^0SX OF PRINCO^s A •BI2.8 THE MODERN COMMENTARY THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY A HISTORICO-CRITICAL INQUIRY INTO THE SOURCES AND STRUCTURE OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK, WITH EXPOSITORY NOTES UPON THE TEXT, FOR ENGLISH READERS f I!*%n By BENJAMIN WISNER BACON, D.D., LL.D. Buckingham Professor of New Testament Criticism and Exegesis in Yale University NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON TORONTO, AND MELBOURNE HENRY FROWDE 1909 Copyright, 1909 by BENJAMIN WISNER BACON Entered at Stationers' Hall, London The Text of the Revised Version is used by permission of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Printed in the United States TO MY COLLEAGUES OP YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL CONTENTS Page Preface vii Introduction. 1. Logical Analysis of the Gospel xi 2. Relation of Mark to Evangelic Tradition xvii 3. Mark and the Petrine Narrative xix 4. Relation to the Teaching Source xx 5. The Anti-Judaistic Point of View of R xxii 6. R's Attitude toward the Apostolic Authorities xxiv 7. The Paulinism of Mark xxvii 8. The Earliest Form of Evangelic Tradition at Rome xxviii 9. Date of Composition of Mark xxxi 10. Historical Value of the Contents xxxiii 11. Miracles and Exorcism in Mark vs. Paul and Q xxxv 12. The Sociological Environment in Mark vs. Luke xxxvi 13. Mark and Luke vs. Q on Jesus as Apocalyptic Son of Man xxxviii 14. The Resultant Story of Jesus xxxviii PART I. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY Division I: Mk. 1: 1—3: 6. Structure 3 Subdivision a. Paraphrase and Criticism 6 Text and Exposition 8 Subdivision b. Paraphrase and Criticism 14 Text and Exposition 16 Subdivision c. Paraphrase and Criticism 22 Text and Exposition 25 Division II: Mk. 3: 7—6: 13. Structure 34 Subdivision a. Paraphrase and Criticism 38 Text and Exposition 40 Subdivision 6. Paraphrase and Criticism 45 Text and Exposition 47 Subdivision c. Paraphrase and Criticism 53 Text and Exposition 56 v vi CONTENTS Division III: Mk. 6: 14—8: 26. Page Structure 67 Subdivision a. Paraphrase and Criticism 70 Text and Exposition 73 Subdivision b. Paraphrase and Criticism 76 Text and Exposition 81 Subdivision c. Paraphrase and Criticism 92 Text and Exposition 94 PART II. THE JUD^EAN MINISTRY Introduction 103 Division IV: Mk. 8: 27—10: 52. Structure 112 Subdivision a. Paraphrase and Criticism 114 Text and Exposition 117 Subdivision b. Paraphrase and Criticism 130 Text and Exposition 133 Subdivision c. Paraphrase and Criticism 144 Text and Exposition 147 Division V: Cc. 11—13. Structure 152 Subdivision a. Paraphrase and Criticism 153 Text and Exposition 158 Subdivision b. Paraphrase and Criticism 167 Text and Exposition 170 Subdivision c. Paraphrase and Criticism 178 Text and Exposition 182 Division VI: Cc. 14—16. Structure 190 Subdivision a. Paraphrase and Criticism 192 Text and Exposition 199 Subdivision 6. Paraphrase and Criticism 215 Text and Exposition 218 Subdivision c. Paraphrase and Criticism 225 Text and Exposition 228 PREFACE No man can pretend to have seriously examined the historical basis of the Christian faith who has not to some extent applied the ordinary processes of historical criticism to the Gospel of Mark, the earliest extant embodiment of the evangelic story. The present volume is offered as an example and aid to serious and impartial but non-technical investigation in this field. The form adopted combines critical analysis of the sub- stance with exegesis in detail. It is chosen for the purpose of exhibiting the results of the higher criticism. The recent general acknowledgment that in Mark we have the oldest canonical Gospel, an embodiment of the accepted outline of Jesus' career, already stereotyped when "Matthew" and "Luke" were written, has brought forth a succession of splendid contributions to the purely exegetical interpreta- tion of this Gospel. To say nothing of the great German authorities, our own Gould and Swete have added greatly to the resources of philological exposition, and Menzies has given new light from the historical side. But that which the intelligent layman most requires has not been placed within his reach. The richest fruits of modern biblical study have come from the field of the higher criticism. Documentary analysis of the sources has been eagerly pur- sued by authorities such as Wernle, Schmiedel, Weiss, Wellhausen, Harnack, Loisy, Sir John Hawkins, Burton, and Burkitt. The recent lives of Christ by Nath. Schmidt, O. Holtzmann, Bousset, and the preliminary studies by Sanday, have shown that the real interest of our time lies no longer in the exact apprehension of the sense the writer of 70-90 a.d. may have given to the evangelic tradition. We no longer attempt to say, Thus the sacred writer con- ceived the event to have been, therefore thus it was ; for we have four sacred historians, no two of whom conceive the event in just the same way. The point of real interest for our time is at least a generation earlier. What was the event which gave rise to the story? Through what phases has the tradition passed to acquire its canonical forms? Such have been the burning questions of modern scholars in respect to the historic origins of the Christian faith, and PREFACE the intelligent layman is entitled to expect that he shall not be put off with mere exegesis. He will not be satisfied to be told, Such, and such, is the sacred writer's meaning. He demands an opinion on the question, Was it so, or was it not so? What was the common starting-point from which the varying forms of the tradition diverge? It has been the endeavor of the present commentary to give an answer to such questions with absolute frankness, without mental reservation, in terms intelligible even to the student unfamiliar with Greek and ignorant of the course of technical discussion, leaving it to the reader him- self to decide whether the discussion of such questions is serviceable to religious faith. To meet the requirements just stated two things were necessary: 1. The adoption of a form permitting the introduction of historico-critical discussions into the heart of the commentary itself. 2. The rigid exclusion of the mechanism of processes and technicalities in favor of plainly stated results. That which is designed to meet the requirements of historical and literary criticism is compacted in the ordinary- commentary into a single comprehensive Introduction, wherein the endeavor is commonly made to treat in one mass all the phenomena of the book which have a bearing on its date and authorship, the derivation, character, and intended application of its contents, and the history of its transmission. For persons whose training and familiarity with the text do not enable them to carry in mental vision the entire contents of the Gospel, such an Introduction is too cumbrous. At best the critical discussion is sepa- rated by whole chapters from that portion of the text with which it is concerned. The present subdivision of the text into its logical parts, accompanied by paraphrases and by general historico-critical comments on the contents of the particular section, is designed to make it more practicable for the lay reader to acquaint himself with the real questions of literary and historical criticism. The rule, "results, not processes," is imposed by the demand of the reading public. In technical journals such as The American Journal of Theology, the Journal of Biblical Literature, the Harvard Theological Review, and the Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft will be found articles presenting in greater technical detail the author's reasons for many conclusions here advanced for acceptance or rejection on their prima facie merits. Let the state- PREFACE ments stand here with all their seeming lack of support, so long as the general presentation receives sober and impartial consideration. The processes of historical and documentary criticism are not novel and untried. They have abundantly justified themselves in the field of Old Testament narrative, and will surely do so in that of the Gospels. Still a word is demanded in respect to the distinctive feature of the method here applied, which may be designated the method of "pragmatic values." The key to all genuinely scientific appreciation of biblical narrative, whether in Old Testament or New, is the recogni- tion of motive. The motive of the biblical writers in re- porting the tradition current around them is never strictly historical, but always etiological, and frequently apolo- getic. In other words, their report is not framed to satisfy the curiosity of the critical historian, but, as they frankly acknowledge, to confirm the faith of believers "in the things wherein they have been instructed," to convince the unconverted, or to refute the unbeliever. The evangelic tradition consists of so and so many anecdotes, told and retold for the purpose of explaining or defending beliefs and practices of the contemporary Church. It follows that a judgment of the modifications which the tradition, or any part of it, may have undergone, to have any value, must take account of the actual conditions, the environment, under which the tradition developed to its present form. Herein lies the occasion for applying to the criticism of the Gospels the same principle which the great Graf-Kuenen school applied to the historical tradition of the Old Testament. The anonymous, undated narrative of the Pentateuch and historical books must be judged, said they, in the light of conditions as they are reflected for a given age in the dated and known writings of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and the later prophets. By far the oldest documents of the New Testament are the great Epistles of Paul. We know their author. Their authenticity is practically undisputed. They afford us a cross-section of Christian belief, institutions, and practices in the Greek-speaking churches a full score of years before our earliest Gospel was written. And the photographic view thus given is all the more trustworthy because entirely unconscious. It belongs therefore to the essence of the method of prag- matic values, to seize first of all upon the motive of narra- tion—usually transparent enough when the conditions of PREFACE the churches are considered, as they may be known through their epistolary literature. When once the great lesson of our experience in Old Testament literature is learned, that the narratives we are dealing with are primarily (Etiological, we hold in our hands the chief key to the development of evangelic tradition, the beliefs, institutions, and practices of the apostolic churches and their method of defense against opponents and traducers. As respects comparison of manuscripts, or of the Gospels among themselves, or of duplicate narratives within the limits of the same Gospel, it is needless to offer further explanation. For a general presentation of the present state of Synoptic criticism the reader is referred to the article entitled "A Turning Point in Synoptic Criticism" in the Harvard Theological Review, I. 1 (January 1908). A few variant readings and renderings have been added to those placed in the margin by the Revisers of 1881 and placed beneath the text. Such as had no bearing on the meaning, nor the history of transmission, were not included. New Haven, May, 1908. Benj. W. Bacon. Postscript. — It had been my intention to say nothing whatever on the proportion of strictly original contributions in the present volume to such as had already been advanced by other critics. The scholar will know what has been said before; the general reader will not care. I am now impelled to attach a word in departure from this rule be- cause of the extraordinary degree of coincidence in results independently attained by me with those of Loisy in his re- cent Evangiles Synoptiques, 1908, especially the chapter of his Introduction entitled "Le Second fivangile." With the apologists of tradition a favorite argument is, No two critics are of one mind in their analysis. Loisy's admirable criticism of Mark came into my hands for the first time after the last sentence of the present work had been written. For the sake of the value which seems to me to attach to such remarkable coincidence I have re- frained from any alteration whatever, even where his work has suggested improvement, as, e.g., in the suggestion of the influence of Amos 2: 16 on the preservation (not origina- tion) of the trait Mk. 14: 51, 52. Vivant et qui ante nos nostra jam dixerunt. B. W. B, INTRODUCTION 1. Logical Analysis of the Gospel An indispensable condition to the proper understanding and valuation of the Gospel of Mark is a comprehensive and proportioned survey of its contents. Ultimately we may hope to carry our analysis further, discriminating material which came to the evangelist out of oral and written tradition from the editorial supplements by which he has fitted it to his own special adaptations. No historical source of any period resting upon ulterior re- ports, least of all narratives so persistently reiterated for apologetic or catechetic purposes as the biblical, can be re- garded as understood, until every effort has been made to carry through this discrimination. In the case of the four Gospels both elements, the traditional and the editorial, suf- fer in value for lack of it; for the two belong to periods at least 40 years apart, and each demands interpretation in the light of its own historical environment. Still our first re- quirement is to understand the writing in its latest form, as he whom we designate the Redactor (R), that is the ultimate employer of the material, means it to be taken. Therefore we shall avoid beginning with another rehearsal of legend- ary anecdotes about John Mark, which are merely suppositi- tious traits in the life story of the man traditionally reported to have been the writer of this Gospel. On the contrary we shall endeavor first of all to draw from the phenomena of its structure a logical tabulation of its contents, aiming to exhibit the controlling purpose and point of view of the com- piler, R, as the structure itself reveals them. Even a superficial glance will show that the narrative falls into two parts of nearly equal extent. Part First relates The Galilean Ministry, including 1 : 1 — 8:26. Part Second relates The Judaean Ministry, including in 8:27 — 16: 8 the account of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem, with his passion and resurrection. Each part has also three main Divisions, whose limits as a rule are so clearly defined by the subject matter that all interpreters are in substantial agreement as to their extent. The structure of the Gospel can therefore be tabu- lated as follows; xi INTRODUCTION PART I. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY DIVISION L BEGINNING OF JESUS* MINISTRY, 1:1—3:6. Title of the Book, 1 : 1 Prologue. Jesus Baptized, Called, and Tested, 1 : 2- J 3. (1) The Preaching of John, vers. 2-8. (2) Jesus' Vocation and Anointing with the Spirit, vers. 9-11. (3) The Temptation, vers. 12, 13. Subdivision a. Jesus comes to Capernaum and begins the "Work of Preaching and Healing, 1: 14-45. (1) General Preliminary Statement, vers. 14, 15. (2) Jesus summons the four fishers to fish for men, vers. 16-20. (3) Preaching and Exorcism in the Synagogue at Capernaum, vers. 21-28. (4) Healing in Simon's house, vers. 29-31. (5) Importunities for Healing, vers. 32-34. (6) Withdrawal from Capernaum, vers. 35-39. (7) Episode of the Leper, vers. 40-45. Subdivision b. The Growth of Opposition, 2: 1 — 3:6. (1) Return to Capernaum. Jesus antagonizes the Scribes by Forgiving Sin, 2: 1-12. (2) He associates with Publicans and Sinners, vers. 13-17. (3) He absolves his Disciples from the Fasts, vers. 18-22. (4) He defends their Disregard of the Sabbath, vers. 23-28. (5) He challenges the Pharisees by Healing on the Sabbath. They plot against his life, 3: 1-6. DIVISION II. MISSION OF THE TWELVE, 3: 7-6: 13. Subdivision a. Setting apart the Twelve, 3: 7-35. (1) General Preliminary Survey, vers. 7-12. (2) Choosing of the Twelve, vers. 13-19a. (3) Jesus' Kindred Intervene, vers. 196-21. (4) Episode of the Blasphemy of the Scribes, vers. 22-30. (5) Jesus Turns from Mother and Brethren to his Spiritual Kin, vers. 31-35. INTRODUCTION Subdivision b. Delivering the Mystery of the Kingdom, 4: 1-34. (1) Jesus begins to teach in Parables. The Sower, vers. 1-9. (2) Explanation why, and of the meaning, vers. 10-20. (3) Exhortations to receptive Hearers, vers. 21-25. (4) Second Parable of the Kingdom. The Patient Husbandman, vers. 26-29. (5) Third Parable. The Mustard Seed, vers. 30-32. (6) Editorial Colophon, vers. 33, 34. Subdivision c. Manifestation in Mighty Works, 4: 35 — 6:6a. (1) Quelling the Storm, 4: 35-41. (2) Exorcism of a Legion of Devils, 5: 1-20. (3) The Coming of Jesus. A Woman Healed by the Touch of Jesus' Garment, vers. 21-34. (4) He raises Jairus' Daughter from the Dead, vers. 25-43. (5) Mighty Works of no Avail against Jewish Un- belief, 6: l-6a. Epilogue. Mission of the Twelve, 6: 66-13. DIVISION III. THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD, 6: 14—8: 26. Subdivision a. The Fate of the Forerunner, 6? 14-29. (1) Herod's Comment, 6: 14-16. (2) Episode of the Martyrdom of John, 6: 17-29. Subdivision b. Sign of the Loaves in Galilee , 6: 30 — 7: 30. (1) Miracle of the Five Loaves among Five Thou- sand, 6: 30-44. (2) Jesus walks on the Sea, vers. 45-52. (3) Gennesaret. General Description of Heal- ings, vers. 53-56. (4) Intervention of Scribes from Jerusalem. Jesus renounces Mosaic Distinctions of Meats, 7: 1-23. (5) He withdraws from Galilee. Healing of the Syro-Phoenician and Promise of the Children's Bread to Gentiles, 7: 24-30. INTRODUCTION Subdivision c. Sign of the Loaves in Decapolis, 7:31 — 8:26. (1) Through Phoenicia and Decapolis. The Ears of the Deaf Unstopped, 7: 31-37. (2) Miracle of the Seven Loaves among Four Thou- sand, vers. 1-9. (3) To Dalmanutha. The Pharisees demand a Sign, vers. 10-13. (4) Warning against the Leaven of the Pharisees, vers. 14-21. (5) To Bethsaida. The Eyes of the Blind Opened, vers. 22-26. PART IL THE JUD^AN MINISTRY DIVISION IV. THE WAY OF THE CROSS, 8: 27— 10:52. Subdivision a. Revelation of the Mystery of the Cross, 8: 27—9: 29. (1) Through the Kingdom of Philip. Jesus Reveals his Call to Martyrdom and Resurrection. Peter Rebuked, 8:26—9: 1. (2) Jesus Transfigured with Moses and Elias, 9: 2-10. (3) Jesus' Coming and Martyrdom, and that of Elias, vers. 11-13. Epilogue. Exorcism of a Dumb Devil, 9: 14-29. Subdivision b. The Exodus from Galilee. Forsaking All, 9: 30—10: 3J. i. Through Galilee. Jesus teaches the right spirit of Rulership in the Church, 9: 30-50. (1) Preliminary Survey. Reiteration of the Doc- trine of the Cross, 9: 30-32. (2) First Quarrel for Precedence, and Lesson from the Child, vers. 33-37. (3) Receiving vs. Stumbling, vers. 38-42. (4) Cut off the Offending Member, vers. 43-48. (51 Concerning Salt, vers. 49, 50. INTRODUCTION xv ii. Through Percea. Jesus teaches the Spirit of Renun- ciation, 10: 1-31. (1) The Question of Divorce. Moses and the Higher Law, 10: 1-12. (2) Jesus commands that Children be received, vers. 13-16. (3) The Inquirer for the Conditions of Eternal Life, vers. 17-22. (4) The Stumbling-block of Riches, vers. 23-27. (5) Peter's Claim to Reward rebuked, vers. 28-31. Subdivision c. Rank and Reward in the Kingdom, 10:32-45. (1) Reiteration of the Prediction of the Cross, vers. 32-34. (2) Ambitious Request of James and John. The Reward of Martyrdom, vers. 35-40. (3) Quarrel for Place. The Principle of Greatness in Christ's Kingdom, vers. 41-45. Epilogue. Opening of Blind Eyes, vers. 46-52. DIVISION V. THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM, cc. 11-13. Subdivision a. Zion's King Comes to Her, 11: 1 — 12: 12. (1) Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, 11: 1-11. (2) Episode of the Fig Tree Cursed, vers. 12-14. (3) Purging of the Temple, vers. 15-18. (4) Sequel to the Cursing of the Fig Tree, vers. 19-25. (5) Jesus Challenged for his Authority, vers. 27-33. (6) Parable of the Usurpers in the Vineyard, 12: 1-12. Subdivision b. Teaching in the Temple, 12: 13-44. (1) The Question of the Pharisees, vers. 13-17. (2) The Question of the Sadducees, vers. 18-27. (3) The Question of the Scribe, vers. 28-34. (4) Christ's Question, vers. 35-37. (5) Denunciation of the Scribes, vers. 38-40. (6) The Widow's Mites, vers. 41-44. INTRODUCTION Subdivision c. Warning of Impending Judgment, c. 13. (1) Preliminary Saying. The Occasion, vers. 1-4. (2) The Beginning of Travail, vers. 5-8. (3) Persecution and the Paraclete, vers. 9-13. (4) The Great Tribulation, vers. 14-23. (5) The Coming of the Son of Man, vers. 24-27. (6) Sign of the Fig Tree, Nearness and Sureness of the Coming, vers. 28-31. (7) Its Time Unknown, therefore Watch, vers. 32-37. DIVISION VI. PASSION AND RESURRECTION, cc. 14-16. Subdivision a. The Night in which Jesus was Betrayed, c. 14. (1) Preliminary Survey. The Plot to betray Jesus, vers. 1, 2, 10, 11. (2) Episode of the Anointing in Bethany, vers. 3-9. (3) Preparations for the Passover, vers. 12-16. (4) Denunciation of the Traitor, vers. 17-21. (5) Institution of the Eucharist, vers. 22-26. (6) Prediction of Desertion and of Peter's Denial, vers. 27-31. (7) Gethsemane, vers. 32^2. (8) Betrayal and Arrest, vers. 43-50. (9) The Youth who escaped naked, vers. 51 , 52. (JO) Peter's Denial in the High Priest's House, vers. 53, 54, 65-72. (11) Episode. Trial before the Sanhedrin, vers. 55-64. Subdivision b. Delivered up to be Crucified, 15: 1-39. (1) The Council accuse Jesus to Pilate, 15: 1-5. (2) The Offer of Jesus or Barabbas, vers. 6-15. (3) The Soldiers' Mockery, vers. 16-20. (4) The Crucifixion, vers. 21-32. (5) The Incidents of Jesus' Death, vers. 33-39. INTRODUCTION Subdivision c. Burial and Empty Tomb, 15: 40 — 16: 8. (1) Ministering Women, vers. 40, 41. (2) The Burial, vers. 42-47. (3) The Tomb found Empty. Message of the Angel, 16: 1-8. Epilogue. Enumeration of the Resurrection Appear- ances. Shorter and Longer Ending, vers. 9-20. Like the book of Acts the Gospel of Mark thus falls into two Parts of three Divisions each. 1 Of these six Divisions scarcely any admit of dispute as to their limits. In the single case of the terminus of Division IV of Part Second there might be doubt. The subject of the Division is sus- tained until 10: 45 and reaches there an admirable climax, while the appended healing of Bartimseus is at all events an epilogue forming a transition to the next Division, with which some excellent authorities have grouped it. Our first evangelist, however, marks the transition at 11: 1, and we have followed this example. Aside from this minor point the method of R's grouping is so apparent that we can say almost without room for contradiction, here, and here, are the pauses of the evangelist's thought; so, and so, he conceived the grouping of his material. 2. Relation of Mark to Evangelic Tradition From the logical analysis of R's work we are led to the question of the relation of his composition, now generally admitted to be the earliest of its kind so far as known to us, to the general stream of current evangelic tradition. Thus the Resurrection itself is not strictly related at all in Mark, but only anticipated. Indeed, as was already perceived when its various appendices 2 were attached (ca. 150 a.d.), the Gospel as we have it is a mere torso. The most vital feature of the whole story, Jesus' fulfillment of his promise 3 to rally his scattered flock in Galilee, is wanting. As we know, the tradition of the origin of the Church through Peter's Revelation of the Risen Christ by Gennesaret, attested by Paul and certain survivals of evangelic material,was early superseded by the Lukan form, which eliminates entirely the episode of the disciples' desertion and flight to Galilee, and »Cf. C. H. Turner, art. "Acts" in the Hastings D.B., i, pp. 412ff. 2 16: 9-20 and the Shorter Ending. 3 14: 28. INTRODUCTION makes them quietly wait in Jerusalem until endowed with the Spirit at Pentecost. Only remnants of the earlier story, which centered upon the appearance in Galilee to Peter and them that were with him, survive in I Cor. 15 : 1-8 ; Lk. 22 :32 ; Jn. 21 : 1-14, and the fragmentary end of the Gospel of Peter. 1 It is commonly conjectured that the original ending of Mark disappeared or was prevented from appearing by accident; but there are great difficulties in the way of such a theory, if indeed mere surrender of the problem by appeal to ''acci- dent" may be called a theory. On the contrary we have evidence of the persistence of the conflict between the Galilean tradition of Mt. 26: 31,32; 28: 16-20 and the Jerusalemite of Lk. 24: 6-12, 33-53 in the harmonizing appendix to the Fourth Gospel, 2 which adds together the Galilean and the Jerusalem tradition, but reverses the representation of the preceding chapter. The suppression of the original ending of Mark has an entirely adequate motive in the effort for harmony, which so late as the origin of the Western (/5) text 3 could even venture to suppress the dis- crepant pedigree of Lk. 3 : 24-38. But Mk. 14: 28 is not the only promise whose fulfillment the evangelist must have intended to relate. That of John's prediction of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost 4 is most inadequately set forth in the Appendix. 5 The author of 1:8 and 14:28 must have at least intended to describe both Jesus' resurrection appearance to Peter, with the re- assembling of his scattered flock, and also the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit. In short, the work looks forward to a conclusion embodying the two elements of the Apostolic Commission as we find them united in Jn. 20: 19-23, in both Markan appendices, and more fully elaborated in the story of Luke. 6 Why indeed should the evangelist write his Gospel at all if not to vindicate that apostolic witness of which the Church claimed to be the bearer? However late and ill-fitting our present Endings, at least they have the merit of appreciating what was required to complete the gospel story, better than moderns who act as if our evangelist were at liberty to say to his readers: "For x Ev. Petri, xiv. 58-60; Preuschen Antil., p. 18. 2 Jn. 21. 5 The manuscripts and versions which reflect the form of text most widely current in the second century are the Codex Bezae (D) in Cambridge with kindred manuscripts, and the old (Sinaitic and Curetonian) Syriac and old Latin trans- lations. This is the oldest known form of the text and is designated /3; but it is by no means uniformly to be preferred to the Alexandrian a, which, though later, represents a careful and scholarly revision; correcting much of the wild license of /3. 4 1:8. M6: 17 18 B Lk 24: 44-49; Acts 1:1—2: 47. INTRODUCTION the sequel see the book of Acts by my esteemed colleague Luke." No; it is as certain as anything in the field of critical conjecture can be, that our evangelist's story once went on to relate the substance of the early narrative of Acts, and may even have wound up, as Acts does, with the planting of the gospel in Rome. Points of close affinity with at least one element of Acts are by no means wanting, 1 and his whole method of composition seems to be a working over of Petrine narrative from a radically Pauline point of view, reminding us of the structure of one element of Acts. 2 But the very fact that this earlier ending of Mark was so contradictory of Luke as is implied in the fragments that remain, and so much less honorific toward Peter and the Apostles, is quite enough to account for its disappearance after the publication of the more extended, less radically Pauline work — Luke-Acts. Mark's function was reduced to that of being "the interpreter of Peter," who was con- ceived (rightly or wrongly) as confining himself to a narra- tion of "the things either said or done by Christ." 3 3. Mark and the Petrine Narrative Without attempting to set forth the accepted critical theory of the origin of our mutually interdependent Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the so-called Synoptic or two- document theory, 4 we may suitably interject at this point a statement of its demonstrated features. After 70 years of fervid debate, the fundamental proposition of this theory, Mark, the literary groundwork of Matthew and Luke, is now admitted. The second principle, Matthew and Luke inde- pendent combiners of Mark with another evangelic writing (Q) principally made up of the teaching of Jesus, is accepted with almost equal unanimity. Strict demonstration de- pends upon disproof of the interdependence of Matthew and Luke in the coincident material not found in Mark. Only material of this kind can certainly be assigned to Q, leaving the exact nature of the teaching source and its rela- tion to Mark still uncertain. That our evangelist is something more than the mere collator of discourses he had once been accustomed to trans- late for Peter, is too obvious for dispute. The ancient tra- J Cf. Acts 12: 12, and see notes on 1: 24; 5: 1-20; 6: 20; 7: 1-23; 9: 2-11, etc. 2 On the attitude of the author of Acts see Bacon, "Acts vs. Galatians" in Amer. Journal of Theol., 1907. •Papias ap. Euseb. H. E., hi, xxxix. 15. *See the article above referred to; Preface, p. x. INTRODUCTION dition to this effect just quoted is warmly apologetic in pur- pose, and aims to show that Mark, although not agreeing with Matthew in the "order," nevertheless "made no mis- take while he thus wrote down some things as he remem- bered them; for he made it his one care not to omit any- thing that he had heard (hence the slight additions of Mat- thew aside from "oracles"), or to set down any false state- ment therein." As much as possible the tradition aims to make it appear that the Gospel is really the Memorabilia of Peter, the designation already conferred upon it by Justin Martyr 1 the contemporary of Papias. Too close relation to Peter is avoided in order not to expose the Apostle to the charge of disagreement with Matthew. How much truth may underlie this high claim of relation to Peter is a matter for the keenest critical scrutiny of the text. But even our preliminary survey of the contents is enough to prove that the Gospel is (or was) very much more than a mere editing of Peter's discourses. It collates not merely reminiscences of Peter, but many which to say the least show no intrinsic evidence of proceeding from such a source, 2 and quite a number which are unmistakable duplicates of matters already told (see Division III, Sub- divisions b and c, Criticism). Moreover, in spite of the promi- nence of Peter, and the scenes about Peter's house in Caper- naum at certain salient points in the narrative, 3 on the whole it is impossible successfully to maintain that the com- piler has that insight into the real factors of the history, the necessary progress and concatenation of events, which we should justly expect from one who had had even a modi- cum of personal acquaintance with one of the Twelve. In very high degree Mark's narrative is dominated by theo- retical considerations, often manifestly derived from the Pauline Epistles, especially Romans. 4 4. Relation to the Teaching Source Not the Pauline Epistles only affect Mark's whole line of apologetic, but his use of the source independently employed by Matthew and Luke, 5 is susceptible of critical demonstra- tion. And the use thus made is by no means characterized by sympathetic and appreciative insight. On the contrary 1 Dial, cvi. 2 E.g., 6: 17-29. *1: 16-39; 2: 1-4, 13; 3:20,21; 4:36-38; 5: 21-43; 8: 27-30; 14:29-31,53, 54,66-72. ■♦See, e.g., on 4: 11, 12. 6 This source, properly designated by the symbol Q, has been by some too has- tily identified with the compilation of Logia attributed by Papias to the Apostle Matthew. INTRODUCTION Mark in all such cases uniformly pragmatizes, materializes, exaggerates in the interest of his demonstration of the divine sonship of Jesus in the superhuman sense of 13: 32, on the basis of wonders. 1 We cannot avoid the conclusion that our evangelist (R) has used the ancient common source of Matthew and Luke (Q) to embellish and supplement an earlier and simpler narrative, which not from tradition only, but from its intrinsic characteristics, we may appropriately designate as Petrine (P). The process is not that of mechanical addition. In fact the Q elements are more frequently interjected, as if from memory only. Brief supplements or editorial surveys are more frequent than consecutive extracts, of which there are few. 2 Fragments are strung together sometimes upon mere catch-words, 3 sometimes with more definite logical connec- tion 4 but with slight regard for their original bearing. It is as though the type of Petrine narrative gospel had been already too firmly fixed to admit of radical recasting, and the new material had been added in adaptation only, and for the most part in the form of memoriter interpolations and supplements. Moreover, the Q material came into our evangelist's hands not as a mere syntagma of the teaching of Jesus, but already equipped with at least the narrative introduction which relates John's Preaching and the Bap- tism and Temptation of Jesus. 5 In all probability certain narratives which are wanting in Matthew, but which Luke presents in association with Q, are drawn by Mark from this Lukan source. 6 The dependence in the cases referred to is certainly on the side of Mark, not merely from the nature of the material, which is intimately connected with the special source of Luke, and often bears on its face the marks of this distinctively humanitarian narrative, but still more because the connection in Mark is invariably forced and artificial, showing clearly its later attachment to the story. 7 Evidence therefore exists that some of the narrative sup- plements of Mark are also derived from the Lukan form of Q (Q LK )- In this category we may surely place the Cursing of the Fig Tree, 8 which nearly all investigators recognize as a pragmatized form of the Parable of the 1 See, e.g., on 1: 7, 8, 12, 13; 2: 5-10; 3: 22-30, etc. 2 E.g., 1: 2-13; 3: 22-30; 6: 7-13; 13: 5-37. 3 9: 33-50. «4: 21-25; 13: 3-37. «Mt. 3: 1—4: 11 = Lk. 3: 1-17; 4: 1-12. •With Lk. 7: 36-8: 3 cf. Mk. 2: 5-10; 15: 40, 41; with Lk. 13: 6-9, Mk. 11: 12-14, 20-25; Lk. 21: 1-4; Mk. 12: 41-44. 7 See note on 2: 5-10; 11: 12-14, 20-25; 12: 41-44; 15: 40, 41. 8 11: 12-14,20-25. INTRODUCTION Barren Fig Tree. 1 We might even classify in the same group the Transfiguration Story, interjected as it is by Mark, with characteristic violence to context, between the Revela- tion to Peter 8: 29—9: 1 and its sequel 9: 11-13. The Trans- figuration Vision is not indeed of the nature of discourse material ; but it is intimately related in content and phrase- ology with the Baptismal Vision, which all critics admit to have formed part of Q however the fact be accommodated to the tradition. In its whole conception it is of a piece with the Vision of Peter, Acts 10:9-16, which takes the same radical Pauline ground on the question of distinctions of meats as Mk. 7: 1-23, an attitude elsewhere unparalleled in the New Testament. In some cases accordingly where connection could be traced with Q material without decisive evidence of con- nection with both Matthew and Luke the symbol Q LK , or rarely Q MT , has been employed. In general the sym- bol X (unknown source) has been preferred to such conjecture. In two instances only has R attempted agglutination of sayings into consecutive discourses, though this process is carried already to a considerable extent in Q LK and to a much greater extent in Q MT . Part First has one such agglutination in the shape of the Parables of the Kingdom, 2 whose object is to convey to Jesus' spiritual kindred the mystery of the kingdom of God unperceived by "those that are without." Part Second has a similar con- struction in the Eschatological Discourse, c. 13, whose object is to forewarn the disciples of the second Coming. The distinctive teaching of Jesus is not conveyed as in Matthew and Luke, but partly, as we shall see, in the activity of Jesus, partly in the instruction which accompanies the Revelation of the Doctrine of the Cross. 5. The Anti-Judaistic Point of View of R The elements we have designated P and Q forming to all appearance the chief factors of our Second Gospel, as intrinsically shown, what character may be attributed to the work of the compiler (R) on the same evidence? We have already intimated that on that vexed question of the first century Church, distinctions of meats, his stand is that of a radical Paulinist. 3 It is not only that he like Paul, 4 like the author of Acts 10: 9-16, "knows and is per- »Lk. 13: 6-9. 2 4: 1-34. 3 7: 1-23. *Rom. 14: 14. INTRODUCTION suaded in the Lord that there is nothing unclean of itself," but that he resembles those too radical Paulinists of Corinth, who required to be reminded by their chosen representative that his own rule that "all things are lawful" was held subject to the qualifying principle of consideration for the weaker conscience of the scrupulous. Like these Corinthian Paulinists R delights in gifts of the Spirit, without sufficiently discriminating between such as are spectacular and outward, and such as are more abiding and fundamental, faith, hope, and love. His independence of the Jewish religious observ- ances is not only made apparent in the series of conflicts in which Jesus defends his disciples in the non-observance of fasts and sabbaths 1 with sweeping declarations of the power of the new faith to develop its own forms of re- ligious expression, 2 but shows itself still more distinctly in a subsequent description of the lustrations of "the Pharisees and all the Jews," which is as contemptuous in tone as it is exaggerated in fact. 3 Indeed we must regard it as more than mere independence of legalism, when borrowing one of Paul's proof-texts against the Judaizers, 4 R denounces the whole ceremonial system of Mosaism as "doctrines and precepts of men," while not merely the representatives of the Synagogue are denounced as "hypocrites" but the Jewish people as a whole as a "people" that "honor God with their lips while their heart is far from him," and Jewish worship as "vain." 5 From the law of Moses our evan- gelist appeals explicitly to the higher law of God antecedent to Mosaism, and denounces as adultery the marital relations Mosaism allows. 6 One who could say of the Jewish legalistic ideal that he had fulfilled its utmost requirement, and who even received the loving look of Jesus in token that this pro- fession was both true and sincere, is warned nevertheless that he is still lacking in the essential requirement for "eternal life" until like the rest of Jesus' disciples he leaves all and follows him. 7 Conversely a scribe who strikes off the fetters of legalism by declaring that Jesus' simple new command- ment of love to God and man "is much more than all whole burnt-offering and sacrifice" is commended as "not far from the kingdom of God." 8 Scrutiny of this unbroken succession of radical anti-legalistic instances and utterances 1 2: 18— 3:6. 2 2: 21, 22. 3 See on 7: 1-4. * Col. 2: 22. 6 7: 6, 7. Luke cancels this denunciation of Judaism. Matthew cancels only R's explanation of the practice of "the Pharisees and all the Jews," vers. 3, 4, but adds three verses to show that its application is not to the Law itself, which was "planted by the Heavenly Father," but to the Pharisaic "hedge of the Law." Mt. 15: 12-14. •10:1-10. 7 10: 17-22. 8 i2 : 32-34. INTRODUCTION in the light of the softening and toning down, or even com- plete inversion, they have received in process of transcrip- tion by Matthew and Luke, 1 will lead us to realize with how vigorous a spirit of Pauline radicalism we are dealing in these supplements of R; for in the underlying P material there is little if any trace of it. No passage of the entire Gospel is more certainly editorial than 7:3, 4. Yet who can imagine that this explanation, exaggerated and con- temptuous as it is, was either written by one of Jewish pro- clivities, or required by readers familiar with the tenets and practice of Judaism? But this anti-Judaistic redaction is by no means restricted to a few editorial clauses. It enters deep into the substance of the Gospel. Side by side with R's strong protest against Jewish legalism stands his adoption of the Pauline apolo- getic on the unbelief of Israel. The Sermon on the Mount, representing a presentation of Christianity as consisting pri- marily of commandments to be observed, a new royal law of liberty substituting deeper and more inward requirements for the yoke of Mosaic ordinances, is absolutely ignored. In place of the whole content of the teaching in Q we have in Mark, as already observed, only the two agglutinated dis- courses of cc. 4 and 13, both of which deal with the rejection of Israel. The Teaching in Parables is conceived as ex- pressly intended to fulfill the Isaian prophecy of the "hard- ening of Israel." Jesus delivers to his spiritual kin "the mystery of the kingdom," while his kindred after the flesh as "outsiders" perceive nothing but dark sayings. 2 The parables themselves simply proclaim the coming of the Kingdom. So with the Eschatological Discourse also. 3 It is introduced after the Denunciation of the Scribes 4 apro- pos of the prediction of the Demolition of the Temple, 5 literally fulfilled in 70 a.d. In it R even speaks of Palestin- ian Christians as " they that are in Judsea. 6 6. R's Attitude toward the Apostolic Authorities An equally ultra-Pauline attitude is assumed by R toward the kindred of Jesus, the so-called desposyni, so reverenced in the mother-church in Jerusalem since the appearance of "Jesus' mother and his brethren" in Acts 1: 14, and toward the claims to primacy put forth in behalf of Peter and the older apostles. Jesus' mother and brethren appear but twice JCf., e.g., Mt. 19: 16-22, or Lk. 10: 25-28. 2 See on 4: 11, 12 =»C. 13. * 12: 38-44. &13:2. "13: 14. INTRODUCTION in all the Gospel; once when they intervene "to lay hands on him, for they said he is beside himself/' and Jesus turns from them to cast in his lot with his spiritual kindred "who do the will of God"; and once in the Rejection in Nazareth 1 where Jesus quotes the proverb, "A prophet is not without honor save in his own country and among his own kin, and in his own house." In both instances both parallels cancel all reference to the unbelief of Jesus' kindred. Sight by hypnotic suggestion has few more curious illus- trations than the discovery by writers under the spell of the Papias tradition of traces in Mark of special regard for Peter! How different in this respect is our First Gospel. In Mt. 16: 17 Peter receives the name and station of Rock-foundation of the Church, organ of the divine revela- tion of the Messiahship. In Mark's parallel we have no intimation whatever of any kind of revelation; merely a command not to reveal the secret with which all the Twelve have long since been intrusted, and a stinging rebuke of Peter's unworthy views of the Christ in language transferred by R from the Temptation in Q, "Get thee behind me Satan!" 2 Such is the first separate mention of Peter. Next we have in the Transfiguration Story, Peter's unac- ceptable proposal, with the comment "for he wist not what to answer, for they were sore afraid." 3 Next Peter's plea for special reward for himself and the Twelve, answered by the assurance to "everyone" of compensation for such renunciations in the earthly brotherhood "and in the world to come eternal life." To this is added the warning of " persecutions," and specifically that "many that are first shall be last, and the last first." 4 Next and last is Peter's boast, "Although all shall be stumbled yet will not I," followed by the humiliating story of denial. 5 Such are the sole instances of a separate role for Peter in this supposedly Petrine Gospel! It is true that the opening scenes are at Peter's home, where Peter in company with three others is called from his fishing. This P element was fundamental and ineradicable. We cannot imagine the most virulent Paulinist wishing Peter's part here to be more subordinated than it is. It is also true that the original form of the P tradition must have had an account of Peter's rehabilita- tion, more than atoning, in the glory shed upon the head of the Apostle who had been first to recognize the risen Lord, for all the humiliation of rebukes and denial. But '6: 1-6, see note. 2 8: 29-33. 3 9: 5. 6. «10: 28-31. 614: 29-31, 54, 66-72. xxvi INTRODUCTION this is precisely what has first been modified by R and finally cut out. Instead of Peter playing the splendid and surely historical role after his own "turning again" of "strengthen- ing his brethren" 1 R attributes this restoration of the scat- tered flock in Galilee to the personal intervention of Jesus, 2 and makes the first intimation of the resurrection that of the angel to the women at the Sepulcher. Thereafter must once have followed a manifestation of the risen Lord to Peter and the rest, according to the angel's message. But this has been cancelled in all existing witnesses to the text, leaving either a blank, or one of two rival substitutes. If we ask, What has our evangelist to tell of James and John, next in order of rank to Peter among the oriental churches, the answer is: These, like the Lord's brethren, appear but twice: once when they are rebuked for their in- tolerant spirit and assured, in reversal of the principle as quoted by Matthew, "He that is not against us is for us" 8 ; a second time when they request for themselves the highest seats in the heavenly kingdom, and are again rebuked for their self-seeking ambition to "lord it over" their brethren. Their request for special favor brings them only the assur- ance of sharing the martyrdom of Jesus, with a lesson on the principle so dear to Paul 4 of rank through service. 5 It is true again that "Peter, James and John" in three instances play a separate role in this Gospel, which is cer- tainly a role of profound significance. But that significance has nothing to do with claims to primac}' - or authority for them or for the rest of the Twelve. Against all such claims R would seem to find the sharpest phrases all too weak. The special prominence given to these three on the three occasions of the raising of Jairus' daughter, the Transfigura- tion, and Gethsemane, is much more probably connected with the martyr fate wherein Peter as well as James and John redeemed an offer and undertaking of which their performance had at first fallen short. For if for a time Peter and James and John may have seemed to some on questions of authority and doctrine to be names antago- nistic to Paul, "in their death they were not divided." 6 The most ultra-Pauline church in 70-80 a.d. must have treated the three as worthy of all honor as martyrs and wit- *Lk. 22:32. 214:28. 3 9: 38-40. < Phil. 2: 5-11. 6 10: 35-45. "The earliest evidence for the martyrdom of Peter is Clement of Rome, ad Cor., v, ca. 95 a.d. Much later is Jn. 21: 18,19. James was beheaded in 44 a.d. (Acts 12: 1, 2). John was also "slain by the Jews" as Papias attests, probably ca. 64 a.d. "fulfilling together with his brother Christ's prophecy concerning them, and their own confession and undertaking in his behalf." See on Mk. 10: 37-39. INTRODUCTION nesses of the truth. As the martyr-apostles they are appro- priately made the exclusive witnesses of the three scenes of Jesus' conflict with the power of death. Individually, as we have seen, Peter, James, and John never appear on the scene except for purposes of rebuke. 7. The Paulinism of Mark Our review of R's references to Judaism and its practices, the kindred of Jesus, the Twelve, and the Pillar-apostles, will at least suggest that to our Roman evangelist the Gen- tile atmosphere of the great Pauline church to which his work was given was not uncongenial. But these evidences of Paulinism are merely negative. The conclusive reason for describing Mark as the most Pauline of the Synoptic Gospels is the manner in which the evangelist conceives his task. Neither Matthew nor Luke considers his task performed without embodying the substance of the Sayings or teaching of the Lord. Matthew in particular regards it as the very essence of an evangelist's duty to "teach men to observe all things whatsoever Jesus had com- manded." Mark certainly was not ignorant of such teach- ings or commandments of the Lord, even if we refuse to admit his acquaintance with the particular document em- ployed by Matthew and Luke. And yet he leaves his readers completely without information on the law of Jesus. His effort is simply to produce belief in his person as Son of God. He, like the fourth evangelist, writes that his readers "may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and by believing may have life through his name." This is the dominant idea of the whole Gospel. But one Division is particularly devoted to the condition which the teaching of Jesus imposes to the obtaining of "eternal life." It is Division IV, the Division following upon Jesus' repudiation of Judaism, 1 the Division occupied throughout with the Doctrine of the Cross. Here at last we do find our evangelist giving the content of Jesus' mes- sage. It is simply the Pauline principle of "the mind that was in Christ Jesus," the continual reiteration of the doctrine, "He that would save his life shall lose it," "He that followeth me let him take up his cross and come after me." We have no Sermon on the Mount, but we have its equivalent here in practical application. What "they of old time" said is illustrated in the Pharisees' question con- !7: 1-23. xxviii INTRODUCTION cerning divorce, with Jesus' answer setting man's putting asunder with God's joining together. What "the righteous- ness of God" entails over and above that of the scribes' "keeping of the commandments" is illustrated in the in- quiry of the rich young man, "Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus' answer approves his having "kept the commandments," but points to God as the sole standard of "goodness" and inculcates the renunciation exemplified by himself and his followers and their treading the way of the cross as the only avenue to "eternal life." This Division on the Doctrine of the Cross is Mark's Sermon on the Mount. Let the reader simply subtract mentally the Markan element from Luke, or better still from Matthew, and note in what sort of rela- tion the remainder will stand to this narrative of "the mind that was in Christ Jesus." He will scarcely find it necessary, thereafter, if he have any appreciation of the distinctive elements of Paulinism, to count the number of Pauline terms, frequent as they are in Mark, or even to note the constant adaptations of Pauline tenets. The Paulinism of Mark has recently been denied by a very able critic, 1 though more, it would seem, in a spirit of bravado than of scientific impartiality. Such denial can only rest upon an utter misconception of the really distinctive feature. The Paulinism of Mark is supremely manifest in this evangelist's whole conception of what constitutes the apostolic message. 8. The Earliest Form of Evangelic Tradition at Rome The Paulinism of Mark, however, does not exclude a very real dependence on the ancient Petrine tradition; for Paul himself was dependent on this. 2 We have seen that the attitude of our Gospel of Mark in its present form toward Peter in particular, but in fact toward all the most revered authorities of the Jewish- Christian church, is completely the reverse of what would be expected from a trusted companion and disciple of Peter. This very fact tends to show that the ancient tradition of "the Elder" quoted by Papias was something more than such traditions usually prove to be — a mere inference drawn from the writing itself. At least the inference — if such it was — that "Mark had been the interpreter of Peter" 1 Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede, 1907. 2 ICor. 11: 23; 15: 3-7; Gal. 1: 18. INTRODUCTION was not drawn from the Gospel in its present form. What connection the Mark of apostolic story 1 may have had with the element P which forms the substratum of the Gospel is a difficult, but by no means hopeless, question. Its solu- tion will depend largely on the more fundamental character- istics of this "Petrine" groundwork. The Roman origin of our Gospel in both its primitive and developed form is so generally recognized and so strongly supported both by early tradition and by internal evidence that further proof seems hardly necessary. It is at Rome, in the writings of Hermas (ca. 135 a.d.) 2 and Justin Martyr, 3 that we find the first evidences outside the New Testament of the use of this Gospel. Its own striking peculiarities, whether of language (replete with Latinisms) or of doc- trinal standpoint, would of themselves be almost conclusive. The intense devotion of the evangelist to Pauline principles of the more obvious, external kind, without adequate appre- ciation of the Pauline mysticism in its subtler, more refined forms, such as characterizes the Ephesian Gospel of John, is precisely what we should expect from the predominantly Gentile-Christian church at Rome, to which Paul wrote the most carefully elaborated of his Epistles, especially plead- ing for more consideration for the scrupulous Jewish-Chris- tian brother, whose weak conscience would be defiled by too unqualified application of the Pauline principle of liberty in respect to sabbaths and distinctions of meats. 4 A stronger evidence of the western, post-apostolic stand- point of R than that of language, or Pauline anti-legalism, may be found, if our contention is correct, in the adjustment of Division VI to occidental views in respect to the Lord's Supper and Easter Sunday. As is well known, the Eastern church continued until ca. 200 a.d. the practice of observing Passover on the Fourteenth Nisan, not however by a feast, but, reversing the practice of the Jews, by a fast commemo- rative of the Lord's death. The fast seems to have been terminated by an Agape or "breaking of bread" at dawn of Nisan 15, 5 these dates being of course independent of the 'Acts 12: 12, 25; 13: 5; 15: 39; Col. 4: 10; Philem. 24; II Tim. 4: 11, and I Pt. 5: 13. 2 Sim., ix. 20; Mand., ii. 2. 8 Dial., lxxxviii and cvi. *Rom. 14: 1—15: 13. 6 This was called "celebrating the mystery of the Lord's resurrection" and occurred "on the same day" as the Jewish feast, the same day on which the Lord had suffered (Apollinaris ap. Pasch. Chron., Polycrates ap. Euseb. H . E. V, xxiv. Iff.). From Jn. 21 we infer that the breaking of bread was at dawn, not in the evening as most authorities hold. At all events it was reckoned as occurring on the same day, and that day by Jewish reckoning the 15th Nisan, which had begun at 6 p.m. of the preceding day. INTRODUCTION days of the week. The Ephesian Gospel still reflects this practice, called Quartodecimanism, or "observance of the fourteenth day" (of Nisan), in its transfer of *ne institution of the Lord's Supper from the night of the betrayal to the Miracle of the Breaking of Bread in Galilee, 1 and by placing the crucifixion on the 14th Nisan in contradiction to the Synoptic (Markan) representation. 2 So early as 154 a.d. Poly carp as representative of oriental practice resisted the endeavor of Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, to persuade him to the Roman weekly observance, which terminated the annual fast (cf. Mk. 2: 20) on Easter Sunday. Polycarp would not swerve from a practice which he had the best of reasons for maintaining as the practice of the apostles themselves. But our Gospel of Mark is anti- Quartodeciman. Against all the historical probabilities, 3 as well as against striking indications of its own under- lying groundwork (P), R insists on identifying the last supper with the Passover, and actually dates the crucifixion on the 15th Nisan, the very day which according to his own (embodied) narrative the conspirators had made every ar- rangement to avoid. 4 This agrees with Roman practice, and the compliance of Matthew and Luke is typical of the submission at last enforced by Roman predominance even in the home of Polycarp and the Fourth Gospel. But as will appear from the analytical study of the Division in question this representation does not agree with the funda- mental narrative, nor with Paul, nor with the real probabili- ties of the case, any better than with the Ephesian Gospel and the ancient Quartodeciman rite. The latter had been handed down on the witness of Polycarp, a Christian by his own testimony since the year 69 a.d., by the Apostles them- selves. R's substitution of the Christian sacrament, ob- served not annually, but weekly, for the Passover of the Jews, contains an intimation that this feast is to be no more observed until fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 5 He effects a readjustment of dates so that the observance of the Four- teenth Nisan could no longer be called a commemoration of "Christ the Passover sacrificed for us/' 6 nor "the true Passover of the Lord, the great sacrifice, when instead of the lamb, the Son of God was slain." 7 These are signifi- cant indications of the region which he represents. JCf. Jn. 13 with Jn. 6: 48-59. 2 Jn. 13: 29; 18: 28; 19: 31. 3 See Division vi, Criticism, Subdivision a. nik. 14: 2. 6 14: 25. • I Cor. 5: 7. 7 Apollinaris of Hierapolis (ca. 170 a.d.) ap. Chron. Pasch. INTRODUCTION xxxi 9. Date of Composition op Mark As to the period also we are not left without evidence. Rome as the scene and Nero's persecution (64 a.d.) as the occasion of Peter's martyrdom is supported by a very strong array of early testimony, with which must be included I Pt. 5: 13, even if — as seems most probable — this writing of the later years of Domitian (90-95 a.d.) be not from the hand of the Apostle. In Jn. 21 : 18 the allusion to Peter's martyrdom seems to bring his "carrying away" from the flock of Jesus' first fold 1 into immediate connection with his martyrdom, as had been the case with Paul. Even apart from this the complete silence of Paul's own letters from Rome makes it clear that such stay as Peter had in Rome was at least of the briefest. The testimony of Irenseus (ca. 189 a.d.), a better witness for Roman than for Asiatic writings, is explicit that Mark wrote after the death of Peter, and is borne out by the implication of the Papias fragment ("Mark who had been the interpreter of Peter wrote," etc.), and even by the futile attempt of the divergent form of the tradition in Clement of Alexandria, to bring the writing under the imprimatur of Peter without making him responsible for all its contents. 2 Even the very beginnings of the composition must therefore date almost as late as the outbreak of the Jewish war (66 a.d.), while elements from Q, to which we must certainly assign the great discourse on the overthrow of the temple 3 cannot have been attached until some time later, in all probability not until the P narra- tive had acquired a degree of authority in the Roman com- munity which forbade for the time being a very large ad- mixture from gospels of so completely different type as those which made the "commandments of the Lord" their prin- cipal nucleus. 4 In spite of much endeavor to base upon the eschatological chapter 5 and its relation to the parallels, an argument for dating this Gospel earlier than 70 a.d., it is the very reverse which should properly be inferred from the chapter. For the intended sense of the separate verses we must refer to the notes. Here it must suffice to say the author's prime object is to prevent the agitations and chili- astic excesses which the accomplishment of "all these things" 6 would inevitably tend to produce among Christians, espe- cially Palestinian Christians. This conservative effort is 1 Jn. 21: 15-17; cf. 10: 16. 2 Ap. Euseb. H. E. VI, xiv. 6. 8 C. 13. *Cf. Mt. 28: 20. *Mk. 13. 8 Ver. 4; note the reference to ver. 2. INTRODUCTION made at the same time that he holds them firmly to their hope in the sure fulfillment of "the promise of his Coming," and exhorts to watchfulness. Troubles of all kinds are to be expected from the start, especially persecutions; but "be not agitated." Only when the gospel has been proclaimed to the whole world can the end come. 1 Such is R's first para- graph. 2 In the second 3 he is more specific. "They which are in Judaea" will undergo sufferings unparalleled. The Danielic vision of "the abomination which makes desolate" will be fulfilled to them (see note ibid.). Only God's merciful "shortening of the days" 4 will preserve them. All this will result in the rise of many "false Christs and false proph- ets" who will say, " Lo, here is Christ, or Lo there." Believe them not ! Be not led astray. I have forewarned you. In the third paragraph 5 R presents the real signs of the Coming of the Son of Man, which are so entirely supernatural that confusion with earthly events, even the Great Tribula- tion in Judsea, should be wholly impossible for men fore- warned. The parables of the Fig Tree and of the Watchful Servants set forth in conclusion the two aspects of sound teaching: 1. The Coming will not be until the harvest is fully ripe. 2. Nevertheless it will be as a thief in the night, overtaking the careless unawares. Surely if any inference is to be drawn from an outline of this exhortation against taking earthly commotions and tribulations, however great, as anything more than general precursors of the Coming, it must be (since the Great Tribu- lation of "those that are in Judsea" is certainly alluded to) that the author has already had experience of this, and knows that it is to be distinguished from the actual Coming, which must be awaited still with patience, quiet confidence, and watchfulness. 6 But certain details, especially in comparison with Matthew, are supposed to show that the catastrophe of 70 a.d. had not yet occurred. For the supposed reference to the temple as still standing in ver. 14, see note ibid. Again in ver. 24 the Coming is put "In those days, after that tribulation" (in Judsea). In both cases Matthew becomes more specific. It is widely maintained that even if Mark himself is writing shortly after 70 a. d., at least he is here transcribing an older document (Matthew here representing the more original 1 Ver. 10. 2 13:4-13. 3 Vers. 14-23. 4 See note on 13: 20. * Vers. 24-37. •Vers. 13, 21-23, 30, 31, 32-37. INTRODUCTION form) in which the Coming was looked for if not before the demolition of the temple, at all events "immediately after the tribulation of those days." All that need here be said is to admit the contrast. We should not have such a composi- tion as Mk. 13 at all if the writer had not found occasion for it in the recent occurrence of the demolition of the temple and Great Tribulation for "those in Judaea." More particu- larly it would seem to have been for the very purpose of quieting the agitation of those who believed that the Coming would be "immediately after that tribulation" that he wrote; though he himself expected the Coming within the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries. 1 That a still later writer with more sympathy for Jewish-Christian apocalyptic hopes inserts the little word "immediately" where Mark had only said "In those days after that tribulation," shows only the difference in point of view between a Palestinian evangelist whose chief aim is the affirmative one of encouraging the belief that the Coming is near, and a Roman evangelist whose chief aim is to discourage the belief that it is im- mediately impending. 2 We have occasion here for assum- ing neither an older document, nor an older form of Mark, but only (if we are not resting too heavily on a single word) that both Mark and his more sanguine transcriber Matthew wrote within a decade or so after the Great Tribulation. If we knew just the year in which Matthew fixed its termina- tion, our dating might be more exact. As it is, Mark must be dated about 70-75 a.d., and Matthew but very few years later. The former leaves open a period equal to the expec- tation of life of Jesus' contemporaries before the Coming. 3 The latter, with the same absolute terminus, 4 thinks of it in closer connection with the sufferings of his countrymen in the Great Tribulation. 10. Historical Value of the Contents If we may attribute our canonical Mark to some ardently Pauline evangelist writing in Rome ca. 75 a.d., and may also consider that he builds upon the basis of an ancient Petrine tradition, though not without drastic recasting and supplementation from Q and from other sources, the ques- tion finally confronts us of the value of this compilation as a source for the historical career of Jesus. We have three bases of comparison: 1. The Pauline 1 Ver. 30. 2 With Mt. 24: 14 cf. Mk. 13: 7. 3 13: 30. 4 Mt. 24:34. INTRODUCTION Epistles. 2. The Q material. 3. The Special Source of Luke. Each of these is independent of Mark, and each affords some ground for an estimate of the accuracy of Mark's represen- tation. As respects the Pauline Epistles the most serious point of difference affects the story of the resurrection. Here, as we have already seen, a new line altogether has been struck forth by R, diverging entirely from the Pauline, and making its point of departure the story of the women at the empty sepulcher. But R has not wholly obliterated the traces of the earlier Petrine story. With the help of the Special Source of Luke it is recoverable in outline. Faith in Jesus as the glorified Christ began with an appearance to Peter in Galilee. From this the next step was Peter's rally- ing of his brethren there, followed by an appearance in Galilee to the Twelve, and the return (at Pentecost?) of the body of believers to Jerusalem. From Paul's Epistles we may also draw some confirma- tion of the Johannine date for the crucifixion, restoring the Quartodeciman form of the older record in c. 14 from the occidental reconstruction of R. For the rest the Epistles serve mainly to acquaint us with the practical problems of church life and doctrine which account for the form in which the story is delivered. One striking difference however re- mains to be noted, whose bearing is upon the narrative of the ministry. Nowhere, in any writing which has survived to us, does Paul make the slightest allusion to any miracle or healing wrought by Jesus. Nowhere does he make any allusion to the work of healing as belonging to Jesus' com- mission, unless the phrase "the signs of an apostle" be taken to mean the tokens connected by Jesus with apostle- ship. Exorcism he does not even refer to in any way what- ever. Considering that Mark's demonstration of Jesus' divine sonship is mainly based upon the mighty works, among which the chief place is given to Jesus' power over the demons and Beelzebub their prince, considering that the communication of this miraculous power to his disciples forms the principal element in their preparation, the con- trast seems significant. It becomes much more so when we note : 1 . That the Ephesian Gospel has wholly transformed the character of Jesus' mighty works, leaving as little trace as in Paul of the distinctive Markan work of exorcism. 2. That the Q material, while it alludes to Jesus' mighty works of healing, makes no parade of them, but on the contrary reports sayings of Jesus which would make it psychologically INTRODUCTION inconceivable for him to assume the attitude represented in Mark on this matter of wonder-working. 11. Miracles and Exorcism in Mark vs. Paul and Q The Q material is specially valuable for just that por- tion of the ministry which the Pauline Epistles scarcely refer to, the period of teaching and healing in Galilee. It is to this period and vicinity that Mark assigns practically all the wonders of Jesus. We have just seen that the say- ings of Q make allusion, e.g., in the charge He casteth out by Beelzebub, the Message to John, or the Denunciation of the Unrepentant Cities, to Jesus' works of healing as a dis- tinctive though not a separable part of his mission. The vital point of difference from Mark is that the mighty works are devoutly referred to "the finger of God," as accompani- ments of Jesus' message, through which God sets upon it the seal of his approval. Hence evidences of penitent love and of moral transformation, as in the cases of the penitent harlot and the repentance of publicans and sinners at the preaching of John, are coordinated with the healings in the very same breath. 1 Jesus sees evidences of the working of God in the gifts of the Spirit, whether "gifts of healing," or gifts of the spirit of "faith, hope and love," just as Paul does. In particular it is regarded as presumptuous to call for a sign from heaven, instead of learning from the signs God has already vouchsafed, were men only willing to read them. Even Jesus himself is not at liberty to "tempt God," by attempting miraculous provision of food in the desert, or angelic aid to triumph over physical danger. To presume upon the divine aid by such attempts to forestall God's intention is represented as a suggestion of Satan. In Mark contrariwise the agency is conceived as originally resident in Jesus himself. To blaspheme him is to blas- pheme the Spirit of God. What he does is the doing of the Spirit of God, just as what the demoniac does is the doing of the unclean spirit. There is no longer room for the distinctions so clearly drawn in Q, which are therefore one and all omitted or transformed. Jesus proves himself a superhuman being, greater even than the angels, 2 an object of terror to the demons, by sheer thaumaturgy. 3 We may surely conclude from such a contrast of Paul and the Q material on one side, with the Markan prodigies on the 1 Mt. 11: 5 = Lk. 7: 22; Mt. 21: 32; Lk. 7: 42. 2 13: 32. 3 6:44,48-52,56. INTRODUCTION other, that the distinctively thaumaturgic traits which have characterized the evangelic tradition from the time that Mark formulated its accepted outline, are largely due to this particular evangelist. This becomes the more probable from the fact that the material most closely connected with the primitive P tradition, while it has indeed much to tell of wonders of healing, inclines rather to Q than to Mark in its view of the agency. In the special group 1 devoted to this subject, the lesson constantly reiterated is that of faith in God. The resources of infinite power and love only await the moment of filial trust on the part of the suppliant. This lesson is scarcely in line with R's explanations of the healing agency. 2 In view of the special thaumaturgic in- terest of R, which groups him with such writers as the author of the Travel-document in Acts, and the Corinthian believers whose fondness for the more spectacular gifts of the Spirit is rebuked by Paul, we may reasonably discount much from the element of the marvelous in this Gospel. 12. The Sociological Environment in Mark vs. Luke Finally we are profoundly indebted to our third evangelist for the preservation of a source combining both narrative and discourse, the so-called Special Source of Luke, which comes more distinctly to the fore in the story of the Judaean ministry, even supplanting Mark almost entirely in the story of the Passion and Resurrection. Either the source itself, or Luke in his development of it, has taken large liberties in the way of edifying elaboration, as, e.g., in the story of the repentant thief. Nevertheless in sum total one very distinctive element is contributed by this source, an element so marked as to give to Luke its preeminent characteristic. We may designate this trait the humani- tarian, or sociological, characterization of Jesus' work. It is true that Q affords us the most invaluable clew to the real character of Jesus' work, historically considered. It is that of an epithet coined by his enemies. He was "the friend of the publicans and sinners." Occasional gleams of this humanitarian motive appear also in Mark, as where the four fishermen are invited to join in a work of fishing for men, which a comparison of Jer. 16: 16 and Mt. 13: 47 reveals to be a movement for gathering the scattered mem- bers of Israel. So the saying, "I came not to call the right- eous but sinners," 3 and the glance of compassion over the 1 4: 35—5: 43. 2 5: 30; 6: 56. s 2: 17. INTRODUCTION scattered, shepherdless multitude 1 are suggestive. But how little should we have from Mark alone to explain the popu- lar support which gave to the movement of Jesus its mes- sianist character, and afterward recruited to the standard of the crucified Nazarene a great following from the "people of the land," were it not for the Special Source of Luke, with its constant depiction of Jesus as the champion of the "little ones," the unrecognized "sons" or "daughters of Abraham," the spiritually disinherited masses, publicans, women, Samaritans, outcasts from the synagogue, scat- tered sheep, lost sons? In the historico-critical discussion of the real significance of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem with which Part Second has been prefaced in the present volume the attempt has been made to show that herein lies the real key to Jesus' whole career, historically speaking. That which the historical conditions supplied to call him forth and make of him the martyr of the "lost sons" in the cause of the promised king- dom was the tension created by the development of legalism in the narrow cliques of scribes and Pharisees, the chaberim of Synagogue orthodoxy, on the one side, and the l am ha- aretz, the masses of the people, on the other. The revival of the old prophetic type of religion spiritual and ethical under John the Baptist, marked a new epoch because of these conditions. But it was abruptly broken off by the prophet's imprisonment. Jesus' career was its fulfillment and transfiguration. To complete the picture we need the Q description of Jesus' new yoke. Mark is one-sided in its omission of that description of the higher righteousness of the "sons" who are such by imitation of the Father's good- ness, as against the traditional, prescribed righteousness of scribes and Pharisees. We need even more the Special Source of Luke, with its humanitarian view of Jesus; his championship of the cause of the lost sheep of the house of Israel, his yearning "to seek and to save that which was lost." It was perhaps unavoidable that a Gentile Gospel should largely lose sight of these historical conditions, which yet furnish the real key to Jesus' sense of his mission. In the Ephesian Gospel there is not a trace left of this distinctive feature of the Baptist's ministry, not so much as one men- tion throughout that Gospel of the class of "publicans and sinners." The case is not so bad with this Roman Gospel of Mark. And yet how vitally needful the supplement we are enabled to make from the pages of Luke ! J 6: 34. INTRODUCTION 13. Mark and Luke vs. Q on Jesus as the Apocalyptic Son of Man Convergent lines from these three independent sources, the Pauline Epistles, the Q material, and the Special Source of Luke enable us to frame a reasonable discrimination between the picture as R conceives it, and that which his material would suggest to the unbiased historian. In many respects its traits are coincident with that which would result from a purely literary analysis of the Gospel into its elements of Petrine tradition and editorial adapta- tion. On the fundamental question whether Jesus' con- ception of his mission was purely religio-ethical and humani- tarian, or apocalyptic, literary analysis tends to confirm the impression we should obtain from the weighing of Mark and the Special Source of Luke against Q. The title Son of man does not appear to characterize the fundamental elements of Mark (P). It occurs in editorial supplements derived from Q, and even then in an adapted sense (see notes). As we have endeavored to show in the Introduc- tion to Part Second, the apocalyptic conception of Jesus as the Son of man destined to return upon the clouds of heaven seems to be editorially superimposed upon the old Petrine tradition, leaving as the historical significance attached by Jesus himself to his mission the purely religio-ethical and humanitarian. He came as the champion of the " lost sons," to vindicate their claim to the spiritual inheritance of Israel. The task which beckoned him to his fate was the abolition of man-made barriers between the fainting human heart and the yearning love of the Father in heaven. 14. The Resultant Story of Jesus From the analysis of our "oldest gospel" and comparison with all other known sources we come back to a conception of the historic Jesus which both accords with the simplicity of the known conditions of his environment, and also leaves room for the historic development which ensued. The out- line coincides with that ancient synopsis reported in Peter's speech to the centurion of Csesarea. 1 Jesus was a wage-earner of Nazareth, an ideal representa- tive of that simple piety exemplified in the earlier type of Pharisaism, unspoiled as yet by the ecclesiasticism of the Synagogue system. Pharisaism of this sort, imbued with 1 Acts 10: 36-39. INTRODUCTION the spirit of the prophetic scriptures, rich with the blood of thousands of martyrs who perished for their pietistic prin- ciples under Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 B.C.) shines from the pages of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (ca. 100 B.C.), from those of the Psalter of Solomon (ca. 50 B.C.) and even from the opening chapters of Jubilees (ca. 10 a.d.). The ever more burdensome yoke imposed by scribal casu- istry, the development of the Synagogue system already verging toward rabbinic legalism, was rapidly excluding the masses from all "share in the world to come." One of the many reactions, the greatest certainly from its historical outcome, was the movement of the Baptist, in which Jesus saw no less than the promised Great Repentance of Elijah, and Restoration of the Tribes, which according to prophecy would precede the great Day of the Son of man. In com- pany with multitudes of the outcasts from the Synagogue, Jesus submitted to baptism, a new rite, foreign to the law, but naturally symbolical of the simple means whereby these "publicans and sinners" sought access to God, the old prophetic road of repentance and humane living. His public career began as a consequence of the violent inter- ruption of the work of John. It was a work of gathering the scattered flock, but did not content itself with a mere echoing in the desert the summons to repentance uttered by the Baptist, but went to seek out the lost sons and daughters of Abraham where the "unchurched" masses were densest, on the Gennesaret plain. Moreover, as the Teaching Source plainly informs us, Jesus improved upon the message of repentance by drawing its logical conse- quence. If God was summoning sinners to repentance and to the life of brotherly love, and they obeyed the sum- mons, then the fruits of the mission (Wisdom's children) were themselves an assurance of His forgiveness. It was a gospel of glad tidings for the poor, an easy yoke in place of the grievous burdens of the scribes, rest for weary souls — and yet withal a higher righteousness than Pharisaic mo- rality. And God worked with him. Not only the poor had glad tidings preached to them, but He that forgave their in- iquities healed also all their diseases. "Demons" aban- doned their control of the weak-minded and hysterical where Jesus came. The sick who touched his hand or even his garment were restored to health. Paralytics sprang to their feet. So he went about through all Galilee, proclaim- ing the glad tidings of the kingdom, "doing good, and xl INTRODUCTION healing all those that were oppressed of the Devil, for God was with him." We have no need to rehearse the story of his collision with the Synagogue authorities, inevitable from the first, re- corded in all our authorities. Whether the scribes or Herod were mainly instrumental in the matter, the outcome was the same. Jesus was driven out from Galilee. In the Introduction to Part Second we have endeavored to point out the consequences of this new development of the con- flict, its inevitable transference to the broader, more perilous stage of Jerusalem and the temple. Just as his opponents now are no longer merely the magnates of the Galilean synagogues, but the Maccabean hierocracy in their temple stronghold, so Jesus himself becomes something more than the preacher and healer. Champion of the "lost sons" he cannot and will not cease to be. Against the hierocracy in Jerusalem such championship, in spite of Jesus' best en- deavors against misinterpretation, could not fail to undergo suffusion with the glamour of messianism. Even if his friends resisted the temptation, his enemies would be sure to impute this ambition to him. Critics are divided as to how Jesus met this contingency; whether he altogether re- pudiated the title of "the Christ," or accepted it in a trans- figured sense. Either alternative could make little difference with the event. In the temple he boldly challenged the abuses of Sadducean control, declaring that he acted by the same authority as the Baptist, and in the interest of those who had been the Baptist's followers. A brief triumph of popular sup- port was followed by a fate like that which the Baptist had suffered for like reasons; only more cruel, and inflicted openly by the Roman governor at the instigation of the priests. Such is the story of Jesus' outward career, as the historian might restore it from analysis and comparison of the earliest records. Side by side with it the religious mind will read its inner significance for the spiritual development of hu- manity. That unseen record, which only begins with the rekindling and transfiguration of the messianic hope in the career and teaching of the Carpenter of Nazareth, is con- tinued in the story of the Church. With Peter's vision in Galilee of the risen Lord begins unconsciously the founda- tion of a new and universal religion, whose principles are the sonship and the brotherhood of humanity. This inner history of the working of God in Christ it is not our present task to trace. It belongs to the story of the life of God in man, the eternal life of the Spirit of Jesus. INTRODUCTION xli In the ensuing pages the subdivisions of the composition have been treated first critically, then exegetically. A few words only of explanation are needed for some of the de- vices for condensation in the latter treatment. The text printed is that of the revised version (R. V.) of 1881, with the single difference that supplied words are inclosed in parentheses ( ) instead of being printed in italic. Brackets [ \\ are used to enclose material not found in all ancient authorities. Significant or admissible variations of reading in the manuscripts have been printed immediately under the text with the prefixed abbreviation "var." Such as have no real probability of representing the original are usually omitted. When they have a bearing on the history of transmission they are discussed in the notes. Variant renderings also are introduced immediately under the text, prefaced by a simple "or" as in the R. V. margin. More literal renderings are indicated by "Gr.," i.e., Greek. The margin is used for parallels and quoted matter. Display type is used for the ordinary case of Synoptic par- allelism wherein Matthew and Luke transcribe from Mark. In all other cases, ordinary type is used. The letters R, P, Q, X, are employed to indicate the supposed derivation of the material, spaces in the text indicating the points of divi- sion. Passages employed only indirectly or in a modified form are inclosed in ( ). Thus R (Q) means work of the editor on the basis of Q. The particular passage of Q sup- posedly employed, will also in such a case be given in the margin in ( ), e.g., (Mt. ll:2-19 = Lk. 7: 18-35). Where the material seems not to be merely editorial yet the source cannot be identified the symbol X is employed, as in 9: 2-10 = R(X). The Septuagint version or Greek Old Testament, the Bible of the New Testament writers generally, is designated Gr. version; in most cases the margin of the R. V. shows the important variants. References to chapter and verse in Mark are usually printed without preceding "Mk." Where an entire chapter is included the abbreviation c. is used. One or more verses following in the context of a passage cited are indicated by f., ff., e.g., 3: If.; 4: 6ff. Other abbreviations or symbols are in common use. or self-evident in meaning. PART I THE GALILEAN MINISTRY PART I DIVISION I. 1:1—3:6 THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY STRUCTURE This Division of the Gospel consists of three parts: (a) a Title and Prologue to the Gospel, 1 including the story of Jesus' Baptism and Vocation; (b) an account of the Begin- ning of his Ministry 2 ; (c) an account of the Growth of Oppo- sition. 3 The ancient Petrine tradition, designated in our com- mentary by the marginal letter P, whose outline is sketched in Acts 10:37, 38, "began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached " relating how " God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." Subdivisions b and c corre- spond with this outline, and in their scenic background — Capernaum, the synagogue, Peter's house, the lake-shore — ■ corroborate the ancient tradition which makes Peter the original narrator. This primitive nucleus, however, shows traces of supple- mentation and adaptation to certain general viewpoints of the work, even in Subdivision b which narrates the great first sabbath in Capernaum. Appended to it is an incident 4 of later occurrence, unknown scene, and indeterminable derivation (indicated by marginal X), placed here seemingly to heighten the effect of the related beginning of miracles, and setting Jesus' reserve in still sharper, even exaggerated contrast 5 with the spread of his fame. Similarly ver. 24 places in the mouth of the "demon" who cried out in the synagogue the evangelist's own theoretical idea expressed in ver. 34 and 3: 11, that the demons invariably recognized Jesus as the Christ. We may therefore safely attribute to the compiler or redactor (R) the terms of this outcry so singularly identical with that of the demoniac of Gerasa. 8 In Subdivision c the process of supplementation and ex- pansion has gone farther. Two incidents unconnected with 1 1:1-13. 21:14-45. 8 2: 1— 3: 0. *1: 40-45. «Ver. 45. "5:7. 3 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY the rest as to time or locality are attached at the close. 1 These carry onward the theme of the Growth of Opposition to its final culmination in the plots against Jesus' life, quite in advance of the course of the story. They also take us away from the scenes by the lake-shore at Capernaum which are resumed in 3 : 7ff . Both are placed in later connection by Matthew; one 2 was related in the Ev. Hebr., 3 and has points of affinity with the Sabbath conflict related in Lk. 14: 1-6. Besides these supplementary paragraphs Subdivision c shows traces of expansion. These also take the line of heightening the Growth of Opposition; but here the inter- polator (R) seems to depend on the great non-Markan source of Matthew-Luke (Q), especially in its Lukan form (Q LK ). What is the substance of this section of Q LK ? The equivalent paragraph 4 is chiefly concerned with the stum- bling of the Jews at the mighty works and gracious teaching of Christ. Apropos of a question of "John's disciples" Jesus points to the "cleansing of lepers," "healing of the sick," and "preaching glad tidings to the poor"; thereafter he denounces the generation which would none of the Baptist because of his ascetic life, while it rejected Jesus for consorting with "publicans and sinners," and for dis- regarding set "fasts." Finally (in Luke) Jesus vindicates his "right to proclaim forgiveness" to penitent "sinners" on the ground that their manifestations of love and grati- tude are themselves a proof of God's benignant attitude toward them. Beginning already with the intercalated incident of the Leper in Subdivision b, 5 we have a series of supplements to the Petrine tradition in Subdivision c, which corresponds to the Q context. These supplements set forth how the syna- gogue authorities were "stumbled in him" by his claim of "authority to declare the forgiveness of sins," 6 his "eating and drinking with publicans and sinners," 7 his "neglect of the fasts" in contrast with "John's disciples." 8 Now at least in 2: 5-10, where Jesus bases his "authority to forgive sins " on his superhuman character as the Son of man of Dan. 7: 13, 9 and measurably in vers. 20-22, which justify the altered rites of the early Church, we are carried far beyond »2: 23-28 and 3: 1-6. 2 3: 1-6. 3 See comment ibid. Uncanonical post-biblical writings are generally referred to by their Latin titles, e.g., The Gospel according to the Hebrews^Ev. Hebr.; The Gospel ace. to Peter =Ev. Petri, etc. 4 Lk. 7: 19-50 =Mt. 11: 1-19. 5 1: 40-45. »2: 5-10. 7 2: 6-17. 8 2: 18-22. *So again in ver. 28. THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY the historical situation and the real progress of the story. Moreover Luke's story of the Penitent Harlot, 1 which bases the right to declare the forgiveness of sins on grounds akin to Jesus' reference to the Great Repentance at the preaching of the Baptist, 2 is certainly earlier and more authentic than Mk. 2: 5-10, which does not even suggest the idea of re- pentance, and cannot be reconciled to the context. These traits are therefore most reasonably accounted for as ex- pansions made by R on the basis of Q LK . Lastly (a) the Prologue is made up entirely of materials adapted by R from Q. First this same Q LK section is employed, which set forth John the Baptist as the Messenger of the Covenant sent "to prepare the way of the Lord," as "Elias that was for to come," as baptizing "in the wilder- ness," as an ascetic in garb and diet. Then we have a meager extract from the Q account of his preaching 3 and an equally meager reflection of the Q story of the Tempta- tion. 4 Even the Baptism, 5 while it translates into narrative prose the figurative expression "God anointed him with the Holy Ghost and power," and doubtless stands for a real acceptance by Jesus of the rite at John's hands, is no part of the primitive P tradition, and borrows its description and heavenly proclamation from Is. 42: 1 and the Vision of Transfiguration. 6 The whole Prologue stands at an indefi- nite remove from the succeeding story, with no intimation of its derivation, forming a preliminary explanation to the reader from R's point of view of the significance of the opening drama. »Lk. 7: 40-47. 2 Mt. 21: 31,32=Lk. 7: 29,30. 3 Mt. 3: 7-12-=Lk 3- 7-17. *Mt. 4: l-ll=Lk. 4: 1-13. 6 1:9-11. 8 9: 7; cf. Mt. 12: 18. THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY THE PROLOGUE PARAPHRASE Subdivision a. 1 : 1-13. Before the period of Jesus' associ- ation with his earliest disciples in the work of proclaiming the Kingdom he had undergone an experience which called him to the dignity of the Beloved, the Son of God, qualified him for the Son's appointed career, and subjected him to a test of spiritual endurance. Vers. 2-6. As had been predicted by the prophets in prepara- tion for the coming of Christ, a movement to repentance was in- augurated among the people by one named John, whose appear- ance and mode of life recalled the prophet Elijah. Vers. 7, 8. John predicted a successor far greater than him- self and prophesied that his own baptism of water would be transcended in the outpouring of the Spirit this Greater One would supply. Vers. 9-11. As Jesus among the multitude was submitting to John's rite of baptism he experienced a divine adoption. The Spirit of God descended into him and a Voice from heaven proclaimed, Thou art my Son, the Beloved. My eternal de- cree was fixed upon thee. Vers. 12, 13. Impelled by this Spirit from God Jesus now fled to the wilderness, enduring there assaults by Satan; but even the wild beasts stood in awe of him, while angels minis- tered to his needs. SUBDIVISION A. Vers. 2-13— CRITICISM Before beginning the Petrine story outlined in Acts 10: 37 R intro- duces in brief abstract a few data to enlighten the reader regarding the part to be played by the two principal personages of his drama. In R's view the movement of the Baptist was wholly preparatory to the messianic (Christian) baptism of the Holy Ghost. 1 John was the "Elias that was for to come" 2 to effect the Great Repentance. Jesus, though he came after John, 3 and was among those baptized by him, was immeasurably greater. He was called by a Voice from heaven to be the Beloved, the Son of God, the Elect of God's good pleasure; and this Vocation was corroborated by a Test, wherein Satan with all his powers proved inferior to the Spirit which had come upon Jesus. This prologue rests not upon information conveyed to the evangelist by the Baptist or Jesus, but has a demonstrable literary basis, the factors of which are: (a) Sayings of Jesus, (6) earlier evangelic writings, (c) Old Testament scripture. iVer. 8. 2 Mai. 4:6. 8 Ver. 7. THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY (a) The Q source afforded sayings of Jesus about the Baptist as (1) the Messenger of the Covenant 1 ; (2) as baptizing "in the wilder- ness," where the crowds "went out" to him, confessing their sins; (3) as not "clothed in soft raiment," but like a prophet in a hairy man- tle, 2 or like another Elijah, who, according toll Kings 1: 8 (R.V. m.), was "a man with a garment of hair and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins"; (4) as "neither eating bread nor drinking wine," but subsisting on wilderness fare; (5) as baptizing "with water," whereas the disciples should be "baptized with the Holy Ghost." These primitive sayings are still to be found in Q, the common ma- terial of Matthew and Luke, 3 or else in single attestation. 4 (6) We have three proofs that the prologue is based on earlier evan- gelical writings: (1) The original application of the Baptist's saying about the Mightier One to come after him is only traceable in the Q context 5 where it is seen to refer to the Angel of Judgment, 6 for whose baptism of "fire" John's baptism of water is a mere preparation and warning. The later application made of it by Mark to Jesus and the baptism of the Spirit is introduced thence into our Matthew and Luke, but is still foreign to Q. (2) The Voice from heaven 7 is taken verbatim from "the vision" of the disciples on the Mount of Trans- figuration, a narrative which interprets the doctrine of a suffering and glorified Messiah in Pauline language, and is appended in Mk. 9: 2-10 with such flagrant interruption of the context as to prove its foreign derivation (see comment ibid.). Also (3) the references in ver. 13 to temptations of Satan, "wild beasts," and ministration of angels are so blind as to be unintelligible without the context of Q 8 and of Ps. 91: 11-13, on which the Q narrative is based. These three indications show the secondary character of the prologue material. The proof that Mark is here using the written Greek evangelic source employed by Matthew and Luke is conclusive; for in ver. 2 he quotes Mai. 3: 1 in the exact words of Q and not of the Septuagint, on which he in- variably depends for his own use, and blunderingly attributes this prophecy also to "Isaiah" from whom he takes ver. 3. Moreover, the rare form of the word for "eating" 9 is not that elsewhere used by Mark, nor does it even occur in the New Testament save only in the passage Lk. 7 : 33, 34 and two other Q extracts of Luke. (c) The use of Hos. 1: 2 (?), 10 Is. 40: 3, 11 II Kings 1: 8, Lev. 11: 22 (?), Dt. 32: 13 (?), 12 Is. 64: 1 (?), 13 and Ps. 91: 13 H shows our evangelist as well able to supplement from the Greek Old Testament as his prede- cessors. 15 For the doctrinal conception and aim wherein the evangelist has pragmatically put together these data, omitting all save what con- tributed to his picture of the external situation, we should compare the Dialogue of Justin Martyr against the Jew Trypho (ca. 155 a.d.), cc. viii and xlix, where the objection that Jesus cannot be the Christ because Elias is not yet come 18 is met by referring to the appearance of the Baptist and his "anointing" of Jesus. 1 Mai. 3:1. 2 Zech. 13:4. 'Mt. ll:10=Lk. 7: 27; Mt. ll:7=Lk. 7:24; Mt. 21: 31,32=Lk. 7: 29,30; Mt. ll:8=Lk. 7:25; Mt. 11: 18=Lk. 7: 33. (Mt. 4:2-11 = Lk. 4: 2-13) to an adoption as sons through Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of his will ... in the Beloved" (Eph. 1: 4-6, R. V. marg.). This is simply a combination of the doctrine of the election of Israel as God's son (Ex. 4: 22; Hos. 11: 1) and of the creation of the world for man's dominion (Gen. 1: 26-28; Ps. 8: 6; cf. II Esdr. 6: 55), with that of the Messiah as Head and Representative of God's perfected people. Hence the titles of the people: "The saints," "the just," "the elect," "the beloved" become in the singular his titles: "The Holy- One of God" (Mk. 1: 24, etc.), "the Just" (Acts 3: 14; 7: 52; 22: 14), "the Elect" (Lk. 9: 35; 23: 35), "the Beloved" (Eph. 1: 6). The latter is the favorite title for the Messiah in the Visio Isaice (ca. 125 a.d.). The tense of the verb requires the translation "chose," not "am well pleased." The evangelist introduces the Pauline doctrine of fore- ordination and election, a characteristic Markan trait (see on 4: 11). Vers. 12, 13. The Temptation Story. In Q this vision-story is con- tinuous with that of the Baptism, or Vocation, interpreting its sig- nificance (what is to follow "if thou art the Son of God"). In Mark only the external elements are borrowed: Jesus is superior to Satan, the wild beasts, the angels. Ver. 12. Driveth (Matthew, Luke, "led") him forth. Jesus now acts under the irresistible impulse of the Spirit which had come "into" (Matthew, Luke, "upon") him at his baptism (cf. Acts 8: 39; I Kings 18: 12, 46). His identity is now merged in that of the Spirit, as the identity of the "possessed" is merged in that of the "demon" or "demons." Ver. 13. In the wilderness forty days tempted (cf. Dt. 8:2). The next verse (Dt. 8: 3) is quoted in the first temptation (Mt. 4:4 = Lk. 4: 4). "With the wild beasts (cf. Job 5: 22, 23; Dan. 6: 23). In Ps. 91: 13 (quoted in the temptation on the pinnacle of the temple Mt. 4:6 = Lk. 4: 10, 11) dominion over the wild beasts is coupled with the promise of service by angels. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (ca. 100 B.C.) have similar promises to the righteous: "The devil will flee from you, and the wild beasts will fear you, and the angels will take your part." Conversely, "the devil and every wild beast" has dominion over the wicked (Napht. viii; cf. Issach. vii). 14 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY THE FIRST SABBATH IN CAPERNAUM PARAPHRASE Subdivision b. 1 : 14-45. When the movement of the Bap- tist was abruptly terminated by the imprisonment of the prophet, Jesus began a work of rescue by proclaiming to the people of Galilee the gospel of salvation by faith. Vers. 16-20. Summoning to his aid two pairs of brothers who were engaged in their craft as fishermen beside the lake near Capernaum, he won their instant support. Vers. 21-28. On the ensuing sabbath he proclaimed his message in the synagogue, startling his hearers by the authority of his proclamation. But a demon which held in possession a man who was in the synagogue recognized the Spirit which was in Jesus, and cried out in fear, calling him the Holy One of God. Jesus thereupon rebuked the demon, bidding it begone. Immediately the man was delivered from the evil spirit's control, to the amazement of all who heard of it. Vers. 29-31. The same day in the house of Simon, after their return from the synagogue, Simon's wife's mother was healed of a fever at the touch of Jesus' hand. Vers. 32-34. The result of these events was a concourse of people to the door of Simon's house, as soon as the sabbath was over, many being healed. The demons also that were driven out knew Jesus to be Christ, but he would not permit them to speak. Vers. 35-39. When on the morrow Simon and his com- panions sought Jesus, expecting him to again meet the impor- tunities of the multitude, they found that he had left house and city long before dawn. When they came upon him in a solitary place, they found him engaged in prayer; but he refused to re- turn to Capernaum, regarding it as his mission rather to pro- claim the gospel. Jesus went, accordingly, to the other syna- gogues of Galilee. Vers. 40-45. So great was the disposition to declare Jesus' fame as a healer that his own strictest injunctions of secrecy were unavailing. Thus, having on one occasion healed a leper, Jesus sent him to the priest to offer the sacrifice pre- scribed for recovery from this disease, and strictly forbade him to make it known. But the man only proclaimed Jesus' fame the wider. THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY 15 SUBDIVISION B. Vers. 14-45.— CRITICISM Subdivision b begins the narrative precisely as in the speech of Peter in Csesarea. 1 It is mainly occupied with the story of the opening sab- bath of Jesus' ministry. The group of incidents centers about the call of Peter and his fishing partners, Peter's house serving as head- quarters. We have no reason to question that in substance 2 it repre- sents the story of Peter, as tradition has always connected it with this Gospel. Only the incident of the Leper 3 stands without chrono- logical or causal relation to the rest, an appended illustration of the difficulty of setting bounds to the spreading of Jesus' fame as a healer. In this paragraph 4 the continuous coincidence of Matthew with Luke against Mark shows that it is the latter who is retouching an older source (X) independently employed in simpler form by Matthew and Luke. What this older source was we have no means of judging, any more than we can determine the period to which the healing belongs. It may be worth noting, however, that Lk. 17: 11-19 refers the heal- ing of a leper to the Peraean ministry, while in 14:3 the hospitable roof which shelters Jesus at the time of the anointing 5 is "the house of Simon the Leper." 1 Acts 10: 37, 38. * See, however, on ver. 24. » Vers. 40-45. 4 Vers. 40-43. 6 In Jn. 12: 1 connected with the house of Mary and Martha, perhaps a Peraean family (Lk. 10: 38-42). 16 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY lj 14-20 14 "VTOW after that John was delivered up JlN Jesus came into Galilee, preaching 15 the gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel. 16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea: 17 for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you 18 to become fishers of men. And straight- way they left their nets, and followed him. 19 And going on a little further, he saw James the (son) of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the boat mending the 20 nets. And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and went after him. Vers.14, 15=Mt. 4:12-17=Lk. 4:14, 15; Cf. Acts 10: 37 R(Q) (Mt. 10: 7=Lk. 9:2) Vers.l6-20=Mt. 4:18-22=Lk. 5:1-11 (P) Jer. 16: 16 Vers. 14, 15. The traditional "beginning of the gospel" (Acts 10: 36- 38). In Jn. 1-4 the beginning is carried back to an earlier period (Jn. 2:11; 3:24; 4:1-3, 43-45). The temporal sequence established by Luke (Lk. 4:5, 9, 14) between the Temptation and the corning into Galilee is foreign to Mark, where ver. 14 is separated by an indefinite interval from the preceding context. There is not even a causal con- nection with the Baptist's arrest, as in Matthew (4: 12). After that John was delivered tip is simply a date from an event assumed to be known, though related as if unknown in 6: 17-29. But from ver. 17 (see note) and 6:34 (cf. 14:27) we may reasonably infer a causal relation. This was not fear (Mt. 4: 12). Flight from Antipas would not have led Jesus to begin his work under the very eaves of the tyrant's palace. Avoidance of the appearance of com- petition with the Baptist (Jn. 4: 1-3) is equally improbable. The motive is continuation of John's work for the masses. The imprison- ment of the great Restorer of the tribes had left the movement of the "publicans and sinners" without a leader (6: 34). Jesus proposes (ver. 17) a campaign of restoration of the "lost sheep." Galilee. Where the masses of the "people of the land" were to be found; the least enlightened region (Mt. 4: 16). The time is fulfilled . . . believe in the gospel. Definitions of the gospel of God in Pauline phraseology (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 1: 16; 10: 4) attached by Mark to the phrase of Q (Mt. 10: 7 =Lk. 9: 2; 10: 11). Vers. 16-20. To Mark the significance of this opening incident of the ministry centers about the renunciation made by the four disciples (cf. 2: 14; 10: 27). The less said of previous acquaintance the more remarkable will this appear, as when Elisha followed Elijah (I Kings 19: 19-21). For the modern historian the center of all interest is the saying of Jesus which embodies the invitation the men followed; for it reveals the object which had brought him into the field. This is easily seen by comparison of Jesus' frequent allusions to his mission 1:21-24 THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY 17 21 ^And they go into Capernaum]; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered 22 into the synagogue and taught. And they were astonished at his teaching: for he taught them as having authority, and not 23 as the scribes. And straightway there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean 24 spirit; and he cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of 1 Var. omit [ ]. Vers. 21-28=Lk. 4 : 31-37 P R (5: 7; cf. Acts 16: 16; 19: 15) to "the lost sheep" or "sinners" (Mt. 15: 24; Mk. 2: 17; Lk. 19: 10), and still more by comparison of the Old Testament use of the figure (Jer. 16: 16). He means to gather the outcasts of Israel. For this it is significant that Johannine tradition records an earlier association of Jesus with these men at the baptism of John, and even a joint par- ticipation in that ministry (Jn. 3: 26; 4:2). Later development of the story (Lk. 5: 1-11 =Jn. 21: 1-11) naturally avails itself of the say- ing as of chief importance, extending its application to the Gentiles also. Vers. 21, 22. Jesus begins his mission from the vantage ground of the synagogue, a non-legal, popular place of assembly and worship. "Men and brethren" who had "any word of exhortation for the peo- ple" might "say on" when given opportunity by the presiding "rulers of the synagogue" (Acts 13: 15). Not the fact, nor the subject, of Jesus' address (ver. 15) surprises the people, but its unconventional directness of manner. Like the prophets, like the Baptist, Jesus in- terpreted the living, inwardly speaking God. The scribes interpreted books and traditions. Vers. 23-28. The Beginning of Miracles. The opening sabbath in Capernaum is signalized not merely for the Synoptic evangelists but for Jesus himself by an unforeseen and startling development which leads Jesus after a vigil of prayer to suddenly break off the work in Capernaum and betake himself to the less populous towns (ver. 38) and ultimately (ver. 45) the country districts. An exorcism produced by his mere word in the synagogue was followed by a healing at Peter's house, and this by the importunities of a clamorous multi- tude bringing their sick to the door as soon as the setting of the sabbath sun allowed. In a single day Jesus found himself endowed — and en- cumbered — with the fame of a miraculous healer. The only element of the story which calls for criticism is the cry placed by Mark in the mouth of the "spirit," a duplicate of 5: 7 manifestly dependent upon the special theory of this evangelist expressed in 1: 35 and 3: 11, 12. The fact that Matthew cancels this whole incident (though he com- pensates by doubling that of 5: 1-20), omits 1: 35, and alters 3: 11, 12 into a command to the recovered sick "not to make him known," proves that he does not accept Mark's theory of demonic recognition. On 5: 7 see below. Ver. 24. He (or it) cried out. Just as utterances of prophets "in the Spirit" are regarded as independent of the inspired organ (Acts 20: 23; 21: 11), so not utterances only, but acts of the "possessed," are attributed to the "spirit" (ver. 34; 3: 11, 12; 5: 6, 7). This "spirit" 18 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY it 25-34 25 God. And Jesus rebuked ^im, say- ing, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. 26 And the unclean spirit, Hearing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. 27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What is this? a new teaching! with authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits, 28 and they obey him. And the report of him went out straightway everywhere into all the region of Galilee round about. 29 And straightway, when 3 they were come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with 30 James and John. Now Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever; and straightway 31 they tell him of her: and he came and took her by the hand, and raised her up ; and the fever left her, and she ministered unto them. 32 And 4 [at even,] when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were sick, and them that were possessed with devils. 33 And all the city was gathered together at 34 the door. And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and he suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him 5 . 1 Or, it. 2 Or, convulsing. 3 Var. he was come . . . he came. * Var. omit [ J. 5 Var. add to be Christ, as in Luke. Vers.29-31=Mt. 8: 14, 15=Lk. 4:38, 39 P Vers.32-34=Mt. 8:16=Lk. 4: 40, 41 P Cf. 3: 11, 12; 5: 7 and Acts 16: 16 speaks in the name of all the demons, who recognize their predestined conqueror and anticipate their fate. Ver. 25. Hold thy peace. Originally, as in 4: 39, a simple vehement command of silence (Gr., "be muzzled")- Mark interprets the cry as a disclosure of the Messiahship of Jesus which the latter would fore- stall (cf. 1: 34; 3: 12, and Acts 16: 18). Ver. 27. A new teaching! Or, "a new teaching with authority! Even the unclean spirits he commandeth," etc. (cf. ver. 22). Ver. 30. They (impersonal, as constantly in Mark) tell hfm of her — encouraged by the incident just witnessed in the synagogue. The sudden seizure of the victim of the malarial fevers common to this re- gion with fits of shivering, gave color to the popular diagnosis of "spirits" (cf. Lk., "he rebuked the fever"). Ver. 32. When the s«n did set. Carrying of burdens was not permissi- ble on the sabbath. The first day of the week began at sunset. Mt. 8:16, in transferring the trait, omits to mention that it was the sabbath. Ver. 33. All the city — an artless exaggeration (cf. ver. 45; 2: 2; 3: 9, 20; 6: 31; Acts 13: 44; 17: 5; 19: 29; 21: 30). Matthew transfers from ver. 16 to ver. 34. Ver. 34. The devils . . . knew him. On Mark's theory of demonic 1:35-40 THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY 19 35 And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose up and went out, and departed 36 into a desert place, and there prayed. And Simon and they that were with him fol- 37 lowed after him; and they found him, and 38 say unto him, All are seeking thee. And he saith unto them, Let us go elsewhere into the mext towns, that I may preach there 39 also ; for to this end came I forth. And he went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out devils. 40 And there cometh to him a leper, be- seeching him, 2 [and kneeling down to 1 Var. neighboring villages and the cities. 2 Var. omit and kneeling down to him. Vers. 35-39=Lk. 4 : 43-44 P Cf. 3: 14; Acts 10: 38 Vers.40-t5=Mt. 8:3-4=Lk. 5: 12-16; cf. Lk. 17: 11-19 R(X) recognition, its possible source in the incident of Acts 16: 16, and its treatment by Matthew, see above, p. 17. Mark is not concerned to ask what would be the effect on the bystanders of such coincident super- natural recognitions. Vers. 35-39. Jesus' "Withdrawal and Vigil of Prayer. This incident, closing the story of the opening sabbath of Jesus' ministry in Caper- naum, though omitted by Matthew, and quite emasculated by the changes of Luke, is of the highest significance for the light reflected upon Jesus' own attitude toward his newly disclosed powers of heal- ing. Manifestly they were by no means to him the subject of elation they appear to have been to "Simon and they that were with him" (ver. 37). Realizing the obstacle they would prove to his more vital mission (ver. 38), he could not sleep, but withdrew for a night of prayer outside the city. His refusal to return, and the subsequent unceasing conflict between the compassion which prompted him to heal the sick, and the unwillingness to degrade his calling into that of a mere miracle- monger (Q, Mt. 12: 39=Lk. 11: 29), which led him as much as possible to withdraw from their importunities, are inimitably historical and highly significant traits, all* the more cogent as evidences of authenticity from Mark's complete blindness to the real reasons for reserve (cf. 8: 12). Ver. 35. Desert, i.e., solitary. Ver. 36. Simon. Mark consistently refrains from using the name "Peter" before 3: 16. Followed. Gr., "hunted him down." Towns. Gr., "village-cities"; smaller places where the thronging would be less. Ver. 38. To this end came I forth (i.e., from the city) ; viz, to avoid the interference with my preaching. Luke interprets of the "sending" from heaven. Ver. 39. Preaching and Casting Oat Devils (cf. 3: 14, 15 and Acts 10: 38). Exorcism is the typical mighty work for all the Synoptic writers, and doubtless was the characteristic form of Jesus' healing (Q, Mt. 12: 27, 28 = Lk. 11: 19, 20). All the more significant is the silence of Paul and the Fourth Gospel regarding this feature. In the more cul- tured circles the popular beliefs on this subject had long since been stigmatized as superstitions. Vers. 40-45. Cleansing of a Leper. This incident has no chronological or pragmatic relation to the preceding, and seems to be derived from a 20 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 1:41-43 him,] and saying unto him, If thou wilt, 41 thou canst make me clean. And being moved with Compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith 42 unto him, I will; be thou made clean. And straightway the leprosy departed from 43 him, and he was made clean. And he strictly charged him, and straightway sent 1 Var. anger. written source known in simpler form to Matthew and Luke (cf. the descriptive additions of Mark in vers. 41-43 and their coincident varia- tion from Mark in 40, 41). Its literary relation to the context is illustra- tive of the spread of Jesus' fame as a healer even against his own most strenuous commands of secrecy (see on ver. 43); and thus it forms an appropriate conclusion (ver. 45) to the subdivision (1: 14-45). In Mt. 8: 2-4 (and Lk. 17: 11-19?) it subserves another purpose, and originally would seem to have been connected with the series of "works of the Christ" which become an occasion of "stumbling" to the Jews (Q, Mt. 11: 5, 6 = Lk. 7: 22, 23; 10: 13; cf. Mk. 2: 1-22). The mistaken identification of the ancient curable (Lev. 14: 3) disease known in the Old Testament as tsara'ath, and in the New Testament as lepra, with the incurable modern "leprosy" (Gr., elephantiasis) has led a number of modern critics to exclude this cure from the general category of the admitted healings of Jesus. These, from the religious viewpoint, are termed properly (in distinction from relic-healing and the charlatanism which now exploits the name) "faith" cures. Medically they are termed "psychological," or cures by suggestion. Mental disorders ("evil spirits"), hysteria (Lk. 8: 2), and paralysis (2: 1-12) are naturally prominent, but fever (1: 29-31), flux (5: 29), collapse (5: 42), functional affections of sight and hearing (7: 32-37; 8: 22-26; Q, Mt. 12: 22=Lk. 11: 14), epileptic seizures (9: 14-29), and "leprosy" (lepra) are far from snowing obduracy to this mode of treatment. The description here given of instantaneous change to healthy tissue is, of course, dominated by Mark's conception of Jesus' healings as wonders of omnipotence. With reasonable allowance for exaggeration in detail, we have no need to reject the representation that the "lepers were cleansed," though the present instance cannot be included in the narra- tive of Peter. Vers. 40, 41. Matthew and Luke here agree verbatim for fifteen consecutive Greek words. Mark differs by omission, addition, and transposition. The two dependent Gospels cannot have coincided accidentally. Either one is influenced by the other, or both by X. Ver. 41. Being moved with compassion. An adaptation to the con- text absent from Matthew-Luke. In ver. 38 Jesus' withdrawal from similar importunities had been related. The man's faith is made Erominent in ver. 40, as in the series of anecdotes of healings in c. 5; ut Mark is not now concerned with this feature. Ver. 43. Strictly (Gr., "roaring at him"). The only other New Testament occurrences of the word are in Mk. 14: 5; Mt. 9: 30, and Jn. 11:33, 38, the other Gospels doubtless borrowing the harsh term from Mark. The evangelist lays the greatest possible emphasis upon the command in order to bring out his point (cf. 3: 5 and Lk. 6: 10). 1:44, 45 THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY 21 44 him out, and saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses com- 45 manded, for a testimony unto them. But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to spread abroad the Matter, inso- much that 2 Jesus could no more openly enter into 3 a city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter. 1 Gr. word. 2 Gr. he. 3 Or, the city. Lev. 14:1-32 Ver. 44. For a testimony. Moses required this formal recognition. Without it ceremonial defilement would occur. In the primitive form of the story, the direction "Go show thyself to the priest" was probably the nucleus and point of bearing of the whole. For this reason Matthew attaches it after the Sermon on the Mount to prove Jesus' fidelity to the law. Mark's idea of the "testimony" thus given seems to be somewhat different; cf. 6: 11 (Q, Mt. 10: 14-16 = Lk. 9: 5; 10: 10-12); 13: 9 = Mt. 10: 18 = Lk. 21: 13 and II Tim. 4: 17. There is to be no excuse for Jewish unbelief. 22 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY GROWTH OF OPPOSITION PARAPHRASE Subdivision c. 2: 1 — 3: 6. The work of Jesus among the people of the land soon evoked opposition from the synagogue authorities the scribes, and their followers the Pharisees. Be- ginning with a murmur against his assumed authority to for- give sins as blasphemy, it took more and more acute form until after a collision on the observance of the sabbath the Pharisees began to plot with the adherents of Herod against Jesus' life. 2: 1-12. When his authority to forgive sins was challenged, Jesus proved that as Son of man he had this authorization; for in response to his word of command a paralytic rose to his feet and carried forth the pallet on which he had been brought. Vers. 13-17. When fault was found with his association with outcasts from the synagogue, Jesus answered that the invi- tation he came to bring was meant for these. Vers. 18-22. When reproached for neglect of the set fasts observed by the Baptist's followers as well as the Pharisees, Jesus replied that his followers would fast when fasting became the natural expression of their sorrow, and added sayings which implied the need a new religion will feel for forms adapted to express its own inner life. Vers. 23-28. The Pharisees were especially shocked by the neglect of Jesus' disciples to follow the scribes' prescriptions of the minutice of sabbath observance. But he referred them to the disregard of David for legal requirements, and claimed the right as the Son of man to set aside the sabbath in case of need. 3: 1-6. In the instance of one who on the sabbath sought to be healed of a withered hand, Jesus even took the aggressive, demanding whether the law were meant as a help or a hindrance to human welfare. Receiving no reply, he healed the man; but the Pharisees began at this to plot against Jesus' life. SUBDIVISION C. 2x 1—3: 6.— CRITICISM Mark's description of the opposition Jesus now began to encounter reverts to the scenes of Subdivision b, Peter's house in Capernaum, the preaching interrupted by the importunities of the sick. But it soon develops a new theme, whose relation to Q appears in the sequence of incidents, the Leper Healed, 1 Proclamation of Forgiveness, 2 Eating with Publicans and Sinners, 3 Fasting of John's Disciples, 4 Jesus' Disciples sons of the Bridechamber, 5 Rights of the New against the » 1: 40-45. 2 2: 5&-10. » 2: 15-17. * 2: 18. * 2: 19, 20. THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY 23 Old. 1 This series appears to be suggested by the section of Q on How they were Stumbled in him 2 already employed in the Prologue. Mark's pragmatic development of this theme not only carries it on to an acuter stage by the addition of two sabbath controversies, 3 but reflects also the later quarrel of the Church with the Synagogue. Christian neglect of the principal Jewish religious observances of fasts and sabbaths is vindicated, as well as the great doctrinal claim of the Church of au- thority to declare forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus, irrespective of works of the law. In respect to religious observances the sayings on the new wine and new cloth 4 are radically sweeping. Christianity is presented as a new ferment, which must determine its own processes and cannot be bound by traditional procedure. It is not a mere reformed Judaism, a patch on an old garment. Such, at least, is the application intended by R. Such application, however, would be as much an anachronism in the mouth of Jesus as the allusion to the Church's fasting in commemora- tion of his death. 5 Adaptation of the group to the conditions of later apologetic is therefore apparent. As regards the defense of the authority to declare the forgiveness of sins some alteration is also apparent in vers. 5-10. To the early Church the authoritative declaration of forgiveness to the penitent was a distinctive part of its message. 6 That which made it seem revolu- tionary in Jesus' preaching to Jews who were themselves familiar with Ezek. 33: 10-20 was the special application he made of the prin- ciple to the phenomena of the time. To Jesus "the baptism of John" was the great sign of the times, 7 a sign "from heaven." He saw in the "believing" submission to it of "the publicans and harlots" the Great Repentance prophesied by Malachi as destined to precede the great "day of Yah weh." To hold that the publicans and harlots after this were not forgiven would have been monstrous. But the scribes and Pharisees saw no such significance either in John's baptism or its effect. 8 They were willing to admit the forgiveness of the publicans and harlots after their assumption of the complete "yoke of the law." Jesus de- clared "with authority" that they were forgiven. When murmurs were raised by the adherents of the Synagogue he appealed to the visible evidences, moral and physical, accompanying his work. Such is the bearing of the great Q section corresponding to the present subdivision of Mark. 9 Lk. 7: 36-47 adds a peculiarly touching and convincing example of the moral evidence, by which Jesus proved that the "wisdom of God 10 is justified in her children." But in the preceding Q context 11 physical and moral effects are blended, as in the scripture 12 on which the paragraph rests. Both were evidences to Jesus justifying his mes- sage of "wisdom" with the stamp of divine approval, confirming his reading of "the signs of the times." Mark's apologetic shows a later, crasser development of the same argument. The declaration of forgiveness is still the special and official Messianic forgiveness of the Great Repentance, and the declara- tion of it "with authority" is still "justified" against the murmurs of the scribes by the visible effects. But the moral effects are now entirely lost from view behind the physical. Instead of pointing to Him "who I 2: 21, 22. 2 Mt. 11: 2-19=Lk. 7: 18-50. ' 2: 23-28; 3: 1-6. 4 Vers. 21, 22. 6 Vers. ig r 20. 6 See note on ver. 10, and cf. Jn. 20: 22, 23. 7 Mt. 21:23-32. « Mt. 21:32. 9 Mt. 11: 4-6, 20-24, 27= Lk. 7: 22, 23; 10: 13-15, 22. 10 I.e., the saving, redeeming message of mercy and restoration (cf. Prov. 8: 1-21; Wisd. of Sol. 7: 27; 9: 17—10: 4). II Mt. U: 4-6= Lk. 7: 22, 23. " Is. 35: 5; 61: 1. 24 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY forgiveth all thine iniquities, who healeth all thy diseases," Jesus now argues: "I am the coming divine Judge; my miraculous power proves that I can forgive sins in God's name." In reality vers. 56-10 are interjected by R quite out of harmony with the context. The paralytic has not asked forgiveness of sin, nor even shown traces of penitence. Not even do Jesus' amazing claims, blasphemous unless believed, provoke any reaction from the scribes. When at last the charge is brought against him in 14: 61-64 it is on other and much less cogent grounds. The interjected Christological con- troversy of vers. 56-10 is therefore certainly redactional. This advance from the eschatological note of the Q sayings to the Christological of the primitive Church 1 is one of the most conclusive evidences of the dependence of R(Q). The Q argument exalts the message, Mark ex- alts the Messenger. We can thus assign but little of Subdivision c to the primitive Petrine tradition, at least in its present context. The course of the story seems to have proceeded from the return to Capernaum and healing of the palsied man to the call of Levi and Jesus' withdrawal to the sea- shore with the multitude that followed him. 'Forgiveness under Jesus' personal authority (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1: 14; Acts 5: 31; 13:38; 26:18). 2: 1-4 THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY 25 2 A ND when he entered again into Caper- J\. naum after some days, it was noised 2 that he was in the house. And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room (for them), no, not even about the door: and he spake the 3 word unto them. And they come, bringing unto him a man sick of the palsy, 4 borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was: and 2 [when they had broken it up,] they let down the bed whereon the sick 1 Var. omit [ ]. Vers. l-12=Mt. 9: l-8=Lk. 5: 17-26 (P) 2: 1-12. Opposition of the Scribes. Jesus Claims Authority to For- give Sins. To Mark the powers of healing, regarded in his own time as a gift of the Spirit (16: 17, 18; I Cor. 12: 29), which had accom- panied Jesus' preaching of "glad tidings" (of forgiveness) "to the poor," are simply a proof that his words and deeds since 1: 10 are the words and deeds of God, just as the words and deeds of one "in an unclean spirit" are those of the demon. Jesus thus knew himself as the Beloved Son of God and Heir of God's Vineyard (12: 6, 7). He knew himself vested with authority as the Son of man, i.e., the final judge of the world (see on ver. 10 and 9: 1, p. 108, and cf. 14: 12), destined to sit on God's throne with him (12: 36). He therefore exercises the clemency of this exalted' office. For Jesus' own utterances regarding his proclamation of forgiveness against the same opposition see Lk. 7: 36-47 and Mt. 21: 31 =Lk. 7: 29, 30 with the Criticism above, p. 23. Apart from the interjected argument with the scribes, vers. 56-10 (an RQ expansion; see above, p. 24), this first incident of the series of five in Mk. 2: 1 — 3: 6 contains simply one of the "faith"-wonder series (ver. 5; see note on 1: 41). Its graphic traits (vers. 1, 2, 4) have been noted by critics as suggestive of Petrine tradition. Lk. 7: 48-50, if derived from the same source as its preceding context (vers. 36-47), might well be the basis of Mark's insertion; but the converse seems more probable. Luke's story is complete at ver. 47. Vers. 48-50, like ver. 46 and the other (highly inappropriate) allusions to the "oint- ment" in vers. 376, 386, is one of Luke's editorial embellishments drawn from Mark. Our evangelist rests on Lk. 7: 47. Ver. 4. Gr., Unroofed the roof . . ♦ dug it up. All attempts to depict the scene consistently with the small one-storied, flat-roofed oriental house, and the circumstances which must here be presupposed, are fruitless. 1 Some imagine an awning (!) projecting over the door, beneath which Jesus stood. Luke (5: 19) substitutes "tiles." Modern guessing and ancient are probably of about equal value as respects detail. 1 Wellhausen (Ev. Marci, p. 16) explains the clause "unroofed the roof" as a misrendering of an original Aramaic, meaning "brought him up to the roof." It ia noteworthy in view of this that the textual evidence for omitting "when they had dug It up" is very strong. 26 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STOR1 2:5-10 5 of the palsy lay. And Jesus seeing their faith saith unto the sick of the palsy, 1 Son, thy sins 2 are forgiven. 6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their 7 hearts, Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth: who can forgive sins 8 but one, (even) God? And straightway Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, saith unto them, Why reason ye these things 9 in your hearts? Whether is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and take up 10 thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath 3 power on 1 Gr. Child. 2 Var. have been. 3 Or, authority. R (Q--K) (Lk. 7: 36-47) Lk. 7: 48-50 Dan. 7: 13, 14 Vers. 56-10. The defense against the scribes of the right of Jesus as "the Son of man" to forgive sins interrupts the connection of vers. l-5a with vers. 11, 12, repeating the clause before the break. Vers. l-5a do not lead up to 5b, nor are the wholly friendly sentiments expressed in ver. 12 natural after ver. 10. Mark depicts the opposition implied in Q after the type of the theological disputes of Church vs. Synagogue in his own time. See on ver. 10. Ver. 5. Son (Gr., "child"). This term in address is not found else- where in Mark. It characterizes the Wisdom literature and the Special Source of Luke, and is unsuitable in Jesus' mouth except as he is con- ceived as the mouthpiece of the divine Wisdom. Ver. 9. "Whether is easier. With Mark it is a question of "power." In Q also Jesus appeals to the "mighty works" in proof of the message, connecting healing and forgiveness as in Ps. 103: 3. But his attitude toward them is objective. God sends them. He refuses to "tempt the Lord" by calling for them (Q, Mt. 4: 3-7; 12: 39=Lk. 4: 3,4, 9-12; 11: 29. See Criticism above, p. 23. Ver. 10. The Son of man. Philological considerations make it doubtful if the Aramaic spoken by Jesus admitted the use of this term as a title. If it could be used in any other sense than "the human being" it was only by virtue of reference to Dan. 7: 13, 14, and to later apocalyptic passages based on this, wherein the original general sense (a being in human form as against the bestial forms representing the earthly kingdoms of vers. 4-12) had become specific. It meant, therefore, to the contemporaries of Mark "the heavenly Lord of ever- lasting dominion referred to by Daniel." To Mark personally it means this (8: 38; 13: 26; 14: 62), but is also employed as the specially ap- propriate title where reference is made to the humiliation which is the condition of Christ's exaltation (8: 31, 38; 9: 9, 12, 31; 10: 33, 45; 14: 21, 41). The instance of 2: 28, and perhaps the present, are the only uses in Mark which possibly represent a third connotation, viz, the representative of humanity, as in Ps. 8: 5-7; Heb. 2: 5-9; Mt. 8:20 = Lk. 9:58. To place the title in Jesus' mouth as applying to himself at this point of the story is a manifest anachronism. But 2tU-l3 THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY 27 earth to forgive sins (he saith to the 11 sick of the palsy), I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy 12 house. And he arose, and straightway took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion. 13 And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto Vers.l3-17=Mt. 9:9-13= Lk. 5:27-32 P Mark no more thinks of asking what effect such a declaration must have had on the bystanders than in the case of the declarations of the "spirits," "Thou art the Christ." Hath power (i.e., delegated power; cf. marg., "authority") to for- give sins. The "authority to forgive sins" here attributed to Jesus personally is an essential feature in the equipment of his representa- tives in Jn. 20: 23 (cf. Mt. 16: 19; 18: 18). In a sense which transcended Jewish beliefs the early Church professed in its earliest formula of confession to "believe in the forgiveness of sins," and still authorizes its ministers to declare "with authority" to the people, "they being duly penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins." As implied in the narrative of Mark, this assumption was obnoxious to Judaism ; necessarily so when advanced, as here, as the personal prerogative of Jesus, but also in the earlier sense of Lk. 7: 47; Mt. 21: 31 and kindred passages. Jesus' "glad tidings to the poor" was obnoxious to the scribes, because he assured penitent publicans and sinners that their sins were forgiven before they had achieved any merit by works of the law. l His special assurance rested on the conviction that the baptism of John, which had brought about the promised Great Repentance, was "from heaven" (Mt. 21: 23-32). Vers. 11, 12 ignore vers. 56-10. The astounding claim of ver. 10 remains as if unspoken; the scribes vanish. The remainder (vers. l-5a, 11, 12) is seen to connect with 1: 14-39 in all its points of emphasis (Jesus intent on "preaching the word," ver. 2; the importunity of the seekers for physical healing, ver. 4; the "faith," ver. 5; so touchingly evinced as to overcome his reluctance, ver. 11 [cf. Mt. 15:28]; the spread of his fame, ver. 12). The connection is much closer still if the alien paragraph 1 : 40-45 be disregarded. Vers. 13-17. Association with Publicans and Sinners. Besides a general jealousy of the work wherein the sick were healed, "lepers were cleansed and glad tidings proclaimed to the poor," the scribes brought against Jesus the charge of "eating and drinking with publi- cans and sinners" (Q, Mt. 11:5, 19 = Lk. 7:22, 34). This theme is now illustrated by the specific instance of "Levi the son of Alphseus," who in our first canonical Gospel is identified with the Apostle Matthew (3: 18 = Mt. 10: 8), though Mark gives no indication of so understand- ing the matter. The principal "western" text has "James the son of Alphaeus" here, but "Levi the son of Alphgeus" in the Lukan parallel. "Levi" reappears in the Ev. Petri. Lk. 19: 1-10 presents an anecdote 1 Rabbinic doctrine maintained, "There is no forgiveness without requital." See Weber, AUsynagogale Tfieologie, pp. 267-300, and R. H. Charles, Apoc. of Baruch, pp. lxxxiiff 28 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 2s 14-16 14 him, and he taught them. And as he passed by, he saw ^evi the (son) of Alphaeus sitting at the place of toll, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and 15 followed him. And it came to pass, that he was sitting at meat in his house, and many publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples ; for there were 16 many, 2 and they followed him. And the scribes 3 of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with the sinners and publicans, said unto his disciples, 4 He 1 Var. James; but Levi the son of Alpheus in Lk. 5: 27. 2 Or, And there folloived him also . . . And when they saw 3 Var. and the Pharisees. * Or, ( How is it) that he ealeth . , . sinners f R(Q) (Mt. 11: 19=Lk. 7: 34; cf. Lk. 19: 1-10) elsewhere unknown of a feast given by a publican to Jesus in his house. This, however, is located at Jericho, and attaches to the name Zaccheeus. Ver. 13. For the scene cf. 1: 16. The calling of disciples begun in 1: 16-20 still continues. In 3: 13-19 it develops into a formal selec- tion of twelve individuals. See note ibid. Ver. 14. The place of toll. Perhaps on the great trade route to Damascus, which then as now passed near Capernaum, crossing at the bridge over Jordan from the tetrarchy of Antipas to that of Philip. Levi (unlike Zacchaeus) was an agent, not of the Emperor, but of Antipas; but he perhaps shared the odium which attached to tax- gatherers as a class as hirelings of the alien oppressor against their own people. Ver. 15. He was sitting (Gr., "reclining," after the Roman custom) at meat in his house. An example of the ambiguity constantly arising from the Semitic habit of repeating the personal pronoun. Many modern authorities think Mark means Jesus' house, as might be in- ferred from the fact that Levi follows Jesus, not conversely ; and this may account for the explanatory addition, "for there were many that (Gr., "and they") followed him." But Luke takes it as Levi's house, and this agrees better with the context as a whole. Vers. 15-17 are loosely attached, aiming to introduce the complaint of ver. 16 and reply, ver. 17. Ver. 15 seems to be suggested by the story of Zac- chaeus, ver. 16 by Q (Mt. 11: 19 = Lk. 7: 34), while ver. 17 is a saying not otherwise known. Sinners. Those who today might be called the "unchurched"; some, literally, outcasts from the synagogue, some merely unable or unwilling to submit to the yoke of the law. Galilee was notorious for laxity (Mt. 4: 15, 16), and Capernaum was one of its commercial centers. Disciples. Only five have been mentioned (1:16-20; 2:14), but a larger group seems to be meant, as in 3: 13; 4: 10. The clause for there were many, etc., which is rightly rendered in R. V., looks like an editorial attempt to meet the query naturally suggested by the word. Ver. 16. Scribes of the Pharisees. If the reading be authentic (see var.), a difficult phrase. We have no reference to "scribes of the Sad- 2; 17-20 THE BEGINNING OE THE MINISTRY 29 eateth *[and drinketh] with publicans and 17 sinners. And when Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. 18 And John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting: and they come and say unto him, Why do John's disciples and the dis- ciples of the Pharisees fast, but thy dis- 19 ciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them, Can the sons of the bride-chamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? 2 [as long as they have the bride- 20 groom with them, they cannot fast]. But the days will come, when the bridegroom 1 Var. omit and drinketh. 2 Var. omit [ ]. (X) Vers.l8-20=Mt. 9: 14, 15=L,k. 5:33-35 R(Q) (Mt. 11: 17-19 = Lk. 7: 32-34) ducees." But cf. 3: 22. Ver. 17 answers an objection to Jesus' "call- ing" sinners to a new life (ver. 14), but not the objection of vers. 15, 16 (eating with them). The latter is a parallel to Q (Mt. 11: 19 = Lk. 7: 34). Has R modified the original story into conformity with Q? Vers. 18-22. Disregard of Religious Observances. The connection of this incident with the foregoing is purely topical. No time relation exists. Q, however, furnishes a very manifest thread of connection in the "stumbling" at Jesus, because, unlike the Baptist, he leads a non-ascetic life, and his message is like wedding music (Mt. 11: 17-19 = Lk. 7: 32-34), to the latter's funereal strains. Whether Mark had an independent tradition of the saying (ver. 19a), or is merely developing Q (Mt. ll:17-19=Lk. 7:32-34) in the whole paragraph is indeter- minable. Ver. 18. They (i.e., people) come. The habitual Markan use of the indefinite personal pronoun (cf. 1:30; 2:3; 3:2). Matthew (9:14) takes it to mean John's disciples; cf. the coming of John's disciples in Q (Mt. ll:2 = Lk. 7:19). Ver. 19. Sons of the bride-chamber, i.e., wedding guests; excused by Jewish practice from the semi-weekly fasts. Jesus applies the same principle to those who have received the invitation to the "mar- riage supper" (Q, Mt. 22: 1-14 = Lk. 14:15-24). Those who have just heard the "glad tidings" are not disposed to fast (cf. Q, Mt. 11: 17=Lk. 7: 32). Religious forms cannot be more than "dead" forms, unless adopted as the congenial expression of a spontaneous feel- ing. R, in vers. 196, 20, allegorizes into a prediction of Jesus' death and of the commemoration of it on the Friday fast. Jn. 3: 29 turns the saying into a disclaimer of Messiahship on the Baptist's part in Jesus' favor. He whose followers rejoice is the bridegroom = the Messiah. Ver. 20. Instead of the fundamental contrast of Q (Mt. 11: 17-19 = Lk. 7: 32-34; cf. Mt. 6: 16-18) between the use of fasting as an opus operatum, and fasting as a forth-putting of the soul toward God, R introduces a contrast of time. No fasts while Jesus is alive; fasting 30 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 2: 21-23 shall be taken away from them, and then 21 will they fast in that day. No man seweth a piece of undressed cloth on an old garment: else that which should fill it up taketh from it, the new from the old, and 22 a worse rent is made. And no man putteth new wine into old Hvine-skins: else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine perisheth, and the skins: but (they put) new wine into fresh wine-skins. 23 And it came to pass, that he was going on the sabbath day through the cornfields; and his disciples 2 began, as they went, to 1 That is, skins used as bottles. 2 Gr. began to make a way plucking. Vers. 21, 22= Mt. 9: 16, 17 =Lk. 5: 36-38 (X) (X) Vers.33-28=Mt. 12:l-8=L,k. 6:1-5 (X) for the subsequent time (cf. Jn. 3: 29). That day. The singular is perhaps chosen for still closer correspondence with Church observance, which made Friday a fast (Didache, viii). R has no scruples about anachronisms. See on 2: 10. Vers. 21, 22. Parables of the Patch and the "Wine-skins. This pair of proverbial sayings (parables?) might well be authentic, though not found in Q. They well express the sweeping radicalism of this Gospel against Jewish observances (cf. 7:3-7, 15; 10:1-12, 20, 21; 12:33); but when applied, as here, to Jesus' conduct generally, as compared with the Pharisees and disciples of John, they go beyond the historical probability (cf. Rom. 15: 8). To Mark and his readers they answer the question, Why do not Christians retain the Jewish observances? The answer given is, Christians are a different race, filled with a new spirit, and require to form their own. Their original application is more doubtful. Vers. 23-28; 3: 1-6. Sabbatarianism Repudiated. Our evangelist continues his polemic against Jewish observances by attaching, with- out chronological relation, two incidents which justify, negatively and positively, Christian disregard of the sabbath (cf. Rom. 14:5; Col. 2: 16). Whence they are derived is not clear; for the thread of con- nection with Q breaks off after ver. 19. Luke, however, has additional anti-sabbatarian material (Lk. 13: 10-17), including after Lk. 6: 4 to the ft text the significant story of the man working on the sabbath, to whom "Jesus said, Man, blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou art doing, but if not, thou art accurst and a transgressor of the law." Luke has also an independent version of 3: 1-6 (Lk. 14: 1-6), whose discourse element is incorporated also by Matthew (Mt. 12: ll = Lk. 14: 5). If Mark derives 3: 1-6 from Qlk, we cannot determine its original connection; but both Matthew and Luke (14: 1-6) place it later. Another independent version of this story appeared in Ev. Hebr. 1 Ver. 23. As they went. The Greek will not bear this rendering, nor even that of the R. V. margin. Render: "to make a road by pluck- 1 Preuschen Antileg., fragt. 8. 2t 24-27 THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY 31 24 pluck the ears of corn. And the Phari- sees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is 25 not lawful? And he said unto them, Did ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, 26 and they that were with him? How he entered into the house of God J [when Abiathar was high priest,] and did eat the shewbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him ? 27 2 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sab- 1 Var. omit [ J. 2 Var. But I say unto you, The Son . , omitting ver. 27. R Mt. 12: 8 ing." The objection that this translation, "besides making Jesus' answer quite unintelligible, presents an absurd way of making a road" (Gould), has no application, because Mark knows the Pharisees' accu- sation was one of their casuistical absurdities, and only fails to see the real point of the objection. This was, as Luke perceives ("rubbing it in their hands"), the characteristic piece of Sabbatarian casuistry that this was "a kind of threshing." Jesus' defense by the example of "what David did when he was an hungred" shows that Luke is right in making the point of opposition lie against something the dis- ciples were doing to satisfy their hunger. But the law expressly allowed the appropriation (Lev. 19: 9, 10). The puzzle was to find what labor was done; for that alone could account for the charge of violating the sabbath. "Making a road" is not in itself a more unreasonable guess than "threshing." Only close scrutiny of the context, or independent information, could show that the latter was really meant. Ver. 26. Even approach to the Holy Place was sacrilege punishable with death for all but the priests according to Mosaic law. To eat the shewbread far more so. The inconsistency of the narratives of the Books of Samuel with the priestly law (really due to the much later development of the latter) had been observed, but was explained as due to exceptional circumstances. The present was an extreme case. "When Abiathar was high priest, A slip for "Ahimelech"; see I Sam. 21 : 6, and note var. Vers. 27, 28 seem to be later attachments. Ver. 27 is lacking in both Matthew and Luke and the /3 text of Mark, and was a common- place of rabbinic doctrine. 1 Its sense is: The welfare of the observer must determine the application of observances ; for these exist for the sake of those to whom they are given (Dt. 6: 24; 10: 13), and not con- versely. Ver. 28 is doubtless an authentic element of our Mark, but corresponds neither with the defense of vers. 25, 26, nor with Jesus' general attitude. It has the same anachronistic use of the messianic 1 Jonia, fol. So. 32 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 2: 28—3: 5 28 bath: so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath. 3 And he entered again into *[the] syna- gogue; and there was a man there which had 2 his hand withered. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath 3 day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man that had his hand 4 withered, 2 Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace. 5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth: and his hand was re- 1 Var. a synagogue. 2 Gr. Arise into the midst. Vers. l-6=Mt. 12:fr-14=Lk. 6:6-ll;cf. Lk. 14:1-6 R (Qi«) (Mt. 12: ll=Lk. 14:5) title Son of man, as ver. 10, and was doubtless appended by the same hand. Even of the sabbath, or "of the sabbath also." Fasting and sabbath-keeping 1 are both made dependent on the will of Christ. 3 : 1-6. Healing on the Sabbath. The preceding instance had shown that human need, and not the letter of Scripture, determines what one may do. A second is now added, still without chronological connc- tion, to show that it determines what one must do in cases of conflict. Ver. 1. A synagogue. Lk. 14: 1-6 is shown by the challenge of Jesus "to the lawyers and Pharisees" and the instance of the animal fallen into the pit (Lk. 14: 5 = Mt. 12: 11) to be the same incident, though represented as taking place "when he had gone into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a sabbath to eat bread," 2 and as a case not of withering but of "dropsy." Lk. 14: 1-6 is separated from its companion, Lk. 13: 10-17 (where we have the scene of Mk. 3: 1-6), and connected by our third evangelist with Lk. 14: 7ff., where the invitation to dinner is suggested by the discourse (vers. 7-11, 12-14). Jerome tells us that Ev. Hebr. also contained this story, call- ing the man a stone-mason and representing him as appealing to Jesus, "I was a stone-mason earning subsistence with my hands. I pray thee, Jesus, to restore my health, that I may not basely beg my food. ' Ver. 1. A man which had his hand withered (Lk. 14: 2, "a man that had the dropsy"). The discrepancy may be due to variant renderings of the Aramaic term for the ailment. Ver. 2. And they watched him (cf. Lk. 13: 14). Ver. 4. An appeal to the higher law, as in 10: 1-10. Humanity commands to help; the written ordinance says, Refrain, even at the expense of life. Which has best right to be considered the command of God? Q adds at this point the example of humanity shown to animals (Mt. 12: ll=Lk. 14: 5). 1 Cf . the combination of these two religious practices in Oxyrh. Logia, Log. II. 2 Luke draws this inference from the contents of the succeeding paragraphs, vers. 8-11, 126-14, 156-24. 3»6 THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY 33 6 stored. And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him. Ver. 6. R anticipates the outcome of the conflict, as in ver. 20. Cf. the more moderate statements of Lk. 13: 17; 14: 6. Pharisees . . . Herodians. So in 8: 15 and 12: 13. Mark conceives the plots against Jesus' life to have already begun in Galilee through the influence of the local Pharisees at the court of Antipas (cf. 6: 14-16). This can hardly be correct. Jesus' death was compassed by the priests in complicity with the Roman court at Jerusalem. The Pharisees need not have even then had a direct part in the matter. PART I DIVISION II. 3:7—6:13 THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE STRUCTURE The fundamental idea of this Division, which opens after the note of hostility has been sounded in 3: 6, is the forma- tion of a "brotherhood" of the followers of Christ in the midst of the unbelieving, callous, or hostile environment of Judaism. R conceives this brotherhood on the model of a Christian church endowed with its two functions of preaching and healing. At its nucleus are the Twelve. The choice of these from the multitude "to be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach and to heal, " marks the beginning of the Division; their actual sending forth to the task marks its close. Besides these a penumbra of others is dimly discerned, called out from the multitude before the choice of the Twelve from among them, 1 coming to Jesus "with the Twelve" for further light after the parables. 2 Within the general framework of the Choosing and the Mission of the Twelve, the material of Division II readily falls into three subdivisions, concerned respectively with (a) The Formation of the Brotherhood, 3:20-35; (6) Their Indoctrination in the Mystery of the Kingdom of God, 4: 1-34; (c) Their Discipline in the Wonder-working of Faith, 4:35— 6:6. The general course of the primitive Petrine tradition is most easily recognizable in Subdivision c, where we are once more face to face with the familiar scenes on the lake, in the streets and among the people of Capernaum, surrounded by the same importunate throngs as in 1 : 29-33 ; 2 : 1-4. The same note of wonder-working faith already struck in 2: 5 is now dominant, the keynote of the group. Two paragraphs are indeed open to criticism, 3 5: 1-20 for its departure from the theme of "faith" to introduce a mere development of R's theory of the demons' recognition of Christ, and the command which he exerted over them, and 1 3: 13. 2 4: 10. 3 See Criticism. Subdivision c. 34 THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 35 6: 1-6 for its change of viewpoint from that of the teacher to that of the anti-Jewish apologist. But apart from these and certain minor alterations 1 we have no occasion to ques- tion the derivation of the group as a whole from P. The mere fact that it delights in miracle is no evidence against its primitive character, as we may learn from the miracles related by an actual companion of Paul in the "Travel- document" of Acts, including as it does the report, by an eye-witness of the event, of a supposed raising from the dead. 2 b. The chief reason which might be urged for including also the group of Parables of the Kingdom in the P tradition is the negative one that their original adaptation was not that of the present setting. Nowhere can we point to more unmistakable traces of editorial intercalation than in 4: 11, 12, 3 where the Pauline theodicy of the "hardening of Israel" is applied in the interest of an anti- Jewish apologetic. The object of Jesus' preaching in parables, R declares, was to veil the mystery of the Kingdom from the "outsiders," while he revealed it to his circle of intimates. This reflects the general bearing of the Division as now arranged, but has no support in the parables themselves, nor even in the appended interpretation, 4 so soon as we remove the elements which have a basis in Q, i.e., vers. 10, 11, 21-25. 5 The inter- pretation itself is designed to follow the whole group of para- bles, 8 and while certainly redactional in character has none of R's interest of anti-Jewish apologetic, but merely applies the parable of the Sower to hearers of various sorts in the interest of edification. It is apparent, then, that the group of Parables of the Kingdom — or at least a group — was found by R already framed in some sort of editorial adaptation, and was turned by him to the account of his apologetic theory. It must also be recognized that the scene depicted in 4: 1 is one of the most dramatic and lifelike in the whole sphere of gospel tradition. But this hardly suffices to warrant a classifica- tion of the group of parables with the P tradition, at least at this point. The scene of 4: 1 might equally well have stood alone, or as an introduction to the Miracle of the Loaves, 7 and the story of P proceeded as in Mt. 8: 18-27. It is entirely supposable that the Petrine tradition gave no such account of the nature of Jesus' message as the Sermon on the Mount, which Matthew and Luke coincidently intro- 1 See notes. 2 Acts 20: 9-12. 3 See Criticism, Subdivision b. * 4: 10-20. & See Criticism. 8 Cf. vers. 10, 13. 7 8: 1-9. 36 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY duce at this point, and which affords in substance a descrip- tion of the "easy yoke" which Jesus offered to the "people of the land" in place of the grievous burden imposed by the scribes. The omission may seem strange. And yet even our canonical evangelist, who also omits it, has no idea of confining himself to a partial gospel. Just as Luke systemat- ically cancels mere comparison of Christian with Jewish ethics, reducing the Sermon on the Mount to its positive content, so R stands still nearer to the Johannine principle that the work of God is to believe on him whom he hath sent, and the one new commandment a sufficient rule of faith and practice. 1 To R Jesus' ethical teaching goes with- out saying. The reader is expected to assume that on the score of ordinary morality Jesus taught what the Church teaches. There is for him indeed a distinctively Christian requirement; but this, as we shall see, is reserved for special inculcation in Division IV, in connection with the revelation of the doctrine of the Cross. Meantime the main message, as R conceives it, is Jesus' own personality, and the escha- tology which it implies, as in I Thess. 1: 10 and Acts 17: 31. This constitutes "the mystery of the kingdom." If P con- tained more at this point of the story, R has left no trace of it. We must regard it then as distinctive of this type of gospel that it does not so much concern itself with the moral precepts as with the personality of Jesus. a. This subdivision, which culminates with the saying, "Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother and sister and mother," is manifestly so constructed as to subserve the general plan of the Division. The saying itself is found independently in Q lk2 , and it is conceivable that R may have derived it from the Lukan source. It is at all events very elaborately introduced by a descriptive setting, 3 which aims to make its real bearing as unmis- takable as possible. Jesus applied this saying to his dis- ciples and followers. He definitely cast in his lot with them, and not with his kindred after the flesh. The divine "mystery" was "for him and the children of his house- hold"; but these are a spiritual connection, not the fleshly. 4 This paragraph and 6: 1-6 are the only ones of Mark's Gospel which make mention of Jesus' kindred. In both they appear simply as examples of the unbelief of "his own." In both cases both the dependent Gospels cancel the traits unfavorable to Jesus' mother and brethren. It is possible that R's knowledge of the occasion of the say- » 12: 28-34. 2 Lk. 11: 27, 28. » Vers. 20, 21, 31-34. * Cf. Jn. 1: 11-13. THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 37 ing is derived from Petrine tradition at some unknown point of the story. The vivid description, and the unlikeli- hood of the invention of such an occasion favor this view. But it has at this point at all events no relation to the development of the narrative, but on the contrary a rela- tion to R's editorial adaptation exactly complementary to 6: 1-6. The alien derivation of the rest of Subdivision a is still more probable. Vers. 22-30 constitute a flagrant prolepsis, 1 certainly derived from the great Q complex on the Collision with the Scribes. 2 It is interjected here after the manner of R's expansions, to heighten still further the contrast of the "brotherhood" to the "outsiders." If Jesus' own kindred compelled him to disown them by their blind opposition, the synagogue leaders brought upon them- selves the denunciation due to unpardonable because will- ful sin. We have no evidence to prove that the list of the Twelve 3 is taken from Q, though the corresponding element of the Charge to the Twelve 4 is probably derived thence. Nega- tively, however, it can be said that a list which began with the name "Peter" 5 instead of "Simon," as he is called throughout the preceding story, and which leaves no room at all for "Levi the son of Alphseus," substituting "James the son of Alphseus" for the disciple mentioned in 2: 14, is not derived from the same original source. Vers. 7-12 are clearly editorial, 6 though the last clause of ver. 7 with what follows shows traces of having been appended to the briefer original statement of ver. lab. There is a suggestion here that the Petrine tradition also represented at this point a widening of the scene in the withdrawal of Jesus "and his disciples" to the sea. 1 Cf. 7: 1, and see Criticism. * Mt. 12: 22ff=Lk. 11: 14ff. » 3: 16-19. 4 6: 7-13. 6 See note on 3: 16. 8 See Criticism. 38 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY SEGREGATION OF THE BROTHERHOOD PARAPHRASE Subdivision a. 3: 7-35. Recognizing the hostility of the synagogue authorities, Jesus withdrew to the sea-shore, where great multitudes resorted to him from all quarters. He, however, withdrew still farther to the mountain region, per- mitting only a chosen few to follow, from whom he chose twelve disciples. To these he committed himself as his spirit- ual household, disowning even his mother and brethren when they sought forcibly to arrest his work, and denouncing un- sparingly the scribes who had declared him possessed by Beelzebul. SUBDIVISION A. 3: 7-35.— CRITICISM Before proceeding to his immediate subject R sketches in a brief preliminary survey 1 the situation covered in the two succeeding chapters. 2 He then relates the choice of the Twelve "that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have authority to cast out devils." 3 The culmination of the subdi- vision is the incident of vers. 20-35 in which Jesus constitutes the brotherhood of disciples his spiritual household in place of his kindred after the flesh. That no continuous historical tradition underlies this subdivision might be inferred from the geographical data alone. After the single item of the withdrawal to the sea in 3: 7 they are wholly unrelated to the course of events. No sooner is Jesus at the seaside in the presence of the eager multitude, in 3: 7ff, than he withdraws from them to the mountain region, only to be at the seaside teaching the multitude again in 4: Iff. No sooner has he retired to "the mountain," segregat- ing "those whom he himself would," in ver. 13, than immediately "he goeth home," in ver. 19, where he is once more besieged, in vers. 20, 21, 31-35, and again withdraws to the sea, in 4: 1. Here is, doubtless, historical tradition, perhaps in duplicate. But the use made of it is merely that of a framework for disconnected material. The editorial character of the preliminary survey (3: 7-12) is suffi- ciently apparent from the prolepsis of scenes depicted throughout the Division — preaching from the boat, homage from the demons, healing by touch of the garment. The list of the Twelve we have seen to be derived from some source independent of the P narrative. 4 R's hand is most apparent, hpwever, in the element interjected from Q in vers. 22-30, whose anachronistic relation to the context is shown by the prolepsis of "the scribes who came down from Jerusa- lem" 5 and the teaching in parables. 6 It is taken in abridged form from » 3: 7-12. 2 With 4: 1 cf. ver. 9; with 5: 7, 8 cf. vers. 11, 12; with 5: 27-29 cf. ver. 10. * Vers. 13-19. * See Structure, p. 37, and notes on 3: 13-19. ' First appearance in 7: 1,2. • With ver. 23 cf. 4: 10-13. THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 39 the Q complex of the Collision with the Scribes, 1 with the characteris- tic difference that whereas in Q blasphemy against "the Son of man" is made forgivable, the scribes' blasphemy being unforgivable just because directed not against Jesus, but against "the Spirit of God," 2 in Mark the veniality of blasphemy against the Son of man is cancelled by a turn of the phrase (in ver. 28) and that of the scribes made un- forgivable just because directed against Jesus personally (ver. 30). The former conception is characteristic of Jesus' insistent pointing to God as the source of all help. 3 The latter reflects the later conflicts of the Church with the Synagogue regarding the nature and source of Jesus' miraculous power. 4 The adaptation to R's advanced Chris- tology of the earlier doctrine of the Spirit, to which in Q the miracles are referred (in Luke with the distinctly biblical phrase, "the finger of God"), should alone suffice here to prove the dependence of Mark and Sriority of Q. On the relative priority here of "the Son of man" to [ark's "the sons of men" there is no room for reasonable doubt. i Mt. 12: 22-32= Lk. 11: 14-22; 12: 10. 2 Mt. 12: 28, 32= Lk. 11: 20; 12: 10. » 10: 18; 11: 22. * Cf. Mk. 5: 19 with Lk. 8: 39. 40 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 3*7-13 7 A ND Jesus with his disciples withdrew to jla. the sea: and a great multitude from 8 Galilee x [f olio wed:] and from Judasa, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumsea, and beyond Jordan, and about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, hearing what great things he did, came unto him. 9 And he spake to his disciples, that a little boat should wait on him because of the 10 crowd, lest they should throng him: for he had healed many; insomuch that as many as had 2 plagues 3 pressed upon him that they 11 might touch him. And the unclean spirits, whensoever they beheld him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the 12 Son of God. And he charged them much that they should not make him known. 13 And he goeth up into the mountain, and calleth unto him whom he himself would: and they went unto him. 1 (5 var. omit [ ]. 2 Gr. scourges. 3 Gr. fell. Vers. 7-12=Mt. 12:15, 16= L,k. 6:17-19 R(X) R(Q?) Mt. 4: 25=Lk. 6: 17 4: 1 5: 27-31 5: 6-8; 1:24, 34 Acts 16: 16-18 Vers. 13-19= Mt. 10: 1-4= L,k. 6:12-16 R(Q?) 3: 7-12. Preliminary Description. Jesus' withdrawal to the lake- shore seems to be an element of historic tradition (P?). In vers. lb, 8, R magnifies the simple "multitude" of ver. la (note the repeti- tion 7a = 7b, 8, avoided by (3 var.) and extends the spread of Jesus' fame to the limits of Syria with special emphasis on the miracles. Matthew and Luke both employ this larger multitude as a setting for the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 4: 25 = Lk. 6: 17; cf. Mt. 12: 15). If this is not mere coincidence, we must suppose 76, 8 to have stood in Q as the setting for the Sermon. Our evangelist, after his man- ner, employs it to supplement the underlying (P) representation of Jesus' teaching on the lake-side (2: 13). Withdrew to the Sea. In the connection a retirement from the hostility evinced in 3: 6. Whether some similar manifestation was related in the Petrine source cannot be determined. Ver. 9. Based on 4: 1. Ver. 10. Based on 5: 27-31. The expression plagues (see var. rend.) is peculiar to these passages. Vers. 11, 12. Based on 5: 6-S (see on 1: 23-28). Should not make him known. The evangelist does not take into account the futility of the charge after the secret is out (ver. 11). It belongs with his general understanding of the Pauline doctrine of the "hardening of Israel" (Rom. 9 — 11), that in his person and teaching also (4: 11) Jesus purposely withheld his message from the "outsiders." This theory enables him to explain the late appearance of the evangelic claims regarding Jesus' Lordship. Vers. 13-19. Choosing the Twelve. Mark distinguishes "the Twelve" (so I Cor. 15: 5, and Q(?), Mt. 19: 28 = Lk. 22: 30) from "the disciples" (vers. 7, 9). The latter with the multitude which followed Jesus to 3: 14-17 THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 41 14 And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them 15 forth to preach, and to have authority to 16 cast out devils: *and Simon he surnamed 17 Peter; and James the (son) of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and them he surnamed Boanerges, which is, Sons of 1 Var. insert and he appointed twelve. Acts 1: 13 the lake-shore form an undifferentiated mass, from which Jesus now calls forth "those whom he himself would." With these he retires again from the populous plain by the lake to the sparsely settled table- land above. The object, as stated in ver. 14, is their training as evan- gelists and healers, a process described in 4: 1 — 6: 6. There is some variation in the lists of the apostles indicating that the number may be a very early adaptation (Acts 1: 21, 26). Ver. 13. The mountain == the upper plateau of Galilee, not a special peak. In ver. 18 Jesus is already back "in the house," and in 4: 1 again "by the seaside" surrounded by the multitude from which he had withdrawn. These changes of scene in Mark are not historic, but are described as required by the material. If a saying is addressed to the multitude, or an incident calls for their presence, the multitude are brought in regardless of circumstances (e.g., 4: 10, 26ff.; 7: 14; 8: 34; 9: 14). Changes of scene are effected with equal suddenness (6: 31, 53; 7: 24, 31; 8: 10, 22, 27). In the present instance nothing occurs on "the mountain" which can explain why it is mentioned. In Q it is the scene of the Sermon, which is addressed to "his disciples." Matthew and Luke have difficulty only in finding standing room for "the multitudes." In Matthew they apparently follow Jesus to the sum- mit (Mt. 7: 28). In Luke they wait below for his return (Lk. 6: 17-19). Ver. 15. The duplicate clause, And he appointed the twelve (cf. ver. 14), should be included in the text (see var.). Only western (/?) authorities cancel it to improve the rhetoric. In reality the roughness marks a seam. The list quoted ran: "And he appointed the Twelve: Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew," etc. These names are in the accusative as objects of the verb "appointed." By introducing his account of the surnames in the words, "and Simon he surnamed," "and them he surnamed," etc., R makes havoc of the construction. Vers. 16, 17. Peter . . . and James . . . and John. A group of great significance for the early Church, so that Andrew now retires undis- tinguished to the fourth place. In Gal. 2: 9 "James and Cephas (Peter) and John" are "those who were accounted pillars" of the Church; but this is a different James. The placing of Peter at the head is in accordance with all our knowledge of him as first confessor (Mk. 8: 29), first to found the Church on the resurrection faith (Lk. 22: 32; I Cor. 15: 5), honored with the staff of chief under-shepherd and the crown of martyrdom (Jn. 21: 15-19); but Synoptic tradition knows nothing to the credit of James and John save that Jesus predicted their sharing his cup of martyrdom (10: 39; cf. 9: 38-40; 10: 35-37; Lk. 9: 54-56). Acts 12: 1 records the fulfillment of this in the case of James, and a statement of Papias reported by two excerptors declares its fulfillment in the case of John also (see on 10: 35-45). The three occasions in which Mark introduces "Peter and James and John" alone (Jairus' Daughter, the Transfiguration, Gethsemane) suggest in view of 10: 42 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 3: 18-21 18 thunder: and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the (son) of Alphaeus, and Thad- 19 dseus, and Simon the ^anansean, and Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him. 20 And he cometh 2 into a house. And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. 21 And when 3 his friends heard it, they went i Or, Zealot. See Lk. 6: 15; Acts 1: 13. 2 Or, home. 3 p var. the scribes and the rest. 28-31, 35-45 that their pre-eminence rests for him on the fact that they had indeed "followed" Jesus in martyrdom. If the true sig- nificance of the title, Sons of thunder, Mark's rendering of the obscure Aramaic Boanerges, could be discovered, it might elucidate this ques- tion. It is doubtless connected with the tradition of Luke 9 : 54-56. ' Ver. 18. Matthew. If identified with "Levi son of Alphaeus" of 2: 14, as in Mt. 9: 10, the unexplained difference of name will strongly confirm the derivation of this list from a different source. Cf. "Mat- thias," Acts 1: 26. Alphaeus. In 3: 14 the father of Levi. Hence the /? text substitutes "James" at that point. For the patronymic "son of Alphaeus" we have in 15: 40 "the little." James' mother "Mary" is called in the parallel (Jn. 19: 25) "the wife of Clopas." But it is more than doubtful if Alphaeus and Clopas are the same name. Thaddaeus. In the Lukan lists (Lk. 6: 16; Acts 1: 13) we have instead "Judas (son? brother?) of James," who appears in the Fourth Gospel as "Judas, not Iscariot." The /? text of both Matthew and Mark gives "Lebbaeus." Ver. 19. The Cananaean. In Lk. 6: 15 properly translated "Zealot," i.e., an adherent of the nationalist party. The Zealots urged resort to the sword to throw off the foreign yoke. If R knew the meaning of the Aramaic word he has this time overlooked a very needful explana- tion for his Roman readers. Iscariot. In Jn. 6: 71 the epithet is a patronymic ="man of Kerioth," a town of Moab (Jer. 48: 24, 41). Vers. 20-30. Spiritual Kin. Blasphemy of the Scribes. Two inci- dents are here interwoven as in 5: 21-43 and 6: 14-29. The second (vers. 22-30) has no connection with the first save to illustrate the relative veniality of the opposition of Jesus' mother and brethren. These said in their blindness, "He is beside himself." The scribes who came down from Jerusalem willfully blasphemed him and became thus "guilty of an eternal sin, because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." On the relation of this interjected element to Q see above, Criticism, p. 38. The saying of ver. 35 is given in a wholly independent version in Lk. 11: 27, 28. The elaborate description of the situation wherewith Mark introduces it (vers. 20, 21, 31-34) is intended to exclude all possibility of doubt as to who are the real kindred of the Messiah (cf. 7: 5). In adopting his account Matthew and Luke are careful to remove the sting of a reflection on the family of Jesus by cancelling vers. 20, 21, leaving us thus no explanation of Jesus' refusal to go. Cf. their cancellation of "his own kin" in 6: 4. Ver. 21. His friends (Gr., "those who belonged to him"). The ref- 1 See Bacon, art., "The Marty Apostles" in Expositor, vii. 21 (Sept., 1907), where "sons of thunder" is connected with anticipations of the second coming. John the Baptist, whose second advent is expected to herald the second coming of Christ by Justin Martyr, receives this title in Pseudo-Methodiua. 3:22-26 THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 43 out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is 22 beside himself . And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and, *By the prince of the devils casteth he out the devils. 23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan 24 cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom can- 25 not stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house will not be able 26 to stand. And if Satan hath risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot i Or, In. Vers. 22-30= Mt. 9:32-34 R(Q) (Mt. 12: 22-32= Lk. 11: 14-22; 12: 10) erence is certainly to Jesus' "mother and brethren" (cf. vers. 31-35). It is avoided in the /? text (see var.) for the same reason that Matthew and Luke omit. The fact that the only other reference in this Pauline Roman Gospel to the kindred of Jesus, so eminent in the Jerusalem church, is in 6: 1-4, where the condemnatory saying (6: 4) explicitly includes them, must be judged in connection with its severe and per- sistent rebukes of "Peter," "John," "James and John," and "the disciples," for worldly misconception (8: 33; 9:6), intolerance (9: 38-41; 10:13-16), self-seeking ambition (10:28-31, 35-45) and foolish self-confidence (14: 29-31, 37-40, 66-72), unrelieved by the commendations so heartily bestowed on Peter in the other Gospels (Mt. 16: 17-19; Lk. 22: 32 [cf. Mk. 14: 28]; Jn. 6: 68-71; 21: 15-19). R's exceptionally harsh treatment of Judaism (7: 1-7) is a parallel phenomenon. Went out to lay hold on him. Jesus' relatives come down from Nazareth to put a stop to a career which seems to them insane (cf. Jn. 7:5). Matthew and Luke are debarred by their opening chapters from admitting this account. Ver. 22. The scribes which came down from Jerusalem (cf. 7: 1, 2). He hath Beelzebub (true reading, Beelzebul). An adaptation of Q, "by Beelzebul," etc. (cf. ver. 30). The name of "the prince of the demons" is Beelzebub in all the Greek mss. ; and this is certainly correct as against Beelzebub (Sinaitic Syriac), which rests on II Kings 1: 6 (Greek version of Symmachus), for the meaning of Baalzebul, i.e., "Lord of the (heavenly) dwelling," is played upon in Mt. 10: 25. It is an opprobrious rendering of the Greek Zeus Ouranios, whose point lies in the alternative meaning of zebul, viz, "dung." Mark has reserved for later development the specific exorcisms which gave rise to the sneer; see on 7: 32-37; "8: 22-26; and cf. Mt. 12:22, 23= Lk. 11:14. His cures are now attributed (covertly Mt. 12:25 = Lk. 11:17) to possession (cf. Mt. 11: 18; Jn. 7: 20). Vers. 23-26. Called them. Jesus takes the aggressive with a di- lemma. Vers. 23-26 assume the truth of the accusation. In that case the message, "The kingdom of God is at hand," is confirmed; the anarchy in Satan's dominion is the sure prelude of its fall. Ver. 27 declares its falsity with the inference that the Stronger than Satan has appeared. In Q this Stronger One is "the Spirit of God" (Mt. 12: 27, 28 = Lk. 11: 19, 20). Mark cancels these significant verses, leaving 44 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 3* 27-35 27 stand, but hath an end. 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 28 his house. Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever 29 they shall blaspheme: but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal 30 sin: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. 31 And there come his mother and his brethren; and, standing without, 32 they sent unto him, calling him. And a multitude was sitting about him; and they say unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy 33 brethren without seek for thee. And he answereth them, and saith, Who is my 34 mother and my brethren? And looking round on them which sat round about him, he saith, Behold, my mother and my 35 brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Vers. 31-35= Mt. 12:4&-50 =Lk. 8:19-31 R (Q™) (Lk. 11:27,28) it to appear that Jesus refers to his own prowess. Lk. 11: 21 seems also to follow this sense, modifying the language. This is still more the case in Eph. 4: 8-10; 5: 7-14; 6: 10-17; Col. 2: 15; I Pt. 3: 19; Rev. 20: 1-3, which are developed in the patristic doctrine of the "harrow- ing of hell." In this the ancient mythological conflict of the light-hero with the monsters of darkness, already reflected in Is. 26: 17-19; 27: 1; 28: 9-18, is recast to set forth the victory of Christ over Death and Hell. Vers. 28, 29. For the changes from Q see Criticism, p. 39. The earliest fathers have a special horror of opposing what is done "in the Spirit" (Clem. Rom., ad Cor., lix, Ixiii; Didachc, xi. 7). The sin of the leaders of the Synagogue as conceived by Mark is the persistent, willful, and extreme form of this type of blasphemy. The original sense appears better in Lk. 11: 34, 35; Jn. 9: 39-41. Vers. 31-35. On the carefully elaborated setting of the saying see above, p. 36. It applies to Jesus' obedient followers generally, though introduced apropos of the choosing of the Twelve. The saying itself (ver. 35) strongly reflects the Jewish conception of "sonship." The "son" of God is he who knows and does the Lord's will (Rom. 2: 17-20; cf. Lk. 12: 47, 48). This is the place of Israel and the revealed Law. In this supremely great saying Jesus becomes the champion and "elder brother" of those whose sonship rests on no other law than to "be imi- tators of God as beloved children and walk in love" (Eph. 5: 1; cf. Q, Mt. 5: 45 = Lk. 6: 35). THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 45 JESUS DELIVERS THE MYSTERY OF THE KINGDOM IN PARABLES PARAPHRASE Subdivision b. 4: 1-34. Once more at the lake-side, sur- rounded by the multitude, Jesus began to teach from the boat. But his teaching was veiled in enigmas, so that only such as came and questioned him could understand. By this means he purposely withheld the truth from the careless and unde- serving, while conveying it to the remnant who would turn it to account. Vers. 3-9. By the example of a sower, much of whose seed goes to waste on unproductive soil, but who reaps a har- vest from the good land, Jesus set forth the conditions under which the gospel is preached. Vers. 10-20. Afterward, when he was alone with the Twelve, they asked him concerning the parables, and he explained both why he used this mode of teaching, and the meaning of the comparison. The veiled form of utterance was chosen in obedience to the prophecy which predicted such a mode of teaching to Israel, because of their obduracy to the truth. The significance of the parable of the Sower was to exemplify the various forms of this obduracy in contrast with the remnant who hear and believe. Vers. 21-25. In a group of sayings he further sets before the disciples this principle of hiding the truth now, for its more perfect ultimate manifestation. Vers. 26-29. In his public teaching Jesus also used the comparison of grain, which slowly and imperceptibly matures, but when fully ripe is reaped and garnered in briefest time. Vers. 30-34. So also the greatness of the Kingdom, as compared with its small beginnings in the world, is compared to the greatness of the mustard-plant which springs from the insignificant nucleus of the seed. SUBDIVISION B. 4: 1-34.— CRITICISM One of the most striking departures of Mark from the type of gospel reflected in Matthew and Luke, through their common use of Q, is the substitution for the Sermon on the Mount of the Preaching in Parables, which our evangelist interprets to have been a method of talking in riddles, so as to convey the hidden sense only to initiates. 1 Until 1 4: 11, 12, 34. 46 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY Jesus has segregated from "those that are without" a group of followers, of whom the Twelve form merely the inner circle (that is to say, an anticipatory model of the Church as the evangelist conceives it), no description of the content of his teaching is given. Even now there is no exposition as in the Sermon on the Mount of that "will of God" by doing which one becomes a "son," a brother, sister, or mother of Jesus. 1 The parables merely support the eschatological message that the kingdom is at hand. It is characteristic of Mark's Gospel that the conditions of tension between the chaberim, or adherents of the Synagogue, and the spirit- ually disinherited "people of the land," to whom Jesus gave both the assurance of forgiveness, and "a right to be called the children of God" by fulfilling the inward law, 2 is lost out of sight, eclipsed as in the Fourth Gospel by the desire to secure belief in Jesus as the Christ. Thus in Mark the attention of the whole people is aroused, not by the nature of Jesus' message, but by his startling assumptions of super- human "authority," which are borne out by exhibitions of miraculous power. Having by this means separated a receptive following worthy to be called his kindred according to the spirit, 3 Jesus delivers to them "the mystery of the kingdom," adopting an allegorical mode of speech for the express purpose of concealing it from the "outsiders." The scripture quoted in support of this anti-Jewish theory is Isaiah's complaint that he is sent to prophesy to a people so obdurate that one must attribute it to a divine predestination to "hardening." This theory, including the passage quoted, 4 had been set forth at length by Paul in Rom. 9 — ll. 5 The passage itself soon becomes the Church's locus classicus against the objection: Why is he whom you represent to have been the Messiah of the Jews rejected by the Jews themselves? 8 The Pauline phraseology of Mark 7 and his consistent representation of Jesus' attitude toward "the Jews" 8 make the reasons plain for his departure from the more historical representation of Q. i 3: 35. 2 Mt. 5: 43-48=Lk. 6: 27-36. 3 3: 31-35. * Is. 6: 9, 10; 29: 10. 6 Cf. Rom. 11: 7-10 with Mk. 4: 11, 12; 6: 52; 7: 18; 8: 17, 18. c Acts 28: 25-28; Jn. 12: 39, 40. 7 See note on 4: 11, 12. 8 7: 3, 6, 7. 4:1-6 THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 47 4 A ND again he began to teach by the sea A side. And there is gathered unto him a very great multitude, so that he entered into a boat, and sat v m the sea; and all the multitude were *by the sea 2 [ on the 2 land]. And he taught them many things in parables, and said unto them in 3 his teaching, Hearken: Behold, the sower 4 went forth to sow: and it came to pass, as he sowed, some (seed) fell by the way side, 5 and the birds came and devoured it. And other fell on the rocky (ground), where it had not much earth; and straightway it sprang up, because it had no deepness of 6 earth: and when the sun was risen, it was /S var. beyond. 2 p van omit [ ]. Vers. l-9=Mt. 13: l-9=Lk. 5:1-3; 8:4-1 (P?) (Q?) 4: 1-9. The Parable of the Sower. We have no reason to suppose that the parables as such formed a group by themselves in Q. Yet the three adduced by Mark in illustration of his theory of Jesus' teach- ing (ver. 33) have as their common feature the growth of the kingdom of God, and as one of the three is certainly from Q (see note on vers. 30-32) it is reasonable to attribute its companions to the same source. But if so there are indications that Mark has reversed their order, putting first that which alone required (and therefore was accom- Eanied by) an explanation. The change of order was doubtless effected ecause to R's mind the parable of the Sower illustrated the contrast between responsive hearers (the disciples) and unresponsive (the Jews; see note on vers. 4-7), who, "having ears to hear," would not hear. But the reference in ver. 10 to "the parables," and in ver. 13 to "all the parables," implies that not only vers. 3-9, but the whole series, had already been uttered. Indeed, the continuation of the preaching to the multitude, in vers. 26-34, after ver. 10 ("when he was alone") had carried us beyond the point of their dispersion, is almost enough to prove this point. If, contrariwise, we put first the Mustard Seed (vers. 30-32), with its introductory appeal, "How shall we liken the kingdom of God?" all obscurity vanishes. This parable answers the objection: So great an event should be heralded by great prodigies. The next, the Patient Husbandman (vers. 26-29) contrasts the present as a time of hopeful, patient service with the far different activity of the future (see note). Finally, the Sower, vers. 2-9, originally last of the group (note the concluding formula, ver. 9), answers the objection: But in this sowing much effort is wasted. What use in teaching this "people of the land"? Ver. 1 has the graphic character we have found in the "Petrine" traditions; but we have no assurance that it served originally as a setting for the Teaching in Parables. In Lk. 5: 1-3 it introduces a different scene; while the Sower, in Lk. 8: 4-8, has also a wholly diverse con- nection. Vers. 4-7. The earliest Church fathers applied this description of the ungrateful soil to the Jews, adducing Jer. 4: 3, "Sow not upon thorns, break up the fallow ground" (the Gentiles). Mark has a similar 48 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 4: 7-12 scorched; and because it had no root, it 7 withered away. And other fell among the thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked 8 it, and it yielded no fruit. And others fell into the good ground, and yielded fruit, growing up and increasing; and brought forth, thirtyfold, and sixtyfold, and a hun- 9 dredfold. And he said, Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the 11 parables. And he said unto them, Unto you is given the mystery of the king- dom of God: but unto them that are without, 12 all things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hear- ing they may hear, and not understand; lest haply they should turn again, and it Vers. 10-30= Mt. 13: 10-23 =L,k. 8:9-15 R(Q) (Mt. 11: 25-27= Lk. 10: 21, 22) Is. 6: 9 conception. Intrinsically the parable is an encouragement to hopeful effort in spite of meager results in many cases. As a companion to that of the Patient Husbandman (see on 26-29) it is specially sig- nificant. Ver. 8. Thirty, sixty, a hundred. The allegorizing interpretation of the early Church is well illustrated in the use made by "the Elders" of Papias (ca. 120 a.d.) of this feature. Commenting on Mt. 13: 23; 20: 28 (3 and the saying Jn. 14: 2, they inferred that there are three ''mansions" in heaven and three grades at the Lord's banqueting table corresponding to these three degrees of merit. The allegorizing tendency is unfortunately still prevalent. Ver. 9. A "winged word" frequently interjected. Ver. 10. The sense is carried on in ver. 13. "All the parables" have preceded. The multitude have dispersed. The disciples ask an inter- pretation of them; not why Jesus speaks in parables. The interjected vers. 11, 12 and 21-25 answer the latter question. We must therefore regard vers. 10, 13-20 as already attached to the series of parables (ver. 13, "all the parables") when R altered the bearing of the question by inserting vers. 11, 12 and adding 21-25. The interpretation already tends to allegory, but represents an earlier stage of editorial develop- ment quite free as yet from the anti-Jewish dogmatism of R. Vers. 11, 12. Adapted from Q (Mt. 11: 25 r 27 = Lk. 10: 21, 22). The real identity of the saying in spite of the divergence of form is shown by the transitional form it assumes in an early apocryphal gospel quoted by Clement (ca. 220 a.d.): "My mystery is for me and the sons of my household." 1 The "revelation to babes" for which Jesus thanks God, though it is hid from the wise and understanding, is made by Mark in this Pauline form (on the hidden mystery of the kingdom cf. I Cor. 1: 18 — 3: 1, especially 2: 7) the basis of his entire representa- tion. Hystery. A Pauline word derived from the Greek chthonic 1 Clem. Alex., Stromata V, x. 69. It is given also in similar form in the Clem- entine Homilies, xix. 20. 4: 13-20 THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 49 13 should be forgiven them. And he saith unto them, Know ye not this par- able? and how shall ye know all the 14 parables? The sower soweth the word. 15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; and when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away the word which hath been sown 16 in them. And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky (places) , who, when they have heard the word, 17 straightway receive it with joy; and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or per- secution ariseth because of the word, 18 straightway they stumble. And others are they that are sown among the thorns; these are they that have heard the word, 19 and the cares of the *world, and the de- ceitfulness of riches, 2 [and the lusts of other things] entering in, choke the word, and it 20 becometh unfruitful. And those are they that were sown upon the good ground; such as hear the word, and accept it, and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold, and a hundredfold. 1 Or, age. 2 13 var. omit [ ]. religions (see Bible Diet., s.v.). The root idea is not of intrinsic ob- scurity, but of that which can only be known by divine communica- tion, hence "revelation." Those outside (cf. 3: 31-35). Those who "have ears to hear" are Jesus' kindred after the spirit. His kindred after the flesh hear his preaching only outwardly and to their own con- demnation. Vers. 13-20. An explanation of the parable purely hortatory in type, quite unrelated to the polemic application of 3: 31-35 and vers. 11, 12. But even here the hearers in mind are those of the Christian Church (see note on ver. 17), not of the Galilean multitude. In the parable only worthless soils in general are in mind. Its moral is: The farmer is not discouraged because part of his seed goes to waste. The ex- planation allegorizes, fixing attention on the various sorts of plants which produce or fail to produce. Its moral is : Do you, hearers of the word, take heed not to let it remain unfruitful. Soweth the word. Already a stereotyped phrase, as in 2:2; cf. Gal. 6:6; Phil. 1:14; IThess. 1: 6; II Tim. 4:2. Ver. 17. Tribulation or persecution (cf. IThess. 2: 14; Gal. 6: 12). The conditions of later times are artlessly imported. They stumble. Already a technical term for backsliding as well as unbelief (cf. Rom. 9:32, 33; 11:9; I Cor. 1:23). 50 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 4:21-27 21 And he said unto them, Is the lamp brought to be put under the bushel, or under the bed, (and) not to be put 22 on the stand? For there is nothing hid, save that it should be manifested; neither was (anything) made secret, but 23 that it should come to light. If any man hath ears to hear, let him hear. 24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear : with what meas- ure ye mete it shall be measured unto you: and more shall be given unto 25 you. For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath. 26 And he said, So is the king- dom of God, as if a man should cast seed 27 upon the earth; and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should spring Vers. 31-25= Mt. 13: 12= L,k. 8:16-18 R (Q) (Mt. 5: 15= Lk. 11:33) (Mt. 10: 26=Lk. 12: 2) (Mt. 11: 15; Lk. 14: 35) (Mt. 7: 2=Lk. 6: 38) (Mt. 25: 29=Lk. 19: 26) Vers. 26-29= Mt. 13:24-30; cf. Mt. 13: 36- 43 (Q?) Vers. 21-25. This loosely agglutinated string of sayings, omitted by Matthew (except ver. 25), is typical of the work of R (cf. 9: 33-50; 13: 3-37). Vers. 24, 25 supplement the hortatory application, vers. 13-20. Vers. 21-23 add two sayings supposed to justify or explain the hard saying about the hiding of the mystery of the kingdom, vers. 11, 12 (note the repetition of ver. 9 in ver. 23). The connections of Q (where Matthew and Luke have coincident settings) are usually better. R appears to cite from memory. Ver. 21. Uttered against the scribes in Lk. 11:33; cf. Mt. 5:15. The sense seems to have been, Superior enlightenment should be a spur to service, not a jealously guarded patent of exclusive privilege. R seems to apply it to the former and latter coming of Christ, "the Lamp" (Rev. 21: 23), now in obscurity, hereafter on the "throne of glory." Ver. 22. It is not hid. In Mt. 10: 26 applied to Jesus' doctrine; in Lk. 12: 2 to the hidden misdeeds of the Pharisees. Here to "the mys- tery of the kingdom." The original application is indeterminable. Ver. 246. In Q (Mt. 7: 2 = Lk. 6:38) a warning against censorious judgment. The first and last clauses of the verse adapt it to R's appli- cation, exhibited in ver. 25. Ver. 25. In Q (Mt. 25: 29 = Lk. 19: 26) a warning not to neglect "the gift that is in thee." Here applied to Jews vs. Christians in the sense of Mt. 21:43. Vers. 26-29. The Parable of the Patient Husbandman. With the simple formula And he said R returns to the parables of the kingdom and the situation of vers. 1, 2 (cf. ver. 35). The multitude, who during the digression (vers. 10-25) are lost from view, are now again the audience, since the subject is "the kingdom of God." But the relation of this parable to Mt. 13: 24-30 (the Tares) is obscure. It is indeed apparent from the addition of a special interpretation (Mt. 13: 36-43) making explicit application of the parable to the antinomian heretics (Mt. 13: 41) that Matthew is introducing features in line with his own 4:28-33 THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 51 28 up and grow, he knoweth not how. The earth x beareth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in 29 the ear. But when the fruit 2 is ripe, straightway he 3 putteth forth the sickle, because the harvest is come. 30 And he said, How shall we liken the kingdom of God? or in what parable shall 31 we set it forth? 4 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown upon the earth, though it be less than all the 32 seeds that are upon the earth, yet when it is sown, groweth up, and becometh greater than all the herbs, and putteth out great branches; so that the birds of the heaven can lodge under the shadow thereof. 33 And with many such para- bles spake he the word unto them, as they 1 Or, yieldeth. * Gr. As unto. 2 Or, allowetk. 3 Or, sendeth forth. Joel (3) 4: 13 (Gr.) Vers. 30-32=Mt. 13: 31, 32=Lk. 13: 18, 19 (Q) Dan. 4: 10-12 Vers. 33, 34= Mt. 13:34, 35 R special interest (cf. Mt. 7: 20-23; 24: 12). In particular Mt. 13: 27,28a seems to be an editorial development in this line. But conversely Mark also shows signs of a lack. As it stands the parable adds so little to its companions, the Sower and the Mustard Seed, that Luke cancels it as superfluous. But the twin parable (Mt. 13: 47-50) furnishes the complete solution. The description of the monotonous routine of the husbandman's life (ver. 27) is not a superfluous trait, but a remnant indicative of the original application. The parable answers the objec- tion of the murmurers of II Pt. 3: 4. The cry is: Let God intervene and avenge his elect, let the wicked (Matthew, the heretics) be cast out (Lk. 18: 7; Rev. 6: 10; 14: 15). The answer is precisely paralleled in Jas. 5: 7: God is a wise husbandman. He does not thrust in the sickle till the period of growth is fully completed (cf. 13: 28, 29). But something corresponding to the appearance (not the sowing) of the tares in the wheat seems to be lacking before ver. 28, perhaps eliminated on account of R's attitude (see on 9: 40). Vers. 30-32. The Mustard Seed. This simplest of the three parables of the kingdom answers the objection to the proclamation of the king- dom which arises from its inconspicuousness. God chooses the weak things of the world to confound the mighty (I Cor. 1: 27). Mark elaborated allegorically in vers. 31, 32 on the basis of Is. 17: 22, 23 (Greek version); Dan. 4: 21. The simpler form of Q is unmistakably traceable through the coincidence of Matthew with Luke. In Q it was a companion to that of the Leaven, both referring to the End of the world (Mt. 13: 31-33 = Lk. 13: 18-21). Ver. 31. Less than all the seeds. An exaggeration suggested by the application to the Church (cf. Dt. 26: 5). Vers. 33, 34. Conclusion. Knowledge of other parables is implied in ver. 33, but the evangelist's purpose is not to impart Jesus' teaching, 52 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 4:34 34 were able to hear it : and without a parable spake he not unto them: but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things. but to depict his career. There seems to be more or less conflict be- tween ver. 33 and ver. 34. The latter occupies strictly the standpoint of R. Jesus reserves plain utterances for "his own disciples" for the reason given in ver. 12. Ver. 33. As they were able seems to imply that the failure to learn was in no degree owing to any restraint on Jesus' part, but wholly to the dullness of the hearers. If this distinction be really present there is the same double redaction as in vers. 10-25. THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 53 JESUS' MANIFESTATIONS OF DIVINE POWER ARE FRUITLESS AGAINST ISRAEL'S UNBELIEF PARAPHRASE Subdivision c. 4: 35 — 7: 13. Jesus' power to control the forces of evil was made apparent in a whole series of wonders, from quelling storms to raising the dead. Yet among his own kindred and people he met only an unbelief such as obtains no great manifestation from God. This, however, did not prevent his teaching everywhere, and sending forth the Twelve with the message of repentance. 4: 35-41. When he was returning with the Twelve by boat from the place where he had taught in parables, and lay asleep, a storm roused by demonic power filled the disciples with fear and threatened to sink the boat. But Jesus being awakened quelled the tumult of wind and wave by a command of Silence to the powers of evil. 5: 1-20. Arrived on the Decapolis shore, as he came from the boat one rushed to meet him out of the tombs, naked and frenzied, and fell at his feet in humble obeisance, ac- knowledging him by name as "the Son of the Most High God." When Jesus asked, What is thy name ? there came a cry, We are legion {for the man was indeed under control of a vast multitude of unclean spirits), and an entreaty to Jesus that he would not torment them, because he had bidden them go forth out of the man. They, therefore, besought not to be sent out of the country, but to be permitted rather to possess a great herd of swine, which was feeding near by. Permission given, the demons left the man and entered the bodies of the swine, but did not escape the fate they dreaded; for the herd of swine obsessed by the demons rushed into the sea and was drowned. The report of this occurrence by the keepers of the swine and the story of the restored victim of the demons became the means of a spread of Jesus' fame through all De- capolis. Vers. 21-43. Returning to Capernaum Jesus showed his miraculous power in two further healings. A ruler of the synagogue applied for his aid in behalf of his little daughter lying at the point of death. On the way to the ruler's house a woman in the crowd which thronged him sought healing of her malady by laying hold of Jesus' garment. But he per- ceived that healing power had passed out from his person, 54 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY and turning drew from the woman a confession of the healing she had experienced. Meantime messengers reported from the ruler's house his daughter's death. But Jesus would not suffer dissuasion. Entering with three disciples and the parents where the young child lay, he took her by the hand and restored her to life, but forbade the making known of the miracle. 6: 1-6. As he thus came to his native town the fame of his teaching and mighty works preceded him. But here he found occasion to quote the proverb, "A prophet is not without honor save in his own country and among his own kin." Only a few healings could be wrought. For lack of faith among the people themselves Jesus could do no great wonder. He him- self marveled at their unbelief. 6: 7-13. Having thus prepared the Twelve for both preach- ing and healing in the power of faith, Jesus sent them out two and two, charging them how they should conduct themselves as worthy heralds of the kingdom. They therefore fulfilled their mission, preaching repentance, exorcising demons, and healing the sick. SUBDIVISION C 4: 35—6: 6, 7-13.— CRITICISM The group of incidents which follow upon the Teaching in Parables have the same relation to it in R's intention as the series of ten "mighty- works" which in Mt. 8, 9 follow upon the Sermon on the Mount. Just as in Mt. 11, 12, these are followed by a series of illustrations how the Jews were only "stumbled" and hardened in opposition, although accorded teachings and signs which had they been given to "the Ninevites," "Tyre and Sidon," or even "in Sodom," "they would have remained until this day," so in Mk. 6: 1-6 the series of wonders cul- minates with Jesus' rejection by his own city and kindred while he "marveled at their unbelief." This application made by R of the incidents of 4: 35 — 5: 56 is not, however, that for which the group would seem to have been originally constructed. We must set one side the story of the Gerasene De- moniac, 1 wherein the proclamation of Jesus as "the Lord" 2 in De- capolis is purposely contrasted with the silence imposed in "his own country," and whose relation to R's special theory of demonic recog- nition has already been explained. 3 But with this exception all the incidents of 4: 35 — 5: 56 center upon some inculcation of the wonder- working power of faith, and thus form the most suitable possible pre- amble (after the parables of the kingdom) to the sending out of the Twelve "to preach and to have authority to cast out devils." If we may anticipate later demonstration 4 by the conjecture that the original position of the Healing of the Epileptic, 5 now certainly misplaced, was that where R has inserted the Rejection in Nazareth, 8 this motive » 5: 1-20. 2 See note on 5: 19. 3 See on 1: 24. * See on 9: 14-29. 5 9: 14-29. 8 6:l-6. THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 55 will be doubly apparent; for the whole point of the story of the Epileptic is the increasing of the disciples' faith till they no longer find anything too hard for them. 1 Once we permit ourselves to be guided by this clew of the lesson of faith we cannot help noticing the affinity of the narratives now in question with those at the beginning of the P narrative, 2 not merely in respect to the faith-motive, but as respects the graphic and geographic detail. Simon's fishing-boat, the lake-shore, and Capernaum furnish as before the simple staging. The crowd in the street and at the house of the ruler of the synagogue is depicted in the same lifelike manner as in the scene of the paralytic let down from the roof into the crowd around Simon's door. Jesus lies asleep on the helmsman's cushion in the boat, wearied out, as we hear of his sleepless night after the sabbath in Capernaum. Traces of the embellishing hand of R are doubtless distinctly apparent, especially in 4: 39 and 5: 30, and we may reason- ably attribute the story of the Legion of devils and the Swine to some floating tradition elaborated by R on the model of the exorcism in Philippi 3 ; but it would be unreasonable not to admit the close connec- tion of the remainder of 4: 35 — 5: 56 with the "Petrine" tradition traceable in 1: 14; 2: 12. > See Mt. 17: 19, 20= Lk. 17: 5, 6. 2 1: 14—2: 12. 3 Acts 16: 16-18. 56 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 4:35-39 35 A ND on that day, when even was come, I*, he saith unto them, Let us go over 36 unto the other side. And leaving the multitude, they take him with them, even as he was, in the boat. And other boats 37 were with him. And there ariseth a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the boat, ^insomuch that the boat was 38 now filling.fj And he himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion: and they awake him, and say unto him, 2 Master, 39 carest thou not that we perish? And he 1 Var. omit []. 2 Or, Teacher. Vers.35-ll=Mt. 8: 18-27=Lk. 8:22-25 R(P) Cf. 6: 45-49 R (cf. 1: 25) 4: 35-41. Quelling the Storm. In the evangelist's intention (ver. 41) this is a demonstration of Jesus' superhuman nature (cf. 2: 56-10). The tempest is conceived as the work of a malignant spirit, doubtless "the Prince of the power of the air" (Eph. 2:2). Hence the "rebuke" in the same terms as to the "unclean spirits" (ver. 39. Gr., "silence; be muzzled"; cf. 1: 25). Alongside of this rebuke, however, and un- connected with it, stands another (Matthew inverts the order of the two), wherein almost the reverse conception is implied. The disciples' frightened appeal to Jesus is an evidence that they "have not yet faith." They should have trusted God. The two points of view are mutually exclusive, and it is not difficult to determine which is the earlier. R transforms a lesson from Jesus of faith in God justified by the event, into something very near a lesson of faith in Jesus as God, demonstrated by superhuman power. If, adopting the hint from Matthew, we substitute ver. 40 in place of 39a, we shall probably be not far from the primitive form. Vers. 39a and 41 will then be addi- tions of R, who also transposes 39& and 40. Vers. 35, 36 (R). Neither Matthew nor Luke retains Mark's de- scriptive setting, which reverts to 4:1. On the contrary, Matthew establishes a new one from Q (Mt. 8: 19-22 = Lk. 9:57-62) having relation to the renunciations of various disciples won to follow Jesus. We are reminded that our last trace of the story which centered in Capernaum (P) was as Jesus "went forth again along the lake-shore, and as he passed by" called Levi son of Alphgeus from the custom- house, who straightway "followed him." Also that the introduction of the Opposition (2: 15—3: 6), Choice of the Twelve (3: 7-35), and Teaching in Parables gave evidence of copious borrowings from Q, the motives of the successive attachments (as, e.g., the Teaching in Parables, at the point where Q gave the Sermon on the Mount) being largely apologetic. We may therefore reasonably adopt the hint of Matthew and regard the scene of vers. 35, 36 as in the nature of a return to that of 2: 13, 14. Ver. 37. Storm of wind (Gr., "a great squall"). Matthew alters to " tempest," increasing the wonder, but departing from the situation characteristic of the lake. Ver. 38. The cushion, i.e., the one usually to be found at the helms- man's seat. Carest thou not? The reproach is cancelled in the later Gospels. Ver. 39& (cf. Jon. 1:11, 12, Greek version). The prompt passing of 4: 40— 5* 3 THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 57 awoke, and rebuked the wind, and said *[unto the sea], Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. 40 And he said unto them, Why are ye 41 fearful? have ye not yet faith? And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him? 5 And they came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the 2 2 Gerasenes. And when he was come out of the boat, straightway there met him 3 [out of the tombs] a man with an unclean 3 spirit, who had his dwelling in the tombs: and no man could any more bind him, 1 p var. Rebuked the wind and sea, and said. 2 Var. Gadarenes; Origen and Sinaitic Syriac, Gergesenes. 8 Sinaitic Syriac omits [ ]. 5: 1-30= Mt. 8: 28-34=Lk. 8: 26-39 R the squall belongs to the nature of such atmospheric disturbances, but the incident is recalled as one of the triumphs of Jesus' faith. Even if we trace no causal relation between this and the providential passing of the storm, and admit that his undaunted example had no more to do with the disciples' surmounting of the immediate peril than had Caesar's belief in his destiny in similar circumstances on the Adriatic, or Paul's in God's purpose (Acts 27:21-25; cf. Phil. 1:25), the in- cident was pre-eminently worthy of record as a manifestation of that spirit of Jesus which once infused into his followers gave them their conquest of the world. To change this faith in God into a mere power to silence storms, or even walk on the sea, is to misunderstand the real victory of faith in Gethsemane and Calvary (II Cor. 12: 9; 13: 4). The addition of vers. 39a, 41 unfortunately tends to this result. 5: 1-20. The Gerasene Demoniac. If Mark had a written basis for this anecdote it can hardly have formed part of the present group, all the rest of which are primarily concerned with the lesson of faith. Here the chief concern is with Jesus' wonderful power over demons, explicitly confessed by themselves, and demonstrated by the suicide of a legion of them who had sought refuge in the bodies of two thousand swine! The point of view is so characteristically that of R (cf. 1: 13, 23-25, 34, 39; 3: 11, 12, 15; 4: 39; 9: 29) that even if we suppose some remote basis of traditional fact it is scarcely recognizable. Even the geography shows R's remoteness from the actual scenes. "Gerasa" (ver. 1) cannot be altered to more or less like-sounding names of hamlets on the east shore, because vers. 14 and 20 show that _ R means the "city" of this name, which was indeed "the largest city of Decapolis," 1 but was two hard days' journey distant from the lake. Matthew's substitution of "Gadara" is merely a reduction of the doubly impossible to the impossible. Later mss. of Mark follow suit. Origen introduced an ingenious conjecture based on the Old Testament (see var.). 1 Josephus, War III, ix. 7. 58 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 5:4-12 4 no, not with a chain; ^because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been rent asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: and no man had strength to tame 5 him. And always, night and day,] in the tombs and in the mountains, he was crying out, and cutting himself with stones. 6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran 7 and worshipped him; and crying out with a loud voice, he saith, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God? I adjure thee by God, torment 8 me not. For he said unto him, Come forth, thou unclean spirit, out of the man. 9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he saith unto him, My name is Legion; 10 for we are many. And he besought him much that he would not send them away 11 out of the country. Now there was there on the mountain side a great herd of swine 12 feeding. And they besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter 1 /3 var. have a different form for [ ], improving the grammar. 1:24, 34; 3: 11, 12; cf. Acts 16: 16 Vers. 1-7. In his description of the maniac's history and condition R is led to anticipate his story. Hence the explanatory supplements in vers. 8-10. The cry of the maniac when he saw Jesus is first related in conjunction with the habitual conduct described in ver. 5. After- ward we learn in a series of explanatory imperfects that the cry had been led up to by a command from Jesus to the unclean spirit to be- gone (ver. 8) ; and this in turn by a question put by Jesus, supposably when the man "ran and did him obeisance," which was answered in a way to make clear the victim's condition (vers. 9, 10). This awkward method of narration needlessly produces the appearance of a negotia- tion of the evil spirits with Jesus for terms of surrender, after his original command has been disobeyed. Son of the Most High God. A rare divine title (see on 1: 24 and cf. Lk. 6: 35; Acts 16: 17). Tor- ment me not. It is the unclean spirit (ver. 2) who speaks. Jesus is supposed able to inflict the torrmnts of hell. Matthew explains by adding "before the time" (i.e., of judgment, Rev. 20: 3, 10, 14) ; Luke by substituting in ver. 10 "into the abyss." _ Ver. 9. My name is Legion? for we are many. The change from singular to plural indicates only the composite nature of the "spirit" (ver. 2), not of the man plus the spirit or spirits. "Legion" suggests the number of the pack in round terms, as "many." In ver. 13 two thou- sand swine are each afflicted with at least one demon. Ver. 10. Out of the country. Demons are supposed to haunt the desert when unable to find a more inviting abode in the person of the possessed. Cf. Mt. 12: 43-45 = Lk. 11: 24-26. 5s 13-20 THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 59 13 into them. And *he gave them leave. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered into the swine: and the herd rushed down the steep into the sea, (in number) about two thousand; and they 14 were choked in the sea. And they that fed them fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they came to see 15 what it was that had come to pass. And they come to Jesus, and behold 2 him that was possessed with devils sitting, clothed and in his right mind, 3 [(even) him that had 16 the legion:] and they were afraid. And they that saw it declared unto them how it befell him that was possessed with devils, 17 and concerning the swine. And they be- gan to beseech him to depart from their 18 borders. And as he was entering into the boat, he that had been possessed with devils besought him that he might be with 19 him. And he suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go to thy house unto thy friends, and tell them how great things 4 the Lord hath done for thee, and (how) he had 20 mercy on thee. And he went his way, and began to publish in Decapolis how 1 /3 var. immediately the Lord Jesus sent them into the swine. 2 Or, the demoniac. 3 /3 var. omit [ ]. 4 P var. God. Ver. 13. Entered into the swine. Those who care to inquire what visible manifestation R has here in mind, may observe that words and actions of the "possessed" are regularly spoken of as actions of the demon (3: 11, 12). Critics who trace a historical nucleus to the story generally assume that at this point the maniac took the further dis- posal of the unwelcome tenants of his personality literally into his own hands by driving the swine into the water. Ver. 14. In the city, i.e., Gerasa. Mark carefully distinguishes "cities" from "towns," "villages," and "hamlets." Gerasa was at this time already the largest of the Greek cities east of Jordan. In ver. 20 the relation of this event to the spread of the gospel in Decapolis is made similar to that of ^Eneas in Lydda and the plain of Sharon (Acts 9: 32-35). Ver. 19. A noteworthy contrast to the strict injunctions of silence west of Jordan. Note that in these "cities of the Gentiles" R's reason for the hiding of the mystery of the kingdom (4: 12) does not apply. Mt. 10: 5, 23 expressly prohibits the evangelization here commanded. The Lord. There is a remarkable avoidance of this title in Mark up to the Triumphal Entry (11:3). Only here and in the mouth of the Gentile Syro- Phoenician (7: 28) does it appear, although it is pre- 60 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 5$ 21-23 great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel. 21 And when Jesus had crossed over *[again in the boat] unto the other side, a great multitude was gathered unto 22 him: *[and he was by the sea.] And there cometh one of the rulers of the syna- gogue, x [Jairus by name;] and seeing him, 23 he falleth at his feet, and beseecheth him much, saying, My little daughter is at the point of death: X [(I pray thee,) that thou] come and lay thy hands on her, that she 1 £ var. omit [ ] in vers. 21-24. 5:22-43=Mt. 9: 18-26=Lk. 8: 40-56 P eminently R's own designation (1:3; 12:36, 37; cf. ver. 13, /? var.), and might have been used everywhere to render the common title Rabbi, or Rabboni, as in Matthew and Luke. The phenomenon is probably connected with R's partiality for the Gentiles. Luke here substitutes "God." If Mark has an older basis for ver. 19, Luke cer- tainly represents here the more primitive sense if not the more primi- tive form also. But see var. 5: 21-43. Healing of Jairus' Daughter and the "Woman with the Issue. The interweaving of two incidents is quite a characteristic feature of this Gospel (e.g., 3: 20-35; 14: 1-11), but in the present case there is no such artificiality as characterizes R's work. The two ele- ments are perfectly in harmony and seem to reflect real coincidence in occurrence. In both cases the moral pointed (vers. 34, 36) is the lesson of faith in God. As already noted in the case of the Storm on the Lake (vers. 396, 40; cf. 39a, 41), this is not so much R's point of view (ver. 30, note) as that of the underlying material; we may therefore reason- ably regard the group as original. The scene opens "by the sea," where we were left in the last of the faith narratives (4: 35-41). We have indeed no need to attribute to the original narrator the magical notion of healing power flowing through Jesus' garments expressed in ver. 30 (cf. Acts 19: 12); but there is strong reason to think (see note on 6: 14) that from the first, in spite of the distinction implied in Jesus' utterance (ver. 39), the healing of Jairus' daughter was regarded by the disciples as an actual resuscitation from the dead. To some this appears an objection to regarding the story as substan- tially in its present form the report of an eye-witness. Those who take such ground can hardly have reflected that an eye-witness of the restoration of Eutychus to consciousness (Acts 20: 7-12) regards that as a case of resuscitation from real death. Ver. 21 (R) reverts to the situation "by the sea" of 2:13 (3:7); 4:1, 35-41. Ver. 22. One of the synagogue rulers [ Jairus by name]. A magnate (Mt., "ruler") of Capernaum. The western text seems to indicate that the name is a later addition. The strained relations between Jesus and the class Jairus (i.e., "Jair"; cf. Num. 32:41; Jud. 10:3) repre- sents indicate how urgent was the pressure upon the father's heart, overcoming the resistance of his household (vers. 35, 40), as well as the prejudices of his social equals. Falleth at his feet. The narrator emphasizes the self-humiliation of the great man (cf. Acts 10: 25). 4: 24-34 THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 61 24 may *[be made whole, and] live. And he went with him; and a great multitude followed him, and they thronged him. 25 And a woman, which had an issue of 26 blood twelve years, and had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, 27 but rather grew worse, having heard the things concerning Jesus, came in the crowd behind, and touched his garment. 28 For she said, If I touch but his garments, 29 I shall be made whole. And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was 30 healed of her 2 plague. And straightway Jesus, perceiving in himself that the power (proceeding) from him had gone forth, turned him about in the crowd, and said, 31 Who touched my garments? And his dis- ciples said unto him, Thou seest the multi- tude thronging thee, and say est thou, Who 32 touched me? And he looked round about 33 to see her that had done this thing. But the woman fearing and trembling, know- ing what had been done to her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the 34 truth. And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy 4 plague. 1 /3 var. omit [ ]. 2 Gr. scourge. 3 var. add because she had done it by stealth. * Gr. scourge. Vers. 25-27. The description of the woman's condition with its seven (!) consecutive participles is an example of R's awkwardness in employing his stores of descriptive material (cf. 5: 3-10; 9: 17-27). Vers. 29-31. The language "by the sea," "scourge," "thronging," "touched my garments" indicates that we have here the source of R's description in 3: 7-10. Ver. 30. Perceiving, etc. R explains Jesus' turning about as due to a mysterious feeling of the issue of healing power. Luke (8: 46) ac- tually places in Jesus' mouth the statement, "I perceived that power had gone forth from me." Matthew relates simply that Jesus "turned and saw her," whether fortuitously or because he felt the grasp upon the "tassel" (so Matthew) of his cloak. Ver. 34. Daughter (cf. 2: 5, "son"). Thy faith hath healed thee. A great saying, whose echoes reverberate far (cf. 10: 52; Lk. 7: 50; 17: 19; 18: 42). The object is to counteract the disposition to see in the 62 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 5:35-40 35 While he yet spake, they come from the ruler of the synagogue's (house), saying, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou 36 the *Master any further ? But Jesus, 2 not heeding the word spoken, saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Fear not, only 37 believe. And he suffered no man to follow with him, save Peter, and James, 38 and John the brother of James. And they come to the house of the ruler of the synagogue; and he beholdeth a tumult, and (many) weeping and wailing greatly. 39 And when he was entered in, he saith unto them, Why make ye a tumult, and weep? 40 the child is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. But he, 1 Or, Teacher. 2 Or, overhearing. event a "holy coat" miracle instead of a true "faith" cure. Jesus' protest against the idea of relic-healing is not due to miraculous superiority to his age in scientific knowledge of the therapeutic value of suggestion, but simply to his religious sanity. Realizing the super- stitious inferences which would be drawn from the occurrence, and which actually are drawn by R (vers. 28, 29), as well as by other New Testament writers (Acts 19: 11, 12), Jesus interposes with simple dignity a direction to the true Object of faith and Source of healing power. Ver. 35. They come. Mark's indefinite pronoun. The members of the household under the form of courtesy ("why troublest thou") seek to prevent the coming of an unwelcome guest. It was worse than undignified for a "ruler of the synagogue" to have appealed for help to the carpenter-healer, the "friend of publicans and sinners." Ver. 36. If we follow the text rather than margin, the disregard of the message will be due to realization of its veiled hostility. Against the attempt of Jairus' household to dissuade him, Jesus appreciates and encourages the man's faith. The utterance of ver. 39 shows that he does not accept the pessimistic statement of the messengers. Ver. 37. Peter and James and John. The trio of martyr-apostles (10:39; Jn. 13:36; 21: 18, 19). The only two further instances in which the group appears are at the Transfiguration and in Gethsemane. Here the conflict with death probably suggests to R the special selec- tion. In the original Jesus will have gone unaccompanied by any disciples. Ver. 38. A tumult and weeping and wailing. Evidences of distress at the supposed death of the child which has just occurred. Matthew, who represents the "ruler" as appealing to Jesus after the child was already dead (!), substitutes "flute-players and the crowd making a tumult," i.e., a funeral already in progress. Ver. 39. The child is not dead, but sleepeth. Jesus intends to make a distinction. If it were as sometimes understood: "This is different from ordinary death, because I am about to resurrect the child," the utterance would be inexplicable to us (for Jesus regards refusal to 5:41, 42 THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 63 having put them all forth, taketh the father of the child and her mother and them that were with him, and goeth in 41 where the child was. And taking the child by the hand, he saith unto her, 1 Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, 42 Damsel, I say unto thee, Arise. And straightway the damsel rose up, and walked; for she was twelve years old. And they were amazed straightway with a 1 var. Rabbi lhabita cumi; perhaps a corruption from Rabitha (rabitha), cumi, i.e., Little maid, arise. accept the clearly manifested will of God as impious, Mt. 4: 7 = Lk. 4: 12; Mk. 14: 41), and unintelligible to the hearers. On the assumption of the strict accuracy of Mark, who represents that Jesus when speaking had not yet seen the child, the distinction can only mean: "It is too soon to abandon our appeal to God; we have no certainty as yet that the departure of the spirit is irrevocable." Such a declaration would be justified by the current belief "that the soul lingered for three days near the body it had left, in the hope of returning to it; after that the body became so changed that a reanimation was no longer possible." 1 It is perhaps more reasonable to regard the words as really spoken after sight of the child, as Luke represents (Lk. 8: 51, 52). In either case the conviction in the disciples' mind that they had witnessed a return from the dead would be a later development. The true sig- nificance of the incident centers in the saying, "Fear not, only believe" (ver. 36). From almost the beginning it was seized upon as implying a confidence on Jesus' part in his own miraculous power. It does not even imply the expectation of any marvel whatever. It exhibits the same dauntless confidence in the face of death as the incident of the Storm on the Lake (4: 40) and Gethsemane (14: 42). But the explana- tion that this confidence lies in foreknowledge of the event, or sense of superhuman power, does unintentional but vital injustice to Jesus. His teaching (Q, Mt. 10: 29-31 =Lk. 12: 6, 7) and example alike (e.g., 9: 14-29) show that the constant assurances and commands to those "of little faith" about him to "have faith in God" rest upon the con- viction that such trust as Jairus in the present instance has just manifested cannot be in vain. But this conviction does not foresee, still less attempt to dictate, the event — it is faith. Ver. 41. Talitha cumi. In a few instances R inserts the original Aramaic (not Hebrew) of Jesus' utterances. The occasion is always such as lends special mystical significance to the words : the prayer in Gethsemane and cry from the cross, the recall of Jairus' daughter from the underworld, and the opening of the deaf ears in Decapolis (7: 34). Origen (ca. 250 a.d.) reveals the popular feeling regarding such words of power in his assurance that it is well known that spells and incantations lose their power if translated into another language 2 (see var.). 1 Abod. Z. 20b; Beresh. Rabba 100; Vayyik, R. 18. Quoted by Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus II, p. 325, and Enc. BibL, s.v., "Resurrection and Ascen- sion Narratives," col. 4067, § 226. 2 Ctra. Cels. V, xlv. 64 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 5:43—6:3 43 great amazement. And he charged them much that no man should know this: and he commanded that (something) should be given her to eat. 6 And he went out from thence; and he cometh into his own coun- 2 try; and his disciples follow him. And when the sabbath was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and x many hear- ing him were astonished, saying, Whence hath this man these things? and, What is the wisdom that is given unto this man, and (what mean) such 2 mighty works 3 wrought by his hands? Is not this the 1 Var. insert the. 2 Gr. powers. 6: l-6=Mt. 13: 53-58=Lk. 4: 16-30 R Ver. 43. On the command of silence see note on 1 : 35-39. The direction that (something) should be given her to eat, whatever R's motive for retaining it, is most reasonably accounted for as a true touch of genuine historical tradition. 6: 1-6. Jesus' Rejection in his Native Place. Instead of the con- cluding incident of the group in which the disciples are taught the lesson of faith (see on 9: 14-29), R attaches at this point a develop- ment of the saying, "A prophet has no honor in his own country," to explain the unbelief of Jesus' fellow-countrymen. Luke displays the same motive in still higher degree by making this the opening scene of the ministry and adding prophecies from Is. 61: 1, 2; 58: 6 and inci- dents from I Kings 17: 9; 18: 1 and II Kings 5: 14. The result forms an appropriate prelude to his double work. It serves to show how the gospel was delivered to the Jews, as prophecy required, but seeing they put it from them God's messengers turned to the Gentiles. Mark had previously built upon the same basis, exhibiting in the language of 6: 26, 3 ("wisdom and mighty works," "stumbled in him") the influence of the Q passage so clearly in evidence in 1: 1-13, 40-45; 2:1-20 (Mt. 11:4-6, 20-24; 12: 38-42 = Lk. 7:22, 23; 10:13-16; 11 : 29-32). The present paragraph and 3: 20, 21, 31-35 being the only references in Mark to Jesus' kindred, we may infer that the Roman church did not at this time hold the so-called desposyni (i.e., kindred of Jesus) in that exalted reverence which they enjoyed in Jerusalem from the earliest times (Acts 1: 14; 12: 17; 21: 18; Gal. 1: 19; 2: 9, 12). Note the omission by Matthew and Luke of 3: 20, 21 and of the clause and his kindred from ver. 4, and cf. Jn. 7: 5. 6: 1. His own country (Gr., "native place"). Ancient patriotism attaches not to the land but the city (cf. Acts 21: 39; Gal. 4: 26; Phil. 3: 20). Nazareth becomes accordingly the type of Israel in its treat- ment of Jesus. No traditional basis for the story need be assumed outside the saying (ver. 4), a winged word common to ancient Chris- tian apologetic (Jn. 4: 44, Oxyrh. Logia, vi) which furnishes all the factors for the representation. Ver. 3. The carpenter. Certainly the true reading, though declared by Origen a wanton corruption due to Gnostic hatred of the outward embodiment of the Christ. Matthew and Luke, in the same spirit as 6:4-7 THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 65 *carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And 4 they were offended in him. And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own 5 house. And he x could there do no 2 mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed 6 them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages teaching. 7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and he gave them authority over the un- 1 Var. insert son of the. 2 Later mss. alter in various ways, did not many, would not, etc. (Mt. ll:6=Lk. 7:23) (Q) (Jn (X) 4:44) Vers. 7-13= Mt. 9:35—10: 16 = Lk. 9: 1-5; 10: 1-12 Q Origen, substitute "the carpenter's (Joseph's) son." A vital element in Jesus' power over the masses lay in his belonging to the wage- earning class. The son of Mary. We should expect "of Joseph" had Jesus' father been living. Only his "mother and brethren' appear here and in 3: 31. More significant is the absence of "father" from the sayings, 3:35 (cf. Lk. 11:27); 10:30 (but "father" in 10:29). Still R's conception of Jesus' divine sonship (12: 35-37) may have contributed to his omission to mention Joseph. Brother of James (cf. Gal. 1: 19). The notion that these "brethren" are not own sons of Mary appears only at a late period, is advanced polemically to sup- port the dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity, and conflicts with the expression, "her first-born son" (Lk. 2:7). It is opposed by the fact of the invariable association of Jesus' mother with these in every early mention. Ver. 5. Could not. Matthew substitutes "did not" (see var.). Mark is not less concerned than Matthew for the superhuman power of Jesus, but is more vividly conscious of the need to explain the occasional failure of Christian healers in his own time. It is not permissible for the healer, when disappointed in the results of his efforts, to assert that his attempts were not made in good faith. He must say frankly, I could not. But he need not assume responsibility for the failure. The converse of the teaching, Thy faith hath healed thee (5: 34) is, Thy lack of faith is to blame for the failure to be healed; cf. 9: 14-29, where Mark (against Matthew and Luke) attributes the lack of faith to the applicants. A few sick folk. To R quite too trifling a matter for consideration as compared with mighty works. 6: 7-13. Epilogue. Mission of the Twelve. In an abridged extract from Q (Mt. 9: 35—10: 16 = Lk. 9: 1-5; 10: 1-12) R concludes Division II, completing the story of Jesus' work of preaching and healing in Galilee. The Q form of the Charge still reflects the nature of the 66 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 6:8-13 8 clean spirits; and he charged them that they should take nothing for (their) jour- ney, save a staff only; no bread, no wallet, 9 no ^oney in their 2 purse; but (to go) shod with sandals: and, (said he,) put not on 10 two coats. And he said unto them, Wheresoever ye enter into a house, there 11 abide till ye depart thence. And whatso- ever place shall not receive you, and they hear you not, as ye go forth thence, shake off the dust that is under your feet for a 12 testimony unto them. And they went out, and preached that (men) should re- 13 pent. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. 1 Gr. brass. 2 Gr. girdle. original instruction, which simply applies the Jewish principle that the teacher is entitled to all needful support by those who are taught. The disciples therefore will require nothing. Paul makes express quo- tation of the teaching (I Cor. 9: 3-14) in this sense. Lk. 22: 35 shows that this confident reliance on Galilean hospitality was justified. Mark has a different application in mind. He aims to limit the burden which traveling evangelists of his own time may impose upon the churches. They may not demand any equipment beyond the simplest. The variations are thus accounted for; but the Markan form is clearly Ver. 8. A staff only; Q (Mt. 10: 10 = Lk. 9: 3), "not even a staff." Mark admits an article of so small value that even the vow of poverty excepts it. In Q the idea is: You need not even procure a staff. Even this will be supplied to you. Ver. 9. (Go) shod with sandals (sandalia), i.e., avoid the luxury of heavier footgear. Matthew-Luke: "take no shoes" (for your hearers will supply them). Nor wear two coats — like the wealthy, who have an inner and an outer tunic. Note the imperfect adjustment of the Greek of ver. 9 to indirect discourse, and cf. 2: 10. Ver. 10. Till ye depart thence, i.e., from the town. Forsaking the humbler hospitality of the first host for more luxurious quarters is a practice unworthy the true evangelist. Ver. 11. Shake off the dust for a testimony. A gesture similar in intent to washing the hands. For the "testimony" cf. Q (Mt. 10: 14, 15 = Lk. 10: 10-12), and Acts 20: 26, 27. See note on 1: 44. Vers. 12, 13. A description of the work done based as much on contemporary practice (cf. Jas. 5: 14) and on Q (Mt. 10: 7 = Lk. 9: 2) as on the directions (ver. 7). The Q source gave only teachings relating to the work of evangeliza- tion. Hence it continued with prediction of persecution quite incon- sistent with the experience in Galilee (Mt. 10: 16 = Lk. 10: 3; cf. Lk. 22: 35). Matthew reproduces the primitive form. Mark and Luke transform teaching into narratives of actual sending. PART I DIVISION III. Mfc. 6: 14—8: 26 THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD STRUCTURE Preliminary to the climax of the Gospel in the Revelation of the Messiahship as a Doctrine of the Cross, 1 which in the nature of the case must form the central theme of any story of Jesus' career, and marks an epoch in itself, our evangelist inserts a twofold group of incidents introduced by an ac- count of the Baptist's Martyrdom. 2 This martyrdom of John is closely connected in his mind, as we see from a subsequent statement, 3 with that of Jesus. It is in fact itself introduced by a reference to the comment of the murderer of John upon the activity of Jesus, elicited by the same popular rumors which become in 8; 27 the occasion for the great Revelation. Nevertheless the subject is not yet taken up "without reserve." 4 We are not even informed what came of Herod's animadversion. Instead, Division III centers upon two narratives of the incident of the Feeding of the Multitude, each of which is followed by a Collision with the Scribes, and a Departure of Jesus into territory as yet foreign to his proclamation of the gospel. The collision in the former case 5 concerns the Jewish ceremonial distinctions of clean and unclean, particularly regarding meats, and is followed by Jesus' promise to the Gentile woman of food from the children's table. In the latter case, 6 the collision is over the Sign from Heaven, 7 and the departure is marked by Jesus' warning against the "Leaven of the Pharisees." 8 The heal- ings narrated in and after the former group 9 have as their counterpart at the beginning and end of the latter 10 a remark- able pair, whose significance will be best understood by reference to the Isaian prophecy of an unstopping of Deaf Ears and opening of Blind Eyes destined to mark the con- version of Israel. i Division IV. 2 6: 14-29. 3 9: 11-13. * 8: 32 (Gr.) 6 6: 53—7: 23. 8 7 : 24—8: 26. 7 Connected in Jn. 6: 30-59 with the institution of the Eucharist as a token of the resurrection. 8 8: 14-21. ■ 6: 53-56; 7: 29, 30. 10 7: 24-31; 8: 22-26. 67 68 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY The method of pragmatic values, applied to the elements of this agglutination, makes it certain that the focus, or — as we might better say in view of the duplication — the foci of the whole consist of the two accounts of the Feeding of the Multitude. These are treated as the origin of the Church's primitive institution of the Breaking of Bread; and thus as symbolically foreshadowing that death and resurrection by which all men, both Jew and Gentile, are destined to become sharers in the "bread of life." The Division thus naturally falls into three subdivisions: (a) Preliminary Survey, 6: 14-29, introducing the theme of Jesus' true Mission — a theme more fully developed in Division IV; (b) a Sign of the Loaves in Galilee and Withdrawal to Phoenicia, 6 : 30 — 7 : 30 ; (c) a Sign of the Loaves in Decapolis and Departure to the kingdom of Philip, 7: 31 — 8: 26. In the case of Subdivision a, connection with the fore- going is well established by the distinct reference in Herod's Comment 1 to the "mighty works" just related in c. 5. Very significantly no account whatever is taken of the Q extract in the Mission of the Twelve, 2 nor of the R supplement in the Rejection in Nazareth. 3 The utterance of Herod 4 is made just as if the mighty works, in particular the work of raising the dead, 5 had immediately preceded. For, as we shall see, the legend of Elias redivivus, which underlies the story of the Baptist's Fate 6 and the Revelation of the Doctrine of the Cross, 7 has special reference to raising the dead. We may therefore attribute at least the nucleus of Subdivision a to the same source as the group of faith- wonders, (P). 8 With the ultimate sequel Subdivision a has equally good connection. The theme Who is Jesus?, begun in 6 : 14, is con- tinued verbatim in 8: 27ff. Moreover, Jesus is there in exile and meditating a dangerous extension of his work to Jerusalem. True, as already noted, the subject begun by Herod's Comment 9 breaks off without informing us what difference it made to Jesus, an interruption which cannot be original. We have in fact in Lk. 13:31-33 a wholly independent source, which indicates that Herod's threaten- ing attitude really had much to do with the abrupt termina- tion at this period of Jesus' public work in Galilee, his re- maining for a time in hiding or on the frontier, 10 and ulti- mately, after a secret visit to Capernaum, 11 betaking himself to Judaea and Jerusalem. 12 Thus Division IV really takes up the thread not far from where it is dropped by Subdivision J 6: 14. 2 6:7-13. » 6: 1-6. * 6: 14. 65; 21-43. "6:14-29. 7 8: 27— 9:13. 8 4: 35— 5:43. 9 6:14. 1° 7: 24. "9:30. 12 10:1. THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 69 a. Moreover, the marks of ultimate derivation from Peter are again very strong in the opening events of Division IV. Subdivisions 6 and c have very much less to determine their original connection. True, both lead over into the situation which we have seen to be implied between Herod's Comment and Jesus' Revelation of the Doctrine of the Cross at Csesarea Philippi. Each leaves Jesus an exile on the northern frontier of Galilee, with no road open for future activity save that to Jerusalem. But so far as any motive appears for his leaving Galilee it is only the opposition of the scribes and Pharisees to his teaching, 1 and is based on themes derived from Q. 2 At the beginning we can scarcely say there is a connection. So far as any exists it is in both b and c a mere adaptation by R of Q material. 3 Moreover, the historical content is not suited to the circumstances of Herod's aroused attention and Jesus' subsequent with- drawal, but is manifestly placed here for didactic reasons. The Breaking of the Loaves is the symbolic prelude to Division IV, with its Revelation of the Doctrine of the Cross. We cannot say at just what period of Jesus' earlier activity in Galilee the incident occurred which became memorable through the building upon it first of the institu- tion of the Breaking of Bread or Agape, a rite of the early Church dating back to the days when Jesus and the Twelve lived together as a brotherhood/ and later of the "memo- rial" of the Eucharist. 5 A more probable location for it in the Petrine tradition would be at the point occupied in Mark by the Teaching in Parables. What we can be fairly sure of is only that the interjection of two parallel traditions of it by Mark between the first broaching of the theme of Jesus' true Personality and Mission, 6 and the later full develop- ment of the same theme 7 is intended to meet the practical requirements of the Church teacher, and not those of the historical critic. The very fact, however, that R is certainly combining two parallel sources in Subdivisions b and c, gives good reason to believe that in one case at least he is embodying elements from the Petrine tradition, the more so as we have found a certain gap to exist between the situation implied in Herod's Comment and that implied in Division IV. To imagine that R has simply attached a consecutive 1 From this statement we must make the important exception of 8: 15, a vestige of the true motive. 2 Mk. 7: 2, 14, 15 resting on Lk. 11: 39-54=Mt. 23: 13-31, and Mk. 8: 11-13, 15 resting on Lk. 11: 16, 29-32; 12: 1, 54-56=Mt. 12: 38-42; 16: 1-4. 3 With 6: 30, 31, cf. Mt. 11: 29, and see note ibid.; 7: 31-37 rests on Lk. 11: 14= Mt. 12:22. * Lk. 24:35. 6 1 Cor. 11:24. "6:14-29. 7 8:27—9:13. 70 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY group from one source to a consecutive group from the other, like a Pentateuchal compiler, would be to cherish illusions for which we have slight warrant, especially as common Q material seems to be distributed in both. We may, however, take notice that the second account of the Sign of the Loaves, 1 which is on the whole simpler, unac- companied on the return voyage by the marvel of the Walking on the Sea, stands practically disconnected, and might equally well precede the Stilling of the Storm, 2 whereas its doublet, 3 in its opening words, overleaps the P material in the story of Herod and the Baptist, 4 to form connection with the Q material of the Mission of the Twelve. 5 On the other hand, the incident of the Syro-Phoenician Woman has points of resemblance to the faith- wonder series in c. 5. These features are indeed much obscured in the modified form which Mark has given the story. In Mt. 15:21-28 we have, however, a form almost universally conceded to be prior and more authentic. Here the faith motive is most emphatic (ver. 28) . This and the implied geographical situation 6 make it reasonable tentatively to connect this incident with P, in its present relative order. THE FATE OF THE FORERUNNER PARAPHRASE Subdivision a. 6: 14-29. The mighty works of Jesus soon brought his name into dangerous attention from Herod. For when they heard of his miracles some said, This is Elijah that comes to restore all things and to effect the great repentance before the day of judgment. Others said, It is a prophet like one of the old time prophets. But Herod said, John the Baptist is risen from the dead (as men say of Elijah) and therefore these miracles are wrought through him. For in the mean time Herod had put John to death, having first imprisoned him for the sake of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, whom he had taken to wife. For John had spoken to Herod declaring his sin to his face, so that Herodias kept a grudge against him and plotted against his life. But Herod was impressed by the word of John and kept him safe as a holy man. Herodias therefore took occasion of a feast which Herod gave on his birthday in the palace at Tiberias, 18:1-10. 2 4:35-41 (P). » 6: 30-52. * 6:!14-29. « 6: 7-13. 8 See note on 7: 24. THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 71 and sending in her little daughter to dance in presence of the chief men of Galilee, who were Herod's guests, the child pleased Herod, so that he promised to give her whatever she should ask unto the half of his kingdom. The child, therefore, as in- structed by her mother, demanded the head of John upon a platter. And the king, though he was reluctant, would not break his word, but sent for a soldier, who beheaded John in the prison and brought his head. So the child gave it to her mother on the platter. And John's disciples took up his corpse and laid it in a tomb. This, therefore, was the occasion of Herod's saying concerning Jesus. SUBDIVISION A. 6: 14-29.— CRITICISM As in Divisions I and II, we are now favored with an anticipatory glance at the central theme to which R is leading up, Jesus' true mis- sion is the Cross and Resurrection. This appears in 8: 27 — 9: 1 and 9: 11-13. To understand the bearing of the narratives destined to follow in the present Division the reader is required to realize that Jesus was well aware of the secret plots of the Pharisees and of Herod, 1 and knew that as John the Baptist, the Elias who had been his forerunner, had suffered, even so also must the Son of man suffer many things and be set at nought. 2 In 9: 13 we have explicit reference to the legend of Elias, the fore- runner of Messiah, in a form which shows it not only to have been already current in developed form similar to that implied in Rev. 11: 3-13, but even current in "written" form. This form at all events fjredicted the martyrdom of the forerunner, 3 and probably took the ines of the Elias legend known to us from the Slavonic Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo, and some other post-canonical writings. In these, as in Rev. 11: 3-13, the Great Repentance 4 is effected by the coming of the "two witnesses" of Messiah, 5 Moses and Elias, 9 who, after being slain by the tyrant, 7 rise again from the dead. The point of comparison in Mk. 6: 14 ("therefore these miracles") is that in the legend the agency by which the Great Repentance is brought about is the wonders wrought by the "witnesses," which in some forms 8 culminate in the raising of the dead. Luke, who cancels most of these references, at- taches a sequel to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 9 in which 10 the plea that Israel will repent "if one go to them from the dead" is answered, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets (the written witnesses of Messiah) , neither will they be persuaded if one rise from the dead." In Jn. 1: 21; 5: 33-47; 10: 41 a similar rationalizing atti- tude is taken toward these apocalyptic expectations of the witnesses of Messiah, referring the promise to the writings of Moses and the prophets. In Mark we still have clear traces of the primitive legend. 1 See note on 8: 15. 2 9: 11-13. 8 See note on 9: 13. * Mai. 4: 6. s Zech. 4: 3, 11-14. • Rev. 11:5, 6. 7 Rev. 11:7. 8 So apparently in the Repentance of Jannes and Jambres, quoted in II Tim. 3: 8 and by Pliny ( Nat. Hist., xxx. 2) and Apuleius (.Apology, xc) as well as many early Jewish and Christian writings, wherein these opponents of Moses and Aaron are worsted in the duel of wonders, and confess their defeat. 9 Lk. 16: 19-25. i° Lk. 16: 26-31. 72 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY R not only does all in his power to make Jesus' baptism by John a fulfillment of the anointing of the Messiah by Elias, but makes John's martyrdom the fulfillment of the similar expectation regarding the forerunner, 1 and even hints at the doctrine of the second coming of Elias, which we find in Justin Martyr. 2 The present subdivision leads over to the Revelation of the Doc- trine of the Cross. 3 R takes occasion, accordingly, of his narration of the Sign of the Loaves (to him a symbol of the passion and resur- rection) to relate the martyrdom of the forerunner. In process of this narration he forgets to say what came of Herod's attention being drawn to Jesus, and thereby deprives us of what may once have been the occasion for Jesus' withdrawal at this time from public activity in Galilee. The account given by R of the Baptist's fate is in the highest degree inaccurate and legendary. In the P tradition 4 the reader had been supposed to know already about the "delivering up" of John. The present account assumes a situation wholly unlike that presupposed in the Q discourses 5 and comparable only to the relations of Elijah with Ahab and Jezebel. The prophet stands in presence of the "king" and addresses rebukes to his face. The queen plots against his life. The situation conceived for John is not the dungeon in far-off Machaerus, which Josephus reports, but a cell within immediate reach of the Ealace in Tiberias, from whence the prisoner is brought once and again efore the king (and queen?), and ultimately his head on the platter. This conception of John as reasoning of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, while the "king" is terrified and puts him off for a convenient season, is almost certainly suggested by the story of Paul in Acts 24-26. At least it is utterly irreconcilable with the real history of the Baptist's fate. In the specially depraved and inhuman traits exhibited in R's depiction of the adulterous queen's revenge we have a probable reflection of the popular indignation referred to by Josephus, which attributed the disasters of the war with Aretas (36 a.d.) to the judgment of Gcd for what Herod had done to the prophet. Aretas was the father of Herod's repudiated wife. i 9: 11-13. 2 15: 35, 36. Cf. Justin M., Dial., xlix. a 8: 27—9: 1, 11-13. « 1: 14. e Mt. 11: 7-ll=Lk. 7: 24-28. 6:14-17 THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 73 14 A ND king Herod heard (thereof); for his xjl name had become known: and x he said, John 2 the Baptist is risen from the dead, and therefore do these powers 15 work in him. But others said, It is Elijah. And others said, (It is) a prophet, (even) as 16 one of the prophets. But Herod, when he heard (thereof), said, John, whom 17 I beheaded, he is risen. For Herod him- self had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him 3 in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife: 1 Var. they. 2 Gr. the Baptizer. 3 |3 var. insert and put him. Vers.l4-16=Mt. 14: 1, 2 = Lk. 9: 7—9 Cf. Lk. 13: 31- 33 R(P) Vers.l7-29=Mt. 14:3-12a=L,k. 3:19, 20 R Vers. 14-16. Herod on the Alert. R, in ver. 16, understands yer. 146 as an utterance of Herod, and therefore doubtless had the reading elegen, "he said," not elegon, "they (i.e., people) were saying." Never- theless, the latter, which survives in many mss. (see var.), gives the intended sense, as Luke seems to be aware (cf. Lk. 9: 7-9). His- torically it is the only one compatible with the character of "that fox." Originally some menacing word or act of Herod must have been related, probably to explain Jesus' action (cf. Lk. 13:31-33); otherwise the reader has no interest in Herod's "hearing." The sup- pression of this sequel in favor of the highly apocryphal story of the prophet "in king's houses" (see below on vers. 17-29), and the mis- reading of ver. 146, are among the clearest evidences that R is supple- menting an older document. This older narrative connected with the faith-wonders (ver. 14, "these powers") of 4: 35 — 5: 43. The con- nection is so obscured by the insertion of 6: 1-6 (R) and 7-13 (Q) that commentators sometimes attempt to form another, relating the spreading fame of Jesus to the Mission of the Twelve. Ver. 14. King Herod. Antipas, properly called "the tetrarch" by Matthew and Luke (but Matthew relapses in 14: 9). Ambition to secure the royal title, which had belonged to his father, became the occasion of Antipas' ruin. Therefore do these powers (literally, miracles) work in him. The current rumor (read "they were saying") is based on the apocalyptic belief in the Coming of Elias (see above on 1: 2-13, pp. 6 and 71), still evinced in the Jewish practice of setting a chair "for Elias" at the Passover. Ver. 15. A prophet as one of the prophets. A man of God like those of the Old Testament, without special reference to Elias and the Great Repentance. Vers. 17-29. A digression rightly described by H. J. Holtzmann as "the very pattern of legend." R is so led off by it as never to return to what Herod did or said, and how it affected Jesus. We can only infer from Lk. 13: 31-33 that it had something to do with Jesus' sub- sequent movements. Matthew is still more confused, beginning the episode of the Baptist's Death in the pluperfect (Mt. 14: 3), but at the close (14, 12, 13) proceeding as if the story stood in proper chrono- logical sequence. The whole narrative is based on the identification of the Baptist with Elijah, and the Old Testament story of Jezebel plotting against the life of the prophet, while the latter rebukes the 74 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 6: 18-22 18 for he had married her. For John said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to 19 have thy brother's wife. And Herodias set herself against him, and desired to kill 20 him; and she could not; for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous man and a holy, and kept him safe. And when he heard him, he *was much per- 21 plexed; and he heard him gladly. And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, and the 2 high captains, and the 22 chief men of Galilee; and when 3 the daugh- ter of Herodias herself came in and danced 4 she pleased Herod and them that sat at meat with him ; and the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, 1 Var. did many things. 2 Or, military tribunes. Gr. chiliarchs. 3 The earlier authorities read his daughter Herodias. * Or, it. I Kings 19: 2 Ac. 24: 24, 25 "king" to his face. The scene of the banquet is laid in Antipas' palace in Tiberias (see ver. 21, "chief men of Galilee"), where the prophet is supposed first to preach to the "king" (ver. 18), and afterward to lie imprisoned (vers. 27, 28). In reality we know from Q (Mt. 11:8 = Lk. 7: 25) that John's ministry was far from "those who are in kings' houses," on the remote confines of Antipas' tetrarchy. From Josephus 1 we learn that John was imprisoned, as we should expect, not in Ti- berias, but near "the wilderness" in the border fortress of Machaerus overhanging the Dead Sea. Also that his imprisonment and execution were simply a measure of precaution against messianistic outbreaks. What is still more significant of the origin of the Mark legend, it ap- pears from the same source that the populace, after suffering the calamities of the war of 36 a.d., in which Aretas, king of Edom, took revenge for the insult to his daughter, whom Antipas had repudiated in order to marry Herodias, "thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment for what he did against John, who was called the Baptist." Further evidence of the highly legendary character of the folk-tale here embodied by R appears in the flagrant historical errors. Thus "Philip" (ver. 17) was not the husband of Herodias, but the second husband of Salome, here spoken of as a "little maid" (R. V., "damsel," the Greek is korasion, the same word as in 5: 42, a diminutive of kore, "maiden"), and according to the best manuscripts as the daughter of Antipas. Her real father, Herodias' first husband, was named Herod like his father. As Philip died in 34 a.d., and Salome was at this time at least twenty-eight years of age, neither the term nor the representation is appropriate; for at any age the kind of public dancing at a banquet here meant, by a member of his family, would be the last thing to i Ant. VIII, v. 2. 6 1 25-29 THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 75 23 and I will give it thee. And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom. 24 And she went out, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, 25 The head of John J the Baptist. And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou forthwith give me in a charger the head 26 of John Hhe Baptist. And the king was exceeding sorry; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat, he 27 would not reject her. And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head: and he 28 went and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head in a charger, and gave it to the damsel; and the damsel gave it to 29 her mother. And when his disciples heard (thereof), they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb. 1 Gr. the Baptizer. Esth. 5: 3-6 • 'please the king." Needless to add that the "king's" promise (based on Esth. 5: 3-6) could not be made in the face of Roman control. In short, the whole conception of the court is based far more on the story of Ahab and Jezebel, Esther and Ahasuerus, than on Tiberias and its Roman underling. We have already noted (see on 1: 14) that the underlying narrative assumes the story of John's imprisonment to be known. We have the more reason here for attributing wholly to R the story which Luke prudently dismisses with a bare mention in 3: 19, 20. Ver. 25. Give me in a charger the head of John the Baptist. The monstrous nature of the revenge and the immoral means used to attain it reflect not so much the real conditions of Antipas' court (bad as they doubtless were) as the popular hatred of the woman whose adul- terous passion had drenched the land with blood, and a bitterness like that which could lead even one who was ready to be anathema from Christ for the sake of Israel his kinsmen according to the flesh, to write the indictment of I Thess. 2: 15, 16. Ver. 27. A soldier of his guard. The Greek is a transliteration of the Latin speculator, -'guard." 76 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY THE SIGN OF THE LOAVES IN GALILEE PARAPHRASE Subdivision b. 6: 30 — 7: 30. Jesus, when the Apostles had reported to him from their mission, instituted the sign of the Breaking of Bread, for them and for those that followed, and when the scribes opposed him for disregard of Jewish ablutions he rejected their ceremonial distinctions and departed into Phoenicia, healing there the daughter of a Gentile and promising to the Gentiles that they should in good time be partakers of the children's bread. Vers. 31-44. After their return Jesus called the Twelve into the open country because he desired that they should rest. But when they departed in the boat together the crowds on the shore followed from all the towns, and came beforehand to the place. So Jesus, who had compassion on their need of leader- ship and instruction, taught them until evening. So it came to pass that a great company were still about him at the time of the evening meal. And the disciples would have dismissed them to the villages near by. But Jesus commanded that they be made his guests, and that the store of their own provision be set before them. They had but five loaves and two fishes. And in so ordaining Jesus required also that they maintain the order of the banquet that is still observed. For first he di- vided them into eating companies of even number, arranged upon the green grass. Then he took the loaves and standing in the midst looked up to heaven and blessed them. And after the blessing he brake the loaves and gave to the disciples to dis- tribute among the multitude, as those do who serve the tables. Then, when all were satisfied, he bade the disciples each to fill his basket from the remnants, that nothing be lost. And it was found afterward that the baskets were filled from the remnants, though the multitude that shared with them were five thousand men. So greatly did God do for Jesus beyond the miracle which he wrought for Elisha, when the one hundred were fed from the twenty barley loaves. Vers. 45-52. But the disciples perceived not, even after Jesus had given them this sign of his resurrection, how God was working through him. For when Jesus had dismissed the assembly with the word of benediction, and had sent them on by boat, while he himself remained in prayer upon the mountain, they once more could not believe in his power and presence with them. They in fact were laboring all the night THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 77 against a tempestuous sea, until at last just before the dawn, he, who fully knew all their distress, came to them again, tread- ing under foot all the waves of the sea. And had they not cried out he would not even have entered the boat, but would have continued walking on the sea. Then, because they under- stood not the sign of the resurrection, they cried out with fear, supposing it to be an apparition. But Jesus reassured them, showing them how it was no other than himself, and entered in with them into the boat. Then all at once the tempest ceased. But they perceived not the meaning of this, nor of the sign of the loaves, because of the hardening which God had sent upon Israel. Vers. 53-56. They came then once more to Gennesaret where Jesus' miracles were done. And again they thronged him as before, bringing the sick from place to place; and setting them on pallets in the streets and market-places they begged only to touch him. And as many as touched him were restored to health. 7: 1-23. But the Pharisees with a company of scribes who had been sent down from Jerusalem found fault with his dis- ciples for neglect of the ablutions. For the whole people of the Jews are occupied with constant lustrations, and will not eat without ceremonial ablutions of all sorts. So Jesus rebuked their hypocrisy, showing how Isaiah had declared the vanity of their religion and called their doctrines " precepts of men." As for the scribes, he showed that they had made the real law of God of no value by the tradition which they build about it, perverting its real meaning into a requirement serviceable to their own avarice. And he did not stop at this but swept away the whole foundation of their distinctions of meats and defilements by external pollution, by a saying which he summoned all the people to hear and understand. Nothing from outside, he declared, can produce defilement in God's sight. Purity and impurity have to do only with the inward man. But because of the veil that was upon the hearts of all that people the disciples themselves did not yet understand this saying, till Jesus in private had again explained the truth, abolishing the distinctions of the Jewish law and declaring that impurity comes only from an evil heart within. Vers. 24-30. And when he had thus shown the blindness of the Jews, and the baselessness of their distinctions of clean and unclean, he left them and sought hiding in the borders of Tyre and Sidon. But even here his fame had preceded him, so that a Gentile woman of that land besought him to exorcise the devil that had possession of her daughter. And Jesus, 78 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY knowing that the gospel must first be preached to the Jews, and only after his death proclaimed to all the Gentiles, rebuffed her with the saying of the Jews, Let the children first have their food: the dogs should not be fed with the children's bread. But she took hold of the saying and answered, Even the dogs are filled afterward from the children's bread. So when Jesus perceived her faith he commended her saying and gave her what she asked, saying that she would find the devil gone out from her daughter. And so it was. SUBDIVISION B. 6$ 30—7: 30.— CRITICISM In all the Gospels the story of the Sign of the Loaves is central. In all it stands in close connection with the Revelation of the Doctrine of the Cross. In the two earlier it is related twice, once on Jewish, once on Gentile, territory. In the Third Gospel the story is brought into closer connection with that of the Revelation to Peter by omitting all that follows the first Sign, and cancelling all that concerns the second, together with all the journeys into Gentile territory. Compensation is made by an entire second treatise in which the practical questions of the omitted portions are settled on similar grounds. In the earliest Gospel, and the latest, the two which we designate Pauline because their primary object is faith in the person of Christ, special attention is called by the evangelist to the spiritual significance of the "sign." 1 In the latest of all an elaborate discourse makes this occasion in Galilee that of the real institution of the Eucharist, all reference to this sac- rament being cancelled from the story of " the night in which Jesus was betrayed." There is no possible explanation of the remarkable phenomena attendant upon this particular element of gospel tradition unless regard be had for the application to actual conditions and problems of church life which controlled in its transmission. Again we must recall the fact that biblical narrative is not given for historical, but for setiological, purposes. The explanation of all the phenomena enumerated becomes apparent when we apply the key of current symbolism; not our own allegorizing, but that for whose application in contemporary church use we have documentary attestation. The original purpose of the story now in question was to justify and explain the primitive rite of the "Breaking of Bread," or common meal, an institution of Jesus 2 dating from a period so early as to be distinctive of him even for disciples who had no knowledge of the occurrences of the night of betrayal. 3 This common meal, or banquet, was a feature of prime importance sociologically in the primitive Church, a very material help to the poor, even the absent ones being daily supplied in their homes with the remnants, 4 and when free from 1 Mk. 6: 52; 8: 16-21; Jn. 6: 26-59. 2 It_ does not differ in form from the Jewish rite of the Kiddush, or Blessing, breaking, and distribution of bread and a cup of wine by the father of the household on the eve of the sabbath and of the principal feasts. See s.v. Kiddush in Ham- burger's R.E. a Lk. 24: 30-35. * Acts 6: 1-6. THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 79 the spirit of clique, a bond of brotherly union. 1 It was similar to the common meals of the chaberim or "neighborhoods" of the Phari- sees, and the banquets of the fraternities (mostly religious) of the Graeco-Roman world, and was designated the Agap6, or banquet of "ministering love," in token of the spirit inculcated. Another rite, so closely akin to this that even in Paul's day the two are already blended, 3 is the Eucharist, or sacrament of "the Lord's Body." Jesus himself, as Paul states, is responsible for this close blending; for at his leave-taking from the Twelve, in apprehension of the blow which would surely "scatter" — perhaps forever — even the remnants of his "little flock," Jesus gave new significance to the simple practice which had been their bond of brotherhood hitherto. He asked that in continuing their breaking of bread together they would do it "in memory of him," regarding the bread itself as a token of his body now given to death for their sakes. To the primitive Church accord- ingly the Eucharist is primarily a "communion of the body of Christ." Its earliest liturgy emphasizes but this single feature, the "gathering together into one" of the Church as scattered wheat. 4 The mystical or sacramentarian element of participation in the death and life of the crucified and risen Lord is a Pauline infusion. It was inevitable that the close connection of the two rites should communicate to the former much of the symbolic sense attached almost from the outset to the latter. In the Synoptic Gospels the two rites are still separate, though through the anti-Jewish influence of Mark the Eucharist has come to be regarded not as an adaptation of the Breaking of Bread, as its very elements indicate it to have been, but as a substitute for the Passover. The symbolism of the "mystery of the Lord's body" has also manifestly begun to affect the traditions of the Sign of the Loaves. 5 John, the gospel of Asia, on the contrary, still preserves the primitive "Quartodeciman" idea of the death of Jesus (not the institution of the supper) as the fulfillment of the Passover, as in Paul. 8 But the transfer of symbolism is carried to the utmost extreme. The Breaking of Bread in Galilee has absorbed the whole significance of the Eucharist, leaving nothing for the night of the betrayal (not passover night ac- cording to John, but the thirteenth Nisan) but a rite of footwashing! A tendency toward Johannine symbolism is quite apparent in the grouping of Subdivisions b and c and in the editorial reflections. 7 But we may see from the Collision with the Scribes and Departure of Jesus which each time is made the sequel, that R has mainly in mind as the true Sign of the Loaves a thought similar to that with which Jn. 12: 20-43 winds up the story of the public ministry. The falling into the ground of the kernel of wheat is the condition of the ultimate harvest, the lifting up of the Son of man causes him to draw all men unto him. Jesus therefore, in Mk. 7: 1-23, repudiates the Jewish distinctions of meats, the barrier really found most effective to resist the spread of the gospel to the Gentile world, and departs to give a foretaste of the children's bread to "dogs" in Phoenicia. In 8: 11-21 he refuses a sign to the Pharisees, while as he departs to give light to the blind in Gentile Bethsaida he quickens the understanding of the Twelve to perceive the Sign from heaven already given to them. For the purposes of this theme R draws upon the two great Q com- plexes of the Denunciation of the Scribes and the Demand of a Sign, 8 1 1 Cor. 11: 17-22, 3.3, 34. 2 Jude 12. ' I Cor. 11: 23-29. *Didache,x. s See no tes. « I Cor. 5: 7; 15: 20. 7 6: 52; 8: 12, 16-21. 8 Mt. 12: 22-45=Lk. 11: 14-36 and Mt. 23: l-39=Lk. 11: 37—12: 1. 80 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY of which the former had already been drawn upon in 3 : 22-30. Jewish unbelief, as in R's own time, now becomes the occasion for Jesus' withdrawal, instead of the menacing attitude of Herod; though a trace of the latter motive remains in 8: 15. In Q the former discourse had been prefaced by reference to Jesus' "casting out a dumb devil" and perhaps his opening of blind eyes besides. 1 These two (?) healings are now removed from their place in 6: 56, R supplying the gap by that verse, an editorial generalization of his own. They are now de- veloped by symbolical elaboration into two parallel healings enclosing as in a symmetrical frame 2 the second Sign of the Loaves. Thus placed they carry out the thought of the paragraph in the sense of Is. 29: 10-24; 35: 5. Paul had declared of Israel, employing this same prophecy, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear." In the same context 3 he had added from Ps. 69: 23, 24 that God had "made their table a stumbling-block," that "their loss might be the riches of the Gen- tiles." R, who pragmatizes both "prophecies" in 7: 1-23 and 8: 17, 18 to show the nature of Jewish impenetrability, sets forth his conception of the cure prophesied in Is. 35: 5, 6 in this pair of healings. 4 We shall see that he encloses Subdivisions b and c of Division IV between a similar pair, the "Dumb Devil" of 9: 14-29 and Opening of Blind Eyes of 10: 46-52, and introduces from Q LK , near the beginning of Division V, another miracle which by universal admission can only be regarded as symbolic. 5 Symbolism in 7: 31-37 and 8: 22-26 is therefore no unique phenomenon. The same pragmatic purpose is pursued in the geographical outline of this Division. An earlier reference (P?) to Jesus' withdrawal into "the borders of Tyre and Sidon," i.e., northern Galilee, including the region of the headwaters of the Jordan and "the villages of Cssarea Philippi," is editorially developed into a vast missionary tour travers- ing the entire territory, now heathen, once included in the (ideal) borders of the Holy Land. Phoenicia, Decapolis, and the territory of Philip are thus successively covered. 8 No wonder Matthew simplifies and Luke transfers the whole conception to his second treatise , i Mt. 12: 22=Lk. 11: 14, 34-36; cf. Mt. 9: 27-34. 2 7: 31-37 and 8: 22-26. 3 Rom. 11: 7-12. 4 7: 31-37 and 8: 22-26. 5 The Cursing of the Fig Tree 11: 12-14, 20-25. "7:24,31; 8: 10, 13,22,27. 6: 30-35 THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 81 30 A ND the apostles gather themselves to- JLl. gether unto Jesus; and they told him all things, whatsoever they had done, 31 and whatsoever they had taught. And he saith unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while. For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat. 32 And they went away in the 33 boat to a desert place apart. And (the people) saw them going, and many knew (them), and they ran there together *on foot from all the cities, and outwent them. 34 And he came forth and saw a great mul- titude, and he had compassion on them, because they were as sheep not hav- ing a shepherd: and he began to teach 35 them many things. And when the day was now far spent, his disciples came unto him, and said, The place is desert, and the 1 Or, by land. Vers.30,31=Mt. 14: 13=Lk. 9: 10 R (Q) (Mt. 11: 25-30= Lk. 10: 17-22) Vers.33-44=Mt. 14:13-21=Lk. 9 : 106-17 (Q?) Cf. 8: 1-10 (Mt. 9: 36; cf. Num.27: 17) 6: 30, 31. Return of the Disciples. This paragraph, employed by- Mark to introduce the Feeding of the Five Thousand, reverts to his account of the Mission of the Twelve (6: 7-11), taken from Q, and wholly unconnected with the Wonders of Faith and Herod's Com- ment, (P) 4: 35—5: 43; 6: 14. Q affords a parallel (Mt. 11: 25-30 = Lk. 10: 17-22), though the Thanksgiving in Matthew is not con- nected with the return of the disciples (in Matthew the sending is permanent), and in Luke the Invitation to Rest (Mt. 11: 28-30) does not appear. In Mark (ver. 31) this spiritual utterance of the Wisdom of God (cf. Ecclus. 51: 1-10, 23, 26, 27 and Lk. 11: 49) is pragmatized after the fashion of R. We have no evidence that the P source related either the Mission or Return. The misunderstanding, however, in Mt. 14: 12 of the Return as a report of John's disciples to Jesus, makes the suggestion a tempting one that Matthew had besides our Mark, a more primitive form (P?), which after 6: 14 read simply, "For Herod had slain John in prison. And his (i.e., Jesus') disciples came and told Jesus," etc. Vers. 32-44. The (First) Miracle of the Loaves. In both versions of this miracle the details emphasized show the aetiological interest of the primitive narrator. It was the evening hour. The multitude assembled to hear the word were made the guests of Jesus and his disciples. They were set in orderly arrangement of table companies. Jesus, acting as head of a great household, "looked up to heaven and blessed" the loaves. Then the breaking. Then distribution by the disciples. Then gathering of the remnants in baskets corresponding in number to those performing the service of distribution. Each detail describes the ritual or defines the duty of some participant in the Church institution of the Breaking of Bread; for, as we learn from Justin Martyr (ca. 150 a.d.), it was the duty of the deacons after the 82 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 6:36-42 36 day is now far spent: send them away, that they may go into the country and villages round about, and buy themselves somewhat 37 to eat. But he answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hun- dred pennyworth of bread, and give them 38 to eat? And he saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go (and) see. And when they knew, they say, Five, and two 39 fishes. And he commanded them that all should 2 sit down by companies upon the 40 green grass. And they sat down in ranks, 41 by hundreds, and by fifties. And he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and look- ing up to heaven, he blessed, and brake the loaves; and he gave to the disciples to set before them; and the two fishes 42 divided he among them all. And they did 1 The Greek denotes a coin worth about a franc. 2 Gr. recline. Supper to distribute a portion to those absent, 1 as in earlier times it seems to have been their duty to distribute fragments to the poor (Acts 6:1). Ver. 36. The disciples' proposal shows that bread was obtainable by ordinary means. But R has no idea of limiting Jesus' appeal for miraculous intervention to cases where only miracle could avail. Ver. 38. How many loaves have ye? The number "seven" (8:5; here divided into "five" loaves and "two" fishes) is, of course, adapted. In 8: 1-10 it corresponds to the number of "baskets" of fragments, possibly because in the primitive Church the officers who "served tables" were seven in number (Acts 6:3). The model for the story of miracle is II Kings 4: 42-44. In Jn. 6: 13 this pattern is imitated even to the point of describing the loaves as of "barley"; but the point of original application seems to have been somewhat different (see on vers. 42-44). Ver. 39. By companies (Gr., "eating-companies"). Orderly ar- rangement was an important condition of decorum in the Love-feast; cf. the rebuke of disorder at Corinth (I Cor. 11: 17-22). Ver. 40. In ranks (Gr., "garden-beds"). The mention of the "green" grass completes the picture. Those who like to find in the graphic traits of Mark evidences of Petrine tradition are at liberty to do so; but the comparison is quite within the capacity of any early evan- gelist who had witnessed Christian love-feasts in the open air. Vers. 42-44. R does not state in so many words that Jesus wrought the miracle of Elisha (II Kings 4: 42-44) on a larger scale, but makes it apparent simply through the numbers employed. These, however, are manifestly artificial. It is not clear that the fundamental purpose of the story in its primitive form was to relate a marvel of miraculous 1 First Apology, lxv. 6:43,44 THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 83 43 all eat, and were filled. And they took up broken pieces, twelve basketfuls, and also 44 of the fishes. And they that ate the loaves were five thousand men. II Kings 4: 42-44 power. On the contrary, the position and context of the story, and the name ("Love-feast") and practical object of the institution whose origin it set forth, suggest as the primary motive the inculcation of the spirit so strikingly evinced in the primitive Church in the charism of giving (Acts 2: 44-46; 4: 34, 35; 6: 1-3; I Cor. 13: 3). Jesus was described as setting the example of the practice thus attested. He had commanded with characteristic generosity the unreserved sharing of the disciples' whole store with the motley throng of hearers. With a faith in the response of human nature to such treatment as yet unattainable to his disciples, he made the whole company his guests. The results were indeed memorable, though the narrative itself, if reduced to its primitive outline, does not seem to suggest that they were such as we should consider miraculous. In a country where even today no man goes half a day's journey from home without the in- dispensable store of "bread for the journey" in his "wallet" (6: 8; 8: 14) there would be less lack of actual food than of genuine disposi- tion to share it. 1 The Agap£ seems to have been referred in the primitive Church to an occasion when Jesus proved what his own unstinted goodness could do in the way of smiting the rock of human selfishness to supply the people's need in the wilderness. R, who has little appreciation for such reserve in the appeal for miraculous inter- vention as we find in Q (cf. Mt. 4: 3, 4 = Lk. 4: 3, 4), and a very decided disposition to prove Jesus the Son of God by marvels of supernatural power, is doubtless largely, though perhaps not wholly, responsible for the change of emphasis. Ver. 43. Twelve basketfuls, i.e., each apostle fills a hamper. In 8: 8 we have seven "baskets." The "hamper" [kophinos) was the receptacle in which the orthodox Jew carried his kosher food. Vers. 45-52. Walking on the Sea. The return by boat made without incident in 8: 10 is developed in this source (Q?) into an allegorical parallel to 4: 35-41. R connects its symbolism with "the loaves" in ver. 52. Luke cancels, perhaps with regard for the handle a narrative of the kind would afford to the docetist. Matthew takes the opposite course of elaborating the symbolism still further, and thereby throwing welcome light upon the origin of the tradition. The added traits that Peter asks to be bidden to walk with Jesus on the sea, attempts it, fails from lack of faith, is rescued by Jesus, the two coining then to- gether to the disciples in the boat (Mt. 14: 28-31), show that Matthew took the story to symbolize that of Gethsemane, when Peter offered to share Jesus' martyrdom and quailed before the storm; but (as we learn from I Cor. 15: 5; Lk. 22: 32) was restored by Jesus and became the "stablisher" of his brethren. Matthew's interpretation of the symbolism is doubtless correct. R here dilates upon the features which correspond to the helpless plight of the disciples after Jesus' arrest, and their deliverance by his reappearance, after having shown their incredulity of the resurrection. 1 To this day it is a stringent rule of native good-breeding that before eating every individual within hailing distance shall be invited to share the meal, no mat- ter now humble the repast or how great the difference in rank. Needless to say the Arab tefaddal ("do me the honor") is more form than reality. 84 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 6:45-51 45 And straightway he constrained his dis- ciples to enter into the boat, and to go be- fore (him) x [unto the other side] to Bethsaida, while he himself sendeth 46 the multitude away. And after he had taken leave of them, he departed into the 47 mountain to pray. And when even was come, the boat was in the midst of the sea, 48 and he alone on the land. And seeing them distressed in rowing, for the wind was con- trary unto them, about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking on the sea; and he would have passed by 49 them: but they, when they saw him walk- ing on the sea, supposed that it was an 2 apparition, and cried out: for they all 50 saw him, and were troubled. But he straightway spake with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not 51 afraid. And he went up unto them into the 1 Var. omit unto the other side. 2 Var. a demon. Vers.45-52=Mt. 14: 22-33 (Q?) Cf. 4: 35-41 and 8:10 Ver. 45. To Bethsaida. On the east shore in Philip's territory. Matthew-Luke omit. The addition belongs to R's geographical scheme. The first Miracle of the Loaves takes place on the Jewish side of the lake, the second in Decapolis. But see note on ver. 53. Sendeth the multitude away. A feature of the original story = 8: 96. The dismissal of the assembly is a function of the presiding elder of the Love-feast. Ver. 46. The mountain. In this connection the hill country back of Tiberias. But the scene in the mental background is Gethsemane, on the Mount of Olives. Ver. 48. Seeing them distressed in rowing. Actual sight under the circumstances would be impossible, but R is thinking of the night of the disciples' despair after the crucifixion. 1 About the fourth watch. The hour at which the fast commemorative of Jesus' death was ter- minated by a Breaking of Bread in memory of the resurrection. Walking on the sea. Christ's triumph over death. The figure is drawn from Ps. 77: 16, 19. 2 Ver. 49. The depiction of Christ's coming to comfort the fear and distress of his unbelieving disciples has traits recalling Lk. 24: 28, 37. Ver. 51. Jn. 6: 21 alters. "They desired to take him into the boat; but straightway the boat came to the land whither they went" (cf. Ps. 1 See the more elaborate development of the allegory in the Epistle of Clement to James, xiv (Clem. Horn., ca. 200 a.d). God is the shipmaster, Christ is the pilot, the bishop is the mate, the sailors are the deacons, midshipmen the cate- chists, passengers the laity. "Foul winds are temptations, persecutions and dan- gers, and all manner of afflictions are the waves." 2 In the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, cxxv, it is said of Antichrist, "He shall walk on the sea and on the rivers as on dry ground." But this is doubtless depend- ent on Mark. 6:52-55 THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 85 52 boat; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves ; for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened. 53 And when they had Crossed over, they came to the land 2 [unto Gennesaret], and 54 moored to the shore. And when they were come out of the boat, straightway 55 (the people) knew him, and ran round about that whole region, and began to carry about on their beds those that were 1 Or, crossed over to the land, they came unto Gennesaret. 2 Var. omit [ ]. R Vers.53-56=Mt. 14 : 34-36 R (Q?) 107: 30). This secures better correspondence with the experience of the Church. And the wind ceased. Verbally = 4: 39. Ver. 52. Colophon by R. The disciples' inability to understand the Sign of the Loaves (doctrine of the Cross and Resurrection) shows them still under the veil of Judaism, affected by its "hardening" (cf. 7: 18; 8: 17-19; Rom. 11: 7, 8; Is. 29: 10). Vers. 53-56. (Q?) R. Preliminary Survey. Critics have noted that vers. 53-55 seem framed to lead up to some specific instance of healing; whereas ver. 56 simply generalizes. 1 Q (Mt. 12: 22 = Lk. 11: 14) gave in fact at this point, as occasion for the Conflict with the Scribes from Jerusalem (7: 1-23), the Unstopping of Deaf Ears, which Mark defers to the beginning of the next group (7: 31-37). The sym- bolic sense given it by R (see note ibid, and cf. Is. 35: 15) makes the latter a more appropriate position. Note the corresponding setting of the Opening of Blind Eyes in Bethsaida (8: 22-26). Ver. 53. Unto Gennesaret. R's geography is vague (cf. 5: 1, 14). The doublet (8: 10) has "Dalmanutha." "Gennesaret" is known only as the name of the plain on the northwest shore of the lake. "Dal- manutha" is unheard of; perhaps a corruption. No explanation is given why the voyage shaped toward "the other side, to Bethsaida" (ver. 45), ends on the Jewish side (cf. 7: Iff.) at "Gennesaret." The incident of the Loaves was probably not locally fixed in the sources, though more likely historically to have occurred on the west shore, 2 whither crowds could readily "follow on foot from all the cities," than in Decapolis, separated from "the cities" by the lake and the Jordan. The maladjustment of R is doubtless due to the difficulty of imposing his theoretical scheme upon the sources. The scene of the Collision with the Scribes (7: 1-23) could only be in Gennesaret. In Jn. 6: 50 it is specifically "Capernaum." Ver. 55. Began to carry the sick about on their pallets. The con- ception is slightly different from ver. 56, where Jesus travels about from place to place and the sick are laid in the market-places (so Acts 5: 15, 16). Here he is at a given station and the sick are transported on litters. The word "pallet" (a Latinism almost unique) is the same as in 2: 4, 11, and suggests the possibility that the healing of the paralytic (2: l-5a, 11, 12) may once have followed at this point. The 1 Klostermann, Marcus, p. 146. 2 One tradition, represented by the reading, "Tiberias which was near the place where they ate the bread," in N*, locates it between Tiberias and Magdala. 86 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 6:56—7:3 56 sick, where they heard he was. And wheresoever he entered, into villages, or into cities, or into the country, they laid the sick in the Marketplaces, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment: and as many as touched 2 him were made whole. 7 And there are gathered to- gether unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which had come from Jeru- 2 salem, and had seen that some of his dis- ciples ate their bread with Mefiled, that 3 is, unwashen, hands. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they 1 p text, streets. 2 Or, it. 3 Gr. common. R Cf. 5:27, 28 and Ac, 5: 15, 16 7:l-13=Mt. 15: 1-9 R(Q) (Mt. 23: 25, 26= Lk. 11: 37-41) only other occurrences of the word, save in the dependent passage, Jn. 5: 8-12, are in Acts 5: 15; 9: 33. Ver. 56. (R). Cf. Acts 5: 15, 16; 19: 11, 12. Touch the border (Gr., ''tassel") of his garment. This allusion to Jesus' wearing the Jewish tsitsith (Num. 15: 38, 39) fails to appear in 5: 27, 28, doubtless through cancellation by R, for both parallels exhibit it (Mt. 9: 20 = Lk. 8: 44). In his generalized reproduction of the scene R now himself employs it, perhaps by oversight. Touched htm. Read with margin, "it." The wholesale healings by mere contact with Jesus' sacred garment are manifestly in close relation to Acts 5: 15, 16; 19: 11, 12; but the dependence, if any, must be assumed to be on the side of Luke until evidence appears of R's use of Lukan sources. The attitude toward miracle is as in 5: 30. 7: 1-13. Collision with the Scribes from Jerusalem. This scene from Q (Mt. 12: 22-37 = Lk. 11: 14-41) has been in part anticipated by prolepsis in 3: 22-30. R now dilates upon the hypocrisy of the scribes in their use of the Law, making the incident of the Pharisees' complaint against the disciples for neglect of the ablutions (Q LK 11: 37-41) the occasion for a general denunciation of the ceremonial- ism of the Synagogue, citing the Isaian passage similarly employed by Paul (Col. 2: 22), and adding an instance of scribal casuistry. Vers. 1, 2. Repeated, after the parenthetic explanation, in ver. 5. Certain . . . from Jerusalem. The antagonists proleptically introduced in 3: 22 now appear as a delegation from Jerusalem of awe-inspiring authority to all local adherents of the Synagogue. The covert sneer, ''He casteth out by Beelzebub," has preceded. This having been answered "in parables," whose application to the scribes was only indirect, they are awaiting an opportunity to accuse Jesus. According to Lk. 1 1 : 37 this opportunity came at the midday meal in the house of a Pharisee. Vers. 3, 4. The description of Jewish lustrations is, of course, in- tended for readers unfamiliar with them. R himself, however, is either ill-informed or prejudiced, or both. Such narrow ceremonialism was far from characterizing "all the Jews" or even the best of "the Pharisees." R's statement better deserves the name of a travesty or caricature, applying at best to the narrowest circles of synagogue 7*4-7 THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 87 wash their hands Miligently, eat not, hold- ing the tradition of the elders: and (when they come) from the marketplace, except they 2 wash themselves, they eat not: and many other things there be, which they have received to hold, 3 washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels 4 . And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands? And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching (as their) doctrines the precepts of men. 1 Or, up to the elbow. Gr. with the fist. 2 Gr. baptize. Var. sprinkle themselves. 8 Gr. baptizings. * Var. add and couches. R(Q) (X) Is. 29: 13 orthodoxy. Even its language ("washings of cups and pots and brazen vessels") seems to be suggested by Q (Mt. 23: 25 = Lk. 11: 39). Diligently (?). See margin. Later mss. and versions introduce con- jectures. "No explanation hitherto offered is wholly satisfactory" (Swete). Wash themselves (Gr., "bathe"). Some texts soften to "sprinkle." Even this would be a great exaggeration. Pots (Gr., xestae). A Graecised form of the Latin sextarius. Vessels. Some texts add "and (eating) couches" (see margin). R's mental back- ground is the table and its appurtenances; cf. 11: 9 and Q (Mt. 23: 25 = Lk. 11: 39). The Jews' reluctance to defile themselves by "eating with the Gentiles" had been the great bone of contention in the Church. Jewish exclusiveness is here depicted as specially concerned with lustrations before eating. Parallels can be adduced from the Talmud 1 for some points in special cases, but as a characterization of contem- porary Judaism the representation is misleading. Ver. 6. The quotation is from the same chapter (Is. 29: 13) which furnishes the motif of this whole Division. Nothing in the question (ver. 5) justifies the violence of the outbreak; but R is really contrast- ing Church vs. Synagogue. The quotation is applied to the Jews ("this people") and their religious observances ("vain worship") and doctrines ("precepts of men"; cf. Col. 2: 22). Vers. 8-13. R introduces (note the duplication, ver. 8 = ver. 9 2 ) an instance from the interminable disputes of Church vs. Synagogue. Rabbinic casuistry is declared to make the claims of the temple treasury take precedence over those of ordinary humanity and filial duty. So far as the charge is justified it rests on the principle: Duty to God takes precedence over duty to man. The case supposed is that of a man 1 Chaaigah (ed. Streane, pp. 715ff.). 2 Wellhausen, Mark, p. 57, "7:9-13 is not a continuation but a doublet of 7: 6-8." THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 7:8-14 8 Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of 9 men. And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, 10 that ye may *keep your tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, He that speaketh evil of father 1 1 or mother, let him 2 die the death : but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, 12 Given (to God) ; ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother; mak- 13 ing void the word of God by your 3 tradi- tion, which ye have delivered: and many 14 such like things ye do. And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto 1 Var. establish. 2 Or, surely die. 3 var. add foolish. R (X) Ex. 20: 12; 21:17 Dt. 5: 16 Vers.l4-33=Mt. 15:10-30 R(Q) who vows to God his earnings. The scribes say, "The vow cannot be cancelled, nor the earnings withdrawn from the temple treasury, even to save the man's aged parents from destitution." The Church had learned from Jesus the principle of humanity as the prime element in duty to God (Mt. 5: 23; Mk. 2: 27; 3: 4). Ver. 9. Full well. Render, "Is it well that ye reject?", etc. Ver. 10. Moses utters "the commandment of God." In 10: 1-10 even Moses' utterance recedes before a higher law. But the argument is so far ad hominem. The scribes admit the divineness of Moses' commandment, yet in application "nullify" it. Ver. 11. But ye say. Probably the word "say" is interpolated. The verb is "suffer": But ye, if a man say . . ., no longer suffer. That wherewith, etc. Less clumsily, "Thy gain from me," i.e., pecuniary interest in my earnings. Corban. The Aramaic term for a thing "dedi- cated" to the temple treasury. The treasury itself is so called in Mt.27: 6. Ver. 12. Such a vow becomes a primary claim against a man's wages. Vers. 14-23. Abolition of Distinctions of Meats. The entire para- graph is an elaboration of the single saying (ver. 15), which is indeed capable of very sweeping application, but cannot have been under- stood by the Twelve as intended to abolish the Mosaic distinctions of meats. The Semite knows no comparative degree. Hence to express the thought: Inward (spiritual) purity is more pleasing to God than abstinence from proscribed meats (cf. Mt. 5:8), the natural mode of expression is as in ver. 1 5. In substance at least it is a parallel . to the Q saying on cleansing the inside (Luke, of the man; Matthew, of the dish) rather than the outside (Mt. 23:25, 26 = Lk. 11:39-41"). & is more radical than the saying or practice of Jesus really warrants, in declaring that by this utterance he abolished all the Mosaic distinc- tions of meats (ver. 19; see note). Ver. 14. An exordium intended to emphasize the fundamental character, far-reaching significance, and general applicability of the saying to follow (cf. the addition of ver. 16 by some texts). The multitude — always available to R when the lesson concerns the public. 7: 15-23 THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 89 them, Hear me all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him: but the things which proceed out of the man 17 are those that defile the man. *And when he was entered into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked of him the 18 parable. And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Per- ceive ye not, that whatsoever from with- out goeth into the man, (it) cannot defile 19 him; because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? (This he said,) making all meats 20 clean. And he said, That which pro- ceedeth out of the man, that defileth the 21 man. For from within, out of the heart of men, 2 evil thoughts proceed, fornications, 22 thefts, murders, adulteries, covetings, wick- ednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, 23 railing, pride, foolishness: all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man. 1 (3 var. insert ver. 16. If any man hath ears to hear, let him hear. 2 Gr. thoughts that are evil. (Mt. 23: 25, 26= Lk. 11:39-41) R(Q) (Lk. 11:41) Ver. 15. See the interpretation in vers. 17-23. Ver. 18. Cf. 6: 52; 8: 17, 18. R remembers the slowness of the Twelve to admit the Pauline denial of distinctions of meats (Rom. 14: 14; Gal. 2: 14-16). Note the double answer, vers. 18, 19 = vers. 20-23; and cf. 4:11, 12 = 13-20 and 7:8, 9. The method of introducing explanations of the sayings under the form of questions by the dis- ciples in private existed prior to R, and is followed elsewhere (cf. Mt. 13:36-43). Ver. 19. Wellhausen disputes the translation of R. V., and makes "the draught" mean the larger intestine, and this the agent which "makes clean." On the grammatical question cf. Swete. The issue in either event is the same; distinctions of meats are abolished. R is giving the sense of Lk. 11:41 (Q LK ) in the spirit of Rom. 14:20; Tit. 1: 15; Acts 10: 15 = 11:9. Vers. 20-23. This answer contains no polemic against distinctions of meats, but is purely edifying, in the sense of Mt. 5: 8. Impurity of heart is that which most debars from access to God. An evil eye, railing (Gr., "blasphemy"). Cf. Lk. 11: 15ff., 34. If the occasion be that of Q LK the closing items of the list have special bearing against the scribes from Jerusalem. As in 4: 10-25 the duplicates, vers. 18, 19 and vers. 20-23, seem to represent successive stages of editorial appli- cation. The original terse saying appears in Q (Mt. 23:25, 26=Lk. 11: 39-41). R adds vers. 6-13 and enlarges. 90 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 7*24,25 24 And from thence he arose, and went away into the borders of Tyre *[and Sidon], And he entered into a house, and would have no man know it: and he could not be 25 hid. But straightway a woman, whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, hav- ing heard of him, came and fell down at 1 Var. omit and Sidon. Vers.24-30=Mt. 15:21-38 (P) 9 Vers. 24-30. Healing of the Gentile Woman's Daughter. The special pertinence of this incident to the mind of R seems to be the implied promise of "the children's bread." In the form exhibited by Matthew (Mt. 15: 21-28) no such contrast of the now and hereafter appears. The incident is purely a faith lesson. Because the woman's faith was so great (ver. 28) exception was made in her case from the rule (not given by Mark), "I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (ver. 24). Jesus is more stringent than the Twelve (ver. 23) in maintaining the rule until the proper ground for the ex- ception appears (cf. Mt. 8: 5-13). In Mark faith is not mentioned. But the woman's plea is made the occasion for explaining the seeming Jewish exclusiveness of Jesus. Her plea is granted because she accepts Jesus' seemingly repellent answer, indicating in her reply (see note on the address, "Lord") the right attitude of mind toward this divine dispensation (Rom. 11: 17-22). A historical incident is here treated in two notably different ways, neither quite adequate to the fact. But the modern apologetic explanation, which treats the conduct of Jesus as the acting of a part, whether for the woman's benefit or the disciples', is worse than either. The vital feature apparent from com- parison of Matthew and Mark is that the woman s answer, humble, yet full of faith, was received by Jesus as an enlargement of his own point of view. The finding of faith in this unexpected quarter was to him an intimation from the Father (cf. Mt. 16: 17), opening his eyes to a wider extension of his mission. Mark has wandered much further than Matthew from this sense. In the complete transforma- tion which his treatment effects in a saying (ver. 27) which Paulinists must have found it difficult to adjust to their point of view, if not in his omission of that (Mt. 15: 24 = 10: 6) which furnishes the real point of the story, we may perhaps find a reason why R might prefer this narrative (from P?) to that which in Q (Mt. 8: 5-10, 13 = Lk. 7: 1-10) fulfilled a similar doctrinal function, but placed the petitioner more in the attitude of a "proselyte of the gate." To commend the faith of such, as against Jewish unbelief, is a matter within the capacity even of the Pharisee who would "compass heaven and earth" to make one. Matthew himself rejoices in the coming of such strangers within Israel's gates (Mt. 8: 11,12). But to go forth to them on their native soil, in all their native paganism, giving them a foretaste of the Messianic bless- ings and an assurance of full participation in due time, is something more. Ver. 24. Borders (Matthew, "parts") of Tyre and Sidon. Mark understands by this expression a literal crossing the frontier of Phoenicia, though it admits the sense taken by Matthew, who brings the woman "out from those borders" to Jesus. The va- riant reading seems to be the correction of a scribe on the basis of ver. 31. 7t 26-30 THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 91 26 his feet. Now the woman was a ^reek, a Syrophcenician by race. And she be- sought him that he would cast forth the 27 devil out of her daughter. And he said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's 28 2 bread and cast it to the dogs. But she an- swered and saith unto him, Yea, Lord: even the dogs under the table eat of the 29 children's crumbs. And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is 30 gone out of thy daughter. And she went away unto her house, and found the child laid upon the bed, and the devil gone out. 1 Or, Gentile. 2 Or, loaf. Ver 26. Greek. Mark uses the word in the sense of "Gentile." See var. rend. Ver. 27. It is not consistent with the Christology of R (e.g., 1: 11; 2: 10; 4: 41; 8: 38; 9: 7; 12: 37; 13: 32), nor even with his conception of the foreknowledge of Jesus (e.g., 10: 32-34), that he should think of him as really sharing the Jewish exclusiveness reflected in this saying. For the introduction of the predictive "first," and the use of the diminutive of endearment in the word for "dogs" does not suffice to eradicate the sting, but only to partially adapt the material. R wishes the verse to be understood only as predictive, but the older conception escapes the cover. Ver. 28. Lord. No one in this Gospel confesses Jesus as "Lord" before the Triumphal Entry (11: 9), except in Decapolis (5: 19) and here. The title of Rabbi is rendered "Teacher" (4: 38), or otherwise avoided. Ver. 30. The sequel to the saying of Jesus is related in wholly di- verse form by Matthew and Mark. The interest of the source seems to have been concentrated on the utterance. We have no means of judging how much there was to give color to this supposed healing at a distance. 92 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY THE SIGN OF THE LOAVES IN DECAPOLIS PARAPHRASE Subdivision c. 7:31 — 8: 26. From Tyre Jesus traversed the whole extent of Phoenicia to Sidon; then by the road to Decap- olis which passes Catsarea Philippi he came again to the sea of Galilee from the eastern side. Here he miraculously un- stopped the ears of a deaf man, the process showing by signs the source of his power. By this miracle the multitude were wrought up to the highest pitch of wonderment. For these Gentiles Jesus then repeated the Sign of the Loaves and em- barking with his disciples came to Dalmanutha (?). Assailed here by the Pharisees with a Demand for a Sign from Heaven, he peremptorily refused it to that generation, and departed. In the boat he warned his disciples against the Leaven of the Pharisees and Herod, and opened their minds to the meaning of the Signs of the Loaves. Arrived in Bethsaida he mirac- ulously opened the eyes of a Blind man. SUBDIVISION C 7:31— 8:26— CRITICISM The structure and significance of Subdivision c have been largely anticipated in our discussion of Subdivision b, as was inevitable from the duplication and interweaving of parallel material by R. It remains to point out the distinction apparently intended between the two groups which makes the second more than mere repetition. To lead over to the concrete situation required by his fundamental source, viz, exile on the northern frontier, 1 R attaches after his first Sign of the Loaves, the Collision with the Scribes concerning Jewish ceremonial distinctions. This afforded a link, very appropriate from the religious point of view, between the Sign of the Loaves and the Promise to the Syro-Phoenician, since Jesus' death (considered to be symbolized in the Breaking of Bread) was according to Paul (Eph. 2: 14-16) the breaking down of this ceremonial barrier of special privilege between Jew and Gentile. For his second Sign of the Loaves R has taken, as already noted, the healings which in the Q material preceded the Collision with the Scribes in 6: 53 — 7: 23 and made of them a symbolic enclosing frame in 7: 32-37 and 8: 22-26. But to lead over a second time to the geo- graphical situation of exile on the northern frontier he employs another Collision with the Pharisees from Q — or, if we follow Luke, another element of the same collision — which turns upon their spiritual blindness in demanding a Sign from Heaven. 2 R stands about midway 1 The requirement is approximately the same whether we reckon 7: 24-30 to P or not. 2 Mt. 12: 38-42; 16: l-4=Lk. 11: 16, 29-32; 12: 54-56. THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 93 in his idea of the nature of this enigmatic "Sign," between Matthew, who squarely identifies it with the resurrection after three days, 1 and John, who has two solutions, one the resurrection after three days, 2 the other the rite of the Breaking of Bread in token of the resurrec- tion. 3 In Mark not the Jews alone are blind to the sign of Jonah, or signs of the times. Rather their demand is met with a peremptory refusal. 4 It is the disciples who receive the brunt of the rebuke. They have twice been given the Sign, and still are so bound under the char- acteristic Jewish obduracy and spiritual blindness that they ''do not even yet understand." 5 Thus in the two successive groups which relate the institution of the Breaking of Bread, R finds a way to bring out the two lessons most vital to him in the doctrine of the cross which to him the rite pre- figures. It is (1) a token of the abolition in Christ's broken body of "the law of carnal ordinances and commandments" which formed the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile. The scribes' insistence on the Jewish prerogative of "cleanness" only led Jesus to carry the children's bread to the Gentiles. (2) It is a token of the resurrection; a "sign" denied to the Jews, and which the disciples themselves were "slow of heart" to receive. i Mt. 12: 40. 8 Jn. 2: 18-22. 3 Jn. 6: 30-51. ■* Mk. 8: 12; see note. 6 8: 14-21. 94 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 7: 31-34 31 A ND again he went out from the borders J\. of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst 32 of the borders of Decapolis. And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to lay his hand upon him. 33 And he took him aside from the multitude privately, and put his fingers into his ears, 34 and he spat, and touched his tongue; and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. Vers.31-37=Mt. 15 : 39-31 R (Q) (Mt. 12: 22-24= Lk. 11: 14-16) 7: 31-37. R (Q). Deaf Ears Unstopped. This paragraph and the Opening of Blind Eyes (8: 22-26) are pendants, as diction and con- ception attest. It belongs to the distinctive peculiarities of R to dilate upon the therapeutic processes of the healings (cf. 5: 1-20; 9: 14-29), x especially Jesus' touch, and the fruitless effort to maintain secrecy. These features are made specially prominent in both, together with the kindred unique feature of the use of spittle. Strange phraseology ("hearings" for "ears," "seeings" for "eyes," "hard-of -speech," "far- clearly," etc.) connects both sections with the Septuagint as much as it separates them from New Testament style. Finally, the reference to Is. 29: 18-23 in ver. 37 (cf. Mt. 15: 31=9: 33, with Is. 29: 23), and the manner in which the two enclose the symbolic group (8: 1-21), shows that R is using his material for a symbolic purpose. Is. 29: 9-24, from which he quotes in 7: 6, 7, suggests the course of thought. Matthew summarizes in 15: 29-31, removing the two healings to 9: 27-34. At the same time he so greatly conforms to Mk. 10: 46-52 and to Q (Mt. 12:22-24 = Lk. 11: 14-16, 35 [?]), although retaining a few traces of Mark (Mt. 9: 29, 30, 31, 33) as to reveal at once the true traditional root. This is simply the Exorcism of a Dumb Devil, with connected Denunciation of Pharisaic Blindness (Q, Mt. 12: 22=Lk. 11: 14, 35). It is symbolic, not historical, interest which spurs the "graphic" genius of Mark to this elaboration. Ver. 31. Jesus is supposed to traverse the entire region once in- cluded within the ideal borders of Israel, but for centuries past purely heathen territory. The motive of R is apparent from the connection formed by him with 7: 1-23. From the concurrent witness of Matthew and Luke we infer that the representation has no broader basis in genuine historic tradition than the mention of Jesus' withdrawal (from Herod?) into "the borders of Tyre and Sidon," i.e., the northern frontier of Galilee 2 ; possibly of "Csesarea Philippi" also. Vers. 32-35. On the motive for the description of the therapeutic process, see above. On that for introducing the Aramaic word Eph- phatha, see on 5: 41. The sigh is not a "groan" (Gould), but, accom- panied as it is by the upward glance, simply sign language for the 1 F. P. Badham in St. Mark's Indebtedness to St. Matthew, p. 44, considers "the frequently trivial character of these details" and "the tendency to emphasize the marvelous" a "sign of decadence." If so, decadence had already begun when Paul rebuked Corinthian Christians for valuing the spectacular gifts of "miracles," "healings," "tongues" above faith, hope, and love. 2 Josephus, War III, xxxviii; Ant. XVIII, vi. 3. 7: 35— 8t 6 THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 95 35 And his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain. 36 And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published 37 it. And they were beyond measure aston- ished, saying, He hath done all things well : he maketh even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak. 8 In those days, when there was again a great multitude, and they had nothing to eat, he called unto him his disciples, and 2 saith unto them, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to 3 eat: and if I send them away fasting to their home, they will faint in the way; and 4 some of them are come from far. And his disciples answered him, Whence shall one be able to fill these men with *bread here in a desert place? And he asked them, 5 How many loaves have ye? And they 6 said, Seven. And he commandeth the multitude to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and having given 1 Gr. loaves. Is. 35: 5 8:l-10=Mt. 15: 32-39 Cf. 6: 31-52 (P?) appeal to God. 1 The description is indeed graphic. Intrinsic evidence suggests that the writer had himself witnessed such scenes. But who among Christians of his period had not? The "gifts of healing" were not obsolete in 75 a.d. (Jas. 5: 14, 15). Ver. 36. See on 1: 45. Matthew transcribes this injunction in 9: 30, using now the extraordinary Markan expression, "roaring at him" of Mk. 1:43. Ver. 37. The superlative astonishment of this particular healing is traceable in all the parallels (Mt. 9: 33 = 15: 31 2 ; Q, Mt. 12: 22, 23 = Lk. 11: 14; cf. Jn. 6: 14, 15). The occasion for its mention appears in the context of Q. It was followed by the contemptuous comment of the scribes from Jerusalem, "He casteth out by Beelzebub" (Mt. 12: 24ff. =Lk. 11: 15ff.=Mk. 3:22-30; 7:lff.). 8: 1-9. Second Miracle of the Loaves. As before, the scene is so depicted as to reflect all the features of the Church ritual. The dia- logue with the disciples is not psychologically conceivable if the miracle of 6: 35-44 had preceded. R's differentiation by slight changes in the 1 Cf. "Prayer is the heaving of a sigh, The upward lifting of an eye, When none but God is near." 8 Taken from the q and 6 forma of Mark respectively. 96 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 8:7-12 thanks, he brake, and gave to his disciples, to set before them ; and they set them before 7 the multitude. And they had a few small fishes: and having blessed them, he com- manded to set these also before them. 8 And they did eat, and were filled: and they took up, of broken pieces that re- 9 mained over, seven baskets. And they were about four thousand: and he sent 10 them away. And straightway he en- tered into the boat with his disciples, and came into the parts of 1 Dalmanutha. 11 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempt- 12 ing him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. 1 /3 var. Magadan. Vers.ll-13=Mt. 16: 1-4 R(Q) (Mt. 12: 38-42= Lk. 11: 16, 29- 32) numbers and combination in the reference (8: 14-21) does not affect this. Ver. 8. Seven baskets (see on 6: 43). The term "basket" means here the ordinary receptacle. If the numeral has any significance aside from the ordinary use of sevens it is probably that in primitive celebration of the Agape\ seven deacons served the tables (Acts 6: 3). Ver. 9. And he sent them away. See on 6: 45. Ver. 10 (cf. 6: 45-53). Dalmanwtha. Unknown, perhaps a corrup- tion„ The /? text assimilates to Matthew. The coming forth of the Pharisees implies some place on the west shore, probably on the plain of Gennesaret. Vers. 11-13. Demand of a Sign from Heaven. On the various appli- cations in our Gospels of this Q saying, see above, p. 92. In Q (Mt. 12: 38-42 = Lk. 11: 16, 29-32) the demand is answered by an offer of "the sign of Jonah," which Luke interprets as meaning Jesus' own person- ality (Lk. 11: 30); Matthew, his resurrection (Mt. 12: 40). In Mt. 21: 23-32 Jesus answers a similar demand by referring to "the baptism of John" as "from heaven." Such was probably the originally intended reference in the Q passage. Jn. 2: 18-22 applies the solution of Mt. 12:40 (Jesus' resurrection = the sign from heaven) in the connection of Mt. 21:23-32. Jn. 6:30-40 combines that of Lk. 11: 30 (Jesus' own personality = the sign) with Mark (the Breaking of Bread = the sign) and Matthew (the resurrection = the sign). Ver. 12. There shall no sign be given to this generation. Mark, whose Gospel is largely written to prove Jesus' claims by the exhibition of marvels, could not treat this demand as indicative of a wrong spirit. Only in Q, wherein Jesus treats as a solicitation of Satan the sugges- tion that he shall thus employ miraculous power (Mt. 4: 7 = Lk. 4: 12), is it appropriate to speak of the generation as "evil and adulterous" for seeking a sign. This characterization is therefore transferred in 8:13-19 THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 97 13 And he left them, and again enter- ing into (the boat) departed to the other side. 14 And they forgot to take bread; and they had not in the boat with them more than 15 one loaf. And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod. 16 And they reasoned one with 17 another, laying, 2 We have no bread. And Jesus perceiving it saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? do ye not yet perceive, neither understand? 18 have ye your heart hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye 19 not? and do ye not remember? When I brake the five loaves among the five thou- sand, how many 3 baskets full of broken 1 Var. because they had no bread. 2 Or, It is because we have no bread. * Basket in vers. 19 and 20 represents different Greek words. Vers. 14-21 =Mt. 16:5-13 R(Q?) (Lk. 12: 1) R Mark to 8: 38, where it applies to the Jews as rejecting Jesus' Messiah- ship. But this is less appropriate. "Adulterous" is used in the sense employed in the Old Testament. Miracles were habitually referred to the action of angels, spirits, or "demons" (cf. 3: 22). The craving for them is justly regarded by Jesus as analogous to the inveterate dis- position of Israel in the days of the prophets to "go a-whoring after false gods." As R employs the saying it becomes simply a parallel to 4: 11, 12. The Pharisees are "outsiders." Their generation shall have no sign (see next note). Vers. 14-21. Explanation of the Sign of the Loaves, Instead of any of the various interpretations of the Sign of Jonah (see above, p. 96), Mark introduces another obscure saying from Q LK , "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees," applying it to the plots against Jesus' life, as appears from the addition "and of Herod" (cf. 3: 6; 12: 13). On this meager basis the whole development of 8: 14-21 is constructed, the suggestion doubtless coming from the term "leaven." It is meant as a foil to vers. 10-13. The Pharisees and their evil generation vainly demand a sign. The disciples are in danger of the same obtuse spirit, but are taught to see that already twice the Sign from heaven has been given them in the Breaking of Bread. This they should have perceived after the first experience (6: 52). Now both miracles are recalled to their minds and their spiritual perception quickened. Ver. 14. One loaf. J. Weiss thinks this a trace of allegorizing. The one loaf, all-sufficient to the Church in spite of the plots of the enemy, is its Lord, whose broken body is symbolized in the bread. This may be straining a point, but the intention to give a symbolic sense to the two narratives referred to is apparent in the citation of the Isaian passage on "hardening" (vers. 17, 18; cf. 4: 11, 12; 6: 52). Ver. 16. Wellhausen justly remarks that the true connection of this verse is not with ver. 15, but ver. 14. The reason seems to be that 98 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 8: 20-23 pieces took ye up? They say unto him, 20 Twelve. And when the seven among the four thousand, how many x basketfuls of 21 broken pieces took ye up? And they say unto him, Seven. And he said unto them, Do ye not yet understand? 22 23 And they come unto bethsaida. And they bring to him a blind man, and be- seech him to touch him. And he took hold of the blind man by the hand, and brought him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes, and laid his hands upon him, 1 p var. Bethany. Vers.22-26=Mt. 9:27-31; cf. Mt. 15: 29-31 R(Q?) (Mt. 12: 22, 23= Lk. 11: 14,34- 36; cf. Jn. 9: 1- 41; 10: 19-21) ver. 15 was taken up ready made, while the rest of vers. 14-21 is written to provide a framework for it, as in 3: 20, 21, 31-35, enclosing 3: 35, and in 6: 1-6, enclosing 6: 4. Vers. 22-26. Opening of Blind Eyes. On the development by R of this symbolic healing and its pendant (7: 31-37), see the note ibid. The spirit of blindness poured out on Israel according to prophecy (Is. 29: 10, 18, 19), in which even the Twelve have just been shown to participate (vers. 17, 18), is removed in this typical instance, as the Gentile woman had previously been given a foretaste of the salvation promised to the Gentiles (7: 24-30). The symbolism is more elabo- rately developed in Jn. 9: 1-41 in connection with the denunciation of the Pharisees for the unforgivable sin of willful blindness, a combina- tion of Mark and Q (Mt. 12: 22-45 = Lk. 11: 14-32). The Lukan form does not contain the healing of the blind man (on account of its re- semblance to Mk. 10: 46-52?), but has instead the Q saying on Inward Light (Mt. 6:22, 23 = Lk. 11:34-36). It becomes a very difficult matter to decide whether Mark had a basis in Q for this healing, or merely follows Is. 29: 18. The fact that the substance of the story disagrees with the geographical setting favors the former. For Bethsaida was more than a "village," more even than a "village- city." It was a "city," as Luke calls it (Lk. 9: 10), having been created such by Philip. 1 The "village" of this incident (vers. 23, 26) is there- fore not Bethsaida in the intention of the original narrator, unless we hypothesize a Bethsaida separate from the city. The situation is such as is led up to by 6: 54, 55, and the collocation of "blind and dumb" in Mt. 12: 22 suggests this position. Matthew's generalizing substitute for the pair of pendants (Mt. 15: 29-31) combines "blind" and "dumb" in ver. 30, and "dumb" and "blind" in ver. 31. The pairing of the two in Mt. 9: 27-34 is also significant. Ver. 23. Brought him oat of the village. The village is not the man's home, but the place where Jesus was staying (see note pre- ceding and cf. 6: 55). Jesus leads him out into the country to avoid publicity, and then sends him home by a way which does not lead back to the village (ver. 26). Spit on his eyes (see note on 7: 31-37). Jn. 9: 6, 7 develops the trait. 1 Josephus, Ant. XVIII, ii. 1; War II, ix. 1. 8: 24-26 THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD 99 24 he asked him, Seest thou aught? And he looked up, and said, I see men; for I behold 25 (them) as trees, walking. Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; and he looked stedfastly, and was restored, and saw all 26 things clearly. And he sent him away to his home, saying, Do not even enter into the village. Vers. 24, 25. R dilates upon the man's gradual emergence from blindness (cf. 9: 20-27). The interest in both descriptions is sym- bolical (cf. Is. 43: 8; 29: 18). Two stages are expected in Israel's conversion, first the elect remnant, afterward all Israel (Rom. 11: 5-7, 26). Ver. 24. (Them) as trees (so Greek). But the sense is "things like trees that walk." A tree-trunk (the part a blind man can feel) is in size and shape like the human figure. INTRODUCTION Doctrinally, geographically, and historically the most definite milestone of the Gospel is at the scene of Csesarea Philippi. 1 The theme Who is Jesus? What is his relation to the Baptist and what his mission and fate? had indeed been broached in that of Herod's Comment, 2 to say nothing of the anticipation in the prediction of the taking away of the Bridegroom. 3 It had even been symbolically foreshadowed in the two groups of incidents connected with the Breaking of Bread. But with the scene of Csesarea Philippi, Mark reaches the culminating point of his Gospel. True, it has not to him the significance which modern interpreters have attempted to read into it, whenever the desire to find in "our oldest source" the actual course of events overcame the candor of unbiased exegesis. However probable the fact that the suggestion of Jesus' being the Messiah was now advanced for the first time, such is certainly not the view of our evangelist. That which the demons had been shriek- ing since their first encounter with Jesus 4 he does not con- sider to have been hitherto concealed from those to whom Jesus had given "the mystery of the kingdom of heaven." 5 For him the resumption of the current rumors of 6: 14, leading to Peter's answer on behalf of all, "Thou art the Christ," introduces no startling novelty. Peter's answer elicits from Jesus nothing but a renewal of the charge not to reveal the "mystery." It does, however, thus pave the way for that which is really to R the new and startling an- nouncement, viz, the Doctrine of the Cross. 6 We have in Mark, accordingly, nothing of Matthew's commendation of Peter's avowal as a revelation from God, nothing of the designation of Peter as the "Rock "-foundation of the Church. Simply a scathing rebuke of his carnal Handed- ness for not accepting the unpalatable tenet of the cross, and a beginning of the indoctrination of the Twelve in the Chris- tian principle of losing one's life to save it. The cardinal point of Gospel story is thus reached by our evangelist. As we shall see, the really distinctive teaching of Jesus begins for him with the first Division of Part Second, »8:27ff. 2 6:14-16. s 2: 20. * 1: 24. 34; 3: 11; 5: 7. 6 4: 11. °Ver. 31. 103 104 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY and characterizes it throughout. Previously there has been nothing but the proclamation of the approach of the King- dom and (to the disciples) the manifestation of Jesus' true dignity. At this epoch-making point of the Gospel we are justified accordingly in pausing for brief consideration of the most vital question of historical criticism, What was Jesus' own conception of his mission? It is from the period of exile in the north that all the Synoptists date the new phase of Jesus' activity which ends with his martyrdom in Jerusalem. And with good reason. Excluded from his field of effort for the religiously disinherited masses in Galilee, Jesus faced the alternative of abandonment of his mission, or else the extension of it. in spite of greater danger, to judsea. Systematic activity among the Gentiles, in spite of Markan and Johannine symbolism, 1 is not really likely to have entered his mind. Abandonment of the cause of the "little ones," the "lost sons!' of Israel, was even more inadmissible. Jesus there- fore "set his face steadfastly" (Gr., "hardened his face") to go up to Jerusalem. But here he would confront a different enemy, in a differ- ent stronghold. The usurpation of the scribes and their adherents the Pharisees in the Galilean synagogues, had of course its counterpart on a larger scale in Jerusalem also; but in Judsea there was besides this the greater usurpation, of longer standing, by the Sadducean hierocracy in the temple. Here had been the proper center of Israel's na- tional and religious life, the true house of Yahweh. But this center had fallen under control of an utterly degenerate and worldly priesthood, successors to the self-seeking later Maccabees. Behind these as their support couched the grim specter of Roman authority, far more menacing than any threats of the "jackal" of Galilee, fatal as his power had proved to Jesus' great predecessor. It seems to be the intention of our evangelist, and not his alone, but that of the more fundamental tradition (P) which forms the underlying basis of Synoptic narrative, to represent that Jesus at this time, on the suggestion drawn by him from Simon Peter, assumed in the confidential circle of the Twelve the wholly new role and title of "the Christ," a title as yet necessarily lacking all Christian attributes, and signi- fying simply the expected Deliverer of Israel. 2 The indica- tions which point to this revelation of the Messiahship as 1 With Mk. 6-9 cf. Jn. 12: 20-41. 2 Lk. 24: 21; Jn. 1: 41. 49. INTRODUCTION 105 the witness of P are all the more convincing that R has left scarcely an approach to it. For him the word has the full Christian sense. Messiahship is something quite insepar- able from the title " Son of God," which was the very start- ing-point of his story, and is assumed to be known to the Twelve from the outset. 1 Hence no stress whatever is laid on Peter's reply to the question, Who say ye that I am? It is almost a matter of course to reply, ''Thou art the Christ." The only comment upon it is a renewal of the injunction of secrecy before proceeding to the Prediction of the Cross, which for R is the main point, and the sole occasion for the prominence of Peter. For in Mark, as we have it, Peter, who now appears for the first time in a separate role, is in- troduced not as the first confessor and thus founder of the Church, 2 but solely as the instrument of "Satan"(!) in opposing the doctrine of the Cross. That this was not the original sense of the narrative is as certain as any fact in the domain of historical criticism can be. The very language of the rebuke is borrowed from Q. 3 The innumerable traces of Peter's position as leader of the apostolic group, and countless internal marks of the tradition are enough to show that our Mark, whatever basis of fact he rests upon 4 for the P rebuke, has not done justice to the Confession. Something occurred at Csesarea Philippi to which the Church looked back in after years as marking its own beginning. And in that occurrence it found an honor- able part for Peter. It is true that Matthew presents a view which is also dis- torted, though in the reverse direction. In that Gospel, as in Mark, the title and role of Messiah are unhistorically car- ried back to the beginning. 5 Our first evangelist is as in- capable as our second of understanding the divine sonship which Jesus claims in Q 6 in the simple religio-ethical sense of the Sermon on the Mount. 7 He would have to cease to be a Christian of the second or third generation to do so. He is perhaps even more anachronistic than Mark in that he presents the Confession of Peter as if its real significance were the Founding of the Church, an event subsequent to the crucifixion. But traces remain in abundance even in Mat- thew's narrative to prove that it really concerns itself with the Confession of Jesus as the Christ by Peter for the first time? There is also much in the conditions as otherwise 1 1: 11, 24, 34; 2: 7, 10, 28; 3: 11; 4: 11. 41, etc. acf. Mt. 16: 16-19. 3 Mt. 4: 10=Lk. 4: 8. * See 9: 5, 6. note. 6 cf., e.g., Mt. 14: 33. •Mt. 11: 27=Lk. 10: 22. * Mt. 5: 48=Lk. 6: 36 8 Mt. 16: 17-20. 106 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY known to indicate that such was the historic fact. In other words, we should really ascribe to Peter this earlier distinc- tion, of having first applied to Jesus the title of "Christ," or at least of having attributed to him the role of Deliverer of Israel, before he became by his faith in Jesus' resurrection the founder of the Church. For not even the suppression of the original ending of our Gospel 1 can deprive Peter of the glory of having been first after the crucifixion to "turn again" and "stablish his brethren." 2 But had he played a similar part before? Many critics of note have questioned the credibility of this alleged Confession, regarding all that gives the color of a public messianic appeal to Jesus' journey to Jerusalem as the carrying back of later ideas. Such indeed is stated in so many words to be the case regarding the Triumphal Entry in Jn. 12: 16. Yet there remain certain unalterable facts that seem to preclude the entire dissipation of the tradition that Jesus was hailed once and again as the Messiah, and if so his own action must have involved something more than mere preaching and healing, to give color to the idea. From Caesarea Philippi a change does take place in the nature of his ministry. For some reason Jesus did go up to Jerusalem, and throw down the gauntlet in the face of the priestly hierocracy in the temple itself. For some reason he did follow a role that led to his execution by Pilate as a political agitator. For some reason his followers, very shortly after, did ascribe to him not mere reappearance from the tomb, but exaltation to the place of the Messiah "at the right hand of God" — attributes so exalted that it is difficult to believe they had no other foundation than mere reverence for an admired Teacher. No; from the moment of his coup d'6tat upon the temple Jesus' career passes beyond that of the mere rabbi, or even prophet. The traditions, distorted as they are, of a momentous consultation with the Twelve in exile, issuing in a concerted movement under pledge of secrecy of this quasi-political type, do not conflict with subsequent develop- ments, but rather explain them. It is true that " the Christ" is never Jesus' title for himself, and on the sole occasion out- side the present when it seems to be admitted, 3 the admis- sion in both parallels, and even as it would seem in Mark's own model, 4 is as it were under protest. Even in the present 1 See Division VI, Criticism, Subd. c. 2 Lk. 22: 32. 3 14: 62=Mt. 26: 64=Lk. 22: 67. 4 Mk. 14: 55-64 seems to be a mere editorial replica of 15: 1-5; see notes ibid. INTRODUCTION 107 instance Peter's "Confession" is immediately followed by a Rebuke which removes all political and theocratic signifi- cance from the suggestion as soon as made. We must also admit that it is inconsistent with the entire teaching of Jesus and his activity up to the period of exile that he should have allowed the title "the Christ" to be applied to him in any sense save one almost too remote from the cur- rent conception to make its use conducive to right under- standing. In one respect, however, it did correspond to the ideal to which Jesus was now committed. He had become the leader, champion, and vindicator of the disinherited "sons." If their claim to "the kingdom" was now to be presented to the full limit of its content, at the center of national and religious life, "the Son" who should present it on behalf of his brethren — and not only present but obtain it since it was the "good pleasure (i.e., decree) of the Father to give them the kingdom" — must in the truest and highest sense of the word be a "Messiah" of this flock. For the messianic hope is before all else the aspiration to sonship. Its most fundamental and oldest phase is not the theocratic. This was a mere later adaptation to the institution of the monarchy (II Sam. 7: 14). Primarily the messianic hope is the belief that Israel as a people is Yahweh's "son," his first-born, redeemed from bondage and called out of Egypt (Ex. 4: 22; Hos. 11:1). True the belief had at first far more of mere nationalism, perhaps more of actual primeval Semi- tic nature worship, than of ethical content. But the prophets differentiated Israel's relation to Yahweh from that of the Canaanite to Baal, as a relation of adoption; and Pharisa- ism infused mere nationalism with an ethico-religious con- tent unknown before. 1 To Jesus the reinstatement of the lost sons in their filial relation to God was the aim in view. This was indeed primarily and supremely a matter for indi- vidual development in the ethical characteristics attributed to the Father in heaven (Mt. 5 : 43-48 = Lk. 6 : 27-36) . But it did not stop there. All the secondary good things which belonged to the current ideal of "the kingdom of God" were to be "added" to his disciples. If we suppose that now, confronting the alternative either of abandonment or en- largement of his work, Jesus had resolved to present the de- mand of his little flock at the very center of usurpation, and to present it to the full, there was no name better adapted to his purpose than that of "the Christ," provided that title could be stripped of all its theocratic acquired connotations 1 See Jubilees i. 24, 25. 108 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY and made to mean simply He who brings Israel into its pre- destined relation of sonship to God. Pharisaism, as noted, had already done much to accom- plish this refinement of the messianic hope. In resisting Sadducean worldliness on the one side and Zealot national- ism on the other the Pharisees had gone far toward develop- ing a messianic ideal worthy to represent the noblest tradi- tions of the past. Witness the Psalms of the Pharisees, or the prayer of Moses in Jubilees 1 : 24. Israel's hope is at- tained when by the infusion of God's Spirit of righteousness, all are obedient to his law and partake of his holy nature. Then dominion over the world shall be given them. But Jesus' ideal is not identical with the Pharisaic. The dis- tinction drawn by the Pharisee is that of the present and the hereafter. Obedience now, reward then. Jesus' primary distinction is of outward vs. inward. Not the requirement only, the law, is made inward, but the reward as well. The kingdom is not merely a future, but an inward kingdom. 1 Sonship consists not primarily in the external condition but in the spiritual relation. For this reason the categories of Pharisaic religion are not congenial or adequate to Jesus; nor can we accept the idea that its apocalyptic "world to come" represented to him the acme of religious aspiration. The apocalyptic eschatology with its definite scheme of future reward was congenial to Pharisaism and completely satisfactory to its religious ideal. To Jesus it could not be so. The distinctions of now and hereafter represent not his conclusions but his data, service- able until superseded, as they are already beginning to be in the Fourth Gospel, by conceptions more in harmony with his doctrine of sonship and his fundamental distinction of in- ward vs. outward. For a like reason the apocalyptic figure of the Son of man could not be Jesus' " favorite self-designa- tion." He was not a visionary and fanatic, who believed himself destined within the lifetime of his followers to be brought back from the underworld as the Danielic " Son of man" on the clouds of heaven. Such apocalyptic fanati- cism is the characteristic not of the sane and well-poised mind of the plain mechanic of Nazareth, but of Pharisaism in his own time and of the later generation of his followers. It is the enthusiastic Church, ecstatically endowed with the Spirit of " prophecy," "tongues," and "revelations," which sees Jesus as "the Son of man" coming on the clouds of heaven. The Son of man of whom Jesus speaks is i Lk. 17: 21. INTRODUCTION 109 simply the conventional figure, not necessarily himself, who is to be the agent of God's vindication in the coming judgment. Our conclusion must be that Jesus was neither Zealot nor Pharisee. If he at all admitted the application to himself of strictly messianic titles and attributes, it was in a purely ethico-religious sense, and only for the preservation of that deepest and most vital element of the messianic hope — the sonship of Israel. After all, the question whether Jesus at this time accepted or rejected the title of "the Christ" which Peter offered is mainly a question of "words and names." The really material fact is that from this point begins a new phase of his activity which inevitably led to a messianic outcome, even if he himself had neither the ambition nor expectation of being proclaimed "the Christ." Certain it is that in the face of increasing dangers he now resolved to assume a leadership in the cause of the lost sons which would involve a championing of their cause against the central hierocratic stronghold, the temple itself. Equally certain it is that he undertook the unequal contest in no self-seeking spirit, but with full realization of its probable issue. His Galilean followers, on the other hand, can hardly have viewed the proceeding in the same disinterested light. Grant that the introduction of the messianic title in the mouth of Peter at this point may be an anticipation, surely nothing can be more intrinsically probable than a collision at just this turn of events between Jesus' conception of the career to which the voice of God was summoning him, and the disciples' conception, voiced by Peter. Master and dis- ciples were indeed agreed that the time had come for action, for protest in Jerusalem itself, and against the usurpations not of those who "sat in Moses' seat" only, but of those also who held "the key of David" and had "made the house of God a den of thieves." He and they both had faith in God to give his little flock the victory, or they would not have made the attempt together. But from this point their hope and his diverged. He foresaw martyrdom, vindicated not by his own Coming again, but by the Coming of the Danielic Son of man. And this Coming was to be not far off in the hopelessly distant future, but while the evil generation still lived that had slain God's messengers. They dreamed of immediate success, and when disaster came they first de- spaired, then identified Jesus himself with the coming Son of man. With this difference in point of view the catas- trophe in its first effect could not but seem to the disciples a 110 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY divine repudiation of Jesus' whole program. They themselves "were stumbled in him" (14:27). But a complete revul- sion of feeling was inevitable from the moment the im- mediate shock of the tragedy allowed their minds to revert to his actual words. They would now tend to swing to the opposite extreme. They had been wrong; not he. Thus he had forewarned them that his life would be the price of his temerity. Peter, whose " stumbling" had been most conspicuous, was the first to "be converted" and after that to "strengthen his brethren." He beheld the risen Jesus in the apocalyptic glory (I Cor. 15:5). Now, if not before, Peter believed in him and proclaimed him as "the Christ." The term had already been purged of all taint of Zealotry by the tragedy, but it had not yet transcended Pharisaism. Jesus himself should come again as "the Lord from heaven." Nay, he was no other than himself the Son of man for whose coming he had bidden them look as the divine vindication of his martyrdom. Even if Jesus himself regarded his calling as in some re- mote sense "messianic," historical criticism may reasonably question whether the direct claim of his Messiahship would ever have been put forth by his disciples had it not first appeared as a malignant imputation of his mortal enemies, in the charge by which they secured his crucifixion from a complaisantly cruel governor. Jesus' own course of action had given to such a charge just enough verisimilitude to accomplish its malignant purpose. — And having accom- plished it, like many similar false representations it went much further than its originators had foreseen, and became the very watch-word of the Galileans they supposed them- selves to be now permanently suppressing. It may well be questioned, as we have seen, whether up to the crucifixion itself the prophet of Nazareth had been seriously regarded as "the Christ" by even the most ardent disciple (see how- ever on 14: 3-9). But from the time that he had been put to death as such, it was in harmony with all contemporary habits of reasoning for his following to declare that he was in very truth the Christ of God. His enemies failed to allow for this alternative. In God's providence their "lift- ing him up" became the means of "drawing all men unto him"; for certain it is that no amount of proclamation of the Galilean leader as "the Christ" by Peter, or by Jesus himself, or by all Israel, would ever have signified anything without the cross. Only by what that signifies does the word "Christ" leave its lowly place in the vocabulary of INTRODUCTION 111 obsolete superstitions of an obscure Semitic people, and become the designation of the great Elder Brother of hu- manity. The Danielic title Son of man must undergo the same transfiguration before it fitly describes the Son, who by his dauntless championship of the "lost sons" has in- deed " opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers." For the event of real significance to the world neither the word of Peter nor the word of Pilate could furnish more than a mere occasion. God, and only God, "hath made him whom the Jews crucified both Lord and Christ." PART IE DIVISION IV. 8:27—10:52 THE WAY OF THE CROSS STRUCTURE As already noted, the indoctrination of the Twelve in the principle of the Cross forms the dominant note of this Division. Each of its three subdivisions is marked by a solemn reiteration of the Prediction of Martyrdom. 1 It is in fact characteristic of our Pauline evangelist that he should reserve for this part of his story all account of Jesus' distinctive gospel. Matthew and Luke begin their account of the Galilean ministry with an exposition of the easy yoke which Jesus substituted for Mosaism, the more spiritual law of "sons." Mark, as we have seen, passes by the Sermon on the Mount, substituting the Preaching in Par- ables. These convey indeed "the mystery of the kingdom of God" on its eschatological side. They convey in figur- ative form the message intrusted to the disciples, "The Kingdom of heaven is at hand." But there is not even an attempt to present Jesus' own distinctive teaching. That is reserved for the present Division on the Way of the Cross. Not until the revelation of this fundamental prin- ciple, the doctrine of the Cross, are we made acquainted with the distinctive note of the evangelist's faith. Now he begins the real theme of gospel teaching by declaring what one must do to inherit eternal life. The two healings of the Division seem at first an inter- ruption of its logical order, especially when in such a case as that of the Epileptic, 2 we ask, How does the historical situation admit of the scenes of vers. 14, 15? So excellent a critic as J. Weiss 3 can even argue from the seeming lack of relation between this incident and its context that it must have occurred at just this juncture in real experience, since we have no other way of explaining its insertion here. On the contrary, the analogy of the symbolic miracles of the Unstopping of Deaf Ears and Opening of Blind Eyes i 8: 27-33; 9: 30-32; 10: 32-34. 2 9: 14-29. 3 Das alteste Evangelium, p. 228. 112 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 113 to enclose Subdivision c of the preceding Division should teach us what to expect here. R has demonstrably changed the original phraseology in 9: 17 and 25 to transform this incident from the Healing of an Epileptic into the Casting out of a Dumb and Deaf Devil. The result is a symbolic healing like that of the Unstopping of Deaf Ears 1 to close the first Subdivision 2 and another, the counterpart of the Opening of Blind Eyes 3 to close the whole Division. 4 Ques- tions of compatibility with the historical situation we have no right to ask. They are simply non-existent for our evangelist. He places his material where he finds it effec- tive for religious purposes. Apply the key of current symbolism 5 and the two healings will be found to stand exactly where they should be expected. In particular the Confession of Peter, Transfiguration, and Healing of the Epileptic 6 will be found a thoroughly homogeneous group (from R's point of view), constituting Subdivision a of this Division. The geographical data will be found in harmony with this arrangement. With the second Prediction of the Cross 7 the journey from the scenes of Subdivision a on the northern frontier toward Jerusalem is begun. It continues in Sub- division b in two stages which also mark a division of sub- ject, so that the material of Subdivision b falls into two groups. "Capernaum" is made the scene for a first group of sayings and incidents. 8 "Judaea beyond Jordan" for a second, 9 of somewhat different character. With the third Prediction of the Cross, beginning Subdivision c, Jerusalem itself is set as the immediate objective, 10 while the mention of "Jericho" 11 brings into needed relief the symbolic healing which serves as a kind of epilogue to the whole Division, leading over to that which is to follow on the Appeal to Jerusalem. 1 7: 31-37. 2 9: 14-29. * 8: 22-26. * 10: 46-52. 8 See note on 9: 14-29 and cf . Mt. 12: 45. • 8: 27—9: 29. 7 9: 30-32. 8 (i.) 9: 33-50. » (ii.) 10: 1-31. I0 10: 32. " 10: 46. 114 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY THE REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY OF THE CROSS PARAPHRASE Subdivision a. 8 : 27 — 9 : 29. On the extreme northern frontier Jesus revealed to his disciples the true nature of his mission as the Christ, how that he must suffer and be rejected and afterward rise again. But they were greatly stumbled. He, however, rebuked their fleshly doctrine of the Christ, and taught them how he must come again in glory as the heavenly Judge, and thus accomplish the redemption. Vers. 27-33. As they were traversing Philip's kingdom and approached the villages at the foot of Hermon, Jesus called upon his disciples to report what the people said as to his mission. And when they had told him the rumors already reported he asked them of their own faith; which when Peter had acknowledged, he bade them keep secret from all, and be- gan to make known to them what things as the Christ he must suffer, and he no longer used a parable, but uttered the matter openly. But Peter was greatly stumbled, and undertook to rebuke him. Jesus, however, denounced him to his face, as making himself a minister of Satan, and declared Peter's view of the Christ to be according to men, and not that of God. 8: 34 — 9: 1. Then he began to teach his disciples and all the people the teaching of the cross, how that to save one's life unto the kingdom of God one must lose it in this world, and how it is profitable to lose the whole world if thereby one may enter into the life of the world to come. For he assured them also that those who confessed him he would also confess before God in the great day of judgment, and those who denied him he would also deny before God. He also made them the wit- nesses of his messiahship, declaring that some of them should not taste of death till they should have seen the coming of the kingdom of God. 9: 2-10. Six days thereafter Jesus granted to Peter and James and John a visible manifestation of his true nature and destiny; for, leading them up into a high mountain apart, he was metamorphosed in their sight, their eyes being opened to the spiritual reality. They saw him therefore standing on the mount in shining garments, whiter than any earthly material. And there stood with him the two men which were taken up into heaven, Moses and Elijah, who were talking with him. Then Peter proposed to abide there as they were, and for the men that they had seen in glory, Moses and Elijah THE WAY OF THE CROSS 115 and Jesus, he would have made three booths; for because of his fear he knew not what to say. But there came an overshadow- ing cloud, and out of the midst of the cloud the Voice of God, saying, This is my Son, the Beloved; hearken ye unto him. And suddenly they were no longer in the Spirit, but saw all things as before. But Jesus, as they were coming down from the mount, forbade them to tell any man of the revelation they had received, until after he should be risen from the dead. For this reason their experience was not at first made known, but they only questioned with one another as to what the nature of the resurrection might be. Vers. 11-13. The disciples also asked Jesus how to meet the objection of the scribes that before the coming of Christ must be the coming of Elijah. He told them, therefore, that so it had indeed been; for in John the Baptist, who had preached the great repentance, the promise had been fulfilled of the com- ing of Elijah as the restorer of all things. Moreover it was also prophesied of Elijah that when he returned he should be slain by the tyrant, as had happened to John, and the Christ must also suffer in like manner. Vers. 14-29. And when they were come to the rest of the disciples they found a multitude assembled, and scribes dis- puting with Jesus' disciples. For one of the multitude had brought his son, possessed by a dumb devil, that the disciples should cast it out, and they could not. Jesus, therefore, when he had rebuked their unbelief, cast out the devil and restored the boy. And when his disciples asked him concerning their failure he showed them how prayer alone can avail to save those who are holden with this spirit of dumbness. SUBDIVISION A. 8: 27— 9t 29.— CRITICISM Subdivision a is exclusively concerned with the revelation of the mystery of the passion. Its connection with material which we have already traced to the Petrine tradition is put beyond all doubt by a resumption at its beginning 1 of the theme already broached under Herod's Comment, 2 Who is Jesus, and what is his mission and destiny? This question now receives its full answer, 3 including an explanation of the relation of Jesus' mission and destiny to that of John the Bap- tist. * As we have seen, 5 the original bearing of the paragraph has been somewhat modified, making Peter appear more in the role of an objector to the doctrine of the cross, and by introducing a small group of Q sayings 6 commending to Christians generally the example of Jesus' spirit of self-renunciation. This, however, scarcely affects *8:27. * 6: 14-16. » 8: 27-9:1. « 9: 11-13. « Above, p. 105. • 8: 34-38. 116 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY the general bearing of the narrative, whose object is to show that a Christ after "the things which be of God," i.e., crucified by the Jews but returning in glory, is the true Christ. To this doctrine one objec- tion immediately presents itself, the expectation, here attributed to "the scribes," of the previous coming of "the witness (or witnesses) of Messiah." We have seen that in the Prologue 1 R already antici- pates this objection by presenting John the Baptist as both fore- runner and "anointer" of the Christ. Another element from the same editorial hand, attached after Herod's Comment, 2 still further devel- ops this theme, making clear the parallel between John and Elias, not only as respects his prophet career, but also as respects the mar- tyrdom at the tyrant's hands which the legend attributed to Elias re- divivus as the witness of Messiah. This theme is now fully developed. 3 The witnesses who shall not "taste of death" until the Coming are to be found among Jesus' own following, some of whom will survive to see it. Elias, however, has already come and delivered his "witness" (martyria) in the person of John. 4 Into the midst of this solution of the question of the "witnesses" R has interjected another, of unknown derivation. 5 This Transfigura- tion Story, as we are accustomed to call it, presents under the form of apocalypse or "vision" 6 not only a different answer to the objection about the witnesses of Messiah, who are now the two "that had not tasted death from their birth," 7 but a complete duplicate of the Revela- tion of the Messiahship to Peter. In this version Peter receives in an audible Voice from heaven a declaration of the true dignity of Jesus, and in a visible "metamorphosis" an explanation of the real nature of the person and destiny of the Christ and of the "body of glory." The subdivision closes with a healing 8 whose fundamental traits are closely akin to the "Faith wonders" of 4: 35 — 5: 43, and which is historically incompatible with the present environment. The under- lying story relates the healing of an epileptic and makes prominent the faith motive 10 besides implying circumstances 11 which are only supposable in the Galilean environment of 4: 35 — 5: 43. In every respect it is admirably adapted to form the conclusion of that series in place of the Rejection in Nazareth, 12 especially if we might follow Matthew and the hint of Luke in appending at the close the Q saying on mountain-moving faith (Mt. 17: 20, 21 =Lk. 17: 5, 6). The key to the problem will be found in the traces of editorial adaptation, which indicate that the motive for the present location lies in R's symbolic application. The victim "from a child" of the "dumb and deaf demon" is Israel. The disciples' efforts to cast it out are vain, because against this "spirit of stupor," as Paul calls it, 13 only prayer can avail. The Coming of Jesus relieves the otherwise hopeless situation. 14 Such is in fact to be the outcome, according to Rom. 11: 26, of what is now to the Jews the stumbling-block of the cross. The motive for this symbolic application seems to be taken by R from Q. 1 ^ The evidence of the process is apparent not merely in the location in this Division and the elaboration of symptoms, but more especially in the substitution 18 of the characteristic "dumb and deaf spirit" already elaborated from Q 17 as the predicted and typical obses- sion of Israel, in place of an original simple epilepsy. 18 il:2-ll. 2 6:17-29. 3 9:1,11-13. 4 9: 11-13. 5 9:2-10. 6 Mt. 17: 9. 7 I.e., Moses and Elias; as appears from II Esdr. 6: 28 and Rev. 11: 5, 6. s 9: 14-29. s Ver. 18. 1° Vers. 19, 23, 24. " Vers. 14, 15. » 2 6: 1-6. 13 Rom. 11: 8. " 9: 14-29. "Mt. 12: 43-15=Lk. 11: 24-26. 1B Vers. 17 and 25. " 7: 31-37; 8: 17, 18. ™See notes on vers. 17, 19, 22, 25. 8:27-30 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 117 27 A ND Jesus went forth, and his disciples, XX into the villages of Csesarea Philippi: and in the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that 28 I am? And they told him, saying, John the Baptist: and others, Elijah; but others, 29 One of the prophets. And he asked them, But who say ye that I am? Peter answer- eth and saith unto him, Thou art the 30 Christ. And he charged them Vers.37-30=Mt. 16:13-20=Lk. 9 : 18-31 : cf . Jn. 6: 66-69 (P) R(Q) 8: 27—9: 1, 11-13. The Revelation of the Mystery of the Cross. As in so many cases elsewhere (e.g., 3: 20, 21; 31-35; 5: 21-24, 35-43; 14: 1, 2, 10, 11, 53, 66-72) R interjects midway in the narrative, an- other, which interrupts the connection. The answer to the objection about Elias' coming' tirst (i.e., before the manifestation of the Son of man) in 9: 11-13 is not consecutive, but alternative to 9: 2-10, which affords a wholl different answer. (See Criticism, p. 116). _ R also introduces say ugs to "the multitude" (in Caesarea Philippi!) in 8: 34- 38, manifest 1 ^ I iorrowings from Q, attached after the manner of 4: 21-25, regardless of the situation. Ver. 2". On the geography see above, p. 113. Ver. 28. On the reports concerning Jesus see on 6: 14-16. Ver. 29. The first appearance of Peter in a separate role, and first .ranee of the title "Christ" in the course of the narrative. The ias more significance than R allows to appear. Christ. A Greek •ring of the Aramaic designation Messiah, i.e., the "Anointed" king (Jn. 1: 41). To R this is a mere synonym for the other titles already employed (cf. 1:1, 34 [marg.]; 9:41), because "the Christ" means to him what it had come to mean, and still means, in the Church. Hence no special heed is given to Peter's avowal; but cf. Matthew. In the older form of the tradition it could only signify the kingship over Israel; cf. Jn. 1:49. In Jn. 6: 15 this political movement emanates not from Peter but from the multitude. Ver. 30. In Mark simply the usual charge of secrecy, as in 1 : 34, 43, 44; 3: 12, etc.; but cf. Matthew and Luke. The older tradition at- tached more significance to this question and answer; else it would not be reported. Cf. the emphatic declaration of the Voice from heaven in the Transfiguration parallel. Vers. 31-33. For R the true heart of the paragraph is the Predic- tion of the Passion, which gives opportunity for contrasting the true doctrine of the Messiahship (Pauline) with the Jewish. The latter, which vioLntly rejects the idea of a suffering Messiah, is "according to men"; the former "according to God" (ver. 33). In Q this contrast is drawn in the Temptation Story (Mt. 4:8-ll=Lk. 4:5-8), from which accordingly R now borrows Jesus' reply to the Tempter, trans- forming thus the Confession of Peter into a Rebuke of Peter. No special significance any longer attaches to the avowal, "Thou art the Christ"; but extraordinary emphasis is laid on Peter's reluctance to admit the doctrine of the Cross, even to the point of representing him in this respect as a "minister of Satan" (II Cor. 11: 13, 14). It can hardly be supposed, however, that R had no basis in Petrine tradition for so remarkable a representation. On the contrary the divergence of Peter's ideal from that of Jesus from this time onward to that of his 118 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 8:31-33 31 that they should tell no man of him. And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be re- jected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after 32 three days rise again. And he spake the saying openly. And Peter took him, and 33 began to rebuke him. But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Sa- tan: for thou mindest not the things of Vers.31-33=Mt. 16:31-23=Lk. 9:22 (Mt. 4: 8-ll=Lk. 4:5-8) "turning again" is a fundamental and vital element of the story. See above, p. 109. Only the polemic turn in the interest of Paulinism in ver. 33 seems to come from the redactioD which rests upon Q. Ver. 31. The exact prediction of the evenfc f the Passion belongs to R (cf. 9: 30-32 and 10: 32-34) in accordance \ ith his well known conception of the supernatural. Needless to say it would make the conduct of the disciples after the first features of the prediction had found fulfillment incredibly base and cowardly. Per contra, entire re- jection of the statement is unreasonable. A general warning of the new dangers to be faced, at Jerusalem and direction to a sacrifice of life itself in the confident assurance of God's intervention within, their own generation is witnessed by a host of Q sayings, many of which (e.g., Mt. 10: 26-33 = Lk. 12: 2-9) are unquestionably from thi^ period. The present passage (cf. 9: 30-32; 10: 32-34) simply represents R's concrete and externalized summary of these thoroughly historical warnings of martyrdom. The Son of man. Cf. ver. 38, Q (Mt. 10: 32, 33 = Lk. 12: 8, 9). The title is used by R where either the humiliation or the exaltation of Christ are to be made specially prominent. See note on 2: 10, above. After three days. Later evangelists and in- terpreters find great difficulty with this form. We should expect the form "on the third day," which is that of Paul (I Cor. 15: 3) explicitly based on "the scriptures" (i.e., Hos. 6:2). This form is in fact sub- stituted by Matthew and Luke in every case for Mark's except in Mt. 27: 63. The Syriac Didaskalia 1 (ca. 200 a.d.) even goes so far in the endeavor to harmonize, as to count the darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour at the crucifixion and the ensuing light as an extra night and day. But early tradition was not uniform as to the period of Jesus' stay in the underworld. Jn. 2: 19 counts "three days"; Mt. 12: 40 "three days and three nights." On this point see note on 16: 1-8. Ver. 32. Openly. No longer in parables and dark sayings as in 8: 15. The Greek word is common in Acts, but occurs nowhere else in the Synoptic Gospels. Ver. 33. A substitute by R for Q (Mt. 4 : 8-1 1 = Lk. 4 : 5-8). Peter becomes the mouthpiece for Jewish opposition to the "offence of the cross." Get behind. A Semitic expression for "retire," "begone." Vers. 34-38. A group of agglutinated Q sayings inserted by R apropos of the Prediction of the Cross, ver. 31. Cf. the group 4: 21-25 and the resumption in 4: 26 and 9:1. i C. xxi. Texte u. Unters. N. F. X, 2, pp. 106f. 8: 34-38 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 119 34 God, but the things of men. And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow 35 me. For whosoever would save his x life shall lose it ; and whosoever shall lose his x life for my sake and the gospel's 36 shall save it. For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and 37 forfeit his Mife? For what should a man give in exchange for his ^ife? 38 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be 1 Or, soul. Vers.34-38=Mt. 16:34-27= Lk. 9:23-26 R(Q) (Mt. 10: 37, 38= Lk. 14: 25-27.) (Q) Mt. 10:39= 17:33 Lk. R(X) Ps. 49: 8 (Q) (Mt. 10: 32, 33= Lk. 12: 8,9) Ver. 34 = Q (Mt. 10: 38 = Lk. 14: 27). And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples. Cf. 7: 14 and note ibid. The sayings which follow are meant to warn not the disciples only but all Christians to be steadfast to endure persecution. Hence the introductory formula. Most of them appear twice in the parallels, once derived from Mark, once in the Q setting. The incongruity with the situation falls outside of R's consideration. Take up his cross. Criminals were compelled to bear the transverse beam to the place of execution. The form of the saying has been affected by the event. Ver. 35. Comparison of the six forms of statement (Mk. 8: 35 = Mt. 16: 25 = Lk. 9: 24; Q, Mt. 10: 39 = Lk. 17: 33 = Jn. 12: 25) will give the sense with greater precision. The gospel's sake. See note on 1:1. Practically equivalent to " Christianity." Ver. 36. The "life" forfeited through worldly conformity is of course that to which ver. 38 looks forward in the days of the Son of man. Martyrdom only ensures, it. What really puts it in jeopardy is the cowardly attempt to save it (cf. Q, Mt. 10: 28==Lk. 12: 4, 5). It is perhaps a saying of this nature to which Paul refers in I Thess. 4: 15. The present verse is perhaps no more than R's epexegetical supplement to ver. 35. It does not appear in Q. Ver. 38. An encouragement to fearless martyrdom slightly adapted from Q (Mt. 10: 32, 33 = Lk. 12: 8, 9). In this form the saying is cer- tainly a product of the age of persecution "for the Name" (Acts 5: 41; I Pt. 4: 12-19). In II Tim. 2: 12 it forms part of a "faithful saying" in strophic form, not an utterance of Jesus, but of the Church. But we may still believe that in the new phase of activity inaugurated by the journey to Jerusalem Jesus sounded the note of personal loyalty to himself in a manner thus far unknown. In Q the contrast is between earthly and heavenly praise: Jesus (Luke, "the Son of man") will Elead for those who are loyal to him in the presence of his Father in eaven (Luke, "of the angels of God"). Mark contrasts the present age with the Coming, "When the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." R externalizes, following Q LK . With Qmt c f. Mt. 6: 4, 6, 18. In this adulterous and sinful generation. A phrase borrowed by R from Q (Mt. 12: 39 = Lk. 11: 29). The genera- 120 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 9: I ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. 9 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There be some here of them 9:l=Mt. 16:28 =Lk. 9:27 (P) tion there is "adulterous" in the Old Testament sense, because of its craving for the aid of angelic or demonic beings. In Mark the ap- propriateness disappears. It is a general denunciatory epithet of the Jews "who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove out us, and please not God, and are contrary to all men." 9: 1 (P). A saying of momentous influence in early Christian tradi- tion. On the connection with the legend of the "Witnesses of Messiah," see above, p. 116. The extremely rare expression "taste of death" indi- cates the connection with II Esdr. 6: 28. Matthew is less cautious than Mark in his form of statement, specifically promising the advent of the Son of man (Mark, only the advent of "the kingdom with power") within the lifetime of the disciples (see Introduction, p. 108, and note on 13: 24). It is fallacious to regard the Markan form as necessarily indicative of later date. His more guarded utterance may be due only to greater freedom from the Jewish mania for calculation of apocalyptic "times and seasons." A parallel utterance (or variant?) appears in 13:30 (=Mt. 24:34 = Lk. 21:32), fixing the Coming within the life period of Jesus' own generation. The authenticity of the teaching in general substance is attested in I Thess. 4: 17; Phil. 3: 21, and the universal and ardent conviction of the early Church. As time pro- gresses we find various expedients resorted to against the demand "Where is the promise of his Coming." This demand naturally arose when "the fathers fell on sleep," and yet "all things continued as they were since the foundation of the world." Apologists extended the lifetime of the "witnesses" down to "the age of Trajan," in whose reign the death of four of the apostolic group was fixed. 1 Then the death of individuals of the group (John), or of some other of the genera- tion (legend of the Wandering Jew) was alleged to have been unreal 2 ; or again the testimony was made persistent instead of the witness him- self (Jn. 21: 21-24). So with 13: 30. The period of Jesus' "genera- tion" was similarly first extended to the Mosaic limit of 120 years, 3 then the generation was identified with the "evil and adulterous gen- eration" of the Jews. Such expedients merely display the embarrass- ment of the apologist. We cannot do honest justice to the unbroken consensus of primitive testimony without acknowledging that Jesus pointed his disciples to the expected intervention of God, which should be the vindication of his gospel, before the generation which heard and rejected it should have passed away. The sublime faith in God which ventured this declaration (13: 30, 31) was indeed justified by the event. The kingdom of God did come with power. The city which "knew not the time of her visitation, and rejected the things which belonged to her peace " did undergo a frightful "judgment." But this kind of "fulfillment of prophecy" is utterly worthless as proof 1 Three of these were named John, indicating the actual survival of some indi- vidual of this name (John Mark, Pasch. Chron.; John the Elder — f 117 a.d. — Epi- phanius; John the Apostle, Irenaeus) to this period. The fourth is Simeon, son of Clopas, one of the Lord's kindred alleged to have suffered martyrdom under Trajan "at the age of 120 years"! 2 In the Johannine legend the aged apostle is supposed to sleep on under the earth, his breath stirring the dust, or to be translated (metastasis). 3 See note 1. 9: I THE WAY OF THE CROSS 121 that stand (by), which shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power. of mere miraculous prediction, the kind of apologetic that classifies Jesus and the prophets with casters of horoscopes and crystal-gazers. What it really justifies is his undaunted faith in the God of Righteous- ness and Truth, whatever had been the time, or the manner, of God's intervention. Without laying stress on details we may accept the tradition that Jesus, in conjunction with his warning that a fate like the Baptist's overhung him, gave assurance to the Twelve of a divinely wrought deliverance, and that he also declared it would be within the lifetime of some of them; for there could indeed be no such hope after the dis- appearance of his "witnesses." Vers. 2-10. The Transfiguration. The vision-story, whose moral is frequently given in the form of the bath qol or Voice from heaven, is the poetic device most congenial to the Semitic writer of the first centuries for admitting the reader behind the veil of God's designs. Apocalypse, the most popular form of such religious literature, was nothing else, whether in name or fact, than the attempt to lift this veil. In Acts 10: 9-16 "the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known unto the sons of men— to wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise" without distinction, is "made known by revelation" to one of "the holy apostles in the Spirit" by a vision framed upon the same lines as the Transfiguration story. The actual history of Peter's learning to eat with the Gentiles, and not to call unclean what God hath cleansed, whether flesh of beast or heart of man, we learn from Gal. 2: 11-21. The relation of the vision-story of Acts 10: 1 — 1 1 : 18 to Paul's unvarnished narrative is the same as the relation of the Transfiguration "vision" (the term is applied in Mt. 17: 9) to the prose account of Peter's Revelation of the Christ and the Prediction of the Cross into which it has been interjected by Mark. 1 As before, the main feature (subordinated by Mark) is the Manifestation of Jesus to the Twelve as the Christ. Jesus' saying to Peter, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father," now becomes a literal experience of "Peter and them that were with him" (Lk. 9: 32; see note on Mk. 9:2). The Voice from heaven proclaims it. The comple- mentary element: This Messiahship, "not according to the things of men, but the things of God " (8: 33), also receives dramatic form. The disciples see Jesus "metamorphosed" into the "body of glory" which he had after the resurrection. He appears to them as he is known to Paul, no longer "a Christ after the flesh" such as the Jews expect. The question of the Witnesses of Messiah, and (in Luke) of his martyrdom in Jerusalem, is also pragmatized. Moses and Elias, 1 This relation of the Transfiguration story to the Revelation to Peter was ex- plained by me in the article "Autobiography of Jesus," in Amer. Journ. of Theol., July, 1898, pp. 541£f., and again in the same journal in the article, "The Trans- figuration Story," pp. 236-265, April, 1902. In 1903 Wellhausen writes (Mar- cusev. p. 70) Diese (die Verklarungsgeschichte) ist eine Unterstreichung und himm- lische Beglaubigung des Petrusbekenntnisses — was allerdings bisher niemand erkannt hat (!). In the article of April, 1902, I had written (p. 237) "The Trans- figuration story ... is not only derived from a different source from 8: 27 — 9: 1, 11-13, but is also a practical duplicate of it, as presenting the same data under the literary form of vision, which the Confession of Peter . . . presents in ordinary prose." 122 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 9: 2 2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James,and John, and bringeth them up into a high moun- Vers. 2-10=Mt. 17:l-13=Lk. 9 : 28-36 (Qlk) "the men which were taken up, which did not taste of death from their birth," appear with Jesus in glory and (according to Luke) "tell of his departure which he should accomplish in Jerusalem." This, as the writer of II Pt. 1: 16-18 clearly sees, is a guarantee in visible form of "the power and Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" more than equivalent to the verbal assurance of 9: 1 and the interpretation of the apocalyptic doctrine as applying to the Baptist's coming and martyrdom in 9: 11-13. Lastly the injunction of secrecy (8: 30) reap- pears in more definite form in 9: 9, 10, with an intimation of its ground in the disciples' inability to apprehend the true nature of the Messiah- ship until "after the Son of man had risen from the dead." The intensely Pauline doctrine and phraseology of this paragraph cannot be obscured by its intensely Jewish (technically haggadic) lit- erary treatment. Its fundamental object is to present Jesus as primar- ily the pre-existent Son of God, the Beloved, chosen from the founda- tion of the world (Eph. 1: 4-6), incarnate for a brief time that he may accomplish the redemption of humanity through the cross, his glorifi- cation being the revelation to men of "what it is to rise from the dead" (9: 10). For the purposes of this teaching even the Pauline term for the believers' "metamorphosis" into the image of the Lord's glory (II Cor. 3: 18) is borrowed, and applied (9: 2) to the "transfiguration" of Jesus' body. Nevertheless we cannot attribute the composition of this vision-story to R ; for it manifestly handles the data of the witnesses of Messiah, the Coming of Elias, and especially the Revelation to Peter in a wholly different way from 6: 14-29; 8: 27—9: 1, 11-13, besides flagrantly interrupting that context. In several respects the coinci- dences of Matthew and Luke suggest acquaintance with the story in independent form, while doctrinally, as well as in style and language, it stands very intimately related to the Q narratives of the Baptism and Temptation (8: 33; 9: 2, 7). Some features, such as the dating by days (ver. 2), the "mountain" and the description of Jesus' appear- ance, lend significance to the fact that in the recently discovered frag- ment of the Revelation of Peter 1 the Transfiguration occurs after the Resurrection, reminding us that Clement of Alexandria 2 (ca. 210) reports a representation that gnosis had been given "after the resur- rection" to James the Just (sic) and John and Peter, and by these to the rest. These traces of circulation of the story in other forms and connections increase the probability that R has here the role of com- piler and editor rather than composer. Ver. 2. After six (Luke, "about eight") days. The significance of the date no longer appears. Elsewhere only the resurrection appearances are thus dated. Peter and James and John. The independent por- tion of Luke (Lk. 9: 32) has "Peter and his company"; cf. Acts 13: 13 and the "shorter ending" of Mark. On the possible significance to R of this triad see note on 3: 16. Into a high mountain. With the scene cf. Q (Mt. 4:8 = Lk. 4:5). The (ideal) mount of Temptation is identified by the Gospel according to the Hebrews with "Mount Tabor." R very possibly has here Mount Hermon in mind, whose snowy summit rises above Csesarea Philippi. But "the mountain" is originally as 1 Rev. Petri, vers. 4-13. 2 Hypotyposes VII. ap. Euseb. H. E. II, i. 4. 9: 3-5 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 123 tain apart by themselves : and he was trans- figured before them: and his garments be- came glistering, exceeding white 1 ; so as no 2 fuller on earth can whiten them. And there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, 1 var. insert like snow. 2 |3 var. man. unreal in one case as the other. He was transfigured. Gr., "meta- morphosed." The conception and phraseology are Pauline; cf. II Cor. 3: 18; Rom. 8:11. Christ's real person is his "body of glory," into the likeness of which at the resurrection our body of humiliation is to be miraculously "changed" (Phil. 3: 21). The story of Moses' shining countenance as he descends from the mount (Ex. 34: 29) is the basis of Paul's comparison (II Cor. 3: 7-18), and this feature is present in both parallels (Mt. 17: 2 = Lk. 9: 29). Its non-appearance in Mark is almost certainly due to cancellation. Ver. 4. And there appeared unto them. The idea of simultaneous "vision" to several individuals presents no obstacle to the biblical writer's mind, because "vision" to him consists merely in opening the eyes of one or more to see what is actually present in the spiritual realm, but invisible to carnal sense (II Kings 6: 17). Moses and Elias. The "witnesses of Messiah." Moses is an addition to the earlier ex- pectation of Elias only (Mai. 4: 5; ver. 11). The name alternates in Jewish apocalypse with "Enoch." Both forms rest on a combination of Zech. 4: 3, 11-14 with Mai. 4: 4-6, perhaps interpreting the two "sons of oil" as the anointers of Messiah (the "Anointed"). From the fact that they "stand in the presence of the Lord of the whole earth" (i.e., not with the shades in the underworld, but in heaven) it was inferred that they were "the men which were taken up, which have not tasted death from their birth" (II Esdr. 6: 26). In the Talmud 1 and Rev. 11:3-6 these are Moses 2 and Elias. In extra- biblical sources Enoch 3 and Elias. R follows the form which makes Elias alone the "anointer" in ver. 11 and 1: 2-11, and makes the dis- ciples the "witnesses," ver. 1. Here he incorporates an "apocalypse" in which the other form is followed. In Lk. 16: 26-31 the coming of the "witnesses" Moses and Elias "from the dead" is tempered down to the witness given in their writings. Literal identification of John with Elias is avoided by Luke (Lk. 1: 16, 17, 76, 77; note his cancella- tion of Mk. 6: 17-29; 9: 13; 15: 34, 35). 4 And' they were talking with Jesus. This indefinite statement can hardly be as original as Lk. 9:31, which reports that the prophet witnesses "told of his departure which he was about to fulfill in Jerusalem." The motive for the change is obvious; cf. 1: 13 with Matthew-Luke. Ver. 5. Peter here expresses the ideal of a Messiahship "according to the things that be of men" (cf. 8: 32, 33). The utterance in such connection has of course symbolic sense. This is made the more 1 Debarim rabba, 10: 1. 2 On the legend of the "taking up" of Moses based on Dt. 34:5, 6, see Assumplio Mosvs, quoted in Jude 1:9. 3 Gen. 5: 24. 4 In Jn. 1: 21 ; 5: 33-47 the correction is made in the same sense, but more em- phatically. In Jn. 21: 19-24 the tradition of witness-bearing (martyria) is played upon in all forms. Peter glorifies God by martyrdom. John is expected to sur- vive till the Coming, but his "witness" is really his writings. 124 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 9: 6-8 Rabbi, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three Habernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah. 6 For he wist not what to answer; for 7 they became sore afraid. And there came a cloud overshadowing 2 them: and there came a voice out of the cloud, This 8 is my beloved Son: hear ye him. And sud- denly looking round about, they saw no one any more, save Jesus only with them- selves. 1 Or, booths. 2 Sinaitic Syriac, him. R Qlk apparent by the use of the term "tabernacles," a stereotyped expres- sion at least since Paul's use (II Cor. 5: 1; cf. II Pt. 1: 14; Jn. 1: 14), for the frail "tenement of dust." Peter's (the Jewish) idea of the Messiahship instead of leading to a "transforming" into the likeness of Christ's body of glory, a "clothing upon with the house from heaven," would "conform to this world" even the glorified ones, providing them with "an earthly house of this tabernacle." Peter would have all abide together as they are. The divine will is that "we shall be changed." Rabbi ("Teacher," Jn. 1:38). First occurrence of this Aramaic word in Mark. It occurs again in 11: 21; 14: 45. See note on 7: 28. This context is strongly marked by Semitic forms. Ver. 6. The desire to enjoy the messianic kingdom here on earth without the suffering of death is folly. i Peter's words are dictated by his "fear"; cf. 10: 32; 14: 27-31. But the coincidence of Matthew and Luke indicates that the original connection of the "fear" was with the divine manifestation (Mt. 17: 6 = Lk. 9: 34; cf. Dan. 8: 17, 18). Its anticipation here as an explanation of the folly of Peter's utterance is the work of R. Ver. 7. There came a cloud overshadowing them. (Sinaitic Syriac, him.) Cf. Ex. 40: 35 (Gr. version); Dan. 7: 13; Acts 1: 9; Rev. 1:7. The cloud is the enshrouding veil of the divine presence. The Voice proceeding from it is God's voice ("my Son"). The variant of the Sinaitic Syriac is highly significant, for it emanates from a conception linking this scene still more closely with that of the Voice at Jesus' Baptism. Jesus is overshadowed by the cloud in the sense of Lk. 1 : 35. When this was first written the scene was perhaps conceived as the real beginning of Jesus' sonship, as in Ps. 2: 7. This is my Son, the Beloved (Luke, "the Elect"; Matthew, "he whom I chose"). On the tech- nical sense of these messianic titles see note on 1: 11. Proclamation of Jesus' messianic calling by the divine Voice belongs more properly at this stage than at the Baptism, and corroborates the traces of this as the fundamental and original purport of 8: 27-30; cf. Mt. 16: 17. The basic passage is Is. 42: 1-4 in the form quoted in Mt. 12: 18-21. The change (by R?) of pais ("son," "servant ) to huios ("son") obliterates one of the chief elements in the appropriateness of the quotation. Jesus is the suffering Servant of Yahweh of Deutero-Isaiah, as in Acts 3: 26; 4: 27. Hear ye (i.e., "hearken to," "obey") him. Cf. Acts 3: 22, 23; 7: 37. Jesus is "that prophet" of Dt. 18: 15, 19, the second Moses, *Cf. IIEsdr. 7:29-31. 9:9-11 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 125 9 And as they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, save when the Son of man should have 10 risen again from the dead. And they kept the saying, questioning among them- selves what *the rising again from the dead 11 should mean. And they asked him, saying, 3 The scribes say that Elijah 1 /S var. this When he shall rise. 2 Or, ( How is it) that the scribes say . . . comet Vers.ll-13=Mt. 17 : 10-13 R(P) as in the "Petrine" source of Acts. The commingling of these two elements in the Christology of our section is highly significant of its derivation. Ver. 9. One of the stereotyped features of apocalypse is the author's appended explanation of the non-appearance of the revelation until after the event. It usually takes the form of a command to "seal up the prophecy until the time of the end" (Dan. 12: 4, 9; cf. Rev. 10: 4; 22: 10). The terminus here set is indicative of the period when the doctrine of this apocalypse was actually promulgated. The Son of man. The appropriate title after 8 : 38. Ver. 10. What the rising again from the dead should mean. R in- dicates in this closing sentence what (to him) is the chief bearing of the vision. It bears primarily (to his mind) on the disputes which since the preaching of Paul (I Cor. 15) had set Jewish believer against Gentile, and Gentile Christian against Jew: "With what body do they come?" The question here debated is not Jesus' rising "after three days," but the general question of "the rising again from the dead." This of course is fully answered in the Pauline sense in the apocalypse (vers. 2-4) by the vision of the "metamorphosis" of Jesus' body, and of "the men which had been taken up" "in glory." II Pt. 1:16-18 (ca. 150 a. d.) naturally finds it admirably adapted to the refutation of those who were "wresting the epistles of our beloved brother Paul" (3: 16) against the orthodox doctrine of resurrection and judgment. 1 Paul himself might have saved himself the elaborate argument and exposition of I Cor. 15: 35-58 by a single reference, but he seems as completely unacquainted with this revelation to Peter in writing to the Corinthians on "what is meant by the rising again from the dead," as he is in writing to the Galatians on the matter of "eating with the Gentiles" (Gal. 2: 11-21) with the settlement of that other moot point of primitive debate by another special revelation to Peter in a Voice from heaven (Acts 10: 9-16; 11: 3; 15: 9). Vers. 11-13. The Coming of Elias. With ver. 11 the subject of 8: 27 — 9: 1, the Revelation of the doctrine of the- Cross, is resumed. In response to the declaration of Jesus that his martyrdom will lead at once to the Coming, within the lifetime of the bystanders, the dis- ciples ask an explanation of the doctrine of the previous coming of Elijah. How triumphantly champions of the Synagogue held up the prophecy from Mai. 4: 4 as a refutation of Christian doctrine appears from the instance of Justin Martyr's debate with Trypho already quoted 1 Cf . Ep. of Polycarp, vii. From Irenaeus, Her. V, is, we learn that the particu- lar passage "wrested" was I Cor. 15: 50. 126 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 9: 12-14 12 must first come. And he said unto them, 1 Elijah indeed cometh first, and restoreth all things : and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many 13 things and be set at nought? But I say unto you, that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they listed, even as it is written of him. 14 And when 2 they came to the disciples, 2 they saw a great multitude about them, 1 Or, Doth Elijah indeed come . . . ? How then. 2 /3 var. he. R R(P) 9:14-29=Mt. 17 : 14-20=Lk. 9 : 37^13 R(P) (above, p. 11). In the present context no account is taken of the other "son of oil," Moses or Enoch, but the reply takes cognizance of some- what more than the canonical elements of the tradition in declaring the martyrdom of the Baptist to have been predicted in "scripture." Our only trace of this prediction is in a Jewish apocalyptic legend pre- served in the Slavonic under the pseudonym of the book of Biblical Antiquities of Philo, 1 wherein the reappearance and martyrdom of Elijah are related in a manner showing connection with the legend of Rev. 11: 7-13. But the Coming of Elias to "restore all things" is amply attested as a current belief in the New Testament itself and in many pre-Christian writings. In the present context the objection is an- swered by pointing to the martyrdom of the Baptist, who had been the "anointer" of Jesus, as well as the great "restorer of the tribes" (Ecclus. 48: 10; cf. Mt. 11: 14). In our present context no explana- tion is given of the further element of the legend which declared that after his martyrdom Elias would return from the dead (Rev. 11: 11; cf. Mk. 6: 14); but in Justin this lack is supplied by the doctrine that the Baptist-Elijah will appear in glory as the forerunner of the second Coming of Jesus, just as he had appeared as his forerunner on earth. 2 — Note Luke's cancellation of these verses. Ver. 12. Elijah . . . restoreth all things. See var. rend. A fixed element of Christian tradition; cf. Acts 3: 21. Elijah is the "restorer of the tribes" (Ecclus. 48: 10) because of Mai. 4: 4 and I Kings 18: 37. Without the Great Repentance the Day of Yahweh would be a curse instead of blessing (cf. Rev. 11: 13). The identification of the move- ment of the Baptist with this Great Repentance seems to be an au- thentic teaching of Jesus (Mt. 21: 23-32). And how is it written . . . set at nought? This clause appears in all the mss., and even in Mat- thew; though its position is improved in Mt. 17: 12; but it has some- what the appearance of being a gloss on ver. 13, by some reader who missed all reference to the scriptural predictions of the Suffering of Christ. See, however, the var. rend, of ver. 12. Ver. 13. On the "scriptural" prediction of the martyrdom of Elias see note on vers. 11-13. The reference carries us back to the starting- point of the preceding Division, 6: 14-29. Vers. 14-29. Casting out the Dumb Devil. For the original setting of this incident and the motive for its present connection see Criticism. 1 See R. Harris in N. Y. Independent, 1900. 2 Dial., xlix. 9: 15-21 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 127 16 17 IS 15 and scribes questioning with them. And straightway all the multitude, when they saw him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him. And he asked them, What question ye with them? And one of the multitude answered him, x Master, I brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; and wheresoever it taketh him, it Masheth him down: and he foameth, and grindeth his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast it out; and they were not able. 19 And he answereth them and saith, O faith- less generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? bring him unto me. And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit 3 tare him grievously; and he fell on the ground and wallowed foaming. And he asked his father, How long time is it since this hath come unto him? And he 20 21 1 Or, Teacher. 3 Or, rendeth him. 3 Or, convulsed. (Q, Mt. 12: 22= Lk. 11: 14) For the bringing of the epileptic, the disputing scribes, the surrounding multitude, and especially the "great amazement" of the latter, the present connection affords no explanation. Connection with the scenes of 5: 35-43 would explain much. Jesus' return (with or without the three disciples) from the house of Jairus, under the circumstances at- tending his visit there, might well fill the crowd with great amazement. Ver. 18. They were not able. The inability of the disciples in Matthew is due to their own imperfect faith (Mt. 17: 20). This agrees with the representations of the series in 4: 35 — 5: 43 and seems to be an original trait (cf. Q, Mt. 17: 20, 21 = Lk. 17: 5, 6), faintly reproduced in ver. 23. But as Mark reproduces the story not the unbelief of the disciples, but that of the "generation" (ver. 19; cf. 8: 12-38), and of the father (ver. 23), is rebuked. As in 6: 4-6 the whole responsibility for failure is laid upon the unbelief of the applicants. Against the questioning of "the scribes," whose point of view of course represents that of the Synagogue in R's own time, Jesus proves that the real cause of failure is such as he has said, by removing the obstacle of the father's unbelief, whereupon the healing ensues. The apologetic adaptation, as well as the symbolic, is certainly secondary. Ver. 20. The convulsion into which the patient is thrown at the first sight of Jesus expresses R's conception of the fear and hatred of the evil spirit in face of the Deliverer whose function was to "tread down Satan under his feet," 1 as in 1: 23-26; 3: 11; 5: 7-11. It may reflect also R's sense of the bitter hatred of that evil generation evinced against the Son of God (I Thess. 2: 15, 16). 1 Test. Levi, xviii. 26f.; Ps. 91: 13. Lk. 10: 19; Ac. 10: 38; Rev. 20: 1-3. The belief is reflected in Rom. 16: 20; 128 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 9: 22-28 22 said, From a child. And oft-times it hath cast him both into the fire and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and 23 help us. And Jesus said unto him, If thou canst! All things are possible to him that 24 believeth. Straightway the father of the child cried out, and said 1 , I believe; help 25 thou mine unbelief. And when Jesus saw that a multitude came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I com- mand thee, come out of him, and enter no 26 more into him. And having cried out, and Horn him much, he came out: and (the child) became as one dead; insomuch 27 that the more part said, He is dead. But Jesus took him by the hand, and raised 28 him up; and he arose. And when he was fi var. add with tears. 2 Or, convulsed. (Q, Mt. 17: 21= Lk. 17: 5, 6) Ver. 22. A reflection of Israel's sufferings "from a child" in conse- quence of its perverse spirit of unbelief. Into fire and water. Cf . Ps. 66: 12. Ver. 23. If thou canst! An exclamation. Jesus is "astonished at their unbelief"; cf. 6: 6. All things are possible. The believer is not here regarded as agent but as recipient. The unbelief of Jesus' fellow-townsmen (6: 4-6), of "this generation" (8: 12), of the present individual, is the only obstacle to Jesus' miraculous help. In 11: 20-24 this principle is applied to the agent. In both passages we seem to have adaptations of the Q saying Mt. 17: 20, 21=Lk. 17: 5, 6, echoed by Paul in I Cor. 13: 2. The original sense appears to be an application of the principle I Sam. 14: 6. "There is no restraint to the Lord to save by many or by few." God's saving power is not limited by phys- ical difficulty, but by man's unreadiness (Jas. 4:3; 5: 14-18). R's adaptations here and in 1 1 : 20-24 are too narrow, scarcely transcending the realm of thaumaturgy. Faith with Jesus did not seek to over- ride the will of God, but lent welcome to its manifestation, and coopera- tion to its purpose, however contrary to the course self-chosen. R's conception of the operation of faith approximates that of the spell or incantation, which seeks to coerce the divine power, instead of remov- ing the obstacles interposed by our own attitude of mind in its path. Ver. 25. Help thou mine unbelief, i.e., repair its lamentable conse- quences. Enter no more into him. Cf. Q (Mt. 12: 43-45 = Lk. 11: 24- 26). The description of the process of healing (e.g., ver. 266) should be read in the light of the symbolism. Israel's control by the "dumb devil" is so complete that many declare its spiritual life extinct; cf. Rom. 11: 1-36. Vers. 28, 29. The private interview "in the house," wherein the true significance of utterance or act is explained, is a device not of R only but of the source (cf. 4: 10, 13-20 with 11, 12). In this instance 9:29 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 129 come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, ^saying), We could not cast 29 it out. And he said unto them, This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer 2 . 1 Or, How is it that we could not cast it out t 2 jS var. add and fasting. Matthew exhibits the original sense, whether his addition of the Q saying on faith as a grain of mustard seed be properly attached or not. Certainly the original intent of the narrative was to increase and enlighten the faith of the disciples; not to lay the blame for all failures on the unbelief and perversity of Israel. A distinction in "kinds" of evil spirits as more or less amenable to the power of the exorcist, be- longs to R's ideas of demonology, more especially to his characteristic idea of the Satanic control of Israel, and not to the authentic teaching of Jesus. This particular demon (Israel's unbelief) will yield only to that unceasing prayer which will avail to bring about the Coming (Lk. 18: 7). 130 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY THE EXODUS FROM GALILEE. FORSAKING ALL PARAPHRASE Subdivision b. 9:30 — 10:31. As Jesus passed through Galilee and Judwa beyond Jordan he taught his disciples how the spirit of his own renunciation and martyrdom must ani- mate all who seek to enter into life with him. Vers. 30-32. As they journeyed from the region of Hermon Jesus gave himself wholly to the instruction of his disciples, teaching them again the doctrine of the cross, and how he must suffer and rise again. But they could not receive it. Vers. 33-37. In Capernaum he taught them by the example of a child whom he embraced and set in the midst how those who would be first in the kingdom must be servants of the least, and must be forward not to exclude and to stumble the weak brethren, but to receive even the least in his name. For they had been disputing on the way about who should have rule over the rest. Vers. 38-42. John thereupon reported how they had for- bidden one who exercised the gift of exorcism in the name of Jesus. And Jesus rebuked their intolerance, showing how the gifts of the Spirit in miracles wrought in the name of Christ are to be accepted as evidence of true discipleship , and that "he that is not against us is for us." Also that the least act of kindness done to them because of their discipleship is deserving of its heavenly reward, whereas to put stumbling-blocks in the way of a weak disciple is deserving of the worst of punishments. Vers. 43-48. So for all that causes stumbling. Were it eye, or hand, or foot, unsparing rejection is the price of spiritual health. The fire of Gehenna burns for such as know not how to cut off the member that offends. Vers. 49, 50. Fire and salt have therefore their place for the maintenance of the common welfare. Pungency of char- acter is won through the flame of suffering. The salt also must persist in its pungency, but be employed for self-criticism, while each shows to his brother the svirit of veace. SUBDIVISION B. 9: 30—10: 31.— CRITICISM The two groups into which this subdivision is separated by the geographical datum of 9: 33 have but little in common. The note of renunciation, which began in 8: 34—36, continues now in both. It is indeed dominant all through Group ii, and helps to explain the other- wise incongruous collocation of anecdotes pertaining to separation from THE WAY OF THE CROSS 131 wives, 1 children, 2 and worldly goods, 3 and compensations therefor. 4 The grouping is a consequence of the actual experience of a brother- hood compelled to face these very separations. The same note is also fundamental in one unique paragraph of Group i, 5 but the context shows that R has not taken the paragraph in this sense. On the con- trary his general theme is "receiving" vs. "stumbling" in the sense of Rom. 14, and while the Group begins with a doublet of the Quarrel for Precedence, 8 and another of the Child in the Midst, 7 the object is not, as in the later and fuller accounts, to rebuke the Pharisaic disposi- tion to claim reward for meritorious action, but to rebuke a spirit of intolerance. In short, the whole complex 9: 33-50, heterogeneous as it is in derivation, is constructed for the direction of "those that have the rulership over you." It thus confronts the same problem as the corresponding section of Matthew, 8 though in a spirit much more akin to Rom. 14. In fact in 9: 38-40 it flatly reverses the prescriptions of Mt. 7: 21-23; 12: 30. But as Matthew's agglutination has but meager support in Luke, and is clearly framed as a sequel to the Bestowal of the Primacy upon Peter, 9 we must accept the inference independently suggested by the late phraseology, 10 the heterogeneous derivation, 11 and the Q connections of this material, that it represents an addition of the latest period to the Roman gospel, in the ultra-Pauline spirit of R. When we inquire for the coordinating principle of Group ii 12 we find indeed a continuation of the subject of Renunciation and Reward in a series of anecdotes which have an incidental affinity in their com- mon reference to the household, wives, children, worldly goods, of all of which the way of the cross may require renunciation. A more vital connection, however, is in the contrast the evangelist now aims to ex- hibit between the Pharisaic expectation of reward for obedience to an external commandment, and the Christian principle of participation by grace in the kingdom. Treasure in heaven is to be won by surrender of wealth ; the saving of the life by losing it. Thus Group ii becomes a kind of pragmatic substitute for the Sermon on the Mount. Its first incident, the Question of Divorce, 13 contrasts the higher and eternal law of Him who in the beginning made them male and female, with the law of "man" which permits to put asunder. The next two incidents 14 embody the principle of salvation by grace and not by obedience to "the commandments." The rule of goodness is to be like Him who alone is worthy to be called "good" and to follow the utter self-sacri- fice of Jesus (cf. Eph. 5: 1, 2). Finally vers. 23-31 apply the principle to the special case of renunciation of worldly goods. Even this does not give claim to special reward. 15 All are called upon to renounce everything, and all have equal right to the compensations of this world, and a share in the world to come. But there is no purchasing of titles of nobility in that world by special advances in this. The concluding portion of the Group has its parallel in other discourse material of Mat- thew and Luke, 18 interjected by both at this period, and is clearly au- thentic. Moreover its whole spirit is of the very essence of Paul's gospel, in striking contrast with that of Matthew. The slight changes effected by our first evangelist in transferring to his own pages the story of the Rich Inquirer 17 are here most illuminat- ing. The dependence is sufficiently demonstrated by the change of 1 10: 1-12. 2 10: 13-16. 8 10: 17-22. 4 10: 23-31. « 9:43-50. •9:33-35=10:41-45. ?9: 36> 37 a =i0: 13-16. « Mt. 17: 24— 18:35. 9 Mt. 16: 17. io Ver. 41. » See notes on vers. 35. 37, 49, 50. > 2 10: 1-31. » 10: 1-12. n Vera. 13-22. I5 Cf. I Cor. 13: 3. "Mt. 20: 1-16; Lk. 17: 7-10. « 10: 17-31. 132 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY "Why callest thou me good?" — the form still presupposed in the unaltered phrase "One there is who is good" — into "Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?" No impartial critic will maintain that Jesus' disclaimer of goodness 1 is the later form, which has been substituted for the colorless "Why askest thou," etc. 2 But what shall we say of the change by which in the next verse Matthew makes Jesus declare in so many words that the condition of entrance into life is to "keep the commandments"? Could anything more flatly contradict both spirit and letter of the original? Mark has the distinct, definite declaration that the keeping of these commandments leaves lacking the essential thing, which is — the doctrine of the cross, life through death, the world to come by surrender of this world. And Matthew, by the alteration of a phrase or two, states the contrary. Eternal life is the reward of keeping the commandments. The doc- trine of the Cross is merely a counsel of perfection, "7/ thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell," etc. The only thing which distinguishes Matthew's doctrine from Pharisaism pure and simple is the change in the nature of the commandments to be kept. It is now the ten commandments (not loosely referred to as in Mark, but strictly conformed to the letter of the Old Testament) plus the new commandment of Mark 12:31. This is a photographic revelation of that Jewish-Christian legalism against which Paul brought to bear all the power both of his logic and his life. The mere external occasion of conflict, the continued obliga- tion of believing Jews to observe the ceremonial distinctions of Mosaism, and of Gentiles to accommodate themselves to the maintenance of this caste-distinction, was of small consequence, as Paul reiterates, as com- pared with the essential issue, whether salvation is by works of the law or by the self-surrender of faith. On that essential issue the Gospel of Mark here shows itself no less squarely Pauline than on the practical one of the Mosaic distinctions. 3 The Gospel of Matthew is is just as squarely un-Pauline on the essential issue by its whole concep- tion of the conditions of salvation. 4 In its deliberate alterations of Mark 5 and its repeated insertions of denunciations of the teachers of ■'lawlessness" 6 it can only be designated anti-Paulinistic, if not anti- Pauline. Our third evangelist is scarcely more Pauline on the main issue than Matthew, 7 and on the practical issue occupies precisely the standpoint rebuked in Peter in Gal. 2: 10-21. Jews are to continue their observ- ance of the customs of Moses, including circumcision. Gentiles must accommodate themselves to this maintenance of Jewish ceremonial caste. 8 In the present subdivision of Mark there is special opportunity to recognize this fundamental distinction. i Mk. 10: 18. 2 Mt. 19: 17. 3 Mk. 7: 1-23; 10: 1-10; 12: 28-34. 4 Cf . the general presentation of Jesus' higher law in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7) and the Apostolic Commission (Mt. 28: 20). a Mt. 13: 24-30; 19: 17-21. 6 Mt. 5: 19; 7: 20-23; 13: 36-43; 24: 11, 12. 7 Lk. 10: 25-28. The ambiguous presentation of Pauline doctrine in Acts 13: 39 must be interpreted in accordance with this to mean Faith in Jesus as the Christ will be accepted as a supplement for inadequate obedience to the (simplified) law. 8 Acts 15: 1-35; 16:4; 21:20-26. Note also the cancellation of the antl- legalisitc elements of Mk. (Mk. 7: 1-23; 10: 1-10) and of Q (Mt. 5: 17-37; 6: 1-8, 16-18). 9: 30-36 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 133 30 A ND they went forth from thence, and JOL passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it. 31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he 32 shall rise again. But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask him. 33 34 35 36 And they came to Capernaum: and when he was in the house he asked them, What were ye reasoning in the way? But they held their peace: for they had disputed one with another in the way, who *(was) the 2 greatest. And he sat down, and called the twelve; 3 [and he saith unto them,If any man would be first, he shall be last of all, and minister of all.] And he took a little child, and set him in the midst of them: and taking him in his arms, he said unto 1 /3 var. should be greatest of them. 3 /3 var. omit [ ]. 2 Gr. greater. Vers.30-33=Mt. 17:22, 23= Lk. 9:43-45 R Vers.33-35=Mt. 18:l=L,k. 9: 46,48 (Cf. 10:41-45= Mt. 20: 24-28= Lk. 22: 24-27) R(P) Ver. 36= Mt. 18:2=Lk. 9: 47 R (X) (10: 13,14, 16=Mt. 19: 13- 15=Lk.l8: 15- 17) 9: 30-32. Preliminary Survey. From the northern limit of the Holy Land, the neighborhood of the ancient Dan, at the foot of Hermon (for R perhaps the Mount of Transfiguration), Jesus takes the direct road for Jerusalem, passing through Galilee in secrecy. The trait may well be historical; but to R the motive is simply the desire to devote all attention to private instruction of the disciples in the doctrine of the Cross, to which they show the obtuseness which belongs to his conception. Mt. 17: 22 substitutes for this secret journey through Galilee a rallying of Jesus' followers in Galilee, preparatory to the Exodus. Ver. 31. A repetition of the prediction in 8: 31. Some critics argue greater originality for the present form on account of its greater sim- plicity. In any event R is reporting tradition, and if he has a written source employs it as if it were oral. After three days. See on 8: 31. Vers. 33-35. First Dispute about Rank. Once more, and for the last time, we recognize the familiar scenes of Capernaum and Peter's house. The trait may be from authentic tradition. If so it were bet- ter referred to the connection of 10: 13-16. Here as in 10: 1, 17, 46 R's geographical data subserve primarily the purposes of his literary construction. The theme so briefly treated here is elaborated in what appears to be an authentic and parallel source in 10: 35-45 = Lk. 22: 24- 30. In Luke it is connected with a Q saying (Mt. 19: 28 = Lk. 22: 30) and the beginnings of an account of the Primacy of Peter (Lk. 22: 31, 32. See on 10: 35-45). Ver. 36. See Criticism, p. 131. The addition here of the incident of the child is not really germane, and has no place in the second ac- 234 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 9: 37-41 37 them, Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. 38 John said unto him, fas- ter, we saw one casting out devils in thy name: and we forbade him, because he fol- 39 lowed not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a 2 mighty work in my name, and be able 40 quickly to speak evil of me. For he that is not against 3 us is for 3 us. 41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, 4 because ye are Christ's, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his 1 Or, Teacher. 2 Gr. power. 4 Gr. in name that ye are. 3 /3 var. you. Ver. 37=Mt. 18: 5=Lk. 9: 48 R (Q) (Mt. 10: 40 =Lk. 10: 16) Vers. 38-40= (Mt. 10:41?) =Lk. 9:49,50 R(X) R(Q) (Mt. 12: 30= Lk. 11: 23) Ver. 41=Mt. 10: 42 R count (10: 35-45). As things now stand the Twelve are rebuked in c. 9 for the spirit of exclusiveness shown in c. 10, and in c. 10 for the self-seeking ambition shown in c. 9. Matthew corrects the infelicity by inserting the saying 10: 15 here and omitting it from 10: 13-16. This addition is required to give even prima facie appropriateness to the bringing in of the child. The Twelve have not shown unwilling- ness to "receive" the little ones. But R is preoccupied with the desire to rebuke the spirit of exclusiveness shown against Paul in the name of the Twelve. On "receiving" vs. "stumbling" the "little ones" cf. Rom. 14. Ver. 37. An adaptation of the Q saying on "receiving" Jesus' representatives (Mt. 10:40-42 = Lk. 10:16). In Mt. 10:40-42 the Apostles and prophets are his representatives; here the humblest mem- ber of the brotherhood. The saying is continued in ver. 41; cf. Mt. 10: 42, and see above, p. 131. Vers. 38-40. A singular addition, the only instance in the Gospels of the mention of John alone. In Lk. 9: 49-56 it is followed by a rebuke of the spirit of vengefulness which appeals to the example of Elijah addressed to "James and John." 1 Its addition here so manifestly interrupts the context that it can only be attributed to editorial work. R's animus against Jewish-Christian claims to exer- cise the authority of scribes of the kingdom of heaven in respect to "binding and loosing," "receiving" and forbidding, is very apparent throughout Subdivisions b and c. The general theme "receiving" vs. forbidding is here the same as in vers. 37, 41, 42, but instead of apply- ing to the "little ones" it is applied to men who exercise "spiritual gifts" without conforming to Church rule. It reverses the rule of Mt. 7: 21-23; 12: 30. Mt. 10: 41 is perhaps a substitute. Ver. 41. R. The principle is developed in the "parable" of the Sheep and Goats (Mt. 25: 31-46). The discourse fails to appear, how- ever, in Luke, and is with good reason regarded (W. C. Allen) as a homily of the evangelist's composition. Here the language itself implies the appellation "Christian" (Acts 11: 26) and is certainly late. 1 See note on the title "Sons of thunder" in 3: 17. 9: 42, 43 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 135 42 reward. And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe *[on me| to stumble, it were better for him if 2 a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. 43 And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, Cut it off: 1 Var. omit on me. 2 Gr. a millstone turned by an ass. Ver. 42= Mt. 18: 6, 7=Lk. 17: 1,2 R(Q) Vers. 43-48= Mt. 18:8,9= Mt. 5:29,30 R(Q?) Ver. 42. See the fuller context in Q (Mt. 18:6, 7=Lk. 17: 1, 2). To stumble has acquired in the period of our evangelists something of the technical sense, "become a backslider." The sense of the say- ing is, Put no obstacles in the way of the weak. The same indignant feeling toward those who take advantage of the weak appears in Rom. 14: 13-23, but it is not merely Pauline. It is the converse of that yearning for the "lost sheep" which is the distinctive impulse of Jesus. Little ones that believe. Not actual children, but lowly brethren. Some mss. omit "on me"; the original saying will have had only "little ones";cf. Lk. 17:2. Vers. 43-48. Renunciation for the Kingdom's Sake. This passage is unique in the Gospel of Mark for its display of the semi-poetic style of rhetorical structure, by parallelism of clauses, strophe and anti- strophe. Ver. 48 is a formal colophon from Is. 66: 24 (Gr. version). In later mss. the process is carried further still by adding vers. 44 and 46, which are identical with 48, after the first and second strophes. This kind of rhetorical form is given to the sayings of Jesus in Q, though more often seen in Matthew's form than in Luke's. It adapts the teaching to preservation in memory, besides appealing to the ear by the sonorous rhythm of Old Testament prophecy. From the unique- ness of the phenomenon in Mark, and the occurrence of the same passage in Mt. 5 : 29, 30 besides its occurrence in the parallel to our passage Mt. 18: 8, 9, we may reasonably regard it as an extract (Q MT ), though Luke entirely fails to reproduce it. This may be, perhaps, because of its liability to too literal construction, as in the case of Ongen; but from evidences of late attachment so frequent in this complex it seems at least equally probable that Mark as known to Luke did not contain it. From the setting in Mt. 5 : 27-32 it is apparent that Matthew gave the saying too literal and limited an application, as we speak of the lustful eye, the itching palm. But he was compelled by this application to drop the second strophe — for how could a man be supposed to be tempted by his foot? In reality, eye, hand, and foot are simply illus- trations of the costliest sacrifices. The saying is in line with 8: 34-38 (Q, Mt. 10: 20-33 = Lk. 12: 2-9), Lk. 14: 25-35, and vers. 49, 50. It is a clarion call to face any suffering for the kingdom's sake. It does not belong with Matthew's little collection of precepts for the culture of Christian morality, nor has it any proper relation to the present con- text on receiving vs. stumbling, though it is possible that the assonance ("stumbling") may have led R to take it as a direction to cut off the offending church member. Ver. 43. Cause thee to stumble. Not "tempt thee," but "be an obstacle to thee." Cut it off. The figure is not allegory, as, the eye=a dear but seductive friendship, the hand = a valued possession, etc., though R may have had in mind Paul's comparison of church-members 136 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 9: 45^13 It is good for thee to enter into life maimed, Rather than having thy two hands To go into 1 hell, Into the unquenchable 2 fire. 45 And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, Cut it off: It is good for thee to enter into life halt, Rather than having thy two feet To be cast into 1 hell. 47 And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, Cast it out: It is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, Rather than having two eyes To be cast into 1 h.ell ; 48 Where their worm dieth not, And the fire is not quenched. 1 Gr. Gehenna. 2 Vers. 44 and 46 (which are identical with ver. 48) are omit- ted by the best ancient authorities. to eye, hand, and foot (I Cor. 12: 14-21). The figure is simply hyper- bole, as in Mt. 5: 39^42; Lk. 14: 26, 27. If needful to carry out the prin- ciple stop at nothing. Take a second blow in the face if required by the principle of the divine righteousness — overcoming evil vs. retaliating evil. Sacrifice an eye, a hand, "life," "thy whole body," if entrance into life requires it. Enter into life. The eternal life expected at the Coming. From 8: 34-38 onward we begin to hear the theme "inherit eternal life," the real religious ideal of R. This portion of the Gospel is full of the echoes of martyrdom; cf. 10: 17, 21, 30, 38, 39, 45. Maimed. Jewish eschatology maintained that bodily defects were retained even in the resurrection body long enough for purposes of recognition; after- ward the body was made perfect. Go into hell. Gr., "Gehenna." The scavenger heaps in the valley below Jerusalem where offal was burned or left to putrefy. In the lurid imagination of the prophets of the Restoration, Gehenna is magnified and eternalized in the inverse sense from Zion. As the latter becomes " the city of the Great King " in the Messianic Age, so the former the place of destruction of his ene- mies. Its fires are unquenchable, its miseries hopeless. Ver. 48. Quoted from Is. 66: 24. Assuming the words to be part of the saying and not a literary embellishment of some reporter or editor, it is still unjustifiable to take a mere warning against the pun- ishment depicted by the Old Testament prophets as the fate of rene- gade and unworthy Israelites, as if Jesus were indoctrinating a par- ticular theory of divine retribution. His meaning is Fear God's anger and not man's, as in the Q saying, Mt. 10: 28 = Lk. 12: 5. We cannot even draw an inference against the eternal duration of punishment from the phrase "destroy both soul (life) and body in Gehenna." Jesus leaves the whole question of the fate of the wicked absolutely open, 9:49—10: I THE WAY OF THE CROSS 137 49 For every *one shall be salted with fire 2 . 50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost its saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace one with another. 10 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the borders of Judsea 3 [and] beyond Jor- dan: and multitudes come together unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught 1 /3 var. sacrifice . . . salt. 2 Var. add and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. See Lev. 2: 13. 3 var. omit [ ]. (X) R(Q) Ver. l=Mt. 19: 1, 2=Lk. 13: R beyond the simple warning that it is better to incur any fate than that of the divine retribution against the cowardly and insincere. Ver. 49. A mere fragment. The saying is unknown elsewhere. The addition made in some mss. (see var.) seems to be an attempt to illuminate the obscurity. If correct, the sense will be: The persecution a man endures (I Pt. 4: 12) makes him acceptable to God, as the sacrifices were made acceptable with salt. The connection with ver. 48 suggests that the fire of judgment (I Cor. 3: 13) was in R's mind and not that of persecution only. Without the proving of fire our profession of discipleship is insipid (Heb. 12: 8). Ver. 50. R (Q) (Mt. 5: 13 = Lk. 14: 34, 35). See the fuller context in Lk. 14: 25-35. At beginning and end the saying has been editorially adapted to the present context, where it forms a kind of appendix to the agglutination 9: 33-49. The salt which loses its saltness, is the mixture of sodium chloride with insoluble impurities still gathered by the Dead Sea, from which the true salt will dissolve out if exposed to dampness, leaving a white, tasteless residuum. The warning against similar loss of principle (cf. Rev. 3: 15, 16) is not strictly germane to the context. But R has in mind the pungency of "Attic salt" as in Col. 4:6. In ver. 506 he answers the question, How is this quality to be used? — Excellent it is; its loss irreparable; but keep pungent criticism for your own selves, exercise consideration toward your brethren. The order of the Greek shows that this contrast, so closely in line with Rom. 14: 13, gives the sense intended. 10: 1-12. The Question of Divorce. On the original bearing of the colloquy see under Criticism, p. 131. R introduces it here apropos of renunciations. Christian profession in but too many instances in apostolic times could only be made at the cost of separation from wife or husband (I Cor. 7: 15). It is naturally not included among the required renunciations of 10: 29, 30, but takes its place in this connec- tion because of practical experience, as in I Cor. 7: 10-17, where Paul attests the saying of Jesus on the indissolubility of marriage. It is reproduced in Q (Mt. 5: 31, 32 = Lk. 16: 18), but in both occurrences Matthew has the characteristic addition "except for fornication," transmuting it from a prophetic principle (Mai. 2: 16) into a bit of ecclesiastical legislation. Matthew's version of the present incident conceives it as a masterly piece of scribal interpretation, reconciling two seemingly conflicting passages from Moses (Gen. 1: 27; 2: 24 and Dt. 24: 3) on the principle of accommodation. Jesus shows himself a true 138 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 10: 2-4 them again. And there came unto him ^Pharisees], and asked him, Is it law- ful for a man to put away (his) wife? tempt- ing him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 1 /3 var. They came and asked. Vers. 2-9=Mt. 19:3-8 (X) scribe of the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 13: 52), solving the famous dis- pute of the schools of Shammai and Hillel in favor of the stricter inter- pretation of the former. In Mark, Jesus does not follow the rabbinic method of appealing from Scripture to Scripture, but, as in 7: 8, from the law of Moses to the law of God (see on ver. 9) . Luke omits this radical section of Mark, together with anti-legalistic material in general. Only in Lk. 16: 18 a trace remains, where his idea seems to be that the Pharisees' practice of divorce was in contravention of the Mosaic law. It is apparent that in Q (Mt. 5: 31, 32 = Lk. 16: 18=Mk. 10: 10, 11) as well as Mark, Jesus' denunciation of divorce as "adultery" was set in opposition to the Mosaic enactment. In Mk. 10: 1-9 this conflict takes the form of a dialogue with the Pharisees, with appeal from the written law of "man" to the eternal law. In Q it takes the form of teaching regarding the validity of the Mosaic code. Matthew's idea is, Chris- tianity continues the commandment on a higher plane. Luke's is obscure, but seems to issue in the principle: The law had validity until John; thereafter Jesus is the legislator. Whether the attempt to adjust Jesus' denunciation of divorce to the Mosaic code really goes back to his own time and utterance is doubtful. Disputation on such points is characteristic rather of the apostolic age. 1 Ver. 1. The "western" (/?) text is geographically correct; "Judaea beyond Jordan" is the region south of Decapolis. Except Samaria, which with the Samaritans is wholly ignored by Mark, this region is that which alone, outside Judaea itself, remains untouched by the proclamation of the gospel. Ver. 2. Pharisees seems to be a transcriber's addition (see var.) to define Mark's vague, impersonal subject. The question Is it lawful, etc., is hardly a probable one in view of Dt. 24: 1. It only becomes conceivable by making with Matthew the addition "for every cause." This makes the incident a mere referring to Jesus of the time-honored dispute between the schools of Shammai and Hillel as to the wider or more restricted sense of the expression "unseemly thing" in Dt. 24: 1. It involves a transposition of vers. 4, 5 and 6, 7, which is skilfully ac- complished by Matthew. But this can hardly be regarded as prior to Vers. 3-9. "What did Moses command you? Cf. Jn. 8: 17; 10: 34 "your law." Jesus is approached as a law-giver; not an interpreter (so Matthew). The law which he gives is divine, corresponding to the order of nature. The law which Moses gave is human, a concession to evil. Ver. 4. Hoses suffered. The requirement of Dt. 24: 1 is really a limitation. In primitive Semitic jurisprudence the husband may re- pudiate a wife at pleasure. The advance of legislation down to the present day is a uniform progress in the protection of the woman against this arbitrary power by the introduction of new stipulations; return 10:5-14 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 139 8 But Jesus said unto them, For your hard- ness of heart he wrote you this command- ment. But from the beginning of the crea- tion, Male and female made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, *[and shall cleave to his wife ;] and the twain shall become one flesh: so that they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, 10 let not man put asunder. And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: and if she herself shall 2 put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery. And they brought unto him little children, that he should touch them: 14 and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indigna- 11 12 13 1 Var. omit [ ]. 2 Var. leave. Vers.lO,ll=Mt. 19:9 R(Q) (Mt. 5: 31, 32= Lk. 16: 18) Vers.l3-16=Mt. 19:13-15=Lk. 18:15-17 R(X) of the dowry, written certification, etc. Here the endeavor is simply to prove that Moses' law is not divine, as the Jews consider it, but only the law of Jesus. The climax in ver. 9, God . . . man, is weakened by the appending of vers. 10-12. For your hardness of heart. Cf. 6: 52; 8: 17. Moses' law, ceremonial as well as civil, is conceived as pro- visional; cf. Rom. 5: 20; Gal. 3: 19. There is no thought of improving the conditions of human society by amended enactments. The citizen- ship of Christians is in heaven. With the displacement in modern times of the cataclysmic theory of the Coming, arises the obligation to improve social relations by the best practicable enactments for the sanctity of the home. Vers. 6, 7. Male and female. ... A man shall leave. Gen. 1: 27; 2: 24 (Gr. version). The Hebrew does not give the latter passage as a command. It is an explanation of the family instinct. Because woman was taken out of man, therefore a man will leave, etc. Vers. 10-12. R (Q). Until the Coming, when marital relations are wholly transformed (12: 25) it is obligatory on Christians to live in the world in accordance with divine, not human, law. The interpretation appended by R under the stereotyped device of a question by the dis- ciples privately (4: 10, 34; 7: 17) takes no account of the contrast be- tween divine and human law of vers. 2-9, but merely condemns all divorce with remarriage as adultery. This is a second version of the saying, treated as in Q (Mt. 5: 31, 32 = Lk. 16: 18). Ver. 12 applies it to a case not admissible in the Orient, but only under Roman law. See, however, the variant reading. Vers. 13-16. Rebuke of the Disciples' Exclusive Spirit. In 9: 37-40 R has already shown his sense of one application of this incident. The 140 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 10: 15-18 tion, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein. 16 And he took them in his arms, and blessed them, laying his hands upon them. 17 And as he was going forth ^nto the way, there ran one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good 2 Master, what shall 18 I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, (even) God. 1 Or, on his way. 2 Or, Teacher. (Ver. 15=Mt. 18: 2-4) Vers.l7-22=Mt. 19:l&-22=Lk. 18 : 18-23 (X) last clause of ver. 14 suggests to him another saying which rebukes not the disciples' exclusiveness but their ambition for rank. Possibly the original occasion of the introduction here of the incident was simply the bidding farewell to home and household on leaving Galilee; cf. 9: 33-37 and vers. 28-31. Ver. 13. That he might touch them. (Matthew, "lay his hands on them and bless them.") The former is more magical in conception, the latter more religious. It rests on ver. 16. Ver. 14. Moved with indignation. Cf. 3: 5. Matthew and Luke uniformly cancel such expressions. Of such — those who have no claim but their weakness and need; cf. 2: 17 — is the kingdom of God. As appears from ver. 15, R is here thinking of the heavenly inheritance, a thought which fills Div. IV. Ver. 15. It is the humble position — not disposition — of a child which forms the point of comparison; cf. Mt. 18: 2-4 (Q?). Children are not more humble than other people, but what they receive comes to them of grace and not as earned, or by enforcible right. This saying is better adapted to the context of 9: 33-35 on rank and reward in the Kingdom. See above, p. 133. Vers. 17-22. The Rich Inquirer. As vers. 2-9 present a Paul- ine parallel to the doctrine of the passing of the written law, Mt. 5: 21-42, so vers. 17-22 parallel doctrinally Mt. 5: 43-48. The standard of "goodness" is set by the Father in heaven. Observance of "the commandments" is well (ver. 21a), but does not give a claim to "eternal life." The eternal life is for those who have renounced their lives in this world to "follow" Jesus (ver. 216; cf. 8: 34, 35), and have sacrificed earthly possessions to obtain "treasure in heaven" (cf. ver. 30). On the complete transformation to which this section has been subjected by Matthew, see Criticism, p. 132. Ver. 17. The inquirer is so described as to present Judaism in its most favorable aspect. He is a Saul of Tarsus seeking "the righteous- ness which is of the law." Matthew and Luke independently present kindred teaching at about the same point of the narrative, Lk. 17: 7-10; Mt. 20: 1-16. Ver. 18. Why callest thou me (Matthew, "askest me concerning") good? The adjective means "kindly," "gracious." The applicant 10: 19-22 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 141 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 unto him, 2 Master, all these things have I observed from my youth. 21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor: and thou shalt have treasure in 22 heaven: and come, follow me. But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful: for he was one that had great possessions. 1 P var. omit [ ]. 2 Or, Teacher. (With ver. 216 cf.Q,Mt.6:19- 21=Lk. 12: 33, 34) is supposed to be familiar with such teaching as vers. 13-16. He as- sumes that Jesus' yoke will be easy. Jesus' reply directs attention to Old Testament passages such as Ps. 100: 5; 106: 1 ; 107: 1 ; 145: 9. Mat- thew seeks to avoid the representation that Jesus deprecated being called "good," but unsuccessfully (cf. the sequel "One is good"). The dep- recation is indeed unexpected, even without any assumption of Jesus' sinlessness; for no derogation to divine superiority is intended. It can hardly be understood save as a reflection of the Q teaching that the essence of sonship is participation in the divine "goodness" (Mt. 5: 43-48 = Lk. 6: 27-36). Even to R the "goodness" of Jesus is still derivative. Hence the rule of sonship must be formulated, as in Eph. 5: 1, 2. Ver. 19. The summary of "the commandments" is purposely gen- eral and inexact. R might have added "and if there be any other (moral) commandment" its observance is a matter of common consent. Matthew reduces to exact correspondence with the Old Testament and adds the Golden Rule, because the observance of these particular rules is to him the real means of "entering into life." Ver. 20. What lack I yet? The answer of the Pharisee is not self- righteous. These are the old commandments he has always observed. The sense of the inadequacy of such mere formal morality was not con- fined to Paul. Ver. 21. Not a special requirement made to fit the inquirer's case, but as appears from 8: 34-36, vers. 28-31, and 38-40, a contrast of the basis of all Christian expectation of "eternal life" with the Jewish; cf. Lk. 17: 10. Mark's conception — heavenly life and treasure not the reward of "keeping the commandments," but of the renunciation of earthly life and treasure — is not up to the level of Paul's (Rom. 6 : 23), but it marks a great advance over legalism, especially as qualified in vers. 28-31 and 35-45. With ver. 216 cf. Q (Mt. 6: 19-21 =Lk. 12: 33, 34). The treasure is not conceived as enjoyed in heaven, but as "laid up," or "reserved, in heaven for you ready to be revealed in the last time" (I Pt. 1:4). The new Jerusalem and kingdom of Messiah are always conceived as on earth (Phil. 3: 20; Rev. 21: 2). Ver. 22 has the appearance of an editorial addition to link in the sayings of vers. 23-27. 142 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 10:23-27 23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom 24 of God! *And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it 2 [for them that trust in riches] to 25 enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the king- 26 dom of God. And they were astonished exceedingly, saying 3 unto him, Then who 27 can be saved? Jesus looking upon them saith, With men 4 it is impossible, but not with God: for all things are possible with 1 B var. insert here ver. 25. 2 Var. omit for them that_ trust in riches. 3 Many ancient authorities read among themselves. 4 B var. this is impossible, but-with God it is possible. Vers.23-27=Mt. 19: 23-26=Lk. 18 : 24-27 (X) R(X) Vers. 23-27. The Danger of Wealth. The saying about the obsta- cle of wealth to salvation is given twice over in slightly different form, apparently from two different sources (see var.). Jesus' attitude on the question — and the evangelist's — is determined by the immediate necessity of courage for renunciation. The saying is the outcome of Eractical experience; the comparison is one of Jesus' characteristic yperboles. To substitute a "hawser" (camilos for camelos), or im- agine a small gate called the Needle's Eye, is as insipid as to reduce the saying "They strain out a gnat and swallow a camel" to "swallow a goat." Of course the clause "for them that trust in riches" inserted in some mss. is a mere transcriber's attempt to smooth a harsh saying. The addition is revealed as unauthentic by ver. 26. Ver. 27 reflects the feeling of the apostolic age (Ac. 2: 44, 45; 4: 31-35; I Cor. 13: 3) that the renunciation of wealth is a special operation of "the Spirit." Rich men who had done it were rare. Barnabas, the uncle of Mark, was an eminent example. As in the case of divorce legis- lation (above, p. 139) the change of attitude toward the world involved in the effort to build the kingdom in it instead of saving remnants from it, implies a totally different disposition of wealth. Vers. 28-31. The Reward of Renunciation. In this appendix to the incident of the Rich Inquirer R seems to have substituted a saying spoken out of the experience of a Church rich in martyrs, and kindred to 3 : 35, for the reward of the Twelve as given by Q (Mt. 19 :28 = Lk. 22 : 28- 30). The Twelve thus are placed on a level of equality with all follow- ers, who in the Church brotherhood are compensated for their worldly losses (though warned of "persecutions") with prospect of the common heavenly reward hereafter. But even this promise is accompanied by the warning that later comers may be preferred (ver. 31). In Q the promise of "sitting on thrones and judging the twelve tribes of Israel" marks the acme of apocalyptic anticipation, and has support in I Cor. 6: 2, where, however, the promise is to "the saints" in general. The inference is unavoidable that the more democratic form of Mark is the later, though neither that of Q nor Mark can well be primitive. The K): 28-31 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 143 28 God. Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. 29 Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my sake, and for the gospel's 30 sake, but he shall receive *a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the 2 world 31 to come eternal life. But many (that are) first shall be last; and the last first. 1 Or, a hundredfold; — now, in this time, houses . seculions, and in the world to come, etc. . with per- 2 Or, age. Vers.28-31=Mt. 19: 37-30= Lk. 18 : 28-30 R(Q) (Mt. 19: 28=Lk. 22: 28-30) (Mt. 20: 16=Lk. 13: 30) Q promise is closely connected with the apocalyptic doctrine character- istic of this source, wherein Jesus appears throughout as the future Christ, the Son of man who is to come on the clouds of heaven. Com- bination with the P narrative based on actual remembrance of his adop- tion of the role of leadership without the earthly rewards of Messiahship, though not without encouragement of the Twelve to look for vindication at the "Coming of the Son of man," produces the intermingled result of Mark. Jesus himself is to come in this character (9: l 1 ), and yet rank and position in the kingdom as special rewards of his most intimate disciples, even the sharers of his cup (vers. 35-45), are strenuously repudiated, along with all thought of messianic domination (8: 31-33). Ver. 28. Peter. The first trace of an individual role for Peter in Mark is the Rebuke 8: 29-33. Thereafter he appears in 9: 5; 10: 28; 11: 21; 14: 29, 37, 66-72. With the single partial exception of 11: 21, he appears always as the object of rebuke and correction. Here Peter suggests (cf. Mt.) that the Twelve should have some special reward for having done (cf. 1: 18-20; 2: 14) that which Jesus has required of the Rich Inquirer (ver. 21). Vers. 29-31. There is no man. A rebuke of the claim of special reward for the Twelve. All who obey the requirement of 8: 34, 35 become proteges of the Church brotherhood, treated by all as members of their own family (cf. Rom. 16: 13). With persecutions. From these they must not expect to be exempt. And in the coming (Messianic) age eternal life. Cf. 8: 34-37; 9: 43-48; 10: 17. Equivalents to "salvation" in ver. 26. In the great impending cataclysm those who have lost their lives for Christ's sake will find them again to share in the new world-era (I Thess. 4: 15-17). Ver. 31. The general rejection of the Jewish doctrine of merit, ap- plied in Q (Mt. 20: 16 = Lk. 13: 30) to the prior right of the Jews (Mat- thew, as f ulfillers of the commandment from of old ; Luke, as Jesus' own people) , is applied by Mark to the prior right claimed by Peter for the Twelve. Even when martyrdom is superadded (ver. 40) they will have no claim to special rank or prerogative. It is interesting to find the Palestinian "elders" who were Papias' authority (ca. 100-140 a.d.) 2 defending their doctrine of degrees of reward in the world to come by appeal to Mt. 13: 8; 20: 28 (/? text). (See comment on 4: 8.) 1 Note, however, the impersonal form of the prediction, even more impersonal than in Q (Mt. 10: 32= Lk. 12: 8). 2 Papias ap. Irenaeus, Her. V, xxxvi. 1, 2. 144 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY RANK AND REWARD IN THE KINGDOM PARAPHRASE Subdivision c. 10: 32-45. When Jesus was already on the last stage of his journey to martyrdom he took the Twelve and told them a third time the mystery of the cross. But in- stead of apprehending its meaning, two of them, the sons of Zebedee, began to ask for themselves the places of highest rank in the kingdom, assuring him of their readiness to suffer martyr- dom with him. He therefore predicted that they should indeed share his fate, but rebuked the spirit they had shown; and when the Twelve also murmured at the pretensions of James and John he taught them all how they must have in them a different mind from that of the world, where the ambition for lordship leads to oppression, and how the same spirit must animate all his followers in which he himself was seeking to serve, and even laying down his life as a redemption price by which the many should be released from bondage. Vers. 46-52. Thus having passed through all the land they came to Jericho, whence the ascent to Jerusalem begins. And here Jesus for the last time exercised his healing power. For as they were going forth there was one named Bartimceus, a blind beggar, sitting by the wayside. But this man showed the insight and power of his faith more than all the multitude, for as Jesus was passing he began to cry out, and to hail him as the "Son of David." Many therefore of Jesus' followers whom he had bidden not to reveal his messiahship, and of the rest who knew not of it, began to rebuke the man, bidding him hold his peace. But he only cried out the more to Jesus as "Son of David," entreating that he would restore him his sight. Jesus therefore bade them call him, and when he came, Jesus with a word restored him his sight as a reward of his great faith, and the man joined in the throng which followed him. SUBDIVISION C EPILOGUE, 10: 32-52.— CRITICISM Between its introductory reiteration of the prediction of the passion, 1 and its healing, 2 which forms an epilogue to the Division as a whole and effects a transition to that ensuing, our subdivision has but a single incident, which, however, is related in vivid detail, and combines in itself two elements, that of the claim of James and John to places of i v fi *j. 32-34. 2 Vera. 46-52. THE WAY OF THE CROSS 145 special rank and honor in the kingdom, and that of the Quarrel concern- ing Rank in the Kingdom already more briefly related in 9 : 33-35. The general bearing of the paragraph is in direct continuation of Subdivision b. As in vers. 28-31 the plea of Peter on behalf of the Twelve for their renunciation of worldly goods is answered by the denial of any claim to special rank or reward for this in the kingdom, so now even the giving of one's body to be burned. R has made of the incident a special subdivision, by prefacing it with the third and most elaborate prediction of the passion, as indeed it is worthy to form the climax of his whole doctrine of the Cross. James and John are here regarded as the martyr-apostles. Of the martyrdom of James we learn in Acts 12:1,2. Papias reported that of John also, 1 but this tradition, after various attempts to reconcile it with that which identified the "surviving witness" 2 with the same John, 3 by alleging his enduring unharmed the "baptism" of boiling oil and "cup" of poison, was ultimately superseded by that which made his "witness (martyria) and confession" consist in teaching and writing. 4 The title Boanerges shared with James, and the refer- ence in Lk. 9: 51-56, 5 afford possible traces of the earlier form. At all events the present tradition of Jesus' predicting to the two brethren a share in his cup of martyrdom can hardly have become stereotyped in this form until the event had placed the seal of confirmation on the "prophecy." On the whole it seems more probable that the claim to a place at the right and left hand of the Son of man "in his glory" for the two witnesses ("martyrs") of the apostolic company represents the feeling of a Church which had enshrined them in this niche of honor (filled in the Transfiguration story, and Rev. 11: 5, 6, by Moses and Elias), than that it should have emanated from the ambition of the two Galilean fishermen for themselves. Certainly Mark's representation of their request presupposes a degree of acceptance of the Coming as Son of man which is hard to reconcile with their notorious unprepared- ness for the manifestation in resurrection glory. Luke's cancellation of the paragraph is in line with his whole attitude on the subject of the "witnesses." Even if we reject or explain away the testimony of Papias that John as well as James suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Jews, R must at least have looked forward to the fulfillment "of Jesus' prediction and their own promise and undertaking on his behalf." The special rank which for this reason James and John might be thought entitled to claim our evangelist will not concede. The assurance Jesus gave them that they should drink his cup is indeed an honor almost without equal. But this fate, for which every true follower must be prepared, gives no claim to exceptional rank in the kingdom. God's judgment alone can determine this. In a closing verse of inimitable beauty the evangelist sums up his presentation of "the mind that was in Christ Jesus." Even his sacrifice was only in obedience to the principle of service as the meas- ure of greatness. The historicity of the Quarrel for Precedence, especially in the sim- pler form of 9: 33, where we also have mention of Capernaum as the 1 "Papias ... in the second book of the Dominical Oracles says that he (John) was killed by the Jews, and thereby evidently fulfilled, together with his brother, Christ's prophecy concerning them, and their own confession and under- taking on his behalf." Chronicon of Georgius Hamartolus, supported by a glossator of Philip of Side, Hist. Christ., "Papias in his second book says that John the Divine and James his brother were killed by the Jews.' r 2 Mk. 9:1. =»Jn. 21:21-24. 4 Jn. 21:24. s Cf. Rev. 11: 3-13, on the fate of the two witnesses (martyrs) of Jesus. 8 10: 45. 146 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY scene, can hardly be questioned. Its special development in 10: 35-45, as we have noted, seems to reflect rather the frame of mind of a Church zealously loyal to the memory of its martyrs, than any which can reason- ably be attributed to the actual James and John, who at this time were far from admitting the doctrine of the Cross and second Coming, and probably not much occupied with dreams of worldly grandeur. That of the healing of Bartimseus would also be more easily admissible in a different connection. Where it now stands it may indeed be considered to fulfill in some degree the function of the miracle of the raising of Lazarus in Jn. 12: 18. We find, however, in 14: 3-9 another incident which seems to have had a bearing on the currents of messianistic agita- tion which bore Jesus to his fate, though as now located this relation is hopelessly obscure. 1 In Jn. 12: 1 it is placed at an earlier date. Luke, who cancels one of Mark's two healings of the blind, places side by side with the present narrative his account of the Conversion of Zacchaeus. 2 This also was an event not ill adapted to the kindling of enthusiasm among Jesus' followers. The course of events, therefore, does not im- peratively demand the rekindling in this sporadic instance of the flame of Jesus' healing power, so far from the scenes of its original activity. In point of fact Matthew, by interjecting in 20: 29-34 phrases identical with the parallel incident of 9: 27-31, and by his duplication of the cure in both, shows that there has at least been intermingling of the two streams of tradition, even if the two healings are not in reality mere replicas, the one of the other. 1 See, however, the note ibid. 8 Lk. 19: 1-10. lOt 32-37 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 147 32 A ND they were in the way, going up to J\. Jerusalem; and Jesus was going be- fore them: and they were amazed; *and they that followed were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them the things that were to happen unto 33 him, (saying,) Behold, we go up to Jeru- salem ; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall 34 deliver him unto the Gentiles: and they shall mock him, and shall spit upon him, and shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and after three days he shall rise again. 35 And there come near unto him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying unto him, 2 Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we 36 shall ask of thee. And he said unto them, 3 What would ye that I should do for you? 37 And they said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on (thy) left hand, in thy glory. 1 Or, but some as they followed were afraid. 9 ft var. / will do it for you. 2 Or, Teacher. Vers.32-34=Mt. 20:17-19=Lk. 18 : 31-34 R Ters.35-40=Mt. 20 : 20-23 ;Cf. Lk. 12: 50 (X) Vers. 32-34. Third Prediction of Martyrdom. The repetition of the theme of 8: 31; 9: 30-32 is for the sake of still more emphatically in- culcating the doctrine of the Cross (8: 34-38) as the essence of the gospel requirement. So consistently does R cling to the Pauline doctrine, "by grace are ye saved, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," that he must reiterate again his principle before proceeding to his third application, in which even the apostolic martyr-brethren, the " sons of thunder," appear as subjects of rebuke for expecting preeminence in the kingdom on this account. Ver. 32. Amazed . . . afraid. The doctrine of the Cross evokes both perplexity and fear; cf. I Cor. 1 : 23. Note the cancellation by Matthew and Luke. Vers. 33, 34. A repetition of 8: 31; 9: 30-32 in more detailed corre- spondence to the event. Psychological compatibility with the apostles' condition of despair when the prediction began to be fulfilled is not the consideration present to R's mind. His endeavor is only to show that from the beginning the Pauline doctrine of the Cross was proclaimed by Jesus. Vers. 35-40. The Reward of Martyrdom. In vers. 35-40 we have a development of the theme 9: 34, which is presented in Lk. 22: 24-27 in connection with the same teaching (vers. 41-45), but in still closer proximity to Jesus' own martyrdom. Luke thus obtains a more strik- ing rhetorical contrast, at the cost of psychological probability; an in- stance of the greater consideration given, even by the most historically 148 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY JO: 38-4 J 38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? x [or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?] And 39 they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink ; *[and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized :] 40 but to sit on my right hand or on (my) left hand is not mine to give : but (it is for them) for whom it hath been prepared. 41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning 1 Mt. 20: 22, 23 omits [ ]. Vers.41^5=Mt. 20:24-28=L,k. 22 : 24-27 R(Q?) disposed of the evangelists, to edification than to historical conditions. Mark's development of the theme may have some basis in historical tradition of the actual occasion of the quarrel for precedence, but is certainly connected with the general endeavor of this Division and of the Gospel as a whole to counteract an exaggerated reverence paid to the Apostles. As in the predictions placed in the mouth of Jesus re- garding his own fate, the prediction of the martyrdom of James and John is probably colored by the event, and in the addition of the refer- ence to "baptism" as well as the "cup," shows adjustment to sacra- mental observance. On the historicity, see Criticism, p. 145. Ver. 38. Drink the cup? cf. 14: 36, Ps. 16: 5; Is. 51: 17. Or to be baptized, etc. The reference to baptism is wanting in Matthew, whether in ver. 38 or ver. 39, and may well be the addition of some early tran- scriber. The motive is not merely sacramentarian; Lk. 12: 50 bears witness to the currency of a saying in line with the Pauline employment of baptism as a symbol of death and burial (Rom. 6: 3, 4). The addi- tion may have been made with a view to including this. Later legend makes the martyr "baptism" of John an immersion in boiling oil, the "cup" a draught of poison. Ver. 40. Rank in the Kingdom does not go by favor. The demo- cratic principle asserts itself, as in ver. 29, against prerogative. Even R still retains the sense of Jesus' subordination to the Father, as in Mk. 13: 32. Vers. 41-45. Second Quarrel about Rank. This fuller version is a manifest doublet of 9: 33-35. Both there and in Lk. 22: 24-27 it lacks the direct reference of Jesus to his own martyrdom, ver. 45, the place of which is taken by the preamble 9: 31-32 in Mark, and by the setting and ver. 27 in Luke. Ver. 45 introduces in fact the full Pauline doc- trine of "the mind which was in Christ Jesus" (cf. Phil. 2: 5-11), and does not even stop at this, but presents the substitutionary theory of the atonement based on Is. 53: 11, 12 as in I Pt. 2: 21-24, with em- ployment of the very phraseology ("for many") of Is. 53: 11, as in 14: 24. We must therefore attribute ver. 45 with its characteristic use of the title "Son of man," to R, however reluctantly. In reality it is only the principle formulated in this verse which so greatly deserves our admiration. Its content is implicit in the preceding context. 10: 42-45 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 149 42 James and John. And Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great 43 ones exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you: but whosoever would become great among you, shall be 44 your 1 minister: and whosoever would be first among you, shall be 2 servant of 45 all. For verily the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. 1 Or, servant. 2 Gr. bondservant. Ver. 42. The sublime declaration of the principle of service as the measure of greatness receives here the position which is its due in any presentation of the gospel. For a similar teaching cf. Mt. 23: 1-12. It becomes to Paul the keynote of a new sociology of the entire creation of personal beings. Arc accounted (or think) to rule. The great ones of the Gentiles are mere instruments of demonic powers; I Cor. 2:8; 15:24-28; Rev. 13: 2; Lk. 4:6, 7; Jn. 19: 11. Their dominion is a fleeting semblance. Ver. 45. The Son of man. The title is here employed not imper- sonally of the coming divine Judge, but personally of Jesus as the one who humbled himself but whom God exalted, a sense in which Jesus can hardly have used it. And to give his life a ransom for (Gr., "in- stead of") many. Paul attests the currency from the earliest period in the Church of the doctrine that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (I Cor. 15: 3). The reference can only be to the doctrine of the vicarious suffering of Yahweh's Servant in Is. 53: 4-6, 8, 10-12 (cf. I Pt. 2: 21-24) and a series of dependent Jewish writings, of which the best example is IV Maccabees. In this writing the doctrine of the vicariousness of the suffering of the righteous is carried to the point of actual substitution of innocent for guilty. 1 Paul never employs this Isaian "scripture," and avoids the immoral crudity of the preposi- tion "instead of" (anti) by which this view is expressed. Even in Acts, where the Isaian passages are quoted, no use is made of them beyond the proof that Jesus' suffering had been predicted, and was therefore necessary. Here and in 14: 24 Mark goes beyond Paul's careful use of language. Full justice is done to Jesus' indubitable teaching in the statement that he was "nailed for our advantage to the bitter cross." Mark's language ("instead of many") gives sanction to the cruder conception of substitution. Contrary to a widespread im- pression the comparison implied in the word here rendered ransom, is unknown to Paul 2 ; and outside the present passage unknown to the New Testament, except in I Pt. 1: 18 and Heb. 9: 12. 1 Cf. IV Mace. 6: 28f.; 17: 22. "Be propitious to thy people. Let the pun- ishment suffice thee that we have borne on its behalf. Let my blood be a purifica- tion for them and accept my life as a substitute for their life." 2 The stem occurs nowhere in the Pauline Epistles but Tit. 2: 14, where the reference is to the deliverance from bondage, as in Lk. 1: 6S — 2: 38; 24: 21; Ac. 7: 35. 150 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 10s 46-49 46 And they come to Jericho : and as he went out from Jericho, with his disciples and a great multitude, the son of Timaeus, Barti- mseus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the way 47 side. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on 48 me. And many rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried out the more a great deal, Thou son of David, have 49 mercy on me. And Jesus stood still, and said, Call ye him. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good cheer: Vers.46-52=Mf 20: 29-34 =Lk. 18 : 35-43 R (P?) Cf. Mt. 9: 27-31; Lk. 19: 1-10 10: 46-52. Healing of Bartimaeus. The point of this narrative lies in the messianic title applied now for the first time to Jesus, and wel- comed by him in spite of the efforts of his followers to silence the cry. The blind beggar at Jericho thus sounds alone the theme for the full chorus of 11: 8-10. On the historicity, see Criticism, p. 146. Ver. 46. The son of Timaeus, Bartimasus. Greek and Aramaic are identical in meaning. The former clause may have been a gloss upon the latter in the Aramaic source. Ver. 47. Jesus of Nazareth is known as a healer. Either the inci- dent belongs originally to Galilee, or Jesus' fame has extended to Judsea. Son of David. Repeated in ver. 48. This is the first refer- ence in Mark to the claims of Jesus to the Davidic succession. Yet in Rom. 1 : 3 it is apparent that it was already in Paul's time advanced by those who clung to "a Christ after the flesh." Mark is not ignorant of the claim, nor does he deny the pedigree. His attitude on the mat- ter is clearly set forth in 12: 35-37. It is closely akin to the Pauline, and in line with the Johannine. Jesus is the Christ of Ps. 110: 1, and David's Lord. If the title "Son of David" be construed in conform- ity with this, well and good; but he makes no allusion to the genealo- gies, and avoids any reference to Jesus' earthly father. (See note on 6: 3.) Davidic descent was an honor claimed by certain families, like descent from Mohammed in the same region today. In the case of Hillel it was not considered incompatible with extreme poverty and obscurity. The pedigrees of Matthew and Luke are indeed artificial and mutually exclusive, but the claim of Davidic origin is by no means a late element of gospel tradition. 1 Ver. 48. The attempt of Jesus' following to silence the blind beggar is explained as springing from an officious desire to protect the rabbi from importunity. This explanation is true to life in the East, but does not account for the special mention made of it here. The reason for this appears in the repetition in ver. 52 of the phrase from 5: 34, and the contrast of Jesus' attitude to that of his followers. It stands in fact in strong contrast to his own previous restraint. The blind beggar thus comes to serve as type of the lowly remnant in Israel who recognize the Lord. Cf. Is. 29: 23, and see comment on 8: 22-26, and p. 80. 1 Clement of Alexandria reports an early tradition that the Gospels which con- tained the genealogies were the earliest. If taken in the sense that this type of Gospel was the more primitive, the tradition would be wholly correct. 10: 50-52 THE WAY OF THE CROSS 151 50 rise, he calleth thee. And he, casting away his garment, sprang up, and came to Jesus. 51 And Jesus answered him, and said, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? And the blind man said unto him, x Rabboni, 52 that I may receive my sight. And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath 2 made thee whole. And straightway he received his sight, and followed him in the way. 1 See John 20: 16. var. Lord, Rabbi. 2 Or, saved thee. Cf. 5: 34; Lk. 7: 50; 8:48; 17: 19 Ver. 50. Cf. Acts 3: 8. Rabboni. A fuller form for Rabbi, "teacher." It is not clear why it is preferred here and in Jn. 20: 16. PART II DIVISION V. Cc. tt— J3 THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM STRUCTURE The fifth and sixth Divisions of the Gospel center upon the lesson of the Eucharist, as Divisions I, II had centered upon that of Baptism and Divisions III, IV on that of the Agape. Under the latter head Mark had already introduced the doctrinal import of Jesus' thrice uttered prediction. He has now to describe how the drama was enacted, beginning with Jesus' coming to Zion as her king. The story falls into three subdivisions, of which the first (the Coming of Zion's King) contains the story of the Purging of the Temple, an incident whose historicity is guaranteed by the whole succeeding course of events (see above, p. 106). We may well attribute its graphic traits to the P tradition, At the close R elaborates a theme related to the Q discourses on the Baptism of John and the Great Supper. 1 Subdivision b (Teaching in the Temple) consists of a series of debates with representatives of the various tendencies in Judaism, and has no real relation to the historical setting. Its contents are intrinsically related to such passages as 2: 18—3: 6; 10: 1-9, 17-21, and might well be derived from the same source (X). Subdivision c (Warning of Judgment) is the greater of R's two principal attempts at agglutination, corresponding to the group of parables in Part First. 2 C. 13, the so-called little apocalypse, consists of Q material pieced together with apocalyptic "scriptures" into a consecutive forecast of events down to the second coming. It is appended after the denunciation of the scribes, which closes Subdivision b, as Jesus' final pronouncement upon Israel. » 11: 27—12: 12; cf. Mt. 21: 28-32; 22: l-14=Lk. 7: 21-30; 14: 15-24. a 4: 1-34. 152 THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 153 THE COMING OF ZION'S KING PARAPHRASE Subdivision a. ^ x : 1 — 12: 12. At Jerusalem Jesus was at first received ivith acclamation, the multitudes expecting restora- tion of the kingdom of David. He, however, when he had shown his power to inflict deserved punishment on the unrepentant city by the miraculous withering of a fig tree, only assailed the abuses of the priesthood in the temple, expelling the traders by his authoritative ivord. Being called to account for this by the Sanhedrin, he referred them for his authority to the baptism of John, and in allegory predicted the fate awaiting him. The course of these events was as follows: 11: 1-11. Arrived at the Mount of Olives, opposite Jeru- salem, Jesus showed his supernatural foresight by the directions he gave to two of his disciples, arranging for his entry into the city conformably to the prophecy: "Zion, behold thy King cometh unto thee, meek and having salvation, riding upon an ass, and on a colt the foal of an ass." In minute detail he described to them where and how they would find an ass accoidred, standing ready, whose owners at the mention of "the Lord" would deliver the animal to them. Thus they found it, and bringing the ass cast their garments over it and set Jesus upon him. Thus he rode into Jerusalem. And many ivho perceived the fulfillment of prophecy strewed the path with their garments and with herbage from the fields, shouting the Hosannah which belongs to the Redemption psalm, and welcoming the advent of the kingdom of David. In the city, however, Jesus only looked about him and returned to Bethany, on the Mount of Olives, where he made his abode during the period of the feast. Vers. 12-19. On the morrow as Jesus was on his way into the city he saw a fig tree in full leaf, though it being not yet Passover the trees were still bare. And being hungry he came to see if there might be figs on the tree, though it was yet too early even for the first-ripe fruit. Finding nothing but leaves he spoke to the tree as a symbol of Jerusalem, full of promise, but bringing forth no fruits meet for repentance, No man shall eat fruit of thee henceforward forever. Thus they came to the temple; and Jesus seeing it full of traders and extortioners bade them begone, and overthrew their seats and tables. He also compelled those who were bearing burdens to respect the sanctity of the place, holding up to the 154 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY people the word of the prophet who had beforetime denounced the tvork of the priests in turning the house of prayer into a den of extortioners. And the priests dared not resist for fear of the multitude, who stood in awe of his teaching. And as they went forth in the evening toward Bethany they passed the place of the fig tree which Jesus had cursed, and saw it withered away from the roots. And as they were won- dering Jesus taught them how the power of faith may do not only this, but even the rooting up of mountains. But he that asks anything in prayer must not doubt in his heart, nor waver. His asking must be that of one who has supreme confidence in the Giver as both able and willing to the uttermost. Moreover, he must harbor no resentment, but forgive in order to be for- given; for we know that God heareth not sinners. Vers. 27-33. On the morrow, as he was walking in the temple court, a delegation from the Sanhedrin came to him to demand by what authority he interfered in the control of the temple. But Jesus replied, What authority had John the Baptist for his work of reformation? And they dared not deny his right, for all the multitude acknowledged that John was a prophet, and had authority for his baptism from heaven and not from men. So they gave him no answer. 12: 1-12. Then Jesus took up the word against them in return, holding them responsible as stewards of the vineyard of God, and charging them in a parable with the murder of those whom God had sent to assert his sovereign right. Once and again he had sent prophets bidding those who had the rule over Israel render to him his due. And the prophets were beaten and stoned and slain by them. Now at the last God had sent his Son, the Beloved, the destined Heir of the Vineyard. And him the rulers seized and slew and cast him out of the vineyard, believing that by the murder they would perpetuate their own control. Thus did Jesus hold to the faces of the rulers the murder which he knew to be in their hearts, warning them that they should gain nothing thereby but the vengeance of God, who would destroy them and entrust his kingdom to others, according to the prediction of the Scriptures. And when the delegation from the Sanhedrin saw that he had spoken this parable against them, they would have seized him, but desisted for fear of the people, and went away. THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 155 SUBDIVISION A. Ih J— 12: 12— CRITICISM Three indubitably historical occurrences form the outline of Sub- division a, to which the remainder is attached more or less loosely by way of supplement or illustrative embellishment. These occurrences are (1) the Entry into Jerusalem; (2) the Purging of the Temple, brack- eted between the symbolic Cursing of the Fig Tree and its Sequel; (3) the Challenge of Jesus by the Sanhedrin for his authority, to which R appends the allegory of the Usurpers in the Vineyard. In respect to the so-called Royal Entry, Purging of the Temple and Challenge of the Sanhedrin, Synoptic tradition shows no important variation from the Markan type. The Q source in its primitive form, it is generally admitted, will have contained no account of these events, vital as they are to any narrative of Jesus' career. Yet throughout these last two Divisions, while Matthew clings almost slavishly to Mark, Luke employs copiously an independent source. Unfortunately it is only by most general conjecture that we can extend to it the designation Q LK . The variation in this part of the story which has counted most with students of the life of Christ is that of the Fourth Gospel, which, in accordance with its consistent plan of making Jesus come forward at the very outset with the public announcement of his Messiahship, and its location of the principal scene of his ministry in Jerusalem, is almost compelled to transfer the story of the Purging of the Temple to the beginning. This was in fact the one overt act of the ministry which could be pointed to as having relation to a distinctly Messianic pro- gram. It was Jesus' only approach to an act of political violence. It could not fail to have as its immediate consequence the intervention of the Sadducean hierocracy, followed, as soon as the ensuing wave of popularity had spent itself, by Jesus' execution at their instigation. Consistently a Gospel which made the messianic program begin with the ministry itself, as does John, could only place the Purging of the Temple where it is placed in Jn. 2: 12-22. And yet even here it still remains undetached from the Challenge and reference to the Sign from heaven. ' Even the answer given the priests, in spite of the three years supposed to intervene, is the saying which in Synoptic tradition occu- pies a prominent place in the story of the trial before the Sanhedrin and the mockery of the Crucified. 2 On general historical grounds, moreover, the Johannine dating of this occurrence involves a whole series of impossibilities. It is incredible that Jesus before the ac- quisition of his Galilean following could have so overawed the priestly authorities as to accomplish this reform in face of an organized temple police commanded by a military officer, 3 which at Passover would be at its maximum of efficiency, to say noth- ing of Roman support. Equally incredible that once accomplished the whole matter should be allowed to lapse into oblivion, until at the very end of Jesus' career witnesses appear who, as the chief charge against him, vaguely recall an utterance made on this occasion. Most incredible of all is the harmonistic theory that Jesus repeated a sym- bolic act which had proved practically ineffective a first time — the authorities offering no resistance! » Jn. 2: 18; cf. Mt. 21: 23-25. 2 Jn. 2: 19; cf. Mk. 14: 58; 15: 29. » Acts 4:1. 156 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY On the contrary, the purging of the temple, impracticable as it would have been at any time before Jesus' "name had become known," is the only act of his life that really explains his crucifixion as a Mes- sianic agitator by Roman authority. It was an act of rebellion in the chief stronghold of the country against the regular authority. For this very reason the records, written when Christians were concen- trating every effort to prove the political inoffensiveness of their faith, and almost equal efforts to prove that Jewish animosity was solely due to what they called the "blasphemy" of Jesus in calling himself the Son of God, must be subject to discount. They naturally minimize the significance of that which Pilate might reasonably look upon as a messianistic coup d'etat. Conversely they magnify the representation of a formal trial before the Sanhedrin, in which Jesus is condemned for the doctrine which the Church in their own time is actively disputing with the Synagogue. The fourth evangelist's report is therefore quite unserviceable for the correction of Mark's account of the Purging of the Temple and Challenge of the Sanhedrin, at least as respects date of occurrence. As respects the Royal Entry, the Johannine declaration x that the disciples did not at the time regard the event as of messianic significance is un- affected by theoretical considerations. We may well accept as authentic an admission of such a character. The details of correspondence with the prophecy of Zech. 9:9, on which Mark dilates, and which Matthew carries even to the point of making Jesus ride two animals, "an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass," must be regarded as elaborated by the evan- gelist himself. This verdict must extend to the acclamations to "the Son of David" and "the coming kingdom of our father David," which certainly could not have escaped the attention of the disciples, to say nothing of Pilate, and which fall into verbal coincidence with a certain saying reported by Q on a much earlier occasion. 2 In the two subordinate elements of this subdivision the Cursing of the Fig Tree and Usurping Husbandmen, there is convincing evidence of the hand of R. In the case of the Cursing of the Fig Tree there will be no disposition in any quarter to deny the classification of the story with symbol miracles. If not a pragmatized parable, it must be a parabolic miracle. The fate of the tree symbolizes that of unrepentant Israel. 3 But all who admit at all the critical principle will be disposed to recognize in Mark's story a mere adaptation of the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree. 4 The connection of the latter with Lk. 12: 35 — 13: 35 makes its relation to Q probable, and warrants the designation Q LK . The interjection of this discourse material recast into the form of nar- rative will be only one more instance of the characteristic pragmatism of R. Finally, the story of the Usurping Lessees of the Vineyard 5 is not so much parable as allegory, in which Israel is "the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts," as in Is. 5: 1-7; the messengers sent to demand the fruits are the prophets, and Jesus himself is the "Beloved Son." Aside from the improbability of Jesus' setting his own personality in this relation to the prophets, we cannot understand why none of the hearers seems to take offense at the "blasphemy," as should be the case in view of the trial scene. 6 There are obstacles, accordingly, to regarding this as true historic tradition. But if we turn to the Q material exhibited by Matthew and Luke we find at least a possible explanation of the de- 1 Jn. 12: 12-16. « With 11: 9, 10 cf. Mt. 23: 39=Lk. 13: 35. 3 Cf. Q, Mt. 3: 10= Lk. 3:9. 4 With 11: 12-14 cf. Lk. 13: 6-9. 6 12: 1-12. « 14: 64; see note on 2: 12. THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 157 velopment of such an allegory. This material had also its reference to "Jerusalem which killeth the prophets and stone th them which are sent unto her" 1 ; and not only so, but in the particular connection of the Challenge of the Sanhedrin it gave as the answer of Jesus a warning of judgment against those who had given no heed to John's preaching of repentance, and a prediction of the transfer of the messianic kingdom to other heirs. 2 Placed alongside this Q form of the Answer to the Challenge, Mark's allegory of the Usurping Husbandmen assumes more than ever the appearance of a transmutation of Jesus' promise of a transfer of the kingdom to the "publicans and sinners into a promise of its transfer to "other husbandmen," a championing of the disinherited nations against the exclusive claims of Israel, instead of Jesus' championing of the disinherited "little flock" against the usurpa- tions of the hierocracy. Setting aside all elements of the subdivision which show traces of adaptation to later conditions and beliefs, we find as the basic substance of the narrative an account of Jesus' coming to Jerusalem followed by a retinue of Galilean supporters, his abolition of the obnoxious abuses in the temple, 3 and defiance of the delegation from the Sanhedrin against whom he champions the cause of the masses. Exclusion from the synagogues of Galilee has led him to demand their rights in the temple itself at the hands of a corrupt and oppressive hierocracy. i Mt. 23: 34-39= Lk. 11: 49-51; 13: 34, 35. 2 Q, Mt. 21: 28-32; 22: l-14=Lk. 7: 29, 30; 14: 15-24. 3 See note on 11: 15-17. 158 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY II: I 11 A ND when they draw nigh unto Jerusa- JLA. lem, ^unto Bethphage] 2 and Beth- any, at the mount of Olives, he send- eth two of his disciples, and saith unto 1 Var. omit [ ]. 2 Sinaitic Syriac, unto. ll:l-ll=Mt. 21:l-ll=Lk. 19: 28-38 R(P) 11: 1-10. The Triumphal Entry. The apologetic value attached by R to this incident appears in ver. 10. The populace received Jesus with acclamation because they were looking for the coming kingdom. Not, however, that of the Christian ideal, but that of their father David. The relation of this to the preceding paragraph corresponds to that between 8: 27-30 and its sequel. It is quite apparent, however, that an earlier narrative, less concerned with the didactic application, is being worked over to develop the fulfillment of prophecy afterward discovered in the occurrence (Jn. 12: 16). If Jesus really in this instance went out of his way to symbolically indicate to the multitudes, whose attention he could not otherwise secure, that he proposed to assume messianic leadership, and desired their support for a program of peace- ful reform in the interest of the masses, we must assume that he had friends in "Bethany" by appointment with whom preparation was made for his riding into Jerusalem in a manner conspicuously corre- sponding to the prophecy of Zech. 9: 9. This is in fact a prediction of the deliverance of Zion by a king lowly and just, one of the peasant class, opposed to war and bloodshed, choosing the peasants' humble beast of burden in place of the proud warhorse and chariot. No prophecy, indeed, is better adapted to such a purpose. If the messianic enthusiasm of the populace was to be aroused without danger of collision with Roman authority it could only be by some such expedient. But was Jesus really desirous to run this risk? And if he felt that the occa- sion warranted so dangerous an appeal, why were his intimates left to learn by subsequent reflection what he meant by it? (Jn. 12: 16.) His attitude in the story, on the contrary, is purely passive. He lets the event transpire because thus it was written of him. Certainly our sources indicate no motive beyond mere conformation to Old Testa- ment prediction, and this is most unlike the whole spirit of Jesus. On the whole it seems more probable that it is indeed only later reflection (Jn. 12: 16) which has discovered this profound significance. The narration of Jesus' coming to Jerusalem originally had no further interest than to tell of his unexpectedly hospitable welcome. Ver. 1. [Bethphage and] Bethany. The MS. evidence indicates that "Bethphage and" is a correction introduced from Matthew, whose geo- graphical knowledge is better than Mark's. In Luke both names are present, as in the current text of Mark, but the original surely con- templated a single place. Only the name Bethphage is known outside evangelic tradition, 1 and Jn. 10: 40 (cf. 1: 28); 11: 1; 12: 1 brings this Bethany into curious juxtaposition with another "Bethany beyond Jor- dan," at the same time making it the home of "Mary and Martha," who in Lk. 10: 38-42 appear to reside in Judaea beyond Jordan. Possibly the cis-Jordanic Bethany may owe its whole supposed existence to Mark. The historical critic will be wiser at all events not to go beyond "the mount of Olives," which in the special source of Luke (Lk. 21:37) appears as Jesus' regular place of resort (cf. Jn. 18: 2). 1 Stapfer, Palestine in the Time of Christ, p. 61, places it on the western bank of the Kidron. 11:2-9 THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 159 2 them, Go your way into the village that is over against you: and straightway as ye enter into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon no man ever yet sat; loose him, and bring 3 him. And if any one say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye, The Lord hath need of him; and straightway he J will send him 4 2 back hither. And they went away, and found a colt tied at the door without in the 5 open street; and they loose him. And cer- tain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? 6 And they said unto them even as Jesus 7 had said: and they let them go. And they bring the colt unto Jesus, and cast on him 8 their garments; and he sat upon him. And many spread their garments upon the way; and others 3 branches, which they had cut 9 from the fields. And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, Hosanna; Blessed (is) he that cometh in 1 Gr. sendelh. 2 Or, again. 3 Gr. layers of leaves. R(Q) (Mt. 23: 39=Lk. 13: 35) Ver. 2. "Whereon no man ever yet sat. To R a point of reverential significance (cf. Lk. 23: 53). The information is not derived by inquiry from the owners of the animal, but discovered in a field which early Church narrators find much more productive — the Old Testament. Zech. 9: 9 (Greek version) gives the prophecy here developed by Mark in the form, "riding upon a new (i.e., "unbroken") ass." Ver. 3. The Lord. A deeply significant title in this Gospel (see on 7: 28). Will send him back hither. Matthew takes this as a prediction of what tfie owner will do. Originally it is, of course, a simple promise of restitution on Jesus' part. But why included by Mark, unless taken in the sense understood by Matthew? Ver. 4. In the open street. The description is intended to show the miraculous knowledge of Jesus. It impresses us by its likeness to the descriptions of P in 1: 33; 2: 2; 5: 38-40, etc. Ver. 8. Branches (Gr., "green litter"; see var.). Not palm-branches (Jn. 12: 13), a symbol of victory (Rev. 7: 9), nor even branches of fig or olive trees, which would be scarcely less difficult to obtain than palm branches. The object is to cover the stony road with a soft carpet as a token of honor. Ver. 9. Hosanna (Heb., "save, pray"). The king is honored by the appeal for his help. Ev. Hebr. attested the form "Hosanna in the highest" (ver. 10). 1 The complete absence of any effect on Jewish or Roman authorities of this reported demonstration is difficult to account for. The representation is that now Jerusalem fulfills the word of Jesus (Q, Mt. 23:39 = Lk. 13:35). 1 Pv. Hebr. ap. Preuschen, Antileg., fragt. 12. 160 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 11: 10-14 10 the name of the Lord: Blessed (is) the king- dom that cometh, (the kingdom) of our father David; Hosanna in the highest. 11 And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple; and when he had looked round about upon all things, it being now even- tide, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve. 12 And on the morrow, when they were 13 come out from Bethany, he hungered. And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the sea- 14 son of figs. And he answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit from thee hencefor- ward for ever. And his disciples heard it. R(P) Vers.l2-14=Mt. 21:18, 19 E, (Qlk) (Lk. 13: 6-9) Ver. 10 interprets the quotation of Ps. 118: 25 as applying to the ex- pectation of the return of the Davidic dominion. In the highest (places); i.e., let his praises be sung in heaven also (cf. Lk. 2: 14). Vers. 11-14. Episode of the Barren Fig Tree. Interwoven after Mark's manner with the Purging of the Temple is a story of symbolic miracle. All agree that Jesus' object was to teach the lesson of the fate awaiting the city, which in spite of fair appearance brought forth no fruit worthy of repentance. Interpreters who think such teaching is made really more forceful and beneficial by being accompanied by a prodigy take the ground that it was followed by the miraculous with- ering of the tree. According to some this was not Jesus' intention, but an unexpected divine intervention. Wellhausen's dry remark on this is, "The commentator understands him; God misunderstood him!" Such, however, is not the lesson drawn by the evangelist who attaches the agglutination of Q sayings in 1 1 : 20-25. He has no concern what- ever with the symbolism of the fate of unrepentant Israel, but treats the incident as plain matter of fact. Its lesson as he understands it is: Nothing is too marvellous to be accomplished by the thaumaturgy of "faith." Requests of God, however, must be accompanied by for- giveness of one's enemies, in order that one may be oneself forgiven. Admitting the indications that appear in vers. 20-25 of later attach- ment, it might seem possible to find in vers. 12-14 some true historical occurrence. But as soon as we try to lay hold of something tangible it crumbles. _ The motive of "hunger" attributed to Jesus is insuppos- able. Granting the physical feeling, a sane man would not be impelled at this season of year (cf. ver. 13) to attempt thus to satisfy it. The precocious verdure of the tree might suggest an object lesson to the disciples, but not the satisfaction of hunger. 1 Nothing remains but to treat vers. 12-14 also as a simple dramatization of the parable Lk. 13: 6-9, which in vers. 20-25 has received further elaboration by the attachment of Q sayings. 1 The so-called pasquarole, or Easter figs, known in South Italy are unknown to Syria, and even if such early fruit were sought — or, as some maintain, figs left over from the autumn crop(!) — it would be sought on a tree bare of leaves, not one whose foliage would conceal any possibilities of the kind. lit 15 THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 1G1 15 And they come to Jerusalem: and he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and them that Vers.l5-19=Mt. 21:13-17= Lk. 19:45^8 =Jn. 2: 13-22 P 11: 15-18. Purging of the Temple. Historically this is the incident which of all Jesus' ministry was fraught with the most momentous consequences. It shows us both the motive for Jesus' going up to Jerusalem, and the reason for the conspiracy which took his life. This significance, of such value to the critical historian, is naturally veiled in Church tradition under the symbolic and religious applica- tions for which it was preserved in catechetic use (cf. Jn. 2: 13-22). Jesus in exile had to choose between the abandonment of his campaign on behalf of the spiritually disinherited "sons" in Israel, and the re- newal of it on the larger and far more perilous scale of a protest in their behalf in Jerusalem. Here was, in fact, the older and greater usurpa- tion. The monopolizing of synagogue religion by the scribes and Pharisees was really but a faint echo of the older and more crying usurpation of the priestly aristocracy, whose one remaining relic of the noble heritage of the Maccabean wars of independence was the temple stronghold. Here an utterly worldly aristocracy maintained itself in diplomatic bargaining with Rome at the expense of the masses of the people. These were utterly estranged from the worship. What had once been "a house of prayer" for all the people had become a veritable "den of robbers." The extortion practised by the priesthood under the guise of Mosaic requirement is something well-nigh incredible. And under the unscrupulous "hissing brood of Annas" it was carried to lengths hitherto unheard-of. The requirement of priestly inspection of sacrificial victims gave opportunity for an odious monopoly. Annas himself maintained a "Bazaar of Doves," where priests controlled the sale of this offering, prescribed in the law as that of the poor. l Even the lower orders of the priesthood were shamelessly mulcted, 2 while assas- sination and intrigue marked the lives of a high-priestly caste, whose very name of "Sadducee" became a synonym for blank irreligion (Acts 23: 8). That which Jesus had resolved to do after the scribes had remained masters of the field in Galilee when he attacked the usurpa- tions of the Synagogue, was to advance to the central citadel, and challenge the primal usurpation in the temple itself. We have seen that he did not conceal from himself the danger. Nationalistic zealotry was on the alert — it was present in the ranks of his own disciples — to seize control of his religious protest and pervert it into a messianistic insurrection. Such perversion, sure to occur with the fickle crowd unless the utmost pains were taken to prevent it, would prove inevitably fatal, and would only play into the hands of the unscrupulous high-priests. There must be a virtual coup d'etat, an assertion of divine right in the temple itself — and yet no violence to bring about the intervention of Pilate. That Jesus was able to accom- plish this prodigy of control, even for a few days, over the seething maelstrom of religious, social, and patriotic passion, is almost miracu- lous. The Purging of the Temple is the record of his supreme effort for God and the people. The fate which he suffered was its direct result. Ver. 15. By virtue of his great popular support (ver. 18) Jesus was able to accomplish the suppression of the iniquitous abuses in the temple without violence. Jn. 2: 15 expresses this with more careful 1 Stapfer, Palestine in the Time of Christ, p. 62. 2 Josephus, Anliq. XX, viii. 8. 162 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY Id 16-20 bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves; 16 and he would not suffer that any man should carry a vessel through the temple. 17 And he taught, and said unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? but ye have made it a 18 den of robbers. And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, for all the multitude was astonished at his teaching. 19 And *every evening 2 he went forth out of the city. 20 And as they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away from 1 Gr. whenever evening came. 2 Var. they. (R) (Jer. 17: 27) Is. 56: 7; Jer. 7: 11 R R (P) Vers.30-35=Mt. 31 : 19-33 R(Q) description of the means, perhaps on genuine tradition. The authori- ties, though commanding an immense force of disciplined temple police (cf. Acts 4: 1), were partly overawed, partly afraid to provoke violence. The trafficking was a source of income to the high-priestly fam- ilies (see above, p. 160). Tables of the money changers. Still a familiar sight to tourists in Jerusalem. Seats (or perches?) of them that sold the doves. This sacrificial victim is the only one mentioned, perhaps because of the peculiarly oppressive abuse of the family of Annas. Ver. 16. An addition by R from Jer. 17: 27 (cf. the parallels, and ver. I 17). I Ver. 17. The passages quoted are Is. 56: 7 and Jer. 7: 11. R adds! from the context of the former "for all the Gentiles" (cf. the parallels). ' This is not the point of the original, which contrasts the right use of j the temple (for prayer) with that to which it has been put (extortion). I Ver. 19. Matthew supplies what we expect from ver. 11, "to Beth- any"; but Lk. 21:37 has a different representation, supported by Jn. 18: 2 and seemingly more in harmony with the general form of this statement. Most pilgrims of the poorer classes bivouacked in the open air at Passover. Vers. 20-25. Sequel to the Cursing of the Fig Tree. This agglutina- tion of Q material seems to be the work of a later editorial hand than 11: 12-14, which is really complete in itself. 1 R's interest has no re- lation to the symbolism for the sake of which 11: 12-14 is introduced at this point of the story (Jerusalem's visitation). He has in mind simply a lesson for wonder-workers. The lesson is similar to that of the Faith series (4: 35—5: 43; 9: 14-29), and in the Q form (Mt. 17: 20 = Lk. 17: 3-6) actually follows (at least in Matthew) the final inci- dent of that series. In that connection the saying on mountain-moving 1 Even the language ("suddenly" in Mt. 21: 19; "your Father in heaven," ver. 25) is entirely foreign to Mark. Ut 21-27 THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 163 21 the roots. And Peter calling to remem- brance saith unto him, Rabbi, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered 22 away. And Jesus answer- ing saith unto them, Have faith in God. 23 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he saith cometh to pass; he shall have it. 24 Therefore I say unto you, All things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that ye have received them, and 25 ye shall have them. And whenso- ever ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any one; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. 1 27 And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the 1 Var. add ver. 26, But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. (Mt. 17: 20= Lk. 17:6) (Q) (Mt. 6: 11, 14, 15 =Lk. 11:4; cf. Mt. 5: 23, 24; 18: 23-35; Lk. 6:37) Vers.27-33=Mt. 21 : 23-27= Lk. 20:1-8 R(P) faith (attested by Paul, I Cor. 13: 2) is a precious witness of the sub- lime confidence in God which forms the most distinctive trait of Jesus' ministry. As against the hollow mockery of prayers offered as an act of righteousness, or even "to be seen of men," without any real belief in their efficacy, Jesus not only believes that God is, but that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. In R's setting the saying becomes little better than an encouragement to fanaticism. Prayer a spell which, if properly applied, can override the divinely appointed order of things. Ver. 24. Apparently another saying, if not merely an editorial ap- plication of ver. 23. If a saying, the sense may have been as in Q (Mt. 7: 8 = Lk. 11: 10; cf. Jas. 5: 16-18), i.e., prayer has real effect upon the event. Ver. 25. Apropos of prayer, R attaches a lesson of Q repeatedly in- culcated in Matthew (see marginal references). Vers. 27-33. Jesus Challenged for His Authority. This is the im- mediate sequel to the Purging of the Temple. The interjected Sequel to the Cursing of the Fig Tree interrupts the connection, so that Luke fails to see the reference of "doest thou these things" (ver. 28), and supplies "as he was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel" — an unobj ectionable occupation . Jesus' answer to the challenge is anything but enigmatical. It is an appeal to the great Sign from heav- en, the coming of Elias effecting the Great Repentance. This was "a greater matter than Jonah," and therefore the generation which ignored it stood condemned in the presence of the repentant Ninevites. In the Q 164 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 11: 28-33 28 scribes, and the elders; and they said unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? or who gave thee this authority to 29 do these things? And Jesus said unto them, I will ask of you one Question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what 30 authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? 31 answer me. And they reasoned with them- selves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why 2 [then] did ye 32 not believe him? 3 But should we say, From men — they feared the people: 4 for all verily held John to be a prophet. 33 And they answered Jesus and say, We know not. And Jesus saith unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. 1 Gr. word. 2 Var. omit [ ]. 3 Or, But shall we say, From men? 4 Or, for all held John to be a prophet indeed. Cf. Q, Mt. 12: 38, 39, 41 = Lk. 11: 29-32 context (Mt. 21 :28-32 = Lk. 7:29, 30;15: 11-32) this application becomes clearly apparent. Jesus speaks for the "people of the land," protesting against the usurpations of the hierocracy, and declares himself to be continuing the divinely commissioned work of the Baptist. The evan- gelist in vers. 31, 32 makes clear to his readers why no answer was given. But in the nature of the case there was no room for answer. The meaning was too obvious. This paragraph is fundamentally a doublet of Q on the Demand of a Sign from Heaven (Mt. 12: 38, 39, 41 =Lk. 11: 29, 32). In Q its occa- sion is the Collision with the Scribes in Galilee. This version is followed in Mk. 7: 1-23; 8: 11-13 and in Jn. 6: 30-40. Here and in Jn. 2: 18-22 its occasion is the Purging of the Temple. In Q (Mt. 12: 38, 39, 41 = Lk. 11: 29-32) and here (ver. 30 and parallels) the Sign from heaven is the Great Repentance of the Baptist-Elias. In both versions of John (Jn. 2: 19-22; 6:32-51), and in Matthew's interpretation of Q (Mt. 12: 40; cf. Lk. 11: 30), it is the Resurrection. Ver. 27. The dramatic setting is, of course, R's. It restores the scene of ver. 18, correctly enumerating the elements represented in the Sanhedrin. Ver. 28. These things — the eviction of the traffickers. Ver. 30. The baptism of John — the movement among the masses inaugurated by the Baptist. This was to Jesus the great "sign of the times." From it had come the impulse to his own ministry, and he deemed the religious leaders who refused to take it as "from heaven" to be willfully blind (Q (?), Mt. 16: 1-4 = Lk. 12: 54-56). Vers. 31, 32. Mark assumes the role expected of the ancient his- torian, who is presumed to know the inner reasonings of his characters. He presupposes (ver. 31) what in the parallels (Mt. 21 : 32 = Jn. 7: 29, 30) is expressly stated, that the hierocracy "did not believe" John. 12: 1-7 THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 165 12 And he began to speak unto them in parables. A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a pit for the winepress, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into 2 another country. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a Servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of 3 the fruits of the vineyard. And they took him, and beat him, and sent him away 4 empty. 2 [And again he sent unto them another Servant; and him they wounded in the head, and handled shamefully.] 5 And he sent another; and him they killed: and many others ; beating some, and killing 6 some. He had yet one, a beloved son: he sent him last unto them, saying, They will 7 reverence my son. But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance 1 Gr. bondservant. 2 Sinaitic Syriac omits ver. 4. 12: l-12=Mt. 21 : 33-46= Lk. 20: 9-19 R (Q) (Mt. 23: 34-39= Lk. 11: 49-51; 13: 34, 35) Is. 5: 1-7 12: 1-12. "Parable" of the Usurpers in the Vineyard. In place of the Parable of the Messianic Feast (Q, Mt. 22: l-14 = Lk. 14: 15-24) R inserts an allegory based on Is. 5: 1-7 and seemingly suggested by the Q saying against "Jerusalem which killeth the prophets" (see marg. ref.)- The reference to himself as the "Beloved Son" in comparison with the prophets as mere "servants" is very improbable in the mouth of Jesus, to say nothing of the public announcement of his fate in the face of his murderers-to-be. Moreover, Jesus does not employ allegory, but parable, which the present paragraph is not, in spite of ver. 1. The same disposition to allegorize is seen in Matthew's addition to the parable of the Messianic Feast (Mt. 22: 6, 7). Jn. 15: 1-8 allegorizes the same Isaian figure as Mark, but in the line of the Pauline doctrine of the mystical body of Christ. Ver. 1. "The vineyard of Yahweh of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plantation: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry." The preparations for a vineyard are the customary ones in the East. The presses "dug" (more properly, "hewn," Is. 5:2) in the rock are every- where in evidence, as well as the watchtower and hedge (more properly, "fence"). The letting out for a share in the produce is also a well known practice of landlords of the time. Ver. 2. The feature of the "servants" beaten and wounded is added to the Isaian parable on the basis of Q (see marg. ref.). Ver. 4. For wounded in the head render "abused." There seems to be a primitive confusion of similar words. Vers. 6-9. R does not hesitate to introduce messianic titles, "Be- loved Son," "the Heir," nor to refer to the sending as "last," to the kill- ing, the casting out of the vineyard (in both parallels this is placed 166 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 12: 8-12 8 shall be ours. And they took him, and killed him, and cast him forth out of the 9 vineyard. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vine- 10 yard unto others. Have ye not read even this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner: 11 This was from the Lord, And it is marvellous in our eyes? 12 And they sought to lay hold on him; and they feared the multi- tude; for they perceived that he spake the parable against them: and they left him, and went away. (Ps. 118: 22, 23; Acts 4: 11; I Pt. 2: 7) (P) R (P) before the killing to correspond with the situation of Golgotha, Heb. 13: 12), even to the consequent fate of the usurping husbandmen, and the entrusting of the vineyard to "others." All this is natural from the standpoint of the believer of 75 a.d., but out of setting in 29 a.d. Had Jesus employed such language the "needlessness of witness" at his "trial" (14: 60-64) would have been much more apparent. Vers. 10, 11. Mark adds a current "messianic prophecy" from the psalm already quoted in 11:9, without much relation to the allegory of the vineyard. The "husbandmen" are now builders. The quota- tion in I Pt. 2: 7 is independent if not earlier. In Acts 4:11 there is no indication of dependence on Mark. Ver. 12 forms the conclusion not of the "parable" merely, but of the incident of the Challenge of the Sanhedrin (11: 27-33), and thus of the subdivision as a whole. It rests clearly on excellent tradition, and justly explains the temporary holding back of the hierocracy. Mes- sianic turbulence might easily lead to curtailment of their already greatly restricted powers. Intrigue was more congenial than violence to "the brood of Annas." THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 167 TEACHING IN THE TEMPLE PARAPHRASE Subdivision b. 12: 13-44. After the repulse of the delega- tion from the Sanhedrin Jesus was approached in succession by representatives of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the scribes on the questions with which these elements of Judaism are respectively concerned. His answers were an end of con- troversy. When these were silent he introduced on his part the question of the nature and dignity of the Christ, following this with two utterances against the ostentation of the scribes and rich supporters of the temple. The colloquy took place on this wise: Vers. 13-17. The Pharisees' question was concocted in complicity with the Herodians to entrap Jesus. Assuring him of their confidence that no fear of consequences to himself would deter him from a candid answer, they laid before him the ques- tion on which they had taken issue with the Zealots. Could one be wholly loyal to the God of Israel and still consent to pay the tribute exacted by those who were usurpers in his domain? Jesus exposed their false pretense of a desire for enlightenment in his reply. Calling them hypocrites, he held up the current denarius as an object lesson. The stamp of the emperor's effigy upon it was a token to whom were due the good order and freedom of interchange now prevalent throughout the empire. In return for such benefits payment was just and right. But, he added, there is something due also for benefits that were not given by Casar. Render also to God what belongs to the order of his kingdom. Vers. 18-27. So with the Sadducees, who do not admit the doctrine of return from the underworld. These asked him a question designed to throw ridicule on the Pharisees' concep- tion of this doctrine, which would involve a confusion of marital relations in the messianic kingdom. Referring them to the fundamental promise of redemption, when God declared to Moses his intention to fulfill his covenant with the patriarchs regarding their seed, and rebuking their narrow view of him whose power was celebrated in the Blessing for the promise of the restoration of Israel even from the dust of death, he bade them remember that the God who made this promise was a God of life and the living, not a spectral despot over the shades of the underworld. 168 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY Vers. 28-34. Lastly a scribe inquired concerning the 'para- mount commandment. Jesus summed up all in two. Duty to God is complete in the inward disposition of filial devotion toward him. Duty to man is complete in the inward disposi- tion of brotherly service. These principles he again clothed in the language of the Jewish scripture and ritual. The scribe, therefore, seeing that he had proclaimed a higher law than the ceremonial of Mosaism, commended his saying, and Jesus' in turn declared him who was thus ready to rise above the religion of burnt offering and sacrifice to be not far from the coming kingdom. None after this durst question him further. Vers. 35-37. Jesus himself, however, showed before all the people the blindness of their scribes as to the Christ, whom they take to be a descendant of David, coming to sit upon David's throne in Jerusalem. For David himself, under inspiration of God, spoke of him as "My Lord" and as one who should be exalted to sit at the right hand of God on his throne in heaven. This psalm Jesus held before them, but they could not answer. Vers. 38-40. He also warned the people of the ostentation and hypocrisy of the scribes, declaring that for their greater pretense their sentence should be heavier. Vers. 41-44. As against the rich, who were casting gifts into the temple treasury, he held up as an example of sacrifice acceptable to God the gift of one poor widow, who of her poverty cast in two mites, not even retaining one for her living. SUBDIVISION B. 12: J3-44 — CRITICISM The series of disputes now subjoined, in which successively the Phari- see, the Sadducee, and the scribe enter into debate with Jesus on the typical moot points of these three elements of current Judaism, is more characteristic of the period of theological controversy between Church and Synagogue than of the assumed situation. This becomes only the more evident through the addition of a fourth question wherein Jesus takes the aggressive as champion of the central tenet of the Church, of course without a reply. ' The real course of the story is resumed in c. 14, showing that these dialogues, with the denunciatory monologue which follows in c. 13 predicting the overthrow of the temple, are in- troduced from apologetic motives rather than to exhibit the course of events. In reality while the first debate 2 is well chosen to fit the situation, one can hardly imagine the successive formal debates taking place at this time between Jesus and the authorities whom he has just mortally affronted. On the contrary, these are successive definitions of Christian doctrine against Pharisaism, Sadducaism, and Scribism, the last two based respectively on the Shemoneh Esreh and the Shemd of the Jewish prayer book; and while undoubtedly reflecting Jesus' 1 12: 35-37. * 12: 13-17. THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 169 genuine teaching, are quite as likely to belong to the Galilean period along with the questions about Divorce and the observance of Fasts and Sabbaths. 1 In the case of Jesus' question as to the Lordship of the Christ we have one of the "Messianic prophecies" already em- ployed by Paul in I Cor. 15: 25, thereafter elaborately developed by the author of Hebrews, and finally appealed to by Peter in a passage which shows no sign of dependence on Mark in Acts 2: 34, 35. The Eassage is in reality a proof-text of the Ascension of Christ to the right and of God, and is much more likely to stand in its historical context in Acts 2: 34, 35 than here, where the question of the ascension and sitting at the right hand of God is not raised. It surely cannot be re- garded as historically probable that Jesus undertook to debate with his opponents in the temple the question in what sense Christ is to be understood as the Son of David (!), however interesting to us to observe how a follower of Paul would justify his own Christology by the use of Ps. 110: 1. i 10: 1-10; 2: 23—3: 6. 170 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 12s 13-15 13 A ND they send unto him certain of the JLJL Pharisees and of the Herodians, that 14 they might catch him in talk. And ^hen they were come, they say unto him, 2 Master, we know that thou art true, and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not the person of men, but of a truth teach- est the way of God: Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? Shall we give, 15 or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a 3 penny, that I 1 /3 var. the Pharisees asked him. 2 Or, Teacher. 3 Gr. denarius, a shilling. Vers.l3-17=Mt. 23:15-33= Lk. 30:30-36 (X) Vers. 13-17. The Question of the Pharisees. The Pharisees' question is that which underlies the origin of the sect, who withdrew their sup- port from the Maccabean priest-kings after religious liberty had been attained and further war served only the self-aggrandizement of the dynasty. Jesus himself and the Church afterward on all political questions were strictly Pharisean, i.e., they confined their efforts to the practise of "righteousness," leaving to God the establishment of the messianic kingdom in his own time and his own way. The Zealots, on the contrary, had made it their motto since the census of Quirinius took away the last remnant of Judsean independence, to acknowledge no king but Jehovah, no tribute but to the temple, no friend but the Zealot. If we accept the representation of ver. 13 that the ancient bone of contention, whether or not it "defiled the land" to pay the census, was artfully presented to Jesus at this time, its subtlety will have lain not in the difficulty of answering (for he was sure to agree with the Pharisees that "they that take the sword shall perish by the sword"), but in the reaction of unpopularity his answer would be apt to produce among his Galilean supporters, with whom the memory of "Judas the Galilean" would still be fresh and fragrant. This man, "in the days of the Census," led a heroic but fruitless revolt against Roman control. If Jesus still had any Zealot support it certainly must have fallen away in disgust at his "Render unto Csesar the things which are Caesar's." Ver. 13. Pharisees and Herodians. The "Herodians" are doubtless an addition of R (cf. 3:6; 8: 15). They play no part in any other Gospel, and none in this save in the plots against Jesus' life. The western text in ver. 14 correctly presents this as a question of "the Pharisees" (see var.). Ver. 14. Is it lawful. The Jerusalem authorities, when incorporation into the Roman province of Syria was first threatened, had decreed that payment of the Roman tax was disloyal to Yahweh, the rightful owner, and hence unlawful, "defiling the land." The approach of Roman legions enabled them to discover a more accommodating exe- gesis soon after. But the Galileans bravely resisted. Ver. 15. Knowing their hypocrisy. The complimentary address, in- timating that Jesus will not withhold his real conviction from fear of consequences, is transparently artful. Counsel against payment would be construed by Pilate as insurrection. I2j 16, 17 THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 171 16 may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, 17 Caesar's. And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. And they marvelled greatly at him. Ver. 16. Bring me a penny (Gr., denarius, a shilling). Not because the appearance of the coin was unfamiliar, but as an object lesson. Paul, in similar connection, had both bidden converts in Rome, "Render to all their due, tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom," and also, as the higher obligation of rational worship, "Render to God your own bodies, a living sacrifice" (Rom. 13: 7; 12: 1). If in the same immediate context (Rom. 13:8) we find a parallel to vers. 28-34 it may not be unreasonable to consider that Jesus' teaching was present to Paul's mind also, and that he interpreted it as going beyond the mere negative attitude of Pharisaism, and adding to the obligation of the good citizen of the Empire the higher obligation of the citizen of the Kingdom of God. For God's image and superscription were stamped upon the human frame itself. Appreciation of the value of Roman government is no rarity in early Christian writings, and even appears in the Talmud. The separation of religious from civil obligation was a vital point for the early Church. Direction to pay "what is Caesar's" of course included not merely the "census" (so ver. 14 for "tribute"), but every other requirement of the civil governor not in conflict with the requirement of God. Vers. 18-27. The Question of the Sadducees. The second debate is more manifestly scholastic. One element of its value to Mark is to differentiate the more refined doctrine of the resurrection which Chris- tianity, since Paul, presented to the Hellenic world, from the crassly materialistic view of current Judaism. Fundamentally, like the pre- ceding, it does not go beyond what any devout Pharisee would ap- prove. An element for our appreciation of the reasoning is lacking until the two most ancient and familiar prayers of the Jewish prayer book are placed alongside the passage of "scripture." The first two of the so-called Shemoneh Esreh ("Eighteen Blessings"), undoubtedly already current, relate to the "redemption" of Israel in fulfillment of the covenant of God with "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." The second, which some think was called from its opening words "the Power of God," is a thanksgiving for the restoration of Israel from the grave, under the figure of Ezek. 37: 1-14, as follows: "Thou art mighty for- ever, O Lord; thou restorest life to the dead, Thou art mighty to save; who sustainest the living with beneficence, quickenest the dead with great mercy, supporting the fallen and healing the sick, and setting at liberty them that are bound, and upholding thy faithfulness to those that sleep in the dust. Who is like to thee, Lord, the Almighty; or who can be compared to thee, O King, who killest and makest alive again, and causest help to spring forth? And faithful art thou to quicken the dead. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who restorest the dead." The passage "concerning the Bush" is interpreted in the light of this thanksgiving to the Restorer of life to the dead. God, in sending Moses to deliver Israel from its bondage, was "upholding his faithful- ness" to the patriarchs who "slept in the dust." It is true that only national survival is here implied, as indeed the resurrection belief of 172 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 12: 18-25 18 And there come unto him Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection; 19 and they asked him, saying, faster, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and 20 raise up seed unto his brother. There were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, 21 and dying left no seed; and the second took her, and died, leaving no seed behind him; 22 and the third likewise: and the seven left no seed. Last of all the woman also died. 23 In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. 24 Jesus said unto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures, 25 nor the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as angels in 1 Or, Teacher. Vers.l8-37=Mt. 32:23-33= Lk. 20:27-38 (X) Dt. 25: 5 Israel is distinguished in just this respect from the world-wide popular doctrine of underworld "shades" of the dead and philosophic theories of soul-immortality. Israel's hope is from the outset and fundamen- tally national. The shades come back to earth from Sheol to share in bodily form in the reign of Messiah, the kingdom of God. Now were Yahweh, like Pluto or Hades, "a god of the dead," this would not be conceivable. He would wield his shadowy empire in the underworld. On the contrary, the Creator and Father in heaven is essentially a God of the living. His people, then, the posterity of the patriarchs to whom the promise of redemption was made, are not to be left in the "bondage" of death, but delivered, as in the day of Moses. The former deliverance was a mere symbol and foretaste of the perfect redemption, when in the kingdom "God himself shall be with them and be their God." "The scriptures" and "the power of God" are thus combined, as in Eph. 1: 19 — 2: 6 and primitive Christian thought in general. Ver. 18. Sadducees (they), which say that there is no resurrection. The Sadducee is defined as in Acts 23 : 8. In reality the Sadducees (Gr., "descendants of the Zadokite priestly nobility") had lost all political significance after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (70 a.d.). They are remembered merely as opponents of Pharisaism, which from the other-worldly form of its messianic hope had developed the resur- rection doctrine. The Sadducees had been the beati possidentes. Vers. 19-23. An ancient sneer at the Pharisaic doctrine. The law referred to is the Semitic principle of "levirate" (Dt. 25: 5). On the supposition of a return to bodily life in the Kingdom, social, especially conjugal, relations will be hopelessly confused. Pharisaism had long since met this objection with the further doctrine of a second resur- rection to superhuman conditions. 1 Ver. 25. As angels in heaven. Apocalyptic doctrine 2 declared that 1 II Esdr. 7: 28. 2 Eth. Enoch, xv. 7. 12:26-28 THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 173 26 heaven. But as touching the dead, that they are raised; have ye not read in the book of Moses, in (the place concerning) the Bush, how God spake unto him, saying, I (am) the God of Abraham, and the God 27 of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not Hhe God of the dead, but of the living: ye do greatly err. 28 And one of the scribes came, and heard them questioning together, and knowing that he had answered them well, asked 1 Gr. a God. Vers.28-34=Mt. 22:34^10,46 = L,k. 20:39, 40; 10:35-28 (X) "God created no wives for the angels." Jesus declares that apprecia- tion of the "power of God" would have shown that the resurrection body may well be of other than merely human form. This verse is hardly in line with Jesus' ordinary reserve on questions of the future state, and is manifestly somewhat outside the course of argument. In ver. 26 "the power of God" is illustrated in the redemption, not the resources of crea- tive omnipotence. Is ver. 25 perhaps the addition of some Paulinist? Ver. 26. Not the God of the dead (see above, p. 172). Luke adds the unsatisfactory explanation from IV Mace. 7: 19; 16: 25 (the patriarchs "are living unto God") that "all live unto him" (cf. Acts 17: 28; Rom. 6: 11; 14: 8). Yahweh is essentially a divinity of the upper world of life and light (Ps. 88: 3-5, 10-12). Vers. 28-34. The Question of the Scribe. The sole mission of the scribe as such is to so interpret and apply the Law of Moses that the will of God may be perfectly done. Given a community, however small, among whom this condition is fulfilled and there is "made ready for the Lord a people prepared for him." Hence the caste of "Neighbors" (chaberim), holding itself aloof from the people of the land (am ha- aretz) . The present anecdote voices a protest against the unbearable yoke imposed under this theory of the Kingdom. It had been set forth in the saying of the great liberal Hillel (60 B.C. — 20 a.d.), "Do not to another what thou wouldest not that he should do unto thee; this is the whole law, the rest is commentary." It employs for its purpose a datum of popular religion even more widespread than the Shemoneh Esreh, the creed or Shemd, beginning with Dt. 6: 4, and combines with it Lev. 19: 18, already so employed by Paul (Gal. 5: 14; Rom. 13: 8-10). Mark's attitude toward "fulfillment of the commandments" unac- companied by surrender to the way of the cross has been seen in 10: 17- 22. Here his "new commandment," displacing what "they of old time" had said, comes to clear enunciation. Luke, who combines this with the parable of the Good Samaritan, produces in the process (Lk. 10: 25-28) a perversion of the Pauline anti-legalism of Mark exactly equivalent to that of Matthew in the latter 's parallel to Mk. 10: 17-31. Nevertheless he has preserved in the parable a priceless example of Jesus' illustra- tion of the eternal and spiritual law which, written in the heart of a mere Samaritan, exalts him above Levite or priest. It is noteworthy that both parallels cancel vers. 32-34, which contain a comparison disparaging to Mosaism, both represent the scribe as "tempting him," and both transform the conditions which in Mark bring near to the king- dom into the actual and only conditions of "inheriting eternal life." 174 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 12:29-34 him, What commandment is the first of 29 all? Jesus answered, The first is, Hear, O Israel; x The Lord our God, the Lord is 30 one: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God 2 with all thy heart, and 2 with all thy soul, and 2 with all thy mind, and 2 with 31 all thy strength. The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than 32 these. And the scribe said unto him, Of a truth, 3 Master, thou hast well said that he is one; and there is none other but he: 33 and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is much more than all whole burnt 34 offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the king- dom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question. 1 Or, The Lord is our God ; the Lord is one. 3 Or, Teacher. 2 Gr. front. Dt. 6: 4, 5 Lev. 19: 18 Dt. 4: 35 Ver. 28. First of all. The principle of greater and lesser matters of the law was admitted (Q, Mt. 23: 23= Lk. 11: 42), and was applied in cases of conflicting requirement. The scribe seeks a paramount law. Ver. 29. The parallels omit these opening clauses of the Shemd. Ver. 30. Thou shalt love. "Have faith" is the distinctive teaching of Jesus as to man's proper relation to God. "Love" is the word here dictated by the parallel in ver. 31 and the quotation from Dt. 6: 4. It cannot even in ver. 31 refer to an emotion or sentiment, but means the serviceable disposition. Here it is used as a synonym for that filial attitude which identifies the will of the Father in heaven with the summum bonum, the simple trust, or "faith in God," which is Jesus' distinctive trait. Ver. 31. There is none other greater. The parallels cancel. Mat- thew (22: 40) substitutes the statement that the requirements of the law are to be interpreted by reference to these. Vers. 32-34. Such liberalism was by no means rare among Jews of the time. In Alexandria the ceremonial law was being refined into mere moral allegory. 1 Essenes, by the opposite road of extreme punctiliousness, were arriving at the same result. They no longer recognized the validity of the temple ceremonial. Our evangelist and the fourth (in the character of Nicodemus) show a friendlier attitude than Matthew and Luke to liberal Judaism. And no man after that durst ask. Manifestly a colophon to the section. Matthew, accord- ingly, gives it its appropriate place after vers. 35-37. Its occurrence here suggests that the latter verses may be a later attachment. 1 Ep. of Aristeas, 128-171, ca. 90 b.c. 12:35-38 THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 175 35 36 And Jesus answered and said, as he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that the Christ is the son of David? David himself said in the Holy Spirit, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I 'make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. 37 David himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he his son? And 2 the common people 38 heard him gladly. And in his teaching he 1 Var. put . . . underneath thy feel. 2 Or, the great multitude. Vers. 35-37a= Mt. 32:41-45 =Lk. 30:41- 44 R (X) (Acts 2: 34-36; Ps. 110: 1) Vers. 376-40= Lk. 30: 46-^7 R (Q) (Mt. 23: 1-7= Lk. 11:43-46) Vers. 35-37. The Question of Christ. In Peter's speech at Pentecost the exaltation of Jesus to the "throne of glory" is inferred from ex- perience and from scripture. The experience is the outpouring of the Spirit; the principal scripture is the present passage from Ps. 110: 1, quoted without any suggestion of previous use by Jesus (Acts 2: 34- 36). The same two arguments are employed in Eph. 4: 4-10, though here the scripture employed is Ps. 68: 19. It cannot be made to appear probable that Jesus publicly discussed the question of the nature of the Lordship of Christ, interpreting the Septuagint passage quoted by Paul (I Cor. 15: 25) in a sense opposed to Jewish conceptions of Mes- siahhood. Moreover, the supplementary way in which this scripture proof is attached to the series of scholastic disputes confirms this judgment. The quotation has, in fact, much less bearing on the ques- tion of the Lordship of the Christ, than of his ascension "to the right hand of God." The psalm quoted is an acrostic, containing in its initial letters the name of Simon the Maccabee, made "prince and high- priest forever," though neither a descendant of David nor of Zadok, by popular decree in 141 b c. (I Mace. 14: 25-49). It is a coronation ode by some Sadducean(?) supporter, who greets the great deliverer with messianic ascriptions. Yahweh, his helper, bids "my Lord" (i.e., Simon) behold from a seat beside Him on the heavenly throne how the promised dominion of Israel is to be accomplished. For the application to the case of Jesus, see Acts 2: 33; 3: 21; Heb. 10: 12, 13. In Hebrews the element of the perpetual high-priesthood — like Melchizedek's "with- out a genealogy" — is developed alongside of the perpetual royal succession. In Rom. 1 : 3, 4 and Hebrews the question of Davidic descent is ignored. Here it is definitely declared immaterial. The pretension — so this evangelist holds — mistakes the nature of Mes- siahship. Ver. 37. David himself. To Mark at least, and apparently to the writer of Acts 2: 34, the title "A Psalm of David" in the Psalter was sufficient evidence of authorship. The age did not vex itself with questions of authorship, but we may question whether earlier Chris- tian employers of this really noble messianic psalm, such as Paul or the writer of Hebrews, did not enter too deeply into its spirit to argue from it merely that "my Lord" is a title the founder of a dynasty could not use of a descendant. 176 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 12: 39-41 said, Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and (to have) salutations 39 in the marketplaces, and chief seats in the 40 synagogues, and chief places at feasts : they which devour widows' 1 houses, 2 and for a pretence make long prayers; these shall re- ceive greater condemnation. 41 And he sat down over against the treasury, and beheld how the multitude cast 3 money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. 1 var. add and orphans. 2 Or, even while for a pretence they make. 3 Gr. brass. Vers. 41-44= Lk. 21 : 1-4 (X) Vers. 38-40. Denunciation of the Scribes. After the silencing of all questioners, R attaches two disconnected fragments. The former (vers. 376-40) is the merest reminiscence of the great denunciatory discourse of Q, Mt. 23: 4-36 = Lk. 11: 39-52. The latter has no parallel in Matthew, and in all its intrinsic characteristics resembles the "special source" of Luke. Its omission by Matthew cannot be explained as intentional cancellation, and its connection is so purely artificial in Mark (ver. 40, the scribes devour "widows' houses"), interrupting the connection of the Denunciation (vers. 38-40) with the Warning of Doom (c. 13), that we must regard it as a late addition, either from Luke or from the latter's "special source." Vers. 38, 39. The description of the scribes occupies itself with ex- ternals. Their hypocritical casuistry and greed for the Korban had been referred to in 7: 8-13, but the denunciation there is a general arraignment of "the Pharisees and all the Jews." Here the rabbi's long robe and his claims to special honors in home, street, and syna- gogue, his dependence for support on bequests which should have gone to provide for the family of the testator, and his hypocritical "long prayers" are the occasion of the specially grievous judgment that overhangs the nation as a whole. R does not touch upon the real burden of the indictment as we have it in Q. This was the scribes' usurpation of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," the power of "binding and loosing," by which a "share in the world to come" was conditioned on assumption of their yoke. He sees with the eyes of an outsider. Widows' houses, i.e., estates. Legacies to support rabbinic teaching. Vers. 41-44. The "Widow's Mites. So far as this story has appro- priateness here it lies in the contrast with the avaricious scribes (ver. 40). In reality it seems to have more affinity with the "special source" of Luke, and fails to appear in Matthew. The familiarity of the nar- rator with the widow's private circumstances is not due to super- natural knowledge, but characterizes ancient historians generally. What the reader needs to know to make the bearing of the story clear, the narrator undertakes to tell (cf. 11: 31). Ver. 41. The treasury. In the first quadrangle of the temple enclos- ure, accessible to women, were placed thirteen trumpet-shaped re- ceptacles for offerings. Jesus sits opposite, commenting on the appearance of the givers. 12: 42-44 THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 177 42 And there came x a poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing. 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, This poor widow cast in more than all they 44 which are casting into the treasury: for they all did cast in of their superfluity ; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, (even) all her living. 1 Gr. one. Ver. 42. One poor widow (see margin). Against "many" rich (ver. 41). The numeral would have been better placed in ver. 43. Two mites. Having two coins she might have retained one. A farthing (Gr., "quadrans"). The valuation in Roman money is scarcely in itself an indication of Roman origin for this Gospel; for the quadrans doubtless circulated in Syria also. But when we add that the readers are not expected to know the value of the lepton ("mite"), the inference becomes cogent. 178 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY WARNING OF IMPENDING JUDGMENT PARAPHRASE Subdivision c. C. 13. Jesus also predicted to his disciples the destruction of the temple, and warned them not to be misled by false prophecies of his second coming, but foretold the perse- cution they should suffer, and the world-wide proclamation of the gospel. He also foretold the great tribulation of those in Judcea, after which the signs of the Son of man would appear in heaven. He bade them therefore watch for his coming, which should surely be within their own generation, but at an hour that no man can know. This revelation he gave them that they might not be deluded by false prognosticators. Vers. 1-4. The prediction of the overthrow of the temple was made as they were going forth, when the disciples called Jesus' attention to its massive structure. In private thereafter the four disciples whom he had first called asked him when this should be, and in what relation the temple overthrow should be to his second coming. Vers. 5-13. Jesus therefore began to warn them against the false prophets who prognosticate an immediate end to the world, assuring them that before this the gospel must be preached to all the nations. He also warned them of the persecutions they must endure in the fulfillment of this task, and of their being brought before governors and kings as witnesses for the gospel. For their advocate before such tribunals they should have the Holy Spirit, giving them an utterance above their own. Patience in endurance to the end would be their salvation. Vers. 14-23. But as regards the special woes to come upon those in Judcea, the prophecies of Daniel must be fulfilled. The mystery of iniquity must reach its culmination in a deso- lating Presence occupying the place belonging to God. The inhabitants of the land would be driven to dens and caves with sufferings unparalleled. None would survive but for God's merciful shortening of the time. Then more than ever would they need to remember his warning against the false prophets and false Christs; for men would then arise who would even show signs and wonders to lead astray the very followers of Jesus themselves. His own prediction of these events should warn them that even this Great Tribulation marks not yet the end. Vers. 24-27. The real Coming of the Son of man would be THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 179 preceded by signs not on earth but in the height of heaven; visible tokens, among sun, moon, and stars of the shaking of heavenly thrones and principalities. Then should appear the Son of man, and gather unto him his chosen ones from one ex- tremity of earth to the other. Vers. 28-31. As the fig tree gives sure token of harvest by the swelling of its buds, so must the tokens of earth be judged. The swelling together of the spreading gospel, and of the furious powers of evil that oppose it, were tokens that her great harvest time is at hand, and the Reaper at the door. The generation which rejected him should surely see his return. Vers. 32-37. Nevertheless the disciple must never remit his watch for the coming of the Lord. Though he be forewarned of all that must first come to pass, of the cidmination both of good and ill, the day and hour were known to no one; no, not to the angels, nor even to the Son, but to the Father only. There- fore as servants keep watch for the coming of the Master of the house, so the Church also, not by its elders and teachers only, but by all its members, must watch for the coming of the Lord. SUBDIVISION C C 13.— CRITICISM To the Teaching in the Temple R subjoins a special agglutination of Q sayings taking the place of the eschatological discourse of the teach- ing source. It is linked to the foregoing by means of a saying 1 pre- dicting the overthrow of the temple, precisely in the way that this was really accomplished. The superstructure and colonnades were, as we know, destroyed by fire during the siege in 70 a.d. But the reference here ("what manner of stones," "these great buildings") is to the prodigious blocks of the Herodian substructure, many of which are still in place and measure from 25 to 27 feet in length by 6 or more in thickness. Demolition alone could destroy such masonry, and to this Titus resorted after the capture, to destroy the effectiveness of the stronghold; for such it was. 2 We have independent attestation of a saying of Jesus predicting the overthrow of "these great buildings," or rather contrasting with them the real greatness and indestructi- bility of the spiritual temple. 3 We cannot therefore regard the present as anything more than Mark's pragmatic adaptation of the "predic- tion" to the event. If we trace the connection backward beyond the interjected material of the parable of the Usurping Husbandmen and Dialogues against Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes 4 to the really kindred Challenge of Jesus' Authority 5 we shall see that such is in reality the connection made in Jn. 2: 13-22. In the Question of the Four Disciples 8 R frames a setting for the discourse, significantly connecting the revelation of the Son of Man with the Overthrow of the Temple. This connection is distinctive of Mark. In Q we have eschatological teaching, predictions of judgment, warn- » 13: 1, 2. 2 Josephus. War VII, i. 1. * 14: 58; 15: 29; Jn. 2: 19. * C. 12. 6 11: 27-33. " Vers. 3, 4. 180 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY ings of persecution, and perhaps also of the doom of Jerusalem; but no attempt is made to bring these into temporal connection — a strong indication that the date of Q is anterior to 66-70 a.d. Mark takes the radical step of combining these separate warnings into a single discourse, in which the temporal relation of the three is defined, though the motive, so far from encouraging the spirit of apocalyptic enthu- siasm, is rather to dampen. The unifying idea and the burden of the teaching are Pauline, even to the adoption of the precise word of II Thess. 2: 1, "Be not agitated." R holds that Jesus had predicted the events of 30-70 a.d., in fact down to his own second coming, which would be but little later. The mysterious references of Paul in II Thess. 2 give the outline of the revelation. From the three divisions in which the material is grouped it becomes evident what R's purpose was, and possible inferentially to frame a reasonable conclusion as to his own date and situation. (1) The first paragraph of the discourse 1 combines certain warnings of Q concerning troubles to come with commonplaces of apocalyptic "scripture" to form an outline corresponding to the stereotyped con- cept of the Beginning of Travail. 2 The motive is the Pauline one to repress fanatical application of these calamities as signs of the im- mediate Coming. 3 National evils are predicted in the first half of the paragraph, 4 persecutions of believers in the second. 5 The former must not be mistaken for signs of the end; the latter must be endured with patience. (2) The second paragraph 9 relates to a specific culmination of calamity corresponding to the apocalyptic Great Tribulation. 7 This calamity affects "those that are in Judaea." 8 It corresponds in some way to the defilement of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 B.C., referred to in Dan. 12: 11. The very elect themselves will be tempted after this horror to go after the false Christs and false prophets who cry, "Lo, here is the Christ; or, Lo, there." Still the believer is to repress his ardent hopes, remembering that Jesus had predicted all this as not to be taken for the Coming. (3) The third paragraph 9 differentiates the true Coming as utterly and entirely outside the sphere of mere national calamities, or even the Great Tribulation endured by "those in Judaea." Its scene will be in the upper air, disaster to sun, moon, and stars, a conflict of heavenly powers with revelation of the victorious Son of man of Dan. 7: 13. This will take place within the limit of "those days"; but not until after the Great Tribulation. What follows in the rest of the chapter 10 is almost undisguisedly taken from Q. It is a reenforcement of the general lesson of patient, hopeful waiting for the Day of the Lord, as those who expect the harvest, neither impatient nor downcast; and yet with that watchful- ness which befits men who though they know the season cannot predict the day nor the hour, and would not be taken unaware. Thus the whole of this most elaborate of R's agglutinated discourses is devoted to the earnest endeavor to counteract eschatological fanati- cism. Despondency is encouraged by the confident assurance, made with all the solemnity words can convey, that the Coming will certainly take place within the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries. 1 1 The fact suggests that the cry, Where is the promise of his Coming? 12 may have i Vera. 5-13. 2 Ver. 9; cf. II Esdr. 16: 18. * Ver. 7; cf. II Thess. 2: 1; ver. 136; cf. II Esdr. 6: 25; Heb. 10: 34, 36. 39; Jas. 1: 12. 4 Vers. 5-8. 6 Vers. 9-13. 8 Vera. 14-23. ■> Ver. 19; cf. Dan. 12: 1. 8 Ver. 14. » Vers. 24-27. w Vers. 28-37. "Vers. 30, 31. "II Pt. 3:4. THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 181 already begun to be heard. But the main endeavor is in line with II Thess. 2 in repression of an enthusiastic disposition to be "troubled as touching the Coming, whether by spirit, or saying, or apostolic epistle representing that the Day of the Lord is immediately impend- ing." The allusions to the story of Acts 21-28, * and to world-wide persecution, with infliction of the death penalty upon Christians, 2 seem certainly to imply knowledge of the events of 60-64 a.d. The description of the Great Tribulation which falls upon "those in Judaea," 3 while, of course, veiled under scriptural and symbolic language as befits "prophecy," 4 cannot be adequately accounted for, unless we consider that the horrors of 66-70 a.d. are primarily in mind. And in vers. 21-23 R is already endeavoring to counteract the disposition of false Christs and false prophets to make capital of these events. The year 70 a.d. thus seems an absolute terminus a quo for the dating of the Gospel in its present form. On the other hand, the encouragement to believers to hope that the Coming will still be "in those days" if not "immediately" 5 after that tribulation, and certainly within the life- time of Jesus' contemporaries, 6 fixes with only less positive definiteness the terminus ad quem. Considering the exceptional effort the evan- gelist has spent on the compilation of this particular chapter, and its exceptional character as compared with his general avoidance of dis- course material, it is not unreasonable to regard these events of 64-70 a.d. as having largely occasioned R's recasting of the old-time Petrine tradition. Our Gospel of Mark may safely be dated on the evidence of this chapter in 70-75 a.d. If we could be sure that Matthew under- stood the "great tribulation" of "those in Judsea" just as Mark in- tended, his insertion of the word "immediately" in Mt. 24: 29 would almost compel a dating of this Gospel, already dependent on Mark, within the seventies. But from his recomparison of Dan. 12: 11 it seems equally probable that he was expecting this desecration of "a holy place" as still to come. » Vers. 9, 10. 2 Vers. 12, 13. 8 Vera. 14-20. 4 On the interpretation, especially of ver. 14, see notes. 6 Mt. 24: 29 inserts this word. • Vers. 24, 30, 31. 182 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY \3x\-4 13 A ND as he went forth out of the temple, xjL one of his disciples saith unto him, faster, behold, what manner of 2 stones and what manner of buildings ! And Jesus said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left here one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown down. 2 3 And as he sat on the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what (shall be) the sign when these things are all about to be accomplished? 1 Or, Teacher. 2 var. add and in three days another shall arise without hands. 13:1, 2=Mt. 24: 1, 2=Lk. 21: 5, 6 (X) (14:58; 15:29; Jn. 2: 19) Vers. 3, 4=Mt. 24:3=Lk. 21: 7 R Vers. 1, 2. The huge blocks of the Herodian substructure of the temple and rich sculpture of columns and vaulting are still visible as one ascends through the southern entrance. The prediction of over- throw seems to be the same saying given in Jn. 2: 19 and referred to in 14: 58; 15: 29. If so, its original intention was only to contrast Jesus' work, a spiritual rebuilding of the temple accomplished by bringing the lost sons into renewed fellowship with their Father in heaven, and Herod's enterprise, undertaken to meet popular messianic expectations. This contrast of the spiritual vs. the visible temple is pervasive in the New Testament since the time of Stephen's speech (Acts 7: 44-50; I Cor. 3: 10-17, 1 etc.). The addition made by some western variants after ver. 2 shows a perception of this as the place of the missing saying. It may possibly represent a survival from the source. Vers. 3, 4. For the first and only time R reverts to the group men- tioned in 1: 16-20. The object is similar to the mention of the Twelve as recipients of exclusive enlightenment on earlier occasions (4: 10, 34; 7: 17; 9: 31; 10: 10). The present teaching is restricted to the nar- rowest circle of all save that of the three martyr-apostles who are present at the scenes of conflict with Death. R intends the ensuing discourse to be received as a very special "revelation." See note on 9: 2-10. Ver. 4. The sign when these things are all about to be accomplished (cf. Matthew, "of thy coming and the end of the world"). The reference in Mark is primarily to the overthrow of the temple (ver. 2), though possibly we may extend it backward to include 12: 9-11. In either case attention is fixed primarily on the events of 66-70 a.d. In Mat- thew the interest is more supermundane. Mark constructs the dis- course to teach that the Coming will not be till after those events. Matthew adopts it for the sake of the assurance that it will be "im- mediately after the tribulation of those days." It does not follow that Matthew is earlier. Here the saying becomes a specific prediction of the demolition by Titus. 1 See also Ep. Barn., xvi. 13:5-8 THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 183 5 And Jesus began to say unto them, Take heed that no man lead you astray. 6 Many shall come in my name, saying, I am 7 (he) ; and shall lead many astray. And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be not troubled: (these things) must needs 8 come to pass; but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and king- dom against kingdom: there shall be earth- quakes in divers places; there shall be famines: these things are the beginning of travail. Vers. 6-8=Mt. 24:4-8=Lk. 21:8-11 R (II Thess. 2: 1- 12) Vers. 5-8. The Beginning of Travail. Acts 2: 24, with its allusion to the "snares (or, as Luke, after Gr. version, misrenders, "birth pangs") of death" of Ps. 18: 5, admits us to the conception. Deliverance comes at the darkest hour. Thus the greatest sufferings of God's people are the birth pangs of redemption (cf. Jn. 16: 21). General national ca- lamities, he means, have some significance, but these are only the earlier, milder pangs. This doctrine is enunciated in opposition to that of the Falling Away, wherein R sees a predicted Jewish political messianism, already showing itself in the Beginning of Travail (ver. 6), but specially dangerous after the Great Tribulation (vers. 21-23). Against the seductive words of such agitators Christians must restrain their impatience until wholly super-terrestrial phenomena declare the real Coming in unmistakable terms. Matthew inserts two verses (Mt. 24: 11, 12) to bring this prediction to bear upon the teachers of "law- lessness." Ver. 6. Many shall come in my name, saying I am (he). R has in mind political agitators who claim to be the Christ (cf. parallels). How these could come "in Christ's name" (i.e., calling themselves "Christians," 9: 37) is somewhat problematical. Perhaps R means calling themselves "Christs," or "redeemers." Doubtless he is affected by II Thess. 2: 3-12, from which even the language of ver. 7 is bor- rowed, but it is noteworthy that he no longer expects "the Lawless One" to appear "in the temple of God setting himself forth as God." The desecration of the temple takes other form (see on ver. 14), and the Lawless One is not identified, as we might expect, either with Simon Magus, or, as in Revelation, with a deified emperor. "There are many antichrists," as in 1 Jn. 2: 18, but so far from bearing the traits of the heresiarchs, they resemble more strongly the Egyptian of Acts 21: 38, or the goetae ("pretenders") of Josephus, 1 and are engaged in the very political business of provoking insurrection. Vers. 7, 8. Wars, earthquakes, famines. In so general a statement it would be hopeless to attempt identification of the particular calami- ties in R's mind. Yet with all his distaste for such apocalyptic reck- oning of the times as occupies, e.g., the Jewish-Christian author of Rev. 6, we may reasonably consider that the Parthian wars (51-62 a.d.), the great Palestinian famine of 46-7 a.d., and the Asian earthquake of 61 or 63 a.d. stood in his mental background. 1 With ver. 22 cf. Josephus, Ant. XVIII, iv. 1, and XX, viii. 6. 184 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 13:9-13 9 But take ye heed to yourselves : for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in synagogues shall ye be beaten; and before governors and kings shall ye stand for my sake, for a testimony unto them. 10 And the gospel must first be 11 preached unto all the nations. And when they lead you (to judgement), and de- liver you up, be not anxious beforehand what ye shall speak: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy 12 Ghost. And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and the father his child; and children shall rise up against parents, 13 and *cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved. 1 Or, put them to death. Vers. 9-13=Mt. 24:9-14=Lk. 21 : 13-19 R(Q) (Mt. 10: 17-22, 34-36= Lk. 12: 11, 12, 51, 53; cf.Jn.l6:l-13) R (Mic. 7: 6; II Eadr. 6: 24, 25) Vers. 9-13. Persecution and the Paraclete. To his warning against the agitators pursuant to the vein of II Thess. 2: 1-12, R subjoins a Q saying regarding persecution, developed with special reference to the story of Paul as related in Acts 22-28, his doctrine of the universal proclamation of the gospel, Rom. 11: 25, and the prophecies of IIEsdr. 5: 9; 6: 24, 25; Mic. 7: 6. Jesus, according to the older source, had warned the Twelve of a time to come when the world would clamor for their blood. The "special source" of Luke strongly supports this tradition of Jesus' warning (Lk. 22: 35-38) at the same time that it shows the version of Mt. 10: 17-22 = Lk. 12: 11, 12 to be largely ac- commodated to the language of Mark. The burden of both versions is the promise to the disciples of God's Spirit as their defender before human tribunals. In Rom. 8: 26, 27 Paul applies the figure of the Spirit as Advocate to the phenomenon of prayers "in a tongue." These are unintelligible to human ears, but the Spirit intercedes thereby before the tribunal of God. Still another sense of the paraclesis of the Spirit appears in Jn. 16: 13, where it is applied to exhortation, teach- ing, and prophecy "in the Spirit." Finally, in I Jn. 2:1, the Advocate in heaven is Jesus himself, who makes intercession after the conception of Heb. 9: 11-14. The common root of these divergent applications seems to be the saying before us, nearly in the form of Lk. 21:14, 15 (Q LK ). Vers. 12, 13. The prediction of discord in the household which we find in Q (Mt. 10: 34-36 = Lk. 12: 51-53) is a kind of inversion of Mai. 4: 6. Ehjah, who comes to turn the hearts of fathers to children and children to fathers, must find conditions of estrangement. The apoca- lypses describe this in terms borrowed from Mic. 7: 6 (cf. II Esdr. 6: 24, 25). Mark applies the Q saying to the delatores, of whom we hear in Pliny's letter to Trajan. The period of persecution referred to can scarcely be that of Domitian. We must conclude from the many New Testament allusions (I Pt. 4: 12-17; Heb. 10: 32-34; Acts 5: 41) that 13: 14 THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 185 14 But when ye see the abomination of deso- lation standing where x he ought not — let him that readeth understand, — then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the moun- * Codex D. it. Vers.l4-20=Mt. 24:15-22= Lk. 21 : 20-24 i*(Q) Dan. 12: 11 the example of Nero's outbreak in Rome had been followed sporadically in the provinces. In ver. 13& R couples his exhortation to patience with the promise of II Esdr. 6: 25. Vers. 14-23. The Great Tribulation. This paragraph, like the pre- ceding, consists of Q sayings combined with apocalyptic "scriptures" on the basis of II Thess. 2: 1-12. As with Paul, the object is to repress fanatical enthusiasm (vers. 21-23), but in place of the "Man of Law- lessness, sitting in the temple of God and setting himself forth as God," R falls back upon the symbolism of Dan. 12: 11. This he takes to be a prediction of the devastation wrought by Titus. Ver. 14. The Abomination of Desolation standing where he (sic) ought not. The prediction is purposely veiled in the enigmatic form of apocalypse. Three factors determine its form: (1) The prediction of Dan. 12: 11 affords the phrase Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place. The reference is to a material object, viz, the altar to Zeus Ouranios, the Lord of Heaven, whose Hebrew equivalent was Baal Shamayim, erected by Antiochus Epiphanes in the temple in 167 B.C. By a play upon the two elements of the name, Baal ("Lord"; for which biblical and post-canonical writers habitually substitute such words as bosheth, "shame"; aven, "vanity"; shiqqutz, "abomination") and Shamayim, "heavens," the form Shiqqutz Slwmem, "Abomination that makes desolate" was obtained. Matthew, in transferring to his pages the Markan verse, reassimilates it to the Scripture from which it was taken, as he habitually does. He does this not only by changing the participle to a neuter (see var.), so that it again applies to a material object, and substituting "in a (not the) holy place" for the vague "where he ought not," but by specifically referring the reader to "Daniel the prophet." (2) The Pauline apocalypse (II Thess. 2: 4) seems to be accountable for Mark's curious introduction of the masculine participle, ''standing where he ought not." (3) The actual course of events has certainly affected R's employment of his two scriptural data. From the time of Caligula's threat to set up his own statue in the temple for divine honors (a menace only averted by his timely assassination in January, 41 a.d.) the desecration of the temple by Roman worship of the emperor was a horror never absent from Jewish fears. Only the demolition of the temple in 70 a.d. made this forever impossible. The apocalyptic conception attested by Paul of the revelation of the "man of sin, sitting in the temple of God and giving himself forth as God" may well have become connected in Jewish and Jewish-Christian apocalypse before 70 a.d. with this menace of emperor-worship. After 70 a.d. modifications would be necessary. Matthew's adaptation is characteristic. He conforms the language as closely as possible to the Old Testament original, making only the minute change of "the Holy Place" to "a holy place," skillfully permitting, however, by this means, an application of the prophecy to such a synagogue desecration as Josephus declares to have been the actual occasion of the outbreak of the war. 1 Mark's adaptation is equally characteristic. For "the Holy 1 War II. xiv. 6. 186 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 13: 15-20 15 tains: and let him that is on the housetop not go down, nor enter in, to take anything 16 out of his house: and let him that is in the field not return back to take his cloke. 17 But woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! 18 And pray ye that l it be not in the winter. 19 For those days shall be tribulation, such as there hath not been the like from the beginning of the creation which God created 20 until now, and never shall be. And except the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would have been saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he chose, he shortened the 1 /3 var. they. (Lk. 17: 31, 32; 23: 27-31) Dan. 12: 1 Ps. 102: 23 (Gr.) Place" he substitutes the vague "where he ought not," and for the "abominable thing," a desolating personality, which, however, is no longer the Pauline "Man of Sin," but — if we may judge from the attachment here from Q LK (Lk. 17: 31=21: 21) of the warning to flee, and the addressing of it to those in Juda?a" — it is the invading power of Rome in the Holy Land. Let him that readeth understand. Gr., "apply his mind," i.e., either to the Danielic prophecy or to R's own interpretation of it. R evidently thinks there is much danger of mis- interpretation. The vagueness of his own terms leaves room for justi- fying both Dan. 12: 11 and II Thess. 2: 4. Those in Judaea. R does not forget Galilee and Samaria. He speaks like a Roman of the whole former domain of Herod. Flee to the mountains. There is no reference to the alleged removal of the Church to Pella. The fenced cities and fortresses, of which Jerusalem was chief, must be avoided. The dev- astation will leave no refuge but dens and caves. Vers. 15, 16. Q LK . In its original setting (Lk. 17: 26-32) this saying relates to the Coming of the Son of man, from which there can be no flight. To seek to rescue goods is folly. Here it is used to em- phasize the imperative need of flight, but is, of course, inappropriate. Ver. 17. Cf. Lk. 23: 27-31 (Q LK ). Ver. 18. Not the "flight" (so Matthew), which could be effected as well in winter as in summer, but the sojourn in the mountains. R may well have heard of the sufferings of the unfortunate refugees (cf. Heb. 11:38). Ver. 19. From Dan. 12: 1. Ver. 20. The doctrine of the shortening (Gr., "amputation") of the days of Messiah, i.e., reduction of the period of painful waiting, is re- ferred to in Ep. Barn., iv. 3 (ca. 135 a.d.) in a quotation from a lost portion of the Enoch literature: "As Enoch saith, 'For to this end the Master hath cut short the seasons and the days, that his Beloved might hasten and come to his inheritance.' " It seems to rest on Ps. 102: 23 (Greek version). 1 1 In Heb. 1 : 10-12 this passage is regarded aa addressed to Christ, rendering ver. 23, "He answered him in the way of his strength, Tell me the fewness of my days," etc. 13*21-23 THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 187 21 days. And then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is the Christ; or, Lo, there; 22 believe '(it) not: for there shall arise 2 [false Christs and] false prophets, and shall shew signs and wonders, that they 23 may lead astray, if possible, the elect. But take ye heed: behold, I have told you all things beforehand. 24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall 25 be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken. 26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and 27 glory. And then shall he send forth the angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. 28 Now from the fig tree learn her parable: when her branch is now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves, ye know that 1 Or, him. 2 var. omit [ ]. Vers.31-23=Mt. 34 : 23-25 R(Q) (Mt. 24: 26. 27= Lk. 17: 23-25; cf. 17: 20-22) Vers.24-27=Mt. 24:29-31 = Lk. 21 : 26-37 R (Cf. II Esdr. 5: 4ff.; Is. 13: 10; Dan. 7: 13; Dt. 30: 4; Zech. 2:6) Vers.28-31=Mt. 24:32-35= Lk. 31 : 39-33 R(Q?) (Cf. 11: 12-14; 9: 1; Mt. 5: 18 = Lk. 16: 17) Vers. 21, 22. Ver. 21 is a Q saying, as ver. 23 implies. In Luke it assumes a double form (Lk. 17: 21, 23). In Mt. 24: 10-12 it is applied to the antinomian heresiarchs. On the sense attached by Mark, see above, comment on vers. 5-8. Ver. 22 merely develops ver. 21 on the basis of II Thess. 2: 9. The doctrine of the Falling Away is not an invention of Paul, but one of the stereotyped features of the Antichrist legend. In particular the miracles of the false prophet (antithesis to Enas, the witness of Messiah) form a distinctive feature of the last days (cf. II Thess. 2: 9; I Tim. 4: 1; II Tim. 3: 8; Rev. 13: 13-15). The original sense of Jesus' teaching seems to be fairly apparent in the connection of Lk. 17:20-23. It rebukes the spirit of apocalyptic enthusiasm and commends the ethical aspect of the kingdom. Vers. 24-27. The Coming of the Son of Man and Our Gathering Together unto Him. The description of these two connected events, which in II Thess. 2: 1 are declared to be a sequel to the Falling Away and Revelation of the Man of Sin, is borrowed from Old Testament passages such as Is. 13: 10 (Greek version); 14: 12; Dan. 7: 13; Zech. 2: 6; Dt. 30: 4. No special saying of Jesus nor apocalyptic leaflet need be presupposed to account for such commonplaces of Jewish eschatology. The object of emphasizing the supra-terrestrial nature of the phenomena is, as in II Thess. 2: 1-12, to subdue millenarian fanaticism. Vers. 28-31 . The Sign of the Fig Tree. The object of the paragraph is to counteract any too depressing tendency in the preceding. As surely as the glad season of summer follows winter's discontent, so 188 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 13:29-33 29 the summer is nigh; even so ye also, when ye see these things coming to pass, know ye that %e is nigh, (even) at the doors. 30 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, until all these things 31 be accomplished. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass 32 away. But of that day or that hour know- eth no one, not even the angels in heaven, 33 neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch 2 and pray: for ye know not 1 Or, it. 2 Var. omit and pray. Vers.33-37=Mt. 34:36, 42=- Lk. 31 : 36 R(Q) surely will the Coming gladden the hearts of those who have endured to the end. In doctrinal bearing it parallels 4: 26-29 and Jas. 5: 7. Two sayings are quoted besides the parable: the former, ver. 30, equivalent in sense to 9: 1; the latter, ver. 31, perhaps an adaptation from Q (Mt. 5: 18 = Lk. 16: 17). Ver. 29. These things. Not, of course, those of vers. 24-27, but of vers. 5-23. The reader is to understand that neither the calamities of the nations, nor even the Great Tribulation of "those in Judaea" which furnish the stock in trade of the false prophet and false Christ, are to be identified with the Coming. They have significance, but only as portents. They attest the ripening of the world-harvest. Ver. 30. This confident expectation, as yet in 75 a.d. unbroken, though few indeed of the apostolic group were then surviving, seems to have been based on some real assurance of Jesus. He had a prophet's confidence in the divineness of his message. And if it were not to be trodden into the mire of oblivion, some intervention of God must come to its aid ere those who had heard it passed to their graves. The language is based on Is. 51 : 6, which may account for the divergent application in Q to Yahweh's "righteousness," understood as the law, in Mark to his "salvation" (see comment on 16: 14). Vers. 32-37. The Time of the Coming Unknown; therefore Watch. The concluding paragraph of Mark's remarkable eschatological dis- course is manifestly based on the teaching of Q (Mt. 24:42-51; 25: 14-30 = Lk. 12: 37-46; 19: 11-28; Acts 1:6, 7), to which it stands in the relation of a meager paraphrase, scarcely intelligible in parts without the fuller original (with ver. 37 cf. Lk. 12: 41). There is an inter- mingling of the two themes of the Watchful Steward (Mt. 24: 45-51 = Lk. 12: 41-46) and the Entrusted Talents (Mt. 25: 14-30 = Lk. 19: 11-28), of which the latter only confuses the picture, a proof of the priority of Q so decisive that we scarcely need to add the evidence of language, which has terms common to Q, but elsewhere unknown to Mark. Paul himself attests the currency of this teaching (I Thess. 5: 2-6), and the motive for its introduction is doubtless suggested by this Pauline passage, if indeed the very language be not thus affected, Ver. 32. This saying has been removed by Luke to the connection of Acts 1: 6, 7; but note the context in Mt. 24: 36-42. Lk. 17: 20-22 introduces this subject and leaves it unsettled, with unmistakable traces of editorial manipulation ("one of the days of the Son of Man"). The bearing of the Q teaching seems to have been too adverse to the apocalyptic hopes of the Church to maintain itself unaltered. Neither 13: 34-36 THE APPEAL TO JERUSALEM 189 34 when the time is. (It is) as (when) a man, sojourning in another country, having left his house, and given authority to his Servants, to each one his work, com- 35 manded also the porter to watch. Watch therefore: for ye know not when the lord of the house cometh, whether at even, or at midnight, or at cockcrowing, or in the 36 morning; lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. 2 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch. 1 Gr. bondservants. 2 P var. But unto you I say, Watch. (Mt. 24: 43-51; 25: 14-30= Lk. 12: 37-46; 19: 11-27) the Son. The exception is more significant as an indication of Mark's disposition to place Christ above humanity than of his placing him below divinity. "The Son" cannot be here understood generically, as in Mt. 11: 27; Jn. 8: 35. It refers to Jesus personally as a being dif- ferent in nature from men, and superior, even while on earth, to angels. It reflects the same advanced Christology as 1: 11, 24; 9: 7; 12: 35, 36, a cruder form of the Pauline incarnation doctrine, which in John be- comes systematically metaphysical. Ver. 34. On the intermingling of the two parables of the Steward and the Talents, see comment on vers. 32-37. The porter's work alone comes here into consideration. Mark meets the suggestion of Mt. 24: 45 and Lk. 12: 41, 42 that Church leaders, specifically "Peter," have a special charge in this matter (cf. Ezek. 33: 1-9), with the explicit declaration of the individual responsibility of the laity (ver. 37) . Ver. 35. The language ("therefore," "lord of the house") is excep- tional in Mark. In Q (Mt. 10: 25; 20: 11; 24: 43; Lk. 12: 39; 13: 25; 14: 21) Lord of the house is a favorite parabolic designation of the Christ as Heir of the kingdom. PART II DIVISION VI. Cc. 14-16 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION STRUCTURE Not since the opening scenes of the ministry beside the boats on the lake-shore near Capernaum have we met scenes so lifelike and realistic as confront us in this crowning element of the Petrine tradition, the story of the night in which Jesus was betrayed. Not even the scenes about Peter's house in Capernaum are so realistic as those now presented in the garden of Gethsemane and the courtyard of the high priest's house, where Peter sits in the light of the fire kindled by the servants " because of the cold." The agony under the olive trees is a trait whose human pathos has remained indestructible through all the centuries of scholastic application, like the first vigil of prayer in the solitude outside Capernaum. 1 And once more Peter comes to the fore. Next to the figure of Jesus it is that of Peter round which the whole scene revolves. This applies, however, only to Subdivision a, which in- cludes the incidents of the Night of Betrayal. 2 Instantly, so soon as Peter has fled from the scene, all becomes rela- tively vague and shadowy. For the story of the Trial before Pilate and the incidents of the crucifixion we could be sure of the main facts independently of any of the Twelve. But the story does not go beyond just these main facts. The figure of Simon of Cyrene is indeed an exception, and seems to be introduced for the very purpose of presenting a sponsor for the tradition, but the traits which seem at first to indi- cate some direct connection with eyewitnesses of the scene, the draught of wine, parting of garments, dying utterance, turn out upon closer scrutiny to be elaborations of " fulfilled scriptures" rather than authentic tradition. As the story closes with a message to Peter and the dis- ciples that Jesus will go before them into Galilee, it is appar- ent that the next scene, if we had it, would have again brought Peter into the foreground, and in Galilee, whence 1 1:35-38. 2C. 14. 190 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 191 it would be needful to bring him as well as the rest of the scattered flock to Jerusalem, which certainly was to every evangelist the original seat of the Church. It is true that the conclusion as we now have it 1 presup- poses that the disciples have not scattered, but are together in the vicinity of Jerusalem, whence they must be sent to Galilee by means of a message from the angel reminding them of the appointment. This, however, cannot be orig- inal. Why must they go to Galilee before Jesus can reveal himself to them, only to be at once brought back again? Later tradition 2 feels this objection and therefore cancels the Galilean episode altogether. In reality the first appear- ance ivas in Galilee, and had to be there because the disciples had fled thither. This trait of flight and desertion cannot have been invented, and is the only possible explanation of the surviving traditions of appearances in Galilee. We may be certain that the ancient Petrine tradition coincided with Paul's summary of the appearances, beginning with that to Peter, and justified the prayer of Jesus for Simon's restoration that he might rally his brethren. 3 This implies that we have not merely lost the original ending of Mark, as the very mss. testify, but that even this "original" ending already displayed important changes from the Petrine tradition. For (1), as we have seen, the angel's message 4 implies that the disciples and Peter have not fled to Galilee, but must be sent there by the women. (2) The appearance promised is not an appearance to Peter, such as Paul implies, nor does Peter "stablish his brethren" as Lk. 22: 32 implies. In the two proleptic references 5 as they now stand, the ap- pearance to Peter loses its preeminent significance as the foundation event of the Christian Church, being robbed of its deepest import by the anticipatory revelation to the women at the sepulcher. Moreover, Peter's part even in this second revelation sinks to a secondary level. He is no longer the rock on whom his brethren are stablished, but merely a passive though first-named member of the group to whom Jesus comes; for it is Jesus who now fulfills in his own person the task which in Lk. 22 : 32 he desires Peter to accomplish. Redactional activity has manifestly been beforehand with transcriptional in the matter of the ending of Mark. Transcribers as we know have cancelled the story of how > 16: 1-8. 2 Lk., Jn. 1-20. * 1 Cor. 15: 5; Lk. 22: 32. * 16: 7. 5 14: 28; 16: 1-8. 192 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY Jesus went before the disciples to Galilee and there revealed himself to Peter and the rest, probably at their fishing. 1 But this story itself was already a modification of that known to Paul and Luke. Its point of attachment is in 15: 40-47, where in a paragraph showing connection with Q lk2 the sponsors for the holy sepulcher tradition, of which Paul knows nothing, are abruptly introduced. Division VI, accordingly, falls into two subdivisions fol- lowed by the beginning of a third. Of these only Subdi- vision a, on the Night of Betrayal, 3 is strongly marked by evidences of Petrine story, and even this, as we shall see, has been recast in the interest of a certain ritual practice. Subdivision b, on the Crucifixion, 4 no doubt includes ancient tradition from the same cycle of narrative as a, though Peter is no longer sponsor; while Subdivision c 5 introduces an almost wholly alien element. The two rival appendices, as is now universally recognized, represent merely the effort of later scribes to supply an ending to complete the muti- lated Gospel. THE NIGHT IN WHICH JESUS WAS BETRAYED PARAPHRASE Subdivision a. 14: 1-72. On the very night of the passover feast Jesus was betrayed to the priests by one of his own dis- ciples, but not before he had instituted a new rite displacing the commemoration of the Jews' deliverance from Egypt until the fulfillment of both in the great feast of the kingdom of God. These events took place as follows: — Vers. 1, 2. As Passover night drew near, the priests were seeking means of destroying Jesus secretly and promptly, for they feared a tumult of the people if they delayed until the passover. Vers. 3-9. Meantime Jesus had stayed in Bethany, where one day as they were at a supper in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came in having a vial of very precious oint- ment, and breaking the vial she poured the oil upon his head (to anoint him as the Christ). When some who were present murmured at the waste — for the oil was worth more than a year's wages of a workman — Jesus commended her deed; but added that this was not an anointing for a throne, but rather for burial; for he knew already of the fate he must soon undergo. i Jn. 21; Lk. 5: 4-9; Ev. Petri. 2 Lk. 8: 1-3. » C. 14. * 15: 1-39. 6 15: 40—16: 8. THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 193 Vers. 10, 11. As the priests were thus seeking how to seize Jesus, Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to them and offered to betray him. They therefore agreed with him for money. Vers. 12-17. On the day when the Jews sacrifice the pass- over lamb Jesus proved again his supernatural foresight, di- recting two disciples minutely as before regarding the place and preparations for celebrating the feast. When these had gone into the city everything befell precisely as Jesus had predicted. The preparations were made in a large upper room which had been kept ready for the Teacher. Vers. 18-21. At the supper Jesus solemnly announced his impending betrayal by one of the Twelve, declaring that his death was indeed required in fulfillment of prophecy, but that this does not lighten the guilt of the traitor. Vers. 22-26. The disciples then resumed their repast. But Jesus took a loaf and pronouncing the blessing on the bread he broke it and distributed to them, saying, Take that which I now give as if it were my own body. He also blessed and distributed a cup, saying, Take the wine which I now pour out to you as if it were my blood. Let it be to you like the covenant of blood to which Moses pledged the people at Sinai. For I shall no more partake of the banqueting cup, until I sit at the great feast in the kingdom of God. So they went forth again, after they had sung the passover psalm, to the mount of Olives. Vers. 27-31. Jesus then began to warn them of the deser- tion and flight to which he knew they would be driven by his arrest, and promised that after his return from the dead he would go in advance of them to Galilee. Peter began to insist that he, at least, would not prove disloyal. Then Jesus fore- told in precise detail the manner of the denial of which Peter was destined to become guilty before the dawn. But Peter would not yield, insisting with the rest that nothing could over- come his loyalty. Vers. 32-42. So they came to an enclosure called Geth- semane. And Jesus, taking with him the three, Peter, James and John, began a vigil of prayer, entreating that the cup of martyrdom might be taken away, yet asking only that not his will but his Father's be done. While he thus prayed the dis- ciples were overcome with sleep. And Jesus came thrice to them, bidding Peter especially pray against the approaching hour of trial. But they still slept on and took their rest till Jesus finally awoke them with the announcement of the coming of the traitor. 194 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY Vers. 43-52. As he was speaking Judas appeared, having with him a band of followers from the Sanhedrin armed with swords and clubs; and advancing he saluted Jesus and kissed him, for such was the token by which he had agreed with his followers to make known the one whom they should seize. So they leaped forth from covert and seized him. One of the by- standers, however, drew a sword and cut off the ear of the high priest's servant. Then Jesus protested against their seizure of him thus like a robber at midnight — showing how they were but fulfilling the scriptures. Now all his disciples forsook him and fled; but a certain young man was there who had followed thither from his bed, having the sheet wrapped about him. Him also they seized; but he left the sheet in their hands and fled naked. Vers. 53-65. So they led Jesus away to the high priest's house. And they summoned together the whole Sanhedrin. But Peter had followed afar off, and mingling with the appari- tors sat down before the fire which they had kindled in the court- yard. So then the Sanhedrin, when they were come together, sought false witness against Jesus. And some testified that he had said I will destroy this material temple, and replace it in three days with a spiritual temple. But even so they did not agree. At last the high priest himself stood up in the midst and challenged Jesus to say whether he were the Christ. When therefore Jesus answered boldly, I am, and ye shall see me hereafter as the Judge of the world, coming to sit upon the divine throne of judgment on the clouds of heaven, the high priest rent his garments, saying, Hear the blasphemy! And all condemned him to death. And some of them began to spit upon Jesus, and covering his face to strike him and say, Prophesy. And the apparitors, to whom they delivered him again, received him with cuffs. Vers. 66-72. Now as Peter was beneath in the courtyard a maidservant recognized him as of Jesus' disciples. But he denied any knowledge of him, and went outside into the vesti- bule. Again she saw him and said to the bystanders, This is one of them. And again Peter denied. A third time, when the bystanders themselves were suspicious of him, Peter pro- tested with oaths and imprecations, I know not the man. And at this the cock crew the second time, as Jesus had predicted, "Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny me thrice." And Peter remembered the saying and wept. THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 195 SUBDIVISION A. C 14.— CRITICISM The narration of the events of this tragic night can be traced back as already an established tradition in Corinth ca. 55 a.d. by means of I Cor. 11:23, where common familiarity with the story is implied. The marked prominence of Peter throughout confirms the uniform testimony of tradition that it represents Peter's story. Nevertheless, we have unmistakable evidence of redactional recast- ing of the story, and the interest of R, as of other evangelists, is primar- ily apologetic and serological, and only secondarily historical. If the historical interest is here at its maximum, so also is the apologetic and serological; for the chapter is concerned with the supreme ritual in- stitution of the Church, in regard to whose celebration and significance no less than three great controversies raged during the century succeed- ing the appearance of the Gospels, threatening toward the close of the second century to disrupt East from West entirely. The controversies were the so-called Paschal, or Quartodeciman controversies, and related to the observance of the "fourteenth" day of the Jewish month Nisan as the anniversary of Jesus' death. Our four Gospels fall into two di- visions on this point, John on the one side, Mark and its two satellites on the other, showing the same difference as the controversialists them- selves. In fact each party to the controversy maintained the agree- ment of the four Gospels, endeavoring to explain conflicting statements by those of the Gospel or Gospels which most distinctly enunciated its own view; and each contestant accused his opponents of "making the Gospels conflict" by applying any other interpretation. Modern au- thorities no longer deny that the conflict exists; but differ as to whether John, the Gospel of the Asiatic churches, is correct in dating the last supper on the 13th Nisan, and consequently denying to it all relation to the Jewish Passover, or the Synoptic, which here all follow the lead of the Roman evangelist, understood to represent Petrine tradition. In Asia appeal was made to the Ephesian Gospel, with its repeated and clear indications that Jesus' crucifixion, not his institution of the Supper, coincided in date with the passover (Jn. 13: 1, 29; 18: 28; 19: 14-31). This Gospel, as we see, connects the Institution of the Eucharist with the Breaking of Bread in Galilee (Jn. 6: 50-56), to the complete cancellation of the story of the Last Supper (Jn. 13). But, at least in the first period of the controversy, appeal was made much more, if not exclusively, to apostolic testimony and practice as repre- sented in the person of the aged Polycarp, a native of "the East" 1 (i.e., Syria), born in 69 a.d., and a Christian from infancy, who claimed to have celebrated the Christian passover as a commemoration of Jesus' death on the 14th Nisan "with apostles." Paul himself seems indeed to refer to such observance in writing from Ephesus to Corinth at Passover ca. 55 a.d. For if Jesus' death occurred on Nisan 15, the day after the putting away of the leaven, and the resurrection was fixed as having occurred on Nisan 17, the day after "Firstfruits," which in Jewish ritual are fixed on the 14th and 16th respectively, it would be curiously inappropriate to write "Christ our Passover is cruci- fied for us, therefore purge out the old leaven"; and "Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the Firstfruits of them that are asleep." 2 i So in the Life, by Pioniua, ca. 250 a.d. * I Cor. 5: 7, 8; 15: 20. 196 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY Paul, therefore, whom neither party appealed to, seems to have been Quartodeciman in practice. Finally both the inherent probabilities of the case and many surviv- ing traces in Mark's own narrative make it extremely improbable that Jesus was put to death on the very day which the authorities were most anxious to avoid for fear of popular tumult (Mk. 14: 2). The indecent and horrifying haste with which their Master had been hurried to the cross is one of the elements of the tradition reflected in all the Gospels. How can it be accounted for, if not as Mark, against the re- quirements of his own representation, accounts for it? Doubtless the oriental Church, where Jewish tradition and observance was relatively strong, continued, as Paul and Polycarp attest, the observance of the annual rite of Passover; Gal. 4: 10. The only practicable way to over- come the Judaizing influence of the feast in these communities was to alter its character and significance. Such is the course we find actually adopted. They observed "the Lord's Passover" on the same date as "the people" (of the Jews), commemorating the same night (Nisan 14-15) as the Redemption feast of him who "through death overcame him that had the power of death and delivered all those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." In strict compliance with the law, * which they held to be altered in nothing save the event commemorated, they kept this night of the first full moon of the (lunar) year as the anniversary of Jesus' victory over death. It was kept "a night of vigil unto the Lord" 2 until sunrise, but practice differed as to the hour when the fast was broken "because the Gospels contained no exact statement of the hour at which Jesus rose." 3 In the East they closed it "from the evening" (of Nisan 14) ; in Rome "at cock-crowing" (of Easter Sunday). The essence of the difference was that Quartodecimans, who claimed with invincible reasons that their practice went back to the very apostles themselves, celebrated the night of the crucifixion itself as the (lunar) anniversary of Jesus' resur- rection, admitting no interval between the death and resurrection. Thus it was in reality Jesus' conquering descent into the underworld which marked for them the moment of the redemption, a conception still reflected in the curious tradition of the "bodies of the saints" re- leased by the earthquake and rending of the rocks at Jesus' death in Mt. 27: 51-53. Our canonical evangelist knows not what to do with these premature fruits of the resurrection escaped upon the stage before their role, and so compels them to wait none knows where for 36 hours or more, until "after Jesus' resurrection" they may enter into the holy city and appear unto many. But until the holy sepulcher tradition was introduced, claiming the earthquake a second time for its own pur- poses, 4 this tradition, like that of P, connected the victory over death with Jesus' descent into the underworld, and not with his return, which was simply fixed "on the third day, according to the Scriptures," 5 and celebrated — so far as commemorated at all — on Nisan 16, as the Christian "Firstfruits," when by his return to earth Jesus became "the firstfruits of them that slept." This date, however, was not fixed by any occurrence to which the Church could point. It was an inference from "Scripture." 8 The fist of appearances in I Cor. 15: 5-8 begins afterward, and is independent. It culminates at Pentecost, the great 1 Ex. 12: 1-42. 2 Ex. 12: 42. 3 Dionysius of Alexandria, quoted by Drummond, Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 471. * Mt. 28: 2. <* t Cor. 15: 4. 8 Lev. 23: 9-16 governs the primitive Christian calendar (Acts 2: 1) and is probably more fundamental to I Cor. 15: 4 than Hos. 6: 2, which came into con- flict with Jonah 1: 17 (Mt. 12: 40). THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 197 "Lord's day," which always fell on "the first day of the week." 1 For the analysis of Mark the point most important to observe is that the most ancient and best attested institutional observance of the Church corresponds with Pauline tradition and observance in ignoring entirely the tradition of the sepulcher and all that pertains to it. Roman practice also began by recognizing with certain relics of Jew- ish observance the 14th Nisan; but it was held to be impious to "ter- minate the fast" with the day of the crucifixion itself. So long aa Jesus had remained in the underworld the Church must commemorate by fasting the period when "the bridegroom" was taken away from them. There must be in all cases an interval between the anniversary of the death and the celebration of the resurrection, so that if Nisan 14 fell on a Sunday, Easter could not take place till the Sunday following. To the occidental Church, less mystical, more pragmatic than the oriental, not the descent of Jesus into the underworld marked the moment of the Redemption, but his return from it. The Resurrection was no longer the overcoming through death of him that had the power of death, but through return to life; and this return to life was supposed to coincide approximately with the visit of the women to the sepulcher. According to Paul and "the scriptures" it had been on "the third day." It was therefore decreed an outrage to Christian propriety to terminate the fast, and "celebrate the mystery of the Lord's resurrec- tion on any other than the Lord's day," 2 and after almost two cen- turies of strife, largely by the personal authority of the emperor Con- stantine, the whole Church, save for a few outstanding recalcitrants, was induced at Nicaea to adopt this rule of observance. Quartodecimanism has therefore nothing whatever to do with the rite of the Breaking of Bread. So far as the mere practice of this rite is concerned, that might well go back, as the Ephesian Gospel repre- sents, to the incident of Galilee. But it proves much regarding the date of the Lord's death, the real "redemption" by "the blood of the Lamb." That was certainly associated from earliest times by the entire oriental Church with the Passover; and only where the Redemp- tion came to be associated, as in the West, with the Sepulcher legend, instead of the Death of the Lamb of God, did the Sunday after the anni- versary become the Christian Feast of Redemption. Thereafter not unnaturally the weekly 3 institution of the Breaking of Bread was de- clared to be the Christian fulfillment of the Jewish feast. The effort of R in recasting the ancient Petrine tradition is anti- Judaistic. In 14: 25 he employs phrases from the Jewish ritual seem- ingly for no other purpose than to declare that the Jewish feast is now superseded. Not as in the Ephesian Gospel and I Cor. 5: 6, 7, where the redemption which supersedes that from the bondage of Egypt and the Destroying Angel is through the blood of the cross. Here the re- demption is through the blood of the sacramental cup, the blood about to be shed "for many." In John the dying lamb of God makes the slaughter of the passover lamb henceforth meaningless. In Mark the Eucharist itself supersedes the Passover. For this reason Mark intro- duces even the singing of the Hallel into the ritual. He does not peremptorily forbid the celebration of the annual rite (even Anicetua at Rome was tolerant of Polycarp's practice); but he makes Jesus on Nisan 14 institute a new observance of more frequent recurrence, while 1 Lev. 23: 16. If dependence could be placed on the round "forty days" of Acts 1:3 we should probably obtain by reckoning backward from Pentecost the traditional date of the first appearance, viz, some ten days after the crucifixion. 2 Eusebius, H. E. Ill, xxiii. 3 1 Cor. 16: 2; Acta 20: 7; Rev. 1: 10. 198 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY he refuses to join the disciples in partaking of the old. By this repre- sentation R shows very plainly what attitude in his view should be taken on a question soon to become the burning question of the age. Strange as it may seem, he does not even include the injunction at- tested by Paul himself, that the Breaking of Bread should be observed as a memorial of Jesus' death! As respects the values of the rest of the tradition embodied in c. 14 we may perhaps infer from the manner in which the story of Gethsem- ane dilates upon Jesus' "watching unto prayer," in contrast with the weakness of the disciples, that it stood connected in church use with the institution of the Vigil, of which we have already spoken. In the East this vigil symbolized the watch for the Coming of the Lord. It was kept on the night before the day of the Passover (Nisan 14-15) and ended with the greeting of Resurrection and keeping of the festal day. It had as the twofold occasion of its observance "that in that night Christ returned after his passion, and that he was in it to receive his kingdom." 1 Of this observance, too, we seem to have traces in the figures from the vigil of Passover applied by Paul in I Thess. 5: 4-10 and Eph. 5: 13, 14; 6: 14, 15. So also in the Q passage em- bodied by Mark in 13: 33-37 and in the legend of the Walking on the Sea, Mk. 6: 48. But in the story of Gethsemane, while the night of vigil is the same in date (Nisan 14-15), it has lost all connection both with Christ's victory over death and his coming again in his kingdom. It is now purely general, or associated only with the self-deceptive boast of Peter and the Twelve. The Church must "Watch and pray lest ye enter into temptation." Similar connection is made with the observ- ances of fasting, mourning, and vigil in the post-canonical gospels, 2 whose authors dilate on the fasting, mourning, and tears of the disciples before the message of resurrection comes. To these fundamental elements of Petrine tradition R adds two para- graphs whose motive is different: (1) The Prediction of Betrayal, vers. 17-21, whose value is to reenforce the evangelist's favorite proof of the divinity of Christ by his supernatural gifts, while refuting the intima- tion that his suffering was without his own clear foreknowledge and in- tention; (2) the Trial, vers. 53-65. Both these are inconsistent with demonstrable fact. The disciples, in spite of the fourth evangelist's view, were not in a mood after being warned of the intended betrayal, especially if the individual were distinctly pointed out, to allow the traitor to proceed unhindered. As regards the trial-scene, it is only too apparent that the Church had no witness to whom it could refer, while the description itself reflects much more of anti-Jewish apologetic than of the actual historical conditions (see on vers. 53-65). As we should anticipate, traces of the influence of Q in c. 14 are of the meagerest possible, only ver. 21 seeming to echo Mt. 18: 7 = Lk. 17: 1. 1 Drummond, op. cit., p. 472, quoting Lactant, Div. Inst., vii. 19. 2 Ev. Hebr., fragt. 18, and Ev. Petr., xiv. 59. Preuschen, Antileg. 14: 1, 2 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 199 14XT0W after two days was (the feast of) _LN the passover and the unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him 2 with subtilty, and kill him: for they said, Not during the feast, lest haply there shall be a tumult of the people. Vers.l, 2=Mt. 26: l-5=Lk. 22:1, 2; cf. Jn. 12: 1 (P) Vers. 1, 2, 10, 11. The Plot against Jesus. The interjection of the episode of the Anointing (vers. 3-9), in interruption of the connection, is characteristic of R's mode of composition. The original narrative proceeds in logical order to relate the story of betrayal and death in vers. 10, 11, 14ff. Ver. 1. The date is Nisan 13, Thursday (the crucifixion falling on Friday). It is expressed in correct terms, Passover day, Nisan 15 (which began at 6 p.m. on the preceding evening, i.e., the evening of Nisan 14), being the first of the seven days of Unleavened Bread. The intention is to show why the conspirators were pressed for time. They had only this day and the following with the single intervening night in which to carry out their plot. In ver. 12 (R) the date is incorrectly expressed and conflicts with ver. 1. See comment. The chief priests and scribes. Not a formal assembly of the Sanhedrin, which would include "the elders of the people" (cf. 11:27 and ver. 53). Matthew amends to obtain this sense. Vers. 3-9. The Anointing in Bethany. The unique importance at- tached to this episode (ver. 9) is not a mere reward of the woman. It is intended to contrast her insight into the true worth of Jesus with the dullness of the Twelve. R introduces it here as a sort of pendant to the Prediction of Betrayal in vers. 17-21. The authentic utterance of Jesus ends with ver. 7. The rest, including the prediction of death and (unanointed) burial, and the proclamation of the gospel through- out the world, belongs to the significance found in the event by the later reflection of the Church. It is possible that the woman intended her costly offering as a tribute to Jesus' Messiahship (Messiah = " the Anointed") and assumed as the rightful prerogative of her faith the part of Samuel in the secret anointing of Saul (I Sam. 9: 15, 16; 10: 1). If so, we should prefer to adopt a hint from Jn. 10: 40 — 1 1 : 2 (cf . 1 : 28) ; 12: 1-8 and conclude that the real Bethany of this scene was "Bethany beyond Jordan," the home of Mary and Martha (Lk. 10: 38^12), where an act of the sort would account for the enthusiastic following with which Jesus entered Jerusalem, but would be less likely to lead to im- mediate arrest and execution. Jesus' attitude toward it corresponds closely to that he assumes toward Peter's "Confession," though the tone is far gentler and full of pathos. He does not reject the tribute of faith, but by the clear forewarning of the fate that confronts him, he seeks to turn away his followers' thoughts from "the things that be of men." In its nucleus the story is certainly historical, whatever the source from which R has gathered it. In its ascription to a woman of the honorable roles of Peter the confessor and John the Baptist the anointer of the Christ, we are reminded of certain features in the Special Source of Luke. At all events this simple anointing to the Messsiah- ship by the devotion of a woman disciple must antedate historically Mark's apologetic narrative of the anointing by the Baptist-Elias, with its supernatural appearances and Voice from heaven. 200 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 14: 3-8 And while he was in Beth- any in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having *an alabaster cruse of ointment of Spike- nard very costly ; (and) she brake the cruse, and poured it over his head. But 3 there were some that had indignation among themselves, (saying,) To what purpose hath this waste of the ointment been made? For this ointment might have been sold for above three hundred 4 pence, and given to the poor. And they murmured against her. But Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor always with you, and whensoever ye will ye can do them good : but me ye have not always. She hath done what she could: she hath anointed my body aforehand for 1 Or, a flask. 2 Gr. pistic nard, pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take it to mean genuine; others, liquid. 8 /3 var. his disciples were displeased and said. 4 Or, shillings. Vers. 3-9=Mt. 26:6-13=L,k. 7:376, 386,46 (X) (Jn. 12: 2-8) R (Cf. 16: 1) Ver. 3. The localization "Bethany," "house of Simon the (healed) leper," seems to mark originality, but scarcely points to the neighbor- hood of Jerusalem (see note on 11: 1 and above on vers. 3-9). Simon is one of the points of connection with Lk. 7 : 36-50, but in this feature the dependence seems to be on the part of Luke. It is certainly so in regard to the ointment, which is utterly inappropriate to the story of the Penitent Harlot. This feature is only lamely attached in Luke by a clause appended to vers. 37 and 38, and by ver. 46. The complete difference of the two incidents in their fundamental significance becomes apparent by the removal of this incongruous trait wherein Luke seeks to atone for his cancellation of the Markan story. It also sets in its true light the recombination effected in Jn. 12: 1-8. Spikenard. An unknown term; see var. rendering. The transfer of this rare designa- tion to the parallels is a sure proof of dependence. Over his head. Luke, who transfers the anointing as an embellishment to his incident of the Penitent Harlot, substitutes "his feet," as an intended refine- ment of honor, a trait retained in Jn. 12: 3. But here it is inappro- priate. Mary's intention is to show the utmost — perhaps even messianic — honor to her guest. There is no occasion in her case for the self- humiliation of the Penitent Harlot, who does not venture to approach the head of the recumbent guest, and when unwittingly her tears have fallen on his feet hastily wipes them off with her hair as though a de- filement to the prophet. Ver. 5. They (see var. ver. 4) murmured (Gr., "roared") against her. Jn. 12: 6 makes Judas the scapegoat. Ver. 8 develops the last clause of ver. 7 in a more specific and definite application, a process carried a stage further in Jn. 12: 7. This looks 14:9-12 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 201 9 the burying. And verily I say unto you, Wheresoever the gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. 10 And Judas Iscariot, %e that was one of the twelve, went away unto the chief priests, that he might deliver him 11 unto them. And they, when they heard it, were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently deliver him (unto them) . 12 And on the first day of un- leavened bread, 2 when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that 1 Gr. the one of the twelve. 3 Sinaitic Syriac, when the passover was eaten. Vers. 10,ll=Mt. 26: 14-16= Lk. 22:3-6 (P) Vers.l2-16=Mt. 26:17-19= Lk. 22:7-13 R (Cf. 11: 1-6) forward to the incident of Mk. 16: 1, though in Jn. 19: 39, 40 the story takes a wholly different and inconsistent form. The probability of the alien origin of ver. 8 is increased by the fact that we have no evidence that the custom of anointing the dead obtained among the Jews. Cer- tainly it could not be proposed on the third day after complete and orderly sepulture (16: 1). The sense of the utterance is practically equivalent to 8: 31-33: Not a throne but a sepulcher awaits him whom you wish to proclaim the "Anointed." Ver. 9. For a memorial of her. Wellhausen rightly asks, Why, then, is not her name given? Another indication that Jn. 12: 1-8 employs some traditional elements not given in Mark. Luke clearly attaches no such importance as Mark to the command of ver. 9. Vers. 10, 11. R does not make it very apparent why he inserts vers. 3-9 at just this point. It would hardly stand here, however, if not understood to affect in some way the conduct of Judas, which is not attributed to avarice as in Matthew and John. The collocation recalls 8: 32, 33: the doctrine of the cross is an "offense" to Judas. The actual motive of the betrayer has often been made the subject of ro- mantic speculation, but the sources do not enable us to go beyond the general statement, applicable to all the Twelve in greater or less degree, that they were no longer in complete harmony with Jesus' ideal, and were beginning to allow considerations of personal safety to shake their former resolution. Where desertion begins, someone generally carries it to the full length of betrayal. Vers. 12-16. Preparations for the Passover. The object of R in this paragraph is to show that the sacrament instituted by Jesus was intended to displace the Jewish Passover. The fact observed by B. Weiss 1 that it is "the only connected passage drawn by Luke from Mark in the whole passion-story" is indicative of its origin. Equally so is the incorrectness of its date (ver. 12). This is both erroneous in form (the passover lambs were "sacrificed" on the day before the first 1 Quellen des Lucas, p. 60. 202 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 14: 13-16 13 thou mayest eat the passover? And he sendeth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: fol- 14 low him ; and wheresoever he shall enter in, say to the goodman of the house, The 1 Master saith, Where is my guest-chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my dis- 15 ciples? And he will himself shew you a large upper room furnished (and) ready: 16 and there make ready for us. And the disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. 1 Or, Teacher. of Unleavened Bread), so that the Sinaitic Syriac corrects to "when the passover was eaten," and is in conflict with ver. 1. Omit this para- graph together with the intercalation vers. 3-9, and the Petrine tradi- tion of vers. 1, 2, 10, 11, 17ff. falls into complete agreement with Jn. 13: 1, 29; 18: 28; 19: 14 T 31 and with the intrinsic probabilities. The story of "the night in which he was betrayed" related originally not to a double but a single series of events, beginning with the conspiracy, proceeding with the supper and Jesus' disclosure of the plot, and end- ing with its execution. The interjected date of ver. 12 and the story of miraculous guidance of the two disciples in their preparations of the passover, vers. 13-16, emanate from the desire to present the sacra- ment as superseding the observance of the 14th Nisan. Vers. 13-15. Cf. 11: 1-6. In both cases R means the directions to be understood as evidences of Jesus' supernatural knowledge. We might, perhaps, discount this and suppose a preconcerted arrangement of Jesus with friends unknown to the Twelve in Jerusalem; but the residuum of historical tradition — if such it be — would be meager, and hard to reconcile with the apprehension of danger which brings the company forth again to the Mount of Olives before the night is over. A more probable nucleus of fact is R's knowledge of the traditional "upper room" (Acts 1: 13) to which the present story gives added sanctity as chosen and consecrated by the act of Jesus himself. Yer. 15. Furnished. (Gr., "spread"), i.e., with mats or pallets on which to recline; whether to eat, or to rest for the night. The "table" of Lk. 22: 21 is a mere tabouret on which the common great dish is placed into which all dip. Vers. 17-21. Denunciation of the Traitor. Few instances can sur- pass this of the gradual transformation of general statements after- ward looked upon as supernatural intimations, into close and minute predictions of the future. The Luke source, generally preferable throughout the passion story, appears to have had no such element. At all events the only traces of it in Luke consist of a bare clause or two from Mark appended in 22: 21-23 to the general warning of the impending catastrophe which continues in vers. 31-38. The intro- duction of the prediction involves all the narratives in inextricable difficulty to answer the question, When did the traitor make his exit; I4t 17-21 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 20C 17 18 19 20 21 And when it was evening he cometh with the twelve. And as they *sat and were eating, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you shall betray me, (even) he that eateth with me. They be- gan to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? And he said unto them, (It is) one of the twelve, he that dippeth with me in the dish. For the Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him : but woe unto that man through whom 2 [the Son of man] is betrayed! good were it 3 for that man if he had not been born. 1 Gr. reclined. 3 Gr. for him if that man. 2 var. omit [ ]. Vers.l7-21=Mt. 26:20-34= Lk. 22:14, 21-23 R(Q?) (Cf. Mt. 18: 7= Lk. 17: 1) and why does he go unhindered? The increasing definiteness of the exposure only increases this difficulty, which is not adequately met by Mark's introduction of ver. 21, nor by the Johannine representation that Jesus orders and directs even the betrayal itself. We are com- pelled to regard the whole representation as a legendary development on the basis of Ps. 41: 9. The simplest form is that of Lk. 22: 21 in which the "prophecy" becomes part of Jesus' warning of his impend- ing fate. In Mark it develops into the definite charge, "One of you will betray me," while Luke's "questioning among themselves" becomes a questioning of Jesus by each in turn. R adds a Q saying (Mt. 18: 7 = Lk. 17: 1) to depict the enormity of the offense. Matthew develops still further. Judas specifically asks, Is it I?, and receives an answer which if not incriminating was at least evasive. Finally Jn. 13: 21-27 makes its own mysterious authority the confidant to whom Jesus con- veys definite designation of the traitor, Peter then being admitted to the secret! Ver. 18. And as they sat and were eating. Cf. ver. 22. R borrows the phrase without cancelling later. Ver. 19. Is it I ? Render, "Surely it is not I?" Ver. 20. He that dippeth with me in the one dish. A figurative expression for "my most intimate friend," equivalent to Luke "whose hand is with me on the table" or Ps. 41 : 9 "which did eat of my bread." In Jn. 13: 26 it becomes real action. Ver. 21. An adaptation of Q (Mt. 18: 6, 7 = Lk. 17: 1, 2) to fit the case of Judas. For the "occasions of stumbling" which "must needs come," R substitutes the betrayal. The Son of man (this title is used by Mark where the passion is involved) must needs suffer, because so "it is written of him." Vers. 22-26. Institution of the Eucharist. The rite instituted by Jesus on "the night in which he was betrayed" is attested along with the words themselves, still employed in current ritual in I Cor. 1 1 : 23-25 as "from (the time of) the Lord." The interpretative words alluding to "the blood of the covenant" of Ex. 24: 8 may be due to ritual addi- tion, as well as the application "for you," which Mark assimilates to Is. 53: 11 "many"; but there is no justification for questioning the command, "This do in remembrance of me," nor the comparison, "This is my body. This is my blood." Jesus gave his followers a memorial 204 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 14:22-24 22 And as they were eating, he took x bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, 23 Take ye: this is my body. And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he 24 gave to them rand they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of 2 the 1 Or, a loaf. 2 Or, the testament. Vers.22-25=Mt. 26:26-29= Lk. 22:15-20 (P) Cf. Ex. 24: 8; Is. 53: 11 rite. Not indeed a sacrament, for the conception of a mystical appro- priation of the life of the Redeemer, which constitutes the essence of a sacrament, belongs to the element of Greek mystery-religion, and does not find its way into Christian thought save through the experience of Paul. Jesus gives his followers a reminder and a parable. It is not new, but simply a direction to continue the practice which had given a household unity to their little brotherhood thus far, and on one memo- rable occasion in Galilee had extended it to the multitude. In continu- ing it Jesus wishes them to recall the spirit of that occasion of giving without reserve. The point of comparison lies in the willingness of the self-surrender. In a sense the representation was true (though subsequently exaggerated to a degree which leaves no room for the agonizing prayer of Gethsemane) that Jesus laid down his life "of him- self." He had undertaken his championship of the cause of the dis- inherited sons in Jerusalem in full consciousness of the perils involved. Now that the end was apparent — for this no supernatural insight was required — he would have it remembered that his life was given freely like the food in Galilee, not taken from him. Ver. 22. As they were eating. A new beginning without reference to ver. 18. At the (ordinary) evening meal — not the passover supper, which would have presented the closer symbol of the slain lamb — Jesus assumed his usual part as dispenser of the food. But on this occasion made the loaf a symbol of his body. Its destruction should not be a dissolution but a stronger union of the brotherhood by as much as the sacrifice made for its sake was now greater. Paul adds that Jesus directed the continuance of the rite of the Breaking of Bread in memory of him. In respect to the cup (I Cor. 1 1 : 25) the words may well be an assimilation to ver. 24. They can hardly be unauthentic in respect to the Breaking of Bread. Ver. 24. The allusion is to the ancient rite of blood covenant, by participation in the same blood, whether by drinking, transfusion, or otherwise. In the story of Ex. 24 the altar representing Yahweh has one half the blood sprinkled on it, while the other half is sprinkled on the people. The agreement entered into becomes thus literally a life- partnership. Paul and perhaps R have in mind a similar mystical union of the disciples with Christ. But the union intended in the insti- tution is of the disciples among one another (cf. Lk. 22: 17). The rite is thus properly called a "communion of the blood of Christ" (I Cor. 10: 16, 17). The ancient liturgy of the Didache (c. ix.) emphasizes no point but this of reunion, and the implication of ver. 27 (see note be- low) is that the mind of Jesus is now occupied with the impending "scattering" of his "flock," for whose "gathering" again he labors to provide. Mark obscures the covenant idea by attaching that of expiation through the addition of the clause "which is poured out for many," a 14:25-27 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 205 25 covenant, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God. 26 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of Olives. 27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be Offended: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep 1 Gr. caused to stumble. Ver. 26=Mt. 26: 30 R Vers.27-31=Mt. 26:31-36= Lk. 22:33,34 R(P) reference to Is. 53: 11; cf. 10: 45. No such thought appears in Paul, nor is it intended by Jesus. Ver. 25. This verse appears twice in Luke (22: 15 = 22: 18) and cer- tainly suggests by its form, though not of course in the intention of the canonical evangelist, the sense: My hope of celebrating this passover with you is to be disappointed. My consolation is that I shall partake of that greater redemption feast it only foreshadows, which Messiah is to celebrate in his kingdom. For our canonical evangelists it sets the seal of discontinuance upon the Jewish rite. Fruit of the vine. A phrase from the Blessing of the Cup in Jewish ritual. If this was, as we contend, the evening of Nisan 13, the meal would be the last supper before the passover banquet, and would be celebrated by use of the Kiddush 1 or ritual of prayer, breaking of bread (leavened), blessing and distribution of a cup of wine by the head of the household. Ver. 26. R introduces the singing of the Hallel, which belonged to the passover ritual. Probably the change of scene from the upper room to the Mount of Olives is also part of the editorial revision. See on vers. 12-17. Vers. 27-31. Predictions of Desertion and Denial. The contrast with the non-Mark element of Luke is characteristic. Luke's source continues the thought which we have found inherent in the institution of the "Communion," viz, Jesus' death to become a means of uniting instead of dissipating the brotherhood. Lk. 22: 31, 32, 35-38 antici- pates the "scattering," implying some individual failure of Peter, which, however, is more than atoned for by Jesus' dependence on him to rally the deserters. To this unique material Luke attaches in vers. 33, 34 an abridgment of Mark's Prediction of Peter's Denial, vers. 29-31. Mark's corresponding paragraph covers all the ground of Jesus' anxious anticipation for his scattered flock by the bare citation of the fulfilled prophecy, Zech. 13: 7, substitutes for the rdle of Peter in rallying the de- serters a promise of Jesus to fulfill this work in his own person by going before them into Galilee, and follows this with a detailed prediction of the circumstances of Peter's Denial. The motive in the one case is historical, in the other apologetic. Luke's source gives us our most valuable insight into the actual scene referred to by Paul (I Cor. 15: 5) which led to the realization of Jesus' hope, but which has been sup- pressed in Mark as we have it. Mark (R) gives us his own development of Petrine tradition to prove how prophecy was fulfilled in the desertion 1 On the practice and ritual of Kiddush, see s.v. in Hamburger's Realency- klopadie, and G. H. Box in Journ. of Theol. Studies, Apr., 1902. 206 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 14:28-32 28 shall be scattered abroad. How- beit, after I am raised up, I will go before 29 you into Galilee. But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be Offended, 30 yet will not I. And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that thou to-day, (even) this night, before the cock crow 31 2 [twice], shalt deny me thrice. But he spake exceeding vehemently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner also said they all. 32 And they come unto 3 a place, which was named Gethsemane: and he saith unto his 1 Gr. caused to stumble. 3 Gr. an enclosed piece of ground. 2 /3 var. omit [ ]. R (a. Lk. 22: 31, 32, 35-38; Zech 13: 7) (P) Vers.33-42=Mt. 26:36-46= L,k. 32:39-46 R(P) of the Twelve, and how Jesus miraculously foresaw and predicted what was about to happen. Vers. 27, 28. The gathering again of the scattered flock is not cred- ited to Peter, as in Luke (cf. Jn. 21: 15-17), but to the Chief Shepherd himself, who will "go before them," as a shepherd precedes his flock, into Galilee. The later tradition of Luke cancels the whole episode of the desertion, rallying in Galilee, and return to Jerusalem, admitting no interval of the kind. Matthew, the Appendix to John, and Ev. Petri preserve the Galilean tradition. Jn. 1 — 20 follows the Lukan, which became dominant. Paul (I Cor. 15: 3-7) gives no indication of place or time of the appearances, but ignores all relating to the empty sepul- cher. Mark manifestly intends to relate a manifestation to Peter and the rest in Galilee (cf. 16: 7, 8). The account is no longer extant. Offended. Already a stereotyped term for unbelief or backsliding. Vers. 29-31. Peter never appears in a separate role in this Gospel but to receive a rebuke. The story of the Denial, vers. 66-72, is an un- questionably authentic element of Petrine tradition. The anticipation of it here in special boasting attributed to Peter stands in singular con- trast to the purely Lukan material, where all the emphasis is laid on Peter's unique service. Ver. 30. Twfce . . . thrice. The word "twice" is lacking in some texts and absent from Matthew and Luke. It serves to make the cor- respondence closer in detail between prediction and fulfillment (vers. 66-72). E. Abbott 1 accounts for the growth of the story into a thrice repeated denial after two cock-cro wings by supposing a Semitic phrase, "Before cock-crow twice (yea) thrice thou wilt deny me." See on ver. 68. Vers. 32-42. Gethsemane. Considering the disposition of R to en- hance the elements of the tradition which exhibit Jesus as gifted with divine power and foresight, the preservation of this touchingly human scene can hardly be accounted for save through the clinging hold of devout tradition. Already in Heb. 5: 7-10 it forms part of the passion- story, while the threefold repetition of the scene of Jesus' watchfulness unto prayer in contrast with the unfaithful watch of the disciples — in Luke a single scene — clearly manifest a hortatory purpose expressed in 1 Am. Journ. of Theol., Jan., 1898. 14:33-40 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 207 33 disciples, Sit ye here, while I pray. And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly amazed, and sore 34 troubled. And he saith. unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto 35 death: 1 [abide ye here, and watch. 1 ] And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, 36 the hour might pass away from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; remove this cup from me: how- beit not what I will, but what thou wilt. 37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? 38 couldest thou not watch one hour? 2 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into tempta- tion: the spirit indeed is willing, but the 39 flesh is weak. And again he went away, and prayed, 3 [saying the same words.[| 40 And again he came, and found them sleep- ing, for their eyes were very heavy; and 1 Sinaitic Syriac omits [ ]. 2 Or, Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not. 3 var. omit [ ]. Cf. Heb. 5: 7 Cf. Mt. 6: 10 ver. 38. The story had religious value as an example of faithful vigil and must have been used in connection with this observance. So far as the expressions used in vers. 33, 34 may seem to suggest a mysterious agony of soul not explicable from the disastrous outlook for Jesus' cause, we must attribute it to the beginning of that morbid theological tendency which imports factitious inflictions from God into the situa- tion in the interest of piacular theories of the atonement. Such tend- encies are already apparent in the use of Is. 53: 6 in I Pt. 2: 25. The agony, however, is perfectly consistent with Jesus' heroic purpose of losing his life to save it. The prayer is indeed for deliverance from death (ver. 36, cf. Heb. 5:7), but not for the sake of avoiding the per- sonal humiliation and suffering implied. Rather we should infer from the bearing of the rite instituted (see on vers. 22-25) and from his sub- sequent earnest warnings and pleadings, that Jesus' agony was for the fate of his cause. The "high-priestly prayer" of Jn. 17 properly reflects the feeling that Jesus' solicitude in this crisis was for his scattered flock (cf. ver. 27), on whose "turning again" all hope for his gospel depended. Ver. 33. On the trio of martyr-apostles see comment on 5: 37. Ver. 36. An attempt to give in direct discourse, including even the Aramaic "Abba," what had been already stated in general terms in ver. 35. This cap. The prophetic figure already employed in 10:40. In ver. 35 "the hour," i.e., of destiny. The burden of the prayer was in- ferable from Jesus' bearing. Vers. 37, 38. Simon, Sleepest thou? . . . Pray that ye enter not into temptation. Both parallels put the rebuke in the plural. All the disciples are blamed. There is a resemblance in thought and language between these two verses and Lk. 22: 31, 32. 208 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 14:41-46 41 they wist not what to answer him. And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, ^leep on 2 [now], and take your rest: 3 it is enough; the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed 42 into the hands of sinners. Arise, let us be going: behold, he that betrayeth me is at hand. 43 And straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and 44 the elders. Now he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he; take him, and lead 45 him away safely. And when he was come, straightway he came to him, and saith, 46 Rabbi; and 4 kissed him. And they laid 1 Or, Are ye still sleeping on and taking f 2 Sinaitic Syriac omits [ ]. 3 Sinaitic Syriac, the hour is come; the end has arrived. * Gr. kissed him much. R (9:31; 10:33) Vers.43-50=Mt. 26:47-56= Lk. 22:47-53 (P) Ver. 41. Wellhausen renders "Are ye still sleeping and taking your rest ? — Enough ! Rise, ' ' etc. The intervening words , ' 'The hour is come, and the Son of man is delivered into the hands of sinners " (Gen- tiles), he regards as editorial. The phraseology is in fact that of 9:31; 10:33. Vers. 43-50. Betrayal and Arrest. This final scene before the dis- persion of the Twelve is one of the most realistic of the Gospel. Its interest is almost purely historical, and it is followed by one (vers. 51, 52) so limited in its sphere of interest that neither of the dependent Gospels has retained it. R attempts to give the story a pragmatic value as a "fulfillment of scripture," but what scripture is meant is not apparent. The earlier motive is suggested in the reported saying of Jesus, and appears more clearly in Luke. Jesus surrenders under protest. The bystanders are called to witness that the midnight hour and rudely armed force are not occasioned by any disposition he had ever shown to resist lawful authority. The violence, the illegality hiding itself under cover of the night, are those of his captors — "this is your (ap- propriate) hour, and the force of darkness." Ver. 43. From the chief priests and scribes and elders. Mark makes the Jewish Sanhedrin responsible for what was really a secret plot of the high-priestly clique of Annas. So Luke in 22: 52; but cf. ver. 47. John brings in the "whole cohort" of Roman soldiers (600 men), who -'went backward and fell to the ground" when Jesus advanced and offered himself. Ver. 45. Saith, Rabbi, and kissed him. The feeling of the narrator appears in the use of the Aramaic title, elsewhere usually translated, and in the strengthened form of the verb "to kiss." In Luke, Jesus does not permit this desecration of the token of friendship. In Matthew he protests, but does not prevent it. J4t 47-52 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 209 47 hands on him, and took him. But a cer- tain one of them x [that stood by] drew his sword, and smote the 2 servant of the high 48 priest, and struck off his ear. And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out 3 [as] against a robber, with swords 49 and staves to seize me? I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but (this is done) that the scriptures 50 might be fulfilled. And they all left him, and fled. 51 And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over (his) naked (body) : and they lay hold 52 on him ; but he left the linen cloth, and fled naked. 1 p var. omit f ]. 2 Gr. bondservant. 3 var. omit [ ], and insert that ye come after robber. Cf. Jn. 18: 15, 16 (E) Ver. 47. One of them that stood by. A strange way to designate one of the Twelve, perhaps omitted for this reason in Codex D (see var.). Yet why should Mark mention the incident at all if he wishes to avoid exposing these to governmental indictment? Matthew and Luke en- deavor to give the incident a pragmatic value by attaching, the one a moralizing teaching (Mt. 26: 52-54), the other a merciful healing (Lk. 22: 51). The unconnected incident, like vers. 51, 52, as it stands, is simply an erratic block of historic tradition. The original motive for its preservation may have been the fixing of responsibility for the treacherous plot on those to whom it really belonged. The sword cut of a bystander could do little to prevent the tragedy, but it served to identify one of the leaders of the band which had seized Jesus and de- livered him up as "the servant of the high-priest." Vers. 51, 52. The Youth who escaped Naked. This incident "would be memorable to the young man himself" (Morison). The remarkable thing is that it would be so little memorable to anyone else. This, which leads to its omission in Matthew and Luke, has proved a stimulus to the romantic imagination since perhaps the fourth evan- gelist (Jn. 18: 15, 16). Theophylact conjectured that the youth came from the house where the supper had been held and whither Judas would first return after securing his posse. Moderns add, This is "the signature of the artist in an obscure corner of the canvas." Both are combined in the theory which identifies the "upper room" with the gathering-place of the early Church in the house of Mary mother of John "surnamed Mark" (Acts 12: 12). The youth, roused from his bed by the coming of Judas' band, pursued hastily, perhaps in the vain hope of giving the alarm to Jesus and the Twelve. The band at least regard him as on that side. If this be indeed John Mark, it would only make it the more certain that a tradition so remotely and incoherently attached cannot come at first hand from the author of our Gospel. R's readers, however, will have known who was meant. Cf. 15: 21. 210 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 14:53-55 53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: *and there come together with him all the chief priests and the elders 54 and the scribes. And Peter had followed him afar off, even within, into the court of the high priest; and he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in 55 the light (of the fire). Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put him to death; 1 One var. has instead of ver. 53& only and scribes and elders. Vers. 63,54=Mt. 26:57,58= Lk. 22:51,55 R(P) Ver8.55-64=Mt. 26:59-66= Lk. 22:66-71 R Vers. 53, 54, 66-72. Peter's Denial in the High Priest's House. Mark's method of interjection is again illustrated by the interweaving of his (unhistorical) story of the Trial before the whole Sanhedrin into the midst of the older Petrine tradition of Peter's Denial in the court- yard of the high priest's house. Here where the rude band of slaves held Jesus in temporary detention, until at daylight he could be sur- rendered to Pilate as a messianic agitator, it was possible for the most daring of Jesus' followers to mingle with the motley throng and witness the vulgar abuse with which Jesus' servile captors amused themselves, after the manner of their kind, at the expense of their silent victim. The place of detention, the identity of the leaders in Judas' posse, the accusers of Jesus before Pilate leave little enough of that veil of secret intrigue, behind which "the hissing brood of Annas" doubtless en- deavored, after their wont, to conceal their murderous plot. On the alleged gathering of the Sanhedrin at midnight of Passover night(!) to hold a formal trial of Jesus in Caiaphas' house, from which they again disperse to reassemble at dawn (!), see on The Trial, vers. 55-64. Ver. 53. The second half of the verse is wanting in Luke, and largely wanting in one of the Latin versions of Mark (see var.). It is an addi- tion of R preparatory to the trial-scene of vers. 55-64. R wishes to fix the responsibility of the murder on the Jewish senate as a whole, as incredible historically, as it is contrary to the fundamental sense of the P tradition itself; see on ver. 65. Ver. 54. Court (yard) of the high priest. The tradition vacillates between Annas and Caiaphas as the responsible instigator of the plot, Jn. 18: 13-24 combining the two. Caiaphas was officially high priest, but the unscrupulous Annas, his father-in-law and ex-high priest, kept the reins of power in his own hands and may have been the arch- conspirator. Jn. 13: 13 makes this the house of Annas, Mt. 26: 57 that of Caiaphas. Vers. 55-64. The Trial before the Sanhedrin. The story which R here interjects not only interrupts the context so grossly as to make the members of the Jewish senate (!) engage in the pastime described in ver. 65, but is historically impossible as well as logically useless. If the council was to assemble in the morning (15: 1), of what service the midnight session? Once met, why disperse and reassemble, supposing this to be physically possible? Or again, since it is manifestly the pur- pose of the conspirators from the outset to escape responsibility by de- livering Jesus over to Pilate as a disturber of the peace, what purpose can the trial serve? Then the conspirators gratuitously assume the 14:56-59 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 211 56 and found it not. For many bare false witness against him, and their witness 57 agreed not together. And there stood up certain, and bare false witness against him, 58 saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this Hemple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made 59 without hands. And not even so did their 1 Or, sanctuary. very responsibility they wish to avoid. And all is done in violation of fundamental rules of Jewish jurisprudence forbidding night sessions, hasty executions, action on feast days, and the like. Why, above all, make the chief indictment blasphemy, when Jesus' own declaration of his Messiahship would not support the charge, and with the knowledge that if they do convict him they have no power to execute the sentence, whether directly or through Pilate? A more complete tissue of ab- surdities would be hard to frame than the story thus interjected by Mark where Luke proceeds in simple, logical order, without any interrup- tion whatever (Lk. 22: 54-65). And the motive for the intercalation is so transparent! By just as much as the Jewish senate if they did wish to rid themselves of Jesus would have avoided the course here imputed to them, by so much is it a matter of concern with R to make them follow it. The detestable Jews, "who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and please not God and are contrary to all men," are responsible through their chief senate for the crime (for the animus cf. Mt. 27: 25). Moreover the real motive was the same unbelief which makes them now cry "Blasphemy" when the declaration is made that Jesus is the Christ. But the very elements which make this claim "blasphemy" to Jewish ears are the products of the "manifestation of Jesus as the Son of God by the resurrection." It is a simple anachronism to make the high priest treat the claim to Messiahship as if it involved already the claims of Pauline Christology . And besides all , it is not even claimed that the story comes from any eye- or ear-witness ! At the utmost the saying about destroying and rebuilding the temple (ver. 58), which really has a claim to emanate from Jesus, and is all the more probably authentic because R has cancelled it from the tradition of Jesus' real utterances, may have had a connection with the final tragedy. If so, it is before Pilate and not before Caiaphas that it would have signifi- cance. The connection of Jn. 2: 19 and Mk. 15: 29 suggests the possi- bility that the tradition once preserved a trace of the real onus of the charge which secured the desired condemnation from Pilate. One act, and only one , could be pointed to as evidence against the alleged mes- sianic agitator. He had hf ted his hand against the control of the priests in the temple. Such a trace R may have found in his sources. Ver. 57. False witness. R gives no intimation that this was not simple fabrication. Jn. 2: 19 corroborates the impression that an authentic saying lies behind R's story here and in 15: 29. Of course this would not include the two explanatory adjectives, "made with hands" and "made without hands," which completely deprive the saying of the revolutionary character the witnesses seek to give it. R's pragmatic impulse here eclipses his historic sense. The doctrine is of course that of I Cor. 3: 9-17; I Pt. 2: 5; Acts 7: 47-50; Rev. 21: 22; 212 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 14:60-65 60 witness agree together. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 61 But he held his peace, and answered noth- ing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, 62 the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sit- ting at the right hand of power, and coming 63 with the clouds of heaven. And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What 64 further need have we of witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be x worthy 65 of death. And some began to spit on him, 2 [and to cover his face,] and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the officers received him with 3 blows of their hands. 1 Gr. liable to. 3 Or, strokes of rods. 2 /3 var. omit [ ]. Ver. 65=Mt. 26: 67, 68=L,k. 22:63-65 (P) Jn. 4: 21-24, the pervasive New Testament doctrine of the new temple Messiah was expected to found : The true counterpart of the "dwelling- place" (Heb. mishkan = "tabernacle") of God erected by Moses is not Solomon's building of stone, but God's "dwelling with," or "in" his people. Luke removes this trait of the false witness and the utterance against the temple, and inserts it in the trial of Stephen, Lk. 22: 66-71 ; cf. Acts 6: 13, 14. Vers. 61-64. For his second charge brought against Jesus, R has probably no other foundation than the P tradition of 15: 2 (see com- ment) and the attitude of the Synagogue of his own time against the Christology of the Church. Ver. 62. For the direct assertion I am, both parallels substitute the more or less evasive reply of 15: 2. "Thou hast said" (Mt. 26: 64; Lk. 22: 70 "ye say") at least throws the responsibility for the use of terms upon the questioner. Matthew and Luke have not a more historic record of the utterance, but a better appreciation that the unqualified avowal of Mark would in Roman eyes justify the surrender to Pilate and execution of Jesus. Ver. 65. In the P tradition and Luke the menials who hold Jesus captive in the court-yard indulge in this vulgar abuse of their victim in easy view of Peter. Both parallels make clear the sense of "cover his face" and "Prophesy" by adding, "Who is he that struck thee?" But for the omission of the clause "and cover his face" in the /? text this would be an important indication of the accessibility of the story to Matthew and Luke in other form than Mark's. R's intercalation of the Trial scene, vers. 55-64, has for one result the removal of the occur- rences from the possible view of Peter. For Peter is with the "officers" (Gr., "apparitors"), who only "received him with blows" after the 14:66-71 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 213 66 And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high 67 priest; and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, (even) Jesus. 68 But he denied, saying, *I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the 2 porch; 3 [and the cock 69 crew.] And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This 70 is (one) of them. But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, Of a truth thou art (one) of them; for thou art a Galilean. 71 But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak. 1 Or, I neither know, nor understand: thou, what sayest thou t 2 Gr. forecourt. 3 Var. omit [ ]. Vers.66-73=Mt. 36:69-75= Lk. 23:56-63 (P) example had been set by their superiors. Its more serious result is to produce the incredible representation of trial before a senate com- prising such names as Gamaliel and Nicodemus degenerating into a scene of "spitting upon" the prisoner, covering his face with a cloak, striking him and asking, "Prophesy, who struck thee?" in derision of his reputation as a prophet. That Mark really believed "the chief priests and scribes" would condescend to this is confirmed by 15: 31. Vers. 66-72. Continuation of Peter's Denial. The narrative has its pragmatic value as a conclusion to the Boastful Offer, vers. 27-31, and the Unfaithful Vigil, vers. 32-42, in which the original tradition cer- tainly made Peter the dreadful example, though only with a view to ultimate reversal of the situation (Lk. 22: 31, 32; cf. Mt. 14: 28-31); whereas Mark as we have it transfers the great act of reversal to the credit of Jesus personally (14: 27, 28), heightens every feature which throws blame upon Peter, while detracting from the credit side (vers. 29, 37, 71, 72), and finally suppresses the whole story of his restoration. From the rest of the story of Mark we must from the nature of the case exclude all possibility of the testimony of Peter, which originally con- tinued, as Lk. 22: 31, 32; Mt. 14: 28-31 imply, with his experience of the appearance of the risen Lord in Galilee. Ver. 68. With the change of scene the unfaithfulness of the disciples is shown a second time. Exact correspondence with the prediction, ver. 30, is intended, transcribers of the text taking care to supply the trifling omission of the first cock-crowing, which is lacking in some texts, perhaps by accident. Ver. 70. The threefoldness of the denial is dwelt upon not merely for emphasis (cf. Acts 10: 16), nor merely to exhibit the accuracy of Jesus' miraculous foreknowledge, but because the story is intended as a pendant to that of Jesus' watchfulness unto prayer in Gethsemane, ver. 4. Cf. the threefold restoration in Jn. 21: 15-18. Ver. 71. Began to curse, i.e., invoke imprecations on himself if his assertion were not true. The Lukan parallel softens this to the an- swer, "Man, I know not what thou sayest." 214 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY T4:72 72 And straightway x [the second time] the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, 2 [how] that Jesus said unto him, 2 [Before the cock crow ^twice,] thou shalt deny me thrice.] 3 And when he thought thereon, he wept. 1 Var. omit [ ]. 2 |3 var. omit [ ]. 3 Or, And he began to weep. Ver. 72. Textual variants show the effort of transcribers to secure exact fulfillment. Probably the true text of ver. 72 should read "And straightway the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said unto him. And when he thought thereon he wept." See var. Both parallels qualify Peter's weeping as "bitter." The translation of this clause is doubtful. The Greek figure would be con- veyed by "And in response he wept." THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 215 THE CRUCIFIXION PARAPHRASE Subdivision b. 15: 1-39. On the following day the San- hedrin delivered up Jesus to Pilate as aspiring to be king. And Pilate knowing their hypocrisy would have set him free, but the multitude clamored against him that he should be cruci- fied, till Pilate yielded. Jesus therefore was delivered to the soldiery, to be scourged and crucified. The course of these events was as follows: 15: 1-5. In the morning of the great day of the feast the Sanhedrin reassembled, and after consultation bound Jesus and delivered him to Pilate. And the governor asked him if he were the King of the Jews, but Jesus said only, That is your title for me, not one that I have coined. And the priests made many accusations to which Jesus deigned no answer at all, so that Pilate marvelled. Vers. 6-15. And the multitude began to clamor for the re- lease of a prisoner, because Pilate had been wont to give amnesty to one whom the people chose at the annual feast. The governor therefore proposed to release "the King of the Jews"; for he understood that the surrender of Jesus by the priests was be- cause of their jealousy of his influence with the people. But the priests prevailed upon the crowd to demand Barabbas, one who for murder committed in an insurrection was then a prisoner; so they cried out for Barabbas, demanding that Jesus be cruci- fied, till Pilate, wishing to satisfy the multitude, released to them Barabbas, and after scourging Jesus delivered him to be crucified. Vers. 16-20. The soldiers then took Jesus to the barracks, and in derision of the Jews' hope for a king clothed him with royal purple, placed a wreath of the creeping thorn upon his head, and, saluting him as "King of the Jews," struck him on the head with a reed, spat upon him, and did him mock obeis- ance. After this, when they had again put on him his own garments, they led him forth to crucifixion. Vers. 21-32. Now as Jesus was being led forth the soldiers seized a man who chanced to be entering the city from the coun- try, and forced him to bear the beam instead of Jesus. The man who thus became eyewitness of the tragedy was no other than Simon of Cyrene, the father of our own Alexander and Rufus. Thus they came to the place of crucifixion, known as Golgotha, that is, The Skull. And the women who are wont to 216 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY show this mercy offered him wine mixed with anodyne, but he would not take it. So they crucified him, and the soldiers di- vided among themselves his garments (as was prophesied in the psalm about the crucifixion). Now the hour at which the cruci- fixion took place was the middle hour of the morning. And the charge against him inscribed over the cross was this: THE KING OF THE JEWS. They also crucified with him on the right and left hand two robbers. And the passers by fulfilled the prophecy of the psalm, wagging their heads and saying, Ah, how sad! He who was to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days cannot even release himself from the cross! The chief priests also exchanged mocking taunts with the scribes, The Savior of others cannot save himself! If only this Christ and King of Israel would come down from the cross we would be- lieve him. Even the robbers, his fellow-victims, joined in the reproaches. Vers. 33-39. From noon until mid-afternoon there came a miraculous darkness over the whole land (fulfilling the proph- ecy, Thy sun shall go down at noon). Then, just at mid-after- noon, Jesus cried aloud and gave up his spirit. The utterance of the great cry is that which was prophesied of him in the crucifixion psalm, Eli, Eli, lama zaphthanif, the meaning of which is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (for the Spirit of God which had been his life was now indeed taken up). And some of the bystanders, not understanding the Hebrew words, said, He is calling for Elijah, who pre- cedes the coming of the Son of man to judgment. So one of the soldiers, filling a sponge from the jar of vinegar with which the soldiers slake their thirst, held it to his lips on a reed, saying, Well then, revive him until Elijah comes; perhaps Elijah will take him down. (Thus again they fulfilled the prophecy, " They gave me vinegar to drink.") Now at the parting of Jesus' spirit the temple of God itself seemed to rend its garment, for the veil which hangs before the holy place was found torn in two from top to bottom. And the centurion who had charge of the execution, when he saw how Jesus yielded up the spirit that was in him, could not forbear his testimony, acknowledging that he died like those who are fabled to be the sons of divinities. THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 217 SUBDIVISION B. 15: 1-39.— CRITICISM The group of five incidents with which Subdivision b begins, and which ends with the avowal of the centurion when Jesus has breathed his last, "Truly this man was a son of God," is dominated by the de- sire to vindicate the claim that in a true sense Jesus was "the king of the Jews," though not, of course, that of his sentence as inscribed on the cross. So prominent is the thought in the evangelist's mind that he even makes Pilate put the question in advance of the priests' accusa- tion. Jesus' reply brings out the ambiguity of the term by returning it upon the questioner. Thrice in this first scene Pilate pronounces Jesus "the King of the Jews," and in two more scenes (the mockery of the soldiers and the crucifixion) this phrase becomes central, making five solemn reiterations in all. 1 The second incident 2 exhibits under the figure of Barabbas the Jews' idea of a "Son of David." Barabbas is "one who had made insurrection, and in the insurrection had committed murder." Against this the figure of Jesus stands forth in clear relief. Pilate, in yielding to the Jews' clamor against Jesus, reversed the principles of common sense which would have controlled a worthy governor. The bearing of this paragraph becomes very apparent in the light of the early apologists' defenses of Christianity. The third incident 3 has a significance analogous to the "irony" of the Greek dramatic poets; in ignorance the Roman soldiery utter "prophecy." 4 The fourth incident is the crucifixion itself, carefully dated "at the third hour." Its central theme is the one vital datum of historic tradi- tion, the superscription THE KING OF THE JEWS. The meager items grouped about this in vers. 21-32 pathetically reveal the absence of historical data. We have (1) a bit of local tradition invaluable as attesting the derivation of the story 5 ; (2) two constant accompani- ments of all executions of the kind, the anodyne, and parting of the victim's property, in this case treated as a fulfillment of scripture 6 ; (3) a description, probably not resting on tradition, of the attitude of the people. 7 The fifth incident 8 has for its foundation only the parting of Jesus' spirit with a loud cry, which by the evangelist is declared to have been a quotation in Aramaic (Matthew supplies the Hebrew) of Ps. 22: 2, misunderstood by others. The added data of the miraculous darkness extending from noon until the ninth hour, a fulfillment, as the early anti-Jewish apologists point out, of Amos 8: 9, and the rending of the temple veil, are obviously symbolical in intention. The centurion's word sums up the significance of the paragraph. Traces of the ecclesiastical use which has preserved to us this narra- tive are especially manifest in the careful noting of the watches of the day. 9 This is not due to historic interest such as by careful inquiry might ascertain that the moment of crucifixion was 9 a.m., the duration of the miraculous darkness just from noon till 3 p.m., and the expiring cry at the latter hour, thus dividing the day precisely into quarters. The division is for purposes of ritual. These are time divisions of the great day of fasting which the Church observes (2: 20), 10 marking its watches by the acts of the sacred drama. 1 Vera. 2, 9, 12, 18, 26. * Vera. 6-15. » Vera. 16-20. • Cf. Jn. 11: 51; Acts 17: 23. * Ver. 21. • Vera. 22-24. 7 Vera. 29-32. 8 Vera. 33-39. 9 Vera. 25, 33, 34. 10 See the letter of Irenaeua (ca. 180 ad.), ap. Euseb. H. E. V, xxiv. 12. 218 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 15: 1-6 15 A ND straightway in the morning the A chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate. 2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering 3 saith unto him, Thou sayest. And the chief priests accused him of many 4 things. And Pilate again asked him, say- ing, Answerest thou nothing? behold how 5 many things they accuse thee of. But Jesus no more answered anything; inso- much that Pilate marvelled. 6 Now at Hhe feast he used to release unto them one prisoner, whom they asked of 1 Or, a feast; Sinaitic Syriac, every feast. 15:l-5=Mt. 27: 1, 2, 11-14= JLk. 33: 1-6 R(P) Vers. 6-15=Mt. 27:16-26= Lk. 33:13-26 R(P) Vers. 1-5. The Council accuse Jesus to Pilate. The intercalated trial scene of 14: 55-64 is a mere replica of this paragraph, but R's hand is also traceable here, at least in ver. 1. The real accusers were "the chief priests," as ver. 3 declares. The meeting of the Sanhedrin even if held twice in a period of six hours has no bearing whatever on the case. Whether the earlier P tradition had something of the nature of 14: 57-59 in place of the indefinite "many things" of ver. 3, or not, historically we must account for Pilate's condemnation of Jesus by the priests' denunciation of him as a messianic agitator. Such he had in fact become, in the priests' estimation, by his invasion of their author- ity in the temple, 11: 27-33. Ver. 2. Thou sayest. A qualified affirmative. In the replica, 14: 62, R makes it absolute. Here the question relates to political claims. Jesus surely did not refuse to disclaim such. Cf. Jn. 18: 33-37. This verse looks like an editorial supplement. It does not agree with the silence of Jesus in ver. 5 and anticipates ver. 3. Ver. 5. Jesus' silence before a hopelessly prejudiced tribunal may be a historical trait. He knew Pilate was not deceived by the mis- representations of the priests. The hearing would be public and report of it could reach the brotherhood in later times. Vers. 6-15. The Offer of Jesus or Barabbas. We have no reason for casting doubt on the historicity of this tradition, however signifi- cant Mark's dismissal of the matter of Pilate's examination of the prisoner with a few brief and general statements, to dwell upon the Jews' choice of a national hero. Lk. 23: 1-16 and Jn. 18: 28-37 supply the gap by lengthy elaborations in the interest of proving the non- political character of Christianity. Mark is not attempting to gratify historical enquiries for the grounds of Jesus' condemnation, but to explain to unbelievers why he was rejected by the Jews and crucified by Pilate. If he had data beyond the mere fact that Jesus was handed over to Pilate by the chief priests and executed as "the King of the Jews," he takes no interest in them. He simply knows that Jesus was the Christ, which to the Jews is blasphemy, and to the Romans 15*7-14 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 219 7 him. And there was one called Barabbas* (lying) bound with them that had made insurrection, men who in the insurrection 8 had committed murder. And the multi- tude went up and began to ask him (to 9 do) as he was wont to do unto them. And Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? 10 For he perceived that for envy the chief 11 priests had delivered him up. But the chief priests stirred up the multitude, that he should rather release Barabbas unto 12 them. And Pilate again answered and said unto them, What then shall I do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? 13 And they cried out again, Crucify him. 14 And Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out treason. The story of Pilate's offer to release Jesus, met by the Jews' cry for Barabbas, convicts both of insincerity. Ver. 6. A custom not referred to elsewhere, but in line with the Roman policy of conciliation. Ver. 7. Barabbas (in the Sinaitic Syriac of Matthew called Jesus Bar-rabban, i.e., son of the rabbi) belonged to the class of outlaws of the type of the Saxon Robin Hood. Such outlaw heroes tend to flourish through popular connivance in countries subject to a foreign yoke. In Galilee and the Lejjan region of Decapolis they had been suppressed by the vigorous action of the Herods. In Judaea the wild region which had sheltered David's band of outlaws still afforded room for similar brigand-patriots. Mark intends by his description of this popular hero as an insurrectionist and murderer to throw upon the Jews themselves the odium of the charge which they bring against the Christians, and under which they had procured the condemnation of Jesus. Ver. 10 explains why Pilate could at the same time accord to Jesus the title, alleged to be treasonable, "King of the Jews," and yet in the same breath offer to release him. He recognized through the trans- parent pretext of the accusers the "envy," i.e., jealousy of encroach- ment upon their supremacy (11 : 28), which really prompted the charge. Note the fivefold recurrence in vers. 2, 9, 12, 18, and 26 of the title "King of the Jews." Vers. 11-15. The threefold attempt of Pilate to resist the pressure of Jewish hatred serves to exhibit the general feeling of the Church, at least in the Pauline field, on which side sympathy could more reason- ably be sought. The Jews with all the early apologists are possessed with implacable hatred. The Roman governors, unless grossly under the malignant influence of Jewish jealousy, could easily be made to see the perfect harmlessness of Christianity, and would be naturally dis- posed to protect its adherents. This is the attitude of Paul (cf . I Thess. 2: 15, 16 with Rom. 13: 1-7), of I Pt. 4: 12-19, and of Acts (cf. 14: 2, 19; 17: 5, 13; 18: 12; 19: 33; 20: 3; 21: 27; 22: 30; 23: 1; 25: 2, 3, 15, 16; 220 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 15: 15-20 15 exceedingly, Crucify him. And Pilate, ^wishing to content the multitude,] released unto them Barabbas, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified. 16 And the soldiers led him away within the court, which is the 2 Prae- torium; and they call together the whole 17 3 band. And they clothe him with purple, and plaiting a crown of thorns, they put it 18 on him; and they began to salute him, Hail, 19 King of the Jews! And they smote his head with a reed, and did spit upon him, *[and bowing their knees worshipped him.] 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the purple, and put on him his garments. And they lead him out to crucify him. 1 18 var. omit [ ]. 2 Or, palace. 3 Or, cohort. Vers.l6-20=Mt. 27 : 27-31 R(X) Cf. Lk. 23: 6-12 28: 19 with 18: 14-17; 19: 31, 37-41; 23: 26-30; 24: 23-26, 27; 25: 16, 25-27; 26: 30-32; 28: 30, 31). Not until the Jewish-Christian book of Revelation (95 a.d.) is Rome regarded as an implacable foe. Vers. 16-20. Mockery by the Soldiers. The attitude of ridicule, which is that of the average Roman to the claims of "the King of the Jews," is best met by exhibiting the ridicule itself in the light of the deep and tragic "irony" of Euripides. Hence the practical value which preserves and dilates upon this otherwise comparatively trifling incident. The evangelist knows at least the coarse humor in which the barracks are wont to indulge toward condemned prisoners in their charge, and may perhaps have had some more or less trustworthy tra- dition of what went on in the court-yard of the governor's residence, which served as barracks for the Roman cohort when in garrison, or during the governor's attendance from Ca^sarea. At least there is noth- ing improbable in the story, in view of the popular disposition which led to similar mockery in Alexandria in 38 a.d. of Agrippa's aspirations to be King of the Jews. 1 Ver. 16. "Which is the Prastorium. To Roman readers this would mean, "This was the barracks." The trial takes place in the open air in front of the residence ("court"), at a spot where the bema, or "judg- ment-seat," was set on a "pavement" (Jn. 19: 13), or mosaic floor, made for the purpose of public hearings, and probably still shown in the period of the Fourth Gospel (ca. 110 a.d.). Whether at this time Pilate's residence was in the citadel of the Antonia, at the northwest angle of the temple area, or in Herod's palace, near the present Tower of David by the Jaffa Gate, is uncertain. Ver. 17. Purple. A mantle having the imperial color. A crown of thorns. The object is not to inflict pain, but merely derisive. The "thorn" is a weed with small briars offering itself as a convenient sub- stitute for the diadem, which sometimes took the form of a wreath. 1 Philo, In Flaccum, 5, 6. J5x2J-24 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 221 21 And they Compel one passing by, Simon of Gyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go (with them) , that he might bear his cross. 22 And they bring him unto the place Gol- gotha, which is, being interpreted, The place 23 of a skull. And they offered him wine min- gled with myrrh: but he received it not. 24 And they crucify him, and part his gar- ments among them, casting lots upon them, 1 Gr. impress. Ver. 21=Mt. 27: 32=L,k. 23: 26 (X) Vers.22-32=Mt. 27:33-44= Uc. 23:33-43 R(X) (With ver. 23 cf. Lk. 23: 27- 31) Vers. 21-32. The Crucifixion. The most tragic scene of all is pathetically wanting in those "traits of the eye-witness" which are held to mark the Petrine tradition. The only data which rise above the level of inferences from "prophecy," current practice, or conditions, and legendary symbolism are the impressment of Simon, the super- scription on the cross, and the expiring cry. For these we have the supremely important attestation of two individuals known to the readers of the Gospel, perhaps to the entire Christian Church. To identify the Rufus here mentioned with the Rufus of Rom. 16: 13 is precarious in the extreme and unimportant. Not so the fact that two well-known witnesses had it from their father that he had accom- panied Jesus to Golgotha. Ver. 21. The impressment was perhaps due to the fainting of Jesus, for custom required the victim to carry the transverse beam to the place of crucifixion, where the upright would be found fixed in the ground. But Mark says nothing of special weakness, and the cen- turion may have been prompted by ordinary humanity, the punishment inflicted on Jesus being so manifestly less applicable to his case than to the robbers who went along. Coming from the country. If the strict sense "from the field" could be insisted on this would prove our contention that the crucifixion was not on Nisan 15, a day on which no labor might be done. The expression is ambiguous. Ver. 22. Golgotha. A "place" (not "hill"), which from its contour or otherwise had received this designation. Identifications are almost purely fanciful; it appears, however, from Heb. 13: 12 that the spot was "outside the gate," doubtless near where the great north road has always entered the city, not far from the present Damascus Gate. Only the determination of the line of the so-called "second wall" can decide whether the claims of the Church of the Sepulcher (ca. 320 a.d.) to mark the spot come within the range of possibility. Ver. 23. The drugged cup of wine, intended to dull the suffering of the victim, was a work of mercy taken as their own by the women of Jerusalem. Luke, who has no reference to the cup of wine, introduces at the corresponding point a saying of Jesus to the "daughters of Jeru- salem." He received it not. Matthew adds "when he had tasted it." Jesus prefers suffering with unclouded consciousness to respite from pain at the cost of dulled faculties, a last touch of historic realism. _ Ver. 24. The regular soldiers' perquisite of the division of the vic- tim's garments is mentioned because of the tacit agreement with "prophecy" (Ps. 22: 18). Mark often leaves it to the reader to recog- nize "fulfillments" (e.g., 1: 6; 7: 37). 222 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 15:25-32 25 what each should take. And it was the 26 third hour, and they crucified him. And the superscription of his accusation was 27 written over, the king of the jews. And with him they crucify two robbers; one on 29 his right hand, and one on his left. 1 And they that passed by railed on him, wag- ging their heads, and saying, Ha! thou that destroyest the 2 temple, and buildest it in 30 three days, save thyself, and come down 31 from the cross. In like manner also the chief priests mocking (him) among themselves with the scribes said, He saved 32 others; 3 himself he cannot save. Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reproached him. 1 Var. insert ver. 28, And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was reckoned with transgressors (see Lk. 22: 37). 2 Or, sanctuary. 3 Or, can he not save himself t Ver. 25. The form is Semitic, for " it was the third hour (9 a.m.) when they crucified him." The careful statement of the hour ap- pended after the statement of fact in ver. 24 is significant of ritual interest. See above, p. 217. Ver. 26. With all the verbal variation the substance of the official verdict of Pilate is made certain by this well-attested statement. Jesus was condemned for aspiring to the Davidic throne. Jn. 19: 19-22 sees in the fact a touch of sardonic irony. Pilate revenges himself on the Jews, who have forced him to a judicial murder, by holding up their messianic hopes to contempt. Possibly the spirit of the soldiers' mockery (vers. 16-20) was caught from their superiors, and accounts for the extraordinary form of the titulus in this case. Certainly the moral effect on would-be pretenders entered into the motive. Doubt- less the title was not without its effect on Christian belief when the dis- ciples' faith revived. Ver. 27. The association was probably intended to give color to the charge against Jesus. The "robbers" are of the type if not com- panions of Barabbas. Ver. 29. Wagging their heads, in pretended commiseration at so great a fall. A "fulfillment" of Ps. 22: 7. Vers. 31, 32. Wellhausen's suspicions of the historicity of these verses are fully justified. The offer to "believe" in the absolute sense implies the Pauline doctrine. The mockery itself on the part of these high dignitaries on the sacred 15th Nisan is incredible. But the representation is of a piece with Mk. 14: 55-64 to which it forms the sequel, and a doublet to vers. 29, 30. Matthew and Luke develop the trait at further length, Luke discriminating between the two robbers. 15:33-35 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 223 33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole x land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, 2 Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, 3 why hast thou forsaken 35 me? And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elijah. 1 Or, earth. 2 p var. Eli, Eli, lama zaphthani. 3 Or, why didst thou forsake me T Vers.33=Mt. 27:45=Lk. 23:44,45 (X) Vers.34-36=Mt. 37:46-49= Lk. 23:46 R(X) (Cf. ver. 37) Vers. 33-39. Incidents of Jesus' Death. Only the loud cry with which Jesus' spirit took its flight has claims to be a historic trait ; and that in the simple form of ver. 37, not as elaborated in the doublet, vers. 34-36. The supernatural darkness (Luke's theory of "eclipse" is incompatible with the season of full moon) and the rending of the temple veil are symbolic. The former is a tacit "fulfillment" of Amos 8: 9, the latter perhaps not a suggestion from Heb. 10: 19-21 (the rending of Jesus' flesh for the passage of his spirit into God's presence a removal of the barrier between man and God), but in view of early Christian interpretation 1 and the parallel in Ev. Hebr. a token of sor- row like the veiling of the sun. Ver. 34 is an interpretation in terms of Ps. 22: 1 of ver. 37, which Lk. 23: 46 interprets in terms of Ps. 31: 6. Ev. Petri, which interprets the cry in a docetic sense as wrung from the physical nature of Jesus by the departure of his "power" ("my power, my power why hast thou forsaken me?"), probably reflects the original intention of this remark- able elaboration on the cry by adding "and immediately he was taken up." In Luke also the cry is a commendation by Jesus of his spirit to God. Mark, who intermingles the utterances of the possessed and the possessing demons (cf. 5: 7-12), could certainly employ a similar dual- ism here. The words of the cry are given partly in Hebrew by Matthew, wholly in Hebrew by the important Codex D in both Matthew and Mark. This is alone consistent with the misunderstanding of the by- standers, who speak Aramaic; besides the fact that the resemblance to the name "Elias" only appears in the Hebrew. Nevertheless, even were D's reading adopted we have no reason to treat vers. 34-36 as other than an early interpretation of the inarticulate cry of ver. 37. The quotation in a dead language of a prophecy supposedly fulfilled at Jesus' dying hour belongs with the scholasticism which in Jn. 19: 28 records the alleged utterance "I thirst" as a "fulfillment." It has no place in real history. The whole elaboration vers. 34-36 merely dupli- cates ver. 37, combining with it the incident of the offer of vinegar (the soldiers' posca) to drink, a possible historic element but certainly regarded as a "fulfillment" of Ps. 69: 21. The Roman soldier who can alone perform the act of ver. 36 cannot be supposed to know the Elias legend, but may be supposed to be answering the bystanders. Ver. 33. The period of darkness begins as required by the "prophecy" (Amos 8: 9) and covers the period of supreme sorrow for the Church. Ver. 35. The story of a misinterpretation of the cry rests upon the older interpretation of ver. 37 in ver. 34, and presupposes the use of 1 Clem. Recogn. I, xli, cited by Wellhausen. 224 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 15* 36-39 36 And one ran, and rilling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, laying, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to take him down. 37 And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up 38 the ghost. And the veil of the Hemple was rent in twain from the top to 39 the bottom. And when the centurion, which stood by over against him, saw that he 3 so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was 4 the Son of God. 1 Sinaitic Syriac, And they said. * Var. so cried out, and gave up the ghost. 2 Or, sanctuary. * Or, a son of God. Ver. 37=Mt. 37: 50=Lk. 23:46 (P) Ver. 38= Mt. 27: 51= Lk. 23:45 (X) Ver. 39=Mt. 27: 54=Lk. 23:47 R(P) Hebrew, as a dying Cranmer might quote the Vulgate. R's interest in preserving the trait is similar to the "irony" of vers. 16-20. "Elias is indeed to come and restore all things." Early Christian eschatology expects him to precede the second Coming as he had the first, in the person of John the Baptist. ' The ignorant exclamation foretells the great reality to come. Ver. 38. For the symbolism see comment on the paragraph. Ver. 39. Just what is covered by the word "so" is not clear. Per- haps only the cry, as assumed in the variant reading. The confession itself stands as a conclusion to Jesus' earthly career, fitly offsetting the Superscription and Prologue 1: 1-13. The centurion cannot say the Son of God, because he is as yet ignorant that the superhuman char- acter which he recognizes in Jesus is but fabled in its attribution to his own demi-gods and heroes. The heathen form of utterance makes the tribute but the stronger. The Christian reader adds for himself, Yes; and other there is none. Justin M., Dial. THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 225 BURIAL AND EMPTY TOMB PARAPHRASE Subdivision c. 15:40 — 16:8. Although Jesus' disciples were not witnesses of the end, having scattered and fled, the evi- dence of his bodily resurrection is afforded by the women who had followed him. These saw from far off how Jesus was honorably buried, and clearly identified the place. This was a tomb hewn in the rock, closed by a massive block of stone. Jesus was laid there by stranger hands out of piety. Yet when the women came again on the third day they found the tomb empty and received an angelic message to the disciples announcing Jesus' resurrection. 15: 40-47. The women present at Jesus' crucifixion were those who had followed him in Galilee, and given of their prop- erty for his support, Mary of Magdala, and Mary the daughter of James the little, mother of Joses, and Salome. There were also many other women that had come up with him from Gal- ilee. (So these were witnesses of his burial also.) For at sunset, the day of the crucifixion having been a Friday (and the Jews counting it a defilement that dead bodies should hang upon the cross through the day) , there came a devout member of the council, one of those who were in sympathy with the gospel, Joseph, a man of Arimathea, and asked leave of Pilate to re- move the body of Jesus; which Pilate granted, when by inquiry of the centurion he had fully assured himself that Jesus was indeed dead. So Joseph bought linen cloth in which to wind the body, and taking it down prepared it for burial and laid it in a tomb hewn in the rock, rolling a great stone against the en- trance. Two of the women, therefore, Mary of Magdala, and Mary the daughter of Joses (!) , saw the place and could identify the tomb. 16: 1-8. So then the next evening, after the sabbath was past, Mary of Magdala, and Mary the daughter of James (sic) and Salome bought spices, intending to go to the tomb on the morrow and anoint the body of Jesus. Thus it was that just after sunrise on the first day of the week they came to the sepul- cher. And they had been debating on the way how they should find help to roll away the great stone from the entrance. But as they came near they saw it already rolled away, great as it was, and entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right side clothed in white. And as they stood amazed, he ad- 226 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY dressed them, quieting their wonder and declaring his knowledge of their purpose. Then showing them the place where Jesus had been laid, he declared his resurrection, reminding them how Jesus had promised after his resurrection to precede the disciples to Galilee, and bidding them deliver this message to Peter and the rest, that they hasten thither, where they should see him as he promised. The women, however, did not deliver the message, but went out from the tomb and fled in trembling and astonishment that kept them dumb. SUBDIVISION C 15:40— 16:8.— CRITICISM The three paragraphs which follow the culminating scene of the tragedy are all concerned with the story of the Empty Tomb, a com- plete innovation, as the concluding words suggest, * upon the older tra- dition, which after narration of the tragedy reverted to the turning again of Peter. 2 Vers. 40, 41 introduce in place of the sons of Simon of Cyrene a group of new sponsors for the tradition. These are the min- istering women of Lk. 8: 1-3, who appear now for the first time in this Gospel in the role of identifiers of the tomb. The story of the Burial, 3 with its sequel, 4 bears the marks of Palestinian origin in its local names and concrete description; but is certainly of secondary derivation. This is shown partly by its complete absence from the Pauline tradition 5 ; partly by its irreconcilability with the earlier context ; for the disciples who had scattered and fled 6 are now conceived as together in Jerusalem, needing a message to direct them to go to Galilee. The women also intend to prepare Jesus' body for burial, 7 although it had already re- ceived better and more elaborate sepulture. 8 Finally we note this author's pragmatic tendency toward the concrete and tangible type of resurrection belief such as the later legend develops, and his dethrone- ment of Peter. In R's hands the Petrine tradition is ceasing to be individually Petrine in the historic sense, and becoming official. It is becoming less spiritual, and more crassly material. No longer is the manifestation of the Lord to Simon the foundation of the Christian faith and the rallying point of the "brethren," bringing them back from Galilee to experience together in Jerusalem the Pentecostal evi- dence of the Lord's risen power and the sense of their apostolic com- mission in the "baptism of the Holy Ghost." Henceforth the resur- rection faith is to be built upon the empty tomb shown in Jerusalem on authority of the women; the journey to Galilee and return, an episode already emptied of meaning, is soon to be completely cancelled. Later still even the appearance to Peter and the eleven disciples becomes of secondary importance and soon suffers the fate of cancellation which it prepared for its predecessor, the appearance to Peter. The substitute previously interjected by R for the rallying of the eleven by Peter in Galilee 9 and the subsequent promise of the angel 10 show what R made of the original story. Mt. 28: 16-20 reconstructs it from the implications practically as well as a modern could do. But in Matthew's 1 16: 8. 2 1 Cor. 15: 5; Lk. 22: 32; 24: 34. s Vers. 42-47. * 16: 1-8. 5 1 Cor. 15: 3-7. « 14: 27-50. 7 16: 1. 8 15: 46. 9 14: 28; cf. Lk. 22: 32. i° 16: 7. THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 227 time the Petrine story had already been suppressed, doubtless because it seemed too colorless and general. Our earliest mss. leave the gap unfilled. Later authorities supply it by one of two varying forms of ending, briefly summarizing the appearances and great commission, or place the so-called longer and shorter ending side by side, giving the reader his choice. In reality the substance of what these endings supply is imperatively demanded by the Gospel. The story did not end with the tragedy of Calvary, any more than with the unfulfilled promise of the young man at the tomb. In some way the links were forged which brought the story and the reader in the Church at Rome into direct relation, so that he could say as he rose from the volume, "This is my faith. My knowl- edge of it comes to me by such and such an authoritative line of trans- mission." If the evangelist did not himself continue the story of the baptism of the Spirit which he predicts in 1 : 8, and the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles which he refers to in 13: 10 and 14: 9, and the testimony of its great Apostle before governors and kings which he employs in 6: 17-21 and looks forward to in 13: 9, then at least he writes in view of some other means of acquaintance with these events in possession of his readers. His story, in other words, was not inde- pendent of that narrative of how the Gospel came to Rome, which for us is embodied in the book of Acts. Because it was never intended to stand apart from this story of the manifestation to Peter, outpouring of the Spirit, proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles, establishment in Rome — in other words was no mere half-history, limited to the story of Jesus' earthly career, but cor- responded to the double treatise of Luke, the narrative in its primal form could come in its first part to such a tragic 'preliminary conclusion as 15: 39. With the development of a disposition to set the earthly career of Jesus in a category by itself, perhaps promoted by the appear- ance of such works as Luke's, or those of his predecessors in the field of "Acts," "Predications," and "Peregrinations" of the Apostles, came the necessity for supplementing the story at the close to adapt it for separate circulation. What now follows after 15: 39 was added, to- gether with the story, now suppressed but echoed still in Jn. 21 ; Lk. 5: 4-8, and Ev. Petri, of the appearance to Peter and the other disciples. This story in turn was cut off after 16: 8 with the two rival and still later appendages to replace its conclusion. 228 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 15:40-43 40 A ND there were also women beholding jLA. from afar: among whom (were) both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the 1 less and of Joses, 41 and Salome; who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him; and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem. 42 And when even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before 43 the sabbath, there came Joseph of Arima- thaea, a councillor of honourable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom i Gr. little. Vers .40, 41= Mt. 27 : 55, 56 =Lk. 23:48, 49 R (Q™) (Cf. Lk. 8: 1-3) Vers.42-47=Mt. 27:57-61 = Lk. 23:50-56 R(X) Vers. 40, 41. Ministering Women. New sponsors for the tradi- tion are now introduced, for with Subdivision c we pass to the new theme of the tradition of the Holy Sepuleher. The statements of ver. 41 show connection with, if not dependence on, the source of Lk. 8: 1-3. Ver. 40. The names are all strange to the reader, and only partially explained by comparison of the Gospels. Ver. 41 helps but lamely. Vers. 42^17. The Burial. A Jerusalem tradition, whose personages, vers. 43, 47, and localities, 43, 46, are locally known. Its phraseology ("looking for the kingdom of God," cf. Lk. 2: 25; "the Preparation") requires explanation, which in one case, ver. 42, is given; though the explanation is hard to reconcile with the context, since the sabbath, if not already begun (see on ver. 42), would necessarily have begun be- fore the task could be carried out. The description of details in vers. 44-46 looks forward to the scene of 16: 1-8. The reader is to be as- sured that Jesus was certainly dead (Jn. 19: 31-34 elaborates the point), that there was no collusion (ver. 43), and no mistake (vers. 46, 47). The part played by the linen cloth is not here apparent. In Lk. 24: 12 (textually doubtful), Jn. 19: 40; 20: 5-7, and Ev. Hebr. it forms part of the circumstantial evidence. Its mention here can hardly be without some relation to this function in the tradition. Ver. 42. When even was come. The beginning of the sabbath, cf. 1:32. The Preparation. Here taken as = Friday. But as the sab- bath was already begun, the explanation does not explain. Can the original sense have been as in Jn. 19: 14, i.e., 14th Nisan? The sense would then be, Because the morrow was the great feast-day (Jn. "a high sabbath") they made haste to remove Jesus' body from the cross, although the legal sabbath had already begun. Ver. 43. Arimathaea. Perhaps the same as Ramathaim-Zophim of I Sam. 1:1. If R himself knew where the place was he has not en- lightened his readers. More probably he tells the tale as it was told to him. A councillor of honorable estate. (Gr., "honorable".) Luke, "good and righteous." Matthew, "rich," adjusting to Is. 53: 9- The Greek word {euschemon) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament in this sense except in Acts 13: 50; 17: 12. John adds the famous rich man of the period, Naq-Dimon. The characterization shows that the disciples had no complicity in the matter, while the intervention is explained by the man's piety. Looking for the kingdom of God. 15:44—16:1 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 229 of God; and he boldly went in unto Pilate, 44 and asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he x had been any while 45 dead. And when he learned it of the cen- turion, he granted the corpse to Joseph. 46 And he bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone 47 against the door of the tomb. And Mary Magdalene and Mary the (mother) of 2 Joses beheld where he was laid. 16 3 [And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the (mother) of James, and Salome,] bought spices, that 1 Var. were already dead. 3 /3 var. And they went and. 2 P var. James. 16:l-8=Mt. 28; l-8=Lk. 24: 1-9 Probably regarded by R as equivalent to "a Christian." But cf. Lk. 2: 25. Ver. 45. Granted the corpse. Roman administration cherished no hostility to the dead. Relatives or friends had only to make themselves known to receive all necessary permission. The application of this com- plete stranger, whose act even the women only witness from a distance, corroborates the other evidences of complete desertion on the part of Jesus' followers. Ver. 47. Mary the (mother?) of Joses. The witnesses are not the same as in ver. 40 and 16: 1, though the /3 text partially assimilates by reading "Mary the ( ) of James." Wellhausen restores on the basis of this text "Mary Magdalene and Mary the (daughter 1 ) of Joses (Joseph) beheld where he was laid and brought spices that," etc. Ver. 40 is regarded as a combination by R of a form of the tradition wherein this Mary is "daughter of Joses," with another in which she is called "daughter of James." One of these will also have added "Salome." 16: 1-8. The Empty Tomb. Message of the Angel. Later forms of the resurrection story become more and more concrete and material- istic as the conflict sharpens between Jewish-Christians who insist on a resurrection of the flesh (so the "Apostles' Creed" in the Greek), and the Greek believers, who are considered by their opponents to "deny the resurrection" because they hold that "when we die our souls are taken to heaven," but hold to no re-incorporation. Paul already medi- ates in I Cor. 15 between those who hold to reembodiment and those who ask, "With what body do they come?", by conceding that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God," but advancing the theory of a "spiritual body." The orthodox Church of 80-180 a.d. s however, does not follow this mystical lead, but insists on a more and more concrete and tangible reality. The Pauline doctrine is repre- 1 "Mother" cannot be grammatically supplied. Cf. the addition in Jn. 19: 25 of Jesus' mother, also a "Mary the (wife) of Joseph." 230 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 16:2 2 they might come and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was sented in 9: 2-10 (note ver. 106). Here in the suppression of the Petrine tradition — a spiritual appearance in Galilee; cf. I Cor. 15:5, 8 — and substitution of that which has the disappearance of the body from the tomb in Jerusalem as its most vital element, we witness the begin- nings of the triumph of the second-century materialism. Later de- velopments in Matthew, Luke, and John contend against the new ob- jections raised by the change, eliminate entirely the flight to Galilee, and add more and more to the proofs of concreteness ; Jesus eats, they handle his body, etc. The present narrative is as certainly earlier than the elaborations of Matthew, Luke, and John, as it is certainly later than the series of visions in I Cor. 15: 3-8 which are to Paul the proof of the living and glorified Christ. Manifestly constructed as it is only for insertion between the Crucifixion and a modified form of the appear- ance to Peter in Galilee, it has led ultimately by gradual stages (Mat- thew adds a duplicate of the angelic message by Jesus' own appearance to the women near the grave, Luke adds inspection by the apostles, Jn. 20 elaborates both) to the well-nigh complete suppression of the Apostles' experiences in Galilee in favor of the women's in Jerusalem. Only in Mt. 28: 16-20, in the appendices to John and Mark, and xaEv. Petri have we remnants of the Galilean tradition; and even this not in the primitive form attested by Lk. 22: 32; 24: 34 and I Cor. 15: 5 of a vision of Peter communicated to the rest; but already in the modified form attested by Mk. 14: 28; 16: 8 of an appearance to Peter and the eleven. Ver. 1. The repetition of the names from the preceding verse with the addition that the purchase was "after the sabbath" seems to be a scribal addition.* (See var.) Ev. Petri notes the objection that it was too late for such an idea to enter the minds of the women, and adds that they were intending only to "leave that which they brought at the door of the sepulcher as a memorial to him, and to weep and beat their breasts." Ver. 2. The exact specification of the day and hour is for the sake of Church ritual; cf. Jn. 21: 4. The breaking of bread on the Lord's day (Acts 20: 7), on this special (Easter) Sunday, took place at dawn (Jn. 21: 13), * as well as evening (Lk. 24: 30). This dating is inconsist- ent with the phrase "after three days" (8: 31; 9: 31; 10: 34), which the parallels accordingly change to "the third day," and also with primi- tive comparisons of Jesus' issue from the grave to the emergence of Jonah from the belly of the monster after "three days and three nights" (Mt. 12: 40), and to the rebuilding of the temple (Jn. 2: 19). These phenomena and early celebrations of the resurrection independently of the issue from the grave 2 indicate that the date was not at first thus fixed. The date on the Lord's day is obtained from the celebration of the rite and not conversely. The observance of the first day of the week as the Lord's day rests primarily on other grounds; perhaps the great "manifestation of the Lord" at Pentecost, fifty days after the Friday of the crucifixion, and doubtless some forty (Acts 1 : 3) after 1 Dionysius of Alexandria, ap. Drummond, Auth. of Fourth Gospel, p. 471. In Egypt (and perhaps the East generally) the breaking of fast took place "from the evening"; in Rome and the West, "at cock crow." 2 So the Quartodecimans, see above, p. 196. J6t3-7 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 231 risen. And they were saying among them- selves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb? 1 2 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great. And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sit- ting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, which hath been cruci- fied: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him! But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as 1 A Latin version adds here: But suddenly at the third hour the darkness was made day throughout the whole world, and angels descended from heaven, and rising in the brightness of the living God they ascended together with him: and there was perpetual light. 2 var. For it was very great. And they come and find the stone rolled away. the manifestation to Peter; or perhaps on the Pauline equivalence Christ = the First-fruits (celebrated on the third day from Passover) of the resurrection. It certainly cannot have rested on an experience of women in Jerusalem to which Paul does not even allude, and which as Mark implies was at first not known to Jesus' followers. Ver. 3. Note the legendary addition of the Latin version after ver. 3 (see var.), an evidence of the peculiar degree of exposure of this portion of the story to alteration. Ver. 4. For it was exceeding great. The proper place for this clause is at the end of ver. 3, but the misplacement may be due to mere lack of literary skill. The /? text corrects. (See var.) Vers. 5-7. Romantic conjectures have often been made as to the origin of this tradition of the women's experience. Doubtless the story grows out of the identification of some particular empty tomb with the last resting place of Jesus. Some wish also to trace the message of the "young man" to an actual incident: the women, searching for the tomb seen at a distance after nightfall on the second day preceding, come sud- denly upon a stranger who, divining the occasion of their coming, en- deavors to tell them they have mistaken the place. When given simply the place of un verifiable possibilities such conjectures are not objection- able. Such an origin for the tradition is at least more probable than the actual coming of an angel. But the late appearance of the tradi- tion makes it unreasonable to expect proof for either view. The ulti- mate derivation of the legends of sacred places is almost never trace- able. Behold the place. Already a kind of sanctity attaches to the spot. Ver. 7. There shall ye see him as he said unto you. A reference to 14 : 28, showing the celestial knowledge of the messenger. The disciples are assumed to be still at Jerusalem. The women are sent to remind them of the appointment in Galilee. But why were the first manifesta- tions in Galilee, if not because the disciples had fled thither? Certainly 232 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 16:8 8 he said unto you. And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and as- tonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid. not because Jesus wished to re-visit the home scenes for a few days be- fore bringing the whole company back to Jerusalem. The whole Gali- lean episode becomes senseless if we drop the idea that the disciples had fled thither, and is therefore logically cancelled by Luke. This verse implies a form of the Gospel in which a manifestation to Peter and the eleven (or seven? Jn. 21, Ev. Petri) followed in Galilee. It proved equally unsatisfactory with that which it had superseded and was cancelled, leaving either a blank, or one, or both, of the spurious endings given below. Ver. 8. The women's message failed to be given because of their fear. The author (R) thus explains the late appearance of the tradition he brings forward. See comment on 9:9. Mt. 28: 9, 10 embodies a doublet not required by the preceding verse in which the women are already "running with fear and great joy to bring the disciples word." But it is required by Mk. 16: 8, to explain how the disciples neverthe- less got the message. The parallel tradition doubtless grew out of this reflection before its incorporation by Matthew. THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 233 ENUMERATION OF THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES PARAPHRASE Longer Appendix. 16: 9-20. Vers. 9-11. There were three resurrection appearances before Jesus' disciples loere con- vinced. Immediately on issuing from the tomb Jesus showed himself to Mary of Magdala, and she carried the news to the disciples, who were together in Jerusalem mourning and weep- ing; but they disbelieved her. Vers. 12, 13. Again he appeared to two disciples as they were on their way into the country. And these, too, the disciples disbelieved when they reported it. Vers. 14-18. Finally he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were breaking bread, and reproached them for their un- belief. [They therefore made excuse for themselves by saying, This world of iniquity and unbelief is subject to Satan. The truth of God cannot be taken in by men because he uses his un- clean spirits to prevent it. Therefore show now at once the re- demption thou art destined to bring. But Christ replied: The term of Satan's power has indeed been reached, but other terrible things are approaching. It was for the sake of leading sinners to turn to the truth from their evil ways that I was delivered up to death, so that they might become heirs of the spiritual glory imperishably laid up in heaven for the righteous.'] You, there- fore, must become heralds to all the world of this message of sal- vation. Faith and baptism will bring rescue. Disbelief will result in perdition. And as a proof of your authority these wonders shall accompany your preaching. Wherever believers appeal to my name the devils shall be exorcised, there will be speaking in tongues unheard until now, serpents ivill be handled without harm, poison shall be swallowed with impunity, the sick shall be healed by laying on of hands. Vers. 19, 20. So when Jesus had given this commission and authority to the Apostles, he was received up into heaven and sat down on the throne at God's right hand. And his Apostles went forth everywhere with their message, which the Lord confirmed by the signs, which followed as he had promised. Amen. 234 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY EPILOGUE. !6t9-20 All who have had experience with the adaptation of literary material, even if the original composition be one's own, know the difficulty of subsequent alteration without leaving evidence of abridgment by some remaining reference to excised material, of addition by lack of corre- spondence with context, or in general by evidence of changed point of view. Among textual critics this law of literary structure leads to the observed principle that glosses and textual corruptions tend to accumu- lation. One corruption entails another till a growing mass has heaped itself around one early misreading. The causes being identical we need not wonder at the same phenomenon's appearing also on the larger scale of editorial adaptation. From allusions to events later to transpire, such as the baptism of the Spirit, ! the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles, 2 the "testimony" of its heralds "before governors and kings," 3 the martyrdom of James and John, 4 and the overthrow of Jerusalem, s it is certain that our evangelist presupposed for his readers some means of knowing the tradition which made connection between themselves and the events which guaranteed their faith and practice. It is sup- posable that for this indispensable link the original evangelist relied merely upon oral tradition, or that he expected his readers to be ac- quainted with some other work which supplemented his own in this direction; but the comparatively late date which even tradition assigns to the origin of the Petro-Markan work (after 65 a.d.) makes depend- ence on mere oral tradition an improbable reliance for a writer in Rome, and the demonstrable dependence of even "the former treatise" of Luke on our Mark makes it certain that the canonical book of Acts was not yet in existence. Our choice is thus limited to two alternatives. Either the original Roman evangelist himself continued his work down to the coming of the gospel to Rome, after the manner of our third evan- gelist; or else some narrative corresponding to the more radical of the two main sources employed in Acts, perhaps represented in degenerate form in the later "Acts," "Predications," and "Peregrinations" of Peter and Paul, was already current. We have found no other means of explaining how a Gospel could become current which embodied no more of the most vital element of "the gospel," viz, the resurrection story, than was the case with our Mark on the most favorable supposi- tion. We do not need to decide definitely between the two alternatives; but we may be guided in our thought by the actual experience of the Syrian Church. This Church owes the preservation of what it still designates "the separate Gospels" of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to the forcible suppression by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (f435 a.d.), of the combined Gospel or Diatessaron of Tatian, which had completely superseded them. Second treatises may well have had a similar fate. Our Acts would be a. result of the combining process without the later restoration. Of "separate" Acts there remain to us mere de- generate fragments. The primitive Mark, too, had once a "second treatise." But this, whether our evangelist's own, or a preexisting one, was superseded, through qualities of superior comprehensiveness, literary finish, or doctrinal acceptability, by some later composition, per- haps our own Lukan Acts. Its companion "former treatise," after the U:8. s 13: 10; 14:9. » 13: 9. * 10: 39. * 11: 14. THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 235 manner of writings dealing with so sacred subjects, meanwhile main- tained its hold in popular use. But readers of this would soon feel the need of at least some brief synopsis of the resurrection story to complete it. Our analysis of the Gospel tends to show that such a supplement was indeed attached after 15: 39, reporting the manifestation in Galilee to " his disciples and Peter"; doubtless in substance what now appears in Mt. 28: 16-20, though perhaps with features similar to Jn. 21: 1-19; Lk. 5: 4-9 and the fragment at the end of Ev. Petri. This supplementation, however, was by no means the only change. The whole narrative was revised and recast. Features were added from Q material, especially such as favored radically Pauline views against Jewish and Jewish-Christian conceptions. In particular a narrative which detached the first resurrection message from the person of Peter, and connected it with the holy sepulcher in Jerusalem, was interjected in 15: 40 — 16: 8. The experience of Peter thus lost its originally funda- mental importance, and degenerated to an incident of secondary rank. The more concrete and materialistic traditions dealing with the body, and how the tomb had been found empty, were much more accept- able in the post-Pauline period. Matthew's Gospel shows the process at this stage. Only it could not stop here. The limits of "gospel" were now fixed through the usurpa- tion by independent narratives of the field of apostolic activity. But the battle, once begun between the "holy sepulcher" version of the resurrection story and the Galilean-Petrine, could only be settled by mutual accommodation, in which the terms would surely tend in favor of the more concrete. Whether the lost manifestation "to the dis- ciples and Peter" was unacceptable by reason of too much or too little consideration for the Rock-foundation 1 and chief under-Shepherd 2 of the Church ; or by reason of the manif est senselessness of a return to Galilee so apparent to Luke, the latter part of it was cancelled, leaving only 15: 40—16: 8. Thereafter, ca. 140 a.d., new endings of more general or more comprehensive character were supplied. That ending which is almost invariably placed first in manuscripts where both are attached will be found among the variant readings under the text of 16:9. iMt. 16:17. a Jn. 21:15-19. 236 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 16:9-13 9 TIVTOW when he was risen early on the L JLl first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom 10 he had cast out seven Mevils. She went and told them that had been with him, as 11 they mourned and wept. And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved. 12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. 13 And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them. 1 The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other au- thorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authori- ties have the following ending to the Gospel: And they briefly reported all things commanded them to Peter and his company. And after these things Jesus himself appeared to them, and from the east even to the west sent forth by them the holy and incor- ruptible proclamation of eternal salvation. 2 Gr. demons. (Jn. 20: 11-18; cf. Lk. 24: 10, 11) (Lk. 24: 13-35) Shorter Ending. The essential element of a link assuring the reader that the Gospel which has come to him is that authorized by the risen Lord is here attached, together with the briefest possible statement of the fulfillment of the promise of ver. 7. This ending is substantially- identical in purport with Mt. 28: 16-20, except that it avoids the Gal- ilean localization and connected difficulties. Its rhetorical language shows its comparatively late origin, though in this respect it has little advantage over its longer rival. In respect to agreement with the work it aims to supplement, it is less successful than Mt. 28: 16-20, which, in- stead of flatly contradicting 16: 8, introduces a second appearance to the women (Mt. 28: 9, 10), counteracting their fear and setting the mes- sage once more on its interrupted way. Vers. 9-20. The Epilogue. The chief difference of the so-called "longer" ending is its attempt to harmonize. The appearances in Galilee are indeed ignored as before, but the author is acquainted with Luke, and perhaps with John, though the form of reference in ver. 9 and the absence of any to the other manifestations of Jn. 20, make it possible that he knew only the tradition developed in Jn. 20: 11-18, which was also known to Celsus (ca. 170 a.d.), though this opponent of Christianity shows no other acquaintance with John. The tradition is a version of Mt. 28: 9, 10. One can hardly infer with certainty from the form of the Apostolic Commission in vers. 15, 16 that the author knew Mt. 28: 18-20. An acquaintance with the widely-known Gospel of Matthew would indeed be probable a priori, but the writer scarcely considers any authority but Luke, and the Commission is expressed in the most general terms. Vers. 12, 13. The only motive for introducing the Emmaus incident (Lk. 24: 13-35) is to show how far from credulity was the attitude of the disciples. This motive is carried to the point of a flat contradiction of Lk. 24: 34 in ver. 13, though it must be acknowledged that the con- tradiction was already present in Luke's own narrative (with Lk. 24: 34 cf. ver. 41). 16:14-18 THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 237 14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they be- lieved not them which had seen him after 15 he was risen. 1 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the 16 gospel to the whole creation. He that be- lieveth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that be- lieve: in my name shall they cast out Mevils; they shall speak with 3 [new] tongues; they 18 shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 1 Var. add: And they excused themselves, saying. This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under the dominion of Satan, who by means of the unclean spirits prevents the truth (and) power of God from being apprehended. On this account reveal thy righteousness even now. And Christ replied to them, The limit of years of Satan's power is fulfilled, but other terrible things are at hand; and on behalf of sinners I was delivered up unto death in order that they might return unto the truth and sin no more; that they might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory which is in heaven. 2 Gr. demons. 3 Var. omit new. (Lk. 24: 36-49) Mt. 28: 19 Jn. 20: 21-23 Vers. 14-18. An element of Acts 1: 1-11 not apparent in the usual form of the text appeared as part of this longer ending after ver. 14, in mss. known to Jerome, and has very recently come to light in manu- scripts discovered in Egypt. There is clearly a gap in the usual form at this point; for how can Jesus proceed without a break to commission as his heralds those whose "unbelief and hardness of heart" is as yet uncorrected? The gap is filled in the new mss. as above (see var.). Jerome quotes no further than the words "even now," but his ms. authority may well have been as ours. At all events, something is re- quired for the transition from ver. 14 to 15, and the new material sup- plies in substance what we should expect; though its style ("return unto the truth and sin no more," "spiritual and incorruptible glory") is of a second or third century type. The vital point of the new ele- ment is the grounding of the missionary enterprise upon the time con- sideration. As soon as the disciples' unbelief is overcome they leap to the inference that God's "righteousness is now to be revealed, his salva- tion is near to come"; cf. Is. 51: 5, 6, 8. The reply is, The dominion of Satan is indeed broken, but the kingdom is not yet. There is an inter- vening duty. "Sinners" (one is tempted to think that in the funda- mental record this word, like the word "righteousness," was used in the Hebraic sense of 14: 41; Gal. 2: 15) must receive the message of salva- tion through the cross. Therefore the command, "Go ye into all the world," etc., and the promise of accompanying "signs." The same conception underlies Acts 1: 6-8, though more obscurely. We should think the whole abstract a mere recapitulation of the story of Acts with 238 THE BEGINNINGS OF GOSPEL STORY 16: 1% 20 19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of 20 God. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.] (Ac 1: 6-11) its similar Apostolic Commission, Ascension, Gift of Tongues, Signs and Wonders — specifically the Pauline, Acts 16: 16-18; 28: 3-6, 8 — were it not for the inclusion of a tradition 1 regarding Judas Barsabas unknown to Acts. As it is, the praragraph is a mere abstract, a substitute, not the story itself. And it suggests in some respects acquaintance with the sources of Acts, particularly the Diary, rather than with Acts itself. The possibility at least is open that our two rival appendices are attempts to adapt the mutilated Mark for circulation alongside of other gospels. In the case of the shorter ending the Gospel of Matthew was the model, with possible knowledge of the ending implied in 14: 28; 16: 7 as the ultimate basis. In the case of the longer, the work of Luke was the model, though with some touches of extraneous matter. In this case there is considerable reason to postulate as ultimate basis the original ending of the Gospel, which connected the story with the apostolic rela- tions of the Church in Rome. The conjecture of an Armenian scribe, inserted as a scholion in a Ms. of 989 a.d., attributing the "longer ending" to "The Elder Ariston" is of no value. It seems to rest on the (supposed) statement of the Armenian historian Moses of Chorene (ca. 450 a.d.) that Ariston was the "secretary" of Mark of Jerusalem. But the "Mark" here in- tended is the bishop Marcus of Jerusalem of 135 a.d., and the "Ariston" is a (heathen?) writer of Pella. Moses does not even mean that he was secretary of Marcus the bishop, but of the Armenian king, whose obsequies he described. The error of the Armenian scribe is partly due to the spelling "Ariston" for "Aristion" in the passage of the Armenian Eusebius which mentions an "Elder" of this name along with "the Elder John." The alleged coincidence of a gloss in an Oxford ms. of Rufinus connecting the poison story with the name "Aristion" has no foundation, as the discoverer of the supposed evidence now admits. 1 Papias, fragt. V, ed. Lightfoot-Harmer. The daughters of Philip related "that Barsabas who is also called Justus, being put to the ordeal by the unbelievers, drank the poison of a viper in the name of Christ and was kept from all harm." THE END BS2585.B128 The beginnings of Gospel story : Nlllllll Nil llilfi° l09iCal Seminar y-Speer Library 1 1012 00029 9273 DATE DUE ^ t 0tm»»*<>^* Mmm p GAYLORD #3523PI Printed in USA