ICC New Testament Commentary





Archdeacon of Manchester, Principal of Egerton Hall

Third Edition



T & T Clark Ltd.

59 George Street

Edinburgh Eph_2 2LQ


ISBN 0 567 05021 1

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of T&T Clark Ltd.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library



Since the first publication of this book two important Commentaries have appeared, viz. Dr. Plummer’s valuable Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, London, 1909, and Klostermann’s most useful Commentary in the Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Tübingen, 1909. In this third edition of my Commentary no attempt has been made to revise the whole work. A number of corrections, for which I have to thank many kind friends, has been made in the text, some additional notes and references are appended, and two supplementary notes on the subjects of Divorce, and of the Date of the Gospel, are printed at the end by kind permission of the Editor of The Expository Times. By way of supplement to what I have said on pp. lvii-lix as to the Matthean Logia, may I refer to an Essay on “The Book of Sayings used by the Editor of the First Gospel” in Studies in the Synoptic Problem, Clarendon Press, 1901.



Perhaps no one, especially during the last thirty years, has undertaken to write a Commentary on one of the Canonical Gospels, without experiencing again and again, during the process of production, that he had undertaken a task which was beyond both his strength and his equipment. That has certainly been my own experience in writing this Commentary on the First Gospel. For a commentator upon this book, who is to do his work efficiently, should have many qualifications. He should be a competent Greek scholar, versed in the Hellenistic Greek literature, and acquainted with the bearing of modern archæological discovery upon the history of the language. He should be acquainted also with the Hebrew of the Old Testament, with the various Aramaic dialects, and with the later dialects of the Talmuds and Midrashim. If the writings of Deissmann on the one hand, and of Wellhausen and Dalman on the other, have shown what new light can be thrown upon the New Testament by experts in their own department, they have also illustrated the defective character of a one-sided knowledge, and have given indications of the sort of work that may be done by a scholar of the future, who shall be at the same time a Grecian and an Orientalist. The commentator should further be a master of the material for the textual criticism of the Gospel, which is in itself the study of a lifetime. He should have a thorough knowledge of the literature dealing with the so-called Synoptic Problem, and should have formed a judgement based upon independent investigation as to the literary relationship between the Canonical Gospels and the sources which lie behind them. He should have studied the growth of theological conceptions as illustrated in the Old Testament, and in the apocryphal and apocalyptic literature up to and during the period in which our Gospels were written. And he should have mastered the Talmudic and Midrashic theology at least sufficiently to be able to form an independent judgement as to the possibility of using it for the purpose of illustrating theological conceptions and religious institutions in the first century a.d. I can lay claim to no such qualifications as these. Nevertheless, within the limits to be mentioned presently, I venture to hope that the present volume will give some help to those who desire to find out what this Gospel meant to the Evangelist as he wrote it. How much may here be done Dalman has shown us, but much still remains to be done; and it is probably the case that, in some measure, the secret of the Gospels will never altogether disclose itself to those who cannot approach them from the Jewish-Oriental view of life, as well as from other aspects. In view of what has been said, it will be understood that the following Commentary has been, of necessity and intentionally, made one-sided in its method and aim, and it will be desirable to try and explain the principles upon which it has been written.

There are, I think, roughly speaking, two methods of commenting upon one of the Synoptic Gospels. One, and that the traditional and familiar one, is based upon the two assumptions, first, that all three Gospels are sources for the life of Christ of equal value; and, second, that the commentator is in direct contact with the words of Christ as He uttered them (due allowance being made for translation from Aramaic into Greek). From this point of view the commentator will always be mindful that it is his duty to elucidate and explain the words of the Gospel upon which he is at work, in such a way as to enable the reader to reconstruct for himself as nearly as possible the life of Christ; to see before him the scenes being once again enacted; to hear, and to understand as he hears, the words flowing from Christ’s lips. From this standpoint that which is common to all the Gospels will be all-important. The special features of each, in so far as they cannot be easily harmonised with the other Gospels, will be treated as a difficulty to be explained away. Where two Gospels differ in detail, the commentator upon one of them will feel it to be his duty to account for the difference, and to try and ascertain what the actual historical fact was which underlies, and accounts for, the two divergent records. The atmosphere in which the commentator works will be one of effort to harmonise apparent discrepancies, and, so far as possible, to represent the Gospels as in essential agreement.

The very important element in the Gospels which such a treatment of them overlooks, or minimises, is the individuality of the respective Evangelists. It leaves no room for the obvious fact that, as they penned their Gospels, these writers selected, arranged, compiled, redacted, with the intention of trying to set before their readers the conception of the Christ as they themselves conceived Him. In its haste to arrive at the actual facts of Christ’s life, it tends to obliterate individual characteristics of each separate Gospel, and to lose sight of the contribution to a complete impression of the Christ which is made by each individual Evangelist.

Further, the assumptions by which this method seeks to justify itself are thoroughly artificial and mechanical. The Gospels, of course, are not all, and, in their every component part, of exactly equal historical weight and value. For practical purposes, the ordinary Christian may safely regard them as such, and he will not be far wrong. But it is impossible for the student of life to allow such rough generalisations to keep him from studying the Gospels in the best and latest method that the science of history can suggest to him; and historical method is always improving year by year. Precious stones, e.g., have a value for their beauty and brilliance to the ordinary public. But such wide generalisations as that “diamonds are beautiful” cannot deter the student of life from endeavouring to investigate the life-history of diamonds, and to discover the cause of their radiance by scientific analysis. And the results of his investigation, that a diamond consists of such and such chemical elements, does nothing whatsoever to destroy the value which diamonds have for the unscientific purchaser; nay, rather would a thousand times enhance their value and interest, if he understood but a thousandth part of the extraordinary process which has gone to produce the stone which he buys.

The method of dealing with the Gospels upon the basis of these artificial assumptions seems to the modern student of life to cast an atmosphere of unreality round them, and to lead to results which are of the nature of theories without foundation in actual fact. Of course, it may ultimately prove to be the truth that these assumptions are in reality intuitions of facts of first-rate importance. And that is, indeed, my own belief. The Synoptic Gospels are, I think, historical sources for Christ’s life of nearly equal value, and the reader is, I believe, in large measure in immediate touch with the acts and words of the historical Christ. The impression which he obtains of the Person of the Lord from one Gospel is, with very slight reservation, the same as that which is given him by another. In all of them it is the same Christ who acts and speaks. But these impressions or intuitions become vicious when they are used as grounds for treating the Gospels in a quite artificial and mechanical way. So far from being, from the point of view of the student of history, axioms with which he starts, they themselves need to be proved and justified by historical investigation.

The fact that the study of the Gospels is in such a chaotic condition, is partly due to this radically false method of studying them. On the one hand, traditional commentators have used these assumptions as a ground for treating the Gospels in a wholly artificial manner. By force of reaction the modern critic has often not only (and quite rightly) insisted on studying the Gospels on historical methods, but has also too often, and with fatal effect, refused to see that these assumptions are of the nature of brilliant intuition of elements in the Gospel, which are in part outside the range and scope of his scientific analysis, but which in some measure his analysis should have discovered, if he had not been wilfully blind to them.

When, if ever, the irritating and provocative influence of false and artificial methods of dealing with the Gospels ceases to create an equally false opposition method of studying them, it will, I believe, be found that the scientific investigation of the Gospels, upon the best historical methods that the future can ever give us, will lead to results which will in large part coincide with the old conservative and traditional intuitions. On the one hand, it will be found that the sources of our Gospels are early in date, and that, with some slight reservations, they describe for us the historical life of the Saviour of Mankind. It will be seen that the personality of the Evangelists plays a relatively very small part in their records, whilst these agree in an astonishing degree in giving to us an harmonious and consistent account of a unique Personality.

No real student of life will ask, “Why then all this critical investigation of the Gospels, if it is simply to give us the old results?” and if the simple-minded should ask this, it is to be feared that no answers which could be given would satisfy him. But two obvious reasons are these. First, that false and antiquated methods of exegesis do incalculable harm to the young and simple, and to the coming generation of men. The science of history has within the last century undergone a revolution. It has adopted new methods of research, which are every day being improved and perfected. Nothing is more calculated to shake the faith of the men of the new age in the historical character of the Gospels, than to find that the Christian commentator still interprets the Gospels on the basis of purely a priori assumptions which should themselves be first proved, and by methods which are outworn and unlike the methods used by students in every other department of history. On the other hand, nothing will so reassure the faith of the younger generation of thoughtful men as the discovery that the Gospels, when studied and interpreted along the lines of ordinary historical research, still present to our love and adoration the figure of the Divine Saviour, and that the efforts to prove the Gospels to be late and legendary growths are in large measure a failure, because they start from unscientific presuppositions, and employ unscientific methods of historical inquiry.

And, secondly, the consideration of value must, of course, always be kept out of sight by the student. A very large part of historical and scientific research will always seem to the practical man to be of little immediate value. But the student will care nothing for that. He investigates because he must. And the Gospels cannot, any more than any other element in life, be hidden away from the curious search and restless probing of the human intellect.

It will hardly be necessary to add now that I have deliberately set aside the methods which I have just tried to describe. I have not employed the other Gospels in order to weaken impressions left by the words of the First Gospel, nor have I allowed myself to approach it as an exact representation of Christ’s sayings and words.

It remains, therefore, to describe the method which I have adopted.

In accordance with this method, the work of a commentator upon a Gospel should form only one stage in a complicated process of historical investigation and inquiry. The first stages of this process should belong to the textual critic, and to the scholar whom, in default of a better name, we may term the literary critic. The former should give us a Greek text of the Gospel upon which to work; the latter should have decided for us such questions as the relationship of the Gospels one to another, and to any source or sources which have been embodied in them. Properly speaking, this first stage of textual and literary criticism should have been completed before the commentator begins his work. But, unfortunately, the day is not yet when we can believe that we have a final Greek text of the Gospels, and the work of literary analysis is probably much nearer its beginning than its end. I have, however, reduced to as small an amount as possible the textual critical element in this Commentary. Handbooks to textual criticism, and editions of the text with full critical apparatus, are now easily accessible. On the other hand, whilst assuming what I believe to be the one solid result of literary criticism, viz. the priority of the Second to the other two Synoptic Gospels, I have thought it desirable to try and prove, by a detailed and full comparison of the first two Gospels, that, so far as they are concerned, this assumption everywhere justifies itself as an explanation of the relationship between them. This will explain the large part which S. Mark’s Gospel plays in the following pages. S. Luke’s narrative, in so far as it is parallel with the Second Gospel, lies, of course, on this assumption, outside the range of a commentator on the First Gospel.

The second stage in the process should be the work of the commentator on the text of each separate Gospel. Starting with the results given to him by the literary critic, and equipped with the Greek text supplied by the textual critic, the commentator will approach each separate Gospel with the purpose of ascertaining what were the conceptions of the life and Person of Christ which governed and directed the Evangelist in his work. From this point of view the main interest of the commentator will lie rather in what is characteristic of, and peculiar to, each Gospel, than in what is common to them all. He will refuse to try and harmonise discrepant details or divergent conceptions. Rather he will emphasise these as important, because they enable him to reconstruct the life of Christ as it presented itself to the minds of the Evangelist and of his readers. He will always be mindful of the fact that he is immediately concerned, not with the actual facts of the life of Christ or with His doctrine, but rather with these as mirrored in the mind of the particular Evangelist with whom he is dealing.

The third stage in the process belongs to the historian. Just as the commentator is obliged to rely very largely upon the work already done by the literary critic, so the historian must depend for his material to a great extent upon the work of the commentator and of the critic alike. He will have as his material the Gospels as analysed into their sources by the critic, and the mass of not always harmonious impressions of the life of Christ, as given to him by the commentators upon the separate Gospels. With this material at his disposal, it will be his duty to attempt to recover the historical facts of Christ’s life, to ascertain as far as possible the exact words which He spoke, and to determine the meaning which these words originally carried with them.

In accordance with what has been said, I have felt it to be my duty to begin my work equipped with some acquaintance with the results of the literary criticism of the Gospels. If I have found it necessary partly to assume the results of such labour, and partly to work out a view of my own as to the sources of the Gospel, that is only because the work of the critic and of the commentator cannot in the present conditions of knowledge be quite kept apart. On the other hand, I have done my best not to encroach upon the sphere of the historian. Here and there I may have been tempted to express some view as to the historical character of some incident or saying, as apart from the general credibility of the source of which it forms a part, but generally speaking it has been my aim to consider the contents of the Gospel always in the first place from the standpoint of their meaning for the editor of the Gospel, and only secondarily from the point of view of their relation to the historical Christ.

This explains, of course, in large measure, the limitations of the Commentary which follows. Considerations as to the historical character of the incidents which the Gospel records, have for the most part been carefully avoided; and no attempt has been made to discuss the question whether the teaching here put into the mouth of Christ was as a matter of fact taught by Him. These are questions which should be left to the historian who is dealing with all the sources which are available for the reconstruction of the life of Christ, and should not be approached by the commentator who is dealing with only one Gospel.

This limitation carries with it the omission of reference to much literature, ancient and modern. If the commentator is engaged in explaining the meaning of a single Gospel from the standpoint of the Evangelist, he clearly need not discuss those ancient and modern conceptions of the historical Christ with which an historian of Christ’s life must grapple. Consequently purely controversial discussion of modern critical views has been purposely avoided in the following pages.

Of course, I am aware that in practice the several stages in the process which I have described cannot be kept rigidly apart. The commentator must to some extent exercise his independent judgement in revising the work of the literary critic, and the historian will always find it necessary to test the work of both critic and commentator. But the range of subjects and activities connected with the work of using the Gospels as historical sources is so vast, that it is probable that in the future as, and in so far as, scientific method is improved, the commentator on the Gospels will not be expected to cover more than a part of the ground. He will, e.g., to a greater extent than is at present possible, be able to accept a Greek text from the hands of the textual critics, and so relieve his Commentary of any textual critical apparatus. He will be able also, with more justification than he can at present, to adopt the results of the labours of the literary critics, and so omit from his Commentary a good deal of critical analysis that is at present indispensable. This will leave him free for the more important work of endeavouring to ascertain the meaning of the contents of the Gospel to its writer and first readers, by the methods of investigation into the philological meaning of the words of the Gospel, and of illustration of its ideas from contemporary sources.

But within narrower limits the absence from these pages of continual reference to the vast literature dealing with the Gospel requires some apology. It would have been easy to double the size of this book if constant reference had been made to the interpretation of single passages by previous commentators. The limitation that I have imposed upon myself of stating simply the meaning that, as it seemed to me, a particular passage had to the mind of the Evangelist as he wrote it, without giving also the several or many other interpretations which have been given of such a passage by ancient and modern writers, requires some defence, and is, I feel, open to criticism.

I have adopted this course on the following grounds: (1) the purpose of this Commentary, to attempt to make clear the conception of the Evangelist, made it desirable to omit the interpretations of many writers who have commented on the book, with the quite different object of ascertaining the meaning of the sayings here recorded as they were spoken by Christ Himself. If, e.g., in dealing with 16:17-19 I had given in detail, and with some discussion, all the views that have ever been taken of these much debated verses, I should have required many pages; but the reader’s attention would only have been distracted from the end which I had in view, viz., to set before him as clearly as possible the meaning which these words had in the mind of the Evangelist when he placed them in their present position in his Gospel.

(2) In writing the following pages, I have always had chiefly in view the needs, not of the preacher nor of the general reading public, but of the student who desires to have some understanding of the growth and development of the Gospel literature in the first century a.d., and of the meaning which this particular Gospel had for the Evangelist and his first readers. Now a Commentary which is also a catalogue of all possible interpretations which have ever been read into the Gospel, and at the same time an Encyclopædia of information upon all subjects directly or indirectly connected with the subject-matter, is no doubt a very useful book, but Commentaries of this nature already exist, and they are very tedious to read. The student who wishes for information of this kind knows that on the one hand he can turn to the Commentaries of Meyer or Alford, and on the other to such indispensable works of reference as Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, and Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, or the Encyclopædia Biblica. I have myself often felt the need of a Commentary on this Gospel which would tell me, not all that can be known about every subject mentioned in it, nor every view that has ever been held about its sayings; but, what the words of the Gospel meant to the Evangelist, that I might form my own conclusion as to the value of that meaning; and I have purposely avoided filling these pages with, what seemed to me to be, needless iteration of information, which is easily accessible to every student.

Anyone who turns over the following pages will realise how impossible it is for me to express adequately my obligations to others. I have added to the Introduction a list of the writers to whom I have referred by name in the Commentary, but I owe an equal and in some cases a much greater debt to many others whose names will not be found there. I am particularly indebted to the editions of Meyer’s Commentary edited by Dr. B. Weiss, to Zahn’s admirable Commentary on St. Matthew, to Wellhausen’s brilliant notes on the first three Gospels, to the English Commentaries of Dr. Plummer on S. Luke, Dr. Swete on S. Mark, and Dr. Gould on S. Mark, and to Dr. A. Wright for his excellent Synopsis. To the members of the class which has met at Dr. Sanday’s house for some years to study the Synoptic Problem I owe much, and especially to Mr. C. Badcock, the Rev. V. Bartlet, the Rev. B. W. Streeter, and the Rev. Sir John Hawkins, whose Horæ Synopticæ is the invaluable companion of every student of the Gospels. Sir John Hawkins was so kind as to read the proofs of the Introduction of this book, and it owes much to his correction and addition. Lastly, Dr. Plummer, as supervising editor, has very kindly made many most valuable suggestions and corrections.

Of my obligations to Dr. Sanday I cannot write adequately. He is in no sense directly responsible for anything that these pages contain, but if there be any sound element in method or in tone in what I have written, it is probably ultimately traceable to his influence and to that of his writings.

Finally: I think that no scholar will mistake the character and purpose of my translation of the texts of the First and Second Gospels. It aims neither at elegance of diction nor at correctness of English idiom. On the contrary, I have not hesitated to sacrifice idiom and correctness alike, in order to give a literal and bald rendering which should, so far as is possible, represent in English the differences in tense, in syntax, and in vocabulary between the Greek of the Second and that of the First Gospel.





1. Almost the entire substance of the second Gospel has been transferred to the first. The only omissions of any length are the following:

(a) Mark 1:23-28 Healing of a demoniac.

(b) Mark 1:35-39 Preaching in the synagogues of Galilee.

(c) Mark 4:26-29 Parable of the seed growing secretly.

(d) Mark 7:32-37 Healing of a deaf man.

(e) Mark 8:22-26 Healing of a blind man.

(f) Mark 9:38-40 The exorcist.

(g) Mark 12:41-44 The widow and her alms.

2. But in 3-13:58 the editor makes a good deal of alteration in the order of Mk.’s sections. The following table will exhibit this. Passages enclosed in square brackets are interpolations into Mk.’s narrative:

The alteration of order here shown is not arbitrary nor without reason, but is due to the scheme upon which the editor is building up this first part of his Gospel

In 3:1-4:17 he has matter parallel to Mark 1:1-15 with considerable additions. It may be doubted whether he is here borrowing from another source, or whether he is borrowing from Mk. and expanding his narrative by additions, either from oral tradition, or from a second written source.

4:18-22 comes from Mark 1:16-20.

The editor then comes to Mark 1:21.

He has already (4:13) anticipated the mention of Capharnaum,1 and can therefore omit Mark 1:21a, Mark 1:21b speaks of teaching in the synagogue. Here, therefore, is an opportunity of inserting an illustration of Christ’s teaching, which is to be followed by an illustrative group of His miracles. As an introduction to these two sections of illustration, the editor substitutes for Mark 1:21 a general sketch of Christ’s activity (4:23-25), using for this purpose phraseology borrowed from various parts of the second Gospel The reason why he places his illustration of Christ’s teaching before that of His miracles is no doubt to be found in Mark 1:22, which describes the effect produced by that teaching on the people. The editor therefore inserts the Sermon on the Mount between Mark 1:21 and 22, and closes it with this latter verse. Thus:

4:23-25 are substituted for Mark 1:21.

5-7:27 are inserted.

7:28-29 = 1:22.

The editor now proposes to give illustrations of Christ’s miracles. The next five sections in Mk. are:

1:23-28 The demoniac.

1:29-31 Peter’s wife’s mother.

1:32-34 Healing the sick.

1:35-39 Retirement and tour.

1:40-45 Healing of a leper.

We therefore expect the editor to begin his series of illustrations with the narrative of the demoniac, but he omits this altogether, and, passing over Mark 1:32-39, continues with Mark 1:40-45 the healing of the leper:

8:1-4 = Mark 1:40-45.

It is not easy to account for the omission of Mark 1:23-28, and for the transposition of 40-45. The following reasons may have cooperated to produce them:

(a) Mt. has omitted the reference to Capharnaum (Mark 1:21), and has adapted Mark 1:22 to an entirely different situation. But still he might have inserted a statement of an entry into Capharnaum to form a link between the Sermon and the healing of the demoniac.

(b) The incident of the leper is recorded by Mk. without any detail of time or place, after a verse which states that Christ “came preaching in their synagogues throughout the whole of Galilee.” It is therefore not unnatural to place the healing of the leper after the Sermon, which may be taken as illustrative of this synagogue preaching.

(c) Leprosy was perhaps the most dreaded of all bodily ailments in Palestine, and its cure forms a fitting introduction to a series of three healings of disease.

(d) The reason why, after inserting the healing of the leper, the editor did not continue with that of the demoniac, may have been that he wished to form a series of three healings of disease, and that in the Church tradition the healing of the centurion’s servant was closely connected with the Sermon. Lk. has the same connection.

(e) Moreover, there were features in the story of the demoniac which did not recommend it to the editor, features which Lk. found it desirable to modify. See below, p. xxxiii.

After inserting Mark 1:40-45 and omitting 23-28, the editor inserts the healing of the centurion’s servant, 8:5-13, and can then continue with Mark 1:29-31, thus forming a series of three healings of disease—leprosy, paralysis, fever. He closes the series with words borrowed from the succeeding verses of Mk 32-34, adding a quotation from Isaiah. Thus:

8:1-4 = Mark 1:40-45.

8:5-13 are inserted.

8:14-15 = 1:29-31.

8:16 = 1:32-34.

8:17 is inserted.

The next section in Mk. is 1:35-39. This would be out of place in a series of miracles, and is therefore omitted. Mark 1:40-45 has been already inserted. The editor, therefore, comes to Mark 2:1-22. This he postpones, perhaps because it occurred on a visit to Capharnaum different to that just described. By recording it here the editor would confuse the two visits. Mar_2:23-6 he reserves for a controversial section. 3:7-35 contain no miracle. 4:1-34 he reserves for his chapter of parables. He therefore comes to 4:35. Here Christ is surrounded by a crowd. The editor adapts this to his context:

8:18 = Mark 4:35,

inserts 8:19-22,

and then takes over Mar_4:36-20 with considerable omissions:

8:23-34 = Mar_4:36-20.

In Mark 5:21 Christ returns to the western side of the lake. Mt. adds to this, that “He came to His own city”:

Matthew 9:1 = Mark 5:21a,

and can then go back and borrow Mark 2:1-12 with its sequel 13-23:

Matthew 9:2-17 = Mark 2:1-22,

thus completing a second series of three miracles which illustrate Christ’s power over natural forces (8:23-27), over the hostility of demons (28-34), and in the spiritual sphere (the forgiveness of sins, 9:1-8).

The editor now postpones Mar_2:23-34 for the same reasons as before. He comes therefore to 5:22-43. This he abbreviates, and adds two other miracles, thus forming a third series of three miracles illustrating Christ’s power to restore life, sight, and speech:

9:18-26 = Mark 5:22-43.

9:27-31 inserted.

9:32-34 inserted.

Having thus given illustrations of Christ’s teaching and miracles, the editor now proposes to show how this ministry found extension in the work of the disciples. He therefore postpones Mark 6:1-6a, and expands 6b into an introduction to this mission modelled on the similar introduction 4:23-25:

9:35 = Mark 6:6b.

9:36-38 inserted.

Chapter 10:1 continues with Mark 6:7; but the editor here inserts Mark 3:16-19, which he had passed over. The rest of 10-11:1 is an amplification of Mark 6:8-11:

10:1 = Mark 6:7.

10:2-11:1 = 6:8-11.

11:2-30 inserted.

There now follows a series of incidents illustrating the growth of hostility to Christ on the part of the Pharisees. For these the editor now goes back to Mark 2:23-28ff.:

12:1-8 = Mark 2:23-28.

12:9-14 = 3:1-6.

12:15-16 summarises 3:7-12.

12:17-21 inserted.

Having already borrowed Mark 3:13-19a he now comes to 19b-21 and 22-30. For this he substitutes a similar but longer discourse introduced by another miracle:

12:22-45 enlarged from Mark 3:19-30,

and continues with the next section in Mk.

12:46-50 = 3:31-35.

This brings him to Mar_4, which is a chapter of parables. The editor borrows this and adds other parables:

13:1-52 = Mark 4:1-34.

As he has already inserted Mar_4:35-43 he now comes to Mark 6:1-6a:

13:53-58 = Mark 6:1-6a.

From this point the editor follows the order of Mk.’s sections.

3. The editor not infrequently abbreviates Mk.’s record.

(a) Some examples of abbreviation in expression are given below on p. xxiv.

(b) In other cases details are dropped from the narrative

E.g. Mark 1:13 “He was with the wild beasts.”

1:20 “with the hired servants.”

1:29 “with James and John.”

2:26 “in the days of Abiathar the high priest.”

Mark 2:27 “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”

3:17c Boanerges.

4:38 “upon the cushion.”

5:13 “about two thousand.”

6:12 the mission of the Twelve.

6:37 “two hundred pennyworth.”

6:39-40 “by companies—green—in ranks, by hundreds and by fifties.”

7:3-4 the explanation of “unwashen hands.”

9:3 “so as no fuller on earth can whiten them.”

14:5 “three hundred pence.”

14:51 the young man who fled naked.

15:21 “the father of Alexander and Rufus.”

15:44 Pilate’s inquiry about the death of Christ.

Especially statements of the thronging of the multitudes and the inconvenience caused by it.

E.g. Mark 1:33 “and the whole city was gathered together at the door.”

1:45 “so that He would no longer enter into a city.”

2:2, 4 “And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, no, not even about the door. … And when they could not come nigh unto Him for the crowd.”

3:9 “And He spake to His disciples, that a little boat should wait upon Him because of the crowd, lest they should throng Him.”

3:10 “pressed upon Him.”

3:20 “so that they could not so much as eat bread.”

6:31 “they had no leisure to eat.”

(c) Not infrequently sayings are omitted from a discourse. But, for the most part, such sayings have already been inserted in an earlier part of the Gospel. The left-hand column shows where the saying has been omitted, the right-hand column where it has been inserted.

Matthew 13:23-24 Mark 4:21 Matthew 5:15.

13:23-24 4:22 10:26.

13:23-24 4:24a 7:2.

13:23-24 4:24b 13:12.

18:5 9:37b 10:40.

18:5 9:41 10:42.

18:9 9:50 5:13.

21:22 11:25 6:14.

24:8 13:9b, 11-12 10:17-20.

(d) In other cases a whole narrative or section is given in a much abbreviated form.

E.g. Mark 3:7-12 is compressed into two verses in 12:15-16. The reason is obvious. The editor is collecting illustrations of the controversies between Christ and the Pharisees. Having just borrowed Mar_2:23-1-6, which is suited to his purpose, he comes to 3:7-12, which has nothing bearing upon the subject. He might well have omitted it, just as he omitted 1:35-39. But the thought of Christ’s ministry of healing, Mark 3:10, suggested to him a contrast between the Lord’s quiet work of love with its shrinking from publicity, Mark 3:12, and the hostile clamour of the Pharisees. He therefore shortened Mark 3:7-12 and added a quotation from Isaiah to emphasise this contrast.

Mark 5:1-43 is much shortened in Matthew 8:28-34, Matthew 9:18-26. See notes on 8:28, 9:18.

Mark 6:14-29 is abbreviated in Matthew 14:1-12.

Mark 9:14-29 appears in a shorter form in Matthew 17:14-20. See note on 17:18.

4. Contrasted with this shortening of narrative sections is the amplification of discourses.

E.g. Mark 1:7-8, the preaching of the Baptist is expanded into Matthew 3:7-12.

Mark 3:22-26, the refutation of the charge of diabolical agency is expanded into Matthew 12:24-45.

Mar_4, the chapter of parables is considerably lengthened in Mat_13.

Mark 6:8-11, the charge to the Twelve is expanded into Matthew 10:5-42.

Mark 9:35-50 teaching about greatness is expanded into Matthew 18:2-35.

Mark 12:37-40, denunciation of the Pharisees forms the nucleus of a whole chapter in Mat_23.

Mar_13, the discourse on the last things is expanded in Mt 24-25 into double the length.

Four of these bodies of discourse, formed by interweaving some other source or sources with the shorter discourses found in Mk., viz. chs. 10, 13, 18, 24-25, are closed by a formula: καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς διατάσσων τοῖς δώδεκα μαθηταῖς αὐτους, 11:1; καὶ ἐγέετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὰς παραβολὰς ταύτας, 13:58; καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους, 19:1; καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους, 26:1. These together with the Sermon on the Mount, chs. 5-7, which closes with a similar formula 7:28, cf. Luke 7:1, form one of the most striking features of this Gospel.

5. In linguistic detail there are a certain number of characteristic changes made in Mk.’s language.

(a) Mk.’s characteristic words καὶ εὐθύς, πάλιν, the adverbial πολλά and ὅτι after verbs of saying, are frequently omitted, and δέ is repeatedly substituted for καί.

εὐθύς or καὶ εὐθύς occurs in Mk. about 41 times, in Mt. about 7 times only, all borrowed from Mk.

πάλιν occurs in Mk. about 26 times, in Mt. about 16, only 4 of these coming from Mk.

The Aramaising adverbial πολλά occurs in Mk. about 13 times, in 4 times.

ὅτι after verbs of saying occurs about 50 times in Mk. Of these about 42 are omitted by Mt. It occurs in Mt. some 38 times, 8 of these being from Mk. Of the others, about 20 occur in the formula, “I say unto you that.” In a few instances it is inserted in Marcan passages where Mk. omits it, e.g. 13:11, 19:8, 9, 23, 28, 21:23.

Mt. substitutes δέ for Mk.’s καί about 60 times. On καί in Mk., see Her. Syn. p. 120.

(b) Mk.’s historic presents and imperfects are frequently supplanted by aorists, and his ἤπξατο with an infinitive is generally avoided. So also εἶναι with a participle, and changes are made in the voices of verbs.

Sir John Hawkins1 reckons 151 historic presents in Mk., of which Mt. retains only 21. Mt. has about 93 such presents, 21 of them being from Mk. About 66 are cases of λέγει or λέγουσιν, about 11 of them being from Mk. Nine of the historic presents retained from Mk. occur in Mark 14:27-41 = Matthew 26:31-45. It seems clear, therefore, that Mt. generally avoided the historic present when reproducing Mk., and some of the 21 cases where he retains it may be due to assimilation. In reproducing other sources he seems also to have avoided the present, except in the case of λέγει and λέγουσιν. The small number of other exceptions occurs in parables (but in the nature of things the Logia would not have many such presents), and in chs. 2-4:11. The presence of some 9 presents not including λέγει in this section is very curious, and would be naturally explained by the theory that this section was drawn from a source in which such presents were a marked feature, if there were sufficient corroborative evidence. See below, p. lx.

Mt. substitutes aorists for imperfects in the following cases:

Mark 1:32 ἕφερον. Matthew 8:16 προσήνεγκαν.

3:6 ἐδίδουν, B L; ἐποίουν, 12:14 ἔλαβον.

A al; ἐποίησαν, א C.

3:12 ἑπετίμα. 12:16 ἐπετίμησεν.

4:2 ἐδίδασκεν. 13:3 ἐλάλησεν.

4:33 ἐλάλει. 13:34 ἐλάλησεν

5:13 ἐπνίγοντο. 8:32 ἀπέθανον.

5:17 παρεκάλουν, D. 8:34 παρεκάλεσαν.

6:7 ἐδίδου. 10:1 ἔδωκεν.

6:20 ἐφοβεῖτο. 14:5 ἐφοβήθη.

Mark 6:41 ἐδίδου. Matthew 14:19 ἔδωκεν.

6:56 ἐσωξζοντο. 14:36 διεσώθησαν.

9:11 ἐπηρώτων. 17:10 ἐπηρώτησαν.

9:13 ἤθελον. 17:12 ἠθέλησαν.

10:13 προσέφερον. 19:13 προσηνέχθησαν.

10:13 ἐπετίμων, A D al latt. 19:13 ἐπετίμησαν.

10:48 ἐπετίμων. 20:31 ἐπετίμησεν.

10:48 ἔκραζεν. 20:31 ἔκραξαν.

10:52 ἠκολούθει. 20:34 ἠκολούθησαν.

11:8 ἐστρώννυον, D curss. S1. 21:8 ἔστρωσαν.

11:19 ἐξεπορεύοντο. 21:17 ἐξῆλθεν.

12:17 ἐξεθαύμαζον. 22:22 ἐθαύμασαν.

12:18 ἐπηρώτων. 22:23 ἐπηρώτησαν.

12:34 ἐτόλμα. 22:46 ἐτόλμησεν.

14:35 ἔπιπτεν. 26:39 ἔπεσεν.

14:55 ηὕρισκον. 26:60 εὗρον.

14:65 ἐκολάφιζον, D a c k. 26:67 ἐκολάφισαν.

14:70 ἠρνεῖτο. 26:72 ἠρνήσατο.

14:72 ἔκλαιεν. 26:75 ἔκλαυσεν.

15:10 ἐγίνωσκεν. 27:18 ᾔδει.

15:23 ἐδίδουν. 27:34 ἔδωκαν.

15:41 ἠκολούθουν. 27:55 ἠκολούθησαν.

To these may be added about 10 cases where εἶπεν (ον) is substituted for ἔλεγεν (ον). In about 187 other cases the imperfect is avoided by omission or by paraphrase.

ἤρξατο (αντο) with infinitive:

Mark 1:45 ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν. Mt. omits the verse.

2:23 ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες. Matthew 12:1 ἤρξαντο τίλλειν.

4:1 ἤρξατο διδάσκειν. 13:1 ἐκάθητο.

5:17 ἤρξαντο παρακαλεῖν. 8:34 παρεκάλεσαν.

παρεκάλουν, D.

5:20 ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν. Mt. omits the verse.

6:2 ἤρξατο διδάσκειν. Matthew 13:54 ἐδίδασκεν.

6:7 ἤρξατο ἀποστέλλειν. 10:5 ἀπέστειλεν.

6:34 ἤρξατο διδάσκειν. 14:14 omits clause.

6:55 ἤρξαντο—περιφέρειν. 14:35 προσήνεγκαν.

8:11 ἤρξαντο συνζητεῖν. 16:1 omits.

8:31 ἤρξατο διδάσκειν. 16:21 ἤρξατο δεικνύειν.

8:32 ἤρξατο ἐπιτιμᾷν. 16:22 ἤρξατο ἐπιτιμᾷν.

10:28 ἤρξατο λέγειν. 19:27 εἶπεν.

10:32 ἤρξατο λέγειν. 20:17 εἶπεν.

10:41 ἤρξαντο ἀγανακτεῖν. 20:24 ἠγανάκτησαν.

10:47 ἤρξατο κράζειν. 20:30 ἔκραξαν.

11:15 ἤρξατο ἐκβάλλειν. 21:12 ἐξέβαλεν.

12:1 ἤρξατο—λαλεῖν. 21:33 Omits.

Mark 13:5 ἤρξατο λέγειν. Matthew 24:4 εἶπεν.

14:19 ἤρξαντο—λέγειν. 26:22 ἤρξαντο—λεγειν.

14:33 ἤρξατο ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι. 26:37 ἤρξατο λυπεῖσθαι.

14:65 ἤρξαντο—ἐμπτύειν. 26:67 ἐνέπτυσαν.

14:69 ἤρξατο λέγειν. 26:71 λέγει.

14:71 ἤρξατο ἀναθεματίζειν. 26:74 ἤρξατο καταθεματίζειν.

15:8 ἤρξατο αἰτεῖσθαι. 27:16 omits verse.

15:18 ἤρξαντο ἀσπάζεσθαι. 27:29 paraphrases.

5:18 ἤρξατο παρακαλεῖν, D latt. Mt. omits the verse.

8:25 ἤρξατο ἀναβλέψαι, D latt. Mt. omits the section.

14:72 ἤρξατο κλαίειν, D. Matthew 26:75 ἔκλαυσεν.

It will be seen that Mt. retains the construction six out of twenty-six times. He has it also in 4:17, 11:7, 20, 14:30, 18:24, 24:49.

εἶναι with a participle.

(a) Imperfect.

Mark 1:6 ἦν—ἐνδεδυμένος. Matthew 3:4 εἶχεν τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ.

1:33 ἦν—ἐπισυνηγμένη. 8:16 omits.

2:6 ἦσαν—καθήμενοι. 9:3 omits.

2:18 ἦσαν—νηστεύολτες. 9:14 omits.

4:38 ἦν—καθεύδων. 8:24 ἐκάθευδεν.

5:5 ἦν κράζων. 8:28 omits.

6:52 ἦν—πεπωρωμένη. 14:33 omits.

9:4 ἦσαν συνλαλοῦντες. 17:3 omit ἦσαν.

10:32 ἦσαν—ἀναβαίνοντες. 20:17 paraphrases.

10:32 ἦν τροάγων. 20:17 omits.

14:4 ἦσαν—ἀγανακτοῦντες. 26:8 ἠγανάκτησαν.

14:49 ἤμην—διδάσκων. 26:55 ἐκαθεζόμην διδάσκων.

14:54 ἦν συνκαθήμενος. 26:58 ἐκάθητο.

15:7 ἦν—δεδεμένος. 26:16 omits.

15:26 ἦν—ἐπιγεγραμμένη. 27:37 paraphrases.

15:40 ἦσαν—θεωροῦσαι. 27:55 ἦσαν ἐκεῖ—θεωροῦσαι.

15:43 ἦν προσδεχόμενος. 27:57 paraphrases.

15:46 ἦν λελατομημένον. 27:60 ἐλατόμησεν.

Mt. has the construction four times from Mk., viz. 7:29, 8:30, 19:22, 26:43. Besides only twice, 9:36, 12:4.

(b) Future.

This occurs only once in Mk. (13:13 = Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:9). Mt. has it besides four times in the saying about binding and loosing,16:19 (2), 18:18 (2).

Perhaps we might place under this head:

Mark 1:4 ἐγένετο—κηρύσσων. Matthew 3:1 παραγίνεται—κηρύσσων.

9:7 ἐγένετο—ἐπισκιάζουσα. 17:5 ἐπεσκίασεν.

9:3 ἐγένετο στίλβοντα λευκά. 17:2 ἐγένετο λευκά.

Cf. 4:22 ἐγένετο ἀπόκρυφον.

For ἐγένετο in these cases as equivalent to ἦν, cf. Daniel 1:16 ἦν ἀναιρούμενος, LXX. = ἐγένετο ἀναιρούμενος, Th.; Daniel 2:35 λεπτὰ ἐγένετο, LXX. = ἐλεπτύνθησαν, Th.; Lamentations 1:16 ἐγένοντο—ἠφανιμένοι.

Changes of voice.

Passive for Active or Middle:

Matthew 4:1 ἀνήχθη. Mark 1:12 ἐκβάλλει.

8:15 ἠγέρθη. 1:31 ἤγειρεν.

9:25 ἐξεβλήθη. 5:40 ἐκβαλών.

14:11 ἠνέχθη. 6:28 ἤνεγκεν.

14:11 ἐδόθη. 6:28 ἔδωκεν.

15:17 ἐκβάλλεται. 7:19 ἐκπορεύεται.

16:26 ὠφεληθήσεται. 8:36 ὠφελεῖ.

18:8 βληθῆναι. 9:43 ἀπελθεῖν.

19:13 προσηνέχθησαν. 10:13 προσέφερον.

24:22 ἐκολοβώθησαν. 13:20 ἐκολόβωσεν.

24:22 κολοβωθήσονται. 13:20 ἐκολόβωσεν.

26:57 συνήχθησαν. 14:53 συνέρχονται.

27:58 σταυροῦνται. 15:27 σταυροῦσιν.

Active for Middle:

19:20 ἐφύλαξα. 10:20 ἐφυλαξάμην.

26:23 ἐμβάψας. 14:20 ἐμβαπτόμενος.

26:51 ἀπέσπασεν. 14:47 σπασάμενος.

Middle for Active:

14:7 αἰτήσηται. 6:23 αἰτήσῃς.

Active for Passive:

27:60 ἐλατόμησεν. 15:46 ἦν λελατομημένον.

A parallel to this substitution of aorists or perfects for presents or imperfects, of imperfects for ἦν with participles, and of passives for actives, may be found in the two Greek versions of Daniel.

LXX. Theodotion.

Daniel 2:31 ἑώρακας. ἐθεώρεις.

2:34 ἑώρακας. ἐθεώρεις.

2:34 κατήλεσεν. ἐλέπτυνεν.

2:45 συνηλόησεν. ἐλέπτυνεν.

3:4 ἐκήρυξεν. ἐβόα.

3:7 ἤκουσαν. ἤκουον.

3:7 προσεκύνησαν. προσεκύνουν.

3:8 διέβαλον. διέβαλλον.

5:5 ἔγραψαν. ἔγραφον.

6:24 ἔθλασαν. ἐλέπτυναν.

7:2 ἐνέπεσον. προσέβαλλον.

7:5 εἶπεν. ἔλεγον.

8:17 ἔπεσα. πίπτω.

8:18 ἐκοιμήθην. πίπτω.

9:6 ἐλάλησαν. ἐλάλουν.

10:7 ἀπέδρασαν. ἔφυγον.

6:10 ἔπιπτεν. ἦν κάμπτων.

6:10 ἐποίει. ἦν ποιῶν.

8:5 διενοούμην. ἤμην συνίων.

3:94 συνήχθησαν. συνάγονται.

1:18 εἰσήχθησαν. εἰσήγαγεν.

2:18 ἐζητήθη. ἐζήτησαν.

4:10 ἀπεστάλη. κατέβη.

6:17 ἠνέχθη. ἤνεγκαν.

6:17 ἐτέθη. ἐνέβαλον.

8:10 ἐρράχθη. ἔπεσεν.

8:10 κατεπατήθη. συνεπάτησαν.

(c) The repetition and redundancy which are such striking features of Mk.’s style are avoided. In the following list, words in brackets are omitted by Mt. because they are verbally or in substance repeated in an adjacent clause.

(1) 1:15 [πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ] ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ μετανοεῖτε [καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ].

1:16 Σίμωνος, Mt. αὐτοῦ.

1:32 ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης [ὅτε ἔδυσεν ὁ ἥλιος].

1:42 καὶ εὐθὺς [ἀπῆλθεν ἀπʼ] αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα [καὶ] ἐκαθερίσθη.

2:15 [ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἠκολούθουν αὐπῷ].

2:16 ἰδόντες [ὄτι ἐσθίει μετὰ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν καὶ τελωνῶν].

2:19 [ὅσον χρόνον ἔχουσιν τὸν νυμφίον μετʼ αὐτῶν οὐ δύνανται νηστεύειν].

2:20 τότε—[ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ].

2:25 ὅτε [χρείαν ἔσχεν καὶ] ἐπείνασεν.

2:25 [αὐτὸς] καὶ οἱ μετʼ αὐτοῦ.

4:1 πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Mt. ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλόν.

4:2 καὶ ἐδίδασκεν … καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ.

Mt. καὶ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς.

4:30 [ἢ ἐν τίνι αὐτὴν παραβολῇ θῶμεν].

4:31 [ὅταν σπαρῇ].

4:31 [τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς].

4:39 [καὶ ἐκότασεν ὁ ἄνεμος] καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη.

5:12 [ἵνα εἰς αὐτοὺς εἰσέλθωμεν].

5:23 [ἵνα σωθῇ] καὶ ζήσῃ.

6:3 [ὧδε] πρὸς ἡμᾶς.

6:4 [καὶ ἐν τοῖς συγγενεῦσιν αὐτοῦ] καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ.

6:18 τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου. Mt. αὐτήν.

6:28 [τὸ κοράσιον].

6:35 ἤδη ὥρας πολλῆς—ἤδη ὥρα πολλή. Mt. avoids the repetition.

7:13 τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν [ᾗ παρεδώκατε].

7:21 [ἔσωθεν] γὰρ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας.

8:1a Mt. omits because it is substantially repeated in the next verse.

8:12 τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ. Mt. αὐτῇ.

8:17 οὔπω νοεῖτε [οὐδὲ συνίετε].

9:2 κατʼ ἰδίαν [μόνους.

10:27 [ἀλλʼ οὐ παρὰ θεῷ].

10:46 [καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἰερειχώ].

11:28 [ἵνα ταῦτα ποιῇς].

12:14 [δῶμεν ἢ μὴ δῶμεν].

12:27 [πολὺ πλανᾶσθε], cf. v. 24.

13:19 ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως [ἣν ἔκτισεν ὁ θεός].

13:20 τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς [οὕς ἐξελέξατο].

13:33 βλέπετε ἀγρυπνεῖτε. Mt. γρηγορεῖτε.

14:3 μύρου [νάρδου πιστικῆς].

14:6 [ἄφετε αὐτήν].

14:30 [σήμερον] ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί.

14:35 [ἵνα εἰ δυνατόν ἐστιν παρέλθῃ ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ ἡ ὥρα].

14:44 κρατήσατε αὐτὸν [καὶ ἀπάγετε ἀσφαλῶς].

14:45 [ἐλθὼν] εὐθὺς προσελθών.

14:54 ἕως [ἒσω εἰς] τὴν αὐλήν.

14:61 ἐσιώπα [καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρίνατο οὐδέν].

14:61 [ἐπηρώτα αὐτὸν καὶ] λέγει αὐτῷ.

14:68 οὔτε οἶδα [οὔτε ἐπίσταμαι].

14:68 [ἔξω] εἰς τὸ προαύλιον.

15:16 [ἔσω τῆς αὐνῆς ὅ] ἐστιν πραιτώριον.

15:32 [ἴδωμεν] καὶ πιστεύσωμεν.

(2) Double negatives.

The words bracketed are omitted by Mt.

Mark 1:44 μηδενὶ [μηδέν].

3:27 οὐ δύναται οὐδείς. Mt. πῶς δύναταί τις.

9:8 [οὐκέτι] οὐδένα.

11:14 μηκέτι—μηδείς. Mt. οὐ μηκέτι.

12:34 οὐδεὶς [οὐκέτι]. Mt. transfers οὐκέτι to the next clause.

14:25 οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω. Mt. οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπʼ ἄρτι.

14:61 οὐκ ἀπεκρίνατο οὐδέν. Omitted in Matthew 26:63; cf. Matthew 27:12 οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο.

But Mt. retains the double negative in the parallels to:

Mark 12:14 οὐ μέλει σοι περὶ οὐδενός.

12:34 οὐδεὶς οὐκέτι ἐτόλμα. Mt. οὐδὲ ἐτόλμησέν τις—οὐκέτι.

15:5 οὐκέτι οὐτὲν ἀπεκρίθη. Mt. οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη—πρὸς οὐδὲ ἓν ῥῆμα.

(3) Mk. is fond of using a compound verb followed by the same preposition. Mt. not infrequently omits the compounded preposition, or substitutes another verb, e.g.:

Mark 1:16 παράγων παρά. Matthew 4:18 περιπατῶν παρά.

1:21 εἰσπορεύονται εἰς. 4:13 ἐλθὼν—εἰς.

2:1 εἰσελθὼν—εἰς. 9:1 ἦλθεν εἰς.

Mark 3:1 εἰσῆλθεν—εἰς. Matthew 12:9 ἦλθεν εἰς.

5:13 εἰσῆλθον εἰς. 8:32 ἀπῆλθαν εἰς.

5:17 ἀπελθεῖν ἀπό. 8:34 μεταβῇ ἀπό.

6:1 ἐξῆλθεν ἐκεῖθεν. 13:53 μετῆρεν ἐκεῖθεν.

6:10 ἐξέλθητε ἐκεῖθεν. 10:11 ἐξέλθητε.

7:31 ἐξελθὼν ἐκ. 15:29 μεταβὰς ἐκεῖθεν.

9:25 ἐξέλθε ἐξ. Cf. 17:18 ἐξῆλθεν ἀπό.

9:42 περίκειται—περί. 18:6 κρεμασθῇ—περί.

10:25 διὰ—διελθεῖν. 19:24 διὰ—εἰσελθεῖν.

10:25 εἰς—εἰσελθεῖν. 19:24 omit εἰσελθεῖν.

13:1 ἐκπορευομένου—ἐκ. 24:1 ἐξελθὼν—ἀπό.

But in Mark 2:26, Mark 2:3:27, Mark 2:6:10, Mark 2:11, Mark 2:7:15 (2), 18, 20, 21, 9:43, 45, 10:23, 11:11, 15, 12:8, 13:12. Mt. retains the double preposition. Other cases in Mk. are 1:29, 45, 5:2, 8, 12, 6:54, 7:19, 24, 25, 26, 29, 8:23, 26, 9:25, 28, 10:15, 24, 11:2, 16, 16:5, where Mt. omits the whole paragraph or clause.

That Mt. has less liking than Mk. for these redundant phrases may be seen from the following, the relative length of the two Gospels being borne in mind I quote from the Concordance of Moulton and Geden:

εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς— [Mat_27, Mk. 24].

Of Mt.’s 27 all but 5 are in sayings. Of the 5, 2 (21:10, 12) are from Mk., and another (8:5) probably a reminiscence of Mk. The reading in 2:21 is doubtful. This leaves one (27:58) to the credit of the editor.

On the other hand, of Mk.’s 24, 10 occur in narrative.

ἐξέρχεσθαι ἐκ—Mat_11, Mar_13.

Of Mt.’s 11, 2 only are in narrative, 15:21, 21:17, and both are from Mk. Of Mk.’s 13, 7 are in narrative.

εἰσπορεύεσθαι εἰς—Mat_1 in a saying, Mar_4 in sayings, 2 in narrative.

ἐκπορεύεσθαι ἐκ—Mat_2 in sayings. Mar_3 in sayings, 2 in narrative.

διέρχεσθα διά—Mat_2 (19:24) in sayings, Mar_2 in sayings.

διαπορεύεσθαι διά—Mt. 0, Mar_1 in narrative.

παράγειν παρά—Mt. 0, Mar_1 in narrative.

περίκεισθαι περί—Mt. 0, Mar_1 in a saying.

συνσταυροῦσθαι σύν—Mat_1 in narrative, from Mk., Mar_1.

In other words, these iterated prepositions are common in both Gospels in sayings. In narrative there are about 24 cases in Mk. and about 8 in Mt., of which 6 come from Mk.

Once in a saying Mt. has εἰσέλθητε εἰς (26:41) where Mk. (14:38) has ἔλθητε εἰς, א* B; but εἰσέλθητε, אc A C D L al.

(d) Not infrequently a commonplace word is substituted for an uncommon or unusual one; e.g.:

Mark 1:10 σχιζομένους. Matthew 3:16 ἠνεωῴχθησαν.

1:12 ἐκβάλλει. 4:1 ἀνήχθη.

Mark 1:10 σχιζομένους. Matthew 3:16 ἠεῴχθησαν.

1:12 ἐκβάλλει. 4:1 ἀνήχθη.

Mark 1:16 ἀμφιβάλλοντας. Matthew 4:18 βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον.

2:11 κράβαττον. 9:6 κλίνην.

2:21 ἐπιράπτει. 9:16 ἐπιβάλλει.

3:28 τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 12:31 τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.

9:8 στίλβοντα. 17:2 ὡς τὸ φῶς.

10:25 τρυμαλιᾶς. 19:24 τρήματος.

11:8 στιβάδας. 21:8 κλάδους.

14:68 προαύλιον. 26:71 πυλών.

14:72 ἐπιβαλών. 26:75 ἐξελθὼν ἔξω?.

15:11 ἀνέσεισαν. 27:20 ἔπεισαν.

(e) Mt. often corrects the harshness of Mk.’s syntax; cf. especially the notes on 10:10, 13:8, 23, 32.

(f) Prepositions and adverbs.

ἀπό and ἐκ:

Matthew 3:16 ἀπό = Mark 1:10 ἐκ.

16:1 ἐκ = 8:11 ἀπό.

17:18 ἀπό cf. 9:25 ἐκ.

24:1 ἀπό = 13:1 ἐξ.

24:29 ἀπό = 13:25 ἐκ.

26:47 ἀπό = 14:43 παρά.

In 3:16 the change is perhaps intentional. See note.

In 16:1, 24:19, 26:47 the changes seem without significance, but in 17:18, 24:1 the substitution of ἀπό avoids Mk.’s iteration: ἔξελθε ἐξ, ἐκ πορευομένου — ἐκ.

εἰς and ἐν and ἐτί:

Matthew 3:11 ἐν ὕδατι = Mark 1:8 ὕδατι.

3:16 ἐπʼ αὐτόν = 1:10 εἰς αὐτόν.

4:18 εἰς = 1:16 ἐν.

9:15 ἐφʼ ὅσον = 2:19 ἐν ᾧ.

12:1 dative = 2:23 ἐν.

13:7 ἐπί = 4:7 εἰς.

13:8 ἐπί = 4:8 εἰς.

9:18 ἐπʼαὐτήν = 5:23 αὐτῇ.

15:33 ἐν = 8:4 ἐπί.

10:42 εἰς = 9:41 ἐν.

19:15 ἐπιτιθεὶς—αὐτοῖς = 10:16 τιθεὶς ἐπʼ—αὐτά.

21:8 ἐν = 11:3 εἰς.

22:16 ἐν ἀληθείᾳ = 12:14 ἐτʼ ἀληθείας.

24:3 ἐπί = 13:3 εἰς.

10:17 ἐν = 13:9 εἰς.

24:18 ἐν = 13:16 εἰς.

24:30 ἐπί = 13:26 ἐν.

26:4 δόλῳ = 14:1 ἐν δόλῳ.

26:5 ἐν τῷ λαῷ = 14:2 τοῦ λαοῦ.

26:10 εἰς = 14:6 ἐν.

26:13 ἐν = 14:9 εἰς.

26:23 ἐν = 14:20 εἰς.

26:34 ἐν = 14:30 omit.

26:50 ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν = 14:46 αὐτῷ.

26:64 ἐπί = 14:62 μετά.

8:28 δαιμονιζόμενοι = 5:2 ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ.

9:20 αἱμορῥοοῦσα = 5:25 οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος.

In 3:16 the change of ἐπί for εἰς is probably intentional. See note. In 4:18 εἰς is perhaps more natural than ἐν after βάλλοντας. In 13:7, 8 ἐπί is also more natural after the verb πίπτειν than εἰς. In 9:18 and 26:50 Mt. substitutes ἐπί with accusative for the dative after ἐπιτίθεσθαι τὴν χεῖρα; but he has the dative in 19:15 where Mk. has the accusative with ἐπί, so that the change is without significance. In 15:33 ἐν is perhaps easier than ἐπί. In 10:42 Mt. has εἰς ὅνομα for ἐν ὀνόματι; but the succeeding words are different, and the passages are not really parallel. For εἰς ὄνομα, cf. Matthew 10:41 (2) 18:20, 28:19. In 21:8 ἐν is easier than εἰς, and this is the case with ἐπί, 24:3, and ἐν, 10:17, 24:18. The substitution of ἐπί for ἐν, 24:30, and for μετά, 26:64, is due to desire to assimilate to Daniel 7:13 (LXX). And the participles in 8:28, 9:20 avoid Mk.’s curious use of ἐν.

ἐπί with different cases:

Matthew 9:16 ἐπὶ ἰματίῳ = Mark 2:22 ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον.

13:2 ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλόν = 4:1 ἐπὶτῆς γῆς.

14:14 ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς = 6:34 ἐπʼ αὐτούς.

14:19 ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου = 6:39 ἐπὶ τῷ χόρτῳ.

14:25 ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν = 6:48 ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης.

15:35 ἐπὶτὴν γῆν = 8:6 ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

10:18 ἐπὶ ἡγεμόνας = 13:9 ἐπὶ ἡγεμόνων.

Cf. 21:7 ἐπʼ αὐτῶν = 11:7 αὐτῷ.

21:7 ἐπάνω αὐτῶν = 11:7 ἐπʼ αὐτόν.

9:18 ἐπʼ αὐτήν = 5:23 αὐτῇ.

19:15 αὐτοῖς = 10:16 ἐπʼ αὐτά.

26:50 ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν = 14:46 αὐτῷ.

In 9:16 the dative is perhaps more natural after the weakened sense of ἐπιβάλλειν, which Mt. substitutes for Mk.’s ἐπιράπτειν, than the accusative.

In 13:2 cf. for the accusative after ἵστημι, Rev 12:18, Revelation 12:14:1, Revelation 12:15:2; but the genitive is found in Luke 6:17, Acts 21:40, Revelation 10:5, Revelation 10:8.

ἐπί with the dative after σπλαγχνίζεσθαι is found in Matthew 14:14 and Luke 7:13. Mk (6:34, 8:2 and 9:22) has the accusative, and so Matthew 15:32.

In 14:19 the verb is ἀνακλιθῆναι. After the similar verbs καθῆσθαι and καθίζειν, ἐπί frequently takes genitive or accusative. The dative only occurs in Revelation 7:10, Revelation 19:4, Revelation 21:5. Mt.’s substitution of genitive for dative is, therefore, not unnatural. Cf. his substitution of καθημένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦὌρους, 24:3, for Mk.’s καὶ καθημένου αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸὌρος, 13:3. For the latter, cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι.

In 14:25 Mt. substitutes the accusative for Mk.’s genitive and has the accusative in v. 29 but in v. 26 he retains Mk.’s genitive.1 Jn 6:19 has the genitive. The change of accusative for genitive in 10:18 is conditioned by the change of verb, ἀχθήσεσθε for σταθήσεσθε.

In 21:7 Mt. has ἐπʼ αὐτῶν for Mk.’s simple dative, but he has changed the verb from ἐπιβάλλειν to ἐπιτίθεσθαι. After this verb the usual constructions are the simple dative or ἐπί with accusative, but Mt. has the genitive again in 27:29. In the same verse Mt. has ἐπάνω αὐτῶν for ἐπʼ αὐτῶν. ἐπάνω occurs 8 times in Mt., only once, 14:5 = “more than,” in Mk.


Matthew 8:16 dative = Mark 1:32 πρός.

9:2 dative = 2:3 πρός.

17:17 dative = 9:19 πρός.

21:23 dative = 11:27 πρός.

22:23 dative = 12:18 πρός.

27:58 = 15:43 πρός.

In 8:16 and 9:2 Mt. substitutes προσφέρειν for Mk.’s φέρειν. προσφέρειν is a favourite word with him, and he always uses the simple dative of a person after it. In 17:17 the verb is φέρειν in Mt. and Mk. Mt. has the dative again in 14:18. Mk. uses the dative 7:32, 8:22, or πρός 1:32, 2:3, 9:19, 20, 11:7. In 21:23, 22:23 and 27:58. Mt. substitutes his favourite word προσέρχεσθαι, for ἔρχεσθαι, Mark 11:27, Mark 12:18, and εἰσέρχεσθαι, 15:43. The substitution of the dative for πρός is a natural consequence.

Other changes:

Matthew 12:4 μετʼ αὐτοῦ = Mark 2:26 σὐν αὐτῷ.

12:25 καθʼ ἑαυτῆς = 3:24 ἐφʼ ἑαυτήν.

12:25 καθʼ ἑαυτῆς = 3:25 ἐφʼ ἑαυτήν.

But Mt. retains ἐφʼ ἑαυτόν in v. 26.

13:19 ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν = 4:15 εἰς αὐτούς.

10:14 omit = 6:11 ὑποκάτω.

24:18 ὀπίσω = 13:16 εἰς τὰ ὀτίσω.

14:25 dative = 6:18 περί with accusative.

14:27 dative = 6:50 μετὰ αὐτῶν.

λαλεῖν μετά occurs only here in the Synoptic Gospels, 4 times

in Jn., 6 in Rev. But cf. Matthew 17:3 συνλαλοῦντες

μετʼ αὐτο͂υ = Mark 9:4 the dative.

15:29 παρά = Mark 7:31 εἰς.

16:7 ἐν ἑαυτοῖς = 8:16 πρὸς ἀλλήλους.

16:21 dative = 8:31 μετά with accusative.

17:23 dative = 9:31 μετά with accusative.

dative = Mark 10:34 μετά with accusative.

21:1 εἰς τὸὌρος = 11:1 πρὸς τὸὌρος.

21:25 ἐν ἑαυτοῖς = 11:31 πρὸς ἑαυτούς.

21:38 ἐν ἑαυτοῖς = 12:7 πρὸς ἑαυτούς.

26:28 περί = 14:24 ὑπέρ.

26:34 ἐν = 14:30 dative.

27:33 ἐλθόντες εἰς = 15:22 φέρουσιν—ἐπί.

27:46 περί = 15:34 dative.

27:60 dative = 15:46 ἐπί with accusative.

Many of these changes are without significance, but those in 3:16, 24:30, 26:64 are probably intentional, whilst those in 24:1, 13:7, 8, 19, 15:33, 21:8, 24:8, 10:17, 24:18, 8:28, 9:20, 9:16, 14:19 ease the construction. Those in 8:16, 9:2, 17:17, 21:23, 22:23 and 27:58 are to conform to Mt.’s usage elsewhere.

(g) Conjunctions.

Mk. three times has ὅταν with the indicative, viz. 3:11, 11:19, 25. Mt. avoids this construction. Cf. Mark 6:56 ὅπου ἂν εἰσπορεύετο, which Mt. omits. Cf. Revelation 14:4 ὅπου ἂν ὑπάγει (A C).

εἰ in a statement meaning “that not,” Mark 8:12, Mt. substitutes οὐ.

(h) Changes made in Mk.’s language are sometimes due to the fact that the editor has inserted similar sayings from another source in another part of his Gospel, and assimilates Mk.’s language to these similar passages.

E.g. Mark 4:25 = Matthew 13:12; but Mt adds καὶ περισσενθήσεται, to assimilate to 25:29.

Mark 8:12 has τί ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ζηπεῖ σημεῖον; ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν εἰ δοθήσεται τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ σημεῖον; but

Matthew 16:4 has γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλὶς σημεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ, to assimilate to 12:39.

Mark 8:35 has σώσει; but Matthew 16:25 has εὑρήσει, to assimilate to 10:39.

Mark 9:43 has ἐὰν σκανδαλίσῃ—ἀπόκοψον—σε—τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον; but Matthew 18:8 has εἰ σκανδαλίζει—ἔκκοψον—σοί, and adds καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ, to assimilate to 5:30, and has τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον, to assimilate to 25:41.

Mark 9:42 has καλόν ἐστιν εἰ; but Matthew 18:6 has συμφέρει—ἵνα, to assimilate to 5:30.

Mark 9:47 has ἐὰν—σκανδαλίζῃ—ἔκβαλε—σέ; but Matthew 18:9 has εἰ—σκανδαλίζει—ἔξελε—σοί, and adds καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ, to assimilate to 5:29, and τοῦ πυρός, to assimilate to 5:22.

Mark 10:11 = Matthew 19:9. Mt. adds (εἰ) μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, to assimilate to Matthew 5:32 παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας.

Mark 11:28 = Matthew 21:21. Mt. adds ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν, to assimilate to 17:20.

In 15:33-39 Mt. assimilates the language to 14:19-21.

(i) A few changes seem to be due to the desire to emphasise an antithesis, e.g.:

Matthew 15:2 διὰ τί οἱ μαθηταί σου παραβαίνουσιν.

15:3 διὰ τί καὶ ὑμεῖς παραβαίνετε.

15:4 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς εἶπεν τίμα.

15:5 ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε—οὐ μὴ τιμήσει.

19:8 Μωυσῆς—ἐτέτρεψεν.

19:9 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν.

6. More important, however, than changes in language, are alterations which seem due to an increasing feeling of reverence for the person of Christ. The second Evangelist had not scrupled to attribute to Him human emotion, and to describe Him as asking questions. Such statements are almost uniformly omitted by the editor of this Gospel.

E.g. he omits the following:

Mark 3:5 περιβλεψάεμενος αὐτοὺς μετʼ ὀργῆς συνλυπούμονος. Cf. the way in which Matthew 12:49 avoids περιβλεψάμενος of Mark 3:34.

1:41 σπλαγχνισθείς; but D a ff2 have ὀργισθείς.1

1:43 ἐμβριμησάμενος.

3:21 ἐξέστη.

6:6 ἐθαύμασεν.

8:12 ἀναστενάξας τωσͅ πνεύματι. S1 has: “He was excited in spirit”; Arm.“He was angry in His spirit.” Cf. Mt.’s omission of τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ from Mark 2:8.

10:14 ἠγανάκτησεν.

10:21 ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν.

14:33 Mt has λυπεῖσθαι for ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι.

He omits also clauses which seem to ascribe inability to Christ, or desire which was not fulfilled.

E.g. 1:45 ὥστε μηκέτι αὐτὸν δυνασθαι—εἰσελθεῖν.

6:5 οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἐκεῖ ποιῆσαι οὐδεμίαν δύναμιν. Matthew 13:58 substitutes οὐκ ἐποίησεν ἐκεῖ δυνάμεις πολλάς.

6:48 ἤθελεν παρελθεῖν αὐτούς. Mt. omits.

7:24 οὐδένα ἤθελεν γνῶναι καὶ οὐκ ἠδυνάσθη λαθεῖν. Mt. omits.

9:30 καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τις γνοῖ. Mt. omits.

14:58 καταλύσω. Matthew 26:61 δύναμαι καταλῦσαι.

In 11:18 Mk. describes the Lord as coming to a fig tree [εἰ ἄρα τι εὑρήσειἐν αὐτῇ καὶ ἐλθὼν] ἐπʼ αὐτὴν οὐδὲν εὗρεν εἰ μὴ φύλλα [ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς οὐκ ἦν σύκων]. Mt. omits the bracketed clauses, which might give rise to the question why Christ expected to find figs which did not exist, and that out of season.

The same feeling of reverence may have caused the following changes:

Mark 6:3 ὁ τέκτων. Matthew 13:55 ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός.

10:18 τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; Matthew 19:17 τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ

ICC New Testament commentary on selected books

Text Courtesy of Used by Permission.

Bible Hub
Top of Page
Top of Page