---

1. A comprehensive survey of the literature on Mark 13 was presented by G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Future. An Examination of the Criticism of the Eschatological Discourse, Mark 13 with special reference to the Little Apocalypse Theory (London, 1954), which was followed by A Commentary on Mark Thirteen (London, 1957). Since that time at least six major monographs have been published: G. Neville, The Advent Hope. A Study of the Context of Mark 13 (London, 1961); L. Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted. The Formulation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par (Lund, 1966); A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament (Leiden, 1966); J. Lambrecht, Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse: Literarische Analyse und Strukturuntersuchung (Rome, 1967); R. Pesch, Naherwartungen. Tradition und Redaktion in Mark 13 (Düsseldorf, 1968); L. Gaston, No Stone on Another. Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden, 1970), all with full bibliographies of the relevant journal articles.

2. The fully developed form in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs has its origins in such OT passages as Gen. 49, Deut. 33, Josh. 23 and 1 Sam. 12. In the NT cf. Acts 20:17–35, II Timothy and II Peter. See J. Munck, “Discours d’adieu dans le Nouveau Testament et dans la littérature biblique” in Aux Sources de la Tradition Chrétienne (Neuchâtel, 1950), pp. 155–170; E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology⁵ (New York, 1963), pp. 344–347. The Olivet discourse was recognized as a farewell address in form by F. Busch, Zum Verständnis der synoptischen Eschatologie, Markus 13 neu untersucht (Gütersloh, 1938), p. 44.

3. The parenesis is carried forward by such terms as βλέπετε (verses 5, 9, 23, 33), μὴ θροεῖσθε (verse 7), μὴ προμεριμνᾶτε (verse 11), ὁ ὑπομείνας (verse 13), μὴ πιστεύετε (with regard to false prophets, verse 21), μάθετε (verse 28), γινώσκετε (verse 29), ἀγρυπνεῖτε (verse 33) and γρηγορεῖτε (verses 35, 37).

4. L. Gaston, op. cit., pp. 14, 50–53 has called attention to the importance of γάρ in Ch. 13. He remarks: “The importance of this word would have been noticed long ago were it not for the unfortunate fact that it is missing in several places from the Nestle text, even though it is required by a synoptic comparison and is well attested. γάρ appears at the beginning of v. 6, 7b, 8, 9b, 11b, 19, 22, 33 and 35. With the exception, therefore, of the longer sections 14–18 and 24–27, every apocalyptic element is attached to its context by a γάρ” (p. 52). Cf. Ch. 8:34–38, which moves progressively from exhortation to eschatology, where every sentence is connected to the preceding one by γάρ (verses 35, 36, 37, 38).

5. See C. B. Cousar, “Eschatology and Mark’s Theologia Crucis. A Critical Analysis of Mark 13,” Interpretation 24 (1970), pp. 326–328, 331.

6. Gr. ταῦτα … , ταῦτα … πάντα.

7. So W. Michaelis, Der Herr verzieht nicht die Verheissung (Bern, 1942), pp. 30 ff.; J. R. Michaels, The Church Vigilant. An Examination of ΓΡΗΓΟΡΕΙΝ and ΑΓΡΥΠΝΕΙΝ in the New Testament (Diss. Harvard, Cambridge, Mass., 1962), pp. 94–96; G. Minette de Tillesse, Le Secret messianique dans l’Évangile de Marc (Paris, 1968), pp. 422–424; A. L. Moore, op. cit., pp. 131–135; C. B. Cousar, op. cit., p. 325.

8. Cf. G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., p. 423 who comments: “This manner of relating verse 30 and verse 32 to two distinct events is not imposed upon us by apologetic concerns, but by the simple redactional analysis of the chapter: πάντα ταῦτα, we argue, can only relate to the question of verse 4, while the day and the hour, unknown even to the angels, can only designate the parousia. The almost insoluble contradiction faced by those authors who wish to relate verse 30 and verse 32 to the same event is a powerful confirmation of our analysis.”

9. J. R. Michaels, op. cit., p. 99.

10. L. Hartman, op. cit., pp. 145–177; cf. F. Busch, op. cit., pp. 63–120. Hartman points especially to Dan. 7:8–27; 8:9–26; 9:24–27; 11:21–12:13, and to some extent Ch. 2:31–45.

11. For the details see L. Hartman, op. cit., pp. 178–205, 211–213.

12. Cf. L. Gaston, op. cit., pp. 8–64, 244–369 for an attempt to unravel the relationship between the Synoptics.

13. E.g. W. G. Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment (Naperville, 1957), pp. 60 f.; W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist (Nashville, 1969), pp. 151–206; cf. C. B. Cousar, op. cit., p. 322, “The chapter … is unquestionably a composition of the Evangelist containing Jewish or Jewish-Christian apocalyptic material, traditional sayings, and redactional comments tightly woven together.”

14. Rightly stressed by F. Flückiger, “Die Redaktion der Zukunftsrede in Markus 13,” ThZ 26 (1970), pp. 396 f. Flückiger pushes the redaction of the discourse back to a pre-Marcan stage, as does L. Gaston, op. cit., pp. 41 f.

15. E.g. 1 Thess. 4–5, 2 Thess. 2, 2 Peter 3, Rev. 6. See especially L. Hartman, op. cit., pp. 178–205, 211–213 and A. L. Moore, op. cit., pp. 152 f.

16. So G. R. Beasley-Murray, A Commentary on Mark Thirteen (London, 1957), pp. 4–18; A. L. Moore, op. cit., pp. 152–180; L. Hartman, op. cit., p. 172; F. Flückiger, op. cit., pp. 397, 408; cf. L. Gaston, op. cit., pp. 13, 41 f.

17. Gr. ἱερόν denotes the entire Temple complex, not simply the sanctuary, as the exclamation of the disciple makes clear. By NT times the term for the sanctuary was ναός.

18. A longer form of the text, which refers not only to the destruction of the Temple but states that a new Temple will be raised up, is found in D W it Cyprian: “there will not be left stone upon stone that will not be thrown down, and in three days another will be erected without hands.” The expansion is an interpretation of Mark in accordance with John 2:19 since it employs the verb ἀνίστημι rather than οἰκοδομεῖν (as in Mk. 14:58). Such expansions are not uncommon in Codex D. See C. H. Turner, “Western Readings in the Second Half of St. Mark’s Gospel,” JThS 29 (1928), pp. 8 f.

19. TB Sukkah 41b (Baraitha); Baba Bathra 4a (Baraitha). For a full bibliography on the Temple see G. Schrenk, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), pp. 230 f. and for a reliable account of the Herodian Temple as reconstructed by archeological research see J. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament (Leiden, 1952), pp. 381–435. Cf. A. Parrot, The Temple of Jerusalem (London, 1957); R. K. Harrison, Archaeology of the New Testament (New York, 1964), pp. 18 f.

20. The Roman historian Tacitus was sufficiently pleased by the building to describe it as “a temple of immense wealth” (History V. 8).

21. F. Flückiger, op. cit., pp. 404 f. has argued that the original form of Jesus’ words contained the double prophecy of the destruction of the Temple and the building of a new sanctuary. He bases his argument on the longer formulation in Ch. 14:58 (cf. Ch. 15:29; John 2:19). On this understanding, the announcement of the destruction of the Temple is not simply a judgment oracle but is at the same time a prophecy of messianic redemption. Against this proposal, however, see L. Gaston, op. cit., pp. 12, 67–243. L. Hartman, op. cit., p. 220 rightly observes that the shorter and longer forms of Jesus’ words have existed side by side in the tradition from the beginning.

22. Gr. οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ … οὐ μὴ καταλυθῇ.

23. In the use of ἀφεθῇ and καταλυθῇ an aorist subjunctive replaces the future, a change that often suggests emphasis. See E. D. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek³ (Edinburgh, 1955), p. 78. The verb καταλυθῇ (“thrown down”) is itself an emphatic compound.

24. For a discussion of this logion in context, see L. Gaston, op. cit., pp. 355–360.

25. Cf. Josephus, War VII. i. 1: “Caesar [Titus] ordered the whole city and the Temple to be razed to the ground.” For a wealth of information see F. M. Abel, “Topographie du Siège de Jérusalem en 70,” RB 56 (1949), pp. 238–258. The conquest and destruction of the Temple are reviewed on pp. 252–255.

26. Cf. J. Simons, op. cit., p. 435: “If Christ’s prophecy about the destruction of the Herodian Temple, not a stone of which was to remain in place … referred to the temple proper or to the entire block of buildings within the outer enclosure, no prophecy has been fulfilled more literally, since the very site of the sacred edifice and the disposition of all the accessory buildings have become matters of discussion.”

27. Cf. C. H. Dodd, “The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation,’ ” Journal of Roman Studies 37 (1947), pp. 49–51; L. Hartman, op. cit., p. 240.

28. For later prophecies of destruction prior to A.D. 70 see TJ Yoma 43c, 61 (Baraitha) and TB Yoma 39b; Josephus, War VI. v. 3. For details see J. Neusner, A Life of Rabban Yohanan Ben Zakkai ca. 1–80 C.E. (Leiden, 1962), pp. 105–110; L. Gaston, op. cit., pp. 442–444. Cf. C. H. Dodd, “The Prophecy of Caiaphas. John XI, 47–53” in Neotestamentica et Patristica (Leiden, 1962), pp. 134–143.

29. Cf. G. Schrenk, op. cit., pp. 238 ff.

30. E.g. TB Shabbath 119b, where there are a series of formulations, “Jerusalem was destroyed only because … ,” and a variety of transgressions are recounted. Cf. Testament of Levi 14:1; 15:1, “Therefore, my children, I have learned that at the end of the ages you will transgress against the Lord, stretching out hands to wickedness … Therefore the Temple, which the Lord shall choose, shall be laid waste through your uncleanness, and you shall be captives throughout all nations. And you shall be an abomination unto them, and you shall receive reproach and everlasting shame from the righteous judgment of God.”

31. Cf. J. Simons, op. cit., p. 435: “To reconstitute the dazzling panorama enjoyed by Christ’s contemporaries from the top of the Mount of Olives will ever remain an unrealizable wish.”

32. For the significance of the Mount of Olives as a locus of revelation see W. Schmauch, Orte der Offenbarung und der Offenbarungsort im Neuen Testament (Berlin, 1956), pp. 58–66.

33. The parallelism has been widely recognized by interpreters. Cf. C. F. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord (Oxford, 1925), pp. 16, 20 f.; M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts³ (Oxford, 1967), pp. 105, 117; L. Hartman, op. cit., pp. 221 f.; G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., p. 425; L. Gaston, op. cit., p. 12 et alia.

34. LXX: συντελεσθήσεται ταῦτα πάντα; cf. Mk. 13:4b, μέλλῃ ταῦτα συντελεῖσθαι πάντα. On this parallel see L. Hartman, op. cit., pp. 145, 220–222.

35. So G. Minette de Tillesse, op. cit., p. 425; L. Hartman, op. cit., p. 221; L. Gaston, op. cit., p. 12.

36. L. Gaston, op. cit., p. 14 has argued that verse 6 and verse 7b should be introduced by the preposition γάρ (for). Both Matt. and Luke appear to have read a γάρ in Mark in verse 6 and it is probable that it should be read along with A D it sy al. The case for γάρ in verse 7b is even stronger: א A D L Θ it sy pl. Logically, the γάρ is necessary in these verses, for it indicates the reason for the warnings expressed in verse 5 and verse 7a. See above, pp. 445 f.

37. Gr. δεῖ γενέσθαι may reflect Dan. 2:28 LXX, where this expression is used with reference to the last days (cf. Dan. 2:29, 45; 8:19; Rev. 1:1; 4:1; 22:6). The use of δεῖ elsewhere in Mark refers to a necessity imposed by the sovereign will of God. See above on Ch. 8:31.

38. W. Bauer⁴ (A-G, p. 214) proposes that the proper translation here is “rise in arms.” The use of the passive form of the verb, ἐγερθήσεται, suggests that the fulfilment of God’s purpose is directly in view, i.e. “shall be raised [by God].”

39. Gr. ὠδῖνες appears to be a technical phrase corresponding to the rabbinic expression , “the birthpangs of the Messiah,” referring to the period of distress which precedes the messianic age. On this expression see S-BK I (1922), p. 905; IV (1928), pp. 977–986. Cf. II Baruch 27–30; TB Shabbath 118a; Sanhedrin 98b.

40. See especially L. Hartman, op. cit., pp. 147–150.

41. Cf. H. Bietenhard, TWNT V (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 272, 276.

42. So E. Stauffer, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1965), p. 353; A. Feuillet, “Le discours eschatologique sur la ruine du Temple,” RB 55 (1948), p. 490; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark² (Cambridge, 1963), p. 395.

43. Cf. Ex. 3:14; Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 47:8, 10 LXX and see above on Ch. 6:50. See further, D. Daube, “The ‘I Am’ of the Messianic Presence” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), pp. 325–329; H. Zimmermann, “Das absolute ‘Ich bin’ in der Redeweise Jesu,” TrierThZ 69 (1960), pp. 13 ff.; idem, “Das absolute Ἐγώ εἰμι als die neutestamentliche Offenbarungsformel,” BZ 4 (1960), pp. 54–69, 226–276; A. Haiduk, “ ‘Ego eimi’ bei Jesu und seine Messianität,” Communio Viatorum 6 (1963), pp. 55–60.

44. On the possible background for this statement in Dan. 8:25 see L. Hartman, op. cit., pp. 160 f.

45. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities XX. v. 1; viii. 5–6, 10; War II. xiii. 3; xvii. 8–9; VI. v. 2; VII. viii. 1; xi. 1 and the suggestive essay by W. K. L. Clarke, “A Prophet Like Unto Me” in New Testament Problems (London, 1929), pp. 39–47. The material in Josephus is conveniently summarized by U. Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness (Naperville, 1963), pp. 56–58.

46. To the vocabulary of verses 7–8 there is a profusion of OT parallels which describe the end-time as a period of war and horror. See F. Busch, op. cit., pp. 83 ff.

47. E.g. Judges 5:4 f.; Ps. 18:8 ff.; 68:8 f.; 77:18; 114:7; Isa. 24:19; 29:6; 64:1, 3. The Roman historian Tacitus refers to earthquakes in Laodicea and Pompeii during the period just before Jerusalem was destroyed (Annals XIV. 27; XV. 22).

48. For prophecies of famine cf. Jer. 15:2; Ezek. 5:17; 14:13; Acts 11:28.

49. A. Feuillet, op. cit., p. 490 prefers to interpret verse 7c in terms of the end of the judgment of God upon Jerusalem, not the end of the age.

50. On the striking correspondence in the order in which the events are described in Ch. 13:5–8 and Rev. 6 (false prophets, war, earthquakes, famine, a pattern of four woes just before the mention of persecution) see M. Rissi, “The Rider on the White Horse,” Interpretation 18 (1964), pp. 407–418, especially pp. 413 f.

51. Gr. συνέδρια signifies local Jewish courts, which were to be found not only in Palestine but also in the Diaspora, e.g. Syria and Asia Minor. See E. Lohse, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 864 f. According to TB Sanhedrin 17b, any city with a Jewish population of 120 persons was qualified to have a Sanhedrin of its own.

52. Gr. εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς is better translated “for evidence against them.” See above on Chs. 1:44, 6:11 and cf. H. Strathmann, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 502 f., who argues that εἰς μαρτύριον followed by the dative refers to objective testimony which incriminates the person involved. Jesus’ words envision a situation of suffering and martyrdom which necessitates the view that the apostolic witness is rejected.

53. Gr. δεῖ denotes a divine constraint and reflects once more on the sovereign purpose of God. See above on verse 7b.

54. The fact that some MSS (W Θ b c d ff² i k r², sy cop) connect καὶ εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη with verse 9 has led G. D. Kilpatrick to propose a punctuation of verses 9–10 according to which the disciples give “evidence against the kings and rulers and all nations” (“Mark XIII 9–10,” JThS 9 [1958], pp. 81–86). Against this proposal, however, is Mark’s practice, for in other instances where he uses εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς (Chs. 1:44; 6:11) these words complete the sentence. Moreover, it would leave the mandate to preach the gospel in verse 10 unqualified and pointless. It is necessary to take καὶ εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη with the words that follow, as in the ASV, RSV, NEB and the Jerusalem Bible. See further A. L. Moore, op. cit., pp. 205 f.

55. Gr. προμεριμνᾶτε for which Codex Ψ substitutes προμελετᾶτε (“do not practice beforehand”) while the Byzantine family of MSS adds μηδὲ μελετᾶτε (“nor practice”) under the influence of Luke 21:14.

56. Gr. δοθῇ where the passive has been used to avoid the use of the divine name, as in Ch. 6:2.

57. Gr. εἰς τέλος signifies “in an ultimate sense” or “completely” as distinguished from τὸ τέλος, “the end,” in verse 7 (for the idiom cf. 2 Chron. 31:1 LXX; Lk. 18:5; John 13:1; 1 Thess. 2:16). It is important to observe that structurally all that is said in Ch. 13:9–13 falls under the rubric “the beginning of travail” (verse 8).

58. Gr. σωθήσεται, which in this context should be understood in terms of vindication, as in the related contexts Job 13:16 LXX; Phil. 1:19, 28 (vindication by God).

59. R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford, 1950), pp. 48–59; E. Larsson, Christus als Vorbild (Lund, 1962), pp. 39 ff., have emphasized turns of phrase in verses 9–13 which recur in Chs. 14–15 in reference to Jesus’ suffering.

60. On synagogue beatings see in the Mishnah tractate Makkoth, where the rule for punishment set forth in Deut. 25:2–3 is developed and applied in accordance with Jewish legal practice. The synagogue scourge consisted of a strap of calf leather which was divided into four thongs and through which smaller thongs were plaited to make it stronger (TB Makkoth 23a). Three, and sometimes twenty-three, judges were required to secure condemnation to scourging in the local synagogues (M. Sanhedrin I. 2; TB Sanhedrin 10a/b). Deut. 25:3 limited the number of strokes to 40, but according to 2 Cor. 11:24; M. Makkoth III. 10 this was reduced to 39 in actual practice. There were 13 strokes on the breast and 26 on the back, administered by the servant of the synagogue, who usually stood on a stone behind the sentenced person (M. Makkoth III. 12). Both men and women were subject to scourging (M. Makkoth III. 14). See further C. Schneider, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 516, 518 f.

61. Cf. L. Hartman, Testimonium Linguae (Lund, 1963), pp. 64 ff.

62. E.g. L. Gaston, op. cit., p. 20; W. G. Kümmel, Promise and Fulfillment (Naperville, 1957), pp. 83 f.; E. Grässer, Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien (Berlin, 1957), pp. 5 f., 159 ff.

63. D. Bosch, Die Heidenmission in der Zukunftschau Jesu (Zürich, 1959), pp. 17 ff.

64. Ibid., pp. 76 f. G. D. Kilpatrick, “The Gentile Mission in Mark and Mark 13:9–11,” in Studies in the Gospels, ed. D. E. Nineham (Oxford, 1955), pp. 145–158 has argued that verse 10 envisions a preaching of the gospel among the synagogues of the Diaspora, but makes no provision for a preaching to Gentiles. If this is so, Jesus separates himself from the great prophetic tradition of interest in the Gentiles. Moreover, Mark’s evident interest in the Gentile mission indicates that he did not understand verse 10 in this way. Cf. A. Farrer, “An Examination of Mark XIII. 10,” JThS 7 (1956), pp. 75–79.

65. Among those recognizing the verse as genuine are D. Bosch, op. cit., pp. 149 ff.; A. L. Moore, op. cit., pp. 86 f.; H. N. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 376–381, 485 f.

66. Cf. D. Bosch, op. cit., p. 167; J. Lambrecht, op. cit., pp. 129 f.

67. L. Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted (Lund, 1966), pp. 168–170. Hartman points out that the text of Micah may also have provided the substratum for verse 13b, since Mic. 7:7 says, “But as for me, I will look to the Lord, I will wait (LXX ὑπομενῶ) for the God of my salvation” (cf. verse 13b ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας). Does this suggest that verse 13 should be translated “he who waits (for the Lord) completely will experience vindication”? On the division in families contemplated in Micah 7 and Ch. 13:12 see R. Harrisville, “Jesus and the Family,” Interpretation 23 (1969), pp. 425–438.

68. C. B. Cousar, op. cit., pp. 328 f., 332.

69. Gr. τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, an expression borrowed from Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 LXX (cf. 1 Macc. 1:54), is better translated “the desolating sacrilege” (RSV) or “the appalling sacrilege.” Cf. L. Gaston, op. cit., p. 24.

70. Gr. ἑστηκότα is a masculine perfect participle, while the gender of the antecedent would ordinarily demand a neuter. This is an instance of the grammatical structure conforming to the sense intended (constructio ad sensum), on which see Bl-D-F § 134. 3 (p. 74).

71. The phrase “which God created” is redundant and finds no support in the parallel passages and is omitted in Mark by D Θ al it. Nevertheless, it is almost certainly to be read as an instance of Marcan expansion to clarify a biblical statement for his Gentile readers, who would not necessarily assume that the creation of the world was the act of God.

72. The command μὴ πιστεύετε is left unqualified and can be completed in one of two ways: “Do not believe it” or “Do not believe him” (where the reference is to “anyone” at the beginning of the sentence).

73. One line of the Western text (D pc i k) omits the reference to false Messiahs, perhaps under the pressure of Deut. 13:2. On this reading, which is to be rejected, verse 22 speaks only of false prophets who attempted to deceive the people through “signs and wonders.”

74. See above, pp. 454 f. Cf. A. Feuillet, op. cit., p. 495.

75. Ibid., pp. 496–500; cf. H. N. Ridderbos, op. cit., pp. 491–497; L. Gaston, op. cit., pp. 23–26; R.H. Shaw, “A Conjecture on the Signs of the End,” AThR 47 (1965), pp. 96–102.

76. Cf. D. Daube, “The Abomination of Desolation,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), pp. 418–437; B. Rigaux, “ΒΔΕΛΥΓΜΑ ΤΗΣ ΕΡΗΜΩΣΕΩΣ (Mc 13, 14; Mt 24, 15),” Biblica 40 (1959), pp. 675–683.

77. It is better to attribute the parenthetical call to understanding to Mark rather than to Jesus since it is consistent with the evangelist’s practice elsewhere in the Gospel to address his reader (e.g. Chs. 2:10, 28; 3:30; 7:3–4, 11b, 19b; 9:50b; 16:4b, 8b).

78. L. Hartman, op. cit., pp. 152 f. feels that an allusion to Lot’s flight from Sodom (a type of the abomination), as related in Gen. 19, is intended. Cf. Gen. 19:17.

79. Cf. Epiphanius, De Mensuris et Ponderibus 15: “For when the city was about to be conquered by the Romans, all the disciples were warned by an angel to leave the city, since it was about to be destroyed completely. Becoming migrants, they dwelt at Pella …” Similarly Adversus Haereses 29:7; 30:2. These related testimonies were subjected to a critical scrutiny and were rejected by S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church² (London, 1957), pp. 168–178, but see now the response to each of Brandon’s objections by S. Sowers, “The Circumstances and Recollection of the Pella Flight,” ThZ 26 (1970), pp. 305–320. In what follows Sowers’ positive contribution is summarized.

80. A. Feuillet, op. cit., pp. 495 f. and L. Gaston, op. cit., pp. 458–468 similarly interpret the sacrilege in terms of Zealotic excesses committed in the Temple area prior of the siege of the city. For an alternative proposal see F. F. Bruce, “The Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community” in Neotestamentica et Semitica (Edinburgh, 1969), p. 231 n. 25.

In the parallel passage (Luke 21:20 f.) the arrival of military forces which surrounded the city, rather than any act of sacrilege in the Temple, is considered the moment for flight. Long before Titus’ troops encircled the city, however, the Zealots had taken measures to prevent desertions. It is probable that the reference is to the arrival of Idumean forces who had come in the winter of 68 intending to aid their Zealot allies who were occupying the Temple precincts. They encamped around the city. Thus, when Eusebius says that the Christians left Jerusalem “before the war” he may be saying “before the southern offensive in the spring of A.D. 68.” So S. Sowers, op. cit., p. 320. On the Lucan parallel see C. H. Dodd, “The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation’,” Journal of Roman Studies 37 (1947), pp. 47–54.

81. Cf. Acts 10:9 and the rabbinic references collected in S-BK I (1922), p. 952.

82. According to the context, πᾶσα σάρξ in verse 20 must be understood of Judea and Jerusalem. Cf. Jer. 12:12 where a similar expression designates the inhabitants of Judea.

83. So A. Feuillet, op. cit., pp. 496–500.

84. For the text see M. R. James (ed.), Apocrypha Anecdota II (Oxford, 1897), p. 91.

85. Cf. R. de Vaux, “Le ‘Reste d’Israël’ d’après les prophètes,” RB 40 (1933), pp. 526–539; G. Schrenk, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 194–214.

86. See above, n. 45.

87. Gr. Ἀλλά is a strong adversative implying a contrast to what has just been said. It serves to set verses 24–27 off from the earlier sections of the discourse, and particularly from verses 21–23. The contrast implied may be expressed as follows: “There will be false messianic figures where Jerusalem is judged. Do not be misled by them. When the Messiah actually appears his coming will be like this …” For this reading of the text see D. M. Roark, “The Great Eschatological Discourse,” Nov Test 7 (1964), pp. 126 f.

88. In Aramaic the indefinite plural is often used for the simple passive. Translate: “And then the Son of Man will be seen …”

89. The language reflects Dan. 7:13 f., but the detail of the Son of Man’s coming upon the clouds is informed by a rich background. When Yahweh comes to administer judgment and to initiate his reign he is carried on the clouds (Isa 19:1; Nah. 1:3; Ps. 18:10; 97:2). See the references collected and discussed by A. Feuillet, op. cit., pp. 69 f.

90. For a convenient table of parallel passages see L. Hartman, op. cit., pp. 156 f.

91. In many of these passages the celestial phenomena occur in conjunction with temporal judgments against Babylon, Egypt, Edom or Assyria. Each of these judgments foreshadows the great day of final judgment and therefore can be described in similar language. For a reading of Joel 2–4 in first-century Jewish perspective see L. Gaston, op. cit., pp. 31–33.

92. Cf. C. C. McCown, “Symbolic Interpretation,” JBL 63 (1944), pp. 329–338; A. N. Wilder, “Eschatological Imagery and Earthly Circumstances,” NTS 5 (1958–59), pp. 229–245.

93. L. Hartman, op. cit., p. 157 n. 35.

94. On the Son of Man see above, pp. 298 ff.

95. Cf. A. Oepke, TWNT V (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 858–866.

96. Deut. 4:32; 30:4; Ps. 19:7 “from one extremity of heaven to the other”; Deut. 13:7 f.; Jer. 12:8: “from one extremity of the earth to the other.”

97. A consideration of the Semitic vocabulary behind the discourse suggests that a play on words may have been intended here. Hebrew designates not only the warm period of the year, the summer, but also the summer harvest (cf. 2 Sam. 16:1–2; Isa. 16:9; 28:4; Jer. 8:20; 40:10, 12; 48:32; Micah 7:1). In Amos 8:1–2 it designates summer fruit in a basket, perhaps a basket filled with figs. The basket of signifies that the (the critical moment of judgment) has come for the people of Israel who will be punished. The same word play may be intended in verse 28, assuming that Jesus spoke to the disciples in Hebrew (Aramaic and does not permit this word play). Cf. I. Löw, “Zum Feigengleichnis,” ZNW 11 (1910), pp. 167 f. and especially J. Dupont, “La parabole du figuier qui bourgeonne (Mc. xiii. 28–29 et par.),” RB 75 (1968), p. 542; M. P. Fernández, “ ‘prope est aestas’ (Mc. 13, 28; Mt. 24, 32; Lc. 21, 29),” Verb Dom 46 (1968), pp. 361–369.

98. It has been objected that the words οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς with which verse 29 begins do not accord well with verse 28, which was already expressed in the second person plural. See, however, J. Lambrecht, op. cit., pp. 196–198, who points out that the “you” in verse 28 means “you and every man,” while in verse 29 it concerns exclusively the disciples whom Jesus is addressing. A similar transition occurs in Ch. 7:18.

99. Gr. ἐγγύς ἐστιν is ambiguous. The translation “he is near” presumes that the intended reference is to the parousia described in verses 24–27. A structural analysis of the discourse, however, shows that verse 29 has reference to verses 5–23. It is preferable, therefore, to translate “it is near,” finding the antecedent in the appalling sacrilege and tribulation described in verses 14–20. This interpretation finds support from the parallel statement in verse 30, which clearly has reference to verses 14–20. Cf. verse 18 where the same ambiguity exists in the verb γένηται but context demands the translation “Pray that it will not happen in winter.” See F. Flückiger, op. cit., p. 407; J. Dupont, op. cit., pp. 526–530.

100. J. Dupont, op. cit., pp. 531 f.

101. H. N. and A. L. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible (Waltham, Mass., 1952), p. 105.

102. On the expression ἐπὶ θύραις see J. Jeremias, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1965), pp. 173 f.

103. Gr. ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν. See on Ch. 3:28.

104. The range of interpretation is reviewed by A. L. Moore, op. cit., pp. 131 f. and by E. Lövestam, “En problematisk eskatologisk utsaga: Mark 13:30 par.,” Sv Ex Års 28–29 (1963–64), pp. 64–80.

105. So A. Feuillet, op. cit., pp. 82–84; F. Flückiger, Der Ursprung des christlichen Dogmas (Zürich, 1955), p. 116.

106. The phrase οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός proved to be theologically difficult. It is omitted by Codex Montanensis (983) and some Vulgate MSS, and in the parallel passage, Matt. 24:36, by א K L W Δ Π λ 33 565 700 pm sy cop. There is no parallel in Luke. On the authenticity of the phrase and verse 32 see B. M. F. van Iersel, Der Sohn in den synoptischen Jesusworten. Christusbezeichnung der Gemeinde oder Selbstbezeichnung Jesu? (Leiden, 1961), pp. 117–119; A. L. Moore, op. cit., pp. 99, 191 f.

107. It is difficult to determine whether the words “and pray” have been added here under the influence of Ch. 14:38 or whether their absence in B D it is accidental. They are omitted in the RSV, NEB and Jerusalem Bible. Yet in the critical edition of the Greek text issued by the joint Bible Societies the omission receives only a (D) rating (i.e. very uncertain that the printed text is correct).

108. The extension of the call to vigilance to a wider circle is obscured in D (Θ) it, where verse 37 reads: “But I say to you, Watch.”

109. Cf. W. G. Kümmel, op. cit., pp. 36 f.: “Jesus uses this term (ἡ ἡμέρα, ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη) invariably for the end of time in the future.” Cf. Ch. 14:25; Matt. 10:15; 25:13; Lk. 10:12; 17:26.

110. So A. L. Moore, op. cit., pp. 133–135; J. Winandy, “Le Logion de l’Ignorance (Mc, xiii. 32; Mt, xxiv. 36),” RB 75 (1968), pp. 71–79.

111. Cf. B. M. F. van Iersel, op. cit., pp. 117–119.

112. For an incisive exposition of the tension this introduces in Christian existence in terms of the eschatological motif and the grace motif see A. L. Moore, op. cit., pp. 194–204.

113. Cf. P. Joüon, “La parabole du portier qui doit veiller (Mc 13, 33–37) et la parabole des serviteurs qui doivent veiller (Lc 12, 35–40),” RSR 30 (1940), pp. 363–368.

114. See J. R. Michaels, op. cit., pp. 63–92, 99–101.

115. See H. Kosmala, “The Time of Cock-Crow,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 2 (1963), pp. 119 f. For the suggestion that verse 35b programmatically anticipates Mark’s chronology of the passion narrative cf. R. H. Light-foot, op. cit., pp. 48–59.

116. J. R. Michaels, op. cit., pp. 101 f., 202–245.

117. Ibid., pp. 104–107, where the relationship between Ch. 13:33–37 and John 10:1–5 is fruitfully explored.

---

1. See K. H. Schelkle, Die Passion Jesu in der Verkündigung des Neuen Testaments. Ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte und zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg, 1949); I. Buse, “St. John and the Marcan Passion Narrative,” NTS 4 (1957–58), pp. 215–219; X. Léon-Dufour, “Passion (Récits de la),” DB Suppl VI (1960), col. 1419–1492. From the Pauline letters and the early sermons in Acts the following elements of the passion narrative may be recognized: Jesus was betrayed, arrested at night, led to the high-priest, condemned by Pilate, crucified. He died on the cross, was buried, was raised from the dead and his tomb was found empty. Cf. Acts 2:23–24; 3:13–15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39 f.; 13:28–30; 17:3; 26:23; 1 Cor. 1:23 f.; 11:23–25; 15:3–5; Gal. 6:14; 1 Tim. 6:13.

2. Mark’s contribution may be seen in the incorporation of Ch. 14:3–9 (the anointing at Bethany); Ch. 14:12–17 (the preparation of the meal); Ch. 14:51 f. (the flight of the young man); Ch. 15:21 f. (Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus); Ch. 15:43 (the courage of Joseph of Arimathea); Ch. 15:44 f. (the surprise of Pilate that Jesus was already dead).

3. Cf. G. Schille, “Das Leiden des Herrn. Die evangelische Passionstradition und ihr ‘Sitz im Leben’,” ZThK 52 (1955), pp. 161–205.

4. See the treatment of ἀποδοκιμάζειν, παραδιδόναι, πάσχειν, ὥρα, καιρός in K. H. Schelkle, op. cit., pp. 20 f., 70–78.

5. Cf. C. Maurer, “Knecht Gottes im Passionsbericht des Marcus-Evangeliums,” ZThK 50 (1953), pp. 1–38; J. Jeremias, TWNT V (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 700–712; A. Vanhoye, “Structure et théologie des récits de la Passion dans les évangiles synoptiques,” Nouvelle Revue Théologique 89 (1967), pp. 135–163.

6. For a convenient table of references for the four Gospels see X. Léon-Dufour, op. cit., col. 1430. For Mark he lists the following parallels: Ch. 14:18 (Ps. 41:9); 14:34 (Ps. 42:6); Ch. 15:24 (Ps. 22:18); 15:29 (Ps. 22:7); 15:32 (Ps. 69:9); 15:34 (Ps. 22:1); 15:36 (Ps. 69:21); 15:40 (Ps. 38:11). Cf. H. Gese, “Psalm 22 und das Neue Testament. Der älteste Bericht vom Tode Jesu und die Entstehung des Herrenmahles,” ZThK 65 (1968), pp. 1–22.

7. See the suggestive article by F. W. Danker, “The Literary Unity of Mark 14, 1–25,” JBL 85 (1966), pp. 467–472. Danker finds the literary unity of this section to derive from a creative interaction with Ps. 41 through which Jesus is seen to be the poor man par excellence who triumphs over his enemies.

8. The reference to the feast of Unleavened Bread is omitted by D a ff², perhaps to simplify the text.

9. Gr. ἐνδόλῳ, “by a stratagem,” “by craftiness,” is omitted by D a i r.

10. The translation of ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ is problematic, for ἐν may have a local rather than a temporal nuance. J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus³ (New York, 1966), pp. 71–73 has proposed the translation “in the presence of the festival crowd” and this suggestion has the support of Luke 22:6 ἄτερ ὄχλου (“in the absence of the multitude”). An alternative proposal urged by N. Turner, Grammatical Insights in the New Testament (Edinburgh, 1965), p. 67 is also worthy of consideration. Mark’s fondness for parenthesis and the relatively frequent occurrence of the impersonal plural in the Gospel lead Turner to translate: “The chief priests and scribes sought how they might take him by craft and put him to death to avoid an uproar of the people (for the people said [ἔλεγον], ‘Not on the feast day!’).”

11. Cf. P. Billerbeck, “Das Passamahl,” in S-BK IV (1928), pp. 41–76; J. Jeremias, TWNT V (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 896–900.

12. S-BK II (1924), pp. 813–815. Of the references listed J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (op. cit.), p. 17 reduces the number to three: TB Pesachim 5a; TJ Pesachim I. 27a (30) and 27c (43 f.).

13. Gr. πιστικῆς has been understood in the ASV as equivalent to πιστῆς (i.e. pure, unadulterated). More probably it should be recognized as a transliteration of the Aramaic , which denotes the pistachio nut, the oil of which was used as a base for costly ointments and perfumes. See M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts³ (Oxford, 1967), pp. 223–225.

14. In the Western and Caesarean textual tradition it is specified that it was “certain of the disciples” (W φ l⁵⁴⁷ sy^p) or simply “the disciples” (D Θ 565 it arm) who disapproved the extravagance. So also Matt. 26:8.

15. Gr. ἐπάνω δηναρίων τριακοσίων, roughly equivalent to the yearly wage of a day-laborer, since the average daily wage was calculated at a denarius (cf. Matt. 20:2).

16. RSV “She has done a beautiful thing to me.”

17. H. Sahlin, “Zwei Fälle von harmonisierendem Einfluss des Matthäus-Evangeliums auf das Markus-Evangelium,” Stud Theol 13 (1959), pp. 172–179 has argued that Ch. 14:3–9 originally came after Ch. 8:14–21 but was displaced under the influence of the Matthean arrangement of the tradition. There is no evidence to substantiate such a radical rearrangement. Moreover, the practice of intercalating one incident between two phases of a single action is typically Marcan. See above on Chs. 3:20–35; 5:21–43.

18. The objection that John situates the anointing prior to the entry into Jerusalem is not serious. If Mark has intercalated Ch. 14:3–9 between Ch. 14:1 f., 10 f., the time reference in Ch. 14:1 cannot govern the occasion of the anointing.

19. See S. A. Naber, “Νάρδος πιστική,” Mnemosyne 30 (1902), pp. 1–15; W. H. Schoff, “Nard,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 43 (1925), pp. 216–218.

20. A. Veldheuzen, “De alabasten flesch,” ThSt 24 (1906), pp. 170–172.

21. J. Jeremias, “Die Salbungsgeschichte Mc 14, 3–9,” ZNW 35 (1936), pp. 75–82, and J. Bauer, “Ut Quid Perditio Ista?—zu Mk 14, 4 f. und Parr,” Nov Test 3 (1959), pp. 54–56 have suggested that the indignant murmurers were concerned with the duty of almsgiving, while Jesus supported the priority of love above alms. This, however, is to miss the significance of Jesus’ response in verses 6–7 and its background in Ps. 41.

22. See S. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie III (Berlin, 1912), pp. 63–74; M. Katz, “Protection of the Weak in the Talmud,” Columbia University Oriental Studies 24 (1925), pp. 78–82; A. Cronbach, “The Social Ideas of the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha,” HUCA 18 (1944), pp. 119–156; E. Bammel, TWNT VI (Eng. Tr. 1968), pp. 888–903.

23. Art. cit. in n. 7.

24. Cf. D. Daube, “The Anointing at Bethany and Jesus’ Burial,” AThR 32 (1950), pp. 187 f. In the Gospel of Mark this is the only anointing of the body to which reference is made apart from the unfulfilled intention of Ch. 16:1.

25. J. Jeremias, “Mc 14, 9,” ZNW 44 (1952–53), pp. 103–107, has argued that verse 9 refers not to the church’s mission in the world but to the last judgment where the woman will be remembered by God. J. H. Greenlee, “εἰς μνημόσυνον αὐτῆς, ‘For her memorial’, Mt xxvi. 13; Mk xiv. 9,” ExT 71 (1960), p. 245 understands the words to signify that the woman’s deed served as her memorial to Jesus in view of his coming death. Against these proposals see the objections marshalled by A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament (Leiden, 1966), pp. 203 f.

26. For the meaning of Ἰσκαριώθ see above on Ch. 3:19. On Judas see D. Haugg, Judas Iskarioth in den neutestamentlichen Berichten (Freiburg, 1930); H. Preisker, “Der Verrat des Judas und das Abendmahl,” ZNW 41 (1942), pp. 151–155; P. Benoit, “La mort de Judas” in Synoptischen Studien A. Wikenhauser dargebracht (Munich, 1953), pp. 1–19; G. Buchheit, Judas Iskarioth. Legende, Geschichte, Deutung (Gütersloh, 1954); B. Gärtner, “Judas Iskariot,” Sv Ex Års 21 (1956), pp. 50–81.

27. Cf. E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (New York, 1960), p. 112: “It may be that Judas, the non-Galilean, had for months been a secret agent of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin assigned to work among the Galilean’s disciples. At any rate, he regarded the capture of the man who had been proclaimed a blasphemer and pseudo-prophet (John 11:57) as his bounden duty. For he took an oath pledging himself to commit the betrayal-an oath that may well have included a curse upon himself should he fail to carry out the task he had undertaken.”

28. The indefinite plural and imperfect tense of ἔθυον is better expressed by the rendering “it was customary to sacrifice.”

29. Gr. πάσχα here means “the paschal lamb” in distinction from verse 1 where it denotes the feast day itself. Cf. RSV “when they sacrificed the passover lamb.” In verses 12b, 14b and 16b πάσχα designates the passover meal during which the roasted lamb was consumed.

30. Gr. ἐστρωμένον may have reference to a “paved” or “paneled” room. See W. Bauer⁴ (A-G, p. 799).

31. J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus³ (op. cit.), pp. 17 f. The defining of a time reference by a qualifying clause is common in Mark: Chs. 1:32, 35; 4:35; 13:24; 14:30; 15:42; 16:2.

32. Ibid., pp. 49–61; J. Behm, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), pp. 732–734. G. Ogg, “The Chronology of the Last Supper,” in Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament (London, 1965), pp. 84–86 concludes that these considerations do not demand a Passover understanding. They do, however, demand that Jesus imposed a paschal framework upon the meal.

33. On this understanding the phrase παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα in John 19:14 should not be translated “the Preparation of the Passover” (ASV, RSV) but “the Friday of the Passover week.” For παρασκευή, meaning “Friday,” cf. Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31; Didache 8. See further J. Jeremias, op. cit., pp. 80 f.

An alternative thesis, involving a three-day passion chronology, has been proposed by Mlle. A. Jaubert: “La date de la dernière Cène,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 146 (1954), pp. 140–173; idem, “Jésus et le calendrier de Qumrân,” NTS 7 (1960–61), pp. 1–30; idem, “Les séances du Sanhédrin et les récits de la passion,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 166 (1964), pp. 143–169; 167 (1965), pp. 1–33; idem, The Date of the Last Supper (Staten Island, 1965); idem, “Le mercredi où Jésus fut livré,” NTS 14 (1968), pp. 145–164. She holds that Jesus was arrested on the Tuesday night preceding the Friday of the crucifixion. The Last Supper, therefore, took place on Tuesday evening in conformity with the prescriptions of the ancient liturgical calendar (based on solar reckoning) attested in the book of Jubilees and at Qumran. This understanding is reflected in the Synoptic Gospels, she contends, while the references in the Fourth Gospel are to the official (lunar) calendar. This proposal has attractive features and has won wide support, but serious objections remain to its acceptance. Chief among these are the following: (i) there is no evidence that Jesus ever followed the ancient sectarian calendar on other festival occasions. (ii) The priests were the masters of the Temple and exercised control over all that had to do with the sacrificing of the paschal victims. Even if a company wished to celebrate the feast on a day other than that fixed officially by the Sanhedrin, they would scarcely have had the opportunity to follow their convictions. All were obliged to celebrate the Passover at the official time or to abstain from observing it altogether. (iii) The four evangelists are unanimous that the Last Supper and the arrest took place on the eve of the crucifixion. (iv) The evidence furnished by the Didascalia for the Tuesday date of the meal is late and confused, belonging at the earliest to the third century A.D. In fact, of the texts favoring the Tuesday date for the Supper only four expressly speak of Wednesday in connection with the passion, and these originate in a liturgical source intent on justifying a practice of fasting on Wednesday. See further the detailed criticism of G. Ogg in a lengthy review, Nov Test 3 (1959), pp. 149–160; J. Blinzler, “Qumran-Kalender und Passionschronologie,” ZNW 49 (1958), pp. 238–251; E. Kutsch, “Der Kalender des Jubiläenbuches und das Alte und das Neue Testament,” Vetus Testamentum 11 (1961), pp. 39–47 among others.

34. E. Stauffer, op. cit., pp. 113–117 argues that there was no lamb on this occasion because Jesus had been condemned as an apostate Jew and as such was forbidden to eat the paschal lamb (although he could share in the bitter herbs and the greens). There is, however, no reason to believe that Jesus would have concurred in the judgment of the Sanhedrin and submitted to its mandate. He presumably sent two of the disciples into the city because they were less well known to the priests than he was and they would have no trouble securing all that was required for the meal.

35. Gr. ἀνακειμένων should be translated “reclined,” so as not to obscure that this requirement of the Passover meal was satisfied.

36. Gr. μήτι ἐγώ implies a negative answer: “It isn’t I, surely?” In the Byzantine and Western textual traditions the response of the disciples is intensified by the addition καὶ ἄλλος· μήτι ἐγώ; perhaps in tacit allusion to Judas.

37. The reference is to dipping bread and bitter herbs into the bowl of stewed fruit. Cf. RSV, “one who is dipping bread with me.” Mark apparently chose to reserve the reference to the unleavened bread to the words of institution in verse 22.

38. It seems proper to read ἕν (with B C* Θ 565) before τρύβλιον: “in the same bowl.” To dip one’s hand into the bowl together with someone is to share one’s meal with him. The expression thus heightens the baseness of the betrayal.

39. The idiom is more clearly expressed in the RSV: “It would be better for that man if he had not been born.”

40. Mekilta to Exod. 12:42, 14:20a (ed. J. Z. Lauterbach, I [1935], p. 115), where the saying is attributed to R. Jehoshuaʿ b. Ḥananya, ca. A.D. 90. Cf. Targum Jerusalem I to Exod. 12:42, “The Messiah who is called ‘First’ (Isa. 41:27), will come in the first month” (i.e. Nisan); Exod. Rabba XV. 2 to Exod. 12:2.

41. The form of the first blessing is uncertain, but a form for all festivals, based on TB Berachoth 49a, may be found in S-BK IV (1928), p. 62. The form of the second blessing is preserved in M. Berachoth VI. 1; TB Pesachim 103a, 106a.

42. See further G. Beer, “Zur Geschichte des Paschafestes,” in his edition of Die Mischna II Seder Moëd, 3. Traktat Pesachim (Giessen, 1912), pp. 1–109; T. H. Gaster, Passover: Its History and Traditions (New York, 1949); J. B. Segal, The Jewish Passover from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70 (London, 1963); N. Füglister, Die Heilsbedeutung des Pascha (Munich, 1963).

43. A. Suhl, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markus-evangelium (Gütersloh, 1965), pp. 51 f. labels the allusion to Ps. 41:9 “unmistakable,” but cautions that the emphasis does not fall on fulfilment as such. Rather the allusion serves to stress the divine will in all that Jesus experiences.

44. F. W. Danker, op. cit., pp. 470 f.

45. Cf. F. C. Fensham, “Judas’ Hand in the Bowl and Qumran,” Rev Qum 5 (1965), pp. 259–261, where it is suggested that the words “with me” indicate that Judas stretched forth his hand at the same moment as Jesus in a gesture declaring that he rejected Jesus’ leadership.

46. F. W. Danker, op. cit., p. 472.

47. For the suggestion that the Scriptural background is provided by Ezek. 12:1–16 in Targum form see J. Christensen, “Le fils de l’homme s’en va, ainsi qu’il est écrit de lui,” Stud Theol 10 (1956), pp. 28–39.

48. It has sometimes been objected that ἄρτος cannot refer to the unleavened bread required by the Passover. See, however, the full treatment of the evidence in the M.T., LXX, Philo and the Mishna in J. Jeremias, op. cit., pp. 63–66, where it is shown that the objection is unfounded. Cf. Exod. 25:30; Lev. 24:7; 1 Sam. 21:6 LXX and Mk. 2:26).

49. Codex Bobiensis (k), which provides a witness to the earliest Latin VS as used by Cyprian, reads: “… he took bread and pronounced the blessing and broke (it) and gave (it) to them, and they all ate of it; and he said to them ‘This is my body.’ And he took a cup and pronounced the blessing and gave (it) to them, and they all drank of it; and he said to them, ‘This is my blood’ …” The parallelism in the clause that “they all ate” and “they all drank” is a strong argument in favor of the primitiveness of this text. In Mt. 26:26, 28 these statements have been replaced by the liturgical direction “Take, eat” and “Take, drink.” It is possible that the formulation of Mk. 14:24, as preserved for us apart from the unique witness of MS k, has been brought into harmony with the corresponding passage, Mt. 26:26. If MS k preserves the original form of the Marcan text the stress falls on an essential feature of the proceedings, that all ate from one loaf and all drank from one cup. Cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17. For a defense of this reading see C. H. Turner; “Western Readings in the Second Half of St. Mark’s Gospel,” JThS 29 (1928), p. 10.

50. The influence of related liturgical texts (Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25) accounts for the reference to the “new” covenant in the Byzantine textual tradition (cf. AV “the new testament”). In Ch. 14:24 the reading “covenant,” without qualification, is well attested (א Β C D L W Θ Ψ 565 d k cop geo¹) and should be followed. It has been held that the expression “my blood of the covenant” cannot be primitive because Aramaic does not tolerate a genitive after a noun with a pronominal suffix. This construction, however, is adequately attested in Syriac and examples are found in the Targum to Ps. 68:36; 110:3. See H. Gottlieb, “ΤΟ ΑΙΜΑ ΜΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗΣ,” Stud Theol 14 (1960), pp. 115–118; J. A. Emerton, “Mark XIV. 24 and the Targum to the Psalter,” JThS 15 (1964), pp. 58 f.; J.E. David, “τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης, Mt. 26:28: un faux problème,” Biblica 48 (1967), pp. 291 f.

51. For a discussion and evaluation of the Semitic idiom retained in the variant reading οὐ μὴ προσθῶ πιεῖν found in Western and Caesarean witnesses (D Θ 565 a f arm) see B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York, 1964), pp. 233 f.

52. N. Glatzer (ed.), The Passover Haggadah (New York, 1953), p. 20.

53. So J. Behm, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), p. 736, where the term behind σῶμα is apparently .

54. Ibid., p. 735; H. N. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia, 1962), p. 429. The state of brokenness is not peculiar to this bread, for the ordinary daily meal began with the breaking of bread. A reference in the broken bread to Jesus’ violent death is not in harmony with the situation.

55. N. Glatzer, op. cit., p. 27.

56. Cf. E. F. Siegman, “The Blood of the Covenant,” American Ecclesiastical Review 136 (1957), pp. 167–174; B. Cooke, “Synoptic Presentation of the Eucharist as Covenant Sacrifice,” Theological Studies 21 (1960), pp. 1–44.

57. Cf. J. Betz, “Die Eucharistie als sakramentale Gegenwart der Heilsereignisses Jesu nach dem ältesten Abendmahlsberichte,” Geist und Leben 33 (1960), pp. 166–175.

58. J. Jeremias, op. cit., pp. 207–218.

59. Cf. idem, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations (Naperville, Ill., 1958), pp. 55–73.

60. Cf. D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), pp. 330 f.

61. Gr. σκανδαλίζεσθαι in Mark denotes defection in the face of trial and persecution (e.g. Chs. 4:17; 6:3; 9:42–47). Cf. RSV “fall away.”

62. Gr. προάξω can denote a literal walking in front of someone, as in Ch. 10:32, but it is better to understand it in the temporal sense of going somewhere earlier than someone else, as in Ch. 6:45. The saying anticipates a resurrection appearance of Jesus to his disciples in Galilee.

63. On a third-century papyrus leaf from the Fayum there occurs a fragmentary Greek synopsis of Ch. 14:26–30 and Mt. 26:30–34. The dialogue between Jesus and Peter is briefer and more dramatic than in the canonical texts. Peter’s denial is emphasized, but verse 28 is omitted. This text has been designated the Fayum Gospel Fragment, but it may represent only a relatively free citation of a canonical Gospel inserted into a patristic commentary or homily. The fact that the phraseology, when it differs from that of the Synoptic Gospels, tends toward a more classical idiom, lends support to this proposal. The papyrus does not provide a sufficient basis for omitting verse 28. For the text see M. R. James (ed.), The Apocryphal New Testament² (Oxford, 1955), p. 25.

64. Gr. δίς is omitted in א C^* D W 2148 l^{76, 150, 950} it arm aeth and in the parallel passage Mt. 26:34; Jn. 13:38. The corresponding ἐκ δευτέρου in Ch. 14:72, however, is strongly attested and provides intrinsic evidence that Mark wrote δίς here.

65. For the suggestion that Ch. 14:27–31, 66–72 is an account of the time of testing foreshadowed in Zech. 13:7–14:4 and proclaimed in the sayings of Jesus see M. Wilcox, “The Denial-Sequence in Mark XIV. 26–31, 66–72,” NTS 17 (1970–71), pp. 426–436.

66. G. Stählin, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 348 f.

67. Cf. R. P. Meye, Jesus and the Twelve (Grand Rapids, 1968), pp. 82–84. E. Lohmeyer, Galiläa und Jerusalem (Göttingen, 1936), pp. 10 ff. found in Ch. 14:28; 16:7 a reflection of Mark’s interest in Galilee as the locus of revelation and especially of the parousia. See now, however, the critical evaluation of this thesis in T. A. Burkill, Mysterious Revelation (Ithaca, 1963), pp. 252–257: “Supplementary Note E: Galilee and Jerusalem.” C. F. Evans, “I will go before you into Galilee,” JThS n.s. 5 (1964), pp. 3–18 interprets the reference in terms of the Church’s mission in the Gentile world. In Ch. 16:7, however, it is the fact that the disciples will see the Lord (not that they will proclaim the gospel) which is stressed, and this suggests a resurrection appearance in Galilee.

68. On the solemn “Amen” formula see on Ch. 3:28. The concentrated σὺ σήμερον ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί, πρὶν ἢ δὶς ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι is extremely emphatic.

69. Cock-crow was a proverbial expression for early morning, and there is some evidence among classical writers for a double cock-crowing as a designation of time (cf. Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae 390 f.; Juvenal, Satires ix. 107 f.). Since the third of the four Roman night watches was designated “cock-crow” (see on Ch. 13:35), C. H. Mayo, “St. Peter’s Token of the Cock Crow,” JThS 22 (1921), pp. 367–370, suggested that the reference is to a bugle signal for the changing of the guard which would be clearly audible throughout the city. The detail of the two crowings of the cock, however, suggests that the reference is to the rooster. See now H. Kosmala, “The Time of Cock-Crow,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 2 (1963), pp. 118–120; 6 (1968), pp. 132–134.

70. Denial means “not to believe” and “not to confess” and so approximates the nuance in “being offended” at Jesus. See H. Riesenfeld, “The Verb ἀρνεῖσθαι” in In honorem Antonii Fridrichsen, Coniectanea Neotestamentica 11 (1947), pp. 207–219.

71. Gr. Γεθσημανί transliterates the Hebrew , “press of oils.”

72. Gr. Ἀββά preserves the Aramaic determinative form , meaning “my Father.” On the Aramaic form see J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (London, 1967), pp. 55–57.

73. The final clause (τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον εἰπών) is omitted by Western witnesses (D a b c d ff² k). The singular τὸν … λόγον demands the translation “the same request.”

74. It seems better to take Jesus’ words as a reproachful question, as in the RSV: “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest?”

75. Gr. ἀπέχει is unusually difficult and has called forth a variety of proposals. The translation “enough” (i.e. of sleeping) has some support in certain OL MSS and the Vg but is attested relatively little and late in Greek; “it is a hindrance,” or “it is out of place” (cf. H. Hanse, TWNT II [Eng. Tr. 1964], p. 828) interprets the expression by the related idiom οὐδὲν ἀπέχει, “nothing hinders” (cf. Plutarch, Moralia 433 A, 680 E); “he (i.e. Judas) is paid in full” or “he is taking possession (of me)” appeals to the meaning of ἀπέχειν in the commercial papyri (so J. de Zwaan, “The Text and Exegesis of Mark xiv. 41, and the Papyri,” Exp. 6th series 12 [1905], pp. 459–472; G. H. Boobyer, “Ἀπέχει in Mark xiv. 41,” NTS 2 [1955], pp. 44–48); “the end is pressing” or “is the end far off?” attempts to take into account the Aramaic basis of the word and the Western addition of τὸ τέλος in D W Θ φ 565 1009 1077 1216 1365 it (some MSS) sy arm (so M. Black, op. cit., pp. 225 f.; J.T. Hudson, “Irony in Gethsemane?” ExT 46 [1935], p. 382). More recently J. R. Michaels, The Church Vigilant (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 205–207, has proposed that ἀπέχει (“it is apart” or “it is separated”) indicates a time-lapse between the commands of verse 41a (sleep now and rest) and 41b (awake), much as a dramatist might insert “[Later]” into his script. It seems preferable to translate “it is settled” and to interpret the affirmation by the two statements that immediately follow. See the comm. below.

76. On the historical value of the Gethsemane tradition see R. S. Barbour, “Gethsemane in the Tradition of the Passion,” NTS 16 (1970), pp. 234 f.

77. C. Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospel (New York, 1963), pp. 335–350. See also H. W. Trusen, “Geschichte von Gethsemane,” ZDPV 33 (1910), pp. 50–97; B. Meistermann, Gethsemani (Paris, 1920); G. Orfali, Gethsemani (Paris, 1924).

78. The vocabulary of the Marcan formulation is found in the variant translations of Ps. 115:2 LXX (M.T. 116:3), while the thought is consistent with the psalmist’s depiction of his experience.

79. On the basis of the formal linguistic parallel in Jonah 4:9 (λυπεῖσθαι ἕως θανάτου), R. Bultmann, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 323 argues that the meaning is “to be so full of sorrow that I would rather be dead,” not “of sorrow which leads to death.” This is unsatisfactory in this situation when Jesus knows he is going to die. The meaning is rather “my affliction is so great I am sinking under the weight of it.”

80. L. Goppelt, TWNT VI (Eng. Tr. 1968), p. 153.

81. K. G. Kuhn, “Jesus in Gethsemane,” Ev Th 12 (1952–53), pp. 260–285; T. Lescow, “Jesus in Gethsemane,” Ev Th 26 (1966), pp. 141–159; and R. S. Barbour, op. cit., pp. 231–234 distinguish two sources for the Gethsemane pericope, one which spoke of “the hour” and the other which spoke of “the cup.” When the synthetic parallelism of verses 35–36 is recognized, however, it is unnecessary to follow this critical reconstruction.

82. See R. Le Déaut, “Goûter le calice de la mort,” Biblica 43 (1962), pp. 82–86; H. A. Brongers, “Der Zornesbecher,” Oudtestamentische Studiën 15 (1969), pp. 177–192.

83. Cf. J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus, op. cit., p. 67; W. Marchel, “Abba, Pater! Oratio Christi et christianorum,” Verb Dom 39 (1961), pp. 240–247; R. Baumann, “Abba, lieber Vater. Zum biblischen Gottesbild,” Bibel und Kirche 22 (1967), pp. 73–78.

84. J. Jeremias, op. cit., p. 62. The fact that Jesus never allied himself with the disciples in saying “our Father” when he prayed, and that he distinguished between “my Father” and “your Father” in his sayings, indicates that this use of Abba expresses a special relationship to God. He is the Son in a unique sense.

85. Cf. G. Schrenk, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), p. 49: “The synthesis in Jesus’ life of omnipotent and effective will on the one side and patient obedience in lowliness on the other is most clearly and radically expressed in the balanced ‘but not what I will, but what you will.’ Here the position of the Son is as follows. Humanly he has the possibility of an independent will, but this will exists only to be negated in face of the divine will. Its perfect agreement with the divine will finds agreement in the declaration of this negation.”

86. The distinctive vocabulary of sleep and wakefulness suggests that there is a relationship between the Gethsemane scene and the sayings on eschatological vigilance in Ch. 13:33–37. A purely formal connection is established by the phraseology describing Jesus’ “coming” and “finding” in verses 37 and 40 with the unexpected return of the householder in the parable of Ch. 13:34–36:

Ch. 14:37	ἔρχεται …	εὑρίσκει …	καθεύδοντας
Ch. 14:40	ἐλθὼν …	εὗρεν …	καθεύδοντας
Ch. 13:36	ἐλθὼν …	εὕρῃ …	καθεύδοντας

J. R. Michaels, op. cit., pp. 249 f., 260–265, has suggested that the fact that the three disciples had been asleep in the crisis hour was an offense with which the Church had to come to terms. It did so by recalling the historical incident as a parenetic illustration to make certain that the Church would not be found sleeping when Jesus came in the parousia. The vigilance pattern, with its characteristic use of γρηγορεῖν, has its origin in the instruction of the three who shared Jesus’ vigil in Gethsemane.

87. Cf. K. G. Kuhn, “New Light on Temptation, Sin and Flesh in the New Testament” in K. Stendahl (ed.), The Scrolls and the New Testament (New York, 1957), pp. 94–113; H. Seesemann, TWNT VI (Eng. Tr. 1968), pp. 31 f.

88. R. S. Barbour, op. cit., pp. 237 f., 242.

89. E. Schweizer, TWNT VI (Eng. Tr. 1968), pp. 396 f.; idem, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 123 f.

90. The Church is to watch and pray in order not to enter temptation. Is the prayer to be offered the Lord’s Prayer, which seems to be reflected just beneath the surface of the account? Cf. “Abba, Father” and “your will be done” in verse 36 and the variant to the petition “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the Evil One” in verse 38. Cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6.

91. There are unmistakable formal similarities between the transfiguration and Gethsemane in Mark. These include not only the presence of the same three disciples, but the identical use of παραλαμβάνει in Ch. 9:2 and Ch. 14:33, and the statement about not knowing what to answer in Ch. 9:6 and Ch. 14:40. See A. Kenny, “The Transfiguration and the Agony in the Garden,” CBQ 19 (1957), pp. 444–452.

92. D. Daube, “Evangelisten und Rabbinen,” ZNW 48 (1957), pp. 119–126 locates the incident in its Passover setting. According to M. Pesachim X. 8; TB Pesachim 120b, if one member of the group fell asleep the bond was dissolved. Jesus, therefore, requests the disciples to stay awake. When he returned three times and found them sleeping he resolved to go on alone.

93. A. Oepke, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), p. 436.

94. Gr. λῃστής more commonly denotes a Zealot leader in the writings of Josephus, and this understanding informs the treatment of this verse by K. H. Rengstorf, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 261. The translation “robber” is, nevertheless, correct and should be retained. See J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu⁴ (Regensburg, 1969), pp. 100 f. n. 84.

95. Gr. ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον πάντες, where the emphatic position of πάντες shows that the accent falls on Jesus’ being completely forsaken.

96. There is widespread agreement among Caesarean, Western and Byzantine witnesses in adding the words ἀπʼ αὐτῶν (“from them”) to the text. It seems better, however, to follow א B C L Ψ 892 it ^{aur c k} sy^p cop aeth in omitting the expression. Not only is the omission strongly attested, but intrinsically it is probable that Mark intended the emphatic ἕφυγεν in verse 52 to reinforce ἕφυγον πάντες in verse 50.

97. Cf. J. W. Doeve, “Die Gefangennahme Jesu in Gethsemane. Eine traditions-geschichtliche Untersuchung,” in F. L. Cross (ed.), Studia Evangelica (Berlin, 1959), pp. 458–480.

98. For a careful treatment of Jn. 18:3, 12 see J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 87–101. Blinzler rightly points out that if Jesus had been arrested with the help of Roman soldiers, he would certainly have been taken to a Roman prison and not, as all the Gospels testify, brought before the Jewish hierarchs.

99. Ibid., pp. 126–128.

100. G. Buchheit, op. cit., pp. 105–107, 141 holds that what Judas betrayed to the chief priests was the messianic secret of Jesus. If this interpretation were correct, it would have been mandatory for Judas to appear before the Sanhedrin as a witness, but there is no evidence that he did so.

101. E.g. TJ Kiddushin I. 61c (in connection with Rabbi Joḥanan ben Zakkai, ca. A.D. 50). See A. Wünsche, Der Kuss in Bibel, Talmud und Midrasch (Berlin, 1911); M. Dibelius, “Judas und das Judaskuss” in Botschaft und Geschichte (Tübingen, 1953), pp. 272–297.

102. E. Bickermann, “Utilitas crucis. Observations sur les récits du procès de Jésus dans les Évangiles canoniques,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 112 (1935), pp. 172–174; L. Wenger, Die Quellen des römischen Rechts (Vienna, 1953), pp. 288, 537 n. 16; E. Lohse, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 858–868.

103. The objections that Jesus was arrested at night by armed men and that the Sanhedrin had made use of an informer are satisfactorily answered by J. Blinzler, op. cit., p. 100 n. 81.

104. Ibid., pp.98 f. n.78.

105. The formal parallelism is strengthened in the Testament of Joseph 8:3, where the patriarch says he left his garment behind and “fled naked.” H. Waetjen, “The Ending of Mark and the Gospel’s Shift in Eschatology,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4 (1965), pp. 116–120 has argued that a Joseph typology is intended in Ch. 14:51 f. and Ch. 16:5: “The contrast between the fleeing Joseph, who leaves behind his clothes and is unjustly disgraced on the one hand, and the exalted Joseph, who wears splendid garments and is exalted to viceregent on the other, is matched and reproduced by Mark 14:51 f. and 16:5” (p. 120). The reference is to Jesus in his humiliation and exaltation. Cf. John Knox, “A Note on Mk. 14:51–52” in S. E. Johnson (ed.), The Joy of Study (New York, 1951), pp. 28 f.

106. Ibid., pp. 115 f. Where νεανίσκος designates an angel, there is some detail in the context which makes this plain. In Ch. 16:5 this detail seems to be the element of revelation.

107. See J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium (Göttingen, 1903), pp. 405–407 for a survey of the interpretation of Ch. 14:51 f. in the early Church. Cf. J. H. McIndoe, “The Young Man at the Tomb,” ExT 80 (1969), p. 125.

108. It is possible that the qualifying words χειροποίητον and ἀχειροποίητον represent interpretive glosses added by early scribes in order to avoid the mistaken interpretation of Jn. 2:20. They are not found in Ch. 15:29 nor in the Lucan parallel to Ch. 14:58. Cf. E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus¹⁶ (Göttingen, 1963), p. 326.

109. The Caesarean text (Θ φ pc arm geo Origen), in agreement with Matt. 26:64; Lk. 22:70, reads σὺ εἶπας ὅτι ἑγώ εἰμι, which amounts to a polite admission, but the introductory words convey a nuance (“you say it yourself, not I”) which implies that the statement would not have been made had the question not been asked. See Bl-D-F § 441.3 (p. 227). For a defense of the shorter reading, which is followed in the commentary, see J. Blinzler, op. cit., p. 157 n. 64.

110. The phrase καὶ περικαλύπτειν τὸ πρόσωπον is omitted by D a f sy^s, and this shorter reading is defended by R. H. Gundry, “LMṬLYM: 1Q Isaiah^a 50, 6 and Mark 14, 65,” Rev Qum 2 (1960), pp. 559–567. See however J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 164–166, and the interpretation of the apparently misunderstood detail of the covering of the face in the commentary below.

111. E.g. Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), passim; T. A. Burkill, op. cit., pp. 304–318. Cf. H. H. Cohn, “Reflections on the Trial and Death of Jesus,” Israel Law Review 2 (1967), pp. 332–379; idem, The Trial and Death of Jesus (New York, 1971), who defends the historicity of the appearance before the Sanhedrin but develops the thesis that the court attempted to rescue Jesus from the Romans. Knowing that Pilate was going to judge Jesus the next morning, the high priest wished to prevent the Romans from executing a Jew who happened to enjoy the love of the people. The plan adopted was to arrest Jesus and bring him before the Sanhedrin, which sought to find witnesses who would testify to his innocence. The council also attempted to induce Jesus to plead not guilty and to promise to make no further disturbance. Their efforts proved fruitless because Jesus continued to assert his messianic claims, and as a result had to be turned over to Pilate. The Marcan account of the proceedings can only be explained by the tendency to shift the burden of responsibility for Jesus’ death from the Roman procurator, where it belonged, to the Jews who were innocent. The eminence of the author, who is a justice on the Israeli Supreme Court, will secure for this thesis a careful consideration.

112. J. Jeremias, TWNT V (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 899 f.

113. See especially A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963), pp. 1–47; J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 229–244; E. Lohse, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 862–864.

114. Cf. J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 174–216; A. N. Sherwin-White, “The Trial of Jesus” in Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament, ed. D. Nineham (London, 1965), pp. 97–116; P. J. Verdam, “Sanhedrin and Gabbatha,” Free University Quarterly 7 (1961), pp. 3–31.

115. On the tradition of Jn. 18:12 f., 19–24 that Jesus was led first before Annas ben Seth, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, see J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 129–136. For a review of ancient tradition concerning the house of Caiaphas see C. Kopp, op. cit., pp. 352–357.

116. Cf. P. Winter, “The Meeting Place of the Sanhedrin and Mark’s Nocturnal Session,” ZNW 50 (1959), pp. 221–225; J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 166–170, Exkurs VI: “Der Versammlungsort des Synhedriums.” The Mishnah speaks of “the chamber of hewn stone” in the Temple precincts as the seat of the court (M. Sanhedrin XI. 20), and it has been argued that since the Temple gates were locked at night (M. Middoth I. 1), access to the court chambers was barred. But on the night of the Passover the gates of the Temple forecourt were opened at midnight rather than the usual hour of daybreak (Josephus, Antiquities XIV. ii. 2).

117. Cf. A. F. J. Klijn, “Scribes, Pharisees, Highpriests and Elders in the New Testament,” Nov Test 3 (1959), pp. 259–267; J. Spencer Kennard, Jr., “The Jewish Provincial Assembly,” ZNW 53 (1962), pp. 25–51. See further H. Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Cambridge, Mass., 1961).

118. Cf. M. Wolff, “De samenstelling en het karakter van het groote synedrion te Jeruzalem voor het jaar 70 n. Chr.,” Theologisch Tijdschrift 51 (1917), pp. 299–320.

119. The surname “Caiaphas” may have stood for something like “inquisitor.” Cf. J. Levy, Wörterbuch über die Talmudin und Midrasch IV (Berlin, 1924), p. 299b.

120. The nearest to this record was Ananias with twelve, and Annas with nine years. Cf. TB Yoma 8b: “And as the candidate paid money in order to become high priest, they [the procurators] were in the habit of depriving the high priest of office every twelve months.” See further, J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia, 1969), pp. 377 f., “Complete List of High Priests from 200 BC to AD 70” (based on Josephus, Antiquities XX, Ch. 10).

121. Ibid., pp. 160–181; E. M. Smallwood, “High Priests and Politics in Roman Palestine,” JThS 13 (1962), pp. 14–34.

122. J. Jeremias, op. cit., pp. 221–232.

123. Ibid., pp. 233–267. That the balance of power lay with the Sadducean wing of the court, and that Jesus was condemned according to the Sadducean penal code, is demonstrated by J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 216–229.

124. Cf. E. von Dobschütz, “Zur Erzählerkunst des Markus,” ZNW 27 (1928), pp. 193–198, esp. pp. 197 f.

125. Cf. B. Cohen, “Evidence in Jewish Law,” Recueils de la Société J. Bodin 16 (1965), pp. 103–115. Joḥanan ben Zakkai earned a reputation for his searching and clever interrogation of witnesses (M. Makkoth I. 4; Sanhedrin IV. 5; V. 1 f.). See further Susanna and the Elders 36 ff., 54 ff.

126. See J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 197–210.

127. Cf. J. A. Kleist, “The Two False Witnesses (Mk. 14:55 ff.),” CBQ 9 (1947), pp. 321–323.

128. For this rendering see K. Beyer, Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament I 1 (Göttingen, 1962), p. 252. On the meaning of the passage see J. Jeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender (Göttingen, 1930), pp. 35–44; G. Schrenk, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), pp. 244–246; O. Michel, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1966), pp. 883–885.

129. J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire Romain I (Paris, 1914), pp. 459–469.

130. Mark refers to the saying of Jesus recorded in Jn. 2:19 in Ch. 15:29, where it is clearly assumed that the reader has prior knowledge of these words from an earlier part of the Gospel. It is clear that Mark has taken the taunt concerning the Temple from the account of the proceedings before the Sanhedrin handed down by apostolic tradition. It is precisely because Ch. 14:53–65 contains verse 58, which clearly alludes to words Jesus had actually spoken, that the appearance before the Sanhedrin is proved to be authentic tradition and an integral part of Mark’s Gospel.

131. Cf. M. Simon, “Retour du Christ et reconstruction du Temple dans la pensée chrétienne primitive” in Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne (Mélanges M. Goguel) (Paris, 1950), pp. 247–257; O. Betz, What Do We Know About Jesus (Philadelphia, 1968), pp. 87–92 (based on 4QFlorilegium i. 1–7); L. Gaston, No Stone on Another (Leiden, 1970), pp. 65–205; J. Jeremias, “Die Drei-Tage-Worte der Evangelien” in Tradition und Glaube, ed. G. Jeremias, H. W. Kuhn, H. Stegemann (Göttingen, 1971), pp. 221–229.

132. The expression “Blessed One” is a periphrasis for God as in M. Berachoth VII. 3; TB Berachoth 50a; TJ Berachoth VII. 11c 4, 21, and appears to involve a contraction for the common expression “the Holy One, blessed be he.”

133. Ps. 2 and 2 Sam. 7:14 are interpreted messianically in 1QSa ii. 1 ff. and 4QFlorilegium. In 4QFlorilegium i. 10 f. the scroll reads “I will be to him as a father and he will be to me as a son. He is the shoot of David … ,” providing evidence of a sonship being predicated of the Davidic Messiah. Cf. Ps. Sol. 17:27 with Ps. 2:8; Ps. Sol. 17:36; 18:6, 8 with Ps. 2:2. See further J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 150 f. n. 45.

134. Cf. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 49:1, “we all await in the Messiah a man of men.” Cf. S-BK III (1926), pp. 20–22.

135. Cf. J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 148–152; J. C. O’Neill, “The Silence of Jesus,” NTS 15 (1969), pp. 165–167.

136. Cf. J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 155 f. n. 61.

137. See the evidence discussed by J. C. O’Neill, op. cit., p. 166.

138. For a defense of the authenticity of this logion see A. L. Moore, op. cit., pp. 184–186; F. H. Borsch, “Mark xiv. 62 and I Enoch lxii. 5,” NTS 14 (1968), pp. 565–567. See also J. Blinzler, op. cit., p. 158, n. 66.

139. E.g. Mekilta of Rabbi Simon XIV. 21; Sifré on Num. 15:31. Cf. A. M. Goldberg. “Sitzend zur Rechten der Kraft. Zur Gottesbezeichnung Gebura in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur,” BZ 8 (1964), pp. 284–293.

140. A. L. Moore, op. cit., pp. 139–142.

141. The midrashic combination of Dan. 7:13 with Ps. 110:1 occurs in the Midrash on Psalms on Ps. 2:7 (i. 40, § 9) and on Ps. 18 (i. 261, § 29). In the first passage Ps. 2:7 is linked with texts from the Torah, the Writings and the Prophets: “And in one place in the Writings it says, ‘The Eternal One said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand” ’ (Ps. 110:1), and it says: ‘The Eternal One said to me, “You are my Son” ’ (Ps. 2:7). And in another place it says, ‘See, one came with the clouds of heaven, as a Son of Man’ (Dan. 7:13).” See further E. Lövestam, “Die Frage des Hohenpriesters (Mark. 14, 61 par. Matt. 26, 63),” Sv Ex Års 26 (1961), pp. 93–107.

142. D. W. Amram, Leading Cases in the Bible (Philadelphia, 1905), pp. 91 ff.; J. D. M. Derrett, An Oriental Lawyer Looks at the Trial of Jesus and the Doctrine of Redemption (London, 1966), pp. 59–61.

143. Loc. cit.; D. Catchpole, “You Have Heard His Blasphemy,” The Tyndale House Bulletin, No. 16 (1965), pp. 10 f. (where attention is called especially to Tos. Sanhedrin I. 2); J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 216–229, Exkurs IX, “Zur Frage der Geltung des mischnischen Strafrechts in der Zeit Jesu.”

144. A number of commentators prefer to find the point of blasphemy in the affirmation that the court will see Jesus sitting at God’s right hand, e.g. J. D. M. Derrett, op. cit., p. 31; D. Catchpole, op. cit., pp. 11–18; O. Linton, “The Trial of Jesus and the Interpretation of Psalm CX,” NTS 7 (1960–61), pp. 260 f. The evidence in support of this conclusion is not conclusive, and the passage from the Midrash to Ps. 2:7 cited in n. 141 would appear to militate against it.

145. Representative of these two positions are E. Bickermann, op. cit., pp. 169–199; P. Winter, op. cit., pp. 227–234 respectively.

146. Cf. J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 184–186.

147. See above, n. 113.

148. J. D. M. Derrett, op. cit., p. 20; cf. S-BK I (1922), p. 641; II (1924), p. 439. The key text is TB Sanhedrin 93b, “He smells [a man] and judges, as it is written, ‘and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears, yet with righteousness shall he judge the poor’ (Isa. 11:3 f.).” The Tannaim judged that since the Messiah uses neither his eyes nor his ears, he must judge through the sense of smell. They therefore read Isa. 11:2 (“His delight is in the fear of the Lord”) as if it read “his smell is through the fear of the Lord,” i.e. they understood the Hebrew (his delight) to be derived from (smell). The passage which immediately follows is of prime importance, for it concerns the messianic pretender Simon bar Kochba (A.D. 132–135): “Bar Koziba reigned two and a half years, and then said to the rabbis, ‘I am the Messiah.’ They answered, ‘Of Messiah it is written that he smells and judges: let us see whether he [bar Koziba] can do so.’ When they saw that he was unable to judge by the scent, they slew him.” The situation is analogous to Ch. 14:61–65.

149. See further J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 162–166; P. Benoit, “Les Outrages à Jésus Prophète,” in Neotestamentica et Patristica (Leiden, 1962), pp. 92–110. For parallels in antiquity (Diodorus Siculus XXIV. 2; Pollux IX. 113, 129) see W. C. van Unnik, “Jesu Verhöhnung vor dem Synedrium (Mc. 14, 65 par.),” ZNW 29 (1930), pp. 310 f.

150. The last phrase has the support of Caesarean, Western and Byzantine witnesses but is omitted by א B L W Ψ 892 l^{17, 76} c sy^s cop geo¹ Diatessaron and finds no support in the parallel passages Mt. 26:71; Lk. 22:57, Jn. 18:25, where only one cock-crowing is mentioned. In the Bible Societies’ edition of the Greek text the final clause is placed in brackets and assigned a D rating (of dubious textual validity). Yet of the witnesses for the omission in verse 68 only א L c Diatessaron omit ἐκ δευτέρου in verse 72. The omission is perhaps due to assimilation to the texts of Matthew and Luke.

151. The imperfect ἠρνεῖτο suggests repeated denials, possibly addressed to some of those who were present.

152. The meaning of ἐπιβαλὼν ἔκλαιεν is uncertain (cf. RSV: “he broke down and wept”). D Θ 565 latt sy cop^sa goth arm geo read ἤρξατο κλαίειν, “he began to weep,” which may be a translation variant to the Semitic expression behind the text. See the important note in Bauer⁴ 2b (A-G, pp. 289 f.); Bl-D-F, § 308, (p. 162).

153. So J. M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark (Chicago, 1957), pp. 79 f.; R. P. Meye, op. cit., p. 167.

154. The form is repeated in M. Shebuoth VIII. 6, and is reflected in the Testament of Joseph 13:1 f.: “ ‘What is this that I hear concerning you, that you steal persons … and sell them for slaves?’ But the merchant fell at his feet, and pleaded with him, saying, ‘I beseech you, my Lord, I do not know what you are saying.’ ”

155. Cf. J. Behm, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 355; J. Schneider, TWNT V (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 184 f.

156. H. Kosmala, “The Time of Cock-Crow,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 2 (1963), pp. 118–120; 6 (1968), pp. 132–134.

157. J. N. Birdsall, “τὸ ῥῆμα ὡς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς: Mk 14:72,” Nov Test 2 (1958), pp. 272–275 has called attention to the subtle idiom expressed by the ὡς construction, according to which the ὡς can be used in place of a relative pronoun when the reference is greater than the mere existence of an antecedent. In verse 72 Mark indicates that Peter recalled not merely the words of Jesus but the situation in which they were directed to him.

---

1. Gr. συμβούλιον ποιήσαντες cannot mean “held a council meeting,” but must carry the same nuance of “taking a decision” or “making a resolution” that this phrase has in Ch. 3:6; Mt. 12:14; 22:15; 27:7; 28:12. This συμβούλιον provides no support for holding that there was a second meeting of the Sanhedrin early in the morning. What is reported is the final phase of the meeting which took place in the palace of the high priest near the hour of midnight, Ch. 14:53–65 (see above on Ch. 14:54). Cf. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963), pp. 44 f.; G. Schneider, “Gab es eine vorsynoptische Szene ‘Jesus vor dem Synhedrium’?” Nov Test 12 (1970), pp. 22–39.

2. In predominantly Caesarean witnesses (W Δ Θ pc al a c sy^{s h} geo aeth arm) the words αὐτὸς δὲ οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο (“but he answered nothing”) are added after πολλά (“many things”). Verse 4 seems to presuppose a statement such as this.

3. Gr. ἀναβάς is supported by the better witnesses (א ^* B D 892 latt cop); most other MSS, however, have ἀναβοήσας (the people “cried out”), and this variant reading, which presupposes the practice of demanding the release of a prisoner through acclamation, is held to be original by J. Colin, Les villes libres de l’Orient gréco-romain et l’envoi au supplice par les acclamations populaires (Bruxelles, 1965), pp. 13 f.

4. See V. A. Tcherikover, “Was Jerusalem a Polis?” Israel Exploration Journal 14 (1964), pp. 61–78.

5. See A. N. Sherwin-White, op. cit., pp. 1–47; E. Lohse, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 862–864; P. Garnsey, “The Criminal Jurisdiction of Governors,” Journal of Roman Studies 58 (1968), pp. 51–59; J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu⁴ (Regensburg, 1969), pp. 229–244.

6. The fact that Jesus was delivered to Pilate, not as a blasphemer, in accordance with the judgment rendered in Ch. 14:64, but as “King of the Jews,” is sufficient proof that the accusation against him had been formulated in terms of another law, and specifically one which proceeded with particular severity against political crimes. So J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 247 f. n. 14.

7. Ibid., pp. 248–250.

8. Cf. A. Reifenberg, “Caesarea. A Study in the Decline of a Town,” Israel Exploration Journal 1 (1950–51), pp. 20–23, 27–29. For Pilate see Josephus, Antiquities XVIII. iii. 1; War II. ix. 2; Philo, Legation to Gaius 38.

9. C. Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels (New York, 1963), pp. 367–370. It was a Roman custom for the governors to take up residence in the palaces of the former rulers.

10. Ibid., pp. 369 f. Cf. R. Eckardt, “Das Praetorium des Pilatus,” ZDPV 34 (1911), pp. 39–48; P. Benoit, “Prétoire, Lithostraton et Gabbatha,” RB 59 (1952), pp. 531–550; idem, “L’Antonia d’Hérode le Grand et le Forum Oriental d’Aelia Capitolina,” HTR 64 (1971), pp. 135–167; M. Aline, La fortresse Antonia à Jerusalem et la Question du Prétoire (Jerusalem, 1955); J. Blinzler, op. cit., Exkurs XI: “Wo lag des Praetorium des Pilatus?”, pp. 256–259 with full bibliography.

11. When Tacitus, Annals XV. 44 calls Pilate “procurator,” he is using a later term familiar to him. This is confirmed by a Latin inscription found in Caesarea in 1961 which mentions Pilate and calls him “[praef]ectus Iud[aea]e.” See J. Vardaman, “A New Inscription which mentions Pilate as ‘Prefect’,” JBL 81 (1962), pp. 70 f.; E. Stauffer, Die Pilatusinschrift von Caesarea (Erlangen, 1966).

12. See A. N. Sherwin-White, op. cit., pp. 5–23.

13. For a review of Pilate’s career and a full bibliography, see J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 260–273. Cf. H. Wansbrough, “Suffered Under Pontius Pilate,” Scripture 18 (1966), pp. 84–93.

14. A. N. Sherwin-White, op. cit., pp. 45 f.

15. Ibid., pp. 14–22; J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 251 f., 343 f.

16. Op. cit., p. 24.

17. For a full treatment see J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 277–346.

18. Cf. Bl-D-F § 441:3 (p. 227); J. Irmscher, “Σὺ λέγεις,” Studii Clasice 2 (1960), pp. 151–158.

19. Already pointed out by M. Dibelius, “Herodes und Pilatus,” ZNW 16 (1915), p. 117.

20. A. N. Sherwin-White, op. cit., p. 35.

21. Ibid., pp. 25 f.

22. Cf. J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 282 f. J. D. M. Derrett, An Oriental Lawyer Looks at the Trial of Jesus and the Doctrine of Redemption (London, 1966), p. 33 points out that for Pilate “to feel the pulse of public life he required a complicated system of precautions about which we know very little but which cannot for a moment be doubted. Pilate must have had informers, spies and advisers, and can have had more than an inkling of what was going on.”

23. Cf. W. Waldstein, Untersuchung zum römischen Begnadigungsrecht. Aboli-tio-indulgentia-venia (Vienna, 1964).

24. Cf. P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), pp. 91 f.: “The custom of privilegium paschale (the release of a prisoner at Passover) is nothing but a figment of the Gospel writer’s imagination. No such custom existed.” Cf. H. Z. Maccoby, “Jesus and Barabbas,” NTS 16 (1969), pp. 55–60, who dismisses as un-historical both the paschal privilege and the incident of Barabbas’ release.

25. Papyrus Florentinus 61, 59 ff. on which see J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 301–303 and especially n. 7 (p. 303). A. Steinwenter, “Il processo di Gesù,” Jus n.s. 3 (1952), pp. 471–490 calls attention to an Ephesian inscription dated A.D 441 where Phlegethius, the proconsul of Asia, reminds the people of Smyrna that they deserve punishment, but adds, “because of the shouts of this illustrious metropolis of the Ephesians, and because their petitions ought not to be set aside, we release you.” The action of these two Roman officials in the eastern empire at an interval of centuries shows that Pilate’s action fell within his imperium. Cf. Acts 3:14.

26. See C. B. Cheval, “The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem,” JBL 60 (1941), pp. 273–278; J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 317–320. Blinzler comments: “The fact that the Mishna considers, beside the case of the sick and aged, what one might think the wholly exceptional case of a prisoner promised release, permits one to conclude that the release of a Jewish prisoner shortly before the evening of the paschal meal, i.e. on the fourteenth of Nisan, was at least a frequent, but most probably a regular occurrence. Hence, the Mishna text actually represents a notable support for the NT account concerning the paschal amnesty” (p. 318).

27. For a review of fact and conjecture see J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 308 f. nn. 25, 26; A. Bajšić, “Pilatus, Jesus und Barabbas,” Biblica 48 (1967), pp. 7–28.

28. S-BK I (1922), p. 1031.

29. Pilate may have been the victim of a misunderstanding. According to the Caesarean text of Mt. 27:16 f. (Θ λ 700^* sy^{s pal} arm geo² old MSS known to Origen [In Matt. Comm. Ser. 121]) the insurgent leader is called “Jesus Barabbas,” a reading which may be correct (cf. NEB “Jesus Bar-Abbas”). If the insurgent was also named Jesus, Pilate may have mistaken the shouts of the crowd for the release of Jesus (Barabbas) as a demonstration in favor of Jesus of Nazareth. This would offer a cogent explanation why the case of Jesus became confused with the amnesty demonstration of the crowd. Cf. P. L. Couchoud-R. Stahl, “Jesus Barabbas,” Hibbert Journal 25 (1927), pp. 26–42; H. A. Rigg, Jr., “Barabbas,” JBL 64 (1945), pp. 428–432; R. Dunkerley, “Was Barabbas also Called Jesus?” ExT 74 (1963), pp. 126 f. (with a reply by R. C. Nevius, p. 255). K. H. Rengstorf, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 262 feels that what was involved was a sorry jest on the part of Pilate, who allowed the people to choose Jesus bar Abba or Jesus bar Joseph, both presented as Zealot leaders.

30. Cf. A. D. Doyle, “Pilate’s Career and the Date of the Crucifixion,” JThS 42 (1941), pp. 190–193; P. L. Maier, “Sejanus, Pilate and the Date of the Crucifixion,” Church History 37 (1968), pp. 3–13.

31. See J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 309–311.

32. Ibid., pp. 312 f. n. 38. The primary sources are Tacitus, Annals I. 44; Codex Theodosianus VI. ix. 2; IX. xlvii. 12; Maximius, History of Augustus XVI. 6. For examples of the proneness of Roman judges to yield before popular clamor see E. Bickermann, “Utilitas crucis. Observations sur les récits du procès de Jésus dans les Évangiles canoniques,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 112 (1935), pp. 209 f.

33. Cf. C. W. Wilton, “The Roman Law of Treason under the Early Principate,” Journal of Roman Studies 45 (1955), pp. 73–81; E. Koestermann, “Die Majestäts-prozesse unter Tiberius,” Historia 4 (1955), pp. 72–106; R. S. Rogers, Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation under Tiberius (Middletown, Conn., 1935). High treason was classed as a capital offense and was punishable by crucifixion, by consignment to the wild beasts in the arena, or by banishment to an island, according to the status of the delinquent. In the provinces of the empire the crimen laesae maiestatis was normally punished with crucifixion.

34. E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (New York, 1960), pp. 131–134 finds the explanation for Pilate’s apparent vacillation and indecisiveness in the execution of his patron, the anti-Semite Sejanus, by Tiberius on Oct. 19, A.D. 31. This turn of events greatly endangered his own political standing. He could not afford to be charged with criminal leniency toward a subversive agitator accused of high treason. Cf. P. L. Maier, op. cit., pp. 3–13.

35. Cf. C. Schneider, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 517–519.

36. J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 334–336, argues that the fact that the order that Jesus be scourged is a different act from the delivering to be crucified and, moreover, one which preceded it, indicates that the death sentence was passed only after the scourging had been administered.

37. So L. Wenger, Die Quellen des römischen Rechts (Vienna, 1953), p. 287 n. 11; J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 333–343, 346–356. Josephus contains a passage which has been the occasion of sustained controversy because of the Christian interpolations it contains today, the so-called “Flavian Testimony.” The studies of C. Martin and F. Scheidweiler are sufficient to establish the following text: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρʼ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο [θορυβεῖν] οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες (Antiquities XVIII. iii. 3); “When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not cease [to provoke disorders].” This text asserts that Pilate condemned Jesus to the cross as the result of accusations prosecuted by the Jewish authorities. It thus confirms the Marcan record. See C. Martin, “Le Testimonium Flavianum. Vers une solution définitive?” Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 20 (1941), pp. 409–465; F. Scheidweiler, “Sind die Interpolationen im altrussischen Josephus wertlos?,” ZNW 43 (1950–51), pp. 177 f.; idem, “Das Testimonium Flavianum,” ZNW 45 (1954), pp. 230–243; F. Dornseiff, “Zum Testimonium Flavianum,” ZNW 46 (1955), pp. 245–250. Cf. Tacitus, Annals XV. 44, who specifies that this happened when Tiberius was emperor.

38. Ibid., p. 339, citing Petronius, Satires CXXXVII. 9; Plautus, Mostellaria III. ii. 163 (§ 850).

39. See above on Ch. 15:1.

40. Gr. σπεῖρα ordinarily means a cohort, i.e. one-tenth of a Roman legion or 600 men. It may also designate a maniple, which consisted of two or three hundred men. It is important, however, in this context to understand that the reference is to an auxiliary cohort which had accompanied Pilate from Caesarea to Jerusalem and need not have been identical in numbers to the cohort normally stationed in the Antonia fortress in Jerusalem.

41. Cf. R. Delbrueck, “Antiquarisches zu den Verspottungen Jesu,” ZNW 41 (1942), pp. 124–145. The nearest parallels are the mocking of the imbecile Karabas in Alexandria in A.D. 38 to express contempt for Agrippa I (Philo, Against Flaccus VI, 36–39), the brutal action of Roman soldiers with the dethroned emperor Vitellius prior to his execution (Dio Cassius LXV. 20 f.), and a similar incident after the Jewish uprising of A.D. 115–117 reported in a fragmentary papyrus (see V. A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum II [Cambridge, Mass., 1960], pp. 89, 94, 96 n. 7 for text, translation and commentary respectively on Papyrus Louvre 68, col. i. 1–14). The parallels show simply that a perverted sense of humor, which would indulge in such mockery as Mark reports, was not uncommon in this period.

42. See H. St. J. Hart, “The Crown of Thorns in John XIX. 2–5,” JThS n.s. 3 (1952), pp. 66–75; C. Bonner, “The Crown of Thorns,” HTR 46 (1953), pp. 47 f.; W. Grundmann, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 615–622, 631 f.

43. Gr. Γολγοθᾶ transliterates the Aramaic . In common pronunciation the second lamed was dropped.

44. The Western variant (D it), “they kept watch over him” is clearly secondary. It was an attempt to avoid the duplication of verse 24 and is modeled on Mt. 27:36.

45. Caesarean and Byzantine authorities insert verse 28, “And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘He was reckoned with the transgressors’ ” (Isa. 53:12), apparently under the influence of Lk. 22:37. The omission of this verse is so strongly attested (א A B C D X Ψ Lect it ^{d k} sy^s cop Eusebian Canons Ammonius) that the Bible Societies’ edition assigns it an “A” rating (the text is virtually certain).

46. J. Blinzler, op. cit., p. 367 cites Cicero, Pro Rabirio V. 16: “Even the mere word, cross, must remain far not only from the lips of the citizens of Rome, but also from their thoughts, their eyes, their ears.” Elsewhere Cicero calls crucifixion the grossest, cruelest, or most hideous manner of execution (see In Verrem V. 64, 66).

47. See N. Avigad, “A Depository of Inscribed Ossuaries in the Kidron Valley,” Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962), pp. 1–12.

48. Cf. C. Kopp, op. cit., pp. 374–388; A. Parrot, Golgotha and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (London, 1957); V. Corbo, “La basilica del S. Sepulcro a Gerusalemme,” Liber Annus 19 (1969), pp. 65–144. The name Calvary comes from the Latin Calvaria, an elaboration of calva, “a skull.”

49. So J. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament (Leiden, 1952), pp. 282–343. The “third wall,” which enclosed Golgotha, was not built until the time of Herod Agrippa I.

50. W. Michaelis, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 457–459 objects that TB Sanhedrin 43a is not a true parallel, since it speaks of wine mixed with frankincense. He prefers to think rather of a soldier’s wine which the executioner offered to those who on the way had become exhausted, since in verse 23 “we are concerned with Roman soldiers, not Jewish women; and with wine mixed with myrrh, not frankincense.” It seems probable, however, that the wine offered to those about to be crucified consisted of various ingredients, while the use of the indefinite plural is typically Mạrcan and need not have reference to the soldiers. For women at the site of the crucifixion see Ch. 15:40 f.

51. For details see J. J. Collins, “The Archaeology of the Crucifixion,” CBQ 1 (1939), pp. 154–159; E. Stauffer, Jerusalem und Rom im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (Bern, 1957), pp. 123–127; J. Schneider, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 572–584; J. Blinzler, op. cit., Exkurs XVIII: “Zur Archäologie der Kreuzigung,” pp. 375–381.

52. J. W. Hewitt, “The Use of Nails in the Crucifixion,” HTR 25 (1932), pp. 29–45. Plautus, Mostellaria II. i. 12 f. states that the simple nailing of the four limbs was the normal procedure in crucifixions, but see below, n. 54. M. Shabbath VI. 10 mentions “the nail from the post of one who was crucified” as a healing amulet. Cf. Jn. 20:25.

53. V. Tzaferis, “Jewish Tombs at and near Givʿat ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970), pp. 18–32, especially p. 31.

54. N. Haas, “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Givʿat ha-Mivtar,” Israel Exploration Journal 20 (1970), pp. 49–59 and especially figure 6 (p. 56).

55. Ibid., p. 58. See Plate 24 for a drawing based on these findings.

56. See T. Mommsen, Droit pénal romain I (Paris, 1903), p. 280 n. 2, citing Digest XLVIII. iv. 11; xx. 6; Tacitus, Annals VI. 29. Cf. TB Sanhedrin 48b, “The property of those executed by the State belongs to the State.”

57. Cf. J. Repond, “Le costume de Jésus,” Biblica 3 (1922), pp. 3–14; W. Michaelis, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 246.

58. This paragraph summarizes J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 416–420. A. Mahoney, “A New Look at ‘The Third Hour’ of Mk 15, 25,” CBQ 28 (1966), pp. 292–299 prefers to link the reference to the third hour with the preceding clause, and holds that the dividing of the garments probably took place at the time of the scourging, while Ch. 15:33 indicates noon as the hour of the crucifixion. This proposal fails to resolve the difficulties noted by Blinzler and is contradicted by verse 20 which speaks of the return of Jesus’ clothing to him following the scourging and the mocking.

59. Cf. P. F. Regard, “Le titre de la croix d’après les Évangiles,” Revue Archéologique 28 (1928), pp. 95–105; K. H. Rengstorf, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 262.

60. Cf. P. Winter, “Marginal Notes on the Trial of Jesus II,” ZNW 50 (1959), p. 251: “That Jesus died by crucifixion and that his cross bore an inscription stating the cause for which he had been sentenced, is the one solid and stable fact that should be made the starting point of any historical investigation dealing with the Gospel accounts of his trial.” See further W. C. van Unnik, “Jesus the Christ,” NTS 8 (1962), pp. 101–116.

61. Cf. A. Berger, “Law and Procedure, Roman,” The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford, 1949), p. 490.

62. So K. H. Rengstorf, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 257–262; W. R. Wilson, The Execution of Jesus: a Judicial, Literary and Historical Investigation (New York, 1970), p. 110.

63. Cited by M. Smith, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (Philadelphia, 1951), p. 138. Cf. the polemic in TJ Taʿanith II. 1; Origen, Against Celsus II. 9.

64. Cf. W. Gutbrod, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), pp. 360–362, 376.

65. If Mark is using a Palestinian tradition, it is natural that he should transmit the saying in an Aramaic form, but it is more probable that the original form of the saying is preserved in D Θ pc itala and Mt. 27:46, which conforms to the Targum of Ps. 22:2, with the address in Hebrew and the question in Aramaic. Only this form explains why those standing near thought that Jesus was calling for Elijah. See J. Jeremias, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 935 n. 62; T. Boman, “Das letzte Wort Jesu,” Stud Theol 17 (1963), pp. 103–119.

66. According to Codex D^gr it ^{c i} sy^h Porphyry and Greek MSS known to Macarius Magnes (I. 12), the text read ὠνείδισάς με: “why have you reproached me?” This variant presupposes that the darkness is to be interpreted as a curse sanction upon Jesus.

67. Gr. ἐξέπνευσεν, “he expired.” Mark describes a sudden, violent death.

68. There are four different readings in verse 39: (i) when the centurion saw “that he expired in this manner” (א B L Ψ 892 2148 cop^bo); (ii) “that having cried out, he expired” (W Θ 565 sy^s arm geo Origen^lat); (iii) “that having cried out in this manner, he expired” (A C K X Δ Π λ φ pm it ^aur ff², l, n, q vg sy ^p/h Augustine); (iv) “that he so cried out” (k). Apparently the first reading represents the oldest form of the text, which makes the confession of Jesus’ dignity dependent solely upon Jesus’ manner of death. So J. Blinzler, op. cit., p. 373 n. 61. For a defense of the fourth variant as original see C. H. Turner, “Western Readings in the Second Half of St. Mark’s Gospel,” JThS 29 (1927–28), pp. 12 f.

69. Gr. υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν. E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” JBL 52 (1933), pp. 13, 21 showed that “definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article” while “a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb.” The translation “the Son of God” thus represents Mark’s intention. Cf. R. G. Bratcher. “A Note on υἱὸς θεοῦ (Mark xv. 39),” ExT 68 (1956), pp. 27 f.; T. F. Glasson, “Mark xv. 39: The Son of God,” ExT 80 (1969), p. 286.

70. For rabbinic parallels see S-BK I (1922), pp. 1040–1042; for Hellenistic parallels cf. Virgil, Georgics I. 463 ff.; Diogenes Laertius IV. 64; Plutarch, Pelopidas 295A.

71. Cf. H. Conzelmann, TWNT VII (1964), pp. 439 f. E. F. F. Bishop, Jesus of Palestine (London, 1955), p. 250 and G. R. Driver, “Two Problems in the New Testament,” JThS 16 (1965), pp. 327–337 prefer to think in terms of an atmospheric darkening caused by a sudden spring sirocco, but the parallel in Lk. 23:44 f. militates against this interpretation.

72. J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 373 f. n. 64 cites many authors who support this point of view, which he shares. See also E. Stauffer, op. cit., pp. 139 f.

73. See V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London, 1952), p. 594.

74. See H. C. Read, “The Cry of Dereliction,” ExT 65 (1957), pp. 260–262; L. Morris, The Cross in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1965), pp. 42–49.

75. T. Boman, op. cit., pp. 116 f. suggests that Jesus cried out , “you are my God” (see Ps. 22:11), but the bystanders heard , “Elijah, come!”

76. S-BK IV (1928), pp. 773–777; J. Jeremias, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 930–935.

77. See R. C. Fuller, “The Drink Offered to Christ at Calvary,” Scripture 2 (1947), pp. 114 f.; J. Colin, “Il soldato della matrona di Efeso e l’aceto dei crucifissi,” Rivista Filologica n.s. 31 (1953), pp. 97–128 (a study of Petronius, reporting a fact dating ca. A.D. 29–35); idem, “Essig,” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum VI (1965), pp. 635–646.

78. Cf. J. Blinzler, op. cit., pp. 381–384, Exkurs XIX: “Der Kreuztod in medizinischer Sicht,” for a review of medical opinion concerning the death of Jesus.

79. So O. Michel, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), p. 885; A. Pelletier, “La Tradition synoptique du ‘Voile déchiré’ à lumière des réalités archéologiques,” RSR 46 (1958), pp. 161–180. The key Jewish and Jewish Christian references (Josephus, War V. 3; TB Yoma 39b; TJ Yoma VI. 43c; Gospel of the Nazarenes [fragment 23], cited by Jerome, Comm. in Matt. 27:51 [MPL XXVI, 236 f.]; cf. Tacitus, History V. 13) are discussed by H. Montefiore, Josephus and the New Testament (London, 1962), pp. 16–22.

The rending of the inner veil would also have rich symbolic significance, pointing to the end of the repeated sacrifice for atonement and the establishment of a new way of access to God through the death of Jesus. Such associations are actually developed theologically in Heb. 6:19; 9:2 f., 6 f., 11 f.; 10:19 f. It is methodologically important, however, not to read Mark from the perspective of the author to the Hebrews. For the contrary point of view, that the word concerning the veil is symbolic rather than literal and has reference to Jesus’ flesh which was pierced, see J. R. Michaels, “The Centurion’s Confession and the Spear Thrust,” CBQ 29 (1967), pp. 102–109.

80. E.g. Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 42; Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew LXXXVIII. 2 (MPG LVIII, 826); cf. Gospel of the Hebrews § 52.

81. For a review of the later tradition concerning the centurion see C. Schneider, “Der Hauptmann am Kreuz,” ZNW 33 (1934), pp. 1–17.

82. P. H. Bligh, “A Note on Huios Theou in Mark 15:39,” ExT 80 (1968), pp. 51–53.

83. Gr. παρασκευή designates the day prior to a festival or the Sabbath. In this instance it means Friday, which ended with sunset.

84. Gr. βουλευτής is not a technical expression used by Jewish writers, but appears to have been chosen by Mark with Gentile readers in mind to designate a member of the Sanhedrin.

85. Gr. εἰ πάλαι. There is strong textual support (B D W Θ pc latt) for the reading εἰ ἤδη (“if already”). It is difficult to decide if this variant is original, or if it represents a transcriptional error because the copyist found this expression in the initial clause of the sentence.

86. C. Schneider, TWNT III (Eng. Tr. 1965), pp. 411 f., citing Horace, Epistles I, 16, 48; Petronius, Satura 111.

87. J. Blinzler, op. cit., p. 386 n. 14, citing Digest XLVIII. xxiv. 1–2, xvi. 15, 3.

88. Ibid., p. 387 n. 16, citing Digest III. ii. 11, 2.

89. Ibid., pp. 392 f.

90. Loc. cit.

91. Ibid., pp. 416–422, Exkurs XXI: “Die Stunde des Karfreitages.”

92. R. H. Smith, “The Tomb of Jesus,” BA 30 (1967), pp. 87 f. notes that this type of cutting was sometimes used in Jerusalem in this period, as the tombs of the Sanhedria attest. They were rare at this early date, however, and are found almost exclusively in the tombs of persons of high rank.

93. Ibid., pp. 74–85; L. E. Cox Evans, “The Holy Sepulchre,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 100 (1968), pp. 112–136.

94. For the archeological details, see R. H. Smith, op. cit., pp. 82–88.

95. See further J. M. Baumgarten, “On the Testimony of Women in 1QSa,” JBL 96 (1957), pp. 266–269.

96. Cf. E. Dhanis, “L’ensevelissement de Jésus et la visite au tombeau dans l’évangile de saint Marc (Mc. XV. 40–XVI. 8),” Gregorianum 39 (1958), pp. 367–410.

---

1. The initial words καὶ διαγενομένου … καὶ Σαλώμη are omitted by Western authorities (D d [k] n). The force of the omission is to assign to the women mentioned in Ch. 15:47 the action of buying the spices. This reading is supported by C. H. Turner, “Western Readings in the Second Half of St. Mark’s Gospel,” JThS 29 (1927–28), pp. 13 f., who argues that the longer version arose under the influence of Mt. 28:1. The Western variant, however, may be explained as an attempt at simplification. The strong attestation for the fuller text (א A B C K L W Δ Π Ψ λ φ pl) justifies the (A) rating (= virtually certain) assigned to the text by the editors of the Greek text issued by the Bible Societies.

2. Gr. ἡ μιὰ τῶν σαββάτων. The use of the cardinal numeral for the ordinal is often explained as a Semitism. For a dissenting opinion see J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek³ (Edinburgh, 1908–1929), I, pp. 95 f., 237; II, p. 174.

3. Codex Bobiensis (k) has here an extensive gloss which is interesting for its attempt to describe the resurrection: “Suddenly, at the third hour of the day, there was darkness over the whole earth, and angels descended from heaven, and rising in the splendor of the living God they ascended together with him, and immediately it was light.” The only other early attempt to describe the resurrection occurs in the Gospel of Peter 35–44: “Now in the night when the Lord’s day dawned, as the soldiers were keeping guard two by two in every watch, there came a great sound in the heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend, shining with a great light, and drawing near to the sepulchre. And that stone which had been set at the door rolled away of itself and went back to the side, and the sepulchre was opened and both of the young men entered in. When those soldiers saw that, they awakened the centurion and the elders … and they saw three men come out of the sepulchre, two of them sustaining the other, and a cross following them. And they saw that the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of the one who was led by them passed through the heavens. And they heard a voice out of the heavens saying, ‘Have you preached to those who sleep?’ And an answer was heard from the cross, ‘Yes.’ ” For a discussion of these passages see L. Vaganay, L’Évangile de Pierre (Paris, 1930), pp. 287–303; W. L. Lane, “Apocrypha,” EC I (1964), pp. 338 f.

4. Gr. ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα is located at the end of verse 3 in D Θ 565 c d ff n sy^{s pal} Eusebius. As the text now stands these words appear badly placed. Yet Mark tends to place an explanatory clause at the end of a sentence, rather than with the word or phrase it qualifies (see Ch. 1:16; 2:15; 12:12).

5. The variant found in D k (“I am going before you to Galilee; there you will see me, even as I told you”), which implies that the speaker is the risen Lord, may have arisen from a conviction that Mark, like the other Gospels, must have reported a resurrection appearance. It is noteworthy that MS k lacks the longer ending with its resurrection appearances.

6. Gr. ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. The possibility of ending a sentence, or a paragraph, or even a work with γάρ, and of using ἐφοβοῦντο without a qualifying object or clause finds strong support in the texts gathered by R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford, 1950), pp. 80–97, 106–116; cf. N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (Philadelphia, 1944), pp. 86–118. A new instance of the final position of γάρ is known through the recent publication of the Dyscolos of Menander, lines 437 f.: ναὶ μὰ τὸν Διά, τὸ γοῦν πρόβατον μικροῦ τέθνηκε γάρ (“Yes by Zeus! In any case, the sheep nearly died” cited by F. W. Danker, “Menander and the New Testament,” NTS 10 [1964], p. 366). It seems not to have been noticed that Musonius Rufus concludes his Discourse XII, περὶ Ἀφροδισίων (ed. O. Hense [Leipzig, 1905], p. 67, line 2) with γνώριμον γάρ (“for this is well known”). F. W. Danker, “Postscript to the Markan Secrecy Motif,” Con Th Mon 38 (1967), pp. 24–27 emends the text of Mk. 16:8 to read ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ φόβον μέγαν, proposing that the last two words were omitted by haplography. It seems better to recognize that Ch. 16:8 as it stands in the critical editions of the text is Mark’s original and intended ending. Forms of φοβέομαι occur twelve times in Mark; in six of these instances the word is used absolutely (Ch. 5:5, 33, 36; 6:50; 9:6; 10:32).

7. Questions directed against the phenomena must be set aside as queries addressed to the thesis of divine revelation. If men argue for a closed continuum (i.e. such events are beyond man’s history and improper to God’s activity) it should be recognized that they are arguing against the proposition that God has the right to reveal himself in history. If God possesses the right to do so, he has the right to choose the means, the place and the circumstances. The purpose of revelation is finally to inform men of God. For a careful consideration of the historical questions see R. Russell, “Modern Exegesis and the Fact of the Resurrection,” Downside Review 76 (1958), pp. 251–264, 329–343; D. P. Fuller, Easter Faith and History (Grand Rapids, 1965); idem, “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Historical Method,” Journal of Bible and Religion 34 (1966), pp. 18–24. For a theology of the resurrection see F. X. Durrwell, The Resurrection, A Biblical Study (New York, 1966); W. Künneth, The Theology of the Resurrection (St. Louis, 1965).

8. R. H. Smith, “The Tomb of Jesus,” B A 30 (1967), p. 89, fig. 8; cf. J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu⁴ (Regensburg, 1969), p. 399.

9. Cf. W. Michaelis, TWNT VII (1964), p. 458.

10. E.g. certain Western authorities (D c ff n q Augustine) read ἀνατελλόντος, “while the sun was rising”; λίαν πρωί (“very early”) is omitted by c, λίαν by D W k n sy^{s p pal} arm, and πρωί by q. R. H. Lightfoot, op. cit., p. 96, followed by G. Hebert, “The Resurrection Narrative in St. Mark’s Gospel,” ScJTh 15 (1962), p. 67, insists that ἀνατείλαντος τοῦ ἡλίου cannot be a note of time, but is an allusion to Mal. 4:2 LXX, which speaks of the rising of “the Sun of righteousness with healing in his wings.” The point of Mark’s reference, according to Hebert, is that the Sun has risen (i.e. Jesus), though the world is still in darkness.

11. For a treatment of the text from a Hellenistic viewpoint appropriate to a θεῖος ἀνήρ Christology, see N. Q. Hamilton, “Resurrection Tradition and the Composition of Mark,” JBL 84 (1965), pp. 415–421. Hamilton argues that Mark was the creator of the empty tomb narrative, and that the story concerns a “removal” rather than a “resurrection.” In Hellenism a hero is recognized by the evidence of an empty grave. Hamilton contends that Mark composed the story of the empty tomb in part to satisfy Graeco-Roman expectations aroused by his Son of God Christology (Ch. 15:39). For a defense of the historicity of the Marcan account of the empty tomb see E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (New York, 1960), pp. 143–147; J. Daniélou, “The Empty Tomb,” Month 39 (1968), pp. 215–222. See below, verses 5–6.

12. See R. H. Smith, op. cit., pp. 86–88, and especially fig. 6 for the reconstruction of Jesus’ tomb proposed by L. H. Vincent.

13. H. Waetjen, “The Ending of Mark and the Gospel’s Shift in Eschatology,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4 (1965), pp. 114–116. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities V. viii. 2 where the word νεανίας is applied to the heavenly messenger who appeared to Manoah’s wife with the glad tidings that she is to bear a son. Waetjen (p. 116) finds this the closest parallel to Mk. 16:5.

14. See G. Kittel, TWNT I (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 76–83; P. Gaechter, “Die Engelerscheinungen in der Auferstehungsberichten,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 89 (1967), pp. 191–202.

15. W. Michaelis, TWNT IV (Eng. Tr. 1967), pp. 244–266.

16. R. H. Lightfoot, op. cit., pp. 23 f. n. demonstrated that in Mark the verb ζητεῖν is always used in a derogatory sense. In Ch. 8:11 f.; 11:18 f.; 12:12; 14:1, 11, 55 the seeking has an evil intention, while in Chs. 3:22 and 16:6 it is being carried out in the wrong way and is unacceptable. Cf. G. Hebert, op. cit., pp. 69 f.

17. The kerygmatic formulation of verse 6, and specifically the words “see the place where they laid him,” has encouraged L. Schenke, Auferstehungsverkündigung und leeres Grab. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk 16, 1–8 (Stuttgart, 1968), to associate the development of the tradition with the annual veneration of the tomb of Jesus by the Jerusalem Community at the time of Passover-Easter. For the veneration of tombs in Palestine see J. Jeremias, Die Heiligengräber in Jesu Umwelt (Göttingen, 1958).

18. For a discussion of the inscription from Nazareth summarizing an imperial edict directed against the theft of corpses and the desecration of graves see L. Wenger, Die Quellen des römischen Rechts (Rome, 1946), pp. 456 f.; E. Stauffer, op. cit., pp. 146 f.

19. Cf. W. Nauck, “Die Bedeutung des leeren Grabes für den Glauben an den Auferstandenen,” ZNW 47 (1956), pp. 243–267.

20. M. Rosh Ha-Shanah I. 8 speaks of the disqualification of women as witnesses as a matter of common knowledge. Cf. M. Shebuoth IV. 1, “The law about an oath of witness applies to men but not to women”; Josephus, Antiquities IV. viii. 15; Num. Rabba X, 159b; TJ Yoma VI. 2.

21. For the contention of E. Lohmeyer, Galiläa und Jerusalem (Göttingen, 1936), pp. 10 ff.; idem, Das Evangelium des Markus¹⁶ (Göttingen, 1963), pp. 355 f.; W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist (Nashville, 1969), pp. 75–92, that the reference is to the parousia of Jesus rather than to a resurrection appearance, see above on Ch. 14:28. For the fruitful suggestion that the promise of Ch. 1:17 (“I will make you fishers of men”) finds its fulfilment through the meeting in Galilee see R. P. Meye, Jesus and the Twelve (Grand Rapids, 1968), pp. 83 f., 99–110.

22. Cf. C. F. D. Moule, “St. Mark XVI. 8 Once More,” NTS 2 (1955), pp. 58 f. J. Luzarraga, “Retraducción Semítica de Phobeomai en Mc 16, 8,” Biblica 50 (1969), pp. 497–510, traces this final comment back to a Semitic source which used some form of the verb , which can mean either “to be afraid” or “to hasten.” He holds that the underlying sense was, “They went away in haste.” This proposal lacks support from the text, for the departure with haste is covered already by ἔφυγον, while an adoption of Luzarraga’s reading of the source leaves the silence of the women unexplained.

23. The most recent attempt to defend the authenticity of the longer ending (verses 9–20) was made by M. van der Valk, “Observations on Mark 16, 9–20 in Relation to St. Mark’s Gospel,” Humanitas n.s. 6–7 (1958), pp. 52–95. The article gives no consideration to the external evidence of manuscripts and is marred by speculative considerations which fail to support the author’s conclusions.

24. E.g. V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London, 1952), pp. 609 f.; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark² (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 470 f.; B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York, 1964), pp. 226–229; E. Linnemann, “Der (wiedergefundene) Markusschluss,” ZThK 66 (1969), pp. 255–287. For a response, especially to the article of Linnemann, see K. Aland, “Der wiedergefundene Markusschluss. Eine methodologische Bemerkung zur textkritischen Arbeit,” ZThK 67 (1970), pp. 3–13.

25. Rightly stressed by K. Tagawa, Miracles et Évangile (Paris, 1966), pp. 110–122.

26. Ibid., pp. 99–110.

27. So N. B. Stonehouse, op. cit., pp. 86–118; R. H. Lightfoot, op. cit., pp. 80–97; K. Tagawa, op. cit., pp. 110–122; R. P. Meye, “Mark 16:8—The Ending of Mark’s Gospel,” Biblical Research, 14 (1969), pp. 33–43, among others. K. Tagawa (pp. 112 f.) points out that astonishment is an absence of faith only when it is motivated by profane power. For the textual considerations which bear upon this question see the Additional Note on the Supplementary Endings of Mark.

---

1. After the conclusion of Mark in column 3 of folio 1303 (recto), a column is left free. This is a wholly singular phenomenon, for in Codex B a new book follows in the next column as soon as possible. The fact of a free column after the conclusion of Mark can be explained only from the supposition that the scribe knew a continuation after Ch. 16:8. Space calculations indicate that this can only have been the shorter ending. See T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament II (Edinburgh, 1909), p. 469.

2. K. Aland, “Bemerkungen zum Schluss des Markusevangeliums,” in Neotestamentica et Semitica (Edinburgh, 1969), pp. 157–180

3. E.g. MS 274 has the shorter ending after Ch. 16:20, yet critical signs indicate an awareness that the shorter ending belongs after verse 8 and before the longer ending.

4. The only true parallel to the formula τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον comes from Ignatius, To the Smyrneans 3:2, ὅτε [ὁ Ἰησοῦς] πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πέτρον ἦλθεν, ἔφη αὐτοῖς κτλ.

5. See B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York, 1964), p. 73.

6. C. H. Turner, “Did Codex Vercellensis (a) Contain the Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark?” JThS 29 (1927–28), pp. 16–18 showed that MS a “must have had either the shorter ending or none at all.” K. Aland, op. cit., pp. 176 f. has now strengthened the case for this conclusion.

7. K. Aland, op. cit., pp. 169–178.

8. Cf. verses 9 f. with Jn. 20:11–18; verses 12 f. with Lk. 24:13–35; verses 14 ff. with Lk. 24:25–29 and Jn. 20:19–29; verse 15 with Mt. 28:18–20; verse 19 with Lk. 24:50–53.

9. Cf. F. Wagenaars, “Structura litteraria et momentum theologicum pericopae Mc 16, 9–20,” Verb Dom 45 (1967), pp. 19–22.

10. E.g. Mary Magdalene is introduced as the woman “from whom he had cast out seven demons” (cf. Lk. 8:2), as if she had not been mentioned already in Ch. 16:1. In verses 9–20 one finds neither Ἰησοῦς nor χριστός, but the title Κύριος twice (Ch. 16:19–20). The vocabulary is marked by the presence of 17 non-Marcan words or words used in a non-Marcan sense: e.g. πρώτῃ in place of μιᾷ (cf. verse 2); ἐφάνη (verse 9); ἐκείνη (verse 10); πορεύεσθαι (verse 10, 12); θεᾶσθαι (verse 14); ἀπιστεῖν (verses 11, 16); μετὰ ταῦτα (verse 12); φανεροῦσθαι (verses 12, 14); ὕστερον (verse 14) in place of ἔσχατον (cf. Ch. 12:6, 22); πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (verse 15); καλῶς ἔχειν (verse 18); ὁ μὲν οὖν κύριος (verse 19); συνεργεῖν (verse 20). Stylistically, Mark’s usual transitions, εὐθύς, πάλιν are absent from verses 9–20; the use of καί is rare and no phrase begins with parataxis.

11. In an attempt to marshall the patristic evidence for the Marcan endings K. Aland, op. cit., p. 172 suggests that Hermas, Similitudes IX. xxv. 2 and Gospel of Peter 59 be compared with Ch. 16:10; and Epistle of the Apostles 2–3 be compared with Ch. 16:19.

An Armenian MS of the Gospels, copied A.D. 989, contains a brief rubric of two words in the space at the conclusion of the last line of verse 8 and before the last twelve verses, “of the Presbyter Ariston.” That the reference is to Aristion, a contemporary of Papias and purportedly a disciple of the apostle John, is only an interesting conjecture. It is improbable, however, that an Armenian rubricator would have access to historically reliable information concerning the source of the longer ending at this late date. So also B. M. Metzger, op. cit., p. 227; K. Aland, op. cit., p. 172.

---

1. Dialogue against the Pelagians II. 15 (P.L. XXIII, col. 576).

2. Codex W, folio 184 recto, lines 9–24. For a photographic facsimile of the text see B. Botte, “Freer (Logion de),” DB Suppl III (1938), col. 528, fig. 351. For a transcription of the text, together with the principal conjectural emendations which have been proposed, see col. 525.

3. The word of association which first attracted the gloss appears to be “unbelief,” ἀπιστία, in Mark 16:14, “and he upbraided them for their unbelief (τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν) … And they made excuse saying: ‘This age of lawlessness and of unbelief (τῆς ἀπιστίας) …’ ” The opinion that the Freer Logion is a gloss has been challenged on the ground that without it the account passes very abruptly from reproof of the disciples’ unbelief to the commission to proclaim the gospel to the world. The logion appears to supply the point of transition demanded by the context (so T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II [Erlangen, 1896], p. 936; Einleitung in das Neue Testament II [Leipzig, 1900], p. 229, on the basis of Jerome’s citation alone; H. B. Swete, Zwei neue Evangelienfragmente [Bonn, 1908], p. 10, who appealed to the ease with which such an obscure passage could be excised). The more moderate conclusion that the passage is a gloss derived from the same source which supplied verses 14–18, but which the original compiler of the longer ending had neglected, was suggested by A. Harnack, “Neues zum unechten Marcusschluss,” TLZ 33 (1908), pp. 168–170, and was accepted with slight modification by H. Koch, “Der erweiterte Markusschluss und die kleinasiatischen Presbyter,” BZ 6 (1908), pp. 266–278, and P. van Kasteren, “Het slot van het Marcusevangelie,” Studien 86 (1916), pp. 283–296; idem, “Nog een woord over het Marcusslot,” Studien 87 (1917), pp. 484–490. Basic to this proposal is Zahn’s original contention that the Freer Logion fills the hiatus between verses 14 and 15. Yet closer examination will show that if there is a hiatus between verses 14 and 15 in the longer ending, it is poorly overcome by this logion. The words of the disciples are scarcely directed to the charge of unbelief, but rather reflect on the difficulties they have encountered in their preaching. The unfortunate manner in which these words have been attached to the rebuke of Jesus is sufficient to expose an interpolation. Moreover, the hiatus is no less great between the response of Jesus in the logion and verse 15. The addition is an isolated logion embodying a local tradition. It probably owes its existence in the Freer MS to the intercalation of the text of the longer ending of Mark by some early reader of the Gospel whose attention was caught by the charge of unbelief. The contention that the entire text of the logion is a gloss is accepted by B. Botte, op. cit., col. 526 f.; A. E. J. Rawlinson, St. Mark⁵ (London, 1942), p. 248; V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1952), p. 615; E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark (Richmond, 1970), pp. 375 f.; et alia.

4. B. Botte, op. cit., col. 526 f.

5. καὶ ὁ χριστὸς ἐκείνοις προσέλεγεν ὅτι πεπλήρωται ὁ ὅρος τῶν ἐτῶν τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σατανᾶ, ἀλλὰ ἐγγίζει ἄλλα δεινά· καὶ ὑπὲρ ὧν ἐγὼ ἁμαρτησάντων παρέδοθην εἰς θάνατον ἵνα ὑποστρέψωσιν εἰς τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ μηκέτι ἁμαρτήσωαιν, ἵνα τὴν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πνευματικὴν καὶ ἄφθαρτον τῆς δικαιοσύνης δόξαν κληρονομήσωσιν.

6. The judgment on the evil character of this age is thoroughly Palestinian: e.g., I Enoch 48:7, “this age of unrighteousness,” 2 Enoch 66:6, “this age of pain”; cf. Gal. 1:4, “this present evil age.” For lawlessness (ἀνομία) in the last days cf. Matt. 24:12; Didache 16:4; Hermas 8:3 and especially Barnabas 18:2, “This present time of lawlessness” (ὁ καιρὸς ὁ νῦν τῆς ἀνομίας), which closely parallels the Freer Logion.

7. The exact expression, “the authority of Satan,” is found in Acts 26:18, “that they may turn from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God.” Cf. Col. 1:18; Eph. 2:2; Lk. 4:6; 22:53; Rev. 13:2, 4, 5, 7, 12. See further, W. Foerster, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 567 f.

8. The appeal appears to be for the revelation of God’s righteous judgment through the parousia of Christ, as in Acts 17:31; Rev. 19:11. So G. Schrenk, TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), p. 198. For the association of righteousness with the Messiah see G. Schrenk, “The Messiah as the Righteous,” TWNT II (Eng. Tr. 1964), pp. 186 f., and the passage cited there. The second occurrence of the term “righteousness” has a more distinctly Pauline character, “the glory to be inherited, which consists of righteousness.” In this instance the term “righteousness” approximates in meaning “salvation.”

9. This frame of mind was by no means unusual. It stands behind the implied request for an immediate restoration of the Kingdom in Acts 1:6, where “at this time” corresponds to “now” in the Freer Logion; in the early second century the author of Barnabas longed for that time “when there is no longer lawlessness, but all things have been made new by the Lord” (Barn. 15:7).

10. The closest parallel to “the limit of the years … has been fulfilled” is Mark 1:5, “the time has been fulfilled.” For other examples see W. Bauer (A-G, p. 677). With the thought cf. Jn. 16:10.

11. Gr. ἄλλα δεινά.

12. I Clem. 6:2; II Clem. 17:7; M. Polyc. 2:4; Hermas, Sim. 6, 3, 3.

13. 2 Kings 1:9; Job 2:13; 33:15; Wisdom 18:17 א A; Sirach 38:16.

14. Wisdom 19:16; 4 Maccabees 8:9, 15; 15:25.

15. Wisdom 4:20–5:2. The text of the key line runs ἰδόντες ταραχθήσονται φοβῷ δεινῷ.

16. In this connection the thesis of H. Koch, op. cit., pp. 266–278, is interesting: he contends that the Logion is incomplete. After having alluded to his role as the Savior Jesus must have announced as well his role as judge. The context, however, would lead one to expect an explanation of the preliminary events, in the manner of Mark 13:6 and par.; M. Soṭa IX. 15; TB Sanhedrin 98b, et al.

17. , see above on Ch. 13:8. Cf. S-BK IV (1928), pp. 977–986, “Die Vorzeichen der messianischen Zeit.”

18. The closest parallel to the thought, but not the vocabulary, of the Freer Logion at this point appears to be Barn. 4:9: “Wherefore let us pay heed in the last days, for the whole time of our life and faith will profit us nothing unless we resist, as becomes sons of God in this present lawless time and in the offenses which are about to come (νῦν ἐν τῷ ἀνόμῳ καιρῷ καὶ τοῖς μέλλουσιν σκανδάλοις), so that the Black One (ὁ μέλας) may have no opportunity of entry.”

19. On this passage see now W. L. Lane, “Times of Refreshment. A Study of Eschatological Periodization in Judaism and Christianity” (Diss. Harvard, 1962), pp. 142–181.

20. That the text will bear the weight of such an interpretation is certain from the coordinating clauses introduced by the conjunction of purpose, ἵνα: ἄλλα δεινά· καὶ ὑπὲρ ὦν ἐγὼ ἁμαρτησάντων παρεδόθην εἰς θάνατον, ἵνα ὑποστρέψωσιν … ἵνα … κληρονομήσωσιν.

21. Cf. 1 Peter 1:4, “unto an inheritance which is imperishable … kept in heaven for you.” W. Bauer (A-G, p. 203) suggests Cleopatra, 146 f., ἐνέδυσεν αὐτοὺς θείαν δόξαν πνευματικήν in connection with this phrase of the Freer Logion.

22. It is difficult to assess the relative primitiveness of the Freer Logion. Apparently only T. Zahn, Einleitung II, p. 229; H. B. Swete, op. cit., p. 10; and R. Dunkerley, The Unwritten Gospel (London, 1925), p. 197, were willing to plead for the authenticity of the logion. It is my opinion that it is not authentic, but reflects the thinking of the early Church; its relatively early character is reflected in its Palestinian language, its emphasis on the significance of repentance as a condition for the Days of the Messiah, its use of ὁ χριστός as a title of office, and its particular expression of periodization, which is without parallel in the extant literature. As to the date when the Logion was added to the margin of a MS of Mark, any guess is hazardous. C. R. Gregory, Das Freerlogion (Leipzig, 1908), pp. 64 f., suggested the first half of the second century as most probable on the basis of the style and vocabulary of the fragment, and because after A.D. 150 it became increasingly difficult to make additions to the Gospels. T. Zahn, op. cit., pp. 230–232, followed by A. Harnack and H. Koch, alleged that the source of the Logion (as well as of vv. 14–18 for Zahn) was the tradition Papias had received from the Asiatic Presbyter Aristion. Zahn cites as confirmatory evidence a marginal gloss to Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. III. xxxix. 9, which connects Aristion’s name with the story taken from Papias that Justus Barsabbas (Acts 1:23) once drank a deadly poison, but was preserved from all harmful effects by the grace of the Lord. The story may have been circulated as an illustration of Mark 16:18, but as proof for the source of the Freer Logion it lacks persuasive demonstration. See further E. Helzle, Der Schluss des Markusevangeliums (Mk. 16:9–20) und das Freer-Logion (Mk. 16:14 W), ihre Tendenzen und ihr gegenseitiges Verhältnis (Dissertation Tübingen, 1959).