1^ S t^S^^" 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 GIFT OF 
 
 Alfred C. Barnes 
 
Cornell University Library 
 BS2585 .A43 
 
 Gospel according to Sa|nt Mark w^^^ '"* 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 341 546 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 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/cletails/cu31924029341546 
 
The Oxford Church Biblical Commentary 
 SAINT MARK 
 
Zbe ©yforb Cburcb Biblical Commentari^ 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 
 
 SAINT MARK 
 
 WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 THE VEN. W. C. ALLEN, M.A. 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF MANCHESTER, AND PRINCIPAL OF EGERTON HALL, 
 
 MANCHESTER ; FORMERLY CHAPLAIN-FELLOW AND LECTHRER 
 
 IN THEOLOGY AND HEBREW OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 
 NEW YORK 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 191S 
 t.v- 
 
ai/e, /V,7^ /v|^r/r'. ^nj//^/). Z^^^- 
 
 
 AH3 
 
 COPYRIGHT 
 
 i^^wL '^(.fiVL-e^-^^ -^-vo-TY-) O (TL't-T^ci^-si^ 
 
 0:^3 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This Commentary might easily have been made into a 
 large volume in any one or more of the following ways. 
 It might have included quotations from preceding com- 
 mentaries, with an examination of opinions held by their 
 authors. For my part I find such commentaries on the 
 Synoptic Gospels as adopt this Talmudic method so 
 tedious that I have purposely abstained from adding 
 another to their number. Or again, long notes might have 
 been written describing the civil and religious institutions 
 of the land of Palestine in Christ's time, or discussing the 
 sites of places mentioned in the Gospel. But admirable 
 articles on these subjects may be found in easily access- 
 ible Bible Dictionaries, and the overloading of a Com- 
 mentary with material of this sort helps to turn the mind 
 of a reader from that which ought to be his main effort in 
 reading a Gospel, viz. to grip the conception of Christ's 
 Person and work which the Evangelist set out to convey 
 when he wrote his Gospel. 
 
 Or lastly, much space might have been devoted to the 
 consideration in detail of the so-called ' historical value ' 
 of each saying and incident, and of rationalistic explana- 
 tions of them. 
 
vi ST. MARK 
 
 It has seemed to me to be unprofitable to do this at 
 any length. If the Gospel was written at the early date 
 to which I have assigned it, and if it contains in large 
 part the reminiscences of an Apostle, we must take his 
 records very much as they stand, unless we feel obliged 
 to say that our conception of the universe is so rigid that 
 we can find no room in it for One who transcends all the 
 experience of other men, and that we must pronounce any 
 Gospel which describes such an One as mainly fictitious. 
 But it may be our conception of the universe that is 
 wrong and not the impression left upon the Apostles by 
 the life of Jesus. 
 
 If I may now try to describe the chief object of this 
 Commentary, it is this. I have tried to summarise in the 
 Introduction the impression left upon me by many years' 
 study as to the Evangelist's conception of the Person and 
 work of Jesus of Nazareth, as to the Evangelist's style, 
 and the main literary characteristics of his book. Hence 
 the frequent ' see introduction, p. — ' which is found in 
 the notes on the text. 
 
 The importance of studying the Gospels from the point 
 of view of their writers can hardly be overestimated. Only 
 on the basis of such a study, and as a result of it, can 
 right conclusions be drawn as to the dates and authorship 
 of the several Gospels. Too often Commentaries deal 
 with the Gospels as though the writer of one of them 
 necessarily viewed Christianity from exactly the same 
 standpoint as the writers of the others. Now the truth is 
 that no two Christians look at Christianity from precisely 
 
PREFACE vii 
 
 the same standpoint. It is because Harnack has done so 
 much towards the differentiation of the characteristics of 
 the three synoptic Gospels that he arrives at dates which 
 are, I believe, more nearly correct than those given by 
 any other modern critical writer. 
 
 In what I have just written I have had in mind Com- 
 mentaries on the Synoptic Gospels. The remaining 
 books of the New Testament stand on a different footing, 
 and what I have said must not be applied to them, and 
 certainly riot to the Books of the Old Testament. 
 
 The Aramaic origin of the Gospel which is advocated 
 in the following pages may be criticised. The Greek 
 scholars who have never breathed a Semitic atmosphere, 
 will no doubt dissent. They will say that the Greek of 
 the Gospel is rather poor Koine Greek, but that there is 
 no reason for thinking it to be translation Greek. But 
 what right have they to judge ? If the Greek Book of 
 Genesis could be dissociated from its history as known to 
 us, and laid before a council of Greek scholars, they would 
 probably say that it was fair Koine Greek and that there 
 was no necessity to conjecture a Hebrew original. The 
 Greek scholar examines St. Mark's Gospel and says, ' Just 
 rather bad Koine Greek.' But I should here refer to 
 the weighty judgment of a Greek scholar so eminent as 
 Dr. J. H. Moulton. 'In St. Mark's Gospel and in the 
 Apocalypse,' he says {The Year's Work in Classical 
 Studies, 1914, p. 167), 'I have for some time past freely 
 recognised the hands of virtual translators, imperfectly 
 equipped in the idiom of Common Greek.' 
 
viii ST, MARK 
 
 To the Aramaic student the imperfection of the Greek 
 will suggest perhaps not only virtual but actual trans- 
 lation work so far as St. Mark's Gospel is concerned. 
 If it be asked, 'Why say this of St. Mark more than 
 of the other two Gospels?' the answer is (i) that the 
 Greek of the Second Gospel is more Aramaic than that 
 of the First and Third ; (2) that we know that these two 
 Gospels used a Greek source (St. Mark), and that settles 
 the question of their composition in Greek, whilst, if the 
 date and place of writing which are suggested for the 
 Second Gospel in this Commentary are right, there is 
 every probability in favour of Aramaic as the language 
 in which it was written. I am very conscious of incom- 
 petence in dealing with the question. But if I have made 
 linguistic mistakes, this should not be charged against the 
 theory as a whole. The argument depends not only or 
 chiefly upon a few isolated points, but also upon the style 
 and sentence-construction as a whole. The matter is one 
 for scholars who are both learned in the Koine Greek and 
 masters of the Aramaic dialects. To the judgment of 
 these I shall willingly submit. And here I should refer 
 to the verdict of Pere Lagrange, who speaks with weight 
 from the Aramaic side. He sums up decisively against 
 an Aramaic original. ' On peut encore regarder comme 
 certain que le second evangile n'est pas la traduction d'un 
 texte arameen ' {Evangile selon Saint Marc, p. xcvii). 
 But he goes on to emphasise the Aramaic character of St. 
 Mark's Greek in the following words : ' II faut done con- 
 clure que le grec de Marc doit son caractere semitique a 
 
PREFACE ix 
 
 ce fait qu'il reproduit d'assez pres des conversations ou 
 des recits en langue semitique, at specialement en langue 
 arameenne. Son grec est toujours du grec, mais du grec 
 de traduction, non qu'il traduise un ecrit arameen, mais 
 qu'il reproduit une catechese arameenne.' 
 
 If with Dr. Moulton we may go so far as to speak of 
 ' virtual translation,' and with Pere Lagrange of ' grec de 
 traduction,' there seems to be little reason for insisting on 
 oral conversations or catecheses rather than a document 
 as the Aramaic background of the Gospel. Wellhausen 
 leans towards an Aramaic original, and one great Greek 
 scholar, F. Blass,^ declared in favour of it. We want 
 more commentators on this Gospel with Wellhausen's 
 knowledge of Semitic languages and literature, just 
 as we want for the Fourth Gospel commentators who 
 are not only skilled in Greek, but also masters of Rab- 
 binical theology and literature, learned not through 
 translations, but from the original sources. 
 
 The translation of the text of St. Mark needs much 
 apology. It is generally bald, and frequently un-English 
 in idiom. That is intentional. I have tried by a very 
 literal rendering to suggest the main features of the Greek. 
 If the imperfect tense is rendered 'was doing,' 'saying,' 
 etc., over and over again, even where it might have been 
 rendered otherwise, as by ' used to,' and the like, it is 
 because I wished to draw attention to the fact that St. 
 Mark uses the imperfect tense far more frequently in pro- 
 portion than do the other Gospels — so often that the later 
 
 ' Philology of the Gospels, p. 210. 
 
X ST. MARK 
 
 evangelists repeatedly substitute for it an aorist. If 
 sentences in the translation are sometimes ungrammatical, 
 this is because the Greek behind them is also harsh and 
 without formal construction. If after a verb of saying 
 ' that ' occurs before a sentence containing the words of 
 the speaker in direct speech, this is because it is charac- 
 teristic of St. Mark to use ' that ' in this way. The words 
 and phrases italicised in the translation are those which 
 frequently recur, and may be regarded as characteristic of 
 St. Mark's style. May I venture to hope that no one 
 will read the translation until he has read both this Preface 
 and the Introduction which follows. 
 
 I have to thank Messrs. T. and T. Clark of Edinburgh 
 for allowing me to reprint some pages that have appeared 
 in a book recently published by them. See footnote on 
 page I. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Authorities cited, 
 Abbreviations, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 xiii 
 
 INTRODUCTION— 
 A. Early History, 
 E. The Author, 
 
 C. The Date and Place of Writing, 
 
 D. Sources, 
 
 E. Analysis, 
 
 F. Characteristics, 
 
 G. Theology, 
 H. Historicity, 
 I. The Text, 
 
 TEXTUAL NOTES, 
 
 TEXT AND NOTES— 
 
 A. Preliminaries to the Work of the Messiah, 
 
 B. Work in Galilee, ..... 
 
 C. Outside Galilee. The Training of the Disciples, 
 
 D. Journey to Jerusalem, . . . 
 
 E. Last Week of the Messiah's Life, 
 Later Greek Endings, 
 
 I 
 3 
 4 
 7 
 9 
 
 12 
 26 
 
 33 
 39 
 
 47 
 
 52 
 
 57 
 
 io8 
 
 131 
 141 
 191 
 
xii ST. MARK 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES- 
 
 The Kingdom of God, . . . • -197 
 
 On the Meaning of aKavSaXl^u, . . ■ 199 
 
 INDICES— 
 
 I. Ancient Authors, ... . 209 
 
 II. Modern Authors, . . . 210 
 
 III. Names and Subjects, . . . 211 
 
 IV. Greek Words, ... 212 
 
AUTHORITIES CITED 
 
 Abbott, E. A., Paradosis. London, 1904; Jokannine Vocabulary. 
 
 London, igo^ ; Johannine Grammar. London, 1906. 
 Acts of Thomas, t&.'^.'^xi^t. 2 vols. London, 1871. 
 Apocalypse of Abraham, ed. C. N. Bonwetsch. Leipzig, 1897. 
 Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charles. 
 
 Oxford, 1913. 
 Ascension of Isaiah, ed. R. H. Charles. London, 1900. 
 Assumption of Moses, ed. R. H. Charles. London, 1897. 
 
 Backer, W., Die Exegetische Terminologie der Jiidischen Traditions- 
 
 literatur. Leipzig, 1905. 
 Bacon, B. W. , The Beginnings of Gospel Story. 1909. 
 Blass, F. , 'Grammar of New Testament Greek. London, 1898 ; 
 
 Texikritische Bemerkungen zu Markus. Giitersloh, 1900. 
 Box, G. H., The Ezra- Apocalypse. London, 1912. 
 BuRKiTT, F. C, Evangelion Da - Mepharreshe. Cambridge, 1904; 
 
 The Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names. London ; 
 
 The Gospel History and its Transmission. Edinburgh, 1906. 
 
 Chwolson, D. , Das Letzte Passamahl Christi. St. Petersburg, 1892. 
 Clark, A. C, The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts. Oxford, 1914. 
 
 Dalman, G., The Words of Jesus. Edinburgh, 1902; Grammatik des 
 
 Jiidisch-Palastinischen Aramaisch. Zweite Auflage. Leipzig, 1905. 
 Deissmann, G. a., Bible Studies. Edinburgh, 1903. 
 Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, ed. J. Hastings. 
 Dictionary of the Bible, ed. J. Hastings. Edinburgh, 1898-1904. 
 
 Encyclopaedia Biblica (Cheyne and Black). London, 1899-1903. 
 Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings. Vol. I. -VI. 
 
 Edinburgh, 1908-1914. 
 Enoch, Book of, ed. R. H. Charles. Oxford, 1893. 
 Enoch, Secrets of, ed. R. H. Charles. Oxford, 1896. 
 Ezra- Apocalypse, ed. G. H. Box. London, 1912. 
 
xiv ST. MARK 
 
 Field, F., Notes on the Translation of the New Testament. 
 Cambridge, 1899. 
 
 Harnack, a., The Sayings of Jesus. London, 1908; The Constitution 
 and Law of the Church in the First Two Centuries. London, 1910; 
 The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels. London, 191 1. 
 
 Hawkins, J. C, Horae Synopticae. Oxford, 1909. 
 
 Jubilees, Book of, ed. R. H. Charles. London, 1902. 
 
 Klostermann, E., Markus in Handbtich zum Neuen Testament. 
 
 Lake, K., The Text of the New Testament. London, 1908; 
 
 The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul. London, 1911. 
 LoiSY, A., Les £vangiles Synoptiques. 1907. 
 
 Mechilta. German Translation by J. Winter and A. Wunsche. 
 
 Leipzig, 1909. 
 Menzies, a., The Earliest Gospel. London, 1901. 
 MiLi.lGAN, G., Selections from the Greek Papyri. Cambridge, 1910. 
 MoFFATT, J., An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. 
 
 Edinburgh, 1911. 
 MONTEFIORE, C. G. , The Synoptic Gospels. London, 1909. 
 MouLTON, J. IL, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 
 
 Vol. I. Prolegomena. Edinburgh, 1906. 
 
 Odes and Psalms of Solomon, ed. J. Rendel Harris. Cambridge, 1909. 
 Oracida Sibyllina, ed. J. Geffcken. Leipzig, 1902. 
 
 Papyri : Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. Lon- 
 don, 1898-1904; Tayum Towns and their Papyri, ed. B. P. Grenfell, 
 A. S. Hunt, and D. G. Hogarth. London, 1900 ; Tebtunis Papyri, 
 ed. B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and J. G. Smyly. London, 1902 ; 
 Amherst Papyri, ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. London, 1900 ; 
 Selections from the Greek Papyri, by C. Milligan. Cambridge, 1910. 
 
 Pesikta des Rab Kahana. German Translation by A. Wiinsche. 
 Leipzig, 1885. 
 
 Pirke Aboth. See Sayings of the Jewish Fathers. 
 
 Psalms of Solomon, ed. A. E. Ryle and M. R. James. Cambridge, 1891. 
 
 Sanday, W, , Studies in the Synoptic Problem, by Members of the Univer- 
 sity of Oxford, ed. by W. Sanday. Oxford, 1911 ; Sacred Sites of the 
 Gospels. Oxford, 1903. 
 
AUTHORITIES CITED xv 
 
 Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, ed. C. Taylor. Cambridge, 1877. 
 ScHURER, E., History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Edinburgh, 1890. 
 SoUTER, A., The Text and Canon of the New Testament. London, 1913. 
 Stanton, V. H., The Gospels as Historical Documents. Cambridge, 1903, 
 
 1909. 
 SwETE, H. B., The Gospel according to St. Mark. London, 1898. 
 
 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, ed. R. H. Charles. London, 1908. 
 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Greek Versions of, 
 
 ed. R. H. Charles. Oxford, 1908. 
 Thompson, R. C, The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia. Vol. i. 
 
 London, 1903. 
 
 Vettius Valens, ed. G. Kroll. Berlin, 1898. 
 
 Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, ed. J. II. Moulton and G. Milligan. 
 
 Tart I. London, 1914. 
 VoLZ, V.,Jildische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba. Tubingen, 1 903. 
 Von Soden, H. F., Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, Berlin, 1902- 
 
 1913- 
 
 Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Marci. 1909. 
 
 Westcott, B. F., The New Testament in the Original Greek, 
 
 ed. B. F. Westcott and J. A. Hort. Introduction. Appendix. Lon- 
 don, 1896. 
 
 Zahn, T., Introduction to the New Testament. Edinburgh, 1909. 
 
ST. MARK 
 
 ABBREVIATIONS 
 
 Aesch. . 
 
 = Aeschylus. 
 
 Apoc. Abr. 
 
 = Apocalypse of Abraham. 
 
 Apoc. Bar. . 
 
 = Apocalypse of Baruch. 
 
 Aq. . . 
 
 = Aquila. 
 
 Ass. Mos. 
 
 = Assumption of Moses. 
 
 B. 
 
 = Babylonian Talmud. 
 
 Bas. 
 
 = Basil. 
 
 Cur. 
 
 = the Curetonian Syriac Version. 
 
 D.B. . 
 
 = Dictionary of the Bible (Hastings). 
 
 Dlat. . 
 
 = The Diatessaron of Tatian. 
 
 Diod. . 
 
 = Diodorus. 
 
 Dion. H. 
 
 = Dionysius Halicarnassus. 
 
 Encyclo. Bib. 
 
 = Encyclopaedia Biblica. 
 
 E.R:E. . 
 
 = Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. 
 
 Exp. Times 
 
 = Expository Times. 
 
 Hor. Syn. 
 
 = Horae Synopticae (Hawkins). 
 
 Iren. 
 
 = Irenaeus. 
 
 Jos. . 
 
 = Josephus. 
 
 J.Th.S.. 
 
 =foumal of Theological Studies. 
 
 latt. 
 
 = Manuscripts of the Old Latin Version 
 
 Ln 
 
 = Lachmann. 
 
 LXX 
 
 = The Septuagint Version. 
 
 Luc. 
 
 = Lucian. 
 
 Or. 
 
 = Origen. 
 
 Plut. 
 
 = Plutarch. 
 
 Polyb. . 
 
 = Polybius. 
 
 Ps. Sol. 
 
 = Psalms of Solomon. 
 
 Sib. Or. 
 
 . = Sibylline Oracles. 
 
 Symm. . 
 
 . = Symmachus. 
 
 Syr. Sin. 
 
 . = The Sinaitic Syriac Version. 
 
 Tat. 
 
 . = Tatian. 
 
 Th. Theod. 
 
 . =Theodotion. 
 
 Ti. 
 
 . = Tischendorf. 
 
 VGT . 
 
 = Vocabulary of the Greek Testament 
 
 
 (Moulton and Milligan). 
 
 WH . 
 
 . =Westcott and Hort. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 t- 
 
 A.* Early History 
 
 The earliest reference to the Gospel is a statement made about 
 it by Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, in Asia Minor, in the first 
 half of the second century a.d. This has been preserved by the 
 historian Eusebius {U.E., iii. 39), and is as follows: — 'This 
 too the elder {i.e. an elder known to Papias) said, "Mark being 
 Peter's interpreter wrote with accuracy whatever he remembered, 
 though not in order, of the things spoken or done by the 
 Messiah. For'' he did not hear the Lord; nor did he follow 
 Him, but later, as I said, Peter, who adapted his teachings to 
 circumstances without making an ordered scheme of the Lord's 
 sayings. So that Mark was not to blame in writing in this way 
 some things as he remembered them. For he was careful 
 neither to leave out any of the things which he heard, nor to 
 falsify anything amongst them.'" Here we have the following 
 points: — (i) The Gospel was written by one Mark; (2) this 
 Mark was Peter's interpreter, either, that is to say, his dragoman, 
 i.e. one who interpreted his Aramaic into Greek, or more gener- 
 ally, his exponent ; (3) this Mark was not an immediate disciple 
 of Christ; (4) Peter had drawn up no ordered scheme of 
 Christ's sayings, but taught them as circumstances (of his 
 hearers ?) required ; (5) Mark therefore could not be blamed if 
 some things (sayings ?) were not in order in his Gospel, for he 
 had to rely upon his memory of Peter's teaching ; (6) but (so far 
 as his memory served him) he had omitted or wrongly recorded 
 nothing. 
 
 » Sections A, B, and D have already appeared in Introduction to the Books 
 of the New Testament, by W. C. Allen and L. W. Grensted, and are here re- 
 produced by kind permission of the publishers of that book, Messrs. T. & T. 
 Clark, Edinburgh. 
 
 •■ Harnack seems to think that what follows is a statement of Papias, not of 
 ' the elder ' [Date of the Acts and Syn. Gosf., p. 127). 
 
 ST. MARK A 
 
i. INTRODUCTION 
 
 The most striking point about this statement is its defence of 
 the Gospel against criticism of it on the score of its arrangement, 
 and also apparently against complaints of its omissions and 
 inaccuracies . 
 
 We hear no more of the Gospel by name until the last 
 quarter of the second century. Irenseus, Bishop of Lyons, 
 states that ' Mark, the interpreter of and disciple of Peter, has 
 handed down in written form to us the things preached by 
 Peter' (Adv. Haer., iii. i. i). This is a very important state- 
 ment in view of some recent discussion of it. The words imme- 
 diately preceding those quoted are, ' After the departure (death) 
 of these ' (Peter and Paul), and Irenseus has generally been 
 interpreted as stating that Mark wrote after Peter's death. But 
 in \he./.Th.S., vi. 563-569, Chapman argues that, read in the 
 light of the whole context, the words 'after their death' do not 
 date the writing of the Gospel but its transmission. ' It is 
 evidently implied,' he says, 'that the preaching of Peter has 
 been preserved to us after his death by being written down 
 before his death.' This argument has received the weighty 
 support of Harnack {Date of Acts, p. 130), and will probably 
 win its way to acceptance. In the light of it Irenjeus has 
 nothing to add about Mark to the statement of Papias. He 
 only knows that Mark was Peter's disciple and interpreter, and 
 that his Gospel is based on Peter's preaching. 
 
 About the same time Tertullian at Carthage has a similar 
 tradition about the Second Gospel, ' What Mark published may 
 be described as Petrine, for Mark was Peter's interpreter ' {Adv. 
 Marc, iv. 5). 
 
 The Muratorian Canon, a list of the books of the New Testa- 
 ment drawn up at Rome about 170-200 a.d., begins with the end 
 of a sentence which no doubt refers to the Second Gospel, ' At 
 some things he (Mark) was present, and so he recorded them.' 
 
 Lastly, Clement of Alexandria {c. 150-212 a.d.), quoted in 
 Eusebius, If.E., vi. 14, tells us that 'as Peter had publicly 
 preached the word in Rome and proclaimed the Gospel by the 
 Spirit, many who were there besought Mark, as one who had 
 followed him a long time and remembered his sayings, to draw 
 up a narrative of them. And he composed the Gospel and 
 gave it to those who asked for it. Peter when he learned this" 
 did not directly forbid nor promote it.' 
 
 » /. e. the pressure put on Mark to write. 
 
THE AUTHOR 3 
 
 This witness of Clement malies one addition to the earlier 
 statements of Irenaeus and Papias. It seems to place the com- 
 position of the Gospel at Rome. Whether this is a necessary 
 inference will be discussed later. 
 
 Apart from this its evidence is much the same as that of 
 Irenseus and Papias : (a) it represents the author as a disciple 
 of Peter ; (6) it describes his Gospel as based on Peter's preach- 
 ing. In the last clause there seems to be an echo of the note 
 of criticism of the Gospel which is heard in Papias's words. 
 The latter urges that Mark must not be blamed for lack of order 
 in his Gospel. This was to be imputed to St. Peter's method 
 of preaching. Clement seems to be admitting some deficiencies 
 in the Gospel when he carefully dissociates St. Peter from any 
 share in its composition. 
 
 If now we summarise the second-century tradition about the 
 Gospel it seems to amount to this, that the author, Mark, was 
 Peter's interpreter. This may, and probably does, mean that 
 the background of the Gospel was St. Peter's Aramaic preach- 
 ing. If so, our Greek Gospel will be largely of the nature of a 
 translation. 
 
 B. The Author 
 
 The author, Mark, can hardly have been any other than the 
 John Mark mentioned in the New Testament. We hear of him 
 that his mother had a house at Jerusalem (Acts 12 i^), to which 
 St. Peter went on his escape from prison. The fact that ' many 
 were gathered together there ' about the period of the passover 
 (Acts 12*) has led to the suggestion that Mary's house was the 
 house in which the Lord's Supper had been instituted, and that 
 the many who were gathered had come together to com- 
 memorate that institution in the house of its origin. If that 
 were so the further suggestion that the young man of Mk. 14 ^^ 
 was Mark himself, who had followed the Lord and His disciples 
 when they left his mother's house late in the evening, becomes 
 very plausible. This would also explain the statement of the 
 Muratorian Canon given above (see Zahn, Introduction, ii. 493). 
 When Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch they took John 
 Mark with them (Acts 12 ^^), and he accompanied them on their 
 first missionary journey as far as Perga (Acts 13*"^^). His with- 
 drawal seems to have greatly displeased St. Paul, who refused 
 
4 INTRODUCTION 
 
 in consequence to allow him to join his second missionary 
 expedition (Acts 15''^). Barnabas, Mark's cousin (Col. 41"), was 
 more favourable to him, and disagreeing with St. Paul on the 
 matter, took Mark to Cyprus (Acts 15^'). This must have 
 been about the year 47 a.d. For some twelve years we lose 
 sight of John Mark. Then he reappears as a helper of St. Paul. 
 The latter, writing from Rome, speaks of Mark as with him at 
 Rome and likely to visit Colossse (Col. 4", Philem. 23). The 
 only other references to him in the New Testament are in the 
 First Epistle of Peter, where St. Peter mentions ' Mark my son ' 
 as with him at Rome (= Babylon) (i Pet. 5"), and in 2 Tim. 
 4 11, where St. Paul from Rome bids Timothy bring Mark with 
 him. Eusebius {H.E., ii. 16) was acquainted with a tradition 
 that Mark had founded churches in Alexandria, and Jerome 
 (fifth century) repeats the statement. Eusebius says that he 
 was succeeded at Alexandria by one Annianus in the eighth year 
 of Nero, i.e. 61-62 a.d., and Jerome seems to place his death iil 
 this year. 
 
 One other early tradition about him should be noted. Hip- 
 polytus (died c. 236 a.d.) describes him as 'finger-curtailed,' 
 KoAo/3oSaKTvAos.* The meaning of the epithet is obscure. It 
 was interpreted as meaning that Mark had mutilated his hand 
 to disqualify himself for the priesthood (Preface to the Vulgate 
 of the Gospel), or that his fingers were congenitally short (Codex 
 Toletanus). Some modern writers have supposed it to refer to 
 the incompleteness of his Gospel.^ 
 
 C. The Date and Place of Writing 
 
 Upon the place of writing the evidence of Clement would 
 seem to be decisive. He represents the Gospel as having been 
 written at Rome and, as it would seem, in St. Peter's lifetime. 
 In this case the date would be the early sixties, before St. Peter's 
 martyrdom in the Neronian persecution, for there is no satis- 
 factory evidence connecting St. Peter and Rome before that 
 period. 
 
 It is, however, very questionable whether Clement's evidence 
 as to Rome ought to be pressed. It is very late, and no hint of 
 
 * RsfiU. , vii. p. 30. 
 
 >> E.g. Keim, Jesus of Nazareth, i. p. 117, n. '' ; Bartlet, /. Th.S., vi. p. 124. 
 
THE DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING s 
 
 Rome as the place of writing appears before his time. On the 
 other hand, there are several considerations which make in 
 favour of an earlier date and a Palestinian origin of the Gospel, 
 or at least of the Gospel in its original form. 
 
 The most important is the use of the Second Gospel by the 
 writers of the First and Third Gospels. The date of the First 
 Gospel is a very disputed question. It is generally dated 
 somewhere about 75 a.d., the main argument being its use of 
 St. Mark. But the evidence of the Gospel itself suggests an 
 earlier date. It is clearly the work of a Hellenist Christian 
 who believed in Christ as the Messiah of the Jews. He re- 
 garded the disciples of Christ as still under the obligations of 
 the Mosaic Law, and believed that the Messiah was soon to 
 reappear on the clouds of heaven to inaugurate the Kingdom of 
 the Heavens." All this points to Antioch at or about the period 
 of the great controversy with regard to the admission of 
 Gentiles into the Church.^ The ideas just mentioned are not 
 merely sporadic in the First Gospel. They do not appear as 
 archaic survivals in isolated sayings. They permeate the whole 
 book, and are clearly representative of the mind of the evan- 
 gelist and of the Christianity of his period. Now since the 
 First Gospel is clearly dependent upon St. Mark, it is plain that 
 the Second Gospel must have been written earlier than the year 
 50, if that is approximately the date at which the First Gospel 
 was written. The date of the Third Gospel is also a debated 
 question. It has been usual to assign it to about the year 
 80 A.D. But the matter has been reopened by Harnack, who 
 believes that the Acts of the Apostles was written before 
 St. Paul's death, and that the Third Gospel is therefore earher 
 than the year 60 a.d. This would, of course, throw back the 
 Second Gospel still earlier. 
 
 We may therefore suppose that somewhere between the years 
 30 A.D. and 50 A.D. John Mark put down in writing the 
 teachings of his friend, Simon Peter. It is clear from the early 
 chapters of the Acts that Peter was prominent as leader of the 
 little society of disciples of Jesus. There about the year 
 39 A.D. St. Paul stayed with him for a fortnight (Gal. i). But 
 in 44 A.D. Peter was obliged to leave Jerusalem (Acts 12^''), 
 
 » St. Matthew (Int. Crit. Com.), Ixvi.-lxxviii. ; Allen and Grensted, Introduc- 
 tion, pp. 33-35. 
 >> Allen and Grensted, Introduction, pp. 37 f. 
 
6 INTRODUCTION 
 
 and we do not find him there again until the Council, some 
 five years later (Acts 15). During this interval the Second 
 Gospel may virell have been written. The absence of Peter 
 from Jerusalem would suggest the writing down of his teachings 
 to compensate for the lack of personal presence, and no one 
 was so well fitted to do this as John Mark. His family was 
 well known to the apostle, and between the two there was 
 close spiritual friendship (i Pet. 5 i^). If written at Jerusalem 
 the Gospel would naturally have been composed in Aramaic, 
 and there is much to suggest this in its style and language. 
 But Mark did not long remain in Jerusalem after St. Peter's 
 departure. He was drawn into the circle of St. Paul's influence, 
 and went with him to Antioch and then on the first portion of 
 his first missionary journey. At Antioch it was probably found 
 desirable to translate the Gospel into Greek {c. 44-47 a.d.). 
 When a year or two later the controversy between the churches 
 of Jerusalem and Antioch about the admission of Gentiles 
 into the Church broke out, the author of the First Gospel took 
 St. Mark's work as his basis, and wrote a longer Gospel, inserting 
 much of the Lord's teaching as preserved at Jerusalem. It is, 
 of course, possible that the Second Gospel was in some sense 
 republished at Rome in the sixties, and that this fact underlies 
 Clement's statement that it was written there. But the amount 
 of editing cannot have been large, because it is clear that the 
 editor of the First Gospel had St. Mark before him very much 
 as we have it. 
 
 Against so early a date two arguments are alleged by most 
 modern writers'*: (i) the statement of Clement as to its com- 
 position at Rome. This has been dealt with above. (2) The 
 thirteenth chapter of the Gospel is thought to include a Jewish 
 Apocalypse written shortly before the fall of Jerusalem. On 
 this see notes on that chapter. 
 
 In favour of the early date are (i) the primitive meaning of 
 ei'ayye/\.ioi' = 'the good news preached by Christ' (see p. 57 f.) ; 
 (2) the silence of the Gospel as to the extension of Christianity 
 to the Gentiles (see p. 52); (3) the candid exposure of the 
 weaknesses of the apostles. On this see pp. 20 fF. 
 
 " Cf. Moffatt, Introduction, p. 212. 
 
SOURCES 7 
 
 D. Sources 
 
 Many attempts have been made to show that the Second 
 Gospel can be analysed into two or more different sources. 
 E.g. Wendling finds in it three stages: M^ an early Aramaic 
 source, M^ a Greek translation of M^ with additions, M^ a 
 final editor. On the artificiality of this analysis see Williams in 
 Studies in the Synoptic Problem, xiii. 
 
 Bacon* discriminates three sources and an editor. The 
 sources are : (a) Petrine tradition ; {b) Q, the discourse source, 
 used also in the First and Third Gospels ; (<r) X, a third, other- 
 wise unknown, source. 
 
 These and other attempts at analysis rest too much on 
 a priori subjective conceptions as to the nature of the Lord's 
 person and the character of His teaching. If, for example, the 
 critic believes that He could not have used the title ' Son of 
 Man ' or have predicted His death, passages which contain the 
 title or such predictions are on that ground assigned to a 
 secondary or later stage in the growth of the Gospel. 
 
 The first starting point in the question of sources must be the 
 tradition of Petrine dependence. The greater part of the 
 events in Christ's Galilean ministry may safely be ascribed to 
 St. Peter's teaching by all who see no force at all in the 
 argument that St. Peter could not have handed down as 
 historical narratives of miraculous events. Much of the 
 narrative of the Lord's last week in Jerusalem may also have 
 been derived from St. Peter, though here John Mark, who 
 dwelt in Jerusalem, may rely to some extent upon his own 
 experience. 
 
 But a question as to St. Mark's use of a second source is 
 raised by consideration of the discourse material in his Gospel. 
 Study of the First and Third Gospels has led many writers to 
 believe that the authors of these books have borrowed from an 
 early collection of the Lord's sayings. Harnack ^ has recently 
 put together passages which he thinks may be ascribed to this 
 source. His method is to assign passages to it which are 
 reproduced both in St. Matthew and in St. Luke. For another 
 reconstruction based on the principle that most of the dis- 
 course material in the First Gospel has marked characteristics 
 of Jewish phraseology and primitive theology, and that this 
 
 » Beginnings of Gospel Story. ^ See his Sayings of Jesus Christ. 
 
8 INTRODUCTION 
 
 material probably comes from an early discourse source from 
 which the First Gospel borrowed directly, whilst the Third 
 Gospel has incorporated much material drawn ultimately from 
 this source but through intermediate stages, see Studies in the 
 Synoptic Problem, ix. 
 
 Of course, if such a collection of sayings as Q* were in 
 existence when St. Mark wrote, it is not unlikely that he may 
 have borrowed from it some of his discourse material. 
 
 Moreover, the question can be put in another way. It 
 seems probable that Q contained sayings and discourses which 
 are also found in the Second Gospel. 
 
 -E.g. Harnack places in Q St. Matthew i2 22-23.25.27.28.30.43-45= 
 St. Luke iii*i7.i9.20.23-26_ Now in St. Matthew and St. Luke 
 these sayings are found combined with St. Mark 323-27. Qf 
 course, we might suppose that the First and Third Gospels have 
 dovetailed together St. Mark and Q. But when it is found that 
 in the verses common to all three St. Matthew and St. Luke 
 sometimes agree in phraseology against St. Mark, the question 
 is at once raised whether St. Matthew and St. Luke did not 
 have before them the section of St. Mark, and also a parallel 
 section in Q in a longer form, containing the verses common 
 to St. Matthew and St. Luke but not in St. Mark. If that were 
 so it would be possible to think that the verses in St. Mark had 
 been borrowed from Q. 
 
 In these and in other cases that could be adduced certainty 
 is impossible, because the facts to be explained admit of many 
 possible explanations. The agreements between St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke against St. Mark may be due to dependence of 
 St. Luke upon St. Matthew, or to assimilation in transmission 
 of one of these Gospels to the other, or to the fact that our 
 St. Mark has been slightly modified since they used it, or to all 
 these and other causes combined. On these grounds all that 
 can be said is that the discourse document Q, supposing that it 
 was composed prior to St. Mark, which is quite possible, niay 
 have been used by him, but that the evidence is inconclusive. 
 It is perhaps more probable that the discourses in St. Mark 
 represent a selection of Christ's utterances as handed down by 
 St. Peter in the early years of the Church's life at Jerusalem. 
 About the same period another writer (St. Matthew?) was com- 
 posing a book of sayings of Christ (Q), and would naturally 
 
 "The discourse source is generallj' referred to as Q=Quelle, 
 German for ' source.' 
 
ANALYSIS 9 
 
 rely upon this Petrine tradition of the Lord's sayings. So that 
 St. Mark and Q would be two recensions of this tradition, the 
 one longer and the other shorter." 
 
 E. Analysis 
 
 A. Chapter I. 1-13 forms an introduction to the main body 
 of the book. The preaching by the Messiah of the good tidings 
 of the Kingdom was prepared for in three ways : (i) His 
 coming was foretold by John the Baptist; (2) at His baptism 
 He was proclaimed to be Son of God ; (3) He was prepared for 
 His work by a period of retirement and fasting. The noticeable 
 feature about this section is its remarkable brevity. The preach- 
 ing of the Baptist is represented by a single verse, chosen because 
 of its bearing upon the person and work of the Messiah. Christ's 
 baptism is briefly recorded because of the importance of the 
 sanction given to Him by the voice from heaven. The two 
 verses which describe His sojourn in the wilderness are so brief 
 as to be almost meaningless. We ask in vain what bearing this 
 period of fasting has upon His future ministry, and what signifi- 
 cance is to be attached to the statement that He was with the 
 wild beasts. 
 
 B. Chapters I. 14-7. 23 describe the work and teaching of 
 the Messiah in Galilee. 
 
 1. 14-15. Summary description of the contents of His preaching. 
 16-20. Call of four disciples. (No note of time.) 
 
 21-28. Cure of a demoniac at Capharnaoum, 
 
 (No note of time.) 
 29-31. Cure of Peter's mother-in-law. 
 32-34. Cures at evening. 
 35-39. Departure from Capharnaoum for a tour throughout 
 
 Galilee. 
 40-45. Cure of a leper. . (No note of time. This is the 
 
 single example given of the work done on the 
 
 journey described in v. 39.) 
 
 2. 1-12. Cure of a paralytic at Capharnaoum. 
 
 13-17. Call of Levi, and protest from the Pharisees that He 
 associated with toll-gatherers. 
 
 " Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, p. 226, is of opinion that the assumption that 
 St. Mark depended on Q is nowhere demanded. Moffatt, L.N.T., rejects it 
 (p. 205). Streeter, in Oxford Studies in the Synoftic Problem, pp. 166 ff. , thinks 
 that St. Mark used Q to a limited extent. See Moffatt for other Uterature. 
 
lo INTRODUCTION 
 
 2. 18-20. Protest against the behaviour of His disciples in 
 respect of fasting. 
 21-22. On things new and old. 
 23-28. Protest against His disciples for breaking the Sabbath. 
 
 3. I- 6. Cure of a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath, 
 
 and consequent determination of the Pharisees to 
 kill Him. 
 7-12. Withdrawal from Capharnaoum to the lake, and heal- 
 ings there. 
 
 13-19. Appointment of the twelve on the hillside (near the 
 lake?). 
 
 20-21. In a house. Accusation of madness. 
 
 22-30. Accusation of reliance upon Beelzeboul. 
 
 31-35. Christ and His kinsfolk. 
 
 4. 1-34. His parabolic teaching by the lake. 
 35-41. The storm on the lake. 
 
 5. 1-20. Gerasa. 
 
 2 1-6. 1. The daughter of Jairus and the woman with the issue 
 of blood. 
 
 6. I- 6. In His own country. 
 7-13. The mission of the twelve. 
 
 14-29. Death of John the Baptist. 
 30-33. Withdrawal to a desert place. 
 34-44. Feeding of the Five Thousand. 
 45-52. Walking on the water. 
 53-56. Healings at Gennesareth. 
 
 7. 1-23. Controversy with the Pharisees about unwashen hands. 
 
 C. Chapters 7. 24-9. 50 record work done outside Galilee. 
 Th6 eKeWev dvao-Tiis of 7 ^^ and lo^ mark the introduction and 
 close of a section. 
 
 7. 24-30. On the frontiers of Tyre. The Syrophcenician 
 
 woman. 
 31-37. At the lake. (Bethsaida?) Heahng of a deaf man. 
 
 8. i-io. Feeding of the Four Thousand. (No note of place, 
 
 but near the lake.) 
 11-13. Controversy with the Pharisees. Request for a sign. 
 14-21. The stupidity of the disciples. 
 
ANALYSIS II 
 
 8. 22-26. At Bethsaida. Healing of a blind man. 
 27-30. At Csesarea Philippi. St. Peter's confession. 
 31-33. First prediction of the cross. 
 34-9.1. No discipleship without suffering, 
 9. 2- 8. Transfiguration. 
 9-13. The true Elijah. 
 14-29. Cure of a demoniac. 
 30-32. Second prediction of the cross. 
 33-50. Discourse on humility. 
 
 D. Chapter 10 forms a section by itself, describing a journey 
 to Jerusalem. 
 
 10. 1-12. On divorce. 
 13-16. On children. 
 
 17-22. On inheriting eternal life. 
 
 23-31. On riches. 
 
 32-34. Third prediction of the cross. 
 
 35-45. The request of Zebedee's sons. 
 
 46-52. Bartimasus at Jericho. 
 
 . E. Chapters 11-16. 8 form the last section of the book, 
 describing the events of the last week of the Messiah's life. 
 
 11. i-ii. Entry into Jerusalem. 
 12-14. Cursing of the fig-tree. 
 15-19. Cleansing of the Temple. 
 20-26. The withered fig-tree. 
 
 27-33. The question of the scribes about John's baptism. 
 
 12. i-i 2. The wicked husbandmen. 
 
 13-17. The question of the Pharisees about tribute money. 
 18-27. The question of the Sadducees about the resurrection. 
 28-34. The question of the lawyer about the greatest com- 
 mandment. 
 35-37. The question of Jesus about David's son. 
 38-40. Denunciation of the scribes. 
 41-44. The widow's mite. 
 
 13. Discourse about the fall of Jerusalem. 
 
 14. I- 2. Plots of the chief priests and scribes. 
 3- 9. The feast at Bethany. 
 
 lo-ii. The treachery of Judas. 
 12-16. Preparation for the passover. 
 17-25. The evening meal. 
 
12 INTRODUCTION 
 
 14. 26-31. On the way to the Mount of Olives. 
 32-52. At Gethsemane. 
 
 53-72. The trial before the chief priest. 
 
 15. 1-15. The trial before Pilate. 
 16-20. The mockery by the soldiers. 
 20-41. The crucifixion. 
 
 42-47. The burial. 
 
 16. I- 8. The angel at the tomb. 
 
 F. Characteristics 
 
 (i) A marked feature of the style is a fondness for duplication 
 and iteration, or an unnecessary redundancy of expression. 
 
 1. 16. 'Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon.' 
 28. 'everywhere into all the district.' 
 
 32. 'At even, when the sun set.' 
 
 34. ' cast out many demons, and did not suffer the 
 
 demons to speak.' 
 42. ' the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.' 
 
 38. 'elsewhere into the neighbouring villages.' 
 
 2. 20. ' the days will come — then shall they fast in that day.' 
 15-16. 'many publicans and sinners — for they were many — 
 
 with the sinners and the publicans — with publicans 
 and sinners.' 
 
 25. ' he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were 
 
 with him.' 
 
 3. 14-15. 'and he appointed twelve' repeated. But see note 
 
 on the passage. 
 
 26. 'cannot stand, but hath an end.' 
 
 4. I. ' by the sea on the land.' 
 
 2. ' And he taught — and said to them in his teaching.' 
 5. 'stony ground, where it had not much earth.' 
 9. ' He that hath ears to hear let him hear (and he that 
 understandeth let him understand,' D, latt.). 
 30. ' How shall we liken — or in what similitude shall we 
 set it' 
 31-32. 'when it is sown — when it is sown.' 
 
 39. 'And the wind ceased, and there was a calm.' 
 
5- 
 
 12. 
 
 
 IS- 
 
 
 19. 
 
 
 23- 
 
 
 40-41. 
 
 6. 
 
 3- 
 
 
 4- 
 
 
 17-18. 
 
 
 28. 
 
 
 35- 
 
 7- 
 
 13- 
 
 
 21. 
 
 8. 
 
 I. 
 
 
 12. 
 
 
 17- 
 
 9- 
 
 2. 
 
 10. 
 
 3°- 
 
 II. 
 
 4- 
 
 
 24. 
 
 
 28. 
 
 
 29. 
 
 12. 
 
 2. 
 
 
 14. 
 
 
 23- 
 
 
 24. 
 
 
 44. 
 
 13- 
 
 19. 
 
 
 20. 
 
 
 ■ 29. 
 
 14. 
 
 3°- 
 
 
 45- 
 
 
 54- 
 
 
 61. 
 
 
 68. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS 13 
 
 ' Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.' 
 'him that was possessed of the demons — him that 
 
 had the legion.' 
 ' to thy house, to thy friends.' 
 ' that she may be saved and live.' 
 ' where the child was, and taking the child by the 
 
 hand.' 
 'here with us.' 
 ' in his own country, and amongst his own kin, and in 
 
 his own house.' 
 ' his brother Philip's wife — thy brother's wife.' 
 'gave it to the damsel, and the damsel.' 
 ' the day was now far spent ' repeated. 
 
 ' your tradition, which ye have delivered.' 
 'from within, from the heart.' 
 
 is practically repeated in v. 2. 
 ' this generation ' repeated. 
 ' perceive nor understand.' 
 ' apart by themselves.' 
 'now in this present time.' 
 
 ' outside on the street.' 
 
 ' pray and ask.' 
 
 ' do these things ' twice. 
 
 ' answer me ' twice. 
 
 'to the husbandmen . . . from the husbandmen.' 
 
 ' Is it lawful to give, or not ? Shall we give, or not 
 
 give?' 
 ' in the resurrection, when they rise. 
 ' ye err ' repeated in v. 27. 
 'all that she had, all her living.' 
 ' the creation which God created.' 
 'the elect whom he elected.' 
 'near, at the doors.' 
 ' to-day, on this night.' 
 ' coming — coming to.' 
 'within, into the court.' 
 ' was silent, and answered nothing.' 
 ' I neither know nor understand.' 
 71. 'to curse and to swear.' 
 
14 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Another form of redundancy is the repetition of the same idea 
 in two forms. 
 2. 27. ' Sabbath for man, and not man for the Sabbath.' 
 19-20. ' Can they fast while the bridegroom is with them ? So 
 long as they have the bridegroom they cannot fast.' 
 
 10. 27. 'With men it is impossible, but not with God: for 
 
 all things are possible with God.' 
 
 11. 23. ' does not doubt — but believes.' 
 Compare also the accumulation of adverbs. 
 
 I. 35. TTpial evvv)(a Xiav. 
 6. 52. Atav eK-irepi(T(Tov. 
 16. 2. Xiav irpiDL. 
 
 Another form of redundancy is the accumulation of nega- 
 tives. 
 
 44. firjSevL ftijSev etTrj/s, ' nothing to no one.' 
 ov Sui'ttxat oijSeis, 'no one cannot.' 
 8. ovKiTL ovSeva ilSor, 'no longer no one.' 
 yUTjKfTi — firjSeLs, ' no longer — no one.' 
 ov fieXei (Tot nepl ovSivo's, ' dost not care about no one.' 
 ovSel's ovKiTt, 'no one no longer.' 
 ovKiTt ov fi-q, 'no longer I will not.' 
 ovK d-n-eKpivaro ovSev, 'did not answer nothing.' 
 ovKiTt, ovSev, ' dost thou not answer nothing.? ' 
 
 Another and very frequent form of redundancy is the repetition 
 of a preposition first in a compound verb and then inde- 
 pendently before the following noun. 
 
 St. Luke and St. Mark have a much higher percentage of 
 verbs compounded with a preposition than St. Matthew. See 
 Professor Moulton in Expositor, May 1909, p. 412. 
 
 It is not therefore surprising to find that the number of cases 
 of such verbs followed by the same preposition is smaller in St. 
 Matthew than in the other two evangelists. The numbers are 
 as follows: — St. Mark, 65; St. Luke, 78; St. Matthew, 53; 
 Acts, 77. 
 
 If we bear in mind the relative length of the Gospels (in 
 Westcott and Hort St. Matthew occupies 79 pages, St. Mark 
 40, St. Luke 74, Acts 69), and also the fact that some seventeen 
 of the cases in St. Matthew and St. Luke are borrowed from 
 
 I. 
 
 44, 
 
 3. 
 
 27. 
 
 9- 
 
 8, 
 
 II. 
 
 14, 
 
 12. 
 
 14, 
 
 
 34. 
 
 14. 
 
 25' 
 
 6i. 
 
 IS. 
 
 5' 
 
CHARACTERISTICS IS 
 
 St. Mark, it will be seen that St. Mark has a much larger propor- 
 tion of such constructions than the other two writers. 
 
 The construction is common in the LXX translation and in 
 all the literature that has been influenced by it. How natural 
 it is in Greek, which is a translation from a Semitic language, 
 maybe seen in the fact that in i Samuel there are 95 occurrences 
 and in Theodotion's version of Daniel 39. 
 
 El(T€pxofj.ai eU accounts for more than a third of the cases in 
 St. Mark and St. Luke and for nearly one-half of those in St. 
 Matthew. 
 
 I. 16. Trapdyav irapd, 'passing-by by.' 
 
 21. elfTTTopevovTai, els, 'going-into into.' 
 2.21. iirLpaTTTei iwi, 'sews-onon.' 
 
 5. 13. el<rrj\dov els. 
 
 17. direX.6elvd.ir6, 'going-from from.' 
 7. 25. irpoaeireaev irpos. 
 
 31. e^eXOCov CK, 'going-out out' 
 9.42. irepiKenai — irepi, ' hanged-about — about.' 
 10. 25. Sia — ZieXdelv, 'to go-through — through.' 
 13. I. eKiropevofievov — eK. 
 
 15,32, a-vve(Tra.vpiafi,'evoL avv, ' crucified-with — with.' 
 (2) Characteristic of the Gospel is a fondness for 
 
 (a) Present tense used in narrative. This occurs about 
 
 151 times. See Hawkins, Hor. SynP', 144. 
 
 (b) Imperfect tense. This is proportionately much more 
 
 common than in the First or Third Gospels. 
 
 (c) Participle with the verb 'to be.' 
 
 1. 6. r^v — JvSeS-u/tei/os, 'was clothed.' 
 
 13. ■171' — irecpa^ofibevos, 'was — being tempted.' 
 
 22. ^v^SiSda-Ktov, 'was teaching.' 
 
 33. Tyi/ — eincrvvr]yp,evrj, 'was gathered.' 
 
 2. 6. ycrav — Ka.0r]p.evoi,, ' were — sitting.' 
 
 18. ria-av — vrj(TrevovTe%, 'were fasting.' 
 4. 38. ^]v — Ka6ev8(i>v, 'was — sleeping.' 
 
 5- 5- ^^ — Kpd^uiv, ' was crying out.' 
 
 II. yjv — /JocTKo/tei'Tj, ' was feeding.' 
 
 6. 52. 171' — ireTr(Dpii)fj,evr], 'was hardened.' 
 9. 4. Tjo-av — crvvXaXovvTes, ' were talking.' 
 
i6 INTRODUCTION 
 
 10. 22. fjv — ex<^v, 'was having.' 
 
 32. rja-av — dva/SaLVOvm, 'were — going up.' 
 ,, ^v — Trpoaywv, 'was going before.' 
 
 13. 13. eVeo-^e — fx,uTovfievoi, 'ye shall be hated.' 
 
 25. ecrovrat — iriiTTOVTes, 'shall be falling.' 
 
 14. 4. fja-av — dyavaKTovvres, 'were — being indignant' 
 
 40. ^a-av — KaTafiapvi'OfjLevoi, ' were being weighed down.' 
 49. TJ/A);v — SiSda-Kiov, 'was — teaching.' 
 IS' 7- V^ — SeSejuei/os, 'was — bound.' 
 
 26. iji' — eTTtycyjOafiyuei'r;, 'was — written'.' 
 
 40. fjaav — deu)pova-at, ' were — beholding.' 
 43. yv — irpocrSexo/Jievoi, 'was — awaiting.' 
 46. ?]v — AeAaTo/iij/xo'ov, 'was hewn.' 
 
 Compare also the following in D : — 
 
 1. 39. fjv — Krjpva-criDv, 'was teaching.' 
 
 2. 4. •^i' — KOiTaKeLfievo'i, 'was — lying.' ^ 
 
 In I* we should perhaps translate 'John was preaching,' 
 and in 9', 'his raiment was glistening,' and in 9'', 'a cloud 
 was overshadowing.' The verb in these cases is not €ivai but 
 yi-yvecrdai.. It is so used with a participle where the Hebrew 
 has a single verb in Lam. i^*, Dan. i^^ (Theod.). 
 
 (d) Participles. Two or more participles before a main verb. 
 
 I. 26. airapd^av — koI (faavrjo-av, 'tearing him and crying.' 
 
 41. cnrXayxi'i-cdels cKxeiVas, 'being moved with com- 
 
 passion, having stretched forth his hand.' 
 
 3. 5. trepi/3Xeil/dpiV0S — avvXvirovp.evo's, 'looking round — 
 
 being grieved.' 
 
 5. 25. ovcra — iradov(ra — Sairai'Tjcrao-a — iLcjaXrjdeTaa — s\6ov<Ta, 
 
 dKovaaaa — eXBovaa, 'having an issue — having 
 suffered — having spent — being nowise bettered, but 
 rather growing worse, having heard — having come.' 
 30. ewLyvovi — iiricTTpaclieis, ' perceiving — turning.' 
 
 33. (jjofBrjOeifra Kai Tpkpovira, etSvia, 'fearing and 
 
 trembling, knowing.' 
 
 6. 41. Xa-fioiv — dva.j3Xk\pa';, ' taking — looking up.' 
 
 7. 25. (XKoiio-ao-a — kXOovda, 'hearing — coming.' 
 
 8. 6. Xo.p(av — ivxapia-Trjaai, 'having taken — having given 
 
 thanks.' 
 
CHARACTERISTICS 17 
 
 8. 13. ai^eis — e/i,/3as, 'having left — having embarked.' 
 22. ^TTwas — cTTidek, 'having spat — having placed.' 
 
 9. 26. K/)a^as — (Tirapd^a's, 'having cried — having rent' 
 
 10. 17. TrpocrSpafiaiv — yovvTreTijtras, 'running — kneeling down.' 
 50. dTro^akwy — dvaTnqSrja-as, ' having cast away — having 
 
 leaped up.' 
 12.28. Trpoa-eXOiiiv — oLKovcra^ — eiSws, 'coming — having heard 
 
 — knowing.' 
 
 13. 34. d</)e6s — 801JS, ' having left — having given.' 
 
 14. 22. \af3iiv — euAoyijo-as, ' having taken — having blessed.' 
 
 45. eXdiov ivOiis TvpoireXOav, 'coming forthwith, coming 
 
 to.' 
 67. iSoijcra — ljuj8Ae\/'ao-a, 'seeing — looking.' 
 
 15. I. TTonjo-avres — 8rj(rai/T£s, 'having held a consultation — 
 
 having bound.' 
 36. Spajxav — irepidek, ' running — placing.' 
 
 46. dyo/oao-as — KaOeXdv, 'having bought — having taken 
 
 down.' 
 
 (3)' In the structure of sentences. 
 
 The scheme Kal irapdyuiv — erSev, 'And (Kttt) passing by — he 
 
 saw,' is very common, e.g. i16-19.20.3L35_ 2i-*-5-U-ir. 
 On the other hand, tSwi/ Se — rfyavaKT-qatv, ' And (Se) passing 
 
 by — he saw,' is very rare, e.g. 10 1*, 15 ^e-ss. 
 The scheme Si t^eXdiov — rjp^aro, 'And he (0 8k) going 
 
 out — saw,' occurs about 20 times : i*^ 6 *^ 5 ^8-^^, 8 ^^, 9 ^^, 
 
 joS.24.S2.50^ I2l^ I3 ", I4ll-52-63^ 152.15^ j- 5 37_ 
 
 The formula xal eyei/ero, 'And it came to pass,' which is 
 common in the Third Gospel, is very rare in St. Mark. 
 The following occur : — 
 
 1. 9. Koi tyeceTo — 7jX6(v 'Irjo-oiJs, 'And it came to 
 
 pass — Jesus came.' 
 
 2. 15. KOi •ytverat KaTaKelaOai ainov, 'And it Cometh 
 
 to pass that he sat.' 
 23. Kal eyevero avrhv — otanopeveaOai, 'And it came 
 to pass — that he went through.' 
 4. 4. Kal iyevcTo — fiiv €7rt<Tiv, ' And it came to pass 
 — (that) some fell.' 
 Common, especially at the beginning of a sentence, is the 
 
 ST. MARK 1* 
 
1 8 INTRODUCTION 
 
 simple scheme Kal epxerai, 'And he cometh, was coming, 
 came.V.^. i^i", 2l^ 3ii3.i9-3i, 5I, 6 i-6-r.i4.3o_ ^ 1. 
 
 St. Mark is fond of the phrase rjp^aro (avro), 'began to,' with 
 an infinitive. It occurs about 27 times. See below, p. 49. 
 
 Harshly constructed sentences. 
 
 3. 14-16. Kal eiroLfjcrev tovs SuiScKa Kal ineOriKev ovo/xa t(3 
 
 "SiLjimvi, IHt/jov K.r.X, 
 
 4. 8. Kal ecjiepev eh TpiaKovTa Kal ev e^iyKoira Kai iv cKarov, 
 22. See note. 
 
 31. OS OTav (TTrapy eirt tijs y^s fJ-iKporepov 6v Travrav 
 riov (TTrepfidroiv raiv eirl Trjs yrj's Kal orav cnrapy 
 dva/Saivei Kal yiverai /xct^ov k.t.X. 
 
 5. 23. TO dvydrpLov fxov icr)(iXT<i>i exei ifa e\9(bv IwiOyi 
 
 Tcis xelpa's avrrj. 
 
 6. 8-9. Kal irap-qyyeiXiv avTOis iva /xrjBev aipuwriv — dXXa 
 
 viroSeSefikvovi cravSaXia Kal fxfj evSva-aa-dai Svo 
 ^iTiova^. 
 
 7. 2-5. See note. 
 
 19. Kai eis Tov d<f>eSpiova fKiropeveTai, Kadapi^iav wavra 
 TO. PpwfiaTa. 
 
 8. 28. XeyovTes otl 'ladvqv tov PairTitTT-qv, Kal aAAot 
 
 'HXeiav, akXai Si oVt tis T'2v jt/Oo^jjtqJv, 
 
 12. 19. See note. 
 38-40. See note. 
 
 Harsh prepositional constructions. 
 I, 10. KaTajBaivov ei's. 
 
 21. 60toao"/cev €ts rr^v (Tvvayayynv. 
 
 23 ', 5- 2. dvOptoTTOi Iv TTvevfiaTi dKa6dpT(p. 
 
 39. Krjpva-a-uiv els. See note. 
 
 8. 4. i-rr' epri[j,ta? — ev epr]fji,L(^. St. Matthew 1 5 ^3. 
 
 II. 8. ecTTpwcrav eh ttjv oSov. 
 
 13. 3. Kadr)p.evov avTov eh to"()/dos (cf. 2 Th. 2*). 
 9. eh crvi>aymyd'S Sap-^a-ecrOe. 
 
 16. o ets tov dypov. 
 
 Asyndeton. 
 
 (a) In narrative. 
 5. 35. €Tt avTQv XaXovvTO's, ' while he yet spake, 
 
CHARACTERISTICS i9 
 
 9. 38. £(^17 avTta 6 'Iiadvrj^, ' John said.' 
 
 10. 27. e/i^Ali/'as avToii 6 'Iijcrous, 'Jesus looking upon 
 them saith.' 
 
 28. ■qp^aTo Aeyeii' o IleTpos, ' Peter began to say.' 
 
 29. i<f>rj 6 'Irjo-ovi, 'Jesus said.' 
 
 12. 24. efji-q avTOi'; 6 'h^<rovs, 'JesuS said.' 
 
 29. aTriKpiBr] 6 'Irjcrov^, ' Jesus answered.' 
 
 14. 3- o-vvTpLij/aa-a, 'she break the cruse.' 
 19. rjp^avTo, 'they began to be sorrowful.' 
 
 (i>) In sayings. 
 
 4. 28. auTo/xarrj 17 7^ Kapiroi^ope't, 'the earth beareth 
 
 seed.' 
 
 5. 39. TO naiSiov ovK diredavev, 'the child is not dead.' 
 
 10. 14. M KMXv(Te avTci, 'forbid them not.' 
 25. evKoiriarepov eariv, 'it is easier.' 
 
 12. 10. ovSi TTjV ypacjiriv ravTrjv dveyvSiTe, 'have ye not 
 
 read.' 
 
 13, 8, €crovrai aeicr/jLol Kara tottods €crovTai Xip-oi, 'there 
 
 shall be earthquakes — there shall be famines.' 
 9. TrapaSuia-oviriv v/idi, 'they shall deliver you up.' 
 23. irpoeiprjKa, 'behold, I have told you.' 
 33. pXiiriTe dypvirveLTe, 'take ye heed, watch.' 
 
 (4) Also characteristic of St. Mark are : 
 
 evdv's, 'straightway,' or Kal evdvs, about 41 times. 
 TrdXiv, 'again,' about 26 times. 
 
 The Aramaising adverbial jroAAa, ' much,' about 1 3 times. 
 oTi, 'that,' after verbs of saying followed by oratio recta, 
 about 50 times. 
 
 (5) Vocabulary. The author has a good many forcible or 
 rare words which are avoided in one or both of the other 
 Synoptic Gospels. 
 
 1. 10. o'x^C'^, 'rend,' of the heavens. 
 
 12. J/cySaAAo), 'cast out,' of the Spirit driving Jesus. 
 16. dfji,(f>L^dX\u>, ' to cast a net.' 
 
 2. 4- KpdpfiaTos, 'bed.' 
 21. iiripdiTTw, 'to sew,' 
 
20 INTRODUCTION 
 
 3. 9. TTpoa-KapTepiu}, 'to wait upon,' used of a boat. 
 10. eirnriTTTOi, ' to throng.' 
 
 6. 40. dvaTTCTTTU}, 'to sit down.' 
 
 g. 3. o-TiA^o), 'to sparkle,' of raiment. 
 
 10. 25. TpyfjiaXia, ' eye of a needle.' 
 
 11. 4. ciyiK^oSov, 'street.' 
 8. o-TtySas, ' litter.' 
 
 12. 4. Ke<j)aXi6bi, ' wound in the head.' 
 
 14. 72. iTvi^akuv. See note. 
 
 15. 46. evetAeu), 'to wind.' 
 
 He has several Latin words which have been supposed to 
 confirm the tradition that the Gospel was written at Rome. 
 But Latin words were soon picked up by the Jews and Ara- 
 maised. They are the following : — 
 
 K/)a^/3aT0S, ' bed,' 2 ■* ; AeyiMV, ' Legion,' 5 ^ ; KoSpdvTrj^, 
 
 'farthing,' 12 *2; ^eo-rrjs, 'pot,' 7*; Sjjvaptov,. 'penny,' 
 
 1 2 15; (nreKov\aT(Dp, 'soldier of his guard,' 6^''; Kevrvptwv, 
 
 'centurion,' 15 ^^. 
 
 The following Aramaic words or phrases are retained in 
 
 Aramaic : — Boanerges, 3 i'' ; Talitha cumi, 5 *i ; Ephphatha, 
 
 7^1; Corban, 7"; Abba, 15^"; Hosanna, iiK'; and the cry 
 
 from the cross, 15^^. The phrases 'sons of the bride-chamber,' 
 
 2 ^^, and ' sons of men,' 3 -8, are translations of Aramaic phrases. 
 
 Diminutives are common in this Gospel, e.g. dvyarpiov, 
 
 ' little daughter,' 5 ^s, 7 25 ^ Kopda-iov, ' damsel,' 5 *i-*2 ■ TraiBiov, 
 
 'child,' 539.40. Kvvdpiou, 'dog,' 727.28. TrX.oidpiov, 'boat,' 3 9; 
 
 IxdvSia, 'fish,' 8 7. 
 
 (6) Characteristic of St. Mark is his candour in dealing with 
 the apostles. 
 
 (a) They are rebuked. 
 
 4. 13. OVK OiSare rrjv irapafSoXrjv TavTrjv, kol ttoJs irdcra's tos 
 
 irapa/ioXa'i yvda-eaOe, 'Know ye not this parable? 
 and how shall ye know all the parables?' 
 40. ovTTOi e'x^Te ■KidTiv, 'have ye not yet faith?' 
 8.17. oiVu) voeiTc ovhe o-vvtere ; TreTTioptapkvqv ej^ere rriv 
 KapSiav vp,S)v; 'do ye not yet perceive? neither 
 understand? have ye your heart made callous?' 
 
CHARACTERISTICS at 
 
 8. 33. waye ottictw fiov, Sarava, ' Get thee behind me, 
 Satan.' 
 
 (l>) They are ambitious, 9^*, 10 ^^■*^. 
 
 (c) They are unintelligent. 
 
 6. 52- 0^ y^P (TVvrJKav Itti tois aprots, dW ijv avTWV rj icapSia 
 ireTTiapiafjievrj, ' for they understood not concerning 
 the loaves, but their heart was made callous.' 
 
 9. 6. ov yap rjSsL n diroKpidfj, ' for he did not know what 
 to answer.' 
 
 10. cnjfrjToWTfS Tt etTTiv to (K vtKpGv arao-j'fji'ai, 'dis- 
 puting what the " rising from the dead " meant.' 
 32. 01 Si rjyi'oovv to prjfji.a, ' and they were ignorant of the 
 matter.' 
 10. 24. kdaiJ,l3ovvTo krrl tois Adyois aiJTo{!, ' were astonished at 
 
 His words.' 
 14. 40. ovK ^Seicrav Tt diroKpidiaaiv avrt^, ' they knew not 
 what to answer Him.' 
 
 (d) They all forsook Christ, 145". 
 
 This candour is thrown into greater relief by the obvious 
 anxiety of the first and third evangelists to mitigate the 
 severity of the verdict passed by St. Mark upon the apostles. 
 
 Thus of the passages just mentioned St. Matthew omits the 
 reproachful question in 4 ^^, and substitutes words of eulogy, 
 ' Blessed are your eyes, for they see, etc' (St. Matthew 13 1^""). 
 He softens the ' have you not yet faith ? ' of 4 *" into ' O ye of 
 little faith ' (St. Matthew 8 ^e). In the next verse, where St. Mark 
 says that the disciples ' feared with great fear, and said Who is 
 this ? ' St. Matthew switches off the mind of the reader from the 
 disciples by substituting, ' And men marvelled, saying, etc' 
 For 6 5^ St. Matthew substitutes, ' And they in the boat (perhaps 
 another attempt to turn attention from the disciples) worshipped 
 him, saying, Truly thou art the Son of God ' (St. Matthew 14 ^^). 
 In 8 1'' he omits the statement that the hearts of the disciples 
 were made callous (St. Matthew 16®). In 8^^ he retains the 
 ' Get thee behind me, Satan,' but he has just previously inserted 
 the great eulogy of St. Peter's faith, ' Thou art Peter, and upon 
 this rock, etc' (St. Matthew 16 ^'''i^). He omits the statement of 
 St. Peter's ignorance in 9^ (St. Matthew 17*). He omits also 
 
22 iNtRODUCTION 
 
 the statement that the disciples disputed about the rising from 
 the dead in 9" (St. Matthew 17^). For 'And they were 
 ignorant of the matter ' of 9 ^^ he substitutes, ' And they were 
 very grieved ' (St. Matthew 1 7 ^'). He omits also the statement 
 of their astonishment in 10 2* (St. Matthew 1923), Lastly, he 
 omits St. Mark 14*''. 
 
 If we ask how we are to account for the severity of the judg- 
 ment passed on the disciples in the Second Gospel, the answer 
 should be found not in any theory that the evangelist was trying 
 to explain why the disciples did not understand strange 
 prophecies of His death which are unhistorically attributed to 
 Christ in this Gospel, but in the nature of the source from which 
 St. Mark drew his material. St. Peter no doubt felt, as he 
 looked back upon the course of his intimacy with Jesus, that 
 no words were too strong to condemn the spiritual blindness in 
 himself and in his fellow-disciples which had rendered them so 
 dull of appreciation of the meaning of their Master's words. He 
 himself had been as blind as any of them. True he had been 
 the first to say that Jesus was the Messiah, but the current con- 
 ceptions of what Messiahship involved had been like a bandage 
 round his understanding, preventing him from grasping the 
 truth of the Master's repeated warning that Messiahship meant 
 death. It is the personal remorse of an impulsive nature that 
 shines through the many statements in the Gospel which describe 
 the lack of faith, the ambition, the sluggish intelligence, the 
 disgraceful flight of the disciples. 
 
 The writer of our First Gospel, who was not himself a 
 member of the apostolic band, took a different view of things. 
 St. Peter might condemn himself, but others would feel less 
 justification for doing so. After all, he had been pardoned and 
 forgiven, and by the grace of God had become the leader and 
 spokesman of Christianity in the Palestinian Church. It would 
 be better not to perpetuate the apostle's penitent exposure of 
 past weaknesses, and to turn men's minds rather to the thought 
 of the privileges vouchsafed to him by Christ. 
 
 In view of St. Luke's dependence upon St. Paul, it is inter- 
 esting to note that he took much the same view as the first 
 evangelist as to the undesirability of perpetuating St. Peter's 
 candid exposure of the weaknesses of the earlier apostles. He, 
 too, omits St. Mark 4 ^5. He softens 4*" into 'Where is your 
 faith ? ' (St. Luke 8 ^'). He has nothing corresponding to 6 '^ 
 
CHARACTERISTICS 23 
 
 and 8 ". He omits 8 ss, 96 and 9 ". He retains 9 ^^ ' Tiiey 
 were ignorant of the matter,' but adds by way of explanation, 
 ' And it was hidden from them, that they might not perceive it,' 
 apparently meaning that the ignorance of the disciples was due 
 to the divine providence (St. Luke 9*^). He omits also 10^*, 
 and the ambition of Zebedee's sons (lo^^'*^). He omits 14 *", and 
 the shameful flight of the disciples (14^"). 
 
 The treatment of the apostles in the Second Gospel, like its 
 use of the term ' Gospel ' in the sense ' good news preached by 
 Christ,' may be regarded as a mark of very early date. 
 
 (7) Lastly, there should be noticed the presence in this 
 Gospel, in greater proportion than in the First and Third Gospels, 
 of references to the reality of Christ's human nature. The 
 following are for the most part absent from St. Matthew and 
 St. Luke : 
 
 1,41. dpyicrOih D (a-7rAay;(vi(r0£i's, most MSS.), 'being 
 ^ angry.' 
 43. hi/ipiij.rjcrdij.evo's, ' being angry.' 
 
 3. 5. fier' opyrji (rvv\vTrovfji,evos, 'with anger being grieved.' 
 
 6. 6. iOavfiaa-ev, 'marvelled.' 
 
 7. 34. ea-Teva^ev, ' sighed.' 
 
 8. 12. dvaa-revd^as T(p TTVivp-aTi, 'sighing in spirit.' 
 
 10. 14. rjyavdKTtjiTiv, ' was vexed.' 
 21. ^yan-rjcrei/, 'loved.' 
 
 14.33. eKOajifieia-Oac, 'distracted.' 
 
 This is also true of the following clauses, which seem to 
 ascribe inability or unfulfilled desire to Christ : 
 
 1.45. o)(TTe fj-rjKeTL a^Toi' Svva(rdai — elaeXOelv, 'so that he 
 could no longer enter.' 
 
 6. 5. OVK (SvvaTO Ikcl TTOirjcrat ovSe/jiiav Svfafiiv, 'he could 
 
 not do there any miracle.' 
 48. rjdeXiv irapiXOiiv auToi's, ' he wished to pass by them.' 
 
 7. 24. ovSeva rjdekev yvtavai Kal ovi< '^SwdvOrj Xadetv, 'he 
 
 wished that no one should know, and could not 
 be hid.' 
 
24 INTRODUCTION 
 
 9. 30. ovK. ■qOeX.ev 'iva. Tis yvot,, 'he did not wish that any 
 
 should know.' 
 13. 32. oUiv — ovSl 6 vlos, 'knoweth— neither the Son.' 
 
 The statement in iji^ that Christ came in quest of figs, though 
 it was not the season of figs, seems to have struck the other 
 evangeb'sts as hable to misconception, and they do not seem 
 to have hked, even in the mouths of false witnesses, the 
 ascription to Christ of an unfulfilled prophecy (14^^), 'I will 
 destroy.' 
 
 The number of questions asked by Christ is greater than in 
 the other two Gospels, e.g. : 
 
 5. 9. TL oi/o/xa 0-01) ; ' What is thy name ?' 
 
 30. Tis 11.0V ijipaTo TCJi/ l/jLariiov ; 'Who touched my 
 clothes?' 
 
 6. 38. iroo-ovs ^x^T€ apTovs; ' How many loaves have ye?' 
 8.12. Ti 17 yevto, avTfj fijTci a-qfiiiov; 'Why does this 
 
 generation seek a sign ?' 
 23. et Ti ;8Acn-6is; ' Do you see anything?' 
 
 9. 12. TruJs yeypaTTTai ■ ' How is it written ?' 
 
 16. Tt o-vf ijTciTe TT/oos avTovs ; 'Why dispute ye with them?' 
 
 21. TTOcroi; )(p6vo's IcTTiv u>i TOVTO yeyovev aVTif I ' How long 
 is it since this happened to him ?' 
 
 33. Ti iv 68i2 5ie\oyi^ia-9e ; ' About what did you dispute 
 on the road?' 
 10. 3. Ti vp.iv €i/€T6i'A.aTo MioiJo-ijsj ' What did Moses com- 
 mand you?' 
 
 14. TTou i<jTiv TO KaTd\vjj.a. fj-ov j 'Where is my guest- 
 chamber?' 
 
 Here, too, may be noticed the apparent rejection by Christ of 
 the title 'good' as applicable only to God, 10 ^^; the description 
 of Him as 'the carpenter,' 6 ^ ; and the statement of His friends 
 that He was beside Himself, 3 ^^ (e^ea-Trj). 
 
 With reference to the miracles, it is noticeable (i) that in 
 St. Mark alone of the first three evangelists do we find miracles 
 effected by physical means: these are 7^2-37 and S^^"^^; (2) in 
 two cases ( i ^s-ss ^nd 9 1'''^^) a demon cast out by Christ did 
 physical injury to the patient. Cf i ^^ (cnrapd^av) and 9 ^^ with 
 the parallels in the First and Third Gospels. 
 
CHARACTERISTICS 25 
 
 (8) Noticeable also is the frequent reference to a house as the 
 scene of Christ's activity. 
 
 1. 29. ^X.9oV £tS TTjV OLKiaV StyUOJVOS. 
 
 2. I. ijKouo-^ij oTi ev oiKM eo-TiV. St. Matthew and St. Luke 
 
 omit this clause. 
 I5i ^v Ty oIk'kj, avTOv. 
 
 3. 20. KOI €p\€Tai 6is otKov. St. Matthcw and St. Luke omit 
 
 the incident of which this forms part. 
 
 7. 17- «»' ore dcrrjXOev £is oikov. St. Matthew omits the 
 clause; St. Luke omits the whole narrative. 
 24. Ktti ei<reX6i)v eis otKtav. St. Matthew omits the verse ; 
 St. Luke omits the whole narrative. 
 9. 28. Kai ela-eXOovTO's avrov eh oikov. St. Matthew and 
 St. Luke omit. 
 33. Kal kv Ty oiKia. ■yevdjuei'os. St. Matthew and St. Luke 
 omit. 
 
 10.10. Kat 66S ryv otKiav. St. Matthew omits the verse; 
 St. Luke omits the whole narrative. 
 
 (9) The redundancy of expression, the exaggerated use of 
 present tenses, the sparse use of particles and connecting links 
 other than 'and,' the occasionally harshly constructed sentence, 
 the odd use of prepositions, the rugged words — all this gives an 
 impression of lack of literary skill and of a very moderate 
 acquaintance with Greek language and literature. The style is 
 not unlike that of a schoolboy. In part this is probably due to 
 the fact that the author is putting into Greek material which he 
 had heard spoken in Aramaic, or, as the present writer believes, 
 to the fact that our Gospel is a Greek translation of the book 
 which John Mark had originally written in Aramaic." 
 
 Side by side with this naivety of phraseology and syntax 
 there is a great simplicity of structure and a lack of sequence, 
 which betrays a novice in the art of book-making. There is 
 little of the detail upon which a trained historian loves to dwell. 
 The central figure of the book is introduced in the phrase 
 'Jesus Christ, God's Son,' but nothing is said of His parentage 
 or of the place from which He sprang. When the Galilean 
 ministry is begun (i 1*) incident is followed by incident, but we are 
 
 " See Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 295-298. 
 
26 INTRODUCTION 
 
 often at a loss to know how much or how little time has elapsed 
 since the last narrative, or where the events of the new story 
 took place. The book can hardly be called a history, still less 
 a biography. It is more of the nature of a series of events in 
 the life of Christ often lacking chronological detail and geo- 
 graphical information. It is therefore almost certainly not a 
 literary work intended for publication in the ordinary way, but 
 rather a narrative drawn up for a limited and special class of 
 readers who would be expected to know what was here recorded 
 and to fill in for themselves all that was lacking. It must have 
 been intended less to inform readers of things unknown to 
 them than to recall to their mind facts with which they were 
 familiar. 
 
 If, however, we cease to regard the book as a whole and 
 concentrate our thought on each narrative in itself, they will be 
 found to possess an attraction which is partly owing to the very 
 abruptness with which they are introduced and to the simplicity 
 of the language, partly to the emphasis upon detail. The 
 picture of the multitude sitting upon the ground, so that their 
 many- coloured cloaks looked against the background of green 
 grass like masses of flowers (6 89-40^^ jg g. case in point. Or how 
 striking is the picture of the great Teacher on His way to the 
 city of doom, walking ahead of His disciples, whilst they follow 
 Him at a distance, eyeing Him with awed amazement ! (lo^^). 
 
 G. Theology 
 
 (i) The person of Christ. 
 
 Apart from i ^ He is called generally simply ' Jesus ' or ' He.' 
 The title 'the Messiah' (o X/dio-tos) occurs in 8^9, 1462, 1582. 
 In I ^*, 9 " we have ' Messiah ' alone without the article. In 
 this Gospel He is never called ' the Lord ' (except in 11^, where 
 the meaning is intentionally ambiguous). 'The Lord' in 5 ^^ 
 and in 13 20 probably refers to God. 
 
 After His announcement by John as one who will baptize 
 with the Holy Spirit (i^). His baptism, wil'.i its divine revelation 
 of Him as ' Son of God ' and ' the Beloved,' and His temptation. 
 He begins His work in 'Galilee. In the first period of this 
 ministry He appears as a preacher of the Kingdom (i 1^) and as 
 a wonder-worker. As a teacher He is contrasted with the 
 scribes (i 22^. go far as His teaching is recorded in this section, 
 
tHEOLOGY 27 
 
 it consists (i) of sayings attached to some incident, such as a cure 
 performed by Him ; (2) the parables. Under the first head we 
 have the claim to power to forgive sin, 2'^''^^; His mission to 
 sinners, 2 " ; His teaching about the Sabbath, 2 ^s-ss^ 3 i-e ■ His 
 answer to the charge that He was inspired by Beelzeboul, 32226^ 
 His saying as to His true kinsmen, 3 ^^'^f ; the short charge 
 to the twelve, 6 ^i^ ; and the sayings about true and apparent 
 defilement, 7^23 
 
 The parables are grouped together in ch. 4. Their inter- 
 pretation is difficult, because they are capable of use in many 
 ways. But since nowhere else in this section have we any very 
 obvious examples of a preaching of the good news of the 
 Kingdom, it seems natural to regard these parables as intended 
 by the evangelist to illustrate that conception. Cf. 4ii-26-30_ 
 
 As a wonder-worker He is described as, having made a pro- 
 found impression upon the peasants of Galilee. The cures 
 recorded are of possession by demons, 1 23-28^ 5 ^"^*' ; fever, 1 29-31 ■ 
 leprosy, i *""*5; paralysis, 2 i"i2; a withered hand, 3 ^'^j and an issue 
 of blood, 5 ^^■*^. Miracles of a different kind are those of stilling 
 a storm on the lake, 436*1 • restoring to life a dead girl, 5^^"^^; 
 feeding a large multitude with scanty provisions, 6 30-44 ^ and 
 walking on the lake, 6*^-52 jn addition to the cures of 
 demoniacs actually recorded reference is made to other such 
 cases ( 1 32.39^ 3^^), and emphasis is placed on the knowledge of 
 His Messiahship by persons so possessed (i ^*, 3 ^i). His power 
 to perform cures and to cast out demons is imparted by Him 
 to His disciples (6 ''■^^). 
 
 St. Mark is fond of describing the influence exercised by the 
 Messiah over the people. Compare e.g. : 
 
 1. 33. 'the whole city was gathered at the door.' 
 
 45. 'he could no longer enter into a city, but was with- 
 out in desert places. And they came to him from 
 all sides.' 
 
 2. 2. 'they were gathered together so that the space about 
 
 the door could no longer contain them.' 
 
 3. 9. ' he bade his disciples prepare a boat because of 
 
 the crowd.' 
 20. ' and the crowd again gathers, so that they could not 
 even eat.' 
 
28 INTRODUCTION 
 
 4. I. 'and there gathers to him a very great crowd, so 
 
 that he embarked into a boat.' 
 6. 31. 'there were many coming and going, and they had no 
 
 opportunity to eat.' 
 
 So far Jesus has been represented as one who did not wish 
 Himself to be acclaimed as the Messiah. In the next_ section 
 (7 2*-9 50^ the situation changes. Here, whilst we still have 
 sayings arising out of some incident — e.g. the sayings about 
 greatness (g '^■^^) and causing scandals (9 *2-*s) — and whilst we still 
 have miracles of power (the daughter of the Syrophoenician 
 woman, 7 ^*"^*'; a deaf man, 7 ^i"^^; another feeding of a multitude, 
 SI-": a blind man, 8 22-26j a demoniac boy, 9 ^^"2"), we miss the 
 parables, and have in their place direct teaching of the disciples 
 about the Messiah's death arid resurrection (8 ^i'^^, g ^°"^^) and 
 His coming in glory to inaugurate the Kingdom (8 ^*, 9 ^). Here, 
 too, we have the confession of St. Peter that Jesus was the 
 Messiah (S^'"^"), and the transfiguration scene, with a second 
 heavenly declaration that He was God's Son, the Beloved. 
 
 The next section (ch. 10) contains a very important verse. The 
 death of the Messiah has been announced (8 ^^, 9 ^\ and perhaps 
 2 2"), but merely as a fact without explanation. But in 10 *^ (see 
 note in loc.) the death is spoken of as the seal and consummation 
 of a life of service for others which is to be instrumental in 
 ransoming many. In the last section of the Gospel (11 ^-16^) 
 the teaching in parables reappears in 12 ^'i^. But the Parable 
 of the Wicked Husbandmen is unlike the parables of ch. 4. It is 
 a prophecy in the form of a story of the judgment about to fall 
 on the Jewish nation for its rejection of the Messiah. Very 
 important in this section for the evangelist's conception of 
 Christ's person are the story of the last supper (14 i^"^^) and the 
 discourse about the last things (ch. 13). In the former occurs 
 the second of the only two passages in the Gospel which set the 
 death of the Messiah in any other light than that of an event 
 which He Himself foresaw as the inevitable end of His teaching. 
 Here His blood poured forth is to be the seal of a new covenant 
 between God and man, and is to be shed for many (14 ^*). With 
 this compare 10*^, 'to give his hfe a ransom for many.' 
 
 Jesus, then, had been foretold by the Messianic herald John 
 (i 2^ 9 9i3^_ jjg 1jj(3 he&n proclaimed from heaven as ' Son of 
 God, the Beloved ' (i ^^ 9 ''). True that at first He had forbidden 
 
THEOLOGY 29 
 
 men to so announce Him, and did so up to the moment of His 
 entry into Jerusalem. But then reserve was thrown aside. He 
 was acclaimed as king by the crowd who saw Him enter (11 1"). 
 He acquiesced in the statement of the high priest that He was 
 'the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed' (14^^), and of Pilate that 
 He was 'the King of Israel' (15 ^). When He hangs upon the 
 cross the chief priests fling in His face the taunt that He had 
 claimed to be 'the Messiah, the King of Israel ' (15 ^^). So far 
 the matter is clear. Jesus of Nazareth was, as the evangelist 
 believed, the Messianic King of Israel. But how could that be 
 reconciled with His death ? This was the problem which had 
 puzzled the disciples (8^^, g^i^-^^). The evangelist no doubt 
 found the answer in the fact of the resurrection. Jesus was 
 not dead. He had been raised from the dead as He foretold 
 (8^\ 9^1, 10^^). And He would return to inaugurate the King- 
 dom (8 88, 9 1, 13 26j 15 82). i-je Himself had preached the good 
 news that the Kingdom was near, and it was now the duty of 
 His disciples to continue that preaching (13 ^''). The coming of 
 the Kingdom would not long be delayed (9^, 13 8°), 
 
 Jesus, then, was the Jewish Messiah whose death (10*^, 14^*) 
 was to ransom many and to redeem them from sin. But where 
 was the Kingdom ? Embedded in the words of Christ as 
 recorded by the evangelist was a phrase which St. Mark prob- 
 ably believed to throw light upon this. Jesus had spoken of 
 Himself as ' the Son of Man ' (0 vlhs tov dvOpunrov). Some 
 modern writers (Wellhausen, e.g.) believe that we^ have here an 
 intrusion of Christian theology into Christ's sayings, on the 
 ground that in Aramaic ' Son of Man ' would mean ' a member 
 of the human species' or 'mankind,' and that therefore 'the 
 Son of Man ' could have no meaning in that language. But the 
 phrase is too firmly embedded in Christ's teaching to be torn 
 from it, and so far from any tendency to emphasise it in the 
 earliest Christian teaching, it occurs only once outside the 
 Gospels, in Acts 7 ^^. If, as is probable, ' Son of Man ' was a 
 technical phrase, it must have been possible in Aramaic, as in 
 any other language, to express ' tke "Son of Man,"' either in 
 words or by intonation or emphasis. And ' Son of Man ' was 
 such a technical phrase. In Dan. 7 ^^ the prophet speaks of 
 one who 'came with the clouds of heaven, like a man' (literally 
 ' Son of Man '). It may be that this figure symbolised the 
 Jewish nation of the future, as contrasted with the kingdoms 
 
30 INTRODUCTION 
 
 founded on brute force which had preceded it. But the phrase 
 was soon adopted in apocalyptic theology to signify the pre- 
 existent heavenly Messiah. ' It is so used in the similitudes of 
 Enoch (xxxvii.-lxi., c. 70 B.C.). Cf. xlvi. 2, 3; xlviii. 2; Ixii. 
 5, 7, 9, 14; Ixix. 27, 29; Ixx. i; 4 Ezra xiii. 1-58. In this 
 phrase the evangelist probably found the clue to the riddle of 
 the Messiahship and death of Jesus. He was the Messiah in 
 spite of His death, because He was not the King-Messiah of 
 much current theology who was to inaugurate a temporal 
 kingdom, but the pre-existent heavenly Messiah who had 
 become man in Jesus of Nazareth, who had died to redeem men 
 from their sins (10*^, 14^*), and would come, as it had been 
 foretold, on the clouds of heaven to inaugurate His heavenly 
 Kingdom, of which all the redeemed should be citizens. This 
 was the reason why the Messiah must suffer and die before the 
 Kingdom could be inaugurated. 
 
 The passages in which the phrase occurs are the following : 
 
 2. 10. 'the Son of Man has power to forgive sins upon earth.' 
 Because as the pre-existent Messiah He represents 
 God and exercises divine functions. 
 28. 'the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.' Again a 
 claim to divinity. 
 
 8.31; 9.31; 10. 33; 14. 21, 41. Passages referring to His 
 death. 
 38. 'the Son of Man shall be ashamed of him when he 
 cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy 
 angels.' 
 
 9. 7. 'when the Son of Man shall have risen from the dead.' 
 9. An obscure passage. See note there. 
 
 10. 45. ' the Son of Man came — to minister.' 
 
 13. 26. 'then shall they see the Son of Man coming in clouds 
 
 with power and great glory.' 
 
 14. 62. ' ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand 
 
 of the power.' Qi: Enoch, Ixii. 2, 'And the Lord of 
 Spirits seated him (the Son of Man, cf. Ixii. 5) on the 
 throne of his glory.' 
 
 It will be seen that all these passages, with the exception of 
 10*5, use the phrase of the Messiah in connection with claim 
 
THEOLOGY 31 
 
 to divine functions or with reference to His death, resurrec- 
 tion, or future glory. It can hardly be doubted that St. Mark 
 at least believed that, by applying the phrase to Himself, Jesus 
 identified Himself with the heavenly Messiah of some current 
 theology (cf. St. Jn. 7 2'), and that He in particular wishes to 
 connect Himself with the ' Son of Man ' of Dan. 7 1^, interpreted 
 of the person of the Messiah. It is, of course, true that this term 
 for the Messiah was current in a limited sense only, and would 
 fail to convey any clear meaning to most of the Lord's hearers 
 (cf St. Jn. 12^*). It is true again that, by connecting closely 
 with it the thought of death and suffering. He did much to 
 obscure its significance for His hearers. But this was no doubt 
 intentional. He selected the phrase just because it would veil 
 His claims to Messiahship from the people, who would have 
 read into such claims ideas at variance with His conception of 
 His Messianic functions. At the same time it expressed the 
 mysterious nature of His personality. It suggested, on the one 
 hand. His real humanity ; on the other, there was latent in it 
 the conception of His future glory. Its very obscurity is the 
 strongest proof of its authenticity. The striking reference to 
 Himself by the Lord in the third person by this strange ex- 
 pression was one of the things which had so impressed His con- 
 temporaries that no misunderstanding was of sufiScient force to 
 cause it to be forgotten when the record of His life was being 
 handed down. 
 
 If we now try to summarise the evangelist's conception of 
 the person of Christ we may state the following features of his 
 belief, always with the reservation that the evangelist only 
 betrays his beliefs by implication and by the choice of his 
 material. He nowhere comments on it nor intrudes his own 
 theological inferences. 
 
 (i) Jesus was the Messiah, {a) Jesus and the Baptist respec- 
 tively represented the ' Lord ' and the ' angel ' or ' messenger ' 
 of Mai. 3 1. (b) He was the King-Messiah (ri i", 15 2). {c) As 
 Messiah He was 'the Son of God'(i"i, 3^1, 9 '', 13^2, 14 ei). 
 {d) He was also the 'Son of Man' of apocalyptic expectation. 
 The connection between these two Messianic conceptions as 
 centred in one person was to be found in the fact that His 
 Kingdom was spiritual and His manifestation as • Son of Man ' 
 future. His work during life was rather to proclaim the nature 
 of the Kingdom and to prepare His disciples for it than tg 
 
32 INTRODUCTION 
 
 inaugurate it. And this work must be completed by His death. 
 Then, raised from death, He would come as Son of Man in glory 
 (8 ^*, 14 ^^, 13 ^'') to inaugurate the Kingdom (9 ^) and to gather 
 His disciples into it (13 ^''). 
 
 (2) There is the significant phrase, ' not even the Son ' (13 ^''), 
 which shows that the evangelist was aware of the claim of 
 Jesus to stand in a unique relationship to God. This indeed 
 is already implied in the claim to Messiahship, and especially in 
 the title 'Son of Man,' for the apocalyptic Son of Man was a 
 pre-existent being. But, apart from this, 13^^ proves that the 
 evangelist was aware of that manner of speaking of Himself by 
 Christ as ' the Son ' in relation to ' the Father ' which is found 
 again in St. Matthew 1 1 ^''=St. Luke 10 ^^, and then so frequently 
 in the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 (3) Here must be placed the references to Jesus as filled by 
 the Spirit. At baptism the Spirit came down into Him (i^"). 
 The Spirit drove Him into the desert (i^^). The Spirit which 
 animated His actions was the Holy Spirit (3 28-3o^ 
 
 The Holy Spirit was in the evangelist's mind the mediating 
 link between the conceptions of pre-existence and essential 
 humanity. Of Docetic conceptions of the person of Jesus 
 there is not a trace. Pre-existent 'Son of Man,' 'the Son,' 
 He was yet at the same time quite truly human. And if the 
 Messianic figure of Isaiah 42 1 could be said to receive the 
 Spirit, why not Jesus ? For the realisation of the human 
 element in Christ see p. 23. 
 
 But very important is the evangelist's belief in a true humanity 
 in Christ in which, nevertheless, was no trace of consciousness of 
 moral imperfection. Profoundly conscious of sin in others. He 
 knows none in Himself. He stands towards it, as God stands, 
 as its judge and pardoner (2 '). 
 
 (2) The Christian fellowship. 
 
 In no respect is this Gospel more primitive than in its dis- 
 regard of the question of the conditions of admission into the 
 Christian community. In the First Gospel the evidence of 
 Christ's acts and words are so marshalled as to produce the 
 impression that membership of the Church was to be limited to 
 Jews and proselytes to Judaism. In the Third Gospel, written 
 no doubt from the Pauline standpoint after the battle for the 
 admission of Gentiles had been fought and won, all the evidence 
 
HISTORICITY 33 
 
 in favour of the universal scope of the Gospel is set forth with 
 masterly skill. But in the Second Gospel the question is never 
 raised, because the evangelist seems to take the limitation as 
 quite natural and obvious. Only once in the narrative of Christ's 
 early ministry do we touch the Gentile question. When a Greek 
 woman asked a favour of the great healer she was told that it 
 was not fitting to take the bread of the children and to cast it 
 to dogs (7 2^). True that the favour was granted, but only 
 because she accepted the inferior position of her race and used 
 it as an argument why mercy should be shown to her. Only 
 once are the Gentiles mentioned in connection with the good 
 news. That is in 13^", 'to all the Gentiles must the good news 
 be preached ' ; but the preaching of religion to Gentiles had 
 long been an aim of the Jew, and nothing is here said to suggest 
 that Gentile converts should be excused from the ordinary con- 
 ditions of entry into the covenant people. 
 
 It is clear that the Gospel must have been written before 
 -the question of the terms upon which Gentiles could become 
 Christians was seriously raised." On this point the Second 
 Gospel represents the primitive position of the Church in the 
 first year or two after the resurrection, as it is described in 
 Acts 1-6. 
 
 H. Historicity 
 
 Few books have suffered so much at the hands of interpreters 
 as the Synoptic Gospels. And the reason is not far to seek. It 
 lies in the fact that the life which they seek to portray is too 
 large to be encircled by the compasses of human comprehension, 
 too lofty to be scaled by man's mental ladders, too deep for his 
 spiritual sounding line. This means that man has no standard 
 by which to measure the life of Jesus, and attempts to reduce it 
 to average human level can proceed only by ignoring or deny- 
 ing all that cannot be brought down to that level, and always 
 result in a Jesus who is an artificial figure, the product and 
 creation of human minds, one who can never have existed save 
 in the brain of the modern interpreter. 
 
 To illustrate the failure of this method of interpretation would 
 
 > If written after this controversy was settled, the Gospel could hardly have 
 escaped containing some of that universalistic colour that is so characteristic of 
 the Third Gospel. 
 
 ST. MARK C 
 
34 INTRODUCTION 
 
 be a tedious task, but the following may be taken as examples : — 
 ' The Gospels represent Christ as possessing a power over matter 
 which has nowhere else been found in man. Therefore the 
 Gospels in such cases cannot be descriptions of historical fact, 
 and their narratives, so far at least as these cases are concerned, 
 must be due to the creative imagination of the writers or the 
 circle of men amongst whom they lived.' If Christ were limited 
 in respect of control over nature as all other men believe them- 
 selves to be, that would be a fair conclusion. But supposing 
 that He was not so limited. Then we are needlessly tampering 
 with historical evidence on the ground of a false premise. 
 
 Or again, ' The Gospels represent Christ as predicting His own 
 death, and many of its attendant circumstances. Now men so 
 far as experience goes have not such power of foresight. There- 
 fore these predictions are clearly fictitious prophecies placed in 
 His mouth and couched in language coloured by the actual facts 
 of His death.' For the sake of argument we may admit that these 
 predictions imply more than human foresight, though indeed 
 that is very questionable. And if Christ were limited in power 
 of insight precisely as other men are, the inference might again be 
 a fair one. But was He then so limited ? If not, we are again 
 perverting evidence in the interest of false presupposition. 
 
 Interpretation of the Gospels of the kind indicated based 
 upon a violent bias against the historicity of some of the things 
 recorded still lingers even in this twentieth century. But it is 
 probable that its day is over, and that a new era of more 
 enlightened interpretation is dawning. For indeed the whole 
 tendency of modern thought is against it. 'Jesus Christ must 
 be limited in respect of control over nature as other men are. He 
 must be limited in respect of knowledge of the future as other 
 men are.' That is the axiom from which much of the older 
 interpretation started, and by which it judged the historical 
 value of the Gospels. And, like most axioms, it contains much 
 that is false, or much that can be falsely applied. 
 
 For, in the first place, there is no such realm as that of 
 ' nature ' of which the laws are wholly known to us so that we 
 can rule out as impossible well evidenced statements of happen- 
 ings which seem to be exceptions to what is normal. Of course, 
 there are such so-called laws, as that of gravitation, which affect, 
 as it would seem, all so-called material objects. But it is also 
 becoming increasingly clear that the boundary line between 
 
HISTORICITY 35 
 
 material and spiritual is more and more difiicult to define, and 
 that mind has a power and control over matter which has yet 
 been unplumbed by human reason. And that brings us to a 
 second consideration. There is no such thing as a ' human 
 nature ' of which we know all the hmits so that we can say ' This 
 or that is impossible to human nature.' It is true that we may 
 say that there are things which are beyond the capacity of 
 human nature as represented in history so far as it is known to 
 us. But this is only to say that average human nature has 
 never risen to heights of power and control over matter which 
 are accessible to it, or rather which are its proper level of 
 attainment, so that average human nature is clearly ignorant 
 of powers which properly belong to it. That which distinguishes 
 the Synoptic Gospels from all other historical evidence is that 
 they portray a life which rises above all other human lives in 
 many respects, particularly in control over the material element 
 in life. 
 
 Now if we say at once that, e.g., a dead man cannot raise 
 himself from the dead, therefore the statements that Jesus Christ 
 _ raised Himself from the dead must be fictitious, we are not 
 taking into account many important considerations. Was the 
 being of Jesus limited during His life in respect of control over 
 His body as others are limited, or appear to be limited, because 
 they never rise above the apparent limitations ? Clearly not. 
 The whole evidence goes to suggest that He controlled His 
 material body with its instincts and feelings towards certain 
 moral and spiritual ends. It is not merely that He exercised 
 this control with variable success and, as with all good men, with 
 a large percentage of failure, but that He never failed. The 
 moral and spiritual element in Christ was completely dominant. 
 Christian theology expresses this by saying that He was sinless 
 and divine. Now none of us knows, nor can know, the extent 
 to which control over so-called matter would go in one who was 
 able perfectly to master his body and to use it for spiritual ends. 
 It is impossible to say that the body of such a one must be 
 subject to the laws of gravitation and space which we suppose to 
 affect all other material bodies. If we artificially and by abstrac- 
 tion separate Christ's body from His Person, then no doubt it 
 would be affected by such laws. But, dominated by His spiritual 
 being, this body would be, so far as we know, subject to no laws 
 known to us, Certainly not to that of death. He died because 
 
36 INTRODUCTION 
 
 He voluntarily gave Himself to that experience, not because it 
 was one necessary to His being. And the statement that He 
 raised His body from death is, so far from being surprising, just 
 what we might expect. 
 
 Apart from the resurrection of His own body, and His. 
 uniform control over it, the amount of evidence for His control 
 over other material objects is much less than is commonly 
 supposed. Most of the so-called miracles of healing furnish 
 little difficulty nowadays to those who have some knowledge of 
 the range of phenomena indicated by such phrases as ' faith: 
 healing' and 'mental suggestion.' Even the narratives of 
 raisings from the dead will furnish little difficulty to those who 
 are in any way aware of the impossibility of defining the 
 boundary line between a state of so-called 'life' and one of so- 
 called ' death.' Apart from these there are only the records of 
 the Walking on the Sea, the Feeding of the Multitude, and the 
 change of the water into wine. The Miraculous Feeding is the 
 most important, because no amount of critical ingenuity can 
 eliminate from the story its so-called miraculous element, nor 
 eject the story itself from the earliest stage of Gospel tradition. 
 The suggestion frequently made that the narrative is due to the 
 readiness of the disciples to attribute to their Master miraculous 
 power of this sort, a readiness nourished and fostered by 
 acquaintance with the miracles of the Old Testament, e.g. 
 2 Kings 4*2'**, is very unsatisfactory. It would perhaps explain' 
 the whole narrative if it were entirely fictitious. But nothing is 
 historically more certain that there must have been an event in 
 the life of Jesus which is enshrined in this story if we are to 
 give credit to any part of the Gospel history. And it is difficult 
 on many grounds to think that some simple meal at which the 
 Lord and His disciples were present has had the miraculous 
 feeding foisted into it. The narrative no doubt comes ultimately 
 from St. Peter, and neither he nor others who were present can 
 have been mistaken as to what took place. The suggestion that 
 they were naturally, inclined to attribute to their Master miracu- 
 lous happenings is very gratuitous. Had they been so inclined 
 we should no doubt have found the Gospels full of miraculous 
 stories of various kinds. The parcity of such stories, the absence 
 of variety in them (we find no axe-heads floating on the water), 
 suggest that they are recorded because they could not be left 
 out, not because the imagination of the writer or of the infor- 
 
HISTORICITY 37 
 
 triants behind him was traversing the Old Testament to find 
 miracles which might be ascribed to Jesus, but because they had 
 been related by eye-witnesses. 
 
 There is another very common delusion concerning the 
 Gospels. It is contained in the assertion that we must treat 
 them as we should treat any other book. This is, of course, a 
 platitude, but it is often perverted in order to treat the Gospels 
 as we should treat no other book. We are told that we should 
 approach them without presupposition or bias. But every 
 document of ancient history is approached by a modern historian 
 with a large number of presuppositions. If, e.g., it be a bio- 
 graphy, he may have some knowledge of the circumstances of 
 the time in which the subject of it lived, perhaps also some 
 knowledge from other sources of the life of the hero. He has 
 also a general background of assumption as to what is or is not 
 possible in the life of one living at the period described, or 
 indeed at any period of history. He scrutinises what is recorded 
 through the spectacles constituted by this mental outlook. 
 Now, if we try to isolate the Gospels as though they were the 
 only sources for the life of Jesus, and attempt to emancipate 
 ourselves from the knowledge of Him gained in other ways, we 
 are attempting the impossible and courting disaster. For the 
 Gospels are not the only source for His life. It is impossible to 
 ignore the fact that He has influenced human life in the mass 
 and in individuals as no other has done. Indeed, the term 
 'influence,' appropriate enough to express the effect of the lives 
 of the good and great upon their successors, is quite inadequate 
 to describe Christ's influence upon life in general through His 
 disciples. It is in Christian language a communication of His 
 life through His Spirit. This power of communicativeness 
 which altogether transcends the feeble action of the human 
 spirit upon others in its power to break down the barriers of 
 personality which isolate men one from another cannot be 
 ignored, and he who would understand the Gospels must read 
 them in the light of it. It corresponds to the profundity of 
 spiritual being there described. ' Deep calleth unto deep.' 
 To the one who had the spiritual control over outward things 
 as portrayed in the Gospels the one who has the power of ever 
 imparting His Spirit and life to successive generations corre- 
 sponds, and of such a one it is impossible to say how or in 
 what way He might have controlled the life and laws of sense. 
 
38 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Of the Walking on the Sea and the Feeduig of the Multitude 
 we can only say that we do not know how it was done ; not that 
 under the circumstances it could not have been done and, given 
 the same circumstances, might not be done again. This does 
 not, of course, mean that critical observation has no part to play 
 in the study of the Gospels. It is easy, e.g., to see that in the 
 First Gospel there has been a slight heightening of the mira- 
 culous element. But he who leaps to the conclusion that, if we 
 could trace the whole process, we should be able to push 
 backward behind the Gospels to a stage of transmission in 
 which all was ' natural ' and the ' miraculous ' had not yet begun 
 to be superimposed, is probably taking a leap into nonsense- 
 land. That tradition should insensibly emphasise the 'mira- 
 culous ' is intelligible, that it should have created it is wholly 
 inconsistent with the sanity and primitive character of the Gospel 
 narratives. 
 
 What has just been said will explain the treatment of a great 
 part of the Second Gospel in the following commentary. I 
 have not as a rule thought it necessary to defend the historicity 
 of each narrative in detail. This Gospel is our earliest piece of 
 evidence for the life of Jesus. In large measure the tradition 
 which asserts it to be dependent upon the teaching of St. Peter 
 seems to be wholly justified. If so, for most of what is ascribed 
 here to Jesus by way of word or deed we have evidence than 
 which we could hardly expect better. No doubt St. Peter saw 
 Christ through his own eyes; nor could he appreciate more 
 than a small part of that revelation of life, but what he saw that 
 he has told us, and we may be thankful for it, thankful also that 
 we have also the record of what others saw. 
 
 Without therefore entering into questions resting upon the 
 bias of the inquirer, as to the possibility or impossibility of 
 events here recorded, we may ask what qualifications must be 
 made to the claim that the Second Gospel is a matter-of-fact 
 account of the life of Christ. 
 
 The first is rather negative than positive. It is that the 
 narrative is clearly fragmentary, and that many of the incidents 
 are so loosely attached to the context in which they are found, 
 that it would be difficult to lay too much stress upon order and 
 sequence. This applies in particular to sayings. It is impos- 
 sible to be sure in many cases whether the writer thinks a saying 
 which he records to have been spoken on the same occasion as 
 
THE TEXT 39 
 
 the preceding words, or whether he is adding from tradition 
 other sayings suggested to him by those which he has just 
 recorded. An example of such compilation of originally distinct 
 sayings may probably be found in 9*2-50_ 
 
 Secondly, there are probably some disarrangements in the text 
 which arose prior to all our authorities for the text. Such are 
 g 12-13^ 15 1™ 
 
 Thirdly, there are some mistakes, due probably to confusion 
 at a stage when phrases, originally Aramaic, were being 
 translated into Greek. Such are probably Dalmanutha, 8 '■" ; 
 Boanerges, 3 ^^ ; and ' on the first day of unleavened bread,' 
 14 12. 
 
 If this last is a mistake, it is of course a serious one, because 
 it gives rise to the idea that the Last Supper was the Passover 
 meal. But, as I think, it is due to the Greek translator, not to 
 the original author of the Gospel. 
 
 Other probable mistakes due to the same translator will be 
 found on p. 50. A mistake of a different kind is the mention 
 of Abiathar instead of Ahimelech in 2 2^. 
 
 But these are all matters of minor importance. What is vital 
 for the modern man is to know how far the Gospel tells him 
 faithfully what Christ said and what He did. If he remember 
 that what is here recorded is very incomplete, and that it is of 
 the nature of isolated acts and sayings which appealed to one of 
 Christ's disciples who has admitted that he was slow to penetrate 
 the significance of His Master's personality, he may take what is 
 here given as substantially and in all important respects true, 
 because the Christ here portrayed is the Christ of the apostolic 
 preaching and the Christ who lives in the hearts of His 
 people. 
 
 I. The Teit=^ 
 
 The number of Greek manuscripts containing the Gospel or 
 a portion of it is very large, about 1300. They date from the 
 fourth to the seventeenth century. Some of the most famous are : 
 
 (i) Containing the Greek Testament : 
 
 N- Codex Sinaiticus, fourth century. 
 B. Codex Vaticanus, fourth century. 
 
 ' For fuller information as to the text of tlie New Testament, see Lake, Text 
 of New Testament^ and Souter, Text and Canon of New Testament. 
 
40 INTRODUCTION 
 
 (i) A. Codex Alexandrinus, fifth century. 
 
 C. Codex Ephraem, fifth century. 
 
 D. Codex BezK, sixth century. 
 
 ■*■. Codex Athous Laurae, eighth or ninth century; 
 contains both endings of St. Mark. 
 
 p. Eighth century ; contains both endings. 
 
 I. Tenth century. 
 33. Ninth or tenth century. 
 
 (2) Containing the Gospels or portions of them : 
 
 W (=£ 014, von Soden). Fourth or fifth century; 
 contains a remarkable reading at St. Mark 16 1*. 
 See note there. 
 T^^. Seventh century; contains fragments of St. Mark, 
 including the two alternative endings. 
 L. Codex Regius, eighth century ; contains both 
 endings. 
 
 The most important versions of the Gospel are : 
 (a) Latin. 
 
 As early as 150-200 a.d. there seem to have been Latin trans- 
 lations of the New Testament. In 383 a.d. Jerome revised the 
 Gospels, and his version passed into common use as 'the 
 Vulgate.' The pre- Vulgate MSS. fall into three main groups. 
 
 African : 
 
 k. Codex Bobiensis, sixth century. 
 
 e. Codex Palatinus, fourth or fifth century. 
 
 European : 
 
 a. Codex Vercellensis, fourth century. 
 
 i). Codex Veronensis, fifth or sixth century. 
 Italic : 
 
 /■ Codex Brixianus, sixth century. 
 
 ^. Codex Monacensis, seventh century. 
 
 Souter* combines the last two groups under the term 
 European, and explains the peculiarities of / and ^ as due to 
 their text having been corrected with reference to a Greek MS. 
 or to the Vulgate. 
 
 ' P- 43- 
 
THE TEXT 41 
 
 {b) Syriac.'' 
 
 The Sinaitic Syriac, fourth century, represents, as Burkitt 
 thinks, a version made at Antioch about 200 a.d. 
 
 The Curetonian Syriac, fifth century, represents the same 
 version revised by later Greek MSS. 
 
 The Peshitta (Simple) Version is a fifth-century revision of 
 the preceding. 
 
 An earlier version had been made by Tatian about 170 a.d. 
 in the form of a harmony of the four Gospels. This work became 
 known as the Diatessaron. Unfortunately this version has 
 perished. It was revised in accordance with the Peshitta in 
 the fifth century, and there are two eleventh-century manuscripts 
 of an Arabic translation of this revision. There is also a com- 
 mentary on the Diatessaron, written by St. Ephraem in the 
 fourth century, from which some idea of the original work can 
 be gained. 
 
 {c) Egyptian. 
 
 The Sahidic or Thebaic Version consists of fragments dating 
 from the fourth to the fourteenth century. 
 
 The Bohairic or Memphitic, sixth to eighth century. 
 
 It is the aim of the science of textual criticism to recover the 
 original text of the New Testament from the vast mass of 
 material afforded by the manuscripts, versions, and quotations 
 in early writers. The most important work done in recent years 
 in this direction is that of Westcott and Hort.^ They grouped 
 the evidence under four heads, viz. three early types of text. 
 Neutral, Alexandrian, and Western, and a later type, Syrian, 
 this being a revision of the other three. The Alexandrian and 
 Western types of text they judged to be deflections from the 
 original text, which they believed to be represented most nearly 
 by N and B and some other authorities which support them. 
 
 Since the addition of Westcott and Hort a great deal of 
 attention has been given to the Western type of text. This is 
 represented in the Gospels by D, the pre- Vulgate Latin MSS., 
 especially k, the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac, and by quota- 
 tions in Irenseus and Cyprian. The readings characteristic of 
 these authorities take the form of addition, omission, and para- 
 phrase, if the text of N and B be taken as a standard of com- 
 
 " On the Syriac versions see Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe , vol. ii. 
 ^ The New Testament in Greek. 
 
42 INTRODUCTION 
 
 parison. They are no doubt very early, i.e. second century, and 
 the question of their value is still under discussion. A. C. Clark 
 in his recent work. The Primitive Text of the Gospels (1914), 
 defends the 'Western Text' as primitive, on the ground that 
 the process of textual transmission has been one of 'contrac- 
 tion, not expansion.' The 'Western' Text 'presents the text 
 which was used by the predecessors of Origen, and can boast of 
 a line of witnesses going back to the generation which succeeded 
 the apostles' (p. in). 
 
 The latest editor of the New Testament in Greek is 
 von Soden." He groups the authorities into three, viz. the 
 K group, which corresponds to Westcott and Hort's Syrian text ; 
 the H group, which combines Westcott and Hort's Neutral and 
 Alexandrian texts ; and the I group, which is equivalent to the 
 Western text. These groups are, von Soden thinks, all fourth- 
 century recensions. K was made by Lucian at Antioch, H by 
 Hesychius in Egypt, and I at Jerusalem. By eliminating corrup- 
 tions, such as readings due to harmonisation of one gospel with 
 another, von Soden thinks that he can arrive at an original text, 
 which he calls I-H-K. 
 
 The following is a list of passages in which von Soden's text 
 differs from that of Westcott and Hort in the first four chapters 
 of St. Mark. The first reading in each case is that of Westcott 
 and Hort, the second that of von Soden : 
 
 I. I. vXov Q(.ov in mg. 
 
 vlov Tov deov in brackets. 
 2. ISoi; d7rocrTeA,Aft). 
 
 'ISoi; eyib aT^otrTeWw, Ti. 
 4. 'loidvrjs o /3airT i^MV iv ry €p-:qfi,(a KripvcTawv. 
 lojavijs /SaTTTt^cov iv tt] kp-qpw koi Kyjpvo'O'Uiv. 
 6 is inserted by KBLA, 33. It is omitted by ADPm. 
 Von Soden regards it as an assimilation to St. Matthew 
 
 Ka'b is omitted by B, 33, 73. 
 
 o is no doubt an insertion. The original text was 
 eyei/ero 'lu>dvi)S fiaTTTi^wv ev Trj eprifj.(o Kal Krjp-i(T(T(j>v 
 For St. Mark's use of yiyvop,ai,^dfji.[ with a participle 
 cf 9 s-^, Dan. i «, Th., Dan. 2 ss, LXX., Lam. i w. The 
 scribes of XB have misunderstood this construction, 
 
 » Die Schriflen des Neuen Testaments. 
 
THE TEXT 43 
 
 and inserted the o to convert fiairri^wv into a title, and 
 so connect ijivero with €V ry eprjfji,ia. B then finds i<al 
 to be harsh and omits it. 
 6. Kal r>, NBL, 33, d q. 
 ^v 8e, ADP, etc. 
 
 KoX r^v is Marcan in style and certainly genuine. 
 8. vUti, NB. 
 
 kv iSSttTi, ADL, etc., Ln. 
 TTVev/xaTi, BL. 
 iv ■JTviv/j.aTi, NAD, etc., Ti. 
 14. Kal ficTa, BD, Syr. Sin. 
 [leTo. Se, NAL, etc, Ti. 
 Kai is Marcan in style and original. 
 16. 2i'/xa)vos, XBL. 
 
 TOV 'ZijXiOVO'S, AA. 
 1 8. SiKTva, NBCL. 
 
 StKTva aOTa)]/, AFA, etc., Syr. Sin. 
 
 21. cio"£A6'ta)i' tls Trjv (Tvvayuiyrjv (SiSairKei', ABDF. 
 
 kSiSaa-Kev ei's ttjv a-vvaycayrjV, NCLA, Syr. Sin., Ti. 
 
 24. Aeywr/, xBD, Syr. Sin. 
 
 Aeyo)!/ [ea], ACL, etc. 
 
 ea seems to be an insertion from St. Luke 4 ^^. 
 
 oiSa, ABCD, etc., Syr. Sin. 
 
 oiSafji.€v, nLA, Ti. 
 
 Von Soden regards olSa as an assimilation to St. Luke, 
 
 but the plural is an easy corruption after the plurals of v.^^. 
 28. Kal i^ijXdef, nBCD, etc. 
 
 e^^A6ler Se, AVH, etc. 
 31. 6 TTvperos, NBCL. 
 
 6 TTvpiTos evdvs, ATA, etc., Syr. Sin. ' in the same hour,' Ln. 
 
 33. oXrj 17 7roAt9, NBCDL. 
 
 17 TToAis 0A17, AFA, etc., Syr. Sin. 
 
 The reading of NB is probably a grammatical correction. 
 
 34. aiJToi' [)(p6o-Tov ctvai], X'-B, etc. 
 avTov, XAD, etc., Syr. Sin., Ti. 
 
 i The addition of xP'o't&i' eTvai is probably an assimila- 
 
 tion to Lk. 4 ". 
 
 37. evpov avTOV Kal Xeyovcriv, XBL. 
 
 «v/30vr€S auTov Aey., AGFA, etc., Ln. 
 40. \iywv, NB. 
 
 [Kat] Acyo)!/, ACD, etc., Ln. 
 
44 INTRODUCTION 
 
 41. Kal u-irXayxvicrOdi, KB. 
 
 o Sc '\ri<Tovi UTrXay)(yi(T6d<s, AGFA, Syr. Sin. 
 Koi opyicrOd?, D, a, fT. 
 
 Kai is Marcan and probably original, and so probably 
 opyiudd^ in view of its peculiarity. 
 
 42. ital, nBDL, Syr. Sin. 
 
 Kal etTrovTos avroi!, AGFA, etc. 
 
 Von Soden regards the omission of etn-ovTos avrov as 
 due to the influence of the parallels. 
 
 2. I. \iv oiKO) eo-Tt'v], NBDL, 33. 
 
 ill oTkoV i(TTL, AGFA. 
 
 4. TrpocreveyKat, nBL, 33. 
 irpo(rtyyi<rai, AGD, etc., Ln. 
 
 irpqa-^ipm is a word characteristic of St. Matthew, and is 
 found in St. Mark i **, 10 1^. Trpoa-eyyl^o) is a rare 
 compound which does not occur elsewhere in the 
 New Testament. It is probably original here. 
 
 5. KOL ISdv, XBGL. 
 
 ISiyv Si, ADr, etc., Ln. 
 Kai is Marcan in style and original. 
 g. kydpov, BL. 
 
 eyci/DE, NAGD, etc., Ti. 
 ■KipiTTaTii, ABG, etc. 
 
 virayt, KDLA, Ti. 
 10. dcf>t,evai, dytiapTtas Ijrl t^s yrj<;, B$. 
 
 a(/>tevat eirl t-^s yjjs ct/Aa/JTtas, AEF, etc. 
 12. e/MirpoaOev, nBL. 
 
 J^/a^Tioi/, AGD, etc., Ln. 
 
 'ip.irpo(rdev is common in St. Matthew, and von Soden 
 seems to regard it as an assimilation to that Gospel. 
 But it occurs in St. Mark 9 2. 
 16. 01 ypafijiaTeiS, BL. 
 
 ypapLpareii, H, Ti. 
 
 Kal ISovTes, KBLA, Ti. 
 
 ISovTes, ACr, etc. 
 oTi, BL. 
 
 Tt OTI, AGFA, etc. 
 18. OL ^apia-atoL, NABGD. 
 rZv ^apia-a[(i)v, EFG, etc. 
 
THE TEXT 45 
 
 2 2. privet, KBCDL. 
 
 pria-a-ei, AFA, etc. 
 23. Siairopevecrdai Sid, BCD. 
 
 Trapan-opivecrOai Sid, XAL, etc., Ti. 
 
 25. Kal, nBCL. 
 
 Kai [aiiTos], AF, etc., Ln. 
 eX.iy€v, ABF. 
 Aeyci, KCL, Ti. 
 
 26. Tovs tepei's, KBL. 
 
 Tois Upeva-i, ACDF, etc. 
 
 Von Soden regards the accusative as an assimilation to 
 the parallels. 
 
 3. TrjV x^'P" ^X'"''''' ^'?P"*'> EL. 
 
 riji/ l^r)pap,p,evr]v X^'P* f'x'"'''''' 
 5. rT^eTpd o-oiil, kACD, etc. 
 
 Xetpa, BE, etc. 
 
 8. Kai TTC/Ol, xBCLA. 
 Kat [01] 7r«pi, ADPr. 
 14. oi)s Kttt aTTOo-ToAow (Ivo/uao-e, NBCA. 
 
 Von Soden omits with ADL, etc., as an assimilation to 
 St. Luke 6 13. 
 
 20. €p)(^€Tai, XBr. 
 ; ep^^ovTai, X^'CLA. 
 26. ep.€pl(rdy)j BL. 
 
 p.tp.^pio'Tai, ACr, etc. 
 
 31. )j jUijTTjp auTou Kai 01 aSeA<^ot auTOU, XBCD, etc. 
 oj dSeA<^06 Kai 17 P'^Trjp avTov, Am. 
 
 32. ol d8eX.4>oi (Tov, nBC, etc. 
 
 ot dSeX(f>oi (Tov Kal al dSe\<f)ai crov, ADE, etc., Tl. 
 Kai aTroKpLOels aijTots Aeyei, nBCLA. 
 Kai direKpldr] avTots XeyiDV, ADFII, Ln. 
 
 33 
 
 3. (Tirtipai, XB. 
 
 [toO] (TTreipaL, ACL, etc. 
 5. [Kai] Sirov, B. 
 
 OTTOV, NACL, etc. 
 8. av^a.v6p,eva, KB. 
 
 av^avofievov, ACDLA, Tl. 
 
 ets — ^ev — (V<. 
 
 efj — eTi — eis, Ti. punctuates e'S — eis- 
 
46 INTRODUCTION 
 
 lo. Tos Trapa^oXois, nBCLA, Syr. Sin. 
 
 TTjv Trapa^oX-qv, All, etc., Ln. 
 15. 61S avTOVs, B. 
 
 iv avToh, nCLA, Ti. 
 18. ets Tois OLKavda';, ABD. 
 
 Itti tois OLKavda'S, NCA, Ti. 
 24. v/iiv, NBCDLA. 
 
 i/xii' TOIS aKouoDcru', AIT, etc. 
 32. /ieifov, kABC, etc. 
 
 p.(.i((av, DFG, etc., Ln. 
 38. /cat auTos ■iji', NBCLA. 
 
 Ktti i^v axJTos, ADn, etc., Ti. 
 41. {iTraKowet aWTW, X^'BL. 
 
 aiiTO) {iiraKOvtt, XCA, Ti. 
 
 It will be seen that von Soden frequently deserts the NB text 
 and returns to that of the Textus Receptus, often agreeing with 
 Tischendorfs eighth edition and with Lachmann. One of his 
 main grounds, that the SB text presents an assimilation to the 
 parallels in St. Matthew and St. Luke, is a good one, but he 
 sometimes supports the later MSS. in an addition not found in 
 St. Matthew or St. Luke. S.g. cittovtos avrov^ i*^, rois aKovovaiv, 
 4 2*, are weakly attested. 
 
 Like Westcott and Hort, von Soden leaves some of the more 
 striking Western readings unaccounted for, e.g. : — 
 
 opyurdtis, I *l. 
 
 «;ro Tov o\koVj 2 *. 
 
 The omission of aXXa olvov veov eis do-Koiis Kotvoijs, ^^^. 
 ,, „ ,, cTTi 'AfSiaOap dp)(i6/36(DS in 2 ^^. 
 
 veKptocreij 3 ^. 
 
 aiTTiTai, 4 ^^. 
 
 In the following translation the text of Westcott and Hort has 
 been taken as the basis. Where the Greek text underlying the 
 translation differs from WH it will be given in the notes. 
 
TEXTUAL NOTES 
 
 1. 4- WH give iyivero 6 'Imdvrjs o ^airri^av ev Tjj iprjfico KrjpiKriraiv. 
 6 is inserted by XBLA, 33. But it should be omitted with AD, etc., 
 von Soden. It has been inserted by some one who did not perceive 
 that iydvfTo — ^awri^cov = rju fiaTrrl^aiv. Cf. note on I *. 
 
 Km is omitted before Krjpicra-av by B, 33, WH, but must be read 
 with NAD, etc., von Soden. For the two participles after eyivero 
 cf. v. 6, tJv — iv8e8viX€iios — kol i'crdwv. Dan. (Th.) 6 '", ^v KdiMnrmp — 
 
 21. WH give elcreXStiiV els ttjv <Tvvayaiyr)U IbihdcTKev. So ABD, etc. 
 But XCLA, Syr. Sin., von Soden have els tt^v o-waynyfiv iSiSaa-Kfv. 
 Cf. 13^, els avvaycoyds 8apr)a-ea-6e. The elireKBav has been inserted to 
 smooth the grammar. See below on v.'^. 
 
 34. WH add at the end Xpiarbv dvai with N^B, etc. But XAD, 
 Syr. Sin., von Soden omit. The words are an assimilation to St. 
 Luke 4*1. 
 
 39. WH have Kai rjXBev K7)pvu-crtav els ret? (Twaycayas avrCiv with 
 XBL. But ACD, etc., Syr. Sin. have <ai rjv Krjpicrcrav els rds a-vvaya>yas 
 airQv. This is right. ^\dev has been substituted for rjv to remove 
 the harshness of Kripi<rcra> els (cf. 13'°), just as ela-eXdav has been 
 inserted in v. 2' to get rid of SiScio-Km els. 
 
 2. 23. Von Soden with ACL, etc., has Trapawopeiea-Om. But WH 
 with BCD have StaTropevea-dm, and this is right, for the tautologous 
 hiairopeiea-Bai hia is characteristic of St. Mark. 
 
 3. 15. WH give KoX ewoirjtrev row Sadexa with XBCA, von Soden. 
 The clause is omitted by AC^D, etc., probably because it has already 
 occurred in v. '*. But see note on the passage. 
 
 5. 12. WH have napeKoKea-av with NBCLA, etc. But AD, etc., 
 Syr. Sin. have napeKaXoiiv, and St. Matthew 8 ^' read this in St. Mark, 
 for in no case does he alter St. Mark's aorists into an imperfect. 
 TrapeKokea-av is due to assimilation to St. Luke 8 ''^. 
 
 6. 6. WH have eBavjiaa-ev with KBE. But ACD, etc., Syr. Sin., von 
 Soden have eBavpa^ev. This is in St. Mark's style and no doubt right. 
 
 14. WH have fXcyoy (people were saying) with BD. But NAC, 
 etc., Syr. Sin., von Soden have eXeyev (Herod was saying). The repe- 
 tition, 'Herod was saying,' in v.'^,'is quite in St. Mark's style. Cf. 3 '^ 
 
 51. WH have Xlav ev eavrois e'^lcTTauro with NBLA, von Soden with 
 A, etc., has Xlav eKirepta-crov. This is in St. Mark's manner. eKne- 
 purq-ws occurs if! 14^' and vnepeKnepia-a-as in 7''. 
 
 4T 
 
48 TEXTUAL NOTES 
 
 9. 41. ev ovo/iaTi on xpi-croS €<TTf, careless translation of — 
 
 Jins KniK'Dl NDE'a= 'because you are of the Messiah.' 
 
 ID. 13. WH have inerlii^crav with XB. But von Soden with AD, 
 etc., have irreTifiav, and this is probably right, as being Marcan in 
 style. 
 
 11. 8. WH have 'iurpaxrav with XB, etc. D, Syr. Sin. have 
 i(TTpa>vvvov, and this is probably right. It is in St. Mark's style, and 
 explains the text of the First Gospel. St. Matthew 21 ^ substitutes 
 ea-Tpcoa-av for St. Mark's ia-Tpwvvvov, and then shows acquaintance 
 with the imperfect by placing it in the next clause. If St. Matthew 
 had had the aorist in St. Mark we should have had two aorists in 
 St. Matthew. 
 
 12. 23. WH have Iv rfi avaa-Tacrei with XB, etc. But von Soden 
 adds oTav avaaraa-iv with AX, etc., Syr. Sin., and the tautology is in 
 St. Mark's style. 
 
 15. 13, 15. WH and von Soden have cKpd^av, but St. Matthew 2723 
 shows that eupd^ov is right. It is read in v. '^ by G i 13 b q, Syr. Sin., 
 and in v. '^ by AD, etc., I b q, Syr. Sin. The evidence for it in v. " 
 is not very strong, Ijut its occurrence in the First Gospel authenticates 
 it for one of the two verses in St. Mark. 
 
 16. D has eo-u eis 7-171' avkr)v. This is in St. Mark's style, and may 
 well be original. For parallels see Introduction, pp. 12 f. 
 
 The illustrations given above suggest a new Canon of Textual 
 Criticism, viz. that Knowledge of an author's style should precede 
 judgment upon variant readings. 
 
 Aramaisms and Mistakes due to Translation 
 FROM Aramaic 
 
 The imperfects and historic presents are probably due to trans- 
 lation. A parallel may be found in Theodotion's translation of the 
 Aramaic of Dan. 2''-7^*. The imperfect occurs about fifty-seven 
 times. In twenty-one of these it translates a participle, in seventeen 
 it translates a participle with the verb to be. The historic present 
 occurs five times, in each of which it translates a participle with the 
 verb to be. 
 
 There is therefore a presumption that the frequency of these tenses 
 in Mark is due to translation of Aramaic participles. The cases of 
 ilvai with a participle are probably due to the same cause. In 
 Dan. 2 ''-7 ^* Theodotion has seven such constructions all equiva- 
 lent to an Aramaic participle and verb to be. 
 
 The frequent use of on after verbs of saying, even before oratio 
 recta, is due to the Aramaic '^_ Cf. Dan. 1^^ ; s'' ; 6, 6". The often 
 
 used adverbial ■woWa is the Aramaic X''JE'. The commonly used iv6w 
 is probably a translation of TD. 
 
TEXTUAL NOTES 49 
 
 'The use of TJp^aTo,-avTo with an infinitive following when nothing 
 at all is to be said of any further development of the action thus 
 introduced is one of the peculiarities that mark the style of all three 
 Synoptists ' (Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 26). 
 
 Dalman has not, however, remarked a distinction between the 
 Synoptists in their use of this idiom. 
 
 It occurs in St. Mark twenty-six times. Of these St. Matthew 
 retains six only, whilst St. Luke retains only two. The reason for 
 this is perhaps to be found in the nature of St. Mark's use of the 
 construction. As used in his Gospel it occurs always in narrative, 
 and in many cases is practically meaningless. E.g. in i ^^, 2 2^, 5 1^, 
 52.7,56^ g32^ J ^65^ I5 8'8 it seems to be practically a mere auxiliary, 
 meaning simply 'he,' 'they did.' There is no case in St. Mark where 
 the word has any special emphasis, and the construction may well be 
 due to the use of i"i{J' in Aramaic as an auxiliary verb. 
 
 It is perhaps due to the perception that the word is rather Aramaic 
 than Greek, as used in the Second Gospel, that St. Matthew omits all 
 but six cases. These are St. Matthew 12' = St. Mark 2^'; St. 
 Matthew i6" = St. Mark S^i; St. Matthew i622 = St. Mark 8^2. st. 
 Matthew 2622=St. Mark 141"; St. Matthew 2637 = St. Mark 14 ^3. 
 St. Matthew 26'* = St. Mark 14". St. Matthew also has the con- 
 struction six times. In one of these, viz. 4'', the word has a very 
 great emphasis ; two, viz. 18^* and 24 *^, occur in sayings of Christ ; 
 two, viz. II'' and 24 ''°, occur also in St Luke. The remaining two 
 are in narrative. Of these 11^ might be editorial, 14™ occurs in a 
 narrative peculiar to the First Gospel. 
 
 It would appear therefore that the construction was not congenial 
 to the editor of the First Gospel. He retains it in a few cases from 
 St. Mark, and its rarity in the non-Marcan passages of his Gospel 
 may be due to a tendency to omit it when found in his other sources. 
 
 St. Luke's use is remarkable. He retains only two of St. Mark's 
 twenty-six cases, viz. St. Luke 19*^= St. Mark 11^^; St. Luke 20^ = 
 St. Mark 12^. Besides these he has it twenty-five times. Of these 
 twelve are in sayings, two of them occurring also in St. Matthew. The 
 remaining thirteen occur in narrative. Of these five are the phrase 
 'began to say,' and one of them, viz. 7 ^, occurs in St. Matthew. In 
 three, viz. 14™, 15 ^''•2', the 'began' may be emphatic. Five, viz. 
 4^\ 3 'i 9'^ 19'^ 23''' are remarkable as occurring in passages with 
 Marcan parallels, and as being therefore possibly due to St. Luke's 
 editorial hand. 
 
 The construction occurs seven times in the Acts. 
 
 It would therefore seem that St. Luke does not care for St. Mark's 
 use of ' began ' when used as in Aramaic as a mere auxiliary. On the 
 other hand, he does not feel able to edit the construction out of 
 sayings with the same freedom. 
 
 We conclude that the frequency of the construction in St. Mark in 
 narrative is probably due to translation from Aramaic. In St. Luke 
 
 ST. MARK U 
 
so TEXTUAL NOTES 
 
 it is due partly to the Aramaised Greek of his sources, and partly to 
 his feeling that 'began to' is often quite natural in Greek (especially 
 in such phrases as 'began to say') even where 'began' has no special 
 emphasis. 
 
 1. 23 ; 5. 2. avdpanos iv nvevfiari axaBapra. We expect a 
 man having an unclean spirit.' Probably a mistranslation of 
 Knn na nin JTiST = ' in whom was a spirit.' 
 
 2. 19. 01 viol TOV VV/JLIpWUOS. 
 
 3. 17. Boavr]py4s. 
 
 18. Kavavaios = iiiip = zea.\ous, a zealot. 
 
 19. 'I(rKapta)5 = ni''"l3DN? = Sicarius? 
 22. Beefc^ouX = ^UT bV^. 
 
 28. Tols viols rmv dvdpwTToDv = ti^i "'33. Cf. Dan. 2^ (Th.), where 
 LXX substitutes dvBpanraiv for 01 viol tS>v avBpanav. 
 
 4. I. See Additional Note. 
 8. ) eiy TpiaKOvra. 
 
 20. ) ev 7-piaKoj/7a = the Aramaic 1T\ or 3 "IH, to express our 
 English ' fold ' after a numeral. 
 
 1 2. Iva, translation of '^ which may mean on, and should be so 
 rendered here. ' 
 
 21. epxerai, reading root KflX for STX = 'to kindle.' 
 
 22. iav iM) tva, reading T KPK for S?l. 
 dXk' Iva, reading T N7N for S7l. 
 
 5. 41. Ta\ei6a KoiS(U, = ''01p NrTi^D. 
 
 43. flnev boBfjvm. -v These are probably renderings of the late 
 
 6. 7. d-,r,v napaneivm. /Hebrew and Aramaic h nOK followed by 
 an inf. The construction occurs, and is translated by uirev and an 
 inf. in I Chr. 21 '^ ; 2 Chr. I ^\ 142, 2<)^^-^''-^% 31 ^i', 35 21 ; Esth. I '», 
 6' ; Dan. 2\ 12*", 3 '^, 5^. In the New Testament it occurs in 
 St. Luke 1 2 13. The usage in St. Matthew 16^2 ^nd St. Luke 9" is 
 not quite parallel. 
 
 8. ei pri, reading X?N for X?. 
 
 9. oKKd, reading K?X for Npl. 
 
 22. Bvyarpiis avrov (or avTrjs) 'HpcoSiaSos, mistranslation of nm3 
 K''11"im = ' the daughter of Herodias.' ' 
 
 7. 30. ^e^Xrjpevov = NDI, 
 
 31. 8ta 218S1VOS, mistranslation of ST'V ri''D?='to Bethsaida.' 
 34. i<ji(jia6d. 
 
TEXTUAL NOTES 51 
 
 8. 10. AoK^avovBa. Most probably a corruption, of which the 'd' 
 is the Aramaic '^ and the rest a corruption of a place-name. The 
 
 Sinaitic Syriac has Magedan. 
 
 24. oTi, a mistranslation of '^ instead of ovs. 
 
 9. 41. See note. 
 
 10. 29. eav jJ], reading X?N for NP^. 
 
 12. 4- fKf(j)a\l.cD(Tav. See note. 
 
 28. TrdvTQ>v instead of the feminine, due to careless translation 
 of the neutral Aramaic. 
 
 14. 8. irpoiXapf fivpiaai. See note. 
 
 12. rfi irpaiTT] rifiepa Tcov a^ijxav, a mistranslation. The original 
 probably ran ' on the day before the feast of unleavened bread.' 
 72. iTTi^aXav = ^<^EJ', a corruption of SIK* = 'he began.' 
 
 15. 34. eXai eXffli'Xajaa o-a0axflaj/«='':np3ti' ND^ ■'H^N Tl^K. 
 
 16. 2. See note. 
 
52 
 
 ST. MARK 
 
 A. I. 1-13. Preliminaries to the work of the Messiah. 
 
 I. I. Beginning of the good tidings of Jesus Christ, Son 
 of God. 
 
 I. The meaning of this first clause, and its relation to what follows 
 is doubtful. ' Good tidings ' [eiayyeXiov) originally meant ' a reward for 
 good tidings,' 2 Kgs. 4 '", and then came to be used for the ' good 
 tidings ' itself. But in the Gospels of St Matthew and St. Mark it 
 has an earlier meaning, that of the good tidings preached by Christ.* 
 In St. Matthew it occurs thfee times (42-'; g^°; 24"), in the phrase 
 'good news of the Kingdom,' and once (26") 'this good news.' In 
 St. Mark it occurs here and i'^-'^- 8^5; lo^S; 13IO; 148; (i6i5). 
 See the notes on those passages. The clause therefore means 
 'beginning of the good news which was proclaimed by Jesus Christ.' 
 But how does it stand related to what follows ? It probably refers in 
 particular to vv. '■'^. The preaching of the Baptist, the Baptism and 
 Temptation of the Messiah, were the prelude to His own preaching, 
 and may be said to have been the beginning of it. This is not a use 
 of ' beginning ' which is natural to us, but cf Acts i ^^, where it is said 
 that Christ's ministry began from John's Baptism. For 'beginning' 
 in a similarly abrupt opening sentence, cf. Hosea i ^ (LXX), 
 ' Beginning of the Lord's word in Hosea.' We might therefore para- 
 phrase thus : ' Here begins an account of the good news preached by 
 Jesus Christ. It began when in accordance with prophecy John 
 appeared in the wilderness, foretold the coming of the Messiah, and 
 baptized Him. Then, after this beginning, Jesus came with His 
 proclamation of good news.' 
 
 Jesus Christ. The phrase occurs only here in the Gospel. The 
 evangelist is writing at a period when ' Christ ' has lost its original 
 emphasis, and has become a proper name ; but he avoids using the 
 word in this way of Jesus during the earthly life. 
 
 Son of God. The words are wanting in some early authorities 
 (N 28, 255 Iren. Or. Bas.). WH place them in the margin ; Von 
 S. brackets them. Considered by itself the phrase may have an 
 ethical, or a Messianic meaning, or may carry with it such a sense as 
 it has e.g. in St. Paul's Epistles, of Christ as standing in a unique 
 relation to God. It is probably used here as equivalent to ' Messiah ' 
 cf. V. "." 
 
 ^ Cf. Harnack, Constitution and Law, pp. 278 f. 
 
 ^ See also Additional Note, 
 
1. 2-?.] ST. MARK S3 
 
 2-S. First introductory section. Christ's ministry had been heralded 
 by the Baptist. 
 
 2. As it stands written in Isaiah the Prophet, ' Behold I send 
 my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way. 
 3. A voice of one crying in the desert, Make ready the way of 
 the Lord, make straight his paths.' 4. John was baptizing in 
 the desert, and preaching a baptism of change of mind to 
 remission of sins. 5. And there was going out to him all the 
 Judean district, and all the (people) of Jerusalem, and were 
 getting themselves baptized in the Jordan river by him, confessing 
 their sins. 6. And John was clothed y^ith a garment of camel's 
 hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins, and (was) eating 
 locusts, and wild honey. 7. And he was preaching saying, 
 There cometh he who is mightier than I after me, of whom 
 I am not sufficient to stoop down and loosen the thong of his 
 shoes. 8. I baptized you in water, but he shall baptize you in 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 2. Isaiah. The words which immediately follow come not from 
 Isaiah, but from Malachi 3 '. This accounts for the variant and 
 inferior reading ' the prophets,' AE, etc. The Malachi quotation is 
 found in St. Matthew 1 1 '", and St. Luke 7 2^, in a different connexion. 
 All three evangelists agree in some small points against the Greek of 
 the LXX, and it seems probable that the quotation was current in 
 Christian circles in a form slightly varying from the LXX. Both the 
 First and Third Evangelists omit the words in their parallels to this 
 passage. 
 
 3. A voice, etc. From Isa. 40^-*. St. Mark follows the LXX, which 
 connects ' in the desert ' with ' crying,' instead of with ' make ready ' 
 as in the Hebrew, but he alters ' the ways of our God ' into ' his ways ' 
 to make the application of the words to Christ more natural. 
 
 4. was baptizing, so ADPm iyivcTo 'liodvris ^anrl^asv. Cf. for 
 iyivero with the participle 9 ^■'■■^, Lam. I "* iyivovro - r)(\iavi.(TfiivOL 
 ^D'DDitJ' — YT\ Dan. I "* cyivero — avaipoviievos Th = ^i' avaipovptevoi 
 
 LXX=NB'3 — Tl', Dan. 2^^ Xeirra iyiv€To LXX^iXeirrvvSria-av Th. 
 
 = -1p''I. WH read iyivero 'Icoavrjs 6 ^airrl^av with NBLA 33. The 
 
 article seems to be due to a grammatical misunderstanding of the 
 connexion of eyevero with the participle. The clause must be con- 
 nected closely with v. ", ' As it was foretold — John was baptizing in the 
 desert and preaching.' 
 
 baptism. The baptism of John was not entirely new. It finds 
 analogies in the bathings of the Essenes (Jos., B.J., ii. 8, 5), in the 
 
54 ST. MARK [1. 2-8. 
 
 ceremonial washings of the Jews (cf. Schiirer, ii. 2, lo6), and in the 
 baptism or bath, taken by proselytes (cf. Schiirer, ii. 2, 319). 
 
 of change of mind. I.e. a baptism which presupposes change of 
 mind, and symbolises the cleansing which repentance desires. 
 
 to remission of sins. John's baptism was anticipatory only. It 
 looked forward to the remission of sins which the Messiah would give. 
 
 5. baptized. For a discussion as to whether the Jews in the first 
 century baptized by total or partial immersion, see J.Th.S., April- 
 July 19H, and April 1912. 
 
 6. a garment of earner s hair. In Zech. 13 * (LXX) a hairy skin is 
 apparently regarded as the normal dress of a professional prophet, 
 and some Western authorities (D, a) read here 'a camel's skin' 
 {Sippriv for Tpi'xat), perhaps with reference to Zech. In Ascension of 
 Isaiah, ii. 10, the prophets 'were all clothed with garments of hair.' 
 
 locusts and wild honey. Cf. Deut. 321^. Vegetarian tendencies in 
 the early Church =• led to the alteration of 'locusts' into 'milk' or 
 'cakes.' In Ascension of Isaiah, ii. 11, the prophets eat wild herbs. 
 Cf. 4 Ezra 928, 12^1 ; 2 Mace. S^l 
 
 7. And he preached, etc. St. Mark selects from the traditional 
 accounts of the Baptist's preaching a few words which suit his intro- 
 ductory section, because they represent John as looking forward to 
 the coming of Christ. John contrasts with his own work that of the 
 comipg Messiah as being not merely symbolical ' in water,' nor merely 
 preparatory ' of repentance,' but spiritual and final, ' in Holy Spirit.' 
 
 he who is mightier. Literally 'the one rhightier' (6 iVxupoTfpoj), a 
 Semitic idiom. Semitic also are 'baptized' for 'baptize,' and 'of 
 whom . . . his ' for ' whose.' 
 
 8. in water. I.e. the element in which the candidate was immersed ; 
 or perhaps 'with water,' denoting the material used. In the case of 
 proselytes to Judaism, the immersion in water no doubt symbolised 
 the moral and spiritual cleansing necessary for one who was passing 
 from paganism into the society of the covenant-people of God. In 
 the case of John's baptism, it symbolised the cleansing which those 
 who felt deeply their sinfulness earnestly desired. It is not said that 
 this baptism brought with it remission of sins, but that it placed the 
 candidate in a position to receive such forgiveness. When the 
 Messiah came there would be a better baptism. He would baptize in 
 Holy Spirit. In the mouth of the Baptist this is a forcible metaphor 
 used to describe the bringing of the whole personality of the candidate 
 under the direct influence of the Spirit of God. As a matter of fact, 
 Christ seems never to have baptized any one. Not until His life-work 
 was finished and His Spirit sent into the world could it be understood 
 how men could be baptized in Holy Spirit. 
 
 " So the Ebionites, according to Epiphanius, Hcer., 30, 13. 
 
I. 9-II-] ST. MARK 55 
 
 9-11. Second introductory section. He was proclaimed to te the 
 messiah at His baptism. 
 
 9. And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from 
 Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John into the Jordan. 
 10. And forthwith as He went up out of the water, He saw the 
 heavens rent, and the Spirit as a dove coming down into Him. 
 
 II. And a voice came out of the heavens. Thou art My Son, 
 the Beloved, in Thee I am well pleased. 
 
 The Baptis7n. 
 
 We may suppose that the main fact underlying this narrative is 
 that His baptism was for Jesus the moment when the conviction of 
 His call to Messiahship took shape and form. Through it He would 
 consecrate Himself to His life's work. And at this supreme moment 
 of self-dedication the impulse from within of the soul laying itself at 
 the service of God and of man was met by attestation from without. 
 The Spirit descended and the voice from God was heard — that is, the 
 Spirit which should enable Him to fulfil the Messianic destiny 
 entered into Him. Receiving it, He was consecrated and pledged 
 and strengthened with a view to all that Messiahship involved. And 
 the voice attested the fact. He was ' the Beloved,' the Son, chosen 
 to reveal in His person the goodwill of God to men. 
 
 9. Nazareth. The MSS. give Nazareth (DE, etc.), Nazaret (KBL), 
 or Nazarat (A). ' No such town as Nazareth is mentioned in the 
 Old Testament, in Josephus, or in the Talmud' {Encycl. Bib., 3360). 
 Burkitt, The Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names., p. 18, 
 thinks that Nazareth is a primitive error for Chorazin, and that the 
 adjectives Nafupiji/of, Nafwpaios are a play upon T'TJ, 'a Nazarite.' 
 But he thinks that Nazareth in St. Luke 4 ^* was borrowed from Q, 
 and it is very difficult to admit an error of this kind as going back to a 
 stage behind St. Mark and Q. It would be easier to suppose that the 
 corruption originated in the Greek translation of the Aramaic St. Mark. 
 
 into the fordan. St. Mark's use of prepositions is often harsh, cf 
 ' into ' in the next verse. 
 
 10. And forthwith. A very frequently used connecting link in this 
 Gospel. ' Forthwith ' occurs forty-one times in St. Mark, eighteen in 
 St. Matthew, seven in St. Luke. In St. Mark it not infrequently loses 
 its literal meaning, and becomes a mere connecting link. Here it 
 must be connected closely with ' He saw.' 
 
 rent. Cf. Isa. 64', 'O that thou wouldest rend the heavens.' The 
 word here translated 'rent' (o-xifn^e'i/ouf) is not used elsewhere of the 
 heavens. The two other Synoptic Gospels substitute the more 
 commonplace 'opened.' 
 
 The Spirit as a dove (■n-epia-Tepd). Compare Gen. I 2, ' The Spirit 
 of God was brooding over the face of the waters.' 'As a dove over 
 
56 ST. MARK [1- 12, i3- 
 
 her young,' Chagiga, IS a. Philo (Quts Rer. Div. Haer., 25) com- 
 pares divine wisdom to the turtle-dove, and human wisdom to the 
 pigeon. Divine wisdom is sohtude-loving — she is called symbolically 
 a turtle-dove (rpvyav) ; but the other (human wisdom) is quiet and 
 tame and gregarious — they liken her to a dove (■n-epia-Tepd). Compare 
 also Odes and Psalms of Solotnon, 24, ' The dove fluttered over the 
 Messiah, because He was her head'; 28, 'As the wings of doves 
 over their nestlings, and the mouth of their nestlings towards their 
 mouth, so also are the wings of the Spirit over my heart.' 
 
 into Him. Elsewhere the Spirit comes down 'upon' Jesus. The 
 brevity of this description of Christ's baptism involves it in some 
 ambiguity. Was the event described a vision seen and heard by 
 Christ alone, or by others also ? Do the words 'like a dove' describe 
 the nature of the coming down of the Holy Spirit, 'like the flight of 
 a dove,' or the form in which He appeared ? The other Gospels ex- 
 plain these ambiguities. Nor does St. Mark say anything as to the 
 reason for Christ's baptism. For this see the First Gospel. 
 
 11. My Son. Similarly of the Messianic King, Ps. 2'. 
 
 The Beloved. Not an attribute of Son, but an independent title = 
 the Messiah. Cf Armitage Robinson, Ephesians, 229 ff. 
 
 My Son, the Beloved., in Thee I am well pleased. These words 
 seem to be based on Isa. 42 '. The Hebrew there may be translated, 
 ' Behold my Servant whom I uphold, my Chosen in whom my soul 
 delights.' The LXX has 'Jacob my Servant, I will help him. Israel 
 my Elect, my soul welcomed him.' But there seems to have been a 
 Greek rendering of the passage current in the early Church, which 
 has been preserved for us in St. Matthew 12 '8. It may be rendered, 
 ' Behold my Servant whom I chose, my Beloved in whom my soul 
 is well pleased.' Since the Greek word for ' Servant,' Tralr, may also 
 mean ' Son,' it was not unnatural to substitute the latter word, perhaps 
 by assimilation to Ps. 2 '. 
 
 12, 13. Third introductory section. He was prepared for Bis ministry 
 by Temptation. 
 
 12. And forthwith the Spirit drives Him out into the desert. 
 13. And He was in the desert forty days being tempted by the 
 Satan. And He was with the wild beasts. And the angels 
 were ministering to Him. 
 
 The Temptation. 
 
 This narrative is so meagre and, as it stands, so unexplained, that 
 it seems clear that it must be an abbreviated account of a narrative 
 which the evangelist did not like to pass over altogether, because the 
 Baptism, the Temptation, and the heralding by John, formed part of 
 the regular tradition as preliminaries to the Messiah's career. He 
 reduces the Baptist's preaching to a couple of verses. The account 
 
1. 14, IS-] ST. MARK 57 
 
 of the Lord's Baptism was more difficult to shorten. But the narra- 
 tive of the Temptation is reduced to a bare statement of the fact. 
 That the moment of spiritual exaltation and consecration should be 
 followed by one of temptation is apparently a law of spiritual experi- 
 ence. St. Mark says nothing as to the nature of the temptation, but, 
 as we might expect, it was connected with the conviction of Messianic 
 vocation which had been divinely attested at the Baptism. 
 
 12. the Spirit. I.e. the Spirit who had come down into Him at 
 Baptism, cf. v. '°. 
 
 drives (eK^aXKiL). St. Mark is fond of the vivid historic present, 
 for which the First and Third Evangelists generally substitute past 
 tenses. The verb is rather a strong one, but St. Mark is fond of 
 forcible words. The First and Third Evangelists soften into ' was led' 
 and 'led' respectively. The same verb is used seventeen times by 
 St. Mark, eleven times of the 'driving out' of demons, once of an 
 eye, and six times of ' ejecting ' or ' driving away ' persons. 
 
 13. t/ie Satan. The Hebrew phrase occurs in Job i and 2, i Chr. 
 21 ', and in Zech. 3. The transliteration of the Hebrew into Greek 
 occurs first in Ecclesiasticus 21 ^''. 
 
 And He was with the wild beasts. The idea implied is not clear. 
 Some have thought of a parallel with Adam in the garden of Eden."- 
 Others * suggest that the wild beasts emphasise the lonehness of the 
 wilderness. The clause is one of the many short descriptive clauses 
 which are omitted by the First and Third Evangelists. 
 
 B. I. 14-7. 23. Work in Galilee. 
 
 We begin here an account of the Messiah's ministry in Galilee, which 
 ends at 7 2^. During this period Christ preaches to the common people, 
 who throng to hear Him, and to be healed of their diseases. He forbids 
 an; announcement of His Messiahship. 
 
 14. And after that John was delivered up, Jesus came into 
 Galilee, preaching the good tidings of God, 15. and saying that 
 the time has been fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand, 
 repent, and believe in the good tidings. 
 
 14. the good tidings of God. This seems to be further defined in 
 the next verse as the fact that the kingdom of God was near. 
 
 15. the ti7ne has bee7i fulfilled. I.e. 'the time which must elapse 
 before the coming of the kingdom is now at an end.' 
 
 Ref)ent, and believe in the good tidings. In this chapter (vv. I'^is)^ 
 in 8^^, and 10^', the word 'good tidings' or 'Gospel' is used abso- 
 lutely. Stanton " notes that the First and Third Evangelists have 
 
 * Bengel, Gnomon, p. 169. 
 
 ^ Klostermann, Markus, p. 10 ; Loisy, i. p. 446 ; Swete, p. 11. 
 
 " T/ie Gospels as Historical Documents, Part 11., p. 14?. 
 
58 ST. MARK [1. 16-20. 
 
 nothing corresponding to it in their parallel sections, and thinks that 
 the latter writer at least would not have omitted the word if he had 
 read it in his St. Mark.'' Dr. Stanton therefore thinks it probable that 
 the word has been introduced into the Second Gospel since its use by 
 the two later Evangelists. Others •> urge that the word in this Gospel 
 is used in its full Pauline sense, and that therefore, in this verse at 
 least, it is out of place in the mouth of Christ. But there seems to be 
 no sufScient reason why the Lord should not have bid the people 
 believe the good news which He told them of the coming of the long- 
 expected kingdom. And it would be natural enough for a writer in 
 Greek to render the Aramaic word spoken by Christ by ' Gospel.' 
 The words have a quite natural and simple sense in the mouth of 
 Christ. 
 
 16-20. The first recorded act of tlie Messiah in Galilee is the calling- to 
 Himself of four followers. It is natural to suppose that there had been 
 some previous intercourse which would explain the readiness of the 
 fishermen to leave their trade. 
 
 16. And passing along by the sea of Galilee, He saw Simon 
 and Andrew, the brother of Simon, fishing in the sea, for they 
 were fishermen. 17. And Jesus said to them, Come after Me, 
 and I will make you to become fishermen of men. 18. And 
 forthwith they left the nets and followed Him. 19. And He 
 went on a little, and saw James the (son) of Alphaeus, and John 
 his brother, and they (were) in the boat, mending their nets. 
 20. And forthivith He called them. And they left their father 
 Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and went away 
 after Him. 
 
 16. The brother of Simon. The needless repetition of 'Simon' is 
 characteristic of this writer. 
 
 fishing (djicfiifiaXXovTas). Literally ' casting,' an uncommon word as 
 used here. For a parallel two centuries later cf VGT, p. 28. A sub- 
 stantive formed from it occurs in the sense 'fisherman,' in Is. 19^. 
 
 19. And they in the boat {KoiavTovs iv TMT;\ola). The construction 
 is harsh, and the harshness is probably due' to translation from 
 Aramaic, which would have been better rendered Ka\ airol rja-av. 
 
 20. with the hired servants. One of the short descriptive touches 
 peculiar to this Gospel. 
 
 " But since Eio.-^y^\Lov in St, Mark is used in a different and earlier sense to 
 tiiat in which St. Paul used it, it is quite natural that St. Luke should avoid it. 
 It would have been unnatural to him to speak of Christ as announcing the 
 fvayyiXiov , at a time when the word was coming to mean the good news about 
 Christ rather than the good news preached by Him. 
 
 ' E.g. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, p, 63 ; Loisy, i. p. 434. 
 
1. 2I-J8.] ST. MARK 59 
 
 21-28. The man with an unclean spirit. 
 
 21. And they ««/«/--/« z>z/(9 Capharnaoum. And forthwith on 
 the Sabbath He was teaching into the synagogue. 22. And 
 they were being astonished at His teaching, for He was teaching 
 as one having authority, and not as the Scribes. 23. And forth- 
 with there was in their synagogue a man in an unclean spirit, 
 and he cried out, 24. saying, ' What have we to do with Thee, 
 Jesus of Nazareth ? Art Thou come to destroy us ? I know 
 Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God.' 25. And Jesus 
 censured him, saying, ' Be quiet, and come-out out from him.' 
 26. And the unclean spirit rent him, and gave voice with a great 
 voice, and came-out out from him. 27. And all were amazed, so 
 that they questioned together, saying, ' What is this ? A new 
 teaching ! With authority He issues orders to the unclean 
 spirits also, and they obey Him.' 28. And His fame went out 
 forthwith everywhere into all the surrounding district of Galilee. 
 
 The Demoniac in the Synagogue. 
 
 Belief in demons was universal in Palestine during the lifetime of 
 the Lord, and the Gospel writers represent Him as assuming the 
 truth of this belief. Whether He did or did not so believe we cannot 
 say, because nothing is more certain than that, granting the non- 
 existence of demons, and granting His knowledge of their non-exist- 
 ence. He would not have taken any trouble to denounce this belief, 
 and to substitute some other explanation of the facts which it was 
 supposed to explain. He nowhere attempts to anticipate modern or 
 ultimate psychology, or any other branch of science. Practically it 
 made no difference. To the man who believed that a demon had 
 taken possession of him, the demon really existed. The belief was 
 demon enough. 
 
 The recognition of Jesus as the Messiah by demoniacs has caused 
 much trouble to modern critics. They assume that demons have no 
 existence, and are troubled to understand how a diseased person 
 could come to the knowledge that Jesus was the Messiah before He 
 made any public claim to Messianic dignity. Allowing for the sake 
 of argument the truth of this assumption, an answer may be found in 
 the unique personality of Jesus Christ, combined with the fact that 
 the conception of the coming of the Messiah was everywhere in the 
 atmosphere of the period. The Jewish Apocalyptic literature is 
 sufficient evidence of that. There radiated from the person of Jesus 
 an atmosphere of divine power and goodness, of which we have 
 sufficient evidence in the Gospels. And perception of this quite 
 unique moral power would be sufficient to draw from the demoniacs 
 the confession that He was the Messiah. 
 
6o ST. MARK [1. 21-28. 
 
 The critics are still more perplexed by the fact that Jesus should 
 have forbidden the demons to make Him known. But public recog- 
 nition of Him as the Messiah would have thwarted God's will for 
 Him. Of that He was sure. The popular conceptions of a Messiah 
 and His own growing understanding of what it was to involve for 
 Him were poles asunder. He would not be forced into any other 
 Messiahship than that which God had in store for Him. 
 
 21. was teaching in (eis-) the synagogue. So SOLA. WH with 
 ABD etc. have da^hBuiv els rrjv (rvvayayrjv eSiSaaKev. The insertion 
 of ela-fkOav is due to the harsh use of €is for which cf. 13". 
 
 was teaching. Iriiperf as often. The repetition 'was teaching,' 
 ' teaching,' ' was teaching,' is characteristic of this Gospel. 
 
 22. with authority. It was characteristic of the teaching of the 
 Scribes to appeal to the authority of earlier interpreters of the law : 
 ' Rabbi So-and-so said this, but Rabbi So-and-so says that.' Christ 
 appealed to no authority save that of Himself The reference to the 
 Scribes naturally turns the mind to Christ's teaching about the law, 
 of which St. Mark gives examples later, though in this place the 
 thought is rather of His promulgation of the nearness of the kingdom. 
 But the reference to the Scribes explains why St. Matthew brings in 
 the ' Sermon on the Mount ' at this point. There, if anywhere, 
 Christ is seen speaking with authority, ' I say,' in contrast to the 
 Scribes. 
 
 23. in an unclean spirit. An unusual phrase. "^ It occurs again 
 in 8^~. Elsewhere we read of men 'having' an unclean spirit (so 
 St. Luke here and in 8 2"), or 'being possessed' by spirits. The 
 Christian phrase ' in the (Holy) Spirit,' does not explain, and is no 
 true parallel to, the expression here, which is probably due to over- 
 exact translation of an Aramaic expression, n3 niH n^XT = ' who had.' 
 Cf. the rendering here of Syr. Sin. 
 
 24. we . . . us. The spirit speaks in the name of the whole class 
 of unclean spirits. 
 
 the Holy One of God. This is equivalent to ' the Messiah.' 
 
 25. Be quiet (cfiifiaidr^n). Literally 'be muzzled.' Late Greek in 
 this sense, cf Luc. De Mort. Per., 15. The noun in Vettius Valens, 
 p. 257, 13, ed. G. Kroll, seems to mean the silence of death, irpiv 
 (f)Bd(rai, Trjv (pLfiatrtv. 
 
 came-out out from him. The redundancy, a compound verb, 
 followed by the preposition used in the compound, is very character- 
 istic of St. Mark. 
 
 26. rent. St. Luke 4 ^' softens this to ' threw him down,' and adds 
 'having done him no injury.' 
 
 28. everywhere into all the surrounding district. The redundancy 
 is characteristic of this writer. 
 
 " See Additional Note. 
 
1. 29-39-] ST. MARK 6r 
 
 29-31. Simon's wife's mother. 
 
 29. And forthwith, going-out out of the synagogue, they came 
 into the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John. 
 30. And the mother-in-law of Simon kept her bed with a fever. 
 And forthwith they tell Him about her. And He came up and 
 raised her, taking her by the hand, 31. And the fever left her, 
 and she was ministering to them. 
 
 29. going-out out. See on v.^°. 
 
 32-34. Healings at evening. 
 
 32. And it being evening, when the sun set, they were bringing 
 to Him all that were sick, and the demon-ridden. 33. And the 
 whole city was gathered together to the door. 34. And He 
 healed many who were sick with divers diseases, and cast out 
 many demons. And He was not suffering the demons to speak, 
 because they knew Him. 
 
 32. it being evening, when the sun set. The tautology is character- 
 istic of this writer. The later Gospels each omit one clause. 
 
 33. the whole city. The emphasis on the crowds who were attracted 
 is characteristic of this writer, cf. p. 27. 
 
 34. He healed many. In the First Gospel the order is reversed, 
 ' many were brought, and He healed all.' 
 
 they knew Him. WH with many MSS. add 'to be Messiah,' 
 but WH bracket the words, which seem to be an assimilation to 
 Lk. 4'". In the Apocalyptic literature the evil spirits are to be 
 destroyed at the appearance of the Messiah, ' He shall redeem all the 
 captivity of the sons of men from Beliar ; and every spirit of deceit 
 shall be trodden down ' (Test. Zeb. 9 *), ' Then shall all the spirits of 
 deceit be given to be trodden under foot ' (Test. Sim. 6 ^).^ 
 
 35-39. A tour. 
 
 35. And early, whilst it was still deep night, He arose and 
 went out, and went away to a desert place, and was praying 
 there. 36. And Simon and they who were with him were soori 
 after Him. 37. And they found Him, and say to Him that all 
 seek Thee. 38. And He saith to them, ' Let us go elsewhere 
 into the neighbouring country-towns, that I may preach there 
 too, for for this purpose I came forth.' 39. And He was 
 
 * Tesiamenis of the Twelve Patriarchs, ed. Charles. 
 
62 ST. MARK [I. 40-45. 
 
 preaching into their synagogues into the whole of Galilee and 
 casting out demons. 
 
 36. were soon after Him. The verb {KaTahmKoi) means ' to follow 
 closely,' generally of the pursuit of enemies. It occurs only here in 
 the New Testament. 
 
 37. say to Hint that. This mixture of direct and indirect speeches 
 characteristic of St. Mark. The later Gospels frequently omit ' that.' 
 
 38. country-towns (KmiioTroXels). Only here in the New Testament. 
 It means, says Schiirer (ii. i, 154), 'towns which as regards their con- 
 stitution only enjoyed the rank of a village.' 
 
 / came forth. This might mean ' came out from Capharnaoum 
 this morning,' or ' came from Nazareth as a preacher.' St. Luke 
 interprets of the Divine Mission, ' I was sent ' (4 ''■'). Compare 
 St. John 16^^, 'I came forth from the Father, and am come into 
 the world.' It is not unlike St. Mark 'to introduce a conception with- 
 out previous explanation. Cf. his use of 'the Son 'in 13^^, and of 
 'your Father which is in the heavens' in 11 2°. For the Divine 
 Mission cf 2 ". 
 
 elsewhere into the neighbouring country-towns. See on v. ^^ 
 
 39. And He was preaching. So with ACD, etc. Syr. Sin. WH 
 with NBL substitute ^Xflev for r)v. This seems due to the harshness 
 of CIS after Krjpva-a-av. Cf the insertion of fl(Te\6a>v to ease a similar 
 construction in v. ^'. 
 
 40-45. A leper. 
 
 40. And there comes to Him a leper, beseeching Him, and 
 kneeling (to Him), (and) saying to Him t/iat If Thou wilt. Thou 
 art able to cleanse me. 41. And having compassion. He 
 stretched out the hand, and touched him, and saitA to him, I 
 will, be cleansed. 42. And forthwith the leprosy went-away 
 
 from him and he was cleansed. 43. And being angry with him, 
 forthwith He thrust him out, 44. and saith to him, See, say 
 nothing to anyone, but go, show thyself to the priest, and offer 
 for thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a 
 testimony to them. 
 
 40. there comes. The historic pres. is characteristic of this 
 Gospel ; see on i '^. 
 
 and kneeling {to Him). The clause is omitted by BD (WH 
 bracket it), but the verb {yowiriTia) is found again in 10 1', and the 
 phrase is in St. Mark's style. 
 
 41. having compassion {a-ir\ayxvt<T6sis). D, the old Latin Version, 
 and the Diatessaron, have 'being angry' (opyttrSeis). Whether ori- 
 ginal or not, this probably stood in the Second Gospel as used by 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke, and accounts for their omission of any 
 equivalent here. 
 
1. 40-45-] ST. MARK 63 
 
 The verb a-nXayxvlCoiiiu, in the sense to have compassion, does 
 not seem to occur prior to the date of St. Mark in any literature, with 
 the possible exception of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 
 where it is found in the Testament of Zebulun six or seven times. 
 Charles "• assigns the Greek versions of this book to c. 50 A.D. It 
 occurs in this Gospel in this passage as a variant to opyLo-Seis ; in 
 6 '*, where the First Gospel retains it ; in 8 2, where the First Gospel 
 also retains it ; and in 9 ^% where the First Gospel omits it. In the 
 First Gospel it occurs in 14" and 15^^, in both cases being taken 
 from St. Mark ; in 9 '^, an editorial passage couched in Marcan 
 language; in 18 3'', in the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant; and 
 in 20 '*, where it is inserted into a Marcan passage. 
 
 St. Luke omits it (or the whole section in which it is found) wher- 
 ever it occurs in St. Mark. But he has it in three sections peculiar to 
 him : 7'^ (the Widow of Nain), 10 ^^ (the Good Samaritan), and 15 2" 
 (the Prodigal Son). 
 
 It occurs in A of the LXX as a variant to ima-nKayxvi^onai in 
 Prov. 17^; and in I Sam. 23^' and Ezek. 24^', in the version of 
 Symmachus. The active in 2 Mace. 6 ^ has a sacrificial meaning. 
 
 The word, therefore, occurs in St. Mark, presumably also in the 
 source underlying St. Matthew 18^' (the Matthean Logia?), and in a 
 source, or sources, known to St. Luke. This and its occurrence in 
 Test. Zeb., LXX A, and Symmachus suggest that it was a vernacular 
 word, in the meaning 'have compassion,' of the first two centuries A.D. 
 
 42. For the tautology see on v. ^^. 
 
 43. being angry (ifi^pifiria-dfievos). The meaning of the verb here 
 is very doubtful. The word is used in Aesch. Sept. con. Theb. 461 
 of horses snorting. It has much the same meaning in Luc. Nee. 20 
 (of Brimo). In Dan. 11^" (LXX) it is used of the Romans apparently 
 in the sense of 'anger.' In Ps. 7'^ (Aq.) it is used of God being 
 'angry.' So in Is. 17'^ (Sym.). Cf the noun = ' anger' in Ps. 37' 
 (Sym.), Ezek. 21^1 (Sym. and Th.), Lam. 2 6_(LXX). 
 
 It would seem therefore that in St. Mark it ought to express some 
 strong emotion. ' Being angry ' would seem the right translation in 
 the light of the Old Testament passages. But the context does not 
 suggest any explanation of this anger here, or for the anger of v. ^' 
 (D Lat. Diat.). St. Mark uses the word once again in 14*, where the 
 translation ' were angry with her ' is suitable enough. St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke omit the word in the present passage, probably because 
 they generally avoid attributing strong emotion to Christ. But St. 
 Matthew rather curiously has the word in a passage which is not found 
 in St. Mark, viz. 9^°, where again there is no explanation in the con- 
 text why Christ should be angry. St. John has the word twice, 1 1 ^^ 
 and ^', but the meaning there is too doubtful to throw any light on 
 the use in the Second Gospel. So far as the Second Gospel goes, the 
 " The Greek Vernon of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 
 
64 ST. MARK [1. 40-45. 
 
 meaning outside the New Testament and the passage 14' are deci- 
 sive in favour of the meaning 'be angry' or 'express oneself angrily.' 
 thrust-out. For the verb see on v. '^. 
 
 44. which Moses commanded. See Lev. 14. 
 
 for a testimony to them. To whom? (i) To the Priests, (a) of 
 Christ's power. But this is hardly consistent with the command to 
 tell no one. (3) That Christ was not hostile to the Law. This is 
 probably the meaning in the mind of the editor of the First Gospel, 
 who places the section immediately after the Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 (2) To the people, who are to be convinced by the acceptance of 
 the offerings that a cure had really taken place. 
 
 45. And He went out and began to preach much, and to make 
 public the word, so that He was no longer able openly to enter 
 into a city, but was without in desert places. And they were 
 coming to Him from all sides. 
 
 45. It is generally supposed that the first two clauses refer to the 
 healed leper, who disobeyed the command of Christ to tell no one, 
 and on the contrary made the matter so public that crowds thronged 
 to Christ, and He was compelled in order to avoid them to keep away 
 from cities and populous places. 
 
 Against this may be urged the harsh change of subject, 'he' in the 
 first two clauses meaning the leper, and after that meaning Christ. 
 
 The whole verse probably refers to Christ. ' He went out,' cf. i ^, 
 2 13^ 6', 7^', 8^^, 11", 'and began to preach.' The same verb is 
 used of Christ in i 'I'-ss.s'j^ j 20^ gyj ^^ jj^g other hand must be re- 
 corded the fact that in 7 ^^ it is used of two men who disobey Christ's 
 command to tell no one, and on the contrary began to ' preach ' what 
 He had done to them. 
 
 began. The verb is characteristic of this Gospel, and is an 
 Aramaism. See Introd., p. 49. 
 
 much (TToXXa). A neuter plural used adverbially ; also an Aramaism 
 characteristic of this Gospel. 
 
 and to make ■public the word. The verb ' make public ' (5ia(f)r)ii'i(a>) 
 occurs only here in the Second Gospel, but on the other hand ' the 
 word ' is used again in 2 ^ and 8 '^ of the content of Christ's preach- 
 ing ; three times, 9 '", 10^^, 14'^, it means asingle utterance of Christ; 
 three times it is used in the plural of Christ's sayings, viz. 8^, 10^*, 
 13 ^' ; nine times in ch. 4 it means the message of the Gospel ; twice, 
 5 2", 7 ''^j it means an utterance of some other than Christ, whilst it is 
 never used in this Gospel in the sense ' affair,' ' matter.' 
 
 The verse therefore probably means that He (Jesus) went out, and 
 began to preach much, and to publish the word of the good tidings (as 
 in 2 2), with the result that His preaching attracted to Him great 
 multitudes. This caused Him to avoid cities, and to keep in the open, 
 where the multitude could have easy access to Him. 
 
2. I-I2.] ST. MARK 65 
 
 He was no longer able. The later Gospels avoid attributing in- 
 ability to Christ. Cf. Introd., p. 23. 
 
 •without in desert places. See on 1 2*. 
 
 desert places. This does not mean places void of vegetation, but 
 void of people. In the desert place where the Five Thousand were 
 fed there was green grass ; cf 6 ''. 
 
 The first chapter has summarised some preliminaries of Christ's 
 ministry, and has given us illustrations of His powers of healing. 
 The time occupied by this ministry of healing must have been greater 
 than would appear at first sight. The healing of the demoniac and 
 of St. Peter's mother-in-law took place on one day, but the cleansing 
 of the leper seems to be a single example from many of miraculous 
 healings during a tour through the country (i ^^). The result of this 
 work of healing and of preaching (i 22.39.45^ ^g^g ^jja.t multitudes every- 
 where thronged to Christ (l *^). 
 
 But if one result of His ministry was to attract to Him the notice 
 of the whole countryside, another was to force Him into ever deepen- 
 ing antagonism to the Scribes and Pharisees. In 2 ', 3 ^ St. Mark 
 collects incidents which illustrate the widening of the breach. The 
 Scribes found fault with His claim to forgive sins (2 "), they objected 
 to His associating with unorthodox people (2 1'''^'), they took offence 
 at His abstention from the practice of observing fixed fasts (2 ^-22^^ 
 and they accused Him of allowing His disciples to break the Sabbath 
 (2 23-28)j and of breaking it Himself (3 ^"). The upshot was that the 
 Pharisees and Herodians began to scheme for His removal as a 
 dangerous religious agitator (3 '). 
 
 2. 1-12. The Paralytic. 
 
 2. I. And having entered-in into. Capharnaoum again after 
 some days, it was reported that He is at home. 2. And there 
 were gathered together many, so that the space about the door 
 could no longer contain them. And He was speaking to them 
 the word. 3. And they come bearing to Him a paralytic carried 
 by four men. 4. And not being able to approach near to Him 
 because of the crowd, they unroofed the roof where He was, 
 and digging a hole, they let down the pallet on which the 
 paralytic laya-bed. 5. And Jesus, seeing their faith, saith to 
 the paralytic, ' Son, thy sins are forgiven.' 6. And there were 
 sitting there certain of the Scribes, and disputing in their hearts, 
 7. ' Why does this man talk thus? He is blaspheming. Who 
 can forgive sins except One, God ? ' 8. And forthwith Jesus, 
 knowing in His spirit that thus they are disputing in themselves, 
 saith to them, ' Why do ye dispute these things in your hearts ? 
 
 ST. MARK E 
 
66 ST. MARK [2. 1-12. 
 
 9. Why is it easier to say to the paralytic, Thy sins are forgiven 
 thee than to say, Arise, and take up thy pallet, and walk about ? 
 
 10. But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power to 
 forgive sins on the earth' . . . He saith to the paralytic, 11. 
 ' To thee I say, Arise, take up thy pallet, and go to thy house.' 
 12. And he arose, and forthwith took up the pallet, and went 
 out before them all. So that all were astounded and glorified 
 God, saying that The like have we never seen. 
 
 2. I. again. Characteristic of this Gospel, occurring twenty-six times. 
 
 at home. Cf. i Cor. 11^*, 14 ^^ This might mean 'in a house.' 
 But probably a definite house is meant, where Christ stayed when in 
 Capharnaoum. 
 
 2. For the emphasis on the Multitude see on i ^^. 
 the word. I.e. the word of the good tidings, i '*. 
 
 3. a paralytic. napaXvTiKos is rare. It occurs in this narrative 
 in St. Mark and in the parallel in St. Matthew 9 ^^ ; also in St. 
 Matthew 4 ^\ 8 ". St. Luke prefers napaXeXv/ievos, 5 '^-^ (in 24 NCD 
 have napaXvTiKos) ; Acts 8', 9^^. It occurs also in Vettius Valens, 
 recently edited by G. Kroll, no, 34 ; 127, 21. 
 
 4. approach near, reading Trpomyyitrai with ACDr, etc., latt. 
 WH with SBL read npocreviyKm. npoa-eyyi^ai is a late and rare word 
 (Diod., Polyb., Luc). It occurs a dozen times in the LXX, but not 
 again in the New Testament, except in Acts 10 ^^ D. 
 
 because of the crowd, 8ta tov 6j(kov. D has ano tov o}(Kov. This can 
 also mean 'because of the crowd.' Cf. St. John 21 ', dn-b tov nXrjdovs. 
 But Sid and aTro look like variants of the Aramaic ,LD, which can 
 mean 'from' or 'because of.' 
 
 unroofed the roof and digging a hole seem tautologous. Well- 
 hausen" supposes that the first clause is a mistranslation of an 
 Aramaic phrase which should have been rendered 'brought him up 
 on the roof.' D omits i^opi^avT^s, but such tautology is characteristic 
 of St. Mark. 
 
 pallet (xpa^jSaTos). The word occurs five times (here and vv. "'-'^ 
 and 6^^). It denotes a poor man's bed. The First and Third Gospels 
 substitute kXwij or omit. 
 
 5. faith. The word occurs five times in this Gospel (here and in 
 4*°) 5^S lo^'j 11^^). The faith imphed here is trust or confidence in 
 Christ's power and willingness to heal disease. 
 
 thy sins are forgiven. This somewhat unexpected saying pre- 
 supposes in the mind of the sick man and his friends the common 
 popular belief in the close connection between sickness and sin, cf, 
 St. John j'Sg". 
 
 ■^ Evq.ngelium Marci. 
 
2. I3-I7-] ST. MARK 67 
 
 6. Scribes. The professional exponents and guardians of the Law. 
 
 8. His spirit. Only again in 8 1^. St. Matthew and St. Luke never 
 speak of the human spirit of Christ. On the other hand, cf. St. John 
 II ^', 13 2', 19 5°. 
 
 9. Why is it easier . . . than. Or ' Which is easier . . or.' It is 
 implied that the Scribes thought it easy to say something which 
 would have no immediate outward manifestation, whilst to say ' Arise 
 and walk ' would have led to instant exposure. 
 
 10. Son of Matt. In Daniel 7 ''' the coming Messiah is described 
 as a supernatural being coming from God out of heaven, but ' like a 
 son of man ' = ' like a man.' This phrase, ' Son of Man,' was borrowed 
 by later Apocalyptic writers (Book of Enoch, 4 Ezra) as a term 
 for the Messiah. The Lord seems to have a practice of applying it 
 to Himself, to teach that He fulfilled the expectations connected with 
 the name. It occurs in all four Gospels, but only in His mouth. 
 Elsewhere in the New Testament it is only found in Acts 7 ^\ in the 
 mouth of St. Stephen. It is thought by some'' that in the present 
 passage the original Aramaic should have been rendered ' man.' But 
 the thought that men have power to forgive sins is too difficult to be 
 brought into the passage unnecessarily. 
 
 on the earth. Because the Son of Man is the representative on the 
 earth of the One God in heaven, who alone can forgive sins (v. ''). 
 
 12. saying that. See on i ^'■ 
 
 13, 14. The call of Levi. 
 
 13. And He went out again by the sea. And all the multi- 
 tude was coming to Him, and He was teaching them. 14. And 
 passing along He saw Levi, the (son) of Alphaeus, sitting at the 
 customs ofifice. And He saith to him, 'Follow me.' And he 
 arose and followed Him. 
 
 13. all the multitude. For the emphasis on the crowd, see on i ''. 
 the sea. A too literal translation of the Semitic word, which is 
 
 used very widely of seas, lakes, and even rivers, e.g. of the Nile, 
 Is. 18 2. 
 
 14. Levi. The First Gospel substitutes ' Matthew.' The Western 
 Text (D) substitutes 'James.' 
 
 16-17. Eating with outcasts. 
 
 15. And it co7nes to pass that He sat in His house. And 
 many customs officers and sinners were sitting with Jesus and 
 His disciples. For there were many, and they were following 
 Him. 16. And the Scribes of the Pharisees, seeing that He is 
 eating with sinners and customs-officers, were saying to His 
 
 » B-g. Winstanley, Jesus and the Future, pp. 182 f. 
 
68 ST. MARK [2. i8-20. 
 
 disciples that He is eating with customs-oiScers and sinners ! 
 17. And Jesus heard and saith to them that The strong have no 
 need of a physician, but the sick. I did not come to call 
 righteous, but sinners. 
 
 15. He sits. As in i *° the subject of the clause is ambiguous. 
 St. Matthew seems to have understood the house to have been the 
 house of Jesus, c£ Int. Crit. Comm. in loc, and if St. Luke had not 
 interpreted the house to be that of Levi, probably no one would have 
 guessed it from St. Mark. For (1) Christ did not follow Levi, but 
 Levi followed Christ ; (2) ' And it comes to pass ' introduces a new 
 incident, and the ' he ' is naturally as elsewhere Jesus ; (3) ' were 
 sitting with Jesus ' means ' were the guests of Jesus.' 
 
 The house therefore was probably the house in which Jesus stayed 
 when He was in Capharnaoum, and at which He was ' at home,' 2 '. 
 
 customs-officers and sinners. The triple repetition of this phrase 
 in this and the next verse is characteristic of St. Mark. See Introd. 
 p. 12. 'Sinners' no doubt means those who were regarded with 
 disfavour by the orthodox Pharisiac Jews, because their lives were 
 not in strict accord with the Law, or because they practised a trade 
 which was looked upon with suspicion."- 
 
 16. that. oTi is generally taken as equivalent to tL Mt. and Lc. 
 substitute Sm tL But St. Mark is so fond of otl introducing oratio 
 recta after verbs of saying that it seems best to regard oi-t as so used 
 here. The words which follow are a statement expressing not in- 
 terrogation but indignation. 
 
 17. The strong (IcrxiovTes). For the verb cf Ecclus. 30''', vyifjs xai 
 
 I did iiot come. The words probably have behind them the thought 
 of the Divine Mission, cf i ^*. 
 
 righteous. I.e. in the Jewish sense of a man who endeavoured to 
 obtain righteousness by strict obedience to the Law as interpreted 
 by the Scribes. St. Luke adds ' to repentance ' {i.e. Christ came to 
 call the righteous, but not to call them to repentance) and the words 
 have crept into the later MSS. of the First and Second Gospels from 
 St. Luke 5 32. 
 
 18-20. On fasting. 
 
 18. And the disciples of John, and the Pharisees, were fasting. 
 And they come and say to Him, 'Why do the disciples of John 
 and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, and Thy disciples not 
 fast?' 19. And Jesus said to them, 'Can the sons of the 
 bride-chamber fast, whilst the bridegroom is with them? So 
 long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast. 
 20. But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken 
 from them. And then they will fast in that day. ^ 
 
 " See Additional Note. 
 
 ") 
 
2. 21, 22.] ST. MARK 
 
 69 
 
 1 8. The iteration of words and phrases is very characteristic of 
 St. Mark. See Introd. p. 12. 
 
 were fasting. Perhaps on some special occasion. But if so, it is 
 made the opportunity of raising the general question of the ethics of 
 fasting. For the question ijiust mean, not ' Why do Thy disciples 
 not observe this particular fast?' but, 'Why do they not make a 
 practice of fasting ? ' 
 
 ig. sons of the bride-chamber. A Semitic phrase used perhaps to 
 include all who took part in the marriage festivities. 
 
 The repetition of the same thought first in an interrogative form 
 and then in a negative form is characteristic of this Gospel. See 
 Introd. p. 14. 
 
 20. The tautologous ' then ... in that day ' is in the style of this 
 writer. See Introd. p. 12. 
 
 The answer is of the kind that a great teacher gives to those who 
 ask questions which he cannot answer in any way that they would 
 understand, because any complete answer would involve a statement 
 of the speaker's whole philosophy of life. If Christ had told these 
 men that true fasting implied an attitude of the spirit, not a mere 
 external observance of abstinence from material food, cf St. Matt. 
 6 '^'^j they probably would have raised the question of obedience to 
 the authority of the Law. And then discussion would have been 
 endless. Christ evades their question by an answer that will prevent 
 their continuing the subject further there and then, whilst it would 
 give them material for reflection. People do not fast during the 
 festivities of a wedding. When all is over they go back to the 
 common task of life with its usual routine of religious duty. So it 
 was with His disciples. Behind the words lies an appeal to His own 
 Personality. He was to His disciples as a bridegroom to the 
 wedding-guests, one whose presence changed the ordinary routine of 
 duty. It is not implied that in the future His disciples either will or 
 will not fast, as the Pharisees were fasting. That point is purposely 
 evaded. The emphasis is upon the present circumstances as afford- 
 ing a reason why His disciples did not fast. 
 
 Viewed in this light, the answer is an evasive one, avoiding the 
 question of the desirability of fasting as a religious practice, and 
 turning the thought of the questioners to the more profound question 
 of the nature and relation to men of the One to whom they so lightly 
 put such a question. 
 
 21, 22. On new and old. 
 
 2 1 . No one sews-(?« a patch of undressed cloth on an old 
 coat. If so, the filling takes from it, the new from the old, and 
 a worse rent results. 22. And no one puts new wine into old 
 wine-skins. If so, the wine will burst the wine-skins, and the 
 
70 ST. MARK [2. 21, 22. 
 
 wine perishes, and the wine-skins (also). But new wine into 
 fresh skins. 
 
 21. There is no connecting particle, and the evangelist may be 
 grouping sayings round a convenient incident. The previous incident 
 perhaps suggested to him the thought of the connexion between 
 new and old, the new teaching of Christ, and the old system of the 
 disciples of John and of the Pharisees. The verse is proverbial in 
 character, and so briefly expressed as to be obscure. 
 
 undressed (dyva<f>ov). A rare word, apparently in this context 
 meaning 'new,' literally 'unbleached,' 'uncarded.' But it is not 
 natural here, because no one would think of using unfinished cloth 
 to patch a coat.'' 
 
 cioi^ (paKos). Also a rare word, meaning 'rags,' and in the later 
 Greek apparently meaning a ' strip of cloth,' Artemidorus, i. 13 ; 
 Ojry. Pap., I. cxvii. 14. 
 
 sews on {linpaTZTat). The word only occurs here. St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke substitute a more common word ' puts on ' (fVi/3aXX«). 
 
 old (noKatov). In the sense of ' outworn.' 
 
 The last clause is obscure in its brevity and has caused much 
 trouble to the copyists. SBL give 'the pleroma takes from it, the 
 new of the old.' Dabefg omit 'from it,' and add 'from' before 
 'the old.' St. Matthew 19^^ shortens, 'its pleroma takes away from 
 the coat,' whilst St. Luke 5 ^^ rewrites the verse altogether. The 
 word 'pleroma' is used again in this Gospel in 6^^ of the fragments 
 of bread which filled, literally ' the fillings of,' twelve baskets. Here 
 it probably translates roughly an Aramaic word meaning ' a patch.' '' 
 
 The whole clause, therefore, may be translated : — If he does (sew 
 a piece of new cloth on an old coat), the patch takes away (i.e. drags 
 away) from it, (I mean) the new (patch drags away from) the old 
 (coat), and a worse rent is the result. 
 
 But how are we to connect this verse with the preceding ? That 
 excused the disciples of the Lord for their abstinence from fasting. 
 This also seems intended to explain why Christ did not make His 
 disciples observe rules of fasting. The Jewish system with its 
 insistence on obedience to rule as an essential part of religion was 
 like an outworn coat. To attempt to patch it by filling out its 
 insistence on the outward and external with emphasis on the greater 
 value of the inward and spiritual was not possible. The latter could 
 not cohere with a belief in the necessity of Jewish rules and regula- 
 tions, and must destroy the system of which they formed an essential 
 part. The verse, therefore, gives an additional reason why Christ's 
 disciples did not fast. Had He taught them that it was essential to 
 fast like the Pharisees, He could not also have taught them His more 
 spiritual doctrine of fasting. 
 
 " See Additional Note. i" See Wellhausen, p. 19. 
 
2. 23-28.] ST. MARK 71 
 
 22. The last verse described the result upon Judaism of attempting 
 to graft upon it , the new teaching of Christ. This verse describes 
 the effect upon both Judaism and the new teaching. But here 
 Judaism is thought of as represented by its adherents. Any attempt 
 to combine the two systems, would result in the breaking through of 
 the forms of the Jewish religion, and also in the wasting of the new 
 teaching of Christ. The two were incompatible. The passage is 
 well illustrated in the later controversy about the circumcision of the 
 Gentiles. St. Paul saw that it was impossible to combine the old 
 rite of circumcision with the new wine of faith in Christ : ' If ye 
 be circumcised Christ will profit you nothing,' Gal. 5 2. 
 
 But new wine into fresh skins. This clause is omitted by D a b ff i. 
 
 23-28. Eating on the Sabbatb. 
 
 23. And it came to pass that He vient-through through the 
 corn fields on the Sabbath ; and His disciples began to go 
 forward plucking the ears of corn. 24. And the Pharisees were 
 saying to Him, ' See, why do they on the Sabbath that which 
 is not lawful?' 25. And He saith to thera, 'Did you never 
 read what David did when he was in need and was hungry, he 
 and they who were with him. 26. He entered-in into the house 
 of God, when Abiathar was high-priest, and ate the shewbread, 
 which it is not lawful to eat, except for priests, and gave to 
 those who were together with him.' 27. And He was saying 
 to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the 
 Sabbath. 28. So that the Son of Man is Lord even of the 
 Sabbath.' 
 
 23. went-through through (reading Sianopeiea-Bai with BCD). For 
 the repetition of the preposition, cf Introd., p. 14. 
 
 The breach of the Sabbath law was the plucking, which was 
 regarded by the Scribes as a species of reaping. 
 
 go forward (oSow n-oieii/). We should expect iroielcrBai, for Judg. 
 17* is a doubtful parallel for 686v 7roieii'='to advance.' Others, 
 therefore, prefer to translate ' to make a way,' i.e. push through the 
 standing corn. So Bacon, The Beginni7igs of Gospel Story, p. 30, 
 Meyer-Weiss. 
 
 25. The arg;ument is one of analogy. The disciples had broken a 
 Sabbath rule. Yes, but they were impelled by hunger. Just so 
 David had broken a religious regulation when he was impelled by 
 hunger. If David was justified, so were the disciples. 
 
 26. Omit irSj, 'how,' at the beginning with BD. It is an assimila- 
 tion to St. Matthew 12*. Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was high-priest 
 
72 ST. MARK [3. 1-6. 
 
 at the time, cf. i Sam. 2i'^-\ This explains why St. Matthew and 
 St. Luke, and some MSS. (D, ab Syr. Sin.) in this Gospel omit the 
 clause ' when Abiathar was high-priest' 
 
 27. Cf. Mechilta ed. Winter und Wiinsche, p. 336 : ' The Sabbath is 
 given to you, it is not you who are given over to the Sabbath.' 
 
 The argument in vv. '^■^^ was that as the case of David showed, the 
 Old Testament permitted a breach of religious regulations in cases 
 of physical necessity. V.^' adds another argument. The Sabbath 
 was ordained for the sake of man, i.a. to serve his highest welfare. 
 On the other, it is not the case that man was created for the sake of 
 the Sabbath, i.e. to obey Sabbath regulations when to do so would do 
 him physical harm. The saying is omitted in the First and Third 
 Gospels. 
 
 28. This conclusion has been thought to be irrelevant to the occa- 
 sion, on the ground that it was the disciples and not the Son of Man 
 who had been accused, and that the fact that Christ as Son of Man 
 claimed authority over the Sabbath would not justify His disciples 
 for breaking it. But the Evangelist probably regarded the presence 
 of the Son of Man, and His sanction, as justifying anything that the 
 disciples did. Just as the presence of the Son of Man accounted for 
 the non-fasting attitude of His disciples, so did His presence and 
 sanction excuse their action in breaking a Sabbath regulation. 
 
 Son of Man. It has been suggested that here, as in 2 1", this 
 phrase has come in by a too literal translation of an Aramaic phrase, 
 which ought to have been translated ' man.' But the suggestion is 
 gratuitous. The meaning so obtained is more difficult than that of 
 the text. ' Jesus — n'aurait pas dit que I'homme est maitre du Sabbat 
 institue par Dieu' (Loisy, i. 312). 
 
 3. 1-6. Tbe man with tbe withered hajid. 
 
 3. I . And He entered-in again into a synagogue. And there 
 was there a man having his hand withered. 2. And they were 
 closely watching Him if He will heal him on the Sabbath, that 
 they might accuse Him. 3. And He saith to the man having 
 the withered hand, ' Get up into the midst.' 4. And He saith 
 to them, ' Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do ill, 
 to save life or to kill?' And they were silent. 5. And looking 
 round on them with anger, being grieved at the callousness of 
 their heart. He saith to the man, ' Stretch out thy hand.' And 
 he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6. And the 
 Pharisees went out and forthwith were making a plan with the 
 Herodians against Him that they might destroy Him. 
 
3. 7-12.] ST. MARK 73 
 
 3- 1. a synagogue. Presumably the synagogue at Capharnaoum. 
 again. See Introd., p. 19. 
 
 2. closely watching. The verb (napaTi]pea>) occurs three times in 
 St. Luke of the hostile observation of Christ by the Scribes and 
 Pharisees (6\ 14 1, 20 20). 
 
 5. looking round. This descriptive touch occurs five times in this 
 Gospel (3 s^ S 32, 10 23, 1 1 11) and once in St. Luke (6 1" = St. Mark 3 % 
 In the First Gospel it is omitted in each case. 
 
 with anger., being grieved at the callousness of their heart. The 
 words are omitted in the later Synoptists. D. Syr. Sin. have veKpdxreL 
 for TTcopaxTfi. 
 
 6. forthwith. See Introd. p. 19. 
 
 Herodians are mentioned here and in 12 1' ( = St. Matthew 22'^) 
 only. They were presumably men who favoured the Herodian dynasty, 
 which was regarded by the majority of the nation as a foreign usur- 
 pation. The combination ' Pharisees and Herodians ' sounds odd. 
 But both parties would find grounds for disliking the popularity of 
 Jesus. The Pharisees would see in His Messianit claims and in 
 His latitudinarian attitude to the externals of religion a danger to, 
 established religion, and the Herodians would see in the popular readi- 
 ness to recognise Him as the Messiah the seeds of political unrest, 
 and of consequent danger to the ruling dynasty. 
 
 making a plan. a-v)j,pov\i,ov eSiSovv, BL., inoirjtrav NC. On the 
 phrase, see note on 1 5 1. 
 
 7-12. The popularity of Jesus. 
 
 7. And Jesus with His disciples withdrew to the sea. And a 
 great multitude from Galilee followed. 8. And from Judaea, 
 and from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and beyond Jordan, 
 and about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, hearing what He 
 is doing, came to Him. 9. And He said to His disciples that a 
 little boat should wait upon Him because of the crowd, that 
 they might not press upon Him. 10. For He healed many, so 
 that as many as had plagues fell upon Him, that they might 
 touch Him. 11. And the unclean spirits, whenever they were 
 beholding Him, were falli?ig down before Him, and were crying 
 out saying Ma^^ Thou art the Son of God. 12. And He was 
 censuring them much that they might not make Him manifest. 
 
 7. withdrew (dvaxapea)). Only here in this Gospel ; more frequent 
 in St. Matthew. The withdrawal was only temporary. Cf v. 2°. 
 
 sea. See on 21^. 
 
 multitude (irXridos). A common Lucan word. In this Gospel only 
 here and in the next verse. 
 
74 ST. MARK [3. 13-19 
 
 8. a great multitude. The repetition of a phrase is characteristic 
 of this Gospel. See Introd. p. 12. 
 
 At first the fame of Christ was confined to Galilee, i ^s. Now it 
 has spread throughout the whole extent of Palestine. From Galilee 
 the list of places runs due south. Samaria is passed over because 
 the Samaritans would take no interest in a Galilean Messiah. But 
 from Judaaa and its capital, and from Idumaea, south of the Dead 
 Sea, His fame drew pilgrims to Him. Idumaa had been judaised 
 by John Hyrcanus, c. 128 B.C. ; see Schiirer i. I. 280. The list then 
 turns east to the country lying east of the Jordan, i.e. Persea, between 
 the Arnon and the Jabbok, and then leaps to the north-east, to the 
 Phoenician seaboard. 
 
 9. wait upon {irpoa-KapTepea). Only here in the Gospels. It means 
 ' to persist obstinately in,' or ' to adhere to,' ' be faithful to.' There 
 seems no parallel for its use of an inanimate object. 
 
 because of the crowd. The emphasis upon the crowd is character- 
 istic of this Gospel. 
 
 10. many. St. Matthew has 'all,' cf. on i ''. 
 
 plagues. Literally ' whips ' or ' scourges ' {paa-Tiyai). Occurs again 
 in 5 '^■^^ of an issue of blood, and in St. Luke 7 ^' as a parallel to 
 'diseases.' 
 
 fell upon. A forcible word, iirmlweiv. Cf. Acts 20 ^"j but no exact 
 parallel to its use here has been found. Field, Notes on the Transla- 
 tion of the New Testament, quotes Thuc, vii. 84. 
 
 11. that. See Introd. p. 19. 
 
 12. much. See Introd. p. 19. 
 
 13-19. Tlie appointment of the Apostles. 
 
 13. And He goes up into the mountain, z.xv6. summons ^\iOxa 
 He was wishing. And they went to Him. 14. And He 
 appointed twelve that they might be with Him, and that He 
 might send them forth to preach, 15. and to have authority 
 to cast out demons. And He appointed the twelve; 16. and 
 gave to Simon the additional name Peter; 17. and James the 
 son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James. And He added 
 to them names, Boanerges, which is 'sons of thunder.' 18. And 
 Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and 
 Thomas, and James the son of Alphasus, and Thaddaeus, 
 19. and Simon the Canaanean, and Judas Iscarioth, who also 
 delivered Him over. 
 
 13- go^^ up . . . summons. For the historic presents see Introd. 
 p. 15. 
 
 14. twelve. The clause, 'whom also He named apostles,' which 
 
3. 2o, 21.] ST. MARK 75 
 
 follows in most MSS., is omitted by D latt. Syr. Sin., and is probably 
 an interpolation from St. Luke 6 ^K WH keep it. 
 
 appointed. Literally ' made,' a Semitism. 
 
 to preach. D latt. add 'the good tidings.' This may be right. 
 The twelve would go forth to preach the same message as Christ 
 Himself of the nearness of the kingdom. 
 
 15. And He appointed the twelve. D latt. Syr. Sin. omit. The 
 repetition is somewhat in the manner of St. Mark. But there is no 
 exact parallel. ' This appears to me a dittography of the most puerile 
 description ' (Clark, The Most Primitive Text of the Gospels^ p. 108). 
 But the verse is very awkward. We should expect ' Simon, and He 
 gave to Him the name Peter.' 
 
 17. of James. For the repetition of the proper name instead of the 
 pronoun, see on 1 1". 
 
 Boanerges. Boane is apparently an awkward transliteration of 
 the Semitic 'sons of,' which should have only one vowel between 
 b and n. rges in the sense 'thunder' is unknown. 
 
 names. So NACL, etc., and Von Soden. BD, WH have the 
 singular. The plural is probably original, and if so the still un- 
 explained Boanerges probably combines two names, and 6 eVi-ii/ 
 v\o\ ^povTTJs is a later gloss. It is omitted by Syr. Sin. For 'he added 
 to them names,' eTredrjKev avTots ovofiara, cf. Dan. i^' (LXX). 
 
 18. Thaddaeus. Dabffiq have Lebbaeus. St. Luke substitutes 
 'Judas of James,' St. Luke 61", Acts i '3. 
 
 19. Canaanean. The word has nothing to do with Canaan. It is 
 a transliteration of the Aramaic tWp, meaning 'zealous,' 'a Zealot.' 
 This was a name given to an extreme political party amongst the 
 Jews. References to them are found in Josephus, B.J., iv. 3, 10, 
 V. I, 2, vii. 8, I. Cf Schiirer, i. 2, 80. 
 
 Iscariot. Is generally explained as a transliteration of a Hebrew 
 compound word meaning ' man of Kerioth,' but no parallel for such 
 a compound at this period has been found. It may be a translitera- 
 tion of the Aramaised Latin word sicarius, an assassin. The word 
 found its way into Greek as a name for fanatical political Jews, 
 cf Acts 21 ^', and at a later period Josephus, B.J., vii. 10, i, and often. 
 If one of the twelve, Simon, was a member of the Zealots, it would 
 not be surprising to find another a member of the Sicarii. 
 
 20, 21. The accusation of madness. 
 
 20. And He comes-in into a house. And there gathers 
 together again the crowd, so that they were not able to eat 
 bread. 21. And His friends heard, and went out to restrain 
 Him. For they were saying that He is out of His senses. 
 
 20. into a house. Or ' home.' Cf. 2 '. 
 
76 ST. MARK [3. 22-30. 
 
 comes . . . gathers together. For the historic presents cf. Introd. 
 p. 15. 
 
 were not able. There is a double negative here which is character- 
 istic of St. Mark. Cf. Introd. p. 14. For the emphasis on the 
 inconvenience caused by the pressure of the crowd, see 2 ^. 
 
 21. His friends. Literally 'those from Him' (oJ Trap' airoC). This 
 might be His disciples, but probably means His relatives, i.e. His 
 mother and His brethren, as v.^' shows." 
 
 they were saying. Probably the friends just referred to, not men 
 in general. 
 
 He is out of His senses (e|«'(rT?;). Objection was very early felt to 
 this estimate of Christ's conduct. St. Matthew and St. Luke omit the 
 two verses. D here reverses the meaning. Christ was not Himself 
 out of His senses, but He drove the people out of their senses, 
 e^cVraT-at avTovs, SO D a b flf i q. 
 
 22-30. Tlie accusation of reliance upon Eeezeboul. 
 
 22. And the Scribes who came down from Jerusalem were 
 saying that He hath Beezeboul, and that by the ruler of the 
 demons He casts out demons. 23. And having summoned 
 them He was speaking to them in parables, How can Satan 
 cast out Satan ? 24. And if a kingdom be divided against 
 itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25. And if a house be 
 divided against itself, that house shall not be able to stand. 
 26. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he 
 cannot stand, but hath an end. 27. But no one can enter-/« 
 into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except 
 he first bind the strong man, and then he will spoil his house. 
 28. Verily I say to you, that all sins shall be forgiven to the 
 sons of men, and whatsoever blasphemies they utter. • 29. But 
 whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath not 
 forgiveness for ever, but is guilty of an eternal sin. 30. Because 
 they were saying He has an unclean spirit. 
 
 22. Beezeboul. This name is unknown outside the Gospels. It is 
 for that reason a token of their truthfulness. MSS. differ between 
 Beezeboul and Beelzeboul. In either case the first part of the word 
 will be the Aramaic Beel=Lord, and the second is apparently either 
 zebul = ' (heavenly) dwelling,' or zibbul = ' dung.' St. Matthew 10 ^, 
 and possibly St. Mark 3 ^'', seem to play on the former word. We 
 must suppose that, like Satan and Belial, Beezeboul was an arch- 
 demon. The Syriac and the Latin Vulgate substitute for this 
 unknown name the Beelzeboub of 2 Kings i ^ 
 
 » So Klostermann, Swete, Meyer- Weiss. 
 
3. 3I-3S-] ST. MARK 77 
 
 by the ruler of the demons. This, as the next verse shows, was 
 Satan, not Beezeboul. The two assertions are parallel, not identical. 
 
 23. parables. The word {■n-apa^o'Xrj) is here used, as the following 
 verses show, in the sense of ' metaphor.' The charge that He received 
 assistance from the ruler of the demons was contrary to common 
 sense. Satan could not act so against his own interests. The fact 
 that He cast out demons should lead not to the inference that He 
 was acting under commission from Satan, but to the conclusion that 
 He had mastered Satan, and was driving out his subordinate demons. 
 
 25. house. Here in the sense of 'household,' and perhaps with the 
 special meaning of royal dynasty. 
 
 27. the strotig maiz. The saying about the strong man was a 
 common metaphor. Cf. Is. 49 2*, Ps. Sol. 5''. There maybe here a 
 play on the name Beelzebul taken as meaning ' master of the dwelling.' 
 So far from acting as his subordinate, Christ in casting out demons 
 showed Himself as one who had overcome the 'master of the house,' 
 and was evicting his servants. 
 
 28. sons of ?uen. Only here is this Aramaism ( = men) retained in 
 full. The charge of being commissioned by Satan was not only 
 contrary to common sense, and a wrong deduction from the premises. 
 It was also a wilful perversion of the truth. It substituted Satan for 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 29. An eternal sin (d/iaprijjLiaT-os, KBLA. Kpio-twr, A, etc.). The 
 idea is that so long as they persisted in transposing values, stating that 
 to be bad which was good, and attributing the action of the Holy 
 Spirit to the Devil, they were beyond the hope of forgiveness. Such 
 a state of mind might very easily become perpetual. But the phrase 
 is not an easy one. The variant 'judgment ' seems to be an attempt 
 to substitute a verbally easier expression, 'is liable to a judgment 
 which will be eternal and irrevocable.' In Aramaic the word for ' sin' 
 (N3in) can also have the sense of ' punishment for sin.' "■ 
 
 30. A comment by the evangelist. See on 7 ''. 
 
 31-35. Cbrist and His kinsfolk. 
 
 31. And there come His mother and His brethren. And 
 they stood outside and sent to Him, calling Him. 32. And a 
 crowd sat about Him. And they say to Him, Behold, Thy 
 mother and Thy brethren outside are seeking Thee. 33. And 
 He answered them and saith, Who is My mother? And my 
 brethren? 34. And He looked round at those who were in a 
 circle about Him and saiih, 35. See, My mother and My 
 brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is My 
 brother, and sister, and mother. 
 
 * See Dr. J. T. Marshall, Expositor, 4th Series, vol. iii. p. 282. 
 
78 ST. MARK [4. 1-20. 
 
 31. come. Cf. Introd. p. 15. In v.^' His relatives tried to check 
 Him in His ministry. Here they are further defined as His mother 
 and His brethren. We can therefore understand the renunciatory 
 tone of Christ's words. His mother and His brethren were not those 
 who tried to thwart His work, but they who did the will of God as 
 He Himself did. He exemplifies here in His own person the same 
 lesson of renunciation of earthly relationships for the sake of con- 
 science which He elsewhere recommended to others. Cf 10 ^''. 
 
 32. thy brethren. So XBC, etc. D, etc. latt. add 'and thy sisters.' 
 This may be original. So Von Soden. 
 
 34. looked round. See on 3 ". 
 
 35. do the 'Will. Compare Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,^ 5 ^', 
 'Be bold as a leopard, and swift as an eagle, and fleet as an hart, 
 and strong as a lion to do the will of thy Father which is in heaven'; 
 2 *, ' Do His will as if it were thy will.' The phrase is frequent in the 
 Mechiltha (ed. Winter und Wiinsche), pp. 37, 57, 86, 119, 124, 125, 
 129, 305, 338, 340. Cf also Berakhoth, \bb, 'It is our will to do 
 Thy will.' 
 
 4. 1-20. The Parable of the Sower. 
 
 4. I. And again He began to teach by the sea. And there 
 gathers together to Him a very great crowd, so that He embarked 
 into a boat, and sat down in the sea.'^ And all the crowd was by 
 the sea on the land. 2. And He was teaching them in parables 
 many things, and was saying to them in His teaching, 3. Hear 
 ye ! Behold, the sower went out to sow. 4. And it came to 
 pass in the sowing some fell along the path, and the birds came 
 and ate it. 5. And other fell vipon the stony ground, and where 
 it had not much earth. And forthwith it sprang up because it 
 had not depth of earth. 6. And when the sun rose it was 
 scorched, and because it had no root it was withered. 7. And 
 other fell into thorns, and the thorns sprang up, and choked it, 
 and it produced no fruit. 8. And other fell into the good 
 ground, and was producing fruit in .successive crops, and was 
 bringing forth, thirtyfold, and sixtyfold, and a hundredfold. 
 
 9. And He was saying, He who hath ears to hear, let him hear. 
 
 10. And when He was alone they who were about Him with the 
 t^e\v& were asking Him the parables. 11. And He was saying 
 to them. To you the secret of the kingdom of God has been 
 given. But to those outside all things happen in parables. 
 
 « Pirke Aboth in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. 
 Charles, vol. ii. 
 b See Additional Note. 
 
4. I-20.] ST. MARK 79 
 
 1 2. In order that seeing they may see, and not perceive, and 
 hearing they may hear, and not understand, lest they should 
 turn and be forgiven. 
 
 4. I. again. Cf. Introd. p. 19. 
 
 sea. See on 2 ''. 
 
 gathers. Cf. Introd. p. 15. 
 
 so that. For the result of the pressure of the crowd, cf 2 ^, 3 2". 
 
 2. parables. Not, as in 3^^, 'metaphors,' but illustrations drawn 
 from the processes of agriculture to serve as vehicles of spiritual 
 teaching. 
 
 8. in successive crops (dva^mvovra xal ai^avojxeva NB). Literally 
 ' going up and increasing,' the two participles being in agreement with 
 ' other.' Another reading {aiiavofievov ACDLA) makes the participles 
 agree with ' fruit,' which gives a less suitable sense. 
 
 thirtyfold, etc. WH have fi's rpiuKovTo koI iv i^rjKovTa Kal iv 
 (KaTov with CIS — fir as marginal variants for iv — iv. Von Soden 
 gives eh — ds — eis-. The Aramaic underlying these variants was no 
 
 doubt nn hv ornn. Cf Gen. 26 12, HND ~\n ^j; = one hundredfold, 
 Dan. 3 1^ nvnty in. The writer of the First Gospel has avoided the 
 Aramaism by substituting — — 0. 
 
 9. hear. Dabfifi add kqI 6 a-vvlav (rvviiTa. This may well be 
 original, as the duplication of similar clauses is Marcan in style. 
 
 10. asking Hitn the parables. St. Matthew understands this to 
 mean asking the reason why He spoke in parables. But v. i-' rather 
 suggests that the phrase means 'asked for aii interpretation of the 
 parable.' And so St. Luke understood it. Of course in this case we 
 should have expected the singular, 'parable.' AIIS, etc., read this, 
 and so Von Soden. 
 
 Perhaps the phrase is intentionally ambiguous, ' asked Him about 
 the parables, both why He used this method of teaching, and what 
 the parables signified.' 
 
 11. A very obscure verse. What is the secret of the kingdom 
 which had been given to the disciples, and to others (those about 
 Him). Perhaps the truth of its spiritual character, and of its speedy 
 coming. Something of this had been revealed to the disciples, and 
 they ought to have behind the parable of the Sower the lessons about 
 the kingdom which it was intended to teach. 
 
 those outside will then be all who had not received this ' secret,' all 
 who could only interpret in a materialistic way anything that was said 
 about the kingdom. 
 
 What then is the meaning of the sentence ' all things happen in 
 parables ' ? Perhaps it is wider than ' My teaching about the kingdom 
 is given in parables' : 'To those who have not perceived the essen- 
 tially spiritual nature of the kingdom, all things. My life. My person, 
 
So ST. MARK [4. 1-20. 
 
 My teaching, is all of the nature of a parable, i.e. a story of which 
 they hear the words, but do not catch the underlying meaning.' 
 
 secret (/ivo-nypioj/). The word is quite common in this sense. Cf. 
 Judith 2 2, Tobit 12 ^ 2 Mace. 13'-', Wisd. 2^2, Ecclus. 22^2, Test. 
 Levi 2'°, Test. Jud. 12^, Test. Gad. 6^ The conception of eschato- 
 logical ideas, including that of the kingdom, as ' secrets ' is especially 
 characteristic of apocalyptic literature. See Yo\z,Judiscke Eschato- 
 logie, p. 5. There is no need to introduce unnecessary difficulty here 
 by calling fiva-Trjpiov a 'Pauline word' (Bacon, p. 48). It was a common 
 word in this sense long before St. Paul used it. 
 
 12. in order that. The following words are a quotation from 
 Is. 6" : 'In order that they may be like the people of whom Isaiah 
 wrote.' The difficulty for us moderns is the 'in order that.' It 
 suggests that the Lord's teaching and His whole life were made 
 intentionally obscure, to prevent the people from understanding its 
 inner meaning. It seems probable that St. Mark has mistranslated 
 an Aramaic conjunction, whiqh should have been rendered 'because.' 
 St. Matthew has seen the difficulty, and has substituted 'because.' 
 St. Luke omits the whole clause. Restoring ' because,' we may para- 
 phrase the two verses thus : ' To you the clue to the meaning of My 
 Person and its relation to the coming spiritual kingdom has been 
 revealed. You ought, therefore, to be able to penetrate beneath the 
 words of the parable to its inner teaching about the kingdom. But 
 to those outside, the parable remains a mere tale. And the rfeason 
 why that is so, is that they are like the people of whom Isaiah wrote 
 that they saw without really seeing, and heard without under- 
 standing.' 
 
 13. And He saith to them, Do ye not know this parable, and 
 how shall you understand all the parables ? 14. The Sower 
 soweth the word. 15. And these are they by the wayside, 
 where the word is being sown, and when they hear forthwith 
 comes the Satan and takes away the word which is sown into 
 them. 16. And they likewise who are being sown upon stony 
 places are they who, when they hear the word, forthwith with 
 joy receive it, 17. and have not root in themselves, but are 
 ephemeral. Then, when affliction or persecution comes on 
 account of the word, forthwith they are ensnared. 18. And 
 others are they who are being sown into the thorns. These 
 are they who heard the word, 19. and the cares of the age 
 and the deceit of riches and desires after the other things 
 enteringin choke the word, and it becomes without fruit. 20. 
 And they who were sown into the good ground are those who 
 hear the word and welcome it, and bring forth fruit, thirtyfold, 
 and sixtyfold, and a hundredfold. 
 
4 21-25.] ST. MARK 8i 
 
 13. Because you have been entrusted with, the secret of the 
 kingdom, you ought to have seen through the parable. 
 
 14. The word. I.e. the good tidings announced by Christ. Cf. 
 on I 1*. 
 
 1 5. and these are they by the wayside. There is a curious Semitic 
 lack of precision in the explanations of the details of the parable. It 
 was seed which was sown by the wayside. Here we read of people 
 by the wayside. An English writer would have written something 
 like the following : 'The seed sown by the wayside in the parable 
 represents in life the people who hear the message, but,' etc. 
 
 16. Again the same confusion of language. It was seed, not 
 persons, which was sown. But the seed sown in the parable repre- 
 sents in life the circumstances of a class of persons, and the writer 
 carries back the gender of the persons to the seed sown which repre- 
 sented them. 
 
 17. ephemeral (irpoa-Katpoi). The word occurs in 4 Mace. 15^, 
 2 Cor. 4^*, Heb. 11 '% and late Greek writers (Dion. H., Plut., Luc). 
 
 ensnared (a-KavSoKi^ovTai). A still rarer word, occurring outside 
 the New Testament only in Dan. 1 1 *', LXX, Ecclus. 9 °, 23 *, 
 35 '° ; in the versions of Aquila and Symmachus ; in Ps. Sol. 16'' ; and 
 Church writers. See Additional Note. 
 
 18. The wayside, the stony ground, and the thorns, represent three 
 classes of unreceptive hearers. Wayside is untilled land. It repre- 
 sents those who hear casually and incidentally. Because they had 
 no will to hear, they have no capacity to retain either. What is heard 
 is soon forgotten. The stony ground represents also those who hear 
 a message which finds no real response in their hearts. It lies on 
 the surface, and circumstances antagonistic to its growth soon destroy 
 it. The stones suggest persecution. But we should have expected 
 the thorns to have been chosen for this. The thorny ground repre- 
 sents such as have perhaps some power of response to the message, 
 but more liking for worldly things, which soon prove to be the more 
 attractive of the two. 
 
 20. thirty/old. See on v. ''. 
 
 21-26. Sayings on parables. 
 
 21. And He was saying to them that Does the lamp come 
 to be placed under the bushel or tinder the bed ? (Is it) not 
 (brought) to be placed upon the lampstand? 22. For there is 
 not anything hidden, except that it may be made manifest. 
 23. Nor did it become concealed, but that it might come into 
 manifestness. 24. And He was saying to them. Take heed how 
 ye hear. With what measure ye mete it shall be measured to 
 
 ST. MARK F 
 
82 ST. MARK [4. 21-25. 
 
 you and shall be added to you. 25. For he who has, there 
 shall be given to him. And he who has not, even what he 
 has shall be taken from him. 
 
 21. St. Matthew and St. Luke have this saying in a slightly 
 different form and in different context. In St. Matthew 5 '^ it occurs 
 in the Sermon on the Mount, after the saying, ' Ye are the light of the 
 world.' The lamp there seems to illustrate the position of the dis- 
 ciples as teachers of the Gospel. In St. Luke 8 '^ it comes, as here in 
 St. Mark, after the Parable of the Sower. In St. Luke 11 ^' it seems 
 to signify the preaching of Christ, who was greater than Solomon 
 or Jonah. His teaching therefore needed no sign, as did Jonah's, 
 and should be kept in prominence. 
 
 Here in St. Mark, in its present position, it seems to have refer- 
 ence to the parables. But the connection is not obvious. Perhaps 
 
 (1) The explanation of the parable just given is like a lamp. You 
 must not hide it ; or 
 
 (2) The secret of the kingdom entrusted to you, which should have 
 enabled you to understand the parable, is like a lamp to give light to 
 others ; or 
 
 (3) The 'seed' of the parable, i.e. God's message, is like a lamp, 
 and must be made prominent. 
 
 The various forms of the saying deserve notice. For St. Mark's 
 'come' St. Matthew has 'light' (Koi'm), and St. Luke 'kindle' (airTm). 
 These variants might perhaps go back to an Aramaic original, NtX = 
 'kindle,' confused with XDX = ' come.' "• St. Mark has a 'bushel' and 
 a ' bed,' St. Matthew a ' bushel ' only, St. Luke once (8 '^) has a ' vessel ' 
 and a 'bed,' and once (i i ^') a 'secret place' and a 'bushel.' These 
 variants suggest that the illustration was one used more than once by 
 Christ, in slightly varying terms. 
 
 St. Mark's connection need not be original. His eXe-yev may mean 
 ' used to say,' and the saying thus referred to may have been added 
 here by St. Mark because he thought it was not out of place. 
 
 22. St. Matthew has this saying in a more grammatical form in 
 10 2'', in the charge to the twelve, 'For there is nothing covered 
 which shall not be revealed, and hidden which shall not be made 
 known.' The reference there is to Christ's te^-ching, which the 
 apostles are to promulgate. In St. Luke it occurs twice, in 8 ", 
 ' For there is nothing hidden which shall not become manifest, nor 
 concealed which shall not be known and come into manifestness,' 
 and in 12 2, 'And there is nothing covered which shall not be revealed, 
 and hidden which shall not be known.' 
 
 Here in St. Mark it seems to be in connection with the idea of the 
 previous verse : 
 
 " So Dr. J. T. Marshall, Expositor, 4th Series, vol. iii. p. 459. I am very 
 doubtful about this, as I can find no parallel for NTS of lighting a lamp. 
 
4. 26-29.] ST. MARK 83 
 
 (i) The parable was given in order to be explained ; or 
 
 (2) The ' secret of the kingdom ' is intended to be transmitted to 
 others ; or 
 
 (3) God's 'word' is sown only that it may spring up into light. 
 Cf. Eph. 38. 
 
 But the connection may be due to St. Mark's stringing together 
 detached sayings illustrative of Christ's parabolic teaching. 
 
 What is striking in St. Mark's form of the saying by contrast to 
 those found in the other two Gospels is the idea of purpose, ' Hidden, 
 except in order that it may become manifest.' If this is not due to 
 mistranslation of some Aramaic phrase, rightly restored in the ' which 
 shall not be' of St. Matthew and St. Luke (St. Mark's iav ^irj "va = 
 
 1 X?N, whilst St. Matthew's 6 ovk = NPl), we may compare Eph. 3 ", 
 ' The mystery which was hidden ... in order that it may now be 
 made known.' 
 
 24. The saying, ' With what measure ye mete it shall be measured 
 to you,' is a very common one in second-century Rabbinic writings 
 (?._§■. Mechilta, ed. Winter und Wunsche, pp. 76, 79, 126, 128, 133, 173), 
 and was probably a current maxim in the lifetime of Christ. St. 
 Matthew places it in the Sermon on the Mount with reference to 
 judgment of others (7 2), and St. Luke in his Sermon on the Plain 
 (6 ^*). Here it seems intended to commend attention in hearing the 
 parables. The man who will give attention and thought to them will 
 learn their hidden meaning. He has capacity to give, and he gives, 
 and there is given to him in return. 
 
 25. This verse occurs twice in St. Matthew, in 13 '^ in a different 
 connection, and in 25 ^'■' in connection with the Parable of the Talents. 
 In St. Luke it occurs similarly in 8 ^', which is parallel to this verse 
 of St. Mark, and in 19^^ in the Parable of the Pounds. 
 
 It may have been added because of its similarity to v. ^^ ; or per- 
 haps the meaning is, ' If a man has no capacity for understanding 
 the hidden meaning of the parables, and no willingness ta reflect 
 upon them, even the memory of the words is taken from him and 
 there is nothing left.' 
 
 26-29. The seed growing secretly. 
 
 26. And He was saying. So is the kingdom of God as a man 
 casts seed upon the earth, 27. and sleeps and rises night and 
 day. And the seed sprouts and increases, how he knoweth 
 not. 28. For of itself the earth brings forth fruit, first a stalk, 
 then an ear, then full corn in the ear. 29. And when the fruit 
 presents itself, forthwith he sends forth the sickle because the 
 harvest is come. 
 
 26. This parable occurs in the Second Gospel only. 
 
 So is the kingdom of God. I.e. so is the process through which 
 
§4 ST. MARK [4. 30-32. 
 
 the preaching of the good news about the kingdom ends in the 
 coming of the kingdom. The good news is preached by Christ just 
 as seed is sown by the sower. Then follows a period during which 
 the preacher seems to take as little part in the effects of the preaching 
 as the sower does in the growth of the seed from grain to ripe corn. 
 But when the preaching has produced the disciples of the kingdom, 
 then the kingdom will be inaugurated, just as harvest follows the 
 appearance of the ripe ears. 
 
 as a man casts = its avdpaivos PaKji. But this reading of NBDLA is 
 not Greek. AC, etc., rightly have ras eai/. The eav has dropped out 
 before ai/dpamos. So Blass, Textkrit. Bemerk. zu Markus. But see 
 Moulton, Grammar, p. 185. 
 
 27. sleeps and rises. I.e. continues his ordinary life and pursuits, 
 waiting for the harvest without concerning himself actively about the 
 growth of his crop. This is carried on invisibly by the energy 
 inherent in the seed. 
 
 28. full corn. B has nXr/pes a-iros, D nXrjprjs o triros, C TrXrjpjjs <nTov, 
 XAL, etc., wXripT] a-iTov. Hort, Notes, p. 24, thought the reading of C 
 original. So Moulton, Grammar, p. 50, who gives the evidence for 
 nXrjprjs as an indeclinable adjective. 
 
 t/ken. fhfv, Ba, is a rare dialectic form of eha, which is here the 
 reading of ACD. elrev only here in the New Testament. Von Soden 
 reads fira, WH elrev. 
 
 29. prese?tts itself {napahoi), or ' permits.' But neither sense is very 
 satisfactory with K.apir6s. Blass suggests Koipos, ' time ' (of harvest). 
 
 /le sends forth the sickle, etc. Cf. Joel 3", LXX. e^aTroa-TeiXaTe 
 dpeirapa ort 7rap4a"n]K€v Tpvyrjros. 
 
 30-32. The mustard seed. 
 
 30. And He was saying, How shall we liken the kingdom of 
 God, or in what parable shall we place it? 31. As a grain of 
 mustard seed, which when it is sown upon the earth — being less 
 than all seeds on the earth — 32. and when it is sown, it comes 
 up and becomes greater than all herbs, and produces great 
 branches, so that the birds of heaven can dwell under its shade. 
 
 30. This introduction is not unlike the usual opening of a parable 
 in the second-century and later Jewish literature, 'A parable. To 
 what is the matter like ? To,' etc. 
 
 31. For Jewish parables beginning with 'As' see Fiebig, Altjud. 
 Gleichnisse, p. 78. 
 
 The grammar in this verse, as frequently in St. Mark, is very con- 
 fused. The sentence begins with a masculine pronoun, oj, and then 
 passes into the neuter, fUKporepov Sv — p.€'i(ov. But the repetition of 
 ' when it is sown ' is characteristic of St. Mark's style. 
 
4- 33-34-] ST. MARK 85 
 
 The parable seems to describe the propagation of the good news 
 of the kingdom. It will spread rapidly and win many.disciples. The 
 point of the parable is often misunderstood. It is supposed to teach 
 that the kingdom of God, = the Church, will rise slowly through the 
 centuries within human society until it becomes the home of the souls 
 of men." ' The parable,' says Mr. Streeter, ' is meaningless unless it 
 is intended to expressly enforce the idea of gradual growth.' The 
 same idea is read into the sister Parable of the Leaven, which is said 
 to represent the kingdom ' as an influence slowly pervading society.' 
 
 Now it is certain that if the wish were not father to the thought 
 no one would have supposed that leavening could symbolise a 
 slow process, or the life of a mustard seed a gradual growth. A 
 cedar or an oak would have been appropriate for this, but ' the 
 mustards are annuals, reproduced with extraordinary rapidity wher- 
 ever the seed finds a lodgment.' ^ 
 
 In all the three parables of this chapter the kingdom is likened to 
 the result of a process. In the first, the sower, the result of this 
 process ( =the kingdom) is implied, not mentioned. The parable deals 
 only with the period of preparation. The seed is the word (v. '*), 
 i.e. the good tidings of the coming kingdom. See on i ^^, 2 ^. The 
 parable deals with the necessity of receptivity in the hearts of those 
 who are to receive it. 
 
 The second parable, the seed growing secretly, introduces the 
 kingdom as the result of such a period of the preaching of the good 
 tidings. It is the final harvest, when preaching is over and the 
 supernatural agency behind the preacher and in his message has 
 effected its work. 
 
 The third parable, the mustard seed, again describes the kingdom 
 as the final result of a growth. If there be any intention to emphasise 
 the thought of time and the duration of such growth, the choice of a 
 mustard seed must have been intended to suggest rapidity of growth 
 and the nearness of the kingdom, which the maturity of the seed 
 symbolised. 
 
 33-34. Epilogue. 
 
 33. And with many such parables He was speaking to them 
 the word, as they were able to hear. 34. And without a 
 parable He was speaking not to them. But privately to His 
 disciples He was interpreting everything. 
 
 34. Seems to suggest that Christ's normal method of preaching to 
 the multitude was the use of such parables as those recorded. They 
 could not understand direct teaching about the kingdom. Cf. v. '". 
 ' The word,' i.e. the good tidings of the kingdom, could only be 
 
 * Studies in tke Synoptic Problein, p. 427. 
 '' Post in P.B., vol. iii. p. 463. 
 
86 ST. MARK [4- 35-41- 
 
 given to them in the form of a story. Cf. Tennyson, In Memoriam, 
 xxxvi. : 
 
 ' For Wisdom dealt with mortal powers, 
 Where truth in closest words shall fail, 
 When truth embodied in a tale 
 Shall enter in at lowly doors.' 
 
 as they were able to hear. Seems to mean 'because only in this 
 way, i.e. in parables, could they receive the word.' 
 
 35-41. The stilling of the storm. 
 35. And He saith to them on that day when evening came. 
 Let us cross to the other side. 36. And leaving the multitude 
 they take Him with them, as He was, in the boat. And other 
 boats were with Him. 37. And there comes a great hurricane 
 of wind, and the waves were dashing against the boat, so that 
 the boat was now full. 38. And He was in the stern, sleeping 
 on the headrest. And they wake Him and say to Him, Teacher, 
 is it no care to Thee that we are perishing ? 39. And He arose 
 and censured the wind, and said to the sea, Hush, be quiet. 
 And the wind ceased, and there came a great calm. 40. And 
 He said to them. Why are ye cowardly ? Have ye not yet faith ? 
 41. And they feared with great fear, and were saying to one 
 another. Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea 
 obey Him? 
 
 35. on that day. The order of events is not quite clear. In 4' 
 Christ embarked in a boat and taught the people from it. But in 
 V. '" He is alone with His disciples. Now in v. ^^ He is in the boat 
 again. We must regard vv. '°'^°, and perhaps also ^"^ and ^i'^*, as a 
 parenthesis placed here to illustrate the way in which Christ was 
 accustomed to teach such an audience as that which He had before 
 Him on the seashore. 
 
 36. as He was. I.e. without any preparation. Christ was in the 
 boat, and when evening came they set sail without first landing. 
 
 and other boats were with Him. One of the details omitted by 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke. 
 
 37. there comes. For the historic present see Introd., p. 15. 
 the boat - . . the boat. For the repetition see Introd., p. 12. 
 
 38. The clause about the headrest is omitted by St. Matthew and 
 St. Luke. 
 
 they wake Him and say to Him. For the present tenses see 
 Introd., p. 15. 
 is it no care to Thee that we perish t The indignant question is 
 
5. I-20.] ST. MARK 87 
 
 softened in the later Gospels, 'Save, we perish' (St. Matthew 8^*), or 
 simply 'we perish' (St. Luke &^*). See Introd., p. 20. 
 
 39. Hush, be quiet. The latter word (c^t/xdo)) is a strong one, used 
 already in i ^°. 
 
 40. The rebuke is a strong one, and is softened in the later Gospels, 
 'Why are ye cowardly, O ye of little faith ?' St. Matthew 8 '■''' ; ' Where 
 is your faith ? ' St. Luke 8 ^6. 
 
 41. they feared. St. Matthew 8 2', to turn the reader's mind from 
 the disciples, inserts ' men ' as the subject, and changes ' feared ' into 
 ' marvelled.' 
 
 5. 1-20. The Gerasene demoniac. 
 
 5. I. And they came to the other side of the sea, into the 
 country of the Gerasenes. 2. And when He came-oz^/ out ^the 
 boat, forthwith there met Him out of the tombs a man in an 
 unclean spirit, 3. who had his dwelling among the tombs, 
 and no one could any more bind him, not even with a chain, 
 4. because that often he had been bound with fetters and 
 chains, and the chains had been snapped by him, and the fetters 
 broken, and no one could tame him. 5. And night and day he 
 was in the tombs and in the mountains, crying and cutting him- 
 self with stones. 6. And seeing Jesus from afar he ran and 
 reverenced Him, 7. and cried with a loud voice and saiih. What 
 have I to do with Thee, Jesus, Son of God the Most High ? 
 I adjure Thee by God, do not torment me. 8. For He was 
 saying to him, Come-out, thou unclean spirit, out of the man. 
 9. And He was ashing him. What is thy name ? And he saith 
 to Him, Legion is my name, for we are many. 10. And he 
 was exhorting Him much that He would not send them out of 
 the region. 11. And there was there at the mountain a great 
 herd of swine feeding. 12. And they were exhorting Him 
 saying. Send us into the swine, that we may enter-z'« into them. 
 13. And He suffered them. And the unclean spirits going out 
 entered-?!^ into the swine. And the herd ran down the steep 
 into the sea, about two thousand, and were being choked m the 
 sea. 14. And they that fed them fled, and reported it in the 
 city and in the hamlets. And they came to see what it was that 
 had happened. 15. And they come to Jesus, arid see the 
 demoniac sitting clothed and sane, the man that had the legion. 
 And they were afraid. 16. And they who saw how it befell the 
 demoniac explained it to them, and about the swine. 17. And 
 they began to exhort Him to depart away from their borders. 
 
88 ST. MARK [5. 1-20. 
 
 18. And as He embarked into the boat the demoniac was 
 beseeching Him that he might be with Him. 19. And He did 
 not permit him, but saith to him, Go to thy house, to thy own, 
 and report to them how great things the Lord hath done to 
 thee, and hath had compassion on thee. 20. And he departed 
 and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how great things Jesus 
 did to him. And all were marvelling. 
 
 The Incident at Gadara. 
 
 The attempt to explain the demons of the New Testament in cases 
 of demoniac possession as personified diseases meets with great diffi- 
 culty in this narrative. We can understand the belief of certain 
 classes of diseased persons that a demon had entered into them. We 
 can understand also the fact that the Lord assumes the reality of this 
 state of things, and treats the sufferer accordingly. But how explain 
 the action of the swine ? The difficulty, of course, lies in the scanti- 
 ness of material for reconstructing the scene. On the one hand there 
 is the lunatic possessed with the belief that a number of evil demons 
 have taken possession of his body and have made it their home. 
 On the other is Jesus, felt by this poor madman to be a being of 
 unique moral power and goodness, before whom even the demons 
 who had got possession of him felt cowed, and from whom they must 
 fly. At hand are the swine. Why should not the demons enter into 
 them ? It is the idea of a mind distraught, withdut reason or logic. 
 What demon would prefer to live in a pig's frame to roaming un- 
 fettered ? The Healer uses the sufferer's own caprice as a means of 
 healing him. Yes, the demons may enter into the swine. So far the 
 narrative is easy. But why did the swine rush into the sea ? The 
 impelling force was probably the demoniac himself, who with shouts 
 and yells would drive from him the now demon-possessed swine. 
 Animals in numbers are easily driven mad with terror and excite- 
 ment, and the nature of the locality aided their headlong rush into 
 the waters of the lake. 
 
 5. I. Gerasenes. There was a well-known Gerasa in Gilead, but this 
 is too far away from the lake. Origen {In Ev. Joan, vi. 24) says that 
 there was an ancient city called Gergesa near the Lake of Tiberias. 
 He goes on to say that the meaning of Gergesa is ' dwelling of the 
 casters out,' and again speaks of ' Gergesa, from which come the 
 Girgashites.' The same identification of the owners of the swine 
 with the ' Girgashites ' occurs in the Sinaitic Syriac. See Burkitt, 
 The Syriac Forms of New Testament Names, pp. lo-ll. Yepy^ar^vaiv 
 is the reading of some MSB. here (N"", LUA), but Tepacriji'mv is 
 attested by XBD latt., and is no doubt right. The Gerasa of this 
 story seems to have been found in some ruins now called Khersa, 
 at a site on the east shore of the lake which would suit the narrative. 
 
5. 21-6. Iff.] ST. MARK 89 
 
 See Ejtcycl. Bib., 1706. The editor of the First Gospel and some 
 copyists of the Second have found Gerasa difficult, and have sub- 
 stituted Gadara, a city two miles south-east of the lake. The editor 
 of the First Gospel adapts the story to this new situation by placing 
 the herd of swine 'far from them.' 
 
 2. came out. Literally ' came-out out.' Of. i ^^, note. 
 in an unclean spirit. See on i -•*. 
 
 8. Come-out . . . out. See Introd., p. 15. 
 
 9. For questions asked by Christ see Introd., p. 24. 
 Legion. One of St. Mark's Latinisms. See p. 20. 
 
 10. much. See Introd., p. ig. 
 
 12. enter . . . into. See Introd., p. 15. 
 
 were exhorting, reading TrapeKoKovv with AD, latt. Syr. Sin. 
 
 13. two thousand. One of the details omitted by the later 
 evangelists. 
 
 14. ham-lets (ds tuvs aypovs). aypos can mean in the singular an 
 'estate' or 'farm' (St. Luke 14'^, Acts 4''). In the plural it means 
 'landed property' (St. Mark lo^"™). St. Mark apparently uses the 
 plural to describe ' isolated farms ' or ' small hamlets ' as opposed to 
 'towns' or 'villages.' Cf 6^", 'That they may go away to the 
 neighbouring hamlets and villages and buy'; 6^", 'Wheresoever 
 He entered into villages or cities or hamlets.' It probably has this 
 meaning in the present passage. In the singular it seems to suggest 
 'field work.' So in 13"', 'He who is at field work,' or 'farm work' ; 
 and 15^^, ' coming from field work.' 
 
 17. depart from. Literally 'go from from.' See Introd., p. 15. 
 
 19. to thy house, to thy own. For the fulness of expression see 
 Introd., p. 12. 
 
 the Lord. In this Gospel 6 Kuptds is only used of God here and in 
 13^", and in quotations from the Old Testament in i ^, 11', i2^'-^'-'''. 
 No doubt the Christian evangelist would willingly use the phrase 
 here in view of the next verse, 'how great things Jesus did to him.' 
 For to Christians Jesus is the Lord. 
 
 20. the Decapolis. A confederacy of ten cities, of which the best 
 known were Damascus, Gadara, Scythopolis, and Pella. 
 
 21-6. la, Jairus's daughter and the woman with the issue of blood. 
 
 2 1. And when Jesus had crossed over in the boat again to the 
 other side there was gathered to Him a great crowd. And He 
 was by the sea. 22. And there comes one of the rulers of the 
 synagogue, by name Jairus. And seeing Him he /a//s at His 
 feet. 23. And exhorts Him much, saying that My Utile daughter 
 
90 ST. MARK [5. 21-6. ta. 
 
 is very bad. (I pray) that Thou wilt come and lay hands on her 
 that she may be saved and live. 24. And He departed with 
 him. And there was following Him a great crowd, and they 
 were thronging Him. 25. And a woman with an issue of blood 
 twelve years, 26. who had suffered much by many doctors, and 
 had spent all her substance and had not benefited, but rather 
 had become worse, 27. having heard the reports about Jesus, 
 came in the crowd behind and touched His coat. 28. For she 
 was saying that If I may touch even His garments I shall be 
 saved. 29. And forthwith the flow of her blood was dried up, 
 and she knew in her body that she is being healed from the 
 plague. 30. And forthwith Jesus recognising in Himself the 
 power gone out from Him, turned round in the crowd and was 
 saying, Who touched My garments? 31. And His disciples were 
 saying to Him, Thou seest the crowd thronging Thee, and sayest. 
 Who touched Me? 32. And He was looking round to see who 
 (fem.) had done this. 33. And the woman, fearing and trem- 
 bling, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell before 
 Him and told Him all the truth. 34. And He said to her. 
 Daughter, thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace and be whole 
 from thy plague. 35. While He was speaking they come from 
 the ruler of the synagogue saying that Thy daughter is dead, why 
 troublest thou the teacher further ? 36. And Jesus chanced to 
 hear the word spoken, and saith to the ruler of the synagogue. 
 Fear not, only believe. 37. And He permitted no one to accom- 
 pany Him, save Peter and James and John the brother of James. 
 38. And they come into the house of the ruler of the synagogue, 
 and He beholds a tumult, and people weeping and wailing 
 much. 39. And He entered in and saith to them, Why do ye 
 make a tumult and weep? The child is not dead, but is sleep- 
 ing. 40. And they were laughing Him to scorn. But He 
 thrust them all out and takes the father of the child and the 
 mother, and those who were with Him, and enters where the 
 child was. 41. And He took the hand of the child and saith to 
 her, Talitha Koum, which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say 
 to thee, arise. 42, And forthwith the damsel rose up and was 
 walking about, for she was twelve years old. And they were 
 forthwith astonished with a great astonishment. 43. And He 
 charged them much that no one should know it. And He com- 
 manded that something should be given her to eat. 6. la. And 
 He departed thence. 
 
5. 21-6. la.] ST. MARK 91 
 
 This narrative is in some respects unique in the Gospels. For ex- 
 ample, it contains two distinct incidents not loosely joined together 
 but the one framed within the other. The fact that the woman had 
 suffered for twelve years, whilst the child of Jairus was twelve years 
 old, is one of those coincidences which story-tellers love to recall. It 
 is also a possible coincidence that the name of the father of the raised 
 child should mean ' the raiser.' " But it may also mean ' the 
 enlightener,' and was apparently a common name. 'lafipos- occurs 
 (Esth. 2^ = "T'K''). 'This evidence is really sufficient to establish both 
 the original form of the name in the Gospel story and also its appro- 
 priateness there. Any name thought appropriate for an Israelite in 
 a late and popular book like Esther might be expected to occur as 
 the name of a personage mentioned in the Gospels' (Burkitt, The 
 Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names, p. 7). It is, of course, 
 impossible for us to say now whether death had taken place in the 
 case of the child. Trained doctors are often unable to determine this 
 until mortification sets in. The words of Christ in v. ^^ seem to imply 
 that life was still present. But the friends were apparently persuaded 
 that death had taken place, and believed that by the action of Jesus a 
 dead person had been brought to life again. The substantial fact 
 behind the story is that the force and power of the Personality of 
 Jesus effected this astonishing fact, that the girl who otherwise would 
 have been numbered with the dead took her place, through His 
 influence, once more in the world of the living. 
 
 21. For the emphasis upon the crowd see Introd., p. 27, 
 
 22. .23. comes . . . falls . . . exhorts. For the presents see 
 Introd., p. 15. 
 
 23. saved and live. For the fulness of expression see Introd., 
 p. 12. 
 
 saying that. See Introd., p. 19. 
 much. See Introd., p. 19. 
 
 29, 30. And forthwith. See Introd., p. 19. 
 
 30. The verse is, of course, the narrator's explanation of the facts. 
 The woman believed that if she could touch even the garments of 
 Jesus she would be healed. This faith in His Personality cured her 
 infirmity (v. ^''). It may well be that Christ was conscious of the near- 
 ness of such faith as this. Nor need we suppose that He was 
 unconscious of her touch of His coat. The narrator explains His 
 question by the words, 'recognising the power gone forth from Him.' 
 The question, ' Who touched . . . ? ' may well be the great Healer's 
 method of kindly dealing. He would not let her go away unperceived. 
 Doubt and recurrence of her ailment might ensue. She should have 
 a better stay for her trust than the mere belief in physical contact 
 
 » So Cheyne, Bncycl. Bib. , 23i6=Tiy\ 
 
92 ST. MARK [5. 21-6. la. 
 
 with His garments. Yet He would not summon her abruptly. If her 
 faith in Him could not bring her, she might slip away. So He gave 
 her an opportunity of confessing her confidence. 
 
 For questions in the mouth of Christ see Introd., p. 24. 
 
 31. The half-reproachful question of the disciples is omitted by the 
 later evangehsts. 
 
 34. saying that. See Introd., p. 19. 
 
 be whole. The words would give confidence in the permanence of 
 the cure. 
 
 35. trouble. The verb aicvkKa means literally to 'flay' or 'mangle,' 
 but acquired in late Greek a weakened meaning. Cf. St. Matthew 
 9 2", St. Luke 7", 8*", and in the papyri, Berlin Pap., mcclvii. 14 
 (12 A.D.) = 'to plunder'; Fayum Towns, cxxxiv. 2 (fourth century 
 A.D.), tTKvKav (reavTov = 'hasten ' ; Oxy. Pap., I. cxxiii. 10, iroijja-ov airoi/ 
 o-nvX^vai = ' make him concern himself; Pap. Tebtunis, ccccxxi., in 
 Milligan, Greek Papyri, p. 107, \x.-i] a-Kvki\s tt]v yvvalKda-ov. The sub- 
 stantive cTKuXfios occurs in 3 Mace. 3 2° =' violence ' ; FayAm Towns, 
 iii. S = ' insolence ' ; Pap. Tebtunis, xli. 7 = ' violence ' ; Artemidorus, 
 ii. 30, 31 = 'vexations.' It is frequent in this sense in Vettius Valens, 
 ed. G. KroU. 
 
 36. chanced to hear {rrapaKovcras). Or not heeding. 
 
 41. Talitha. D reads rabbithabita, in which Wellhausen shrewdly 
 notes an Aramaic variant, rabitha, also meaning ' maiden.' 
 
 42. Atid forthwith. See Introd., p. ig. 
 
 twelve years old. This detail is omitted by St. Matthew and men- 
 tioned earlier by St. Luke. 
 
 43. The command that no one should know it is very difficult here, 
 because there was little which could be concealed. The friends who 
 had gathered all understood the girl to be dead. It could not be kept 
 back from them that she was now alive. What the evangelist 
 probably means is that the Lord wished the parents to say little of the 
 facts that had caused them such amazement, at least until He had left 
 the place and with it the great crowd which had followed Him. He 
 had declared that the girl was not dead but asleep. The parents no 
 doubt believed that she had really been dead, and that He had 
 brought her to life. But until He was well away they had better keep 
 their news to themselves. There may also have been another reason — 
 namely, a desire to procure a necessary period of rest for the girl her- 
 self, whilst she ate and recovered some of her normal strength. The 
 difficulty of the command is in favour of its genuineness. 
 
 commanded that something should be given (etTrev fio^ijvai). This con- 
 struction is probably due to the Aramaic ? ^DN. It occurs again in 
 8 ". f iTTf K with inf. is found five times in the Greek version (Theo- 
 dotion) of Daniel, and in i Chr. 21"; 2 Chr. i '*, 14^, 29^'"^°, 
 
6. i*-6.] ST. MARK 93 
 
 3,4.n 25 21 J Esth. i^", 6' = the Aramaic or Hebrew '? IDf?. Cf. 
 Jud. 8", 133; Tob. 2", 3"; St. Luke 12 » 961^ igi5_ 
 
 6. la. And He departed thence. These words probably belong to the 
 foregoing and not to the succeeding narrative. They suggest that the 
 Lord left the house as soon as the girl was on the way to complete 
 recovery. 
 
 6. 1^-6. Jesus In His own country. 
 
 6. ii^. And He comes to His own country. And His disciples 
 follow Wim. 2. And when the Sabbath came He ^e^aw to teach 
 in the synagogue. And the populace hearing were being aston- 
 ished, sayipg, Whence hath this man these things, and what is 
 the wisdom which is given to this man, and such miracles 
 happening at His hands ? 3. Is not this the carpenter, the son 
 of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and 
 Simon? And are not His sisters here with us? And they 
 were being ensnared in Him." 4. And Jesus was saying to 
 them that A prophet is not without honour save in his own 
 country and amongst his own kin and in his own house. 
 5. And He could not do there any miracle, save laying hands on 
 a few sick and healing them. 6. And He was marvelling 
 because of their unbelief And He -was going about the villages 
 round about teaching. 
 
 6. \b. And He comes. For similarly constructed introductory 
 clauses see i "■<», 2 1=, 3 iS-Wf-si, 4 ^\ 6 ^o, 7 1, 8 22, 10 36.46^ j 1 15.27^ j 2 is, 14 s-. 
 
 His own country. Presumably Nazareth, which He had left in 
 order to come to John's baptism (i °). 
 
 comes . . . follow. See Introd., p. 15. 
 
 2. happening. The participle (-ytco^Ei/at NBLA) is abrupt. AC, etc., 
 von Soden have the present, yivovrai. 
 
 3. the carpenter. Objection was very early felt to this description 
 of Jesus as a carpenter. It is altered in many authorities here to ' the 
 son of the carpenter.' So 13, 33, 69, 104, ab c e. The editor of the 
 First Gospel prefers this latter phrase, and St. Luke substitutes ' son 
 of Joseph.' Origen {Adv. Cels., vi. 36) tries to meet an assertion of 
 Celsus that Jesus was a carpenter. It may be thought strange that 
 the editor of the First Gospel should not have simply omitted 'the 
 carpenter ' instead of altering into ' the son of the carpenter.' But 
 he has no scruple about calling Jesus ' the son ' of Joseph, because 
 he has prefixed to the story of the birth from a virgin a genealogy 
 designed to prove that Joseph was from a legal, though not a physical, 
 point of view the father of Jesus. Hence he uses the term 'husband' 
 of Joseph in I ''. 
 
 »• See Additional Note. 
 
94 ST. MARK [6. 7-i3^ 
 
 the son of Mary. Presumably Joseph was dead, unless even at this 
 early date some inkling of the facts of the parentage of Jesus had 
 come to light. For it would have been natural to Jews to say ' son of 
 Joseph,' whether the latter were alive or dead. The expression is 
 remarkable because, if it be regarded as the exact phrase used by the 
 people, it suggests some knowledge on their part of the fact that 
 Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus, whilst if it be attributed to 
 the evangelist, it suggests that he was already acquainted with the 
 true facts about Christ's birth. 
 
 4. that. See Introd., p. ig. 
 
 5. could not do. See Introd., p. 23, 
 
 6. was marvelling, reading edaviiaCev with ACD, etc., Syr. Sin., 
 von Soden. ■ 
 
 7-13. The mission of the twelve. 
 7. And He calls the twelve, aiid degan t6 send them out two 
 by two, and was giving to them power over unclean spirits. 
 8. And He charged them that they should take nothing for the 
 journey, except a staff only, not a loaf, not a wallet, not money 
 in the girdle, 9. but to be shod with sandals, and not to put on 
 two tunics. 10. And He -Te^as saying to them, Wheresoever you 
 enter-/« into a house, there abide until you go out thence. 
 11. And whatsoever place shall not receive you nor hear you, 
 as you go out thence shake off the dust which is under your feet 
 for a testimony to them. 12. And they went out and were 
 preaching that they should repent. 13. And they were casting 
 out many demons, and were anointing with oil many sick, and 
 7uere healing them. 
 
 7. began. See Introd., p. 49. 
 
 8. except a staj. This is prohibited in the First and Third Gospels. 
 wallet {irr]pav). The word is used of a beggar's collecting bag. 
 
 See Deissmann, Exp. Titnes, November igo6, p. 62. 
 
 9. but to be shod {SKKa viroSeSefievovs). The permission conflicts 
 with the prohibition of shoes (vTrdSfifiaTo) in the First and Third 
 Gospels, and the participle is very harsh. ' But ' (dXXa) is probably 
 
 a mistaken rendering of S?1 = 'and not,' and the participle should 
 have been a finite verb. 
 
 and not to put on. The 'and' after the preceding accusative 
 participle is another piece of careless translation. For evSva-aa-Bm, 
 SACD, etc., have ivSia-rja-df. The change of person would add to 
 the harshness of the sentence. 
 
 sandals. The First and Third Gospels prohibit shoes (uvroS^/iaT-a). 
 
 The idea underlying these precepts apparently is that the mis- 
 
6. I4-29-] ST. MARK 
 
 9S 
 
 sioners were to be known as engaged on special work and not 
 confused with ordinary travellers engaged on travel for purposes of 
 trade or pleasure. If this be so the allowance of a staff is natural, 
 but the emphasis on footwear is not very intelligible. ProFably the 
 'but' before 'to be shod' is a mistaken translation of the Aramaic 
 ' and not' 
 
 10. enter-in into. See Introd., p. 14. 
 
 11. dust (xoiv). The word in Classical Greek means 'heaped up 
 earth.' But it is common in the LXX in the sense ' dust,' and has 
 this meaning in Rev. i8'°. The First and Third Gospels substitute 
 the more commonplace Koviopros. 
 
 12. were preaching, reading cKripva-a-ov with AN, etc., latt. 
 
 13. oit. The commentators generally say that oil here is a simple 
 medical remedy. But the parallels quoted are not to the point. In 
 Is. i'', St. Luke 10^* it is used for wounds., Herod was put into a 
 bath of warm oil during his last sickness (Jos., B./., i. 33, 5), but his 
 body was covered with running sores. Galen is quoted as saying that 
 oil is the best of remedies for dry bodies, but neither this nor the eulogies 
 of oil by Pliny and Philo must be taken as a recommendation of the 
 indiscriminate and sole use of oil in all cases of sickness.'' It is there- 
 fore extremely improbable that the disciples employed oil as the 
 simplest medical remedy available to them. Rather, both here and 
 in James 5 '*, oil is used as sacramental in character, conveying the 
 healing power of the Divine Spirit. For oil as the means of impart- 
 ing the Spirit compare its use in the consecration of kings, and cf. 
 Kautzsch in Hastings' D.B., extra vol., 659. 
 
 11-29. Herod and Jobn the Baptist. 
 
 14. And Herod the king heard, for His name was becoming 
 manifest. And he was saying that John the Baptizer has risen 
 from the dead, and therefore the powers work in him. 15. But 
 others were saying that He is Elijah, and others were saying that 
 a prophet as one of the prophets. 16. But Herod when he 
 heard was saying, John whom I beheaded, he is risen. 17. For 
 he, Herod, had sent and arrested John and bound him in prison 
 because of Herodias the wife of his brother Phihp. For he 
 had married her. 18. For John was saying to Herod that\\. is 
 not lawful for thee to have the wife of thy brother. 19. And 
 Herodias was setting herself against him, and was wishing to 
 kill him, and could not. 20. For Herod was fearing John, 
 knowing him as a just and holy man. And he was guarding 
 
 » See Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, p. 165. 
 
96 ST. MARK [6. 14-29- 
 
 him, and when he heard him was greatly at a loss, and was 
 hearing him gladly. 21. And when there came a convenient 
 day, when Herod on his birthday made a feast to his great men 
 and to the officers and chief men of Galilee, 22. and when the 
 daughter of Herodias entered in and danced, she pleased Herod 
 and the guests. And the king said to the girl, Ask of me what- 
 soever thou wilt, and I will give it to thee. 23. And he sware 
 to her that If thou shalt ask, I will give to thee to the half of 
 my kingdom. 24. And she went out and said to her mother. 
 What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John the 
 Baptizer. 25. And she came in forthwith with haste to the 
 king and asked saying, I wish that thou wSuldest give me imme- 
 diately on a platter the head of John the Baptist. 26. And the 
 king was vexed, but because of his oath and the guests he did 
 not wish to refuse her. 27. And forthwith the king sent an 
 officer and commanded him to bring his head. 28. And 
 he went and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head 
 on a platter and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her 
 mother. 29. And his disciples heard and came and took his 
 corpse and laid it in a tomb. 
 
 14-29. Many objections have been raised against the accuracy of 
 this narrative. 
 
 (i) According to Jos., Ant, xviii. 5, 4, the first husband of Herodias 
 was Herod (not Antipas, but another son of Herod the Great). 
 See on v. ''. 
 
 (2) Josephus and the First Gospel give as a ground for John's 
 
 death Herod's fear of him, while St. Mark attributes the 
 death to the enmity of Herodias. 
 
 (3) The story of the dancing of Salome at a public banquet is said 
 
 to be contrary to Greek and Oriental conventions. 
 
 (4) It is urged that at this time Salome was probably already 
 
 married to Philip the Tetrarch. 
 
 (5) Josephus says that the place where John was imprisoned was 
 
 Mach^rus, a fortress on the Dead Sea. St. Mark's narrative, 
 it is said, presupposes that he was in prison in Galilee. 
 
 None of these objections are sufficient to overthrow the substantial 
 accuracy of St. Mark's account of the death of the Baptist. Both 
 Josephus and St. Mark agree that this was the act of Herod. 
 Josephus sp'eaks of the fears of Herod that John might be the cause 
 of disaffection amongst the populace. That would account for his 
 imprisonment at Machaerus. It need not have been the immediate 
 cause of his execution. St. Mark may be right in attributing this to 
 
6. 14-29- ] ST. MARK 97 
 
 Herodias. There is more difficulty in the apparent discrepancy as 
 to the place of the Baptist's death. The banquet was probably held 
 at one of the chief Galilean cities, and St. Mark's narrative by itself 
 would suggest that John was in prison in the same city, and that his 
 head was brought before the banquet was ended. But nothing in the 
 story makes this necessary. Herod may well have given his promise, 
 and carried it out with only such delay as was necessary to allow of 
 the journey to Machasrus. Even if St. Mark was unaware that such a 
 journey was necessary, it does not disprove the truth of the main fact. 
 
 The doubt as to the name of Herodias's first husband is not 
 important, even if St. Mark has blundered here, which is unlikely. 
 
 If the girl who danced was not Salome she may have been a 
 daughter of Antipas and Herodias who was also called Herodias. 
 See on v.^^. 
 
 That a lady of rank would not have danced in public is a point in 
 favour of the truth of the narrative, according to the canon that truth 
 is stranger than fiction. The language of the king's promise is partly 
 identical with that of Ahasuerus to Esther (Esth. 5 ^). This is no 
 reason why the words should not have been spoken by Antipas, as 
 they were probably proverbial. Cf i Kings 13*. Or his words may 
 have been assimilated to the Old Testament passages. 
 
 14. Herod. /.^. Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee. 
 
 king. A non-technical expression. The later evangelists correct 
 to 'tetrarch.' 
 
 he was saying (cXeyev). So NAC, etc., latt. Syr. Sin., von Soden. 
 The repetition of Herod's words in v.'^ is quite in Mark's style. 
 B, WH have eXeyov = ' men were saying.' 
 
 Baptizer (6 ^airri^wv). St. Mark uses the participle here and in 
 V. ^. Also in I * according to SBLA. He has the adjective fiaivTLiTTrji 
 in 6 2^ and 8 ^. St. Matthew (seven times) and St. Luke (three times) 
 employ only the adjective. 
 
 the powers. I.e. the supernatural powers who operated through the 
 risen Baptist. Cf. 13^^, 'the powers which are in heaven.' 
 
 15. as one of the prophets. I.e. not a risen prophet, but a successor 
 of the ancient prophetic line. 
 
 17. Herodias was a daughter of Aristobulus, the second son of Herod 
 the Great. According to Jos., Ant., xviii. 5, 4, she first married her 
 half-uncle Herod. If St. Mark is correct this Herod was also named 
 Philip, but the fact that there Was another son of Herod the Great 
 called Philip (cf St. Luke 3 ') has been used as an argument against 
 St. Mark. There seems, however, no reason why Herod the Great 
 should not have called two of his sons Philip. 
 
 20. was greatly at a loss (rjiropei). D, etc., latt. Syrr. have ivoUi, 
 which gives a poor sense. 
 
 21. Birthday. In this sense the word {ytviaia) belongs to the later 
 
 ST. MARK G 
 
98 ST. MARK [6. 30-44. 
 
 Greek. It is so used in the Egyptian papyri. Cf. Fay-Am Towns, 
 cxiv. 20, cxv. 8, cxix. 30. 
 
 22. daughter of Herodias. There is an ambiguity here in the 
 Greek. BD, etc., have 'his daughter.' This is an obvious error. 
 ACN, etc., have 'her daughter Herodias' {avTijs tt/s 'HpaSidSos). 
 But this is equally wrong. Probably 'her' is due to over-exact 
 translation of an Aramaic idiom. Omitting it we have what the 
 sense demands, ' the daughter of Herodias ' = D1''Tim nm3. 
 
 27. officer {amKov\a.Tusp). Another of St. Mark's Latin words. It 
 passed into the later Greek and into Aramaic. In occurs in Oxy. Pap., 
 ix. 1 193 (fourth century A.D.), 1214 (fifth century A.D.), 1223 (fourth 
 century A.D.). 
 
 30-33. Withdrawal to a desert place. 
 
 30. And the apostles gather together to Jesus and reported to 
 Him all things that they had done and that they had taught. 
 
 31. And He says to them, Come ye yourselves privately into a 
 desert place, and rest a little. For they that were coming and 
 going were many, and they had no opportunity (imp.) to eat. 
 
 32. And they went away in the boat to a desert place privately. 
 
 33. And many saw them going and noticed them, and ran there 
 on foot from all the cities, and went before them. 
 
 30. gather together. For the tense see Introd., p. 15. 
 
 Nothing is said as to the place of gathering, just as no hint was 
 given in v.' of the place whence the apostles were sent out on their 
 journey. 
 
 31. For the emphasis on the multitude see Introd., p. 28. 
 
 32. No hint is given as to where this desert place was. 
 
 33. This verse suggests that the desert place was not far away. 
 
 34-44. The Feeding of the Five Thousand. 
 
 34. And when He went out He saw a great crowd and had 
 compassion on them, because they were as sheep which have no 
 shepherd. And He began to teach them much. 35. And since 
 it was already late His disciples came and were saying to Him 
 that The place is deserted, and it is already late, 36. send them 
 away that they may go into the surrounding hamlets and villages, 
 and buy for themselves something to eat. 37. And He answered 
 and said to them, Give ye them to eat. And they say to Him, 
 Let us go away and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and 
 (then) we will give them to eat. 38. And He says to them, 
 
6. 30-44-] ST. MARK 99 
 
 How many loaves have ye ? Go and see. And when they had 
 learned they say Five, and two fishes. 39. And He commanded 
 them that all should recline in groups upon the green grass. 
 40. And all lay down (looking like) garden plots upon the green 
 grass. 41. And taking the five loaves and the two fishes He 
 looked up to heaven, and blessed and brake the loaves, and was 
 giving to the disciples that they might distribute to them. And 
 the two fishes He divided to all. 42. And all ate, and were 
 filled. 43. And they took up fragments, the contents of twelve 
 baskets, and of the fishes. 44. And they who ate the loaves 
 were five thousand men. 
 
 To the modern critic who begins with the presupposition that a 
 small quantity of bread and fish cannot have been miraculously made 
 to satisfy the hunger of a large number of people, the treatment of 
 this narrative presents insurmountable difficulties. 
 
 In the first place, it is as well attested as any incident in the 
 Gospels. In the second, no known literary method of criticism can 
 eliminate from the story as it stands the miraculous element so as to 
 leave a historical incident which has been developed into a miracle.^ 
 If, therefore, no actual event underlies this narrative, we must confess 
 that there is no ground for accepting any evangelic account of any 
 incident in the life of the Lord, except the weak one that some things 
 recorded of Him do not seem to us to be improbable, and that there- 
 fore they may have happened, though the evidence is not sufficient to 
 prove it. 
 
 Herein lies the bankruptcy of sceptical critical methods. The force 
 of personahty is becoming increasingly recognised as incalculable. 
 Now the Gospels portray to us One whose personality was clearly of 
 such resource and power that His contemporaries regarded Him as 
 unique. The criticism which insists on judging Him as if He were 
 merely a good man, whose powers cannot have been greater than 
 those of other good men, is doubly blind. It fails to recognise that 
 One who, being truly human, was yet free from, to put it at the 
 lowest, much of the weakness and infirmity of will of ordinary men, 
 might be expected to show quite astonishing power over things purely 
 material. It fails to see that, by attempting to water down the 
 evidence for such control over the material, it is probably substituting 
 a purely fictitious Jesus, the creation of the modern critical mind, for 
 the actual Jesus of history. There are some who are willing to see 
 in this narrative a literary fiction designed to teach some spiritual 
 lesson, such as the thought that Christ was the bread of life. To be 
 
 » ' Die Darstellung ist jetzt — bis auf die genannten Kleinigkeiten — vbllig ein- 
 heitlich. Eine altere Form schimmert nicht mehr durch. Der Bericht schelnt 
 von vornherein auch auf das Speisungswunder angelegt zu sein ' (J. Weiss, 
 Das Alteste Evangelium, p. 220). 
 
loo ST. MARK [6. 30-44. 
 
 consistent they must turn the Jesus of history wholly into pure sym- 
 boHsm. In this case their method seems to find its absolute refutation. 
 For there is nothing in the narrative to suggest the idea which it is 
 supposed to symbolise. And the literary artists who should have 
 created this story for such a purpose can only be said to have been 
 singularly lacking in spiritual perception if they thought that all who 
 read it would not take it as a description of historical fact. It is not 
 infrequent to appeal to 2 Kings 4 *'■'■■''' as having suggested the 
 narrative before us. But as in other cases of the supposed influence 
 of an Old Testament narrative upon a Gospel incident, that influence 
 is not creative, in the sense that the occurrence of a story in the Old 
 Testament suggested the invention of a similar incident which might 
 be ascribed to Christ, but contributory, in the sense that language in 
 which to express the latter has sometimes been borrowed from the 
 former. 
 
 34. when He went out. The word is used of Christ to describe 
 His removal from one place to another. So i ^^■'^, 2 1^, 6 ', 8 ^', 11 ". 
 In 5 ^ it is used of Him as disembarking from a boat, and so in the 
 plural in 6 ^''. Probably that is the meaning here. The crowd met 
 the Lord as He landed. 
 
 35. that. See Introd., p. 19. 
 
 it is already late. For the repetition of the phrase see Introd., 
 p. 12. 
 
 36. hamlets. See note on 5 '*. 
 
 37. Let us go away. The clause is omitted in the later Gospels. 
 Probably it seemed too unbelieving. Compare their similar omission 
 of the ' Dost Thou not care ? ' of 4 ^. 
 
 and {then) we will give. So WH, reading Suo-o/iei/ with ALA. 
 Von Soden with NBD has Stio-mpei', a difficult form. 
 
 38. This question, like others in the mouth of our Lord, is omitted 
 in the later Gospels. See Introd., p. 24. 
 
 39. green. Perhaps a hint that the time was early spring. The 
 later Gospels omit the touch. 
 
 40. gardenplots (npaatai). The analogy is probably that of arrange- 
 ment and grouping rather than that of colour. 
 
 lay down {dv47rf<rav). An unusual word. It means literally to lean 
 back like a rower, but is used of robbers sitting down for a meal in 
 Lucian, Asinus, 23, and means 'to sit down' in Pap. Par., 51, 5 
 (B.C. 160), given in Milligan, Greek Papyri, p. l8. It occurs in this 
 sense twelve times in the four Gospels. 
 
 43. baskets {Ko^'ivav). The word used in 8' is (r<pvpis or a-n-ipis. 
 In an interesting posthumous note by Dr. Hort in J.Th.S., x. 567, 
 Koipivoi axe said to be agricultural baskets, a-n-vpiSes the baskets of 
 fishermen. 
 
6. 45-S2-] ST, MARK loi 
 
 and of the fishes. A curious and vaguely expressed after-thought 
 of the narrator. 
 
 15-52. The walking on the water. 
 
 45. And forthwith He compelled his disciples to embark in the 
 boat and to go before to the other side, to Bethsaida, whilst He 
 dismisses the crowd. 46. And when He had parted from them 
 He went away to the mountain to pray. 47. And when it was 
 evening the boat was in the midst of the sea, and He was alone 
 upon the land. 48. And seeing them distressed in rowing, 
 for the wind was contrary to them, about the fourth watch of the 
 night He comes to them walking on the sea, and He was wishing 
 to pass by them. 49. But they saw Him walking on the sea and 
 thought that it was a phantasm, and cried out. 50. For all saw 
 Him and were troubled. And YLe forthwith spake with them, and 
 says to them. Be of good courage, I am, fear not. 51. And He 
 went up to them into the boat. And the wind ceased. And 
 they were very exceedingly astonished among themselves. 52. 
 For they did not understand about the loaves, but their heart 
 was made callous. 
 
 45. And forthwith. See Introd., p. 19. 
 
 other side, to Bethsaida. Bethsaida Julias lay on the north of the 
 lake, east of the River Jordan. The direction in which it lay is here 
 described as ' the other side.' The difficulty is to find out from St. 
 Mark's ambiguous narrative what this ' other side ' is contrasted with. 
 The region on the north of the lake might be called ' other side ' as 
 contrasted with either the western or the eastern shore. And St. 
 Mark gives no sure clue as to the place of the feeding. In 6 ' the 
 Lord goes to Nazareth. In 6" He passes through the villages. In 
 6^" the apostles gather to Him, presumably somewhere in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Capharnaoum, and they sail away to a lonely spot. Since 
 the multitude who saw them departing could outrun them, it is not 
 very likely that this lay on the other side of the lake, but somewhere 
 on the western side, very likely somewhere north of Capharnaoum. 
 Now after the miracle they make towards Bethsaida. As nothing is 
 said of the arrival at Bethsaida, the editor of the First Gospel omits it. 
 
 46. parted from them. Ambiguous : either from the disciples or 
 from the crowd. 
 
 48. distressed (Paa-avi^ofMevovs). A strong word, literally 'tortured,' 
 but not inapplicable to the physical distress caused by rowing under 
 difficulties. 
 
 fourth watch. I.e. about 3 a.m. The Romans divided the night 
 into four watches. Cf 13 ^°. 
 
102 ST. MARK [6. 45-52. 
 
 on the sea. The phrase (/ttI t^s 6dkaa-ar\i) might mean 'by the sea.' 
 But the whole context shows that ' on the water ' is meant. Cf. ' the 
 middle of the sea' (v. ") and the fear caused by the Lord's appear- 
 ance. 
 
 was wishing to pass by them. St. Matthew omits this and other 
 phrases in St. Mark which seem to suggest unfulfilled intentions of 
 Christ. See Introd., p. 23. 
 
 50. / am. This is generally regarded as equivalent to ' It is I,' i.e. 
 not a phantom, but Jesus, whom you know. Abbott {Johannine 
 Grammar, 2220 ff.) denies that there is any example of the use of the 
 phrase in this sense, and supposes it to mean ' I am He,' i.e. the 
 Deliverer, your Saviour. 
 
 But whilst it is probably true that a Greek would not have said lya 
 elljii, ' I am,' when he meant to say ' It is I,' the phrase can hardly 
 have any other meaning here. The repetition, ' I, I am,' is probably 
 intended to be doubly emphatic. The disciples had seen the Lord 
 walking on the waves. They had jumped to the only conclusion that 
 was natural to them, viz. that He was dead, and that His disembodied 
 spirit was appearing to them. Hence their troubled mind. To calm 
 them He says, ' Fear not, I am not dead, I live, and this that you see 
 is My real self, and not a phantom.' 
 
 51. very exceedingly, \iav i<n(pL(T<Tov' iKvepuraov, is omitted by 
 KBLA, WH probably because it seemed too strong an expression. 
 But the strong emphasis is quite in St. Mark's manner, f k n-epia-o-oC 
 does not seem to occur again, but enirepia-a-Cis, which is also rare, 
 occurs in 14^'. vnepirepia-a-Sis, also rare, occurs in 7^". 
 
 52. made callous (Trejrmpm/ie'v?)). The verb is used in medical writers 
 of the formation of a callus which unites fractured bones. In the 
 LXX (B) it occurs once, Job 17", of the eyes. But NA have 
 nevrripatvTm, which is a more natural rendering of the Hebrew Pins, 
 As applied to the heart ■rra>p6a> occurs again in St. Mark 8 ", St. John 
 12'"'. St. Paul uses it in Rom. n ^ of persons, and in 2 Cor. 3'* of 
 'minds' {vorjuaTa). It occurs of the heart in Hermas, Mand., 4, 2, l ; 
 12, 4, 4. The noun Trmpmo-ir occurs of the heart in St. Mark 3^ and 
 Eph. 4'^, and generally in Rom. 11 2^. It occurs in Test. Levi, 13, 7, 
 in the phrase naipaa-is = ' callousness caused by sin.' The First Gospel 
 omits the whole clause here, and substitutes a statement that 'those 
 who were in the boat worshipped Him saying, Truly, Thou art the 
 Son of God.' St. Luke omits the whole section. The entire section 
 in which 8 " occurs is also absent from the Third Gospel. The First 
 Gospel omits the clause there which contains the word. 
 
 they did not understand about the loaves. This can hardly mean 
 that they did not at the time perceive that the loaves had been 
 miraculously multiplied, but rather that they did not draw the right 
 inferences as to Christ's power over material things from it. If they 
 
7. 1-23.] ST. MARK 103 
 
 had realised that power after the miracle of the feeding, they would 
 not have wondered when they saw Him walking upon the water. 
 
 63-66. Healings in Gennesareth. 
 
 53. And having crossed over thence to the land they came 
 to Gennesareth and moored. S4- -^^d when they (/wembarked 
 from the hoaX forthwith they recognised Him, 55. and ran about 
 all that district, and began to carry about on pallets the sick 
 where they ^vere hearing that He was. 56. And wheresoever 
 He was entenng-in into villages, or into cities, or into hamlets, 
 they were placing the sick in the market places. And were 
 beseeching Him that they might touch even the border of His 
 coat. And as many as 7vere touching were being saved. 
 
 53. having crossed over thence. The text usually printed here runs, 
 ' And having crossed over to the land, they came to Gennesareth.' 
 This presupposes that this verse describes the continuation of the 
 voyage in vv.*^'*^. They had set out towards Bethsaida, but the 
 storm had changed their original plan, and they eventually landed at 
 Gennesareth. But the construction and meaning are alike forced. 
 'To the land' is quite unnecessary. It seems likely that D is right 
 in preserving 'thence' after 'having crossed over.' The verse, then, 
 begins a new paragraph. They had set out for Bethsaida, and pre- 
 sumably they went there. Then, after an unstated interval, they 
 again cross the lake, and make towards the land of Gennesareth. 
 The other text (SBL) has omitted ' thence,' and has transposed ' to 
 the land,' in order to make the verse the immediate continuation 
 ofv.°2. 
 
 the land of Gennesareth. A district south of Capharnaoum which 
 sometimes gave its name to the lake. The Talmud, Targums, 
 Josephus, and i Mace. 11''' call it Gennesar. And so D b c, Syrr. 
 here. 
 
 56. hamlets. See note on 5 '■*. 
 
 were placing, reading eVMow with ADN, etc., Syr. Sin. 
 
 were touching, reading tjittovto with AN, etc., Syr. Sin., von Soden. 
 
 7. 1-23. Controversies with the Pharisees. 
 7. I. And there are gathered together to Him the Pharisees. 
 And certain of the scribes having come from Jerusalem, 2. and 
 having seen some of His disciples that with common, that is 
 with unwashen, hands they eat bread. — 3. For the Pharisees 
 and all the Jews except they wash pugme their hands do not 
 eat, holding the tradition of the elders. 4. And from market, 
 except they be sprinkled, they do not eat. And many other 
 
104 ST. MARK [7. 1-23. 
 
 things there are which they received to hold, washings of cups 
 and pots, and brass vessels, and beds. — 5. Then the Pharisees 
 and the scribes ask Him, Why do not Thy disciples walk 
 according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with 
 common hands? 6. And He said to them, Well did Isaiah 
 prophesy about you hypocrites, as it stands written that ' This 
 people honours Me with their lips, but their heart is far from 
 Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching teachings (which 
 are) commandments of men.' 8. Having left the command of 
 God, ye hold the tradition of men. 9. And He was saying to 
 them. Well do ye annul the command of God, that ye may. 
 guard your tradition. 10. For Moses said, ' Honour thy father 
 and thy mother,' and ' He who speaks evil of father or mother, 
 let him be put to death.' 11. But ye say, 'If a man say to 
 father or mother, Whatsoever thou mightest profit by me is 
 Corban, that is devoted . . .' 12. ye no longer allow him to 
 do anything for father or mother, 13. making void the word 
 of God with your tradition which ye delivered. And many 
 such similar things ye do. 14. And He called again the crowd 
 and was saying to them, Hear ye all and understand. 15. There 
 is nothing outside a man, entering-m into him, which can defile 
 him. But the things which proceed out of a man are the things 
 which defile a man. 16. If any man hath ears to hear let him 
 hear. 17. And when He entered into a house away from the 
 crowd His disciples were asking Him about the parable. 18. 
 And He saith to them, Are ye also so unappreciative ? Do ye 
 not see that nothing from outside which enters-?« into a man 
 can defile him, 19. because it does not enter-z« into the heart 
 but into the belly, and goeth forth into the draught, cleansing all 
 meats ? 20. And He was saying that That which proceeds out 
 of a. man, that defiles a man. 21. For from within out of the 
 heart of men evil thoughts proceed out, fornications, thefts, 
 murders, adulteries, 22. covetousnesses, maliciousnesses, guile, 
 wantonness, niggardliness, railing, pride, senselessness. 23. All 
 these evil things from within proceed out and defile a mari. 
 
 7. I. And there are gathered together. For the tense see Introd., 
 p. 15. 
 
 2. The sentence is left without a main verb. D adds 'they con- 
 demned them.' The later uncials and versions have ' they blamed 
 them.' The harshness of the sentence is probably due to the fact 
 that vv. ^ and * are a note added by the editor in the middle of a 
 
7. 1-23.] ST. MARK los 
 
 sentence. This originally ended with 'asked Him, Why,' etc. But 
 after his long note the editor repeats the subject and begins a new 
 sentence, leaving the former one incomplete. 
 
 common. I.e. technically unclean, from the standpoint of the Jewish 
 Law. Cf. Rom. 14 1*. 
 
 eat bread. A Semitic idiom for eating in general. 
 
 3. This note is added to explain the custom of not eating with 
 hands technically unclean. 
 
 all the Jews. The Pharisaic regulations, in so far as these were 
 additions to the written Law, were rejected by the Sadducees. Cf. 
 Jos., Ant., xiii. 10, 6. But by 'the Jews' the editor probably means 
 not the Palestinian Jews, but the Jews of the Western Dispersion, 
 who were for the most part Pharisaic. 
 
 pug7ne. The Greek word (Truy/i,^) means 'with the fist.' It sug- 
 gests some particular method of ceremonially cleansing the hands, 
 the precise nature of which we do not know. It is remarkable that 
 in a note explaining a technical phrase we should have another 
 technical expression which is even more obscure than the first. 
 S substitutes 'frequently' {ivvKva). 
 
 4. from market. I.e. ' when they come from market,' or does it 
 refer to the things brought from market ? 
 
 sprinkled {pavTia-avTm). So XB. There is a variant, ' dip them- 
 selves' {fia-n-Tia-covTai, D and later MSS.). So von Soden. 
 
 washings ofaips, etc. For the ceremonial cleansing of vessels see 
 Schiirer, 11. 2, 106 ff. 
 
 pots. The word {^e<TTf)s) is originally Latin {sestarius), meaning 
 the sixth part of a measure. It passed over into Greek and Rabbinic 
 Hebrew in the sense of a small vessel for drinking. Perhaps ' pint 
 pot ' would represent it. 
 
 and beds. This is omitted by XB, etc., WH, but seems unlikely to 
 have been added. Von Soden prints it in brackets. 
 
 5. Then (eTreiTa). So von Soden. WH have kqL 
 
 walk according to. A common Hebrew idiom for 'live in accord- 
 ance with.' 
 
 6. The quotation is from Is. 29'', and differs very slightly from the 
 LXX. The ' in vain ' of LXX and Gospel is a misrendering of the 
 Hebrew. 
 
 8. Von Soden adds after men 'washings of pots and cups, and 
 many other similar things ye do ' with Xr, etc. 
 
 g. Well. The same word as in v. '. There it means ' Isaiah's 
 words admirably describe you.' Here it must be used ironically, 
 unless we render interrogatively, ' Do you do well in annulling . . . ' 
 
 10. The quotations are from Ex. 20^2, Deut. 5 ^^, and from Ex. 3 J '^ 
 respectively. 
 
io6 ST. MARK [7. 1-23. 
 
 II. A broken sentence. It should run, ' If a man say . . . Corban 
 (he need not assist his father and mother) and . . . ' But instead of 
 the words in brackets there has been substituted a clause describing 
 not what the Pharisees said but what they did. The passage would 
 be smooth if we had ' but you ' instead of ' but you say,' but in that 
 case the antithesis between 'Moses said' and 'you say' would be 
 destroyed. 
 
 Corban. The word means a gift or sacrifice, and so something 
 devoted to God. The sense implied is that a man might say, ' My 
 property is dedicated so far as you are concerned,' and that such 
 property was then, so far as the persons named were concerned, 
 regarded as sacrosanct, so that they could not touch it. The Mishnah 
 provides ways of escaping from the consequences of such vows in the 
 case of parents. See Nedarim, viii. I. Mr. Montefiore" objects that 
 Scripture and Tradition ought not thus to be set at variance, because 
 the Law nowhere permits the cancelling of a vow. But this is to 
 confuse the issue. The Lord's point is that this particular kind of 
 vow was one which ought never to have been allowed, and that it 
 contradicted the spirit of the Law. Mr. Montefiore objects further 
 that, since the Mishnah allowed such a vow to be cancelled where 
 parents are concerned, it is in agreement with Christ's teaching. But 
 this again is beside the mark. If such vows were contrary, as the 
 Lord says, to the spirit of the Law, a legal permission to evade the 
 Law where parents were concerned might mitigate the evil but would 
 not cancel it. 
 
 15. The last paragraph dealt with ceremonial cleanness of persons. 
 This deals with a similar subject, viz. the distinctions of the Law 
 regarding clean and unclean meats. 
 
 V. 1* sweeps away the vahdity of all distinctions between ' clean ' 
 and 'unclean' food. In other words, the Lord here directly under- 
 mines the authority of the ceremonial provisions of the Mosaic Law. 
 
 The verse means that moral defilement does not proceed from 
 contact with physical impurity. Eating so-called 'unclean' meats 
 does not render a man morally unclean. 
 
 16. So von Soden with AD, etc., Syr. Sin. WH omit the verse 
 with KBL. Cf 48-23. 
 
 17. For a similar mention of a house as a place of explanation to 
 the disciples of a saying made to a crowd cf. 10 ^°. 
 
 the parable. The word wapa^oXri is used here, as in 3^', of a meta- 
 phorical saying. For another sense see 4 ^. 
 
 19. Food cannot directly influence the moral nature. It passes not 
 into the heart, the centre of consciousness, but into the digestive 
 organs, whence what is unfit to nourish the body is ejected. For the 
 old-world conception of the heart, rather than the brain, as the centre 
 
 * Tke Synoptic Gospels^ i. p. 165. 
 
7. 1-230 ST. MARK 107 
 
 of moral activity see D.B., vol. ii. 318. The construction of the last 
 clause of this verse is uncertain. It runs, 'cleansing (a masculine 
 participle) all meats.' The R.V. takes this as a separate parenthetical 
 comment of the evangelist, to the effect that by His words (vv. '^■'^) 
 Christ had declared all meats to be clean. But such a comment, 
 though partially justified by the comment in 3 ™, would have needed 
 such words as are printed by the R.V. in italics to make it intelligible. 
 It seems more natural to take the clause as a continuation of the 
 preceding words. The ungrammatical masculine participle is not too 
 harsh for St. Mark. 
 
 draught. The word d<pe8paiv is rare and of doubtful meaning. D 
 substitutes o;^erds, the intestinal canal, and Wellhausen argues that 
 D is right, unless acfjfSpaiv can have the same meaning. 
 
 20. //e said. Or 'used to say.' The evangelist may mean that 
 what follows was a frequent saying of Christ. 
 
 21. This and the next verse may be the evangelist's comment 
 on V. ^'*. 
 
 The list of evil thoughts is a remarkable one. Thefts, murders, 
 adulteries, covetousnesses come from the Decalogue, Ex. 20''"', 
 Deut. 5!'"^. ' Wantonness '(ao-e'Xyeia) denotes flaunting immorality. 
 ' Niggardliness' in the Greek is 'an evil eye,' but this term was used 
 to denote a grudging, niggardly temper. C£ Deut. 1 5 ', Prov. 23 ", and 
 St. Matthew {^Intern. Crit. Comm., p. 62). 
 
 For a Buddhist parallel cf Sacred Books of the East, vol. x., part 2, 
 p. 40, ' Destroying life, killing, cutting, binding, stealing, speaking 
 lies, fraud and deceptions, worthless reading, intercourse with 
 another's wife — this is defilement, but not the eating of flesh.' 
 
 The controversy had been raised because the disciples took food 
 with hands ceremonially unclean. The Lord retorts that the laws 
 relating to ceremonial washing of the hands was a part of the tradi- 
 tional oral law, which sometimes issued in regulations antagonistic to 
 the spirit of the revelation in the Old Testament. He then turns to 
 the more fundamental question of ' clean ' and ' unclean ' meats. The 
 connection is apparently the idea that 'unclean' hands would render 
 food 'unclean.' So far as St. Mark is-concerned, the argument used 
 by Christ need not necessarily have been taken to apply to the dis- 
 tinction between 'clean' and 'unclean' animals in the Old Testament. 
 With the thought of food made 'unclean' by 'unclean' hands. He 
 teaches that food cannot impart moral defilement. It enters the 
 body, and that which is unfitted to build up the physical system is 
 separated and passes away (5 '^). Moral evil arises in the spiritual 
 being and, issuing forth in sinful acts and thoughts, renders a man 
 unclean. But the application of this to the Old Testament law of 
 ' clean ' and ' unclean ' was not far away, and any one might make it. 
 The editor of the First Gospel seems to have thought that it would 
 be a wrong inference from Christ's words. He omits the clause 
 
io8 ST. MARK [7. 24-30. 
 
 ' cleansing all meats,' which might be interpreted to the effect that 
 Christ had abolished the Mosaic distinction between 'clean' and 
 ' unclean,' and by adding at the end of the section ' but to eat with 
 unwashen hands does not defile a man,' he turns the thought of the 
 reader from the reference to the Mosaic Law, and back to the idea 
 that the meats referred to are meats rendered ceremonially unclean 
 by Pharisaic oral traditions and regulations. 
 
 C. 7- 24-9. 50. Outside Galilee. 
 The training of the disciples. 
 
 24-30. The Syroplicenipian woman. 
 
 24. And He arose thence and went away into the borders of 
 Tyre [and Sidon]. And entered-z>« into a house, and was wish- 
 /«^, that none should know it, and could not be hid. 25. But a 
 woman forthwith heard about Him whose daughter had an 
 unclean spirit, and came, and fell down at His feet. 26. And 
 the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by race. And she 
 was asking Him to ex\}€\. the demon y^^^w her daughter. 27. 
 And He was saying to her, Let first the children be fed. For it 
 is not right to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the 
 hounds. 28. And she answered and saith to Him, Yes, Lord, 
 even the hounds eat of the waste pieces of the children. 29. 
 And He said to her, For this saying go thy way. The demon 
 has gone out of thy daughter. 30. And she went away to her 
 house, and found the child laid upon the bed, and the demon 
 gone out. 
 
 24. He arose thence. This phrase, as later in 10 V marks a new 
 stage in the narrative. Hitherto (i '*-7 ^^) Christ's work has been con- 
 fined to Galilee and its lake. Now (7 ^^-g ^^ He begins a series of 
 rapid journeyings north and west of Galilee. Hitherto He has taught 
 the common people. Now He avoids them. Hitherto He has for- 
 bidden proclamation of His Messiahship. Now He gives Himself to 
 the work of instructing His disciples about His death and resurrection. 
 
 and Sidon is probably a gloss. It is omitted by DLA, latt, Syr. Sin. 
 
 into a house. A house is mentioned in this Gospel in i ^'■', 2 'i^, 
 320^ 717.24^ g 28.33^ ioio_ In 1 29 thg \o\x%^ is that of Simon. In 
 2 '■^'' and 9 ^' it may have been the headquarters of the Lord at 
 Capharnaoum. In the remaining passages it is in an unnamed 
 place. See Introd., p. 25. 
 
 was wishing that none should know it, etc. See Introd., p. 23. 
 
 26. a Greek, I.e. not a Jewess by religion or speech but a 
 
7. 3J-37-] ST. MARK 109 
 
 Gentile. By race the woman was Syrian PhcEnician, as opposed e.g. ■ 
 to Carthaginian Phoenician. See Swete, in loc. 
 
 27. The saying reminds the woman of the excUisiveness of the Jews 
 in relation to Gentiles. She was venturing much in approaching one 
 who was a Jew. Why should she expect Him to allow her to share 
 in benefits which He was exercising for His own people? Men do 
 not feed hounds with the food they give their children. The sting of 
 this saying lies in the claim of the Jews to be the children of God, 
 and in their use of the term ' dogs ' to describe the Gentiles. We 
 may suppose that the Lord so spoke, not because He intended to 
 limit His mission to Jews, but as a test of the woman's character. 
 
 28. The woman cleverly seizes the point of the saying and adapts it 
 to enforce her request. She and her daughter might be Gentile ' dogs,' 
 unfit to eat the children's bread. But after all dogs get the crumbs. 
 Might she not have a waste piece of the great Jewish Healer's kind- 
 ness ? Montefiore interprets the pieces as the bits of bread upon 
 which the eaters cleaned their hands, and which they then threw 
 under the table. The whole incident is one which might give rise to 
 different impressions of the Lord's Person and work. Some might 
 say that He adopted the Jewish contempt of the Gentile. Perhaps 
 for this reason St. Luke omits this section. Others might argue that 
 at least extension of His mercy to Gentiles was an exceptional event 
 in His life, and that He clearly meant to limit His mission to His 
 own people (save in the case of proselytes). The editor of the First 
 Gospel probably borrowed the narrative from St. Mark under the 
 influence of thoughts like these. Cf. his insertion of ' I am not sent 
 save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,' and his omission of ' Let 
 the children be fed first.' And cf. St. Matthew 10 ^ 
 
 waste pieces {^i-)(iav). The word seems to occur only here and in 
 the parallel in St. Matthew 15 ^7. 
 
 31-37. The deaf man at Betlisaida. 
 
 31. And again He went out from the borders of Tyre and 
 came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the borders 
 of Decapolis. 32. And they ^r««j°- to Him one deaf and hardly 
 able to speak, and beseech Him to put His hand upon him. 33. 
 And He took him apart from the crowd privately and put His 
 fingers into his ears, and spit and touched his tongue. 34. And 
 looking up into heaven He sighed, and saith to him, Ephphatha, 
 that is, Be opened. 35. And forthwith his ears were opened 
 and the band of his tongue was loosed, and he was sfieaking 
 plainly. 36. And He charged them that they tell no one. But 
 the more He was charging them, the more they were proclaiming 
 it, 37. and were above measure being astonished aa.y\ng, He hath 
 
no ST. MARK [8. i-io. 
 
 done all things well; He makes the deaf to hear, and the dumb 
 to speak. 
 
 This incident, which occurs only in St. Mark, is noticeable for the 
 following points : 
 
 {a) The use of physical contact in the working of a miracle. 
 
 {b) The use of spittle. 
 See further on 8 2226, 
 
 31. through Sidott. This is the best attested reading, but it is a 
 very improbable one. To say that He passed from the borders or 
 territory of Tyre to the east coast of the lake by way of Sidon is as if 
 one should speak of passing from Torquay to London by way of 
 Manchester. Wellhausen has rightly seen that ' through Sidon ' is a 
 corruption of ' to Bethsaida.' We may suppose that the Lord, after 
 His interview with the Syrophoenician woman on the southern 
 border of the district of Tyre, turned south-east and came down the 
 east bank of the Jordan to Bethsaida. 
 
 32. bring . . . beseech. For the tenses see Introd., p. 15. 
 hardly able to speak (fioyiKdXos). A rare word. It occurs in Is. 
 
 35^, LXX, Ex. 4I' Aq, Is. 56 1» Aq, and in Vettius Valens (second 
 century a.d.), recently edited by G. Kroll, p. 73, 12. 
 
 34. sighed {((TTeva^ev). Cf. 8 ^^. 
 
 35. forthwith. So AE, etc., Syr. Sin., von Soden. 
 
 8. 1-10. The Feeding of the Four Thousand. 
 
 8. I. In those days the multitude again being great, and having 
 nothing to eat. He called the disciples and says to them, 2. I 
 have compassion on the multitude, because (it is) now three 
 days (that) they remain with Me, and have noticing to eat. 
 
 3. And if I dismiss them fasting to their home, they will faint 
 by the way. And some of them have come from a distance. 
 
 4. And His disciples answered Him that Whence shall one be 
 able to feed these here in an isolated place? 5. And He was 
 asking them, How many loaves have you ? And they said Seven. 
 6. And He charges the crowd to sit down upon the ground. 
 And He took the seven loaves and gave thanks, and brake, and 
 was giving to His disciples, that they might set them forth, and 
 they set them before the crowd. 7. And they had a few little 
 fishes. And He blessed them, and bade them set forth these 
 also. 8. And they ate and were satisfied. And they took up 
 the residue of the fragments seven fish-baskets, g. And there 
 were about four thousand. 10. And forthwith He embarked 
 
8. i-io.] ST. MARK III, 
 
 into the boat with His disciples and came to the territory of 
 Dalmanutha. 
 
 8. I. again. See Introd., p. 19. 
 
 2. three days {rj\i,ipai. rpCis). For the nominative standing in a 
 parenthesis and interrupting the construction see Moulton, p. 70. 
 Cf. Luc, Dial. Mer., x. I, ov yap iapaxa, ttoXve ffSri ^povos, avrov 
 nap* vp.Xv. 
 
 The ' three days ' differentiates this miracle from that of the Five 
 Thousand, as do the differences in the numbers of the loaves, fish, 
 and baskets. 
 
 3. have come {rJKatriv). So von Soden with XAD, etc., Syr. Sin. 
 WH read ela-iv with BLA. 
 
 4. A less scornful question than that asked at the previous miracle. 
 The ' whence ' may well imply not ' it is impossible ' merely, but ' we 
 cannot unless you furnish the bread.' 
 
 6. charges. For the tense see Introd., p. 15. 
 
 7. bade them set (elnev — TTapariBevm). Cf. on 5 *'. 
 
 8. fish-baskets (a-4>ipi8es). For the rendering fish-baskets see note 
 on 6 *^ and Dr. Hort's note there referred to. crc^ijpis is a late forili 
 of trnvpis. See WH, Notes, p. 148. 
 
 10. forthwith. See Introd., p. 19. 
 
 Dalmanutha is a still unsolved riddle. The editor of the First 
 Gospel substitutes Magadan. The most plausible explanation of 
 Dalmanutha is that it is due to corruption in an Aramaic text. ' To 
 
 the parts of might be T ^TWity? = 'Kp.avovda S."- Instead of the place- 
 name which should have followed, a copyist has repeated sni3D?, thus 
 
 producing the following Xni3D7T sni3DP. The translator naturally 
 renders eU to. fiiprj AaXpavovOd. The objection to this is that the 
 word njD cannot be proved to have been in use, in a geographical 
 sense, for the parts or portions of a district. But there is no reason 
 why, like the LsLtin pars and the Greek pepos, it should not have had 
 this sense. For other explanations see Ency. Bib., 986 and 1635. 
 Dr. Cheyne here (1635) suggests as the original Migdal-nunia, one 
 mile south of Tiberias. Dalmanutha has, then, arisen by corrup- 
 tion, dalma=Ma(g)dal, nutha = nunia. Burkitt, Evangelion Da- 
 Mepharreshe, ii. 249, thinks that there is much to be said for this. 
 
 There are some remarkable resemblances between the narratives 
 of the Feedings of the Four Thousand and the Five Thousand. The 
 general outhne of the story is the same in both cases. Jesus with 
 His disciples and a number of people is on the shore of the lake. 
 The question is raised as to how these people are to be fed. The 
 
 * See Nestle, Exp. Times, 9, 45, October 1897. 
 
112 ST. kARK [8. i-io. 
 
 disciples protest that it is impossible. Jesus asks what food the 
 disciples have, and when He receives an answer bids this food to be 
 distributed to the people. They sit down, and He gives thanks over 
 the bread, and then breaks it, and bids His disciples distribute it to 
 the multitude. All eat, and there is gathered a large overplus. The 
 Lord then dismisses the crowd, and He and His disciples set sail for 
 the other side of the lake. 
 
 There is also a very remarkable similarity in the sequence of events 
 which follows each of these narratives. It may be shown thus : 
 
 ^' 35-44- Feeding of the Five Thousand. 
 45-56. Crossing of lake. 
 
 7. 1-23. Controversy with the Pharisees. 
 24-30. The bread of the children. 
 31-37. Healing at Bethsaida. 
 
 8. I -9. Feeding of the Four Thousand. 
 
 10. Crossing of lake. 
 H-13. Controversy with the Pharisees, 
 14-21. The leaven of the Pharisees. 
 22-26. Healing at Bethsaida. 
 
 It has often been urged that the two narratives of feeding are 
 independent versions of the same event, the second having been 
 assimilated by the editor to the first. So Williams," who thinks that 
 the first account may come from the Petrine tradition, and the second 
 from some other source, possibly Q (the Matthean tradition ?). That 
 there may have been some assimilation is very likely, but there are 
 differences, which are inexplicable except as reminiscences of actual 
 fact, and the view that the two narratives are traditions of two separate 
 events is warranted by the fact that they occur as the first of two series of 
 events, which in spite of a curious similarity in outline contain so much 
 divergence in detail that they cannot be regarded as identical. This 
 juxtaposition of two superficially similar series of events must be attri- 
 buted to the editor, and it does not follow that the events followed one 
 another in the life of the Lord in the close succession which St. Mark 
 suggests. The real difficulty is to explain why the evangelist should 
 have placed the two feedings in such close proximity. For it seems 
 incredible that the disciples who had been present at the first occasion 
 should so soon have expressed a protest against the idea of feeding a 
 multitude. 'To suppose that they had forgotten the first incident 
 seems to postulate an almost incredible dulness on the part of the 
 disciples.' '' But we must remember that the connection of incidents 
 in this Gospel is often only apparent. 7 \ for example, is quite time- 
 less. There may have been a lapse of considerable time since the 
 events of the preceding verse. Again, 8 ' is quite indeterminate. 
 
 a Studies in the Synoptic Problem^ pp. 418 f. , 
 
 ' Williams, p. 418. 
 
8. 11-13-] ST. MARK 113 
 
 Historically the two feedings may have been widely separated. If 
 we say, ' Yes, but men who had once experienced the first could never 
 forget it, and must always have been on the lookout for a similar 
 exhibition of Christ's power,' we probably say too much. St. Mark 
 is probably right when he comments (6 °^) on the first feeding that 
 • the disciples did not understand, but that their hearts were hardened. 
 They knew that somehow food had been provided for a great number 
 of people. But they failed to connect this bounty with the creative 
 power of Christ. Any other explanation would seem more probable 
 to them, or their minds would remain in a state of blank bewilder- 
 ment. And it must be remembered that on the second occasion their 
 protest is less scornful than on the first. Then it had been ' Are we 
 to go away and buy?' Now it is 'Whence shall we find bread here 
 in a desert place?' The words mean just what the disciples put into 
 them, and that may well have been a note of expectation, ' Whence 
 . . . unless you provide ? ' 
 
 11-13. The request for a sign. 
 
 II. And the Pharisees went out and began to dispute with 
 Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, testing Him. 12. 
 And sighing deeply in spirit, He says. Why does this generation 
 seek a sign ? Amen I say that a sign shall not be given to this 
 generation. 13. And He left them and embarked again, and de- 
 parted to the other side. 
 
 1 1. An illustration of St. Paul's description of the Jewish character : 
 'Jews ask for signs,' I Cor. i. 22. Judaism with its many-coloured 
 Messianic hopes led naturally to expectation of signs to be worked 
 by the Messiah or His predecessors as proofs of their office. Signs 
 such as those which might convince the Baptist (St. Matthew 11^) 
 would not convince men of this temper. Miracles of healing might 
 be due to magical power or to such inspiration as Elisha had 
 possessed. They wanted incontrovertible proof that He was the Jewish 
 Messiah. In other words, they asked for the impossible, just as men 
 do who demand logical proof of the existence of God. The state- 
 ment that they came ' testing Him ' (TreipdfoKTCf ) suggests that they 
 were well aware that He could give no proof such as they asked for. 
 Compare 10^, where the inference is that they wished to elicit a 
 pronouncement which they could treat as a proof of His lack of 
 submission to the Mosaic Law. 
 
 12. sighing deeply (dvaa-Tevd^as). This, and the simple verb 
 a-Tcvd^a (7^*), occur only in this Gospel in connection with Christ. 
 See Introd., p. 23. 
 
 Amen. 'The Hebrew px which was usual only in response to 
 
 benedictions or oaths, was employed by Him in the Aramaic language 
 
 ST. MARK H 
 
114 ST. MARK [8. 14-21. 
 
 as a corroboration of any statement of His prefaced by this word ' 
 (Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 228). It occurs frequently (30 times) in 
 the First Gospel, 13 times in St. Mark, only 6 times in St. Luke. In 
 the Fourth Gospel it is repeated {ijir^v dfirjv). 
 
 that (£i). The use of d with a future indicative to express an 
 emphatic denial is a Hebraism. Cf. i Kings 19^, Zj Kupior, ei airo- 
 Baveirai. In the New Testament it occurs again only in a quotation 
 
 14-21. The stupidity of the disciples. 
 
 14. And they forgot to take any bread. And had not any 
 save one loaf with them in the boat. 15. And He was charing 
 them saying, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, 
 and of the leaven of Herod. 16. And they were disputing among 
 themselves because they had no bread. 17. And He knew it 
 and says to them, Why do ye dispute because ye have no 
 bread ? Do ye not yet perceive nor understand ? Have ye 
 your heart made callous? 18. Having eyes do ye not see, and 
 having ears do ye not hear, and do ye not remember? 19. 
 When I brake the five loaves for the five thousand, how many 
 baskets full of fragments took ye up ? They say to Him, Twelve. 
 
 20. When the seven for the four thousand, how many fish-baskets 
 full of fragments took ye up? And they say to Him, Seven. 
 
 21. And He was saying to them, Do ye not yet understand? 
 
 14. Did the incident recorded take place on the voyage or when 
 they had reached the other side ? Perhaps the latter (so St. Matthew), 
 as there is no subsequent mention of disembarkation. But ' in the 
 boat' suggests that the incident took place during the crossing. In 
 either case they had insufficient food for the party, and there came a 
 warning on the part of the Lord that they should beware of the leaven 
 of the Pharisees and of Herod. Are insufficiency of food and the 
 warning merely coincidental or in some way connected ? We must 
 remember that the Pharisees had just come with their request for a 
 sign, and had been refused. They represent one attitude towards 
 Christ, that of bitter hostility, which demanded external attestation, in 
 the belief and hope that none such could be given, and that Jesus 
 would be discredited by failure to give it. Vv. ^*-^^ seem to be in- 
 tended to furnish a sharp contrast in another extreme. The disciples 
 had not asked for a sign, and they had been given a sign. Yet they 
 wholly failed to understand its significance. They knew that the 
 Lord had twice fed the multitude in some marvellous way, but they 
 seem to have drawn no right inference from it, not even the obvious 
 inference that He had power to supply their needs if He willed to do 
 
8. 22-26.] ST. MARK IIS 
 
 so. And so, when they found themselves in the boat short of food, 
 the Lord bade them beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of 
 Herod. In the light of ^^ this can hardly mean anything else here 
 than the hostile disposition of the Pharisees and Herodians. Such 
 hostility blinded men to Christ's true character and claims. And the 
 disciples were to take heed lest their dulness of understanding should 
 place them on much the same level with respect to Him as these 
 open opponents. 
 
 V. '^ introduces fresh obscurity. Does it mean simply that they 
 were arguing about the omission to bring sufficient food with them ? 
 This seems to be the meaning of the text of B translated above. 
 Another text (AC, etc.) runs, ' They disputed among themselves 
 saying, (It is) because we have no bread,' or 'saying that we have 
 no bread.' Translated in the first way, this might mean that they 
 directly took Christ's words to refer to their omission to take bread, 
 and as a warning against the purchase of food from their enemies. 
 This seems hardly probable. We may suppose, then, that the warning 
 of the Lord has reference to the previous incident with the Pharisees, 
 and was suggested by the dismay of the disciples at finding that they 
 had no food. Such distrust and want of confidence in Him after the 
 two feedings was not far removed from the open hostility of the Phari- 
 sees. In both cases there was complete misunderstanding of His 
 Personality. 
 
 The passage is much altered and explained in the First Gospel. 
 The incident is placed definitely on the other side of the lake. The 
 Sadducees take the place of Herod, and the leaven is explained as 
 being the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 
 
 17. not yet. I.e. not even after two demonstrations of Christ's 
 power to provide food. 
 
 made callous {irenwpafiiprjv). Cf 3 ■', where this is said of the Phari- 
 sees and Herodians. There seems to be a reference here to that 
 passage, 'Are you no better than that hardened Pharisee and 
 Her'odian who have decided to destroy Me?' Their hostility and 
 your failure to understand spring from the same unbelief 
 
 On napoio see note on 6 ^^. ' 
 
 22-26. The blind man at Bethsaida. 
 
 22. And they (TO^Zi? to Bethsaida. And they Mng to Him a 
 blind man, and beseech Him to touch him. 23. And He took the 
 hand of the blind man, and was leading him outside the village, 
 and spat into his eyes, and laid His hands on him, and was asking 
 him. Dost thou see anything? 24. And he looked up and was 
 saying, I see men, because I see them, as trees, walking. 25. Then 
 again He laid His hands on his eyes. And he saw clearly, and 
 
il6 ST. MARK [8. 27-30. 
 
 was restored, and was beholding plainly all things. 26. And He 
 sent him to his house saying, Go to thy house and tell no one 
 in the village. 
 
 The blind man at Bethsaida. 
 
 This miracle, like that performed on the deaf man at Bethsaida, is 
 peculiar to St. Mark. In both cases use is made of material means 
 of healing (spittle) and of physical contact. In this case the cure is 
 gradual. 
 
 22. For the present tenses see Introd., p. 15. 
 
 23. was leading {i^r]yayfv). So AD, etc. 
 
 Do you see (ei . . . /SXtVeif). ei before direct questions is found in 
 the LXX and New Testament. See Blass, Grammar, p. 260. 
 
 24. because I see them, as trees, walking. So NBA, etc. The 
 Western text (D, latt. Syrr.) tries to simplify by omitting 'for I see 
 them.' But the ' because ' (ort) is probably a mistranslation of the 
 Aramaic relative ' whom.' 
 
 as trees. I.e. magnified and blurred in outline. The blindness 
 was apparently not congenital. 
 
 Go to thy house, etc. So D iVayc eis tov oikoj/ aov Kai fnjSevl einrjs 
 €if Tfjv K(i>iJ.r]v. This maybe the original text. The repetition of ' to 
 thy (his) house ' is Marcan. For other examples see Introd., p. 12, 
 and for dwelv els cf i ^^■^^. But the copyists have found the clause 
 difficult. BL have firjSe els ttjv Kafuqv elo-eXdrjs. If this were original 
 we should have to suppose that the man's home was outside the 
 village, but elo-eKOris may have been substituted for elvrjs, because 
 el(re\6i]s els is easier than einrjs els. AC, etc., conflate the two verbs 
 thus, ^7]de els T7}v KWfirjv elaeXdjjs firjde elirrjs Ttv\ iv rfj kw^tj. 
 
 27-30. St. Peter's confession. 
 
 27. And Jesus went forth and His disciples into the villages 
 of Caesarea Philippi. And on the road He was asking His 
 disciples, saying to them, Whom do men say that I am? 
 38. And they said to Him saying that (some say) John the 
 Baptist, and others (say) Elijah, and others (say) that (Thou art) 
 one of the prophets. 29. And He was asking them. And ye, 
 whom say ye that I am ? And Peter answered and says to 
 Him, Thou art the Christ. 30. And He charged them under a 
 censure that they should tell no one about Him. 
 
 27. Ccesarea Philippi lay on the southern slopes of Mount Hermon, 
 some twenty-four miles as the crow flies N.N.E. of Bethsaida. 
 
8. 27-30.1 ST. MARK 117 
 
 Anciently called Paneas, it had been renamed Cassarea by Philip the 
 Tetrarch. 
 
 Whom do men say that I a;« ? The question marks an epoch in 
 the training of the disciples. Hitherto the Lord has aimed at pre- 
 venting any public proclamation of Himself as the Messiah. Cf 
 J 34.44^ 2 i2j 5 43^ 7 36^ 8 26^ The reason, no doubt, was that the popular 
 conceptions of the Messiah were totally unlike the Messiahship which 
 He proposed for Himself, and consequently acclamation of Him as 
 the Messiah would have thwarted His work. But now that He has 
 abandoned the work among the Galilean peasants, He begins to try 
 to prepare at least His disciples for coming events. 
 
 28. The grammar is very harsh. 'John the Baptist' and 'Elijah' 
 are in the accusative, whilst ' one of the prophets ' is in the nominative. 
 So KBL ort eis, but AN, etc., 'iva. How natural the on is in Aramaic 
 may be seen by reference to the Sinaitic Syriac, which has the Syriac 
 equivalent in all three clauses. The First and Third Gospels correct 
 the grammar. 
 
 John the Baptist. We have already heard this asserted bv Herod 
 (6 ") and by others (6 "). 
 
 Elijah. The belief that Elijah would appear as the forerunner of 
 the Messiah goes back to Mai. 4 ^. 
 
 29. Thou art the Christ. We must not read too much into this, 
 because there were many current conceptions of the Messiah. It is 
 clear that St. Peter's understanding of the functions of a Messiah 
 differed toto ccelo from those of the Lord. Cf v. ^2. 
 
 30. charged them under a censure. The same word i-n-iTifidw, which 
 means to censure or lay under a penalty, has been used in i '^ of Christ 
 censuring a demon when bidding him to come out of a man ; in 3 '^ of 
 His censuring demons for saying that He was the Son of God. The 
 meaning there is that He prohibited any such further proclamation. 
 Here it must have the same sense. St. Peter had been encouraged 
 to make the statement that Jesus was the Messiah. Christ does not 
 therefore censure him, but lays the disciples generally under a penalty 
 or censure if they announce Him publicly as the Messiah. He was 
 not the Messiah of current expectation, and did not wish to be so pro- 
 claimed until He had taught His disciples that Messiahship involved 
 death. This use of eViTi/xdco seems to be peculiar to St. Mark. It is 
 used similarly three times in the First Gospel (12"', 16^°, 20 3') in 
 passages derived from St. Mark, and St. Luke uses it once (18^^) in a 
 passage borrowed from St. Mark. It seems to be a case of St. Mark's 
 curious blending of direct and indirect speech. ' Rebuked that they 
 should not ' = ' rebuked them (for their inclination to speak about 
 Him, saying) do not.' Compare the evangelist's frequent use of 'that ' 
 and indirect speech after ' saying.' 
 
 aiout Him. I.e. should tell no one that He claimed to be the 
 Messiah in any sense. 
 
ii8 ST. MARK [8. 31-33. 
 
 31-33. First announcement of the suffering of tlie Son of Man. 
 
 31. And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must 
 suffer much, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests 
 and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 
 32. And with confidence He was speaking the word. And 
 Peter taking Him began to censure Him. 33. And He turned 
 and seeing His disciples censured Peter, and says. Get thee 
 behind Me, Satan. (I call thee Satan) because thou thinkest 
 not what is of God, but what is of men. 
 
 31. the Son of Man must suffer. The disciples at least must by this 
 time have understood that the Lord intended by His strange habit of 
 referring to Himself in the third person as the Son of Man to claim 
 for Himself supernatural power and Messianic functions. But the 
 phrase would turn their mind to the conception of the ' Son of Man ' 
 in Dan. 7 '*, as one endowed with divine power, and so help to blind 
 their eyes to His teaching about suffering in store for Himself. So it 
 was that He now began to teach them persistently and steadily the 
 solemn truth, 'The Son of Man must suffer.' Why 'must'? No 
 explanation is here given, but the thought is involved that He could 
 not, except through death, become all that ' the Son of Man ' implied. 
 The ' must ' is therefore a necessity of internal compulsion, and the 
 death is an experience voluntarily submitted to. 
 
 after three days. The phrase occurs again in the Lord's mouth (9 ^^ 
 and 10^*). St. Matthew and St. Luke in the parallels alter to 'on the 
 third day,' but St. Matthew retains the original phrase in 27^', in 
 the mouth of the high priest. According to the popular way of 
 speaking, the two phrases were identical, and ' after three days ' 
 could mean after the third day had begun, Krebsius {Observationes in 
 Novum Testamentum, p. 97). 
 
 The Lord knew Himself to be the One in whom all the anti- 
 cipations of a Coming One were fulfilled. To become all that the 
 Old Testament anticipated He must give Himself to death, and so 
 enter by resurrection, and return as Son of Man, into His king- 
 dom. No doubt He would ponder and weigh every prophetic word 
 which bore upon the person and work of the Messiah, and it is 
 possible that Hos. 6'' was connected in the Lord's mind with His 
 resurrection on the third day. 
 
 32. We have twice had the phrase ' He was speaking the word' : in 
 2 ^ of His preaching to the populace of Capharnaoum, and in 4 '^ of 
 His preaching in parables. Here 'the word' must be the special line 
 of teaching of v. ''. But what is the meaning of ' with confidence ' ? 
 The word is used of Christ's speaking only here and in the Fourth 
 Gospel (see Abbott, yo;^. Grammar, 1917). It might mean 'openly,' 
 i.e. plainly and without reserve, or 'confidently,' i.e. without un- 
 
8. 31-33] ST. MARK 11$ 
 
 certainty. St. Mark probably means to say that Christ had on 
 previous occasions hinted at His death (2 *>), but that He now spoke 
 of it in clear, definite language, as One who had come to recognise 
 that death and resurrection were laid down in the Scriptures as the 
 true Messianic career. 
 
 The words have occasioned trouble in the course of the transmis- 
 sion of the Gospel. An Old Latin MS. (k), the Sinaitic Syriac, and 
 the Arabic Diatessaron connect them with the previous sentence, 
 ' Must rise again and speak the word with confidence.' Burkitt,y. Th.S., 
 ii. Ill, defends this reading. He points out that in the ordinary text 
 the imperfect at the end of the sentence {napp-qa-la rhu \6yov e'XdXei) is 
 anomalous, as there seems to be no special emphasis on the verb, and 
 that as the text stands it is difficult to see the point in irapprjo-ia. He 
 suggests as the original text koL wapprjaia t6v \6yov iKXaXelv. The 
 Son of Man will rise again and announce with confidence that He is 
 the Christ of God. 
 
 It would seem better to interpret the ' word,' which is to be the 
 subject-matter of the announcement, as the message of the good tidings 
 about the coming kingdom, as in the Gospel elsewhere. See note on i '^. 
 
 taking Him (-n-poaXa^afievos). This is the only occurrence of 
 the word in this Gospel, and the action suggested is not very easy 
 to grasp. The verb does not mean 'to take aside.' The nearest 
 parallel in the New Testament to its use here is Acts 18 2'', where 
 Aquila and Priscilla 'took' ApoUos and instructed him. But the 
 ' taking ' there is followed by a course of action, not as here by a 
 single utterance. In Acts 17^ the word is equivalent to 'to procure.' 
 Elsewhere in the New Testament it means ' to receive, accept,' or ' to 
 help.' Here it seems to have a merely auxiliary sense, as in our 
 vernacular English, 'he took and beat Him.' The Sinaitic Syriac 
 substitutes 'as if pitying Him.' It is not the simple idea of taking that 
 is strange here, but the strong compound npoa-\ap.^avop.M. 
 
 began to censure Him. The First Gospel (16^^) explains the nature 
 of the rebuke. St. Luke omits it altogether. It seems clear from the 
 next verse that St. Peter took offence at the idea of a suffering 
 Messiah. To a Jew a crucified Christ was then, as in St. Paul's day, 
 a stumbling-block (i Cor. i^^). 
 
 33. seeing His disciples. It was the presence of others that made 
 open rebuke unavoidable. 
 
 Satan. The word means adversary, and had come to be used of 
 the evil spirit who was par excellence the adversary opposed to the 
 divine will. Since Satan was also thought of as one who tempted 
 men to wrong doing and thinking, this thought may be implied here. 
 
 thinkesi not what is of God. I.e. St. Peter was unwilling to admit 
 into his thoughts the truth that suffering was divinely destined for the 
 Messiah. He had been ready enough to acknowledge Jesus as the 
 Messiah, but not as a dying Messiah. 
 
120 ST. MARK [8. 34-9. i. 
 
 34-9. 1. No discipleEbip without suffering. 
 
 34. And He called the crowd with His disciples, and said to 
 them, If any one wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, 
 and take up his cross, and follow Me. 35. For whosoever wishes 
 to save his life will lose it. But whosoever shall lose his life for 
 My sake and the good news shall save it. 36. For what shall it 
 profit a man to gain the whole world, and to be mulcted of his 
 life? 37. For what can a man give as an exchange for his life? 
 38. For whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and My works in 
 this adulterous and sinful generation — the Son of Man shall be 
 ashamed of him when He shall come in the glory of His Father, 
 with the holy angels. 
 
 9. I. And He was saying to them, Amen I say to you that 
 there are some of those who stand here who shall not taste death 
 until they see the kingdom of God come with power. 
 
 34. The appearance of the crowd here is very unexpected, all the 
 more so that the words which follow are a continuation and extension 
 of the teaching of vv. ^'"'^, and would be difficult for any who had not 
 heard that. But Christ may well have wished it to be understood 
 generally that He anticipated death for Himself, and that any who 
 attached themselves to Him must prepare their minds for self- 
 sacrifice to death. 
 
 take up his cross. The saying about cross-bearing occurs in three 
 forms in the Gospels : (i) here and parallels,. St. Matthew 16^*, St. 
 Luke 9 '^^ ; (2) St. Matthew 10 ^S; (3) St. Luke 14^'. Many modern 
 writers " would derive (2) and (3) from a common original in Q (the 
 discourse source supposed to have been used by St. Matthew and St. 
 Luke). The saying is thus as strongly authenticated as any saying 
 in the Gospels. The objection that the mention of the cross is due 
 to after-reflection on the crucifixion of Jesus does not seem well 
 founded. For, quite apart from any question of His foreknowledge 
 of the exact details of His death. He may have used ' cross ' as typical 
 of violent death. See St. Matthew, /«2'^r«. Crit. Comm.,^. iii. The 
 words mean that not only is violent death the destined fate of the 
 Messiah, but it must be readily submitted to by all His disciples. 
 They must live as men on their way to crucifixion. 
 
 35. This saying occurs in four forms : (i) here and the parallels, 
 St. Matthew 16^^, St. Luke 9 2*, where 'the good news' is omitted; 
 (2) St. Matthew 10^', ' He who finds his Hfe shall lose it, and he who 
 lost his life for My sake shall find it' ; (3) St. Luke 17^', 'Whosoever 
 shall seek to gain his life shall lose it, but whosoever shall lose it shall 
 
 ' Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, p . 87. 
 
8. 34-9- I-] ST. MARK 121 
 
 quicken it' ; (4) St. John 12^*, 'He who loves his life loses it, and he 
 who hates his life in this world shall guard it to life eternal.' 
 Thus we have (l) save — lose, lose — save (St. Matthew find). 
 
 (2) find — lose, lose — find. 
 
 (3) seek to gain — lose, lose — quicken. 
 
 (4) love — lose, hate — guard. 
 
 Harnack " and others derive (2) and (3) from a common original in Q. 
 
 The words carry on the thought of the last verse. The disciple 
 of the Messiah must renounce all ties that bind him to life, and live 
 as one on his way to violent death. If he shrinks from martyrdoni 
 he will, whilst apparently saving his life, really lose it, i.e. will lose 
 the truer life which submission to physical death would have developed. 
 If he go to death, and so seem to lose his life, he will in fact save it, 
 i.e. preserve it from the death of moral and spiritual cowardice. 
 
 The words ' and the good news ' (or Gospel) have caused trouble as 
 in 1 15, where see note. They are omitted here in the parallel passages 
 in St. Matthew and St. Luke. Some modern writers argue that 'the 
 Gospel' is used in the sense which the phrase had in the Apostolic 
 Church, and that it is therefore an anachronism in the mouth of the 
 Lord.'' St. Matthew and St. Luke, it is urged, omitted the phrase 
 in order to avoid the anachronism. Is it, however, in the least likely 
 that they would shrink from such an anachronism if they found it in 
 one of their sources? Nor is it necessary to suppose that the phrase 
 has crept into the Gospel since it was used by the first and third 
 evangelists. The reason why they omitted it may be twofold : 
 (a) It is one of a long series of cases where St. Mark has a double 
 form of expression, and where the other evangelists borrow only one 
 term. See Introd., p. 12. {b) The word is used here in an archaic 
 sense. It means, as in i '■*, the good news or tidings of the coming 
 kingdom preached by Jesus. Cf. v. ^, ' Me and My words.' 
 
 36. The ' life ' is, of course, the higher life, which is saved when the 
 physical life is lost in martyrdom (v. ^). To gain the whole world and 
 lose this true life is a profitless proceeding. 
 
 37. The verse emphasises the value of the higher life. It cannot 
 be purchased again when lost. There is nothing which can buy it 
 back. Cf Ecclus. 26'^, 'There is nothing which can be given in 
 exchange for a well-trained life (soul).' 
 
 38. For 'ike words' of Christ compare 10 2*, 132', and for the 
 'coming in glory' cf. Enoch 61*, 62^, where it is said that the 
 Messiah is to sit on the throne of glory. 
 
 with the holy angels. For the presence of angels at the coming of 
 the Son of Man or at the judgment cf. Dan. 7 1", Enoch 61 '". 
 
 * Sayings of Jesus, p. 88. 
 
 ■• E.g. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, i. p. 206 ; Klostermann on 
 
 St. Mark ji. 
 
122 ST. MARK [9.2-8. 
 
 9. I. that. See Introd., p. 19. 
 
 taste death. Cf. St. John 8^^ Heb. 2 ^. The phrase occurs in the 
 Targums and the Rabbinical writings to express the experience of 
 physical death. 
 
 kingdom of God. In i'^ the Lord announced the nearness of the 
 kingdom of God. In 4" He told His disciples that the 'secret' 
 relating to the kingdom was given to them. In 4 ^^ it is likened to 
 the harvest after the period of growth, and in 4 ™ to a grain of mustard 
 seed in its rapid growth. Here the nearness of its approach is once 
 more emphasised. It is to come in the lifetime of some of Christ's 
 hearers. It is natural to connect the ideas of the Son of Man coming 
 in the glory of His Father and that of the kingdom of God coining 
 with power. The writer of the First Gospel made this identifica- 
 tion quite plain by changing to 'the Son of Man coming in His 
 kingdom' (16^'). 
 
 2-8. The Transfiguration. 
 
 2. And after six days Jesus takes Peter and James and John 
 and leads them up into a high mountain in privacy alone, and 
 was metamorphosed before them. 3. And His raiment became 
 sparkling, very white, as a fuller on earth cannot make white. 
 4. And there appeared to them Moses with Elijah, and they 
 were conversing with Jesus. 5. And Peter answered and saith 
 to Jesus, Rabbi, it is well that we are here, and let us make three 
 tabernacles, for Thee one, and for Moses one, and for Elijah one. 
 
 6. For he did not know what to answer, for they were terrified. 
 
 7. And there came a cloud overshadowing them. And there 
 came a voice out of the cloud, This is My Son, the Beloved, hear 
 Him. 8. And suddenly looking round they no longer saw any 
 one with them save Jesus alone. 
 
 2. For the historic presents see Introd., p. 15. 
 
 was metamorphosed {)ieTefiop<\>ai6ri). The word is a rare one. It 
 occurs in Plutarch, de Adul et Aniico, vii. ; in Philo, Vita Mos., i. 10, 
 and Leg. ad Caium, ii. 559, 24 ; in Athenasus, 334, of transformation 
 into a fish ; in ^Elian, V.H., i. i ; in Diod., iv. 81 ; in the recently 
 edited Vettius Valens, 344, 9, 20 ; 355, 4, to express transformation 
 into a different external shape ; in Lucian, Asin., 11, of a sorceress 
 changing herself into a bird, and de Salt., 57, 'Every tale of meta- 
 morphosis, of women turned into trees or birds or beasts.' The poet 
 Ovid {ob. A.D. 17) had carried the word over into Latin to convey 
 this sense. St. Paul took the verb and used it twice (Rom. 12^ 
 and 2 Cor. 3'^) to express the spiritual change which is effected in 
 believers. 
 
 But a word which seems to have acquired an almost technical sense 
 of magical transformation into a different shape seems strangely used 
 
9. 9-I3-] ST. MARK 123 
 
 in its connection in this Gospel. St. Luke omits it. St. Matthew 
 explains it by adding the words, ' and His face shone as the sun,' and 
 St. Luke has a similar clause, 'and the form of His face became 
 different,' to compensate for his omission of the word. Both writers 
 seem to have felt that St. Mark's clause about the raiment would 
 allow readers to suppose that some unexplained transformation took 
 place in the Person of the Lord. 
 
 3. sparkling (o-riX/SovTa). The word seems never to be used else- 
 where of clothes. In Ez. 40^ and Dan. 10* (Theod.) it is used of 
 brass, and in classical Greek it describes the glistening of bright 
 objects, such as a polished shield, stars, water. Theocritus uses it 
 once of a bright complexion' (2, 79). 
 
 as a fuller. St. Luke omits. St. Matthew substitutes 'as the 
 light.' 
 
 4. Moses with Elijah. The expectation of Elijah as a forerunner 
 of the Messiah goes back to Mai. 4 ^, expanded in Ecclus. 48 '". This 
 expectation finds allusions in the Gospels, and is frequently alluded 
 to in the Rabbinical literature. The idea that Moses would also 
 come seems later. The only reference to it appears to be a saying 
 attributed to Jochanan ben Saccai (first century A.D.), ' God says to 
 Moses, When I bring the prophet Elijah you shall both come together ' 
 {Edujoth, viii. 7). 
 
 5. Were the tabernacles to be tokens of the respect of the disciples 
 for the transfigured Jesus and His heavenly guests, or did St. Peter 
 think that by making them he could prolong the scene ? Probably 
 the latter. St. Peter seems to have desired communion with Christ 
 and His witnesses away from the trials of the world. 
 
 6. The verse seems to be a criticism of St. Peter's utterance, 
 explaining its unsuitableness as the result of the terror of the three 
 disciples at the vision. St. Matthew 1 7 * omits the whole verse here, but 
 inserts the fear after the heavenly voice. St. Luke has ' not knowing 
 what he sailh,' but places the fear at the coming of the cloud (9 ^'■^*). 
 
 7. The cloud is a symbol of the Divine Presence (Ex. 13^1, 40^*). 
 It was to reappear in the Messianic period. Cf. 2 Mace. 2*. 
 
 This is My Son, etc. See on i ". 'Hear Him' refers back to 
 Deut. 18 ''. The Beloved is also the prophet foretold by Moses. 
 
 9-13. Difficulties a1]out Elijah. 
 9. And as they came down from the mountain He charged 
 them that they should tell no one the things which they saw 
 except when the Son of Man should rise from the dead. 
 
 10. And they kept the saying, disputing among themselves what 
 the rising from the dead meant. 11. And they were asking 
 
124 ST. MARK 9. 9-13- 
 
 Him, saying that the scribes say that Elijah must first come ? 
 12. And He said to them, EHjah indeed will come first and 
 'restore' all things. And how has it been written concerning 
 the Son of Man in order that He should suffer much and be set 
 at naught ? 13. But I say to you that Elijah has come, and they 
 did to him whatever they were wishing, as it has been written about 
 him. 
 
 10. the saying. I.e. the command to keep silence. 
 
 disputing. They no longer, like St. Peter, rebuke the Lord, but 
 are still entirely in the dark as to the possibility of the Messiah dying 
 and rising again. St. Matthew and St. Luke omit the clause. 
 
 11. that (oTi). In view of St. Mark's fondness for the phrase 
 ' saying that ' there is no need to take this on as interrogative in sense. 
 See note on 2 '^. Here the statement is in itself an implied question. 
 St. Matthew (17^°) makes it interrogative in form by substituting t'i 
 for on. The question seems to raise a difficulty presented by the idea 
 of the resurrection of the Messiah. Elijah, according to the scribes, 
 was to precede the Messiah, and to make all things ready for the 
 coming kingdom. How could this be reconciled with the thought of 
 the Messiah's death ? To what purpose death when all things were 
 ready ? 
 
 12. The answer is that the scribes are right about the predic- 
 tion of Elijah's restoration, because that wa,s foretold in Scripture 
 in Mai. 4 ^, 6s diroKaTaarjo-fi. 
 
 The last part of the verse is very difficult. The Greek is harsh and 
 the meaning obscure. As it stands it is a question in the mouth of 
 the Lord asking the disciples how the Old Testament had foretold 
 the suffering of the Messiah. But this would be no answer to their 
 question. It was the death which was their difficulty. Their answer 
 could only have been that the Old Testament did not foretell this. 
 This clause would come very naturally at the end of v. ", in the mouth 
 of the disciples. 
 
 13. Continues v.'^". As the scribes said, Elijah was to come and 
 restore all things according to Scripture. But he had come, and had 
 been prevented from doing his work. Prophecy had been thwarted 
 by those who had put him to death. The last clause here is very 
 difficult. What had been written about Elijah was that he should 
 come and restore all things. Where in the Old Testament is any 
 prediction that men would do to him what they willed ? The com- 
 mentators refer to Jezebel'^ threat to kill Elijah (i Kings ig^'"). But 
 how can the escape of Elijah from Jezebel be a written prophecy of the 
 death of John at the instigation of HerodiaS? The clause would 
 come naturally after ' I say to you that Elijah Jias come.' 
 
9. 14-29.] ST. MARK 125 
 
 We should obtain a more natural sequence thus : 
 
 They were asking Him, saying 
 
 That the scribes say that Elijah must first come ? 
 
 And how (then) is it written of the Son of Man that He must 
 suffer much and be set at naught ? 
 
 And He said, 
 
 Elijah indeed will come and 'restore' all things. 
 
 But I say to you that Elijah has already come as it is written of 
 him. 
 
 And they did to him what they willed. 
 Even so the Lord's answer would end abruptly, and contain no reply 
 to the second part of the question of the disciples. If in addition to 
 transposition we might have recourse to a slight emendation (koi outois 
 for KoL iras), we should get : 
 
 They were asking Him, saying 
 
 That the scribes say that Elijah must first come ? 
 
 And He said, 
 
 Elijah indeed will come and ' restore ' all things. 
 
 But I say to you that Elijah has already come as it is written of 
 him, 
 
 And they did to him what they willed. 
 
 And so it is written of the Son of Man that He should suffer much 
 and be set at naught. 
 The writer of the First Gospel has had something like this before 
 him, or has seen the difficulty and rearranged the clauses. 
 
 Blass, Textkrit. Bemerk. zu Markus, p. 67, rightly says that the 
 ordinary text is unintelligible. He reads with D ei 'H\/ar iKdav for 
 'HXe'tas ^lev i\6a>v nparov. Then Christ denies the Rabbinic doctrine 
 that Elijah would make everything ready for the Messiah. He does 
 not deny that Elijah would come. In v. '^ Blass reads with k, 
 'et fecit quanta oportebat ilium facere,' i.e. 'He did all that was im- 
 plied in the prophecy of Malachi.' Vv. '^ and '^ might then be 
 paraphrased thus, 'Is it the case that Elijah will restore all things? 
 If so, what meaning have the prophecies of the Messiah's death? 
 As a matter of fact, Elijah has come, and has done all that prophecy 
 foretold of him.' 
 
 14-29. The boy with a demon. 
 
 14. And when they came to the disciples they saw a great 
 multitude about them, and scribes disputing with them. 
 
 15. And forthwith all the multitude when they saw Him were 
 exceedingly amazed, and running to Him were saluting Him. 
 
 16. And He asked them. Why do ye dispute with them? 
 
 17. And one out of the crowd answered Him, Teacher, I 
 brought my son to Thee having a dumb spirit. 18. And 
 
126 ST. MARK [9. 14-29. 
 
 wherever it takes him, it dashes him down, and he foams, 
 and he gnashes his teeth and pines away. And I told Thy 
 disciples to cast it out and they had not the strength. 
 19. And He answered them and saith, O faithless generation! 
 how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer 
 you? Bring him to Me. 20. And they brought him to Him. 
 And the spirit seeing 'H.vca, forthwith tore him. And he fell on 
 the earth and was rolling about foaming. 21. And He asked 
 his father. How long is it since this has happened to him ? And 
 he said, From childhood. 22. And oft-times it cast him both into 
 fire and into water to destroy him. But if thou canst do any- 
 thing, have compassion on us and help us. 23. And Jesus said 
 to him, 'If thou canst' ! All things are possible to the believer. 
 24. Forthwith the father of the lad cried out and said, I believe, 
 help Thou my unbelief. 25. And Jesus seeing that a crowd was 
 running together censured the unclean spirit, saying to him. 
 Dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out ^him, and enter-/« 
 no more into him. 26. And he cried out and rent him much, 
 and came out. And he was as a dead man, so that most of 
 them said that he is dead. 27. And Jesus took his hand and 
 raised him, and he rose. 28. And when He entered-/V« into a 
 house. His disciples privately were asking Him that We could 
 not cast it out. 29. And He said to them. This kind cannot 
 go out except by prayer and fasting. 
 
 14. the scribes play no further part in the story, which would be 
 complete without them. We should expect the dispute to have been 
 between the disciples and the crowd, and it is not easy to see what 
 part the scribes played in the matter. 
 
 15. forthwith. See i '" and Introd., p. 19. 
 
 were exceedingly amazed. The reason for this amazement is obscure. 
 The commentators suggest that the arrival of Jesus was unexpected. 
 But it is difficult not to think that the evangelist had in his mind that 
 it was something in the appearance of the Lord which caused this 
 amazement. 
 
 16. Such questions in the mouth of the Lord are characteristic of 
 St. Mark. See Introd., p. 24. 
 
 18. The symptoms are those of epilepsy. 
 
 19. This emphatic and general denunciation is unexpected here. 
 
 21. For the question see Introd., p. 24. 
 
 23. '■ If thou canst'! The best authorities (NBLA) omit ' believe.' 
 Without it it might seem that Christ repeats the man's words, ' You 
 
9. 30-32-] ST. MARK 127 
 
 say, " Help us, if you can " ; I can, because all things are possible to 
 one who has faith like mine.' There is no emphasis in the Greek 
 upon the pronoun, or, of course, the clause might be a retort that the 
 point was not Christ's power to help, but the questioner's capacity to 
 receive help. It is not if / can, but if you can. However, in view of 
 the next verse, it seems probable that the words mean, ' You say, " If 
 you can " ; well, I can, if you have faith.' We have had the verb 
 ' believe ' in the sense of placing trust or confidence in Christ as able 
 to do a miracle in 5 ^^, and the noun in the same sense in 2 ^, 4 ^'', 5 '''. 
 said, liera Saxpiav is omitted by XBLAk, Syr. Sin. 
 
 26. St. Matthew 17'^ omits the 'crying out' and the 'rending' and 
 the corpse-like appearance here. St. Luke g*^ places the rending 
 before Christ's command. Compare St. Luke's treatment of St. 
 Mark i ^^, upon which see note. 
 
 28. On the form of the question see v. ^^ and 2 ^^- 
 house. Cf. 7^*, 10^, and Introd., p. 25. 
 
 29. The words are very strange. 'This kind' apparently means 
 this particular class of demon. The disciples had already cast out 
 some demons. For this special kind of demon prayer is necessary. 
 The words seem to suggest that the disciples had gone too con- 
 fidently about their work, and had met with the rebuff that sooner or 
 later awaits self-confidence. Confident in themselves, they had failed to 
 inspire confidence in others. On this view the prayer that was lacking 
 was prayer on the part of the disciples. And it is less probable that 
 the prayer intended is prayer on the part of the patient or his friends. 
 
 and fasting. The words are omitted by XBk, WH. Von Soden 
 retains them with ACD, etc., Syr. Sin. 
 
 30-32. Second announcement of the suffering of the Son of Man. 
 
 30. And they went out thence and were going through Galilee. 
 And He was not wishing \h&X any should know it, 31. for He was 
 teaching His disciples and saying to them that the Son of Man 
 is being delivered over into the hands of men, and they shall kiU 
 Him, and being put to death He shall rise again after three days. 
 32. And they were ignorant of the matter, and were fearing to 
 ask Him. 
 
 30. The ' thence ' marks a new departure. Since 7 ^ the Lord and 
 His followers have been moving about outside Galilee. Now once 
 more they return to it, but no longer for work among the people. 
 
 did not wish. See Introd., p. 23, and 7 2*. 
 
 31. delivered over. This is a new point as compared with the 
 former prediction (8^'). It probably corresponds to the thought 
 involved in the ' must ' of that passage, which implied that it was a 
 
128 ST. MARK [9. 33-5°- 
 
 part of the divine will for the Son of Man that He should suffer and 
 die. Here that idea is expressed by 'is delivered over,' i.e. by God. 
 See Abbott's Paradosis. 
 
 32. St. Luke 9 '^ explains this ignorance as due to the fact that the 
 meaning of the prediction was hidden from the disciples (by God ?). 
 St. Matthew 17^^ modifies it into grief 
 
 33-90. Discourse on humility and self-discipline. 
 
 33. And they came to Capharnaoum. And in the house He 
 was asking them, What were ye discussing on the way ? 
 34. And they were silent. For they had discussed among them- 
 selves on the way who was the greatest. 35. And sitting down 
 He called the twelve and says to them. If any one wishes to be 
 first he shall be last of all and servant of all. 36. And He took 
 a child and set him in the midst, and took him in His arms and 
 said to them, 37. Whosoever shall receive one of such children 
 in (on the ground of) My name receives Me. And whosoever 
 receives Me receives not Me but Him that sent Me. 38. John 
 said to Him, Teacher, we saw one casting out devils in Thy 
 name, and we were forbidding him, because he was not following 
 us. 39. And Jesus said, Forbid him not. For there is no one 
 who shall do a miracle in (on the ground of) My name, and can 
 quickly speak evil of Me. 40. For he who is not against us is 
 on behalf of us. 41. For whosoever shall give you to drink a 
 cup of water in name that ye are of the Messiah, Amen I say to 
 you that he shall not lose his reward. 42. And whosoever shall 
 ensnare one of these little ones who believe, good is it for him 
 rather if a mill-stone is hanged round about his neck and he has 
 been cast into the sea. 43. And if thy hand ensnare thee, hew 
 it off. It is better for thee to enter-z« maimed into life, than to 
 go away into Gehenna having two hands, into the unquenchable 
 fire. 45- And if thy foot ensnare thee, hew it off. It is better 
 for thee to enter-/;? into life halt, than having two feet to be cast 
 into Gehenna. 47. And if thine eye ensnare thee, cast it out. 
 It is better for thee to enter-/« one-eyed into the kingdom of 
 God, than having two eyes to be cast into Gehenna. 48. ' Where 
 their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.' 49. For 
 every one shall be salted with fire. 50. Salt is good, but if the 
 salt becomes saltless wherewith will, ye season it ? Have salt in 
 yourselves, and be at peace with one another. 
 
9. 33-5°-] ST. MARK 
 
 129 
 
 33. the house. See Introd., p. 25. 
 
 For the question in the mouth of the Lord see Introd., p. 24. 
 
 36. The taking in the arms occurs again in lo'". It is omitted by 
 the other evangelists. Syr. Sin. has ' and looked at him.' 
 
 37. receive. How can one 'receive' a Httle child? The general 
 meaning of this passage seems to be, ' If any one recognises that 
 the unassuming character of a child is a high excellence, and loves 
 little children because he sees in them this quality which he is 
 seeking for himself . . .' 
 
 in My name seems here to be practically equivalent to 'for My 
 sake,' i.e. ' because he sees in the little child the Christlike nature, 
 which I have recommended.' 
 
 receives Me. I.e. one who so recognises in a little child the Christ- 
 like quality of unassumingness and reverence, and loves the child for 
 it, does honour to Christ Himself. 
 
 not Me but Him that sent Me. I.e. honour paid to Christ is 
 honour paid to God in Christ. Recognition of unassumingness in 
 little children as a good quality, because it was recommended by 
 Christ and exhibited by Him, is recognition of the character of God 
 Himself. For ' Him that sent Me ' c£ i ^^ note. 
 
 38. The incident seems to have no particular connection with v. ^'. 
 It may have been placed here as a second example of action 'on the 
 ground of the name ' of Christ. The man was presumably acquainted 
 with cases where Christ had cast out demons and, knowing His power 
 to do so, made use of His name with a similar object in view. The 
 disciples object because he had not become a member of their 
 company. 
 
 39. on the ground of My name. I.e. here, ' Using My name as an 
 authority'; 'No one can so far recognise My power as to use My 
 name to a good end and at the same time remain hostile to Me.' 
 
 40. Such an one, using Christ's name, was clearly not against Him, 
 and in so far as he was active against evil was on His side. 
 
 41. Not only action in Christ's name, but mere recognition of that 
 name involved in such an act as the giving of a cup of water, must 
 not only not be thwarted, but would certainly be rewarded. 
 
 in narne that ye are of the Messiah. The awkward expression is 
 probably due to the fact that in Aramaic ' in the name that ' is 
 idiomatic for 'because,' and the evangelist has translated his original 
 too literally. C£ his ' sons of men ' in 3 ^', where ' men ' would have 
 been sufficient. He might have translated here ' because you are of 
 the Messiah,' but probably began with the intention of rendering ' in 
 the name of the Messiah,' and after writing ' in the name ' slipped into 
 a too literal translation of the following words. Or the Aramaic may 
 have been the simple ' in the name of the Messiah.' The translator 
 translated 'of carelessly by 'that,' which the Aramaic word also 
 
 ST. MARK I 
 
130 ST, MARK [9. 33-50. 
 
 means, and then inserted ' ye (are) ' to fill out the sentence. Even so, 
 we should have expected ' in My name.' But there is no reason why 
 the Lord, who had accepted St. Peter's statement that He was the 
 Messiah, should not have spoken of Himself as such in this con- 
 nexion. 
 
 42. The Greek of the verse (koKov eirnv . . . ft) is harsh. St. Matthew 
 (18°) a-vfi(f>€pei. . . . "i/a improves it. 
 
 /tU/e ones who believe. Who are the little ones ? As originally 
 spoken, the words may well have referred to children who loved and 
 placed confidence in the Lord. But in this position the evangelist 
 quite possibly took the phrase to mean children in faith, and so to 
 refer to men as the exorcist of v. ^*, or the givers of a cup of cold water 
 ofv.«. 
 
 43. The connection seems artificial, and is probably due to the 
 evangelist, who has been reminded of this saying by the ' ensnare ' 
 of V. "2. 
 
 life. The word in this connection means the future life in store for 
 the righteous. Cf. Ps. Sol. 14", 'The saints of the Lord shall inherit 
 life in gladness.' Its contrast here is Gehenna, just as in Ps. Sol. 14° 
 its opposite is Hades. 
 
 Gehenna. I.e. the valley of Hinnom on the south-west of Jerusalem, 
 in which the Jews had once sacrificed their children to Moloch. Jere- 
 miah (7^') declared it to be accursed. Is. 66^* probably refers to it 
 as the place where the carcasses of God's enemies would undergo 
 perpetual burning. In the Book of Enoch it is frequently alluded to, 
 though not by name, as the place of the punishment of the godless. 
 And so the word gradually became a term for the place where the 
 wicked would suffer punishment. Cf 4 Ezra 7 ^°, ' The furnace of 
 Gehenna shall be revealed' ; Targ., Is. 33 '^ ' The wicked shall be given 
 over to Gehenna, to burning of everlasting fire.' 
 
 the unquenchable fire. No doubt a reference to Is. 66^'. 
 
 44. The words which are found in v. ""^ are also repeated here as 
 v. **, and again as v. *'' in some Western and late authorities. They 
 are omitted by SBCLA k, Syr. Sin. 
 
 47. kingdom of God. TJiis is parallel with ' life ' of v. *^, and there- 
 fore means the future Messianic kingdom. See note on 12'^ 
 
 48. It is not unimportant to notice that this verse is not an original 
 saying in the mouth of the Lord, but a quotation from Is. 66^''; Just 
 as in employing the term Gehenna, He borrows a popular pictorial 
 term to describe the future state or condition of the self-indulgent, so 
 in V. *' He borrows an existing metaphor. In Isaiah it is the carcasses 
 of God's slain enemies which are subject to the fire and the worm. 
 
 49. A very obscure verse, (i) If we connect closely with v. *^ the 
 meaning must be that their fire will not be quenched, because every one 
 of them will be salted with fire, i.e. fire will be alike the instrument of 
 
10. I-I2.] ST. MARK 131 
 
 punishment and the means of preserving for further punishment. 
 (2) We may disconnect from v.''* and interpret 'every oiie' {a) quite 
 generally, ' Every one must undergo the discipline of self-restraint or 
 that of future punishment ' ; or {b) ' Every Christian disciple must be 
 purified by the fire of discipline or of Christ's teaching.' 
 
 None of these interpretations seem satisfactory. At a very early 
 period the sentence was glossed by the words, ' For every sacrifice 
 shall be salted with salt ' (D b c ff i). This is an allusion to Lev. 2 ^^, 
 and suggests the sense, ' Every disciple must be made into a sacrifice 
 pleasing by the salt of self-discipline.' 
 
 50. The first clause seems to have no connection, other than a 
 verbal one, with what precedes. It has perhaps been placed here by 
 the evangelist, who has been reminded of it by the ' salted ' of the 
 previous saying. St. Matthew (5'') and St. Luke (14^*) have the 
 saying, but in quite different contexts. 
 
 saltless, not of course absolutely, but comparatively, by admixture 
 of other substances, and by depreciation. 
 
 Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace. The words carry us back 
 to the strife of v. ^. The disciples are to have within themselves the 
 salt of self-purification and discipline, which will preserve them from 
 such self-assertive disputes. 
 
 D. Chapter 10. Journey to Jerusalem. 
 
 10. 1-12. On divorce. 
 
 10. I. And He arose thence and comes into the borders of 
 Judaea, and beyond Jordan. And again there journey togethet 
 multitudes to Him, and as He was wont again He was teaching 
 them. 2. And Pharisees came and were asking Him, Is it law- 
 ful for a man to put away a wife? putting Him to a test, 
 3. And He answered and said unto them, What did Moses 
 command you?- 4. And they said, Moses suiifered (us) to write 
 a bill of divorce and to put away (a wife). 5. And Jesus said 
 to them. For the hardness of your heart he wrote this command- 
 ment. 6. But from the beginning of the creation ' male and 
 female He made them.' 7. 'For this shall a man leave his 
 father and mother 8. and the two shall become one flesh. 
 So that they are no longer two but one flesh.' 9. What 
 therefore God yoked let not man sever. 10. And (when they 
 had come) into the house again His disciples were asking Him 
 about this. 11. And He says to them. Whosoever shall put 
 away his wife and marry another commits adultery against her. 
 
132 ST. MARK [10. I-I2. 
 
 1 2. And if she put away her husband and marry another she 
 commits adultery. 
 
 10. I. For the tenses see Introd., p. 15. 
 again. See Introd., p. 19. 
 
 2. The question was put with an underlying motive. No Jew of 
 the period would doubt that divorce was permissible, for they believed 
 it to be sanctioned by the Mosaic Law (Deut. 24 '•*). The questioners 
 probably knew that Christ taught His disciples that marriage ought 
 to be indissoluble, and they came to get from Him a public statement 
 which would set Him in conflict with the Mosaic Law. 
 
 3. The Lord accepts the challenge, and at once refers them to the 
 Law. For the question in Christ's mouth see Introd., p. 24. 
 
 4. The Pharisees state the Law as they understood it. For the 
 original meaning of Deut. 24 1-* see Driver {Intern. Crit. Comm., 
 in loc). 
 
 5. Christ at once explains His relation to this alleged Mosaic 
 sanction of divorce. He does not, as a modern disputant might do, 
 urge that Deut. 24 !•* does not really command divorce, or even sanction 
 it save by not expressly forbidding it, but that it only presupposes a 
 case where a bill of divorce has been given. Rather He accepts the 
 Jewish belief that Moses had commanded divorce in certain cases, 
 and urges that that was given because of human sin. 
 
 6. Prior to the Mosaic allowance of divorce is the divine ideal 
 reflected in the institution of marriage, ' Male and female He made 
 them ' " (Gen. i ^r). 
 
 7. For this cause, eXz. Quoted from Gen. 2 ^^ God created the two 
 sexes that they might be joined together in the marriage bond, which 
 is therefore, to those who live in accordance with God's purpose, 
 indissoluble. (The question whether death dissolves it, or whether 
 human sin can dissolve it and so thwart God's purpose, is not here 
 raised.) 
 
 9. A man and woman therefore, if they live in accordance with 
 God's law as expressed in the ordinance of marriage, must not divorce 
 one another. The words, of course, refer to the parties to the marriage 
 tie, not to any third person pronouncing a legal decree of divorce. 
 
 10. On the house see Introd., p. 25. 
 
 11. In answer to the question of His- disciples the Lord enforces 
 
 » These words are appealed to as an argument against divorce in the 
 Fragments of a Zadokite Work, 7, i , published by Dr. Schechter, ' They are 
 ensnared by two things ; by fornication, taking two wives during their hfetimes, 
 but the foundation of the creation is ' ' Male and female He created them. " ' This 
 is the opinion of Dr. Schechter, but Charles in his edition (Apoc. and Pseudepig. 
 of the Old Testament, ii. p. 810) thinks that the reference may be to polygamy only. 
 
10. I3-I6-] ST. MARK 133 
 
 the lesson of v. '. A man who puts away his wife and marries another 
 commits adultery against her. It seems to be implied that she has 
 not previously committed adultery against him, and the question 
 whether in that case divorce would have been permissible is not raised 
 here. A woman who puts away her husband and marries again 
 commits adultery. 
 
 This last clause has caused some difficulty. It is said that, inas- 
 much as women could not divorce their husbands by Jewish law, 
 these words must be a later addition. This is by no means certain. 
 Divorce by women was not unknown in Palestine. Salome, according 
 to Jos., Ant., XV. 7, 10, sent her husband Costobar a bill of divorce, 
 Herodias had left her first husband Philip, and outside Palestine 
 divorce by women had been practised amongst Jews in Egypt as far 
 back as the fifth century.* There is, however, another reading here, ' If 
 a woman go away from her husband' (Dab c), which may be original. 
 
 The application of Christ's teaching in the passage vv. ^'^^ is open 
 to much question. It will be observed that (i) He admits that legally, 
 i.e. by the Mosaic Law, divorce was sanctioned ; (2) He argues that 
 this sanction was an accommodation to human sin, i.e. that it was a 
 legal recognition of a breach of the marriage bond ; (3) He lays down 
 the principle that man ought not to break a bond created by the 
 union of two persons in accordance with God's purpose in creation ; 
 (4) He lays down further the principle that second marriage in the 
 lifetime of the first partner is adultery. 
 
 But this leaves undecided the point whether the Mosaic permission 
 to put away a wife is not still a necessary accommodation to human 
 weakness where the marriage bond has been, in fact, broken by 
 adultery. 
 
 The writer of the First Gospel has made this point more explicit 
 by introducing here from another record of Christ's words the clause 
 'except for fornication' (St. Matthew 19^ ; cf. 5 ^^). 
 
 The teaching of the First Gospel is not therefore, as it is so often 
 represented, contradictory to that of the Second, but explanatory of 
 it, laying down that the law which regulated breaches of the ideal law 
 'of God still held good in cases of adultery by which the ideal bond 
 was already broken. 
 
 13-16. An appreciation of the qualities of cMldhood. 
 
 13. And they were bringing to Him children that He might 
 touch them. And the disciples were censuring them. 14. And 
 
 ' At Elephantine. Cf. Assuan Papyri, ed. Sayce and Cowley, C 8, G 21. 
 ' But' closer study shows that at most the woman of the papyri could claim a 
 divorce, she could not declare one. This condition remained unaltered in the 
 first Christian century. Jos., Ant, xv. 8, 7, distinctly asserts "a wife if she 
 depart from her husband, cannot marry another, unless her former husband put 
 her away " ' (Abrahams, Minutes of Evidence before the Royai Comjnission on 
 Divorce, iii. p. 228). 
 
t34 St. mark [10. 17-22- 
 
 Jesus saw it and was vexed and said to them, Suffer the children 
 to come to Me, for of such is the kingdom of God. 15. Amen 
 I say to you. Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God 
 as a child, he shall not enter-/« into it. 16. And He took them 
 in His arms and was blessing them, having laid His hands upon 
 them. 
 
 13. touch. For belief in the touch of Jesus c£ 8 ^^, and for the fact 
 
 I ", 7 33, 8 22. 
 
 ■mere censuring., reading eTreTtfiwv with AD, etc., von Soden. 
 
 14. was vexed. The verb {ayavaKTiia) occurs only here as applied 
 to Christ. 
 
 of suck is the kingdojn of God. I.e. the kingdom when it comes 
 (see on 9 1) will have as its citizens people with childlike characters. 
 This appreciation of the high quality of the characters of children 
 seems to be unparalleled in antiquity. An obscure reminiscence of 
 the Lord's high esteem for qualities of childhood may be found in the 
 words quoted by Hippolytus {Refut., v. 7) from the Gospel of Thomas, 
 ' He who seeks Me shall find Me in children of seven years old and 
 onwards.' 
 
 15. receive the kingdom. I.e. the truth about the kingdom, e.g. its 
 heavenly nature and origin, and its near approach (i '■'). 
 
 as a child. I.e. with simple faith. 
 
 shall not enter into it. Because he has not the kind of character 
 which befits its citizens. 
 
 16. took them in His artns. Cf 9 3'. St. Matthew and St. Luke 
 omit here. D b c ff q, Syr. Sin. substitute ' called them.' 
 
 17-22. On inheriting eternal life. 
 
 17. And as He was going forth for His journey one ran up 
 and kneeling down to Him was asking Him, Good Teacher,, 
 what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18. And Jesus 
 said to him, Why callest thou Me good ? None is good save 
 One, God. 19. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not kill, 
 do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, 
 do not defraud, honour thy father and mother. 20. And he 
 said to Him, Teacher, all these I carefully kept from my youth. 
 21. And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, 
 One thing is wanting to thee. Go, sell all that thou hast, and 
 give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. And 
 come, follow Me. 22. And he was downcast at the saying, and 
 went off grieved. For he had many possessions. 
 
10. 17-22.] ST. MARK 135 
 
 17. eternal life. The phrase as used in this Gospel (here and in v. ™) ^^^ 
 means the life of the coming world ( = the kingdom of God ; cf. 9 **•*'■)• 
 
 It is frequent in this sense in the Jewish literature. Cf Dan. 12', 
 ' Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some 
 to eternal life' ; Secrets of Enoch^ 65, 8, 'All the just who shall escape 
 the great judgment of the Lord shall be gathered together in eternal 
 life.' The questioner therefore asks what course of conduct he should 
 adopt in order to obtain admittance into the future blessedness of 
 the elect. 
 
 18. Why callest thou Me good? The Lord seems to wish to divert 
 his thoughts from the idea that he could earn eternal life by doing 
 anything. With this purpose He takes up the title 'good' with which 
 the questioner had addressed Him. Had he considered what it 
 involved ? Goodness was properly an attribute of character, and at 
 its highest could only be used of God. The Lord does not deny its 
 applicability to Himself But He tries to awaken the questioner to 1^ 
 a sense of the conclusions involved in the use of such a term. The 
 writer of the First Gospel (ig^^'^'') transposes 'good' from 'Master' to 
 
 ' what' ' What good thing ? ' This is involved in his substitution of 
 ' Why askest thou Me concerning the good?' for ' Why callest thou 
 Me good?' 
 
 ig. The questioner was no doubt unprepared to rise to the thought 
 that the goodness of God was revealed in the one whom he had 
 thoughtlessly addressed as ' good.' The Lord therefore turns his 
 mind to that lesser revelation of this goodness which had been made 
 in the Law. God's good nature was revealed for man in His 
 commandments. 
 
 The first four commandments here given are taken from Ex. 20 '^'^ 
 or Deut. 5 1''^°. The order of the first two clauses differs in the MSS. 
 That given above, ' . . . kill . . . commit adultery,' is the order of the 
 Hebrew Massoretic text of Ex. and Deut. and of AF of the LXX. 
 Another order, '. . . commit adultery . . . kill,' is found in some MSS. 
 of St. Mark and in B of the LXX in Deut. A third order, ' . . . com- 
 mit adultery . . . steal . . . kill,' is found in B of the LXX in Ex. 
 
 do not defraud seems to be a reminiscence of Ex. 21 '" or Deut. 24 '■• 
 (LXX, AF) or Ecclus. 4 ', t^v foi^i' roO ittuixov fifj diroaTeprjcrrjs. 
 
 20. Teacher. The questioner was not prepared to see a revelation 
 of the goodness of the divine nature in the one whom he was 
 addressing, and drops the epithet ' good.' His answer betrays the 
 quality of his character. He had kept all the commandments in 
 question. He was therefore one of those who think of goodness as 
 the sum of a series of external acts done in strict obedience to the 1/ 
 letter of an external commandment. That good lay primarily 
 in character rather than in action was beyond the range of his 
 thought. He had kept the commandments of the Law. Was there 
 not some other commandment which he could keep and thereby earn 
 
^^ 
 
 136 ST. MARK [10. 23-31. 
 
 /eternal life ? With a man of this type, who could suppose that he had 
 
 '' ' kept ' the commandments, argument is of no avail. The Lord there- 
 
 / fore takes him at his own valuation, and in the next verse places 
 
 '-'before him a commandment which he will not be able to keep. In 
 
 I such a case the way into a better understanding lies through the gate 
 
 of self-mistrust. When he had learned that there was something 
 
 '-^ which he could not keep he would have learned much. The words 
 
 ' one thing is lacking ' are an accommodation to the questioner's level 
 
 of thought. The first evangelist finds this difficult, and refers the 
 
 words to the questioner himself in the form ' What lack I yet .? ' The 
 
 first evangelist also finds difficulty in the statement that Jesus 
 
 'loved' one so recalcitrant, and omits it. 
 
 21. looking. For the look of Jesus cf. 3^-^*, 5 '^, 11 ''. 
 . loved. See Introd., p. 23, and note on 12^. 
 One thing is wanting. The words are spoken from the level of the 
 questioner's idea, that by doing something external he could earn 
 eternal life. Entire renunciation of earthly possessions would be 
 such an external act, and following Christ would lead him into a 
 region of ideas in which he would find that goodness consisted less in 
 doing than in being. But the Lord no doubt knew that he would fail 
 ^J^at the command to sell his property, and no doubt knew also that such 
 failure might lead to better things. 
 
 23-31. On riches. 
 
 23. And Jesus looked round and says to His disciples. How 
 hardly shall they who have riches enter-/« into the kingdom of 
 God. 24. And the disciples were being astonished at His 
 words. And Jesus again answered and says to them. Children, 
 how hard it is to enter-z>« into the 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-z;^ into the kingdom of God. 26. And they were 
 exceedingly astonished, saying to Him, Who then can be saved ? 
 
 27. Jesus looked at them and says, With men it is impossible, 
 but not with God, for all things are possible with God. 
 
 28. Peter began to say to Him, Lo, we have left all and followed 
 Thee. 29. Jesus said. Amen I say to you, There is no one who 
 has left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or 
 children, or lands, for My sake and the sake of the good news, 
 30. except that he may receive a hundredfold ; now in this time 
 houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, 
 and lands, with persecutions ; and in the coming age eternal 
 life. 31. But many shall be first last and the last first. 
 
10. 23-3I-] ST. MARK 137 
 
 23. looked. See on v. ^'. 
 
 hardly. The rare adverb Suo-KoXar occurs in the second-century 
 writer Vettius Valens, recently edited by G. KroU, p. 123, 2. 
 
 24. -were astonished. See Introd., p. 21. 
 
 Children., how hard it is. This unquahfied assertion of the difficulty 
 of entering the kingdom occurs only in this Gospel. ACD, etc., Syr. 
 Sin. quahfy by adding 'for those who trust in riches.' So von 
 Soden. 
 
 25. eye of a needle {rpvijaXias pa^i'Sos). Both are rare and unusual 
 words in this sense. In the First Gospel (19^^) TprjfiaTos is substi- 
 tuted for TpvfiaKtas, whilst in the Third (18^^) the whole phrase is 
 changed into rpfifiaros fieXovrjs. The saying seems to have been 
 proverbial. It is found in the Babylonian Talmud, B. Bab. Mez., 
 381J, and need not be explained away. See Swete. 
 
 26. The question is not an obvious one if the disciples understood 
 the Lord's words to refer to the rich alone. It would seem as though 
 they thought of the rich as being the people who ought most easily to 
 enter the kingdom. If it was difficult for them, how much more for 
 others ! Who, then, can be saved ? 
 
 27. The last clause seems to be a reminiscence of Gen. 18", jxi) 
 abwarel Trapa ra 6eat prjfia ; 
 
 28. We have done what the wealthy questioner would not do. 
 
 29. and the sake of the good news. See note on 8 ^". The good 
 news is here, as in i ■* and 8 '^, the good news of the coming kingdom 
 preached by Jesus Christ. There is no need to give it the sense, 
 which it has in St. Paul, of the whole Gospel about Christ, and so to 
 regard it here as an expansion of the Lord's words, ' For My sake.' 
 
 30. except that he may receive. As in 4 2^, we should expect ' who 
 shall not.' The awkwardness of the Greek is due to mistranslation 
 of an Aramaic idiom. 
 
 a hundredfold. This determines all that follows. The renuncia- 
 tion of goods and relations is compensated by the new spiritual 
 relationships formed in the society of Christ's disciples in this life, 
 and by the inheritance of the blessedness of the coming kingdom. 
 The difficulty in this interpretation lies in the inclusion in this list of 
 'houses.' If the Christian disciple formed new spiritual relationships 
 for the earthly ones renounced at his conversion, in what sense did he 
 receive houses for the property which he had given up ? Swete refers 
 to I Cor. 3 ^^. D a b ff make things easier by inserting ' and he who 
 had left ' after ' time,' and ' shall receive ' after ' eternal life,' so that 
 the sense is, ' There is no one who has left house, etc., who shall not 
 receive a hundredfold now in this time. And he who has left houses, 
 etc., with persecution shall receive eternal life in the world to come.' 
 
138 ST. MARK [10. 32-34. 
 
 Other MSS. (N*C k) solve the difficulty by omitting 'houses . . . 
 persecutions.' St. Matthew 19^' abbreviates into 'shall receive mani- 
 fold and shall inherit eternal life,' and St. Luke iS^ into ' shall receive 
 manifold in this time and in the coming age eternal life.' 
 
 31. The writer of the First Gospel places here the Parable of the 
 Labourers in the vineyard, which he seems to regard as an explana- 
 tion of this verse : first called and last called will all receive an equal 
 reward. He then repeats the verse in an easier form, ' In this way 
 the first will be last and the last will be first.' St. Luke 13™ has 
 the words in a form almost identical with this last version of St. 
 Matthew, but in quite a different connection. Here in St. Mark the 
 saying seems to be a rebuke of St. Peter's self-complacent words 
 (v. ^*). ' All who have renounced the world for Christ's sake will 
 receive a reward, but. . . .' The ambiguity lies in the ' first ' and ' last.' 
 Is it 'many who were first to become disciples will be last into the 
 kingdom,' or ' many who now seem leaders will then be in the lowest 
 rank ' ? We may compare 4 Ezra 5 *'-*^, ' I will liken my judgment to 
 a ring, just as there is no retardation of them that are last, so there 
 is no hastening of them that are first,' and Apoc. Bar. 51'^, 'The 
 first will receive the last those whom they were expecting, and the 
 last those of whom they used to hear that they had passed away.' 
 
 32-34. TUrd prediction of the suffering of the Son of Man. 
 
 32. And they were on the way going up to Jerusalem. And 
 Jesus was going before them. And they were being amazed. 
 But those who followed were being afraid. And He took again 
 the twelve and began to say to them, 33. that behold, we go up 
 to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be delivered over to the 
 chief priests and scribes, and they shall condemn Him to death, 
 and shall deliver Him over to the Gentiles, 34. and they shall 
 mock Him, and shall spit on Him, and shall scourge Him, and 
 shall kill Him. And after three days He shall rise again. 
 
 32. The striking picture of the Master walking alone in front, the 
 wonder-stricken disciples behind, and, still further in the rear, a group 
 of terrified adherents, is peculiar to this Gospel. 
 
 33. The first announcement (8 '') spoke of (i) suffering ; (2) rejec- 
 tion by the rulers ; (3) death ; (4) resurrection. The second (9 ^^■^^) 
 spoke of (i) delivering over; (2) death; (3) resurrection. The third 
 is much more detailed. We have (i) delivering over to the rulers ; 
 (2) condemnation ; (3) delivering over to the Gentiles ; (4) mocking ; 
 (S) spitting ; (6) scourging ; (7) death ; (8) resurrection. 
 
10. .35-45-] ST. MARK 
 
 J 39 
 
 35-45. Tbe request of the sous of Zebedee. 
 
 35. And James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, come to 
 Him, saying to Him, Teacher, we wish that Thou wilt do for us 
 whatever we shall ask. 36. And He said. What do ye wish \le 
 to do for you? 37. And they said to Him, Grant to us that we 
 may sit in Thy glory, one at Thy right hand and one at the left. 
 38. And Jesus said to them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are 
 ye able to drink the cup which I drink, or to be baptized with 
 the baptism with which I am baptized ? 39. And they said to 
 Him, We are able. And Jesus said to them, The cup which I 
 drink ye shall drink, and the baptism with which I am baptized 
 ye shall be baptized. 40. But to sit at My right or left hand is 
 not mine to give, but to those for whom it has been prepared. 
 41. And the ten heard and began to be indignant about James 
 and John. 42. And Jesus called them and says to them, Ye 
 know that they who seem to rule over the Gentiles domineer 
 over them, and their great ones lord it over them. 43. But not 
 so is it amongst you. But whosoever wishes to be great among 
 you- shall be your servant. 44. And whosoever wishes among 
 you to be chief shall be slave of all. 45. For the Son of Man 
 did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a 
 ransom for many. 
 
 35. The extraordinary candour of the narrative is sure testimony to 
 its truthfulness. Already the writer of the First Gospel transfers the 
 request from the apostles themselves to their mother, whilst St. Luke 
 omits the incident altogether. It seems to be placed here to em- 
 phasise the incapacity of the apostles to understand the Lord's 
 predictions of His suffering. After the first such announcement 
 Peter had rebuked Him. After the second it is said that the apostles 
 were ignorant about the matter, feared to ask Him, and disputed who 
 should be the greatest. Now, after the third, James and John proffer 
 their crude request. We cannot wonder at the fact that the apostles 
 misunderstood sayings which were so inconsonant with their ideas of 
 Messianic dignity. It is natural enough that they should have sup- 
 posed that these sayings about suffering were riddles to test them, or 
 that, seeing no sense in them, they should have tried to banish them 
 from their mind. But only an uncalculating adherence to historical 
 fact could have induced St. Mark to record their dulness in the light 
 of after events. See Introd., p. 20 f. 
 
 38. The cup is a metaphor of sorrowful experience. Cf. Lam. 4 2', 
 Is. 51^. Baptism is a metaphor of overwhelming trouble. Cf .St. 
 Luke 12 °°. The cup occurs later in the Gospel (14 •^''), and there seems 
 
HO ST. MARK [10. 46-52. 
 
 to imply the idea of death. But here it seems unnecessary to press it 
 to mean that the two sons of Zebedee, Hke their Master, were to die 
 violent deaths, any more than we need press 8 ^* to mean that no one 
 could be a disciple of Christ who did not literally suffer the death of 
 crocifixion. The sons of Zebedee and the other apostles all drank their 
 Master's cup in the period after His death, though they may not all 
 have literally suffered martyrdom. The modern interpretation, there- 
 fore, which finds in these words a proof that both the sons of Zebedee 
 suffered violent death is unjustified. Of James we know that he was 
 put to death by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12 ''■). John later suffered exile 
 in Patmos (Rev. i °). The supposed evidence that St. John was put 
 to death by the Jews at an early date is late and unsatisfactory, and is 
 rightly rejected by Harnack and others. See Armitage Robinson, 
 T^e Historical Character of St. Johris Gospel., pp. 64 ff. 
 
 45. The thought that true greatness involves service of others is 
 here illustrated by the purpose of the life of the Son of Man. He 
 came to serve, and this service involved self-giving to the point of 
 death. So far as ' give His life ' is concerned, the thought need not 
 necessarily be more than that of entire devotion of His life to the 
 service of others. The phrase seems to have been current in this 
 sense. Cf Mechilta (Winter und Wunsche), p. 4, ' The fathers and the 
 prophets gave their life for Israel'; p. 213, 'The Israelites who 
 . . . give their hfe for the commandments.' In this latter passage 
 there seems to be a reference to martyrdom. But the addition of ' a 
 ransom for many' makes it clear that the thought of submission to 
 death is involved. The ransom is the price paid to purchase the lives 
 of others. ' For many' means 'in order to purchase, in exchange for, 
 inany.' The three main points in these words, viz. service, death, and 
 redemption of many, occur together in the LXX of Is. 53 'i'^, a 
 passage which may well have been in the Lord's mind, ' A righteous 
 one who well serveth many . . . because his life was delivered over to 
 death . . . and he bare the sins of many.' This is the first place in the 
 Gospel where the death, which has been three times foretold, is 
 described as intended to have a definite result or effect. It is to be a 
 price paid to purchase many. The background of thought behind the 
 words is no doubt that of sin as a state of bondage which merits the 
 wrath of God. For the thought of the death of the righteous as 
 expiating the sins of others cf. 2 Mace. 7 3'-^*, ' I give up both body 
 and soul . . . that in me . . . thou mayest stay the wrath of the 
 Almighty,' and 4 Mace. ly^l In i Tim. 2" the 'many' is expanded 
 into ' all.' 
 
 46-52. Bartimseus. 
 
 46. And they come to Jericho. And as He was going forth 
 from Jericho, and His disciples and much people, the son of 
 Timseus, Bartimseus, a blind beggar, sat by the roadside. 47. 
 
1.1. J- y.] ST. MARK 141 
 
 And he heard that it is Jesus the Nazarene, and began to cry out 
 and to say, Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me. 48. And 
 many were rebuking him that he should be silent. But he 
 ■was crying out the more. Son of David, have mercy on me. 
 49. And Jesus stopped, and said. Call him. And they call the 
 blind man, saying to him, Be of good courage, rise, He calls 
 thee. 50. And he cast away his cloak, and leaped up, and came 
 10 Jesus. 51, And Jesus answered him, and said. What dost 
 thou wish Me to do for thee ? And the blind man said to Him, 
 Rabboni (I wish) that I might see. 52. And Jesus said to him. 
 Go, thy faith hath saved thee. And forthwith he saw, and was 
 following Him on the road. 
 
 46. from fericho. D ab f ff i q have ' thence.' But the iteration of 
 the name is in St. Mark's style. 
 
 Bartintaus. The name, which means son of Timaeus, occurs only 
 in this Gospel. It seems to be a case where an Aramaic phrase has 
 been first translated and then transliterated. 
 
 47. Son of David. This is the first time that any reference has 
 been made in this Gospel to the Davidic ancestry of Jesus. This 
 would be assumed by most of those who heard that He claimed to be 
 the Messiah, since it was popularly understood that the Messiah was 
 to spring from the Ijouse of David. Cf Ps. Sol. 17^^, 'Raise up 
 unto them their king, the Son of David.' 
 
 49. For the historic present see Introd., p. 15. 
 
 51. Rabboni, a. less common equivalent of Rabbi. Cf. St. John 20 '". 
 
 52. thy faith has saved thee. Faith is here trust or confidence in 
 Christ's power to heal. Cf. 5 ^. 
 
 And forthwith. See Introd., p. 19. 
 
 E. 1 1. -16. 8. Last week of the Messiah's life. 
 
 11. 1-11. Entry into Jerusalem. 
 
 II. I. And when they draw near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage 
 and Bethany at the mount of the Olives, He sends two of His 
 disciples. 2. And says to them, Go into the village which is 
 over against you. And forthwith, as ye enter into it, ye shall 
 find a colt bound, upon which no man ever yet sat. Loose it 
 and bring it. 3. And if any one say to you ' Why do ye this ? ' 
 say that the Lord hath need of it, and forthwith is sending it 
 back here again. 4. And they went, and found a colt bound at 
 
142 ST. MARK [11- l-ii. 
 
 a door, outside on the street, and they loose it. 5. And certain 
 of those who stood there were saying to them, What are' ye 
 doing loosing the colt ? 6. And they said to them as Jesus said. 
 And they let them go. 7. And they bring the colt to Jesus and 
 cast on it their garments, and He sat on it. 8. And many were 
 scattering their garments on the road. And others cut litter from 
 the fields. 9. And they who went before and they who followed 
 were shouting ' Hosanna ! Blessed is He that cometh in the name 
 of the Lord ! 10. Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father 
 David ! Hosanna in the highest ! ' 11. And He entered-?!^ into 
 Jerusalem, into the temple. And after looking round at every- 
 thing, since the hour was already late, He went out to Bethany 
 with the twelve. 
 
 II. I. For the historic presents see Introd., p. 15. 
 
 The mount of Olives (so LXX, Zech. 14^, and Josephus) or Olivet 
 (so Acts I '^) was a hill about a mile east of Jerusalem. Bethphage is 
 unidentified, but is mentioned in the Talmud. Bethany is identified 
 with the modern El ' Azariyeh, on the south-eastern declivity of Olivet. 
 
 2. And forthwith. See Introd., p. 19. 
 
 3. The last clause is obscure, because 6 Kvpios is ambiguous. Does 
 it refer to Christ or to God, or to the owner o{ the colt ? Both the 
 first and the third interpretations are found in the ancient versions, 
 o Kvpios (absolutely) seems never to be used in St. Mark of Christ. 
 In 5'^ it probably = God. And that is probably the meaning 
 here. The mysterious 'God needs it' would impress the Oriental 
 mind. The last part of the clause has taken a different turn in St. 
 Matthew 2 1 3, where it runs, ' And forthwith he (the man addressed) 
 will send them.' 
 
 again. See Introd., p. 19. 
 
 say that (so NACD, etc.). See Introd., p. ig. 
 
 4. on the street (d^^oSou). A rare word. It occurs again in Acts 
 1928, D. 
 
 8. were scattering., reading (o-Tpawvov with D, Syr. Sin. ea-rpaia-av 
 of NB, etc., is an assimilation to St. Matthew 21", who, however, shows 
 that he read ia-rpaivvvov in St. Mark by retaining this in his next clause. 
 The last clause is incomplete. St. Matthew 21* adds, 'And scattered 
 them on the road.' 
 
 titter (a-Tipas). Another rare word. Elsewhere it seems to mean 
 a bed of litter, rushes, straw, etc., or a mattress made of such litter. 
 St. Matthew 21' substitutes 'branches.' 
 
 9. Hosanna is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word ' save now,' 
 which occurs in Ps. 118^''. In the Psalm it is an appeal to God to 
 
11. 12-14.] ST. MARK 143 
 
 send salvation and prosperity to the nation. As Messianically inter- 
 preted by the populace, it would be an appeal to God to aid the 
 Messianic king. 
 
 ' Blessed is He,' etc. From Ps. 1 18 2*. Here Messianically applied 
 to Jesus regarded as the Messiah. 
 
 10. A popular expansion and interpretation of the Psalm passage. 
 But ' in the highest ' is difficult. If those who used the words retained 
 any idea of the proper meaning of Hosanna = save now, 'in the 
 highest ' does not seem to convey any clear sense. The early Syriac 
 translators have felt this and have substituted ' Peace in the highest ' 
 (so Sin., Cur.). Cf. St. Luke 2 ■*,' Glory to God in the highest.' Per- 
 haps ' in the highest ' may be shortened for ' Thou that dwellest in 
 the highest.' Or it may be a mistranslation for ' O most high.' Or 
 the words may mean ' Hosanna (so let them say who dwell) in the 
 highest places ' = the angels. Cf Ps. 148'- 
 
 12-14. Cursing of the flg-tree. 
 
 12. And on the morrow when they went out from Bethany 
 He was hungry. 13. And seeing a fig-tree from afar in leaf He 
 came, if haply He might find anything on it. And when He 
 came to it He found nothing save leaves, for it was not the 
 season for figs. 14. And He answered and said to it, ' No 
 longer for ever let any eat from thee.' And His disciples were 
 hearing it. 
 
 A difficult narrative. If it was not the season of figs, why should 
 the Lord have hoped to find any? Was it that the tree was pre- 
 maturely in leaf, and that with the early leaves early figs might have 
 been expected ? Even if that were so, why the condemnation of the 
 tree ? St. Matthew omits the hope of finding figs, 'if haply He might 
 find anything on it,' and ' for it was not the season of figs.' St. Luke 
 omits the section altogether. The incident clearly requires some 
 explanation, and as it stands here without comment suggests diffi- 
 culties. Why should a tree be punished for not possessing fruit at 
 a time when fruit was not to be expected ? But this obscurity of pur- 
 pose is a strong proof of the historicity of the action recorded. Com- 
 mentators have seen in the fig-tree a symbol of the nation of Israel. 
 And Christ's action seems to be an acted parable. Carpenter thinks 
 that St. Luke's parable (13^'^) has been here materialised into a 
 narrative of fact {First Three Gospels, p. 1 78). 
 
 14. '■No longer^ etc. The form of the verb here used (the 
 optative) can express a command (Moulton, Gram., p. 179), but 
 might also suggest desire. St. Matthew substitutes a prediction. 
 The words when recalled to mind on the next morning were remem- 
 bered as an imprecation. 
 
144 ST. MARK [11. ISI9- 
 
 5-19. Cleansing of the temple. 
 
 15. And they come into Jerusalem. And He entered-/;^ into 
 the temple and began to cast out those who sell and buy in the 
 temple; and the tables of the money changers, and the seats 
 of those who sell doves. 16. And He was suffering none to 
 carry a vessel through the temple. 17. And He way teaching, 
 and saying. Is it not written that ' My house shall be called 
 a house of prayer for all nations,' but ye have made it 'a den 
 of robbers.' 18. And the chief priests and the scribes heard, 
 and were seeking how they might destroy Him. For they were 
 fearing Him. For all the multitude was being astonished at 
 His doctrine. 19. And when it became late, He was going-out 
 outside the city. 
 
 The passage is illustrative of St. Mark's style. Note the historic 
 present, ' they come ' ; the repetition of ' the temple ' ; the imperfects, 
 ' began ' ; the tautologous prepositions, ' He entered-into into,' ' carry- 
 through through,' ' He went-out outside.' 
 
 15. There was within the temple precincts a regular market for 
 the sale of victims for sacrifice, etc., which was recognised by the 
 chief priests, and a source of considerable revenue to them. 
 
 sell doves. There is added here in most authorities ' He overthrew.' 
 But this is omitted by D c k, Syr. Sin., and is probably an assimilation 
 to St. Matthew 21 1^. 
 
 17. The quotation is from Is. 56''. 'Den of robbers' is borrowed 
 from Jer. 7 ". 
 
 19. He was going out, reading i^^nopeveTo with XCD, etc., abffk, 
 Syr. Sin., von Soden. 
 
 The narrative of the first days in Jerusalem ended with the statement 
 in v. ^\ ' Since the hour was already late He went out to Bethany 
 with the twelve.' Similarly the account of the doings of the second 
 day ends with, ' When it became late He was going outside the city.' 
 The plural i^iiropevovro of AB, WH is a thoughtless assimilation to 
 the plural of the next verse. 
 
 when it became late {orav o^/'e iyivfTo). Swete presses this as 
 describing 'the Lord's practice on each of the first three days of 
 Holy Week : cf. R.V. " every evening." ' So Menzies, ' He was in the 
 habit of leaving the city in the evening,' and Blass, Grammar, p. 207. 
 But it is doubtful if orav — iyiv^To necessarily means this, orav with 
 the indicative occurs three times in St. Mark : in 1 1 ^^, orav o-T^Kei-e ; 
 and twice of past time, here and in 3 ", orav idcwpow. In 3 " the 
 idea of custom is conveyed less by the particle than by the whole 
 context. Here the parallel with v. " and the narrative character of 
 
11. 20-25.] ST. MARK I45 
 
 V. ^ suggests a statement of fact rather than custom in v. ^'■', so that 
 oTav = iyivero probably means no more than otc iyivero in 3 ^\ Com- 
 pare Rev. 8 ', OTav fjvoi^ev, and examples from the papyri in Moultbn, 
 Grammar, p. 168. The fact that ADN, etc., substitute 6Ve here 
 suggests the equivalence of the two words, and the writer of the 
 First Gospel interpreted the word as a statement of fact, for he 
 changes i^tTropeieTo into an aorist €^jj\6ev. 
 
 20-26. The withered flg-tree. 
 
 20. And passing by early they saw the fig-tree withered from 
 the roots. 21. And Peter remembered and says to Him, 
 Rabbi, lo, the fig-tree which Thou didst curse is withered. 
 
 22. And Jesus answered and says to them, Have faith in God. 
 
 23. Amen I say to yon i/iat whosoever shall say to this 
 mountain. Be removed and be cast into the sea, and shall not 
 doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he speaks is 
 happening, it shall be for him. 24. Therefore I say to you. 
 All things whatsoever ye pray and ask, believe that ye receive 
 them and they shall be yours. 25. And when ye stand praying 
 forgive if you have anything against any man, that your Father 
 who is in the heavens may forgive you your trespasses. 
 
 21. What impressed St. Peter was the fact that the desire or 
 statement of Christ that the fig-tree should no longer provide any 
 fruit for man's use had been fulfilled in its withering away. He 
 regarded that as a demonstration of miraculous power. The 
 Lord argues from this standpoint to the unlimited power of trust or 
 confidence in God, Mountains of difiiculty might be removed if 
 there were real confidence in God's power to remove them. Cf. 9 ^^, 
 ' All things are possible to the man who has trust.' The mountain 
 is, of course, metaphorical. The phrase 'remover of mountains' 
 seems to have been proverbial in Judaism for a great teacher. 
 
 24. Carries on the argument. Such mountain-removing trust in 
 God must assert itself in prayer to Him with confidence that the 
 prayer will be answered. 
 
 25. The verse is a noticeable one. It reminds us of St. Matthew 6 ''', 
 especially in the phrase ' your Father who is in the heavens,' which is 
 very characteristic of St. Matthew, and probably of the discourse source 
 used in that Gospel. Both on this ground and because St. Matthew 
 has nothing corresponding to this verse in his section (21'""^^), which is 
 parallel to this section (St. Mark ll"-'°), many writers think that the 
 verse has been inserted here by the copyists in remembra.nce of St. 
 Matthew 6 ". But there is no textual evidence against it here, and 
 
 ST. MARK K 
 
146 ST. MARK [11. 27-33. 
 
 the wording of the verse differs from St. Matthew 6". Moreover, it 
 is characteristic of the writer of the First Gospel to omit a verse of St. 
 Mark when he has inserted similar words from another source earlier 
 in his Gospel. E.g. the following are omitted from the corresponding 
 section in St. Matthew because they occur earlier in the Gospel :— 
 St. Mark 9^1 omitted from St. Matthew 18 ^ because it occurs at St. 
 Matthew lo*^. St. Mark 4" omitted from St. Matthew 1323-24 
 because it occurs at St. Matthew 5 '^ See other examples in St. 
 Matthew., p. xviii. Probably, therefore, it is a single verse recorded by 
 St. Mark out of a side of the Lord's teaching which he otherwise 
 neglects. If this is so, it is in this respect parallel to St. Matthew 1 1 % 
 which is a solitary verse recorded by St. Matthew from a body of 
 teaching represented more fully in the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 your Father who is in the . heavens. The phrase occurs fre- 
 quently in the First Gospel. Compare also St. Luke ii^'. It is 
 found in the post -Christian Jewish writings, e.g. in the Mishna, 
 Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, ed. Taylor, p. 30, ' Be bold as a leopard 
 to do the will of thy Father which is in heaven,' in the Mechilta (ed. 
 Winter und Wiinsche), p. 7, etc., and may well have been a term 
 current in Palestine at the time of Christ. 
 
 26. In many authorities there is added here as v. 26, ' But if 
 ye do not forgive, neither will your Father, who is in the heavens, 
 forgive your trespasses.' But the words are omitted in SBLk, Syr. 
 Sin., Cur., and are probably an insertion here to assimilate to St. 
 Matthew 6 '^ 
 
 27-33. Question of the scribes about John's baptism. 
 
 27. And they come again to Jerusalem. And in the temple, as 
 He was walking about, there come to Him the chief priests, and 
 the scribes, and the elders. 28. And they were saying Xa Him, 
 By what authority doest Thou these things, or who gave to Thee 
 authority to do these things ? 29. And Jesus answered and 
 said to them, I will ask you one thing, 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 from men, answer Me? 
 31. And they were disputing amongst themselves saying, If 
 we should say From heaven ; He will say. Why then did ye not 
 believe him? 32. But should we say From men, — they were 
 fearing the people. For all held John that he was truly a 
 prophet. 33. And they answered Jesus and say to Him, We do 
 not know. And Jesus saith to them, Neither do I say to you 
 by what authority I do these things. 
 
 .27. For the historic present see Introd., p. 15. 
 
12. I-I2.] ST. MARK 147 
 
 28. by what authority, what is a translation of voia. See note on 
 
 ,28 
 
 i-z' 
 
 these things no doubt refers to the expulsion of the salesmen 
 (vv. '5"). The repetition of the words is avoided in the other 
 Gospels. 
 
 29. The question was in itself a partial answer to the inquiry about 
 the authority behind His action. If John's baptism, i.e. his prophetic 
 activity, was inspired by God, it followed that the mission of Jesus 
 was also, as John had said, actuated by the Holy Ghost, and that He 
 had divine authority. 
 
 30. The repetition of 'answer Me' is avoided by the other 
 evangelists. 
 
 31. Why then did ye not believe hiiu ? I.e. when he testified to the 
 divine authority of My work. 
 
 12. 1-12. Tlie wicked husliandmen. 
 
 12. I. And He began to speak to them in parables. A man 
 planted a vineyard, and set roimd it a fence, and digged a press, 
 and builded a tower, and let it to husbandmen, and went away 
 from home. 2. And he sent to the husbandmen at the right 
 season a slave that he might receive from the husbandmen of 
 the fruits of the vineyard. 3. And they took him, and beat 
 him, and sent him away empty. 4. And again he sent to them 
 another slave, and him they . . . and dishonoured. 5. And he 
 sent another, and him they killed, and (so with) many others, 
 beating some and killing some. 6. Still one he had, a son 
 beloved. Him he sent last to them saying that they will reverence 
 my son. 7. But those husbandmen said amongst themselves that 
 this is the heir. Come, let us kill him and ours shall be the 
 inheritance. 8. And they took him, and killed him, and cast him 
 outside the vineyard. 9. What will the master of the vineyard do? 
 He will come and destroy the husbandmen and will give the vine- 
 yard to others. 10. Did ye not read this scripture, 'The stone 
 which the builders rejected this came to be a top corner-stone. 
 
 11. From the Lord was this and it is marvellous in our eyes.' 
 
 12. And they were seeking to arrest Him and feared the people. 
 For they knew that He spoke the parable against them. And 
 they left Him, and went away. 
 
 Once more the parabolic teaching commences. In chapter 4 the 
 parables are similitudes, descriptions of the process of sowing and 
 of its result. Here the parable is a narrative with a thinly veiled 
 reference to contemporary history. 
 
148 ST. MARK [12. 1-12. 
 
 12. I. began. See Introd., p. 49. 
 
 parables. Why the plural? No doubt because St. Mark gives 
 only one out of several. 
 
 A man . . . tower. The details are borrowed from Is. 5 ^. 
 
 The reference to the history of the Jewish nation is plain. It was 
 God's vineyard, from which He should have received fruits of righteous- 
 ness. But the messengers whom He had sent were ill-treated. Com- 
 pare Acts 7 ^2j ' Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute ? ' 
 St. Matthew 23 2', ' Ye are sons of them that slew the prophets.' Here 
 history passes into prophecy. The last messenger, the beloved son, 
 would also be slain, but judgment would follow. The vineyard would 
 be given to others. The true Israel would be ruled by better rulers. 
 Compare St. Matthew 19 2*, 'Ye shall sit upon twelve thrones judging 
 the twelve tribes of Israel.' 
 
 4. The word left untranslated is of doubtful meaning. There are 
 two variants. One {€Ke(f>a\Laa-av) read by KBL occurs nowhere else, 
 but appears to be a verb formed from a diminutive form of the word 
 for head, Ke<j}aKiov. It is conjectured that it may mean ' to smite on 
 the head,' but there is no evidence to support this, and it is not sug- 
 gested by the other verb of the sentence, ' dishonoiired.' The other 
 reading of ACD, von Soden (iKfipaKaiwa-av) would mean 'to sum up 
 under heads ' or ' to deal summarily with,' a quite unsuitable sense 
 here. It seems probable that the verb is intended to mean 'beat' or 
 ' strike on the head,' and that it has been used here in this elsewhere 
 unknown sense because something in the Aramaic original suggested 
 it. Now there is a root HBp, which means ' to strike, wound, buffet.' It 
 
 occurs e.g. in Gen. rabba, 23, 24^, Tl"ID3 PCf IB'SI 7V HS'p = ' he smote 
 the head of Nimrod.' In Syriac it is common in the sense ' to buffet.' 
 
 If the original here were \W''\ pV IT'JinSP, the first two letters (k p) 
 of the verb, the preposition, and the noun (head) would together 
 suggest the verbalising of K£(pa\fj. 
 
 Burkitt, Amer. Jour. TkeoL, April 191 1, pp. 173 ff., thinks that 
 e Ke(pa\iai(Tav may be a palaeographical blunder for iKoka<\>i(rav. 
 
 10. The verse expresses the same thought as the preceding parable, 
 but under another metaphor. Just as the vineyard of the nation of 
 Israel was to be withdrawn from the Jewish rulers and given to others, 
 so the stone which the Jewish nation builders rejected was to become 
 a chief corner-stone in a spiritual Israel. The verse is taken from the 
 LXXof Ps. 117^2. 
 
 top corner-stone. Literally ' head of a corner.' The phrase is obscure, 
 but seems to mean a stone occupying a conspicuous place in a 
 building. 
 
 1 1, this {avTTi). I.e. this fact stated about the stone. It was due 
 to the Divine Providence. The feminine gender is due to the Hebrew 
 nst, the feminine in Hebrew doing duty for the neuter. 
 
12. I3-I7-] ST. MARK 149 
 
 13-17. Questions of tlie Pharisees about tribute money. 
 
 13. And they send to Him certain of the Pharisees and of the 
 Herodians to ensnare Him in argument. 14. And they came 
 and say to Him, Teacher, we know that 'rhou art true, and 
 carest for no one, for Thou regardest not the person of men, but 
 teachest the way of God truly. Is it lawful, to give tribute to 
 Caesar or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? 15. But 
 He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, Why do ye tempt 
 Me? Bring me a denarius that I may see it. 16. And they 
 brought (pne). And He saith to them. Whose is this image and 
 legend? And they said Csesar's. 17. And Jesus said. Give 
 back Caesar's to Caesar, and God's to God. 
 
 13. they. I.e. the chief priests, scribes, and elders of 11 ^^. 
 
 send. For the historic present see Introd., p. 15. 
 
 Herodians. See on 3^. The Pharisees and Herodians would take 
 different sides on the question of paying tribute. They combine here 
 to place Christ in a dilemma. If He answered negatively. He could be 
 accused of disloyalty by the Herodians ; if affirmatively, the Pharisees 
 and their adherents could blame Him for sanctioning obedience to a 
 foreign government. 
 
 14. carest. See note on 4 ^^. For the double question at the end 
 see Introd., p. 14. 
 
 15. Bring. There would be no Roman coins in the temple 
 (Swete). 
 
 a denarius. The coin was worth about 9|d. of our money. 
 ' Shilling ' would be better than ' penny.' 
 
 17. The answer is an evasive one, but an evasion not of a question 
 seriously put, but of one concocted to entrap Christ into a position of 
 danger. He refuses to be drawn into a discussion of political theory, 
 just as elsewhere He refuses to decide questions of social justice (St. 
 Luke 12 ^''). His answer here is a simple appeal to facts. The point 
 behind the question was whether payment of tribute to a foreign 
 sovereign was not an infringement of the due claims of God as the 
 king of Israel. Christ appeals to facts. Cgesar's coinage was 
 current. He had therefore authority in the country, and might 
 demand back that which was his. This need not prevent any one 
 from giving to God all that He claimed. It is clear that the Lord 
 knew that to become a practical social or political reformer would 
 have interfered with His life's purpose. 
 
159 ST. MARK [12. 18-27, 
 
 18-27. Questions of tbe Sadducees about the resurrection. 
 
 18. And there come to Him Sadducees, who say that there is 
 no resurrection, and they were asking Him, saying, 19. Teacher, 
 Moses wrote for us that if any one's brother die and leave behind 
 a wife, and leave no child, that his brother should take the wife 
 and raise up seed to his brother. 20. There were seven brethren. 
 And the first took a wife, and died, and left no seed. 21. And 
 the second took her and died, and left behind no seed. And so 
 the third. 22. And the seven left no seed. Last of all the 
 woman also died. 23. In the resurrection, when they rise, 
 whose wife shall she be? for the seven had her as. wife. 
 24. Jesus said to them. Do ye not therefore err, not knowing 
 the scriptures, nor the power of God ? For when they rise from 
 the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are 
 as angels in the heavens. 26. And about the dead that they 
 rise, did ye not read in the book of Moses at ' the bush ' how God 
 spake saying, I am the God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and 
 God of Jacob. 27. He is not a God of dead persons but of 
 living. Ye greatly err. 
 
 18. come. For the historic present see Introd., p. 15. 
 
 no resurrection. Compare Jos., y4«A, xviii. 1,4, 'The teaching of the 
 Sadducees is that souls die with the bodies ' ; B.J., ii. 8, 14, ' They deny 
 the immortality of the soul, and the punishments and rewards of 
 Hades.' The Talmud alludes to the Sadducees when it says {San- 
 hedrin, ii. i) that 'he who says that the resurrection cannot be proved 
 from the Law has no part in the future world.' 
 
 The doctrine of a resurrection had made its way into the later books 
 of the Old Testament (Ps. i^? 161°? 17 1^? 49", 7321; Is. 26 1^; 
 Dan. 12^), and became an accepted dogma of Pharisaism. The 
 Samaritans denied it, probably because their Canon of Scripture was 
 limited to the Pentateuch. 
 
 Moses wrote. See Deut. 25 ^- 
 
 that if., etc. A very awkward and confused sentence. After 
 ' any one's brother,' ' his brother ' is less clear than ' he ' would have 
 been, and the repetition of that (on, Iva) is confusing. The later 
 Gospels simplify the construction. 
 
 20. The case adduced is intended to prove the absurdity of the 
 resurrection doctrine. The speakers assume that earthly relationships 
 continue in the after life. 
 
 23. when they rise. So AX, etc., Syr. Sin., von Soden. SB, etc., 
 WH omit, but the clause is in St. Mark's style. See Introd., p. 13. 
 
12. 28-34.] ST. MARK 151 
 
 24. The Lord's answer meets the objection on two grounds. First, 
 the Sadducees do not show any confidence in the power of God to 
 overrule in an after life difficulties that might be supposed to arise 
 from relationships formed on earth. Marriage problems will not 
 occur. 
 
 Secondly, the Old Testament implies the doctrine of a resurrection. 
 The argument seems to be based on a single text, but is really an 
 appeal to the whole revelation of God's being and nature contained 
 in Scripture. The verse chosen literally means, ' I am He who was 
 the God of Abraham, etc., whilst they lived.' But the Lord reads 
 into it the thought that the life which God imparts to His servants is 
 eternal. They cannot die, or He would be a God of dead persons. 
 Of course, this does not necessarily imply the doctrine of bodily 
 resurrection. But the Sadducees denied the permanence of the soul, 
 and if that were admitted the resurrection of the body would follow 
 as a probable corollary. 
 
 26. ' the bush.' Apparently a title for the section in Exodus to which 
 reference is made. Compare Rom. 11 ^, 'in Elijah,' and see the note 
 on that passage in Sanday and Headlam. The quotation here is 
 from Ex. 3*. 
 
 28-34. Question of the lawyer about the greatest commandment. 
 
 28. And one of the scribes, having heard them disputing, 
 knowing that He answered them well, came and asked Him, 
 Which commandment is primary? 29. Jesus answered him that 
 First is. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord, is one, 
 30. and thou shall love the Lord thy God from all thy heart, 
 and from all thy soul, and from all thy mind, and from all thy 
 strength. 31. Second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour 
 as thyself. Greater than these is no other commandment. 
 32. The scribe said to Him, Well (and) truly, Teacher, did you 
 say that there is One, and (that) there is not another except 
 Him. 33. And to love Him from all the heart and from all the 
 understanding and from all the strength, and to love one's 
 neighbour as oneself is more than all burnt-offerings, and 
 sacrifices. 34. And Jesus seeing him that he answered under- 
 standingly said to him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of 
 God. And no one any longer was daring to question Him. 
 
 28. which (■n-oia). TTolos in this Gospel (i i^S-SS-SS), as in other places 
 in the New Testament, has become equivalent to ris. ' It will not do 
 for us to refine too much on the distinction between the two pronouns ' 
 (Moulton, Grammar, p. 95). Blass, Grammar of New Testament 
 Greek, p. 176. Others take ■worn in its older sense. So Swete, 'The 
 
152 ST. MARK [12. 28-34. 
 
 Lord is asked not to select one commandment out of the Ten but to 
 specify a class of commandments — to which the priority belongs.' 
 
 Which commandment. The Lord singles out two. The first. 
 (Deut. 6 *) formed the first clause in the Jewish Creed (Shema) recited 
 daily by the Jews, and is one of the passages contained in the 
 phylacteries and in the mezuzoth (small tubes fixed on the door- 
 post of a house)."' 
 
 In the Hebrew there are only three words at the end, 'heart,' 
 'soul,' 'strength.' In the LXX MSS. 'heart' is rendered 'heart' or 
 ' mind.' St. Mark seems to have conflated both renderings. 
 
 30. The second is from Levit. 19", LXX. The combination 
 of this with the preceding commandment is not found before the 
 Gospel, 'the combination was first effected by Jesus' (Montefiore, in 
 loc). A condensation of the Law into a negative form of ' love thy 
 neighbour' is ascribed to Hillel the Great, who, when asked if he 
 could teach the questioner the whole Law whilst he stood on one 
 foot, replied, ' Do not do to thy neighbour what is hateful to thyself 
 [Sabbath, ^la). 
 
 34. Thou art not far, etc. The words are remarkable as affording 
 one of the rare cases in this Gospel in which the phrase ' kingdom of 
 God' seems to be used in a non-eschatological sense. The eschato- 
 logical sense prevails in 1'*, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand'; 
 4 ^^-3", where the kingdom is likened to the harvest after a period of 
 growth ; in 9 ' (see note) ; in 9 *^, ' To enter one-eyed into the kingdom,' 
 where the parallel with ' to enter into life ' (v. *^") suggests the eschato- 
 logical interpretation for 'kingdom'; in lo'^-^^-^'-Zo^ ijio^ 1425^ I5« 
 On the other hand, the Parable of the Mustard Seed {\'^'^-'^^) is often 
 interpreted as teaching that the kingdom is now present amongst 
 men, whether as the teaching of Christ or as the society of believers 
 in whom this teaching is active. But in this Gospel, immediately 
 after the Parable of the Seed growing Secretly, in which the seed is 
 clearly the good news about the kingdom, and the kingdom the 
 harvest or end of the period of preaching, it seems better to interpret 
 the Mustard Seed in the same way. The seed is the message or 
 word of the kingdom, and the period during which it is preached a 
 short one like that of the time which a mustard seed takes to develop. 
 The kingdom is the mustard-tree, i.e. the climax of the period of 
 preaching as the tree is of the growing seed. Here in 12^* it is very 
 difficult to catch the speaker's meaning, so difficult that St. Luke 
 omits the story and substitutes earUer in his Gospel (10'-°"^'^) a similar 
 yet different narrative without these words, whilst St. Matthew 22 '^-^ 
 omits the whole of vv. ^^-^^ (to 'God') and substitutes 'on these two 
 commandments hang all the law and the prophets.' 
 
 The circumstances are curiously similar to those in St. Mark 10 '"■^•'. 
 There a man came with a question about inheriting eternal life, and 
 
 f The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, Oesterley and Box, pp. 418, 42;. 
 
12. 3S-37-] ST. MARK 153 
 
 professed that he had kept from his youth all the commandments of 
 the Law which Jesus brought to his remembrance, whereupon it is 
 said that Jesus looking upon him loved him. The later evangelists 
 seem to have wondered why love should have been called forth by one 
 so entrenched in legalism, for both omit the words. Here a scribe 
 approves Christ's choice of the 'greatest commandment,' and the 
 Lord says that he is not far from the kingdom. Again the later 
 evangelists seem to have wondered why such praise was given, and 
 both omit the words. We must take the words as they stand. 
 Christ saw in the questioner a freedom from formalism and a 
 perception of the necessity of a right spiritual relation to God 
 which called forth this praise. Such an one was not far from the 
 kingdom. In view of the general conception of the kingdom in this 
 Gospel, the evangeHst probably supposed that they meant much the 
 same as ' Thou art almost My disciple,' i.e. almost ready to receive 
 the doctrine of the kingdom (cf 10'''). And this may well have been 
 the meaning of the Speaker. Montefiore (p. 289) says that we have 
 here ' one of the very rare instances in which in St. Mark the kingdom 
 is spoken of as something which already exists.' But it is doubtful 
 whether any of Christ's sayings teach such a present existence of 
 the kingdom except by way of anticipation and hope. See article 
 ' Kingdom' in Hastings' Dictionary of the Apostolic Church- 
 
 35-37. Question about David's son. 
 
 35. And Jesus answered and was saying as He taught in the 
 temple, How say the scribes that the Messiah is David's son ? 
 36. David himself said in the Holy Spirit, ' The Lord said to my 
 Lord, Sit on My right hand until I set Thine enemies underneath 
 Thy feet.' 37. David himself says that He is Lord, and how is He 
 his son ? And the multitude was hearing Him gladly. 
 
 The question seems to be intended to suggest that the scribal 
 conclusion from the Old Testament that the Messiah was to be a 
 lineal descendant of David was not the whole truth. David had 
 spoken of the Messiah (Ps. no) in terms of lordship, not sonship. 
 
 There is no necessity to infer with some modern writers'' that 
 Christ, being aware that He was not of Davidic descent, is here 
 defending His Messianic claim by arguing that the Old Testament 
 looked forward to a non-Davidic Messiah. The New Testament 
 represents His Davidic descent as an unchallenged fact, and no 
 doubt the Lord took it for granted. It is a one-sided conception of 
 Messiahship which He here seeks to correct. The argument is not 
 that Christ is not David's son, but that being that He is also some- 
 thing more. The Messiah who was of the seed of David was at the 
 » H.g. Montefiore, in loc, 
 
154 ST. MARK [12. 38-44. 
 
 same time Son of God. It was this consciousness of Divine Sonship 
 which made His conception of Messiahship and its functions so 
 unintelligible to His contemporaries. The argument depends on the 
 current assumption that the Psalm was written by David. That is 
 to say, if this particular Psalm had not been popularly attributed to 
 David the Lord would have been obliged to express His meaning in 
 some different way. 
 
 36. in the Holy Spirit. A technical term for inspiration. See 
 Bacher, Exeget. Termin, ii. 202. 
 
 38-10. Denunciation of tbe scribes. 
 
 38. And in His teaching He was saying. Beware of the scribes, 
 who like to walk in robes and salutations in the market places. 
 
 39. And chief seats in the synagogues, and first places at feasts. 
 
 40. Who devour widows' houses, and for a pretence pray long 
 prayers. These shall receive greater condemnation. 
 
 38, 39. The grammar is awkward. It would have been improved 
 by another verb before 'salutations.' St. Luke (20^°) inserts one 
 {^iKovvTwv). 
 
 40. Again the grammar halts. ' Who like ' in v. ^ is a participle in 
 the genitive, whilst ' who devour ' here is a participle in the nomin- 
 ative. It looks like careless translation of an Aramaic participle. 
 
 greater, that is, than the unlearned common people. 
 
 41-44. The widow's mite. 
 
 41. And He sat over against the treasury, and was beholding 
 how the crowd cast money into the treasury. And many rich 
 men were casting much. 42. And one poor widow came and 
 cast in two mites, i.e. a quadrant. 43. And He called His 
 disciples and said to them. Amen I say to you that this poor 
 widow cast in more than all who cast into the treasury. 44. For 
 all out of their abundance cast in, but she out of her want cast 
 in all that she had, all her living. 
 
 41. The introduction of this narrative here has perhaps been 
 suggested by the word ' widow ' in v. ^. So Klostermann. For 
 another possible case of a word as the cause of the juxtaposition of 
 paragraphs see 9 *^'*', ^^'^. The story of the poor widow also forms a 
 good contrast to the preceding picture of the self-seeking scribes. 
 
 the treasury {^a^of^vkaKiav). The word has a wide range of 
 meaning for rooms or cells in which the temple valuables and 
 
13. 1-4.] ST. MARK 155 
 
 deposits were stored (l Mace. 14*9 ; 2 Mace. 3^ 4 ^2, 5 '^ ; Jos., Ant, 
 xix. 6, i). Here it must be used of some receptacle for the receipt of 
 alms, and it is said {Sckekaltm, vi. 5) that there were thirteen trumpet- 
 shaped chests for the receipt of alms. See Schiirer, ii. i, 261. Or it 
 may perhaps be used more widely in the sense of the temple funds 
 without special reference to the particular receptacle into which the 
 widow dropped her mite. 
 
 money. Lit. copper money (xoAkoj/). Cf 6 8, but here used more 
 widely of money in general. 
 
 42. mites (^.QTVTo). A denarius (121^) was worth about gjd., a 
 quadrant about one-third of a farthing, and a mite about five-eighths 
 of a farthing. 
 
 44. all her living. The Sinaitic Syriae omits, but the iteration ' all 
 that she had, all her living' is in St. Mark's style. See Introd., 
 P- IS- 
 IS. Discourse about the fall of Jerusalem. 
 
 13. I. And as He was going out of the temple one of His 
 disciples says to Him, Teacher, lo, what great stones and what 
 great buildings ! 2. And Jesus said to him. Thou seest these 
 great buildings; there shall not be left here a stone upon a 
 stone which shall not be pulled down. 
 
 13. I. out. Lit. ' going-out out.' See Introd., P- 1 5- 
 •what great buildings. The temple then standing was begun by 
 Herod the Great in 20-19 B.C., and was not finished until 62-64 A.D. 
 A description of it is given in Josephus, Ant.,,xv. ii. For a plan of 
 it see Sanday, Sacred Sites, p. 116. Josephus describes one of its 
 stones as 25 X 8 X 12 cubits {Ant., xv. 11, 3). For a modern descrip- 
 tion of the temple see Edersheim, Life and Times, i, 243. 
 
 2. D and the Old Latin add at the end, 'And after three days 
 another shall rise without hands.' This seems to be a gloss to antici- 
 pate 14'''. The interpolator is connecting together several lines of 
 thought, (i) In Dan. n^-^'' we read of a stone cut from a mountain 
 without hands, symbolising the Messiah. This ' stone without hands ' 
 was to replace the temple. (2) It was the Messiah raised 'after 
 three days' whose risen body was to become the new Spiritual 
 Temple of God. 
 
 3. And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives over against 
 the temple Peter was asking Him privately with James and John 
 and Andrew, 4. Tell us when these things shall be, and what 
 the sign will be when all these things are about to be fulfilled? 
 
156 ST. MARK [13. 5-8. 
 
 3. on (eis). Lit. ' into,' a very harsh use of the preposition. St. 
 Matthew 24^ substitutes the more usual inl. For els cf. Vettius 
 Valens, ed. KroU, 275, 20, koX Siefieivev ds tS>v iroXf/jilmv x^apav ; 345, 
 26, el 8c' TiS — BeXoi — els fiiav fjfiepav Svo Koi Tpels /3i/3Xoiir Sie^ievai. 
 
 4. The question concerns the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, 
 and it is this which is dealt with in vv. ^-^^. 
 
 5. And Jesus i>egan to say to them, Take heed lest any one 
 deceive you. 6. Many shall come in My name saying that I am 
 He, and shall deceive many. 7. And when you shall hear of 
 wars and rumours of wars be not troubled. They must come to 
 pass, but not yet is the end. 8. For nation shall rise against 
 nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There shall be earth- 
 quakes here, and there there shall be famines. These things 
 are a beginning of birth-pangs. 
 
 7. iAe end. In apocalyptic literature 'the end' signifies the period 
 immediately preceding the Messianic age. See Box, Ezra Apoc, 
 pp. 12, 72. Here it means the end of the period of Messianic woes. 
 See below on v. ^. 
 
 8. Compare 4 Ezra 15^^, ' And nation shall rise up against nation 
 to battle'; 13^^, 'And one shall think to war against another, city 
 against city, place against place, people against people, and kingdom 
 against kingdom.' Sib. Oracles, 'Everywhere war and pestilence 
 shall beset all mortals,' 3, 538 ; ' And king shall capture king, and 
 nation ravage nation,' 635; Enoch 99*, 'In those days will the 
 nations be stirred up ' ; Apoc. Bar. 70 ^, ' And they will hate one 
 another, and provoke one another to fight' For the earthquakes 
 cf. 4 Ezra 9 ^, ' There shall be seen in the world earthquakes, dis- 
 quietude of peoples' ; Apoc. Bar. 27', 'In the sixth part earthquakes'; 
 70*, 'Whosoever gets safe out of the war will die in the earth- 
 quake.' 
 
 birth-pangs. The phrase 'the birth-pangs of the Messiah' is 
 used in the Jewish literature to describe the evil days which are to 
 precede the Messianic period. Compare Mechilia (ed. Winter und 
 Wiinsche), pp. 161, 163. Keeping of the Sabbath will save a man 
 'from the day of God and Magog,' from 'the sufferings of the 
 Messiah,' and ' from i the great day of judgment.' B^ Sank. 98% 
 Shabb iiS''. See Schiirer, xi. 2, 154. For other descriptions of the 
 signs preceding the end see 4 Ezra 5 ^"'', Apoc. Bar. 25-27, Jubilees 
 23, 16-25. So far the Lord seems to be adopting from current 
 eschatological phraseology phrases to express the troubles which will 
 befall His disciples after His death. There will be pseudo-Messiahs 
 alleging that they are the risen Christ. Wars, earthquakes, famines 
 will trouble the world in which His disciples live. 
 
13. 9-10.] ST. MARK 157 
 
 9. But take ye heed to yourselves. They shall deliver you up 
 into courts of justice, and in synagogues ye shall be beaten. 
 And before rulers and kings shall ye stand for My sake for a 
 testimony to them. 10. And to all nations must first the good 
 
 . news be preached. 
 
 9. This verse is often supposed to refer to incidents in the ex- 
 perience of the apostles, and therefore to betray a later writer.* For 
 the scourging cf 2 Cor. 11^*, for the standing before rulers and kings 
 Acts 24 1°, 25 ^■^'. But there is nothing in the language unnatural in 
 the mouth of Christ, and it is very unreasonable to argue that because 
 later events justified words traditionally ascribed to Him, these words 
 therefore can best be explained as written after the event. On such 
 a line of argument it would be impossible for us to have any words 
 of His that found later fulfilment. 
 
 courts of justice. The word {tr-uvihpiov) had been borrowed by the 
 Jews, and used in particular of the great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, but 
 it would apply also to local courts of justice. 
 
 in synagogues. Lit. 'into' (si's). One of St. Mark's harsh ^pre- 
 positional uses. See on v. '. 
 
 riders and kings. The word 'ruler' (^■yf/umi') was another Greek 
 word which was currently used in Palestine. Its occurrence here is 
 very natural. ' Kings ' has been thought to be strange in the Lord's 
 mouth. But it is not so in view of the next verse, which certainly 
 cannot be a vaticinium post eventum. Even if the Speaker were 
 thinking only of persecution within the limits of Palestine the word 
 might not be unnatural, for 'rulers and kings' is not a technical 
 description but a popular one, and ' king ' was used very loosely. St. 
 Mark has already applied it to Herod Antipas (6"). 
 
 10. the good news. /.«. of the coming kingdom. 
 
 to all nations. Only the course of history led the Church to see 
 the full force of these words. The Old Testament contains a good 
 deal about the conversion of the Gentile world, e.g. Is. 42 1, 'He 
 shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles ' ; 49 ", ' I will give thee 
 for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be My salvation to the 
 ends of the earth.' But these passages and others like them did not 
 prevent the Pharisees from supposing that the Gentiles who wished 
 to participate in Israel's privileges must become proselytes and keep 
 the Law. The earliest Jewish Christians would interpret Christ's 
 words in the same way. He was the Jewish Messiah, but He had 
 wished the good news of the coming kingdom which He would soon 
 inaugurate to be preached by His disciples to the Gentile world. 
 Naturally converts would become proselytes to the faithful Israel, i.e. 
 the disciples of the Messiah. A divine vision compelled St. Peter to 
 
 » So Streeter, Oxford Studies , p. 181. 
 
IS8 ST. MARK [13. 11-14- 
 
 disregard this restriction, but it was mainly St. Paul who fought and 
 won the battle for the admission of Gentiles to the Church without 
 the conditions which had been imposed upon proselytes. And only 
 the lapse of history could throw a true light upon all nations. The 
 world as known in the first century was a small one. As understood 
 by the hearers, the preaching of the good news to all the Gentiles 
 need not imply any long lapse of time. 
 
 II. And when they arrest you, and deliver you up, lake no 
 forethought what ye shall say, but whatsoever shall be given you 
 in that hour, that speak, for it is not ye who speak but the Holy 
 Spirit. 12. And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and 
 father child, and children shall rise up against parents and kill 
 them. 13. And ye shall be hated of all men for My name's 
 sake. But he who endureth to the end, he shall be saved. 
 
 11. the Holy Spirit. The phrase occurs in Is. 63 '"•", ' They grieved 
 His Holy Spirit,' ' He that put His Holy Spirit in the midst of them ' ; 
 Ps. S I ", ' Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me ' ; Ps. 142 1", LXX. In the 
 Rabbinical literature the phrase is a common one. Sometimes the 
 Holy Spirit is described as speaking a passage of Scripture, at others 
 He inspires the writers. ' Moses spoke in the Holy Spirit,' ' the Holy 
 Spirit was placed in the mouth of the prophets.' After Malachi ' the 
 Holy Spirit ceased from Israel.' In the later Rabbinical literature 
 the Holy Spirit influences the actions as well as the speech of men. 
 'AH that the righteous do they do in the Holy Spirit.' Cf. Bacher, 
 Exget. Termin., i. 180, ii. 202. 
 
 12. 13. Social strife is a common feature in apocalyptic descriptions 
 of the last days. Cf. 4 Ezra 5 ^, ' Friends shall attack one another 
 suddenly'; 6^*, 'Friends shall war against friends as enemies.' 
 Jubilees 23 '^, Apoc. Bar. 70 '. Pesikta des Rab Kahana ( Wiinsche), 
 p. 62, ' In the generation in which the Son of David comes the young 
 will put the old to shame, and the old will stand before the young, 
 the daughter will rise up against her mother, the bride against her 
 mother-in-law, the enemies of a man will be they of his own house.' 
 Similar words may be found in B. Sank. 97 '', Sotah 49 ^^ 
 
 13. Cf. 4 Ezra 6 ''■^, ' Whosoever shall have survived all these things 
 . . . shall be saved, and shall see My salvation, and the end of the 
 world ' ; 7 ^', ' Whosoever is delivered . . . shall see My wonders.' 
 See Box's note on 6 ^^ {Ezra Apoc, p. "]•]). 
 
 14. But when ye see the abomination of desolation, standing 
 where it ought not, let the reader understand, then let those in 
 Jud^a flee to the mountains. 
 
 14. abomination of desolation. This is apparently the sign for 
 
13. I5-I9-] ST. MARK 159 
 
 which the three disciples asked in v. *. The phrase seems to be 
 borrowed from Dan. g^ 1 1 'i, 12 ". According to i Mace, i " '''' there 
 was erected upon the altar of God an idol altar, upon which sacrifices 
 were offered, and the writer of i Mace, saw in this sacrilege a fulfil- 
 ment of the passages in Daniel. In Daniel the setting up of the 
 abomination of desolation is an act of sacrilege which will not long 
 precede 'the end' (12^^). It is probably used here as a technical 
 term, not defined, for an event which will suggest to the disciples the 
 approaching 'end.' The participle 'standing' is masculine, whilst 
 ' abomination ' is neuter. It is possible that this is due to the fact 
 that the evangelist believed that the' abomination would be a statue 
 of an idol, or a person. But the ungrammatical change of genders 
 is not too harsh for St. Mark. C£ another case in 6'^. St. Luke 
 21 2" has taken it to refer to the presence before Jerusalem of a foreign 
 army for the last siege, and has so interpreted for the benefit of 
 Theophilus. 
 
 let the reader understand. The clause is probably a parenthetical 
 comment of the evangelist, referring the readers to Daniel for ex- 
 planation of the use of the phrase ' abomination of desolation,' or direct- 
 ing the reader of Daniel to find a fulfilment of the prophet's words in 
 the event foretold by Christ. 
 
 15. He who is on the housetop let him not come down, nor 
 enter in, to take his household things. 16. And he who is in 
 the field let him not return back to take his cloak. 17. And 
 woe to those who are with child, and to those who give suck in 
 those days. 18. And pray that it may not happen in winter 
 time. 19. For those days shall be aflfliction such as has not 
 been from the beginning of the creation which God created 
 until now, and shall not be. 
 
 16. in the field. Lit. 'into.' Cf v.'. 
 
 17. Cf. 4 Ezra 6^1, 'Pregnant women shall bring forth untimely 
 births.' 
 
 18. it may not happen. I.e. the period of affliction. The First 
 Gospel inserts ' your flight ' (24 ^o). 
 
 ig. those days shall be affliction. Semitic in idiom. The words 
 are a free quotation of Dan. 12', 'There shall be a time of trouble 
 such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time.' 
 Cf. Jer. 30', I Mace. 9 2', Ass. Mos. 8'. 
 
 has not been (yiyovev). For the perfect cf Dan. 12 1, Th., ffkiyjns 
 ola ov yiyovev. The LXX here has eyevrjdri. _ • 
 
 creation which God created. The tautology is characteristic of 
 St. Mark. See Introd., p. 12, and in the next verse, 'the elect whom 
 He elected.' 
 
i6o ST. MARK [IS. 20-26. 
 
 20. And except the Lord shortened the days no flesh should 
 be saved. But on account of the elect whom He elected He 
 shortened the days. 21. And then if any one say to you, Lo, here 
 is the Messiah, lo there, believe it not. 22. For false messiahs 
 and false prophets shall arise to deceive if possible the elect. 
 23. But do ye take heed. I told you beforehand all things. 
 
 20. shortened. The word (koKo^ovv) is elsewhere used of physical 
 amputation. For the shortening of the days at the end of the world 
 of. Epistle of Barnabas 4 ^, ' The Master hath cut the seasons arid 
 the days short that His beloved might hasten and come to His 
 inheritance.' Apoc. Bar. 20 1-^, ' The times will hasten more than the 
 former, and the seasons will speed more than the past. Therefore 
 have I now taken away Zion that I may more speedily visit the world 
 in its season.' 54 ', 83 ', 4 Ezra 4 ^, ' The age is hastening fast to its 
 end.' Cf. also i Cor. 7 ^^, Apoc. Abr. 29, ' The shortening of the 
 Aeon of godlessness.' 
 
 the elect. The phrase is common in the Book of Enoch. Cf. i ', 
 'The elect and righteous who will be living in the day of tribulation.' 
 38 ^■'■*. Cf. also Wisd. 3 ', ' Grace and mercy are to His elect.' 
 
 24. But in those days after that affliction the sun shall be 
 darkened and the moon shall not give her light. 25. And the 
 stars shall be falling from the heaven, and the powers which are 
 in the heavens shall be shaken. 
 
 24. The question of the disciples about the desolation of Jerusalem 
 has been answered. There follow words relating to the Second 
 Coming which is dated, so far as this verse goes, rather vaguely, ' in 
 those days after that affliction.' 
 
 Similar language is used in the prophets to describe any great 
 coming act of God's judgment. Thus in Ezek. 32 ''^ at the downfall 
 of Egypt ; Is. 131°, fall of Babylon ; 34*, destruction of Edom. But 
 it is of the last day of God's judgment that such passages are chiefly 
 used. Cf. Joel 2 i", 3 " ; Amos 8 ^ ; Ass. Mos. 10 <*, ' The horns of the 
 moon will be broken and he will be turned into darkness, and the 
 moon will not give her light and will be turned whoUy into blood. 
 And the circle of the stars wifl be disturbed,' 4 Ezra 5*, Enoch Sc*". 
 
 Such language was probably used symbolically to express the final 
 breaking up of the universe as at present constituted that the ' king- 
 dom ' might take its place. 
 
 26. And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in (the) 
 clouds with great power and glory. 
 
 26. The words are based on Dan. 7 "", ' Behold there came with 
 the clouds of heaven one like unto a Son of Man . . . and there was 
 
13. 27-31.] ST. MARK i6i 
 
 given unto Him dominion and glory.' The fact that v. i** speaks of one 
 like a Son of Man as receiving the kingdom, whereas inv.'^ it is the 
 saints of the Most High to whom it is given, does not suggest the 
 ■ inference that the one like a Son of Man is a mere symbol for the 
 Jewish nation. Of course, when the kingdom came the saints would 
 inherit it. But the coming with the clouds differentiates the one like 
 a Son of Man who inaugurates the kingdom from the saints who par- 
 ticipate in it. The substitution of a heavenly being for the Davidic 
 Messianic king is characteristic of some lines of apocalyptic thought. 
 The phrase is borrowed by the writer of one portion of the Book of 
 Enoch to denote the supernatural Messiah (46^"*, 48^, 62). There 
 the Son of Man is a pre-existent being, chosen and hidden from 
 before the creation of the world to execute universal judgment and 
 dominion. A similar term for the Messiah occurs in 4 Ezra 13 1"^^. 
 Cf especially v. ', ' And I beheld and lo ! this man flew with the 
 clouds of heaven,' and see Box's notes {Ezra Afioc, pp. 282 ff). It 
 seems probable that the phrase 'one like a Son of Man' or 'like a man' 
 was an early apocalyptic term to denote the supernatural Messiah. 
 
 27. And then He shall send forth the angels, and sha.ll gather 
 together His elect from the four winds, from the end of earth 
 to the end of heaven. 
 
 27. angels. For the angels as Messianic agents cf St. Matthew 
 13*'- So in Enoch the holy and righteous dwell with angels (39°) ; 
 angels gather the righteous to the judgment of the Son of Man sitting 
 on the throne of glory (61) ; they execute judgment upon the wicked 
 (62"). 
 
 four winds. For the phrase cf Zech. 2 "*. 
 
 the end of earth to the end of heaven. We should expect ' from the 
 end of heaven to the end of heaven' (Deut. 30 \ LXX). Cf Enoch 57^, 
 ' From one extremity of heaven to the other,' or ' From the end of the 
 earth to the end of the earth.' The only parallel to St. Mark's phrase 
 seems to be a variant of some MSS. in Enoch 57 ^ ' From the extremity 
 of the earth to the extremity of heaven.' 
 
 For the gathering of the elect to the Son of Man cf Enoch 58. 
 
 28. But learn from the fig-tree its lesson. When already its 
 branch is becoming tender and it puts forth leaves ye recognise 
 that summer is near. 29. So also do ye, when ye see these 
 things happening, recognise that it is near at the doors. 30. Amen 
 I say to you that this generation shall not pass until all these 
 things happen. 31. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My 
 words shall not pass away. 
 
 30. all these things. Without the ' all ' the phrase might perhaps 
 have referred back to the ' these things ' of v. *, i.e. the destruction 
 
 ST, MARK L 
 
i62 ST. MARK [13. .32-37. 
 
 of the city. But 'all these things' must include all that has gone 
 before, including the coming of the Son of Man. This was to take 
 place before the passing away of that generation. Cf 9 \ So the 
 writer's contemporaries believed, but it may be questioned whether 
 the Gospel writers have not confused what the Lord said about the 
 destruction of Jerusalem on the one hand, and His own coming in its 
 two aspects of a spiritual coming and a final second coming on the 
 other, and so have over-emphasised the nearness of His final coming 
 in their record of His teaching. 
 
 31. ' All these things ' would happen ; the coming of the Son of Man 
 would be accompanied by a passing away of the universe as now 
 ordered. Nevertheless, His words would abide. The thoughts of 
 His personal coming and of the permanence of His teaching are com- 
 bined. Perhaps the 'pass away' of v. ^° has suggested the insertion 
 of this saying here. See note on 1 2 ^'. 
 
 32. But concerning that day or hour no one knows, neither 
 the angels in heaven, nor the Son, save the Father. 
 
 32. The coming of the Son of Man was to take place within that 
 generation. The disciples would see the signs that were to herald it 
 (v. ^), and were to watch for it (v. ^^). But the exact date could not be 
 defined. 
 
 The verse is remarkable for two reasons. First, because its 
 antithesis 'the Son — the Father' is reminiscent of a side of the 
 Lord's teaching which is elsewhere unrepresented in this Gospel, and 
 appears only once again in the Synoptic Gospels (St. Matthew 11^' = 
 St. Luke 10^^), being characteristic of the Fourth Gospel. Secondly, 
 because of the attribution of ignorance to ' the Son.' Cf. Acts I ', 
 ' Times or seasons which the Father hath set within His own authority.' 
 St. Luke omits the whole verse, whilst St Matthew omits 'neither the 
 Son.' See St. Matthew (Intern. Crit. Comhx), 24 ^. 
 
 33. Take heed, watch, for ye know not when the time is. 
 34. (He is) as a man away from home, who left his house, and 
 gave to his slaves authority, to each his work, and commanded 
 the door-keeper to watch. 35. Watch therefore, for ye know 
 not when the Master of the house cometh, at evening, or at 
 midnight, or at cockcrow, or early. 36. Lest coming suddenly 
 He find you sleeping. 37. And what I say to you I say to all, 
 Watch. 
 
 33. The following verses emphasise the possibility of the unexpected 
 coming of the Son of Man. He is like an absent householder who 
 may return at any moment. The identification which underlies the 
 words of the Speaker with the Son of Man is obyious, 
 
13.] ST. MARK 163 
 
 The alleged ''Little Apocalypse' in St. Mark 13. 
 
 It is frequently stated that this chapter contains the Christian 
 edition of an older Jewish apocalypse which has been interpolated 
 here into the Gospel tradition. ' It is a literary product, not the 
 record of what Jesus said on this or any other occasion, but a tract 
 of the apocalyptic propaganda' (Mofifatt, L.N.T., p. 208). 'The apoca- 
 lypse was probably written by a Palestinian Jewish Christian ; its 
 incorporation in the evangelic tradition was due to the existence of 
 genuine eschatological sayings which received a fresh accent and 
 emphasis at the period, and to the vivid zest for apocalyptic ideas in 
 the Palestinian Church of that age ' {ibid., p. 209). See the same 
 writer for a good account of other opinions to the same effect. The 
 verses generally singled out as constituting the original apocalypse 
 are ^-^, "-=°, ^i-z?. B. H. Streeter adopts the same view in Oxford 
 Studies in the Synoptic Problem. He thinks that the following verses 
 may contain genuine sayings of Christ : — > ^ ", ^="'^ ^S ^*"'^ ^^■^". The 
 apocalypse as a whole is a document of about the year 70 A.D. 
 
 This theory is open to some very serious objections from the point 
 of view of the general credibility of the Gospels. 
 
 1. It is a serious indictment to bring against the author of the 
 Second Gospel that he should thus have recorded as genuine sayings 
 of Christ the composition of some Christian writer who had worked 
 over an earlier Jewish apocalypse. If this were so, what ground 
 could be given for defending the authenticity of any single saying of 
 Jesus preserved by the evangelist ? 
 
 2. It is also a serious indictment to bring against the writers of 
 the First and Third Gospels that they should have been ready to 
 accept this section of the Second Gospel if it thus contained matter 
 extraneous to the true tradition of Christ's sayings. 
 
 The arguments underlying this theory are really twofold. 
 
 1. It is felt that there is much in this chapter of the conventional 
 Jewish apocalyptic type. See Streeter, p. 179. 
 
 2. It is therefore felt that it is more likely that some one else 
 composed the discourse than that the Lord should have uttered 
 these sayings Himself. 
 
 But the second of these premises is unjustified. The fact is that 
 the Lord borrowed so much from the language of Jewish apocalyptic 
 theology that there can be no reason to question the possibility of His 
 having forecasted the future in the language of this chapter. 
 
 E.g. even in St. Mark we have the following apocalyptic ideas : — 
 
 ' The kingdom of God,' ' the Son of Man,' ' the coming of the Son 
 of Man in glory with the angels,' ' life ' (9 ", see note) ; ' the world to 
 come,' 10 2"; the resurrection, 12^6; 'the Son of Man coming with 
 the clouds of heaven,' 14^^; 'inheriting eternal life,' 19'^; the 
 nearness of the coming kingdom, 9 1. 
 
 When we turn to the other Gospels we are in a difficulty, for Va.% 
 
r64 ST. MARK [13. 
 
 same critics who deny the authenticity of St. Mark, chapter 13, will 
 also deny the genuineness of the apocalyptic sayings in the other 
 Gospels. The sayings of this type in St. Matthew in particular are 
 rejected as the work of the writer of that Gospel or of the Palestinian 
 Church to which he belonged. Only those sayings of this type are 
 allowed to be authentic which are recorded by both St. Matthew and 
 St. Luke, and are therefore supposed to be drawn from a source Q 
 used by both these evangelists. For a criticism of this mechanical 
 method of reconstructing a source see Oxford Studies in the Synoptic 
 Problem, pp. 235-242. As a matter of fact, the source used by the 
 writer of the First Gospel was, as I have tried to show elsewhere (see 
 Oxford Studies, pp. 242-277), markedly eschatological. 
 
 But even the Q of the critics cannot be purged of eschatological 
 teaching. The following are found in Q as reconstructed by 
 Harnack : — 
 
 ' It shall be more tolerable for Sodom in that day.' Here is the 
 apocalyptic teaching of the day of judgment. 
 
 ' The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment,' etc. 
 
 ' They shall come from the east and from the west and shall sit down 
 at meat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God.' 
 
 ' If they say to you : Lo ! He is in the desert ! Go ye not forth. 
 Lo ! He is in the secret chambers ! Believe it not. For as the 
 lightning cometh forth from the east, and shineth even unto the west,, 
 so shall be the coming of the Son of Man. Wheresoever the, 
 carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together.' 
 
 ' As the days of Noah, so shall be the days of the coming of the 
 Son of Man. There shall be two in one field, one is taken, and one' 
 is left ; two women grinding at the mill, one is taken, and one is left.' 
 
 ' Ye who follow Me . . . shall sit. upon twelve thrones, judging the 
 twelve tribes of Israel.' 
 
 Now here are sayings which imply the whole cycle of Gospel 
 apocalyptic teaching. The Son of Man is to come. His coming is 
 to cause a separation between men. There is to be a final judgment 
 day. In the kingdom of God are to be gathered many from east 
 and west. In that kingdom the twelve are to sit as judges. 
 
 Clearly these sayings presuppose much more teaching of the same 
 character, and we have no right to question nor deny that He who 
 spake these words can have uttered the sayings recorded in Mark 13. 
 Professor Burkitt judges rightly when he says, ' Both the general 
 purport of the discourse, and most of the single sayings, seem to me, 
 if I may venture to give an opinion, perfectly to harmonise with 
 what we elsewhere know of the teaching of Jesus' {The Gospel 
 History and its Transmission, p. 63). 
 
 There seems, therefore, to be no reason for denying the authen- 
 ticity of St. Mark 13 on the ground that it contains an apocajypse of 
 the conventional Jewish type. Why should not Christ, who else- 
 ■yyhere uses such language, have used it here ? 
 
13.] ST. MARK 165 
 
 Of course, we may dislike these apocalyptic sayings, we may wish 
 that Christ had not uttered them, but that is no excuse for tamper- 
 ing with historical evidence. And we have no right because we 
 should like to think that Christ habitually spoke of a present 
 kingdom, and because we find some sayings that can be so 
 interpreted, to excise from His teaching the sayings that speak of the 
 kingdom as future. And St. Mark's Gospel is not the only evidence 
 that Christ must have used words of this apocalyptic type. For the 
 theology of the earliest Christians was deeply tinged with the" ex- 
 pectation of Christ's immediate return to inaugurate the kingdom. 
 Witness Acts i", 3^°-^^, and St. Paul's earUer letters, those to 
 Thessalonica. How are we to explain this anticipation except on 
 the ground that Christ had given occasion for such hopes by what 
 He had said ? It is equally clear that the Gospels with their strong 
 apocalyptic elements must come from a very early period of the 
 Church's history. For as time passed on there was a tendency to 
 dwell rather upon those sayings of His which emphasised the kingdom 
 as a present possession than upon those which placed the kingdom 
 in the future. 'The Christian hope, first finding its expression in 
 crude apocalyptic like that of the Epistles to the Thessalonians, 
 insensibly changes its emphasis, passes through the mysticism of 
 the Epistles of the Captivity, and culminates in the Johannine 
 doctrines of the Spirit and Eternal Life' (Streeter, p. 426). Yet, 
 strange to say, Mr. Streeter asks us to believe that during the same 
 period there was 'an evolution in the contrary direction' in the 
 Gospel literature. First, we have an uneschatological Q with a vague 
 and undefined eschatology. Then St. Mark rashly admitted into his 
 Gospel the ' Little Apocalypse.' Lastly, St. Matthew heightened the 
 apocalyptic element which he found in his sources, Mark and Q, and 
 introduced other apocalyptic features. ' In the series Q, Mark, and 
 Matthew there is a steady development in the direction of emphasis- 
 ing, making more definite, and even creating, sayings of our Lord 
 of the catastrophic apocalyptic type' (p. 433). This e.xtraordinary 
 theory that the tendency in the Gospel literature of the Church was 
 exactly the reverse of the movement in its theology can be nothing 
 else but a perversion of the truth. It is only arrived at by construct- 
 ing, by uncritical methods, as a first source of Gospel tradition 
 a source Q, which contains comparatively little eschatological 
 material, and underestimating the value and significance even of that. 
 If in the place of this Q there is set the Matthean Logia used by the 
 writer of the First Gospel, the two earliest Gospel sources, Mark and 
 this Apostolic Logia, will be found to be deeply tinged with apoca- 
 lyptic colouring. The writer of the First Gospel has combined these 
 two into a Gospel which has the same atmosphere, and all three 
 documents must date from the early years of the Church's life. 
 Then there are not two contrary movements in the Church's literature 
 and theology, but one, a movement from a larger amount of emphasis 
 
i66 St. MARK [iS. 
 
 upon the immediate coming of Christ to a larger emphasis upon the 
 thought that the Christian hfe as now Hved was in very deed a true 
 anticipation, now and here, of the blessedness that Christ would 
 bring with Him when He came. For it is quite untrue to speak of an 
 evolution of Christian eschatology in the New Testament from crude 
 apocalyptic through the mysticism of the epistles to the doctrines of 
 the Spirit and Eternal Life, as though these latter ideas gradually 
 appeared and took the place of the former. The truth rather is that 
 there are two aspects of religion which are present throughout the 
 whole New Testament side by side, the thought of Eternal Life or 
 of the kingdom as present, and the conception of it as future. See 
 pp. 85, 152 f , and the Additional Note at end of volume. In the 
 Synoptic Gospels and in St. Paul's earlier epistles the second is 
 prominent, though the first is not wholly absent. In the epistles of 
 the first Roman Captivity the second is not prominent, but it is still 
 latent in the mind of St. Paul, and only awaits opportunity of expres- 
 sion. Cf. Phil. 3 ^"j ' From whence also we wait for the Saviour, the 
 Lord Jesus Christ' ; Phil. 4°, 'The Lord is at hand.' In St. John's 
 Gospel it is almost completely overshadowed by the writer's wish to 
 dwell upon the present aspect of the Christian life. But it is every- 
 where presupposed in this writing. There is to be a resurrection at 
 the last day (5 2S.29, 6 io^m). The very conception of Eternal Life is 
 apocalyptic, involving the thought of the permanence of the indi- 
 vidual life, its resurrection, and its entry into a kingdom which 
 will be a fulfilment of the partial manifestation of the kingdom in 
 the present. The retention of these passages is not a deliberate 
 departure from the writer's view of life as present, and a falling back 
 upon a primitive eschatologlcal view (Scott, Fourth Gospel, p. 249). 
 Rather they are a hint that there is another side of the doctrine of 
 Eternal Life which the writer knows to have been taught by Christ, 
 and which he will not altogether omit because it is the necessary 
 presupposition of such teaching on Eternal Life as he records. 
 They who have Eternal Life cannot die for ever, and there must be a 
 sphere in which this life will be manifested : that is pure apocalyptic. 
 We find, then, no' cause for the purely gratuitous presupposition 
 that Christ could not have uttered the words of St. Mark 13. 
 Elsewhere He adopts apocalyptic language, why not here ? And 
 the ingenious manipulation of Gospel sources by which it is pro- 
 posed to show that there has been an increasing fabrication of 
 eschatologlcal material in successive Gospel documents is unsound 
 in method, and leads to a result so absurd that it must necessarily 
 be untrue, viz. that the Gospel writers were heading a counter 
 movement to the general drift of the Church's theology. If the early 
 date adopted in this book for the Second Gospel is a right one, the 
 last ground will have been taken away for attributing this chapter 
 to any one but the Lord Himself ; and if, as the present writer believes, 
 our First Gospe} was written not very much later, and largely based 
 
14 1-2.] ST. MARK 167 
 
 upon a very eschatological collection of Christ's sayings composed by 
 the Apostle Matthew, we shall have to carry back into the life of the 
 Lord practically all the eschatological material of the Gospels. 
 
 How, then, are we to interpret it ? Partly as the conscious use of 
 technical apocalyptic language of a symbolic pictorial type to express 
 that which is inexpressible in human language, the final consummation 
 of this world's history. We do not know what the coming of Christ 
 will be, but we know that then and not until then will the true kingdom 
 of God be manifested. And if we are faced with the difficulty that 
 He seems to have said that this coming would be immediate, we can 
 but say that that is no reason for denying that He uttered the words 
 in question. Better to say that upon this point He did not think well 
 to reveal more than a prophet's insight into the development of the 
 future, or to say that He wished each generation of men to watch 
 and wait for Him, than to tamper with historical evidence because 
 it causes us difficulty and we cannot wholly understand it. 
 
 14. 1-2. Plots of the chief priests. 
 
 14. I. And the Passover and the Unleavened Bread were after 
 two days. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking 
 how they might kill Him. 2. For they were saying, Not on the 
 feast lest there be a tumult of the people. 
 
 14. I. The Passover day began on the evening of the 13th day 
 at six o'clock, and lasted until six o'clock on the following day. 
 About noon on the 14th it was customary to cease work, though this 
 was not obligatory. The lambs were offered in the temple during 
 the late afternoon until sunset. The Passover meal was eaten that 
 evening not later than midnight. 
 
 The Feast of Unleavened Bread began the same evening, it being 
 the beginning of the 15th day, and lasted for seven days, i.e. up to 
 and including the 21st. 
 
 We must therefore suppose the writer to be thinking of the evening 
 of the 14th, when the Passover day was ending and the Feast of 
 Unleavened Bread beginning. Two days before that would be any 
 time on the 12th. That is, if the Passover was slain on a Friday 
 afternoon, as St. Mark implies {see p. 171), two days before would be 
 some time on Wednesday. 
 
 2. the feast. Not the Passover day, but the Feast of Unleavened 
 Bread. People would be pouring into Jerusalem on the Passover 
 day to offer their lambs and to eat them that evening. An execution 
 on the 14th early would attract little attention compared with one on 
 the 15th. Estimates as to the number of people in Jerusalem at the 
 feast vary. Josephus gives it as 2| or 3 millions {B.J., vi. 9, 3; ii. 14, 3). 
 Chwolson estimates it as 10,000 to 15,000 {Das Letzte Passamahl 
 Christi, 54). 
 
i68 ST. MARK [14. 3-9. 
 
 3-9. Feast at Betliaiiy. 
 
 3. And when He was in Bethany in the house of Simon the 
 leper, as He lay at table, there came a woman having an alabaster 
 jar of ointment, real nard, very costly. She broke the alabaster 
 jar and poured it over His head. 4. And some were vexed in 
 themselves. Why has there been this waste of ointment? 5. For 
 this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred 
 denarii and given to the poor. And they were indignant with her. 
 6. And Jesus said. Let her alone. Why trouble ye her? A good 
 deed she did in Me. 7. For ye have the poor with you always, 
 and whenever ye will ye can do them good, but Me ye have not 
 always. 8. She did what she could. She fore anointed My- 
 body for the burial. 9. Amen I say to you, Wheresoever the 
 good news shall be preached into all the world, there shall be 
 told also what she did for a memorial of her. 
 
 3. alabaster jar of ointment (aXdfiaa-Tpov fiipov). Cf. Hdt., iii. 20, and 
 Luc, Dial. Mer., xiv., aKa^atTTpov fivpov en (^oiv'iKiqs 8vo koi tovto 
 Spaxp-^v. 
 
 real nard {vapbov nia-TLKTJs). The phrase, which occurs again in 
 St. John 12^, is not without difficulty. The Greeks knew of a plant 
 from which perfumed oil was made, which they called vdpSos, or 
 vdpSov <rTdxvs, or vapSoaraxvs. In Latin we find nardus, or nardo- 
 stachyon, or spica nardi. Abbott {Johannine Grammar, p. 252) 
 quotes Wetstein as citing instances of ajriKdrov as the name of an 
 ointment, and the Vulgate here has nardi spicati. ttiotikos is only 
 known elsewhere as an adjective meaning ' faithful,' used of women 
 by the second-century writer Artemidorus (ii. 32, etc.). As applied to 
 nard, it might mean ' genuine,' and the context perhaps favours this. 
 The alabaster jar contained ointment (pipov), and that no cheap 
 unguent, but genuine Oriental nard, very costly. The rendering 
 ' liquid ' has no authority to support it. But it is difficult to avoid 
 the suspicion that TrioriK^s is an error, and that the original was 
 a-n-iKarov, transliterated into Aramaic, and misread by the Greek 
 translator. If so, the phrase has been adopted by St. John from this 
 passage, and no doubt understood by him to mean ' genuine nard.' 
 St. Matthew 26 " omits it. St. Luke in his somewhat similar story in 
 7 ^"'^^ has simply pvpnv. The Sinaitic Syriac translator here seems 
 to have been puzzled. He transliterates and adds ' good.' Burkitt 
 translates the Syriac ' of good pistic' But is ' good ' a gloss on 
 ' pistic ' ? 
 
 5. denarii. A denarius was worth about g^d. 
 •were indignant (evf^ptp.a>vTo). See note on i *\ 
 
14 ioi6.] ST. MARK 169 
 
 8. fore anointed (TrpoiXa^ev nvplarai). The construction is unclassical, 
 and wpoXafi^dvia has nowhere else the sense of 'anticipating' the 
 action of a subsequent verb. Kypke, Observationes Sacra, quotes the 
 following from Josephus, Ant., vi. 13, y.—vvv Se (fidda-aa-a npoeXafies 
 KarafieiXi^aaSal. fiov tov dvfiov ; xviii. 5, 2, ttoXv <pf'iTTov fiyelrat, npiv 
 Ti vearepov e^ avTOV ycvea-dm, Tvpoka^av avaipelv ; B.J., i. 20, I, wpov- 
 Xa^ov e^eTao-6fi(reo-6ai. But neither these nor Ignatius, £p/i., iii. 2, 
 irpoeXa^ov TvapaKoXflv, are exactly parallel to irpoiXn^ev fivpiaai here. 
 The phrase is not impossible Greek, but npaiXa^ev is probably a 
 translation of some form of the Aramaic root Dip. St. Matthew 26 '^ 
 rewrites the sentence and avoids irpoiXa^ev. 
 
 10-11. Treacliery of Judas. 
 
 10. And Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went 
 away to the chief priests that he might deliver Him over. 
 II. And they promised to give him silver. And he was seeking 
 how he might opportunely betray Him. 
 
 10. Iscariot. See note on 3 ''. 
 
 one of the twelve (0 els). The article is unexpected, and does not 
 occur in v. ^^. Moulton, Grannnar, p. 97, says that there are 
 parallels for fis in the papyri. 
 
 12-16. Preparation for the Passover. 
 
 12. And on the first day of the Unleavened Bread, when they 
 were sacrificing the Passover, His disciples say to Him, Where 
 wilt Thou that we go and prepare that Thou mayest eat the 
 Passover? 13. And He sends two of His disciples, and says to 
 them. Go into the city, and there shall meet you a man carrying 
 a jar of water. Follow him, 14. and where he enters say to 
 the man of the house that the Teacher saith. Where is My room 
 where I may eat the Passover with My disciples ? 15. And he 
 will show you a large upper room furnished and ready. And 
 there prepare for us. 16. And they went out, and came into the 
 city, and found as He said to them. And they prepared the 
 Passover. 
 
 12. If we assume that the evangelist is following current usage, 
 which employed the term 'Unleavened Bread' to cover not only the 
 seven days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but also the preceding 
 Passover day, the day here mentioned will be Thursday, the 13th, ahd 
 the hour implied will be a morning hour. See also note on v. '. 
 
r^D ST. MARK [14. 10-16. 
 
 13. There seems to have been an intentional secrecy about the 
 room for the Passover meal. On the one hand, it is unlikely that the 
 choice of a room would have been left to the morning of the Passover 
 day, when Jerusalem would be crowded with pilgrims. Why, then, 
 had it not been hired before ? Because, on the other hand, the Lord 
 was aware that He might be arrested at any moment, and had 
 arranged that a room should be at His disposal if it should be 
 required without disclosing the fact to His disciples. In this way He 
 safeguarded Himself from arrest at least until the meal was over. 
 The carrying of the jar of water was no doubt a pre-arranged sign 
 of identity. 
 
 14. that. Cf Introd., p. 19. 
 
 My room (KaToXvfid fiov). The 'My' suggests some previous 
 arrangement about this room. KaraXvfia is a late word meaning a 
 'guest-chamber' (i Kings i'^), or a 'caravanserai' (St. Luke 2 '). 
 
 15. tipper room {avaymov). Only here and in the parallel in St. 
 Luke 22 in Biblical Greek. The classical form is avayawv or avayiav. 
 aviiyaiov is the form given here in the later MSS. 
 
 ftirnisked {ia-Tpa>iJ.ivov). That is, carpeted and cushioned for the 
 meal. 
 
 This verse, combined with 15 *^, gives us the evangelist's chronology 
 of the last days of the Messiah's life. According to 1 5 *'^ (see note) 
 the day of crucifixion was a Friday. The day referred to in 14 ^^ was 
 therefore a Thursday, and the evangelist calls it ' the first day of 
 Unleavened Bread, when they were sacrificing the Passover.' The 
 phrase has caused much trouble, and if original is couched in 
 untechnical language. The Passover, the 14th, was the day next 
 before the first day of Unleavened Bread, the 1 5th. Chwolson states 
 that throughout their history the Jews have always understood by the 
 expression 'first day of Unleavened Bread' the isth, not the 14th 
 {Das LeiztePassamahl, pp. 3 ff.). He also argues that in addition to this 
 the succeeding narrative suggests that the events described cannot 
 have taken place on the Passover day and day following. In 14'-^ 
 the authorities decide not to let the death of Christ coincide with the 
 feast. It is therefore unlikely that, in accordance with 14'^, it took 
 place on 'the second day of the feast. Further, it is unlikely that 
 Joseph would have bought a linen cloth (iS""') on a feast day, nor 
 would the disciples have borne arms (14^') on such a day, nor would 
 Simon be coming from work (15 ^'). On the Passover day such things 
 might have happened, for work on that day was not forbidden, 
 although after midday it was customary t» cease from work 
 (Chwolson, p. 5). 
 
 Moreover, the Fourth Gospel seems to place the crucifixion not on 
 
l4. ro-i6.] ST. MARK 171 
 
 the day after the Passover meal, but on the morning of the Passover 
 day itself. Cf. 13 ', where the Last Supper seems to be placed before 
 the Passover, on the evening of the 13th; 132^, where the disciples 
 suppose that when Judas left the meal he was going to buy what was 
 necessary for the coming feast ; and 18 ^^ where it is said that on the 
 morning of the crucifixion the Jews would not enter the Prsetorium 
 for fear of defilement, which would prevent them from eating the 
 Passover. 
 
 The whole tenor of the ;iarrative therefore suggests that the cruci- 
 fixion did not take place on the day after the Passover meal, and that 
 the Last Supper cannot have been the Passover meal. It must, how- 
 ever, have been a meal which had been prepared as a Passover meal. 
 If we accept Chwolson's argument, we might suppose that Friday, the 
 day of crucifixion, was the Passover day, the 14th. The lambs would 
 be killed in the late afternoon and eaten in the evening. Suppose, 
 further, that on Thursday, the 13th, the Lord -knowing that He might 
 be arrested at any moment, determined to anticipate the Passover 
 meal by a day, and bade the disciples go and prepare it. They may 
 well have supposed that their preparations were to be for the evening 
 of the next day. They would secure a room, and make all arrange- 
 ments, leaving nothing undone for a Paschal meal except the chief 
 feature of the meal, the lamb. That could not be brought until the 
 following afternoon, when it had been slain in the temple. Every- 
 thing being thus ready on Thursday, the 13th, Christ came suddenly 
 that evening and sat down to a meal. The betrayer was with Him, 
 so He was secure at least for a time from arrest. It was, of course, 
 not a technical Passover meal, for there was no lamb. But there was 
 bread, symbolising Christ's body, and that was a sufficient substitute. 
 
 In favour of such a reconstruction, it should be said that it is in 
 agreement with the Fourth Gospel, which seems to place the meal on 
 the evening before the Passover, and the crucifixion on the Passover 
 day. 
 
 The scheme suggested above is therefore as follows : — 
 
 Thursday, 13th — -Disciples prepare meal. At evening the meal is 
 eaten. Christ is arrested that night. 
 
 Friday, 14th — Passover day. Trial, crucifixion, burial. Passover 
 lambs slain. The Jewish Passover meal would 
 take place in the evening. 
 In the Commentary on St. Matthew in Intern. Crit. Com?ncn., pp. 273- 
 274, a different scheme is suggested : — 
 
 Thursday, 12th — Last Supper and arrest. 
 
 Friday, 13th — Trial, crucifixion, and bujial. 
 
 Saturday, 14th — Passover day. 
 
 The Fourth Gospel might be interpreted to agree with this, 18^^ 
 referring to the following day, not the evening of the same day, and 
 19 1* implying that the crucifixion had taken place on the day before 
 the Passover. Jewish tradition dates Christ's death on the day before 
 
ifi St. Mark [14. 10-16. 
 
 the Passover {B. Sank. 43 ^; cf. Gospel of Peter iii., <ai wapihaK^v airov 
 T^ Xa<f Trpo fuas tS>v a^vjimv). 
 
 The First and Third Gospels follow St. Mark 14 '^ in the main. St. 
 Matthew 26 '' has, 'And on the first day of Unleavened Bread,' omit- 
 ting the next clause. This, on the lines of Chwolson's argument, is 
 even more unintelligible than St. Mark 14', for, standing by itself, the 
 clause according to him could only mean 'on the 15th,' i.e. on the day 
 after the Passover. St. Luke 23 ' has, ' And there came the day of 
 the Unleavened Bread, on which it was necessary to sacrifice the 
 Passover.' 
 
 This avoids the difficult 'first' of St. Mark, and finds a close 
 parallel in Jos., B.J., v. 3, i, 'When the day of the Unleavened Bread, 
 the 14th of the month Xanthicus had come.' 
 
 Chwolson himself suggests that the Passover in this year fell on a 
 Friday. Its observance was therefore transferred to Thursday, 
 because on the Friday evening the roasting of the Paschal lambs 
 would have been continued after the beginning (that evening) of the 
 Sabbath. He argues that, the killing of the lambs being thus ante- 
 dated, there would be a difference of opinion as to when they should be 
 eaten. Some would do so on the 13th, others would postpone the meal 
 to the next day. Christ and His disciples adopted the former course. 
 This explanation leaves the Last Supper as a Passover meal, and so 
 agrees with the Synoptic Gospels. And the Fourth Gospel could be 
 reconciled with it. It might also perhaps explain the phrase 'it was 
 necessary ' in St. Luke 22 ^. 
 
 The difference between the first scheme given above and this scheme 
 of Chwolson's is that according to the former the Last Supper was 
 not technically a Passover meal, according to the latter it was so 
 legally. 
 
 But in any case the words in St. Mark 14 '', ' On the first day of Un- 
 leavened Bread,' and the corresponding clauses in the First and Third 
 Gospels, remain unexplained. Clearly what we want is not ' on the 
 first day of Unleavened Bread,' but 'before the Passover.' If Chwolson 
 is right, the present text must be corrupt. We might suppose that it 
 originally ran, jrpo ttjs rjixepas twv a^vfiaiv, ' Before the day of Unleavened 
 Bread.' The phrase ' the day of Unleavened Bread, when they were 
 sacrificing the Passover' could be justified by Jos., B.J., v. 3, I, quoted 
 below. ' Before the day,' etc., would fix the Last Supper on Thursday, 
 the 13th. That rfi wpaTj] is probably corrupt might also be suggested 
 by the probability that the evangelist would have written rfj pia. Cf. 
 152, and see note on 16°. Of course, the corruption is very early, for 
 it is presupposed in the First Gospel. 
 
 An alternative explanation would be to regard t^ ■n-payrrj rfj ripipa as 
 a mistaken translation of an Aramaic phrase meaning ' in the days 
 before.' See on St. Matthew 26 '^ {Intern. Crit. Comm., p. 272). 
 
 Attempts are sometimes made to justify 'on the first day of 
 Unleavened Bread ' as applied to the Passover day by appealing to 
 
14. I7-2S-] ST, MARK 173 
 
 Josephus as a witness to a popular usage which included the Passover 
 day in an eight days' feast. 
 
 Now, there is certainly some evidence that the terms Passover 
 and Unleavened Bread could be used singly to describe the combined 
 feasts. 
 
 Josephus, as a Jew, is well aware that the Passover fell on the 14th, 
 and that the Unleavened Bread began on the evening of the 14th 
 and lasted for seven days {Ant., iii. 10, 5). But he sometimes speaks 
 of the two terms as though they were equivalent. Compare the 
 following : — Ant., xiv. 2, i, 'The feast of Unleavened Bread, which we 
 call Passover' ; xvii. 9, 3, 'The feast in which it is traditional for the 
 Jews to set forth the unleavened bread, and the feast is called 
 Passover.' These passages seem to suggest a use of ' Passover ' for 
 the whole combined feast. On the other hand, B.J., v. 3, i, ' When the 
 day of the Unleavened Bread, the 14th of the month Xanthicus had 
 come,' includes the Passover day under ' Unleavened Bread.' And 
 this is also the case in Ant., ii. 15, i, 'We keep a feast for eight days 
 which is called (the Feast) of Unleavened Bread.' Compare also 
 Ant, xi. 4, 8; B.J., ii. i, 3, 'And when the Feast of Unleavened 
 Bread had come (it is called Passover by the Jews)' ; and Ant, ix. 13, 3. 
 
 These passages seem sufficient to prove that the combined feasts 
 could be called either ' Passover' or ' Unleavened Bread.' And they 
 not only show that there was a popular usage of calling the feast, 
 including the Passover, by the name ' Unleavened Bread,' but in two 
 of them, viz. Ant, ii. 15, i, which speaks of an eight days' feast,, and 
 B.J., V. 3, I, which calls the Passover day 'the day of Unleavened 
 Bread,' we are not far from the Synoptic phrase 'the first day of 
 Unleavened Bread' for the Passover day. Josephus himself seems to 
 feel that there might be an ambiguity about 'the first day' of the 
 feast, for in speaking of a custom of the second day he specifies it 
 not only by its number among the days of the feast, but by its date in 
 the month, ' On the second day of the Unleavened Bread, that is the 
 1 6th' {Ant., iii. 10, 5). But Josephus never calls the Passover day 
 ^ the first day of Unleavened Bread.' It is in his 'first' that St. Mark, 
 as the text stands, goes beyond any known parallel. And in any 
 case we want not ' on ' but ' before ' the day afterwards described. 
 
 17-25. Tlie evening meal. 
 
 17. And when it was evening He comes with the twelve. 
 18. And as they were recumbent and were eating Jesus said, 
 Amen I say to you that one of you shall betray Me, he who 
 eateth with Me. 1 9. They began to be grieved, and to say to 
 Him one after the other, Is it I ? 20. And He said to them, 
 (It is) one of the twelve, he who dips with Me into the plate. 
 21. Because the Son of Man goes as it stands written concern- 
 
174 ST. MARK [14. 17-25. 
 
 ing Him, But woe to that man through whom the Son of Man 
 is delivered over. Well for him if that man had not been born. 
 
 22. And as they were eating He took a loaf, and blessed and 
 brake it and gave to them, and said, Take, this is My body. 
 
 23. And He took a cup and gave thanks and gave to them. 
 And they all drank of it. 24. And He said, This is My covenant 
 blood which is being shed for many. 25. Amen, I say to you 
 that no longer will I drink of the produce of the vine until that 
 day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God. 
 
 17. evening. I.e. any time after six o'clock. 
 
 18. that. Cf. Introd., p. 19. 
 
 he who eats with Me. The words seem intended to" emphasise 
 the grievousness of the act of treachery. The traitor was not only 
 one of the chosen twelve, he was a close intimate of his victim, 
 one who lived with Him, and shared His food, even at that very 
 meal. Compare Ps. 41 ", which was probably in the mind of the 
 speaker. 
 
 19. They began. For the omission of a connecting particle cf. 
 Introd., p. 18 f. 
 
 20. plate. WH prefix ' one ' iev), but the evidence for it is slight, 
 BC*. 
 
 21. For the last clause cf Enoch 38^, 'It had been good for them 
 if they had not been born ' ; Bab. Talm. Chag., 11^, 'It were better 
 for him if he had not come into the world.' 
 
 22. this is My body. The word 'is' would not be expressed in 
 Aramaic. The process of breaking to which the bread had been 
 subjected, or rather the broken condition of the loaf, represents the 
 condition of the body which will soon be broken. Nothing is said 
 here as to the eating of the bread, and the consequent partaking of 
 Christ's body. But it is implied partly in ' take,' partly in the very 
 fact that it was bread which was given. 
 
 23. The previous verse is full of thoughts of death, leading to ful- 
 ness of communion. Christ's body was to be broken in death. It 
 was thus to become a means of communion with Him. The present 
 verse carries on the same thought. His blood was to be poured forth 
 in death that it might become a means of communion. But a new 
 thought now emerges. The blood was to be covenant blood, i.e. 
 blood shed to ratify a new covenant. And since many would avail 
 themselves of the privileges of this new covenant, the blood which 
 ratified it was shed for them. 
 
 Thus two lines of thought intermingle, (i) Body and blood are 
 given in death that they may be available as means of communion 
 between Christ and His disciples ; (2) the blood shed is the seal of ^ 
 
14. 26-52.] ST. MARK 175- 
 
 new covenant.- The thought of the covenant is not further developed 
 here. For the conception that blood was necessary to ratify a 
 covenant cf. Exod. 6 *, ' Behold the blood of the covenant.' 
 
 25. no longer. For the accumulated negatives (ouKeVi oh fi^) see 
 Introd., p. 14. 
 
 no longer will I drink. The words express the certainty of coming 
 death and separation from the disciples, but they are followed by an 
 expression of the certainty of reunion. That would take place in the 
 kingdom of God. The meal at which He sat suggests to the Speaker 
 the metaphor of a banquet for the coming kingdom. Cf. Aboth 3 2", 
 Secrets of Enoch 42=, Enoch 62'^, Apoc. Bar. 29*, 4 Ezra 6", 
 St. Matthew 8", St. Luke 22=". 
 
 new. In the Messianic kingdom all things will be new. Cf 
 Rev. 21 ^ We may reasonably argue from the words that the Lord 
 had Himself drunk of the cup, though this is not stated. In that case 
 the omission of any mention of eating the bread can be no ground 
 for arguing that He and the disciples did not eat it. 
 
 26-31. On the way to the Mount of Olives. 
 
 26. And they sang (the Psalms) and went out to the Mount 
 of Olives. 27. And Jesus says to them that ye all shall be 
 ensnared, because it stands written, I will smite the shepherd 
 and the sheep shall be scattered. 28. But after I am raised I 
 will go before you into Galilee. 29. But Peter said to Him, 
 Though all shall be ensnared yet I shall not. 30. And Jesus 
 says to him. Amen I say to thee that thou to-day on this 
 night before the cock crow twice shalt thrice deny Me. 31, 
 But he vehemently was protesting. If I must needs die with 
 Thee, I will not deny Thee. And similarly they were all saying. 
 
 26. sang. The great Hallel (Pss. 113-118) was sung in two sec- 
 tions during the Passover meal. The reference here is probably to 
 Pss. 115-118, which were sung at the end of'the meal. 
 
 27. The quotation is from Zech. 13'', with a variant 'I will smite' 
 for 'smite.' 
 
 29. to-day on this night is in the style of St. Mark. Cf Introd., 
 p. 12. The meal took place at evening, and the evening was the 
 beginning, according to Jewish reckoning, of a day which lasted until 
 six o'clock on the morrow. 
 
 32-62. At Gethsemane. 
 
 32. And they come to a property of which the name was 
 Gethsemane, and He says to His disciples. Sit here whilst I 
 pray. 33. And He takes Peter, and James, and John with 
 
176 ST. MARK [14. 26-52. 
 
 Him, and began to be amazed and distracted. 34. And He 
 says to them, My soul is sore troubled unto death, abide here 
 and watch. 35. And He went forward a little, and was falling 
 upon the earth, and prayings that, if it were possible, the hour 
 might pass from Him. 36. And He was saying, Abba, Father, 
 all things are possible to Thee. Take this cup from Me — but 
 not what I will, but what Thou dost will. 37. And He comes, 
 and finds them sleeping, and says to Peter, Simon, dost 
 thou sleep? hadst thou not strength to watch one hour? 38. 
 Watch and pray, that ye may not enter into temptation. The 
 spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. 39. And again 
 He went away and prayed. 40. And again He came and found 
 them sleeping, for their eyes were weighed down, and they knew 
 not what to answer Him. 41. And He comes the third time, 
 and says to them. Do ye sleep [now] and rest ? [It is enough.] 
 The hour is come. Behold the Son of Man is being delivered 
 over into the hands of sinners. 42. Rouse up, let us go. 
 Behold he who delivered Me over is at hand. 43. And forth- 
 with, as He was still speaking, comes Judas, one of the twelve, 
 and with him a multitude with swords and spears from the chief 
 priests, and scribes, and elders. 44. And he who delivered 
 Him over had given them a sign saying, Whomsoever I shall 
 kiss is He, seize Him and take Him in security. 45. And 
 having come he forthwith came up to Him, and says, Rabbi, 
 and kissed Him. 46. And they laid hands on Him, and seized 
 Him. 47. And one of the bystanders drew his sword and 
 struck the high priest's slave and took off his ear. 48. And 
 Jesus answered and said to them, As against a bandit did ye 
 come out with swords and spears to take Me? 49. Daily I was 
 with you teaching in the temple and ye did not seize Me, but 
 (ye arrest Me now) that the Scriptures may be fulfilled. 50. 
 And they all left Him and fled. 51. And a certain youth was 
 following Him clothed with a linen sheet on his naked body. 
 And they seize him. 5 2. And he left the linen sheet and fled 
 away naked. 
 
 32. Gethsemane. rc9o-i;/xai'fi' = oil-press (Dalm., Gram}, p. 191) 
 The readings of D (rt/o-ajuai/ci), E, etc. {Y(a-a-r)jxavn), would mean 
 ' valley of olives.' 
 
 33. amazed and distracted (eKSan^ela-dm Koi aBrjfiovetv). Both very 
 strong words. The former occurs again in 9'^, 16^", The latter 
 occurs in Phil. 3 ^ in the New Testament. 
 
14. 26-52.] ST. MARK. 177 
 
 34. My soul is sore troubled. Cf. Ps. (LXX) 41 '-'2, 42°. 
 
 unto death. I.e. 'a sorrow which well-nigh kills' (Swete), or so 
 great that one could wish to die rather than endure it (Klostermann). 
 Ecclus. 51'' and Ps. 88 ^ seem in favour of the former. 
 
 35. if possible. I.e. consistently with God's purposes. 
 
 the hour. The use of ' hour ' to signify a specially fateful hour is 
 characteristic of St. John. Cf. 2«, yS", 820, 12^3, 13I, 1621, 17 1. With 
 these passages contrast Apoc. Bar. 36 ", ' Thy time has sped, and Thy 
 hour is come.' Here it seems to mean the period of trial with which 
 Christ's life was to close. 
 
 might pass. I.e. without discharging its burden of trial. 
 
 36. Abba, Father. Abba, literally 'the Father,' may represent the 
 vocative as here, or ' My Father.' See Dalm., Grarn?; p. 90. It is not 
 clear whether the following Ti-arijp is the evangelist's insertion to 
 give the sense of Abba (it may then be either a literal translation or 
 a vocative ; cf. Moulton, Grammar, p. 70), or whether he intends the 
 reader to understand that Christ used the double address. There is 
 perhaps a reference to a traditional use by Christ of ' Abba, Father ' 
 in Rom. 8 1^. 
 
 Take this cup. For 'the cup' see note on 10 '^ The directness of 
 the ungranted request is modified in St. Matthew 26 ^''- 
 
 what I will. ■ 'What' is the interrogative pronoun used here 
 dialectically for the relative. See Moulton, p. 93 ; Blass, p. 175 ; and 
 cf. St. Matthew 10^", St. Luke 17^. D substitutes the relative o. But 
 as Swete {in loc.) says, the interrogative sense may be retained if we 
 paraphrase ' the question is not What do I will ? but What dost Thou 
 will?' 
 
 37. For the historic presents see Introd., p. 15. 
 
 Simon. For the first time since 3 1^. But it seems to have been 
 usual with the Lord to use this name. Cf. St. Matthew 16'^, 17^^; 
 St. Luke 22^1 ; St. John i « 21 i^.mi?. 
 
 38. The singular was used in v. '' because the reproach was even 
 more applicable to Peter than to the others. The address now 
 passes into the plural. 
 
 39. Most MSS. add here 'saying the same word,' but the clause is 
 omitted in D a c ffk, and looks like a gloss. 
 
 40. The ignorance is here attributed to the overpowering of the 
 senses by sleep. Cf. 9 '. 
 
 41. Do ye sleep. The words seem to be interrogative, as in n.'^. 
 Others translate as ironical imperatives, but this seems harsh in view 
 ofv.^2_ 
 
 It is enough. The verb aircxf i is very rare in this sense (impersonal). 
 The commentators quote as a parallel Pseudo-Anacreon, 15, 33. Its 
 obscurity troubled the copyists. D q insert t6 TtKos as a nominative, 
 
 ST. MARK M 
 
178 St. MARK tl4. 53-7*- 
 
 mrix^L rb Tfkos K.a\ i) apa (meaning ?) St. Matthew omits anix^i. 
 Syr. Sin. also omits it, ' The hour has come, the end has arrived.' So 
 does k, which has, however, a peculiar text of vv. '""*^. Merx" thinks 
 that ' now,' to XotTrdv, and dnex^i- were originally a marginal gloss = 
 'quod superest deest,' which has crept into the text in two halves. 
 Certainly to Xonrdi' is rather harsh = ' now,' and if we translate ' sleep 
 on henceforth ' the sense is very discordant with ' rise ' of the next 
 verse. But I feel doubtful about to Xonrbv aTr/x" as a marginal gloss. 
 If dwex^i- be retained, it will mean after the question, ' You have had 
 enough sleep.' Swete, who translates the verbs as imperatives in an 
 ironical sense, refers anix^i to this irony.* 
 
 43. And forthwith. See Introd., p. 19. 
 comes. For the tense see Introd., p. 15. 
 
 One of the twelve. Cf. vv. i''-^". This repeated emphasis on the 
 apostolic status of the betrayer is very marked. 
 
 44. sign {(Tva-a-Tiiiov). A late Greek word (LXX, Strabo, Diod.). 
 St. Matthew 26 ""^ substitutes a-rifie'iov. 
 
 45. hissed. Not the simple verb of the preceding verse, but a com- 
 pound (xare^iXijo-f) = ' embraced ' ? 
 
 47. ear (wTapcov). For the diminutive cf Introd., p. 20. 
 
 51. The details are uncertain. crwrjicoXoiBet may mean that the 
 youth had accompanied the party up to the moment of arrest, or 
 that now, after the arrest, he tried to follow the prisoner. a-ivSmv may 
 be a light upper garment, or a sheet or night-dress. eVi yvjivov may 
 mean that under the a-iuSav he had only under-garments, or that he 
 was literally naked. 
 
 If the Passover meal was held in the house of St. Mark's mother, 
 the youth may have been St. Mark himself, who was led by curiosity 
 to rise from bed and follow the company when they broke up from 
 the meal and went out to Gethsemane. 
 
 53-72. The trial before the chief priests. 
 
 53. And they led away Jesus to the high priest. And there 
 come together all the chief priests, and the elders and the scribes. 
 54. And Peter followed Him at some distance within into the 
 courtyard of tiie high priest, and was sitting with the servants 
 and warming himself at the blaze. 55. And the chief priests 
 and all the Sanhedrin were seeking testimony against Jesus to 
 put Him to death. And they were not finding any. 56. For 
 many were bearing false testimony against Him, and their 
 testimonies did not agree. 57. And certain rose up, and were 
 
 * Die Vler Kanonischen Evangelien, ii. p. 157. 
 •> See also Additional Note. 
 
14. 53-72.] ST. MARK 179 
 
 bearing false testimony against Him, saying 58. that we lieard 
 Him saying that I will destroy this temple made with hands, 
 and after three days I will build another not made with hands. 
 59. And not even so did their testimony agree. 60. And the 
 high priest rose up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, Dost 
 Thou not answer anything? What do these testify against 
 Thee? 61. But He was silent, and did not answer anything. 
 Again the high priest was asking Him, and saith to 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 at the right 
 hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. 63. 
 And the high priest rent his clothes and says. What further 
 need have we of witnesses ? 64. Ye heard the blasphemy. 
 What think ye? And they all adjudged Him to be liable to 
 death. 65. And some began to spit on Him, and to cover 
 His face, and to buffet Him, and to say to Him, Prophesy. 
 And the servants took Him with blows. 66. And whilst Peter 
 is below in the courtyard there comes one of the servant girls 
 of the high priest, 67. and seeing Peter warming himself she 
 looked at him, and says. And thou wast with Jesus the Nazarene. 
 68. And he denied, saying, I neither know nor understand what 
 thou sayest. And he went out outside into the gateway. 69. And 
 the servant girl seeing him, began again to say to those present 
 that This man is one of them. 70. But he again was denying it. 
 And after a little again those present were saying to Peter, Truly 
 thou art one of them, for thou art a Galilean. 71. But he began 
 to take oaths and to swear that I do not know this man of whom 
 ye speak. 72. And forthwith a cock crowed a second time. 
 And Peter remembered the word, how Jesus said to him that 
 Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And he 
 set to and wept. 
 
 53. high priest. /.^. Joseph 'Caiaphas, 18-36 A.D.- 
 
 54. within into the courtyard. The fulness of expression is charac- 
 teristic of St. Mark's style. See Introd., p. 12. The. coiirt iavki]) \% 
 the open space round which the rooms were situated. 
 
 58. Cf. 15^^, ova o KaraKvoiV Tov vabv Kai otKodo^cov iv rpttrlv r]fj.epaLS, 
 ' Ah, Thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days.' 
 St. John 2^', 'Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it.' 
 Acts 6'*, 'We heard him (Stephen) saying that Jesus of Nazareth will 
 destroy this place.' These passages suggest that the Lord had used 
 words about the future substitution of a spiritual temple for the 
 
i8o ST. MARK [14*. S3-72. 
 
 temple at Jerusalem, which were combined by the false witnesses 
 with other words of His about His resurrection after three days, and 
 about the destruction of the temple. Cf. chapter 13. For the new 
 spiritual temple cf St. Matthew i6'^ 'I will build My church,' and 
 St. John 4 2', 'Neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall men 
 worship.' The falsity of the witness would then lie in the fact of 
 wrong combination of genuine sayings. St. Mark 15 2" is merely a 
 repetition of this false witness, so that St. John 2 '' is the only 
 additional evidence apart from that of the false witnesses that the 
 Lord had actually used words about the raising of a temple in three 
 days. It seems probable that the writer of the Fourth Gospel 
 assumes such a saying to have furnished the basis for the false 
 witness of St. Matthew and St. Mark, and feels it necessary to give it 
 a symbolic interpretation (the temple = Christ's body). D has sought 
 to provide further support for this false witness by adding after the 
 announcement of the destruction of the temple in 13^, 'And after 
 three days another shall rise without hands.' 
 
 For the repeated 'that' before direct speech see Introd., p. 19. 
 
 61. silent, and did not answer. The repetition is characteristic of 
 St. Mark's style. See Introd., p. 14. 
 
 the Blessed. This equivalent for God is Jewish, though only two or 
 three exact parallels have been found. The word is common in Jewish 
 literature in the phrase ' the Holy One, blessed be He.' Cf Rom. i ^*, 
 9 ^ ; 2 Cor. 1 1 '' ; Enoch "j"]^. ' He who is blessed for ever ' {Acta Paiili 
 (Schmidt), pp. 26, 29). 
 
 62. The verse combines two Old Testament Messianic passages, 
 viz. Dan. 7 '* and Ps. 1 10 '. 
 
 the Power is another Jewish evasion of the divine name. See 
 Dalman, Words, pp. 200, 201, who quotes examples of its use. 
 
 65. Prophesy. St. Matthew 26 "' and St. Luke 22 ^ add, ' Who is he 
 that smote Thee ? ' 
 
 took Him with blows (paTria-fiacnv avTov eXajSoj/). An obscure phrase, 
 pan-itr/ia is a ' slap,' and Xa/i|3ai/cii/ paTvi(rtiaTa = ' to receive slaps' occurs 
 in Luc, Dial. Mer., 8, 2. But 'took Him with slaps' is not obvious. 
 Blass, Grain., p. 118, cites from a papyrus of the first century A.D. 
 KoyfivXoif eXa^e as the only parallel. But kovSvXols is easier in such a 
 phrase than paTria-ji.aiTiv. The later MSS. substitute e^akov or e/3aXXoi/ 
 for eXa^ov, and Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament 
 Greek, p. 40, seems to prefer this. But it is equally difficult. The 
 commentators quote as a Latin parallel to eXajSov (Cic, Tusc, ii. 14, 34) 
 ' verberibus accipiuntur.' 
 
 68. know nor understand. The double expression is characteristic 
 of St. Mark's style. See Introd., p. 12. At the end of the vetse ACD, 
 etc., add koi dXcKTmp irpavrjo-e, 'And a cock crew.' The gloss seems 
 intended, to account for the 'second time' of v. '^. 
 
15. i-iS-] ST. MARK i8i 
 
 70. a Galilean. This would be inferred from his dialect. St. 
 Matthew 26 ^^ adds a clause to that effect. 
 
 72. set to. The Greek is ini^aXaiv, which has given the commenta- 
 tors much trouble. It has been variously" rendered : (i) 'when he 
 thought thereupon' ; (2) 'abundantly'; (3) 'throwing himself outside' ; 
 (4) 'covering his head'; (5) 'answering.' See Field, Notes on the 
 Translation of the New Testament, p. 41. But all these renderings 
 are very precarious and uncertain. Moulton, Grammar, p. 131, cites 
 from Tebtunis Papyri, 50, im^oKwv crvvexa>(Tev, which he translates, 'He 
 set to and dammed up.' This seems probable, but why did St. Mark 
 not use here his favourite ^'pfaro?* It is possible that we have another 
 piece of careless translation, or rather of misreading, of an Aramaic 
 word, rjp^aro would be ''IB'. Now ''IE' means ' to cast.' It is used 
 of throwing or casting in many senses, and in Syriac the root is 
 equivalent e.^: to dTropiVTw (2 Kings 13^^) ; cVtpiVro) (Job 27^^, Ezek. 
 43^); /3a\X<o (St. John 21', I John 4'*). If the translator misread 
 >^6!' as HE', and if he was acquainted with eVi/SaXXo) in the sense 'to 
 set to,' he would not unnaturally use it here. 
 
 D, latt. Syr. Sin. have rjp^aro kKuUiv, which looks like a correction to 
 introduce St. Mark's usual word, or it may be a variant translation of 
 the original Aramaic. St. Matthew 26 '° and St. Luke 22 ^^ have 
 
 15. 1-15. The trial before Pilate. 
 
 15. I. And forthwith, early, the chief priests with the elders, 
 and scribes, and all the Sanhedrin took counsel, and bound 
 Jesus, and led Him away, and delivered Him over to Pilate. 
 2. And Pilate asked Him, Art Thou the King of the Jews? And 
 He answered and says to him. Thou sayest. 3. And the Jews 
 were accusing Him tmich. 4. And Pilate again was asking Him, 
 saying, Dost Thou not answer anything ? See how many things 
 they accuse Thee of? 5. But Jesus answered nothing at all, so 
 that Pilate wondered. 6. And at the feast he used to release to 
 them one prisoner whom they were desiring. 7. And the man 
 called Barabbas was bound with the agitators, who had com- 
 mitted murder in the agitation. 8. And the multitude went up, 
 and begaji to ask him (to do) as he was wont. 9. And Pilate 
 answered them, saying. Will ye that I release to you the King 
 of the Jews? 10. For he knew (imperf.) that for jealousy the 
 chief priests had delivered Him over. 11. And the chief priests 
 stirred up the multitude, that he should rather release Barabbas 
 to them. 12. And Pilate again answered and was saying to 
 
 » See Introd. , p. 49, 
 
i82 ST. MARK [15. 1-15. 
 
 them, What therefore shall I do to Him whom ye call the 
 King of the Jews? 13. And they again cried out, Crucify 
 Him. 14. And Pilate was saying to them, What evil did He 
 do? But they were crying out the more. Crucify Him. 15. And 
 Pilate wishing to appease the multitude released Barabbas to 
 them. And he scourged Jesus and gave Him over to be 
 crucified. 
 
 15. I. And forthwith. See Introd., p. 19. 
 
 and all the Sanhedrin is superfluous, but in St. Mark's style. 
 
 took counsel. The phrase is ambiguous. The word a-vfi^ovKiov is 
 rare. It occurs in Plutarch in the sense of either 'council' or 
 ' counsel.' It occurs also in Greek inscriptions (Dittenberger, Sylloge, 
 316, II ; 328, 7, 8 ; 334, 7, 29, 39, 55, 57). Deissmann" quotes two 
 third-century A.D. papyri, in which it occurs in the phrase 'sit in 
 council.' In the New Testament it occurs in St. Mark 3 ", av^ovKmv 
 iSiSovv, DL ; (TToirjaav, XC ; 15', crvfi^ovXiov TroirjcravTfS, AB, etc.; 
 4Toifi.da-avTfs, HC. In St. Matthew it occurs five times (12", 22'°, 
 27 '■', 28 '^) with Kafi^dveiv. Lastly, in Acts 25 ^^ it means ' council.' 
 In St. Matthew it clearly means ' counsel,' and that seems to be the 
 meaning in St. Mark 3 ", so that it must remain probable that in this 
 verse it has the same meaning. The decision of 14"* that the prisoner 
 was worthy of death was now followed by the decision to hand Him 
 over to the procurator for formal sentence and execution. 
 
 Pilate. Pontius Pilate was procurator 26-36 A.D. 
 
 2. Thou sayest. This is not quite equivalent to ' yes ' or ' I am,' but is 
 an ambiguous Jewish affirmative. For parallels see Dalman, Words, 
 p. 309. The Lord could neither affirm that He was nor deny that He 
 was ' the King of the Jews.' He claimed to be the Messiah, but in a 
 sense different from any current meaning attached to the title. 
 
 6. The Synoptic Gospels are the only evidence for this custom. 
 
 7. Barabbas's ordinary name was probably Jesus. See note on St. 
 Matthew 27 ^^ (Intern. Crit. Comtii.), and Burkitt, Evangelion Da- _ 
 Mepharreshe, ii. 277. Clark, Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts, 
 p. 41, follows Tregelles in thinking that 'Jesus' before Barabbas in 
 St. Matthew 27 ''' is dittography of the last two letters of v\u.v. 
 
 8. went up. So XBD dva&a.<s. AC, etc., have aKo^oTJo-ar, ' cried 
 out.' There is no other occurrence of ava/3od<B in St. Mark, but 
 dvaPaivo) occurs nine times. 
 
 1 1, stirred up. dvaaiUiv occurs in the New Testament only here 
 and in St. Luke 23 ^ In the sense 'stir up' it occurs only in late 
 writers (Diod., Dion. H.). The Western text has 'persuaded,' as in 
 St. Matthew. So D Eireio-av, and similarly the Old Lat. and Syr. Sin, 
 
 " /iille Studies, p. 238. 
 
15. 16-20.] ST. MARK 183 
 
 13. Jesus Barabbas was probably a favourite with the populace, who 
 may also have thought that the mere fact of Christ's arrest by His 
 enemies discredited Him as a claimant to Messiahship. 
 
 14. were crying. Reading tKpa^ov with AD, etc. St. Matthew 27 ^^ 
 had the imperfect in his copy of St. Mark. 
 
 15. to appease, to Uavov Troi^trai = satisfacere is a Latinism not 
 uncommon in the later Greek. 
 
 16-20. The mockery of the soldiers. 
 
 16. And the soldiers led Him away within the palace that is 
 the Prastorium, and ca// together all the cohort. 17. And they 
 clothe Him in a purple cloak and put round Him a crown of 
 thorns which they wove. 18. And they began to salute Him, 
 Hail, King of the Jews ! 19. And they were smiting Him with 
 a reed on the head, and were spitting upon Him. And they 
 knelt down, and were doing homage to Him. 20. And when 
 they mocked Him they took off from Him the purple robe, and 
 clothed Him in His own garments. 
 
 16. palace {av\r]). avXrj here means rather the palace than the 
 open court, as in 14 ^*'"'. Cf. Milligan's Greek Papyri, 1 1 ^, note. 
 
 Prcetorium. This Latin word no doubt denotes the procurator's 
 headquarters at Jerusalem. It has been questioned whether this was 
 the palace of Herod on the west of the city (so Sanday, Sacred Sites, 
 pp. 52 ff.) or the castle of Antonia on the north of the temple. 
 
 within the palace. We must think of the previous scene as having 
 taken place outside the palace. The soldiers now remove their 
 prisoner within the building. 
 
 that is the Prcetorium.. This reading, eo-m tiJs aiX^s Iutiv npanaipiov, 
 is that of KABC, etc. D has eo-<o ds t^v avXrjv, which is attractive, as 
 being in the style of St. Mark. Cf 15'* and Introd., p. 12, for parallels. 
 ' The palace, which is Prffitorium ' is rather a harsh sentence. Blass, 
 Textkrit. Bemerk. su Markus, thinks that o ia-nv Trpavrapiov is a gloss. 
 
 17. purple cloak (iropcpiipav). Probably a soldier's red cloak, to 
 represent the Imperial purple. So Klostermann. The details of the 
 scene which follows seem to be imperfectly recorded in the present 
 text of St. Mark. The word 'put round' {nepiTcdiaa-iv) would apply 
 more naturally to the cloak than to the crown. For the latter we 
 should expect IniTlBripi. That is why St. Matthew inserts inedr)Kav 
 to govern ' crown,' and so leaves Trepindeaa-iv for the cloak. It looks 
 as though Koi irfpiTiBiaa-iv originally belonged to the previous clause. 
 The redundancy 'clothe . . . and put round' would be in St. Mark's 
 style. TrXf^avrfs aKavdivov (TTifjiavov is, then, a mere fragment of a 
 sentence, a line having perhaps dropped out. This line probably 
 
J 84 ST. MARK [15. 20-41. 
 
 contained a statement about a reed similar to that which St. Matthew 
 has inserted, for without it the words in the next verse, ' and they 
 smote Him on the head with a reed,' seem strange. If a reed or 
 cane had been previously brought and used as a mock sceptre or 
 general's staff, the smiting with it is natural enough." 
 
 Further, the line ' and kneeling down they did Him homage ' should 
 come before the words of acclamation, whither St. Matthew rightly 
 places them. D k omit the clause in St. Mark (as being out of 
 place ?) 
 
 19. Him with a reed on the head. So Dcffx. avTov KoKajia tls 
 KeCJiaXrjv. The reading of SB, etc., airov tt^v Kei^aXijj/ KoKdfia, looks 
 like a grammatical correction. 
 
 20-41. The crucifijcion. 
 
 20. And they /ead Him out to crucify Him. 21. And they 
 impress a passer-by, one Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from 
 the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear His 
 cross. 22. And they bring Him to the Golgotha-place, that is 
 in Greek, the ' Skull'-place. 23. And they were giving to Him 
 spiced wine, and He did not take it. 24. And they crucify Him, 
 a:nd divide His clothes, casting lot for them who should take 
 what. 25. And it was the third hour, and they were guarding 
 Him. 26. And the statement of His crime was written above, 
 'The King of the Jews.' 27. And with Him 'Cae.^ crucify t^o 
 bandits, one at the right and one at His left. 29. And the 
 passers-by were railing 2X Him, wagging their heads, and saying, 
 Bah, Thou who destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three 
 days, 30. save Thyself by coming down from the cross. 31. 
 Likewise also the chief priests mocking to one another, with the 
 scribes, ivere saying, Others He saved. Himself He cannot save. 
 32. The Anointed ! The King of Israel ! Let Him come down 
 now from the cross, that we may see and believe, and they 
 who were crucified with Him were reproaching Him. 33. And 
 when the sixth hour came there was darkness over the whole 
 land until the ninth hour. 34. And at the ninth hour Jesus 
 cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabakhtani, which 
 
 » There is a curious parallel in Pesikta von Rat Kahana, ed. Buber, xxvii. 
 p. DDp- The people are mocking a supposed usurper to a throne, and it is said, 
 ' And they were smiting him with a reed on his head,' 
 
 lE^xi iij; n:p3 inis pao vn 
 
 Perhaps to smite with a reed (as a mock sceptre) is a natural form of mockery of 
 usurpers to an Oriental crowd. 
 
15.20-41.] ST. MARK 185 
 
 is being interpreted, My God, My God, why didst Thou forsake 
 Me? 35. And certain of the bystanders when they heard 
 were saying. See, He calls Elias. 36. And one ran and filled a 
 sponge with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and was giving Him 
 to drink, saying, Let us see if Elias is coming to take Him down. 
 37. But Jesus gave a loud cry, and expired. 38. And the 
 vail of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. 
 
 21. impress. The word ayyaepva is Persian in origin. The 
 ayyapoi were the mounted couriers who carried Imperial messages. 
 The verb occurs in Jos., Ant., xiii. 2, 3, in a letter of Demetrius Soter, 
 KfXeija) fie firjSe dyyapevfo-Bai ra 'lovbaiav viro^vyia ('I command that 
 the beasts of the Jews be not impressed '). Deissmann {Bib. Stud., 87) 
 cites occurrences of the verb in the third century B.C. 
 
 Cyrene. Many Jews had settled in Cyrene. Jos., Against Apion, 
 li. 4, says that Ptolemy had sent Jews there. For Cyrenian Jews in 
 Jerusalem cf. Acts 2^", 6^, 13I. 
 
 coming from the country (dir' aypov). The corresponding Hebrew 
 phrase means ' coming from field work.' Cf Bab. Talm. Berakhoth, 4''. 
 But it does not seem necessary to force this meaning into the Greek. 
 Simon may have been coming from the country for the Passover 
 festivities. 
 
 the father of Alexander and Rufus. The First and Third Gospels 
 omit this detail. St. Paul (Rom. 16'^) salutes a Rufus, who may be 
 the same as the Rufus of this verse. 
 
 to bear His cross. For the carrying of the cross by the prisoner cf. 
 Plut, de. Ser. Num. Vind., c. 9, r&v Koka^oixivmv eKaaros KOKOvpycDv 
 fK<^epeL Tov avTov aravpov ; Artemid., Oneir., ii. 56, o /le'XXmv avra 
 npocrtj^ova-dai nporcpov airov /Sacrj-dfei. 
 
 22. Go/gotha is the Ara.ma.\ciin?'\i?M = a. 'skuW For the dropping 
 of the second '1' cf Dalm., Gnrm.^, p. 166. The place was probably 
 so called because it had some resemblance to the shape of a skull. 
 
 23. spiced wine. I.e. ' wine mixed with myrrh.' 
 
 and He did not, reading koi with D, latt. Syr. Sin. WH with XB have 
 6j Sf, which seems intolerable Greek. Von Soden with ACL, etc., has 
 o hi, but St. Matthew seems to have had Kai in his copy of St. Mark. 
 
 25. third hour. I.e. nine o'clock. St. John says 'about the sixth 
 hour' (19"). The usual ancient solution of the difficulty was to 
 suppose a corruption (F for r) in the text of St. John. 
 
 were guarding, reading ccpiXaa-crov with D for ia-Tavpaxrav. St. 
 Matthew had i(pvka<T(Tov in his St. Mark, for he substitutes ir-qpovv. 
 
 27. EFG, etc., add, 'And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith. 
 And He was reckoned with the lawless,' Cf St. Luke 22 5'. J<BD k, 
 Syr. Sin, omit. 
 
i86 ST. MARK [15. 20-41. 
 
 33. land. So Evang. Pet. 5, (tkotoe Kariir^^e irao-av ttjv 'JovSdiav. 
 
 34. The Hebrew of Ps. 22' has ''Jnarj; Hd!! ^bti ''^K = 7,Xt, tjXj Xa/ia 
 
 a(a^6avi. In Aramaic this would become ''jnpaC Xofj '•nfiN in^K = 
 aXat akai 'kejj.a (ra^axBavei. St. Mark's form is practically therefore 
 
 Aramaic. His eXmi instead of oKai is influenced by the Hebrew \i7K, 
 and \afia for Xc^a is also Hebrew. 
 
 D further Hebraises in rfkn for eXaii and in ^a(pdav€i = ''Jfl^Ty ? for 
 
 There is, however, some probability that the words were originally 
 spoken in Hebrew, because the Hebrew could most easily be mis- 
 understood as an appeal to Elias, or distorted into such an appeal as 
 a mocking joke. The quotation is therefore evidence for an original 
 Aramaic form of the Gospel, in which the Hebrew quotation as 
 originally used had been Aramaised for the benefit of readers, who 
 would understand Aramaic better than Hebrew. Afy God, My God, 
 etc. This translation is that of the LXX with one change, th ri for 
 11/ a tI. 
 
 38. Jerome says that the Gospel according to the Hebrews 
 ' legimus non velum templi scissum sed superliminare templi mirae 
 magnitudinis corruisse' (E/t. 120, 8). In the Bad. Talm. Joma, 39*", it 
 is said that ' forty years before the fall of the temple — the doors of 
 the temple opened of themselves until Rabbi Jochanan ben Zaccai 
 rebuked them, saying, O Temple, Temple, why'troublest thou thy- 
 self? I know that thy end is near.' 
 
 36. And one ran {Spafiav 84 most MSS.). But D, latt. Syr. Sin. have 
 KOI Spa/iav. St. Matthew 27*' also has xai, and since it is certain 
 that, in view of his repeated alteration of xai of St. Mark into 8e, he 
 would not have here only substituted Kai for 6e', he must have 
 found Kai in his copy of St. Mark. It is therefore probably the right 
 reading. 
 
 39. And the centurion, who stood over against Him, seeing 
 that He expired thus, said, Truly this man was a son of a god. 
 
 40. And there were also women beholding from afar, amongst 
 whom were also Miriam of Magdala, and Mary the mother of 
 James the little and of Joses, and Salome, 41. who when He 
 was in Galilee were following Him, and were ministering to 
 Him. And many others, who had come up with Him to 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 39. centurion (K€vrvpia)v) occurs only in this chapter in the New 
 Testament. Two things which probably impressed the centurion 
 were the loud cry followed by the sudden death, and the darkness, 
 
15. 42-47-] ST. MARK 187 
 
 40. Miriam of Magdala. Magdala lay on the western shore of 
 the Lake of Galilee at the south end of Gennesareth. There is no 
 reason to identify this Miriam with the woman of St. Luke 7 'I 
 
 Salome. St. Matthew 27'''' identifies her with the mother of 
 Zebedee's sons. 
 
 42-47. The burial. 
 
 42. And when it was already evening, since it was paraskeue, 
 that is the eve of Sabbath, 43. came Joseph of ArimathEea, 
 an honourable councillor, who also himself tvas waiting for the 
 kingdom of God, and ventured to go in to Pilate, and asked for 
 the body of Jesus. 44. And Pilate was jvondering if He were 
 already dead, and summoned the centurion, and asked him if 
 He were already dead. 45. And learning from the centurion 
 (that it was so) he granted the corpse to Joseph. 46. And he 
 bought a sheet, and took Him down, and bound Him in the 
 sheet, and placed Him in a sepulchre, which was hewn out of a 
 rock. And he rolled a stone against the door of the sepulchre. 
 47. And Mary of Magdala and Mary the (mother) of Joses 
 were beholding where He is placed. 
 
 42. paraskeue. The word means ' preparation,' and was used to 
 describe Friday as the eve of the Sabbath. Cf. Jos., Ant.., xvi. 6, 2, 
 cV tra^^aaiv fj rjj irpo TavTrjs napaa-Kfvfj, 'On the Sabbath, or on the 
 paraskeue before it.' It is still the regular name for Friday among 
 the Greeks. The crucifixion therefore, according to this Gospel, took 
 place on Friday. If the events of vv. *^'''^, which would take some 
 time to carry out, all happened before the beginning of the Sabbath, 
 at sunset on Friday, the phrase ' when it was already evening ' must 
 be interpreted to mean ' when it was drawing towards evening.' 
 
 43. honourable (evcrxr]f>-a>v) seems to mean ' honourable ' in the sense 
 of 'in good position.' Cf. St. Matthew 27^' ('rich') and Acts 13 ''", 17 ^^. 
 
 43. ventured. It was probably fear of Pilate rather than of his 
 colleagues in the Sanhedrin, or of the people in general, that 
 called for some boldness on Joseph's part. Further, it was probably 
 respect for Christ rather than Jewish prejudice against the body 
 remaining on the cross after the beginning of the Sabbath that 
 impelled him to his act. 
 
 44. was wondering, reading iSavfia^ev with KD. 
 
 45. corpse (nrffl/ia). So NBDL. The majority of MSS. substitute 
 the less harsh word a-a/ia, ' body.' 
 
i88 ST. MARK [16. i-8. 
 
 46. bought, see p. 170. 
 
 bound (eVetXf'm) is a rare word, used only once in the LXX of 
 Goliath's sword wrapped up in a garment. Abbott, Johannine Voca- 
 bulary, 1866, suggests that St. Matthew and St. Luke, who substitute 
 evTvkia-a-o), 'objected to the word (especially when applied, as by St. 
 Mark, not to "body," but to "him")) because it is used of fettering 
 prisoners, swathing children hand and foot, holding people fast in a 
 net, entangling them in evil and in debt, and generally in a bad sense.' 
 
 47. the {mother) of Joses. The Greek rj 'Iokttjtos would naturally 
 mean ' the daughter of Joses,' but its sense is here decided by v. ^°. 
 Syr. Sin., which translates in 15'"'' daughter of James the little, 
 mother of Joseph,' has here ' the daughter of James,' presupposing 
 'laKco^ov instead of 'Imo-^Tor in the Greek text. Dffnq have 'laRw^ov. 
 
 16. 1-8. Tlie angel at the tomb. 
 
 16. I. And when the Sabbath was passed Mary of Magdala, and 
 Mary the (mother) of James, and Salome, bought spices that 
 tliey might come and anoint Him. 2. And very early on the 
 first day of the week they come to the sepulchre when the sun 
 had risen. 3. And they were saying to one another. Who will 
 roll away for us the stone from the door of the sepulchre ? 
 4. And looking up they see that the stone has been rolled 
 away, for it was exceeding great. 5. And entering in into the 
 sepulchre they saw a young man sitting on the right clothed 
 with white raiment. And they were very astonished. 6. And 
 he says to them. Be not astonished, ye seek Jesus of 
 Nazareth, the crucified. He is risen, He is not here. Lo 
 the place where they laid Him. 7. But go, tell His disciples 
 and Peter, that He is going before you into Galilee ; there ye 
 shall see Him, as He said to you. 8. And they went out and 
 fled from the tomb. For trembling and amazement seized 
 them. And they told no one, for they were afraid. 
 
 16. I. when the Sabbath was passed. I.e. after sunset on Saturday. 
 
 Mary the {mother) of James. See on is*'. 
 
 The chronology of this and the next verse has given much trouble 
 to the commentators, V. ^ seems to refer to Saturday evening, 
 v. ^ to Sunday morning just after sunrise. But some commentators 
 complain that in v. ^ ' very early ' is inconsistent with ' when the sun 
 had risen,' and with St. John 20 ', ' while it was yet dark.' See Swete, 
 in loc. It has also been questioned whether it is not inconsistent 
 with the chronology of the First Gospel. St. Matthew 28 ' has oi/^e hi 
 o-afi^aTiov TTJ i7rt(j)wa-Ko{iarj els jiiav tra^^ixTtov, 'late on the Sabbath,' 
 
16. 1-8.]- ST. MARK, i8g 
 
 or ' after the Sabbath,' ' at the dawning towards the first day of the 
 week.' In view of the first clause the second seems to refer to the 
 beginning of Sunday, when the Sabbath was closing on Saturday 
 evening. For 'dawning' (en-K^axTKeii/) of the beginning of a new day 
 at evening cf. St. Luke 23"-', 'And the Sabbath was dawning.' * The 
 First Gospel therefore can be interpreted as placing the finding of 
 the empty tomb on Saturday evening. But St. Luke 24 ", 'On the 
 first day of the week at early dawn they came to the sepulchre,' 
 is most easily interpreted of the early morning, and St. John 20 '; 
 'And on the first day of the week, while it was still dark,' seems 
 naturally so understood. Of course, if St. Matthew's phrase, ' as it 
 was dawning,' refers to the time on Saturday evening when Saturday 
 was passing into Sunday, there is no reason why St. Luke's ' early 
 dawn' i&pBpov ^aSeas) should not be metaphorically used of the same 
 evening period ,- but if St. Luke had himself understood it in this 
 sense, he would surely have added some explanatory clause. For 
 Theophilus could hardly interpret it as referring to any other time 
 than the early morning. The circumstances to which these notes of 
 time refer are rather in favour of Saturday evening as against Sunday 
 morning. The reason why the women visited the tomb was ' to see 
 the tomb' (St. Matthew) ; 'to anoint Him' (St. Mark and St. Luke). 
 Nothing is said in these Gospels of any use of spices by Joseph, and 
 St. Mark and St. Luke seem to suppose that the intention of the 
 women was to supplement the hasty disposal of the body by Joseph 
 on Friday evening by a more becoming arrangement of the body. 
 (St. John assigns the use of spices to Joseph and Nicodemus on the 
 afternoon before, and definitely places the visit of Mary on the Sunday 
 morning.) Now there would be obvious reasons why this should be 
 done as soon as possible, and it is more likely that the women would 
 proceed to their work as soon as the Sabbath ended on Saturday 
 evening than that they should delay matters until the next morning. 
 The first three evangelists seem conscious of this by their emphasis 
 upon the completion of the Sabbath: 'late on the Sabbath' (St. 
 Matthew); 'when the Sabbath was over' (St. Mark); 'and during 
 the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment ' (St. Luke)." 
 St. Matthew's ox/ze 8e cra^pdnov rrj iiTL<^ai(TKoia-ri els p,lav o-a^^drav 
 suggests the first possible moment when Sabbath was ended. St. 
 Luke's op6ov ^aBews, if it refers to the same period, also emphasises 
 the first beginning of the new day. And St. Mark's Xiok wpaL (dis- 
 regarding for the present his avare'iXavTos tov rjXiov) would have the 
 same emphasis. On these lines we might suppose that, according 
 to the first three Gospels, the women took the earliest opportunity 
 after the close of the Sabbath at sunset on Saturday to get these 
 spices and go to the tomb. But what, then, of St. Mark's phrase 
 about the rising of the sun ? 
 
 " On iiri(piJi(rKei,v see Turner, /. Th.S., xiv. pp. 188 ff. ; Burkitt, /.Th.S., xiv. 
 PP- 539 ff- 
 
igo ST. MARK [16. i-8. 
 
 It is possible that this phrase is due to a translator, who con- 
 fuses an Aramaic word descriptive of the beginning of a Jewish 
 day at evening with the beginning of a natural day at sunrise. 
 Dalman, Aram. Worterb., under XnJ3=' gives (i) ' Morgenlicht ' ; (2) 
 'Anbruch des Kalendertags (abend).' The translator may have 
 taken the word in the first sense, when the context required the 
 second. We may suppose that the passage originally ran, ' And when 
 Sabbath was over . . . they bought spices . . . and very early on the 
 first day of the week as the new day was beginning they come.' The 
 writer of the First Gospel had either had such a text before him, or 
 he has rightly seen the mistake in our text, and has replaced it by 
 something like the original. St. Luke, according to this theory, 
 seems to have had the present text before him, and to have been 
 puzzled by it. How could the sun have arisen if it was 'very early' ? 
 He substitutes opflpou PaOews for 'very early,' and omits dvareiXavTos 
 Tov r]\wv. In order to bring St. Mark into line with St. Luke and 
 St. John, D c n q substitute dvareWovTos for dvaTeiXavros. 
 
 On the other hand, if it be thought that the evidence for such a 
 corruption in St. Mark is precarious, and that he must be taken as 
 meaning that the spices were bought on Saturday evening and the 
 grave visited on Sunday morning, and that St. Luke and St. John are 
 in agreement with this, we must suppose either (i) that the writer of 
 the First Gospel has misunderstood what St. Mark wrote, and placed 
 the visit to the tomb on Saturday evening by mistake ; or (ii) with 
 Professor BurkM, /.T/i.S., xiv. 539 ffi, that St. Matthew is not reckon- 
 ing according to the strict Jewish method, and by 'late on Saturday' 
 means the very beginning of Sunday morning. Professor Burkitt 
 thinks it probable that St. Matthew is writing for the Christians of 
 Antioch, and reckons the days as they reckoned them. 
 
 Professor Burkitt's interpretation of St. Mark is, ' When the Jewish 
 Sabbath was past and the shops were accessible, they buy spices ( 16 '), 
 i.e. on what we call Saturday evening. Then "very early" on Sunday 
 morning— but this is explained to be "at sunrise "^they come to the 
 tomb (16^). All this is surely credible, and the only account that 
 is credible.' He recognises no incongruity between Xmr irpai and 
 dvaT€L\avTos tov ijXi'ov. He thinks that the accounts in St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke where they differ from St. Mark contain internal improb- 
 abilities, but that they all agree, and rightly agree, in placing the 
 visit of the women to the tomb in the early morning. 
 
 8. Here the Gospel ends. It has been urged that such an abrupt 
 ending is impossible, and that the author must either have intended 
 to add further words and have beeh prevented from doing so, or have 
 written a conclusion which has been lost or suppressed. Some have 
 thought that the writer of the First Gospel had before him a copy of 
 Mark with such a conclusion.* But it must remain improbable that 
 ^ See on this root the valuable note of Burkitt, /. Th.S., xiv, p. 539. 
 ^ See St. Matthew [Intern Crlt. Comvi.'], p. 302. 
 
16. 9-20.] ST. MARlv 191 
 
 if the Gospel was ever extant with an original conclusion beyond v. *, 
 nearly all the copies that have come down to us should be based 
 upon a mutilated copy. And if the Gospel was 'written so early as 
 45 A.D. at Jerusalem, its abruptness is rather apparent than real. 
 For all that happened after the resurrection belonged rather to the 
 history of the Church than to a narrative of the life of Jesus, and 
 would have been known to every Christian disciple. If the Gospel 
 is a translation, the fact it ends with a conjunction is due to the 
 translator, who has little feeling for refinements of style. In the 
 original Aramaic the 'for' would not come last. And the dramatic 
 and abrupt ending is quite in accordance with the vividness which 
 characterises the whole Gospel. The fear is not the fear of doubt, 
 but the awe of proximity to the supernatural, such fear as fell on the 
 three disciples when they saw the Lord transfigured (9 5)." 
 
 Later Greek Endings. 
 
 There was at an early period a not unnatural desire to add to this 
 Gospel some account of the Lord's appearances after His resurrec- 
 tion. The most widely current of these is found in all Greek MSS. 
 except K and B (L'*' i '^ p and 22 have both this and an alterna- 
 tive ending ; see below) ; it is omitted also by Syr. Sin. and k, 
 which has only the shorter alternative ending. An Armenian MS. 
 of the Gospels, written in 986 A.D., ascribes this ending to ' the 
 presbyter Ariston,' and many modern writers '' identify this Ariston 
 with a presbyter Aristion who is mentioned by Papias as one of his 
 authorities (Eusebius, H.E., iii. 39). 
 
 The ending is as follows : — 
 
 9. And having risen early on the first day of the week He 
 appeared first to Mary of Magdala, from whom He had cast out 
 seven demons. 10. She went and reported it to those who were 
 with Him, mourning and weeping. 11. And they when they 
 heard that He was alive and was seen by her disbelieved. 1 2. And 
 after these things He was manifested in a different form to two of 
 them walking, going into the country. 13. And they went away 
 and reported to the rest. And they did not even believe them. 
 14. And last He was manifested to the eleven as they reclined, 
 and reproached their unbelief and hardness of heart because 
 
 » ' Es fehlt nichts ; es war schade ; wenn noch etwas hinterher l<ame ' (Well- 
 hausen, Das Evangelium Marci, p. 137). 
 
 ■' So first F. C. Conybeare, Expos., iv. 8, pp. 241 ff. A. C: Clark, The Primi- 
 tive Text of the Gospels, p. 74, suggests that Ariston may have been a person who 
 possessed a copy of the Gospel containing vv. s-20. 
 
192 ST. MARK [16. 9-20. 
 
 they did not believe those who beheld Him raised from the 
 dead. [And they excused themselves, saying That this age of 
 lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow 
 things unclean by the spirits to comprehend the true power of 
 God. Therefore reveal now Thy righteousness. They (thus) 
 said to Christ. And Christ answered them that the limit of the 
 years of the power of Satan is fulfilled. But other terrible 
 things draw near. And on behalf of those who sinned I was 
 delivered over to death, that they might return to the truth, and 
 no longer sin, that they might inherit the spiritual and incor- 
 ruptible glory of righteousness in heaven. But go, etc.]. 
 15. And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach 
 the good news to all the creation. 16. He who believes and is 
 baptized shall be saved, but he who disbelieves shall be con- 
 demned. 17. And these signs shall follow those .who believe ; 
 in My name shall they cast out demons, they shall speak with 
 new tongues, 18. and in their hands they shall take up snakes, 
 and if they drink anything deadly, it shall not harm them. 
 Upon sick persons they shall lay hands, and they shall recover. 
 
 19. The Lord Jesus, therefore, after He had spoken to them 
 was taken up into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God. 
 
 20. And they went out, and preached everywhere, the Lord co- 
 operating, and confirming the word through consequent signs. 
 
 9. And having risen. The connection of participle with Sc is rare 
 in St. Mark. Cf. 5 3''*°, 10", and Introd. 
 
 on the first day of the week. St. Mark Vould probably have written 
 pa (cf. 16^) for nprnTji. But see 14 ^ and the notes there. 
 
 //e appeared. If the paragraph were part of the Gospel we should 
 expect the subject to be mentioned explicitly. 
 
 Mary of Magdala, etc. The detail about the seven demons is very 
 unnatural on the supposition that the passage formed part of the 
 Gospel, seeing that this Mary is already mentioned in 15 m*^ and 16'. 
 The number seven in connection with demons is traditional.^ Cf. St. 
 -Matthew 12*^ and Thompson, The Devils and Evil Spirits of Baby - 
 Ionia,, p. xlii. 
 
 ' Seven are they ! Seven are they ! 
 In the ocean deep seven are they ! 
 Battening in heaven seven are they.' 
 
 10. She ('EKeLvrj) is never so used (merely to express the subject of 
 a verb) in St. Mark. In 7^" cKeivo is emphatic. 
 
 " According to Jastrow, Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, i. p. 282, it 
 signifies cliieiiy a great number, and is not to be talcen literally. 
 
16. 9-20.] ST. MARK 193 
 
 ■went (TTopevoixai). occurs only once in St. Mark, viz. 9^°, B*D (but 
 jrapanopeioiiai NACL, etc.). 
 
 12. Based on St. Luke 241^-^2. 
 
 in a different form. The phrase seems to refer to the fact that the 
 two disciples did not recognise Jesus (St. Luke 24 ^^). 
 
 going into the country. Cf St. Luke 24 '^, nopcvofifvoi els <a>priv. Is 
 aypos here used as in St. Mark 5 '* meaning 'going to a hamlet' ? 
 
 14. vcrrepov 8e occurs four times in St Matthew, never in St. Mark. 
 from the dead is omitted by most MSS. AC*XA insert. The words 
 in brackets are found in only one recently discovered MS., the Freer 
 MS. (W). There are some who think that they originally formed 
 part of the paragraph w. ^^■^'', that whoever took the passage from 
 the original work (of Aristion ?) omitted them, that later some one 
 noticed the omission and placed them in the margin of a Gospel MS., 
 and that they then found their way into the text. See Moffatt, p. 242. 
 But both style and thought separate them from vv. '■^*, '^■^''. They 
 appear to be an early gloss, quite possibly from an early Christian 
 book. Jerome had seen them in some copies of Mark, for he says 
 (Contra Pel., ii. 15), ' In quibusdam exemplaribus at maxime in Graecis 
 codicibus ' juxta Marcum in fine ejus evangelii scrlbitur, postea quum 
 accubuissent undecim, apparuit eis Jesus, et exprobavit incredulitatem 
 et duritiam cordis eorum, quia his, qui viderunt resurgentem, non 
 crediderunt, et illi satisfaciebant dicentes : ' saeculum istud iniquitatis 
 et incredulitatis sub Satana est, qui non sinit per immundos spiritus 
 veram dei apprehendi virtutem ; idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam 
 tuam.' 
 
 How long before Jerome the gloss crept into the text cannot be 
 determined. On the one hand, there is nothing in the context to 
 suggest a date later than the second century. On the other, no writer 
 before Jerome seems to refer to it. 
 
 The Greek text of the passage is as follows j — 
 
 KaKcTvot airekcyyovvTO Xeyovres oTi 6 alav ovtos ttjs avofxias Kai ttjs 
 aTTiO'Tias VTTO Tov (Taravav itrrtv 6 p.T] eav ra virb rav ■jvvevp.artav aKa- 
 Bapra ttjv oKrjBeiav tov deov KaTa\a^e(T6ai bivafuv' 8ia ToCro djroKoXv^ov 
 <Tov TTJv SiKaiotrivrjv rjbrj (Kfivoi cXeyov ra -x^piara Koi 6 ;;(p(0-ror ineivon 
 TTpotreXeyev ort TreTrTiTjparaL 6 opos rwv erav rrjs e^ovalas tov (rarava^ aXKa 
 iyyl^a SKKa Setva Koi VTTep &v eyo) hfiaprqcravTrnv jrfipeSodrjv els Bavarov 
 Xva virodTpe'^aa-iv els ttjv akfiBeiav Ka\ p.r)KeTi apaprrfauxrw iva ttjv iv tm 
 ovpavm irvevpaTticrjv Kol a(j>dapT0v Trjs hiKawavvrjs ho^av ii\r]povop.riaaia-iv. 
 
 And they {K.aKe\voi). exe'ivos is not so used in St. Mark. See on 
 V. 10. 
 
 excused themselves (aTroXoyeofim). CI Rom. 2'*, 2 Cor. 12'^. The 
 verb does not occur in St. Mark nor in the First Gospel. St. Luke 
 has it twice in his Gospel (12", 21") and six times in Acts. 
 
 This age (o alav ovtos). Cf. St. Matthew 1282 . gt. Luke 208* ; Rom. 
 12 2; I Cor. 1 2", 2«-8, 3I8; 2 Cor. 4*; Eph. i^'. 
 
194 ST. MARK [16. 9-20. 
 
 lawlessness (avofila) does not occur in St. Mark. 
 
 w^o does not allow, etc. The Greek is ofirjcavTavnoTavirveviiaTiov 
 aKadapra. Gregory reads d fiij iuv ra vtto tS>v nvevjiaTcttv amdapra. 
 If we omit 6 and read /jtj imvra vno rav irveu/idTav aKa6apTu>v we reach 
 the text represented by Jerome's ' qui non sinit per immundos spiritus,' 
 and this seems to give a better sense, 'Who does not allow the 
 true power of God to be comprehended by evil spirits.' 
 
 allow, iaa does not occur in St. Mark. 
 
 to comprehend (KaroKa^iadaC). Cf St. John I ^ 
 
 the true power of God. The Greek is rijv aX^^cmi' roO 5co5 ... 
 8vvap.iv. Gregory ^ emends into rr/p dXrjdtvfiv tov 6eov . . . Svvapiv, 
 Cf. Jerome's 'veram dei . . . virtutem.' 
 
 Thjy righteousness. For the connection between ' power of God ' 
 and 'righteousness' cf. Rom. i'^". 
 
 to Christ. 6 xp'o-ros is never so used in the Gospels. 
 
 answered {TtpoaXiya) does not occur in the New Testament. 
 
 limit of the years of the power of Satan. For the phrase ' the 
 power of Satan ' cf Acts 26 1^. 
 
 other terrible things {aX\a Setvd). Kunze* suggests dXjjdtvd, 'true 
 things.' But these and the following words suggest some deep-seated 
 corruption of the text. Kal inep S>v — irapcS66r]v is untranslatable. 
 We might substitute tS>v for &v and place iyi> after apapTrja-dvTav, and 
 I have translated as if this were the Greek text. But the connection 
 of thought thus obtained is very poor, t&v dpaprrfa-dvTwv is not a very 
 natural expression for 'sinners.' It looks as though some antecedent 
 to S>v had dropped out. 
 
 / was delivered over unto death. Cf. St. Matthew 10 2', St. Luke 
 24 ™ (eis KpXpa davdrov), 2 Cor. 4 ''. 
 
 inherit the . . . incorruptible glory . . . in heaven. Cf Eph. i ^*, 
 T^ff do^rjs TTJs KXrjpovopiasj I Pet. I **, els KKTjpovop.lav a<pOapTOV . . . €v 
 ovpavoiS. 
 
 1 5. Go (iropevBivTes). See on v. '". 
 
 into all the world and preach the good news. Cf 14"- 
 all the creation. Cf. Col. i ^'. 
 
 16. believes . . . saved. Cf Acts 16^', 'Believe . . . and thou 
 shalt be saved,' and Rom. 10^. For baptism and salvation, i Pet. 3^', 
 Tit. 35. 
 
 condemned (KaTaKpiBrjo-eTai). Cf I Cor. n '2, ' That we be not con- 
 demned with the world,' and St. John 3 ^% 6 pfi Tnimvaiv rjbr} KCKpirai. 
 
 17. new tongues (Katvois) is omitted in C*LA arm me. The phrase 
 occurs here only. Klostermann suggests that Katvals is a corruption 
 
 ' Das Freer-Logion, p. 33. 
 •> Quoted by Gregory, p. 34. 
 
16. 9-20.] ST.' MARK 195 
 
 of the following koI iv rais. ' Speaking with tongues ' at Corinth 
 (i Cor. 12-14), and. in Acts 10*^, 19", was speaking in ecstasy. Acts 2, 
 on the other hand, suggests foreign languages. See Lake, Earlier 
 Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 241 ff. 
 
 \i. and in their hands. A omits. Cf. Acts 28^"^ 
 
 drink anything deadly. Papias is said to have recorded of Justus 
 Barsabbas that he drank a deadly poison and suffered no harm. 
 Eus., H.E., iii. 39. 
 
 19. The Lord Jesus. 'Jesus' is omitted in many MSS. C*KLA 
 have it. The phrase occurs in St. Luke 24 ^ (om D, latt. om Kvplov 
 Syr. Sin.). It is common in the Acts and Epistles. 
 
 20. consequent (eVoKoXov^oCi/rmv). 'When we find those who 
 ''checked" or "verified" an account using the term enrjKoXoidTjKa to 
 describe the result, much as we should write " Found correct," we can 
 understand that more than at once meets the eye underlies such a 
 passage as [Mark] 162"" (Milligan, The Netv Testament Documents, 
 p. 78, who cites examples of signatures to a series of tax receipts from 
 the papyri). 
 
 An alternative ending is found in L T ^^ p*. It occurs immediately 
 after v. ^, and is followed by the longer ending given above. It 
 occurs also in k, on the margin of the Harclean Syriac and of MSS. 
 of the Memphitic and Ethiopic Versions. For further details see 
 Swete, pp. xcviii. ff. It is as follows : — 
 
 ' And they reported all things which were commanded concisely to 
 Peter and his companions. And after these things Jesus also Himself 
 appeared to them, and from the east even to the west He sent forth 
 through them the holy and incorruptible message of eternal salvation.' 
 
 A. C. Clark, The Primitive Text of the Gospels, 1914, has recently 
 defended the originality of vv. ''^'' and of the shorter conclusion. He 
 thinks that ' in the second-century archetype, which I believe to be at 
 the back of our MSS., the " shorter conclusion " preceded vv. ^■^*'.' The 
 ' shorter conclusion ' stood first as a summary ; vv. ^■^'' gave the events 
 in detail. The primitive order of the Gospels was Matthew, John, 
 Luke, Mark, and the last leaves of the archetype were damaged after 
 a copy or copies had been taken. 
 
 But this cannot be a true reconstruction of the history of the 
 Gospel. Since it is clear that when the first and third evangelists 
 used the Second Gospel their copies of it ended at v. ^ (unless indeed 
 the editor of the First Gospel had, as some have thought, a conclu- 
 sion different to vv. ''2°) the loss of vv. ^■^, if that ever happened, must 
 have taken place before the Gospels were bound up together. 
 Further, the linguistic argument against either ending as a part of 
 the Gospel is too strong to be explained away. 
 
 And if the loss of the conclusion really happened ' after a copy or 
 copies had been taken ' of the whole Gospel, how are we to account 
 
196 ST. MARK [16. 9-20. 
 
 for the reproduction of the mutilated original ? Why should the 
 translator of the Syriac version in the second century have been 
 satisfied with a mutilated Gospel when complete copies were current ? 
 And more decisive still, how could the scribes of N and B, in the 
 fourth century, when according to this theory there must have been 
 many copies of the complete Gospel in existence, have been content 
 to copy a mutilated manuscript or a copy of a mutilated manuscript 
 without adding the omitted ending ? 
 
 Professor Clark regards the words peculiar to the Freer MS. 'with 
 considerable scepticism ' (p. 79). 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 The Kingdom of God 
 
 In St. Mark's Gospel the 'kingdom of God' is the main topic of 
 Christ's teaching. He began His ministry by announcing the good 
 news that the kingdom of God was at hand (l '^). To His disciples 
 was entrusted the 'secret plan' about the kingdom (4"). The 
 parable of the seed growing secretly explained that the kingdom 
 would come like harvest after a period of growth, and the parable 
 of the mustard seed presents it as the final result of a process of rapid 
 growth. The parable of the sower deals only with the period of 
 growth, not with the result. The coming of the kingdom would soon 
 take place, for some who heard Christ speak would see it come with 
 power (g '). The possession of wealth was an impediment to entry 
 into it, i.e. wealth hindered men from enrolling themselves as dis- 
 ciples of Christ, the coming king (lo^S-S*). The kingdom has as 
 its citizens people with childlike characters (lo**), who recognise in 
 Christ a revelation of the nature of God, the source of all good 
 (9 ^', 10 1*). Elsewhere we read not of the coming of the kingdom, 
 but of the coming of ' the Son of Man ' (so 13 '^, 14 ^2). The meaning 
 attached to ' Gospel ' in this book, as the good-news of the coming 
 kingdom preached by Christ, is primitive, and earlier than the Pauline 
 use of the word for the good-news about Christ. 
 
 In the First Gospel the term is changed. We read now of ' the 
 kingdom of the heavens.' But the conception of the kingdom is the 
 same as in St. Mark (see St. Matthew, International Critical Com- 
 mentary, pp. Ixvii-lxxi). The emphasis which is placed in this 
 Gospel on the near approach of the coming of the Son of Man to 
 establish the kingdom is due largely to the presence of sayings to 
 this effect taken by the editor from the Matthean Logia. 
 
 St. Luke goes back to the phrase ' kingdom of God.' In general 
 
 outline the conception is the same as in the two earlier Gospels. But 
 
 there are signs that St. Luke was beginning to realise that a con- 
 
 197 
 
igS ST. MARK 
 
 siderable period must elapse before the coming of the Son of Man to 
 inaugurate the kingdom. Jerusalem must be trodden down by the 
 Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (21 2*). And 
 there is a hint of the idea, which was later to overshadow the antici- 
 pation of the near approach of the Son of Man, that in a very real 
 sense the kingdom was already present, though only in germ and 
 potentiality, rather than in maturity and fulfilment (17^, 'within' or 
 ' among you '). 
 
 In the Fourth Gospel the phrase ' kingdom of God ' occurs only 
 five times, and in all of them the conception is that of a spiritual 
 kingdom, which might be thought of as present (cf. p. 166). For the 
 comparative rarity of the conception ' kingdom of God,' and of Christ 
 as 'king,' outside the Synoptic Gospels, and for the substitution for 
 them of other phrases, see the article on ''Kingdom of God'' in the 
 Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. I may perhaps be permitted to 
 quote the last paragraph. 
 
 'When modern writers ransack the New Testament for traces of 
 the conception that the kingdom of God is now present in human 
 life, it is of course possible to find them. For whenever a human 
 soul is in communion with the absent king, there, in some measure, is 
 the sovereignty of God exhibited, and the reign of Christ realised. 
 But in the New Testament the admission that the kingdom is now in 
 some sense present (whether in the subjection of the Christian soul 
 to the law of Christ, or in the Church of which He is the head, or in 
 the life of God, streaming down into the world through the Spirit of 
 Christ in the form of righteousness and peace), is always made in the 
 understanding that these foreshadowings of the kingdom of God 
 imply a far more perfect realisation of the kingdom in the future, and 
 that when Christ comes again the kingdom will come in such fulness 
 that by comparison it will seem never to have come before. The 
 relation between the kingdom now and the kingdom of the future 
 is perhaps much the same as the presence of Christ now, and His 
 presence when He returns. None has ever been more fully conscious 
 of the life of Christ in him than St. Paul, " I live, yet not I, but Christ 
 liveth in me." Yet none has ever looked forward more earnestly, or 
 with greater expectation of living hope to the day of Christ's return. 
 He could even speak of this present life as a condition of absence 
 from the Lord (2 Cor. 5 ^\ By contrast with such knowledge as we 
 have of Christ now, vision of Him when He comes again will be "face 
 to face "(I Cor. 13 »2).' 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 199 
 
 On the meaning of aKOvSoKiCa. 
 
 (For the Old Testament and Apocrypha refer to Swete's 
 ne Old Testament in Greek.) 
 
 The following note, and the translation of (TKavhaKi^tn in the text by 
 'ensnare,' was suggested by a hint from Dr. J. H. Moulton that 
 o-Kai'SaXoi' should properly mean 'a snare' rather than 'a stumbling- 
 block.' See a note on (TKOvhaKov by Dr. Moulton in The Expository 
 Times, April 1915, p. 331. 
 
 (TKavSdKrjdpov appears to mean the spring of a trap. It is used 
 metaphorically in Aristophanes, Ackarnians, 687, of word-traps. 
 
 By analogy (TKavhoKov which seems to occur, in pre-Christian 
 writers, only in the Greek versions of the Bible, should mean a snare 
 or trap. 
 
 In Judith 5 ' the Jews close the hill passes, fortify the hill tops, and 
 place (TKavhoKa in the plains. 'Traps' or 'snares' would suit very 
 well here. This seems to be the only place where a-KavbaXov is used 
 literally, unless i Mace. 5 * has the same literal sense, 'he remembered 
 the children of Baean who were unto the people a snare {irayiSa) and 
 a a-KavSaXov, lying in wait for them in the ways.' The meaning may 
 be that the children of Baean had set traps and ambushes to destroy 
 the Israelite armies. 
 
 Elsewhere in the LXX the word is used metaphorically. Eight 
 times it is equivalent to B'pID, a hunter's snare. In four of these, viz. 
 Joshua 23!', Ps. 68^^, 139°, 140^, a-Kdv8a\op is used side by side with 
 nayis, and clearly means ' snare ' or ' trap.' In Judg. 2 ^, 8 ^' (B here 
 has a-Koikov), I Sam. 18", and Ps. 105^^ 'snare' corresponds to the 
 Hebrew and is quite appropriate. The same sense will suit Judith 12 \ 
 andWisdom 14 '• (where Trayi's is in the parallel clause). In Judith 5 ^, 
 Ecclus. 7 ^ and 27 ^^, the meaning ' snare ' is not so obvious. R, V. 
 renders in Judith ' wherein they stumble,' in Ecclus. 7 * ' stumbling 
 block,' and in 27 ^^ ' trap.' But ' snare ' is not inappropriate in all three. 
 
 In Ps. 49^" a-KavSaXov corresponds to 'Dl, a 'blemish' or 'fault.' 
 The meaning which the translators assigned to this word is not clear, 
 but ' layest a snare ' would reasonably render their Greek. 
 
 In Ps. 48 " a-KavSaXov corresponds to ?D3 ' folly,' read apparently as 
 b^2. This brings us to the three remaining passages, Levit. 19 '*, 
 I Sam. 2531, Ps. 1181"^ in each of which the Hebrew is PIB'30, a 
 stumbling-block. 
 
200 ST. MARK 
 
 So far the evidence of the LXX is that a-KavdaXov is used as a rule in 
 its proper sense of a snare, or trap. But in the four passages just 
 cited, the translators thought that ' stumbling block ' might be inter- 
 preted as 'snare.' In Levit. 19** and i Sam. 25^' the Greek might 
 be rendered 'snare' quite appropriately. In Ps. 118'^* the sense is 
 not so obvious, but 'there is no snare in them,' i.e. there is no cause 
 of moral ensnaring of others, is quite appropriate. In Ps. 48 ^* 
 'snare' gives a good sense. To these passages must be added 
 Dan. 1 1 *i (LXX) where a-KavSaXlCa is used to translate 7^2. So far as 
 the Greek goes ' ensnare ' would satisfy the context. But, as we shall 
 see, the fact that a-navSaXov and trKav8a\l(a in these passages corre- 
 spond to the root Pt^D may have affected its meaning in later usage. 
 Since a trap or snare is something into which one can stumble, the 
 word may have acquired the wider sense of any obstacle over which 
 one can stumble in a moral sense. 
 
 The other Greek versions of the Old Testament used a-KavSdKou 
 in the same sense as the LXX of a ' snare.' Thus in Symmachus, 
 Prov. 13'*, 14% 29^, a-Kiiv&aXov is used where the LXX has nay'is, 
 and also in Prov. 22 2^ = LXX ^poxovs. Theodotion also had o-kciv- 
 SaXov in 13", 29'= = LXX, nay is, Judg. 8^7, Ps. 68 23. In Isaiah 8", 
 Symmachus and Theodotion seem to have had a-KovSoKov for CpID, 
 whilst in the same passage Aquila had a-Kdv8a\ov for pW^D. In 
 Jer. 6 2' Aquila renders Plt^aO by aKavSoKa, and in Dan. 1 1 *^ Aquila 
 renders ?E5'3 by a-KavSoKi^co. 
 
 The verb o-Kai/SaXifu occurs only in Daniel 11 *' (LXX), in Psalms 
 of Solomon 16', and in Ecclus. g% 23*, 35 's. In Ecclus. 9° the 
 meaning is clearly 'ensnared.' In 23^ it is parallel to 'overtaken,' 
 and probably means ' ensnared.' In 35 '^ ' ensnared' is quite possible. 
 In Ps. Sol. 16'' Ryle and James render 'lay a snare.' In Dan. 11 ^' 
 the Hebrew is vtJ'3''. Aquila had the verb in Prov. 4^^ where 
 'ensnared' gives an appropriate sense though the Hebrew is PE'3, and 
 in Dan. 1 1 " for i'tt'D. 
 
 If we pass now to the New Testament there seems no reason why 
 we should not try to retain the proper meaning 'ensnare.' At the 
 same time, since o-KavSaXov has been used to translate ?12'3J3, and 
 since the meaning ' snare ' seems therefore to have been widened out 
 into that of ' occasion of stumbling,' it is possible that this may prove 
 to be its meaning in some New Testament passages. Moreover, the 
 Aquila rendering of Isaiah 8 '* would assist this development of 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 201 
 
 meaning. There, according to the Hebrew, Jahveh is to be 'for a 
 rock of stumbUng ' ?1B'30 TlX?. Aquila, as we have seen, renders 
 fir crrepeov a-KavSoKov, and some such rendering seems to have been 
 known to St. Paul (Rom. g^s) and to St. Peter (i Pet. 2'). It seems 
 at first sight obvious to suppose that in these passages o-KavSaKov was 
 understood to mean 'a stumbling-block,' though the idea may have 
 been that of a trap or snare of which a rock formed the most danger- 
 ous part. 
 
 Another passage possibly connected with Is. 8" is St. Matthew 
 J g 18-23^ ffv ei neVpos Km iirl ravTjj rr/ rtirpa k.tX. — (TKavhaKov cl ifiov. 
 I see no reason why we should not translate the last words ' thou art 
 my snare,' i.e. in suggesting that suffering did not form part of His 
 Messianic destiny Peter was acting as a moral snare or enticement. 
 For the metaphor compare Ex. 10', 'How long shall this man be a 
 snare to us?' In St. Matthew 13^1, 18 ^ St. Luke 17 ^ trKav^oKov 
 may have the same meaning, that of moral snares, or enticements. 
 It is of course difficult to get an English equivalent ('temptation' 
 does not suggest the primary meaning of <TKavhaKov), but nothing 
 but traditional usage would reconcile us to 'stumbling-blocks' or 
 ' offences ' in these passages. 
 
 ' Snares ' would suit Rom. 14 '^, 16 '', Rev. 2 ". i John 2 •" ' there is 
 no (TKavhakov in him' is analogous to Psalm iiS'"*, and may mean 
 ' there is in him no occasion or cause by which others can be morally 
 snared or entrapped.' 
 
 The remaining passages occur in St. Paul, and refer to the cross of 
 Christ. They are I Cor. i '^\ Gal. 5 ". I am not sure that ' Christ 
 crucified, to the Jews a snare,' i.e. an occasion of moral ensnaring, 
 is not as easy as ' a stumbling-block.' If we may so render in i Cor., 
 the meaning of Gal. 5 '' will be the same. 
 
 The verb occurs eight times in St. Mark. The writer of the First 
 Gospel borrows all these from St. Mark, and has six other occurrences 
 of the word. St. Luke avoids the word in the Marcan passages, 
 but has it in two sayings 7^' and 17 \ The latter finds a parallel 
 in St. Mark 9*2, but is probably from another source. St. John 
 has the word twice, 6^', 16*. St. Paul has it four times, Romans 
 14^1, I Cor. 8'^ twice, 2 Cor. 11^'. It does not occur in the other 
 books of the New Testament. 
 
 There seems to be no reason why it should not everywhere be 
 translated 'ensnare.' The most difficult passages would be St. 
 Matthew il^=St. Luke 7^^, 'Blessed is he who shall not be ensnared 
 
202 ST. MARK 
 
 in me,' i.e. 'who shall not be entrapped into a wrong conception of 
 me by my Messianic claims' ; St. Mark 6^ = St. Matthew 13*', 'And 
 they were ensnared in Him,' z'.^.they were led into a wrong view of His 
 Person by the difficulty of reconciling His claims with His history so 
 far as it was known to them. 
 
 On the other hand the fact that in the LXX <TK.avhaKov and 
 (TKavSaKLCai five times translates the root PtJ'3 may have led to the 
 supposition that it could mean a stumbling-block, and to the use of 
 it, and of the verb, in that sense. But it seems advisable to retain the 
 sense ' snare ' where possible. The fact that the Syriac versions render 
 the word by 1\n » oVn or (once St. Matthew 16 2') by ]AXooZ 
 may simply be due to the influence of the equation a-KavSoKov = ?1t5'3D 
 in the LXX, rather than to an attempt to give a-Kdv&oKov its proper 
 meaning. The Latin versions wisely transliterate. 
 
 The Syriac version of the Old Testament uses (A\nn/ to trans- 
 late both PIE'JD and B'pID, and this gives us a final argument against 
 importing the meaning 'stumbling-block' into <rKdv8a\ov. For the 
 facts are these. We have in Hebrew two distinct words, PIC^D 'a 
 stumbling-block * and t^pIC ' a snare.' To translate ?W30 the Peshitta 
 appropriately uses |A \nn/ which means a 'stumbling-block, but it 
 sometimes, «.^. Jos. 23'^, Judg. 2^, Ps. 106^", uses the same word to trans- 
 late CplD. Now we have no right in such cases to say that ]A^^oZ 
 means a ' snare.' Rather the translators have carelessly substituted 
 for the snare metaphor another, not dissimilar, of a stumbling-block. 
 The same two Hebrew words are rendered, sometimes and naturally 
 where the Hebrew is B'pID, a few times unexpectedly where the Hebrew 
 is PICJD, by (TKavSoKov. Clearly we must not deduce from these latter 
 cases the inference that a-KavSdKov means a ' stumbling-block.' As in 
 the case of the Syriac Version the translators are substituting one 
 metaphor for another, in this case that of a 'snare' for that of a 
 ' stumbling-b' ock.' 
 
 Of course it may be possible that the Syriac rendering of CpID by 
 j AXfi n/ is due to the influence of the LXX, since in the majority 
 of such cases the LXX has a-KavSaXov or np6aic.onii.a. This, however, 
 is not the case in Prov. 22^°, for the LXX there has jSpdxous (Sym. 
 (TKCLvSakov). 
 
 p. 52, I '- Son of God. On the phrase see Box, Ezra- Apocalypse, 
 p. Ivi, who says that apart from Enoch cv. 2, which is probably an 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 203 
 
 interpolation, it occurs first in Jewish literature in the Ezra Apocalypse 
 (7 ^^■^^). ' It would arise naturally from the Messianic interpretation 
 of Psalm 2.' 
 
 p. 59, I 21. On the alternative sites for Capharnaoum marked in 
 the Map see Sanday, Sacred Si fes of the Gospels, pp. 36-48. 
 
 p. 60, I ^. TTveviia aKadapTov. The phrase is very uncommon in 
 Greek outside the New Testament. In the LXX we have only 
 Zech. 13^ TO TTvevfia rb aKaBaprov, which is hardly parallel because 
 riNDtsn nn is impersonal. 
 
 There occurs in Enoch xcix. 7 the phrase 'impure spirits and 
 demons.' Twenty-six MSS. here have 'evil,' but Dr. Charles 
 tells me that ' there can be no doubt as to aKaBapros having occurred 
 in this passage.' 
 
 TO. dxaBapra nvevpara occurs in Test. Benj. 5 ^, with a variant aura 
 Ta irvivp.ara. Dr. Charles dates the Greek version of the Testaments 
 about 50 A.D. 
 
 For aicaBapTos used with Satpav in a magical papyrus of the 3rd 
 cent. A.D., see VGT and Milligan, Selections, p. 113. 
 
 In the New Testament the combination of TrveOp-a with aKadapros 
 occurs eleven times in St. Mark, who also uses Scufiovtov twelve times, 
 Sai^owfdjuecof three times, Saifiovicrdets once. St. Matthew has balp^v 
 once (8^'), baipoviov ten times, nveSp-a aKaBaprov only twice, viz. 10' 
 = St. Mark 6^ and 12*^ = St. Luke 11^*, a passage probably drawn 
 from the Matthean Logia. Elsewhere he prefers Sac/ioviov (ten times) 
 or Satpovi^opevos (six times). 
 
 St. Luke in the Gospel has nveip-a aKadaprov five times. Four of 
 these are from St. Mark. The fifth, 1 1 ^, is parallel to St. Matthew 
 I a*'. Elsewhere he prefers Saipoviov, twenty-one times. baLjiovia-deis 
 occurs once, 8 '^^. Once we have the composite phrase nvcviia 
 haip.oviov dicaddpTov 4^' = St. Mark I ^^ nvevpa aKaBaprov. Outside the 
 Gospels wvcvpa dxadapTov occurs in the New Testament only in Acts 
 S'", 8^; Rev. 16 i^, 182. 
 
 The evidence of the New Testament therefore may be summarised 
 as follows — nveipa duddaprov occurs in St. Mark eleven times, in St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke (Gospel) only once, except in passages based 
 on St. Mark. The one occurrence common to St. Matthew and St. 
 Luke probably comes from the Matthean Logia. The two occur- 
 rences in the Acts suggest reminiscence of Marcan language. It 
 also occurs twice in the Apocalypse. St. Paul does not use it, but 
 
204 ST. MARK 
 
 speaks of ' deceiving spirits ' nveviiaa-i ttKclvols in i Tim. 4 ^ He uses 
 fiat/idwoj/ only in i Cor. lo^o^i. St. John does not use the phrase in 
 the Gospel or Epistles. In the Gospel he has baijioviov six times. 
 The phrase does not occur in the Catholic Epistles nor in Hebrews. 
 
 Its comparative frequency in St. Mark is therefore a feature of that 
 Gospel. 
 
 Whilst the phrase is uncommon except in St. Mark and in 
 writings dependent on the New Testament, it seems to have hardly 
 any parallel in other literature. So far as nvevfia goes there is sufficient 
 evidence that nil, Nm"l vcere used to denote 'spirits.' In Biblical 
 Hebrew we have i Sam. id^*-'^^-^^^ 18 1° where the word 'spirit' 
 would lend itself to later interpretation as 'an evil spirit.' There is 
 also Zach. 13^, already quoted, where again the word 'spirit' could 
 easily be personified. In Rabbinical Hebrew prm is a not infrequent 
 term for ' evil spirits.' 
 
 In Syriac sni"l = 'a spirit' occurs in the New Testament versions, 
 and in the Syriac Ecclesiastical writers. But I do not know that it 
 is common outside the New Testament. In antiquity generally evil 
 spirits seem to have been described by preference under more 
 specific titles than the simple ' spirit.' In Assyrian they are utukku, 
 sedu, lamassu, edimmu and the like, for which see ERE iv. 569 ; in 
 Arabic shayatin and jinn. In New Hebrew and Aramaic xnil 
 occurs as we have seen, but more common are terms corresponding 
 rather to 8ai><ni/ such as p'TD, TitJ*, NT'C, lajj. Thus e.g. in the Acts 
 of Thomas the two latter terms are common, whilst |>j05 occurs only 
 twice, once of a possessed person ]jjo5 OtA |0C7I Aj|» (ed. 
 Wright, p. 1^25), where the Greek (ed. Bonnet, p. 43) has o^Xov- 
 fiivovs vnb irvevjxaTOiV aKaddpTOiV. 
 
 However, there is no reason why Nni"l may not have been used to 
 donote ' a spirit ' in the Aramaic of Palestine in the first century A.D., 
 though other terms such as ST'ti' would probably have been more 
 commonly used. If Trvevjia = ami = ' a spirit ' seems to have been 
 uncommon, there is still less evidence for nveviia aKddapTov = 
 lAaJL^ |ja05 outside the New Testament, and writers or copyists 
 dependent upon it. In ERE, vol. iv., there are twenty articles on 
 Demons and Spirits, but I can find no suggestion that in any of the 
 religions there treated 'unclean spirit' was commonly used to 
 denote demons or spirits. ' Of course the belief that demons caused 
 disease was widespread, and the demon which was supposed to have 
 taken possession of a man and to have afflicted him with disease. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 205 
 
 which rendered him ceremonially unclean, might naturally have been 
 called ' an unclean spirit.' But I do not find evidence that this was 
 the case except in Christian writings. 
 
 In the pre-New Testament period we have Enoch 99', Test. 
 Benj. 5^; Zech. 13 2, and a partial parallel in an Assyrian Tablet 
 given by Thompson, Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia, p. r^i. 
 ' An evil demon whose unclean hands know no reverence.' 
 
 Again the idea that impurity was caused by possession by evil 
 demons was widespread in antiquity. In Enoch the ' impure demons ' 
 are the children of fallen angels and women. 
 
 But here again outside the New Testament the description of spirits 
 as unclean is not common. 
 
 The phrase ' unclean spirit ' does not occur in the Apostolic Fathers. 
 The second century writers generally have a good many references to 
 demoniac possession, but whilst they sometimes speak of ' spirits ' or 
 ' evil spirits ' they for the most part avoid ' unclean spirit ' and fall 
 back upon SaiiMovtov and its Latin and Syriac equivalents. Such uses 
 of ' unclean spirit ' as do occur seem limited to cases of sexual impurity, 
 a limitation which does not hold good for the New Testament. Even 
 in references to Christ's work of expelling evil spirits the term ' demon ' 
 is chosen and 'unclean' spirit neglected. 
 
 It may be conjectured as probable that ' unclean ' as applied to 
 demons originally signified ' causing ceremonial undeanness.' This 
 is suggested by the case of the demoniac of Gadara, who lived among 
 the tombs, The Rev. L. W. Grensted tells me that there is a parallel 
 to this in the story of ' the possessed princess of Bakhtan ' (20th 
 dynasty, Rameses xil., c. iioo B.C.). The Prince of Bakhtan sent to 
 Pharaoh for an expert to deal with his youngest daughter who was 
 ill, and ' dwelt after the manner of one possessed with a spirit,' i.e. as 
 is seen later in a separate place. The suggestion is that the princess 
 was 'unclean.' 
 
 In SJiE iv., 612, Loewe says that 'in Palestine itself Galilee may 
 be singled out as the centre where demonology was the strongest,' and 
 613, 'The numerous instances which the N.T. furnishes would have 
 been impossible save in Galilee.' Possibly 'unclean spirit' may have 
 been a Galilean equivalent for 'demon.' 
 
 p. 68, 2 '*. sinners. ifiapraXos occurs six times in St. Mark. In 
 three of these, 2 '^-^^ twice, it is coupled with Tf\avr)s. This at once 
 suggests that it is used in the sense of ritual and ceremonial rather 
 than of moral sinfulness. This is also suggested by 2 ". 'I am not 
 
206 ST. MARK 
 
 come to call the righteous, but sinners,' where SikoIovs implies 
 righteousness obtained by obedience to the law, and dfiapraXoiis 
 sinfulness brought about by disregard of the law. This is the sense 
 in which St. Paul uses the word in Gal. 2 '' of himself and Peter 
 when they abandoned the law for faith in Christ, or in which he 
 denied its application to himself and Peter whilst they remained 
 within the fold of Judaism, Gal. 2 ^^. 
 
 The same meaning is probably to be found in St. Mark 14*' where 
 ' is delivered into the hands of sinners ' is equivalent in meaning to 
 'deliver to the Gentiles,' lo^^ 
 
 In the remaining passage, 8 ^, ' in this adulterous and sinful 
 generation,' the meaning seems to be wider. St. Matthew uses the 
 word only five times. Four of them occur in passages borrowed from 
 St. Mark and have the ritual meaning. The fifth, 1 1 1^, is 'a friend of 
 tax-collectors and sinners.' This occurs also in the parallel passage, 
 St. Luke 7 ^\ and the non-moral sense of dfiapraXos thus goes back 
 into the Matthean Logia from which the passage is ultimately derived. 
 
 In St. Luke d/iaprcoXds is more common. It occurs seventeen times. 
 Three of these are from St. Mark and have the non-moral sense. 
 The same meaning is also to be found in the following passages, 
 which have parallels in St. Matthew and are probably therefore derived 
 from the Matthean Logia : 
 
 622 = St. Matthew S^" (reXSvai), 
 
 6 28 = St. Matthew 5« {iBvLKoi), 
 
 7 34= St. Matthew 11'^^, 
 
 and in the following which are peculiar to St. Luke : 
 
 634, 
 
 15^, ol TeKoivai Km ol duaprioKoij 
 
 19', of Zacchaeus. 
 
 In the seven remaining passages, all of them peculiar to St. Luke, 
 the word seems probably to have the wider moral sense. 
 
 It would seem, therefore, that in St. Mark and in the source which 
 lies behind sayings common to St. Matthew and St. Luke (Matthean 
 Logia) AfiapraXos was used in a Jewish sense as equivalent to Gentiles 
 or Jews who did not observe the law. 
 
 p. 70, 2^'. For ayva(pos = 'ntw' VGT cites, from a papyrus of the 
 second century A.D., Kirava ayva(J3ov XeuKov = ' new white shirt.' 
 
 p. 78. On 4 \ He embarked into a boat, and sat down in the sea. 
 Dr. J. Rendel Harris in 'An Unnoticed Aramaism in St. Mark,' 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 207 
 
 Expository Times, March 191 5, quotes Syriac evidence to show that 
 ' to go up and sit in a ship ' is a Syriac idiom for ' to go aboard.' 
 I gather that he thinks that St. Mark's els irKoiov en^dvra leadriq-dm iv 
 TTj daKda-a-j] is an unnecessarily literal translation of an Aramaic phrase 
 which would have been rendered quite sufficiently into Greek by the 
 first three words. L should welcome some Aramaic evidence other 
 than Syraic for this idiom. 
 
 p. 80, 4 '', deceit of riches. Deissmann would render <i7rarij by 
 ' pleasure.' See VGT on airari]. 
 
 p. 83, 4^', of itself. For illustrations of avTonaros see VGT and 
 Ahhott, /oMfinine Vocabulary, ijija. 
 
 P- 89, 5 '*. On dypos see VGT. 'This old and once common 
 word is unexpectedly rare in papyri.' And again ' it looks as if for 
 some reason dypdr was a favourite word with translators from Hebrew 
 or Aramaic' 
 
 p. 103, 6*'', market-places. The Greek is eV rair ar/opais 'in the 
 markets.' The same word occurs in 7* and 12'^. Mr. Pallis {A few 
 Notes on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, Liverpool, 1903), 
 arguing that there could not be market-places in the dypol or open 
 country, would emend into iv rats dyviais, ' in the roads.' He thinks 
 that this is supported by the Sinaitic Syriac which has ' streets.' But 
 this version (so Burkitt), uniformly translates dyopa by 'street,' so 7*, 
 12^, so that there is no reason to think that it had dyum here any 
 more than in the eight other places where dyopd occurs. The fact is 
 that the Syriac ]^Q.» can mean both 'street' and 'forum.' 
 
 As regards ' markets ' in the open fields it has been pointed out on 
 5'* that dypds in this Gospel means rather 'hamlets' than open 
 country. Further, it is quite possible that dyopd in St. Mark is a not 
 very happy rendering of the Aramaic NplB* which means either 
 'market' or 'street.' D in 6^^ has irXaTfi'ais which may be a duplicate 
 rendering of NpltJ'. 
 
 p. 107, 7'^. FG^T' says that dipeSpav occurs in an inscription of the 
 second century B.C. 'in the same sense as in Mt. 15 ", Mk. 7 '».' 
 
 p. 142, II *. On ap4)o8ov, see VGT, which speaks of its frequency in 
 the papyri of the Roman age in the sense of a 'quarter' of a city. 
 
 p. 153. On 12^6, Davids Son, Canon Kennett, Interpreter, July 
 19 14, p. 364, suggests that Christ was repudiating the idea that He 
 was the heir to David's throne in the Hteral sense in which such heir- 
 
2o8 ST. MARK 
 
 ship was understood by the Jews of that period. He was not the Son 
 of David who was expected to reign in Jerusalem. 
 
 p. 178, 14^'. arrixci. VGT cites da Zwaan, Expositor VI, xii, p. 452, 
 as interpreting in the sense ' He (Judas) did receive (the promised 
 money).' Cf. St. Matthew 62*6.i6 -j-jje verb is common in this 
 sense in papyri receipts. Cf. Deissmann, Stile Studies, p. 339. 
 But anix^L by itself in this sense would be too abrupt even for St. 
 Mark. The rendering of k in this passage is as follows : 'et venit 
 tertio et ubi adoravit dicit illis : dormite jam nunc, ecce appropin- 
 quavit qui me tradit. Et post pusillum excitavit illos et dixit : jam 
 hora est, ecce traditur filius hominis in manu peccatorum, surgite, 
 eamus,' etc. The insertion of ' et post pusillum excitavit illos et dixit ' 
 removes the apparent inconsequence of Kadevhere to Xomov koI 
 avairavetrdt followed in the same breath by iy€tp€a-6e, ayafjiev. It 
 looks like a gloss inserted with the same object as the words of D at 
 the end of Acts 14^ o 8e Kipios cSaicev raxv eip7)vr]v, which remove the 
 inconsequence of y. 3 ' Long time therefore they tarried there ' im- 
 mediately after the statement of v. 2 that the Jews stirred up the 
 Gentiles against the brethren. The text of k with its reference 
 to a third withdrawal (et ubi adoravit) which is not stated, though 
 implied, in the Greek looks like an attempt to remove the difficulties 
 of the passage. If the editor of the First Gospel had airep^ei in his 
 copy of St. Mark he omitted it as being obscure. 
 
 The apparent inconsequence just referred to can be avoided by 
 translating KaBeihere to Xoittov k.t.\. interrogatively, or as a reproach, 
 ' you are sleeping now (when you ought to be watching) ! ' The 
 difficulty about such translations is to Xonroi' which means ' hence- 
 forth ' rather than ' now,' and seems therefore to require the verbs to 
 be rendered as imperatives. I have translated interrogatively for the 
 sake of sense, and must needs think that some corruption underlies 
 TO XoiTTOi' and a7r£;;^ei. 
 

 
 ScAle 2] Ifilea tn nr.Tnfh 
 
INDICES 
 
 I. ANCIENT AUTHORS 
 
 Aboth. See Sayings of the Jewish Jubilees, Book of, 156. 
 
 Fathers. I 
 
 Abraham^ Apocalypse of, 160. Lucian, 60, 63, 100, 122, 168, 180. 
 Acts of Thomas, 204. 
 
 Acta Pauli, 180. Mechilta, 72, 78, 83, 140, 146, 156. 
 
 ^lian, 122. Mishnah, 106. 
 
 ^schylus, 63. Muratorian Canon, ^. 
 Artemidorus, 70, 92, 185. 
 
 Ascension of Isaiah, 54. Origen, 88, 93. 
 
 Athenaeus, 122. Ovid, 122. 
 
 Barnabas, Epistle of, 160. 
 Baruch, Apocalypse of, 138, 156, 158, 
 160, 17s, 177- 
 
 Cicero, 180. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, 2, 4, 6. 
 
 Diodorus, 122. 
 
 Enoch, Book of, 30, 121, 156, 160, 161, 
 
 174, 175, 180, 203. 
 Enoch, Secrets of, 13S, 175. 
 Epiphanius, S4- 
 Eusebius, i, 2, 4, 195- 
 Ezra iv, 30, 54, 130, 138, 156, 158, 159, 
 
 160, 161, 175. 
 
 Galen, 95. 
 
 Hermas, 102. 
 Herodotus, 168. 
 Hippolytus, 4, 134- 
 
 Ignatius, 169. 
 
 Irenseus, i. 
 
 Isaiah, Ascension of, 54. 
 
 Jerome, 4, 186, 193. 
 Josephus, S3, 75. 95. 96, 105. "L I33, 
 150, 155, 167, 169, 172. I73i 185. I07- 
 
 ST. MARK O 
 
 Papias, I. 
 
 Papyri, 92, 98, 100, 133, 181. 
 
 Pesikta des Rah Kahana, 158, 184. 
 
 Peter, Gospel of , 172, 185. 
 
 Philo, 56, 122, 
 
 Pirke A both. See Sayings of the Jewish 
 
 Fathers. 
 Pliny, 95. 
 Plutarch, 122, 185. 
 Pseudo-Anacreon, 177. 
 
 Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, 78, 146, 
 
 175- 
 Secrets of Enoch, 135. * 
 
 Sibylline Oracles, 156. 
 Solomon, Odes and Psalms of, 56. 
 Solomon, Psalms of, 130, 141. 
 
 Talmud, 137, 149, 156, 158, 172, 174, 
 
 185, 186. 
 Targu-m on Isaiah, 130. 
 TertuUian, 2. 
 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 
 
 61, 63, 80, 102, 203. , - 
 
 Theocritus, 123. 
 Thomas, Acts of, 204. 
 ThOTnas, Gospel of, 134. 
 
 Vettius Valens, 60, 66, 92, 122, 137,^56. 
 
210 
 
 ST. MARK 
 
 II. MODERN AUTHORS. 
 
 Abbott, ii8, 128, 168, 188, 207. 
 Abrahams, 133. 
 
 Bacher, 154, 158. 
 
 Bacon, 7, 71, 80. 
 
 Bartlet, 4. 
 
 Bengel, 57. 
 
 Blass, 84, 116, 121;, 144, 151, 177, 180, 
 
 183. " ' 
 
 Box, 152, 156, 158, 202. 
 Burkitt, 41, 88, 91, in, 119, 148, 164, 
 
 182, 189, 190. 
 
 Carpenter, 143. 
 Chapman, 2. 
 Charles, 203. 
 Cheyne, 91, in. 
 Chwolson, 167, 170. 
 Clark, 42, 75, 182, 191, 195. 
 Conybeare, 191. 
 
 Dalman, 49, 114, 176, 177, 180, 182, 
 
 185. 
 De Zwaan, 208. 
 Deissmann, 94, 182, 185, 207. 
 Dittenberger, 182. 
 Driver, 132. 
 
 Edersheim, 155. 
 
 Fiebig, 84. 
 
 Field, 74, 180, 181. 
 
 Grensted, i, s, 205. 
 Gregory, 194. 
 
 Harnack, 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 52, 120, i 
 
 164. 
 Harris, J. Rendel, 207. 
 Hajvkins, 15. 
 Hort, 84. 
 
 Jastrow, 192. 
 
 Kautzsch, 95. 
 
 Keim, 4. 
 
 Kennett, 207. 
 
 Klostermann, 57, 121, 154, 194. 
 
 Krebsius, 118. 
 
 Kypke, 169. 
 
 Lake, 39, 195. 
 Loewe, 205. 
 Loisy, 57, 58, 72. 
 
 Marshall, 77, 82. 
 
 Mayor, 95. 
 
 Menzies, 58, 145. 
 
 Merx, 178.. 
 
 Milligan, 100, 183, 195, 203. 
 
 Moffatt, 6, 9, 163, 193. 
 
 Moulton, 12, 84, 143, 144,151, 169, 1,77, 
 
 181, 199. 
 Montefiore, 106, 109, 121, 152, ii;3. 
 
 Nestle, III. 
 
 Oesterley, 152. 
 
 Pallis, 207. 
 Post, 85. 
 
 Robinson, J. Armitage, 56, 140. 
 
 Sanday, 155, 183. 
 
 Scheohter, 132. 
 
 Schilrer, 54,, 62, 75, 155, .156. 
 
 Scott, 166. ' 
 
 Souter, 39, 40. 
 
 Stanton, 57. 
 
 Streeter, 9, 85, 157, 163, 164. 
 
 Swete, 57, 137, 151, 178. 
 
 Tennyson, 86. 
 Thompson, 192^ 205. 
 Turner, 189. 
 
 Volz, 80. 
 
 Von Soden, 42. 
 
 Weiss, J., 99. 
 Wendling, 7. 
 Westcott and Hort, 41. 
 Wellhausen, 27, 66, no, 191. 
 Wetstein, 168. 
 Winstanley, 67. 
 Winter, 72, 78, 83. 
 Wiinsche, 72, 78, 83. 
 
 Zahn, qt 
 
INDICES 
 
 III. NAMES AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 Ahbaitar, 71. 
 
 Abomination of desolation, 158 f. 
 
 Angels, 121, i6i. 
 
 Apocalyptic sayings, 163 f. 
 
 ' Apocalypse, the Little,' 163. 
 
 Apostles, candour with respect to, 20 f. 
 
 Anointing, 95. 
 
 Aramaic words, 20, 50. 
 
 Aramaisms, 48 f. , 207. 
 
 Aristion, 191. 
 
 Asyndeton, 18. 
 
 Baptism, 52. 
 
 Baptism as metaphor of trouble, 139. 
 
 Barnabas, 34. 
 
 Barabbas, 182. 
 
 Beezeboul, 76. 
 
 Beloved, the, 56. 
 
 Bethsaida, loi. 
 
 Birth-pangs, 156. 
 
 Blessed, the, 180. 
 
 Boanerges, 75. 
 
 Bush, the, 151. 
 
 Csesarea Philippi, 116. 
 
 Canaanite, 75. 
 
 Candour of the gospel, 20. 
 
 Chorazin, 55. 
 
 Corban, 106. 
 
 Costobar, 133. 
 
 Cross, 120. 
 
 Cup, of suffering, 139. 
 
 Dalmanutha, 51, in. 
 
 Decapolis, 89. 
 
 Demoniac possession, 59, 88. 
 
 Diminutives, 20. 
 
 Divorce, 132 f. 
 
 Elephantine, 133. 
 Elijah, 117, 123. 
 Eschatological sayings, 163 f. 
 Essenes, 53 f. 
 
 Faith, 66, 141. 
 Fasting, 69. 
 Father in heaven, 146. 
 Freer MS., 193. 
 
 Gehenna, 130. 
 Gennesareth, 103. 
 Gerasa, 88. 
 Gethsemane, 176. 
 Golgotha, 185. 
 
 Herodians, 73, 149. 
 Herodias, 97, 133. 
 Historic present, 15, 48. 
 Hosanna, 142. 
 House, references to a, 25. 
 
 Imperfect tense, 15, 48. 
 Iscariot, 75. 
 
 Kingdom of God, 152 f., 163 f., 197 f. 
 
 Latin words, 20. 
 Life, eternal, 135. 
 
 Mary of Magdala, 192. 
 
 Nazareth, 55. 
 Negatives, 12. 
 
 Oil, 9S- 
 
 Participles, 15 f. , 48. 
 
 Passover, the, 167, 171 ff. 
 
 Power, the, 180. 
 
 Prastorium, 183. 
 
 Prepositions with compound verb, 12. 
 
 Questions asked by Christ, 24. 
 
 Redundancy, 12 f. 
 Resurrection, 150. 
 
 Salome, 96, 133, 187. 
 
 Satan, 57. 
 
 Seven, 192. 
 
 Sicarii, 75- 
 
 Sidon, 108, no. 
 
 Sinners, 68. 
 
 Son of God, 52. 
 
 Son of man, 29, 67, 161. 
 
 Sons of men, 20, 77. 
 
 Sons of the bride-chamber, 20, 69. 
 
 Spirit, Holy, 154, 158. 
 
 Spirit (of Christ), 67. 
 
 Spirits, unclean, 203 f. 
 
 Tongues, speaking with, 195. 
 
 Unclean (of spirits), 203 f. 
 
 Zealots, 75. 
 
ST. MARK 
 
 IV. GREEK WORDS. 
 
 A)3/3d, 20, 177. 
 dyavaKT^tij, 134. 
 AyaTnjTds, 36. 
 dyyape^u, 185. 
 Ayva<pos, 70, 206. 
 dyp6s, 89, 185, 207. 
 dyvidf 207. 
 d8T]fiov4t>), 176. 
 a^civ, 193, 
 aKdOafyros, 203. 
 dXd^affrpov, 168. 
 dfidpTyjfJLa, Tj. 
 afxapTw\6s, 205. 
 d/i^i', 113. 
 d/i0t/3f£XXw, ig, 58. 
 AfJt,<po5ov, 20, 142, 207, 
 dua^alvoj, 79. 
 d»'££7atoi', 170. 
 dvaTrLiTTUJ, 20, 100. 
 dvatre/ot, 182. 
 di'atrrcydfw, 113, 
 dvax'^p^^, 73. 
 dvofila^ 194. 
 dir^X^} '^77> 203. 
 d7roXo7^o^at, 193. 
 diropiiOf 97. 
 dpX^) i8i 49- 
 d(re\7e£a, 107. 
 a^X'^, 179, 183. 
 a^^dvuj, 79. 
 d^€5pd}V, 107, 207. 
 
 ^awTiffT'fi^ 97. 
 ^awrL^wv, 6, 97, 
 
 ^aaavlj^, loi. 
 /3ee^e/3oi5X, 76. 
 ^oavTipyiSf 20. 
 
 ya^o(pv\dKiop, 154. 
 
 yej/iiTLa, 97. 
 yovvTreT^u, 62. 
 
 8ai/Ji.6vLov, 203. 
 dyjudpiov, 20, 149. 
 
 ^dw, 194. 
 
 e^ in questions, 116. 
 et = a negative, 114. 
 eZTrec with inf., 50, 92. 
 pifTa, 84. 
 etrev, 84. 
 ^K^dXXw, 19, 57. 
 iKeivos, 192. 
 iK6afj.^4u), 176. 
 iKirepi<T(7od, 102. 
 iKwepiffffCos, 102. 
 i/j.^pifj,do/iai, 13, 188. 
 iveiX^Uf 20. 
 
 i^iffTTJfllj 76. 
 
 iiraKoXovd^uj, 195. 
 iirt^dWco, 20, 181. 
 ^TTLTrnrTOj, 20, 74. 
 i-nrLpaTTTU, 19, 70. 
 iTTLTLfidta. 117. 
 
 i'7n<pd}(TK(i), 189. 
 
 65077^(0?/, 6, 52, 57 f. 
 e^fltis, 19, 48. 
 e^cx^J/AWc, 187. 
 ^^tpaffd, 20. 
 
riyeiMV, 157. 
 
 dvyaTpiov, 20. 
 
 'Ideipos, 91. 
 iKavbv iroiTJaai, 1S3. 
 iffx^^t 68. 
 IxBiSiov, 20. 
 
 KdXa/^os, 184. 
 KavavoLos, 75, 
 KoraStciftu, 62. 
 KardXu/ta, 170. 
 KevTvpiuv, 20, 186. 
 Ke9(>oXoi6w, 148. 
 (te0aXi6u, 20, 148. 
 KodpdvTTjs, 20. 
 KoXojSoStiKTuXos, 4. 
 KoXo^Su), 160. 
 Kopda-ioy, 20. 
 KopPip, 20. 
 Kbtpivos, 100. 
 KpApparos, 19. 
 KVvdpiov, 20. 
 Kptcris, 77. 
 Kvpids, 6, 89, 142. 
 KW/jMTrdKis, 62. 
 
 \e7£c6»', 20. 
 XeTrrii', 155. 
 X670S, 64, 118. 
 
 fidiTTi^, 74. 
 IxeTa/wp^dia, 122. 
 /xo^tXiiXos, no. 
 p.vo'T'/ipiov , 80. 
 
 Nafap?;i'6s, SS- 
 Nofu/oaibs, 55. 
 vdpSos, 168. 
 
 INDICES 
 
 {^(TTIJS, 20, 105. 
 
 oSoP TTOi^OJ, 71. 
 
 Sray with ind. , 144. 
 
 Sti after verbs of saying, 19, 48. 
 
 ^X""^'! 107. 
 
 TratSfoK, 20. 
 TraXaiAs, 70. 
 TrdXij', 19. 
 irapa^oMi, 77. 
 irapadidtofii, 84. 
 irapaxoiui, 92. 
 7rapaXuTt/c6s, 66. 
 ^irapatTKevT], 187. 
 i wapaTTjp^u, 73. 
 wappriffla, T18. 
 I ireplo-Tepd, 55. 
 Trijpo, 94. 
 ttuttLkSs, 168. 
 TrXTJBos, 73. 
 irX'qpTjs, 84. 
 TrX-jJpw/Aa, 70. 
 TrXoidpto^, 20. 
 TTPeviMX. dKdSaprov, 203 f. 
 TToIos, 151. 
 iroXXii, 19, 48. 
 iropeio/ml, 193. 
 TTopipipa, 183. 
 irpaiTihpiov, 20. 
 TTpaaid, 100. 
 irpo'Kap.^dvta, 169. 
 7rpoo"e77£fw, 66. 
 TrpotrXa/i^cii'W, 119. 
 TrpoaXiyd), 194. 
 rrpdaKaipos, 81. 
 IT poanaprepiw, 20, 74. 
 TTwpia, 187. 
 TTvy/j,^, 105. 
 
 213 
 
214 
 Truip6b>, I02. 
 
 iTibptatns, 73. 
 
 paKos, 70. 
 jiavrl^a, 105. 
 p&TTuriM, 180. 
 i>a4li, 137. 
 
 o-araKas, 57. 
 aKavSaKl'^w, 81, 199 f. 
 ffKiiXXai, 92. 
 (TTre/fouXtiTCijp, 20, 98. 
 ffvXayxvito/iai, 62. 
 trravpoSf 120. 
 art^as, 20, 142. 
 aTL\^6Uf 21, 123. 
 (Tv/i^oiXiov, 182. 
 avviSpiov, 157. 
 <7V(rff7jfjU3v , 178, 
 
 ST. MARK 
 
 (T^Vpls, 100, III. 
 
 o-xii-w, 19, SS- 
 
 ToXeiSd /coiJ/*, 20. 
 'Tpvp,aKla, 20, 137. 
 
 6 uids ToD avdptbtrov, 29, $7. 
 ot utoi Twi' dv6p(i)7ruv, 20, 77* 
 
 Utoi TOU VVa(pWVQ5, 30, 69. 
 
 6 ui6s TOU SeoC, 52. 
 i)TT6Srip.a, 94. 
 fJiTTepos, 193. 
 
 ^cfidoj, 60, 87. 
 
 XaX/cis, 155. 
 X""'. 95- 
 
 :f/iXiov, 109. 
 
 THE END 
 
^be ©yforb Cburcb Biblical Commentary 
 
 General Editor of the Old Testament and Apocrypha 
 
 The Rev. C. F. BURNEY, D.Litt., 
 
 Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture 
 
 in the University of Oxford ; Canon of Rochester ; 
 
 Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Rochester ; 
 
 and Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew of St. John's College, Oxford. 
 
 General Editor of the Kew Testament 
 
 The Rev. LEIGHTON PULLAN, M.A., 
 
 Fellow and Tutor of St. John's College, Oxford : 
 
 Author of 'The Church of the Fathers,' 
 
 'The Books of the New Testament,' 
 
 and General Editor of the ' Oxford Church Text-Books,' etc. 
 
 The aim of the Editors is to provide a Series of Commentaries 
 on the Old and New Testaments, both scholarly and thoroughly 
 abreast of present knowledge and research. 
 
 The Volumes will contain a completely new translation of the 
 Old a?id New Testaments, and of the more important books of 
 the Apocrypha, with a special introduction, notes, additional 
 notes, appendices, and indices. In tTie case of the Old 
 Testament this translation will be based upon an emended text, 
 the nature and grounds of the emendations being fully indicated 
 in the Notes. 
 
 The Old Testament and Apocrypha 
 
 Genesis. — The Rev. C. J. Ball, D.Litt., Queen's College, Oxford ; 
 formerly Lecturer in Assyriology in the University of Oxford ; 
 Rector of Blechingdon, Oxford. 
 
 Leviticus. — The Rev. George G. V. Stonehouse, B.D., Vice-Principal of 
 the Theological College, Coates Hall, Edinburgh; formerly Scholar 
 of Exeter College, Oxford. 
 
 Judges. — The General Editor (The Rev. C. F. Burney). 
 
 NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
The Old Testament and Apocrypha — continued. 
 
 Samuel. — J. F. Stenning, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Theology and 
 Hebrew of Wadham College, Oxford; University Lecturer in 
 Aramaic. 
 
 Kings.— The General Editor (The Rev. C. F. Burney). 
 
 Isaiah.— The General Editor (The Rev. C. F. Burney). 
 
 Jeremiah.— The Rev. G. H. Box, M.A., St. John's College, Oxfojd; 
 Lecturer in Rabbiijical Hebrew, King's College, London ; Rector of 
 Sutton, Beds, and Hon. Canon of St. Alban's. 
 
 Hosea and Amos.— The General Editor (The Rev. C. F. Burney). 
 
 Habakkuk, Nahura, and Zephaniah.— The Rev. George G. V. Stone- 
 house, B.D. ; and Micah. — The Rev. G. H. Box. In one Volume. 
 
 Zechariah. — The Rev. D. C. Simpson; Haggai and Malachai. — The 
 Ven. W. C. Allen ; Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah.— The Rev. G. W. 
 Wade, D.D., Oriel College, Oxford; Senior Tutor of St. David's 
 College, Lampeter. In one Volume. 
 
 Job.— The Rev. C. J. Ball. 
 
 Proverbs. — The Rev. D. C. Simpson, M.A., Lecturer in Theology and 
 Hebrew, Keble College, Oxford ; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop 
 of Southwell. 
 
 Lamentations. — The Rev. C. J. Ball; and The Song of Solomon.— 
 The General Editor (The Rev. C. F. Burney). In one Volume. 
 
 Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Ruth.— Maurice A. Cannev, M.A., St. John's 
 College, Oxford ; Professor of Oriental Studies in the University of 
 Manchester. 
 
 Daniel.— The Rev. R. H. Charles, D.Litt., F.B.A., Fellow of Merton 
 College, Oxford ; Canon of Westminster ; formerly Speaker's Lecturer 
 in Biblical Studies in the University of Oxford. 
 
 Wisdom. — The Rev. A. T. S. Goodrick, M.A., late Rector of Winter- 
 bourne, Bristol, los. 6d. net. 
 
 ' . . . He has studied the Book of Wisdom thoroughly. What 
 long study, a clear mind, a resolute will, and the full use of Greek 
 letters could do to make this book intelligible, has been done. The 
 Commentary is a step forward in the study of the Book of Wisdom, 
 perhaps even in the art of commentating.' — Expository Times. 
 
 Ecclesiasticus.— The Rev. G. H. Box and the Rev. A. T. S. Goodrick. 
 
 NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
The New Testament 
 
 St. Matthew. — The General Editor (The Rev. Leighton PuUan). 
 
 St. Mark.— The Ven. W. C. Allen, ys. 6d. net. 
 
 St. Luke.— The Right Rev. A. J. Maclean, D.D., Lord Bishop of 
 Moray, Ross, and Caithness. 
 
 St. John. — The General Editor (The Rev. Leighton Pullan). 
 
 The Acts.— The Rev. W. C. Roberts, M.A., St. John's College, Oxford, 
 Rector of Crick, Rugby ; formerly Principal of the Missionary 
 College, Dorchester, Oxon. 
 
 Romans. — The Rev. N. P. Williams, M.A., Chaplain-Fellow and 
 Lecturer in Theology of Exeter College, Oxford. 
 
 Corinthians. — The Rev. L. W. Grensted, M.A., University College, 
 Oxford; Vice-Principal of Egerton Hall, Manchester. 
 
 Thessalonians. — The Rev. R. H. Lightfoot, M.A., Worcester College, 
 Oxford ; Vice-Principal of Wells Theological College, and Examin- 
 ing Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 Hebrews.— The Rev. A. E. J. Rawlinson, M.A., Student of Christ 
 Church, Oxford ; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Lichfield. 
 
 St. James's Epistle.— The Rev. J. L. Prestige, Fellow and Lecturer of 
 New College, Oxford. 
 
 St. John's Epistles.— The Ven. H. L. Wild, M.A., St. John's College, 
 Oxford ; formerly Vice-Principal of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford ; 
 Archdeacon of Nottingham ; and Rector of the Cathedral Church of 
 Southwell. 
 
 NEW YORK: TPIE MACMILLAN COMPANY