1. A standard statement of the evidence for the priority of Mark is presented by B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London, 1953), pp. 151–198; cf. D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, The Gospels and Acts (Chicago, 1965), pp. 114–211. For recent challenges to this position see William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (New York, 1964), who argues for Matthean priority; and R. L. Lindsey, “A Modified Two-Document Theory of the Synoptic Dependence and Interdependence,” Nov Test 6 (1963), pp. 239–263, who argues for Lucan priority.
2. The phrase is Martin Kähler’s and was applied by him to all the Gospels. See The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ (Chicago, 1964, transl. of 1896 edition), p. 80.
3. The increasing clarity with which Jesus and his opponents speak may be noted in the sequence Chs. 2:20; 3:5 f.; 8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:33 f., 38, 45; 12:6–8; 14:1–2, 8, 10 f., 17–21, 22–25, 27, 34, 36, 37 f., 41 f., 48 f.
4. H. Smith, “The Sources of Victor of Antioch’s Commentary on Mark,” JThS 19 (1918), pp. 350–370. See further the patristic material in J. A. Cramer, Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum I (Oxford, 1840), pp. 263–447, and the discussion of R. Devreesse, “Chaînes exégétiques grecques. Les chaînes sur S. Marc,” DB Suppl I (1928), cols. 1175–1181.
5. A convenient summary of the presuppositions, emphases and insights of these men is provided by J. Rohde, Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists (Philadelphia, 1968), pp. 1–8, 31–46.
6. Ibid., pp. 47–54, 113–140, 154–178.
7. Eng. Tr., Mark the Evangelist. Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel, transl. by R. A. Harrisville et al. (Nashville, 1969). The numbers in parenthesis in the discussion of Marxsen refer to the English edition of this work.
8. Cited by Marxsen from R. Bultmann, “The New Approach to the Synoptic Problem,” JRel 6 (1926), p. 341.
9. This two-pronged approach was applied in four studies: (1) John the Baptist and the wilderness tradition; (2) the geographical statements of the Gospel; (3) Mark’s use of the term εὐαγγέλιον; (4) the speech complex in Ch. 13. A final summary correlated the major results of these independent studies.
10. See W. L. Lane, “Redaktionsgeschichte and the De-historicizing of the New Testament Gospel,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 11 (1968), pp. 27–33.
11. Cited by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. III. xxxix. 15. The passage has been often discussed and its terminology debated. See H. A. Riggs, “Papias on Mark,” Nov Test 1 (1956), pp. 160–183; J. Kürzinger, “Das Papiaszeugnis und die Erstgestalt des Matthäusevangeliums,” BZ 4 (1960), pp. 19–38; H. E. W. Turner, “Modern Issues in Biblical Studies: The Tradition of Mark’s Dependence upon Peter,” ExT 71 (1960), pp. 260–263; T. Y. Mullins, “Papias on Mark’s Gospel,” Vigiliae Christianae 14 (1960), pp. 216–224; W. C. van Unnik, “Zur Papias-Notiz über Markus (Eusebius, H. E. III. 39, 15),” ZNW 54 (1963), pp. 276 f.; N. B. Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, 1963), pp. 10–15.
12. On the comprehensive character of τὰ λογία in Papias see R. Gryson, “A propos du témoignage de Papias sur Matthieu. Le sens du mot λογίον chez les Pères du second siècle,” EphThLov 41 (1965), pp. 530–547.
13. See D. de Bruyne, “Les plus anciens prologues latines des Évangiles,” Revue Bénédictine 40 (1928), pp. 193–214; R. G. Heard, “The Old Gospel Prologues,” JThS n.s. 6 (1955), pp. 1–16.
14. Adv. Haer. III. i. 2. See on this passage N. B. Stonehouse, op. cit., pp. 4–7.
15. See A. Ehrhardt, “The Gospels in the Muratorian Fragment,” in The Framework of the New Testament Stories (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), pp. 11–14.
16. See N. B. Stonehouse, op. cit., pp. 15–18.
17. Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 2; Clement of Alexandria, apud Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. II. xv. 2; VI. xiv. 6 f.; Adumbr. in I Peter 5:13.
18. E.g. W. Marxsen, op. cit., p. 19.
19. The Anti-Marcionite Prologues to Mark and Luke; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. i. 1; cf. III. x. 6; Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes apud Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI. xiv. 6 f.
20. E.g. Tacitus, Annals XV. 44; cf. Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis iii; “Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne” in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V. 1.
21. The Lives of the Caesars Bk. VI, Nero 38.
22. Annals XV. 36–38.
23. Latin, subdidit, used of fraudulent substitution, or false suggestion. Tacitus did not believe the Christians were guilty of arson.
24. Annals XV. 44.
25. See above, p. 9. The key statement in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue is “Mark … was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same Gospel in the regions of Italy.” Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. i. 2: “And after the death of these [Peter and Paul] Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter.”
26. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. II. xv. 2; VI. xiv. 6 f.; Adumbr. in I Peter 5:13.
27. H. A. Riggs, op. cit., pp. 176–180.
28. T. W. Manson, “The Foundation of the Synoptic Tradition: The Gospel of Mark,” in Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester, 1962), pp. 38–40.
29. E.g. Chs. 4:17; 8:34–38; 9:49; 10:29 f.; 13:9–13.
30. José O’Callaghan, “Papiros neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 de Qumran?” Biblica 53 (1972), pp. 91–100. Cf. the United Press International release “St. Mark’s gospel text discovered,” The Boston Globe (March 11, 1972), p. 2; “Scrap of Dead Sea Scrolls Said to Show that Gospel was Written Earlier than Believed,” New York Times (March 19, 1972), p. 13.
31. The fragments were edited by M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan III (Oxford, 1962), pp. 142–146. For photographs of the fragments see Plate XXX.
32. Carlo M. Martini, “Note sui papiri della grotta 7 di Qumran,” Biblica 53 (1972), pp. 101–104.
33. This conclusion is based on examples from R. Seider, Paläographie der griechischen Papyri, II. Literarische Papyri (Stuttgart, 1970), 64–67.
34. J. O’Callaghan, op. cit., p. 97:
This proposal assumes the omission of ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν after διαπεράσαντες, a textual variant previously known only from Bohairic MSS.
37. The methodological problem inherent in the material may be illustrated with reference to 7Q7, which O’Callaghan holds is very probably Ch. 12:17. His confidence is based on the clear evidence for the scribal sign for an abbreviation over the kappa (
), and he proposes that α represents Κ (αίσαρος) ἀ [πόδοτε. The second line of the text appears to contain a θα, which would fit the word εξε ]θα[υμαζον. However, even if the words Καίσαρι, θεοῦ and θεῷ are also abbreviated, the length of the line demanded exceeds what O’Callaghan had stated to be normal for the fragments:
If θεοῦ and θεῷ were written in full, or if any other letters preceded the kappa and the theta, the line is lengthened even more.
38. J. O’Callaghan, op. cit., p. 92, n. 2 suggests that 7Q4 = 1 Tim. 3:16; 4:1, 3, and lists as “very probable” the following identifications: 7Q6, 2 = Acts 27:38; 7Q9 = Rom. 5:11, 12; and as “possible” 7Q10 = 2 Peter 1:15. On pp. 99 f. he identifies 7Q8 as James 1:23, 24.
39. Gr. ὑπηρέτης.
40. See B. T. Holmes, “Luke’s Description of John Mark,” JBL 54 (1935), pp. 63–72; R. O. P. Taylor, “The Ministry of Mark,” ExT 54 (1942–43), pp. 136–138.
41. U. Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness. The Wilderness Theme in the Second Gospel and its Basis in the Biblical Tradition (Naperville, Ill., 1963).
42. Cf. C. H. Bird, “Some γάρ clauses in St. Mark’s Gospel,” JThS n.s. 4 (1953), pp. 171–187.
43. Cf. J. M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark (London, 1957).
44. The sole exception is the late (second half of the fourth century) witness of John Chrysostom that Mark wrote his Gospel in Egypt at the request of hearers there (Homily 1 on Matthew). For a discussion of the origin of this tradition and of the later tradition connecting the beginnings of Alexandrian Christianity with the activity of John Mark see B. W. Bacon, Is Mark a Roman Gospel? (Cambridge, Mass., 1919), pp. 21 f.; L. W. Barnard, “St. Mark and Alexandria,” HTR 52 (1964), pp. 145–150.
45. See W. M. Ramsay, “On Mark xii. 42,” ExT 10 (1898/99), pp. 232, 336; cf. O. Roller, Münzen, Geld und Vermögensverhältnisse in den Evangelien (Leipzig, 1929).
46. Cf. R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford, 1950), p. 53.
47. W. Marxsen, op. cit., pp. 54–95 argues that Mark originated in Galilee and was intended for Galilee near the close of the decade A.D. 60–70 when the Palestinian Christians were expecting the parousia of the Lord there. Stressing the contemporary situation of the Church presumed to be in Galilee he neglects certain elements in the text which might have influenced his conclusions concerning the life situation of the Marcan framework. Thus no consideration is given to features of the text which are particularly intelligible in terms of a Roman provenance for the Gospel. In assigning the emphasis upon Galilee in the Gospel to Mark’s creative activity Marxsen has failed to take into account the geographical data, including Galilee, in the kerygmatic outline received by Mark (cf. Acts 10:37). In seeking to account for the interest in Galilee in Mark’s Gospel, it would seem simpler and more accurate to posit that Mark had access primarily to sources that concerned Jesus in Galilee. If Mark was indeed Peter’s associate, this is understandable since Peter was a Galilean.
1. See especially U. Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness (Naperville, Ill., 1963), pp. 77–102; J. M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark2 (London, 1962), pp. 21–32. The argument that the prologue should be extended to Ch. 1:15 can be seen in O. J. F. Seitz, “Preparatio Evangelica in the Markan Prologue,” JBL 82 (1963), pp. 201–206; idem, “Gospel Prologues: A Common Pattern?” JBL 83 (1964), pp. 262–268; L. E. Keck, “The Introduction to Mark’s Gospel,” NTS 12 (1966), pp. 352–370.
2. Cf. C. C. McCown, “The Scene of John’s Ministry,” JBL 59 (1940), pp. 113–131; and especially R. W. Funk, “The Wilderness,” JBL 78 (1959), pp. 205–214, where the biblical material is supplemented by the relevant texts from Qumran.
3. U. Mauser, op. cit., pp. 77–79.
4. See especially J. Sundwall, Die Zusammensetzung des Markus-Evangeliums (Åbo, 1934).
5. Apart from the prologue “Spirit” occurs only in Chs. 3:29; 12:36; 13:11. See J. M. Robinson, op. cit., pp. 28 f.; U. Mauser, op. cit., p. 79.
6. So N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (Philadelphia, 1944), pp. 6–21; cf. R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford, 1950), pp. 15–20; T. A. Burkill, Mysterious Revelation. An Examination of the Philosophy of St. Mark’s Gospel (Ithaca, N.Y., 1963), pp. 9–23.
7. While the words “the Son of God” are included by most modern translations (ASV, RSV, NEB, Jerus. Bible) they are reduced to the apparatus of the critical editions of the Greek text [Westcott and Hort, Nestle, S. C. E. Legg, Novum Testamentum Graece: Evangelium secundum Marcum (Oxford, 1935), K. Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart, 1964)]. The reading υἱοῦ θεοῦ is supported by B D W pc (latt), υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ by 
A λ φ pm (latt) syp sa bo, together constituting the vast majority of manuscripts. The words are missing from א Θ 28 255 1555* sypal geo1 armpt Irenpt Or. N. B. Stonehouse well remarks: “if these words are a gloss, they represent the action of a scribe who enjoyed a measure of real insight into the distinctiveness of Mark’s portrayal of Christ” (op. cit., p. 12). In six other instances in Mark Jesus is designated Son of God. There is good presumptive reason for judging that “Son of God” in Ch. 1:1 is an integral part of the text since Mark’s superscription affords an indication of the general plan of his work: Peter’s acknowledgment of the messiahship of Jesus in Ch. 8:29 has its Gentile counterpart in Ch. 15:39, where the centurion confesses that Jesus is the Son of God. Moreover, since the text of Codex Sinaiticus may be based upon that of papyri which Origen took with him from Alexandria to Palestine, the two chief witnesses for the omission (א and Origen) are, perhaps, reduced to one. It is better, accordingly, to suppose that “Son of God” was omitted unintentionally in manuscript transmission.
8. The reading of the AV, “as it is written in the prophets,” supported by A W φ pm, represents an alteration of the earlier reading (
D pc) in recognition that only Ch. 1:3 is a citation from Isaiah.
9. RSV “John the Baptizer appeared in the wilderness.”
10. RSV “for the forgiveness of sins”; NEB “a baptism in token of repentance, for the forgiveness of sins.”
11. RSV “the thong of whose sandals.”
12. Cf. N. B. Stonehouse, op. cit., pp. 7–10. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark2 (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 34 f. surveys ten different interpretations of verse 1, which indicates the complexity of the question, but lends his support to the position adopted here.
13. Cf. E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus16 (Göttingen, 1963), p. 10 who recalls not only Gen. 1:1 and John 1:1 but Hos. 1:2 LXX, ἀρχὴ λόγου κυρίου πρὸς Ὠσῆε; Prov. 1:1; Eccl. 1:1; Cant. 1:1.
14. On the concept “gospel” see J. Schniewind, Euangelion. Ursprung und erste Gestalt des Begriffs Evangelium (Gütersloh, 1927–31); G. Friedrich, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 707–737; R. Asting, Die Verkündigung des Wortes im Urchristentum (Stuttgart, 1939), pp. 300–457.
15. For this and related texts see G. Friedrich, op. cit., pp. 724 f. Bibliography on the Priene inscription is listed in n. 35 to Friedrich’s discussion.
16. Cf. E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology (New York, 1956), pp. 157–159. G. Friedrich, op. cit., p. 725 rightly comments on the parallel between “evangel” in the imperial cult and the Bible: “Caesar and Christ, the emperor on the throne and the despised rabbi on the cross, confront one another. Both are evangel to men. They have much in common. But they belong to different worlds.”
17. Cf. G. Friedrich, op. cit., pp. 707–710, 714–717, 721, 726 f. The connection between 
and 
in the OT and εὐαγγελίζομαι and εὐαγγέλιον in the NT has been found in the preservation of the Semitic terminology of the OT in the Galilean Aramaic of the Palestinian Syriac Version of the Gospels. See J. W. Bowman, “The term Gospel and its cognates in Palestinian Syriac,” in New Testament Essays. Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Manchester, 1959), pp. 54–67.
18. This has important implications for the ministry of John and Jesus, both of whom proclaim “the gospel.” Cf. A. Schlatter, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Stuttgart, 1929), p. 175: “John did not only prophesy; he was himself prophesied. He gave the people not simply hope for the future; with him began the fulfillment of this hope.”
19. G. Friedrich, op. cit., p. 728 tends to disbelieve that Jesus actually used the term “gospel” in Chs. 1:15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; it is the evangelist who is responsible for the term. Against this opinion see J. W. Bowman, Prophetic Realism and the Gospel (London, 1955), pp. 64–68, who rightly notes that these references reflect an early period when the gospel was something which Jesus heralded, rather than something that he was himself.
20. Not until the second century did the term “gospel” come to designate a particular kind of document. The transition from the one usage to the other reflects the second century evaluation of the canonical Gospels as authoritative proclamations of the one gospel concerning Jesus Christ.
21. Rather than “the good news which Jesus the Messiah proclaimed.” Cf. N. B. Stonehouse, op. cit., p. 12.
22. Mark’s usage of the designation “Messiah” in Chs. 8:29; 12:35; 14:61 and 15:32 show that he is presupposing in Ch. 1:1 the traditional connotations of the term. Accordingly, Χριστοῦ in Ch. 1:1 is not a proper name but a titular designation, parallel to υἱοῦ θεοῦ.
23. For “Son of God” in Mark see below on Chs. 1:11; 3:11; 8:38; 9:7; 12:6; 13:32; 14:36, 61; 15:39. It is widely recognized that the figure of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel is altogether supernatural. Cf. E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 4: “The Son of God is not primarily a human but a divine figure … He is not merely endowed with the power of God, but is himself divine as to his nature; not only are his word and his work divine, but his essence also.” Cf. J. Bieneck, Sohn Gottes als Christusbezeichnung der Synoptiker (Zürich, 1951); W. Grundmann, “Sohn Gottes,” ZNW 47 (1956), pp. 113–133. In the ultimate sense “Son of God” is a mysterious term which Jesus alone can clarify. What Son means is determined by what Jesus is, by what he does, by what he says, and it is this revelation which dominates Mark’s Gospel.
24. Cf. R. P. Meye, Jesus and the Twelve. Discipleship and Revelation in Mark’s Gospel (Grand Rapids, 1968), p. 30: “Mark and the community in which his work originated worshipped Jesus as the Son of God. The narrative of Mark’s Gospel and its origin with the worshipping Church, as well as its continual use by the worshipping Church, makes this abundantly clear.”
25. Cf. Exodus Rabba 23:20. The identical words, “Behold I send my messenger,” in Ex. 23:20 and Mal. 3:1 furnished the exegetical ground of the conflation.
26. Pre-Christian testimony texts were provided for the first time by the discoveries in Cave Four at Qumran. For 4QFlorilegium and 4QTestimonia see A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (Cleveland, 1962), pp. 310–317.
27. E.g. M. J. Lagrange, L’Évangile selon Saint Marc9 (Paris, 1947), p. 4; J. B. Colon, “Marc (Évangile selon Saint),” DB Suppl V (1957), col. 838; J. A. T. Robinson, “Elijah, John and Jesus. An Essay in Detection” in Twelve New Testament Studies (London, 1962), p. 34 n. 14. This surmise is due to the fact that Mt. 3:3 and Lk. 3:4 cite only the text of Isaiah in the context of the Baptist’s activities, while the mixed quotation occurs in a different context, Mt. 11:10 and Lk. 7:27. That a citation from a testimony collection would be introduced by a reference to Isaiah is also felt to be questionable.
28. E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 10 sees verses 4–8 as a line by line commentary on the biblical citation. By restricting the interpretation to the account of John’s activity, however, Lohmeyer fails to consider adequately the reflection upon the Lord in the wilderness which is central to the citation. Cf. U. Mauser, op. cit., p. 82: “The wilderness in Mark 1:3 carries with it the full weight of a great religious tradition embracing high hopes and promises as well as the deep shadows of judgment and despair, and this is imposed upon the succeeding verses, moulding them as counterparts of Israel’s experience in the desert.” Mauser explores this old biblical tradition on pp. 15–52.
29. E.g. Acts 2:16–21, 25–31, 34–36; 3:18, 21–26; 8:30–35; 10:43 et passim. Cf. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures. The Substructure of New Testament Theology (London, 1952).
30. It is possible that the reference to “Isaiah the prophet” in Mk. 1:2 is not intended to introduce the quotation which follows but indicates the context in terms of which John’s own self-understanding may be grasped. John knows that he has been called by God, and his fundamental primer for understanding what this means is the prophecy of Isaiah. John needed no instruction apart from the words of Isaiah; his message was constantly found as he reflected on Chs. 1:10 ff.; 2:9 ff.; 4:1; 6:10 f.; et passim.
31. On the theological interpretation of John in the Gospels see W. Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (Cambridge, 1968), especially pp. 1–17 for a treatment of Mark.
32. Cf. W. H. Brownlee, “John the Baptist in the New Light of Ancient Scrolls,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. K. Stendahl (New York, 1957), pp. 33–53; H. H. Rowley, “The Baptism of John and the Qumran Sect,” in New Testament Essays, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Manchester, 1959), pp. 218–229; J. Pryke, “John the Baptist and the Qumran Community,” Rev Qum 4 (1964), pp. 483–496.
33. On the citation of Isa. 40:3 in 1QS viii. 12–16 see the commentary of P. Wernberg-Møller, The Manual of Discipline (Leiden, 1957), pp. 34, 129; U. Mauser, op. cit., pp. 58–61. The interpretation of Isa. 40:3 at Qumran relates to the study of the Law and obedience to its mandates.
34. For a discussion of this position see J. Jeremias, “Der Ursprung der Johannestaufe,” ZNW 28 (1929), pp. 312–320; T. M. Taylor, “The Beginnings of Jewish Proselyte Baptism,” NTS 2 (1956), pp. 193–198.
35. Cf. J. A. T. Robinson, “The Baptism of John and the Qumran Community,” HTR 50 (1957), pp. 175–191. For an opposing point of view see H. H. Rowley, op. cit., pp. 218–229.
36. Cf. U. Mauser, op. cit., pp. 84–89 for a brief summary of several points of view and a more extensive analysis of the interpretations of E. Lohmeyer (John’s baptism was a sacramental act which conferred forgiveness) and of C. H. Kraeling (John’s baptism was an act symbolic of repentance which could mediate forgiveness without conferring it). See E. Lohmeyer, “Zur evangelischen Überlieferung von Johannes dem Taufer,” JBL 51 (1932), pp. 300–319 and his commentary, pp. 13–19; C. H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (New Haven, 1951), pp. 69–122.
37. Cf. E. Würthwein, TWNT IV (1942), pp. 976–985; U. Mauser, op. cit., pp. 46–52; and especially H. W. Wolff, “Das Thema ‘Umkehr’ in der Alttestamentlichen Theologie,” ZThK 48 (1951), pp. 129–148.
38. Cf. J. Behm, TWNT IV (1942), pp. 991–994, where the evidence is analyzed.
39. Cf. K. G. Kuhn, Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten (Göttingen, 1960), pp. 217 f. s.v. 
. The texts are gathered and discussed by U. Mauser, op. cit., pp. 58–61.
40. H. W. Wolff, op. cit., pp. 138–143 points out that in Amos, Hosea and Isaiah “return” is never used in prophetic admonitions, but exclusively in proclamations of rebuke because the people will not return, or of the promise of a future time when opportunity to return will again be provided by God. Israel has forfeited the opportunity of returning (e.g. Hos. 5:4), but that possibility will be restored by a future divine action (e.g. Hos. 3:4 f.). The nation does not have the opportunity to repent and return to God at any time, according to these prophets. Only God can provide the situation of judgment and grace in which repentance is possible.
41. Cf. U. Mauser, op. cit., p. 89: “This reduction to nothing is a divine judgment, acknowledged by the people of Judea and Jerusalem in the confession of their sin, but it is also the starting point for a new history of grace.” On this response of the people see below on Ch. 1:9.
42. Cf. C. H. Kraeling, op. cit., pp. 10 f., 14 f. The desert nomad does not hesitate to eat small insects, including locusts. Locusts are listed among clean foods in Lev. 11:21 f.
An interesting parallel is offered by the first century A.D. Martyrdom of Isaiah 2:8–12. Isaiah withdraws from Jerusalem to Bethlehem because of the lawlessness of the people, but the men of Bethlehem are also wicked. With a company of men he withdraws further south into the Judean desert, settling “on a mountain in a solitary place” (Ch. 2:8). Isaiah and his companions are “clothed with garments of hair” (Ch. 2:9) because they are all prophets. Their food consists of wild herbs (Ch. 2:11). They spent two years in the wilderness lamenting over the sins of the people (Ch. 2:12). For the hairy mantle as the garb of a prophet see Zech. 13:4.
43. Cf. J. Schneider, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 668–671; S-BK IV. 2 (1928), pp. 872 ff.
44. Cf. K. Grobel, “He that cometh after me,” JBL 60 (1941), pp. 397–401; O. Cullmann, “ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος,” Coniectanea Neotestamentica (Zürich, 1947), pp. 26–32. H. Seesemann, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 290 dissents, finding in ὀπίσω simply an indication of time.
45. E.g. Mekilta to Ex. 21:2 (ed. Lauterbach, Vol. III, pp. 5 f.): “A Hebrew slave must not wash the feet of his master, nor put his shoes on him, nor carry his things before him … But one’s son or pupil may do so.” TB Ketuboth 96a: “All services which a slave does for his master a pupil should do for his teacher, with the exception of undoing his shoes.”
46. Isa. 32:15; 44:3; 63:10–14. On these passages see E. Schweizer, TWNT VI (1959), pp. 363, 368, 382 f. On the function of Spirit-baptism see J. E. Yates, “The Form of Mark 1:8b. ‘I baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit,’ ” NTS 4 (1958), pp. 334–338.
47. Cf. W. Wink, op. cit., p. 6: “John does not fully belong to the time of fulfilment, for his message as recorded by Mark is entirely prophetic. John is distinguished from the time of the Old Testament in terms of fulfilment (1:2 ff.) but from that of Jesus in terms of anticipation (1:7 f.). The messenger of victory is not the victor.”
48. This is the first instance of a Marcan term which occurs between forty and fifty times in the Gospel (the number depends on textual variations). It is appropriate to translate “at once,” but the meaning can be determined only from the context and varies from the sense of immediacy (as here) to that of logical order, “in due course” (as in Ch. 1:14). For an analysis of Marcan usage see D. Daube, The Sudden in the Scripture (Leiden, 1964), pp. 46–60.
49. On Nazareth see especially C. Kopp, “Beiträge zur Geschichte Nazareths,” JPOS 18 (1938), pp. 187–228; 19 (1939), pp. 82–119, 253–285; 20 (1940), pp. 29–42; 21 (1948), pp. 148–164; B. Bagatti, “Nazareth,” DB Suppl VI (1960), cols. 318–333 and see below on Ch. 6:1–6a.
50. Early rabbinic tradition explicitly disqualifies the River Jordan for purification, M. Parah VIII. 10. Only Josephus, Ant. XVIII. v. 2 explicitly associates John’s baptism with purification (cf. Jn. 3:25), but he makes no reference to the Jordan. On the association of the Jordan with Israel’s heritage cf. O. J. F. Seitz, “What Do These Stones Mean?” JBL 79 (1960), pp. 247–254.
51. So U. Mauser, op. cit., p. 91, who comments, “There is no passage in the Second Gospel which exposes the so-called Messianic secret in a more forceful manner than verses 8 and 9 of the first chapter read together.”
52. Comm. cit., p. 20. The parallelism may be exhibited by translating according to word order:
|
Ch. 1:5 |
“And there went out—all of the region of Judea and all those from Jerusalem and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan.” |
Ch. 1:9 |
“And there came—Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee and he was baptized in the Jordan.” |
It should be noted, however, that the concluding phrase of verse 5, “confessing their sins,” has no parallel in verse 9.
53. Cf. L. E. Elliott-Binns, Galilean Christianity (London, 1956), pp. 13, 25. Johanan ben Zakkai († A.D. 90) struggled for eighteen years to establish a rabbinic academy in Galilee; his failure is reflected in the lament, “Galilee, Galilee, you hate the Torah; your end will be seizure by the Romans” (TJ Shabbath 16 end, 15d). On this rabbinic passage see A. Schlatter, Johanan ben Zakkai der Zeitgenosse der Apostel (Stuttgart, 1899), pp. 14 f.
54. U. Mauser, op. cit., pp. 90–95.
55. Cf. E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 22.
56. Mark’s formulation σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανούς echoes the LXX of Isa. 63:19 (M.T. 64:1); Ezek. 1:1; but see also Test. Levi 2:6; 5:1 and especially 18:6 and II Bar. 22:1, where the rending of the heavens is associated with the hearing of a voice. In Test. Levi 18:6 f. and Test. Judah 24:2 f. it is associated with the bestowal of the Holy Spirit. Cf. C. Maurer, TWNT VII (1964), p. 962, who associates Mark’s formulation with Isa. 64:3 f.: “Jesus is the Bringer of the Act of God, which was not expected from eternity and which no eye perceived and no ear heard.”
57. Cf. I. Buse, “The Markan Account of the Baptism of Jesus and Isaiah LXIII,” JThS n.s. 7 (1956), pp. 74 f.
58. Ex. 4:22 f.; Jer. 2:2; Hos. 11:1–3.
59. Several points of view are surveyed by R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963), pp. 248–250; T. A. Burkill, op. cit., pp. 17–19, but for none of them is there strong Jewish support. They believe that the dove symbolizes the divine power which takes possession of the messianic king, but primary support is drawn from Persian and Egyptian texts. H. Greeven, TWNT VI (1959), pp. 64–68, interprets the term “dove” in terms of a larger Near Eastern tradition. Of special interest is the association of the dove with the heavenly voice in Judaism (TB Berachoth 3a). For a review of early patristic and modern interpretations see W. Telfer, “The Form of a Dove,” JThS 29 (1928), pp. 238–242.
60. The texts are TB Hagigah 15a; Gen. Rabba 2; Yalqut to Gen. 1:2. Cf. J. Jeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender (Gütersloh, 1930), p. 17, who speaks of the “cosmic significance of Jesus’ baptism; the barren time is past and a new creation has dawned.”
61. Cf. the texts discussed in S-BK I (1922), pp. 123 f.; T. A. Burkill, op. cit., pp. 18 f.; A. Feuillet, “Le Symbolisme de la Colombe dans les récits évangéliques du baptême,” RSR 46 (1958), 524–544: J. de Cock, “Het symbolisme van de duif bij het doopsel van Christus,” Bijdragen 21 (1960), 363–376.
62. On the concept of the voice from heaven (
), see S-BK I (1922), pp. 125–132; II (1924). p. 128; J. Kosnetter, Die Taufe Jesu (Freiburg, 1936), pp. 140–190; H. Traub, TWNT V (1954), pp. 530–532.
63. E.g. G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden, 1961), p. 233 finds in the pronouncement an allusion to Isa. 42:1 and Gen. 22:2, “Take your son, your only son Isaac whom you love.” On pp. 193–227 he has shown that Isaac was viewed in Judaism as the type of the beloved son and willing sacrifice. The thought of the passage would then be that Jesus fulfills all that is implied in the offering of Isaac. P. G. Bretscher, “Exodus 4:22–23 and the Voice from Heaven,” JBL 87 (1968), pp. 301–311, points to the description of Israel as God’s son in Ex. 4:22 f.
64. Cf. N. B. Stonehouse, op. cit., pp. 16–21; J. Bieneck, op. cit., passim.
65. Mark’s term ἀγαπητός can signify “only” or “unique” (e.g. Gen. 22:2, 12, 16 LXX), and this thought may be present in Mark’s mind. See C. H. Turner, “ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος,” JThS 27 (1926), pp. 113–129, 362.
66. Cf. N. B. Stonehouse, op. cit., pp. 18–20; T. A. Burkill, op. cit., pp. 19 f.; M. D. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant (London, 1959), pp. 68–73.
67. Der Evangelist Matthäus (Stuttgart, 1933), p. 89. See further, A. Feuillet, “Le Baptême de Jésus d’après l’Évangile selon Saint Marc,” CBQ 21 (1959), pp. 468–490.
68. D. Daube, op. cit., p. 47 suggests that in Mark’s phrase “and at once” there is a trace of “in due course,” “as had to happen after what preceded.” It is less purely temporal and more theological.
69. The brevity of the account and the absence of any explanation of its elements have led interpreters to assume that Ch. 1:12–13 is an incipient tradition of an expanded story. Cf. J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Markus7/8 (Göttingen, 1958), p. 48; J. Dupont, “L’arrière-fond biblique du récit des tentations de Jésus,” NTS 3 (1956–57), pp. 294 f. The treatment of the temptation of Jesus by H. Seesemann, TWNT VI (1959), pp. 34 f. is dominated by the Matthean and Lucan narratives; A. Feuillet, “L’épisode de la tentation d’après l’Évangile selon Saint Marc (I. 12–13),” Est Bíb 19 (1960), pp. 49–73, argues that the Marcan account is a deliberate abridgment of the fuller account preserved in Matthew and Luke.
70. So M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums3 (Tübingen, 1959), p. 129.
71. Op. cit., p. 98. The interpretation which follows is indebted to Mauser’s exposition (pp. 98–101).
72. On “forty” as a round and symbolic number see J. Bergmann, “Die runden und hyperbolischen Zahlen in der Agada,” MGWJ 82 (1938), pp. 370–375.
73. Ex. 24:18; 1 Kings 19:8, 15. G. Kittel, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 658 tends to deny any association with OT tradition here, but see W. Schmauch, Orte der Offenbarung und der Offenbarungsort im Neuen Testament (Göttingen, 1956), p. 38.
74. Cf. U. Mauser, op. cit., p. 99.
75. For passages and analysis cf. H. Seesemann, op. cit., pp. 27, 32 f.
76. Cf. J. M. Robinson, op. cit., pp. 26–28.
77. In contrast to Mt. 4:11; Lk. 4:13. A common opinion is that the triumph of Jesus over Satan is a matter of course, and could for that reason be simply implied. Cf. E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 28; J. Schniewind, op. cit., p. 49; T. A. Burkill, op. cit., p. 21.
78. U. Mauser, op. cit., p. 100 remarks, “What is paramount at this stage of the drama is simply the statement that in Jesus’ response to the Baptist’s call and consequently in his decision to return to the wilderness, the confrontation of the Son of God with the power of Satan takes place.”
79. So J. Jeremias, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 141; L. Goppelt, Typos. Die Typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen (Gütersloh, 1939), p. 118; J. Schniewind, op. cit., p. 48; E. Fascher, “Jesus und die Tiere,” TLZ 90 (1965), pp. 561–570.
80. See J. Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Culture I-II (London-Copenhagen, 1926), pp. 453–470. U. Mauser, op. cit., p. 37, n. 2 gives a list of passages where animals are said to occupy the wilderness.
81. U. Mauser, op. cit., pp. 100 f.
82. E.g. Ex. 14:19; 23:20 (cited in Mk. 1:2), 23; 32:34; 33:2.
83. Op. cit., p. 101. A helpful summary statement on Jesus’ ministry as an incessant temptation is found on pp. 128–132.
84. Cf. U. Mauser, op. cit., pp. 108–119, 124–128.
85. RSV, NEB, “arrested.” It is normal in Greek usage to clarify the particular sense in which παραδοθῆναι is employed by a qualifying clause, e.g. “delivered up into prison.” That here it means “after John was arrested” is clear. The lack of a qualifying clause may be intentional to suggest a parallel between John’s experience and the passion of Jesus: he too was “delivered up.” Cf. Ch. 9:31; 14:10; 15:1, 15. See M-M, p. 483 s.v. παραδίδωμι 3 for examples from papyri and inscriptions where the unqualified use of the term means “to deliver up” to prison or judgment.
86. “The gospel of the kingdom of God,” found in the AV, is supported by A D W pm latt syp, but is not as well attested as “the gospel of God,” a phrase found also in Rom. 1:1; 15:16; 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Thess. 2:2, 8 f.
87. The NEB rendering “the kingdom of God is upon you,” represents the point of view of realized eschatology as defined by C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1935), pp. 43 ff.; idem, “The Kingdom of God Has Come,” ExT 48 (1936–37), pp. 138–172. For a review of the linguistic and theological arguments involved see R. F. Berkey, “ΕΓΓΙΖΕΙΝ, ΦΘΑΝΕΙΝ, and Realized Eschatology,” JBL 82 (1963), pp. 177–187.
88. According to W. Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus (Göttingen, 1956), pp. 22–24, an impression of successiveness has been deliberately created by Mark where none existed before; historically John’s arrest belongs later. Ch. 6:14 shows conclusively, however, that the activities of Jesus and John were both chronologically and spatially separated. Those who judged that Jesus is John raised from the dead could not have seen the two men working together, or known of Jesus’ baptism by John. The public activity which brought Jesus to the attention of the people could only have begun after John had been removed from the scene through his arrest. “The people have an impression of successiveness, not contemporaneousness.” See W. Wink, op. cit., pp. 8–10.
89. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 62 who finds in the general term παραδοθῆναι, particularly in the passive, the suggestion that “behind the schemes and actions of men in relation to John God’s purpose and doing were to be recognized.”
90. Cf. G. Delling, TWNT III (1938), pp. 459–461 on the element of decisiveness in καιρός; and on the full phrase, which is distinctly eschatological in orientation, idem, TWNT VI (1959), p. 293.
91. Cf. H. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia, 1962), p. 48: “ ‘The time is fulfilled’ indicates that the threshold of the great future has been reached, that the door has been opened, and the prerequisites for the realization of the divine work of consummation are present, so that now the concluding drama can start. Owing to this, Jesus’ initial proclamation of the nearness of the kingdom seems to speak of a more advanced point of time than that of John who had not yet mentioned the beginning of fulfilment.”
92. It is not possible to give an adequate exposition of the kingdom of God within the limits imposed by the commentary, but there are a number of valuable articles and books which may be consulted. Particularly helpful are K. L. Schmidt, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 565–593 (for the linguistic and theological background); H. Ridderbos, op. cit.; G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom (New York, 1964), with extensive bibliography, pp. 337–351. The primary meaning of the Aramaic term used by Jesus is not properly “kingdom” but “sovereign authority.” Whenever the biblical texts speak of God becoming king the Targumim speak of God’s exercise of sovereign authority, and render the Hebrew verb by an Aramaic noun. E.g.:
|
Ex. 15:18 |
“The Lord shall reign forever and ever.” |
|
Targ. Onkelos |
“The sovereignty of the Lord endures forever and ever.” |
|
Isa. 40:10 |
“Behold, the Lord will come as a mighty man, and his arm will rule for him.” |
|
Targum |
“The sovereignty of your God will be revealed.” |
Particularly this second example illustrates the interpretation of the Targum: for the Lord to come as a mighty man and for his arm to rule for him signifies the revelation of God’s sovereignty through a saving action. This indicates well the dynamic character in the concept of the kingdom: God is he who comes and exercises his sovereign authority in the redemption of men. The contrary opinion, that the expression “kingdom of God” must be understood as God’s house or community, is defended by S. Aalen, “ ‘Reign’ and ‘House’ in the Kingdom of God in the Gospels,” NTS 8 (1962), pp. 215–240, and is challenged by G. E. Ladd, “The Kingdom of God—Reign or Realm,” JBL 81 (1962), pp. 230–238.
93. C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 66 calls attention to Marcion’s statement, as recorded by Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem IV. 33: “In the Gospel the Kingdom of God is Christ himself.” The debate concerning the lexical background and meaning of ἤγγικεν is summarized by R. F. Berkey, op. cit., pp. 177–187. The linguistic objections to the proposed rendering “has come” are weighty, and it is better to translate “has come near,” understanding the phrase as defined above.
94. See above on Ch. 1:4 and the treatments of H. W. Wolff, op. cit., pp. 129–148; E. Würthwein, op. cit., pp. 976–985. For the treatment of repentance in the exegetical tradition of the rabbis see below, “Additional Note on Repentance in the Rabbinic Literature.”
95. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, Logion 82; Origen, Homily in Jer. XX. 3; Didymus the Blind, in Ps. lxxxviii. 8. On this saying see W. L. Lane, “Agrapha,” EC I (1964), pp. 110 f.
96. Josephus, War III. x. 7 specifically states that various kinds of fish are taken there which are not found elsewhere. See for a description of the kinds of fish F. Dunkel, “Die Fischerei am See Genesareth und das Neue Testament,” Biblica 5 (1924), pp. 383–386; G. Dalman, Orte und Wege Jesu3 (Gütersloh, 1924), pp. 143–145.
97. Cf. F. Dunkel, op. cit., p. 387: Mark employs the technical term for the throwing out of the circular casting net, which had a diameter varying from ten to fifteen feet. The outer edge was weighted to allow the net to sink rapidly, imprisoning fish under it; in the middle of the net was a rope by means of which it could be pulled up. With such a net, usually only a few fish were taken with each cast. Dunkel distinguishes between five types of nets used in fishing these waters (pp. 376–380).
98. Cf. G. Kittel, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 212–215 and H. Seesemann, TWNT V (1954), pp. 290 f. where the significance of an exclusive following after Jesus is developed.
99. E.g. Jer. 16:16; Ezek. 29:4 f.; 38:4; Amos 4:2; Hab. 1:14–17. While the canonical tradition nowhere identifies Jesus as the Fisher of men, the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, Logion 8, appears to do so: “And he said: The Man is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea, he drew it up from the sea full of small fish; among them he found a large (and) good fish; that wise fisherman, he threw all the small fish down into the sea; he chose the large fish without regret.”
100. 1QH v. 7–8, “And Thou hast set me in a place of exile among many fishers that stretch a net upon the face of the waters, and (among) hunters (sent) against the sons of perversity” (translation of A. Dupont-Sommer, op. cit, p. 214). On this and related texts from Qumran see especially O. Betz, “Donnersöhne, Menschenfischer und der Davidische Messias,” Rev Qum 3 (1961), pp. 53–61. The formulation reflects esp. Jer. 16:16.
101. Cf. W. Wuellner, “Early Christian Traditions about the Fishers of Men,” The Hartford Quarterly 54 (1965), pp. 50–60; idem, The Meaning of “Fishers of Men” (Philadelphia, 1967). For the stress on the ominous note in the fishing metaphor see C. W. F. Smith, “Fishers of Men,” HTR 52 (1959), pp. 187–203. On the relationship of Ch. 1:17 to Ch. 1:15, Smith rightly remarks: “The call is rather a promise of fulfilment, another indication of the maturing of the eschatological time, a discreet application of the general announcement of the time fulfilled, the Kingdom at hand, a promise that the judgment anticipated will begin and that men may be selected to share in the gathering of the people for this purpose. They are, by these words, chosen at the call of him who, by this call, is announced implicitly to be the principal Agent of the judgment” (p. 196).
102. Mark’s term means properly to put in order, or to make ready, and so includes cleansing, mending and folding the nets in preparation for the next evening’s fishing in the deeper waters. Presumably the heavier drag nets are in view, on which see F. Dunkel, op. cit., pp. 377–380.
103. Cf. E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 32: “He commands as God commands … He makes of the fishermen something new, that which he wills.” Lohmeyer likens the words of Jesus to the compelling nature of “a sharp military command” which made possible only one response: obedience. See further K. L. Schmidt, TWNT III (1938), pp. 489 f.
104. Cf. C. W. F. Smith, op. cit., pp. 191, 193–195, 201 f. On pp. 195 f. Smith calls attention to elements in Ch. 1:24, 27 f., 38 which convey a continuing impression of urgency, consistent with the eschatological interpretation of the fisher image.
105. Op. cit., pp. 83 f., 99–110.
106. K. Aland, op. cit., p. 54 punctuates the text differently, so that it reads “What is this? a new teaching with authority. He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him.” The NEB mediates between this punctuation and that presupposed in the ASV, RSV: “What is this? A new kind of teaching! He speaks with authority. When he gives orders, even the unclean spirits submit.” The parallelism with Ch. 1:22 lends support to the punctuation adopted by K. Aland and the British and Foreign Bible Society text. For a fresh discussion of the text see G. D. Kilpatrick, “Some Problems in New Testament Text and Language” in Neotestamentica et Semitica, ed. E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (Edinburgh, 1969), pp. 198–201.
107. Cf. R. Pesch, “Ein Tag vollmächtigen Wirkens Jesu im Kapharnaum (Mk. 1, 21–34. 35–39),” Bib Leb 9 (1968), pp. 114–128, 177–195 for a detailed analysis of the passages according to literary, form- and redaction-criticism. Mark has edited his sources by putting at the beginning of the first main section of his Gospel two pericopes which portray Jesus as appearing in full power.
108. Capernaum is mentioned specifically in Chs. 1:21; 2:1; 9:33, but is probably in view also in 5:21 ff. On the city see C. Kopp, “Christian Sites around the Sea of Galilee: I Capernaum,” Dominican Studies 2 (1949), pp. 215–235; idem, Die heiligen Stätten der Evangelien (Regensburg, 1959), pp. 215–230; E. F. F. Bishop, “Jesus and Capernaum,” CBQ 15 (1953), pp. 427–437. On the second century synagogue at Tel Ḥûm see E. R. Goodenough, “The Synagogues of Palestine: Capernaum (Tell Ḥum),” Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman Period I (New York, 1952), pp. 181–192; E. L. Sukenik, “The Present State of Synagogue Studies,” Louis M. Rabinowitz Fund for Synagogue Research Bulletin 1 (1949), pp. 8–23. B. Schwank, “Qualis erat forma synagogarum Novi Testamenti,” Verb Dom 33 (1955), 267–279 argues that the synagogue with which Jesus was familiar was of a simple house style, an assembly hall without columns or gallery, such as those at Dura on the Euphrates and Hamman Lif in North Africa.
109. T. A. Burkill, op. cit., p. 34 points to the plural form “on the sabbaths” (σάββασιν) and the imperfect tenses of the verbs and suggests that Mark, in Ch. 1:21–22, 27–28, is seeking to characterize Jesus’ ministry in a general way. This appears to be incorrect, for in the NT “sabbath” regularly has a third declension form in the dative plural which is used with a singular meaning, while the imperfects denote not repeated activity but an inceptive sense, as in Ch. 1:21, ἐδίδασκεν = “he began to teach.” On the synagogue service and the opportunity for Jesus to give the exposition of the reading from the Law (the Torah) or the Prophets (the Haftarah) see P. Billerbeck, “Ein Synagogengottesdienst in Jesu Tagen,” ZNW 55 (1964), pp. 143–161; K. Hruby, “La Synagogue dans la littérature rabbinique,” Or Syr 9 (1964), pp. 473–514.
110. Mark employs a variety of terms to express the astonishment of the multitude and the disciples at the word and deed of Jesus: ἐκπλήσσειν (Chs. 1:22; 6:2; 7:37; 10:26; 11:18); θαυμάζειν (Chs. 5:20; 15:5, 44); ἐκθαυμάζειν (Ch. 12:17); θαμβεῖσθαι (Chs. 1:27; 10:24, 32); ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι (Ch. 9:15); ἐξίστημι (Chs. 2:12; 5:42; 6:51); cf. φοβεῖσθαι (Chs. 4:41; 5:15, 33, 36; 6:50; 9:32; 10:32; 11:18) and ἔκφοβος (Ch. 9:6). The response to Jesus’ words and deeds has overtones of fear and alarm; it reflects an awareness of the disturbing character of his presence. Cf. G. Bertram, TWNT III (1938), p. 6: “The expressions of fear and astonishment therefore serve to emphasize the revelational content and thus the Christological meaning of numerous Synoptic scenes of Jesus.”
111. See D. Daube, “ἐξουσία in Mk. i. 22 and 27,” JThS 39 (1938), pp. 45–59; idem, “Rabbinic Authority,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), pp. 205–233; the people were surprised that Jesus taught as one ordained. The amazement and fear which Jesus’ teaching called forth is poorly explained, however, unless the people sense an implicit claim to an authority superior to rabbinic ordination. Moreover, as J. Jeremias has shown, “scribes” is the correct term for ordained theologians in the oldest strata of the rabbinic tradition and in the N.T. See TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 740 f.; idem, Jerusalem zu Zeit Jesu (Göttingen, 1924–29), II A, pp. 27–32; II B, pp. 101–140; S. Légasse, “Scribes et disciples de Jésus,” RB 68 (1961), 497–502; A. W. Argyle, “The Meaning of ἐξουσία in Mark I. 22, 27,” ExT 80 (1969), p. 343. On the didactic motif in the pericope see R. P. Meye, op. cit., pp. 45–47.
112. Cf. W. Foerster, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 566–569. K. H. Rengstorf, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 140 adds “the gap between Jesus and the Rabbis in respect of the subject of teaching is to be found not in the matter itself, but in His own person, i.e., in the fact of His self-awareness as the Son. This is why His teaching, whether in the form of exposition or otherwise, causes astonishment among His hearers.”
113. On demonic possession see below on Ch. 5:1–20 and the literature cited there.
114. E.g. Judg. 11:12; 2 Sam. 16:10; 19:22; 1 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 3:13; 2 Chron. 35:21; Isa. 3:15; 22:1; Jer. 2:18; Hos. 14:9. See especially O. Bauernfeind, Die Worte der Dämonen im Markusevangelium (Stuttgart, 1927), pp. 3–10, 14 f., 28–31, 68 f.
115. So H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden, 1965), p. 380; when the agitation of the demoniac is regarded in the light of the dismay and turmoil in the synagogue, “this is even the obvious interpretation.” Van der Loos’ interpretation is consistent with the fisher image as developed in the OT, at Qumran and in Ch. 1:17.
116. O. Procksch, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 102.
117. Rightly stressed by J. Bieneck, op. cit., pp. 46–48. E. Schweizer, “ ‘Er wird Nazoräer heissen’ (zu Mc. 1:24 Mt. 2:23)” in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche, ed. W. Eltester (Berlin, 1960), pp. 90–93 finds an intimate connection between the designation “Jesus thou Nazarene” and “the Holy One of God” on the basis of the LXX tradition of Judg. 13:7 and 16:17: in LXXB Samson is designated “the holy one of God” (ὁ ἅγιος θεοῦ) while in LXXA he is designated a Nazirite (ναζιραῖος θεοῦ). He argues that Jesus was first designated a Nazirite and Holy One of God, and the later Greek tradition evoked the relation with Nazareth. See, however, the full discussion of H. H. Schaeder, TWNT IV (1942), pp. 879–884, where it is argued that Mark’s term Ναζαρηνός means “of Nazareth.” So RSV “Jesus of Nazareth.”
118. O. Bauernfeind, op. cit., pp. 14 f. calls attention to the formulations in a magical papyrus of the fourth or fifth century, now in the British Museum: “I know your name which was received in heaven, I know your forms … I know your foreign names and your true name … I know you, Hermes, who you are and from whence you are …” Cf. T. A. Burkill, op. cit., p. 76: “The demon knows the divine purpose of Jesus’ coming and the divine character of his status; and by giving full expression to its knowledge it seeks to ward off the threatened offensive of its dangerous opponent.”
119. E.g. Josephus, Ant. VIII. ii. 5 reports of the exorcist Eleazar who demonstrated his ability before Vespasian: “he put to the nose of the possessed man a ring which had under its seal one of the roots prescribed by Solomon, and then, as the man smelled it, drew out the demon through his nostrils, and, when the man at once fell down, adjured the demon never to come back into him, speaking Solomon’s name and reciting the incantations which he had composed. Then, wishing to convince the bystanders and prove to them that he had this power, Eleazar placed a cup or foot-basin full of water a little way off and commanded the demon, as it went out of the man, to overturn it and make known to the spectators that he had left the man” (Loeb translation). Cf. S. Eitrem, Some Notes on the Demonology in the New Testament (Oslo, 1950), pp. 6–8, 24; H. van der Loos, op. cit., pp. 321–325, 380 f., who rightly stress the distinction between Jesus and contemporary exorcists. The similarities in form are stressed by T. A. Burkill, op. cit., pp. 72 f., 86–89. That there is no parallel to Jesus in authority is indicated by the alarmed response of the people.
120. Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums (Göttingen, 1901), pp. 9–149.
121. See further J. M. Robinson, op. cit., pp. 33–42; and esp. H. C. Kee, “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories,” NTS 14 (1968), pp. 232–246. Kee demonstrates that ἐπιτιμᾶν in Ch. 1:25 is the equivalent of the Semitic root 
, which in the documents of Qumran is a technical term designating the commanding word uttered by God or his spokesman by which evil powers are brought into submission and the way is prepared for the establishment of God’s rule. This is appropriate to the present context, where ἐπιτιμᾶν denotes the command that brought the hostile power under God’s control. Jesus’ exorcisms must be understood against a cosmic background; they affirm that God is gaining control over an estranged and hostile creation which was subject to Satan’s invasion and rule.
122. Cf. C. W. F. Smith, op. cit., p. 196 who notes that the reaction of the people is not one of unmixed joy, but of alarm.
123. It is not possible to ascertain Mark’s intention in the phrase τὴν περίχωρον τῆς Γαλιλαίας. If the genitive is epexegetic it means “the whole region around, that is Galilee”; cf. NEB “he was soon spoken of all over the district of Galilee.” The genitive may, however, indicate “the region around Galilee” and indicate a wider area than the district or “all that part of Galilee which is around (Capernaum),” designating an area less than the entire district.
124. Cf. E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 40: “Already in this unpretentiousness, without a special word of Jesus, without the character of a miraculous deed, lies the uniqueness of this narrative. It is related as a chronicler would report things he had experienced after a long time before trusted hearers; he uses only the exterior sequence of movement to report the particular incidents; it is left to the hearers to open up and claim the meaning they contained. Not once is the name of Jesus indicated in the story; what is reported of him is scarcely distinguishable in the narration from what could be reported, now as later, of a pious Rabbi on his circuit. Only one thing is characteristic of the narrative, that in all of Mark’s Gospel there is no other narrative in which there is this distant and yet near sound of recollection.” Cf. P. Lamarche, “La guérison de la belle-mère de Pierre et les genres littéraires des évangiles,” Nouvelle Revue Théologique 87 (1965), pp. 515–526.
125. G. Dalman, op. cit., p. 163 makes this suggestion.
126. Fever was described as a fire, and this thought is expressed in several of the names given to it; cf. M. Berachoth V. 1 where fever is “a fire in the bones.” S-BK I (1922), p. 479 lists fifteen Hebrew and Aramaic names for fever and lists the several remedies used with it; J. Preuss, Biblisch-talmudische Medizin (Berlin, 1911), pp. 182–187 devotes a chapter to fever. See further K. Weiss, TWNT VI (1959), pp. 956–959.
127. H. van der Loos, op. cit., pp. 551 f. S-BK IV. 1 (1926), pp. 573 ff. treats the rabbinic rules for visiting with the sick. Visitors were not permitted to sit on the bed or on a chair, but were to stand or sit upon the floor.
128. Cf. H. W. Beyer, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 85. There is little doubt but that a non-technical sense of καὶ διηκόνει αὐτοῖς is intended here. Yet in Chs. 9:33–37 and 10:43–45 the essence of discipleship is described in terms of service, and this may be anticipated in the present narrative. Do these later passages, which focus on service and expose the attitudes of James and John, shed any light on the explicit mention of these two brothers in Ch. 1:29?
129. H. van der Loos, op. cit., p. 555.
130. In this connection Jer. 17:21 f., which prohibits the bearing of a burden on the Sabbath, may have been important in popular thinking. For the rabbinic regulations see E. Lohse, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 14 f., 20 and the discussion of Ch. 3:1–5 below.
131. Typical of an unwarranted approach is F. Fenner, Die Krankheit im Neuen Testament (Leipzig, 1930), who is strikingly confident that he can explain the healings in the Gospel tradition in the light of modern psychopathology. He identifies various types of hysteria and explains the overcoming of the damage to personality in terms of the powerful personality of Jesus. H. van der Loos is far more satisfying; however, when he treats belief in demons (op. cit., pp. 204–211, 339–361) he is unequivocal that “we are concerned with the mentally ill as they are encountered everywhere and at all times” (p. 210). Against these assertions see the important work of C. Balducci, Gli Indemoniati (Rome, 1959), who compares authentic demonic possession with abnormal psychic phenomena. His investigation indicates that (1) the symptoms of possession are arbitrary, whereas psychotic syndromes are fixed; (2) the possessed react to religious matters but are indifferent to profane matters; (3) in the case of the possessed exorcism may be expected to produce psychic phenomena (such as knowledge of hidden things) which are not necessarily evident in possession itself, but these phenomena cease immediately after the exorcism. Cf. A. Rodewyck, “De Daemoniacis,” Verb Dom 38 (1960), pp. 301–306.
132. For this use, which reflects a Semitism, see J. Jeremias, TWNT VI (1959), pp. 540–542 (Mk. 1:34 is noted on p. 541).
133. A harmonizing addition emanating from Lk. 4:41, χριστὸν εἶναι, is found in אcorr B C L W Θ λ φ pm. On this understanding, Jesus did not allow the demons “to say that they know he is the Messiah.” The addition should be rejected with א* A D Δ 157 579 1071 al a b c d e f ff q vg sysin p. The prohibiting is general and discreet. Jesus forbids the demons to speak, for they know who he is; they recognize him as their adversary in a conflict which has cosmic proportions. See further on Ch. 1:25–26 above.
134. Cf. H. J. Ebeling, Das Messiasgeheimnis und die Botschaft des Marcus-Evangelisten (Berlin, 1939), pp. 116–120; U. Mauser, op. cit., pp. 104–108. Mauser shows that the phrase ἔρημος τόπος is typically Marcan, for while Matthew and Luke include it where there is a Marcan parallel they consistently avoid it elsewhere, preferring ἔρημος alone. In Ch. 1:45 the RSV badly obscures this significant phrase by the rendering [he] “was out in the country.”
135. U. Mauser, op. cit., pp. 107 f.
136. Cf. H. Ridderbos, op. cit., pp. 70, 117. Note that verse 38 exalts the ministry of the word; this emphasis is substantial throughout Mark’s Gospel (e.g. Ch. 4; 8:35, 38), although R. P. Meye, op. cit., pp. 52–60 is accurate in observing a shift from the kerygmatic terminology of Ch. 1 to a persistent use of didactic terminology in the remainder of the Gospel.
137. The use in verse 38 of the verb which described Jesus’ departure from Capernaum in verse 35 lends support to this first level of understanding; Lk. 4:43 indicates, however, that very early a deeper significance was seen in Jesus’ words, which were understood in the context of his mission as determined by God. Cf. J. Schniewind, op. cit., pp. 52 f.
138. Ch. 1:28 εἰς ὅλην τὴν περίχωρον τῆς Γαλιλαίας, Ch. 1:39 εἰς ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν. On Galilee and its human geography see A. H. M. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire (Oxford, 1937), Ch. 10 and A. N. Sherwin-White, “The Galilean Narrative and the Graeco-Roman World” in Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963), pp. 120–143.
139. War III. iii. 2, on which see A. N. Sherwin-White, op. cit., pp. 129–131.
140. Gr. κωμόπολις, a term occurring only here in the NT. Sherwin-White, loc. cit., calls attention to Strabo, xii. 2. 5 where the term is applied to a great native town in the heart of Cappadocia and is equated with the phrase “having the establishment of a city.”
141. NEB “in warm indignation,” adopting the v. l. ὀργισθείς supported by D a, d ff2 r1 Ephraem. All other witnesses (except the Old Latin MS. b which omits either term) have σπλαγχνισθείς, which is reflected in the ASV, RSV. In spite of its slight manuscript support, ὀργισθείς should be read. It is scarcely conceivable that if σπλαγχνισθείς were original any scribe should have substituted the offensive ὀργισθείς. Moreover, ὀργισθείς in verse 41 is appropriate to ἐμβριμησάμενος in verse 43, which indicates that there was indignation on Jesus’ part. The parallel sustained with Mark by Mt. 8:1–4; Lk. 5:12–16 is very close with the exception of these two harsh terms. Similarly, the Marcan depiction of Jesus as filled “with anger” (μετʼ ὀργῆς) in Ch. 3:5 has no parallel in Mt. 12:3; Lk. 6:10. The absence of σπλαγχνισθείς from the parallel passages further supports the contention that it was not present originally in the Marcan text. For the suggestion that the variant arose in a Semitic context through the change of a single guttural (
corresponding to ὀργισθείς—σπλαγχνισθείς) see J. R. Harris, “Artificial Variants in the Text of the New Testament,” Exp 24 (1922), pp. 259–261. It is more probable that ὀργισθείς was found offensive or was not understood and was accordingly altered. See further, K. Lake, “ΕΜΒΡΙΜΗΣΑΜΕΝΟΣ and ΟΡΓΙΣΘΕΙΣ, Mark 1, 40–43,” HTR 16 (1923), pp. 197 f. (where the offense is removed by attributing the anger to the leper, translating “and he [the leper] put out his hand in a passion of rage and touched him”); C. H. Turner, “A Textual Commentary on Mark 1,” JThS 28 (1926–27), pp. 147, 157; G. Stählin, TWNT V (1954), pp. 428 f.
142. There is a note of harshness in the term ἐμβριμησάμενος which is better expressed by the RSV, “he sternly charged him.”
143. Cf. J. Preuss, op. cit., pp. 369–373, and the survey of medical opinion in H. van der Loos, op. cit., pp. 465–468. That the disease was not only serious but greatly feared is indicated by the rabbinic opinion that it is as difficult to cleanse a leper as to raise the dead. See S-BK IV. 2 (1928), p. 745.
144. Cf. R. Meyer, “Cultic Uncleanness,” TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), pp. 418–421.
145. The leper was not permitted to enter any house, for his presence conveyed uncleanness to both men and vessels in the house (M. Kelim I. 4; M. Negaʿim XIII. 11. On the chance encounter see M. Negaʿim XIII. 7: “If an unclean man [afflicted with leprosy] stood under a tree and a clean man passed by, the latter becomes unclean. If a clean man stood under a tree and an unclean one passed by, the former remains clean. If the latter stood still, the former becomes unclean.”).
146. M. Negaʿim XIII. 12. K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin, 1919), pp. 63 f., questioned whether this pericope could possibly begin with Ch. 1:39, since it would have been possible for Jesus to have met the leper in a synagogue.
147. Cf. M. Negaʿim III. 1 “Only a priest may declare them unclean or clean.”
148. In Papyrus Egerton 2 (fragment 1 recto) the tradition is found in an embellished form: “And behold, a leper came to him saying, Teacher, Jesus, I was travelling with lepers and eating with them in an inn, and I myself also became leprous. If therefore you wish, I shall be made clean. The Lord said to him, I will, be made clean. And immediately his leprosy departed from him. And the Lord said to him, Go, show yourself to the priests …” For text see K. Aland, op. cit., p. 60.
149. Cf. K. Lake, op. cit., pp. 197 f.; S. Eitrem, op. cit., pp. 42 f.
150. This interpretation is suggested by E. Bevan, “Note on Mark i. 41 and John xi. 33, 38,” JThS 33 (1932), pp. 186–188; G. Stählin, TWNT V (1954), p. 428; J. M. Robinson, op. cit., p. 40. The term ἐκβάλλειν in Ch. 1:43 occurs in exorcism narratives in Chs. 1:34, 39; 3:15, 22 f.; 6:13; 7:26; 9:18, 28. A spirit of leprosy is mentioned in TB Horayoth 10a.
151. H. van der Loos, op. cit., p. 484.
152. Cf. G. Schrenk, “The θέλειν of Jesus,” TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), pp. 48 f. who speaks of “Jesus’ decision and action in unique omnipotence.”
153. So G. Stählin, op. cit., p. 428. For other suggestions see H. van der Loos, op. cit., pp. 485 f.
155. Cf. H. van der Loos, op. cit., pp. 487–489 where a number of varying interpretations are reviewed: the offerings which Moses prescribed will serve to authenticate the recovery to the people, or will indicate that Jesus does not subvert the Law, or that he who makes lepers clean has appeared.
156. TWNT IV (1942), pp. 488 f., 508–510. On p. 509 Strathmann interprets Ch. 1:44 to mean, if the priest should presently establish that the healing has taken place this will form for the people highly incriminating evidence against the unbelief in which they persist. It will militate against them and accuse them on the day of judgment.
157. Cf. G. Schrenk, TWNT III (1938), p. 264; H. van der Loos, op. cit., p. 489.
158. NEB “But the man went out and made the whole story public; he spread it far and wide.” “To proclaim” (κηρύσσειν) and “to spread the word” (διαφημίζειν τόν λόγον) are technical terms signifying the Christian mission in Acts 8:4 f.; 9:20; 10:42; 2 Tim. 4:2.
159. See above on Ch. 1:35.
2. The indefinite plural occurs 21 times in Mark. It is identified as an Aramaism by C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage, Notes Critical and Exegetical on the Second Gospel,” JThS 25 (1924), pp. 378 ff.
3. RSV “a paralytic.” On the nature of paralysis and lameness and the attitude toward these afflictions in the Jewish world see J. Preuss, Biblisch-talmudische Medizin (Berlin, 1911), pp. 266–270, 351–355.
4. RSV “and when they had made an opening.” The roof was made of a light material like straw covered with mud. See G. Dalman, Orte und Wege Jesu3 (Leipzig, 1924), p. 78.
5. ASVmg RSV “pallet.” The term refers to a mattress, which was the common bed of a poor man.
6. On this verse and the correct placement of the parenthesis see the commentary below.
7. Mark uses “the word” without qualification again in Ch. 4:14–20, 33, where the context is explicit that the word concerns the secret of the Kingdom (Ch. 4:11).
8. The opening of a roof is mentioned elsewhere in contemporary literature, e.g. Midrash Rabba to Leviticus, 19:6 end (in a story about Jeconiah’s wife): “They opened the ceiling and let him down to him.” Cicero, In M. Antonium oratio Philippica II. 18. 45, speaks of letting a man down through the tiles. On these and related passages see D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), pp. 385–387; H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden, 1965), pp. 440–442.
9. The passive expression was a customary Jewish way of making a pronouncement about God’s action while avoiding the divine name. Cf. 2 Sam. 12:13, “David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ And Nathan said to David, ‘The Lord has pardoned your sin.’ ” When transposed to the passive, in keeping with first-century usage, Nathan’s statement becomes: “your sin is pardoned.” Jesus’ word to the paralytic would be understood as the pronouncement, “God forgives you.” On this construction see Bl-D-F, § 130. 1 (p. 72). On the aoristic present ἀφίενται, which signifies “Your sins are forgiven at this moment,” see Bl-D-F, § 320 (p. 167).
10. See especially H. A. Brongers, “Enkele opmerkingen over het verband tussen zonde en ziekte enerzijds en vergeving en genezing anderzijds in het Oude Testament,” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 6 (1952), pp. 129–142.
11. Ibid., pp. 137 f.; H. van der Loos, op. cit., pp. 255–263. Variant traditions of the OT text current in the first century show the same interchange of terms, e.g., Isa. 6:10 in Mk. 4:12 agrees with the Targum “… lest they should turn again and it should be forgiven them”; cf. Matt. 13:15 which agrees with the M.T. “… and should turn again and I should heal them.”
12. H. A. Brongers, op. cit., p. 141.
13. See J. Jeremias, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 740–742; idem, Jerusalem zu Zeit Jesu (Göttingen, 1924–29), II B, pp. 101–140; S. Légasse, “Scribes et disciples de Jésus,” RB 68 (1961), pp. 497–506; J. Bowman, “Scribes, Pharisees and Haberim,” The Gospel of Mark (Leiden, 1965), pp. 337–341. A fine passage on the office of scribe is found in Ecclus. 38:24–39:11; cf. 33:16–18.
14. See Ex. 34:6 f.; Ps. 103:3; 130:4; Isa. 43:25; 44:22; 48:11; Dan. 9:9; 1 QS ii. 9; CD iii. 18; xx. 34. Cf. S-BK I (1922), pp. 421 f., 424 ff., 495, 795 f.; II (1924), pp. 585 f.
15. Lev. 24:10–16; Num. 15:30 f. For a discussion of the earliest rabbinic references see H. W. Beyer, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 622 f. See below on Ch. 14:63–64.
16. This rhetorical device is paralleled in rabbinic debate. On Ch. 2:9 see T. A. Burkill, Mysterious Revelation (Ithaca, N.Y., 1963), pp. 130–132.
17. Chs. 8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:33; 14:21 (twice); 14:41 refer to the necessity of suffering for the Son of Man; Chs. 8:38; 13:26; 14:62 focus upon the parousia glory of the Son of Man; Ch. 9:9 anticipates the resurrection of the Son of Man while Ch. 10:45 defines the redemptive purpose of his incarnate life.
18. This is confirmed by the so-called “secrecy phenomena” in Mark; cf. G. H. Boobyer, “Mark II, 10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic,” HTR 47 (1954), p. 115.
19. Cf. M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (London, 1934), pp. 66–68; V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London, 1952), pp. 191f.; H. Tödt, Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung (Gütersloh, 1959), pp. 118–121; R. T. Mead, “The Healing of the Paralytic—A Unit?” JBL 80 (1961), pp. 348–354; R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (London, 1963), pp. 14–16, among others. This conjecture fails to explain the text as it now stands in Mark, and this is mandatory.
20. J. Duplacy, “Marc II, 10, note de syntax,” in Mélanges A. Robert (Paris, 1957), pp. 424–426. The article exposes the significance of ἵνα followed by the subjunctive in Ch. 2:10.
21. Other instances of Marcan parenthetical statements to his Christian readers include Chs. 2:15, 28; 7:3 f., 19; 13:14.
22. On the important term “authority” see A. Feuillet, “L’ἐξουσία du fils de l’Homme d’après Mark 2, 10–28 et parr,” RSR 42 (1954), pp. 161–192.
23. This interpretation was proposed by M. Dibelius, op. cit., p. 67 and was developed by G. H. Boobyer, op. cit., pp. 115–120; J. Duplacy, op. cit., pp. 424–426; C. P. Ceroke, “Is Mk. 2, 10 a Saying of Jesus?” CBQ 22 (1960), pp. 369–390; and J. Murphy-O’Connor, “Péché et Communauté dans le Nouveau Testament,” RB 74 (1967), pp. 181–185. This interpretation demands the removal of the parenthesis from Ch. 2:10b (where it stands in the ASV) to Ch. 2:10a.
24. H. van der Loos, op. cit., p. 262 comments: “In His announcement and granting of remission of sins, Jesus indicates what man’s essential distress is. This does not consist in his transient lot in life, with its many vicissitudes, but in his alienation from the living God, in his life in sin and guilt. It is from this that man must be redeemed, and it is from this that Jesus does in fact redeem him!”
25. G. H. Boobyer, op. cit., p. 119.
26. E.g. Chs. 1:40–44, followed by verse 45; 2:1–12, followed by verse 13; 3:1–6, followed by verse 7; 3:9–12, followed by verse 13; 3:31–35, followed by 4:1; 5:1–20, followed by verse 21, et al.
27. M. J. Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Marc9 (Paris, 1947), p. 40, suggests that the imperfects may express the coming and going of groups to which Jesus successively addresses the word.
28. U. Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness (Naperville, Ill., 1963), pp. 124–128.
29. Cf. R. Pesch, “Levi-Matthäus (Mc 2, 14 / Mt 9, 9; 10, 3) ein Beitrag zur Lösung eines alten Problems,” ZNW 59 (1968), pp. 40–56. While “Levi” occurs in the parallel passage, Lk. 5:27 (Codex D: “Levi the son of Alphaeus”), the name found in Mt. 9:9 is “Matthew” and the identity of this man with the apostle is stressed in the Matthean list of the Twelve (Mt. 10:3, “Matthew the tax-collector”). M. J. Lagrange, op. cit., p. 42 has called attention to Nabatean inscriptions where one finds the term 
, “surnamed,” between two Semitic names. He suggests that Levi had Matthew as a second Semitic name. Because the evidence is rare and the texts not easily accessible it will be convenient to set them forth here (adding a third example to the two cited by Lagrange). Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum I:2 (Aramaic Inscriptions):
No. 158 line 2 (p. 185): 
“Honainu son of Aba who is surnamed ‘Abdallahi”
No. 486 lines 1–2 (p. 346): 
“And Martai who is surnamed Zabdath”
No. 488 lines 1–2 (p. 347): 
“Malku who is surnamed Bashamah”
On the variant reading “James the son of Alphaeus,” supported by Western and Caesarean texts in Mk. 2:14, see F. C. Burkitt, “Levi Son of Alphaeus,” JThS 28 (1927), pp. 273 f.; B. Lindars, “Matthew, Levi, Lebbaeus and the Value of the Western Text,” NTS 4 (1958), pp. 220–222.
30. The customs officers were not “publicans,” who were usually Romans of equestrian rank, but subordinate officials, most of whom were Jewish. In Ch. 2:15–16 Mark uses the ordinary Greek term, τελώνης. δημοσιώνης, which ordinarily renders the Latin term publicanus, never occurs in the Gospels. Except at Jerusalem, and perhaps Jericho, the tax-farmers must be collecting either for the tetrarch or for the municipality. It is questionable whether there were any municipal taxes in Jewish communes except at the very few cities upon which the Herods had bestowed Hellenistic city organization. Capernaum, where the toll-booth was located, was not one of these. See further A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963), pp. 125 f.
31. TB Baba Qama 113a lists customs officials together with “murderers and robbers.” Jewish sources distinguish two classes of tax officials, those responsible for the income-tax and the poll-tax, and the customs officers who were placed at bridges, canals and on state roads. The latter were especially despised because they had greater opportunities for vexatious exactions. See the articles on τελώνης in M-M, A-G and S-BK I (1922), pp. 377–380, 498.
The enemies of the Church who wished to discredit Jesus seized upon this incident. Celsus remarks that Jesus gathered around him ten or eleven persons of notorious character, the very wickedest of tax-farmers and sailors (Origen, Contra Celsum i. 62; in ii. 46 Celsus claimed that Jesus chose ten publicans and sailors to be his disciples).
32. TB Sanhedrin 25b, the commentary on M. Sanhedrin III. 3 which lists “notorious sinners.”
33. IMM 116. 42; OGIS 469. 9, cited by A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus (Stuttgart, 1929), p. 302.
34. See above n. 30. ASVmg clarifies “collectors or renters of Roman taxes.” In the territory of Herod Antipas, however, they would be collecting taxes for the tetrarch. RSV “tax collectors.”
35. The question of the punctuation has bearing on the interpretation. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (א, B) require a period after “disciples.” They make the scribes the subject of the verb “follow”: “and the scribes of the Pharisees also followed him.” The textual tradition behind the ASV, RSV, however, is stronger and should be retained. The clause “for they were many, and they followed him,” appears to be an explanatory note for Mark’s Roman audience explaining the historical circumstance that there were many tax officers and sinners who followed Jesus. The term “follow” is here used untechnically. The meal brings on the scene a large number of officials to whom Jesus addresses a call to repentance. See R. P. Meye, Jesus and the Twelve (Grand Rapids, 1968), pp. 142–145.
36. “Οτι is here like τί or διότι, as Matthew and Luke have understood. The same construction occurs in Mk. 9:11, 28 and elsewhere. See Bl-D-F § 300, pp. 157 f. RSV “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
37. The words “and drinks” are supported by a large number of MSS (C A λ φ pl c f l q vg syp sa bo) but should be omitted with B א D W Θ 235 271 a b e ff r1.
38. It is natural to see a clear connection between Ch. 2:15–17 and Ch. 2:14, as in the earliest commentary on Mark: “And Levi made him a great feast in his house” (Lk. 5:29).
39. Cf. K. Rengstorf, TWNT I (Eng. tr. 1964), p. 328: “For the Pharisee, however, a ἁμαρτωλός is one who does not subject himself to the Pharisaic ordinances, i.e., the so-called ʿam ha-areṣ. He is not a sinner because he violates the Law, but because he does not endorse the Pharisaic interpretation.” In the OT the term is far from technical, as is shown by E. W. Nicholson, “The Meaning of the Expression 
in the Old Testament,” JSemS 10 (1965), pp. 59–66. The situation, however, is different by the time of the composition of the early Pharisaic document, the Psalms of Solomon (ca. 40 B.C.). For the group distinction between righteous and sinners see Ps. Sol. 2:37–41; 3:3–15; 12:7. See further I. Abrahams, “Publicans and Sinners,” in Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, I (Philadelphia, 1917), pp. 54–61; and especially J. Jeremias, “Zöllner und Sünder,” ZNW 30 (1931), pp. 293–300. Helpful (but undocumented) is W. H. Raney, “Who Were the ‘Sinners’?” JRel 10 (1930), pp. 578–591.
40. On “the scribes of the Pharisees” see E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi4 II (Leipzig, 1909), p. 320. The material collected in S-BK IV (1928), pp. 339–352 indicates that the Sadducees also had their interpreters of the Law.
41. 1 Macc. 1:62 f.; 2:29 f., 42; 7:13–16; 2 Macc. 14:6.
42. The Mishnah provides the background for understanding their protest: M. Demai II. 2 “He that undertakes to be trustworthy (i.e. a Pharisee) may not be the guest of one of the people of the land”; II. 3 “He who undertakes to be an Associate … may not be the guest of one of the people of the land nor may he receive him as a guest in his own raiment.” TB Berachoth 43b lists among six things inappropriate to a scholar “he should not recline at table in the company of ignorant persons,” while TJ Shabbath 3c states clearly “Let not a Pharisee eat the sacrifice with the people of the land.”
43. Forms of this commonplace occur both in Jewish and non-Jewish sources: e.g., Mekilta to Ex. 15:26 “If they are not sick, why do they need a physician?”; Pausanias apud Plutarch, Apophthegmata Laconica 230 f. “The physicians, he said, are not to be found among the well but customarily spend their time among the sick.”
44. A. Descamps, Les Justes et la Justice dans les évangiles et le Christianisme (Louvain, 1950), pp. 98–110; J. Mouson, “Non veni vocare justos, sed peccatores (Mt IX, 13–Mc II, 17–Lc V, 32),” Collectanea Mechliniensia 43 (1958), pp. 134–139.
45. M. J. Lagrange, op. cit., p. 45; A. Schlatter, op. cit., pp. 194, 309; G. Schrenk, TWNT II (Eng. tr. 1964), p. 189 and H. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia, 1962), p. 220.
46. Op. cit., pp. 171–175. The pattern also occurs in Mk. 2:1 ff., 23 ff.; Mt. 12:22 ff.; 21:15 ff.; Lk. 11:37 ff.; 13:10 ff.
47. Gr. συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ.
48. This has been correctly seen by A. Schlatter, op. cit., p. 304; E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus16 (Göttingen, 1963), pp. 56–58; D. M. Mackinnon, “Sacrament and Common Meal,” in Studies in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford, 1955), pp. 201–207.
49. The exalted Messiah describes the relationship which exists between himself and the messianic community in the terms of meal fellowship: Rev. 3:20; 19:6–9; cf. Mt. 8:10–11. This concept of the “messianic banquet” was also known to the scribes. An early Tannaitic saying compares the Age to Come to a banquet hall: “This age is like a vestibule before the Age to Come. Prepare yourself in the vestibule that you may enter the banquet hall” (M. Aboth IV. 16). See further J. Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations (Naperville, Ill., 1958), pp. 55–65.
50. ASVmg “companions of the bridegroom”; RSV “wedding guests.” The expression is a Semitism for all those who participate in the wedding, e.g. 1 Macc. 9:39, “and the bridegroom came out with his friends and his brothers to meet them with tamborines and musicians …”
51. Gr. ἄγναφος meaning “unbleached,” “unsized,” “unshrunken” and so is equivalent to “new.” W. Bauer renders “a patch of new cloth” (A-G, p. 10); RSV “unshrunk.”
52. RSV is clearer: “No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old and a worse tear is made.”
53. RSV “but new wine is for fresh skins.”
54. K. Rengstorf, TWNT IV (1942), pp. 428–432, 434–446 (pp. 445 f. on Mk. 2:18).
55. In Ch. 6:29 the disciples of John are mentioned again in connection with the burial of the Baptist. See K. Rengstorf, TWNT IV (1942), pp. 460–462.
56. Cf. J. Behm, TWNT IV (1942), p. 929. The observance of this day during the first century is described in the Mishnah, tractate Yoma. Among the men of Qumran the Day of Atonement was designated “the Day of Fasting” (CD vi. 19; 1QpHab. vii. 8).
57. Zech. 7:5; 8:19 refer to fasts in the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months. A rabbinic commentary on these texts (TJ Taʿanith 68a-d) identifies the fasts as follows:
|
17th of Tammuz (fourth month): |
commemorated the breaking of the tables of the Law (Ex. 22:19). |
|
9th of Ab (fifth month): |
commemorated the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar (and later by Titus). |
|
3rd of Tishri (seventh month): |
commemorated the murder of Gedaliah (2 Kings 25:25 f.). |
|
10th of Tebeth (tenth month): |
commemorated the siege and taking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (Jer. 52:14). |
For a slightly different arrangement see Jerome, In Zach. II. 8 (MPL XXV, col. 1475).
58. The term 
occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible (Ezra 9:5; cf. 8:21) but had become a technical term for fasting by the time of the codification of the rabbinic material. Jewish practice in the first century is known especially through the Aramaic “Fast Scroll,” Megillat Taʿanith. There is also a Mishnaic tractate entitled Taʿanith, with commentary in TB and TJ. See further, A. Lesêtre, “Jeûne,” DB III (1910), cols. 1528–1532; E. Schürer, op. cit. II (1907), pp. 489–491; L. A. Rosenthal, “Megillat Taʿanit,” Jüdisches Lexikon (Berlin, 1930), IV: 1, p. 50; J. Behm, op. cit., pp. 929–31; S. Lowy, “The Motivation of Fasting in Talmudic Literature,” JJS 9 (1958), 19–38.
59. Cf. Luke 18:12 (“I fast twice in the week”); Didache 8:1: M. Taʿanith I. 4–5; TB Taʿanith 10a. See S-BK II (1924), p. 243; J. Winter, “Tanchuma,” Jüdisches Lexikon IV:2 (1930), pp. 863 f.
60. E.g. 1 Sam. 31:13; cf. Judith 8:6; 1 Macc. 1:25–28.
61. A. E. J. Rawlinson, St. Mark4 (London, 1936), p. 31; cf. V. Taylor, op. cit., p. 209; C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., pp. 108 f.
62. Translation of J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus6 (New York, 1963), p. 52 n. 15. On the imagery see idem, TWNT IV (1942), pp. 1092–1099.
63. Cf. 1 Macc. 9:37, 39: “It was reported to Jonathan and Simon his brother, ‘The sons of Jambri are celebrating a great wedding and are conducting the bride … from Nadabath with a large escort … They raised their eyes and looked, and saw a tumultuous procession with much baggage; and the bridegroom came out with his friends and his brothers to meet them with tamborines and musicians …”
64. Cf. J. Jeremias, TWNT IV (1942), pp. 1094 f. In The Parables of Jesus6 (1963), p. 52 n. 13, Jeremias is able to offer only one passage, occurring in a relatively late rabbinic cycle of festival sermons: “The garment in which God will one day clothe the Messiah will shine ever more brightly from one end of the world to the other, for it is said (Isa. 61:10), ‘Like a bridegroom who puts on a priestly mitre’ ” (Pesiqta Rabbati 149a). On the reading of 1QIsa.a 61:10 see J. Gnilka, “Bräutigam—spätjüdisches Messiasprädikat?” TrierThZ 69 (1960), pp. 298–301.
65. H. N. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 50 f., 160.
66. Note Jn. 3:29; 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:23; Rev. 19:7; 21:2.
67. There are interesting variations on this saying in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, which appears to be Enkratite in character. It appears most fully in Logion 104: “They said to him, Come and let us pray today and let us fast. Jesus said, What then is the sin which I have committed, or in what have I been vanquished? But when the bridegroom comes out of the bridal chamber, then let them fast and let them pray.” Entrance into the bridal chamber is mentioned in Logion 75 (which appears to be a brief formulation of Mt. 25:10). Similar in tenor to Mk. 2:20, without the bridal imagery, is Logion 38: “Jesus said, Many times have you desired to hear these words which I say unto you, and you have no other from whom to hear them. There will be days when you will seek me and you will not find me.”
68. So Jeremias, TWNT IV (1942), pp. 1094–1096; idem, The Parables of Jesus6 (1963), p. 52.
69. Rightly stressed by F. G. Cremer, Die Fastenansage Jesu (Bonn, 1965), pp. 5, 126, who points out that there is no underlying prophecy of the passion here. Between the futures ἐλεύσονται and νηστεύσουσιν the aorist subjunctive ἀπαρθῇ has the meaning of an exact future. Accordingly one should interpret ὅταν ἀπαρθῇ as similar in meaning to ὅτε ἀπηρμένος ἔσται, so that Jesus speaks only of a time in which he will be taken away from his own. There is no mention of a violent death.
For instances of wedding feast joy turned into occasions of sorrow, because the bridegroom was taken away, see Tobit 3:5–14; 1 Macc. 9:37–41 (verse 41, “Thus the wedding was turned into mourning and the voice of their musicians into a funeral dirge”).
70. That it would have been possible to do so is indicated by Isa. 53:8 LXX: “his life was taken away (αἴρεται) from the earth,” which recalls ἀπαίρεσθαι in Mk. 2:20.
71. The material from the second century through the fifteenth has been adequately examined by F. G. Cremer, op. cit., who sub-titles his book Mk 2, 20 und Parallelen in der Sicht der patristischen und scholastischen Exegese (pp. 7–146, the literal understanding of the words; pp. 147–175, the allegorical understanding). For more modern treatments see esp. K. T. Schafer, “… und dann werden sie fasten, an jenem Tage (Mk 2, 20 und Parallelen),” in Synoptische Studien, Alfred Wikenhauser … dargebracht (München, 1953), pp. 124–147.
72. Cf. Lagrange, op. cit., p. 48. A similar alternation between “the days” and “the day” of the Son of Man occurs in Lk. 17:22–24, where the phrase ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι echoes Mk. 2:20.
73. Cf. M. H. Shepherd, Jr., The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse (London, 1960), p. 35; G. Braumann, “ ‘An jenem Tag’ (Mk. ii. 20),” Nov. Test. 6 (1963), pp. 264–267. See the references in Cremer, op. cit., pp. 10, 20, 25, 29, 30, 102, 104.
74. So E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 60; J. Jeremias, TWNT IV (1942), p. 1096 n. 41; J. O’Hara, “Christian Fasting, Mk 2, 18–22,” Scripture 19 (1967), pp. 82–95. The Aramaic 
means both “to be sad” and “to fast” (see the Targum on 1 Kings 2:26 and Zech. 7:5 respectively). Cf. Ch. 14:20 where the joy of the disciples is broken by the explicit pronouncement that one of them will betray Jesus.
75. Cf. Cremer, op. cit., pp. 4 f. This common understanding finds new support in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, Logion 47. A variant form of the new wine saying precedes the reference to the patching of the garment (where the formulation is the reverse to that in Mk. 2:21: “They do not sew an old patch on a new garment, because there would come a rent”), and both are independent of the wedding imagery in Logion 75 and 104.
76. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus6 (1963), pp. 117 f.
77. H. Ridderbos, op. cit., pp. 50 f., 305–308.
78. Cf. J. Behm, TWNT III (1938), pp. 451 ff. There is no real basis for distinguishing between νέος and καινός, as if the first signified “new” in terms of recent while the second means qualitatively new. Mark speaks of οἶνος νέος, but there is an ostraca reference to οἶνος καινός, and the expressions are equivalent. See M-M, pp. 314 f.; M. J. Lagrange, op. cit., p. 48.
79. The reference to the ripe grain is frequently taken as a chronological datum: the incident must have occurred after Passover, from April to June, and provides “the only clear indication in the Synoptic Gospels that the Ministry covered at least a year,” according to V. Taylor, op. cit., p. 216; cf. M. J. Lagrange, op. cit., p. 52; C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 115. It is unwise, however, to base a chronological judgment on a detail which is incidental to the pericope. There is no indication that Mark has placed the account at this point for chronological reasons. Moreover, the caution that the incident is not chronologically precise is rightly urged by M. Smith, “Comments on Taylor’s Commentary on Mark,” HTR 48 (1955), p. 28: “While Passover marks the official beginning of harvest, grain is ripe sometimes earlier in sheltered places, not to mention the Jordan Valley.”
80. M. Shabbath VII. 2; TJ Shabbath VII. 2, 9c (the plucking of grain is an act of reaping). See S-BK I (1922), pp. 615–618, 623–629; E. Lohse, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 11–14; B. Cohen, “The Rabbinic Law Presupposed by Mt. 12:1 and Lk. 6:1,” HTR 23 (1930), pp. 91 f.; S. T. Kembrough, “The Concept of Sabbath at Qumran,” Rev Qum 5 (1966), pp. 483–502.
81. ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν (= 
), “not permitted.” See E. Lohse, “Jesu Worte über den Sabbat,” in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche, Festschrift für J. Jeremias, ed. W. Eltester (Berlin, 1960), p. 86 n. 27.
83. Gr. ἐπί cum genitive, on which see Bl-D-F § 234. 8 (p. 123). This is the most common understanding of the phrase in this context, and finds support from the idiom in 1 Macc. 13:42; Lk. 3:2; Acts 11:28.
84. Cf. M. J. Lagrange, op. cit., pp. 53–55; A. D. Rogers, “Mark 2, 26,” JThS n.s. 2 (1951), pp. 46 f.
85. The words ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθαρ ἀρχιερέως are absent from D W 271 a b e f f i r1 sysin and the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke. In A C Θ λ φ and other MSS the article τοῦ is inserted before ἀρχιερέως. By this change the phrase could mean “in the days of Abiathar (who later became) the High Priest.” Both variants may be due to a sense of historical difficulty in the text as it stands.
86. J. W. Wenham, “Mark 2, 26,” JThS n.s. 1 (1950), p. 156. The objections which may be raised against this proposal are that ἐπὶ Ἀβιάθαρ is considerably separated from “have you not read,” unlike Ch. 12:26; that Abiathar is by no means the central element in this section of I Samuel; that the introduction of Abiathar first in Ch. 22 constitutes it unlikely that his name would be given to the section; and that numerous instances in Tannaitic documents indicate that a section was usually designated by a term which occurs early, not late, in the section. The strongest argument for this proposal is the undoubted use of ἐπί cum genitive in Ch. 12:26 to indicate a section of Scripture.
87. B. Murmelstein, “Jesu Gang durch die Saatfelder,” Angelos 3 (1930), pp. 111–120 calls attention to TB Menaḥoth 95b and Yalquṭ Shimʿoni to 1 Sam. 21:5 (§ 130), where Rabbi Shimʿon (ca. 150 A.D.) interprets the text of the Sabbath.
88. E. Lohse, TWNT VII (1964), p. 22.
89. D. Daube, op. cit., pp. 67–71. Daube points out that the argument from temple practice in Mt. 12:5 conforms to the technical demands of the situation if it was Jesus’ intention to establish a point of halakha.
91. For a radical approach to the text see F. W. Beare, “The Sabbath was Made for Man?” JBL 79 (1960), pp. 130–136. A useful survey of contemporary approaches to these two verses is presented by F. Gils, “Le sabbat a été fait pour l’homme et non l’homme pour le sabbat (Mc, II, 27),” RB 69 (1962), pp. 506–513. His own proposal (pp. 513–523) will be discussed below.
92. Verse 27 is absent in D a c e ff i. These MSS read, “But I say unto you” followed by verse 28. W and sysin omit the latter part of verse 27 (“and not man for the sake of the Sabbath”).
93. The problem arises from the initial particle ὥστε in verse 28. This particle can introduce an absolute proposition (so Bl-D-F § 391.2, pp. 197 f.), but more normally it establishes a link of consequence between two propositions. It is this more usual function of ὥστε that seems awkward since in verse 27 “man” is in view while in verse 28 “the Son of Man” is in view. For several possible exegetical approaches to this difficulty see F. Gils, op. cit., pp. 509–513.
94. The Matthean parallel attests verse 28, but not verse 27. It may be under the influence of the Matthean text that verse 27 is omitted in D and the itala.
95. This is a large problem in itself and has called forth an enormous bibliography: cf. J. Coppens-L. Dequeker, Le Fils de l’homme et les Saints du Très-Haut en Daniel VII, dans les Apocryphes et dans le Nouveau Testament (Louvain, 1961), pp. 5–14, 54–55, 85–86. H. Tödt, op. cit., pp. 121–123 is certainly correct in asserting that in Mk. 2:10 and 28 “Son of Man” is a title of the highest dignity.
96. E.g. F. W. Beare, op. cit., p. 32, “the sentiment that ‘the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath,’ and that ‘man is master of the sabbath’ is wholly inconceivable in any Jewish teacher, including Jesus; it sounds more like Protagoras of Abdera.” Similarly, F. Gils, op. cit., pp. 516–521.
97. Gr. καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς: Chs. 2:27a; 4:2b, 11, 21, 24, 26; 6:10; 7:9; 8:21; 9:1.
98. Cf. Ch. 10:6–9, where Jesus again displays his concern to recover the original intention of a creation ordinance.
99. Mekilta, Shabbata I to Ex. 31:14 (ed. Lauterbach III, pp. 198, 199). R. Simeon b. Menasya is impressed by the fact that Ex. 31:14 reads “You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore; for it is holy unto you (
).” He reads this last term, apparently, “for your sake,” and so deduces “for your sake the sabbath is delivered” and not “you are delivered for the sake of the Sabbath” (
). In TB Yoma 85b this word is attributed to Jonathan ben Joseph, a pupil of R. Ishmael.
100. Ex. 13:14 is cited, followed by the comment, “This is the verse which R. Simeon the son of Menasya interpreted as saying: The Sabbath is given to you but you are not surrendered to the Sabbath.” J. Z. Lauterbach, “Simeon ben Menasya,” JE XI (1905), pp. 355 f. called attention to the parallel which this passage affords to Mk. 2:27; cf. also C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels2 (London, 1927) I, p. 64 and E. Lohse, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 15, 22 et al. A similar pronouncement on the Temple occurs in 2 Macc. 5:19.
101. This needs to be asserted in the presence of an increasing desire to reject verse 27 altogether or to regard it as a Marcan addition to a tradition which consisted of Ch. 2:23–26, 28. To cite only recent authors, F. Gils, op. cit., pp. 513–523; G. Barth, “Das Gesetzverständnis des Evangelisten Matthäus” in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, H. Held, Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium (Neukirchen, 1960), p. 85, n. 1; E. Schweizer, “Der Menschensohn,” ZNW 50 (1959), p. 199, n. 47a.
102. See above, pp. 96–98. The Gospel of Truth 32:22–25 offers an interesting parallel to the Marcan device of providing a word to the Christian reader. After an allusion to Mt. 12:11 ff. the text continues “that you may understand at heart what the Sabbath is-viz., that in which it is not appropriate that salvation be idle.”
103. Gr. ὥστε, on which see n. 93. Ὥστε designates the conclusion which Mark draws from the act and word of Jesus.
104. Strangely enough M. J. Lagrange, op. cit., pp. 55 f. argued that verse 28 was not originally found in Mark’s Gospel; it was early introduced under the pressure of Mt. 12:8. Among those holding that verse 28 is a reflection of the Community, or better, of Mark himself, are E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 66; E. Lohse, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 22 f. and n. 178; idem, “Jesu Worte über den Sabbat,” BZNW 26 (1960), pp. 82 f.; G. Iber, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Begriff des Menschensohns im Neuen Testament (Heidelberg, 1955), p. 71. Iber argues that verse 28 furnishes the ultimate response to the question posed in verse 24.