---

1. Gr. ἐκλύεσθαι, used of weakness caused by hunger in Judg. 8:15; 1 Kings 14:28; Isa. 46:1; Lam. 2:19; 1 Macc. 3:17 LXX.

2. Gr. ἥκασιν supported by א A D N W Θ λ 28 33 69 565 700 pm latt sy^{s p} arm goth aeth sa. The more familiar form εἰσίν is read by B L Δ 892 bo, but ἥκασιν is clearly to be preferred. Mark apparently intends the phrase ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἥκασιν to echo Josh. 9:6, 9 or Isa. 60:4 or both. See the suggestive development of this phrase by F. W. Danker, “Mark 8:3,” JBL 82 (1963), pp. 215 f.

3. Gr. εὐχαριστήσας, in contrast to εὐλογῶ in Ch. 6:41. Both words represent the Semitic , but the preference for εὐχαριστῶ here is seen as a Hellenistic element supporting the Gentile orientation of the passage. Cf. W. L. Knox, Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (London, 1944), pp. 3–5; J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus² (Oxford, 1955), p. 119.

4. It is preferable to omit αὐτά (“them”) with D E G H S U V Ω 22 33 118 472 579 700 pm q and to explain its presence in so many good MSS as due to the ignorance of Gentile scribes concerning Jewish practice. The object of the blessing was not the loaves or the fish, but the Lord (see on Ch. 6:41). If Mark did write εὐλογήσας αὐτά the passage should be translated “having blessed [God’s Name] over them.”

5. English translation obscures the presence of σπυρίς here (in contrast to κόφινος in Ch. 6:43). The σπυρίς was a rope or mat basket sufficiently large to carry a man (Acts 9:25). The remains of the seven σπυρίδες were thus more extensive than the twelve κόφινοι mentioned in Ch. 6:43.

6. Gr. Δαλμανουθά poses a difficult puzzle complicated by textual variants and conjectures. Dalmanutha is completely unknown apart from this reference; in the parallel passage Mt. 15:39 stands Magadan, which was located near ancient Gerasa on the eastern side of the lake. This finds support in several of the variant readings for Mk. 8:10 (P⁴⁵ D^corr it sy^s Origen Eusebius ^{Onomasticon 134, 18}), but these may simply reflect assimilation to the text of Matthew. The chief difficulty with this variant is that it places Jesus on the wrong side of the lake. C. Kopp, Die heiligen Stätten der Evangelien (Regensburg, 1959), pp. 232, 246 ff., considers Dalmanutha to be almost certainly identical with Magdala, a town near Tiberias on the western side of the lake. This proposal finds support in the Caesarean text of Mk. 8:10 where Μαγδαλα is read by Θ λ φ 209 271 317 sy^pal. For a review of proposed conjectural emendations based on a presumed Aramaic text see E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus¹⁶ (Göttingen, 1963), pp. 154 f. and for the geographical questions involved J. Sickenberger, “Dalmanutha,” ZDPV 57 (1934), pp. 281–285; P. Tielscher, “Dalmanutha,” ZDPV 59 (1936), pp. 128–132; B. Hjal-Hansen, “Dalmanutha,” RB 53 (1956), pp. 372–384.

7. H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden, 1965), p. 620; K. Tagawa, Miracles et Évangile (Paris, 1966), p. 129; G. Ziener, “Das Brotwunder im Markusevangelium,” BZ 4 (1960), pp. 282–285, among many others.

8. Both incidents are situated in the wilderness (Ch. 6:35; Ch. 8:4); the question “How many loaves have you?” recurs (Ch. 6:38; Ch. 8:5); the command to recline is expressed by the same vocable (Ch. 6:39; Ch. 8:6); the meal is initiated in the same way (Ch. 6:41; Ch. 8:6); on both occasions “they ate and were filled” (Ch. 6:42; Ch. 8:8); the fragments were gathered after each meal (Ch. 6:43 f.; Ch. 8:8 f.); the dismissal of the crowd was followed by a journey in the boat (Ch. 6:45; Ch. 8:9 f.).

9. Comm. in Matth. P. L. XXVI, 112. Even among the so-called parallel expressions there are striking differences, e.g. the distinction between κοφίνων and σπυρίδες in describing the gathered fragments not only in Ch. 6:43 and Ch. 8:8 but in Ch. 8:19 f. Among differences may be noted the duration of the crowd’s stay in the wilderness (Ch. 6:35, one day; Ch. 8:2, three days); the numbers of the loaves and fish, the fragments, and those present (Ch. 6:38, 42–44; Ch. 8:5, 8 f.); the absence of the exchange between Jesus and the disciples (Ch. 6:36–38), and of the references to the distinctive wilderness motifs (Ch. 6:34, 39 f.) in the second account. Moreover, in the first feeding the disciples raise the question of what is to be done about the crowd, but the initiative is taken by Jesus in the second.

10. See further G. Friedrich, “Die beiden Erzählungen von der Speisung in Mk. 6, 31–44; 8, 1–9,” ThZ 20 (1964), pp. 10–22; J. Knackstedt, “Die beiden Brotvermehrungen im Evangelium,” NTS 10 (1964), pp. 309–335.

11. It is tempting to see in the three-day ministry the sanctification of the people in preparation for an epiphany of the Lord’s glory, on the analogy of Ex. 19:10 f.

12. M. J. Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Marc (Paris, 1947), pp. 202 f. finds a further nuance in the question: Everyone knows that God gave bread to his people in the desert (cf. Ex. 16:32). Only a miraculous provision of bread can satisfy the need.

13. See e.g. A. Richardson, “The Feeding of the Five Thousand,” Interpretation 9 (1955), pp. 144–149; G. Friedrich, op. cit., pp. 10–22; A. Shaw, “The Marcan Feeding Narratives,” The Church Quarterly Review 162 (1961), pp. 268–278.

14. The situation of the incident in the Decapolis, the allusive use of ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἥκασιν in Ch. 8:3b, the substitution of εὐχαριστῶ for εὐλογῶ in Ch. 8:6 and of σπυρίδες for κοφίνων in Ch. 8:8. See F. W. Danker, op. cit., pp. 215 f.; W. L. Knox, op. cit., pp. 3–5; R. C. Horn, “The Use of the Greek New Testament,” Lutheran Quarterly 1 (1949), p. 301.

15. G. H. Boobyer, “The Miracles of the Loaves and the Gentiles,” ScJTh 6 (1953), pp. 77–87 argues that both feedings took place on the eastern side of the lake and involved Gentiles. His argument is unconvincing because he fails to discuss the distinctly Jewish wilderness motifs in Ch. 6:30–44.

16. C. Kopp, op. cit., pp. 232, 246 ff.

17. Gr. συζητεῖν, which conveys more the nuance of disputing or arguing with someone (cf. Chs. 9:14, 16; 12:28); RSV “they began to argue with him.” The expression implies that there was a prior discussion, the content of which is not indicated, which was then terminated with the demand for a sign.

18. Gr. ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, which is probably a Semitic idiom for “from God.” So K. H. Rengstorf, TWNT VII (1964), p. 233: This expression simply acknowledges that God is the ultimate author of the sign. It does not specify the sphere in which the sign is to be exhibited.

19. RSV “to test him” is better in the light of the background to the Pharisaic demand in Deut. 18:18–22.

20. Gr. λέγω ὑμῖν is omitted by P⁴⁵ W and this is defended as original by G. W. Buchanan, “Some Vow and Oath Formulas in the New Testament,” HTR 58 (1965), p. 325 because it brings the passage into conformity with oath formulae in the OT and rabbinic literature (e.g. Num. 5:19–22; Deut. 27:15 f.).

21. Gr. εἰ δοθήσεται contains a Semitic idiom for strong negation (cf. οὐ δοθήσεται in the parallel passage, Mt. 16:4), in which εἰ = , implying an imprecation. N. D. Coleman, “Some Noteworthy Uses of εἰ or εἶ in Hellenistic Greek, with a Note on St. Mark viii. 12,” JThS 28 (1926–27), pp. 159–167 denied that εἰ was a particle of negation and treated it as an emphatic particle in accordance with Hellenistic usage. He translated the text: “I tell you truly, there shall indeed be given to this generation a sign!” In response F. C. Burkitt, “Mark viii. 12 and εἰ in Hellenistic Greek,” JThS 28 (1926–27), pp. 274–276 showed that the Semitic idiom was recognized and translated as a negative by the Syriac and Coptic versions (and by W Δ 5 φ and Origen who comments εἰ … τοῦτʼ ἐστιν οὐ δοθήσεται). For the Semitic formulae underlying the Greek text see G. W. Buchanan, op. cit., pp. 324–326.

22. The interpretation of the ASV, RSV “into the boat” is made explicit in a number of manuscripts: P⁴⁵ A D W Θ 0131 λ φ 33 565 579 700 al it sy sa bo.

23. See the comprehensive treatment of K. H. Rengstorf, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 199–261, and especially pp. 207–220, 223–227. Of particular importance is the concept of as “token,” pp. 209–212.

24. For a discussion of 1 Sam. 2:30–33; 1 Kings 20:1 ff.; Isa. 7:10 ff.; TB Sanhedrin 98a see O. Linton, “The Demand for a Sign from Heaven (Mk. 8, 11–12 and Parallels),” Stud Theol 19 (1965), pp. 123–126.

25. Ibid., p. 127 provides an instructive analysis of TB Baba Mezia 59b.

26. K. H. Rengstorf, TWNT VII (1964), p. 233.

27. F. Büchsel, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 663; M. Meinertz, “ ‘Dieses Geschlecht’ im Neuen Testament,” BZ 1 (1957), pp. 283 ff.

28. On the Matthean parallel with its reference to the sign of Jonah (Mt. 12:38 f.; 16:4) see A. Vögtle, “Der Spruch vom Jonaszeichen,” in Synoptische Studien Festschrift Alfred Wikenhauser (München, 1953), pp. 230–275; K. H. Rengstorf, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 231 f.

29. Mk. 8:12 is the sole example of the apocopated curse formula in the NT, apart from the citations of Ps. 95:11 in Heb. 3:11; 4:3, 5. Since Ps. 95:10 speaks derisively of “this generation,” it is possible that Jesus intends an allusion to Ps. 95:10 f. in his double affirmation. G. Minette de Tillesse, Le secret messianique dans l’Évangile de Marc (Paris, 1968), p. 379 calls attention to Ezek. 14:1–3; 20:1–3 where the Lord refuses to listen to the elders of the people. In Ezek. 20:3 his refusal is sealed with an oath, as in Mk. 8:12.

30. See further G. Delling, “Botschaft und Wunder im Wirken Jesu,” in Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus, ed. H. Rostow and K. Matthiae (Berlin, 1960), pp. 389–402; K. Tagawa, op. cit., pp. 75–80.

31. Predominantly Caesarean texts refer to the leaven of the “Herodians,” a correction influenced by Chs. 3:6; 12:13: P⁴⁵ G W Δ Θ λ φ 22 28 60 251 565 679 i k sa geo arm.

32. There are many textual variants to this clause. The great majority of Greek MSS have ἔχομεν, supported by some MSS of the Itala, vg sy^{p h}, and this reading is followed by the ASV, RSV. It is preferable to read ἔχουσιν with P⁴⁵ B (D) W λ it sa bo, as in the critical editions of the Greek text. It is then better to understand ὅτι as an indirect interrogative: “they discussed with one another why they had no loaves.” For a defense of this translation see C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage,” JThS 27 (1925–26), p. 59.

33. After τί διαλογίζεσθε the Caesarean texts refer to the disciples as ὀλιγόπιστοι: P⁴⁵ W Θ Φ φ 28 124 565 700 sy^hmg geo² arm. This adjective was probably introduced through Mt. 16:8, but it is thoroughly in harmony with Mk. 8:17–21 and deserves consideration.

34. Gr. πεπωρωμένην is interpreted as blindness of heart in D sy^s vg, and this understanding finds support in the following words of verse 18. See especially L. Cerfaux, “ ‘L’aveuglement d’esprit’ dans l’Évangile de Saint Marc,” Le Muséon 49 (1946), pp. 267–279; J. B. Tyson, “The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark,” JBL 80 (1961), pp. 261–268.

35. The text is near to the LXX formulation of Jer. 5:21; Ezek. 12:2, but with overtones of Isa. 6:9 f. clearly audible. Particularly the link between hardness/blindness of heart and understanding points to Isa. 6:10. See Tillesse, op. cit., p. 272; J. Gnilka, Die Verstockung Israels. Isaias VI, 9–10 in der Theologie der Synoptiker (München, 1961), p. 33. Cf. Oxyrhynchus Logia iii. 8, “My soul grieves over the sons of men because they are blind in their hearts and cannot see.”

36. Verse 15 is commonly regarded as an isolated saying of Jesus which has been inserted into this context artificially due to the association of leaven and bread, e.g. C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage,” JThS 26 (1924–25), p. 150; E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 127 among others. Not only is this contrary to Mark’s customary practice in dealing with the sayings of Jesus but the removal of verse 15 would disrupt the continuity of thought in verses 14–21. See G. Ziener, “Das Bildwort vom Sauerteig Mk 8, 15,” TrierThZ 67 (1958), pp. 247 f.; R. P. Meye, Jesus and the Twelve (Grand Rapids, 1968), pp. 68–72.

37. E.g. TB Berachoth 17a; Plutarch, Moralia II, 659 B; 1 Cor. 5:6–8; Gal. 5:9. Cf. H. Windisch, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 902–906.

38. K. Tagawa, op. cit., pp. 77 f. R. P. Meye, op. cit., pp. 68 f. sees the connection between leaven and the request for a sign, but then interprets Jesus’ miracles as signs already given. Jesus’ rejection of the way of signs in Ch. 8:12 stands opposed to this interpretation. There is a persistent desire to find in the reference to the Pharisees and Herod an allusion to a possessive, self-seeking nationalism bound up with a false, political-messianic hope. E.g., E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 157; G. H. Boobyer, “The Eucharistic Interpretation of the Miracle of the Loaves in St. Mark’s Gospel,” JThS n.s. 3 (1952), pp. 170 f. Lohmeyer goes so far as to find reference to Herod Agrippa I (41–44 A.D.). There is nothing in the context which lends support to such an interpretation.

39. The rabbinic references listed by S-BK I (1922), p. 729 show that “leaven” can be understood as meaning “leavened bread.” A. Negoiţā and C. Daniel, “L’énigme du levain. Ad Mk. viii. 15; Mt. xvi. 6; et Lc. xii. 1,” Nov Test 9 (1967), pp. 306–314 feel that the disciples should have recognized the play on words intended, since in first-century Aramaic (leaven) and (word, teaching) were homonyms.

40. Rightly stressed by K. Tagawa, op. cit., pp. 77 f.

41. Cf. above on Chs. 2:27 f.; 7:20.

42. The reference is to Bethsaida Julias, which the tetrarch Philip advanced from a village to the dignity of a city, both in terms of its population and grandeur. But despite its reorganization and new name it remained a mere toparchic capital (of Gaulanitis), and not a true city (Josephus, Antiquities XVIII. ii. 1). This point is important because the reference to κώμη in verses 23 and 26 is usually taken to indicate that this unit of tradition was not originally connected with Bethsaida, e.g. R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963), pp. 64 f.; K. Tagawa, op. cit., p. 132 n. 2. It is necessary to interpret κώμη in the light of Josephus, War III. iii. 2, who remarks on the large agricultural villages located in Galilee: “the very many villages that are here are everywhere so full of people, because of the richness of their soil, that the very least of them contained more than 15,000 inhabitants.” Mark’s reference to κώμη is correct. See A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963), pp. 127–131. On Bethsaida Julias see G. Dalman, Orte und Wege Jesu³ (Leipzig, 1924), pp. 178 f., 189; C. Kopp, op. cit., pp. 230 ff. The variant reading supported by some western texts, “Bethany” (D 262 it goth), has no claim to originality.

43. Gr. εἴ τι βλέπεις. On the use of εἰ to introduce a direct question see C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek² (Cambridge, 1960), pp. 151, 158.

44. Gr. ἀναβλέψας, which here means “to look up,” but in Ch. 10:51 “to recover one’s sight.”

45. There are many textual variants to this statement which smooth out its roughness, but the text of א B al sy^s followed in the ASV, RSV is to be preferred.

46. Gr. τηλαυγῶς, literally “clearly from afar.” This rare word indicates that the man could see everything clearly at a distance.

47. Gr. μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώμην εἰσέλθῃς is supported by א B L W λ (except 118) 209 sy^{s p} sa bo. The North African text (c k q) with the support of D presupposes the reading μηδενὶ εἴπῃς εἰς τὴν κώμην (“do not speak to anyone in the village”) and this text is defended as original by C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage,” JThS 26 (1924–25), p. 18; 29 (1927–28), p. 2; P. L. Couchoud, “Notes de critique verbale sur St. Marc et St. Matthieu,” JThS 34 (1933), p. 122. The Caesarean and Byzantine families of texts conflate the two readings. For the commentary the text of the major uncials is accepted as primitive.

48. For a wealth of background material on the blind and prescribed remedies for diseases of the eye in antiquity see J. Preuss, Biblisch-talmudische Medizin (Berlin, 1911), pp. 313 ff.

49. K. Tagawa, op. cit., pp. 161–163. Tagawa denies that Ch. 8:23 has anything to do with Mark’s so-called “secrecy phenomena.” It is rather inherent in the tradition which the evangelist received.

50. H. van der Loos, op. cit., p. 420.

51. This is more apparent in the Greek text where ἀναβλέπειν, διαβλέπειν and ἐμβλέπειν indicate a climax in seeing: he looked up, opened his eyes wide and had a clear view of everything. Cf. A-G, pp. 180 (διαβλέπω), 254 (ἐμβλέπω).

52. For the interpretation that the final instruction was given to ensure the full recovery of the man see S. Eitrem, Some Notes on the Demonology of the New Testament (Oslo, 1950), p. 47.

53. See the tables set out by V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1952), pp. 368 f. and G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 57–62.

54. For the close parallelism in structure between Ch. 8:22–26 and Ch. 8:27–30 see R. H. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation in the Gospels (London, 1935), pp. 90 f.; A. Richardson, Miracle-Stories of the Gospels (New York, 1942), pp. 84–90, among others. The structural pattern follows the outline:

Ch. 8:22	Situation	Ch. 8:27
Ch. 8:23–24	Partial Sight	Ch. 8:27–28
Ch. 8:25	Sight	Ch. 8:29
Ch. 8:26	Injunction to Silence	Ch. 8:30

It is obvious from Ch. 8:32 that even the confession that Jesus is the Messiah represents only partial sight, but the analogy drawn between the two units is suggestive.

55. G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., p. 61; U. Luz, “Das Geheimnismotiv und die markinische Christologie,” ZNW 56 (1965), pp. 14 f., among others.

56. In contrast to Bethsaida, Caesarea Philippi was a genuine city in the technical Hellenistic sense; it controlled an extensive territory and possessed the privilege of minting its own money. Mark’s phrase designates a toparchic capital and its subordinate villages. See A. H. M. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1937), pp. 277 n. 67, 283 f. n. 76; A. N. Sherwin-White, op. cit., pp. 127–131.

57. The position of ὑμεῖς in the Greek text (separated from the verb and placed at the beginning of the sentence) is emphatic: i.e. “you whom I have chosen and trained, in contrast with other men.”

58. Gr. ὁ χριστός, which represents the Hebrew and the Aramaic , should be rendered “the Messiah” or “the Anointed (of the Lord).” By assimilation to Mt. 16:17 א L 157 sy^pal add ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ and W φ 543 sy^p ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.

59. Cf. Polybius xvi. 18; xxviii. 1; Josephus, Antiquities XV. x. 3; XVIII. ii. 1; War I. xi. 3; II. ix. 1. See further E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi⁴ II (Leipzig, 1907), pp. 204–208; G. Dalman, op. cit., Ch. XI.

60. For a helpful survey of modern treatments of Ch. 8:27–30 see G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 293–302.

61. E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 162.

62. The reference to John the Baptist is only intelligible in the light of Ch. 6:14–29, and it is evident that Mark intends his readers to recognize this earlier mention of popular opinion. For the distinction between the three convictions see above on Ch. 6:14 f., and for the relationship between Ch. 6:14–16 and Ch. 8:28 see G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 310–312.

63. E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology (New York, 1955), p. 31 comments: “As the Twelve took a central place inside the people of God, so Peter took a central place within the twelve … He is no prize specimen, either as a thinker or a character. He speaks only the ‘things that be of men.’ Satan himself can talk through him. Our sources speak of these matters with relentless candor. Does that mean they were attacking Peter and his privileged position? On the contrary, the Gospels intend to make clear the unimpeachable basis of Peter’s privilege, try to show what kind of man Peter is and what God has wrought in him—so that no man should glory in his presence.”

64. On the relationship between the Marcan and Matthean accounts of the confession see A. Vögtle, “Messiasbekenntnis und Petrusverheissung. Zur Komposition Mt. 16:13–23 Par,” BZ 1 (1957), pp. 252–272; 2 (1958), pp. 85–103; O. Cullmann, TWNT VI (1964), pp. 103–109.

65. For useful surveys of texts see M. de Jonge, “The Use of the Word ‘Anointed’ in the Time of Jesus,” Nov Test 8 (1966), pp. 132–148; E. Lohse, TWNT VIII (1969), pp. 483–488. Particularly important for Pharisaic convictions is Psalms of Solomon 17:23 ff.; 18:1–10; see below on Ch. 12:35–37.

66. Cf. J. B. Frey, “Le conflict entre le Messianisme de Jésus et le Messianisme des Juifs de son temps,” Biblica 14 (1933), pp. 133–149; 269–293. For a recent positive evaluation of Jesus’ own messianic consciousness see O. Betz, “Die Frage nach dem messianischen Bewusstsein Jesu,” Nov Test 6 (1963), pp. 20–48.

67. On the use of ἐπιτιμᾶν in Ch. 8:30 see K. Tagawa, op. cit., p. 174 n. 1. For the Christians of Rome who read Mark, the confession “You are the Messiah” was precisely their profession of faith, but now illumined by the humiliation of the cross and the vindication of the resurrection.

68. The general consensus that the second half of the Gospel begins with Ch. 8:27 recognizes the intimate relationship between Peter’s confession and the first prophecy of the passion in Ch. 8:31. This prophecy introduces the distinctively new elements of the second half, and characteristically commentators speak of Ch. 8:31 ff. when discussing the new section (e.g. R. P. Meye, op. cit., pp. 73–80; T. A. Burkill, Mysterious Revelation [Ithaca, N.Y., 1963], pp. 168–171). It is better, therefore, to recognize Ch. 8:31 as the beginning of the second half of the Gospel. K. Tagawa, op. cit., pp. 49–55 properly cautions against exaggerating the differences between the two halves of the Gospel.

69. Typical of many treatments of this material is G. Strecker, “The Passion and Resurrection Predictions in Mark’s Gospel (Mark 8:31; 9:31;10:32–34),” Interpretation 22 (1968), pp. 421–442. Strecker recognizes an original pre-Marcan form of the passion/resurrection prophecy, but regards Ch. 9:31 and Ch. 10:33 f. as derived from Ch. 8:31 which reflects a sharpening of the prophecy after the event. For a defense of the essential authenticity of the three prophetic announcements see A. Feuillet, “Les trois grandes prophéties de la Passion et de la Resurrection des évangiles synoptiques,” Rev Thom 67 (1967), pp. 533–560; 68 (1968), pp. 41–74.

70. Cf. U. Luz, op. cit., pp. 24 f.; E. Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship (London, 1960), pp. 11–21.

71. Gr. ἄρχεσθαι is frequently paraphrastic, reflecting a Semitic idiom, but here carries its full weight; it introduces the beginning of a new section and a new teaching. Cf. U. Luz, op. cit., pp. 20–23.

72. Gr. δεῖ has its proper background in Dan. 2:28 f., 45 LXX, Theodotion; Mk. 13:7, 10; Rev. 1:1; 4:1. In these contexts there is the suggestion of cosmic catastrophe and God’s judicial intervention. In Ch. 8:31 it refers to a compulsion, behind which is the expressed will of God, and corresponds to γέγραπται (“it is written”) in Chs. 9:12; 14:21, 49. Behind historical occurrence there stands an unrecognized divine plan.

73. For the Semitic-Palestinian idiom behind πολλὰ παθεῖν see D. Meyer, “ΠΟΛΛΑ ΠΑΘΕΙΝ,” ZNW 55 (1964), p. 132, who points to the Assumption of Moses 3:11. W. Michaelis, TWNT V (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 915 suggests that behind παθεῖν stands the root , which can mean “to bear, to endure,” influenced by Isa. 53:4, 11. The reference in πολλά is then to the fullness or totality of the human guilt the Son of Man had to bear. Both parts of this formula might thus stand under the influence of Isa. 53. R. L. Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (Jerusalem, 1969), p. 119 translates .

74. Gr. καὶ τῶν ἀρχιερέων, found also in Chs. 11:18, 27; 15:10, 11. The plural is rare, because ἀρχιερεύς designates the high priest, and only one man held this office at a time. In Josephus, however, the plural designates in addition to the acting high priest, former high priests and members of the privileged families from which the high priests were selected (e.g. War II. xvii. 3). On this use, which is apparent in Ch. 8:31, see E. Schürer, op. cit., II, pp. 238–267; J. Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu³ (Göttingen, 1962), II B, pp. 33–40.

75. The Old Latin manuscript k (North Africa), sy^s and the Arabic Diatessaron attest an early variant which connects the open proclamation of the word with the period following Jesus’ resurrection: “… and after three days rise again. And (then) he will speak the Word openly.” Some support for this may be found in the reference to “the gospel” in verse 35, and in Ch. 9:9 (silence until after the Son of Man is risen); 9:30 (secrecy in connection with the second major prophecy); and the so-called “shorter ending” to Mark (see on Ch. 16); cf. also Jn. 16:25. This reading is defended as authentic by F. C. Burkitt, “St. Mark viii. 32: A Neglected Various Reading,” JThS 2 (1900–1901), pp. 111–113; P. L. Couchoud, op. cit., p. 123; E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 167. In favor of the text adopted by the critical editions and all modern English versions is not only the overwhelming support of the textual tradition but the appropriateness of these words within the Marcan context. Cf. Jn. 7:26; 18:20, where the opposition between open proclamation and secret teaching corresponds to the difference between authoritative, truthful speech and false, heretical doctrine; see M. Smith, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (Philadelphia, 1951), pp. 155 f., who finds a polemic note in the contrast between Mk. 4:11 and 8:32.

76. This statement proved embarrassing in sectors of the early Church and various attempts to soften it or to remove the reference to Peter’s rebuke of Jesus are reflected in the textual tradition. Thus sy^s c k present Peter in an entirely different light: “But Simon Peter, in order to spare him, spoke to him.”

77. It is difficult to decide what nuance should be heard in the command, ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου. If this means “away,” “get out of my sight,” this is the only passage in Mark where ὀπίσω with the genitive is used in the sense of “away from”; in Chs. 1:17, 20; 8:34 it signifies “follow after” as a disciple. The thought may be “return to your rank,” i.e., be a true follower of mine and not one who speaks for Satan rather than God.

78. G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., p. 321: “The messianic secret expresses in Mark the irrevocable and free decision of Jesus to embrace his passion, because this is the divine will. It is this fact which is expressed by δεῖ, ‘must.’ If Jesus had allowed his glory as Son of God to shine everywhere, if he had permitted to the crowds their delirious enthusiasm, if he had allowed the demons to howl their servile confession, if he had permitted the apostles to divulge everywhere their sensational discovery, the passion would have been rendered impossible and the destiny of Jesus would have issued in triumph, but a triumph which would have been wholly human (Ch. 8:33) and which would not have accomplished the divine plan of salvation.” Cf. pp. 415–417.

79. “The Use of in Jewish Aramaic,” Appendix E in M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts³ (Oxford, 1967), pp. 310–328. Vermès stresses the importance of distinguishing between various types of Aramaic writings and the variety of speech forms. Particularly important are the instances of in monologues and dialogues, since these provide the true parallel to the Gospels.

80. Ibid., pp. 320–326. One example may illustrate this idiomatic usage: Jacob of Kefar Nibburaya gave a rabbinic ruling. When his adversary, Rabbi Haggai, heard the ruling he sent Rabbi Jacob the order “Come and be scourged!” to which Rabbi Jacob replied “Should be scourged who proclaims the word of Scripture?” (Gen. Rabba VII. 2). The use of as an indirect idiom for “I” is confirmed by the parallel passage, Num. Rabba XIX. 3, which contains the reply of Rabbi Haggai: “Yes, because you did not give the right ruling.”

81. Many interpreters believe that “Son of Man” in the Gospels reflects an awareness of the apocalyptic tradition found in the so-called “Similitudes of Enoch” (1 Enoch 37–71), where “the Son of Man” receives the title “Messiah” (Ch. 48:10; 52:4) and performs vital messianic functions associated with features of the Jewish national hope (Chs. 48:4–10; 53–54; 62–63). The classic study of this material is by E. Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn im Äthiopischen Henochbuch (Lund, 1946). The Son of Man in I Enoch is a transcendent heavenly figure who functions as the eschatological judge and is intimately identified with God’s elect. Yet he is himself nowhere subjected to humiliation and suffering. Moreover, while the conception in Enoch is dependent on Dan. 7:13 f., the Son of Man is not described as “coming with the clouds” as in Daniel and in Mk. 13:26; 14:62. See now C. Colpe, TWNT VIII (1969), pp. 422–429; J. C. Hindley, “Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch. An Historical Approach,” NTS 14 (1968), pp. 551–565.

82. For this chart and its discussion I am indebted to G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 364–394.

83. For “Son of Man” in the Christian community see Acts 7:56; cf. Jn. 9:35 f.; Rev. 1:13; and later texts discussed by C. Colpe, TWNT VIII (1969), pp. 466–481.

84. Allusions to Isa. 53 were present in the tradition which Mark received (see on Chs. 8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:45; 14:24). This needs to be reaffirmed in the face of a growing tendency to see little, if any, Isaianic influence on the formulation (e.g. M. D. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant [London, 1959]; idem, The Son of Man in Mark [London, 1967]). For a positive assessment of this influence see J. Jeremias, The Servant of God in the New Testament (Chicago, 1957), pp. 96 f.; J. Coppens, “Le fils d’homme daniélique et les relectures de Dan., VII, 13, dans les apocryphes et les écrits du Nouveau Testament,” Eph Th Lov 37 (1961), pp. 5–51.

85. E.g. Rom. 4:25 (“he was put to death for our trespasses”) reproduces exactly the Targum to Isa. 53:5; cf. Rom. 8:32.

86. An introduction to the extensive literature on Son of Man and the complexity of the issues is offered by J. Coppens and L. Dequeker, Le Fils de l’Homme et les Saints du Très Haut en Danièl VII, dans les Apocryphes et dans le Nouveau Testament (Louvain, 1961); O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament² (Philadelphia, 1963), pp. 137–192; A. J. B. Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man (London, 1964); H. E. Tödt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (Philadelphia, 1965); J. Jeremias, Abba (Göttingen, 1966), pp. 15–67, 139–152, 191–229; F. H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (London, 1967); C. Colpe, TWNT VIII (1969), pp. 403–481; I. H. Marshall, “The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings in Recent Discussion,” NTS 12 (1965–66), pp. 327–351; R. Maddox, “The Function of the Son of Man according to the Synoptic Gospels,” NTS 15 (1968–69), pp. 45–74; M. Black, “The ‘Son of Man’ Passion Sayings in the Gospel Tradition,” ZNW 60 (1969), pp. 1–8; A. J. B. Higgins, “Is the Son of Man Problem Insoluble?” in Neotestamentica et Semitica, ed. E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (Edinburgh, 1969), pp. 70–87.

87. See W. Michaelis, TWNT V (Eng. Tr. 1968), pp. 914–916; C. Maurer, “Knecht Gottes und Sohn Gottes im Passionsbericht des Markusevangeliums,” ZThK 50 (1953), pp. 1–38.

88. In rabbinic literature Ps. 118:22 is applied to Abraham (Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 24) and to David (TB Pesaḥim 149a; Targum to Ps. 118:22 f.), types of the righteous man who is shamefully treated by men in authority. Only in medieval Jewish writings was it applied to a rejected Messiah. See S-BK I (1922), pp. 875 f.

89. Apart from a single metaphorical use of “cross” in Ch. 8:34, neither the substantive nor the verb “to crucify” occurs in Mark until Ch. 15, which is concerned with the actual crucifixion. There the words occur 10 times.

90. So J. Dupont, “Ressuscité ‘le troisième jour’,” Biblica 40 (1959), pp. 742–761; M. Black, “The ‘Son of Man’ Passion Sayings in the Gospel Tradition,” ZNW 60 (1969), pp. 5–8.

91. Midrash Tehillim on Ps. 22, § 5, with allusions to Gen. 22:4; 42:17; Ex. 15:22; 2 Kings 20:5; Isa. 2:16; Jonah 2:1; Hos. 6:1 f. Cf. J. B. Bauer, “Drei Tage,” Biblica 39 (1958), pp. 354–358 for other examples of “three days” indicating an indefinite short period.

92. It is a matter of debate whether the Targum to Isa. 53 represents the form of the Targum actually used in the first decades of the first century or whether it reflects a deliberate redaction influenced by later Jewish-Christian polemics centered in the prophecy of the suffering Servant. See G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., p. 387 and n. 5 for the pertinent bibliography.

93. See B. Noack, Satanás und Sotería (Lund, 1948); W. Foerster, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 158 f.

94. The variant text “to follow,” supported by P⁴⁵ C* D W Θ λ 22 28 157 565 700 pl latt sa aeth Origen apparently reflects assimilation to the form of the saying in Mt. 10:38.

95. Gr. ψυχή, which presupposes a continuity with OT usage where designates man in his totality, his vitality, his profound dynamism which includes his appetite for the good things of life but also his frailty threatened by death. See now G. Dautzenberg, Sein Leben bewahren. Ψυχή in den Herrenworten der Evangelien (München, 1966).

96. This expression presupposes the Semitic idiom , “to trifle away one’s life.” This idiom always presupposes an active element which may not be apparent in “lose”; it implies that the loss is attributable to the will or the fault of the one who suffers it. See A. Oepke, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 394 f., who refers to Sifre Numbers § 131 which refers to individuals who spoiled their lives through their own acts, which brought them to destruction.

97. P⁴⁵ D 28 700 it (some MSS) sy^s aeth arm Origen omit ἐμοῦ καί, which results in the reading “whosoever shall lose his life for the sake of the gospel.” The omission may be accidental.

98. Gr. με καὶ τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους. W k* sa Tertullian omit λόγους, which yields “whoever shall be ashamed of me and mine” (i.e. Jesus’ followers). This reading is accepted as primitive by C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage,” JThS 29 (1927–28), p. 2; T. A. Burkill, op. cit., p. 170 n. 3, among others. The only other example of ἐμός in the Gospel occurs in Ch. 10:40 where ἐμόν = “mine.” Moreover, D it (some MSS) sy^c Origen omit λόγους in the parallel passage, Lk. 9:26. The formulation “me and my words,” however, is analogous to “for my sake and the gospel’s” in verse 35 and should be retained with the vast number of MSS.

99. To “taste death” is a Semitism unknown to the OT (cf. “the bitterness of death,” I Sam. 15:32), although there are several examples of this formula in rabbinic literature: e.g. Genesis Rabba to 1:31; 3:22; TB Yoma 78b; cf. Heb. 2:9. R. Le Déaut, “Goûter le calice de la mort,” Biblica 43 (1962), pp. 82–86 has called attention to two clear examples of the expression “to taste the cup of death” in Codex Neofiti I, the complete recension of the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum (to Deut. 32:1). The expression is otherwise extremely rare.

100. The first five statements are connected by γάρ, and the sixth by Mark’s usual formula for concluding a discourse or introducing a paraphrase of a much longer conversation, καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς. Εἴ τις θέλει (34) corresponds to ὅς γὰρ ἐὰν θέλῃ (35); τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖ (36) corresponds to τί γὰρ δοῖ (37); verses 35–37 are joined together by the catchword ψυχή; verse 38 and Ch. 9:1 reflect the same sentence structure and word order, ὅταν ἔλθῃ … corresponding to ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν … See J. Sundwall, Die Zusammensetzung des Markus-Evangeliums (Åbo, 1934), pp. 56 f.

101. E. Schweizer, “Zur Frage des Messiasgeheimnis bei Markus,” ZNW 56 (1965), pp. 1–8. On “the crowd” in Mark see K. Tagawa, op. cit., p. 59; G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 415 f.

102. On this distinction see R. P. Meye, op. cit., pp. 122–125; H. Kahlefeld, “Jünger des Herrn,” Geist und Leben 30 (1957), pp. 1–6. Both of these studies stress that discipleship implies the will of Jesus that specific men should follow him and their response. Ch. 8:34 is not a call to discipleship but a statement regarding the conditions for following Jesus.

103. H. Schlier, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 469–471.

104. D. R. Fletcher, “Condemned to Die. The Logion on Cross-Bearing: What does it Mean?” Interpretation 18 (1964), pp. 156–164: “Every hour is the last hour. Every successive hour and day, self is to be found by being lost. Let the disciple refuse himself: let him think constantly as one who feels the weight of the hateful beam across his back and knows himself condemned to die. This is his existential calling while the reign of God is being brought in” (p. 164). While the metaphor is not found in older rabbinic literature, death under the Romans was a sufficiently familiar sight in Palestine to provide the basis of the saying. The Roman governor of Syria, Varus, was credited with having crucified 2,000 Jews (Josephus, Ant. XVII. x. 4–10; cf. War II. xii. 6, xiv. 9; V. xi. 1). On this saying see further A. Fridrichsen, “Sich selbst verleugnen,” Coniectanea Neotestamentica 2 (1936), pp. 1–3; J. Schneider, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 577–579.

105. G. Dautzenberg, op. cit., pp. 51–64. Rabbinic “parallels” are exceedingly rare; cf. Aboth de Rabbi Nathan II. 35 “Whoever preserves one word of the Law preserves his life, and whoever blots out one word of the Law will lose his life.”

106. F. J. McCool, Formatio Traditionis Evangelicae (Rome, 1955), pp. 72–74.

107. E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 171; G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 404–409; W. Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus² (Göttingen, 1963), pp. 77–101.

108. A. Stumpff, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 888 f.: If the reference is to winning the world in terms of missionary outreach, “the loss is one which can be incurred in and with this activity.” The continuation in verse 38 suggests rather that what is involved is winning the approval of the world through denial of Jesus and the gospel.

109. The Shepherd of Hermas exposes the situation of Christians in Rome in the early second century in terms reminiscent of Mk. 8:38; e.g. Similitudes IX. xiv. 6: “Do you see then whom he [the Son of God] supports? Those who bear his name with their whole heart. He then was their foundation and he supports them joyfully, because they are not ashamed to bear his name”; IX. xxi. 3: “the double-minded, when they hear of affliction, become idolaters through their cowardice, and they are ashamed of the name of their Lord.”

110. M. Black, op. cit., pp. 3–5; R. Maddox, op. cit., pp. 49 f.

111. E. Stauffer, op. cit., pp. 28 f.

---

1. See on Ch. 3:28; 8:12. The presence of the “Amen” formula has important bearing on the authenticity of this saying. “No evidence [exists] that the early Church felt free to create sayings prefaced with the solemn asseveration ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν.” See A. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament (Leiden, 1966), pp. 175–177. Moore surveys the wide range of interpretation provoked by Ch. 9:1 on pp. 92–107, 125–131; cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark² (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 286–288, 484 f.

2. See on Ch. 1:14 f.; 4:11. The Kingdom has been brought near with Jesus’ coming; his authority and power in confronting powers hostile to God signal its real, though proleptic, presence. Nevertheless, the presence of the Kingdom in Jesus’ person and work remains a secret far removed from the obvious, irrefutable, unambiguous display of sovereignty men would have welcomed. This inherent tension is basic to Chs. 8:34–9:1.

3. The relationship between Ch. 8:38 and Ch. 9:1 reflects an old biblical pattern. In the OT the assurance that God will intervene decisively in history is based on his past and present activity in redemptive history. Corresponding to this, Ch. 9:1 announces an event soon to be accomplished which will provide fresh evidence of God’s sovereign direction of history toward the consummation when the Son of Man will be revealed in glory (Ch. 8:38).

4. A. Moore, op. cit., p. 127 n. 4 rightly stresses that in Ch. 9:1 it is not said that death will exclude some of those present from seeing the announced event. All that is required by Jesus’ statement is that “some” will see a further irruption of the power and sovereignty of God before they experience the suffering foreseen in Ch. 8:34–35. The basis of selection is left entirely unspecified.

5. Cf. S. S. Smalley, “The Delay of the Parousia,” JBL 83 (1964), pp. 41–46; J. Schierse, “Historische Kritik und theologische Exegese der synoptischen Evangelien erläutert an Mk. 9, 1,” Scholastik 29 (1959), pp. 520–536. The transfiguration is full of overtones suggesting the parousia: the emphasis on the visible manifestation of Jesus’ dignity (Ch. 9:2, 4, 8–9), the cloud reminiscent of God’s self-revelation and self-veiling, the voice in confirmation of Jesus’ sonship. The command to listen to him reinforces the challenge of Ch. 8:34–38.

6. It also points proleptically to the resurrection, although Mark does not stress this until Ch. 9:9. The Roman Church was familiar with the (pre-Pauline) Palestinian confession that Jesus had been declared the Son of God with power through the resurrection (Rom. 1:3–5; cf. 2 Tim. 2:8). Cf. H. N. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 503–507.

7. Cf. E. Trocmé, “Marc 9, 1: Prédiction ou Réprimande?” in Studia Evangelica, ed. F. L. Cross (Berlin, 1964), pp. 259–265.

8. Gr. μετεμορφώθη describes a transformation that is outwardly visible. Cf. J. Behm, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 755–759: “The miracle of transformation from an earthly form into a supraterrestrial, which is denoted by the radiance of the garments, has nothing whatever to do with metamorphosis in the Hellenistic sense but suggests the context of apocalyptic ideas” (p. 758). See Dan. 12:3; 2 Baruch 51:3, 5, 10, 12; 1 Enoch 38:4; 104:2; 4 Ezra 7:97.

9. A fuller is one who cleans and prepares woollen cloth by the use of nitrium (“fuller’s earth”).

10. A characteristic Marcan construction (cf. Chs. 10:36, 51; 14:12; 15:9) is found in Caesarean and Western texts which insert θέλεις before ποιήσωμεν: “Do you wish us to make … ?” For a defense of this reading, supported by D W Θ φ 543 565 b ff² i, see C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage,” JThS 29 (1927), p. 3.

11. Gr. σκηνάς. It is difficult to know which nuance is appropriate to “tabernacles,” since σκηνή is used to translate , “booth” (Lev. 23:42 f.), in which case Peter is thinking of the shelters made of intertwined branches which were used in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles, or , “tent,” in which case the reference is to the Tent of Meeting where God met with Moses (Ex. 27:1). See the discussion of H. Bornhäuser, Sukka (Giessen, 1935), pp. 126–128; H. Riesenfeld, Jésus transfiguré (Lund, 1947), pp. 146–205; W. Michaelis, “Zelt und Hütte im biblischen Denken,” Ev Th 14 (1954), pp. 24–49; idem, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 369–382; W. R. Roehrs, “God’s Tabernacles among Men—A Study of the Transfiguration,” ConThMon 35 (1964), pp. 18–25.

12. Gr. ἐπισκιάζειν, which here has the nuance of enveloping or concealing, rather than “overshadowing.” See A. Oepke, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 908 f.

13. This expression contains an allusion to Gen. 22:2, 12, 16, where ὁ υἱὸς ὁ ἀγαπητός means “only son”; cf. Mk. 12:6. God proclaims, This is my Isaac. For this understanding see C. H. Turner, “ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος,” JThS 27 (1926), pp. 113–129; and for the Isaac typology, E. Best, The Temptation and the Passion (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 169–173. On the targumic association of the sacrifice of Isaac with Passover see R. Le Déault, La nuit pascale (Rome, 1963), pp. 170–178.

14. E.g. C. E. Carlston, “Transfiguration and Resurrection,” JBL 80 (1961), pp. 233–240.

15. Cf. G. H. Boobyer, St. Mark and the Transfiguration Story (Edinburgh, 1942), pp. 11–16; C. H. Dodd, “The Appearance of the Risen Christ: An Essay in Form-Criticism of the Gospels,” in Studies in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford, 1955), pp. 9–35. Note that all of the canonical accounts of resurrection appearances begin with Jesus’ absence, while he is present from the beginning in Ch. 9:2–8. Moreover, in resurrection narratives the spoken word of the Risen Lord has a prominent place, but in Ch. 9:2–8 Jesus is silent. The theory of a misplaced resurrection account leaves unexplained the appearance of Moses and Elijah, Peter’s designation of Jesus as “Rabbi” and his impetuous statement (Ch. 9:5). After listing five points of contrast between Ch. 9:2–8 and accounts of post-resurrection appearances, Dodd adds: “To set over against these points of difference I cannot find a single point of resemblance. If the theory of a displaced post-resurrection appearance is to be evoked for the understanding of this difficult pericope, it must be without any support from form-criticism, and indeed in the teeth of the presumption which formal analysis establishes” (p. 25).

16. H. Riesenfeld, op. cit., pp. 146–205, 265 ff.; C. W. F. Smith, “Tabernacles in the Fourth Gospel and Mark,” NTS 9 (1963), pp. 130–146. Cf. Ezek. 37:27; 43:7, 9; Joel 3:21; Zech. 2:10 f.; 8:3, 8; 14:16–19 for the expectation that God would pitch his tent among his people in the last days.

17. See U. Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness (Naperville, Ill., 1963), pp. 111–118.

18. Elsewhere precise notes of time are found only in the passion narrative (Chs. 14:1, 12, 17; 15:1, 25, 33, 34, 42; 16:2) and it is necessary to go to Ch. 14:1 to find a close parallel to Ch. 9:2.

19. If H. Riesenfeld (op. cit., pp. 267 f.) is correct in referring the six days to the period between the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles, the timing of Jesus’ announcement concerning his sufferings (Ch. 8:31) is particularly appropriate.

20. W. Foerster, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 486 f. For a suggestive treatment of “the mountain of revelation” see J. Bowman, The Gospel of Mark (Leiden, 1965), pp. 157 f. On the actual site of the transfiguration, which was probably Mount Hermon (9,000 feet), see G. Dalman, Orte und Wege Jesu³ (Leipzig, 1924), pp. 202 ff.; C. Kopp, Die heiligen Stätten der Evangelien (Regensburg, 1959), pp. 300 ff.

21. G. von Rad and G. Kittel, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1965), pp. 238–242, 248 f.; J. Behm, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 758 f.; W. Gerber, “Die Metamorphose Jesu, Mark. 9, 2 f., par,” ThZ 23 (1967), pp. 385–395. On the related concept of the robe of glory see H. Riesenfeld, op. cit., pp. 115–129. Cf. Rev. 1:13–16.

22. The mention of Elijah before Moses is unusual, but Elijah is much in Mark’s thoughts at this time (Chs. 8:28; 9:11) and this may account for the order. Cf. J. Jeremias, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 938 f.; IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 857–863, 867.

23. U. Mauser, op. cit., pp. 113 f.

24. Peter’s use of the title “Rabbi” (Chs. 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; cf. “teacher” [Chs. 4:38; 10:35; 13:1]) is surprising, almost as if no discovery of Jesus’ messianic dignity had been made among the villages of Caesarea Philippi. It provides one more indication that the disciples do not really understand what messiahship means. On the honorific title see E. Lohse, TWNT VI (1959), pp. 962–966; A. Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen (München, 1962), pp. 19–45.

25. While the construction could mean that they kept in mind the statement concerning the resurrection it is more likely that Mark means that they obeyed the injunction to silence. For the evangelist’s interest in this matter cf. Chs. 1:43, 45; 7:36.

26. The widely supported reading τὸ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῆναι (א A B C L Θ pl q sa bo goth) may represent a correction of the concrete but awkward text supported by the Western and Caesarean families (D W λ φ latt sy^{s p} geo Tatian), ὅταν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῇ: “They discussed among themselves what ‘When he shall rise again from the dead’ means.” On this understanding, the disciples were not perplexed concerning the reference to the resurrection, but to the resurrection of the Son of Man from the dead.

27. Gr. ἀποκαθιστάνει πάντα, an allusion to Mal. 3:23 LXX (= M.T. 4:5), καὶ ἀποκαταστήσει, “and he will restore …” Cf. A. Oepke, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 387–389.

28. The undeniably abrupt shift from Elijah to Jesus has prompted the conjecture that the reference to the Son of Man stems from a misunderstanding. If the primitive tradition spoke of that Son of Man, i.e. that man or prophet (as in Ezekiel), then Ch. 9:11–13 referred originally only to Elijah (see W. Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition [Cambridge, 1968], p. 14). This ingenious proposal attains smoothness at the expense of the Marcan intention to link the sufferings of Elijah with those of the Son of Man.

29. Gr. ἐξουδενηθῇ, literally “considered as nothing,” is an allusion to Isa. 53:3 where Aquila and Symmachus have ἐξουδενωμένος. The expression “suffer many things” is an appropriate summary of all that is written in Isa. 53 concerning the Servant of the Lord. Cf. also Ps. 21 (M.T. 22): 6 LXX and Ps. 118:22 in the textual tradition preserved in Acts 4:11. See C. Maurer, “Knecht Gottes und Sohn Gottes im Passionsbericht des Markusevangeliums,” ZThK 50 (1953), p. 28.

30. For a defense of the interesting reading presupposed by the North African MS k (καὶ ἐποίησεν ὅσα ἔδει αὐτὸν ποιῆσαι, “and he did whatsoever it was necessary for him to do”) see P. L. Couchoud, “Notes de critique verbale sur St. Marc et St. Matthieu,” JThS 34 (1933), pp. 123 f.

31. Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Göttingen, 1901), pp. 66–71. In discussing Wrede’s interpretation, R. G. Newman (Tradition and Interpretation in Mark [Ann Arbor, 1965], p. 215 n. 1) stresses a failure “to perceive the dimension of Mark’s intentionality with reference to his contemporaries’ misunderstanding as the stimulus which guides Mark’s redaction.” The emphasis upon the passion in Mark serves to correct an overemphasis upon Jesus as the exalted Son of God at the expense of his humanity and humiliation.

32. The only passage in early scribal sources that associates Elijah’s return and ministry with the resurrection is M. Soṭah IX. 15, which gives evidence of being a later appendix to the original tractate.

33. In addition to Mal. 4:5 f.; Sir. 48:10, cf. Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 43 (25a): “Without repentance Israel will not be redeemed … They will fulfill the great repentance only when Elijah of blessed memory comes, as it is said … (Mal. 4:5)”; Sifré Deut. § 41 “If you (plural) keep the Law, expect Elijah, as it is said … (Mal. 4:5)”; 4 Ezra 6:26, “And the men will appear who were translated, who have not tasted death from the day of their birth, and the hearts of those who dwell on the earth will be changed and they will be turned to a new mind.” See further J. Jeremias, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 931–934.

34. The relationship between the two clauses is clarified by the recognition of the underlying μέν … δέ construction (with καὶ πῶς, in 12b substituting for the δέ): on the one hand Elijah comes first to restore all things, but on the other hand the Scripture affirms that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected. It is necessary that all the Scripture be fulfilled, not only those passages concerning Elijah.

35. It is necessary to assume that the phrase “even as it is written of him” has reference to the prophet Elijah in the framework of his historical ministry. No passage of Scripture associates suffering with Elijah’s eschatological ministry, and there is no evidence that pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptic circles expected Elijah to face suffering upon his return. In fact, the concept of Elijah’s sufferings is alien to the Jewish expectations of his role as the Restorer.

36. For an incisive analysis of this “Elijanic secret” see W. Wink, op. cit., pp. 15–18. Wink comments: “Thus the identification of John with Elijah was both an act of typological-prophetic confidence and at the same time a bold, utterly amazing affirmation which turns the tables on the Jewish expectations as radically as does the reinterpretation of messiahship involving Jesus. What is expressed is the quite offensive paradox that the heavenly Elijah should be this captive, murdered prophet: a dead Elijah. This identification cannot be said to be a simple apologetical retort to the Jewish protest that Elijah must first come, for this ‘answer’ is just as offensive as the statement that the crucified Jesus is the Messiah, and it operates on the same assumptions. In Mark’s hands the Elijah expectation is radicalized and transformed even while the old framework is preserved” (p. 15).

37. Ibid., pp. 17, 40 f., 110.

38. One branch of the textual tradition introduces the story from Jesus’ perspective: ἐλθὼν … εἶδεν, “and when he had come … he saw …” ( A C D Θ al, most minuscules, latt sy bo geo² aeth). The plural forms (ἐλθόντες … εἶδον), however, are strongly supported (א B L W Δ ψ 892 1324 k sa arm) and conform more to Mark’s style elsewhere in the Gospel. They may represent an echo of eyewitness report: “having come … we saw …”

39. The ambiguity of the pronoun is the occasion for the variant reading τοὺς γραμματεῖς (“the scribes”) in A C sy^p. This may be a correct interpretation in the light of verse 14, but the reading is clearly secondary.

40. Gr. ξηραίνεται may connote “becomes stiff” (cf. RSV “becomes rigid”) or “becomes exhausted,” “wastes away” in the sense of exhibiting the pallor of complete exhaustion: Perhaps the first nuance is to be preferred.

41. After ἄπιστος, P⁴⁵ W φ 543 pc add καὶ διεστραμμένη, bringing the text of Mark into harmony with Mt. 17:17; Lk. 9:41 (and Deut. 32:5): “faithless and perverse generation.”

42. Gr. τὸ εἰ δύνῃ in which the article τό is used to introduce a citation, in this instance of the father’s words in verse 22: “so far as the ‘if you can’ is concerned [I tell you] all is possible to him who believes.” See Bl-D-F § 267:1 (p. 140). The phrase appeared obscure and was altered at both ends: τό is suppressed in P⁴⁵ D Θ φ al, while A D Θ φ pm latt sy^{p h} add πιστεῦσαι after δύνῃ, missing the idiom altogether.

43. Under influence of “cried out,” D nearly all minuscules latt sy^{p h pal} add μετὰ δακρύων (“with tears”). The words are absent from P⁴⁵ א A* B C* L W Δ Ψ 28 700 1216 k sy^s sa bo arm aeth geo and clearly should be omitted.

44. Gr. ἐπισυντρέχειν has not been found elsewhere. For the suggestion that it represents the Aramaic idiom = “to rush against,” see M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts ³ (Oxford, 1967), p. 85 n. 3.

45. Most MSS add καὶ νηστείᾳ, “and fasting.” The authorities supporting the omission are few, but important (א B k geo¹ Clement-Alex), and should be followed. The textual tradition of Mt. 17:21; Acts 10:30; 1 Cor. 7:5 indicates a strong tendency to add references to fasting where none originally existed. Moreover, Jesus had expressly sanctioned the disciples’ discontinuance of fasting so long as he was with them (Ch. 2:18–22). For a discussion of the text see B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 1964), p. 203; and for a defense of the addition, on the ground that prayer and fasting are a symbolic reference to Jesus’ death on the cross, see G. Minette de Tillesse, Le Secret messianique dans l’Évangile de Marc (Paris, 1968), pp. 98 f.

46. On this relationship see H. J. Ebeling, Das Messiasgeheimnis und die Botschaft des Marcus-Evangelisten (Berlin, 1939), pp. 172–178.

47. For the relevant texts see E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (New York, 1960), pp. 206 f., Appendix II “The Provisions against Heretics,” Nos. 33, 34, 43.

48. So G. Bertram, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), p. 6; K. Tagawa, Miracles et Évangile (Paris, 1966), pp. 105–110. Mark makes no attempt to explain the amazement of the crowd, but places Jesus in the center of the narrative as its sole occasion, as in Ch. 10:32a. K. Tagawa attempts to bring out the evangelist’s intention through paraphrase: “One day, Jesus came toward his disciples at the moment when they were discussing—it is Jesus of whom I am speaking! He is astonishing.—As the crowd assembled around him …” (p. 107). On the other hand, there is no basis for the opinion that every coming of Jesus is in the manner of a theophany (e.g. G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., p. 92) or for the supposition that Jesus’ face was radiant like Moses’ face when he descended from the mountain (Ex. 34:29 f.). The charge of Ch. 9:9 would be senseless if Jesus’ appearance called attention to what had taken place upon the mountain.

49. There is surprising unanimity in diagnosing the boy’s condition as epilepsy. The relevant source material on epilepsy in antiquity is presented by J. Preuss, Biblisch-talmudische Medizin (Berlin, 1911), pp. 341–345; H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden, 1965), pp. 404f. For a recent examination of the narrative by a medical doctor see J. Wilkinson, “The Case of the Epileptic Boy,” ExT 79 (1967), pp. 39–42. J. Smit, De Daemoniacis (Rome, 1913), p. 473 finds resemblances to epilepsy, but cautions that there are also differences.

50. Cf. K. H. Rengstorf, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 415, 425.

51. W. Grundmann, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 302f. E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology (New York, 1955), pp. 168 f. comments: “faith is the assertion of a possibility against all probabilities, in spite of any contrary indication provided by our experience of life or the realities of the world, and in constant battle against temptation (Mk. 9:23). What is it that differentiates this faith from mere illusion, which breaks down upon the hard rock of reality? It is not a faith which reaches vaguely into the void, but one that firmly trusts Jesus Christ. Such a faith has nothing else than Jesus Christ in the middle of a world which scoffs at all our hopes and fears. It fastens on to Jesus Christ with all the strength at its command, and if the demonic power of the storm becomes overpowering, then the last resources of man’s nature give vent to the cry, ‘Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief’ (Mk. 9:24).”

52. On the twofold command, which occurs elsewhere in both Jewish and Hellenistic sources (e.g. Josephus, Antiquities VIII. ii. 5; Philostratus, Vita Apollonii IV. 20), see S. Eitrem, Some Notes on the Demonology of the New Testament (Oslo, 1950), p. 26.

53. G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 96–99; H. Riesenfeld, “Die fientlige andarna (Mk. 9:14–29),” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 22–23 (1957–58), pp. 64–74.

54. Cf. S-BK I (1922), p. 760.

55. For relevant bibliography see the notes to Ch. 8:31, and for a treatment of Son of Man, and the phrase “be killed and after three days rise again,” the discussion at that point.

56. The proposal of G. Kittel, “ = ὑψωθῆναι = gekreuzigt werden,” ZNW 35 (1936), pp. 282–285 has recently been taken up by M. Black, “The ‘Son of Man’ Passion Sayings in the Gospel Tradition,” ZNW 60 (1969), p. 7: “It is tempting moreover to attribute this ambivalent Aramaic expression to Jesus himself: if uttered in the context of Mk. 9:31 par, the failure of the disciples to understand (ἠγνόουν) is intelligible; Mark’s present text is not obscure, but an ambiguous would certainly leave the hearers puzzled. Was it exaltation or was it crucifixion?”

57. The tendency to present a new unit from Jesus’ perspective, observed in verse 14 above (note 38), is evident in the reading ἦλθεν (“he came”), supported by C A L N Θ pc f q sy^s bo.

58. Verse 35b is omitted by D d k, perhaps unintentionally, while the clause “last of all” is omitted by λ.

59. The composition of Ch. 9:33–50 has been studied often, and in detail: L. Vaganay, “Le schématisme du discours communautaire à la lumière de la critique des sources,” RB 60 (1953), pp. 203–44; idem, Le Problème synoptique, Une hypothèse de travail (Tournai, 1954), pp. 361–404; R. Schnackenburg, “Mk 9, 33–50” in Synoptische Studien A. Wikenhauser (München, 1954), pp. 184–206; A. Deschamps, “Du discours de Marc IX, 33–50 aux paroles de Jésus,” in La Formulation des Évangiles (Bruges, 1957), pp. 152–177; F. Neirynck, “La Tradition des paroles de Jésus et Marc 9, 33–50,” Concilium 20 (1966), pp. 57–66.

60. Cf. A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus (Stuttgart, 1935), p. 543: “At all points, in worship, in the administration of justice, at meals, in all dealings, there constantly arose the question who was the greater, and estimating the honor due to each was a task which had constantly to be fulfilled and was felt to be very important.” To the material which was available to Schlatter may be added the texts from Qumran: e.g. 1QS ii. 20–23; v. 20–24; vi. 3–5, 8–10; 1QSa ii. 11–22.

61. W. Grundmann, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 533.

62. M. Black, “The Markan Parable of the Child in the Midst,” ExT 59 (1947–48), pp. 14–16.

63. See O. Michel, “ ‘Diese Kleinen’—eine Jüngerbezeichnung Jesu,” ThStKr 108 (1937–38), pp. 401–415; J. R. Michaels, “Apostolic Hardships and Righteous Gentiles. A Study of Matthew 25:31–46,” JBL 84 (1965), p. 37.

64. Gr. ἐκωλύομεν, a conative imperfect which should be translated “we tried to prevent him.” J. H. Moulton and W. F. Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek³ I (Edinburgh, 1908), p. 129 point out that the form implies that the man refused to be stopped in his good work.

65. The final clause is omitted by Western and Caesarean MSS (D W X λ φ 28 565 al it arm), which insert ὃς οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ ἡμῖν after δαιμόνια (i.e. “we saw a certain man in your name casting out demons, who does not follow us, and we tried to prevent him”). The text of the ASV, RSV is supported by א B C L Δ Θ sy^s sa bo, but may represent assimilation to the textual form of Lk. 9:49. If the Western and Caesarean texts are followed, the point is the man’s apparent lack of authorization rather than merely a narrow sectarianism on the disciples’ part.

66. Gr. ἐν ὀνόματι, ὅτι Χριστοῦ ἐστε is rather unusual and has called forth variants, the most important being the addition of μου after ὀνόματι (א* C³ D W Δ Θ φ 28 118 124 565 700 latt sy^hmg sa bo aeth Origen) and the substitution of ἐμόν instead of Χριστοῦ in א*. If the text is accepted as given, translate “on the ground that you belong to the Messiah” or “because you bear the Messiah’s name.” It is unlikely, however, that Jesus used the designation “Messiah” in this way, for it is contrary to his usage elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels and leaves unexplained the reading in Sinaiticus, which suggests that what Mark wrote was ἐν ὀνόματι ὅτι ἐμοί ἐστε (i.e. “on the ground that you are mine”). This agrees perfectly with the reading “ashamed of me and mine” (i.e. my disciples) in Ch. 8:38, supported by W k* sa Tertullian (and preferred by many commentators). Cf. G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 330f.

67. The words “on me” (εἰς ἐμέ) are omitted by א C* Δ b ff² i k, sa bo, while D a d read “one of these little ones who has faith.” The support for the text adopted for the ASV, RSV, however, is strong and should be accepted.

68. Gr. μύλος ὀνικός, i.e. a large millstone turned by an ass in contrast to a smaller one turned by hand and frequently attended by a woman. Cf. TB Moʿed Qatan 10b; Kiddushin 29b for references to large millstones turned by animals.

69. H. Bietenhard, TWNT V (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 227 f. There is a rather persistent line of interpretation which sees in the action of the strange exorcist an example of magic, e.g. A. Oepke, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), p. 213: “Although the conduct of the strange exorcist of Mk. 9:38 ff. par is rooted in a superstitious use of the name so far as he himself and those around him are concerned, Jesus endorses him. His answer implies neither approval nor condemnation of the superstition.” This is to over-interpret the text, and misses the essential point of the passage, namely the unauthorized use of the name, not its superstitious misuse (as in Acts 19:13–16). See further E. Wilhelms, “Der fremde Exorzist,” Stud Theol 3 (1950–51), pp. 162–171.

70. S-BK II (1924), p. 19; C. Schneider, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), p. 468.

71. E. Wilhelms, op. cit., p. 165 cites Cicero’s defense of the Pompeiani before Caesar: “Let that maxim of yours, which won you your victory, hold good. For we have often heard you say that, while we considered all who were not with us as our enemies, you considered all who were not against you your friends.” Cf. Mt. 12:30 = Lk. 11:23 with the first principle, and with the second the variant to Mk. 9:40 in Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1224 (fol. 2^r col. 1): “He who is not against you is for you. He who today is far from you may tomorrow be near to you.”

72. While commentators generally find the humble members of the Christian community (e.g. C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 313) or less often the disciples (e.g. O. Michel, TWNT IV, Eng. Tr. 1967, pp. 651 f.) in verse 42, only three studies known to me associate verse 42 with verse 38: A. Loisy, Les évangiles synoptiques II (Ceffonds, 1907), p. 77; W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Berlin, 1962), ad loc. and K. Tagawa, op. cit., p. 178.

73. Cf. Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum i. 67; Josephus, Antiquities XIV. xv. 10, reports the drowning of Herod’s supporters by Galileans who rebelled.

74. Gr. γέενναν, a transliteration of the Hebrew expression for the valley of Hinnom to the south of old Jerusalem, where infants were formerly sacrificed to Moloch (Jer. 7:31; 19:5 f.; 32:35). This site was desecrated by Josiah (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6; 23:10) and consigned to the burning of offal. Here, literally, the fire was not quenched and the worm never died, and it is not surprising that Gehenna came to denote the place of divine punishment during the Intertestamental period (e.g. I Enoch 27:2, “This accursed valley is for those who are accursed for ever”; 90:26f.; 4 Ezra 7:36; M. Aboth I. 5; V. 19f.). See J. Jeremias, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 657f.

75. Verses 44 and 46, which are identical in form with verse 48, are omitted by א B C L W Δ Ψ λ 22 28 565 892 al k sy^s sa bo geo arm and should not be read. They were apparently added in later MSS to round out the poetical parallelism evident in verses 47f.

76. Verse 49 is found in three major textual forms. The reading adopted in the critical editions of the text and followed by the ASV, RSV and most modern translations is strongly attested (א B L W Δ λ 565 700 et al sy^s sa bo geo arm). A longer text adds to these words καὶ πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται (“and every sacrifice must be salted with salt,” supported by A C N X Θ al pl φ 28 892 1071 al pl f l q r vg sy^{p h} aeth and followed by the AV). This reading has been supported by H. Zimmermann, “ ‘Mit Feuer gesalzen werden.’ Eine Studie zu Mk 9:49,” Theol Quart 139 (1959), pp. 28–39, but the addition appears to represent a marginal gloss influenced by Lev. 2:13. In D a b c d ff i k the gloss (in the form, “For every sacrifice will be salted with salt”) supplanted the main reading. P. L. Couchoud, op. cit., p. 124 (followed by E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 197 n. 2) has proposed that the original reading is preserved in the North African MS k. The Latin text presupposes the reading πᾶσα δὲ οὐσία ἀναλωθήσεται, which must be understood in connection with verse 48: “where their worm shall not die, nor their fire be quenched, and all (their) substance shall be destroyed.” This proposal finds some support in ψ, which reads ἀναλωθήσεται in place of the second ἁλισθήσεται in the longer reading, while οὐσία could have given rise to the introduction of θυσία. The chief problem with Couchoud’s conjecture is that some allusion to salt is necessary to account for the association of verse 50 with verse 49. This provision is satisfied by the shorter text adopted in the critical editions. See further Tj. Baarda, “Mark ix. 49,” NTS 5 (1958–59), pp. 318–321.

77. Verse 50c is an instance in Greek of two imperatives in conditional parataxis joined by the consecutive καί; translate “have salt in yourselves, then you will be able to maintain peace with one another.” See Bl-D-F § 442:2 (p. 227).

78. F. Horst, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 560f.

79. H. Hommel, “Herrenworte im Lichte sokratischer Überlieferung,” ZNW 57 (1966), pp. 1–23 calls attention to classical and Hellenistic parallels which speak of a willingness to sacrifice a hand, foot or some other part of the body in order to pursue philosophy or the truth.

80. E.g. TB Rosh Ha-Shanah 16b; 4 Ezra 7:36; II Baruch 59:10; 85:13; Sibylline Oracles I, 103; II, 291; IV, 186.

81. When Isa. 66:22–24 was read in the synagogue, verse 23 was repeated in order to bring the reading to a conclusion with a word of comfort. Verse 24 has left its mark on Jewish documents of the Intertestamental period, e.g. Ecclus. 7:17, “Humble yourself greatly; for the punishment of the ungodly is fire and worms”; Judith 16:17, “Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord almighty will take vengeance upon them in the day of judgment; he will give their flesh to fire and worms; they shall weep in pain for ever.” This is the conception presupposed in verses 43–48.

82. F. Hauck, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 229. J. Jeremias, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 658 finds here a reference to the purificatory character of the final fire of judgment.

83. Salt from the Dead Sea which is mixed with gypsum and other impurities acquires a stale and alkaline taste. For the Jewish parallel “If the salt becomes insipid, how shall it be salted?” (TB Bekhoroth 8b), which in context seems to be a scoffing reference to Jesus’ statement, see F. Hauck, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 229.

---

1. The text of verse la is found in three variant traditions. The ASV, RSV follow the critical editions of the Greek text supported almost exclusively by Alexandrian witnesses (א B C* L Ψ 892 1009 sa bo): “he came into the territories of Judea and Transjordan.” A variant text, supported by Caesarean and Western authorities (C² D G W Δ Θ λ φ 28 565 579 al latt sy^{s p} arm geo Augustine), reflects the geographical situation in the days of Ptolemy the astronomer (ca. A.D. 130–160): “he came into the territories of Judea beyond Jordan.” Still another variant belongs to a later stage of the tradition when it has come to be thought that Perea was no more than a bridge between Galilee and Jerusalem (A 157 569 575 700 pl sy^h aeth): “he came into the territories of Judea by the farther side of Jordan.” For a full geographical and textual commentary see T. W. Manson, “The Cleansing of the Temple,” BJRL 33 (1951), pp. 272 f.

2. Mark nowhere else uses the plural, and the singular ὁ ὄχλος is read by Western and Caesarean authorities (D W Θ φ 28 565 700 al it sy^s geo²). This reading is defended as original by C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage,” JThS 29 (1927), pp. 4 f. If the plural is correct, it may be intended to suggest the different crowds which gathered on different occasions, a viewpoint championed by Manson, op. cit., pp. 273 f.

3. The words προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι are absent in the Western MSS (D it sy^s Origen) and they may well have come into the other witnesses through the influence of the parallel in Mt. 19:3. If the Western text is read ἐπηρώτων will be an indefinite plural, i.e. “people asked him.” C. H. Turner, op. cit., p. 5 has shown that this is consistent with Mark’s style elsewhere (e.g. Ch. 10:13).

4. The final clause is omitted by א B Ψ 892* l⁴⁸ sy^s goth and probably reflects assimilation to Mt. 19:5 (and Gen. 2:24).

5. Verse 12, which is peculiar to Mark, is found in three main forms, each of which has attracted its defenders. The ASV, RSV follow the critical editions in accepting the almost exclusively Alexandrian reading (א B C L Ψ 517 579 892, 1342 sa bo aeth). This form of the text is adopted by most modern commentators and is defended on both textual and intrinsic grounds by G. Minette de Tillesse, Le Secret messianique dans l’Évangile de Marc (Paris, 1969), pp. 231–234 (among others), who considers the formulation to be shaped for the Graeco-Roman legal situation. The variant reading, “If a woman should divorce her husband and should marry another,” supported by Byzantine and certain other MSS (A W λ 22 118 1071 pl f g² r² vg sy^{p h} geo¹ Augustine), is accepted by M. J. Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Marc (Paris, 1947), pp. 260 f. on the ground that it accounts best for the textual variants. A third text, which differs substantially from the first two in speaking of a woman separating from her husband (without divorce) and marrying another, has strong Western and Caesarean support (D Θ φ 28 543 565 700 a b ff (k) q sy^s arm). This text has strong claim to priority since it represents a textual tradition current at Antioch, Caesarea, Carthage, Italy and Gaul at least as early as A.D. 150. Moreover, the situation envisioned (desertion and remarriage) is precisely that of Herodias and is appropriate to the importance this issue assumed in connection with the death of John the Baptist (see Ch. 6:17–29). This third text is assumed to be the original one in the commentary. See further, D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), pp. 366–368; J. Dupont, Mariage et divorce dans l’Évangile de Matthieu 19, 13–12 et parallèles (Bruges, 1959), pp. 61–63; N. B. Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, 1963), pp. 27–28.

6. K. Tagawa, Miracles et Évangile (Paris, 1966), pp. 34 f.; T. W. Manson, op. cit., pp. 273 f.

7. M. Gittin IX. 10; TB Gittin 90a; TJ Soṭah I. 1. 16b; Num. R. IX. 30. For treatments of the Jewish legislation on divorce see S-BK I (1922), pp. 312–320; J. Bonsirven, Le divorce dans le Nouveau Testament (Tournai, 1948), pp. 7–24; M. R. Lehmann, “Gen. 2:24 as the Basis for Divorce in Halakhah and New Testament,” ZAW 72 (1960), pp. 263–267; T. V. Fleming, “Christ and Divorce,” JThS 24 (1963), pp. 541–554.

8. On the so-called Mosaic permission in Deut. 24:1 see J. Murray, Divorce (Philadelphia, 1961), pp. 3–16; R. C. Campbell, “Teaching of the Old Testament concerning Divorce,” Foundations 6 (1963), pp. 174–178. On the certificate of divorce see P. C. Hammond, “A Divorce Document from the Cairo Geniza,” JQR 52 (1961), pp. 131–153 (dated A.D. 1054, which at the time was thought to be the only one which had been preserved from antiquity, but see now the divorce documents of Murabbaʿat No. 19 [in Aramaic] and No. 115 [in Greek] published in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert II, ed. P. Benoit, J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux [Jerusalem, 1961] and discussed by E. Lövestam, “ΑΠΟΛΥΕΙΝ- en gammalpalestinensisk skilsmässoterm,” Sv Ex Års 27 [1962], pp. 132–135).

9. D. Daube, “Repudium in Deuteronomy,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica (Edinburgh, 1969), pp. 236–39 argues that the main reason for introducing the certificate was to enable a woman to prove that she was divorced. Prior to the Mosaic provision there might be dire consequences if she or her family wrongly believed that a divorce had taken place.

10. See D. Daube, “Concessions to Sinfulness in Jewish Law,” JJS 10 (1959), pp. 1–13.

11. J. Murray, op. cit., pp. 27 f.

12. E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus¹⁶ (Göttingen, 1963), pp. 198 f.; J. C. Margot, “L’indissolubilité du mariage selon le Nouveau Testament,” Rev Theol Phil 17 (1967), pp. 391–403.

13. Cf. J. Murray, op. cit., p. 29: “Marriage is grounded in this male and female constitution: as to its nature it implies that the man and the woman are united in one flesh; as to its sanction it is divine; and as to its continuance it is permanent. The import of all this is that marriage from its very nature and from the divine nature by which it is constituted is ideally indissoluble. It is not a contract of temporary convenience and not a union that may be dissolved at will.”

14. TB Sanhedrin 57b; TJ Kiddushin I. 1. cited by M. Lehmann, op. cit., p. 265. An appeal to the creation ordinance was not common in Jewish discussions of marriage and divorce, but at Qumran Gen. 1:27 is cited in favor of monogamous and indissoluble marriage (see CD iv. 13-v. 5).

15. J. Murray, op. cit., p. 33: “Divorce is contrary to the divine institution, contrary to the nature of marriage, and contrary to the divine action by which the union is effected. It is precisely here that its wickedness becomes singularly apparent—it is the sundering by man of a union God has constituted. Divorce is the breaking of a seal which has been engraven by the hand of God.”

16. R. Pesch, “Die neutestamentliche Weisung für die Ehe,” Bib Leb 9 (1968), pp. 208–221.

17. There is here no reflection on the situation created in the event of adultery, but rather a concentration upon the abrogation of the Mosaic provision concerning divorce and upon the practice of divorce both in Jewish and Gentile circles. On the relationship of Ch. 10:11 to Mt. 19:9; Lk. 16:18 see J. Murray, op. cit., pp. 50–54; and for a different evaluation G. Delling, “Das Logion Mark 10:11 (und seine Abwandlungen) im Neuen Testament,” Nov Test 1 (1956), pp. 263–274; G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 231 f.

18. F. Hauck, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 730–732.

19. In cases of impotence, denial of conjugal rights, and unreasonable restriction of movement, a wife could sue for divorce, but even in such instances the divorce remained the husband’s act. See S-BK II (1924), p. 23.

20. See above, n. 5. It is interesting to compare with this form of the text Ecclus. 23:22–23. After a long passage on the adulterer (Ch. 23:16–21), ben Sira continues: “So it is with a woman who leaves her husband and provides an heir by a stranger. For first of all, she has disobeyed the law of the Most High; second, she has committed an offense against her husband; and third, she has committed adultery through harlotry and brought forth children by another man.” Cf. Rom. 7:2 f. which speaks of a woman living with another man while her husband is alive, but makes no mention of divorce.

21. Josephus, Antiquities XVIII. v. 4.

22. Gr. αὐτοῖς read by א B C L Δ Ψ 579 892 1342 c k bo. The variant found in the vast majority of MSS, τοῖς προσφέρουσιν, is an attempt to resolve the ambiguity of αὐτοῖς, which grammatically may refer to the children themselves. The masculine gender of the pronoun will exclude the common conception that it was (primarily) mothers who were bringing their children to Jesus. It is necessary rather to think of fathers or of children who were responsible for this action.

23. For parallels among the rabbis see S-BK I (1922), pp. 807 f.

24. Only here in the Gospels is Jesus described as indignant, but cf. the strong emotion expressed in Ch. 1:41, 43; 3:5; 7:34; 9:19.

25. The proper parallel to Ch. 10:13 f. is Ch. 9:38 f. There is no justification in the Marcan context for finding in Ch. 10:13–16 an encouragement to infant baptism (on the ground that κωλύειν is a word associated with baptism in the early Church), as urged by A. Oepke, TWNT V (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 650; O. Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament (London, 1950), pp. 71–80, among others.

26. It is commonly charged that verse 15 interrupts the natural sequence of verses 14 and 16, which speak of children in the plural while verse 15 speaks of the child. Moreover, Matthew has placed it in a different context (Ch. 18:3). It is possible that verse 15 was an independent logion which Mark has introduced into this context; it is nevertheless wholly appropriate to this context and depends on the same essential comparison presupposed in verse 14, the objective helplessness of the child. See J. Blinzler, “Kind und Königsreich Gottes nach Markus 10, 14.15,” Klerusblatt 38 (1934), pp. 90–96; A. Goettmann, “L’attitude fondamental du disciple d’après les Synoptiques: l’enfance spirituelle,” Bible et Vie Chrétienne 77 (1967), pp. 32–45.

27. Cf. A. Oepke, TWNT V (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 649: “The child’s littleness, immaturity, and need of assistance, though commonly disparaged, keep the way open for the fatherly love of God, whereas grown-ups so often block it.”

28. An alternative interpretation has been proposed by W. K. L. Clarke, New Testament Problems (London, 1929), pp. 36–38, and F. A. Schilling, “What Means the Saying about Receiving the Kingdom of God as a Little Child (τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς παιδίον)? Mk x. 15; Lk xviii. 17,” ExT 77 (1965), pp. 56–58. They read παιδίον as an accusative and insist that the comparative phrase must be taken with “Kingdom” and not with the one who receives it. The meaning is that one receives the Kingdom as one receives a little child, which recalls the formulation of Ch. 9:37 and places the rebuke of the children in verse 13 in a sharper light. For a critique of this proposal see E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., pp. 204 f.

29. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus IV, No. 744, lines 9 f., cited by A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East⁴ (New York, 1929), pp. 167–170. Cf. Apuleius, Metamorphoses x. 23; Ovid, Metamorphoses ix. 675–679 for similar instructions; Justin, Apology I, 27 ff. for a severe condemnation of the custom of exposing infants, and the Epistle of Diognetus 5:6 for the boast that Christians do not expose their children.

30. The normal order of the commandments (following the M.T. and LXX^{A F}) is supported by א ^corr B C pc sy^s sa bo. The reverse order (the seventh commandment before the sixth) is supported by A W Θ λ 28 latt goth Clement of Alexandria, in agreement with Lk. 18:20, Ex. 20:12–16, LXX^B and the Nash Papyrus. D k Irenaeus support the reading “Do not commit adultery, do not commit fornication,” and this quite different text was adopted by C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage,” JThS 29 (1927), p. 5, who called attention to Ch. 7:21 where both adultery and fornication are listed, and urged that murder was the sin least likely to be in question. It seems more likely, however, that πορνεύσῃς is a scribal error for φονεύσῃς and that the normative order should be followed.

31. Gr. Μὴ ἀποστερήοῃς is omitted by B* K W Δ Π Ψ λ φ 28 69 579 700 al sy^s geo arm Irenaeus Clement of Alexandria and by the parallel passages Mt. 19:18; Lk. 18:20. The phrase would tend to be eliminated from a list of commandments drawn from the Decalogue, and should be retained. In Classical Greek ἀποστερεῖν is used of the refusal to return property or money deposited with another for safe-keeping; in the LXX it denotes the withholding of wages earned (cf. Ex. 21:10; Deut. 24:14^A; Ecclus. 4:1). Commentators usually regard it as representing the tenth commandment, but it seems more likely that it is a variant form of the eighth or ninth commandments. Cf. Ezek. 33:15.

32. It is difficult to be certain what nuance should be read in the statement that Jesus loved him. W. Bauer (A-G, p. 4) translates “became fond of him,” but allows for the possibility that the text speaks of a loving gesture, i.e., “he embraced him,” and he is followed in this interpretation by E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 211.

33. Gr. κτῆμα, which in later usage came to be restricted to the meaning “landed property.” Perhaps the text should be translated, “because he possessed great estates.”

34. The RSV is clearer: “How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God.”

35. While the text followed by the ASV is supported by the vast majority of MSS and versions, the words τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ (τοῖς) χρήμασιν should be omitted with B W Δ Ψ k sa bo aeth, translating with the RSV “How hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!” The addition appears to be an attempt to link Jesus’ statement more closely to the incident and to soften the radical character of his affirmation.

36. Verse 25 occurs before verse 24 in D 235 a b ff² and this order is favored by V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1952), pp. 430–432. The inversion is suspect, however, as a scribal attempt to improve the sense.

37. The text followed by the ASV has good support (א B C Δ Ψ 892 sa bo), but the variant reading ἑαυτούς (i.e. “saying among themselves”) may well be correct. It is strongly attested (A D K [M*] W Χ Θ Π λ φ pl it sy^{p h} Augustine) and agrees with Marcan usage (e.g. Chs. 1:27; 11:31; 12:7; 16:3; cf. 4:31; 8:16; 9:34).

38. This is the analysis of N. Walter, “Zur Analyse von Mk 10:17–31,” ZNW 53 (1962), pp. 206–218, who argues that a break occurs between verse 24a and 24b rather than between verses 22 and 23.

39. See C. E. B. Cranfield, “Riches and the Kingdom of God: St. Mark 10:17–31,” ScJTh 4 (1951), pp. 302–314; W. Zimmerli, “Die Frage des Reichen nach dem ewigen Leben,” EvTh 19 (1959), pp. 90–97; S. Légasse, L’Appel du riche (Mc 10, 17–31 et paralleles) (Paris, 1966).

40. K. H. Rengstorf, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 152–157.

41. In contrast to Hellenism, where ὦ ἀγαθέ or ὦ βέλτιστε tended to become a conventional form of address, the Jews did not speak to one another in this way. S-BK II (1924), p. 24 cites only one (fourth century) Jewish parallel to the expression, TB Taʿanith 24b, and there the expression “good teacher” is uttered by a heavenly voice in a dream. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs the expression “a good man” (Simeon 4:4, 7; Dan. 1:4; Asher 4:1) or “a good heart” (Simeon 4:7; Zebulun 7:2) occurs, but this does not go beyond the biblical examples cited. See W. Grundmann, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 14–16.

42. “To inherit eternal life” becomes a fixed expression in Judaism, as in Psalms of Solomon 14:6, which speaks of inheriting life, the life assigned by God to the righteous (cf. Ps. Sol. 3:16; 14:10; I Enoch 38:4; 40:9; 48:3; 2 Macc. 7:9; 4 Macc. 15:3). W. Zimmerli, op. cit., p. 95 has called attention to TB Berachoth 28b (Baraitha) where the question is asked, “What must I do to enter life and participate in it?” and the answer is given in terms of Ezek. 33:15 with its demand to walk in the statutes of life and to commit no iniquity.

43. See B. B. Warfield’s classic treatment of this text, “Jesus’ Alleged Confession of Sin,” Princeton Theological Review 12 (1914), pp. 177–228 and W. Grundmann, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 15 f.

44. Cf. J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion II. viii. 52 f. The focus upon the commandments dealing with a man’s neighbor is found equally in Rom. 13:9. No discussion of Jesus’ regard for the Law, however, is complete without a careful consideration of Ch. 12:28–34. See the insightful treatment of W. Gutbrod, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 1059–1065.

45. Cf. S-BK I (1922), p. 814: “That man possesses the ability to fulfill the commandments of God perfectly was so firmly believed by the rabbis that they spoke in all seriousness of people who had kept the whole Law from A to Z.” It is necessary only to refer to Paul’s affirmation in Phil. 3:6, “as to righteousness under the Law, blameless.”

46. M. Arakhin VIII. 4; TB Kethubim 50a limits the amount to be distributed in almsgiving to one-fifth of one’s property. Cf. TB Baba Bathra 116a: “poverty is worse than all the plagues of Egypt.”

47. S-BK I (1922), pp. 429–431; F. Hauck, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), pp. 136–138. When the Jewish proselyte, King Monobazus of Adiabene, was chided for bestowing so much of his wealth upon the poor and afflicted, he replied, “I need to accumulate an imperishable treasure for the age to come” (Tos. Peah IV. 18).

48. Rightly stressed by W. Zimmerli, op. cit., p. 97.

49. N. Walter, op. cit., pp. 212–215 argues that this incident was first remembered in the tradition as attesting that the only way to life is the following of Jesus. Later the interest shifted to the man’s refusal of Jesus’ call because he had many possessions.

50. G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., p. 261 suggests that it is at this point that Mark sees the element that distinguishes the gospel from the OT: the demand to abandon all and follow Jesus.

51. Later tradition seized on this refusal and elaborated the account in terms influenced by Lk. 16:19–25. In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which speaks of two rich men, the second “began to scratch his head, being displeased, and then the Lord said to him, How can you say: I have kept the law and the prophets? For it is written in the Law, You shall love your neighbor as yourself, and look, many of your brothers, sons of Abraham, are clad in filth, dying from hunger, and your house is full of many good things but none at all go out from it to them” (Ps-Origen, Comm. in Mt. XV. 14, text in K. Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum [Stuttgart, 1964], p. 340).

52. Rabbinic sources reflect a variant form of the image: “Perhaps you are from Pumbeditha, where they draw an elephant through the eye of a needle” (TB Baba Metzia 38b, refined in TB ʿErubin 53a “… through the eye of a fine needle”); “This is proved by the fact that a man is never shown in a dream a date palm of gold or an elephant going through the eye of a needle,” i.e. something absurd or impossible (TB Berachoth 55b). On this image see P. Minear, “The Needle’s Eye. A Study in Form-Criticism,” JBL 61 (1942), pp. 157–169; J. Jónsson, Humour and Irony in the New Testament (Reykjavík, 1965), pp. 110 f.; O. Michel, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), pp. 593 f. (with further bibliography).

53. S. Légasse, “Jesus a-t-il annoncé le Conversion Finale d’Israël? (A propos de Marc x. 23–27),” NTS 10 (1964), pp. 480–487 finds in verse 26 the question of the messianic salvation promised to Israel. Jesus cites Gen. 18:14, recalling the omnipotence of God in a context of promise to Abraham. Like Paul in Rom. 11, Jesus announced the final conversion of Israel. This conclusion, however, is not obvious from the context, and in addition to Gen. 18:14 Jesus’ statement that all things are possible to God recalls Job 10:13 LXX (“Having these qualities in yourself, I know that all things are possible, for nothing is impossible to you”); 42:2; Zech. 8:6 LXX (“Thus says the Lord, the Almighty, Because it will be impossible for the remainder of this people in these days, shall it be impossible for me?”). Cf. W. Grundmann, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 308.

54. On this important expression see Ch. 3:28.

55. The clause ἢ γυναῖκα (or wife) is added in C Α Φ Ψ φ 157 pl f q and in many MSS and VSS in the parallel text Mt. 19:29, perhaps under the influence of Lk. 18:29 or simply because the reference to children presupposes the presence of wives.

56. The Western text (D it) reduces verses 29–30 to a single statement: “whoever has left house and sisters and brothers and mother and children and fields with persecution, shall receive eternal life in the age to come.” In the text of the critical editions the items in verse 29 are joined by the disjunctive ἤ (“or”), while those in verse 30 by the conjunctive καί (“and”); the effect is to emphasize that what is gained far outweighs what has been lost.

57. See H. Sasse, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 202–207. The thought of receiving compensation both in this age and in the age to come recalls M. Aboth V. 19, which speaks of the disciples of Abraham.

58. Cf. the related logion in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, Logion 55: “Jesus said: He who does not hate his father and his mother will not be able to be my disciple; and he who does not hate his brothers and his sisters and does not bear his cross, as I have, will not be worthy of me.”

59. J. Jónsson, op. cit., p. 193 finds in the reference to persecution an instance of “educational irony.” For an interesting study of this passage see Bo Reicke, “The New Testament Conception of Reward,” in Aux Sources de la Tradition Chrétienne, ed. O. Cullmann and P. Menoud (Paris, 1950), pp. 195–206.

60. The form of verse 32a is difficult and has prompted textual variation, conjectural emendation and extended discussion. The text adopted in the critical editions has Alexandrian and Caesarean support (א B C* L Δ Θ Ψ 1 565 pc bo sa). The final clause (“and those who followed were afraid”) is omitted by D K 28 157 700 pc a b, while οἱ δέ is replaced by conjunctive καί in A et al 118 892 1071 pl l q r vg sy geo, but both of these variants appear to be attempts to simplify and smooth out the text. A commonly held point of view is that the passage speaks of two distinct groups who were following Jesus: (1) the Twelve, who were amazed, and (2) other followers, including the women mentioned in Ch. 15:40 f., who were afraid. Nothing in the larger context of the passage lends support to this interpretation. Moreover, an examination of Mark’s use of the vocabulary of amazement and fear indicates that it is futile to attempt any real discrimination between these expressions which will explain why the evangelist speaks of the amazement of one group and the fear of another (cf. Chs. 1:27; 9:32; 10:24; 12:12; 16:5 f., 8). Considerations of context and Marcan usage tend to indicate that only one group of followers is indicated, the Twelve, who show amazement and fear in Jesus’ presence (as in Ch. 9:32; cf. Chs. 4:38–41; 6:49–51). When Mark wishes to indicate the presence of a group in addition to the Twelve, he does so clearly (cf. Ch. 10:46). The final clause in verse 32a is an instance of a Marcan after-thought (as in Ch. 2:15), providing an additional commentary on the impression created by Jesus’ presence. On this complex question see R. P. Meye, Jesus and the Twelve (Grand Rapids, 1968), pp. 159–164; K. Tagawa, op. cit., pp. 108–110; and for a dissenting point of view V. Taylor, op. cit., pp. 437 f.; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark² (Cambridge, 1963), p. 335.

61. Cf. J. Schneider, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 519.

62. Cf. G. Kittel, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 213.

63. G. Bertram, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), p. 7; K. Tagawa, op. cit., pp. 108–110; E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 220.

64. For the form of the prophecy and a treatment of several of its more significant details see the discussion of Ch. 8:31 and Ch. 9:31.

65. This table has been adapted from V. Taylor, op. cit., p. 346 and G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., p. 376.

66. V. Taylor, op. cit., p. 437: “In its precision the third [prediction] is a vaticinium ex eventu,” and this judgment is repeated often. On the failure of the disciples to be prepared for Jesus’ betrayal and death when he had spoken so plainly see G. W. Barker, W. L. Lane, and J. R. Michaels, The New Testament Speaks (New York, 1969), pp. 105–110.

67. See the references cited by C. Schneider, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 517 n. 17.

68. Cf. Plato, Republic II, 5, 361e: “The just man will be scourged, tortured, bound, blinded with fire, and when he has endured every kind of suffering will at last be impaled on the cross.” This passage is cited by E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (New York, 1960), p. 170, who comments: “There can be no doubt that Jesus never read the works of Plato. But he knew human beings at least as well as Socrates or Plato. And he knew that his era was the setting for a conflict of quite another sort from the conflict between the righteous and the unrighteous-namely the struggle between God and the world. In view of this, if for no other reason, Jesus must have foreseen his violent death from the very beginning.”

69. The identification of James and John as the sons of Zebedee is a precision unnecessary in the light of Chs. 1:19; 3:17 and may stem from a primitive stage when this incident had an independent existence.

70. Verse 36 is omitted by the North African MS k, while in D the words τί θέλετέ με are omitted, resulting in the reading “I will do it.” Other minor variants attempt to smooth out the construction of the text.

71. Normally the usage of the present indicates an action already begun. The question posed could thus be translated: Can you drink the cup that I am in the process of drinking? More probably the underlying Aramaic would be interpreted as a future, in which case it points forward to the passion. Cf. Mt. 20:22 τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ μέλλω πίνειν.

72. In minuscule 225 it (sy^{s c}) sa aeth the text is read ἄλλοις ἡτοίμασται, i.e. “it is prepared for others.” This reading, which reflects an alternate division of the uncials ΑΛΛΟΙΣ (which could be read either as ἀλλʼ οἶς or ἄλλοις), is preferred by P. L. Couchoud, “Notes de critique verbale sur St. Marc et St. Matthieu,” JThS 34 (1903), p. 125, but is probably of Marcionite origin. See B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 1964), p. 13.

73. The addition of the phrase “by my Father” in א* Θ Φ λ 22 91 251 299 697 1071 1342 sy^hmg represents assimilation to Mt. 20:23, but expresses what is implied.

74. Gr. λύτρον, which occurs in the NT only here and in the parallel text, Mt. 20:28. The position of the words which follow, ἀντὶ πολλῶν (“in place of many”) shows that they depend on the noun λύτρον and not on the verb δοῦναι. On this important concept, which expresses the essence of Mark’s understanding of Jesus’ death, see J. Jeremias, “Das Lösegeld für Viele (Mk. 10:45),” Judaica 3 (1947/48), pp. 249–264; S. Lyonnet, “De notione redemptionis,” Verb Dom 36 (1958), pp. 129–146; N. Levinson, “Lutron,” ScJTh 12 (1959), pp. 277–285; F. Büchsel, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 341–349; A. Feuillet, “Le logion sur la rançon,” RevSciPhTh 51 (1967), pp. 365–402; H. J. B. Combrink, Die diens van Jesus. ’n Eksegetiese beskouing oor Markus 10:45 (Groningen, 1968).

75. The authenticity of verse 45 has been denied on various grounds. The saying, however, is thoroughly Palestinian in vocabulary (Son of Man, give one’s life, καί as an explanatory conjunction, the many) and character (the synonymous parallelism, the form of verse 45a in which the idea is expressed first negatively and then positively, and the association of the phrase “to give his life” with “a ransom for many”). The Semitic character of verse 45 appears clearly when its expression is compared with 1 Tim. 2:6. Those who deny the genuineness of Jesus’ saying too easily assume that its ideas are exclusively Pauline and do not sufficiently recognize that Pauline thought is rooted in Palestinian tradition. For a defense of the authenticity of Ch. 10:45 see F. Büchsel, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 341 f.; A. Feuillet, op. cit., pp. 367–385; L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross² (Grand Rapids, 1955), pp. 26–35.

76. J. B. Tyson, “The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark,” JBL 80 (1961), pp. 261–268.

77. Were James and John asking for a confirmation that the places they occupied in the fellowship meals which the Twelve shared with Jesus would be their seats when his glory was openly unveiled? Cf. Jn. 13:23–25 (where John appears to be reclining on Jesus’ right hand).

78. A. Feuillet, “La coupe et le baptême de la passion (Mc, x, 35–40; cf. Mt, xx, 20–23; Lc, xii, 50),” RB 74 (1967), pp. 363 f.

79. Ibid., pp. 370–388.

80. For an extensive survey of OT and rabbinic references see S-BK I (1922), pp. 836–38. This thought is rare beyond biblical and Jewish literature, but cf. Plautus, Casina 933 where “that he should drink the same cup I drink” (ut eodem poculo quo ego bibi biberet) signifies to have him experience the same fate as I do. Cf. Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:2, “I bless thee, because thou hast counted me worthy to share … in the cup of thy Christ,” where martyrdom is in view.

81. Cf. Ps. 75:8; Isa. 51:17–23; Jer. 25:15–28; 49:12; 51:7; Lam. 4:21 f.; Ezek. 23:31–34; Hab. 2:16; Zech. 12:2. See L. Goppelt, TWNT VI (1959), pp. 149–153; W. Lotz, “Das Sinnbild des Bechers,” Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift 28 (1917), pp. 396–407.

82. E.g. Psalms of Solomon 8:14 f.: “They left no sin undone in which they did not surpass the heathen. Therefore, God mingled for them a spirit of wandering, and gave them to drink a cup of undiluted wine, that they might become drunken”; 1 QpHab xi. 10–15; Martyrdom of Isaiah 5:13; Palestine Pentateuch Targum to Deut. 32:1. See R. Le Déaut, “Goûter le calice de la mort,” Biblica 43 (1962), pp. 82–86.

83. A. Feuillet, op. cit., pp. 370–377.

84. Ibid., pp. 377–382; G. Delling, “ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜΑ, ΒΑΠΤΙΣΘΗΝΑΙ,” Nov Test 2 (1957), pp. 92–115.

85. E.g. Ps. 42:7; 49:3 (Symmachus used βαπτίζειν), 15; 69:2 (Aquila used βαπτίζειν), 15; Job 9:31 (Aquila used βαπτίζειν); 22:11; Isa. 43:2; Jonah 2:3–6. For the metaphor in the context of divine judgment see Isa. 30:27 f.

86. A. Feuillet, op. cit., pp. 380–382; G. Delling, op. cit., pp. 95–97.

87. The tradition that John, as well as his brother James, was martyred is based on late and unreliable reports that “Papias says in his second book that John the Theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews” (cited by Philip of Side [ca. 450] and George Harmartolos [9th century]). Neither Irenaeus nor Eusebius, both of whom knew Papias’ work well, mentions such a tradition and Irenaeus’ testimony that John lived to a peaceful old age in the province of Asia is against it (Adv. haer. ii. 22). On this question see A. Feuillet, op. cit., pp. 358–363.

88. For these and other examples see E. Stauffer, op. cit., pp. 54–58.

89. See further P. H. Boulton, “Διακονέω and its Cognates in the Four Gospels,” in Studia Evangelica, ed. K. Aland et al., I (Berlin, 1959), pp. 415–422.

90. For a treatment of the relevant material see O. Procksch, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 328–335.

91. Or possibly Isa. 53:12, where 1 Q Isa.^a reads “and for their sins they were stricken,” in contrast to the M.T. “and made intercession for the transgressors.” The reading attested at Qumran is presupposed in Testament of Benjamin 4:8 (ὑπὲρ ἀνόμων παραδοθήσεται καὶ ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀποθανεῖται), Isa. 53:12 LXX (καὶ διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν παρεδόθη), and Paul understands the text in the same way (Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:3). On this question see J. Jeremias, op. cit., pp. 262–264; H. W. Wolff, Jesaja 53 im Urchristentum² (Berlin, 1950), pp. 64–70; C. Maurer, “Knecht Gottes und Sohn Gottes im Passionsbericht des Markusevangeliums,” ZThK 50 (1953), pp. 1–38; E. Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht (Göttingen, 1955), pp. 97–102. For the dissenting opinion that Isa. 53 does not have any bearing on Ch. 10:45, see C. K. Barrett, “The Background of Mark 10:45,” in New Testament Essays, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Manchester, 1959), pp. 1–18.

92. F. Büchsel, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 344. The larger discussion (pp. 344–349), putting Ch. 10:45 in biblical-theological perspective, is well worth consulting.

93. Cf. R. Marcus, “Mebaqqer and Rabbim in the Manual of Discipline vi, 11–13,” JBL 75 (1956), pp. 298–302; H. Huppenbauer, “ in der Sektenregel (1 QS),” ThZ 13 (1957), pp. 136 f.; J. Jeremias, TWNT VI (1959), pp. 543–545.

94. The tendency to focus attention solely upon Jesus when introducing an incident accounts for the singular ἔρχεται in D it sy^s. For a similar alteration of the plural to a singular see Ch. 9:14, 33.

95. Mark customarily introduces the Aramaic formation first, followed by the Greek (e.g. Chs. 3:17; 7:11, 34; 14:36), and it is possible that the inverse order in Ch. 10:46 points to a primitive scribal gloss. The Old Syriac Gospels (sy^{s c}) have “Timaeus, the son of Timaeus,” but this may reflect an attempt to simplify the text. Bartimaeus is apparently a patronymic of Aramaic origin, i.e. , “the son of Timai.” Cf. S-BK II (1924), p. 25, who mentions a Rabbi Joshua bar Timai.

96. See on Ch. 1:24.

97. See on Ch. 6:50. Θάρσει occurs seven times in the NT, and apart from this instance, it is always the word of Jesus. Mark may have been thinking of Isa. 35:4–5: “Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold your God … will come and save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened.”

98. Gr. ἀποβαλών, “to throw off, to let go.” In minuscule 565, supported by sy^s aeth, the text reads ἐπιβαλών, “to put on,” and this reading is preferred by E. Lohmeyer (op. cit., p. 226) on the ground that it conforms to the oriental custom that the first thing that a man does when called before a superior is to clothe himself (cf. Jer. 1:17; Jn. 21:7; Acts 12:8). This does not, however, appear to be a sufficient ground for setting aside an almost uniform textual tradition.

99. Gr. Ραββουνί is a strengthened form of “Rabbi,” and means “my lord,” “my master.” Found only here and in Jn. 20:16 (where “Teacher” is added in translation) in the NT, the Aramaic form is relatively frequent in the Palestine Pentateuch Targum (e.g. Gen. 32:19; 44:5, 18; Ex. 21:4, 5, 8) where it designates a human lord. In Mt. 20:33; Lk. 18:41 Rabboni is replaced by κύριε (i.e. Sir), and this reading is found in Mark in 409 geo¹ (while D a b ff i sy^s read κύριε ῥαββεί). See E. Lohse, TWNT VI (1959), pp. 962–966.

100. On Roman Jericho see G. Dalman, Orte und Wege Jesu³ (Leipzig, 1924), pp. 257–259; C. Kopp, Die heiligen Stätten der Evangelien (Regensburg, 1959), pp. 312–315; J. L. Kelso, “New Testament Jericho,” BA 14 (1951), pp. 34–43. P. Ketter, “Zur Lokalisierung der Blindenheilung bei Jericho,” Biblica 15 (1934), pp. 411–418 argues that the miracle took place between Old and New Jericho; while Matthew and Mark are thinking of Israelite Jericho, Luke has in mind Herodian Jericho (cf. Mt. 20:29; Mk. 10:46 with Lk. 18:35).

101. Cf. G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 283–293; E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., pp. 223–227.

102. See further E. Lohse, TWNT VIII (1969), pp. 482–492.

103. R. P. Meye, Jesus and the Twelve (Grand Rapids, 1968), pp. 164–166, who rightly stresses that in contrast to the call addressed to the Twelve, Jesus tells Bartimaeus, “Go your way.” The fact that Bartimaeus’ way is also the way of Jesus is certainly significant, but it does not warrant the identification of this following with discipleship.

---

1. Cf. C. W. F. Smith, “No Time for Figs,” JBL 79 (1960), pp. 315–327; idem, “Tabernacles in the Fourth Gospel and Mark,” NTS 9 (1963), pp. 130–146; T. W. Manson, “The Cleansing of the Temple,” BJRL 33 (1951), pp. 271–282.

2. Gr. πῶλος designates simply a young animal, and with this meaning stands in connection with a number of zoological designations (elephant, camel, ass, gazelle); when it stands alone in Greek sources it connotes a (young) horse, and this meaning is preferred here by W. Bauer, “The ‘Colt’ of Palm Sunday (Der Palmesel),” JBL 72 (1953), pp. 220–229. Yet in the LXX, as in the papyri, πῶλος is used of the colt of an ass (cf. Gen. 32:15; 49:11; Judges 10:4; 12:14; Zech. 9:9), and on the basis of Zech. 9:9 the ass was understood to be the beast of the Messiah (see Berachoth 56b Baraitha; Bereshith Rabba 75, 98; Tanchuma Genesis 2a; Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 32). Since the πῶλος in Ch. 11:2, 5, 7 is a sacred, messianic animal, it is inconceivable that πῶλος should be understood as “horse.” So H. W. Kuhn, “Das Reittier Jesu in der Einzugsgeschichte des Markusevangeliums,” ZNW 50 (1959), pp. 82–91; O. Michel, “Eine philologische Frage zur Einzugsgeschichte,” NTS 6 (1959), pp. 81 f.; idem, TWNT VI (1959), p. 960.

3. The capitalization indicates that the translators of the ASV, RSV assumed that Jesus meant himself in this reference to ὁ κύριος, and this understanding has the support of K. Tagawa, Évangile et Miracle (Paris, 1966), p. 169 n. 3, and G. Minette de Tillesse, Le Secret messianique dans l’Évangile de Marc (Paris, 1968), p. 396, among others. Nevertheless, this is contrary to Marcan usage and it is unlikely that Jesus would have referred to himself in this way (cf. Ch. 14:13 f. in a parallel circumstance: “The Teacher says, Where is my guest room …”). While ὁ κύριος may be deliberately ambiguous, it is preferable to translate “The owner has need of him,” and to assume that the owner was with Jesus at this time. A message to the effect that the owner wanted his colt and would return it shortly would account for the response described in verses 5–6.

4. It is preferable to understand the final clause of verse 3 as part of the message, as in the RSV; it is an assurance that the owner will send the colt back without delay.

5. Gr. ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀμφόδου. On the basis of Justin, Apology I, 32 (“the foal of the ass was bound to a vine at the entrance of the village”) P. L. Couchoud, “Notes de critique verbale sur St. Marc et St. Matthieu,” JThS 34 (1933), p. 126 suggested emending the text of verse 4 to πρὸς ἄμπελον δεδεμένος. He suggested that the error crept in through the similarity between αμφοδος/αμπελος, when the allusion to Gen. 49:11 was no longer recognized. This proposal is accepted by E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Marcus¹⁶ (Göttingen, 1963), p. 230 n. 4, but must remain merely an interesting conjecture.

6. Gr. στιβάς denotes leaves, leafy branches, or perhaps rushes gathered from the fields. Palm branches are mentioned only in Jn. 12:13. If palms were involved, they would have been brought from Jericho by the pilgrims, since they were not native to Jerusalem.

7. Gr. Ωσαννα is a transliteration of , the Aramaic form of and means “save, we pray” or “save now.” Cf. E. Lohse, “Hosianna,” Nov Test 6 (1963), pp. 113–119.

8. H. W. Kuhn, op. cit., p. 90; G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 284–287.

9. The rabbis were embarrassed to explain how the Messiah could be content with so humble an entry as prescribed in Zech. 9:9. The explanation was found in Israel’s preparedness for his coming: “Behold, the Son of Man comes ‘on the clouds of heaven’ and ‘lowly and riding an ass.’ If they (Israel) are worthy, ‘with the clouds of heaven’; if they are not worthy, ‘lowly, and riding upon an ass’ ” (TB Sanhedrin 98a). Was Jesus’ entry a declaration of Israel’s unworthiness?

10. Cf. Tosephta Meilah I. 5; M. Menachoth XI. 2; TB Menachoth 78b; Sanhedrin 14b, 86b; Soṭa 45a. See I. Löw, “Bethphage,” Revue des Études Juives 62 (1911), pp. 232–235; G. Dalman, Orte und Wege Jesu³ (Leipzig, 1924), pp. 244–246.

11. G. Dalman, op. cit., pp. 265–267; C. Kopp, Die heiligen Stätten der Evangelien (Regensburg, 1959), pp. 328 f.

12. Cf. W. Schmauch, “Der Ölberg,” TLZ 7 (1957), pp. 391–396.

13. On the basis of Zech. 14:1 ff.; Josephus, Antiquities XX. viii. 6 = War II. xiii. 5; Targum to Cant. 8:5; Sepher Elijahu (in A. Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrash III, 65–68), E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 229, G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 284 f., among others, argue that already in the first century it was expected that the Messiah would appear on the Mount of Olives, but the texts adduced do not warrant this assertion. See W. Foerster, TWNT V (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 484 and n. 102.

14. Cf. H. W. Kuhn, op. cit., pp. 86 f.; J. Blenkinsopp, “The Oracle of Judah and the Messianic Entry,” JBL 80 (1961), pp. 55–64.

15. E.g. Gen. 49:10 LXX, Onkelos, Pseudo-Jonathan and Palestine Pentateuch Targums, Num. 23:24; 24:9, 17 LXX; Isa. 11:10 LXX; TB Sanhedrin 98a; 4Q Patriarchal Blessings i. 1–6. Cf. P. Prigent, “Quelques testimonia messianiques, leur histoire littéraire de Qumrân aux Pères de l’église,” ThZ 15 (1959), pp. 419–430.

16. The relationship between Gen. 49:10 f. and Zech. 9:9 is stressed in Bereshith Rabba XCVIII. 8 to Gen. 49:11, and is a commonplace in the interpretation of the entry into Jerusalem among the Fathers (e.g. Justin, Apology I, 32, Dialogue with Trypho 53; Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 49, Recognitions i. 49–50; Irenaeus, Adv. haer. IV. x. 2).

17. The strongest argument for a Tabernacles setting for the entry into Jerusalem is found in the reference to the branches of greenery in connection with the use of “Hosanna.” At Tabernacles the pilgrims carried bundles of palm, myrtle and willow, which were shaken whenever the word “Hosanna” occurred in the liturgy (M. Sukkah III. 3–9). Cf. G. W. MacRae, “The Meaning and Evolution of the Feast of Tabernacles,” CBQ 22 (1960), pp. 251–276, and the articles cited in n. 1.

18. J. Schneider, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 669 f. argues that the praise of the people is for the coming Messiah and the coming Kingdom.

19. TB Pesachim 119a; Midrash Tehillim to Ps. 118, § 22, 244a.

20. Cf. G. Schrenk, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), pp. 232–237; J. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament (Leiden, 1952), pp. 381–435 (on the Herodian Temple).

21. Gr. εἰ ἄρα, where the inferential ἄρα means “in these circumstances.”

22. Gr. μή (here μηκέτι … μηδείς) with the optative expresses a negative wish or a formal prohibition.

23. Cf. T. W. Manson, op. cit., p. 279: “It is a tale of miraculous power wasted in the service of ill-temper … and as it stands it is simply incredible.”

24. First proposed by E. Schwartz, “Der verfluchte Feigenbaum,” ZNW 5 (1904), pp. 80–84 and now supported by K. Tagawa, op. cit., p. 35, in spite of the cogency of M. J. Lagrange’s comment that “a withered fig tree is too ordinary a thing to give birth to a legend” (L’Évangile selon saint Marc⁸ [Paris, 1947], p. 299).

25. H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden, 1965), pp. 692–696; L. Goppelt, TWNT VI (1959), p. 20; C.-H. Hunzinger, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 756 f., among others. It should be noted, however, that there is not the slightest allusion to the parable in Ch. 11:12–14, 20 f.

26. In addition to the works cited in n. 1, J. van Goudoever, Biblical Calendars (Leiden, 1959), pp. 261–265.

27. So also M. J. Lagrange, op. cit., pp. 292–294, 298 f.; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark² (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 356 f.; G. Friedrich, TWNT VI (1959), p. 844. Cf. J. W. Doeve, “Purification du Temple et dessèchement du figuier,’ NTS 1 (1954–55), pp. 297–308.

28. On these questions see F. Goldman, La Figue en Palestine à l’époque de la Mišna (Paris, 1911); I. Löw, Die Flora der Juden (Berlin, 1928), pp. 224–254; G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina I. 2 (Leipzig, 1928), pp. 378–381; 556–564. A convenient summary appears in T. W. Manson, op. cit., pp. 277 f.

29. C. H. Bird, “Some γάρ clauses in St. Mark’s Gospel,” JThS n.s. 4 (1953), pp. 171–187. Bird refers to this construction as “allusive γάρ,” and suggests an allusion to Isa. 28:4.

30. J. N. Birdsall, “The Withering of the Fig Tree (Mark xi. 12–14, 20–22),” ExT 73 (1962), p. 191; A. de Q. Robin, “The Cursing of the Fig Tree in Mark xi. A Hypothesis,” NTS 8 (1962), pp. 276–281.

31. For attempts to eliminate the offense of the cursing by replacing the curse by sadness and disappointment on the part of Jesus see B. Violet, “Die Verfluchung des Feigenbaumes” in Eucharisterion (Festschrift H. Gunkel) II (Göttingen, 1923), pp. 135–140; T. W. Manson, op. cit., p. 280. G. Stählin, TWNT V (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 429 speaks of “the wrath of the eschatological judge who has full power to destroy … and who has already used this power.” The “offensive” aspect here and elsewhere in the Gospel stresses the seriousness of the situation.

32. The meaning of the parataxis (καὶ ἤκουσαν … καὶ ἐζήτουν …) is “When they heard, they began to seek …”

33. Gr. πῶς is used in an indirect sense and the clause implies a deliberate question: How are we to destroy him? Cf. 14:1, 11.

34. Gr. ὅταν ὀψὲ ἐγένετο, which should probably be translated “And when evening came” as in the RSV and the Jerusalem Bible, or “when it got late,” with C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 359. The particle ὅταν in Mark usually means “when” and not “whenever.”

35. V. Eppstein, “The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple,” ZNW 55 (1964), pp. 42–58.

36. E. Trocmé, “L’expulsion des marchands du Temple,” NTS 15 (1968–69), pp. 17–19 speaks of “an abuse which was commensurate with their crimes,” and stresses the point that there was no threat to life in the Lord’s action.

37. On the number and placement of the Temple police see V. Eppstein, op. cit., pp. 46 f.

38. E. Trocmé, op. cit., pp. 2, 5, 17–22. N. Q. Hamilton, “Temple Cleansing and Temple Bank,” JBL 83 (1964), p. 371 makes the point that Jesus “did not take anything. He did not burn or destroy records of indebtedness. He did not lead any force which could be interpreted as a revolutionary army. He simply suspended the economic function of the temple without taking any advantage of the act. Soon he left the temple, and presumably operations returned to normal.” For a balanced appraisal and rejection of the proposal that the expulsion of the merchants entailed a carefully prepared and executed military operation by a troop of men disciplined and knowledgeable in the arts of war see E. Trocmé, “Jesus Christ et le Temple: éloge d’un naïf,” Rev Hist Phil Rel 44 (1964), pp. 245–251.

39. Cf. W. R. Farmer, “The Patriarch Phineas,” ATR 34 (1952), pp. 26–30.

40. On the more specialized question of the relationship of the Synoptic account of the cleansing of the Temple to the Johannine report, and more particularly of the possibility of two cleansings, see F. M. Braun, “L’expulsion des vendeurs du temple (Mt. xxi. 12–17, 23–27; Mc. xi. 15–19, 27–33; Lc. xix. 45–xx. 8; Jo. ii. 13–22),” RB 38 (1929), pp. 178–200; R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford, 1950), pp. 70–79; I. Buse, “The Cleansing of the Temple in the Synoptics and John,” ExT 70 (1958–59), pp. 22–24.

41. Cf. V. Eppstein, op. cit., pp. 43–46, 56; J. Liver, “The Half-Shekel Offering in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature,” HTR 56 (1963), pp. 173–198. The provisions governing late payment of the tax (M. Shekalim III. 1 f.; VI. 5) imply the possibility of exchange at other times as well, although on a greatly reduced scale.

42. Cf. M. Shekalim IV. 7 f.; V. 3–5. At the Passover in A.D. 66 the worshippers required an estimated 255,600 lambs (Josephus, War VI. ix. 3; cf. War II. xiv. 3). See N. Q. Hamilton, op. cit., pp. 366–369.

43. Ibid., p. 372; C. Roth, “The Cleansing of the Temple and Zech. 14:21,” Nov Test 4 (1960), pp. 174–181. Cf. Hos. 9:15, “Because of the wickedness of their deeds, I will drive them out of my house.”

44. Cf. G. W. Buchanan, “Mark 11, 15–19: Brigands in the Temple,” HUCA 30 (1959), pp. 169–177, who points to Ch. 15:7 and Lk. 13:1 f. for the possibility of zealotic activity in the Temple, but prefers to see in Ch. 11:17 a reference to the events of A.D. 68–70 when the Temple was unquestionably a Zealot stronghold.

45. Rightly stressed by C. W. F. Smith, op. cit., pp. 321 f.

46. J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu³ (Ratisbonne, 1960), pp. 55, 57 considers the expulsion the principal reason for the hostility of the Jewish authorities against Jesus. See also the suggestive essay of N. Q. Hamilton, op. cit., pp. 365–372.

47. R. H. Lightfoot, op. cit., pp. 62–69.

48. A comparison of the Marcan text (ἐξηραμμένην ἐκ ῥιζῶν) with Hos. 9:16 LXX (τὰς ῥίζας αὐτοῦ ἐξηράνθη) suggests that the evangelist had in mind the text from Hosea.

49. A number of MSS (א D Θ φ 28 33 61 543 565 700 1071 it sy^s geo¹ arm) insert Εἰ before ἔχετε, so that the last words of verse 22 serve as the introduction to the strong assertion in verse 23. This variant is probably due to assimilation to Mt. 21:21 or Lk. 17:6.

50. See above on Ch. 3:28.

51. Verse 26 is rightly omitted in the ASV, RSV and all modern translations of the text. It is absent from א B L W Δ Ψ 565 700 892 pc g² k l r² sy^s sa bo geo arm, and represents an addition from Mt. 6:15; cf. Mt. 18:35.

52. See further the larger discussion introducing Ch. 11:12–14.

53. Ch. 11:23 = Mt. 17:20; Lk. 17:6; with Ch. 11:24 cf. Mt. 7:7; 18:19; Lk. 11:9; with Ch. 11:25 cf. Mt. 6:14 f.

54. R. Bultmann, TWNT VI (1959), p. 206; K. Tagawa, op. cit., p. 116. For a powerful statement on the relationship between faith and prayer in these verses see E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology (New York, 1955), pp. 168 f., 171.

55. C. H. Bird, op. cit., p. 177 believes the reference is to “the mountain of the house of the Lord” (cf. Isa. 2:2–4; Micah 4:1–3) and understands the final clause of verse 23 to refer to Jesus himself and the destruction of the Temple. It seems better to understand the text in this specific way than to find a general assertion of the ability of the disciples to do the impossible. Cf., however, 1 Cor. 13:2, where Paul appears to allude to this saying in quite general terms.

56. So H. F. D. Sparks, “The Doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood in the Gospels,” in Studies in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford, 1955), pp. 243–245, who concludes that the verse is a gloss.

57. K. Stendahl, “Prayer and Forgiveness,” Sv Ex Års 22–23 (1957–58), pp. 76 f. n. 8 properly cautions that παράπτωμα is a hapax legomenon in Matthew as well as in Mark; the fact that verse 26 follows Matthew more closely than verse 25 makes it possible to see verse 25 as original in Mark; Matthew already deviates considerably from Mk. 11:24 and may well have preferred to have the saying on prayer and forgiveness in the context of his teaching about prayer; the unique occurrence of the designation “Father in heaven” in Mark suggests liturgical language known to Mark but not quite natural for his own style.

58. Ibid., p. 86.

59. J. Murphy-O’Connor, “Péché et Communauté dans le Nouveau Testament,” RB 74 (1967), pp. 177 f.

60. Gr. ἐξουσία. See above on Ch. 1:22, 27.

61. Gr. λόγον, which here means “matter,” “point,” i.e. “I will ask you about a single point.”

62. The imperative followed by “and” may be used in place of a conditional clause. The thought is, “and if you answer me, then I will tell you …”

63. “Heaven” is a circumlocution for God, in keeping with a common Jewish idiom; cf. Dan. 4:26; Mk. 14:61 f. and the discussion of H. Traub, TWNT V (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 512, 521 f.

64. It is better to adopt the punctuation of the ASV^mg, RSV: “But shall we say, ‘From men’?”

65. Gr. ὄντως qualifies ἦν, not εἶχον; it has been put in the main clause for emphasis. Therefore translate with the ASV^mg, RSV: “for all held that John was a real prophet.”

66. This is rightly stressed by B. R. Halson, “A Note on the Pharisees,” Theology 67 (1964), pp. 248–251, and forgotten, e.g. by G. Baumbach, “Jesus und die Pharisäer. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus,” Bibel und Liturgie 41 (1968), pp. 112–131, who argues that the portrayal of Jesus’ adversaries has been influenced by the existing situation at the time when the Gospels were written. For a more balanced presentation see H. Merkel, “Jesus und die Pharisäer,” NTS 14 (1968), pp. 194–208.

67. Cf. G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 152 f.

68. See J. Kremer, “Jesu Antwort auf die Frage nach seiner Vollmacht. Eine Auslegung von Mk 11, 23–33,” Bib Leb 9 (1968), pp. 128–136.

69. Is the reference to the Baptist an allusion to an earlier expulsion of the merchants from the Temple forecourt, carried out under the Baptist’s authority (Jn. 2:13–22)? If so, it is no accident that when Jesus cleanses the Temple on his own messianic authority he answers the challenge of the authorities with a reminder of John’s baptism.

70. W. Foerster, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 569.

---

1. Gr. ἐν παραβολαῖς is used adverbially and means simply “parabolically,” as in Ch. 3:23. For an introduction to Jesus’ use of parables see the opening remarks to Ch. 4.

2. Gr. κενόν here means “empty-handed,” as in the LXX expression τινὰ κενὸν ἐξαποστέλλειν (Gen. 31:42; Deut. 15:13; Job 22:9).

3. Gr. ἀγαπητόν means here “only” son, as in Gen. 22:2, 12, 16; Jer. 6:26 LXX. See above on Ch. 1:11.

4. It is better to translate κύριος as “owner,” in keeping with the parable Jesus has been telling (cf. verse 1, “a man planted a vineyard”).

5. Gr. πρὸς αὐτούς is better translated “with reference to them.”

6. See the valuable discussions of C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, revised edition (London, 1963), pp. 93–98; J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus⁶ (New York, 1962), pp. 70–77; and most recently, M. Hengel, “Das Gleichnis von den Weingärtnern Mc 12, 1–12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse,” ZNW 59 (1968), pp. 9–31. On the Zenon papyri see especially V. Tcherikover, “Palestine under the Ptolemies,” Mizraim 4/5 (1937), pp. 7–90.

7. In the Gospel of Thomas the parable is free from allegorical features, the number of servants is reduced to two, the reference to Isa. 5:2 at the beginning is lacking, the servants are not murdered but only violently beaten, and in place of the rhetorical questions of Ch. 12:9 is the typical admonition “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” This form is championed as primitive by C. H. Dodd, op. cit., p. 96 n. 22; J. Jeremias, op. cit., pp. 70–77; B. M. F. van Iersel, Der “Sohn” in den synoptischen Jesusworten² (Leiden, 1964), pp. 124–145; G. Minette de Tillesse, Le Secret messianique dans l’Évangile de Marc (Paris, 1968), pp. 288–290, among others.

8. W. Schrage, Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen (BZNW 29, Berlin, 1963), pp. 137–141 has demonstrated by his comparison of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas and the Sahidic translation of the Synoptic Gospels that Thomas is dependent upon the Sahidic VS, and that in a late form. On p. 139 he shows that Logion 65 shows especially the influence of the Lucan version of the parable (Lk. 20:9–19), and is convinced that in Thomas there has been a conscious de-allegorizing reduction produced from the Synoptic Gospels, without access to independent tradition (pp. 7 f.). M. Hengel, op. cit., p. 5 remarks: “We are thrust back upon Mark as preserving presumably the oldest form.” See also W. G. Kümmel, “Das Gleichnis von den bösen Weingärtnern (Mark 12. 1–9),” in Aux Sources de la Tradition Chrétienne (Mélanges M. Goguel, ed. O. Cullmann and Ph. Menoud. Paris, 1950), pp. 120–131.

9. On the Semitisms in the parable see the list of twelve items in M. Hengel, op. cit., pp. 7 f. n. 31.

10. C. H. Dodd, op. cit., p. 93 n. 17 refers to Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1631, 1689, 1968 for examples of contracts stipulating for payment of rent in kind. During the Ptolemaic period covered by the Zenon Papyri, wine stood high on the export list from Palestine and Phoenicia.

11. M. Hengel, op. cit., pp. 12–14.

12. J. Jeremias, op. cit., pp. 72 f. correctly points out that in the sending of the son, Jesus had his own sending in mind, but that the messianic significance of the son would remain veiled from his hearers since there is no evidence that the title “Son of God” was applied to the Messiah in pre-Christian Palestinian Judaism. In the rabbinic parable of the defiant tenants (Sifré Deut. 32:9 § 312) the son is interpreted as the patriarch Jacob, i.e. as representing the people of Israel. So also W. G. Kümmel, op. cit., p. 130.

13. See especially E. Bammel, “Das Gleichnis von der bösen Winzern (Mc 12, 1–9) und des jüdische Erbrecht,” RIDA 3^rd ser. 6 (1959), pp. 11–17; J. D. M. Derrett, “Fresh Light on the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers,” RIDA 3^rd ser. 10 (1963), pp. 11–41; M. Hengel, op. cit., pp. 18–39. A piece of land could be lawfully possessed, if it fell within the category of ownerless property, if even a small portion of it had been “marked out, fenced, or provided with an entrance” (M. Baba Bathra III. 3). A garden which had belonged to a proselyte who died intestate was successfully claimed by marking it with a sign (TB Baba Bathra 54a).

14. C. H. Dodd, op. cit., p. 95 appeals to the example of Brutus, who collected a debt from the corporation of Salamis by arranging for the dispatch of a force of cavalry obtained from the governor of Cilicia (see Cicero, Ad Atticum V. 21; VI. 1).

15. In the Gospel of Thomas an allusion to Ps. 118:22 follows the parable as a separate logion (66): “Jesus said: Show me the stone which the builders rejected. It is the keystone.”

16. Cf. J. Jeremias, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 792 f.; IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 278; L. W. Barnard, “The Testimonium Concerning the Stone in the New Testament and the Epistle of Barnabas,” in Studia Evangelica III, ed. F. L. Cross (Oxford, 1964), pp. 306–313.

17. Cf. S-BK I (1922), pp. 875 f.

18. G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 218 f., 287–293 speaks of Jesus’ progressive and regular withdrawal of the veil from his own identity until the secret is openly disclosed in Ch. 14:62.

19. D. Daube, “Evangelisten und Rabbinen,” ZNW 48 (1957), pp. 119–126; idem, “The Earliest Structure of the Gospels,” NTS 5 (1959), pp. 174–187. The schema to which Daube makes reference is found with variation in the order of the questions in Mekilta Ex. 13:8, § 4; TJ Pesachim X 37d; TB Niddah 69b–71a.

20. On the Pharisees see above on Ch. 2:16; 7:1; 8:11; and on the Herodians Ch. 3:6. A coalition between these two groups is mentioned as early as Ch. 3:6.

21. Gr. ἵνα αὐτὸν ἀγρεύσωσιν λόγῳ, “that they might catch him in (an unguarded) statement.” Ἀγρεύειν (“to catch”) occurs only here in the NT, and is used figuratively as in Prov. 5:22; 6:25 f. LXX.

22. Gr. κῆνσον transliterates the Latin term census and reflects the impact made by the introduction of the Roman taxation into the Judean province in A.D. 6. In place of this term D Θ 124 565 1071 k sy^{s p} read ἐπικεφάλαιον (“polltax”), and this variant is preferred by C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage,” JThS 29 (1928), pp.7 f.

23. After τί με πειράζετε P⁴⁵ F G N W Θ Σ λ φ 13 28 33 543 565 579 q sy^h sa geo arm have ὑποκριταί, which may be correct. Cf. P. L. Couchoud, “Notes de critique verbale sur St. Marc et St. Matthieu,” JThS 35 (1934), pp. 19 f. On the charge of hypocrisy see above on Ch. 7:6.

24. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities V. i. 21 and the interesting material brought together by E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (New York, 1960), pp. 21–32. There is a wealth of technical material in S. L. Wallace, Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (Princeton, 1938) and H. Loewe, “Render Unto Caesar”: Religious and Political Loyalty in Palestine (Cambridge, 1940).

25. Cf. S-BK I (1922), p. 884. According to Hippolytus, Omnium haeresium confutatio ix. 26, the Zealots would not handle or look upon any coin which bore an image.

26. G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 153 f. sees the dilemma differently: if Jesus says “Yes,” he must renounce his messianic pretensions. There is no indication, however, either in the title of address used by the questioners in verse 14 or in the general probabilities of the situation, that Jesus’ messianic dignity is the real issue at stake.

27. In contrast to the third-century Rabbi Nahum ben Simai, who gained the title of “holy” among his contemporaries because he would not so much as look at a coin which bore any sort of effigy (TJ ʿAbodah Zarah 42c; TB Megillah 72b). See H. Loewe, op. cit., pp. 87 f.

28. See E. Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars (Philadelphia, 1955), pp. 112–137, together with the material assembled by A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East⁴ (New York, 1927), pp. 252, 338–384.

29. The logion in verse 17 occurs in Egerton Papyrus No. 2 (Fragment 2 recto) and in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, Logion 100. Both versions, however, differ substantially from each other and from the Synoptic wording. These divergent sayings are studied by J. N. Sevenster, “Geeft den keizer wat des keizers is, en Gode wat Gods is,” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 17 (1962), pp. 21–31, who concludes that they should not be used for interpreting Jesus’ statement in verse 17.

30. This was already realized by Aristotle (Politica III. vii. 7; VI. i. 1–3), and found ample illustration in men like Antiochus Epiphanes or Pompey whose arrogance in assuming divine prerogatives was duly noted in Jewish literature (cf. Mekilta to Ex. 15:11; Psalms of Solomon 2:29; 2 Macc. 9:8). Cf. Ch. 13:14.

31. Cf. L. Goppelt, “The Freedom to Pay the Imperial Tax,” in Studia Evangelica II (ed. F. L. Cross, Berlin, 1963), pp. 183–194. On the larger issues posed by the question of Christian political responsibility see K. Barth, Against the Stream (London, 1954), pp. 13–54; O. Cullmann, The State in the New Testament (London, 1957); C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Christian’s Political Responsibility according to the New Testament,” ScJTh 15 (1962), pp. 176–192.

32. Cf. G. Kittel, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 106–108.

33. At this point Α Γ Θ Φ λ (φ) pl latt sy^s bo^pt add ὅταν ἀναστῶσιν, i.e. “in the resurrection, when they are raised …” Though these additional words are missing from some of the more significant MSS, the tautology reflects Semitic idiom and is probably original.

34. Gr. ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου is a customary Jewish manner of referring to the narrative concerning the burning bush in Ex. 3:1–6. See above on Ch. 2:26, and cf. Rom. 11:2, where ἐν Ἠλείᾳ refers to 1 Kings 19:1–10. Other Jewish examples are collected in S-BK II (1924), p. 28.

35. For the details in support of this reconstruction see V. Eppstein, “The Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple,” ZNW 55 (1964), pp. 50–54; idem, “When and How the Sadducees were Excommunicated,” JBL 85 (1966), pp. 213–224; R. Meyer, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 35–46. Cf. E. E. Ellis, “Jesus, the Sadducees and Qumran,” NTS 10 (1964), pp. 274–279.

36. See the texts cited by A. Oepke, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 369 f.

37. Cf. TJ Ḥagigah IV 77b: “Elisha ben Abuya said, ‘There is no resurrection of the dead’.” See further Acts 23:6–8; Josephus, Antiquities XVIII. i. 4; War II. viii. 14; Aboth de Rabbi Nathan (recension B) 5 and the discussion of R. Meyer, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 46 f.

38. C. K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition² (London, 1958), pp. 74 f. suggests that Jesus was thinking of a passage in the Amidah prayer which includes the words “You quicken the dead with great mercy … and keep your faith with those who sleep in the dust,” and was known as (i.e. “the powers [of God]”).

39. Cf. S-BK I (1922), pp. 888–890, and for the truth affirmed by Jesus I Enoch 104:4, “You shall have great joy as the angels in heaven”; II Baruch 51:10, the righteous “shall be made like the angels.” For the Sadducean rejection of the belief in angels, see Acts 23:8.

40. It is common to refer to TB Sanhedrin 90b, where Rabbi Gamaliel II deduces the resurrection from Num. 11:9 (“in order that you may prolong your days on the land which God has promised to your fathers to give to them”) on the ground that they must themselves be the beneficiaries of the promise. In a similar manner Rabbi Johanan deduces from Num. 18:28 that Aaron must be alive all the time the law is in effect. Jesus’ argument is far more profound than this.

41. F. Dreyfus, “L’argument scripturaire de Jésus en faveur de la résurrection des morts (Marc, XII, 26–27),” RB 66 (1959), pp. 213–224. I have sought to summarize this important article in the paragraphs which follow.

42. Among the passages cited by Dreyfus are Prayer of Manasseh 1; Assumption of Moses 3:9 (“God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, remember the covenant which you made with them … as you have promised to them”); Jubilees 45:3; Testament of Reuben 4:10; Testament of Simeon 2:8; Testament of Joseph 2:2; 6:7; Testament of Gad 2:5; 3 Macc. 7:16; Wisdom of Solomon 9:1; 1QM x. 8; xiii. 1–2, 7, 13; xiv. 4; Judith 9:11.

43. The phrase “and with all thy mind” is omitted by D pc it, perhaps rightly. The omission brings the citation of Deut. 6:5 into harmony with the threefold reference in the MT and LXX, and with the reference to the commandment in verse 33. “Soul” and “mind” represent a double translation of the Semitic term .

44. Gr. ὁλοκαύτωμα καὶ θυσία often appear together in the LXX and differentiate sacrifices which were wholly consumed from those in which the flesh was eaten by the worshippers.

45. For a defense of the originality and antiquity of the Marcan account (answering objections which have been raised), see S. Légasse, “Scribes et disciples de Jésus,” RB 68 (1961), pp. 483–489.

46. Cf. S-BK IV (1928), pp. 339–352; S. Légasse, op. cit., pp. 497–502; J. Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu II B (Göttingen, 1958), pp. 101–114.

47. S-BK I (1922), p. 900; W. Grundmann, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 535 n. 31.

48. TB Shabbath 31a (cf. Tobit 4:15). Other examples may be found in S-BK I (1922), p. 907.

49. This combination of Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 has a number of antecedent parallels in Jewish material: e.g. Testament of Issachar 5:2 “Love the Lord and the neighbor”; 7:6 “I loved the Lord and every man with all my heart”; Testament of Dan. 5:3 “Love the Lord with all your life and one another with a true heart”; Testament of Reuben 6:9; Testament of Judah 18:3; Testament of Zebulun 5:3; Testament of Gad 6:1; Sifré Deut. 3:29; Sifra Lev. 19:18. Cf. J. B. Stern, “Jesus’ Citation of Dt 6, 5 and Lv 19, 18 in the Light of Jewish Tradition,” CBQ 28 (1966), pp. 312–316.

50. Cf. Letter of Aristeas § 160; Jubilees 6:14; Josephus, Antiquities IV. viii. 13; 1QS x. 1–3, 9–11, 13 f.; 1QH xii. 4–7. There is a wealth of material on the Shemaʿ in S-BK IV (1928), pp. 189–207, and J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (London, 1967), pp. 66–81.

51. G. Quell and E. Stauffer, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 29, 44 f.

52. W. Grundmann, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 535 f.

53. Whenever (“neighbor”) occurs in the legal sections of the Law it is always understood by the early legal commentaries to mean “fellow-Jew.” Cf. Sifré Deut. 23:26: “By the general rule, since the word is used (this law) does not refer to (the property of) others” (i.e. Gentiles). See M. Smith, “Comments on Taylor’s Commentary on Mark,” HTR 48 (1955), pp. 50 f. and nn. 38, 40.

54. For an extended exposition of Ch. 12:29–31 see K. Barth, Church Dogmatics 1/2 (Edinburgh, 1936), pp. 381–454. See further G. Bornkamm, “Das Doppelgebot der Liebe,” Neutestamentlichen Studien für R. Bultmann (BZNW 21, Berlin, 1954), pp. 85–93; H. Montefiore, “ ‘Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself’, ” Nov Test 4 (1962), pp. 157–170.

55. S. Légasse, op. cit., p. 484, citing TB Sukkah 49b; Berachoth 55a; Deut. Rabba V, 201d.

56. G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., p. 151.

57. In Mt. 22:46 the comment is placed at the end of the next section; in Lk. 20:40 at the end of the previous section. S. Légasse, op. cit., p. 485 prefers to take it as the introduction to Ch. 12:35–37.

58. In 4QFlorilegium i. 11–13 the promise to David (2 Sam. 7:11c, 12bc, 13, 14a) is interpreted by reference to a messianic interpretation of Amos 9:11. This latter passage is similarly interpreted in CD vii. 16; TB Sanhedrin 96b, 97a; cf. Acts 15:16 f., representing sectarian, scribal and early Christian preoccupation with the fulfilment of the promise.

59. E.g. R. José ben Qisma (ca. A.D. 110), TB Sanhedrin 98a; R. Johanan ben Torta (ca. A.D. 130), TJ Taʿanith IV. 8, 68d; R. Jehuda ben Ilʿai and R. Nehemia (ca. A.D. 150), TB Sanhedrin 97a. See E. Lohse, TWNT VIII (1969), pp. 484–486.

60. R. P. Gagg, “Jesus und die Davidssohnfrage. Zur Exegese von Markus 12. 35–37,” ThZ 7 (1951), pp. 18–30 argues that Mark has preserved only the ending of an original conflict story. The opening question was lost in the course of tradition, but some opponent seems to have asked if Jesus taught that the Messiah would be David’s son. So in similar accounts Jesus replied with a counter-question designed to escape a trap by breaking off a dangerous conversation. It seems better, however, to hold that Jesus seized the initiative to point to the disparity between the narrow political hopes associated with popular messianism and the intention of Scripture. The formulation of verse 35 invites comparison with Ch. 9:11 f.: in both contexts Jesus does not question the accuracy of the scribal teaching but he probes the intention of the biblical texts undergirding that teaching.

61. See D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), pp. 158–163, and the articles cited in n. 19 above; E. Lohse, op. cit., p. 488.

62. E. Lövestam, “Die Davidssohnfrage,” Sv Ex Års 27 (1962), pp. 74–80. It is the failure to recognize that Jesus was posing a Haggada-question which has led a number of commentators to affirm that Jesus denied the Davidic descent of the Messiah, e.g. R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York, 1963), pp. 136 f.; E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus (Göttingen, 1963), p. 262; B. van Iersel, “Fils de David et fils de Dieu” in La venue du Messie (Bruges, 1962), pp. 121–123, 130.

63. For related references see E. Lohse, TWNT VIII (1969), p. 486.

64. Cf. C. K. Barrett, op. cit., pp. 107–112. The contention that Ps. 110 is Maccabean in date is now disproved by the recovery of a complete Psalter from Qumran which has been dated in the third century B.C.

65. Following the text supported by B D W Ψ 28 l¹³⁵³ sy^s sa bo geo Diatessaron, ὑποκάτω is substituted for ὑποπόδιον and the article is omitted before κύριος.

66. The earliest rabbinic evidence for the messianic interpretation of Ps. 110:1 is Bereshith Rabba LXXXV, 153a (second half of the 3rd century A.D.). The absence of earlier evidence appears to reflect the Jewish-Christian debate. Thus in Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 32 f., 56, 83 it is said that the Jews interpreted the psalm of Hezekiah. Cf. S-BK IV (1933), pp. 452–465. Jesus’ use of Ps. 110:1 led to its free citation in the early church. Within the NT there are more references or allusions to this verse than to any other OT passage.

67. E. Lövestam, op. cit., pp. 75–77.

68. So J. Gnilka, “Die Erwartung des messianischen Hohenpriesters von Qumran und des Neue Testament,” Rev Qum 2 (1959/60), pp. 416–418; G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., pp. 331–333.

69. E. Lövestam, op. cit., pp. 79–81.

70. See W. Michaelis, “Die Davidssohnschaft Jesu als historisches und kerygmatisches Problem” in Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus, ed. H. Rostow and K. Matthiae (Berlin, 1961), pp. 317–330.

71. For ἐν στολαῖς E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 263 n. 2 prefers ἐν στοαῖς, “in cloisters,” corresponding to ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς, “in the marketplaces.” While support for this conjecture may be found in the Old Syriac Gospels (sy^{s pal.} to Ch. 12:38; sy^c to Lk. 20:46), the absence of Greek MS support suggests that the translation variant arose through a scribal error.

72. For wealth of information concerning the Jerusalem scribes see J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia, 1969), pp. 233–245.

73. Cf. S. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie I (Leipzig, 1910), pp. 144 f., 547 ff.; W. Michaelis, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 244, 246; K. H. Rengstorf, “Die στολαί der Schriftgelehrten. Eine Erläuterung zu Mark 12, 38” in Abraham unser Vater, Festschrift O. Michel (Leiden, 1963), pp. 383–404.

74. TB Kiddushin 33a.

75. E.g. TJ Berachoth II. 1, 4b. 24 (Rabbi), TB Makkoth 24a (ʾabi, “my Father” and mari, “my master”). Cf. Matt. 23:7; Lk. 20:46.

76. J. Jeremias, op. cit., p. 236.

77. Ibid., p. 244, citing TJ Ḥagigah II. 1, 77b.

78. M. Aboth I. 13; M. Bekhoroth IV. 6; TB Nedarim 37a, 62a: “Do not make of the Torah a spade with which to dig,” i.e. you must not accept payment for teaching the Law.

79. See J. Jeremias, op. cit., pp. 111–116.

80. TB Soṭah 22b (Baraitha) speaks of scribes whose zeal was directed toward the things of this world and not to those of the age to come; Assumption of Moses 7:6 describes the scribes as “gluttons”; and Josephus, Ant. XVII. ii. 4 says that the Pharisees (and most scribes were Pharisees) made men believe they were highly favored by God and that women were deceived by them. Cf. J. Jeremias, op. cit., pp. 113 f.

81. For a powerful statement of the temptation to which the Church is exposed in history to become more concerned with its own piety than with the Lord see E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology (New York, 1956), pp. 203 f.

82. Jerusalem Bible: “two small coins, the equivalent of a penny.” See below, n. 84.

83. Cf. G. Schrenk, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1966), p. 236. Mark’s use of the singular to describe the receptacle indicates one of the thirteen boxes. For the plural see Neh. 12:44 (LXX 2 Esdras 22:44, ἐπὶ τῶν γαζοφυλακίων τοῖς θησαυροῖς), “over the receptacles for contributions.” Paul Billerbeck (S-BK II [1924], pp. 37–45) suggests that the reference is to the treasury itself, and that the amount of a gift and the purpose for which it was intended were declared audibly by the donor to the priest in charge. While this would explain how Jesus knew the precise amount of the widow’s gift, it does not find support in the Marcan passage, which speaks only of Jesus seeing the donors make their contribution.

84. The tiny lepton was first minted during the Maccabean period. While its small size made legible stamping difficult, it has been possible to determine particular patterns and to assign coins recovered from excavations to the reigns of Herod the Great, Archelaus, the praefect Valerius and the praefect Pilate. The lepton was worth about one four-hundredth part of a shekel, or roughly 1/8 of a cent. For help in identifying Palestinian coinage see F. Prat, “Le cours des Monnaies en Palestine au temps de Jésus-Christ,” RSR 15 (1925), pp. 441–448; C. Seltmann, Greek Coins (London, 1933); and for the lepta D. Sperber, “Mark xii. 42 and its Metrological Background. A Study in Ancient Syriac Versions,” Nov Test 9 (1967), pp. 178–190.

85. Mark’s κοδράντης, a transliteration of the Latin quadrans, supports the view that he was writing in the West, since the quadrans was not in circulation in the east. See W. M. Ramsay, “On Mark xii. 42,” ExT 10 (1898/99), pp. 232, 336.

86. See above on Ch. 3:28.

87. Leviticus Rabba III, 107a.

88. So L. Simon, “Le sou de la veuve. Marc 12/41–44,” Études Théologiques et Religieuses 44 (1969), pp. 115–126.