 
 
INKER RELATION TO THE OTHER SYNOPTICS. xlv 
 
 and " holds it for an established fact, that St. Mark not only had 
 " the two other synoptic Gospels lying open before him, hut trans- 
 " crihed them." i 
 
 The underlying principle of the theory, viz. that St. Mark made 
 use of the Gospels of both St. Matthew and St. Luke, had been, at 
 an earlier period, ably and reverently advocated by Dr. Henry 
 Owen, in his Observations on the Four Gospels (1764).^ It was 
 accepted as a ' very probable ' hypothesis by Harwood ; ^ and it 
 has been contended for, or maintained, by many critics since, in- 
 clusive of Neudecker,* de Wette,^ and Bleek.^ It is also main- 
 tained, under a certain developed phase, by Ferdinand G. Baur,'' 
 Sohwegler,^ Kostlin,' and the other adherents of the Tubingen 
 school. 
 
 De Wette gives effect to his opinion on the subject, by arranging 
 his Handbooh-Exposition of the Gospels thus: (1) Matthew, (2) 
 Luke, (3) Mark, (4) John. Kostlin, in like manner, in his 
 treatise on the Origin and Composition of the Synoptic Gospels, 
 divides his work into three books or sections, arranged thus : (1) 
 the Gospel according to Matthew, (2) the Gospel according to Luke, 
 (3) the Gospel according to MarJc. Although he holds that there 
 was an original Mark, anterior to both St. Matthew and St. Luke, 
 yet he maintains that the canonical Mark was subsequent to these 
 other synoptics, and dug out of their materials. 
 
 In addition to the general notion that St. Mark made use of the 
 Gospels of both St. Matthew ancj. St. Luke, the critics of the 
 
 • " Markus die beiden Auderen niolit nur vor sioh gehabfc, sondern ausge- 
 " schrieben hat. Dass Lezteres 'wirklicli der Fall sey, halte Ich wenigstens fur 
 " eine ausgemacbte Thatsacbe." — Geschichte des Urchristenthums, Band iy., 
 Eap. 9, p. 123. 
 
 2 See, in particular, pp. 62-75. 
 
 ' Introduction to the Study and Knowledge of the New Testament, vol. i., 
 chap, iv., § 3, p. 135. 
 
 ^ Lehrluch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung, § 32, p. 232. 
 
 ^ Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung, § 94. 
 
 ' Einleitung in das N. T, p. 248. See also his Beitrage zur Evangelien-KritiTc, 
 pp. 72-75. 
 
 7 Das Marhusevangelium, and Kritisclie Vntersuchvmgen uber die hanonischcn 
 Evangelien, pp. 548-561. 
 
 * Das Nachapostolische Zeitalter, pp. 456-475. 
 
 9 Der Ursprung und die Konvposition der Synoptischcn Evangelien, pp. 
 310-38r>. 
 
xlvi INTEODUCTION. 
 
 Tiibingen school,— such as F. C. Baur, Schwegler, Kostlin, already 
 referred to, — attribute to the evangelist a particular doctriaal 
 aim or 'tendency,' having a particular relation to the parties 
 that were co-existing, at the time of the composition of the Gospel, 
 within the circle of the churches. St. Matthew is regarded as 
 having had an Old Testament 'tendency,' on the side of the Judaic 
 party. St. Luke in his ' tendency ' is regarded as having been 
 anti-Judaic and Pauline. And St. Mark, coming after both as is 
 assumed, and mediating as it were between them, is looked upon 
 as meeting a more matured condition of the divergent parties,^ 
 when their wisest leaders were wishful to shake hands and agree. 
 His Gospel is therefore ' neutral ' and ' irenic.' ^ ' It is the pro- 
 duct,' says Kostlin, * of th^ idea of catholicity.' ^ 
 
 It may, on all hands, be admitted that there is a certain generic 
 element of truth in the representations of the school that sur- 
 rounded F. C. Baur. St. Mark's Gospel is undoubtedly 'neutral.' 
 It is ' colourless,' in relation to all grave party questions within 
 the circle of the early churches. It is eminently 'catholic' It 
 is ' irenic' It is also, at the same time, as HUgenfeld represents 
 it, *'Petrinic,' though not in any one-sided, or obtrusive, or 
 sectarian, or anti-Pauline sense. It is ' Pauline ' too, as Michelsen 
 contends,^ but in no anti-Petrine spirit. It is thoroughly un- 
 sectarian. 
 
 All this may be admitted, and sliould be admitted. It is patent, 
 lying on the surface of the Gospel. It wells np from its heart. 
 
 Nevertheless, there is not so much as one straw of evidence that 
 the Gospel of Mark occupied a position of mediation, or iren c 
 neutrality, in relation to the other two synoptio Gospels. It is in the 
 mere wantonness of a creative imagination that its penman is 
 depicted as warily steering his critical bark between some Scylla 
 in St. Matthew's representations and some Charybdis in St 
 Luke's. There is no Scylla in the representations of St. Matthew. 
 It must be invented, if suspected. There is no Charybdis in the 
 
 ' Solnvegler, Das NacliapostoUsclie Zeitalter, p. 456. 
 
 2 Ibid., pp. 474-481. See a shadow of the Tubingen idea cast before, in 
 Owen's Observations, pp. 50, 51. 
 
 3 Der Ursprung, p. 373. 
 
 ■• Die Evangelien, pp. 125-144. 
 
 6 Het Evangelie van Markus, Inleiding, p. 4. " Our Mark," was written, he 
 says, "door een christen uit de joden, dooh niettemin een hevig aanlianger van 
 " Paulus." 
 
HWEE EELATION TO THE OTHEE SYNOPTICS. xlvii 
 
 representations of St. Luke. Neither is there any indication in 
 St. Mark of wary steering, or of some latent aim of destination 
 kept, like sealed orders, nnder lock and key. There is, in all the 
 Gospels, perfect transparency and simplicity, ' the simplicity that 
 is in Christ.' It is not needful to mine into profound depths, or 
 to climb into giddy heights, in search of ' tendency.' No intricate 
 involution, baffling to ordinary eyes, need be suspected. No divin- 
 ing power is required. There may have been, to a certain inci- 
 dental degree, a desire, as Mill conjectured, to correct apocryphal or 
 erroneous representations,^ that wei;e getting afloat over society. 
 But doubtless the one dominant and overmastering aim would just 
 be that of all the apostles of our Lord, and of all, in all ages, 
 who have imbibed aught of the apostolic spirit ; to tell, for the 
 sake of sinful and suffering humanity, the unvarnished but vivifying 
 story of the life-and-death-work of Christ the Saviour. In other 
 words, and in popular phraseology, the aim would be to unfurl the 
 banner of ' the gospel.' 
 
 The peculiar Tubingen theory has been repudiated and opposed 
 by the illustrious Heinrich Ewald, in terms of the most stinging 
 severity. The school f rora which it emanates is denounced by him 
 as ' mischievous ' and ' false.' ^ But iu his own theory of the inter- 
 relationship of Mark to the other Gospels he formed, as is his 
 wont, such peculiarly vivid conceptions that, to himself, they have 
 started out from the canvas of his imagiuation, with all the self- 
 evidencing or self- asserting authority of objective historical facts. 
 
 He postulates a considerable variety of documents or books, now 
 lost, but more or less incorporated in our existing Gospels. The 
 respective peculiarities of these books are, he conceives, clearly 
 discernible, in the particoloured texture of the synoptic Gospels. 
 And hence, in the first edition of his Translation of the First Three 
 Gospels, the edition of 1850, the respective portions which, as he 
 conceives, had been derived from these prior works, are actually 
 represented to the eye by being printed in nine varieties of type. 
 
 He holds, moreover, that there have been three distinct editions 
 of Mark, — Mark a, Mark h, Mark c, — ^the second much altered from 
 the first, though appearing only about a year later, and the third 
 (which appeared in the second century) still further altered and 
 impoverished.' In the second edition, as he supposes, there were 
 
 ' Prolegomena, § 111. 
 
 " Die drei ersten Evangclien u. d. Apostelgeschichtc d.871-72), pp. 2, 3. 
 
 ' Die drei ersten Evv., pp. 77-174. 
 
xlviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 numerous interpolations introduced from two still earlier evan- 
 gelical documents, the oldest Gospel (now lost, — the Gospel that 
 ■was used, he is conviaced, by the apostle Paul), ^ and the Lord's 
 Words or the " Spruchsammlung " (also now lost). 
 
 In direct opposition, however, to the hypothesis of the Tiibingen 
 school and of Grieshach, Ewald maintains strongly that the Gospel 
 of Mark was not only a thoroughly ' original ' work, but antece- 
 dent in date to the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke, and was 
 used by these evangelists iu the composition of their respective 
 books. 
 
 The entire theory of the distinguished author is emphatically his 
 own. No other independent mind could be expected to accept it. 
 Geniuses, who wander in orbits of infinite conjecture, differ from 
 each other, like planet from planet, not only in bulk, substantiality, 
 and the hue and intensity of their lustre, but also in their paths. 
 
 But how then are we to account for the remarkable coincidences 
 that characterize the synoptic Gospels ? Whence the whole para- 
 graphs of coincident phraseology ? Whence the coincidences in 
 detached and minute phrases, as for instance in Matthew xii. 13, 
 Mark iii. 5, Luke vi. 10 ? Whence the eoiacidences too in the" 
 order or arrangement of the evangelical materials ? 
 
 Bichhom, for instance, gives a tabulated list of 44 sections, 
 which are parallel or coincident in the three synoptic Gospels. In 
 all these sections, with the single exception of the 38th, the ' order ' 
 of Mark and Luke is identical ; and, from the 20th onward, the 
 order in the three evangelists, with the single exception already 
 specified, is one and the same. 
 
 Whence such coincidences ? 
 
 It is not enough to refer the whole matter, with Gaussen ^ and 
 others of the same school, to the sovereignty of Divine inspiration 
 and dictation. God indeed ' hath spoken once ' and again and 
 again. (Ps. Ixii. 11; Heb. i. 1.) He still speaks. His very 
 works are words. He spoke and speaks through the evangelists. 
 Like the prophets of the older dispensation, ' they spake as they 
 were moved by the Holy Ghost ' (2 Pet. i. 21). Doubtless the 
 omnipresent Spirit is brooding and breathing everywhere ; and He 
 'blows where He listeth ' (John iii. 8). This is not a worn-out 
 antiquated idea. It is a peremiial truth, just as really a dictate of 
 
 ' Die drei ersten Evv., p. 62 
 ' THopneustie, chap, i., § 4. 
 
INNER RELATION TO THK OTHER SYNOPTICS. xlix 
 
 deep philosophy as it is a doctrine of simple and biblical theology. 
 If so, we shall not be astray in onr thoughts if we believe that the 
 Living Spirit of Christianity was ' blowing ' 1860 years ago, along 
 the plains and around the hUls of Galilee and Judaea. His influence, 
 without stint, must undoubtedly have descended on the Christ 
 (John iii. 34), and would be ' poured out ' plenarUy on His chosen 
 representatives and commissioners. (Acts ii. 17, 18.) It actuated 
 the apostles and evangelists, but always, let it be borne in mind, 
 in perfect accordance with the divinely constituted laws that, in 
 the sphere of free human agency, regulate idiosyncratic observation 
 of phenomena, colligation of facts, collation of particulars, logical 
 classification, rhetorical combination, and literary representation. 
 (1 Cor. xiv. 32.) 
 
 We return then to our inquiry. There must be 'a sufficient 
 reason ' to account for the literary coincidences of the Gospels. 
 
 Le Clerc threw out the conjecture that the three synoptic evan- 
 gelists may have derived their materials in common from the same 
 sources, the written Memoirs or Memorials of eye-and-ear-witnesses.^ 
 Priestley reproduced the conjecture.^ Koppe too reproduced it in 
 part, contending in the Dissertation to which we have already 
 referred ^ that St. Mark, so far from being a mere abbreviator of 
 St. Matthew, never saw St. Matthew's Gospel. The coincidences 
 between the two are, he conjectures, to be accounted for on the 
 principle that they both drew from the same fountains, whether 
 oral or written. Michaelis came to be of the same opinion sub- 
 stantially; only he gave emphasis to the conviction that it was 
 ' written Reports ' (sohriftliche Nachrichten) of which the three 
 evangelists made use. "None of the three evangelists," he says, 
 " seems to have read the Gospels of the other two." * Semler, 
 though like ' a rolling stone ' in his opinions, gave for a season more 
 
 ' ". . . quidni enim credamus, tria hsec evangelia partim petita esse ex 
 " similibus aut iiadem fontibus, hoc est, e commentariis eorum, qui varies 
 " Christi sermones audiverant, aut actorum ejus testes fuerant, eaque, ne ob- 
 " livioni traderentur, illioo scriptis mandarant." — Historia Ecclesiastiea (1716), 
 p. 429. 
 
 " He speaks of the Gospels as " originally written in detached parts. Some of 
 "these," he adds, "might have been committed to -writing by the apostles 
 " themselves, and some by their auditors, corrected by themselves."— Oftscrea- 
 tions on the Harmony of the Gospels (1780), pp. 72, 73. 
 
 * Page xl. 
 
 * EinUitung, § 129, p. 929- 
 
I ISTKODUCTION. 
 
 definite shape to the conjecture, by saying that it was probable 
 that all the three synoptic evangelists used various original 
 Aramaic documents.^ Lessing became more definite still, and 
 conjectured that the basis of the three synoptic Gospels was the 
 Aramaic Gospel spoken of by the fathers as the Gospel according to 
 the Hebrews, or, what was identical as he contends, the Gospel of 
 the twelve apostles.^ Niemeyer took up the conjecture and elabor- 
 ated it, maintaining that the divergences of the existing Gospels are 
 to be traced to different recensions of the primitive Aramaic Gospel.^ 
 And then the hypothesis, thus amplified, got into the hands of 
 Eichhorn, who, with a consummate genius in the direction of in- 
 genuity, elaborated it to its culminating point, during the process 
 of a long series of years. He was able, he conceived, to reproduce 
 the original document, or Urevcmgelium, so far at least as its essen- 
 tial contents are concerned. It consisted, he supposed, of the sum 
 of those forty-four * sections of the history of our Lord, to which 
 we have already made reference,^ and which, in their substance, are 
 common to all the three synoptic Gospels. The additional sections 
 of the history, which are found coincidently, not in all, but only 
 in pairs of the Gospels, as (1) in St. Matthew and St. Mark, (2) in 
 St. Mark and St. Luke, and (3) in St. Matthew and St. Luke, were 
 documentary Additions or Supplements, incorporated in the par- 
 ticular copies or recensions which had come into the hands of the 
 respective pairs of evangelists. The sections again, which are 
 peculiar to each of the evangelists, were apparently either peculiar- 
 ities in his particular recension, or contributions from private sources 
 of his own. Eichhorn is not quite positive about them.^ But he 
 is quite positive about the actual existence of the Aramaic Urevan- 
 
 ' See his notes to his Townson's Abhandlungen iiber die vier Evangelien, 
 vol. i., pp. 146, 221, 290. 
 
 2 " Matthseus, Marcus, Lucas Bind nichts als verschiedene tmd nioht ver- 
 " schiedene TJebersetzungen der sogenannten hebraisclien TJrkunde des Mat- 
 "thseus, die jeder maohte so gut er konnte." — Neue Eypothese iiber dieEvangel- 
 isten bios als mensehliche Geschichtschreiber betrachtet (1778), § 50. 
 
 3 Conjecture ad illustrandum plurimorum N. T. Scriptorum silentium de 
 primordiis vitce Jesu Ghristi (1790), pp. 8-10. 
 
 ■* Forty-two in his first draft. 
 
 * Page xlviii. 
 
 5 As to Mark, he says : " Diese Stiicke verrathen vielmehr einen eigen gestimm- 
 " ten Concipienten, von dem wir sonst weiter nichts besitzen. Ob nun dieser Con- 
 " cipient Markus selb&t sey, oder eine von ihm verschiedene Person, muss man unent- 
 "scMeden lassen."—Einleitung, § 89, vol. i., p. 390. 
 
INNER RELATION TO THE OTHER SYNOPTICS. li 
 
 gelium, witli different sets of additions or interpolations in different 
 copies : Bucli as Copy A, containing additions nltimately incorporated 
 in St. Matthew ; Copy B, containing additions ultimately incorporated 
 in St. Luke ; Gopy G, combining both A and B and translated by St. 
 Mark ; Gopy D, which, when combined with B, formed the basis of 
 St. Luke's Gospel, while as combined with A it formed the basis of 
 the text of St. Matthew.^ He also became positive, in the iiltimate 
 form of his theory, that, in addition to the Aramaic additions in the 
 various codices referred to, there had got into circulation early 
 Greek translations of Copies A and D. 
 
 Hence, as he concludes, the coincidences on the one hand, and the 
 variations on the other, of our canonical Gospels. All the coinci- 
 dences are to be accounted for by the common possession of identical 
 documents. The majority of the miost important variatiorts are to 
 be attributed to the possession of one or more peculiar documents 
 on the part of each particular evangelist. 
 
 We have referred to the ultimate form of Eichhorn's hypothesis. 
 Intermediate between that form and its origiaal draft. Dr. Marsh's 
 Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our Three First Canonical 
 Gospels (1801) came in. 
 
 Equal to Eichhorn in zeal, and possessed of an ingenuity which, 
 
 . if not so inventive, was yet as keen in its edge and more critically 
 
 consistent in its application, Dr. Marsh supplied several of the 
 
 steps, by means of which Eichhorn at last mounted to the pinnacle 
 
 and consummation of his theory. 
 
 The phase of the theory, as it left the hands of Dr. Marsh, may 
 be learned from his own deliberate deliverance : " St. Matthew, St. 
 " Mark, and St. Luke, all three, used copies of the common Hebrew 
 " document ' N,' the materials of which St. Matthew, who wrote in 
 " Hebrew, retained in the language in which he found them, but St. 
 "Mark and St. Luke translated them into Greek. They had no 
 " knowledge of each other's Gospels ; but St. Mark and St. Luke, 
 " besides their copies of the Hebrew document ' N,' used a Greek 
 " translation of it, which had been made before any of the additions 
 " ' a,' ' /3,' ' 7,' * A,' ' B,' ' r ' had been inserted. Lastly, as the 
 " Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke contain Greek translations of 
 " Hebrew materials, which were incorporated into St. Matthew's 
 " Hebrew Gospel, the person who translated St. Matthew's Hebrew 
 " Gospel into Greek frequently derived assistance from the Gospel 
 
 » Einleitung, § 84, pp. 372-375. 
 
lii INTEODTJCTION. 
 
 " of St. Mark, where St. Mark had matter in common with St. 
 " Matthew ; and in those places, but in those places only, where 
 " St. Mark had no matter in common with St. Matthew, he had 
 " frequently recourse to St. Luke's Gospel.",^ 
 
 But the theory culminated, as we have iatimatea, in the hands of 
 Eichhom. It thenceforward became arrested. Though somewhat 
 simplified by Gratz,^ and defended, with reservations that turned 
 longingly to the future for light, by Bertholdt,^ it ceased to undergo 
 development. It ceased by and by to live ; and now, in Germany, 
 it is nothing more than a memory. 
 
 No wonder. For it is, as a developed hypothesis of the genetic 
 relationship of the Gospels, very far indeed from being satisfactory, 
 and especially in its most developed or culminated form. It is, in 
 ihe first place, too artificial by far. In the second place, it is a mere 
 pile of conjectures, with no unchallengeable basis in historic fact. 
 The postulated documents are never referred to by ' the ancients.' 
 No trace of their existence is found, except in the theory. In the 
 third place, it is unnaturally complicated, bristling cumbrously 
 with its tabulated codices. And then, in the fourth place, it is 
 essentially only a transition theory, that was destined in its very 
 nature to be left behind, ' high and dry,' in the rapid succession 
 of hypotheses. It proceeds on the assumption that the synoptic 
 evano-elists were dependent, for their materials, on written, docu- 
 ments. And this assumption, by removing the canonical biographers 
 of our Lord to a distance from the fountains of primary knowledge, 
 leads, by a short route, to the surmise that the Gospels attributed 
 to them were not their own compositions, but supposititious pro- 
 ducts of a later age. This surmise has been actually evolved, and 
 is at present quite a postulate with a certain circle of theorists. 
 It is claimed by F. G. Baur, and the adherents of his school, as the 
 legitimate finding of distinctively historical criticism. 
 
 The claim, however, cannot be conceded. It is at variance with 
 real history. It makes it impossible to find a sufficient reason, or 
 an adequate cause, for the actual form which was assumed by post- 
 apostolic Christian literature. That literature, amid many glaring 
 excrescences and a strange combination of crudities and senilitics. 
 
 ' Dissertation, chap, xv., p. 195. 
 
 8 Neuer Versueh die Entstehung der drey ersten Evangelien zu erkldren (1812), 
 See in particular §§ 26, 27. 
 » Einleitung, § 329, vol. iii,, pp. 1249, 1250. 
 
HWEE EELATION TO THE OTHER SYNOPTICS. liii 
 
 together with, other imperfections, is pervaded by a spirit of rever- 
 ence for our existing Gospels, and is frequently saturated with the 
 expressed juices, not only of their general essence, but of their 
 particular contents. It demands therefore, as the indispensable 
 condition of its existence, the pre-existenoe of the Gospels as we 
 have them. 
 
 In another respect, too, is the theory on which we are remarking 
 unhistorical and unphilosophical. It leaves unaccounted for the 
 unanimity of the Christian churches of the second century in re- 
 gard to the great outstanding Christological phenomena which con- 
 stitute the essence of the Gospels. For, while there were manifold 
 diversities of speculation in reference to the interpretation of these 
 phenomena, there was remarkable unity, attested even by the 
 vagaries of heretics and the objections of heathens, in reference to 
 the actual occurrence of the works and words ascribed to our Lord. 
 
 Indeed, the theory leaves unaccounted for the deeply imbedded 
 unanimity in Christological essentials that underlies all the varied 
 developments of Christian life. Christian speculation, and Christian 
 organization, in all the succeeding centuries. The peculiarities of 
 the present century demand, as part of their sufBcient reason, the 
 antecedent peculiarities of the century that preceded. The peculiar- 
 ities of that preceding century demand for their adequate cause the 
 presence of the antecedent peculiarities of the century that went 
 before. And so the regress continues, until we arrive at the 
 peculiarities of the second century, which demand a sufficient 
 reason for themselves in something that is comprehensive of the 
 antecedent peculiarities of the first. But that sufficient reason can 
 never be found, if the facts that are embodied in the existing 
 Gospels be ignored. And when we get into the sphere of these 
 facts, it would be utterly unaccountable if the Matthew of the first 
 century, who had the full use of his own eyes and ears, and the 
 Mark of that same century, who had the privilege of being associ- 
 ated with probably all the apostles, and certainly with St. Peter, on 
 terms of intimacy, were yet dependent for their narrations on some 
 prior Gospel and connected Supplements, out of which they had 
 painfully to weave the texture of their immortal compositions. 
 The actual coincidences of the synoptics must be sought for in 
 some other cause than in the common possession of an Aramaic 
 Urevangelium, now lost. 
 
 What then is tliis cause ? Many of late have looked, or are still 
 
liv [NTEODUCTION. 
 
 looking for it, in Mark's own Gospel. They suppose that that Gospel 
 has been, either in its present or in some prior form, the original, 
 or archetype, out of which the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke 
 were developed. 
 
 This Mark-hypothesis was Storr's theory. He handled it reve- 
 rently, but immaturely.i It slumbered in its immaturity for long 
 after the decease of Storr. But in the year 1838 it woke up in full 
 maturity, and, — strange to say, — in two independent forms. 
 
 In that year Wilke published his Urevcmgelist,^ and maintained, in 
 an elaborate induction of particulars, and by most vigorous if not 
 rigorous processes of argumentation, that our canonical Mark was 
 the original evangelist, from the fountain of whose narrative both 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke drew almost all their waters. He held 
 however that St. Luke was anterior to St. Matthew, so that St. 
 Matthew had not only the fountain of St. Mark from which to draw, 
 but also the intermediate cistern of Luke. 
 
 Weisse again, in the same year, published his still more elaborate 
 Oospel History, critically and philosophically handled,^ in which, with 
 still more comprehensive sweep of minutely detailed criticism, he 
 contended, as zealously as Wilke, for the priority of St. Mark's 
 Gospel, as we have it, to both St. Matthew's and St. Luke's, main- 
 taining at the same time, just as Wilke does, that the compilers of 
 these latter Gospels drew from the storehouse of the former. But, 
 in contrariety to the simpler theory of Wilke, he maintained that 
 both St. Matthew and St. Luke availed themselves, in addition, of 
 the Aramaic Oracles ascribed by Papias to Matthew, the Spruch- 
 sammlung of which we have spoken in our notice of the hypothesis 
 of Ewald. He contended, moreover, that St. Matthew and St. Luke 
 wrote quite independently of one another, so that neither of the two 
 made use of the other's cistern. In a subsequent publication, the 
 author, influenced by the representations and reasonings of Ewald, 
 so far modified his theory, retrogressively, as to hold that St. 
 Mark's Gospel, as we now have it, is not so full or rich as it was at 
 
 ' Ueber den Zweck der evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis 
 (1786), pp. 274 ff. See also his Prolusio de fonte cvangeliorwm Matthcei et Luces 
 (1794) in Velthnsen, Kuinol, and Buperti's Commentt. Theoll., vol. iii.; likewise 
 his Opuscula Academica, vol. iii., p. 66. 
 
 2 Der Urevangelist, oder exegetisch kritische Untersuchung iiber das Verwandt- 
 schaftsverMltniss der drei ersten Evangelien. 
 
 ^ Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet. (Zwei 
 Bande.) 
 
INNER EELATION TO THE OTHER SYNOPTICS. Iv 
 
 the time when St. Matthew and St. Lnie umtedly drew from' its 
 wellspring.i 
 
 Thiersch, ia the main, has followed in the wake of Wilke and 
 Weisse, of Wilke in particular.^ 
 
 So, in a sense, has Smith of Jordanhill ; hut independently, and 
 by means of self originated research. He supposes, as we have 
 already noted,^ that St. Mark's Gospel is merely St. Mark's trans- 
 lation of St. Peter's original Aramaic Gospel. He holds that it was 
 the Aramaic original, which both St. Matthew and St. Luke made 
 use of ; St. Matthew first, and then St. Luke, who had in his hands 
 not merely St. Peter's original document, but also our present 
 canonical Oospel according to St. Matthew, or St. Matthew's Greek 
 translation of his own prior Aramaic Gospel. 
 
 Holtzmann* too supposes that all the three synoptics are com- 
 positions at second hand. At the basis of them all is an original 
 Mark, or TJrmarcus, of which however very special advantage 
 was taken by the canonical Mark, and hence the transmission of 
 the name ; while the canonical Matthew and Luke had the advan- 
 tage of using another important evangelical document, a Greek 
 version of the Oracles which, in its original Aramaic form, was 
 ascribed by Papias to the apostle Matthew. This Collection of the 
 Oracles of 'the Lord constituted, says Holtzmann, the original 
 Matthew, or Urmatthdus, and was freely used by both the canonical 
 Matthew and the canonical Luke, but to a greater extent by the 
 latter than by the former.^ The canonical Mark had not, it seems, 
 the advantage of being acquainted with the work, and hence that 
 comparative paucity of the words of the Saviour which is charac- 
 teristic of his Gospel. 
 
 More recent investigators are still out at sea, and refuse to follow 
 in the wake of either Wilke, Weisse, or Holtzmann. 
 
 Klostermann,* for example, abjures the idea of an original Mark 
 now lost. He believes that the canonical Mark is the Mark of 
 
 ' Die Evangelienfrage in ihrem gegenwdrtigen Stadium (1856), pp. 156 ff. 
 
 2 Die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter und, die Entstehung der neutestament- 
 lichen Schriften (1858), p. 102. 
 
 ^ Pages xxvii., xxxi. 
 
 ■* Die Synojatischen Evangelien, ihr Ursprung und gesehichtlicher Cltarakter 
 (1863). 
 
 " Die Synoptischen Evangelien, pp. 128, 162, etc. 
 
 " Das Markusevangelium nach aeinem Quellenwerthe filr die evangelische 
 Geschichte (1867). 
 
Ivi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Papias. But lie maintains its dependent or secondary relationship 
 to St. Matthew. 
 
 In this last partioiJar he treads in the footsteps of Augustine in 
 ancient times, as also of Hilgenfeld in modern times, who, in a 
 long series of consecntive treatises, maintains that St. Mark made 
 use of St. Matthew, while he still more emphatically and per- 
 sistently maintains, in opposition to Grieshach and F. C. Banr, that 
 he did not make use of St. Luke. 
 
 Volkmar too, like Klostermann, though helonging to a totally 
 different school, abandons the idea of an original or chrysalis 
 Ma/rh ; though he holds that it is not unlikely that the canonical 
 Mark made use of the canonical Luke, while it is certain, he sup- 
 poses, that he made use of four of Paul's epistles, as also of ' the 
 bitterly anti-Pauline Apocalypse.' ^ 
 
 Michelsen of Holland, on the other hand, contends confidently 
 for a succession of Marks. He is certain indeed that both St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke had before them the two editions. St. 
 Matthew however, as he conceives, more frequently followed Mark 
 the First, while St. Luke in general gave the preference to Mark 
 the Second.' 
 
 Scholten followed Michelsen, and is equally positive that there was 
 an original Mark, the precursor of the canonical. Indeed it must 
 have been, as he represents it, of a very humble chrysalis character. 
 It was, however, one of the chief sources of Matthew. But then, be 
 it remembered, there were three successive Matthews : Matthew the 
 First (i.e. the Oracles) ; Matthew the Second (drawn from Mark the 
 First, and the Oracles, and another original Gospel now lost) ; and 
 Matthew the Third, or our canonical Gospel according to Mattheiv 
 (containing, in addition to the three constituent elements specified, 
 some pieces or patches of anecdote unknown to Luke).^ 
 
 A far more reverent spirit is that of Dr. Bernhard "Weiss, who 
 has devoted himself to the study of this question for a long series 
 of years, and published in 1872 an elaborate work on Mark.^ 
 
 ' Die Evangelien, Oder Marcus und die Synopsis der kajionischen und ausser-^ 
 kanonischen Evangelien, nach dem Sltesten Text, mit historisch-exegetischen Com- 
 mentar (1870), p. 646. 
 
 2 Het Evangelie van Markus. (1867.) 
 
 ^ Het Oudste Evangelie, critisch onderzoek naar de samenstelling, de onderlinge 
 verhouding, de historische waarde en den oorsprong der evangelien naar Mattheus 
 en Marcus (1868), pp. 70-72, etc. 
 
 * Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen. (1872.) 
 
mSEVL EELATION TO THE OTHER SYNOPTICS. Ivii 
 
 He has, however, a complicated theory of his own. He turns back 
 to the testimony of ' the fathers,' and believes, in accordance with 
 the general tradition, that St. Mark's Gospel was inspired by the 
 direct teaching of the apostle Peter. So far good. But running, 
 too artificially as we conceive, in the groove of the Mark-hypothesis, 
 he also beUeves that the Gospel, as thus inspired by the chief of the 
 original apostles, ' lies at the basis ' of the other two synoptic 
 Gospels, and gave rise to 'their entire inner economy.' But he 
 believes, still further, that the probleni of the inter-relationship of 
 the three Gospels can never be solved, unless we postulate, with 
 Holtzmann, that there was a still earlier apostolic document, which 
 was made use of by all the three evangelists, viz. a Greek transla- 
 tion of that original Aramaic writing of Matthew which is spoken 
 of by Papias, the Oracles of the Lord. It was because this was 
 largely absorbed in the first canonical Gospel, that occasion was 
 given to the name, the Oospel according to ' St. Matthew.' This 
 earliest of all the evangelical documents is, as Weiss holds, 'the 
 missing link,' after which the hands of Lessing, Eichhorn, Marsh, 
 and their followers, were anxiously groping, but which, unhappily 
 for the success of their critical researches, eluded their grasp. 
 
 We cannot say that we are satisfied with the ' Mark-hypothesis ' 
 in any of its forms, or with any of the other hypotheses which we 
 have passed under review. They are all too artificial, and most of 
 them too subtle. 
 
 The problem is in some respects insoluble. 
 
 A witness in, a court of law, if he has a long story to tell twice, 
 will produce a minglement of coincidences and variations, which 
 postulate, as their factors, conditions which it might baffle the most 
 judicial and judicious to unravel and enumerate. 
 
 Even the same author, if not trusting to a stereotypical memory, 
 will be, perhaps unconsciously, the subject of different factors of 
 representation, when, at different times and in different circum 
 stances, he presents the story of his experience or information. 
 Witness, for example^ the apostle Paul's accounts of his ' apprehen- 
 sion ' by the Saviour on the road to Damascus, as given, the one to 
 the people of Jerusalem while he stood on the stair of the castle 
 Antonia (recorded in Acts xxii.), and the other in the presence of 
 King Agrippa at Caesarea (recorded in Acts xxvi.). Compare, more- 
 over, both of these accounts with that of Luke in the ninth chapter 
 of the Acts, an account no doubt furnished to the faithful historian 
 
Lviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 from the mouth of the apostle himself. The factors that influenced 
 rhetorical or literary representation were, of necessity, pecnliar in 
 each case, and- produced the noteworthy variations which occur in 
 each of the accounts. But certain of the factors were uniform 
 throughout, and hence are to be accounted for not only the essential 
 harmony of the accounts, hut also the coincidences in particular 
 items of the phraseology. Yet who could now reproduce the sum 
 total of the factors ? And how exceedingly cumbrous, artificial, 
 absurd, and comical, it would be to proceed on the assumption that, 
 to explain the coincidences and variations, a complex series of prior 
 documents or Urdocumente must be postulated, out of one or more 
 of which something must have been derived to all the representa- 
 tions, while the variations are to be accounted for on the assump- 
 tion that document A was not followed in the one case, while 
 document B was substituted in its place, and document C was over- 
 laid while document B was being used. 
 
 The factors of rhetorical or- literary representation, that produce 
 coincidences and sometimes even lengthened harmonies or identities, 
 are not always or necessarily documentary. Especially was this 
 the case in an age when the facilities for actual penmanship were 
 comparatively few and rare, and among a people who did not enjoy 
 the advantage of being trained to the use of 'letters.' Take the 
 old English and Scottish ballads for example. It was long ere some 
 of them, at least, were committed to writing. Bard handed them 
 down to bard ; and when the bards died out, amateurs of less 
 practised memories kept hold of them, often with remarkable 
 tenacity as regards essence and substance, though not with uniform 
 identity as regards every word, line, rhyme, or verse. 
 
 It is suggestive to take note, moreover, of the peculiarities or 
 idiosyncrasies of story tellers. Some cannot repeat the same story 
 twice in identical terms. Others cannot repeat the same story at 
 all except in identical terms; even when- it is given by them 
 at second hand, the identical terms of the first narrator are, in the 
 salient points at least, faithfully reproduced. A third class of 
 story tellers swing alternately toward either pole of peculiarity. 
 
 It is the same with preachers of the gospel. While some seldom, 
 if ever, repeat themselves in phraseology, others, except when in 
 special circumstances, slide insensibly, and as it were iaevitably, 
 into repetition. 
 
 In ' free ' or ' extemporary ' prayer too there is, with some, a 
 continual up-welling of origiaality, while with others there is but 
 
INNER RELATION TO THE OTHER SYNOPTICS. lix 
 
 little that is really ' extemporary ' and ' free,' beyond, a certain 
 limited latitude in adjustment. There are in their memory actual 
 forms or formularies of adoration and petitions, which are repeated 
 and re-repeated with precision. 
 
 These phenomena of retentiveness or adhesiveness of memory 
 are quite common, and would be far more so, when writing was 
 cumbrous on the one hand and a rare accomplishment on the other : 
 and when, besides, there was but a slender apprehension and 
 appreciation of the charm of phraseological variety. 
 
 The phraseological coincidences therefore of the synoptic evan- 
 gelists do not demand, for their explication, the hypothesis of some 
 original document or documents possessed in common by them all. 
 
 It is admitted, indeed, on all hands that, at a very early period, 
 there were other documents in existence besides our extant Gospels. 
 St. Luke, in his Introduction, makes express mention of them. 
 "Many," says he, "have taken in hand to set. forth in order an 
 " account of those things that have been accomplished among us " 
 (i. 1). It is m.ost reasonable to suppose that there might have been, 
 and indeed must have been, soon after the Saviour's decease, if not in 
 some instances even before it, various epistolary or anecdotical and 
 semi-biographical accounts of His marvellous career, circulating in 
 those spheres of society which had felt the thrill of His words and 
 works. But we have no reason to suppose that St. Matthew, for 
 instance, would be much dependent on such writings for the 
 materials of his Gospel. He had been, himself, an eye-and-ear- 
 witness of the works and words. . And he was living in the closest 
 intimacy with those who could assist his memory, or furnish him 
 with informiation on facts beyond the sphere of his personal 
 cognisance. St. Mark too, we have found reason to believe,^ could 
 not be, to a very large degree, dependent on such partial and casual . 
 memoirs, records, or reports. He drew fresh from the fountain of 
 one who had enjoyed peculiarly favourable opportunities of acting 
 as a privileged eye-and-ear-witness. 
 
 We may presume therefore that both St. Matthew and St. Mark 
 trusted much to memory, the one to his own, the other to the 
 memory of the apostle Peter. 
 
 But still we need not imagine that St. Matthew trusted ex- 
 clusively to his own recollections, as distinguished from the re- 
 collections of his brethren in the apostleship ; or that St. Mark 
 
 ' See pages xix. — xxxvii. 
 
Ix INTEODUCTION. 
 
 trusted wholly to the memory of St. Peter. Such an idea of the 
 state of the case -would he an unnatural narrowing and limiting of 
 the factors of literary reproduction and representation. 
 
 Douhtless, the first apostolic narrations of the gospel would he 
 oral. Herder was right in giving emphasis to this idea.^ The 
 apostles and their helpers went about preaching the gospel hy word 
 of mouth. They proclaimed it as 'from the house-tops.' And when 
 they passed heyond the little circles of those who had known hy 
 personal observation, or popular hearsay, the particulars of the 
 Saviour's extraordinary career, they would be called upon, by such 
 as became disciples or catechumens, to tell in detail the story of the 
 unique and marvellous Life. 
 
 As happens however in all such cases, those who, like Peter, 
 could report their observations and express their conceptions with 
 facility and force, would give literary shape to the story. The 
 others, who had in their nature more of the faculty of reproduc- 
 tion or representation, and less of the power of primary or original 
 presentation, would follow in the footsteps of their leaders. Not 
 slavishly however, we may suppose. All the eye-and-ear-witnesses 
 would, we may presume, contribute somewhat to the grand result. 
 But as apostle listened to apostle, narrating to the assembled dis- 
 ciples what their Lord had done and said and suffered, the specific 
 forms of ' setting ' the scenes, and even in many cases of ' putting ' 
 the minute details of the scenes, would, when vivid or striking, be 
 appreciated, remembered, by and by reproduced, and at length re- 
 gularly, and with only partial and occasional variations, repeated. 
 The narratives would gradually run into moulds which would, in 
 course of time, become stereotypical. 
 
 This is, in substance, Gieseler's hypothesis, to account at once for 
 the coincidences and for the variations of the synoptic Gospels.^ 
 It no doubt contains in itself a large proportion of the realities of 
 the case. But we see no good reason for isolating the indubitable 
 factors it embraces froni other possibilities and probabilities. Some 
 of the ' numerous ' memoirs, narratives, or reports, which were 
 lying before St. Luke (i. 1), or which were circulating in other 
 circles, may have been known to St. Matthew and St. Mark, and 
 may have had an influence on their minds and pens. These very 
 
 ' See especially his Eegel der Zusammenstimmung unsrer Evangelien, aus 
 ihrer EnUteiiung und Ordnung (1797), at the beginning. 
 
 ' Hiswrisch-kritischer Versuch iiber die Entstehung und die j'ruhesten Schicksale 
 der sehriftlichen Evangelien (1818). 
 
DATE OF THE GOSPEL. Ixi 
 
 docTunents may indeed have been second-hand reflections, and thus 
 more or less correctly taken literary photographs of the very re- 
 hearsals which the apostles, iaelnsive of St. Matthew himself and 
 of St. Peter in particular, had heen accustomed to make in the 
 meetings of the catechumens. Most probably all of therm would be of 
 this description. And if so, it is no violent stretch of imagination 
 to suppose that they might, in their distinctive individualities, have 
 contributed their appreciable, though now iudetermiaable, quota of 
 influence in giving shape and fixity to certain moulds of presenta- 
 tion and certain methods of arrangement. 
 
 A Higher Hand than that of man is always operative in human 
 history, though it does not do everything, or supersede the unfet- 
 tered activity of human hands, and heads, and hearts. Indeed, if 
 there was a special Divine manifestation in Him who was Himself 
 the Idving Word, it is reasonable to suppose that there would be a 
 correlative Divine manifestation in the written word. To fulfil the 
 ends contemplated in the appearance of the Impersonated Word, the 
 mirror of the impersonal word was required, in which, not His 
 flitting shadow alone, but the fixed photograph of His glory, might 
 from age to age be contemplated; We have the mirror. "We have 
 the fixed photograph. Indeed we have synoptic photographs ; and 
 others besides. Their variety is beautiful. Their unembarrassed 
 harmony is perfect. The hands of the human artists had not a 
 little to do in the matter of arrangement and adjustment. But for 
 the ' speaking likenesses ' or ' express images,' which come out in 
 their pages, we are indebted to the irradiation of that very Light 
 from heaven which- is ' the true Light that lighted ' the evan- 
 gelists, and that still, though in a secondary way, ' lighteth every 
 man that cometh into the world.' 
 
 § 9. Date op the Gospel. 
 
 It is not possible, at present, to determine the particular year of the 
 publication of the Gospel before us. Not even is it possible to deter- 
 mine the decade of years, within which the publication must have 
 taken place. All is mere conjecture regarding years and decades. 
 
 Of conjecture, however, there has been no lack. 
 
 The majority of conjecturists have taken their cue from the state- 
 ment of Irenffius, which has been already, iu a former section of 
 this Introduction,^ passed under review. This early father says, 
 
 xxiv. — xx\i. 
 
Ixii INTEODUCTION. 
 
 according to the currently received text of Ms Worh against 
 Heresies, that " after the departure of Peter and Paul, Mark, the dis- 
 " ciple and interpreter of Peter, even he, delivered to us in writing 
 " the things which were preached by Peter." On the assumption 
 that the word ' departure ' refers to the decease of the apostles 
 named, the publication of the Gospel has been connected with the 
 date of Peter's martyrdom. The tragical event, (with which the 
 martyrdom of Paul is, according to the current ecclesiastical tradi- 
 tion, supposed to have been either precisely^ or very nearly 
 coincident,) is generally or rather indeed unanimously assigned to 
 the seventh decade of the first Christian century. The narrative 
 concerning Paul in the Acts of the Apostles brings down the progress 
 of events to the two years during which he dwelt, as a prisoner at 
 large, ' in his own hired house ' in Rome. These two years are 
 supposed by Spanheim, Pearson, Tillemont, Bertholdt, Kohler, 
 Feilmoser, Anger, Conybeare and Howson, to extend from a.d. 61 
 to A.D. 63. According to Hug, Schmidt, de Wette, Schrader, 
 Schott, Bwald, Meyer, they extend from 62 to 64. According to 
 TJssher, Michaelis, Heinrichs, Eichhorn, Olshausen, Sanclemente, 
 Ideler, they extend from 63 to 65. Paul was martyred, according 
 to Schrader, in the year 64 ; ^ according to Lardner, either in 64 or 
 65;^ according to Hemsen, either toward the close of 65 or toward 
 the beginning of 66 ; * according to Patrizi, in the summer of 67 ; ^ 
 according to Conybeare and Howson, in the summer of 68.^ Soon 
 thereafter, and no doubt within the seventh decade of the century, 
 if the chronology of Irenseus were correct, must the Gospel ac- 
 cording to Marie have been published. Hug, in the earlier editions 
 of his Introduction, fixed on the year 69. " The publication," he 
 said, " took place in the sixty-ninth year after the birth, and in the 
 "thirty-seventh year after the death of Jesus."''' But he ultimately 
 saw reason to conclude that there is no real historic ground on 
 which to determine the precise year.* 
 
 ' ilMapripriaav Kori, rbv airiv ktupbv, says Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in tlie 
 second century. See Busebius's Hist. Eccles., ii. 25. 
 
 " Der Apostel Faulus, vol. i., p. 264. 
 
 8 History of the Apostles and Evangelists, chap, xi. Works, vol. vi., pp. 300, 
 301, ed. 1788. 
 
 ■• Der Apostel Pauhis, p. 742. 
 
 * De Evangeliis, vol. i., p. 42. 
 
 » Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. ii., pp. 502, 560, ed. 1855, 
 
 ' Einleitung, vol. ii., § 31. 
 
 ' Einleitung, 4th ed., vol. ii., § 32. 
 
DATE OF THE GOSPEL. Ixiii 
 
 He was right. The coincidence of the martyrdoms of Panl and 
 Peter in Eome is by no means a settled historical fact. And though 
 it -were, the chronological connection with it of the publication of 
 Mark's Gospel rests only on the statement of Irenssus. And, in this 
 statement, he is contradicted by counter statements on the part of 
 Clemens Alexandrinns, Origen, Epiphanins, and Jerome, which have 
 apparently as much title, as the asseveration to which they are 
 opposed, to be regarded as authoritative and correct. 
 
 IrenaBus's asseveration then must, in the present state of patristic 
 criticism, be held in abeyance. Patrizi contends strenuously, that 
 it must be set aside ; and reasoning on Christophorson's reading 
 of the text, he fixes on the latter half of the year a.d. 42, or the 
 former half of the year 43, as the date of the publication of Mark's 
 Gospel.^ This is, however, a mere conjecture of the distinguished 
 B/oman chronologist, a conjecture toppling on the point of a 
 critical needle. 
 
 The conjecture, however, did not originate with Patrizi. The 
 same date is found in the colophon of several respectable manu- 
 scripts of the Gospel, including the uncials G K S. In these manu- 
 scripts there is an express statement to the effect that the Gospel 
 was published ten years after the ascension of Christ, that is, in the 
 year 43. 
 
 Storr,^ long ago, so far agreed with Patrizi and these manuscripts 
 as to contend for a very early date. He supposed that the work 
 was published in Antioch, soon after "the men of Cyprus and 
 " Cyrene," who were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose 
 about Stephen, "came to Antioch and spake unto the Grecians, 
 "preaching the Lord Jesus." (Acts xi. 19, 20.) He connected this 
 occurrence regarding some men of Cyrene with the statement in Mark 
 XV. 21, " And they impress one Simon a Cyrenian, who was passing 
 " by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Bufus, to 
 " bear His cross." Storr thinks it probable that Alexander and 
 Ruf us were among the men of Cyrene who went to Antioch ; and 
 hence, as he supposes, — ^Mark's mention of them in connection with 
 their father. This is, however, just another needle point of conjec- 
 tural criticism. 
 
 T. R. Birks, also, pleads for an early date of publication. He 
 
 1 See his Dissertation Quando scripserit Marcus, pp. 36-51 of the 1st volume of 
 his De Evangeliis. 
 
 * Ueber den Zweck der evangelischen GescMchte u. Briefe Johannis, pp. 
 278 ff. 
 
Ixiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 thinks that " the second Gospel was -written by John M&rk, about 
 " the year a.b. 48, and probably at Csesarea, with a reference, not 
 " only to Jewish believers, but to Gentile Roman converts, who 
 •' would have multiplied there in seven or eight years from the con- 
 " version of Cornelius." ^ It is an ingenious conjecture, reverently 
 wrought out, but resting, like Storr's, on not much broader evidence 
 than can rest on the point of another needle. 
 
 Volkmar, fixing on a later date, is far more definite and positive 
 on the ' point.' " The time of publication," he says, " is easily and 
 "indubitably determined."!^ Easily! Indubitably! How? For 
 the strangest of reasons, reader. Only turn to Mark i. 13, and you 
 have it, half hidden in a mystery, but self revealing to the initiated. 
 Do we not read there that Jesus was " in the wilderness, forty days, 
 " tempted of Satan ? " What of that ? Why, it is obvious, contends 
 Volkmar, that there must be a deep significance in that particular 
 number of days. Moses too was forty days in the wilderness (Exod. 
 xxxiv. 28). Elijah also was forty days in the wUderness (1 Kings 
 xix. 8). And the people of Israel were forty years in the wilder- 
 ness (Num. xiv. 33). What could be clearer and more indubitable 
 to the initiated ? The days of the Saviour's trial were forty, in 
 order to cast shadows both behind and before. And they obviously 
 therefore foreshadow forty years of trial to His people after His 
 decease on the cross in the year 33, forty years to be succeeded by 
 that glorious coming which was to take place before all the personal 
 disciples of the Lord 'tasted of death' (Mark ix. 1). Add then 
 40 to 33, and ' the birth- year of the book ' ^ is at once determined 
 — 73 I This needle has a very sharp point indeed. 
 
 The critics of the Tubingen school project the date of composition 
 and publication far beyond a.d. 73. They admit that the original 
 Mark of Papias must have belonged to the first century ; but they 
 contend that the canonical Gospel, which superseded the original, 
 cannot have been earUer than the second. Kostlin comes to the 
 conclusion that it emerged in the first decade of the second cen- 
 tury.* Dr. Davidson would date it ' about a.d. 120.' ^ Others of 
 the school would carry the date still farther forward, say to some 
 point or other between a.d. 130 and A.D. 150. 
 
 ' Horce Mvangelicte, p. 238. 
 
 2 Marcus und die Synopsis, p. 646. 
 
 ' " Geburtsjahr des Buohes." — Marcus, etc., pp. 49, 50. 
 
 * Der Vrsprung und die Komposition der Syn. Evv., pp. 384, 385. 
 
 • Introduction, vol. ii., p. 111. 
 
DATE OV THE GOSPEL. IxV 
 
 But this entire theory of the supersession, and absorption of the 
 original Gospel of Mark by a fictitious Gospel of the second cen- 
 tury rests on another needle point. It rests on the assumption of 
 the soundness of Strauss's theory. It assumes that the mythical 
 interpretation of the Gospel history is substantially correct, though 
 incomplete as originally propounded by its author, and needing for 
 its complement the establishment of the inauthenticity of the 
 four canonical Gospels. Hence the literary task assigned to itself 
 by the school : Let the inauthenticity of the Gospels he made out ! 
 There cannot have been miracles. Paulus's method of reducing the 
 supernatural to the natural is absurd and grotesque. Therefore the 
 Gospels we possess cannot be of apostolic origin or authority. They 
 must have originated in a time far removed from the days of the 
 apostles ! 
 
 But the assumption of a fictitious Gospel according to Mark, 
 composed by a well-meaning impostor of the second century, though 
 essential, (along with corresponding assumptions in reference to 
 Matthew, Luke, and John,) to the validity of Strauss's theory, is 
 itself, so far as the scientific determination of the date of our 
 canonical Gospel is concerned, nothing better than a mere unhis- 
 torical assumption. It is in fact a critical m.yth. As unlikely too 
 as it is unhistorical. For where can be found even so much as 
 a needle point's breadth of probability that a Gospel, originated in 
 the apostolic circle, and bearing what was equivalent to the im- 
 primatur of the chief of the original apostles, could, in the 
 course of the second century, be not only unceremoniously, but also 
 unanimously, laid aside, to make room for an upstart composition, 
 written by nobody knows who, but filchingly bearing the honoured 
 name of the genuine original document ? How could it happen 
 that all the copies of the original Gospel should have been not only 
 superseded and shelved, but annihilated, so that, at the present day, 
 not a single transcript, or fragment of one, can be found ? How 
 could it come to pass that, in the midst of the keen conflicts and 
 mutual jealousies that abounded toward the conclusion of the 
 second century, there should be a perfectly unanimous consent that 
 never should one word be written about the substitution of the 
 false for the true Gospel, so that all the records that would likely 
 go down to posterity should be entirely destitute of any note or 
 hint on the subject ? How could all these improbabilities become 
 actualities ? 
 
 But are there then no data at all on which an approximate date 
 
 / 
 
Ixvi INTRODDCTTON. 
 
 may be assigned to tlie composition and publication of St. Mark's 
 Gospel ? 
 
 There are. 
 
 There is nothing indeed, as we have already intimated, that will 
 ajBEord a warrant to fix on any given year or decade of years. But 
 the succession of patristic testimonies back to Papias, as exhibited 
 in the sixth section of this Introduelion, makes it certain that the 
 Gospel was in existence, and well known, during the first century of 
 the Christian era. 
 
 Since, moreover, it is all but certain that the John Mark of the 
 Acts of the Apostles was the writer of the Gospel, and since it is prob- 
 able that he was quite ' a young man ' at the time of the crucifixion, 
 and consequently still young when he was assumed by Paul and 
 Barnabas as their ministerial attendant, we may reasonably suppose 
 that he would not defer the composition of his Gospel till he was 
 overtaken by extreme old age. If he did not, then we have some- 
 thing like a foothold on which to reach some data for an approxi- 
 mate date. It is not likely, at all events, that the composition of 
 the Gospel would be deferred to a period later than the year 70, 
 the date of the overthrow of Jerusalem. Indeed it is most unlikely 
 that it would be deferred till that period. If St. Mark was about 
 twenty years of age at the time of the crucifixion, he would be 
 nearly sixty about the year 70. 
 
 Besides, there seems to be, in the peculiar inter-stratification of 
 the contents of the 13th chapter of the Gospel, (the prophetical 
 chapter,) taken in conjunction with the statement in chap. ix. 1, 
 ' Verilij I say unto you, that there he some that stand here, who shall not 
 taste of death till they have seen the Jcingdoni of God come with power,' 
 evidence on which we may, with probability, support the conclusion 
 that Mark, at the time he composed his Gospel, connected in his 
 mind, as a matter of ' private interpretation ' and expectation, the 
 glorious personal appearing of our Lord with the anticipated 
 destruction of Jerusalem. The precise ' times and seasons ' were 
 not distinctly and minutely unrolled to the eyes of evangelists and 
 apostles. The prophetical perspective did not show the length of 
 the intervals that intervened along the path of the future ; and 
 the inspired writers were consequently left, like the prophets of old, 
 to ' search what and what manner of times ' were referred to. 
 This being the case, there is, in the inter-stratification referred to, 
 evidence that increases the probability that the Gospel must have 
 been written before the year 70. 
 
PLACE OF PUBLICATION. Ixvii 
 
 There is anotlier incidental item of evidence that leans and leads 
 toward the same conclusion. It is found in the verse "which oc- 
 casioned Storr's theory, viz. chap. xv. 21, " and they impress one 
 " Simon a Cyrenian, who was passing by, coming out of the country, 
 '" the father of Alexander and Bufus, to hear His cross." Why 
 should the evangelist particularize the fact that Simon of Gyrene 
 was the father of Alexander and Rufus ? Obviously, as Grotius 
 remarks, because Alexander and B/ufus were living at the time when 
 the Gospel was published. Simon himself seems to have been 
 deceased. Bi« identity is rememhered hy means of his surviving 
 .sons. He would probably be in middle life, or beyond it, when he 
 undertook his journey to the city of his fathers to celebrate the 
 passover. But it was ' the beginning of days ' to him ; and not to 
 liimself only, it would appear, but to all his household. His sons 
 became men of mark in the Christian circle. It would however 
 be quite improbable and unnatural to go forward to a period near 
 the close of the century, for the time of their prominence. A period 
 before the destruction of Jerusalem is far more likely to have been 
 the season when they were conspicuous. At all events, we could not, 
 with the least shadow of probability, pass the terminating decades 
 of the first century, and go over into the second. The Tiibingen 
 .date must of necessity be abandoned. 
 
 § 10. The Place of the Gospel's Publication, and the 
 Language in which it was oeiginally written. 
 
 As to the place where the Gospel of St. Mark was originally cir- 
 culated, nothing can be positively determined. We have seen, 
 incidentally,' that Storr conjectured it to be Antioch, and that Birks 
 conjectured it to be Gsesarea. The ancients in general assumed it 
 to be Rome. Chrysostom, however, in the introduction to his 
 Somiletical Exposition of Matthew, mentions another tradition, which 
 £eems, nevertheless, never to have obtained extensive currency : — 
 " Mark is said (Xeyerai) to have composed his Gospel in Egypt at 
 " the solicitation of the disciples there." Modern critics in general 
 acquiesce in the common opinion of the ancients. Some of them sup- 
 pose that we have in the considerable list of Latinisms that is found 
 in the Gospel,^ internal evidence ia favour of the tradition. 
 
 ' Pages Ixiii., Ixiv. 
 
 2 Such as KcvTvplom (centurio), iea-riis {scxtarius), aireKovMrup (speculator), 
 rb luaubv Troitiv (satisfacere). 
 
Ixviii INTEODUCTIOJI. 
 
 Not miicli weight should be attached to the occurrence of the 
 Latinisms, for they are found also in St. Matthew and St. Luke. 
 There was naturally a considerable sifting in of Latin words and 
 phrases over the whole extent of the Roman empire. They abound, 
 as Volkmar remarks,^ in the Talmud ; and yet no one would con- 
 clude, from that fact, that it was written in Rome. 
 
 Another plea has been put in for Rome. St. Paul, in his Epistle 
 to the Romans, chap. xvi. 13, says, ' Salute Eufus, chosen in the 
 Lord, and his mother and mine.' This Rufus was evidently a some- 
 what conspicubus disciple, dwelling or sojourning in Rome. And 
 it is quite natural to suppose that he may have been the brother of 
 Alexander, and the son of Simon. If so, he would be well known 
 in the Christian circles in Rome ; and hence it might be natural for 
 St. Mark, if writing there, to particularise his brother and him. 
 But on the other hand it is reasonable to suppose that the Cyrenian 
 family would be marked and well known over the whole extent of 
 the Christian brotherhood, if, as is probable, the entire household 
 traced their conversion to the father's intimate conjunction with 
 the Saviour, when impressed to bear the cross. (See Gommentarij 
 on chap. xv. 21.) 
 
 In the colophons of several of the cursive manuscripts it is said 
 that the Gospel was written at Rome. In some it is said that it was- 
 written in Latin {p(aiJ,ai(Tn) at Rome. The colophon of the Syriao 
 Peshito version runs, correspondingly, thus : " Here ends the Holy 
 " Gospel, the Announcement of Mark, which he spoke and 
 "preached at Rome in the Roman language." In the Philo- 
 xenian version the postscript is to the same efEect, only briefer : 
 " Here ends the Holy Gospel of Mark, which he spoke in the- 
 "Roman language in Rome." These colophons, however, are of 
 no authority. They merely mirror the opinion which was prevalent 
 around the transcriber of the volume, or which was entertained 
 by himself. 
 
 Yet Cardinal Baronius, assuming that the Gospel was published 
 at Rome, and thinking it natural that a writing, which was intended 
 for the use of the Romans, should be in their own language, stren- 
 uously contended, in his Ecclesiastical Annals,^ that the colophons 
 to which we have referred represent the true state of the case.^ The- 
 
 ' Marcus und die Synopsis, p. 646. 
 
 2 An. 45, n. 37 ff. 
 
 ' " His igitur prope necessariis rationibus non solum sviademur, sed obstrioti> 
 
PLAN, AIM, AND STYLE OF THE GOSPEL. Ixix 
 
 idea was welcome to him. as a controvertist, ia the interest of the 
 Vulgate version of the New Testament, as against the Greek 
 original. It got connected too with a report that the Latin auto- 
 graph of the evangelist was actually preserved in the library of 
 St. Mark in Venice. This report however was a fabrication ' for 
 the nonce.' And the whole of the ingenious reasoning of the 
 cardinal dissolves, when it is remembered (1) that St. Paul's Epistle 
 to the Bomans is in Greek ; (2) that the Jews everywhere, and con- 
 sequently the Jewish Christians, were more familiar with Greek 
 than with Latin ; and (3) that St. Mark's Gospel, though doubt- 
 less intended for diffusion among the Gentiles, would be, in the 
 first instance, handed over to the Christian Jews, and those Greek- 
 speaking Gentiles who were associated with them in ecclesiastical 
 communion.. Father Simon did himself credit, as a critic, when he 
 boldly assailed the cardinal's conceit, as utterly irreconcilable at 
 once with the unanimous conviction of the fathers, and with the 
 literary principles on which the apostles and their coadjutors con- 
 ducted their New Testament enterprise. 
 
 It is needless to make specific reference to the crowd of critical 
 ' repetents,' who, for a series of years, echoed the cardin^/I's conceit. 
 Neither is it needful to discuss a corresponding conceit of Wahl's, 
 that the Gospel was originally composed in Coptic, and then trans- 
 lated into Greek.^ It is true, however, that the patriarch of the 
 Coptic church regards himself as the true successor of St. Mark, 
 and sitting in his cathedra. 
 
 § 11. The Plan, Aim, and Style of the Gospel. 
 
 The ' Gospel according to St. Mark ' does not claim to be a 
 Scientific History. It does not aim at tracing the processes of social 
 evolution around the Saviour of mankind, or at manipulating the 
 fully linked concatenation of causes and effects, which permeated 
 the specific moral condition of the Jews eighteen hundred and fifty 
 years ao:o. To view the Gospel under this aspect, or to demand 
 from it the conditions of such a species of literary composition, 
 would be doing it very great injustice. It would, among other 
 
 " ferine devinoimur atijue plane cogimur affirmare, Evangelium Marci ab eo 
 " Latine potius quam Graeoe esse conscriptum."— n. 41. 
 
 ' WaWs Magazin fur alte, besonders biblisclie und orientalische Literatur, 3te 
 Leiferung, pp. 8 ff. 
 
Ixx INTEODUCTION. 
 
 fatal consequences, be exciting illegitimate expectations, which 
 would necessarily issue in illegitimate disappointment. 
 
 Neither is the Gospel a little Compilation of Gliristlan Annals, 
 something like the embryo, or first instalment, of the Ecclesiastical 
 Annals of Cardinal Baronius. It would be doing it, as we have- 
 already remarked,^ a veiy great injustice to exact of it, or to ex- 
 pect from it, the strict chronological sequences of Annals. There 
 is, to be sure, a certain obvious outline of genuine chronology 
 forming the substantial framework of the narrative. That was 
 indispensable. It was inevitable. Our Lord's public career, like 
 every other career, lay along a given chronological path. It had a 
 beginning, middle, and ending. It was a growth. But the in- 
 terest and value that attach to it did not depend on any of the 
 minute items of chronology. And thus there is no attempt, on the 
 part of the evangelist, to work these items into a scientifically 
 jointed adjustm.ent. 
 
 His Gospel is not even an elaborated or scientifically constructed 
 Biography. It is, of course, biographical. But there is no evidence 
 of an intention to furnish ' a full and particular account ' of the 
 career and character of our Lord. There is no attempted analysis 
 of the elements of His idiosyncrasy. It is entirely wilful on the part 
 of any critic or reader to assume that St. Mark, or any other of 
 the evangelists, should have -given us such an analysis, and thence 
 to conclude that it is an imperfection that he does not attempt it. 
 It is wilful likewise to assume that he recorded all the incidents, 
 discourses, and sayings of which he had reliable information. It is 
 wilful to assume that the diversities in the respective Gospels are to 
 be accounted for on the principle that the respective evangelists 
 emptied out as it were, and exhausted, their respective measures of 
 personal knowledge or secondary information. (Comp. John xxi. 25.) 
 To follow out any of these lines of assumption leads far astray from 
 the all-important practical standpoints of observation, which should 
 be occupied by readers in general and by critics in particular. 
 
 The evangelist's literary task, though in one respect almost the 
 sublimest imaginable, was, in another, nearly the simplest conceiv- 
 able. It was to give, for practical and spiritual purposes, free and 
 easy Memoirs, or Memorabilia, or Memorials of our Lord. 
 
 His Gospel, in truth, is a Gospel, just because it is the gospel,. 
 not history proper, or annah proper, or a regular and exhaustive 
 
 ' Pages xxxiii., xxxiv. 
 
PLAN, AIM, AND STYLE OF THE GOSPEL. Ixxi 
 
 hiograpliy. Dr. Bernhard Weiss lays down, as a principle, that 
 ' the last motive of the evangelist's writing was not biographical 
 but didactic. '1 It is emphatically true. The evangelist meant his 
 narrative to be a simple hiograpMcal representation of the gospel. It 
 is, that is to say, and was meant to be, a simple mirroring or photo- 
 graphing of Him who is, in His own living personality, the sum, 
 substance, and subject of the gospel. The mirroring or photo- 
 graphing is partial indeed. That was inevitable. But it is real. 
 And it is sufficient : for the grand Object mirrored was and is, in all 
 the phases of His peculiar character and career, the Living Gospel. 
 He is, as it were, the Gospel alive. In His life, with all its 
 effluents of work and word, and all its influents of opposition and 
 suifering, the gospel lives, and moves, and has its being. It must 
 be so.- His life incarnated His love. And His love was really that 
 Divine, world-infolding love, which, when manifested, and as mani- 
 fested, is the very essence of gospel to the erring children of men 
 ( John iii. 16). This essence of gospel is the 'open secret' of all 
 the Gospels. And just as the individuals, whether professional or 
 lay, who in these modern times appreciate and pi'omulgate the 
 gospel, often vary from one another in their presentations, and fre- 
 quently indeed from themselves when they have occasion to write 
 more treatises than one or to deliver more addresses than one, (now 
 omitting what they formerly admitted, and now admitting what 
 they formerly omitted ; now employing one ' form of sound words,' 
 and now making use of another,) so the original evangelists differed 
 from one another, more or less, in their respective presentations. 
 And if each had written a second time, we need not doubt that he 
 would have introduced still farther variations. 
 
 It is not in the least unnatural therefore that St. Mark, when in- 
 tending to give a biographical presentation of the gospel, freely ran 
 off its precious ore, so far as form was concerned, into his own 
 peculiar cast of some of the moulds that were in common use 
 among the apostles and their coadjutors. He might, no doubt, have 
 used other casts, slightly different in details. But as there was a 
 necessity for individualising, he made his selection, so far as the 
 factor of his own agency was concerned, freely, easily, perhaps in- 
 stinctively, and certainly without taking into account the elements 
 which would have been of moment if there had been any definite 
 
 ' Das Marcusevangelium und seine Synoptisclien Parallelen, Einleitung, § 5, 
 p. 23. 
 
Ixxii INTRODTJCriON. 
 
 aim in the direction of scientific adjustment, minute chronological 
 sequence, or literary purity and elegance. 
 
 This brings us to the style of the evangelist. It is unclassical, 
 provincial, and destitute of every species of ' the wisdom of words.' 
 It is homely, humble, unadorned, and devoid of literary artifice or 
 art. This artlessness is partly a charm, and partly a source of 
 hermeneutical difficulty. See, as outstanding specimens of it, chaps, 
 i. 2, 4, 9, 39 ; ii. 1, 15, 18, 21, 23 ; iii. 8, 16 ; iv. 25, 27, 31 ; v. 14, 
 19, 30, 35 ; vi. 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 43, 56; vii. 1, 2, 3; viii. 16, 19, 
 24 ; ix. 13 ; x. 10 ; xi. 1 ; xii. 11, 23, 34 ; xiii. 34, 35 ; xiv. 9, 49, 
 50 ; XV. 24 ; xvi. 4, etc. See moreover the ' vexed expressions ' in 
 chaps, vii. 3 ; viii. 26 ; ix. 13, 23 ; xiv. 41, 72 ; xvi. 13. 
 
 Like m.ost other writers, whether inartificial or cultured, Mark 
 has his favourite phrases, or mannerisms of expression. He deals 
 very largely indeed, after the fashion of the true Hebrew, with the 
 conjunction and, but is sparing in the use of for. (See Tischendorf 
 on chap. xiii. 6.) When introducing a new topic of discourse, or 
 something that was said furthermore, he frequently uses the expres- 
 sion and He said to them. (See chaps, iv. 9, 13, 24, 26, 30, 40 ; vi. 
 10 ; vii. 9, etc.) He has too a partiaility for fixing attention on he- 
 ginnings, employing, in a manneristic way, the phrase began. (See 
 chaps, i. 45; iv. 1 ; v. 17, 20 ; vi. 2, 7, 34, 55 ; viii. 31, 32 ; x. 28, 
 32, 41, 47 ; xi. 15 ; xii. 1 ; xiii. 5 ; xiv. 19, 33, 65, 69, 71 ; xv. 8, 
 18.) But the most remarkable of all his favourite expressions is 
 the word immediately, which however, as employed by him, means 
 in general nothing more than without loss of time. It occurs with 
 extreme frequency, nearly as often as in all the other writings of 
 the New Testament put together. 
 
 § 12. Integrity oe St. Mark's Gospel. 
 
 It is, as we have elsewhere remarked,^ one of Ewald's opinions 
 that the canonical Gospel according to St. Mark has, relatively to 
 his original Gospel, been impoverished by omissions, as well as 
 enriched by interpolations. It has both lost and gained. 
 
 Such an opinion however is a mere conjecture, unnecessary, arbi- 
 trary, and improbable. It would be superfluous to enter into a 
 detailed criticism of it, after the full discussions in § 8. 
 
 Along with many other critics, and notably with Eusebius in 
 
 ' See pages xlvii., xlviii. 
 
TOPICAL POSITION OF ST. MAEK'S GOSPEL. Ixxiii 
 
 ancient times, and Griesbach, Pritzsche, Scliolz, Credner, Tischen- 
 dorf, Tregelles, Michelsen, Scliolten, Volkmar, "Weiss, in modern 
 times, Ewald regards the last twelve verses of the last chapter of 
 the Gospel as ' a later addition.' This notion has grown into a 
 romance of criticism, which has thrown a spell of donbt over spirits 
 that have not the least sympathy with biblical scepticism. But we 
 have shown, in a full discussion of the subject, in the body of the 
 Commentary, that the romance has culminated. There would 
 appear to be no good reason for questioning the authenticity of the 
 passage. See pages 446-449, 463-470. 
 
 § 13. The Topical Position op St. Mark's Gospel in the 
 GEOUP OF Gospels. 
 
 Clemens of Alexandria mentions a tradition which he had received 
 from certain ' elders,' regarding the chronological order of the 
 •Gospels. Those were written first, it was said, luliich contain the 
 genealogies?- 
 
 According to this tradition St. Lute's Gospel should have stood 
 before St. Mark's in 'the volume of the Book.' And so it actually 
 does in the ancient manuscript that belonged to Beza {codex Bezce), 
 .and which is now one of the ' lions ' of the University Library of 
 Cambridge. The order of the Gospels in the manuscript is 
 ' Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.' And hence this is the order that 
 is followed in Whiston's Revision of the Unglish New Testament. 
 
 If the topical arranging of the Gospels had been committed to 
 Macknight, Dunster, or Biisching, they would have put St. Luke 
 first, and then, in succession, St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John. 
 If Beza had got his will, he would, while keeping St. Matthew 
 before St. John, have put St. Luke before St. Mark,^ just as Owen 
 and Griesbach, with all their followers, would have done. 
 
 The adherents again of the ' Mark-hypothesis,' such as Wilke, 
 "Weisse, Ewaild, Holtzmann, Weiss, think that St. Mark should lead 
 -the chorus of evangelists, as being the earliest of them all, and the 
 fontal source of the Gospels of both St. Matthew and St. Luke. 
 
 It would appear that the ancients in general regarded the present 
 •order as representing the chronological succession of the Gospels. 
 It may be so in fact. But it is not proved. And it will be no 
 
 1 Preserved in Busobius's Ecclesiastical History, vi. 14, 
 
 2 Frooemium in ilarcum. 
 
Ixxiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 great calamity to the interests of CHristiamty in particular, or of 
 ' pure and undefiled religion ' in general, although the true chrono- 
 logical order of these primitive evangelical records should remam 
 for ever "nndetermined and indeterminahle. 
 
 § 14. The Contents of the Gospel. 
 The contents of the Gospel may he tabulated as follows : — 
 
 Chap, and Ter. 
 
 I. The PEELIMIKAIilES OE THE PUBLIC CAEEEB OF JeSUS. 
 
 Chap. i. 1-13. 
 
 1. The forerunnership of John the Baptist i. 1-8 
 
 2. The baptism of Jesus i. 8-11 
 
 3. His temptation i. 12, 13 
 
 II. The ptjblio oareek oe Jesus ik Galilee and its nbigh- 
 eouhhood. Chap. i. 14 — ix. 50. 
 
 1. He begins to preach i. 14, 15 
 
 2. He calls four fishermen to become His disciples and 
 
 . attendants i. 16-20 
 
 3. He teaches, and delivers a demoniac, in the synagogue 
 
 at Capernaum i. 21-26 
 
 4. The people were amazed at His words and works ; and 
 
 He becomes instantly famous i. 27, 28- 
 
 5. He heals Peter's mother-in-law, who was sick of a 
 
 fever i. 29-81 
 
 6. Many other sick persons, as also demoniacs, are 
 
 brought to Him, and He heals them i. 32-34 
 
 7. In the morning He retires to a solitary place for 
 
 prayer ; but Peter and his friends go in quest of 
 
 Him i. 35, 36- 
 
 8. He visits with His disciples various towns, preaches, 
 
 and casts out demons . . : i. 37-39- 
 
 9. Ho heals a leper, who blazes the matter abroad, so 
 
 that crowds from all quarters flock to Him ... i. 40-45 
 
 10. In Capernaum a paralytic is brought to Him, to whom 
 
 He says. Son, thy sins he forgiven thee ii. 1-5- 
 
 11. The scribes that were present were scandalized, and 
 
 thought that He was guilty of blasphemy ... ii. 6, 7 
 
 12. Jesus proved His right to speak as He had done, by 
 
 healing the paralytic ii. 8-12 
 
 13. He calls Levi to be one of His attendant disciples . ii. 13, 14 
 
 14. In Levi's house He sits at meat with ' publicans and 
 
 sinners,' and defends His conduct against the carp- 
 ing of the scribes and Pharisees ii. 15-17 
 
 15. He answers complaints of the disciples of John and 
 
 of the Pharisees in reference to fasting .... ii. 18-22 
 
THE CONTENTS OF THE GOSPEL. IxXV 
 
 Chap, and Ter 
 
 16. His disciples are charged with desecration of the 
 
 sabbath, and He defends them ii. 23-28 
 
 17. He revitalizes a withered hand on the sabbath day and 
 
 defends the act • • • iii- 1-5 
 
 18. The Pharisees and Herodians have their malignity 
 
 stirred, and plot His destruction iii. 6- 
 
 19. Jesus withdrew to the shore of the sea of Galilee, but 
 
 was followed by numerous crowds from far and 
 
 near, many of whose sick He healed iii. 7-12. 
 
 20. He chooses twelve, whom He might send forth, as 
 
 apostles, to assist Him in preaching and teaching . iii. 13-19- 
 
 21. He is still however tasked to the uttermost to minister 
 
 to the crowds who press in upon Him iii. 20 
 
 22. His relatives begin to think that He is ' beside Himself ' iii. 21 
 
 23. Scribes are sent down from Jerusalem to act as inqui- 
 
 sitors, and they allege tbat He did His wonderful 
 
 works by the aid of Beelzebul iii. 22 
 
 24. Jesus refutes their cruel blasphemy of His character, 
 
 and solemnly warns them iii. 23-30' 
 
 25. In reference to His relatives who were busying them- 
 
 selves intermeddlingly, He declares who are His 
 
 truest relatives iii. 31-35 
 
 26. He began to teach in vivid parables ... . . iv. 1, 2 
 
 27. The parable of the sower iv. 3-20. 
 
 28. A cluster of other striking sayings . iv. 21-25 
 
 29. Other vivid parables iv. 26-34 
 
 30. He passes over toward the eastern side of the lake ; 
 
 and, overcome with fatigue, sleeps during the pas- 
 sage. A storm arises, which, when He is waked 
 up, He stills iv. 35-41 
 
 31. On the eastern side of the lake He relieves a demoniac 
 
 who called himself Legion. The demons are al- 
 lowed to enter a herd of swine, which go mad and 
 are drowned in the lake v. 1-18- 
 
 32. The inhabitants get alarmed, and entreat Him to 
 
 leave their district. But the cured demoniac goes 
 
 forth and proclaims the miracle round and round . v. 14-20' 
 
 33. Jesus returns to the west coast of the lake, and re- 
 
 stored to life the deceased daughter of Jairus. On' 
 the way a woman is healed of hjemorrhage by 
 touching His garment v. 21-43 
 
 34. He visits Nazareth, where He spent His youth, but is 
 
 received coldly and incredulously vi. 1-5 
 
 35. He marvelled at their unbelief, and went elsewhere 
 
 teaching vi.fr 
 
 36. He sent forth His twelve attendant disciples to preach 
 
 and heal vi. 7-1& 
 
 37. The tetraroh Herod hears of Him, and thinks that He 
 
ilssvi IKTRODUCTIOJT. 
 
 Chap, and Ter-. 
 is John the Baptist returned from the world of the 
 disembodied vi. 11 
 
 38. Others had different opinions regarding Him, but 
 
 Herod stood to his own notion, for he was ill at 
 
 ease for having murdered John vi. 15, 16 
 
 39. The story of the murder of John vi. 17-29 
 
 40. The apostles return to Jesus, and report progress, 
 
 and they all go to get retirement and rest for a 
 season. They go by boat to the other side of the 
 
 lake .... vi. 30- 
 
 41. They were watched however by multitudes, who 
 
 hasted by land to get near the wonderful Eabbi. 
 
 He had compassion on them, and taught them . vi. 83, 31 
 
 42. He fed about five thousand, in an uninhabited place, 
 
 on five loaves and two fishes vi. 35-44 
 
 43. Having spent a great part of the evening in prayer. 
 
 He walked on the sea to His disciples, who were 
 
 toiling at theTr oars in a storm vi. 45-52 
 
 44. When they landed on the coast of Genuesaret, He 
 
 was pressed by multitudes, who were eager to get 
 their sick ones healed, and ' as many as touched 
 Him were made whole ' vi. 53-53 
 
 45. The Pharisees and scribes find fault with Him for 
 
 allowing His disciples to eat with unbaptized hands. 
 He defends His disciples, and exposes the wretched 
 outwardliness of the religious manners of their 
 accusers vii. 1-13 
 
 -IG. He teaches the people in general, and His disciples in 
 
 particular, the inwardliness of true religion . . . vii. 14-23 
 
 47. He makes a detour into the neighbourhood of Tyre 
 and Sidon, and heals, at a distance, the daughter 
 of a Syrophcenician woman vii. 24-30 
 
 43. He returns to GaHlee by the way of Decapolis, on 
 the north-east, and restores his hearing and speech 
 to a deaf and dumb man vii. 31-37 
 
 49. A second time He feeds miraculously in the desert a 
 
 great multitude, about four thousand viii. 1-9 
 
 50. He goes to Dalmanutha, and is asked by the Pharisees 
 
 to prove what He was by some great ' sign from 
 the sky.' He declines to pander to their frivolous, 
 
 sceptical, and curiosity-hunting spirit viii. 10-13 
 
 ■51. While crossing the lake with His disciples, He speaks 
 to them of the leaven of the Pharisees and of 
 Herod, but they have difficulty in understanding 
 
 Him viii. 14-21 
 
 ■52. At Bothsaida He gives sight to a blind man .... viii 22-26 
 53. In going toward CiBsarea Philippi, He interrogates 
 His disciples regarding the conflicting opinions 
 
THE CONTENTS OF THE GOSPEL. Ixxvii 
 
 Chap, and Yer. 
 tliat were floating about in the public mind in refer- 
 ence to Him. V/hen He asks them for their own 
 judgment on the matter, Peter says ' Thou art 
 the Christ ' yiii. 27-30< 
 
 64. He begins to predict His rejection by men, His igno- 
 minious death, and His glorious resurrection . . viii. 31. 
 
 55. Peter, fixing his mind on the announcement of his 
 Lord's ignominious death, ' began to rebuke Him,' 
 and Jesus had to reprove him sharply .... viii. 32, 33' 
 
 5C. He announces the necessity of cross-bearing as a con- 
 dition of discipleship viii. 34 — ix. L 
 
 57. Jesus is transfigured in presence of Peter, James, and 
 
 John ix. 2-8. 
 
 58. He charged the three favoured disciples to tell no 
 
 man what they had witnessed, till after His resur- 
 rection ; and they wonder what He means by His 
 resurrection ix. 9, 10' 
 
 59. They have a diflSculty about Malachi's prophecy 
 
 regarding Elijah ; and Jesus explains what was 
 
 meant ix. 1-13- 
 
 60. He heals, at the foot of the mount of transfiguration, 
 
 a poor demoniac lad ix. 14-29 
 
 61. He seeks . to pass incognito through Galilee ; and 
 
 speaks to His disciples again regarding His coming 
 death and consequent resurrection. But they did 
 not understand Him ix. 30-82 
 
 62. In Capernaum He rebuked His disciples for their self- 
 
 seeking eagerness to get honours in the kingdom 
 of which He was to be King, and He bids them be 
 childlike ix. 33-37 
 
 63. A cluster of remarkable instructions and sayings . . ix. 88-50< 
 
 III. The CAREEn op jEsns on His way fhom Galilee to 
 jDBiEA, and thencej?okward iill His decease in 
 Jeeusalem. Chap, x.-xv. 
 
 1. Jesus goes toward Judiea by the eastern side of Jordan x. 1 
 
 2. On the way, Pharisees propose to Him, temptingly, a, 
 
 question concerning divorce x. 2-12 
 
 3. His heart yearns over certain little children who were 
 
 brought to Him x. 13-1(> 
 
 4. He deals faithfully with a rich young man, who asked, 
 
 What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life ? . i. 17-22 
 
 5. He speaks of the difficulty of being both rich and 
 
 good X 23-^7 
 
 6. He speaks of the reward of those who make sacrifices 
 
 for His sake and for the sake of the gospel ... x. 28-31 
 
 7. He again makes known to His disciples His ap- 
 
 proaching sufferings and death, and His consequent 
 resurrection • x. 33-34 
 
Ixxviii INTEODUCTION. 
 
 Chap, and Ver. 
 
 8. James and Jobn, the sons of Zebedee, prefer an un- 
 
 wise and selfish request, and are faithfully dealt 
 
 ■with X. 35-40 
 
 9. When the rest of the disciples knew what James and 
 
 John had been asking, they were incensed ; but 
 Jesus unfolded the true glory of man, the glory of 
 ministering and giving x. 41-45 
 
 10. The company reaches Jericho, where Jesus restores 
 
 sight to Bartimteus, a blind beggar x. 46-52 
 
 11. The company reached Bethany, and two disciples are 
 
 despatched to Bethphage to obtain a colt .... xi. 1-6 
 
 12. The colt is brought, and Jesus, riding on it, enters 
 
 Jerusalem triumphally xi. 7-11 
 
 13. He returns in the evening to Bethany xi. 11 
 
 14. Coming in next day to Jerusalem, He sought figs on 
 
 a leafy fig tree. Finding none, He invokes a blight 
 
 on the tree xi. 12-14 
 
 15. He enters the temple and purifies it xi. 15-17 
 
 16. The scribes and chief priests were intensely offended, 
 
 and plotted ' how they might destroy Him ' . . xi. 18 
 
 17. In the evening He left the city ; and next morning 
 
 the disciples saw that the fig-tree had withered. 
 Jesus took occasion to impress them with the power 
 of faith and prayer xi. 19-24 
 
 18. A forgiving spirit must be joined with prayer ... xi. 25, 26 
 
 19. When He was in the temple, the chief priests, scribes, 
 
 and elders come and demand His authorization for 
 
 acting as He did xi. 27, 28 
 
 20. Jesus asked them a preliminary question, which they 
 
 would not answer. He therefore declined to answer 
 the question which they had put to Him ... xi. 29-33 
 ■21. He spoke to them, and the people, a parable, the 
 
 parable of the iniquitous vineyard tenants . . . xii. 1-11 
 
 22. The authorities were enraged, and sought to arrest 
 
 Him, but feared the people xii. 12 
 
 23. They then sent Pharisees and Herodians to get Him 
 
 entrapped politically, if possible, in His words, but 
 He saw through the manoeuvre and confounded 
 
 His interrogators sii_ 13_17 
 
 •24. Some Sadducees then tried to overthrow Him in 
 argument; but they too were utterly foiled and 
 nonplussed xii. 18-27 
 
 25. A scribe asked Him which is the first commandment 
 ' of all ; and was delighted with the answer . 
 
 26. None dared to interrogate Him any more . . 
 ■27. Jesus exposed the shallowness of the scribes' teach- 
 ing regarding the Messiah .... 
 
 :28. He denounced the scribes . .... 
 
 xu 
 
 28-34 
 
 
 xii. 34 
 
 xii 
 
 35-37 
 
 xii 
 
 38-40 
 
THE CONTENTS OP THE GOSPEL. Ixxix 
 
 Chap, and Ver. 
 
 29. He noted the great liberality of a poor -widow in giving 
 
 two mites xii. 41-44 
 
 SO. Sitting on the mount of Olives with His disciples He 
 revealed some of the great scenes of the future, 
 both nearer and more remote xiii. 1-37 
 
 ^1. The chief priests and scribes plotted to get Him 
 arrested ' by craft ' ; but wished to postpone the 
 execution of their plot till after the passover . . xiv. 1, 2 
 
 32. Jesus, at an entertainment in Bethany, was anointed 
 
 by a woman xiv. 3 
 
 33. Some were offended at the ' waste of the ointment,' 
 
 especially Judas '..... xiv. 4-10 
 
 34. When Jesus had vindicated the woman and rebuked 
 
 the grumblers, Judas went to the chief priests to 
 
 betray Him xiv. 11, 12 
 
 35. Jesus observed the passover with His disciples : made 
 
 touching reference to the treason of the traitor; 
 
 and instituted the New Testament passover-supper xiv. 12-25 
 
 36. He went with the eleven to the mount of Olives, and 
 
 intimated to them that they would all that very 
 
 night be stumbled in reference to Him .... xiv. 20-28 
 
 37. Peter expressed his confidence that lis at least would 
 
 not be stumbled. Jesus tells him that before the 
 cock crowed twice he would be guilty of a triple 
 denial xiv. 29, 30 
 
 38. The agony in Gethsemane xiv. 81-42 
 
 39. The traitor comes with his company, and Jesus 
 
 allowed Himself to be arrested xiv. 43-49 
 
 40. His disciples all forsake Him and flee xiv. 50 
 
 41. A young man is aroused out of bed as the noisy com- 
 
 pany pass along, and he follows Jesus .... xiv. 51, 52 
 
 42. Jesus is taken to the high priest's house to be 
 
 examined xiv. 53 
 
 43. Peter follows afar off, and gets into the court of the 
 
 house xiv. 54 
 
 44. Jesus is accused, but could not be convicted. In 
 
 answer to the high priest's adjuration. He con- 
 fessed that He was ' the Christ, the Son of the 
 Blessed ' xiv. 55-63 
 
 45. He is condemned to be worthy of death xiv. 64 
 
 46. He is shamefully maltreated by the officials who were 
 
 around xiv. 65 
 
 47. Peter thrice denies his Lord xiv. 66-72 
 
 48. In the morning the sanhedrim, after a hurried meet- 
 
 ing, delivers Jesus over to Pilate, the Eoman 
 procurator, as one who was worthy of death ... sv. 1 
 
 49. Pilate saw no evidence of criminality, and wished to 
 
 release Him ; but the chief priests moved the people 
 
bcxx DfTEODTJCTION. 
 
 Cbap. and Ter. 
 to ask Barabbas instead, and to demand that Jesus 
 should be crucified in place of Barabbas .... xv. 2-14 
 
 50. Pilate yielded ; and his soldiery cruelly mocked the 
 
 innocent prisoner X'''- 1&-1" 
 
 51. He is led off to be crucified, and Simon of Cyrene is 
 
 impressed to assist in carrying the cross .... xv. 20, 21 
 
 52. He is crucified on Golgotha between two robbers . . xv. 22-2S 
 63. The passers by mocked Him as He hung on the cross, 
 
 and even the chief priests came out to gloat over 
 
 His agonies xv. 29-32 
 
 51. It is darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour ; and 
 at the ninth hour Jesus, after uttering significant 
 exclamations, expires xv. 33-37 
 
 55. The veil of the temple was rent xv. SS 
 
 56. The Eoman centurion was awed, and felt convinced 
 
 that the Crucified One was ' God's Son ' . . . . xv. 3& 
 
 57. The holy women were looking on afar off .... xv. 40, 41 
 6S. Joseph of Arimathsea craves the body from Pilate, ob- 
 tains it, and interred it in a sepulchre, to the door 
 
 of which a stone was rolled xv. 42-46 
 
 59. Two of the holy women behold where He was laid . xv. 47 
 
 IV. The r.EsuEKECTioN of Jesus on the ihied day AriBK His 
 DECEASE. Chap. xvi. 
 
 1. After the sabbath, some of the women come to the 
 
 sepulchre very early in the morning xvi. 1, 2 
 
 2. They are concerned about the great stone; but when 
 
 they look, lo it is rolled away xvi. 3, 4 
 
 3. As they enter the sepulchre, an angel informs them 
 
 that Jesus is risen. He also tells them to say to 
 ' the disciples and Peter ' that their Lord would 
 meet them in Galilee xvi. 5-7 
 
 4. The women run to fulfil their errand xvi. 8 
 
 6. Jesus appeared first to Mary of Magdala . . . . xvi. 9-11 
 C. He then appeared to two of the disciples going into 
 
 the country xvi. 12, 18 
 
 7. Afterward, He appeared to the eleven as they sat at 
 
 meat xvi. 14 
 
 8. He gives the eleven their evangelical commission . . xvi. 15-18 
 
 9. lie ascends to heaven xvi. 19 
 
 10. His apostles were faithful to their commission, and 
 
 were blessed in their work of faith and labour of love xvi. 20 
 
THE 
 
 GOSPEL ACCOEDINa TO ST. MARK. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 1 THE beginaing of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Vek. 1. Beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The absence of the article 
 shows that the expression is a isind of Title. Some have thought, indeed, 
 that the evangelist intended it to be the title of his entire work. But on that 
 hypothesis the word Beginning seems awkward. Alexander would interpret 
 thus. This is the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or. Here begins the 
 Gospel of Jesus Christ. Klostermanu thinks that all the events of the public 
 life of Christ were but the beginning of the Gospel. The contents of the im- 
 mediately succeeding verses, however, prove that the evangehst was thinking of 
 events that were preliminary to the public life of Christ. He is going back, in 
 retrospect, to the dispensation of the Saviour's forerunner ; and, in 'the events 
 of that dispensation, he finds the Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of 
 course he might have gone further back still, and found other fountains, the 
 feeders of the fountain at which he pauses. Or he might have continued to 
 ascend till he reached the absolute Beginning, the Fountain of fountains. His 
 purpose, however, was served by taking up his position beside the things that 
 were the immediate antecedents of the public career of our Lord. When he 
 calls these things the Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he was not so 
 much thinking, as Petter and Bengel properly remark, of a Title for his book, 
 or even of a Heading for its initial section, as of the actual commencement in 
 time of the things themselves, which he proceeds to specify. As his thoughts, 
 however, and the words which were their vestures, were to him the mere sub- 
 jective mirrorings of the objective historical realities on which his gaze was 
 fixed, they became, as he detained them in the presence of his consciousness, 
 a kind of indistinct Title, — the expression the Gospel of Jesus Christ referring 
 to the events of the Hfe of the Saviour, as these are about to be narrated in 
 the body of the following Memoirs, and the word Beginning referring to the 
 introductory events of the career of John the Baptist, as represented in the 
 few initial sentences which commence with ver. 4, and merge and melt into 
 the greater history at ver. 9-11. It would be assuming an unnatural involu- 
 tion were we, with Laehmann, to throw ver. 2 and 3 into a parenthesis, and to 
 connect ver. 1 and 4 in such a manner that ver. 1 supplied the nominative 
 
 1 £ 
 
2 ST. MARK I. [1 
 
 God ; 2 as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my 
 
 to the verb in ver. 4, — {The) beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, God's Son, 
 was John baptizing in the wilderness, etc. The genitive expression of Jesus 
 Christ is, as grammarians phrase it, the genitive of the object, not the genitive 
 of the subject; thus making the meaning of the whole expression to be 
 the good news concerning Jesus Christ, not the good news proclaimed by Jesus 
 Christ. It is true that Jesus Christ did proclaim His own gospel ; but He is 
 here represented as the Sum and Substance of the gospel which both He and 
 His apostles proclaimed. See Eom. i. 1-3, 9, 16. Jesus Christ : the finely • 
 significant proper name of our Lord. He was called Jesus, because He was 
 a Saviour. (See Matt. i. 21.) He was called Christ or Messiah, because He 
 filled the office of Saviourhood by sovereign appointment. The Divine Father 
 appointed Him, and hence as it were anointed Him. The word Christ is Greek ; 
 the word Messiah is Hebrew : and both the terms mean Anointed. There was 
 poured out on our Lord, anointingly, by the hand of the Father, all that was 
 needed to fit Him to be a Saviour. Great officers in church and state, among 
 the Jews, and kings emphatically, were installed in their offices by anointing. 
 Jesus, as the King of kings, had His anointing. 
 
 The Son of God. Or, more literally, and as Sir John Cheke gives it, God's 
 Son. Our Lord, in His life on earth, had claimed to be at once the Christ and 
 God's Son. He was condemned by the Jewish Sanhedrim for insisting on the 
 claim. (See Mark xiv. 61-64 ; comp. Matt. xxvi. 63-66.) His resurrection 
 sublimely verified the legitimacy of His claim, and instamped an imperishable 
 signiflcaney on the double designation. Hence it was exceedingly appropriate 
 in Mark to prefix to his Memoirs the twofold appellation. It has been doubted, 
 however, whether the words God's Son were in the autograph text of the 
 evangelist. Tisohendorf has omitted them in his eighth edition. Schenkel 
 assumes that the omission is correct. They are not found in the original 
 Sinaitie manuscript (S*); and they are wanting in an important quotation of 
 the passage by Irenseus (iii. 11), as also in five distinct quotations of Origen. 
 But, on the other hand, they are found in all the early versions, and, with the 
 exception of the original Sinaitie, in all the best manuscripts. They are found, 
 likewise, in two passages of Irenajus. And indeed it seems to us that, in the 
 other passage where they, are omitted, they should be found. The preceding 
 context seems to detnanA their presence. On the whole it is probable that the 
 words are genuine, and that their omission in the quotations of so many of the 
 early Fathers is to be accounted for on the principle, that the Fathers, in their 
 references, used the freedom, for brevity's sake, of dropping out of view 
 unessential clauses. And hence, indeed, Bpiphauius, in quoting the passage 
 before us, omits even the preceding words of Jesus Christ, and connects at once 
 the words of the second verse with the expression Beginning of the Gospel. 
 (Srnres., li. 6, p. 427, ed. 1682.) We do not pause to unfold here the theological 
 fiignificanoy of the designation, God's Son. As applied to our Lord, it involves 
 the great idea, that He had in Him a higher nature than man's. He was of 
 one nature with God. Man needed a Divine Saviour. 
 
 Veb. 2. As it is written, or, more Uterally, As it has been written. Some 
 
2] ST. MARK I. a 
 
 messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way be- 
 
 editors and expositors, putting a full point at the close of ver. 1, regard this 
 expression as bending anticipatively forward, and hooking itself on to ver. 4. 
 Whedon, running on the same line, but running faster still, says, " the second 
 " and third verses, by a strong inversion, should come after the fourth." This 
 is unnatural, and assumes an artificial involution of structure which is quite 
 unlikely in such a simple writer as Mark. It is better to put, with Tischendorf 
 (in his eighth edition), a comma at the conclusion of the first verse, and thus to 
 regard the contents of the second and third verses as appended to the first in a 
 free and easy manner, with the intent of showing that the events about to be 
 narrated had thrown their shadows before them in the Old Testament Scriptures ; 
 for it is really true that the Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, God's Son, 
 was in accordance with what had been written. 
 
 In the Beceived Text there follows the expression in the prophets. King 
 James's translators would find it in all the editions that were lying before them. 
 It is, however, a tinkered reading, as both Erasmus and Beza were convinced, 
 and Bengel too. 
 
 The reading of the autograph of Mark was, undoubtedly, in Isaiah the prophet. 
 Such is the reading of the Sinaitic manuscript, and the Vatican, and the Cam- 
 bridge, as also of 33, ' the queen of the cursives.' It is the reading too of the 
 Vulgate version, and the Older Latin, the Peshito Syriao, the Harolean Syriao, 
 the Coptic, and the Gothic. It is the reading of the principal Fathers- too. It 
 has been re-imported into the text by Griesbaeh, Scholz, Laohmann, Tischendorf, 
 Tregelles. It would never have been disturbed had not some timorous students 
 of the Gospel felt it difficult or impossible to account for the fact that,, preceding 
 the quotation from Isaiah, there is a quotation from Malachi (iii. 3). Eusebius 
 says that the word Isaiah stands in the text as an erratum instead of Malachi. 
 (See Cramer's Catena, in loo.) And Porphyry, the early enemy of Christianity, 
 oast it in the teeth of the Christians that, Mark had made a mistake. (See 
 Jerome on Matt. iii. 3.) Griesbaeh too, alas ! suspected that he had. [Comm. 
 Crit. in loo.) Even Meyer thinks that there is a mistake, and that the evan- 
 gelist's memory must have been at fault ; surely a most unlikely occurrence 
 on, the part of one who, in that early age, and in the midst of the young 
 fervour of admiration and love and zeal, was eager to persuade his- feUow-men 
 everywhere that Jesus was the Saviour who had been promised from of old in 
 the vratings of the prophets. Beza thinks that the evangelist had really 
 (juoted only the passage from Isaiah, and that the preliminary passage from 
 Malachi had been subsequently intruded into the text from a marginal annota- 
 tion suggested by Matt. xi. 10. . The real solution of the case is to be found in 
 the fact that the passage from Malachi is strictly preliminary. It is the mere 
 porchway through which we are ushered into th& quotation from Isaiah. The 
 evangelist's mind went rapidly through it, and fixed its attention on the contents 
 of the earlier and more remarkable oracle, lying beyond, (Gomp. Matt. xxi. 5.) 
 
 Behold, I send My messenger. It is ' the Lord of hosts ' who speaks. See 
 the concluding clause of Mai. iii. 1. He is just on the eve of turning the 
 future into the present. Hence the expression J send,- instead of I will send. 
 The imminency of the act is indicated. My messenger : My servant, to whom 
 
4, ST. MAEK I. [2 
 
 fore thee. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness. 
 Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 
 
 I say ' Go,' and ' he goeth.' It is the word that is generally translated angel, 
 which word angel just means messenger. Heumann, indeed, insists on trans- 
 lating it angel in the passage before us. It is John the Baptist who is referred 
 to. See ver. 4. 
 
 Before Thy face. A fuU way of saying Before Thee. Attention is graphi- 
 cally fixed upon the countenance or face, which is the index to the whole man. 
 Before : The Baptist was to be the forerunner of the Lord, or His harbinger. 
 It is noteworthy that in Malachi the expression is not before Thy face, or before 
 Thee, but before Me. The Lord of hosts speaks 'of Himself. When Mark 
 however quotes the passage,"he so modifies the form of expression that the 
 Lord of hosts is represented as speaking ' to ' the Lord of hosts. It was a per- 
 fectly warrantable modification, for there is a sublime sphere of things in which 
 all things are ' in common ' between the Father and the Son. See Matt. xi. 10. 
 
 Who shall prepare Thy way. So that it shall be fit for Thee to travel upon. 
 In the East few good roads are ever made; and such roads as have been 
 made are generally kept in most wretched repair. Hence when a sovereign 
 is about to visit any part of his dominions, it is requisite that a messenger, or 
 quartermaster, as Hofmeister has it, be sent on before to get the way made 
 ready. Such, in things spiritual, was John's mission. Men's ways were in a 
 wretched state. Encumbrances and stumbling-blocks lay everywhere scattered 
 about. Mud and mire were the order of the day. It seemed impossible for any 
 one to get along through life with unpolluted garments, or without stumbling 
 and falling, and getting bruised and broken. The real preparation that was 
 needed was in the hearts of the people. See Mai. iv. 5, 6. 
 
 Vek. 3. Now comes the prophetic passage on which the evangelist's mind 
 has been fixed. It is found in Isaiah xl. 3. 
 
 The voice of one crying in the wilderness. Or rather, A voice of one crying 
 in the wilderness ! That is, I hear the 'voice of one calling aloud in the 
 wilderness I It is as if the prophet had been listening from afar. Bending 
 forward, and hushing all noises within and around, he strains his ear to hear. 
 At length, Lo, a voice ! He fixes his attention. It is a voice of one calling 
 aloud in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way of the Lord ! Make His paths 
 straight! It is not John himself who is called a Voice, as many— far too 
 many— have imagined, inclusive even of Cajetan, Petter, de Veil, and KJoster- 
 mann. Pettel's remark is : " John is said to be a Voice, in respect of the 
 " execution of his ministerial office, which was to speak and sound forth the 
 "doctrine of the gospel touching Christ, and touching salvation by Him." Of 
 one crying : of one calling aloud as with a herald-cry. In the wilderness : 
 Not in the great city, nor in any city, but in the wilds and prairie pasture- 
 grounds of the wilderness. John did not go to the people; he let the people 
 come to him. It was different with Jesus. 
 
 Make ye ready the way of the lord. John himself made ready the Lord's 
 way (see ver. 2),— by palling upon the people to make it ready. Thus he 
 did not do everythini? himself. He could not. He could not, by his single 
 
4] ST. MARK I. 5 
 
 4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism 
 
 agency, prepare the hearts of the people. Even God could not wisely do every- 
 thing. The oo-agenoy of the people was indispensable : and hence the herald 
 of the Lord called upon them to act. Self-action, indeed, would not he enough. 
 Something from above is needed. God must begin and God must end the 
 preparation of the heart (Prov. xvi. 1). But between His beginning and His 
 ending human spontaneity comes in ; there must be response to the Lord's 
 initiatory ' knock ' ; there must be preparation for His final enthronement in 
 the soul. Make YE ready the Lord's way ! 
 
 Make His paths straight. The word straight is the opposite of crooleed. 
 See Luke iii. 5 ; and comp. .Acts ix. 11. Boads that have not been properly 
 prepared at the beginning are generally more or less crooked. So are the 
 ways of men, when no preparation has been made for the Great King. When 
 John cried, Make His paths straight ! he meant. Have done with all yotir 
 crooked ways of acting ! Be straightforward with yourselves ! Let there be 
 no winding and doubling ! Be honest I The Lord will not enter into hypo- 
 critical souls. 
 
 Veb. 4. John came. Viz., upon the scene. /{ came to pass that John made 
 his appearance on the scene. At a certain unspecified time, John made, as it 
 were, his 'debut,' as a great public functionary, the harbinger and herald of 
 the Messiah. 
 
 Who baptized in the wilderness and preached. The evangelist might have 
 said, transpositively. There appeared in the wilderness John, who baptized and 
 preached. But there is no occasion for disturbing the order of the evangelist's 
 words'; for it is true that John baptized in the wilderness. The wilderness 
 referred to embraced u, considerable tract of comparatively uninhabited land, 
 stretching away eastward from Jerusalem and northward from the Dead Sea, 
 but coming down, all along, to the bants of the river Jordan. It was chiefly 
 in the Jordan, as it swept along the wilderness of Judtea, that John performed 
 his baptisms. See Matt. iii. 1, 5, 6 ; Luke iii. 3. The baptizing is mentioned 
 before the preaching, because it was the outstanding peculiarity of John's 
 ministry. The participial form of the expression, the baptizing (6 ^awrll^uv), 
 denotes continuity, or characteristic habit. The word intimates that John 
 engaged himself in administering to the people a purificatory rite. He ritually 
 purified them, in order that they might be prepared to be admitted into 
 the approaching ' kingdom of heaven.' (See John iii. 23-26 ; Mark vii. 4, 8 ; 
 Heb. ix. 9-23.) In thus ritually purifying them, he would throw or pour 
 water upon them, — ' sprinkling them with clean water.' (See Joel ii. 28 ; 
 Ezek. xxxvi. 25 ; Acts x. 44, 47, xi. 15, 16.) It was a beautiful symbolism, 
 fitted to remind the people that the influence which truly purifies the heart 
 is shed down from above (see Comm. on Matt. iii. 6). In the wilderness : 
 By avoiding the frequented haunts of men, John indicated his profound 
 sense of the corruption that was pervading the institutions of human 
 society. Pollution was rampant everywhere. Had he been a man, however, of 
 only ordinary calibre of mind and force of character, he would have been 
 simply lost in the wilderness ; only one here and there would have known 
 
6 ST. MARK I. [4 
 
 of repentance for the remission of sins. 5 And there went 
 
 anything atoxit him. But he was Elijah-like,— a man overtopping all hia 
 fellows in grandeur of character ; when common people came in contact with 
 him, they felt at once his superiority; he was » lion among men. And 
 then too he belonged to a conspicuous family, a family of priests. So soon, 
 therefore, as it was known that he was asserting that he had a message for 
 his countrymen, and that he had undertaken to help them in preparing for 
 the approach of the kingdom of heaven, the population, as it were en masse, 
 flocked out to him. And preached : or proclaimed (in u, heraldic way). The 
 word is participial in the original, and comes under the influence of the article 
 which renders the preceding participle characteristically attributive. It thus 
 conveys the idea of continuously repeated action or habit. 
 
 The baptism of repentance. Or, very literally, without the article, baptism of 
 repentance, that is repentance-baptism, or penitential-baptism, that baptism of 
 which repentance was a characteristic. It was thus not simply and abstractly 
 the duty of baptism, that John proclaimed. It was the duty, of that peculiar 
 kind of baptism, which, when voluntarily and intelligently received, mirrors 
 forth, in its outward act, the acceptance of that inward purification which is 
 essential to the enjoyment of the privileges of the Messiah's kingdom. Hence 
 John did not attribute any real purificatory virtue to his baptismal rite. (See 
 Matt. iii. 2, 7-10.) He knew that it was but the shadow of the one really 
 efficacious baptism. (See Matt. iii. 11, 12 ; 1 Pet. iii. 21.) No one would know 
 better than he, that it is ' the water of life,' as Justin Martyr says, which is 
 ' the only baptism that can purify the repentant.' (Dialog. Trypho, § 14.) 
 John's baptism, nevertheless, was a beautiful figure of the true. And hence 
 he unhesitatingly proclaimed, with heraldic cry, that it was the duty of the 
 people to come to him, that they might receive it at his hands. Repentance : 
 that is, afterthought, or change of mind, or turning to a right state of mind, 
 namely, as regards things moral and spiritual. Such a turning begins in the 
 intelligence (the vovs), but prolongs itself into the feelings, and runs out into the 
 ultimate choices of the will, and then terminates in the fixed activities and 
 habits of the whole complex man. Eepentance may thus be incipient, or pro- 
 gressive, or complete. It was only incipient repentance that was enjoined by 
 John as the prerequisite of his baptism, and hence the^rst word of his ministry 
 was, ' Eepent.' (Matt. iii. 2 ; and comp. ver. 5-8.) Hence, too, as he looked 
 to the end, and realized profoundly the necessity of progression and completion, 
 he ' baptized unto repentance.' (Matt. iii. 11.) 
 
 Unto remission of siiis. The meaning is, in order to, or with a view to, 
 remission of sins. But, of course, we are not to suppose that either the people's 
 repentance on the one hand, or John's baptism on the other, or any combination 
 of the two, could be either the efficient or the meritorious cause of forgiveness. 
 God only is the Efficient Cause. The sacrificial Lamb, who bore the sin of the 
 world (John i. 29), and He only, is the Meritorious Cause. Eepentance- 
 baptism could be nothing else than a kind of instrumental cause, — peedagogioally 
 leading the mind out and up at once to the Efficient and to the concurrent 
 Meritorious Cause. It was really in the faith, which was underlying tha 
 
6] ST. MARK I. 7 
 
 out unto lilm all the land of Jadaeaj and they of Jerusalem ; 
 and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing 
 their sins. 6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and 
 
 repentance baptism, that the link was found which united the soul to the 
 Indispensable Causes. Remission : or forgiveness. It is realized in deliverance 
 from the penal consequences of sins, and is to be carefully distinguished from 
 moral cleansing of the soul, which, however, is a still greater and grander 
 blessing. (See Matt. vi. 12, xviii. 21-35 ; Luke xvii. 3, 4.) 
 
 Yer. 5. And there went out unto Mm all the country of Jndsea. More literally 
 still, all the Judaan country. The evangelist used that figure of speech called 
 by grammarians metonymy, — naming the country while meaning its inhabitants. 
 So we sometimes say, London at this season is out of town. It is the same 
 licence that is employed, when, in the dispensation of the Lord's Supper, we 
 speak of ' drinking this cup.' (1 Cor. xi. 27.) 
 
 And all they of Jerusalem. More hterally still, and all the Jerusalemites. 
 The'adjective all, which in the Eeceived Text occurs in the next clause, properly 
 belongs to this, and is so placed in the texts of Griesbach, Lachmann, 
 Tischendorf, Tregelles. All : The word is used in a free and easy, and popular, 
 way. And yet, as Alexander remarks, " it must mean more than many, namely, 
 "the great bulk and body of the population." All the Jerusalemites : not only 
 all Judaea in general, but also all the Jerusalemites in particular. Even they 
 
 And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan. John would stand, per- 
 haps, at some suitable point or angle within the margin of the river, and when 
 the people came to him in file, he would lave them in succession. Or they 
 might station themselves in rows along the margin, and, as he passed by inside, 
 he would sprinkle them in detail. 
 
 Confessing their sins. The word rendered confessing {i^oiioKoyoi/jievoi) strictly 
 means confessing out, that is, confessing openly or aloud. It is not implied, 
 therefore, that the people made private confession, auricularly, one by one, 
 of particular sins. But when charged by John, in general terms, with un- 
 faithfulness to their own consciences, and to the claims of their neighbours, 
 and to God, they admitted the justice of the charge, acknowledged that 
 they were ' verily guilty,' and that they thus stood greatly in need of being 
 cleansed or baptized from unrighteousness. Both the Latin word confess, and 
 the corresponding Greek word, bring out the idea of two parties speaking ; and 
 when applied, as here, to sins, it is implied that some one — from without or 
 within — charges the sinner with his sins, and that the sinner consents to the 
 charge. Thus there is a togetherhood of speaking in the matter, that is to say, a 
 confession. 
 
 Veb. 6. The evangelist passes on to a description of some of the personal 
 peculiarities of the Baptist. He was just a modem edition of the ancient Elijah. 
 
 And John was clothed with camel's hair. It is not said, as Hofmeister 
 remarks, with a camel's skin, but with camel's hairs. (Vestimentum non de 
 pelle, sed de pilis camelorum.) The old saored artists misunderstood the ex- 
 
"8 > ST. MAEK I. [6 
 
 witli a girdle of a skin atout his loins, and he did eat locusts 
 and wild honey; 7 and preached, saying, There conieth one 
 
 pression, and painted the Baptist as arrayed in a camel's skin. The reference 
 was no doubt to a coarse kind of sackcloth manufactured out of the strongest 
 hairs of the camel. It made a rough hairy robe ; and thus John would be, like 
 Elijah, ' an hairy man.' (2 Kings i. 8.) He was entirely self denied to all 
 luxury in dress. 
 
 And had a girdle of skin about his loins. Tyndale's first translation (1526) 
 was, and wyth u. gerdyll off a beestes skyn about hys loynes. In his second 
 version (1534) he left out the word beestes, but unhappily left standing the 
 indefinite article, and hence its presence in King James's version. Coverdale's 
 version is and with a lethron gerdell aboute his loynes. "The leathern girdle," 
 says Horatio B. Hackett, "may be seen around the body of the common 
 " labourer in the East, when fuUy dressed, almost everywhere ; whereas men of 
 " wealth take special pride in displaying a rich sash of silk or some other costly 
 " fabric." {Illustrations of Scripture, p. 61.) Chardin tells us that the dervishes 
 in the East, in his time, wore great leathern girdles. (Harmer's Observations, 
 vol. iv., p. 416.) They still wear them. And these dervishes, it may be noted, — 
 at least the highest specimens of them, — most nearly resemble, in their character 
 and in the functions of their ministry, such men as John and Elijah. " All the 
 "great men in the East," says Dr.Wolfi, "who have been celebrated either as 
 "poets, or historians, or lawyers, have been dervishes. . . . If they did not 
 " exist, no man would be safe in the deserts among the savages. They are the 
 " chief people in the East who keep in the recollection of those savages that 
 "there are ties between heaven and earth. They restrain the tyrant in his 
 " oppression of his subjects ; and are, in fact, the great benefactors of the human 
 " race in the East. . . . AU the prophets of old were dervishes, beyond all 
 " doubt, in their actions, in their style of speaking, and in their dress." (Travels 
 and Adventures, p. 297.) 
 
 And did eat locusts and wild honey. That is, his customary food loas locusts 
 and wild honey, the plainest of fare. He not only refrained from pampering 
 'the flesh,' he 'kept it under' (1 Cor. ix. 27), and made it 'endure hard- 
 ness ' (2 Tim. ii. 3) for great militant purposes. Locusts : " A kind of great 
 " fly," says Petter, " which useth to eat and devour the tops of corn, herbs, 
 "and trees." Jerome mentions that he had seen the whole land of Judsea 
 covered with them. {Comment, on Joel ii. 20.) "It is well known," says 
 Horatio B. Hackett, " that the poorer class of people eat them, cooked or raw, 
 " in all the eastern countries where they are found." {Illustrations, p. 61.) 
 Wild honey : Not honey-dew, as Eobinson and Grimm suppose, a kind of gum 
 that is found on the leaves of certain trees. The expression doubtless denotes 
 real wild honey, the product of wild bees. Henry Maundrell mentions that 
 when he was passing through the wilderness of Judsa, between the Dead Sea 
 and Jericho, he " perceived a strong scent of honey and wax, the sun being hot ; 
 " and the bees," he adds, " were very industrious about the blossoms of that salt 
 " weed which the plain produces." {Journey, p. 86, ed. 1749.) Dr. Tristram 
 aays : " The innumerable fissures and clefts of the limestone rooks, which every- 
 
8] ST. MARK I. 9 
 
 miglitier tlian I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not 
 worthy to stoop down and unloose. 8 I indeed have baptized 
 
 " where flank the yalleya, afford in their recesses secure shelter for any number of 
 " Bwarms of -wild bees ; and many of the Bedouin, particularly about the wilder- 
 " ness of Judsea, obtain their subsistence by bee-hunting, bringing into Jerusalem 
 " jars of that wild honey on which John the Baptist fed in the wilderness." 
 {The Land of Israel, p. 88.) The asceticism of John in food and raiment has 
 its lessons. There are persons who ought always to be ascetics. It is their 
 only chance for freedom from grossness and moral degradation. There are 
 times, too, when all men should put both bit and bridle on the animal within 
 them, keeping it on scanty diet and working it hard. And all moral reformers, 
 who have it as their peculiar mission to expose the vices of a self-indulgent 
 age, and to lead their fellow-men into cleaner ways and a nobler style of life, 
 would require to be, in their own persons, unmistakable examples of the 
 higher types of sobriety and self-denial. 
 
 Ver. 7. And he preached. That is, proclaimed {like a herald). 
 
 Saying, There cometh after me He that is mightier than I. It is as if he had 
 said. My Suzerain, my Lord Paramount, is coming after me. Instead, however, 
 of employing a merely generic term to designate the Prince whose harbinger 
 he was, he brings into view His superiority in might or strength. He who is 
 stronger than I is coming after me. ' This is the gospel,' says Zuingli, ' though 
 in epitome.' The people were prone to think that John himself had immense 
 ' power ' with God, and that all would be well with them if they should only 
 get a baptism from his hands ; they had an exaggerated idea of his power. 
 He sought to undeceive them. He was but a humble servant, a herald, a 
 forerunner. But his Master was ' mighty ' ; his Master had real power with 
 God. He could wield all influences ; touch all springs ; ascend all heights ; 
 descend to all depths. He was ' able to save to the uttermost,' to pardon the 
 most criminal, and to purify the most unclean. 
 
 The latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and undo. Undo is 
 Wycliffe's word, and better than the apparently contradictory unloose of our 
 English versions. Purvey, in his revision of Wycliffe, has unlace. The word 
 translated latchet means properly thong ; but there is a connection between 
 latch, latchet, and lace. John alleges that there was no standard of comparison, 
 by means of which the relative superiority of the Messiah to himself could be 
 measured. The Messiah was his master, and John was His herald and har- 
 binger. Nevertheless, he did not deserve the honour of that post ; he did not 
 even deserve the honour of being permitted to stoop down and undo the lalohets 
 of his Master's sandals ; that was a far higher honour than any man deserved. 
 How exceedingly high, then, must the dignity of Jesus be 1 
 
 Veb. 8. I baptized you with water. A good translation, so far at least as the 
 Bubstance of the meaning is concerned. In the Eeceived Text the original ex- 
 pression is in water. But Tischendorf and Alford have thrown out the pre- 
 position in, under the sanction of the manuscripts X B H A 33 and others, and 
 of the Vulgate version. If the omission be legitimate, then the evangelist's 
 expression corresponds to Luke's (iii. 16), and is strictly translated with water, 
 
10 ST. MARK I. [8 
 
 you witli water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from 
 
 denoting the material employed. If, however, the reading of the Eeoeived Text 
 should be retained, then the form of the expression corresponds to Matthew's 
 (iii. 11), and could only be freely rendered with water. The preposition in 
 would probably be accounted for by the original meaning of the verb to baptize ; 
 this original meaning leaving its impress on the form of expression, even 
 when the purificatory act was effected by some other mode than merging. (See 
 Comm. on Matt. iii. 6, 16.) 
 
 But He shall baptize yon. There is here no emphasis on the you, and it would 
 be wrong therefore to lay weight upon the word, in determining the question 
 of the extent of the baptism which Christ administered, and still administers. 
 Nevertheless it is worthy of note that the Baptist did not feel himself fettered 
 in the pronominal phraseology which he employed. 
 
 With the Holy Spirit. There is a somewhat corresponding uncertainty in re- 
 ference to the with in this clause, as there is in relation to the preceding clause. 
 Tischendorf indeed, in his eighth edition, inserts in this clause the preposition 
 in, though he omits it in the preceding clause. Lachmann, on the other hand, 
 doubts its genuineness here, though he does not doubt it as regards the preced- 
 ing clause. Alford omits it in both the clauses, supposing that the Eeceived 
 Text has been artificially assimilated to Matthew's form of phraseology. It is 
 a matter of no practical moment whether it be admitted, as in Matthew, or 
 omitted, as in Luke. If it be omitted, the expression is literally translated ' with 
 the Holy Spirit.' If it be retained, the expression is only freely thus rendered. 
 The Holy Spirit ; The article is wanting in the original. It was not needed, 
 as the expression was, of itself, in Greek, sufScieutly definite. Our usage how- 
 ever, in reference to the article, does not correspond absolutely to the usage of 
 the Greeks ; and hence it is according to the spirit, though not according to the 
 letter, of the evangelist's phraseology that we say the Holy Spirit. When 
 Wakefield rendered the expression a holy spirit, and Godwin, similarly, u. 
 Divine Spirit, they forgot that there is, in the letter of the original text, no 
 more warrant for a than for the. The English language is richer than the 
 Greek in the matter of articles, and if, in such a case as the one before us, the 
 definite article be objected to, much more should the indefinite. The idea of the 
 ■Baptist was not, that the Messiah would institute a more mystio style of water 
 oaptism, or a style of water baptism that would be instinct with a more effica- 
 cious spiritual energy, but it was that the Messiah would transcend altogether, 
 in His purificatory operations, the sphere of the material and corporeal. He 
 could act on spirit ; He could act on spirit with Spirit ; and He would thus 
 act. He would furnish to men the influence from above that was needed in 
 order to purity of heart and life ; He would procure and pour out the influence 
 of the Divine Spirit. 
 
 Veb. 9. And it came to pass in those days. Those days, namely, when John 
 W&3 engaged in preaching and baptizing in the wilderness that stretched along 
 the banks of the Jordan. 
 
10] ST. MARK I. 11 
 
 Nazareth, of Galilee, and was baptized of Jolin in Jordan, 
 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the 
 
 That Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the 
 Jordan. In the Greek it is not in, but to, or into, the Jordan. It is as if the 
 evangelist had been intending to say, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to the 
 Jordan,, and was there baptized by John. But the evangelist, though having dis- 
 tinctly in view the Saviour's arrival at the Jordan, vras yet in haste, as it were, 
 to mention the fact of His baptism ; and heuoe the peculiar collocation of the 
 phraseology. It was quite in accordance with his ordinary inartificial style of 
 composition, as exemplified for instance in ver. 1-4 and ver. 39. A similar 
 transposition occurs in Matt. iL 23, where we read, ' and He came and dwelt in 
 a city called Nazareth.' In the original it is to a city or into a city, the idea 
 being that Joseph came to a city called Nazareth and then dwelt there. Of 
 course, we cannot suppose that Mark meant that Jesus was baptized into the 
 Jordan. This interpretation is out of the question, when we take into account 
 that in the verse immediately preceding we have Mark's way of construing the 
 word baptized. Jesus came to the Jordan, and was baptized in the Jordan. 
 His baptism was finely significant. It was a visible picture of the invisible de- 
 scent into His humanity of the fulness of the Divine Spirit. He hence became 
 full, officially, of the Holy Spirit. He received the Spirit ' without measure ' ; 
 so that the Divine Spirit had His hand, not only in the preparation of the body 
 of our Lord (Luke i. 85), but also, and gloriously, in the preparation of His 
 spirit (Isa. xi. 2, 3 ; Ixi. 1). 
 
 Nazareth of Galilee. There are still many traces of this despised little ' city,' 
 and quite a thriving modern town is springing up on the steep slope of the hill. 
 It is thriving, says Dr. Tristram, in part, because it is 'a Christian not a 
 Moslem place,' and in part because it is ' the centre for the commerce of the 
 districts east of Jordan.' (The Land of Israel, p. 122.) " Bare and feature- 
 " less, singularly unattractive in its landscape, with scarcely a tree to relieve the 
 "monotony of its brown and dreary hOl, without ruins or remains, without one 
 " precisely identified locality, there is yet a reality in the associations of Naz- 
 " areth which stirs the soul of the Christian to its very depths. ... It was 
 " the nursery of One whose mission was to meet man, and man's deepest needs, 
 " on the platform of common-place daily life. ' Can any good thing come out 
 " of Nazareth ? ' might naturally be asked, not only by the proud Jew of the 
 " south, but by the dweller among the hiUs of Galilee, or by the fair lake of 
 " Gennesaret." (The Land of Israel, p. 123.) 
 
 Ver. 10. And straightway. Or, immediately. ThiesS supposes that the term 
 was intended to indicate that there was, on the part of the Saviour, a certain 
 hastiness of movement. " The baptism," says he, " was for Him no baptism ; 
 " He needed it not. It was only the people and the Baptist who needed it. 
 " The people needed the example ; John needed the honour." It was befitting, 
 therefore, in the Saviour to be quick in leaving the scene of the ordinance. 
 Thiess misunderstands the case, however. It is not hastiness that is indicated, 
 but uninterrupted sequence. 
 
 Coming up out of the water. Or rather, going up out of the water, that is, 
 
12 ST. MARK L- [10 
 
 heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending npon 
 him : 11 and there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou 
 art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 
 
 going up to the bank of the river. fComp. Matt. iii. 16.) Our SaTiour, with 
 the Baptist, had been within the margin of the stream. For the meaning of 
 the word which we render going up, see Matt. v. 1, xiv. 23, xv. 29 ; Mark iii. 
 13, vi. 51, X. 82 ; John i. 51, iii. 13, Ti. 62, xx. 17. 
 
 He saw the heavens rent asunder. Or cleft, or parted. Our word schism 
 comes from the term employed by the evangelist ; and so does our geological 
 word schist or splitting rock. When it is said ' He saw the heavens parted,' 
 the reference is not to John, but to Jesus, although it is also true that John saw 
 the wonderful phenomenon as well as Jesus. (See John i. 33.) The revelation 
 from above was primarily intended for our Lord Himself, in His humanity ; 
 for, of course, there must have been steps of gradation, and times and seasons 
 of progression, in the development of His humanity. 
 
 And the Spirit, as a dove, descending upon Him. That was His true baptism, 
 the thing signified. It was His formal inauguration, in the year of His 
 perfect maturity, His thirtieth year (Luke iii. 23), to His great work, a work 
 that gathered up into itself all the greatest offices of human society. Hence- 
 forth the Lord was replenished, not only in actual fact, but to His own subject- 
 ive consciousness, with all the fulness of influences that were required in His 
 complex personality, to constitute Him the official Head of the human race, the 
 Prophet of prophets, the Priest of priests, the King of kings. It was as a dove 
 that the Spirit descended on Him, a most captivating symbolism. The eagle 
 too was in our Lord ; everything about Him was mingled with the sublime ; 
 but the dove was predominant. Not only in His terrestrial career, but all along 
 the ages, it is the power of His gentleness and tenderness and meekness, His 
 love in short, that has been victorious. He has ' wooed ' and ' won.' 
 
 Ver. 11. And a voice came out of the heavens, Thon art My beloved Son, in 
 Thee I am well-pleased. Very literally, X was well-pleased, viz. in Thy pre- 
 existent state. The voice would thrill a variety of chords in our Lord's human 
 heart, which would vibrate at once into the infinity of His higher being. The 
 fulness of the Messianic self-conseiousness would awake. Not the shadow of a 
 fihn would obscure the glory of the fact that He was the Father's Son, and that 
 He had been His darling from everlasting [dilectus singularissima dilectione : 
 Cajetan). His thoughts might shape themselves into some such forms as the 
 following: My Father has said it. I know My Father's voice. Everlasting 
 memories come rushing in. He says that I am His Beloved ! He used to say it 
 before the foundation of the world. This mission which I have undertaken is 
 dear, beyond expression, to His infinite heart. It is dear to Mine too. I rejoiced 
 frorh of old, in the habitable part of the earth, while as yet there was none of it, 
 ' nor the highest part of the dust of the world.' He saijs, ' In Thee I was well- 
 pleased I ' — ' was' from the first, and still ' am.' Oh how I delight. My Father, to 
 do Thy will ! ' Thy ' will is 'My' will. There has ever been, there will ever be, 
 the inmost union of the two. Instead of in Thee, the Beoeived Text reads in 
 whom, a reading borrowed from Matt. iii. 17, which presents the whole utterance 
 
13] ST. MARK I. 13 
 
 12 And immediately the spirit drivetk Mm into the wilderness. 
 18 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of 
 
 from heaven, not as it was directly addressed to our Lord, but as it was in- 
 lireotly apprehended by John who stood by. The two representations, we need 
 scarcely say, are in absolute harmony. 
 
 Tek. 12. And immediately. Forthwith after His formal inauguration into 
 His great Messianic work. 
 
 The Spirit driveth Him forth. The Divine Spirit, to wit, whose influence He 
 had received in its fulness. Driveth Him forth. Very literally, castethHim out. 
 It is the very verb that is employed to designate our Lord's expulsion of demons 
 (Mark i. 34, 39 ; iii. 15, 22 ; etc.). Wakefield renders it leadeth out, a trans- 
 lation that completely draws the teeth of the original emphasis. Vehemency of 
 impulse is represented ; the Saviour felt an influence that must be yielded to 
 without delay. The trajislation of the English Geneva of 1557 is graphic, 
 driveth Sim sodenly. Sir John Cheke has threw Him, which would suit Oart- 
 wright's idea that the reference is to a miraculous transport of our Saviour's 
 person through the air. The expression means, as Petter says, thrusteth Him 
 forth ; and perhaps it may subindicate the existence of some innocent reluc- 
 tanoy or shrinking of ' the flesh.' 
 
 Into the wilderness. We know not what wilderness, and we do not need to 
 know. Petter and others suppose that it was most likely the great wUderness 
 of Arabia, in which the children of Israel wandered for forty years, and where 
 Sinai is situated, the scene of the giving of the law and of the fasting of 
 Moses. The traditional locality, however, is near Jericho, a wild enough region, 
 where rises the Mons Quarantania, or Jebel Euruntil, " with its precipitous 
 "face pierced in every direction by ancient cells and chapels, and a ruined church 
 " on its topmost peak." There are multitudes of antique frescoes still fresh on 
 the walls, " and generally," says Dr. Tristram, " every spring a few devout 
 " Abyssinian Christians are in the habit of coming and remaining here for forty 
 " days, to keep -their Lent on the spot where they suppose our Lord to have 
 " fasted and been tempted." (The Land of Israel, pp. 207-217.) 
 
 Vek. 13. And He was in the wilderness forty days. Our Lord thus linked 
 Himself- on, in consciousness, to the marvellous and marvellously self-denying 
 experiences of Moses and Elijah, the greatest souls of the dispensation that 
 foreshadowed the more spiritual dispensation which He Himself was about to 
 introduce. (See Exod. xxxiv. 28 ; Deut. ix. 9 ; 1 Kings xix. 8.) The founda- 
 tions of all true greatness in human institutions must be laid in self denial. 
 
 Tempted by Satan. That is, undergoing temptation by Satan. It was fit, and 
 perhaps inevitable, that our Lord should come into personal conflict with the 
 great adversary, whose works and usurped dominion He had come to destroy. 
 There needed to be a great moral struggle, for there was already great antagon- 
 ism between the two. And unless our Lord should have been able, while having 
 all the secret springs of His aspirations and actions sifted to the uttermost, to 
 pass through the fiery test unscathed, coming ofi an untarnished oonaueror and 
 indeed ' more than a conctueror,' He would not have been fit to take His place 
 
14 ST. MARK I. [13 
 
 Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels minis- 
 tared unto him. 
 
 at the head of the race, to recover for manliind the paradise that had been lost. 
 None hut the ' Stronger than the strong ' could deliver ' the captives of the 
 mighty.' " The Second Adam therefore," says Archbishop Trench, " taking up 
 " the conflict exactly where the first had left it, and inheriting all the con- 
 " sequences of his defeat, in the desert does battle with the foe ; and, conquer- 
 " ing him there, wins back the garden for that whole race, whose champion and 
 " representative in this conflict He had been." {Studies in the Gospel, p. 8.) 
 Satan : or, as it is very literally, the Satan ; just as we say the Devil. The 
 word is as significant in Hebrew as the word Devil or Diabolos in Greek. It 
 means adversary, just as Devil means accuser or slanderer. The being so 
 named is the adversary loth of God and of men. He is no myth ; his actual 
 agency bewrays itself. The unity, which is characteristic of the varied wicked- 
 nesses of men, suggests it. The suicidal infatuation, which is a curious and 
 inseparable element in almost every species of crime, but which is obtrusively 
 conspicuous in some of the most popular forms of iniquity, bespeaks the pre- 
 sence of some mighty malice behind the scenes, moving the springs of human 
 action. We need not therefore discuss with C. Friedrich Gelbrioht the ques- 
 tion which he proposes, whether we should require to ' think ill ' of Jesus if He 
 found His temptations simply springing up within Himself; or, as Gelbrioht 
 more strongly expresses it, if He Himself was His own tempter ! Gelbricht 
 answers his question in the negative, while he concedes that the hypothesis on 
 which it is erected is probably to be accepted as true. "We object, however, to 
 the hypothesis. 
 
 And He was with the wild beasts. This is added, not as Hilgenfeld supposes, 
 to suggest an analogy between our Lord and Adam in paradise [Die Evangelien, 
 p. 126), but, as Petter says, "to show the desolate and forlorn state in which 
 " our Saviour now was in the wilderness ; being destitute of all help and com- 
 " fort from men, and having none to be His companions but wild beasts, which 
 " were so far from helping or comforting Him that they were more likely to 
 " annoy and hurt Him, yea, to devour Him."' Of what kind the wild beasts 
 were we do not know, and need not care to know. Even to the present ds,y the 
 desert places in and around the Holy Land swarm with such denizens, more 
 especially wherever there are convenient wadies at hand, in which they" may fix 
 their homes or haunts. Dr. Tristram, in referring to Kuser Hajla, near Jericho, 
 says : " In its gorge we found a fine clump of date palms, — one old tree, and 
 "several younger ones clustered round it, apparently unknown to recent travel- 
 " lers, who state that the last palm tree has lately perished from the plains of 
 " Jericho. Near these pahn trees, in the thick cover, we came upon the lair of 
 " a leopard or cheetah, with a well beaten path, and the broad, round, unmis- 
 " takable footmarks quite fresh, and evidently not more than a few hours old. 
 " However, the beast was not at home for us. Doubtless it was one of these 
 " which M. de Sauloy took for the footprints of the lion. But inasmuch as 
 " there is no trace of the lion having occurred in modern times, while the others 
 " are familiar and common, we must be quite content with the leopard. Every. 
 " where around us were the fresh traces of beasts of every kind ; for two days 
 
14] ST. MARK I. 15 
 
 14 Now after that Jobn was put in prison, Jesus came into 
 
 " ago a great portion of the plain had been OTerfewed. The -wild boar had 
 " been rooting and treading on all sides ; the jackals had been hunting in packs 
 " over the soft oozy slime ; the solitary wolf had been prowling about ; and 
 " many foxes had singly been beating the district for game. The hyaena too 
 " had taken his nocturnal ramble in search of carcases. None of these, how- 
 " ever, could we see." {The Land of Israel, pp. 245, 246.) When in the Wady 
 HamSm again, in the district of Gennesaret, he says : " We never met with so 
 " many wild animals as on one of these days. First of all, a wild boar got out 
 " of some scrub close to us, as we were ascending the valley. Then a deer was 
 " started below, ran up the cliff, and wound along the ledge, passing close to us. 
 " Then a large ichneumon almost crossed my feet, and ran into a cleft ; and 
 " while endeavouring to trace him, I was amazed to see a brown Syrian bear 
 "clumsily but rapidly clamber down the rooks and cross the ravine. While 
 " working the ropes above, we could see the gazelles tripping lightly at the 
 "bottom of the valley, quite out of reach and sight of our companions at the 
 " foot of the cUff. Mr. Lowne, who was below, saw an otter, which came out of 
 "the water and stood and looked at him for a minute with surprise. " (The 
 Land of Israel, p. 451.) 
 
 And the angels ministered to Him. In what way or ways we are not told, nor 
 how frequently, or at what conjuncture or conjunctures. See Matt. iii. 11. 
 Meyer infers from the extreme brevity of Mark's account of the temptation that 
 his report must be chronologically earlier, and less mythically developed, than 
 that of Matthew. Baur again infers, from the obscurity that is involved in its 
 brevity, and from the consequent need of Matthew's fuller narrative to make it 
 plain, that it must be of the nature not of a germ, but of a subsequent conden- 
 sation or epitome. {Kritische Untersuchungen, p. 540.) It is thus that conjec- 
 ture devours conjecture. We take neither of the alternatives. We do not think, 
 on the one hand, that we have in Mark, or ' the proto-Mark,' the germ of Mat- 
 thew ; neither do we think on the other that the mystery of the relationship of 
 the two evangelists is solved when we try to school ourselves into Augustine's 
 conviction, that we are but hearing the echoes of Matthew when we hsten to 
 the brief biographical sketches of Mark. 
 
 Veb. 14. Now after that John was delivered up. See Matt. xiv. 3-5 ; Luke iii. 
 19, 20. The rendering of King James's translators, was put in prison, while 
 true to historic fact, is rather too free a translation. Perhaps the Baptist had 
 been betrayed, or surrendered, (as Dickinson renders the word,) into the hands of 
 Herod Antipas ; perhaps he was violently seized by the tyrant, and then 
 ddivered over to the custody of a guard of soldiers, and thus imprisoned. 
 Taken is Wycliffe's version and Tyndale's and Coverdale's. Delivered up is 
 the ve:?sion of the Eheims ; and Luther'8 corresponds {Uberantwortet ward). 
 
 Jesus came into Galilee. The district where He had spent His youth. Not 
 unlikely, in consequence of its distance from the capital and its proximity to 
 the Gentiles, it would not be so thoroughly priest-ridden, and Pharisee- ridden, 
 as the district of Judsa. 
 
16 ST. MARK I. Li4 
 
 Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 and 
 saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at 
 hand : repent ye, and believe the gospel. 
 
 Preaching the gospel of God. Jesus preached, or, very literally, heralded; that 
 is, as Fetter popularly explains it, 'published openly, by lively voice and 
 word of mouth.' He preached the gospel; He proclaimed that which is, by 
 pre-eminence, good news or glad tidings. It was not His aim to accuse, or 
 denounce,' or condemn. It was in sadness of heart it He ever, as in paren- 
 thesis, spoke words of accusation, denunciation, or condemnation. The burden 
 of His proclamation was altogether different. It was a message of mercy. He 
 ' preached the gospel of God.' He preached the good news which He had 
 received in commission from God. The genitive of God is what grammarians 
 call the genitive of the author (genitivus auctoris). 
 
 Vek. 15. And saying. The time is fulfilled. Or, more literally, has been ful- 
 tilled ; that is, the measure of time that required to be completed has been 
 completed. A certain amount of time required to coihe and go ere the worl d 
 was ready for the establishment of the new order of things, or for the inaugur- 
 ation, in its more developed phase, of the kingdom of heaven. That amoui-t 
 of time had now elapsed. The appointed measure had been filled to the brim, — 
 fulfilled, that is filled-full. The accumulation of days and weeks and months 
 and years was complete. It was now ' the fulness of the time ' (Gal. iv. 4). 
 
 And the kingdom of God is at hand. Or, has come nigh. What Matthew 
 in general calls the kingdom of heaven (see Matt. iv. 17) is designated by Mars 
 and Luke the kingdom of God. No other New Testament writer but Matthew 
 employs the expression the kingdom of heaven, though Paul has the Lord's 
 heavenly kingdom (2 Tim. iv. 18). The two expressions, the kingdom of heaven 
 and the kingdom of God, are coincident in substrate ; they vary only in phase. 
 The kingdom is Divine, and hence heavenly. It is a thing of heaven ; it 
 originated in heaven, tends to heaven, culminates in heaven. It is a heavenly 
 community, with a heavenly Sovereign at its head. All its subjects are 
 heavenly, whether they be on earth or in heaven. Our whole earth should 
 have been a part of heaven ; but it is a runaway world, having gone off from 
 heaven. li! is not, however, finally lost to heaven. God, the Great Moral 
 Governor, has not and wUl not let it go. He desires, not in the use of 
 physical omnipotence, but by glorious moral means, to win it back. Long ago 
 He took the initiative for the accomplishment of this end ; He reclaimed a 
 foothold for heavenly institutions. And now the time was come for establish- 
 ing, in a somewhat developed and as it were completed form, the heavenly 
 community, ' the kingdom of God.' 
 
 Eepent. It was the burden of John's wilderness ' cry.' Our Saviour takes it 
 up ; for it never can become obsolete until sin has ceased to be. Repentance 
 from dead works (Heb. vi. 1), repentance toward God (Acts xx. 21), must ever be 
 an integrant elementary theme of exhortation with all true preachers of right- 
 tousness. It implies, ^/-stJi/, that men have been wrong in their conduct and 
 character. It implies, secondly, that if they will but calmly and candidly think 
 back over their ways, they wiU get to see that they have been wrong. Henoe 
 
16] . ST. MARK I. 17 
 
 16 Now as lie walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw 
 
 the solemn call Repent I as the antecedent of the joyful call Believe I Our 
 Epglish word is by no means a perfect or precise synonym of the original Greek 
 term (iieTavodTe). The EngMsh Repent brings prominently into view the duty 
 of a penitent state of feeling (note the French repentir). The Greek term 
 brings prominently into view the duty of a preliminary retrogressive acting of 
 the intelligence (or voOs). This retrogressive acting of the intelligence, or after- 
 thought, is only intended indeed to be preliminary ; and if it did not issue in the 
 conviction of the conscience, the sorrow of the heart, and the reformation ot 
 the life, it would be of no moral moment. It would be a useless mental frag- 
 ment, a beginning without its appropriate ending. Nevertheless it is the 
 indispensable beginning of a right state of spirit and lite on the part of all 
 such moral creatures as have already been wrong in their character and conduct. 
 (See on Matt. iii. 2.) 
 
 And believe in the gospel. It is men's duty both to believe the gospel and to 
 believe in it. The one expression may replace the other ; but they differ in 
 aspect of import. When we are said to believe in the gospel, the attention, so 
 far as the form of the expression is concerned, is not carried farther than the 
 gospel ; our faith is viewed as terminating in the gospel. When, again, we are 
 said to believe the gospel, the attention is carried forward beyond the gospel to 
 the object concerning which the gospel testifies. The gospel is regarded as the 
 medium whereby we may reach the Glorious Object. Both representations are 
 true to the actual philosophy of the case ; but the latter goes deeper in its 
 draught. There are always two objects of faith or belief, — a proximate and an 
 ultimate. The proximate is the testimony (the objectum qvxy) ; the ultimate is 
 the reality testified (the objectum quod). The gospel to which the Saviour 
 referred is, of course, just the good news that the time had now been fulfilled, 
 and that the kingdom of God had come near. 
 
 Veb. 16. And passing along by the sea of Galilee. Or, the sea of Tiberias; or, 
 the lake of Gennesaret. It was the centre of the circle of Galilee, and was called 
 the sea by the surrounding inhabitants, for the same reason that Windermere, 
 Buttermere, Thirlemcre, Giasmere were regarded of old as seas. It was an 
 expanse of water. The Jews had also their Dead Sea or Salt Sea. But the 
 Mediterranean was 'the great sea.' Dr. Tristram, describing his approach to 
 the sea of Galilee from Nazareth, says : — " For nearly three hours we had ridden 
 " on, with Hermon in front, sparkling through its light cloud-mantle, but still 
 " no sight of the sea of Galilee. One ridge after another had been surmounfed, 
 " when on a sudden the calm blue basin, slumbering in placid sweetness be- 
 " neath its surrounding wall of hills, burst upon us, and we were looking down 
 " on the hallowed scenes of our Lord's ministry. We were on the brow of a 
 "very steep hill. Below us was a narrow plain, sloping to the sea, the beach of 
 " which we could trace to its northern extremity. At our feet lay the city o' 
 " Tiberias, the only remaining town on its shores, enclosed by crumbling forti- 
 " fications with shattered but once massive round bastions. Along that fringe, 
 " could we have known where to find them, lay the remains of Chorazin, Beth- 
 " saida, and Capernaum. Opposite to us were the heights of the country of the 
 
 C 
 
18 ST. MARK I. [16 
 
 Simon and Andrew Lis brother casting a net into the sea : for 
 they were fishers. 17 And Jesus said unto them. Come ye 
 
 " Gadarenes, and the scene of the feeding of the five thousand. On some one 
 " of the slopes beneath us the sermon on the mount was delivered. The first 
 ■"gaze on the sea of Galilee, lighted up with the bright sunshine of a spring 
 " afternoon, was one of the moments of life not soon or easily forgotten. 
 " It was different from my expectations ; our view was so commanding. In 
 " some respect it recalled in miniature the first view of the Lake of Geneva, 
 "from the crest of the Jura, as it is approached by the old Besanijon road ; 
 " Hermon taking the place of Mont Blanc, the plain of Gennesaret recalling the 
 " Pays de Vaud, and the steep banks opposite the bold coast of Savoy. All 
 " looked small for the theatre of such great events, but all the incidents seemed 
 " brought together as in a diorama. There was a calm peacefulness in the look 
 " of these shores on the west, with the paths by the water's edge, which made 
 " them the fitting theatre for the delivery of the message of peace and recon- 
 " ciliation." (The Land of Israel, pp. 426, 427.) 
 
 He saw Simon. Or, Simeon. See Acts xv. 14; 2 Pet. i. 1 (Gr.). The pro- 
 nunciation Simeon is nearest the Hebrew original. He was called Peter by our 
 Lord. 
 
 And Andrew the brother of Simon, Andrew, unlike Simon or Simeon, is a 
 Greek word, bearing the idea of manliness, whereas Simeon brings out the idea 
 of listening or hearing. 
 
 Casting a net in the sea. {' Afn^iPaXKovras h t-§ 8a,\a<T(ry], throwing about in 
 the sea (viz. a hand net). It is one of Mark's vivid touches. The thing that 
 the men were throwing about is not named. (See Tisohendorf and Tregelles.) 
 It is supposed that it would be sufiioiently understood ; and no doubt the 
 phrase throwing about would just be an idiom of the trade. It represents the 
 fishermen throwing now on the one side of their boat, and now on the other 
 (note the connection between d/i,rpl and ambo). Hand-nets differed from dr?ig- 
 nets, which were trailed along the bottom of the fishing place. Hand-nets were 
 let down and lifted up, and were more or less of a bag shape. 
 
 For they were fishermen. Of a humble calling indeed ; but stiU, in the exer- 
 cise, of it, the men were trained to habits which were, in many respects, well 
 fitted to prepare them for higher duties. The successful use of the hand-net 
 requires in the fisherman, says Dr. W. M. Thomson, " a keen eye, an active 
 " frame, and great skill in throwing. He must, too, be patient, watchful, wide 
 " awake, and prompt to seize the exact moment to throw." (The Land and the 
 Book, p. 402.) 
 
 Vek. 17. And Jesus said to them, Come ye after Me. This, of course, was not 
 the first time they had met. Simon and Andrew bad been disciples of John the 
 Baptist, and, while following him, had introduced themselves to the Saviour. 
 (John i. 35-42.) They had evidently been earnest men, looking out wistfully for 
 the good time of which the prophets had spoken, and longing to be engaged in 
 any labour of love that might be helpful to the glorious cause of God. The 
 expression Come ye after Me, while conventionally meaning Become My pupils, 
 was moulded on the natural and seemly custom of allowing precedence to the 
 rabbi, while walking along. 
 
20] ST. MAEK I. 19 
 
 after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. 
 
 18 And straightway they forsook their nets and followed him. 
 
 19 And when he had gone a little farther thence, he saw James 
 the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the 
 ship mending their nets. 20 And straightway he called them : 
 and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired 
 servants, and went after him. 
 
 And I will make yoTi to become fishers of men. I will fit you for higher work, 
 for a spiritual sphere, a sphere in which you wiH operate on men, and be suc- 
 cessful in catching them. The figure must not be pressed or strained. 
 
 Vee. 18. And straightway. "Without any hesitation. 
 
 They left the nets, aad followed Him. They left the nets that were in their 
 boat. Simon and Andrew, having drawn their boat ashore, left it in the hands 
 of some assistants, anA followed Jesus, or, asWyclifle has it, picturesquely, thei 
 sueden Hym (they pursued Him). It is interesting to note the brotherUuess of 
 the brothers ; they had worked together in their secular calling, and they were 
 not divided in their attachment to Jesus. 
 
 Yeb. 19. And going on a little farther, He saw James the son of Zebedee and 
 John his brother. Another pair of brotherly brothers. John, though afterwards 
 the more conspicuous of the two, was evidently the younger, and hence is 
 generally named after James and distinguished as ' the brother of James.' In 
 Mark he always occupies this secondary position, as also in Matthew. In Luke 
 however he is, on one occasion, mentioned before James, as if the knowledge of 
 his ultimate eminence had, for the time, displaced the original association of 
 sequence. (See Luke ix. 28.) 
 
 Who also were in the boat. The boat, namely, that belonged to them, and 
 hence it might be legitimately rendered in their boat. The Unitarian ' Improved 
 Version ' has in a ship, which is certainly no improvement on the Authorized 
 translation. Principal Campbell has in a hark, borrowing from, but deteriorat- 
 ing, the version of Mace, in the bark. It is noteworthy that WycKffe and Sir 
 John Cheke have boat instead of ship, wMch was Tyndale's word, and not equal 
 to boat. 
 
 Mending the nets. Viz. that belonged to them, making them-, as the word 
 means, complete. 
 
 Vee. 20. And straightway He called them : and they left their father Zebedee • 
 in the boat with the hired servants, and went after Him. There would be some- 
 thing in the call, and in the mien and bearing of Him who gave it, that would 
 entirely forestall any questioning or doubting. The behest was, as it were, from 
 heaven ; and it conferred at once the highest honour and the greatest privilege. 
 They felt that they must not be disobedient to it. But, at the same time, they 
 did not leave their father unprovided for ; he had hired servants. " These 
 " disciples," says Fetter, " did not so wholly and utterly forsake their goods and 
 " friends, as never afterward to use them any more upon occasion ; but they 
 " forsook them in regard of the ordinary use of them, and so far forth only as 
 " they might hinder them in their ordinary conversing with Christ, and follow- 
 "ing of Him." 
 
20 ST. MARK I. [21 
 
 21 And they went into Capernaum ; and straightway on 
 
 Veb. 21. And they enter into Capernaum. Note the present tense, they enter. 
 We are carried back in imagination to the time referred to, and see them walk- 
 ing along and entering the adjacent town. It was Capernaum, the home for 
 the present of Simon and Andrew. (See ver. 29, and eomp. John i. 44.) The 
 precise spot on which the town lay is disputed. It has in modem times been 
 generally supposed to be the place now called Tell Hflm, at the north-west 
 angle of the lake, where three or four acres of ground are strewed with interest- 
 ing architectural remains ; "sarcophagi of white marble; fragments of marble 
 " shafts, some of them double columns ; friezes, pilasters, capitals, and portions 
 "of elaborate carvings, most of them in a debased style, besides a few large frag- 
 " ments of walls, extending to some distance beyond ; yet, excepting one large 
 " piece of an entablature curiously carved, there is nothing to particularize, but 
 " quite enough to prove ancient wealth and importance." (Tristram's Land of 
 Israel, pp. 441, 442.) Dr. Eobinson, however, argues strongly in favour of 
 Khto Minyeh as the site, at Ain et-Tin, considerably south of Tell Hum. 
 {Later Researches, pp. 347-359.) Dr. Porter is disposed to agree with Dr. 
 Bobinson, more especially as Major Wilson has discovered there the remains 
 of an ancient aqueduct, which conveyed the waters of Ain Tabighah "across 
 " the low ground and round the cliff of Khan Minyeh by a striking piece of en- 
 " gineering, at a sufficient altitude to irrigate the whole plain of Ghuweir," or 
 Gennesaret, " from end to end." {Syria and Palestine, p. 407 ; The Recovery 
 of Jerusalem, p. 377.) Dr. Tristram again contends that the situation of the 
 city must have been more to the south and farther west, at the Eound Fountain 
 of Mudawarah. Josephus, in his description of the plain of Gennesaret, (or 
 Gennesar as he calls it,) says that it is ' watered by a most prolific fountain, 
 which the people of the place call Kapharnaum ' (irTjyg didpSerai yoPifi.aTiT'g, 
 Ka(f>apraoi/ji, airrrjv oi iirixiip^oi KoKoSfft). He proceeds to say that ' this fountain 
 produces a fish like the coracine which is found in the marsh-pool at Alexan- 
 dria.' {War, iii. 10 : 8.) This coracine or catfish is quite a remarkable siluroid, 
 which delights to bury itself in sediment, leaving only its feelers exposed. Dr. 
 Tristram found it abounding in the Round Fountain of Mudawarah, and carried 
 ofE specimens a yard long, some of which he has deposited in the British 
 Museum. In ' the fountain of the fig ' {Ain et-Tin) at Khan Minyeh, there are 
 no ooracines. The fountain there, says Dr. Tristram, ' could neither supply it 
 with cover nor food.' And as regards TeU Hflm there is, it seems, no fountain 
 at all in the place. Neither is there any in its neighbourhood, nearer than 
 Ain Tabighah, that could possibly correspond to the Kapharnaum of Josephus. 
 But Ain Tabighah is two miles south of Tell Hum ; and Dr. Tristram could not 
 discover in it any trace of the coracine. How marvellous that there should 
 be such difficulty in identifying the Lord's 'own city' (Matt. ix. 1). How 
 thoroughly has it been brought down to the dust ! (See Matt. xi. 23.) 
 
 And straightway. Without 'losing any time,' as we say, or letting slip 
 any opportunity. The word rendered straightway, forthwith, or immediately, 
 is a favourite with Mark. He has already used it in ver. 10, 12, 18, 20. He 
 uses it also, before the end of the present chapter, in ver. 28, 29, 30, 31, 42,43.. 
 
 On the sabbath day. A correct translation, though the expression is plural 
 
22] ST. MARK I. 21 
 
 the sabbath day lie entered into the synagogue, and taught. 
 22 And they were astonished at his doctrine : for he taught them 
 
 in the original, and translated plurally in Luke iv. 31 by King James's trans- 
 lators. It is plural, because the Aramaic form of the word sounded, to the 
 ears of Greeks, like a plural : shabbata, sabbata. Compare our English word 
 riches, which, though plural in form, was, originally at least, a singular noun, 
 richesse, and is so used by Chaucer 'for instance, who makes it rhyme with 
 princesse. (1. 1831. See on Matt. xii. 1.) Euthymius Zigabenus was misled 
 by the plural form of the evangelist's word, and interpreted the word as mean- 
 ing 07! the sabbath days. The Yulgate translator made the same mistake ; 
 Luther too, and Tyndale and Coverdale, Matthew Henry likewise. Apparently 
 Wakefield also, for he renders the whole clause thus : and He constantly went on 
 the sabbath day. King James's translators in several places made the same 
 mistake. 
 
 He entered into the synagogue. Tischendorf omits the word entered. But if 
 it was not in the evangelist's autograph it requires to be mentally supplied. 
 The Elzevir edition of 1624 has into synagogue, instead of into the synagogue. 
 Wrongly, however. The good manuscripts have the article ; and there would 
 most probably be only one synagogue in so small a place as Capernaum. It had 
 apparently been but recently erected. When the elders of the Jews, at a sub- 
 sequent time, said to our Lord concerning the centurion ' and he hath built 
 us our synagogue ' (Luke vii. 5) , it is the synagogue in the original. The word 
 synagogue primarily meant a meeting, and thence came to denote a meeting- 
 place, its meaning here. Luther renders it school. It denotes the edifice in 
 which the Jews met together for the reading and explaining of their Scriptures, 
 and the offering up of prayers. 
 
 And taught. Liberty of speech was allowed in the synagogues, though of 
 course under certain conventional restrictions. (See Vitringa de Synagoga 
 vetere, iii. 1 : 7.) All therefore who had a word to say, and could say it with 
 propriety, more especially if they were manifestly rabbis, or were apparently 
 fit, either by man's teaching or by God's, to be rabbis, had an opportunity of 
 addressing their fellow worshippers. It was a plan that would tend in some 
 instances to confusion and irreverent disputing ; but it was fitted, on the other 
 hand, to foster a spirit of freedom and freshness. It was a counterpoise to 
 the absolute officialism of the sacerdotal service. 
 
 Vek. 22. And they were astonished at His teaching. Not so much because of 
 its subject matter as because of its peculiar manner. Even Wycliffe employs 
 here the term techynge, though translating from the Vulgate, which has doctrina. 
 Tyndale has learninge, by which perhaps he may have meant teaching, as tho 
 word was for long ' ambidextrous,' and still is so in certain localities. In 
 Anglo-Saxon the word learning-man means indifferently either a schoolmaster or 
 a scholar ; and the verb laran means to teach. 
 
 For He taught them as having authority. He could not conceal from Himself 
 that He was a master and the master in all things moral, spiritual, and scrip- 
 tural, and entitled therefore to do something more than merely propose His 
 opinion. He did not need to speak as one who was in doubt, or as one who 
 
22 ST. MARK I. [22 
 
 as one tliat had authority, and not as the scribes. 23 And there 
 was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit ; and he 
 
 realized that he might be mistaken. He could not, in honesty, thua speak. 
 There would be meekness indeed, and the sweetest condescension ; but there 
 could be no doctrinal diffidence. (See Matt. v. 20, 22, 28, 32, 34; 39, 44.) Not 
 only, however, would there be the absence of doctrinal diffidence, there would 
 at the same time be the presence in His teaching, to an unprecedented degree, 
 of the self-evidencing power of the truth. The light would shine, as in a 
 blaze, through all that He said ; and it would be impossible for ingenuous men 
 to puzzle themselves into a debate whether it was really light or darkness. 
 Jesus, says Matthew Henry, was ' a non-such preacher.' 
 
 And not as the scribes. The scribes were the learned men of the Jewish 
 nation, the men who had to do with letters {ypaiiiiaT^ls). Almost all the writing 
 that was required in the nation would be done by them ; most of the reading 
 too. The transcribing of the Scriptures would devolve on them ; and as the 
 nation was emphatically ecclesiastical, the chief currents of their engagements 
 would flow in u, biblical and religious direction. Hence the interpretation of 
 the law and the prophets, in the synagogues, would devolve chiefly on them ; 
 and the people would, to a large degree, be dependent on their instructions. 
 They would vary greatly, like other men, in ability, character, and qualifica- 
 tions ; but it would appear that in the time of our Lord the great bulk of 
 them were pedantic in things that were obvious enough, and frivolous and 
 jejune in all things that lay beyond. They would be admirable guessers, and 
 mighty in platitudes. They would bo ingenious in raising , microscopic doubts, 
 and perfect adepts in conjuring up conceit to do battle with conceit. They 
 would be skilful in splitting hairs to infinity, and they would be proud of their 
 abihty to lead their hearers through the endless mazes of the imaginations of 
 preceding rabbis, imaginations that ended in nothing or in something that was 
 actually worse than nothing. But they would have no power, or almost none, 
 to move the conscience toward true goodness, or to stir the love of the heart 
 toward God and toward men. They might speak, indeed, with positiveness 
 enough ; but it would not be with moral power. They might assert with dic- 
 tatorial self sufficiency ; but it would not be with ' demonstration of the Spirit,' 
 demonstration flashing in conviction even upon reluctant and hard-winking 
 souls. 
 
 Veb. 23. And straightway. No sooner had the Saviour concluded His address 
 than there arose a peculiar commotion. 
 
 There was in their synagogue a man with aa tmcleau spirit. Or, more literally, 
 1 man ' in ' an unclean spirit, that is, a man under the influence of an unclean 
 spirit ; just as we say, a man ' in ' drink, or, more pleasantly, a man ' in ' love. 
 For the time being the man is absorbed, as it were, in love or in drink. So 
 the demoniac was absorbed as it were into the demon, and was completely 
 under its power, or, as we may say, within its power. There were such de- 
 moniacs of old ; and there is little reason for doubting that there are such 
 demoniacs still, though demonism, like many other agencies, obvious and 
 
24] ST. MARK I. 23 
 
 cried out, 24 saying. Let us alone ; what have we to do with 
 
 occult, liaa varied in its phases in the course of the ages. There is manifestly 
 a spiritual side of things, the counterpart of that material side that is open to 
 our apperception through our senses. It is entirely arbitrary to suppose that 
 in this spiritual side of things there is no other spiritual element, no spiritism, 
 except what is human. The universe is large ; worlds are linked to worlds ; 
 evU and good are strangely commingled. God is everywhere ; and He is a 
 Spirit. There is therefore some other spiritism than what is human. And, as 
 fegaxds the sphere of creation, we may be sure that it is not a mere spiritual 
 wUderuess, or waste, or vacuum, round about man. There are hosts of spirits, 
 at once hierarchically ascending, and contrariwise descending. Influences 
 from both directions press in upon men ; and hence the demoniacal possessions 
 of Scripture. It is in some respects a marvellous mode of influence, but yet by 
 no means more marvellous than some other modes distinctively mental. If 
 human spirits be wonderfully correlated to their bodies, as they are, it need not 
 amaze us that demonic spirits, if having influence at all beyond the circle of 
 their spiritual selves, should seek to enter and should be able on certain condi- 
 tions to enter into some abnormal correlations, not to human spirits only, but 
 to the bodies of these spirits. The man of whom the evangelist speaks was 
 in the power of an unclean spirit. Possibly he was ' suffering,' as Schenkel 
 will have it, ' from religious mania.' (Character of Jesus, v. 3.) But that 
 explains nothing. Eeligious mania requires itself to be explained. The demon 
 was unclean, impure, unholy. Holiness is cleanness. Wickedness or unholi- 
 ness is foulness, or the defilement of the soul. 
 
 And he cried out. Godwin translates, and ' it ' cried out. But the nominative 
 to the verb is the word man, whose mouth and voice were employed by the 
 unclean spirit. 
 
 Veb. 24. Saying. Immediately following this word we have in King James's 
 version the exclamation Let as alone/ But the interjection (la) which is thus 
 freely translated has most probably been imported into the text from Luke iv. 
 34, where it is no doubt genuine. It is omitted by Lachmann, Tisohendorf, 
 Tregelles, Alford. It is not found in the manuscripts S B D, nor in the Italic, 
 Vulgate, Syriao Peshito, Coptic, .ffithiopic, Arabic, and Persic versions. It is 
 an exclamation denoting displeasure. (See Fritzsche.) 
 
 What have we to do with Thee ? OriaXhex, What hast Thou to do with usf 
 Very literally. What to us and to Thee ? It is an idiomatic expression, meaning 
 What is there in common to us and to Thee ? As here appUed it is deprecatory, 
 and means Why dost Thou interfere with us ? (See Kypke ; and oomp. John 
 ii. 4 ; also Jud. xi. 12, 2 Sam. xvi. 10, 1 Kings xvii. 18, 2 Kings iii. 13, 
 Matt. viii. 29.) The Saviour had not, so far as appears, been formally inter- 
 fering by any specific action. But His very presence on the scene was felt to be 
 interference. There emanated from Him, round about, an influence that went 
 in upon men blissfully, counterworking all evil influences. The unclean spirit 
 felt the power, and resented it as an interference, an interference not with itself 
 in particular, but with the entire circle of kindred spirits. ' What hast Thou 
 to do, with us ? ' 
 
24 ST. MARK I. [24 
 
 ttee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy 
 us ? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. 
 
 Thou Jesus of Nazareth ! There is no thou in the original ; and it rather 
 encumbers the address. It is properly omitted by Luther and the Eheims 
 translator. It was inserted, however, both by Wyolifie and by Tyudale, and by 
 King James's translators. Beza supposes that there was diabolic artifice in 
 referring to Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. Trapp echoes the idea, and 
 Matthew Henry. Petter says, ' but this I leave as uncertain, although it is not 
 altogether unlikely.' It is however a manifest strain, and gives the evil one 
 more than was his due : see Lulse xxiv. 19 ; Acts ii. 22, iii. 6, iv. 10, x. 38, 
 xxii. 8. Jesus belonged to Nazareth as truly as to Bethlehem ; and His con- 
 nection with Nazareth would be much better known, and would be therefore 
 more discriminative as an appellation, than His connection with Bethlehem. 
 
 Art Thou come to destroy us ? Or, more literally, Camest Thou to destroy us ? 
 It is not quite certain, however, whether we should read the words interroga- 
 tively, or affirmatively. Thou camest to destroy us. The majority of editors and 
 expositors take them interrogatively. Luther however gives them afSrmatively. 
 Wetstein also. Bengel gave them interrogatively in his first and second editions, 
 but in his third edition of 1753 he removed the interrogation point. In his 
 German version also, of the same date, he gives the expression affirmatively. 
 So Griesbaoh and Scholz ; also Knapp, Tittmann, Vater,Nabe, Ornsby ; Tischen- 
 dorf too in his seventh and eighth editions, though not in his preceding edition 
 of 1849. Fritzsche pleads for the affirmative reading. Bwald assumes it. It 
 is not a matter of much moment which of the two views be embraced. In 
 what goes before there is iuterrogation, and in what comes after there is affirm- 
 ation. On the whole we prefer the interrogative view, though we would not 
 have the interrogation strongly pronounced. It is much of the nature of ex- 
 clamation, and expresses deprecation. The evil spirit knew, in general, what 
 was the aim of the mission of Jesus, but we need not suppose that he knew 
 with absolute precision and far-reaching range ; and hence the interrogative 
 element. Grotius votes for the interrogation, chiefly on the ground of corre- 
 spondence with Matt. viii. 29. Note the us : Camest Thou to destroy ' «s ' .« Is 
 it the intent of Thy mission to put down all demonic power ? Note the word 
 destroy. It has no reference to the annihilation of being ; usurpers are de- 
 stroyed when their usurpation is destroyed . 
 
 I know Thee who Thou art. The Sinaitio manuscript and Tischendorf read 
 We know Thee, instead of J know Thee. Were it the correct reading, it would 
 represent the unclean spirit as speaking in the name of his fellows. They had 
 inter-communication one with another about their affairs, and they all knew 
 that Jesus had come and that He was from above. Doubtless, however, I know 
 Thee is the correct reading. It is overwhelmingly supported by the real 
 authorities ; and it is the reading of Luke iv. 34. 
 
 The Holy One of God. That is, the Holy One belonging to God, viz. as God's 
 great Agent in relation to the salvation of men. The demon gives emphasis to 
 the moral transcendency and sinlessness of the Saviour. It was the phase of 
 our Lord's being that was in the most absolute antagonism to the character and 
 influence of ' the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.' It 
 
27] ST. MARK I. 25 
 
 25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying. Hold thy peace, and come 
 out of him. 26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, 
 and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him. 27 And they 
 were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among them- 
 selves, saying, What thing is this ? What new doctrine is this ? 
 for -with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, 
 and they do obey him. 
 
 ■was the edge of the swoid that was about to gain the victory. The confession, 
 ■we may suppose, would be extorted under the pressure of the moment ; or it 
 may have been orootedly contrived to throw discredit on our Lord, as receiving 
 commendation from a questionable quarter. 
 
 Vee. 25. And Jesus rebuked him. Instead of rebuked, Coverdale has reproved, 
 and Wycliffe thretenyde. The original word is very peculiar {eTreTlix-r)(xev), and 
 strictly means rated. Our Saviour chid the evil spirit. He never on any 
 occasion gave any quarter to anything demonic. 
 
 Saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. Whether the demon's confession 
 were simply extorted, or diabolically contrived, our Lord laid His interdict upon 
 it. He knew that it could not emanate from any good intent, or from any real 
 appreciation. It ■was one of His aims in coming into the world to silence 
 Satan. The word translated Hold thy peace {^L/aidrin) is exceedingly graphic. 
 Be muzzled. It is a word for a beast : see 1 Cor. ix. 9, 1 Tim. v. 18. 
 
 Vek. 26. And the unclean spirit convulsing him, and crying with a loud voice, 
 came out of him. Convulsing him, no doubt epileptically, throwing him to the 
 ground, and, as it were, tearing at him, though not actually, as Cardinal Cajetan 
 remarks, severing member from member. And crying with a loud voice. " Not 
 "that he uttered any words or speech," says Petter, "as he did before, but 
 " only a confused hideous noise." It was with a grudge that he let go his prey. 
 
 Yeb. 27. And all were amazed, so that they questioned among themselves. 
 Or rather, so that they questioned together. Such is the translation of Tisohen- 
 dorf's text {Siure aw^rilv airoii), as supported by the Sinaitic and Vatican 
 manuscripts. Tyndale's version is, in so moche that they demaunded one of 
 another amonge themselves. Each turned to his neighbour, in astonishment, to 
 ask his opinion. 
 
 Saying, What is this? Kew teaching with authority ! And He commandeth the 
 unclean spirits, and they obey Him ! Such is, apparently, the correct reading 
 and rendering of the abrupt remarks which the astonished people made to one 
 another (SiSaxh Kaiffi Kar i^ovaiav km rots irveiiiainv k. t. \.). New teaching 
 with a witness ! New certainly in relation to authority I We never heard any- 
 thing like that before I And He lays His injunctions on the unclean spirits, and 
 they obey Him t The Ee^yised version, following Lachmanu and Tregelles, 
 puts a stop after New teaching 1 and attaches the expression with authority to 
 the following clause : with authority He lays His injunctions even on the un- 
 clean spirits, and they obey Him ! The other method of construction, however, 
 is simpler, and more in accordance with what is said in ver. 22, He taught 
 them as having authority. The authority had impressed itself on the people's 
 
2G ST. MARK L [28 
 
 28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all 
 the region round about Galilee. 
 
 29 And forthwith, when they were come out of the syna- 
 gogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with 
 
 hearts and oonsoienoes ; and, in addition to that, they marYelled at the decisive 
 and successful way in which He dealt with the unclean spirit. They say the 
 unclean spirits, for by an easy process of generalization they referred the par- 
 ticular case in hand to the category to which it belonged. 
 
 Veb. 28. And the report of Him went out Immediately in all directions into the 
 whole surrounding region of Galilee. It flew, as it were, on the wings of the 
 wind. The report of Him : or, more literally still, the hearing of Him, that is, 
 the hearing of which He was the object. Immediately : this word is omitted 
 in the Sinaitio manuscript (N*), but not in the Vatican, as Tregelles had been 
 led to suppose ; it is omitted also in the important cursive manuscripts 1 and 
 33. But doubtless it is genuine ; it was just like Mark to insert it (see on 
 ver. 21 and 30). And it is peculiarly appropriate in such a case as the present, 
 for no doubt the report concerning Jesus would spread like wildfire. In all 
 directions, or everywhere {iravraxoO) : a word not in the Eeceived Text, nor 
 admitted by Lachmann, but received by Tisohendorf on the authority of 
 X° B C L, 69, etc. Into the whole surrounding district of Galilee : such is evi- 
 dently the meaning of the evangelist's expression. King James's translators 
 seem to have supposed that the reference was to the district which surrounded 
 Galilee. So Tyndale, all the region borderinge on Galilee. The Geneva follows 
 Tyndale. Cajetan takes the same view, and Erasmus, Beza, Fetter, Eisner, 
 Eritzsche, Meyer, Lange ; some of them misled apparently by Matt. iv. 24. 
 Grotius hesitates. But both the Peshito version and the Vulgate give the right 
 view. Wychffe's translation is, in to al the cuntree of Galilee. So le ESvre, 
 Diodati, de Dieu strongly, Beausobre, Wolf, Bengel, Principal Campbell, Burton, 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, Rilliet, Webster and Wilkinson, Elostermann. 
 
 Ver. 29. And forthwith. The same word that is rendered immediately in 
 the preceding verse. The two verses, however, run out with their respective 
 ' immediately ' on diHerent lines. The former takes note of the rapid general 
 impression produced in the district at large ; this takes note of what 
 happened in Capernaum just after the dismission of the people from the 
 synagogue. 
 
 When they were come out of the synagogue. They, that is, Jesus and His four 
 disciples. The evangelist is not studying his phrases. He was thinking of our 
 Saviour and His four disciples generally, and begins to speak of them collect- 
 ively ; but, as he proceeds, he descends to particulars, in a manner that might 
 be regarded as confused by a fastidious composer, but that ■ is in reality sub- 
 servient to a distinct apprehension of the state of the case. 
 
 They came into the house of Simon and Andrew. See ver. 16. 
 
 With James and John. See ver. 19. Although the evangelist, when com- 
 mencing this verse, had in his mind Jesus and His four disciples, inclusive of 
 course of James and John ; yet, when he proceeded to tell where the company 
 
32] ST. MARK I. 27 
 
 James and Jolin. 30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of 
 a fever, and anon they tell him of her. 31 And he came and 
 took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately 
 the fever left her, and she ministered unto them. 
 
 32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto 
 
 ■went, he deemed it a fitting partioularizatiou to add with James and John, lest 
 they should be lost sight of in the generalization of the first part of the verse. 
 It is not an utterly extravagant idea of Klostermann's that the evangelist's 
 phraseology may prohably be moulded on a report from Peter himself (see 
 Papias in Eusebius's Eccles. Hist., iii. 39), which might run in some such 
 way as the following: "And immediately on coming out of the synagogue we 
 " (that is, Jesus, James and John, and my brother Andrew and I) went wito cob 
 " house." 
 
 Ter. 30. But Simon's wife's mother. Tyndale, in his 1526 edition, has 
 Symones m,otherelawe. In his subsequent edition of 1534 he opens up the 
 crushed expression, Symons mother in lawe. This is also Coverdale's trans- 
 lation, and that of the first Geneva in 1557. The subsequent Geneva, or the 
 Geneva proper, and the Bheims, have the translation that is repeated in our 
 translation. 
 
 Was lying in fever. She lay prostrate {icaTiKeiTo). In fever : as if she had 
 been on fire {Tvpeaa-ovaa). " Country fever is.to this day," says Tristram, " very 
 " prevalent in this seething plain and on its borders; and such a position as 
 " Ain Mudawarah would be peculiarly subject to it." (The Land of Israel, 
 p. 448.) 
 
 And straightway they speak to Him concerning her. No doubt with wistfuluess 
 in their hearts. 
 
 Veb. 81. And He came, and took her by the hand, and raised her up. Or, as 
 
 we should say, assisted her up. The perfect self possession and calm confidence 
 of our Lord are beautifully indicated. There was no hesitancy on the one 
 hand, and no bustle on the other. He simply put Himself en rapport with 
 the patient, and the matter was done. 
 
 And the fever left her. The ' virtue ' that went forth from the Lord restored 
 instantaneously the physical equilibrium of the patient. He willed, ' and it 
 was done.' He is thus the great healer and rectifier not only in the inner or 
 moral sphere of the nature which He assumed ; but also in the outer or material 
 sphere. When onoe His will shall be absolutely dominant in the world, as one 
 day it shall be, there will be no more disease. 
 
 And she ministered to them. She served them, or waited on them, when they 
 sat down to partake of their humble repast. The fever had not burned up her 
 strength before it was expelled, and left her prostrate. It was itself burned out 
 and left her strength unimpaired. 
 
 Vek. 32. And at even, when the sun set. At even, or, as Purvey has it, 
 whaune the eventid was come ; that is, when the sabbath was ended. It was a 
 matter of religion with the Jews to do as little work as possible, even in the 
 way of curing diseases, on the sabbath day ; not a bad principle of action, 
 
28 ST. MAEK I. [32 
 
 him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with 
 devils. 33 And all the city was gathered together at the door. 
 34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, 
 
 when kept in the guidance of love and reason, instead of being committed to 
 the leading strings of superstition. (See Danz's Guratio Sabbathica.) 
 
 They brought to Him all the diseased and the demoniac. The term diseased, in 
 its current modern acceptation, is perhaps a trifle too strong to represent the 
 import of the original expression {KaKas ^ovras) ; but when looked at etymo- 
 logically, dis-eased, that is, sundered from ease or ill at ease, and thus unwell, 
 it is all that could be desired. The demoniacs referred to are described, in 
 our English version, as they that were possessed with devils. It is no doubt a 
 correct enough description ; but the word devil or devils is never used in the 
 original, when demoniacs are spoken of. It is always the word demon or 
 demons, or the generic term spirit or spirits. In Greek mythology the word 
 demon had a rather peculiar history or development of meaning. As Homer 
 used the term, it was almost, if not altogether, equivalent to the word god or 
 deity. Hesiod however distinguished between gods and demons ; according 
 to his representation in his Works and Days, " the latter are invisible tenants 
 " of earth, remnants of the once happy ' golden race ' whom the Olympic gods 
 " first made. . . . They are geuerically different from the gods, but essentially 
 " good, and forming the intermediate agents and police between gods and men." 
 (Grote's History of Greece, vol. i., part i., 2, pp. 58, 60.) By and by, however, 
 Empedocles and Xenoorates represented the ghosts of th'e ' silver race ' as 
 demons too ; and, as the ' silver race ' were " reckless and mischievous toward 
 "each other, and disdainful of the immortal gods," they made bad demons. 
 This representation grew in the public mind, and at length overlapped the 
 other, so that the word demon " came insensibly to convey with it a bad sense, 
 " the idea of an evil being as contrasted with the goodness of a god." (Grote's 
 History, vol. i. parti., 2, 16, pp. 61, 348, 349.) It was at this ultimate stage 
 of the word's history that it got into use among the Greek-speaking Jews ; and 
 hence, in New Testament usage, it denotes an evil spirit, of an order of beings 
 superior in knowledge and power to men. In short, it was regarded as a fitting 
 Greek designation for a fallen angel. As to the possibility and probability of 
 possession, see on ver. 23. When the evangelist says that the people brought 
 ' all ' the diseased and the demoniac, the all is to be interpreted in accordance 
 with the way in which it is often freely used in popular parlance. Comp. 
 ver. 5, 33, 37. 
 
 Vek. 83. And the whole city was gathered together at the door. They came 
 to the door (tt/jos riiv Bipav), and were thus at the door, crowding around it. 
 The whole city thus came, that is, the whole body of the citizens. The evan- 
 gelist is speaking popularly in his use of the word lohole ; and Capernaum, we 
 must bear in mind, would be but a small city or town. (Compare the use of 
 TTo'Xis and Kdiii-q in Luke ii. 4 and John vii. 42.) Dr. Samuel Clarke's paraphrase 
 of the verse is, " and such a vast multitude gathered together about the house, 
 " to see what was done, that almost the whole city seemed to be there." 
 
 Veb. 34. And He healed many that were sick with divers diseases ; and many 
 
36] ST. MARK I. 29 
 
 and cast out many devils ; and suffered not the devils to speakj 
 because they knew him, 
 
 35 And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, 
 he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there 
 prayed. 36 And Simon and they that were with him followed 
 
 demons He cast out. The evangelist distinguishes between natural diseases and 
 demoniacal possessions ; though, not unlikely, the hue that separated them 
 was not intended to be very rigidly drawn. 
 
 And He snifered not the demons to speak, for they knew Him. Beza, overlook- 
 ing the proper import of the word rendered speak Q\.aKuv), renders the clause 
 thus, and He suffered not the demons to say that they knew Him. The demons 
 knew Him to be the Messiah, and were ready, in their anguish and anger, to 
 address Him as such. (See ver. 24 ; comp. Matt. vui. 29.) But Jesus did not 
 wish to be borne onward in His career by the aid of their testimony ; see on 
 ver. 24, 25. 
 
 Ver. 35. And in the morning, while it was yet very dark, He rose up and went 
 ont. Namely, from the house where He was lodging. The expression in the 
 Authorized and Eevised translations, a great while before day, brings into view 
 a length of time which is not indicated in the original phraseology (ir/jMt Iwvxa 
 \lav), and which might with difficulty be harmonized vrith the expression in 
 Luke iv. 42. Coverdale, following Luther, errs on the other hand in omitting 
 to translate the adverb which intensifies the idea of the nocturnal darkness. His 
 translation is, in the momynge hefore daye. Before daylight would be better 
 (Luke iv.42). The original expression is a plural adverb, in the accusative form, 
 meaning literally, when combined with the intensive adverb, while the darkness 
 of the departing night was still very great ; that is, while it was yet very dark. 
 (See (vvvx,ov in 3 Mace. v. 5, which Kypke translates exeunte node.) The morn- 
 ing is not a mere point, but a line of time, an elongated progress or procession. 
 At the one extremity it is in the night ; at the other it is in the day. Wycliffe's 
 version is admirable, in the morewynge ful erly. 
 
 And departed into a desert place, and there prayed. Instead of ' desert place,' 
 King James's version has ' solitary place,' the only instance in which the 
 evangelist's adjective is so rendered. It means, however, more than solitary, 
 for a garden might be solitary, especially in the early morning. Indeed, Mat- 
 thew Henry actually supposes that the reference here might be to ' some remote 
 garden or outbuilding.' It is a, mistake however. Our Saviour went to one of 
 the bare and barren spots stretching away north or west from Capernaum. He 
 was there engaged in praying, lifting up His spirit communingly to His Heavenly 
 Father. The word rendered prayed {irpoffrjix^ro) does not. simply denote asking, 
 " Prayer," says Petter, " is a holy conference with God." 
 
 Veb. 36. And Simon and they that were with him went in pursuit of Him. 
 When they awoke in the morning and found Him gone, they seem to have got 
 alarmed lest He should have left them, betaking Himself to some other sphere of 
 labour. So too the inhabitants of the little city in general seem to have felt. 
 Hence the haste and eagerness of Simon and his companions (Andrew, James 
 md John), as indicated by the strong verb employed [Karediu^ev) ; they pursued 
 
30 ST. MARK I. [36 
 
 after him. 37 And when they had found him, th^y said unto 
 him, All 7nen seek for thee. 38 And he said unto them, Let 
 us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also : for 
 
 Sivi, as a He were fleeing from them. The Syriao Peshito version softens the 
 evangelist's phrase, using a verb which simply means sovght. They went in 
 quest of Him. But the Philoxenian Syriao adheres to the literal idea, using a 
 verb and preposition which mean pursued after. -Peter was the leader of the 
 pursuing party, thus giving early indication of the impulsive ardour of his 
 nature. 
 
 Vek. 37. And they found Him, and say to Him, All are seeking Thee. That 
 is, though indefinitely, all the people (in Capernaum). The people in general 
 had no sooner risen in the morning than they thought of the wonderful preacher 
 and healer and demon expeller. They wanted still to hear more, and to see 
 more ; and hence they came, one after another, to the house where He had been 
 lodging, in quest of Him ; His popularity had leaped up instantaneously to the 
 superlative degree.' 
 
 Vee. 38. And He says to them, let us go elsewhere. " Behold," says Sar- 
 oerius, " the philanthropy of Christ." The word elsewhere (dXXaxoC) is inserted 
 by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Candy. It is found in the Sinaitic, Vatican, 
 and Ephraemi manuscripts, and 33 {' the queen of the cursives '), and in the 
 Coptic, Armenian, .Slthiopic, and Arabic versions. It brings out genericaUy 
 what is specifically expressed in the following clause. 
 
 Into the next towns. The smaller places round about, the adjoining towns 
 and villages. The compound word (KU/iorriXets), translated in our English 
 version towns, means village-cities as it were, or village-towns as Petter renders 
 it, country-towns as Cajetan explains it. It is a word that occurs only here, 
 in the New Testament. Strabo however uses it ; and it is common in the 
 Byzantine mediseval writers. It would include, as employed by the evangelist, 
 imperfectly enclosed towns, and unenclosed villages or hamlets (Thucyd. i. 5), 
 where however there would be some synagogue or place of social worship. 
 (See next verse, and compare Lightfoot in loc.) There were many such towns 
 and villages in Galilee. Josephus says, concerning the two Gahlees upper and 
 lower: " The cities {tSKck) lie thick, and the multitudes of villages {KUfiSv) are 
 " everywhere so full of people, in consequence of the richness of the soil, that the 
 "very least of them contains above fifteen thousand inhabitants." (War, iii. 
 3 : 2.) But this surely is exaggeration. 
 
 That I may preach there also ; for to this end came I forth. To this end, that 
 is, that I may preach the good news, not in one place only, but far and wide 
 amongst the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The Saviour came forth from 
 His invisible condition into the world, to this end. Not indeed to this end only ; 
 He had other ends in view, higher still. But this was one of the aims which 
 actuated Him. The expression came I forth, or came I out, was probably used 
 by our Saviour with intentional indefiniteness. He does not specify whence or 
 from whom He came. The truth was left to dawn gradually upon the disciples' 
 minds. He came into the world ; He came out into it, out from beyond or from 
 above. He came out from the Father. (See John viii. 42 ; xiii. 3 ; xvi. 27, 28, 
 
40] ST. MAEK I. 31 
 
 therefore came I fortli. 39 And he preached in their syna- 
 gogues throughout all Galileej and cast out devils. 
 
 40 And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and 
 
 30 ; and compare Hegendorphinus in loc.) Compare also Matt. xiii. 49, where we 
 read that " the angels slidll come forth (or shall come out) , and sever the wicked 
 " from among the just." (See Luke iv. 43.) De Wette thinks that the expression 
 means for to this end came I out {from Capernaum). Meyer insists on the same 
 view, for to this end came I out (of the house). So Fritzsohe, for to this end 
 came I out {into this desert place). Godwin too. Such an interpretation how- 
 ever amazes us. It involves a sudden, arbitrary, and most unpleasant descent 
 into bathos. It is to assume moreover that our Lord had resolved, as. if in 
 caprice, to go off elsewhere without His newly called disciples, and without so 
 much as even informing them of His intended movement ! It is to assume, 
 besides, that it is not likely that our Saviour would wish to quicken thought by 
 occasionally using two-edged expressions, which would lead His hearers to think 
 at one and the same time of a lower and a higher relationship of things, — a 
 most improbable assumption. 
 
 Vek. 39. And He went into their synagogues throngiout all Galilee, preaching 
 and casting out demons. A simple and easily understood historical statement, 
 but, in the original, thrown very inartificially together, as in a heap of phrases. 
 If the correct reading were literally rendered, it would run thus : And He came 
 preaching into their synagogues, into the whole of Galilee, and casting out the 
 demons (koX fjKBev KTipiaawv ets Tks (Twayiiryd,! airdv eh SXijc t^v TaXi.'Xalav koI ri, 
 Satiidvia ^K^dWav). The reading 'into' their synagogues is overwhelmingly 
 supported by the manuscripts of importance. And the introductory expression 
 He came, supported by the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, as well as by the 
 Coptic and .ZEthiopio versions, is received into the text by Tisohendorf (in his 
 eighth edition) and by Tregelles. The Beceived Text has apparently been 
 touched into harmony with the text of Luke (iv. 44). 
 
 Throughout all Galilee. Josephus says, but surely with a touch of exaggera- 
 tion, that in his day there were " two hundred and forty towns and villages in 
 " GalUee." {Life, § 45.) 
 
 Veb. 40. And there cometh to Him a leper. We know not in what place. 
 Luke says it was ' in one of the cities ' (see chap. v. 12-16). Matthew too 
 records the miracle (viii. 1-4), but does not specify the place. To this day 
 lepers' quarters are found outside the walls of many of the towns of Palestine. 
 (Tristram's Land of Israel, p. 417.) A leper: one infected with what Mead 
 calls ' the most dreadful of all the diseases to which the Jews were subject ' 
 {atrocissimus erat, qui Judieorum corpora frequenter fadabat, morbus : Mbdica 
 Sacba, cap. 2). Many diseases have their peculiar haunts or habitats ; and 
 leprosy seems to have been emphatically, and as existing under some peculiarly 
 aggravated type or phase, a Syrian, Arabian, and Egyptian disease. (See Smith's 
 BiUe Dictionary, sub voce.) Perhaps the Jews brought it from Egypt, which 
 Lucretius {RerumNat., vi. 1112-3) and other ancient writers (see J.Mason Good's 
 note on Lucretius) assert to be the birthplace and the favourite abode of elephan- 
 tiasis. It is disputed indeed among nosologists whether or not elephantiasis bo 
 
32 ST. MARK I. [40 
 
 kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, 
 thou canst make me clean. 41 And Jesus, moved with com- 
 passion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto 
 
 really leprosy. The dispute is, to a great degree, a matter of terminology. (See 
 J. Mason Good's Study of Medicine, vol. ii., pp. 851-862, and vol. iv., p. 578.) But 
 it seems to be certain that vfhat is, at the present day, regarded as leprosy in 
 Jerusalem, and throughout Palestine and Syria, is not so much the disease 
 which the old Greek and Latin physicians called leprosy, as the still more loath- 
 some malady called elephantiasis. Diseases indeed sometimes vary in their 
 development, in the course of ages ; they culminate and wane ; they run out 
 their course, or pass into new varieties. (See Hecker's Epidemics of the Middle 
 Ages.) Whether or not this may have been the case with the old Jewish leprosy 
 we need not at present inquire. Dr. Eobinson says : " Within the Zion gate of 
 " Jerusalem, a little towards the right, are some miserable hovels, inhabited by 
 " persons called leprous. Whether their disease is or is not the leprosy of 
 " Scripture I am unable to affirm ; the symptoms described to us were similar 
 " to those of elephantiasis. At any rate they are pitiable objects, and miserable 
 " outcasts from society. They all live here together, and intermarry only with 
 " each other." (Biblical Researches, vol. i., 359.) We ourselves saw the poor 
 creatures, and noted the erosive and dismembering nature of their malady. 
 The disease riots tuberoularly and uloeratingly, attacking and destroying feature 
 after feature of the face, and the fingers and the toes, and other parts, tiU ' the 
 patient becomes a hideous spectacle, and falls in pieces.' (See Michaelis's 
 Mosaisches-Recht, §§ 208, 209.) 
 
 Beseeching Him, and kneeling down to Him, and saying unto Him, If Thon 
 wiliest, Thou art able to cleanse me. The disease was correctly regarded, not 
 only as constituting a ceremonial uncleanness, but also as embodying a real 
 physical impurity. Hence when the leper applied to the Saviour for cleansing, 
 he did not refer to ceremonial purification, which a priest alone could confer. 
 He made exclusive reference to physical purification, which would consist 
 in restoration to such a normal state of health as, when acknowledged by the 
 priest, would be his passport into the privilege of living in communion with the 
 population at large, as an admitted member of society. When he said to our 
 Lord, Thou art able to cleanse me, he manifested, as Alexander remarks, a very 
 high degree of faith in our Lord's Divine or Messianic power. Leprosy stood 
 apart by itself from all other diseases, as a malady that signally manifested the 
 judicial displeasure of God (see 2 Kings v. 27 ; 2 Chron. xxvi. 19-21). It was 
 admitted to be in general incurable. When the afflicted man said. If Thou 
 wiliest, he admitted that he did not know whether it might be within the range 
 of our Lord's mission, or within the scope of His aim and intent, to grant relief 
 to such a humiUated and outcast class of sufferers as that to which he belonged. 
 We know ; but he did not. 
 
 Veb. 41. And being moved with compassion. An exceedingly fine translation 
 {<rTr\ayxi'L<T6eU), far exceeding the renderings of all the older English versions. 
 
 He put forth His hand, and touched him. The evangelist pictures the act, and 
 you see it. The Saviour did not fear contamination from contact with the leper ; 
 
44J ST. MARK I. 33 
 
 him, I will ; be tliou clean. 42 And as soon as lie liad spoken, 
 immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was 
 cleansed. 43 And he straitly charged him, and forthwith 
 sent him away ; 44 and saith unto him. See thou say nothing 
 
 and surely, if it was competent to tlie priest, in administering ceremonial purifi- 
 cation, to touch the healed patient (see Lev. xiv.), much more was it competent 
 to our Lord, and a becoming thing, when imparting real purification, to touch 
 lovingly and sympathetically the patient whom it was His pleasure to heal. He 
 was, as Hegendorphinus says, the Lord of the law {dominm legis). The touch 
 would be moreover, at once to the patient himself and to the onlookers, an 
 optical indication and demonstration of the actual transit of the healing virtue 
 from the ourer to the cured. 
 
 And saith unto him, I will, be thou cleansed. He spoke with sublime fiat, 
 calmly and collectedly, and in the full consciousness of His perfect power. 
 
 Vee. 42. And immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was 
 cleansed. The cure was instantaneous and complete. It would be a grand 
 spectacle, and fitted to arouse, to the highest pitch, enthusiasm and expectation 
 in the onlookers. Wakefield, misapprehending the bearing of Matthew's expres- 
 sion (viii. 3) on the phraseology of Mark, translates the clause, absurdly enough, 
 thus : the leprosy went from the man and was cleansed. 
 
 Vek. 43. And He strictly charged him. The evangelist's word is a very 
 strong one {iiiPpt/iriffd/ievos), and was originally employed to denote, onomato- 
 poetically, the mutter or rumble-grumbhng growl of chafed or fretted beasts or 
 persons. (Compare the kindred Latin word fremo.) As here used it indicates 
 that the Saviour spoke to the man peremptorily, and with a kind of unmistake- 
 able sternness in His tone. The man would doubtless need to be thus addressed. 
 Not unUkely he would be far too demonstrative in his gratitude, and going 
 beyond bounds at once in his words and in his actions. Perhaps, forgetting 
 himself, and losing sight of the fact that he was still ceremonially unclean, and 
 must continue so until the priest should examine him and pronounce him to be 
 clean, he may have prostrated himself and clasped the feet of our Lord, or he 
 may have pushed himself too near the person of our Lord, or too near the per- 
 sons of those who were surrounding our Lord. Hence he might require to be 
 somewhat sternly repressed. Toung renders the expression, sternly charged 
 him. Mace, severely charging him. Coverdale, forbad him strately. Comp. 
 Matt. ix. 30. 
 
 And straightway sent him out. Or, and immediately dismissed him. The 
 original expression in this clause too is strong. It is literally, and immediately 
 threw him out {i^^^aXev aMv). Our Saviour probably required to be exceedingly 
 peremptory with the man, giving him to understand that it would be abusing 
 the grace that had been showed him, were he to come, just as he was, in contact 
 with the persons of others, or to persist in a premature and unauthorized 
 attempt to attach himself to his Deliverer as one of His personal attendants. 
 
 Veb. 44. And saith to him, See thou say nothing to any man. Literally, to no 
 one, aa instance of the double negative. The Saviour's fame as an exorcist 
 
 D 
 
34 ST. MARK I. [41 
 
 to any man : but go tty way, shew thyself to the priest, and 
 offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, 
 for a testimony unto them. 45 But he went out, and began to 
 
 and healer had already got wind enough, and more than enough. It waa in 
 danger of blowing into a perfect hurricane of popularity. A check was therefore 
 needed. There was a tendency to attach too much importance to the merely 
 physical element of the work in which He was engaged ; the far more import- 
 ant moral and spiritual elements were scarcely at all apprehended. Hence 
 confusion in the minds and hearts of the people. Speedily, very likely, would 
 they begin to weary, waiting for the tide of events ; they would seek to pre- 
 cipitate results. Was not this the long-loolced-for Deliverer ? Is He not the trite 
 Messiah? Should we not have Him instantly enthroned? (John vi. 15.) If we 
 had Him but once crowned, He would put all things to rights in the nation, and 
 in all other nations too ! The sooner, surely, the better I It was thus no wonder 
 that the Saviour said to the enthusiastic person before Him, See thou say nothing 
 to any one. His injunction shows us that certain truths may be unseasonably 
 and prematurely promulgated. " God," says Petter, " is sometimes glorified by 
 " a discreet concealment of some truth for a time, as well as by the bold and 
 " constant confession of it at other times." A moral preparation is not infre- 
 quently needed to pave the way for the enunciation or publication of certain 
 deep-drawing truths, which, without that preparation, would be misunderstood 
 and misapplied. The transit from the esoteric to the exoteric must be wisely 
 timed and tended. 
 
 But go thy way. Or, go away. So the word is rendered in John vi. 67, xiv. 
 28. It is rendered get thee hence in Matt. iv. 10, the rendering of Tyndale and 
 the Geneva in the passage before us. 
 
 Show thyself to the priest. Namely, in Jerusalem, that he may professionally 
 examine thee and authoritatively pronounce thee clean. See Lev. xiii. and xiv. 
 
 And offer for thy cleansing what things Moses enjoined. These are specified in 
 Lev. xiv. 1-32. Offer, or present. The things were to be presented through the 
 priest unto God, as an acknowledgment of the grace of God. For thy cleansing : 
 that is, for the sake of thy {ceremonial) cleansing. See Lev. xiv. 14. The 
 expression is literally concerning thy cleansing, or still more literally, about, or 
 round about, thy cleansing {irepC). The ceremonial cleansing of the man is re- 
 garded as the central object contemplated in the entire circle of the ceremonies 
 that required to be observed. 
 
 For a testimony to them. Act thus, in order that the officiating priest, and 
 the other officials who are associated with him, may learn the facts that are 
 transpiring in Galilee. These facts have an important bearing upon the fulness 
 of the time and the fulfilment of the Scriptures. 
 
 Veb. 45. But he went out. From where ? Fritzsche and Meyer say from the 
 house where the miracle had been wrought ; so Patrizi. But it is not certain 
 that the miracle had been wrought in a house. It might have been difficult for 
 a leper, contact with whom occasioned unclcanness, to get into any house where 
 our Saviour was likely to be. It is therefore enough for us to say, with Maldo- 
 nato, that the leper went out from the place where the cure had been effected, 
 
45] ST. MARK I. 85 
 
 pablisli it mucli, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch 
 that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was 
 without in desert places : and they came to him from every 
 quarter. 
 
 and thug, as Volkmar puts it, from the circle of people who were round ahout 
 the Saviour. 
 
 And began to publish (it) much. It is better to leave out the supplementary it, 
 and to carry forward the reference of the verb to the noun that is specified in 
 the immediately succeeding clause. So Grrimm. The adverbial word trans- 
 lated much is plural in the original (iroXXd). It is rendered many things by 
 Tyndale and in the Geneva version ; and it is strangely rendered in many places 
 by Godwin. It just means much, however, the quantitative idea going naturally 
 over into the qualitative or intensive. Comp. Mark iii. 12 ; v. 10, 23, 43 ; 
 ix. 26 ; Eom. xvi. 6, 12 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 12. Eisner would translate the word 
 vehemently {vehementer). When the evangelist says that the man ' began to 
 publish much,' he draws our attention, graphically, to the commencement of 
 his career, and then leaves the continuation of it to go off, under our eyes as it 
 were, into the unseen. 
 
 And to blaze abroad the matter. Or rather, the accoimt (viz. of the matter). 
 The expression ilaze abroad is a happy and striking translation [Si.a<j>-riiJ,lt;ei,v). 
 King James's English translators got it from the Bheims. Wyoliffe gives a 
 duplicate version, ' diffame (or puplishe).' 
 
 lusomuoh that He— our Authorized and Eevised versions, after Tyndale, replace 
 the pronoun with the name Jesus, for the sake of perspicuity — insomuch that 
 Jesus could no more openly enter into a city. Into a city, not into the city, as in 
 the preceding English versions. The meaning is into any city, as Eilliet renders 
 it (dans aucune ville). So too Patrizi. The literal translation would be into 
 town ; only this phrase had not quite the same idiomatic import among the 
 Greeks that it has in English. Into towns would bring out the idea intended. 
 Jesus, says the evangelist, could not enter openly into towns. The language is 
 popular. The inability was, as metaphysicians would say, not physical but 
 moral ; not absolute, but upon a condition. Our Lord could not, in consistency 
 with the high moral and spiritual aims which He had in view. He could not, 
 because the moment that His presence was recognised in a town He was liable 
 to be surrounded and hemmed in by a surging crowd of ignorant and ignorantly 
 expectant gazers, wonderers, and volunteer followers. One sees now how wise 
 it was to tell the leper to hold his tongue. The phrase no more, in the expres- 
 sion He could no more openly enter into towns, has reference to the particular 
 period spoken of ; it was a period that continued only for a limited season. 
 See chap. ii. 1. 
 
 But was without in desert places. Now here and now there. He was in these 
 places continuously (^y) ; He continued in them. Without : out of town, out of 
 towns. 
 
 And they came to Him from all parts. The people kept coming to Him 
 (■IjpXovTo), notwithstanding the difficulty of reaching Him, and the inconveniences 
 connected with a sojourn, even for a very limited period, in an unpopulated 
 district. 
 
36 ST. MARK II. [I 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 1 AND again lio entered into Capernaum after some days j 
 
 CHAPTEB II. 
 
 So far as Chapter I. carries us into the career of our Lord, we find Him pursued 
 by a most inconvenient amount of popular enthusiasm and curiosity. The 
 ■whole district of Galilee was heaving and ringing with excitement concerning 
 Him. Is this ' He ' ? Who else can it be ? Surely it must he ' He ' I The 
 day at length is dawning ! Soon shall the Romans be put down ! Soon shall 
 God's people be exalted ! The kingdom of heaven is at hand ! Is not' this the 
 Son of David, and the King of the kingdom, though in disguise ? His fame 
 thrilled almost instantaneously all over the region, and ran along vibrating 
 chords into the surrounding localities. 
 
 These were the beginnings of things. But other elements soon sprang up. 
 When once both high and low were fairly waked up into interest, and were 
 straining their minds to comprehend ' who this should be,' the ecclesiastical 
 formalists and critics found multitudes of things, both in our Lord's words and 
 works, which did not fit into the angles of their preconceived notions. Hence 
 came collision ; and this collision grew, and grew, tni Christ was crucified, and 
 Judaism was shivered into pieces, and a new spiritual constitution of things was 
 inaugurated. The first shocks of collision are exhibited in a variety of scenes, 
 which are consecutively depicted from the beginning of this second chapter 
 down to the sixth verse of the third. Had the chapters been more skilfully 
 bounded off by Hugo de Sancto Caro, the second would have extended over the 
 first six verses of the third. 
 
 The scene that is depicted in chap. ii. 1-12 is also depicted by Matthew, 
 chap. ix. 1-8, and by Luke, v. 17-26. Michelsen contends that the paragraph 
 bears marks of an overhauling by the Deutero-Markus. (Het Evangelie van 
 Markiis, pp. 88-90.) This is however an entirely arbitrary supposition. The 
 paragraph only bears marks of a plui'ality of subjective factors in the mind and 
 memory of the one Mark. 
 
 Vek. 1. And wheii He entered again into Capernaum after a lapse of days. 
 Or, after a time. Literally, through days. Tyndale's version is, after afeawe 
 dayes ; Coverdale's, after certayne dayes. (See L. Bos, Exercitat. Phil., in loc.) 
 
 It was reported. Literally, it was heard. So Wyoliffe ; only he has it in the 
 present tense, iti\ herd. Every report is two-sided ; it is something said and 
 something lieard. The English phrase exhibits the one side of the reality, the 
 Greek the other. 
 
 That He was in the house. Such is the free translation of our Authorized 
 and Revised versions. The demonstrative particle that, however, is ' recitative' 
 in the original. It introduces the citation of the report heard, in the ' direct ' 
 form of reporting ; and hence the verb, in the original, is in the present tense, 
 He is, not He was. Hence too the that is superfluous in English, as being in 
 our idiom the introductory formula of an ' indirect ' report. It was reported. 
 
2J ST. MAEK II. 37 
 
 and it was noised that lie was in the house. 2 And straight- 
 way many were gathered together, insomuch that there was 
 no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door : 
 
 ' He is in the house ' ; or more literally, ' He is into the house ' ; or more literally 
 still, ' He is into house ' (els oXk'uv i<mv). Neither of the three translations, how- 
 ever, does full justice to the original idiom. So far as the preposition into is 
 eoneerned, we may retain it, usage in some places at least allowing it. It 
 indicates the motion that preceded the rest ; He has gone ' into ' the house, and 
 is 'in' it. But we cannot say into house, as the Germans say zu Hause or nach 
 Hause ; and yet our phrase into the house points, as a phrase, determinately to 
 some particular house, an idea that is not phraseologioally involved in the 
 Greek expression. Of course the Saviour was in some particular house, most 
 probably Peter's ; but the evangelist's phrase does not bring out this fact into 
 prominence. It indicates more, however, than would be indicated by our ex- 
 pression, He is into a house. His meaning very much accords with our English 
 idiomatic expression in town, or into town, only instead of the generic idea of 
 town we have the specific idea of house. If our idiom would have allowed us 
 to say in house or into house, as we say in town or into town, there would have 
 been a perfect correspondence between the English and Greek expressions. 
 Into town does not mean into u, town, and hence Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, and 
 Godwin's translation ('in a house'), and Euthymius Zigabenus's interpretation 
 (eis OLKov TWO.), are wrong. Lachmann, Tisohendorf, Tregelles, suppose that the 
 original expression was in home (h/ aixtji), instead of into house {eh oZicov). They 
 have the authority of the important manuscripts S B D L, 33 ; but, as the read- 
 ing of the Eeceived Text is obviously the more rugged, and in some respect the 
 more difficult of the two, it is to be presumed that it would be the original. 
 Hence Meyer, Lange, Alford retain it. A transcriber might readily turn the 
 more rugged phrase into the smoother, thinking that he was doing no harm ; 
 but it is more difficult to imagine that he would wilfully transmute a smooth, 
 correct, and easy-going reading into one that was rugged and peculiar. The 
 Alexandrine manuscript (A), and the Ephraemi (G), and the rest of the uncials, 
 with the exception of N B D L, read into, not in. 
 
 Ver. 2. In the lleceived Text and the Authorized English version we read 
 And straightway. But Lachmann and Tregelles query the genuineness of the 
 straightway or immediately ; and Tischendorf throws it out, in his eighth edition. 
 Bengel too was in doubt about it; and Mill condemned it as " irreptitious " 
 (p. clii.). It is omitted by the manuscripts X B L, 33, and by the Vulgate, 
 Coptic, Syriao Peshito, Armenian, and ^thiopio versions. The word is a 
 favourite with Mark (see chip. i. 21), and seems to drop down very naturally 
 into the expression before us. But for this very reason it is more likely that it 
 would be added, than that it would be subtracted, by transcribers. 
 
 Many were gathered together. Entering with oriental freedom into the house 
 where the Saviour was. It would be a humble house; and the public apartment, 
 or family room, in which our Saviour would be seated, was soon crowded to the 
 door. 
 
 Insomnch that there was no longer room, not even about the door. So great 
 
68 ST. MARK II. [2 
 
 and lie preached the word unto them. 3 And they come uuto 
 him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. 
 4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press,. 
 
 and closely pacted was the crowd, inside and outside. Tlie evangelist makes 
 U3 spectators of the scene, just as if we were present, and looking on. We see 
 the publio room rapidly fiUing up, till it is crowded to the door. The people, 
 however, still come flocking toward the door {Trpis t^v %-vpa.v) and choke up the 
 whole space around, tiU there is no longer (,u.i;/ceTi) room. Those who are out- 
 side stretch their necks eagerly to get a glimpse of the Eabbi, or to catch some- 
 thing that He says. 
 
 And He spake tlis word to them. The word, in the collective import of the 
 term, the import which it bears when the reference is to vocables ' laid' in order 
 {\6yos from \eyoi. Compare the Latin lego and the Anglo-Saxon lecgan ; com- 
 pare also the Latin sermo). It is some particular word that is referred to, 
 ' the word.' It was what Luke and Paul so often call the word of God. It was 
 no doubt the word of truth, the word of the truth of the gospel (Col. i. 5), the word 
 of the kingdom {Matt. xiii. 19), the 'good-spell ' regarding the kingdom of heaven. 
 Our Saviour spake the word. Note the term spake, or was speaking. It is in 
 the imperfect tease, and intimates that He was engaged in speaking when the 
 occurrence just about to be narrated took place. The term preached employed 
 in King James's version summons up before our imagination more of the nature 
 of a puilic proclamation or harangue than is indicated by the evangehst's ex- 
 pression. The Saviour was in a private house, and sat talking to the people. 
 Such is the import of the term (^XaXei). 
 
 Vee. 3. And there come (persons) bringing to Him a paralytic (Ipxavrai. 
 tpepovres irpbs aOriiv TrapaKvriKov). The expression to Him does not necessarily 
 mean up to Him or into His immediate presence. The preposition denotes, as 
 Webster says (Gram., p. 183), 'the direction of motion.' Hence the saying of 
 cm- Lord in John xii. 32, ' and I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto Me.' 
 The direction of the drawing, rather than the accomphshed result, is indicated. 
 Borne of four : he would be suspended on his pallet between two pairs of 
 bearers ; a bearer would have hold of each corner. 
 
 Vee. 4. And when they could not come nigh to Him for the crowd. The 
 Vulgate version is, et cum non possent offerre eum illi prai turha, and when they 
 could not bring [him) to Him because of the crovid. It represents a very ancient 
 reading {irpoaevkyKai instead of trpoffeyylaaC), the reading of K B L, 33, and also 
 of the PhUoxenian Syriao, and the Coptic, and .Slthiopic versions. It has been 
 taken into the text by Tischendorf in his eighth edition ; Ewald accepts it. 
 Certainly it seems to be the more difficult reading of the two, as there is no noun 
 or pronoun to represent the person whom they wished to lay before the Lord. 
 Volkmar however thinks that it has arisen from comparing the expression in 
 Luke v. 18. Unlikely. But the reading itself is likely. That of the Keceived 
 Text runs smoother, and would not be so likely to be voluntarily modified on 
 the one hand, or unintentionally misread on the other, in a somewhat carelessly 
 written manuscript. 
 
4] ST. MARK 11. 39 
 
 they uncovered the roof where he was : and when they had 
 
 They unoovered the roof where He was. Very literally, they unroofed the rooj 
 wJiere He was. They undid the roofing at the spot which was right in front of 
 the plaoe where He was sitting. Purvey has a picturesque translation, thei 
 unheeliden the roof, — the verb to heel or heal meaning originally to cover. (The 
 heel is a peculiarly covered part of the body ; he who is healed is lecovered.) 
 The Gothic version is not unlike Purvey's, andhulidedun hrot. As to the hrot 
 or roof, which was partially uncovered, Shaw the traveller supposed it to be 
 the awning that is sometimes drawn over the quadrangular court, around which 
 larger houses are built. He supposed that our Saviour would be sitting and 
 teaching in the court below, and that the bearers of the paralytic, leaning over 
 the terrace of the house, would fold back a portion of the awning, and then let 
 down (by ropes), not ' through the tiles,' but ' ly the side of the tiles,' the 
 couch of the patient. (Travels in Barbary and the Levant, vol. i., pp. 381-6, ed. 
 1808.) The supposition, when laid hold of by the imagination, forms itself 
 readily into an interesting picture. But it is too romantic, and invested with 
 too much ' pomp of circumstance.' It proceeds on the assumption that our 
 Saviour was in a great house, where there was ample accommodation, with many 
 of the appliances of luxury. Dr. Kitto modifies, and in some respects exagger- 
 ates. Dr. Shaw's conception. He supposes with Dr. Shaw that the people 
 were gathered together in the quadrangular court of a, great house ; but he 
 thinks it probable that Jesus, instead of sitting in the midst of the people in 
 the court, was occupying a commanding position in the gallery or verandah 
 that ran round the second storey of the house. " The roofing of this gallery 
 " was distinct from that of the house," and " of very slight construction." 
 " We think therefore that the men, having mounted to the terraced roof, pro- 
 " ceeded to remove a part of this light roofing of the gallery, over the place 
 "where Jesus sat below." (Pictorial Bible, on Luke v.) Webster and Wilkin- 
 son adopt what is substantially Dr. Kitto's view; Bishop Wordsworth too. 
 But it is inconsistent with the humble position in society of the occupants of 
 the house ; and it does violence, moreover, to the phraseology of the represent- 
 ation. Even the supposition of Lightfoot, Bland, Meyer, Bisping, and many 
 others, that our Saviour must have been in an ' upper room ' is entirely arbi- 
 trary, and improbable too ; more particularly improbable when we take the 
 crowding around the door into account. The house would doubtless be a very 
 humble one, a mere cottage. When Alexander ' says that ' eastern houses are 
 always built around an open court,' he writes under an entire misapprehension. 
 Such a mode of construction is indeed the prevailing style for the larger class 
 of houses ; but for them only. The cottages of the mass of the people, and 
 especially in the villages and hamlets, are quite different, and are really very 
 humble, low roofed, one-storeyed residences, opening directly, without any inter- 
 vening porch or vestibule, into the one apartment of which they consist, though 
 sometimes there is an inner apartment ; and in other oases there is a confused 
 aggregation of subordinate apartments, stretching backward, and sometimes 
 under distinct roofs, like cot attached to cot. With a little agility, and, if need 
 be, with some simple appliance far less elaborate than the application of a 
 ladder, there would be no difficulty at all in getting on the flat roof of the fishor- 
 
40 ST. MARK II. [4 
 
 broken it up, they leb down the bed wherein the sick of the 
 
 man's cottage. There would be just as little in undoing such a portion of the 
 roofing as would be needed to admit of the descent of the paralytic on his 
 couch. The iiippaut objections which have been persistently urged by Woolston 
 [Miracles, iv. p. 57), Strauss, {Leben, § 92), Bruno Bauer (Kritik, § 35), and 
 other scoffers, are founded on an entire misconception of oriental house con- 
 struction, in the sphere of the humbler classes of society. See next clause. 
 
 And when they had broken it up. Or, more literally, and when they broke 
 it up. The word thus translated (f^optj^avrei} explains, more partioularizingly, 
 what it was which they did to the portion of the roof which they removed. 
 They dug it out, or scooped it out. (See Gal. iv. 15 ; Matt. xxi. 33, xxv. 18 ; 
 Mark xii. 1.) A more appropriate term could not have been selected, even by 
 Thucydides or Xenophon. The roofs of the humble class of oriental houses are 
 such that digging or scooping is necessary whenever there is the intent to effect 
 an entrance. And such digging or scooping does no injury whatever to the fabric. 
 Dr. Bobinson, speaking of the district about Lebanon, says : " The flat roofs of 
 " the houses in this region are constructed by laying, first, large beams at in- 
 " tervals of several feet ; then rude joists ; on which again are arranged small 
 "poles close together, or brushwood; and upon this is spread earth or gravel 
 "rolled hard. This rolling is often repeated, especially after rain; for these 
 "roofs are apt to leak. For this purpose a roller of stone is kept ready for use 
 "on the roof of every house. Grass is often seen growing on these roofs." 
 {Later Researches, p. 39.) Beferring to his lodging in Jerjfi'a, on the way be- 
 tween Beirut and 'Akka, he says : " Like all the other houses of the village, it 
 " had but one storey. . . . The roof was of the usual kind, supported by rude 
 " props. It rained heavily during the night ; and the water found its way 
 "through upon us. Quite early in the morning we heard our host at work 
 " rolling the roof ; and saw the same process going on with other houses. 
 " Goats also Were cropping the grass growing on several roofs." (Later Re- 
 searches, p. 44.) " We must banish from our minds," says Dr. W. M. Thomson, 
 " every form of European or American houses. ■ . . All that it is necessary for 
 " us to know is that the roof was flat, low, easily reached, and easily opened, so 
 " as to let down the couch of the sick man ; and all these points are rendered in- 
 " telligible by an acquaintance with modem houses in the villages of Palestine." 
 (The Land and the Book, pp. 358, 359.) In some cases, says Dr. Thomson 
 (p. 359), stone slabs are laid across the joisting ; and in the case before us there 
 had been slabs of tile or dried clay underneath the thick compost of earth and 
 gravel. (See Luke v. 19.) The roofs of the houses in Palestine required, and 
 require, to be thick for the same reason that the people require to wear thick 
 turbans on their heads, — to keep out, as far as possible, the heat. 
 
 They let down the bed whereon the paralytic was lying. " Examine," says 
 Dr. W. M. Thomson, "one of the houses of the modern villages in this same 
 "region, and you will see at once that the thing is natural and easy to be 
 " accomplished. The roof is only a few feet high ; and by stooping down, and 
 "holding the corners of the couch (merely a thickly padded quilt, as at present 
 " in this region) they would let down the sick man without any apparatus of 
 " ropes or cords to assist them." (The Land and the Book, p. 858.) When 
 
6] ST. MARK II. 41 
 
 palsy lay. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the 
 sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. 6 But there 
 were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their 
 
 Woolstou wilcUy depicts the danger of ' a broken pate,' incurred by our Lord 
 and His disciples during tlie process, from ' the falling of thie tiles,' lie simply 
 allows tis flippancy to run riotous. The word translated bed {Kpa^arros, such is 
 its correct form) was an unclassical term for a narrow couch or litter, on which 
 only one person could lie. (It corresponds to the Attic o-ri/iTrous. See Fhryn- 
 ichus in voc, and Loieclc in loo., p. 62.) 
 
 Vek. 5. And Jesus seeing their faith. ' The faith of the whole party, con- 
 sisting of the paralytic himself ^nd of his friends who had acted with him and 
 for him. Jesus could look into their hearts and see ; and no doubt He did thus 
 look ; but at the same time their inward faith was signally manifested by their 
 outward acts. 
 
 Saith to the paralytic, Son, thy sins are forgiven. Or, have been forgiven. 
 The verb is in the indicative mood of the perfect passive, Doric form (d^tw^rai). 
 If however we should adopt the reading of Tisoitendorf and Tregelles (a^UvTai), 
 . the translation will be thy sins are forgiven. If this latter reading be accepted, 
 the Lord is represented as referring to a present occurrence, thy sins are for- 
 given (viz. now). It the reading of the Eeceived Text be retained, the Lord is 
 represented as referring to a past occurrence, thy sins have been forgiven (viz. 
 from the moment when thy faith began). The Beoeived reading has the support 
 of a great majority of the important manuscripts. The other has the support of 
 the Vatican manuscript, and of 'the queen of the cursives' (33), and of the 
 Syriac versions, and the Vulgate, and the Coptic. The Lord, looking into the 
 heart of the afflicted man, saw that he was more distressed on account of his 
 sins than of his sickness ; and so He first of all spoke peace to hjs conscience. 
 Not unlikely the young man had been foolish, possibly he had brought his 
 disease upon himself by means of his sins ; but he was now penitent, and a 
 firm believer in the Messiah, superadding to his general faith the specific 
 conviction that the Messiah was before him in the person of Jesus. Jesus calls 
 him son, or more literally, child, partly no doubt because he was young, but 
 principally, as we may believe, because there was a beautiful filial confidence in 
 his heart. 
 
 Vek. 6. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there. They had 
 scented heresy from afar, and had come to pry censoriously and inquisitorially 
 into the teaching of the wonderful upstart Eabbi. See Luke v. 17. They 
 " carried," says Trapp, "gall in their ears." On the word scribes, see chap. i. 
 22. 
 
 And reasoning in their hearts. The reference of the expression their hearts 
 is simply and generically to tlie interior sphere of their complex being, not 
 specifically to the sphere of the affections. They reasoned : the term is 
 graphic in the original. They started a dialogue with themselves within their 
 own minds (SiaXo^ifrf/ierot). Themselves spoke to themselves, as it were, but with 
 bated breath. 
 
42 ST. MARK II. [6 
 
 hearts, 7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies ? who 
 can forgive sins but God only ? 8 And immediately when 
 Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within 
 
 Vee. 7. Why doth this Han thus speak J He blasphemes. He does an injury 
 to the fame of God ; He detracts from the true glory of God. " Blasphemy," 
 says Sir George Mackenzie, in his Laws and Customs of Scotland in matters 
 Criminal (Tit. iii. § 1), "is called in law, Divine lese Majesty or Treason; and 
 " it is committed either (1) by denying that of God which belongs to Him as 
 " one of His attributes, or (2J by attributing to Him that which is absurd, anr 
 "inconsistent with His Divine nature," or, as it may be added (3), by assuming 
 to oneself, or ascribing to others, what is an incommunicable property or pre- 
 rogative of God. It is with a reference to this third form of the crime that the 
 word is used in the passage before us. See next clause. 
 
 Who cau forgive sins except One, even God ? It is God's incommunicable pre- 
 rogative to forgive sins, to dismiss them from the sinner, as the original word 
 signifies (icfiihai). Men may forgive trespasses that have been committed 
 against themselves in so far as they are injuries done to themselves. But these 
 trespasses, besides being injuries to men, are sins against God. So far indeed 
 as they are sins at all, they are relative only to God. (Ps. li. 4.) None but He, 
 therefore, can forgive them. In this fundamental idea the censorious scribes 
 were right ; but then in all other respects they were wrong. They were 
 censoriously presumptuous in rushing to the conclusion that the wonderful 
 Personage before them had neither power nor authority to forgive sins. Why 
 not justly judge of Him by His works, instead of censoriously criticising His 
 mere words ? 
 
 Vee. 8. And immediately Jesus, perceiving in His spirit that they so reasoned 
 within themselves. He had an intuitive perception of the contents of their 
 hearts ; and, by explicitly presenting these contents to their recognition. He 
 implicitly rebuked them for their unwillingness to acknowledge the supernatural 
 element that was characterizing Him. We may either say, on the one hand, 
 " instantly perceiving ' in ' His spirit " (Jelf), or, on the other, " instantly per- 
 ceiving ' by ' His spirit" (Le Clerc, Beausobre et L'Enfant), or 'with ' His spirit 
 (Pisoator, Heumann, Volkmar), or ' through ' His spirit (Bisping). The dative 
 case employed may be either ' the where case ' or ' the how case.' It is not 
 likely that the locality idea is here intended; for, of course, perception or 
 Imowledge can never be localized anywhere but in the spirit, and there would 
 therefore be no signiflcancy in the specification. We should undoubtedly 
 render the expression by His spirit, a rendering that brings into prominence 
 in what way it was that our Lord read the hearts of His censors. It was not 
 by what His ears heard or His eyes saw. It was not by means of any of those 
 outward things that are objective to our percipient ' senses ' ; His knowledge did 
 not reach Him in that circuitous way, by the route of any of ' the five gate- 
 ways ' in the periphery of the complfex person. It was direct, the knowledge of 
 spirit by spirit. Wells translates the expression by His spirit, and explains it as 
 meaning by His Divine spirit. Fetter gives the same explanation, by His Divine 
 nature, Grotius contends at length, and learnedly, for the same explanation. 
 
9] ST. MARK II. 43 
 
 themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in 
 your hearts ? 9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the 
 palsy. Thy sins be forgiven thee ; or to say. Arise, and take up 
 
 So Euthymius Zigabenus (TrveD/ia ivrav^a t^v 3-eoTi)Ta KaXef) ; and Erasmus 
 {Paraphrase); and Calvin; Bengel also, and Calmet, and many others. Eisner, 
 on the other hand, thinks that there is a reference to the Holy Spirit, yihiah. was 
 given to our Lord without measure. The same view was taken by Wycliffe, 
 who hence translates the expression by the Holy Goost. Dionysius k Byckel 
 oscillates between the two interpretations, but tends toward the former. The 
 reference to the Holy Spirit is altogether improbable. Neither is there any 
 reason to believe that the evangelist was formally referring, in the spirit of a 
 systematic theologian, to the Divine nature of our Lord, as distinguished from 
 the spiritual element of His human nature. He was not formulating to himself 
 the distinction of the two natures, although it no doubt lay embedded in his 
 thoughts as the logical substrate of his representations. He simply makes 
 reference, indefinitively and generioaUy, to the inner and invisible or spiritual 
 element of our Lord's complex being. In virtue of that element, and by means 
 of it, our Lord saw at a glance through all interposing veils. He saw things as 
 they really were. Materialisms were transparent to Him. So were the spiritual 
 inwrappings of things, even in the hearts that were most coiled up and self 
 involved. He ' needed not that any should testify of man ; for He knew what 
 was in man.' (John ii. 25.) 
 
 Saith unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts ? Why reason ye 
 (5iaXo7ife(r3-e) ? Why put questions and give answers to yourselves, in the way 
 that ye are doing ? In your hearts: that is, within yourselves. See the pre- 
 ceding clause. It is as if He had said, in your minds, or, still more exactly, in 
 the heart of your being. 
 
 Vek. 9. 'Whloh is easier? to say to the paralytic, 'Thy sins have been for- 
 given,' or to say, 'Arise, and take up thy bed and walk'? The Saviour, in the 
 most felicitous manner imaginable, brings the case to the simplest of issues. 
 There was no need for any long discussion. The whole matter could be settled 
 by a few words. The inward could be certified by the outward, without any 
 circumlocution ; the upward could be reflected by the downward, immediately ; 
 the invisible could be manifested in the visible, just at once. And if therefore 
 it would be more satisfactory to them, or would carry more of the evidence of 
 Divine authority. He could speak a few words of fiat in reference to the 
 visible and downward and outward ; and He would do that just as easily as He 
 had authoritatively said thy sins have been forgiven. They might call in ques- 
 tion His authority to say thy sins have been forgiven, inasmuch as they could 
 not actually see the dismissal of the sins. But if when He said, Arise, take 
 up thy bed and walk, they could see with their eyes that the fiat was fulfilled, 
 then surely they would have no just reason for calling in question the fulness 
 of the Divine authority that was behind all that He was saying and doing. 
 When the resources of Divinity are available, it is just as easy to move a 
 mountain as to remove a molehill, to cancel the liabilities of a soul as to 
 strike off the fetters of a body. King James's translation, whether is it easier. 
 
a ST, MARK II. [9 
 
 fhy bed, and walk? 10 But that ye may know that tlie 
 Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to 
 the sick of the palsy,) 11 I say unto thee. Arise, and take up 
 
 is not nearly so literal as Coverdale's, whether is easier, that is, which of the 
 two is easier. Coverdale reproduces Lather's translation (welches ist leichter). 
 Instead of the word walk, or walk about (TrepnraTei) at the close of the verse, 
 Ti§ohendorf reads go thy way {OTraye), under the sanction of the Sinai tie manu- 
 script and a few other authorities. The Cambridge manuscript and ' the queen 
 of the cursives ' (33) read go thy way to thy house. Both the fuller reading, 
 however, and the briefer seem to have been borrowed from ver. 11. Not un- 
 liiely they had originally been jotted down as marginal explanations of the 
 word that is found in the Received Text. 
 
 Ver. 10. But that ye may know. Godwin, overlooking or misapprehending 
 the nature of the word translated ye may know, renders it ye may see. The 
 word indeed has obviously enough a primary reference to seeing, but it does 
 not mean I see. It is in the perfect tense, and thus originally meant I have 
 seen, that is, I know. We have no alternative between the two translations that 
 ye may have seen and that ye may know. 
 
 That the Son of Man has power on earth — or, rather, has authority ■upon the 
 earth — to forgive sins. Mark the word authority [i^ova-tav). The Saviour is not 
 referring to a matter of mere power. Mere power might sufBce for removing 
 paralysis from a paralytic; but the forgiveness of sins is a moral act, connecting 
 itself with a moral system, and having to do therefore with moral rights and 
 liabilities. Hence the idea of law comes in ; and thus the power to forgive sins 
 must be more than mere power or omnipotence. It must be power that is law- 
 ful (l^effTi). Such power is right, and hence it is, in the highest sense of the 
 phrase, a right. It may however be either an original or a derived right. In the 
 Saviour's case it was both. Viewed as Divine, Hg had the right in Himself. 
 Viewed as Messiah, He had authority from the Father, His authority being 
 authorization. The Father was the author ol the aMJ/wri(?/i(Matt. xxviii. 18, 
 John xvii. 2 ; comp. Matt. viii. 9, Luke vii. 8). No doubt the Saviour refers 
 here to His mediatorial authoriza.tion, although, in the substrate of things, this 
 authorization reposed on His own intrinsic right. 
 
 He saith to the paralytic. This is a parenthetic note of the evangelist, turn- 
 ing our attention to the sublime transition in the Saviour's address. 
 
 Vee. 11. I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go thy way to thy house. 
 Or, as Tyndale picturesquely has it (1526), Aryse, and take up thy heed, and get 
 the hens in to'thyne awne housse. How thoroughly conscious the Saviour must 
 have been of His Divine authority and power ! His whole influence in the 
 country and the world at large, in the age and for all ages, lay trembling 
 as it were in the balance, and perilled so to speak on the result of His fiat. If 
 failure had been the result, His humiliation would have been overwhelming and 
 final. The supposed blasphemy of His assumption in reference to the forgive- 
 ness of sins would have been demonstrated. The triumph of His censors would 
 have been complete and legitimate. This being obviously the ease. He must 
 have known, ere He spoke, that there was really no peril ; otherwise, His fiat 
 
13J ST. MARK II. 45 
 
 thy bed, and go tty way into thine house. 12 And immedi- 
 ately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them 
 all ; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified Grod, 
 saying, We never saw it on this fashion. 
 
 13 And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the 
 multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them. 
 
 would have faltered on His tongue, and would indeed have been utterly irrecon- 
 cilable with the lowest degree of prudence, not to speak of the highest degrees 
 of good sense and sincerity. 
 
 Vek. 12. And immediately he arose, and toot tip the bed, and went forth before 
 all. "Stoutly making his way," says Lightfoot, "with his bed upon his 
 " shoulders." There is some difference of opinion regarding the proper place for 
 the adverb immediately. Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford insert it in the 
 second clause, and he arose, and immediately took up the bed. They have the 
 high authorization of the manuscripts N B C* L, 33. But in a case like the 
 present more evidence would be needed to warrant an alteration of the Eeoeived 
 Text. It is not, however, a matter of any exegetical moment. 
 
 So that all are amazed, and glorify God, saying, The like of this we never saw ! 
 The Geneva version is. We never saw such a thing ! The Eheims, We never saw 
 the like 1 When it is said that they glorify God, the reference is to the excla- 
 mations which sprang up to their lips and flew out from their mouths, the 
 moment they witnessed the marvellous transformation of the man's person, — 
 God be praised ! Glory be to God ! At such moments, as on all occasions of 
 very great intensity of feeling, the spirit of man instinctively opens into the 
 presence of the Infinite Spirit. Even in the profane oaths of the wicked and 
 the atheistic, when such persons are roused into intensity of passion, there is a 
 strange, though strangely distorted, recognition of the presence of Divinity. 
 In some wonderful way spirit touches Spirit, and in moments of intensity the 
 touching thrills into consciousness. 
 
 Vee. 13. For the paragraph that extends from this verse to the 17th, comp. 
 Matt. ix. 9-13, and Lute v. 27-32. 
 
 And He went forth again. Namely, from the city of Capernaum. Comp. 
 ver. 1. The again has reference to the previous exit that is mentioned in chap. 
 i. 35. Michelsen admits that the entire verse is one of the true connecting 
 links of the Proto-Markus [een van die tusschenvoegsels van Markus : p. 148). 
 Doubtless. 
 
 By the sea side. Tischendorf, on the single authority of the Sinaitio manu- 
 script, reads to the sea. But that, surely, is tilting on its apex the pyramid of 
 textual criticism ; more especially as the reading of the Beceived Text, and of 
 all the other important manuscripts, is the more difficult. The evangelist's 
 expression is condensed, but its meaning is evident, — Jesus went again out of 
 the city, and walked by the sea side. Jesus was a lover of nature, at once in its 
 open reaches and its elevated peaks. No wonder. It was His own workman- 
 ship. 
 
 And all the multitude resorted to Him, and He taught them. Or, more literally, 
 and all the multitude kept coming to Him, and Be kept teaching them. The 
 
40 ST. MARK II. [14 
 
 14 And as lie passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphseus 
 
 multitude of people, whose curiosity and wonder had been excited by the words 
 which they had afready heard from His lips, and the works which they had 
 witnessed from His hands, kept crowding after Him and gathering around Him. 
 And He kept teaching them : now talking to those of them that had pressed 
 nearest Him, as He walked along, and now perhaps seating Himself on some 
 simple ' coigne of vantage ' or some boat drawn up upon the shore, and 
 discoursing to the whole company. Our Lord, as Eiohard Baxter says, 
 "taught the people and preached the gospel in field-meetings, house- 
 " meetings, mountain - meetings, ship - meetings, synagogue - meetings, and 
 " temple-meetings." 
 
 Vee. 14. And passing by. The evangelist, after narrating in epitome the 
 Lord's journey to the lake, and His walk by its shore, steps back to take up a 
 certain thread of incident which happened on the way. 
 
 He saw Levi. The same individual, apparently, who was afterwards known by 
 the name of Matthew ; oomp. Matt. ix. 9. It was ijuite customary among the 
 Jews for persons who were entering upon an entirely new career to assume, or 
 to get imposed upon them, a new name, or a surname that had hitherto been 
 lying in comparative abeyance. Hence the names Paul and Peter. Hence 
 too apparently the name Matthew. Some however have supposed that Levi 
 and Matthew were ' different individuals. This opinion was entertained by 
 Heracleon (Clem. Al., Strom., iv. 9) and Origen (Cont. Cels. i., § 376) in ancient 
 times ; and by Grotius, Michaelis, and Ewald in modern times. Grotius con- 
 jectures that Levi might be a supervisor (ipxireXiivris), like Zaocheus (Luke xix. 
 2), and that Matthew might be his subordinate officer. Unlikely. 
 
 The son of Alpbsus, As Alphseus was a common Hebrew name, there is no 
 good reason for assuming with Ewald that the father of Levi was the father of 
 James ' the little,' the apostle (Matt. x. 3). 
 
 Sitting at the tax-office. Or, as it stands in King James's version, sitting at 
 the receipt of custom. The word employed by the evangelist means customs, 
 office, or custom-house as it were. Principal Campbell renders it toll-office. 
 Wycliffe, tolbothe. Levi is said to have been sitting ' at' it, or, more literally, 
 sitting 'on' it {iwl rh reKiiviov). The preposition 'originally expresses the 
 position of one thing on another,' and sometimes, when governing the accusa- 
 tive, the idea of motion is merged. (See Jelf, § 633 and 635-6. Collate Eev. 
 iv. 4, iii. 20.) Levi was sitting ' on ' the elevated counter, or ' bank,' which con- 
 stituted the central and essential part of the tax-office. The common shops and 
 banks in the eastern bazaars are somewhat like box-beds, ' in ' and ' on ' which, 
 as we have ourselves often witnessed, the shopman or banker sits cross-legged, 
 while either waiting for or actually transacting business. No doubt Levi's tax- 
 office would be something of the same kind ; and the elevated platform ' on ' 
 which he would be sitting, being also the counter, bench, or ' bank' on which 
 the business was done, would be the real tax-place. The rest of the 'box-bed' 
 would be the mere surroundings and incidental conveniences of the ' office.' 
 
 And He saith to him, Follow Me. Or, as WyolifEe has it. Sue Me. Our Lord 
 would wish Levi to follow Him literally, that is, to take his place behind in the 
 
;5] ST. MARK II. 47 
 
 sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto hinij Follow 
 me. And lie arose and followed him. 
 
 15 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, 
 
 company of His personal disciples or constant attendants ; comp. chap. i. 17. 
 There is no reason, however, for supposing that our Lord and Levi had never 
 met hefore. The abruptness of the call, and the analogy of the case of Peter 
 and Andrew, would rather lead us to the conclusion that there had been some 
 previous intimacy. (See John i. 35-42, and Mark i. 16-18.) 
 
 And he arose and followed Him. He suede Him, says Wycliffe. There was 
 authority in the Lord's ' call.' Levi felt that it must be obeyed. Honour 
 moreover was conferred by it, as well as duty imposed ; and hence it was gladly 
 obeyed. Levi however, we may be sure, would not leave the duties of the tax- 
 office neglected. If he was a subaltern, his place would be easily supplied. If, 
 as is most probable (see next verse), he was a superior officer, some one or other 
 of his subordinates would be ready to step into his place, until final arrange- 
 ments should be made. (See Lightfoot's Works, vol. xii., p. 182.) 
 
 Vei!. 15. And it came to pass. Or, according to the more probable reading 
 of the manuscripts X B L, 33, it comes to pass {ylverai). The evangelist takes 
 us "back with him in imagination, and makes us spectators of the scene, just as 
 it occurs. This present-tense reading is accepted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, 
 Alford. 
 
 That as Jesus sat at meat in his house. Such is the translation in King 
 James's version. It calls for various remarks. (1) The phrase rendered as 
 {iv Ti^ is wanting in the same manuscripts which give the present-tense reading 
 in the preceding clause ; it is wanting in some other authorities besides, and 
 should be omitted, as it is in the Eevised version. (2) The word Jesus is in none 
 of the manuscripts at all ; there is simply the pronoun he. It was Tyndale 
 who substituted the noun for the pronoun, for perspicuity's sake. The Geneva 
 version followed ; and hence our King James's version. There is no doubt, 
 however, that Tyndale was right in assuming that it is Jesus, and not Levi, who 
 is referred to. (3) The expression sat at meat means literally was reclining at 
 table. The verb is the same as that which occurs in chap. i. 30, ' Simon's 
 wife's mother lay sick of a fever.' See also chap. ii. 4. The Greek and 
 Eoman custom of taking a recumbent posture at table, at least on occasions of 
 formal entertainments, seems to have been common in Palestine in our Lord's 
 time ; see John xiii. 23. (4) The reference of the pronoun his, in the expres- 
 sion in his house, has been of late much disputed. Meyer maintains that it 
 refers to Jesus. So do Holtzmann {Die synoptischen Ev., p. 218), Sohenkel 
 {CharakterMld, § 7, 1), Scholten {Het oudste Evang., p. 95), and Volkmar {Die 
 Evangelien, pp. 150, 151). These critics indeed do not forget that Luke says 
 explicitly that the entertainment was in the house of Levi (v. 29) ; but they think 
 that Luke ' misunderstood ' the Proto-Mark. ' Luke first of all,' says Volk- 
 mar, 'misunderstood the expression, and then all succeeding interpreters.' 
 Fritzsohe again is certain that Luke and Mark entirely coincide in their repre- 
 sentation. But, says he, Matthew (ix. 10) represents the entertainment as 
 being in Christ's own house. But, to one who does not eagerly wish to find 
 
48 ST. MARK TI. [Ij 
 
 many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and 
 
 war among the evangelists, there is not a shadow of evidence that there is the 
 least conflict in the case before us. Fritzsche is obviously right when he asserts 
 that Mark and Luke are at one, and Matthew is as obviously at one with them ' 
 both. The house was evidently Levi's. It is utterly gratuitous to suppose that 
 Jesus made an entertainment in His own house for ' many publicans and 
 sinners.' (See next clause of the verse.) True, the pronouns of the narrative 
 are not wielded by the evangelist with the highest classical skill. The 'wisdom 
 of words ' is absent ; and hence, so far as the mere terminology of the first 
 clause of the verse is concerned, there is scope for a fray over the reference of 
 the pronouns. But though there had not been the explicit representation 
 of Luke there would nevertheless be nothing whatever of the similitude of a 
 reason for doubting the intentional reference of Mark, in the second at least of 
 his pronouns. If it be the case that Luke borrowed from Mark, or the ' Proto- 
 Mark,' or, as Michelsen will have it, the Deutero-Mark, then what Holtzmann, 
 Soholten, and Volkmar call his mistake was simply his correct interpretation. 
 
 And many tax collectors and sinners were reclining (at table) along with Jesus 
 and His disciples. It was just such a company as might be expected in the 
 house of Levi. Tax collectors in particular, and sinners In general ; all of 
 them persons who made little or no pretension to religiousness. They were 
 simply ' men of the world.' The word translated publicans in the Vulgate 
 version, and hence in our English version, means simply tax collectors or 
 officers of revenue. It occurs only, so far as the New Testament is concerned, in 
 the three synoptic Gospels. The word was a Latin term (publicani), denoting 
 the great oflScers, chiefly belonging to the equestrian order, who farmed the 
 Homan revenue (publicum habebant), and paid into the public treasury (in 
 publicum) a certain definite sum agreed upon by contract with the government. 
 These publicani, who were all wealthy individuals, sublet the tax-gathering to 
 agents (magistri), who also became bound by contract to return a given amount 
 of money. These agents again engaged local officers, or portitores, to collect 
 the dues. It was these local officers, oi portitores, who are referred to iu the 
 New Testament under the name of reXcDcai. They needed to belong to the 
 native population, that they might know the ways of the people and run little 
 risk of being circumvented. And indeed they almost invariably succeeded in 
 circumventing, oppressing, and fleecing the taxpaying population. They had 
 a definice sum to return to their superiors, and it was needful of course to have 
 a surplusage for their own remuneration. All over the Boman empire they 
 were hated. They were looked upon as the ' bears and wolves ' of society. 
 (See Suiceri Thesaurus, and Smith's Bible Diet, in voc.) But a double and 
 concentrated portion of hate attached to them in Palestine, for many of the 
 people, more especially of the professedly religious sort, maintained that it was 
 an indignity to God for the favourites of heaven to have to pay taxes to a 
 foreign and heathen potentate. Hence none but such as were willing to set the 
 popular patriotism and superstition at defiance could accept the office of tax- 
 gatherers. And all who did accept it lost religious caste instantly and entirely, 
 and were mercilessly driven into the outskirts of religious society, or farther out 
 Btill. Ihcy were ' joined,' says Lightfoot, ' with out-throats and robbers ' 
 
16J ST. MAEK II. 49 
 
 his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. 
 16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with 
 publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is 
 it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners ? 
 
 (Works, vol. xi., p. 130). Hence the evangelist associates them with sinners, 
 that is, with such as were emphatically sinners. The term is used in a plane of 
 things that corresponds to what is related in Luke vii. 37, ' Behold a woman in 
 the city, which was a sinner.' We still use the word in a partially correspond- 
 ing way when we speak of ' saints and sinners.' It is too, apparently, on this 
 principle of emphasis that we are to understand John when he says (1 John 
 iii. 9) ' whosoever is born of G-od cannot sin.' 
 
 For there were many. The evangelist justifies his expression, 'many tax- 
 collectors and sinners.' It was, he intimates, UteraUy true. There was a large 
 company, and all of the tabooed class. 
 
 And they followed Him. This clause should have been transferred by Robert 
 Stephens, the originator of the verse- divisions of our New Testament, to the 
 commencement of the next verse, and connected with the first words thus, And 
 there followed Him also scrihes of the Pharisees. 
 
 Yeb. 16. And there followed Him also scribes of the Pharisees, or, the scribes of 
 the Pharisees. Such is the connection of the clauses given in the text of 
 Tregelles ; and it has been accepted by Tischendorf in his eighth edition. It is, 
 we feel persuaded, the original reading ; that of the Eeoeived Text being modi- 
 fied after Lute's phraseology. Certain scrihes, scribes belonging to the sect of the 
 Phansees, had now got fairly on the inciuisitorial scent. They followed our 
 Lord to pry into His private ways. And on the present occasion they seem to 
 have entered, with oriental freedom, into the hall or guestohamber where the 
 company were seated at table. It was the apartment corresponding to the 
 k'hawah of modern Arabian houses, such we mean as belong to the higher 
 and middle or moneyed class of society. 
 
 And when they saw that He was eating with the tax collectors and sinners. In 
 the Vatican manuscript, and ' the queen of the cursives,' the indicative of the 
 present tense is employed, that He is eating (^o-S-Zei). 
 
 They said to His disciples, ' He eats with the tax collectors and the sinners ! ' 
 Such is probably the evangelist's original text. There is however in the 
 manuscripts and the ancient versions an almost bewildering variety of small 
 and practically unimportant modifications and amplifications. Many of the 
 manuscripts, for instance, add and drinks to the expression He eats. So A B 
 P H K L M S U, etc. The Vulgate version agrees with these manuscripts ; and 
 BO do the Peshito Syriao and the Philoxenian Syriao, and the Coptic and Gothic 
 versions. Augustine also notes that the words and drinks are found in 
 Mark, though not in Matthew. (Consensus Em., v.. 27.) They were evidently 
 in his day found in such copies of the Italic text as were in his hands. 
 But on the whole we incline to the conclusion that they, were added out of 
 Luke. They are wanting not only in the Vatican manuscript, but also in the 
 Siuaitio and the Cambridge. They are omitted too in those manuscripts of the 
 Old Latin version which are noted aieffK It is more likely that they would 
 
 K 
 
50 ST. MAEK II. [17 
 
 17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them. They that are 
 whole have no need of the physician, bub they that are sick : 
 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. 
 
 be deliberately added tban either intentionally abstracted, or accidentally 
 omitted. Again, some of the best old manuscripts (X CL A, 69), as well as the 
 Coptic, ^thiopie, Arabic, and Persic versions read ' Your Master eats and 
 drinks.' It is an obvious addition from Matthew. Some again, instead of the 
 simple exclamation, He eats with the tax collectors and sinners I have, in one 
 form or another, the interrogation, Does He eat, or Why does He eat with the 
 tax collectors and sinners ? (Tischendorf understands the initial Sti as having 
 an interrogative import. But with Miohelsen we regard it as simply ' reci- 
 tative,' and therefore in English untranslatable.) He eats with the tax 
 collectors and the sinners I As if that were one of the greatest and most un- 
 pardonable of misdemeanours ! As for themselves they had no scruple indeed 
 in taking advantage of the customary oriental freedom that permitted the 
 neighbours to enter the tax gatherer's comfortable k'hdwah, or reception-room. 
 And when once inside the chamber they had no scruple in seating themselves 
 on the comfortable matting that would be garnishing the sides of the waUs all 
 round. They could freely speak too with the tax gatherer and his company ; 
 there was no sin in such things 1 But to eat with them 1 (See Gal. ii. 11-14.) 
 That was altogether a different affair ! It would indeed be one of the pinnacles 
 of profanity, almost as wicked as to commit adultery or to worship idols ! So 
 artificial and angular, and angularly arbitrary, had the notions of the Pharisees 
 become in reference to moral demeanour. 
 
 Vek. 17. And Jesus heard. We need not say that He overheard, for doubtless 
 the censorious scribes, though awed to such a degree by the moral majesty of 
 His bearing that they did not dare to address Himself directly, yet intended for 
 His ear what they said to His disciples. 
 
 And saith to them, They who are well have no need of a physician, but they who 
 are unwell. A truism on the physical side of things ; but, for that very reason, 
 of the greatest possible significance in its ethical application. It was the 
 complete explanation, and the unanswerable vindication, of our Saviour's 
 conduct in going into the society of the moral waifs of the population. The 
 validity of the idea which the truism embodies is the foundation of all those 
 philanthropic movements which enlist the upper classes of society in the 
 blessed work of bending down to meet in love the lower classes, so that the 
 snapped circle of humanity may be restored. It is the philosophy, in a nut- 
 shell, of all home and foreign missionary operations. Christ went among the 
 moral waifs, be it observed, not as a boon companion, but as a physician. The 
 word rendered a physician is peculiarly significant in the original, a healer. 
 To whom should a healer go, as a healer, but to such as are needing to be 
 healed ? But granted that the tax collectors and the sinners were ' unwell,' were 
 the scribes and Pharisees ' well ' 1 Were they ' whole,' or hale ? So thought 
 not Jesus. But so thought many of themselves ; and hence they were not pre- 
 pared to accept the attentions of the Physician, and take His Divine panacea. 
 
 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. The superadded words, in King 
 
1.8] ST. MARK II. 51 
 
 18 And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to 
 
 James's version and the Received Text, to repentance, were not in the evan- 
 gelist's autograph. They were subsequently added, as Mill correctly judged 
 {Prolegom., p. ovi.), from Luke v. 32. Augustine, in his Consensus (ii., o. 27), 
 notes that they were found only in Luke. They are omitted by "Griesbach and 
 Soholz, as well as by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford ; they were suspected by 
 Erasmus. The supplement brings out, however, into fuU development the 
 Saviour's idea. It was His aim, in His mauward mission, to speak to men in an 
 inviting way, that is, to call them, in order to prevail with them to stop in the 
 career which they are pursuing, and to turn toward God and goodness. When 
 He here says that He ' came not to call the righteous,' the term is not used, as 
 Grotius supposed, in its comparative but in its absolute import. They who 
 are only comparatively righteous are also unrighteous. They are sinners ; and 
 therefore Jesus came to call them to repentance. In the absolutely righteous 
 indeed, wherever they are to be found, the heart of God and of Jesus must 
 have inexpressible interest and delight. But Jesus did not come to the earth 
 to call such. They are not to be found on the earth. The Messianic aim of 
 His Father, and of Himself, was to meet the wants of a different class of 
 beings altogether, of sinners. The Saviour leaves His censors to consider with 
 themselves whether they were sinners or righteous. Potter's notion of the word 
 righteous is farther aside from the correct idea than that of Grotius; he 
 supposes that it means ' such as think themselves righteous.' Theophylact 
 gives the same interpretation. But it inverts the Saviour's idea. None had 
 greater need than such self-deeeivers to be called, and called to repentance. 
 There is no article in the original before the word righteous, but we must either 
 supply it in our English idiom, or use some other supplementary expression, 
 such as righteous persons. 
 
 Veb. 18-22. A new paragraph, corresponding to Matt. ix. 14-17 and Luke 
 V. 33-39. It has relation to fasting, an important exercise of self-denial when 
 wisely regulated as to time and other circumstances, but an odious bit of self- 
 righteousness when simply regarded as a feat of religious superiority or 
 meritoriousness. 
 
 Veb. 18. And John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Such is the 
 proper translation of the correct text (koI ■Ijaav ol /taS-j/ral 'luciccou, koX of 
 (papiffoiai vifaTivovres). The evangelist connects the Saviour's teaching regard- 
 ing fasting with an actual fact that had occurred. The disciples of John on the 
 one hand, and the Pharisees on the other, were coinoidently fasting. Instead 
 of were fasting. King James's translators have used to fast. They followed in 
 the wake of the Eheims version. Luther unhappily took the same view of the 
 expression ; and Grotius too, and Fritzsche ; and Michelsen also, who hence 
 regards the whole first clause of the verse as ' an archsological elucidation ' 
 interpolated into the Proto-Markus's text by the Deutero-Markus (vers 18^ is 
 ecn archeologische opheldering van II-Markus). Hammond's paraphrase brings 
 out the right idea, John's disciples and the Pharisees, ' according to their custom 
 of frequent fasting, were now on a, day of fast.' 
 
52 ST. MARK II. [18 
 
 fast : and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples 
 of John aqd of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not ? 
 19 And Jesus said unto them. Can the children of the bride- 
 
 And they come and say to Him. Some representatives, namely, of the two 
 parties come, the Pharisees cunningly playing, no doubt, upon the simplicity 
 of John's disciples. 
 
 Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast? ItwiU be noted 
 that the question proper, which was proposed to our Lord, comes after this two- 
 fold clause, which is but the stepping-stone by which it is to be reached. It 
 will also be noted that the evangelist, so far as this stepping-stone clause is con- 
 cerned, gives his report not in the ipsissima verba of the questioners, but freely. 
 If the ipsissima verba had been given, the report would no doubt have been some- 
 what as follows : Why is it that while 'we' the disciples of John, are fasting, and 
 ilso the disciples of the Pharisees, Thy disciples fast not ? Comp. Matt. ix. 14. 
 The expression the disciples of the Pharisees is noteworthy. For the time being 
 the individuals of the Pharisaic community are regarded as the disciples of the 
 body. As a matter of fact, all the individuals composing the community would 
 one by one occupy, in relation to the whole, the position of pupils or disciples. 
 
 But Thy disciples fast not. Why fast they not ? This was the real question. 
 Surely you will not allege that ' we ' and the Pharisees are too self denied. But 
 if not, why is it that Thy disciples fast not ? 
 
 Veb. 19. And Jesus said to them, Can the sons of the bridechamher fast, 
 while the bridegroom is with them ? Would not fasting at such a time be most 
 incongruous ? The time referred to by our Lord, in His fine paraboUc logic, 
 is the period of festivity (often extending to a week, and sometimes even to a 
 fortnight : see Tobit viii. 19), which was consequent on a happily consummated 
 marriage. If there be a time at all when fasting would be inappropriate, it is 
 such a time. A weU-consorted ' wedding ' should undoubtedly be a ' gala ' 
 occasion, though far removed from rioting and revelling and ' unhallowed mirth.' 
 The expression the sons of the bridechamber is a Hebraistic phrase for the 
 groomsmen, whose duty it was to convey the bridegroom to the bride's residence, 
 and, when she was ' taken,' to accompany the couple back to the bridegroom's 
 home, giving expression all along the way, and during the whole festivity, to 
 their feelings of gaiety, congratulation, and gladness. They had, in accordance 
 with the usage of Hebrew society, various little duties to perform in connection 
 with the bridal chamber. This bridal chamber is, with admirable literality, 
 designated, in our English version, the bridechamber. The most of the older 
 translators were somewhat at sea regarding the precise import of the term. 
 WycliEfe, Tyndale, Coverdale, rendered it wedding ; Purvey espousals (sposailis) ; 
 the Eheims, marriage. But the Geneva version, though not the preliminary 
 edition of 1557, made a great stride in the right direction when it rendered 
 the term marriage chamber. The word however really means bridechamber 
 {vv/Kpilni from yvfi(firi, like ywaiKiiv from 7VC1), A,vSp<iv from c-v/jp, irapBaniiv from 
 •irap'irivos). It was the particular chamber which was set apart for the bride. 
 And as that chamber was the local centre of interest on a wedding occasion, 
 the very groomsmen who officiated on behalf of the bridegroom were called 
 
20] ST. MARK II. 53 
 
 chamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them ? As long as 
 they have the bi-idegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 But 
 the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away 
 
 its sons. They owed their official function, or, so to speak, their existence 
 as groomsmen, to the existence of the chamber. Can the sons of the bride- 
 chamber fast ? The word can is of course not used absolutely. It does 
 not refer to what metaphysicians call physical ability, but to moral ability. 
 The sons of the bridechamber could not fast consistently or congruously. 
 While the bridegroom is with them. This is the correct translation of the 
 expression. The phrase rendered while is literally in which ; and Erasmus and 
 Cajetan understood the reference to be to the bridechamber, Can the sons of the 
 bridechamber, in which the bridegroom is with them, fast ? But not only is there 
 a parabolic iucongruity in representing the groomsmen as being ' in ' the 
 bridechamber ' with ' the bridegroom, there is a further objection to the inter- 
 pretation. The word bridechamber, though lexically a distinct and self contained 
 word, is really, in the case before us, but a fractional part of a compound word, 
 sons-of-the-bridechamber (—irapaviij,<j>ioi.), so that the relative ro7«'c?i could not, 
 without some degree of violence, look back to it as a detached antecedent. No 
 doubt the expression refers, not to place, but to time : in the time in which the 
 bridegroom is with them. The bridegroom: the Saviour beautifully subindicates 
 that He is the Bridegroom of the church. (Comp. Ps. xlv ; Song of Songs ; 
 2 Cor. xi. 2 ; Eph. v. 24-32 ; Eev. xix. 7-9.) He is the Lover of the souls of men, 
 and woos them. . When He wins their hearts He becomes wedded to them, or 
 most intimately and lovingly connected with them, and endows them, so far as 
 the circumstances of the case will permit, with aU the prerogatives and blessings 
 of His own high estate. But there are tides of things in the ' times and 
 seasons ' of the Saviour's relationship to men which cannot be adequately set 
 forth within the circle of the limitations of marriage. Hence we must not 
 press the parable at all points. 
 
 As long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast. We might 
 have expected that the Saviour would have said. As long as they are with the 
 bridegroom, viz. at his house. But He was looking through the transparency 
 of His parable to a peculiar and exceptional case. His own. He had come from 
 afar to the bride's house, to be there we dded to His bride ; and by and by He must 
 leave, and return for a season to His ' Father's house.' There is a good and 
 peculiar reason for such leaving, though it could not with propriety be brought 
 into view in connection with a marriage solemnity. No single human relation- 
 ship can do justice to the unique reality of Christ's relationship to men. They 
 cannot fast. Viz., unless they should act with the utmost incongruity. 
 
 Vbb. 20. Bat days will come, when the bridegroom shall have been taken 
 away from them. There is a fine mystical meaning embedded in the word that 
 is translated sliall-liave-been-taken-away {dirap^-^. The simple verb means 
 thallhave been lifted up, and the preposition in composition' means away. The 
 whole word covertly refers to what began with the crucifixion and ended with 
 the ascension. (See John xii. 32.) It is noteworthy that it is this identical 
 verb which is employed in the corresponding reports of Matthew (ix. 15) and 
 
54 ST, MARK II. [20- 
 
 from them, and then shall they fast in those days. 21 No 
 man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment : else 
 the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and 
 
 Luke (v. 35), and that it is employed nowhere else in the Kew Testament. No 
 doubt it would be the very word that our Lord Himself would use ; for in the 
 gentihzed district of Galilee He would be almost always speaking in Greek. 
 (See Diodati'B Ghristus Greece loquens, and Boberts' Discussions.) 
 
 And then will they fast in that day. The Eeeeived Text reads here in 
 those days, but by a manifest tinkering of the transcribers to make the phrase 
 identical with the expression at the beginning of the verse and also with Luke's 
 expression (v. 35). In that day was approved of by MiU (p. cxxii.) ; and though 
 Bengel in his 1734 edition decided against it, yet in his 1753 edition, as also in 
 his German Version and his Gnomon, he reversed his decision. It is received 
 into the text by Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tisehendorf, and Tregelles. 
 Fritzsche indeed could not make up his mind to receive it, he pronounced it 
 ' intolerable.' Yet there really is not the shadow of A doubt that it stood in 
 Mark's autograph. AH the best manuscripts have it ; and it is beautifully and 
 touchingly significant, partly by rolling the days referred to at the commence- 
 ment of the verse into the unity of one long dreary day, and partly by leading 
 the mind back through the indefinite number of days to the first and darkest 
 of them all, the day of the lifting up on the cross. That day would give colour 
 and character to many succeeding days. 
 
 Veb. 21. No one seweth a patch of unfuUed cloth upon an old cloak. Such 
 patching would be most inappropriate and injudicious. The word patch is the 
 proper term for the original MpKriim. It is Wycliffe's word, pacche. The 
 patch supposed is an unfuUed piece-of-cloth (the genitive of the material). It 
 is the business of the fuller to make the cloth full and compact by precipitating 
 'jhe process of contraction. Upon an old cloak: the term which we have 
 rendered cloak was the conventional term for the outer garment worn by the 
 Jews, a loose cloak-like robe ; it is rendered. cZo/ce in Matt. v. 40. 
 
 Else. Literally, but if not, that is, but if it be 'not' the case that 'no one ' sews 
 a patch of unfulled cloth upon an old cloak, which way of negativing a negative 
 just amounts to the positive supposition, but if it be the case that ' some one ' sews 
 a patch of unfulled cloth upon an old cloak. 
 
 The piece- that-fills-np takes from it, the new from the old, and a worse rent is 
 made. The patch sewed on is here called the piece-that-fills-up (the hole). It 
 is the complement (7rXi}p«M<»), the insertion as it were. Whenever it is damped 
 it shrinkg and draws to itself a margin of the old tender garment. There are 
 several minute variations in the reading of the text, which have been somewhat 
 perplexing to textual critics. In Michelsen's judgment (Markus, p. 150), the 
 text is ' nearly unintelligible.' He can only resolve the difficulty by supposing 
 that ' two glosses ' from the hand of the Deutero-Markus have been bunglingly 
 incorporated ! But there is really no difficulty at all of the kind that Michelsen 
 fancies, no difficulty of exegesis or construction, when we bear in mind that 
 Mark makes not the slightest pretension to classical concinnity of phraseology 
 or ' excellency of speech.' We approve of the reading given in the testa ot 
 
£2] ST. MARK II. 55 
 
 the rent is made worse. 22 And no man putteth new wine 
 into old bottles : else the new wine doth barst the bottles, and 
 the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred : but new 
 wine must be put into new bottles. 
 
 Lachmaim and Tischendorf (afpei rb irMipuna dir airoO to Katviv rou TraXaioO). 
 It is the reading which the English Eevisionists have followed in their translation 
 of the clause ; and, when assumed, it makes it easy to aeoount for all the little 
 variations. It is approved of by Alford and Klostermann. Dr. Abraham 
 Geiger, the Frankfort rabbi, has a different sort of difficulty with the passage. 
 Or rather, he imagines a difficulty for the Christian, and imagines it to be 
 insuperable, though he himself can easily overvault it, by landing on the other 
 side of Christianity. He thinks that Christ's illustration is entirely erroneous 1 
 {So is( dies, so viel ich davon verstehe, geradezu unrichtig.) He fancies that 
 Christ is teaching that it is of no use patching up with new notions a religious 
 system that has become, from age, much the worse of the wear (Das Judenthum 
 und seine GescMchte, i. Abt, p. 173) ; and such teaching Geiger conceives to be 
 wrong. He entirely misconceives, however, the mind of Christ, who is simply 
 illustrating, by a striking little parable, the principle of incongruity, as it would 
 have been exemplified had His disciples given themselves to fasting at »■ time 
 of feasting. The illustration is perfect, and exceedingly graphic. 
 
 Yeb. 22. And no one pntteth new wine into old wine-sldns. Skins, such as 
 of the goat, are still used all over Syria and Egypt for carrying water, and they 
 were much used in former times for holding wine. At present these countries 
 are under Mohammedan rule, and in the Koran wine is interdicted ; but in our 
 Saviour's time it was a universal beverage, and, when not mixed with noxious 
 ingredients or otherwise adulterated, or internally spoiled, it was a drink at 
 once wholesome and delicious. New wine : That is, the new season's wine, 
 'young wine,' the wine which had just recently been drawn off from the wine 
 vat, after the gathering and crushing of the grapes of the season. Old wine- 
 skins. That is, old and fraU. The reference is to skins of a relative age and 
 frailty corresponding to the age and frailty of the old cloak referred to in the 
 preceding parable. 
 
 Else. Literally, but if not, as in the preceding verse. 
 
 The wine will burst [or revd] the skins. This reading is supported by K B D L, 
 33, very high and weighty authorities. The future tense of the verb is the more 
 difficult reading, when we take the succeeding clause into account, in which 
 there is a recurrence to the present tense. It is not so likely therefore that 
 it would owe its place in the text to the modifying touch of a transcriber. 
 
 And the wine is destroyed, and the sMns. Such is the reading of Tischendorf 
 and Tregelles (koJ 6 oXvos &iro\\iiTai koX ol do-KoI). It is preserved in the Vatican 
 manuscript, and L, and the Coptic version, and is most likely the autographic 
 reading of Mark. The variations in the manuscripts and versions are numerous, 
 being traceable chiefly to an uncritical attempt in transcribers to conform the 
 condensed, abrupt, and somewhat rugged phraseology of Mark to the more 
 flowing phraseology of Matthew (ix. 17) and Luke (v. 37). 
 
 Sat new wine must be put into fresh wine-skins. An import of a clause 
 
56 ST. MARK II. [23 
 
 23 And it came to pass, ttat he went through the corn 
 
 dragged in by unskilful harmonists from Luke and Matthew. It is omitted by 
 the Sinaitio manuscript and the Vatican, and by Tischendorf and Alford in 
 their editions of the text. Tregelles encloses it, as doubtful, within brackets. 
 Geiger, in this verse too, joins issue with our Saviour. He joins issue even in. 
 reference to the form of the parable. He doubts whetjier new skins were less 
 liable to burst than old ones, and appeals to Job xxxii. 19, where we read of 
 ' new bottles ready to burst.' He did not notice that the great distention of 
 the ' new bottles ready to burst,' the idea that gets prominence in the poet's 
 representation, is in oonseciuence of an elasticity that is entirely wanting in old 
 skins. He is sure, besides, that the inner meaning of the parable is far aside 
 from the mark. It is " at variance with every historical development," for 
 "the law of all development is the gradual metamorphosis of the old by the 
 " influence of the new." {Judenthum, i., p. 174.) "What paltering ! and all so 
 far away from the sphere of our Saviour's ideas ' Our Saviour was not thinking 
 of the development, or non-development, of old things into new. He was not 
 making the least reference to 'the law of development.' Still less was He 
 inculcating that His disciples should break with the past, and strike out into 
 novelties of religious belief and practice. Does Geiger suppose that old wine- 
 skins might, by the law of development, be transformed into new ? Does he 
 suppose that it would be an advantage to get old wine changed into new ? If 
 not, why refer to development and carp at the Saviour's parable ? Our Saviour 
 simply meant to illustrate the incongruity that would be committed were His 
 disciples to give themselves to fasting at u, time of feasting. They would be 
 committing, in things spiritual, the very mistake that is committed in things 
 natural, when new winfe is put into old frail skins. At the least accession of 
 ' after fermentation ' the old frail skins will rend, and both' wine and skins be 
 destroyed. It is a mistake of incongruity which the Saviour exposes. (See 
 Luke V. 39.) 
 
 Vek. 23-28. A paragraph that has occasioned, in some of its details, a 
 very great amount of perplexity to careful and reverent students of the word. 
 Eeckless and irreverent critics, on the other hand, have gloried over it, under 
 the conviction that it affords them incontrovertible evidence that there has 
 been blundering on the part of all the three synoptical evangelists. The cor- 
 responding paragraphs in the synoptical Gospels are Matthew xii. 1-8 and 
 Luke vi. 1-5. 
 
 Vek. 23. And it came to pass. Or, And it happened: at what particular 
 time or in what particular circumstances we know not ; and we need not be 
 anxious to conjecture. 
 
 That on the sabbath He was going along through the cornfields. The expression 
 rendered on the sabbath is the same that occurs in chap. i. 21. The word was- 
 going-along is graphic (TrapaTro/jeifeo-S-ai), suggesting to us a picture. We see 
 Jesus walking along through eitensive stretches of standing grain. These 
 stretches, spreading far and wide over the plain of Gennesaret, come down 
 on either side close to the path on which our. Lord and His disciples and a 
 miscellaneous troop of others are leisurely and gravely walking along in the 
 
23] ST. MARK 11. 67 
 
 fields on tlie sabbath day ; and his disciples began, as they 
 
 BtiUness of the sabbath. It is an tmenolosed path, a mere track, such as is 
 common in the same district at the present day. It leads right through the 
 standing grain. Several critiog, including Ebeher, Erebs, Palairet, Ernesti, 
 object to the translation through, and laboriously try to prove that the prepo- 
 sition must here mean alongside of. They think that the Saviour must un- 
 doubtedly have kept on the public highway. It would have been wrong to have 
 used the hberty of tramphng through the standing corn of the farmers ! The 
 desire of these critics to shield the character of the Saviour is admirable ; but 
 their knowledge of oriental roads and cornfields is singularly deficient. The 
 word translated cornfields means simply sown places ; but we learn from what 
 follows that the seed sown had sprung up, and eared, and was now nearly ready 
 for the sickle. 
 
 And His disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. An extremely 
 free translation, and the clause so translated is the great difficulty of the 
 paragraph. But yet such an expositor as Bloomfield quietly passes over the 
 whole verse, without a single hint or remark of any description. The expression 
 as it stands in the original, xal ol /la^ral airoO ■Ijp^a.vTo odov iroieiv rlWovTes 
 Tois ffrdx'jas, literally means and His disciples iegan to make a way, plucking the 
 ears. The word began has, in the first place, been perplexing to many ; more 
 especially as it is not connected, in the original, with plucking the ears. It 
 perplexed Beza among .others. 'There seems,' said he, ' to be a displacement 
 of the verbs.' Hence he arbitrarily connected it with plucking the ears, ' they 
 began to pluck the ears.' It perplexed Hammond too. ' The phrase here 
 in the Greek is,' says he, ' a little unusual.' He would regard the word began 
 as an ' unsignificant expletive,' a mere pleonasm. So would Eisner and 
 Wolf, who would consequently ignore the word in translation, and His disciples 
 walked on and plucked the ears. Eooher however, and Eaphel, Eosenmtiller, 
 Kuinbl, and others, would rather approve of Beza's ' hypaUage.' Erasmus pre- 
 ceded Beza in his expedient, and Luther too. Tyndale used the same liberty, 
 and the authors of the Geneva version, and hence the rendering in our present 
 translation. It is, however, a licentious Uberty. How then should we construe 
 the expression ? Coverdale comes nearer to the original than his great fore- 
 runner, Luther. He translates it thus : and His disciples begane to make a 
 waye thorow, and to plucke the eares of the come. Erasmus Schmid's translation 
 is somewhat to the same effect, but very much more clumsy, and His disciples 
 began (so) to go, that {at tlie same time) they plucked the ears. Both translations 
 do justice to the ' began.' But they differ as to the import of the expression 
 that is directly governed by that verb. Coverdale says to make a waye thorow ; 
 Erasmus Sehmid says to go. A rather hot controversy hooks itself on to the 
 phrase thus rendered (6S6c womp, or oSoiroie?;' as Theophylact gives it, and 
 Laohmann too under the sanction of the Vatican manuscript). The great ma- 
 jority of expositors, ancient and modem, translate it as E. Sehmid does ; but 
 contrary, says Dresigius (De Verbis Mediis, § 29), to the idiom of the Greek 
 language. When the verb is in the middle voice (654c iroieia-^ai.) , the phrase 
 means to set out, to advance, to make way {iter facere). But when the verb is 
 in the active {oSbv iroielv), the phrase means, as Viger had remarked before 
 
58 ST. MAEK II. [23 
 
 went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24 And the Pharisees said 
 
 Dresigius, not to make way, but to make a way, or, as Coverdale gives it, to make 
 a waye thorow {viam facere). Fritzsche insists on the distinction being ob- 
 served. Lange gives in to it. So did Bretschneider and WaM and Winer. 
 Meyer is most determined in adhering to it, and founds on it a theory of irre- 
 concilable discordance between Mark's representation and that of Matthew and 
 Luke. He is sure that as Mark makes no explicit reference to the disciples' 
 rubbing the spikes and eating the disintegrated grains, so he had no implicit 
 reference to such acts. The Pharisees he holds, so far as Mark's representa- 
 tion is concerned, blamed the disciples, not for doing on the sabbath day what 
 would have been quite lawful on any other day, but for doing on the sacred day 
 what would have been unlawful on any day, viz. making a road through other 
 people's standing com, by plucking the spikes. Holtzmann takes the same view 
 of the expression, and of the intent of the Pharisees in their censure {Synopt. 
 Evang., p. 73). And so does Michelsen {Het Ev. van Markus, p. 152), and 
 Scholten likewise {Het oudste Evan., p. 26). These three critics insist on it, 
 moreover, that Mark's account is the original story, and that both Matthew and 
 Luke have ' misunderstood ' it. Grimm, on the other hand, supposes that 
 if we must interpret the expression as Meyer does, then there is no avoiding the 
 conclusion ' that Mark did not report the truth, but miserably corrupted {misere 
 corrupisse) the report which he had received from others.' (Glavis, sub voce 
 woieu.) Krebs, again, has no doubt that Mark's expression properly means to 
 make a road, but he thinks that, in using it, he was Xatiiimn^, or rendering 
 into Greek a common Latin phrase (iter facere, proficisci), and that therefore, 
 as Mark intended it, the meaning is that the disciples advanced. (Ohservationes, 
 in loc.) Others, inclusive of Kypke, Losner, Eosenmiiller, Kuinol, Bisping, 
 Alford, assume or maintain that in the later and provincial Greek the distinction 
 between the active and the middle voices of the verb, in the expression under 
 question, got to be to a great degree confused or effaced. Jud. xvii. 8 is 
 appealed to, as an instance in point ; but the expression there is rather pecu- 
 liar, and does not simply mean, as we presume, to journey or advance. Yet, 
 whatever it means, we see no reason for abandoning the simple and natural 
 interpretation of the expression in Mark ; more particularly when we bear in 
 mind the word began. We must picture to oftrselves, as Klostermann remarks, 
 the ' scene.' No doubt Mark is retailing the abrupt and graphic phrases of 
 Peter or of some other reporter, who is speaking from a vivid recollection of 
 what he had witnessed with his eyes and heard with his ears. We must picture 
 then to ourselves the Saviour going along through the cornfields. His dis- 
 ciples are with Him, and a group of others, inclusive of a band of disputatious 
 and censorious Pharisees. They are on their way to or from some adjoining 
 synagogue. Conversation and lively disputation go on, aU a,long the way. At 
 a certain point where there is a crossing, or nearer cut, or a smaller diverging 
 footpath, there is a pause on the part of our Saviour and of some of the Phari- 
 sees with whom He was discoursing. Perhaps they paused, merely that they 
 might stand and talk for a little, the earnestness of their spirits putting an 
 unconscious arrest upon their physical progress. Or perhaps they were about 
 at that point to separate into different routes. While they stand and talk, the 
 
24] ST. MARK 11. 59 
 
 unto him. Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which 
 
 Lord's disciples move on ; they ' began ' to advance. Here is the explanation of 
 the ' began.' Cajetan rightly supposes that they began to go ahead of our Lord. 
 But the very narrow path along which they had to advance, being comparatively 
 unused, was overgrown apparently at that particular spot with the crop. 
 When the soil had been prepared; and the seed sown, no care was taken to keep 
 off that narrow strip, along which the people had right of way ; the farmer 
 knew that it was easy for the public to renew the path, just by walking upon it. 
 The disciples then began to walk in upon this line of transit, ' making a way.' 
 They were hungry too ; they had been long fasting. And hence, instead of 
 simply trampling down the intervening stalks, they stooped, as they ' began ' 
 to walk, and plucked some handfuls of the spikes. They plucked them not 
 from the fields by the side (although that would not have been seriously 
 objected to), but considerately and economizingly from the stalks that were 
 obstructing the road, and thus they began to make a way, plucking the spikes, 
 or by plucking the spikes. There is thus not the slightest necessity for having 
 recourse to any rack or strain or out-of-the-way peculiarity, to get the evan- 
 gelist's expressions bent from their natural import. 
 
 Ver. 24. And the Pharisees said to Him, Behold ! Or, See I The word was 
 used as an exclamation, Lo I But in such a case as the one before us its 
 primary meaning is not to be lost sight of. The Pharisees turned their atten- 
 tion to what the disciples were engaged in doing, the moment that they 
 'began 'to press in among the standing corn. What are they about i They 
 are actually plucking the spikes as if they were reapers I and they are rubbing 
 them too in the palms of their hands, and eating the threshed out grains I Who 
 could have thought it ! What daring wickedness I Immediately they turn 
 round, as with surprise, to the Lord, and say, See ! 
 
 Why do they on the sabbath what is not lawful ? It is an inartificial way of 
 saying, Why do they what is not lawful on the sabbath ? Meyer however, along 
 vrith Holtzmann, Michelsen, and Scholten, will have it that the meaning is. 
 Why do they, and that too on the sabbath, a thing that is {at all times and under 
 all circumstances) unlawful ? Scholten is positive that the mere plucking and 
 eating of the spikes ' could hardly have afforded an occasion of offence and 
 complaint,' {wat kwalijk eene oorzaah van ergernis kon hebben opgeleverd). He 
 seems to know little of the censorious spirit of ancient phariseeism, or of its 
 modern oriental analogue, ' wahhabeeism.' He seems likewise, along with 
 Michelsen, Meyer, and Holtzmann, to be strangely unwilUng to look at what is 
 obviously implied in the reply which the Saviour made to the censorious Phari- 
 sees. What can be clearer than that it is implied that His disciples were hungry, 
 and that what they did to the standing com they did because they had need t 
 This was so obvious to the mind of the inartificial narrator, who was bending 
 his thoughts forward toward the words of the Saviour's reply, that he does not 
 make formal mention of the fact. The proprietor of the crop had no right 
 (Deut. xxiii. 25), and would not be disposed, to find fault with the disciples for 
 assuaging their hunger as they passed along. But the sanctimonious Pharisees 
 thought it a dreadful desecration of the sabbath to do things so like to week-day 
 
60 ST. MARK II. [24 
 
 is not lawful ? 2-5 And he said unto them, Have ye never 
 read what David did, when he bad need, and was an hungred, 
 he, and they that were with him ? 26 How he went into the 
 
 reaping and threshing as pluclsing the ears of the corn and rubbing them in 
 the palm of the hand. (See Comm. on Matt. xii. 2.) 
 
 Vee. 25. And He saith to them, Did ye never read what David did, when he 
 had need and was hungry, he and they that were with him ? See 1 Sam. xxi. 
 1-6. Note the generic had need and the specific was hungry. Note also the 
 inartificial and conversational way in which the expression, he and they that 
 were with him, is appended to the affirmation he had need and was hungry. 
 His followers had need too, and were hungry ; but it is on the acting of David, 
 as one of the most eminent of the Jews, that our Lord concentrates attention. 
 Note likewise the archaic expression an-hungred in King James's version and 
 the Revised. It came down from Tyndale, who gives it thus — anhongred. The 
 prefixed an, like the a in athirst, is a preposition, equivalent to on or in, so that 
 the whole expression means in [the state of being) hungered or hxmgry. See 
 Comm. on Matt. xii. 1.) 
 
 Vee. 26. How he entered into the house of God. The tabernacle, to wit, 
 while it was located in Nob, an ancient sacerdotal town (1 Sam. xxii. 19) near 
 Jerusalem (Isa. x. 32). See 1 Sam. xxi. 1-6. 
 
 In the days of AMathar (the) high-priest. This is the other expression in the 
 paragraph which has occasioned difficulty to many, and over which irreverent 
 critics have rejoiced, under the idea that it furnishes them with evidence that 
 the evangelist has committed an historical blunder. They allege that a blunder 
 there must be, inasmuch as we learn explicitly from 1 Sam. xxi. that it was not 
 Abiathar but his father Ahimelech, who was high-priest, when David entered 
 into the house of God and ate the shewbread, giving part of it to them that were 
 with him. How then are we to account for the expression ? That may he some- 
 what uncertain ; hut it is absolutely certain that it is absolutely impossible to prove 
 that there is anything of the nature of a blunder. ' There is no need,' as Dr. 
 Wall says, ' of that supposal ' {Notes, in loc). (1) Some have drawn atten- 
 tion to the fact that it is not said in 1 Sam. xxi. , or in any other passage in the 
 Bible, that Ahimelech the father of Abiathar was high-priest ; he is only 
 called the priest, and never the high-priest. Theopbylact threw out the con- 
 jecture that this might probably have to do with the solution of the difficulty. 
 Patrizi is of opinion that Abiathar was actually high-priest at the time that 
 David came to Ahimelech (Comm. in loc, and De Evangel., xxviii. n. 38). Wall 
 and Whiston held the same opinion. It is probable however that Ahimelech 
 was high-priest, for he ' inquired of the Lord ' and had ' the ephod ' (see 
 Whitby). Josephus, himself of the priestly order, again and again speaks of 
 him as high-priest {Ant. vi., xii., 4, 5, 6). (2) Some have supposed that a 
 solution of the difficulty is to be found in 2 Sam. viii. 17, and 1 Chron. xxiv. 
 6, in which passages there is a transposition of the names Abiathar and 
 Ahimelech, the latter being spoken of as the son of the former. Comp. 1 
 Chron. xviii. 16. It is probable however that this transposition is merely 
 transcriptional ; and, if so, it would be in vain to look to it for an explanation 
 
26] ST. MARK II. 61 
 
 house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, 
 
 of the expression before us. (3) LigMfoot imagined that the phrase Abiathar 
 the high-priest had ah'eady in our Saviour's day acquired its curious cahbalist- 
 ical import of Urim and Thummim, so that the whole expression in the days of 
 Abiathar the high-priest meant in the days of the Urim and Thummim, in the 
 days, that is to say, when the mind of the Lord was ascertainable and ascer- 
 tained by means of the Urim and the Thummim. But this is quite an oddity 
 of interpretation. (4) Jansen, Petter, a-Lapidej and others, suppose that both 
 Abiathar and his father may have had each other's names for surnames, so that 
 Ahimeleoh would be suruamed Abiathar, whUe Abiathar would be surnamed 
 Ahimelech. Beza, in his day, had caught hold of this idea as an alternative 
 explanation, founding on the passages already referred to (2 Sam. vui. 17 and 
 1 Chron. xxiv. 6). It has, however, all the appearance of an exceedingly 
 artificial device. (5) Beza threw out another conjecture, in the editions of his 
 Annotations which succeeded that of 1565. The entire phrase in the days of 
 Abiathar the high-priest is wanting in the very ancient manuscript (D) which 
 belonged to him, and which he subsequently presented to the University of 
 Cambridge ; and hence he wondered whether the phrase might not have crept 
 into the text from an early marginal note. The phrase is wanting not only in 
 D, but also in some important manuscripts of the old Latin version. Arch- 
 bishop Newcome would have liked to let it go ; and, walking in his leading- 
 strings, the authors of the Improved Version (Unitarian) actually omit it ; 
 Bloomfield too is disposed to part with it. But without good reason; the 
 evidence in support of the clause is overwhelming. And if it should be sup- 
 posed that the words involve a historical difficulty, it would be unaccountable, 
 on the supposition of their spuriousness, that they should have been almost 
 universally received into the text. But what then ? Do they really involve a 
 historical difficulty? (6) Michaelis thought that the historical difficulty was 
 very great, and, in a kind of despair, suggested that the phrase, instead of 
 being rendered in the days of Abiathar the high-priest, might have a topical 
 reference, ire the section or paragraph of Abiathar the high-priest. Comp. Luke 
 XX. 37. Saunier accepts this solution of the imagined difficulty as the best 
 upon the whole. (Quellen des Ev. des Marcus, pp. 57, 58.) Bat there is reaUy 
 no evidence that the word Abiathar was appropriate from its conspiouousnesa 
 to give a title to a Scripture section or paragraph, at least in or about 1 Sam. 
 xxi. And then, besides, the phrase would have required to have stood nearer 
 to the expression did ye never read? in the 25th verse. (7) Le Clerc tries 
 another shift. He supposes that the preposition (^ttQ employed by the evan- 
 gelist, instead of being rendered temporally in the time of, should be rendered 
 locally, in or into the presence of (chez, apud, ad). Wetstein gives the same 
 translation, and Godwin. The passages appealed to in support of it (1 Tim. 
 vi. 13 ; Acts xxiv. 19, xxv, 10 ; 1 Cor. vi. 1 ; add Matt, xxviii. 14, Mark xiii. 9, 
 Acts xxvi. 2) are all idiomatic, having a reference to the elevated position of a 
 judge. And no difficulty is escaped, if difficulty there be, by means of such a 
 translation; new difficulties, on the contrary, are incurred. (8) Bishop 
 Hammond saw clearly that the preposition must have a reference to time, but 
 he conjectured that it might mean a little before the time of. He says, apolo- 
 
62 ST. MAEK II. [26 
 
 and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but 
 
 gizingly : " The notation of the preposition for the time not then present, but 
 " soon after succeeding, is remarkable." He ingeniously appeals, however, to 
 Matt. i. H in support of his ' remarkable ' interpretation ; and Richard 
 Baxter, Samuel Clarke, and Owen agree with him. The passage in Matthew 
 however has this peculiarity, that it refers to a definite occurrence, and thus to 
 a point of time, whereas this expression in Mark refers either to the period of 
 a hfetime or to the period of a pontificate. In the case therefore of such an 
 expression as Matthew's the preposition is naturally employed to denote close 
 wpon the time of; but in the case of Mark's expression it as naturally means 
 on or in the time of. (See Baphel's Annotations, in loo.) Wells's translation 
 fiisrelore, about the time of , is inexact. But what then? (9) Brameld, trans- 
 lates the phrase during the high-priesthood of Abiathar. Schleusner gives the 
 same translation ; it corresponds with the Syriac Peshito, when Abiathar was 
 chief of the priests. The English Eevisionists agree, when Abiathar was high- 
 priest. But this is certainly a most unnecessary leap into the heart of a his- 
 torical difficulty; there is assuredly no propriety in giving such a free and 
 interpretative translation, when the interpretation of the phrase is the very 
 matter in dispute. Bisping's interpretation coincides with Brameld's, but his 
 translation is correct, in the time of Abiathar the high-priest. What is the 
 difference between the two translations ? and how does it affect the true inter- 
 pretation? (10) Bishop Middleton supposed that the presence of the article 
 before the word high-priest is the key that unlocks the whole supposed difficulty. 
 If the article had been wanting, the phrase he thinks must have been inter- 
 preted as meaning in the time of the high-priesthood of Abiathar ; but the 
 presence of the article makes that meaning. Bishop Middleton contends, ' a 
 sense which the words will not bear.' The phrase then means, according to 
 him, in the time of Abiathar, the {celebrated) high-priest, it not being implied 
 that he was high-priest at the time referred to. We think that Middleton and 
 Wetstein are both right and wrong. They are right, we conceive, in the mean- 
 ing which they attached to the evangelist's phrase ; and thus the difficulty of 
 the phrase, if difficulty there be, is really solved. Their exegetical instinct led 
 them, as it did Grotius before them, to the true mark. The phrase refers to the 
 lifetime of the high-priest, not to the time of his pontificate. But the reason on 
 which Middleton grounds his interpretation is as unsound, in its onesidedness, 
 as the interpretation itself is sound. The word ' high-priest ' without the article 
 has not necessarily, by any means, the force of a participle (like Herodotus's 
 iirl AiovTos BatriXeiovTos, i. 65). It may simply be added appositively, in order 
 to discriminate, embellish, or characterize the name that is specified; some- 
 what like the word Christ put anarthrously after Jesus (Matt. i. 1, etc.), or the 
 anarthrous word apostle after Paul (Gal. i. 1, etc.), or the anarthrous expression 
 Doctor of Divinity, or Doctor of Laws, or Knight, or Baronet, after any 
 proper name in our own times. It is undoubtedly thus added in the case before 
 us. There is a decided preponderance of authorities against the genuineness 
 of the article. It is found indeed in the manuscripts A C A IT, 1, 33, 69. But 
 it is wanting inNBLEGHKMSUVr. Lachmaun, Tischendorf , Tregelles, 
 and Alford omit it. Bishop Wordsworth both accepts the reading of the text 
 
26] ST. MARK II. 63 
 
 for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him ? 
 
 which omita the article, and gives the correct interpretation of the phrase. 
 " The reference is made to Abiathar as one well known to the readers of the 
 " Old Testament as a celebrated high-priest." When however the bishop says 
 that the expression, in itself, ' rather suggests that he was not the high-priest ' 
 at the time referred to by our Lord, he greatly overstrains the case, and over- 
 looks at once the usage and the regulative principles of Greek phraseology. In 
 that he is decidedly wrong; but it is to tho point that he adds : "If our Lord 
 "had mentioned Ahimelech, the Pharisees' answer might have been that Ahi. 
 "melech was punished by God for this profanation of sacred things ; he and his 
 " were goon overtaken by Divine vengeance and slain. But by specifying Abia- 
 " thar, who was then with his father (1 Sam. xxii. 20), and who (we may 
 " reasonably infer from our Lord's words, which are the words of Him who 
 " knows all history) was a party to his father's act, and was afterwards blessed 
 " by God in his escape and in a long and glorious priesthood, our Lord 
 " obviates the objection of the worldly-minded Pharisees, and strengthens His 
 " own argument, by reminding them that this action took place in the timo 
 " and under the sanction of one whom they held in reverence as a venerable 
 " ornament of the pontifical family and dignity." De Lyra brings out a 
 " similar idea. 
 
 And ate the shewbread. Or, as the Eheims, translating from the Vulgate, 
 renders the expression, and did eate the loaves of proposition. The word prO' 
 position is here used in its primary acceptation, position before, the loaves 
 referred to being the cakes which were put in position before the Lord. The 
 reference is to the twelve loaves or cakes, which were regularly kept on the 
 golden table in the holy place. (Lev. xxiv. 5-9.) They were the loaves of the 
 Face, as the Jews called them, that is, the loaves of the Divine Presence, the 
 loaves which were kept in the presence-chamber of Jehovah, one for each of 
 the twelve tribes of Israel. It was a sublime symbolism, being intended to 
 remind the children of Israel that it was the Lord, their Father, who was their 
 bountiful Provider. It was thus the bread of God (see John vi. 33) which 
 David ate. (See Comm. on Matt. xii. 4.) 
 
 WMch it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat. The reading of Tischen- 
 dorf, in his eighth edition, is ofls oi)k ^IcffTiK <j>ayetv d iit] rois lepeis. It is the 
 reading of the Sinaitio and Vatican manuscripts. It was needful, in the spiritual 
 tuition of the children of Israel, that the whole symbolism of the temple should 
 be treated with the utmost reverence. To stand in awe before God is one of the 
 first and most important lessons which men who are but emerging into spiritual 
 culture can learn. It was fit, therefore, that the very bread which symbolised 
 the Provision that was divinely made for the whole of the people should be 
 eaten only by the representative priests. (See Lev. xxiv. 9.) 
 
 And gave also to them who were with him. So that the rule of the sanctuary 
 was relaxed to meet an emergency, not only in the case of David, a man of 
 exceptional eminence, but also, and for his sake, in the case of those who were 
 associated with him. Rules that had to do with the circumstantials of things, 
 as distinguished from tho essentials, were stretched for their benefit. All such 
 rules are clastic still, whether they have reference to the sanctuary, or to the 
 
C4 ■ ST. MARK II. [27 
 
 27 And he said unto them. The sabbath was made for man. 
 
 sabbath, or to any other ' positive ' institution. They are meant to bend to a 
 certain extent, when exposed to stress of weather. 
 
 Vek. 27. And He said tinto them. He added this other weighty observation. 
 
 The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. One of tha 
 simplest and most obvious, but yet one of the deepest and most important, of 
 the apophthegms of our Lord. Thiess is in raptures with it, and exclaims : 
 " What else is intolerance, that most inhuman and unchristian of dispositions, 
 "than a perpetual forgetting or reversing of this grand principle of Christ?" 
 {Intoleranz, diese allermenschenfeindlichste und allerunchristlichste Gesinnung, 
 was ist sie anders, als ein bestdndiges Vergessen und Misbrauclien des Grundsazes 
 Christi ?) The verb rendered was made (iyhero) means was brought into exist- 
 ence. The Syriao version is, was created. The preposition somewhat barely 
 rendered for (Sid with the accusative) means because of, or ore account of. 
 Coverdale's translation of the apophthegm, in all but epigrammatic terseness, 
 is fully better than that of our Authorized version, The sabbath was made for 
 man's sake, and not man for the sabbathes sake. The idea is, that the reason of 
 the existence of the sabbath is to be found in man, not vice versa. Man needs 
 a sabbath, man universal. He needs it in order to the highest development of 
 his idiosyncrasy. It would be a total inversion of relationship to suppose that 
 the reason or cause of the existence or idiosyncrasy of man is to be found in 
 the sabbath. The sabbath is therefore subordinate to man, not man to the 
 sabbath. The sabbath is a means in order to some end or ends terminating in 
 man. And thus, as final ends are ' first in intention,' so that we have to come 
 hack through them in order to understand the rationale of the means by which 
 they may be reached, we get to the reason of the sabbath by going, as it were, 
 ' through ' man. (The fundamental idea of the preposition Sici is through.) 
 
 Yeb. 28. So that the Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath. This is an 
 inference, though a-Lapide had difficulty in seeing it, from the incontrovertible 
 axiom enunciated in the preceding verse. Since it is the case that the sabbath 
 is an institution that finds the reason of its existence in man, the law that 
 enjoins the details of its observance is something altogether different from 
 those eternal and immutable principles' which are identical with the moral per- 
 fections of the Divine Being. It is elastic in its application to the circum- 
 stances of men. It is susceptible of modification by the superinduction of 
 higher laws into the sphere of its operation. And hence He who is emphati- 
 cally ' the Son of Man,' and who has in charge all the higher interests of man, 
 has full authority to regulate, as He may see cause, the amount and modes of 
 that rest from worldly work which is needful for the highest weal of men. The 
 regulation is safe in His hands, though it would not be safe in the hands of 
 every man. Grotius thinks indeed that the phrase the son of man does not 
 refer exclusively or particularly to Christ, but generioally to man. Fritzsohe 
 takes the same view. So does Principal Campbell, who says, " one would con- 
 " elude that the son of man in this verse must be equivalent to man in the 
 " preceding ; otherwise a term is introduced into the conclusion which was not 
 
28] ST. MARK II. 65 
 
 and not man for the sabbath : 28 therefore the Son of man is 
 Lord also of the sabbath. 
 
 " in the premises." But nothing is more manifest than that our Saviour was 
 not constructing, in the unity of these two verses, a single formal syllogism. 
 His reasoning is an exemplification of that ' polysyllogism ' condensed, which is 
 the characteristic of all untechnioal processes of argumentation. Some of the 
 involved syllogisms might be easily disintegrated. If man was not made for the 
 sabbath, and if Christ was a man, it follows that He was not made for the 
 sabbath. This simple hypothetical syllogism is undoubtedly involved in our 
 Saviour's reasoning. Again, If He who is emphatically and pre-eminently man 
 and the Son of Man be greater than all other men, and if Christ be, as He is, 
 empliatically and pre-eminently man and the Son of Man, it follows that He is 
 greater than all other men. This is another simple hypothetical syllogism 
 involved in our Saviour's reasoning ; and no term is introduced into its con- 
 clusion which is not in its premises. Again, If He who is emphatically and 
 pre-eminently man and the Son of Man be also the Son of God and the Lord of 
 glory, and if Christ be, as He is, emphatically and pre-eminently man and the 
 Son of Man, it follows that He is also the Son of God and the Lord of glory. 
 This syllogism too is involved in our Saviour's reasoning. And again, If He 
 who is the Lord of glory be the Lord also of the sabbath, and if Christ be, as He 
 is, the Lord of glory, it follows that He is the Lord also of the sabbath. This 
 other hypothetical syllogism is also involved in the Saviour's reasoning ; and so 
 good a logician as Principal Campbell might easily have found, it he had looked 
 a little more inquisitively, that there is really no term in the conclusion of the 
 polysyllogism which is not found in its premises, when those premises are 
 explicitly unfolded. The expression the Son of Man is, in Christ's own usage, 
 most definitely appropriated to Himself, although the same expression, without 
 the article, is applicable to others as well as to Him. Bzekiel is constantly 
 called, in his prophecies, son of man ; and in Syriao the corresponding phrase 
 is the common designation of man, and is employed for instance in the pre- 
 ceding verse, in both the Peshito and PhUoxeniau versions. When it is said 
 that the Son of Man is Lord ' also ' of the sabbath, the also proceeds on the 
 assumption that the lordship of the Son of Man has a wide domain. He 
 is the Lord of heaven, the Lord of earth, the Lord of men, the Lord of the 
 sanctuary, and the Lord ' also ' of the sabbath. He hence ' doeth with it 
 according to His pleasure,' and has a right thus to act. And if so. He had a 
 perfect right on the part of His disciples, and taking their peculiar oiroum- 
 stanoes into account, to waive compliance with those rigid and petty prescriptive 
 usages of the Pharisees, which embodied, not the Divine ideas of things, but 
 only their own narrow and narrowly misshapen and superstitious conceptions. 
 of the rest of the sabbath. 
 
(56 ST. MARK III. [1 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 1 AND he entered again into the synagogue; and there was 
 a man there which had a withered hand. 2 And they watched 
 him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day ; that they 
 might accuse him. 3 And he saith unto the man which had 
 
 CHAPTEE III. 
 
 It would have been a happier arrangement of the chapters if Hugo de Sancto 
 Caro had included within the second chapter the first six verses of this. (See 
 the Remarks on Chap, ii.) 
 
 Corresponding paragraphs to ver. 1-6 are found in Matt. xii. 9-14 and 
 Luke vi. 6-11. 
 
 Vek. 1. And He entered again into the synagogue. Apparently in Capernaum; 
 compare chap. ii. 1. Again. He had been there before, though we know not 
 how often ; see chap. i. 21 ; oomp. Luke vi. 6. Into the synagogue. In the 
 Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts the expression is anarthrous, into synagogue, 
 just as we say into church. 
 
 And there was there a man having the hand withered. It was his right hand, 
 and hence the article ' the ' hand. (Comp. Luke vi. 6.) It had met with some 
 accident, or otherwise suffered some injury, and had in consequence stiffened 
 and shrunk up. The participial expression rendered withered indicates, says 
 Bengel, that it was not a congenital defect. 
 
 Vee. 2. And they kept watching Him. They, the scribes and Pharisees. See 
 chap. ii. 24, and Luke vi. 7. They kept watching. Thei aspieden Hym, says 
 Wyoliffe, keeping eagerly on the outlook, like watchmen. 
 
 Whether He would heal him on the sabbath. Very literally, if on the sdblath 
 He 'will' heal him. The reader is taken back by the evangelist to the time 
 when the spying and watching were going on, and looks forward from that 
 standpoint to the uncertain future. Instead of if Be will heal, Tischendorf, in 
 his eighth edition, reads if He heals ; a future precipitated backward into the 
 present. It is the reading of the Sinaitic manuscript, but most likely an acci- 
 dental variation. 
 
 That they might accuse Him. Namely, to the ecclesiastical authorities in 
 Jerusalem. They were eager to get some ground on which they might denounce 
 Him as a person who should not be allowed to go at large. (See ver. 6.) The 
 true spirit of ecclesiastical bloodhounds was roused within them, and they were 
 resolved to do their utmost to hunt Him to death. 
 
 Veb. 3. And He saith to the man who had the withered hand, Stand forth. 
 Stand forth is a free but admirable translation, a fragment of the Old Geneva 
 rendering, Arise, stand forth in the middes. Wyoliffe's version is literal, Bisc 
 into the mydil, that is. Rise, come into the midst, and stand there. Our Saviour 
 saw that it was a time of crisis, and so He chose to make the man conspicuous, 
 the ' cynpsure of eyes.' 
 
5] ST, MAEK III. 67 
 
 the withered hand, Stand forth. 4 And he saith unto them, Is 
 it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil ? to 
 save life, or to kill ? But they held their peace. 5 And when 
 he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved 
 
 Yeb. 4. And He saith to them, Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good oi to do 
 evil 1 He assumes that if a man does not do good when he can, he does eyil. 
 To refuse to do good is to choose to do evil. There is doing in both cases ; 
 there is the outgoing of energy in volition ; and thus, radically, it is a question 
 of doing right or wrong, and not merely of doing or not-doing. 
 
 To save life, or to kill ? Our Lord puts the case strongly, carrying out the 
 alternatives of activity into their most momentous issues. The principle of 
 action, which He wishes to vindicate, is thus seen in its strongest light. AU 
 good-doing to men's bodies lies on the line of life ; all withholding of good- 
 doing lies on the line of killing or of death. If it would be wrong, in the 
 absence of higher claims, to withhold the good-doing that would save life, it 
 must also be wrong, when the higher claims are still absent, to withhold the 
 good-doing that may be needed to develop life into its fulness of vigour and 
 beauty. What is true of bodies is equally true, on a loftier plane of things, of 
 souls. 
 
 But they held their peace. Thej kept sile-nt {i<niiTrav). They did not wish to 
 discuss principles of action ; they did not even wish to look into them, that 
 they might understand them. They were simply resolved to hold on by the 
 notions with which they were pre-oocupied, and to put down all that might be 
 contrary to these potions. 
 
 Vee. 5. Aud having looked round about on them with indignation. Viz., 
 because of the bigotry and tyranny of their spirit. Our Saviour's anger 
 would he no outburst of ill-natured passion. There was no ill-natured passion 
 in Him to burst out. And yet in all anger there is intense feeling ; only in the 
 Saviour's anger the intense feeling would not be that of chafed and irritated 
 selfishness. There was no selfishness in His heart to get chafed and irritated. 
 His indignation, like the indignation of God, would be pure and holy (ira per 
 zelum, not ira per vitium). It would be the recoil and regurgitation of benevo- 
 lence. His benevolence was wilfully resisted by the scribes and Pharisees, and 
 thus thrown back into an attitude of antagonism. 
 
 Being grieved. The expression in the original is significantly fuU, bringing 
 into view a certain peculiar element of togetherhood {a-vi/Xvirov/jievos). There is 
 a difference of opinion among critics as to the precise phase of togetherhood that 
 is referred to. Some think that it is the union of the Saviour's grief with His 
 anger. Hence the translation of the word in the Geneva version, mourning 
 also. Beza had the same view, simul dolens ; and Calvin, pareillement marri. 
 Calvin's translation of the phrase was received into the French Geneva version, 
 supplanting the older translation, contristS. Martin retained the same view of 
 the togetherhood in his French version ; Ostervald too. So also Sebastian 
 Schmidt and Erasmus Schmid, in their respective Latin translations ; and 
 Eisner likewise, and Better, and Dr. Robinson. But it is more likely that it is 
 the idea of sympathy which is indicated, so that the Saviour's feeling was a 
 
68 ST. MARK III. [5 
 
 for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man. Stretch 
 forth thine hand. And he stretched it out : and his hand was 
 restored whole as the other. 6 And the Pharisees went forth, 
 and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, 
 how they might destroy him. 
 
 lind of condolence. Such is the classical import of the word (see Herodot. 
 \i. 39, ix. 94). Only in the case before us there was a wonderful peculiarity in the 
 condolence. The scribes and Pharisees were not themselves grieved. But they 
 should have been. Kot thus does malevolence mourn over the woes of its 
 object; it is utterly destitute of any weUspring of tears. It is only bene- 
 volence that weeps. 
 
 At the hardening of their heart. The Saviour was grieved at this, or, more 
 literally, over this. Bending over it. He inwardly wept. Instead of hardening 
 or hardness, it is blindness in the Vulgate ; and so J. D. MichaeUs translates. 
 Wrongly however ; the word means callousness. As here applied to the 
 heart or mind, it denotes that moral insensibility which is the prominent cha- 
 racteristic of religious formalists and bigots. Formalism is like a coating of 
 callosity over the soul. Bigotry is another brawny coat. When it is in its 
 superlative degree there is an assumption of practical infallibility, which is an 
 exceedingly insensible coat. This assumption is naturally followed by another 
 assumption that all others should be compelled to think ' as we think,' and to act 
 ' as we act ' ; the hardest and toughest coat of all. He who is incased in these 
 coatings is proof against almost all appeals that would go to the conscience or 
 the heart. 
 
 He saith to the man, Stretch forth thy hand. Or, as Wycliffe gives it, Holde 
 forth thin honde. The Saviour vrished the whole assembly to see the hand, and 
 to take note of its shrunk and shrivelled condition. 
 
 And lie held it out. The arm was not impotent. 
 
 And his hand was restored. Viz. into its former condition of soundness. It 
 would be a sublime spectacle. When the tide of returning health rushed 
 expandingly through the shrivelled member, the presence and operation of some 
 supernatural power could not be gainsaid. And,' so far as history informs us, 
 there was no attempt to gainsay the intromission of such a power, all through the 
 period of our Saviour's career. Some said indeed that the power was from 
 beneath, but none denied that a might higher than human was in operation. 
 
 The appended words whole as the other seem, as Tischendorf remarks, to have 
 been imported from Matt. xii. 13. They are wanting in all the most important 
 manuscripts. They are wanting too in the most important ancient versions : 
 the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriac, the Philoxenian Syriao, the Gothic, Coptic, 
 Armenian, and ^thiopic ; the Arabic too, and Persic. 
 
 Vee. 6. And when the Pharisees went out. From the synagogue where the 
 miracle had been performed. 
 
 They straightway, with the Herodians, took counsel against Him. Straightway, 
 or immediately ; Mark's favourite adverb. All things in connection with Jesus 
 were now moving on in hot haste. The whole district was in a whirl of commo- 
 tion. Hence the Pharisees, being, with the rest of the population, under the 
 
7] ST. MARK III. 69 
 
 7 But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea : 
 
 spell of the movement, resolved to lose no time in getting some solieme con- 
 cocted for laying violent hands on the Disturber. They took the Herodians 
 into their counsels. It is not quite certain who the Herodians were. They 
 were probably a court party among the Jews, who were politically attached to 
 the rule of the Herods, and who either thought, or affected to think, that the 
 glowing predictions of the Old Testament in reference to the Messiah were suffi- 
 ciently fulfilled in the jurisdiction, military power, and social magnificence of 
 Herod the Great and his family. (See Gomm. on Matt. xxii. 16.) They would 
 not be a religious party, or much influenced by religious principles. And hence 
 the Pharisees, in seeking their co-operation to put down the great Opponent of 
 the irreligiousness of mere religious formality, bewrayed the depth of their own 
 irreligious hate. Took counsel: Such is our English phrase. The Greek ex 
 pression means made counsel, or made consultation (avfi^ovXtov iirolriaav ; see 
 Tischendorf, eighth edition). Wyoliffe renders it, maden u, counseil. The 
 Bheims has it, Tnade a consultation. 
 
 How they might destroy Him. The conjunction {Svas) has, in its make, a 
 reference to mode or manner. But here the reference is not to the mode or 
 manner of the destruction as already contemplated, but to the mode or manner 
 in which they might be able to reach such a desired result as that of destruc- 
 tion. The Vulgate version renders the conjunction how [quomodo), but Beza 
 substituted that instead {ut), and Tyndale translates the clause that they might 
 destroye Him. The word destroy has reference to a violent death. See Matt. 
 ii. 13, xxi. 41, xxvii. 20. Comp. Luke vi. 9 with Mark iii. 4. 
 
 De Wette says that Mark's mention of the combination of the Pharisees with 
 the Herodians is an erroneous anticipation of the subsequent coalition which is 
 recorded in Matt. xxii. 16. Ferdinand C. Baur gives expression to the same 
 idea {Markus.,'Tp. 179). But wantonly. Why should it be supposed unlikely 
 that there should be co-operation between groups of the two parties more than 
 once ? If the co-operation took place once, why should it be supposed incre- 
 dible that it took place more than once ? And why, again, should it be supposed 
 strange that Mark alone takes notice of this early coahtion? Why, when events 
 are in themselves many-sided, should it be deemed improbable or unaccountable 
 that different writers should give different details? 
 
 Ver. 7-12. In the brief paragraph extending from ver. 7 to ver. 12 there 
 is a condensation of many details of our Lord's Galilean ministry. He spoke 
 again and again words of grace ; He performed again and again works of mercy. 
 But the generic sameness of men's wants occasioned a somewhat corresponding 
 sameness in the manifold ministrations of our Saviour's benevolence. Hence 
 one of the reasons that account for the condensation of all the evangeUstio 
 narratives. 
 
 Yeb. 7. And Jesus with His disciples withdrew. Such is the collocation of 
 the words in most of the best manuscripts. 
 
 To the sea. Viz. of Galilee. Our Saviour, in retiring thither from Caper- 
 naum, would move from place to place on either side of the lake, seeking 
 opportunities, as they were required, for seclusion with His disciples (comp. 
 
?0 ST. MARK III. [7 
 
 and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from 
 Judaea, 8 and from Jerusalem, and from beyond Idumsea, and 
 from beyond Jordan; • and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great 
 
 Mark vi. 31), and halting for little seasons at the various villages and hamlets, 
 such as Choraziu and Bethsaida. 
 
 And a great multitude from Galilee followed. The Saviour could not get seclu- 
 sion. His fame was ringing all round about in the neighbourhood, and crowds 
 sought to see and hear Him. 
 
 And from Judsea. A semicolon should precede these words, and thus they 
 should be classed with the clauses of the next verse. It would have been well 
 indeed if Robert Stephens had transferred them altogether to ver. 8. Not only 
 ■ was our Saviour's fame ringing throughout Galilee, it was sending its peals and 
 echoes far and wide beyond ; many, for instance, in Judsea were stirred. 
 
 Veb. 8. And from Jerusalem. Even in the capital city people's wonder and 
 curiosity were excited. 
 
 And from Idumsea. Or Edom, the territory that lay across the south of Pales- 
 tine, stretching toward the south-east. The fame of Jesus had penetrated even 
 thither. Numbers of Jews would be resident in Idumsea ; for, though crushed 
 as a people, they were a prolific race, and were widely distributed over the western 
 parts of Asia, the eastern of Europe, and the northern of Africa. The Herod 
 family came from Idumsea. 
 
 And beyond-the-Jordan. This expression beyond-the-Jordan is a Hnd of indefi- 
 nite name for the territory that lay east of the Jordan, stretching southward to 
 the Dead Sea, from the sea of Galilee or the river Hieromax. The district was 
 called in Greek Percea, which just means the country on the other side. It is 
 classed by the evangelist with Idumma, as forming part of one circuit of country, 
 and hence the preposition from is not repeated, and from Idumcea and Peraa. 
 
 After the last clause Beza, Wetstein, Fritzsche, and many others, place a 
 colon, and Principal CampbeU and Volkmar a fuU point, looking upon the 
 clauses and from Judma, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumcea and Percea, as 
 constituting the train of the preceding clause, from Galilee. It is much betterj 
 however, with Heumam, Lachmann, and Meyer, to detach the train, and to 
 connect it with what comes after. See the last clause of the verse. 
 
 And about Tyre and Sidon. That is, and from the territmy about Tyre and 
 Sidon. This territory is added to Idumaea and Persea as completing the circuit 
 of country round the Holy Land ; and hence all the three localities are classed 
 together under the one preposition /rom, — and from Idumcea, and (the territory) 
 beyond Jordan, and (the territory) about Tyre and Sidon. The evangelist's 
 language is to a large extent aggregative, and the jointing of the aggregated 
 parts is left a little loose. But there is no difficulty in determining where the 
 train begins and ends. See next clause. 
 
 A great multitude, hearing what things He was doing, came to Him. This 
 ' great multitude ' was from Judsea, Idumsea, Persea, and the vicinity of Tyre 
 and Sidon. They ' came ' to Jesus. Note the verb. It is said of the ' great 
 multitude ' from Galilee that they ' followed ' Him, — a word that was appro- 
 priate for the inhabitants of the Galilean towns, out from which Jesus ' with- 
 drew to the sea,' but inappropriate to express the primary movement of the 
 
10] ST. MARK III. ?1 
 
 multitude, wlien they had heard what great things he did, came 
 unto him. 9 And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship 
 should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should 
 throng him. 10 For he had healed many; insomuch that they 
 pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had plagues. 
 
 inhabitants of the remote places specified. These, hearing what wonderful 
 things He was doing {aKouovres Sa-a iiraUi), ' came ' to Him to see and to hear. 
 
 Ver. 9. And He spake to His disciples. No doubt after He had already been 
 long engaged in ministering to the growing and exacting multitude. 
 
 That a small boat shonJ.d wait on Him. Or, should keep in constant attend- 
 ance on Him {irpoffKapTep-Q), The conjunction translated that is literally in 
 order that {tfa), so that the clause explains for what purpose it was that the 
 Saviour had turned aside and spoken to His disciples. 
 
 Because of the crowd, in order that they might not press upon Him. The Greneva 
 version of 1557 gives a very exaggerated translation to the verb, lest they should 
 thronge Hym to death. The word however does denote squeezing or jamming 
 (Felbinger, drukketen). It is not expressly said, as Meyer remarks, that our 
 Lord taught the people out of the boat ; but we like to imagiue that He did. 
 (Comp. chap. iv. 1, 2.) 
 
 Ver. 10. For He healed many. The evangelist thus explains how it came to 
 pass that the people pressed in upon the person of our Lord. Had He merely 
 taught, like a great rabbi, they would probably have kept at a respectful 
 distance. But He healed as weU as taught ; heaUng ' virtue ' seemed to stream 
 out from Him at all points. 
 
 So that as many as had plagues were pressing upon Him. Or, literally, were 
 falling upon Him (fio-re iirnrlwTeLv airi^. The verb employed almost invariably 
 receives the same translation in the other passages where it occurs. (See Luke 
 XV. 20 ; Acts x. 44, xi. 15, xiii. 11, xix. 17, xx. 10 ; etc.) In English, however, 
 the phrase, with subject and object such as it has before us, has got stiffened 
 into an idiom that expresses hostile attack or assault. In the case before us it 
 appropriately represents the eager and impetuous pressing, and bending forward 
 almost to the angle of falling, that would be characteristic of the crowd of 
 patients who gathered around our Lord and sought to come in contact with His 
 person. Hammond thinks that interpreters have ' mistaken ' the import of the 
 phrase, and that it means ' so that they fell down before Him.' But he has 
 entirely failed to realize to himself the peculiarity of the represented scene. 
 Plagues : or scourgings, as the word literally signifies, and as it is translated 
 in Acts xxii. 24, Heb. xi. 36. The phrase here denotes diseases, or syknessis as 
 Purvey has it: only it graphically represents, on the one hand, the torture 
 ' which they frequently inflict, while it suggests on the other that they are 
 themselves ire/ictiong. There is something ' penaJ ' in their 'paire ' (see ycejia). 
 The idea is true, though it leads the thought into an exceedingly complicated 
 subject, which, if one's clue be insufficient, would speedily issue in an inex- 
 tricable tanglement. The woidplague has now a more restricted signification 
 than it once had. It originally just meant a stroke. In its more modern accept- 
 ation, it is, says Archbishop Trench, " a title given to great pestilences, because 
 
72 ST. MARK III. [11 
 
 11 And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down be- 
 fore him, and cried, saying. Thou art the Son of God. 12 
 And he straitly charged them that they should not make him 
 known. 
 
 " the universal conscience of men, which is never at fault, believed and confessed 
 ",that there were strokes or blows inflicted by God on a guilty and rebellious 
 " world." {Study of Words, p. 40.) 
 
 In order that they might touch Him. For it was the Saviour's pleasure that 
 there should in general be some perceptible connection between Himself and the 
 objects of His healing ministrations. 
 
 Vek. 11. And the impure spirits. Note the article, pointing to those par- 
 ticular impure spirits who acted their part in the wonderful scene. 
 
 Whensoever they beheld Him {Hrav airtii/ i^eupovv), fell down before Him. Or, 
 as the Eheims renders it, fell down unto Him. They fell down at His feet, doing 
 homage as it were. The impure spirits thus acted in the way of actuating the 
 bodies of the possessed. It was u cunning demonic ' dodge.' (See on chap, 
 i. 23.) 
 
 And exclaimed, saying, Thou art the Son of God. That is, Thou art no mere 
 man ! no mere son of man, like other men ! Thou art come direct from God, in 
 fulfilment of ancient prophecies, to put an end to our dominion over men ! We 
 need not suppose, with Cajetan, that they uttered this confessional exclamation 
 only tentatively, to find out whether or not our Saviour was the Sou of God. 
 It is unwaveringly afSrmative ; but it would no doubt be wrung from them 
 under the influence of disappointment and hate. (Chap. i. 26.) They felt that 
 they could not retain their hold on their prey, in the presence of the Great 
 Deliverer. The ' virtue ' which went out from Him constrained them to let go. 
 But they hoped, we may imagine, that the audible utterance of their acknow- 
 ledgment might suggest a suspicion of collusion with themselves. " It is 
 certain,'' says Petter, " that in maJdng their confession they aimed at evil and 
 " sinister ends." 
 
 Vee. 12. And He charged them much. So the term is rendered in chap. i. 45, 
 v. 10 ; John xiv. 30 ; Eom. xvi. 12 ; Eev. v. 4 ; etc. Wyoliffe renders the adverb 
 gretely ; the Geneva, sharply ; the Vulgate, Erasmus, and the Bheims, vehe- 
 mently; WhistoB and Bisping, earnestly; Mace, Wakefield, Principal Campbell, 
 Thomson, Young, strictly. Charged : the original term means rated (^irerLuM,). 
 It indicates that our Saviour spoke sharply and peremptorily. Them .- it Is too 
 generally assumed that the reference of this pronoun is exclusively to the impure 
 spirits. The evangelist however had already, in the language of the preceding 
 verse, intertwined a double reference to the spirits and their victims. He speaks 
 of their prostration at the feet of our Lord. His thoughts thus oscillated for 
 a little from the one party to the other. But as he mentally traced the actual 
 progress of the events to which he refers, he sees the demoniacs delivered ; he 
 takes note of their noisy demonstrations of ecstasy and zeal, when once they 
 felt themselves free ; he then naturally classes them with the others who had 
 been healed (see ver. 10) ; and then, whUe thinking of the whole number of the 
 Cured, he says, and He sjgahe very peremptorily to them. Such was Matthew's 
 
14] ST. MARK III. ?3 
 
 13 And he goeth up into a mountainj and calleth unto him 
 whom he would : and they came unto him. 14 And he or- 
 
 understanding of the case ; chap. xii. 16-20. And, even although we had not 
 Matthew's testimony, a careful and unbiassed effort to disintegrate the elements 
 of Mark's artlessly condensed representation should lead us to the same result. 
 Surely it is a much more natural conclusion than to suppose, with Volkmar 
 (p. 239), that Matthew, in condensing Mark's narrative, imprudently copied 
 ver. 12, while leaving out ver. 11 ! 
 
 In order that they might not make Him known, or manifest {(pavepov). These 
 words represent, not exactly what our Lord said to the healed persons, but what 
 was the end He had in view in saying what He said iim). He wished to prevent 
 them, as far as possible, from spreading themselves abroad over society, and 
 zealously proclaiming that He was the great Deliverer. His popularity with 
 the common people was already inconveniently great. There was besides too 
 much tendency to make use of Him for merely physical relief. A time too of 
 quiet was needed for the progressive instruction of His disciples in things 
 moral, spiritual, and Messianic. And He shrank, with true delicacy of spirit, 
 from the din and dust and ' muscular ' rush and roar and rant of those excited 
 mobs of admirers, in the tides of whose applause moral and political mounte- 
 banks think themselves glorified. 
 
 Vek. 13-19 constitute another snatch of narrative, exceedingly condensed. 
 Comp. Matt. x. 1-4 and Luke vi. 12-16. 
 
 Teb. 13. And He goeth up into the mountain. We know not exactly when ; 
 we know not exactly where. Neither the precise chronology, nor the precise 
 topography, of the event was interesting to the evangelist. He had heard, 
 however, from the lips of his informant, that it was ' the mountain ' into which 
 the Lord ascended, that is, the particular ' highland ' of the locality that was 
 present to the thoughts of the narrator. Comp. Matt. v. 1. Of course it was 
 some one or other of the numerous upland spots in the vicinity of the sea of 
 Galilee, at its northern extremity. Our Lord ' ascended into the mountain,' 
 that is, into some of the scoops or gorges that intersect the face of the 
 eminence. 
 
 And calleth to Him whom He Himself pleased. We need not fancy anything 
 like vociferation in the call ; for we need not suppose, on the one hand, that our 
 Saviour had ascended to any very great height, and we must bear in mind, on 
 the other, that in those stiU regions of comparatively bare rock, and thus of 
 universal ' sounding-board,' the voice is easily carried. Our Lord called to Him 
 ' whom Se Himself pleased ' (ofis ^^eXei/ ainos). He did not allow any of His 
 general followers to offer themselves, ultroneously, for special work and special 
 privilege. 
 
 And they departed to Him [dir^X'^ov irpbs aiTov). Namely, from the rest of the 
 people who remained below. 
 
 Vek. 14. And He appointed twelve. Literally, And He made twelve, an ex- 
 ceedingly artless expression ; and, in conjunction with the following clause, just 
 as artlessly though not literally rendered by the Vulgate, And He made that 
 twelve should he with Him (Eheims translation). Tyndale and Coverdale, 
 
74 ST. MARK III. [14 
 
 dained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he 
 might send them forth to preach, 15 and to have power to 
 heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils. 16 And Simon he 
 
 instead of the generic made, hare the specific ordained ; the Geneva, Norton, 
 Sharpe, Eotherham, the English Eevisionists, appointed ; Principal Camphell, 
 selected. The term may he freely so rendered ; but still it just means made. 
 It would appear that our Lord had called up to Him a, select number of His 
 most attached followers ; and then from these He selected twelve. See Luke vi. 
 13. Standing somewhat apart from the company, He would tell Peter to 
 advance nearer to Him : that was one. Then He would call perhaps on 
 Andrew, the brother of Peter : that would make two. Then He would call on 
 the other pair of brothers, James and John : that would make four. And 
 thus He would proceed, till He made twelve, the full number of the children of 
 Israel. The Lord, it would appear, delighted to realize, in His institution of 
 the apostolate, His relation to the whole of the Israelites, as representative of 
 the whole of mankind. 
 
 In order that they might be with Him. He had a particular aim in ' making 
 twelve.' It was, first of all, in order that they might be His constant attend- 
 ants. He wished to have them beside Him, that He might pour His spirit into 
 them, and train them, at once by light and by love, to be His fellow-labourers 
 and His successors in teaching the people. 
 
 And iu order that He might send them forth to preach. Namely, by and by, 
 when they were inwardly equipped. That He might send them forth (diroo-reXXTj), 
 ' that is, that He might make apostles of them (dTroo-roXot) . This was His 
 ulterior aim. Our Lord could not Himself reach very many with His own 
 individual voice ; and hence He multiplied it as it were. He knew that it was 
 all-important for the Israelites in particular, and thence for aU meti, that they 
 should be earnestly spoken to in reference to the kingdom of God. Hence 
 ' preachers,' or heralds of good news, were needed. 
 
 Vek. 15. And to have authority to oast out the demons. ' The demons,' to 
 wit, which were so rampant in human society, annoying, oppressing, defiling, 
 and abusing men. (See chap, i: 23, 32.) Note the expression to have authority. 
 We might have expected the evangelist to have said simply, and to cast out the 
 demons. But the power 'of exorcising was so different from the power of 
 preaching, that the evangehst makes special mention of the Divine authorization 
 with which they would require to be endued. 
 
 Vbb. 16. And He made the twelve. This artless repetitive clause, with the 
 addition of the retrospective article, is inserted by Tischendorf in his eighth 
 edition of the text ; apparently on good authority, the authority of tbe 
 Sinaitic, Vatican, Ephraemi, and San Gallensis manuscripts (N B C* A), and the 
 Jiithiopic manuscript m. The clause had got to be early dropped, as bearing 
 the aspect of a useless repetition. 
 
 And He imposed on Simon the name Peter. Another exceedingly artless ex- 
 pression. The evangelist intends to enumerate the apostles, and begins with 
 Peter. But instead of introducing the surname iu a subordinate clause, Simon, 
 on whom He imposed the name Peter, he narrates the imposition of the name in 
 
17] ST. MARK III. 75 
 
 suruamed Peter; 17 and James the son of Zebedee, and John 
 the brother of James ; and he surnamed them Boanerges, 
 
 a capital clause, and then leaves the narration as sufficing for the enumerative 
 object that he had in yiew. The word Simon or Simeon is Hebrew, meaning 
 hearing ; the word Peter is Greek, meaning stone. As imposed, however, upon 
 the chief of the apostles, it is not to be regarded as referring to any little 
 pebble in the brook, or any accidental chip of rock lying on the road or in the 
 field. Galilee and the surrounding lands were remarkable for massive stone 
 structures. The most conspicuous of these were sacred edifices, temples ; and 
 the foundation stones of these temples were invariably large and imposing. It 
 would be with a view to these large and conspicuous foundation stones that our 
 Lord would call Simon a Stone. He was spiritually large and strong, massive 
 and shapely, fit to constitute an important part of the substructure of the great 
 spiritual temple of God. (See Matt. xvi. 18.) There is no reason for supposing, 
 with Cajetan and Meyer, that the name Peter was imposed on Simon just at 
 the particular time referred to. (See John i. 42.) The evangelist simply takes 
 the opportunity, in his own artless way, of recording the new name and of 
 mentioning that it was given to Simon by our Lord. 
 
 Vbe. 17. Mark does not classify the apostles in pairs, as Matthew does 
 (x. 2-4), although it is he who mentions that by and by they were sent out in 
 pairs (chap. vi. 7). He heaps their names together in an artless manner, but 
 is particular, like the other evangelists, about the first and the last. He is also 
 particular, unlike Matthew, and Luke in his Gospel (vi. 14), to introduce James 
 and John between Peter and his brother Andrew, thus recognising the pre- 
 eminence of the triumvirate who were admitted by our Lord into His most 
 intimate fellowship. (See Mark ix. 2, xiv. 33.) The same intersection occurs 
 in the Acts of the Apostles (i. 13). 
 
 And James the son of Zebedee. James is thus patronymically marked out, to 
 distinguish him from the other apostolical James, the son of Alphseus. See 
 next verse. 
 
 And John the brother of James. John had no doubt been the younger 
 brother, and hence his position in the list, though he ultimately became much 
 more distinguished than his brother. See chap. i. 19 ; and comp. Luke ix. 28. 
 
 And them He surnamed Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder. The expression 
 rendered surnamed means literally imposed on them ' names.' Note the plural 
 ' names.' It seems to justify us in concluding that each of the brothers would 
 bear the ' name ' Son-of -thunder or Bar-r'ges. The two names combined make 
 Sons of thunder, or Boanerges, that is Boane-r'ges. The word Boane, meaning 
 Sons of, must have been a provincial or otherwise peculiar way of pronouncing 
 BenS or Benai. {BenS is Hebrew and Chaldee ; Benai is Syriac.) Drusius 
 indeed was perplexed with the broadness of the pronunciation, and supposed 
 that the word, as found in the evangelist's text, must have been accidentally 
 mis-spelled, and that it should be written Bane. (Prmterita, in loc.) Beza was 
 nearly of the same opinion. ' It is obvious,' says he, ' that the o should be 
 expunged.' But this is going much too far in an assumption of purism of 
 pronunciation among the Galileans. There are often the strangest freaks of 
 
?G ST. MARK III. [17 
 
 which is. The sons of thunder : 18 and Andrew, and Philip, 
 
 variation in pronunciation. There would be in Galilee, especially in the 
 ' broad ' direction. (See Matt. xxvi. 73.) The manuscripts are unanimous in 
 reading oa ; and Hugh Bronghtou says, " At this day soheva is sounded by the 
 " Jews themselves as oa, as for example Noaby-im," (for Neby-im). (Works, ^ p. 
 706.) The other moiety of the surname, viz. r'ges or r'gesh (tJ'J'l or ^i'}-i^^^, 
 has also occasioned to critics unnecessary difficulty. . It is true that in the 
 classic passages in which the term occurs, it means, not thunder, but an assembly 
 or crowd. (See Ps. Iv. 14.) In no passage of the Targums, it would appear, or 
 of the Talmud, does it indisputably mean thunder. (See Patrizi, in loe.) It is, 
 however, very evidently onomatopoetio, having primarily a reference to noise. 
 (See Buxtorf's Lexicon Talmud., sub voce.) Hence the translation which the 
 cognate verb receives in the Septuagint version of Ps. ii. 1 {i4>pia^av), a 
 translation to some extent reproduced in our EngHsh version, ' why do the 
 heathen rage ? ' in the margin it is tumultuously assemble. CasteU conjec- 
 tured that there was a connection between the word and our Saxon rush, which 
 is undoubtedly onomatopoetio. (Lexicon, sub voce.) "We may be sure, at all 
 events, that in the Galilean dialect the word did mean thunder. The whole 
 compound word was perplexing to Jerome. He looked at it apparently from 
 too classic a standpoint, both as regards the pronunciation of the first part, 
 and as regards the conventional acceptation of the second. He hence proposed 
 to amend it into Bene-re'em (that is, DJ?T '33). " The name," says he, " is not, 
 " as most suppose, Boanerges, but is more correctly read Bene-reem.'' (Comm. on 
 Dan. i. 7 ; see also his Comm. on Isa. lii. 4. and his Lexicon of Hebrew 
 Names.) Luther was so f*r swayed by Jerome's authority as to introduce his 
 word into the text ; be gives it thus, Briehargem. Stunica too accepted it, and 
 Maldonato, and le Clero. Grotius, again, supposed that the second moiety of 
 the word was neither r'ges nor re'em, but re'es or ra'ash (K'5?^), which is some- 
 times translated rushing, sometimes earthquake, and in Isa. ix. 5 confused 
 noise. Hammond followed Grotius, but unwisely ; for re'es or ra'ash is 
 expressly distinguished in its meaning from thunder in Isa. xxix. 6. There is 
 really no occasion for racking ingenuity to account for the evangelist's term. 
 There is no difficulty in accepting it just as we have it, when we take the power 
 of pronunciation into account, and the obvious onomatopoetio force of the term. 
 The rationale of its application to James and John has, like everything else 
 about the term, been keenly disputed. It is unknown, as le Clero observes ; it 
 can therefore be only conjectured. The Fathers in general conjectured in a 
 spiritual direction. They supposed that the term glances at the general power 
 of the gospel as preached by the two apostles. (See Suiceri Thesaurus, sub 
 voce fipovT-rj.) Heumann conjectured in another direction, that the name was 
 intended to be a term of reprimand or reproach (ein Schelt-Nahme), because 
 James and John had said, in reference to certain Samaritan villagers, " Lord, 
 " wilt Thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, 
 " even as Elias did ? " (Luke ix. 54.) It is a most unlikely interpretation, 
 though approved of by Whitby. Our Lord would not deal in nicknames ; and if 
 He had ever allowed Himself in such a licence. He would have called His in- 
 considerately ardent disciples Sons ofjire rather than Sons of thunder, A-Lapide 
 
18] ST. MARK III. 77 
 
 and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James 
 
 supposed that the name was imposed because the Lord designed that the 
 brothers should excel the other apostles in their power of preaching and propa- 
 gating the gospel ; he thinks in particular that the commencement of John's 
 Gospel evinces all the peculiar majesty of thunder and lightning. Luther took 
 a corresponding view (Glos., in loc). It is however far more likely that there is 
 a simple reference, in the surname, to some deep-toned peculiarity of voice 
 which was characteristic of the brothers, and which would eminently fit them, 
 when engaged in addressing their fellow men, for rolling in on the mind and 
 heart, with awe inspiring effect, the solemnities of religion. This view of the 
 import of the surname was taken by Beza, and Pfeiffer (Ebraic. et Exotic, 
 xviii. 4). It is not quite the same idea as was suggested by the peculiar style of 
 Pericles' oratory, the 'thunder and lightning' style (itt non loqui et orare, sed 
 quod Pericli contigit, fulgurare ae tonare videaris : Quinotilian, Irist. ii. 16), 
 but it does lie to a certain extent on the same line of thought. The filial 
 element of the phrase, namely Sons of, is an exemplification of a favourite 
 idiom among the Hebrews. (Comp. chap. ii. 19.) The entire compound 
 surname was on the whole equivalent to Thunderers (ol ppovruves : Euthymius 
 Zigabenus) ; but it suggested this idea over and above, that the brothers 
 derived no little portion of their differentiating peculiarity as preachers from 
 the solemn thunder-tone that was inherent in their voices. 
 
 Vee. 18. The remaining names are heaped together. 
 
 And Andrew. A Greek name, meaning Manly. It is an incidental proof of 
 the prevalence of the Greek language in Galilee. He was the brother of Peter 
 (chap. i. 16), and has left behind him in' history but few traces of his career. 
 He is reported, says Eusebius, on the authority of Origen (Hist., iii. 1), to have 
 gone to Scythia to preach the gospel ; and he is said to have suffered martyr- 
 dom on a decussated cross (or X), which is hence called the St. Andrew cross. 
 
 And Philip. Another Greek name, meaning Fond of horses. It was this 
 Philip who said to Nathanael Come and see. (John i. 43-51.) Little is known 
 of his career. He is said to have died at Hierapolis (Eusebius, Hist. v. 24). 
 
 And Bartholomew. A Hebrew patrpnymioal name, signifying Son of Tholomew 
 or Talmai. It is not unlikely that he was Nathanael (John i. 43-51) ; and he 
 might be generally called Bartholomew, to distinguish him from some other 
 Nathanael in the same circle. (Comp. John xxi. 1, 2.) He is said to have 
 gone to India to preach the gospel. (See Eusebius, Hist. v. 10 ; and Jerome, 
 de Viris Illustribus, xxxvi.) 
 
 And Matthew. The tax collector, or officer of revenue (Matt. x. 3), — no doubt 
 also the evangelist. (See Introd. to Comm. on Matt.) His name is Hebrew, and 
 means Gift-of-God or Theodore. 
 
 And Thomas. Another Hebrew name, meaning Twin. Its Greek synonym is 
 Didymus. (See John xi. 16, xx. 24, xxi. 2.) There are many traditions re- 
 garding his ultimate career. Origen reports that he preached the gospel in 
 Parthia (Eusebius, Hist. iii. 1). There is extant a Gospel according to Thomas 
 among the New Testament Apocrypha. 
 
 And James the (son) of Alphsens. Wycliffe's translation is, and James Alfey. 
 
78 ST. MARK III. [18 
 
 the son of Alphasua, and Thadd^us, and Siinon the Ca- 
 
 Jerome, in his treatise On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, -written against 
 Helvidius, maintains that Alphseus was the husband of Mary the sister of the 
 Virgin Mary ; and he hence supposes that the James here specified was one of 
 our Lord's ' brethren,' being elsewhere called ' Ja^ies the little ' (Mark xv. 40). 
 By ' brethren ' he understands cowina-german. W. H. Mill maintains the sama 
 ■view. (The Descent and Parentage of the Saviour, sect. 3.) There seem how- 
 ever to be almost insuperable difficulties in the way of accepting such a genea- 
 logical theory. It is not likely that Mary our Lord's mother would have a sister 
 also called Mary. The statement in John xix. 25, on which the whole theory 
 is based, may be legitimately interpreted on the principle that four women are 
 referred to, not three. It is on this principle that the Peshito translation of the 
 passage is constructed: " Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, 
 "and the sister of His mother, and Mary (the vrife) of Cleophas, and Mary Mag- 
 "dalene." The older theory regarding the ' brethren ' of our Lord (that they 
 were the children of Joseph by a previous marriage), the theory that preceded 
 both that of Helvidius (that they were Mary's children) and that of Jerome (that 
 they were the children of Mary's sister Mary), is the most probable of all. It 
 has the advantage, in addition to other recommendations in its favour, of ac- 
 counting for the air of superiority and precedence assumed by the ' brethren ' in 
 relation to our Lord. (John vii. 3-10 ; Mark iii. 21.) It is certainly not at aU 
 probable that any of the apostles would be of the number of the ' brethren.' 
 (See John vii. 5.) Alphcem : There is no reason for supposing that this is the 
 same Alphceus who has been already referred to as the father of Levi, or Mat- 
 thew. (Mark ii. 14. ) The name was common among the Hebrews ; whether 
 it be but another form of Clopas (not Cleophas), referred to in John xix. 25, is 
 uncertain. The archetypical Hebrew word Chalphai might readily mould itself 
 in the direction of both poles of pronunciation ; but we need not seek to deter- 
 mine. If, however, the Clopas of John xix. 25 be Alphseus, then the Cleopas of 
 Luke xxiv. 18 must be a different person from Clopas, for Luke, as well as 
 Matthew and Mark, uses the form Alph<eus (vi. 15 ; Acts i. 13). 
 
 And Thaddseus. Or Lebbisus, as he is called by Matthew (x. 3). He is other- 
 wise called Judas or Jude ' (the son) of James." (See Luke's Gospel, vi. 15, Acts 
 i. 13 ; see also John xiv. 22.) He is, as Luther remarks, ' the good Judas,' 
 (derfromme Judas). It is most probable that Judas or Jude would be his ' proper 
 name.' Lebbaus or Thaddceu^, sometimes the one and sometimes the other, 
 would be a kind of characteristic designation or surname. The two words arS 
 affihated as designations, Lebbceus coming from leb (D?) the Hebrew and 
 Aramaic for heart, and Thaddceus from thad the Aramaic for breast or bosom 
 [IPi, Hebrew !&). In the breast or bosom we have, to a certain extent, the outer 
 development of the heart ; the full-breasted is as it were the targe-hearted. 
 We know nothing of the ultimate career of this Judas or Jude. He is doubtless 
 to be distinguished from the Judas or Jude, the ' servant of Jesus Christ ' and 
 ' brother of James,' who wrote the little epistle that comes after the Epistles 
 of John. 
 
 And Simon the Canansean, There is no reference at all to the people called 
 Canaanites. Neither is there any reference, as Luther seemed to think, to the 
 
20] ST. MARK III. 79 
 
 naanite, 19 and Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him. 
 And they went into an house. 20 And the multitude 
 
 town Cana. He translates the expression ' Simon of Cana ' ; so do Coverdale, 
 Pisoator, Bengel, Zinzendorf. Tyndale has Symon of Canei The evangelist's 
 term however is not Canaite, but Cananite, or better stUl, and as Edgar Taylor 
 gives it, Kananite, or Cananaan as it is in the original and as Alford gives it in 
 his translation. The word is an Aramaic word, signifying zealot. And hence 
 it is translated into Greek by Luke, Zelotes (Gosp. vi. 15 ; Acts i. 13). Norton 
 renders the phrase here Simon the Zealot. The zealots were an extreme political 
 party among the Jews, somewhat corresponding to the Irreconcilables of our own 
 day, who were determined on no account to acquiesce in the Eoman rule. They 
 were persuaded that any public or private measures or acts, however bloody or 
 revolutionary, which were intended and fitted either to break down or to embarrass 
 the dominion of the Bomans, or of any other heathens, within the Holy Land, 
 were not only legitimate but meritorious. They played in subsequent times a 
 terrible part in connection with the ' reign of terror ' that preceded the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem. (See Josephus' Wars of the Jews, from the 4th Book on- 
 ward. ) At the outset of the movement there would most probably be a purer 
 zeal than was afterwards developed ; it would be pious as well as patriotic. 
 And no doubt it would be at this comparatively pure stage of things that Simon 
 would get connected with the movement. The diviner zeal, emanating from 
 Jesus, and flowing in the direction of the kingdom of the true Jews, ' the king- 
 dom of heaven,' would change the current of his life. 
 
 Yeb. 19. And Judas Iscariot. The last and lowest in the list. He would 
 receive the designation Iscariot to distinguish him from other Judases in general, 
 and from Judas Thaddseus or Lebbaeus in particular. It is generally supposed 
 that the designation is just ish-Kerioth, meaning literally man of Kerioth, or 
 Keriothite. Kerioth was an obscure town of Judah (see Josh. xv. 25), and it is 
 not unlikely that Judas's father Simon had removed from it to Galilee. Hence 
 he too, when once he became a ' residenter ' in Galilee, would be called Simon 
 Iscariot, or Simon the Keriothite. And so indeed he is called in the text of John 
 vi. 71 and xiii. 26 which is given in the editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles. 
 
 Who also betrayed Him. Or, who also delivered Him up, namely, to those 
 who were thirsting for His blood. It is the black mark on Judas that differ- 
 entiates him from the other apostles, and from all other men. It may be asked, 
 Why did our Lord choose such a man to be an apostle ? It is enough, meanwhile, 
 to answer (1) that as our Lord, for the grandest of purposes, had appeared 
 among men in a peculiar sphere of human society and at a particular time, so 
 the men whom He chose to be disciples and apostles might not be the lest that 
 were absolutely imaginable ; they might merely be the best that, in the circum- 
 stances, were actually attainable. And then again (2) there is no good reason for 
 supposing that Judas would be an unprincipled man at the time he was chosen. 
 
 And He cometh into a house. With these words a new brief paragraph com- 
 mences. They should have formed part of the 20th verse. Eobert Stephens, the 
 verse-maker, included them in the 20th verse ; but unhappily Beza differed in 
 his judgment, and in his editions tacked them on to ver. 19 ; so did Henry 
 
80 ST. MARK III. [20 
 
 Cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat 
 
 Stephens in his editions. Our translators, no doubt influenced by their author- 
 ity, walked in their footsteps. Inconsiderately however. And yet Mill and 
 Wetstein followed. The Elzevirs before them had wavered ; in their earlier 
 editions (1624, 1633, and 1641) following Beza and Henry Stephens, but return- 
 ing in their later editions (1658, 1662, 1670, 1678) to Bobert Stephens. Bengel 
 saw that the words belonged to «. new paragraph, and he hence commenced a 
 new paragraph with them, but he marked them in his 1734 edition as belonging 
 to ver. 19. Afterwards he discovered that they properly belonged to ver. 20, 
 and hence in his 1753 edition and his German version he not only kept them 
 at the commencement of the new paragraph, but restored them to the 20th 
 verse. Both Zinzendorf and Griesbach commence with them a new paragraph ; , 
 so did Luther and Tyndale. Lachmann and Tisohendorf both commence a new 
 paragraph with the words ; but they both mark them as belonging to the 19th 
 verse. Ewald however and Tregelles restore them to the 20th verse. It is not 
 easy to give the words a correct idiomatic translation. The literal translation 
 would be and He cometh into house. The narrator's standpoint is at the home ; 
 hence the verb cometh instead of goeth. But the phrase into house, or to house 
 as Coverdale has it, or unto housse as Tyndale has it, is not an English idiom. 
 Yet the original expression does not mean into a house, as Wyclifie has it. 
 Neither does it exactly mean home, as in the margin and the Geneva version. 
 It corresponds to our idiomatic expression into town, only it narrows the refer- 
 ence to a particular house. (See on chap. ii. 1.) The meaning is that in process 
 of time Jesus returns to Capernaum with Sis disciples, and they go into the house 
 where Be was accustomed to live when in that town. Tisohendorf's reading, in 
 his eighth edition, ' He cometh ' instead of they come, is supported by the 
 Sinaitio and Vatican manuscripts and some other considerable authorities. 
 Not unlikely it is the correct reading ; but it is implied, of course, that the 
 apostles were with our Lord. See next verse. 
 
 Ewald thinks that in Mark's original Gospel, an abstract of the Sermon on the 
 Mount would intervene between the words of this clause and the words of the 
 preceding clause, but that somehow it had got dropped out. Hence he intei- 
 poses between the clauses the signs of a hiatus or gap (a Lucke). It is an 
 arbitrary conjecture, founded on an arbitrary theory as to what Mark might be 
 expected to record and what he might be expected to leave unrecorded. We 
 must take Mark's Memoirs of our Lord just as we have them, and be contented 
 with them. They are indeed in many respects, semi-detached snatches of 
 biography, artlessly pieced together. But how charming 1 
 
 Vek. 20. And a crowd cometh together again. The excitement, curiosity 
 and eagerness of the people were still flowing as in spring-tide. Note the 
 again. It glances back, not exclusively to what is recorded in chap. ii. 2, but to 
 the many notices of crowds that are contained in the entire preceding narrative. 
 
 So that they could not so much as eat bread. The expression is peculiarly 
 emphatic (ware fii) Sivaff^ai airois nijre dprov (payelv). Among many other things, 
 less indispensable, which they were not able to do, our Lord and His disciples 
 could not even secure for themselves such a modicum of seclusion and leisure as was 
 needful for their meals. The people kept thronging in irrepressibly, eager to 
 
21] ST. MAEK III. 81 
 
 bread. 21 And when his friends heard of it, they went out 
 to lay hold on him : for they said, He is beside himself. 
 
 Bee, eager to hear, eager to experience or to witness, tlie wonderful effects of the 
 outgoing ' virtue.' 
 
 Ver. 21. And when His friends heard. Yiz. about what was going on. When 
 reports reached them regarding their Kinsman's persiated-iu preachings, and 
 His fearless disputinga with the ablest an-d most learned of the scribes and 
 Pharisees, and TTis actual selection of a band of twelve coadjutors and apostles, 
 not to mention other rumours of most daring exorcisms and cures. The ex- 
 pression rendered His friends has caused perplexity to many critics. Un- 
 necessarily however. It literally means they wlw were from beside Him (o! irap 
 airod), that is, in this connection, they who were by origin or birth from beside 
 Him, they who were 'closely connected' with Him by birth. It is quite an ap- 
 propriate phrase to denote one's kinsmen. So the term is translated by Wycliff e. 
 The Geneva has the corresponding word kinsfolkes. Tyndale meant to bring 
 out the same idea when he rendered the expression, they that longed unto Him, 
 that is, they that belonged unto Him. Luther missed the mark, and misled 
 Coverdale, when he rendered the phrase they that were about Him {die um 
 ihn waren). WoUe however contended for the same translation [Be Parenthesi 
 Sacra, p. 33). And Krebs's rendering is kindred, they who were with Him. 
 Schbttgen gives the same rendering with Krebs, both in his Lexicon and in his 
 Horte HebraiecB ; it is approved of too by Kocher. All these critics suppose 
 that the phrase refers to our Saviour's disciples. Wolf took the same view of 
 the reference (see his note on ver. 31), and Griesbach and Vater. And so too 
 Sir Norton Knatchbull (Annotations, in loc.) and Hombergk {Parerga, in loc.) ; 
 only they interpreted the phrase as meaning some from Him, that is, His mes- 
 sengers, or they who were sent by Him. 
 
 They went out. Or, better BtUl, they came out. The evangehst's mental 
 standpoint was not at Nazareth, whence the Saviour's kinsfolk went, but at 
 Capernaum whither they came. If we were to drop his mental standpoint out of 
 view altogether, we might render the verb freely they set out. 
 
 To lay hold on Him. Namely with their hands, that they might take Him homo 
 and keep Him under family restraint. 
 
 For they said, He is beside Himself. Literally, He is standing out of Him- 
 self; He is out of His senses {i^ecrr'n). With their small ideas of things, they 
 could not otherwise account for His conduct. The verb translated they said is 
 in the imperfect tense (^eyov) ; they kept harping on the matter. Many exposi- 
 tors have felt scandalized at the application of such language to our Saviour on 
 the part of His kinsfolk ; and, in particular, they have been unable to reconcile 
 themselves to the idea that His mother could allow herself to speak thus of her 
 Son. Hence they have tortured their ingenuity to excogitate some other inter- 
 pretation. The writer of the very ancient Cambridge manuscript (D) represents 
 the verse thus : And when the scribes and the rest heard concerning Him, theg 
 went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, He is driving them mad {i^eararai 
 airiis, exentiat eos !). The Gothic version represents the sense thus: And 
 stribes and others hearing of Him went out to lay hold of Him ; they also said 
 that He is out of His senses [usgaisiths). The Old Latin version presents a 
 
 G 
 
82 ST. MARK III. [22 
 
 22 And the scribes whicli came down from Jerusalem said, 
 
 corresponding transformation, swinging in some of its manuscripts to the re- 
 presentation preserved in the Cambridge codex, and in others to the milder 
 misrepresentation preserved in the Gothic translation. It is evident that some 
 of the old transcribers and translators had been sorely perplexed. So in more 
 modern times. Schottgen, for instance, though reverently retaining the unex- 
 ceptionally supported reading of the Received Text, puts it on the rack, and 
 extorts from it the following interpretation : And when the disciples heard {the 
 crowd tumultuating outside the door), they went out to restrain it, for they said, It 
 is furious ! Sir Norton Knatehbull, with his characteristic love of the peculiar, 
 gives a corresponding explanation, and speaks of the multitude being mad. 
 Coverdale, again, contented himself with toning down the force of the verb, He 
 taketh too much upon Him. Grotius, on the other hand, found relief in the other 
 verb, they said, or they were saying. He thinks that it is used impersonally, it 
 was said, it was rumoured. Euthymins Zigabenus had a similar idea, inter- 
 preting the phrase thus, for certain envious persons said. He is beside Himself. 
 Griesbach, again, thinks that Christ had gone out to the crowd, though this is 
 not expressly stated by the evangelist; and he would explain the verse as 
 follows : And when they who were with Him (His disciples and other friends) 
 heard {how He was over exerting Himself among the crowd) , they went out to bring 
 Himin, for they (i.e. some of the crowd) were saying. He is carried beyond Himself, 
 80 as to be no longer master of Himself. Vater takes the same view. And still 
 other and equally violent modifications of interpretation have been proposed by 
 other interpreters, more influenced perhaps, as Maldonato observes, by piety than 
 by prudence. Unhappily however. It is by no means needful to suppose that our 
 Lord's kinsfolk understood Him, or were careful to avoid all strong expressions 
 in reference to Him. (See John vii. 3-10.) Neither is it on the other hand 
 needful to suppose that every one of them, inclusive even of Mary herself, used 
 the very strong phraseology recorded. Nothing is more reasonable, as Mal- 
 donato remarks, than to assume a free and easy syllepsis or synecdoche of repre- 
 sentation on the part of the evangelist. And it is, at the same time, quite 
 reasonable to assume that, even to Mary, our Saviour was in many respects an 
 Inexplicable Mystery. So doubtless would He have been to us, had we had no 
 other light, by means of which to see, than the twDight in which Mary and the 
 ' brethren ' were walking. 
 
 Vee. 22. And. The evangelist, having in the preceding verse led us in 
 thought from Capernaum to Nazareth, and shown us the departure of the 
 Saviour's kinsfolk on their officious mission, leaves that thread of things, to 
 be afterwards resumed : see ver. 31-35. Meantime, and while the kinsfolk are as 
 it were on the road, he introduces us abruptly and artlessly to another scene. 
 
 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem. For it would appear that the 
 great ecclesiastics in the capital were feeling uneasy in reference to the Galilean 
 Keformer. He had not got His training at the feet of any of the accredited 
 rabbis, and yet He was already quite a power in the country. They deemed it 
 prudent therefore to depute some of the ablest of the scribes to go down and- 
 make inquisition. Dojcn : Jerusalem was perched on the summit of a broa(? 
 
22] ST. MARK III. 83 
 
 He hath Beelzebub^ and by the prince of the devils casteth he out 
 
 mountain ridge ; the highest point of the city was more than 2,300 feet above 
 the level of the Mediterranean. Hence people in all parts of the Holy Land 
 spoke of going up to Jerusalem and coming down from it. 
 
 Said, He hath Beelzebub. Or rather Beelzebul. Such is the form of the word 
 in Greek, although unhappily it is Beelzebub in the Syriac Peshito and the 
 Latin Vulgate. It was from the latter version that the corrupted form passed 
 into the Anglo-Saxon and the old English versions, inclusive of WycUffe's ; and 
 thence it descended into our Authorized version and the Eevised. It passed 
 likewise, from the same source, into Luther's German version, and Bmser's, 
 Piscator's, and Zinzendorf's ; also into the older French versions ; and into the 
 old Dutch version, though it was rectified in the revised version of the Synod 
 of Dort. It passed likewise into Diodati's Italian version, and Martini's. But 
 in BrucioU's Tuscan version a compromise is made between the two forms ; or 
 rather, the peculiarity of both the forms is dropped. His word is Belzebu. The 
 evangelist's word was no doubt Beelzebul, which however was an intentional 
 travesty of Beelzebub or Baal-zebub. This latter word was the real name of the 
 tutelary deity of the Ekronites (2 Kings i. 2, 3, 16), and meant Fly-Lord. But 
 the Jews, by the change of a single letter, turned it quaintly into Filth-Lord (see 
 Gomm. on Matt. x. 25) ; and then, pleased with their own theological pleasantry, 
 they proceeded farther in their grim humour, and applied the name in its 
 parodied form to Satan. Hence when the scribes said of our Lord, He has 
 Beelzebul, they meant to destroy His influence with the people by throwing 
 into their minds the terrible idea that the devil was in league with Him. (See 
 ver. 23.) There is far greater malice in the imputation than Kosenmiiller and 
 Kuinbl imagined ; they thought that it simply meant He is mad. 
 
 And, By the prince of the demons He casts out the demons. Note the connective 
 particle and ; it is not part of the report ; and hence it does not introduce a 
 second clause in the terrible accusation, or lead us to understand that they who 
 said He has Beelzebul immediately added and by the prince of the demons He 
 easts out the demons. The repetition of the quotation particle in the original 
 (the recitative Sti after the Kal) shows us that the evangelist is recording two 
 distinct reports, — although, it is true, they were but different forms or phases of 
 one diabolical accusation. If we were, according to a suggestion of Philippi, to 
 represent ocularly, by means of inverted commas, the power of the quotation 
 particle, the verse would stand thus : And the scribes, who came down from 
 Jerusalem, said, " He has Beelzebul," and, " By the prince of the detnons He casts 
 out the demons." It is Satan of course, or Beelzebul, who is called the prince or 
 ruler of the demons. (See next verse-) The expression by the ruler of the demons 
 is rendered freely by Tyndale, by the power of the chefe devyll. It is Hterally 
 'ire' the ruler of the demons, and represents our Saviour's personahty as merged 
 in the personality of Satan. The imputation was that Satan had taken Jesus 
 into himself; or, to exhibit the case under a slightly different phase, that he 
 had, as principal, entered into a compact with Jesus as subordinate. He had 
 entered into this compact, it was insinuated, for the purpose of putting down the 
 inestimably beneficent influence of the Pharisees ! Hence, it was alleged, all the 
 strictures and criticisms of Jesus on the godly ways of the godly people ! Power 
 
84 ST. MARK III. [22 
 
 devils. 23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them 
 in parables. How can Satan cast out Satan ? 24 And if 
 a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot 
 
 was given from beneath, power even to cast out demons, so that the people might be 
 thoroughly deceived 1 (As to demons, see on chap. i. 34.) 
 
 Vee. 23. And He called them unto Him. The horrible imputation was not 
 directly addressed to Himself, but to some of the surrounding people. Perhaps-, 
 it would be elicited in the course of some keen debate which was going on aside. 
 Not unlikely it would at first be only broached in some half smothered insinua- 
 tion, gnashed between the teeth. But the Saviour was cognisant of it, and it 
 brought collision to a crisis. Hence He called His accusers to Him. 
 
 And said unto them in parables. Such as are recorded in ver. 24, 25, 27. 
 The argumentative parables there recorded are short indeed; still they are 
 parables, for it is not essential to a parable that it be a fully developed narration 
 or story. The word means etymologically a side-throw. The thing signified by 
 the word is therefore something thrown by the side of another thing, it may be to 
 hide it, or it may be to show it off. The parable is in general some kiud of 
 similitude, illustrating by something common, well known, or easily understood, 
 some other thing lying more remote from popular apprehension. It is based on 
 a profound law of correspondences, pervading and binding into harmony the 
 whole universe. Instead of the Greek word parables, Tyndale, Coverdale and 
 the original Geneva version of 1557 have the Latin word similitudes, which 
 however is not quite broad enough to cover the whole expanse of parables. (See 
 Luke iv. 23, in the Greek.) 
 
 How can Satan cast out Satan ? This does not mean, as Fritzsche supposed, 
 and Luther and Coverdale before him, How can one Satan cast out another 
 Satan? but How can Satan cast out himself? (See ver. 24, 25.) When the 
 Saviour says can. He does not refer to physical ability as it is called, for it is 
 conceivable that Satan could, as a mere feat of ability, make a feint of casting 
 out himself. He could cast himself out (as regards some forms of his indweUing 
 presence or energy) from some individuals, in order that he might throw a 
 ' glamour ' of misconception over the minds of others. Our Saviour is refer- 
 ring however to a certain kind of moral ability, so called, to abihty inter-related 
 to consistency of demeanour. How could it be consistent in Satan to cast out 
 Satan ? 
 
 Veb. 24, And. The parables, referred to in the preceding verse, now come 
 in. But as the argumentative query which has already been proposed has really 
 settled the whole question, they are not introduced as demonstrations by means 
 of the ratiooinative particle for, but are just artlessly linked on as appended 
 illustrations. Hence the and. 
 
 If a kingdom be divided against itself. That is, If perchance it sliould happen 
 that a kingdom has been divided (nepi<r'^'^) against itself. The expression against 
 Itself is literally upon itself (i(f)' iavr-qv) ; if part has turned upon part with 
 hostile intent. The preposition denotes motion with a view to superposition ; if 
 each party has sought to come down upon the other, so as to overthrow it and 
 keep it under. 
 
26] ST. MARK III. 85 
 
 stand. 25 And if a house be divided against itself, ttat house 
 cannot stand. 26 And if Satan rise up against himself, 
 and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 27 
 
 That kingdom is not aMe to stand. Note tlie present tense of tlie verb, is not 
 able, coming after the preterite tense of the preceding clause. If the division in 
 the state is already an accomplished fact, the consequence is not merely a pro- 
 spective but a present weakness, and hence imminent prostration. If the. parties 
 are well balanced, and the feud be incurable, (two elements in the case that are 
 parabolioally assumed,) the kingdom must collapse. For the meaning of the 
 passive verb rendered to stand ((ttoS-^i'oi), and correctly so rendered, see Luke 
 xviii. 40, xix. 8, xxi. 36 ; Acts ii. 14, v. 20, xvii. 22, xxv. 18, xxvii. 21 ; Eev. vi. 17, 
 viii. 3. 
 
 Veb. 25. The Saviour gives another and analogous parable, only shifting His 
 scene to a smaller community. 
 
 And if a house be divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 
 The word house has, of course, its rarer meaning of household, the meaning 
 which it has in John iv. 53 and 1 Cor. xvi 15. It is translated household in 
 Phil. iv. 22. If thorough intestine antagonism be once an accomplished fact in 
 a family, that family must be broken up and thus broken down. 
 
 Veb. 26. And if 0) Satan has risen up against himself (dviffrri irj)' iainov). 
 As is actually the case, provided the malicious imputation of the scribes be well 
 founded. It is a most graphic picture. Satan, ' himself a host,' rises up in all 
 the panoply of his might to put himself down I 
 
 And has been divided. Such is probably the correct reading (koX /ie/iepurTai). 
 It is the reading of the Eeceived Text, and of Lachmann, Tregelles, Alford. It is 
 supported by the great body of the uncjal manuscripts, inclusive of the Alexan- 
 drine (A), and by the Peshito Syriac, the Philoxenian Syriao, the Coptic and 
 Gothic versions. In the Vatican manuscript there is a slight variation of read- 
 ing; the verb is in the aorist instead of the perfect {ifispU^v), bit tlie 
 conjunction and is retained in front, thus postponing the predicate of the 
 sentence to the next clause. In the Sinaitic manuscript (S*) and the Ephraemi 
 (C*) the verb is in the same tense as in the Vatican, but the conjunction follows 
 the verb, as it also does in the Vulgate version, and in certain important manu- 
 scripts of the older Latin. Tischendorf has accepted, in his eighth edition, the 
 reading of the Sinaitic and Ephraemi manuscripts, thus finishing the subject 
 of the sentence with the words, if Satan has risen up against himself. It is more 
 Ukely, however, that the subject includes the second clause ; and it is also more 
 likely that the verb in this second clause is in the perfect tense, and has been 
 divided, that is, and has thus been divided against himself, like an embattled 
 host splitting up into two that it might rush into deadly conflict with itself. 
 
 He is not able to stand, but has an end. The Saviour's conception of Satan 
 does not confine itself to that of a personality. He pictures him as a power, 
 a prinoipaUty, a royalty, a kingdom. If, as such, he has been divided against 
 himself, and is thus counterworking himself, and turning all his artiUery 
 against himself, he cannot stand ; his adversative relationship to others is anm- 
 
86 ST. MARK III. [2? 
 
 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, 
 
 hilated. He has an end ; there is an end of his Satanic influence among men. 
 The Saviour, in His reasoning on the imputation of the scribes, assumes, and 
 was entitled to assume, that He Himself was intensely earnest in the part which 
 ■He was acting against Satan and sin. He allows this moral earnestness to 
 assert its own reality. It was shining by its own light. The unsophisticated 
 people did not doubt it, and could not. No one who came near Him, and con- 
 scientiously watched Him, could doubt it in his heart. You might as soon 
 doubt whether God were good. If Jesus be not Nobody or Nothing, He is the 
 Impersonation of anti-Satanic earnestness. " Por this purpose the Son of God 
 " was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil." (1 John iii. 8.) 
 If therefore Satan were making a tool of Him, as the scribes maliciously 
 insinuated, he was making a tool of the most intense anti-Satanic earnestness 
 in the universe. Was it likely? To suppose it is to suppose that the adversary 
 of God and of men wilfully chose, and with his eyes wide open, to become his 
 own adversary, his own Satan and ApoUyon. 
 
 Vek. 27. But ('AXX'). This adversative conjunction is omitted in the 
 Eeceived Text, and hence in our King James's version. It is also omitted in 
 the Vulgate version, and in most of the manuscripts of the older Latin, and in 
 the Syriao Peshito version, and the text of the Philoxenian Peshito, and the 
 Gothic version. It is wanting too in the Alexandrine manuscript (A), and the 
 Cambridge (D), and a majority of the other uncials ; Lachmann omits it. But 
 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford have rightly inserted it, on the authority of 
 the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts and C* L A, 1, 33, 69, etc. It is likewise 
 represented in the Coptic and Armenian versions. It is the more difficult 
 reading, and not likely therefore to have been intruded. The Saviour, instead 
 of further pursuing the same line of argumentation along which He was 
 jnoving in the preceding verses, turns in a different direction. 
 
 No one, after entering into the house of the strong one, is able to plunder his 
 vessels. There is much difference of opinion among textual critics regarding 
 the precise order of the phrases and clauses of this part of the parable ; but 
 there is none regarding their interpretation. The difference of reading would 
 no doubt arise from the evangelist setting down his expressions inartificially, 
 more so than they stand in the text which Tischendorf has exhibited in his 
 eighth edition of the New Testament. The picture represents the house of the 
 strong one as already entered (el<re}Au!v) . The difficulty comes after that. The 
 person whose house has been entered is emphatically strong ; the Saviour 
 thinks of him very individuahzingly as ' the ' strong one. It would be impossible 
 to plunder such an individual's vessels if he were standing by unmastered. Note 
 the expression his 'i;cssc;s,' rendered freely in King James's version and the 
 Eevised his goods. This free rendering was Tyndale's ; Wycliffe gave the more 
 exact and signifioant rendering, vessels. It is supposed that the individual who 
 goes into the strong one's house desires to get hold of certain specific things, 
 the precious vessels of silver and gold. His eye is upon these particular 'goods'; 
 and he thus leaves unregarded the other goods or effects that may be within the 
 house. The word used for the act of plundering is graphic (SiapTrdffoi). It 
 represents a man snatching on the right hand and the left. 
 
28] ST. MARK III. 87 
 
 except lie will first bind the strong man ; and then he will spoil 
 his house. 28 Verily I say unto you. All sins shall be forgiven 
 unto the sons of men^ and blasphemies wherewith soever they 
 
 Unless he first Ijiud the strong one. Bind, or otherwise get rid of. The 
 Saviour however is contemplating a particular case in which riddance by 
 transportation or death must not he thought of. He allows the reality which 
 He is parabolically representing to mould and modify the form of His parable. 
 He was thinking of Satan, who had his home in this world before man appeared, 
 and who besides was constituted immortal because constituted moral. His 
 transportation therefore, or annhilation, was not to be thought of. But as he 
 had surrounded himself unlawfully with certain precious vessels, which were 
 fitted to be of ' honourable ' use in a much greater ' house ' than his, it was 
 meet that he should be bound, and then deprived of his ill-gotten ' goods.' 
 Jesus had come to bind him ; and He had succeeded, even already, in His enter- 
 prise. Satan was restrained, and men were being delivered. That was the true 
 significancy of those wonderful miracles which gave relief to demoniacs. 
 
 And then shall he plunder his house. Then, viz. after he shall have bound the 
 strong one. The evangelist mingles his lines of thought inartifioiaUy but 
 clearly. Note the two expressions plunder his house and plunder his vessels. 
 Both representations are true to nature. The plundering takes effect both upon 
 the house — the object containing, and upon the vessels in the house — the objects 
 contained. 
 
 Vee. 28. Our Saviour follows up His reasonings with a solemn warning. 
 
 Verily I say unto you. This is the first time that the adverb amen or verily 
 occurs in Mark. It seems to have been, in its original Hebrew form, a favourite 
 phrase with our Lord, when He wished to give emphasis to an idea. It is 
 rendered irewly by Wycliffe. In the Eheims version, as in the Gothic and 
 Vulgate, the original term is left untranslated, just as it is in the text of the 
 evangelist himself. It corresponds to the expression Of a truth : see John vi. 
 14, Acts iv. 27, X. 34. I say to you, that is, to you scribes, who have been so 
 wantonly maligning Me, by alleging that I am acting in league with Beelzebul. 
 
 All shall be forgiven to the sons of men. The expression all is looking forward 
 to the classified things which are immediately specified. It has reference there- 
 fore to a limited universality, the universality of a certain class of things. 
 They are such things as need forgiveness, sins. All these, with one exception, 
 shall be forgiven to the sons of men. Note the shall. It expresses more than 
 may, though may might have been employed. It suggests that there is but one 
 phase of sin that is an absolute bar to forgiveness ; it is at one point of things 
 alone that the principle of unpardonableness comes in. The multiplicity of 
 sins becomes merged as it were in the unity of sinfulness; and when this unity 
 of sinfulness is free from a certain peculiar element, about to be specified, it 
 'shall' be forgiven. (See Comm. on Matt. xii. 31.) Note the expression sons of 
 men ; it is a mere variation in form of the simpler expression men. (See Matt. 
 xii. 31, and compare the Syriao idiom.) 
 
 The sins and the blasphemies, wherewith they may blaspheme (tA anaprTJ/iara 
 Kal al 0\cux(priixlai, Sera &v pXaa-iprj/iijaoxxu', the correct reading). The preceding 
 
88 ST. MARK III. [28 
 
 shall blaspheme : 29 but he that shall blaspheme against the 
 Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal 
 
 all has reference both to the generic sijis and the specific blasphemies ; and when 
 it is added ' wherewith ' they may blaspheme, the wherewith (Sera with X B D E G 
 HAH, Laohmann, Tischendorf , Tregelles ; not Haas as in the Eeceived Test) 
 has condensed reference to the generic sins as well as to the specific blaspliemies. 
 If the reference had been unfolded, the expression would have run thus, the sins 
 wlierein they may sin, and the blasphemies wherewith they may blaspheme. The 
 phraseology is inartificial ; but a deep theological meaning is embedded. It is 
 implied that all sins, when analysed into their substrate, have an element of 
 blasphemy in them. They cast dishonour on God ; they cast it wilfully. Blas- 
 phemy, considered in its form, is injurious speaking ; but considered in its 
 essence it is despite or scorn. In all sin there is such essential blasphemy ; 
 God's wish and wili are proudly set aside and resisted. All such proud resist- 
 ances of the wish and will of God will be forgiven, if they do not culminate in a 
 particular phase of blasphemy. See next verse. 
 
 Ver. 29. But whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. Whosoever 
 shall be guilty of blasphemy that goes out to (els) the Holy Spirit. What of 
 him ? See next clause. But meanwhile note that the peculiarity of his crime 
 arises from its relation to the dispensation of mercy. It is the only crime which, 
 in its own nature, closes the door of the soul and keeps it closed, against the 
 ingress of Divine mercy. The Holy Spirit is the revealer of the propitiousness 
 of God ; and when, as such, He is blasphemed, or scorned, or shghted, the only 
 possible means of the soul's acquaintance with the mercy of God is set aside 
 or resisted ; the only avenue to salvation and sanotification is thus closed. 
 Augustine was right, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is wilfuUy-persisted- 
 in impenitence or disbelief. (See Gomm. on Matt. xii. 31, 32.) 
 
 Hath never forgiveness. A free but fine translation ; it was Coverdale's. It 
 is more literal than Tyndale's, shall never have forgevenes. The Eheims version 
 is more literal still, he hath nx)t forgiveness for ever. The expression /or ever is 
 literally to the age (eis rbv alwva). It is an idiom, and substantially means, as 
 Alexander renders it, to eternity. And hence a peculiar symphony between 
 this clause and the next. 
 
 But is in danger of eternal damnation. So is the expression rendered in King 
 James's version. It is a strong translation of an incorrect text. The text was 
 that of Erasmus ; the translation was Tyndale's. It is to be borne in mind 
 however that the word damnation meant originally nothing but condemnation ; 
 and such undoubtedly was the import of the term in Tyndale's version. 
 The Greek word indeed, in the text that was lying before him, strictly meant 
 judgment (Kplireus), and so Coverdale here renders it. But aB judgment is in itself 
 ambidextrous, left-hand judgment is condemnation. The word however which 
 Tyndale found In his Erasmian text was really a marginal correction of the 
 word that was in the evangelist's autograph, and which Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
 TregeUes, Alford, have wisely restored, the word sin (a./Mapr'^/i.aros). Griesbach, 
 in his day, saw clearly that the reading of the Erasmian text was a critical 
 correction (Comm. Grit., inloc.) ; Mill too {Prolegomena, p. xliii.). The case is 
 
30] ST. MARK III. 89 
 
 damnation : 30 because they said^ He hath an unclean spirifc. 
 
 otvious. No one would have substituted, for perspicuity's sake, the expression 
 eternal sin for the expression eternal judgment or condemnation. But many a 
 critic might think that he was only innocently smoothing a rugged phrase when 
 he quietly introduced judgment or condemnation, for sin. Both the Vatican and, 
 the Sinaitic manuscripts, as well as ' the queen of the cursives,' read sin ; so do 
 the Italic, Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian, and Gothij versions. Instead then of 
 the expression is in danger of eternal damnation, we should read is guilty of an 
 eternal ein. As to the word translated guilty (hoxos), see its use in 1 Cor. xi. 
 27 and Jas. ii. 10. It denotes that tjie person spoken of is in the grip of Ms 
 sin. It has hold of him, and holds him in, so that he cannot escape from the 
 punishment that is his due. As to the expression eternal sin, it is peculiar and 
 in some respects unique, hut thoroughly intelligible. It denotes a sin that 
 cannot be taken away, blotted out, or cleansed. Griesbach compares John ix. 
 41, ' your sin remaineth.' An eternal sin is a sin that remaineth for ever. For- 
 given sins are sins that are taken up by God from the burdened conscience of the 
 sinner and cast as it were ' behind His back ' or ' into the depths of the sea ' ; 
 but unforgiven sins abide for ever on the souls that committed them. The 
 language is of course strongly pictorial, but most solemnly significant. 
 
 Vek. 30. Because they said. They persisted in saying [O^eyov). Our Saviour 
 addressed to the scribes His solemn warning, because they were persisting in their 
 malign and wanton allegation. 
 
 He hath an unclean spirit. That is, a demon. They could not deny that His 
 works were supernatural. But instead of admitting that they were from above, 
 and full of Divine mercy to men, they wilfully, casuistically, and malignantly 
 accused Him of being voluntarily assisted from beneath. He does not intimate 
 to them, as Fetter and many others suppose, that they had thereby blasphemed 
 the Holy Spirit and committed the unpardonable sin. Neither does Mark, as 
 Kostlin imagines, confound the two blasphemies (die pXaa-(pri/da roO irveifuiTos 
 ToC aylov, ausdriicklich in die Ldsterung der Person Jesu selbst gesezt : Ubspeunq 
 hee Stk. Ew. iii., § 1). But our Lord intimates to His slanderers that they 
 were treading close on the borders of the sin that hath never forgiveness. They 
 were on its brink ; another step, and they might topple irretrievably into the 
 abyss. They were malevolently rejecting and thus blaspheming the Son of Man 
 as an impostor. If they should proceed the least degree farther, and malevolently 
 reject and blaspheme the Holy Spirit also as an impostor, and His testimony as 
 an imposition, their salvation would become an impossibiUty. It was within the 
 limits of possibility to reject Jesus of Nazareth and yet believe in a Propitiator 
 to come, as revealed by the Holy Spirit of God. But if they proceeded to reject 
 the Holy Spirit Himself and all His revelations of the Divine propitiousness, 
 they would thereby reject every possible element of Divine evangelism, and 
 hence there would no avenue remain by which saving and sanctifying influences 
 could, enter their souls. (See Comm. on Matt. xii. 31, 32.) 
 
 Vee. 31. The evangelist, having left as it were the Saviour's kinsfolk on the 
 road between Nazareth and Capernaum (see ver. 21), rejoins them on their 
 arrival. Hence the paragraph ver. 31-35. Comp. Matt. xii. 46-50 and Luke 
 viii. 19-21. 
 
90 ST. MARK III. [31 
 
 31 There came tben his brethren and his mother, and, stand- 
 ing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude 
 sat about him, and they said unto him. Behold, thy mother and 
 thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And he answered them, 
 saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he 
 
 And there come His mother and His brethren. The mother is put last in the 
 Erasmian text, that she might be shaded off behind the brethren. Tisohendorf 
 however goes too far when he reads, chiefly on the authority of the Sinaitio 
 manuscript, ' comes ' ((pxerai) instead of ' come.' The singular verb had doubt- 
 less got into some manuscripts by mistake, on account of the proximity of the 
 singular nominative. His mother. There is a subjacent reference to what is 
 mentioned in ver. 21. The brothers of our Lord were probably, as we have 
 remarked on ver. 18, the sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. Thus would 
 they be only our Lord's half-brothers. They would hence be considerably 
 older than our Lord, and would thus very likely think themselves both quali- 
 fied and entitled to exercise some peculiar guardianship and authority over their 
 youthful and unintelligible Kinsman. Their names are given in chap. vi. 3. 
 
 And, standing without, they sent to Him, calling Him. At the time when they 
 arrived our Lord was in some house, surrounded by a crowd of people. The 
 very doorway was packed full. There was no way of access for His solicitous 
 kinsfolk (Luke viii. 19). Hence they sent in a message by word of mouth, 
 conveying their desire that He should then and there come out to them, as 
 they wished to speak with Him (Matt. xii. 47). 
 
 Ver. 32. And a crowd was sitting round about Him. In a ' squat ' position, 
 after the usual oriental fashion, though not unlikely the outer margin of the 
 throng might consist of persons who would be standing on their feet, and lean- 
 ing forward to hear and to see. 
 
 And they say to Him. Such is the best reading, instead of and they ' said ' to 
 Him. We are led in spirit into the assembly, and see and hear as if we had 
 been really present. One would whisper the message to another, and it would 
 be transmitted round and round even while our Saviour was speaking. At 
 length at some pause or break in the discourse some one would muster courag;e 
 to repeat it aloud. (See Matt. xii. 47-) 
 
 lo. Thy mother and Thy brothers outside are seeking Thee. They are outside, 
 and have come hither in quest of Thee. After the clause and Thy brotliers 
 Tischendorf adds and Thy sisters, under the authorization of the Alexandrine 
 and Cambridge manuscripts (A D), as also of EFHMSUVr. But it is 
 omitted in ^{ B C G K L A n, 1, 33, 69, and by the Vulgate, Syriao Peshito, 
 Coptic,, .ffithiopio, and Armenian versions. It is not unlikely that the clause had 
 been originally inserted in the margin by some annotator who drew with too 
 great confidence a historical inference from the doctrinal statement of ver. 35. 
 
 Yeb. 38. And answering them, He saith, Who is My mother aai Hy brethren? 
 A question intended to lead His auditory to a very lofty standpoint of thought 
 Perhaps they had been already ascending with Him, and were more or less pre- 
 pared to step still farther aloft. Most likely He had been discoursing on soma 
 
1] ST. MARK IV. 91 
 
 looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, 
 Behold my mother and my brethren ! 35 For whosoever shall 
 do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and 
 mother. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 1 AND he began again to teach by the sea side : and there 
 was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered 
 
 high topic. Possibly at the very time the message was delivered He may have 
 been reaching the climax of some grand exhibition of the spiritual relationships 
 of men, and of the superiority of these relationships to mere outward ties of 
 consanguinity. Hence He would not allow the exhibition of His great theme to 
 be materially interrupted by the officiousness of His kinsfolk. On the con- 
 trary He seizes hold of their meddling message to illustrate the great principle 
 He had in hand and at heart. 
 
 Yer. 34. And looking round about upon those who were sitting around Him in 
 a circle. Such is the hteral translation of the text as given by Lachmann, 
 Tischendorf, Tregelles {irepi.pXefd/j.eDos rods irepl airbv kijkX<j1 Kad-qiiivovs). It 
 is supported by the uncial manuscripts X B L A. 
 
 He says, Lo My mother and My brethren ! My nearest of kin ! See next 
 verse. 
 
 "Vek. 35. For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is My brother and sister 
 and mother. A great preponderance of the best manuscripts omit the my before 
 the word sister. If anyone do the will of God, and be thus Godlike and good 
 in character, holy and whole in spirit, in him does the Saviour recognise, in 
 relation to Himself, true kinship. He is at once His ' brother and sister and 
 mother.' The deepest affinity is that of the spirit. Hence the supremacy, 
 even in the present provisional state of things, of the wedlock relationship. 
 Hence too the still higher supremacy of the relationship that will rule in the 
 world of glory (Matt. xxii. 30). It is noteworthy that Jesus does not add 
 ' father ' to His ' brother and sister and mother.' A high and hallowed con- 
 sciousness kept back that august term ; He realized that His relation to His 
 real and only Fatlier towered far aloft above all other relations. 
 
 CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 Heee follows one of the most graphic of illustrative stories, the parable of the 
 sower, ver. 1-20. Comp. Matt. xiii. 1-23 and Luke viii. 4^15. 
 
 Vek. 1. And again He began to teach by the sea side. By the side of the 
 lovely ' sea of Galilee.' It was again that He hegan ; He had taught by the 
 same place before. See chap. iii. 7-9. 
 
 And there is gathered unto Him a very great crowd. No sooner had He gone 
 to the shore and begun His teaching, than the people came pouring toward Him 
 from all directions. There was a very great crowd Ifix^oi irXeiffros). Such is 
 
92 ST. MARK IV. [1 
 
 into a ship, and sat in the sea ; and the whole multitude was 
 by the sea on the laud. 2 And he taught them many things 
 by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine, 3 Hearken ; 
 Behold, there went out a sower to sow : 4 and it came to pass, 
 as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the 
 air came and devoured it up. 5 And some fell on stony 
 
 the reading of Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, instead of the reading of the 
 Beeeived or Erasmian text, a great crowd {Sx^"^ iroXis). The same important 
 manuscripts (X B C L A) which support the superlative reading have the verb in 
 the present tense, is gathered {trvDdyeTai). We are taken back in imagination 
 to the time referred to, and see the people in the very act of congregating; 
 
 So that He entered into a boat. Such is Wycliffe's translation, in to a boot. 
 
 And sat in the sea, and all the crowd were (^crac) by the sea on the land. Some 
 might be sitting on the beautiful ' white beach,' some standing. The Great 
 Babbi however, according to the universal custom of the rabbis, sat as He 
 taught. He sat ' in the sea.' The boat in which He sat was afloat in the sea. 
 If the place referred to was near Bethsaida, there " the beach rises rapidly," 
 says Mr. Macgregor, " and there is deep water within a few yards of the shore, 
 " while at the same time a multitude of hearers could place themselves so as 
 " to see the Saviour in the boat ; and there is no such natural church along the 
 " other coast by Gennesareth." (The Bob Roy on the Jordan, p. 350.) 
 
 Vee. 2. And He taught them many things in parables. The things were con- 
 veyed to them ' in' parables (h xapa/SoXotsI, and thus they were partly revealed 
 and partly concealed. (See ver, 10-12.) Parables are not direct representations 
 of realities, but indirect. What they directly represent is thrown in the direc- 
 tion of something that lies beyond. (See on chap. iii. 23.) 
 
 And said to them in His teaching. The word employed is just the noun-form 
 of the verb that is rendered taught in the preceding clause {Sidaxv —iSlSaa-Kev). 
 
 Yer. 3. -Hearken; Behold, the sower went out to sow. It is ' the ' sower in 
 the original. The Saviour casts upon the canvas of the imagination a par- 
 ticular individual. This individual went out to sow. He went out from the 
 village or hamlet, where the farmers in the East are accustomed to reside, duly 
 furnished for his work. 
 
 Yek. 4. And it came to pass, as he sowed. Or, still more literally, and it hap- 
 pened in the sowing. It happened is Coverdale's translation. Tyndale's version 
 is, it fortuned. 
 
 Some fell by the wayside. That is, some seed. It fell on the margin of the 
 hard trodden pathway that ran along, or, as the case might be, right through 
 the unenclosed field. 
 
 And the birds came. Or, the briddes, as Wycliffe gives it. 
 
 And devoured it. The word (Kari^aysv) is just ' de '-voured or ate down. " Our 
 "horses," says Dr. W. M. Thomson on a certain occasion, in his eastern 
 travels, " are actually trampling down some seeds which have fallen by this 
 " wayside, and larks and sparrows are busy picking them up." (The Land and 
 the Book, p. 82.) 
 
8] ST. MARK IV. 93 
 
 grounci, where it had nob much earth ; and immediately it 
 sprang up, because it had no depth of earth. 6 But when the 
 sun was up, it was scorched ; and because it had no root, it 
 withered away. 7 And some fell among thorns, and the 
 thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. 8 And 
 other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and 
 
 Ver. 5. And other fell on rooky ground {M rd irerpuSes). Our Saviour 
 imagines a field with a pa'rtioular rooky part protruding slightly here and there 
 above the general level of the ground, or else revealing itself to the tread as 
 lying ■ immediately below the surface. This is 'the' rocky ground. It is not 
 expected by the farmer that anything sown upon it will come to full maturity ; 
 but the place comes within his sweep as he sows the grain, and so some seeds 
 faU upon it. 
 
 Where it had not much earth. For it is not of a stony place, properly so called, 
 but of a place that is rocky, that the Saviour speaks. 
 
 And immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of earth. Or, because of 
 not having depth of earth. There was no scope for development downward, and 
 hence the forces of the plant rushed prematurely upward. 
 
 Vee. 6. And when the sun arose, it was scorched. Scorched, a fine translation, 
 originated by the editors of King James's version. 
 
 And, on account of not having root, it withered away. It had not sufficient 
 root. Its supplies beneath were not sufiSoieut to sustain it in the process of a 
 complete upward development. ^ 
 
 Veb. 7. And other fell among thorns. Or, more literally, into the thorns, such 
 namely as our Saviour was realizing in His- picture of the field. He was 
 thinking of some clamp of thorny plants which had been burnt down according 
 to oriental custom, but not eradicated, before seed-sowing time. In among 
 these roots some seeds fell. 
 
 And the thorns grew up, and choked it. Or, as Wycliffe renders it, strangled it. 
 The thorns suffocated the growing plant, compressing it together {^avviirvi^av), 
 and thus preventing it from getting the free air of heaven and a sufficiency 
 of the nourishment of the soil. 
 
 And it yielded no fruit. It rose high enough in its stem, perhaps too high ; 
 but it was by the help of artificial props. The tide of vital energy was so 
 impoverished by the surroundings that the real final end of the plant's 
 existence was never reached. There was no ' fruit.' 
 
 Veb. 8. And others fell into the good ground (e/s r^v yrjv r^v koKtiv). In some 
 important manuscripts (X B C L, 33), there is in this clause the plural word 
 others {d,\\a), instead of the singular oth^r (SXXo), which is found in ver. 5 
 and 7. Tisohendorf has introduced it into his eighth edition of the text. 
 
 And yielded fruit growing up and increasing. Meyer thinks that the word 
 fruit denotes here, not the grains, but the stalks of the corn, which conspicu- 
 ously ascend and increase. He was misled by thinking of the disintegrated 
 grains {K'dmer), instead of the entire spikes, the ascent and increase of which 
 are obvious and beautiful phenorhena. That the reference is to tlia grains in the 
 
94. ST. MARK IV, [8 
 
 increased; and brought forth, some tlu'rty, and some sixty, 
 and some an hundred. 9 And he said unto them. He that 
 hath ears to hear, let him hear. 
 
 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with 
 the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto 
 
 integer of the spike is demonstrated by ver. 20. Comp. Matt. xiii. 8, and Luke 
 Yiii. 8. 
 
 And 'bore to tMrty and to sixty and to a hundredfold. Such is the literal 
 translation of the true text (koX l^cpev els rpidKovra Kal eJs i^Kovra koI els iKorby). 
 It is the text that is given by Tischendorf , Tregelles, and Alford, supported by 
 the manuscripts X B C L A. It could not well be accounted for unless it had 
 been in the original autograph. The reading of the Beceived Text {fv for els) 
 seems to have been artificially accommodated, as Tischendorf remarks, to the 
 mode of expression in Matt. xiii. 8. The various degrees of fertility specified 
 by our Lord were nothing extraordinary in such a paradise of a place as the 
 plain of Gennesaret. ' Its fertility,' says Dr. Robinson, ' can hardly be 
 exceeded.' (Biblical BesearcJies, vol. iii., p. 285.) 
 
 Veb. 9. And He said, He who has ears to hear, let him hear. Calvin, Fetter, 
 a-Lapide, and others, think that our Saviour assumes a distinction among men, 
 between those who have ears, that is, ears fit to listen to Divine communications, 
 and those who have none. It is much more probable, however, that He assumes 
 that all without exception have been divinely provided with fitting organs of 
 hearing, and that He draws attention to the fact of the provision in a way that 
 is calculated to lead each individual to reflect on his individual responsibility. 
 It is quite a common phenomenon among men to misuse the ears, so as not to 
 hear the still small voices that speak the most important truths. In a world 
 like ours, in which there is such a din of noises and voices, there must be 
 eclecticism in hearing. 
 
 Veb. 10. And when He came to be alone. Not indeed absolutely alone, but 
 relatively to the public crowd who had pressed down to the shore to see and 
 hear ; when He got into comparative seclusion. 
 
 They who were about Him with the twelve. No doubt there would be fre- 
 quently in the presence of our Lord other attached disciples besides the apostles ; 
 the pious women for instance, and occasionally the relatives and acquaintances 
 both of them and of the apostles ; and others besides. It is only Mark who 
 here takes notice of these other adherents. (Comp. Matt. xiii. 10, Luke 
 vui. 9.) It is one of the minute touches which show that he was not writing 
 a compendium of any of the other synoptic Gospels. 
 
 Asked Him the parable. That is, interrogated Him concerning the import of 
 the parable, or, as Wyclifie gives it, axiden Hym for to expowne the parable. 
 Such is the import of the Eeceived Text. It is the reading of Laohmann ; 
 and it is found in the Alexandrine manuscript and a majority of the other 
 uncials, as also in the Clementine Vulgate, the Peshito Syriae, and the Gothic, 
 Armenian, and Coptic versions. It is certainly the easiest reading ; and in 
 this instance it is, most probably, the correct reading. A preponderance indeed 
 of the more important manuscripts (XBCLA), supported by soine important 
 
12] ST. MARK IV. 95 
 
 thenij Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom 
 of God : but unto them that are without, all these things are 
 done in parables : 1 2 that seeing they may see, and not perceive ; 
 
 manuscripts o£ the Vulgate, inclusive of the Codex Amiatinus, read, in the 
 plural, parables (ras irapapoKiis), instead of parable. Tisohendorf in conse' 
 quence, and Tregelles and Alford, have introduced the plural word into their 
 texts. But it is probable that it owes its place, in the codices from which they 
 copy, to the use of the plural word in the 11th verse. 
 
 Veb. 11. And He said to them, TJnto you the mystery of the kingdom of God 
 has been given. Unto you as the ' subjects ' of knowledge. The mystery of the 
 kingdom of God is its secret, or the sum of its secrets. It is that inner reality of 
 spiritual things which the masses of the Jews did not like to think of, and 
 which had therefore to be veiled when it was spoken of in their presence. The 
 same inner reality of things, though under other phases, is still an object of 
 aversion to the masses of men, rich and poor, high and low, learned and 
 illiterate. When an approach is made to an esoteric exhibition of it, symptoms 
 of impatience and dishke are speedily encountered, so that the object must be 
 shaded off exoterically as a secret or mystery. It is not in any peculiar respect 
 are incomprehensibility, although no doubt in its heights it ascends, and in its 
 depths it descends, into incomprehensibilities enough. 
 
 But to them who are without. Who are outside the circle of disciplehood. 
 The phrase was frequently used by the Jews to denote the Gentiles -, but it was 
 also applicable, according to the specific standpoint occupied, to all who did not 
 gravitate toward any given centre of attraction. 
 
 All the things take place in parables. The phrase all the things (rot irdcra) , or 
 indefinitely, all things (irdxra), as Tischendorf, under the authority of the 
 Sinaitio and a few other manuscripts, has it, refers to the universality that is 
 found within the circle of the Saviour's teachings at that particular period. 
 His teachings to the masses of the people took the shape of parables. Why ? 
 See next verse. 
 
 Vee. 12. That seeing they may see and not perceive. Or, In order that looMng 
 they may look and not see. The verb in the Hebraistic expression, looking they 
 may look, is translated look in Matt. v. 28, John xiii. 22, Acts iii. 4, 2 John 8. 
 It is here used to denote that exercise of the beholding faculty which stops 
 short of perfected perception. The Hebraistic expression draws attention to 
 a process, involving a progress which should culminate in a completed result. 
 The result however is not reached ; they do not see. And Jesus did not wish 
 them, at that particular stage of things, to see. The parables were spoken in 
 order that (tra) they should not 'see.' Why? Was it because He did not 
 wish them to know and to enjoy ? Everything the reverse. But He was aware 
 that, in consequence of the inveteracy of their prepossessions, they could not, 
 in the first instance, see ' the secret of the kingdom ' without being repelled in 
 spirit, and confirmed in their dissent and dislike. He wished therefore that 
 they should not ' see.' But at the same time He graciously wished that they 
 should ' look,' and keep ' looking,' so that they might, if possible, get such a 
 glimpse of the inner glory as might fascinate their interest and attention, and 
 
96 ST. MARK IV, [12 
 
 and hearing they may hear, and not understand ; lest at 
 any time they should be converted, and their sins should be 
 forgiven them. 
 
 13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable ? and 
 how then will ye know all parables ? 14 The sower soweth 
 
 by and by disarm tbeir prejudices, so that they might with safety be permitted 
 to ' see.' 
 
 And hearing they may hear and not understand. A parallel representation, 
 drawn from another of the outward senses. The Saviour wished that the 
 deeply prejudiced multitude should not ' understand,' in the first instance, the 
 fulness of His ideas, but that yet they should ' hear ' and continue to ' hear.' 
 If what they ' heard ' were in itself fitted to stimulate interest and inquiry, and 
 also adapted, when once inquiry was excited, to guide the mind toward the 
 right goal, it might ultimately lead on to the most important secrets of the 
 kingdom of heaven. 
 
 Lest they should ever turn. The verb is in the active voice (iiruTTpifaaiv), 
 and thus brings into view the important truth that the sinner's own agency is 
 on indispensable element in his conversion. When it is said ' lest ' they should 
 turn, the ' lest ' expresses the idea of aversion ; and the question naturally 
 arises, in whose mind is the aversion to the turning f Is it in the Saviour's (and 
 God's), or in that of the sinner himself? The sentence is so inartificially con- 
 structed that, unless common sense step in as interpreter, one might suppose 
 that it was the Saviour who was opposed to the sinner's conversion. It is 
 manifestly, however, the sinner himself. It is implied in.the preceding clauses 
 that it is the sinner's deeply rooted wish that he should not ' see ' and ' under- 
 stand.' And in this expression the reason of his wish is given. He is afraid 
 lest he should be prevailed on to turn. Comp. Matt. xiii. 15, and also John 
 xii. 40, and Acts xxviii. 27. 
 
 And it should be forgiven to them (jcai d0eS-^ aiVois). In the Eeceived Text the 
 expression the sins, that is, tlieir sins, is incorporated, and their sins should be 
 forgiven to them. The supplement brings out exactly the idea of the original 
 phrase ; but it is not unlikely that it was exegetic'ally added. The people 
 spoken of would not be averse to forgiveness, abstractly considered, though there 
 are some that profess to wish simple justice and no favour. But, in the case of 
 most, it is the moral antecedents, and in particular the moral consequents, of 
 forgiveness that are disliked. In explicitly shrinking from these they implicitly 
 shrink from the involved forgiveness itself. 
 
 Vee. 13. And He says to them. This expression indicates that another 
 thread of thought is taken up in what immediately follows. Note the present 
 says ; we are carried back in imagination, and can ourselves listen. 
 
 Enow ye not this parable ? Is that the case ? Are ye so slow in learning ? 
 Have ye such difficulty in getting to the standpoint from which the whole expanse 
 of these spiritual truths is seen ? 
 
 And how shaU ye know all the parables ? The language at the beginning of 
 the clause is abrupt, and how ? that is, and how, if that be the case ? Note the 
 future expression, shall ye know i It implies an intended order in the parables 
 
16] ST. MARK IV. 9? 
 
 the word. 15 And these are they by the way side, where the 
 word is sown; but when they have heard Satan cometh im- 
 mediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their 
 hearts. 16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony 
 
 referred to. The order is such that the mind should oommence with the 
 eousideration of the first, and thence proceed, in the future, to the remainder. 
 The Saviour does not refer to all possible parables. His expression is not all 
 parables, but all the parables {irairas ras Tapa^oXas). Very probably however 
 He may refer, not only to those which He delivered before He retired from the 
 multitude to whom He spoke the parable of the sower, but also to such as He 
 might deem it proper to deliver on future occasions in reference to the kingdom 
 of heaven. 
 
 Ver. 14. The Saviour explains the parable of the sower. 
 
 The sower sows the word. The sower in the parable represents the preacher of 
 the word. The Holy Spirit is the Great Preacher, the Holy Spirit in Jesus or 
 in those who are filled out of the fulness of Jesus. All ordinary preachers have 
 but to echo the preaching of the Holy Spirit. It is to them however, in 
 particular, that the Saviour refers. The word which they preach, if they preach 
 as they ought to preach, is just the manifested thought of the Holy Spirit, His 
 thought concerning God, and goodness, and the way back for sinners at once to 
 goodness and to God. This manifested thought is the gospel. 
 
 Ver. 15. And these are they by the wayside, where the word is sovni. The 
 demonstrative tliese points forward to those who are about to be described in 
 the remainder of the verse. But as the Saviour has them already in His eye 
 while He is speaking, He introduces the next clause by means of the conjunction 
 avA. There is a wayside in the place ' where the word is sown.' There is, 
 that is to say, a class of people who correspond to the wayside in the parabolic 
 field. Who are they ? See what follows. 
 
 And whenever they have heard, immediately Satan cometh, and taketh away the 
 word which has been sown in their hearts. Instead of the expression in their 
 hearts, Tischendorf (eighth edition) reads in them, and Tregelles into them. The 
 former has the support of the Siuaitic, the latter that of the Vatican manu- 
 script. It is probable that one or other of the readings, as developing a less 
 developed mode of phraseology than the expression of the Eeoeived Text, is 
 authentic ; most likely the former, which is sustained by the manuscripts OLA, 
 as well as by the Coptic (edd) and Armenian versions, and the marginal reading 
 of the Philoxenian Sjrriac. The wayside hearers are those who never allow the 
 word to get under the surface of their thoughts ; and hence any little super- 
 ficial influence which it may exert is easily and speedily removed by any of the 
 winged and watchful agencies of Satan, the great adversary of souls. It is 
 well to retain the Hebrew word Satan. The evangehst himself retained it, 
 though writing in Greek. It would however be unidiomatic, so far as English 
 is concerned, were we to follow him in the use of the article, the Satan (that isv 
 the Adversary). 
 
 Vee. 16. And these in like manner are they who are sown upon the rooky 
 places. In like manner, for the second part of the parable admirably corresponds 
 
 H 
 
-98 ST. MARK IV. [16 
 
 ground; who, when they have heard the word, immedi- 
 ately receive it with gladness ; 17 and have no root in them- 
 selves, and so endure but for a time. Afterward, when aSLia- 
 tion or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately 
 
 to the first in its susceptibility of application. Note the inartificial nature of 
 the representation. The signifioates of the parable are, for the moment, 
 shifted, the hearers of the word being represented by the seeds sown instead of 
 the ground on which they were sown. But the idea remains unembarrassed for 
 all practical purposes. 
 
 Who, whenever they have heard the wtfrd, immediately receive it with gladness. 
 The word does get under the surface in their case, and immediately produces 
 some effect. It touches the superficial feelings, and is hastily welcomed. 
 Perhaps because it is a new thing ; perhaps because it is evidently a good 
 thing, good in particular for objects that terminate on self, good for getting 
 safety and everlasting glory. 
 
 Vee. 17. And have not root in themselves. They Tiave not root, that is, they 
 are deficient in root. The word of God, though under the surface, does not get 
 far down in its influence ; and hence it does not get free scope and fair play. 
 Its influence is speedily arrested by an impenetrable hardness underneath. 
 Beligion does not get rooting ; there is no receptivity for it in the hidden 
 depths of the being, almost all that is of it has rushed up to the outside. 
 They have no root ' in themselves.' The expression finely suggests that religion 
 must be a personal matter ; it is either something in one's self, or else nothing 
 at all. 
 
 And so endure but for a time. King James's version, and a fine free transla- 
 tion ; but certainly free. It is literally but are temporary. There is in the 
 expression a kind of hasty anticipation of the hasty termination of the hasty 
 religious profession. The measure of the comparative temporariness is to be 
 found in the time that would have been required for the full development of 
 the grain. A full moral spring-time and a full moral summer-time would have 
 been required. 
 
 Then when tribulation or persecution for the word's sake has come to pass 
 {yevo/iivTiij. It is assumed that such tribulation or persecution may be expected. 
 The prevailing hatred of ' the word,' on the part of ' the world,' vnll, in one 
 way or another, bring it to pass. The words tribulation and persecution are 
 just two specific modes of representing suffering for the gospel's sake. The 
 one word (tribulation = S-Xi^is) denotes oppression ; the other (persecution = 
 SuAiyfds) denotes pwrsuit. 
 
 Immediately they are ofifended. Literally, and as the Eheims has it, they are 
 scandalized. The word scandalised is just the Anglicised form of the Greek 
 word ; and the Greek word was provincial. It does not occur in the classics. 
 It is a term moreover which it is impossible to translate literally, into Latin 
 or English or French or German or Dutch. It paints a complex picture. The 
 original scandal, or scandalon, was a part of a trap for catching noxious 
 animals. It was that part on which the animal was expected to strike un- 
 awares ; when once this scandal was struck, the animal was ensnared. A 
 
19] ST. MARK IV. 99 
 
 they are offended. 18 And these are they whicli are sown 
 among thorns ; such as hear the word, 19 and the cares of 
 this worldj and the deoeitfulness of riches, and the lusts of 
 
 scandalized person, therefore, is a person who has unawares struck, or stumbled 
 on, what entraps and ruins him. The persons referred to by our Lord are iu 
 this respect scandalized. Their religion becomes a thing on which they stumble 
 and stagger, and are held fast, or fall. Tyndale's translation is, they fall im- 
 mediately, or, as it is in his 1526 edition, anon they fall. It is all over with 
 their profession. 
 
 Vbk. 18. And others are they who are sown into the thorns. These are they 
 that have heard the word. The demonstrative these, which had erroneously ex- 
 truded in the Eeoeived Text the word others in the preceding clause, comes 
 in here. 
 
 Veb. 19. And the cares of this world. Or rather of this age, or better still, 
 of the age. The this is omitted iu the manuscripts K B C D L A, 1, and in the 
 Vulgate and Armenian versions. Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles 
 leave it out. The cares of the age are the distractions {/i^ptfivai) that are incident 
 to this preliminary period of the world's history, a period when things are ex- 
 ceedingly out of order. They are men's ' secular ' cares {cerumnm seeuli). They 
 come more or less upon aU men ; but some men lay themselves peculiarly open 
 to their influence, and allow them to twine and twist themselves, like the 
 serpents of Laoooon, around every energy and susceptibility of their being. 
 
 And the deceitfolness (or deceit) of riches. Tyndale has disseytfulness, Wycliffe 
 disseit. The word for riclies (jrXoOros) etymologically connects itself with the 
 idea of much (?ro\i!i). A rich man is a man who has much, and who, just 
 because he has much of wlmt ' answereth ' almost ' all things,^ is exposed to 
 peculiar temptations, which but few can altogether withstand. "If a man 
 "sufier the habit of acquisition," says one who was eminently entitled to speak 
 on such a subject, Joshua Wilson, Esq., " to predominate and prevail over him, 
 " (as it must predominate and prevail unless carefully held in check and reso- 
 " lutely counteracted), he may become, before he is aware,, a miserable victim of 
 "'the pitiful passion for accumulation.' Hence the immense importance of 
 " early forming and diligently cultivating the habit of liberality, of beginning to 
 " give as soon as a man begins to get, and increasing the amount of his givings 
 " iu proportion to the increase of his gains. One of the greatest deceptions, 
 " that men are too apt to practise upon themselves, is to defer being bountiful 
 " till their means have greatly increased. This is indeed a striking proof of 
 " what our Lord calls the deceitfulness of riches." {Memoir of the Life and 
 Character of Thomas Wilson, Esq., p. 69.) 
 
 And the lusts of other things. Namely, besides money. The expression is 
 literally and the lusts concerning the other things. Note the definitive articles, 
 ' the ' lusts {so common in society) concerning ' the ' other things {so commonly 
 longed for). The word tot has now for long got narrowed in its reference te 
 sensual desire of a hateful description, as being either improper in kind ol 
 improper in degree. But originally it had a much wider reference, and just 
 meant, generioally, desire, longing, inclination or liking. The Greek term 
 
100 ST. MARK IV. [19 
 
 other things entering in^ choke the word, and it becometh 
 unfruitful. 20 And these are they which are sown on good 
 ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring 
 forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and sonae an hundred. 
 
 (iir&vfiia) is occasionally used in the New Testament wlien some good and holy 
 longing is referred to : see Luke xxii. 15, Phil. i. 23, 1 Thess. ii. 17. But 
 though occasionally thus used, it is nevertheless, in its general New Testament 
 usage, Ztte a ball loaded ^on the left side. It thus reflects the sad fact that 
 somehow or other the affections are the favourite seat of human depravity. 
 The Eheims translation of the clause, copied from the Yulgate and therefore 
 omitting the articles, is, and concupiscences about other things. The Saviour 
 might be referring to ' concupiscences ' concerning such things as houses, lauds, 
 works of art and vertu, posts of honour, gaiety of garments, grandeur of enter- 
 tainments, and in general the myriad appliances of luxury. 
 
 Entering in. If a very precise adherence to the parabolic imagery had been 
 aimed at, some such phrase as growing up would have been employed instead of 
 entering in. 
 
 Choke the word. They crowd in stiflingly upon the word {<rvvwvlyov<r<,y). Comp. 
 Luke viii. 14. They strangle it, as Wyoliffe has it ; his word is strangulen. 
 
 And it becomes unfruitful. It gets no farther than the leaf of profession, 
 struggling feebly toward the light amid the thicket of thorns. It has not 
 strength to seed. It does nothing for the propagation of the word in the world. 
 See on ver. 7. 
 
 Teb. 20. And those are they that were sown on the good ground. Those, 
 instead of these, is the correct reading given by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford 
 (^/ceTj'ot). 
 
 Such as hear the word, and accept it. They accept it to themselves, and /or 
 themselves {irapaS^ovra,!,). 
 
 And bring forth fruit, one thirty, one sixty, and one a, hundredfold. Such is the 
 reading (&) of the Eeeeived Text ; and it is retained by Lachmann and Alford. 
 It was the reading that was before our translators. It is the reading too that 
 had been accepted by the authors of the Italic, Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian, and 
 Gothic versions. It is in some respects the easiest reading. (Comp. Matt, 
 xiii. 8, 23.) But the word which with a certain ' breathing ' is a numeral 
 meaning one (Iv) is, when pronounced with another ' breathing,' a preposition 
 meaning in {iv). It is with this latter breathing that the word is given by 
 Tischendorf and Tregelles, on the authority of the important cursive manu- 
 scripts 1, 83, 69, and also of the uncials EPGHKMXJVn (in which uncials 
 the 'breathings' are indicated; see Tischendorf). No doubt these cursives 
 and uncials are right, for the phraseology is thus brought into harmony with 
 the representation employed in ver. 8. The clause then, when literally trans- 
 lated, runs thus. And they bring forth fruit in thirty, arid in sixty, and in a 
 hundred, that is, in the proportional ratios of thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold 
 of increase. These threefold ratios however are specified only representatively. 
 AU who hear and heartily receive the word are more or less fruitful ; but some, 
 aocordiug to a peculiar innate energy or peculiarly favourable surroundings, ara 
 
21] ST. MARK IV. 101 
 
 21 And he said unto them. Is a candle brought to be put 
 under a bushel, or under a bed ? and not to be set on a candle- 
 
 fruitful to an eminent or even to a pre-eminent degree. All propagate wliat is 
 good, but some more largely than others. 
 
 Veb. 21. And He said to them. We know not, and we do not need to know, 
 who are definitely referred to under the pronoun them, whether it be the 
 disciples alone or the people at large. Neither do we know when and where it 
 was that our Saviour said what He said, whether it was on the day when He 
 delivered the parable of the sower to the people, or at the time when He ex- 
 plained it to His disciples, or at some other time. The evangelist's memoirs are 
 remarkably anecdotical, but not remarkably chronological. The sayings re- 
 corded in ver. 21-23 were probably some of our Saviour's favourite seed 
 thoughts. The likelihood is that He would often drop them by the way. 
 Perhaps He would even drop them repeatedly, and need thus to drop them, into 
 the very same soil. The seed thought contained in this 21st verse is found in 
 Luke viii. 16, xi. 33 ; Matt. v. 15. 
 
 Is lb candle brought [so we read in King James's English version] to be 
 put under a bushel, or under a bed ! and not to be set on a candlestick ? We 
 have here a remarkable instance of the definite article being overlooked. It 
 occurs four times in the original : Is ' the ' lamp brought, that it might be set 
 under ' the ' bushel, or tmder ' the ' couch, not that it might be set on ' the ' 
 lamp stajid ? A still more literal translation of the first clause would be, Does 
 the lamp come ? There is motion observed in the lamp ; but for the time 
 being it is left undecided whether it be self-motion or motion by another. 
 Even in the classics (see Kypke and Baphel), as also in our modern idioms, it is 
 common in many cases to represent inanimate objects as coming, when they are 
 only brought. Tyndale's translation is freer still than the Authorized version. 
 Is the candle lighted ? Lamp is better than candle, for the lamp was the common 
 household nightlight among the Jews. ' The ' lamp : it is implied that in 
 general only one was used in the family apartment.. Under the bushel, literally 
 under the modius. The word is Eoman, so that it is probable that the vessel 
 referred to had got into use among the Jews in consequence of their subjection 
 to the Eomans. It is not unlikely that it would be found to be more exact, and 
 therefore more to be depended on, than the native-made measures. Hence 
 householders might wish to have it beside them as security against imposition, 
 both in buying and seUing. The Eoman modius however was, as to capacity, 
 nearer a peck than a bushel. Under the couch : the reference here too bespeaks 
 the influence of Eoman customs. Our Saviour must have had in view, not the 
 native mat, matting, or mattress, which when simply spread on the floor served 
 for bed or couch, but the Eoman triclinium or raised couch that was used at 
 formal meals, when the guests reclined at three sides of a table. Not that 
 it might be set upon the lamp stand i The lamp stand was not set upon the 
 table, but stood on the floor, rising aloft. Our Saviour's fine parabolic seed- 
 thought might have many applications. He wished His disciples and all people 
 to make a generous use of all the light, whatever it might be, that had been 
 vouchsafed to them. It was a trust committed to them. No man is Ulumi- 
 
102 ST. MAEK IV. [21 
 
 stick ? 22 For there is nothing hid, which shall not be mani- 
 fested ; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should 
 come abroad. 23 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. 
 
 nated from above , for his own sake alone. No man should try to hoard his 
 light, or to consume it in secret. At the same time he need not force it upon 
 the unwilling. Th6 saintly Osesar Malan of Geneva said ahout fifty years ago 
 to the author, then a young student of theology : Hold up your lamp before men ; 
 hold it up fearlessly, and let it shine ; but do not dash it into anybody' s face I 
 
 Veb. 22. Tor. In what follows »■ reason is given for letting the light shine. 
 But the immediately succeeding clause is very perplexed as regards some minute 
 details of expression, in consequence partly of the inherent peculiarity of the 
 original reading, and partly of the varied forms in which the seed-thought 
 occurs in Matt. %. 26, Luke viii. 17, xii. 2. We doubt not, however, that 
 Tischendorf, following up the labours of Griesbaoh and Lachmann, has suc- 
 ceeded in presenting the text in its original form : There is not anything hidden 
 imless that it might be manifested (oi5 ykp ^ariv ri kpvtttov, iav fiij 'iva tpav^pia'^^. 
 It is one of the longest plumblines of thought that our Saviour ever let out in 
 conversation. God hides some things ; it is His glory to hide them (Prov. xxv. 
 2). He hid several very important things under the shadows of the Jewish 
 dispensation. He has hidden millions of other things ; in the crust of the 
 earth for instance, perhaps in its flora, perhaps in its fauna, perhaps in in- 
 visible telluric influences. He has hidden innumerable things in the sun and 
 moon and stars. Christ Himself hid many things under the parables which He 
 spake (ver. 11, 12). He hid in His own heart many other things which even 
 His nearest disciples could not have ' stood ' (John xvi. 12) or ' understood ' 
 (John xiii. 7). Btit this hiding on the part of Christ and of God is, in every 
 case, not final but provisional. The truth is hidden, that it may be found out and 
 manifested ; and no one thing is hidden, unless that it may be by and by mani- 
 fested. Nothing is to be hidden for ever. There is always a final end in 
 hiding ; and the end is that it may be manifested. Hence human progression 
 in science and in all the applications of science. Even when men try to hide 
 things, it is divinely permitted for a season, only that after a season all may be 
 revealed. The whole universe by and by, with all its contents, will be as it were 
 absolutely transparent to every illumined eye. To the eye of God there is 
 already everywhere complete transparency. 
 
 Neither was anything kept secret, or rather made secret, but that it should come 
 to light (Alford), or, but that it should come into sight, (Sharpe) eh (p<wep6v. It is 
 an emphatic repetition of the idea of the preceding clause, but simply bringing 
 into view the intentional making of a thing secret. Whoever has the intention, 
 it either is, or is divinely permitted to be, just that in due time the wrapping 
 may be taken away and the thing exposed to universal view. 
 
 Veb. 23. If any man has ears to hear, let him hear. It is subsumed that 
 every one actually has ears to hear. Then let every one hear ; let him volun- 
 tariJy listen till he understand. It was one of the Saviour's fine didactic seed- 
 thoughts, which He seems to have very frequently dropped by the way (ver. 9). 
 It needs still to be dropped, and dropped time after time into the same ears. 
 
24] ST. MARK IV. 103 
 
 24 And he said unto them. Take heed what ye hear. With 
 what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you : and unto yoa 
 
 There are, comparatively speaking, but few patient and impartial hearers, but 
 few patient and impartial thinkers, in the world. 
 
 Ver. 24, 25. Another little cluster of anecdotioal sayings. 
 
 Ver. 24. And He said to them. To whom ? We know not, and do not need 
 to know. The value of the apophthegms does not depend on the incidents of 
 their utterance. They are of universal application. 
 
 Take heed ' what ' ye hear. It is a slightly different idea from that which is 
 brought out in Luke vui. 18, Take heed ' how ' ye hear. Both injunctions are 
 needed ; and indeed they wonderfully intertwine, so that he who takes heed 
 how he hears will likely be careful as to what he hears, and vice versa. There is 
 no scope, it is true, for the exercise of will in reference to many of the things 
 which we hear ; and hence every man often hears things which it would be 
 better for him, in his present circumstances, not to hear. But there are on the 
 other hand many other things, which we may either hear or not, as we choose. 
 We are responsible therefore for much that we hear, as well as for all that we 
 speak. And if, for instance, we be eager to hear words of detraction or cen- 
 sorious tittle-tattle and scandal-talk, in reference to our neighbours, we must 
 take the retributive cousec[uences. Most likely there will be 'counterpart' 
 retribution. See next clause. 
 
 With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you. Literally 'in' what 
 measure. The reference is to a measure of capacity. The same measure ' in ' 
 which we mete out our treatment of others will be retributively employed for 
 measuring out to ourselves the treatment which we shall receive. Comp. 
 Matt. vii. 2, Luke vi. 38. It is a law of retribution in morals, somewhat 
 analogous to the law of reaction in physics. It will sooner or later, except in 
 certain peculiar cases modified by repentance, be fulfilled in the experience of 
 all. It will be fulfilled either in kind or in equivalent ; either imminently or 
 ultimately ; either from without or from within ; and if from without, either 
 from around or from Above. As we treat, so shall we he treated. What we sow, 
 that we shall reap. 
 
 And more shall be added to yon. A clause that has been tampered with, and 
 badly tinkered, by nnperspicacious critics. It was supposed that there is a close 
 connection between the injunction Take heed what ye hear and the wordp of the 
 preceding verse. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. It was hence 
 supposed that in the words what ye hear there is a reference only to what is 
 good, a reference to Christ's own explication of the mysteries of the kingdom of 
 heaven. And then it was supposed that when He adds, in what measure ye mete 
 it shall be measured to you. He means, in what measure ye mete out your hearing 
 and attention, in that same measure shall the subject matter of hearing and 
 attention be meted out to you. And then and thence it was inferred that our 
 Saviour meant to add, and unto you ' that hear,' or as the Gothic version gives 
 it, unto you ' that believe ' shall more be given. Thalt is, the more you hear of 
 Divine truth, the more shall you get to hear. The idea is admirable in itself, but 
 it is foisted in upon the phraseology of the evangelist. The injunction Take 
 
104 ST. MARK IV. [24 
 
 that hear shall more be given. 25 For lie that hath, to him 
 shall be given : and he that hath not, from him shall be taken 
 even that which he hath. 
 
 26 And he said. So is the kingdom of God, as if a man 
 
 heed what you hear implies the duty of discrimination in reference to the objects 
 on which hearing may terminate ; and in what follows there is a warning 
 against hearing what should not be heard. If we hear concerning others what 
 we should not hear, others will in all likelihood hear concerning us what we would 
 not like them to hear ; there will be retribution. In the clause that is added 
 the idea is, There will be more than merely equal retribution, there will be retri- 
 bution with a surplus. We shall be paid back with interest. Griesbach sus- 
 pected that the entire clause was spurious, a ' gloss.' Hence he omits it entirely 
 from the text ; it is omitted in the Cambridge manuscript (D). But this is 
 going too far. There is no doubt however that the words that hear (rois 
 &Ko6ov(riv), found in the Eeceived Text, were originally a marginal gloss added 
 by some one who, forgetting or not knowing the aneodotical character of the 
 passage, misapprehended the meaning of the Divine counsel. They are 
 wanting in X B C L A, and in the Italic, Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian, and 
 ^thiopio versions. They are omitted by Laohmann, Tischendorf, TregeUes, 
 Alford. The clause as it originally stood was simply, as the Eheims has it, and 
 more shall be given unto you. 
 
 Vek. 25. For he who hath, t» him shall be given. A principle of very wide 
 applicability. Whosoever has something good, having acquired it by the right 
 use of his powers, to him shall more be given. If, for instance, by not hearing 
 what should not be heard, time and opportunity are left for hearing what should 
 be heard, and if consequently something is learned which it is a privilege to 
 learn, then the learning faculty is enlarged; and more and stUl more will be 
 progressively acquired. 
 
 And he who hath not, even what he hath shall be taken from him. The other 
 Bide of the principle, though put so far as the grammatical phraseology is 
 concerned in an exceeiiugly inartificial manner. Whosoever has not the good 
 which he ought to have acquired, and has it not in consequence of the mis- 
 application of the good power of acquisition which he has, will suffer loss in his 
 good power. The power is abused, and will be weakened. If the weakening 
 goes on, the power will by and by become a wreck. 
 
 Ver. 26. And He said. The time and connection are not absolutely certain. 
 
 So is the kingdom of God. This is the beginning of a little parable that is 
 preserved by Mark alone. Strauss indeed (Leben, ii., vi. § 74) threw out the 
 suggestion that it might be but ' another recension ' of the parable of the tares 
 or darnel (Matt. xiii. 24-30), but without the reference to the darnel, somewhat 
 apparently on the principle of the Flay of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out ! 
 HUgenfeld (Evang., p. 133) takes the same view ; and, sad to say, Ewald (Evang., 
 p. 234). Michelsen too ; only he holds that the form of the parable in Mark is 
 the original form, out of which the fuller form in Matthew was ultimately 
 elaborated. (Ret Evan., y.&^.) Wantonly all through. Such conceptions can 
 
27] ST. MARK IV. 105 
 
 should cast seed into the ground; 27 and should sleep, and 
 rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, 
 
 only be reached by an indiscriminate application of a thumbscrew species of 
 exposition. Scholten admits the originality and self contained distinctness of 
 the parable (Het Oudste Ev., p. 197). So is the kingdom of God, viz. in a certain 
 aspect of its multiform spiritual phenomena. TUfe particle So looks forward to 
 the similitude that is about to be expressed. 
 
 As if a man should have cast the seed upon the earth (fidXrj rhv cirbpov M 
 rrji yrjs). We are not to suppose, with Theophylact and many other expositors, 
 that the man here parabolioally pictured forth is the Saviour Himself. The 
 ignorance that is ascribed to him at the end of the 27th verse, not to speak of 
 other items of the representation, lays an interdict on this idea. It is evidently 
 the ordinary preacher of the gospel who is referred to. The seed represents the 
 word of God, or the word of the kingdom of God, that is, the word of the truth 
 of the gospel. Note the article, ' tJie ' seed, that is, the particular seed which the 
 man had got to sow. He sowed it vpon the prepared soil ; and he would finish 
 up the process by using what simple means were available to him, to get the 
 grain duly bedded and protected. 
 
 Vee. 27. And should sleep and rise night and day. Note the present tenses 
 of the verbs sleep, and rise, after the past in the preceding verse, have cast. 
 When once the casting of the seed upon the ground is past, the husbandman 
 goes to rest, and thenceforward continues, day by day, to prosecute his varied 
 avocations. In the alternations of sleeping and rising a precedence is given, in 
 the parable, to the former, because the speaker's mind begins to consider the 
 alternating series from the point of time when the seed was sown. On the night 
 following that day the husbandman sleeps ; in the morning he wakes and rises. 
 And thenceforward the same alternations are repeated for an undefined length 
 of time. In King James's version there is a comma strangely inserted after and 
 should sleep, and then another comma after and rise night and day. It is almost 
 as if the translators had thought, with Theophylact, that the husbandman is 
 represented as anxiously rising both by night and by day to see that all was 
 going on well ; or as if they had been influenced by Erasmus, who, in the 
 fourth edition of his New Testament, proposed to arrest the parabolic reference 
 to the husbandman at the conclusion of the words and should sleep, ascribing 
 the succeeding words and rise day and night to the seed. Purvey, in his revision 
 of WycUffe's version, gives the same interpretation, and he slepte, and it rise up 
 nighte and dai. It is an impossible construction, as is evident from the fact 
 that reference to the seed is expressly introduced in the following clause. The 
 husbandman sleeps and rises night and day. It is an inartificial expression; 
 the word night is to be connected with sleeps, the word day with rises. The 
 husbandman is not blamed for his sleeping, no more than for his rising. He 
 needs both to sleep, and when he wakes, to rise. And if he has done his daily 
 duty, as he is presumed to have done, he may lay himself down to sleep and 
 rise again without any carking care. 
 
 And the seed should sprout and grow up. Literally, and should lengthen. 
 The living thing in the seed, which constitutes its vital germ or inner essence, 
 does sprout and lengthen into the stalk and its culminating spike. It will be 
 
106 ST. MAEK IV. [27 
 
 he knoweth not how. 28 For the earth bringeth forth fruit of 
 
 noticed that the clauses of the parable are artlessly aggregated, "but yet quite 
 clearly. 
 
 He knows not how. Or, according to the collocation in the original, how he 
 know not. Erasmus would 'strangely interpret thus, in such a way as it (the 
 seed) knows not. The seed sprouts and shoots up in a way unknown to the 
 husbandman. The Saviour does not say that no husbandman, or philosopher, 
 or investigator, will ever know how a seed sprouts and shoots up. He is simply 
 supposing a case which would in His day be common enough, and which is 
 common still, the case of a man casting seed into the ground, and then sleeping 
 and rising for days in succession without ever touching again the seed which he 
 sowed. Not only does the man not touch the seed, or seek by his own skill and 
 energy to operate in it, he does not even know its inner essence or the nature 
 of its inner energy. It sprouts and shoots up in a way he knows not. The 
 Saviour's meaning is that, in the case supposed, the man knows not how the 
 seed germinates and grows up to maturity. 
 
 Veb. 28. For. This ratiooinative particle is dropped out of the text by 
 Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. It is not found in the very im- 
 portant manuscripts K A B C L '; and it is omitted in the Coptic version (both 
 Wilkins's and Schwartze's editions), and in the Philoxenian Syriac, and the 
 ^thiopio. It is evidently not needed. 
 
 Of itself the earth beareth fruit. The adjective that is very imperfectly 
 rendered of itself means self-moving or self-acting (aiiro/tdTTj). The earth is 
 represented as automatic ; there Is a kind of unconscious spontaneity in it. 
 There is indeed no real spontaneity attributable to the earth : real spontaneity 
 is a property of consciousness and mind ; and the earth is impersonal. But 
 there is a Spontaneity, 'altogether distinct from the consciousness and mind 
 of men, pervading the earth. And hence, relatively to man, the earth is auto- 
 matic. It is not, relatively to God, an automaton. It 'has its being, and 
 moves, in God.' In all its motions He is moving. But it is the aim of the 
 Saviour, in the expression before us, to represent not what the eatth is in its 
 relation to God, but what it is in its relation to man. Multitudinous motions 
 go on in the earth in absolute independence of man's volitions and efforts. In 
 this respect the earth beareth fruit ' automatously.' The word was a favourite 
 with the classical writers. They frequently speak of automatons or spontaneous 
 plants or fruits, meaning such as grow without the help of man. Herodotua 
 represents the Nile as irrigating the fields of Egypt automatously (ii. 14). The 
 hand of man is not needed to spread out the water ; in like manner the hand 
 of man is not needed to push up the sprouting of the grains of corn, or to give 
 shaping to the stalks or to the ears. 
 
 First the blade. Out of the compound verb which is rendered in the preced- 
 ing clause beareth fruit (Kapirotfiopel) we must mentally detach the element that 
 simply means bringeth forth or beareth, and carry it forward to this and the 
 succeeding clause : the earth bringeth forth, first, the blade. The word blade 
 denotes the grassy part of the plant, or simply the grass, as Purvey here renders 
 it in his revision of WycUffe. It is the word that is commonly used to 
 
28] ST. MARK IV. 107 
 
 herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn 
 
 denote grass. (See Matt. vi. 30, xiv. 19 ; Mark -vi. 39 ; John vi. 10 ; 1 Pet. i. 
 24 ; Eev. viii. 7.) It here denotes the leaf-equipped stalk of the corn-plant. 
 
 Then the ear. Or spike. See Luke vi. 1. 
 
 Then the full com in the ear. The reading of JLachmann, Tischendorf, and 
 Tregelles is, then (there comes) the full com in the ear. The full com, or the full 
 grain, or the full wheat. The word is generally rendered wheat, ■which was the 
 grain in common use for human food. See Matt. iii. 12, xiii. 25, 29, 30 ; Luke 
 xvi. 7, xxii. 31 ; John xii. 24 ; Acts xxvii. 38 ; 1 Cor. xv. 37 ; Eev. vi. 6. The 
 'full ' grain means the 'filled up ' grain. The grain is at first small, flaccid, 
 pulpy. But hy and by, under ordinarily propitious circumstances, it swells out 
 to its fuU size, and then gets compact and hard. And all this without amy 
 manipulation on the part of man. It is not meant indeed that man is utterly 
 unable to do anything either to help or to hinder the growth. Man can do 
 much. It is evident that he can do much in the way of hindering ; he might 
 trample the growing stalks, or let them be choked by weeds and thorns. He can 
 also do not a little to help ; and hence the vast advances that may be made, and 
 that have been made, in the science of agriculture. He can carefully prepare 
 the soil; he can drain his field, when that would be beneficial; he can 
 manure it properly ; he can pluck up certain weeds and noxious shrubs ; he 
 can here and there let in additional sunlight by removing overshadowing trees ; 
 he can see to his fences, so that the grain may not be trampled and injured by 
 the foot of man or of beast ; he can scare away the birds that flock around ; 
 and be can entrap such other animals as might wish to prey on his crop. The 
 husbandman has much that he can do to help forward the crop. Sut still there 
 are limits to his power. When the Saviour speaks of the man casting the seed 
 on the ground, and then sleeping and rising for a series of days and weeks. He 
 does not intend, by specifying the casting of the seed, to exclude all other oper- 
 ations. On the contrary the operation of ' casting the seed ' is mentioned iy Him 
 as representative of a certain limited number of agricultural operations. And the 
 idea that He would impress is this, that there is a limit beyond which the 
 agriculturist cannot go, and at which consequently he must abandon all efforts 
 of his own and trust to a greater power. He cannot go to each grain, and 
 elaborate it into the stalk and the spike and the fulness of the spike. In like 
 manner there is a limit to ministerial labour in reference to the growth of true 
 religion in the soul. Ministers of the gospel may do much, either to help or to 
 hinder the growth of true religion, in the souls of those to whom they minister. 
 They may mismanage the preparation of the soil ; they may neglect the fences 
 of the field ; they may fail to watch as they ought to watch. Or on the other 
 hand they may use all diligence to plough, and harrow, and pluck up briers and 
 thorns and weeds, and to ward off the birds and beasts of prey. But they soon 
 reach the limits of their power. Man, as Theophylact here says, is a free agent, 
 he continues to be free while he is being operated on by his fellow men, his 
 heart is automatons. And then too a higher Spontaneity than his own is at 
 work within him, and is needed to be at work. ' My Father worketh hitherto,' 
 says Jesus, ' and I work ' (John v. 17). It is God who ' gives the increase ' (1 
 Cor. iii. 7). The word of the truth of the gospel is a wonderful kind of grain : 
 
108 ST. MARK IV. [28 
 
 iu the ear. 29 But when the fruit is brought forth, imme- 
 
 there is life in it (1 Pet. i. 23) ; there is automatism (airofiaTurfiSs) in it, as 
 well as iu the heart in which it is sown. There is automatic thought in the 
 word. And automatic thought, every real thought, is just a germ in a living 
 mind. The thought that is in the word of the truth of the gospel is the thought 
 of the Holy Spirit of God. The moment that we get beyond the mere husk or 
 Bymbolism of the ' word,' the moment that we get into the ' thought,' we are in 
 the spontaneities of the Divine Mind. Hence the power of the Holy Spirit. It 
 is no mere mechanical operation. Hence the power of the word of the truth of 
 the gospel. It is the power of the living mind and heart of the Living God. 
 
 Vek. 29. "Oral" Si vapaSo! 6 KapTrcSs. An exceedingly difficult expression. 
 Tyndale's translation. But when the fruit is brought forth, must have been 
 originally given, and subsequently reproduced, under a kind of critical despair. 
 The same despair seems to have seized upon the old Syriac translator, who 
 renders the expression when the fruit has been fattened (that is, no doubt, when 
 it has been matured). The Fhiloxenian has it correspondingly and as freely, 
 when the fruit has been filled. The Arabic, .Sthiopio, and Persic translations 
 are equally free. So is the Gothic, when the fruit is given out (atgibada). The 
 translation in the margin of King James's version, and adopted in the Eevised 
 version, is similarly free, when the fruit is ripe, » rendering adopted into their 
 texts by Mace and Wakefield. Eodolphus Dickinson has when the grain is 
 matured. The verb however is active, not passive (irapaSol or vapaSI}). It 
 means literally has delivered up. Elostermann supposes that it must have been 
 a technical agricultural phrase, denoting the ripened condition of the grains. 
 Jhe majority of critics, inclusive of Henry Stephens, Beza, Felbinger, Wolf, 
 Beugel, Fritzsche, suppose that it must be used reflexively, or intransitively, 
 whenever the fruit has delivered ' itself,' or shall have delivered ' itself,' up. The 
 verb is used in this reflexive or intransitive acceptation in the Alexandrine text 
 of the Septuagint version of Josh. xi. 19, and there was no city which did not 
 ' surrender ' {iJTis 06 irapiSaKoi) to the children of Israel. Meyer, Lange, Bisping, 
 Grimm, and not a few others, suppose that the verb has here its occasional 
 meaning oi permit (a mode of delivering up), when the fruit shall permit 01 shall 
 have permitted. This meaning is found again and again in Herodotus .(v. 67, 
 vi. 103, vii. 18, ix. 78) and other classics. But it is unbiblical, and yields a 
 rather awkward and constrained sense, when applied, not to persons as in 
 Herodotus, nor to circumstances as in our corresponding modern idiom, but to 
 fruit. We wait for fuller light. But meantime we would either accept the 
 reflexive import of the verb, or suppose that the language abruptly and inarti- 
 fioially leaves the reader to supply, out of his own consideration of the case in 
 hand, what it is that is delivered up by the fruit. In the parable as a whole we 
 have successive 'working exhibited. The working passes along, in trust as it 
 were, now through man, now /rom man, now to man. We have first the working 
 of the sower ; he oasts the seed into the soil. Then the working passes from 
 him; and the seed itself automatously works; it sprouts and grows up, and 
 ' brings forth the blade and the ear and the full corn in the ear.' There is 
 similar synchronous working, unspecified iu the parable but implied, on the part 
 
30] ST. MARK IV. 109 
 
 diately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest ia come. 
 
 30 And he said, Whereanto shall we liken the kingdom 
 
 of God ? or with what comparison shall we compare it ? 
 
 of the rain from heaven and the buu. By and by the worldng of the soil and ita 
 cosmioal aooompaniments is finished ; so is the working of the plant itself, and 
 of the maturing fruit. But still the full complement of working ia not finished; 
 something remains to be done ; and the fruit, when by its own automatons 
 operation it has become fuUy matured, ' delivers up ' (the working power which 
 had been divinely committed to it, or transmitted through it). The working 
 must now be taken up again by man. See next clause. 
 
 Straightway he putteth forth the sickle. He, that is the man (ver. 26), the 
 husbandman. He ' putteth forth' ; literally, he sendeth out, ' apostolically ' as it 
 were (airoerrAXei). He sendeth out the sickle in the hands of the reaper. The 
 'lord of the harvest ' is supposed to hire reapers, and to ' send them forth into 
 his harvest.' 
 
 Because the harvest is come. The time for gathering in and enjoying the 
 fruits is come. The time thus parabolically referred to is assumed by Theo- 
 phylact. Dr. Samuel Clarke, Meyer, and many others, to be the consummation 
 of all things. But this assumption is based on the prior assumption that it ia 
 the Saviour Himself who is represented by the husbandman. It is however aa 
 we have seen, not the Divine, but the human workman, who is meant by the 
 man. The parable teaches the Umitatious, not of Divine, but of ministerial 
 agency, in the moral effects of the gospel. It is very limited ; but if it be 
 faithfully exerted at the time when it is really required, there wfll, in due 
 season, be the enjoyment of a ' harvest home ' of blessed results. We dO not 
 need to assume, with Archbishop Trench, that the reaping of the grain refers 
 to the gathering of believers, ' when they are ripe for glory,' ' into everlasting 
 habitationa.' (The Parables, p. 283.) ' Certainly,' says Dr. Adam Clarke, ' the 
 parable does not say ao.' What is to hinder us from supposing that the reap- 
 ing meant corresponds to that which is spoken of in John iv. 35, 36 : " Lift up 
 "your eyes, and look on the fields ; for they are white already to harvest. And 
 " he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal " ? Comp. 
 Ps. cxxvi. 6 ; Matt. ix. 37, 38. " The reapers," says Arnot, " are the human 
 " ministers of the word, and the reaping is the successful ingathering in conver- 
 " sion here, not the admission of the redeemed into glory at the end of the 
 " world." {The Parables, p. 816.) 
 
 Ver. 30. And He said. Here follows another of the Saviour's parables. 
 
 ■Whereunto might we liken (6/ioi.tia-u/ji,ev) the kingdom of God! The Saviour, 
 sympathetically and with fine oratorical tact, stimulates His hearers to thought- 
 fulness by associating them with Himself in His search for appropriate simU- 
 itudea. Hence the we. Instead of whereunto {tIpi.) Tischendorf, Tregelles, 
 Alford have the corresponding word how (irffls). It is the reading of X B C L A. 
 
 Or in what parable might we put it, or set it forth ? Such ia the reading of K B 
 C* L A, 63. The Saviour continuea to apeak aa if He were searching about for 
 a parable that would serve aa an appropriate setting for the truth which He wished 
 to enforce, in reference to a certain phase of the kingdom of God. 
 
110 ST. MARK IV. [31 
 
 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, wliicli, wlieii it is sown 
 in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth : 
 
 32 but when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greatei 
 than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches ; so that the 
 fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it. 
 
 33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto 
 
 Vee. 31. We might liken it (such is the unfolded import of the initial ws) 
 to a grain of mustard seed, which when it is sown npon the earth is a less 
 thing than all the seeds that are upon the earth. The language is broken, but the 
 sense is obvious. The mustard seed is an exceedingly small seed, not indeed 
 absolutely smaller than all other seeds known to modern botanists, but smaller 
 than all the seeds that the Jews were accustomed to sow in their fields and 
 gardens. 
 
 Yer. 32. Yet when it is sown. It is an artless repetition, but with a peculiar 
 emphasis. It breaks the participial construction that was in progress at the 
 conclusion of the preceding verse, and brings back attention to the time, when- 
 soever that might be, when the seed may have been committed to the soil. 
 
 Groweth up. Or, as the Eheims has it, riseth up. It ascends. 
 
 And becometh greater than all the herbs. Namely, that people in Palestine 
 were accustomed to rear in their gardens. The word rendered herbs (Xdxava) 
 denotes a peculiar species of herbs, viz. potherbs or garden herbs. 
 
 And throweth out great branches. Literally, maketh great branches, great 
 relatively to the branches of other garden herbs. Bishop Eyle says : " The 
 " enormous size to which the rhododendron, the heath, and the fern will grow, 
 "in some climates which suit them better than ours, should be remembered by 
 " an English reader of this parable." {Expository Thoughts on Mark, p. 79.) 
 
 So that the birds of the heaven are able to lodge under its shade. To lodge, or 
 as Wycliffe has it, to dwell. So Purvey, Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Bheims. 
 The Geneva has to build, and in Craumer's Bible it is to make their nestes. The 
 original term properly means to pitch their tents [KaTairK-qvbw). Here it would 
 appear to mean to roost. 
 
 The parable seems intended to teach the vast resources of extension that 
 were summed up in the minute germ of the kingdom of heaven. The com- 
 munity, in the day of our Saviour's humiliation, was indeed exceedingly small. 
 But it was destined to have a great and glorious development, transcending 
 that of all the other kingdoms and communities of the world. The same prin- 
 ciple is exemplified in miniature in the experience of every individual subject of 
 the kingdom. The heavenly principle within is small at the outset, but it 
 gradually expands and grows and ramifies into the whole amplitude of the 
 heart and intellect and life. 
 
 Vbk. 33. And with many such parables. Such as are recorded in what goes 
 before, such in form and such in doctrinal aim. The evangelist has only pre- 
 served a selection of specimens. 
 
 Spake He the word to them. That circle of truth or truths whose centre is 
 ' the gospel.' 
 
36] ST. MABK IV. Ill 
 
 thenij as they were able to hear it. 34 But without a parable 
 spake he not unto ,thein. And when they were alone, he 
 expounded all things to his disciples. 
 
 35 And the same day, when the even was come, he saith 
 unto them. Let us pass over unto the other side. 36 And 
 when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even 
 as he was in the ship. And there were also with him other 
 
 As they were able to hear. Or as the same idea is represented in John xvi. 
 12, as they were able to bear or carry. The people, though not understanding 
 much, were yet profoundly interested and charmed. There are limits however 
 to the power of attention and the susceptibility of interest ; when the vessel 
 becomes full and is running over, it is needless to pour i» more. 
 
 Yeb. 34. And without a parable spake He not unto them. Although He spoke 
 much, as much as they could hear when straining their attention to its utmost 
 limit of tension, yet He did not deviate from the parabolic form of instruction. 
 The auditory that was before Him was not in a condition to endure other than 
 parabolic truth. 
 
 But privately to His disciples He expounded all things. Explicated is the cor- 
 responding word in the Bheims version. The cognate noun is rendered inter- 
 pretation in 2 Pet. i. 20. Instead of to Sis disciples the manuscripts K B C L A, 
 read to His own disciples {IdloLs), and Tischendorf has introduced this reading 
 into his text. 
 
 Yeb. 35. And He saith to them on that day when evening was come, let us 
 cross over to the other side. Namely of the sea of Galilee. He refers to its 
 eastern side, where, in conseq^uence of the comparatively barren and rocky cha- 
 racter' of much of the coast and of the adjacent country, there was not nearly 
 so dense a population as on the western side. " There is no recess," says Dean 
 Stanley, " in the eastern hills ; no towns along its banks corresponding to those 
 "in the plain of Gennesareth. Thus this wilder region became a natural refuge 
 "from the active life of the western shores." (Sinai and Palestine, Tp. 379.) 
 As to the chronology of the occurrence that is about to be related, Mark seems 
 to be precise. See on Matt. viii. 23. 
 
 Ver. 36. And having dismissed the crowd. No doubt, by telling them firmly 
 that the Master would give no more instructions on that occasion. 
 
 They take Him with them, as He was, in the boat. Just as He was, in that 
 particular boat in which He had been sittiag while addressing the people 
 (ver. 1). They did not, on the one hand, go in quest of a more convenient or 
 comfortable boat ; neither did they, on the other, go ashore to get any special 
 baggage or provisions. Time was pressing ; and there might haye been only 
 additional pressure from the lingering remnants of the crowd if the boat had 
 been brought to land. 
 
 And there were also with Him other boats. It would appear that while our 
 Lord was engaged in teaching the people, who stood crowding far and wide on 
 the shore, there had been individuals who availed themselves of the oppor- 
 tunity of the adjoining boats for getting nearer His person, and into a more 
 
112 ST. MARK IV. [36 
 
 little ships. 37 And there arose a great storm of wind, 
 and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. 
 
 favourable position for listening to His discourse. Hence a little fleet had 
 gathered round the boat in which our Saviour sat. Doubtless at that period of 
 comparative national prosperity there would be many boats available. Josephua 
 describes {Wars, Book iii., 10) a naval engagement that took place on the lake, 
 when both the natives on the one hand and the Eomans under Titus on the 
 other had many vessels. The 'other boats' which had gathered round our 
 Saviour's boat are said to have been with ' Him,' for ' He,' as distinguished 
 from the boat which bore Him and the ' apostolic ' crew who manned it, was 
 the great object of interest. It is, we presume, in an artlessly incidental manner 
 that mention is here made of these ' other boats,' filling out however the picture 
 which Peter autoptically drew when he narrated the facts of his Lord's life. 
 It is probable that the occupants of the boats would, like the people on the 
 shore, be assured by the disciples that the Master had concluded for that occa- 
 sion, aud that He now desired seclusion and rest. 
 
 Vee. 37. And — by and by, as they are rowing across — there ariseth a great 
 storm of wind. A hurricane of wind, such as the sea of Galilee is notoriously 
 exposed to. Mr. Macgregor speaks of ' a headlong flood of wind like a waterfall' 
 which he witnessed pouring down into the lake. He says : " The peculiar 
 " effects of squalls among mountains axe well known to aU who have boated 
 " much on lakes ; but on the sea of Galilee the wind has a singular force and 
 " suddenness ; and this is no doubt because that sea is so deep in the world that 
 " the sun rarifies the air in it enormously, and the wind, speeding swift above 
 " a long and level plateau, athers much force as it sweeps through flat deserts, 
 " uutU suddenly it meets this huge gap in the way, and it tumbles down here 
 "irresistible." [The Rob Roy on the Jordan, -p. i'21.) On two distinct occa- 
 sions Mr. Macgregor encountered this ' great storm of wind.' With reference 
 to the first of the two he says: "A brisk breeze from Bashan had freshened 
 "while we paddled along these bays, aud the short ' choppy ' waves at Jordan's 
 "mouth were angry enough to require attention while crossing them. I 
 " ascended Jordan to wait for the wind's pleasure if it might calm down ; but 
 " instead of that the sea rose more aud more, and at last heavy clouds in the 
 "east burst iato a regular gale. . . . The wind whistled, and sea gulls 
 " screamed as they were borne on the scud. Thick and ragged clouds drifted 
 " fast over the water, which became almost green in colour, as if it were on the 
 " salt sea, and the illusion was heightened by the complete obscurity of the 
 "distance, for the other side of the lake was quite invisible. . . . The 
 " waves burst in upon the oleanders, and broke high and noisy upon the rugged 
 "rocks. . . . The storm lasted next day." (The Rob Roy, -p-p. 336, 339.) 
 
 And the waves were lashing into the boat, so that the boat was now filling. 
 Notwithstanding no doubt the utmost efforts of the crew at ' baling.' Luther 
 and Coverdale regard the word lashing as transitive, and construe the word 
 waves as supplying the objective to the action of the verb. Coverdale's version 
 is, There arose a great storme of wynde, and daszhed the waioes in to the shippe. 
 The construction of our King James's translators however is evidently correct. 
 
40] ST. MARK IV. 113 
 
 38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a 
 pillow : and they awake him, and say unto him. Master, carest 
 thou not that we perish ? 39 And he arose, and rebuked the 
 wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind 
 ceased, and there was a great calm. 40 And he said unto them. 
 Why are ye so fearful ? How is it that ye have no faith ? 
 
 Yek. 38. And He Himself was in the stern. Where there would be some 
 little cabin. 
 
 Sleeping on the pUlow. That is, sleeping with His head reposing on ' the ' 
 pillow, the one pillow which belonged, as part of the boat's furniture, to the 
 small cabin at the stern. How touching that our Saviour sbould have been so 
 speedily asleep ! How suggestive of His great exhaustion that He should have 
 been so sound asleep ! Those delicate energies of His humanity, that needed 
 to be statedly replenished, had been subjected to an excessive drain in conse- 
 quence of the urgent demands of the people for teaching and healing. See chap, 
 iii. 20, and comp. vi. 31. 
 
 And they awake Him. Literally, they arouse Him. 
 
 And say unto Him, Master, is it no concern to Thee that we perish ? They were 
 evidently much alarmed ; but their alarm, however great, was no excuse for such 
 a petulant expostulation. The word which our translators render Master pro- 
 perly means teacher or rabbi {dtSda-KoKe). 
 
 Yeb. 39. And He awoke and rebuked the wind. Rebuked, though perhaps 
 as good a term as can be got, is an exceedingly imperfect translation (iirerlixTiaev). 
 The term is sometimes rendered charged. (See Matt. xii. 16 ; Mark iii. 12, viii. 
 80 ; Luke ix. 21.) It primarily means rated. WycUfte renders it here 
 manasside, i.e. menaced. It means that our Lord as it were laid His commands 
 on the wind, peremptorily and authoritatively, and as if it had been trans- 
 gressing bounds. Such was the outer form with which, for gracious exoteric 
 purposes, He clothed the forth going of His inner volition. And what, too, if it 
 should have been the case that He saw that there was some malignant person- 
 ality astir in the midst of the storm ? 
 
 And said to the sea, Peace, be still. Very literally, Be silent! Be muzzled! 
 The personification adapted itself to the roar of the storm. 
 
 And the wind ceased. It fell as if if had been utterly exhausted by the exertion 
 of its own beating {iKdiraffCi') . 
 
 And there was — there came on {iyivero) — a great calm. Greet pesiblenesse, as 
 Wyclifie has it, that is, great peacefulness. The lake would then be, as it 
 appeared to the eye of Dr. Tristram when he got his first glimpse of its beauty, 
 " a calm blue basin, slumbering in placid sweetness beneath its surrounding wall 
 " of hills." (The Land of Israel, p. 426.) 
 
 Veb. 40. And He said to them. Why are ye fearful thus? Why are ye fearful 
 • on this fashion,' ' after this manner'? The adverb is rendered in these different 
 ways in Matt. xxvi. 54, Mark ii. 12, Matt. vi. 9, etc. The expression draws 
 attention to the degiee and manner of their frightenedness. 
 
 How have ye not faith? It was wonderful that with the Lord in the vesse) 
 
 I 
 
114 ST. MAEK IV. [41 
 
 41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another. What 
 manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey 
 him? 
 
 they should have allowed themselves to he so entirely flurried and unmanned. 
 Had they not already witnessed enough to assure them that He held at His 
 girdle the keys of the kingdom of nature ? Had they not noticed that He had 
 some secret access to all the resources of the universe 1 Must not all seas be 
 His highways ? Must not all winds be His messengers ? 
 
 Ver. 41. And they feared exceedingly. Literally, they feared a great fear. 
 They had already been conscious of far too great fear in the presence of the 
 sudden hurricane. But their fear was now greater BtUl, though cahn and more 
 noble, in the presence of Him who had wiUed the hurricane into repose. They 
 were filled with awe. They felt that they were in the presence of a far greater 
 Power than what had pressed upon their senses in the storm. They seem to 
 have got a glimpse into the interior of something that stretched away into 
 infinity. 
 
 And said to one another, Who then is this % The then has a touch of argument- 
 ativeness in its import, since it is the case that He can do such wonders. They 
 were but beginning to see. There were heights and depths in the Saviour 
 ■which they had not hitherto realized. 
 
 That both the wind and the sea are obedient to Him ! The then of the preced- 
 ing clause looked back argumentatively to the occurrences that had taken place. 
 The that of this clause looks forward reduplicatlvely to a fresh statement of the 
 case. Schenkel thinks that there was no other miracle than merely a wonderful 
 self-collected calmness on the part of our Lord amid the tempest ! " If Jesus," 
 says he, " ruled nature with Divine omnipotence. His sway was without any 
 " moral significance. How much more exalted and exalting is Jesus standing 
 " there amidst the increasing danger, surrounded by the trembling, experienced 
 " seafarers, in spite of the despair of the steersman, standing there in holy self 
 " possession, rebuking, tranquillizing, and encouraging them, an image of perfect 
 " faith in God and of the clearest insight into His own destiny." "He had," says 
 Schenkel, " immovable faith in His destiny, unwavering conviction that His 
 " hour had not yet come, that He had yet to do the great work of His life ; and 
 " hence the accident of a storm could not disturb the Divine plan for the salva- 
 " tion of mankind." {Characterbild Jesu, x. 1.) He does not notice that if he 
 ascribes to Jesus a really ' Divine plan for the salvation of mankind,' which 
 required to be wrought out to completion in His individual personality, he intro- 
 duces at another point the very element of the supernatural which he seeks to 
 withdraw from the Saviour's relationship to the winds and the waves. It need 
 not be added besides that if Sohenkel's theory be right, Mark's narrative ia 
 wrong. 
 
1] ST. MARK V. 115 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 1 AND they came over unto the other side of the sea, into 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 From the 1st to the 20th verse we have a miuute narrative of the deliverance 
 of the Gerasene demoniac. See the corresponding paragraphs in Matt. viii. 
 28-34, and Luke viii. 26-39. 
 
 Yeb. 1. And they came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gad- 
 arenes. Or rather of the Gerasenes, or of the Gergesenes. There can be no 
 doubt that Gadarenes is an erroneous reading, although it is found in the Alex- 
 andrine manuscript and the Ephraemi (A C), as well as in EF GHKMSsVs, 
 and in the Peshito Syriao version, and the text of the Philoxenian Syriac, and 
 the Gothic. It had evidently become an extensively diffused reading when 
 once it did get into the manuscripts. Gadara was a well-known Jewish town, 
 celebrated for its warm springs, and not very far from the sea of Galilee. It 
 was a good many miles distant however, and lay to the south-east of the lake. 
 Unhappily Erasmus inserted Gadarenes in his editions, and Kobert Stephens 
 followed him, and then Beza ; and thence it got into King James's English 
 version, although it is the word Gergesenes that is found in the parallel passage 
 of Matt. viii. 28. Gadarenes was not the word in the oldest manuscripts. It 
 is Gerasenes that is found in the Sinaitic and Vatican and Cambridge manu- 
 scripts (SB D), as also in the Italic and Vulgate versions. Origen too ex- 
 pressly mentions (i. 239, ed. Lommat.) that Gerasenes was the general reading 
 of the manuscripts, though in some ' few ' copies Gadarenes was found. He 
 dismisses the reading Gadarenes as out of the question ; but, in consequence of 
 an orthographical misconception, he supposes that the prevalent reading 
 Gerasenes was also corrupt, and he conjectured that Gergesenes should be 
 substituted in its place. He was thinking of tfte famous Gerasa, an Arabian 
 city a long way to the south-east of Gadara, one of the chief places in Deoapolis, 
 and exhibiting to this day ' beautiful and extensive ruins.' (See Porter's Syria, 
 pp. 294-298.) This Gerasa is far removed, as he justly remarks, from ' both 
 sea and lake ' ; it cannot be the place referred to. Hence he concluded that 
 the reference is to Gergesa, an ancient city on the eastern shore of the lake of 
 Gennesaret. Thenceforward Gergesenes, instead of Gerasenes, became a favour- 
 ite reading in the manuscripts. It established itself in Matthew, and was given 
 there by Erasmus. Epiphanius says expressly that Gergesenes is the reading of 
 Mark {Hceres., Ixvi. 33, p. 650). And so the word appears in L U A, 1, 33, and 
 in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriao version, and in the Coptic, Armenian, 
 iEthiopic, and Arabic versions. Origen was no doubt right geographically, 
 the reference is to Geresa or Gersa or Kersa on the eastern margin of the sea of 
 Galilee ; but he was wrong in assuming that the old reading Gerasenes could 
 not and did not refer to that very town. The two words Gerasenes and Ger- 
 gesenes are just two different ways of pronounojng one name. Origen's Gergesa 
 is just the evangelist's Gerasa and the modem Kersa. The ruins of the town 
 
IIG ST. MARK V. [1 
 
 the country of the Gadarenes. 2 And when he was come out 
 of the ship^ immediately there met him out of the tombs a 
 man with an unclean spirit, 3 who had his dwelling among the 
 tombs ; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains : 
 
 lie to this day a little south of the Wady Semakh, whioli debouches into the 
 lake nearly opposite Magdala. " It was walled," says Dr. Porter, " and the 
 " remains of the wall can be traced. The houses are all prostrate, and heaps 
 "of rubbish and hewn stones encumber the site. . . . The physical con- 
 " formation of the country south of Kersa appears to suit the incidents of the 
 " narrative better than any other spot along the eastern shore of the lake." 
 (Syria and PaUstint, p. 401.) 
 
 Veb. 2. And when He was come out of the boat, immediately there met Him 
 out of the tombs a man with an impure spirit. Met, or, more literally, enccfuntered 
 (uTT'/iiiTTjirev), only the word conveys no hostile intent. Out of the tombs : The 
 direction in which the man who is about to be specified came was from the 
 tombs, not from the town ; he did not live in the town ; see next verse. A man: 
 Matthew, in his account, makes mention of two. Nothing is more likely than 
 that there should be more than one. There were no asylums for the insane 
 in those days ; the unhappy sufferers were scattered about ; and sometimes 
 individuals, when possessed of peeuUar inter-relations of susceptibility, would 
 draw together. There had been two thus associated in the neighbourhood of 
 Kersa ; but the personality of one of the two had been so strikingly outstanding 
 and remarkable that the other individual had been apparently a mere semi- 
 servile appendage. Hence Mark and Luke take notice only of the one. It is 
 evident from this that Mark was no mere copyist and epitomizer of Matthew. 
 With an impure spirit. The expression in the original is somewhat stronger, 
 'in' an impure spirit. It is the same idiom that we employ when we speak of 
 a man being ' in' a passion or ' ire ' drink. The demonic in the man was more 
 conspicuous and obtrusive than the man's own manhood. Wyoliffe and the 
 Eheims version retain the primitive ' in.' Tyndale paraphrases the expression 
 possessyd of an unclefic sprete As to the existence of demon spirits and their 
 uncleanness, see on chap. . 23 32. 
 
 Teh. 3. Who had his habitation among the tombs. Or, more literally, in the 
 tombs. Like many other maniacs he had a melancholy craze for frequenting 
 the places of the dead ; he felt no interest, or almost none, in the society of 
 ihe living. In the whole of Syria the mountains are pierced with old excavated 
 tombs, fit haunts for demoniacs. Dr. W. M. Thomson says expressly that 
 ' an immense mountain rises directly above Chersa, in which are ancient tombs.' 
 {The Land and the Book, p. 376.) Many of the existing Palestinian tomba 
 belong to a period long anterior to the time of our Lord's ministry, and some of 
 them perhaps to a period anterior to the occupancy of Palestine by the Hebrews. 
 
 And no man could bind him any longer, no, not with a chain. The plural 
 chains, found in the Eeceived Text, had been suggested apparently by the 
 phraseology of .the succeeding verse. It was common in Palestine, and till 
 lately it was not uncommon in Great Britain, to chain with iron chains such ot 
 
5] ST. MARK V. 117 
 
 4 because ttat he had been often bound with fettei's aud 
 chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and 
 the fetters broken in pieces : neither could any man tame 
 him. 5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, 
 and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. 
 
 the insane as were unfortunately furious or violent. No doubt it would be often 
 a necessity ; but it was sad, and sadly humiliating. 
 
 Veb. 4. Because that. The evangelist explains why he said that no one 
 could any longer bind him with a chaia. 
 
 He had been often bound with fetters and chains. The experiment had been 
 often tried, with fetters specifically and chains generioally. The word fetters, 
 like the corresponding word in Greek, properly means shacldes for the feet. 
 Compare the word '/eSlock,' the look of hair at the feet of horses. Fet is the 
 Anglo-Saxon tor feet. There is no reason for supposing with Fritzsche, Bloom- 
 field, Bland, and others, that the generic word chains refers specifically and 
 antithetically merely to manacles or handcuff's. 
 
 And the chains had been pulled asunder by Mm. By no means an unexampled 
 degree of strength on the part of the maniacally violent, but yet incontestable 
 evidence of a high type of frenzy or full-fed ' furor.' 
 
 And the fetters broken in pieces. Or crushed together {(rvvTerpiip'^ai.), namely 
 by the trampling of the feet, till at length they gave way. Wycliffe's version is 
 picturesque, and hadde broketi the stockis to smale gobetis, that is, and had 
 broken the stocks to small pieces. 
 
 Aud no one was able to master him. No one could awe him into subjection. 
 It is often the case that very violent maniacs are quite calm and submissive 
 under the authoritative eye and bearing of instinctively commanding natures. 
 But the Gerasene demoniac had not met any one who had power to soothe or to 
 subdue him. 
 
 Yeb. 5. And constantly, night and day, in the tombs and in the mountains. 
 Such is the order of the words tombs and mountains in the best manuscripts. 
 At one time he would be sitting moodily in an empty tomb ; at another he 
 would be roaming about excitedly over the mountains, ' in' the gorges and wild 
 nooks, and wherever any sequestered haunts could be reached in the thickets or 
 by the most precipitous crags. 
 
 He was crying — no doubt with unearthly yells, — and cutting himself with stones. 
 Instead of cutting Wychffe and Coverdale have beating. Luther's word corre- 
 sponds (schlag) ; so Tyndale {and bet him silfe with stones) ; the Geneva version 
 is equivalent, and strooke himself with stones. But the translation of our English 
 version is correct. The demoniac would use sharp-edged stones to cut and gash 
 his person. There is sometimes a strong propensity in maniacs to wound and' 
 even to maim themselves. Y. Swieten says that he himself "saw a maniac who 
 " lacerated all the integuments of his body, and who during the inclemency of 
 " a severe winter lay naked on straw for weeks, in a place rough with stones." 
 (Comment., iii., p. 521.) When poor human nature is raving, the judgment is 
 inverted and the sensibility is benumbed. " Mania,'' says Feuchtersleben, 
 " always proceeds from deceptive ideas aud sensations." (Medical Psychology 
 
118 ST. MARK V. [6 
 
 6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, 
 
 7 and cried with a loud voice, and said. What have I to do with 
 thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God ? I adjure thee by 
 
 p. 289.) " In insanity," says Dr. Mason Good, " the corporeal sensibility is 
 " greatly diminished ; but not more so than the moral sensibility." (Study of 
 Medicine, vol. iii., p. 88.) 
 
 Vee. 6. And when he saw Jesus afar off. Or, more literally, from afar. It is 
 not the distance of Jesus from the demoniac that is noted ; it is the distance of 
 the demoniac from Jesus. The Vulgate version (a longe), and Luther's, and 
 Bengel's (von feme), are literal. 
 
 He ran and did obeisance to Him. There might be a combination of influences 
 at work within the poor demoniac's spirit. His own oppressed soul, on the one 
 hand, might be sensitive to the ' virtue ' that was streaming out, we know not 
 how far, from the Divine personality of the Saviour ; the oppressive demonic 
 spirits, on the other, might likewise be conscious of a power far higher than 
 their own, restraining them in part and constraining them in part. 
 
 Ter. 7. And crying with a loud voice, he saith, What have I to do with Thee? 
 Or rather. What hast Thou to do with me 1 The idiomatic phrase is literally. 
 What to me and to thee ? It depends on the nature of the case which of the 
 two poles of interposition should be emphasized, and whether consequently we 
 , should say. What have I to do with Thee i or reversely. What hast Thou to do 
 with me ? See chap. i. 24. 
 
 Jesus, Son of the most high God. The spirits who had possession of the poor 
 man's body wielded his organism of speech as if it were their own. It is a 
 marvel ; but nevertheless it is at bottom no greater a mystery than the vrielding 
 of the same organism by the human spirit itself. The demonic spirits seem 
 everywhere to have known the Saviour. They would no doubt have means of 
 telegraphy, as well as media of perception, far more delicate than our coarse 
 corporeal organisms. When they called out confessionally, Jesus, Son of the most 
 high God ! they might be conscious that there was a power above them, laying 
 its hand upon them, and thus extorting from them involuntarily a confession of 
 the truth. In other circumstances, and more especially when promiscuous 
 crowds were around, they might malignantly hope that the confession might 
 be construed as a proof of collusion. 
 
 I adjure Thee by God. Strauss carps at this, and thinks it an incredible 
 adjuration on the part of ' one who believed himself to be possessed by a demon 
 hostile to God ' (Leben, ii. 9, § 89), or rather, as he should have said, on the part 
 of a demon itself who knew that it was the enemy of God. But the objection 
 is frivolous. Nothing is more common than swearing by God on the part of 
 the ungodly, the infidel, and even the atheistic. 
 
 That Thou torment me not. That is, that Thou dismiss me not into the 
 endurance of the torments reserved for spiritual rebels. Meyer supposes that 
 this representation brings out a different idea from that which is expressed in 
 Matt. viii. 29, Art Thou come hither to torment us ' before the time ' ! But in 
 both representations the reference is alike to the final sufferings of those who 
 will not be submissive to the moral will of God. " Farther curiosity as to tha 
 
9] ST. MARK V. ]19 
 
 God, tliat thou torment me not. 8 For he said unto him, Come 
 out of the man, thou unclean spirit. 9 And he asked him, What 
 is thy name ? And he answered, saying. My name is Legion: 
 
 " when and where and how does not become " beings "wbose main business and 
 " greatest wisdom is to fly from, not to pry too close into, these terrible secrets 
 "of the dark kingdom." (Bragge's Observations on the Miracles, vol. i., p. 74.) 
 
 Veb. 8. For He said to him. Namely before the adjuration mentioned in the 
 preceding verse. Hence the free translation of Tyndale brings out interpreta- 
 tively the correct idea, For He had said unto him. Strauss {Leben, ii. 9, § 89) 
 and Bruno Bauer {Kritik, v., § 33) insist that the representation is self-incon- 
 sistent. The inconsistency arises, says Bruno Bauer, from ' pure inoonsidera- 
 tion ' ! It is most inconsiderately said ; for there is neither self inconsistency, 
 nor inconsistency -with the accounts of the other synoptic evangehsts. There 
 is only simplicity of representation. The salient points and pinnacles of things 
 are recorded. There is no attempt, and no profession of attempt, at a system- 
 atic and chronological unfolding. Note the expression to ' him.' There is all 
 through the narrative, to a greater or less degree, an interblending of refer- 
 ence to the man and to the spirit or spirits who were in possession of him. 
 No wonder that there should be such verbal interblending in the representation ; 
 there was real confusion in the composite phenomenon. 
 
 Come out, thou unclean spirit, from the man. There were in reality, as we learn 
 from the next verse, many spirits ; but one had spoken representatively. What 
 hast Thou to do with ' me' ? and therefore the Saviour addresses it in the same 
 representative capacity. We need not picture to ourselves a mere chaotic mob 
 of spirits. There was a ' legion ' ; and we may appropriately think therefore of 
 some general of the corps. 
 
 Veb. 9. And He asked him, What is thy name? We have no reason to 
 suppose that the question was proposed for the Saviour's own information. 
 But, seeing as He did into the spirit world. He saw that this was a peculiar case, 
 and hence He took appropriate means to unfold to the view of His disciples and 
 of the other spectators the fulness of the reality. 
 
 And he says to Him. We are taken into the presence of the demoniac, and 
 listen with our ears. 
 
 legion is my name, for we are many. It was the man, not the spirit, who was 
 asked to tell his name. The man seemed to answer ; it was his lips that moved, 
 it was his voice that articulated ; but it was really the representative spirit who 
 spoke. He spoke however as if he were the man. Legion is 'my' name. " He 
 " answered," says Farmer, in the treatise in which he endeavours to prove 
 that there were no real possessions, " like a madman wfto thought himself pos ■ 
 " sessed with a multitude of demons, or that hewas one of the number: . . . He 
 " confounded himself with those spirits under whose influence he supposed him- 
 " self to speak and act." {Essay on the Demoniacs, p. 273.) True, there was con- 
 fusion. The man was insane, and misunderstood his own case ; but his peculiar 
 type of insanity is the very problem to be solved, and there seems to be no solu- 
 tion of it more reasonable than the evangelist's ; he was ' possessed.' Legion : a 
 
120 ST. MARK V. [9 
 
 for we are many. 10 And he besought him much that he 
 
 Eoman word, denoting a corps of foot soldiers to the number of between six 
 and seven thousand, at least in the evangelist's time. Each legion consisted ol 
 ten cohorts ; each cohort of three maniples ; each maniple of two centuries. It 
 is most likely that it was the man himself who imposed on himself, for the 
 moment, the name. But we need not, from the fact that it was a Latin name, 
 infer with Semler (De Demoniacis, p. 82) that the man was probably a Hellenist 
 or a proselyte who could not speak Hebrew. Lightfoot however had the same 
 idea. The word ' legion ' was likely enough to fasten itself upon the popular 
 Jewish mind as a term vividly representing the idea of overwhelming numbers. 
 The poor man no doubt felt overwhelmed, and hence in his hallucination trans- 
 ferred his consciousness, as it would appear, to the overwhelming force. Such 
 a transference of consciousness, or what appears to be such, is quite common 
 in certain cases of insanity. Many of the inmates of our asylums imagine 
 themselves to be kings, or queens, or angels, or Christ, or God, or (descendingly) 
 beasts, birds, or inanimate things. For we are many : At this point in the 
 interview the transference of the poor man's consciousness from the singular to 
 the plural seems to have taken place. Or, to represent the case otherwise, the 
 man's personality got merged at this point out of view, and the host of spirits 
 that had possession of him came into the foreground of observation. Strauss 
 maintains that such possession of an individual man by a multiplicity of spirits 
 is ' unthinkable ' (undenlhar) ; he reasons the matter {Leben, ii. 9, § 89). He 
 says that to possess is by hypothesis " nothing else than to make oneself the 
 "subject of consciousness in an individual." A possessed person therefore is 
 one who has ceased to be the subject of his own consciousness. But, adds he, 
 as consciousness can actually have only one culminating or central point (nur 
 eine Spitze, einen Mittelpunckt haben kann), it is impossible to think that a 
 plurality of demons would at the same time have possession of the man ; the 
 utmost that can be thought is that there may have been a succession in posses- 
 sion. Strauss forgot, in his zeal, that insanity is by hypothesis a state of 
 inconsistency. He confounds, too, the subject and the objects of consciousness. 
 The man in the unity of his own subjective consciousness seemed to himself to 
 be objectively conscious of a plurality of demons usurping his powers and 
 being. There was of course a hallucination of consciousness; but in no 
 instance is possession so complete by hypothesis as to obliterate entirely every- 
 vestige of the original self- consciousness. 
 
 Veb. 10. And he besought Him much. The consciouoness of the man swung 
 pai'tially back to himself. Hence the lie after the we of the preceding clause. 
 Much: the word is plural in the original {woXU), and suggests repeated 
 entreaties. 
 
 That He would not send them. The that of the original (;ii>a) does not so much 
 point out the subject-matter of the entreaty as its final end. The idea is in 
 order that He might not send them. The demons, in pleading through the man, 
 had a particular end in view. Let no one marvel at the fact of their pleading 
 or the fadt of their aim. They had desires ; they could not but have them; 
 and, having them, what wonder that they should express them ? 
 
11] ST. MARK V. 121 
 
 would not send them, away out of the countiy. 11 Now 
 there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine 
 
 Out of the country. They had become localized in their associations. And 
 ■why not ? All human spirits are. All spirits, but the infinite, must be to a 
 greater or less degree. . The local reference however is not, as Hilgenfeld sup- 
 poses (Evangel., p. 131), a reference to heathendom as the appropriate sphere 
 of demoniacal possessions {der eigentUche Wirkungskreis der Ddmonen). There 
 is no evidence that Gerasa was regarded as strictly belonging to heathendom 
 or Gentiledom. And still less is there evidence that demoniacal possession was 
 regarded as a strictly heathenish or Gentile experience. Neither is the repre- 
 sentation in Luke, and they besought Him that He would not command them to 
 depart into 'the abyss' (viii. 31), at variance, as Bruno Bauer alleges (Kritik, v., 
 § 33), with the representation in Mark. Expatriation would have been to the 
 Gerasene demons tantamount to banishment into the abyss of woe (see ver. 7). 
 In petitioning therefore not to be sent out of the country they would really mean 
 not to be sent into the abyss. It is assumed in the twofold representation that - 
 there would, for them, be no intermediate sphere available. Another country on 
 earth was not to be thought of, and was not thought of, as an alternative 
 localization. 
 
 Vee. 11. Now there was there. Now or but {Si). The attention is suddenly 
 turned for the moment in a new direction. 
 
 On the movmtaiu side. A little to the south of the Wady Semakh there is a 
 considerable uneven plateau of fine fertile soil stretching westward from the 
 roots of the mountain slopes. " A verdant sward is here," says Mr. Macgregor, 
 " with many bulbous roots which swine might feed upon. And on this I 
 " observed — what is an unusual sight — a very large herd of oxen, horses, camels, 
 "sheep, asses and goats all feeding together. It was evident that the pasturage 
 " was various, and enough for all, a hkely place for a herd of swine feeding on 
 " the mountain." (The Rob Roy on the Jordan, p. 423.) 
 
 A great herd of swine feeding. Not a right kind of herd for a Jew, or for Jews, 
 to possess. The animal was 'unclean ' to the Jews (Lev. xi. 7, Deut. xiv. 8) as it 
 was also to the Egyptians. (Herod., ii. 47.) It was prohibited as one of a class 
 of animals; but possibly the limits of the class were determined, to some 
 extent, by reasons that had special reference to it as an individual species. 
 (See Isa. Ixv. 4.) There can be no doubt that there was something exceedingly 
 disgusting and morally contaminating, connected with the use that was made of 
 the animal in Egypt. (See Herodotus, ii. 37.) Similar customs, less modified 
 and moderated by restrictions, may have been common in adjacent countries. 
 (See Pausanias, vii. 15 : 7.) And hence it might be wise, in the peculiar ethical 
 circumstances of the Jews, that the use of the animal should be prohibited 
 altogether for the whole course of a Dispensation. If in addition to this it 
 should be the case, as many have contended, that the flesh of the animal must 
 have been dietetically injurious among a people in whom there was a sort of 
 national tendency to leprosy and corresponding erosive affections, as well &d 
 other eruptive and contagious cutaneous diseases, then there v/ould be reason 
 upon reason for the prohibition. If the Canaanites moreover were eaters of 
 
122 ST. MARK V. [11 
 
 feeding. 12 And all the devils besought him, saying, Send 
 us into the swine, that we may enter into them. 13 And 
 forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits 
 went out, and entered into the swine : and the herd ran 
 violently down a steep place into the sea., (they were about 
 
 swine's flesh and fond of it, that may have been another good reason for the 
 prohibition, for as Miohaelis remarks, "the most intimate friendships are 
 " formed at table. Men," he adds, " whatever business relations they may have 
 " with one another, seldom become familiar if they do not become each other's 
 " guests." (Wosaisches Recht, § 203.) The Gerasenes must have got Gentilized 
 in their ideas and customs, and languid in their attachment to the institutions 
 of Judaism. 
 
 Ver. 12. And they besought Him saying, Send ns into the swine— or rather 
 Send m 'to' the swine, — that we may enter into them. How could there, it is 
 asked, be such a desire on the part of the demons ? Why should there not ? 
 we would answer. We do not feel called upon to enter into the rationale of 
 demonic desires, and to find them in harmony with our notions of what is 
 reasonable or proper. The wish might, on their part, be a mere outburst of 
 wantonness. Or there might be eagerness for anything on which to wreak 
 their evil energy ; they might be wishing, as Eichard Baxter has it, ' to play 
 a small game rather than none.' Or there might be cunning malice in their 
 intent, malice toward Christ and toward all the other parties concerned. 
 " They aimed," as Petter thinks, " at this, that they might move the owners of 
 " the herd, and the rest of the people of the country, to be discontented at our 
 " Saviour." It may be so, or it may not. 
 
 Vbe. 13. And He gave them leave. ' It was an injury done to the proprietors,' 
 says the scoffing Woolston, ' and unbecoming of the goodness of the holy 
 Jesus.' [Discourses on the Miracles, i. 38.) But it was not, if the proprietors 
 had no right to have such property, and if they were moreover the subjects or 
 the stewards of Him who was the true King of the Jews. 
 
 And the unclean spirits came out, and entered into the swine. ' When it is 
 averred,' says Strauss, ' that the demons actually entered the swine, do not 
 the evangelists narrate a manifest impossibility ? ' {Leben, ii. 9, § 89.) No. 
 The demonic power that was adequate to take possession of the intricate organ- 
 ism of man's nature would be more than adequate to take possession of the 
 simpler organism of beasts ; if the castle of the human spirit could be surrep- 
 titiously entered and occupied, there could be little difficulty with the fortalices 
 of irrational natures. 
 
 And the herd rushed. As the word is admirably rendered in Acts xix. 29. 
 The movement was ' with a greet birre,' as Purvey has it. 
 
 Down the steep into the sea. The particular steep in which the plateau re- 
 ferred to terminated, close on the waters of the lake. " There are several 
 " steeps near the sea here," says Mr. Maegregor, " but only one so close to the 
 "water as to make it sure that if a herd ran violently down, they would go into 
 " the sea." There "the gravel beach is inclined so steep that when my boat was 
 " at the shore I could not see over the top even by standing up ; while the water 
 
15] ST, MARK V. 123 
 
 two thousand,) and were choked in the sea. 14 And they that 
 fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. 
 And they went out to see what it was that was done. 15 
 And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed 
 
 " alongside is so deep that it ooTered my paddle (seven feet long) when dipped 
 " in vertically a few feet from the shore." {The Bob Boy on the Jordan, pp. 
 423-4.) 
 
 To atont the nrnnher of two thousand. Such is the import of the simple un- 
 parenthctical expression exhibited in the texts of Tisohendorf, Tregelles, Alford 
 (lis Sio-^^Xioi). It is supported too by the Vulgate version. 
 
 And were choked in the sea. A vivid mirroring, in a particular outward sphere, 
 of the lamentable wrecking of things that would speedily be realized, if the 
 demonic powers that are in the world had full and unfettered scope. 
 
 Vek. 14. And they who were feeding them fled and reported in the city and in 
 the country. Our word reported corresponds as nearly as may be to the radical 
 import of the evangelist's term (d7r^77eiXa», not dii'/iyyuXai'). We can use too 
 the word reported ' absolutely,' just as the evangelist has used his term. The 
 double-folding expression in the city and in the country is a free but admirable 
 translation. It is literally into the city and into the fields, and would be con- 
 nected, in the evangelist's mind, not with the verb reported, as Lightfoot 
 imagined, but with the preceding verb fled. The scene pictures itself readily 
 and vividly upon the canvas of the imagination. There were several individuals 
 tending the herd. -The moment that they recover from the first stun which 
 they would experience when they witnessed the consummated catastrophe of 
 the herd, they flee, under the influence of intense excitement, first into the city, 
 and then into the surrounding fields, where numbers of the inhabitants would 
 be at work. They shout aloud, wherever they meet with individuals, that the 
 whole herd has rushed into the sea and is drowned, and that the wild man of the 
 tombs is in his senses ! 
 
 And they came to see what it is that has happened. They, the people of the 
 'oity and the workers in the fields. They were fiUed with blank amazement at 
 the report which was shouted into their ears, and could not at first comprehend 
 the state of the case., They must come and ' see ' with their own eyes. 
 
 Veb. 16. And they come to Jesus. Note the present come, as distinguished 
 from the historic came of the preceding verse. The evangelist begins to depict 
 the scene as if he and we were present in the midst of it and looking on. 
 
 And behold the demoniac sitting clothed and in sound mind. Note the word 
 behold (S-eu/JoCcnc) ; it is more than see. They gaze upon the man. There is 
 a fine harmony between the statement that the demoniac was now clothed and 
 the statement in Luke that formerly he ' had worn no clothes ' (viii. 27). The 
 two statements mutually confirm each other's historic verity. The coincidence 
 is so striking that Bwald {Evan., p. 241) had to imagine that the expression 
 ' he wore no clothes ' must have originally stood in the third verse of Mark's 
 narrative ! And Holtzmann {Synop. Ev., p. 222) supposes that Luke took the 
 hint, from the Proto-Markus's remark, to insert the statement ' antioipatively.' 
 Fancies I 
 
124 ST. MARK V. [15 
 
 with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, _ and clothed, 
 and iA his right mind: and they were afraid. 16 And 
 they that saw it told them how it befell to him that was 
 possessed with the devil, and also concerning the swine. 17 
 And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts. 
 18 And when he was come into the ship, he that had been 
 possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him. 
 
 Him who had the legion. Such is the proper position of this clause. The 
 contrast of the man's former condition sets ofi to advantage the marvel of his 
 present state. Yes, the very individual who was now ' sitting clothed and sound 
 in mind ' was ' he who had the legion ' / 
 
 And they were afraid. They felt in the presence of a power which inspired 
 them with awe and alarm. It might, for aught that they could comprehend, be 
 something weird and ' uncanny.' 
 
 Vek. 16. And they who saw narrated to them how it happened to the demoniac. 
 How the things which had taken place did take place, in reference to the 
 demoniac ; or, as the Eheims version has it, in what manner he had heen dealt 
 withal that had the divel. 
 
 And concerning the swine. The spectators, (who would no doubt be prin- 
 cipally, if not exclusively, the same persons who had carried the news excitedly 
 into the city and into the fields, and who would return to the scene of the 
 miracle with the body of the people,) recounted and explained in detail all that 
 had happened ' concerning the swine.' The two clauses which specify the things 
 recounted are iuartifioiaUy connected. 
 
 Veb. 17. And they began to entreat Him to depart from their borders. Namely, 
 after they got to understand somewhat clearly how the events had come to pass. 
 They were afraid that they might suffer other losses. They were afraid, at all 
 events, of the consequences of having such a wonderful Being as Jesus in the 
 midst of them. "With unparalleled — what shall I call it? 'tis a crime that 
 " wants a name, and such as one would think people that were not themselves 
 " possessed could never be capable of committing, — they were urgent with Him 
 " to be gone and leave them. . . . And yet, it we consider it, is not the case 
 " just thus with too many amongst ourselves? . . . Are we not afraid of 
 " anything that would oblige us to a reformation ? shy of a faithful friend who 
 "would advise us better? and that because our swine would be in danger!" 
 (Bragge's Observations on the Miracles, vol. i., pp. 79-82.) 
 
 Vek. 18. And as He was entering into the boat the delivered demoniac en- 
 treated Him that he might be with Him. The clause, that he might he with Him, 
 brings out rather the aim than the subject matter of the entreaty itva). It is 
 probable that the man's heart was swelling with gratitude and love ; he would 
 feel ashamed too of the conduct of his countrymen. Euthymius Zigabenus and 
 Theophylact suppose that, in addition, he would probably be afraid that, if his 
 Deliverer should be at a distance from him, he would again be subject to assault 
 from his old spiritual enemies, Maldonato and Dr. Samuel Clarke bring out 
 the same idea. 
 
20] ST. MARK V. 125 
 
 19 Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto bim. Go 
 home to thy friends, and tell them how great things thp Lord 
 hath done for thee and hath had compassion on there. 20 
 And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how 
 
 Vee. 19. And He suffered Mm not. Such is the simple form of the expression 
 as it is given, correctly, in the texts of Griesbaeh, Tisohendorf , Tregelles, Alford. 
 Hilgenfeld (E^;an., p. 148) supposes that the refusal to allow the delivered 
 man to go along with our Lord bewrays, on the part of Mark, an anti-Gentile 
 tendency. The whole Gospel is thus assumed to be a myth that was contrived 
 in the interests of a small theological dogma and narrow ecclesiastical move- 
 ment ! 
 
 But says to him, Go home to thy own folk. Literally, to those who are thine, or 
 as Wycliffe has it, to thine. Very literally it is, to the thine, which however, 
 though idiomatic Greek, is not idiomatic English. 
 
 And tell them. Literally, report to them (^.Trdyyeikov airois, the reading of 
 X B C A, and of Laohmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles), or announce to them 
 {aviyyeiXoi/ avTois, the reading of the.Textus Eeoeptus and the Alexandrine 
 manuscript (A), and the great body of the secondary uncial manuscripts). 
 
 How great things the Lord hath done for thee. Or rather, to thee. What the 
 Lord had done terminated ore and in the person of the delivered man, and thus 
 reached to him. It is only however from the history of the case, and from the 
 peculiarity of the expression in the next clause, that we know that the things 
 done ore, in, and to him were for him and not against him. The Saviour, in 
 saying the Lord, does not point to his own particular personality ; He simply 
 leads the man's mind upward, in a general way, to the Divine Source of the great 
 things which had been done to him. 
 
 And compassionated thee. Or, and had mercy on thee. Here it is distinctly 
 stated that the great things done were for the man. The expression, however, 
 is very artlessly attached to the preceding clause. The mind of the reader is 
 left to disintegrate, from the compositely qualitative expression how great things 
 or what great things (6Vo), the simplest qualitative element of ' conjunctive ' 
 thought — how (quasi (is, see Luke viii. 47, xxiv. ZH), or how that, or that {Sn), 
 and to carry it forward to be combined with the attached verb. Hence Tyndale's 
 translation, and ' how ' He had compassion on thee. 
 
 The Saviour, instead of imposing silence on this delivered demoniac, as He 
 did on so many others, encourages and enjoins him to make proclamation of his 
 miraculous deliverance. No doubt He saw, on the one hand, that the man was 
 fit for the evangehstio work committed to him, and that he needed it besides ; 
 while He knew, on the other, that there would not be reason for apprehending, as 
 the result of his labours, any formidable addition to the inconvenient crowding 
 to which He Himself was subjected. 
 
 Vek. 20. And he departed. He acted in the promptest manner on his 
 Deliverer's injunction. 
 
 And began to publish. To proclaim like a herald, to preach as Wycliffe has it. 
 
 In Decapolis. Literally, in the Decapolis, that is, in the district of the Ten 
 Cities. It was a district that would seem to have varied in its boundaries from 
 
126 ST. MARK V. [20 
 
 great things Jesus had done for him : and all men did marvel. 
 
 21 And when Jesas was passed over again by ship anto the 
 
 other side, much people gathered unto him : and he was nigh 
 
 unto the sea. 22 And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers 
 
 time to time ; and hence there is not perfect unanimity in the ancient writers 
 in reference to all the cities which originally gave it its name. It lay for the 
 most part east of the Jordan, and east and south-east of the sea of Tiberias. 
 Bethsheaa however, or Scythopolis, on the west side of the river, was according 
 to Josephus ' the largest city of Decapolis' {War, Hi. 9 : 7). Among its other 
 cities were Pella, Gadara, Gerasa, Hippos (see Eelandi Palcestina, pp. 203-4). 
 Pliny says (v., 18) that Damascus too belonged to the ' Decapolitan region ' ; 
 but this could not be the case in the time of Josephus, since he says that 
 Scythopolis, which was of course far inferior in size to Damascus, was the 
 largest city of the district. T-he word Decapolis occurs three times in the New 
 Testament (see Matt. iv. 25, Mark vii. 31), and, as Eeland says, twice in the 
 writings of Josephus. 
 
 How great things. Or, what great things, or simply, as Alford gives it, what 
 things. It is the same word that occurs in the 19th verse. In both passages 
 it is rendered by Purvey, and in the Eheims, how great things. Tyndale again, 
 in his 1534 edition, renders it what great things, while in his preceding edition 
 of 1526 he renders it, as Alford has done, what things. 
 
 Jesus did to him. The delivered man identified in his mind what God the 
 Lord had done with what Jesus did. Christ, says Euthymius Zigabenus, had 
 modestly ascribed the work to the Father ; but the healed man gratefully ascribes 
 it to Christ. He would not however be thinking of any fine theological dis- 
 tinctions. 
 
 And all marvelled. They could not help marvelling, though in too many 
 cases the appropriate moral result would probably be hindered by ' the idols of 
 the cave,' and ' the idols of the theatre,' and ' the idols of the market place.' 
 
 Yeb. 21. And when Jesus had crossed over again in the boat to the other side. 
 The western side of the lake of Gennesaret, and no doubt to that part of it 
 where Capernaum was situated. See Matt. ix. 1. 
 
 A great crowd was gathered about Him. Or literally, upon Him. The ex- 
 pression iTT avrbv graphically indicates that the people came pressing close upon 
 His person. 
 
 And He was by the sea : while the events about to be recorded began to 
 transpire. 
 
 Ver. 22. And behold. This behold has not unlikely been carried into the 
 text from the margin. It is found in Matt. ix. 18, and Luke viii. 41 ; but it 
 is wanting here in the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Cambridge manuscripts (K B D) 
 and L A, as also in the Vulgate, Syriac Peshito, Coptic, .Slthiopio, and Arabic 
 versions. It is omitted by Tischendorf and Alford. 
 
 There cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue. For, in general at least, 
 there was a plurality of rulers or elders in every synagogue (see Acts xiii. 16, 
 and comp. Vitringa Be Synagoga, p. 582ff.). It was their duty to conduct or 
 Buperintend the services of the congregation. The word that is here employed 
 
25] ST. MARK V. 127 
 
 of the synagogue, Jairus by name ; and when he saw him, he 
 fell at his feet, 23 and besought him greatly, saying, My 
 little daughter lieth at the point of death : I pray thee, come 
 and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed ; and she 
 shall live. 24 And Jesus went with him ; and much people 
 followed him, and thronged him. 25 And a certain woman, 
 
 by the evangelist, and correctly rendered in King James's version rulers of the 
 synagogue, is iu the singular incorrectly rendered ' chief ' ruler of the synagogue 
 in Acts xviii. 8, 17. 
 
 By name Jairus. Or Ja-irus, or very literally Ya-eiros, the Greoised form of 
 the Jewish name Jair or Ya-ir. It is a significant Hebrew name, meaning He 
 will illuminate. Josephus Grecises it into Ya-eires (Antiq., v. 7 : 6). 
 
 And when he saw Him, — after penetrating perhaps through the surrounding 
 crowd, — he falleth at His feet. Falleth : we are taken back in imagination, and 
 see him in the act of prostration. At His feet : literally, toward His feet 
 (vpds Tois TriSas airoS). With beautiful oriental facility he would drop upon his 
 knees 'before the Saviour, and bring his forehead to the ground, in the direction 
 of the Saviour's feet. 
 
 Yeb. 23. And beseeches Him much (■n-apaKoKei instead of n-apeicdXei). His 
 heart was fuU, and he urged his plea. 
 
 Saying, My little daughter is at the point of death. She was, Luke tells us, 
 about twelve years of age (viii. 42). He tells us too that she was an only child. 
 Perhaps she was lovely and engaging ; at all events the father's heart was 
 bound up in her. She was now, from some illness or other, ' in extremity ' 
 (i<r)caTij)s ?x"i £111 idiom of the later Greek. See Lobeck's Phrynichus, p. 389). 
 
 (I make my request) in order that Thou mightest come and lay Thy hands upon her. 
 The father's address, as he spoke with choking voice, is abrupt and fragmentary, 
 or else only fragments of it are recorded. When he prostrated himself and 
 spoke of the condition of his little daughter, it was in order that the Saviour 
 might come and lay His hands upon her. He seems to have known that it was 
 the Saviour's practice to lay His hands on such as He cured ; it established and 
 ejshibited a human connection between His Divine power and the patient. 
 
 That she might be saved and live. Such is the literal translation. That she 
 might be saved, viz. from her malady. And live ((cai iiiaxi)- Such is the reading 
 of N B D L A, and Lachmann, Tisohendorf, TregeUes, Alford. 
 
 Vee. 24. And He went off with him. Namely, in the direction of the ruler's 
 house. He had no misgivings about His own power, and He was satisfied with 
 the ruler's faith. 
 
 And a great crowd was following Him, and thronging Him. They were pressing 
 together upon His person (itw^'^Xl^ov airbv). Thronged is Tyndale's fine word; 
 and it was accepted by Coverdale, the Geneva, and the Bheims. Wyclifie had 
 oppresside, Purvey thruste. 
 
 Ver. 25. And a woman. Eusebius (Hist., vii. 18) records a tradition that she 
 was a Gentile, a resident of Csesarea Philippi or Paneas. It was likewise 
 reported that she caused to be erected in front of her residence a bronze (or 
 
128 ST. MARK V, [25 
 
 whicli had an issue of blood twelve years, 26 and had 
 suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all 
 that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, 
 27 when she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, 
 
 copper) monument in commemoration of her cure. It consisted of two statues : 
 one representing herself in the attitude of supplication, another representing 
 her Deliverer, our Lord. Eusebius adds that he himself had seen the monu- 
 ment, though we should rather suppose that popular tradition had only capri- 
 ciously associated an old work of art with the miracle of the passage before us. 
 
 Who had been afflicted with an issue of blood for twelve years. Such is Edgar 
 Taylor's translation. In speaking of the case the technical term haemorrhage 
 may be fitly employed. 
 
 Veb. 26. And had suffered much of many physicians. Or, as Wyoliffe gives 
 it, of ful many lechis. The preposition rendered of (lnr6) properly means from, 
 under. She had been under many physicians, and had suffered much,. not only 
 from her malady, but also from their methods of cure. They had attempted 
 strong or severe remedies. Lightfoot gives a graphic account of some of the 
 prescriptions that were used by the rabbinical doctors (Heb. and Talmud. Exer., 
 in loc). They were certainly severe enough. Webster and Wilkinson suppose 
 that the evangelist's expression only means that the woman had been ' subject 
 to much treatment.' But the verb translated suffered has, in New Testament 
 Greek, invariable reference to a passive experience of pain. See Matt. xvi. 21, 
 xvii. 12 ; Luke xxii. 15 ; Acts i. 3, xvii. 3 ; Heb. xiii. 12 ; 1 Pet. iv. 15, v. 10 ; etc. 
 Gal. iii. 4 is no exception. 
 
 And had expended aU her resources (ri Tra/j' eavr^s Trivra.). She had spared no 
 expense, within the reach of her circumstances, to get the best medical advice 
 and treatment. 
 
 And was nothing benefited, but had rather grown worse. Or, as Tyndale gives 
 the last clause, hut wexed worsse and worsse ; or, as Fetter has it, ' was the 
 worser.' It was in short a very bad case, inaccessible to all ordinary methods 
 of cure. 
 
 Vee. 27. Having heard oonceming Jesng. What a wonderful Being, and in 
 particular what a wonderful Healer, He was. She had, it would appear, made 
 herself acquainted with His character and conduct. In some very important 
 manuscripts (K B A, 38) the expression runs thus. Having heard ' the things ' 
 concerning Jesus (rd). She made herself acquainted with the facts of His career, 
 and had thence come to believe that He was full of a Divine and gracious 
 energy. He was ; and it only needed that men should willingly receive it, in its 
 fulness, in order to have realized within them the rectification of .all their dis- 
 orders, physical as well as moral. 
 
 Came in the crowd behind, and touched His garment. His outer garment, the 
 garment that was worn above the tunic. It is rendered cloke in Matt. v. 40, 
 Luke vi. 29 ; and in the passage before us Principal Campbell renders it mantle. 
 It was the peculiarity of this woman's touch that it was intentional or volun- 
 tary. It was the touch of faith, a touch consequently that indicated and con- 
 
30] ST. MARK V. 129 
 
 and touclied his garment. 28 For she said, If I may touch 
 but his clothes, I shall be whole. 29 And straightway the 
 fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her 
 body that she was healed of that plague. 30 And Jesus, 
 
 summated the unreserved opening up of ter entire being to the influx of the 
 Saviour's influence. 
 
 Ver. 28. For she said. Viz., to herself within herself. See Matt. ix. 21. 
 
 If I should touch though it were hut His garments. Such is the real idea 
 embodied in the original expression (kSk tQv l/iaHav airoO). It has been partially 
 missed by many translators. It was seized however by the Eheims translators, 
 who were followed by the editors of King James's version ; and hence they put 
 their but after touch, not before it as Tyndale had done, yf I maye butt tewche 
 His clothinge. The but, thus correctly collocated, as it was also by Luther, is 
 transposed back to the wrong place by Mace, Principal Campbell, Eodolphus 
 Dickinson, Sharpe, Brameld. The same mistake is committed by Edgar Taylor 
 and Godwin, although they employ the word only instead of but ; if I can only 
 touch His garments. The woman's attention was fixed, not on her act of touching 
 as contra-distinguished from some other mode of contact, but on the garments of 
 our Lord as contra-distinguished from His person. It is an interesting fact that 
 in the reading that is found in K B C L A, and admitted into the editions of 
 Tischendorf and Alford, the verb touch ccimes before the expression which we 
 have rendered though it were but His garments : in the Eeceived Text it comes 
 after. Garments ; the plural is used indefinitely, any part of His garments. It 
 would matter nothing at all, so far as efficacy was concerned, what portion 
 should be touched. 
 
 I shall he whole. Eather, I shall be made whole. Comp. Matt. ix. 22. The 
 idea is, I shall be delivered from my malady. Literally, I shall be saved. 
 
 YpB. 29. And immediately the fountain of her blood was dried up. The cure 
 was supernaturaUy instantaneous. 
 
 And she felt in her body. Or rather, and she knew in her body, that is, she 
 knew by her bodily sensations. Her body, that is, the state of her bodily sensa- 
 tions, was the means of her knowledge. Hence Euthymius Zigahenus explains 
 the evangelist's dative (rip aiiiiwri) by the prepositional expression through the 
 
 body (Si4 ToO fflilULTOS). 
 
 That she had been healed of ' the ' plague. We do not require a stronger 
 demonstrative than our definite article, which very precisely corresponds to the 
 article employed in the original. Erasmus introduced into the third edition of 
 his Latin version the demonstrative that ('ab eo flagello '). Beza approved of 
 this translation and adopted it ; and hence the Geneva translation and King 
 James's coincident version, of that 'plague. There was some excuse for Erasmus 
 and Beza in their Latin versions, as there is no article in the Latin language. 
 But there is no reason why in English we should deviate from an exact repro- 
 duction of the original ; and yet Principal Campbell, following Mace, as so 
 frequently on other occasions, has that, as have also Wynne, Wakefield, Edgar 
 Taylor, Thomson, Sharpe, Anderson. Luther's version, though free, is much 
 better, ' of her plague,' The word plague is to be understood in its archaic and 
 
 K 
 
130 ST. MARK V. [30 
 
 immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of 
 him, turned him about in the press, and said. Who touched 
 my clothes ? 31 And his disciples said unto him. Thou 
 seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who 
 touched me ? 32 And he looked round about to see her that 
 
 original meaning, scourge ; see ehap. iii. 10. The Eheims gives a more generic 
 but very admirable rendering, malady. 'Of the plague: literally, 'off' the 
 plague, or 'from ' the plague. The verb healed is, as Fritzsche remarks, used 
 pregnantly, so that the full idea is, that she had been healed and thus delivered 
 from the plague. 
 
 Vee. 30. And immediately, Jesus knowing. The participle knowing is not 
 present but prasterite in the original {iwiymAsj. We might hence render the 
 phrase freely, and immediately, as Jesus knew. The compound verb employed 
 by the evangelist has a stronger import than the simple verb ,uBed in theipre- 
 ceding verse, and there translated felt in our Authorized audEevised versions. 
 Our Lord knew well ; He was fully aware. 
 
 In Himself. That is, in His own self consciousness. He did not need to reason 
 inf erentiaUy on the matter. Neither did He need the testimony of His outer 
 senses. Still less was it the case that " being secretly apprised of the woman's 
 " faith, and touch of Him, He took the hint," as Woolston wantonly suggests 
 (Discourse on Miracles, ii., p. 16). 
 
 The power — or virtue — that had gone forth from Him. The object of the Saviour's 
 knowledge, in the sphere of His self consciousness, was thus complex. It was, 
 in the first place. His virtue or power, and in the second place the fact that 
 this virtue or power had been in the act of transit from Himself. All the old 
 translators, with the exception of Coverdale, use the word'uiriue, following in 
 the wake of the Vulgate version (virtutem). They mean by it, however, just 
 power, Coverdale's word. Wyoliffe often uses the term in this acceptation. He 
 speaks of Christ being ' the Son of God in vertu' (i.e. in power : Eom. i. 4). He 
 speaks of the gospel being ' the vertu of God in to helthe,' that is, ' the power 
 of God unto salvation' (Eom. i. 16). He translates 1 Cor. xv. 56 thus : ' For- 
 soth the prick of deeth is synne ; forsoth the vertu of synne is lawe.' Instead 
 of the expression ' most of His mighty works ' in Matt. xi. 20, he has ' ful 
 manye vertues.' 
 
 Turned about in the crowd, and said, Who touched My garments? This He said 
 only after He had turned about, and thus to those who had been behind Him, 
 for He knew well in what direction His healing power had gone forth. Meyer 
 thinks however that He did not know upon whom the power had taken effect. 
 It is an entirely arbitrary idea, as well as exegetically unlikely, when the 32nd 
 verse is taken into account. 
 
 Veb. 31. And His disciples said to Him, Thou seest the crowd thronging Thee ! 
 and sayest Thou, Who touched Me ? The word rendered thronging is the term 
 that is employed in ver. 24. It admirably denotes the united pressure, on aperson, 
 of a crowd in contact. 
 
 Vek. 82. And He looked round about to see her who did this thing. We are to 
 Appose that, after she had touched His garment, she had shrunk back into the 
 
34] ST. MARK V. 131 
 
 had done this tlimg, 33 But the woman fearing and tremb- 
 ling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down be- 
 fore him, and told him all the truth. 34 And he said unto 
 ker. Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole ; go in peace, 
 
 crowd. Perhaps she had never got perfectly close to His person. Most likely 
 she would be able to accomplish her object only by stretching out her hand, as 
 it were stealthily, between others. Hence our Saviour naturally looked round 
 about upon the crowd to see her. He was in no haste to dart a direct glance 
 upon her. The verb is in the imperfect tense, He continued looking round. But 
 of course His eye soon reached her ; and no doubt it would rest benignantly 
 upon her. So strange however is the power of prepossession to blind its victims, 
 Strauss cannot see that Mark meant that our Lord knew the individual who had 
 believingly touched Him. He argues keenly on the subject in both his works 
 (LebenJesu, ii., § 93 ; Leben Jesufur das deutsche Volk, ii., 2, § 75). He holds 
 the whole story to be a myth, and contends that it was in accordance with the 
 natural growth of the myth out of its original form as it occurs in Matthew, 
 that Mark should represent our Lord's person as so wonderfully charged with 
 a divinely curative power, that mere beheving contact with it should suffice for 
 a cure, euen while the Lord remained ' ignorant,' as HUgenfeld too assumes, of 
 the individual who was drawing upon His resources ! 
 
 Veb. 33. But the woman, fearing and trembling. Or, still more literally and 
 graphically, afraid and trembling ((po^TiBeiaa Kal Tpiixowra). She would be feel- 
 ing that she had perhaps acted in too stealthy a way in reference to her won- 
 derful Benefactor. Should she not have approached Him openly ? should she 
 not have formally petitioned for His blessing ? 
 
 Knowing what was done in her — or rather, according to the reading of the 
 Eeceived Text, knowing what had happened to her (airf) — came and fell down 
 before Him, and told Him all the truth. Having had experience of her Bene- 
 factor's power, she added ' confession with her mouth ' to ' faith in her heart ' 
 (Bom. X. 9, 10). In making this confession, she threw herself, with rapid 
 oriental ease and grace, into a beautiful attitude of obeisance ; she feU down 
 be/ore Him. 
 
 Vek. 34. But He said to her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole. 
 Literally, hath saved thee. Comp. ver. 28. Her faith of course had not been 
 the efficient cause of her cure ; Christ's power had been that. And behind His 
 power was His Person, the real Healer. But her faith was that ethical condition 
 of things on her part, that rendered it fitting on His part to put forth His curative 
 efficiency in her experience. It was the opening of the sluices of her being to 
 the ingress of His overflowing energy as the great Rectifier of human disorders. 
 Hence it might be represented as having, in a certain subordinate respect, 
 ' made her whole.' Daughter : A term of affection, but perhaps, as employed 
 by our Saviour, implying that all that was spiritually distinctive in her character 
 had been derived from Himself. 
 
 Go thy way in peace. Literally, though scarcely in harmony with English 
 idiom, go thy way into peace. The Saviour looks at her peace prospectively. 
 He sees that the woman would enjoy much of it in time to come. And hence, 
 
132 ST. MARK V. [31 
 
 and be whole of thy plague. 35 While he yet spake, there 
 came, from the ruler of the synagogue's house, certain which 
 said, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master 
 any further ? 36 As soon as Jesus heard the word that 
 was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, 
 
 instead of giving emphasis to -what of it she was already experiencing, He turns 
 attention to the future that was stretching out before her. Peace is only a 
 partial aspect, but it is certainly an indispensable element, of comfort and bliss. 
 It stood prominently out to view before the Hebrew mind. The other elements 
 were silently subtended. A state of constant battle with trouble or troublera 
 makes a sad defalcation in the amount of happiness realized. 
 
 And be whole of thy plague. Literally, 'from ' thy plague. The expression be 
 whole 'from ' is pregnant ; be whole (and thus delivered) from thy malady. 
 Comp. ver. 29. There is a connection between whole and heal, as well as between 
 heal and hail, and whole and holy. The Greek word [iryf^s) rendered whole means 
 sound or healthy. When the Saviour says Be whole, He, for the moment, ignores 
 as it were the chronological fact that she was already whole, that He might bring 
 logically into view the dependence of her past, present, and prospective health on 
 the autonomy of His wOl. 
 
 Veb. 35. While He is yet speaking, there come from the ruler of the synagogue's 
 hcuse some who say. The phraseology is exceedingly inartificial. It is in the 
 original there come from the ruler of the synagogue, and yet the ruler of the 
 synagogue is the person to whom the message is delivered. 
 
 Thy daughter is dead. The verb is in the aorist tense. Her death is now a 
 past event. 
 
 Why troublest thou the Master any further 1 The Master, that is, the Teacher, 
 the Rabbi. The whole expression is a phrase of politeness. It assumes that 
 the visit of the Great Teacher would most likely be a somewhat irksome addi- 
 tion to His already too numerous and overwhelming engagements. Hence the 
 word rendered troublest is very strong in the original, excoriatest (a-xiWeis). 
 Tyndale and the Geneva render it diseasest, that is, dis-easest. It was Coverdale 
 who gave the admirable translation troublest. Any further ; Yet or still, now 
 that there is no prospect of any benefit being derived from His visit. It did not 
 occur to them that restoration to life could be a possibility. 
 
 Ver. 36. But Jesus immediately, having overheard the word that was spoken, 
 says to the ruler of the synagogue. Such we conceive to be the correct and 
 literal reproduction in English of the authentic text of the evangelist. (1) 
 Note the immediately, Mark's favourite adverb (chap. i. 21). Lachmann and 
 Alford put it within brackets, as of doubtful genuineness. Tregelles and 
 Tischendorf (in his eighth edition) omit it altogether on the authority of 
 NB D L A, and of the Vulgate version (and a majority of Italic manuscripts), as 
 also of the Syriac Peshito, Coptic, Armenian, and .ffithiopio versions, etc. MUl 
 condemned it. Its somewhat awkward position however makes it more likely, 
 in accordance with Bengel's critical canon {scriptioni proclivi prastat ardua), 
 that it would be omitted than that it wpuld be intruded by transcribers. It 
 is found in A C H and other nine uncial manuscripts, and in the Gothic and 
 
37] ST. MARK V. 133 
 
 Be not afraid, only believe. 37 And he suffered no man to fol- 
 low him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James. 
 
 Philoxenian Syriac versions, as also in the ' a ' copy of the Italic version 
 [statim). (2) We might connect the immediately with the participle overheard : 
 But Jesus, having ' immediately ' overheard the word that was spoken, says. It is 
 more prohable however that the evangelist made, in an inartificial manner, a 
 pause after writing immediately, and mentally suspended the continuity of his 
 expression till he reached the word says. He meanwhile interposed the state- 
 ment having overheard the word that was spoken. Hence Schottgeu puts 
 commas after immediately and the expression the word spoken. It is more 
 likely in short that the evangelist desired to draw attention to the fact that 
 Jesus spoke immediately, than to the fact that He overheard immediately. (3) 
 Note the word overheard (icapaKoiaai). It has been introduced into the text by 
 Tischendorf , Tregelles, Alford, on the authority of X*B L A and the Italic ' e ' 
 (neglexit). It is undoubtedly the genuine autographic reading, the simple 
 heard of the Eeceived Text having been borrowed out of Luke's narrative (viii. 
 60). This simple heard was all the more likely to be substituted for overheard, 
 as the term rendered overheard means, in the only other passage in which it 
 occurs in the New Testament, not overheard but disregarded ; see Matt, xviii. 
 17. This meaning of disregarded indeed was here given to the term by the 
 author of the Italic manuscript ' e,' and it is contended for by Meyer. Xlos- 
 termann too gives it, and the English Eevisers. But unnaturally. If the 
 message had been addressed to Jesus Himself, the term might have borne the 
 meaning of disregarded, for then we might think of our Lord as listening aside, 
 or as listening to what was said to Him, carelessly as it were, or inattentively. 
 But the case is quite different when the message was not at all addressed to 
 Him, or meant for His ears. He heard it aside however, that is, overheard it, 
 for doubtless it would not be merely whispered. Such is the interpretation 
 that is given to the term by Ewald, Alford, Lange, Bisping. 
 
 Fear not, only believe. Fear not for the result. Have faith in Me that I shall 
 meet the desire of your heart. If this he the state of your mind, it is all that is 
 needed. ' Only believe,' I ask no more. How sublime the self possession of our 
 Lord ! How complete the self-consciousness that He held in His hand the key 
 of all the resources of infinite power 1 Eelatively to that power, it was of 
 no moment whether the child was dead or alive. Could our Lord, or could any 
 honest and worthy individual, have thus spoken to the agitated father, if his 
 power had been limited? 
 
 Vbe. 37. And He suffered no one to follow in His company {fier ain-oO crvi/aKoXov- 
 e^a-ai) except Feter, and James, and John the brother of James. The specially 
 favoured triumvirate, specially favoured no doubt because of some special 
 ethical susceptibility in relation to the ethical influence of the Saviour. Tho 
 nearer they came to their Lord, and the longer they abode with Him, tho more 
 did they open up to the inflow of His spirit. Meyer thinks that there is a small 
 contradiction between the representations of Mark and Luke. Mark, he says, 
 represents the other followers of our Lord as kept back by Him before Ho hnd 
 entered into the house, while Luke (viii. 51) represents them as kept back after. 
 TUcre is however nothing of tho nature of contradiction. There is merely, on 
 
134 ST. MARK V, [38 
 
 38 And he cometli to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, 
 and seeth the tumult, and them that wept and wailed greatly. 
 
 the part of Mark, an artless proleptic statement of the fact that only the three 
 favoured disciples were allowed to accompany Him (viz. into the chamber of 
 the maiden). And then he resumes, but still in an artless manner, the narra- 
 tive of the events in their order. Some considerable portion of the general 
 crowd might enter into the open court of the house. (See Luke viii. 51.) 
 But only the triumvirate would be allowed to enter the family apartment of the 
 house. 
 
 Yee. 38. And He cometh. Or rather, And they come. Such is the reading 
 of K A B C D F A, 1, 33, and of the Vulgate, Peshito Syriac, and Coptic versions. 
 It is approved of by Mill (Prol., p. cxxix.), and received into the text by Lach- 
 mann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. They, that is, Christ and the company in 
 general. 
 
 To — or rather into— the house of the ruler of the synagogue. That is, they enter 
 through the gateway into the open court of the house. 
 
 And He beholds an uproar (Scwpel 96pvpov) and people weeping and wailing 
 greatly. The scene represented struck upon two of the outer senses, that of 
 hearing and .that of seeing. But the evangelist gives prominence to that par- 
 ticular sense which is our chief medium of observation, seeing. Our Saviour 
 beholds an excited company of /people making ' an uproar,' and, prominent in that 
 company, persons busily engaged in 'weeping aloud,' or 'crying,' and' wailing.' 
 The word rendered tumult in our English version, after the example of the 
 Vulgate, is translated by Wycliffe noyse. It usually denoted the confused noise 
 of an excited public assembly. The noise on the present occasion was chiefly 
 that of wailing, and would be raised by females. " There are," says Dr. W. M. 
 Thomson, " in every city and community, women exceedingly cunning in this 
 " business. They are always sent for, and kept in readiness. When a fresh 
 " company of sympathisers comes in, these women ' make haste ' to take up a 
 " wailing, that the newly come may the more easily unite their tears with the 
 "mourners." {The Land and the Book, -p. 103.) The same artificiality and 
 business-like way of mourning and crying was, and still is, common in Greece. 
 Toumefort says in reference to the island of Candia, " the wife of one of the 
 "principal men in the city, over against whose house we lodged, expired two 
 "days after our arrival. Scarce had she given up the ghost before we heard 
 " extraordinary cries, which made us inquire what was the matter. They told 
 " us that, according to the ancient Greek custom, the public weepers were doing 
 " their duty over the body of the deceased. . These women," he adds, " really 
 " earn their money hard, and Horace (De Arte Poet.) had good reason to say that 
 " they give themselves more plague and uneasiness than those who mourn 
 "naturally," [Voyage into the Levant, vol. i., p. 99.) This mourning to order, 
 and according to an approved pattern, prevails still in many other places, even 
 among those who do not literally 'sell their sorrow.' Dr. Clarke found it in 
 Eussia. In describing a funeral at Nikitskoy he employs a word which admir- 
 ably corresponds to the term employed by the evangelist (dXaXifoiras, using 
 the dXaX^) : " The women kept up a kind of musical ululation, howling their 
 "loud lamentations in strains truly dolorous." ITravela, vol. i., p. 251.) 
 
40] ST. MARK V. 135' 
 
 39 And when lie was come in, he saith unto them. Why make 
 ye this ado, and weep ? The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth. 
 
 40 And they laughed him to scorn. But when he had put 
 them all out, he taketh the father and the mother of the 
 damsel, and them that were with him, and entereth in where 
 
 Vek. 39. And when Ho wa3 come in, He says to them, Why mate ye this 
 uproar! The child is not dead, hut sleepeth. Our Saviour occupied a peculiar, 
 and peculiarly elevated, standpoint when He said The child is not dead. He had 
 not yet seen the child with His human eyes, and He could not therefore speak 
 from human observation. He knew that the mourners were aware that this was 
 the case. Neither did He mean to depreciate the gracious miracle which He 
 was about to work, by alleging that the case was by no means so desperate as 
 they imagined. He was looking at the case from a lofty point of view. His 
 idea is this : The child's terrestrial course is not terminated. She has subsided 
 indeed into unconsciousness toward things outward and terrene ; hut, in virtue of 
 My will, it is only for a little. The child is therefore, so to speak, but asleep. 
 
 Vee. 40. And they laughed Him to scorn. They derided Tlim (the Eheims). 
 They did not understand what He meant when He said The child is not dead. 
 They thought that He was meaning to deny the actual fact of her manifest 
 decease. They would not, and did not, take- time to ascend to that higher 
 standpoint of observation, to which they had been invited by the lofty beariug 
 of the Saviour. They hurriedly pre-judged and mis-judged His representa- 
 tion. 
 
 But He, when He had thrust them all out. Most probably by His mere word of 
 command. There would be an authority displayed which would make them 
 cower and crowd out ; for no doubt, when our Saviour chose, there would be a 
 majesty of manner in His bearing which would be ineffable and irresistible. 
 Comp. John xviii. 5, 6. But why did He tftrusf tftem out ? He was not needing, 
 on the one hand, to choose a very public theatre of representation. He was 
 already inconvenienced by excess of publicity (see chap. iii. 20, iv. 1, 35). He 
 might have been, and most probably would have been, annoyed on the spot, and 
 harassed, and oppressed, by a sudden and yet only superficial revulsion of feel- 
 ing on the part of the excited crowd. And then, on the other hand, there are 
 some solemnities to which privacy and domestic quiet are peculiarly appropriate, 
 and which would be spoDed by din and tumult and uproar, even when springing 
 from a spirit of admiration and joy. 
 
 Taketh with Himself the father of the child, and the mother, and those who 
 were with Him. That is, the three disciples formerly specified. The others 
 might probably be left in the street amid the crowd, while the Saviour was 
 working His way into the court, and thence into the apartment where the 
 mother with her companions would be found. Ferdinand C. Baur, by a strange 
 oblivion of memory, sa,ys that ' the three disciples also ' are here represented as 
 thrust out (Er trieb sic allc hinaus, also auch jene drei Jiinger : Markiui., p. 38). 
 They are however expressly excepted in the words before us. 
 
 And entereth in where the child was. In some inner .apartment. 
 
136 ST. MARK, V. [40 
 
 the damsel was lying. 41 And he took the damsel by the 
 handj and saith unto her, Talitha cumi, which is, being inter- 
 preted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. 42 And straightway 
 the damsel arose, and walked ; for she was of tJie age of twelve 
 years. A_nd they were astonished with a great astonishment. 
 
 Ver. 41. And having taken hold of the hand of the child. Thus visiWy con- 
 necting Himself with her, for the sake, as we may suppose, of the witnesses ; 
 at least for their sake principally. 
 
 He says to her, ' Talitha cumi,' which is, heing interpreted, Damsel, I say unto 
 thee, Arise. There is nothing that precisely and literally corresponds, in the 
 Aramaic expression Talitha cumi, to the words I say unto thee. But every im- 
 perative is the saying of some one ; and hence, when the Saviour said ' cumi' 
 His idea, when fuUy unfolded, was exactly I say unto thee, Arise. The full 
 unfolding might, with indifference, be either given as in Mark, or withheld as in 
 Luke (viii. 54). It is Mark alone who preserves the native Aramaic form of the 
 Saviour's command. The words would likely be just such as the little girl had 
 been accustomed to hear and to employ ; and there was a beautiful propriety 
 in our Lord addressing her returning and re-animating spirit in her natural 
 mother-tongue. ' Tali ' was a boy, ' Talitha ' a girl. (See Buxtorf 's Lex. Talm., 
 p. 875, and Lightfoot in loc.) ' Cumi,' or ' Ctim ' as it is in some of the oldest 
 manuscripts (S B C L M, 1, 33) , is the common Hebrew word for arise. Here the 
 idea is, as it were, arise out of sleep, wake up, rouse thyself up internally and 
 thence arise externally. The word is translated awake in Matt. viii. 25 ; Eom. 
 xiii. 11 ; Eph. v. 14. Comp. Matt. ii. 13, viii. 26, xxvii. 52 ; Mark iv. 27. 
 
 Vkr. 42. And immediately the damsel arose. It is a different word that is 
 rendered damsel here, and in the last clause of the preceding verse, from that 
 which is employed in ver. 39, 40, and the first clause of the 41st verse. It 
 properly means damosel or damsel, while the other means child or little child. 
 The word arose too has no connection with the verb which is rendered arise in 
 the preceding verse. It strictly means arose (dv^o-roj). 
 
 And walked about ; for she was twelve years old. This last clause is added, 
 as Buthymius Zigabenus properly remarks, because in the preceding part of the 
 narrative the damsel is called a little child {watSlov). The evangelist as it were 
 says : In one respect indeed she was but a little child, the little darling of her 
 father. (See ver. 23.) But at the same time she was not so little as to be incap- 
 able of walking about. 
 
 And they were astonished with a great astonishment. The important manu- 
 scripts K B C L A, and 83 ' the queen of the cursives,' add Mark's favourite 
 immediately to the verb were astonished : ' artJ they were immediately astonished.' 
 Tischendorf and Alford have introduced it into the text. It is found too in the 
 Coptic and .Slthiopio versions, and it is scarcely likely that it would be intruded 
 by transcribers ; it seems rather to stand awkwardly in the way as a superfluity. 
 It is probably therefore genuine. Instead of the repetitious expression they 
 were astonished with a great astonishment, Tyndale, followed by Coverdale, has 
 the more idiomatic phrase, they were astonished out of measure. They : the 
 outstanding reference is doubtless to the father and mother of the child (see 
 
1] ST. MARK VI. 137 
 
 43 And lie charged them straitly that no man should know it; 
 and commanded that something should be given her to eat. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 1 AND he went out from thence, and came into his own 
 
 next verse), though of course there ia no need for shutting out of view the other 
 'witnesses of the miracle. 
 
 Veb. 43. And He charged them much. Or, He enjoined them much. Them : 
 the parents of the child. 
 
 That no man should know this. Literally, in order that no one should know this. 
 His multiplied injunctions were laid upon them ■with the aim in view that no one 
 should know what had been done. The expression no one is of course to he under- 
 stood according to the nature of the case. The Saviour knew that there was out- 
 side a surging crowd of followers, loosely or more closely attached to His person, 
 from whom the fact of the miracle could not be long concealed. He knew too 
 that when once they got hold of the fact they would be sure to blaze it abroad. 
 (See Matt. ix. 26.) But He wished that the parents of the child should not lay 
 themselves out to trumpet abroad what had been done. He desired that as far 
 as possible no one should know. Popular enthusiasm was already rushing on at 
 tornado speed, and with tornado pressure. It was at the same time but super- 
 ficially intelligent ; and it had therefore but little need, at that stage of its 
 development, to be fed and fanned and still farther inflamed. 
 
 And He said that something should be given her to eat. The expression com- 
 manded is too strong. It is an artless and beautifully homely incident. Wo 
 need not suppose that the Saviour had exclusively in view the confirmation of 
 the fact of the little maiden's resuscitation, as an actual fact, to be distinguished 
 from a mere illusory appearance. This is the idea that Euthymius Zigabenus, 
 Petter, and many others take. Neither need we suppose that He simply meant 
 to prove to the parents her complete convalescence. There is no need for re- 
 garding our Saviour as acting for ever in the rigid character of a doctrinaire. 
 He was not always bent on giving proofs and demonstrations. He was a loving 
 man, genial in His feelings, full of human sympathies, fond of young folks. 
 He would enter at once into the circle of the little damsel's self consciousness, 
 and understand how sweet to her young fresh appetite, after the long abstinence 
 to which she had been subjected in her illness, would be ' something to eat.' 
 Even the child's mother was not so motherly as Jesus. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 Veb. 1-6. This paragraph has its parallel in Matt. xiii. 53-58. There are 
 also interesting points of correspondence in Luke iv. 16-30, which it may be 
 instructive to note. We do not need however to come to a very positive con- 
 clusion regarding the relationship of the two paragraphs. 
 
 Ver. 1. And He went forth. Or departed, as the word is rendered in Matt, 
 xxviii. 8 and Luke ix. 6. Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva have departed. 
 Thence. Saunier (Quellen, p. 85), Fritzsche, and Meyer insist on it that the 
 
138 ST. MARK VI. [1 
 
 country j and his disciples follow him. 2 And when the 
 sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue : 
 and many hearing him were astoilished, saying, From whence 
 
 reference is to the house of Jairus. But arbitrarily ; the house of Jairus was 
 not a prominent object in the mind of the evangelist while penning the imme- 
 diately preceding narratives. The Saviour had taken refuge on the eastern side 
 of the sea of Tiberias ; but He could not find rest there. He had to return to 
 the western side, where Capernaum was situated ; and there He was pressed, 
 hemmed in, and harassed, by accumulating crowds. This being the case, the 
 evangeUst says, He departed thence, that is. He departed out of that district of 
 country. See next clause. 
 
 And comes. The Eeceived Text has the past tense came, and Lachmann 
 abides by it ; but Tisohendorf , Tregelles, Alford have the present, comes. The 
 reader is thus taten back into the presence of our Lord, and sees Him on His 
 journey. 
 
 Into His own country. Literally, into His 'fatherland.' The reference of the 
 word however is not to the large district of country occupied by the nation, but 
 to the small locality where the paternal home was situated. It is the district of 
 Nazareth that is referred to, a district of quiet and seclusion as compared with 
 the densely crowded district of Capernaum. The town would be easily reached 
 by our Lord in the course of a day's journey. 
 
 And His disciples follow Him. The reference is doubtless to the twelve. 
 They accompany Him in the capacity of followers. When the group was in 
 motion, the Lord as a general rule would take a slight precedence and lead the 
 way. 
 
 Vek. 2. And when sabbath was come, He began to teach in the synagogue. 
 ' The synagogue,' for most probably there would be only one in so small a place. 
 In all the Jewish synagogues there was a fine freedom of speech allowed ; and there 
 would be no objection therefore to one like Jesus, who had already achieved for 
 Himself a name as a popular and somewhat remarkable rabbi, addressing the 
 assembled congregation. The evangelist says 'He began to teach.' We are 
 thus taken back in imagination to the commencement of the address, and thence 
 allowed or left to go forward with it, and take note of interruptions, if there 
 should be any. 
 
 And many, hearing, were struck with amazement. Such was the effect, even 
 before the conclusion of the address. Note the participle hearing. The idea is 
 not, as Principal Campbell and Edgar Taylor, as well as Pisoator and Felbinger 
 and many others, give it in their respective versions, and many who heard Him. 
 There was not on the evangelist's part any intention of discriminating two 
 classes of auditors, one of which at least was numerous. Eodolphus Dickinson 
 hits the idea in his free translation, the numerous hearers. The congregation 
 was numerous, and while hearing they were struck with amazement. Norton in 
 his translation brings out the idea exactly, and many heard Him and were struck 
 with astonishment. In the Vatican manuscript (B) the article is inserted before 
 the adjective, the many, the multitude. Tischendorf has received this peculiar 
 reading into the text, but on too slender authority, Michelsen however approves 
 
2] ST. MARK VI. 1.39 
 
 hath this man these things ? and what wisdom is this which is 
 given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his 
 
 of the reading, but supposes that it was foisted into the text by the Deutero- 
 Mark (Uet Ev. van Markus, p. 102). 
 
 Saying. In the course, namely, of our Saviour's address ; see ver. 4. Hence 
 the propriety of the preceding expression, ' began to teach.' He had not pro- 
 ceeded far ere He was interrupted ; there was less of decorous repression of 
 remark and criticism in a Jewish auditory than in a British congregation. 
 
 Whence hath this Man these things ? Very Uterally, Whence to this Man these 
 things ? The things, namely, that He was saying. As the ' winged words ' left 
 in uninterrupted succession the Saviour's lips, and alighted on their ears, the 
 simple people marvelled at His facility and power of utterance, and at the 
 weighty character of the thoughts that were conveyed by the utterances. Such 
 phenomena of oratory are always captivating to the masses ; and when the 
 orator is known to have had none of the advantages of school learning, the 
 captivation gets transformed into amazement. But amazement may either be 
 questioning or unquestioning ; in the case of the Nazarenes it was questioning, 
 and superstition brought the questions to the birth. Whence hath this Man 
 these things ? Has He got them in a lawful way ? Is there not something sus- 
 pidouHf something that looks suspiciously supei'natural, in His acquisition of such 
 a remarkable accomplishment ? 
 
 And, What is the wisdom that has been given to Him? It is probable that the 
 introductory and is not part of the reported criticisms, but the evangelist's own 
 link of connection, by means of which he adds one reported criticism to another. 
 Whence has this Man these things ? and, What is the wisdom that has been given 
 to Him ? This interpretation of the and as introducing a second and separate 
 criticism is confirmed by the reading of Tregelles, Tischendorf (eighth edition), 
 Alford, ' "What is the wisdom that has been given to this Man ? ' This repeated 
 demonstrative, to this Man, is in the texts of X B L A. It is the more difiioult 
 reading, and ought to be accepted ; but if so, it proves that the query is detached 
 and separate from the query of the preceding clause. When the people asked. 
 What is the wisdom that has been given to this Man ? they were looking at wisdom 
 rather on its merely intellectual than on its more important moral side ; they 
 admitted the existence of great intellectual and rhetorical superiority, but they 
 stood in doubt in reference to the origin of such superiority. Was it from 
 above or from beneath ? 
 
 And such mighty works are brought to pass through His hands. Such is the 
 right reading (koI Swdficis roioOrai k.t.X.). The observation is thus an append- 
 age to the two preceding questions. The people refer, not to the wonders of 
 works which they had seen, but to the wondrous works of which they had 
 heard. Such wonderful works seemed to them to be unaccountable on any 
 hypothesis that would leave the reputation of the Worker intact. What are we 
 to make of Him ? Whence His wonderful words ! What is this wisdom, which 
 somehow or other He has got hold of? Is it right ? And then too such wonderful 
 works are brought to pass I They ' are not easily accounted for. But they do 
 come to pass ' through ' His hands ! Aye, ' through.' But who is it that is 
 behind ? Luther makes them say, Surely He will have to do with the devil (Er 
 
140 ST. MARK VI. [2 
 
 hands ? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the 
 
 wird gewiss mit dem Teufel zu thun haben). The whole expression is rather au 
 exclamation than an interrogation, and so Me/er has given it in his translation 
 of 1829, though he afterwards ohaiiged his view. In the Eeoeived Text there is 
 a that (Sti) before the expression, that even such wonders are brought to pass 
 through His hands. It is manifestly spurious, and is omitted even by Bengel, 
 Griesbaoh, Matthaei, Scholz. It was condemned of old by Mill ; it is wanting 
 even in the editions of Erasmus ; as also in the first and second editions, the 
 O mirificams, of Eobert Stephens. It was however introduced into his folio of 
 1550, retained in the 155J. edition, and thence copied into all Beza's editions, 
 and thus carried down into our Authorized version and the Elzevirs. Candy in 
 his edition has given a reading for which there is no authority at all (oi Koi 
 
 Vek. 3. Is not this the carpenter % The word carpenter was given as an alter- 
 native translation by Wycliffe, and has descended into all the succeeding 
 English versions ; Wyoli£Ee's primary translation was smith, the word that was 
 used in the Anglo-Saxon version. It had in Anglo-Saxon a generic meaning, 
 equivalent to artificer. A worker in iron was called in Anglo-Saxon iren-smith. 
 A smith is one who smites ; a carpenter is one who makes cars. The word 
 carpenter therefore must be a much later coinage than the word smith. The 
 original Greek term (t^jctwv) means primarily a producer ; the word wright very 
 nearly corresponds to it, as being closely connected with wrought or worked. It 
 just means worker, and occurs in Anglo-Saxon in the two forms wryhta and 
 wyrhta. This is the only passage in which it is stated that our Lord worked at 
 a handicraft. It is a difEerent expression that is found in Matt. xiii. 53, Is not 
 this the carpenter^ son ? There is no contradiction however between the two 
 representations ; both might be coincidently employed, and no doubt were, 
 when the Nazarenes were freely and frettingly canvassing the merits of their 
 wonderful townsman. Our Lord would not be trained to idleness ; it was con- 
 trary to Jewish habits, and to the teaching of the best Jewish rabbis. (See 
 Lightfoot, in loc.) It would have been inconsistent moreover with the principles 
 of true civilization, and with the ideal of normal human development. It is no 
 evidence of high civilization, either to lay an arrest on fuU physical development 
 on the one hand, or on the other to encourage only those modes of muscular 
 and nervous activity which are dissociated from useful working and manufac- 
 turing skill. While overmuch manual labour depresses both body and mind, 
 handiwork in moderation is an inestimable blessing to men, physically, morally, 
 intellectually, socially. Society will never be right until all classes be indus- 
 trious and industrial: -the higher orders must return to take part in the 
 employments of the lower ; the lower must rise up to take part in the enjoy- 
 ments of the higher. Justin Martyr mentions, in his Dialogue with Trypho the 
 Jew (§ 88), that the Saviour manufactured ' ploughs and yokes,' thus ' teaching 
 the symbols of righteousness and the duty of au active life ' {Iporpa koI ^d- 
 Sii, Toiray Kal rd, ttjs diKaiocrivris triJ/ijSoXo SiddffKWii, Kai Aepyij (? cvepyij) piov). We 
 know not whether Justin preserves in this ' specific ' remark a separate tradi- 
 tion, or merely gives an illustrative and imaginative explanation of the 'generic' 
 
3] ST. MARK VL 141 
 
 brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon ? and are 
 not his sisters here with us ? And they were offended at him. 
 
 expreasiou before us. In tlie apocryphal Gospel of the Infancy (ohap. xxxviii.) 
 Jesus is represented as assisting His reputed father Joseph while working at his 
 trade ; hut the assistance is always given in a miraculous manner. ' Neither 
 was there ever any need,' it is added, ' for Him to do anything with His own 
 hand.' It is evident that the author of this Apocryphal Gospel did not under- 
 stand the true dignity of manual work ; neither did Celsus, who insolently and 
 ignorantly cast it in the teeth of Christians that Christ worked with His own 
 hands. (Origen, Cont. dls., vi. 4 : 3.) 
 
 The son of Mary. We would not infer from the specification of Mary, as F. 
 0. Baur (Markus Evang., p. 138) and Hilgenfeld (Evangelien, p. 135) do, that the 
 evangelist was taking care to use no expression that might suggest that our 
 Lord was the real or natural son of Joseph. We are as Uttle to infer, with 
 Kostliu {Ursprung, p. 323), that while Mark assumed that our Lord was really 
 the natural son of Joseph, he yet wished, for 'irenio' purposes within the divided 
 church, to give no certain sound on the subject. We would simply infer that 
 Joseph was deceased, and had been so for such a considerable length of time 
 that our Lord's filial relationship to the widowed Mary stood out overshadow- 
 ingly, and almost exclusively, to pubhc view. It is true that in the parallel 
 passage of Matt. xiii. 55 Joseph is referred to ; but it is in the way of bringing 
 into view the humble nature of the trade on which the famOy had depended. Is 
 not this the carpenter's son ? The youngest of the criticizing Nazarenes knew 
 that the trade had been hereditary in the family, and that therefore our Lord 
 had never been in circumstances to obtain any high rabbinical training. It is 
 entirely arbitrary in Holtzmanu {Synopt. Evang., p. 82) and Michelsen (Het 
 Evang. van Markvs, p. 102) to conjecture that in the text of the Proto-Mark the 
 query ran thus, Is not this the carpenter, the son of Joseph ? and tihat from this 
 text of the Proto-Mark Matthew formed on his part his condensation, while the 
 Deutero-Mark on his part, and for his own peculiar purposes, formed his dog- 
 matic variation. Such licentiousness of conjecture is wUd on the one hand, and 
 mere ' rubbish ' on the other. 
 
 And brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon. In what sense hrother, 
 see on chap. iii. 18, 31 ; half-brother, but not uterine. James in short; and the 
 three brothers, would be the sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. In the 
 correct text there is an and but no article before the word brother. Such is the 
 reading of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregellea, Alford. Instead of Joses the 
 Sinaitio manuscript (K) reads Joseph, as so many manuscripts do in Matt. xui. 
 55. It was the comparative uncommonness of the name Joses that gave occasion 
 to the variation. (See Comm. on Matt. , in loc.) 
 
 And are not His sisters here with us ? Their names are not specified, in 
 accordance with the secondary place which was assigned to females in Semitic 
 society. 
 
 And they were offended at Him. Or rather in Him. The word rendered 
 offended is scandalized in the original. It is a very graphic word, but incapable 
 of adequate translation. It presents to view a complex picture. Christ was to 
 His kinsmen and townsmen like a scandal, or catch-stick, in a trap. (See on 
 
142 ST. MARK VI. [4 
 
 4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, 
 but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own 
 
 chap. iv. 17.) They did not see what He was. They hence heedlessly ran up 
 against Him and struck on Him, to their own utter ensnarement ; they were 
 spiritually caught ; they became fixed in a position in which it was most unde- 
 sirable to be fixed ; they were spiritually hurt, and in great danger of being 
 spiritually destroyed. Such are the chief elements of the picture. The actual 
 outcome of the whole complex representation may be given thus : They spiritu- 
 ally stumbled on Jesus. To their loss they did not accept Ilim for what He really 
 was. They rejected Kim as the Lord High Commissioner of Heaven. They came 
 into collision with Him, and were ensnared, by suspecting that His indisputable 
 superiority to ordinary men in word and work was owing to some other kind of 
 influence than what was right and from above. 
 
 Yeb. 4. And Jesus said to them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own 
 country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. He specifies three concen- 
 tric circles of persons to whom every prophet is nearly related. There is (1) 
 the circle of his little fatherland, or district of country, or township ; there is 
 no wider reference in the Saviour's expression. Within this outer circle there 
 is (2) the circle of his relatives or ' kin.'' Then there is (3) the circle of his 
 nearest relatives, the family to which he belongs, lu each of these circles there 
 is in general but little readiness to recognise native or nascent superiority. The 
 principles of self-satisfaction, self-confidence, self-complacency, come in to lay a 
 presumptive interdict upon any adjoining self rising up in eminence above the 
 my-self. The temporary advantage of age, and thus of more protracted experi- 
 ence, asserts to itself for a season a sort of counter-superiority ; and the mere 
 fact of proximity makes it easy to open the door for the influence of envy, an 
 ignoble vice that takes effect chiefly in reference to those on whom one can 
 actually look [invidia, in-video). In the long run indeed real superiority, if 
 time be granted it, will vindicate for itself its own proper place in the midst.of 
 all its concentric circles. But in general this will be only after victories achieved 
 abroad have made it impossible for the people at home to remain in doubt. (Hof- 
 meister quotes the proverb, ' qw>d rarum, carum '). Our Saviour in uttering His 
 apophthegm uses representatively the word prophet ; He might have employed 
 a more generic term, that would have embraced other examples of superiority ; 
 but the specification served His purpose, and it was at the same time broad 
 enough to bring into view one of the great outstanding features of His own 
 unique relationship to men. He had a commission, amid other behests, to 
 speak to them for God. He was emphatically ' the Wm-d of God,' and thus the 
 Prophet of prophets. The term prophet has no particular reference to prediction ; 
 the true prophet was one who spoke fore God, and therefore from God, and thus 
 for God. It is arbitrary in Sohenkel to say that our Lord " still called Himself 
 " a prophet, because He had not yet attained the conviction that He was, in a 
 " new and higher meaning of the word, the fulfiUer of the yet incomplete 
 "Messianic promise of the Old Testament." {Charakterbild, x. 4.) Our 
 Saviour was only laying down a generic principle for a specific purpose ; and He 
 left His auditors, as itis often wise to do, to make the specific application. 
 
6] ST. MARK VI. 143 
 
 house. 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he 
 laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed tliem. 6 And 
 he marvelled because of their unbelief. 
 
 Veb. 5. And He was not aMe to do there any mighty irork. Instead of He was 
 not able, Eodolphus Dickinson has IJe was unwilling : an unhappy freedom. 
 It occurs however in some of the old Latin versions that existed before 
 Jerome's Vulgate {noluit). Kuinol merges altogether the idea both of ability 
 and of will, and explains the phrase thus, ' He was not able to do, that is. He 
 did not do,' an intolerable strain upon the evangelist's phraseology. The 
 Saviour was really shut up to act as He did, and thus to withhold almost alto- 
 gether from the Nazarenes miraculous manifestations, not because of any 
 weakness on His part, but because of utter moral insusceptibility on theirs. 
 His power never acted absolutely, or simply by itself, like mere blind force. It 
 was invariably linked right and left with the highest wisdom, which, when 
 regarded in its highest acceptation, is always coincident with the clearest intel- 
 ligence on the one hand and the purest love on the other. The Saviour's 
 power, as thus conditioned and regulated, could not go forth in the performance 
 of mighty works among a people who would only have abused the gracious 
 miracles to rivet their conviction that it was by some unlawful and demonic 
 influence that He was actuated. Euthymius Zigabenus explains the inability 
 thus, He did not deem it admissible (hSexliiuvov). 'The door,' says Calvin, 'was 
 BO to speak shut upon the Saviour by the people's impiety.' 
 
 Save that He laid His hands on a few sick folk, and healed them. Wakefield's 
 version is free but admirable, beyond healing a few sick people by laying His 
 hands upon them. Such works, performed in all likelihood upon ' hidden ones,' 
 would be inconspicuous, and therefore 'admissible' in the circumstances. 
 They would be, however, intensely gratifying to the Saviour's benevolence. 
 
 Ver. 6. And He marvelled because of their uubeUef. It is not said, as several 
 critics have remarked, that He marvelled ' at' their unbelief. The preposition 
 because of (Sio) brings into view, not the object of the astonishment, but the 
 cause or occasion of it. Logically however, though not phraseologically, the 
 object of the astonishment and the cause or occasion of it were identical. The 
 unbelief of the Nazarenes was a wonder to our Lord. The wonder was ' real,' 
 says Cardinal Cajetan, being ' caused ' by the Saviour's ' experimental iuac- 
 quaintance ' with such an imreasonable state of mind. It was ' real ' on 
 another account. Unbelief in such circumstances as those of the Nazarenes 
 was actually a most remarkable thing. It had a cause indeed ; it had occa- 
 sions : but it had no reason for its existence. Far less had it a sufficient reason ; 
 it was, that is to say, utterly unreasonable. It should not have been ; it was an 
 utter anomaly. So is all sin (see Jer. ii. 12). It is an exceedingly strange 
 phenomenon in the universe of God, and may well be wondered at. If wonder 
 indeed were always the daughter of ignorance, one might wonder at Christ's 
 wonder. Schleusner and Kuinol wondered, and rendered the word, not won- 
 dered, but was angry, Fritzsohe too wondered, and while too precise a scholar 
 to admit that the word could mean was angry, he proposed that we should 
 correct the text and read it thus, and, because of their unbelief, they wondered 
 
Ui ST. MARK VI. L6 
 
 And lie went round about the villages, teaching. 7 And 
 he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them 
 forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean 
 
 (viz. at Jesus). But one may most reasonably wonder at such feats and freaks 
 of exegesis. There is nothing really wonderful in Christ's wonder. While it is 
 the case that there is a vulgar wonder, which is the daughter of ignorance and 
 dies when knowledge is attained, it is also the case that there is another wonder, 
 of noble origin, the daughter of knowledge. This wonder dwells in the loftiest 
 minds, and is immortal. 
 
 And He went round about the villages teaching. That is, He visited the 
 villages in circuit, teaching. This does not mean that He visited the circle of 
 villages round about Nazareth. The evangelist was taking topographically a 
 much wider view. He means that Jesus, instead of tarrying at Nazareth, and 
 thus confining His bootless labours to an unreceptive people, left that place, and 
 extended His personal ministrations to the entire circle of the Galilean villages, 
 retaining no doubt His headquarters in the central parts about Capernaum. 
 This being the obvious meaning of the evangelist, it is to be regretted that Robert 
 Stephens, the verse-maker, did not add the preceding clause of the verse to the 
 fifth, and leave this clause to form by itself the sixth verse. Theophylact saw 
 better into the connection, and commenced a new paragraph with this clause ; 
 80 did Luther, and also Tyndale and Coverdale. So too, notwithstanding the 
 awkwardness of rupturing a verse, do Lachmann, Tischendorf, TregeUes, 
 Alford. These editors commence a new line with this second clause of the verse. 
 So do Mace, Principal Campbell, Eodolphus Dickinson, Eilliet, Young. From this 
 clause to ver. 13 inclusive is a distinct paragraph. Compare, for parallel para- 
 graphs, Luke ix. 1-6 in particular, and also Matt. x. 1-15. 
 
 Tee. 7. And He calls to Him the twelve. Note the present tense, calls. The 
 evangelist transports himself and his readers to the scene. 
 
 And began to send them forth two by two. He began. It is a favourite way of 
 speaking with Mark (see Scholten, Het Oudste Evang.,-p. 149), founded on a 
 favourite way of conceiving. He liked to look at the beginnings of things. 
 When a process or progression was implied, he felt inclined to set down his 
 thoughts at the starting places, and thence to look forward indefinitely and 
 perhaps dimly toward the termini. (See chap. i. 45 ; v. 17, 20 ; vi. 2, 34, 55 j 
 viii. 32 ; x. 28, 41, 47 ; xi. 15 ; xiii. 5 ; xiv. 65, 69 ; xv. 18.) In the case before 
 us there is no latent reference to the future mission of the apostles ' to all the 
 world ' ; there is merely a certain graphic way of viewing the process of des- 
 patching the apostles. Two by two : that they might help and encourage one 
 another, and take counsel together. Union is strength. It is remarkable that 
 Mark alone mentions this pairing of the apostles on their first evangelistic tour ; 
 and yet, when enumerating the apostles in chap. iii. 16-19, he gives no indica- 
 tion of any order of pairing ; whereas both Matthew and Luke, who do not 
 mention that they were sent out in'couples, actually introduce the coupling into 
 their respective lists of the apostolate. (Matt. x. 2-4, Luke vi, 14-16.) It is one 
 of those minute undesigned coincidences that establish the actual historical 
 validity of the respective narratives. 
 
0] ST. MARK VI. 145 
 
 spirits ; 8 and commanded them that they should take 
 nothing for tlteir journey, save a staff only ; no scrip, 
 no bread, no money in their purse: 9 but be shod with 
 
 And He gave them authority over the unclean spirits. ' The unclean spirits ' 
 that were then rampant in society, and that have ever been such formidable 
 and cruel enemies to men. Unclean : characterized by and revelling in moral 
 impurity. Witness the disgusting obscenities, and other abominations, in the 
 talk of some of those who are heside themselves, and therefore not themselves, 
 but more than themselves, and hence mercifully shut up in asylums. Our 
 Saviour gave His apostles authority. If it had failed them in the time of trial, 
 and turned out to be a mere myth of their Master's imagination, ho-w could 
 they have retained their allegiance to Him as the Lord ? The fact that they 
 retained it, and consecrated their lives to His service, amid obloquy, persecu- 
 tion, and ' deaths,' is surely proof sufficient that they were not befooled. 
 
 Veb. 8. And He charged them that they should take nothing for their journey. 
 Literally, /o7' the road. They would not require to carry with them any 
 viaticum. Not requiring to carry it with them, they would not require to take 
 it as they started, literally to take it up, viz. that it might be carried. Their 
 wants would be sufficiently supplied as they went along. 
 
 Except a staff only. Wetstein, by a temporary but singular lapse of thought, 
 imagined that this expression means except a single staff, one only for each pair 
 of apostles. But the word only is not an adjective here (note the gender) , but 
 an adverb. The Coptic and Anglo-Saxon translators however had committed 
 the same oversight as Wetstein. In Matt. x. 10 the apostles were told not to 
 provide a staff. (See Gomm., in loc.) The emphasis there is on the provide : 
 Do not acquire for yourselves what at present you are not possessed of. Here the 
 idea is substantially the same, though taken from another side of the reality. 
 Go as you are, without making any provision whatsoever. If you have a staff in 
 your possession, and are accustom£d to use it, you need not throw it away ; but 
 do not add to it; do not use it to suspend over your shoulders, for your future 
 convenience, any bag or baggage. Take it by itself, and set out immediately. I 
 shall be the Lord your Provider. 
 
 Wo bread, no wallet. Such is the order of the words in the manuscripts 
 X B G L A, 33, and in the Coptic and iEthiopic versions, as also in the texts of 
 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. The reverse order of the Eeoeived Text is the 
 order of Luke ix. 3. In King James's English version, and all its precursors, 
 Wycliffe, Purvey, Tyndale, Coverdale, the Geneva, the Eheims, scrip is used. 
 That word however has now become quite obsolete as meaning wallet, and, as de- 
 rived from another root, has a totally different meaning on the Stock Exchange. 
 The Gothic translation of the word is matibalg, or meat bag. 
 
 No money in their girdle. Literally, mo copper, for that is the metal that is 
 got from the bowels of the earth. Brass is an artificial alloy, having in it a, 
 mixture of tin with the copper, and was unknown, as is supposed, to the 
 Hebrews. The word is not used by the evangelist to denote any particular 
 copper coin, but simply, though representatively, copper money in general. 
 The underlying idea is money in general. Not even coppers would be needed, 
 
 L 
 
i46 ST. MARK VI. [9 
 
 sandals ; and not put on two coats. 10 And he said unto 
 them, In what plaoe soever ye enter into an house, there 
 abide till ye depart from that place. 11 And whosoever 
 
 not to speak of silver and goU. (Comp. Matt. x. 9, Luke ix. 3.) The original 
 purse consisted of the folds of the girdle, sash, or zone (' argentum in zonis 
 habentes' : Liv. xxxiii. 29). The evangeUst's expression, very literally, is into 
 the girdle. He was artlessly thinking of putting money ' into ' that natural 
 repository. The same artlessness comes out strikingly in the two succeeding 
 clauses. 
 
 Veb. 9. Butte shod with sandals. Have your sandals tied on. The con- 
 struction is broken. They were not indeed to have a change of shoes. (See 
 Matt. x. 10.) That would not be needed for the limited time they would re- 
 quire to spend on their tour ; but as they were to have a good deal of walking 
 hither and thither, and often over rough places, they must have on sandals. The 
 original expression has reference to the strings by which the sandals, as cover- 
 ing, for the most part, only the soles of the feet, were tied on (uTroSESe/z^vour 
 ffavSaXia). I have often looked with interest, while in Syria, on the primitive 
 contrivance. A piece of thick tough skin, shaped somewhat like the foot, but 
 every way larger, so that an edging may be turned up, constitutes a common 
 specimen of the sandal of the poor. The edging is perforated at a considerable 
 number of points to admit of elaborate lacing by means of thongs. The word 
 employed in Matt. i. 10, and there translated shoes {in-oS'qfiaTa), does not refer, 
 as Pioinellus, Salmasius, Heumann, and others, have supposed, to a more 
 artistic cover for the feet. It is a word cognate to the verb that is here em- 
 ployed, and simply denotes the undertied thing, that is, the thing underneath the 
 sole of the foot that is elaborately tied on. 
 
 And do not put on two coats. Or, two tunics, as Eilliet appropriately renders 
 it. They were not to take any superfluity of dress, as if provision had to be 
 made for a very lengthened tour. The tunic was the somewhat close-fitting 
 garment that was worn next the skin ; children and very poor persons frequently 
 wore nothing else. 
 
 Vek. 10. And He said to them. In, addition to His other injunctions. It is a 
 favourite phrase with Mark, when he introduces something furthermore. 
 
 Wheresoever ye may enter into a house, there remain until ye depart from that 
 place. They were not to cater, self indulgently and restlessly, for the most 
 agreeable quarters. When welcomed by any ' worthy ' individual to his home, 
 they were to be contented with it, however humble it might be, while they con- 
 tinued in the locality. (Comp. Luke x. 7.) AU along their tour they were to 
 maintain a spirit of restraint and self denial as regarded themselves, and, as 
 regarded others, a tender regard to the benevolent feelings of the good. 
 
 Vee. 11. And whatsoever place shall not receive you. Such, instead of whoso- 
 ever, was no doubt the reading in the autograph of Mark [koI 6s &v tottos /tr; S^|- 
 TjTM ifias) . It is preserved in the manuscripts N B L A, 69, as well as in the 
 Coptic and iEthiopio versions, and in the margin of the Philoxenian syriac. 
 It is replaced in the text by Tisohendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and approved of by 
 
12] ST. MARK VI. 147 
 
 sliall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, 
 shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against 
 them. Verily I say unto you. It shall be more tolerable for 
 Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgement, than for that 
 city. 
 
 12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent. 
 
 Meyer. It would never have been disturbed had it not been for the artless 
 anacoluth of the succeeding clause. 
 
 Nor shall listen to you. In this clause the evangelist passes altogether, in 
 thought, from the place, as a place, to its living inhabitants. And hence his 
 verb shall listen, unlike the preceding verb shall receive, is in the plural number 
 (aKoia-oKni') . We cannot reproduce in English, without a circumlocution, the 
 abrupt transition. 
 
 When ye depart thence, shake oflF the soil that is under your feet. The soil, 
 
 , that is to say, which is adhering to the soles of your sandals. What Mark, in 
 
 his simple generic manner, calls soil or earth (xo^^t iio* xkoDs as in the editions 
 
 of Erasmus), Matthew and Luke, more specifically and elegantly, call dust 
 
 {Kovioprros). Wycliffe translates it freely, powdre. 
 
 For a testimony to them. A testimony that ye are constrained to regard them 
 as unclean, somewhat as the heathen are. (See Gomm, on Matt., x. li.) Let 
 them know that ye could not wish to take the least particle of their spirit along 
 with you ; it would be defiling. 
 
 In the Eeceived Text there follow the words, verily I say unto you. It shall be 
 more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha, in the day of judgment, than for that 
 city. But the critical editors have, almost unanimously, thrown them out, as 
 an import from Matt. x. 15. Lachmann puts them within brackets. They are 
 not found in the manuscripts K B C D L A, nor in the Vulgate and Armenian 
 versions, and many copies of the Italic. Against such authority, says Gries- 
 bach, the weight of six hundred, or of six thousand, Constantinopolitan manu- 
 scripts is nothing at all {is ' nil ' ■ Gomm. Crit., in loc.) Erasmus and Beza 
 suspected the genuineness of the clause ; and Mill condemned it, following 
 Zacharias Chrysopolitanus. It is omitted in the editions of Tischendorf, Tre- 
 gelles, Alford, and the Eevised version ; rightly. But Matthsi and Fritzsche 
 nevertheless, in consequence of their peculiar and erroneous standpoint in 
 textual criticism, contend for it. 
 
 Vek. 12. And they went out, and preached that men should repent. This is 
 one half of the brief unambitious narrative of the first apostolic tour of the 
 apostles. The expression that men should repent does not so much exhibit the 
 subject matter of the apostles' preaching as the aim that actuated them ; but 
 that aim nevertheless would determine the subject matter ; and hence the sub- 
 ject matter of the speaking, and the aim of the speakers, would be coincident. 
 The expression in the original is literally, in order that (fca) men might repent, 
 or, as Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles read it, in order that men 'may ' 
 repent (fieravoSiinv). It was thus the apostles' great aim to induce men to turn, 
 inwardly and then outwardly, from the error of their ways. That they might 
 succeed in this their aim, they addressed themselves to the intelligence (the 
 
148 ST. MARK VI. [13 
 
 13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many 
 that were sick, and h.ealed them. 
 
 14 And king Herod heard of him ; (for his name was spread 
 
 i-oDs) of men, and thus sought to bring them to a reconsideration of their ways. 
 (See chap. i. 4.) The term, says Petter, " which is translated repent is such 
 " a -word as doth properly signify to change one's mind, or to become more -wise 
 " than before." 
 
 Ver. 13. In this verse we have the other hall of the evangelist's report of 
 the first apostolic tour. 
 
 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many invalids, and healed 
 them. There is no reference here to what Eoman Catholics call the sacrament 
 of extreme unction. So even a-Lapide admits and contends. The reference is 
 to medicinal anointing, a favourite method of cure among the ancient Jews and 
 many other peoples. (See Isa. i. 6 and Luke x. 34.) Josephus mentions that 
 Herod the Great, in one of his illnesses, was ' immersed in a hath full of oil,' 
 and obtained a surprising recovery for a season, (^wttg., xvii. 6: 5.) Celsus, 
 the famous Latin physician, in his great work de Medicina, makes frequent 
 reference to the medicinal use of oil dn connection with medical friction, etc. 
 (Lib. i., cap. 3, etc.) Such a simple hygienic application has perhaps been too 
 much neglected amid the multitudinous recipes of the modern pharmacopoeia. 
 The apostles made use of it, we should suppose, representatively, as being the 
 sheet anchor of the ancient pharmacopoeia ; but assuredly they did not employ 
 it in the way dreamed of by Paulus and Kuinol, the way of simply applying by 
 natural medical skill a natural medicinal remedy. Neither, on the other hand, 
 would it be merely in a symbolical way that they would apply it, as Beza and 
 Petter contend. They would employ it, on a principle of intercorrespondenoy 
 or harmony, as a fitting material and visible medium, through which the in- 
 visible and Divine influence, which it was their prerogative to communicate, 
 took effect. Not that we are to suppose that it was the only fitting medium. 
 It was employed representatively only. There is no evidence that our Saviour 
 ever Himself used the same medium. He used words at times and touching at 
 other times. " He healed," as Michaelis remarks, " by a word, a command, a 
 " simple touch ; His apostles by ointment and medicines." (Anmerkungen, ia 
 loc.) But they healed miraculously nevertheless. As Lightfoot expresses it, 
 " they used an ordinary medicine, and obtained an extraordinary and infaUible 
 " effect." {Heb. and Talm. Exer., on Matt. vi. 17.)- 
 
 Veb. 14-16. A little paragraph, giving occasion for the insertion of the 
 larger one that immediately follows. It corresponds to Luke ix. 7-9, and Matt. 
 xiv. 1, 2. 
 
 Veb. 14. And the king Herod heard. The Cambridge manuscript (D) and 
 some few other authorities read reversely Herod the king. The evangelist does 
 not tell what it was that he heard. His own mind was full of his great subject, 
 of Christ, and of His sayings and doings ; he hence artlessly writes as if hia 
 readers could not but understand what he was referring to. The Syriao Peshito 
 version adds the words concerning Jesus. It is far too narrow a view to suppose, 
 
15] ST. MAEK VI. 149 
 
 abroad :) and he said. That Jolin the Baptist was risen from 
 the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth them- 
 selves in him. 15 Others said, That it is Elias. And others 
 
 with Meyer, that the intended reference is to the contents of ver. 12 and lit. 
 The Herod spoken of, Herod Antipas, one of the sons of Herod the Great by 
 Malthace the Samaritan, was not strictly and technically king, like his father. 
 He was only tetrarch ; and so he is designated hy both Matthew (xiv. 1) , and Luke 
 (ix. 7). But as he was really sovereign in his own fraction of the old kingdom, 
 the tetrarchy of Galilee and Persea, he was popularly and by courtesy called king. 
 
 For His name was spread abroad. Or, as Goverdale gives it, for His name was 
 now known ; literally, for His name was become manifest, or as it were con- 
 spicuous ; a parenthetical remark, accounting for the fact that even the tetrarch, 
 though far removed from the circle of society in which Jesus was working, had 
 heard of Him. 
 
 And he said, John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is, from 
 among tlie dead. The report of Herod's remark is given, not in the indirect, 
 but in the direct, form ; and hence the introductory demonstrative that, found 
 in King James's version, should be omitted in harmony with our English idiom. 
 It is omitted both by Tyndale and Goverdale, and in the Geneva, but was intro- 
 duced by the Eheims. The guUty monarch's conscience was haunted by ghastly 
 reminiscences and weird forebodings ; these, working in conjunction with a 
 superstition which he found it impossible, notwithstanding his Epicureanism, to 
 shake off, projected their own ghost-like shadows of things upon the wonderful 
 personality of our Lord. 
 
 And therefore the powers are operative in him (ivepyoOcLv al Smrd/ieis ev oiirij). 
 This is a snatch of Herod's theology and philosophy. He knew that the 
 Baptist had in his natural lifetime wrought no miracles ; but he thought that, 
 in consequence of his connection with the unseen world, he had now become 
 a prominent subject and agent of the occult forces of the universe. He knew 
 not what these forces were ; but he was sure that they were. He had too a 
 wholesome dread of them, and was uneasy when the idea took possession of 
 Jiim that one of their terrestrial centres of operation was in the resuscitated 
 person of his old faithful adviser, whom he had so unrighteously put out of the 
 way. ' The powers,' generically considered ; the existing powers. Wycliffe's 
 translation of the clause is, and therfore vertues worchen in hym, that is, as the 
 Eheims gives it, worke in him,. 
 
 Vek. 15. Bound about the peculiar opinion of Herod regarding the wonderful 
 Galilean Kabbi other opinions were in circulation, and more or less ventilated. 
 Others said ; or rather, But others said. Almost all the good manuscripts insert 
 the conjunction. 
 
 It is Elias. Or Elijah. For he was expected to reappear on the eartn, 
 to prepare the way, for the establishment of the kingdom of heaven (see 
 Mai. iv. 5). It was assumed by those who mooted this opinion regarding 
 the Galilean Rabbi, that He could not be the Messiah himself. The Messiah 
 was to be a great and glorious King, and would be found in som'^ palace, sur- 
 rounded with courtiers and generals and armies. 
 
150 ST. MARK VI. [15 
 
 said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets. 16 But 
 when Herod heard thereof, he said. It is John, whom I 
 beheaded : he is risen from the dead. 
 
 But others said, A prophet ! like one of the prophets ! Such is the translation 
 of the correct reading. A twofold form of the report is recorded : one was, 
 A prophet ! another was, Like one of the ^prophets I Elias too was a prophet ; 
 but he stood apart on a peculiar pedestal as ' the forerunner,' and as thus pre- 
 eminently ' the prophet.' Some, who could not imagine that Jesus was so great 
 a personage, yet supposed that He might very likely be u, prophet, say perhaps 
 Jeremiah (Matt. xvi. 14) ; others, who could not go quite so far, yet admitted 
 that He was like one of the prophets, one of them come to life again. In the 
 Eeceived Text there is an or inserted between the. two forma of the'report ; it is 
 wanting however in almost all the important manuscripts, inclusive of X ABC 
 and 33 ' the queen of the cursives,- and in almost aU the old versions, inclusive 
 of the Vulgate and Syriac Peshito. It is thrown out of the text by Bengel, 
 Griesbach, Matthsei, Scholz, Lachmahn, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. Besides 
 this spurious or there is also in the Received Text the substantive Verb, ' it is 
 a prophet ' ; but this too, though better supported tbau the disjunctive particle, 
 was a transcriber's addition to Mark's own abrupt phraseology. 
 
 Veh. 16. But when Herod heard. It is not said what. Meyer thinks that the 
 reference is to the different opinions entertained regarding our Lord. Unlikely. 
 It is more probable that the evangelist is simply reverting resumptively to what 
 he had said in ver. 14. He repeats the abrupt phrase which he there employed, 
 and which would be still standing out to view in his memory. 
 
 He said, It is he whom I beheaded, John ; he is risen from the dead. The con- 
 struction is rugged in the original, but graphically exhibits such jerking and 
 broken modes of phraseology as might be expected from one in Herod's position, 
 speaking under the impulse of superstition and tbe sting of conscience. He 
 turns the first part of his observation right round as it were, whom I beheaded, 
 John, he is risen from the dead. It is somewhat doubtful whether the words 
 from the dead may not be a marginal addition. They are omitted by Tischen- 
 dorf and Alford on the authority of K B L A and ' the queen of the cursives.' 
 They are also omitted in the Coptic version and the Harclean Syriac ; Tregelles 
 encloses them within brackets. It is of no moment whether they be retained 
 or left out. 
 
 Vbk. 17-29 constitute a long and intensely ' sensational ' paragraph. Its 
 ' sensationalism,' however, is the quiet efflorescence of truth, not the noisy 
 efiervescence of fiction. It is ' truth stranger than fiction ' : deeply instructive 
 truth moreover, giving glimpses into scenes behind the curtain of court life, and 
 revealing the hoUowness of the pleasures that are founded on immorality. At 
 the bottom of these pleasures there is an opening into an abyss of disappoint- 
 ment and woe. The paragraph is introduced into the narrative to account for 
 Herod's notion regarding Jesus. It would however be gladly introduced by the 
 evangelist, partly because of the intensely striking character of the facts nar- 
 rated, and partly because of the opportunity which it afforded for giving inform- 
 ation regarding John the Baptist, who stood in so intimate a relationship to 
 
19] ST. MARK VI. 151 
 
 17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon 
 John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother 
 Philip's wife : for he had married her. 18 For John had said 
 unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's 
 wife. 19 Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and 
 
 our Lord. A corresponding paragraph is found in Matt. xiv. 3-12, but not in 
 Luke. Compare, however, Luke iii. 19, 20. 
 
 Ver. 17. Tor Herod himself. This very Herod, whose opinion of Jesus has 
 just been recorded. 
 
 Had sent forth. The verb is not in the pluperfect tense in the original, but in 
 the aorist. He sent out, viz. at a, former stage of things, when he had been 
 irritated by the faithful remonstrances of the incorruptible preacher. 
 
 And arrested John, and bound him in prison. The idea is not that John was 
 bound when once he was got into prison, but that he was hound when arrested, 
 and then shut up in prison. Manacles would no doubt be put upon him, ere he 
 was led off to prison. The language is constructed in a free and inartificial way. 
 
 Because of Herodias, the wife of Philip his brother. Philip was the brother of 
 Antipas by the same father, Herod the Great, but not by the same mother. 
 The mother of Antipas was Malthace the Samaritan ; the mother of Philip wa& 
 Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest (Josephus, Ant., xviii. S : 1, 4). 
 This Philip, to be distinguished, notwithstanding all the efforts of Volkmar 
 (Die Evang., p. 367-8), from Philip the tetrarch of Trachonitis (see Patrizi, 
 De Evangeliis, vol. ii., p. 424^5), lived privately at Eome, and had a daughter ■ 
 Salome by his wife Herodias. Herodias was herself a granddaughter of Herod 
 the Great, being the daughter of Aristobulus, who was Herod's son by Mariamne, 
 the granddaughter of Hyrcanus. Philip her husband, and Antipas her subsequent 
 paramour, were thus her uncles ! So incestuously tangled was the family web ! 
 Agrippa the Great was one of her three brothers. 
 
 For he had married her. Or, more literally, for he married her. It was a 
 sadly scandalous affair all through. He was not only Philip's brother ; he was 
 also his guest in Eome at the time that he stole Herodias's heart {Joseph. Ant., 
 xviii. 5 : 1). He had moreover a wife of his own, to whom he had long ago 
 been married, and who had been entirely faithful to him. She was the daughter 
 of Aretas, king of Arabia. She fled to her father on discovering that it was the 
 intention of her unfaithful lord to get her divorced, that room might be made for 
 her sister in law. A bloody war, offspring of ' the lusts that war in the mem- 
 bers ' (Jas. iv. 1), was the result, and a total and humiliating defeat was inflicted 
 on Herod. Thus ' hard,' in the long run, ' is the way of transgressors.' 
 
 Vek. 18. Tor John said to Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have the wife of 
 thy brother. The noble man had been faithful to the tetrarch. Instead of 
 flattering him as the cringing creatures of the court would be doing, by some 
 subtle Machiavellian reasoning to the effect that might was right, such reason- 
 ing as that of CaUicles in Plato's Gorgias, he boldly asserted the supremacy of 
 right and condemned the infamous marriage. 
 
 Ver. 19. And Herodias was urgent against him. Literally, and idiomatically, 
 
152 ST. MARK VI. [19 
 
 would have killed him; but she could uot: 20 for Herod 
 feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and 
 
 held in to him, instead of simply Iwlding off from him (aire'ix^p dir' airou). Comp. 
 ^uke xi. 53, Gen. xlix. 23. She nursed her animosity and resentment in her 
 heart. 
 
 And wished to kill him. It is a plain and unvarnished way of speaking ou 
 the part of the evangelist. He calls a spade a spade. The unprincipled woman 
 could not brook the outspoken integrity of the man of God, and schemed to get 
 quit of his living voice and influence. She had inherited, in a marked degree, 
 the haughty, domineering, and unscrupulous spirit of her grandfather. George 
 Buchanan, the prince of modern Latin poets, sketches her character and 
 principles of action with a masterly hand in his drama entitled The Baptist. 
 He makes her say to the vacillating Herod, just as Callicles would have taught 
 her to speak : 
 
 " Father in law, friends, tinsmen, son in law. 
 Brother and sister, citizen and foe. 
 Are chains for poor men ; empty words for kings. 
 Whoe'er puts on his bead a diadem 
 Should fling aside all kinds of common duty. 
 Think nothing base that 's useful to a king." — Scene Twelftli. 
 
 And was uot able. She could not compass hex end, for the reason stated in 
 the next verse. 
 
 Veb. 20. For Herod feared John. KingUness changed places: the subject 
 did not fear the sovereign ; the sovereign feared the subject. He did not 
 know what occult influences might be at the good man's disposal ; but he felt 
 that some influences or other, of a powerful and penetrating description, 
 did vibrate into his heart and conscience, at the touch of the incorruptible 
 preacher. 
 
 Knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. Righteous toward man, hohj 
 toward God. There was thus a part of Herod's soul that was, to some extent, 
 responsive to the imperatives of righteousness and holiness. He bowed, though 
 only alas at a distance, before the sceptres of these sovereign principles. But 
 he was not prepared to be obedient to their behests. 
 
 And observed him. A wrong translation, and yet, strange to say, given by 
 both Erasmus and Beza, and thence received into King James's version. Tyu- 
 dale, too, had taken the same view; his translation is, and gave him reverence. 
 So too Vatable, Calvin (see his French version), Grotius, le Clere, Beausobre, 
 Wakefield, Fritzsche, Wahl, Bloomfield, Patrizi. The translation of Websttr 
 and "Wilkinson is also objectionable, observed him strictly, 'as if ho would see 
 whether Herodias had any good grounds for her enmity.' The word does not 
 mean ohserved, but conserved (o-weT^/iei), and so it is used in the other New 
 Testament passages where it occurs. See Matt. ix. 17 ; Luke ii. 19, v. 38, 
 Eilliet's translation is, and protected him. Principal Campbell's is identical. 
 And so the Vulgate, Coverdale, igenry Stephens, Jansen, Petter, Hammond, 
 Eisner, Bengel, Bretschneider, Meyer, Alford, Lange, Grimm. Herod protected 
 John against the machinations of Herodias, and hence conserved him, or, iu 
 accordance with our idiom, preserved him, kept him safe. 
 
21] ST. MARK VI. 153 
 
 observed him ; and wlien he heard him, he did many things, 
 and heard him ^larlly. 21 And when a convenient day was 
 
 And when he heard him, he did many things. Such is the reading of thd 
 Eeceived Text. Herod's conscience being touched, he tried to make a compro- 
 mise with it by doing a variety of good things from which he would otherwise 
 have abstained. It is likely, however, that the expression he did many things 
 (n-oXXa iirola) is a tinkered reading, occasioned chiefly by the word gladly in the 
 following clause. The original expression seems to have been, he was much 
 perplexed (iroXKb. riwopei). Such was, for long, known to be the reading of the 
 Vatican manuscript (B). It was also the reading of the Parisian manuscript L, 
 and of -the Coptic version. And now it turns out that the Sinaitio manuscript 
 has the same reading. Ewald approves of it, and so does Meyer. Tisehendorf 
 has, in his eighth edition, received it into the text. We cannot but accept it. 
 See next clause. 
 
 And he heard Mm gladly. Or with pleasure (^S^us). A statement not at all 
 inconsistent with the preceding; for there was inconsistency in the heart of 
 Herod. He was not bad throughout ; and he was far from being good through- 
 out. There was stUl a tender spot in his conscience. The genius of John, his 
 ready oratory, the unsophisticated grandeur of his character, his manifest and 
 incorruptible integrity, his loyalty to God, his manly and undeviatiug devotion 
 to a life of self denial and godliness, — all these uncommon elements of idiosyn- 
 crasy would lend a nameless charm to his discoursings. The monarch would 
 feel that he was in the presence of ' an honest man,' who was as great as he was 
 good. But then the very charm of which he was conscious, by insinuating 
 itself into his still susceptible conscience, and rousing the dormant forces that 
 were there, would give occasion to a perplexing collision between a sense of 
 duty and a desire to enjoy the revelry that had established for itself a kind of 
 prescriptive right, and a home, in his court. We need not doubt the reality 
 of the collision. We need not, with Cardinal Cajetan, suppose that there was 
 the mere simulation of respect for John, for fear of the people (Jicte Heiodes 
 exercebat hos virtutum actus). Yet de Lyra took the same view. Strauss 
 gives emphasis to another supposed inconsistency, the inconsistency of Herod's 
 interest in John, as here recorded, with what is said in Matt. xiv. 5, "And when 
 " he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted 
 "him as a prophet" (Leben, ii. 1 : 44). Meyer echoes this assertion of incon- 
 sistency. But inconsistently. It is not to be wondered at that the first 
 promptings of Herod's haughty heart should have been to put to death the man 
 who had dared to criticise the legitimacy of his marriage. But when a regard 
 to public opinion had held back for a, season his uplifted hand, time was given 
 for resentment to cool and conscience to utter its 'stUl smaU voice.' And 
 perhaps too his infatuated attachment to his queen might have gradually 
 become conscious of some thorns piercing into its quick. What wonder then 
 that there should be some change in his feelings ? Where is the inconsistency 
 of the two accounts? There is not even what Ebrard would admit {Wissen- 
 schaftliclie Kritih, p. 384), the ' appearance of contradiction ' {Sehein eines 
 Widerspruches). 
 
 Veil 21. Anl £n o_5p:rti:ni day having come. Opportune, to wit, for Hcrodias 
 
154 ST. MARK VI. [21 
 
 come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, 
 high captains, and chief estates of Galilee; 22 and when the 
 daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and 
 
 carrying out » machination -whicli she had been concocting in her heart. 
 Principal Campbell's translation, modelled upon Mace's, and improved, is free 
 but admirable. At length a favourable opportunity offered. 
 
 When Herod (Sre, not S re as in Laohmann, p. xliii.). 
 
 On his birthday festivities (tois yEvea-iots airoS). The evangelist's phrase is notr 
 used in its current classical acceptation. Among the Attics it was generally 
 employed, by a remarkable inversion of reference, to denote the solemnities that 
 were commemorative of decease (see Hesychius and Phavorinus in voc, and 
 Lobeck, pp. 103, 184). Death was treated as a birth (compare the ecclesiastical 
 'Genethlia'; Suiceri Thes., i., p. 747). The evangelist, however, uses the 
 phrase in its primary and natural acceptation. It is said that the Jews in 
 general disapproved of observing birthday festivities. They esteemed "the 
 "keeping of birthdays," says Lightfoot, "a part of idolatrous worship." He 
 adds, however, " perhaps they would pronounce more favourably and flatter- 
 " ingly of thine, Tetraroh, because thine" {Exercit. on ik/ate., xiv. 6). It is 
 certain at all events that the Herods, after the manner of the great among the 
 Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, and Eomans, observed their birthdays with the 
 utmost pomp and luxury (see Joseph. Ant., xix. 71 ; Persius Sat., v. 180). 
 
 Made a supper to his lords. Lords, au excellent idiomatic translation of the 
 original word (jisynTTaciv). It was a word which came into use after the Mace- 
 donian era (Lobeck ad Phryn.,Tp. 196-7), and literally means chief ones or chiefs, 
 Salmasius says that it was probably introduced by the Macedonians (De Hellen- 
 istica, p. 110). Some of the Eoman writers, such as Tacitus {An., xv. 27) and 
 Suetonius {Calig., 5), adopted the term into the Latin language, megistanes. 
 
 And high captains. Or high military officer's, chiliarchs as it is in the 
 original, that is, commanders of a thousand men. These miUtary dignitaries are 
 specified, apparently, in contradistinction to the lords or civil dignitaries. 
 
 And the grandees of Galilee. Mace's translation of the clause is, and persons 
 of the first distinction in Galilee. Old Purvey's translation is good, the grettest 
 of Galilee. The lords and high officers would be the regular ' habituSs ' of the 
 court, the grettest of Galilee might comprehend all the other distinguished men 
 of the district. 
 
 Vee. 22. And the daughter of Herodias herself having come in and danced. 
 This clause is in consecutive apposition with the initial clause of the preceding 
 verse, an opportune day having come. The idea is that it was Herodias's own 
 daughter who danced. The aim is not so much to particularise the Herodias 
 already referred to, after the manner of Tyndale's translation, the daughter of 
 the sayde Herodias, as to emphasize the fact that instead of a professional 
 dancing girl or almeh being employed, it was Herodias's own daughter who was 
 cunningly put forward to act as a decoy to the heart of the susceptible monarch. 
 " I should conclude," says Dr. Lardner, " that this dance was a very unusual if 
 " not a very singular piece of complaisance " {Credibility, vol. i., p. 17). It was 
 not customary for ladies of high rank to dance beyond the limits of the harem. 
 
23] ST. MARK VI. 165 
 
 pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto 
 the damsel. Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it 
 thee. 23 And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask 
 of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom. 
 
 The oriental danoe, still more than the occidental ballet that was in use among 
 the voluptuaries of Greece and Eome, was of a libertine character ; it was 
 seldom appreciated unless it made irruptions across the borders of decency (see 
 Sir Fred. Henniker's Notes of Egypt, etc., pp. 72-74). Indeed Dr. E. D. Clarke 
 imagines that " if the history of this exercise be traced to its origin, it will be 
 "found to have nearly the same character all the world over " {Travels, vol. v., 
 p. 167). Cicero, from his standpoint, said, " Scarcely any sober man dances, 
 "unless indeed he be mad" (Nemo enim fere saltat sohrius, nisi forte insanit : 
 Fro Muraina, 6). 
 
 She pleased Herod and his guests. Liberally those who reclined with him, viz. 
 around the suite of triclinia (see Ciacoonius, Be Triclinio, p. 85 ; Ursinus's Ap- 
 pendix, p. 374 ; and Becker's excursus on the triclinium in his Gallus). The 
 dancing women of the East used tambours of Yarious kinds, and sometimes had 
 little bells attached to their fingers to make musical jingling. They sang too. 
 The Princess Salome's dancing and singing would, we may suppose, be more 
 elegant, and more captivating, than any exhibition of mere professional almehs. 
 Herodias, a very 'serpent under femininitee ' {Chaucer, 4: 780) would artfuUy' 
 introduce, moreover, such a piquant portion of the entertainment, just at the 
 right time, and by way of conferring upon her lord, as from herself and her 
 daughter, a very special honour. 
 
 And the king said to the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou desirest, and I 
 shall give it thee. Flushed with flattery, inflamed with wine, and touched to 
 the heart by the gratification which had been contrived for him by the mother 
 of Salome, he felt in his most magnificent and generous mood, and wished to 
 make the elegant danseuse the very best present she could desire. Hence the 
 carte blanche of promise, which, not without a liberal infusion of ostentation, 
 he put into her hand in the presence of his applauding guests. 
 
 Ver. 23. Salome, abashed by the magnificence of the promise, and wincing 
 too, let us hope, under the reproaches of her maidenly modesty, on! which she 
 had been so wantonly tra,mpling as she danced, may have hung her head for a 
 little, in mingled diffidence, perplexity, and shame. The spectacle moved still 
 more the excited and gratified voluptuary. He ' came out stronger ' still, and 
 made efforts to assure her. 
 
 And he swore to her, Whatsoever thou mayest ask of me, I will give to thee, 
 even to half of my kingdom. A most extravagant proinise, in which ope can 
 easily trace the infatuating effect of voluptuous indulgence, and vanity, and 
 ostentation. Perhaps the inflated potentate imagined that he was rivalling the 
 magnificence of ' the great king Ahasuerus ' in the promise which he made to 
 Esther (Bsth. v. 3, 6). Even to half: Our English idiom, like the Greek, 
 admits of the suppression of the article. Purvey's translation of the clause is 
 though it be half my kyngdom. 
 
156 ST. MARK VI. [25 
 
 24 And she went forth, and said unto her mother, What shall 
 I ask ? And she said. The head of John the Baptist. 25 And 
 she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, 
 saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head 
 
 Veb. 24. And she went out and said to Iier mother, What shall I ask ? Or 
 
 rather, according to the reading of the best manuscripts and all the modern 
 critical editors, What should I ask ? {alT-q(rui/j,ai, instead of the aiT'^cro/iai of the 
 Beceived Text.) 
 
 And she said, The head of John the Baptist. Nothing would be so sweet appa- 
 rently, or so dear to her, as the gratification, however coarsely, of her vindictive 
 feelings. And hence too the laconic form of her answer to her child. Some- 
 what of the ferocity may doubtless be legitimately attributed to the spirit of the 
 age ; but still a large residuum remains of what was savage and unfeminine in 
 the character of Herodias. 
 
 Vek. 25. And she came in immediately with haste to the king. Immediately, 
 without loss of time ; with haste, with alacrity iu her step's, and unhesitating 
 determination iu her bearing. ' Avec empressement ' is the felicitous translation 
 of the modem editions of the French Geneva, as also of Beausobre and L'Enfant, 
 and Billiet. She had been reinspired by contact with her mother, and was 
 herself no doubt a thorough Herodine. 
 
 And made her request, saying, I wish that thou shonldest give me Instantly, 
 on a platter, the head of John the Baptist. Note the peremptoriness of the in- 
 stantly (efauT^s). The word is rendered even now in the Geneva, straightway e 
 by Coverdale, anoon (i.e. in con, in due instant) by Wyclifie, immediately by Mace 
 and Wakefield, at orwe by Sharpe, forthwith by Edgar Taylor, now by Norton, 
 presently by Toung ; all of them correct translations. So is King James's 
 version, got from Tyndale, by and by, only the expression has in modern parlance 
 drifted from its former moorings. When that version was published, the phrase 
 just meant immediately, as is evident from the other three passages in which it 
 occurs : Matt. xiii. 21 ; Luke xvii. 7, xxi. 9. In all these cases it is the render- 
 ing of the adverb which is generally translated immediately or straightway. By 
 the time of Dr. Samuel Johnson however the phrase had got to mean, as he 
 defines it, ' in a short time,' although iu the examples which he adduces it 
 really means instantly. On a platter : Or salver, as Brameld renders it. Wyclifie, 
 Wynne, Wakefield, Norton, Edgar Taylor, Sharpe, Alford, Godwin, use the more 
 generic dish ; Newcome, Principal Campbell, Eodolphus Dickinson, have basin ; 
 the Eheims has platter ; King James's translation and the Revised version have 
 charger, a word now antiquated, but formerly meaning a large ' assiette,' which 
 was charged with or on which was carried a charge or cargo of meat. (See 
 Comm. on Matt. , xiv. 8.) The maiden indicated that it would be, as it were, the 
 consummation of the feast to her and her mother, if the Baptist's head were 
 presented to her. It was needful, iu her opinion, that it should be actually pre- 
 sented to herself, no doubt that she might satisfy herself that no inferior head 
 had been surreptitiously substituted iu its place. " Agrippina, wife of Claudius, 
 "and mother of Nero, who was afterwards emperor, sent an officer to put to 
 " death Lollia Paulina, who had been her rival for the imperial dignity. And 
 
27] ST. MARK VI. 157 
 
 of Jolin the Baptist. 26 And the king was exceeding sorry; 
 yet for his oaths' sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he 
 would not reject her. 27 And immediately the king sent an 
 
 " Dio Cassius says that when LoUia's head was brought to her, not knowing it 
 " at first, she examined it with her own hands, till she perceived some particular 
 " feature by which that lady was distinguished. I have put down this instance, 
 " because it seems to give us the reason of this practice among great people, 
 "namely, that they might be certain their orders had been executed." (Lard- 
 ner's Credibility, vol. i., p. 17.) 
 
 Ver. 26. And the king was made exceedingly sorry, but, on account of his oaths 
 and his guests, did not choose to reject her. The reason of his exceeding sorrow 
 was to be found in his inward respect for John, and his desire to ' have his own 
 way ' in reference to him, notwithstanding the wishes and schemes of his consort. 
 On account of his oaths. Note the plural number. He had repeated, and perhaps 
 re-repeated, his oath. He did not choose : he did not wish (and wHl). To 
 reject her : a free phrase, meaning to repudiate her demand, or to deny her request. 
 Literally, to displace her ; namely, from that standing-room which she got by 
 his promise, and of which she had taken unhandsome advantage in preferring 
 such an unwelcome request. 
 
 Was it right in Herod, it has often been asked, to choose not to displease 
 Salome, and consequently to murder John ? It is sufficient to answer that it 
 can never be right to do wrong. But what then of the obligation of his oaths ? 
 He was conscious of their force ; but still they could not bind him to do wrong. 
 No power in the universe can ever make it right to do wrong. But is it not 
 doing wrong to violate an oath ? No, if the oath were itself entirely wrong 
 (rei illicitcB nulla obligatiq : Sanderson, De Juramenti obligatione, ii. 13). The 
 making of such an oath is the first wrong doing ; the keeping of it is the second. 
 When one has begun wrong, repentance, as even Seneca teaches, is more honour- 
 able than pertinacity. (It is one of the bad effects of ira, he says, that in male 
 coeptis honestior pertinacia videtur quam pcenitentia : Deira, i. 16. ) When it 
 is said that Herod had regard to his guests, as well as to his oaths, the mean- 
 ing probably is, not that ' these persons joined in with the request ' of Salome, 
 out of dislike to John, as Dr. A. Clarke supposes, but that the tetraroh could 
 not brook the idea of doing in their presence what would lower him in their 
 estimation, seeing they were themselves witnesses of the fact of the uncondi- 
 tional promise. 
 
 Veb. 27. And immediately the king sent off a soldier of his body-guard. The 
 evangelist, instead of employing a Greek term {Sopvcpopos) , uses a Latin technical 
 word, which was at that time in fashion, speculator (not spiculator, as Erasmus 
 and Beza give it ; see, especially, Golling's exhaustive Monograph on the term). 
 This Latin word originally meant a scout, but came by and by to denote, more 
 jenerically, a military attendant on high officers in the army. At length it was 
 used to denote one of the armed body-guard of the Eomau emperor. (See 
 Suetonius, Calig. 44, Claiid.35 ; Tacit. His*., ii. 33, etc.) Herod Antipas imitated 
 the manners of the Boman court, and hence, like Claudius (Sneton. 35), had in 
 
158 ST. MARK VI. [27 
 
 executioner, and commanded his head to be brought : and 
 he went and beheaded him in the prison, 28 and brought 
 his head in a charger, and gave it to the damsel: and the 
 damsel gave it to her mother. 29 And when his disciples 
 heard of it, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in 
 a tomb. 
 
 attendance a. company, or little ' cohort,' of speeulatores. These speculatores 
 were employed, when occasion required, as executioners. (See Seneca, De Ira, 
 i. 16, and GoUing, ut supra.) But it was by no means their distinctive charac- 
 teristic to act in this capacity ; and hence the translation in King James's version 
 is apt to suggest too narrow an idea. This idea was revoltingly exaggerated by 
 Tyndale, who rendered the expression ' the hangman.' Yet Coverdale, the 
 Geneva, and the Eheims, followed in his wake. Wycliffe's version was not so 
 offensive, but it was wrong nevertheless, a manqueller, i.e. a mankiller. 
 
 And commanded to bring his head. Or, as it is freely rendered by Mace, with 
 orders to bring the head of John the Baptist. 
 
 And he went off and beheaded him in the prison. According to Josephus, it 
 was in the strongly fortified fortress of Machserns, east of the Dead Sea, that 
 John was beheaded. {Antiq. xviii. 5 : 2.) If this be the case, then Herod must 
 have kept the anniversary of his birthday in the magnificent palace which his 
 father had built within that fortress. (See Josephus, War, vii. 6 : 2.) Eenau 
 assumes that the feast must have been celebrated there (Vie de Jesus, chap, 
 xii., p. 197). So does Hepworth Dixon {The Holy Land, p. 288) ; and many 
 others. And yet it is possible that Josephus may just have taken for granted 
 that John was put to death in the castle where he was originally confined ; and 
 it may have been the case that he had been removed to Tiberias, the favourite 
 residence of Herod. The fact that the grandees of Galilee only, and not those 
 also of Percea, are specified as having been present at the festival, rather favours 
 this supposition. 
 
 Vee. 28. There is a small difference about the commencement of this verse. 
 Our translators have followed the division of Robert Stephens the verse-maker ; 
 but Beza and Henry Stephens made a modification of the division. They 
 began the 28th verse with the preceding clause, And he went off and beheaded 
 him in the prison. The Elzevirs followed them, and thence too all the great 
 continental editors, earlier and later; Eengel, Wetstein, Griesbaoh, Matthsei, 
 Seholz, Laohmann, Buttmann, Tischendorf. 
 
 And brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the damsel, and the damsel gave 
 it to her mother. A fit presentation for cannibals, or other savages, whether 
 living in a palace or a wigwam. 
 
 Vek. 29. And when his disciples heard of it, they came and took up his corpse, 
 aad laid it in a tomb. Or, as Wycliffe has it, in a huriel. They took up, viz. 
 from the ground, the fallen thing [rb irTui/ia). It was not the noble roan himself 
 whom they took up and buried, tie was ' away ' (2 Cor. v. 8). It was but his 
 prostrate ' remains. 
 
 Ver. 30-33 constitute a little paragraph, introductory to the paragraph con- 
 
32J ST. MARK VI. 15D 
 
 30 And tlie apostles gathered themselves together unto 
 Jesus, and told him all things, both what they had done, and 
 what they had taught. 31 And he said unto them. Come ye 
 yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while : for 
 there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure 
 so much as to eat. 32 And they departed into a desert place 
 by ship privately. 
 
 tained ju ver. 33-44. It is of great intrinsic interest. It contains, says Dean 
 Alford, ' one of the most afleoting descriptions in the Gospels.' Corresponding 
 statements are found in Matt. xiv. 13 ; Luke ix. 10, 11 ; and John vi. 1-3. 
 
 Ver. 30. And the apostles. The only instance in Mark, in which the word 
 apostles is found. But, as Bengel remarks, it is with peculiar fitness that it is 
 introduced (apta huic loco appellatio). The disciples had just completed their 
 first apostolic tour. 
 
 Gather themselves together. Or passively, as Erasmus, Beza, Bretschneider, 
 Grimm, give it, are gathered together. Luther however, and Tyndale, and 
 Bengel, give the middle acceptation, as in our English version. The two mean- 
 ings are coincident. 
 
 Unto Jesns. Whose movements in the interval are not indicated by Mark. 
 But see John v. 1-47. 
 
 And they reported to Him all whatsoever they did and whatsoever they taught. 
 In the Eeceived Text there is a conjunction after all : and they reported to Jfim 
 all, ' both' whatsoever {koX Sira) they did, and whatsoever {xal Sira) they taught. 
 But it is not found in the best manuscripts, or in the best old versions. The 
 returned apostles went into full details of their whole procedure. 
 
 Vek. 31. And He says to them — in a spirit of fine human sympathy — Come 
 ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest yourselves a little. Ye yourselves, 
 that is, ye by yourselves. Erasmus renders the phrase ye alone ('vos soli'). 
 Apart: or privately, as the expression is rendered in Matt. xxiv. 3 ; Mark ix. 
 28, xiii. 3 ; Luke ix. 10, x, 23 ; Acts xxiii. 19 ; Gal. ii. 2. It is Beza's render- 
 ing {privatim). Into a desert place : there were many such places in the neigh- 
 bourhood of the lake of Gennesaret, more especially on its eastern side, places 
 not only uninhabited but uncultivated, in consequence of the predominance of 
 bare rock. And rest yourselves a little : that is, a little while. 
 
 For they who were coming and going were many. There was a constant stream 
 of visitors arriving and departing. 
 
 And they had not sufficient leisure even to eat. The very times for their meals 
 were constantly intruded on by the never-ceasing influx of individuals and 
 groups, who were eager to hear the great Rabbi, or to witness His wonder- 
 working. The proximity of the greatest of the festivals that were celebrated 
 at Jerusalem would give occasion for a large increase of visitors. See John 
 vi. 4. 
 
 Ver. 32. And they departed to a desert place by the boat privately. ' By the 
 boat,' which was at our Saviour's disposal, and which He generally employed. 
 (See chap. iv. 36.) The desert place for which they set out was, as we learn 
 
160 ST. MAEK VI. [33 
 
 33 And the people saw them departing, and many knew 
 him, and ran afoot thither out of all cities, and outwent them. 
 
 from Luke ix. 10, near ' a city called Bethsaida.' Eeland conjectured that there 
 must have been two towns of this name {Fish-town), one in Galilee proper, in 
 the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, and the other in Gaulonitis, in the tetrarchy of 
 Philip. [Palastina, pp. 654-5.) One of the towns would be Bethsaida of 
 Galilee (John xii. 21), the city of Peter and Andrew and Philip (John i. 44) ; 
 the other was on the east side of the Jordan above its embouchure into the 
 lake (Josephus, }Var, iii. 10 : 7). It was increased and adorned by the tetrarch 
 Philip, and called Julias in honour of the emperor's daughter (Josephus, Ant., 
 xviii. 2:1). It would no doubt be to some secluded spot in the vicinity of 
 this eastern Bethsaida, in the tetrarchy of Philip, that our Lord retired with 
 His disciples. There is reference to the other Bethsaida in ver. 45. Baur 
 (p. 51) and Ewald however suppose that the place referred to must have been 
 the GalDean Bethsaida on the western si&e of the lake, or near to Capernaum. 
 Unlikely. 
 
 Veb. 33. And many saw them departing and knew them. Notwithstanding 
 the Saviour's desire to get off privately, by night perchance, many had been 
 hovering about, and noticed their departure, and, though it was dusk, identified 
 them. Instead of knew them (airois) it is knew Him {avrbv) in the Eeceived 
 Text, andinEFGHSVr. But it is fftem in SAKLMU AH, and 33 'the 
 queen of the cursives,' as also in the Syriac versions, and the Coptic, and ^thi- 
 opic. This them is received into the text by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, 
 nightly, Griesbaoh, Laohmann, Tregelles, Alford, omit both them and him 
 on the authority of the Vatican and Cambridge manuscripts (BD), and the 
 fine cursive manuscript of Basle (1). If it should be the case that the thevt 
 was really omitted in the original text, it is needful, at all events, to supply it 
 mentally. 
 
 And on foot from all the cities they ran together thither {koX TrefiJ &irb TracGm 
 Twv irbXitav avv^Spafj-ov iKel), that is, and ^people ' on foot from all the cities ran 
 together in the direction that was taken by the boat in which our Saviour and 
 His disciples were. The reference is not exclusively to those who saw the 
 disciples setting off. (Comp. Matt. xiv. 13.) They are artlessly merged, so far 
 as the evangelist's narrative is concerned, in the greater multitudes who were 
 influenced by their report. The body of the people would probably set out 
 early in the morning, before sunrise, according to the oriental custom. They 
 were on foot, or afote as Tyndale has it, not in boats. They ran together, or as 
 the Eheims has it felicitously, they ranne flocking. 
 
 And outwent them. Or, as Wycliffe has it, and came hifore hem (i.e. before 
 tftcm), viz. to the place of destination. The Bheims version has the fine old 
 word prevented, in its primitive old fashioned acceptation, and prevented tliem. 
 
 Vek. 34-44, the paragraph to which ver. 30-33 are introductory. It contains 
 a simple but graphic account of the miraculous feeding of five thousand 
 persons in a desert place. Comp. Matt. xiv. 14-21 ; Luke ix. 11-17 ; John vi. 
 ii-i3. 
 
30] ST. MARK VI. 161 
 
 and came together unto him. 34 And Jesus, when he came 
 out, saw much people, and was moved with compassion toward 
 them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd : and 
 he began to teach them many things. 35 And when the day 
 was now far spent, his disciples came unto him, and said. This 
 is a desert place, and now the time is far passed : 36 send them 
 
 Vek. 34. And when He came forth, He saw a great crowd. Such is the 
 reading in Griesbaeh, Tisohendorf, Tregelles, Alford, without the word Jesus. 
 When He came forth : even before He disembarked, the moment that He 
 emerged from the little cabin, in which, as we may presume, He had been 
 snatching some repose (oomp. chap. iv. 38), He would witness the collected 
 crowd. Most probably the vessel would lie at rest a considerable time on the 
 Btm waters, to allow of repose. 
 
 And was moved with compassion toward them. A fine translation of the 
 original expression (iaTkayxvUd-q ijr' airois), as is also Purvey's, though 
 archaic, and hadde reuth on hem. AU that was ' within ' our Lord was tenderly 
 agitated ' over ' the people. (See Buttig's admirable monograph on the word, 
 De Emphasi (nrkayxvi^oiMi..) 
 
 Because they were as sheep not having a shepherd. A very sad case in a 
 land of only partial pasturage, and utterly unenclosed, running off too at many 
 a point into defiles and gorges, which are the natural haunts and dens of wild 
 beasts. 
 
 And He began to teach them many things. Instead of taking the rest for 
 which He had longed, and which was so desirable at once for Himself and His 
 disciples. He began to teach the people ; and having begun. He was drawn on, 
 and stm on, until the day was far advanced. 
 
 Veb. 35. And when the day was now far spent. A fine free idiomatic 
 translation, obtained from Tyndale. Wycliffe's version is very literal, and 
 whanne moche our (i.e. much hour) was maad now, that is, and now when it was 
 become late. It becomes late in the day, when much hour, or much time, has 
 come to pass. In the reading of the Sinaitic and Cambridge manuscripts 
 (X D), a reading adopted by Tisohendorf in his eighth edition, the verb is in 
 the present participle instead of the past (ytyo/j.^vi!!, not yevoiJ.iv7js), and now 
 when it is becoming late. 
 
 His disciples approached Him, and said. The place is desert. And hence there 
 would be no hamlets dotting it, in which the multitudes could get provisions 
 for 'themselves. The farmers and workers did not, as a rale, live in detached 
 houses, but clustered together in larger or smaller villages. 
 
 And now the time is far spent. Or literally, ' and now much hour,' that is, and 
 now it is much hour, it is late. The Bomans had an idiom corresponding to 
 that of the Greeks ; they spoke of much day {multo die), when they meant to 
 intimate that it was late. The disciples very properly and correctly took note 
 of the facts of the place and of the time. But what then ? 
 
 Vek. 36. Dismiss them. But why obtrude ultroneouslj such £ counsel ? It 
 was oHlciousucss, well meant indeed, but not well weighed. 
 
 31 
 
162 ST. MARK VI. [36 
 
 away, that they may go into the country round about, 
 and into the villages, and buy themselves bread: for they 
 have nothing to eat. 37 He answered and said unto them. 
 Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and 
 buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat ? 
 
 In order that they may go into the surrounding fields and villages. Wherever 
 they might come wpoa fields, or cultivated spots, they would be sure to find a 
 hamlet or hamlets hard hy. 
 
 And buy for themselves bread, for they have nothing to eat. Or, according to 
 the greatly abbreviated reading that is given by Tregelles, Alford, and Tisohen- 
 dorf in his eighth edition. And buy for themselves somewhat to eat {iyopi(ru<rir 
 iavrois H (pAyiiKrai). This short reading approved itself to Mill (Proleg.,^. xliii.). 
 It is more likely that the longer reading grew out of the shorter than that the 
 shorter was crumbled down from the longer. 
 
 Veb. 37. But He answered, and said to them. Give ye them to eat. Ab injunc- 
 tion that was eminently fitted to allay their offioiousness on the one hand, and 
 to quicken their consideration on the other, into an attitude and intensity 
 of thoughtfulness that would fit thein for a due appreciation of His intended 
 miracle. 
 
 And they say to Him. Perhaps one after another, each echoing his com- 
 panion's remark. But it was Philip who was the original spokesman. (John 
 vi. 7.) 
 
 Should we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of loaves, and give them to eat ! 
 (Siicrufiev, the right reading.) Should we hasten to the nearest villages, and get, 
 let us say, two hundred pennyworth of loaves ? That quantity, at the very 
 least, would be needed, to admit of every individual receiving a little (John 
 vi. 7). It is loaves, or cakes, not generically bread, that is the evangelist's word. 
 See next verse. The penny that is spoken of was a silver penny, the common 
 Boman silver money, the denarius ; somewhat equivalent to a shilling in our 
 English money, but not so large. Though not so large, however, it would buy 
 far more among the Jews than we can at present buy with a shilling in Great 
 Britain. The relation between money and commodity continually varies. 
 There was a time when bullion was so scarce, comparatively, in our land that a 
 sheep could be bought for two shillings and sixpence. (See Jacob's Precious 
 Metals, chap, xii.) It is needless then to try to estimate the number of loaves 
 that would be obtained for two hundred denarii. Lightfoot mentions that this 
 amount of money, corresponding to two hundred zuzim in Hebrew money, or 
 fifty shekels, was a kind of standard sum in relation to large liabilities. And 
 hence he imagines it was not unlikely that it was mentioned indefinitely by the 
 disciples, 'because it was a most celebrated sum, and of very frequent mention 
 in the mouths of all.' (Exercitations, in loo.) Grotius, on the other hand, and 
 Hofmeister, and Dr. S. Clarke, and others, assume, with greater verisimilitude, 
 (comp. John vi. 7) that two hundred denarii or thereby would be the amount 
 that happened to be on hand in the common purse, ' bourse,' byrsa, or ' bag ' of 
 the disciples. (See John xii. 6, xiii. 29.) The phrase two hundred pennyworth 
 Y loaves does not originally and literally mean, as Alexander supposed, loavet 
 
41] ST. MARK VI. 163 
 
 38 He saith unto them, How many loaves have ye ? go and 
 see. And when they knew, they say. Five, and two fishes. 
 
 39 And he commanded them to make all sit down by com- 
 panies upon the green grass. 40 And they sat down in ranks, 
 by hundreds, and by fifties. 41 And when he had taken the 
 
 of two hundred denarii. But tlie whole expression means should we buy, 'with' 
 two hundred denarii, loaves ! See 1 Cor. vi. 20. 
 
 Vek. 38. Bat He says to them, How many loaves have ye? Go and see. Or, 
 as Tyndale has it. Goo and loke. " Questions," as de Veil remarks, " are not 
 " always signs of ignorance, but are sometimes employed for the benefit and 
 " instruction of those who are interrogated." 
 
 And when they knew, they say. Five, and two fishes. They had made no pro- 
 vision for luxurious entertainment in their retirement. Fishes : Dried, of 
 course, according to a common custom of the country, and intended to be.eaten 
 as opsonium, or, as the Scots would express it, as ' kitchen.' 
 
 Veb. 39. And He ordered them— the disciples to wit — to cause all to recline by 
 companies on the green grass. Mark alone mentions that the grass was green. 
 It is an interesting autoptic observation which had been communicated to him 
 by his informant. During a great part of the year there is not such a thing as a 
 blade of green grass to be seen on the slopes that ascend from the eastern shores 
 of the sea of Tiberias ; all the grass that remains is browned and scorched. But, 
 as we learn from John, though John alone, it was now spring time, just before 
 the passover festival. (John vi. 4.) The whole district therefore would be 
 richly carpeted with beautifully green grass, except at those spots where the 
 bare rooks protruded. By companies : Our ■woidi parties, in its convivial accept- 
 ation, is, as nearly as possible, a reproduction of the original term {<rv/nrdtna 
 aviMirbiria). The multitude was to be arranged in a suite of parties, no doubt 
 semicircularly adjusted, after the form of Eoman triclinia or Grecian sym- 
 posia. Such a semicircular or ' horseshoe ' style of parties had become common 
 among the Jews, being adopted from the Greeks and Bomans ; and hence the 
 frequent reference, in the New Testament, to reclining at meals. 
 
 Veb. 40. And they sat down. Or rather, and they reclined. The verb repre- 
 sents the act of falling backward {dviireffav). It is translated leaned back in 
 John xxi. 20. 
 
 In ranks. Like leek-beds in a garden (irpaaial 'rpa<rial). They were sym- 
 metrically arranged. 
 
 By hundreds and by fifties. This does not mean, as Fritzsche and Meyer 
 suppose, in companies which were in some cases a hundred in number, and in some 
 cases fifty. It represents such a symmetrical arrangement of the whole suite 
 of parties, that, viewed in one direction, ire rank, from end to end of the re- 
 spective tricUuia, there was a succession of semicircular hundreds, in tier beyond 
 tier ; whereas, when viewed laterally, or in file, counting off one at a time from 
 each of the semicircles or triclinia, there was a succession of fifties. Viewed 
 from front to back, there were fifty hundreds ; viewed from side to side there 
 
1G4 ST. MARK VI. [41 
 
 five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and 
 blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples 
 
 were a hundred fifties ; that is, there were five thousand guests. (See ver. 44.) 
 Wetstein and Wesley understood the arrangement, though probahly erring in 
 reversing the proportions of rank and file. They counted fifty 'by a hundred, 
 instead of, as the evangehst, a hundred by fifty. Fritzsche and Meyer have 
 both misunderstood Wetstein, strangely supposing that he made out each com- 
 pany to consist of a hundred and fifty. Erasmus Sohmid interested himself in 
 the arithmetical phase of the matter, apd has inserted in his Nevf Testament 
 two large plans of the parties. But he missed the idea of triclinia, and accord- 
 ingly did not bend his hundreds into continuous semicircles, or what was 
 equivalent, to three sides of a parallelogram or square. Dr. Adam Clarke too 
 got perplexed in his conception ; for, on referring to Mr. Wesley's perspicuous 
 representation, he says, ' but if they sat fifty deep, how could the disciples 
 conveniently serve them with the bread and fish?' The answer is obvious, 
 Just because the fifties (or rather the hundreds, for Mr. Wesley reverses the 
 ratios) were not packed closely together. Each hundred constituted a distinct 
 party or triclinium, and would be separated by a convenient interval from 
 all the other hundreds. The whole suite of hundreds, however, though thus 
 conveniently separated from each other, would bend up on the slope semi- 
 circularly and overlappingly, one beyond another. 
 
 Vee. 41. And having taken the five loaves and the two fishes. He looked up to 
 heaven and blessed. Blessed, or gave thanks. See John vi. 11. He gave thanks 
 for the food, and in that sense blessed it. See Luke ix. 16. The English word 
 Hess, like the corresponding Anglo-Saxon word, has got various remarkable 
 applications. When man blesses man, he gives him bliss (Ang. Sax. blis), or 
 makes him ' blithe.' In this way too, but reverently understood, does God 6Zess 
 man. But we also speak of blessing God, as likewise of blessing those blessings 
 with which we are blessed by God. The Greek word is radically different both 
 from the Hebrew term and the English. It means to speak well of {eiKoyiu), 
 and can thus, wheel-hke, be turned round toward any being or thing that has 
 any point in it of either actual or possible good. Our Saviour, on the present 
 occasion, would doubtless speak well of His Father ; and, coincidently, He 
 would speak well of the provision, His Father's device and gift, which He was 
 about to distribute and increase. He might speak well too in reference to the 
 people, petitioning for their weal. He would thus coincidently bless the Father, 
 bless the food, and invoke blessing on the people. As He blessed He looked up 
 to the heaven ; thus, in the outer sphere of things, instinctively representing 
 the elevation of His thoughts, in their own inner sphere, above the mere 
 materialisms that were around Him and beneath Him. " In prayer," says 
 Fetter, " we should use such outward gestures as may most fitly serve to express 
 " the inward disposition and holy affections of our heart and soul." 
 
 And brake the loaves. Literally, and broke down the loaves, viz. into several 
 pieces. The Jewish loaves, it should be remembered, were of the form of 
 cakes. 
 
 And gave to the disciples. Viz. the broken pieces. 
 
44] ST. MARK VI. 1G5 
 
 to set before them ; and the two fishes divided he among them 
 all. 42 And they did all eat, and were filled. 43 And they 
 took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes. 
 44 And they that did eat of the loaves were about five 
 thousand men. 
 
 To set before them. The verb that is here employed by the evangelist was the 
 accredited term used by the Greeks to denote the action of servants in placing 
 the meat on the table beside the guests (irapanBTiiii), 
 
 And the two fishes He portioned out to all. Viz. through the hands of the dis- 
 ciples, as the bread had been. The disciples -would in all likelihood pass, in the 
 first instance at least, along the respective termini of the semicircular rows, and 
 hand a portion of food to each individual at the extremities. As the portion 
 was diminished, lo it increased I It would be easy to speculate on the how, but 
 difficult to determine it. It would be easy to speculate along different lines of 
 possibility; but it is uimecessary, and would be unprofitable. Let what is 
 divinely veiled in this matter continue veiled ; but nothing except what involves 
 a contradiction is ' too hard for the Lord ' (Jer. xxxii. 17). He who can produce 
 a forest of oaks from a single acorn, and in one spawn of a codfish can give 
 existence, at one point of time, to a brood of not less than three millions six 
 hundred and eighty-six thousand, seven hundred and sixty units of life, could 
 be at no loss to condense, indefinitely, molecular action in time, and coincidently 
 expand it in space. 
 
 Ver. 42. And all ate and were satisfied. The word properly means foddered 
 {ixopTd<r6Ti(Tar). Purvey has it here and weren fulfillid, showing finely the 
 primitive meaning of fulfilled. (Comp. Chaucer, 5,079.) 
 
 Vek. 43. And they took up of fragments twelve basketfals. Very literally, 
 fillings of twelve baskets. Wycliffe uses the word coffins instead of baskets. It 
 is the original term, and is connected with coffers. It denoted, as used by the 
 Greeks and Romans, (for they both employed it,) a sort of basket that was com- 
 monly used by the Jews. (Comp. Juvenal, iii. 14, vi. 542.) 
 
 And of the fishes. This clause is inartificially added to the preceding one ; 
 but its meaning is quite obvious. The fragments collected were not only /j-om 
 the loaves, but aiBO from the fishes. 
 
 Vek. 44. And they who ate the loaves. Such is the simple form of the ex- 
 pression in the original text. In Tyndale's version the expression is simply 
 they that ate, for in Erasmus' editions the words the loaves were wanting. They 
 were inserted however in the Complutensian New Testament, and thence copied 
 into Stephens's editions, and Beza's, and the Elzevirs. They are wanting how- 
 ever in the Vulgate version, and in SD, and in most copies of the Italic version. 
 Yet they were no doubt in Mark's autograph. Under the outstanding word loaves 
 there is of course a silently subtended reference to the fishes. 
 
 Were five thousand men. Note the word men. It is not the generic term, but 
 the specific (&vSpeij. There were also women and children (Matt. xiv. 21) ; but 
 these, according to oriental custom, would eat by themselves. They would be 
 titting apart, not reclining like the men. How beneficent, humanizing, civiliz- 
 
166 ST. MARK VI. [45 
 
 45 And straigttway he constrained his disciples to get into 
 the ship, and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida, 
 while he sent away the people. 46 And when he had sent 
 
 ing, and literally '/amiZiorising,' is tliat spirit of Christianity, the emhodied 
 spirit of the Saviour, which breaks down the middle wall of partition between 
 the sexes by asserting that, in respect of privilege, ' there is neither male nor 
 female.' (Gal. iii. 28.) 
 
 Vee. 45-52. Compare for corresponding paragraphs Matt. xiv. 22-33 and 
 John vi. 15-21. 
 
 Teb. 45. And straightway He constrained His disciples to enter into the boat. 
 They appear to have been loath to go without their Master. A gentle but 
 decisive constraint was required, ere they would consent. 
 
 And to be going on before to the other side toward Bethsaida. That is, toward 
 the Galilean Bethsaida. (See on ver. 32.) Lange and Klostermanu strangely 
 suppose the reference to be to the eastern Bethsaida. John says that they went 
 ' toward Capernaum ' (vi. 17), so that we should infer that the Galilean Beth- 
 saida and Capernaum lay in one direction, as viewed from the point of departure 
 at the north-east of the lake. The site of Bethsaida is not yet absolutely de- 
 termined ; but Dr. Eobinsou, after long uncertainty, fixed on et-Tabighah as 
 the probable spot. {Later Researches, pp. 858-9.) Dr. Porter acquiesces in 
 this decision. " No site," he says, " along the shore is so well adapted for a 
 " fishing town. Here is a bay sheltered by hills behind, and projecting bluffs 
 " on each side ; and here is a smooth sandy beach, such as fishermen delight 
 " in. The strand forms a pleasant promenade, and bo far answers to the de- 
 " scription in Matt. iv. 18-22." (Syria, p. 405.) " The beautiful white beach 
 " of Bethsaida,'" says Mr. Maogregor, " is gracefully bent round its pretty little 
 " cove in a gentle slope of gravel, shells, and purest sand. . . . The bay ia 
 " admirably suited for boats ; it shelves gradually. The anchorage is good, 
 " and boats can be safely beached. Eocks project at the south-west end about 
 " fifty yards beyond those seen above water. These would form a good protec- 
 " tion to the harbour. There appears to be no jetty. The wat^ is deep, and 
 " nearly free from boulders until near the south-west end." (Bo6 Roy, p. 351.) 
 St. Willibald, who visited the Holy Land about the middle of the eighth century, 
 found Bethsaida still in existence, just a little north of Capernaum. There 
 was a church in it. A little farther north he found Chorazin. (Vita, §§ 16, 17.) 
 
 While He Himself dismisses the crowd. He simply assured His disciples that 
 He would meet them on their way to Capernaum. They might imagine that 
 He might either walk round by the shore, and hail them as they coasted along 
 westward ; or that He might join them, more rapidly and directly, by means of 
 a ' little ' boat. (See John vi. 22, Gr., and also Rob Roy on the Jordan, p. 855.) 
 
 Yer. 46. And when He had sent them away. The translation in King 
 James's version, but rather too free, though exactly reproducing the Vulgate 
 version. The original expression bore upon it a stamp of politeness, and had 
 got, by the evangelist's time, to be technical and idiomatic. It means not so 
 much when fie had dismissed them, or given them their leave, as when He had 
 
48] ST. MARK VI. 167 
 
 them away, lie departed into a mountain to pray. 
 47 And when even was come, the ship was in the midst 
 of the sea, and he alone on the land. 48 And he saw 
 them toiling in rowing ; for the wind was contrary unto them : 
 and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto 
 
 talcen leave of them. Such is the translation tliat it receives in Acts xviii. 18 
 and 2 Cor. ii. 13. It is translated to bid farewell in Luke ix. 61. Phryniohua 
 pronounces the phrase unolassical. Be it so ; yet it got to be quite common in 
 the Alexandrian style ol writing, and is used by both PhUo and Josephus. (See 
 Erebs and Kypke on Luke ix. 60.) The reference of the pronoun them is 
 evidently to the people, not to the disciples, as Beza supposed. 
 
 He departed into the mountain. The adjoining high land, at the sloping base 
 of which the multitude had been fed. The whole district is mountainous. 
 " On the east of the lake of Tiberias," says Dr. Porter, " the bank's are nearly 
 "two thousand feet high, destitute of verdure and of foliage, furrowed by 
 " ravines, but flat along the summit, from which the plain of Bashan extends 
 "eastward." (Syria, ^.Z^i.) 
 
 To pray. It is the fine generic term that is employed (vpoireli^aaBai), not the 
 specific term that is used in John xvii. 9, 15, 20, and which properly means to 
 ask (l/jurdw). The Saviour would no doubt ash as He prayed ; but He did 
 more; He addressed Himself in a generic way to His Father. He opened up 
 heavenward His spirit, and let all that was within Him ascend, in a stream of 
 inwardly articulated aspiration, to His Father. 
 
 Veb. 47. And when evening was come. The late evening, that extended from 
 sundown onward. 
 
 The boat was in the midst of the sea, and He alone upon the land. A wind had 
 sprung up that was blowing them from the coast. This continued for hours, the 
 wind increasing. See next verse. 
 
 Veb. 48. And as He saw (ISdiv) them toiling in rowing. Toiling is a feeble 
 word to express the force of the original term {fiajravi^oiihovs). Archbishop 
 Newcome hit on a better term, distressed. Alford has adopted it, and the 
 Eevisers. The Greek word properly means tormented. The expression, freely 
 rendered in rowing, literally means in the driving, that is, in the propelling, 
 viz. of the boat by rowing. The disciples had to make violent and distressing 
 efforts to keep the boat from drifting before the hurricane, and being dashed to 
 pieces on the opposite shore. 
 
 For the wind was contrary to them. Blowing therefore from the north-west. 
 
 About the fourth watch of the night. That is, as Lightfoot remarks, ' after 
 cock crowing.' The Jews, like many other peoples, divided the night into 
 watches, or those portions of time that were occupied by relays of sentinels. 
 These watches, according to the native Jewish division, were three. But the 
 Eomau custom was to have four ; and to this custom, which would naturally 
 attach itself to the military establishment of the Herods (Acts xii. 4), the later 
 Jews conformed themselves. Hence the reference here to the fourth watch. It 
 is quite arbitrary in Ewald, and quite uncalled for, to render the expression here 
 ' about the thii d night-watch ' {urn die dritte nachtwaehe). The fourth watch 
 
168 ST. MARK VI. [48 
 
 them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them. 
 
 extended from ' cook crowing ' till sunrise, that is, from about three a.m. to about 
 six a.m., just as the third watch extended from midnight half-way to sunrise, 
 that is, to about three a.m. The first and second watches divided the time from 
 sunset to midnight. 
 
 He cometti to them, walking upon the sea. Which would be just as easy to 
 Him as to walk anywhere else, if indeed He and the Father were One. The 
 ' progress ' of Divinity, within His own dominions, cannot be confined to humanly 
 constructed roads or solid ground. Upon the sea : Koppe, while lecturing on 
 one occasion extemporaneously, as Lavater records, threw out the wild idea 
 that this expression might mean on the shore ! The shore forsooth being higher 
 than the sea, our Saviour, when walking on it, might be truthfully represented 
 as walking above the tea I (Compare the French expression Boulogne sur mer.) 
 Next morning Koppe wisely withdrew his grotesque conjecture. But the great 
 apostle of 'rationalism,' H. E. Gottlob Paulus, reinvented the interpretation in 
 1794, and thenceforward earnestly and learnedly contended for it, as one of his 
 happiest achievements in the way of eliminating everything supernatural from 
 the Gospels 1 The daringness of the exegesis, as well as the ridiculousness of 
 the little-mouse-of-idea that came forth from it, roused into activity several 
 able pens, but none so effective and trenchant as that of the celebrated J. K. 
 Lavater, who at once denounced the interpretation as silly {dumm) and shame- 
 less (frech). How is it possible, he asks, that three evangelists should record 
 the Lord's walking and its accompaniments as something marvellous, at 
 which the disciples were ' sore amazed in themselves beyond measure,' if the 
 whole matter just «>mounted to this, that the Saviour actually went, and was 
 actually able to go, em the solid ground I The exposition proposed he designated 
 ' philological legerdemain ' {philologisclie Taschenspielerei). It is, he says, ' a 
 laughable insult on logic, hermeneutics, good sense, and honesty.' (H. E. 
 Gottlob Pauliis und seine Zeit, Band i., pp. 268-308.) J. A. Bolten"s notion is 
 nearly as ridiculous as that of Paulus, and in some respects still more revolting. 
 He translates the expression thus. He came to them ' swimming ' / Such feats 
 of exegesis almost amount to a transference of miracles ; the wonders are 
 eliminated indeed from the Saviour's life ; but they are thrust into the phrase- 
 ology of His biography, under the transformed shape of prodigies of philological 
 manoeuvre. 
 
 And would have passed by them. Literally, and wished to go past them. 
 Fritzsohe thinks that the idea is that He wished to finish the feat of crossing the 
 entire sea on foot, and was only drawn aside from His purpose by the agitation 
 of His disciples. Surely too theatrical a notion. Ewald contends that the 
 phrase must mean, aitd wished to go over ' to ' them, to go over the water in order 
 to reach them. Norton had had the same idea. His translation is, and wished 
 to join them. It is a violent philological strain ; and brings out moreover, when 
 the preceding clause is considered, a redundancy of idea. Lange's notion is 
 that the disciples were rowing in the wrong direction, easterly, and that the 
 Saviour wished to go on before them to show them the right way, westerly. But 
 the evangelist gives no hint to the effect that the disciples were on a wrong tack. 
 Bishop Wordsworth thinks that ' here is a silent note of inspiration ' ; 'for who 
 
50] ST. MARK VI. 169 
 
 49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they 
 supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out : 50 for they all saw 
 him, and were troubled. And immediately he talked with them, 
 and saith unto them. Be of good cheer : it is I ; be not afraid. 
 
 knoweth the mind of Christ but the Spirit of God? ' But what if the evangelist 
 is just describing the appearance of things ? Jesus, instead of coming all at 
 once directly to the disciples, conies near them indeed, hut holds on His way aa 
 if He wished to go past them. ' He made as though He would have gone 
 further ' (Luke xxiv. 28 ; corap. Gen. xviii. 3). Did He really then wich to leave 
 them behind, struggling in the storm ? We need not suppose it ; we cannot 
 for a moment suppose it. But His real wish, nevertheless, would he a complex 
 thing. He would wish His disciples to recognise Him. He would wish them to 
 understand distinctly what He was doing, and what He had done, and what it 
 was in His power to do. He would wish to pass onward by their side, and in 
 their view, till it should be the very best moment to turn and give them relief. 
 (Comp. Gen. xxxii. 26.) If that moment should not occur till He had Himself 
 reached the shore. He would have held on His way. There was no duplicity. 
 There was merely, as infinitely became Him, a complexity of desires, founded on 
 a complexity of contingencies. ' In the nature of the thing,' as Jeremy Taylor 
 remarks, ' it is proper and natural, by an offer, to give an occasion to another 
 to do a good action.' {Christian Simplicity : Works, vi. , 156.) 
 
 Vbk. 49. But they, when they saw Him walking on the sea, thought, It is a 
 spectre. Such is the literal version of the original reading, as preserved in the 
 manuscripts KB LA, and 'the queen of the cursives' {Uti {pAvTaa-fid iaTiv), 
 The object of the thought of the disciples is presented in the direct formof 
 speech, just as it would start up in their minds and leap out from their lips. 
 A spectre : the proper meaning of the word ; or apparition, the word of Mace, 
 Principal Campbell, and the Eevisers. Wycliffe's version is, a fantum ; the 
 Kheims, a ghost. 
 
 And they cried out. In fright. They shrieked. 
 
 Vee. 50. For all saw Him, and were troubled. They were agitated and con- 
 fused. But troubled is the best translation. 
 
 But He immediately talked with them. When He saw them so agitated, and 
 perceived that they misunderstood the case. He at once entered into communica- 
 tion ' with them ' by word of mouth. 
 
 And says to them, Have courage! It is I; fear not. It was thus that He 
 began to talk, soothingly and inspiritingly. 
 
 Vek. 51. Mark passes over in silence the incident of Peter's petition, and the 
 consequences that ensued. (See Matt. xiv. 28-31.) Why this silence ? We 
 cannot tell ; we can only guess ; and guessing in such a case is of little avail. 
 Hilgenfeld sees in the suppression of the incident an incident not entirely credit- 
 able in some irespects to Peter, a proof of the Pctrinism of Mark's Gospel. {Die 
 Evangelien, pp. 136, 137.) D'Eichthal sees no evidence of suppression at all, 
 but supposes, on the other hand, that in Matthew we have a new sprouting and 
 later growth of the older myth as given in Mark. The same is the opinion of 
 
170 ST. MARK VI. [51 
 
 51 And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind 
 ceased : and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond 
 
 Scholten {Het oudste Ev., p. 297) and Meyer. But it is of course a mere opinion. 
 There may be a thread of truth in Hilgenfeld's notion. It is quite possible that 
 something of the nature of reverence for the chief of the original apostolate 
 may have inclined the evangelist, since he was condensing at any rate, to stride 
 rapidly onward to the conclusion of this section of his narrative. The private 
 peculiarities, in thought and feeling, ol the respective writers of the Gospels were 
 not ignored, and still less obliterated, by the inspiring Spirit, but respected and 
 wielded, when not inconsistent with the great end divinely contemplated, the 
 faithful exhibition of the wonderful personality of our Saviour in Sis manifold 
 relationships to the manifold wants of men. 
 
 And He went up unto them into the boat. The expression implies that the 
 boat was of some magnitude, comparatively speaHng, and standing considerably 
 out of the water. At the stern especially it would be elevated, according to the 
 ancient style of naval architecture. The little cabin would be there. The term 
 employed in John vi. 21 is the same ; whereas the term that is employed in the 
 two following verses of John's narrative is different, meaning a little boat, or 
 yawl. Possibly the disciples used a little boat by which to get into their larger 
 boat. (See on ver. 45.) 
 
 And the wind ceased. It fell, as if thoroughly exhausted. Such is the 
 graphic idea suggested by the evangelist's expression (iKd-n-airer). It was just, 
 it would appear, as the Lord stepped on board (Matt.xiv. 32), that the blast sub- 
 sided. He who is the Lord of all the elements willed it. When the wind blows, 
 or ceases to blow, it is, when we go to the ultimates of things, at His behest. 
 When any movement great or small in things material takes place, we must, if 
 we would understand the case, go ' back of ' what is visible and tangible. We 
 could not otherwise get to the Cause of causes. Mind is behind matter ; if it 
 were not, matter could not be, for scientific principles are wrought out in all its 
 elements and interrelations. ' Thou didst blow with Thy wind,' says Moses, on 
 the one hand, to God (Exod. xv. 10). ' He maketh the storm a calm,' sang the 
 psalmist, on the other, of God (Ps. cvii. 29). 
 
 And they were exceedingly beyond measure amazed in themselves. Note the 
 cumulative expression, exceedingly beyond measure. Not only was the amaze- 
 ment beyond measure, it went exceedingly beyond it. Our English word sore, 
 used in our English version (Soottice sair), is just the German sehr, =very or 
 much. The word rendered amazed {{^IffTavTo) is in itself exceedingly strong. 
 Its cognate noun is ' ecstasy.' The disciples started out of themselves as it were, 
 and then stood out of themselves I That is the graphic idea. We sometimes 
 speak in English of a person being out of himself for joy. The disciples were 
 out of themselves with wonder. And yet it is added by the evangelist, in them- 
 selves. The expression seems to indicate that the amazement was inwardly felt 
 still more than outwardly expressed. It did not get vent, to any remarkable 
 degree, in outward exclamations. 
 
 And wondered. This expression is still further cumulative, though, when 
 viewed rhetorically, it does not exalt or crown the representation. It seems, on 
 the contrary, to be somewhat tame. It is omitted altogether in the Sinaitic and 
 
52] ST. MARK VI. 171 
 
 measure, and wondered. 52 For they considered not thp- 
 miracle of the loaves : for their heart was hardened. 
 
 Vatican manuscripts (X B), as also in L A and 1, and in the Vulgate version and 
 the Coptic. It has been left out of the text by Tregelles, Alford, and Tischen- 
 dorf (in his eighth edition). It was suspected by Griesbaoh. It was condemned 
 by Mill {Prol., § 403). It ia omitted by the English Eevisionists. Even Beza 
 suspected it ; and Erasmus before him. We have no doubt however that it is 
 genuine. The very fact that it appears to be, when rhetorically considered, a 
 somewhat ' lame and impotent conclusion,' militates strongly against the likeli- 
 hood of its insertion by a transcriber. And the same fact accounts for its silent 
 omission in the case of that small number of transcribers who have left it out. 
 It would seem to them, not unnaturally, to be a redundancy, and a redundancy 
 in which the representation dropped off flat. There is however no real redund- 
 ancy, or tameness, or lameness. Not only were the disciples suddenly struck 
 with amazement. After that sudden 'ecstasy' was past {i^ta-TavTo) , they 
 continued more collectedly and thoughtfully in a wondering mood (^Sai)/tafo», 
 imp.). 
 
 Vee. 52. For. The evangelist explains why it was that the disciples were 
 confounded and astonished. 
 
 They understood not by means of the loaves. The primary import of the Greek 
 word understand is to send together. He who sends out his mind to an object, so 
 as to bring together both the subject and the object of thought, understands. He 
 who does not thus send out his mind, that a union of subject and object may be 
 effected, does not understand. The disciples did not understand. The whole ex- 
 pression, if very literally rendered, would be, for they did not understand ' upon ' 
 the loaves. It is condensed phraseology. The meaning is, they did not take their 
 stand ' upon ' the miracle of the loaves, so as to see things in their true light, as 
 they might have done and should have done. They did not reason, as they should 
 have done, hy means of the loaves, or on the ground of the loaves. If they had 
 taken their standpoint of survey ' upon ' the miracle of the loaves, they would 
 have understood, and not merely have wondered that the Saviour should have 
 walked on the waters, and tamed the storm by a simple act of quiet volition. 
 They would have seen that nothing was more natural than that He, who rules 
 absolutely within the spheres of the earth's flora and fauna, and their products 
 (such as loaves and dried fish), should also rule absolutely within the spheres of 
 the inorganic elements of wind and water. 
 
 But their heart was hardened. In the Beceived Text, and hence in King 
 James's version, the conjunction is for (ydp) and not but (dXX'). It is but how- 
 ever in both the Sinaitic and the Vatican manuscripts (N B), as also in 'the queen 
 of the cursives ' (33), and L S A. This reading is supported by the Coptic version, 
 and the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac. It has been received into the text 
 by Tregelles and Tischendorf. Eightly. It is the more difBcult reading, and 
 yet opens up a deeper vein of thought. The evangelist is not giving a reason 
 why the disciples did not understand. He had already subindicated the reason, 
 they did not take their stand ' upon ' the miracle of the loaves. He is giving, on 
 the positive side, a description of that state of mind which, in the preceding 
 
172 ST. MARK VI. [53 
 
 53 And when fhey had passed over, they came into the land 
 of Gennesaret, and drew to the shore. 54 And when they 
 
 clanse, he had characterized on its negative side. Their heart: that is, their 
 mind, viewed in its intellectual constituents. There is no reference here to the 
 emotional element of our nature. The reference, as Alexander remarks, is to 
 ' sluggishness and obtuseness of intellect,' not to ' callous feeling or insensible 
 affection.' (See chap. viii. 17.) The word is used in its accredited bibHcal 
 sense, as denoting the interior and central part of our being, that is, the spiritual 
 or mental part, that part which is, as Carus expresses it, the seat of consciousness 
 (Psychologic der Hebrder, p. 283). Was hardened : was in a callous condition, 
 intellectually insusoeptive, and thus intellectually irresponsive to the appeals 
 which were addressed to it by the wonder working of the Lord. 
 
 Vek. 53. And when they had crossed over they came into the land of Gen- 
 nesaret. Or, according to the reading of the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts 
 (KB), and 'the queen of the cursives' (83), a reading accepted by Tisohendorf 
 and supported by L A, and when they crossed over to the land, they came to Gen- 
 nesaret {dtairepdo-avTes M ttiv yrjv fiKBor eh Vevvqaapir). The expression when 
 they crossed over to the land is another instance of condensed phraseology, a 
 specimen of ' much in little.' The meaning is, when they came ' upon ' the land, 
 having finished their 'passage across the lake.'' When this took place they 
 found themselves at some point or other of Gennesaret, that fine rich level tract 
 of country which was the principal theatre of our Lord's public career on earth, 
 and in which Capernaum and Bethsaida were situated. Josephus calls it 
 Gennesar, and so does the Syriac Peshito version ia the passage before us, as 
 also the fine old Cambridge manuscript (D). It is, says Josephus, about thirty 
 furlongs in length, and twenty in breadth (War, iiL 10 : 8). " Its nature is 
 " wonderful," he says, " as well as its beauty. It soil is so fruitful that all sorts 
 " of trees can grow upon it ; and the inhabitants accordingly plant on it all 
 " kinds. The temperature of the air is so well mixed, that it agrees with the 
 " different kinds. Walnuts, which require cold air, flourish there in the greatest 
 " abundance ; palm trees also, which grow best in heat ; fig trees likewise, and 
 " olives, which require an air that is more temperate. One may call this place 
 "the Ambition of nature, where it constrains those plants which are naturally 
 " enemies to one another to agree together. It is a happy strife of the seasons, 
 " as if every one of them laid claim to this country, for it not only nourishes 
 " different sorts of autumnal fruit beyond men's expectation, it preserves them 
 " a great while. It supplies men with the principal fruits, with grapes and figs, 
 " continually during ten months of the year, and the rest of the fruits, as they 
 " become ripe together, through the whole year." Such is Josephus's descrip- 
 tion of Gennesar, to which our Lord and His disciples returned from the east. 
 
 And moored their vessel (Tpocrup/jiliTdricrav). It is left uncertain, so far as' the 
 word is concerned, whether the mooring was effected by dropping the anchor 
 in the roadstead, or by being chained to the landing place. The noun from 
 which the word is derived (Sp/ios) denotes primarily a chain, and then an 
 avclwrage, 
 
 Vek. 64. And when they were come out of the 'oon, straightway they know 
 
56] ST. ]VIAIIK VI. 173 
 
 were come out of the ship, straightway they knew him, 55 and 
 ran through that whole region round about, and began to 
 carry about in beds those that were sick, where they heard 
 he was, 56 And whithersoever he entered, into villages, 
 or cities, or country, they laid the sick in the streets, and 
 
 Him. The people of the locality immediately identified Him. This might 
 be the case even though they had Bever seen Him before. The Eheims 
 version is, 'incontinent they knew Him.' He was now the Cynosure of ail 
 eyes. 
 
 Yeb. 55. And ran abont the whole of that region. Informing the people at 
 large of the arrival of the wonderful Healer. 
 
 And they began to carry about on their beds those who were unweU, wherever 
 they heard that He was. The people of the district, when informed of the 
 arrival of the great Healer, began immediately to trace His steps, carrying 
 with them from place to place, in their pursuit, the invalids whom they 
 wished Him to benefit. As to the kind of beds referred to, see on chap. ii. 4. 
 Fritzsche is scandalized by the expression carry about, and is sure that the 
 evangelist must have used a different term (irpo<T<pipei.v). He simply failed to 
 realize the scene depicted. There was nothing ' spectacular ' intended. The 
 expression wherever they heard that He was is simple, graphic, and quaint in the 
 original; wherever they heard, He is there. The report heard is given in the 
 direct form, and the local there may have been determined by pointing with the 
 finger, or by previous naming. In the texts however of both Lachmann and 
 Tischendorf , the there is omitted, on the authority of N B L A, and the Syriac 
 Peshito, Gothic, and JSthiopic versions. The phrase thus reads wherever they 
 heard (that) He is. The there must be mentally supplied ; and hence apparently 
 its early insertion in the margin, and thence in the text. 
 
 Vee. 56. And wheresoever He entered, into villages, or into towns, or into 
 fields. The preposition is repeated in the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Cambridge 
 manuscripts, and is inserted by Tischendorf in his eighth edition. Eightly. 
 Wheresoever : in and around Geuriesaret. The evangelist is now widening his 
 reference. Into fields : where agriculture' was going on, and where consequently 
 people were to be found in numbers. 
 
 They laid the sick in the market-places (d,yopah). Market-places is the only 
 right rendering. Coverdale gave it, led by the hand of Luther {auf den Markt). 
 The market-places of the East were sometimes inside the towns, and sometimes 
 outside ; but they were always the chief places of resort. They ' were equiva- 
 lent,' says Webster-and-Wilkinson, ' to our village greens.' St. Mark speaks as 
 if there were market-places in fields, as well as in the towns and villages. But 
 no doubt he intended his expression to be applied only to the towns and villages 
 of which he had spoken. And as regards the fields, the sick would be laid there 
 in places corresponding to the market-places in towns and villages. They would 
 be laid, that is to say, in the most convenient places, the places perhaps where 
 the workers assembled under some friendly shade at the time of the midday 
 siesta. The evangelist's form of speech is a kind of zeugma. 
 
174 ST. MARK VII. [56 
 
 besougiit him that they might touch if it were but the border 
 of his garment : and as many as touched him were made whole. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 1 THEN came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain 
 
 And entreated Him that they might touch, if it were bnt the herder of His robe. 
 The that refers to the aim of the entreaties presented (ii>a). They entreated 
 Him ' in order that ' the sick people might touch. The word which we have 
 translated robe denotes the outer garment, that was worn over the tunic. The 
 term rendered border {Kpasiredov) is supposed by some to mean tassel ; but it is 
 likely that it just means edge, border, fringe or hem. (See on Matt. ix. 20 and 
 xxiii. 5.) 
 
 And as many as touched Him were made whole. They were physically saved 
 (^ffufoi/To) ; they became sound in health. In the margin the pronoun him is 
 rendered it, as if the reference might be to the garment or its border. So it 
 might, BO far as the pronoun is concerned. Our translators gave the alterna- 
 tive, following in the wake of Beza ; le Clerc, in his French version, accepts 
 the alternative (qui la touchoient). But almost all other translators and exposi- 
 tors suppose that the evangelist's mind was looking to the Saviour Himself, 
 although he required to look through the drapery of the representation of the 
 preceding clause. Correctly, no doubt. In whatever way the sick people got 
 touching our Lord, there was virtue for all of them who were recipient. 
 
 CHAPTEE Vn. 
 
 In ver. 1-16 we have an account (1) of the way in which our Lord was malevo- 
 lently assailed by the Pharisees and scribes, on account of His disciples' neglect 
 of a customary ceremonial usage ; and (2) of the remarkably firm, faithful, and 
 home-thrusting manner in which He met and repelled the assault. A parallel 
 paragraph is found in Matt. xv. 1-11. 
 
 Vek. 1. And. And : in using so very frequently the simplest of aU conjunc- 
 tions, St. Mark shows how thoroughly the constructive part of his phraseology 
 was moulded on primitive Hebraistic simplicity. 
 
 There are gathered together to Him. But certainly it is not meant that it was 
 by any external compulsion that they were collected. They were self moved. 
 Neither is Lange's idea to be entertained, that they came together ' in synagogue 
 form,' as a formal court of inquisition [in Synagogenform zur Bilge). Still less 
 is there any likelihood in the very different idea of MichaeUs that the persons 
 referred to put up at the residence of Jesus as His guests (kehreten bey ihm ein). 
 
 The Pharisees. The evangelist uses the article artlessly ; he does not mean of 
 course that the Pharisees in a body came. He really means that certain Phari- 
 sees came (see Matt. xv. 1), though he did not intend his article to convey the 
 idea expressed by our word certain or some ; neither did he intend it to be used 
 indefinitely. He was simply thinking of ' the ' Pharisees as distinguished fiom 
 
2] ST. MARK VII. 175 
 
 of the scribes, -which came from Jerusalem. 2 And when they 
 saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled^ that is to say. 
 
 other classes of society. It was some of ' the ' remarJcably self assuming, self 
 righteous class of people who gathered together ' to ' our Lord. 
 
 And some of the scribes. There had been a smaller proportion of these, and 
 hence the selective expression some of. It is not meant that the scribes were 
 not Pharisees ; but they were a specific and limited fraternity or guild, and 
 hence they are distinguished from the generic class to which they belonged. (See 
 chap. i. 22.) 
 
 Who came from Jernsalem. The authorities in the capital city had got con- 
 cerned about the influence of the remarkable Galilean Babbi, and seem to have 
 thought it high time to take some cognisance of His proceedings and doctrines. 
 And hence some commissioners were delegated, either formally by the san- 
 hedrim, or at the instance of some of the high officials, or it might be only of 
 some of the officious, to go down to Galilee and make inquisition. They would 
 have no doubt in their nature the true scent of inquisitors. They would be 
 chosen because of their adaptation for the ignoble employment. They would be 
 sleek, sanctimonious, sly, secretive, and splendid spUtters of hairs. Cunning 
 men and able, we may presume, but remorseless withal, and unprincipled. They 
 knew not, however, with whom they had to do. 
 
 Vee. 2. And saw. In King James's version we read, and when they saw. 
 It is better however to regard the clause as a simple oontinuative addition to the 
 last clause of the preceding verse ; thus, who came from Jerusalem, and saw. It 
 is in vain to seek in Mark, or to force upon his artless composition, precise 
 rhetorical construction. Mill puts a full point at the close of ver. 1. So did 
 Beza; so do Wetstein, Matthsei, Griesbach, Soholz, Fritzsche, Lachmann, 
 Tisohendorf. Meyer did so too in his 1829 edition of the text, but he threw it 
 out in the second edition of his Commentary (in 1846), and adhered thencefor- 
 ward to the simple oontinuative construction ; Bengel too has merely a comma 
 at the close of ver. 1 ; so has Erasmus in his various editions of the text 
 (though not of his translation). 
 
 Some of His disciples eat. The expression in the original is, that they eat 
 (6Vi iaSlomiv). It is not, as the Greek scholar will notice, that they ate. The 
 verb they eat is given, as it were, in the direct form of report, as presenting 
 immediately the object seen. They saw some of His disciples. Well, what is it 
 that they saw about them ? This to wit : they eat. (Comp. chap. vi. 55, last 
 clause.) 
 
 Bread, The expression in the original is very primitive, the loaves, that is, 
 the cakes, those namely that were lying before them. 
 
 With defiled hands. Perhaps a strong enough translation. The word is 
 common in the margin, and that is the proper and distinctive meaning of the 
 evangelist's term (KoimU). Comp. Acts ii. 44, iv. 32 ; Tit. i. 4 ; Jude 3. In 
 the Geneva version the word in the text is common, but the alternative word in 
 the margin is filthie, a far more objectionable term than that implied in the text 
 of our Authorized version. Our translators would be influenced by Beza, who 
 has polluted in his translation, and vindicates it in his Annotations, Erasmus 
 
176 ST. MARK VIL [2 
 
 with unwasheiij hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees, 
 
 has common; so had the Vulgate ; so have Wyoliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, and the 
 Eheims. The Gothic version has common [gamainjaim), hut the Anglo-Saxon 
 defiled {besmitenum). The disciples' hands were aa men's hands commonly were. 
 The hands of all heathens, however cleansed, were in the condition objected to 
 on the part of the Pharisees. They could never be anything else than common, 
 unless the persons who owned them became proselytes to Judaism. Michaehs'a 
 translation conveys admirably the idea of the original, with unholy hands. 
 Wakefield gives the same translation ; Mace's version corresponds, with profane 
 hands. Kypke pleads for the word profane ; it is admirable when taken in its 
 original import. The expression does not in the least degree intimate thai 
 there was any physical impurity attaching to the disciples' hands. 
 
 That is to say, unwashed. The evangelist explains what the Pharisees meant 
 (see ver. 5) by the expression common or unholy, as applied to the hands. Un- 
 washed, that is, ceremonially unwashed ; for, according to the Pharisees' doctrine, 
 it was necessary to perform, before eating, the ceremonial lustration, although 
 the hands should be perfectly clean in a physical point of view. It was not 
 physical cleanliness which they esteemed ; it was not physical uncleauliness 
 which they reprehended and denounced. 
 
 Vek. 3. The evangehst interrupts the continuity of his narrative by intro- 
 ducing a historical note in reference to the ceremonial customs of the Pharisees 
 and the Jews in general. The note is really parenthetical, though not formally 
 BO ; and hence it is unnecessary to throw ver. 3 and 4, as Lachmanu and Tre- 
 gelles have done, within the forms of a parenthesis. The introductory phrase of 
 ver. 5 is not intended to dovetail into the construction of ver. 2 ; it starts a new 
 detail ; the language is aggregative ; thing is added with simplicity to thing. 
 
 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews. The Pharisees in particular, and all the 
 Jews in general. In the matter about to be specified all classes of Jewish 
 society were in accord, Sadducees included. But the Pharisees, with character- 
 istic obtrusiveuess, made most of the matter, and acted as if they were the 
 divinely appointed conservators and guardians of the public consistency and 
 orthodoxy. 
 
 Except they have washed the hands diligently, eat not. The word translated 
 diligently (irvyii-Q) is one of the crosses of the critics, and has occasioned a very 
 extraordinary amount of research and discussion. The ancients themselves, 
 who lived comparatively near to the evangelist's time, and were familiar with 
 Greek as a spoken language, regarded the word as peculiar and debatable. 
 Hence in the old Latin versions (the 'Italic') which preceded Jerome's Vulgate 
 it receives quite a variety of translations (pugillo, prius crebro, prima, momento, 
 subinde). The word literally means with closed hand, or with the fist (oomp. 
 Tii^). But what the evangelist could mean when he says except, they have 
 washed the hands ' with closed hand ' looks perplexing enough. Had it been the 
 case that there was satisfactory evidence, derivable from the rabbinical writers, 
 that the Jews were accustomed to close the operating hand when washing the 
 other, so that the hand operated on was rubbed, not with the palm but with the 
 knuckled part, that part which washerwomen use when washing, clothes, then 
 
3] ST, MARK VII. 177 
 
 and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, 
 
 there would never have been any dispute concerning the evangelist's meaning. 
 But there is no such evidence, although the whole extent of rabbinical literature 
 has been carefully ransacked. Some eminent critics, nevertheless, such as Beza, 
 Fritzsche, Meyer, Grimm, adhere to the idea that Mark must have meant that 
 the washing was performeA'ioitft the fist. The same opinion seems to have been 
 entertained by Michaelis, who in his translation inserts a long paraphrase of 
 the word [woiey dber das Waschen fur genug gehalten wird, wenn auch die Fawt 
 geballet ist). Grotius had somewhat of the same notion, only he supposed that 
 the meaning is that the fist was washed by the other hand (manum in pugnum 
 compositam manu altera lavabant). This seems almost to reverse the picture of 
 the process that is naturally suggested by the evangelist's expression. Yet 
 Calov approves of it. Lightfoot took an entirely different view of the phrase ; he 
 thought that the debatable word meant to the wrist ; Hammond, Whitby, Wells, 
 Bengel, took the same view. But (1) the word in itself does not mean the wrist, 
 and (2) even though it did, the form in which it is employed could not mean as 
 far as the wrist, or up to the wrist. Le Clerc saw this, and hence, in his Latin 
 translation of Hammond, as well as in his French translation of the Gospel, he 
 interpreted the word as meaning by putting the fist into water (en mettant 1p 
 poing dans I'eau), an interpretation however that involves almost as large an 
 amount of arbitrariness as is characteristic of the explication which he rejects. 
 Theophylact exaggerates Lightfoot's notion, and interprets the word as mean- 
 ing up to the elbow (fix/ii rod iyKuvos), because, says he, the term does mean 
 the length from the elbow to the tips of the fingers. Certainly the term is a 
 measure of length from the elbow to the fingers (strictly, it would appear, to the 
 closed fingers ; see Stephens's Thesaurus, sub voc.) ; but it is difficult to see how 
 it could ever be the case that the evangelist's expression could mean up to the 
 elbow. Louis Cappel however took the same view (Spicileg. in loc.) ; and le 
 Cene, Eisner, Beausobre-et-L'Enfant. So did Mace ; he translates up to the 
 elbows. So does Godwin ; he translates the whole phrase thus, unless for a 
 pigmy's length they wash the hands and arms. But (1) the Greek word pygme 
 does not mean a pigmy, and (2) there is nothing in the original text that corre- 
 sponds to the appended expression and arms. Sealiger, Drusius, Cameron, and 
 many others take substantially the view of Theophylact, though under a peculiar 
 phase derived from one of the petty precepts of the rabbis regarding ceremonial 
 purifieition. The rabbis enjoined that a double washing of the hands should 
 be attsnded to before eating. In the first of the two the hands were to be held 
 upward that the polluted water might run off at the elbow. In the second, which 
 ' purified the water of the first washing,' the hands were to be held downward ! 
 (See Buxtorf's Lexicon Talm., p. 1,335.) The critics named suppose that the 
 evangelist has reference to the elevation of the hands. The evangelist's expres- 
 sion, however, remains as puzzling as ever, both (1) as regards the fact that it is 
 the fist or closed hand that is spoken of, and (2) as regards the form of the 
 phrase ' with ' closed hand. Wetstein, followed by Wakefield and Principal 
 Campbell, takes an entirely different view. He supposes that the debatable 
 word means a handful {of water). Hence Wakefield translates, for the Pharisees 
 and all the Jews never eat 'without throwing a handful of water' over their 
 
 N 
 
•'78 ST. MARK VII. [3 
 
 holding the tradition of the elders. 4 And when they come 
 
 Jiands.' Principal Campbell translates correspondingly, For the Pharisees, and 
 indeed all the Jews, eat not until they have washed their hands ' hy pouring a 
 little water upon them.' It is an ingenious cutting of the knot ; but it is entirely 
 unwarrantable. The debatable word does not mean a handful ; the debatable 
 expression, standing absolutely as it does, cannot mean a handful of water ! 
 What then are we to make of the phrase? King James's translators have 
 rendered the disputed word oft. It was Wyoliffe's rendering, and Tyndale's, 
 and Coverdale's. It was the rendering of the Anglo-Saxon version (gelomlice), 
 and of the Gothic (ufta). It was adopted too into the Geneva, and reproduced 
 in the Bheims. It was Erasmus's rendering. More than all, it was the render- 
 ing of the Vulgate {crebro), the fountain head of the whole series of repetitions. 
 Erasmus conjectured that the debatable word was a corruption, and that Mark 
 must have used another word that signifies frequently (' rvKvus aut itukto aut 
 TVKvS'). The translation therefore, so far as Erasmus is concerned, is founded 
 on a conjectural reading. And it 4s not unlikely that Jerome himself was just 
 as completely puzzled as Erasmire ; and hence the Vulgate version. It is a 
 remarkable fact, however, that one of Erasmus's conjectural readings (the 
 middle one) is actually found in the Sinaitio manuscript (^), and thence it has 
 actually been introduced into the evangelist's text by Tischendorf, in the eighth 
 edition of his New Testament. It is a marvellous deference to pay to the fine 
 old manuscript. It is far too much, however. The writer of the manuscript 
 had manifestly been puzzled by the term which he found in the text from which 
 he copied, and, being unable to understand it, he assumed that it was a mistake 
 and corrected it accordingly. If the debatable word was not in the evangelist's 
 autograph, it is inconceivable that any transcriber would ever have inserted it. 
 And when we dip into the matter a little fairther, we may easily see that the 
 reading of the Sinaitic manuscript, if interpreted acoordiag to the rendering of 
 the Vulgate (oft, not much), could never have been the original reading. There 
 is not an atom of evidence that either the Jews in general, or the Pharisees in 
 particular, or any peoples or persons or person, ever made it a matter of con- 
 science, or a matter of practice, to wash the hands 'frequently ' before partaking 
 of food. MTiat then ? There remains the interpretation of the Syriae Peshito 
 version. It renders the debatable word adverbially by a term which means 
 carefully or diligently. It is the same term which is employed in its transla- 
 tion of Luke XV. 8. And assuredly, if the debatable word can bear such an 
 interpretation, all the exegetical exigencies of the case would seem to be met to 
 a nicety. One should suppose that a perfunctory washing of the hands would 
 not have satisfied the Pharisaic sticklers for fulness and thoroughness in all 
 that was merely outward in religion. On the principle which led them ' to make 
 broad their phylacteries, and to enlarge the borders of their garments ' (Matt, 
 xxiii. 5), they would be careful to give in all ordinary circumstances an ample 
 lustration to their hands, however neglectful they might be of their hearts. 
 But it is scarcely likely, notwithstanding their devotion to pettinesses, that they 
 would insist on the cleansing being uniformly performed in one invariable way. 
 It is not likely at all events that the whole people would be particular in insist- 
 ing, or admitting, that, from among the many possible modes of cleansing the 
 
4] ST. MARK VII. 179 
 
 from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many 
 
 hands with water, only one single and singular way should be legitimate. And 
 hence the generic idea of diligently or carefully seems to meet all the require- 
 ments of the case. It is true that the debatable word does not occur elsewhere 
 with this adverbial acceptation. Hence the difficulty. But it is nevertheless, 
 when intrinsically considered, quite a natural acceptation, which may readily 
 enough have obtained a local or provincial currency, although it never found its 
 way up into classical usage or polite literary phraseology. Just aa some people 
 speak of doing a thing with tooth and nail, when they refer to an effort in which 
 the eagerness of a vicious temper plays an important part ; so people in other 
 circles might he accustomed to speak of doing a thing with the fist, when the 
 thing had to be done energetically, vigorotisly, and effectively, eiiaost pugilistically 
 as it were ; that is Arius Montanus's word (pugilatim). The washing was to be 
 done as if hand were to contend with hand which should be cleanest. (Comp. 
 Suidas, sub voce irijf.) CaMn gives, as one of his alternate translations, a force. 
 Sharpe, in his translation, uses the admirable word thorougly. Piscator, in his, 
 has diligently (flieissig) ; Count Zinzendorf, very carefully (sehr sorgfaltig). The 
 great Isaac Casaubon contended for this interpretation of the debatable word. 
 {Notce, in loo.) It had evidently been accepted too by Epiphauius in the fourth 
 century. (See his Heereses, xv.) It has also been accepted by many others, as 
 by Fetter for instance, and a-Lapide, among the older expositors, and by 
 Kuinol, Wordsworth, Alford, Eowlaudson, and the authors of the Kevised 
 English version, among the more modern. 
 
 Holding the tradition of the elders. Holding, that is holding firmly, or holding 
 fast, as the term is rendered in Heb. iv. 14, Kev. ii. 13, 25. The ceremonial 
 washing of hands before eating was not an injunction, bearing upon it a written 
 superscription of ' Thus saith the Lord.' It was a mere tradition, orally handed 
 down, as was alleged by its patrons, from the elders. These elders or ancients 
 were often represented as the contemporaries or immediate successors of Moses, 
 and as persons therefore who might be expected to know the Divine will in 
 reference to duties not formally enjoined in the Scriptures. 
 
 Vek. 4. And {when they come). This supplement, substantially, is found in 
 the fine old Cambridge manuscript {Srav ^Xdwaiv). In many copies of the 
 ' old Latin ' there is another form of supplement, equally excellent, ' when they 
 return ' (redeuntes). 
 
 From the market. Or, more literally, from market, where, in consequence of 
 the crowding of the people, there would be the possibility and the risk of con- 
 tracting ceremonial contamination. The market or market place in the ancient 
 Jewish towns and villages would correspond to the modern bazaar of the East ; 
 it was the place of concourse, and hence the place of merchandise. The idea of 
 concourse is that which is suggested by the Greek term (dyopd) ; and certainly, 
 if crowding is anywhere in the East, it is in the mart or bazaar. Man rubs on 
 man, and has often to squeeze his way through. " The great bazaars, where 
 " the necessaries of life are sold, are also thoroughfares," says Miss Whately, 
 speaking of Cairo, " and in the middle of the day so noiny and crowded that 
 " it requires much skill on the part of the boy who guides one's donkey, as well 
 
180 ST. MARK VII. [4 
 
 other things there be, which they have received to hold, as 
 
 " aa considerable vigilance in oneself. . . . A sea of white and red turbans 
 " is in front, here and there interrupted by a huge camel, towering above every- 
 " body, and apparently going to trample down some halt dozen in his progress, 
 "or by a long line of donkeys laden with dripping skins of water or great 
 ' ' stones for building, loosely fastened with cord netting, and threatening to fall 
 " on the feet of the passengers ; though indeed, from the density of the crowd, 
 " they do not seem to have any feet, only heads. To penetrate the mass is a 
 "puzzling affair ; but the young guide calls out. To the right I To the left! 
 " incessantly adding plenty of hints to individuals, boy I man ! lady ! 
 " camel-driver / ... If wishing to be more particular, he alludes to the 
 " article the person is carrying, thus, chickens, oranges, get out of the way I 
 " and so by degrees one gets along." {Ragged Life in Egypt, pp. 19, 20.) In 
 Cairo there are numerous bazaars ; but in small places, where there is only one, 
 it naturally becomes the favourite resort and lounge of the entire male population. 
 Hence a large amount of personal contact with individuals, whose secret phy- 
 sical or ceremonial condition cannot be known, is unavoidable. It was possible 
 therefore, as the Pharisees argued, that ceremonial defilement might have been 
 unwittingly contracted in the market. They exaggerated the divinely prescribed 
 precautionary measures, referred to in Lev. xv. and other parts of ' the law,' 
 and fancied that they were giving the highest possible evidence of extraordi- 
 narily meritorious holiness when they bound themselves to use more frequent 
 ablutions than Moses had enjoined. 
 
 Except they have baptized themselves {Ihv nij ^awHcrojiiTai.) they eat net. The 
 reference of the baptism is to themselves, not to the articles purchased in the 
 market, as Krebs, Matthsei, Kuinol, Lange, and others suppose. But the real 
 action denoted by the verb baptized has been much debated in ' the baptismal 
 controversy.' There can be no doubt that the term, in its primary acceptation, 
 denoted dipping, merging, mersing, whelming ; this should never be disputed. 
 Ent there should be as little doubt that the primary modal acceptation got merged 
 out of consideration, when the term was ritually employed among the J^ews. The 
 idea of purification became then outstanding and overshadowing (John iii. 22, 25, 
 26), whatever the specific mode in which the purificatory act was effected. In the 
 case before us the immersion of the whole body in water was really an absolute 
 impossibility. We wonder that even Meyer contends for it. It would have 
 involved a bath-room, or at least a sufficiently ample plunge-bath, in every 
 house and cot in the land. It would have involved too a supply of water 
 such as has never yet been in Palestine during the present geological epoch. 
 For the water that was once used for purifying would be ceremonially ' un- 
 clean,' and therefore unfit for further use by a second member of the household; 
 and what then would become of the household when three or four or more 
 required to baptize themselves ? For the same reason a common public bath in 
 every village would have been an impossibility among the Jews ; the use of it 
 by a single individual would have rendered it ' unclean ' for all the rest of the 
 population, until it was replenished afresh for each. And even then the vessel 
 itself would, until purified, be ceremonially defiled in consequence of contact 
 with the unclean person (Num. xix. 22). There is no evidence of any kind that 
 
i] ST. MARK VII. 181 
 
 the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 
 
 the Jews ever had any public baths, or could indeed have ever allowed them, for 
 the revioval of ceremonial uncleanness. The baptism wbioh ' the Pharisees and 
 all the Jews ' performed, on every occasion of coming home from the market- 
 place, or from any crowded place whatsoever in which they might have got 
 entangled among a mass of miscellaneous individuals, must have been some- 
 thing else than 'immersion.' It would no doubt, in all ordinary cases, be 
 efEected by ' sprinkling,' the common mode of purification. See Num. viii. 7, 
 xix. 13, 18, 19, 20 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 25 ; Heb. ix. 13, x. 22. Add to these passages 
 Ps. 11. 7, ' purge me with hyssop,' the common instrument apparently of cere- 
 monial ' sprinkling.' It is a remarkable fact that in the two oldest and most 
 important of all the existing manuscripts of the New Testament, the Sinaitic 
 and the Vatican (KB), the expression before us is not except they have baptized 
 themselves, but except they have sprinkled themselves ((lavTlaavrai). Volkmar 
 accepts the word. It is not likely, however, that it exhibits the original read- 
 ing ; otherwise it would.never have got superseded. But it shows us decisively 
 what was the opinion entertained by the writers of these manuscripts in refer- 
 ence to the mode of the ceremonial custom which is referred to by the evan- 
 gelist. And it need not be a surprise to any that a word, originally denoting a 
 specific mode or form, should in the course of time merge its reference to its 
 own primary import. Nothing is more common in living language. To manu- 
 facture, for instance, originally meant to malce ' by the hand ' ; but now a very 
 large proportion of manufactured articles are no longer ' liand made,' but, on 
 the contrary and in contradistinction, are made by machinery. Originally it 
 was vessels only with ' sails ' that ' sailed ' ; but now we constantly read and 
 speak of the sailing of steamboats, although, in many cases, they have actually 
 no sails at all, and thus cannot ' sail ' in the primary acceptation of the term. 
 Originally it was at the sound or ' blast ' of the trumpet that heralds described 
 the armorial ensigns of those who entered the tournament lists ; it was thus 
 (compare the German blasen) that they blazoned ; their description was ' blazed' 
 abroad over the whole assembled multitude. But now nothing in the world is 
 done more quietly than the blazoning of coats of arras ; and yet they continue 
 to be blazoned. In fact ' coats of arms,' so called, are no longer coats at all ; 
 just as the great majority of spinsters no longer spin. There are too other 
 hypocrites besides those who are found on the boards of a theatre, though a 
 hypocrite originally was a stage-player who answered from under a mask. So a 
 villain was originally just a villager ; a pagan was simply a countryman ; a 
 scandal was a stick in a trap. And to come back to the very word in dispute, 
 the root verb from which it springs, though primarily meaning to dip, came also 
 to mean to dye, in whatsoever way the dyeing was effected. And, as a matter 
 of philological fact, the word baptize itself is now by the great majority of the 
 people who use it all the world over employed to denote the performance of a 
 purificatory rite, without the least atom of reference, ire ' their ' use of it, to its 
 primary import of immersion. If the term is nxiw employed in this way, is it 
 inconceivable that it should have Taeea formerly thus employed ? If not, is it 
 inconceivable ths,t we should have to push back the reference of the 'formerly ' 
 to the very time of Mark himself? There is no good reason for doubting that 
 
182 -ST. MARK VII. [5 
 
 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy 
 
 the ' six waterpots of stone, containing two or three firkins apiece,' which were 
 ' set ' in the house in Cana, ' after the manner of the purifying of the Jews ' 
 (John ii. 6), furnish us with a fair representation of the kind of vessels that 
 were generally employed among the Jews to contain the water of haptism. The 
 members of the family and their guests would, in passing into the house, lift 
 the hunch of hyssop that would be lying conveniently, fixed on the extremity 
 of a distinct and appropriate handle, and would dip it in the cleansing element 
 and sprinlde their persons. The water and the hyssop, being untouched by the 
 unclean, continued clean, and would be available for all. Lightfoot and Wet- 
 steiu err in supposing that the purification referred to by our Lord passed on 
 the hands alone. 
 
 And many other things there are which they received to hold fast. Which they 
 received, as authoritative ordinances traditionally handed down. They received 
 them, (ftat they might hold them fast. When the ordinances were enjoined on 
 them by their rabbis, the design was that they might hold them fast. (See 
 Fritzsche.) But their reception of them was a past thing (hence the aorist 
 tense of the verb), and they were now holding them fast. The language is equi- 
 valent to this, there are many other things which they hold fast, having received 
 them that they might hold them fast. The evangelist mentions, as representative 
 purifications, baptisms of cups, that is, ' ceremonial ' purifications of cups ; and 
 such purifications being ceremonial, and for another purpose altogether than 
 the removal of physical impurity, would be performed in such a way as not t 
 endanger the ceremonial purity of the aggregate of purifying water. It would, 
 in other words, be performed by sprinkling. See the remainder of the verse. 
 The Greek word baptisms is preserved in the Vulgate version, and it is much 
 better than the partially synonymous term washings, which Erasmus, Luther, and 
 Beza introduced into their respective versions. Erasmus says that he ' won- 
 dered ' at the Vulgate version, ' inasmuch as the reference is just to common 
 washing' {vulgaris lotio). He entirely misapprehended, however, the nature of 
 the case ; the Saviour does not refer to common washing. He would never have 
 objected to the literal cleansing of cups. Such cleansing must be regarded as in 
 accordance with the will of God. It has too a moral significance and effect, as 
 well as a physical propriety. 
 
 Cups. That is, as the word means, drinking vessels. 
 
 And pots. These would be larger vessels than the ordinary cups, vessels out 
 of which the cups would be filled. Potts is the Geneva translation ; Tyndale 
 and Coverdale have cruses ; WycliSe, cruetis. The word employed (feo-TTjs) is 
 })roperIy a Latin word (sextarius), though it was adopted both into the Greek 
 and Hebrew languages (Buxtorf , L«a:. Tal., p. 2,076). It etymologically signifies 
 a sixth, and would denote a jug or jar that held a sixth part of a congius. A 
 congius somewhat corresponded to the English gallon. 
 
 And coppers. See chap. vi. 8. These copper vessels would probably correspond 
 to the large copper caldrons that are still used in Syria for cooking food, often 
 being of a size that is apparently very disproportioned to the other articles that 
 constitute the essential outfit of a- domestic establishment. 
 
 In King James's version it is added and tables. But that is a mere guess of 
 
5] ST. MAEK VII. 183' 
 
 disciples according to the tradition of tlie elders, but eat bread 
 
 a translation, arising apparently out of the difficulty of oonoeiviug that couches 
 or beds would be ceremonially purified either by washing in general, or by 
 immersion in particular. The difficulty of the supposition is obvious enough ; 
 for if couches or beds required to be immersed, when they were about to be 
 used afresh, not only would a very large supply of water have been required, 
 they themselves would, by being soaked with water, have been rendered unfi* 
 for use. Yet couches or beds, and not tables, is the only possible interpretation 
 of the evangelist's word {kXivwh). The word never has, in any Greek writer of 
 any age, the meaning of table, or any other meaning than that of cotich or Jed. 
 It must have been in despair that both Luther and Tyndale rendered it tables ; 
 they were followed by Coverdale and the Geneva version. Wycliffe and the 
 Eheims however, following the faithful Vulgate, have beds. Felbinger has bed- 
 steads ; Bengel and Heumann, table-couches. Such couches would of course be 
 ceremonially purified only by sprinkling, for it is in vain for Dr. Carson to affirm 
 that ' there is no furniture in a house that could not be immersed,' or to sup- 
 pose ' that the couches might be made to be taken to pieces, in order to their 
 more convenient immersion ' (Baptism, p. 451). It is noteworthy that in both 
 the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts (K B], as well as in L A and the Coptic 
 version, this phrase and couches is omitted altogether ; and, in his eighth edition 
 of the New Testament, Tisohendorf has actually dropped it out of the text. XJn- 
 warrantably, however ; if the words had been wanting in the autograph of the 
 evangelist, they would never have been arbitrarily added. The vrriters of the 
 manuscripts mentioned, and of the Coptic version, or the writers from whom they 
 copied, had evidently felt the very difficulty that led Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale, 
 and our Authorized translators to hazard, by guess, the word tables. 
 
 Veb. 5. And the Pharisees and the scribes question Him. And instead of then 
 is no doubt the correct reading. The then had been intruded by transcribers 
 who did not understand the relation of the second verse to the first, and its con- 
 sequent relation to the fifth. It had been intruded to give the construction the 
 appearance of greater oonoinnity. (See on ■v^i. 2.) The and, Mark's favourite 
 conjunction, is restored by Lachmann, Tisohendorf, Tregelles, Alford ; it was 
 advocated by Griesbach [Gomm. Grit., in ver. 2). 
 
 Why walk not Thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders ? Walk not 
 {oil TcpnraToO(ni>). Life is thought of as a kind of perpetual motion ; it is a 
 constant peripateticism. The tradition of the elders : The word rendered tradi- 
 tion properly means the act of handing from one (rapiSojis) or of handing down 
 as it were. Here it refers to the object of the act, that is, to the thing handed 
 down, the ordinance or injunction which is subindicated in the next clause. 
 This injunction came, it was alleged, from the elders or ancients. It was not 
 written indeed in the book of the law. (See Josephus, Ant., xui. 10 : 6.) But it 
 was handed on from generation to generation by word of mouth, and had 
 emanated, it was contended, from those fathers of the constitution who had 
 been the assessors and friends of Moses, and thus, as was to be presumed, had 
 been so near the fountain of inspiration as to know the mind of God. 
 
 But eat with common hands the bread. With hands such as heathens have ; 
 
184 t ST. MARK VII. [5 
 
 with unwaslien Hands ? 6 He answered and said unto them, 
 Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, 
 This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart 
 is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, 
 
 ■with unsauotified hands. (See ver. 2.) The bread : note the article, and the 
 consequent simplicity of the representation, 'the' bread which is before them. 
 
 Ver. 6. And He said to them. Well did Isaiah prophesy concerning yon the 
 hypocrites. Note the well. The same word is ironically repeated in fer. 9, and 
 is rendered full well, the rendering which it receives here in the version of 
 Coverdale. If very literally translated, it would be beautifully (raXus). Luther 
 admirably reproduced its import, yinc!'!/ {wohl fein). The Saviour means that 
 the words of Isaiah could not have been more apt and felicitous if he had 
 had really present before him, for the purpose of taking their portrait, those 
 very Pharisees and scribes who were finding fault with the disciples. Isaiah 
 prophesied. The reference is not simply, or distinctively, or principally, to pre- 
 diction. When the prophets prophesied, they spoke fore God, and from God, 
 and thus for God, whether it was to things past, present, or to come, that they 
 referred. (See chap. vi. i.) The waters that welled up within them came from 
 depths that were deeper than their own thoughts. (See Patrizi, in loc.) The 
 Saviour then, as Calvin has judiciously remarked, dofes not mean that Isaiah 
 was looking forward to the scribes and Pharisees of the New Testament age. 
 He means that the prophet's utterances depicted these scribes and Pharisees to 
 perfection. Concerning you ' the ' hypocrites : the article indicates that their 
 hypocrisy, in the judgment of the Lord, was something conspicuous. 
 
 As it stands written. Such is Luther's habitual translation of the expression 
 which, with somewhat less exactitude perhaps, is rendered in our English ver- 
 sion it is written. In the first two issues of Luther's New Testament, the 
 issues of 1522, the expression is frequently given as in our English version, it is 
 written. In the 1524 edition however, and its successors, the less exact render- 
 ing is superseded by the more exact. The phrase is literally it has been written. 
 (See Isa. xxix. 13.) 
 
 This people honoureth Me with the lips. Making, as Petter says, ' outward 
 show and profession of holiness and religion.' When the prophet refers to the 
 lips he specifies a part for the whole. Jesus had in His eye the baptism of 
 cups and the washing of hands, as well as the saying of prayers and the utter- 
 ance of solemn tones. ' The reason is,' says Petter, ' because the principal 
 parts of outward worship are performed with mouth and lips.' 
 
 But their heart is far from Me. ' By heart understand,' says Petter, ' the 
 inner man, comprehending all the faculties and powers thereof.' (See chap, 
 ii. 6 and vi. 52.) The expression rendered is far is idiomatic and emphatic in 
 the original (irippw air^ei). It primarily means holdeth off afar. The heart of 
 the scribes and Pharisees held iUelf far off from God ; it kept itself to itself, 
 instead of taking itself to God. Nothing indeed is farther away from God than 
 selfishness, under whatever phase or guise it may appear. 
 
 Vek. 7. But in vain do they worship Me. (See Patrizi, in loo.) The but has 
 retrospective reference to the more outstanding or obtrusive of the two pre- 
 
9"' ST. MARK VII. 185 
 
 teacTiing for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For 
 laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition 
 of men, as the washing of pots and cups : and many other 
 such like things ye do. 
 
 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the com- 
 mandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 
 
 ceding clauses, that namely In which it is said, ' this people honoureth Me with 
 the lips.' Notwithstanding all this honour, in vain do they worship Me. Why ? 
 See next clause. 
 
 Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. Very literally, teaching 
 teachings, men's commandments. It is, as Calvin remarts, a case of apposition. 
 Tyndale's version brings out clearly the prophet's idea, though somewhat 
 paraphrastioally, teaching doctrynes which are nothing but the commandements of 
 men. The for of King James's version, borrowed from the Geneva, and found 
 too in Calvin's French version {pour), is not altogether a happy supplement. 
 It is liable to be misunderstood, and has been mistaken by many, as by Petter 
 for instance, who explains the expression thus, instead of true and sound 
 doctrines. 
 
 Veb. 8. The quotation is ended, and the Saviour now speaks out of His own 
 fulness. Having left the commandment of Grod, ye hold fast the tradition of men. 
 The words commandment and tradition are used in the singular number, because 
 the mind of the Saviour was concentrated anticipatively upon single illustrative 
 eases. 
 
 Baptisms of pots and cups ; and many other snch like things ye do. These 
 clauses are omitted altogether by Tisohendorf in his eighth edition. They are 
 enclosed within brackets by Tregelles and Laohmann (in his small edition). 
 Alford brackets them too, but pronounces on the whole in their favour. The 
 Eevisers omit them. They are wanting in K B L A, 1, and the Coptic version, 
 and in all the manuscripts of the Armenian version, though not in Uscan's 
 edition. We wait for further light. 
 
 Vek. 9. And He said to them. This is one of Mark's favourite ways of 
 introducing a new topic of discourse or some salient detail. Comp. chap. iv. 
 9, 13, 24, 26, 30, 40. 
 
 Pall well. Or finely, as Luther has it (see on ver. 6). Coverdale has how 
 goodly, the &cst Geneva, verie wel. It, is 6«aMiJ/«Kj/ in the original. Though 
 there is no need of making much of it, yet there is undoubtedly, as Euthymius 
 Zigabenus remarked of old, a dash of irony in the employment of the word. 
 Castellio, Beza, Petter, Baxter, Alexander, all allow the ironical import. Willes 
 too contends for it. 'By full well,' says Eichard Baxter, 'is meant full ill.' 
 ' He speaketh one thing in words,' says Petter, ' and intendeth the contrary.' 
 Wakefield evaporates the life from the phraseology when he tries to merge the 
 irony, and renders the clause thus, ' Ye entirely set aside the commandment of 
 God.' 
 
 Ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition. Instead 
 Df reject, the Geneva word, it is frustrate in the Eheims. Neither rendering is 
 
186 ST. MARK VIL [10 
 
 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, 
 Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 11 But 
 ye say. If a man shall say to his father or mother. It is Corban, 
 that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by 
 
 perfect. Tyndale's first rendering (in 1526) was, ye putt awaye : Ms last (in 
 1534) was a little stronger, ye cast aside ; neither of them perfect either. The 
 word (dSereire) has no absolute synonym in English ; it lies somewhere between 
 nullify and abrogate. Fetter explains it : 'Ye abrogate or make of no force 
 or authority.' The word in the next clause, excellently translated keep in 
 our EngUsh version, is also excellently translated maintain by Tyndale and 
 Coverdale. 
 
 Vee. 10. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother, and, Whoso revileth 
 father or mother, let him die for it [BavArt^ TeXevrdTu). The Eheims rendering is 
 Hebraistic, dying let him die. The original idea is, let him finish (his career) by 
 death {judicially inflicted). It was Coverdale who introduced the translation 
 which is given in our King James's version, the Geneva, ' the Great Bible,' and 
 the Eevised version. It is awkward however, and has not the merit of being 
 literal. Our version is Tyndale's. The Old Testament passages quoted are 
 found in Exod. xx. 12, Deut. v. 16, and Exod. xxi. 17, Lev. xx. 9. 
 
 Yeb. 11. But ye say, If a man should say to his father or his mother, Corban! 
 (that is to say, ' A gift.') It is the evangelist who parenthetically interjects the 
 interpretation of the Hebrew word Corban. Josephus employs interpretatively 
 the same Greek term (Ant., iv. 4 : 4 ; G. Apion, i. 22). The Hebrew word 
 means u gift (to God), u. sacrificial gift (Supov SeoS, Joseph, c. Ap,, i. 22). It 
 occurs frequently in the Old Testament, and is translated in our Authorized 
 version either offering or oblation. It etymologically means what is brought 
 near (viz. to God). When an unnatural son wished, either in a temporary fit 
 of passion or under the goad of an abiding selfishness, to get quit of the 
 importunity of a destitute father or mother, he had. just to say, in reference to 
 whatever was craved, Corban! or, as it was sometimes veilingly corrupted, 
 Conam ! and then not only was he released from obligation to assist his needy 
 parent, he was actually bound, as by the highest solemnity, to withhold the 
 desired relief. So tortuously and tamperingly did the rabbis deal with the word 
 of God and with the consciences of men. 
 
 Whatsoever it is by which then mightest be benefited out of me. This was the 
 most sweeping and thoroughly generic way of expressing the cruelty of selfish 
 rage, or of putting an end inhumanly to importunity. It continued among the 
 Jews for centuries after our Saviour's death. It crops out again and again in 
 the tract Nedarim, in the Mishna, as a form of ' cursing ' that was actually in 
 use. Josephus speaks of the single word Corban being used as an ' oath ' or 
 ' curse ' (opKos, C. Apion, i. 22) ; but when to that single word was appended, as 
 the area of the radiation of its influence, the generic statement, whatsoever 
 it is by which thou mightest be benefited out of me, the 'curse' was embittered 
 and intensified to the utmost degree. Often, we may suppose, would there be 
 something less in actual life than the fulness of this sweep. The wide extent 
 of the ban would be disintegrated or minced down, to meet particular details of 
 
13] ST. MARK VII. 187 
 
 me ; lie shall he free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought 
 for his father or his mother; 13 making the word of God of 
 
 application. If a needy father should ask a sheep out of the son's flock, he 
 might he answered Corban ! that is, Corban the sheep ! or Let be Corban the 
 sheep ! If he asked a measure of corn he might receive for answer, Corban ! 
 that is, Let the com be Corban I (see L. Cappel's Diatriba, § 9) ; hut if reproach 
 ensued, and passion got towering, then the hau of Corhan would be laid on 
 everything that might be available, Corban I whatever it is by which thou 
 mightest be benefited out of vie ! And the rabbis ruled that if an inhuman son 
 thus swore or ' cursed,' he was hound to stand to his ' curse,' because of the 
 holy word Corban which he had uttered. ' most abominable and detestable 
 imposture ! ' exclaims Faber Stapulensis. And the climax of the satanic quirk 
 was this : the heartless wretch, though vocally vowing by the word Corban all 
 his sheep and corn and other possessions to the temple, was not bound after all 
 to give them to the temple ; he was only bound, until such time as by some other 
 quirk he could get absolution, to give nothing to the person to whom he had uttered 
 the sacred word ! (see Comm. on Matt., xv. 5). This was a refinement of 
 rabbinical Jesuitism in ' cursing ' that has never been exceeded in the annals of 
 the sleekest of human snakes. No wonder that it excited the indignation of 
 our holy and loving Lord. 
 
 He shall be free. A supplement thrown in by King James's translators, 
 following in the wake of the Geneva and of Beza. It was devised in despair, 
 because of the barrier that was found in the first word of the following verse. 
 The natural apodosis however of the sentence is found in that verse. 
 
 Vee. 12. And. This conjunction must to all appearance he omitted. It is 
 left out by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles. It is wanting in the manuscripts 
 N B D A, 1, 69, and in the Coptic and .Slthiopic versions. Its insertion in the 
 other ancient authorities seems to have been occasioned by the difficulty of 
 understanding the Hebraizing expression employed, and the rabbinical Jesuitism 
 involved in the phraseology of the preceding verse. " The words of that verse," 
 says Petter, " are in themselves somewhat dark and difficult in the original 
 " Greek text, and learned men do not at all interpret them alike." (See even 
 CastelUo and Dionysius S, Byckel.) With the omission of and, however, and 
 the above interpretation of Corban and its adjunct, the connection of the two 
 verses becomes simple and lucid. The and perplexed Principal Campbell ; but 
 he sagaciously concluded, though he did not know that there was critical 
 warrant for his idea, that somehow or other it must be ignored. 
 
 Te suifer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother. No more or no 
 longer, viz. after he has said Corban I ' Ought,' or by a, still better spelling, 
 aught, that is a whit. (Compare the Anglo-Saxon aht, awiht, awyht). Anything 
 is the translation of the Geneva version. The first Geneva (1557) had oght. 
 Wycliffe has ony thing ; the Anglo-Saxon, cenig thing. 
 
 Veii.^13. Making the word of God of none effect. Depriving it of its authori- 
 tative force (AKvpoOvres), annulling it as it were. The word is rendered disannul 
 in Gal. iii. 17. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, except in tho 
 passage of Matthew parallel to this (xv. 6). 
 
183 ST. MARK VIL [13 
 
 none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered : and 
 many such like things do ye. 
 
 ] 4 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said 
 unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand : 
 15 there is nothing from without a man, that entering into him 
 can defile him : but the things which come out of him, those are 
 
 By your tradition whicli ye handed down. The Saviour identifies tliein for the 
 moment with their forefathers, which ' ye ' handed down. (Comp. Matt, xxiii. 
 35.) They and their forefathers were one in spirit. 
 
 And many such like things ye do. The one instance of the Corhan matter 
 was but a specimen of many oases in which ' the word of God ' was racked, 
 wrenched, tortured, and reversed hy the paltering conceits of the rabbis. 
 
 Vek. 14. And having called to Him all the crowd. Viz., which was hang- 
 ing about, but which it would appear had either spontaneously and respect- 
 fully retired to a little distance, or had been waved off by our Lord, while He 
 had His interview, apparently at the dinner table (see ver. 2), with the strangers 
 from Jerusalem. But instead of the adjective all (ira'pra), there occurs in some 
 of the highest authorities the adverb again (iroXii'), which in Greek bears some 
 little analogy in appearance to the adjective : and having called to Him ' again ' 
 the crowd. This reading was defended by Mill [Prol., § 403), and, on the whole, 
 approved of by Griesbach (see Comm. Grit.). It is introduced into the text by 
 Laohmann, Tisohendorf, and Tregelles. It is supported by the manuscripts 
 K B D L A, and the Vulgate, Coptic, and jEthiopic versions, and the margin of 
 the Philoxenian Syriao. 
 
 He said to them, Hear He, all, and understand. This formality of intro- 
 duction indicates that some principle of far-reaching importance was about to 
 be enunciated. 
 
 Veb. 15. There is nothing from without the man. The Saviour is mentally 
 individualizing a representative case : There is nothing outside ' the ' vian. 
 
 Entering into him — or, as Tyndale has it, when hitt entereth in to him, — which 
 is able to defile him. Literally, to make him common, like the unsanctified mass 
 of mankind, to make him profane (in the original meaning of that term), to 
 make him unholy. Had our Saviour been speaking as a physiologist, He would 
 have admitted and contended that many things from without, if allowed to enter 
 within, will corrupt the functions of physical life, and carry disorder and detri- 
 ment into the whole fabric of the frame. But He was speaking as a moralist, 
 and hence the antithetic statement of the next clause. 
 
 But the things— or, as Tyndale has it, thoo thynges — which come out from him. 
 or, as it is in the texts of Laohmann, Tisohendorf, Tregelles, Alford, which come 
 out from the man. This repetition is the reading of the manuscripts N B D L A, 
 33, and the Vulgate, Gothic, Coptic, .ffithiopic, and Persic versions. 
 
 Those are they that defile the man. That render the man common. The 
 Saviour, speaking as a moralist, lays His hand on the fundamental spring of all 
 that moral impurity which is so common in the world. It originates in the 
 heart of man's being, and thence wells out. It is not an import, but an export. 
 Its origin is in self. Its genesis i&in self-will. Nothing but what is the product 
 
17] ST. MAEK VII. 189 
 
 they that defile the man. 16 If any man have ears to hear, 
 let him hear. 
 
 17 And when he was entered into the house from the 
 people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 
 
 of free will can he sinful, or have moral guilt attaching to it. Nothing else is 
 culpably ezcessive on the one hand, or culpably deficient on the other. Nothing 
 else is culpably present, or culpably absent and wanting. Free will is ever the 
 causing cause, and never the merely caused cause, of all the human or diabolic 
 effluences that corrupt the sum total of moral being. 
 
 Vee. 16. If any one have ears to hear, let him hear. This verse is bracketed 
 by Fritzsche, Tregelles, and Alford, as of doubtful authenticity. It was ' tb- 
 heraenily {vehementer) suspected' by Mill [Prol., § 1475). It was received by 
 Lachmann, but it is omitted altogether by Tischendorf in his eighth edition. 
 It is wanting in the manuscripts X B L A, and the Coptic version. It is rather 
 more likely however that it would be accidentally omitted by certain transcribers 
 than intentionally intruded. Comp. chap. iv. 9, 23. 
 
 Veb. 17. And when He entered into the house. In the texts which were lying 
 before King James's translators the expression was not ' the house,' but simply 
 and anarthrously, house. Hence the Geneva translation, into an house, and the 
 first version of Tyudale (1526), into a housse. Tyndale, in his second version 
 (1534), has Germanizingly to housse ; but Coverdale, the Great Bible, and the 
 Eheims, as well as Luther, have into ' the ' house. Strange to say, Tischendorf 
 in his eighth edition, under the authority of the Sinaitio and San Gallensis 
 manuscripts (X A), inserts the article. The authorization for the insertion is 
 altogether insufficient ; but we are not to suppose on the other hand that the 
 phrase exactly means into ' a ' house. It is idiomatic (comp. chap. ii. 1 ; iii. 1, 
 19) ; and if an article must in English be inserted, the is to be preferred : into 
 the house, that is, into the house where He was lodging. 
 
 From the crowd. Or, away from the crowd. Perhaps it was sunsetting 
 time, and our Saviour would enjoin on the people to retire to their homes. 
 Having thus spoken to them He would, as Petter expresses it, ' leave the multi- 
 tude that He might be private for a time to refresh Himself with His disciples.' 
 
 His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. Or more KteraUy and correctly, 
 according to the reading of the modern critical editors, approved of too by 
 Griesbach and Fritzsohe, His disciples asked Him the parable, that is, they 
 asked its meaning. The word parable, as here used, goes back to its primary 
 import. There was no story in the case ; story is not essential to the idea of a 
 parable. It is an accident. The parable was a side-throw in contradistinction 
 to a direct utterance ; hence something was revealed, and something was at the 
 same time concealed (chap. iii. 23). The reference here is to the apophthegm 
 contained in ver. 15, which did not directly utter and unfold the whole truth of 
 the case. It was, as the Germans would say, a Denkspruch, and needed to be 
 unfolded ; there was a husk around the kernel of its meaning. ' His disciples 
 Bsked Him ' ■ we learn from Matt. xv. 15 that it was Peter who was the spokes- 
 man ; and Hilgenfeld imagines that, as the question led to a reproof, we have ia 
 
190 ST. MARK VII. [18 
 
 18 And he saitli unto them, Are ye so without under- 
 standing also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing 
 from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 
 
 19 because it entereth not into his heart, but into the 
 belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 
 
 Mark's suppression of his name an evidence of the Petrinism of the Gospel 
 (Evangel., p. 137). It may be so ; butit may also simply be that the evangelist, 
 without any peculiar reference to Peter, just avails himself of the eclecticism 
 which is at once the privilege and the necessity of aU historians and biographers. 
 It was a fact that the whole company of the disciples were in a state of mental 
 perplexity (see Matt. xv. 16). 
 
 Veb. 18. And He says to them, Are ye so without understanding also ? Or, Is 
 it the case that even you are so dull in apprehension > Even you, who have so 
 long been with Me, and have hence had such opportunities of understanding 
 the principles of right and wrong, of true and false : are ye in this matter so 
 unintelligent ? Note the so ; to such an extent as not to understand the apo- 
 phthegm which I uttered to the collective crowd, and which I put into the form, 
 which it received, because I wished them to turn it over and over in their thoughts, 
 till they should see through it. 
 
 Do ye not perceive that everything that entereth from without into the man is 
 unable to defile him ? Or literally, to make him common, that is, to make him, as 
 regards moral condition, to be in the state which is ' common ' all over the world. 
 The Saviour refers to the material things, that enter into a man through his 
 mouth. His principle however is applicable, on a higher plane of reference, to 
 spiritual things too which come in from without. These, however noxious, 
 cannot of. themselves defile a, man. ' The man within the breast ' must act in 
 reference to them, before guilt can Vb contracted. 
 
 Vee. 19. Because it entereth not into the heart. The spiritual region of the 
 being, the region in which alone can he found the entities and essences of 
 moral purity and impurity. ' By heart,' says Petter, ' understand tlie whole 
 inner man, comprehending in a large sense the principal faculties of the soul.' 
 
 But into the belly. The merely corporeal region, the region of the stomach 
 and those other wonderful intestinal structures which have to do with the 
 chymification, chylification, and sanguification of the food, and thus with the 
 utilization of its nourishing ingredients. 
 
 And goeth out into the draught. The place whence refuse is withdrawn. 
 
 Purifying all the meats. That is, all the ' comestibles ' that have been eaten. 
 The word purifying has been puzzling from time immemorial; and hence 
 multitudes of the manuscripts turned its gender from a masculine (KaBapl^av) 
 into a neuter (KaBapl^ov). This neuter gender thus became the reading of the 
 Eeceived Text, and is defended by Griesbach. (Comm. Grit.) But the word is 
 masculine in almost all the most important authorities, such as KABEF 
 GHLSXA, 1, 69, and is so given in the texts of Lachmann, Tisohendorf, 
 Tregelles, Alford. The construction is extremely inartificial. There is indeed, 
 take the words as we may, a grammatical anacoluth: But the expression must, 
 fljiparently, refer to the draught, which, by receiving the refuse, draws off as it 
 
i:i] ST. MARK VII. 191 
 
 20 And he said. That which cotneth out of the mar., that 
 defileth the man. 2L For from within, out of the heart of 
 men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications,, murders, 
 
 were the impurities of tlie food, or those elements that remain after the 
 nutritive ingredients have been eliminated and assimilated. To suppose with 
 Field, Farrar {Expositor, 1876), and the Eevisers that the words are a paren- 
 thetically interjected doctrinal inference of the evangelist, and not an observa- 
 tion on the part of our Lord, involves a violent strain of exegesis. 
 
 Vee. 20. Bat He said. Turning to the other, the spiritual, side of this case. 
 
 That which cometh forth from the man — and has been originated within him — 
 that defileth the man. Namely, when he is defiled at all or made common, as 
 the phrase literally means, and as it is given in the Eheims version. The 
 Saviour refers of course to a moral condition, for the scribes and Pharisees in 
 Bis day had confounded what wag ceremonial with what was moral. They 
 were contending, blindly, pertinaciously, and pettifoggingly, for the variable 
 letter, as if it were the immutable spirit. And not only did they insist on the 
 everlasting permanence of the lettfer, they equally insisted on the rigid observ- 
 ance of all the little teasing tittles and jots of ritualistic righteousness, 
 which had been gratuitously added to the Mosaic letter by the fertile ingenuity 
 of small rabbinical interpreters. 
 
 Vee. 21. Por from within, out of the heart of men, proceed forth evil thoughts. 
 Or rather evil communicatioTis, or evil conversations, or evil disputings. Still 
 more literally the evil disputings, those namely that were so common in 
 Jewish society, and so infectious. The Saviour may have been referring to such 
 rancorous disputes as had just been exhibited by the inquisitorial scribes and 
 Pharisees in the uproar which they sought to raise in reference to the conduct 
 of His disciples. The word is rendered disputings in PhU. ii. 14, and reasoning 
 in Luke ix. 46. The cognate verb [Biakoyl^o/iai.) is almost always rendered to 
 reason. It refers to some kind of dialectical exercise, inward or outward, the 
 bandying of a matter backward and forward with oneself or another. The 
 reference here is not to what is inward, but to what is outward, as having 
 welled up from what is inward. Out of the heart : That is, generically, out of 
 the inward or spiritual element of our nature, the inward or spiritual, as dis- 
 tinguished from the outward or corporeal. See ver. 6, 19 ; chap. ii. 6, 8. 
 
 Adulteries, fornications, murders. There is considerable difference in the 
 manuscripts, and old versions, regarding the order of some of the words in this 
 clause and in the succeeding verse. Hence Tisohendorf and Tregelles put 
 fornications first, then thefts, then murders, then adulteries. But manifestly 
 there was no special principle of order intended ; the terms were simply 
 showered down. Fritzsche says that the vices which are miscellaneously 
 specified are considered ' not in so far as they are perpetrated, but in so far as 
 they are meditated.' It is an infelicitous distinction ; for the specified vices 
 are expressly referred to as coming out from within, and efflorescing into overt 
 acts. They pass beyond intentions into aeoompUshments. There is indeed, 
 in the interior region of our being, sphere within sphere ; and intentions may 
 be distinguished, not only from their oonseciuents ad extra, but also from their 
 
192 ST. MARK VII. [22 
 
 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness. 
 
 antecedents ah intra. When thus distinguished, we find, in their antecedents, 
 vices of choice that spring directly out of the innermost fountain of personality, 
 the heart of the heart. But it is not to these inter-relationships, in the interior 
 of the being, that the Saviour here refers. He is (Rawing a broad distinction 
 between what belongs to the inner or spiritual sphere (the heart) on the one 
 hand, and what belongs to the outer or corporeal on the other. 
 
 Vee. 22. Thefts, covetings. The original word {wXeove^lat), refers, like the 
 preceding expressions, to overt conduct rather than to inward disposition. 
 King James's translators rendered it covetous practices in 2 Pet. ii. 14. That 
 is, as nearly as may be, its meaning here ; and hence the plural number. The 
 cognate verb originally denoted to have more (viz. than one's proper share). 
 It thence naturally came to denote the voluntary possession of an illegitimate 
 overplus, the holding of it. A kindred idea was, the grasping at it, and the 
 claiming of it. It is something like overreachings that is meant here ; yet not 
 exclusively overreachings, but also overgraspings and overholdings, — all acts, in 
 short, that manifest a determination or a desire to have more than one's legitimate 
 share. Wyclifie gives, as an alternative translation or gloss, an admirable de- 
 scription of the vice, overhard kepynge of goodis (overhard keeping of goods). 
 It is one of the subtlest of vices, and the wellspring of innumerable social and 
 political corruptions and collisions. It has been the real cause of almost all the 
 wars that have been waged between nations, as weU as the prolific fount of the 
 most irremediable of family feuds. 
 
 Wickednesses. The word means Ttnaveries or villanies objectively considered, 
 that is, acts of knavery or villany [iropTjplat). Knavery originally denoted the 
 rude and trickish conduct of a servant lad. The word knave meant lad ; it is 
 merely our English form of the German Knabe, ' a boy.' Villany, again, just 
 means the gross, coarse, unprincipled conduct that was characteristic of the 
 serfs or servile labourers who were attached to the villas or country houses of 
 lauded proprietors. These poor neglected villagers, living in clumps of wretched 
 booths, ' bothies,' cots, or hovels, were in general extremely uncultured, not only 
 aesthetically but morally. No one cared for their souls ; no one oared for their 
 minds. No wonder that they were often guilty of villanies, and that their 
 wayward acts got enstamped upon them the name of villanies. The Greek 
 word leads us back to the characteristic conduct of the same unfortunate 
 toiUug-and-moiling class. The root of the word (vovos) means labour, hard 
 labour, drudgery, toil. The word itself denotes, in the singular, the action of a 
 servile labourer. When morally used it denotes the moral action of a servile 
 labourer. Hence, as used here in the plural, it denotes villanies, rascalities, 
 knaveries. ^ 
 
 33eceit. This and the remaining items of the miscellaneous catalogue, or 
 SUndenregister as Mehring would call it, are in the singular number. Petter 
 spells the word deceipt, and explains it as meaning ' fraud and guile.' The 
 English word literally means the act of taking from, stealthily no doubt (Lat. 
 decipio = de capio). The primary idea of the Greek word (66Xos) is not so 
 certain. It is supposed to have meant Bait (for fish) ; Homer thus uses it (Od. 
 
23] ST. MARK VII. 193 
 
 an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 all these 
 
 sii. 252). But whatever its primary reference, it came to denote any cunning 
 contrivance for catching or entrapping persons, or for getting an advantage over 
 them. "Deceipt is practised," as in other ways, so in this, says Petter, "by 
 " using any kind of craft or cunning to cozen others of any part of the goods or 
 " substance which belongs to them." 
 
 Lasciviou^ness. An excellent translation, superior to that of Tyndale, Cover- 
 dale, and the Geneva version, imcleanness. Wyeliffe has unchastitie, and 
 Wakefield contends for that term. The Eheims has impudicities ; Principal 
 Campbell, immodesty. Wolf, EosenmuUer, Kuinol, Eowlandson, think that the 
 reference is not to the wantonness of lascivioiisness, but to the wantonness of 
 injuriousness, ' masterfulness,' insolence, or outrageousiiess ; Mace renders it 
 impudence. But the immodest companionships of the term in such passages as 
 Bom. xiii. 13, 2 Cor. xii. 21, Gal. v. 19, make it evident that our translators 
 have struck on the true idea. 
 
 An evil eye. That is apparently, and as Suicer concludes {Thesaurus Ecc, 
 vol. ii., p. 534), and also Patrizi, an envious eye ; an eye, that is to say, which 
 manifests a spirit of envy. Comp. Matt. xx. 15. It is the opposite of a good 
 eye, or as it is rendered in our Authorized version, a bountiful eye : Prov. xxii. 
 9 (' a man good as regards eye will be blessed '). The mind looks through the 
 ■eye ; so does the heart. Lactantius beautifully compares the ej'es to glazed 
 windows (fenestras lucente vitro aut speculari lapide ohductas), through which 
 the mind beholds. ' And therefore,' adds he, ' the mind and will are often 
 discerned from the eyes ' (De Opificio, § 5). Salviauus of Marseilles uses the 
 same comparison of windows, but adds that hence ' all wicked desires enter into 
 the heart through the eyes, as through their natural avenues ' {Dc Guberiiatiotie 
 Dei, Ub. iii., § 8). Certainly the occasions of the desires often thus enter into 
 the heart, as the mind looks out. But the Saviour unfolds in the passage before 
 us a far profounder moral philosophy, when He says that the evil desires arise 
 in the heart, and come looking out wistfuUy at the eyes. 
 
 Blasphemy. The word apparently is not here used, as Luther supposed, in its 
 highest reference, its reference to God. Its companionship is with vices that 
 have reference to men. The term and its cognates are frequently employed in 
 this lower plane, and then it means railing, reviling, calumny, slander, evil 
 ■speaking. (See Matt, xxvii. 39 ; Mark xv. 29 ; Luke xxii. 65, xxiii. 39 ; Eom. 
 iii. 8, xiv. 16 ; 1 Cor. iv. 13, %. 30 ; Eph. iv. 81 ; Col. iii. 8 ; 1 Tim. vi. 4 ; Tit. 
 iii. 2 ; 1 Pet. iv. 4 ; 2 Pet. ii. 2 ; Jude 9.) If is rendered railing in 1 Tim. vi. 4, 
 and Eph. iv. 31 ; the Geneva renders it here backbiting. 
 
 Pride. Or haughtiness of demeanour, reflecting itself downwardly in lofty and 
 ■disdainful bearing, such bearing as assumes a right to appear conspicuous above 
 others {mepri<pavia). It is the vice of those who, owing it to accident that they 
 are high in the social pyramid, take it for granted that others should be tLeir 
 humble servants, or if possible their serfs. It is the vice unhappily of some 
 others too. 
 
 Foolislmess. Or senselessness of demeanour. Some translators err in fixing 
 on certain specific phases of senselessness. Mace fixes on vanity, Wakefield on 
 ■arrogancy, far ofi from the mark ; le Cierc has intemperance I Principal Camp- 
 
 o 
 
194 ST. MARK VII. [23 
 
 evil things come from within, and defile the man. 
 
 24 And from thence he arose, and went into the borders 
 
 of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and 
 
 bell has levity. Patrizi wisely adlieres to the generic notion of foolishness, but 
 be unnecessarily narrows the word's scope when, like Fritzsohe and Hammond, 
 he confines the reference to foolishness of speech. Heumann, beyond all others, 
 made the investigation of the word a kind of ' hobby ' for years. He took his 
 stand on Luther's translation, unreasonableness or irrationality (XJnvernunft), 
 and thence working inwardly, he saw in the term not only ' the greatest of the 
 vices, the mother of them all,' but also the reason why all Eoman Catholics 
 and Jews and Mohammedans had not been converted from the error of their 
 ways. The church had not made use of ' reason ' as it should. This however, 
 though by no means too wide or too deep a speculation in itself, is certainly 
 going entirely out of the way of the simple moral philosophy of our Saviour, in 
 the passage before us. 
 
 Vee. 23. All these evil things come forth from within. They have an inward 
 origin, and are vomited forth from the crater of the heart or soul. But whence 
 then their origin ? From ' self ' no doubt. They are created, if one may so 
 speak, within the selfhood. By what ? A wrong question. ' Things ' are 
 created, but never create. By whom then ? By God ? It cannot be, for moral evit 
 (as distinguished from penal evil, which is moral good : Amos iii. 6) is opposition 
 to the will of God. By whom then ? By the evil doer himself. In a little 
 sphere of things, and as regards acts, though not as regards substances or 
 essences, men may be spoken of as creators. Men, that is to say, are the 
 efficient causes of their own choices. If they were not, will would not be really 
 free. If it was not, there would be no real responsibility. 
 
 And defile the man. They make him common, profane, unclean, or foul. 
 They ' defoulen ' him, as Wycliffe has it. See on ver. 2, 15, 18, 20. 
 
 Vee. 24-30 constitute a paragraph which gives us a glimpse into what was 
 a kind of parenthesis in the life of our Saviour. See the corresponding 
 paragraph in Matt. xv. 21-28. 
 
 Vee. 24. And from thence He arose, and went. Or rather, (to avoid the 
 awkward position of the thence or f}-om thence,) And He arose, and departed 
 thence. Such is Edgar Taylor's translation. Our English version however is 
 a perfect parallel to the Syriao Peshito version. Arose : an artless statement of 
 the natural antecedent of departure. Comp. Gen. xxxi. 13 ; 1 Sam. xxiii. 16, xxv. 1 ; 
 Jon. i. 3, iii. 3. Thence : namely from the district that was contiguous to the 
 sea of Tiberias. It is too stringent in Fetter, Fritzsche, and Meyer, to insist that 
 the reference must be to the specific locality of Geunesaret, at which the Saviour 
 snd His disciples had landed on the subsidence of the storm that is referred to- 
 in chap. yi. 47-53. 
 
 Into the borders of Tyre and Sidon. Groat Phoenician cities, that had been 
 conspicuous for centuries as centres of commerce and opulence. Tischendorf 
 and Alford however omit from their texts the words and Sidon; so docs 
 Fritzsohe. Meyer and Ewald approve of the omission ; Griosbach too inclined 
 
24] ST. MARK VII. 195 
 
 would have no man know it: but he could not be hid. 
 
 in the same direction, pronouncing tlie reading that is characterized by the 
 omission as ' not improbable ' (Comm. Cr. in loo.). And yet there is comparatively 
 very little ancient authority for that reading. The words are found in the 
 Sinaitio, Alexandrine, and Vatican manuscripts (NAB), and in aU the rest of 
 the uncials with the exception of D L A. They are also found in almost all the 
 cursive manuscripts, including 1 and 33 ' the queen.' They are found too in 
 all the ancient versions, with the exception of some copies of the Old Latin. 
 They are twice omitted however by Origen in quotations, in his Commentary on 
 Matthew. There is then but little ancient authority for the omission of the 
 words ; and assuredly they would not have been repudiated by any modern 
 critics, -had it not been for a probable reading in the 81st verse, " and again, 
 " departing /roni tlie coasts of Tyre He came through Sidon to the sea of Galilee." 
 That this other reading is correct we cannot doubt ; and were the Beceived or 
 Erasmian reading of ver. 24 inconsistent with it, we should be obhged to accept 
 the amputative reading of Fritzsche, Tischeudorf, Ewald, Meyer, Alford. But 
 there is no inconsistency between the two passages, the one as given in the 
 Eeceived Text, and the other as given in the critical texts. There is simply an 
 inartificial freedom of composition in the direction of generic representation in 
 ver. 24, and an equally inartificial specific representation in ver. 81. Such was 
 the judicious view taken of the subject by Mill {Prol., § 404) ; and both 
 Lachmann and Tregelles have done wisely in retaining the words and Sidon in 
 ver. 24, and giving the reading through Sidon in ver. 31. Alford says indeed 
 that " there can be no possible reason given why and Sidon should have been 
 " omitted, had it formed part of the original text." But the desire to produce 
 literal uniformity with the correct reading of ver. 31 was certainly a ' sufficient 
 reason.' The hand of some ' studious ' person, as Mill remarks, is apparent in 
 the tinkering. The expression, the borders or confines of Tyre and Sidon, 
 leaves it indeterminate whether our Lord was actually beyond the Galilean 
 territory and within the landmarks of Phoenicia, or only on the marginal 
 ground of Galilee that marched with the lands of Tyre and Sidon. It is likely 
 that He would still be on Galilean soil. Comp. Matt. xv. 22. It is likely that 
 His temporary home would be the abode of some trusty Galilean friend. 
 
 And having entered into an house. It was not of moment to the narrator to 
 give particulars regarding the householder; his mind was hastening on to 
 another set of particulars. In the Eeceived Text the expression is into ' the ' 
 house; but with the exception of the Cambridge (D), all the best -manuscripts 
 omit the article ; so did Erasmus, Beza, and Bengel in their editions. The 
 Peshito Syriao has what is equivalent to ' into " ane " hoose,' that is, into u 
 certain house, into ' an ' house. 
 
 He wished no cne to know. Or, as Tyndale gives it very Uterally, and wolde 
 that no man shuld have knoweii. He wished seclusion with His disciples. See 
 chap. iii. 20 ; iv. 35 ; vi. 1, 31. Note the word wished, translated would in 
 Tyndale and our English version. It is not so much volition or purpose as 
 desire that is expressed. 
 
 And He could not be hid. He could not remain incognito. His fame pre- 
 coded Him ; and His bearing and behaviour marked Him off as a remarkable 
 
196 ST. MARK VII. - [2S 
 
 25 For a certain woman, whose young claugliter liad an 
 unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet. 
 
 26 The woman was a Greek, a Syropheuician by nation j 
 
 Personage. His 'following' of disciples moreover would make concealment 
 extremely difficult. 
 
 Vek. 25. For a woman. Or, as Tisohendorf, Tregelles, and Alford read it, 
 Sut forthwith a woman (dXXa cuffus). The reading is supported by the manu- 
 scripts N B L A, 33, and other ancient authorities, and is likely, as the more 
 difficult, to be correct. The Saviour " was not able to escape observation, but 
 " on the contrary, and immediately, a woman came to Him as a suppliant." 
 
 Whose little daughter had an impure spirit. The word for little daughter is a 
 beautiful diminutive in the original (Buydrpiov), which the Germans can finely re- 
 produce, as Luther has done (Tochterleln). Count Zinzeudorf has a correspond- 
 ing diniinutive (Tochtcrgen). As to impure spirits, see on chap. i. 23, 32. 
 
 Having heard concerning Him. That is, having heard that the great Israelitish 
 Deliverer, whose fame had been ringing so loud and so long far and near, had 
 come to her own neighbourhood. 
 
 Came and fell down at His feet. Instead of came, Tisohendorf in his eighth 
 edition reads entered. The reading is supported by the manuscripts X L A and 
 the Vulgate and Coptic versions. And one could suppose that it had been modi- 
 fied into the Eeeeived reading by a desire to bring the narrative into minute 
 harmony with the narrative of Matt. xv. 22, 23, In reading Matthew's 
 narrative, we naturally think of our Saviour as walking in the open air at the 
 time when He was addressed by the woman ; but, on the other hand, it is 
 possible that the reading of Tischendorf {diTe\8oD<ra for AfioDcra) may have been 
 simply moulded by some semi ' studious ' transcriber, on the expression of the 
 preceding verse, entered into a house {el<re\6iiv). Whichsoever be the correct 
 reading, there is ample scope- left for filling up the minute and unessential 
 details of the scene. The interview for instance may have been lengthened ; 
 and our Saviour, during it, may have been both within and without the house. 
 Fell down at His feet : the preposition {wpis) indicates that she threw herself 
 toward His feet, imploringly, and no doubt with beautiful oriental facility and 
 gracefulness. 
 
 Veb. 26. And the woman was a Greek. That is, a Gentile, an instance of the 
 specific being put for the generic ; comp. Horn. i. 16. It was on a correspond- 
 ing principle that, in former times, Europeans in general were designated 
 Franks by the Turks, Arabs, and other inhabitants of the south-western 
 portion of Asia. The designation continues even yet to a partial extent. The 
 Vulgate renders the term Gentile, and hence Wycliffe has heathen, Sothli the 
 womman was hethene. Fritzsche translates the word pagan, and supposes that 
 the reference is to the woman's religion. But the expression is only the first 
 indefinite step toward a more precise specification of her ethnological position. 
 
 A Syrophcenician by race. Or by descent. This was her precise ethnological 
 position. She belonged to the race, or ethnological family (the yhos), of the 
 Syrophcenioians. She was, as the Eheims version renders it, a Syrophcenician 
 born. The SJ/rophoenioians were distinguished from the Libo- or Libya- 
 
28] ST. MAEK VII. 197 
 
 and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil 
 out of her daughter. 27 But Jesus said unto her. Let 
 the children first be filled : for it is not meet to take 
 the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. 28 
 
 phcenioiaus in the nortli of Africa, the Carthaginians. The Syrophoeuioians 
 were Phcenicians who dwelt in Syria. (See Relandi Palest., pp. 50, 607). They 
 were called in their own tongne Canaanites. (See Matt. xt. 22.) 
 
 And she hesonght Him that He would cast ont the demon from her daughter. 
 Besought, or entreated, or supplicated ; literally, asked. The thing that she asked 
 was coincident with the aim that she had in view in asking, and hence the 
 expression, if very literally rendered, would run as follows, and she asked Him 
 ' in order that ' He might cast out (^KiSdXg the right reading) the demon. 
 
 Vek. 27. And He said to her. Such is the simple reading of Laohmann, 
 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. 
 
 let the children first he filled. Or, Permit that the children first be satisfied. 
 Let them first get enough. Purvey's reyision of Wycliffe'a version is graphic, 
 Stiff re thow that the children be ' fulfilled ' first. The Lord would no doubt have 
 Ijrsviously told the suppUaut that His mission was a mission to the children of 
 Israel. (See Matt. xv. 24.) He could not diffuse Himself universally. He 
 must select His sphere and draw a circle. ■ If all within that circle should 
 welcome His ministry, they would soon be able to radiate out the influence to 
 the ends of the earth. There was hope iu the word 'first.' 
 
 For it is not meet. Or good, as the Vulgate and Wyoliffe render it. Literally, 
 beautifiil ; that is, here, becoming. 
 
 To take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs. In Palestine and the sur- 
 rounding districts dogs abound, but they are not favourites with the people. 
 "As the traveller," says J. G. Wood, "traverses the streets, he finds that all 
 " the dogs are alike, and that all are gaunt, hungry, half starved, savage, and 
 " cowardly ; more like wolves than dogs, and quite as ready as wolves to attack 
 " when they fancy that they can do so with safety. They prowl about the 
 " streets in great numbers, living as they best can on any scraps of food that 
 " they may happen to find. They have no particular masters, and no particular 
 " homes. Charitable persons will sometimes feed them, but will never make 
 " companions of them, feeling that the very contact of a dog would be a poUu- 
 " tion. They are certainly useful animals, for they aOt as scavengers, and will 
 " eat almost any animal substance that comes in their way." {Bible Animals, 
 p. 40.) There is however in the dog a deep instinct of yearning for human 
 society ; and the dogs of the East, though in general sadly neglected and degen- 
 erate, have p. choi-d in their nature that becomes readily responsive to human 
 Mndness. This has often been exemplified in the experience of European 
 travellers ; and there can be no doubt that in ancient times children and little 
 dogs would get into terms of good fellowship. Not unlikely, some specimen of 
 such fellowship had been before the eyes of both our Saviour and the Syro ■ 
 phcenieian woman just before the remark we are considering was made. The 
 word rendered dogs is a diminutive, little dogs, probably little because young. 
 Tyndalo renders it whelppes. So the Geneva. 
 
198 ST. MARK VII. [28 
 
 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord : yet the dogs 
 under the table eat of the children's crumbs. 29 And he said 
 unto her. For this saying go thy way ; the devil is gone out 
 
 Veb. 28. Bat she answered and says to Him, Yes, lord. She acknowledges the 
 justice of our Saviour's observation. She concedes the principle of action that 
 was implied. She would not regard it as a fitting thing that the ministry which 
 was so wisely intended for the Jews should be transferred to the Gentiles. 
 
 Yet. An imperfect rendering of the expression that was before our trans- 
 lators (jcai yap). It is the same expression that occurs in Matt. xv. 27. But 
 there is reason to beheve that Mark's real phrase was only the conjunction Ktd, 
 as meaning even. Such is the reading of both Tregelles and Tisohendorf (in his 
 eighth edition). It is the reading of the manuscripts X B H A, 33, and 69, and is 
 supported by the Syriac Peshito, Coptic, Armenian, and ^thiopic versions. 
 The woman, as Trapp remarks, was ' of an heroioall faith.' 
 
 Even the little dogs raider the table eat of the children's crumbs. The word for 
 crumbs (^ix'<*) is a diminutive, and means little crumbs. The reference is not 
 to considerable pieces intentionally thrown to the little dogs, but to small in- 
 considerable crumbs which chUdren are so apt to let fall undesignedly on the 
 ground. The children, she as it were reasons", cannot as a general rule use up 
 absolutely all the bread that is given to them. As they break and crumble their 
 portions, there is some superfluity, however little, that falls ; and the Mttle 
 dogs get the benefit of it. The woman means that, in her view of the case, it 
 would not be inconsistent with the prerogatives of the Jews that a poor Gentile 
 in her position should get the advantage of the little superfluity of ministerial 
 or mediatorial energy that was ready to drop, as it were, from the table, in the 
 very fact of the Saviour's presence in that Gentilised district. Such was the 
 admirable reasoning, or, as Luther expresses it, the ' comfortable dialectic ' 
 (trostlicUe Dialektik) of the Syrophoenician woman. 
 
 Veb. 29. And He said to her. Tor this saying. Or, because of this saying. It 
 is Std with, the accusative. The Saviour discovered in it the evidence of a faith 
 that was at once peculiarly enlightened and peculiarly strong. It was therefore 
 ' rewardable.' In scholaslio language, it was a cause of reward or blessing ; 
 something good could be conferred 'because of it.' It was not, of course, the 
 efficient cause of the blessing. Jesus was that. It was only of a motive nature 
 {causa motiva aut impulsiva) ; it was something that moved into action the 
 Efficient Cause. And yet it was not the principal motive. The inward love or 
 grace of the Efficient Cause was that. The woman's faith was the secondary 
 and external motive of the Saviour's act (causa motiva externa). Dr. Samuel 
 Clarke's standpoint was not sufficiently elevated when he represented our 
 Saviour as ' vanquished, as it were, by the woman's modest importunity.' 
 
 Go thy way, the demon has gone out of thy daughter. The woman's faith was 
 munificently ' rewarded.' Volkmar thinks that the whole narrative is a cun- 
 ningly devised New Testament counterpart to the Old Testament narrative 
 concerning the widow of Sarepta (1 Kings xvii.) ! Hilgenfeld thinks that Mark, 
 by the word ' first ' (ver. 27), intentionally ' softens the strong, hard, judaizing 
 view ' that is given in Matt. xv. 24, 20, of the relation of Christ to the Jews 1 
 
31] ST. MARK VII. 199 
 
 oftliy daughter. 30 Aud when she was come to her house, 
 she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the 
 bed. 
 
 31 And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, 
 
 Ewald, Holtzmann, Michelsen follow another line of conjecture, and think that 
 in the fuller account of Matthew, in which the conversation out of doors is 
 narrated, we have the true remains of a passage in the Gospel of the Proto- 
 Mark, which has been for some reason or other cut down and abbreviated by 
 the Deutero-Mark ! What next ? 
 
 Veb. 30. And when she was come to her house. Or more literally, and when 
 she ' loent ' to her house. Very literally, and when she ' departed ' to her house 
 {airekdoma). The completion of her journey homeward is assumed. 
 
 She found the demon gone out, and her daughter laid (or thrown) upon the bed. 
 Such is the order of the clauses in the Eeceived Text. The order is reversed in 
 the texts of Lachmann, Tischendorf, TregeUes, Alford: she found her daughter 
 laid, or throxon, on the bed, and the demon gone out. For this latter arrange- 
 ment there is the authority of the manuscripts XBDLA, 33, and of the Vulgate, 
 Peshito Syriac, Jerusalem Syriac, Coptic, ^thiopio, and Persic versions, also o£ 
 most of the Old Latin codices. She found her daughter .-'or rather, she found 
 the ' child ' (rb TraiSiov). Such is the reading of the chief manuscriptural 
 authorities, NBL A, 33, as also of the Vulgate and most of the Old Latin codices 
 (puellam). When the evangelist says she 'found,' he intended the mind to go 
 forward from the mere personality of the ' child ' to her condition as described 
 in the words that follow. Laid on the bed : exhausted no doubt and prostrate 
 (chap. i. 26), but nevertheless enjoying delightful repose. She had probably 
 been subjected to some severe convulsions. And the demon departed : the child 
 was herself again. 
 
 Veb. 31-37 form a paragraph for which there is no parallel in the other 
 Gospels. As it is wanting in Matthew, Hilgenfeld looks upon it as invented by 
 Mark, or expanded, as it were, into specific form and details, out of the germinal 
 generaUty of Matt. xv. 30 ! 
 
 Vek. 31. And again. We must go forward with this again to the verb Be 
 came ; He came again, that is. He returned. 
 
 Departing. The participle is in the aorist, and thus points to what was past 
 in relation to our Lord's action in returning to the sea of GaUlee, ' after depart- 
 ing.' (See Kiiigev's Sprachlehre, § oS, 6 : 6.) 
 
 From the coasts of Tyre. In the Eeceived Text it is added, and Sidon ; but 
 these words, as already intimated (ver. 24), are omitted by the best textual critics, 
 Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. They were suspected by Griesba'ch, 
 and condemned by Mill. Fritzsche too omits them from his text, and Meyer 
 approves. They are wanting in the Sinaitio, Vatican and Cambridge manu- 
 scripts (X B D), as also in L A and 33 ' the queen of the cursives.' They are 
 wanting too in the Old Latin version, and the Vulgate, Coptic, Jerusalem 
 Syriac, and iEthiopic versions. They arc manifestly an import from ver. 24. 
 Our Lord had gone indeed to ' the coasts of Tyre and Sidon,' that is, to the 
 
200 ST. MARK VII. [31 
 
 lie came unto the sea of Galilee, thi'ougli the midst of the 
 coasts of Decapolis. 32 And they bring unto him one that 
 was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech ; and they 
 
 boundary lauds of Galilee that marclied with the maritime strip of land that 
 belonged to Tyre and Sidon, or that constituted the territory of Tyre and Sidou. 
 But nevertheless, in going northward to these boundary lands, He naturally came 
 first of all to the neighbourhood of Tyre, which lay considerably south of Sidon. 
 And it was there, as it would appear, that He met with the Syrophcenician 
 woman. 
 
 He returned ' through Sidon ' to the sea of Galilee. This phrase through Sidon 
 is the reading of those manuscripts and versions which omit the words and 
 Sidon in the preceding expression. There can be no doubt of the genuineness 
 of the phrase. It would never have been invented by a transcriber, whether 
 'studious' or careless, for as Sidon lies north of Tyre it would never have 
 occurred to any one that it was likely that our Saviour would return from Tyre 
 to the sea of Galilee by way of Sidon. He did so, however ; for He was still 
 ■wishful to be as much as possible secluded. He needed rest ; and so did His 
 disciples. And they also needed to get education and private preparation for 
 the scenes of suffering that were so soon to throw into shadow, as far as their 
 vision was concerned, the glorious personality and prospects of their Master. 
 When it is said that He passed through Sidon we need not be positive with 
 Meyer that He actually traversed the streets of the city. He may or He may 
 not. Both Tyre and Sidon had boundary lands ; they were the centres of 
 territorial semicircles, which belonged to them, and thence took their denomi- 
 nation. These great cities, though peculiarly and emphatically cities, were also 
 States, though very small ones. 
 
 Thi-ough the midst of the borders of Decapolis. Our Lord, while 'having the sea 
 of Galilee as His goal, did not take the shortest route to it from Sidon. He 
 made a still farther detour eastward, into the grand highland scenery of Pales- 
 tine, and came down, somewhere on the east side of the Jordan, to the special 
 scene of His ministerial activity. As to Decapolis, see on chap. v. 20. 
 
 Vee. 32. And they brirg to Him. We know not at what part of His 
 journey. 
 
 One who was deaf (Koi(p6i>). The word is two-sided in import. It often 
 means dumb, just as it often means deaf. It is translated dumb in Matt. ix. 32, 
 33, xii. 22, xv. 30, 31 ; Luke i. 22, xi. 14. In Mark however it only means 
 deaf as distinguished from dmnb. See chap. ix. 25. 
 
 And had-an-impediment-in-his-speech {Kal noyi.\d\oi>). He spoke iiiith diffi- 
 culty ; and what he said would no doubt be awkwardly spoken. He was almost 
 speechless, or, as it were, dumb. See ver. 37. In the Vulgate the word is 
 rendered dumb {mutum), which astonished Principal Campbell. He says ' this 
 deviation from the meaning is not authorized by a single manuscript.' The 
 Principal was under a kind of mistake. The Vulgate word was intended to be a 
 translation of the term in the text. Luther gives it the same translation {stumm) ; 
 so does do Dieu, Ernesti, Ewald ; Meyer too, who contends for the meaning ; and 
 Bisping, who simply concedes it. The term is certainly used in the Septuagint 
 
33] ST. MARK VII. 201 
 
 beseech him to put his hand upon him. 33 And he took him 
 aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and 
 
 version of Isa. xxxv. 6, to rencler a Hebrew word which is always translated 
 dumb in Our version. And in the Greek versions of Aqiiila, Symmachus, and 
 Theodotion, the same term is employed in Exod. iv. 11, to render the same 
 Hebrew word. One might say indeed of this Septuagint rendering, as Bloom- 
 field says, that it is ' erroneous,' and thus object to the Vulgate version of the 
 expression before us ; or we may, more respectfully and legitimately, presume 
 that the Greek translators assumed that in the passages refen-ed to the dumb- 
 ness spoken of included, not only those oases in which it was absolute, but also 
 those in which it was partial. There is certainly no good reason for supposing 
 that in the case before us there was absolute dumbness. But Tyndale's version, 
 on the other hand, understates the case, ' they brought unto Him won that was 
 deffe, and stambred in Ms speche.' 
 
 And they beseech Him to pat His hand upon him. So as to heal him. They 
 would seem to have understood that it was the ordinary practice of our Lord to 
 make a visible connection of Himself with the recipient of His ' virtue.' The 
 phrase rendered, tliey beseech Him ' to put ' is literally they beseech Him ' in 
 order that He might put.' 
 
 Vee. 33. And He took him away from the crowd, apart. To a private place ; 
 most likely into a private house. Privacy is certainly suggested (see ver. 36). 
 The expression indeed which we render aside is not infrequently rendered 
 privately (Matt. xxiv. 3 ; Mark ix. 28, xiii. 3; Acts xxiii. 19, etc.). But why did 
 the Saviour take the man (and his friends) aside ? Michaelis suggests that the 
 action might be a kind of parable to the eye. He supposes that the Saviour was in 
 some heathen place, amid a heathen multitude. Might not His action therefore, 
 he concludes, be regarded as vocal with this idea. Ye must come out, and be sepa- 
 rate, from your own people, from, heathenism ? This however is too fanciful ; and 
 there is reallyno reason for assuming that the crowd was composed of heathens. 
 Meyer is of opinion that the aim of the Saviour was to secure an isolated or 
 undisturbed ' rapport ' between Himself and the patient. It is likely however 
 that our Saviour was just shunning, under the influence of His personal feelings 
 on the one hand and His more impersonal judgment on the other, everything 
 that might appear to be display ; and more especially when He took into account 
 the peculiar mental condition of the crowd of Jews that was surging around 
 Him. That crowd was intensely excited indeed in His favour. But its excite- 
 ment was not taking the direction of things spiritual and heavenly ; it was roll- 
 ing strong and fast in the direction of things corporeal and terrestrial, things 
 •that would be grateful to mere selfism and selfishness. The people were hoping 
 most likely that they ^yould be able to get, by means of the mystic power of such 
 a Wonder-worker, social and political advantages that would free them from the 
 necessity of toil, and exalt them above those Gentiles who had so long been 
 domineering over them. (See John vi. 26-63, and comp. Mark v. 37-43.) 
 
 And put His fingers into his ears, and He spat, and touched his tongue (ver. 34) ; 
 and looking up to the heaven He sighed. Clauses these which have occasioned 
 to many, though unnecessarily, very great perplexity. Dr. Adam Clarke, for 
 
202 ST. MARK VII. [33 
 
 he spifc, and touched his tongue; 34 and looking up to heaven, 
 
 inBtanoe, says : " This place is exceedingly difficult. There is scarcely an action 
 " of our Lord's life but one can see an evident reason for, except this." He 
 would get quit of the difficulty by interpreting as follows : " and (the deaf man) 
 "put his fingers into his ears, intimating thereby to Christ that they were so 
 " stopped that he could not hear ; and having spat out, that there might be 
 " nothing remaining in his mouth to offend the sight when Christ should look 
 " at his tongue, he touched his tongue, showing to Christ that it was so bound 
 "that he could not speak; and he looked up to lieaven, &s it to im'ploie aBsist- 
 " ance from above ; and he groaned, being distressed because of his present 
 " affliction, and thus implored relief, for, not being able to speak, he could only 
 " groan and look up, expressing by these signs, as well as he could, his afflicted 
 " state and the desire he had to be relieved." Eodolphus Dickinson introduces 
 Dr. Adam Clarke's interpretation into his version. It is inadmissible however ; 
 because it is strained and romantic on the one hand, and ungrammatical on the 
 other. The construction is such that the person who took the man aside must 
 betliepersonwhoputhis fingers into hie ears {diro\a^6/ievos . . . ?/3aXec). There 
 is moreover no real difficulty. See what follows. And put His fingers : very 
 literally and ' threw ' His fingers : thrust them as it were, as if He would per- 
 forate or clear a passage for the sound to enter [quasi clausas et obturatas aures 
 terehraturus : Maldonato). The action was of course symboli'c or parabolic, but 
 very significant. It would be, in default of words, which would have been un- 
 suitable because inaudible, of especial significance to the deaf man himself. 
 And He spat and touched his tongue : or, as we might now express it, and He 
 touched Ms tongue with saliva : symbolically of course, or parabolically, but yet 
 most significantly, more particularly in relation to the times and the manners 
 of the people ; for, as W. Gilpin remarks, ' we must not criticise the manners 
 that prevailed two thousand years ago, by those of our own age.' {New Test., in 
 loc.) The man's tongue, we may suppose, would be hot, and stiff, and parched, 
 and needing nature's lubrication. How was it to obtain its normal flexibility ? 
 By nothing in the man's own nature ; by nothing that would be naturally 
 medicinal ; but by a higher power. It was to be by the fiat of Jesus. But Jesus 
 could not tell the man this in words ; the man was deaf. And hence our 
 Saviour benevolently acted for his behoof, intimating on the one hand, and no 
 doubt with the utmost delicacy, that nature's own delightful lubrication would 
 be immediately experienced in the affected part, and announcing, on the other, 
 with the utmost significancy, that the blessed change would be the result of a 
 fiat to which there was nothing analogous in any ordinary medical treatment. 
 As Maldonato expresses it, Christ's action was ' a metaphor, not in word, but in 
 fact.' It is on this action of our Saviour that Eoman CathoKcs found their 
 custom of touching with ' spittle ' the ears and nostrils of the person to be 
 baptized, whether adult or infant. Thus, as Calvin says, " among other fool- 
 " eries with which baptism has been debased by foolish men, the ceremony used 
 " by the Lord is turned into a piece of buffoonery." "Avaunt therefore," ex- 
 claims Cartwright, " with this profane spittle, as that which is fitter for the 
 " spital than for the church." (Confutation of the Ehemists, in loc.) 
 
 Ver. 34 And looking up to the heaven He sighed. Or groaned, as the word 
 
36] ST. MARK VII. 203 
 
 be siglied, and saltli unto him, Eplipliathaj tliafis, Be opened. 
 35 And straightway his ears were opened, and the string 
 of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain. 36 And he 
 
 is rendered in tbe Elieims, and in Eom. viii. 23 ; 2 Cor. v. 2, 4 ; oomp. Acts vii. 
 34, and Eom. viii. 2G. Wycliffe lias it. He sorwide withynne, Heinsius and le 
 Cene misunderstood the term when they rendered it He cried aloud. Our 
 Saviour was touched with a feeling of the man's infirmities ; and perhaps, at 
 the same moment, His spirit might take in, at a glance, the innumerable woes, 
 both spiritual and physical, which have been rained down with just retribution 
 upon men in consequence of their sins. It was after looking up to heaven that 
 He groaned (oTO/SXe^^as . . . iartvaiev, see Kruger's Sprachlehre, § 52, 6: 6) ; for 
 the deepest sympathy with man springs out of the loftiest communion with God. 
 The lifting up of the desires, indicated by the lifting up of the eyes, is prayer. 
 
 And saith to him, Ephphatha (that is, Be opened). Or, Be thou opened, as 
 both Wycliffe and the Eheims correctly give it. It is the man who is addressed. 
 14 was he who needed to be corporeally opened to the ingress of sounds and to 
 the ready egress of words. The Aramaic imperative Ethpathaeh, or, in its 
 abbreviated form, Ethpaeh, and the corresponding expressions in Greek and 
 English, are applicable both to the organs of hearing and to the organ of 
 speech, not strictly indeed to the tongue, but strictly to the mouth as a whole. 
 Hence we read of Zacharias in Luke i. 64, ' and his mouth was opened imme- 
 diately, and his tongue {loosed), and he spake, and praised God.' There is no 
 word for loosed in the original. The word opened stretches, as it were over- 
 shadowingly, beyond its appropriate object, mouth, and is freely applied to the 
 tongue, in the manner called zeugma by grammarians. In the passage before 
 us there is somewhat of the same figure of speech, connecting the mouth with 
 the ears ; for in ver. 35 there is no explicit reference to the opening of the 
 mouth. 
 
 Vee. 35. And straightway his ears were opened. Very literally, his hearings 
 {aKoal). No doubt, originally, the ear was just the hear. 
 
 And the bond of his tongue was loosed. Bond, or fetter. String wasTyndale's 
 word. Wycliffe and Coverdale have bond ; and in all the other passages in which 
 it occurs in the New Testament it is rendered bond or band in our English version. 
 The representation of the cure is of course popular, not scientific. 
 
 And he spake plain. Or rather, right. The former is Coverdale's word, and 
 the Eheims' too ; the latter is Wycliffe's (rightly). The fact that the man now 
 spoke right seems to make it certain that he had not been, as Petter expresses 
 it, ' stark dumb before,' or absolutely a deaf-mute, and that hence his infirmity 
 had not been congenital. He had once heard well enough, and could speak well 
 enough ; but, either by some external accident or by an internal disease, he had 
 lost his hearing entirely, and could only utter, with awkwardness, a limited 
 number of articulated sounds. 
 
 The word straightway or immediately in the first clause of the verse is omitted 
 by Tischendorf , Tregelles, Alford. It is wanting in N B D L A, 33, the Coptic 
 versioUi and several copies of the Old Latin. Tischendorf however restores 
 it to the second clause of the verse, and ' immediately ' the bond of his tongue 
 was loosed, under the authority of S L A and the iEthiopio version. 
 
204 ST. MAEK VIII. [36 
 
 charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he 
 charpfed them, so much the more a great deal they published 
 it; 37 and were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath 
 done all things well : he maketh both the deaf to hear, and 
 the dumb to speak. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 1 IN those days the multitude being very great, and having 
 
 Vee. 36. And He charged them that they should tell no one. He gave them 
 distinct and positive orders (Sieo-TeiXaTo). Them : the man who had been cured, 
 and his friends. The fact of the cure could not indeed be concealed from the 
 outside crowd; but our Saviour wished that it should not be blazoned abroad. 
 The rush of sight-seers, and of others who were either morbidly or superficially 
 excited, was still most inconveniencing. It was wjth difficulty that the Saviour 
 obtained that statedly recurring seclusion, of which His own human weakness 
 stood in need, and which was urgently required by His disciples in order to their 
 spiritual development and evangelistic education and preparation. 
 
 But the more He charged them, so much the more exceedingly they published (it). 
 They probably did not understand the reason why He sought to restrain them, 
 imagining perhaps that He was only giving expression to His modesty ; and 
 they felt so amazed and captivated that they could not hold their tongues. 
 Popularity has thus its drawbachs, as well as unpopularity. 
 
 Vee. 37. And they were beyond measure astonished, saying. He hath done all 
 things well. All things namely that He has done. Principal Campbell errs in 
 rendei.ing the clause, He doth everything well. The generalized asseveration 
 comej in the next clause. 
 
 A.'id (/ca£). So apparently the conjunction should be rendere'd, rather than 
 either both or even. It seems to be no part of the reported ^exclamations, but 
 the evangelist's own link of connection between the two exclamations which he 
 records. (Comp. chap. vi. 2.) Both Wycliffe and Tyudale render it and. 
 Luther, Coverdale, Ziizendorf, Heumann, Bengel, and many others, omit it 
 altogether ; as does the Peshito Syriao version, though not the Philoxenian. . 
 
 He maketh the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak. In the preceding exclam- 
 ation the people had explicit reference to the particular actions which they had 
 witnessed, and which were past and completed. In this they generalize their 
 conception, and hence use the present verb representatively, instead of the 
 perfect historically. Hence also, instead of using phrases that would have 
 described to a nicety the special condition of the individual who had been so 
 marvellously cured, they enlarge their roforcnoe to ' the dumb,' in all stages of 
 ' dumbness,' as well as to ' the deaf.' 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Vee. 1-10 constitute a paragraph, which finds its exact parallel in Matt. xv. 
 32-39. The variations in the two accounts aro minute. The exact verbal 
 coincidences are many. 
 
 Vee. 1. In those days. Tho evangelist makes no attempt at very precise 
 
2] ST. MARK VIII. 205 
 
 nothing to eat, Jesus called liis disciples iinto 7wm, and saitli 
 unto' them, 2 I have compassion on the multitude, because 
 
 chronological representation. It would therefore he unfair to endeavour to work 
 out of his narrative a rigidly consecutive concatenation of events. Such a rigid 
 chronology was not needed ; and Holtzmann proceeds on an entirely fallacious 
 principle when he seeks to make out a close historical connection between what 
 is narrated at the close of chap. vii. and what is recorded in ver. 11-13 of this 
 chap, viii., and when, consequently, he faneies that he finds, in the interposition 
 of ver. 1-10, a disturhance (a Storung) of the real connection of occurrences. {Die 
 Synopt. Evangelien, p. 85.) He seeks what he had no right to seek, and what 
 consequently he cannot find. WiXke before him made the same mistake. {Der 
 Urevangelist, p. 507.) 
 
 The crowd being very great. Or, still more literally, there being a very great 
 crowd, a crowd namely that had gathered round the Saviour while He was seek- 
 ing seclusion in rural and comparatively unfrequented parts. Instead of very 
 great {TrafjiiroWov, a word which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and 
 not at all in the Septuagint), there is, in a large preponderance of the oldest and 
 best manuscripts, a different reading {iraXiv triXKov), there being again a great 
 crowd. This is the reading of XBDGLMNA, 1, 33, 69, as well as of the 
 Vulgate, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and JEthiopic versions, and of almost all the 
 copies of the Old Latin. The Alexandrine manuscript (A), on the other hand, 
 along with E P H K S U V Wd X Til, and the Syriac versions, supports the 
 Eeceived reading. There had evidently been an early divergence in the manu- 
 scripts, and it is somewhat difficult to decide between the readings. Matthjei, 
 Fritzsche, Meyer, plead for the Eeceived Text ; Mill, Griesbaoh, Lachmamn, 
 Tregelles, Alford, decide for the other. This other was given by Tischendorf in 
 his first critical edition, that of 1849 ; but he reverted to the Beceived reading 
 in his second critical edition, that of 1859 ; and now in his third critical edition, 
 the eighth edition in all, he has gone back to his first preference. His latest 
 decision is probably right, for although it would seem to be unlikely that a 
 word, nowhere else found in the New Testament, would be intruded into the 
 text, to the displacement of a, natural and eminently appropriate phrase, (and 
 this is what has to be said in favour of the judgment of Matthsi, Fritzsche, 
 Meyer,) yet, on the other hand, as an old ecclesiastical Lection began with this 
 chapter, it may have appeared to some ecclesiastical readers that the omission 
 of the retrospective expression made the lesson more self contained. Hence they 
 might, with innocent intention, have substituted for the again the somewhat 
 alliterative syllable by which they intensified the idea of great. 
 
 And having nothing to eat. In the original there is a disintegration of the 
 singxdar word 'crowd- into its plural constituents, the many individuals who 
 composed it. They had nothing to eat. 
 
 He called His disciples unto Him, and saith to them. In the Eeceived Text it is 
 * Jesus called.' It was convenient, when commencing the public Lection in the 
 church, to supply /esus. Hence its occurrence in the Eeceived Text. 
 
 Vek. 2. I have compassion on the multitude. Or, as Wycliffe finely renders it, 
 I liave ' rewthe ' on the company e of peplc. The word denotes such feelings, says 
 Fetter, ' as are in natural fathers and mothers toward their children.' 
 
206 ST. MARK VIII. [2 
 
 they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to 
 eat : 3 and if I send them away fasting to their own houses, 
 they will faint by the way : for divers of them came from far. 
 
 Because they have now been with Me three days. The expression {TrpocixivovcrLv 
 /ioi.) properly means, thcj/ persist in remaining with Me. They persist in this 
 although it was now the third day, that is, the third day of their 'camp meeting' 
 as it were. The word rendered now (^St;) means by this time ; by this time it 
 is three days, that is, by this time it is the third day. The expression three days 
 is exceedingly inartificial in the correct reading of the original (rjnipai TpsTs, not 
 ri/iepas as in the Received Text). It has occasioned much perplexity to those 
 who look for classic purity of diction in the evangelist. Kowlandson proposes 
 to construe the clause thus, there are already three days to them remaining with 
 Me. Alexander, more violently still, three days now continue. But there is no 
 real difficulty ; the entire phrase is an artlessly condensed conglomerate, and 
 means, because by this time it is the third day, and yet they persist in abiding 
 with Me. 
 
 And they have nothing to eat. Literally, and they liave not what they might 
 eat ; their stock of provisions was completely exhausted. 
 
 Vek. 3. And if I should dismiss them fasting to their homes. Literally, and 
 as AVyoliffe renders it, to their house. The multitude is mentally disintegrated 
 into the individuals composing it, each to his house. 
 
 They will faint in the way. Or, on the road. Note the expression they toill 
 faint, instead of they would faint. The reader is led, as it were, to look upon 
 the hypothetical standpoint of the preceding clause, if I should dismiss, as 
 converted into a real standpoint. The people ' are ' dismissed, let us say. 
 What follows ? They ' will ' faint in the way. 
 
 And some of them have come from far. It is Jesus who is reported by the 
 evangelist as speaking these words ; some translators however have regarded 
 them as a parenthetical observation of the evangelist himself. Luther for 
 instance, and Heumann, and Zinzendorf ; apparently too Tyndale, and the 
 editors of the Geneva version, as also King James's translators. Webster and 
 Wilkinson indeed refer to the primary edition of the Authorized version, that of 
 1611, as reading /or divers of them ' come' from far, instead of /or divers of them 
 ' came' from far ; and this reading is actually found in the reprint contained in 
 Bagsters' Hcxapla, from which, as we presume, Webster and Wilkinson must 
 have quoted. But the come is a typographical error in the Hcxapla for came ; 
 it is came in the primary edition. The exact translation however is neither 
 came nor coine, but have come. But if come be used, as it is by Wakefield, 
 Newcome, Brameld, Godwin, it is evidence that the observation is ascribed not 
 to the evangelist but to the Saviour. That it should be ascribed to the Saviour 
 is still further evidenced by the fact that instead of the initial conjunction /or, 
 it is and that is found in the very important manuscripts N B L A, 1, 33, and 
 •which has been introduced into the text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, 
 Alford; no doubt rightly. , Instead of have come (i^Kaai), the Vatican manu- 
 Bcript (B) and L A read are [eluiv], which Alford accepts. Tischendorf accepted 
 the same reading in his 1849 and 1859 editions, but in his final edition wisely 
 returned to the reading of Lachmann. 
 
7] ST. MARK VIII. 207 
 
 4 And his disciples answered him, From whence can a man 
 satisfy these men with bread here in the wilderness ? 6 And 
 he asked them, How many loaves have ye ? And they said. 
 Seven. 6 And he commanded the people to sit down on the 
 ground : and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and 
 brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them ; and they 
 did set them before the people. 7 And they had a few small 
 fishes : and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before 
 
 Yek. 4. And His disciples answered Him, Whence shall any one he ahle to 
 satisfy these with loaves in the desert ? This last expression, in the desert, is , 
 literally on (the) desert. The people were on the superficies, as well as within the 
 circumference, of the desert. The article is omitted idiomatically, just as we 
 can say in English, on sea, or a-field, that is on field. Some have wondered that 
 the disciples should have brought forward a second time their former difficulty 
 (see chap. vi. 37). The wonder is unnecessary. The disciples' remark was 
 just their respectfully semi-circuitous way of indicating how utterly impossible 
 it would be to provide for the multitude by any ordinary means of purveyance. 
 And it did not belong to them to lay down to their Master the law of a 
 miraculous commissariat. 
 
 Yef.. 5. And He asked them, How many loaves have yon ? And they said, 
 Seven. In Tyndale's spelling loaves is loves. Wycliffe has looves. 
 
 Veb. 6. And He issued orders to the crowd. Or rather. He issues orders. 
 Such is the reading of Laohmann, Tisohendorf, Tregelles, Alford. It is sup- 
 ported by the manuscripts NBDLAaiid Origen. The reader is transported 
 back to the scene as it occurred, and looks on. 
 
 To recline on the ground. The verb employed very literally means not to fall 
 down but to fall up ; for, in assuming a recumbent posture, the body comes 
 gradually in contact with the ground from below upwardly, the upper part is 
 the last that comes to rest. 
 
 And He took the seven loaves, and, after having given thanks, He brake and gave 
 to His disciples. The word brake is in the aorist tense (^KXairec), whereas the 
 word gave is in the imperfect (iSiSov). The evangelist might have put both in 
 the aorist, but he chooses to bring into view the continuity of giving after the 
 act of breaking was past. 
 
 To set before them. Or, more literally, that they might serve out ; or, still more 
 literally, according to the evangelist's autographic reading as preserved in the 
 manuscripts N B C L M A, 33, 69, that they might be serving out (irapaTieCoaw ,. 
 imperfect, instead of vapaOuiai, aorist). The disciples were to act as sewing men. 
 The word employed was the proper technical vocable, and meant primarily to 
 place beside. In the particular case referred to however the food would not be. 
 placed beside, but handed from the hand of the waiter to the hand of the receiver, 
 
 And they did serve out to the crowd. Wyoliffe's version is excellent, and thei 
 setten forth to the cumpany. 
 
 Ybe. 7. And they had a few small fishes. Dried, of course. See chap. vi. 38. 
 And after blessing them He commaudcd to serve thom out also. The precise' 
 
208 ST. MARK VIII. [7 
 
 them. 8 So they did eat, and were filled : and tliey took up of 
 the broken meat that was left seven baskets. 9 And they that 
 had eaten were about four thousand : and he sent them away. 
 10 And straightway he entered into a ship with his disciples, 
 and came into the parts of Dalmanutha. 
 
 reading of the original is not easily ascertained ; but the variations are not of 
 the least exegetioal moment. It would appear that our Saviour offered up to 
 His Father separate acts of thanksgiving for the bread and the fishes. Matthew- 
 represents them in the gross (xv. 36). But there is nothing inconsistent in the 
 two representations; the one is involved, the other is explicit. As to the 
 meaning of the expression blessing when applied to food, see on chap. vi. 41. 
 Zuingli correctly interprets it as here meaning giving thanks (id est, gratias 
 egit). 
 
 Veh. 8. And — {ku the right reading) — they ate and were satisfied. Literally, 
 were foddered. WyclifEe's version is graphic, falfild (that is, filled full), 
 Tyndale has, svffysed ; Coverdale, satisfied. 
 
 And they took up, of broken pieces that remained over, seven baskets. The word 
 used for baskets {(nrvpis) is different from the term employed in the narrative of 
 the corresponding miracle (chap. vi. 47, Kocjiivos). Matthew preserves the same 
 distinction.' The article here designated is supposed to have been of larger 
 capacity than the other. It was the kind of vessel in which Paul was let down 
 over the wall of Damascus (Acts ix. 25). Principal Campbell renders it matinds, 
 too archaically. 
 
 Veb. 9. And they were about four thousand ; and He sent them away. Or, as 
 the Eheims version has it, and He dismissed them. 
 
 The sceptical critics in general regard this whole narrative of the miraculous 
 feeding of the four thousand as but the mythical echo of the corresponding 
 narrative of the miraculous feeding of the five thousand (chap. vi. 35-45). The 
 event is narrated, says Volkmar, '-as if it were distinct from the other ; but 
 it is not ' [Die Evangelien, p. 30G). Such is his, such is their, oonjectm-e; but 
 it is of course a mere conjecture and fancy. As a matter of fact, the emergencies 
 of human life often repeat themselves under only minute variations of circum- 
 stance ; and it is nothing wonderful therefore that many of the miracles of our 
 Lord should have had, in their relation to one another, some striking points of 
 correspondence or similitude. 
 
 Vbe. 10. And straightway He entered into the boat vrith His disciples and 
 «ame into the parts of Dalmanutha. The expression parts is, in English and 
 Latin, as well as Greek, used with a geographical acceptation. Territory every- 
 where is either naturally or artificially parcelled into parts. Dalmanutha is 
 nowhere else referred to, so far as investigation has yet extended, either in 
 Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, or Eoman writings. It must undoubtedly have been 
 gome obscure place, closely connected with another obscure place, Magadan, 
 referred to by Matthew in the parallel passage (xv; 39). Augustine supposed 
 that the one place must have borne the two names (De Cmisensu Evangelist., 
 ii,, § 100). It is more likely however that Lightfoot is right whenhe supposes 
 
11] ST. MARK VIII. 209 
 
 11 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with 
 
 Dalmanutlia to be 'some partioiilar place ■within the bounds' of the other. 
 {Chorographical Decad, chap, v.) We know not in what part of the coast line 
 of the lake the two places were situated ; Lightfoot thought that they were 
 situated at the south-east extremity; Volkmar is of the same opinion, in 
 reference to Dalmanutha at least. {Die Evangdien, p. 399.) It seems probable 
 however that the places were on the west side of the lake (see ver. 13). 
 Baur has a singularly irreverent and wanton idea in reference to St. Mark's 
 specification of Dalmanutha ; he imagines that he designedly stuck in that 
 name, to the exclusion of the place named by Matthew, ' in order to give his 
 narrative the appearance of independent origin ' (einen Schein von Selbststdn- 
 digkeit zu geben : Marcusevangelium, p. 61). Holtzmann, on the other hand, 
 reversing Baur's chronology of the inter-relationship of the Gospels, thinks 
 that Matthew saw that Mark had made a geographical blunder in sending the 
 Saviour and His disciples to the west of the lake {Dalmanutha = Damon), and 
 therefore changed his Dalmanutha into Magadan! {Die Syjiopt. Ev., p. 86.) 
 Thus fancy fights with fancy; each annihilates the other. Dr. Tristram, 
 assuming that Matthew's word was Magdala instead of Magadan, supposed that 
 Dalmanutha may have been a little to the south of Mejdel, where there are 
 " the ruins of a village, and some large and more ancient foundations of several 
 " copious fountains." (The Land of Israel, p. 429.) 
 
 Vee. 11-13 contain a little paragraph parallel to the paragraph in Matt. xvi. 
 1-4. The chronology and topography of the scene are left indeterminate in 
 both Gospels ; but there are more folds in the drapery of the representation 
 as it occurs in Matthew than are found in Mark's narration. 
 
 Veb. 11. And the Pharisees came forth. Whence we cannot tell, and need 
 not conjecture. ' From their dwellings,' say Fritzsche and Meyer. It may be 
 so. ' They came forth from their concealment, like persons who had been lying 
 in wait,' says Lange. It may be so, though there is nothing to justify the 
 specific supposition. Lange gives, as an alternative view, ' they came forth in 
 solemn procession.' Even this is a gratuitous intensification of the import of 
 the phrase. The evangelist's expression, however, does seem to indicate that 
 the meeting was not casual on the part of the Pharisees. They ' came forth of 
 set jpujyose,' as Fetter explains it. Our evangelist makes mention only of the 
 Pharisees. Matthew records that Sadducees were associated with them, 
 (xvi. 1). The scene is thus described by the two evangelists from two stand- 
 points of observation. In the one description there is a combination of more 
 details than in the other. No doubt the Pharisees would be the predominant 
 party, bustling about as usual with much self conseijuenoe, and making them- 
 selves obtrusively conspicuous. 
 
 Aad began to question with Him. Mark notices the commencement of their 
 onset, began. The beginnings of things had a peculiar charm for bim ; and to 
 note them, leaving the progress of events to the imagination, became an idiom 
 in his mode of thought and speech. See chap. i. 45, iv. 1, v. 17, 20, vi. 2, 7, 34, 
 55. To question with Him : or, as Purvey, Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, 
 
 P 
 
210 ST. MAEK VIII. [11 
 
 him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. 12 
 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth 
 
 and the Geneva render it, to dispute with Him. Our translators would seem to 
 have parted with this old translation under the idea that it implicated our 
 Sa-riour in something undignified. Principal Campbell's version is to argue 
 with Him. The majority of modern English translators however, such as Mace, 
 Worsley, Wakefield, Newcome, Norton, Edgar Taylor, Young, Brameld, recur 
 to the rendering of the old translators. Wynne mistakes the meaning. He 
 renders the phrase, to examine Him ; it literally means to inquire togetlier with 
 Him (iTvv^Teiv airifi). As originally employed, it denoted the co-operation of 
 investigators. But as such co-operation became often replaced, in conseijuence 
 of human infirmity and the influence of partisanship, by embittered disputa- 
 tion, the phrase unhappily shifted its applicability, and was used when there 
 was nothing cordial or co-operative at all. Hence it came to mean to dispute 
 with. (See Acts vi. 9 ; 1 Cor. i. 20.) In the case before us the disputatious 
 spirit would be all on one side. See next verse. 
 
 Seeking from Him a sign from the heaven. That is, a tolcen, from the sky, oj 
 His Divine mission. They intimated to Him that they were not sure about the 
 ' ways and means ' of the miracles He was working. There was scope, they 
 insinuated, for illusion and delusion. Indeed, for aught that they could tell, 
 Satan might have his hand in all these wonders ! Let Him therefore give 
 them something more decisive. Let us see something striking coming from 
 a region where Satan can have no authority or power ! (Chap. iii. 22.) Let us 
 see something coming straight down from the clear blue sky, say a shower of 
 manna, which loe could all handle deliberately , and eat (John vi. 30, 31) ; or some- 
 thing else as unmistakeable. It was a miracle of the nature of a phenomenal 
 curiosity that they pleaded for, not considering that if such a ' spectacular ' 
 exhibition had been made, they would have been the very first, and the loudest, 
 to exclaim that it must be legerdemain, for who could imagine that God was 
 going to entertain them, like children in a theatre, with mere displays of the 
 marvellous ? They were, in short, in a mood to find fault with everything that 
 our Saviour should do, so long as He did not become like one of themselves. 
 
 Tempting Him. That is, trying Him. It wOl be impossible to understand 
 temptation correctly, in the various branches of its signification, if this, the 
 radical meaning, be let go. God is said to tempt (Gen. xxii. 1 ; Ps. cxxxix. 23). 
 Christ is said to tempt (John vi. 6). Men are said to tempt (Mark xii. 15). 
 Satan is said to tempt (Mark i. 13). The point of coincidence in all these 
 applications of the term is trial. All the agents specified made trial. It is 
 the motive that determines whether the trial be good or bad. In the case 
 before us, the motive was base, and therefore the trial was bad. But it was 
 not specifically, like Satan's temptations, a trial to get our Lord to commit a sin. 
 It was a trial to get Him to attempt something in which He might signally fail, 
 something ' spectacular,' sensational, astounding, and coming from the sky. 
 They hoped, by skilful playing on His weakness, to excite His vanity or His 
 pride into rashness ! 
 
 Ver. 12. And He sighed deeply ia His spirit. He ' emitted ' a groan from the 
 
12]- ST. MARK VIII. 211 
 
 this generation seek after a sign? Verily I say unto you, 
 
 depths of His spirit. The word employed {civoffTem^as) properly means groaned 
 upwardly. It is a graphic touch from the hand of an eye-and-ear witness. 
 
 And saith, Why does this generation seek a sign? [i-qTu not ^Tifijrel.) He 
 speaks to Himself as it were, reflectively, bewailingly. In the next clause He 
 speaks directly to His critics. This generation : He does not refer exclusively to 
 the critics who were standing in His presence. His view had expanded, till it 
 embraced the great body of the people. ' The Jews rec^uire a sign ' (1 Cor. i. 22). 
 They demanded a sign pure and simple, a sign that would be nothing but 
 a mere abstracted prodigy, or feat of Divine power. But they had no right to 
 insist on such a mode of evidence. It was a style of demonstration which was 
 suitable in only very peculiar circumstances (see Jud. vi. 37-40; etc.), and 
 which would have been quite unsuitable in the case of the contemporaries of 
 our Lord. If it had been resorted to, theories of illusion would have been 
 instantly propounded, or Satan would have been introduced to cut the knot. 
 The testimony of the eye-witnesses would have been challenged. Demands 
 would have been made for illimitable repetitions of the marvel, and for 
 a thousand-and-one securities that no ' glamour ' was thrown over the eyes. 
 Before any signs of the kind could have been advantageously given, a thorough 
 moral preparation of the heart would have been requisite, a spirit of honest 
 recipiency would have been indispensable. And then, why should there be 
 abstracted, from the outgoings of the Divine energy, every element of mercy, 
 humanity, and instruction? The works which our Lord actually performed 
 bore ample and unmistakeable testimony concerning Him (John v. 36, x. 25, 38, 
 xiv. 11) ; and their testimony was far from being marred or diminished by the 
 fact that, instead of being wrought as on the . stage of a theatre, and in the 
 manner of a master of legerdemain, they were performed just as the natural 
 emergencies of men's moral and physical condition cried aloud for merciful 
 intervention. When God reveals Himself in nature and providence, He utilizes 
 the forces and resources of His being, making them subservient to other pur- 
 poses than those of mere self manifestation. And our Divine Saviour, in like 
 manner, went about ' doing good,' filling most divinely the recipient vessels of 
 men whenever they were longingly held up, and rectifying in the morally self- 
 conscious, as far as was practicable amid the necessary limitations of time, 
 space, and circumstances, the disorders inward and outward that are the woeful 
 results of sin. Such works as these were the proper outgoings, manifestations, 
 and signatures of Divinity, in its moral relations to moral creatures in a condi- 
 tion of sin. They were really the very best conceivable of all possible ' signs ' 
 (John ii. 11 ; Acts ii. 22). But as the elements of adaptation and moral utiliza- 
 tion were inseparably inherent in them, they were rejected by the censorious 
 and self-sufficient critics as being really irrelevant, and thus no signs at all, 
 that is, no sufficient signs; Our Saviour, for the moment, catches up the word 
 sign, in the arbitrarily abstracted sense abusively attached to it by His critics, 
 and, ia a kind of agony of spirit, because of the hopelessness of the moral 
 condition indicated, says : ' Why, oh why, does this generation persist in seeking 
 a sign ? ' 
 
 Verily, I say unto you. Both in the word verily and in the expression I say 
 
212 ST. MAEK VIII. [12 
 
 There shall no sign be given unto this generation. 13 And he 
 left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the 
 other side. 
 
 14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither 
 had they in the ship with them more than one loaf. 15 
 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the 
 
 unto you, there is emphasis given to the declaration that follows. (See on chap, 
 iii. 28.) 
 
 There shall no sign he given to this generation. No 'si(;ra' in the extremely 
 partial, narrow, and unwarrantaWe sense attached to the term by His critics. 
 The phrase that is rendered, and correctly rendered, there shall no sign be given, 
 is a peculiar eUiptioal expression in the original. It is literally if there shall he 
 given a sign, and is, as Euthymius Zigabenus remarks, ' an idiom of the 
 Hebrew language.' It is based on a certain form of swearing that prevailed 
 among the Jews. They were accustomed to imprecate some judgment of God 
 on themselves, if so and so were done by them. Such imprecations were, of 
 course, very strong denials or refusals. And hence there grew up, as a certain 
 idiom of speech, the use of the hypothetical clause, in a truncated form, as a 
 full and forcible denial or refusal. Comp. Heb. iii. 11. 
 
 Tek. 13. And He left them. For there are limits to forbearance in dealing 
 ■with creatures who abuse indefinitely the freedom of their will. 
 
 And having again embarked (TraXw^MiSas). In the Eeceived Text the phrase 
 is and having entered into the boat again ; but the expression into the boat is 
 rightly omitted in the texts of Tischendorf and Alf«rd. It is wanting in 
 N B C L A. Meyer approves of the omission. 
 
 He departed to the other side. The eastern side, apparently, of the lake of 
 Gennesaret. 
 
 Vee. 14-21 constitute a parallel paragraph, in the main, to Matt. xvi. 5-12. 
 The representation is not so fully developed as in Matthew ; but it has a touch 
 or two that are peculiar to itself. Both the representations are but partial 
 touchings of incidents and conversations, in which there would be manysided- 
 ness of details. 
 
 Vee. 14. And they forgot to take bread. They, that is the disciples, exclusive 
 of the Master, for it would naturally devolve on them to make provision for 
 the common physical wants of the company. They forgot ; It escaped them 
 {eireKdSovTo). To take bread ; Literally, loaves. 
 
 And they had but one loaf with them in the boat. This little fact, like the 
 groaning mentioned in the 12th verse, is one of those minute incidents that 
 are recorded by Mark alone. It had stuck in the memory of Mark's informant. 
 And no wonder. The very existence of the single cake would help to throw 
 into bolder relief the awkwardness of the disciples' neglect. 
 
 Vee. 15. And — in the course of His communications with them — ^He chai'ged 
 them, saying, Take heed. Literally, See, and so Wyolifio renders it Se yc. The 
 liheims has Looke well. 
 
 Beware of. The Saviour thus gives, says Petter, ' a double caveat or caution.' 
 
16]. ST. MAEK VIII. 213 
 
 leaven of the PhariseeSj and of the leaven of Herod. 16 
 
 The expression literally means Loolt, from, tut yet does not mean, as some have 
 supposed, avert the eyes from. It is borrowed from scenes of danger. In the 
 event of a formidable wild beast threatening an onset, it might be of moment 
 for the imperilled individual, not indeed to avert his eyes, but yet to look from, 
 to look, that is to say, to the direction which it might be wise to take, in order 
 to baulk or escape the infuriated beast. 
 
 The leaven of the Pharisees. That is the doctrine or teaching of the Phari- 
 sees. See Matt. xvi. 12. Wyolifie's version is very picturesque, the sourdowgh 
 of Pharisees. We are not indeed to assume that the name, thus metaphorically 
 given to the Pharisaic teaching, was intended of itself to suggest depreciation. 
 The word is not explained in Matt. xvi. 12 as meaning corrupt teaching, but 
 simply as meaning teaching. Neither is it clear that the leaven, yeast, or ' sour 
 dough,' in use among the Jews, was regarded as a corrupting thing. But it 
 was insinuative, penetrative, permeative. (Comp. Matt. xiii. 33.) The teach- 
 ing of the Pharisees, in reference to the expected Messiah, in particular, was 
 to be suspected and avoided. They were altogether wrong in their general ideas 
 regarding moral goodness and moral evil, and hence they were altogether astray 
 in their specific ideas regarding the mission, character, and work of the 
 Messiah. 
 
 Aiid the leaven of Herod. A clause that has occasioned to expositors un- 
 necessary difficulty in relation to Matt. xvi. 6, in which there is reference to the 
 leaven of the Sadducees, but none ' to the leaven of Herod. The two expres- 
 sions are but two ways of putting one truth. The Saviour was not referring to 
 the respective heads and particulars of the dogmatic creed of the Sadducees, 
 any more than He was referring to the minute dogmatic items or details of the 
 creed of the Pharisees. He was looking broadly at certain distinctive and 
 outstanding principles of the sect. And in these principles, just as in the 
 distinctive principles of the Pharisees, there was something far and funda- 
 mentally wrong. They misapprehended that which was the discriminative 
 essence of moral goodness, and consequently that which was the discriminative 
 essence of moral evil. Hence also they were in error in reference to the 
 character and work of the Messiah, who is promised in the Old Testament 
 prophecies. They looked for a sovereign who would be magnificent in his 
 habits, powerful in his political influence, and either feared or respected by all 
 fiurrounding potentates. It would appear that Herod had given himself out for 
 such a sovereign, sufficiently satisfying the prophetic descriptions of the Old 
 Testament, when these descriptions were ' liberally ' interpreted. Herod de- 
 veloped into the Herod family. The Herod family were fulfilling, it would be 
 argued by the ' Herodians,' the Messianic predictions. They are fulfilling them 
 in so far as it is reasonable that we should expect them to be fulfilled. Let us 
 acknoioledge it. Let us he content. Let us thus have 'peace,' the burden of the 
 songs of our Scriptures. In no other way shall we get prosperity. This no doubt 
 is the real prose of all the Old Testament poetry'. The Sadducees, as a whole, 
 fell in with this Herodian policy. They temporised (?\c7o» on 6 'Spiidijs iirrlv 
 oXptcrrds: Thbophilact). They eliminated from the mission, character and 
 work of the Messiah everything spiritual and sublime, and of course everything 
 
214 ST. MARK VIII. [16 
 
 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we 
 have no bread. 17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto 
 
 that had relation to propitiation for sin, and that was really needed as a causa 
 meritoria for admission into the liingdom of heaven and for the enjoyment of 
 life everlasting. Thns there was a point of coincidence in the notions of the 
 Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, and Herod himself. And no wonder there- 
 fore that our Lord was careful to say to His disciples, lake heed, heware of the 
 leaven of these people ! No wonder too that one evangelist makes mention of 
 the leaven of the Sadducees, and another of the leaven of Herod. 
 
 Tek. 16. And they reasoned among themselves. The expression means that 
 they conferred and disputed with one another, viz. in reference to their Lord's 
 injunction. (See Mark ix. 33.) Disputed is Cardinal Cajetan's word. They 
 tossed the matter among themselves, dialogue-wise (chap. vii. 21), whisperingly 
 perhaps and with bated breath, yet eagerly and earnestly. 
 
 Saying, (It is) Because we have not bread. Or, because we have not loaves. 
 The interlinking word saying is wanting in the three important ancient manu- 
 scripts, the Sinaitic [H), the Vatican (B), and Cambridge (D). It is omitted 
 from the text by Laohmann, Tisohendorf, Tregelles, Alford. But it must, at all 
 events, be mentally supplied. As the disciples talked and disputed with one 
 another the assertion came up again and again, ' because we have not loaves ' ; 
 and they surmised that the Master was indirectly reprehending them because 
 they had not loaves. What else can He mean ? How else should He speak of 
 ' leaven' ? And yet, can it be that He is ivishful that we should have nothing to 
 do with any article that emanates from the hands' of Pharisees and Herodians? 
 Must we not, unless in the greatest emergency, make use of their bread or their 
 leaven 1 It does not seem likely that this should be the Master's meaning. But 
 if not, why should He choose this time, when loe have neglected to take loaves 
 with us, to warn us of the 'leaven' of the Pharisees and Herod? In the 
 texts of Lachmann, Tregelles, Alford, we read because ' they ' have not loaves 
 {^X"""^")! instead of because ' we ' have not loaves (^xo/Ji-^v). This reading is 
 grounded on the authority of the "Vatican manuscript, and a few cursives, and 
 some copies of the Old Latin version. A corresponding reading {dxav) is found 
 in the Cambridge manuscript ; but the difficult reading of the Eeceived Text, 
 ' we ' have not, is overwhelmingly supported at once by the ancient manuscripts 
 and by the ancient versions. It must be the autographic reading, the others 
 being mere conjectural efforts to bridge the break in the construction. What 
 Prebendary Gilpin says of the evangehsta in general is particularly true of 
 Mark : " Their narratives are all artless in the greatest degree." They write, he 
 adds, " with that simplicity with which men, big with their subject, but unversed 
 "in letters, might be expected to write." (General Preface to Exposition of 
 N. T.) " Ehetoric is artifice, the work of man " (Cowper). 
 
 Vee. 17. And Jesus perceiving it saith unto them. King James's version, 
 when Jesus knew it, is a poor translation of the original expression (7»oi)s), and 
 is fitted to convey the idea that some time elapsed ere our Lord became cognisant 
 of the perplexity of His disciples. No such idea, however, is conveyed by the 
 evangelist's own expression ; and hence Coverdale, true to the spirit of the 
 
19] ST. MAEK VIII. 215 
 
 thenij Why reason ye^ because ye have no bread ? Perceive yo 
 not yet, neither understand ? Have fe your heart yet hardened ? 
 1 8 Having eyes, see ye not ? and halving ears, hear ye not ? 
 and do ye not remember ? 19 When I brake the five loaves 
 among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took 
 
 original, translates the phrase and Jesus imderstode that. The Eheims version 
 keeps nearer to the original idiom, wMeh Jc'Sus knowing. If our English idiom 
 had permitted a preterite participle, then a perfect translation would have 
 been, and Jesus ' knewing.' The knowing is represented as past before the, 
 f ollovfing saying begins ; but no hint, is thrown out to the effect that some time 
 elapsed iefore the knoicing began. 
 
 Why do ye dispute because ye have not loaves ? Do ye not yet perceive, nor under- 
 stand? How could you suppose that I was aiming, by a side stroke, at your 
 very pardonable oversight ? I know well the many distractions to which you 
 were exposed. It does not surprise Me in the least, far less does it offend Me, 
 that it escaped you, on this particular occasion, to take with you a sufficient 
 supply of loaves. But I am grieved to think that you should get perplexed on 
 these matters, and that you should allow your minds to lie grovelling among 
 them, while they should be soaring to the heights of great first truths and 
 eternal realities. 
 
 Have ye your heart hardened? The word heart is used in its common biblical 
 acceptation, as denoting, not speoifloally the seat of the affections, but generically 
 the seat of the self conscious principle, or rather, the self conscious principle itself. 
 It thus simply means the inner element of the complex nature, or the mind. 
 And the reference here is specially to the intelligence : Is it the case that 
 spiritual ideas have still such a, difficulty in penetrating into your thoughts ? 
 See chap. vi. 52. 
 
 Ves. 18, 19. Having eyes, do ye not see ? And having ears, do ye not hear ? 
 Although duly furnished with the appropriate organs of apprehension, is it the 
 case that still you do not apprehend ? Fetter says that the Saviour " ampUfieth 
 " their ignorance in spiritual matters by their contrary ability to conceive earthly 
 " things." He mistakes, however ; the disciples are not blamed for failing to 
 apprehend higher things, on the ground that they were qualified to apprehend 
 lower and earthly things. The point of the reprehension is more reasonable. 
 They had, by the gift of God, the powers that fitted them for apprehending the 
 higher things ; and yet they failed to exercise these powers as they should have 
 done. (See Willes, Specimen Hermeneut., p. 104.) 
 
 And do ye not remember when I broke the five loaves to the five thousand, and 
 how many baskets full of fragments ye took up ? Such seems to be the artless 
 connection of the clauses ; and there is no need for trying to effect a very precise 
 disentanglement of the construction. The and, before how many baskets, is 
 found not only in the Sinaitic manuscript (K), but also in C D M A, 1, 33 '' the 
 queen of the cursives.' It is introduced into the text by Tischendorf. The 
 Saviour asks, firstly, if they remembered the time when He divided the Jive 
 loaves to the Jive thousand, and secondly, if they remembered how many baskets 
 of fragments they then took up. 
 
216 ST. MARK VIII. [19 
 
 ye up ? They say unto hitUj Twelve. 20 And when the 
 seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of frag- 
 ments took ye up ? And they said. Seven. 21 And he said 
 unto them, How is it that ye do not understand ? 
 
 22 And he cometh to Bethsaidaj and they bring a blind 
 
 They say to Him, Twelve. See chap. vi. 43. Instead of simply affirming 
 that they remembered the whole wonderful reality, they state the number of the 
 basketfuls which they took up ; and thus they do more than acknowledge the 
 fact of their remembrance. 
 
 Ver. 20. And when the seven to the four thousand. Tyndale repeats the verb 
 in this clause, ' when ' I brake ' vii amonge iiii M." Instead of among it is to 
 (di), or for, in the original, both in this clause and in the corresponding clause 
 of the preceding verse. Norton has /or. Young has to. 
 
 How many basketfuls of fragments took ye up ? And they say {\4yov(nv the 
 right reading). Seven. Their memory was clear as to the facts, though their 
 intelligence was confused as to the appropriate moral and Messianic principles 
 which they should deduce from the facts. 
 
 Vek. 21. And He said to them, Do ye not yet understand? How could you 
 think that I was afraid that we should be shut up to make use of the loaves, 
 or Uteral leaven, of the Pharisees and Herodians ? But surely the light is, now 
 at length, breaking through into your minds ! 
 
 Veb. 22-26 contain an incident which is reeorHed by Mark alone. 'Wilke 
 contends however, though in quite an arbitrary manner, that Matthew must 
 have been acquainted with Mark's narration. (Urevangelist., pp. 680-685.) 
 
 Veb. 22. And they come to Bethsaida. ' They ' come, instead of He cometh, 
 is not only found in a majority of the best old manuscripts, it is reproduced in 
 a great majority of the old versions, the Italic, Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian, 
 Gothic, .Slthiopie. It is approved of by Mill, Beugel, Griesbach, Scholz, and 
 adopted into the text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. Bethsaida 
 =Fish-town. See Matt. xi. 21. Expositors are divided in opinion in reference 
 to the particular Bethsaida referred to ; some, such as Fetter, supposing it to be 
 the Galilean Bethsaida that was near Capernaum on the western side of the 
 lake ; others supposing that it was the Gaulonitish Bethsaida on the eastern 
 side of the Jordan, a little to the north of the lake. This eastern Bethsaida 
 was in the tetrarchy of Philip. He took a fancy to the place ; and, with the 
 architectural genius that was inherent in the Herod family, greatly improved 
 it, and called it Julias in honour of the emperor's daughter. (See on chap, 
 vi. 32.) Kostlin supposes that it must be the Galilean Bethsaida that is meant 
 {Ursprung, p. 348). Griesbach, on the other hand, and Fritzsohe, and Meyer, 
 justly contend that the reference is to the Bethsaida that lay in the natural 
 route to the district of CiEsarea Philippi. (See ver. 27.) Jesus was finding it 
 needful to shun publicity and keep at a distance from Galilee. Both for His 
 own sake, and for the spiritual and educational benefit of His disciples. He 
 sought seclusion. 
 
 And they bring to Him a blind man. His blindness had been superinduced as 
 
23] ST. MAUK VIII. 217 
 
 man unto him, and besouglifc him to toucli him. 23 And 
 he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of 
 the town. And when he had spit on his eyes, and put 
 
 a disease ; lie had not been born blind. (See ver. 24.) Note the present tense, 
 they bring, lying in continuity with the preceding expression, they come. We 
 are taken back by the narrator to the time when the events occurred, and see 
 them eventuating. 
 
 And beseech Him to touch Mm. Literally, in order that He might touch him. 
 They specify touching, under the impression, most probably, that contact was 
 indispensable for the transition of the healing ' virtue.' 
 
 Yeb. 23. And He took hold of the hand of the blind man, and led Mm outside 
 the Tillage. The word k6ij.t] naturally means village ; but it is applied by John 
 to Bethlehem (vii. 42). Josephus mentions that the tetraroh Philip raised 
 Bethsaida from the condition of a village (/cii/ii)) to the status and dignity of a 
 city or town (irbXeus trapaax'^'' a|''w/"a : Ant. xviii. 2, 1). Mark however would 
 make no pretension to nice distinctions in the matter of municipal prerogatives, 
 and would probably use, uncritically, the old appropriate term because of the 
 relative smaUness of the place. Jesus, still shunning publicity, led the hlind 
 man outside the village. Instead of led {i^-^yayei/), Tischendorf, Tregelles, and 
 Alford insert in their texts, on some very high manuscriptural authority, a verb 
 that suggests bringing or conveying (i^-fiveyKev), ra.thei than leading. It is the 
 reading of N B C L, 33. It is just another way of expressing the idea that is 
 embodied in the Eeceived Text, only it throws into shade, comparatively, the 
 agency of the blind man himself, and thus gives greater prominence to the 
 agency of our Lord. The man, it would appear, did not belong to Bethsaida 
 (see ver. 26) ; he had probably been brought from one of the adjoining hamlets. 
 And hence our Lord took the precautionary plan of conveying him to some 
 distance from the town before He operated on him. Had He cured him in the 
 town, the man would have become a, public spectacle, and the rush and crush 
 of the excited multitude would still more have interfered with the spiritual and 
 physical recjuirements of the disciples, and with the limitations of our Lord's 
 own humanity. (See chap. ii. 2, iii. 7-10, 20 ; iv. 1 ; v. 24 ; vi. 81-33, 56.) 
 
 And when He had spit on Hs eyes. Literally, into his eyes. Petter, Heu- 
 mann, and Dr. Samuel Clarke, interlace this expression with the clause imme- 
 diately following, so as to bring out the idea that our Lord touched the man's 
 eyes with saliva on His finger. It is enough however that we do not import 
 into the statement our own British manners, customs, prejudices, and feelings. 
 Deficiency in dignity on the one hand, and contempt on the other, have been 
 often manifested by certain modes and circumstances of making use of what 
 Tacitus calls 'the excrement of the mouth' {oris excrementmn : Hist. iv. 81). 
 But saliva, when natural, is not excrementitious ; and a certain simple, semi- 
 medicinal, use of it, in certain exceptional conditions, is in no respect unnatural 
 or unbecoming ; it is beneficial. And yet as it is only, to a, very limited de- 
 gree, and in the case of exceedingly slight disorders, that its beneficial inilucnco 
 is appreciable, its employment in the instance before us would all the more 
 strikingly serve as a foil to display the presence and operation of a higher power. 
 
218 ST. MARK VIII. [23 
 
 liis hands upon him^ he asked him if he saw ought. _ 24 
 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking. 
 
 Its application indicated the source of the curative virtue, at the very time that 
 it suggested the utter inadequacy of all ordinary remedial measures. 
 
 He put His hands upon him. The and which introduces this clause in our 
 Authorized version is an import into the evangelist's text. It is not in any of 
 the first-class manuscripts. The only uncial in which it is found is G. It is 
 not in any of the critical editions, older or more recent. It is not even in the 
 Textus Eeceptus. It is introduced however, interpretatively, into the Syriao 
 version, and the versions of Erasmus, Luther, Beza. In these versions the con- 
 struction of the passage is assumed to be as follows : and He spit into his eyes, 
 put His hands on him, and then asked him if he saw ought. But it would be 
 more precisely represented thus, and wlten He had spit into his eyes He laid 
 His hands on him and asked him if he saw ought. (See Fritzsche.) The appli- 
 cation of the saliva is represented as preoursive in relation to the conjoint acts 
 that followed consecutively, the acts of manual imposition and oral interrogation. 
 The way in which our Lord imposed His hands, or the local direction which He 
 gave to the act of manual imposition, is ascertained from the 25th verse ; He 
 laid His hands over the eyes of the patient. 
 
 And asked him if he saw ought. He desired to draw, and draw out, the 
 attention of the man to the process of restoration. The phrase in the original 
 finely ' presenti&tes ' the scene. He questioned him if he ' sees' ought. Ought, or 
 better still, aught : that is, anything, literally a whit. See chap. vii. 12. 
 
 Veb. 24. And he looked up. Namely, toward the source of light, as was 
 natural. That was the first visual movement which the man made. But he 
 speedily looked round as well as up. See next clause. 
 
 And said, I behold the men, for I see them as trees, walking about. Note 
 the for. Probably after he had looked up and looked round he would be asked 
 whether he saw the men who were before him. They moved about, that he might 
 the more readily notice and distinguish them. He saw them ! but dimly, and 
 indistinctly, and as persons magnified in a mist. I iehold them ! he exclaims. 
 And he was sure that they were men ; 'for,' though they seemed rather like trees 
 than men, yet they were walking about ! This, no doubt the true reading of the 
 text, is found in the Sinaitic, Alexandrine, and Vatican manuscripts, as well as 
 in almost all the rest of the uncials. It was not approved of by Griesbach ; but 
 it is received into the text by Lachmann, Tisohendorf, Tregelles, Alford. It is 
 moreover the reading in all Stephens's editions and Erasmus's, and in the 
 Elzevir of 1624 too. But it was changed by the Elzevirs in their edition of 
 1633 into the more easy-going reading from which King James's translation was 
 made. They had been swayed apparently by the judgment of Beza, who in all 
 his editions, after that of 1565, inserted and defended the easy-going reading. 
 This easy-going reading was found in his ancient manuscript (D), and in the 
 Compluteusian edition. It is supported apparently by the Old Latin version, 
 and the Vulgate, Coptic, Peshito Syriao, Philoxenian Syriac, Armenian, and 
 JEthiopio versions. The Gothic however corresponds with the reading of the 
 great body of the uncial manuscripts ; and some of the other versions may be 
 accounted for on the principle of free translation. 
 
25] ST. MARK VIII. 219 
 
 25 After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made 
 him look up : and he was restored, and saw every man clearly. 
 
 Veb. 25. Then He pnt His hands again upon his eyes ; and he looted stead- 
 fastly. Literally, he looked through (dd^Xe^pev) , that is, he looked so as to dis- 
 criminate objects. This is the reading of the manuscripts X B C L A, 1, and of 
 the Coptic and ^thiopio versions. The phrase seems to have been annotated 
 at an early period, and hence the reading of the Eeceived Text and some other 
 rival readings. Griesbaoh felt so perplexed by their variety that he came to the 
 conclusion that all of them were marginal, so that nothing should intervene 
 between the clause He put His hands again upon his eyes, and the resultant 
 clause and he loas restored. (See his Comm. Grit. , in loo.) It is likely however 
 that the reading of X B is genuine. The same verb occurs in Matt. vii. 5, and 
 Luke vi. 42, and is translated see clearly. When it is used absolutely, as in the 
 case before us, it denotes discriminative looking, and thus brings into view the 
 energy of volition in distinct seeing. 
 
 And was restored, and beheld all men clearly. But instead of all men a 
 preponderance of the highest authorities reads all things. In the original 
 there is only the difference of a single letter between the two readings (iLirai'Ta 
 for diravTus). All things is the reading of XB CDL A, 1, 69, and is supported 
 by the great majority of the Old Latin codices, as also by the Vulgate version, 
 the Syriao versions, and the Coptic, Armenian, and ^thiopic. The word 
 rendered clearly {TT}\avyws or SriXarjyQs) is properly objective in its import, con- 
 spicuously. But here it is used subjectively, distinctly. 
 
 It is somewhat remarkable that it is recorded by both Tacitus [Hist. iv. 81) 
 and Suetonius (Vesp. c. 7) that when Vespasian was in Alexandria he was be- 
 sought both by a blind man, and by a lame man, to cure them of their respect- 
 ive ailments. They had been directed, they alleged, by the god Serapis to 
 apply to him. The blind man besought him to spit into his eyes ; the lame 
 man besought him to touch with his foot the disabled member. He treated 
 the applications at first with disdain, says Tacitus, as something ridiculous. 
 But as the poor men persisted in their suits, acting toward him as if he were 
 a god, he ordered his physicians to examine the cases and report to him 
 whether or not they were curable. The physicians alleged that they were not 
 incurable. And at length therefore, yielding, or affecting to yield, to the en- 
 treaties of the poor men and the urgency of his flatterers, he did as he was 
 desired. He dispensed his royal 'virtue,' as if he were divine ; and immediately, 
 it is alleged, the blind man saw, and the lame man's lameness disappeared. We 
 need not say perhaps, with Casaubon, that ' the devil ' was seeking to throw dis- 
 credit on the miracles of our Lord by a piece of pantomimic ' buffoonery.' But 
 we are justified in feehng suspicious in reference to the trustworthiness of the 
 narrations. There are indeed cases in which the royal touch of right royal 
 natures has been efficacious in rectifying certain nervous disorders. The ima- 
 gination is potent in its influence ; so is hope ; so is faith. And there arc 
 subtle physical magnetisms too. But it is likely that there was claptrap in the 
 cases that are signalized by Tacitus and Suetonius. The physicians saw through 
 tho real state of the case, and helped to work the wires behind the curtains. 
 The whole affair seems to have been got up for the occasion, to yield Vespasian 
 
220 ST. MARK VIII. [26 
 
 26 And he sent liim away to his house, saying, Neither go 
 into the town, nor tell it to any in the town. 
 
 the incense of adulation on the one hand, and to sway the minds of the super- 
 stitious Egyptian multitude on the other into the full conviction of his divine 
 right to the purple. (See Heumann's Dissertation on the Miracles of Ves- 
 panan, 1707.) The circumstances of ' the humble "Nazarene ' were altogether 
 different. 
 
 Vee. 26. And He sent him away to his home, saying, Neither go into the 
 village. In telling him to go home, our Saviour insisted on his going directly. 
 Hence the injunction. Do not enter into the village. Our Lord did not wish to 
 make a spectacle of the man, and stir up the superficial curiosity and enthusiasm 
 of the population in reference to Himself as a Thaumaturge or Wonder- 
 worker. 
 
 Nor tell it to any one in the village. A clause that has occasioned a great' 
 deal of perplexity from the remotest times. How was it possible, it was and is 
 asked, for the man to tell the fact and mode of his cure to any one in the village, 
 if he did not enter the village ? How then could the Saviour give such a super- 
 fluous injunction? Was it not enough to have given either one or other of the 
 two commands? In the Siuaitio and Vatican manuscripts, as well as in L and 
 1, the second clause is actually omitted ; and Tischendorf, in his eighth edition 
 of the text, follows in their wake and suppresses the last clause. Wrongly 
 however. For we may rest assured that no transcriber would ever have dreamed 
 of adding such a clause as a mere invention or improvement of his own. The 
 Vulgate version of the verse runs thus. And He sent him to his 'home, saying. 
 Go to thy home, and if thou shouldest enter into the village tell it to no one. 
 A similar reading is found in manuscript 69, and in the margin of the 
 PhUoxenian Syriao version. But it is an obvious tinkering to smooth away 
 the apparent incongruity of the two injunctions. The incongruity is only 
 apparent. The two injunctions might after all be only parts of what our Lord 
 found it needful to say in the circumstances. Most likely the man would be in 
 ecstasies, and anxious to rush right off into the village that he might herald the 
 wonderful Deliverer, by proclaiming his own wonderful deliverance. Our Lord 
 might need to add ' precept to precept,' and to emphasise and vary His expres- 
 sions, in order to succeed in impressing the excited man with His real desire. 
 You must leave Me indeed ; ' hut do not enter into the village.^ Go home directly. 
 Tell all that has happened, if you choose, to your oion friends at your own home; 
 'but do not tell it to any one in the village.' If you have acquaintaiKcs in the 
 village who will be hovering about in the outskirts, on the outlook for you, and 
 with whom therefore you tvould meet were you to go close by the quarter where they 
 are, keep out of their loay. Go in another direction. I wish at present to have 
 seclusion with My disciples. Grotius hit, substantially, on the right idea. The 
 phrase is elliptical, he said, and means, nor tell it even to any one (of those who 
 are) in the village, that is, to any one of the inhabitants of the village. Dr. 
 Samuel Clarke, Eosonmiiller, Bland, adopt his explication ; Lange contends 
 for it. It is too stiff and artificial as a precise interpretation ; but it is in sub- 
 stance correct. 
 
2?] ST. MAEK VIII. 221 
 
 27 And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Ca3- 
 
 Vek. 27-30 form a condensed paragraph corresponding to the more detailed 
 narrative in Matt. xvi. 13-20. See also Luke ix. 18-21. 
 
 Veh. 27. And Jesus went fortli, and His disciples. Namely, pom, Bethsaida. 
 (See ver. 22.) 
 
 They went northward into the villages of Csesarea Philippi. The hamlets, or 
 villages (see ver. 23), that dotted the district of country of which Casarea Philippi 
 was the centre. This Gasarea Philippi, or Philip's CcEsarea, belonged to PhiliiJ 
 ' the tetrarch of Gaulonitis, Traohonitis, and Paneas ' (Josephus, Ant. xvii. 8:1). 
 It not only belonged to him, it had in a great measure been built by him. (See 
 Josephus, Ant. xviii. 2:1; War ii. 9 : 1.) It stood on the site of an old heathen 
 city called Paneas (see Josephus, ut supra) , and, strange to say, this its ancient 
 name has survived its fashionable Csesarean designation. The place is called 
 Banias at the present day. It was in honour of the Boman Csesar, the emperor 
 Tiberius, that Philip called it Ccesarea. And it was necessary to call it Philip's 
 Gcesarea, or Ccesarea Philippi, to distinguish it from the still more important 
 Ccesarea in which the Eoman procurator generally resided, and which was situ- 
 ated southward on the shore of the Mediterranean. (See Acts viii. 40, ix. 30, 
 etc.) The northern Caesarea, to which Jesus and His disciples now betook them- 
 selves, lay in the centre of some of the grandest scenery in Syria. " The situa- 
 " tion," says Dr. Tristram, "is indeed magnificent." He adds :" With tall 
 " limestone cliffs to the north and east, a rugged torrent of basalt to the south, 
 " and a gentle wooded slope for its western front, Banias is almost hidden till 
 " the traveller is among the ruins. These are not remarkable, the best preserved 
 " being the old Boman bridge over the impetuous stream which has. hewn out 
 " its channel in the black basalt to the south. Everywhere there is a wild med- 
 " ley of cascades, mulberry trees, fig trees, dashing torrents, festoons of vines, 
 " bubbling fountains, reeds, and ruins, and the mingled music of birds and 
 " waters." {The Land of Israel, p. 586.) Such is Banias, or Cassarea Philippi, 
 as it now appears. The royal residence of Philip, when visiting in the district, 
 would be the adjoining castle of Subeibeh, one of the marvels of the East. 
 It " stands proudly," says Mr. Macgregor, " on a height guarded by sheer cliff 
 " all round, except at the entrance gate. . . . Heidelberg is not so large, 
 " nor has it anything like the view we have before us here. Towers and bas- 
 "tionsare round about, and huge walls and courtyards fill the ample space 
 " within. A thousand men here, more or less, would not crowd the visitors' 
 " rooms, or weigh upon the grand old masonry. Built by the Herods first 
 •' perhaps, or by Phoenician masons, it was an outwork afterwards of the Holy 
 " War, when nations were fired with frenzy for the laud of the cross." (Rob 
 Itoy on the Jordan, p. 233.) The other object of transcendent interest at 
 Cajsarea Philippi is the fountain, that forms one of the sources of the Jordan. It 
 is, says Dr. Tristram, " a wonderful fountain, like a large bubbling basin, the 
 "largest spring in Syria, and said to be the largest single fountain in tho 
 " world, where the drainage of the southern side of Hermon, pent up between a 
 "soft and a hard stratum, seems to have found a collective exit. Full grown at 
 " birth, at once larger than the Uasbany which it joins, the river dashes throueli 
 
222 ST. MARK VIII. [27 
 
 sarea Philippi : and by the way lie asked his disciples, saying 
 unto them, Whom do men say that I am ? 28 And they answer- 
 ed, John the Baptist : but some say, Elias ; and others, One of 
 the prophets. 29 And he saith unto them. But whom say ye that 
 
 " an oleander thioket." (The Land of Israel, p. 585.) Such, was tiie central 
 scene of the picturesque region in -which our Lord sought and found seclusion 
 with His disciples. 
 
 And by the way. Or, in the way, while journeying northward on the eastern 
 side of the Jordan in the direction of CiEsarea Philippi. 
 
 He questioned His disciples, saying to them, Who do men say that I am? Very 
 literally, the men. The meaning is, who do ' the people ' say that I am ? The 
 question would be asked, we may presume, not so much for the Saviour's per- 
 sonal information (John ii. 25) as to be a leader into the personal opinions or 
 convictions of His disciples. (See ver. 29.) Instead of the nominative who, 
 the older English versions, from Wycliffe downwards, have the objective wham. 
 But see Bishop Lowth's English Grammar, p. 133. 
 
 Vek. 28. And they told Him, saying (cltrav airifi Xiyovres), John the Baptist. 
 That was one popular notion regarding Jesus, circulating no doubt chiefly among 
 those who had never seen Him. Herod Antipas entertained it (chap. vi. 16). 
 His imprimatur would give it currency in certain circles, and the Saviour's con- 
 spicuous purity and incorruptibility would lend it support. His miracles would 
 be accounted for on the principle that he had brought back with him, as was' to 
 be expected, from the world of spirits, some distinctive additions to the powers 
 which he had formerly possessed. (Matt. xiv. 2.) 
 
 And others, Elias. Or, Hebraistioally, Elijah, the great ideal of a prophet 
 and spiritual reformer. It was very generally expected that he was to return to 
 the earth in connection with the Messiah's advent. (Mai. iv. 5.) And some, 
 who could not entertain the idea that the humble Nazarene was the Messiah 
 Himself, conjectured that He was nevertheless the veritable Old Testament 
 Elias, the great precursor of the Messiah. 
 
 But others, One of the prophets. They could not go so far as to identify Him 
 with Elias ; neitHer could they be positive that He had any very special relation 
 to the long expected Messiah ; His rank was perhaps too humble for that. But 
 they were quite sure that He was altogether different from all the modern men 
 whom they had seen, or of whom they had heard ; and hence they concluded 
 that He must belong to a bygone heroic age. Must He not be, they would reason, 
 q, re-incai-nation of one or other of the old prophets ? A wild conjecture ; but 
 easy perhaps to the untutored imaginations of many Galileans in the days of 
 our Lord. 
 
 Veb. 29. And He questioned them {iirripiiTa), But who say ye that I am ! Or, 
 according to the emphasis of the original. But ye, who say ye that I am ? The 
 time was come when it was of the greatest moment that they should have a 
 settled conception of His real character and mission. No doubt the true light 
 on the subject had often gleamed through the darkness of their minds. (Sea 
 John i. 29, 33, 34, 41, 45, 49, etc). But, though gleam succeeded gleam, in 
 
29] ST. MARK VIII. 223 
 
 I am ? And Peter answereth and saith unto him. Thou art the 
 
 flashes tliat revealed the Illimitable, the darkness would ever, more or less, close 
 in again. They could not altogether help it. They were witnesses of a ' humi- 
 liation' of state, which they could not reconcile with the notions they had 
 inherited in reference to the power and pomp of the Messiah. And yet it was 
 evident that He was entirely unlike all other rahhis. He was the Master of 
 masters, and a Mystery over and above. An inner lustre was continually break- 
 ing through ; it was glorious ; it was unique. His character was transcendently 
 noble and pure. He had not, moreover, obtruded self-assertions on them. He 
 had left them, in a great measure, to observe for themselves ; and they had been 
 . observing. But they needed time to steep their minds in what they observed ; 
 they needed time to combine and compare their observations, one with another, 
 and then to work out the inferences that were involved. But now they had got 
 sufficient time, and the end of the Master's terrestrial career was looming, big 
 with both human and Divine interests, into view. He saw that it would be of 
 the utmost moment that the faith of His nearest adherents should, from hence- 
 forth, faithfully and fixedly reflect the actual realities of His high condition 
 and commission. Hence the decisive question here recorded. 
 
 Peter answered. With that honest readiness and impulsiveness which were 
 so characteristic of his nature, and which fltted him for being a leader of the 
 little circle. 
 
 And says to Him. Note the conjunction of tenses ; he answered and says. 
 We are led, firstly, to look back and notice the historical fact that Peter 
 answered. Then, secondly, we are led back into the heart of the scene and 
 hear him speaking ; he says. 
 
 Thou art the Christ. A great improvement on Wycliffe's version, Tliou ert 
 Crist. And yet Luther's version is the same as Wycliffe's, and Piscator's the 
 same as Luther's ; inexcusably so, on the part of both. It is as if, they had 
 allowed the Latin Vulgate to press in, dominatingly, on their memory {Tu es 
 Christus). Tyndale's version was a great advance, Thou arte very Ghriste ; it 
 was adopted by Coverdale, and in the first edition of the Geneva. In the cor- 
 rected Geneva, however, the right translation was at length introduced, Tliou 
 art the Christ. Bengel has, correspondingly. Thou art the Anointed (der Ge- 
 salhte). Count Zinzendorf, Mace, and Principal Campbell have, Hebraizingly, 
 Thou art the Messiah. Erasmus and Beza, in their Latin versions, have Thou 
 art that Christ (Tu es ille Christus, and Erasmus Sohmid improves on the ex- 
 pression, Tu es Christus ille). It was a decisive answer, and given, as even 
 Schenkel admits, ' as out of a higher inspiration.' {GharakterUld, xii. 4.) The 
 Lord Himself, as we learn from Matt. xvi. 17, traced the thought to its true 
 Divine source. And yet it was no doubt founded on evidence which the disciple 
 had diligently studied, and logically construed to his own inner satisfaction. It 
 was evidence which, when impartially weighed in the balance of judicial reason, 
 warranted the conclusion. That conclusion therefore would, we may be sure, 
 he everything the reverse of a mere semi-mechanical reverberation of any mere 
 assertion that had been mechanically heard from the lips of ' the Christ ' Him- 
 self. It was not ' the Christ's ' manner to bear much testimony to Himself by 
 His lips (John v. 31). He left His life and His labours to speak for Him (John 
 
zz4> ST. MARK YIII. [29 
 
 Christ. 30 And lie charged them that they should tell no 
 man of him. 
 
 V. 36). Peter listened to their voice and was convinced. Petter explains 
 Peter's confession thus : " Thou art that special and singular Person ordained 
 "of God to be the Mediator between God and us, and to be the Bedeemer and 
 "Saviour of all mankind"; an admirable explanation, though its sharply cut 
 shaping is somewhat indebted to the century, and the eminently theological 
 ecclesiastical community, in which the commentator lived. 
 
 Veb. 30. Mark omits entirely the Saviour's encomium on Peter, an encomium 
 that budded out into specific prediction and promise of high spiritual preroga- 
 tives. If Peter himself be regarded as the chief wellspring of Mark's informa- 
 tion, the omission is easily accounted for, as Eusebius remarks (Devionstrat. 
 Evang., lib. iii., 121, 122), on a principle honourable to the modesty of the 
 apostle. But it would be altogether unaccountable, if it were in that encomium 
 alone that the true basis is found for the true constitution of the Christian 
 church. Yet it is in that encomium alone that Boman Catholic theologians 
 find, or found, the doctrine of the primacy of the Boman popes. It is, they 
 maintain, in virtue of these Boman popes being St. Peter's legitimate succes- 
 sors, that they are entitled to primacy. And that primacy is essential, in their 
 estimation, to the visible hierarchy and normal existence of the church. 
 Eostlin, from his peculiar standpoint, would say that the Petrinism of Mark 
 is not so exclusive, or so strongly pronounced, as the Petrinism of Matthew. 
 (Ursprung, p. 366.) 
 
 And He charged them. Peremptorily. See, on the word, chap. iii. 12. 
 
 That they should tell no man of Him. Or, in order that they should say to no 
 one concerning Him (viz. what they had said to Himself). The reason is not, as 
 Cartwright, under the pressure of a singular theological strain, suggests {Har- 
 monia, p. 560), that men would have been deterred from putting Him to death, 
 so that the atonement would not have been completed. Cardinal Cajetau comes 
 nearer the reality. Men, he says, would have suspected that He was affecting the 
 Jewish throne, and cherishing designs at variance with the rule of the Herods 
 and the supremacy of the Caesars. There is, it must be remembered, ' a time 
 to keep silence,' as well as ' a time to speak ' (Eccles. iii. 7) ; and the state of 
 society at once in the totrarchy of Philip, and the tetrarchy of Antipas, and 
 throughout the rest of Palestine, was such that direct public or even private 
 promulgation, on the part of the disciples, of our Lord's Messiah-hood would, at 
 that particular time, have done much injury and little or no good. A favour- 
 able party, comprehending a considerable multitude of ultroneous but unin- 
 doctrinated adherents, would have sought to take Him by force and get Him 
 crowned. (John vi. 15.) Another party, who were as yet only considering His 
 true character, but disposed to look upon Him as exceptionally noble and 
 mysteriously superior to all ordinary men, would have been prematurely 
 stumbled. A third, and large, and politically influential, and adverse party 
 wore eagerly waiting to got hold of an excuse to put an instant arrest upon His 
 proceedings. Indoctrination was needed throughout all the reaches of Jewish 
 society, indoctrination in the grand fundamental principles of true religion. 
 
31] ST. MARK VIII. 225 
 
 31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must 
 suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the 
 
 The indoctrination of the very elite of the disciples themselves was much 
 reqjiired. (See ver. 32.) They were seeing only patches of the Divine reality ; 
 and some of these patches they were seeing only very intermittently. The 
 teaching of events was needed by them ; more especially the teaching of the 
 dark events which were already casting their long shadows before, and which, 
 as they advanced, seemed to be the very ' blackness of darkness,' although to 
 penetrative eyes the cloud was radiant on the other side, and pointing, like a 
 pillar of fire, in the direction of the land of liberty and the kingdom of 
 heaven. 
 
 Veb. 31-33 form a little appended paragraph, closely connected with the 
 paragraph that immediately precedes. It corresponds to Matt. xvi. 21-23. See 
 also Luke ix. 22. 
 
 Veb. 31. And He began to teach them. To instmct the disciples ; for thfeir 
 minds, like the minds of most of their compeers in the nation, were full of 
 fancies in reference to the Messiah. 
 
 That the Son of Man must suffer many things. Or, more literally still, that it 
 is necessary that the Son of Man suffer many things. Note the present tense, it 
 ' is ' necessary. The substance of the Saviour's teaching is thus presented in 
 the direct form of report. Hence the preliminary ' that,' though in accordance 
 with the Greek idiom, would almost need to be merged out of sight in our 
 English idiom. It is, so far as the eye is concerned, somewhat equivalent to 
 the inverted commas of quotation. It is necessary : that is. It is, in the circum- 
 stances, inevitable. The Saviour indeed could in a moment have lifted Himself 
 up into a sphere in which He would have been for ever far above the possibility 
 of human assault and personal suSering. But if He deemed it desirable to 
 carry on the work of popular indoctrination, it was inevitable that He should 
 meet with opposition on the part of those whose errors He exposed, and whose 
 selfishness and selfish influence in society He resisted. And if too He had it in 
 view, over and above, to meet one of the greatest difficulties in political eco- 
 nomy, human or Divine, the difficulty of granting pardon to criminals, then there 
 might be, and no doubt there was, a relative necessity of submitting, in a public 
 and conspicuous manner, to sufferings that might have an atoning value in the 
 Divine moral government. Both the precept and the penalty of the law, — and 
 the penalty, like all else that is right, is, as well as the precept, unspeakably 
 important and good,— would thus be honoured. (See Heb. ii. 10, viii. 3, ix. 12, 
 22, 23.) Tfte Son of Man ; the Saviour, while admitting the name ' tlie Christ,' 
 apd rejoicing in spirit over Peter's employment of the designation, yet adheres, 
 ip His own pergonal ; pjiraseology, to His favourite appellation of Himself. He 
 had yoluntarily. descended into, the plane of humanity, and it was His delight 
 to .realize His oneness, with the race. Suffer ' many things ' : it is an admirably 
 literal translation. But if the peculiarity of idioms be taken into account, the 
 phrase very closely corresponds to our English expression suffer ' much.' (See 
 chap. ix. 26 and Eom. xvi. 6, 12.) 
 
 And be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes. The three 
 
226 ST. MAEK VIII. [31 
 
 ctiief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after tbree days 
 32 And he spake tkat saying openly. And Peter 
 
 constituents of the sanhedrim. The elders would be chosen because of their 
 material and political influence ; the chief priests because of their elevated 
 ecclesiastical position; the scribes because of their literary and rabbinical 
 qualifications. The word elders had become a term of office, its reference to 
 age being merged. The word chief priests would include the high priest proper, 
 and the high-priests emeriti if such there were, and the chiefs of the four-and- 
 twenty courses. The scribes of the sanhedrim would be the most eminent of 
 those who knew letters, and who would consequently be learned in the law and 
 the traditions. 
 
 And be killed. Or put to a violent death. He foresaw it all ! And yet went 
 steadily onward to the consummation of His mediatorial career ! In the midst 
 of His vivid anticipation of the effects of human ignorance, recklessness, rage, 
 and rabid bloodthirstiness. He discerned an undercurrent of grand Divine ends, 
 that rolled steadily onward, like wave on wave, in the direction of the weal of 
 the universe. Hence the next clause. 
 
 And after three days rise again. Some grand mediatorial purpose was to b» 
 subserved by the death ; but the state of death was to be only temporary, and 
 for an exceedingly brief period. The Saviour of men must be alive for ever- 
 more. There were indeed grand purposes which could not be realized unless He 
 lived. After three days : it was customary among the Jews, as among many 
 other peoples, to be somewhat indeterminate in the designation of certaia 
 periods of time. Thus the phrase after three days might either mean after the 
 period that is covered by three complete days, or after the period that is covered 
 by one complete day, flanked on either side by two incomplete days. The day at 
 the commencement and the day at the conclusion of the whole period might, 
 according to circumstances, be either complete or incomplete. In the one case 
 the time referred to would be after each successive day had been completed ; in 
 the other it would be after the three days respectively had been more or les» 
 touched. This is the meaning of the phrase here, so that the expression, not- 
 withstanding Fritzsche's protest, is equivalent to on the third day. Comp. 
 2 Chron. x. 5, 12. Compare also the two synonymous expressions in English, 
 this day eight days and this day sennight or seven nights. Krebs gives a large 
 induction of particular cases, more especially from the writings of Josephus, 
 in which the same latitude in the counting of time occurs. (Observat., in loo.) 
 
 Vee. 32. And He spake tie saying ope»ly. The saying, namely, to which He 
 had just given expression. He uttered it openly, or plainly, as Wyoliffe and the 
 Geneva have it. The contrast is not with the idea of secrecy, but with the idea 
 of mystery. Our Saviour made the statement explicitly and unambiguously, 
 without any involution of parable, metaphor, or enigma {arapaKaXiTTois as 
 Euthymius Zigabenus has it). He did not, as He had done before, speak of 
 being lifted up, of building the temple in three days, or of being, Jonah-like, 
 three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (John iii. 14, ii. 19 ; Matt, 
 xii. 40). 
 
 And Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him. To reprimand Him; to chyde 
 
33] ST. MARK VIII. 22? 
 
 took him, and began to rebuke him. 33 But when he had 
 turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, 
 saying. Get thee behind me, Satan : for thou savourest not the 
 things that be of God, but the things that be of men. 
 
 Him, as Tyndale has it ; very literally, to rate Him. So very partial, on the ono 
 hand, -were Peter's notions of the Lord's Messiahship ; and so very partial, on the 
 other, was the normal development o! his feelings in relation to his Lord. The 
 idea of the violent death of Him who was ' the Christ,' a violent death too at 
 the hands of the chieftains of the people, ran so thoroughly counter to aU the 
 fond conceptions he had been cherishing in reference to the success of his 
 Master's enterprise, that for the moment his feelings of reverence were overridden. 
 Do not say such things ! You speak of impossibilities ! You are surely giving 
 way to despondency I You will dishearten us all ! Such things must not he ! 
 " No wonder," says Eiohard Baxter, " it novices now think themselves wiser 
 "than their wisest teachers." "This world," says Hofmeister, " has many 
 " Peters, who wish to be wiser than Christ, and to prescribe to Him what it is 
 " needful to do." 
 
 Vee. 33. But He, when He had tumei about. Not to Petet, as Meyer and 
 Alexander strangely suppose, hat from him, under a feeling of disapprobation. 
 
 And saw His disciples. The group of the eleven, from whom Peter had taten 
 Him aside. Our Lord turned toward them, and, when He saw them, He spake to 
 Peter. He turned purposely, wishing to see them, and to make His statement to 
 Peter in their hearing. Wakefield freely, but admirably, renders the expression 
 thus, but He turned about, and, 'in the presence of His disciples,' rebuked Peter. 
 
 Eebuked Peter, saying, Get behind Me, Satan. Though it was Peter who had 
 spoken, the Saviour recognised the presence of a subtler intellect. He recog- 
 nised his old ' Adversary' who had assaulted Him in the wilderness with the idea 
 of worldly greatness and success (Matt. iii. 8-10). Hence His language. Peter 
 indeed was to be blamed, and was blamed. But the address went intentionally 
 farther, deeper. The word Satan means adversary, but was conventionally 
 applied among the Jews to the great Adversary. Get behind Me ! an ex- 
 pression of strong disapprobation and dislike. Get out of My sight I It throws 
 light upon the turning of our Saviour. In turning from Peter, our Lord was 
 really putting 'behind' Him the evil being who was tempting Him through 
 Peter. 
 
 For thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men. The Saviour, 
 in these words, speaks home to the personality of Peter. He pays no farther 
 heed, as it were, to the darker presence behind. Peter, under the influence of 
 that presence, was suffering the eye of his intelligence to be eclipsed, and hence 
 he was allowing his interests to gather clusteringly around what would be 
 immediately agreeable to merely human feelings, instead of what ' would be 
 agreeable to the mind and heart of God. Mindest : there is reference in the 
 word to the thinking element of the mind, as well as to its feeling element ; and 
 indeed to the thinking element prominently. But the Geneva version goes too 
 far in that direction, thou understandest. Bengel's version is better, thou consider- 
 est (du bedenkest). Count Zinzendorf's is also good, thou art concerning thyself 
 
228 ST. MARK VIII. [34 
 
 34 And when he had called the people unto him with his 
 disciples also, he said unto them. Whosoever will come after me. 
 
 (es ist dir um zu thun). Newcome has thou regardest. Peter was allowing his 
 ' mind ' to be occupied with things human as distinguished from things Divine. 
 The things of God. The reference is to the Divine idea, and the coincident 
 Divine pleasure, in relation to the real and permanent weal of men as moral, 
 immortal, and yet sinful beings. An atonement was an essential element in that 
 idea and pleasure. And, as to the atonement again, suffering and death were 
 essential to its completion. Peter was allowing his mind to get away from the 
 impress of such thoughts, or of what, if logically pursued, would have led to 
 them ; and he was occupied with the things of men, or as Luther has it, with 
 what is human. Man is too apt to occupy himself with what is immediately 
 agreeable. Peter would have liked the power, pomp, wealth, and splendour of 
 the Messiah's kingdom, in a few weeks or months. 
 
 Veh. 34-38, along with ver. 1 of chap, ix., constitute a paragraph, consecutive 
 in relation to the preceding one, and corresponding to Matt. xvi. 24-28 and 
 Luke ix. 23-27. 
 
 Veb. 34. And He called to Him the crowd along with His disciples. For 
 even in that out-of-the-way locality He was identified, and followed by groups 
 of expectant hangers on, who were eager to see and hear. At the present day 
 nothing is easier in Syria than to gather a crowd ; almost every stranger at 
 once attracts a following. What must it have been when it was reported, in the 
 hamlets surrounding Caesarea Fhilippi, that the Great Prophet of Nazareth was 
 in the vicinity 1 De Wette, however, can only see in the word multitude or 
 crowd a wilful expansion, and therefore a real misinterpretation, on the part of 
 Mark, of the word all employed by Luke, in his less determinate narrative of 
 the occurrence (ix. 23). This all, says de Wette, Luke intended to be applied 
 to tlie disciples only, inasmuch as it is said in the 18th verse that our Lord had 
 been 'alone praying.' {Handbu^h, in loc.) Baur accepts de Wette's idea, 
 and thence builds an argument in relation to the interdependencies of the 
 Gospels. Mark, says he, must have had Luke's Gospel lying before him. [Mar- 
 cusevang,, pp. 65-67.) But it is utterly gratuitous to assume that, because our 
 Lord was ' alone praying,' He continued ' alone ' after His prayers were con- 
 cluded. It is not only gratuitous, it is also a most improbable supposition. If 
 our Lord was known to be engaged in prayer, the groups of followers would, 
 in accordance with oriental reverence, respect His seclusion, and keep at a 
 distance. But when they noticed that His prayers were concluded, and that He 
 was engaged in earnest conversation with His disciples, they would naturally 
 begin to draw nearer, although modestly refraining from pressing exceedingly 
 near. Between Luke's all (not them all) and Mark's crowd along with His 
 disciples, there is, to our view, a beautiful coincidence that bespeaks a common 
 source of accurate information. 
 
 And said to them, Whosoever is wishful to come after Me. There was an eager- 
 ness among many of the people to ' come after Him.' The wistfulness of a 
 considerable proportion of the northern population had been awakened. They 
 were ruminating anxiously on Old Testament predictions, and filled with vague 
 
35] ST. MAEK VIII. 229 
 
 let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 
 35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it ; but whosoever 
 
 expectancy. They saw that the Eabbi of Nazareth was no common rabbi. He 
 was a wonderful Being. It is not strange therefore that they pictured out to 
 themselves all sorts of possibilities in connection with His career. To what was 
 He advancing ? Whither was He bound ? Was He on His way, or was He not, to 
 the throne of the kingdom ? The Saviour by and by gives sufficiently explicit 
 indications of the ultimate whitherhood of His career (ver. 38, ix. 1 ) ; but 
 meanwhile He brings into the foreground the moral conditions of adherence to 
 His person and His cause. 
 
 Let him deny himself. The word is strong in the original (airapvrja&cBu), let 
 him entirely renounce himself. Let him be prepared to say No to many of thg 
 strongest cravings of his nature, in the direction more particularly of earthly 
 ease, comfort, dignity, and glory. 
 
 And take np his cross. Note the his. It intimates that the world in general 
 has got ready a cross for each of Christ's disciples ; so determined is it in its 
 opposition, and so remorseless in its hate. It has resolved that every Christian 
 shall be crucified, in one way or another ; if the body cannot be got hold of 
 and transfixed, the heart may. Every true Christian must be willing to accept 
 this treatment for Christ's sake. He must take up his cross, and walk with it, 
 as it were, to the place of execution, ready for the last extremity. It is the 
 dark side of the case; and the phase of representation, under which it is 
 exhibited, was no doubt suggested to our Lord by the clear view He had of the 
 termination of His own terrestrial career. (See ver. 31.) A Christian, says 
 Luther, is a Crucian. 
 
 And follow He. The Saviour pictures to His hearers a procession. He him 
 self takes the lead with His cross. He is the chief Crucian. All His disciples 
 follow ; each having his own particular cross. But the direction of the proces- 
 sion, when one looks far enough, is toward the kingdom of heavenly glory. 
 
 Veb. 35. Por whosoever would save his life. Or, more literally, For whosoever 
 mag will to save his life, that is, may wish-and-will to save his life. Whosoever 
 may choose to avoid crucifixion, by refusing to take up his cross and follow 
 Christ. 
 
 Shall lose it. Viz. in the sphere of the future. Very literally, he shall destroy 
 it. He shall lose, in the sphere of the future, the higher life, because in the 
 sphere of the present he refuses to part with the lower. He shall lose ever- 
 lasting ease, comfort, honour, and glory, because he refuses to part, for Christ's 
 sake, with the ease, comfort, honour, and glory which it is in the power of the 
 world to withhold. 
 
 Bat whosoever shall lose his life. In the sphere of the present : whosoever 
 shall surrender his life to destruction. Our English translation, though not a 
 precisely literal rendering of the text that was lying before the translators, is in 
 exactest harmony with the reading of the text that is given by the most modern 
 editors, inclusive of Tischendorf , TregeUes, and Alford (8s S' S.v diroXeo-ei, not 
 oTToX^ffj;). The idea is, whosoever shall, as a matter of fact, lose, or swirendcr to 
 destruction, his life. This reading is supported by the Sinaitic, Vatican, 
 Ephraemi, and Cambridge manuscripts (NBC D). 
 
230 ST. MARK Vlil. [35 
 
 shall lose Ms life for my sake, and the gospel's, the same shall 
 save it. 36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain 
 the whole world, and lose his own soul ? 37 Or what shall a 
 
 For My sake and the gospel's. Two sides of that one great reality, in which 
 the motive, which constrains to the endurance of Christian martyrdom, is 
 found. The gospel without Christ would he nothing. Christ without the 
 gospel, to make Him known, would be nothing ' to us.' 
 
 Shall save it. In the sphere of the future and the eternal. The best manu- 
 scripts and editors (inclusive of Grieshaeh and Soholz) omit the resumptive 
 expression tlie same ; tlie same shall save it. It seems to have been imported 
 from Luke ix. 24. 
 
 The term which is translated life in this verse (^i/xi)) is the same which is 
 translated soul in the two following verses, and in many other passages. It 
 might here too have been rendered soul, but not with perfect idiomatic propriety. 
 The primary Geneva version (of 1557) gives a peculiar turn to the word. For 
 whosoever wyl save ' him selfe,' shal lose ' him selfe.' But whosoever shal lose 
 ' him selfe' for My sake and the gospel's, the same shal save ' him selfe.' None 
 of the English words soul, life, self, exactly corresponds to the Greek term. 
 And indeed the real comprehension of the term was left by the Greeks them- 
 selves, to a large extent, indeterminate. It originally signified the breath ; and 
 hence at times it was used to denote the concrete principle of vitality. At 
 other times it was used to denote, more comprehensively, the concrete principle 
 of self consciousness or personality. At other times still the two principles were 
 identified ; and at other times yet, as in the verse before us, a twofold form of 
 vitality was regarded as attaching itself, potentially, to the concrete principle 
 of self consciousness and personality. A man, — realizing his own centre of 
 immortal self consciousness and personality, — may, in certain critical circum- 
 stances, make choice between life terrestrial and life celestial. 
 
 Vek. 36. For what shall it profit a man ? Or, according to the reading of the 
 Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts. For what profiteth it a man ? The Saviour 
 chooses for the present to take the standpoint of profit as His standpoint of 
 measurement and remark. He speaks, says Luther, ' as an orator. ' Note the 
 for. It carries the mind back, through the preceding verse, to the 34th, and 
 shows why the disciples of the Saviour should not scruple to take up their 
 crosses. The reason is partly co-ordinate with that stated in the 35th verse, 
 but also partly modified by it and illustrative of it. 
 
 If he should have gained. Or, as it stands in the Sinaitic and Vatican 
 manuscripts, and in Tisohendorf's text, to gain, or to have gained (KepSTjaai). 
 
 The whole world. With its fulness. What would it profit a man, were he to 
 become the absolute proprietor of the "whole world's soil, treasure, and popu- 
 lation ? What would this profit, if another contingency were to be concurrently 
 realized ? See next clause. 
 
 And suffer the loss of his soul. The soul is popularly spoken of as distinct 
 from the man who loses it, for the reference is rather to the man's life than 
 to his being. What would it profit a, man to become the lord of the whole 
 world, if thereby or therewith he suffer the loss of the higher life of his being, 
 
Sa] ST. MARK VIII. 231 
 
 man give in excliange for his soul ? 38 Whosoever therefore 
 shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and 
 
 the heaTenly and ' everlasting life ' ? " How poor a price," says Eichard 
 Baxter, " is all the profit and pleasure of this life, to hire a man by sin to lose 
 "his salvation!" "O flesh !" exclaims Luther, " how mighty art thou, that 
 " thou canst still throw darkness over those things, even to the minds of the 
 " holy I " 
 
 Veu. 37. Or. Or for, as it is given in Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. The 
 Sinaitio and Vatican manuscripts read for. It is or in Matt. svi. 26 ; and 
 there may have been a desire, on the part of some ancient transcriber, to effect 
 a minute identity between the two evangelists. If for be accepted, then what 
 follows will be regarded as an illustration, and confirmation, of the reasoning 
 of the preceding verse. 
 
 What shall a, man give ! Or, according to the reading of the Sinaitic and 
 Vatican manuscripts, and of Tischendorf and Tregelles, what should a man 
 give (Soi). 
 
 In exchange for his soul, or for his living self. What should a man not give ? 
 If he had the whole world, should he not willingly give it, provided he really 
 knew, believed, or felt, that otherwise he would be utterly lost. King Richard, 
 in Shakespeare, says, 'My kingdom for a horse!' How many kingdoms 
 should be willingly surrendered, if man were not utterly infatuated, for the 
 salvation of the soul ? But the reference is not exactly, as Petter assumes, to 
 the ' irrecoverahleness ' of a lost soul. It is to the incomputable value of the 
 soul, even in man's own judgment, when his judgment is unfettered. Strong 
 doctrinal proclivity gave a twist to Luther's translation of the question, What 
 *can' man give wherewith to redeem his soul? Coverdale follows Luther. 
 DoctrinaUy, it is true that man ' can ' give nothing as a sufScient ransom. 
 ' The ransom is Jesus,' as Luther remarks. But that is a direction of thought 
 that leads away from the Saviour's present standpoint. 
 
 Veb. 38. For whosoever. What follows is a justification, as it were, of the 
 preceding queries. Notwithstanding the appalling nature of some of the ideas 
 suggested by them, it was right to propose them. Whosoever : it matters not 
 what his position or condition in this world may be. 
 
 Shall be ashamed of Me and My words. As many, would be prone to be. The 
 temptation to shame in reference to the Saviour, and the Saviour's sayings or 
 doctrines, continues to the present day, and is pervading society to the core, 
 even in countries called Christian. It is one of the severest temptations which 
 young ' converts ' have to encounter. The anticipation of it is one of the 
 mightiest motives to keep men away from religion, and on the other side of 
 Christian faith and fealty. 
 
 In this adulterous and sinful generation. A specific phase of sinfulness is put 
 in front of the generic representation. It was outstanding and conspicuous. 
 The men of that generation were wantonly unfaithful to Him who was their 
 Lord, and who had more claims upon their faithfulness than any husband has 
 upon the faithfulness of his wife. God had, as it were, espoused to Himself 
 the Jewish people. (Isa. liv. 5 ; Jer. iii. 14.) He had conferred on them the 
 
232 ST. MARK VIII. [38 
 
 sinful generation ; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, 
 when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. 
 (Chap, ix.) 1 And he said unto them. Verily 1 say unto you. 
 
 highest possible prerogatives and honours. And yet they had proved adulterous, 
 or advouterous as the old translations, Wyoliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, the 
 Great Bible, the first Geneva, the Bheims, give it. (Comp. Jer. iii. ; Ezek. xvi.) 
 Norton merges the specific peculiarity of the epithet, when he freely renders it 
 apostate. The free rendering of Wakefield is, in some respects, not quite so in- 
 definite, ungodly. The name of God was, as it were, renounced by the unfaithful 
 people. Barnes supposed that the reference was to literal adultery. Webster 
 and Wilkinson assume that such a reference is included. Unlikely. Petter is 
 on the wrong scent, entirely, when he explains the phrase as meaning a 
 bastardly brood. Dionysius a Eyckel supposes that God may be fittingly repre- 
 sented as having taken to Himself in marriage all souls. 
 
 The Sou of Man also shall be ashamed of him. Not in a spirit of vindictiveness 
 or pique, but at the bidding of a high, holy, wise, and most judicial consider- 
 ation and determination. The character of him who is ashamed of the Saviour 
 is really shameful ; and it is right that it should be treated as such by the 
 Saviour. 
 
 When He shall have come in the glory of His Father, with the holy angels. To 
 make all things right on the earth, for the ages of ages to come. He shall then 
 judge ' the quick and the dead,' and render to every man according to his true 
 character. (See Matt. xxv. 31-46 ; 2 Cor. v. 10 ; Eev. xx. 12, 13, xxii. 12.) 
 In that coming, as distinguished from His first advent. He shall appear in the 
 glory of His Father, accompanied and encompassed with the unftiistakable 
 insignia of the Monarch of the universe. There will then be no doubt of His 
 dignity, and no scope for disputation concerning His authority. 
 
 Chapiek IX. Vek. 1. It was in a mood of mental somnolency that Hugo 
 de Sancto Caro concluded the eighth chapter with the 38th verse, and car- 
 ried forward into a new chapter the verse before us. This was not so much to 
 divide Scripture into convenient lections as to rend it at random. Well might 
 Grotius say that he 'marvelled' at the division (TKiror). The verse obviously 
 belongs to the preceding paragraph, and is appended to it by Theophylact, by 
 Wycliffe too and Tyndale, both of whom commence the ninth chapter with the 
 following verse ; Coverdale also does the same, and so did Luther and Piscator. 
 It aggravates the carelessness of the existing division, that in St. Matthew the 
 corresponding verse is correctly sundered from what follows, and attached, at 
 the conclusion of the chapter, to what goes before (xvi. 28). In St. Luke, on 
 the other hand, the corresponding verse occurs, such was the waywardness of 
 the divider, in the middle of a chapter (ix. 27). 
 
 And He said to them. A favourite form of expression with Mark, when intro- 
 ducing some outstanding or emphatic observation. Its force here might be 
 represented thus : and He added. See chap. iv. 9, 11, 13, 21, 24, 26, 30, 40. 
 
 Verily I say unto yon. A deep solemnity and earnestness were resting on our 
 Saviour's spirit when He uttered what follows ; hence the preliminary ' verily,' 
 
1] ST- MARK IX. 233 
 
 That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not 
 taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come 
 with power. 
 
 or prefatory ' amen.' The whole expression was a peculiarly solemn way of 
 saying I assure you. 
 
 That. This conjunction should be omitted in our English idiom, as the report 
 of what our Lord said is in the direct form. Our translators have generally left 
 it out. Tyndale omits it here, and Luther, and Coverdale. 
 
 There be some of those standing here. Note the archaic be for are. It is 
 Tyndale's word. 
 
 Who shall in no wise taste of death. Of death, or the of may be omitted as in 
 Heh. ii. 9. Wycliffe omits it here. Death is regarded as a bitter poison-potion, 
 which all have, at one time or another, to taste. It is so potent, that to taste it 
 suffices. 
 
 TUl they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. Or literally, in power, 
 in the possession and manifestation of power. The kingdom of God, as de- 
 veloped on the earth, might appear to be a feeble little thing, as it pre-existed 
 during the period of our Lord's humiliation ; but by and by it would assert 
 for itself a might that would defy every species of criticism or opposition, 
 and eventually shiver into atoms, or grind into powder, every existing insti- 
 tution of ungodliness. Note the word come. It is not coming but having come 
 (eXTjXvdvtav). 
 
 Many have found difficulty in understanding the Saviour's statement. " The 
 "verse," says Alexander, "is one of the most difficult and disputed in the 
 " whole book." And yet its difficulty arises exclusively from the partial views 
 that have been entertained in reference to our Lord's kingdom and coming. 
 In Matt. xvi. 28 the corresponding expression is, There be some standing here, 
 who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. 
 If tlie coming of Christ in His kingdom be regarded as applicable only to one 
 definite event in the evolution of the ages, then the statement must indeed be 
 the most difficult imaginable. We really could not conceive of it having been 
 uttered in the full clear consciousness of a true perspective, stretching away out 
 into the future. It would be a statement that would be apt to shake one's 
 confidence in our Lord's capacity of accurate foresight, and in the reliability of 
 the most solemn of His asseverations. We must hence suppose that while 
 there is undoubtedly some grand culminating coming, which is still in the 
 future, and which will sum up into itself all the precursive comings that have 
 afforded to men provisional glimpses and foretastes of its surpassing glory, yet 
 there have been in actual history, and may yet be, veritable instalments of the 
 consummation. Already, in the Old Testament Scriptures, the coming of the 
 Messiah is often represented as a unit, or a whole, without the formal distinction 
 tf its two great ' moments,' the coming to suffer and the coming to reign. When 
 the prophetic telescopes of the old prophets were turned to the coming, the 
 elongated interval that was to elapse between the beginning and the ending lay 
 out of view in their perspective. Hence Malachi says : " Behold He shall come 
 " saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of His coming ? " (chap. 
 iii. 1, 2.) That day of His coming is ' the great and dreadful day of the Lord' 
 
234 ST. MARK IX. [2 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 2 AND after six days Jesus taketk with Mm Peter, and 
 
 (chap. iv. 5). To the prophet's eye the first coming and the final coming, looked 
 at in the plane of his perspective, were obviously but two sides of one entirety ; 
 and hence, although he does refer to what we caU the first coming, the coming 
 that was to be associated. with the appearance of John the Baptist (Matt. xi. 9-14, 
 xvii. 10-13 ; Mark i. 2, 3), he brings into the same cartoon of representation his 
 reference to what we so often call His second coming, ' the great and dreadful 
 day of the Lord ' that is yet to come. It is on the same principle that the 
 representations of the New Testament are to be interpreted. In the line of the 
 successive manifestations of the majesty and glory of the exalted Messiah, the 
 eye is generally carried forward to the overshadowing grandeur of the consum- 
 mation ; but at other times, as here, the view is arrested at some of the inter- 
 vening illapses of the heavenly presence and power. Doubtless our Lord 
 referred, to the marvellous enlargement, consolidation, and establishment of His 
 kingdom, which was to take place on occasion of the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 and in which there was to be an exceedingly vivid glimpse of the greater future 
 glory. On the occurrence of that destruction there would occur the annihilation 
 of all the emptied and effete formalities that were connected with the Jewish 
 temple, and that constituted the chief obstacles to the spread of the gospel 
 among the Jews, and its chief competitors in influence among the Gentiles. 
 The idea of Theophylaot, Leo the Great, Hofmeister, Maldonato, a-Lapide, 
 Fetter, Biohard Baxter, Patrizi, Eyle, and many others, that the reference of 
 our Saviour was to His transfiguration on the mount, just about to be recorded, 
 is exceedingly unnatural. When our Lord says, " there are some of those 
 " standing here who shall not taste death tUl they witness the kingdom of God 
 " come in power," He evidently refers to a date that was still remote. For the 
 same reason, as well as for others, the reference cannot be, as Cardinal Cajetan, 
 Calvin, and Beza supposed, to our Lord's resurrection and the consecutive 
 events of Pentecost, etc. See Comm. on Matt., xvi. 28. 
 
 CHAPTEE IX. 
 Veb. 2-8 the transfiguration section. Comp. Matt. xvii. 1-8 and Luke ix. 28-36. 
 
 Ver. 2. And after six days. Luke has, about eight days (ix. 28). There is 
 no collision. Luke counts the fractional days at the commencement and close 
 of the six complete days specified by Mark and Matthew. The chronological 
 relation of the transfiguration to Peter's confession and the Saviour's conse- 
 quent manifesto regarding the cross as the stepping stone to the crown seems 
 to have engraven itself ineftaceably on the memory of the evangelical reporters. 
 Hence the preoiseness of the date in all the synoptic Gospels. 
 
 Jesus taketh with Him Peter, James, and John. The elite of the Master's 
 
2] ST. MARK IX. 235 
 
 James, and Jolin, and leadefch them up into an higb. mountain 
 apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. 
 
 elect, the triumvirs of the apostolate. Comp. chap. v. 37, xiv. 33. They were 
 sufficient in number to be adequate witnesses to the rest of the apostles, and to 
 men in general. It was seemly not to take a large company. The scene into 
 which the selected three were about to be introduced .belonged to the sphere of 
 the Saviour's privacy, rather than to the sphere of His public ministry. 
 
 And bringeth them up into a high moimtain. That is, into some recess in some 
 high mountain. The particular mountain referred to is not specified, and is not 
 known. From about the time of Cyril of Jerusalem, in the fourth century, it 
 has been popularly regarded as Tabor, a singularly beautiful ' dome-shaped 
 mamelon,' a little to the east of Nazareth. It stands apart, and is remarkable, 
 says Dr. Tristram, for ' its peculiar symmetry of shape.' (TJie Land of Israel, 
 p. 125.) Tabor however could not be the scene of the Saviour's transfiguration, 
 for the narrative impresses us with the conviction that the spot was secluded, 
 whereas " long before and after the event of the transfiguration, the summit of 
 •' Tabor," as Dr. Bobinson has shown, " was occupied by a fortified city." 
 {Besearches, vol. iii., p. 222.) Wilson, Porter, Stanley, and Patrizi agree with 
 Dr. Eobinson that the mountain referred to could not be Tabor. Lightfoot and 
 Eeland, even in their day, reached the same conclusion. The hallowed spot 
 was doubtless one of the many highland solitudes in the neighbourhood of 
 CKsarea Philippi (chap. viii. 27). " The context of the narrative," says Dr. 
 Porter, "shows that the Mount of Transfiguration is to be sought on the ridge 
 " of Hermon " {Syria, p. 397). 
 
 Apart by themselves. Literally, apart alone, or as Tyndale has it, out of the 
 waye alone. The word apart has by some, as by Norton for instance, been 
 connected, not with the expression and conducted them alone, but with the 
 expression a high mountain. Hence indeed one of the reasons why Tabor has 
 been fixed on as the scene of the transfiguration. " It stands on the plain in 
 "isolated grandeur," says Dr. Tristram (Tlie Land of Israel, p. 125). "From 
 "these and all the adjoining hills,'' says Dr. Wilson, "it certainly stands 
 " apart ; but it is an erroneous criticism, which finds in this circumstance any 
 "suitableness for its being the scene of our Lord's transfiguration." (The 
 Lands of the Bible, vol. ii., p. 100.) 
 
 And He was transfigured before them. Or transformed ; literally, metamor- 
 fhosed. Transformed is Erasmus's word, and Beza's. Transfigured is the fine 
 old Vulgate word. It holds its place in all the English versions which preceded 
 King James's. Luther's translation is free, made Himself clear or bright 
 (verkldretsich). Bengel's is more literal, assumed another form. So Felbinger's, 
 was changed in form. It was a change in the externality of the person, a 
 kind of temporary glorification, effected no doubt from within outward, rather 
 than from without inward. It would reveal the essential glory of the spirit that 
 ' tabernacled ' within, its glory at once in that lower sphere that was human 
 and in that higher sphere that was Divine. It would be a prefiguration of our 
 Lord's permanent resurrection glory. And possibly, therefore, it may be legiti- 
 mately regarded as an earnest of the glory that is awaiting all who have become 
 by faith ' members of His body.' 
 
236 ST. MAEK IX. [3 
 
 '6 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow ; 
 so as no fuller on earth can white them. 4 And there ap- 
 peared unto them Elias with Moses : and they were talking 
 with Jesus. 5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, 
 
 Vek. 3. And His garments. Matthew and Luke draw attention to the trahs- 
 figured appearance of the countenance. Mark confines his description to the 
 effect of the personal transfiguration on the raiment. 
 
 Became resplendent. Plato applies the word [aTik^ovTo) to lightning'; Aristotle 
 to the light of the fixed stars. The garments could not conceal the personal 
 glory, but became themselves semi-translucent. 
 
 Exceeding white, like snow. When the sun is shining on it in full force. The 
 comparison however, like snow, was probably imported from Matt, xxviii. 3. 
 It is not found in the Siuaitio and Vatican manuscripts (K B), nor in C L A, 1, 
 nor in the Sahidic, Coptic (cod.), Armenian, and iSthiopic versions. It is 
 omitted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, from their texts; and Griesbach 
 suspected its genuineness. It is not needed. The garments were exceeding 
 white, or dazzlingly white, like the glow of white objects when reflecting the 
 rays of a meridian sun. 
 
 So as no fuller on earth can whiten them. Or, more literally, As no fuller on the 
 earth can so whiten. Tyndale's version is good, so whyte as noo fuller can make 
 apon the erth, that is, so resplendently white. 
 
 Ver. 4. And there appeared to them Elias with Moses. Or, and there was 
 seen by them Elias with Moses. Elias with Moses was visible to them. . It is 
 not implied that Elijah and Moses were there, for the purpose of making them- 
 selves visible to the disciples. They were there for another purpose , but they 
 were not hidden from the eyes of the disciples. 
 
 And they were talking with Jesus. They were the most illustrious representa- 
 tives of ' the law and the prophets,' the greatest of the agents who had, in 
 former times, been divinely employed for the establishment and maintenance 
 of ' the kingdom of heaven ' on earth. That kingdom is the only real refuge 
 of humanity. It is the only efficiently aggressive institution, that is fitted to 
 make way into the domain of the world's dominant wickedness and woes. And 
 as Jesus was the King of the kingdom, there is no wonder that Moses and Elias 
 wished to commune with Him, and that He wished to commune with them. 
 Their work had prepared His way. His work was to put the copestone on their 
 labours. Was this appearance of Moses and Elijah to the disciples a vision ? 
 It was (Matt. xvii. 9). That is to say, it was something seen. But was it a 
 merely subjective thing ? was it a thing of fancy, woven weirdly out of the 
 woof of their own imaginations? No It was objective to all the three, and 
 interned within none of them. And doubtless it would become objectively 
 visible to them in the light of Him who was for the time being so ineffably 
 radiant with His own effulgence. Or we might put the case thus : they got a 
 glimpse into glory, by reason of their nearness to Him who was and is, in His 
 own most glorious person, the open Door into heaven. 
 
 Veb. 5. And Peter answered and says to Jesus. Namely, when Moses and 
 Elijah were just in the act of departing. (See Luke ix. 33.) The impulsive 
 
C] ST. MARK IX. 237 
 
 Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make 
 three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and 
 one for Elias. 6 For he wist not what to say; for they 
 
 Peter would fain have detained and retained them on the spot. He is repre- 
 sented as answering, although no question had been proposed to him, and no 
 remark -was addressed to him. He felt rightly, however, that a revelation had 
 been purposely made to him ; and to that he was, in his own impulsive and 
 awkward way, sincerely responsive. 
 
 Master. In the original it is JJa6&t. It would be the common appellation 
 which the disciples employed when speaking to their Lord. Their standpoint 
 of appellation, as of everything else, was naturally and inevitably Jewish. The 
 two words however. Rabbi and Master (Magister), correspond almost exactly in 
 their radical signification. (See Patrizi.) 
 
 It is good for us to be here. The first ingenuous outburst of the disciple's 
 ravishment. He was witnessing indeed only the concluding scene of the 
 sublime spectacle ; but he did not know that ; and what he did witness entranced 
 him. He had been asleep along with the other two (Luke ix. 32). Weariness 
 had overpowered them. It was late at night. Our Saviour had been engaged 
 in prayer. He had ascended the mountain ' to pray ' (Luke ix. 28). It would 
 seem that, as on so many other occasions, He had continued long in aspiration 
 and supplication. He was rapt into the presence of His Father, and wrapt in 
 communion with Him. He would gather spiritual strength and recruitment as 
 He continued. He would draw into His recipient humanity more and more of 
 the heavenly influences which were the efdux of the Father's presence. By 
 and by His very body was interpenetrated, and sublimed in some celestial way 
 or other, * transfigured.' He conferred with Moses and Elijah ; and, just as 
 the conference concluded, the disciples awoke, and were filled with overawing 
 wonderment and rapture. Peter gave expression to their common feelings. 
 
 And let, us make three tabernacles, one for Thee, and one for Moses, and one for 
 Elias. Tabernacles, that is, tents, or booths. Peter would have liked the con- 
 tmuance of the scene. He wished to detain the heavenly visitants ; and he 
 thus proposes to provide for their temporary accommodation. He spoke, of 
 course, unadvisedly. ' He committed,' says Petter, ' gross errors and absurd- 
 ities.' But he knew Moses and Elias nevertheless. For, most probably, in 
 the spirit world, every one's identity will be self evident. The nature and the 
 name will be coincident. There will be no veils possible, and none needful. 
 
 Veb. 6. For he wist not. Wist or wissed is the preterite of a fine old verb 
 wiss, still living in German (wissera),' and meaning'to ireou). 'It' is connected 
 with wis-dom, wisei wit, wits. In the Anglo-Saxon version the not is combined 
 with the wist, in the ' same way in which nilled is the negative of willed ; he 
 nyste. Coverdale's version ia.he knew not. ' But Wyclifte and Tyndale have he 
 wist not, and hence King James's version. 
 
 What to say. A great improvement on the translation in the Geneva, the 
 Eheims, the Great Bible, poyerdale, and. Tyndale, jo ftat /jc said.. The original- 
 cannot bear.to be so rendered (t^ XaXiyo-p, qr,^as Tischendorf and Tregelles read, , 
 H &TOKpi.0f). And yet Lather committed the same mistake, and Zinzendorf, , 
 
238 ST. MAEK IX. [6 
 
 were sore afraid. 7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed 
 them : and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my 
 beloved Son : hear him. 8 And suddenly, when they had 
 looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus 
 only with themselves. 
 
 and even Principal Campbell and Norton. The expression means, as Beza and 
 Bengal clearly saw, xohat he should say, or, according to the probable reading of 
 Tischendorf and Tregelles, what he should answer. Wyoliffe was right, what he 
 shulde seie. Peter assumed that he should say something, by way of response 
 to the revelation made to the disciples, bat he was not sufficiently self collected, 
 to determine, deliberately and judiciously, how he should express himself. 
 
 For they became sore afraid. Or they exceedingly feared, as the word is 
 rendered in Heb. xii. 2 1, the only other passage in the New Testament in which 
 it occurs. The meaning is, they were exceedingly agitated. And although a 
 sense of bliss was profoundly pervading their hearts (see ver. 5), there was yet 
 whirling around it a feeUug of trepidation and awe. The sore of our Authorized 
 version is just the Scotch sair, and the German sehr, exceedingly or very. 
 
 Veb. 7. And there was a cloud that overshadowed them. Or, more literally, 
 and there came a cloud overshadowing them. The cloud became {iyivero). 
 Purvey has it admirably, and ther was maad u, cloude overschadewyinge hem. 
 The effulgence, of which Jesus was the centre, became overcanopied, and the 
 cloud, that overarched them all, gradually settled denser and denser down. 
 The end of the scene was at hand. 
 
 And there came a voice out of the cloui. The voice too, as well as the cloud, 
 became (iyhero the right reading). The cloud, within which it formed itself, 
 and out from which it issued, would be a cloud of glory, veiling and shading no 
 doubt all that was aloft, but yet resplendent (Matt. xvii. 5), a fit symbol of the 
 Divine Presence. 
 
 This is My beloved Son, hear Him. Our Lord thus " received from God the 
 "Father," as we read in the Second Epistle of- Peter (i. 17, 18), "honour and 
 " glory, when there camfe such a voice to Him from the excellent glory. This is 
 " My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice we ourselves 
 " heard come out of heaven, when we were with Him in the holy mount." The 
 voice would be finely sustaining to the heart of our Lord Himself ; and, as 
 heard by the disciples, would be eminently fitted to strengthen their faith, and 
 predispose them to bow implicitly to the Master's instructions and declarations. 
 (See Deut. xviii. 15.) The highest position of honour and bliss which any 
 human being can occupy is to sit lowly at the feet of Jesus, and ' hear Him.' 
 " Jesus," says Fetter, " is the chief Doctor or Teacher of the church ; and all 
 " Christians ought to hear and obey His teaching." True ; and He is likewise 
 the chief Light of the world, and all men everywhere ought to ' see light in His 
 light.' 
 
 Veb. 8. And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man 
 any more, save Jesns only with themselves. Or, they no longer saio any one but 
 Jesus alone with themselves. Moses and Elijah had dis-appeared : and at a 
 certain stage of things this fact became suddenly or all at once apparent to tho 
 
10] ST. MARK IX. 239 
 
 9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged 
 them that they should tell no man what things they had 
 seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead. 10 
 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning 
 one with another what the rising from the dead should 
 
 overawed disciples. The older English translators, ia well as Luther and 
 Principal Campbell, the authors of the modern Dutch version (1868), and the 
 English Revisers, connect the word suddenly with the verb when-the y-had- 
 looked-round-about. Tyndale's version is, and sodenly they loked romide aboute 
 tliem. Principal Campbell's is, and imtantly looking about. But King James's 
 translators, following in the wake of Erasmus and Eeza, did well in severing 
 this connection. It is unnatural to suppose that the overawed disciples were 
 eager to look about with suddenness. The suddenly \s used, in an artless 
 manner, to describe the impression made upon them after they had looked 
 round about. All-at-once they realized, what exceedingly surprised them, that 
 Jesus was ' alone with themselves.' • 
 
 Veh. 9-13 constitute a little appendix to the preceding narrative of the 
 transfiguration. (Comp. Matt. xvii. 9-13.) 
 
 Yek. 9. And as they were going down from the mountain. What follows 
 transpired while they were in the act of descending. 
 
 He charged them that tliey should tell no one what things they saw. Tell, or 
 narrate (SiTjy^rrui'Tat). Even they themselves did not yet understand what they 
 had seen. Still less could they, in present circumstances, make others under- 
 stand. 
 
 Till the Son of Man were risen from the dead. The compound expression 
 rendered till literally means, as Wakefield renders it, save when, or, still more 
 literally, except when; unless when the Son of Man should have risen again front 
 the dead. 
 
 Vek. 10. And they kept the saying. The saying, namely, which is recorded 
 in the immediately preceding verse, the injunction. Beza strangely understood 
 the word as meaning, not saying, but thing (rem : eds. 1558, 1598), and referred 
 it to the fact of the transfiguration. But the reference is evidently to the 
 injunction ; they kept it, or held it fast. Such is the import of the verb 
 employed [eKparriiTav) ; and so is it translated in Heb. iv. 14, Eev. ii. 13, 25, 
 iii. 11. They held fast the injunction as a, sacred thing, that was not to be 
 tampered with. 
 
 With themselves. Our Authorized translators, along with the Syriao Peshito 
 version, and Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale, 
 Beza, Felbinger, Mill, Willes, Lachmann, Ewald, Tregelles, Ornsby, connect 
 these words with the expression that goes before. Heumann, though entirely 
 misunderstanding the meaning of the preceding verb, protested against such 
 a construction as unexampled and unnatural. Dav. Scholz and Fritzsche agree 
 with him, and hence connect the expression with the following participle. So 
 do Hammond, Bcngel, Meyer, Lange, Bisping. Eightly. 
 
 Questioning among themselves what the rising again from the dead should mean. 
 
240 ST. MARK IX. [10 
 
 mean. 11 And tiey asked hinij saying, Why say the 
 scribes that Blias must first come? 12 And he an- 
 swered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and re- 
 
 Or more literally still, What the rising again from the dead ' is.' The three 
 discussed among themselves, in a puzzled mood, what the Master could be 
 referring to, when He spoke of His own rising from among the dead. Things 
 had got into confusion in their minds. Surely He cannot he referring to 
 wliat we have hitherto heen, accustomed to speak of as ' the resurrection of 
 the dead.' That must still be in the far future. But He seems to he speaking 
 of soTnething that is to take place soon, and while we ourselves are living; 
 something too in which He himself is to he implicated. We cannot understand 
 what He means. And yet it must he of a momentous nature, for He spoke it 
 ■with awful solemnity. 
 
 Vee. 11. Probably the Saviour, after having charged His disciples not to 
 divulge the scene of the transfiguration until after His resurrection, stepped 
 on before, wrapped in His own contemplations. The disciples, falling behind, 
 would then, in mingled awe and perplexity, ventilate among themselves the 
 Saviour's meaning ; and at the same time, no doubt, they would be, with un- 
 wavering fealty, encouraging one another to keep the secret which had been 
 committed to their trust. But by and by their thoughts take another turn, 
 though into a strictly adjacent field, and they make up to the Master to state 
 their difficulty. 
 
 And they asked Him, saying. Why say the scribes that Elias must first come ! 
 There had been many debates among the people as to who Jesus was, and 
 whether or not He might not be, notwithstanding the humility of His appear- 
 ance, the Messiah promised to the fathers. The scribes were positive in main- 
 taining the negative, for this among other reasons, that Elijah had not yet 
 reappeared, according to Malachi's prediction (iv. 5). There seemed, at first 
 sight, to be some force in the objection. And certainly if the resurrection of 
 the just were to take place soon, it would be very wonderful indeed if Elijah 
 should not make his appearance ' before the coming of the great and dreadful 
 day of the Lord.' WIty ? Such is the general rendering of the term employed 
 by the evangelist (Sn ; Lachmann prints it o n ;). It is a fragmentary inter- 
 rogative, admirably appropriate in the mouths of questioners, labouring under 
 a feeling of diffidence. Bwald however, and the English Kevisers, regard it as 
 being simply ' recitative,' and .theref or.e to .be. left uut;ranslated in English and 
 German, And they questioned Him saying, The fff'ribes say, Elias must first come. 
 But this interpretation is not so natural as the' other. ■ Tisohendorf, instead of 
 the single expression the scribes, reads the Pharisees and the scribes, under the 
 insufficient authorization of the Sinaitic manuscript and the Tulgate version. 
 
 Vbb. 12. And He said to them (6 5^ (^ airoh). Such is the simple reading 
 of Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. It is the reading of both the Sinaitic. and 
 Vatican manuscripts, and of C L A. 
 
 Elias indeed cometh first, and restoreth all things. According to the prediction 
 in Mai. iv. 5, 6. He restoreth all things, so far as issuing a new order of the 
 
12] ST. MARK IX. 241 
 
 storeth all things ; and how it is written of the Son of man, 
 that he must sutfer many things, and be set at nought. 
 
 day is oonoerned, an order involving a return to first principles. In his 
 preaching lie puts all things to rights. He shows what should be ; he shows 
 ■what should not be. If his preaching were to be practised, the way would be 
 admirably prepared for the highest prosperity and glory of the Israelites, and 
 the ultimate regeneration of the whole of mankind. The wounds and divisions 
 of society would be healed. ' The heart of the fathers would be turned to the 
 children, and the heart of the children to their fathers.' The reform would 
 spread from the family circle to all the other circles of society. Man would be 
 heartily united to man. Webster and Williinson correctly note that the 
 expression which denotes the advent of Elias is not, in the original, coming, but 
 having come {iXSdlip). If we could, in our English idiom, have said earning 
 instead of either coming or having come, the reproduction of the evangelist's 
 phrase would have been complete. We cannot however. And our translators 
 have admirably accommodated our English idiom«to the Greek, Elias indeed 
 Cometh first ' and ' restoreth all things. The use of the conjunction ' and ' 
 sufficiently indicates that the ' restoration of all things ' follows after the 
 ' coming first.' The particle (jxh) rendered indeed in the Eevised version or, 
 in King James's version, verily, has no analogue in English. It finely bends 
 the mind forward, in expectancy, toward some complementive fact that remains 
 to be stated. 
 
 And [KaOj. This conjunction introduces the complementive fact, though the 
 evangelist, in employing it, departs, so far as form is concerned, from the mode 
 of representation which is initiated in the preceding clause. Form apart, what 
 the conjunction introduces is something to be taken ore the other hand, in 
 relation to what goes immediately before. 
 
 How it is written of the Son of Man. A phrase which has, as Fritzsohe ex- 
 presses it, ' vehemently harassed interpreters.' He himself thinks that the 
 reading of the existing manuscripts is in a state of hopeless confusion. Beza 
 too was perplexed to the last degree. Daniel Heinsius, however, seems to have 
 hit upon the true method of interpretation. He puts an interrogation point at 
 the close of the clause. And how stands it loritten concerning the Son of Man ? 
 Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Lange, accept this interpretation. The Saviour 
 wished the disciples to couple with the fact concerning Elijah another fact 
 concerning the Messiah himself. It was a fact of the greatest moment, though 
 utterly ignored by the Pharisees. The Saviour excites His disciples' attention 
 to it, by introducing it interrogatively, hoto stands it written concerning the Son 
 of Man ? The Saviour answers His own C|.uestion as follows. 
 
 That He should suffer many things and be set at nought. To lose sight of the 
 sufferings of the Messiah, and of His rejection by the mass of the people, was to 
 lose sight of one of the most obvious and important features of Old Testament 
 prophecy. The word aptly rendered set at nought {i^ovSevaOrj) is exceedingly 
 graphic and emphatic. Our Saviour was to be treated as if He were Nothing 
 at all. He was not only to be ignored. He was -to be ignored with the utmost 
 possible contempt. See the predictions in Psalm xxii. and Isaiah liii. The 
 expression ' that ' lie should suffer, if very literally rendered, would be ' in order 
 
242 ST. MARK IX. [13 
 
 13 Bat I say unto you, Ttat Elias is indeed come, and they 
 have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of 
 him. 
 
 that ' He should suffer. Our Saviour's very presence on the earth was in order 
 that lie might suffer. He came when He came, and as He came, and where He 
 came, in order that He might face the very difficulties, and endure the very 
 trials, which were now to rise up around Him in these circumstances, while 
 engaged in the prosecution of His great undertaking. Over and above His 
 more general aim, which would not have been modified in whatsoever age and 
 in whatsoever sphere He had appeared, He came to enter that particular sphere 
 and arena, and to sacrifice Himself there. 
 
 Vee. 13. But I say unto yon. A solemn and autocratic way, becoming in 
 our Lord, of giving utterance to an important idea or truth. 
 
 That. It is the recitative ' that' and may be omitted in translation, as has 
 been done by Wakefield, Meyer, Ewald. 
 
 Ellas is indeed come. A free translation. The particle rendered indeed is the 
 common conjunction that means and or also (koI). Many translators, such as 
 Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale, omit it altogether. And man^ interpreters, on the 
 other hand, have supposed that it looks forward to the and in the beginning of 
 the following clause, and they have done unto him what they listed. They would 
 accordingly translate it ioth, as if the meaning were as follows : It is tlie case, 
 ' hoth ' that Ellas has come, ' and ' that they have done to him what they listed. 
 So Edgar Taylor and Norton translate. The Vulgate translator, and Erasmus 
 Schmid, and de Wette, seem to have taken the same view (et...et). But if such 
 a relationship of the clauses had been the idea of the evangelist, we should 
 have expected, as Meyer observes, another order of his words (rai A-^Xutfey 
 'HXeias). It is more likely therefore that the particle tacitly glances at Another 
 One who had come, Elias ' too ' has come. The disciples were certain that the 
 Messiah had come. He was standing before them, and speaking to them. Jesus 
 assures them that Elias also had come. In the Kheims the translation is Elias 
 also. Principal Campbell's version is, Elijah too. Bishop Hammond puts it 
 well, ' He is come as well as I.' 
 
 And they did to him what they listed. That is, tvliat they desired. Compare 
 the German Lust. The two English words, list and lust, were originally 
 one, and one with the German word, and meant desire. The leading Jews, in 
 dealing with the New Testament Ehjah, John, did not take into account for a 
 moment what God desired. They only considered what was agreeable to their 
 own feelings. And it was agreeable to their feelings to pay little regard to his 
 spiritual instructions while he prosecuted his ministry at large, and to use no 
 influence to get him liberated, after Herod had laid hands unon him. 
 
 As it stands written concerning him. Literally, upon him. It is an idiom 
 in English also, to speak of writing ' upon ' a. subject. But where, it has been 
 often asked, is there anything written in the Old Testament Scriptures concern- 
 ing the treatment which John, as the Now Testament Elijah, was to receive ? 
 Grotius ingeniously says that since the prophet speaks of John as Elijah, 
 he leaves it to he understood that Ahahs and Jezebels would not be wanting. 
 
[15 ST. MARK IX. 243 
 
 14 And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great 
 multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them. 
 15 And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were 
 
 There was hence, he would conclude, a virtual prediction of John's maltreat- 
 ment by Herodias and Herod. Wetstein takes the same view ; it stands written 
 concerning John, he says, in the history of Elijah, who typified him. So Eisner ; 
 Meyer acquiesces ; so do the authors of the new Dutch translation. Patrizi act- 
 ually thinks that the pronoun Mm refers not to John at all, but to Elias his type. 
 Fritzsohe says that the view of Grotius and Wetstein is ' the most tolerable ' 
 that has been suggested. But it appears to be more ' tolerable ' and natural to 
 admit that Mark was no purist in composition, and that hi^ mind was resting 
 on the chief assertion, Elias too has come, although he had let drop interven- 
 ingly the secondary statement and they did to him wJiat they listed. Eobert 
 Stephens took this view of the matter, and hence, in his 1550 and 1551 editions 
 of the New Testament, enclosed within parentheses the intervening clause. He 
 was followed by the authors of the Eheims version, and by le Clero in his Latin 
 New Testament. In his French version le Clero omits the last clause altogether. 
 Le Cene, Mace, and Principal Campbell transpose the clause into the middle 
 between the two preceding clauses. Campbell gives the verse thus : But I tell 
 you that Elijah too is come, as was predicted, and they liave treated him as they 
 pleased. This is too great freedom ; and the brackets are too artificial. But 
 the conception that underlies both the expedients is substantially correct. It 
 was also Bengel's conception, and du Veil's. 
 
 Vek. 14-29 contain a paragraph parallel with Matt. xvii. 14-21 and Luke ix. 
 37-43. The narrative of Mark, however, is much fuller, and more vivid, than 
 the accounts of the other synoptics. 
 
 Vee. 14. And when He came to the disciples, He saw a great crowd arotmd 
 them. In the Sinaitio and Vatican manuscripts, and the Armenian version, the 
 expression rims thus, and when ' they ' came to the disciples ' they ' saw a great 
 crotod around them. It is more likely, however, that the reading of the Eeceived 
 Text is the original. 
 
 And the scribes questioning with them. Or rather, and scribes disputing with 
 them. There is no article before the word scribes. As to the phrase, disputing 
 with them, see chap. viii. 11 and chap. ix. 10. It is the translation of Purvey, 
 Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Geneva. 
 
 Veb. 15. And immediately all the crowd, when they saw Him, were greatly 
 amazed. Why ? A debated matter. Some have supposed that their amaze- 
 ment arose from seeing His countenance, Uke that of Moses, supematurally 
 radiant from the effects of the transfiguration. Both Buthymius Zigabenus 
 and Theophylact, as also John Wesley, make mention of this opinion, without 
 however deciding for it. Bengel and de Wette favour it. Whitby and Wynne 
 adopt it. But inconsiderately ; for Mark does not mention at all, in his account 
 of the transfiguration, the radiance of our Lord's countenance ; and he does 
 mention that our Lord expressly enjoined on the three favoured disciples to 
 keep the fact of the mountain-glory a secret. We may be sure therefore, as 
 
244 ST. MARK IX. [15 
 
 greatly amazed, and running to Mm saluted him. 16 And 
 he asked the scribes, What question ye with them? 17 
 
 Eisner remarks, that our Lord would not carry with Him, on His own person, 
 the visible tokens of what had transpired. "We must look in another direction 
 for ' the reason why.' The Lord's opportune appearance seems to have struck 
 the people with amazement. The disciples had got iuto a great diffioalty. They 
 were at their ' wits' end.' They had failed in an attempt to effect a cure. 
 Their failure had been signal and conspicuous. The scribes, ever iying in wait 
 to detect flaws, had taken advantage of their discomfiture to ride roughshod 
 over their humUiated feelings ; and no doubt they would be improving the 
 opportunity to throw discredit on the name of the Master himself. Very likely 
 they would be insinuating that it was a matter of good policy for Him to be out 
 of the way, when a case that would really have tested His power of wonder- 
 working was to turn up. The imbroglio of insinuation, disputation, crimination, 
 and recrimination, had just reached its climax, when lo, in the ' very nick of 
 time ' the Saviour made His appearance, walking calmly along in the direction 
 of the scene of contest. This is the view that has been generally entertained in 
 reference to the great amazement of the people. It is sufficient. Instead of 
 greatly amazed, Wells translates the word overjoyed. Unwarrantably, however. 
 "Wakefield renders it surprised ; also unwarrantably. There was surprise ; but 
 it was superlative in degree. 
 
 And running toward Him, saluted Him. They hailed His advent with the 
 greatest respectfulness and delight. 
 
 Ver. 16. And He asked the scribes. Or, according to the reading of the 
 modern critical editors, and He asked ' them,' that is, the people in general. As 
 the Saviour advanced iuto the thick of the hubbub of disputation. He viewed 
 collectively the general crowd, instead of disintegrating it into scribes and the 
 rest. The Sinaitic, Vatican, and Cambridge manuscripts (N B D), along with 
 L A, 1, and the Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian, and .Sithiopic versions, read ' them.' 
 Mill had no doubt at aU that them must be the autographic reading. Griesbach 
 and Pritzsche were of the same opinion. But all three of these critics differed 
 as to the reference of the pronoun. MiU supposed that it referred to the dis- 
 ciples alone, and that the second clause of the verse should be rendered thus, 
 wlmt dispute ye ' among yourselves,' for, says Mill, they had no doubt begun to 
 dispute among themselves. (Prol., § 406.) Griesbach supposed that it referred 
 to the disciples and the scribes, and hence he too would translate the second 
 clause of the verse in the same manner with Mill. Fritzsche again espoused' 
 the view that had been taken by the very ancient annotator whose annotation 
 now forms part of the Textus Beceptus. He supposed that the reference is to 
 the scribes, and that the second clause of the verse should therefore be rendered 
 as in our Authorized version. It is far more probable however that the refer- 
 ence of the pronoun is, indefinitely, to the people in general, as distinguished 
 from the disciples. 
 
 What question ye with them ? Or rather, Wliat dispute ye with them ? Or tho 
 phrase might be rendered thus, ' Why ' dispute ye with them ? that is. Why dis- 
 pute ye with My disciples ? He would be already in the midst of the disciples 
 when He spoke, as one of their company, so that His reference to them would 
 
18] ST. MARK IX. ■ 245 
 
 And one of the multitude answered and said. Master, ' I 
 have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb 
 spirit; 18 and wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: 
 
 be manifest. Why this uproar ? Why those keen and biting ivords, which fell 
 upon My ears as I approached ? As to the verb rendered in our Authorized 
 Torsion question, see on chap. -viii. 11 and ix. 10, 14. It is rendered dispute by- 
 Purvey, Tyndale, Coverdale, and in the Great Bible and the Geneva. As to the 
 general import of the interrogation, compare a, corresponding phrase in chap, 
 viii. 17. With them : In some important manuscripts, inclusive not only of the 
 Alexandrine (A), but also of the Sinaitic at first hand (ti*), the expression is 
 reflexive [Trpbs iavToiij, and means xoith one anotlier, as Mill and Griesbaeh 
 understood it. The other reading however (tt/jos airovs) is the best supported, 
 and the reference is no doubt to the disciples. Lachmann, Tisohendorf, Tregelles 
 support it. 
 
 Vek. 17. And one out of the crowd answered and said. Or simply, according 
 to the reading of the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Cambridge manuscripts, and 33 
 ' the queen of the cursives,' answired Him. 
 
 Master. Literally, Teacher, that is. Rabbi. 
 
 I have brought my son. Or rather, I brought my son {■^veyKo). The father 
 was not referring to an action that was just completed as he spoke, but, indefi- 
 nitely, to an action that was now among things past. 
 
 To Thee. It was to Thee that I wished and intended to apply in his behalf, 
 though, when I arrived, I found Thee not. 
 
 Who has a dumb spirit. That is, according to a common idiom, wlio has a 
 spirit that mahes him dumb. The poor lad was a deraoniao, and the demon had 
 deprived him of the use of the affiliated organs of speech and hearing. (See 
 ver. 25.) There is nothing incredible in such power, if evil spirits there be at 
 all. Even some ' men ' have power to deprive, for the time being, some,of their 
 fellow men of speech, hearing, feeling, seeing ; and what marvel, then, that un- 
 incarnated spirits should have a corresponding power ? There are assuredly in 
 existence, as W. G. Palgrave says, ' malignant oosmical influences, be they what 
 they may.' {Central and Eastern Arabia, vol. ii., p. 273.) " The spirit world," 
 says Delitzsch, " good as well as bad, has been in aU timies the background of 
 "the events that transpire on earth." (Bib. Psychologic, p. 22.) As to demons 
 and their influence, see on chap. i. 23, 32. 
 
 Veb. 18.. And wheresoever {Sirov iin). The right translation, giving the ad- 
 verb its proper local import. Erasmus and Coverdale take the word in its rare 
 temporal import, whensoever ; but without any good reason. It is never used 
 temporally in the New Testament. 
 
 It taketh him. The expression is somewhat ambiguous in English. It might 
 be supposed to mean, it conducteth him. But it really means, it seizeth him, 
 that is, taketh Iwld on him. The word in the original {KaTa\a§-Q) is the term 
 from which we have our pathological word catalepsy. No doubt the poor 
 aCSictod lad would be an epileptic, and during his epileptic seizures he would 
 be cataleptic. 
 
 It teareth him. Such is the literal meaning of the evangelist's term (pfitraa). 
 
246 ST. MAEK IX. [18 
 
 and he foameth, and gnasheth witli his teeth, and pineth 
 away : and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him 
 cub; and they could not. 19 He answereth him, and saith. 
 
 It is a natural description, from a primitive standpoint, of the convulsions to 
 which epileptics are subjected. Something seems to be tearing, or tearing at, 
 them. In the margin of King James's version the term is rendered dasheth 
 him, the Eheims translation. Purvey"s corresponds, hurtlith hym down. They 
 both reproduce the Vulgate version (allidit ilium), which corresponds with the 
 Peshito Syriac. Buthymius Zigabenus gives the same interpretation to the 
 term. Hesychius too gives it, in his lexicon, as one of his interpretations of the 
 term. Fritzsohe approves. With some reason ; and yet the evangelist's term is 
 more generic, and exhibits as it were a more primitive attempt to represent the 
 worry to which the poor sufferer is subjected. 
 
 And he foameth. Principal Campbell, having rendered the preceding clause 
 dasheth him on the ground, freely renders this, where lie continueth foaming ; 
 and no doubt the evangelist intends to describe the progress of the symptoms 
 consequent upon seizure. 
 
 And gnashes with Ms te.eth. More literally and simply, and gnaslieth his teeth, 
 or grindeth his teeth. The word gnash is onomatopoetio, and is painfully ex- 
 pressive, as is also Luther's word knirsehet, and the corresponding word in all 
 the Dutch versions, knarst, as also the Gothic word in the version of XJIfilas, 
 kriustith. 
 
 And pineth away. Literally, and is becoming dried up, like a withering thing. 
 The word is rendered wither away in Matt. xiii. 6, xxi. 19, 29 ; Mark iv. 6, xi. 21. 
 It graphically represents that wasting condition of the body, which results in a 
 haggard appearance. Celsus mentions that while the morbus comitialis, or 
 epilepsy, is commonly not ' perilous to life,' it nevertheless sometimes ' consumes, 
 the man.' {De Medicina, iii. 23.) Buthymius Zigabenus misunderstood the, 
 reference of the evangelist's expression. He supposed that it describes the in- 
 sensiUlity that is the concomitant of the attacks in detail. Principal Campbell 
 has a corresponding idea, ' where he continueth foaming, and grinding his teeth, 
 till his strength is exhausted.' Heinsius and le Cene blundered remarkably 
 over the phrase. They thought that it had reference to the demon, and denoted 
 the termination of the attack. They would translate it, and departeth. 
 
 And I spoke to Thy disciples, in order that they might cast it out, and they were 
 not able. They had actually tried, but had faUed. 
 
 Vek. 19. But He answered him, and saith. Instead of him, it is them in the 
 oldest and most important manuscripts, such as X ABDL All, 1, 33. Gries- 
 bach, consequently, and also Laohmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, have replaced 
 them in the text. Mill, in his day, approved [Prol., § 1493). And no doubt, as 
 being by far the more diflacult reading, it must be the autographic. Our Saviour 
 did not direct His remarks, in the first place, to the father of the afflicted lad. 
 He spoke to the crowd in general, as embracing all the different parties ; and, 
 as He spoke, He realized that they were but representatives of a far larger 
 crowd. His spirit spread itself out over the population in general. See tho 
 following words. The expression however is not, He answered and saith to 
 
20] ST. MARK IX. 247 
 
 faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how 
 long shall I suffer you ? bring him unto me. 20 And they 
 brought him unto him : and when he saw him, straight- 
 
 tliem ; it is He anstcered them and saith. In the Eeoeived Text, and indeed in 
 all Stephens's editions, there is a comma before the clausule and saith. Tho 
 Saviour thus is represented as turning Himself responsively to the crowd in 
 general, and tlie population in general, and then saying what follows. He looks, 
 as it were, at the prevailing state of mind, as if it had been .vocally expressed to 
 Himself. It had in it a relation of challenge or defiance, which was as real as 
 actual speech. 
 
 faithless generation. Or rather, according to our modern idiom, un- 
 helieving generation ! Such is the translation of the Vulgate, Ulfilas, Erasmus, 
 Luther, Calvin, Beza, le Clere, Bengel, Newcome, Principal Campbell, Sharpe, 
 Lange, EiUiet. It is not unlikely however that the word faithless was used by 
 our translators in its primary import, destitute of faith, that is, unbelieving. 
 The original term was generally translated by them unbelieving, or no* believing. 
 See 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13, 14, 15, x. 27, xiv. 22, 23, 24; 2 Cor. vi. 14, 15 ; 1 Tim. v. 
 8 ; Bev. xxi. 8. Note too the contrast in John xx. 27, ' Be not faithless, but 
 believing.' The cognate noun moreover is always translated unbelief. (Matt. 
 xiii. 58 ; 1 Tim. i. 13 ; Heb. iii. 12 ; etc.) In the passage before us the Geneva 
 has faithless ; and so has Cromwell's Bible. But Tyndale and the original 
 Geneva (of 1557) have ' generation without faith,' which corresponds to 
 "Wycliffe's out of bileve, that is, out of belief, or without belief. The Saviour 
 lamented the unbelief of the generation, their unbelief in relation to Himself, 
 their unbelief in relation to His Father. 
 
 How long shall I be with you? I have come to you {rpos), how long shall I 
 require to remain in the relationship thus established, ere the end of My mission 
 be realized? How long shall I require to be with you, ere you get to know Me 
 and the Pather ? How long ? literally, until when ? At what point of time 
 will there be a prospect of My mission being understood ? 
 
 How long shall I bear with you ? If the force of the verb were very literally 
 given, the interrogation might be expressed thus, Hoio long sliall I ' Iwld Myself 
 up ' in relation to you ? That is. How long sliall I tolerate you ? The Saviour 
 speaks as from a Divine standpoint, and reaUzes that there are limits to Divine 
 forbearance. 
 
 Bring him unto Me. How full and unwavering His consciousness of Divine 
 power! The verb bring is in the plural (fpepere), so that the father, while 
 specially referred to (Luke ix. 41), is not exclusively addressed. 
 
 Vek. 20. And they brought him to Him. They, the excited people, would 
 eagerly take part with the father. 
 
 And when he saw Him. ' It is possible,' says Bleek, to regard the subject 
 of the seeing as the demon, and not the demoniac. It may be ' possible,' but 
 it is extremely improbable ; for (1) the last clause of the verse, running in a 
 corresponding groove, must refer to tho demoniac ; and (2) the gender of the 
 participle which is rendered when ' he ' saw (ic5wc) is at variance with the sup- 
 position. 
 
248 ST. MARK IX. [20 
 
 way the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and 
 wallowed foaming. 21 And he asked his father. How long 
 is it ago since this came unto him? And he said. Of a child. 
 22 And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into 
 the waters, to destroy him : but if thou canst do any thing. 
 
 Straightway the spirit tare him. Or, convulsed him, or, better still, tJie spirit 
 immediately threw him into convulsions. Sucli is the appropriate rendering of 
 Mace, Worsley, and Principal Campbell. (Compare Plutarch's expression, 
 Kpavyd.! CTapayimruiSeis, convulsive screams, or ^paroxysms of screaming : Op. 
 vol. ii. p. 130, C.) 
 
 And he fell on the grotmd, and wallowed foaming. Wallowed or rolled (him- 
 self). The word wallowed (connected with the Latin volvo) just meant rolled. 
 The expression in Matt, xxvii. 60, that is rendered in our version and he 
 ' rolled ' a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, is rendered by Wychffe thus, 
 and he ' walowid to ' a grete stoon at the dore of the hiriel. See also Mark 
 XV. 46. 
 
 Veb. 21. And He asked his father, How long ago is it since this happened 
 to him ? ' This' that is, this affliction. ' Since this,' or more literally, ' when 
 this ' ; exceedingly literally, ' as this.' Compare the German als. As to the 
 final end of the Saviour's asking, we certainly do not need to seek it in our 
 Saviour himself. (See John vi 6.) 
 
 And he said, From a child. That is, from childhood, or rather, as Eichard 
 Watson remarks, from boylwod. . In the oldest and best supported reading of 
 the original phrase there is a pleonasm {ix ircuSiiSev), somewhat corresponding 
 to our English pleonastic phrase from tlience. 
 
 Vek. 22. The father of the lad continues. And ofttimes it hath cast him. 
 Tyndale has casteth him ; literally, (it) threw hiiri. The father thinks of par- 
 ticular instances. 
 
 Into (the) fire. There was no article ia the text that was lying before our 
 translators, and there is none in the best manuscripts and critical editions. It 
 is found however in the Alexandrine manuscript ; and Bengel and Fritzsche 
 have introduced it into their texts. Into fire : not simply into ' tlie fire ' at 
 home ; but, indeterminately, into fire, when he happened to be near it, and, it 
 might be, in various places. In the original the expression is both into fire, the 
 mind being thus prepared for a reference to some other dangerous element. 
 
 And into (the) waters. The article here too is wanting, even in the Alex- 
 andrine manuscript, and in Bengel. It is foisted in however by Fritzsche; 
 wilfully. The lad had been precipitated at various times, and in various places, 
 into waters, or into water, as Wyoliffe renders it. Tyndale and Coverdale also 
 use the singular number. There is something both singular and plural in 
 water ; the many drops or droplets run together into unity. In Hebrew the 
 word for water is plural only. 
 
 In order to destroy him. The father recognised demonic malice in the 
 seizures. 
 
 But if Thou canst do anything. The afflicted parent was not sure whether 
 euoh an aggravated case was within the reach or scope of the great Healer's 
 
23] ST. MARK IX. 249 
 
 have compassion on uSj and help us. 23 Jesus said unto him, If 
 
 power. He did not question indeed that Jesus was a, wonderful Healer. But 
 there was, he seems to have thought, a peculiarity in his eon's particular case, 
 that made it doubtful whether even so wonderful a Healer could do anything 
 that would be adequate to removeor even to alleviate the affliction. In short 
 he did not understand Jesus as the Son of God and the Saviour of men, their 
 Saviour both inwardly and outwardly. 
 
 Have compassion on us, and help us. The ' us ' is touching. The father, with 
 beautiful benevolence of love, identifies himself instinctively with his son. He 
 felt that whatever was done to his son was done to himself. 
 
 Vek. 23. An exceedingly important verse, but to. many minds beset with 
 difficulties, both critical and doctrinal. 
 
 But Jesus said to Mm, If thou canst believe. This word believe, though appar- 
 ently so indispensable, is wanting in both the Sinaitie and Vatican manuscripts 
 (X B), and in the Parisian Ephraemi (C*) ; as also in L A and 1. It is wanting 
 likewise in the Coptic, Armenian, and .Slthiopio versions, and in k* of the Old 
 Latin version. Griesbach thought that it was ' probably' spurious ; and Tischen- 
 dorf and Tregelles have actuaDy omitted it from their texts. Neander approved 
 of the omission [Life of Christ, § 187) ; and so do Ewald and Meyer, and the Eng- 
 lish Eevisers. No doubt rightly. For although, at first sight, when the word is 
 left out the Saviour's answer seems cut short of significance at its very com- 
 mencement, yet, when we, look deeper, we see that there is a fine subtle signifi- 
 cance that is blurred out of sight by the presence of the word. In the original 
 the neuter definite article (t6) stands before the expression, so that very literally 
 the Saviour's reply runs thus, The If thou canst {believe), all things are possible 
 to him wlu) believeth. The presence of this article changes the whole aspect of 
 the case ; for if the word believe be retained, the article is a stumbling block. It 
 puzzled the writer of Beza's old manuscript (D), who hence left it out altogether. 
 It puzzled Beza too, so that he actually turned the sentence right round. If thou 
 canst believe ' this ' (viz. that I can help thee). Krebs again regarded it as form- 
 ing no part at all of our Saviour's reply, but as standing before it, fingerpost- 
 wise, after the manner of its use in Luke i. 62, ix. 46, xxii. 2, 4, 23, 24, 37 ; Acts 
 xxii. 80 ; 1 Cor. iv. 6. Losner and Kuinbl agree with Krebs. Their interpret- 
 ation would be so far legitimate, if we could conceive any reason that might 
 have led the evangelist to give a special emphasis to this reply of our Saviour, 
 as distinguished from the many other replies that were made by Him on other 
 occasions. Eritzsche imagined that the text must be corrupted ; Laehmann 
 (Preface to vol. ii., p. 7) was of the same mind, and proposed a modification 
 of reading (TriOTiSffai), maliC certain the (uncertain) 'If thou canst.' Burton, 
 accepting the text and the Received reading, would remodel its import by a 
 peculiar punctuation and accentuation. Believe what you have expressed token 
 you said If Tlwu canst (T6, Ei Sivaaai., irfcrrfutrai). Sir Norton Knatchbull and 
 Grashof had the same idea regarding believe (that it was an imperative in the 
 middle voice) ; but they took a simpler view of the remainder of the expression. 
 The verb however in its New Testament usage never occurs in the middle voice. 
 D. Hoinsius proposed as an emendation of the text that, instead of the article 
 
250 ST. MARK IX. [23 
 
 tliou canst believe^ all things are possible to him that believeth. 
 
 the (Tj), we should read tlie interrogative What ? (Tl ;) But there would be no 
 end to conjecture, if conjecture were to be the order of the day. All real 
 difficulty vanishes when we accept the reading of the oldest manuscripts, and 
 omit the word lelieve. Then the Saviour's answer fastens upon the unbelieving 
 expression which the man had employed, ' but if Thou canst do anything.' 
 Taking hold of that expression, the Saviour draws the man's attention to it, and 
 thence starts immediately in the direction of the ability that was really indis- 
 pensable. It is as if He had said, " The phrase If Thou canst is a phrase which 
 " should not have been used by thee in relation to Me. It is in truth applicable 
 " only to thyself ; for all things are possible to Mm who ielieveth." The Saviour 
 refrained from spreading out His rebuke. He only suggested it, by holding up to 
 view the man's own phrase, and then abruptly turning from it to the condition 
 on which, in all ordinary cases. His special favours were suspended. There is 
 therefore a kind of break-off, or aposiopesis, at the conclusion of the articulated 
 expression, ' If Tliou canst ! All things are possible to him that believeth.' 
 Tischendorf employs an interrogation point, ' If Thou canst ? ' It is as if he 
 would interpret thus, ' Did you really say so ? ' Ewald also brings out the- idea 
 interrogatively, ' What ? If Thou canst 1 ' The recent Dutch translators (1868) 
 give the same interrogative rendering, only omitting the preliminary What ? 
 Griesbach disliked the interrogative form, but explains, in substantial accord, as 
 follows : " Thou saidst, If Thau canst. With the highest possible right do I 
 "throw back to thee that expression ; for there is nothing that is impossible to 
 " him who finds it possible to believe." (fiomm. Crit., in loo.) Wetstein had 
 substantially the same idea, though he did not see clearly how to work it out. 
 
 All things are possible to him who believeth. The expression does not mean, 
 in this connection. It is possible for the believer to 'do' all things, but It is 
 possible for the believer to ' get ' all things. Omnipotence is, in a sense, at his 
 disposal. But the universality of things contemplated by our Lord was not, as 
 the nature of the case makes evident, the most absolute conceivable. We must 
 descend in thought to the limited universality of things that would be of benefit 
 to the believer. We must indeed descend still farther. We must consider the 
 benefit of the believer not absolutely, or unconditionally, but relatively to his 
 circumstances, and thus relatively to the circumstances of the other beings 
 with whom he is connected. With these limitations, inherent in the nature of 
 the case, ' all things ' are possible for him that believeth. But why, it has often 
 been asked, for only him that believeth ? Why insist on faith from the afflicted 
 father, and from others in corresponding circumstances? Why not dispense 
 favours of health, with indiscriminative generosity, on believing and unbelieving 
 alike ? It was because faith in the fact of Christ's Divine power or authority, or, at 
 all events, in the propitiousness which is involved in tlmt fact, is, in the nature of 
 things, absolutely necessary to the^ enjoyment of the highest ' spiritual ' blessings. 
 Being, in the nature of things, thus necessary in that high spiritual sphere, it 
 was vrise that our Lord should, by a positive enactment or determination, maka 
 it, in all ordinary oases, a prerequisite for obtaining His peculiar favours in all 
 inferior spheres. He thus, in the material department of His work, held up tho 
 mirror to the spiritual ; and flashed light on the inner by the reflective power of 
 
24] ST. MARK IX. 251 
 
 24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and 
 said with tears. Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. 
 
 the outer. He made His visible life a parable of high invisible realities ; it 
 ■was the perfection of symbolism. 
 
 Vee. 24. And straightway the father of the child. Note the expression the 
 cliild. It is a diminutive in the original, so that we may conclude that the 
 sufferer was bxtt a ' lad.' The first Geneva and the Eheims render the word 
 loij. 
 
 Cried out. He was profoundly agitated, and hence spoke in a loud and earnest 
 way, with vehemence of intonation. 
 
 And said with tears. It would appear that the expression with tears has crept 
 into the text from the margin. It is wanting in the three most important 
 manuscripts, the Sinaitio, Alexandrine, and Vatican (K A* B), as well as C* L A ; 
 and in the Coptic, Armenian, and ^thiopio versions. It is left out of the text 
 by Lachmaun, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and is not needed. Meyer and Ewald 
 approve of its omission. 
 
 Lord. This too has been carried in from the margin. It is wanting in all the 
 best manuscripts, inclusive of A B C D, as well as in the Syriac versions, and 
 the Gothic, Coptic (Scliwartze's ed.), and Armenian (Zohrab's ed.). Even Gries- 
 baoh and Scholz omit it. 
 
 I believe. The poor man, loohing eagerly and excitedly from the standpoint 
 of his great trial, caught a glimpse of the Divine glory that was radiating from 
 the personality of Jesus. Yes, I believe ! He exclaimed his faith. 
 
 Help (or succour) mine unbelief. ' A prayer,' says Martin Bucer, ' most need- 
 ful {pernecessana) for us all.' Yet it is u rather peculiar expression. Does it 
 mean. Help vie against my unbelief 7 So Dr. Adam Clarke explains it, ' assist 
 me against it.' Eyle too, who says, 'What shaU we do with our unbelief ? We 
 must resist it, and pray against it.' Doddridge gives the same explanation ; 
 and Eodolphus Dickinstto introduces it into Ms translation, ' Fortify me against 
 unbelief.' But this can scarcely be the exact idea. It seems to be one thing to 
 help unbelief, and another to help ' against' it. Wesley looked at the expression 
 from quite a different standpoint. He explained it thus, ' Although my faith be 
 so small that it might rather be termed unbelief, yet help me. ' He thus did not 
 regard the suppliant as supplicating for increase of faith. This explanation 
 was the alternative interpretation of Bengel. It was also Grotius's idea, who 
 thinks that " it is scarcely credible that the man could have expected from 
 " Jestis, and in particular suddenly, an augmentation of faith." Principal 
 Campbell agrees with Grotius, and follows Mace in his version. Meyer too, in 
 all his editions, adheres to the same interpretation. Deny me not Thy help, not- 
 withstanding my unbelief. So Bleek, and also Webster and Wilkinson. But 
 this view of the expression, notwithstanding the eminence of its supporters, 
 seems far-fetched and strained. It is more likely that the man while exclaim- 
 ing ' I believe ! ' realized, as he spoke, that his belief was but struggling, as it 
 were, into existence. It was merely a rudimentary thing, scarce worthy of the 
 name of belief. It was not defiant infidelity indeed : far from that. It was 
 not deliberate and self-complaisant antagonism to faith : far from that. But 
 
252 ST. MARK IX. [25 
 
 25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he 
 rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf 
 
 still there was more of wliat was negative in it than of what was positive. 
 Whfle, when looked at on one side, it might be called belief, yet, when looked at 
 on another, it was rather unbelief, though unbelief in the throes of transform- 
 ation into belief. Hence many interpreters, such as de Lyra, Dionysius a 
 Eyckel, Fetter, Trapp, Kuinbl, Holden, Bland, Grashof, Alexander, Burger, 
 explain the word as the man's own depreciatory expression for his tceak or 
 imperfect faith. The man was probably in the very act and agony of a vital 
 change ; and hence, at the moment that he caught a glimpse of the Divine 
 power of Jesus to succour the disordered body, he also caught a glimpse of His 
 equal power to succour the disordered soul. He therefore prays Him on his 
 own behalf. But Wynne surely misunderstood the prayer when, on a prin- 
 ciple of cool reflectiveness, he interpreted it. thus : ' Remove my doubts by 
 performing the cure, which will strengthen my wavering faith.' Yet le Clere 
 gives the same interpretation. Calvin seems to look upon the faith and unbelief 
 here mentioned as the two permanent foci in the ellipse of all Christian experi- 
 ence, and hence he extends the application of both parts of the expression to 
 all Christians. He says, ' As their faith is never perfect, it follows that they 
 are partly unbelieving.' ' This,' says Eichard Baxter, ' is alas the case of most 
 Christians.' Note the ' alas,' for Alexander goes too far when he says, ' the 
 reply itself is one of the most beautiful on record, even in the Gospels.' See 
 next verse. 
 
 Vee. 25. But (5i). Tyndale and our translators did wrong in omitting this 
 conjunction. It is rendered now by Coverdale and Luther. Wycliffe and the 
 Eheims, following the Vulgate, render it and. Bengel has aber, that is hut. 
 
 When Jesns saw that the crowd came running together. Or more literally, 
 comes running together. The object seen is, as it were, directly represented. 
 when Jesus saio (this to wit) the a-oiod comes running togetlier. The verb ren- 
 dered comes running together (iTi.<TWTp^u) is freely thus rendered, though 
 Liddell and Scott give, in their lexicon, the same import, ' to run togetlier to (a 
 place).' So too Eobinson in his lexicon; also Erasmus, Grotius, Beza. The 
 verb is unknown in classical Greek ; but one shoflld suppose, on the principle 
 of analogy, that the first preposition would denote addition (see Fritzsohe), But 
 when Jesus saw the crotvd running together more and more, viz. in the direction 
 of Himself. Bretsohneider, in the first and second editions of his lexicon, 
 explained the word as LiddeU and Scott have done. In his third and last 
 edition he combined, unwarrantably, the two forces of the preposition. 
 Schleusner overlooked the force of the preposition altogether. And so did 
 Wahl, in the first and second editions of his lexicon, but he explained it correctly 
 in liis third. 
 
 He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, Thon dumb and deaf spirit, I charge 
 thee. Or, as Wycliffe and the Eheims give it, I comaund tliee. The spirit is 
 called dumb and deaf, because dumbness and deafness were two of the charac- 
 teristic results of its occupancy. ' The demon,' says Delitzsch, ' stood related 
 to the dumbness and deafness as cause to the effect.' {Bib. Fsychologie, § 16, 
 p. 20S.) 
 
29] ST. MARK IX. 253 
 
 spirifcj I charge theej come out of binij and enter no more into 
 him. 26 And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came 
 out of him : and he was as one dead ; insomuch that many- 
 said. He is dead. 27 But Jesus took him by the hand, and 
 lifted him up j and he arose. 
 
 23 And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked 
 him privately. Why could not we cast him out ? 29 And he 
 
 Come out of him, and enter no more into him. It was thus not merely deliver- 
 ance from the present epileptic seizure which the Saviour granted. It was 
 deliverance from liahility for the future to aU similar attacks and the other 
 calamities involved in ' possession.' It will be noted that it is not said that the 
 Saviour wrought the miracle here recorded, because of His high approbation of 
 the state of mind that was manifested by the afflicted father. Comp. Matt. viii. 
 10-13 ; Mark vii. 29. Exorbitant ideas of the excellency of that state of mind 
 have been entertained by Alexander and others, as if it were the beau ideal of 
 true spiritual self consciousness and humility. But it is another motive-cause 
 of action that is brought into view by the evangelist. It was when the Saviour 
 sail} the multitude gathering rapidly, in yet denser croiods, that He cut short His 
 interview with the agitated man and delivered his son. 
 
 Veb. 26. And after it cried, and severely convulsed him, it came out, and he 
 became as dead, so that the more part say, He is dead. It is Alford's rendering, 
 and EiUiet's (la jylwpart). It is not needful however to suppose that there was 
 much of a formally comparative estimate of the numbers of two distinct 
 parties. 
 
 Vee. 27. But Jesus took Mm by the hand. Or, according to the reading of the 
 Sinaitic, Vatican, and Cambridge manuscripts (NBD), a reading received into 
 the text by Laohmann, TregeUes, and Tisohendorf, But Jesus took hold of his 
 hand. 
 
 And raised him up. Awaking him to consciousness. He infused into his 
 frame a divinely reviving and healing energy. 
 
 And he arose. Namely, to his feet, ' perfectly whole and sound ' (Fetter)* 
 
 Vee. 28. And after He entered into (the) house. There is no article before 
 the word Iwiise in the texts that were lying before King James's translators ; 
 and it is wanting in almost all the best manuscripts, and in all the critical 
 editions. Still the meaning is not exactly into a house, the rendering of 
 WycHffe, Wakefield, Norton, Godwin. The idea is, after He was housed, after 
 He Imd retired from the outside crowd. And no doubt the Saviour would be 
 domicUed just in ' the ' house where He had been lodging for the time being. 
 Comp. chap. ii. 1, iii. 19, vii. 17. 
 
 His disciples asked Him privately. After they had got to be with their Lord, 
 by themselves. 
 
 Why (o n or 8, rC) were we unable to cast it out ? They had made the 
 attempt and had failed, though in other cases they had succeeded. See chap. 
 vi. 13. 
 
 Vee. 29. Jesus seizes the culminating point of what was reprehensibly 
 
254 ST. MARK IX. [29 
 
 said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by 
 prayer and fasting. 
 
 30 And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee ; 
 and he would not that any man should know it. 31 For 
 
 deficient in tlie disciples. Comp. Matt. xvii. 20, 21. And He said to them, 
 This kind. Not this kind of faith, as le Cene strangely supposes ; nor this kind 
 of unielief, as Sieffert as strangely supposes {Ursprung, pp. 100, 101) ; nor this 
 kind of beings (namely the whole tribe of demons), as Fritzsohe, Bleek, and 
 Alexander suppose; but This kind of demons, this kind of peculiarly detei-mined 
 and malicious demons. For, among evil spirits, as among evil men, there are 
 varying degrees of energy, determination, and malice. They are not all cut 
 and clipped after one precise model. 
 
 Cannot come forth. Or 'go out, as it is rendered in Wycliffe, Coverdale, and 
 the Bheims. It ' canmit ' go out, that is, it cannot be compelled to go out. 
 
 By anything except by prayer and fasting. Not pathologically on the part of 
 the demoniac, as Paulus fancied, but propaedeutioally on the part of the exor- 
 cist. It is not meant, however, that faith might be omitted (Matt. xvii. 20). 
 Neither is it meant that faith must be merged in prayer and fasting. It is 
 meant that faith must be in maximum degree, and that consequently those 
 spiritual exercises which condition its highest attainable exaltation must be 
 realized. There must be prayer, the uplifting of desire till it settle in the 
 will of God. There must be fasting, the denying of all in the periphery of 
 self that would hinder the uprising of the desire to God, or its absolute repose 
 in His wiU. When the desire reaches the will of God, and entering into it 
 settles itself there, it has laid hold of Omnipotence. No wonder therefore that 
 ' all things are possible ' to the faith that goes along with it. No wonder that 
 ' mountains ' are 'removable.' No wonder that the promise is ilhmitable, ' Ye 
 shall ask wliat ye will, and it shall be done unto you.' (John xv. 7 ; comp. Mark 
 xi. 23, 24.) It is into the will of God that the desire has risen ; hence subjective 
 caprice is excluded. And thus, if not always in the physical sphere, yet always 
 in the moral sphere, demons the most inveterate are oast out, mountains the most 
 frowning are swept aside, and miracles the most marvellous are achieved. It is 
 remarkable that in the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts (N B) the words and 
 fasting are wanting, and Tischendorf has left them out. Meyer condemns them, 
 as do our Enghsh Revisers. The authorization, however, is not sufficient. But 
 even if it were overwhelming, fasting would, in its essence, be implied. 
 
 Vee. 30-32 form a little appendix to the preceding paragraph. Comp. Matt, 
 xvii. 22, 23 ; Luke ix. 43-45. 
 
 Vee. 30. And they departed thence. From the neighbourhood of the mount 
 of transfiguration, the district of Csesarea PhUippi. See chap. viii. 27. 
 
 And passed through Galilee. Literally, and passed along through Galilee. 
 They did not tarry much at any particular place. Tyndale's translation is, and 
 take their iorney thoroio Galile. 
 
 And He did not wish that any one should know. He wished to be really, and 
 not merely technically, incognito. For the reason seo next verse. The expres- 
 sion in the original brings aim into view (Ifvo tIs yvol). Our Lord had no wish 
 
32] ST. MARK IX. 255 
 
 he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man 
 is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him ; and 
 after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. 32 But 
 they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him. 
 
 that involved within it as an aim that He should he known. In other circum- 
 stances He might -wish and aim, and no doubt often did wish and aim, to be 
 known ; but not now. 
 
 Veb. 31. For He taught His disciples. The verb is in the imperfect. He was 
 teaching His disciples. And as it was on this teaching that His heart was set, 
 He sought seclusion. In teaching His disciples He was teaching the teachers of 
 the world. 
 
 And said to them, The Son of Man is delivered into the hands of men. Of men, 
 mark. He refers to the chief priests and elders and scribes (see chap. viii. 31), 
 but He chooses here to merge the specific representation in the generic, ' of 
 Tnen.' There is a gleam of antithesis in the generalization. Our Lord realized 
 His own essential superiority to Tiien. Note the present tense, is delivered. He 
 has gone forward in thought into the approaching future, and is present there. 
 He sees it aU as vividly as if it were actually present. Delivered, viz. by His 
 own traitorous disciple. To deliver indeed properly means to free from, and 
 thus to set at liberty ; a Aeliverei is one who gives liberty. But when a captor 
 gives liberty to his captives, and hands them over t(> the people with whom he 
 had been at variance, he puts them, in freeing them, wider the control of others ; 
 hence the secondary meaning of the word deliver, to give up to tlie control of 
 another. It was in this sense only that Jesus was delivered by Judas. 
 
 And they shall kill Him. Instead of welcoming Him as the Son of God, they 
 will murder Him. The verb used {ciTroKTevoSffw) is of intense import, to Mil off. 
 
 And after that He is killed. He shall rise. Literally, He shall rise up, that is, 
 He shall rise up from the prostrate condition of death. In substance therefore 
 the idea is. He shall rise again, and so the word is rendered by Wycliffe, Tyndale, 
 Coverdale, the Geneva, and the Eheims, as also by the great majority of the 
 modem translators. 
 
 The third day. In the most ancient manuscripts, and the most modern 
 critical editions, the expression is, after three days. It has the same meaning 
 as the expression in, the Received Text. See chap. viii. 31. As the expression 
 in the Eeceived Text is the form of the phrase in Matt. xvii. 23, it seems to 
 have commended itself to some 'early transcriber as the more precise or per- 
 spicuous way of putting the idea. 
 
 Veb. 32. But they understood not that saying. It is simply the saying in the 
 original. Erasmus translates the phrase freely, what He Jiad said. Principal 
 Campbell's version is also admirable, though free, wliat He meant. In accepting it 
 we might then revert to a still more literal rendering of the verb, ' but they knew 
 not what He meant.' To us, looking backward, the meaning of the prediction 
 is as clear as sunlight ; but when the disciples looked forward, from their stand, 
 point of rabbinical anticipation, no utterance could appear more enigmatical. 
 
 And were afraid to ask Him. To inquire of Him, to question Him. They 
 
256 ST. MAEK IX. [33 
 
 33 And lie carae to Oapernaum : and being in tlie house lie 
 asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves 
 by the way ? 34 But they held their peace : for by th^ way 
 
 were ' afraid.' Mace far too freely renders it ashamed ; Principal Camptell, 
 influenced by Mace, uses a still more oliiectionaWe word, shy. It was not a case 
 of mere shyness, or even sJuime. They saw clearly that some dark cloud was 
 Ipwering. The Master's mind was profoundly affected. Billows of ' a sea of 
 troubles ' were dashing in upon Him. Their hearts were like to fail them for 
 fear, and they dreaded to look with inquisitiveness into what was impending. 
 They remembered too the strong words that had been uttered to Peter, when 
 he ventiired to remonstrate: see chap. viii. 33. Thus they feared to make 
 inquiry. 
 
 Ver. 33-37 form a paragraph corresponding to Matt, xviii. 1-5, and Luke 
 ix. 46-48. It is peculiarly interesting as containing evidence of the historical 
 impartiality of the disciples. They did not suppress from their memorabilia of 
 the Saviour what reflected discreet on themselves, if it served to reflect their 
 Master's excellence or glory. 
 
 Tee. 33. And He came to Capernaum. Or, as it runs in the Sinaitio, Vatican, 
 and Cambridge manuscripts (SBD),o7id 'they ' came to Kapliarnaum ; the Lord, 
 to wit, and His disciples. Mill approved of the plural reading, and it has been 
 introduced into the text by Lachmann, Tisohendorf,' TregeUes. The little 
 company, in passing southward from the region about Csesarea Philippi, at 
 length arrived at Capernaum, our Lord's headquarters in Galilee. See chap. 
 i. 21. 
 
 And being in the house. Or rather, as it stands in Lord Cromwell's Bible 
 (1539), and when He was come into the liouse (Iv rri olda yevbuevos). Tyndale's 
 version is and wlien He was come to housse ; but the phrase to home, though 
 idiomatic in German, has not grown into an English idiom. Coverdale's 
 translation is more idiomatic, but stiU not quite satisfactory, and whan He was 
 at home. The expression informs us that our Lord deferred questioning His 
 disciples until He was once more domiciled in the house where He was accus- 
 tomed to reside when He was living in Capernaum. 
 
 He inquired of them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way ? 
 Or, What were you discussing in tlw way, or on the road ? The expression among 
 yourselves is omitted in the manuscripts X B D L, and in the Vulgate and 
 Coptic versions, and in a great majority of the Old Latin codices. It is left out 
 by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. Our Saviour did not make the 
 inquiry in order to get information. (See ver. 34-36.) He made it in order to 
 prepare their minds for certain ideas which Ho wished to communicate. 
 
 Veb. 34. But they held their peace. Or, as Coverdalo has it, they held tlieir 
 tunges. Mace and CampbeU with exact literality render it, Tliey were silent. 
 Shame sealed their lips. 
 
 For they discussed with one another by the way. In the original, the expression 
 with one another occupies a position of emphasis, by standing at the commence- 
 ment of the clause, for vnth one another they discussed on the road. They had 
 
35] ST. MARK IS. 257 
 
 they had disputed among themselves, who should he the 
 greatest. 35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and 
 saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall 
 
 allowed a question, ■wMoh should have been kept for ever far away from the 
 hallowed enclosure of their fellowship, to get within their little circle. 
 
 Who (shovdd be) the greatest. Literally, Wlio (should he) greater, viz. than the 
 rest ; who should occupy the chief position under the King, the position of 
 prime ininister as it were, in the kingdom that was about to be inaugurated. 
 It is not likely that each of the disciples would put forward a claim to the 
 primacy ; there was a triumvirate that stood out conspicuously, and the rest of 
 the disciples would probably be divided for the time being into cliques of 
 partisans. We need not suppose indeed that the rivalry had been very strongly 
 ' pronounced ' ; but it existed, and the discussion to which it gave rise had been 
 unhappy. 
 
 Yeb. 35. And having seated Himself. The Saviour was going to deal with 
 the matter as a Teacher, solemnly. 
 
 He called the twelve. To come close to Him. See Matt. xx. 32 ; Luke xvi. 2, 
 xix. 15 ; Acts x. 7. They had probably been engaged with their individual 
 concerns ; or they might be clustering in groups, which somewhat represented 
 the cliques into which they had broken up. 
 
 And saith to them, If any one wishes to be first, he shall be last of all, and 
 servant of all. This whole clause is regarded as apocryphal by Volkmar ; and it 
 is wanting in Beza's celebrated manuscript (D), now in Cambridge ; it is how- 
 ever manifestly genuine. Instead of he shall be (?ffTot), the San Gallensis 
 manuscript (A) and a good many others of lesser note read let him be {la-ru) ; 
 and many interpreters, who accept the common reading, that of the Eeoeived 
 Text and also of the critical texts, interpret the expression after the mind of 
 the San GaUensis transcriber. Fetter, Wakefield, Worsley, Wesley, Eodolphus 
 Dickinson, translate the phrase let him be. Calvin gives the same translation 
 as an alternative rendering (qu'il soit). Heumauu and Newoome have lie must 
 be ; and so substantially, Luther, Meyer, Grashof, Lange, and expositors in 
 general. They regard the entire apophthegm as coincident in import with 
 chap. X. 43, 44, and Matt. xx. 26, 27. And so it is undoubtedly, in substrate of 
 idea at least. It would be quite possible indeed to understand the expression 
 as denoting the penal result of ambition. In the estimation of the Highest, 
 he who seeks to be first shall be the last and least. But, on the whole, it is 
 more likely that our Lord was designedly uttering, in a somewhat enigmatical 
 way, the great principle of promotion in the kingdom of heaven : If any one in 
 My kingdom wishes to be first {to be, says Cardinal Cajetan, not to appear to be, 
 not to be held to be, but to be), he shall not seek the pre-eminence in.the usual way ; 
 he shall seek it in the reverse way ; he shall go doivn, and be the last of all and 
 the servant of all; he shall ascend desoendingly, and thus descend ascendingly. 
 It is not necessary indeed that a man think untruths regarding himself, and 
 his mental endowments or other talents ; but it is necessary, if a man would be 
 a Christian, that he do not make himself his own end. He must not coil 
 himself on himself, and terminate himself in himself. He may ascend over 
 
 S 
 
258 ST. MARK IX. [35 
 
 be last of all, and servant of all. 36 A.nd ho took a child, and 
 set him in the midst of them : and when he had taken him in 
 his arms, he said unto them, 37 Whosoever shall receive one 
 of such children in my name, receiveth me : and whosoever 
 
 others, but not for himself. He may also descend below others ; he must ; but 
 not for himself. His selfhood must not take a eirouit, just to get back to itself ; 
 it must not go round about in order to reach itself by and by, enriched with the 
 results of a wide-spreading sweep. The great sociological law of the kingdom 
 of heaven is not this. Use tlaj self for thyself; still less is it this, TJse otliersfor 
 thyself; but it is this, Use thyself for others. 
 
 Veb. 36. And He took a little cHld, and placed it- in the midst of them. Acting 
 a parable. The action seemed to say : Look there I In that child you have a 
 charming picture of an unambitious spirit. I wish you not to he ' childish ' ; but 1 
 wish you to be ' childlike,' so far as ambition is concerned. Why should any one seek 
 to be uppermost ! or to gain an advantage over all the rest ? It is surely nobler ta 
 give than to get. This child is not thinking of using us for the sake of itself. Its 
 whole soul is beaming forth with fulness of unselfish lave upon «s all ! 
 
 And after taking it up in His arms. This is a graphic touch which Mark alone 
 preserves. The Saviour felt impelled to lavish His love on the little one. He 
 ' embraced ' it, in the literal sense of the word, folding it within His arms. 
 (French embrasser, from bras the ' arm,' Lat. brachium.) The old corresponding 
 Saxon word, beclyppan, has for long dropped out of use, though Wycliffe 
 retained it in the passage before us, whom whanne He hadde byclippid. (To 
 clip, now, is to bring a thing within the arms of scissors or shears.) Luther's 
 word is fine, herzete ; He pressed the child to His heart. , 
 
 He said to them. No doubt among other remarks. See Matt, xviii. 3-5. 
 The evangelist goes rapidly on with his narrative, only touching, as he passes, 
 certain points and peaks of biographical events and remarks. 
 
 Veb. 37. Whosoever shall receive one of such little children. Or, If any one 
 should receive one of suchlittle children (Ss&i' . . . S^Jtjtoi). Of such little children 
 is the reading of Lachmann and Tregelles as well as of the Eeceived Text. 
 Tischendorf reads of tliese little children, under the authorization of the Sinaitio 
 manuscript (N) and C A, etc. It is an unimportant variation. Shall receive : 
 to his house or his heart ; an orphan child, for instance. But it is possible 
 to receive to the heart when it is impossible or unnecessary to receive to the 
 home ; and what is applicable to the literal child is just as applicable to the 
 intellectual or spiritual child. Comp. ver. 42 ; Luke xvii. 1, 2. 
 
 In My name. Literally, upon My name, that is, on the ground of My name, 
 influenced by regard to My name. We should lay emphasis on this expression. 
 The Saviour is thinking only of actions that are associated with His name. 
 Kindness, unlinked to His name, is not at present taken by Him into account. 
 But what if, nevertheless, it be implicitly connected? What if all that is 
 beautiful and good in man be but some reflected rays from the beauty and 
 goodness of the Ideal Man ? The Saviour however is here speaking of explicit 
 recognition ; hence His use of the word navie. His name indeed, apart from 
 Himself, would be but an empty sound, sign, or symbol, something not worth 
 
38] ST. MARK IX. 25S 
 
 shall i-eceive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. 
 
 38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one 
 
 casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us : 
 
 knowing. But Himself, apart from His name, would be The Unknown. We 
 cannot think of objects which are beyond our senses but by means of names. 
 
 Eeceiveth Me. The Saviour will take what is done to the child ' for His 
 name's sake ' as done to Himself. Comp. Matt. xxv. 40. 
 
 And whosoever receiveth (S^Tjrat X B L) He, receiveth not Me, but Him who 
 sent Me. Not Me as separated from the Father. The man's action does not 
 find its terminus in Christ ; it goes farther, and terminates on the Great Father : 
 BO that the will of him who receives Christ is in harmony with the Infinite 
 Will ; his heart beats in sympathy with the Infinite Heart. 
 
 Veb. 38-40 contain further particulars of the conversation that is referred 
 to in ver. 33-37. Comp. Luke ix. 49, 50. 
 
 Ver. 38. And John answered Him, saying. In the Sinaitio and Vatican 
 manuscripts, as also in A, and the Peshito Syriac version, and the Coptic, the 
 word answered is omitted. The expression simply runs thus, John said to Him. 
 Tisehendorf and Tregelles have introduced this reading into their texts. It is 
 more likely, however, that the Eeceived Text is genuine. It is the more 
 difScult of the two readings. Jesus had not asked any question which needed 
 to be answered ; but when He said Whosoever shall receive one of these little ones 
 in My name receiveth Me, John's mind got a gleam of light, and his conscience 
 smote him. And hence, in response to the idea expressed by his Lord, hp 
 ' took words ' and spoke. 
 
 Master. That is Babbi, literally Teacher. 
 
 We saw one casting out demons in Thy name, who followeth not us. One, or 
 a certain (individual). The expression, who followeth not us, omitted on insuf- 
 ficient evidence by the English Eevisers, implies, firstly, that the individual 
 referred to did not follow Jesus as one of His personal attendants and pupils 
 (Luke ix. 49) ; and, secondly, that he did not follow ' the twelve ' as one occu- 
 pying a subordinate position to theirs. There were individuals who followed 
 the twelve, pious women for example, and, most likely, others. The individual 
 here referred to, though probably not even of ' the seventy,' was no doubt one 
 who had listened at some time or other to Jesus, and had faith in Him as the 
 great Deliverer. Fetter arbitrarily says, " he was faulty, in not being so forward 
 "as he should have been in following Christ." Eichard Baxter too speaks of 
 him as ' faulty.' So does Matthew Henry: " I know of nothing that could hinder 
 " him from following them, unless he was loath to leave all to follow them ; and 
 " if so, that was an ill principle." But it was not to be expected that all who 
 listened to our Saviour's words, and believed on Him, should leave their re- 
 spective vocations and homes, and ' itinerate ' in the company of our Lord's 
 personal attendants. Our Lord wished, and had chosen, a limited number of 
 ' itinerant ' followers. The great majority of the rest. His inward followers, 
 would require to adorn the doctrine of godliness in their local spheres, and in 
 the management of their private and personal affairs. Some however would 
 have peculiar gifts, and would hence be called to peculiar spheres of service. 
 
260 ST. MARK IX. [38 
 
 and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 But 
 
 The individual here referred to had one of those gifts, he had power over evil 
 spirits, and could exorcise them. We know that there were such individuals in 
 our Saviour's time, even among those who had never had any external con- 
 nection -frith Him. See Matt. xii. 27. We know also that there were many 
 in later times, as there had been before, who professed to be possessed of 
 ■ ezorcistic power. Justin Martyr says, in his Apology to the Roman Senate : 
 " Many of our people, the Christians, by using adjuration in the name of Jesus 
 "Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, have cured, and are still 
 " curing, in Eome and throughout the world, multitudes of demoniacs, whose 
 " cases had utterly baffled all other exorcists." (Chap. 6.) In his Dialogue 
 with Trypho the Jew (chap. 85) he affirms that while exorcism, as practised 
 by the Jews, failed, when the adjuration was " by kings (such as Solomon), or 
 " saints, or prophets, or patriarchs," and often failed when the adjuration was 
 simply " by the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," it was 
 emphatically successful when administered " by the name of the Son of God, 
 " who was born of a virgin and crucified under Pontius Pilate." Then, says he, 
 " every demon is overcome and subdued." There would however, we may be 
 sure, be many mountebank pretenders to exoroistic power. See Acts xix. 13, 14. 
 And some perhaps, on the other hand, would have real power, who knew nothing 
 outwardly of Jesus. Josephus witnessed the marvellous feats of a professed 
 exorcist, called Bleazar, who performed in the presence of the emperor Vespasian. 
 See Antiq. viii. 3:5. It is not incredible that, in certain pecuUar idiosyncrasies 
 and circumstances, incarnated spirits should have power to a certain extent 
 over unincarnated spirits. It is but the reverse of the obverse fact, so often 
 referred to in the New Testament, that unincarnated spirits have power, to a 
 certain extent and in certain idiosyncrasies and circumstances, over spirits that 
 are incarnated. The generic phenomenon is, that spirit has power over spirit 
 in many subtle ways, not yet explained by science. 
 
 And we forbad Mm. We prohibited him. Very literally, we hindered him, 
 viz. so far as blaming him, and insisting on his abandoimient of the exercise 
 of his gift, were concerned. Comp. Num. xi. 28. 
 
 Because he followeth not us. Tisohendorf, under the saaction of the manu- 
 scripts i< B A, reads because lie was not following us (T/KoXoiSet), an unimportant 
 variation. Mill rejected the clause altogether (Prol., § 407), and Fritzsche 
 outs it off because of the ' intolerable loquacity ' which it ascribes to John. It 
 is no doubt genuine however. Note the ' us.' Although no exegetical emphasis 
 is lying on it, yet it is well to read it with some doctrinal intonation. It is the 
 point at which the principle of exclusiveness crops up, that spirit of intolerance 
 that so easily develops itself into fagot and fire. It was rife in the Jewish 
 nation. It had been rife among other peoples. And although it was nipped in 
 the bud by the Saviour the moment it sprang up among His disciples, yet by 
 and by it rose again within the circle of Christendom, and grew into a upas 
 tree that spread its branches, and distilled its bhght, almost as far as the name 
 of Christ was named. The tree still stands, alas, though many a noble hatchet 
 has been raised to cut it down. It stands ; but the hatchets have not been 
 plied in vain. It is moribund. And here and there soma of its larger boughs 
 
40] ST. MARK IX. 261 
 
 Jesus said, Forbid him not : for there is no man which 
 shall do a miracle in ray name, that can lightly speak evil 
 of me. 40 For he that is not against us is on our part. 
 
 have been lopped off, so that the sweet air of heaven is getting in upon hundreds 
 of thousands of the more favoured of those who were sitting in tlie shadow of 
 death. "Better a thousand times," says Byle, "that the work of warring 
 " against Satan should be done by other hands, than not done at all. Happy 
 " is he who knows something of the spirit of Moses when he said, Would God 
 " that all the Lord's people were prophets, and of Paul when he says. If Christ 
 " is preaclied, I rejoice, yea and will rejoice " (Num. xi. 29 ; PhU. i. 18). 
 
 Vee. 39. But Jesus said, Forbid him not. The Great Master had no sympathy 
 with that exclusive spirit which was the germ of eoclesiastieal persecution. 
 The expression prohibit him not has been perplexing to some, inasmuch as 
 the man was already prohibited. Petter says: "His meaning is, they should 
 " not forbid him any more hereafter, nor yet any other that should attempt the 
 " like in the same manner." We are probably to explain the injunction on the 
 common rhetorical principle, that the scene in which the disciples encountered 
 the exorcist was summoned up before the imagination, as if it were present. 
 When we penetrate beneath the rhetorical form of the expression, we find in it 
 both reproof for the past and direction for the future. 
 
 Per there is no one who will do a miracle in My name. Or literally, upon My 
 name, that is, resting upon My name. See on ver. 37. The word translated 
 a miracle {Sifa/ut) properly means power. Wyclifie renders it vertu (virtue) ; 
 Luther, a deed [eine Tlmt) ; Bengel, a mighty deed. It is often, when used in 
 the plural, rendered, in our English version, mighty works (Matt. vii. 22, 
 xi. 20, 21, 23, xiii. 54, 58 ; 2 Cor. xii. 12). Miracle is Tyndale's and Coverdale's 
 word. . So too Piscator, ein Wunder. It is a miracle that is meant, but a 
 miracle not considered as an object of wonder, but regarded as a manifestation 
 of power. 
 
 That can lightly speak evil of Me. Literally, and will be able quicltly to speak 
 evil of Me. The verb translated speak-evil-of is the exact antithesis of tho 
 frequently recurring verb that is rendered to bless {eiXoy^ai). Instead of quickly 
 (raxiJ), or soon, as Wyoliffe and Coverdale have it, Tyndale introduced the free 
 translation lightly. The idea is, that if any man be conscious of exerting, 
 either in an extraordinary or in an ordinary way, a great and beneficent influ- 
 ence through the name of Jesus, it will take a considerable time, to say the least 
 of it, before his mind can become so altered that he would either speak or 
 think depreciatingly of the ' worthy name ' in which he has found a source of 
 power and blessing. Nature, as Leibnitz and other thinkers used to say, does 
 not advance by leaps. And mind too, even when in the act of transition and 
 conversion, in either an upward or a downward direction, never takes an 
 entirely sudden leap. 
 
 Veb. 40. For he that is not against us is for us. Note the social us. The 
 Saviour graciously associates His disciples with Himself. On another occasion 
 (Matt. xii. 30) He said. He that is not with Me is against Me. The two apo- 
 phthegms are but the obverse and reverse of one idea. There is no neutrality 
 
262 ST. MARK IX. [41 
 
 41 For whosoever shall give you a cap of water to drink in 
 my name, because ye belong to Christy verily I say unto you 
 he shall not lose his reward. 
 
 in relation to Christ and Christianity. He wlio is not with them is against 
 them. He who is not against them is with them and for them. For, in all the 
 spheres of things moral, there is no belt of border land between right and wrong. 
 He who is not good is bad. He who is not bad is good. In the highest sphere, 
 Christianity and goodness are identical. Christ is impersonated Goodness. 
 And thus the great law of no-neutrality comes into operation. He wlio is not 
 with Christ is against Him, : He who is not against Him is with Him and for 
 Jlim. When, in applied morals, we sit in judgment on ourselves, we should 
 in ordinary oiroumstanoes apply the law obversely and stringently. He loho is 
 not with Christ is agaiitst Him. But when we are sitting in judgment on others, 
 into whose hearts we cannot look directly, we should in ordinary circumstances 
 apply the law reversely and generously. He who is not against Christ is with 
 Him and for Him. 
 
 Vek. 41. For. In the apophthegm of ver. 40 there is a substantial return 
 to the sentiment of ver. 37 ; and hence this ratiocinative for, while strictly 
 referring back to the immediate antecedent, implicitly refers farther back to 
 the remoter antecedent in ver. 37. But Burton puts this latter link of con- 
 nection too strongly when he says : " The 41st verse seems to be connected 
 "immediately with ver. 37; our Saviour's discourse about the child having 
 " been interrupted by the question put by John." Du Veil however took the 
 same view ; and Patrizi takes it strongly. 
 
 If any one should give to you a cup of water to drink. An inexpensive gift, 
 but most precious and delicious, especially in such a thirsty climate as that of 
 Palestine. 
 
 In My name, Having thought of Me and regard for Me. Note the My. It 
 IS recognised as genuine by Tregelles, and at length too by Tisohendorf. It is 
 in the Sinaitic manuscript. It had been given up by Griesbach, Lachmann, 
 Soholz ; by Fritzsche too, and Meyer ; and also by Tisohendorf in his 1849 
 and 1859 editions. It is no doubt genuine. And yet the Saviour was no 
 egotist. He did not attribute, to the extent of one particle, too much import- 
 ance to Himself. Neither did He intend to depreciate acts of kindness that had 
 no explicit reference to Himself; no one was so ready as He to appraise at 
 their true value such embodiments of love. But, instead of referring for the 
 present to generic acts of kindness. He refers for a special purpose to such as 
 were done for His name's sake. See on ver. 37, and comp. Matt. x. 42, where the 
 game seed-thought was sown on another occasion. 
 
 Because ye belong to Christ. Or, as it is more simply in the Eheims, because 
 you are Christ's. The word Christ is here used as a proper name, and yet with 
 its significance unmerged. They belonged to the Messiah. The expression is 
 epexegetical of the preceding in My name. But it does not suggest, specifically, 
 folloviing or disciplehood or service ; the relationship indicated is generically 
 possession. 
 
 Verily I say unto you, he shall on no account lose his reward. The action is 
 
42] ST. MARK IX. 263 
 
 42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that 
 believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged 
 about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. 
 
 worthy and rewardable, and shall therefoTe obtain reward. Not that there is 
 anything in it, that should, or could, be erected on a high pedestal of merit. But, 
 being right and good, God will smile on it. 
 
 Teb. 42. See Matt, xviii. 6, and Luke xvii. 2. 
 
 And whosoever shall offend. Or, as the idea of the original might be ex- 
 pressed. And if any one should offend. It is not possible to reproduce the 
 original phrase to a nicety. The word offend too does but scant justice to the 
 original term {irKar5a\ia-ri). It is rather, as Jonathan Edwards remarks (^Notes, 
 in loo.), cause to offend ; Edgar Taylor's version. But neither is that the exact 
 idea. The Bheims version is scandalize, a mere Anglicising of the original 
 word, in despair of otherwise doing it justice. So too the French Geneva, in 
 such editions as 1562, 1606, 1616, 1710. Calvin also, in his French version, 
 uses the same word ; and Martin, Ostervald, Killiet. These all followed in the 
 wake of the Latin Vulgate. But not only is scandalize not a translation ; the 
 term, in so far as it has become a denizen of our English language, has obtained 
 a signification that is quite aside from the idea intended in the passage before us. 
 Le Clerc renders the word, make to fall ; Mace, cav^e to transgress ; Norton, 
 cause to fall away from Me. But Principal Campbell has hit on the proper 
 translation, insnare. The Greek scandal was the stick of a trap, which, when 
 struck, sprang and insnared the animal. Men are ' insnared ' when they are 
 ' caught tripping.' They are caught tripping when they go where they should 
 not go, and touch what they should not touch. "If anyone," says Calvin, 
 " trips through our fault, or is turned aside from the right path, or retarded, 
 " the Scripture says that we scandalize him." 
 
 One of these little ones who believe in Me. The Saviour has passed in thought 
 from the literal child to the childlike ; the ohUdlike not merely in spirit, but in 
 experience and intellect. There are little ones, inteUeotually, in the family of 
 the Great Father. Tyndale uses the one word lytelom. Note that the Saviour 
 says one of these lytelons, — even one, ' though,' says Better, ' it be the least or 
 meanest of them.' 
 
 It is better for him. Literally, and as the Eheims gives it, it is good for him 
 father. The word rendered good properly means beautiful {KoKdv). It is im- 
 nlied that,- as there is . a species of ethical beauty in what is honourable and 
 lonest (or 'fair'), so there is a species of semi-ethical beauty, or attractiveness, 
 ic what is profitable or advantageous. As many good things are not absolutely 
 good, but only good for certain other things, so many beautiful things are not 
 absolutely beautiful, but ' do beautifully ' for the attainment of other things. 
 
 That a millstone were hanged about his neck. More literally, if a millstone 
 is hanged about his tieck. Very literally, if a millstone is laid about Ms neck. 
 Note the present tenses, it 'is ' better for him, if a millstone ' is' hanged about 
 his neck. It is primitive representation. We are taken, in imagination, into 
 the presence of a certain dreadful scene ; we see a millstone attached' to a man's 
 liock ; the fastening, passing through the central perforation of the stone, is 
 
264 ST. MARK IX. [43 
 
 43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off : it is better for thee 
 to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell. 
 
 made secure; it is a sad sight. Yet, turning from another scene, we say, 
 " This is better : " it is better than 'that the same man should act the part of a 
 seducer, and entrap a childlike follower of Jesus. Instead of the simple ex- 
 pression, u, millstone, the critical editors, Lachmann, Tischendorf, TregeUes, 
 Alford, read a great millstone, literally, a donkey millstone, that is, such a 
 millstone as it required a donkey to work. (See on Matt, xviii. 6.) This 
 reading is supported by the best manuscripts, inclusive of X B C D, and by the 
 Vulgate, Peshito Syriao, Gothic {asiluquairnus, i.e. a donkey quern), Armenian, 
 and ^thiopic versions. 
 
 And he were cast into the eea. There is no he in the original. Sharpa 
 supplies it instead, understanding the reference to be to the millstone. Wake- 
 field took the same view. But it is better to regard the millstone as an append- 
 age of the man, than to think of the man as an appendage of the millstone. 
 The sensational scene is represented as by an eye-witness. He sees the man 
 lifted up, weighted with the enormous appendage of the millstone ; he sees him 
 cast into the sea. It is a sad temporal end to which to come. But how much 
 sadder would it be to incur, in the world to come, the doom deserved by the 
 seducer 1 
 
 Vek. 43. And if thy hand offend thee. Or, And if thy hand slwuld insnare 
 thee (ihv aKiwdaXla-rj <re, the rendering of the Sinaitio and Vatican manuscripts). 
 If thy hand should tingle, to its finger tips, with a longing to do what is bad ; 
 and if thou canst not repress it. 
 
 Cut it off. Wyoliffe's version is, kitt it awey ; Tyudale's and Coverdale's, cut him 
 off. Use unsparingly spiritual surgery. Don't tamper with the temptation. 
 
 It is better for thee. Very literally, it is good. Gothic, goth. 
 
 To enter into life crippled. Very literally, to enter into the life, that is, into the 
 life emphatically so called, the hfe of heavenly glory. (See ver. 47.) Every 
 other state, comparatively speaking, is a state of lifelessness or death. 
 
 Than having two hands. Literally, the two hands, the fuU complement of 
 hands, ' both hands.' 
 
 To depart into the Gehenna. That is, the Valley of Himwm, the place of future 
 punishment. It was a common Jewish representation ; and a most graphic 
 hieroglyph it was. The literal Gehenna was a valley to the south of Jerusalem, 
 naturally ' pleasant,' as Milton describes it ; but having become the scene of 
 the worship of Molech, ' the abomination of the children of Ammon ' (1 Kings 
 xi. 7), its associations became frightful. Human sacrifices bad been offered. 
 Innocent children were made to pass through the fire to the ' grim idol.' " Ac- 
 " cording to the rabbins," says Dr. Porter, "the statue of Molech was of brass, 
 " with the body of a man and the head of an ox. The interior was hoUow and 
 " fitted up with a large furnace, by which the whole statue was easily made red 
 " hot. The children to be sacrificed were then placed in its arms, while drums 
 " were beaten to drown their cries." [Syria, p. 92.) These were horrible rites, 
 and king Josiah, in consequence, caused the ' pleasant ' place, where they had 
 been perpetrated, to be desecrated and ' defiled.' (2 Kings xxiii. 10, 13.) The 
 
45] ST. MARK IX. , 265 
 
 into the fire that never shall be quenched : 44 where their worm 
 dioth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot 
 
 locality became a place of sepulture (Jer. vii. 32) ; and to this day the surround- 
 ing rocks are pierced in all directions willi ancient tombs. It would appear 
 also that it had become in later times a place of refuse, where carcases and 
 other abominations were thrown. The consequence was that ' worms ' would 
 be there ; and no doubt, occasionally also, as required, ' fires ' would be 
 kindled to consume the noisome accumulations. Altogether the uses to which 
 the place had been put made it a graphic symbol for the refuse-place of the 
 universe ; ' black Gehenna,' says Milton, ' type of hell.' {Par. Lost, i. 405.) 
 "Having,". says Dr. Barclay, " been the scene of such pollution, wickedness, 
 " and torment, it became a fit emblem of everlasting punishment." [City of the 
 Great King, p. 90.) 
 
 Into the inextrnguishable fire. The fires that were occasionally lit in the 
 literal Geherma or Tophet were necessarily only temporary; they died out 
 for want of fuel. It was to be otherwise with the ' fire ' of the other and 
 ultimate Tophet. The ' fire ' referred tp is, of course, a mere symbol of the 
 sum total of certain dreadful realities, positive and privative, for which there 
 are no adequate representations in human language. 
 
 Vek. 44. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. There is 
 some reason for supposing that these words, which are repeated in ver. 46, have 
 been added by a later hand out of ver. 48, where they are unquestionably 
 genuine. It is noticeable that at the conclusion of ver. 47 the word inex- 
 tinguishable is not found, and thus, when in ver. 48 it is said where the fire is 
 not quenched, there is no approach to what might be considered an idle repeti- 
 tion or redundancy. There seems however to be something like such repetition 
 or redundancy in the relation of ver. 44 to the conclusion of ver. 43. Tischen- 
 dorf has cancelled the verse altogether ; so has Ewald in his German version. 
 Meyer approves of the omission, and Klostermann. The verse is wanting in 
 the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Parisian manuscripts (NBC), as well as in L A ; and 
 in 1, and other cursives. It is wanting too in the Coptic version, and in 
 Zohrab's Armenian version. It is certainly more probable that it would be 
 deliberately added than that it would be wilfully omitted ; for there was no 
 fastidiousness in early times in reference to the doctrine of everlasting punish- 
 ment. There was rather, in harmony with a peculiar development of society, 
 that presented but a limited breadth of spiritual surface for the operation of 
 higher and diviner motives, a tendency to give peculiar emphasis to the dread- 
 ful effects, within the sphere of sensibility, of persisted-in wickedness. Some 
 very early transcriber therefore, having his eye upon effective ecclesiastical 
 lection, might introduce the words on a principle of solemn liturgical refrain, 
 and be sincerely persuaded all the time that he was doing no injury to the text, 
 inasmuch as the words actually occur in ver. 48. See on that verse. 
 
 Veb. 45. And if thy foot insnare thee. Peeling, as it were, restless and 
 eager, until it get thee conveyed into some improper place. Our Saviour of 
 course specifies liand and foot only for rhetorical purposes. It is a fine, bold, 
 graphic way of bringing home to the imagination and the bosom the idea of 
 
266 ST. MAEK IX. [45 
 
 offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, 
 than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never 
 shall be quenched : 46 where their worm dieth not, and the fire 
 is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out : 
 it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one 
 eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire : 48 where 
 their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 
 
 •what is near and dear to our natural feelings. He speaks in hieroglyphics. 
 " We are to understand," says Fetter, " not the parts of the body so called, but 
 " anything which is as near and dear to us in this world." " The meaning is 
 " not," says Eichard Baxter, "that any man is in such a case, that he hath no 
 " better way to avoid sin and hell ; but if he had no better, he should choose 
 " this. Nor doth it mean that maimed persons are maimed in heaven; but if 
 " it were so, it were a less evil." 
 
 Cut it oflf. The Eheimg version is brusque, clioppe it of. 
 
 It is better for thee to enter into life lame, than having both feet to be cast into 
 the Gehenna. The manuscripts X B C L A, 1, and the Syriao Peshito and Coptic 
 versions, stop here. So does Zohrab's Armenian version ; so do Tischendorf 
 and Tregelles. The Beceived Text adds the words into the inextinguishaile fire. 
 See on ver. 43, 44. 
 
 Vek. 46. This verse is omitted by the same authorities which omit ver. 44. 
 In addition, the latter half is omitted in the Jithiopic version. 
 
 Vek. 47. And if thine eye insnare thee. ' Lusting,' as it were, to see in thine 
 own possession what, of right, belongs to others ; or if it otherwise allure thee 
 to what is forbidden, as when Eve felt that the fruit of the forbidden tree was 
 'a desire to the eyes' (Gen. iii. 6). 
 
 Pluck it out. Literally, cast it out. Tyndale has plucJce him oute ; Coverdale, 
 cast Mm from thee. 
 
 It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God. In glory, to wit. See ver. 43. 
 
 With one eye. Literally, one-eyed {/jLovd^SaXiiov). "Wycliffe strangely renders 
 it gogil-yghed. The Attic purists would have used a different word from that 
 employed by the evangelist [ersplxpBaKiuiv. See Phryniohus, Thomas Magister, 
 and Moeris). 
 
 Than, having two eyes, to be cast into the Gehenna. While it is said in ver. 48 
 ' the two hands,' that is, both hands, and in ver. 44 ' the two feet,' or both feet, 
 the expression in this case is simply 'two eyes.' Thus there was no slavish 
 attachment to one form or formula of representation. 
 
 Veb. 48. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished. An 
 expression borrowed from the last verse of Isaiah, and probably in current use 
 among the Jews of our Saviour's time, as applied to the state of futurg retribu- 
 tion. There is a commingled reference to two modes of destruction, vermicular 
 putrefaction and fire. When men's bodies are destroyed, it is generally either 
 by the one agency or by the other. Both are here combined, for cumula- 
 tive rhetorical effect. And the dread climax of the whole representation is 
 found in the ccasclessncss of the twofold operation. Theophylact explains the 
 
49] ST. MARK IX. 267 
 
 49 For every one stall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice 
 stall be salted -with salt. 
 
 worm and tlie fire as metaphorical representations of the conscience and memory 
 of the lost. The explanation is too narrow ; but doubtless the representation is 
 intended to be hieroglyphioal. "When Fritzsohe says that no figure was in- 
 tended {dicuntur sine uUdfgura), he either attributed arbitrarily to our Lord, or 
 to the evangelist, an abject sensuousness of conception, or he failed to appre- 
 hend that sentences as really as words may be figurative. They are but words 
 of greater length. Note the difference in the two expressions, 'their worm ' and 
 ' the fire.' The worm is regarded as belonging to the body ; the fire is con- 
 sidered as something outside. The representations are both popular, but 
 eminently graphic. 
 
 Vek. 49. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be 
 Ealted with salt. Almost all expositors and critics speak of these expressions, 
 and especially the former, as among the most difficult in the Bible. " The 
 "passage," says Grimm, "is exceedingly di&cult " [perdifficilis locus). "It 
 " is," says Jansen, " exceedingly obscure " (perobscurus). " It is," says Wolf, 
 " exceedingly vexed." " It is," says Heumann, " exceedingly vexing." "There 
 " is perhaps," says Bloomfield, " no passage in the New Testament which has 
 " so defied all efforts to assign to it any certain interpretation." " It is," says 
 Kyle, " one of those knots which are yet untied, in the exposition of Scripture." 
 " It has put to the rack the ingenuity of many learned men," says Grotius. 
 " It is," says Fritzsche, " one of those passages in which, because of their extra- 
 " ordinary obscurity, crosses seem to be fixed on which to torture expositors." 
 " It is certainly," says Spauheim, "among the passages that are hard to be 
 "understood" (Du6ia, iii., p. 451). Many separate treatises have been pub- 
 lished on it, and very many long and elaborate notes, full of ingenuity and 
 learning, have been written to throw light upon it. We do not despair how- 
 ever; and we feel persuaded that the true view will not be far removed from 
 simplicity. Beza's celebrated manuscript, now in Cambridge (D), omits the 
 first clause of the verse, every one shall be salted with fire, and that clause 
 accordingly is wanting in Whiston's Primitive New Testament. It is wanting 
 too in some copies of the Old Latin version. The transcribers of these copies 
 and. of D had evidently been puzzled by the phrase. But if it had not been 
 in Mark's autograph, we may rest assured that no annotator would ever have 
 spontaneously introduced it. Some high manuscriptural authorities again omit 
 the second clause of the verse, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Both 
 the Sinaitio and the Vatican manuscript (S B) omit it ; and L A ; and 1, and a 
 considerable number of other cursives. It is omitted too in certain manuscripts 
 of the Coptic version, and in Zohrab's Armenian version. David Schulz sus- 
 pected its genuineness {glossam olet) ; and Tisohendorf has left it out in his 
 eighth edition of the text ; unreasonably. It is the necessary stepping stone 
 to what comes after ; and yet its connection with what goes before is not so 
 ■obtrusively evident as to make it astonishing that some transcribers should have 
 looked upon it as an apocryphal addition to the original text. The repetition, 
 moreover, of the concluding verb (dXtcrS^o-eTai) might in one or two cases mis- 
 
268 ST. MARK IX. [49 
 
 lead tlie transeriber's eye. We must retain both clauses of the verse ; we 
 must also retain both in their integrity. The celebrated Joseph Scaliger, a man 
 of marvellous force of intellect, was deeply interested in the passage. But he 
 was confident that the first clause had got to be corrupted at a very early period 
 in the dissemination of the Gospel. He was also confident that he had dis- 
 covered the original reading. The connective for, he assumed, should be cash- 
 iered, and then the whole verse should be read thus : ' Every burning (Trao-a wvpla, 
 i.e. every offering made by fire) shall be salted, and every sacrifice shall be sailed 
 with salt.'' He mentioned this conjectural emendation of the phraseology to 
 Grotius. He contended for it strongly once and again in his letters still extant. 
 (See Wolf ) And in Eouiere's edition of the Greek Testament, ' with Joseph 
 Scaliger' s Notes on some of the more difficult passages ' (1619), the emendation is 
 repeated. Petter accepts it ; and Louis Cappel thought it ' exceedingly pro- 
 bable.' But Grotius did right to reject it ; as did Gataker (Adversaria, xUii., 
 Op. p. 889) ; and also Spanheim (Dubia, iii., p. 452). Also Dr. Adam Clarke, 
 who says : ' This, I fear, is taking the text by storm.' In fact Scaliger invented 
 a sacrificial word for the occasion, and was fascinated by the ingenuity of his 
 invention. The phraseology needs no tinkering. The introductory For is 
 genuine, and is of itself fatal to Scaliger's conjecture. We are by no means 
 however shut up to the conclusion of Maldonato, Jansen, Meyer, and many 
 others, that the reference of the reason-rendering conjunction is simply to what 
 is said at the conclusion of the preceding verse, and the fire shall- not be 
 quenched. There is no occasion whatever for insisting on such a short and 
 narrow bridge of transit. It is far more probable that the reference is to the 
 great pervading idea of ver. 43-48, that it is indispensable for all such as would 
 escape the retribution of inextinguishable fire to be unsparing in their treatment 
 of the insnaring members of their own persons. Let them not hesitate for a 
 moment to mortify, cut off, and cauterize these rebellious members. Such is 
 the Lord's graphic way of representing the sacrifices which His disciples would 
 require to make for oonseienoe sake These sacrifices, says He, must be made, 
 for every one shall be salted with fire. Every one, viz. of those who are ' 
 referred to in the preceding context. And these are not, as has been too often 
 assumed, (as by Maldonato, Jansen, Lightfoot, Grotius, Eisner, Wesley, Bosen- 
 miiller, Alexander, Patrizi,) the unbelieving ; but, on the contrary, the believing^ 
 So Erasmus, Luther [Gloss), Flacius [Clavis, ii. 601), Calvin, Spanheim, Gataker, 
 Wetstein, Heumaun, Eichard Watson, Glookler, Dav. Brown. The Saviour is 
 addressing His disciples, and counselling them in reference to the temptations 
 to which they were sure to be subjected in consequence of their relationship, 
 ' in the flesh,' to the manifold corruptions of ' the present evil age.' Yield not 
 to these temptations, says He. On the contrary, cut off unsparingly the occa- 
 sions of them, as far as in you lies, and thus escape the doom of those who 
 allow themselves to be insnared, for every one [of My disciples) shall be salted 
 with fire. 
 
 What does this mean ? It means, says Theophylact, shall be tried by fire, 
 a mere guess of an interpretation. And yet it is reproduced by Dionysius 
 k Eyckel. It also found its way into some unimportant cursive manuscripts. 
 Grotius translates the phrase, shall be constimed with fire. This translation 
 is accepted by Hammond, le Clerc, Dr. Samuel Clarke, Wells, Mace, and Storr 
 iPpuscula, ii. 212), on the ground that the Hebrew word that means to be 
 
49] ST. MARK IX. 269 
 
 salted also means to he consumed, or to vanish away (Isa. li. 6). But it is enough 
 to say that the Greek word has no such meaning. And it would be hard to 
 believe that the Hebrew usage could so dominate Greek Palestinian usage as to 
 ascribe to the same word, in the same verse, two meanings so contrary as con- 
 lumed and salted ; and more especially as the best Hebrew philologers maintain 
 that the Hebrew word is indeed not one word, but two, accidentally coincident 
 in sound, but belonging to totally difierent roots. We must adhere then to the 
 trsLnslation, shall be salted with fire. But what can be made of it ? Lightfoot, 
 supposing that the reference is to the unbelieving, explains thus : " shall be 
 " seasoned with fire itself, so as to become unconsumable, and shall endure 
 " for ever to be tormented, as salt preserves from corruption." Alexander 
 Morus gives the same interpretation [Notes, in loc), and Michaelis (Anmer' 
 kungen, in loc), and Patrizi too. But it certaiuly involves a violent and un- 
 natural wrench of conception. For while it is conceivable that, by the appli- 
 cation of something incombustible, a substance might be preserved from the 
 consuming influence of fire, it is really inconceivable that any substance should 
 be rendered ' unconsumable ' by the application to it of the very element that 
 consumes. Eisner and others, also assuming a reference to the doom of un- 
 believers, suppose that the imagery of the expression is borrowed from the 
 catastrophe of Sodom and Gomorrha and the other ' cities of the plain,' for 
 every one shall be immersed in that abyss of fire and salt. Eccentric; a shift. 
 Schottgen, Maoknight, and Baumgarten-Crusius render the expression shall be 
 salted ^fcyr ' the fire. Eccentric too, though in another line of things ; a sub- 
 terfuge. But what then 1 How can there be ' salting with fire ' ? We must 
 in the first place, distinguish 'letter ' from 'spirit ' in the two terms salted and 
 fire. Our Saviour is not, in either of the terms, referring to the literal realities. 
 It is salting metaphorically viewed, and fire metaphorically viewed, of which 
 He speaks ; and hence the possibility of perfect congruity in the apparently 
 incongruous idea of ' salting wi7ft fire.' Among the various uses of salt, two 
 are popularly outstanding : seasoning, and preserving from corruption. In the 
 passage before us there is no reference to seasoning, although Principal Camp- 
 bell actually translates the word shall be seasoned. The reference is exclusively 
 to preservation from corruption. In hot countries in particular, killed meat 
 hastens to a tainted condition, and could not be preserved from spoiling, either 
 by cooks or priests, for any appreciable length of time, were it not for salting. 
 It is on this antiseptic property of salt that the Saviour's representation is 
 founded. Every one of His disciples shall be preserved from corruption by fire. 
 The fire referred to however is not penal, like the inextinguishable fire of 
 Gehenna. It is intentionally purificatory. And yet when we take the pre- 
 ceding context into account, we may rest assured that its purificatory efficacy is 
 referred to, not merely because it is purificatory (comp. Matt. iii. 11), but also 
 because, in its purificatory action, it is painful, though not penal. It scorches, 
 and pierces to the quick. It is such fire as is in certain 'fiery trials ' willingly 
 endured for righteousness sake (1 Pet. iv. 12). It is^re that ' eats the flesh ' 
 (Jas. V. 3), and is ' sent into the bones ' (Lam. i. 13). It is its cauterizing 
 smart and energy that are felt, when a hand, or foot, or eye, is parted with for 
 the sake of purity. What then is this/« ? It is not simply and generically, 
 as Heumann supposed, the purifying influence of the Holy Spirit, an influence 
 purifying the soul as fire purifies silver. Neither is it simply, as Luther and 
 
'270 ST. MARK IX. [49 
 
 Calov supposed, tlie purifying power of the gospel. SfcUI less is it, as others 
 have supposed, such as Baxter, Wolf, Hofmeister, Kuinol, the painfuUy puri- 
 fying influence of afflictions in general, or of persecutions in particular for the 
 gospel's sake. It is another phase of purifying influence. It is, as Cardinal 
 Cajetan, Beza, Spanheim, and Wetstein saw, the unsparing spirit of self sacri- 
 fice. It is the spirit to which our Saviour refers in ver. 43-48, the spirit tlmt 
 parts, for righteovsTiess sake, with a hand, a foot, an eye. But instead of repre- 
 senting it here once more as manifesting itself in acts of amputation or exci- 
 sion. He takes occasion, from the incidental reference to the fire of Gehenna, to 
 depict it, in striking and vivid antithesis, as an alternative fire (opponit ignem 
 igni, presentem futuro : Spanheim, p. 454), which indeed scorches the sensibUifcy 
 to agony, but which in the end consumes only what is bad, and leaves the soul 
 freed from those moral combustibles on which the penal fire of Gehenna could 
 feed. Every disciple of Christ is thus salted with fire. He is preserved from 
 corruption, and consequent everlasting destruction, by the fire of unsparing self 
 sacrifice. 
 
 And : Le Clere and Beausobre-et-L'Knfant, in their respective French 
 versions, as also SchOttgen and du Veil, translate this conjunction even as. 
 Heumann and others defend the rendering. But it not only does violence to 
 the conjunction, it throws the whole clause which it introduces into the position 
 of a mere foil, to give emphasis to the idea of the preceding clause. There is 
 no need for thus ' vexing ' the word. It has its ordinary signification, and intro- 
 duces a statement which it is of importance for us to add to the preceding. 
 Glooklern traslates it also. 
 
 Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt : The Saviour is alluding to 
 what is said in Lev. ii. 13, " and every oblation of thy meat offering shalt 
 "thou season with salt; neither shall thou suffer the salt of the covenant 
 " of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering. With all thine offerings 
 " thou shalt offer salt." At the commencement of this verse there is reference 
 to such offerings as were derived from the flora of the earth. ' Meat offer- 
 ings,' in our version, mean vegetable or farinaceous offerings. At the con- 
 clusion of the verse the reference is extended to all offerings, inclusive therefore 
 of such as were derived from the fauna of the earth, animal offerings. , See 
 Ezek. xliii. 23, 24. The expression seasoned with salt is admirably adapted to 
 ' meat offerings,' which did not require salting to preserve them from corrupt- 
 ing. But the Hebrew phrase so rendered is simply, like the Greek phrase in 
 the passage before us, salted with salt. All kinds of offerings were to be salted 
 with salt, just as, generally speaking, all kinds of food used by the people were 
 salted with salt, in order to ensure that they should be at once wholesome and 
 pleasant. Our Saviour, in using the word sacrifice {Sva-La), instead of the ex- 
 pression oblation of meat offering, employed a term which naturally suggests an 
 animal offering ; and hence the salting with salt, in so far as He gives it 
 emphasis, recalls the antiseptic virtue of salt, as distinguished from its season- 
 ing influence, and thus brings into view not merely, in a generic way, what was 
 required to make food palatable, but, in a specific way, what was needed to pre- 
 serve animal food from taint and loathsomeness. Our Lord transfers to New 
 Testament times, and exalts into spiritual and world-wide maxims, the rudi- 
 mentary principles of the dispensation of shadows. And thus the salt of the 
 Old Testament priest is reproduced in the spirit of the New Testament wor- 
 
50] ST. MAEK IX. 27.1 
 
 50 Salt is good: but if tlie salt have lost his saltness. 
 
 shipper, that spirit which is a moral antiseptic, because instinct with the in- 
 fluence of the Holy Spirit of God. The idea of our Saviour amounts to this : 
 Every true self sacrifice, presented to God, is presented in a state of (comparative) 
 purity, sweetness, and consequent acceptableness, in virtue of the purity-imparting 
 spirit of the sacrificer. God's ancient dispensation as a whole, and every par- 
 ticular ordinance in it as an integrant part, was a covenant of purity, the purity 
 in particular of reciprocal faithfulness. It was ' a covenant of salt ' (Lev. ii. 13 ; 
 Num. xviii. 19). God and man, as it were, met together in amity, as under 
 one roof, and pledged themselves to one another in rites of a sublime hospitality. 
 This ' covenant of salt ' runs on into New Testament times ; and man's part in 
 it is fulfilled when he remembers never to present to the Infinite Guest who eon- 
 descends to enter his heart (John xiv. 23) any other sacrifice or service than what 
 is salted with salt. 
 
 Veb. 50. Salt is good. Such is the general conviction of men ; and yet 
 there was extensively advertised a few years ago an English publication, in 
 which it was contended that almost all the ills to which flesh is heir are attri- 
 butable to the use of salt ! Good, literally beautiful. Spanheim explains the 
 word as meaning useful. But good is better, good for most important purposes, 
 especially seasoning and preserving. Some have supposed that the salt here 
 spoken of is to be viewed as a metaphorical impersonation, just as when it is 
 said in Matt. v. 13, ye are the ' salt ' of the earth. So Better for instance, who 
 says that the term here " signifies the ministers of the word, yet not simply 
 " considered in regard to their persons, but in regard of their ministerial 
 " calling and office." He would thus interpret the expression, ' salt is good,' as 
 meaning " the true and faithful ministers of the gospel, lawfully called to their 
 " office, are necessary, profitable, and useful in the chiirch of God, in regard of 
 " their persons and ministry." This interpretation however is harsh, artificial, 
 and grotesque. Our Saviour evidently uses the term in the same acceptation 
 as in the preceding verse. What He says indeed is true of hteral salt ; but it is 
 in a higher plane of reference equally true of the metaphorical salt of a holy 
 spirit, a spirit instinct with the Spirit of God. Such salt is emphatically good. 
 It is good as a means ; it is the best possible human means for the highest 
 possible human ends. 
 
 But if the salt should become saltless. The Saviour speaks popularly ; and 
 His idea would be readily caught in Palestine. MaundreU mentions that in The 
 Valley of Salt, which is about four hours from Aleppo, " there is a kind of dry 
 " crust of salt, which sounds, when the horses go upon it, like frozen snow 
 "when it is walked upon.'' He adds: "along on one side of the valley, viz. 
 "that toward Gibul, there is a small precipice about two men's lengths, oo- 
 " oasioned by the continual taking, away the salt ; and in this you may see how 
 " the veins of it he. I broke a piece of it, of which the part that was exposed 
 "to the rain, sun, and air, though it had the sparks and particles of salt, yet 
 " had perfectly lost its savour (as in St. Matt., chap. v.). The inner part, which 
 "was connected with the rock, retained its savour, as I found by proof." 
 (Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem, pp. 161, 162, ed. 1749.) Whatever may ba 
 
272 ST. MARK IX. [50 
 
 ■wherewith will ye season it ? Have salt in yourselves, and 
 have peace- one with another. 
 
 the case with literal salt, the Saviour is referring to spiritual salt, which un- 
 doubtedly, in so far as it consists of a phase of character, may be metamor- 
 phosed into its negative or contradictory. Such metamorphic changes of 
 character are possible in two directions ; they may be realized upwardly, in bad 
 beings becoming good, or downwardly, in good beings becoming bad. Hatred 
 may be transformed into love, or love into hatred. In either case there ia 
 ' conversion ' from contrary to contrary. 
 
 Wherewith will ye season it? Or, ' in what ' will ye season it? 'in what ' will 
 ye steep it as it were, so as to restore its sapidity? If it should be replied, in 
 other salt, then it suffices to remark that the Saviour was representing to 
 Himself a case which did not admit of such an alternative. With Him all salt 
 is a means to an end ; it is the means of salting, but of course not of salting 
 saltless salt ; for if animal food for instance should require to be preserved 
 from wasting, or other food to be seasoned, why take the circuitous way of first 
 salting insipid or saltless salt, and then applying this for preserving or season- 
 ing ? No good end could be subserved by such a circuit, and hence the ridicu- 
 lous process itself was 'never contemplated by our Lord or by any one else. 
 Our Lord simply intimates, by a striking mode of thought, that as nothing in 
 the natural world would be more useless than saltless salt, so nothing in the 
 spiritual world would be more hopelessly useless than Christianity which is no 
 longer Christian, or holiness which is no longer holy, or evangelioism that has 
 ceased to be evangelical, or religiousness that has degenerated into irrehgion. 
 What if a man have ' a name to live ' while he is ' dead ' ? What if a church 
 have such a, name ? Could they be blessings in the world ? It is impossible. 
 It is in vain to try, by any process of galvanism, to restore life to a putrid or 
 putrescent mass. Omnipotence alone could meet such an emergency. But in 
 all ordinary cases, so far as spiritual life is concerned, it is a moral result which 
 the Omnipotent One desires ; and it is therefore moral means which He 
 employs. 
 
 Have salt in yourselves. A practical inference, says Cardiual Cajetan, from 
 ' the parable of salt.' Note the ' in.' The true spirit of holiness or good 
 doing is not a thing that can be put on. It is within. It may come out indeed; 
 it must come out ; but it must come out from within, seasoning at once works 
 and words (Col. iv. 6), and rendering our sacrifices pure and acceptable (ver. 49). 
 
 And have peace ' one with another.' A corresponding expression ia employed 
 1 Thess. V. 13, Be at peace ' among yourselves.' Tyndale combines, to a certain 
 extent, the two phrases in his translation of the passage before us, Have peace 
 amonge youre selves one with another. The Saviour, in thus winding up Hi a 
 conversation, reverts to the-subject with which He had started. His disciples 
 had disputed who should be greatest (ver. 34). The dispute had threatened to 
 break up the circle into cliques of partisanship. Harmony was endangered ; 
 and if harmony were lost, their moral influence in the world would be crippled. 
 It was needful that they should cooperate ; it was needful therefore that they 
 should 'be at peace with one another.' But there would be security for their 
 unity only if they had salt, the spirit of purity, ' in themselves.' It is difficult 
 
1] ST. MARK X. 273 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 1 AND lie arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of 
 Jiidasa by the farther side of Jordan : and the people resorb 
 
 to restrain the conviction to which Bishop Hammond gives expression, that our 
 Lord had a touch of reference, in the injunction and be at peace with one 
 another, ' to that other quality of salt, as it is a sign of union.' If it be true 
 that God and man have entered into ' a covenant of salt,' then surely His 
 children should pledge themselves to each other iu a corresponding covenant. 
 Since they sit at one table, and are partakers of the common salt, and have it 
 ' in ' them, they should be inviolably true to one another. 
 
 CHAPTEE X. 
 
 Teb. 1-12 of this chapter constitute a paragraph corresponding to Matt. 
 xis. 1-9. 
 
 Vee. 1. And He arose from thence and cometh. A more awkward expression 
 than there was any occasion for in translation. In the original the phrase 
 from thence, or thence, or from there (iKeWev), stands before the whole of the 
 clause, so that its incidence reaches to cotneth; And thence, when He had risen up. 
 He cometh, that is. And He rose up and came. It is a primitive mode of repre- 
 sentation, exemplifying a kind of ' preraphaelite ' particularity of detail. We 
 not only see the Saviour setting out on His journey, we see Hun rising up that 
 He might set out. The representation is analogous in principle to the ex- 
 pression, ' and He opened His mouth and taught.' (Matt. v. 2 ; comp. Mark 
 vii. 24.) The point of departure was Capernaum, on the west side of the sea 
 of Tiberias (chap. ix. 33). 
 
 Into the borders of Judsea. The evangelist leads our thoughts meanwhile 
 not to the terminus of our Lord's journey, in the heart of Judsea, but to the 
 boundary line at which He entered the district. It was apparently the last 
 southward journey of our Lord, though not the first. Modern critics indeed, of 
 the sceptical school, insist that no other journey into JudsBa was known either 
 to Mark or to the two other synoptic evangehsts. But both Matthew and Lpke 
 represent our Lord as saying : " Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Iww often would I have 
 " gathered thy children together, . . . and ye would not " (Matt, xxiii. 87 ; Luke 
 xiii. 34). It was moreover most improbable that our Saviour and His disciples 
 would refrain from going up to the great festivals. And there is not in Mark's 
 narrative here the slightest indication that he regarded our Lord as entering 
 upon a novel or unprecedented career. 
 
 And beyond the Jordan. That is, and in particular ieyond the Jordan. Not 
 only did He come into the border lands of Judsea, He approached these border 
 lands beyond the Jordan. Our Saviour did not visit Samaria ; or, if He did 
 (Luke xvii. 11), He crossed over thence into Peraa before He entered the border 
 lands of Judsea. 
 
 And the people went tinto Him again' In the original the reference is not to 
 any ' people ' that may have been formerly spoken of. The term employed is 
 indeterminate, crowds (ixKoi), And crowds again come togetlier to Him. 
 
 T 
 
274 ST. MARK X. [1 
 
 unto him again; and, as lie was wont, lie taught them 
 again. 
 
 2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful 
 for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And 
 
 And again He tanglit them, as He was wont. It is not meant that He taught 
 the same people again. The idea is that He resumed His former plan of 
 operation, no longer shunning crowds because in quest of seclusion with His 
 disciples ; He chose, on the contrary, favourable amphitheatres of assembly 
 along the line of His route, and taught the congregated masses as had been 
 His wont. 
 
 Vee. 2. And, At a certain unspecified stage in His progress. 
 
 The Pharisees. Note the article. It is in the Eeeeived Text, and it has been 
 readmitted by Tischendorf in the eighth edition of his critical text. It is found 
 in the Sinaitic and Ephraemi manuscripts (X C), as also in N V X ; but it is 
 omitted by Griesbaoh, Soholz, Lachmann, Tregelles, Alford. It is wanting in 
 the great body of the uncial manuscripts, inclusive of the Alexandrine and 
 Vatican (A B). It is a matter of no moment whether it be admitted or rejected. 
 If admitted, it marks the party or sect to which the individuals referred to 
 belonged. If it be omitted, then the evangelist leaves it indeterminate whether 
 the individuals introduced to our notice should be regarded simply as indi- 
 viduals, or as representing the entire Pharisaic body. 
 
 Came to Him, and asked Him. They came forward from the rest of the people, 
 approached and questioned Him. 
 
 Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife ? Or more literally, if it is lawful 
 for a man to put away Ms wife ; or, as Tyndale gives it, whether it were laufall 
 for a man to put awaye his wyfe. So too Coverdale and Luther. The nature of 
 the case makes it evident that the meaning of the query is, Whether it is lawful 
 for a man to put away his wife, at his pleasure as it were, or, as it is expressed 
 in Matt. xix. 3, for every cause. It is altogether gratuitous in Saunier to say 
 that the representation of Matthew is ' obviously the more correct ' (Quellen, p. 
 120). It is equally gratuitous in F. C. Baur to maintain that Mark ' intention- 
 ally ' made a variation from the representation of Matthew (Marcusevangelimn, 
 p. 81). There is no discrepancy to be accounted for, as is obvious when we look 
 at the subject from the standpoint of common sense, and, as will be specially 
 obvious, when we take into account that it is, as a general rule, only certain 
 ealient points of our Lord's conversations, discussions, and remarks that are 
 recorded. We may reasonably assume that on the present occasion there would 
 be details of coUoquy of which neither the one evangelist nor the other makes 
 mention. In the course of these details the varied recorded forms of remarks, or 
 their equivalents, and no doubt many others from which other evangelists might 
 have selected, would occur. 
 
 Tempting Him. The English word tempting has, in its modern use, a much 
 stronger twist in the direction of what is evil than it had in our older literature 
 and in the passage before us. And yet it was intended by our translators to 
 have here a bend in that evil direction. Eightly so, apparently. The word 
 originally means trying, or attempting as it were. Tyndale translates it here, to 
 
5] ST. MARK X. 275 
 
 lie answered and said unto them, What did Moses command 
 you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of 
 divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered 
 and said unto them. For the hardness of your heart he wrote 
 
 prove Him ; Principal Campbell, to try Him. So Wakefield, Newoome, Edgar 
 Taylor. Billiet lias wishing thus to put Him to the test (a V epreuve). Norton, 
 following in the wake of Mace, goes mucli farther in the direction of the evil 
 meaning, with u, design to insnare Him. There had been among the Jewish 
 rabbis great discussions on the subject of divorce, and serious dissension. The 
 HOlelites, the followers of HiUel, maintained that divorce might be lawfully 
 effected at the pleasure or caprice of the husband ; while the Shammaites, the 
 followers of Sbammai, contended that ' putting away ' was lawful only on con- 
 dition of the occurrence of unohastity. (See Michaelis's Mosaisches Recht, 
 § 120.) Our Lord's questioners were probably confident in their own particular 
 notion on the subject, and imagined that they would be able to get Him to say 
 something which they could make use of to ' comer Him up ' or to diminish His 
 influence with the people. (See Comm. on Matt. xix. 1-12.) 
 
 Yep.. 3. But He answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you! 
 Or, as Tyndale has it. What dyd Moses hyd you do ? He wished them to have 
 in view their own political statute on the subject. It had been much abused in 
 the controversies that had been waged. 
 
 Vek. 4. And they said, Moses permitted to write a bill of divorcement and to 
 put away. See Deut. xxiv. 1. Instead of a bill of divorcement WyoUfie has a 
 libel of forsakinge, and Tyndale a testimoniall of devorsement. The word thus 
 rendered bill, libel, testimonial, properly means a little book {^t^Xiov), that is, a 
 formal writing or document. Libel, in its original signification (libellns), exactly 
 corresponds to the evangelist's term ; and if bill be libel cut down, it too will be 
 an exact rendering. Our Lord's questioners used the word permitted, or suffered. 
 It was legitimate. And yet it brought into view only one aspect of the case, and 
 that not the most important, when the question was considered not so much 
 politieally as morally. See next verse. 
 
 Veb. 5. And Jesus answered and said to them. Or, as it stands more briefly 
 in the manuscripts X B C L A, and the Coptic version, as also in Tregelles' and 
 Tischendorf's texts. And Jesus said to them. 
 
 For your hardness of heart he wrote you this precept. It was a precept there- 
 fore, or injunction, as really as ^permission. It was a statute that was intended 
 to throw some restraints upon summary dismissal. Such dismissal was con- 
 stituted illegal. Divorce, .henceforth, could not be effected until a regular 
 instrument or document was legally drawn up, and handed over to the unfortu- 
 nate wife. " In this way," says Miohaelis, " a marriage could never be dissolved 
 "in the first heat of passion ; and the husband might perhaps change his mind, 
 " or the person employed to write the bill of divorce (probably a priest or Levite) 
 " might perhaps be a man of principle, who would speak to the husband before 
 " he set about the writing. This delay, affording time for reflection, could not 
 ■" fail to put a stop to many divorces resolved on under the influence of passion." 
 
276 ST. MARK X. [5 
 
 yoa this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation 
 God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a 
 
 (Mosaisches Eecht, § 119 : 3.) The legislation of Moses on the subject was thus 
 benevolent in its aim. It had to deal, we may presume, with an exceedingly 
 lax and latitudinarian use-and-wont, that would jjress crushingly upon the 
 weaker sex. It did not indeed, and could not, accomplish all that is morally 
 dcsiraWe. What legislator can ? What legislation can, if it be intended to 
 meet the actual requirements of exceedingly imperfect and perverted states of 
 society ? The political institutions of the Jews, though Divinely devised, could 
 scarcely even initiate an approximation to an ideal state of society. That goal 
 was contemplated indeed ; but it was far off in the distance. And meanwhile 
 the uncultured people required as much political restraint and constraint, and 
 just as much, as was politically practicable. The marriage statute, we need not 
 doubt, would have been far more stringent in its restraints, had it not been for 
 the people's moral unpreparedness, their Jiardness-of-heart. They were far from 
 being in an ideal state of heart. They were as yet, comparatively speaking, 
 coarse in their views and insensitive in their feelings, irresponsive to highly 
 reiined principles of delicacy and purity. Hence there was no alternative be- 
 tween giving them imperfect political institutions, up to the level of which they 
 could be lifted, and thence prepared for farther ascent, or giving them absolutely 
 perfect institutions, which could not have been transferred into their practice 
 even for a single day. Absolutely perfect political institutions would be adapted 
 only to an absolutely perfect people, or a people who were on the eve of emerg- 
 ing into absolute moral perfection. The expression 'for ' (vpas) the Imrdness of 
 your heart, does not so much mean because of as in reference to, in respect to, 
 that is, to meet the case of, the hardness of your heart. , Politics, while ever 
 aspiring toward a moral ideal, must yet be proportional in the ratio of their 
 development to the actual moral condition of the people. 
 
 Veb. 6. But from the beginning of the creation. Veiy literally, from creation's 
 leginning. The word creation properly means the act of creating ; but here it 
 denotes the object in which the act terminated, the thing created, the world. The 
 original word (/cnVis) has no inherent reference to absolute creation, or produc- 
 tion out of nothing. Neither was it intended that the word beginning should be 
 pressed to a nicety. Men were not in existence at the absolute beginning. 
 The idea is substantially this : From the time when men were first Divinely intro- 
 duced upon the scene of creation. Petter explains it, ' from the time when God 
 did first create mankind.' 
 
 God made them male and female. It is not God made them, but He made them, 
 in the manuscripts X E C L A, and such is the reading of Tischendorf and Tre- 
 gelles. It is no doubt the correct reading. The Saviour was simply quoting the 
 words of Gen. i. 27, as they stand in the Septuagint ; and it would have been 
 -well if our translators had suggested the fact of verbal quotation by prescrvmg 
 the very collocation of the original phraseology, ' male and female made He 
 them.' Male and female, that is, a male and a female. The reference is to two, 
 and two only. The one was the counterpart of the other. Each was fitted 
 to bo the other's complement, both physically and morally. It is one of the 
 
9] ST. MARK X. 277 
 
 man leave bis father and motliei'j and cleave to his wife ; 8 and 
 they twain shall be one flesh : so then they are no more twain, 
 but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, 
 let not man put asunder. 
 
 marvels of Providence, and a striking demonstration of the continuous working 
 of the Creator, that, notwithstanding the multitudinous perturbations of things 
 that are the result of sin, the proportional monogamistie numbers of the sexes 
 are still maintained, as in a balance, all the world over. 
 
 Vee. 7. Tor this cause. The Saviour continues to quote, but from another 
 part of the early record, viz. Gen. ii. 24. The cause or condition of things 
 referred to is the counterpart and complementive relationship of the tioo sexes. 
 
 Shall a man leave his father and mother. Because in marriage a higher rela- 
 tionship supervenes, which dominates the antecedent filial relationship. A new 
 domestic centre is to be established. 
 
 And cleave to Ms wife. These words are wanting in the Sinaitic and Vatican 
 manuscripts (N B), and also in the Gothic version. Tischendorf has onlitted 
 them in his eighth edition, without sufficient warrant. Cleave is Wyolifie's 
 word ; it is Coverdale's too, and adopted in both the Geneva and the Bheims. 
 It is an admirable translation, much better than either Purvey's draw or Tyn- 
 dale's hide, 'and hide by his wife.' It is rendered join himself in Acts v. 36. 
 The original term (x/josKoXXi/S^irerat) denotes the closest possible attachment 
 and adherence. Very literally rendered, it means, as Petter remarks, shall be 
 glued. 
 
 Ver. 8. And they twain. An archaism for the two (ol Svo). The expression 
 does not occur in the Hebrew passage from which our liord quotes. He freely 
 supplies it, as embodying the manifest meaning of the original. 
 
 Shall be one flesh. Literally, shall be into one flesh, that is, shall be so inti- 
 mately united that, in their earthly or bodily relationships, they shall constitute 
 as it were a unit of being. 
 
 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. What has preceded is quotation 
 from Gen. ii. 24. This is the Saviour's own inference from the language quoted. 
 Husband and wife, though in a sense two, are yet, if they fulfil the Divine 
 ideal, no longer two. They are but halves of a whole, ' one flesh.' Were it not 
 for the intervenience of sin, the most delightful union conceivable would be 
 reahzed in their experience. 
 
 Vek. 9. What therefore God joined together. Namely, in His institute of 
 marriage. Note (1) the word wliat ; it is in the singular number, what tUirig (S). 
 The Saviour's mind had gone forward, in conception, beyond the stage of dual- 
 ity into the stage of unity. Note (2) the phrase joined together, or cuppled, as 
 Tyndale has it. Coverdale has coupled together ; so the Geneva. The word 
 strictly means yolced together. Husband and wife are under a common yoke ; 
 and under this yoke, 'lined with love,' they are to work together as ' true yoke- 
 fellows.' Note (3) that it is ' God ' who yokes them together in the institute of 
 marriage. Marriage is His institute. His idea. And He acts, not directly 
 indeed but indirectly and institutionally, when man and woman take each 
 
278 ST. MAEK X. [10 
 
 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of 
 the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever 
 shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth 
 
 other for husband and wife. But man and woman act too. They act du-ectly, 
 in subordination to the Divine institution. They choose each other. If they 
 choose thoughtlessly, recklessly, capriciously, or selfishly, what wonder that 
 human perturbations should be introduced into the Divine institution ? 
 
 Let not man put asunder. Or, as Tyndale has it. Let no man separate. What ? 
 Not even when there are insurmountable incompatibilities ? There should be 
 no such incompatibilities. Not one, or at least scarcely one, of the multitudinous 
 perturbations which so often perplex the marriage relation would ever have 
 scope for operation if the Divine will regarding a ' pre-established harmony ' 
 were duly regarded. God's institute has never got justice done it in the loorld. 
 It is impossible to make happy in wedlock those who make no moral provision 
 for united happiness in the interblendings of every-day life. And yet, instead 
 of the evil of unhappiuess being lessened, by the degradation of the Divine 
 ideal over the length and breadth of society, and the consequent relaxation of 
 the matrimonial tie, it would be but intensified into greater and more intricate 
 perplexities. Legislative relief may, in certain circumstances, be politically 
 necessary, because of the liardness of men's hearts. But it is always an evil. 
 And when legislation has to descend, step by step, from the Divine ideal of 
 things, and even from the highest human ideal, instead of maintaining a 
 gradual progression of ascent towards its own normal pinnacle of development, 
 it is a symptom of social decay. Legislation should move in another direction, 
 and initiate and foster measures that may tend to fit the rising youth for under- 
 standing and working out the laws of physical, sesthetical, and moral correspond- 
 encies and harmony. 
 
 Veb. 10. And in the house. Namely where they were lodging. In the very 
 ancient manuscripts SBD, as well as LA, the expression is not in the house, 
 but into the house. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford have admitted 
 this more difficult reading into their texts. Eightly, no doubt. It is an abrupt 
 and irregular phrase ; but its meaning is obvious enough. The evangelist's 
 mind was thinking of our Lord and His disciples, as they entered ' into ' the 
 house. 
 
 His disciples. Or, as the Sinaitio, Vatican, and Ephraemi manuscripts have 
 it, the disciples. 
 
 Qnestioned Him again. As the Pharisees had done before. 
 
 Concerning the same (matter). Or, as the reading is in a large proportion of 
 the best manuscripts, concerning this. This demonstrative reading is accepted 
 by all the modern critical editors. 
 
 Vek. 11. And He says to them, If any one should put away Ms wife. The 
 exception, specified in Matt. xix. 9, except far conjugal unfaithfulness, is of course 
 to be understood. It had been specified in our Lord's remarks to the Pharisees 
 outside ; and it was really self evident. 
 
 And should marry another. Eoman Catholic theologians contend that to 
 marry another is unlawful, so long as the first wife, however unfaithful, remains 
 
12] ST. MARK X. 279 
 
 adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her 
 
 alive. (See Denzinger's Enchiridion, §§ 597, 853, 878.) They allege tliat the 
 exceptive clause, except for conjugal unfaithfulness, as occurring in Matt. xix. 9, 
 has reference only to the contingency of putting away the unfaithful wife [vide- 
 licet, quoad thorum), and does not extend to the second contingency of marrying 
 another. The indissoluhle imiou of Christ and the church is, as they hold, the 
 type and archetype of the union of husband and wife, under the New Testament 
 dispensation ; and the union therefore must remain indissoluble ' till death do 
 part them.' (Denzinger's Enchirid., § 597.) Luther and Calvin however, and 
 Protestants in general, hold that adultery is in fact, at heart and in principle, 
 the rapture of wedlock, and that it therefore affords a legitimate ground on 
 which the injured party may sue out a complete divorce (mora solum quoad 
 thorum, scd etiam quoad vinculum). They think hence that the exceptive clause 
 in Matt. xix. 9 is not meant to be attached with lawyerlike exclusiveness to the 
 contingency with which it happens to be formally connected, and detached 
 from the second contingency ; just as they think that, in the passage before us, 
 the exception is not intended to be ignored, although it is not formally intro- 
 duced. This is no doubt the right view of the case ; and, among Eoman 
 Catholic writers, both Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan were of the same mind ; 
 but still it should ever be borne in mind that the existence of ' sin ' has intro- 
 duced aU but inextricable confusion into the whole subject. 
 
 He conunitteth adultery against her. Though the husband has put away his 
 wife in fact, she is still his wife ; he has merely put her out of the way. The 
 expression against her is literally upon her (iir air-qv), and is so rendered in the 
 Vulgate version. Hence some expositors suppose that the reference is not to 
 the wife who has been put away, but to the woman who has been superinduced 
 into her place. This is the view of Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus 
 (drjXaSi] tt]v itrdcraKTov), as also of Eisner, Ewald, Bleek, Lange. It is more 
 likely however that the view entertained by the great majority of expositors is 
 correct, the view that is embodied in our Authorized translation. The man 
 commits adultery in relation to his wife, in opposition to Iter rights and interests. 
 His adultery comes upon her, and is against her. The preposition is frequently 
 rendered against ; see Matt. x. 21, xii. 26, xxiv. 7, xxvi. 55, etc. Erasmus 
 interprets the expression, to her injury. 
 
 Veb. 12. And if a woman. Such is the reading of the Eeoeived Text, and 
 also of Lachmann. Some exceedingly ancient and important manuscripts 
 however, instead of a woman {yvi/'fi), read she (air^). Such is the reading of 
 N B C L A. It is also the reading of the Coptic and jEthiopio versions, and has 
 been introduced into the texts of Tregelles, Tischeudorf (eighth edition), Alford. 
 It is no doubt the original reading. The other can be accounted for on the 
 principle, so often acted on by transcribers, that it is innocent to amend or 
 improve a mere matter of phraseology. 
 
 Should put away her husband. It is implied that, in our Saviour's judgment, 
 wives and husbands have equal rights in reference to divorce, and in reference 
 to all therefore that is implied in divorce. Josephus indeed says " that while, 
 " according to the Jewish laws, it is lawful for a husband to dissolve his 
 
280 ST. MARK X. [12 
 
 husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. 
 
 13 And they brought young children to him, that he should 
 
 touch them : and Ms disciples rebuked those that brought 
 
 " marriage by giving a bill of divorce to his -wife, yet it is not lawful for a wife, 
 " who voluntarily departs from ber husband, to be married to another, unless 
 " her former husband renounce her " {Antiq., :k-7. 7 : 10). No doubt Josephus 
 expressed the common opinion of his countrymen. But this opinion was 
 founded on Deut. xxiv. 1-4, which merely brings into view a certain duty 
 devolving on husbonds, but does not on that account deny the equivalent rights 
 of wives. As a matter of fact, Jewish wives, in ordinary circumstances, did 
 not enjoy equivalent rights ; but that matter of fact was founded, not on Divine 
 statute, but on a barbarous use-and-wont, which had descended from the days 
 when right was arbitrarily merged in might. In mariiage however, as Eichard 
 Baxter remarks, the wife and the husband are equally ' contractors.' Among 
 Greeks and Eomans, in the age of our Lord, the wife's right of divorce was 
 recognised ; and whenever among the Jews the wife had the power as well as 
 the inclination, she asserted her right. (See Danz's Dissertation, Uxor Marihim 
 Eepudians, in Meuschen's New Test., pp. 677-701.) 
 
 And be married to another. Or, as it stands in the modern critical editions 
 and in a great majority of the best manuscripts, and should marry another 
 (7afi^(7j;). The woman is recognised as not only being married, but as also 
 actively marrying. Note the word another, that is, according to our translation, 
 another husband. But in reaUty the woman does not, according to our Saviour's 
 supposition, marry another husband ; she only marries another ttuui, who cannot 
 be her husband. In the original the awkwardness is avoided by an idiom which 
 is literally reproduced in Scotch and German, and if she put aioay her 'man' 
 and marry another. Purvey avoids the awkwardness by a. free translation, and 
 if the wiif leveth hir housbonde and be weddid to another man. 
 
 She committeth adultery. It is not said against Mm, probably because it is in 
 the case of thfe weaker sex that the injury, as distinguished from the sin of 
 wanton divorce, is most severely felt. 
 
 Vee. 13-16 constitute an exquisite paragraph, corresponding to Matt. xix. 
 13-15, and Luke xvui. 15-17. 
 
 Veb. 13. And. On some unspecified part of the Saviour's route southward. 
 
 They were bringing little children to Him. It would doubtless be the parents 
 who were bringing them, fatherly fathers and motherly mothers. Their instincts 
 assured them that He would be a lover of children, and they were convinced ia 
 their hearts that there would be some peculiar value in His benediction. 
 
 That He might touch them. They wished that He should lay His hand on 
 their heads and bless them. They had faith that His touch would be more thiui 
 mere symbolism. Must not His whole person bo surcharged with ' virtue ' ? 
 
 And the disciples were rebuking (^ireri^uwi') those who were bringing them. 
 ' The erroneous apostles,' as Richard Baxter calls them, thought that the Great 
 Kabbi would be annoyed, and His attention diverted from matters of greater 
 importance than anything connected with little children. Any such thing 
 
15] ST. MARK X. 281 
 
 them. 14 But wlien Jesus saw it, he was much dis- 
 pleased, and said unto thenij Suffer the little children to 
 come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is 
 the kingdom of God. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whoso- 
 
 ■wonld be, in their apprehension, as Petter remarks, ' a small and leiglit matter.' 
 On the word translated were rehuhing, see chap. i. 25, iv. 39. It is here 
 equivalent to chiding. 
 
 Vee. 14. But when Jesus saw it. The original expression (ISiiv Si) does not 
 imply that any time elapsed before Jesus had cognisance of what was trans- 
 piring. It only implies that what follows the seeing in the narrative also 
 followed as an effect in the sequence of the narrated events. Jesus saw what the 
 disciples did, and then was affected according to the pecuharity of their action, 
 on the one hand, and the peculiarity of His own character on the other. 
 
 He was much displeased. The much is superfluous in translation, and is 
 wanting in Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Geneva. The Eheims renders 
 the expression thus. He tooke it il. The word may often, in its classical usage, 
 be translated. He was vexed. 
 
 And said to them, Suffer the little children to come to Me. Suffer, that is, -permit. 
 Take your hands off the little ones I The expression is applicable to the case 
 of children who were eagerly making their way, on their own feet, to the 
 Saviour. 
 
 And. This conjunction, found in Matthew and Luke, is omitted in the texts 
 of Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. It is wanting in a large number of the uncial 
 manuscripts, inclusive of the Vatican. It is more likely to have been inten- 
 tionally added than intentionally or unintentionally omitted. 
 
 Forbid them not. Or rather, Hinder them not {/ii) KoiXiere). That is the word 
 which is given in the versions of Mace, Wakefield, Principal Campbell, Norton, 
 Alford. The disciples had been putting forth their hands to keep back the little 
 ones. 
 
 For of such. That is, of such little children as these. The Saviour does not 
 mean, of persons like little children in disposition ; otherwise, as Eichard Baxter 
 says, " He might have taken up lambs or doves, and blessed them, and said. Of 
 "such is the kingdom of God." He refers to the little children who were there 
 (oomp. Acts xxii. 22 ; Eom. i. 32) ; but not to them exclusively. All little 
 children everywhere are embraced within the compass of His reference. (See 
 Comm. on Matt. xix. 14.) 
 
 Is the kingdom of God. The kingdom of heaven, in its privileges, helongs to 
 little children. They are ' in ' it, and have a right through grace to its pre- 
 rogatives. They will never be ' far,' or only ' not far,' from it, unless they 
 wilfuUy expatriate themselves, or be subjected to banishment because of rebel- 
 lion. If they die in infancy, they will but ascend from a lower to a higher 
 province, in which they will be nearer to the throne of the King. 
 
 Ver. 15. Verily I say unto you. That is, I solemnly assure you. Tho 
 Saviour takes tlie opportunity of adding a remark that has reference to such as 
 are not children. 
 
282 ST. MARK X. [15 
 
 ever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he 
 shall not enter therein. 16 And he took them up in his arms, 
 put his hands upon them, and blessed them. 
 
 1 7 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one 
 running, and kneeled to him, and asked him. Good Master, 
 
 Whosoever shall not receive the tiagdom of God, as a little child, he shaE in no 
 ■wise enter into it. While little children do not need voluntarily to enter into the 
 kingdom of God, adults do ; for by sin they have become expatriated. But as 
 it is a spiritual kingdom, to which men can return without any local transfer- 
 ence of their personality, they may be said to receive it, as well as to enter into 
 it. They allow it to enter into them, until they are absorbed within it and 
 assimilated by it. Or we may distinguish thus : they receive it, so far as its 
 principles are concerned ; they enter into it, so far as its privileges are con- 
 cerned. They must however receive it and enter into it, in tlie spirit of little 
 children, who do not think of alleging any claim of merit, or presenting any 
 price for their position and privileges. 
 
 Yee. 16. And having taken them up in His arms. Infolding or clasping 
 them. It is the same beautiful word that is used in chap. ix. 36 [ivayKaKiaa- 
 fisvos). Wycliffe has Mclippinge hem. 
 
 He blesses them, putting His hands upon them. This is the collocation of the 
 clauses that is adopted by Tisohendorf, Tregelles, Alford. While the httle ones 
 were successively folded to His breast. He disengaged His right arm, laid His 
 hand on the little head, and uttered His benediction. The word rendered blesses 
 (KarcvMyei) , as adopted into the texts of Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, from 
 the ancient uncial manuscripts, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It 
 is stronger than the uncompounded verb, and ' may,' says Alford, ' he rendered, 
 Se fervently blessed them,.' The Saviour lifted up to His Father, in behalf of 
 the little ones, the fervent desires of His heart, and thus invoiced ' down ' upon 
 them a blessing. See Matt. xix. 13. 
 
 Vek. 17-21 constitute a paragraph parallel to Matt. xix. 16-26 and Lute xviii. 
 18-27. 
 
 Ver. 17. And. At some unspeciiied period in His southward journey. 
 
 As He was going forth into the way. The way, road, track, or route, that led 
 southward. Edgar Taylor translates, as He was going forth ' along ' thz high- 
 way. But the evangelist's expression denotes the action of our Lord in going 
 from the house where He had been ' into ' the highway. 
 
 One came running up, and, kneeling to Him, asked Him. His mind had been 
 ' under concern ' on a practical matter, and, hearing that the celebrated Galilean 
 Babbi was about to pass by, he had come with haste to get the benefit of His 
 counsel. 
 
 Good Master. Literally, Good Teacher. He assumed that the Galilean Eabbi, 
 with whose good deeds the whole country had been ringing, must be good. But 
 perhaps, in the employment of such an epithet, there might be, as there some- 
 times is in our familiar English idiom, a germ of self-assumption, such self- 
 
1-9] ST. MAKK X. 283 
 
 ■what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And 
 Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is 
 none good hut one, that is, God. 19 Thou knowest the com- 
 mandments. Do not commit adultery, Do not kill. Do not steal. 
 
 assumption as is ready enough to admit in others some excellency of motives, 
 while no other superiority is conceded. 
 
 What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? He was in a state of 
 ' anxiety ' in reference to everlasting things. He had faith in a retributive 
 future ; and, desiring a state of bliss in the world to come, he wanted to know 
 what would be necessary to secure that state. He was persuaded apparently 
 that eternal life was not to be obtained by purchase. It was to be obtained by 
 Divine allotment and will, by inheritance. But he was also persuaded, and so 
 far rightly, that subjective conditions required to be fulfilled, ere he would be 
 ' meet ' to enter on possession as a ' portiouer ' or heir. We have no reason to 
 think that Mark intended to report, exhaustively, the whole language em- 
 ployed by the interrogator, and all the aspects of conversation that ensued. 
 Hence the variations in Matthew's account. (Chap, sis. 16, 17. See Comm. 
 in loc.) 
 
 Vee. 18. But Jesus said to him, Why dost thou call Me good ! Our Lord saw 
 that the ' young man ' (Matt. xix. 20) only assumed that He was good ; and in 
 the very facility with which he made the assumption he bewrayed an iuadeguate 
 conception of the true import and importance of goodness. 
 
 There is none good but One, God. Tyndale's translation is awkward. There is 
 no ' man ' good but one, which is God. Goodness, moral and spiritual, is Divine. 
 Absolute Goodness and God are one. God is impersonated goodness, just as 
 He is impersonated love. Primarily, essentially, independently, none is good 
 but God. When goodness is found in a creature, it is just a reflection of the 
 moral glory of the Creator ; it is godlikeness. The young man was not taking 
 this lofty view of goodness ; otherwise, before he called Jesus good, he would 
 have taken some pains to ascertain how far there was in Him a reflection, or 
 ' express image,' of the glory of the Divine Father. The Saviour is not repel- 
 ling however, as some have imagined, the notion of His own sinlessness. He is 
 only criticising the loose language, and loose ideas, of His interrogator, regard- 
 ing that moral condition of spirifwhich is the contradictory of sinfulness. 
 
 Vek. 19. After ixttering His mild rebuke, our Lord proceeds to answer the 
 young man's question, by exhibiting the moral character requisite as ' meet- 
 ness ' for the enjoyment of everlasting life. 
 
 Thou knowest the commandments, So not commit adultery, Do hot kill, So not 
 steal. There is considerable diversity in the manuscripts, as regards the rela- 
 tive position of these commandments. Laohmaun, under the authority of the 
 Vatican, puts Do not commit adultery after Do not kill. The Syriac Peshito 
 version again puts Do not kill after Do not steal. The Sinaitio manuscript, 
 on the other hand, omits Do not commit adultery altogether. The order of 
 the Eeceived Text, and consequently of our Authorized version, is the best 
 supported. 
 
284 ST. MARK X. [19 
 
 Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and 
 mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all 
 these have I observed from my youth. 21 Then Jesus behold- 
 
 Do not bear false witness, Do not defrand, Honour thy father and thy mother. 
 A good deal of debate has been raised in reference to the second of these three 
 commandments. Beza and Lange suppose that it gathers up and generalises 
 all the preceding commandments, being equivalent to this, Do injury to no one. 
 Petter, Heupel, Fritzsche, Bloomfield, contend for something much more specific. 
 They suppose that it is a return, under a particular phase, to ' the eighth com- 
 mandment,' Do not steal. Hofmann again supposes that it bends forward to 
 the next clause in the list, in which ' the fifth commandment ' is Specified, De- 
 fraud not thy father and thy mother of the honour which is their due. {Schrift- 
 bemeis, ii. 2, p. 365.) Owen (iJodes of Quotation, j). 45) and Kuinol suppose 
 that there is a reference to the particular injunction contained in Lev. xix. 13, 
 TIiou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him, or, as the Septuagint 
 renders it. Thou shalt not injure (dSiKijirets) thy neighbour, nor rob. Meyer 
 again supposes that the reference is to Deut. xxiv. 14, TIwu slialt not oppress a 
 hired servant that is poor and needy, which, in the Alexandrine manuscript, is 
 rendered thus, Tliou slialt not withlwld the hire [diroaTep-qaus /xi.a66v) of the poor 
 and needy. It is far more likely however that the words are really, as Bishop 
 Hammond expresses it, ' St. Mark's rendering of the tenth commandment ' ; 
 and if so, we find in our Lord's specification of commandments the complement 
 of duties in the entire manward circle, or second table, of the decalogue. He 
 who covets what belongs to another has in his heart already deprived him of it. 
 The verb (oTroorepiicriis) that is rendered defraud in our version and begyle in 
 Coverdale, is too narrowly so rendered. It means to deprive of what is one's 
 due, whether by ' hook,' ' crook,' or force, or in any other way.' (See Wetsteiu 
 in loc.) Le Clerc takes Hammond's view of the commandment, and so do 
 Bengel, Wetstein, de Wette, Holden, Alexander, Bisping. 
 
 Veb. 20. But he answered and said unto Him. Or, as it is more briefly in 
 both the Sinaitio and Vatican manuscripts. But he said to Him. 
 
 Master. Literally, Teacher, that is Rabbi. 
 
 All these have I observed from my youth. Or more literally. All these I ob- 
 served from my youth. He is thinking of his past life as a distinct unit of time, 
 back on which he looks from the standpoint of the present. The word trans- 
 lated observed properly means guarded. The young man acted toward the 
 commandments as wards committed to his keeping. So he thought at least ; 
 and to a certain extent correctly. So far as the letter of the law was concerned, 
 that letter which was incorporated in the political constitution of the Jewish 
 polity, and which formed the groundwork of unchallengeable position in Jewish 
 society, the young man had kept the commandments. His outward demeanour 
 had been irreproachable. (Comp. Phil. iii. 6.) 
 
 Veb. 21. And Jesus beholding him. Fixing His eyes upon him, so as to read 
 him. 
 
 loved him. Many of the older expositors, from Victor of Antiooh downward, 
 wondered at this statement. It surprised them that our Saviour should be repre- 
 
21] ST. MARK X. 285 
 
 ing Mm loved him, and said unto liira. One thing thou 
 lackest: go thy wa,j, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give 
 
 Bented as loving one wlio was not prepared to give up all on earth for the sate 
 of the kingdom of heaven. Hence various attempts were made to find in the 
 expression something less inward than real love. Some supposed that the words 
 loved him meant kissed him. (See Casaubon's note and Wolf's.) Even Lightfoot 
 hesitates to object to this interpretation. Others have supposed that it means 
 spoke to him kindly. So Casaubon, Eisner, de Dieu, Vater. Norton has a 
 similar idea ; only he blends the phrase with the following expression and said 
 to him, interpreting thus, affectionately said to him. Others again maintain 
 that the phrase means pitied him. Alexander says : " Most probably love, as in 
 " many other places, here denotes, not moral approbation, nor affection founded 
 " upon anything belonging to the object, but a sovereign and gratuitous com- 
 " passion, such as leads to every act of mercy upon God's part. The sense will 
 " then be, not that Jesus loved him on account of what he said or what he was 
 " or what he did, but that, having purposes of mercy towards him, He proceeded 
 " to unmask him to himself, and to show him how entirely groundless, although 
 " probably sincere, was his claim to have habitually kept the law. The Saviour's 
 "love is then mentioned, not as the effect of what precedes, but as the -ground 
 " or motive of what follows." It should however be borne in mind that those 
 who love both wisely and well take cognisance invariably of lovable qualities 
 in the objects of their love. It would not be to the glory of any being to love 
 the utterly unimportant, insignificant, and unlovely. Beauty of moral character 
 may indeed be wanting ; but excellency of capability, or superiority of constitu- 
 tion, or some other beauty or worth, must be discernible, as an indispensable 
 condition of such love as challenges the approbation of conscience and the 
 admiration of intelligence. Love of compassion is never absolutely separated 
 from love of appreciation. Our Saviour's love would be no exception. He 
 would discern in the young man not a little that was really amiable, the result 
 of the partial reception and reflection of gracious Divine influences. There was 
 ingenuousness for instance, and moral earnestness. There was restraint of the 
 animal passions-, and an aspiration of the spirit toward the things of the world 
 to come. There was still, indeed, ' one thing ' that was wanting, ' one thing ' 
 that was wrong ; and in that ' one thing ' many things would be involved. 
 But there were other things that were the fit objects of complacency. 
 
 And said to him, One thing thou lackest. Or, in one thing thou earnest behind, 
 in one thing thou earnest short (Kom. iii. 23). Wycliffe's version is, a thing 
 failith to thee. 
 
 Go thy way. Or simply. Goo, as Tyndale has it. The Saviour thus, instead 
 of stating categorically what was the one thing in which the young man came 
 behind, tells him how to act, if he were willing and wishful to be set right. 
 
 Sell whatsoever thou hast. This is not, as certain defenders of Eoman Catholic 
 monasticism have maintained, Patrizi for instance, a counsel of supererogatory 
 perfection, in complying with which something more would be achieved than 
 what was requisite for personal righteousness. Neither is it, as communistic 
 theorists have contended, a rule of life for all the disciples of Christ in all ages. 
 It was an injunction addressed to apartictdar individual, and intended to meet 
 
286 ST. MARK X [21 
 
 to the poor, and thoti shalfc have treasure in heaven : and come, 
 take up the cross, and follow me. 22 And he was sad at that 
 saying, and went away grieved : for he had great possessions. 
 
 his particular spiritual difficulty, that he might master the particular temptation 
 to which he was exposed, and before which he was in danger of succumbing. 
 The same individual, if living in another age and amid other circumstances, 
 might probably have received some modification of the injunction. The one 
 thing aimed at was, no doubt, the deliverance of the young man's heart from 
 some subtle species of self-indulgence that endangered his soul. He was not 
 realizing, we may presume, that he was but a steward of the property of the 
 Great Proprietor ; he was in other words overlooking the moral responsibilities 
 of wealth, the duties which it superinduces on its privileges. 
 
 And give to the poor. We need not imagine anything like indiscriminate or 
 injudicious distribution. It is enough that the Saviour recognised that some 
 people have too much of the world, and others too little ; and that they who 
 have too little should be the objects of an unceasing solicitude. 
 
 And thou shalt have treasure in heaven. Thou shalt have riches of glory. 
 The righteousness of liberality, which is thus represented as rewardable with 
 the riches of glory, is not the perfect and spotless righteousness of systematic 
 theology. That perfect and spotless righteousness is the work of the Mediator, 
 and the objective ground of forensic justification. But the righteousness of 
 liberality is a single phase of that imperfect personal righteousness of the 
 believer which is, notwithstanding its imperfection, the indispensable moral 
 meetness for the employments and enjoyments of the heavenly state. Bee on 
 ver. 27. 
 
 And come. Very literally, mid come hither. 
 
 Take up the cross and follow Me. The words take up the cross are wanting in 
 very high and ancient authorities, the Sinaitic, Vatican, Ephraemi, and Cam- 
 bridge manuscripts (SBC D), as also in A, and the Vulgate version. Tregelles 
 and Tisohendorf have thrown them out of their texts. Mill's critical instinct 
 led him of old to condemn them (Prol., § 407). It is likely, as both Mill and 
 Tischendorf remark, that they have been marginally added from chap. viii. 34. 
 Comp. Matt. xvi. 24 and Luke ix. 23. It was enough, we may presume, 
 that, in the first instance at least, it should be laid on the conscience of the 
 young man to attach himself to the Galilean Eabbi as a personal follower. 
 
 Veb. 22. But he, saddened at the saying. The word rendered sad or saddened 
 {uTvypdaa!) is applied to the sky in Matt. xvi. 3, and is there translated, in our 
 Authorized version, lowring. A gloom came over the young man's heart, and 
 threw its shadow on his face. Discumforted is Tyndale's rendering ; chagrine, 
 Hilliet's ; ful sort, Purvey's. 
 
 Went away sorrowing. This present participle, as distinguished from the past 
 of the preceding clause, denotes the grief that continued after the first shock 
 of vexation. 
 
 For he had great possessions. Wyclifte's rendering is, Forsoth he was havyntje 
 many possesciouns. The possessions which he was holding {^v ^xw) were 
 iiumorous {iroWd). 
 
•24] ST. MARK X. 287 
 
 23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto liis disci- 
 pleSj How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the king- 
 dom of God ! 24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. 
 But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, 
 how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the 
 
 Vee. 23. And Jesns looked round abont. Withdrawing His eyes from the 
 young man, who had now turned away. 
 
 And saith to His disciples. After having surveyed them round and round. 
 
 How hardly shall they who have riches enter into the kingdom of God ! Hoio 
 hardly, that is, with what difficulty. The expression who have riches is literally 
 who have ' the ' riches. The article was somewhat perplexing to Fritzsche ; but 
 he hit apparently on the true explanation. The Saviour had it in His option 
 either to consider riches indefinitely, or to take into account the definite sum- 
 total of the riches of the world. He chooses the latter view. The few, who 
 divide among themselves tliese riches, are in general regarded by their fellow- 
 men as ' the favourites of fortune.' But their position has its drawbacks as 
 well as its advantages. WhUe they 'have great facilities for getting good and 
 doing good, they are encompassed with great temptations. 
 
 Veb. 24. And the disciples were amazed at His words. They had been accus- 
 tomed to think little of the dangers, and much of the advantages, of wealth. 
 
 But Jesns answereth again, and saith unto them. The again grated on the 
 ear of Fritzsche, and he struck it out of his text. Unwarrantably, although it 
 is wanting in the Alexandrine manuscript and a few unimportant cursivos. 
 The evangeUst did not intend it to quahfy the word answereth, but rather the 
 remainder of the introductory expression. But Jesus again says to them in reply. 
 He replied to what was implied in their amazement ; and in His reply He 
 repeated, though under a variation, the idea which He had expressed in what 
 goes immediately before. 
 
 Children. His affection overflowed, as He realized that the objects of His 
 solicitude were spiritually young and inexperienced. All those of them who 
 were genuine had in them a true spiritual lite, which they had derived from 
 Himself. Ccmp. chap. ii. 5, v. 34 ; John xiii. 33, xiv. 18. 
 
 How hard is it for them that trust ia riches to enter into the kingdom of God. 
 Might we not rather have expected our Lord to have said, How hard it is for 
 them ' who have riches ' ? And this is really what is said in the ^thiopio 
 version. Some copies of the Old Latin version (c, ff^) have simply, limo hard 
 it is for a rich man (divitem). Another Old Latin copy (a) has alternatively, 
 JEToJO hard it is for those who have riclies or who trust in them. Such variations 
 in the Old Latin copies almost suggest that the Eeceived Text must contain an 
 ancient marginal annotation. And then, in another Old Latin copy (k), the 
 text runs thus. Sow hard it is to enter into the kingdom of God ! And this is 
 the reacting that is actually found in a certain important Coptic manuscript 
 (patr. 3). It is too the reading of the important San Gallensis manuscript (A). 
 And it is likewise the reading of the two most ancient and most important 
 manuscripts yet known, the Sinaitic and the Vatican (SB). Tisohendorf has 
 accepted it. Bightly, no doubt. The Saviour indeed had His eye, specifically 
 
288 ST. MARK X. [24 
 
 kingdom of God ! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through 
 the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into 
 the kingdom of God. 26 And they were astonished out of 
 measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved ? 
 
 upon the ricli ; but for a moment He enlarges His field of vision, and makes 
 the more generic statement, How difficult it is to enter the Mngdom of God ! 
 What barriers are in every one's way ! Hence the tenderness of His address, 
 Children ! It would, when one considers it, be strange that He should have 
 said, HoiD diffixiult it is 'for those who trust in riches ' to enter into the Mngdom 
 of God ! Those toho trust, in riches are very far indeed from being meet for 
 the kingdom of heaven. They are most unmeet. Their god is gold. It is at 
 the shrine of Mammon that they perform the rights of adoration. The hand 
 therefore of an annotator is surely bewrayed in the reading of the Eeoeived 
 Text. He wanted to explain wherein the danger of riches consists. His ex- 
 planation is admirable. The rich are apt to ' trust in their riches ' for their 
 happiness. It is self evident. But for that very reason it seems almost prepos- 
 terous to suppose that our Saviour would, in the solemnity of the case before us, 
 utter the commonplace, as if it were something of very deep significance. 
 
 Vee. 25. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a 
 rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. A fine, bold, hieroglyphic, hyper- 
 bolical, way of speaking, that need impose upon no one who has a spark of poetry 
 in his soul. The key to its import is hung at the girdle of common sense. 
 
 Southey caught its spirit : 
 
 " I would ride the camel. 
 Yea, leap him flying, through the needle's eye. 
 As easily as sucli ^ pampered soul 
 Could pass the narrow gate." 
 
 ' The text,' he says, ' is gospel-wisdom.' The Saviour intended to represent 
 vividly and memorably the extraordinary diflSculty of discharging the responsi- 
 bilities, and overcoming the temptations, of riches. The expression the eye of 
 ' a ' needle is, in the original, as it was lying before our translators, the eye of 
 'the'' needle. Such too is Tisohendorf's reading, supported by the Vatican 
 manuscript and other considerable authorities. A preponderance of the best 
 authorities however, inclusive of the Sinaitic, Alexandrian, Ephraemi, and 
 Cambridge manuscripts (N A CD), omit both the axiioles, a needle's eye; and 
 this is Lachmann's and Tregelles' reading. The attempt to substitute cable for 
 camel, patronized even by Calvin, and the kindi'ed attempt to explain away the 
 phrase , a needle's eye, as if it must mean something far less impervious to a 
 camel than the actual eye of a needle, proceed on an entire and prosaic miscon- 
 ception of the sacred imagery. (Sea Comm. on Matt. xix. 2i.) 
 
 Vee. 26. And they were astonished exceedingly. They were astounded ; they 
 were confounded. 
 
 Saying unto Him. Or rather to themselves, that is, to one another, but in the 
 hearing of the Master. 
 
 Then who can be saved ? A free translation, but correct. The expression, if 
 very literally rendered, would run thus, ' And' who can be saved ? It has been 
 
27] ST. MARK X. 289 
 
 27 And Jesus looking upon them saith. With men it is im- 
 possible, but not with God: for with God all things are 
 possible. 
 
 perplexing to many scholars, to Grotius among the rest. It is quite an intel- 
 ligible idiom however, resting like many others on a faithful representation of 
 an actual mental experience. The astounded disciples advanced, not opposi- 
 tively as Fritzsche supposed, hut contimiatively in the direction of the train of 
 thought that had been started by the Saviour. And as they thus advanced they 
 were shut up to the question, who is able to he saved ? Their minds had gone 
 beyond the special case of the rich. They saw, as the Saviour had indicated in 
 ver. 24, that the temptations which assail the rich are just a particular species 
 of the temptations that assail generioally all without exception. All, in all 
 circumstances, are liable to insidious temptations to selfishness ; and selfishnfiss 
 is the essence of unrighteousness. 
 
 Yee. 27. Jesus, looking upon them. The tenderness of His heart looking 
 forth from His eyes. 
 
 Saith, With men it is impossible. With men, that is, on the part of men. It does 
 not mean, as Fritzsche strangely supposed, in the judgment of men. When the 
 Saviour says It is impossible, He means, It is impossible to work out salvation, 
 in the sense, namely, of working out such a perfect righteousness as would be 
 the meritorious cause of salvation. When the Saviour spoke of the difficulty 
 of rich men in particular, and of men in general. He had reference not to the 
 righteousness which is the ' meritorious cause ' of everlasting glory, but to the 
 righteousness which is the ' moral meetness ' of the soul for the enjoyment of 
 such glory. The two righteousnesses are intimately inter-related, and in the 
 case of unfallen beings are but two aspects of one identical reality ; in the case 
 of sinful beings hke men, however, they are distinct realities. The righteousness 
 which is the meritorious cause of everlasting glory was wrought out and brought 
 in by ' Jesus Christ the righteous,' and is for ever in Him. It is forensioally 
 imputed to those who believe in Him. But the righteousness which is moral 
 meetness for the enjoyment of everlasting glory is wrought out in the believer's 
 heart and life, under the mighty impulse of the Holy Spirit of God ; it is the 
 righteousness of which mention is made in the sermon on the mount (Matt. v. 
 6, 20). The other is the righteousness of which Paul speaks when he says that 
 " the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that beUeveth, for 
 " therein is the righteousness of God {i.e., the work of the Saviour) revealed from 
 "faith to faith." (Eom. i. 16, 17.) He who looks merely in the direction of the 
 requisite subjective righteousness, with all its inherent imperfections, cannot 
 but say in despair, 'Who can be saved? ' And if the Saviour be speaking to 
 one who is looking exclusively in that direction, He cannot but say ' with men 
 salvation is impossible,' absolutely impossible. 
 
 But not with God. It is possible for God to save even the unrighteous, and to 
 ' justify the ungodly ' (Eom. iv. 5), for it is possible for Him to provide, the perfect 
 righteousness which is the meritorious cause of salvation. 
 
 For all things are possible with God. All things, all ' thinks.' All that man 
 can think as possible is possible with God. All that does not involve a contradic- 
 
 n 
 
290 ST. MARK X. [28 
 
 28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, 
 and have followed thee. 29 And Jesus answered and said. 
 Verily I say unto you. There is no man that hath left house, 
 or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, 
 or lands, for ray sake, and the gospel's, 30 but he shall receive 
 
 Hon in thought is possible with God. It is impossible to think that God should 
 cease to be Gad, or that infinite wisdom should become infinite folly, or that 
 badness should be goodness, or that twice two should be three ; but it is not 
 impossible to think that a Divine Saviour should appear in human form, and 
 magnify the law, and bring in an everlasting righteousness for men who have 
 been unrighteous. 
 
 Veb. 28-31 constitute an appendage to the preceding paragraph. Corre- 
 sponding appendages are found in Matt. six. 27-30, Luke xviii. 28-80. 
 
 Vee. 28. Peter began to say to Him. Observe the hegan. It is one of Mark's 
 peculiarities to note beginnings ; he leaves the mind to go forward from them 
 of its own accord. See chap. ii. 23, iv. 1, vi. 2. 
 
 Lo, we have left all, and have followed Thee. We have let all go. Unlike the 
 rich young man, we have surrendered all that would be a fetter to us in attend- 
 ing on Thee ; we have surrendered all, that we may follow Thee from place to 
 place, and be moulded by Thee for the work which may be given us to do in 
 connection with Thy kingdom. Peter was sincere, but too retroverting toward 
 self ; see Matt. xix. 27. 
 
 Vek. 29. Jesus said (^05; 6 'Itjo-oOs), Verily I say to you. That is, I solemnly 
 assure you. 
 
 There is no man that hath left house, or brothers, or sisters, or mother, or father. 
 There is difference among the manuscripts regarding the sequence of the words 
 father and mother. Tisohendorf and Tregelles reverse the order of the Eeceived 
 Text ; they foUow the Vatican manuscript. The Beceived Text has the support 
 of the Sinaitic. The Eeceived Text adds or wife ; but this item is omitted by 
 both the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts (XB), as also by DA, 1, 66, and the 
 Vulgate, Coptic, and Armenian versions, and many copies of the Old Latin. 
 Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford throw it out. It is a matter of no 
 moment whether it be formally retained or formally excluded ; it is virtually 
 included ; for it is evident that the relationships specified are specified repre- 
 sentatively. 
 
 Or children. Tyndale in both his editions has other children, thus interest- 
 ingly presenting to view the full original form of the disjunctive conjunction or ; 
 compare the German oder. 
 
 Or lands. Literally ^«Zds, that is, properties or possessions. The specific fee 
 the generic. 
 
 For My sake, and for the gospel's sake. The Saviour formally distinguishes 
 between Himself and the gospel ; and yet with lofty self-consciousness He 
 realized that He and the gospel were inseparable. Without Him the gospel 
 would be nothing ; without the gospel men would know nothing of Him. 
 
 Vek. 30. But he shall receive. Principal Campbell and Norton translate, who 
 
31] ST. MARK 2. 291 
 
 an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and 
 sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions ; 
 and in the world to come eternal life. 31 But many that are 
 first shall be last ; and the last first. 
 
 shall not receive. YeiyliteisMy it is, unless- he should receive. The idea is that 
 it is in no case a fact that any one has left all for Christ's sake, unless it be at 
 the same time true that he shall receive sublime compensation. 
 
 A hundredfold. A definite for an indefinite proportion. The meaning is that 
 the compensation will be far more than double, triple, quadruple, etc. It will 
 mount up to a hundredfold as it were, a truly glorious reward. 
 
 Now in this time. Even on earth the reward will be transcendent. 
 
 Houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers. There is no and fathers, the 
 omission being apparently without any specific intention. Several manuscripts 
 and Fritzsohe read and mother and father. 
 
 And children, and lands. It is with beautiful delicacy that our Saviour refrains 
 from inserting as an item and wives ; and thus Julian's scoff, referred to by 
 Theophylact, that the Christian has a promise of a hundred wives, had no 
 vestige of foundation but in his own foul imagination. In the preceding verse 
 the connective between the items is or, here it is and. There is great propriety 
 in the exchange, for here the Saviour is giving as it were an inventory of the 
 Divine fulness of blessing, so far as it is available for the most Mnple compen- 
 sation of those who have suffered loss. And there is besides in the spiritual 
 sphere of things a kind of mutual involution of blessed relationships ; the sum 
 total of them all belongs to every true disciple. He gets a hundredfold more 
 bliss, even ' now in this time,' than he loses in the surrender of house, or 
 brother, or sister, or mother, or father, or wife, or children, or fields. 
 
 With persecutions {/xeTo, Siay/Muv). It is grandly added. The idea is not, in 
 the midst of persecutions ; still less is it, as Kuinbl imagined, after persecutions. 
 The preposition employed never means after, when connected with the genitive 
 case. And it was in vain that Heinsius, le Clerc, and Wetstein conjectured that 
 the evangelist had written in his autograph after persecution (Merd 5ioyy/j,6v). 
 We must occupy a loftier standpoint of observation, although Campbell and 
 Fritzsche, as well as Heinsius, le Clerc, and Wetstein had difficulty in reaching 
 it. The Saviour represents persecutions as, in some wonderful manner, belong- 
 ing to the inventory of the believer's blessings on earth. There is a certain 
 lofty sense in which it can be said, ' if ye suffer for righteousness sake happy 
 are ye,' ' rejoice and be exceedingly glad.' Comp. Matt. v. 10-13 ; Phil. i. 29 ; 
 1 Pet. iii. 14, iv. 12-16. 
 
 And in the world to come eternal life. Which, with its ' eternal weight of glory,' 
 makes up for all the Christian's trials, not merely a hundred times over, but 
 thousands of thousands of times. The phrase in the world to come is literally 
 in the age to come. It is the age of the Messiah's undisputed reign, coincident 
 with the age of man's perfected glory. It will be the beginning of an endless 
 series of corresponding ages. 
 
 Vee. 31. But many that are first shall be last, and the last first. One of our 
 Saviour's seed thoughts. (See Matt. xix. 30, xx. 16 ; Luke xiii. 30.) The con- 
 
292 ST. MAEK X. [32 
 
 32 And they were in tlie way going up to Jerusalem; and 
 Jesus went before them : and they were amazed ; and as they 
 followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, 
 
 trast of what is and of what ought to be is not greater than the contrast of 
 ■what is and what shall be. In the great sphere of the world at large, many are 
 at present uppermost who shall by and by be undermost ; and even in the hemi- 
 sphere of Christian society many have pressed forward to the front, who shall 
 by and by be consigned to the rear. Not a few of the noblest and wisest and 
 best have been pushed aside into corners and hidden places by the more bustling, 
 self asserting, and self elevating. But by and by the tables wiU be Divinely 
 turned, and every one will be found, high or low, in his proper niche. In the 
 pyramid of the glorified it will not be the highest dignitaries of the church, or 
 the most applauded scholars, or the most splendid orators, who will be found at 
 the apex. Perhaps not even Peter, James, or John will be ' first.' 
 
 Vek. 32-34 constitute a little paragraph corresponding to Matt. xx. 17-19 and 
 liuke xviii. 31-83. 
 
 Vek. 32. And they were In the way going up to Jerusalem. The scene with 
 the rich young man happened while they were going out into the highway (ver. 
 17). Now they had reached the highway, and were in it, with their faces set 
 toward Jerusalem. 
 
 And Jesns was going before them. Pressing on, with high resolve, in the 
 direction of the final scenes. He foresaw all, and yet marched on unflinch- 
 ingly toward the conflict, ' for the joy that was set before Him.' (Heb. xii. 2.) 
 
 And they were amazed. Or astounded. It is the same verb that occurs in 
 ver. 24. The majesty and heroism of His bearing, as He strode along in 
 advance, wrapt in His own lofty meditations, struck them a-s something extra- 
 ordinary. They were confounded. Principal Campbell very unhappily renders 
 the expression, a panic seized them. 
 
 And they that followed— or better, thetj that were folloioing — were afraid. This, 
 is no doubt the correct reading ; it is that of the Sinaitio and Vatican manu- 
 scripts (X B), as also C* L A and 1 ; it is, at first sight at least, the more difficult 
 reading. Ewald, Tregelles, Tischendorf approve of it. The evangelist dis- 
 tinguishes between the apostles who would be nearest to our Lord, though at a 
 distance, and the miscellaneous crowd who had been looking on wistfully, tad 
 listening as they had opportunity, and ' following.' To them the Saviour was 
 an impenetrable Mystery ; He was entirely unique and unearthly ; and as He 
 strode along sublimely, in advance even of His chosen disciples, their reverence 
 rose up into a weird feeling of awe, under which they began to tremble and bo 
 afraid. ' Who can tell,' they would be thinking, ' what is portended by the 
 appearance of such a Being ? ' 
 
 And He took again the twelve. The tioelve, as distinguished from those referred 
 to in the immediately preceding clause. Jesus took them ' to Himself.' Such is 
 the import of the word. He gathered them around Him, apart from the rest 
 of the ' following.' He took them again. This again refers to the fact that 
 after He had advanced for a time on the highway apart and alone, He rejoined 
 His apostles. 
 
36] , ST. MARK X. 293 
 
 and began to tell tliem what things should happen unto him, 
 33 saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem j and the Son of 
 man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the 
 scribes j and they shall condemn him to death, and shall 
 deliver him to the Gentiles : 34 and they shall mock him, and 
 shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him : 
 and the third day he shall rise again. 
 
 35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto 
 him, saying. Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us 
 whatsoever we shall desire. 36 And he said unto them. What 
 
 And began to tell them the things that were to happen to Him. He had done 
 so before, but they had only the dimmest apprehension of what He meant 
 (chap. viii. 31, ii. 31). They needed ' line upon line,' ' here a little, there a 
 little.' 
 
 Veb. 33. Here follows an abstract of what He said to them. 
 
 Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be delivered to 
 the chief priests and the scribes. An informal way of referring to the supreme 
 Jewish council or sanhedrim. The elders might also have been specified 
 (see chap. viii. 31) ; but they were, so to speak, the lay element, and in ecclesi- 
 astical cases would be dominated by the more ecclesiastical members. 
 
 And they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles. 
 The Eomans, to be by them iguominiously executed. ' 
 
 Vek. 34. And they shall mock Him. Theij, the Gentries to wit. 
 
 And shall spit upon Him, and shall scourge Him, and shall kill Him ; and after 
 three days He shall rise again. Such is the reading of the best manuscripts 
 (XBCDLA) and of the great majority of the Old Latin codices. It is ap- 
 proved of by Griesbach, and received into the text by Lachmann, Tisoheudorf, 
 Tregelles, Alford. See chap. viii. 31, ix. 31. 
 
 Vee. 35-40 exhibit a strange freak of ambition on the part of the two dis- 
 ciples, James and John, who seem to have thought that a momentous crisis in 
 our Lord's history was at hand. A corresponding paragraph occurs in Matt. 
 XX. 20-23. 
 
 Vek. 35. And. At some subsequent stage of their progress southward. 
 
 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, approach Him, saying to Him. This re- 
 petitive expression ' to him,' though not occurring in the Received Text, is found 
 in the manuscripts i< B D L A, and is no doubt genuine. 
 
 Master. Or Eabbi. Literally, Teacher. See chap. ix. 5. 
 
 We would that Thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask of Thee. The 
 pronoun of Thee [iri) is found in the manuscripts X A B C L A, and is doubtless 
 genuine. The phrase we would that, if very literally rendered, would be, We 
 desire in order that, that is, We have a desire, the aim of which is that, whatever 
 we slwuld ask. Thou shouldest do for us. The whole expression just means. We 
 liave a request to prefer to Thee. 
 
 Vee. 36. And He said to them, What would ye that I should do for you ? Tho 
 
294 ST. MARE X. [36 
 
 would ye that I should do for you ? 37 They said unto him. 
 Grant unto us that we may sitj one on thy right hand, and the 
 other on thy left hand, in thy glory. 38 But Jesus said unto 
 them, Te know not what ye ask : can ye drink of the cup that 
 I drink of ? and be baptized with the baptism that I am bap- 
 reading is a little perplexed in the oldest manuscripts ; but the meaning is 
 ob-vious. Our Lord wished the two disciples to spread out, under the light of 
 His observation and of their own reflection, what was lying in their hearts. 
 
 Veb. 37. And they said to Him, Grant to ns, that we may sit, one at Thy right 
 hand, and one at Thy left hand, in Thy glory. The request was certainly more 
 honest than modest. Apprehending that some great apocalypse was at hand, 
 they seem to have had it in view to steal a march on Peter, their most formid- 
 able rival for the primacy. They were sure that their Lord must be a King, 
 though at present in disguise. In imagination they saw the disguise thrown 
 oft ; and, lo. He is seated on a gorgeous throne, surrounded with all the insignia 
 of royal state. They wish to bask in His immediate sunshine, and to be the 
 highest of the high who should be privileged to surround His person. The 
 expression, at Thy right hand, and at Thy left hand, is, in the original, frovi 
 Thy right ('parts), and from Thy left. It is an idiom, as is also the form of the 
 phrase in our English version and in Tyndale, ' on ' Thy right hand, and ' on ' 
 Thy left. Wycliffe's translation is picturesque, Gyve to us that we sitten, the 
 toon at Thy right half, and the tothir at the left, in Tin glorie. 
 
 Tee. 38. But Jesus said to them. Ye know not what ye ask. Ye know not 
 what is involved in your request. The degree of exaltation in ultimate glory 
 is not to be a matter of capricious or arbitrary determination. It must be 
 regulated by the degree of the spirit of self-sacrifice during probation. 
 
 Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink ? When the Saviour says that I 
 drink. He regards His present as extending into His future. He might have 
 said, which I shall drink, for although He was drinking already He had not yet 
 reached the dregs of the draught. See Matt. xx. 22. The cup to which He 
 refers was the cup with the bitter potion in it, the bitter death potion which 
 He ultimately drained. (Comp. chap. xiv. 36 ; John xviii. 11 ; Heb. ii. 9.) 
 
 Or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with 5 Eather a peculiar 
 expression, and explained by Campbell, Bleek, Meyer, Grimm, as denoting 
 immersing, or immerging, and consequent whelming, in calamities ; Can ye hear 
 to be plunged into the trials into which I am plunged, and which are about to 
 overwhelm Me ? Or, as Petter explains, " Are ye able and fit to be dipped or 
 " drenched in those deep waters of afSiotion, pains, and miseries, in which I 
 " must shortly be drenched ? " Principal Campbell's version is. Can ye undergo 
 an immersion, like that w-hich I viust undergo ? It is more likely however that 
 the word baptism has, not its etymological, but its conventional Palestinian 
 import (see chap. vii. 4), so that the idea of purification is brought into view; 
 Can ye endure the purifying ordeal through xoliich I am passing, and which is 
 just about to reach its climax in My experience ? Meyer objects that the idea of 
 a purifying ordeal was not applicable to our Lord. Unreasonably. There was- 
 indeed no personal impurity in His character. He ' knew no sin ' (2 Cor. v. 21). 
 
4iO] ST. MARK X. 295 
 
 tized with ? 39 And they said unto hinij We can. And Jesus 
 said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of ; 
 and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be 
 baptized : 40 but to sit on my right hand and on my left hand 
 
 As He passed through the ordeal, not the least atom of alloy was discovered. 
 He stood the test ; He came out of the fiery trial victorious. But it teas a 
 fiery trial, a most searching test and ordeal. It was, in a peculiar sense, «. 
 haptism of fire, or, to change the figure, a salting with fire (chap. ix. 49). It 
 burned into His inmost sensibility, and produced ' agony ' (Luke xxii. 44). He 
 ■wiUingly endured it, and came out ' perfected through sufferings ' (Heb. ii. 10). 
 He now asked James and John if they could endure such a baptism of fire. 
 
 Vek. 39. And they said to Him, We are able. They did not, we may be sure, 
 think of any nice psychological distinctions between ability and willingness. 
 They just meant that they had sufficient strength of attachment to their Lord's 
 person and cause to nerve them for any preliminary ordeal. They would not 
 flinch from enduring, along with Him, any amount of trial however formidable 
 or fiery, through which it might be requisite to pass while He was on His way 
 to His throne. They were sincere, we need not doubt, in this profession. 
 
 And Jesns said to them. The cup that I drink ye shall drink. The prospective 
 particle rendered in King James's version indeed (uiv) is omitted in the Sinaitic, 
 Vatican, and Parisian manuscripts (XB C), and by Tischendorf, Tregelles, 
 Alford. If it be retained it looks forward to the antithetic but of the following 
 verse. The two ambitious disciples would have to drink the same bitter potion 
 which the Lord was drinking, so far namely as was possible for them in their 
 circumstances. They would have to suffer as He suffered, so far as such suffer- 
 ing was a possibility to them. There were indeed elements of trial which 
 were peculiar to our Lord in His peculiar position, and in virtue of His peculiar 
 personality and character. And there would be elements of suffering on their 
 part in which their Lord would not be able to share. No two beings in the 
 universe are absolutely aUke, or in absolutely identical condition. But, to a 
 large extent, as Jesus was ' in this world,' so would they be. 
 
 And with the baptism, with which I am baptized, ye shall be baptized, go far 
 as essential differences in personality and relationship admitted. 
 
 Vek. 40. But to sit at My right hand, or at My left hand, is not Mine to give. 
 An expression that has unnecessarily perplexed many who had high ideas of 
 the Lord's sovereignty. It was an old perplexity, and hence the Vulgate ver- 
 sion and the Ethiopia, and many copies of the Old Latin, add the pronoun to 
 you, as a conducting rod to draw aside the emphasis of the negation. Patrizi 
 contends for it. No such conducting rod however is required. The Saviour is 
 speaking popularly, and from or to the standpoint of His petitioners. They 
 thought that by an arbitrary act of will the Lord might confer on them the 
 honour which they desired. The Saviour denies to Himself the prerogative 
 which they ascribed to Him. He denies it, that is to say, as apprehended by 
 them. He tells them that it was not His to put forth any such arbitrary act as 
 they had been imagining. The highest posts of honour were to be assigned on 
 
296 ST. MARK X. [40 
 
 is not mine to give ; but it shall he given to them for whom it is 
 prepared. 
 
 41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be much 
 displeased with James and John. 42 But Jesus called them 
 to him, and saith unto them, Te know that they which are 
 accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over 
 
 a totally difierent principle, in wHoh tlie arbitrary wUl of the Sovereign did not 
 at all come into play. 
 
 But (it is for them) for whom it has teen prepared. The expression is frag- 
 mentary inthe original, being intended to suggest, to such as were at the right 
 standpoint of thought, more than it plainly declared. The Father had a plan 
 in reference to the honours of the kingdom. It was perfect and unalterable. 
 According to it the chief places were disposed of (in purpose), and could be 
 given to no others. The lowliest would be the loftiest. They who gave up 
 most would get most. He who goes nearest in time to Christ the crucified 
 shall get nearest in eternity to Christ the glorified. See ver. 41-45. 
 
 Veb. 41-45 constitute an appended paragraph, which corresponds to Matt. 
 XX. 24-28 and Luke xxii. 25-27. 
 
 Veb. 41. And when the ten heard it. We know not how. Perhaps they had 
 noticed the approach to the Saviour of the two disciples, along with their 
 mother (Matt. xx. 20), and had suspected their errand, and pressed them for 
 an explanation of the private interview. 
 
 They began to be moved with indignation at James and John. Literally, con- 
 cerning James and John. Principal Campbell, merging the word began, trans- 
 lates the whole phrase thus, conceived indignation; so Norton, they were 
 angry. But there is significancy in the began. Mark delighted to note the 
 beginnings of things (see ver. 28), and in the case before us it is natural to sup- 
 pose that our Saviour interposed before the altercation had time to rise high. 
 
 Tee. 42. And Jesus called them to Him, and says to them, Te know that they 
 who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles. The expression rendered they who 
 are accounted to rule over, and by Grotius they who have the honour to rule 
 (ol SoKoOvTes &pxeai), literally means they who seem to rule. It does not signify 
 simply they loho rule (Matt. xx. 25), as Hombergk, Heumaun, Eosenmiiller, 
 Kuinol, Norton, Edgar Taylor, suppose ; nor does it necessarily bring into doubt 
 the fact of their rule. Strictly speaking, it neither admits nor denies the fact 
 (Gal. ii. 6). It simply allows an apparent reality. Some realities are apparent, 
 or appear, just because they are realities* In other cases, unrealities, though 
 mere delusions, have all the appearance of reahties. The persons refen-ed to 
 by our Lord appeared to rule. Casaubon, Meyer, Bisping, suppose that the 
 expression means that their rule was obvious, evident, admitted ; but it seems 
 more likely that our Lord leaves the question of the reality undetermined, more 
 especially as the word rendered rule brings the notion of firsthood or primacy 
 into view. It is a legitimate question certainly whether they who seem to be 
 the primates and princes of the Gentiles are really the first and the most 
 princely. Wetstein supposes that the expression is intended to represent the 
 
45] ST. MAEK X. 297 
 
 them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 
 43 But so shall it not be among you : but whosoever will be 
 great among you, shall be your minister : 44 and whosoever 
 of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. 45 For 
 even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but 
 
 Gentile rulers as but imposing on themselves \ylien they seemed to themselyes 
 to be lords, while they were really moral serfs or slaves. Fritzsche, without 
 accepting any such contrast, supposes that the expression means they who 
 assimie to themselves the position of rulers, who think that they rule. But our 
 Lord simply admits that the persons to whom He refers seem, so far as ap- 
 pearances go, to be first and chief. 
 
 Lord it over them. Lord it down on them (KaTaKvpi,e6ovinv airCiv). They keep 
 themselves exalted over the others, who are, in relation to them, subjects, 
 subjected, subjacent. 
 
 And their great ones. Their magnates. They are great in certain respects, 
 although some of the finest phases of greatness may be entirely wanting. 
 
 Exercise authority over them. But not so much ' iip '-on them as ' down '-on 
 them {KaTe^ova-id^ovffiv , a verb unlinown in classical Greek). 
 
 Vee. 43. But it is not so (i-o-tiV)' among you. Such is the reading of certain 
 very important manuscripts (XBC*DLA), and of the Vulgate version, and 
 many of the Old Latin codices. It is rather the constitution, than the l^iw, of 
 the liingdom of heaven that is expressed. 
 
 But whosoever would become great among you sliall be your minister. Your 
 deacon (dcdKovos). Greatness in the kingdom of heaven consists in doing rather 
 than in being, and in doing for others rather than for self. No man has a right 
 to be his own end. WhUe it is the case that he is an end to himself, it is not the 
 case that he is his own chief end, or the end that lies immediately underneatli 
 the chief. There is a hierarchy of ends ; and the man who seeks to make 
 himself his own principal end is an inverted pyramid. 
 
 Vee. 44. And whosoever would be first among you. Your foremost man as it 
 were, your primate. 
 
 Shall be servant of all. Of all, mark. The width of the ministry determines 
 the degree of the majesty. 
 
 Vee. 45. For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to 
 minister. To act as a ' deacon ' to men (Sia/coi'^crai). He came not to be served, 
 but to serve. So far as He is a Mediator He sought not ' His own things,' but 
 men's. In teaching, it was not renown as a teacher that was His aim, but 
 men's instruction ; in giving an example, it was not His own fame as an exem- 
 plar which He sought, but men's elevation ; in reigning, it is not His own glory 
 that He desires, but men's prosperity and bliss. In atoning, see next clause. 
 There are indeed relations, more comprehensive than those of mediatorship, in 
 which He who is ' God over all, blessed for ever,' must find His final End in 
 Himself. In the sphere of these relations it is His pleasure to be served, and 
 not to Serve. But there is no sphere whatever in which He will ever consider it 
 to be a greater glory to be a Eooeiver than a Giver. 
 
298 ST. MAEK X. [45 
 
 to ministei-j and to give his life a ransom for many. 
 46 And they came to Jericho : and as he went out of Jericho 
 
 And to give His life a ransom for many. So emphatically did He come to serve, 
 at -whatever cost to Himself. He came to make a sacrifice of Himself /or tlie 
 sake of men. A ransom is a price of deliverance (Kirpoy from Xiu). Jesus came 
 to give Himself as such. He looked upon men as captives. They had been 
 transgressors, and therefore Divine justice had to lay hold of them. They were 
 ' lawful captives.' They were exposed to the full desert of their transgressions, 
 and hence were in danger of ' the wrath that is to come.' What was to become 
 of them ? There were difficulties in the way of liberation pure and simple. 
 Had they been liberated without any ransom, there would have been no security 
 that they would care, for the future, to renounce ' the way of transgressors.' If 
 all who transgress were always liberated the moment they transgress, the 
 sanctions of law would cease to be sanctions except in name ; the law would 
 be no longer law, but mere opinion or advice. Thus a ' ransom ' was needed 
 if there was to be salvation, needed for the sake of the transgressors, and for 
 the sake of the law which they had transgressed. Jesus came ' to give Himself ' 
 as such a ' ransom.' He came, that is to say, to present to the Divine justice 
 what would afford a sufficient guarantee for the authority and honour of the 
 law, in the event of the liberation of the guilty, and what woTild be fitted to 
 have a wholesome ethical influence upon the hearts of the liberated. For many. 
 The Saviour merely looks at the multitudinousness of the objects of His 
 gracious intent. " The word many," says Calvin wisely, " is not put definitely 
 " for a fixed number, but for a large number ; for the Saviour contrasts Himself 
 " with all others. And in this sense it is used in Eom. v. 15, where Paul does 
 " not speak of any part of men, but embraces the whole human race " (Harmony, 
 in loo.). The preposition translated for (avrl) does not mean for the henefit of, 
 or in behalf of. It properly means over against, and here represents the ransom 
 as an equivalent for the persons for whom it was paid. Substitution is implied ; 
 equivalence is expressed. 
 
 Vek. 46-52 constitute a paragraph that corresponds to Matt. xx. 29-34, and 
 Luke xviii. 35-43. 
 
 Yee. 46. And tkey come to Jericho. Or, more strictly, and as Tyndale gives 
 it, Hienco, the city of aromas, situated between the Jordan and Jerusalem. 
 "Its palm groves and balsam gardens were given by Antony to Cleopatra. 
 " From«her Herod the Great bought them, made it one of his royal cities, and 
 " adorned it with a new hippodrome and many stately buildings ; and here too 
 " that monster of iniquity died." (Porter's Syria, p. 184.) The modern repre- 
 sentative of the ancient city is sadly degenerated ; it is called Biha or Enha ; 
 and, says Dr. Porter, " a more filthy and miserable village could not be found 
 "in all Palestine. Its few inhabitants too are not only poor, but profligate, 
 " retaining some of the vices for which the cities of Sodom were rendered 
 "notorious four thousand years ago." {Ditto, p. 185.) 
 
 And as He was going out of Jericho. The case about to be recorded seems to 
 have begun as He entered into the city (see Luke xviii. 35), but it culminated, 
 in all likelihood, as He departed. (See Comm. on Matt. xx. 80.) 
 
49] ST. MARK X, 299 
 
 witli his disciples and a great number of people, blind 
 Bartimaeus, the son of , Timseus, sat by the highway side 
 begging, 47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of 
 Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou son of 
 David, have mercy on me. 48 And many charged him that 
 he should hold his peace : but he cried the more a great 
 deal, Thou son of David, have mercy on me. 49 And Jesus 
 stood still, and commanded him to be called. And they 
 
 With His disciples, and a great multitude. Literally, and a sufficient crowd, 
 that is, and a considerable crowd, or, as Beza in Ms last edition (1589) explains 
 it, no small crowd. 
 
 Timseus's son, Bartimseus, a tlind beggar, was sitting by the way side. He had 
 been, or he subsequently became, a somewhat noted individual ; hence the 
 preservation of his name, though it is recorded by Mark alone. His father too 
 would appear to have been noted for some reason or other. Perhaps they both 
 became ultimately attached to the cause of the Saviour and the fellowship of 
 the disciples. (See ver. 52.) The word Bartimcsus just means in Aramaic son 
 of TimcBus ; and hence it may seem strange to some that the evangelist should 
 say ' TimcEUs's son, Bartimaus.' There is no real redundancy however; for 
 the patronymic was used as the son's proper name. In Syria and the adjacent 
 lands ophthalmic affections were in ancient times, and are still in modern 
 times, of very frequent occurrence. W. G. Palgrave, speaking of Arabia, says : 
 " Ophthalmia is fearfuUy prevalent, especially among children, and goes on 
 " unchecked, in many or most instances, to its worst results. It would be no 
 " exaggeration to say that one adult out of every five has his eyes more or less 
 " damaged by the consequences of this disease." {Central and Eastern Arabia, 
 vol. ii., p. 34.) 
 
 Vee. 47. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth. Literally, that 
 it is Jesus of Nazareth. The thing heard is reported in the direct form, and 
 hence the introductory that is what is called recitative by critics, and when he 
 heard (this to wit) It is Jesus of Nazareth. 
 
 He began to cry out, and say, Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me. Or, 
 Son of David, Jesus, pity me. 
 
 Yer. 48. And many rebuked him, that he should hold his peace. Literally, chid 
 him in order that he might be silent. He seemed, by his vociferative appeals, 
 to disturb the solemnity that was brooding over that part of the caravan pro- 
 cession in which our Saviour was moving. 
 
 But he cried out the more, a great deal. Son of David, have mercy on me. He 
 had faith in Jesus as not merely the Great Eabbi of Nazareth, but as-also tho 
 Great Deliverer of Israel ; and he was not to be thwarted in his application. 
 
 Vee. 49. And Jesus stood still. Or, more literally and simply, stood. He 
 made a halt. 
 
 And said. Call him (^uy^iroTe aMv). He said this to the persons who were 
 near Him, 
 
300 ST. MARK X. [49 
 
 call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise ; 
 he calleth thee. 50 And he, casting away his garment, rose, and 
 came to Jesus.' 51 And Jesus answered and said unto him. 
 What wilt thou that I should do unto thee ? The blind man 
 said unto him. Lord, that I might receive my sight. 52 And 
 Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee 
 
 And they call the hliad man, saying to him, Be of good cheer, rise, He oaUeth 
 thee. Instead of Be of good cheer, it miglit be better to adopt the more literal 
 rendering of Worsley, Newcome, Edgar Taylor, Norton, Be of good courage 
 {eipa-ei}. If the expression clieer up were not so exceedingly colloc|.uial, it would 
 admirably represent the force of the original verb. 
 
 Vek. 50. And he, casting away his garment. Namely, the loose outer robe 
 that was wrapped around him over his tunic. Newcome has the word mantle ; 
 Tyndale, the Geneva, Norton, Sharpe, use the word cloak, the term that is 
 employed in Matt. v. 40. The man was in haste, and wished to be disentangled 
 from its folds. 
 
 Sprang up, and came to Jesus. Instead of the simple word rose {AvaaTds), the 
 reading of the Received Text, the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Cambridge manuscripts 
 (S B D) among others, along with the Old Latin, Vulgate, Coptic, and Gothic 
 versions, support a, more graphic term (dj/aTnySijo-as), sprang to his feet. Laoh- 
 mann, Tischendorf , Tregelles, have received this term into the text. Griesbach 
 reclaimed against its acceptance, and apparently with some reason, for it is 
 difficult to suppose that if it had been the original term it would ever have been 
 deliberately pushed out. 
 
 Veb. 51. And Jesus answered him and said, What wilt thou that I should do to 
 thee ? This question the Saviour is said to have put by way of answer. It was 
 the answer which He graciously gave to the original request of BartimEeus, Pilij 
 mc. 
 
 And the blind man said to Him, Eabboni, that I might receive my sight. Very 
 literally, that I might look up. The up is not to be ignored. In the midst of 
 his blindness he would, in all likelihood, be sensitive in some degree to the 
 light of the sun streaming down upon him from above. Seeing would therefore 
 he naturally associated in his mind with looking up. Eabboni was equivalent 
 to the term Babbi, but more reverential. (See Drusii P.raterita, in loc.) It was 
 ahin to the French Monseigneur, as distinguished from Monsieur. 
 
 Vee. 52. And Jeans said to him, Go thy way, thy faith hafli made thee whole. 
 Not efficiently indeed, but instrumentaUy in a certain respect. His faith had 
 laid hold of omnipotence ; and omnipotence had made him whole. Very liter- 
 ally rendered, the expression is, thy faith hath saved thee. But our word saved, 
 just as truly as t)ur phrase liath made wliole, is not a precise reproduction of the 
 idea of the original verb. Here the reference, we need not doubt, is, mainly at 
 least, to the cure that had taken place in the man's body, so that he was now 
 sound and well. Comp. Matt. ix. 21 ; Mark v. 23, 28, vi. 56 ; Luke viii. 36, 50; 
 Acts iv. 9, xiv. 9. But it is not impossible, perhaps not unlikely, that the 
 Saviour, with His deep view of the correspondencies of things outward and 
 
1] ST. MARK XI. 301 
 
 whole. And immediately he received his sights and followed 
 Jesus in the way. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 1 AND when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage 
 
 inward, employed the word with a two-edged reference. What was happening in 
 the man's body was really, we may presume (ver. 47, 48), but the outward picture 
 or hieroglyph of what had happened in his soul. 
 
 And immediately he received his sight. He looked vp. 
 
 And followed Him in the way. The way, that is the route that led to Jerusalem. 
 Bartimteus joined the caravan of which Jesus was the central object. He wished 
 to attach his fortunes to ' the Son of David ' ; and he became, we may suppose, 
 a devoted and well-known disciple. (See ver. 46.) 
 
 CHAPTEE XI. 
 Jerusalem is now near, and the tragic end of our Saviour's terrestrial career 
 begins to loom into view. 
 
 Veb. 1-10 contain the approach to the capital city hy way of Bethany and 
 Bethphage. The paragraph corresponds to Matt. xxi. 1-11 ; Luke xix. 29-38 ; 
 John xii. 12-15. 
 
 Vee. 1. And when they come nigh. Note the tense. The reader is, as it were, 
 carried along with the procession or caravan, and is present at the approach. 
 (See Jelf, 395,2.) 
 
 To Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany. A cumulative expression. Jerusalem 
 is mentioned first, though it was remotest, for it was the grand terminus. 
 Bethphage and Bethany were suburban villages, near to one another, and lying 
 on the direct line of road that led to Jerusalem from the east. They were on 
 the east side of the mount of Olives, which was on the east side of the holy 
 city. Though the exact site of Bethphage is uncertain, yet it is probable that 
 it lay westward of Bethany, and that it was thus a stage in advance toward the 
 city. The evangelist, consequently, is to be regarded as enumerating the three 
 places in their reverse topographical order, putting the last first and the first 
 last. Instead of the expression to Bethphage and Bethany, Laohmann and 
 Tischendorf read and to Bethany, the reading of the Cambridge manuscript (D), 
 and, very decidedly and critically, of Origen in two distinct passages, as also of 
 the Vulgate version and of a preponderance of the Old Latin codices. But it 
 looks like a torso of an expression, and the Eeoeived reading is overwhelmingly 
 supported. (See in particular Griesbach's Comm. Crit. in loo.) All trace or 
 almoet all trace of Bethphage has disappeared, though the place is often 
 referred to in the Talmudio writings, in a puzzling way. (Lightfoot's Choro- 
 grapMcal Century, chap, xxxvii.) As to Bethany, it has lingered on to the present 
 day ; but it is, as Tristram calls it, a ' miserable village.' {The Land of Israel, 
 p. 199.) 'Bethany,' says Dr. Eobinson, 'is a poor village of some twenty 
 families : its inhabitants are without thrift or industry.' {Ecsearches, vol. ii., 
 
302 ST. MARK XI. [1 
 
 and Bethany, at tke mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two 
 of his disciples, 2 and saith unto them. Go your way into 
 the village over against you : and as soon as ye be entered 
 
 p. 101.) And yet when the writer visited it in 1855 he found, among the child- 
 ren who were clustering about, a hoy carrying are inlchorn by his side. On being 
 asked if he could write he answered in the affirmative, and wrote with his reed 
 on the blank leaf of our New Testament the words, in Arabic, God is Love. It 
 was of his own accord that he selected the words, much to our gratification. 
 
 At the motmt of Olives. At or toward {irpSs). The preposition is attached, as 
 by a longer thread of reference than the preposition in the two preceding 
 clauses {els), to the verb come nigh. The meaning is not that either Jerusalem 
 itself or the suburban Bethphage and Bethany were at the mount of Olives ; it 
 is that the caravan procession, in approaching Jerusalem by way of Bethphage 
 and Bethany, moved in the direction of the mount of Olives. It is a little geo- 
 graphical remark, intended for such as were not familiar with the topography 
 of the locality. It is introduced without any phraseological jointing, simply in 
 the aggregative way. The mount of Olives, or the mountain of the olive trees, 
 was the natural name of the beautiful mountain that rises close to Jerusalem 
 on the east, the home or favourite habitat of the olive tree. " The sides of the 
 "mountain," says Dr. Eobinson, " are still sprinkled with olive trees, though 
 " not thickly, as was probably the case of old." (Researches, vol. i., p. 348.) 
 "At present," says Horatio Hackett,," the mountain exhibits, on the whole, a 
 " desolate appearance. Eocky ridges crop out here and there above the surface, 
 "and give to the hiU a broken sterile aspect. Yet the mount is not wholly 
 " destitute of verdure even now. A few spots are planted with grain; and fruit 
 " trees, as almonds, figs, pomegranates, olives, are scattered up and down its 
 " sides. The olives take the lead decidedly, and thus vindicate the propriety of 
 " the ancient name." (Illustrations of Scripture, -p. 165.) The mountain rises 
 about 220 feet above Moimt Moriah over against it on the west, and affords a 
 magnificent and most commanding view of Jerusalem and the surrounding 
 country. " Surely," says Dr. Barclay, "there is not in all the world a prospect 
 ' ' so delightful to behold as the panorama to be enj oyed by ascending the 
 " minaret alongside the Church of Ascension, that now crowns the elevation 
 " nearest the city." (City of tlie Great King, p. 60.) 
 
 Ere the company had yet turned the apex of the mountain, the Saviour 
 sendeth two of His disciples. He sendeth forth (dTrotrrAXei), that is, He details 
 and despatches. 
 
 Veb. 2. And says to them. Or, as we might now express it, xoith the follow- 
 ing instructions. 
 
 Go into the village that is over against you. Bethphage, most likely. Comp. 
 Matt. XX. 1, 2. Both Dr. Barclay (City of the Great King, p. 66) and Dr. Hanna 
 (The Passion Week, p. 4) suppose that the village must have occupied a certain 
 ' tongue-shaped promontory or spur of Olivet,' across the hollow which the road 
 avoids, and just a few hundred paces before reaching the turning point of the 
 mountain ridge. There are on that spot tanks and discernible foundations of 
 buildings. 
 
3] ST. MARK XI. 303 
 
 into itj ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; 
 loose him, and bring him. 3 And if any man say unto you, 
 Why do ye this ? say ye that the Lord hath need of him ; and 
 
 And straightway as ye enter into it, ye shall find a colt tied. It might, accord- 
 ing to oiroumstanoes, he the foal of a horse or the foal of an ass. The 
 circumstances and habits of the Jewish people in general, and, if more evidence 
 were required, the special circumstances of the class of people with whom our 
 Lord was accustomed to associate, made it certain that it was the humbler 
 animal that was meant. It was no stigma however, or diacritical mart of 
 poverty, to ride upon an ass. The horse was for long reserved for war pur- 
 poses ; and, as among the Aryans (Lenormant's Ancient Hist, of the East, vol. 
 ii., p. 5), it was used for the war chariot before it was used for riding on. 
 
 Whereon no man ever yet sat. In the action which the Lord contemplated He 
 meant to be no man's successor. 
 
 loose it, and bring it. Mark makes no reference to the mother ass, beside 
 which the colt would be found standing. (See Matt. xxi. 2.) It was the colt 
 alone which was really to be used. 
 
 Veij. 3. And if any one say to you, Why do ye this ? say ye. The Lord hath 
 need of it. The expression the Lord was in itself of somewhat indefinite refer- 
 ence, for there were then, as there are still, ' lords many.' There is no good 
 reason for supposing that the disciples would be enjoined, or would be inclined, 
 to point upward to heaven as they spoke, so as to indicate tliat 'Jelwvah' had 
 need of the colt. Such an assumption, on the part of persons who had no 
 instructions to present any special credentials of a Divine commission, would 
 not have been fitted to command the confidence and acquiescence of the owner. 
 It is more natural to suppose that the intended reference was to our Saviour 
 himself in His visible personality, although surrounded with no other insignia 
 of lordship than His own native majesty and moral glory. He had arrived with 
 Hi a numerous ' following ' two days before, the day before the sabbath which 
 had just been ended. He had lodged in the immediate vicinity, either in 
 Bethany or, as is more probable, on one of the northern slopes Of the mountain, 
 on which the Galilean pilgrims were accustomed, year by year, to fix their 
 temporary booths. (Comp. Robinson's Besearches, vol. i., 565, 566.) He was 
 the centre of an intense curiosity and enthusiasm. His fame had travelled 
 before Him. His appearance, though confoundingly humble so far as para- 
 phernalia were concerned, did not, in respect of a certain indescribable grandeur 
 of bearing, belie His fame. His works were unprecedentedly marvellous. His 
 words were, if possible, more marvellous still. His secret demeanour was with- 
 out a speck on which doubt could fasten. Those who were nearest Him, and 
 saw most of Him when He was ungirt, admired and revered Him the most. 
 Who could He be ? What might He be ? Everybody was putting such ques- 
 tions. His face had been set unflinchingly Jerusalem-ward. And the nearer 
 His approach to the city of the Great King, the more abstracted His gaze, as if 
 He were looking into a future of infinities. Was it not possible, was it not 
 even probable, that He was the long-looked-for King of the Jews, coming to His 
 people in disguise ? Who could say what He would do when once He should 
 
304 ST. MAEK XI. [3 
 
 straightway he will send him hither. 4 And they went their way, 
 
 enter His capital and be in tlie mjdst of the temple ? Suoli ideas as these might 
 be, or would be, whirling about, in more or leas of confusion, within many an 
 expectant mind. Speculation would be rife. And throughout the whole 
 village, crowded as it was with strangers who were on their way to the passover 
 solemnities, there would be much eager inquiry and earnest discussion. Eyes 
 would be frequently turned toward the spot where our Lord and His disciples 
 formed the centre of the widely distributed multitude, with which the whole 
 mountain side was alive. When messengers came forth from this centre, a 
 kind of avenue would be made for them as they passed along from group to 
 group ; and it would be known, or telegraphed from individual to individual, 
 that they were the Great BixbWs disciples. When consequently they made 
 their appearance in Bethphage, and when, looking perhaps in the direction 
 of the surging central crowd whence they had emanated, they said, the Lord 
 hath need of it, there would be no doubt remaining regarding the Personage 
 referred to. 
 
 And straightway he will send it hither. The Lord foresaw, as by a miracle 
 of knowledge, every link, however minute or complicated with human free will, 
 iu the future train of events. But, strange to say, there is a great difficulty 
 regarding the expression. We do not refer to the fact that instead of the 
 future verb, he will send, there is in an immense preponderance of the uncial 
 manuscripts, including all the oldest (SAB CD), the present tense, he sends. 
 This, though something peculiar in such a statement, is capable of sufficient 
 explanation. The present may, as often elsewhere, be idiomatically employed to 
 express complete certainty of future occurrence, such certainty as is warranted 
 when the event is seen in the very act of transpiring. We refer to the fact 
 that in the Sinaitio, Vatican, Parisian, and Cambridge manuscripts (S B C D) , 
 as well as in L A, the adverb again {irdXiv) is found in connection with the verb 
 sends : and immediately he sends it again hither, that is, and immediately he 
 will return it hither. The expression, in other words, is, according to these 
 manuscripts, not to be regarded as informing the commissioned disciples that 
 the colt, when claimed, would forthwith be sent by the owner. It is to be 
 regarded as part of the commission which they were to discharge, embodying a 
 promise that was to be made to such as it might concern, that the Lord would 
 without delay return the animal. Origen, in two distinct passages of his Com- 
 mentary on Matthew (iii. 722, 740), inserts this again, and interprets the ex- 
 pression as a promise of a speedy return. Dav. Schulz hesitated to reject the 
 adverb, and Tischendorf and Tregelles have received it into their texts. We 
 cannot think however that it is genuine. Internal oongruity recoils. And it 
 is a notable fact that no trace of the adverb is found in any of the ancient 
 versions, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peshito .Syriac, the Philoxenian 
 Syriac, the Coptic, Sahidio, ^thiopic, Gothic, Armenian. Even Origen omits 
 it in his Commentary on John (iv. 181). It must, we conclude, have been in- 
 serted in the margin of some very early copy of the Gospel, as an expository 
 note, and thence have crept into the text of the ancient manuscripts in which it 
 is found. It was, we doubt not, an inaccurate expository note. 
 
7] ST. MARK XI. 305 
 
 and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two 
 ways met ; and they loose him. 5 And certain of them that 
 stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt ? 
 6 And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded : 
 and they let them go. 7 And they brought the colt to Jesus, 
 
 Vek. 4. And they departed, and found a colt. It is simply colt, that is a 
 colt, in the great body of the most ancient manuscripts. So too Griesbaoh, 
 Soholz, Lachmann, Tregelles, Alford, and Tischendorf in his 1849 and 1859 
 editions. In his eighth edition, however, Tischendorf re-inserts the article 
 under the sanction of the manuscripts x ^ A. The sanctioli is not sufficient. 
 
 Tied by the door without. It had been led to (irpis) the door outside, and there 
 tied. 'The ' door : the Received reading and the right reading, that is, the door of 
 the dwelling house that belonged to the proprietor of the animal. It is as if St. 
 Mark were reporting from the lips of an eye-witness, perhaps, as Papias expressly 
 asserts (Eusebius' Eccles. Hist., iii. 39), from the lips of Peter, who might not 
 unlikely be one of the two disciples sent to fetch the colt. (Comp. Luke xxii. 
 8.) It is probable that the owner of the animal would belong to the ' well to do ' 
 class in the village, and that hence his house would have a court, which would 
 open out to the street by a great door. It is on the basis of this supposition 
 that we see the propriety of the expression outside, that is, outside the court, 
 instead of inside, where, in oriental houses of that description, it is common to 
 have horses or asses standing, ready for use. 
 
 In a place where two ways met. But this is rather, as Alexander remarks, 
 a trajislation of the Vulgate version {in bivio) than of the Greek original, which 
 strictly means on the roundabout road {iirl toO d/i^iSou). It is a topographical 
 note that could only be given by an eye-witness. The likelihood is that the 
 village would be straggled along a road that deviated from the highway, but 
 came round to it again. 
 
 And they loose it. They engage in loosing it. He who was Lord of all had 
 need of it. 
 
 Ver. 5. And certain of them that stood there. Most hkely domestics of the 
 proprietor, in the first instance. The imagination is left to fill up the minuter 
 details of the incident. 
 
 Said to them, What do ye, looslngf the colt ? What do ye i an idiom corre- 
 sponding to the German Was machet ihr ! or to the English What are ye about? 
 What is that you are doing ? 
 
 Veb. 6. And they said to them even as Jesus said ; and they let them go, That 
 is, the people ceased interference with them by hand or otherwise. They let 
 them go. The word is rendered suffered in chap. i. 34, v. 19, vii. 12, x. 14. It 
 primarily means sent away. It is sometimes translated forgave (that is, as it 
 were, forth-gave or gave up what was dae), as in chap. ii. 5, 9, 10, iii. 28, iv. 12. 
 
 Vee. 7. And they bring the colt to Jesus. The past is ' presented ' to us, or 
 ' presentiated,' and thus ' presented.' They : we are not, in our imagination, to 
 draw a very precise line between the disciples and the surrounding crowd. 
 
 X 
 
306 ST. MARK XL [7 
 
 and cast their garments on him ; and he sat upon him. 8 And 
 many spread their garments in the way : and others cut down 
 branches off the trees^ and strawed them in the way. 9 And 
 they that went beforOj and they that followed, cried, saying, 
 
 . And cast oa it their garments. An extemporized housing, instead of the 
 lofty oriental saddle. It was however quite seemly, as the garments referred to 
 were the loose outer robes which were worn above the tunic. The word east is 
 equivocal in English, as regards tense. It was meant however to be past, threw. 
 But in the modern critical editions of the text the verb is in the present, throw. 
 The scene continues to be ' presented.' Such is the reading of N B G D L A, and 
 of the Vulgate and Coptic versions. 
 
 And He sat upon it. He mounted, that He might enter the holy city with all 
 the significance of a triumph. He would not enter it indeed like a haughty 
 warrior on his steed ; He was the Prince of peace. Neither would He enter it 
 in a bedazzlement of purple and pomp and pageantry ; He was the Meek and 
 Lowly One. And yet He was a Conqueror and a King ; and the ideas that were 
 incarnated in His career, and emblazoned in His final sufferings and death 
 and resurrection, are destined to be triumphant all the world over. 
 
 Veb. 8. The procession began. And many. Catching the enthusiasm of the 
 moment, and rising to the greatness of the occasion. 
 
 Spread their garments. That is, strewed their viantles or cloaks, in place of 
 tapestry or webs of cloth. 
 
 Upon the way. Literally, into the way. The attention is turned to the 
 enthusiastic action of the people, in pressing in frortt either side, that they 
 might succeed in bringing their garments into that precise Une along which the 
 mounted Monarch would pass, in the broad irregular highway. 
 
 And others branches, which they had cut from ■the fields (SWot Si o-npiSas 
 small leafy branches, Kdij/avres iK tuv 6,ypwv). The expression, having cut them 
 out of the fields, is pregnant. The branches were cut ' in ' the fields, and then 
 carried 'out.' Branches are natural decorations ;' no triumphal procession 
 could well take place without them. At the conclusion of the Franco- 
 German war, in the course of which Napoleon III. became a captive and was 
 dethroned, the victorious German troops made their triumphal entry into 
 Berlin, on 16th June, 1871, and it is written in the newspapers now lying 
 before ue (June 23, 1871), that "on each side of the way were placed gilt 
 "pedestals, and between each pedestal hung a festoon of laurel and fir." 
 " After the flags, come the Guards. They are covered with lau7-el and fir." 
 " The altars and cannons are covered with leaves and with branches of fir trees." 
 
 Vbe. 9. And they who marched before, and they who followed : namely, Hiin 
 who was the great Centre of attraction in the procession. 
 
 Shouted, Hosanna. The sacred Hebrew Hurrah, hterally meaning Oh save ! 
 It would originally be used when captives, rebels, or submissive subjects, sup- 
 plicated mercy from some conqueror or lord. But it had grown, in the course 
 of ages, into a mere acclaim. The shouting people, in the case before us, were 
 intentionall-y catching up and repeating the acclaim of Psalm cxviii. 25. 
 
11] ST. MARK XI. 307 
 
 Hosanna; Blessed is he tliat cometh in the name of the 
 Lord : 10 blessed he the kingdom of our father David, that 
 Cometh in the name of the Lord : Hosamia in the highest'. 11 
 
 Blessed is He. Or, Blessed be He, the rendering of Mace, Wakefield, Principal 
 Campbell, Norton, Edgar Taylor. Eightly so, and in harmony with the view of 
 Luther, Piscator, Bengel, Zinzendorf, Heumann, Fritzsohe. In the English 
 ■version of Psahu cxviii. 26 the expression is, Blessed be He. It was not so 
 much the intention of the enthusiastic multitude to make a doctrinal affirmation 
 as to express a devotional desire. They lifted up their hearts actually or 
 virtually to God, and prayed : May God bless Him ! — God who ' says ' and ' it is 
 done.' 
 
 Who cometh. Who is coming. It is the expression of Psalm cxviii. 26, and 
 beautifully represents the Messiah as on His way ! All along the ages His 
 advent had been imminent, for He was on His way. Time was on tiptoe ; people 
 were looking out ; the ages were ages of expectancy ; for He was on His way I 
 He would come, and would not tarry ! But now the shout would have a greater 
 emphasis in it than ever. Were not the eyes of the people beholding Him going 
 along the way? going to that terminus, where it would be proper for Him to 
 withdraw His veil, and let His glory shine forth ? 
 
 In the name of the Lord. That is, in Jehovah's name. It is Jehovah, or 
 Jahveh, that is the Hebrew word in Psalm cxviii. 26. The Messiah was not to 
 come as a Principal, or as Supreme. He was to be sent. He was to be an 
 ' Apostle ' (Heb. iii. 1) or Commissioner, but of the highest possible dignity. 
 He was to be Jehovah's Lord High Lieutenant or Viceroy. Hence He was to 
 come in all the authority that could be communicated by the authorizing ' name ' 
 of the Supreme. 
 
 Yeb. 10. Blessed be the Mugdom that cometh, the kingdom of our father David. 
 Or rather, according to the reading of Griesbadi, Laohmann, Scholz, Tisohen- 
 dorf, TregeUes, supported by the manuscripts K B C D L U A, 1, 69, and the best 
 ancient versions. Blessed be the coming kingdom of our father David t The en- 
 thusiasm of the people, having got vent for its first up-gushings in the fine old 
 triumphal language of the 118th Psalm, extemporized for itself another channel 
 in the common popular representation of the collective import of the prophecies. 
 The coming kingdom of our father David was just, under a particular phase of 
 expression, the coming Messianic kingdom, the coming kingdom of God, the coming 
 kingdom of heaven. It was called the kingdom of David, because it was regarded 
 as at once the restoration, continuation, and antitypioal culmination and com- 
 pletion, of that system of society that was established in the reign of David. The 
 royalty was to continue in the line of king David, who was regarded as the 
 father not only of the Messiah in particular, but of the Jewish people in 
 general. The triumphal processionists, getting a ghmpse of the glory of the 
 lowly but lofty One who was in the midst of them, felt persuaded that He was 
 about to re-establish the kingdom of David. And so He was, though on a far 
 higher plane of things than was conceived of in their imaginations. 
 
 Hosanna in the highest ! That is, Hosanna in the highest places, in the 
 heavens. Norton totally misunderstood the expression. He renders it, Hosanna, 
 
308 ST. MARK XI. [H 
 
 And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple : and 
 when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the 
 eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve. 
 12 And on the morrow, when they were come from 
 Bethany, he was hungry: 13 and seeing a fig tree afar off having 
 
 ' Thou ' in tlie highest heavens. But it was no circuitous naming of Jehovah. 
 It -was a particular way of intensifying, to the utmost conceivable degree, the 
 enthusiasm of their welcome. It corresponds, in a parallel line of things, to the 
 appendage for ever connected with the vive or viva of other national acclaims. 
 Lify is intensified to the superlative degree in life for ever ; and, correspondingly, 
 the salvation, which is the kernel-idea of Hosanna, is intensified to its super- 
 lative degree in salvation tliat is consummated in the highest heavens. (See Comm. 
 on Matt. xxi. 9.) 
 
 Veb. 11. And He entered into Jerusalem, into the temple. The entrance of 
 our Lord into the temple is represented, not as something in addition to the 
 entrance into Jerusalem, but as the oontinuative result of entering into Jeru- 
 salem. (Comp. ver. 1.) He had entered into Jerusalem, because He purposed 
 to enter into the temple. His Father's house. 
 
 And when He had looked round about upon all things. Not simply as one 
 might gaze who had never been there before : an arbitrary and wanton idea ; 
 but as one who had a right to inspect the condition of the place, and who was 
 determined to assert and exercise that right. See ver. 15-17. 
 
 It being now eventide. That is, the hour being now late. 
 
 He went out to Bethany with the twelve. To Bethany, where He had some 
 devoted adherents (John xi. 5), with whom He might choose to spend part of 
 the evening. The night would probably be spent quietly and secludedly in the 
 neighbourhood, where His disciples and IJimself might have their booths or 
 tents. It was the custom of the Galileans and other strangers to camp out at 
 the time of ' the great congregation,' when the city overfiowed. 
 
 Vee. 12. And on the morrow, when they had come out from Bethany. Or, 
 
 after they cam£ out from Bethany. It was then, and only then, that what follows 
 was realized. 
 
 He hungered. Or, as we should now say, He was hungry. "A certain proof , 
 one should suppose, that He had not spent the night under the hospitable roof 
 of Martha and Mary. He had most likely spent it in the open air, communing 
 with His Father, and brooding over the condition of Jerusalem, the Jews, and 
 mankind. 
 
 Veb. 13. And seeing a fig tree afar off. Or, from a distance. " Mount 
 " Olivet," says Dean Stanley, " besides its abundance of olives, is still sprinkled 
 " with fig trees." {Sinai and Palestine, p. 422.) In the very name Bethphage 
 there is- probably a reference io Jigs. Modern critics in general agree with Light- 
 foot that the word means, not, as Origen thought, the house of jawbones, but the 
 house of green figs. 
 
 Having leaves. A rather remarkable phenomenon at that early season of the 
 year. If the Saviour was crucified on the 15th of the month Nisan, the day 
 
13] ST. MARK XI. 309 
 
 leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon : and 
 when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves ; for 
 
 after the passover lamb was slain, then it is probable that He entered Jerusalem 
 triumphantly on Sunday the 10th. It would hence be on Monday the 11th that 
 He saw the fig tree from u, distance, having leaves. This 11th of the lunar 
 month Nisan would correspond to an early day in our solar month April, a time 
 when fig trees in general would not be in leaf. But it sometimes happens that 
 there is an exceptional precocity in a tree's foliation ; there had been such pre- 
 cocity in the case before us. 
 
 He came, if haply. Coverdale suppUes to see after the expression He came ; 
 BO does the Cambridge manuscript (D). Our translators, in using the word 
 haply, left the lead of Tyndale and Coverdale, followed the Eheims version 
 {happily), and thus returned to the translation of Wycliffe and the Vulgate 
 (forte). The word so rendered however {&pa) brings into view a different idea 
 from that of chance on the one hand, or good luck on the other. It has an 
 illative force, and means, in such an instance as the present, that being the case, 
 that is, it being the case that the tree had leaves. 
 
 He might find anything. Litersillj, He will find anything {evpri<re(.). He came 
 to the fig tree to see, by actual inspection, if anything eatable was to be found. 
 But the evangelist, instead of reporting historically the aim of our Saviour, 
 carries us back in imagination to the scene, and sets us down, chronologically, 
 beside our Lord, at the very time when He was approaching the tree. Hence 
 he says, if He will find, instead of if He might find. 
 
 Thereon. Or more Uterally, therein, or in it, within the umbrageous circum- 
 ference of the tree. 
 
 And when He came to it. Or, very literally, upon it, that is, close upon it, so 
 close to it as to be, as it were, on it. 
 
 He found nothing but leaves. Was He then disappointed ? Had He ' erred ' in 
 seeking for fruit ? ' If,' says Augustine, ' He really sought for it, then He erred.' 
 {Si vere qucesivit, erravit : Serm. Ixxxix. 4.) The evangelical and reverential 
 Witsius does not use the word ' erred ' ; but he maintains {haut illubenter) that 
 our Lord was ' truly ignorant ' {revera ignorasse) whether there would be any 
 fruit on the tree or not. (Meletemata, X., De Mcu Maledicta, § 4.) Bpiscopius 
 too held the theory of true ignorance {Responsio ad Qucestiones, § 9) ; and 
 Calvin himself alleges that there is ' nothing absurd ' in the idea. Wolf too 
 adopts it, and puts it strongly thus : 'He abdicated for the time the use of Hie 
 omniscience.' Our Lord was acting, says Witsius, not as God, not even as 
 Mediator, but simply as a man, who ' grew in wisdom,' and therefore in know- 
 ledge. But certainly it was not simply as a m,an that He acted when He forth- 
 with ' answered and said. No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever ' ; and it 
 seems to be sharp discrimination to find in that judicial sentence the super- 
 human element, while the merely human element is recognised in the investiga- 
 tion that immediately preceded it. Augustine says that He only feigned to seek 
 for fruit (finxit). His phrase is itantamount to that of Euthymius Zigabenns, 
 He simulated {iweKpivaro). But he no sooner gives expression to the idea than 
 he finds that he has to confront the objection that 'feigning ' or 'fiction ' is, to 
 all appearance, as inconsistent as ' erring ' with perfection. Hence he disorimi- 
 
310 ST. MARK XI. [13 
 
 the time of figs was not yet. 14 And Jesus answered 
 
 nates between legitimate or ' laudable,' and illegitimate or ' criminal,' fiction, 
 and elaborately contends that the fiction in the case before us was laudable, be- 
 cause it was figuratively significant. (Serm. Ixxxix., §§ 1-6.) He means that it 
 was a land of figure of speech. It was a figure of action. It was, as Cardinal 
 Cajetan represents it, a parable in act. If there were any necessity for employ- 
 ing at aU, in reference to such action, the -wotH fiction, then it was not a fiction 
 in morals, but a kind of literary fiction, a symbolic or hieroglyphic representa- 
 tion of spiritual realities. Augustine was undoubtedly right in the substrate of 
 his idea. Our Lord took occasion from the relation of His own physical hunger 
 to a certain pleasant and nutritious fruit, to illustrate to His disciples some 
 great spiritual verities, into the reaches of which it was of the utmost moment 
 for them to get glimpses. See next clause and next verse. See also Comm. on 
 Matt. xxi. 19. 
 
 For it was not the season of figs. This statement has occasioned to expositors 
 and critics, needlessly, an immensity of perplexity, issuing in a perfect forest of 
 tangled controversial and conjectural literature. Schottgen gave up in despair 
 the attempt to explain it. He honestly said : " I cannot interpret it, or account 
 " for it ; and I prefer to avow my ignorance, than to make myself ridiculous by 
 "the proposal of ineptitudes " {nvgas ejfutiendo: Horce Hebraica, i., ■p. 171). 
 De Wette says, ' I find it absolutely unintelligible ' {ich finde ihn schlechthin 
 unbegreiflich : Handbuch, in loc). Toup too despaired, and, measuring object- 
 ive possibility by his own subjective inability, denounced the expression as an 
 ignorant gloss that had been, by some unhappy accident, foisted into the text. 
 (Emend, in Suidam, p. ii., p. 219.) Wassenbergh ultimately acquiesced in this 
 decision. (De Glossis Nov. Test., in loo.) Scholten also, but looking at the 
 whole subject from a very different standpoint, speaks of the expression as ' a 
 senseless glossema.' (Het Oudste Evangelie, p. 225.) Friedrich C. Baur does 
 not impugn its genuineness, but he regards it as evidence of Mark's mental 
 poverty (Armuth), and liability to misconception (Missgriff), whenever he let 
 go the leading-strings of Matthew I (Marcusevang., p. 90.) Michelsen also 
 regards the expression as senseless, but supposes, not only that it was absent 
 from the text of the Proto-Markus, but also that, as it stood originally in the 
 text of the Deutero-Markus, it was precisely the reverse of what it now is. He 
 supposes that it stood thus, for it was fig season (^v -ykp 6 xcupos criKUv). It came 
 to be transmuted into its present form, as he imagines, when ' some one or other,' 
 with a little more sense than the evangelist, noticed that passover time was 
 ' not ' the time of figs ! (Het Evang. van Markus, pp. 22, 30.) It is a, curious 
 fact, when looked at in connection with this conjecture of Michelsen, that the 
 ' not ' is wanting in the Anglo-Saxon version. The translator apparently had 
 not been able to account for it, and therefore quietly left it out. Eolof sug- 
 gested, in his dissertation on the subject (be Ficus Imprecations), whether we 
 might not read the expression interrogatively, for was it not the season of figs t 
 Woolston proposed the same translation (Miracles, iv., p. 28). And Heinsius, 
 having the same idea substantially as Bolof, suggested that we should alter the 
 ' breathing ' of the negative particle (o6 for oi), and by that means annihilate 
 the negation. He would translate thus, /or where He was it was the season of 
 
14] ST. MARK XI. 311 
 
 figs. (Exercitationes, in loo.) It is an ingenious suggestion, and was approved 
 of, at least to a qualified extent, by tjje illustrious Gataker (Marc. Antonin., ix. 
 10). It was adopted too by Sir Norton KnatchbuU ; and le Gene introduced it 
 into his French translation of the Bible. And yet it is too ingenious by far, 
 besides being geographically untenable. Passover time was ' not ' the time of 
 figs on Mount Olivet. Eilliet is totally mistaken when he says that ' figs are 
 ripe in Palestine about the middle of the month of March ' ; they never are so, 
 he antedates the earliest fig season by at least a full quarter of a year. And 
 yet the same mistake was unwittingly committed by Lambert Bos and 'Wolle, 
 when they proposed to render the phrase /or it was no {longer) the time of figs, 
 ihaX is, for the time of figs was 'past. The ' early figs ' or ' boocfire,' the earliest, 
 the • precursors,' were in June ; the ' summer figs ' were in August ; the 
 ' winter figs ' survived the leaves. What then are we to make of the evangelist's 
 saying ? Wakefield, working on the same basis of conception as Heinsius, only 
 leaving the text unaltered, advocates a transposition of reference, and, in his 
 version, makes an actual transposition of clauses. He renders the verse thus : 
 "And, seeing a fig tree at a distance with leaves on. He went, if He might chance 
 " to find some fruit upon it ; for the season of gathering figs was not yet come : 
 " but when He got up to it. He found nothing but leaves." He supposes appar- 
 ently that the evangelist is accounting for the reasonableness of searching the 
 tree for figs, inasmuch as they could not, at that season, have been all gathered 
 off. If the season of gathering figs had been past, it might have been unreason- 
 able to have expected to find any. It would at all events have been unreasonable 
 to have inferred, from the fact that none were found, that the tree was barren. 
 Such is the representation of the case that Wetstein gives, whose view is coin- 
 cident with that of Wakefield. Iken also contends for the same interpretation, 
 in his dissertation on the subject {De Ficu ad imprecationem Serv. Exarescente). 
 Archbishop Newcome likewise took the same view, and hence, in his Revision of 
 the Authorized Translation, inserted in a parenthesis the words ' but, when He 
 came to it, He found nothing but leaves.' The Unitarian ' Improved Version ' 
 adopted this parenthesis ; while Principal Campbell and Edgar Taylor trans- 
 posed the clauses after the manner of Wakefield ; so too, in substance. Bland, 
 Holden, Lange. It is an ingenious shift of exegesis ; but a real shift neverthe- 
 less, and quite unnatural, more particularly if the phrase fig season denote, as 
 it evidently does, not specifically the time of gathering figs, but generic^Uy tlie 
 time when figs are ripe and ready for gathering. (See Deyling's Dissertation on 
 the phrase, iii., § 29.) 
 
 What then? Has conjecture exhausted itself? Far from that. Bishop 
 Hammond supposes that the expression means ' the year being unseasonable 
 for that fruit.' Le Clerc, in his French Testament, took the same view, for that 
 season had not been favourable for figs. So too Goesgen in his Dissertation on 
 the subject (§ 44) ; and Hombergk, and Bornemann (De Glossematis, p. xlix.). 
 Most unnaturally however on both philological and exegetical grounds. Had 
 the fault, so to speak, been in the season, the blame could not attach to the 
 tree. Eisner saw this, and hence tried iinvita Minerva) another shift. He 
 supposed that the meaning must simply be, for there was no crop of figs on that 
 tree ! Alberti's shift, though not so utterly vapid as to the ' letter,' is still 
 more objectionable as to the ' spirit,' for the figs were not yet ripe on that tree. 
 They would however, he adds, be so by and by I (Observationes, in loo.) 
 
312 ST. MARK XI. [14 
 
 Triller's shift is unobjectionable in ' spirit,' but most objectionable as a matter 
 of philology ; he thinks that the word season has no reference to time, but to 
 the locality where the tree was, or, better stiU, to the constitution of the tree 
 itself, for there was no aptitude for figs in the tree. (See his long note in 
 Bernard's edition of Thomas Magister, pp. 489-491.) Hoogeveen's shift of 
 punctuation is still more objectionable, both as a matter of philology, and as 
 a matter of natural history. He renders the passage thus, He found nothing 
 except leabes; nothing at all {oi ydp). It was the time of figs. {De PartieuUs, 
 pp. 920-1.) 
 
 But what then are we to do with the vexed expression ? We are manifestly 
 just to take it as it stands, and to interpret it, without 'vexation,' according to 
 its plain and obvious sense. Our Savioar found nothing but leaves on the 
 tree, because it was not the season, for figs. The remark is a good reason for the 
 fact that He did not find figs to eat. And it was of importance for the evan- 
 gelist to make it, inasmuch as there is nothing in the preceding context to 
 indicate to the reader, and more particularly to the Gentile reader, the particular 
 time of the year when Jesus was visiting Jerusalem. But why then did our 
 Lord punish, as it were, the tree, for not having figs, when it was not the season 
 of figs ? See next verse. And why did He ' come ' to it, to see ' if, in accord- 
 ance with the promise of its leaves. He might find anything thereon,' when He 
 must have known, as well at least as the evangelist, that it was not the time of 
 figs ? This leads us at once to the heart of the whole matter, and out of the 
 reach of the whole difficulty. Our Saviour was not expecting to find figs, in order 
 to satisfy His bodily hunger. His mind was bent on higher things. " He came 
 " to the tree," says Zuingli, "not for the sake of eating, but for the sake of per- 
 " forming an adumbrative action {sed aliquid prcefigurandi causa)." It was true 
 ' He was hungry.' His hunger too was the occasion that gave shape to His 
 adumbrative action, when He went to the leafy tree to see if there was fruit on it. 
 But in every step that He took toward the tree, and in every act that He per- 
 formed after He reached it, as in all the details of His engagements before and 
 after, in those memorable Jerusalem days. He was actuated by a far profounder 
 ' hunger ' than that of the body. If this be ignored, the whole action of our 
 Lord in the case before us, and the whole peculiarity and mystery of His Hfe 
 and death, become an inexplicable enigma. 
 
 Grotius caught sight of the reality of the case, but overdid its exposition. 
 He interprets the expression thus, ' He hungered : namely, after the salvation of 
 the Jewish people represented by the fig tree. ' It is a true idea, and takes into 
 account ninety-nine proportional parts of the whole reality of the transaction, 
 while too many expositors have stuck on the remaining hundredth, and paltered 
 with it. But it merges nevertheless out of view, unnecessarily and violently, 
 the physical ' occasioning cause ' of the whole parabolic action. Even Theo- 
 phylaot, galled as he was by the difficulties which beset his superficial view, had 
 insight sufficient to say ' but Jesus hungered for their salvation.' And Cardinal 
 Cajetan, with his keener eye, saw deeper, and with his masterly hand touched 
 the case thus : " Jesus knew that it was not the time of figs ; but He caine, com- 
 " posing a figure by the act of coming (componens figuram aatu veniendi)," 
 This hits the nail on the head, and rivets the correspondence of the outer and 
 the inner. In this act of ' coming ' the Lord was engaged in composing and 
 enunciating part of His parable. In the act of searching, after He had come, 
 
15] ST. MARK XL 313 
 
 and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. 
 And his disciples heard it. 
 
 15 And thev come to Jerusalem : and Jesus went into the 
 
 He was composing and enunciating another part. And then in the sentence 
 which He passed, after carefvil judicial examination, He composed and enunciated 
 another part still. The adumbration, after the manner of Ezeldel and other 
 Old Testament prophets, is complete. In the oral parable of the barren Jig 
 tree, as preserved in Luke xiii. 6-9, there is something analogous. The 
 proprietor of the vineyard 'came seeking fruit.' It is on a corresponding 
 principle of graphic anthropomorphic representation, that we read in Genesis 
 that, when the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their sin was very 
 grievous, the Lord said, " I will go down now and see whether they have dom 
 " altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto Me ; and if not I will 
 " know." (Gen. xviii. 21.) 
 
 Veb. 14. And He answered. Note the word answered. Fetter says it is ' an 
 Hebraism ' ; but that explains nothing. The tree, as Bengel remarks, is re- 
 garded as having refused to give fruit. The people, whom the Saviour had in 
 view as He spoke, had covered themselves indeed with the leaves of religious 
 profession ; they had been too forward in that respect. But, as regards ' the 
 fruit of righteousness,' they were not merely wilfully backward ; they were 
 wilfully barren. Not only was there no fruit fit for eating, there was no 
 promise of such fruit. There were no young figs or ' grossi.' (See Altmann's 
 Observationes , ii., p. 445.) 
 
 And said to it, No man eat fruit of thee. That is, It is My pleasure that no 
 one should eat fruit of thee. Our Lord was thinking of the Jews as ' a peculiar 
 people,' formed into a peculiar Messianic community, enjoying peculiar privi- 
 leges, and lying under the obligation of a peculiar vocation. All this peculiarity 
 was to ' cease and determine.' The world was no longer to be dependent on 
 Jews, as Jews, for spiritual nourishment and enjoyment. 
 
 Henceforward. Or hereafter, or more literally, any longer. More literally 
 still, according to the double negative in Greek, no longer (/iijKeTi). It is implied 
 that the tree had been probably fruit-bearing in former times. The Jewish 
 people had been useful in the world. 
 
 For ever. An excellent translation, though there is no reference to eternity 
 as we now understand that word. Tyndale's version is also excellent, though 
 not quite literal either, whill the worlde stondith. The phrase cannot be made 
 intelligible by a very literal rendering, to the age. 
 
 " I hope," says the scoffing Woolston (iii. 8), " He asked leave beforehand 
 " of the proprietor." But there is not the shadow of evidence that the tree 
 was private property ; and He who came seeking was the Great Proprietor. 
 
 And His disciples heard it. They were listening, in an attitude of attention, 
 to what their Master said. 
 
 Veb. 15. And they come to Jerusalem : and He entered into the temple, and 
 began to oast out. That is, to drive out, as the word is rendered in Luther's 
 translation, and in Bengsl's, and Zinzendorf's. 
 
3U ST. MARK XL [15 
 
 templOj and began to cast out them that sold and bought 
 in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, 
 and the seats of them that sold doves ; 16 and would not suffer 
 that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. 
 
 Them that sold and them that bought in the temple. Namely, lambs for the 
 passover supper, and oxen for specific sacrifices. A market for these animals 
 was allowed, by the priests, in some of the ample spaces belonging to the court 
 of the Gentiles. So thoroughly had the spirit of trade invaded the sphere of the 
 spirit of devotion. It would have been well indeed to have had accommodation 
 for the beasts in the vicinity of the temple ; but to take them inside, and to 
 sell and buy and haggle there, was a climax of indecorum and irreverence. 
 
 And overthrew the tables. A fine exemplification of the primary import of 
 the word overthrew. We should now say overturned, only in overthrew there 
 is the additional idea of violence implied. Wycliffe's translation is tumyde 
 npsodoun. 
 
 Of the money-changers. Or, as the Eheims has it, of the bankers, the money- 
 traders who, for a certain agio or premium, were ready to give Jewish money in 
 exchange for the coins of the countries from which the worshippers had come. 
 The business of such traders was in itself most important. But it was shame- 
 ful to erect their stalls in the very, courts where devotional worship was to be 
 performed. 
 
 And the seats of them that sold the doves. Or pigeons, for the accommodation 
 of such as required to offer that kind of sacrifice, and of poor mothers and 
 others, who could not afford costlier offerings. See Lev. v. 7, xii. 6-8, siv. 22 
 XV. 14, 29 ; Num. vi. 10. 
 
 Matthew, in his picture of our Lord's procedure at Jerusalem, gives the detail 
 of the temple purgation under the head of the first day's proceedings. (Chap, 
 xxi. 12.) We need not be surprised at this. There was neither in Ids case, 
 nor in that of Mark, any scientific attempt to exhibit in their Memorials a pre- 
 cise chronology. But it is possible that the purgation may have extended over 
 more days than one, for it is scarcely to be supposed that the traders would be 
 so overawed as to make no attempt to re-establish their position. They would 
 imagine no doubt that they had rights. They would have a licence, it may be 
 presumed, obtained from the sacerdotal authorities, and most probably by 
 purchase. 
 
 Veb. 16. And He would not suffer. An admirable idiomatic translation. It 
 is literally, and He did not suffer oi permit. 
 
 That any one should carry a vessel through the temple. Principal Campbell 
 has vessels instead of vessel. Norton gives it freely any article ;■ Mace, any 
 baggage. The word, though strictly meaning a vessel, was used by synecdoche 
 to denote all kinds of utensils. Our Lord would not allow that a mere con- 
 venience should be made of the temple as a thoroughfare of traffic. There 
 would be no temptation indeed to use any other portion of it for this purpose, 
 than the immense court of the Gentiles. It was so immense that tedious 
 circuits would be avoided, in going from place to place, by passing through it. 
 And then, being only tlie court of the Gentiles, it was not regarded by the super- 
 
18] ST. MARK XI. 315 
 
 17 And lie taught, saying unto them. Is it not wrifctenj My 
 house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but 
 ye have made it a den of thieves. 18 And the scribes and 
 chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him : 
 for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his 
 
 cilious Jews as entitled to that respect -which they acknowledged to he due to 
 the other parts of the enclosure. But our Lord set His foot on all such disdain- 
 ful distinctions, and the profane practices to which they led. 
 
 Vee. 17. And He taught, and said to them- (/cai IXeyev ai/Vois). Our Lord 
 gaTe reasons for His conduct, reasons that were intended and fitted to instruct 
 the people. 
 
 Is it not written? Or as Luther gives it, Stands it riot written ? 
 
 My house shall he called ii, house of prayer for all the nations; Trat ye have 
 made it a den of rohhers. See John x. 1, 8, in which robbers are expressly dis- 
 tinguished from thieves (KKiirTcu). Our Saviour intimates that a system of 
 unblushing robbery, or fleecing, was carried on by the traders who transacted 
 business in the court of the Gentiles. Exorbitant profits were extorted from 
 the people who needed to purchase sacrifices or to obtain exchange of moneys. 
 Coverdale however goes too far when, in imitation of Luther, he renders the 
 phrase, a denne of viurthurers. The word den, or rather cave, is evidence that 
 our Lord was referring to robbers as distinguished from thieves, (See Trench's 
 Synonyms, sub voce.) He thinks of u, cave in the mountains as the rendezvous 
 and retreat of highwaymen. What a transformation for the temple ! Instead 
 of a den, Mace has a harbour. 
 
 Veb. 18. And the chief priests and the scribes. The leading men of the 
 sanhedrim. 
 
 Heard it. The reference is not simply or principally to what our Saviour 
 had just said to the traders, but also to what He had done in driving them 
 out. 
 
 And sought. This verb is in the imperfect tense {i^rovv), and, as distin- 
 guished from the aorist of the preceding verb, it embodies an idea of incom- 
 pleteness, and began to seek. 
 
 How they might destroy Him (dToX^aojaiV not aitoKGaovaii') . It was a foregone 
 conclusion that He must be destroyed ; but how to effect His destruction, that 
 was the question. In the use of the word destroy, as distinguished from kill or 
 put to death, there is a reference to our Lord as a Power, or living Energy in 
 society. 
 
 For they feared Him. The verb is in the imperfect tense, they stood in fear of 
 Him. Their fear was the reason why, instead of laying hands on Him at once, 
 they planned and plotted, or sought, 'how they might get rid of Him.' 
 
 Because all the people. Or more literally. For the whole crowd, namely, that 
 was collected within the precincts of the temple. 
 
 Were astonished at His teaching (SiSox!?)- The word is not so much objective, 
 the thing taught, as subjective, the teaching. See chap. i. 22, 27, iv. 2. It 
 was the strange imperial power of the great Speaker that amazed them. Ha 
 
316 ST. MARK XL [18 
 
 doctriue. 19 And when even was come, lie went out of the 
 city. 
 
 20 And in the morning', as they passed by, they saw the fig 
 tree dried up from the roots. 2 1 And Peter calling to remem- 
 brance saith unto him. Master, behold the fig tree which thou 
 cursedst is withered awiiy. 22 And Jesus answering saith 
 
 spoke home to their hearts and consciences, and swayed them, they knew not 
 why or how. 
 
 Vek. 19. And whenever even was come (every day as evening set in). Liter- 
 ally, And ivhenever it became late. The gates of the city would be shut then, 
 as now, at sunset. 
 
 He went forth ont of the city. To some spot or other on His favourite mount 
 of Olives, where there would be multitudes of pilgrims from Galilee and other 
 places. See ver. 11. 
 
 Vek. 20-24 constitute a paragraph corresponding to Matt. xxi. 20-22. The 
 chronology in Mark seems to be more explicit, and the narration less con- 
 glomerate, than in Matthew. 
 
 Vek. 20. And as they were passing by in the morning. Namely, on their 
 return to the city. Note the they. The Saviour is for the moment shaded off 
 behind His disciples. 
 
 They saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Luther's version, adopted by 
 Coverdale, is free, to the root. So Mace, to tlie very roots. But the pole of the 
 evangelist's representation is better, for no doubt the blight would operate from 
 within outward, and thus from below upward. 
 
 Vee. 21. And Peter, calling to remembrance. Or simply, recollecting. The 
 original participle however is passive. He was, on occasion of seeing the tree, 
 reminded, viz. of the whole transaction of the previous day. 
 
 Saith to Him, Eabbi. " The ordinary title of honour," says Fetter, " which 
 " the disciples used to give unto our Saviour." 
 
 Behold. The word is used absolutely. Look I or Lo I 
 
 The fig tree, which Thou cursedst, is withered away. Or better, and more 
 literally, has become withered [l^-^pain-ai). The away is superBuous, and in- 
 apposite too, inasmuch as the tree was too solid to have disappeared on wither- 
 ing, as might have been the case with a mere flower. The away is omitted in 
 the Eheims, and is wanting in Wyclifte ; it was introduced by Tyndale. Which 
 Thou cursedst: it is Peter's word, but not inappropriate, though possibly he 
 might not at the time have a fully developed view of the Lord's action. The 
 Lord cursed, not passionately, but judicially, and ' in a figure.' 
 
 Veb. 22. And Jesus, answering, saith to them. He addresses not Peter only, 
 but the whole- circle, for they were all no doubt correspondingly affected and 
 interested. 
 
 Have faith in God. Very literally, Have faith of God. The genitive however 
 represents the object, not the subject, of the faith, and hence the translation 
 given in our Authorized version is correct. The same construction occurs in 
 
23] ST. MARK X.I. 317 
 
 unto fhem, Have faith in God. 23 Foi* verily I say unto you, 
 That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, 
 and be thou cast into the sea ; and shall not doubt in his heart, 
 but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to 
 
 Gal. ii. 16, 20, where we read of ' the faith of Jesus Christ,' and ' the faith of the 
 Son of God,' rather ohsoure expressions in English idiom. We can readily 
 speak of ' the love of God,' meaning, according to circumstances, either the love 
 of which He is the subject, or the love of which He is the object. But the phrase 
 the faith of God, or the faith of Christ, has not got fixed, in its objective signi- 
 fication, into an easy-going idiom. Hence, Dr. Adam Clarke so entirely mis- 
 understood the import that he supposed the words of God to be a kind of 
 oriental or Hebraistic adjective, equivalent to great, ' Have strong faith.' When 
 the Saviour says. Have faith in God, He means, Have faith in the illimitable 
 resources of God. 
 
 Vbk. 23. Verily I say unto you. A favourite formula, with our Saviour, of 
 solemn assurance. 
 
 Whosoever should say to this mountain. Viz. this mount of OHves on which we 
 are standing. Whosoever should say, or If any one should say. 
 
 Be thou taken up. Or Be thou raised up, viz. from thy foundations. The 
 verb is frequently rendered to take up, as in Mark ii. 9, 11, 12, vi. 29, 43, viii. 
 8, 19, 20, 34. It is rendered to lift up in Luke xvii. 13 ; John xi. 41 ; Acts iv. 
 24 ; Eev. x. 5. 
 
 And thrown into the sea. A fine vivid idea, representing, in a bold hieroglyphic 
 manner, a great result. The Saviour did not mean that it would ever be desir- 
 able that the mount of OHves should be literally torn from its socket and hurled 
 into the ocean. If however it were desirable, it would take place. But He 
 meant that there would be occasion, within the moral area of human experience, 
 for changes as great intrinsically, and every way as remarkable and difficult, as 
 the transference of mountains. ' By the mountain,' says Zuingli, ' He under- 
 stands whatsoever things are arduous.' 
 
 And should not doubt in his heart. That is, in his mind. No amount of mere 
 words, or vehement utterance of words, or loud profession, will be of any avail. 
 The thing signified by pious words or pious profession must be present in the 
 jnterior of the being. And that interior must not be distracted by an inter- 
 necine contention of confidence and no-confidenoe, trust and distrust, in 
 reference to the action of God. Utter moral impotence would be the result 
 of such intestine distraction. There is really no room for legitimate doubt 
 in reference to the desires which are the offspring of faith ; and it is to such 
 desires only that the Saviour refers. All such desires are invariably fulfilled. 
 They cannot but be fulfilled ; for they really root themselves in the desires of 
 God Himself. 
 
 But should believe that what he says. It is likely that the autographic ex- 
 pression was singular (S instead of &), the thing which he says. This is the 
 reading of the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, as also of ' the queen of the 
 cursives ' (33), and of Tisohendorf, Tregelles, Alford. 
 
 Cometh to pass (ylverai). The present tense is employed to bring out the 
 
318 ST. MARK XI. [23 
 
 pass ; he shall have whatsoever he saith. 24 Therefore I say 
 unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, 
 believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. 25 And 
 when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any : 
 
 idea of absolute certainty. It ite as if it had been said, comes, as a matter of 
 course, to pass. 
 He shall have it. Or, It shall be to Mm. 
 
 Vek. 24. Therefore. That is, since it is the case that faith in God effica- 
 ciously unites the believer to the omnipotence of the Almighty. 
 
 I say to you, All things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that ye have 
 received them. Viz. in the purpose of God. In the Cambridge manuscript, 
 or codex Bezte (D), the verb is in the future. Believe that ye shall receive 
 {X'^/j.feaOai). In the Alexandrine manuscript (A), on the other hand, and in 
 many others, both uncial and cursive, the verb is in the present, ye receive 
 (\aij.§dvetc), the reading of the Eeoeived'Text, and therefor* reproduced in King 
 James's version. But in the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts (X B) , as also in 
 C L A, the verb is in the past, ye received (^Xd/Scre). And this is the reading 
 that has been received into the texts of Laohmann, Tischendorf, TregeUes, 
 Alford. Bightly : for it is a reading which would never have suggested itself as 
 an emendation. It puts the Saviour's idea in the strongest possible form. His 
 disciples were to be as assured as they would be if they had received. " It shall 
 " come to pass that before they call, I will answer ; and while they are yet 
 " speaking, I wUl hear " (Isa. Ixv. 24). 
 
 And ye shall have them. Literally, And they shall be to you. God knows 
 beforehand the prayers that are about to ascend, and sends on His answers in 
 anticipation. A great promise ; and available not to apostles merely, but to all 
 believers. Comp. Matt. vii. 7-11 ; 1 John iu. 22, v. 14, 15 ; Jas. i. 4, 5, v. 15. 
 Every desire of the human heart, which is the progeny of faith in God or faith 
 in Christ, will be fulfilled. (Ps. cxlv. 19. ) It is iu absolute coincidence with 
 the desire of God's own heart. Should there be, interwarped or mingled with 
 it, any atom of desire that is not in coincidence with the Divine will, then the 
 true believer, in the heart of his heart, desires that that desire should not be 
 fulfilled. When his real prayer is stripped of all its unessential accessories, it 
 is found that the presentation of that particular item is an excrescence, and 
 forms no part at all of the essence of his petition. 
 
 Veb. 25. An essential condition of prevailing prayer, for any object what- 
 soever, is specified. And whensoever ye stand praying. The common attitude 
 assumed in prayer is here incidentally specified, standing. 
 
 Forgive if ye have aught against any one. Aught. See on chap. vii. 12. 
 Wycliffe has ony thing ; Tyndale, eny thinge ; Coverdale, ought. Forgive : 
 absolutely and unconditionally ? Yes, so far as private feeling is concerned, 
 and as far as the well-being of society will permit. As there'are limits how- 
 ever to the Diviue forgiveness itself, so there are corresponding limits to legiti- 
 mate human forgiveness. Parents must sometimes punish ; not to gratify 
 ignoble passion, but for the welfare of their children (Prov. xiii. 24), and for the 
 maintenance of wholesome parental authority. Magistrates must sometimes 
 
27] ST. MARK XI. 319 
 
 that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your 
 trespasses. 26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your 
 Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. 
 
 27 And they come again to Jerusalem : and as he was walk- 
 ing in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the 
 
 punish ; not to gratify a spirit of personal revenge, tut to guard the interests of 
 the community. Private persons must sometimes prosecute and sue ; not from 
 a narrow spirit of malevolence, but from a spirit of broad benevolence. In all 
 cases a forgiving spirit may be cherished, and will by Christ's disciples be felt 
 and fostered. 
 
 That. Or, In order that. The word brings into view one of the aims which 
 it will be legitimate for Christ's disciples to have in view when forgiving; 
 
 Tour Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. Note the 
 also, i.e. on His part, as you on yours. In some circumstances the action of God 
 is conditioned on the action of men ; for, as Creator, Father, and Governor, He 
 is not the Absolute One, but Eelative. Comp. Ps. xviii. 25, 26 ; Jas. iv. 8. It 
 is legitimate for Christ's disciples to have in view their own forgiveness ; but it 
 would be altogether illegitimate and selfish to be either solely or supremely 
 urider the influence of that motive. 
 
 Vek. 26. This verse. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father, who is 
 in heaven, forgive your trespasses, is omitted altogether from the texts of Tisch- 
 endorf and Tregelles ; and it is condemned as ' adulterate ' by Pritzsohe. These 
 critics regard it as ' freely ' borrowed from Matt. vi. 15. It is noticeable that it 
 is wanting in both the Sinaitio and the Vatican manuscript (K B), as well as in 
 L S A, as also in some important manuscripts of the Coptic, Armenian, and 
 .Sithiopio versions. It is wanting too in Erasmus's editions of the text, and in 
 his Latin translation. In the Annotations of his first edition he says that it is 
 not in the Greek manuscripts. In the Annotations to the second and subse- 
 quent editions he says that it is waiUting in most Greek manuscripts, but pre- 
 sent in some, and that therefore, and because the words are found in ancient 
 authorities, he has added them. They are not added however. Luther too 
 omitted them in all his editions of his translation ; and the omission continued 
 for long after his death. It is a matter of no exegetical moment whether they 
 be admitted or omitted. But the external evidence in favour of their admission 
 is, if numerically considered, very preponderant ; while, as regards the internal 
 evidence, there is nothing to allege against their retention that might not with 
 equal propriety be urged against the counterpart statement in ver. 25, which is 
 of unquestionable genuineness. If the verse be genuine, it shows us that the 
 Saviour readily diverged, in His discoursing, from the miracle of the blighting 
 to the still more practical, and in some respects more difficult, subject of per- 
 sonal forgiveness. 
 
 Vee. 27-33, a paragraph corresponding to Matt.xxi. 23-27 and Luke xx. 1-8. 
 Vek. 27. And they come again to Jerusalem. To, or into. 
 And as He is walking about in the temple, there come to Him the chief priests, 
 and thp Bccilies. aniS tto oiiers. Bepresentatives of the sanhedrim. There had 
 
320 ST. MARK XT. [27 
 
 scribes, and the elders, 28 and say unto him, By what authority 
 doest thou these things ? and who gave thee this authority 
 to do these things? 29 And Jesus answered and said 
 unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer 
 me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. 
 30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men ? 
 
 probably been an extemporized meeting of the council, or of its principal 
 members, to consider what sbould be done. See ver. 18. 
 
 Vee. 28. And they said to Him, By what authority. Literally, in what au- 
 thority. Authority has a sphere within which it is operative. The what denotes 
 quality [irolq,). The inquisitors wished to know the quality or kind of the 
 authority under which our Lord acted. 
 
 Doest Thou these things? The reference is doubtless to the authoritative 
 cleansing of the court of the Gentiles. See ver. 15-17. 
 
 And who gave Thee this authority to do these things ! Literally, in order that 
 Thoumayest do these things (IW). Instead of the conjunctive avd, the Sinaitic and 
 Vatican manuscripts have the disjunctive or {ij), which represents the second 
 question as but another phase of the first. Tischendorf has accepted this or, 
 and so have the English Eevisionista. But it is probable that it is a transcriber's 
 emendation, simpHfying the relationship of the two queries. It is a matter of 
 option to run the queries into unity, or to keep them apart as representing two 
 distinguishable, though affiliated, elements of the case. The kind or quality 
 of authority may be discriminated from its source. It might, for instance, be 
 merely that of a rabbinical reformer, or that of a Divinely commissioned 
 Messiah. 
 
 Vek. 29. And Jesus said to them, I will also ask you. Or, more literally, and 
 as the Eheims has it, I also will ask you, i.e. 1, on My part. The also however, 
 along with the pronoun {Kfyii), is omitted in the Vatican manuscript and a 
 few other authorities ; and it is hence left out by Tischendorf and TregeUes. 
 On insufficient grounds. 
 
 One question. A free but excellent translation. It is one word in the original 
 (ha \6yov) ; and such is the Eheims translation, and Wycliffe's, ' o word.' 
 Coverdale has ' a word ' ; Tyndale, ' a certayne thinge.' 
 
 And answer Me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. It is 
 again ' in ' what authority in the original. See ver. 28. The Saviour, though 
 eminently ' meek and lowly,' yet stood erect, in the presence of His inquisitors, 
 on a pedestal of dignity. 
 
 Veb. 30. The question was as follows : The baptism of John, was it from 
 heaven, or from men ? Was it a truly Divine or a merely human ordinance ? 
 Did it bear the impress of the Divine will, or merely of a human assumption ? 
 It was a crucial question to the priests, scribes, and elders, and was eminently 
 fitted to determine whether they were qualified, in their present mood, to 
 understand the ground or reason and reasonableness of our Lord's procedure. 
 See next verse. The ' baptism ' of John is specified representatively, in con- 
 sequence of its conspicuousness in his ministry. But the idea, as Zuingli cor- 
 
32] ST. MARK XI. 321 
 
 answer me. 31 And they reasoned witli themselveSj sayings If 
 we shall say, From heayen ; he will say, Why then did ye not 
 believe him ? 32 But if we shall say, Of men ; they feared 
 the people : for all men counted John, that he was a prophet 
 
 rectly remarks, is, The mission of John, was it Divine, or merely self assumed 
 and human ? 
 
 Answer Me. He would give them leisure for deliberation; but He insisted 
 on a determinate answer. As He spoke, tbey would feel the presence of an 
 indescribable autbority and majesty. 
 
 Vek. 31. And they reasoned with themselves. That is, among themselves, 
 turning to one another. Tyndale's version is, they thought in themselves, but 
 the preposition employed (tt/sos) naturally suggests the idea of conference. 
 
 Saying, If we shall say, Prom heaven ; He will say, Why then did ye not believe 
 him ? It is noteworthy that in reasoning with one another it was not their aim 
 to get such an answer to our Lord's query as would embody the truth, or even 
 their own conviction in reference to the truth. They simply, on a plane of low 
 expediency, considered what would serve their purpose as inquisitors. They 
 therefore came to the conclusion that it would be inexpedient to say that John's 
 baptism was from heaven. They dreaded that, if they should make such an 
 answer, they would expose themselves to the retort that they had paid no heed 
 to his message, either as it regarded themselves or as it regarded the Messiah. 
 John had not been welcomed by them as a herald of Divine news. He had 
 been to them, on the contrary, as a thorn in their side. 
 
 Vee. 32. But should we say. The if of King James's version is wanting in 
 almost all the great manusoriptural authorities, and is hence omitted not only 
 by Lachmann, Tischendorf, TregeUes, Alford, but also by Bengel, Matthsei, 
 Knapp, Scholz. It was disapproved of by Mill (§ 1344), and suspected by Gries- 
 baoh ; and it was omitted from the Complutensian edition, and the two ' 
 mirifioam ' editions of Eobert Stephens. The sense of the clause is not affected 
 by the omission. 
 
 From men. The evangelist leaves us to supply what, in the estimation of the 
 inquisitors, would be the result of such an answer. The inquisitors themselves 
 deemed it prudent to be silent. Hence they would, by shrug of shoulder, or by 
 finger on mouth, or by some other "movement, indicate aposiopesis. In some 
 editions a point of interrogation is put after the alternative. But should we say, 
 Of men ? This point is given by Eobert Stephens in his second ' mirificam ' 
 edition, that of 1549, and it has been adopted, not only by Bengel, but also 
 by Lachmann and Tischendorf. It is approved of too by Meyer. It is just 
 another and earlier form of representing the hypothetical or deliberative nature 
 of the expression. But it is not needed in English, Greek, or German. 
 
 They feared the people. We are left to extract from this historical expression 
 the idea which was in their minds, but which they would not hke to bring out 
 to one another in explicit words, we fear the people (Matt. xxi. 26). 
 
 For all verily held John to be a prophet. It is a rather rugged expression, but 
 it represents a real ruggedness in the original, held John indeed that he was a 
 
 T 
 
322 ST. MARK XII. [32 
 
 indeed. 33 And they answered and said nnto Jesus, _ We 
 cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither 
 do I tell you by what authority I do these things. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 1 AND he began to speak unto them by parables. A 
 certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, 
 
 prophet, that is, held John to he indeed a prophet, a, man inspired by Grod to 
 make Itnqwn Divine ideas. (See chap. vii. 6.) 
 
 Vee. 33. And they answered Jesus, and say, We know not. Or, as Wyoliffe 
 has it, we witen nevere. It was an unoouscieutious answer, their real idea heing, 
 if they had only possessed sufficient moral manliness to have uttered it, We 
 think it inexpedient to say. 
 
 And Jesus saith to them, Neither tell I you 'by what authority I do these things. 
 Our Lord acted on a principle at once of equity and of dignity. Since they 
 dealt unoonsoientiously in reference to John's testimony. He was justified in 
 retributively withholding from them, in present circumstances, His Own testi- 
 mony. It became too His superior position ; for He was above them, even as 
 John was, only to a much higher degree. If they had been conscientiously 
 seeking or wishing to ascertain His true position and authority, they had His 
 works to enlighten them ; and He would have rejoiced to have added such words 
 as might have been of still further service. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Thkee is no winding up of a distinct department of narrative at the conclu- 
 sion of the preceding chapter. The break into a new chapter is topical only, as 
 a matter of convenience in lection and reference. 
 
 Veb. 1-12 constitute a paragraph which is parallel to Matt. xxi. 33-46 and 
 Luke sx. 9-19. 
 
 Vee. 1. And He began to speak to them in parables. To them, that is to the 
 inquisitorial representatives of the sanhedrim, who had asked Him to produce 
 His credentials for interfering in the affairs of the temple. See Matt. xxi. 28. 
 There would however be an immense concourse of people clustering about, who 
 would in part overawe the deputies of the council, and constitute at the same 
 time the great body of our Lord's auditors. See Luke xx. 9. In parables : Or, 
 as it is in Tyndale's version, in similitudes. Such too is the import of Luther's 
 translation of the word (Gleichnisse). See, on the radical import of the term, 
 chap. iii. 23. 
 
 A man planted a vineyard. Our Lord draws, as was His wont, His illustration 
 from common life and familiar objects. Palestine was emphatically a vino- 
 growing country, and fitted, in consequence of its peculiar configuration and 
 climate, for rearing the very finest grapes. 
 
 And set a hedge about it. Or, And surrounded it with a fence ; it might be 
 
1] ST. MARK XII. 323 
 
 and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let 
 
 a wall (Prov. Jtxxiv. 31) ; it might be a quickset hedge (Prov. xv. 19) ; or it 
 might be a combination of both (Isa. v. 5). " In addition," says Horatio B. 
 Haokett, " to a stone wall, or as a substitute for it, the Eastern vineyards have 
 " often a hedge of thorns around them. A common plant for this purpose is 
 " the prickly pear, a species of cactus, ■which grows several feet high, and as 
 " thick as a man's body, armed with sharp thorns, and thus forming an almost 
 " impervious defence." {Illtistrations, p. 109.) This cactus hedge is much used 
 about Joppa for instance ; but stiU it is of itself no sufficient defence against 
 jackals, and some other wild animals, which abound in Palestine, and infest the 
 vineyards about the vintage season. 
 
 And digged a pit for the winepress. Or, more simply and correctly, digged a 
 wine-vat. The wine-fat or wine-vat was not digged in the sense of being delved 
 out of the soil, and hence Wyoliffe's translation and dalf a lake is not appro- 
 priate. But it was digged in the sense of being scooped out of the rock. See 
 Isa. V. 2 (margin). Tyndale's translation is peculiar, and ordeyned a wynepresse, 
 that is, and set in order a wine-press. Multitudes of the wine-vats referred to 
 are still to be found in the vicinity of Palestine ; and from them we learn that, 
 a sloping rook being selected, a trough was hoUowed out, two or three feet, 
 perhaps in depth, and four or five, or more or less according to circumstances, 
 in length and breadth. This was the winepress proper. Then immediately 
 below in the same slope, another trough, or lake (lacus), as the Eomans called 
 it, of smaller dimensions, was cut out, with an aperture or apertures communi- 
 cating with the compartment above. Into this the juice of the grapes rart, 
 when they were trodden in the press. Thence it would be taken out and put 
 into large bottles or skins. The word that is used in the passage before us 
 (6ir6\Tiviov), though freely used to designate the whole complex excavation,, 
 properly denotes this lower trough or lake. (See Bruiuier De Verbis compositis, 
 p. 170.) The word used by Matthew (xxi. 33, Xtjvos) brings prominently intO' 
 view the upper compartment, the press or torcular, Comp. Eev. xiv».19, 20 ; 
 six. 15. The translation of the Geneva of 1557 is exceedingly periphrastic, 
 and digged a pit to receave the lycour of the wynepresse. 
 
 And built a tower. That is, a watchtower, which however would also serve as a 
 residence during the vintage season. " Watohtowers," says Horatio B. Hackett, 
 " are confined chiefly to vineyards and orchards. . . . They caught my 
 "attention first as I was approaching Bethlehem from the south-east. They 
 "appeared in almost every field within sight from that direction. They were 
 " circular in shape, fifteen or twenty feet high, and, being built of stones, looked 
 " at a distance like a little forest of obelisks. I was perplexed for some time 
 " to decide what they were. My travelling companions were equally at fault. 
 " Suddenly, in a lucky moment, the words crossed my mind, u, certain man 
 ^'planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and built a tower, and let it out 
 " to husbandmen, and went into u, far country (Mark xii. 1). This recollection 
 " cleared up the mystery. There before my eyes stood the towers, of which I 
 " had so often read and thought. . . . Those which I examined had a small 
 " door near the ground, and a level space on the top, where a man could sit and 
 " command a view of the plantation. I afterwards saw a great many of these 
 
324 ST. MARK XII. [1 
 
 it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. 2 And at 
 the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might 
 receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 
 And they caught him, and beat him, and sent Myn away empty. 
 
 "structures near Hebron, where the vine still flourishes in its ancient home." 
 {Illiistrations, p. 108.) Dr. W. M. Thomson had experience of the watchfulness 
 of the watchmen on these towers. Passing on a certain occasion through the 
 vineyards of Lebanon, " I was," says he, " suddenly startled by a long loud note 
 "of warning, sweUing up the steep cliffs of the mountains, and responded to 
 "by others before and behind, ringing together in concert, and waking the 
 ' ' echoes that sleep in the wadies and among the rugged rocks. Then one of the 
 "watchmen, leaving his lofty station, descended to meet me with hands laden 
 " with the best clusters for my acceptance, and this too without money and 
 " without price. Courteously accompanying me to the end of the vineyards, he 
 "then dismissed me with a graceful bow, and the prayer of peace on his lips. 
 "If however one attempts to take without permission, these watchmen are 
 "required to resist even until death, and in the execution of their oflSoe they 
 "are extremely bold and resolute." {The Land and the Book, p. 599.) 
 
 And let it out to husbandmen. Literally, and gave it out, viz. in his own 
 interest (such is the force of the middle voice). A company of practical vine- 
 dressers became the lessees of the vineyard. The word rendered husbandmen 
 {ycapyo'!s) properly means earthworkers, tillers, or as Wycliffe has it, tilieris. 
 The English word husbandman had originally a higher meaning, denoting a man 
 who was the centre and band of a household establishment. 
 
 And went into another country. The translation in King James's version is, 
 and went into afar country ; but there is nothing in the original (koi dreSruiTia-ep) 
 to vindicate the insertion of the word far, at least in its modern acceptation. 
 The idea simply is, and went from his own people, that is, and went abroad. The 
 translation of Tyudale, Coverdale, the Geneva, and the Eheims is, and went into 
 a straunge countre. He went forth or furth from his native land, a common 
 enough practice in our Lord's days, when travelling was general, and Eome was 
 a great centre of attraction for the wealthy in all surrounding lands. For the 
 application of the parable see on ver. 9. 
 
 Veb. 2. And at the season. The vintage time. 
 
 He sent to the husbandmen a servant. Instead of the husbandmen Tyndale 
 has it, freely, the tennauntes, 
 
 That he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruits of the vineyaid. A 
 partitive expression. The rent was to be paid in kind, the servant or com- 
 missioner being no doubt instructed by his lord to commute the fruits received 
 into money, by means of some of the traders in the adjoining city. 
 
 Veb. 3. And they took him. They caught hold of him. 
 And beat Mm. Or, as the Eheims has it, bette him. Tyudale and Coverdale 
 have Jet. They cudgelled him. Liteiallj, they flayed him. 
 And sent him away empty. They dismissed him with nothing in his hands. 
 
5] ST. MARK XII. 325 
 
 4 And again he sent nnto them another servant ; and at him 
 they cast stones, and wounded Mm in the head, and sent him away 
 shamefully handled. 5 And again he sent another ; and him 
 they killed : and many others, beating some, and killing some. 
 
 Vee. 4. And again he sent to them another servant. Perhaps of a higher 
 position, or of a more commanding nature. 
 
 It is then added in King James's version, and at him they cast stones. Bat 
 this clause is wanting in the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Cambridge manuscripts 
 (SB D), as well as in LA, 1, and 33 ' queen of the cursives.' It is wanting 
 too in the Italic, Vulgate, Coptic, Sahidic, and Armenian versions. Griesbach 
 suspected it {Comm. Crit.) ; Mill condemned it {Prol., p. xliii.). Laohmaun, 
 Tisehendorf, Tregelles omit it. Eightly, most likely. It would be introduced 
 at first into the margin to explain what follows, or as an import from Matt. xxi. 
 35. Omitting the word translated they cast stones, the clause runs thus, and him 
 they wounded in the head. The word employed occurs nowhere else in the form 
 in which it is found in the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts aailj (ixe^aXtacrav]. 
 They ' headed' him, that is, apparently, they ' broke his head,' as Tyndale and 
 Coverdale have it. They inflicted severe and dangerous wounds upon his head. 
 The word is in the other manuscripts spelled differently {iKe<f>d\aiaa-ai'), and is 
 a common enough term, but never occurring in the sense which, if it be the 
 true reading, it must bear in the passage before us. It everywhere else means 
 to reduce to a head or heads, to sum up. Wakefield ingeniously supposes that 
 here the meaning is, they dealt with him summarily ; but such a use of the 
 verb, with a person for the object of its action, is unexampled and unlikely. It 
 is probable that the evangelist's word had been a term that was common, in the 
 acceptation accorded to it, in certain circles of provincial society, though it had 
 never got the sanction of any classical writer. (See Lobeck'sP7ir2/nicfeMS,p. 95.) 
 
 And shamefully handled (koX ■/iH/iacav). Or dishonoured, or as Tyndale has it, 
 all to revyled, that is, altogether reviled. It is the generic summing up of all 
 that the imagination naturally suggests when we think of what must have been 
 done to the man, in the affray in which his head was seriously wounded. 
 
 Vee. 5. And he sent another. His forbearance was something remarkable. 
 
 And him they killed. Him they killed outright. 
 
 And many others, beating some, and killing some. An incomplete expression, 
 but easily understood. There should not be, as is common in the modern 
 editions of King James's version, a mere comma after the preceding clause, and 
 hw). they killed, and then a semicolon after the expression and many others ; thus 
 detaching to a distance the subsequent clauses. The result of this punctuation 
 is, that the mind is led to carry forward the word killed to the expression and 
 many others. That however is not the idea of the original. The clause and him 
 they killed is self-contained and complete, with its pronoun preceding its verb, 
 as in the two foregoing clauses. But when it is added and many others, the 
 mind of the vsriter or speaker, instead of looking backward in the direction of 
 the verb' of the preceding clause, looks forward, in quest as it were of some 
 more comprehensive verb that would embrace in its import not only actual 
 murder, but also such other violent and shameful treatment as might stop short 
 
326 ST. MARK XII. [6 
 
 6 Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent 
 him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. 
 
 of murder. Instead however of laying hold of such a verb, the mind assumes 
 it, and then proceeds to trace out derivatively the two courses of conduct 
 pursued, cudgelling some, and killing others outright. The punctuation of 
 Blayney's " Standard Mdition " of the English Bible, published in 1769, is wrong, 
 having the now current comma after hilled, and the semicolon after others ; but 
 in the editio princeps of 1611, as also in the second issue of that year, and in 
 the four succeeding folio editions of 1613, 1617, 1634, and 1640, as in almost all 
 the other editions, larger or smaller, for many years, the punctuation is correct : 
 a colon after killed, and only a comma after others. Tyndale's punctuation is 
 the same, and so is that of the Eheims ; so was that of Beza, in all his editions, 
 as also of Bengel in all his, Greek and German. It was the punctuation too of 
 Eobert Stephens in his last edition, that of 1551. It is reproduced in the 
 Elzevir, and in Mill. 
 
 Teb. 6. Having yet therefore one son, his well beloved. A very touching 
 statement, especially in the original, although there is some difficulty in 
 determining the autographic form of some of the minute details of phraseology. 
 The therefore for instance, which is found in the Keceived Text, is omitted 
 by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. It is omitted in N B L A, 1, 38, and in 
 the Coptic, Armenian, and ^thiopio versions. But tinkeringly, no doubt. It 
 seems to embarrass the connection ; and certainly it would never have been 
 inventively thrust in if it had been originally wanting. It is easy to account 
 for its omission, but difficult to conjecture a reason for its intrusion. And yet 
 in such a style as Mark's it is interestingly significant. It recalls attention to 
 the fact that all the messengers hitherto sent had failed to have effect upon the 
 lessees. The lord of the vineyard therefore, thought of a superior kind of 
 messenger. He had therefore yet one. Instead of ftatiin^ (^xwj'), Tischendorf, 
 Tregelles, Alford read he had (etx^v) on the authority of X B C^L A, 33. It is 
 the reading too of the Philoxenian Syriac, and is supported by the Peshito 
 Syriao. We are disposed to look upon it as genuine. Its inartificiaUty is 
 obvious ; it does not naturally coalesce with therefore. The participial reading 
 smooths the expression, and would not, one should imagine, have ever been 
 altered had it been original. But the artless evangelist, though evidently mean- 
 ing what is expressed by the participial reading, sets down his thoughts, with 
 less nicety of interdependency, in a semi-detached way, he had therefore yet one, 
 a beloved son ; he had one individual more, whom he could send with some 
 pirospeot of success, a beloved son^ Wycliffe renders the adjective most dereworth ; 
 the Geneva, dere beloved ; the Eheims, most deere ; Tyndale, whom ha loved 
 tenderly. 
 
 He sent him last to them, saying, They will reverence my son. Very UteraUy, 
 they will turn-themselves-in-upon-themselves (ivrpairiiaovTai) in relation to my son. 
 When erring or unworthy people thus turn-themselves-in-upon-themselves, they 
 naturally feel ashamed of themselves (see 1 Cor. iv. 14 ; 2 ThesB. iii. 14 ; Tit. 
 ii. 8), and are hence humiliated and reverent. 
 
10] ST. MARK XII. 327 
 
 7 But these husbandmen said among themselves. This is 
 the heir ; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be 
 our's. 8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him 
 out of the vineyard. 9 What shall therefore the lord of 
 the vineyard do ? He will come and destroy the husband- 
 men, and will give the vineyard unto others. 10 And 
 
 Vek. 7. But those hus'bandmen. Yery liteiaMy, But they, tlie husbandmen, oi 
 as Wycliffe has it, the tenauntis, i.e. the tenants. 
 
 Said among themselves. Or, more literally, to themselves, that is, to one 
 another. 
 
 This is the heir ; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall he ours. An 
 idea as infatuated as it was ferocious and unjust. Why should they presume 
 that their lord would be tolerant for ever ? 
 
 Yeh. 8. And they took him, and killed him, and cast him forth ont of the 
 vineyard. We may suppose, either that the idea is that they killed him, and 
 then cast his body outside of the vineyard, or that the evangelist, after stating 
 the lamentable issue of the struggle, they killed Mm, returns, on the principle 
 exemplified in such an expression as 'far and near,' to the specification of one 
 of the preliminaries of the tragedy, they dragged him in the struggle outside the 
 vineyard, q,nd there despatched him,. It is probable that this latter view is his 
 idea. Comp. Matt. xxi. 39 ;-Luke xx. 15. But it is by no means necessary or 
 warrantable to make, with Mace, Heumann, and Principal Campbell, a transpo- 
 sition of clauses in translation. It is as unwarrantable to employ, with Norton, 
 the word body in the last clause. 
 
 "Who did this?" asks Kichard Baxter, looking to the application of the 
 parable ; and he answers, "The only national church on earth." " No wonder," 
 he adds, " that no innooenoy or worth can preserve the Lord's ministers from 
 "their rage, and from being cast out of the vineyard." 
 
 Vek. 9. What, therefore, will the lord of the vineyard do? The question 
 was addressed to the audience, and we may conceive, if we choose, of our Lord 
 pausing for a reply. Comp. Matt. xxi. 40, 41. 
 
 We could not learn from Mark or Luke whether any of the auditors of our 
 Lord answered His question. But if any did, our Lord took up the answer and 
 iterated it, as from Himself, thus- making it His own. It is this. His own 
 answer, which is here recorded. He will come and destroy the husbandmen. 
 Putting them, as they deserve, to a violent death. 
 
 And will give the vineyard to others. To farm it for him. More worthy 
 lessees would he obtained. 
 
 The application of the parable is obvious. God was the Lord of the vine- 
 yard. The vineyard was an enclosed portion of the human race, the chosen 
 and peculiar people. They were enclosed within fences, that were requisite to 
 protect them from the evil influences rampant in the world at large. There 
 should have been valuable results from such advantages, and from the labours 
 of the appointed workers and overseers. There should have been results ac- 
 ceptable to God. Such results however wore not forthcoming. The priests and 
 
328 ST. MARK XIL [10 
 
 have ye not read this scripture? The stone which the 
 builders rejected is become the head of the corner: 11 This 
 
 other leaders of the people were shamefully unfaithful to their obligations. 
 But the Lord was gracious, and sent prophet after prophet to remonstrate with 
 them, and to induce them to repent of the error of their ways, and to act in 
 conformity with the covenant to which they had given their assent. But they 
 would not ; and only ' shamefully entreated ' the noble men who had been sent 
 to them as commissioners. By and by, after the greatest patience and long 
 suffering, God sent ' His only begotten Son,' Jesus Himself, the speaker of the 
 parable, to put all things to rights. As He spoke to the priests, and scribes, 
 and elders, He was engaged in His work. But He foresaw that they would 
 persist in their" mad and wicked opposition, and finish it by imbruing their 
 hands in His blood. The result would be that their peculiar privileges would 
 be taken from them, and handed over to others. There is consequently a' 
 change in the theocracy. There is stiU indeed an enclosure ; but it is no longer 
 given to mere formalists of priests, and paltry pedants of scribes, and sordid or 
 worldly minded elders, to have ofiSce and power. The theocracy is spiritual, 
 and all its officers and administrators are spiritual. The fence that surrounds 
 it is spiritual ; and, in the fence, there is a spiritual door of entrance for all whc 
 are spiritual. 
 
 Veb. 10. Have ye not read even this scripture? Very literally, Aiid did ye 
 not read this scripture ? that is, in substance. And did ye never, at any point of 
 time past, read this scripture ? Note the continuative expression, ' And did you 
 not ' (oiJ5^). Only one query is formally uttered ; but two are implied. It is as 
 if the Saviour had said, ' Do you not understand the application of My parable ? ' 
 ' and ' did you never read this scripture ? The two things coalesce. This 
 scripture : viz. Psalm oxviii. 22. The term scripture is, in its own nature, 
 indefinite in its appUcabUity, and may be used with propriety in reference either 
 to a single written statement or to a sum of such statements. It is used here 
 with reference to a single written statement, a small component part of that 
 which is emphatically ' the ' Scripture, in Luke iv. 21, John xix. 37, Acts i. 16. 
 
 The stone which the builders rejected. The stone ; literally, a stone. Ee- 
 jected. Refused is Coverdale's rendering, and Tyndale's ; and is the word that 
 is employed in the Authorized version of the Psalms. Dispisid is Wyoliffe's 
 rendering. The term means disapproved, and suggests that the stone was sub- 
 jected to scrutiny, and then condemned and rejected. The reference is probably 
 to some incident that had occurred in the buUding or rebuilding of the temple. 
 Some stone had been disapproved of for the foundation. It was too insignifi- 
 cant ! But ere the building was finished, that very stone was elevated into a 
 most conspicuous position. The incident is turned to account by the psalmist, 
 and by our Lord. It is regarded as adumbrating the treatment accorded to the 
 Messiah by those who, in the preliminary dispensation, had to do with the 
 erection of the temple of humanity, the great spiritual worship-house of the 
 Most High. 
 
 The same was made the head of the comer. Or, more literally, this iecame 
 head of a corner. More literally still, this became into a corner's head. The 
 
12] ST. MARK Xir. 329 
 
 was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. 
 12 And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the 
 people : for they knew that he had spoken the parable 
 against them : and they left him, and went their way. 
 
 reference is not, as is generally supposed, to a chief corner stone in the founda- 
 tion (Eph. ii. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 6), but to a corner stone in the cornice. Jesus, in 
 the temple of humanity, is both ; but He cannot be represented in the twofold 
 relation, within the limits of one and the same hieroglyphic picture. He is at 
 the head moreover of every comer, as well as at evei-y comer's hose. He is at 
 once the foundation all round and round, and the crown all round and round, 
 of the entire erection. But the architectural figure will not stretch to body 
 forth the vast reality. (See Comm. on Matt. xxi. 42.) 
 
 Vek. 11. The quotation continues. This was from the lord. More literally, 
 tlds came to pass from the Lord. The reference of the this has been disputed. 
 The word is feminine in the original {aih-i;), as if it referred to the head of the 
 corner, a word that is also feminine (Ke^aXi}). But it is more probable that, 
 being taken from the Septuagint, it is a mere verbatim translation of the Hebrew 
 pronoun (DNt), which, although really meaning this thing (that is, here, this 
 occurrence) is idiomatically of feminine gender. (See Comm. on Matt. xxi. 42.) 
 The occurrence referred to, the elevation of the 'despised stone to the cornice at 
 an angle, or rather, the elevation of the Person adumbrated by the stone, was 
 traceable to the overruling agency of the Lord. His heart and His hand were 
 in the matter. 
 
 And it is marvellous in our eyes. The occurrence is a fitting object of human 
 wonder. And such ' wonder ' is not merely ' the daughter of human ignorance.' 
 It is the Bister of admiration, and may be allied to the very highest possibility 
 of knowledge. 
 
 Vek. 12. And they sought to lay hold on Him. Tftci/, the priests, scribes, and 
 elders. They were anxious to get our Lord arrested, so that they might, in some 
 way or other, get rid of Him. They sought. They desired, and consulted, and 
 schemed. 
 
 And they feared the multitude. That is, the crowd that was there and then sur- 
 rounding our Saviour. 
 
 For. This introduces a reason for what is stated, not in the immediately 
 preceding clause, but in that which goes before it, and which was of overshadow- 
 ing significance. 
 
 They perceived that He spake the parable against them. Or, more literally, 
 in reference to them. Their amour propre was thus wounded. Meyer un- 
 naturally interprets the they as designating the crowd, in order to avoid 
 the hyperbaton, or vaulting, of the reference in the reason-rendering particle. 
 He has hence to assume a leaping back of the reference in the they of the 
 following clause. 
 
 And they left Him, and departed. They could not at that time make anything 
 more of the case. 
 
330 ST. MARK XII. [13 
 
 13 And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and 
 of the Herodians, to catch him in Ms words. 14 And 
 when they were come, they say unto him. Master, we 
 know that thou art true, and carest for no man : for thou re- 
 
 Veb. 13-17 constitute a paragraph corresponding to Matt. xxii. 16-22 and 
 Luke sx. 20-26. 
 
 Vek. 13. And they send to Him. They, the baffled priests, scribes, and 
 elders. Meyer fancies a contradictory account in Matthew, because the Phari- 
 sees are there specified (xxii. 15). But what more likely than that the scheme 
 should originate with a certain class? and indeed in an inclividual mind? 
 They send certain of the Pharisees. Picked men no doubt, able, unscrupulous, 
 and subtle. 
 
 And of the Herodians. Politicians, who had lost faith in OTerything super- 
 natural and Divine in Judaism and the Jewish Scriptures. The radiance from 
 above that rested on the superincumbent darkness was, to them, mere moon- 
 shine. The aspirations of the ancient ' fakeers ' of the nation, and thence of 
 the masses of the people, after a glorious royalty and theocracy, were, in their 
 estimation, reasonably and sufficiently realized in the Herodian dynasty.. See 
 on chap. iii. 6. 
 
 That they might catch Him in talk. Or, as it is in Wycliffe, in word. But 
 rhore hterally yet, hy word. The term word however is far from doing justice 
 to the Greek original (\6yif). We have no precise English equivalent. It is 
 rendered His talk in Matt. xxii. 15. The aim of the ' hunters ' was to get hold 
 of our Lord by means of something that He might say. They resolved to con- 
 struct, out of their discordances, a snare for getting Him to say something that 
 might be available against Him, either with the Jewish people on the one hand, 
 or with the Roman authorities on the other. The verb rendered they might 
 catch (d.ypei<Tu<nv) is a ' hunting ' word. They wanted to throw a lasso round 
 Him, or otherwise entrap Him. "We shall see how, in what follows. 
 
 Vbb. 14. The scheme has been agreed upon, and the ' hunters ' stealthily 
 approach their game. And when they were come, they say to Him, Master. 
 Or Teacher. No doubt, the word actually employed would be the Jewish one, 
 Baibi. They would use the title obsequiously, as if they were animated by 
 feelings of the profoundest deference. 
 
 We know that Xhou art true. True, that is, ingenuous, honest, transparent. 
 There is no veneering in Thy, teaching. The word (ntc in Greek is beautiful 
 and suggestive, dXijff^s, unconcealed, real. It is probable that the ' hunters ' had 
 at bottom a kind of actual faith in the honesty of our Lord. The very con- 
 sciousness of their own duplicity and unreality might suggest, on the principle 
 of contraries, the turn which they gave to their compliment. 
 
 And carest not for any one. False in a certain sense, for our Lord cared for 
 every one. But it was true in the sense intended by the ' hunters.' Our Lord 
 would not trim to please any one ; He would not shrink from declaring ' the 
 present truth,' however much offence it might give to the high and mighty on 
 the one hand, or to the many headed and many handed multitude on the 
 other. 
 
14] ST. MAEK XIT. 331 
 
 gardest not tlie person of men^ but teachest the way of God in 
 
 For Thou regardest not the person of men. A strange kind of expression, full 
 of phraseological fossils. The word person originally meant a mask, through 
 which a play-actor made sounds (per-sona). It then denoted a certain character 
 played ; and thence a ielf regulating actor, u self conscious agent. In the ex- 
 pression before us it has an intermediate meaning, the outtoard appearance ; and 
 such is the translation of the word in Myles Coverdale's version (1535), and 
 in Lord Cromwell's Bible (1539). The Geneva and the Eheims have person. 
 Tyndale has, stiU more freely, degree. But the Greek word (irpio-uTrov) neither 
 corresponds to degree nor person, nor exactly to outward appearance. It simply 
 means face or countenance, so that the ' hunters ' say, for Thou loolcest not into 
 the countenance of man. What did they mean ? Viewing the expression from a 
 purely Greek standpoint, one might suppose that it meant for Thou regardest 
 fwt mere appearance, or profession. Thou lookest behind to the real character: 
 That however is not the idea. The expression has within it the fossil of a 
 popular Hebrew idiom. The phrase to lift up the face of any one (D^S SB'3^ 
 meant, in Hebrew, to lie gracious to him, to show him favour. When suppliants 
 came before a king, in those olden times when the idioms of the Semitic tongue 
 were being formed, they prostrated themselves on the ground. If the monarch 
 was disposed to be gracious, he lifted up their countenances, that is, he allowed 
 them to look him in the face and to present their case before him. He thus too 
 himself looked upon their faces, and beheld them graciously. If he was resolved 
 however not to be favourable, he refused to let them look up. In Hebrew idiom 
 he turned away their countenances, and caused them to return back whence 
 they came. See 1 Kings ii. 16, 17, 20 ; 2 Ohron. vi. 42. It was bountiful in a 
 sovereign to lift up the countenance of a suppliant. But if the sovereign was 
 acting at the time as a judge between contending parties who had carried their 
 appeal to his bar, then, to have prejudged the case by lifting up the face of one 
 of the litigants, while the other's countenance was turned away, would have 
 been criminal partiality. Hence the evil of respect of persons in a judge, or 
 the lifting up of the face of one of the contending parties at the bar. (Ps. 
 Ixxxii. 2 ; Prov. xviii. 5 ; Mai. ii. 9.) But the principle of impartiality extends 
 its appUoation beyond the professional acts of professional judges. AH men 
 are more or less' judicial, and they should be impartial when they judge. More 
 particularly should they guard against bias in the presence of the rich and 
 the great. Public teachers very particularly, or preachers and rabbis, should 
 be constantly on their guard against favouritism for persons who owe their 
 elevation in society to causes that have no connection with moral superiority. 
 Hence the adroitness of the address of the ' hunters ' who came to our Lord, 
 for Thou lookest not into the face of men. It is as if they had said. Thou art 
 far removed from u spirit of partiality and favouritism. There is no fear of 
 Thee having regard to the great, however great, when Thou givest Thy judgment 
 regarding any act or course of action. 
 
 But of a truth teachest the way of God. Not the way in which Ood Himself 
 goes, but the way which Be has laid out for men to go in. Of a truth : Literally 
 upon truth, that is, says Euthymius, truly. And such is the translation of 
 Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Geneva. The ' hunters ' tried to flatter our Lord 
 
332 ST. MARK XII. [14 
 
 truth : Is it lawful to give tribute to Ceesar, or not ? 15 Shall 
 
 by Baying that His teaching was based upon truth. All up to this point was 
 ' flattening,' and flattering, and clearing of the way. Now comes the lasso : 
 
 Is it lawful to give tribute to Csesar, or not ? That is. Is it lawful, or is it not, 
 to pay taxes to the Roman emperor ? It is often supposed that the reference of 
 the querists was to the oapitation-tax imposed on the Jewish people by the 
 Eomans. So Schleusner, Bretsohneider, Wahl, Robinson, Sohirlitz, Grimm, 
 among the lexicographers. So too Hesychius in his lexicon {sub voce kIvo-os), 
 and the writer of the Codex Bezce, who, in place of the generic Latin term 
 census, used by the evangelist, substitutes the specific Greet term for poll- 
 tax {iTTiKeipdXaiof). But the question addressed to our Lord derived its 
 significance not from the particular form of any of the taxes imposed by 
 the victorious Eomans. It drew deeper. Had any Gentile a right to tax 
 the chosen people of God? Should any Jew recognise such a right? The 
 Pharisees in general had high ideas of the prerogatives of the chosen 
 people. When they paid their taxes to the Eomans, it was under a silent 
 protest ; and they would have been glad to witness the inception and con- 
 summation of any movement that would have lifted the foreign yoke off the 
 neck of the people. The Herodians again, though politicians rather than reli- 
 gionists, were of patriotic principles, and wished to see at the head of the 
 nation a Herod, into whose exchequer, in place of that of the Eonian emperor, 
 all taxes, dues, or customs should be paid. In their heart they were opposed, 
 like the Pharisees, to the payment of taxes to Caesar. They knew that Jesus 
 would be well aware of their distinguishing principles. The Pharisees too were 
 sure that He would be aware of their distinctive views. And hence they unitedly 
 hoped that He would not fear to speak out in their presence, if He really was 
 opposed in His heart to the Eoman rule. And if He should thus speak out, 
 they had resolved apparently to denounce Him to the Eoman governor as dis- 
 affected, like Judas of Galilee (Josephus, Ant., xviii. 1:6; Wars, ii. 8 : 1), to 
 the Eoman emperor, and politically dangerous to the Eoman supremacy. But 
 if, instead of saying Nay, He should chance to say Yea, they were resolved in 
 that case not to be baulked of their prey, but to denounce Him to the people 
 as basely acting in collusion with their oppressors. It was a cunningly con- 
 structed lasso. 
 
 Vek. 15. Shall we give, or shall we not give ? The break in King James's 
 version, between this verse and the former, comes awkwardly in at this place, 
 and no doubt in consequence of some casual oversight or mistake. Robert 
 Stephens in his 1551 edition, the edition in which the verse-divisions were in- 
 troduced, appropriately postponed the break till after the clause. Shall we give, or 
 shall we not give ? Beza too. The Elzevirs too. MiU too. And in fact all the 
 critical editions of the Greek text ; and the uncritical too. The same postpone- 
 ment occurs in the German, Dutch, and French versions ; and also in the Eng- 
 lish editions of Wells, Mace, Worsley, Wakefield, Young, Godwin. The awk- 
 ward break occurs however in the Geneva, and had thence been inadvertently 
 imported into our Authorized version. A more literal translation of the clause 
 would be, Should we give, or should we not give ? In the former clause, at the 
 
17] ST. MARK XII. 333 
 
 we give, oi- shall we not give ? But he, knowing their hypo- 
 crisy-j said unto theoij Why tempt ye me ? bring me a penny, 
 that I may see it. 16 And they brought it. And he saith 
 unto them. Whose is this image and superscription ? And 
 they said unto him, OEesar's. 17 And Jesus answering said 
 unto them, Eender to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and 
 to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. 
 
 conclusion of the preceding verse, the question concerns a general principle ; 
 in this there is reference to the application of the principle to the acting of the 
 people. 
 
 But He, knowing their hypocrisy. Or, as Tisohendorf gives it, on the authority 
 of the Sinaitio and Cambridge manuscripts, But He, seeing their hypocrisy 
 (iScic instead of eiSiis). Their masks could not conceal from His eye. He saw 
 at a glance that they were playing a part on a stage of unreality, for the ini(jui- 
 tous purpose of entrapping Him. They were not wishing advice from Him 
 how to act, neither were they wishing His help to solve for them a perplexing 
 problem. They were simply laying a snare, or constructing a lasso. 
 
 Said to them, Why tempt ye Me ? Why play recklessly with your consciences 
 in trying Me, and trying to wile Me to My injury ? To tempt is to try ; see on 
 chap. X. 2. , 
 
 Bring Me a penny. Literally, a denarius, the standard silver coin of the 
 Eomans, of somewhat less value, so far as amount of silver is concerned, than 
 a shilling sterling. 
 
 That I may see it. He wished to intermix the element of ocular demons tra- 
 tion with the remarks which He was about to make. 
 
 Veb. 16. And they brought it. The picture of the scene is so vividly drawn 
 by the evangelist, that we seem to see with our eyes the successive occurrences. 
 The coin is handed to our Lord ; He examines it. 
 
 And He says to them, Whose is this image and superscription ? As if He had 
 said: The coin, I perceive, has the likeness of some royal personage stamped upon 
 it ; and it hears an inscription or legend. Whose is the likeness ? Whose name 
 is mentioned in the legend ? The word translated superscription does not denote 
 that the name was written above the head ; it has only reference to the fact 
 that it was written upon the coin. WycUffe renders it the in-wrytinge. If he 
 had said the on-writing, the translation would have been perfect. 
 
 And they said to Him, Csesar's. Caisar was properly the surname of the Julian 
 family, and in particular of the great Julius ; but, being assumed by Octavianus 
 Augustus, became thence for a considerable time attached to his successors in 
 the im^rial throne. Purvey and Coverdale render the word Emperor. To 
 this day Raiser is the word used in Germany for Emperor. 
 
 Vek. 17. And Jesus said to them. Render to Caesar the things that are Csesar's, 
 and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled greatly at Him. They 
 marvelled. It is the imperfect tense, they stood marvelling. No wonder. In- 
 stead of finding Him eager to plunge headlong, as they had expected, into the 
 determination of an exciting political <iuostion, and thus into the pit which 
 
334 ST. MARK XII. [18 
 
 18 Then .come unto him the Sadducees^ which say there is no 
 
 they had digged for Him, they saw Him vaulting at a bound to an eminence on 
 the other side of their snare, whence He preaches to them a lesson which could 
 not fail to command the homage of their consciences. He assumes, what could 
 not be denied, that they had relations to CsBsar as well as to God. The cur- 
 rency of Cffisar's coin among them was evidence of the fact. It was hence 
 the case that they had obligations, of some kind or other, to discharge toward 
 him. See, said He, that you conscientiously discharge these. See that you he 
 not merely recipients of benefits. In whatsoever sphere you get, in that same 
 sphere you have to give. All men have duties to discharge to the civil rulers or 
 magistrates under whose authority they enjoy protection and other blessings. 
 They owe something, they owe much, to society around them, and hence to its 
 representative men. But there is a wider sphere stiU, that comprehends and 
 dominates all the spheres of social organization. There is the sphere of the 
 Divine and the infinite. Men are placed there ; and there they ' live and move 
 and have their being.' There and thence they enjoy all the blessings which 
 mate 'being' desirable or dehghtfnl. Hence they have duties to perform 
 toward God. Even in relation to Him, infinite though He be, they should not 
 be receivers only ; they should be givers too. They should ' render to Him the 
 things that are His,' that is, they should give away, and from themselves 
 (dTTiiSoTc), t6 Him, the things which of right belong to Him. It is their duty, 
 and their privilege too. For even in relation to God ' it is more blessed to give 
 than td receive.' And when He actually gets the things which constitute the 
 fitting tribute of the homage, service, and love, which are His due, then a prin- 
 ciple is got hold of which adjusts into its proper proportion the amount of 
 tribute, material or moral, that is due to men. The Saviour thus, instead of 
 leaping into the thicket of a petty politioal question of the day, ascended a 
 peak of ethical thought, and legislated for all peoples and persons, in all places 
 and times. 
 
 Veb. 18-27 constitute a paragraph that corresponds to Matt, xxii, 23-33 and 
 Luke XX. 27-38. 
 
 Veb. 18. And there come to Him Saddnoees. That is, certain Sadducees. The 
 interest in the Great Eabbi got more and more contagious; Within the courts 
 of the temple there would be numerous representatives of all the classes of 
 Jewish society. Some would he walking up and down, wrapped in their medi- 
 tations, or conversing together ; others would be standing in clusters, engaged in 
 keen debate. But Jesus gradually became the centre of attraction. Some 
 around Him might be in the secret of the sanhedrim's plot ; others would be 
 ingenuously charmed \iy the wonderful matter, and equally wonderful manner, 
 of His teaching ; while others still, big with theological or philosophical self- 
 conceit, would be eager to try their hand in shutting Him up dialecticaUy 
 within one or other of their favourite commonplaces. Among this last class 
 apparently was the knot of Sadducees who now approached, and threw out upon 
 Him their grappling hooks of argumentation. 
 
 Who 2ay that there is no resurrection. It is a compound pronoun that is 
 rendered who, or which (otrive^, it represents the Sadducees specified as 
 
19] ST. MARK XII. 335 
 
 resurrection ; and they asked him, saying, 19 Master, Moses 
 wrote unto us. If a man's brother die, and leave his wife beJdndl 
 Mm, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife^ 
 
 belonging to a certain class. They were of that class of people who say that there 
 is no resurrection. Note the negative form of their tenet. All their distinctive 
 tenets were negative. (See Eeuss's article in Herzog's Mncyldop.) And not 
 only did they objeot to the doctrine of the resurrection, they objected to the 
 kindred and more comprehensive doctrine of immortality. They seized indeed 
 on the idea of resurrection simply as vantage ground, on which to dispute the 
 idea of immortality. " They deny," says Josephus, " the immortality of the 
 "soul, and the punishments and rewards of hades" {Wars, ii. 8: 14). They 
 had thus no basis in their thoughts for the highest and most ennobling of 
 aspirations. 
 
 And they asked Him, saying. As follows in ver. 19-23. 
 
 Vkb. 19. Master. Literally Teacher, or Bahbi. 
 
 Hoses wrote to us. Viz. in Dent. xxv. 5. There follows a conjunction in the 
 original, standing before the quotation {that or Srt). But it is, as critics say, 
 recitative, and therefore not to be translated in English ; it ' simply points 
 demonstratively forward. 
 
 If a man's brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and leave no children. It 
 is no child in the Vatican manuscript and a few other authorities ; and Tischen- 
 dorf has received that reading into his text. But wrongly. The reading 
 bewrays an annotator's hand, who took into account, lawyer lite, that the want 
 of a single child exposed the widowed woman to the contingency about to be 
 specified. The word leave occurs twice in our translation ; but two distinct 
 verbs are used in the original. The first (KaraX^irij) means properly to leave 
 down, at one's feet as it were, and then to leave behind ; the second (d0g) means 
 primarily to send forth, and thence to throw up, to relinquish, to leave. Wake- 
 field's translation of the whole clause is, and leave a wife without children. 
 
 That. Literally, in order that {ha). It is at this point that the emphasis of 
 what Moses wrote comes in. What precedes is but preamble. The gist and 
 aim of his writing was in order that the domestic result hereafter specified 
 might he realized. 
 
 His brother should take his wife. Viz. in marriage. Instead of his vjife, 
 Tisehendorf , Tregelles, Alf ord read the wife, under the sanction of S B C L A, 1, 
 and the Coptic version. Bight. A species of ' communal ' relationship is sub- 
 indicated. The statute must be regarded as relative to some exceedingly 
 offensive matrimonial condition which had prevailed, probably polyandry. It 
 is the obverse of the more common polygamy, and had, in certain conditions of 
 social degradation, cropt up into use and wont. " Polyandry," says Sir John 
 Lubbock, "is far less common than polygamy, though more frequent than is 
 " generally supposed" {Origin of Civilization, p. 115). Sometimes one band of 
 brothers, kenneling in one homestead, would bo the common husbands of one 
 wife. "Among the Todas of the Neilgherry hills," says Sir John, " when a 
 " man marries a girl, she becomes the wife of all his brothers as they success- 
 "ively reach manhood, and they also become the husbands of all her sisters 
 
336 ST. MAEK XII. [19 
 
 and raise up seed unto his brother. 20 Now there were 
 seven brethren : and the first took a wife, and dying left n'o 
 seed. 21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he 
 any seed : and the third likewise. 22 And the seven had her, 
 and left no seed : last of all the woman died also. 23 In the 
 
 "as they become old enough to marry. In this case the firstborn child is 
 " fathered upon the eldest brother, the next born on the second, and so on 
 " throughout the series " (Origin of Civilization, p. 74). Sir John says again : 
 " Polyandry is no doubt very widely distributed over India, Thibet, and Ceylon. 
 "In the latter island the joint husbands are always brothers" (Ditto, p. 117). 
 When such a custom has unhappily got ingrained in the habits of a degraded 
 people, it is not possible to induce them to leap, at a bound, to a lofty pinnacle 
 of marital purity. The ascent, in general at least, must be gradual ; and hence 
 the utmost that can be achieved by progressive legislators is to take one step 
 upward at a time. It was thus that Moses had to deal with the Hebrews, who 
 had been for so long a period trampled down, in Egypt, into the mire of a 
 degraded servile condition. Hence the statute referred to by the Sadducees. It 
 was no doubt intended to limit the rights of brothers to succession, in place of 
 contemporaneity, and thus to promote as much as might be the development of 
 the idea of monogamy. It would be intended too to protect the interests of 
 widowed females, by giving them, when inheritances were involved, a claim 
 upon those who would obtain their deceased husband's effects. A corresponding 
 custom still prevails, or till recently prevailed, among the Kalmucks. " If a 
 "husband die, his widow becomes the property of his brother, provided the 
 "brother chooses to accept of her." (Clarke's Travels in Russia, Tartary, and 
 Turkey, vol. i., p. 315.) 
 
 And raise up issue to his brother. Perhaps that the line of inheritance might, 
 as far as possible, run on according to the ideal of the first marriage. 
 
 Vek. 20. There were seven brothers. We may either suppose, with Theophy- 
 laot, that the Sadducees feigned, for argument's sake, the case which they state ; 
 or, with Petter, that they had got hold of some extraordinary fact which had 
 actually occurred once upon a time, and which, when got hold of by them, became 
 their favourite armoury of argument while debating on their peculiar views. 
 This latter view is probably the more correct. 
 
 And the first. The eldest of the brotherhood. 
 
 Toot, a wife, and, dying, left no issue. 
 
 Vek. 21. And the seco nd took her, and died ; leaving no issne behind him ; and 
 the third likewise. The Sadducees make their argument graphic by spreading 
 out the case. We may imagine that there had been some idiosyncrasy in the 
 physical constitution of the brothers, that developed into fatal results in early 
 manhood. 
 
 Veb. 22. And the seven left no issue. Such is the simple reading of the 
 manuscripts X B C L A, and 33. Tisohendorf, Tregelles, Alford have received it 
 into the text ; and Meyer approves of it. Rightly. 
 
 Last of all the woman also died. Also, for sooner or later every one must fall. 
 
26] ST. MARK XII. 337 
 
 resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall 
 she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. 24 And 
 Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, be- 
 cause ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God ? 
 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, 
 nor are given in marriage ; but are as the angels which are in 
 heaven, 26 And as touching the dead, that they rise, — 
 
 Veb. 23. In the resurrection whose wife shall she he of them? Literally, of 
 which of them shall she be wife ? 
 
 For the seven had her to wife. That is, to be wife, or, had her as wife. There 
 is nothing however in the original corresponding to as or to. Wycliffe gives it 
 literally, hadden Mr wyf. The seven had her successively a wife. Wakefield 
 and Norton translate freely, for all the seven married her ; so Principal Campbell, 
 for she hath been wife to them all. 
 
 Veb. 24. Jesus said to them, Is it not for this cause that ye err? Err, or 
 wander, viz. from the right view of the subject. We have our word planet, or 
 wandering star, from the term that is employed {irXavaaBij. The ezpression for- 
 this-cause, or on-account-of-this {SiA, roDro), looks forward, as Erasmus remarks, 
 to the twofold clause that immediately follows. The interrogative ' form of the 
 address challenges the assent of the unbiased reason. The ground on which 
 the challenge is supported is found in ver. 25-27. 
 
 That ye know not the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Ye do err by not 
 knowing the Scriptures on the one hand, nor the power of God on the other. 
 
 Ver. 25. For when they shall rise from the dead. They, that is, men in 
 general, for by this time the thought has travelled forward from the specific 
 standpoint to the generic. From, the dead : literally /»'om among the dead, or 
 out of the dead. But the expression had got to be idiomatically equivalent to 
 from the state of death. 
 
 They neither marry, nor are given iit marriage. A specific phase of conven- 
 tional marriage customs in relation to females is brought into view. Not only 
 are they married, they are given in marriage. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 38. 
 
 But are as angels in heaven. In the resurrection state there will not be a repe- 
 tition, pure and simple, of present conditions ; there will be advance of inward 
 and outward development. Love will continue ; but in the case of the holy it 
 will be sublimed. ' The power of God ' is adequate, not only to the re-formative, 
 but also to the trans-formative changes that may be requisite ; and His wisdom 
 will see to it that they be in harmony with the perfectibility of individual 
 personality and the general procession of the ages. Even on earth there are 
 loftier loves than those that are merely marital. 
 
 Veb. 26. But as touching the dead. The Saviour turns from the considera- 
 tion of the plastic ' power of God ' to the doctrine of the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 That they are raised. This is the position that was gainsaid by the Sad- 
 ducees, and afBrmed by their theological opponents. It is expressed, with a kind 
 of technical precision, in the form of a thesis. 
 
 Z 
 
338 ST. MARK XII. [26 
 
 have ye not read in tlie book of Moses, how in the bush God 
 spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God 
 of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? 27 He is not the God of the 
 
 Have ye not read ? It is the aoriat tense. As if it were said, Did ye never read ! 
 
 In the Book of Moses. The Pentateuch. (Exod. iii. 2-6.) 
 
 What follows in our Eevised version and in the original is not the adverb how, 
 but the expression in the bush, or more literally, on the bush {ivl toO pdrov). The 
 how comes immediately after, and should, by King James's translators, have 
 been kept in that, its proper place. Erasmus however, and Tyndale, Coverdale, 
 Calvin, Beza transposed the adverb, putting it, in their various versions, before 
 the expression in the bush. None of these critics saw that the expression had a 
 titular and topical reference to a certain portion of the Pentateuch. Such how- 
 ever is undoubtedly the case, in the passage or paragrfiph on the Bush, Comp. 
 Eom. xi. 2. It was customary for the Hebrews to refer in this manner to out- 
 standing portions of their Scriptures. See Jablonsky. The Greeks and Eomans 
 had a corresponding custom. Bloomfield says that Beza explained the expres- 
 sion in this, the natural way ; but the fact is emphatically otherwise. In every 
 one of his editions Beza gives and defends the transpositive interpretation ; and 
 his influence, we doubt not, weighed with King James's translators. Almost 
 all modern critics however oppose his view ; and Luther and Wychfle, in their 
 respective versions, give the natural and correct translation. Wycliffe's is as 
 follows : have ye not read in the booh of Moyses on the bovsche , how God seide to him. 
 
 How God spake to Mm, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, 
 and the God of Jacob. Such is the statement on which the Saviour erects His 
 argument. See next verse. 
 
 Yeb. 27. He is not the God of the dead but of the living. This is the best- 
 supported reading. See Tischendorf's eighth edition. The Saviour considers 
 (1) that the declaration of (rod to Moses demonstrates that Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob are alive ; and He assumes (2) that if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are 
 really alive, there will be a resurrection. He does not argue the validity of His 
 assumption'; for He knew that the real difficulty of the Sadducees did not con- 
 cern the specific doctrine of the resurrection, over and above the generic doc- 
 trine of immortality. It centred in the generic doctrine, " for the Sadducees 
 " say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit " (Acts xxiii. 8). 
 Josephus merges out of view altogether their difficulty in reference to the 
 resurrection, when he says, " They take away the belief of the immortal dura- 
 " tion of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in hades " [Wars, ii. 8 : 
 14). Their objection to the idea of resurrection was, in short, just their out- 
 ward and pictorial way of objecting to the idea of immortality. It was the 
 external robe of a more inward idea. Prove to them immortality, and they 
 would no longer contend against resurrection ; for the idea of resurrection was 
 to them, and, when looked at from the highest standpoint, it is to all, simply 
 the complement of the idea of immortality. It resolves itself into this. If men 
 are to live for ever, they will live in their entire selves. Everlasting life will not 
 be realized in a fragmentary existence, as in an arch of being springing for ever 
 but half way over. The Saviour agreed with the Sadducees in this conception ; 
 
27] ST. MARK XII. 339 
 
 deadj but the God of the living : ye therefore do greatly err. 
 
 and hence, assuming it, He contented Himself ■witli demonstrating that Abraham, 
 Isaac, and Jacob are alive. Tlie only question that remains therefore is this, 
 Is the devumstration valid ! It must be ; though many a critic, looking only at 
 the surface of the phraseology, has failed to lay his finger on the vital nerve of 
 the argument. The argument, it is manifest, is not caught when the word am 
 is laid hold of, am as distinguished from the prseterite was : ' I am the God of 
 Ahraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' There is no am in 
 Mark's Greek, and none in the Hebrew of Moses. The argument therefore dips 
 deeper. AVhat is it? God sustained a relation of gracious peculiarity to 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He was ' their God.' He opened out, that is to 
 say, in a peculiar manner, in His relation to these patriarchs, the fulness of the 
 resources of His ' Godhead.' Why ?^ Was it because of a feeling of capricious 
 favouritism ? Was it to make the specified patriarchs wealthier than all others ? 
 Or healthier ? Or more cultured ? Or more sensuously happy ? Or more 
 powerful ? No. In these respects they did not excel all others ; in several of 
 these respects they were inferior to some others. Consider Abraham himself, 
 the chief of the three. He ' went out, not knowing whither he went,' and 'so- 
 journed in the land of promise, as iu a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles ' 
 (Heb. xi. 8, 9). So far was it from being the case that he was, in all terrestrial 
 respects, superior to all others. What then ? In what way was the fulness of 
 the Godhead lavished on the Hebrew patriarchs ? In a way that had reference 
 to a life to come. " These all died in faith, not having received the promises, ■ 
 " but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced 
 " them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For 
 " they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. . . . God 
 " is not ashamed to be called THEIR GOD, for He prepared for them a city " 
 (Heb. xi. 13, 14, 16). If it was not with reference to the life to come, that God 
 became ' the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,' 
 then there was nothing peculiar in God's relation to the Hebrew patriarchs. 
 And if aU peculiarity of relationship be denied, then all the peculiar Jewish 
 institutions, founded on these relations, were illusory, and ' the book of Moses' 
 was a fable. This however the Sadduoees, as self-conscious Jews, were not 
 prepared to admit ; and hence the Saviour's demonstration, based on the 
 Scriptures which they and He held in common, was unanswerable and irre- 
 fragable. It amounted to this : If there was at all a patriarchal dispensation, 
 embracing a Messianic or redemptive scheme, and. thus involving a divinely com- 
 missioned Messiah or redeemer, who was to be in due time incarnated, then there 
 must be a life to come. But there was such a dispensation, if it be the case that 
 God became ' the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,' 
 in any distinctive sense whatever. And then moreover, as Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob took personal advantage of the Messianic covenant into whicn God 
 entered with them, they 'live.' They have 'life,' 'everlasting life,' in the 
 intense acceptation of the term. They not only exist consciously. Their self- 
 conscious existence is normal, and harmonious with itself. It is ideal Ufe. It, 
 is bliss. 'The righteous by faith shall live' (Hab. ii. 4; Bom. i. 16, 17.) 
 Ye do greatly err. The Sadduoees entirely misunderstood the mystery and 
 
340 ST. MARK XII. [28 
 
 28 And one of the scribes came^ and Laving heard them 
 reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them 
 well, asked him. Which is the first commandment of 'all? 
 29 And Jesus answered him. The first of all the commandments 
 is, Hear, Israel ; The Lord our God is one Lord : 30 and 
 
 meaning at once of their own Jewish Scriptures, and of the various ordinances 
 which entered as elements into the peculiarity of the national constitution of 
 their people. 
 
 Veb. 28-34 constitute a paragraph which corresponds to Matt. xxii. 
 35-40. 
 
 Vee. 28. And one of the scribes came, and heard them reasoning together, 
 and knowing [or rather perceiving (ISiiv)] that He had answered them well, 
 asked Him. It is rather a complicated string of clauses in the original, resolv- 
 ing itself into two clusters : the first, and one of the scribes came, who heard 
 them reasoning together ; the second, perceiving that He answered them well, he 
 asked Him. There should he a pause, in reading, between the two clusters. One 
 of the scribes ; of nobler nature than the most of the rest, or of more unsophis- 
 ticated character. Came : that is, approached. He stepped forward from the 
 multitude, and respectfully addressed our Lord. Who heard them reasoning 
 together: he had listened to the discussion between our Lord and the Sad- 
 duoees. Perceiving that He answered them well. Very literally, beautifully. 
 Admirably, as it were. Eodolphus Dickinson uses freely the word ably. 
 Petter explains thus, ' truly and soundly, as also wisely.' 
 
 Asked Him, What commandment is the first of all? The what denotes 
 quality {ttoIo). Of what nature, of what kind, is the first commandment of all? 
 What is its essence ? The expression is one of several possible ways of putting 
 substantially the same question. There is a peculiarity in the gender of the 
 original word all {irdfToiv instead of Taa-Qv). The logical neutrality of the idea 
 of the things referred to immerges out of sight, for a moment, the rhetorical 
 femininity of the vocable employed. The first : ' the principal,' says Wesley, 
 ' and most necessary to be observed.' 
 
 Veb. 29. Jesns answered, The first is. There are great variations in the 
 manuscripts as regards the form of this clause ; but they are of no exegetical 
 moment. They seem all to be expansions of the reading. The first is. 
 
 Hear, Israel, the Lord our God the lord is one. See Deut. vi. 4, 5. This is 
 the preamble to the commandment, and is, as Wesley says, ' the foundation of 
 the first commandment, yea of all the commandments.' All the Infinities 
 must be modes of one Absolute Infinity ; and that one Absolute Infinity must 
 be the Being of God. If however, instead of the word God, we substitute the 
 word gods, we annihilate the idea of Godhead ; for we have then, in our con- 
 ception, but parts and parcels of infinity. We have in fact descended from the 
 infinite to the finite. 
 
 Vek. 30. And thou shalt love. ' Love,' says Eichard Baxter, ' is the final 
 act of the soul.' It is the soul's essence seeking, in some ' otherhood,' its 
 
30] ST. MARK XII.' 341 
 
 thou shalfc love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and 
 with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy 
 
 final end. In its consummation it is the soul's self embracing its perfect 
 ' otherliood.' 
 
 The lord. In Hebrew, Jehovah, or Jahveh. He is the Perfect ' Otherhood ' 
 of the soul. 
 
 Thy God. The term Jehovah is absolute, but the term God is relative. We 
 cannot say, my or thjj Jehovah; but we can say, my God, thy God, our God. 
 God is relative to us as the perfect Object of our adoration, obedience, confi- 
 dence, and love. The fulness of His Godhead is the inexhaustible source out of 
 which we get all that is truly desirable. 
 
 With all thy heart. Literally, out of thy whole heart. The representation in 
 Matthew (xxii. 37) is different, but harmonious. Our love to God is to drain, 
 not one district only of the heart, or several, but the entire length and breadth 
 of the domain. The word heart has not here its modern psychological import 
 of the special seat of the affections. It has its more primitive import of 
 the interior of our nature, the centre or core of our complex being, as distin- 
 guished from the physical periphery. See chap. ii. 6, 8 ; iii. 5 ; iv. 15 ; vi. 52; 
 vii. 6, 19, 21 ; viii. 17 ; xi. 23. (See also Oehler's article on Herz in Herzog's 
 JReal-Encyklop.) 
 
 And with all thy soul. Literally, and out of thy whole soul. The word soul, 
 Kke the word heart, does. not denote any particular power, energy, or capacity 
 of the inner nature, but the inner nature itself, under the phase of the self- 
 conscious life-essence. The heart is the self-conscious life-essence ; or, under 
 another phase, it is the sphere in which the life-essence is self-conscious. 
 There is an idea of locality in the word heart. The soul is at home in the 
 heart. Hence we do not, in general, speak of the immortality of tlie heart ; but 
 we speak of the immortality of the soul. Herodotus, in his day, used the same 
 expression : he says that ' the Egyptians were the first who maintained that 
 the soul of man (duSpdnrov ^vx^) is immortal ' (ii. 123). 
 
 And with all thy mind. Or, and out of thy whole mind. The word here 
 rendered mind [didfoia) naturally denotes some act of the discriminative in- 
 telligence. But, as in Plato's De Legihus, (xi. 2,) it is freely and indefinitely 
 employed to designate the mind itself, as the subject of the acts of intellectual 
 discrimination. Plato, in the passage referred to, uses the word to denote that 
 entire hemisphere of our being which is over against the body (ffG/ia). The 
 mind thus is the heart and the soul ; but it is the heart and soul in that par- 
 ticular phase that brings intelligence into view. ' It is the mind that makes 
 the man.' There is an etymological connection between the two English words. 
 In Sanscrit the verb man means to thinlt ; and thus ' man ' is impersonated 
 ' mind.' Man is the being on earth who can see meanings in things. And 
 it is hence his duty to draw out of this faculty a constant succession of 
 materials, with which to feed his love to God. It is worthy of observation that 
 the expression, out of thy whole mind, has nothing corresponding to it in Deut. 
 vi. 5. There is no antagonism however between the two representations. The 
 superadded clause, as Calvin remarks, ' does not alter the sense.' It is merely 
 
342 ST. MARK XII. [30 
 
 strength. This is the first commandment. 31 And the 
 second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
 thyself. There is none other commandment greater than, 
 these. 32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, 
 thou hast said the truth : for there is one God ; and there 
 
 the explicit speoifieation of a part of what is latently comprehended in the words 
 heart and soul. 
 
 And with thy whole strength. For man has strength, or ability, the gift of 
 God. Our responsibility is measured by it. Our whole inner being is force or 
 energy, just as it is heart, soul, mind. There is quadruplicity, as well as 
 triplicity, in our nature. There are indeed manifold multiplicities. 
 
 Such is the ' first ' of the commandments, in the order of importance. 
 Obedience to it would turn our earth into a paradise. The striving toward 
 it, consciously or unconsciously, is the secret of all the civilization that has 
 hitherto been realized. 
 
 Veb. 31. The second is this. A clause that exists under a great variety of 
 forms in the manuscripts, indicating apparently that it had been modified by 
 transcribers out of some brief original phrase. It would seem to have been 
 modified into harmony with the phraseology of Matt. xxii. 39. Tischendorf 
 and Alford read simply and compendiously thus, The second, this, the Vatican 
 reading, and found also in L A, and in the Saiidic and Coptic versions. The 
 Siaaitic reading corresponds. The second is this. Meyer approves of Tischen- 
 dorf's judgment. 
 
 Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Thy neighbour. Thy neighbours. 
 It is just the circumference of the duty whose centre is represented in the pre- 
 ceding commandment. Whosoever really loves God supremely is emancipated 
 from selfishness ; and whenever this emancipation takes place, the unselfish 
 spirit goes out with its love to all kindred spirits around. In imperfect man 
 indeed sometimes the Godward tendency overweighs too much the manward ; 
 and sometimes, on the other hand, it is the philanthropic tendency that is 
 ' loaded.' But the two tendencies are not in antagonism. They are comple- 
 mentive, the one of the other ; and when either is clear and pure, it involves 
 the other. Let a man love the Father unselfishly, and not merely] as an 
 Almighty Servant, and assuredly, when freely and fuUy developed, he will - 
 love, also unselfishly, the Father's family. Let a man, on the other hand, love 
 the Divine family unselfishly, and he too, when freely and fuUy developed, 
 will assuredly rise iu his affection to the Divine Father. 
 
 There is none other commandment greater than these. All other commandments 
 are binding, just in proportion as they partake of the essence of these. 
 
 Veb. 32. And the scribe said to Him, Of a truth, Master, Thou hast well said 
 that He is one. Or rather. And the scribe said to Him, Excellently 1 Master. 
 Thou hast said truly that He is one. Excellently ! (KaXus) : the phrase is not to 
 be connected, as by Luther, Bengel, Coverdale, Principal Campbell, Norton, 
 Webster and Wilkinson, with the following verb Thou hast said. It is in itself, 
 as the Syriao Peshito translator saw, a condensed sentence, self contained, and 
 assuming the form of an exclamation. Well I Eight I Just so I Admirably ! 
 
33] ST. MARK XII. 343 
 
 is none otlier but lie : 33 and to love him witli all the heart, 
 and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and 
 with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as him- 
 self, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. 
 
 Literally, Beautifully t corresponding to the German Schon, ■which is Ewald's 
 word. The recent Dutch translators have seized the correct idea, setting the 
 term by itself, and rendering it Juist. So too Zinzendorf. Master : or, as 
 Wyclifie has it, Maister. Literally Teacher, that is Rabhi, as it is in the Peshito 
 Syriao. Thou hast said truly that Se is one : The word God is wanting in a 
 great preponderance of the best manuscripts, as well as in the Syriao Peshito, 
 Gothic, and iEthiopic versions. It is omitted from the text by Bengel, Grries- 
 bach, Matthasi, Fritzsohe, Soholz, Laohmann, Tischendorf, TregeUes, Alford. 
 It must be spurious, so that the subject of the preposition has to be mentally 
 supplied. The scribe's mind was full of the idea of God, so that it seemed to 
 him to be enough that he should speak of Sim, without expressly naming Him. 
 And there is none other but He. With this clause the scribe insensibly moves 
 off from the attitude of a mere reporter of what our Saviour had ' truly said,' 
 and begins to express independently his own ideas. There is not another ' God.' 
 Such is the idea. The great monotheistic truth had taken a strong hold of his 
 mind.> 
 
 Veb. 3S. And to love Him with all the heart, and with all the understanding. 
 Understanding {(xw4<re<iis) : a different word from that employed in ver. 30, but 
 having a corresponding import. It properly means an (ict of understanding, but 
 is here freely and indefinitely used to denote the mind as characterized by such 
 acts. So Grimm. The word is finely significant, etymologically considered. 
 It denotes that act by which the mind sends out its thought to get into company 
 loith an object. When subject and object are joined, an act of understanding is 
 accomplished. The English word understanding goes still farther in its sig- 
 nificance. It represents that act in which the ' thought ' not only associates 
 itself with tha ' thing,' but goes to its bottom and gets under it, stands-under it. 
 
 And with all the strength. It is hkely that the scribe confined himself to this 
 triplioity of representation, corresponding to the Hebrew original in Dent. vi. 5, 
 and may thus have used the word understanding as substantially equivalent to 
 soul. 
 
 And to love his neighboar as himself. Literally, and as Wycliffe gives it, and 
 to love the neighebore as him silf, that iSj and to love one's neighbour as one's 
 self. 
 
 Is much more {irepura-6Tepov). The idea of quantity is carried into the idea of 
 quaJity. All that is reaUy meant however by the quantification is the idea of 
 superiority. 
 
 Than all whole-burnt-offerings and sacrifices. More literally, than all the 
 wliole-burnt-offerings and the sacrifices, that is, than all the holocausts (in par- 
 ticular), and the sacrifices (in general), that are offered upon the altar, in accord- 
 ance with the prescriptions of the ritual law. The scribe's mind had got a 
 glimpse of the significance of things, and thus of the supremacy of the moral 
 over the ceremonial. 
 
344 ST. MAEK XII. [34 
 
 34 And when Jesus saw tliat he answered discreetly, he said 
 unto him, Then art not far from the kingdom of God. And 
 no man after that durst ask him any question. 
 
 35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the 
 temple. How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David ? 
 36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost^ The Lord said to 
 
 Veb. 34. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly. The original form 
 of the expression is exceedingly inartificial, And Jesus, when He saw him, that 
 he answered discreetly. The inartificiality proved a stumbling-hlock to some of 
 the early transcribers ; and hence the him is omitted in the Sinaitio and Cam- 
 bridge manuscripts, as also in L A. Unnecessarily. Discreetly : sensibly, in- 
 telligently ; Wycliffe has wysely. Answered : No question had been asked ; 
 but the scribe's remark was responsive to our Saviour's statement, it was an 
 echo of the truth. 
 
 He said to Mm, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God 
 is, for the moment, pictorially represented as localized, like the ordinary king- 
 .doms of the world. The scribe, walking in the way of conscientious inquiry, 
 and thus making religious pilgrimage, had nearly reached its borderland. He 
 was bordering on the great reality of true religion,. sMft/ccSiore of spirit to the 
 sovereign will of God. The kingdom of God is the community of those who 
 bow to the sceptre of God. In the plane of earth it is realized in an incipient 
 stage. In the plane of heaven it is perfected. 
 
 And no man after that. No one thenceforward. 
 
 Dnrst ask Him any question. Viz. in a captious or argumentative way. Every 
 man in the immense surrounding crowd felt that there was such a reach of 
 insight in the Lord that it was in vain to dispute with Him. 
 
 Vee. 35-37 form a little appended paragraph, corresponding to Matt. xxii. 
 41-45 and Luke xx. 41-44. 
 
 Vee. 35. And Jesus answered and said. Though no question was proposed 
 to Him, yet there were many ideas in the minds of His opponents and of the 
 people in general, which seemed to challenge remark. 
 
 As He taught in the temple. While He continued His teaching in the area ot 
 the temple. 
 
 How say the scribes? How? on what principle of consistency is it that they 
 make the representation? 
 
 That the Christ is David's sou? "When the scribes spoke to the people of the 
 promised Messiah, they were accustomed to represent Him as David's son. It 
 was a true representation. (See Matt. i. 1 ; Luke iii. 31 ; Eom. i. 3 ; Eev. xxii. 
 16.) And it was true that He was to mount David's long vacated throne, and 
 to render it more illustrious than ever. (See Acts ii. 30.) But nevertheless, as 
 apprehended by the scribes, it was only a half-truth. 
 
 Yek. 36. David himself said in the Holy Spirit. . The Holy Spirit is repre- 
 sented as comprehending the royal psalmist, and thus interpenetrating his 
 being. 
 
 The Lord said to my Lord. A quotation from a psalm (ex.) which cannot be 
 
37] ST. MARK XII. 345 
 
 my Lordj Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies 
 thy footstool. 37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord ; 
 
 explained, except on the principle that it is Messianic on the one hand and 
 inspired on the other. (See Eeinke's Messianische Fsalmen, ii., p. 151, ff.) 
 Even Strauss is unahle to deny that ' the majority of ancient Jewish inter- 
 preters apply the psahn to the Messiah.' [Leben Jesu, ii. 6, 79.) The Lord 
 said : In Hebrew, Jehovah said. To my Lord : that is, to my Suzerain or 
 Sovereign. When King David thus spoke, he had been anticipatively rapt intc- 
 the far future, where he saw scenes, and heard words, which woul^ no doubt 
 occupy him long in ' searching what and what manner of time,' and what and 
 what manner of event, ' the Spirit of Christ, which was in him, did signify ' 
 (1 Pet. i. 11). He was gazing, though most likely he knew it not, on a scene 
 that was consequent on the death, burial, and resurrection of his illustrious 
 Descendant. The scene is laid in heaven ; and its chronology, when sacred 
 history holds up its torch that we may see, is coincident with the triumphal 
 ascension of our Lord. While David gazed on the Boyal Personage whom 
 Jehovah welcomed to His side, he forgot his own little royalty, and spoke as 
 the humblest seer that ever lived might have spoken, ' Jehovah said to my 
 Lord.' 
 
 Sit. There is no thou in the Greek or Hebrew, for there is no emphasis in- 
 tended to distinguish the person addressed from other persons. The emphasis 
 has reference to the place of honour to which the person is invited. There is 
 more dignity in the omission than in the insertion of the pronoun. 
 
 On My right hand. That is, On the place at My right hand. It is better how- 
 ever to merge the on altogether, and substitute some other preposition. Sit at 
 My right hand. A t is nearer the import of the Hebrew than on ; and the ex- 
 pression in Greek is 'from ' My right hand, which separates the space to be 
 occupied jfrom the person of the speaker. My right hand: There is no word 
 for hand in either the Greek or the Hebrew. The phrase in Greek is plural, 
 My right (parts). Wycliffe has it, My right half. The place at the right side 
 of a monarch was the place of highest honour, under himself. In vision David 
 saw the Monarch of the universe pointing to the place at His right side ; and 
 he heard Him welcoming to that place, as to a second throne, a glorious per- 
 sonage who had just entered. This personage David calls 'my Lord.' 
 
 Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. Note the ' I.' Jehovah is 
 Himself to act. His hand is to be supreme in all the arrangements that are to 
 be conditioned on the accomplished work of the Messiah. Note the expression 
 ' thine enemies. ' It touches a sad reality. Christmas enemies, the enemies of 
 Christianity, of Christliness, of God, of man. Note the vividly pictorial and 
 artlessly redundant expression ' the footstool of thy feet.' It is borrowed 
 from the customs of a remote antiquity, when men were fierce and rude, and 
 required extremely striking symbols of ideas for their iustruotioil. In such a 
 state of society the necessity of submission to rightful authority, and thus to 
 right and righteousness, would be emphatically taught by compelling some of 
 the ringleaders of anarchy and wrong to act as ' footstools ' to the representa- 
 tives of legitimate order and law. 
 
 Veb. 37. David himself calleth Him Lord, and whence is He his son? The 
 
346 ST. MARK XII. [37 
 
 and wlieiice is he then his son ? And the common people 
 heard him gladly. 
 
 38 And he said unto them in his doctrine. Beware of the 
 
 whence is logical. How comes it to 'pass that He is Ms son? The Saviour 
 would not put tlie question merely to comer up, 'and puzzle, or liumOiate. 
 He had no love for dialectic feats on the ' diamond cut diamond ' principle. 
 His Ufe was too earnest for that. His spirit would be moved with emotion, 
 when He saw how persistently the most learned men of the nation, the 
 accredited interpreters of the sacred writings, skimmed the surface of things, 
 and refused to turn for a moment in the direction of anything different from 
 the most superficial conceits. Hence His question. With their view of the 
 Messiah, as a mere monarch somewhat hke David, and in the line of David, it 
 was not wonderful that the scribes did, not find anything in Jesus to elicit the 
 echoes of their hopes. They found much that was inconsistent with their 
 fondly cherished anticipations. It was enough for them. They concluded off- 
 hand that it was absurd to suppose that He could be the Being to whom the 
 fathers had pointed. They were not in quest of the Divine. They were off 
 the scent entirely, and hence off the track that would have led them to the 
 recognition in our Lord of the fulfilment of the promises made to the fathers. 
 No view of the Messiah could be a true view, that did not take into account 
 that there would be such a complement of elements, in His glorious personality, 
 as would constitute Him at once David's son and David's Lord. 
 
 And the common people. Not quite a correct translation. There is no anti- 
 thesis intended to the higher classes of society fas might be supposed to be the 
 case in Plutarch, Opera, i., p. 34, P). The expression is literally the numer- 
 ous crowd (6 ToKis SxKos), and does not mean, as Webster and Wilkinson 
 interpret it, the greater part of the crowd, but the great crowd. Young and 
 Alford render it, the great multitude. Wakefield, the multitude, which was great. 
 Comp. Acts xxvi. 24. The expression, without the article, occurs repeatedly in 
 Mark, a great crowd. See chap. iv. 1, v. 21, 24, vi. 34, ix. 14, xiv. 43. Here 
 the greatness of the crowd is historically assumed, and it is piotorially referred 
 to in one of those graphic touches, so frequent in Mark, which bewray the hand 
 or tongue of an eye witness. 
 
 Heard Him gladly. Literally sweetly, that is, with keen relish, loith delight. 
 The masterliness of the reasoning would tell. The power of the speaking 
 would teU. The transparent elevation and earnestness of the character would 
 tell. And, overarching aU, there would be a certain indescribable grandeur of 
 spirit, which would make them feel exalted, as toward God and heaven, in Ihe 
 very act of hearing. 
 
 Tek. 38-40 constitute a condensed paragraph, parallel to Luke xx. 46, 47. It 
 exhibits in a few touches the sum and substance of what is detailed at length in 
 the 23rd chapter of Matthew. 
 
 Vbk. 38. And in His teaching He said, Beware of the scribes. Be on your 
 guard in reference to them. Literally, Look from them ; look for a way of 
 escape from the onset of their influence. Comp. chap. viii. 15. The scribes 
 were the learned class in Jewish society. But they seem to have, in general, 
 
40] ST. MARK XII. 347 
 
 scribeSj wMdi love to go in. long clothingj and love salutations 
 in the marketplaces, 39 and tlie chief seats in the synagogues, 
 and the uppermost rooms at feasts : 40 which devour widows' 
 
 used their knowledge of letters for purposes that were far from being noble. 
 They were puffed up with conceit, and turned their intellectual advantages 
 into an instrument for feeding an insatiable appetite of selfishness. See on 
 chap. i. 22. 
 
 TThO desire to walk in long robes. The word translated desire [8e\6vTav) is 
 frequently translated will, and generally denotes either wish, or wish-and-will. 
 The scribes wished and willed to walk in long robes. It was their pleasure thus 
 to walk. They took pleasure in the display. Brameld omits the translation • of 
 the word altogether. Alf ord renders it desire ; Newoome, like ; Mace, affect ; 
 and so too Wakefield, Principal Campbell, Eodolphus Dickinson, Edgar Taylor, 
 Young. To walk : to walk about, to promenade, showing themselves off in the 
 chief places of concourse. In long robes : literally, in stoles, long robes reaching 
 to the ankles, such as ladies of rank were accustomed to wear, and kings, and 
 nobles, and certain priests, and other high personages. 
 
 And {to have) salntatious. Deferential greetings. It gratified them to be called 
 Rabbi, and to see the people bowing before them in obeisance. The verb that 
 governs the expression to walk in long robes has to be carried on to govern the 
 word salutations. 
 
 ' In the market places. The places of popular resort, where the people pro- 
 menaded, and where consequently stalls were erected for the sale of fruits, con- 
 fections, articles of ornamentation, etc. Our British market places do not quite 
 correspond. 
 
 Ver. 39. And chief seats. Prominent seats. Literally, first seats, or front 
 seats. Wycliffe has it, the firste chaires. 
 
 In the synagogues. They carried their vanity even into the places of worship. 
 
 And chief places at feasts. Literally, in the suppers, the fashionable enter- 
 tainments to which they were invited. Wycliffe's translation is, the firste 
 sittinge places. The original expression means, ^rst reclining places. 
 
 Veb. 40. They who devour widows' houses. King James's translators had 
 regarded this clause as a continuative addition to the preceding clauses. So 
 too Luther, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, Sebastian Schmidt, le Clerc, Heumann, 
 Alford, and English translators in general. There is however a change in the 
 construction. The nominative is used in place of the genitive. This change 
 might be accounted for on a principle of unconscious transition'; but it is 
 better to suppose a pause at the conclusion of the 39th verse. Then om 
 Saviour resumes, and makes a self-contained sentence of this 40th verse. They 
 lolio devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers, these shall 
 receive greater damnation. There is more spirit in this method of construction. 
 And though ^the reference to the scribes, or to some prominent individuals 
 among them, is merged in a more generic statement, yet the undercurrent of 
 allusion is evident. This self-contained construction is approved of by Grotius, 
 Felbinger, Bengel, Zinzendorf, Laohmann, Tischendorf, TregeUes, Meyer, Bis- 
 ping, Lange. They who devour widows' housf • it is a vivid hieroglyph. What 
 
348 ST. MARK XII. [40 
 
 houses, and for a pretence make long prayers : these shall 
 receive greater damnation. 
 
 41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld 
 
 an extraordinary ' swallow ' the devourers must have had ! The very idea of it 
 apparently either shocked Principal Campbell, or failed to effect an entrance 
 into his conception, and hence he renders the phrase the families of widows, a 
 most xmhappy emendation. It was not their famiUes that the scribes coveted, 
 but the literal houses. Having, as the lettered class, to do almost aU the 
 writing that required to be done, they would be universally employed in making 
 wills and conveyances of property. In some notorious oases, perhaps in many, 
 they had been abusing their influence with widows. 
 
 And for a pretence make long prayers. And in pretence pray long. They 
 did not really pray. They did not open up their hearts to God, and thence lift 
 up their desires. They merely pretended to pray. And, that they might 
 succeed the more effectually in the imposition, they continued long at the 
 ' exercise.' The base hypocrites ! It was to impose on the widows, or to 
 minister in other ways to selfish aims, that the prayers were lengthened out. 
 
 These. This resumptive word indicates a peculiar edge of feeUng on the 
 Saviour's spirit. 
 
 Shall receive greater condemnation. It is judgment {Kpl/j.a) in the original. 
 And so the Eheims. Wycliffe's word is doom, or dam as he spells it. It means 
 properly judicial sentence, and then, as here, the award objectively specified in 
 the sentence. It is assumed that the judicial sentence would be condemnatory. 
 Greater : The word is rendered more abundant in 1 Cor. xii. 23. Principal 
 Campbell renders the whole phrase, freely, the severest punishment. 
 
 Vek. 41-44 constitute a paragraph which has no parallel in Matthew. There 
 is however a corresponding paragraph in Luke xxi. 1-4. 
 
 Vee. 41. And He sat down over against the treasury. In that great central 
 quadrangle or court of the temple, that was accessible to the Jewish women. 
 It lay in front of the sanctuary, ' forming,' says Thrupp, ' a kind of ante-court 
 to the rest of the inner temple ' {Jerusalem, p. 329). It was environed, on the 
 three remaining sides, by the vast spaces of the court of the Gentiles. In a 
 certain portion of this spacious quadrangle was the treasury (comp. John viii. 
 20 and Josephus, Ant. xix. 6 : 1), where, as we are informed in the Talmud, 
 there were thirteen receptacles for receiving certain religious dues and the 
 people's free-will offerings for the benefit of the temple. These receptacles 
 were called shopheroth, or trumpets, because they were trumpet shaped, swell- 
 ing out beneath, and tapering upward into a narrow mouth or opening, into 
 which the contributions were put. (Buxtorf's Lexicon Talmud., p. 2506.) Each 
 receptacle had a label upon it which specified the particular object, or charity, 
 to which it was reserved. (Lightfoot's Prospect of the Temple, chap, xix.) It 
 was over against the place where those treasury receptacles were arranged that 
 uur Saviour sat, in the covered piazza, or colonnade, toward the right hand on 
 going toward the sanctuary. (See Vogu6's Temple, -plate xv.) 
 
 And beheld. And He was beholding. He was deliberately observing, as one 
 who had a right to take note of the moral acts of the people. 
 
42] ST. MARK XII. 349 
 
 how the people cast money into the treasury : and many that 
 were rich cast in much. 42 And there came a certain poor 
 widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 
 
 How the multitude. Or, the crowd-of-people (6 fJ^'^os). Note the how. It is 
 more primitive and expressive than such a semi- demonstrative phrase as how 
 that. The Saviour noticed not merely the fact or acts of contribution, but also 
 the wonderfully diversified modes in which the acts exhibited themselves. 
 Mode is inseparable from act, and, when outward, reveals the inward essence of 
 the act. We may suppose that our Saviour looked in, through the diversified 
 modes that struck His outward eye, to the diversified characters of the contri- 
 hutors, as they passed in succession before Him. If so, it would be with far more 
 interest and innerliness than was ever manifested by Lavater, and with an 
 intuition that was unerring. " On Sundays, after the sermon," says the poet 
 Goethe, " it was Lavater's duty, as an ecclesiastic, to hold the short-handled, 
 " velvet alms-bag before each one who went out, and to bless as he received the 
 " pious gift.. Now, on a' certain Sunday he proposed to himself, without look- 
 " ing at the several persons as they dropped in their offerings, to observe only 
 " their hands, and by them silently to judge of the forms of their donors. Not 
 " only the shape of the finger, but its peculiar action in dropping the gift, was 
 "attentively noted by him, and he had much to communicate to me on the 
 "conclusions he had formed." (AutoMography , vol. ii., b. xix., p. 137.) As 
 the idiosyncrasy and form of the whole body were revealed to Lavater's eye by 
 the form and action of the fingers, so the idiosyncrasy and moral condition of 
 every soul were unveiled to our Saviour's gaze, as He noticed ' how ' the offer- 
 ings were cast in. 
 
 Cast money into the treasury. The word cast is ambiguous in English, so far 
 as tense is concerned. But the verb in the original is in the present, are cast- 
 ing. The evangelist, as so often on other occasions, goes back in thought to 
 the scene, and looks at the acts of contribution. The erowd-of-people are cast- 
 ing in money ; literally, copper (xaX/cw), and so no doubt the word should 
 have been translated. Oomp. Matt. i. 9. The great bulk of the people, then 
 as now, would contribute the lowest metal coinage. But it should be borne 
 in mind by modern contributors that the relative value of copper was much 
 greater then than now. What Trapp so cynically says wUl surely not be 
 always true, ' Something men will do, but as little as they can.' 
 
 And many that were rich were casting in much. An expression that may 
 mislead, for the word rnueh is a free translation. It is literally many (pieces). 
 Perhaps some might be giving silver or gold. But it is likely that the great 
 majority of even the rich would be contenting themselves with giving a 
 considerable quantity of the current copper coins, ' a handful of halfpence ' as it 
 were, according to the suggestion of Dr. Adam Clarke. Many pieces : even at 
 the present day a European, when travelling in Palestine, is amazed at the 
 multitude of little pieces which he receives in exchange for silver or gold. 
 
 Vee. 42. And there came a poor widow. Or literally, one poor widow, or as 
 Wycliffe gives it, o pore widowe. The evangelist singles her out. 
 And she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. An admirable translation, 
 
350 ST. MAKK XII. [43 
 
 43 And he called ^lnto him his disciples, and saith unto them, 
 Verily I say unto you. That this poor widow hath cast more in, 
 than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44 for all 
 they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did 
 cast in all that she had, even all her living. 
 
 when the words mites and farthing axe considered etymologieally. Farthing is 
 just a corrupt way of saying fourthing or fourthling, Anglo-Saxon feorthling ; 
 and thus it denotes the fourth part of some standard coin or sum. And this is 
 the precise idea of the term employed by the evangelist {Kodpdprris = quadrans). 
 In English a, farthing is the fourth part of a 'penny.' In Latin a quadrant or 
 quadrant was the fourth part of an ' as.' But the coinage of the Hebrews, 
 under the Bomans, was so exceedingly mixed that it may be difficult to deter- 
 mine what proportion of a Greek drachm, or Latin denarius, was represented 
 by their quadrant. (See Beza, de Dieu, and Fischer.) The word mite has 
 come to us apparently as a contraction of the word minUte (Latin, minutum). 
 As a minute of time is just a minUte portion of time, so a minute or mite of 
 money is just a minute coin. Wyclifie has here tweie mynutis, that is, two 
 minutes. The Greek word (XeTn-a) denotes thin (pieces). 
 
 Yeb. 43. And He called to Him His disciples, and said to them. It is said, 
 instead of saith, in a great majority of the best manuscripts. 
 
 Verily, I say to you, This poor widow cast in more. Not hath cast in more, but 
 cast in rfiore, according to the aoristic reading of Lachmann and Tregelles. It 
 is supported by ABD L A, 33, and substantially by the Sinaitio also. 
 
 Than all they who are casting into the treasury. Such is undoubtedly the 
 correct reading. It is supported by KABDLXrAII, and accepted into the 
 text by all the modern critical editors. The Saviour does not wait till the 
 stream of contributors has flowed past. WhUe it is still flowing. He makes an 
 unerring comparison, and utters His commendation of the poor ' lorn ' woman. 
 She gave more than aU the rest are giving. Note the word more, proportionally 
 to wit, to her means, and thus more in the estimation of God, who measures 
 quantity by quaUty. 
 
 Veb. 44. Eor they all did caat in. We might have expected that it would 
 have ■ been said, For they all are casting in. And such no doubt was in sub- 
 stance the meaning of our Lord, only He chooses to vary His standpoint of 
 observation, and to specify those alone of the continuous stream of contributors 
 who had already thrown in their offerings. 
 
 Out of their superfluity. So Tyndale and Coverdale translate : their surplusage 
 as it were. He, whose eye could see, had taken note (John xxi. 17). 
 
 But she of her want. Or her penury, that condition in which she came behind 
 her neighbours. She had no superfluity. 
 
 Did cast in all that she had, even all her living. Her whole means of living, 
 every particle of money that she had in the world. He, who ' knew all things,' 
 knew ; and His simple notification of the fact, and true appraisement of the 
 quantity involved in the quality of the offering, have touched the hearts of 
 generations of admirers. The collective voice of all the ages of the Christian 
 era has been this : ' woman, great was thy munificence ! Qreat was thy faith.' 
 
2] ST. MARK XIII. 351 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 1 AND as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples 
 saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what 
 buildings are here! 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, 
 Seest thou these great buildings ? There shall not be left 
 
 CHAPTER Xni. 
 
 This chapter of ' esohatology ' corresponds to Matt. xxiv. and Luke xxi. 5-36. 
 The end of our Saviour's terrestrial career was at hand. He knew it well. Its 
 imminenoy led Him to improve to the utmost the limited opportunities which 
 were still available for enlightening, forewarning, and thus fore-arming, the 
 minds of His disciples. In this chapter He sheds light upon certain ' coming 
 events' of great Bignifioanoe and moment. They were partly in the more 
 remote, and partly in the nearer, future. All men have prophetic longings, and 
 look instinctively more or less forward. But if a man's soul be lofty he looks 
 far forward. 
 
 Vek. 1. And as He went forth ont of the temple. Went, or rather was going. 
 \Vliat foUows occurred while He was in the act of going out of the temple. 
 
 One of His disciples says to Him, Master. Literally, Teacher. The actual 
 word employed would no doubt be the Hebrew title, Rabbi. See chap. ix. 5, 
 xi. 21, xiv. 45. 
 
 Behold, what manner of stones and what manner of buildings ! Or, See ! what 
 stones ! and what buildings ! The great size of tlie blocks, and the massiveness 
 and magnificence of the erections, the colonnades or porticos, gateways, and 
 other structures that were grouped around the inner sanctuary, riveted the 
 disciple's attention and evoked his admiration. No wonder. The temple of 
 Jerusalem was one of the wonders of the world. Whosoever had not seen it, 
 said the old rabbis, had not seen the perfection of architectural beauty. (See 
 Wetstein, vol. i., p. 493.) Josephus, in his Antiquities, xv. H : 3, speaks of the 
 stones of a certain part of the edifice as being ' each, in length twenty-five 
 cubits, in height eight, in breadth about twelve.' In his Wars (v. 5:6) he 
 speaks of ' some of the stones as forty-five cubits in length, five in height, and 
 six in breadth.' Stones these, of a magnitude almost baffling to the imagi- 
 nation of those who have 'not travelled in the East. They have their analogues 
 only in some of our greatest, but xinohiselled, ' megaliths.' 
 
 Yeb. 2. And Jesus said to Mm, Seest thon these great buildings? Mace, 
 Worsley, Principal Campbell, and Godwin give the words affirmatively. Thou 
 seest these great buildings. There is probably a touch of both the modes of 
 representation, or a hovering between the two, Thou seest, dost thou ? these great 
 buildings. The verb translated seest (pXhreis) means beholdest, and here sug- 
 gests an idea akin to eontemplatest. Norton's rendering is too strong however, 
 are you gazing on ? 
 
 There shall not be left here one stone upon another. Literally, stone upon stone ; 
 or, as with our English indefinite article, we might express it a stone upon a 
 stone. That is, Wycliffe's version, a stoon upon a stoon. 
 
352 ST. MARK XIII. [2 
 
 one stone upon another, that shall not be- thrown down. 
 
 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the 
 
 temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him 
 
 Whioli shall not be thrown down. Very literally, which shall not he loosened 
 down. A progressive process is depicted. Demolition proceeds, and is nearly 
 completed. Still here and there a stone is left upon a stone ; hut the demolition 
 advances till it is consummated. Every stone that had been left lying on a stone 
 is detached and thrown down. It is not the Jewish temple that is to be eternal. 
 ' The words have emphasis,' says Zuingli. They have : and they have been 
 fulfilled to the letter, so far as the area of the temple platform is concerned. 
 The substructures of the surrounding walls, some of which still stand, would 
 not be referred to. The disciple was not pointing to them or looking at them. 
 ' It is a figurative speech,' says Fetter. It is enough to take it as such. And 
 then the figure is a fine instance of natural hyperbole, bold, and grandly 
 graphic. None but a paltering mind could be stujnbled at it, or have difficulty 
 in interpreting it. Comp. chap. i. 25. (As to the aorist subjunctive with the 
 double negative, see Clyde's Greek Syntax, pp. 93, 115.) 
 
 Veb. 3. The conversation would probably cease for a little ; but the com- 
 pany solemnly proceeded, and by and by Mount Olivet was reached. The 
 ascent began, in silent meditation we may suppose. ' The Saviour is in advance. 
 At some convenient spot He pauses, and, turning His face toward the beloved 
 but faithless city. He seats Himself. And as He sat. Or, And as He was sitting, 
 while He was sitting. 
 
 On the mount of Olives. Very literally, ta the mount of the olives. The 
 motion of the person to the mount, ere rest was obtained on it, is primitively 
 suggested. 
 
 Over against the temple. Thus looking westward, as the fafade of the temple 
 faced the east. The temple, with its surrounding perspectives, as seen from the 
 mount of Olives, must have been one of the grandest terrestrial sights on which 
 the eye of man could rest. 
 
 Peter and James and John and Andrew. It is noteworthy that the sons of 
 Zebedee come, in the enumeration, between Peter and his brother Andrew. 
 Spiritual relationship overrides the physical. It is noteworthy also that James 
 takes, as usual, precedence of John, no doubt because he was the older of the 
 two. It was only gradually that John's intrinsic pre-eminence asserted itself, 
 though to the Saviour himself he seemed to get nearer than his brother. 
 
 Asked Him privately. The excluding reference of the expression is not likely 
 to have relation to the other disciples (see Matt. xxiv. 3 ; Luke xxi. 7), but to 
 the people in general who might be hovering about outside their little circle. 
 No doubt there would be many, attracted by the presence of our Lord, who 
 would feel loath to lose sight of Him ; they would be straggled around and 
 behind, individually and in groups, waiting on, respectfully or wistfully, in the 
 hope of getting access to listen. The Saviour however wished to be alone with 
 His disciples for a season. His wish would be understood, and strangerG would 
 retire or keep at a distance. 
 
6] ST. MARK XIII. 353 
 
 privately, 4 Tell us, wheii shall these things be ? and what 
 shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled ? 
 
 5 And JesuSj answering them, began to say, Take heed lest 
 any man deceive you. 6 For many shall come in my name, 
 
 Veb. 4. Tell us, when shall these things he? The things, namely,. that were 
 iayolved in the total demolition of the Jewish temple. The ideas of the 
 disciples would no doubt be confused. Their notions in reference to the futuri- 
 ties of the kingdom of heaven would be immature ; they would be very im- 
 perfectly apprehending the relation of Judaism to Christianity, and of the Jews 
 to the rest of mankind, and of Jesus to peoples in general ; and consequently 
 the relation of the Jewish temple, the Jewish worship, and Jerusalem, to the 
 dispensation of the fulness of the times. Even still, on some of these points, 
 much confusion of idea prevails among ' the students of prophecy ' ; lines of 
 discrimination are sometimes too rigidly drawn, and at other times they are , 
 lost sight of altogether. And no wonder therefore that the apostles, whose 
 minds had been steeped for long in crude rabbinic conceptions, but who had 
 been beginning to see rays of light struggling in through their darkness, were 
 unable to work out for themselves a consistent scheme of the future, in its 
 relation to their Lord and His kingdom. 
 
 And what shall be the sign, when these things are all about to be accomplished I 
 The same class of things are referred to, but their radius gets elongated ; their 
 range expands ; and hence, as the disciples think of them, they now say, all 
 these things. They wonder when all these things ' shall be accomplished ' (/tAXi; 
 avvreKeurBai.), finished (Eom. ix. 28), brought' to a conclusion. They do not so 
 much reflect on the commencement and progress as on the consummation of 
 the dread events. With that consummation they would be connecting, in their 
 ideas, the overturning of all human institutions, the winding up of aU the pro- 
 bationary affairs of the world, the great judgment, and thns the glorious 
 epiphany of their Lord to act as Judge of the whole earth, and to inaugurate, 
 with befitting pomp and all the visible insignia of universal royalty, the dis- 
 pensation of the new heavens and the new earth. They were eager to know 
 what would be the sign or signal of this great oecumenic crisis. Their ideas 
 would be indistinct, and very particularly in a chronological point of view ; but, 
 as faithful servants of their Lord, they wished to be on their watchtowers, 
 looking out for the fulfilment of their Messianic hopes. 
 
 Yeb. 5. And Jesus began to say to them. Viz. what follows. The evangelist, 
 as often elsewhere, fixes his attention on the beginnings of addresses or state- 
 ments. Comp. chap. i. 45 ; iv. 1 ; v. 17, 20 ; vi. 2, 34 ; viii. 11, 31, 32 ; x. 28, 41 ; 
 zii. 1. 
 
 Take heed that no man lead you astray. Be on the outlook, not merely heaven- 
 ward but earthward. Depend upon it there will be danger of seduction unless 
 you are wary. 
 
 Veb. 6. many shall come iu Hy name. Literally, on My name, founding on 
 it-; they shall assume the name that belongs to Me alone, ' the Messiah,' ' the 
 Christ.' On that assumption they wiU erect an imposing edifice of claims 
 which, crazy with its own intrinsic unreality, will fall disastrously on all who 
 
 & A 
 
354 ST. MARK XIII. 9] 
 
 saying, I am Christ ; and shall deceive many. 7 And when 
 ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled : 
 for such things must needs be; but the end shall not 
 
 rally round it. There would no doubt te many oJ these pretenders in the 
 period that elapsed before the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, just as 
 there have been many since. They have in general indeed been too insignifi- 
 cant to leave their mark in history ; but their pretences would be none the less 
 perilous to the little circles of the simple-hearted who might be within the 
 reach of their influence. Even at the present day there is a sprinkling of 
 strange individuals, dotting society here and there all over the world, who claim 
 to be either Christ come back again, or the Holy Spirit, or some kindred Incar- 
 nation. Some of these go at large, and address their fellow men, or write books 
 and manifestoes, and wield other kinds of influence. 
 
 Saying I am He. There is no word Christ in the original, though it is freely 
 supplied in the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Anglo-Saxon versions, and by 
 Erasmus, Luther, Tyndale, Beza. The expression is exceedingly expressive 
 without it, when, as should be the case, the emphasis is laid not on the ' am ' as 
 in the name of God ' I AM ' (Exod. iii. 14), but on the ' I.' The egotism of the 
 respective pretenders is graphically exhibited. 
 
 And shall lead many astray. More especially among the ignorant and in- 
 genuous. When such persons cannot be seduced by gross baits of sensuahsm, 
 they can sometimes be caught in the snares of a wild and lurid enthusiasm. 
 
 Ver. 7. And when ye shall hear of wars, and rumours of wars. Ye : the 
 Saviour, as He speaks, is not thinking merely of the twelve individuals, as 
 individuals, who were around Him. They were His disciples ; He was thinking 
 of them as szwh ; and in thinking of them as such, His field of vision widened. 
 He thought of His disciples in general. There were indeed ' rumours of wars ' 
 rife enough before the destruction of Jerusalem. The whole Bomau empire 
 was uneasy. A far firmer hand than that of the animalized Vitellius, who 
 lived to eat, was needed on the imperial throne. The firmest that could be got 
 was not firm enough. Hence the rumours of wars, which agitated the empire. 
 And besides these there were to some smaU extent actual ' wars,^ which certain 
 students of prophecy have succeeded in hunting up in the byeways of history. 
 But minute and microscopic research is not needed. There have been, since 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, actual 'wars'' innumerable, and 'rumours of 
 wars ' innumerable. All these were embraced within the scope of the Saviour's 
 vision. He was looking to another ' end.' 
 
 Be not troubled. Be not alarmed. Literally, Do not cry out {fi^ Bpofiade). 
 Wycliffe, Drede ye not. The word occurs only here and in Matt. xxiv. 6, and 
 in 2 Thess. ii. 2. Do not conclude from such occurrences that the pangs of the 
 world's dissolution are imminent. 
 
 These things must needs come to pass. Or, more simply, they must needs be. 
 Or still more simply, they must be. It is necessary that they be. The adverb 
 needs (Anglo-Saxon neades, i.e. of need or of necessity) only intensifies the idea 
 which is already expressed in the must. The idea however has no reference to 
 any abwlute necessity, or fatality, overriding and enslaving the wiUs of mon. 
 
8] ST. MAEK XIII. 355 
 
 le yet. 8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom 
 against kingdom; and there shall be earthquakes in divers places. 
 
 It does not refer to what Archbishop Bramhall calls ' antecedent and extrinsical 
 necessity.' Such necessity, as he remarks, " destroys liberty, and dishonours 
 " the nature of man. It makes second causes and outward objects to be the 
 "rackets, and men to be but the tennis balls, of destiny. . . . Excuse me," he 
 adds, " if I hate this doctrine with a perfect hatred. ... It were better to be 
 " an atheist, to believe no God ; or to be a Manichee, to believe two gods, a god 
 "of good and a god of evU; or, with the heathens, to believe thirty thousand 
 " gods ; than thus to charge the true God to be the proper Cause, and the true 
 " Author, of all the sins and evils which are in the world." (Defence of True 
 Liberty, pp. 60, 61.) The necessity referred to is relative to the antecedent 
 elections, or choices of the human will ; but, within that sphere, it is real, 
 inevitable, irresistible. If men persist in choosing to be selfish, grasping, 
 haughty, then a Higher Hand comes into operation, and whirlwinds must be 
 reaped. What multitudes of these have already swept across the area of human 
 society! What multitudes more wiU yet require to do their appointed work as 
 ' besoms of destruction ' ! 
 
 But the end is not yet. There is no verb in thg original, 6uf not yet the end, 
 the great end, the end of the age, ' the present evil age,' the age that is to run 
 on till all things be made new and glorious. It may be that, in the disciples' 
 ideas, this ' end ' and the end of the temple would be synchronous. Most 
 likely. The whole subject would be lying in confusion before their view. And 
 the Saviour would see that it would have but ministered to further confusion, 
 had He attempted, by the introduction of niceties of chronology, to rectify iuto 
 precision their scheme of the futurities. He acted with consummate vrisdom. 
 He confined Himself to leading lines of processional evolution, now taking up 
 one and now another. Instead of scattering attention on matters of minute 
 detaO, He contented Himself, as was His wont, with summations of particulars, 
 and the enunciation of great general principles. It was ever His leading aim to 
 throw practical seed thoughts into the minds of His disciples and auditors in 
 
 Ver. 8. For nation shall rise against nation. Literally, upon nation. One 
 nation shall rise in its anger to come doion upon another. A kind of gigantic 
 collective personality is ascribed to nations. There will be wars of nation- 
 alities. 
 
 And kingdom against kingdom. Whether they be, as in some cases, the sub- 
 divisions of a single nationality, or, as in others, greater communities, or 
 empires, embracing within one political sphere various distinct nationalities. 
 Kingdoms will rise up to put down kingdoms ; and terrific in their clash wiU be 
 the collisions. 
 
 There shall be earthquakes in divers places. For not yet is the earth, which 
 •the meek shaU inherit ' (Matt. v. 5 ; Eom. iv. 13, 14), a fit residence for the 
 glorious community. Neither will it be, so long as there is scope for the in- 
 cidence of such fearful phenomena as earthquakes. In ' the new earth, wherein 
 dwelleth righteousness ' (2 Pet. iii. 13), there will no longer be anything ' to 
 hurt.' 
 
356 ST. MARK XIII. [8 
 
 and there shall be famines and troubles. These are the begin- 
 nings of sorrows. 
 
 9 But take heed to yourselves : for they shall deliver you 
 
 There shall be famines. Terrible scourges, when they occur. And, notwith- 
 standing all the resources and appliances of modem commercial inter-relation- 
 ships, they still do occur. When they happen among a people who are supplied 
 with only a scanty circulation of the precious metals, the effects are necessarily 
 of the most melancholy description. Witness the state of Persia and India of 
 late. If mankind were once a self-realizing brotherhood, famines would be 
 impossible. The scarcity of one region would be readily supplemented out of 
 the abundance of others. 
 
 It is added in the Eeoeived Text, and troubles. That is, disturlances, oi social 
 perplexities and tumults, such as are the natural result of widespread ' want.' 
 Men who are pinched with hunger are apt, unless of noble character, to become 
 desperate and reckless. In K B D L, however, and the Vulgate, Coptic, and 
 ^thiopic versions, the phrase and troubles is wanting. Mill approves of the 
 omission (Prol., § 408), and Griesbaoh (Comm. Crit.). The phrase is left out of 
 the text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles. But on insufficient grounds. 
 The omission truncates, as Fritzsche justly observes, the evangelist's phrase- 
 ology ; and the wilful addition of the expression cannot be accounted for, except 
 on some violent hypothesis. Mill supposed that it had been originally a poli- 
 tical explanation of the word earthquakes. Unnatural. Griesbach thought 
 that if the expression had been genuine it would have come in before, not 
 after the earthquakes and famines. He did not notice the natural connection 
 that subsists between the want of the necessaries of life and political perplexity. 
 Origeu expressly notes (Op., iii., p. 855) that ' Mark adds and troubles ' (Marcus 
 eadem, addit autem et turbelas). 
 
 These are the beginning of travail. Literally, of parturition pangs. There is 
 hope in the word. The regeneration of the world will be the ultimate result. 
 But the anguish that precedes will be inexpressible. The Saviour has but 
 touched on the beginning of that anguish. Its consummation would have 
 been utterly unintelligible to the apostles. It is, we doubt not, all but utterly 
 unintelligible even yet. The greater the complexity of society, the more in- 
 tricate the interdependency of the various classes, the vaster the accumulation 
 of the results of civilization, the higher the refinement of thought and feeling, 
 so much the more tremendous will be the unutterable -sfoes that must be ex- 
 pelienced when the crisis of universal revolution takes place. In all Beza's 
 editions, with the exception of the first in 1556, the clause these are the begin- 
 ning of sorrows is transferred to the commencement of ver. 9. Unhappily. But 
 the Elzevirs followed his example ; and hence continental editions in general, 
 inclusive of Bengel's, Laohmann's, Scholz's, and Tischendorf's, exhibit the same 
 awkward arrangement. So too Mill and his followers, and even Alford. But 
 not Calvin, CasteUio, Erasmus Sohmid, Zinzendorf, Tregelles. 
 
 Vek. 9. But take ye heed to yourselves. But look ye to yourselves. The 
 Saviour, after having swept with His eye a vast circumference of society, 
 stretching away downward through time, returns to the disciples that were 
 
9] ST. MARK XIII. 357 
 
 lip to councils ; and in tlie synagogues ye shall be beaten : 
 and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, 
 for a testimony against them. 
 
 around Him, and addresses them, partly as individuals, and partly as the 
 representatives of such others as might eventually be associated with them. 
 He gives them allowance to be careful of life and limb. He does more, He 
 enjoins them. 
 
 For. Their utmost care would be needed, for they would be exposed to very 
 ruthless persecution. The for however is wanting in the Vatican manuscript 
 (B), and in L, as also in the Coptic, Armenian, and .Ethiopic versions. Tisch- 
 eudorf has omitted it. But on insufficient grounds. 
 
 They shall deliver you up. They, the reference is indefinite, corresponding 
 to on in French, and Mann in German. You shall lie delivered up. 
 
 To cotmcils, and in synagogues shall ye be beaten. It should rather be, to 
 couTicils and to synagogues (xai els (TVfayaydi) ; ye shall be beaten. This is the 
 most natural interpretation. It is given by Erasmus, Luther, Tyndale, Cardinal 
 Cajetan, Coverdale, Calvin, Castellio, Beza, the Geneva, le Clerc ; and also by 
 Heumann, Lachmanu, Meyer, Tregelles. And though it is opposed by many, 
 inclusive of Bengel, Bleek, Eilliet, Alford, Ellostermann, the opposition rests on 
 insufficient grounds. The word councils or sanhedrims denotes such civil, or 
 ecolesiastico-oivil, courts or ' consistories of justice ' (Petter), as had power to 
 deal with individuals who might be regarded as disturbers of the peace, or 
 dangerous to society. Synagogues were assemblies for worship, but possessing, 
 within certain limits, jurisdiction, jurisdiction that could take effect not merely 
 on spiritual relationships, but also on the outer person. In the word councils 
 or sanhedrims the reference is conventionally to the persons met in conclave, as 
 distinguished from the literal or topical conclave itself, the meeting-place. The 
 term however is sometimes used topically. See Acts iv. 15. Comp. Herodotus, 
 viii. 79, and Xenophon Hist. Gr., ii. i : 23. In the word synagogues again the 
 reference is conventionally rather to the places of assembly than to the persons 
 assembled. But the term nevertheless originally referred to the persons as- 
 sembled, and is so used here in consequence of its connection with sanhedrims. 
 It is similarly used in Acts ix. 2 and xiii. 43, as also in Luke xii: H. Ye shall 
 be beaten : literally, skinned, that is scourged. The statement stands on its own 
 pedestal. But it may be assumed that, in many eases at least, the torturing 
 infliction would be made in the presence of the council, or within the waUs .of 
 the synagogue. See Matt. x. 17 ; Acts xxii. 24. " There were two ways of 
 " scourging ; one with thongs or whips, the other with rods or twigs. The 
 " punishment was inflicted on the offender lying on the ground (Exod. xxi. 20 ; 
 "Lev. xix. 20 ; Deut. xxii. 18 ; Prov. x. 13, xiii. 24, xx. 30, xxiii. 13, 14; Ps. 
 " Ixxxix. 32 ; 1 Kings xi. 12). In later times the offender was tied by his arms 
 "to a pillar, and his back laid bare to the virgcs or rods of the.liotor." (Bastow's 
 Bible Dictionary, p. 654.) 
 
 And before governors and kings shall ye stand for My sake. The preposition 
 translated before literally means upon {iirl), i.e. up on, and thus, in such a case 
 as this, means in the elevated presence of. See Matt, xxviii. 14. Governors : 
 such as Eoman proconsuls, proprators, procurators, or other presidents oi pre- 
 
358 ST. MARK XIII. [10 
 
 10 And the gospel must first be published among all 
 nations. 
 
 11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up^ take 
 no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye pre- 
 
 fects. Kings : such as Agrippa for instance, and many other monarchs in many 
 parts of the world. For My sake : on account of Me, because of your loyalty to 
 Me. 
 
 For a testimony to them. Not, as Fetter and others would have it, for a 
 testimony against them. The forcible arrestment of Christ's disciples, and their 
 consequent trial at the bar of the highest terrestrial authorities, would be 
 divinely permitted and overruled for this, as for other ends, to give them an 
 opportunity of bearing testimony to the high and influential classes of society, 
 in reference to the truth, purity, power, and glory of the gospel. 
 
 Teb. 10. And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations. First, 
 before the ' end ' come, the ' end ' spoken of in ver. 7, the end of the age that is 
 to precede the new and glorious epoch. Preached : published, heralded. The 
 word is generally rendered in our Authorized version preached, sometimes pro- 
 claimed (Luke xii. 3 ; Eev. v. 2). The office of the minister of Christ is heraldic 
 in its nature ; it is his duty to make public proclamation of the good news of 
 salvation. To all the nations : the gospel has a world-wide destiny, and until 
 that destiny be fulfilled the ' end ' will not be. Kostlin thinks that this 10th 
 verse is ineptly introduced into its present position between ver. 9 and 11, 
 causing an unnatural rupture in the practical instructions contained in these 
 verses. (Vrsprung und Komposition, p. 352.) But a deeper and juster view of 
 the Saviour's aim would have shown that it was of the utmost practical moment 
 that the Lord's apostles, and His other disciples, should bear in mind that, 
 however severe the persecutions to which they might be individually exposed, 
 the great crisis would not be imminent till the gospel should have fairly fulfilled 
 its world-wide mission. 
 
 Vee. 11. And when they lead you to judgment. Or rather, whenever they 
 may be leading you (Srav dyaa-m), viz. in fetters, or, at all events, as persons 
 under arrest. The Saviour transports His disciples, in imagination, to the 
 road along which they might be forcibly conducted to appear before the civU 
 authorities. 
 
 And deliver you up. Or, as Bengal and Principal Campbell render it, to 
 deliver you up. It is, literally, delivering up. The act of delivering up is 
 represented as beginning with the act of compulsory leading. 
 
 Be not anxious beforehand what ye shall speak. Whatsoever the etymology of 
 the word rendered anxious (see G. Curtius's Grundzilge, p. 308), its companion 
 phrase in Luke x. 41 throws light upon the idea intended, ' thou art anxious and 
 troubled about many things.' The disciples were not to be troubled beforehand ; 
 they were not to be careful beforehand, in the disquieting sense which is some- 
 times attached to the word carefulness. (See Comm. on Matt. vi. 25.) The 
 beforehand was not intended to limit the period of exemption, and to open a 
 door to legitimate anxiety, after the preliminary stage of things had been 
 passed. It simply brings into natural prominence the time when anxiety is apt 
 
12] ST. MARK XIII. 359 
 
 meditate : but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, 
 that speak ye : for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the 
 
 to be intensest on the one hand, and is sure on the other to he of the least 
 possible avail. 
 
 It is added in King James's version, Neither do ye premeditate. But this clause 
 is omitted in the manuscripts XBDL, 1, 33, 69, and in the Vulgate, Sahidio, 
 Coptic, and ^thiopio versions, and in a large proportion of the , Old Latin 
 codices. Tregelles and Tischendorf leave it out. It is not unlikely that the 
 expression was originally a marginal explanation of the preceding clause. Our 
 English translators, in using the compound word 'premeditate,' reproduced 
 exactly the form of the original word as it is given by Origen (irpo/ieXeraTe: Opera, 
 vol. i., 295), but not its form as it occurs in the Beoeived Text. It is simply 
 meditate, study, eon over. The Geneva of 1557 renders it prepare ; Tyndale, 
 ymagion, i.e. imagine. There is, of course, if the clause be genuine, no abso- 
 lute prohibition of premeditation, but only, as Fetter remarks, of such ' as is 
 joined with distracting care.' The idea is, you need not distress yourselves by 
 anxiously considering beforehand how you ought to speak before such high and 
 august personages. Be calm, collected, inartificial, and a higher wisdom than 
 your own ivill guide your thoughts and mould your words. 
 
 But whatsoever may be given you in that hour, that speak ye, for it is not 
 ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit. Many, besides the apostles, have had ex- 
 perience of this high assistance, and have been themselves amazed at the 
 aptness of the ideas and words that were flashed, as occasion required, into 
 their minds. Some fanatics however have arbitrarily stretched the Saviour's 
 instructions, to the length of covering the idea that it is wrong for preachers, 
 even in their ordinary preaching, to make previous preparation. But the 
 Saviour is not at all referring to the ordinary ministrations of preachers, or to 
 the expositions of expounders of the 'lively oracles.' He is referring to the 
 contingency of compulsory appearance at the bar of governors and kings. And 
 the design of His instructions is to prevent unmanning disquietude or distress. 
 It is not eloquence, or fine rhetoric, that is needed, when an innocent man is 
 called upon to answer for his conduct in a court of justice. It is candour, calm 
 self-possession, and confidence in a Higher Presence and Power as the Shield 
 of the upright. In that spirit, the refiex of the brooding Spirit of truth, let a 
 man stand before his judges, and he is far more likely to say the right thing 
 and to say it well, than if he were, with ever so much disquietude, to ' ymagion ' 
 or con over beforehand what he ought to say. 
 
 Vek. 12. And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and the father his 
 child. As there is nothing that excites such love as the gospel, when intel- 
 ligently received, so there is nothing that occasions such hate as this same 
 gospel, when passionately rejected. In that reception or rejection the heart of 
 the heart is concerned. Woodman, the Sussex martyr in Queen Mary's days, 
 " was," says Better, " betrayed and taken by means of his own father and 
 " brother and other friends ; whereupon he professed that this very text of 
 " Scripture was verified in him, and he did comfort himself with it." 
 
360 ST. MARK XIII. [12 
 
 father the son ; and children shall rise up against their parents, 
 and shall cause them to ^e put to death. 13 And ye shall 
 be hated of all men for my name's sake ; but he that shall 
 endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 
 
 14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation. 
 
 And children shall rise, up against parents. Literally, upon parents. The 
 children shall rise up to come down ' upon ' them. 
 
 And cause them to be put to death. Even although the murder he com- 
 mitted through the moral machinery of information, and consequent judicial 
 examination and technical condemnation, it is still true that the unnatural 
 children themselves are the murderers. Coverdale's translation imitates 
 Luther's, and shall help them to death. 
 
 Veb. 13. And ye shall be hated, of all men for My name's sake. The real 
 significance of the ' name ' will not he considered by the masses. The real 
 mission and aims at once of the servants and of the Master •will not be so much 
 as looked at. The public in general will take its cue from the representations 
 of its natural leaders, and hence will hate zealously and remorselessly all who 
 hear the brand of the blessed name. ' The vulgar of all sorts,' as Eichard 
 Baxter expresses it, ' will be seduced to take you for the plagues of the world.» 
 The expression all men is used of course popularly, by a fine graphic kind of 
 hyperbole. Expect not that the people will pour forth in torrents to welcome you 
 as preachers of the glad tidings. They who extend to you a cordial welcome will 
 he so few, compared with those who neglect or reject your message, that I can 
 scarcely see them at all as I pass My telescope of prevision across the millions of 
 society. 
 
 But he that endnreth to the end, he shall be saved. With that everlasting 
 salvation which, when consummated, merges in everlasting glorification. ' The 
 end ' referred to is not specifically the end 'of the age, but the end of each indi- 
 vidual's probationary career. Instead of endureth. Principal Campbell and Norton 
 have persevereth; Purvey, lastith. But our English translation is admirable, 
 for there is more than lasting or persevering implied. There is lasting or 
 persevering ' under trials' 
 
 Vek. 14. But whenever ye see. Ye, My disciples. The Saviour recognised 
 in His apostles the representatives of all the disciples who might be living at 
 the time of the destruction of Jerusalem ; and therefore, in speaking to the 
 former. He realized that He was .speaking to all their representees. 
 
 The abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet. A much better 
 translation than Wycliffe's, the abhomxjnacioun of discomfort. It would be 
 better still however, and more literally, the atomination of ' the ' desolation, 
 that is, the ahomination connected with the particular deoastation that was 
 predicted by Daniel, and that was imminent over Jerusalem and the whole of 
 the Jewish territory. It is the devastation that is referred to in Dan. ix. 27, 
 though the form of the phrase is shghtly modified from the &eptuagintal 
 plural, and thus conformed, so far as the singular number of the word is con- 
 cerned, to the analogous Septuagintal expressions in Dan. xi. 31 and xii. 11. 
 
14] ST. MARK XIII. 361 
 
 spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought 
 not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that 
 
 Comp. also 1 Maoo. i. 54. The devastation to ■whioh Daniel and our Lord 
 referred is manifestly that desolating devastation of the Holy City and the 
 Holy Land that was effected by the Eoman army. Comp. Luke xxi. 20. In 
 the Hebrew of Dan. ix. 27 there is brought into view the personal agency that 
 was to be at work in this devastation, the abominations of the devastator, that is, 
 of the collective devastator, the Boman army. Such variations in the phraseo- 
 logy are the natural result of unfettered thought ; they can occasion no difficulty 
 to any method of interpretation that is free from artificiality and narrowness. 
 Hence too we have, in the Hebrew of Dan. ix. 27, the plural word abominations 
 instead of the singular abomination, as given in the Septuagiut and by the 
 evangelist. Both are equally veracious representations. There was to be a col- 
 lection of abominations, and thus there was unity as well as plurality. The 
 reference is undoubtedly, according to the conventionalism of the Old Testa- 
 ment usage, and as was discerned by Victor of Antioch, to the abominations, 
 or eolleotive abomination, of the idolatrous standards of the Romans. See Comm. 
 on Matt. xxiv. 15. 
 
 Standing where it ought not. That is, in the temple. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 15. 
 It is a very remarkable fact that Josephus expressly records that the victorious 
 Bomans " brought their ensigns into the temple, and placed them over against 
 " the eastern gate ; and there they offered sacrifices to them, and with the loudest 
 " acclamations proclaimed Titus emperor " {Wars, vi. 6:1). Such intrusion of 
 the military standards into the holy place, followed by the deliberate act of 
 causing them to stand there, was a wanton desecration, which no exigency of 
 battle, siege, or storming could justify. The abomination stood where it ought 
 not. Petter, looking at the expression from the peculiar standpoint of his 
 theology, says, ' in respect of God's decree, it ought to stand there ! ' It is' an 
 unnecessary and unhappy ' antinomy.' It suffices for all legitimate theological 
 ends, to regard the sphere of God's decree as coincident with the sphere of His 
 voluntary activity. 
 
 let Mm that readeth understand (coeiro). Let him exercise his intelligence (his 
 mos). Let him think. The translation of the word in 2 Tim. ii. 7 will suit 
 admirably, let him consider. Coverdale's version is forcible and ' sun-clear,' 
 though free, let him march it well. We are to regard this parenthetical counsel 
 as uttered by our Lord himself, in reference to Daniel's prophecy, not as an 
 interjected nota bene of the evangelist. Such a nota bene on the part of the 
 evangelist, though approved of by" Principal Campbell and others, would be an 
 unprecedented intrusion of the narrator's own personality ; and it would carry 
 with it something of immodesty, as a kind of presumptuous selection of one 
 from among the other utterances of our Lord, as worthy on the part of a 
 biographer of very peculiar emphasis, and, on the part of his readers, of very 
 special consideration. Our Lord's counsel is reported by Matthew also (xxiv. 15) ; 
 and it is analogous, as Wolf remarks, to the oft repeated ' he that hath ears to 
 hear, let him hear ' ; only as there is a reference to a written prophecy, the 
 counsel points to the duty, not of the hearer but of the reader. It is not 
 unlikely that it is the echo of the counsel of the angel Gabriel to Daniel himself, 
 
3':2 ST. MARK XIII. [14 
 
 be in Judeea flee to the mountains: 15 and let him that 
 is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter 
 therein, to take any thing out of his house : 16 and let him 
 
 'therefore understand the matter and consider the vision ' (Dan. ix. 23). See 
 Comm. on Matt. xxiv. 15. 
 
 Then let them that are in Judsea flee to the mountains. It -will be in vain for 
 them to persist in the expectation that there will be a Divine interposition, at 
 the last moment, to destroy the Bomans and to restore the Jewish state. It is 
 the vfill of God that the Jewish state should ' cease and determine.' It is His 
 pleasure to permit the Romans to play out their part in the procession of the 
 dispensations. Let the disciples then, who may have been vristfuUy hovering 
 around the doomed city, betake themselves, without any further delay, to the 
 securest fastnesses, that they may bo spared for ulterior duties. 
 
 Vek. 15. And let him that is on the housetop. The dome (5(3/io). The word 
 originally meant house, but in the New Testament usage it invariably means 
 Iwusetop, or roof; and indeed, in primitive times and hot climates, the house 
 would be, in a great measure, a roof or cover. Such would be, and such still 
 are, the booth and tent : ' On' the housetop. For it is a common thing for the 
 Oriental to be ' on ' his housetop. It is flat, with frequently a little cupola in 
 the centre. It is a, fit place for repose in the cool of the evening, as also for 
 meditation or for observation. 
 
 Not go down (it is added in the Beoeived Text) into the house. The addition 
 is wanting in the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, and L ; the Syriac Feshito 
 version too, and the Sahidic and Coptic. Tisohendorf omits it. The omission, 
 when taken in connection with the next clause, seems to promote the conciunity 
 of the composition ; but for that very reason it is to be suspected as a literary 
 pruning. The Saviour intimates that the greatest haste would be requisite, if 
 there was to be a chance of escape from captivity or death. They who, hoping 
 against hope, had lingered on till the storming of the city and the burning of 
 the temple, had lingered too long. Every moment thenceforward was precious. 
 The Eoman cavalry would be instantly flying hither and thither, scouring the 
 country in quest of plunder and captives ; and if any one therefore was ' on the 
 housetop ' when news arrived that the temple was carried, let him flee at once. 
 Let him, if that would give him a start even of a few moments, just step 
 across the parapet of his own housetop, and run along the line of roofs till he 
 get out to the country, and thence by the shortest road to the fastnesses in the 
 hiUs. 
 
 Nor enter in to take anything out of his house. The phrase nor enter seems 
 superfluous after the preceding clause. But it may be accounted for, either on 
 the common principle of repetitiousness, or more probably on the assumption 
 of an interior beyond an interior in the house. It is common, in oriental houses 
 of a respectable size, for the stairs that lead from the roof to terminate in the 
 court ; he therefore who descends such a staircase is landed m the court, and has 
 thus ' come down into the house.' But when in the court he may either rush 
 out by the front gate, or enter into one or more of the chambers which open from 
 the court. The Saviour glances, both generioally and specifically, at both 
 
19] ST. MARK XIII. 363 
 
 that is in the iield not turn back again for to take up his 
 garment. 17 But woe to them that are with child, and to 
 them that give suck in those days ! 18 And pray ye that 
 your flight be not in the winter. 19 For in those days shall 
 be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the 
 
 iateriors, but specifies, in the second place, that which is inner, because in the 
 order of nature one must go into the court before one can enter into the other 
 parts of the house. To take anything out of Ms house : though the things might 
 be precious, time would be much more precious still. 
 
 Teh. 16. And let Mm that is in the field. Viz. working., It is literally into 
 the field. In primitive representations, processes as well as results would be 
 indicated even in the simplest matters ; and when, for brevity's sake, the one 
 or the other of the two elements was omitted, sometimes an arrest took place, 
 phraseologioally, at the stage of process, though it was assumed of course that 
 thought would go forward to the stage of result. 
 
 Ifot return back to take Ms cloke. His outer robe, which would only have 
 encumbered him while working in his field, but which would be of the greatest 
 advantage to him when resting by night out in the open air, away from the 
 comforts of home ; the time gained however by fleeing without it would be of 
 far greater advantage still. 
 
 Yek. 17. Sut woe to them that are with cliild, and to them that give suck, in 
 those days. Or, as Godwin renders it. But alas for the women who are with child, 
 and for tliem, who suckle, in those days. The Saviour's heart was more tender 
 than a woman's, and bled when He thought of the anguish that would, in many 
 cases, be inevitable in the hasty flight. How dreadful is defeat in an em- 
 bittered war ! How dreadful too is victory, in its pursuit of the defeated ! 
 
 Veb. 18. And pray ye that it be not in winter. That is, pray that all this 
 that I have been speaking of do not take place amid the severities of wintry 
 weather. These would greatly aggravate the sufferings of the sufferers. The 
 word for winter may mean a storm or stormy weather. See Matt. xvi. 3, and 
 Acts xxvii. 20. Wakefield renders it here rainy weather. The whole expression, 
 that it he not in winter, exhibits in the original not so much the subject matter 
 of the prayer as the end that was to be contemplated in praying. Pray, in order 
 that it he not in winter i^va). The idea of the act of prayer is accordingly 
 modified. Were the subject matter of the prayer coming up into prominence, 
 the idea of the act would be narrowed into that of petition ; but when promi« 
 nence is given to the final cause of the act, then the idea of prayer is vridened 
 into that of general address or appeal to Him who ruleth over all, and can and 
 will overrule whatever may be brought to pass by His creatures. 
 
 Vek. 19. For. Such prayer will be much needed, as a means of obtaining 
 some little mitigation of the inevitable woes. 
 
 The following expression is very striking. For those days shall be tribulation. 
 Instead of the tribulation being represented as occurring in the time, the days 
 are, so to speak, transubstantiated into the affliction. 
 
 Such as there hath not been the like from the beginning of the creation which 
 
364 ST. MARK XIIL [19 
 
 creation wHcli God created unto this time, neither shall be. 
 20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no 
 
 God created until now, and never shall be. One might explain this language on 
 the principle of that graphic hyperbollsm that pervades, to so large an extent, 
 the speech of aU peoples. It is quite common, in many languages at least, if 
 not in all, to say of any very extraordinary affliction, it is the greatest possible. 
 Superlatives are often employed, when there is really no definite intention of 
 asserting a perfectly absolute prominence. It is at the same time however 
 worthy of consideration, whether there was not, in this catastrophe of the Jews, 
 a minglement of elements, physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, which 
 was so unique as to render the anguish that was consequent on the overthrow 
 of Jerusalem unprecedented, and incapable of future recurrence. Many peoples 
 have been vanquished. Often have surviving populations been ' peeled,' and 
 scattered or led captive. Often have capital cities been stormed and sacked. 
 But the case of the Jews was peouKar. They were convinced that they were the 
 favourites of heaven ; they regarded their capital as ' the city of the Great 
 King,' ^nd the predestined mistress of the world. Their temple was to them the 
 one house of God ; it could not be dispensed with in the world. Hence they 
 expected, up to the last moment, that ' the Lord's arm ' must needs be made 
 conspicuously ' bare ' in the extremity of their necessity, to smite the beleaguering 
 hosts, like the hosts of Sennacherib of yore, and thus to rescue the beloved place 
 and the beloved people ! When one mingles the elements of such thoughts and 
 feelings, and their effects, with the effects of the utter social disorganization 
 that prevailed, and consequently with the unutterable physical woes that 
 preceded and succeeded the capture of the temple, it is easy to see that the 
 tribulation endured may have had an edge of agony, which never was before in 
 the history of any people, and which will never be again. See Comm. on Matt, 
 xxiv. 21. The word creation is used objectively, as equivalent to the created 
 world. 
 
 Vbk. 20. And except the Lord had shortened the days. The Saviour does not 
 particularly refer to Himself when He says the Lord ; He refers to Him who is 
 the absolute One, Jehovah or Jahveh. Shortened, or curtailed. It is not said 
 should curtail. The reader is transported forward to the time when the tribula- 
 tion referred to had passed its culminating point. He looks back from his 
 standpoint upon the anguish, as it was at its intensest ; and he is told that the 
 reason why it is already past is, Jehovah had curtailed the days of its duration. 
 The days : the days referred to were really curtailed in number, beyond what 
 might have been anticipated. A concurrence of contingencies contributed to 
 this result. Titus, the commander, was personally disposed to clemency and 
 moderation. He loved a Jewess too, Beruice, the sister of Agrippa. He 
 esteemed Josephus moreover, the Jewish historian ; and he was in haste besides 
 to get to Eome that he might share in the triumphal entry of his father Ves- 
 pasian, and enjoy the splendid festivities of such a jubilant occasion. - All these 
 things and others might be Divinely overruled, and no doubt were, to curtail the 
 days of Judaia's anguish. 
 - No flesh would have been saved. No Jlesh, that is none, viz. of the Jews. 
 
22] ST. MARK XIII. 365 
 
 flesh stould be saved : but for the elect's sake^ whom he hath 
 choserij he hath shortened the days. 
 
 21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ ; 
 or, lo, he is there ; believe him not : 22 for false Cbrists and 
 
 There would have been an almost total extermination of the race. So exas- 
 perated were the Eomans, and so fitted were they by their victories to carry 
 this exasperation into fatal effect. The idiomatic phrase 'no Jiesh' was a 
 Hebraism, remarkably corresponding to our English ' nobody.' 
 
 But for the elect's sake, whom He chose, He shortened the days. The motive 
 that moved the will of ' the Lord ' is revealed. He had a special regard to the 
 elect ' in Christ' (Eph. i. 4), whom He elected ; and hence, that they might not 
 be extirpated, He overrulingly curtailed the days of tribulation. He, and no 
 other, elected them. He selected them, that is to say, for the enjoyment of 
 peculiar blessings and the performance of peculiar duties. They were hence 
 objects, so to speak, of a peculiar solicitude or care, that affected the Divine 
 heart, moved the Divine will, and guided the Divine hand. This solicitude 
 however, or special Divine care, was not the result of any arbitrary predilection. 
 The elect in Christ, or in other words, the true Christians, were, for all the great 
 moral ends which were contemplated by the Divine Grace, the flower of the 
 population ; and, so far as human agency was concerned, they were the hope of 
 the world. 
 
 Vek. 21. And then. Then and thenceforward indefinitely. No definite 
 chronological measurements are made by our Lord, beyond the period of the 
 great Jewish crisis. The varying elongations, in time, of the succeeding 
 futurities do not come within the scope of the prophetic perspective. 
 
 If any one shall say to yon, Lo here is the Christ ! Lo there ! believe it not. 
 When the Christ does appear again, it will be in no obscure way. Human 
 testimonies or telegrams will be altogether unnecessary. No one will need to be 
 dependent on another for information concerning the fact. ' Every eye shall 
 see Him.' 
 
 Vek. 22. There is need for such a warning. For there shall arise false Chiists. 
 There have been many of them. David George, for instance, who ultimately 
 settled at Basle, where he died in 1556. He claimed, according to the account 
 of Dr. Henry More, to he the true Christ, the dear Son of God, born not of the 
 flesh, but of the Spirit. He was to restore the house of Israel and re-erect the 
 tabernacle of God, not by afflictions and death, as the other Messiah, but by that 
 sweetness, love, and grace that were given him of the Father. He had the power 
 of the remission of sins, and had come to administer the last judgment. He 
 averred that " the Holy Scriptures, the sayings and testimonies of the prophets, of 
 " Christ, and of His apostles, do all point, if rightly understood in their true 
 " mystery, to the glorious coming of David Giorge, who is greater than the former 
 " Christ, as being bom of the Spirit and not of the flesh." (Enthusiasmus Trium- 
 phatus, § 34.) This David George, says Dr. More, was a man ' of notable 
 natural parts, of comely person, and a graceful presence.' And he had many 
 adherents, who believed in him. In our own day there are persons, out of 
 asylums, who put forth corresponding claims. There is lying before the writer 
 
366 ST. MARK XIII. [22 
 
 false prophets shall rise, aad shall shew signs and wonders, to 
 
 a " Tract on the Second Advent fulfilled," in tyhicli it is said that " the enrolling 
 "of the saints commenced on the anniversary of the last day of the Feast 
 " of Tabernacles of the year 1868, that is, on the 9th October, 1868. The 
 " following," it is added, " is the declaration to be made and signed : I believe 
 " Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah at His first coming and the antitypical 
 " Paschal Lamb who died for sin in allegory, and I believe John Cochran of 
 " Glasgow to be that Messiah at his second coining and the antitypical Sigh Priest 
 " wlw has taken away sin in reality." Of aU such persons it has, in consequence 
 of their obscurity, to be said Lo here 1 Lo there ! " Believe not," says our 
 Saviour. 
 
 And false prophets. They have been legion in number. Lodowick Muggleton, 
 for instance, who on the title page of his True Interpretation of the whole Book 
 of the Revelation of St. John (1746), describes himself as " one of the two last 
 " commissionated witnesses and prophets of the only high, immortal, glorious 
 " God, Christ Jesus." Madame Antoinette Bourignon, before him, was a far 
 nobler being, yet she declared to Christian de Cort : " I am sent from God to 
 ' ' bring light to the world, and to bear witness to the truth. He has sent me to 
 " tell that the last times are come ; that the world is judged, and the sentence 
 " is irrevocable ; that the plagues are begun, and will not cease till all evil be 
 " rooted out ; and that Jesus Christ will come shortly to the earth to finish this, 
 " and then He will continue to reign with ' men of goodwill,' who shall enjoy 
 " eternal peace. I am sent with a commission to declare all these things to 
 " men, to the end that peradventure some of them may be converted and repent, 
 " that they may reign with Jesus Christ in His glory. ... I am certainly 
 " sent from God to declare the truth of everything." {The Light of the World, 
 part iii., pp. 45, 46, ed. 1696.) 
 
 And shall show signs and wonders. Literally and shall ' give,' viz. as evidence. 
 It is a somewhat peculiar and semi-awkward word ; but, notwithstanding its 
 peculiarity, it is strange that Tisehendorf should actually reject it from the 
 text, and on the mere authority of the Cambridge manuscript (D), a few cm:- 
 sives, and some free quotations or allusions of Origen, substitute, in its place, 
 do or perform {Trof^ffovcnv), It seems hard to suppose that any fastidious or 
 critical transcriber would ever have turned perform into give, if he found perform 
 in the codex from which he was copying. But it is easy to conceive that 
 occasionally a transcriber, of little depth or perspicacity of judgment, might be 
 tempted to substitute the easy going perform for the more rugged give, imagining 
 all the time that, instead of doing any harm to the sacred text, he was merely, 
 without modifying the idea, smoothing and improving a comparatively unim- 
 portant expression. It is noteworthy moreover that many modern translators, 
 who had no other word in the texts that were lying before them than give, have 
 taken nevertheless the liberty of freely rendering it do. So Luther, Pisoator, 
 Zinzendorf, Heumann (all of whom have thun) ; Worsley renders it work ; 
 Principal Campbell, perform. It is give which is the reading of N A B C L, and 
 indeed of all the rest of the uncials, except D. It is supported too by all the 
 ancient versions. Signs and wonders : ' Lying wonders ' (2 Thess. ii. 9) no doubt, 
 wonders that serve a purpose of imposition, partly it may be on the wonder 
 
23] ST. MARK XIII. 367 
 
 seduce, if it were possible, even the elect, 23 But take ye 
 heed : behold, I have foretold you all things. 
 
 workers tliemselves, and partly on those -whom they wish to attach to themselves. 
 There are wonderful idiosyncrasies among men, that give scope for the perform- 
 ance of such wonders. In some natures, as in Valentine Greatrakes and Gassner 
 (see Hewitt's ffisto)-?/ of the Supernatural), singular therapeutic energies instinct- 
 ively well up and flow over ; in others there is a singular power pi something like 
 ' second sight ' or ' clairvoyance,' turning fitfully its penetrative eye, now upon 
 objects distant in space, and now upon objects distant in time, though in a way 
 far removed from iufallibiUty. This clairvoyant eye often takes cognisance of 
 only frivolous realities, and seems blind to things of moment. Still its peculi- 
 arity is fitted, (when once a willing and shallow fanaticism tries its hand at 
 understanding it,) to be a ' lying wonder.' There are other remarkable endow- 
 ments and instincts, which crop up at times in exceptional idiosyncrasies, and 
 may give occasion either to self-delusion, or to deliberate artifice, or to a 
 minglement of the two perversities. 
 
 That they may lead astray. Or seduce. Intention is expressed, even tbough 
 it should be the product of self-delusion. At the base of the self-delusion there 
 must be unconsoientiousness, if insanity be absent ; and if so, the whole out- 
 come becomes morally tainted. There is something that is resolvable into an 
 intention to seduce, or to proselytize to one's self. Instead of lead astray, Tyndale 
 and the Geneva have deceive ; Wakefield, draw away ; Campbell, impose on. 
 Literally, cause to wander off. 
 
 If possible, the elect. An expression crowded in. It is not meant to represent 
 subjectively a detail in the intention of the pretenders ; it rather depicts 
 objectively the subtlety of the imposition. There is such a plausibility of 
 evidence, that, if it were possible, even the elect would be seduced. The elect ; the 
 truly Christian, who are Divinely segregated, not only from the world at large, 
 but also from all such as are but superficially or nominally Christian. See on 
 ver. 20. These true Christians, the Saviour intimates, it is not possible to seduce. 
 As a, body, that is to say, or in their entirety. They ' cannot err damnably, 
 says Tyndale the Eeformer ; ' nor any long time ; nor all of them.' (Prologue 
 to Exposition of Sermon ' on the 3Iount.) The last idea should get prominence. 
 Individuals have often no doubt been sadly imposed upon, and led far astray in 
 their notions, and in those actions that are the natural outworkings of notions. 
 But in the midst of the spiritual freedom that is the spiritual birthright of all 
 truly spiritual persons, there is no fear of universal delusion. A seed to do God 
 service will never fail. The holy bush that burns wiU never be consumed, 
 whatever may become of withered branches and some sickly sprays. 
 
 Vbk. 23. But take ye heed. There is an emphasis on the yc. But look 'ye.' 
 The Saviour no doubt addresses the disciples who were seated around Him, 
 hanging on His lips. But the caution would be meant to be handed down from 
 generation to generation. 
 
 Behold, I have foretold you all. The Saviour had omitted nothing that was 
 needed to set them, and to preserve them, on their guard. It may have been 
 unwelcome to their Jewish prejudices and fervid anticipations to be told of such 
 
368 ST. MARK XIII. [24i 
 
 24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be 
 darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25 and the stars 
 
 difficulties, intricacies, dangers, and trials; no doubt it would be. But the 
 Lord did not on that account leave them unwarned. He sought to send them 
 forward into the future forearmed. 
 
 Vek. 24. But. It is as if He had said. Now to turn for a little to another view. 
 
 -In those days. In those future days, forward to which the Saviour's eye was 
 looking. 
 
 After that tribulation. Of which He had been speaking in ver. 14-20 ; that 
 is, after the tribulation connected with the destruction of Jerusalem and the 
 dissolution of the Jewish state and dispensation. The Saviour does not enter 
 farther into chronological measurements and adjustments. Possibly, as He 
 looked beyond the scene which presented to His view 'the abomination of 
 desolation ' in the ' temple,' and the connected catastrophes and woes, the 
 whole perspective may have had no precise chronological subdivisions, indicated 
 by means of milestones of time, and marking off the exact stages of succession. 
 But the things toward which He looked, and of which He now begins to speak, 
 belonged, as Calvin saw, and still more clearly Luther, ZuingU, Wesley, not to 
 the end of the Jewish state and dispensation, but to the end of the present age, 
 or as it is often, though less properly, represented, the end of the world. So too 
 Fetter. (See, among many other dissertations, Schott's Commentarius Exegetico- 
 dogmaticus, pp. 73-124.) 
 
 The sun shaU be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light. Eclipses are 
 described. Bengel, in his German translation, has and the moon shall not give 
 ' his ' light, inasmuch as the moon is masculine in German, and the sun femi- 
 nine. So Emser, Piscator, Felbinger, Zinzendorf, Stolz, Meyer, in their re- 
 spective German versions. Luther deftly throws a veil over the genders : the 
 sun and moon shall lose ' their ' light. Their light, their lustre, their shine as 
 Luther has it. The language is not intended to be pressed into the service of 
 scientific representation ; otherwise there would not have been a coincidence of 
 solar and lunar eclipses. The representation is a method of sublime hiero- 
 glyphic imagery, meaning that a great and portentous change will, at some 
 future time, take place in the world at large, in relation to the rest of the 
 universe. Of this great ultimate crisis and change there have been, in times 
 past, and there will no doubt yet be in times to come, many partial or local 
 rehearsals. Compare the language Qf Isa. xiii. 9-19, zxiv. 19-23 ; Ezek. 
 xxxii. 7. 
 
 Yeb. 25. And the stars of heaven shall fall. Or, as the reading runs in 
 Lachmann, Tisohendorf, Tregelles, as in the manuscripts X A B C U 11*, and in 
 the Syriac Peshito, Coptic, Sahidic, and ^thiopic versions, and the stars shall he 
 falling out of the heaven. This grand rhetoric is by no means, in its basis, 
 purely imaginative, any more than the expressions in the preceding verse. It 
 is founded on those extraordinary and awfully magnificent meteoric phenomena, 
 which occur in full force periodically every thirty-three years, iu the mouth of 
 November. Our earth at that time passes through the nucleus of a belt of 
 meteors, and the result is an unintermitting shower, for hours, of ' falling stars.' 
 
2?] ST. MAEK XIII. 369 
 
 of heaven shall fall, and tlie powers that are in heaven shall 
 be shaken. 26 And then shall they see the Son of man com- 
 ing in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then 
 shall he send his angels^ and shall gather together his elect 
 
 This spectacle, so splendid on the one hand, and so appalling on the other to 
 such as are ignorant of astronomy, occurred last on the night between the 13th 
 and the 14th days of Noyember, 1866. 
 
 And the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken. Wahl supposes that 
 these powers are the stars. So Bretschneider and Grimm. Robinson, that they 
 are ' the sun, moon, and stars.' But either the wider or the narrower of these 
 suppositions introduces unnatural tautology into the phraseology. Cardinal 
 Cajetan supposes that the reference is to the active powers of, those heavenly 
 hodies which exert an astrological influence on things terrestrial ; while Fetter 
 prosaioaUy imagines that the phrase denotes ' the natural force, strength, or 
 virtue which is ' intrinsic ' in the whole body and frame of the starry heavens.' 
 It is more likely that the reference is to invisible or personal powers or hosts, as 
 distinguished from hosts visible and impersonal. We may think of the high 
 and holy hosts that surround the throne of the Eternal. (See 1 Kings xxii. 19 ; 
 Ps. ciii. 21, cxlviii. 2.) Or we may think of the lower hosts which are subject 
 to ' the prince of the power of the air' (Eph. ii. 2), and which, under certain 
 fixed limitations, have malign influences under their control. It is more likely 
 that there is a reference here to these latter ; for the great cosmical changes 
 spoken of seem to be introductory to that dissolution of the ' heavens ' as they 
 at present are and the ' earth,' which is to precede the emergence of ' the new 
 heavens and new earth, wherein dweUeth righteousness.' See 2 Pet. iii. 10-13. 
 
 Veb. 26. And then. Ere the end, but yet toward ' the beginning of the end.' 
 Shall they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds. Or, more literally, in clouds, 
 i.e. amid clouds. It might also have been said on clouds. See Matt. xxiv. 30. 
 Comp. Ps. civ. 3, and Isa. xix. 1. The clouds, which will be roUing over the 
 troubled sky, and which are the fitting symbols at once of the impending crisis 
 and of the impenetrable mystery that surrounds the throne of Him who rules 
 over it, will be, as it were, the sublime drapery of His presence, illumined ' with 
 the brightness of His coming' (2 Thess. ii. 8). Sliall they see Him : They, men 
 in general, men universally. ' Every eye shall see Him.' (Eev. i. 7.) 
 
 With much power and glory. With that pomp of appearance and attendance 
 that is fitted to make known to all, at once His inherent power and His essential 
 glory. 
 
 Vee. 27. And then shall He send forth His angels. The His is undoubtedly 
 genuine, though it is wanting in the Vatican and Cambridge manuscripts, and 
 has been left out by Tischendorf and Tregelles. The angels belong to our Lord 
 as His ' ministering spirits ' (Heb. i. 14). 
 
 And shall gather together His elect. Tischendorf and Tregelles omit His in 
 this clause too ; but on quite insufficient grounds. It is found in K A B C, and 
 indeed in all the uncials except DL. The elect on earth belong to Christ, as 
 
 B B 
 
3/0 ST. MARK XIII. [28 
 
 from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to 
 the uttermost part of heaven. 
 
 28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree ; When her branch 
 
 truly as the angels in heaven. The proprietorship is assumed by Him as a, 
 matter of course ; so thoroughly imperial and Divine was our Lord's self con- 
 sciousness, even in the depth of His humiliation. Gather together : To meet 
 Himself, and to be with Himself, so as to be preserved in safety and exalted to 
 glory. AU the details however of the physical and moral machinery, by means 
 of which the ultimate glory is to be reached, are shaded oft ; and hence nothing 
 is here said of the resurrection, or of physical transformation, or of the general 
 judgment. See 1 Thess. iv. 14^17. 
 
 From the fom winds. Literally, out of the four winds, for the word winds is 
 used in its secondary acceptation, to denote the quarters of the earth's surface, 
 from which the winds blow, east, west, south, and north. The earth, to every 
 spectator, is optically u circle. If the circle be subdivided into four equal 
 segments, these segments are the quarters, on which the various points of the 
 compass may be calculated. The Hebrews, in distinguishing the quarters, 
 supposed themselves to be looking to the rising of the sun. The east was in 
 front ; the west behind ; the south was tlie right hand ; the north, the left. 
 (Compare the Hebrew words.) 
 
 From the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. Or, 
 more literally, from earth's extremity to heaven's extremity. Bleek supposes 
 that there is a reference, in the one phrase, to the saints that shall he alive on 
 the earth, and in the other to those who shaU have fallen asleep in Jesus, and 
 whose souls shall be in ^heavenly places. But in that case we should have 
 expected the expression to have run thus, from earth's extremity, and 'from' 
 heaven's extremity, that is, from earth's extremity all over ' its ' plane, and from 
 heaven's extremity all over ' its ' plane. It is far more probable that the expres- 
 sion is only a variety of phrase for from horizon to horizon. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 
 31. " The extremities," says Petter, " of the heavens and of the earth are sup- 
 " posed to be the same, and are put for one and the same." Optically the earth 
 and heavens meet at the horizon, so that the idea is, from one extremity of the 
 world {take the horizon at what point you please) to the other. Tyndale's trans- 
 lation actually is, from one ende of the worlde to the other; and this, though free, 
 is certainly much to be preferred to Principal Campbell's, //-owi the extremities of 
 heaven and earth. 
 
 Vek. 28. The filament of thought that floated into the far future is let go 
 with what precedes. The Saviour returns to the consideration of what was 
 more immediately to transpire. 
 
 But (Se) from the fig tree learn ' the ' parable. That is, from the fig tree, as for 
 instance in its present state, learn ' the ' indirect instruction, which it is so admir- 
 ably fitted to suggest, and which is so appropriate to the case in hand. It is 
 probable that a fig tree was close by. Perhaps the little company were sitting 
 under its shade, as they looked west toward Jerusalem. 
 
 "Whenever her branch. The word properly means a young branch or spray, 
 Which may be easily broken off (kXciSos). Note the her. The pronoun its was 
 
29] ST. MARK XIII. 371 
 
 is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer 
 is near: 29 so ye in like manner, when ye shall see these 
 things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. 
 
 only coming into use at the time when our translation of 1611 was made, and 
 was not adopted by our translators. (See Gomm. on Matt. v. 13.) Hence either 
 Ms or her had to do duty in its place. It is her in the Greek, for the word fig- 
 tree is feminine ; but it is his in German and therefore in Luther, for the word 
 tree, in German, is masculine. Tyndale too has Ms, and King James's trans- 
 lators preserved the his in Matt. xxiv. 32. 
 
 Has already 'become tender. Tender, under the reviving influences of spring, 
 when the ' hibernacles ' or winter-quarters of the leaves become flushed with the 
 living juices, out of which the new growths are to be elaborated. 
 
 And putteth forth its leaves. Or rather, and the leaves have sprouted forth_ 
 The verb is in the passive, so that the expression the leaves forms the subject of 
 the proposition. (Kead, not iic(tiiy with Beza, the Elzevirs, and Tischendorf, 
 but ^Kijivg with Erasmus, Bengel, Matthsei, Fritzsehe, Laehmann, Tregelles. It 
 was the reading too of Schott ultiniately, and of the first, third, and fourth 
 editions of Eobert Stephens.) 
 
 Ye know that the summer is nigh. Its outriders have arrived. 
 
 Ver. 29. So also ye. There is emphasis on the ye (iS/ieis). The same parties 
 indeed were both spoken of, and spoken to, in the preceding verse ; for it is 
 tliey who are referred to, as knowing the signs of coming summer. Yet, in the 
 approach of summer and in the signs which Jierald it, they had no special 
 interest. They were hence referred to in a merely representative way ; and our 
 Lord meant that the signs of coming summer are known of men in general. 
 But the coming of the great national crisis, which our Lord had in view in His 
 illustration, was a matter that had bearings of very special importance for the 
 disciples. 
 
 When ye see these things coming to pass. These things : not the last things 
 spoken of in ver. 24-27, but the things that had formed the bulk and burden of 
 His prophetic utterances, and that were referred to by the disciples when, in 
 ver. 4, they asked ' when shall these things be ? ' The reference is to the pre- 
 cursors of the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem. See Comm. on 
 Matt. xxiv. 33. 
 
 Know that it is nigh, at the door. Literally, on {the) doors. Note the plural. 
 Folding doors are referred to, as so frequently in Homer. The outer doors of 
 oriental houses at the present day are generally folding, if the houses have 
 courts. But, idiomatically, at the door is identical with at the doors ; and it is 
 more consonant with our British ideas, for folding doors are exceptional in 
 Britain, and even when they are used they are still the door. The Saviour 
 does not specify, by name, ii}hat it is that would be at the door. It is that which 
 constituted the burden of Sis thoughts, and the burden of the thoughts of His 
 disciples, that which occasioned the whole of the long prophetic discourse con- 
 tained in this Chapter, viz. the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem. 
 See ver. 8. This, the subject of the proposition, did not need to be formally 
 stated, being perfectly well understood. 
 
3?2 ST. MARK XIII. [30 
 
 30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not 
 pass, till all these things be done. 
 
 31 Heaven and earth shall pass away : but my words shall 
 not pass away. 
 
 Vee. 30. Verily I say to yon. Christ's solemn way of saying, I do assure 
 you. 
 
 This generation shall not have passed away till all these things have taken 
 place. The things, namely, which were to be the precursors of the national 
 crisis, and which were to terminate in that crisis. The crisis therefore is itself 
 included. The destruction of Jerusalem did happen, in harmony with our 
 Saviour's prediction, within the limits of the existing generation. It happened 
 in the year 70 of the Christian era, between thirty and forty years after the 
 prophecy was uttered. Many expositors, missing their way through the dis- 
 course as a whole, and thus unable to disintegrate the references to the end of 
 the age from the references to the end of the Jewish temple and temple service, 
 have been driven to their wits' end to account for the statement of this verse. 
 Hence attempts have been made to interpret this generation as having reference 
 to quality of characteristics, rather than to time and contemporaneity. Some 
 suppose" that the expression means this race of Jews. Among others. Bishop 
 Eyle takes this view. He says: "I take this opportunity of expressing my 
 "decided opinion that this generation can only mean this nation ox people, the 
 "Jewish nation." (Thoughts on Marie, p. 290.) Others suppose that it means 
 this race of men, ' the totality of men.' So Klostermann, in recent times. We 
 would not object, with Alexander, to the principle of these interpretations on 
 the ground that the word generation (y^vca) always means, and must always 
 mean, a contemporary race. The ineptitude that would be characteristic of the 
 prediction, on either of the two hypotheses, is a far weightier objection. M. 
 Boustaing's interpretation is still more objectionable, though given spiritual- 
 istioally, as he alleges, by the evangelists themselves assisted by Moses ! He 
 supposes that the meaning is, this generation when re-incarnated (in the latter 
 days). See Les Quatre Evangiles expliques par les Evangelistes, tome li-fTpTg. 
 639-645. The expression this generation was a familiar one with our Saviour, 
 and in all other cases was used by Him to denote the sum total (in some given 
 sphere) of the persons then living. Comp. Matt. xi. 16, xii. 41, 42, 45, xxUi. 36 ; 
 Mark viii. 12, 88 ; Luke vii. 31, xi. 30, 31, 32, 50, 51, xvii. 25. The statement 
 before us is definitely fixed down and explained by the equivalent and un- 
 equivocal expression in Matt. xvi. 28, Verily I say unto you. There be some 
 standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming 
 in His kingdom. Biohard Baxter correctly reproduces the idea, ' Some now 
 alive shall live to see it.' See Comm. on Matt. xvi. 28 and xxiv. 34. 
 
 Ver. 31. The heaven and the earth shall pass away. Notwithstanding their 
 apparent stability. They are ever changing, and passing on to farther change. 
 They are never for two successive millenniums, or for two successive moments, 
 in exactly the same state. Witness the revelations of geology and of astronomy. 
 Consider the prodigious dissipation of heat or ' energy ' into space. Suns bm-u 
 out. Solar systems must collapse, (See Kant's Naturgeschichte, c. yii.) Our 
 
32] ST. MARK XIII, 373 
 
 32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the 
 angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. 
 
 Saviour assumes it. Those who are on the summits of science see it, aud can 
 demonstrate it. (See the papers of Sir WUliam Thomson and Dr. Croll on 
 Geological Time.) "The earth," says Sir William Thomson, "is filled with 
 " evidences that it has not been going on for ever in the present state, and that 
 " there is a progress of events toward a state infinitely different from the pre- 
 " sent." (§ 20.) The sun, he elsewhere says, is most probably " simply an in- 
 " candescent mass cooling." {Geological Dynamics, § 40.) 
 
 But My words shall not pass away. My words concerning the fate of Jeru- 
 salem, as concerning other things. They partake of the immortality of truth. 
 How towering the self consciousness of our Lord ! And yet He was no sciolist 
 on the one hand, and no braggart on the other. Was He then deluded ? It 
 cannot be : His prediction was literally fulfilled. 
 
 Vbb. 32. But of tliat day. Literally, but concerning that day. There is a 
 strong emphasis on the that, the intended effect of which is that the thought 
 takes a vault to a time far beyond the things referred to in the preceding verse r 
 that day of days ; that great day, the culmination of all the days of this pre- 
 liminary age. Comp. 2 Tim. i. 12, 18, iv. 8. 
 
 And that hour. The that is not repeated here in the original. There is 
 simply the article, and ' the ' hour. But in the uncial manuscripts A B C E G H 
 KLMUVWXrAn, as in the Vulgate and Philoxenian .Syriac versions, it is 
 not ' and ' but ' or ' the hour, a variation from the representation in Matt. 
 xxiv. 36. The or is accepted by Griesbach, Fritzsche, Laohmann, Tischendorf, 
 Tregelles. The idea suggested is, that whether the great crisis-time be looked 
 at in its nearer or in its remoter proximity to the actual chronological point of 
 occiTrrenoe, the relation to it of finite foreknowledge is the same. 
 
 Knoweth no man. Literally, and better, Icnoweth no one. See the exceptive 
 clause at the conclusion of the verse. 
 
 Not the angels who are in heaven. The negative represented by the English 
 not has a continuative import imbedded in it {aide) ; and the idea in such a case 
 as the one before us may be thus expressed, not even the angels. 
 
 Ifeither the Son. It is more than neither, ' nor yet ' the Son {oiSe again : see 
 Clyde's Greek Syntax, § 56, c). 
 
 But the Father. Very literally, if not the Father, that is unless the Father, 
 except the Father (el /iv)- The expression is to be connected with the clause no 
 one knoweth, no one except the Father. The Father's absolute omniscience, and 
 His consequent absolute prescience, is assumed by the Saviour, even although 
 the object of the prescience is chronologically conditioned on millions of inter- 
 vening free acts on the part of millions of free agents. When absolute prescience 
 however is denied by the Son on the part of Himself, He is of course referring 
 to Himself os Son, begotten on u, certain day (Ps. ii. 7 ; Acts xiii. 33) in the 
 virgin's womb (Luke i. 85). He is, in other words, referring to Himself as He 
 was self-realized in His finite nature, to be for ever distinguished from that 
 infinite essence in which He made the worlds (John i. 3), sustains them (Col. i. 
 17), sees the end from the beginning (John vi. 64), and 'knows all things' 
 
374 ST. MARK XIII. [33 
 
 33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not 
 when the time is. 34 For the Son of man is as a man taking 
 a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his 
 servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the 
 
 (John xxi. 17). The expression perplexed AmbroBe ; he suspected that it had 
 been interpolated by the hand of a heretic. (De Fide, lib. v. 16.) It per- 
 plexed Dr. Adam Clarke too, who was likewise disposed to suspect its genuine- 
 ness. But it is certain that it is no interpolation. And there is really no 
 embarrassing difficulty. It is only when we proceed on a ' monophysist ' hypo- 
 thesis, and assume that our Saviour's Divinity was His only mind, and the soul 
 of His humanity, that overwhelming difficulty is encountered. Some ardent 
 ' students of prophecy ' have supposed that it is merely the ' hour ' and ' day ' 
 of the second coming of our Lord that are inscrutable, not the year, month, 
 or week of the occurrence ! And hence the numerous predictions of the dawn- 
 ing ' year ' of the millennium, which have shot, time after time, across the 
 literary heavens like meteors. They have, one and all, been fictitious. And 
 to persist in similar experiments of calculation is but to persist in a waste of 
 ingenuity. 
 
 Veb. 33. Other exercises than those of calculative ingenuity become us. 
 Take ye heed, watch and pray. That is, See that ye watch and pray. See, or 
 Look to it {pXeireTe). Wakeful watchfulness and prayerfulness constitute the 
 proper attitude of ,the souls of men, all down through the ages to the great 
 day. 
 
 For ye know not when (wore = owoTe) the time is. The right point of time 
 (o Kaipos) for the glorious epiphany. It is well therefore to be always ' looking 
 for,' and ' longing for,' or ' hasting to,' the coming of the day of God (2 Pet. iii. 
 12), for, so far as the individual interests of individual souls are concerned, it is 
 certain that a great change will soon and perhaps suddenly occur; and it 
 matters little, so far as these same individual interests are concerned, whether 
 Christ comes to us or we go to Christ. 
 
 Veb. 34, 35. There is a fine comparison in these verses. But it is only 
 partially wrought out. Tet, though partial, it is not so decidedly a torso as it 
 seems to be in King James's version, as also in the Geneva, and in Beza's 
 version, from which our translators borrowed the supplementary clause at the 
 commencement of ver. 34. 
 
 Vee. 34. As, a man who is gone abroad. Or, as Tyndale gives it, as a man 
 which is gone in to a straunge countrey. The man is thought of, not as going, 
 but as gone. 
 
 Having left his house. The mind reverts to what he did before he went 
 abroad ; and, in thus reverting, it heaps together in a peculiar order a series of 
 successive acts. One of these is, he left his house. But before this took place, 
 certain other acts were performed. See next clause. • 
 
 And given to Ms servants authority. Very literally the authority, namely, 
 that was requisite to regulate their demeanour in his absence. 
 
 And to each one his work. The and is wanting in NBC'DL, and is left 
 out by Lachmann, Tisohendorf, Tregelles. 
 
35] ST. MARK XIII. 375 
 
 porter to watcli. 35 Watch ye therefore : for ye know 
 not when the master of the house oometh, at even^ or 
 at midnightj or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning : 
 
 Also commanded the porter to watch. The conjunction in this clause was 
 perplexing to Beza. He regarded it as standing in the way. He therefore 
 ' expunged ' it. Arbitrarily however. Bengel understood it correctly, and hence 
 renders it also. So Meyer, ' also ' enjoined the porter that he should he watchful, 
 or, in order that he should ie watchful. The other acts of the gentleman abroad 
 are regarded for the moment as subordinate to this. What then ? See next 
 verse. But there should not be a full point at the conclusion of this. The 
 application of the comparison is contained in what follows. 
 
 Veh. 35. Be watchful therefore. The therefore crowds into itself the whole 
 force of the comparison contained in the preceding verse. It is as if it were 
 said : As the person abroad, whom I am depicting on the tablet of My imagination, 
 gave stnct injunctions to the gatekeeper to be perpetually on the outlook for Ms 
 return, so say I to you. Be ye watchful. The word for watchful in this and the 
 preceding verse is a term of the later Greek, and denotes a waked-up condition. 
 The proper name Gregory is derived from it. The word employed in the 33rd 
 verse is different, and denotes sleeplessness. 
 
 For ye know not when the Master of the house cometh. The figure in the 
 comparison of the preceding verse is kept up. The Saviour, instead of saying 
 he who corresponds to the master of the house in the comparison, just speaks of 
 Himself as the Master of the house, for He is indeed a Master, and has a house- 
 hold and a house. ' Ye ' know not : the disciples of all ages are addressed 
 through their representatives, the apostles. It is in vain therefore for any one 
 to fix the precise date of the millennium. 
 
 At even. In the manuscripts N B L A tffe disjunctive particle is found 
 before this expression, and has been received into the text by Tischendorf, 
 Tregelles, Alford ; or, either, and here whether. It is probably authentic. The 
 word rendered even properly means late evening. It began at sunset and lasted 
 for three hours, or till the middle point between sunset and midnight. Origin- 
 ally the Hebrews seem to have divided the night into three watches. (See Jud. 
 vii. 19, where we read of the middle watch ; and compare Buxtorf's Lexicon 
 Talmudicum, p. 2454, and Lightfoot's Works, vol. iv., p. 198.) But in the time 
 of our Lord the Eoman division into four watches had superseded the older 
 Hebrew style. 
 
 Or at midnight. The second watch extended from nine till twelve o'clock. 
 The various watches were named from their terminations, rather than from 
 their begianings. 
 
 Or at the cock-crowing. More literally, and better, -without the article, at 
 cock-crowing. So WycHffe and Purvey, {at) cockis crowynge. The Eoman word 
 was gallicinium. In some of the Jewish towns, at the present day, the emula- 
 tive cock-crowings in the stillness of the night, about midway between midnight 
 and sunrise, is something quite startling to a stranger. 
 
 Or at morning. The watch that concluded with the sunrise. It is dimly 
 assumed that the master of the house will come during night. It is night, as it 
 
376 ST. MARK XIV [36 
 
 36 lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. 37 And what 
 I say unto you I say unto all^ Watch. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 1 AFTER two days was the feast o/ the passover, and of un- 
 
 were, so long as he is away. (See Cardinal Cajetan.) Tlteophylact however 
 dispels the charm of the parabolic scene, when he supposes the eyening time to 
 be representative of old age, midnight of middle life, cook,crowing of manhood, 
 and morning of the time of childhood. 
 
 Vek. 36. lest coming suddenly He should find you sleeping. Though it is 
 night-time with the church and the world, till the dayspring of Christ's uni- 
 versal epiphany, yet it is not time for sleeping. There is no time Divinely 
 allotted, or humanly required, for spiritual slumber and sleep. A-Lapide men- 
 tions that when Theophylaot the commentator was dying, he said, Blessed are 
 you, Father Arsenus, f<yr you alijbays kept this hour in view. (See Evangel., p. 
 451, ed. 1735.) 
 
 Vbb. 87. And what I say to yon, I say to all, 'Watch. The Saviour realized 
 that He was not speaking to His apostles alone. He was speaking, through 
 them, to the people of every generation and age. How vast the comprehension 
 of His aim ! How godlike the self consciousness of His own commanding posi- 
 tion in the very centre of universal humanity I 
 
 CHAPTEB XrV. 
 The last week of our Saviour's life on earth is drawing rapidly to a close. Two 
 days more, and the last day will be reached, the day of the consummation, the 
 day when the typical passover feast was to be enjoyed, and when the antitypical 
 passover Lamb was to be sacrificed. (See Matt. xxvi. 2.) Ver. 1, 2 correspond 
 in brief to Matt. xxvi. 1-5. So Luke xxii. 1, 2. 
 
 Vek. 1. But after two days. It is probable that the triumphal entry into 
 the city had been on Sunday, the 10th of the month Nisan, the day after the 
 Jewish sabbath. It would therefore be on Monday, the 11th, that the fig tree 
 was blighted and the temple purified. Tuesday, the 12th, had been a peculiarly 
 busy day, at once in the temple and on the mount. The prophecies of the pre- 
 ceding chapter had been delivered during the latter part of it. Wednesday and 
 Thursday, the ' two days ' specified by the evangelist, had yet to intervene, and 
 then came ' Good Friday,' the 15th of the month. (See Hanna's Passion Weelc.) 
 
 Was (the feast of) the passover and of unleavened bread. Literally, was the 
 passover and the unleavened. A two-sided way of designating the chief of all 
 the Jewish festivals. It was really but one and the same festival, a week of 
 festal days. But the elements of the prolonged festivity connected themselves, 
 respectively, with the eating of the paschal lamb on the first of the seven festal 
 days, and with the using of unleavened bread dui-ing the whole succession of 
 holidays. Hence the twofold designation in Mark's phraseology. Luke com- 
 bines the elements into unity, the feast of the unleavened, which is called the 
 
1] ST. MARK XIV. 377 
 
 leavened bread : and tlie cHef priests and the scribes souglit 
 how they might take him by crafty and put Mm to death. 
 
 passover (xni. I). Josephus, in his Antiquities (xiv. 2: 1), speaks correspond- 
 ingly of ' the festival of the unleavened, which we call phaska,' or passover. 
 Phaska,yasfco, or pascha, is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word pesach. In 
 his Jewish War (ii. 1 : 3) the historian expresses himself thus : ' the festival of 
 the unleavened, it is called phasoha by the Jews.' The word passover is a fine 
 English translation of the Hebrew term. It properly denotes the act of God in 
 ' passing over ' the houses of the Hebrews on that night in which He passed 
 through the land of Egypt and smote the firstborn. (See Exod. xii. 12, 13.) 
 But, as that gracious act was joyfully remembered by the people on the annual 
 recurrence of the day on which it occurred, the day itself, and the whole con- 
 nected week, and sometimes the specific supper, and sometimes also the paschal 
 lamb itself, receive respectively the designation. The day, the supper, the 
 lamb, were not literally the ' pass-over ' ; they were the memorials of it. It 
 is on the same principle that the bread and wine of the Lord's supper are not 
 literally, even when ' blessed,' the body and blood of the Saviour, though so 
 called in free sacramental phraseology. They are the memorials of the sacred 
 realities. (See Harrison's Answer to Dr. Pusey's Challenge, chap, iv.) Instead 
 of the fine word passover, Tyndale and Coverdale, after Luther, give the heathen 
 word Easter, and Wycliffe the Hebrew word pask. The unleavened: That is, 
 the unleavened {bread), or, more Uterally still, the unleavened [things or cakes, 
 \6.yav!i). The phrase is in two ways cut short, for not only is the word cakes 
 left out, the word/esfivaHs also omitted: the festival of the unleavened cakes. 
 Those cakes indeed would in themselves be unadapted for sensuous festivity ; 
 they would not be so agreeable to the taste as leavened bread. They were 
 'bread of affliction' (Deut. xvi. 3). But still they constituted an important 
 element in the spiritual festivity of the occasion, for they were memorials, to the' 
 Hebrews, of the trying circumstances of their forefathers when they could not 
 afford time for the tedious process of leavening, but " baked unleavened cakes 
 " of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt : for it was not leavened, 
 " because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they 
 "prepared for themselves any victual " (Exod. xii. 39). Eather unhappy, con- 
 sequently, is the translation of Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale, and Amaudus 
 Polanus, swete bread. Emser, in this, as in a few other cases, improved on 
 Luther's version, 'the days of the unleavened cakes' {der ungesaurten Brot). 
 So Piscator, Zinzendorf, Bengel, Grynaus. And yet, as the German word for 
 leaven is ' sour-dough,' there is a semi -justification for Luther's translation. 
 
 And the chief priests and the scribes. The leading men in the state, and thus 
 the leading members of the great council of state, or sanhedrim. 
 
 Sought. Or rather, were seeking, were engaged in seeking. It is the imperfect 
 tense. The excitement occasioned by our Lord's appearances in the temple on 
 the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, had put spurs into their malice. They 
 were, before Wednesday, Thursday, and ' Good Friday,' busily engaged in con- 
 cocting how they could get finaDy quit of such an impracticable Kabbi. Seek- 
 ing ; Desire, eagerness, effort, are implied. 
 
 How they might lay hold of Him by stratagem, and put Him to death. They 
 
378 ST. MARK XIV. [2 
 
 2 But they said. Not on tlie feast day, lest there be an uproar 
 of the people. 
 
 3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, 
 
 were afraid to seize Him publicly, as He was the favourite of a large proportion 
 of the unsoptistioated people. By stratagem : in the exercise of some kind of 
 treachery [iv doKtf), such as has so often been resorted to in the case of the 
 followers of the Lord. Of Tyndale for instance, the noble English martyr and 
 Bible translator, who was basely entrapped in Antwerp by Philips, who pre- 
 tended to be his friend, and who acted his miscreant part ' not without the help 
 and procurement of some bishops of this realm.' (See Demaus's William Tyn- 
 dale, p. 424.) Wyoliffe's translation is, with gile (guile) ; Coverdale's, with 
 disceate (deceit). The same word is translated subtilty in Matt. xxvi. 4. 
 
 Veb. 2. But they said. It is For they said in the manuscripts NBC*DL, 
 as also in the Coptic version and the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, and in a 
 very large proportion of the Old Latin codices. The for has been received into 
 the text by Laohmann, Tisohendorf, Tregelles, Alford : with reason, as being 
 by far the most difficult reading ; whereas but is the reading of Matt. xxvi. 5. 
 Tregelles says that the Syriac Peshito has no conjunction at all (' eXeyov tantum '). 
 But it has and. The for adduces the reason why they were just seeking, not act- 
 ing. They said ; The verb is in the imperfect. They kept saying. 
 
 Not during the festival. The supplement day in King James's version is 
 unhappy, for the festivity extended over seven days. It is however an old 
 supplement. It is in the Vulgate, and hence in Wycliffe ; in Erasmus too, 
 and Tyndale, Coverdale, Caatellio, and the Geneva. But not in Luther, Beza, 
 Piscator, Sebastian Schmidt, or Erasmus Schmid. 
 
 Lest there be. Or, Lest there should be. Very literally, and according to Greek 
 idiom. Lest there shall be. 
 
 A riot of the people. Or tumult (the Bheims and Geneva word), or uproar 
 (Coverdale's word, and suggested to him by Luther's Aufruhr). 
 
 Vee. 3-9 constitute a paragraph corresponding to Matt. xxvi. 6-13 and John 
 xii. 1-8. It introduces another thread of things which got interwarped with 
 what is recorded in the two preceding verses. It is probable that the narrative 
 in Luke vii. 86-50 refers to a different, though somewhat kindred, occurrence. 
 Events in common life frequently repeat themselves, with variations. 
 
 Veb. 3. And while He was in Bethany. The precise chronological relation- 
 ship is left indeterminate. In reality however, as we learn from John's subse- 
 quent narrative, the evangelist steps backward a few days, to take up the thread 
 that henceforward got intertwined with the action of the chief priests and 
 scribes. See John xii. 1, 2. 
 
 In the house of Simon the leper. Simon or Simeon was a common name 
 among the Jews, and hence recourse was had to various expedients to differ- 
 entiate any particular individual who required to be specified. The Simon in 
 the case before us had been a leper, and may have been cured by our Lord. If 
 he was presiding at his own table, his leprosy must have been removed, though 
 the designation of his former unfortunate state stuck to him. 
 
3] ST. MARK XIV. 379 
 
 as lie sat at ineat, there came a woinan having an alabaster 
 
 As He sat at meat. More literally, as He was reclining {cut table). There is 
 reference to the recumbent posture, wHoh, in imitation of the Greeks and 
 Eomans, had heen adopted for banc[uets ty the Jews. (See Hi. Merourialis, Be 
 Accubitus Origine.) 
 
 There came a woman. Her name is suppressed both by Mark and by Matthew^ 
 But -we learn from John that it was Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus 
 (xii. 2, 3). There may have been motives of prudence, or of deUeacy, leading 
 the earlier evangelists to veil the personality of the ' woman.' 
 
 Having an alabaster box of ointment. Such is King James's version. But 
 there is no word for box in the original ; and there is no reason to suppose that 
 the vessel in which the perfume was contained would be of the nature or shape 
 of a box. Poubtless alabaster boxes would be in use among ladies to hold their 
 jewels, cosmetics, perfumes, and toilet etceteras ; but it would most probably 
 be in some kind of minute bottles that the volatile scents themselves would be 
 kept. Hammond uses the word crvse, and his rendering has been accepted by 
 the Eevisers. (Compare Petronius's phrase nardi ampulla.) The expression in 
 the original is simply having an alabaster of ointment. Pliny expressly says 
 that perfumes are best preserved in alabasters. The vessel, because made of 
 alabaster, was called an alabaster, just as, with ourselves, a particular garment, 
 because made of waterproof stuff, is called a waterproof ; and a small glass 
 vessel, for drinking out of, is called genericaUy a glass. Herodotus (iii. 20) 
 uses the identical expression employed by the evangelist. He says that the 
 Ichthyophagi were sent by Cambyses to the Ethiopians " bearing, as gifts, a, 
 "purple cloak, a golden necklace, bracelets, an alabaster of perfume, and a cask 
 " of palm wine." Ferfume : Or balsam as it were, or otto or atar. 
 
 Of spikenard. If the of be retained, then the word spikenard will be regarded 
 as literally in the ' whence-oase,' and as denoting the plant from which the 
 essential scent was obtained. If the of be dispensed with, and a comma sub- 
 stituted in its place, then the word nard wiU, be in simple apposition with oint- 
 ment, as denoting, not the plant from which it was obtained, but the specific 
 kind of perfume. We are disposed to take this latter view. So Eobert 
 Stephens, Henry Stephens, Beza, Mill, Wetstein, Schottgen, Griesbach, Vater. 
 Spikenard : Certainly a wrong translation, though not involving error of any 
 serious consequence, even in a botanical point of view. The original expression 
 is just, as Jeremy Taylor reproduces it (Works, iii., p. 272, ed. 1839) without 
 any attempt at translation, nard pistic {vapdov oto-tik^s). So too Erasmus. 
 What this word pistic means is the question in dispute, and has much exercised 
 the ingenuity and stimulated the research of critics. The Latins, from the 
 earliest period, were puzzled by the word. A considerable number of the 
 codices of the Old Latin version just reproduce the Greek term, as Erasmus 
 and Jeremy Taylor do (nardi pistici). But as this was quite unintelligible to 
 Latin ears, the expression was, by a slight modification (nardi spicati), changed 
 in other copies into bearded nard, or spiked nard, that is spikenard. This 
 modified term was retained in the Vulgate. Hence WycUffe's version, spica- 
 nard ; and the Bheims, spike-narde ; and the Geneva, and our English version. 
 It is defended as the probable original form of the word by Castellio, Grotius, 
 
380 ST. MARK XIV. [3 
 
 Hammond, Wetstein. Unreasonably. Augustine supposed tliat tlie evangelist's 
 word must have reference to some place, unknown to him, ' whence the precious 
 ointment was obtained,' and he conjectured that this topographical reference 
 was specified by the evangelist, because the name recalled, in a mystic or ' sacra- 
 mental ' way, the idea of pistis or faith. {Tract, in Johannem, xii. 3.) John 
 Hartung of Friburg crowned the conjecture of Augustine by supposing that 
 the term had suffered elision in the hands of transcribers, who were ignorant of 
 oriental geography, and that, as it came from the pen of the evangelist, it was 
 Opistic, the reference being to Opis, a place in the vicinity of Babylon. Scultet 
 was charmed with this fancy of Hartung's, and declared that it entirely super- 
 seded all the disputations of theologians, botanists, and grammarians, on the 
 term. {Oiservationes in Matt, et Marc, c. Ixxx.) Fetter too inclined to it. 
 But there is no trace of Opistic in either manuscripts or versions ; and, though 
 there were, the adjective would have had a different conformation if the refer- 
 ence had been to Opis. Joseph Scaliger, always fertile in ingenuities, had, as 
 Nansius, the teacher of Gerard Jo. Vossius, reports, another conjecture, emend- 
 ative of the word. (Vossii, Harm. Ev., I., iii., § 9.) He supposed that it 
 should be ptistic, and that the entire expression meant perfume of ' pounded ' 
 nard. But this too is a mere and impracticable guess. A considerable number 
 of eminent critics have supposed that the word must be derived from tt/oi = ttIi/u, 
 to drink, or, as Pritzsche contends, from iriirlcrKa, to give to drink, and that its 
 meaning is either potable, strictly so speaking, or, more generioally, liquid. 
 This supposition has been approved of by the lexicographers Henry Stephens, 
 Pasor, Fischer, Schleusner, Passow, Liddell and Scott ; and likewise by Casau- 
 bon in his Notes, and by Beza, Maldonato, Felbinger, Erasmus Schmid, Sebas- 
 tian Schmidt, and others. Fritzsche, in particular, contends strongly for it, 
 and adduces good evidence to show that nard was really ' potable,' and some- 
 times drunk. The word pistic however never occurs in Greek writers with the 
 meaning contended for; not even in Eusebius, Dem. Evan., ix. 439. And al- 
 though it did occur with such a signification, it would seem strange that the 
 nard's potability should be specified here, as the perfume was not mixed by 
 Mary with the Saviour's wine, but poured upon His person. What then ? Is 
 there any other more likely interpretation of the term ? There is. The word 
 occurs in both Xenophon {Cyrop. , I., vi. 10) and Plato (Opera,vol. iv., 21, Bipont.) 
 with the signification persuasive, or producing persuasion. In later vraiters, such 
 as Plutarch, Artemidorus, and Cedrenus, the idea of persuasion passed over to 
 that of faith or trust, and the word is used as meaning producing faith oi trust. 
 Artemidorus for instance, in the second book of his Oneirocritica (ch. 33), 
 speaks of ' a wife, who is rich, trusty [wiaTiKTiv) , and a, keeper at home, and 
 obedient to her husband,' trusty, trustworthy, or, as viewed from a slightly 
 varied standpoint, faithful. Things however may be trustworthy as well as 
 persons; and no doubt the nard referred to by the evangelist was a pistic 
 thing, in the sense of being trustworthy, that is, genuine, pure, unadulterated. 
 Heumann supposes that this might be a plebeian use of the word pistic. But 
 le Clero seems nearer the mark when he suggests that it would probably be the 
 term that was used in the trade to denote the genuine article. Such too was 
 Winer's opinion (Grammar, p. 110). And we know from Pliny's Natural 
 History (xii. 26) that there was, as might have been expected, an ' adulterated ' 
 article in circulation, which he calls pseudonard. Theophylact gives this mean- 
 
4] ST. MARK XIV. 381 
 
 box of ointment of spikenard very precious ; and she brake 
 the box, and poured it on his head. 4 And there were 
 
 ing of unadulterated as an alternative explanation of the term : he says,- " under- 
 " stand \jj pistic nard either a kind of nard so called, or the genuine nard,faith- 
 " fully prepared (rV ASoKof vapdov Kal fierli irla-Teas KaTa<rKeva(xSeiirai>)." The in- 
 terpretation is approved of by Faher, Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale, Kypke, 
 Bengel.Miehaelis, Heumann, deWette, Bleek, Ewald, Meyer, Lange, Volkmar. 
 It is also approved of by the lexicographers Parkhurst, Bretsohneider, Wahl, 
 Eobinson, Schirlitz, Grimm. Otto too and Eckard, in their respective Dis- 
 sertations on the expression, support it. And it is supported likewise by the 
 Syriac Peshito version, in which the phrase is rendered freely by an expression 
 which means the principal or best nard. (See Beusch.) 
 
 Nard : A word which, though in common use among the Greeks, was not 
 of Greek origin. It was used too by the Hebrews (Cant. i. 12, iv. 13, 14), but 
 was not a native of their language either, or of any of the Semitic tongues. 
 It had no doubt come fropi the farther East ; but from what part is still un- 
 certain. Sir WiUiam Jones mentions, on the authority of Dr. Anderson of 
 Madras, that ' in the Tamul dictionary most words beginning with ndr have 
 some relation to fragrance.' But, adds Sir WUliam, " I have not met with 
 " any such root in Sanscrit ; and in Persian, which has a manifest affinity 
 " with it, ndr means a pomegranate and ndrgil a cocoanut, neither of which 
 " have any remarkable fragrance." {The Spikenard of the Ancients : Works, 
 vol. v., p. 27.) Sir William says that " it seems clear that the Greeks 
 "used the foreign word nard, generically, for odoriferous plants of differ- 
 " ent natural orders " (p. 37). He was led however, in consequence of our 
 Authorized translation of the term, to concentrate his researches upon spike- 
 nard, which certainly may have been the genuine nard which Mary lavished 
 on her Lord, although the evangelist does not say that it was. Sir 
 William Jones concludes thus : " My own inquiries having convinced me that 
 "the Indian spikenard of Diosoorides is the Sumbulu'l Hind, and that the 
 " Sumbulu'l Hind is the Jatdmdnsi of Amarsinh, I am persuaded that the true 
 " nard is a species of Valerian, produced in the most remote and hilly parts of 
 " India, such as Nfepdl, Morang, and Butan, near which Ptolemy fixes its native 
 " soil" (p. 44). As to the construction of the adjective very -precious, or rather 
 very-expensive, very-costly, we may either leave it appositively by the side of the 
 expression genuine nard, or transpositively connect it thus, very-costly genuine 
 nard. This latter we prefer. 
 
 And she brake the alabaster. Probably in the way of striking off the narrow 
 neck, or such part of it as had been tightly and hermetically plugged and sealed 
 to prevent evaporation and unlawful abstraction. She would bring it sharply 
 in contact with some hard substance at hand {a-vpTpltpaa-a). To suppose, with 
 Haumiond and Alford, that the vessel was entirely shattered, or ' crushed in the 
 hand,' is to introduce incongruities of imagination. Fritzsche specifies them 
 naively thus, " probable injury to the hand of Mary, possible injury to the 
 " Saviour's head, and plashing of the nard on the floor." 
 
 And ponred over His head. As an ' oil of gladness.' Very literally, the clause 
 would run thus, poured down Him, down the head. In Greek idiom, as well as 
 
382 ST. MARK XIV. [4 
 
 some that had indignation within themselves, and said. 
 Why was this waste of the ointment made? 5 For it 
 might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, 
 
 in English, we can speak either of pouring down a person, or of pouring down 
 upon a person. In the reading of X B L A, 1, received by Laohmann, Tisohen- 
 dorf, Tregelles, Alford, the detached preposition is omitted, poured down His 
 head. It seems a more elegant phrase ; but for that very reason we should 
 scarcely expect that it would, if genuine, have been disturbed and transformed 
 into the more repetitious and inartificial expression of the Eeceived Text. 
 
 Yeb. 4. Bat there were some that had iadignatiou. A peculiar and very 
 expressive word in the original (dyayafCToOvres). They felt as if full of aches- 
 Some : a veil is drawn over the personalities. But we learn from Matt. xxvi. 8 
 that it was the ' disciples ' themselves whose equanimity had been disturbed. 
 The more shame to them. And from John xii. 4 we learn that the centre and 
 the source of the ' cantankerous ' disturbance was Judas Iscariot. ' Just like 
 him.' 
 
 Within themselves. More literally, to or toward themselves, that is, to or to^ 
 ward the individuals of their own circle, to or toward one another. The expres- 
 sion implies that, instead of bottling up ' within themselves,' and burying, the 
 aching fretting grudging feelings of which they were conscious, they turned to 
 one another, and gave expression to them. 
 
 And said. These words are not found in the manuscripts K B C* L, and may 
 not improbably have been absent from the evangelist's autograph. They can be 
 mentally supplied with ease. Had they occurred indeed before the clause to one 
 another, their omission from the manuscripts specified might have been ac- 
 counted for on the principle of similar endings of short lines (homoioteleuton. 
 See the Sinaitio MS.) ; but as they are found after ' to one another,' their 
 accidental omission is not so easily accounted for, while their deliberate inser- 
 tion on the part of some transcriber, who wished to smooth the phraseology, 
 need occasion no surprise. 
 
 Why was this waste of the ointment made ? Or, to what end has this destruc- 
 tion of the perfume been made ? They speak of the perfume as having been 
 destroyed, not thinking, in their censorious zeal, that if it should ever be used 
 at all it must be evaporated. To what end ? They were blind meanwhile to 
 the very end which the All-wise Creator intended in the creation of such sweet 
 perfumes. Why should they not be enjoyed ? If enjoyed by others, why not 
 by our Lord? Why should not Mary have the joy of ministering to the joy of 
 her Saviour ? Could ' the oil of gladness ' be more worthily employed ? 
 
 Vee. 5. For it. Or rather,' as it is in the best manuscripts and ancient 
 versions, for this ointment. AU the modern editors, inclusive of Griesbach 
 and Soholz, have accepted the reading. 
 
 Hight have been sold. Or could have been sold. Very literally, was able to 
 be sold. 
 
 Tor more than three hundred pence. Literally, for above three hundred denarii. 
 The denarius, or silver penny, was the standard silver coin of the Eomans, 
 larger than a sixpence and smaller than a shilling. Three hundred denarii 
 would be about £10 sterling, a very large sum in those days. 
 
8] ST. MARK XIV. 383 
 
 and have been given to the poor. And they murmured 
 against her. 6 And Jesus said. Let her alone ; why trouble 
 ye her ? she hath wrought a good work on mo. 7 For ye 
 have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may 
 do them good : but me ye have not always. 8 She hath 
 done what she could : she is come aforehand to anoint my 
 
 And given to the poor. True ; and it was also true that the individual who 
 might he supposed to buy it could, instead of buying it, give his money to the 
 poor. Must he not buy it then ? Must no one buy it ? And must the poor 
 cease to cull the plant, and prepare the perfume, that it may be sold to the 
 rich ? Must there be nothing used in life but the barest and most absolute 
 necessaries ? Must all fine arts and elegancies be abolished ? It is evident 
 that the grumblers were taking extremely narrow views of what is good for 
 human society in general, and for the poor in particular. 
 
 And they mnmmred against her. It is a most expressive word in the original 
 {ii/ePpt/ioSvTo), and suggests something stronger than murmuring. There was a 
 kind of rumble-grumble muttering bursting out. The word recalls the hoarse 
 dissonant sounds emitted by fretted beasts. 
 
 Vee. 6. But Jesus said, let her alone ; why trouble ye her ? Or, as the Eheims 
 admirably renders it, Why do ye molest her ? Our Lord's spirit rose up against 
 their rasping oensoriousness. 
 
 She hath wrought a good work on Me. Literally, she wrought. Namely, in the 
 act that is past. A good work : very literally, a beautiful work. There was 
 beautiful propriety in it. On Me; literally, in Me ; such is the reading of all 
 the uncial manuscripts without exception, and hence of all the modern editors.' 
 The reading in the Eeceived Text must have been simply borrowed from Matt, 
 xxvi. 10. The expression in Me represents the Saviour's person as the sphere 
 in which the beautiful work was performed. 
 
 Vek. 7. For ye have the poor with yon always, and whensoever ye will ye 
 may do them good. Literally, ye are able to do good to them. Tou will have 
 plenty of opportunities for your charities. 
 
 But He ye have not always. The Saviour was looking steadfastly to the crisis 
 that was imminent, and wished to direct, in an indefinite way, the minds of His 
 disciples and other auditors to the same ' coming event.' Any trifle of ex- 
 penditure therefore that might be lavished on Him, during the few remaining 
 hours of His career, would abstract but little indeed from the sum total of the 
 resources that might be available for the poor. 
 
 Vee. 8. She hath done what she could. Literally, she did what she had, 
 that is, she did what she had to do, what she had it in her power to do. A noble 
 eulogium ; the noblest possible. We are not responsible for not doing what we 
 have it not in our power to do ; but to do up to the measure of our power, that 
 is Christian perfection. 
 
 She anticipated to anoint. That is, she anticipatively anointed, or embalmed 
 as it were, though Hot in the Egyptian way. See John xix. 40. The custom of 
 embalming rested on a principle of hope for the future, and indicated emphatic- 
 
384 ST. MARK XIV. [8 
 
 body to the burying. 9 Verily I say unto you^ Wheresoever 
 this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole worldj this 
 also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. 
 
 ally that endearment did not cease with life. (See the fine dissertation of 
 Faselt De Unctura Ghristi Sepulchrali.) 
 
 My body. The Saviour's thoughts have gone forward beyond His decease. 
 He is thinking of His lifeless body. 
 
 To the burying. Oi for the entombment {ds rhv ii/Ta4>M(T^ioii), ' the ' entombment 
 that is to take place. The Saviour knew that He was to die according to the 
 Scriptures, and to be buried, and to rise again the third day according to the 
 Scriptures. In His mind therefore the action of the loving woman was con- 
 nected with His death and consequent burial. And in her mind too when, 
 under the folds of her explicit faith, gratitude, and devotedness, we reach the 
 substrate of what was implicit. We come to a point where her anointing 
 connected itself, in a spirit at once of holy hope and true devotedness, with all 
 that was essential for human salvation. It connected itself therefore with ' the 
 entombment.' 
 
 Vek. 9. And verily I say to yon. That is, / solemnly assure you. 
 
 Wheresoever this gospel shall be preadied. !Phis gospel, of which we have been 
 speaking at this table this evening, and which has to do with My death, burial, 
 and resurrection. It is noteworthy however that in the Sinaitio, Vatican, and 
 Cambridge manuscripts (H B D), as also in L and 69, the expression is simply the 
 gospel. And this is the reading given by Tisohendorf, Tregelles, Alford. With 
 reason apparently, the ' Eeoeived ' reading being borrowed from Matt. xxvi. 13, 
 where it is genuine. 
 
 Thronghout the whole world. Literally, into the whole world. The phrase- 
 ology is abrupt and condensed. The idea is, wheresoever the gospel shall be 
 proclaimed by My heralds, as they go ' into ' the whole world. See chap. xvi. 
 15 ; and compare, for the mode of expression, chap. xiii. 16. Principal Camp- 
 bell's translation is free, but not remarkably elegant, in whatsoever corner of the 
 world the gospel shall be preached. 
 
 That also which this (woman) has done shall be spoken of. Other doings in- 
 deed shall be prominent, the doings of Another. But the deed of this woman 
 shaU not be overlooked. It shall be rehearsed, as Tyndale has it ; or told, as it 
 is in Wyoliffe, Coverdale, and the Eheims ; or mentioned, as Mace and Principal 
 Campbell give it. 
 
 For a memorial of her. That is, to preserve the memory of her among men. 
 Comp. Acts X. 4. The word used {fivTjfioa-wov] is connected with Mnemosyni, 
 the mother of the Muses, and so called because, before the invention of writing, 
 a capacious and tenacious memory was a prime prerequisite in every effort of 
 literary genius. 
 
 Vek. 10 and 11 form a little paragraph concerning Judas, the betrayer, cor- 
 responding to Matt. xxvi. 14-16 and Luke xxii. 3-6. 
 
 Vbe. 10. And. This conjunction indicates that what follows is a thread of 
 things that should be taken up in connection with what goes before. There 
 
12] ST. MAEK XIV. 385 
 
 10 And Judas Iscariot, one of tlie twelvCj went unto the 
 cliief priestsj to betray him unto them. 11 And when they 
 heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. 
 And he sought how he might conveniently betray him. 
 
 12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed 
 
 ■was even a closer connection than is apparent on the surface of Mark's narrative. 
 Comp. John xil. 3-7. 
 
 Judas Iscariot. See chap. iii. 19. The great drawbacks to every good cause 
 on earth are : (1) the imperfections of the good workers ; and (2) the ultroneous 
 presence and poisonous ihflnence of workers who are not good. 
 
 He that was one of the twelve. This expression would possibly get attached 
 to the traitor's name in society at large. When man told to man the sensational 
 news regarding the arrest and execution of the great Galilean Babbi, who, with 
 His twelve humble disciples, was ' turning' the Jewish world ' upside down,' it 
 would be said that He was sold and betrayed to the chief priests by Judas 
 Iscariot, ' one of the twelve.' Why did our Lord, it may be asked, admit him 
 into the number ? The man, we imagine, would be honest when admitted. 
 And though he might not be noble, yet our Lord had to accept, not the best 
 that were conceivable, but the best that were available. 
 
 Went to the chief priests. Went off privately from Bethany, that very night 
 apparently on which he had been checked by our Lord for his petty and illiberal 
 grumbhng in reference to the perfume. 
 
 In order that he might deUver Him over to them. His temper was ' up.' 
 And, as his Master was now habitually speaking of imminent and ignominious 
 death, he perhaps began to think that it was not prudent to be attached to a, 
 ' losing concern.' Should he not therefore get out of it without delay, and if 
 possible with something in his pocket ? 
 
 Vek. 11. And they, when they heard it, were glad, and promised to give 
 him money. Probably a large sum. The thirty pieces of silver, spoken of in 
 Matt. xxvi. 15 as then and there paid to him (see Comm. in loc), were pro- 
 bably only a sum in hand to whet his cupidity, and spur him on to go through 
 with his treason. 
 
 And he sought. Prom that time he set aioiit seeking (^fijT-ei), he applied his 
 mind to mature a plan. 
 
 How he might conveniently deliver Him \ip. The word rendered conveniently 
 means opportunely (eiKalpos). He began to plot how he might improve the first 
 good opportunity that occurred, to deliver up his Lord. 
 
 Vee. 12-16. The evangelist leaves the traitor to work out his dark plot, and 
 here take up another thread of events, our Lord's personal preparation for 
 celebrating the paschal supper. See, as corresponding paragraphs, Matt. xxvi. 
 17-19, and especially Luke xxii. 7-13. 
 
 Vee. 12. And on the first day of the Unleavened. That is, of the unleavened 
 cakes, or, in the singular, of the unleavened bread. The day referred to, the 
 14th of the month Abib or Nisan (Exod. xii. 6), was only in a loose and popular 
 sense the first day of the festival. It was strictly the preparation day, when all 
 
 C C 
 
386 ST. MARK XIV. [12 
 
 tlie passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that 
 we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover ? 13 And 
 he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye 
 into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher 
 
 arrangements had to be completed for the commencement of the festivities, 
 immediately after sunset. As however these arrangements were, so to speak, 
 the inception of the festivities, the day was sometimes, as here, spoken of as the 
 first day of the festival. Hence in Josephus's Antiquities, ii. 15 : 1, we read, ' we 
 keep a feast for eight days, which is called the feast of the unleavened,' while 
 in the same Antiquities, iii. 10 : 5, he says, ' the feast of the unleavened falls 
 on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days.' In the one case 
 the historian freely attached the preparation day to the sacred days, and thus 
 made eight days. In the other he spoke strictly of the sacred days, and hence 
 numbered them seven. If our Lord's decease be reckoned as having happened 
 in the 29th year of the Christian era as now calculated, then the day referred to 
 here, the 14th of the month Nisan, would fall on the 16th of March, a.d. 29. 
 (See Patrizi, De Evangeliis, ]ih. ii., p. 423.) 
 
 When they sacrificed the passover. For it was needful that the paschal lamb, 
 which was to be eaten on the 15th, immediately after the setting of the sun on 
 the 14th, should be killed on the 14th, ' between the two evenings,' that is after 
 the ninth hour of the solar day, but before the conclusion of the twelfth, or 
 between three and six o'clock in the afternoon. See Exod. xii. 6 ; Lev. xxiii. 5, 
 6 ; Num. xxviii. 16, 17, xxxiii. 3. When they sacrificed : the verb is in the imper- 
 fect tense, and here means when they were wont to sacHJice. To sacrifi,ce ; that 
 is, to kUl in a sacred way, or sacrificially . Hence the appropriate translation 
 of the word in 1 Cor. v. 7, ' Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.' In the 
 passage before us too it is rendered sacrificed in the Geneva, and the Eheims, 
 and by Calvin too in his French version, and Wakefield and Principal Camp- 
 bell. The Vulgate has immolated ; Luther, offered. The lambs were killed in 
 the temple, either by the owners or by the Levites (2 Chron. xxx. 17). The 
 blood would be received by the Levites, and then handed to the priests to be 
 sprinkled (2 Chron. xxxv. 11). The passover : that is, the lamb which was the 
 memorial of the historic passover. The thing commemorating gets the name of 
 the thing commemorated. 
 
 His disciples say to Him, Where wilt Thou that we go, and prepare, in order 
 that Thou mayest eat the passover ? Note the reverential feeling that dominated 
 the disciples. They did not say, in order that ' we ' may eat the passover. They 
 hid themselves behind their Lord. 
 
 Vek. 13. And He sendeth off two of His disciples. They were Peter and 
 John. See Luke xxii. 8. 
 
 And saith to them, Go into the city, and there shall meet yoa a man bearing 
 a pitcher of water. Showmg, by that servile act, that, the day was not strictly 
 a holy day. There is a kind of emphasis on the word man. It was women in 
 general who carried home, poised on their heads, the earthenware pitchers, 
 pots, or ' cans ' of water, which needed to be replenished for domestic use. 
 There might be many of these veiled females wending their respective ways 
 
14] ST. MARK XIV. 387 
 
 of water: follow Hm. 14 And wheresoever he stall go in, say 
 ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is 
 the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my dis- 
 
 through the streets, at the time that the two disciples would be entering the 
 city ; a considerable supply of water would be requisite for the holidays. But 
 the disciples were to look out for a man thus engaged, no doubt a serving-man 
 in some ' hostelry ' or ' hospice.' 
 
 Follow him. Our Lord's instructions rested on His infallible prevision. 
 
 Veb. 14. And wheresoever he shall enter in. Into whatsoever house he shall 
 enter, enter ye too, and then act as I tell you. 
 
 Say to the goodmau of the house. Literally, to the master of the house, or, as 
 Wycliffe has it, to the lord of the hous. The expression goodman, as used by 
 Tyudale and preserved in our EngUsh version, is a relic of an olden time, when 
 the heads of a household establishment expressed to one another, in their 
 habitual intercourse, their mutual esteem. In some parts of the country the 
 custom still lingers, and husbands and wives address each other as goodman, 
 goodwife. The goodness was sometimes regarded as transferred to the house. 
 Over the door of some of the houses of the ancient Egyptians the inscription 
 was occasionally put, ' the good house.' (Wilkinson's Ancient Egypt, vol. i., 
 p. 6.) 
 
 The Master saith. Literally, the Teacher, that is, the Rabbi. We may reason- 
 ably suppose that the goodman of the house would know the Saviour, and would 
 have such a knowledge of the disciples too that the expression the Rabbi would 
 be enough to determine for him who was meant. 
 
 Where is My guestchamber, where I may eat the passover with My disciples ? 
 ' My ' guestchamber, or apartment, for which I made arrangements with thee. 
 The word (/caraXu/ta) freely translated guestchamber by Tyndale, and condemned 
 altogether by Thomas Magister (under KaTayiiyi.ov), properly means, when 
 spoken by a Jew or other Oriental, a Ithan or caravanserai where travellers 
 untied their travelling ' traps ' or eq^uipages, and got rest for their beasts of 
 burden and themselves. It is translated inn in Luke ii. 7. " Caravanserais are 
 " generally built of the most solid and durable materials ; have commonly only 
 " one storey above the ground floor, the lower of which is arched, and serves for 
 " warehouses to store goods, and for stables, while the uppeif is appropriated to 
 " lodgings. A fountain is commonly in the centre of the open quadrangle, and 
 " itinerant cookshops are found nigh at hand to supply the wants of travellers- 
 "The lodging chambers are often little better than cells, where the visitor 
 "finds nothing else than bare walls, dust, and sometimes scorpions. The 
 "traveller must bring with him his bed, and not unfrequently his cooking 
 " utensils and provender." {Rays from the JEast, -p. 39.) The establishment in 
 Jerusalem, to which the disciples were directed, would be conducted on more 
 accommodating principles, especially at passover time, when there would be 
 much demand for accommodation. See next verse. The word used by the 
 evangelist was applicable, it would appear, either to the entire estabhshment or 
 to a particular apartment within it, which would be indeed but a miniature of 
 the whole. Each was a resting place or lodging place. The Eheims translates 
 
388 ST. MARK XIV. [14* 
 
 ciples ? 15 And he will shew yon a large upper room famished 
 and prepared : there make ready for ns. 16 And his disciples 
 went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said 
 unto them : and they made ready the passover. 
 
 it refectorie, the Geneva lodgiTuj, and Wyoliffe, pioturescinely and alternatively, 
 fulfilling or eating place, a place where people might eat Unfilled full. 
 
 Vee. 15. And lie himself will show yon a large upper room. Literally a large 
 tipper place, or a place raised above the ground (dvayawv — ar/dyaiov). It might 
 be a whole floor, or it might be a single chamber in a floor. Here it was the 
 latter. It needed to be relatively large however, as it was to accommodate not 
 merely two or three, but thirteen. 
 
 Furnished. Literally strown, or as Wycliffe has, it, strewid, namely icith 
 couches round, a table. The couches were strewed or ' siraicea,' ready for con- 
 vivial use. The rooms in caravanserais were generally unfurnished. But this 
 was prepared for the passover feast. Luther, Tyndale, and Ooverdale misunder- 
 stood the word ; they rendered it paved (Luther, gepflastert) ; the Geneva too was 
 off the soent, trimmed. 
 
 Eeady. Already swept and clean, and in order for the feast. Even at the 
 present day the very humblest Jewish! family generally has, at the passover 
 time, " the walls of the house whitewashed, the floor sorijbbed, the furniture 
 " cleaned, and all things made to put on a new appearance." (Mills' British 
 Jews, p. 195.) 
 
 There make ready for us. It is And there in X B C D L, and in the Vulgate, 
 Coptic, Gothic, and Jilthiopic versions. 
 
 Vee. 16. And the disciples went forth. ' Literally, loent out, namely from the 
 place where the Lord and the rest of them were remaining. 
 
 And came into the city, and foand as He said to them, and made ready the pass- 
 over. That is, they got the paschal lamb, took it to the temple to be there 
 sacrificed, so that its blood might be sjirinkled by the priests. Then taking it 
 to the caravanserai, they engaged themselves in getting it cooked, and in pro- 
 viding all the etceteras of the feast, such as the unleavened cakes, bitter herbs, 
 wine, and the water that was required for baptismal purification. At the present 
 day, in Britain, the Jews are still punctiliously particular in making preparation 
 on the same day for the feast. They provide for themselves unleavened cakes, 
 made under the supervision of the chief rabbi, and all the other etceteras 
 specified; But instead of the literal paschal lamb they have only, on a repre- 
 sentative principle, a bone having a small bit of meat adhering, which is roasted 
 brown on the coals. Along with this they have, in the same dish, as supple- 
 mentary to the bone, an egg roasted hard in hot ashes. This is intended to 
 signify that the lamb was to be roasted whole. (MiUs' British Jews, p. 196.) 
 The company all ' lay hold of the dish,' and the evening is turned into the 
 principal festivity of the year. 
 
 Vee. 17-21 correspond to Matt. xxvi. 20-25, and Luke xxii. 14, 21-23. 
 The shadows are thickening around our Lord. 
 
 Vee. 17. And in the evening. Or, and when evening came ; very literally. 
 
20] ST. MARK XIV. 389 
 
 17 And in tlie evening he cometh witli the twelve. 18 And 
 as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One 
 of you which eateth with me shall betray me. 19 And they 
 began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one. Is 
 it I? and another said, Js it I ? 20 And he answered and 
 
 when evening became. The reference is to the later evening of the Jews, the 
 evening that set in with the setting of the sun. 
 
 He cometh with the twelve. After the two deputed brethren had finished 
 their preparations, and were ready to leave the lamb roasting in its earthenware 
 of excavated oven, they would doubtless return to their Master, and the whole 
 company would thereafter walk together to Jerusalem. The city and the entire 
 neighbourhood would be tremulously astir as the sun went down. 
 
 Vek. 18. A space of time intervenes, and many little incidents occurred, but 
 a veil is drawn over them. The evangelist touches only on some salient points, 
 which were relevant to his practical purpose. 
 
 And while they were reclining {at the table), and eating, Jesus said, Verily I say 
 to you. That is, I do solemnly assure you. 
 
 One of you, who eateth with Me, shall deliver Me up. His heart was full. It 
 was a feast of holy gratitude and gladness which they were celebrating and 
 enjoying, a feast too of mutual love. And yet a traitor's heart was present, and 
 a traitor's hand was partaking. The existence of such treason was a burden 
 on the Saviour's spirit, and a bar to free fellowship. 
 
 Tee. 19. And they began to be sorrowful. The true-hearted disciples had, no 
 doubt, been disposed before to be joyful on the joyful occasion. But a dark 
 cloud now flung its shadow o'er their spirits. 
 
 And to say to Him, one by one, Is it I ? The question is of such a nature {firin 
 eydi ;) that the expectation of a negative reply is carried in its breast, Surehj it 
 is not I ? 
 
 And another said, Is it I ? The supplementary said should be omitted. It 
 interferes with the construction, tlicy began to say, first one and then another, In 
 it I? and another. Is it I? The evangelist's expression is not punctiliously 
 trimmed. He first goes over the whole company summarily, ' one by one ' ; and 
 then, as if he had merely commenced the enumeration and said ' one,' he pro- 
 ceeds to specify ' another.' Schulz says correctly that the clause, ' ami another. 
 Is it I?' is not needed after the expression ' one by one. Is it I? ' And so have 
 the writers of some of the earliest manuscripts thought ; for the clause is 
 wanting in N B C L P A, as also in the Vulgate, Syriac Peshito, Coptic, Armenian, 
 and ^thiopio versions, and in the text of the Philoxenian Syriao. It is con- 
 demned also as spurious by Erasmus, Beza, Grottus, MiU, Fritzsche. Tregelles 
 omits it from his text ; and so does Tisehendorf in his eighth edition. Volkmar 
 too rejects it. And yet it must no doubt be genuine ; for, while there was strong 
 temptation, on the ground of concinnity of composition, to reject it, there would 
 be none to insert it. It bears the mark of a true Markism. It is found in the 
 Alexandrine and Cambridge manuscripts (AD), as also of W'Xr II, and other 
 eight uncials. It is found too in the majority of the Old Latin codices, as also 
 in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac. And Origen, in collating Matthew's 
 
390 ST. MARK XIV. [20 
 
 said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me 
 in the dish. 21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written 
 of him : but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is 
 betrayed ! good were it for that man if he had never been born. 
 
 representation and Mark's, expressly gives it (Opera, iv., p. 436). Griesbaoh 
 approved of it in his Critical Commentary. Lachmann retained it. So did 
 Alford. And Meyer and Lange aoguiesce. • 
 
 Vek. 20. And He ansvrered and said to them. The word answered, though 
 undoubtedly genuine in Matt. xxvi. 23, is omitted here in the oldest manuscripts 
 and versions, and hence is left out by the modern editors. 
 
 One of the twelve, that dippeth with Me in thd dish. There is emotional 
 abruptness in the appositive expressions. A shower of questions Is it I? had 
 fallen around our Lord. He paused deliberately, and then said. One of the twelve, 
 (one) who dippethwith Me in the dish. It is as if He had said : He belongs to 
 My own little band; and he partakes of My hospitality, as if he were animated 
 with the kindliest feelings ! Dippeth ; There would be frequent dippings. But 
 perhaps there *as a simultaneous dipping at the time that our Lord uttered the 
 words before us. Besides the roasted lamb, there would probably be other vianjls 
 ' sodden ' (2 Chron. xxxv. 13), and swimming. There would at all events be 
 some liquid preparations into which the hands would be dipped either with or 
 without bread. Such dipping, in lieu of forks on the one hand and of spoons 
 on the other, is still a common custom in the East. In the dish : literally, into. 
 The conveyance of the hand into the vessel is depicted. The nature of the 
 vessel or tureen is not now determinable. Wychffe, Tyudale, Coverdale have 
 platter. It is the Eheims that supplied our translators with the word disli. 
 
 Vee. 21. The Son of Man goeth. Departs, withdraws from this terrestrial scene 
 of things. The reference is of course to death. In the Sinaitio and Vatican 
 manuscripts (N B), as also in L, and in the Sahidio and Coptic versions, there is, 
 at the commencement of this clause, the conjunction because (oVi). It has been 
 received into the text by Tischendorf and Alford, and is probably genuine. In 
 the Vulgate, most of the Old Latin codices, as also in the Peshito Syriac, and the 
 Philoxenian Syriac, there is instead the conjunction and, supplanting apparently 
 the more difficult because. Comp. Luke xxii. 22. The Saviour is not strictly 
 giving a reason for the base act of treason to which He has referred ; but He is 
 giving a reason for the Divine permission of such an act. It would have been 
 easy to have prevented, by a miracle, the flagrant deed. But such prevention 
 was not thought of ; for a victim's death, as an offering for the sins of the world, 
 was really contemplated by the Divine Mind. 
 
 As it is written of Him. Literally, as it has been written concerning Him. 
 For instance, in the 22nd Psalm, and the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, and in the 
 whole sacrificial symbohsm of the Old Testament economy. 
 
 But woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is delivered up. There is a sound 
 of wailing in the woe. Compare the use of the word in the only other case in 
 which it occurs in Mark, chap. xiii. 17, as also Eev. xviii. 10, 16, 19. Eepro- 
 bation and increpation are indeed implied ; but lamentation is expressed. 
 
 Good were it for that man if he had never been born. More literally, Good 
 
22] ST. MAEK XIV. 391 
 
 22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and 
 
 would it he for liim, if that man were not horn. As for the potential import of 
 tlie substantive verb would it he, see Clyde's Syntax, § 43. The apophthegm is 
 lather remarkable when microscopically examined, for, strictly speaking, nothing 
 would be good to a man who never existed. But our Saviour's meaning is not 
 microscopic but obvious and most solemn : A man's existence is turned into a 
 curse to him, when he inverts the grand moral purpose contemplated in its Divine 
 origination. But was not Judas's treason indispensable, and also the murderous 
 action of the Jews and Gentiles? God forbid! Dr. Beard says : "Whatever 
 " God may have appointed, Judas committed a great crime ; and the Jews were 
 " murderers in the most unmitigated sense of the term. I present an illustra- 
 "tion: A man is condemned to death; a regular infliction of the punishment 
 "would not be murder; but when the day ot execution arrives, an impatient 
 " and vindictive mob turns aside the course of law and takes the work into its 
 " own hands. Death is the result ; but was the agency of the mob necessary to 
 " the end ? Did it make any part of the original appointment ? . . . I oan- 
 "not make the admission that sin is necessary to any good, great or small. 
 " . . . God did appoint the Saviour to sufferings and death for sin. But I 
 "insist that God did not appoint the particular agencies which employed them- 
 " selves in the transaction, nor the manner in which those agencies acted." 
 (Lectures on Theology, vol. iii., pp. 38, 23.) 
 
 Vek. 22-25 contain an account of the institution of the New Testament 
 passover feast, the Lord's Supper. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 26-29 ; Luke xxii. 17-20 ; 
 1 Cor. xi. 23-20. 
 
 Tee. 22. And while they were eating. Namely, at another period of the 
 protracted festal supper, and no doubt after Judas had gone out. See John 
 xiii. 21-30. Lightfoot however, in his racy 'Battle with a Wasp's Nest,' contends 
 that the traitor ' received the sacrament.' So many others. 
 
 Jesus took bread. ' To invite them,' says Calvin, ' to partake of a new supper.' 
 The bread of course would be such as was lying on the table, unleavened bread. 
 But it would be finical to insist, at the present day, on the necessity of using 
 the same kind of bread. It is not now so much the hread of affliction that we 
 need to eat as the bread of true nourishment, the hread of life. The best bread 
 in itself is the best bread for tis to use. 
 
 And when He had blessed. He uttered a benediction {eiXoy-^iras), a eulogy 
 {eiXoyia) as it were. The eulogy would rise up in the form of a thanksgiving. 
 (See next verse, and also Luke xxii. 19 and 1 Cor. xi. 24.) He would give 
 thanks for the bread, and for what it signified. So outstanding was the act of 
 thanksgiving that the entire ordinance came, in course of time, to be frequently 
 called the Eucharist, that is, the thanksgiving. This name was common even 
 in Justin Marts^r's time, in the second century. {Apol, i., § 66.) 
 
 He brake. The unleavened bread consisted of cakes, something like water 
 biscuits ; and hence it was naturally subdivided, not by cutting, but by break- 
 ing. The breaking was symbolical of t]ie ' breaking ' of His own body hy the 
 act of crucifixion. See 1 Cor. xi. 24. 
 
392 ST. MARK XIV. [22 
 
 brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat : this is my 
 body. 23 And he took the cup, and when he had given 
 
 And gave to them, and said. Take ye. Namely, witii the hand, and then eat. 
 In some ecclesiastical communities the bread is put by the officiating minister 
 into the mouth of the communicant, as if it were too holy to be handled by the 
 laity. The reason for such a mode of acting is superstitious. But if the 
 superstition be veiled, then the practice suggests an infantile condition of the 
 communicant, although it is only the ' carnal,' and not the ' spiritual,' who 
 continue to be ' babes in Christ ' (1 Cor. iii. 1). 
 
 Eat. This word was not in the autograph of the evangelist, but must have 
 been added, by some harmonist, out of Matt. xxvi. 26 and 1 Cor. xi. 24. It is 
 wanting in all the chief old manuscripts, such as NABCDKLMPUn, and 
 in all the chief old versions, the Vulgate, the two Syriacs, the Coptic, Sahidie, 
 Armenian, ^thiopio. It is omitted by all the modern editors. The word how- 
 ever is manifestly, implied. In making a narrative, or in giving instructions, it 
 is not needful to state everything expressly. 
 
 This is My body. This, that is. This ' thing ' which I give you (toOt-o), that is. 
 This bread. When He says This ' is ' Mij body, it cannot be that He meant, 
 27ms is My real body in a transubstantiated condition. He was ' at home' in 
 His real body at the moment He was speaking. His hand, a part of His real 
 body, was handling the ' sacramental ' bread, and was therefore distinct from 
 it. His tongue with which He was speaking, and His eyes through which He 
 was looking, were certainly no parts of the bread which He handled and handed, 
 but were at some considerable and mensurable distance from it. It cannot be, 
 therefore, that the body which gave the bread was gathered up into the bread, 
 so as to displace and annihilate the substantive reality of the bread, while it 
 continued nevertheless, even when given, to be the organism giving. There 
 was neither trans/o7-mation, nor tmnsubstantiation. What' was there then? 
 Symbolisation, or sacramental representation. Patrizi says indeed, as spokesman 
 for the whole Roman Cathoho church, " By the words. This is My body, Christ 
 " converted the bread into His body." (Comm. In Marcum, in loc.) But Augus- 
 tine, on the other hand, says : " How is the bread His body? and the cup, or 
 " that which the cup contains, how is it His blood ? These are therefore called 
 " sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, while another thing is under- 
 " stood." (Sermo cclxxii.) "Signs,'' he says again, " when they pertain to 
 "Divine things, are called sacraments," (Epist. cxxxviii. 1, 7.) Sacraments 
 then are signs, not miracles of reciprocal annihilation and creation. " Sacra- 
 " ments," he says in another place, " would not be sacraments, if they had not 
 "a certain similitude to the things of which they are sacraments. But from 
 " this similitude they also very frequently receive the names of the things them- 
 •' selves." (Epist. xcviii. 9.) Hence the ' sacramental bread' receives the name 
 of the Lord's 
 
 Ver. 23. And He took a cup. It is simply a cup inUBCDhXA,!. So in 
 Matthew. The modern critical editors omit the article. It is not unUkely, 
 nevertheless, that there was only one cup on the table. Comp. Luke xxii. 20 
 and 1 Cor. xi. 25. 
 
 And having given thanks. For the cup, as formerly for the bread. The feast 
 
24] ST. MARK XIV. 393 
 
 thanks, he gave, if to them : and tbey all drank of it. 24 And 
 he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, 
 
 itself was protracted into a second course, and hence the appropriate repetition 
 of the thanks-offering. 
 
 He gave (it) to them, and they all drank of it. Very literally, out of it. The 
 evangelist hastens,, antieipatively, along the historic line of action. But 
 doubtless before the completion of the communicating act, and probably 
 indeed before any one of the disciples partook of the cup, the words of institu- 
 tion, or rather the words of explanation, as contained in the next verse, would 
 be spoken. 
 
 Vek. 24. And He said to them, This. That is. This tiling, or, as it is ex- 
 pressly supplemented for us in Luke xxii. 20 and 1 Cor. xi. 25, This cup. And 
 yet the reference is obviously and admittedly to the wine in the cup. The free- 
 dom of the expression should be a lesson to those who insist on excluding every 
 vestige of freedom from the phraseology of the 22nd verse. 
 
 Is My blood. Augustine used to explain the copula by referring to the ex- 
 pression in 1 Cor. i. 4, ' that Book was Christ.' Or we might refer to Matt, 
 xiii. 38, ' The field is the world : the good seed are the children of the king- 
 dom ; but the tares are the children of the wicked one.' The red wine em- 
 ployed at the passover was an appropriate symbol of the Saviour's blood, and 
 especially in this respect, that when added mystically to the mystic bread it 
 made a mystic feast. There was reason indeed for mourning too. For, while 
 the bread pointed forward to nourishment and strength that were to be, the 
 breaking of it pointed backward to manglement and woe. The poured out wine 
 too not only pointed forward to festivity and joy, it also pointed backward to a 
 sacrifice, by blood shedding, of an inestimably precious life. So strangely near 
 to each other, and interconnected, are sorrow and joy. In death there is the 
 fount of life ; in the anguish of the heart there is the weUspring of bliss and 
 joy. It is the paradox of saving grace. 
 
 Of the new covenant. The word is thirteen times translated testament in 
 King James's version of the New Testament, and twenty times covenant. Its 
 Hebrew equivalent properly means covenant \ but its classical import is latter 
 will or testament. Neither of the translations does fuU justice to the unique 
 transaction referred to. Indeed no human word could. And to have used a 
 Divine word would simply have been to speak an unintelligibility. The refer- 
 ence is to that disposition of things, in virtue of which mercy, and the pos- 
 sibility of true and everlasting bliss, are extended to the sinful human race. 
 It was a glorious device, culminating in the atoning sacrifice of ' the Lamb of 
 God. ' It was a covenant, inasmuch as there is inherent in it an element of 
 conditional reciprocity. God, on His part, does something; He does much. 
 But the blessing involved in what He does is suspended, so far as men's enjoy- 
 ment of it is concerned, on acquiescence on their part, or cordial acceptance, 
 or faith. It is also of the nature of a testamentary deed. For there is involved 
 in it a disposal of the effects or goods which constitute the property of 
 God ; in virtue of which disposal it is that men who acquiesce or believe 
 become His ' heirs.' The deed is a real testament, for it is duly and solemnly 
 
394 ST. MARK XIV. [24 
 
 which is shed for many. 25 Verily I say unto you, I will 
 drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that T 
 drink it new in the kingdom of God. 
 
 attested and testified. And it is also really a last will, for it is a, final expres- 
 sion of the will and wish of God. There was need too, in eontemplatiou of 
 certain sublime moral and political ends to be subserved, for an interposing 
 death (Heb. ix. 16, 17), although there was no need for the final departure of 
 God from the midst of His own property. Ilis presence in the midst of it, and 
 His enjoyment of His goods, do not interfere with the presence and enjoyment 
 of His ' heir's,' but only crown their privileges and happiness. The Divine 
 plan of mercy has thus in it the essentials of both a covenant and a testament. 
 But still covenant is the more prominent idea. And as the covenanting parties 
 must, in so peculiar a case, approach each other through the solemnity of a 
 sacrifice, the Saviour says ' This is My hlood of the new covenant.' There is 
 some reason for regarding the word neio as imported from Luke xxii. 20 and 1 Cor. 
 xi. 25. It is wanting in the uncial manuscripts N B C D L, and in the Coptic 
 and Sahidic (Ming.) versions, and it is left out by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford. 
 Griesbach and Meyer approve. The reference indeed is undoubtedly to the 
 ' new' covenant, which was in truth just the one grand scheme of mercy. The 
 ' old ' one, the Jewish, was but adumbrative, the shadow, cast before, of the 
 coming reality. 
 
 WLicli is shed. Or, which is heing shed. Our Saviour might have used a 
 future expression, for the real blood shedding was still future. He might also 
 have used a past expression, for the actual blood shedding was the logical ante- 
 cedent of the commemorative ordinance. But He chooses to use a present ex- 
 pression, for to His mind the little space of time that was yet to elapse before 
 His decease was as it were no time at all. 
 
 Tor many. How many is not indicated. But they must be so many as to 
 constitute a multitude. We know from other passages that the multitude con- 
 sisted of the whole of mankind. See 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; 2 Cor. v. 14 ; Heb. ii. 9 ; 
 1 John ii. 2. " By the word many," says Calvin, " He means not a part of the 
 "world only, but the whole human race, for He contrasts many with one, as if 
 " He had said that He would not be the Eedeemer of one man only, but would 
 " die to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse." The preposition /or 
 before many (inrip) means properly over, that is, in behalf of. It is indeed just 
 the Greek form of our English word over. 
 
 Vee. 25. Verily I say to you. I solemnly assure you. 
 
 I shall drink no more. The negative is triple in the original, and thus very 
 strong ; I shall not drink, no more, never. 
 
 Of the fniit of the vine. The word fruit means literally jji-or/en;/, and is here 
 applied to the wine, which is the elaborated product of the vine. Note that, 
 according to our Saviour Himself, the Uciuid contained in the cup was not literal 
 blood, but the fruit of the vine. 
 
 Until that day when I drink it new— as drink it I assuredly shall— in the 
 kingdom of God. Namely, when, at the second coming of our Lord, the heavenly 
 kingdom shall be established in all its intrinsic glory. The wine then used will 
 
27] ST. MARK XIV. 395 
 
 26 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out 
 into the mount of Olives. 27 And Jesus saith unto them^ 
 All ye shall be offended because of me this night : for it 
 
 be neio, not in the sense of being newly pressed from the grapes, for ' the old is 
 better ' (Luke v. 39), but in the sense of being one of the ' all things ' that are 
 to be made ' new.' See 2 Pet. iii. 13 ; Eev. xxi. 5. The word rendered new 
 (Ktxa/'oi) is quite a different word from that which is employed when neio wine 
 or must, as distinguished from that which is old, or ripe by means of age, is 
 referred to (vkos). 
 
 Vee. 26-31 take us through another of the scenes that were preliminary to 
 he crisis. A corresponding paragraph is found in Matt. xxvi. 30-35. Comp. 
 Lukexxii. 39 and John xvi. 32. 
 
 Vek. 26. And when they had sung a hymn. Wycliffe has the ympne, that is, 
 the hymn. So Luther, Principal Campbell, Alford. But it is neither a hymn 
 nor the hymn in the original. The phrase is participial, having hymned ; and, 
 if the custom that prevailed in our Lord's time corresponded with the custom 
 represented by the subsequent rabbinical writers and practised to the present 
 day, more psalms than one would be chanted at the conclusion of the feast. 
 The 'Hallel,' a very simple oratorio of thelfaHfiJujah description, was chanted 
 during the paschal feast. It consisted of Psalms cxiii., cxiv., cxv., cxvi., oxvii., 
 cxviii., which group of hymns "they cut in two parts," says Lightfoot ; "a 
 " part of it they repeated in the very middle of the banquet, and they reserved 
 " a part to the end. . . . The hymn which Christ now sang with His disciples, 
 " after meat, was the latter part," which, according to the school of Shammai, 
 extends over Psalms cxiv. — cxviii., while according to the school of Hillel it 
 extended only over Psalms cxv. — cxviii. (Lightfoot's Works, xi., pp. 435, 436.) 
 The British Jews, before partaking of the fourth and last cup, ' the cup of bless- 
 -ing,' repeat, says Mills, Psalms cxv., cxvi., cxvii., cxviii., and cxxxvi. (British 
 Jews, p. 201.) Tyndale and Coverdale take all the poetry out of the evangelist's 
 expression by rendering it, when they had sayd grace. 
 
 They went out to the mount of Olives, So Tyndale, Wakefield, Campbell, 
 Edgar Taylor, Godwin. They went out, viz. from the place where they were in 
 the city, and from the city. The scene, whence the exit took place, consisted 
 of concentric spaces. The mount of Olives : Where our Lord, as well as many 
 of the other sojourners, was accustomed to spend His nights. See chap. xi. 
 11, 12, 19. 
 
 Vee. 27. And Jesus saith to them, Ye all shall be offended because of Me this 
 night. But the expression because of Me this night has been imported from 
 Matthew's narrative. It is wanting in the best manuscripts, and is left out by 
 Tischendorf , Tregelles, Alford. It was condemned as spurious by both Mill and 
 Griesbach, as also by Fritzsche. Mark's narrative is briefer than Matthew's, 
 but quite harmonious. Ye all shall be offended ; Mterally, ye all shall be scan- 
 dalized. Such is the Bheims version. Edgar Taylor's is, ye will all offend ; 
 Worsley, ye will all be made to offend ; Mace, you will all be staggered ; Norton, 
 very paraphrastically. There is none of you whose faith will not be shaken ; 
 Principal Campbell, with remarkable faithfulness to the idea; I shall prove « 
 
396 ST. MARK XIV. [27 
 
 is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall 
 be scattered. 28 But after that I am risen, I will go before you 
 into Galilee. 29 But Peter said unto him. Although all shall 
 
 stumhHng-hlock to you all. Wakefield and Eodolphus Dickinson, too freely, ye 
 will all forsake Me. The idea is. You will all be unwittingly caught and insnared 
 (so that you will be staggered in your faith, and scandalized in your feelings). 
 See chap. iv. 17, vi. 3, ix. 42, 43, 45, 47. They would, under the malign influence 
 of insnaring circumstances, lose confidence in the Lord as the long hoped for 
 Messiah. 
 
 For. An event, necessary for the weal of universal man, but not yet fully 
 understood by the disciples, was imminent. In its very approach it would 
 shake their faith. 
 
 It stands written. Viz. in Zech. xiii. 7, in the midst of a remarkable oracle, 
 which still needs, for its satisfactory interpretation, a considerably increased 
 amount of scrutiny. 
 
 I will smite the Shepherd. In the original Hebrew the same idea is more 
 poetically put. Sword ! awake against My Shepherd, even against the Man, My 
 Fellow (My neighbotir), saith Jehovah of Iwsts ; smite the Shepherd ! It is thus 
 the Divine sword that is to awake and smite. " Many hands were raised to 
 wound Him, | None would interpose to save ; | But the awful stroke thatfownd 
 Him I Was the stroke that Justice gave." (Kelly.) The passage, says Henry 
 Cowles, " remarkably recognises the Divine agency in the atoning death of the 
 " Lamb of God." (The Minor Prophets, p. 366.) " The great doctrine here 
 " set forth," says Dr. Moore, "is, that the death of Christ was a judicial act, in 
 " which He endured the penalty of the law, whose penal power was symbolised 
 " by this sword of Divine wrath." (Prophets of the Restoration, p. 293.) Man 
 acted coincidently, it is true, and most wilfully and wickedly, at some points in 
 the scene ; indeed, his agency, in some respects, as so often in other cases, 
 outran the Divine order of things. But stiU the Divine agency went on, in un- 
 interrupted dignity, with the dread solemnities of its own high and holy work, 
 and completed the sacrifice. (See Stroud's Physical Cause of Christ's Death.) 
 
 And the sheep shall be scattered abroad. The sudden withdrawal of the 
 Shepherd's presence will loosen for a season the bond tha.t bound the sheep 
 together. They will be scattered hither and thither in dismay. 
 
 Veb. 28. But after I am raised up. Namely, from the condition into which 
 I shall be smitten by the awakened sword. The disciples however would have 
 no proper conception of what their Lord meant. Comp. chap. ix. 10. Their 
 thoughts, though vibrating with solemnity and pathos, yet ran in lines that led 
 far away from the reality that was actually imminent. 
 
 I shall go before you Into Galilee. Namely, like a shepherd who goes before 
 his sheep, that they may follow him. Though the sheep were for the moment 
 to be scattered, yet they would continue, and especially the lambs of the flock, 
 to be Divinely cared for. ' I will turn My hand,' saith the Lord, ' on the little 
 ones' (Zech. xiii. 7), to rescue and protect them. This would be realized when 
 the Shepherd reappeared on the scene. 
 
 Veb. 29. Bat Peter said to Him, Although all shall be offenled. Or scandalized, 
 
31] ST. MARK XIV. 397 
 
 be offendedj yet will not I. 30 And Jesus saith unto him, 
 Verily I say unto thee. That this day, even in this night, 
 before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. 31 But 
 
 or staggered and stumbled. The expressibn rendered although is more emphatic 
 than our translation would suggest. It is literally even if (koI el). Such is the 
 reading, not of the Eeceived Text only, but also of the great majority of the 
 uncial manuscripts. InSBCGL, 1, 69, however, the expression is reversed, 
 if even (el Kai). This last reading has been accepted by Tregelles, Tisohendorf 
 in his eighth edition, and Alford. The variation is of trifling significance ; but 
 •we feel disposed to adhere to the Eeceived reading as the less likely to have 
 been tinkeringly modified. 
 
 Tet (will) not I. The will, even in English, can be very well dispensed with, 
 as in Wycliffe and the Eheims. Literally the expression is, hut not I. The 
 whole remark of Peter was compressed. It might be unfolded thus : ' Others 
 may be staggered and stumbled, but not I. Even if they all shall falter, I will 
 not.' ' Just like Peter,' a child of manly impulse, but far too impetuous and 
 self-reliant. " This was indeed," says Petter, " his principal and most danger- 
 " ous error and fault at this time, that he presumed too much upon himself." 
 
 Vee. 30. And Jesus saith to him, Verily I say to thee that thou to-day, this 
 very night. Note the limitation of the time. The day had begun. It began 
 with the night ; and already was the night far advanced. Not only, however, 
 some time or other during the day, but before even the first or nocturnal halt 
 of it should be concluded, the event about to be predicted would take place. 
 So short was to be the distance between Peter's presumption and his faU. 
 
 Before the cock crow twice, thou wilt deny Me thrice. The time is still further 
 limited. Long before the dawn of the morning the denial would take place. 
 In the other evangelists the word tioice does not occur. It is said in Matt. 
 (xxvi. 34), Before the code crow, thou shalt deny Ble thrice. The expressions in 
 Luke xxii. 84 aiid John xiii. 88 correspond. But as the expression before the 
 cock crow seems to mean before the cock crow once, there has been perplexity 
 among some of the reverent students of the word, while there has been no 
 little cock-crowing, not once only or twice, on the part of those who will not 
 admit that there is anything Divine in the Gospel. Bvanson, for example, says : 
 " This relation is absolutely irreconoUeable with what is given in the Gospel 
 " according to Matthew." (Dissonance, p. 265.) Scholten contends that the 
 word twice must have been a gloss introduced into the text of the Proto-Mark. 
 (Het Oudste Evang., p. 229.) So Miohelsen. (Het Evang. van Markus, p. 170.) 
 But there is really no difficulty, if the subject be looked at, not microscopically 
 and crotohetously, but in a broad and genial spirit. " The difference," says 
 Alexander, "is the same as that between saying, before the bell rings, and before 
 " the second bell rings (for church or dinner) ; the reference in both expressions 
 " being to the last and most important signal, to which the first is only pre- 
 " limiuary." Or we may conceive the matter thus : No doubt there would be 
 more said in the conversation than is recorded, much more. It is, as in most 
 other cases, but snatches of the interview that are narrated. And in the difiereut 
 narratives different aspects of the'one sum total are presented to view. Mark, 
 very likely instructed by Peter himself, presents one particular item of what 
 
398 ST. MARK XIV. [31 
 
 he spake the more vehemently. If I should die with thee, I 
 will not deny thee in any wise. Likewise also said they all. 
 32 And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane : 
 
 was said, which was merged by the other evangelists in their more generic 
 representations. Hence his ' twice ' and ' thrice,' the echoes no doubt of the 
 actual utterances of our Lord. Our Lord may have said, at one part of the 
 interview. Ah Peter, thou dost not know thyself; this very night thou shalt deny 
 Me thrice. Intervening remarks may then have occurred, and our Saviour may 
 have said again. Yes, this very night, even before the cock crow, thou shalt deny 
 Me. At another stage of the conversation our Lord would say, Before the cock 
 crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice. The respective records of the fulfilment 
 of the Lord's prediction admit of easy explication and adjustment, when looked 
 at in the light of this variety of detail. And although these records may not 
 be constructed with lawyer-like scrupulosity of phrase and iterative particularity, 
 yet they are really admirable reflexes of the actual occurrences, and admirably 
 adapted, when accepted in the spirit in which they were given, to secure all the 
 grand purposes intended. Deny : The verb is compound and very strong 
 (iirapv-qa-Q) , thou shalt utterly deny. 
 
 Veb. 31. But he. That is, Peter. The name indeed is added in many of the 
 manuscripts, and also in the Armenian, ^thiopic, and Philoxenian Syriac 
 versions ; intrudingly however. 
 
 Spake. A happy version, by accident or instinct, on the part of Tyndale, of 
 the right reading {i'kdXei), but not of the reading that was before him (eXe7e). 
 He may have been influenced by the Vulgate {loquebatur). The verb is in the 
 imperfect, he persisted in speaking. There was repetitiousness, though the 
 evangelist did not deem it needful to preserve the minute details. 
 
 Exceeding vehemently, If I must die with Thee, I will not deny Thee. A com- 
 pressed way of saying, If it should be necessary for one to die with Thee, to avoid 
 denying Thee, I sliall die, but I shall not deny Thee. No doubt Peter was honest 
 in his repeated asseverations. His whole soul would be revolting from the idea 
 of renouncing and denying his Lord ; but, like so many others, he did not know, 
 till he was put to the test, how weak he was. 
 
 And in like manner also said they all. That is, And all the rest also expressed 
 themselves in like manner. Oi nothing were they more convinced, than that 
 they would stand true to their Lord, happen what might either to Him or to 
 them. 
 
 Vee. 32-42. The Lord's agony and the disciples' sleep. Comp. the corre- 
 sponding paragraphs in Matt. xxvi. 36-46, and Luke xxii. 40-46. 
 
 Veb. 32. And they come. We are taken back, and look on. 
 
 To a place which was named Gethsemane. The word means oil-press. And, 
 no doubt, originally there would be, in the spot, an olive-oil press. The real 
 locality cannot now be precisely determined ; neither is it necessary. There is 
 an enclosed spot, lying at the base of the western slope of the mount of Olives, 
 which is called Gethsemane {El-Jesmdniye). It is kept by the Latin Christians, 
 and contains eight extremely aged olive trees. "If," says Dr. Wilson, "the 
 
34] ST. MARK XIV. 399 
 
 and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray. 33 
 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began 
 to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy ; 34 and saith unto them, 
 My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death : tarry ye here, and 
 
 ' Gethsemane of the Bible be not here, and we can see no reason for disturbing 
 "the tradition regarding it, it cannot certainly be far distant, as must be 
 " apparent from the incidental notices o! the eTangelists." {Lands of the Bible, 
 vol. i., p. 481.) 
 
 And He saith. to His disciples, Sit here, until I shall pray. Until My prayer 
 shall be past (?a)j irpoa-ei^u/Mi). The great crisis was at hand ; and it was 
 casting its dark shadow before on the spirit of our Lord. He felt that He must 
 get into comparative retirement, in order that He might, without distraction, 
 grapple with the appalling difficulties of the trial, and open up His heart, in 
 the time of extremity, to His Father. 
 
 Vek. 33. And He taketh with Him Peter and Jamss and John. The elite of 
 his elect, who had been witnesses of the counterpart scene, the transfiguration 
 (chap. ix. 2). They were admitted by their own brethren to be a representative 
 triumvirate, and priini inter pares. For, even among those who are good and 
 true, some are better fitted than others for posts of eminence, and for intimacy 
 of intercourse. 
 
 And began to be dismayed. Stunned, as it were. That is the radical idea of 
 the word. (See G. Curtius, Gi-undzuge, p. 206.) He was astonied. Probably 
 never before, within the limitations of His finite experience, had the sphere of 
 our Lord's vision, in reference to sine, and their desert and effects, been so vast. 
 Probably never before had the corresponding sphere of His emotions, in relation 
 to these sins, been so profoundly agitated and heaved. This state of things 
 now ' began.' And, as it ' began,' it caused an amazement, that culminated in 
 consternation. Wycliffe translates the verb to drede (to dread) ; Coverdale, to 
 waxe fearefull. 
 
 And greatly distressed. Comp. Phil. ii. 26'. Tyndale's version is borrowed 
 from Luke, to be in an agony. 
 
 Veb. 34. And He saith to them. Namely after the terrible experience had 
 ' begun ' to roll in on His spirit. 
 
 My soul is exceeding sorrowful. The idea is. My soul is sorrowful all round and 
 round (weplXviros). It was a kind of moral midnight within the periphery of His 
 soul. At no point in the circumference was there a single gleam of light. 
 
 TTnto death. Not a mere rhetorical addition. The weight of woe was literally 
 crushing out the Saviour's life. In bearing it He was making more literal 
 sacrifice of Himself than ever had been made on literal altar. The sacrifice 
 would have been complete, then and there, had it not been that it appeared to 
 Him and to His Father that certain momentous purposes of publicity, in 
 reference to the conclusion of the tragedy, would be better subserved by shifting 
 the scene. 
 
 Remain here and watch. He had wished His chosen three to be near Him in 
 His woe ; and yet, as it advanced, He felt that He must retire even from them , 
 and be alone with Himself and His Father. ' Of the people ' none could be 
 
400 . ST. MARK XIV. [34 
 
 watch. 35 And he went forward a littlej and fell on 
 the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour 
 might pass from him. 36 And he said, Abba^ Father, all 
 things are possible unto thee ; take away this cup from me : 
 
 ' ^yitll Him ' in the agony, none on the altar. Still He wished that His chosen 
 ones should not be at a great distance, and hence He said. Remain here. He 
 desired to be the object of their active sympathy, and hence He said, and watch. 
 
 Vek. 35. And He went forward a little. Still farther from the spot where the 
 eight disciples had been asked to halt (ver. 32). 
 
 And fell on the ground. Gradually. The verb is iu the imperfect. He would 
 lineel first of all (Luke xxii. 41). 
 
 And prayed. He continued in prayer. The verb is in the imperfect. He 
 kept addressing His heavenly Father. His aim in thus addressing His Father 
 is brought out in the next clause. 
 
 That. In order that {Iva). 
 
 If it were possible. Very literally, if it is possible. We are taken back to 
 the very time when the Saviour's prayers were uttered, and to the spot whence 
 they were uttered, and we hear the very words which He used. Possible : the 
 reference is not so much to absolute as to relative possibility, possibility iu con- 
 sistency with the great objects contemplated in the mission of the Saviour. 
 
 The hour might pass from Him. The hour that was imminent, and that 
 embraced within its compass His betrayal. His arrestment, and the desertion of 
 His disciples. He did not pray that the hour of the atoning sacrifice might pass 
 by. It was the incidental woes, inflicted so superfluously and wantonly by men, 
 and to no small extent by His own chosen disciples, it was these apparently, 
 these more particularly at least, to which the cry of His spirit referred. 
 
 Yee. 36. And He said, Abba Father. The filial element in His spirit rose up 
 and overshadowed all the other elements of relationship. , Mark alone records 
 the ' biUngual ' appellation, Aramaic and Greek. No doubt it would be genuine ; 
 and most likely it would be current in certain ' bilingual ' home circles, more 
 especially at moments of earnest address on the part of children. At such 
 moments there is often a tendency to emphatic redundancy or repetitiousness of 
 expression. Comp. Eom. viii. 15, and Gal. iv. 6. As employed by our Lord, 
 the dual form of the appellation is delightfully fitted to suggest that, in His 
 great work, He personated in His single self not Jews only, but Gentiles also. 
 
 All things are possible to Thee. Literally true. A thing is a think ; and all 
 things thinkable are possible to almightiness. To imagine that there are actual 
 limits to God's power is merely to bewilder oneself in unthinkahilities. In the 
 preceding verse the reference is to conditional possibility : hence the ' if.' In 
 this the reference is to absolute possibility : hence the ' all.' 
 
 Eiemove this cup from Me. The Eheims translation is, transferre this chalice 
 from Me. Not that our Saviour rued His enterprise, or desired to ' back -out of 
 it.' Infinitely far from that. The cup, which He felt it so dreadful to drink, 
 had in it ingredients which were never mingled by the hand of His Father, such 
 as the treachery of Judas, the desertion of His disciples, denial on the part of 
 
38] ST. MARK XIV. 401 
 
 nevertheless not what I willj but what thou wilt. 37 And he 
 comethj and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, 
 Simon, sleepest thou ? couldest not thou watch one hour ? 
 38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The 
 
 Peter, the trial in the sanhedrim, the trial before Pilate, the scourging, the 
 mockery of the soldiery, the crucifixion, etc., etc. All these incidental and 
 unessential ingredients were put into the cup by men, wilfuUy and wantonly. 
 Hence the petition. Remove from Me this cup, this cup as it is. Without these 
 superadded ingredients the potion would have been unquestionably bitter 
 enough ; and it need not be doubted that, in consideration of that bitterness, 
 the exquisite sensibility of our Lord would be conscious of a feeling of shrinking 
 and instinctive recoil. But still He had come for the very purpose of ' tasting 
 death for every man,' and was no doubt willing and wishful to die. 
 
 But not what I will, but what Thou wUt. But the question is not, What will 
 I ? but What wilt Thou ? The reference in the word will, in so far as it is 
 applied by the Saviour to Himself, is to that which Petter calls the sensitive 
 will, and the schoolmen voluntas sensualitatis. The more literal translation 
 however of the verb is wish rather than will. The question with the Saviour 
 was not, What do I wish ? but What does My Father wish ? There was infinite 
 submissiveness to the wish and will of His Father. If the Father deemed it 
 best that the cup, just as it was, should be drained, the Son was absolutely 
 acquiescent. It is easy to conceive of the greatest possible diversity in the 
 circumstantial incidents of the atoning sacrifice. The Saviour would have 
 wished them to have been different from what they were. Who would not ? 
 But on almost everything that is done in this world, or that has to be endured, 
 the foul fingers of sin are laid. 
 
 Ver. 37. And He cometh. To His disciples, viz. at some intermission in 
 the agony of His spirit, when He had got strength through prayer. See Luke 
 xxii. 43. 
 
 And findeth them sleeping. So far were they from profoundly realizing the 
 solemnities that were imminent. 
 
 And saith to Peter. Peter is no doubt singled out, partly because he was the 
 leader of the three, and partly because h? had singled himself out but a little 
 before. See ver. 29, 31. 
 
 Simon, sleepest thou? Although thou sawest that I was in such distress, and 
 although I expressly desired thee to keep awake and watch ? 
 
 Conldst thou not watch one hour ? Hadst thou not strength for that ? Surely 
 thou wUt not say so. Why then not use thy strength to watch, when I desired 
 it, that I might have the consolation of thy sympathy ? Note the expression 
 one hour. It seems to indicate that our Saviour had suffered an entire hour of 
 agony. How long that period 1 when we remember that every moment would 
 be stretched to its utmost. 
 
 Ver. 38. Watch ye. The three disciples, we may suppose, had waked up 
 when Peter was addressed. What our Lord said to one. He meant for all ; and 
 here He expressly addresses all. 
 
 And pray, that ye may not enter into temptation. They were in danger of 
 
 D D 
 
402 ST. MARK XIV. [38 
 
 spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. 39 And again he 
 went away, and prayed, and spake the same words. 40 And 
 when he returned, he found them asleep again, (for their eyes 
 were heavy,) neither wist they what to answer him. 41 And 
 he Cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, 
 
 losing confidence in Him as the Messiah. There was therefore much need for 
 faithful watching and earnest praying. 
 
 The spirit indeed is willing, tat the flesh is weak. The Saviour's gracious 
 apology for the languor of His disciples. Even while He spoke to them, they 
 had but imperfectly waked up. He saw them struggling with the oppressive 
 languor, hut ineffectually. And yet, true, as well as gracious, though His 
 apology was, the spirit was nevertheless to be somewhat blamed. If it had been 
 sympathetic to the quick, it would have roused the flesh. Some have supposed 
 that the words, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak, are the Saviour's 
 explanation of His own distress. Unnatural. The supposition proceeds on the 
 false assumption that the Saviour's horror was a weakness, and that it would 
 have been more magnanimous and glorious to have had no experience of shrink- 
 ing from the ingredients of the dreadful cup. 
 
 Veb. 39. And again He went away. His agony returned on Him. Perhaps 
 the very lethargy of His disciples might call up before His view the whole 
 appalling succession of incidental and unessential woes that were about to 
 overtake Him. 
 
 And prayed, saying the same words. More literally, as the Eheims has it, 
 saying the selfsame word. The term word is used collectively, as when we speak 
 of the word of God. 
 
 Vee. 40. And when He returned, He found them asleep again, for their eyes 
 were heavy. Were, so to speak, ' weighted ' (^e^aprnikvoC), ox, according to the 
 better reading (KaTa^apwoixhoi), weighed down. The for introduces, not a 
 reason for, but an illustration of, their sleepiness. It would appear that they 
 had not deliberately surrendered themselves to sleep. They did not lie down, for 
 instance. They sat, and, to a certain extent, sought to keep themselves awake. 
 But ever and anon, and prevailingly,* their eyelids closed. 
 
 And they wist not what to answer Him. They knew not what they could 
 say to Him in reply. They had no excuse which they could honestly plead. 
 Wist, or wissed as it were, that is knew, is now obsolete, but is connected with 
 an interesting group of words, wise, wisdom, wizard, and the German wissen ' to 
 know.' On another line it is connected with the Anglo-Saxon witan, the Dutch 
 weten, and the Gothic vitan, ' to know,' around which we have another group of 
 words, wit, wits, witty, witless, witch, outwit, to-wit. 
 
 Vek. 41. And He cometh the third time. After a third retirement for a 
 solitary endurance of His overwhelming agony. 
 
 And saith to them, Sleep on now. A rather unhappy translation, almost 
 suggesting irritation and irony on the part of our Lord. Petter actually thinks 
 that our Lord spoke ' in a taunting manner.' But the verb rendered sleep on, a 
 translation got from Coverdale, is simply sleep, the translation of Tyndale, the 
 
41] ST. MARK XIV. 403 
 
 and take your rest : it is enough, the hour is come ; behold. 
 
 Geneva, and the Rheims ; and tlie expression rendered now means literally the 
 remainder (to '\oiw6i'), that is, the remainder of the time that is available. Tyn- 
 dale and the Geneva render it henceforth. Sleep tlie remaining interval I It 
 ■was in compassion that our Lord thus spoke. His own struggle was meanwhile 
 past. He did not feel th6 same need of the intense active sympathy of His 
 disciples which, in the crisis of His agony. He had so fervently desired. He 
 saw too that they were still overpowered with drowsiness, notwithstanding the 
 persevering efforts they were making to wake up. He hence spoke to them 
 soothingly ; and, as Cardinal Cajetan expresses it, ' indulgently,' that they 
 might get the refreshment they so much required, Sleep for the interval that 
 remains. I can now calmly wait and watch alone. 
 
 And take yoar rest. Or, as the Rheims has it, and take rest. Best your- 
 selves, that is, refresh yourselves. The word is so rendered in 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; 2 
 Cor. vii. 13 ; Philem. 7, 20. 
 
 It is enough (aVcx"). An expression that has given almost infinite trouble 
 to critics. It fairly puzzled the Syriao translator. He renders it, the end is at 
 hand. Our English translation is just a reproduction of the Vulgate version 
 (sufficit), which must, one should suppose, have been dashed off in a fit of 
 despair. But howsoever dashed off, or otherwise introduced, there it stands ; 
 and Luther, in his version, simply accepted it, without any attempt at an in- 
 dependent judgment ; as did Erasmus also, and Tyndale, and Coverdale. 
 Henry Stephens, the lexicographer, was much perplexed with the word, and in 
 particular with its Vulgate translation; but at length he found a solitary 
 passage, in one of the apocryphal Odes of Anacreon (xxviii. 33), in which the 
 term would seem to bear no other interpretation. It afforded him great relief. 
 Beza too found in the same ode a corresponding relief, and speaks indeed of 
 the passage ' occurring to him,' in the midst of his doubts, as if it had been he, 
 and not Henry Stephens, who had first alighted on it. He makes no reference 
 at aU to Stephens. The translation of the Vulgate, thus fortified out of Ana- 
 creon, was thenceforward regarded as confirmed. It was accepted by Castellio, 
 the Geneva, Piscator, Erasmus Sehmid, Sebastian Schmidt. It is found in all 
 the Dutch versions, the earMer, the later, tte latest. So too in Diodati, Zinzen- 
 dorf, RiUiet ; and in many other versions. Accepting the .translation (and 
 Wetstein hunted up another passage from Cyril on Hag. ii. 9), the great body 
 of expositors have interpreted the expression as a repetition ' in earnest ' of the 
 ironical expression that precedes, as if our Lord were now saying plainly, ye have 
 had enough of sleep. See Diodati, Fetter, and Schleusner. But Wolf supposes 
 that the Saviour refers to His own sufferings, I have suffered enough for the 
 present, and it only remains that I endure the sufferings that are to cornel 
 Neither phase of thought seems satisfactory. Grotius felt this, and imagined 
 that the phrase must have an idiomatic import, correspondiug to the technical 
 expression employed in the Roman amphitheatre, when a gladiator was 
 wounded, ' Habet,' He has it, he has got it, he has got the fatal wound. The 
 Saviour, according to Grotius, as it were says. It is all over with Me now. The 
 time is past for any benefit to Me from your sympathy. An unlikely interpret- 
 ation, both on philological and on moral grounds, but accepted nevertheless by 
 
404 ST. MARK XIV. [41 
 
 the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 
 
 Principal Campbell, who renders the phrase All is over. Bengel's translation 
 corresponds to a degree (es ist aus), only he gives it a turn in the direction of 
 the disciples, not of the Saviour, It is over, viz. with your rest. So Felbinger. 
 Kypke's interpretation is, The time is up. Heumann again, and Wahl, and 
 Godwin, would render the phrase, It is past, or It is away, that is, My agony 
 is past. Le Clero, The thing is past. My resolution to go on is taken. There are 
 other modifications of idea suggested by other expositors. But the great objec- 
 tion to all such interpretations is that the verb does not mean, to be away, to 
 le past, or to be up, or to be over, or to be all over. It means, when used in- 
 transitively, to have off, to hold off, to be distant. Such is its meaning in all the 
 other passages of the New Testament in which it occurs with its intransitive 
 signification. So Matt. xv. 8 and Mark vii. 6, ' their heart is far from Me,' 
 ' is distant from Me.' So Luke vii. 6, ' when He was now not far from the 
 house,' that is, ' when He was now not far distant from the house.' So Luke 
 XV. 20, 'when he was yet a great way off,' that is, 'when he was yet a 
 long way distant.' And Luke xxiv. 13, ' A village called Bmmaus, which was 
 from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs,' that is, ' which was distant from 
 Jerusalem.' We see no reason for departing, in the passage before us, from 
 this, the word's accredited and ordinary signification. But the question arises, 
 to what, or to whom, does the Saviour refer, when He says ' is distant ' ? He 
 refers, as we apprehend, not to a thing, but to a person, of whom He was think- 
 ing much, as is evident at once from the last clause of this verse, and from the 
 next verse. But, though thinking much of him. He did not feel inclined ex- 
 pressly to name him. The reference we take to be to Judas, He is distant. He 
 is at u distance. The expression is thus not the unmasking of a previous 
 sarcasm. It is the gracious utterance, partly to His own mind, and partly to 
 the minds of His lethargic disciples, of a reason for indulging them in a few 
 minutes more of rest. We shall lose much of the true significance of the whole 
 scene, and of the grandeur of the Saviour's demeanour, if we imagine that there 
 was anything like hot haste and semi-irritation on the part of our Lord. There 
 is not the slightest need for supposing that all the words, recorded by the 
 evangelist, were spoken in rapid succession. It was, we believe, far otherwise. 
 After our Saviour had got relief from the overwhelming pressure of His agony, 
 and had graciously approached His disciples, and sympathised with them in 
 their feelings of oppression, He would most probably seat Himself beside them, 
 and say soothingly. Sleep for the remainder of the little time that we still have, 
 and refresh yourselves. Then He would add, as a reason for this indulgence, 
 the word before us, a word which did not demand, on the part of the disciples, 
 any mental determination regarding the subject of the proposition. It was 
 enough that they knew that, whether a person or a thing were referred to, dis- 
 tance was affirmed. They might indeed have waked up, and inquired, ' is 
 
 distant f what ist who is? But this was not necessary, if they understood 
 that the reason for making a final effort to shake off their drowsiness was yet 
 at a distance. After the Lord had said (He) is at a distance, we may suppose 
 that He paused, and, turning His eyes in the direction of Jerusalem, wrapped 
 Himself up in His own meditations. At length, when the moving lights of 
 
43] ST. MAEK XIY. 405 
 
 42 Rise up, let us go ; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand. 
 
 43 And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one 
 
 of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and 
 
 staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. 
 
 the band around Judas became visible, the Lord broke silence, a"nd spoke as 
 follows. 
 
 The hour has come. The hour, the crisis time, the beginning of the end. 
 
 Lo, the Son of Man is delivered up. Is in the act of being delivered up, viz. by 
 Judas. The verb is in the present tense. The event was now so imminent 
 that the Saviour speaks of it as transpiring. 
 
 Into the hands of sinners. Literally, of the sinners. The word is used, as 
 often elsewhere, in its emphatic acceptation, and hence Godwin's translation 
 does justice to its spirit, of the wicked. Such was the character of the white- 
 washed men who bore sway in the sanhedrim, and of the others who would 
 co-operate with them in their eagerness to get rid of all who might disturb them 
 in their hypocritical repose. 
 
 Vee. 42. Rise up. Bouse yourselves up. There was no longer time for repose. 
 
 Let us be goiag. Let us voluntarily lead ourselves on (dya/iiv), viz. that we 
 may confront the traitor and his hand. How sublimely does the heroism of our 
 Lord reveal itself ! 
 
 Lo, he who delivereth Me up is at hand. Instead of naming Judas, the 
 Lord described him, and, in the description, verified His own former predictions 
 regarding Himself. 
 
 Veb. 43-50. The delivering up of our Lord by the traitor Judas, ifor 
 corresponding paragraphs, see Matt. xxvi. 47-56, Luke xxii. 47-53, and 
 John Xviii. 1-12. 
 
 Vek. 43. And immediately, while He yet spake. Or, more literally, while 
 He is yet speaking, viz. to the effect of what is recorded in the two preceding 
 verses. 
 
 Cometh Judas. The Alexandrine and Cambridge manuscripts (AD), as well 
 as a few more uncials, add Iscariot. So do the Italic and Vulgate versions, as 
 likewise both the Syriac Peshito and the Syriac Philoxenian. The great 
 majority of the uncial manuscripts however omit the addition, as do the 
 Sahidic, Coptic, and Gothic versions ; and it is more likely that, in this case, 
 the transcribers would add than it is that they would subtract. 
 
 One of the twelve. It was such an astonishing thing that ' one of the twelve ' 
 should be the chief agent in the arrestment of our Lord, that the phrase got 
 linked, in the people's speech, to his name. Comp. ver. 10. 
 
 And with him a great crowd. The word great has been probably added from 
 Matt. xxvi. 47. It is wanting in both the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, and 
 in the Sahidic, Coptic, Gothic, Philoxenian Syriac, and Armenian versions, as 
 well as in several of the Old Latin codices. 
 
 With swords and staves. Or sticks, cudgels, ' shilelahs.' The crowd was to 
 a large extent a nwb. 
 
 Prom the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders. The highest authorities 
 
406 ST. MARK XIV. [44 
 
 44 And he that betrayed him had given them a toten, saying 
 Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead 
 him away safely. 45 And as soon as he was come, he goeth 
 straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him. 
 46 And they laid their hands on him, and took him. 
 
 47 And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and 
 
 in the state were represented by the crowd. There -had been a council held, 
 and authority communicated. 
 
 Vek. 44. And he that betrayed Him. It is a participial expression, which we 
 cannot well reproduce. It means the deliverer up, he who was being engaged, in 
 delivering Him up. 
 
 Had given them a, token. The word for tolten is compound (aiaff-qii-ov), and 
 literally means o token between parties, a, mutually agreed-on token, sign, or 
 signal, ' a concerted signal ' (Bloomfield). 
 
 Saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, He it is. To what a depth of callousness the 
 infatuated man had sunk ! 
 
 Take Him. Seize Him, arrest Him. 
 
 And lead Him away safely. Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, have warily ; and 
 Wycliffe has an alternative word qucyntelg (or quaintly), that is, knowingly, skil- 
 fidly. The word means securely {so that there may be no chance of His escape). 
 Mace's translation of the whole clause is, seize Him, and don't let Him escape. 
 It was, on the part of Judas, a detestable superfluity of instruction. 
 
 Vek. 45. And having come, he immediately came up to Him. Without hesi- 
 tation or falter. The tide of feeling was stiU strong, though the moment of 
 ebbing was at hand. 
 
 And saith, Master, Master. Or, as it is in the original. Rabbi, Rabbi. But in 
 the X B C* D L M A, and in a large proportion of the Old Latin codices, as 
 well as in the Coptic and iEthiopio versions, the word is single. Rabbi was 
 evidently the designation by which our Lord was usually and familiarly ad- 
 dressed by His disciples. See chap. ix. 5, xi. 21. 
 
 And kissed Him. Tiz. in an emphatic manner (KUTe^CKriaev). The word is 
 stronger than the uncompounded term used in the preceding verse. 
 
 Veb. 46. And they laid their hands on Him. Or, more literally, they clapped 
 their hands on Him [iir^paXav). 
 And took Him. That is, and held Him fast. Wycliffe has, and heelden Him. 
 
 Vek. 47. But one of them that stood by. Literally, but one certain (indi- 
 vidual) of those who stood by. His name is withheld by all the evangelists but 
 John (xviii. 10). No doubt wisely. Feelings of revenge might have been 
 awakened. Blood-thirst was strong in the East. But by the time that John 
 wrote the actors and sufferers had alike passed from the scene. 
 
 Drew a sword. Or his sword. More literally, having drawn ' the ' sword. 
 What sword ? It is as if the reader were expected to know that he had a sword. 
 And indeed the circle of the disciples knew it well, and, no doubt, in their 
 familiar narrations of the occurrence, they would naturally use the definite 
 
49] ST. MARK XIV. 407 
 
 smote a servant of the high priest, and cut ofiF his ear. 
 48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come 
 out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take 
 rae ? 49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and 
 ye took me not : but the scriptures must be fulfilled. 
 
 article. There were two swords among them (Luke xxii. 38). The Saviour 
 allowed it, for a parabolic purpose (Luke xxii. 36-38). It was needful for His 
 disciples to bear in mind that, in the warfare which awaited them, they would 
 have enough to do to guard their lives. And when all was done that could be 
 done by them, their lives, so far as earth was concerned, would by no means be 
 secure. Peter was one of the two disciples who had provided themselves with 
 swords. It was customary of old in Syria, as it is still, for peaceful inhabitants 
 to wear weapons of defence. As there is no proper system of police, every man 
 has to be his own policeman. 
 
 And smote a servant of the high priest. Smote or struck. A senant : it is 
 the servant in the original. The high priest seems to have sent one particular 
 confidential servant, who might exercise a careful surveillance over Judas anc( 
 the rest of the company. 
 
 And cut off his ear. The stroke, aimed at the head, had been parried, but 
 took partial effect. 
 
 Veb. 48-50. The fact recorded in the preceding verse stands apart by itself. 
 So does the fact recorded in ver. 48, 49. So does the fact recorded in ver. 50. 
 The evangelist adds, artlessly and aggregatively, detail to detail. 
 
 Vee. 48. And Jesus answered and said to them. His words were responsive 
 to their acts, for their acts were as significant as words. 
 
 Are ye come out as against a thief? Or, more literally. As against a robber 
 are ye come out ? More literally stUl, As against a robber came ye out t viz. from 
 the city. With swords and cudgels to apprehend Me. Swords and cudgels would 
 not have been required against a mere thief. But robbers or brigands were men 
 of arms, who were prepared to defend themselves to the last, and, in the ultimate 
 extremity, to sell their Uves at as dear a cost as possible. The word is always 
 mistranslated thief in King James's version of the three synoptic Gospels ; but 
 it is correctly translated robber in John's Gospel (x. 1, 8; xviii. 40), and in 2 
 Cor. xi. 26. Luther did the word more justice than our English translators, 
 but yet not full justice. He rendered it murderer. Bengel in his German 
 version put it right, Rduber, i.e. Robber. 
 
 Veb. 49. I was daily with yon in the temple teaching. Or, as Eotherham 
 gives it in the original collocation, day by day was I with you in the temple, 
 teachivg. 
 
 And ye took Me not. And ye did not arrest Me. Our Lord knew that He was 
 not addressing the high authorities, though there were representatives of their 
 number who had come out in the crowd (Luke xxii. 52). But He desired to 
 make asseveration of His innocence, and to declare that such nocturnal strata- 
 gems were inconsistent with the dignity of justice. 
 
 But the Scriptures must be falfilled. The language is abruptly broken off in 
 
Ji08 ST. MARK XIV. [50 
 
 50 And they all forsook him, and fled. 
 
 51 And there followed hitn a certain young man, having a 
 
 the original, But that the Scriptures might he fulfilled — . We must mentally 
 add this takes plaQe. It was Divinely permitted to take place, because the same 
 Mind which foresaw what it was that Judas and the high priest, and their co- 
 conspirators, would voluntarily do, resolved to permit it, inasmuch as their act, 
 however wicked and infatuated, would not frustrate the final end contemplated 
 in the mission of our Lord, His sacrificial death as ' the Lamb of God bearing 
 the sin of the world.' 
 
 Ver. 50. And forsaking Him, they all fled. The disciples namely. The 
 evangelist's own mind had turned from dur Lord's enemies to His friends. But, 
 not being practised in ' the wisdom of words,' he omits to mark the transition 
 of reference. The disciples forsook or left their Lord, being, as their Master 
 had predicted, stumbled or staggered in their faith. See ver. 27. They had 
 never taken up the idea that it would be consistent with the ends contemplated 
 in the mission of the Messiah, that He should be ignominiously arrested. 
 
 Vee. 51, 52, contain another connected incident, standing by itself in the 
 evangelist's narrative. 
 
 Vek. 51. And a certain young man. Very literally, and one certain young 
 man. But the present indefinite article ' a ' or ' an ' is just the. original numeral 
 ane or otie. There have been many speculations and conjectures regarding 
 this young man. Who was he? It is impossible to say with absolute certainty. 
 Epiphanius {Adv. Hi^res., Ixxviii. 13) assumes that it was James the Just, the 
 brother of our Lord, who was reported, in early times, to have confined himself 
 ascetically to a single ' cloth ' or garment. A whimsical reason for an unUkely 
 conjecture. Others, inclusive in modern times of Ingraham (Prince of the 
 House of David, Letter 29), have supposed that it was the apostle John ; also a 
 most unlikely conjecture, resting on no basis of probability whatever. Theo- 
 phylact supposes it probable that the person referred to was a youth belonging 
 to the house where our Lord ate the passover ; also a baseless conjecture. 
 Cardinal Cajetan thinks that he may have been the son of the Gethsemane 
 gardener. Grotius and Petter content themselves with the more generic con- 
 jecture that he would probably be a youth who lived in some contiguous villa. 
 If conjecture at all be allowed, we should, along with Bispiag and Klostermann, 
 give the preference to the opinion of those who imagine that the evangelist 
 refers, veUiugly, to himself. The incident is in itself so exceedingly trifling, as 
 compared with other incidents omitted from the narrative, that it seems diffi- 
 cult to account for its introduction unless on the principle that the narrator had 
 a deep personal interest in its occurrence, and delighted, though in an unob- 
 trusive and modest manner, to link himself on, in what may have been to him 
 the turning point of his spiritual history, to the great event that was transpir- 
 ing. We would agree, with Bisping, that it is most likely that the incident 
 occurred, not in Gethsemane or on the way to Jerusalem, but in the streets of the 
 city. The evangelist has been setting down, one by one, a number of events 
 only loosely connected ; and this is one of them. 
 
53] ST. MARK XIV. 409 
 
 linen cloth cast about Ms naked body ; and the young men 
 laid hold on him : 52 and he left the linen cloth, and fled 
 from them naked. 
 
 63 And they led Jesus away to the high priest : and with 
 him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the 
 
 Followed Him. The verb is in the imperfect tense, was following Him. In 
 the manuscripts K B C L however it is compound ((jwqKoXoida), was following 
 with the rest who were there. Note that it was not the crowd which he followed : 
 if was Jesus. His interest was in Jesus. Possibly as the crowd were passing 
 along the streets, they would be excited, perhaps uproarious. The young man 
 had been in bed ; but, hearing the noise, he had started up, and rushed out 
 undressed. He found it was Jesus, the Great Teacher, to whom we may sup- 
 pose he had been listening with rapture in the temple, — it was Jesus who was 
 being led off under arrest. He followed on for a little, and then perhaps began 
 impulsively to interfere with the conductors, or to remonstrate. It is note- i 
 worthy that Mark and his mother Uved at Jerusalem (Acts xii. 12). 
 
 Having a linen cloth cast about (his) naked (body). He had, on starting up, 
 wrapped himself hurriedly in a loose robe or coverlet of fine Hnen, under which 
 most probably he had been lying. The linen referred to was that peculiar 
 texture, brought originally (not from Sidon, as Chifflet supposes (De Linteis, p. 
 23), but) from Sind or India, which was used for iuwrapping the bodies of the 
 dead. See Matt, xxvii. 59; Mark xv. 46.; Luke xxiii. 53. 
 
 And the young men laid hold on hion. Or, more literally, ,lay hold on him, or 
 seize him. He was regarded as in sympathy with their Prisoner. He was 
 therefore obnoxious to the virulent partisans, in the crowd. Instead of and the 
 young men lay hold on him, the reading in. the manuscripts N B C* D L A, and 
 in the Vulgate, Syriao Peshito, and Coptic versions, is simply and they lay hold 
 on him. Griesbaoh suspected the genuineness of the Eeoeived reading. Mill 
 had previously condemned it. (Prol., § 409.) And it is omitted from the text 
 by Lachmann, Fritzsche, Tisohendorf, Tregelles, and by the Kevisers of 1881, 
 No doubt correctly. 
 
 Veb. 52. But he left. In their hands. 
 
 The linen cloth, and fied from them naked. It would be a memorable event to 
 the young man himself. 
 
 Veb. 58. See, for parallels. Matt. xxvi. 57 ; Luke xxii. 54 ; John xviii. IB, 14. 
 
 And they led off Jesus to the high priest. Viz. Caiaphas. Indeed the name is 
 added in severalof the ancient manuscripts and versions. Intrusively however. 
 The detour to the house of Annas is merged out of view. See John xviii. 13. 
 
 And with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the sc'ribes 
 The prominent members of the sanhedrim. The expression with him, or as 
 Fritzsche interprets to him, was suspected by Mill (§ 409), and is omitted by 
 Tisohendorf on the authority of X D L A and 69, as also of the Italic, Vulgate, 
 and ^thiopio versions, etc. The phrase is more likely however to have been 
 wilfully dropped than to have been wilfully added. It should no doubt be ren- 
 dered as in our Authorized version. See Luke xxiii. 55 ; Acts ix. 39, x. 23, 45, 
 
410 ST. MARK XIV. . [53 
 
 scribes. 54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the 
 palace of the high priest : and he sat with the servants, and 
 warmed himself at the fire. 
 
 55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for 
 •witness against Jesus to put hinl to death ; and found none. 
 56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness 
 
 xi. 12, XT. 38 ; and also John xi. 33. And the reference is not, as Meyer eup^ 
 poses, to our Lord, but to the high priest. 
 
 Veb. 64. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 58 ; Luke xxii. 54, 55 ; John xviii. 15-18. 
 
 And Peter followed Him afar off. Or, as Mace, Campbell, Norton give it, at a 
 distance; or, according to the Greek idio'm,/rom a distance. 
 
 Even into. The original phrase is repetitious, until within into (fws l<r<a els). 
 
 The palace of the high priest. Or rather the court (viz. of the high priest's 
 palace), the interior hall or quadrangle, around which the chambers of the resi- 
 dence were constructed. 
 
 And he was sitting along with the" servants. The reader's mind is thrown 
 anticipatively forward to something special that occurred while he was sitting. 
 There would be quite a crowd of servants and hangers on, and, in particular, the 
 sweepings of the band which had gone to Gethsemane. Peter would expect to 
 get jostled into the heart of the crowd imobserved. 
 
 And warming himself at the fire. Literally, toward the fire ; more literally 
 still, toward the light. The preposition brings into view that he turned himself 
 toward the fire, in order to get warmed. The word light, again, brings into view 
 the blazing of the fire, by which his countenance would be illuminated and thus 
 by and by identified. The word is everywhere else translated light. 
 
 Vek. 55-64 constitute a paragraph corresponding to Matt. xxvi. 59-66. The 
 narratives in Luke and John are much more fragmentary. 
 
 Veb. 55. But the chief priests and the whole council. Or, the whole sanhedrim. 
 It was an informal meeting of the sanhedrim, and the members present seemed 
 to be animated with the same deeply prejudiced spirit that was dominating the 
 high priest. 
 
 Sought-for. The verh is in the imperfect, were engaged in seeking-for. 
 
 Testimony against Jesus. It was right in them to require testimony. But it 
 was iniquitous for them to go hunting for it against the Prisoner. Such pre- 
 judication and partisanship were a virtual abdication of their function as judges. 
 
 To put Him to death. This laid the copestone on their iniquity. They not 
 only prejudged the case, they were eager to inflict the highest penalty possible. 
 Their eagerness resolved itself into the spirit of murder. 
 
 And found none. Literally, and did not find ; more literally still, and were not 
 finding it. This was what went on in the court for a time. 
 
 Yek. 56. For many bare false witness against Him. Literally, were hearing 
 false witness. There was a succession of cases. 
 
 But. Strictly and (rai). The clause introduced forms part of the succession 
 of things. 
 
60] ST. MARK XIV. 411 
 
 agreed not together. 57 And there- arose certain, and bare 
 false witness against him, saying, 58 We heard him say, I will 
 destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three 
 days I will build another made without hands. 59 But 
 neither so did their witness agree together. 60 And the high 
 priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answer- 
 est thou nothing ? what is it which these witness against thee ? 
 
 Their witness agreed not together. Literally, the testimonies were not equal. 
 They did not tally, or match, the one with the other. Hence there was a difS- 
 culty in getting the sentence desired, for two accordant witnesses, at the least, 
 were indispensable. See Dent. xvii. 6. 
 
 Yeb. 57. And some arose and hore false witness against Him, saying. This 
 case was worthy of specification. They bore false witness. They persisted in 
 it for a time. The verb is in the imperfect. 
 
 Vee. 58. We heard Him saying, I will destroy this temple that is made with 
 hands, and within three days I will bnild another made without hands. Of course 
 the Saviour never made any such statement. See John ii. 19. He made a 
 mystic reference indeed to His own death and resurrection. But He never 
 intimated that He would destroy any temple whatsoever. Neither did He 
 distinguish, at that time, between a temple made with human hands, and 
 another made without such hands. The expression within three days should 
 rather be in three days, for the phrase does not intimate that the period 
 req[uired would be less than three days. It is literally, through three days. Our 
 Saviour, in passing through three days, would accomplish the work of which He 
 spoke. 
 
 Vee. 59. But neither so. Literally, and not even so, that is, and not even to 
 that extent, nor even to the extent of the allegation, as given summarily in the 
 preceding verse. 
 
 Was their testimony equal. The witnesses had so much in common that they 
 were sure that the Lord had said something or other about the ' destruction of 
 the temple,' and something or other about ' raising it again in three days.' But 
 they differed in the details of their testimony, which was consequently so 
 vitiated that a conviction could not be obtained. It would appear that either 
 the witnesses were, as Meyer supposes, examined separately, or else that they 
 got positive in contradicting one another. 
 
 Ver. 60. And the high priest rose up in the midst. More literally, into the 
 midst. He would seem to have stepped forward nearer the Prisoner. 
 
 And interrogated Jesns, saying, Answerest Thou nothing? What do these testify 
 against Thee! Instead of this double interrogation, Luther gives it thus: 
 Answerest Thou nothing to that which these testify against Thee ? So the Yul- 
 gate before him, and Baumgarten-Crusius, Lachmann, Tisohendorf, Bleek. But 
 the two interrogatories are more in harmony, at once with the nature of the 
 phraseology, and with the exasperated spirit of the interrogator. He had been 
 bafiSed, and was chagrined. Laying aside everything like judicial impartiality 
 and calmness, he chides our Lord for His dignified silence amid the Babe] of 
 
412 ST. MARK XIV. [61 
 
 61 Bat he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the 
 high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the 
 Christ, the Son of the Blessed ? 62 And Jesus said, I am : 
 and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand 
 of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 63 Then 
 
 accusation, Jnswerest Thou nothing f He would have liked that our Lord had 
 lost command of His reticence, and had returned railing for railing. When he 
 added, Wliat do these testify against Thee ? the meaning is, Though the testi- 
 monies of these witnesses do not quite agree in details, yet there was evidently 
 something extraordinary said by Thee oil, the occasion referred to. What was it ? 
 It was a most improper question. The oonstruotiou of a double interrogation 
 has been accepted, not only by our Authorized translators, but likewise by 
 Erasmus, Tjndale, Castellio, Beza, Bengel, Meyer. 
 
 Vek. 61. Bat He was silent, and answered nothing. He could not descend, 
 even for a moment, from the pinnacle of true dignity on which He stood. It 
 was no part of His duty, as a defendant, to unravel the contradictious of His 
 unprincipled accusers. 
 
 Again the high priest interrogated Him, and says to Him, Art Thou the Christ, 
 the Son of the Blessed ? This was a legitimate question to put. It was quite 
 right to call upon our Lord to declare who and what He was. It is right that 
 every man in society should be prepared to tell who and what he is. No man 
 can have a legitimate claim to the privileges of society who cannot give account 
 of himself. The expressions employed by the high priest were taken from the 
 second Psalm, which was then considered to be Messianic, and which can never 
 be rationally interpreted on any other hypothesis. See ver. 2, 7. The Blessed : 
 An indefinite appellative way of referring to God, who is emphatically the 
 Blessed One. The word is not here, as in 1 Tim. i. 11 and vi. 15, equivaleut to 
 happy {/laKapios). It represents the Lord as the oppropriate object of eulogy or 
 praise {euXoyriras). 
 
 Vek. 62. And Jesus said, I am. It was the fitting time and place to declare, 
 in terms the most unequivocal and unmistakable, that He was the Divine 
 Messiah. 
 
 And ye shall see (sooner or later) the Son of Man. While our Lord was in the 
 very act of avowing that He was the Son of God He delights to think and speak 
 of Himself as the Son of man. He realized His identification with the human 
 family. 
 
 Sitting at the right hand of power. Very literally, of the power, i.e. of the 
 supreme power. He represents Himself as seated at the right hand of the abso- 
 lute and irresistible Sovereign of the universe. As Son of man indeed He was 
 essentially subordinate to the Father, so as to have His appropriate place in a 
 secondary position. But as Son of God He was fit to sit on the throne with 
 His Father. Compare the first verse of that remarkable Messianic psalm, 
 the 110th. 
 
 And coming in the clouds of heaven. Literally, with the clouds of the heaven, 
 that is, encompassed with them. Coming : namely, to judge the world, and 
 thus to judge the judges who were now judging Him. When Jesus shall thus 
 
64] ST. MARK XIV. 413 
 
 the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any 
 further witnesses ? 64 Ye have heard the blasphemy : what 
 
 come, He will not be alone. He will indeed be the active agent in conducting 
 the judgment, for ' the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judg- 
 ment to the Son ' (John v. 22). But the Father, ' the Ancient of days,' will be 
 present (Dan. vii. 9), a ' very present ' Assessor on the one throne of judgment, 
 and rejoicing that His mind can be infallibly manifested through Him who is ' a 
 Word,' and ' the Word,' and ' His Word.' How august the self consciousness of 
 our Lord, to realize all this, at the very moment when He was standing like a 
 felon at the high priest's bar ! 
 
 "Vek. 63. But the high priest rent Ms clothes. No doubt in some normal 
 and formal manner. In a primitive state of society indeed, when inward feeling 
 is, with but little restraint, immediately mirrored in outward action, the tearing 
 of one's robes violently might often occur ; and when it did occur, it would be 
 expressively indicative of a perfect tumult of passion. See Gen. xxxvii. 29 ; 
 Jud. xi. 35 ; Job i. 20 ; Isa. xxxvi. 22, xxxvii. 1. But in a more disciplined 
 condition, when art has been interwoven with nature and restrains it at almost 
 every point of the warp, the tearing of the robes, when there is a wish to convey 
 the impression that something dreadful has occurred, must be regarded as 
 an entirely artificial symbolism. In the case before us the high priest would 
 probably be careful to regulate the rending, both topically and longitudinally, 
 according to the rules of the most approved rabbinical etiquette. See Comm. 
 on Matt. xxvi. 65. Clothes : Or, literally, tunics. It is the word, but in the 
 plural, which is almost always rendered coat in the Authorized version, as 
 distinguished from the loose outer robe or doke. It had only the remotest 
 analogy however to a European dress coat. The poor contented themselves 
 with wearing one tunic. The rich in general wore two, the inner one plain 
 and of fine linen, the outer ornamental and of stronger stuff. See Brauuius De 
 Vestitu Sacerdotum Hebrceorum, p. 554. The high priest, when rending his 
 tunics, would have on his unofficial robes. See Braunius, p. 842. 
 
 And saith, What farther need have we of witnesses ? Very literally, Why still 
 have we need of witnesses ? That is, Why should any one suppose that we still 
 require witnesses in this case, ere we could be warranted to come to a judgment? 
 See next verse. 
 
 Vee. 64. Te have heard. Literally, ye heard, viz. within the last few 
 moments. 
 
 The blasphemy. The defamation of God, of which this man was guilty. The 
 high priest, in his self sufficiency, did not distinguish between a claim and a 
 false claim. If our Lord's claim to be the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, had 
 been false, it would have been a blasphemy. But no evidence had been brought 
 to sho~w that it was false. And the high priest was travelling far beyond his 
 judicial function when he merely assumed that it was. If there was any found- 
 ation for the existence and ntaiutenance of the office of the high priesthood 
 among the Jews, or for the existence and maintenance of the other peculiarities 
 of Judaism, some One, at some time or other, must appear as the Christ, the 
 Son of the Blessed. Why might not our Lord be that One ? 
 
414 ST. MARK XIV. [64 
 
 think ye ? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. 
 65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, 
 and to buffet him, and to say unto him. Prophesy : and the 
 servants did strike him with the palms of their hands. 
 
 What think ye ? Literally, what appears to you ? That is, what appears to 
 you to he the desert of this blasphemer ? 
 
 And they all condemned Him to he guilty of death. The meaning is not, 
 that they condemned Him to die. They had not such power (John xviii. 31). 
 But they passed sentence on Him as one who, in their judgment, was worthy 
 of death, one who had brought Himself within the grip of the penalty of 
 death, as one consequently who should be dehvered over to the Roman governor 
 to be dealt with according to their finding. See chap. iii. 29. The word guilty 
 has a far-off connection with gilding and gold, and has thus embedded in it a. 
 reference to that which is precious. Guilt was in some respects a price. It 
 often merged in u. pHce. It could be replaced or cancelled by a price. A 
 person offending had a price to pay. The price was a penalty. A guilty man 
 is one who is liable to ' pay ' a penalty. The expression guilty of death means 
 liable to pay the penalty of death. The word rendered guilty is translated in 
 danger of, in Matt. v. 21, 22. It literally means in the grip of. Tyndale 
 renders it, here, worthy of. 
 
 Vee. 65. Compare for parallel statements Matt. xxvi. 67, 68, and Luke xxii. 
 63-65. The wild beast element was stirred in the breasts of some of the baser 
 beings around our Lord. 
 
 And some began to spit on Him. Alas, alas ! But ' this,' says Eiohard Baxter, 
 ' the Son of God endured for our sims.' 
 
 And to cover His face, and to buffet Him, and say unto Him, Prophesy, That 
 is, Tell us by inspiration who the individual was who struck Thee. The word 
 buffet means to cuff, to strike with the fists. Tyndale's translation is, and to 
 bete Him with fistes ; Wycliffe's, and smyte Him with boffatis (i.e. buffets). 
 
 And the servants did strike Him with the palms of their hands. A free trans- 
 lation of a tinkered text. The word rendered the palms of their hands means 
 slaps, or blows (j>avl(rii.aiTiv). The verb rendered did strike (l^aXKov) is a tran- 
 scriber's substitute for a different verb altogether, which means received [iXa^ov). 
 This latter is the reading ofKABOIKLNSVrAII; and so, in substance, 
 of D G, 1, 69. It must be genuine. The meaning is, the officers received Him 
 with blows, th&t is, they received Him into custody till the regular meeting of 
 the sanhedrim, which could not be held sooner than in the morning : but the 
 moment He was committed to them they received Him with blows. Alas, alas I 
 And yet no wonder. They but imitated their superiors. ' Like master, like 
 man,' says Fetter. 
 
 Vee. 66-72. The episode of Peter's lamentable fall and speedy penitence. 
 Compare, for corresponding paragraphs. Matt. xxvi. 69-75 ; Luke xxii. 54-62 j 
 John xviii. 15-18, and 25-27. 
 
 Vee. 66. And. The narrative goes back a little. The main current of 
 events was followed to the point recorded in the preceding verse. The evan- 
 gelist returns thence to take up the following incidents. 
 
69] ST. MARK XIV. 415 
 
 66 And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh 
 one of the maids of the high priest : 6(' and when she saw 
 Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And 
 thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. 68 But he denied, 
 saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. 
 And he went out into the porch ; and the cock crew. 69 And a 
 
 While Peter was teneath in the palace. Or rather, down in the court, that 
 court that was open above, and round the sides of which the chambers of the 
 mansion were built. Down; it is not implied that the apartment in which 
 our Saviour was tried was an upstair floor or storey. It is only implied that the 
 reception hall, that entered off the quadrangular court, was raised a little above 
 its level. There would perhaps be only a curtain intervening, which would be 
 opened and closed as servants or others entered or retired. See Luke xxii. 
 61. 
 
 There cometh one of the maids of the high priest. Excited by what was 
 transpiring in the reception haU, and eager to get talking about it to the 
 people. 
 
 Yeb. 67. And seeing Peter warming himself, she looked on him. She was 
 led to fix her eyes on him. Something in his appearance stirred her recollec- 
 tions. 
 
 And says, And thou wast with Jesus of ITazareth. Literally, and thou wast 
 with the Nazarene, Jesus. See, in particular, the modern critical editions. 
 
 Veb. 68. But. Now was Peter's time for acting a hero's part, but. 
 
 He denied, saying, I know not. A broken statement. He meant, I do not 
 know Him. See Luke xxii. 57. But in his agitation he only got the length of 
 I do not know, and then he takes up another line of self defence. 
 
 Neither do I understand what thou sayest. In the original of the correct text 
 the language is singularly indicative either of Galilean rudeness of speech, or of 
 agitation, or of both combined (o-i) tI \eyeis). 
 
 And he went out into the porch. With all his assumed hardihood, he trembled 
 in his skin, and felt that the sooner he got more into the shade the better. So 
 he left the vicinity of the blazing fire, and returned into the vestibule, or the 
 arched entrance passage which extended from the great outside gate to the 
 quadrangle of the court. 
 
 And the cock crew. Or rather, and ' a ' cock crowed. It was distinctly 
 audible ; and though it did not succeed in touching the deepest spring in Peter's 
 heart, yet no doubt it would excite some tremulous emotion : What ! is the 
 prediction to be literally fulfilled after all } And yet this prisoner, being u, 
 prisoner, cannot surely be the Messiah for whom we hoped, and in whom I mis- 
 placed so fondly and devotedly my confidence. 
 
 Veb. 69. And a maid. It is the maid in the original, no doubt the same 
 maid, although there is no reason whatever why we should not suppose that 
 she had some companion or companions, who would take a part in the con- 
 versation. Hence we read in Matthew of another maid. Luke refers to others 
 who were males. 
 
416 ST. MARK XIV. [69 
 
 maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by. 
 This is one of them. 70 And he denied it again. And a little 
 after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art 
 one of them : for thou art a Galilsean, and thy speech agreeth 
 thereto. 71 But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I 
 know not this man of whom ye speak. 72 And the second 
 time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that 
 Jesus said unto him. Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt 
 
 Seeing Mm again, tiegaii to say. Tischendorf reads, under the authority of 
 X C L A, seeing him, began again to say. But there can be little doubt that the 
 same reason which led our translators to say a maid led the transcribers on 
 whose authority the reading of SOLA rests to shift the position of the again. 
 Under the pressure of the same supposed difficulty the again was sometimes 
 altogether dropped out, as in the Vatican manuscript, and in the Coptic, 
 Sahidic, and ^thiopic versions. 
 
 To them that stood by, This is (one) of them. She was confident, notwith- 
 standing his strong denial, that she had seen him with the Nazarene, probably 
 in the temple area. And she would be able also to see self consciousness and 
 self condemnation in his face. 
 
 Vee. 70. But he again denied. Poor fellow! He was in the hands of the 
 Philistines and of his conscience. 
 
 And after a little, again they who stood by said to Feter, Snrely thou art of them. 
 Instead of again, Wycliffe has, throughout the whole of this paragraph, the 
 fine old word eftsoone, i.e. soon after. Surely : this word is now too hesitative. 
 It is truly in the original, that is certainly, or without doubt. Wyolifie, verily. 
 
 For thon art a Galilean, There is an untranslatable and in the original before 
 these words ; but it is very significant. It suggests, on the one hand, that 
 there were other things that proved that Peter belonged to the circle of the 
 Nazarene; but asserts on the other that this was an additional proof. His 
 accent bewrayed him to be a Galilean, and, if a Galilean, what was he doing 
 skulking about in the high priest's house if he was not one of the ' set ' ? 
 
 And thy speech agreeth thereto. This clause is omitted by Lachmann, Tisch- 
 endorf, Tregelles. It is wanting in the manuscripts XBCDL, 1, and was 
 wanting in the copies before Eusebius and Augustine, as also in the Sahidic and 
 Coptic versions. It was most likely imported from Matt. xxvi. 73, 
 
 Veb, 71. Bnt he began to curse. " As if he should say, the curse of God 
 " alight upon me if I know Him " (Patter). 
 And to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak. Ah Peter, alas ! 
 
 Veb, 72, And, The word immediately is added in S B D G L, 69, and in the 
 Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac Peshito, Armenian, and iEthiopio versions. No 
 doubt it is genuine. It is received by Griesbaoh, Lachmann, Pritzsche, Tischen- 
 dorf, Tregelles. 
 
 The second time a cook crowed. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus 
 said unto him. More literally, and Peter was reminded of the saying, how that 
 Jesus said to ?iim. 
 
72] ST. MARK XIV. 417 
 
 deny me thrice. And when he thought thereonj he wept. 
 
 Before tlie cock crow twice, thou sialt deny Me thrioj. And when he thought 
 thereon, he wept. King James's translators have happily hit upon the true 
 import of the last clause (cai iiri^aXiiv ^K\aiev). The Geneva version pointed 
 in the same direction, but not by any means so felicitously as King James's 
 translators, And waying (i.e. weighing) that with himselfe, he wept. The word 
 rendered iphen he thought thereon has been puzzling to interpreters from the 
 earliest times. ' There are not many words in Scripture,' says Bland, ' which 
 have undergone more interpretations than this.' The Vulgate version renders 
 the whole phrase thus, and he began to weep. So the Old Latin before it, and 
 the Peshito Syriao, Philoxenian Syriac, Sahidic, Armenian, and Gothic versions. 
 So too Erasmus, Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale, and many others. The Cambridge 
 manuscript (D) actually cancels the original phrase, and substitutes, no doubt 
 out of a marginal gloss, the common word for began {ifp^aro K\txleiv). Faber 
 Stapulensis, having the same view of the import of the phrase, gave, as far as 
 possible, a fine idiomatic turn to his translation, broke forth into weeping 
 (prorupit in fletum). He was followed by Vatable and Cajetan. It is however, 
 in all its phases, a violent, and indeed, when the participial form of the word is. 
 taken into account, impossible rendering. Theophylaot takes an entirely 
 different view of the import of the word. He explains,it thus, having shrouded 
 his head. The word etymologically means having thrown upon. Theophylaot 
 supposes that Peter buried his head in the folds of his cloak, and then wept. 
 The great French scholar Salmasius, the antagonist of Milton, Was of the same 
 opinion, and quite positive indeed that this is the only legitimate interpreta- 
 tion. (See his Epistola ad CoZj)i«m, pp. 656-7.) Many subsequent critics and 
 expositors, inclusive of Bos, Wolf, Suicer, Eisner, Krebs, Heumann, Mace' 
 Fritzsche, coincided in his judgment. In the absence however of any word to 
 suggest the idea of robe or cloak, the interpretation is violent, and the expression 
 so interpreted would be unexampled. Grotius, followed by le Clerc, thought 
 that the phrase was a kind of Hebraism, and adding he wept, that is and in 
 addition he wept, or, and he wept also. The guilty apostle not only recollected 
 his Lord's prediction, he added weeping to his recollection. But this is, almost 
 as much as Theophylaot's, a violent and unlikely interpretation. Bleek how- 
 ever, misunderstanding it, thought that Grotius and le Clerc wished to interpret 
 the expression thus, he wept , still more ; and this misconception of their 
 meaning he adopts as the true interpretation of the evangelist's phrase, though 
 he admits that there is nothing in what goes before to lead us to suppose that 
 Peter had formerly wept. He thinks it likely however that Mark tacitly 
 assumed that the apostle had wept at the first crowing of the cock. Most un- 
 likely. Beza interprets the expression thus : And when he had rushed forth 
 (from the high priest's house) he wept. The force of the participial word how- 
 ever he admits to be such that the meaning is not so much, he rushed forth 
 '/com' (the high priest's house), as he threw himself ' upon ' (the place that was 
 beyond). Henry Stephens endorsed this interpretation, and it is adopted by 
 Piscator, Erasmus Schmid, Felbinger, Eaphel, Schleusner, Bretschneider, Wahl, 
 Vater. It is however, notwithstanding such great names, utterly unworthy of 
 being accepted, except in despair. Bishop Hammond and Palairet would 
 
418 ST. MARK XV. [1 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 1 AND straightway in the morning the chief priests held a 
 consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, 
 
 interpret thus, and when he cast (his eyes on Christ) he wept. It is manifestly 
 a suggestion of despair, and clearly inadmissible, unless despair should rise to 
 its maximum. It is Luke alone who mentions the fact that Jesus was visible to 
 Peter (xxii. 61). What then? Must we despair ? By no means. Our English 
 translators have given to the word a thoroughly legitimate and idiomatic 
 rendering. The idea is, when he threw {his thought) upon (the prediction which 
 he recollected) he wept. As a matter of fact, the word was often employed 
 ' absohitely ' by the later Greek writers, with this peculiar idiomatic reference. 
 See a long list of passages in Wetstein (and compare the secondary meaning of 
 the noun ^7ri/3oX^). Casanbon finally .settled in this interpretation. Wetstein 
 powerfully supported it. And it has been approved of by Fetter, Kypke, Prin- 
 cipal Campbell, Glockler, de Wette, Bland, Bloomfield, Alexander, Meyer, Bisping, 
 Grimm, Godwin, Volkmar. He wept : the verb is in the imperfect tense, and 
 suggests more than a mere outburst of tears. His tears kept flowing. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 The tragical story hastens to its consummation. There is no pause, on the 
 writer's part, for emphasising, or moralising, or philosophising, or even theolo- 
 gising. There is the most perfect simplicity and artlessness of narration. 
 
 The events narrated happened in the course of a single day, ' dark and 
 dreary.' It was the very day before the Jewish sabbath, Friday, which hence 
 became the most historical of aU Fridays, the first ' Good Friday.' All that 
 our Lord did, while enduring the pangs that were thrust into Him, and the 
 woes that were heaped upon Him, was pre-eminently ' good ' in Him, and pre- 
 eminently ' good ' for man. 
 
 Vek. 1-5 constitute a condensed paragraph, corresponding in its brief out- 
 lines to the fuller details in Matt, xxvii. 1, 2, 11-14 ; Luke xxiii. 1-16 ; and 
 John xviii. 28-38. 
 
 Vek. 1. And straightway. Or immediately, one of Mark's favourite words. 
 It is not to be interconnected with the following expression, as if the meaning 
 were, as soon as it was morning. The idea rather is, that no delay was required 
 in the way of waiting for the morning. The morning was just about to break 
 as the prehminary meeting in the high priest's house drew to a close. 
 
 In the morning. Literally, according to the text that was before our trans- 
 lators, on the morning, that is, -on the occurrence of the morning. The preposi- 
 tion and the article are both wanting however in the texts of Laohmann, 
 Tisohendorf (eighth edition), Tregelles. But it seems less likely that they 
 would be added by a critical transcriber than that they would be subtracted. 
 
 The chief priests held a consnltation with the elders and scribes and the whole 
 council. One would be apt to infer from this translation that it was the 
 evangelist's intention to represent the chief priests as initiating the consultation 
 
2] ST. MARK XV. 419 
 
 and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered Imn to 
 Pilate. 2 And Pilate asked him. Art thou the King of the 
 Jews ? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it. 
 
 with the whole council. But that is not quite the idea, though no doubt the 
 ■chief priests would, as a matter of fact, be prominent. The expression is 
 complicated, but may be represented thus : the-chief-priests-with-the-elders-and- 
 the-scribes, even the whole sanhedrim, held a consultation. The evangelist first 
 ■specifies the component elements in the membership of the sanhedrim, and 
 ■then adds in an artless manner the sum total composed. Held u, consultation : 
 Very literally, made counsel, that is, tooTc counsel together. Three uncial manu- 
 scripts, N G L, read prepared counsel ; and Tisehenddrf has received this word 
 into the text of his eighth edition. But it is hkely to have been a graphical 
 •error. 
 
 .ind bound Jesus. They caused Him to be manacled, that He might be 
 impeded in any attempt to escape. It is probable that, for form's sake, they 
 would try Him afresh, though hurriedly, and making use of the finding of the 
 •extemporized meeting in the high priest's residence. 
 
 And carried Him away. Bore Him off from the sanhedrim house. It is an 
 idiomatic expression, denoting forcible transference of the person. Origeu has 
 led off, instead of carried off; and so too do the manuscripts CDGN and 
 1 read ; tinkeringly however. Comp. Matt, xxvii. 2. 
 
 And delivered Him to Pilate. That he might adjudge Him to .death. See 
 John xviii. 31. After Archelaus, son and successor of Herod the Great, had 
 been banished by the Eoman emperor to Gaul, Judsea was added to the province 
 ■of Syria, and governed by deputies called procurators. Of these Pontius 
 Pilate was the fifth. 
 
 Vek. 2. And Pilate asked Him. Or, put the following question to Him, no 
 •doubt among other interrogatories. Though by no means remarkable for 
 uprightness, he had too much of the Eomau spirit of justice in him to pass 
 summary sentence, on the simple representation of the sanhedrim. 
 
 Art Thou the King of the Jews 1 Or, assumingly, and with a dash of mingled 
 inonchalanoe and sarcasm. Thou art the King of the Jews ? Thou art, I believe, 
 ■the King of the Jews ? The sanhedrim had obviously informed the procurator 
 that the Prisoner, who was delivered up to him, was aiming at the Jewish 
 ■crown, and that therefore the case submitted to his lordship's administrative 
 decision was one of treason, a capital crime. 
 
 And He, answering, said unto him. Or, as it is in the manuscripts K B C D, 
 .says to him. We listen as He speaks, as if we had been 'present.' 
 
 Thou sayest. Theophylact supposes that our Lord returned to Pilate an 
 intentionally ambiguous answer, that might be understood as meaning, either 
 Thou sayest truly what I am, or I do Jiot say that, but thou. The expression 
 .however was a strong, though strange, idiomatic affirmation, precisely equivalent 
 ■to Z am. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 64 with Mark xiv. 62. Norton renders it, I am ; 
 Mace, yes ; Zinzendorf and Godwin, as thou sayest ; Newcome and Edgar 
 'Taylor, thou sayest truly ; Principal Campbell, thou sayest right. The rationale 
 .of the idiom is that when the interrogative form is withdrawn from the class of 
 
420 ST. MARK XV. [3 
 
 3 And the chief priests accused him of many things : but he 
 answered nothing. 4 And Pilate asked him again, saying, 
 Answerest thou nothing ? behold how many things they 
 witness against thee. 5 J3ut Jesus yet answered nothing; sa 
 that Pilate marvelled. 
 
 interrogations referred to, the saying that remains is the reality. One sees, 
 readily and clearly, the perfect pertinency of the idiom, when the interrogative- 
 form of the utterance is found exclusively in the peculiarity of the intonation, 
 and not in any peculiarity in the collocation of the vocables, as for example in 
 the case before us. Thou art the King of the Jews ? 
 
 Tek. 3. And the chief priests accused Him of many things. Or, accused Him 
 much. The reference is rather to a multiplicity of allegations than to a multi- 
 plicity of misdemeanours. They made ' a great ado,' and used repetitiously a 
 multitude of words, in making and enforcing their charge. The word rendered 
 many things (TroXXii) is often used idiomatically as equivalent to much. It is so- 
 rendered in Mark i. 45, v. 10 ; John xiv. 30 ; Eom. xvi. 12 ; Eev. v. 4. Luther's- 
 version corresponds, accused Him 'hard,' or 'sore,' as Coverdale renders it. 
 Zinzendorf uses the German word corresponding etymologieally to sore, viz. 
 sehr, that is, 'very (much).' 
 
 But He answered nothing. This clause seems to have been imported from 
 Matt, xxvii. 12. It is wanting in all the best manuscripts and versions, and is- 
 omitted by all the modern editors, inclusive of Griesbaoh and Scholz. By 
 Bengel too. 
 
 Vee. 4. And Pilate asked Him again. Or rather. And Pilate again interro- 
 gated Him. The question put by the procurator was different from that which 
 he previously asked. 
 
 Answerest Thou nothing? Or, Art Thou not answering anything^ He was 
 surprised at His calm dignified reticence amid the Babel of accusation. 
 
 Behold, how many things they witness against Thee. Or, as it is in N B C D, 1, 
 and in the Italic and Vulgate versions, as also in the texts of Lachmann, 
 Tischendorf, Tregelles, Behold, how many things they accuse Thee of! Tischen- 
 dorf thinks that the reading of the Eeceived Text has been borrowed from Matt, 
 xxvii. 13. Not improbably. How many things : the expression is the reflex of 
 the plural phrase employed in ver. 8, and should be interpreted in the light of 
 the import of that phrase. Luther maintains his consistency, See how hard they 
 accuse Thee ! Meyer's version is, See how much they testify against Thee ! So 
 Godwin. 
 
 Veh. 5. And Jesus still answered nothing. Kamely, to the accusations made 
 against Him by the chief priests. Although invited, as it were, by the pro- 
 curator to speak out in self-defence. He maintained a perfect and dignified 
 silence. 
 
 So that Pilate marvelled. It was an unwonted spectacle at his bar. He would 
 be accustomed to stormy scenes of fierce and fiery recrimination. 
 
 Ver. 6-15 may bo compared, as a paragraph, with Matt, xxvii. 15-26, Luke 
 
8] ST. MARK XV. 421 
 
 6 Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, 
 whomsoever they desired. 7 And there was one named Bar- 
 abbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection 
 with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection. 8 And 
 
 ixiii. 17-25, and with John xviii. 39, 40, etc. The procurator cannot in his 
 •conscience acquiesce in the decision of the sanhedrim, but he weakly yields. 
 
 Vee. 6. But at feast time. It is a very idiomatic phrase in the original, 
 denoting a course of time extending down from feast to feast in annual recur- 
 rence : But feast by feast, that is. But at every recurring passover. 
 
 He released. The verb is in the imperfect tense, he loas accustomed to release. 
 
 To them. The reference has expanded, in the evangelist's mind, from the 
 authorities of the nation to the people in general. 
 
 One prisoner, whomsoever they desired. Or, wliom in particular tliey asked 
 ifivirep -QTouvTo). But the three oldest manuscripts, the Sinaitic (X), the Alexan- 
 drine (A), and the Vatican (B) have a slightly different reading {6v -wap-growTo), 
 whom they begged, or lolwm they petitioned for. The compound word is trans- 
 lated intreated in Heb. xii. 19. Tischendorf has received it into his eighth 
 edition of the text ; with probability. It may seem strange that it should be 
 regarded as u, favour to a, people to get the release of a prisoner. Bat some- 
 times noble men have been imprisoned for noble deeds ; and often, when a 
 people has been subjected to a foreign yoke, the patriotic and heroic have had 
 to suffer with felons in their cells. 
 
 Vee. 7. And there was one named Barabbas. There was the so-called Baralibas. 
 The spirit of the representation would not be greatly exaggerated if we ren- 
 ■dered the expression thus, there was the notorious Barabbas. This freebooter 
 would seem to have been of respectable parentage, though he had gravitated 
 into the profession of a, brigand. The word Barabbas means Son-of-f.ither, 
 that is, Son-of-Father {so and so). He had been the son apparently of some 
 rabbi, who was highly esteemed, and called /aJ/iei- in his circle. 
 
 Who lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him. That is, with 
 Tt's fellow rioters. In some of the best manuscripts however, such as X B C D K, 
 1, 69, the word for fellow is omitted, loith the rioters. This reading has been 
 approved of by Sohulz, and received into the text by Lachmanu, Tischendorf, 
 Tregelles. It is supported by the Syriao and Vulgate versions, and is, in all 
 likelihood, the autographic. If it be accepted, then there is no explicit state- 
 ment in the text to the effect that Barabbas was one of the rioters ; yet it is 
 implied. He would no doubt be their ringleader. 
 
 Who had committed murder in the insurrection. In the riot. Note the article, 
 in ' tlie ' riot which issued in tlie imprisonment of Barabbas and the other rioters. 
 It is a compound and indefinite relative {oiTives) which is translated joho. The 
 idea is, that the rioters had not only been guilty of rioting, they were such as 
 had committed murder in the riot. The riot had been got up in antagonism to 
 the authorities, and hence was a kind of insurrection on a small scale. 
 
 Vee. 8. And the multitude, crying aloud {am^o-qaas). Such is the reading of 
 the great majority of the existing manuscripts. But in the Sinaitic, Vatican, 
 
422 ST. MARK XV. [S 
 
 the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he 
 liad ever done unto them. 
 
 9 But Pilate answered them, saying. Will ye that I release 
 unto you the King of the Jews ? 10 For he knew that the 
 
 and Cambridge manuscripts (SBD) there is a very different reading (di-a^ds). 
 meaning going up. This reading was approved of by David Schulz, and has 
 been received into the text by Laohmann, Tischeudorf, Tregelles, Alford. 
 Griesbach hesitated whetlier to accept or reject it. (Com. Grit., in loc.) It is 
 supported by the Vulgate version and the Italic; and also by the Coptic, 
 Sahidio, and Gothic. The iEthiopic version combines the two readings, going 
 up and crying out. It is more likely, on the whole, that the evangelist's word 
 would be expanded to convey the idea of ci-ying out, an idea in harmony with 
 the usual characteristics of a crowd or mob, than that it would be contracted or 
 cut down to bring out the idea of going up, which at first sight seems to be an 
 almost meaningless, if not incongruous, item of information iu the narrative. 
 But as Mark was a resident in Jerusalem (Acts xii. 12), and knew the topo- 
 graphy of the city to perfection, nothing after all was more natural than that 
 he should, in his own artless style of composition, use the expression. The 
 procurator's residence would either be in Herod's palace, occupying a conspicu- 
 ously elevated position on Mount Zion, or in the castle of Antonia at the north- 
 west angle of the temple area, also a conspicuously elevated site, down from 
 which, and up to which, the Via Dolorosa leads. The people needed to go up to 
 the procurator. 
 
 Began to desire (him to do) as he had ever done untD them. The word ever is 
 wanting in the manuscripts S B A, and in the Syriac Peshito, Sahidic, and 
 Coptic versions. Tischeudorf omits it. And we can easily suppose that it was 
 a marginal expletive. The verb itself brings out a frequentative idea, as he was 
 accustomed to do to them. Comp. ver. 6. The crowd began to ask {that he 
 slwuld do) as he was loont to do to them. The preliminaries of this appeal on 
 the part of the populace are not stated by Mark ; but see Matt, xxvii. 16-18. 
 
 Vee. 9. But Pilate answered them, saying. Will ye that I release? Is it your 
 pleasure that I should release ? 
 
 Unto you. It was the populace he wished to gratify. And most likely he 
 would not have regretted, but rather rejoiced, if the choice of the populace had 
 been at variance with the wishes of the high priest's party. 
 
 The King of the Jews. There might be a minglement of feelings prompting 
 the procurator to use this expression. Very possibly there would be something 
 of only half concealed sarcasm and contempt. But very Hkely too he might 
 know that only a few days ago the Prisoner had entered the city in a kind of 
 triumphal manner, as if He were some royal personage ; and that He was 
 received as such by the populace. Knowing this, in part perhaps by the accusa- 
 tions of the chief priests, and in part perhaps by previous report or distant 
 personal observation, he might wish to show the people that, as a faithful and 
 loyal Ecman, he was not in the least jealous of Jesus as a rival to the emperor. 
 He really had no sympathy with the representations of the sanhedrim. He 
 did not believe that any political complication was intended by the Prisoner, or 
 
12] ST. MARK XV. 42.^? 
 
 cHief priests had delivered him for envy. 11 But the chief 
 priests moved the people, that he should rather release Bar- 
 abbas unto them. 12 And Pilate answered and said again 
 unto them. What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom 
 
 that there was any clanger of insubordination and insurrection. If therefore 
 they would take it as a compliment that one, whom only a few days hef ore they 
 had hailed as the king of the Jews, should he set at liberty, he intimated that 
 he would be glad to gratify them. 
 
 Vee. 10. For he knew that the chief priests had delivered Him for envy. Or, on 
 account of envy. Wakefield renders the word too generioally, hatred. Maoe and 
 Norton, also too generioally, malice. It was envy that was the deepest feeling in 
 their spirits. They saw that Jesus was getting a hold of the hearts and con- 
 sciences of the people, in a way and to a degree that was quite beyond their reach. 
 They hence concluded that if He was not arrested in His career, He would 
 gradually make Himself the living centre of such an extended spiritual interest 
 that they would be left outside, high and dry ! They could not bear the prospect. 
 The expression on account of envy stands emphatically, in the original, in the 
 front of the sentence, /or he knevj that on account of envy tlie chief priests had de- 
 livered Him up. It is well to say delivered Him up, rather than simply delivered 
 Him, as delivered, when used absolutely, is apt to suggest the idea of deliverance 
 in the sense of liberation. The chief priests however had nothing further from 
 their intent than liberation. They handed our' Lord over to Pilate, that Ho 
 might receive from the hands of the Eoman a severer handUng than could be 
 given to Him in their own hands. See on chap. ix. 31. 
 
 Vek. 11. But the chief priests. Wyoliffe here gives the strange translation, 
 the Mschopis, i.e. the bishops. 
 
 Moved the people. Moved is scarcely strong enough (iviaeurav). They 
 ' stireden ' the cumpenye of peple, as Wycliffe has it. They urged or instigated 
 them. Mace and Principal Campbell have incited. The people : that is, the 
 people there assembled, the crowd. 
 
 That. Literally, in order that. What follows brings out the aim they had in 
 view. 
 
 He might rather release Barabbas to them. Any one rather than Jesus. They 
 would represent to the people that Jesus was so insidiously dangerous to their 
 interests and principles that the greatest scoundrel or freebooter in the country 
 would do less harm than He. 
 
 Vee. 12. The fickle crowd yielded to the priestly pressure. And Pilate 
 answered, and said again to them. In X B C, and 33 ' the queen of the cursives,' 
 the again comes in connection with the word answered ; But Pilate again 
 answered, and said to them. This connection is favoured by the Vulgate, 
 Sahidic, Philoxenian Syriao, .Ethiopio, and Gothic versions, and by Augustine 
 in his Consensus. The position is of little exegetioal moment. Pilate did not 
 ' give in ' without making another attempt to rescue the innocent Being at his 
 bar. 
 
 What then is it your pleasure that I should do to Him whom ye call the King of 
 the Jews 3 He artfuUy threw the responsibility of the royal designation upon 
 
424 ST. MARK XV. [12 
 
 ye call the King of the Jews ? 13 And they cried out again, 
 Crucify him. 14 Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil 
 hath he done ? And they cried out the more exceedingly. 
 Crucify him. 
 
 15 And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released 
 Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had 
 scourged Idm, to be crucified. 
 
 the people, instead of saying Him who calls Himself the King of the Jews. He 
 understood that the meek Being, whose life was at stake, and who would no 
 doubt have a majesty in His bearing far transcending the dignity of the high 
 priest, was popular with the common people. He knew that they supposed 
 that He had some intimate relation to their inextinguishable national yearnings. 
 He held on therefore to the hope that they would not wish Him to be given up 
 to an ignominious execution. 
 
 Vek. 13. And they cried out again. That is, when they did once more 
 tumultuously express their pleasure. They had already shouted out. Release to 
 us Barabbas ! 
 
 Crucify Him ! " The cry of the infatuated rabble really means. Deal with 
 "Him as you would have dealt with Barabbas " (Alexander). It was the voice 
 and concentrated essence of the wild-beast spirit. The chief priests and their 
 associates had breathed it into the people. It is saddening to think how 
 frequently this spirit obtains the ascendant in human affairs. Not only is 
 righteousness outvoted, goodness is overridden roughshod ; and, most likely, 
 not until men find out, from bitter experience, that they cannot get up to the 
 heights of prosperity by going down to the depths of wickedness, will they be 
 persuaded to try the Divine way of equity and love. 
 
 Vee. 14. But Pilate said to them, Why, what evil hath He done ? A peculiar 
 idiomatic phrase in Greek. Literally, For wliat did He evil ? The for points 
 to the suppressed expression of surprise, (You surprise me,) for wliat did He 
 evil ? The procurator was seeking to introduce an element of reason into the 
 excited populace. 
 
 But they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify Him. Thoy were past the stage 
 of reasoning. They were thirsting for blood, and would listen to nothing that 
 seemed to come between them and their thirst. The phrase the ■more exceedingly 
 (irepi!T(Toripai) is positive, instead of comparative, in a very large proportion of 
 the uncial manuscripts, NABCDGHKMAII. They shouted exceedingly 
 (Tfpiau&s). It was as if showers of shouting fell on the procurator's ears. 
 
 Vee. 15. And Pilate, willing to content the people. Very literally, to do ' the 
 sufficient ' to the people, or, as Wyoliffe has it, to do ynow (i.e. enough) to the 
 people, that is, to ' satisfy ' the people, to do to the crowd what would be sufficient 
 to please them. Pilate was deliberately desirous (/SouXi/ievos) of doing this. 
 
 Eeleased Barabbas to them. Or, according to the collocation of the original, 
 released to them Barabbas. 
 
 And delivered up Jesus, when he had scourged Him. Viz. by the hands of the 
 liotors. (See Stookbauer's Kunstgeschichtc des Ereuzes, p. 40.) This scourging 
 
17] ST. MARK XV. 425 
 
 16 And the soldiers led him away into the hallj called 
 Prsetorium; and they called together the whole band. 17 
 
 with rods, or with what Horace calls the ' horrible flagellum '• {Sat. i. 3, 119), 
 was deemed a fitting prelude to crucifixion. (See Lipsius De Cruce, ii. 2, 3.) 
 The aim was to make crime as odious as possible, by prefixing pain to pain, and 
 infamy to infamy. The prospect of such anguish and ignominy would be fitted 
 to act as a deterrent on the minds of the servile and the selfish. But when 
 justice missed its aim, and punishment fell on the innocent, the pure, and the 
 noble, then the efiects on delicate and high strung sensibility must have been 
 terrible in the extreme. They must have been superlatively so in the case of 
 Jesus. 
 
 To be crucified. Literally, In order that Be might he crucified. The high 
 priests and their coadjutors gained their end, and yet lost it. They wished to 
 stamp ignominy on the impracticable Galilean Beformer, and to stamp out His 
 reforming influence, as if it were a pest and a disgrace. But His cross has 
 become an actual ornament to beauty, personal and impersonal, wherever 
 eiviUzation has been triumphant. It is the symbol, almost everywhere among 
 the progressive races, of the pathway to the crown. And His reforming in- 
 fluence is silently reforming society all the world over. ' The Stone which the 
 builders disallowed, the same is made the Head of the corner.' 
 
 Veb. 16-20. A paragraph that opens up to view immeasurable descents of 
 human degradation, and, on the part of our Lord, immeasurable ascents of 
 noble self sacrifice. It corresponds to Matt, xxvii. 27-31. See also John 
 xix. 2, 3. 
 
 Vek. 16. And the soldiers. Into whose hands our Lord was committed for 
 execution. 
 
 Led Him away into the court. More literally still, led Him off inside the court, 
 the open court or quadrangle of the procurator's mansion house. Pilate had 
 met the sanhedrim and the people outside, on the paved esplanade in front of 
 his residence! See John xviii. 28, xix. 13. 
 
 Called Prsetorium. It was not the court, as distinguished from the buildings 
 that were massed around it, which was called Prsetorium. The whole pile, in- 
 clusive of the court, was the Pratorium, or Governor's residence. But as the 
 evangeKst had, in what precedes, been narrating occurrences which took place 
 outside, he now speaks of the soldiers as entering what was at once a part and 
 the whole of the pile, at once the court in particular and the Prastorium in 
 general. He might have said, inside the court of the Prcetorium. But he chooses 
 to say inside the court ; and then he artlessly adds a clause which determines 
 the particular building referred to, which is (the) Prcetorium. The word prcctorium 
 originally meant the tent or residence of the prcetor or leader ; but after leaders 
 became subdivided into various orders, and only some continued to be called 
 vrcctors, the name for the residence still retained its generic hold. And hence 
 Pilate, though no praetor, resided in a prmtorium. 
 
 And they call together the whole band. Or coliort, which was doing military 
 duty in the city. The rough brutal fellows, accustomed to gladiatorial shows, 
 and other savageries, wanted to get some sport out of their Hebrew prisoner. 
 
426 ST. MARK XV. [17 
 
 And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of 
 thorns, and put it about his head, 18 and began to salute him, 
 Hail, King of the Jews ! 19 And they smote him on the head 
 with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees 
 worshipped him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they 
 
 Vbb. 17. And they clothe Him with pnrple. Tluy invest Him with ' a purple; 
 that is, with ' a purple robe.' It had been apparently some cast ofi robe of 
 Herod Antipaa. See Luke xxiii. 11. 
 
 And having plaited a crown of thorns, they put it about His head. And thus, 
 says Hiller mystically, ' the curse that began in thorns (Gen. iii. 18) ended in 
 thorns ' {Hierophyticon, i. , p. 473). The hardened legionaries however thought 
 it splendid drollery. " The thorns," says Malan, "were most likely twigs of the 
 " commonest thorn bush in Palestine, growing everywhere on waste ground, 
 " and ready at hand. The branches are long, slender, and very thorny, though 
 " the thorns are far apart ; so that it was well suited to the purpose of the- 
 " Roman soldiers." (Notes on John, p. 127.) 
 
 Vsr.. 18. And they began to salute Him, HaU, King of the Jews. "Hail, an 
 " ancient form of saluting such as we honour or respect, which signifies as 
 "much as All health to you! " (Fetter.) " Our ancestors," says Verstegan, 
 " used it instead of Ave, as a word of most well-wishing." {Restitution, p. 247.) 
 The salutation would be the more incisively derisive, that the word rendered 
 Hail ! literally means Rejoice I " Alas, mad sinners," says Eiohard Baxter, 
 " little know you whom you scorn." 
 
 Vee. 19. And they smote Him on the head. Very literally, and tliey smote His 
 head. Not gently, we fear. They smote Him too again and again. The verb 
 is in the imperfect tense, and hence Eotherham renders it, they were striking 
 Him. 
 
 With a reed. The particular reed, most probably, whiph they had attempted 
 to stick into His hand as a sceptre. See Matt, xxvii. 29. 
 
 And did spit on Him. Eepeatedly, alas. The verb, like the preceding one, is- 
 in the imperfect tense. 
 
 And bowing their knees. Literally, andplacing the knees, namely, in position. 
 Not unlikely, the posture would be a studied imitation of the most obsec[uious 
 oriental mode. 
 
 Worshipped Him. Did humble obeisance to Him. The whole body would be 
 bent forward, prostratingly and adoringly. The Eheims version is, adored. The 
 word worshipped, given both by Wyclifie and Tyndale, was formerly employed 
 in a more generic acceptation than what is now common. The expression in 
 Matt. xix. 19 for instance, ' honour thy father and thy mother,' was rendered by 
 Wycliffe ' worshipe thi fadir and thi modir.' Hence, too, certain survivals of 
 complimentary address or designation, ' your worship,' ' worshipful,' as applied 
 to certain ' honourable ' magistrates or corporate bodies. 
 
 Vee. 20. And when they had mocked Him. That is, after the mocking was 
 finished. The word rendered mocked turns, in its significance, on the idea of 
 the sports of children (e>'^7ra(|oi'). 
 
21] ST. MARK XV. 427 
 
 took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him,, 
 and led him out to crucify him. 
 
 21 And they compel one Simon a Oyrenian, who passed by,, 
 coming out of the country, the fathei" of Alexander and Rufus, 
 to bear his cross. 
 
 They took off the purple from Him, and put His own clothes- on Him. Some texts 
 conclude a paragraph here, and hence commence a new paragraph with the 
 following clause. It is better however to make no break. And although it is 
 advantageous, for purposes of arrangement and harmony, to set ver. 16-20, and 
 then ver. 21-26, respectively, apart as distinct groups or paragraphs, yet there- 
 is no real division in the evangelist's composition. He hastens on continuously. 
 
 And led Him out that they might crucify Him. A portion of their number 
 would be told off to see the execution completed. 
 
 Vek. 21-26 constitute a group or paragraph corresponding to Matt, xxvii., 
 31-37 and Luke xxui. 26-31. Comp. also John xix. 17-2-i. 
 
 Vee. 21. And they compel. Or impress. The original word is of Persian, 
 origin, and derived its conventional. acceptation from the Persian postal system. 
 
 One Simon a Cyrenian, -who passed by. Or, a certain individual, passing by,. 
 Simon of Cijrene. There were many Simons, or Simeons, among the early 
 Christians. But this one was distinguished from all the rest as Simon of Gy- 
 rene, a great and flourishing city of that North African district which somewhat 
 corresponds to the modern Tripoli. It lay between the territory of Alexandria, 
 on the east and that of Carthage on the west, and was called Cyreuaica, or 
 Pentapolitana. Gyrene was several miles inland from the Mediterranean Sea,, 
 and in virtue of a charter of Ptolemy I. had become a favourite resort of Jews,. 
 It is now a heap of ruins, and called Cairoan or Ghrenna. (See Bastow's Bihle 
 Dictionary, p. 202.) 
 
 Coming from the country. He was not only passing by, he was on his way 'in 
 from tlie country,' and would be totally ignorant of the immense commotion that, 
 had been heaving, that morning, the great heart of Jerusalem. 
 
 The father of Alexander and Eufus. They are mentioned by name as being, 
 well known among the early Christians. They were probably devoted and con- 
 spicuous disciples. Paul sends, in his Epistle to the Eomaus {xvi. 13), a saluta- 
 tion to ' Eufus, chosen in the Lord,' and to ' his mother,' concerning whom he 
 adds most touchingly, 'and mine.' Possibly this Eufus might be he who is- 
 specified by the evangelist. Possibly the whole family may have been converted 
 to Christianity in consequence of the impressment of the father on the streets 
 of Jerusalem. Coming in contact with the Saviour, he might recognise, even 
 in the depth of His humiliation, the unmistakable gleams of His Messiahship,, 
 and become inspired with faith and fealty. 
 
 To bear His cross. Or, in order that he might talce up His cross, and carry it 
 when taken up. Our Saviour had been so exhausted in body by His want ol 
 rest, and His agony in Gethsemane, and the abuse to which He was subjected 
 in the respective courts in which He had been tried and mocked, that He was- 
 unable to drag after Him the cross which had been laid on His shoulder. (See- 
 Gruner's Commentatio de J. Christi morte vera, pp. 34-37.) It was customary 
 
428 ST. MARK XV. [22 
 
 22 And they bring him nnto the place Golgotha, which is, 
 being interpreted, The place of a skull. 
 
 23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh : 
 but he received it not. 
 
 ^or the great coarse scoundrels who were condemned to crucifixion to be compelled 
 to carry their crosses to the place of execution. (See Salmasius, Ve Gruce, p. 
 435.) In general they would be quite able to undergo that humiliating pre- 
 liminary. ' But Jesus was of a different mould, outwardly and inwardly, and 
 was therefore stumbling and falling under His oppressive burden. Thus it was 
 necessary to impress some one to assist. The soldiers would disdain to lend a 
 helping hand. So would the mob. And hence Simon was eagerly pounced upon, 
 as he was coming in from the country, and perhaps expressing surprise, in a 
 remonstrating manner, that a Being, so evidently different from the criminal 
 class, should be led off toward Golgotha. He was nothing loath to comply 
 with the impressment. He went to the fallen Sufferer, and ' lifted up ' the 
 cross. Then placing himself behind the meek mute Burden-Bearer (Luke 
 xxiii. 26), he cheerfully took over on himself the greater portion of the burden, 
 and so got linked for ever to the Lord. 
 
 Vek. 22. And they bring Him to the place GDlgotha. Literally, upon the 
 ■Golgotha place. The preposition upon thus denotes, not the direction taken, 
 but the position, or super-position, ultimately attained. Golgotlm represents, 
 in Greek letters, the Chaldaio Gulgaltha, or Syriac Gugaltho, which is a modi- 
 fication of the Hebrew word Gulgoleth, a skull. 
 
 Which is, beins; interpreted, The place of a skull. Or better still, and more 
 literally, skull-place ; and ' skull-place ' is just ' Calvary-place.' 'When we drop 
 the word ' place,' as Luke does (xxiii. 33), then the Aramaic ' Golgotha ' is iden- 
 tical with the Latin ' Calvary,' or the English ' SkuU.' It had no doubt, wher- 
 ever situated, been a little knoll, or monticule of a place, a kind of ' head-l&nd,' 
 •somewhat like a rounded skull. It was thus Mount Calvary in a certain dwarf- 
 ish application of the word mount. Its true topography however is only matter 
 of conjecture. The current ecclesiastical tradition, that it is embraced within 
 the compass of the present Church of the Bolij Sepulchre, is imaginary, and 
 evidently apocryphal. For the site of that church is now, and must apparently 
 have been in the Saviour's days, within the circuit of the walls of the city, and 
 not ' outside the gate' (Heb. xiii. 12). The word interpreted, in all the places 
 in which it occurs in the New Testament, has reference to that simplest phase 
 of the interpretation of a foreign word, tramlation. Rilliet's version of the 
 clause is, which signifies, when translated, place of the skull. 
 
 Veb. 23. And they gave Him to drink. The expression to drink is wanting 
 in the Sinaitic (K), Vatican (B), and Parisian (C*) manuscripts, as also in L A, 
 and in the Coptic and Armenian versions. It is omitted from the text by Tisch- 
 «ndorf, Tregelles, Alford, and was condemned by David Schulz. It is certainly 
 more likely that it would be added than that it would be subtracted. 
 
 Wine mingled with myrrh. Literally, myrrhed wine, that is, drugged wine, to 
 produce heartening it might be (see Bartholiuus, de vino myrrhato, in his De 
 ■Crwcc, p. 136), or to induce comparative ansesthesis or insensibility. Myrrh ia 
 
24] ST. MARK XV. 429. 
 
 24 And -when they had crucified him, they parted his gar- 
 ments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take. 
 
 a strong stimulant. The administration of drugged wine to criminals about to 
 sufier was a merciful custom, whioli relieved to a small degree the excessive 
 ferocity so characteristic of the executions of those olden times. (See Buxtorf 's 
 Lexicon Talmudicum, p. 2131, and Wetstein, in loc.) 
 
 But He received it not. Or, as the »eading is in the Sinaitic and Vatican 
 manuscripts, and ' the queen of the cursives ' (33), toho however received it not (Ss- 
 instead of o). Our Lord did not wish to use any artificial means to mitigate, or 
 otherwise modify, His sense of the sufferings connected with the culmination 
 of His work. The value of these sufferings centred in the free activity that, 
 first of all, chose their endurance, in consideration of the sublime moral ends 
 to be subserved, and then self-saorifioingly held out, under their undiminished 
 superincumbence, till all was finished. 
 
 Yeb. 24. And when they had crucified Him. That is, affixed Him to the cross. 
 This was generally done, it would appear, after the cross was erected. (See 
 Lipsius, De Cruce, ii. 7, and Salmasius, Be Gruce, pp. 333, 447 ff., ed. 1646.) 
 Sometimes however it was done before the act of elevation. (See Lipsius, as 
 above, and Gallonius, De Cniciatibus, p. 8.) The evangelist, by means of his 
 participial expression, draws a veil over the act of crucifixion, and hastens on 
 with his narrative. In the Vatican manuscript however the reading is. And 
 they crucify Him ; and Tischendorf and Tregelles have received it into their 
 texts. Unadvisedly: for it would be difficult to conceive of any translator 
 wilfully substituting the participial for the indicative expression, as there is an 
 entire absence of literary art in here mating use of a participial bridge. There- 
 is no attempt, by any kind of emphatic representation, to produce a sensational 
 effect on the one hand, or to throw out the least particle of doctrinal hint on 
 the other. 
 
 They parted His garments. They parted, that is, they distributed among: 
 themselves {Sia/xepCi^ovriu). It was a customary perquisite to the officiating 
 executioners. 
 
 Casting lots upon them. More literally, casting a lot upon them. The word for 
 lot is sometimes used for the thing allotted, and is, with" reference to the church, 
 translated heritage in King James's version of 1 Pet. v. 3, from which passage it 
 is that the words clergy, clerk, and clerical have come into use. 
 
 What every man should take. A strange expression in the original, the inter- 
 blending, in an untranslatable way, of two distinct questions (ris tI &prj). The 
 one might be resolved thus : Who (ris) should receive this, and who that ? The 
 other might be represented thus : What {rC) should each one receive ? The two 
 questions were simultaneously answered by casting lots. But were lots cast in 
 reference to all the garments, or in reference to the seamless tunic only? (See 
 John xix. 23, 24.) We may either suppose that the evangelist masses his ex- 
 pression in an artlessly free and easy manner ; or we may suppose that after 
 the garments were sorted into two divisions, (1) the precious tunic by itself, and 
 (2) the other parts of the dress by themselves, there would be an arrangement 
 of those other parts into four portions, as nearly equal in value as possible. 
 
'430 ST. MARK XV. [25 
 
 25 And it was the third liour, and they crucified him. 
 
 Each soldier of the quaternion might then get his portion by lot. And, after 
 that, the seamless tunic, instead of being shared among them, would, by consent 
 -of all, be disposed of in particular by another casting of the lot. 
 
 Vee. 25. And it was the third hour; and they crucified Him. An artless 
 and Semitic way of saying. And it was the third hour when they crucified Him. 
 There has been much discussion among expositors in reference to the horo- 
 iogical expression the third hour in its relation to John's notation of the time 
 when Pilate made a last attempt to move the Jews by saying, ' Behold your 
 King ! ' It was, says he, ' about the sixth hour ' (John xix. 14). Augustine dis- 
 cusses the matter at great length in his Harmony of the Evangelists (lib. iii., 
 -cap. xiii.). But the solution which he proposes is far too ingenious. He sup- 
 poses that Mark refers, not to the crucifixion as it was effected ly the hands oj 
 the Roman soldiers, which would be about noon, or the sixth liour of the day, 
 but to the crucifixion as it was effected 1>y the tongues of the Jews, when first 
 ithey began to cry out Crucify Him ! This, the real crucifixion according to 
 Augustine, the crucifixion proper, so far as their guilt was concerned, took place 
 about three hours earlier than the final decision of the proc«rator. " Produce," 
 says Augustine, "a better reconcihation of the two representations, and I shall 
 ■" most readily acquiesce ; for it is not my opinion that I love, but the truth of 
 " the Gospel." It would certainly be impossible to produce a more ingenious 
 •conciliation. The Pseudo-Jerome, in his Breviary on Psalm Ixxvii., supposes 
 that the word three in the existing copies of Mark's Gospel is an error of the 
 transcribers for six. He supposes still further, that the error might be occa- 
 sioned by the employment, in the earliest manuscripts, of numeral signs (P and 
 the 'digamma' F) instead of numeral words. The .ffithiopic version, it is 
 worthy of note, reads sixth hour. And the same reading Occurs in the margin 
 of the Philoxenian Syriao. In The Acts of Pilate the crucifixion is represented 
 as taking place ' in the sixth hour of the day.' (Tisehendorf 's Evan. Apocryplta, 
 B., chap. X., p. 284.) Cardinal Cajetan agrees with the Pseudo-Jerome, and 
 thinks that third is a transcriber's error for sixth. But Patrizi, while having 
 no doubt that one or other of the representations is a transcriber's error, sup- 
 poses that the fault occurs, not in Mark's Gospel, but in John's. {De Evan- 
 geliis, vol. i., pp. 434-5.) If transcriber's fault there be, it is likely that Patrizi 
 is right in attaching it to the text of John. (So Griesbach.) Mark's repre- 
 sentation seems to harmonize at once with Matthew's (xxvii. 45), and with 
 Luke's (xxiii. 44), and with the general requirements of the case. Comp. Mark 
 XV. 33. We must either apparently accept this alteration, or suppose, with 
 Dr. Ward, that John's principle of horological computation was entirely 
 different from Mark's. (Dissertations, p. 127.) The full discussion of the 
 subject belongs to the Exposition of John's Gospel. (See Zeltner De Horologio 
 Johannis.) 
 
 Yek. 26. And the superscription. Or inscription, as almost all the modern 
 translators render it. The word has no reference to the position of the placard 
 as affixed above the head. The swper has reference to the relation of the letters 
 ■of the inscription to the whitened board, on which they were written. The 
 
27] ST. MARK XV. 431 
 
 26 And the superscription of his accusation was written 
 over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 
 
 27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on 
 
 ■word means oiirwriting, though it is always rendered superscription in King 
 James's English version. (See Matt. xxii. 20 ; Mark xii. 16 ; Luke xx. 24, xxiii. 
 38.) Doubtless however the ticket would, as a matter of fact, be attached to that 
 part of the perpendicular beam that surmounted the arms of the cross. 
 
 Of His accusation. Literally, of His cause, that is, of the cause of His con- 
 demnation to death, or simply, according to the expression in Acts xiii. 28 and 
 Luke xxiii. 22, of the cause of His death. The inscription announced the crime 
 which had been laid to the charge of our Lord, and which the Eoman governor 
 had, against his inclination and his judgment, been, as it were, constrained to 
 endorse as a sufficient cause of condemnation. It was a demeritorious cause. 
 
 Was written over. That is, ran as follows. Had the expression been very 
 literally rendered, the whole statement would have stood thus, And the super- 
 scription of the cause was superscribed, or, and the inscription of the cause was 
 inscribed ; namely, as follows. It is an artless mode of speech, somewhat cor- 
 responding to the use of cognates in such a phrase as Matt. ii. 10, they rejoiced 
 a great joy. 
 
 The King of the Jews. That was the crime of which our Saviour had been 
 guilty ! The procurator would intend that the inscription should have a sting 
 in it for the chief priests and elders and scribes. He had been frustrated and 
 galled ; and he took his revenge by flashing the idea before the public mind, 
 that it was a crime, in the estimation at least of the chief priests and scribes and 
 elders, to seek to have a Jewish king. In the different Gospels there are minutise 
 of variation in the representation of the contents of the inscription. These 
 might, in part, arise from minute diversities of expression in the different 
 languages employed. But evidently it was not the aim of the evangelical 
 biographers to give the identical words, nothing more, nothing less, nothing 
 else. It was only the substance of the meaning to which they had regard, and 
 in which they felt interested. 
 
 Veb. 27-32 correspond to Matt, xxvii. 38-44, and Luke xxiii. 32-43. Com- 
 pare the cursory remark in John xix. 18. 
 
 Veb. 27. And with Him they crucify. Note the present tense. We, as it 
 were, see the deed in process. (They) crucify: there is no nominative to the 
 verb in the original. The agents are veiled. The whole expression is eguivalent 
 to the impersonal one, and with Him are crucified. No doubt however, the 
 executioners would be the quaternion of soldiers who had been detailed for the 
 crucifixion of our Lord. 
 
 Two thieves. Or rather, roibers. See chap. xiv. 48. Possibly they were the 
 accomplices of Barabbas ; and if so, the procurator might intentionally seek to 
 show his displeasure, by precipitating their execution. He would thus let the 
 people see in what light he regarded the man whom it had been their pleasure 
 to honour. The names of the robbers are given in The Acts of Pilate as Gestas 
 and Dysmas ! In the Old Latin manuscript ' c ' they are given as Zoathan and 
 Chammatha ! 
 
432 ST. MARK XV. [27 
 
 his right Land, and the other on his left. 28 And the scriptare 
 was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the 
 transgressors. 
 
 The one on His right hand, and the other on His left. Or, more literally, 
 ■without the articles, one on His right side, and one on His left. The expres- 
 sion is idiomatic in the original, and would not bear unidiomatic rendering, 
 from His right parts and His left. The position of our Lord between the two 
 malefactors would not be fortuitous. He was treated as the most criminal of 
 the three. Perhaps it was at the express desire of the procurator, that the 
 idea might stand out, in the boldest relief, before the publio mind, that for any 
 one iut Ccesar to claim to he the Icing of the Jews loas the greatest of crimes. 
 
 Vek. 28. This entire verse is omitted by Tischendorf and Alford, and brack- 
 eted by Tregelles. It is wanting in the most ancient manuscripts at present 
 known, the Siuaitio (X), the Alexandrine (A), the Vatican (B), the Parisian (C), 
 the Cambridge (D), as also in X, and in the Sahidic version. But then it is 
 present in all the most ancient versions, the Old Latin or Italic (with one ex- 
 ception, ft,) the Vulgate, the Peshito Syriao, the Philoxenian Syriac, the Coptic, 
 the Gothic, the Armenian, the ^thiopic. It must therefore have been in the 
 manuscripts from which these versions were made ; and these manuscripts, or 
 at all events the great majority of them, must have been older than the oldest 
 now extant and known. The clause is also found in the excellent uncial 
 manuscripts P S, as well as in the remainder of the uncials. It is found toO' 
 in the best of the cursives, 1, 33, 69. It seems to be recognised by Origen. 
 (See Opera, vol. i., p. 420, and note the plural word ' Gospels.') Tischendorf 
 thinks that ic was probably omitted by Eusebius. But in this he seems to be 
 mistaken. (Comp. the ' Canon ' 8 in Luke xxii. 37.) It is far more difficult to 
 account for an arbitrary insertion of the verse, more particularly when we take 
 into account Mark's limited reference to Old Testament predictions, than it is 
 to admit the supposition of an accidental omission of the whole statement in 
 some very early copy. The first word, as Griesbaoh reminds us, of both the 
 preceding and succeeding verse, is and ; and this is also the first word of tho 
 28th verse. Thus the eye of an early transcriber may have been inadvertently 
 misled. It is difficult to suppose an intentional suppression of the verse, 
 Comp. Luke xxii. 87. 
 
 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith. Namely in Isa. liii. 12. It is. 
 a very striking statement, to which the Saviour had Himself dra^vn attention 
 in the passage of Luke referred to. His reference to it is one among many 
 evidences of the Messianic nature of the oracle. 
 
 And He was numbered. Or reckoned, as the same word is rendered in Luke 
 xxii. 37. It is too Tyndale's version in the passage before us, and is certainly 
 to be preferred to Wyoliffe's gesside (i.e. guessed) and the Bheims reputed. 
 Campbell has ranked. The word has, no doubt, in its primary import a 
 reference to counting, or laying thing to thing. But^there is a fine connection 
 between counting and accounting. There is reckoning in both cases. 
 
 With the transgressors. Or more literally without the article, with trans- 
 gressors. But transgressors is too feeble a version. The word means lawless 
 
31] ST. MARK XV. 433 
 
 29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their 
 headsj and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and 
 buildest it in three days, 30 save thyself, and come down from 
 the cross. 31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said 
 among themselves with the scribes. He saved others ; himself he 
 
 {ones), those who set the laws at defiance. Coverdale's version is toilh evell 
 doers ; the Anglo-Saxon, mid unrihtwisum (with the unrighteous) ; Wyohffe, 
 Tyndale, and the Rheims, with the wicked. 
 
 Vek. 29. And they who passed hy. The passers by. Calvary would seem to 
 have been by the side of one of the thoroughfares into the city. There would 
 be a continual flux and reflux of passers by. 
 
 Bailed on Him. Or, reviled Him. Literally, llasphemed Him. 
 
 Wagging their heads. Derisively and insultingly. Comp. 2 Kings xix. 21 ; 
 Job xvi. 4 ; Ps. xxii. 7, oix. 25 ; Lam. ii. 15. 
 
 And saying. Ha! An admirable and sirople translation (ou'a = '«aft,' not ovat, 
 as in Mill and D and E). But, admirable and simple as it is,- it seems to 
 have been reached with difficulty by our British translators. Wycliffe has fie ; 
 Coverdale, fie upon The (for Luther had fie to Thee) ; Tyndale, Awretche ; the 
 Geneva, Hey ; the Eheims, Vah. The exclamation expresses here the bitterest 
 irony and scorn. 
 
 Thou who destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days. Principal 
 Campbell has a fine word for destroyest, demolishest. 
 
 Veb. 30. Save Thyself, and come down from the cross. Or, according to the 
 reading of Laohmann, Tischendorf , Tregelles, supported by S B D L A, and the 
 Vulgate and Coptic versions, Save Thyself by descending from the cross. But 
 this reading seems less* inartificial than the other, which is probably therefore 
 the autographic. The substantive meaning of both expressions is identical. 
 
 Veb. 31. Likewise. That is, in like ways, or in like manner. It was not 
 the common people alone and the casual passers by who rudely and unfeelingly 
 insulted. 
 
 Also the chief priests. Forgetting the dignity that befitted their position 
 and office. 
 
 Mocking among themselves. Or, literally, to one another. But what they 
 said to each other they said at the surrounding people. They had come out of 
 the city for the very purpose, apparently, of gloating over their Victim. 
 
 With the scribes. Who, notwithstanding the emollient tendencies of liter- 
 ature, were, in this matter, of one heart and mind with the chief priests. 
 
 Said, He saved others : Himself He cannot save. Is not His real impotence as 
 regards others, notwithstanding all that has been said iy Him or for Him, mir- 
 rored in His manifest impotence as regards Himself? Yet, in uttering their 
 taunt, they unconsciously stumbled on expressions which involved the highest 
 truths. The crucified One did save others. It was not merely a profession ; it 
 was a historical fact. And for the very reason that He was engaged in still 
 further equipping or qualifying Himself for saving others, He could not, in con- 
 sistency with His high and holy mediatorial aim, save Himself. He must needs 
 sacrifice Himself. (See Luke xxiv. 26 ; Heb. ii. 10, 14.) 
 
 f F 
 
434 ST. MAEK XV. [31 
 
 cannot save. 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now 
 from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that 
 were crucified with him reviled him. 
 
 33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness 
 over the whole land until the ninth hour. 
 
 Veb. 32. let the Christ, the King of Israel, descend now from the cross. 
 Ewald connects the nominative expression the Christ with the preceding clause, 
 The Christ cannot save Himself. Lachmaun took in the following designation 
 also, The Christ, the King of Israel, cannot save Himself. No doubt, however, 
 Bobert Stephens did right in drawing the line wher6 he did, by beginning here 
 a new verse and thus a new sentence. Jesus had confessed before the high 
 priest that He was the Christ (chap. xiv. 62), and before Pilate that He was tlie 
 King of Israel (chap. xv. 2). His revilers try to work with the twofold confes- 
 sion as if it were a lever of overwhelming refutation, let Him show, by coming 
 down, the legitimacy of His claims I 
 
 That we may see and believe. They knew not that what they scoffingly urged 
 would have left the atoning decease unaocomplish ed. They knew not moreover 
 the sophistical disingenuousness of their own spirits ; for had the Saviour com- 
 plied with their challenge, they would have been ready at once to attribute the 
 prodigy to ' black art ' and ' Beelzebul.' 
 
 And they who had been crucified with Him. His fellow- sufferers I 
 
 Keviled Him. Reproached Him for not delivering both Himself and them. 
 They had both apparently joined in flinging their barbed insults at our Saviour. 
 But one of the two seems to have speedily discovered the irrationality and 
 wanton wickedness of the assault. (See Luke xxiii. 39-43.) Perhaps he was 
 convicted by the very meekness and the unruffled self control and self abnega- 
 tion that were manifested in the manner in which our Lord endured their 
 insults. 
 
 Tek. 33-39 constitute a paragraph corresponding, as Eusebius long ago noted, 
 to Matt, xxvii. 45-54, and Luke xxiii. 44-47. 
 
 Vek. 33. And when the sixth hour was come. The sixth hour from the dawn. 
 It was thus near mid-day. 
 
 There was darkness. It became (iyevero) dark. And this although the sun 
 was in the meridian of his strength. 
 
 Over the whole land. A much better translation than that given in Luke 
 xxiii. 44 by King James's translators to the same phrase, over all the earth ; 
 though the word rendered land in Mark, and earth in Luke, does not find its 
 precise geographical or chorographical synonym in either of the translations. 
 
 Until the ninth hour. The darkness seems to have lasted from two to three 
 hours. It was not occasioned by an eclipse, for the full moon cannot intervene 
 between the earth and the sun. It was no doubt supernaturaUy contrived or over- 
 ruled, as a fringe of the entire supernatural drapery of the great supernatural 
 event which was transpiring within the supernatural Sufferer on the cross. Not 
 that any universal laws were contravened or suspended. But a new force came in, 
 which limited the scope and modified the direction of the other forces that were 
 ordinarily at work. Or when we gn to the ultimates of thought, and to the 
 
S5J ST. MARK XV. 435 
 
 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with ' a loud 
 voice, saying, Bloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani ? which is, being 
 interpreted. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken 
 me ? 35 And some of them that stood by, when they 
 
 corresponding ultimates of objective reality, we may represent the case thus : 
 a peculiar volition took place in the Divine Mind, which modified the action, 
 in that particular scene, of the omnipotent Divine Hand. It was meet that 
 there should be around our Lord a penumbra of darkness. It at once reflected 
 the mediatorial eclipse that was going on within, and cast a fitting shade over 
 the guilty population in the immediate vicinity of the scene. 
 
 Veb. 34. And at the ninth hour. Just about the time of the evening sacrifice. 
 The great antitypical sacrifice was about to culminate. 
 
 Jesns cried with a loud voice. Very literally, a great voice, the generic for the 
 specific. The pang of the protracted sacrificial act elicited the cry. 
 
 Saying, Eloi, Eloi. An Aramaic way of saying Eli, Eli (Matt, xxvii. 46), and 
 not unlikely the precise form in which the words were enunciated by our Lord. 
 (See the Syriac version.) We must not think with Patrizi of a repetition of the 
 exclamation, first in the one form and then in the other. It is probable that 
 Matthew purposely quoted the original Hebrew of the psalm. It was not, 
 ' however, we may be assured , a matter of interest to the evangelists to, record 
 the particular dialectic pronunciation given to the words uttered by our Lord. 
 The only matter of real interest in their estimation was the fact that He 
 appropriated and uttered the initial words of the 22nd Psalm. 
 
 lama Sabachthani. The manuscripts BD and 1 read lama; the Vulgate 
 lamma ; X C L A, lema, and this reading has been received into the text of his 
 eighth edition by Tischendorf. The Alexandrine manuscript and many others 
 read lima, Tischendorf's former reading. Many others read leima. It is not 
 unlikely that the autographic form might be lema. 
 
 WMch is. That is, which means, which is in meaning. 
 
 Being interpreted. Or, when translated, for the interpretation referred to is 
 simply what we now call translation. 
 
 My God, My God. The repetition denotes intensity and urgency of feeling. 
 Wave, as it were, surges upon wave. The My indicates clinging and trust. The 
 use of the word God, instead of Father, shows that it was in the human 
 element of our Lord's complex personality that the darkness and agony had 
 been experienced. To the human soul the Father was God, the object of adora- 
 tion. 
 
 Why hast Thou forsaken Me ? Or, Why forsooltest Thou Me ? The Saviour 
 was looking back to an experience, out of which He was now emerging. He 
 had been forsaken or left by the Father ; not, of course, physically or meta- 
 physically, but politically or governmentally. In the sphere of the Divine moral 
 government He was, as the world's Eepresentative and Substitute, ' left ' alone 
 with the world's sin, ' bearing ' it. See Gomm. on Matt, xxvii. 46. 
 
 Vbb. 35. And some of them who stood by. For, notwithstanding the incubus 
 of preternatural darkness, a proportion of the common people still hovered 
 around, wishful to see the end. The very fact indeed of the darkness may have 
 
436 ST. MARK XV. [35 
 
 heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias. 36 And one ran and 
 filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave 
 him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will 
 come to take him down. 
 
 37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the 
 ghost. 
 
 38 And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the 
 top to the bottom. 
 
 determined them to remain, if they belonged, as is likely, to the more super- 
 stitious class of the population. 
 
 When they heard it, said. Behold, He calleth Elias. Or, Elijah. The excla- 
 mation took them by surprise ; and, not catching the precise words, nor 
 following to the end the sentence which was uttered, their excited and untutored 
 imaginations, fixing on the first shrill cries, leaped suddenly to the conclusion 
 that Elijah was called for. The sounds were sufficiently akin ; and even the 
 least religious of the people would probably know that some peculiar relation- 
 ship of Elijah to the Messiah was predicted in the Scriptures (Mai. iv. 5). lu 
 their weird state of mind, it would scarcely have taken them by surprise, if 
 Elijah had suddenly aUghted at the cross in his robe of rough hair. 
 
 Yeb. 36. And one ran and having filled », sponge full of vinegar, put it on a 
 reed. Or, more literally, round a reed. The reed was, at its extremity, sur- 
 rounded with it. 
 
 And gave Him to drink. Holding the sponge persistently to our Saviour's 
 mouth. The verb is in the imperfect tense. The man may have seen that the 
 Saviour was apparently near His end, but may have hoped that, by the help of 
 the refreshment, life might be protracted a little, so that Elijah, if he were 
 coming, might have time to make his appearance. 
 
 Saying, Let alone. An idiomatic expression. Let go ! Stop ! 
 
 let us see whether Elias will come to take Him down. More literally, Let us see 
 if Elias is coming to take Him down. And the man would look wistfully into 
 the air as he spoke. 
 
 Veb. 37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. Or, more 
 literally. But Jesus, having emitted a loud voice, expired. He exclaimed. Father, 
 into Thy hands I commend My spirit. (Luke xxiii. 46.) The expression gave 
 up the ghost is an archaism. The word ghost, the analogue ot the German 
 Geist, just means spirit. It is now however narrowed in its reference to actual 
 or supposed apparitions of the disembodied human spirit. The biblical and 
 theological phrase, the Holy Ghost, just means the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Tek. 38. And the veil of the temple. The curtain that separated the inner- 
 most recess from the anterior apartment of the sanctuary. It would be strong 
 in its texture, as well as precious in its tissues. 
 
 Was rent in twain. Literally, into twain, or, in more modern phrase, into 
 two, that is, into two parts. 
 
 From top to bottom. The rent was throughout. It was no doubt super- 
 natural, indicating, by a sublime ' figure of fact,' as by a sublime ' figure of 
 
40] ST. MARK XV. 437 
 
 39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, 
 saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said. Truly 
 this man was the Son of God. 
 
 40 There were also women looking on afar off: among 
 whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the 
 
 speech,' that in virtue of the decease, which had been accomplished, the way 
 into the heavenly holy of holies was now Divinely opened up. See Heb. ix. 7, 8. 
 
 Tek. 39. And. Here follows another interesting and significant fact. 
 
 When the centurion. The Bomau officer who had charge of the quaternion of 
 soldiers, who had been told off to see the execution consummated. 
 
 Who stood over against Him. Who stood near, opposite Him, or facing Him. 
 
 Saw that He so cried out, and expired. In the Sinaitic and Vatican manu- 
 scripts, and hence in Tisohendorf's eighth edition of the text, the reference to 
 the ' cry ' is omitted. The expression runs simply thus. Saw that He so expired. 
 It is not likely however that any transcriber would arbitrarily introduce the 
 reference to the ' cry ' as an object that was ' seen ' by the centurion. It is more 
 likely that some fastidious critic thought the expression awkward, and therefore 
 curtailed the autographic statement. There is no need however for such fasti- 
 diousness in relation to artless composition. The meaning is obvious : the 
 centurion perceived or observed the various complex phenomena of the decease. 
 He joined fact to fact, and connected them with the manifest peculiarity, , 
 dignity, and meekness of the wonderful Sufferer. 
 
 He said, Truly this Man was the Son of God. Too strong a translation. There 
 is no definite article in the original before the word Son. Perceiving this, some 
 critics have contended that the rendering should be a son of a god, a hero. 
 They have maintained moreover that such a translation is most in accordance 
 with what might be expected from the lips of a man who was a Eoman and a 
 heathen. But yet there is nothing corresponding to the indefinite article a in 
 the original. The literal rendering of the expression excludes both articles, and 
 is perfect, Truly this man was God's Son. It is left entirely indeterminate 
 whether the centurion thought of other sons of God, or not. Note however the 
 was. It was the centurion's notion that all was now over with our Lord. 
 
 Vek. 40, 41 constitute a little Ammonian section, corresponding, as Eusebius 
 noted, to Matt, xxvii. 55, 56, and Luke xxiii. 49. 
 
 Veb. 40. There were also women. More literally. And tliere were also women, 
 besides the other persons who have been referred to in the preceding verses. 
 
 Looking on afar off. Or, Looking on from a distance. Their attachment to the 
 Saviour chained them to the spot ; their modesty kept them in its outskirts. 
 
 Among whom were both Mary Magdalene. Or, Mary the Magdalene, that is, 
 Mary of Magdala. She was one of the most devoted of the Lord's disciples, 
 and had experienced in her own person the marvellous effect of His mediatorial 
 power and beneficence. (See chap. xvi. 9, and Luke viii. 2.) There seems to 
 be no good reason for identifying her with Mary of Bethany, the sister of 
 Martha ; or for supposing that either she, or Mary of Bethany, was ' the woman 
 who was a sinner ' (Luke vii. 37). 
 
 And Mary the mother of James the less. Or rather, of James the little. (See 
 
438 ST. MAEK XV. [40 
 
 less and of Joses, and Salome ; 41 (who also, when he was in 
 Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many 
 other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem. 
 
 chap. iii. 18.) He had been, it ■would appear, diminutive in stature, as were 
 doubtless the ancestors of the considerable English famiUea of Littles and 
 Smalls. 
 
 And of Joses. A common name among the Jews. See chap. yi. 3. The 
 Joses here mentioned must have been well known in the original circle of 
 disciples, seeing he is here particularized, along with his brother James-the- 
 little, to differentiate the second Mary referred to. Wieseler would read Joseph 
 instead of Joses, and understands the reference to be to Joseph of Arimatliea. 
 -Unlikely. 
 
 And Salome. The wife of Zebedee, and the mother of .Tames and John, the 
 ' duumvirate ' who stood next among the apostles to Peter, the ' primate.' 
 Was she the sister of the mother of our Lord ? See John xix. 25. 
 
 Veb. 41. Who also. The also is omitted in the Sinaitic (N) and Vatican (B) 
 manuscripts, and ' the queen of the cursives ' (33), apparently in consequence 
 of ' homceoteleuton ' (ai /cai). See the manuscripts ACL A, which omit the 
 who and insert the also. 
 
 When He was in Galilee. Or better. While He was in Galilee, for the was is in 
 the imperfect tense, and its idea of continuance is reflected in the while. 
 
 Followed Him. Were in the habit of following Him (tiko\o68ovi>), namely, from 
 place to place, as He went about doing good by word and work. Why ? Partly 
 no doubt because, unlike other rabbis, He delighted to admit females to the full 
 participation of the rights of pupils. Partly because of the wonderful spii-itual 
 attraction which He exerted. Partly perhaps for another reason ; see next 
 clause. 
 
 And ministered unto Him. They were im, the habit of ministering to Him 
 (SLTIKovovf). They knew that, notwithstanding the mysterious glories of His 
 higher being, into which it baffled them to see far, He had, at those humbler 
 points of His personality in which He touched the conditions of ordinary 
 mortals, numerous little wants to which they were capable of ministering, and 
 by their attention to which they could leave Him disembarrassed for His higher 
 engagements. 
 
 The first moiety of the verse attaches itself parenthetically to the last moiety 
 of the preceding verse. The ladies specified were, so to speak, the regular 
 attendants of our Lord. But many others, who could not get into the inner- 
 most circle, or whose circumstances did not permit their frequent absence from 
 home, had yet been blessed by our Lord, and felt irresistibly attracted toward 
 Him. Hence they too lingered on in view of the cross. And many other women 
 who came up with Him to Jerusalem. To be present at the passover, and to 
 enjoy whatever manifestations of His royal nature and office it might please 
 the great Master to make. 
 
 Veb. 42-47 form a paragraph which, as was noted by Eusebius, has its cor- 
 respondencies in all the other evangelists. See Matt, xxvii. 57-61 ; Luke xxiii. 
 50, 51 ; and John xix. 38-42, 
 
*4] ST. MARK XV. 439 
 
 42 And now when the even was come, because it was the 
 preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 43 Joseph of 
 Arimath^a, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for 
 the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, 
 and craved the body of Jesus. 44 And Pilate marvelled if 
 
 Ver. 42. And now when the even was come. The first of ' the two even- 
 ings,' or the space of time that extended from mid-afternoon to sunset. 
 
 Because it was the preparation. Literally, sinee it was preparation, that is, 
 since the day, whose evening had set in, was preparation day. The idea of the 
 particular preparation referred to was in itself so definite that the evangelist did 
 not even need to say ' the preparation.' The since looks, reason-renderingly, 
 forward to the action of Joseph, about to be narrated. 
 
 That is, the day before the sabbath. Literally, which is fore-sabhath, that is, 
 which preparation is fore-sabbath, 01 sabbath eve. Compare the German Sonn- 
 abend. The reference therefore is generically to preparation for the sabbath as 
 sabbath, not specifically to preparation for the paschal sabbath, as paschal 
 sabbath. (See John xviii. 28, xix. 31 and 42.) Every sabbath needed ' pre- 
 paration,' both outward and inward, if it was to be hallowed as a season of rest 
 from the toils of other days. 
 
 Veb. 43. Joseph of Arimathea. Literally, Joseph, he from Arimathea. So 
 'designated to distinguish him from other Josephs. The site of Arimathea is 
 stm undetermined. Many, inclusive of Grimm, suppose it probable that it was 
 the Eamah, or Bamathaim-Zophim, of Mount Ephraim, where Samuel was 
 born. But where that Ramah, or Eamathaim, or Double-Height, was, is ' one 
 of the puzzles of biblical geography.' "It is," says Dean Stanley, "without 
 " exception, the most complicated and disputed problem of sacred topography." 
 {Sinai and Palestine, p. 224.) See Whitney's Bible Geography, p. 313. 
 
 An honourable connseUor, Honowrable, viz. in a social position, as belonging 
 to the higher classes of society. He was, as it were, a ' gentleman ' or a ' noble.' 
 The same term is applied to ladies in Acts xiii. 50, xvii. 12. Joseph was a 
 councillor, or senator, i.e. a member of the sanhedrim. 
 
 Who also waited for the kingdom of God. Or more literally, Who also himself 
 was waiting for the kingdom of God. He had been a student of prophecy and 
 of the signs of the times, and had come to the conclusion that the crisis of the 
 ages was at hand. Notwithstanding his high position in society, and the con- 
 sequent influences that were blowing in upon him in the direction of spiritual 
 indifference, he also himself, as well as the humbler and avowed disciples of 
 Jesus, looked for the speedy establishment of the Messianic kingdom. 
 
 Came. Upon the scene. 
 
 And went in boldly unto Pilate. He dared all the consequences that might be 
 involved in the act (roX^^iras). 
 
 And craved the body of Jesus. But not in a craven spirit. The verb just 
 means asked, and so it is generally rendered in the numerous passages in which 
 it occurs. It is so rendered here in the Geneva and the Eheims. It is no- 
 where else translated crave. In the corresponding passages of Matt, xxvii. 58 
 and Luke xxiii. 52 it is translated begged. Tyndale has begged here too ; 
 Wyoliffe and Coverdale have axide or axed (that is, asked). 
 
440 ST. MARK XV. [44 
 
 he were already dead : and calling unto him the centurion, he 
 asked him whether he had been any while dead. 45 And when 
 he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. 
 46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped 
 him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn 
 out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. 
 47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses 
 beheld where he was laid, 
 
 Vee. 44. But Pilate wondered if He were already dead. It is the perfect 
 tense that is employed, if He were already in a dead state. As crucified per- 
 sons generally belonged to a strong coarse class of people, it was no uncommon 
 thing for them to linger on in life for more than a day. Pilate had seen with 
 his eyes that Jesus did not belong to that class ; but still he would feel sur- 
 prised if He should be already deceased. 
 
 Aud calling to Mm the centurion. Who had charge of the execution. See 
 Ter. 39. 
 
 He asked him whether He had been any while dead. The verb here, unlike 
 the preceding one, is in the aorist, if He died, and the adverb literally means 
 formerly, or some time ago {el iraXcu dwiffavev). It is rendered long ago in Matt. 
 xi. 21, and a great while ago in Luke x. 13, and of old in Jude 4. The Vatican 
 and Cambridge manuscripts read nam (ijST)) instead of some time ago. Aud 
 Lachmann and Tregelles have introduced this reading into their texts. Wrongly. 
 Not only is the strong adverb of the Beceived Text overwhelmingly supported 
 by the manuscripts, it harmonises, admirably though artlessly, with the tense 
 of the verb employed. Pilate does not ask if Jesus died just now, but if He 
 died some time ago, so that there might be no doubt that He was now in a dead 
 state. 
 
 Vee, 45. And when he knew it of the centurion. As soon as he got know- 
 ledge of the fact from the centurion. 
 
 He gave the body to Joseph. He gifted it (iSap-fiiTaro). The body : Literally, 
 the corpse (irrwiiiti). 
 
 Vek. 46. And having bought fine linen. Such as was used for swathing the 
 bodies of the dead. See Herodotus, ii. 86. 
 
 He took Him down, and wrapped Him in the linen. Wrapped or rolled. 
 
 And laid Him. More literally, deposited Him. 
 
 In a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock. Sepulchre, or mrmument. The 
 Greek word (/uj/^/xo ov /ivij/iewv) means monument, for sepulchres that were hewn 
 out of rooks, or rendered otherwise conspicuous, were intended to maintain the 
 memory of the departed. 
 
 And rolled a stone to the door of the sepulchre. It would no doubt be a stone 
 that was artificially fitted to the aperture. To : literally, upon. The door : 
 that is, the entrance. The word does not denote the mechanical contrivance 
 by which passages may be closed. It denotes the passage itself, which was the 
 thoroughfare through which there was entrance and exit. 
 
 Veb. 47. And Mary the Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld 
 where He was laid. They loere beholding. 
 
1] ST. MARK XVI. 441 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 1 AND when the sabbath was pastj Mary Magdalene, and 
 Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet 
 
 CHAPTEB XVI. 
 A VEIL is drawn over the anguish of the following day. It was ' the day of 
 rest.' But it would be emphatically, to the disciples, a day of restlessness. 
 It was the day of the expiry of the old dispensation. With the dawn of the 
 first day of the new week, there came the dawn of a new era for the whole 
 world of mankind. Our eyes are turned, by the evangelist, to the first streaks 
 of the dayspring. 
 
 Vek. 1-8. Comp. Matt, xxviii. 1-10, Luke xxiv. 1-10, John xx. 1-18. 
 
 Ver. 1'. And when the sabbath was past. Or, was passed through (biayeva- 
 fihov). Wakefield totally misunderstood the phrase. He translated it, on the 
 saiiath ietween. 
 
 Mary the Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James. She is called the mother 
 of Joses in the preceding verse, and the mother of James the little and of Joses 
 in chap. xv. 40. So artlessly does the evangelist compose, now touching on 
 one differentiating relationship, and now on another. 
 
 And Salome. See chap. xv. 40. 
 
 Had bought. It is not a pluperfect in the original, but an aorist, bought. 
 So Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, the Geneva, and the Eheims ; Luther too and 
 Calvin. The pluperfect translation was a device of Tremellius, Beza, Grotius, 
 and such other translators and expositors as Pisoator, Petter, Erasmus Schmid, 
 Wolff, WeUs, Whitby, Sohaff, to produce an artificial harmony with Luke xxiii. 
 56, " and they returned, and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the sab- 
 " bath day, according to the commandment." There is however no contradiction 
 or disharmony between the two narratives. And there is no occasion for resort- 
 ing, with GresweU and Bloomfield, to the subtle expedient of supposing a re- 
 ference to two distinct bands of women, a Salome band and a Johanna band. 
 Neither is there any occasion for supposing, with Doddridge, that the evangelist's 
 statement is founded on a resolution of the women to purchase ' a larger quan- 
 tity of aromatic drugs.' There is simply artlessness of representation, especi- 
 ally on the part of Mark. He had not in his mind the least intent to represent 
 the purchase of the spices as chronologically subBequent to the sabbath day. 
 Neither on the other hand did he mean to intimate that it was chronologically 
 anterior. He is not constructing at aU a chronicle of chronological details. 
 He was intent on only one great chronological event, the resurrection of our 
 Lord, according to His own explicit predictions, on the third day after His 
 decease. Hence the preliminary obtrusion of the expression, when the sabbath 
 was past. But after having made that statement, he seems, so to speak, to 
 pause and stand on tiptoe to get the earliest possible glimpse of the great event. 
 And it is while thus in an attitude of expectancy that he makes the statement 
 regarding the women's purchase of the spices, without any intention of deter- 
 mining the date of the transaction. 
 
442 ST. MARK XVI. [1 
 
 spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2 And very 
 early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto 
 
 Sweet spices. Or simply spices, as the same word is rendered in Luke xxiii. 
 56, xxiv. 1 ; John xix. 40. It is also so rendered here by Coverdale, and in the 
 Bheims. Wycliffe has simply oynemmtis, and Tyndale odures. But Purvey, 
 in his revision of Wycliffe, has swete smellynge oynementis ; and in Lord 
 Cromwell's Bible of 1539 Tyndale's simple odures is expanded into sweete 
 odowes. The word in the original is aromas {dpiifnaTa), a term which, according 
 to Max Miiller, primarily denoted field-fruits in general, and then came to 
 be restricted to really aromatic herbs, on a principle corresponding to what is 
 exemplified in the word spices, which originally meant unrestrictedly especes or 
 species. {Lectures on Language, vol. i., p. 293, sixth ed.) 
 
 That they mig:ht come. The evangelist had the journey of the women in view, 
 and hence this clause that might otherwise have seemed superfluous. 
 
 And anoint Him. Namely with the liquid aromas. Instead of anoini, Bishop 
 Hammond suggests embalm ; and his word is accepted by Dr. Samuel Clarke, 
 Whitby, Mace, Principal Campbell, Dr. Adam Clarke, and others. It is, for 
 several reasons, an excellent word ; but it must not be supposed that there was 
 a precise analogy, or closely running parallel, between the Jewish and the 
 Egyptian process. On this matter Harmer was quite mistaken. (Obseroa- 
 tions, vol. iii., 75.) The Jews did not disembowel, or use measures to prevent 
 corruption. (See John xi. 39.) They merely showed their love and esteem by 
 ' anointing to the burying.' (Mark xiv. 8.) They neutralized, for a limited 
 season, some of the unpleasantnesses of death, and indicated the persistence of 
 affection. They thus too subindioated the existence of a certain lively hope. 
 The women, in the instance before ua, wished to supplement the attentions of 
 Joseph of Arimathea (chap. xv. 46). Perhaps they were ignorant of what 
 Nicodemus had done (John xix. 39;i). 'Or perhaps they simply desired to add 
 their contribution to his. 
 
 Veb. 2. And very early in the morning. Or simply, and very early. The 
 clause in the morning is superfluous, and is omitted in ver. 9 ; as also in John 
 XX. 1. Wycliffe omits it here,/«Z eerli. 
 
 The first day of the week. Ox ' on' the first day of the week. It ia a strange 
 idiomatic expression in the original, on the one of the sabbaths. It has occa- 
 sioned perplexity to translators. Luther renders it puzzlingly, on one of sabbaths. 
 Coverdale, still more puzzlingly, upon a daye of the sabbathes. The Kheims, the 
 first of the sahboths ; Lord Cromwell's Bible (1539), the first daye of the sabbath. 
 Wycliffe is far superior in his version, in oon of woke dayes (i.e. in one of the 
 week days, i.e. in No. one of the week days). Tyndale apprehended the idiom 
 precisely, the nexte daye after the saboth day. The Greeks sometimes plural- 
 ized the word sabbath, in consequence of the Aramaic way of pronouncing the 
 term, sabbatha. And the Hebrews sometimes counted the daya of their week 
 from the sabbath, or toward the sabbath. Or rather they, as it wei-e, absorbed 
 their week in the sabbath, so that Sunday was one of the sabbath. (See Ariaa 
 Montanua's Tiote, in loc.) 
 
 They came to the sepulchre. Very literally, they come upon the sepulchre. 
 
5] ST. MARK XVI. 443 
 
 tlie sepulchre at tlie rising of the sun. 3 And they said among 
 themselves. Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of 
 the sepulchre ? 4 And when they looked, they saw that 
 the stone was rolled away : for it was very great. 5 And 
 
 The preposition denotes proximity. The evangelist is in haste, as it were, to 
 see them ' on ' the spot. 
 
 At the rising of the sun. Not quite a correct rendering. The expression 
 rather means, after the sun had risen (dcareiXai'ros roO ijMov). It was correctly 
 rendered by Wyoliffe, Purvey, Tyndale, and in the Eheims. King James's 
 English translators, along with the authors of the Geneva, were misled by 
 Beza, who praised the reading (dcarAXo^Tos) of his ' very ancient manuscript,' 
 the Cambridge (D), though he did not introduce it into the text or into his 
 version. All the other uncial manuscripts are against the reading. It was 
 obviously a tinkering to bring Marks phraseology into closer harmony, as was 
 supposed, with Matt, xxviii. 1, Luke xxdv. 1, and John xx. 1. The tinkering, 
 however, is entirely unnecessary. There is no collision of representations, 
 although scope is left, amid their variations, for the reproductive faculty to 
 adjust into unity, as best it can, idiversities of details. (See an exceedingly in- 
 genious attempt in this direction by E. Gieswell in his 43rd Dissertation on 
 the Principles and Arrangement of an Harmony ofithe Gospels.) 
 
 Vek. 3. And they were saying to each other. Namely, as they were approach- 
 ing the spot. 
 
 Who shall roll away fbr us the stone out of the door of the sepulchre ? The 
 magnitude of the stone, and the way perhaps in which it had been fixed in, 
 occasioned them concern, though they might be hoping to procure assistance 
 from such casual laboiirers as would be stirring out to their work. It is 
 noteworthy that they make no reference to the Eoman soldiers. The like- 
 lihood is that they knew nothing at all of their appointment. The military 
 guard was an afterthought with the priests and Pharisees, and had been 
 obtained, not on the preparation day, hut on the sabbath. See Matt, xxvii. 
 62-66. 
 
 Veb. 4. And having looked up. The tip is found in . the renderings of the 
 word in chap. vi. 41, vii. 34, viii. 24. The sepulchre had been, as was common 
 with such tombs, on the face of a sloping eminence of rook. 
 
 They see that the stone has been rolled aw^y. In the Sinaitio and Vatican 
 manuscripts, and in the texts of Tisohendorf and Tregelles, the verb is 
 dj-a/ceKi/Xia-Tai, has been rolled back. It is likely to be the autographic reading, 
 and modified to that of Matthew and Luke by ihe early harmonists. 
 
 For it was very great. A clause that comes as artlessly in at the end here, 
 tetiologioally, as the first clause of the first verse comes in chronologically. A 
 less inartificial writer would have put the clause at the conclusion of the third 
 verse ; whither indeed the writer of rthe Cambridge manuscript (D) has actually 
 transferred it. So too Eusehius, in has quotation of the passage in his Demon- 
 gtratio, X. 493. Wassenbergh thinks that the clause must have been anciently 
 torn off from its natural position {De Trajectionibus N. T., p. 34), a most un- 
 likely occurrouoe. Yiet IDr. Adam Clarke took the same view; and Mace, 
 
444 ST. MARK XVI. [5 
 
 entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on 
 the right side, clothed in a long white garment ; and they were 
 affrighted. 6 And he saith unto them. Be not affrighted : Ye 
 seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified : he is risen ; he is 
 
 Wakefield, Principal Campbell, Eodolphus Dickinson, actually make the trans- 
 position in their respective versions ; while Wolle throws the preceding part of 
 the verse into a parenthesis {De Parenthesi Sacra, p. 38.) He was preceded in 
 this device by Hammond and Fetter, and has been followed by Worsley, New- 
 come, and Edgar Taylor. There is no need for such surgical manipulation. 
 Neither need we, with Meyer and Alford, imagine that the great size of the 
 stone is particularized as a reason why they could not escape taking notice of 
 the fact that it was rolled aside. It is enough, as Bleek judiciously decides, that 
 the evangelist's phraseology is artless. 
 
 Veb. 5. And entering into the sepulchre. Or rather, and when they entered 
 into the sepulchre. It is not implied that they entered immediately, or hasted as 
 it were. The clause is not so much successive to what goes before, as prelimi- 
 nary to what comes after. It would be with trembling, and awe, and hesitation, 
 that they would enter ; and perhaps too after Mary of Magdala had sped off to 
 inform the apostles. See Matt, xxviii. 5, and John xx. 1, 2. 
 
 They saw a young man. Or simply, a youth. Wycliffe has a yong oon (a 
 young one) ; and Purvey, a yonglyng. This last is Luther's precise word 
 (Jungling). It is assumed that the bloom and beauty of youth are never 
 effaced from angelic natures. 
 
 Sitting on the right side. As they entered, apparently. He might be sitting 
 on one of the ledges or platforms, which are common in the oriental sepulchres, 
 and which are convenient for the accommodation of the body during the process 
 of anointing. 
 
 Clothed in a long white garment. Arrayed in a white robe. The idea of lomi 
 is only implied. Stole is the word used. Wycliffe's version is hilid ( = heeled, 
 i.e. covered) with a whit stoole. 
 
 And they were affrighted [k^eSan^-fiBTjaav). The idea of amazement is more 
 prominent than that of fright. See the only other passages, with the exception 
 of next verse, in which the word occurs in the New Testament, Mark ix. 15, 
 xiv. 33. They would he frightened. But they were in particular amazed to see 
 the empty tomb. They could not yet realize the possibility of the resurrec- 
 tion. This idea of amazement has something to do with the conciliation of the 
 different evangelical narratives. Each evangelist depicted the resurrection 
 scene from his own peculiar standpoint ; and, out of the multitudinous details 
 of visits and revisits, crossing and recrossings, groupings and regroupings, he 
 selected what sufficed to fill up his particular cartoon of representation. 
 
 Veb. 6. But he saith to them, Be not afirighted. Be not amazed. Nothing 
 else has happened than what you should have expected. 
 
 Ye seek. That is, Ye are seeking I am aware. 
 
 Jesus of Nazareth who has been crucified : He is risen : He is not here. Tou 
 should not be looking for Him here. You should not have expected, after what 
 He Himself said, to find Him here. 
 
8] ST. MARK XVI. 445 
 
 not here : behold the place where they laid him. 7 But go 
 your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you 
 into GaHlee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. 8 
 And they went out quickly, and fled' from the sepulchre ; for 
 they trembled and were amazed : neither said they any thing 
 to any man ; for they were afraid. 
 
 lo the place where they laid Him. The cerements were there, but the body 
 was gone. "Whither ? Had it been stolen and hidden ? Who would have been 
 the thieves ? Friends or foes ? Not friends ; for how could their faith be made 
 heroic, for their crusade against the world's unbelief, by a theft and a carcase 1 
 Not foes ; for it was their interest to prevent the disappearance of the body, that 
 there might be ocular demonstration of the falsity of the predicted resurrection. 
 The fact of the actual resurrection of our Lord is a rock-of-ages that never can 
 be moved. See Comm. on Matt, xxviii. 
 
 Veb. 7. But. Now that you see that your Lord is not here, but risen. 
 
 Go ; tell His disciples and Peter. Peter in particular, because he in par- 
 ticular had denied his discipleship, and thus put himself as it were outside the 
 circle. 
 
 That. This demonstrative conjunction is here used recitatively, apd thus 
 introduces, in the direct form instead of the indirect, what was to be said to 
 the disciples and Peter. It is idiomatic in English to omit it altogether. 
 
 He goeth before you into Galilee : there shall ye see Him, as He said to yon. 
 See chap. xiv. 28. The appearance of our risen Lord in Galilee, where He was 
 best known, and where He had the greatest number of followers who were 
 intimately acquainted with His person, and therefore best qualified to judge of 
 its identity, was the most important of all the appearances. It was the great 
 public appearance, and is no doubt that which is referred to by Paul, when 
 he says. After that, He was seen of above Jive hundred brethren at once; of 
 whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. (1 
 Cor. XV. 6.) 
 
 Vbb. 8. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre. That they 
 might fly, if possible, as upon the wings of the wind, to fulfil the behest 
 committed to them. The word quickly however, though in the Erasmian or 
 Eeceived text, must have been a marginal annotation. It is wanting in almost 
 all the good manuscripts, and in all the ancient versions. 
 
 For they trembled and were amazed. Literally, for trembling and ecstasy had 
 hold of them. The word ecstasy is the evangelist's own word. It is rendered 
 trance in Acts x. 10, xi. 5, xxii. 17. They were in the highest state of mental 
 exaltation, as if their spirits could not be contained in their bodies. The 
 trembling that accompanied this condition of ecstasy was not properly fright, 
 but agitation. 
 
 And they said nothing to any one. Namely, by the way. So Cardinal Cajetan 
 and Grotius. It is entirely gratuitous to suppose, with Meyer, followed by 
 Alford, that the meaning is that they left their message unfulfilled. Such a 
 conception of the case is intrinsically most improbable. 
 
 Tor they were afraid. Why? Certainly not, as Petter supposes, "from the 
 
446 ST. MARK XVI. [S 
 
 " apprehension of some hurt or danger which might befall them by or upon the 
 " apparition of the angel to them." Neither is it natural to think of any far- 
 seeing solicitude lest the news should get wind, and reach the ears of the 
 members of the sanhedrim, so as to arouse to persecution. Dr. Edward Wells 
 comes nearer nature; "For," says he, "they were afraid to stay, and not to 
 " hasten all they could to the apostles." They were in a tumult of commotion, 
 and could not pause by the way to speak to any. 
 
 Yee. 9-20 have beoom.e a battle field of textual criticism. 
 
 They are wanting altogether in the two most ancient manuscripts yet dis- 
 covered, the Sinaitio (X) in St. Petersburg, and the Vatican (B) in Borne : rather 
 a remarkable fact. 
 
 Eusebius, the illustrious Bishop of Csesarea, who died a.d. 340, and who was 
 one of the most learned and inquisitive of the Greek fathers, says that the 
 paragraph was wanting ' in almost all the existent copies of the Gospel,' ' the 
 accurate ones at all events ' ((rxeSo" if fiTacri toTs dvTiypdcpois ... 7a yoOv i,Kpi^ri 
 Tuv dvTi.ypii((i(jiv, K. t. \.). He adds, less sweepingly, that it was found ' rarely ; 
 in some copies, but not in all.' (Opera, A. Migne's edition, vol, iv., p. 938.) 
 These assertions, more especially when taken in connection with the evidence 
 of the Sinaitio and Vatican manuscripts, are certainly startling. 
 
 Then Jerome, who died a.d. 420, and who was the most learned and criti- 
 cal of the Latin Fathers, echoes the substance of the assertions of Eusebius, 
 but just as if he were making his own original observations. This he does 
 in a long letter addressed to Hedibia, a pious lady residing in Gaul. He says 
 that the paragraph in question is found ' in few Gospels, and is wanting in 
 ' almost all the Greek copies ' (in faris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Greecice 
 libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentihus : Epist. cxx., c. 3). This 
 language, like the first sweeping remarks of Eusebius, is almost sensationally 
 strong. 
 
 But still farther, Victor of Antiooh, who flourished, as is generally supposed, 
 about the time of Jerome, and who compiled, chiefly from the writings of the 
 preceding Greek Fathers, a Commentary on the Gospel according to Mark, still 
 extant, re-echoes, though in a somewhat mitigated form, the strong assertion of 
 Eusebius. He says that ' in most copies the passage, Now when Jesus was 
 risen early, etc., is not found in the present Gospel.' (Comm., as contained in 
 Cramer's Catena, vol. i., p. 447.) 
 
 Then there is an old Greek Homily on the Resurrection, which has gone 
 a-begging for an author among the Greek fathers, in which the substance of 
 Eusebius's sweeping remarks is strongly re-re-echoed. The passage runs thus : 
 " In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at 'for 
 " they were afraid.^ But in some copies this also is added, 'Now when He xoas 
 "risen early the first day of the week. He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out 
 " of whom He had cast seven devils.' " This Homily has been ascribed by some 
 to Gregory of Nyssa, and is printed among his works. It is often referred to as 
 his. But by Montfaucon and Cramer it is ascribed to Severus of Antioch, and 
 printed by them as his ; while Combefisius and Gallandius ascribe it to Hesy- 
 ohius of Jerosalem, and print it as his. Hesyohius flourished in the sixth 
 century, and it is most probable, it seems, that he is the real author of the 
 discourse. (See Burgon's Last Twelve Verses of Mark, chap, v.) 
 
9-20] ST. MARK XVI. 447 
 
 Euthymius Zigalienus, who flourished in the twelfth century, does not deal 
 in such energetic phraseology as some of his predeoeasors. But he says, in his 
 annotation on the eighth verse : " Some of the expositors affirm that the Gospel 
 " according to Mark terminates here, and that what follows was afterwards 
 " added. It is necessary however," he adds, " to interpret it, as it is not inoon- 
 " sistent with the truth." This is mild enough, but let us see the continuity of 
 the traditiony 
 
 In modern times few will be prepared to admit that the Gospel could have 
 been intentionally terminated at the eighth verse {ifpo^ovvro yap). " That 
 " ought," says Griesbaeh, " to seem incredible to all" (Gom. Crit., p. 199). " It 
 would be," says Michaelis, "a wonderful conclusion of a book." [Einleitung, 
 p. 1060, fourth edition.) 
 
 Michaelis was greatly perplexed about the paragraph. It looked to him like 
 a patch. And yet he could not shake himself entirely loose from the oonviotiou 
 that Mark was its author. He hence, with that inventiveness of genius for 
 which he was distinguished, struck out the following vivid conjecture on the 
 subject : WhsX if Mark may have issued two editions of his Gospel, one in 
 Borne, and another in Alexandria 1 What if the Eoman edition was originally 
 incomplete, while the Alexandrine was completed ? Might not the evangelist, 
 in composing the Eoman one, have got just to the close of the eighth verse of 
 the 16th chapter, at the very point of time when Peter, at whose dictation he 
 was writing, was crucified or imprisoned ? Why not ? And why may not that 
 event have put an abrupt arrest on the evangelist's composition ? Why may 
 we not account in this manner for the ' wonderful conclusion ' ? And why may 
 we not further suppose that, when the evangelist subsequently published in 
 Alexandria his second edition, he added, as best he could, out of his own 
 penury, what was needed to complete the narrative ? (Einleitung, pp. 1059, 
 1060, fourth edition.) 
 
 Henry Augustus Schott of Wittemberg, and subsequently of Jena, the dis. 
 tinguished translator and editor of the New Testament, had a conjecture some- 
 what akin. He had been disposed for a time, no doubt under the influence of 
 Griesbach's judgment, to surrender the authenticity of the paragraph. But he 
 swung back into the current belief, in virtue of excogitating a conjecture which 
 accounted as he supposed for all the phenomena, and thus cleared away his 
 difficulties. He supposed that ere Mark had finished his Gospel, it had got 
 into the hands of some one, 'perhaps a friend or companion, to whom he had 
 privately communicated it,' and this individual (the more shame to him !) sur- 
 reptitiously published it. Hence the copies that were deficient in the paragraph. 
 By and by however, Mark, when he had leisure, gave the finishing touch to his 
 work, and pubhshed it in its present completed form. Hence the manuscripts 
 that ha'd or have the paragraph. But as meanwhile the thread of composition 
 had been snapped, and a considerable time had elapsed ere the work was 
 resumed, the addition was not very homogeneously composed or attached. 
 (Authentia Marci, xvi., 9-20. 1813.) How long Schott continued satisfied with 
 this conjecture we do not know. But he seems ultimately to have swung 
 back again to the opinion which he held while he was working hand in hand 
 with Griesbaeh. See his note in the fourth edition of his New Testament 
 (1839). 
 
 Griesbaeh, as we have been indicating, was against the authenticity of the 
 
448 ST. MARK XVI. [9-20 
 
 paragraph, and liad his own uonjeoture on the subject. It was by no means so 
 vivid as that of MichaeUs ; and it was more sober than that of Sohott. Tet it 
 is striking enough ; and it has had immeasurably greater influence, than either 
 or both of the others, upon the subseijuent course of biblical criticism. He 
 supposed that the evangelist's conclusion of his Gospel had by some accident 
 perished, most probably from the original autograph, and that the present 
 paragraph had been substituted in its place ' by somebody' (a non nemine), per- 
 haps the editor of the collected Gospels, in the second century. (Comni. Crit., 
 pp. 197, 202.) This conjecture of the great critic, backed as it is by a skilfully 
 adjusted array of the evidence, diplomatic and patristic, that was at his disposal, 
 was acquiesced in by Schulthess. And the combined reasonings of Schulthesa 
 and Griesbaoh convinced David Schuiz, Griesbaoh's critical successor, that the 
 paragraph, as we have it, is ' spurious.' {Nov. Test., 1827.) 
 
 Tischeudorf, so justly illustrious as a textual critic, acquiesces in the decision 
 of Sohulz. " That these verses," he says, " were not written by Mark is proved 
 " by sufficient arguments." Many details in the phraseology, as he thinks, are 
 at variance with Mark's style (o Marci ratione abhorrent). 
 
 Tregelles, with all his reverence of spirit, is of the same opinion. (See his 
 New Test, and his Printed Text, pp. 246-261.) He says, unhesitatingly, "the 
 " book of Mark himself e^tenis no farther than chap. xvi. 8," but he holds that 
 "the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoevei written, have a full claim to be 
 "received as an authentic part of the second Gospel." {Printed Text, p. 258.) 
 Dean Alford, ever faithful to his honest convictions, comes to a corresponding 
 conclusion. " The legitimate inference is," he says, " that the passage icas placed 
 " as a completion of the Gospel soon after the apostolic period, the Gospel itself 
 "having been, for some reason unknown to us, left incomplete. The most 
 "probable supposition," he continues, "is, that the last leaf of the original 
 " Gospel was torn away." (Greek Text, vol. i., p. 431, fifth ed.) 
 
 Andrews Norton, in his Translation of the Gospels, shows the strength of his 
 convictions, by leaving oft, in his 'text, with the 8th verse. 
 
 Archbishop Thomson, with the whole tide of his sympathies flowing in the 
 direction of what is Christian, feels constrained to say, " it is probable that this 
 " section is from a different hand, and was annexed to the Gospel soon after 
 " the time of the apostles." {Gospel of Mark in Smith's Bib. Diet.) Bishop 
 Lightfoot too, full of a corresponding spirit, says : " If I might venture a 
 " conjecture, I would say that both John viii. 1-11 and Mark xvi. 9-20 were 
 " due to that knot of early disciples who gathered about St. John in Asia Minor, 
 " and must have preserved more than one true tradition of the Lord's life and 
 "of the earliest days of the church." (Fresh Revision of the E. N. T., p. 28.) 
 These cautious and reverent statements contrast favourably with Fritzsche's 
 opinionativeness. "Nothing in my opinion," says he "is so certain {tarn 
 " certum est), as that this section is due to another author than Mark " {Gomm., 
 p. 752). But Meyer is almost, if not altogether, as unhesitating. He says: 
 " The whole section of ver. 9-20 is inauthentic, not composed by Mark." 
 Ewald prints the section in smaller type, and says that " without doubt it was 
 " the conclusion of some other Gospel, now lost, and was appended to Mark'sby 
 " the last redacteur." {Drei Erst. Evan., p. 366.) Hitzig thinks that the author 
 of the section was Luke. {Johannes Marcus, p. 187 ff.) Henneberg, though 
 not capable of adjudications that stand out so boldly in relief, was of opinion 
 
9] ST. MARK XVI. 449 
 
 9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the 
 
 that the evidence, external and internal, decidedly " preponderates against the 
 " defenders of the authenticity of the section." (Vie Geschichte des Begrab- 
 nisses, etc., p. 167.) Klostermaun too surrenders, still more decisively, to the 
 same opinion. {Marcusevangelium, p. 298 fi.) And, before him, Bertholdt, 
 Eoseumtiller, Credner, Neudeoker. After him Volkmar, who thinks that the 
 inauthentioity of the section is proved by tradition, fact, and phraseology. 
 {Marciis und die Synopsis, p. 606.) Baumgarten-Crusius surrenders ver. 9-18, 
 but clings tenaciously to ver. 19 and 20 as Mark's own conclusion. [Comm., 
 vol. i., part 2, p. 211.) Michelsen, again, only surrenders ver. 9-14, and decides 
 that " ver. 15-20 are the authentic conclusion of the Gospel." He thinks that 
 the whole paragraph, 9-20, had probably been, by some accident or other, 
 nearly illegible in the autograph copy, and that hence it was left out altogether 
 by some transcribers, while others contrived to make out ver. 15-20, and then 
 supplied ver. 9-14 out of Luke and John, as best they could. (Het Evangelie 
 van Marlius. p. 29.) But EevOle will have no half measures. He is positive 
 that the " independence of the whole section, relatively to the rest of the 
 " Gospel, is one of the unassailable results of modern criticism." (Etudes 
 Critiques, p. 330.) Scholten too speaks as if the matter were now conclusively 
 settled against the evangelist. (Het Oudste Evang., p. 323.) And the last 
 section of one of the latest and ablest books on the Gospel, Weiss's Marcus- 
 evangelium mid seine synoptischen Parallelen, 1872, is entitled " The inauthentio 
 conclusion " (Der undchte Schluss). 
 
 AU this looks, for the moment, serious. And yet when we separate mere 
 opinions, vivid conjectures, and strong asseverations, from real evidence, we 
 find extremely little to put into the scale against, and a very great deal to put 
 into the counter scale in favour of, the authenticity of the paragraph. 
 
 As, however, it is from the peculiarity of the composition of the paragraph, 
 that the external evidence against its authenticity has derived most of its 
 weight, we shall, first of all, consider the passage critically and exegetically, 
 that we may have before us the materials for giving a candid judgment regarding 
 the internal evidence. Then, at the conclusion of our exposition, we shall 
 briefly sift the external evidence, on which the oppugners of the authenticity 
 insist, and lay it in the balance, along with the counter external evidence in 
 favour of the integrity of the Gospel. (See Note at end of ver. 20.) 
 
 Veb. 9. But (5^). The particle is connective and continuative, and slightly 
 oppositive too. The evangelist does not follow out the line that runs through 
 the preceding verses. He takes up a new line, and goes on with it. Why ? 
 No one can now tell. Every writer is subject to multitudes of interruptions, 
 and to various influences, objective and subjective, which give occasion to 
 broken representations and other peculiarities in composition. Inartificial 
 writers, in particular, who have no theory about the unities of composition, and 
 no literary aim or Uterary ideal in view, are peculiarly liable to abrupt breaks, 
 turnings, overlappings, and other inequalities or inconcinnities of style. It is 
 doing them infinite injustice, to apply to their artless deliverances the rules of 
 a nicely adjusted and fully developed scheme of composition. 
 
 When He. The absence of the noun is evidence that it was no ' other hand ' 
 
 G a 
 
450 ST. MARK XVI. [& 
 
 that was engaged artificially in constructing a patch. Had there been deli- 
 berate intention to prepare some appropriate supplement to the evangelist's 
 Memoirs, there would have been, we have a right to assume, care and art 
 enough, to insert, at the commencement of the supplement, the name of tha 
 person referred to. It was different with the evangelist. His mind was without 
 art. And he had been already intent, throughout the whole preceding context, 
 in thinking of the risen Saviour. Hence he had, in his own artless way, 
 already jotted down one group of events connected with the occurrence of the 
 resurrection. (See ver. 1-8.) And now, on another plane of representation, 
 for he had only the rudiments of what might be called a literary style, he 
 exhibits another group. It is still however ' Jesus ' who is uppermost in his 
 thoughts ; and hence the artless omission of the name. If we should suppose, 
 with Ewald and Meyer, that it is a fragment of another Gospel that is here 
 artificially stuck on, then the editor who deliberately made the addition might 
 be reasonably expected to connect it by supplying the word Jesus. If there 
 was so much art as to seek for a patch, we might expect that there would be so 
 much more as to make the patch naturally adhesive. 
 
 Was risen early the first day of the week. Put a comma after risen, says 
 Theophylact, and so connect the expression early the first day of the week with 
 what follows. He appeared to Mary the Magdalene. Euthymius gives the same 
 advice (/xerd rh elin'tv arao-Tds, iiTbari^ov). Busebius himself suggested it to his 
 correspondent Marinus. (Opera, A. Migne's ed., vol. iv., p. 940.) Jerome 
 repeats the suggestion in his' letter to Hedibia, as if it were his own original 
 device. And it is re-repeated in Victor of Antioch's Commentary, and in that 
 Homily on the Resurrection which has gone a-begging for its author. Grotius, 
 in modern times, deemed the same punctuation a matter of considerable 
 moment. So did Mill {Prol., §§ 812-815). Bengel also was in favour of it ; and 
 Wakefield. But for no good reason. Eusebius and his followers supposed that, 
 provided the whole paragraph Tyere not rejected as apocryphal, the comma 
 would be indispensable to secure the harmony of Matthew and Mark. The 
 question which Marinus submitted to the learned father, and which elicited the 
 reply that ver. 12-20 are not found ' in the best codices,' was this. How is it 
 that the Saviour appears, according to Matthew, to have risen 'late on sabbath,' 
 but, according to Mark, 'early on the first day of the week' ? If, says Eusebius, 
 you hesitate to discard the paragraph as apocryphal, then put a comma after 
 the words when He was risen, and there will be no longer any contradiction. 
 But, in truth, there was no contradiction at any rate. Matthew, in the passage 
 referred to (xxviii. 1), is not speaking at all of the time of our Lord's resur- 
 rection. And though he were, still it could not be that our Lord would volun- 
 tarily rise on the Jewish sabbath ; for it was on the third day that He was to 
 re-rear the temple of His body. (John ii. 19 ; Matt. xii. 40, xxvii. 63.) It 
 must therefore have been early on Sunday morning, ' the first day of the week,' 
 that He arose. And Eusebius, instead of writing at random, either about the , 
 existent codices of Mark on the one hand, or about commas on the other, 
 should have applied his powerful intellect to the correct observation of what 
 Matthew was actually speaking about, and then to the correct interpretation of 
 the phrase the end of the sabbath, or late on the sabbath. (See Comm. on 
 Matt, xxviii. 1.) The great body of expositors have done right in not putting 
 a comma after the word risen, and in regarding the ohronometrioal notation that 
 
9] ST. MARK XVI. 451 
 
 week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom 
 
 follows as determining the time, not of our Lord's appearance to Mary, but of 
 His resurrection. This is, says Cardinal Cajetan, the natural construction 
 {suavis constriiciio) of the words. So le FSvre, Luther, Beza, Castellio, Suicer 
 (i. 311), Wolff, Eoseumiiller, de Wette, Fritzsche, Ewald, Bisping, Lange, 
 Volkmar, Weiss, etc. Early : namely, in the day, so that the word is ec^uivalent 
 to in the morning ; and thus is it rendered in chap. i. 35, xi. 20, xiii. 35, xv. 1. 
 Some of the oppugners of the authenticity of the paragraph think that, if it 
 had been Mark himself who was writing, he would have resumptively said very 
 early, using the phrase that he employed in ver. 2. But why should any 
 writer, or why should Mark in particular, be tied down to repetition ? And was 
 there not besides a peculiar reason for the very early of ver. 2, which is not 
 applicable to ver. 9? Is it not probable that the evangelist's mind was 
 thinking of the time of the departure of the women from their lodgings ? 
 Comp. Matt, xxviii. 1, and John xx, 1. The first day of the week : literally, the 
 first (day) of sabbath. See ver. 2. The oppugners of the authenticity of the 
 paragraph urge that if it had been the real Mark who was writing, he 
 would not have said 'first of sabbath' (irpiirrj], but 'one of sabbath' {/ua), as 
 in ver. 2. But how can any be sure that he would not ? ' First ' is more 
 natural intrinsically than ' one,' which is quite a Hebrew idiom. It is the idiom 
 indeed that is used in Matt, xxviii. 1, Luke xxiv. 1, John xx. 1, 19, and in Acts 
 XX. 7, and 1 Cor. xvi. 2. As the favourite Jewish idiom, it would seem to have 
 got into use-aud-wont in connection with the story of the resurrection. But 
 still the phrase one {day) of sabbath, or one (day) of the week, as meaning the 
 first day after sabbath, or the first day toward sabbath, is, in itself, a strange 
 expression, not readily intelligible. It is not remarkable therefore that the 
 evangelist, who had an eye to the benefit of Gentiles in the composition of his 
 Gospel (chap. i. 5 ; vii. 2, 3), should have turned the peculiar Hebrew idiom into 
 partial harmony with Greek and Eoman usage. It is also sometimes urged 
 that it is unaccountable that the word for sabbath or week should be plural 
 (<raPpdT(iiv) in ver. 2, and singular (aa^^drov) in ver. 9. But it is enough 
 to reply that the two forms of the word were in almost equal currency among 
 those who had occasion to Grecise the Hebrew or Aramaic term. And it is 
 matter of fact that Mark, having occasion to use the word only twelve times in 
 all, actually employs it in the plural form just six times (i. 21 ; ii. 23, 24 ; iii. 
 2 4 ; xvi. 2), and hence just six times also in the singular form (ii. 27 twice ; 
 ii. 28 ; vi. 2 ; xvi. 1, 9). In both forms it has, in all the passages, a singular 
 meaning. 
 
 He appeared. Even to this word Schulthess, Volkmar, and Weiss object, 
 because in the only other passage in which the verb occurs in Mark (xiv. 64) it 
 has a subjective instead of an objective import. Must then a writer confine 
 himself to only one possible application of a term ? If a term is ambidextrous, 
 must he, in his peculiar use of it, cut off one of its arms ? 
 
 First to Mary the Magdalene. But, says Volkmar, three women are mentioned 
 in ver. 1 and 2. True. But the evangelist, as we have seen, is not pursuing 
 continuously the line of things which starts with ver. 1 and 2. He has done 
 ■with that line, and has taken up a new thread. Artlessly indeed and inartistic- 
 
452 ST. MARK XVI. [9 
 
 he had cast seven devils. 10 And she went and told 
 
 ally, but still not unnaturally. He was not intending to write a scientific 
 History. He was not even attempting to compose a complete Biography. He 
 is merely giving very brief Memoirs, and these simply in a way of aggregation, 
 adding jotting to jotting. 
 
 As regards the fact of our Lord's first appearance, it accords with John's nar- 
 rative that He showed Himself , first, not to any group of women with Mary the 
 Magdalene among them, but to Mary by herself (xx. 13-18). To reconcile this 
 representation with Matthew's (xxviii. 9), we must suppose, what is perfectly 
 natural, that there]was a variety of runnings to and fro. We may conceive the 
 case in some such way as the following, without however imagining that it 
 embodies the absolute historic truth. When the group of women saw the open 
 tomb and the angels, Mary may instantly, in a kind of ecstatic bewilderment, 
 have turned on her heels to run and carry word of the fact to the apostles. 
 By and by the other women would follow. Ere long Peter and John would 
 come running, and then return. Mary for a little season was alone, near the 
 sepulchre, and Jesus revealed Himself to her. By and by the other women 
 rejoined her, and Jesus appeared to them all, as they were on their way to the 
 apostles. There would be in all their bosoms not only interest, strung to the 
 highest pitch, but ecstasy, and trepidation, and an impossibility of resting 
 anywhere longer than a few moments at a time. (See Greswell's Forty-third 
 Dissertation.) 
 
 Oat of whom He had cast seven demons. Almost all the advocates of the 
 apocryphal theory of the paragraph look upon this interjected clause as incon- 
 testable evidence that Mark could not be the writer. For why, ask they, should 
 he reserve for this place such an interesting incident ? Why not introduce it at 
 the first mention of Mary the Magdalene, as Luke has done (viii. 2) ? Its in- 
 troduction here is ' inept,' says Fritzsche. But surely it is enough to reply that^ 
 as a matter of fact, the incident is here introduced by some one or other. And 
 if some one here introduced it, why might not Mark 1 If we shall suppose, ac- 
 cording to the theory of Ewald, that the paragraph was the conclusion of some 
 other Gospel, now lost, then the author of that Gospel had introduced into the 
 concluding paragraph of his work the statement regarding Mary ; and we have 
 no right to suppose that he had made no previous reference to her. Why 
 might not Mark do the same ? If we shaU, on the other hand, suppose, accord- 
 ing to the theory entertained by the majority of the oppugners of the authen- 
 ticity, that the paragraph was expressly compiled for the conclusion of Mark, 
 then the compiler, though knowing that Mary had been referred to in what goes 
 Defore, adds here deliberately the statement objected to. But if the compiler 
 could act thus, why might not Mark ? The statement is by no means un- 
 natural. Mary of Magdala had, in a pre-eminent degree, experienced the 
 gracious interposition of the Saviour. She had got rid of ' seven demons.' 
 She had been formerly, it seems, sadly afflicted in several distinct respects, 
 why not in ' seven ' ? She had been overbalanced in mind. She had been kept 
 on edge in her bodily condition, as regards those more delicate elements which 
 have mysteriously intimate connection with the mind. But having been won- 
 derfully healed, she clung devotedly to her Saviour. She ' loved much.' And 
 
10] ST. MARK XVI. 453: 
 
 not in vain. She was pre-eminently favoured on the resurrection morning. 
 But objectors take minute exception, still farther, to the mode of the expression, 
 out of whom He had cast. Literally, according to the Eeceived Text, it is 'from' 
 (otto) whom He had cast out ; and Mark, it is alleged, always uses with the veib 
 cast-out (^K/3d\Xw) another preposition (^k), or what corresponds to that other 
 ■(^lu) . True, so far. In the two other passages in which Mark has occasion to 
 connect the verb with a preposition meaning out, outside, or from, he uses the 
 two prepositions referred to. In chap. vii. 26 we read, " that He would cast out 
 the demon ' out of her daughter." In chap. xii. 8 we read, " and cast him out 
 ' outside ' the vineyard." And here, according to the Beceived Text, we read, 
 " 'from ' whom He had cast out seven demons." What then ? Must a writer 
 Tiho has once, or perhaps even twice, used a particular phase of a phrase, go on 
 nsing that phase for ever, without variation, even although the variation be 
 legitimate and in harmony with general usage ? Or, when a writer gives, for 
 the first time, a slightly diversified turn to a phrase which he has already em- 
 ployed in another phase, must the authenticity of his composition be, for that 
 reason, subjected to suspicion ? It is true however that Luke has the very pre- 
 position, here objected to, in his statement regarding Mary the Magdalene 
 (viii. 2), " 'from' (a0') wlwm went out seven demons " ; and hence, it is argued, 
 ' it is likely that the statement has b«en culled from Luke. ' It is certain,' says 
 Fritzsche. That does not follow however, even although the Eeceived Text be 
 accepted as indisputable ; for it is quite conceivable that the coincidence might 
 have been the result of a certain set form of phrase having got into common use 
 among the early disciples when speaking of Mary's case. But there is in reality 
 no minute coincidence of phraseology, that might be supposed to indicate the 
 derivation of the expression before us from Luke. The reading of Laohmaun 
 (irap' ^s) is accepted by Tregelles, and is no doubt the genuine autographic 
 reading. It is the reading of the manuscripts C*D L, and 33 ' the queen of the 
 cursives,' and is a reading which we may be sure would never be arbitrarOy sub- 
 stituted by any transcriber for the Eeceived ; whereas, in consequence of the 
 historical coincidence of the two statements in the two Gospels, transcribers 
 were under the greatest temptation to alter the more peculiar word of Mark 
 into the more familiar one of Luke. The evidence thus increases that we are 
 dealing with an entirely original writer, such as we may suppose Mark to have 
 been ; and there is no reason at all for feeling the slightest scruple on account 
 of his peculiar preposition. It is in fact interestingly significant ; for not only 
 were the demons turned outside, as it were, they were driven away from beside 
 their victim. Such is the import of the evangelist's word. 
 
 Veb. 10. She (eKeivTi). Fritzsche, Meyer, and Volkmar maintain that the 
 demonstrative pronoun here employed is never used by the real Mark without 
 some distinct emphasis, and that here no emphasis is intended. But there is 
 emphasis; She, as distinguished from all the rest of the women, she was the first 
 herald of the resurrection. 
 
 She went (iropevSeicra). Here too the objectors press in with their objections. 
 It is a word, say Fritzsche, Meyer, Volkmar, and Weiss, which Mark has never 
 used in the whole of his Gospel hitherto, and yet it occurs three times (see ver, 
 12 and 15) in this paragraph. Is it not, they would conclude, suspicious ? 
 Must not the paragraph writer be a pseudo-Mark? Why should wo think 
 
454. ST. MARK XVI. [10 
 
 them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 
 1 1 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had 
 been seen of her, believed not. 
 
 so ? Take a corresponding case : there are two words translated repent in the 
 New Testament, one /teTa/teXojUai, the other /ieravoea. But the apostle Paul 
 uses the former only twice, namely in 2 Cor. yii. 8, and the latter only once, 
 namely in 1 Cor. xii. 21. Must we therefore suspect the respective sections in 
 which the words occur as having been written by another hand ? 
 
 And told. Or reported, or camed-the-tidings. 
 
 To them who had been with Him. Even to this expression some of the 
 objectors take exception. It is, says Meyer, a phrase ' foreign to the Gospels.' 
 But it really is not, so far at least as its essence is concerned. Even to Mark it 
 is not foreign, for we read in chap. iii. 14 ' Jesus ordained twelve that they 
 should he with Him.' "We read again in chap. v. 18 that he who had been de- 
 livered from the legion ' prayed Jesus that he might be with Him.' The second 
 of these passages makes it evident that the phrase is not, as Weiss will have it, 
 ' the prerogative of the twelve.' It is elastic iu its applicability, and is most 
 appropriately employed in the case before us, seeing that the tidings would be 
 of transcendent interest not only to the eleven (see ver. 14), but also to a con. 
 siderable number of others who had been the followers of our Lord in Galilee. 
 Hence we read in Luke (xxiv. 9) that the women who returned from the 
 sepulchre ' told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.' And 
 when the two brethren returned to Jerusalem from Emmaus, ' they found the 
 eleven gathered together, and them that were with them ' (Luke xxiv. 33). 
 
 As they mourned and wept. Sohulthess objects to these words too, as contain- 
 ing superfluous information, and as consequently a proof that the writer was 
 not the true Mark. But even Fritzsohe here interposes, and says that this is 
 carrying objection too far {argutatus est). Volkmar however thinks that the 
 phrase has been borrowed from Luke vi. 25, ' Woe unto you that laugh now, for 
 ye shall mourn and weep,' as if the combination of terms was so peculiar that 
 Luke must have originated it ! There is really nothing to wonder at in the 
 expression, and nothing to wonder at in the fact that those who had been the 
 followers of Jesus were found by Mary ' mourning and weeping. ' 
 
 Ver. 11. And they {mKeivoi). This too is objected to by Fritzsche, Meyer, 
 and Volkmar, on the ground that no emphasis is intended. Volkmar says that 
 Mark, unlike Luke, never uses the pronoun except to express ' emphasis or 
 opposition.' But here opposition is expressed, which is a kind of emphasis ; 
 and they, on their part, aaop-poaei to their informant on her part. The real 
 spirit and meaning of the composition is missed when this antithesis is un- 
 noticed or ignored. 
 
 When they heard that He was alive, and had been seen by her, believed not. 
 Or, more literally, when they heard {that) He is living and was seen by her, be- 
 lieved not. The construction is thoroughly characteristic of Mark's artless 
 manner. The tliat {Sri} is recitative, and- what follows is in the direct form of 
 report. Meyer however, and Volkmar, and Weiss, take exception to the verb 
 was seeri {iSeaOrfj. It occurs again in ver. 14. But it never occurs, it seems, in 
 the preceding part of the Gospel, and is therefore to he suspected as a word that 
 
12] ST. MARK XVI. 455 
 
 12 After that he appeared in another form unto two 
 
 Mark would not use. On the same principle we might suspect Romans xv. 24, 
 because the same verb occurs there, whereas it is never found in any other part 
 of the apostle's vrritings. Then Sohulthess objects that the word does not simply 
 mean was seen. True : but some one here uses it in the sense which it 
 actually bears ; and why not Mark ? It suggests beautifully that Mary had not 
 only got a casual glimpse of the risen Saviour ; she had deliberately looked on 
 Him, and contemplated Him. The expression believed not {-^irliTrri&ao) is also 
 noted by Weiss and others as 'strange to Mark.' Why? Because, though it 
 occurs again in ver. 16, it does not occur in the preceding part of the Gospel. 
 But what of that ? Should it have occurred ? Or does mere non-occurrence, 
 within a limited range, make a word ' strange ' or ' foreign' to a writer ? Be- 
 sides, the cognate noun unbelief (dirtiTTia) does occur twice in Mark, namely in 
 chaps, vi. 6, ix. 24. And the verb occurs only twice in aU Paul's epistles (Rom. 
 iii. 3 ; 2 Tim. ii. 13) : and what then ? Believed nat : The news seemed to be 
 'too good to be true.' They forgot their Lord's explicit predictions. They 
 would be supposing that Mary's nervous nature had made her the victim, for 
 the time being, of some hallucination or optical illusion. 
 
 Veb. 12. And after that. Or, very literally. And after these things (/teri Sk 
 raOra). Even this expression, simple as it is, renews the suspicions of those 
 who suspect the authenticity of the paragraph. It is, says Meyer, ' foreign to 
 Mark.' Why so, we ask ? Is it simply because he never happens to use it in 
 the rest of his Gospel ? That surely is nothing ' strange.' He never uses the 
 word law (v6ii.os) : are we therefore to suppose that that word too was ' foreign ' 
 to him ? He uses the word reward (ij.i.cr86s) only once (in chap. ix. 41). Shall 
 we therefore suspect the passage on the ground that the word, being nowhere 
 else employed by the evangelist, should be regarded as ' foreign ' to his vocabu- 
 lary? Volkmar couples with the expression before us an expression that 
 occurs in ver. 19, ' after having spoken' {jierd, t4 XaX^irai), and says of the two 
 that 'they never occur in Mark.' True; but what then? Though the par- 
 ticular phrase, ' after ' having spoken, never occurs in the preceding part of the 
 gospel, yet the phrase ' after ' the delivering up of John (i. 14) occurs, and so 
 does the phrase ' after ' My rising again (xiv. 28). Must these two phrases be 
 suspected too, because the evangelist nowhere else uses them? 
 
 He appeared. Or He was manifested, as the same word is translated in 
 1 John i. 2 ; iii. 5, 8 ; iv. 9 (iijyavepiieri). Or it might be rendered, with Luther, 
 He manifested Himself . Volkmar however takes exception to this word too. 
 He says that it is ' never used of persons by Mark.' Never ! And yet the truth 
 of the matter is that in all the preceding part of the Gospel the word occurs 
 only once (iv. 22) ; and, as it so happens, it is there used of things. ' Nothing 
 is hid, which shall not be manifested.' Are not such objections hypercriticism ? 
 
 In another form. That is, in a differerit form (iv hepq. iiop<pv). There was 
 not merely a numerical otherhood ; it was differentiated in form. Grotius 
 supposed that the reference is to a different dress. Vossius too ; and Heumann 
 also, and Wakeeeld, Kuinol, Eodolphus Dickinson. Wakefield and Dickinson 
 expressly render the expression in another dress ; and Heumann, though not 
 thus rendering it in his version, reminds us that the Roman soldiers had got 
 
J^56 ST. MARK XVI. [12 
 
 of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 
 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither 
 believed they them. 
 
 hold: of our Lord's proper dress ! He hence starts and debates the question, 
 How did our Lord obtain this different suit ? He did not see, apparently, that 
 at least twenty other questions would require to be started and settled, before 
 the one which he proposes oould be intelligently debated. It would serve no 
 purpose but that of frivolity to discuss the reciprocal limits of the subjective 
 and the objective in the manner of the manifestation, and also the various 
 ingredients of things that might enter into the determination of the ' form.' 
 The evangelist leaves the matter indefinite ; and so should we. 
 
 Unto two of them. That is, to two of our Lord's followers ; not necessarily 
 apostles. Comp. Luke xxiv. 13, 18. 
 
 As they walked. That is, as they were talcing a walk. So Count Zinzendorf, 
 in the peculiar idiom of the Germans, da spazieren gingen. 
 
 Going into the country. Very literally, going into country, just as we say 
 reversely, going into town. It is a mode of expression exceedingly characteristic 
 of St. Mark. Comp. chaps, i. 45, ii. 1, iii. 1, xv. 21. We learn from Luke that 
 the bfethreu were taking a walk to Emmaus, a place that has not yet had its 
 site identified by modern geographers. ' All is mere conjecture,' says Whitney. 
 (Bible Geog., sub voce.) 
 
 Vee. 13. The twelfth verse is but a stepping-stone to this. And they 
 [KciKetmi.). There is intentional emphasis on the pronoun, They too, as well as 
 Mary. 
 
 Went off and reported the tidings to the rest. Of the Lord's followers, whether 
 apostles or not. Comp. Luke xxiv. 33. 
 
 Neither believed they them. And yet it is said in Luke xxiv. 33, 34, that when 
 they got into the midst of 'the eleven and them that were with them,' they were 
 met with the exclamation, ' the Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to 
 Simon.' This apparent contrariety demolishes at a stroke the theory of 
 Hitzig, who supposes that Luke is the author of Mark xvi. 9-20. It also 
 completely overturns the theory of those who imagine that the section, though 
 not composed by Luke, was, by the hand of some other one, cuUed out of Luke. 
 But there is no real contradiction nevertheless, whatever may be said to the 
 contrary by Sohulthess, Fritzsohe, Meyer, Alford, Weiss. The disciples of our 
 Lord were in the midst of the inconsistencies of a tumultuating state of mind. 
 All their hopes had been suddenly dashed. They had been utterly disappointed. 
 And yet they oould not bring themselves to believe that their late beloved Lord 
 had been an impostor. Had He not been uniformly and •perfectly pure t Had 
 He not been almost infinitely unselfish and noble ? It could not be that He was 
 u, deceiver. And yet the unchallengeable fact stared them in the face, that, 
 instead of throwing off His disguise and assuming His royal prerogatives, as 
 they had anticipated. He had been seized, tried, condemned, and crucified like 
 a slave ! What oould they make of the case ? Mary the Magdalene and other 
 women had told them that the sepulchre was found by them open, and 
 illumined by the presence of angels. Peter and John had run to it, and found 
 
14] ST. MARK XVI. 457 
 
 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat 
 
 the report of the women true, in its main element at least. Then Mary had 
 told them that the Lord actually appeared to her. She was a lady. She was 
 truthful. They could not for a moment doubt her sincerity. But surely her 
 imagination must have imposed on her ! By and by, however, the Lord 
 appeared to Peter also, and he reported the fact to his brethren. His testimony 
 had weight ; and they received it with raptures. (Luke xxiv. 34.) And yet 
 after a little, and because of the very preciousness of their new-born hope, they 
 began to be inquisitive and critical in reference to its foundation. What if Peter 
 himself had been overmastered by his imagination? What if, under the 
 influence of his sanguine nature, and with that haste which has been all along 
 his besetting failing, he had mistaken a mere subjective vision for an objective 
 fact ? Then perhaps the assembled brethren would question Peter, and cross- 
 question him, going into the varied details of the appearance, until, it may be, 
 Peter's own faith began to waver. When once in the full flow of this doubting 
 mood, they would be ready enough to set aside the testimony of the two com- 
 paratively humble brethren who had returned from the country. They would 
 say: No doubt the brethren are honest. But surely it cannot be true that He who 
 actually, on the cross, gave up tlie glwst, and was then buried, is now literally 
 alive again ! How could such a thing be ? Must not the brethren, arid Peter 
 himself, as well as Mary, be the dupes of their fond imaginations ? Such would 
 naturally be the state of the disciples' minds for a considerable length of time, 
 the tide of thought and feeling surging and resurging in contrary directions. 
 And hence the facile conciliation of Mark's statement with Luke's. There is 
 certainly, as Heumann remarks, no contradiction. And yet the appearance of it 
 is so obtrusive, when the narratives are looked at from certain narrow-pointed 
 pinnacles of observation and interpretation, that it was wrong in Alexander to 
 pass over the whole matter sub silentio, as if there were nothing that required 
 a single word of explanation. Augustine's theory of conciliation is good so far. 
 He supposes that the disciples were not all of one mind. Some were convinced ; 
 some were unconvinced. Luke, as he imagines, refers to the one party ; Mark 
 to the other. [Consensus, iii. 25.) It is too artificial. Theophylact's theory is 
 that the two brethren from the country reported the news not to the eleven, but 
 to certain others. So, though more generically, Euthymius. Also too artificial. 
 Masius's theory is that the two brethren mentioned by Mark were a different 
 pair from those mentioned by Luke. Painfully strained and artificial. Light- 
 foot has a.bright but illusory glimpse ; and yet he took along with it elements 
 of reality. He thinks that Peter was one of ' the two,' and that when he and 
 Cleopas showed their faces in the meeting in Jerusalem, a flash of hope flew 
 over the assembled brethren, so that they exclaimed ' conjecturally, ' The Lord 
 is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon ! ' And yet when he and Cleopas 
 open the whole matter, they do not yet believe even them.' Calvin is judi- 
 ( lous, ' they fell into their former doubts.' So is Bengel : ' they beUeved ; but 
 immediately suspicion, and unbelief itself, recurred.' 
 
 Vek. 14. Afterwards (HaTepov). The Vulgate renders it, last of all. So 
 Luther, and many others, as Whedon. But the word just means, very indefi- 
 
458 ST. MARK XVI. [14 
 
 at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness 
 of heart, because they believed not them which had seen 
 him after he was risen. 
 
 15 And he said unto them. Go ye into all the world, and 
 preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth 
 
 nitely, subsequently. As to the precise time, see John xx. 19. The word oceura 
 often in Matthew, but nowhere else in Mark. Shall we therefore suspect it ? It 
 is not easy to do so consistently, as it occurs only once also in John (xiii. 36), 
 and once also in the epistles (Heb. xii. 11). But should we on that account 
 suspect the passages in which it occurs ? 
 
 He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat. Literally, as they were re- 
 clining (at table). See chap. ii. 15, xiv. 3. The word here used, though 
 different from that employed in ii. 15 and xiv. 3, also occurs, with the same 
 reference, in chap. xiv. 18 ; and hence the objectors to the authenticity of the 
 paragraph do not get scope for founding an objection on its occurrence here. 
 
 And upbraided them with their unbelief. Or more literally and pleasantly, and 
 upbraided their unbelief, as if the reproof terminated on the act. Instead of 
 upbraided, Wycliffe has reprovyde (i.e. reproved) ; the Eheims, exprobrated. 
 Instead of unbelief. Mace, Campbell, DicHuson have, unhappily, incredulity. 
 Wakefield's version is much better, want of faith. 
 
 And hardness of heart. The word is used comparatively, and has reference 
 rather to the impenetrability of their understanding than to the unimpressibility 
 of their feelings. (Comp. chap. vi. 52, and see Luke xxiv. 25.) But it was an 
 impenetrability, nevertheless, which was traceable to moral causes ; it merged 
 in their culpable want of faith. See next clause. 
 
 Because they did not believe them who had beheld Him after He had been raised 
 up. Their minds had been full of erroneous preconceptions regarding the 
 Messiah's career, notwithstanding His own explicit predictions, and the numerous 
 prophecies of the Old Testament Scriptures. (Comp. Luke xxiv. 26, 27.) 
 
 Vek. 15. And He said to them. On some subsequent occasion. Comp. Matt, 
 xxviii. 16-20. The evangelist, not intending to write a regular history, strides 
 on in his Memoirs to a. conclusion, compressing and welding, as he proceeds, 
 a multitude of chronological and other details. 
 
 Go ye. Or more accurately without the pronoun, go. The Saviour realized 
 that the few disciples whom He addressed were but the representatives of an 
 innumerable multitude of associates and successors. 
 
 Into all the world. The word all is in its emphatic form (iSttoi't-o). Go into 
 the whole world : see that no part be omitted. 
 
 And preach the gospel. The Saviour meant the good news about Himself. 
 Comp. chap. i. 1. It was no self-conceit in Him to think that the news con- 
 cerning His connection with our race, and the work He achieved, the sufferings 
 He endured, and the glory into which He has been exalted, is ' the good news ' 
 for universal man. His self consciousness radiated outward and upward into 
 infinity. 
 
 To every creature. Literally, to the whole creation, that is, to all manldnd. 
 Men, as being the masterpieces of creation, are, for the moment, brought so 
 
16] ST. MARK XVI. 459 
 
 and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not 
 
 close to tVie mental eye as to shut out from view all other creatures. No 
 wonder. Man ' is ' the copestone of terrestrial creation. AU else on earth, all 
 even that is palffiontological, points up to him, and is culminated in him. 
 Lightfoot and Hammond supposed that the expression referred to the Gentiles. 
 But that is an unwarrantable contraction of its import. 
 
 Ver. 16. He that helieveth. Namely, the gospel spoken of. Believeth, that 
 is, receives it as true. It is involved in the peculiar nature of the thing believed, 
 that it is trusted in, whenever it is believed. 
 
 And is baptized. Namely with the Christian baptism, which we must assume 
 to have been explained to the disciples, and which mirrored to the outward 
 sense the baptizing influence of the Holy Spirit of God. (See Gomm. on Matt. 
 iii. 6 ; xxviii. 19.) The words given by Mark, in the verses before us, must not 
 be regarded as containing ' a full report ' of all that was said by our Lord. 
 Comp. Matt, xxviii. 18-20 ; Luke xxiv. 46-49. The respective reports of the 
 different evangelists are no doubt exceedingly condensed, and confined indeed 
 to some prominent outlines. Mark, in giving his outlines, exhibits his wonted 
 artlessness of style, and hence the position of this clause, and is baptized. He 
 did not mean to put it on an equality with the preceding clause, as if they were 
 like paired horses in a chariot, or to intimate that baptism is as essential to 
 salvation as believing. See next clause. But as, in the ministrations of the 
 apostles, baptism was to be administered to the believing, as a sublime symbol 
 of the cleansing which they needed, and which God was seeking to impart, it is 
 here formally but inarlificially introduced under the shadow of the great 
 essential condition of salvation. In its spiritual essence, indeed, baptism is as 
 essential to salvation as believing. It is, if possible, more sp ; for it is God 
 who baptizes, or Christ ; whereas it is man who believes. But, in its outward 
 form, baptism cannot be essential. What Christ said of His words is as true 
 of His works, inclusive of the ordinances of His church, ' it is the spirit that 
 quiokeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.' (John vi. 63.) The evangelist's 
 inartificial method of collocation may be illustrated by his representation in 
 chap. i. 2, 3, where, after saying as it is written in ' the prophet,' he introduces 
 a preliminary prediction of another prophet. The preliminary prediction is 
 thrown in by the way, and the reader is left to his good sense to make the 
 proper adjustment. It is on a similarly inartificial principle that Paul himself 
 says, in Bom. x. 9, " If thou shall confess with thy mouth'the Lord Jesus, ani 
 " shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou 
 " shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and 
 " with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." The apostle cannot mean 
 that oral confession is as much a condition of salvation as inward believing ; 
 for salvation is complete when inward believing is completed. (Kom. iv. 5.) 
 But as the inward moulds the outward, and confession in one way or another is 
 sure to foUow ' believing in the heart,' the apostle did not scruple, in his free 
 and artless style, to introduce it side by side with faith. 
 
 Shall be saved. Namely, from his sins. (See Matt. i. 21.) His sins are 
 regarded as imperilling his weal. He is in imminent danger because of thorn; 
 
430 ST. MARK XVI. [16 
 
 shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that 
 believe j In mj name shall they cast out devils ; 
 
 in danger of ' perishing ' (John iii. 15, 16) or of suffering ' death ' in all its 
 deadlinesa (John viii. 24). When he is ' saved ' he is, theologically speaking, 
 ' pardoned ' and ' justified.' Sanotificatiou follows. Glorification is the grand 
 result. 
 
 But he that believeth not. He who wilfully turns away from the gospel, and 
 thus refuses to let his mind be interpenetrated, and morally moulded, by that 
 absolute truth which embodies the only true ideal of human life. 
 
 Shall be condemned. The same word {Karaicplvw) occurs in other eighteen 
 passages of the New Testament, and in seventeen out of the eighteen instances 
 it is translated condemn. (See Matt. xii. 41, 42, xx. 18, xxvii. 3 ; Mark x. 33, 
 xiv. 64 ; Luke xi. 31, 32 ; John viii. 10, 11 ; Eom. ii. 1, viii. 3, 84, etc.) And 
 such is its real meaning. It is strictly a judicial term, and determines, by 
 itself, nothing at all regarding the nature, degree, or extent of the penalty to be 
 endured. It is right that this -condemnation should be, if there be wilful 
 refusal to leave off sinning, and to accept the only Divine, and therefore the 
 only possible, means of getting deliverance from the effects of sinning. If there 
 be a Divine moral government at all, there must be amenability to the Moral 
 Governor. And yet preachers of the gospel should take care not to saddle, 
 even in imagination, the forthgoing of the Great Moral Governor's judgments 
 with any little, narrow, artificial conceits, which they may have casually picked 
 up in their childhood, and carried with them in their inward ' chamber of 
 imagery ' ever since. 
 
 Teb. 17. But these signs. These, such as are about to be enumerated. 
 ' Signs ' do not exist for themselves. Neither are they things that are ulti- 
 mately aimed at by means of other things. They aim at other things. And it 
 is in these things beyond themselves that the reason of their being is realized. 
 All signs exist to be remarked. But the degrees of their remarkability may be 
 infinitely diversified. To many the most remarkable are the unwonted and the 
 miraculous. 
 
 Shall follow them that believe. Shall follow accompanyingly (irapoKoXouffiJtrci). 
 They shall thus follow not those merely who preach, but them who believe, and 
 all who believe. We are not to suppose however that every individual behever 
 was to make use of, or to have experience of, every possible sign. " There are 
 " diversities of administrations, but the same Lord : and there are diversities of 
 " operations ; but it is the same God who worketh all in all." See 1 Cor. xii. 
 5-30. Neither are we to suppose that there is in this and the next verse an 
 .exhaustive specification of the signs. There are many others, inclusive par- 
 ticularly of ' love ' (1 Cor. xiii.) and its thousand and one gracious effluences, 
 which have permanently consolidated themselves into beautiful lives and 
 benevolent institutions. In the passage before us however prominence is 
 given to the signs which were peculiarly adapted to commend and authenticate 
 the gospel at the outset of its career. 
 
 In My name shall they cast out demons. Some of the disciples vfould bo 
 exorcists. 
 
18] ST. MARK XVI. 461 
 
 they shall speak with new tongues ; 18 they shall take up 
 serpents ; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt 
 them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 
 
 They shall speak with new tongues. New to them, such as were spoken in 
 ecstasy at Pentecost (Acts ii. 4-11), or uttered mystically in the church at 
 Corinth (1 Cor. xii. 10, xiv. 2-40). Some of the disciples would have that gift. 
 (See 1 Cor. xii. 30, xiv. 18.) 
 
 Ver. 18. They shall take up serpents. With impunity, if they should be 
 compelled, by their persecutors, to pass through such an ordeal, or if, like 
 St. Paul in Malta (Acts xxviii. 3-5), they should be accidentally attacked. 
 Some would have such a gift, without any mixture of legerdemain. 
 
 And if they should drink any deadly thing, it shaE in no wise hurt them [oi fir] 
 pKdfy, the right reading). No, it shall not hurt them. (See Clyde's Syntax, 
 § 41 a.) The cup of poison was another ordeal, too often devised by per- 
 secutors. But, when drained by those who had received the particular gift 
 referred to, it would be innocuous. 
 
 They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. The objectors to the 
 authenticity of Mark xvi. 9-20 cannot take exception to the word rendered sick 
 {dppu(7Tovs, infirm). It occurs only five times throughout the New Testament; 
 and in three out of the five instances it is found in Mark. See chap. vi. 5,, 13. 
 The last clause is rendered by Lange, ^Ind they {themselves) shall find tliem- 
 selves well. But such a result would be nothing wonderful at aU, no ' gift,' no 
 ' sign.' The reference evidently is to the sick, they shall have (themselves) well. 
 Some, but not all, of the Saviour's disciples would possess this gift of healing. 
 (1 Cor. tii. 9, 28, 30.) 
 
 The enumeration of signs might have gone on to a much greater length. 
 But it was unnecessary. Striking specimens had been particularized, as 
 specimens ; and we must mentally supply et cetera. The sum total could 
 not be easily ascertained or enumerated. All the true fruits of faith are 
 its true signs or signals. They authenticate, by Divine signature, the divinely 
 transforming energy, and hence the Divine reality and glory, of faith's great 
 Object. They have been continuously reproduced from the times of the 
 apostles down to the present day, but under phases that correspond to the 
 progression of the ages, and the development of living Christianity in living 
 humanity. The fact that this living Christianity is the. most plastic moral 
 power in the world is itself the sign of signs. Modern European civilization, 
 in all its finer and more moral elements, is a sign. The elevation of woman is 
 a sign. The abolition of slavery and serfdom is a sign. Hospitals, orphanages, 
 convalescent homes, almshouses, infirmaries, are signs. Moral chastity in art 
 is a sign. The spirit of fraternity, working its way, fitfully but diffusively, 
 into all classes and castes of society, is a sign. The increase of the humanity 
 of man is a sign. The effort to connect nation with nation by ties of reciprocal 
 beneficence is a sign. The loving labours, among the lapsed and the be- 
 trayed, of a white-robed army of Christian ladies, is a sign. The persistent 
 advances, in politics, of right against might is a sign. In a higher plane 
 of life's experiences, accommodated to a higher stage of development, and to an 
 
462 ST. MAEK XVI. [19 
 
 19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was 
 received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 
 
 20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the 
 
 immensely widened sphere of operations, the early signs repeat themselves. 
 The most villanous demons of society are still cast out in Christ's name. Con- 
 verts speak in new tongues, and more musically and expressively than if they 
 were employing the most felicitous idioms of foreign languages. And yet, in 
 the matter of foreign languages, nothing in the world is so polyglott as Christ- 
 ianity and the Bible. Medical missions replace the ancient gift of healing, and 
 are more extensively effectual. By and by Christianity will dry up all the 
 fountains of disease. And meanwhile, in place of immunity here or there 
 from the fangs of literal serpents, and the deadliness of hellebore draughts, 
 there are hundreds of thousands of the youthful and inexperienced, who, by the 
 power of Christianity in their hearts, are kept in security amid customs into 
 which the old serpent has breathed his spirit of decoy, and thereby taught his 
 dupes to allure with the poisoned chalice of indulgence. 
 
 Veb. 19. So then after the lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into 
 heaven. The Lord therefore (on His part), after having spoken to them, was 
 taken up into the heaven. Lachmaun and Tregelles read the Lord ' Jesus.' But 
 the word Jesus, though occurring in important manuscripts and in a majority 
 of the ancient versions, is not sufficiently supported, and was more likely to be 
 added than to be subtracted. The force of the little particle /i,4i> may, in some 
 measure, be represented by the phrase on His part. It looks forward to the 
 counterpart particle S^ in the next verse, and they [on their part). When it is 
 said after having spoken to them, there is no minute ohronometry intended. 
 Least of all does the evangelist mean, as Strauss would insinuate (Leben Jesuf. 
 d. d. Volk, p. 614), that there was an immediate and direct ascent from the 
 supper room which is referred to in ver. 14. The evangelist has by this time 
 left the supper room far in the background of his thoughts, and was, as in so 
 many other instances, massing his representation, leaving the details of ohrono- 
 metry unparticularized. When it is said that the Lord was taken up into the 
 heaven, we must not ask for a scientific conception of ' the heaven.' ' Eye hath 
 not seen ' ; neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive except in 
 childlike symbol and hieroglyph. 
 
 And sat down at the right hand of God. It sounds like the language of 
 spiritual insight and inspiration. Our Lord took His seat in the place of highest 
 honour in the universe. The Father welcomed Him. * The Lord said unto 
 my Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand' (Ps. ex. 1). It is beautiful and sublime 
 symbolism. The actual altitudes of the reality signified may be far beyond our 
 l>resent power of apprehension. 
 
 Vek. 20. And they (on their part) went forth. Namely, from their centre of 
 operations, Jerusalem. 
 
 And preached everywhere. According as doors were opened for their entrance. 
 The evangelist, in this single expression, comprises and oom;iresses the work 
 and outgrowth of years. 
 
20] ST. MARK XVI. 463 
 
 Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs 
 following. Amen. 
 
 The lord working with them. That is, the Lord Jesus, who had promised to 
 be ' with ' His disciples to the end of the world (Matt, xxviii. 20). He worked 
 jsith them. There was a harmonious 'synergism,' the Lord doing what man 
 could not do, and leaving men to do what He had fitted and commissioned them 
 to perform. In particular, the inspiration of the whole movement was from the 
 Lord, and hence the outburst of signs that followed, and that are still evolved 
 in ever fresh variety. 
 
 And confirming the word. The word preached, the gospel, which is, like its 
 Lord, ' the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,' and yet ever varying in appli- 
 cation, and infinitely full of varying applicability. 
 
 With signs following. More literally, through the accompanying signs. But 
 still more literally, through the closely following signs {iTraKokovBoxivrav). The 
 interval between faith and its wonderful Divine effects is inappreciable. They 
 foUow close upon its heels, and hold out signals as they pass, wliieh show that 
 faith has gone on before and is speeding away on its errand of mercy. 
 
 Amen. This colophon has no doubt been added by transcribers. Eobert 
 Stephens inserts it, and hence MUL It is found in the manuscripts C E F K L, 
 etc., and the supplemental D. But it is wanting in A, 1, 33, as also in the 
 Clementine Vulgate, the Curetou Syriac, the Peshito Syriao, the Philoxenian 
 Syriac, and the Armenian version. It is not in the Elzevir ; and it is omitted 
 by Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, Tregelles. 
 
 To return to the subject of the authenticity of the whole section comprised in 
 ver. 9-20. (See pp. 446-449.) 
 
 I. As to interruxl evidence, there is, it should be on all hands conceded, a 
 marked peculiarity .in the style. There is, more particularly, a peculiarity 
 in the way in which the connection of the section with the preceding context 
 is effected. It is exceedingly inartificial. In the presence of these peculiarities, 
 it is not to be wondered at that queries should be started. 
 
 But, in the first place, the entire artlessness of Mark, in the matter of literary 
 composition, diminishes the first feeling of wonderment which arises on the 
 consideration of the peculiarities referred to. 
 
 Then, in the second place, it seems to be quite inconceivable that the evan- 
 gelist should have concluded his Gospel with ver. 8. Such a conclusion, 
 more especially when we bear in mind that the last word in the original is a 
 mere conjunction, would make the narrative go ofi like a knotless thread. 
 
 In the third place,, it is unUkely that Mark's own conclusion of his Gospel 
 should have been either, on the one hand, hopelessly illegible (see p. 449), or, 
 on the other, entirely lost (see pp. 447, 448). Either of these suppositions is an 
 extreme of conjecture that should never be entertained, except as the very last 
 resort into which one may flee, previous to utter despair. 
 
 AU this being the case, it is probable, to say the least of it, that ver. 9-20 
 must have been Mark's own conclusion of his Gospel. 
 
 n. As regards external evidence, it is certainly remarkable that the two oldest 
 
464 ST. MARK XVI. [9-20 
 
 manuscripts extant, the Sinaitio and the Vatican, should be without the para- 
 graph. But then these are actually the only Greek manuscripts yet discovered 
 in which the section is wanting. It is present inACDBFGHELMStTVX 
 r A n, 1, 33, 69, etc., etc. And the agreement of the Sinaitio an^d Vatican in 
 the omission is not perhaps of such significance, if it be the case, as Tisohendorf 
 supposes {Nov. Test. Vaticanum, xxi.), that the principal writer of the Sinaitic 
 (viz. D) was also the penman of the Vatican. He transcribed indeed from 
 different copies, when writing the two manuscripts ; that is proved by the 
 decided diversities in the readings of the manuscripts. But if he wrote the 
 Sinaitic first, from a copy which was without the concluding section of Mark, 
 then we may suppose that, if he found the section in the copy that was before 
 Taim when engaged in writing the Vatican, he might hesitate, in consequence of 
 its absence from the other codex, whether or not he should engross it. But at 
 length he decided, it would appear, on the strength of his own judgment or by 
 the direction of some superior, under whom he was working, to omit the para- 
 graph. This is not a mere conjecture growing up out of nothing, like Michel- 
 sen's notion regarding the illegibility of the section, or Griesbach's surmise of 
 the accidental loss of the leaf containing it from the evangelist's autograph. 
 There is a peculiar fact in reference to the Vatican manuscript, which affords a 
 basis of probability for the supposition. After the colophon ' acookding to 
 Mabk,' at the close of ver. 8, " the remaining greater portion of the column," 
 says Dean Alford, " and the whole of the next to the end of the page are left 
 " vacant. There is no other instance of this in the whole New Testament por- 
 " tion of the manuscript, the next book in every other instance beginning on 
 " the next column.'' (Greek Test., vol. i., p. 430.) Tregelles mentions the 
 same fact, and we ourselves witnessed it, when we were permitted in 1855 to 
 inspect the manuscript. We may hence legitimately infer that in the copy that 
 was before the writer the section was present, although, for some subjective 
 reason or other, he omitted it from his transcript. We thus account for the 
 vacant column. And the concurrence therefore of the two manuscripts in the 
 omission of the section is not of such significance as, at the first blush of the 
 subject, it might appear to be. 
 
 There are however, it is right to admit, some little items of diplomatic 
 evidence that may be put side by side with the omission of the paragraph in the 
 Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts. The Old Latin or Italic manuscript 'k,' 
 called the 'codex Bobbiensis,' omits the paragraph. So do certain ancient 
 manuscripts of the Armenian version, in the Venetian library. So do two 
 manuscripts of the iEthiopic version ; as also an Arabic manuscript version in 
 the Vatican library, described by Scholz in his Raise. These are however mere 
 diplomatic jots or tittles. They are evidence indeed that the section was some- 
 times omitted ; but they weigh for httlo, when we come to strike a balance for 
 the decisive critical result. 
 
 But is there no other adverse diplomatic evidence to be dealt with? Let 
 lis see. 
 
 Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, Tregelles (Pr. Text, p. 254), unite in assert- 
 ing that the paragraph is marked by an asterisk in the two manuscripts ' 187,' 
 ' 138,' and it is inferred that the apposition of this asterisk was equivalait to 
 some brand of suspicion. 
 
y-20] ST. MARK XVI. 4G5 
 
 But it turns out to be the case that in neither of the codices specified is there 
 an asterisk. In the former (fol. 150 6) there is a. cross, which was intended to 
 refer to a note on the following leaf (fol. 151 6), to the effect that Mark xvi. 
 9-20 is undoubtedly authentic. In the latter there is neither asterisk nor cross, 
 but there is the same note attesting the genuineness of the paragraph ! These 
 witnesses have therefore, says Burgon, who has the merit of the discovery, ' been 
 by accident put into the wrong box.' (Last Twelve Verses of Mark, pp. 117, 
 118.) 
 
 There are about thirty other cursive manuscripts, twenty-five of which are 
 specified by Griesbaeh, which have, as is alleged, some note or scholion at- 
 tached to the paragraph. The note is sometimes, as Griesbaeh admits, to the 
 effect that the paragraph is found ' in many copies,' ' in very many copies,' ' in 
 the accurate copies,' and in particular ' in the Palestinian Gospel ' ; while in 
 other oases he says, though inaccurately, it is to the effect that the paragraph 
 is absent 'from some copies,' 'from very many,' 'from the more accurate,' 
 ' from almost aU of the Greek copies.' This statement of Griesbaeh is not only 
 in some respects inaccurate; it does, even in the respect in which it is accurate, 
 less than scanty justice to the schoHa referred to, as it leaves the respective 
 proportions of testimony for and against the paragraph in utter uncertainty. 
 And hence the general effect of his remark, and of the accompanying array of 
 manuscripts, has, as a matter of fact, been such that succeeding textual critics 
 have been led to assume that the evidence of all his five-and-twenty witnesses 
 is, more or less, against the authenticity of the paragraph. Thus Tregelles says : 
 " A similar note, or a scholion stating the absence of the following verses from 
 " many, from most, or from the most correct copies (often from Victor or Severus), 
 " is found in twenty-five other cursive codices." (Printed Text, p. 254.) But 
 this is a mistake. It is not the case that there is such a note or scholion in the 
 twenty-Jive codices referred to. And Griesbaeh does not say that there is. (See 
 his Nov. Test. , in loc.) 
 
 Tischendorf however has fallen into the same mistake with Tregelles. He 
 says, even in his eighth edition (p. 404) : " The schoUa of very many codices 
 " attest that the Gospel of Mark terminated with ver. 8, in the more ancient, 
 " and, as many add, in the more accurate copies." There are, he adds, about 
 thirty of these. And then he calls on us to take note of three specimens of 
 their number (tres videamus). These three will therefore, we may presume, be 
 picked witnesses, containing the most obvious confirmation of the accuracy of 
 his allegation. 
 
 Let us look then at the sohoUa contained in them. 
 
 The first, ' 22,' runs thus : " In some of the copies the evangelist closes here ; 
 " but in many the text goes on as follows, But when Jesus was risen early, etc." 
 Note the word ' some ' as opposed to ' many.' This is not an attestation to the 
 effect that the paragraph is wanting in the ' more ancient ' and 'more accurate ' 
 copies I 
 
 The next witness is ' 1,' in which the scholion runs as follows : " In some of 
 " the copies the evangelist concludes here, and up to this point Eusebius 
 "canonized; but in many the text proceeds as follows, Bitf when Jesus, etc." 
 Note here too the word ' some ' and ' many.' This likewise is no attestation to 
 the effect that the paragraph is wanting in the ' more ancient ' and the ' more 
 accurate' copies. 
 
 u u 
 
466 ST. MARK XVI. [9-20 
 
 Tisohendorf's third witness is '20,' in which the Boholion runs as follows: 
 " From this to the end is not found in some of the copies ; but in the ancient 
 " copies the whole, is found uncurtailed " {iravra dirapaXei-vTa K«Tai). And is this 
 evidence that, according to the scholia of the codices referred to, ' the Gospel of 
 Mark ends with the 8th verse in the more ancient and the more accurate 
 copies " ? The witness, in express terms, contradicts the allegation. 
 
 Not one of the three witnesses adduced by the illustrious critic confirms his 
 assertion ; the last of the three expressly contradicts it. To such an extent did 
 the spell of Griesbach's array throw a ' glamour ' over the eyes of one of the 
 most perspicacious of his critical successors. 
 
 But not only is this the case. In not one of Griesbach's twenty-five codices, 
 or any others that have since been added to them, is there any note or scholion 
 to the effect that in the more ancient or accurate copies is the Gospel of Mark 
 terminated at the 8th verse, or to the effect tjiat what follows the 8th verse is 
 inauthentic. Dr. Davidson, evidently relying on Tisohendorf's authority (the 
 seventh edition), says that " scholia belonging to the manuscripts 1, 15, 20, 22, 
 " 206, 209, 300, and others, say that the more ancient and accurate copies 
 " terminated the Gospel with the 8th verse." {Introduction, vol. ii., p. 112, 
 ed. 1868.) But this is, most emphatically, not the case. We have seen the 
 testimony of ' 1,' ' 20,' and ' 22,' as adduced by Tischendorf in his eighth edition. 
 As to '300,' its scholion is identical with that of '20,' and is the precise 
 opposite of what is alleged. As to ' 206 ' and ' 209,' the scholion is simply the 
 following : " In some of the copies the evangelist here concludes, and up to this 
 " point Eusebius canonized ; but in others the text continues as follows. But 
 " when Jesus, etc." Nothing here about ' the more ancient and accurate copies.' 
 As to ' 15,' its scholion is identical with that of ' 22,' one of Tisohendorf's three, 
 on which we have already remarked. All the witnesses, one after another, 
 break down. 
 
 Scholz puts great reliance on ' 28,' ' 34,' ' 39,' and ' 41,' as having a note from 
 Severus of Antioch, to the following effect : "In the more accurate copies the 
 " Gospel according to Mark terminates with the words, for they were afraid ; 
 " but in some copies it is added, 'But when Jesus was risen,' etc." But in '23,' 
 ' 34,' and ' 39 ' there is no such scholion ; and in ' 41 ' there is a scholion to the 
 opposite effect, that thi accurate copies contain the contents of the last twelve 
 verses. In ' 34 ' and ' 29 ' there are large extracts, at the conclusion of 
 'Matthew's Gospel,' from the Homily on the Eesurreotiou, which has gone 
 a-begging for its author, and in which Eusebius's remarks are re-re-echoed. 
 (See Burgon's masterly sifting of all this class of evidence, in the 8th chapter 
 of his Last Twelve Verses of Mark.) 
 
 When Griesbaoh said that the scholia of the codices, to which he referred, 
 testified that the paragraph was wanting ' in some,' ' in most,' in ' almost all the 
 Greek copies,' and in ' the more accurate copies,' he spoke under mental con- 
 fusion, and had, as we presume, unconsciously mingled in his mind the strong, 
 strange assertions of Eusebius, Jerome, and the author of the begging Homily, 
 with the more sober statements of the codices. 
 
 The whole diplomatic evidence, with the exception of that of the Sinaitic and 
 Vatican manuscripts, is breaking down. Only one other manuscript remains to 
 be noticed, the uncial L, a codex in Paris of the eighth or ninth century ; 
 
9-20] ST. MARK XVI. 467 
 
 Tischendorf ascribes it to tlie eighth. At the close of ver. 8 there occurs, in a 
 sort of framework of dashes, the following notice : " In some instances there is 
 added as foUows." Then we read: "But all the things enjoined they announced 
 ' without delay to those who were around Peter. And afterward Jesus Himself, 
 " from the east unto the west, sent forth through them the holy and incoiTvptible 
 "message of eternal salvation." Then there is another framed remark : "But 
 " there is also the following continuation after the words for they were afraid." 
 Then follows the text as we have it. The manuscript is evidence that in 
 some eases the concluding paragraph was not recognised as authentic. That 
 is all. 
 
 To turn now to 'the patristic evidence. It runs up to Eusebius, as we have 
 seen (p. 446), and resolves itself, to a large extent, into his admission " that one, 
 "puzzled to reconcile the representations of Matthew and Mark regarding the 
 " time of our Lord's resurrection, might say (e^xot iic) that the paragraph in Mark 
 " is not in all the copies ; and that the accurate copies finish with the words, 'for 
 " ' they were afraid ' : there the end is put in almost all the copies of Mark's 
 " Gospel." {Opera, vol. iv., p. 937.) 
 
 Jerome in his Letter to Hedibia simply gives a free translation of Eusebius s 
 admission ; and indeed the query of Hedibia addressed to Jerome is simply a 
 translation of the query of Marinus addressed to Eusebius. 
 
 The begging Homily, sometimes ascribed to Gregory of Nyssa, sometimes to 
 Severus of Antioch, and sometimes to Hesychius of Jerusalem, just re-echoes 
 the salient admission, and implicated assertions, of Eusebius. 
 
 Victor of Antioch goes no farther, so far as that passage is concerned in which 
 he says that " in most copies the paragraph, ' Now when Jesus was risen early,' 
 " etc., is not found in the present Gospel." (Cramer, Cat., i., p. 447.) 
 
 As to Buthymius, he merely says that some expositors affirm tliat the Gospel 
 terminates with the words 'for they were afraid.' 
 
 Such is the substance of the adverse patristic testimony. Omnia ex uno fonte 
 promanarunt : Matthsi, vol. ii., p. 270. But there has been, in many cases, a, 
 strange tendency to exaggerate its amount and strength. 
 
 To begin with Euthymius, the last name in our list. Dean Alford represents 
 him as, along with Severus, Victor, Gregory of Nyssa (or Hesychius of Jeru- 
 salem), and Jerome, ' saying that the paragraph is wanting in the greater 
 number, or in the more accurate ' copies. But this is altogether contrary to 
 fact. Euthymius says nothing of the kind. Neither does he, as Volkmar 
 alleges, ' condemn ' the paragraph ' as spurious.' (Marcasevangelium, p. 607.) 
 He only says that ' some expositors ' affirm that the Gospel terminates with the 
 words ' for they were afraid.' 
 
 Dean Alford, it wiU have been still further noticed, represents Severus and 
 Gregory of Nyssa (or Hesychius of Jerusalem) as uniting with Euthymius, etc. , 
 in testifying that the paragraph is ' wantiag in the greater number or in the 
 more accurate copies.' A corresponding representation is made by Volkmar, 
 Davidson, and Tregelles too. Tregelles says : " This testimony (of Severus) 
 "may be but a repetition of that already cited from Gregory of Nyssa ; but if 
 " so, it is, at least, an approving quotation." (Printed Text, p. 249.) But it is 
 nothing of the kind. Severus is not quoting, approvingly, from Gregory of 
 
468 ST. MARK XVI. [9-20 
 
 Nyssa. The Homily in which the passage occurs is by some authorities ascribed 
 to Gregory, by others to Severus, by others still to Hesyohius. And its testi- 
 ' mony therefore, such as it is, is the testimony of but one father, not of two, 
 or three. Of late the Homily has been generally ascribed to Hesychius. (See 
 Tischendorf, p. 405.) 
 
 Again, the testimony, such as it is, of both Hesyohius and Victor of Antiooh 
 (in the passage referred to), is not an independent judgrnent. Neither is it an 
 independent statement of facts regarding the codices of MarWs Gospel. It is the 
 mere echo of a hearsay, or the confiding and unreflective repetition of the 
 admission and implications of Eusebius. It is a mere uncritical take-on-trust. 
 It counts therefore for absolutely nothing as evidence. 
 
 Precisely of the same value is the testimony of Jerome, in his letter to 
 Hedibia. It is mere unreflective repetition in Latin of the Greek of Eusebius ; 
 and there is real evidence to show that it must have been dashed off inconsider- 
 ately, when ' good Homer was nodding.' It certainly does not soberly represent 
 the result of Jerome's own investigation or observation ; for he expressly con- 
 tradicts, in a subsequent writing, his own sweeping asseveration. In the letter 
 to Hedibia, which was written about the year a.d. 406, he says that her diffi- 
 culty about the conciliation of Matthew and Mark, in their respective accounts 
 of our Lord's resurrection, might be met thus : We may reject the testimony of 
 Mark, which is contained in few Gospels, almost all the Greek copies being defi- 
 cient in the last paragraph. (Epist. cxx., u. 3.) But in his Dialogue against 
 the Pelagians, -whioh was written about the year a. n. 415, he says expressly: 
 " In some copies, and especially in the Greek codices (et maxime in Grsecis 
 " codioibus), it is written at the end of the Gospel according to Mark, when 
 " afterward the eleven were reclining at table, Jesus appeared to them, and re- 
 " proved their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they listened not to those 
 " who had seen Him rising (resurgentem)." See lib. ii., § 15. The two repre- 
 sentations are not in harmony, [Unde hcec tanta inconstantia et levitas, sancte 
 Hieronyme? Matthsei, Animadversio in Marc. xvi. 9-20.) And, as in the 
 former he is actually only echoing Eusebius, we may look upon the latter as 
 representing his own observation, so far as he applied his mind independently 
 to the subject. Jerome's testimony against the paragraph is thus, doubly nulli- 
 fied, so far as real independent evidence is concerned. 
 
 The testimony too of Eusebius is of avail merely to the extent of affording 
 evidence tliat in some copies of the Gospel the concluding section was wanting. 
 What he says about ' the accurate copies ' must be set down to his rhetoric, 
 shaping itself capriciously on the spur of the moment, and putting into the 
 mouth of a puzzled person what, in the way of a special plea, might be said. 
 So must his remark about ' almost all the copies.' For not only is there evi- 
 dence, as we shall soon see, outside the testimony of Eusebius, to invalidate his 
 representation ; there is evidence, inside his own remarks, that he was speaking 
 rashly and rhetorically, and neither as a critic nor as a judge. For after say- 
 ing that it might be alleged that ' in almost all the copies of Mark's Gospel the 
 end is put at the words for they were afraid,' he adds that it might be said that 
 ' what follows is superfluous, and is rarely met with in the codices, in some, but 
 not in all.' Why this last modification of the case ? Why, after saying that 
 the paragraph is rarely {(riravias) mot with, does he add ' in some copies, but not 
 in all '? It is evident that he felt that he had in his first expressions over- 
 
9-20] ST. MAEK XVI. 469 
 
 stated the case. But instead of going back, and obliterating what he had 
 ■written, as he would have done had he been acting judicially, he contents him- 
 self with appending a modifying remark. And yet, be it noted, this is his ulti- 
 mate representation of the case, so that we may take it as his real evidence, so 
 far as he felt bound, in consistency with his special plea, to give it. Tlie para- 
 graph was not found in ' all copies.' That is all. 
 
 That we are doing no injustice to Eusebius in this matter is evinced by the 
 following facts in counter-evidence. 
 
 (1) The paragraph is found in all the existing manuscripts of the Old Latin 
 version, or the Itala, with the exception of ' k,' a late copy. It is also found in 
 all the codices of the Vulgate, Jerome's revision of the Old Latin. It is found 
 likewise in all the Syriao versions, the Cureton (fragmentarily), the Peshito, the 
 PhUoxenian, and, as Adler expressly notes, in the Jerusalem Lectionary {Ver- 
 siones Syr., p. 177). It is found also in the Coptic version, and the Gothic 
 (fragmentarily), and in the printed Armenian and iEthiopio versions. In short, 
 it is found in all the ancient versions. And as these, in their sum total at least, 
 represent manuscripts widely dispersed over the world, and very much older than 
 any now existing, rrmch older too tlian the times of Eusebius, we must come to 
 the conclusion that he spoke rashly, and from only a limited range of observa- 
 tion and collation. 
 
 (2) Again, in all the existing Greek and Syriac leotionaries, or evangeliaries 
 and synaxaries, so far as yet examined, the paragraph is found, forming part of 
 the public lections, lessons, or readings of Scripture, that have been in use, 
 throughout the churches of Christtodom, from time immemorial, and certainly 
 from a time anterior to Eusebius. (See Matthsei's Animadversio ad Marcum 
 xvi. 9-20, in vol. ii. of his New Testament, first edition, and his note in his 
 second edition, vol. i., p. 748 ; and thence Griesbaoh's admission, Nov. Test., 
 vol. i., p. 291. See also Burgon's Last Twelve Verses of Mark, chap, x.) 
 
 (3) Victor of Antioch, while in the body of his collections echoing emphati- 
 cally the admission of Eusebius in reference to the paragraph, yet in the last 
 words of his Commentary, (as has been noted by Matthaei, Tischendorf , Tregelles, 
 Bishop Wordsworth, etc.,) leaves on record the result of his deliberate investiga- 
 tion. He says : " But although the words. But when He was risen early, with 
 " what follows, are not found in very many copies of the present Gospel, seeing 
 " some have deemed them inauthentic, yet we, having found them in very many 
 " copies, have added, out of accurate transcripts, and according to the verity of 
 " the Palestinian Gospel (/cal kotA t6 IldXaia-Tivaioii EdayyiXiov, us ?x" V dX^Seia 
 " MapKov), the appended account of the resurrection of our Lord, following upon 
 " the words 'for they were afraid' : that is, we have added from the words. But 
 " when He was risen early, to the words through the accompanying signs." 
 (Cramer's Catena, vol. i., p. 447.) Thus Victor's name, by. his own express 
 desire, falls to be struck from the list of the supposed oppugners of the section. 
 And the evidence on which his name is struck off is evidence that directly in- 
 validates the rash assertions of Eusebius. There was some important copy of 
 the Gospel of Mark, that either had its resting place in Palestine, or was in 
 some other way intimately associated with the Holy Land ; and in this import- 
 ant codex, as well as in ' many other accurate copies,' examined either at first 
 or at second hand, Victor found the disputed section. 
 
470 ST. MARK XVI. [9-20 
 
 (4) Then Irenseus, Bishop of Lyons, in the latter half of the second century, 
 and thus long anterior to Eusebius, quotes the 19th verse of the chapter, and 
 quotes it expressly as Mark's. {Hceres., iii. 10 : 6.) It ■will be admitted that 
 the manuscript from which he transcribed must have been a very ancient copy. 
 Hippolytus too. Bishop of Port'us near Eome, at the end of the second and the 
 beginning of the third century, quotes the 17th and 18th verses in his fragment 
 Concerning the Gifts of Grace. The copy or copies from Vfhich he quoted must 
 have been exceedingly old. Moreover, James of Nisibis, or Aphraates the Per- 
 sian sage, in the early part of the fourth century, and Ambrose later on in the 
 same century, and then Augustine in the fifth, and Chrysostom between, all 
 these quote explicitly from the passage, and of course quote from texts that 
 were at least as old as themselves. A quotation from the paragraph more- 
 over seems to be made in the Acts of Pilate, which Tischendorf ascribes to the 
 third century. (See pp. 243, 356.) And it is not unlikely that Justin Martyr 
 in his First Apology (c. 45) quotes from the last verse, when he says of the 
 apostles that when 'they went forth from Jerusalem, and preached everywhere,' 
 their mission was the fulfilment of the ancient prediction, ' He shall send forth 
 the rod of thy strength out of Jerusalem.' 
 
 How many very ancient manuscripts must be represented in all these quota- 
 tions ! It is impossible that Busebius's statements can be correct, though he 
 himself seems to have had, for some reason or other, a prejudice against the 
 section. 
 
 Possibly the accidental omission of the paragraph from some valuable copy, 
 in consequence perhaps of being at the end of the codex, or in consequence of 
 some other casualty now unknown, may be the only and extremely narrow 
 foundation on which the whole fabric of doubt and opposition has been reared. 
 It is a fabric that must, as biblical criticism advances, crumble into dust. It 
 was not very far that John Adam Osiander saw into the subject, when in 1753 
 he penned his Vindication of the Genuineness of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark 
 xvi. (Tubingen) ; but he divined correctly when he concluded that ' the para- 
 graph must necessarily be retained in the evangelical text.' The wave of doubt, 
 that swelled and boldly advanced for a season, must, like many similar waves, 
 collapse and recede. 
 
INDEX 
 
 EXPOSITION OF ST. MARK'S QOSPEL. 
 
 'A' or 'an,' i.e., ano, one, 408. 
 
 ' Abba, Father," 400. 
 
 Abiathar, 60. 
 
 Ability, man's, 342. 
 
 ' Abomination of desolation,' 360. 
 
 Abundance or surplusage, 850. 
 
 Acts of Pilate, 430, 470. 
 
 Adulterous generation, 231. 
 
 Affinity of spirits, 90. 
 
 ' AyavaKTovvres, 382. 
 
 'Age (this),' 99 ; to the age, i.e., to 
 
 eternity, 88. 
 Agrippina, 156. 
 Alabaster, 379. 
 'AXaXiJ, 134. 
 A-Lapide, 376, etc. 
 Alberti, 311. 
 Alexander, Dr. Joseph Addison, 233, 
 
 252, 285, 457, etc. 
 'AXi;ffi}s, 330. 
 
 Alford, Dean, 195, 464, 467, etc. 
 ' All,' used in a free and easy sense, 
 
 7, 28 ; ' all things,' 37. 
 ' All-to,' that is, altogether, 325. 
 Almeh, or dancing girl, 154. 
 Alphffius, 77. 
 Alternatives, moral, 67. 
 Altmaun, 315. 
 Amazement, 244, 390, 448. 
 Ambrose, 374. 
 Amen or verily, 87. 
 Andrew, meaning of the word, 18, 77. 
 Andrew's (St.) cross, 77. 
 Anger in Christ, what ? 67. 
 An-hungred, 60. 
 'Avdryatou, 388. 
 
 Anointing, official, 2 ; medicinal, 148. 
 ' Anon,' 156. 
 'AvtI, 298. 
 
 Antonia, castle of, 422. 
 Aorist and imperfect, 207, 350, etc. ; 
 
 aorist and perfect, 245, etc. ; 
 aorist participle, 215, 241, etc. 
 
 'ATT^xec, 403. 
 
 'A(f>i7ffii, 305. 
 
 Aphraates, 470. 
 
 Apostles, twelve, 74 ; sent out in pairs, 
 144, 386 ; got authority over un- 
 clean spirits, 145 ; the word only 
 once used in Mark, 159 ; their re- 
 verence for Christ, 386. 
 
 Apparition, 169. 
 
 Aretas, 115. 
 
 Arias Montanus, 179. 
 
 Arimathea, 439. 
 
 Aristotle, 236, etc. 
 
 Arnot, 109. 
 
 Aromas, 442. 
 
 Artemidorus, 380. 
 
 Article (the), its use in Greek and in 
 English, 10„ 66, 72, 73, 101, 129, 
 167, 189, 207, 248, 253, 256, etc. 
 
 Aryans, 303. 
 
 ' As it stands written,' 184, etc. 
 
 Ass, used for riding on, 303, 306. 
 
 Atonement, 225, 228. 
 
 ' Aught,' 187. 
 
 Augustine, 88, 208, 309, 380, 392, 430, 
 457, etc. 
 
 Authorized version, editions of, 326; 
 primary edition of, 206 ; errata 
 in, 152, 183, 338, etc. 
 
 Automatousness of nature, 106 ; of the 
 mind, 106. 
 
 Banias, 221. 
 
 Baptism, meaning and mode of, 5, 6, 
 7, 9, 12, 180, 182, 459 ; of John, 
 320 ; of purifying fire, 294 ; spittle 
 used by Soman Catholics in con- 
 nection with it, 202. 
 
 Barabbas, 421. 
 
472 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Barclay, Dr., 265, 302. 
 
 Bartholomew, 77. 
 
 BartimsBus, 299. 
 
 EartolinuB, 428. 
 
 Baffai/ifD/iot, 167. 
 
 Baskets, 165, 208. 
 
 Bastow, 357, 427. 
 
 Battle with a Wasp's Nest, 381. 
 
 Bauer, Bruno, 119, 121, etc. 
 
 Baumgarten-Cruslus, 449. 
 
 Baur, P. C, 69, 135, 141, 160, 20lB, etc. 
 
 Baxter, Eiehard, 46, 122, 185, etc. 
 
 Bazaars, 179. 
 
 Beard, Dr., 391. 
 
 Beasts (wild) in Palestine, 14. 
 
 Beolyppan, 258. 
 
 Beds in Palestine, 41, 183. 
 
 Beelzebub, Beelzebul, 83. 
 
 ' Believing ' and ' believing in,' 17. 
 
 Belly (the), 190. 
 
 Bengel, 80, 159, etc., etc. ; his great 
 critical canon, 132. 
 
 Bethany, 301. 
 
 Bethphage, 301. 
 
 Bethsaida or Bethsaidan, 160, 166, 216. 
 
 Beza, 218, etc., etc. 
 
 Bible (English), editions of, 326, etc. 
 
 Bigotry, 68. 
 
 Bisping, 408, etc. 
 
 Bland, Dr., 417, etc. 
 
 Blasphemy, what ? 42, 87, 88, 193. 
 Blayney'B Bible, 326. 
 Blazoning, 181. 
 Bleek, 247, etc. 
 
 ' Bless,' 164, 208 ; ' the blessed,' 412. 
 
 Blindness cured, 217. 
 
 Bloomfleld, 406 ; mistake of, 338. 
 
 — overleaping difficulties, 57. 
 
 Boanerges, 75. 
 
 Boat or ship, 92, 111, 166, 170. 
 
 Boocore, 311. 
 
 Bolten, 168, etc. 
 
 Bomemann, 311. 
 
 Bos, Lambert, 311. 
 
 ' Bottles,' what ? 55. 
 
 Bourlgnon, Madame, 366. 
 
 Bragge, Francis, 119, 124. 
 
 Brameld, 347, etc. 
 
 Bramhall, Archbishop, 355. 
 
 Brass or copper, 145. 
 
 Braunius, 413. 
 
 Brethren of our Lord, 78, 141. 
 
 Bretsohneider, 252, etc. 
 
 Brideohamber, sons of the, 52. 
 
 Bruinier, 323. 
 
 Buoer, Martin, 251. 
 
 Buchanan, George, 152. 
 
 ' Buffet,' 414. 
 
 Burgon, 465, 466, 469. 
 
 ' Buriel ' (a), 158. 
 
 Burton, 249, 262, etc. 
 
 ' Bush (the),' in the Bible, 338. 
 
 Buttig, 161. 
 
 ' By and by,' 156. 
 
 Cactus hedges, 323. 
 
 Csesarea Philippi, 127, etc. 
 
 Cajetan, Cardinal, 143, 153, etc, 
 
 CalUng, what ? 50, 51. 
 
 Calvary, 248. 
 
 Calvin, 143, 184, 185, etc., etc. 
 
 Cambyses, 379. 
 
 Campbell, Principal, 65, 204, etc., etc. 
 
 Camp-meetings, 206. 
 
 ' Can,' used of moral ability, 53, 84, 
 143. 
 
 Canaanites, 197. 
 
 Caudles, 101. 
 
 'Cannot,' i.e., cannot be compelled, 
 254. 
 
 Capernaum, its site, 20, etc. 
 
 Caravanserai, 387. 
 
 Care, anxious, 358 ; cares of this 
 world, 99. 
 
 ' Carpenter,' what ? 140. 
 
 Carson, Dr., 183. 
 
 Cartwright, 202. 
 
 Carus, 172. 
 
 Casaubon, 179, 418, etc. 
 
 Catalepsy, 245. 
 
 Causes, 198, 431. 
 
 Celsus, 148, 246. 
 
 Cene, le, 246, 254, 311, etc. 
 
 Censoriousness, 59. 
 Ceremonial and moral, 343. 
 Chains, 117. 
 XaX/tis, 349. 
 ' Charged ' or rated, 72. 
 ' Charger' and ' cargo,' 156. 
 Chaucer, 155. 
 Chersa or Kersa, 116. 
 Chifflet, 409. 
 
 Children, natural and figurative, 258, 
 263 ; children and Christ, 280 ; 
 children and the kingdom of God, 
 281 ; Christ's disciples so called 
 by Christ, 287. 
 ChUiarchs, 154. 
 Chorazia, 166. 
 Christs, false, 365. 
 Christians, ' crucians,' 229. 
 Chronology in the Gospels, 314. 
 Ciacoonius, 155. 
 Cicero, 155. 
 Clairvoyance, 367. 
 Clarke, Dr. Adam, 157, 164, 201, 349, 
 
 374, 443, etc. 
 Clarke, Dr. B. D., 134, 155, 336. 
 Clarke, Dr. Samuel, 198, etc. 
 ' Cleave,' or be glued, 211. 
 Cleophas, 78. 
 Clerc, le, 311, 404, etc., etc. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 473 
 
 ' Clerk,' ' clergy,' 428. 
 
 ' Clip,' what ? 258. 
 
 Cloak, 54, 128. 
 
 Clyde, Dr., 352, 373, etc., etc. 
 
 Coat-of-arms, 181. 
 
 Coats or tunics, 146. 
 
 Cochran (John) of Glasgow, 366. 
 
 Cock crowing, 167, 375, 397; cook 
 
 crowing and Peter, 415, 417. 
 Coffins and coffers, 165. 
 Comings of Christ, 233. 
 ' Common,' i.e. defiled, 175, etc. 
 Concupiscences, 100. 
 Confession, what ? 7. 
 Conversion, 96. 
 Convulsions, 248. 
 Copper, 145, 349 ; 'a copper,' 182. 
 Corban, 186. 
 
 Cornfields in the East, 57. 
 Couches, 183. 
 Court of a house, 415. 
 Covenant or testament, 393 ; covenant, 
 
 old and new, 393. 
 Coverdale, 388, etc. 
 Covetousness, 192. 
 Cowles, 396. 
 Cowper, 214. 
 
 ' Crave ' and ' craven,' 439. 
 Croll, Dr., 373. 
 
 Cromwell's (Lord) Bible, 256. ' 
 Cross (the), 425 ; a cross for each of 
 
 Christ's disciples, 229; the St. 
 
 Andrew's cross, 77. 
 ' Crucians,' 229. 
 Crumbs, 198. 
 Cups, 182; cups containing a bitter 
 
 death potion, 294, 295 ; Christ's 
 
 cup, 401. 
 Curiosity signs, 210, 211. 
 Curse, 316 ; curse of Corban, 187. 
 Curtius, Georg, 368, 399. 
 Gyrene, 427. 
 
 Dalmanutha, 208. 
 
 ' Damnation,' what ? 88, -848, 461. 
 
 Damosel and damsel, 136. 
 
 Dancing, 154. 
 
 Danz, 280. 
 
 ' Daughter,' as used by Christ, 131. 
 
 Davidson, Dr., 466. 
 
 ' Day,' among the Jews, 397. 
 
 Deaconship of Christ and Christians, 
 
 297. 
 Deaf and dumb, 200. 
 Death, tasting of, 233 ; a lofty view 
 
 of, 135. 
 Decapolis, 115, 125, etc. 
 Deceit or deoeipt, 192. 
 Deceitfulness of riches, 99. 
 Decorum, deficiency in, 139. 
 
 Defilement, 190 ; defiled hands, cere- 
 monially, 175. 
 
 ' Defoulen,' 194. 
 
 Defraud, 284. 
 
 Degrees of ultimate exaltation, 294. 
 
 D'Eichthal, 169. 
 
 De Lira, see Lira. 
 
 Delitzsch, 245, 252. 
 
 ' Deliver,' meaning of the word, 255, 
 423. 
 
 ' Demon,' meaning of the word in 
 classical Greek, 28 ; demons, de- 
 monism, and demoniacs, 22, 23, 
 74, etc. ; prince of the demons, 83. 
 
 Denarius, 350, 382. 
 
 ' Denkspruch,' 189. 
 
 Denzinger, 279. 
 
 Dervishes, 8. 
 
 ' Destroy,' meaning of the word, 24. 
 
 De Veil, see Veil. 
 
 Devil, 13, 28 ; see Satan. 
 
 De Wette, see Wette. 
 
 Deyling, 311. 
 
 Aid, meanings and meaning, 64. 
 
 Aia\o7ifO|Uai, 43, 191. 
 
 Dickinson, Eodolphus, 143, 202, etc. 
 
 Didymus, 77. 
 
 Digamma, 430. 
 
 Dionysius-a-Eyckel, 232, etc. 
 
 Dipping in a dish, 390. 
 
 Disease, i.e. dis-ease, 28, 132; habitats 
 of diseases, 31. 
 
 ' Dispute,' 209, etc. 
 
 Dixon, Hepworth, 158. 
 
 ' Doctrine,' meaning of the word, 21, 
 etc. 
 
 Doddridge, Dr., 441, etc. 
 
 Dogs in Palestine, 197, 198. 
 
 ' Doors,' 371, 440. 
 
 Drawbacks to every good cause, 385. 
 
 Dresigius, 57. 
 
 Drusius, 300. 
 
 AOi^a/iLs, 261. 
 
 Dutch translators, the recent, 2.50, 343. 
 
 ''Ka, 23. 
 
 ' Ear,' ' hear,' 202 ; ears to hear, 94, 
 
 189, etc. 
 Earthquakes, 355. 
 Easter, 377. 
 Eekard, 381. 
 Ecstasy, 171. 
 Edwards, Jonathan, 263. 
 ' Ef tsoon,' 416. 
 
 ' Eight days ' and six days, 231. 
 Elephantiasis, 31. 
 Eisner, 269, etc. 
 Elzevirs, the, 80, 218, etc. 
 Embalming, 383, 442. 
 ' Embrace,' what ? 258. 
 ''E/j.ppi.lMoiMu, 33, etc. 
 
474 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Emser, 377. 
 
 ' End (the),' 355 ; ends, a hierarchy of 
 them, 297. 
 
 English Bible, editions of, 326 ; Eng- 
 lish versions of the New Testa- 
 ment, 332. 
 
 "Bw/uxa, 29. 
 
 ''Evrp^TTO/iat, 326. 
 
 Bphphatha, 208. 
 
 Epilepsy, 25. 
 
 Epiphanius, 3, etc. 
 
 Episcppius, 309. 
 
 'EiriirwTp^ei, 252. 
 
 'EiriTi/iaw, 25, etc. 
 
 Erasmus, 115, etc., etc. 
 
 Esohatology, 351. 
 
 Eucharist, what? 391. 
 
 Eusebius, 3, 77, 127, 380, 446, 467, 468, 
 etc. 
 
 Euthymius Zigabeuus, 226, 309, etc. 
 
 Bvanson, 397. 
 
 ' Everlasting sin,' 89. 
 
 Evil, moral and penal, 194. 
 
 Ewald, 80, 104, etc. 
 
 Exorcism , see Demons. 
 
 'Bfouiria, 44. 
 
 Explicit and implicit in faith, 384. 
 
 Eye, good or evil, 193. 
 
 Faber Stapulensis, 187, etc. 
 
 Faith saves, how? 300; faith has 
 always two objects, 17 ; why it is 
 a pre-requisite, 250 ; faith of mir- 
 acles, 318 ; faith and prayer, 318 ; 
 faith in relation to prayer and 
 fasting, 254 ; the desires that 
 spring from faith always fulfilled, 
 250. 
 
 Faithless, i.e. unbelieving, 247. 
 
 Pakeers, 330. 
 
 'Fall up,' 207. 
 
 Familiaxising, 166. 
 
 ' Far ' and ' forth,' 324. 
 
 Farmer, Hugh, 119. 
 
 Farthing, 350. 
 
 ' Feared a great fear,' 114. 
 
 Fenians, the Jewish, 79. 
 
 Festivities on birthdays, 154. 
 
 'Fetters,' 117. 
 
 Feuehtersleben, 117. 
 
 Fever in Palestine, 27. 
 
 Fig tree, 370. 
 
 Figure of fact, 436. 
 
 Fire, penal and purificatory, 269, 270. 
 
 Fishers of men, 19. 
 
 Fishing nets in the East, 18. 
 
 Flatten and flatter, 332. 
 
 Fly-lord, FHth-lord, 83. 
 
 ' Foohshness,' 193. 
 
 Footstool (a living), 345. 
 
 Formalism, 68. 
 
 Fossils in words, 331. 
 
 Franks, 196. 
 
 Free-will, 188, 194, 401. 
 
 Fritzsohe, 147, 163, etc., etc. 
 
 ^pmiu, 227. 
 
 Fulfilled, or fiUed-fuU, 16, 165, 197, 
 
 208, 388. 
 ' Fuller,' meaning of the word, 54. 
 
 Gadarenes, 115. 
 
 GalUeo proper, 160 ; its populousness, 
 30, 31 ; sea of, 17. 
 
 Gallonius, 429. 
 
 Gassner, 367. 
 
 Gataker, 268, 311. 
 
 Gaulonitis, 160. 
 
 Gehenna, 264, 265. 
 
 Geiger, 55, 56. 
 
 Gelbrioht, 14. 
 
 Genethha, 154. 
 
 Geneva version, 71, etc., etc. 
 
 Genitive of the author, 16 ; of tho 
 material, 54 ; of the object and of 
 the subject, 2. 
 
 Gennesaret, or Gennesar, plain of, 
 94; lake of, 17, etc., etc. 
 
 George, David, 365 
 
 Ghost, 436. 
 
 Gilpin, W., 202. 
 
 Girdles, 8 ; and purses, 145. 
 
 ' Gnash,' 246. 
 
 Gobetis, 117. 
 
 God, absolute and relative, 319, 341 ; 
 His infinity the sum of all infini- 
 ties, 340 ; His omnipotence, 289 ; 
 should get as well as give, 334 ; 
 God and matter, 170 ; God and 
 sin, 355 ; God and oaths, 45 ; the 
 perfect Otherhood of the soul, 
 341 ; God and goodness, 283. 
 
 Goesgen, 311. 
 
 Goethe, 349. 
 
 Golgotha, 428. 
 
 Good, Dr. Mason, 113. 
 
 Good for an end, 263, 271. 
 
 ' Good Friday,' 376, 418. 
 
 Goodman and goodwife, 387. 
 
 Gospel of the Infancy, 141. 
 
 Greatrakes, Valentine, 367. 
 
 Greek = Gentile, 196; Greek spoken 
 by Christ, 54, 77. 
 
 Gregory, moaning of the name, 375 ; 
 Gregory of Nyssa, 446. 
 
 Greswell, 441, 443, 452. 
 
 Griesbach, 3, 88, 147, etc., etc. 
 
 ' Grossi,' 313. 
 
 Grote, 28. 
 
 Grotius, 220, 232, etc., etc. 
 
 Gruner, 427. 
 
 Guilt, what ? 414 ; guilty, what 1 89 ; 
 guilty of death, 414. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 475 
 
 Ha! 433. 
 
 Haokett, Horatio, 302, 323, eto. 
 
 Haill 426. 
 
 Hallel, 39.5. 
 
 Hammond, Bishop, 273, 284, etc. 
 
 Hauna, Dr., 302. 
 
 ' Haply,' 309. 
 
 Hardheartedness or hearthardened- 
 
 ness, 68, 172, 215. 
 Harmer, 442. 
 Harrison, 377. 
 Hartuug of Friburg, 380. 
 Hearing and understanding, 96. 
 Heart, its bibKcal meaning, 41, 172, 
 
 etc. 
 Hedges in Palestine, 323. 
 Hedibia, 447, 448. 
 Heel, heal, to cover, 39, 444. 
 Hegendorphinus, 31, 33. 
 Heinsius, Daniel, 249, 310, eto. 
 Henneberg, 448. 
 Henniker, 155. 
 Heni-y, Matthew, 22, 29, etc. 
 Herods (the), 115, 149, 213 ; Herod 
 
 the Great, 149 ; Herod Antipas, 
 
 148, 158. 
 Herodians, 69, 213, 330. 
 Herodotus, 121. 
 Hesychius, 446, 467. 
 Heumann, 194, 220, etc. 
 Hexapla, Bagster's, 206. 
 Hibemaoles, 371. 
 Hilgenfeld, 121, 125, etc. 
 Hillel, 395 ; Hillelites, 275, 395. 
 Hiller, 426. 
 
 Hinnom, valley of, 264, 265. 
 HippolytuS, 470. 
 Hitzig, 448. 
 Hofmann, 284. 
 Hofmeister, 142, 227, etc. 
 Holtzmann, 123, 141, 199, 205, etc. 
 Hombergk, 311. 
 Homoioteleuton, 382. 
 Hoogeveen, 312. 
 Horace, 425. 
 
 Hosanna, 306 ; in the heavens, 307. 
 House = household, 85; the word 
 
 used without the article, 37 ; 
 
 houses in Palestine, 39; house- 
 tops, 362. 
 Howitt, William, 367. 
 Hugo de Saneto Caro, 66, etc. 
 Hundredfold, 291. • 
 Hurrah, the Hebrew, 306. 
 Hurricane on the lake of Gennesaret, 
 
 112. 
 Husbandman, what ? 324. 
 Hyperbole, 288, 352, 360, 364. 
 Hypocrites, 181. 
 
 Idumea, 70. 
 
 Iken, 311. 
 
 ' Immediately' in Mark, 20, etc., etc. 
 
 Immortality involved in morality, 87 ; 
 
 immortaUty and resurreotion,.335, 
 
 338. 
 Imperfect tense, 207, 315, 377, 421, 
 
 eto. 
 Implicit and explicit in faith, 384. 
 Impressment, 427. 
 'In,' 116, 320, eto. 
 Infinities (the), 340. 
 Ingraham, 408. 
 Inspiration, 345. 
 Interrogation, partial, 351. 
 'Into 'for 'in,' 363. 
 Ira per zelum, 67. 
 Irenasus, 470. 
 Irony, 185. 
 Is-cariot, 79. 
 ' Its,' 370. 
 
 Jacob's Precious Metals, 162. 
 
 Jairus, 127. 
 
 ' James and John,' 19, 75. 
 
 James, son of Alphteus, 77. 
 
 James ' the little,' 487. 
 
 Jericho, 398. 
 
 Jerome, 77, 446, etc. ; the Pseudo- 
 Jerome, 480. 
 
 Jerusalem, its Elevation, 82. 
 
 Jones, Sir William, 381. 
 
 Joseph, the husband of Mary, 141. 
 
 Josephus, 30, 31, 148, 154, 160, 172, 
 etc., etc. 
 
 Joses or Joseph, 141, 438. 
 
 Juhan, 291. 
 
 Juhas, 160. 
 
 Judas or Jude, 78, 141. 
 
 Judas Iscariot, 79 ; why chosen to be 
 an apostle ? 79, 385. 
 
 Justin Martyr, 140, etc., etc. 
 
 Juvenal, 165. 
 
 Kat, 242. 
 
 Kaiser, 333. 
 
 KaUs and KoXffis, 184, 197, 263. 
 
 KaTd\vim, 387. 
 
 Kelly, 396. 
 
 Ke(j>a\ai6u!, 325. 
 
 Kerioth, 79. 
 
 Kersa, 115, 116. 
 
 Khan, 387. 
 
 K'hawah in Arabian houses, 49, 50. 
 
 King or tetrarch, 149. 
 
 ' Kitchen,' 163. 
 
 Kitto, Dr., 39. 
 
 Klostermann, 133, 166, etc. 
 
 Knatchbull, Sir Norton, 248. 
 
 ' Knavery,' 192. 
 
 'Knewing,'215. 
 
 Knirschet, 246. 
 
476 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Koirdta, 170. 
 
 Koppe, 168. 
 
 Kostlin, 141, 224, 358, etc. 
 
 Km06s, 200. 
 
 Rpd/Sarros, 41. 
 
 K/xicTTreSoz/, 174. 
 
 Krebs, 81, etc. 
 
 Kriustith, 246. 
 
 Eriiger, Sprachlehre, 199, 203, etc. 
 
 Kuinol, 143, 148, etc., etc. 
 
 Kypke, 404. 
 
 Laohmann, 249, 434, etc., etc., etc. 
 
 Laotantius, 193. 
 
 Lamps, 101 ; lamp-stands, 102. 
 
 Lange, 133, 168, etc., etc. 
 
 Ijardner, 154, 157. 
 
 Latchet, 9. 
 
 Lavater, 168, 349. 
 
 Leaven, 877 ; of Herod, 213 ; of the 
 
 Pharisees, 213. 
 Lebbseus, 78. 
 Le Cene, see Gene. 
 Le Clerc, see Clerc. 
 Lectionaries, 469. 
 Leek-beds, 163. 
 Legion, 119, 120. 
 Leibnitz, 261. 
 Lenormant, 303. 
 ' Leorning-man,' 21. 
 Leprosy, 31. 
 
 Arjffral, robbers, 315, 407. 
 Levi and Matthew, 46, 47. 
 Lexicographers, Greek, 380, 381. 
 Life or soul, 231 ; life lost and saved, 
 
 230. 
 Lightfoot, Bishop, 448. 
 Lightfoot, Dr., 48, 128, 148, 167, etc., 
 
 etc. 
 Linen, 409, 440. 
 Lipsius, 425, 428. 
 Lira, De, 153. 
 ' List ' and ' lust,' 242. 
 Lobeok, 127, 325. 
 Locusts, used as food, 8. 
 A670S, what?38. 
 ' Look-from,' 213. 
 Looking and seeing, 95. 
 Lots, 429. 
 Love, -what ? 340, 341 ; the final act of 
 
 being, 340 ; unselfish, 341, 342 ; 
 
 in heaven, 837; Christ's to the 
 
 rich young man, what ? 285. 
 Lowliest (the), the loftiest, 296, 297. 
 Lubbock, Sir John, 835. 
 Lusts, what ? 99, 242. 
 Luther, 76, 78, 81, 129, etc., etc. 
 ' Lytelons,' 263. 
 
 Mace, W., 256, 327, etc., etc. 
 Macedonian era, 154. 
 
 Maogregor of the Rob Roy boat, 92, 
 
 112, 122, 166, etc. 
 Mackenzie, Sir George, 42. 
 Malan, Csesar, 102. 
 Malan, S. C, 426. 
 Maldonato, 202, etc. 
 Male and female, 276. 
 Malevolence and benevolence, 68. 
 Man, what kind of being? 841; not 
 
 his own End, 297 ; the copestone 
 
 of terrestrial creation, 459 ; 'man,' 
 
 i.e. husband, 279. 
 'Manufacture,' 181. 
 Many = all, 298, 394. 
 Market-places, 173, 181. 
 ' Markism, a,' 389. 
 Mary of Magdala, 437, 451, 452. 
 Mary, mother of James and Joses, 78. 
 Masius, 457. 
 ' Master ' = Teacher, 113, 237, etc. 
 
 =Eabbi, 237, etc. 
 Matibalg, 145. 
 Matthsei, 147, 205, 467, etc.. 
 Maundrell, 8, 271. 
 Maunds, 208. 
 Mead, Dr., 31. 
 
 Measure for measure, 103, 104. 
 Megaliths, 351. 
 Megistanes, 154. 
 Mehring, 192. 
 M^;-, 241. 
 Mercurialis, 879. 
 Mcravoelre, 6, 16, 17, 454. 
 Metaphors in acts, 202. 
 Metonymy, 7. 
 Meuschen's Nov. Testament. Illust., 
 
 280. 
 Meyer, 59, 180, 194, etc., etc. 
 Michaelis, 61, 122, etc. 
 Michelsen, 45, 51, etc. 
 Mill, Dr. John, 195, etc. 
 MOl, W. H., 78. 
 Mills' British Jews, 888. 
 Milton, 265. 
 Mind, what ? 341 ; mind and matter, 
 
 170. 
 Miracle, what? 261; Christ's miracles, 
 
 211. 
 Mishna, 186. 
 ' Mite,' what ? 349. 
 Moeris, 266. 
 Mo7iXaXos, 200. 
 Moleoh, 264. 
 Money, 145, 162. 
 Money-changers, 314. 
 Monogamy, 835. 
 
 Monseigneur and Monsieur, 300. 
 More, Dr. Henry, 365. 
 Morning, 29. 
 Morus, Alexander, 269. 
 Mountain (the), 73. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 477 
 
 Muchness, 99. 
 Muggleton, Lodowiok, 366. 
 Muller, Max, 442. 
 Mustard seed, 110. 
 Myrrh, 428. 
 
 Names and thought, 258. 
 
 Nansius, 380. 
 
 Napoleon III., 306. 
 
 Nard, 381. 
 
 Nazareth, 11, 138. 
 
 Necessity, antecedent, 355 ; relative, 
 
 225. 
 Needle's eye, 288. 
 ' Needs,' the adverb, 358. 
 Negative, a triple, 394. 
 Nets for fishing in the East, 18. 
 Neutrahty (no), in relation to Christ, 
 
 261. 
 New wine, 55, 395.' 
 Newcome, Archbishop, 311, etc. 
 'Nill,'237. 
 ' Niss,' 237. 
 
 ' No flesh ' — nobody, 365. 
 Norton, 168, etc. 
 
 ' Mirificam ' editions of the New 
 
 Testament, 140, 321. 
 Oath, the obligation of, 157 ; profane 
 
 oaths and God, 45 ; truncated 
 
 forms of oaths, 212 ; oath of Cor- 
 
 ban, 186, 187. 
 Oehler, 341. 
 
 ' Of God,' i.e. in God, 317. 
 ' Offend,' old use of the word, 98, 141. 
 Old-Latin version, 143. 
 Olives, Mount of, 302, 335. 
 Omnipotence, what ? 289. 
 ' Openly,' i.e. unambiguouslii , 226. 
 Ophthalmic diseases in the East, 299. 
 Opis, 380. 
 Opistic, 380. 
 ' Ordained,' 323. 
 Oriental prostration, 127. 
 Origen, 195, etc. 
 Osiander, 470. 
 ' Other,' i.e. or, 290. 
 Otherhood, the soul's, 341. 
 "Oti, recitative, 36, etc. ; interrogative, 
 
 240. 
 Otto, 381. 
 Oid, 433. 
 
 'OwSe, 328, 373, etc. 
 ' Ought ' or ' aught,' 187. 
 ' Over,' 394. 
 
 ' Overthrew,' i.e. overturned, 314. 
 Owen, Dr. Henry, 284. 
 
 Pain often penal, 71. 
 
 Palairet, 417. 
 
 Palgrave, W. GifEord. 245, 299. 
 
 nd/47roXi/s, 205. 
 
 Paneas, 221. 
 
 Parable, what ? 84 ; parabolic action, 
 202, 312. 
 
 Pardon, difficulty of granting, 225- 
 
 Particularism, 198. 
 
 Paska, 377. 
 
 Patch, 54. 
 
 Patrizi or Patritius, 115, 243, 386, 393, 
 430, etc. 
 
 Paulus, 148, 168, etc. 
 
 Pausanias, 121. 
 
 Penal evil a moral good, 194. 
 
 Penny or denarius, 162. 
 
 PersBa, 70. 
 
 Peripateticism, life a, 183. 
 
 Persecution, the heritage of Chris- 
 tians, 98 ; ecclesiastical persecu- 
 tion, 260. 
 
 Perseverance, 360. 
 
 Persius, 154. 
 
 Person, what ? 331. 
 
 Peter, meaning of the name, 74 ; a 
 leading spirit, 30 ; his impetuosity 
 and self-reliance, 397, 407 ; re- 
 buking and rebuked, 227 ; his 
 successors, 224. 
 
 Petrinism, 224. 
 
 Petronius, 379. 
 
 Petter,122, 128, etc., etc., etc. 
 
 Philip, brother of Herod Autipas, 115. 
 
 Philip, the tetrarch, 160, 221. 
 
 Phrenzy, 117. 
 
 Phryniohus, 167, 266. 
 
 Pilate, 419. 
 
 Pistic, 379. 
 
 Plagues or scourges, 71, 129. 
 
 ' Planet,' what ? 337. 
 
 Plato, 23, 341, 380. 
 
 Platter, 156. 
 
 nXeovejio, 192. 
 
 Pliny, 126, 379. 
 
 Plutarch, 346. 
 
 Politics must be proportional to a 
 people's development, 276. 
 
 IIoXXo, mvxih, 35, 120. 
 
 Polyandry and polygamy, 336. 
 
 Polysyllogism, 65. 
 
 Popularity, its drawbacks, 204. 
 
 Porter, Dr., 116, etc. 
 
 Possession by demons, 22, 28. 
 
 Possibility, absolute and relative, 400. 
 
 Prsetorium, 425. 
 
 Preaching, what is it ? 6, 358. 
 
 Premeditation, 359. 
 
 Preparation-day, 439. 
 
 Preraphaelite style, 273. 
 
 Present and present, 305 ; present 
 tense, 317, 318 ; presentiation, 38. 
 
 Procurators of Judsea, 419. 
 
 Prodigies, 211. 
 
478 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 'Prophet,' what? 142, 184, 322; pro- 
 phets, dervishes, 8 ; fakeers, 330. 
 Proposition, loaves of, 63. 
 II/}oofei/xo/xat, 167. 
 
 Prostration, oriental, 127, 131, 196. 
 Xlvyf/.^, 177. 
 
 Punctuation, -wrong, 326, etc. 
 Punishment, everlasting, 267. 
 Purple, a, 426. 
 Purse, 162. 
 Purvey, 122, etc. 
 
 Quadrans, 350. 
 
 ' Quaintly,' what ? 406. 
 
 Quarantania, Mons, 13. 
 
 Eabbi, 113, etc. 
 
 Eabboni, 300. 
 
 Eansom, Christ a, 298. 
 
 ' Bated,' 72. 
 
 ' Beoeipt of custom,' or customs office, 
 
 46. 
 Becitative, oVt, see oVt. 
 Beclining at table in Palestine, etc., 
 
 47. 
 Beinke, 345. 
 
 Eeland, 126, 160, 235, etc. 
 Benan, 158. 
 
 Bending of clothes, 413. 
 Bepentanoe, what ? 6, 16, 147, 454. 
 <,Bespect of persons, what ? 331. 
 Eestoration of all things by Elias, 241. 
 Besurrection and immortality, 335, 
 
 338. 
 Eeville, 449. 
 
 Bewardableness, 198, 263. 
 Eiohard, King, 231. 
 Eiches, 287, 288, 289; what? 99; 
 
 ' riohesse,' 21 ; deoeitfulness of, 99. 
 Bighteousness, as meritorious cause of 
 
 salvation, 289 ; as moral meetness 
 
 for heaven, 288, 289. 
 Billiet, 311, etc. 
 Mob Boy (the), 92, 112. 
 Bobbers, as distinguished from thieves, 
 
 315, 407, 431. 
 Bobinson, Dr., li;6, 235, etc. 
 Bolof, 310. 
 
 Boofs of Palestinian houses, 39, 40. 
 ' Booms ' at supper, 347. 
 Boost, 110. 
 Eotherham, 407, etc. 
 Eouiere's New Testament, 268. 
 Boustaing, 372. 
 Byle, 110, 261, etc. 
 
 Sabbata, sabbaths, sabbath, 20, 442 ; 
 Pharisaic views of, 59 ; made for 
 man, B4 ; Christ the Lord of the 
 sabbath, 64, 65 ; ' one of the sab- 
 
 baths,' 442; 'first of sabbath,' 
 
 451. 
 Sacrament, what ? 392 ; sacrament of 
 
 extreme unction, 148. 
 Saddle, the oriental, 306. 
 Sadducees, 334. 
 ' Sailing ' of vessels, 181. 
 Salmasius, 154, 417. 
 Salome, 155. 
 Salt, covenant of, 271; salting, its' 
 
 uses, 267 ; salt without savour, 
 
 271 ; salted with fire, 265. 
 Salvation, difficulty of, 287. 
 Salvianus, 193. 
 Sandals and shoes, 146, 147. 
 Sanderson, Dr., 157. 
 Sanhedrim, 319, 357. 
 Satan, 13, 97 ; strong, 87 ; immortal, 
 
 87 ; Satan and Peter, 227 ; Beel- 
 
 zebul, 83. 
 ' Satisfy,' what ? 424. 
 Saunier, 61, 274. 
 Saved, what? 459; or healed, 129, 
 
 131, 300. 
 Scaliger, 268, 380. 
 Scandal, what ? 263. 
 Scandalize, what ? 9S, 
 Schenkel, 114. 
 Schleusner, 143, 252. 
 Sohmid, Erasmus, 57, 164. 
 Soholten, 59, 170. 
 Soholz, 466, etc., etc. 
 Sohott, 368, 447. 
 Schottgen, 81, 310, etc. 
 Schulthess, 448, etc. 
 Schulz, David, 267, 448, etc. 
 Scourging, 357, 424. 
 Scrip, 146. 
 Scripture, 328. 
 Soultet, 380. 
 
 Sea or lake, 17 ; sea of Galilee, 17. 
 Self, 194. 
 
 Self denial, 146, 229. 
 Selfishness, 184, 289. 
 ' Sell whatever thou hast,' 285. 
 Semler, 120. 
 Seneca, 157, 158. 
 Serapis, 119. 
 Serving at table, 207. 
 Sexes (the), 277. 
 Shame in reference to Christ and His 
 
 words, 231. 
 Shammaites, 275, 395. 
 Shaw, Dr., 39. 
 Shewbread, 63. 
 Ship or boat, 92. 
 Shod, 147. 
 Shopheroth, 348. 
 Sidon, 194, 199, 200. 
 Sieffert, 254. 
 Signs, what? 211, 460; wrought by 
 
IJXDEi. 
 
 4?9 
 
 Christ, 210, 211; from heaven. 
 210. 
 Simon or Simeon, meaning of the 
 
 name, 18, 74, 75. 
 Simon of Cyrene, 427. 
 Sin, wonderful, 143 ; pardonable, 87 ; 
 has an element of blasphemy in 
 it, 88 ; ' everlasting,' 88, 89. 
 ' Sinners,' emphatic use of the term, 
 
 48. 
 Sinaitio manuscript, 178, 485. 
 2KiiXXw, 132. 
 ' Smith,' what ? 140. 
 Son of God, Jesus was the, 2. 
 Sonnabend, 439. 
 Sons of the bridechamber, 52. 
 Sons of thunder, 75, 76. 
 Sore, sair, sehr, 170, 238, 420. 
 Soul, what ? 341 ; soul or life, 230 ; 
 
 its value, 231. 
 Sour-dough, 218, 377. 
 Sonthey, 288. 
 Spanheim, 268. 
 Spectacular miracles, 210. 
 Spectre (a), 169. 
 Spices, 442. 
 Spikenard, 381. 
 Spinsters, 181. 
 
 Spirit, the Holy, 10, 107 ; dove-like, 
 
 12 ; the Sjirit and Christ, 11 ; 
 
 the Spirit and man, 107 ; the sin 
 
 against, 88, 89. 
 
 Spittle or saliva, 217; in baptism, 
 
 202. 
 Spontaneity of the mind, 107; of 
 
 nature, 106. 
 Sprinkling a mode of baptism, 181. 
 Staff or staves for Christ's apostles, 
 
 146. 
 Stanley, Dean, 111, 308, 439. " 
 Stars falling, 368. 
 Stephens, Henry, 177, 380, 403, 407, 
 
 etc. 
 Stephens, Eobert, 49, 70, 158, etc. 
 Stockbauer, 424. 
 Stoles, 347, 445. 
 Stony or rocky, 93. 
 Storm on the sea of Tiberias, 112. 
 ' Straitly,' 72. 
 Strauss, David, 104, 118, 119, 120, 
 
 131, 153, 345, etc. 
 Strength, man's, 342. 
 Stroud, 396. 
 ' Strown,' 388. 
 
 Substitution or equivalence, 298. 
 ' Suddenly,' or all at once, 238. 
 Sue = follow, 46. 
 Suetonius, 154, 157, 219. 
 ' Suffered,' 128. 
 
 SufBoient, 424 ; i.e. considerable, 299. 
 Suicer, 193. 
 
 Sun, an incandescent mass cooling, 
 373. 
 
 ^OveffiSf 343. 
 
 2vi>Iti/u, I understand, 171. 
 
 Superscription, what ? 333. 
 
 Symbolism of Christ's life, 251. 
 
 Synagogues, 21, 126. 
 
 Syrophoenioian, 196. 
 
 Swearing, see Oaths. 
 
 Swieten, V., 117. 
 
 Swine, 121. 
 
 Swords allowed by Christ for a sym- 
 bolical purpose, 406. 
 
 Tabernacles or booths, 237. 
 
 Tabor, 235. 
 
 Tacitus, 154, 157, 219. 
 
 Talitha cumi, 136. 
 
 Take, i.e. seize, 245. 
 
 Tambour, 155. 
 
 Tasting of death, 233. 
 
 Taylor, Jeremy, 169, 379. 
 
 Temple, its grandeur and great stones, 
 351 ; seen from Mount Olivet, 
 352 ; cattle and sheep sold in it, 
 314 ; its court of the Gentiles, 
 315 ; the court of the women, 
 348 ; the Boman standards set 
 up in it, 361. 
 
 •Tempt' and temptation, 210, 274, 
 333. 
 
 Testament or covenant, 393. 
 
 Tetraroh, 149. 
 
 Thaddeus, 78. 
 
 ' That day,' 373. 
 
 GAw, 347. 
 
 Theophylact, 177, etc., etc. 
 
 ' They ' used indefinitely, 357. 
 
 ' Thieves ' or robbers, 315, 407, 431. 
 
 ' Thing ' = think, 289. 
 
 Thirty pieces of silver, the, 385. 
 
 Thomas, 77. 
 
 Thomas Magister, 266, 312, 387. 
 
 Thomson, Archbishop, 448. 
 
 Thomson, Dr. W. M., 134, 824, etc. 
 
 Thomson, Sir William, 873. 
 
 Thorns, 426. 
 
 ' Thou sayest it,' 419. 
 
 'Thought,' intensive meaning of the 
 word, 358. 
 
 ' Three days,' 226, 255. 
 
 Thronging, 127, 130. 
 
 Thrupp, 348. 
 
 Qvydrpiov, 196. 
 
 Thunder, sons of, 75. 
 
 Tiberias, sea of, 17. 
 
 Tiberius, 221. 
 
 Tischendorf, 81, 44, 94, 104, etc., etc. 
 
 Titus, 364. 
 
 ' To,' denoting direction, 38. 
 
 Tombs in Palestine, 116. 
 
480 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Tongues (new), 461, 462. 
 
 Tophet, 265. 
 
 Touch of faith, 129. 
 
 Toup, 310. 
 
 Tournefort, 134. 
 
 Transfiguration, 235 ff. 
 
 Translations of the N. T., 223. 
 
 Transposition of clauses, 311, 327. 
 
 Trapp, 41, 198, 349. 
 
 Treasury in the temple, 348. 
 
 Tregelles, 378, 448, 465, etc., etc., etc. 
 
 Tribulation, what ? 98. 
 
 Tribute to Coesar, 332. 
 
 TriUer, 312. 
 
 Tristram, 17, 31, 113, 221, 235, 236. 
 
 Triumphal procession, 306. 
 
 Triumvirate (the apostoUcal), 75, 134. 
 
 ' True,' what ? 330. 
 
 Tunics, 146, 413, 429. 
 
 Tyndale, 283, 290, etc., etc., etc. 
 
 Tyre and Sidon, 70, 194, 200. 
 
 Twain, 277. 
 
 Twelve apostles, why twelve ? 74. 
 
 Two by two, 144. 
 
 Ululation, 134. 
 
 Unbelief, 460 ; marvellous, 143 ; i.e. 
 
 imperfect faith, 252. 
 Unclean persons, 147. 
 Unclean spirits, 145. 
 Unoleanness, ceremonial, 180, 181, 
 
 191. 
 Unction, extreme, 148. 
 Understanding, what ? 348. 
 Universality secundum quid, 250. 
 Unleavened bread, 377, 385. 
 Unpardonable sin, 88. 
 Unvernunft, 194. 
 Unwashed hands, 176. 
 tictp, over, 394. 
 Uproar, 378. 
 
 Vat or fat, 323. 
 
 Vatican manuscript, 446, 464. 
 
 Veil, du, 163, 262. 
 
 Verily ' or amen, 87, etc. 
 Verses of the N.T., 79, 356 ; see Rolert 
 
 Stephens. 
 Vcrstegan, 426. 
 Vespasian, 219, 364. 
 Vessels or goods, 86 ; or utensils, 314. 
 Via Dolorosa, 422. 
 Viaticum, 146. 
 Victor of Antiooh, 284, 446, 450, 467, 
 
 469. 
 Viger, 57. 
 
 Village ' and ' town,' 217. 
 Villagers, 192. 
 Villain, 181, 192. 
 ViUany, 192. 
 Vines in Palestine, 322. 
 
 Vineyard, the Jews a, 327. 
 Virtue or power, 130, 149. 
 Vision, a, 236. 
 Vitellius, 354. 
 Vitringa, 21, 126. 
 Vogu6, 348. 
 Volkmar, 73, 115, etc. 
 Voluntas sensualitatis, 401. 
 Vossius, 380. 
 
 Vfahhabeeism, 59. 
 
 Wailing women, 134. 
 
 V?akefield, 33, 177, etc. 
 
 Wallet, 145. 
 
 WaUow, i.e. roll, 248. 
 
 Ward, Dr., 430. 
 
 Wassenbergh, 310. 
 
 Watch-towers, 323. 
 
 Watches of the night, Jewish and 
 
 Eoman, 167, 375. 
 Watchful, 375. 
 ' Water ' and ' waters,' 248. 
 ' Wright,' 140. 
 Webster and Wilkmson, 128, 152, 
 
 346, etc. 
 Weiss, 449, 454. 
 Well-beloved, 326. 
 Wells, Dr. Edward, 446. 
 Wesley, 164, 340, etc. 
 Wetstein, 145, 164, 310, etc. 
 Wette, de, 69, 310, etc. 
 ' What to me and to thee ? ' 118. 
 ' What to us and to thee ? ' 23. 
 Whately, Miss, l'?9. 
 Whiston, 267. 
 Vfhitney, 449, 456. 
 Wickedness or knavery, 192. 
 WUke, 205, 216. 
 Wilkinson, 387. 
 
 Will and wish, 401 ; see Free will 
 WiUes, 215. 
 WilUbald, 166. 
 Wilson, Dr. John, 235, 399. 
 Wilson, Thomas, 99. 
 Winds, the four, 370. 
 Wine, eastern, 55, 56 ; myrrhed, 428 ; 
 
 wine-fat, 322. 
 Winer, 380, etc. 
 Wisdom, intellectually considered, 
 
 139 , wisdom, wise, wissed, wist, 
 
 etc., 402. 
 Wit, witan, etc., 402. 
 Withered hand, 66. 
 Witsius, 309. 
 'Woe!' what? 390. 
 Wolf, J. C, 309, 361. 
 Wolff the traveller, 8. 
 WoUe, 81, 311, 444. 
 Woman and Christianity, 165; the 
 
 women who followed Jesus, 437 ; 
 
 wailing women, 134. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 481 
 
 Wonder, not always the daughter of 
 
 ignorance, 143, 32i9. 
 Wonders, lying, 367. 
 Wood, J. G., 197. 
 Woodman the martyr, 359. 
 Woolston, 40, 41, 122, 810. 
 ' Word,' used ooUeotively, 402 ; the 
 
 ■word, that is, the Gospel, 38. 
 Wordsworth, Bishop, 168, etc. 
 Work, the blessing of, 140, 141. 
 World or age, 99. 
 ' Worship,' what ? 426. 
 'Written (it stands),' 184. 
 
 WycUffe, 69, 130, 149, eto. 
 Wynne, 252. 
 
 Xenophon, 40, 380. 
 
 Ymagion, 359. 
 Yonglyng, 444. 
 
 Zealots (the), 79. 
 Zelotes, 79. 
 Zeltner, 430. 
 Zeugma, 173, 203. 
 Zuiagli, 312, 352. 
 
 END OF THE INDEX. 
 
 Butler i TiDner. Tha Belwood rrluUns WorkB, Frame, and London. 
 
 I I 
 
B 
 
 ^ 
 
PitO