Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον

B F א have merely κατὰ Μάρκον. Others: τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον. Others: ἐκ τοῦ κ. Μ. ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου. Comp. on Matt. p. 45.

CHAPTER 1

Mark 1:2. The Recepta has ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, following A E F G** H K M P S U V Γ, min. Iren. and other Fathers and vss. Defended by Rinck on account of Matthew 3:3; placed by Lachm. in the margin. But Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have ἐν (ἐν τῷ, Lachm. Tisch.) Ἡσαΐᾳ (in Lachm. always with the spiritus lenis). τῷ προφήτῃ. So B D L Δ א, min. and many vss. and Fathers. Rightly; the Recepta was introduced because the quotation is from two prophets.

After ὁδόν σου Elz. has ἔμπροσθέν σου, from Matthew and Luke.

Mark 1:5. πάντες] which in Elz. Scholz, and Fritzsche stands after ἐβαπτίζοντο, is rightly placed by Griesb. Lachm. and Tisch. after Ἱεροσολ. (B D L Δ א, min. vss. Or. Eus.). if καὶ ἐβαπτ. πάντες had been the original arrangement and πάντες had been put back, it would, conformably to usage (πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία), have been placed before οἱ Ἱεροσολ. The Recepta is explained from the circumstance that πάντες was omitted (so still in min. and Brix.), and that it was then restored beside ἐβαπτίζοντο, because in Matthew 3:5 also Ἱεροσόλυμα stands alone.

Mark 1:10. ἀπό] So also Scholz. But Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἐκ, which also Griesb. approved of, following B D L Δ א, min. Goth.; ἀπό is from Matthew 3:16.

Mark 1:11. ἐν ᾧ] Lachm. Tisch. have ἐν σοί, following B D L P א, min. vss. The latter is right; ἐν ᾡ is from Matthew 3:17.

Mark 1:13. Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche have ἐκεῖ after ἦν. It is wanting in A B D L א, min. vss. Or.; it was, however, very easily passed over as superfluous (K. min. omit ἐν τ. ἐρ.) between ἦν and ἐν.

Mark 1:14. τῆς βασιλείας] is not found in B L א. min. vss. Or. It is regarded as suspicious by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It is an addition in accordance with what follows. Comp. Matthew 4:23.

Mark 1:16. περιπατῶν δέ] Lachm. and Tisch. read καὶ παράγων, which Griesb. also approved, following B D L א, min. Vulg. It. al. The Recepta is from Matthew 4:18, from which place also came subsequently αὐτοῦ, instead of which Σιμῶνος (Lachm.: τοῦ Σιμῶνος) is with Tisch. to be read, according to B L M א.

ἀμφιβάλλ.] Elz. has βάλλοντας, contrary to decisive evidence. From Matthew 4:18.

Mark 1:18. αὐτῶν] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B C L א, min. vss., to be deleted as a familiar addition, as also in Mark 1:31 αὐτῆς.

Mark 1:19. ἐκεῖθεν] is wanting in B D L, min. vss. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch., bracketed by Lachm. From Matthew 4:21.

Mark 1:21. The omission of εἰσελθών (Tisch.) is attested indeed by C L Δ א, min. Syr. Copt. Colb. Or. (twice), which assign various positions to ἐδιδ. (Tisch.: ἐδιδ. εἰς τ. συναγωγήν), but might easily be produced by a clerical error on occasion of the following εἰς, and it has the preponderance of the witnesses against it.

Mark 1:24. ἔα] is wanting in B D א*, min. Syr. Perss. Arr. Aeth. Copt. Vulg. It. Aug. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. The exclamation, which only occurs again in Luke 4:34, and is there more strongly attested, was the more easily introduced here from that place.

Mark 1:26. ἐξ αὐτοῦ] Lachm.: ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ, without preponderating testimony. From Luke 4:35.

Mark 1:27. Instead of πρὸς αὐτούς, read with Lachm., in accordance with decisive evidence, πρὸς ἑαυτούς. Tisch., following only B א, has merely αὐτούς.

τί ἐστι τοῦτο; τίς ἡ διδαχὴ ἡ καινὴ αὕτη; ὅτι κατʼ κ.τ.λ.] Lachm.: τί ἐστιν τοῦτο; διδαχὴ καινὴ· κατʼ κ.τ.λ. Just so Rinck and Tisch., who, however, connect διδ. καινὴ κατʼ ἐξουσ. together. The authority of this reading depends on B L Δ א, min.; it is to be preferred, since manifestly the original διδαχὴ καινὴ κατʼ ἐξουσίαν was conformed to the question in Luke, τίς ὁ λόγος αὕτος, ὅτι κ.τ.λ., and thus arose τίς ἡ διδαχὴ ἡ καινὴ αὕτη, ὅτι.

Mark 1:28. Instead of ἐξῆλθε δέ, preponderating attestation favours καὶ ἐξῆλθεν (Lachm. Tisch.).

After εὐθύς Tisch. has πανταχοῦ.[46] So B C L א** min. codd. It. Copt. Rightly so; the superfluous word, which might easily be regarded as inappropriate (א* min. omit εὐθύς also), dropped away.

Mark 1:31. εὐθέως] after πυρ. is wanting in B C L א, min. Copt. Arm.; and D, Vulg. Cant, have it before ἀφῆκεν. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. But it was easily omitted, since Matthew 8:15 and Luke 4:39 have not this defining word.

Mark 1:38. After ἄγωμεν, B C L א, 33, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Arr. Tisch. have ἀλλαχοῦ. To be adopted (comp. Bornem. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 127); being unnecessary and without corresponding element in Luke 4:43, it was very easily passed over; comp. on πανταχοῦ, Mark 1:28.

Instead of ἐξελήλυθα, B C L א, 33 have ἐξῆλθον, which Griesb. and Scholz have approved, and Tisch. has adopted. Rightly; the explanation of procession from the Father suggested the Johannine ἘΛΉΛΥΘΑ, which, moreover, Δ and min. actually read.

Mark 1:39. ΕἸς ΤᾺς ΔΥΝΑΓΩΓΆς] So also Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. on preponderant attestation. The Recepta ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς is an emendation.

Mark 1:40. καὶ γονυπετῶν αὐτόν] is wanting in B D G Γ, min. Cant. 1 :Verc. Colb. Germ. 1, Corb. 2. Deleted by Lachm.; omission through the homoeoteleuton. Had any addition been made from Matthew 8:2, Luke 5:12, another expression would have been used. Tisch. has deleted αὐτόν, but following only L א, min. vss.

Mark 1:41. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς] B D א, 102, Cant. Verc. Corb. 2 have merely καί. So Lachm. and Tisch. But comp. Matthew 8:3; Luke 5:13. From these passages comes also the omission of εἰπόντος αὐτοῦ, Mark 1:42, in B D L א, min. vss. Lachm. Tisch.

Mark 1:44. μηδέν] deleted by Lachm., following A L L Δ א, min. vss. Vict. Theophyl. The omission occurred in conformity with Matthew 8:4; Luke 5:14Mark 1:45. Elz. reads πανταχόθεν. But πάντοθεν is decisively attested.

[46] In the text of the Synops. of Tisch. it is omitted by mistake.

Mark 1:1-4. As our canonical Matthew has a superscription of his first section, so also has Mark. This, however, does not embrace merely Mark 1:1, but ὡς γέγραπται … τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ belongs also to the superscription, so that with Mark 1:4 the section itself (which goes on to Mark 1:8, according to Ewald to Mark 1:15) begins. It is decisive in favour of this view, that with it there is nothing either to be supplied or to be put in parenthesis, and that it is in the highest degree appropriate not only to the simplicity of the style, but also to the peculiar historical standpoint of the author, seeing that he places the beginning of the Gospel, i.e. the first announcement of the message of salvation as to the Messiah having appeared—leaving out of view all the preliminary history in which this announcement was already included—in strictness only at the emergence of the Baptist; but for this, on account of the special importance of this initial point (and see also the remarks on Mark 1:21-28), he even, contrary to his custom, elsewhere appends a prophetic utterance, in conformity with which that ἀρχή took place in such a way and not otherwise than is related in Mark 1:4 ff. Moreover, in accordance with this, since the history of that ἀρχή itself does not begin till Mark 1:4, the want of a particle with ἐγένετο, Mark 1:4, is quite in order. Comp. Matthew 1:2. If, with Fritzsche, Lachmann,[47] Hitzig, Holtzmann, we construe: ἈΡΧῊ … ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ ἸΩΆΝΝΗς ΒΑΠΤΊΖΩΝ, then Ὡς ΓΈΓΡΑΠΤΑΙ Κ.Τ.Λ. becomes a parenthetical clause, in which case the importance of the Scripture proof has not due justice done to it, and the structure of the sentence becomes too complicated and clumsy for the simplicity of what follows. If we take merely Mark 1:1 as the superscription either of the first section only with Kuinoel and others, or of the entire Gospel with Erasmus, Bengel, Paulus, de Wette, and others, then ὡς γέγραπται becomes protasis of ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ Κ.Τ.Λ., but thereby the citation, instead of being probative of the ἈΡΧΉ laid down by Mark, becomes a Scripture proof for the emergence of John in itself, and in that way loses its important bearing, seeing that this emergence in itself did not need any scriptural voucher at all, and would not have received any, in accordance with Mark’s abstinence from adducing Old Testament passages. Finally, if we supply after Mark 1:1 : ἦν, the beginning … was, as it stands written (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Vatablus, Maldonatus, Jansen, Grotius, and others), doubtless the want of the article with ἀρχή is not against this course (see Winer, p. 113 [E. T. 154]), nor yet the want of a ΓΆΡ with ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ—an asyndeton which would rather conduce to the lively impressiveness of the representation (comp. John 1:6); but it may well be urged that the supplying of ἮΝ is unnecessary, and even injurious to the vivid concrete representation. Moreover, in the very fact that Mark just commences his book with the emergence of the Baptist, there is ingenuously (without any purpose of contrast to other Gospels, without neutral tendency, or the like) exhibited the original type of the view which was taken of the Gospel history,—a type which again, after the terminus a quo had been extended in Matthew and Luke so as to embrace the preliminary histories, presents itself in John, inasmuch as the latter, after his general introduction and even in the course of it (Mark 1:6), makes his historical commencement with the emergence of the Baptist. Undoubtedly, traditions of the preliminary history were also known to Mark; in leaving them unnoticed he does not reject them, but still he does not find in them—lying as they do back in the gloom prior to the great all-significant epoch of the emergence of John—the ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγ.

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] See on Matthew 1:1. When the genitive with ΕὐΑΓΓ. is not a person, it is always genitive of the object, as εὐαγγ. τῆς βασιλείας, τῆς σωτηρίας κ.τ.λ. (Matthew 4:23; Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 6:15, al.). If Θεοῦ is associated therewith, it is the genitive of the subject (Mark 1:15; Romans 1:1; Romans 15:16, al.), as is the case also when μου stands with it (Romans 2:16; Romans 16:25; 1 Thessalonians 1:5, al.). But if Χριστοῦ is associated therewith (Romans 1:9; Romans 15:19; 1 Corinthians 9:12, al.), it may be either the genitive subjecti (auctoris) or the genitive objecti, a point which must be determined entirely by the context. In this case it decides (see Mark 1:2-8) in favour of the latter. Taken as genitive subjecti (Ewald: “how Christ began to preach the gospel of God”), τοῦ εὐαγγ. Ἰ. Χ. would have reference to Mark 1:14 f.; but in that case the non-originality of Mark 1:2-3 is presupposed.

ΥἹΟῦ Τ. ΘΕΟῦ] not as in Matthew 1:1, because Mark had primarily in his view Gentile-Christian readers;[48] see Introd. § 3. This designation of the Messiah is used in the believing consciousness of the metaphysical sonship of God (comp. on Matthew 3:17), and that in the Pauline and Petrine sense (see on Matt. p. 65 f.). The supernatural generation is by ΥἹΟῦ Τ. ΘΕΟῦ neither assumed (Hilgenfeld) nor excluded (Köstlin); even Mark 6:3 proves nothing.

ἘΝ ἩΣΑΐΑ] The following quotation combines Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. In this case, instead of all sorts of hypotheses (see them in Fritzsche), we must abide by the simple admission, that by a mistake of memory (of which, indeed, Porphyry made a bitter use, see Jerome, ad Matthew 3:3) Mark thought of the whole of the words as to be found in Isaiah,—a mistake which, considering the affinity of the contents of the two sayings, and the prevalence of their use and their interpretation, is all the more conceivable, as Isaiah was “copiosior et notior” (Bengel). A different judgment would have to be formed, if the passage of Isaiah stood first (see Surenhusius, καταλλ. p. 45). Matthew 27:9 was a similar error of memory. According to Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p. 664, Mark has ascribed the entire passage to Isaiah, because Isaiah is the auctor primarius, to whom Malachi is related only as auctor secundarius, as expositor. A process of reflection is thus imputed to the evangelist, in which, moreover, it would be sufficiently strange that he should not have placed first the utterance of the auctor primarius, which is held to be commented on by that of the minor prophet.

As to the two passages themselves, see on Matthew 3:3; Matthew 11:10. The essential agreement in form of the first citation with Matthew 11:10 cannot be used, in determining to which of the two evangelists the priority is due, as a means of proof (Anger and others, in favour of Matthew; Ritschl and others, in favour of Mark); it can only be used as a ground of confirmation, after a decision of this question has been otherwise arrived at. Just as little does the quotation form a proof for a primitive-Mark, in which, according to Holtzmann and others, it is alleged not to have held a place at all.

ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ] might be connected with βαπτίζων (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others), see Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 273 f.; Lobeck, ad Aj. 588; Kühner, II. p. 40. But the mention of the emergence of the Baptist is in keeping with the beginning of the history.[49] Hence: there appeared John, baptizing in the desert. Comp. John 1:6; 1 John 2:18; 2 Peter 2:1; Xen. Anab. iii. 4. 49, iv. 3. 29, al. Comp. ΠΑΡΑΓΊΝΕΤΑΙ, Matthew 3:1, and on Php 2:7. As to the desert (the well-known desert), see on Matthew 3:1.

ΒΆΠΤΙΣΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΊΑς] a baptism involving an obligation to repentance (see on Matthew 3:2), genitive of the characteristic quality.

εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτ.] Comp. Luke 3:3. The aim of this baptism, in order that men, prepared for the purpose by the μετάνοια, should receive forgiveness of sins from the Messiah. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus. This is not an addition derived from a later Christian view (de Wette, comp. Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 61), but neither is it to be taken in such a sense as that John’s baptism itself secured the forgiveness (Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 606; Ewald). This baptism could, through its reference to the Mediator of the forgiveness who was approaching (John 1:29; John 1:33; John 3:5; Acts 2:38), give to those, who allowed themselves to be baptized and thereby undertook the obligation to repentance, the certain prospect of the ἄφεσις which was to be received only through Christ—promising, but not imparting it. Matthew has not the words, the passing over of which betrays an exercise of reflection upon the difference between John’s and the Christian baptism.

[47] The conjecture of Lachmann (Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 84, and praefat. II. p. vi.), that vv. 2, 3 are a later interpolation, is critically quite unwarranted. According to Ewald and Weizsäcker, p. 105, ver. 2 f. is not from the hand of the first author, but is inserted by the second editor; in opposition to which, nevertheless, it is to be remarked that similar O. T. insertions, which might proceed from a second hand, are not found elsewhere in our Gospel. According to Holtzmann, p. 261, only the citation from Isaiah appeared in the primitive-Mark, and the evangelist further added the familiar passage of Malachi. In this way at all events,—as he allowed simply ἐν Ἡσαΐᾳ to stand,—he would have appropriated to Isaiah what belongs to Malachi; and the difficulty would remain unsolved. There is therefore no call for the appeal to the primitive-Mark.

[48] The absence of υἱοῦ τ. Θεοῦ in א, two min., and some Fathers (including Iren. and Or.) has not so much critical importance as to warrant the deletion of these words by Tischendorf (ed. maj. viii.). In his Synopsis, Tischendorf had still rightly preserved them. The omission of them has just as little dogmatical reason as the addition would have had. But ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγ, as in itself a complete idea, was taken together with the following ὡς γέγρ; and thence all the genitives, Ἰ. Χ. ὑ. τ. Θ., which could be dispensed with, were passed over the more readily by reason of the homoeoteleuta. So still in Ir. int. and Epiph. Others allowed at least Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ to remain, or restored these words Besides, υἱοῦ τ. Θεοῦ is precisely so characteristic of Mark’s Gospel in contradistinction to that of Matthew, that it could scarcely proceed from a transcriber, as, in fact, the very oldest vss. (and indeed all vss.) have read it; for which reason merely a sporadic diffusion is to be assigned to the reading without υἱοῦ τ. Θεοῦ.

[49] Ewald (comp. Hitzig) connects ἐγένετο with κηρύσσων, reading ὁ βαπτίζων in accordance with B L Δ א (comp. Mark 6:14), and omitting the subsequent καί with B, min. “John the Baptist was just preaching,” etc. The critical witnesses for these readings are not the same, and not sufficiently strong; there has evidently been an alteration in accordance with Matthew 3:1. Tischendorf has rightly reverted to the Recepta.

Mark 1:5-8. See on Matthew 3:4-5; Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:7 ff. Matthew enters more into detail on John the Baptist; Mark has several particulars in a form more original.

πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδ. κ.τ.λ.] Ἰουδ. is an adjective (see on John 3:22), and χώρα is in contrast to the metropolis (see on John 11:54 f.), the whole Judaean region, and the people of Jerusalem collectively. In πᾶσα and πάντες there is a popular hyperbole.

Mark 1:6. Instead of ἐσθίων, we must write, with Tischendorf, ἔσθων.[50]

Mark 1:7. ἔρχεται] present: “ut Christum intelligas jam fuisse in via,” Beza.

κύψας] belongs to the graphic character of Mark, whose delineation is here certainly more original than that of Matthew.

ἘΝ ΠΝΕΎΜ. ἉΓΊῼ] The fire, which Matthew (and Luke also) has in the connection of his more comprehensive narrative, is not yet mentioned here, and thus there is wanting a characteristic point, which, nevertheless, appears not to be original. Comp. John 1:33 (in opposition to Ewald, Köstlin, Holtzmann, and others). It would not have been “abrupt” (Holtzmann) even in Mark.

[50] See on this poetical form, which occurs also in the LXX. and Apocrypha, Duncan, Lex., ed. Rost, p. 457; Winer, p. 79 [E. T. 105]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 51 [E. T. 58]. Also at Mark 12:40, Luke 7:33 f., Luke 10:7, Luke 22:30, this form is to be read.

Mark 1:9-11. See on Matthew 3:13-17; Luke 3:21 f.

εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην] Conception of immersion. Not so elsewhere in the N. T.

εὐθύς] usual form in Mark; we must, with Tischendorf, read it here also. It belongs to ἀναβ.: immediately (after He was baptized) coming up. A hyperbaton (Fritzsche refers εὐθ. to εἶδε) just as little occurs here as at Matthew 3:16.

εἶδε] Jesus, to whom also ἐπʼ αὐτόν refers (see on Matt. l.c.). Mark harmonizes with Matthew (in opposition to Strauss, Weisse, de Wette), who gives a further development of the history of the baptism, but whose ἀνεῴχθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ οὐρ. presents itself in Mark under a more directly definite form. In opposition to the context, Erasmus, Beza, Heumann, Ebrard, and others hold that John is the subject.

σχιζομένους, conveying a more vivid sensuous impression than Matthew and Luke.

Lange’s poetically naturalizing process of explaining (L. J. II. 1, p. 182 ff.) the phenomena at the baptism of Jesus is pure fancy when confronted with the clearness and simplicity of the text. He transforms the voice into the sense of God on Christ’s part; with which all the chords of His life, even of His life of hearing, had sounded in unison, and the voice had communicated itself sympathetically to John also. The dove which John saw is held to have been the hovering of a mysterious splendour, namely, a now manifested adjustment of the life of Christ with the higher world of light; the stars withal came forth in the dark blue sky, festally wreathing the earth (the opened heaven). All the more jejune is the naturalizing of Schenkel: that at the Jordan for the first time the divine destiny of Jesus dawned before His soul like a silver gleam from above, etc. See, moreover, the Remark subjoined to Matthew 3:17.

Mark 1:12-13. See on Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1 ff.

ἐκβάλλει] He drives, urges Him forth; more graphic than the ἀνήχθη of Matthew and the ἤγετο of Luke 4:1. The sense of force and urgency is implied also in Matthew 9:38. Observe the frequent use of the vividly realizing praesens historicus.

And He was there (ἐκεῖ, see the critical remarks) in the desert (whither the Spirit had driven Him), i.e. in that region of the desert, during forty days, being tempted by Satan,—a manifest difference of Mark (comp. also Luke) from Matthew, with whom it is not till after forty days that the temptations begin. Evasive interpretations are to be found in Krabbe, Ebrard, and others.

καὶ ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων] and He was with the wild beasts. This is usually[51] taken as merely a graphic picture (according to de Wette: “a marvellous contrast” to the angels) of the awful solitude (Virg. Aen. iii. 646, and see Wetstein in loc.); but how remote would such a poetic representation be from the simple narrative! No, according to Mark, Jesus is to be conceived as really surrounded by the wild beasts of the desert. He is threatened in a twofold manner; Satan tempts Him, and the wild beasts encompass Him. The typical reference, according to which Christ is held to appear as the renewer of Paradise (Genesis 1:26; Usteri in the Stud. u. Krit. 1834, p. 789; Gfrörer, Olshausen, comp. Bengel, and also Baur, Evang. pp. 540, 564; Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 126; Schenkel, Holtzmann), is not indicated by anything in the text, and is foreign to it. The desert and the forty days remind us of Moses (Exodus 24:18; Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:9; Deuteronomy 9:18), not of Adam.

οἱ ἄγγελοι] The article denotes the category.

ΔΙΗΚΌΝΟΥΝ ΑὐΤῷ] There is no occasion at all, from the connection in Mark, to understand this of the ministering with food, as in Matthew; nor does the expression presuppose the representation of Matthew (Weiss). On the contrary, we must simply abide by the view that, according to Mark, is meant the help which gives protection against Satan and the wild beasts. There is in this respect also a difference from Matthew, that in the latter Gospel the angels do not appear until after the termination of the temptations.

The narrative of Christ’s temptation (regarding it, see on Matthew 4:11, Remark) appears in Mark in its oldest, almost still germinal, form. It is remarkable, indeed, that in the further development of the evangelic history (in Matthew and Luke) the wonderful element ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων (which, according to Hilgenfeld, merely serves to colour and embellish the meagre extract), should have remained unnoticed. But the entire interest attached itself to Satan and to his anti-Messianic agency. The brevity[52] with which Mark relates the temptation, and which quite corresponds[53] to the still undeveloped summary beginning of the tradition, is alleged by Baur to proceed from the circumstance that with Mark the matter still lay outside of the historical sphere. Against this we may decisively urge the very fact that he narrates it at all, and places the ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγ. earlier. Comp. Köstlin, p. 322.

[51] So also von Engelhardt (de Jesu Christi tentatione, Dorp. 1858, p. 5).

[52] For the idea that κ. οἱ ἀγγ. διηκ. αὐτῷ. is only the closing sentence of an originally longer narration (Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. 163) is fanciful. Only the short, compact account is in harmony with all that surrounds it. Weisse supposes that something has dropped out also after ver. 5 or 6, and after ver. 8.

[53] How awkwardly Mark would here have epitomized, if he had worked as an epitomizer! How, in particular, would he have left unnoticed the rich moral contents of the narrative in Matthew and Luke! Schleiermacher and de Wette reproach him with doing so. Comp. also Bleek.

Mark 1:14 f. See on Matthew 4:12; Matthew 4:17; Luke 4:14 f.

εἰς τ. Γαλιλ.] in order to be more secure than in the place where John had laboured; according to Ewald: “He might not allow the work of the Baptist to fall to pieces.” But this would not furnish a motive for His appearing precisely in Galilee. See Weizsäcker, p. 333. In Matthew also the matter is conceived of as ἀναχώρησις.

κηρύσσων] present participle with ἦλθεν. See Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. vii. 14, p. 81; Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 17; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 116 C.

τὸ εὐαγγ. τοῦ Θεοῦ] See on Mark 1:1.

ὅτι] recitative.

ὁ καιρός] the period, namely, which was to last until the setting up of the Messiah’s kingdom, ὁ καιρὸς οὗτος, Mark 10:30. It is conceived of as a measure. See on Galatians 4:4.

πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγ.] Believe on the gospel. As to πιστ. with ἐν, see on Galatians 3:26; Ephesians 1:13; frequently in the LXX. The object of faith is conceived as that in which the faith is fixed and based. Fritzsche takes ἐν as instrumental: “per evangelium ad fidem adducimini.” This is to be rejected, since the object of the faith would be wanting, and since τὸ εὐαγγ. is just the news itself, which Jesus gave in πεπλήρωται κ.τ.λ.

Mark 1:16-20. See on Matthew 4:18-22 (Luke 5:1 ff.). The narrative of Mark has the brevity and vividness of an original. Observe, however, how, according to all the evangelists, Jesus begins His work not with working miracles, but with teaching and collecting disciples.[54] This does not exclude the assumption that miracles essentially belonged to His daily work, and were even from the very beginning associated with His teaching, Mark 1:21 ff.

παράγων (see the critical remarks), as He passed along by the sea. This as well as ἀμφιβάλλ. ἐν τ. θαγ. (casting around) is part of the peculiar vividness of representation that Mark loves.

Mark 1:19. καὶ αὐτούς] et ipsos in nave, likewise in the ship. It does not belong to καταρτίζοντας (the usual view, in which there is assumed an imperfect comparison, which contemplates only the fishers’ occupation generally, comp. on Matthew 15:3), but merely to ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ, so that καταρτ. κ.τ.λ. then subjoins a further circumstance. The former explanation in the sense assigned to it would only be possible, if ἀμφιβάλλ., in Mark 1:16, and καταρτ. were included under one more general idea.

Mark 1:20. μετὰ τ. μισθωτ.] peculiar to Mark. Any special purpose for this accuracy of detail is not apparent. It is an arbitrary supposition that it is intended to explain how the sons might leave their father without undutifulness (Paulus, Kuinoel, de Wette, Bleek, and others), in reference to which de Wette charges Mark with taking away from their resolution its nobleness.[55] It may, moreover, be inferred, that Zebedee carried on his business not altogether on a small scale, and perhaps was not without means. Comp. Mark 16:1; Luke 8:3; John 19:27; Only no comparison with the “poverty of Peter” (Hilgenfeld) is to be imported.

[54] Comp. Weizsäcker, p. 364. But the teaching begins with the announcement of the kingdom, which has as its presupposition the Messianic self-consciousness (Weizsäcker, p. 425). Without reason Schenkel maintains, p. 370, that Jesus could not at all have regarded Himself at the beginning of His work as the Messiah. He might do so, without sharing the political Messianic hopes. See Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 250 f.; Keim, Geschichtl. Chr. p. 44 f. But the view which makes the beginning of the teaching and miracle-working even precede the baptism (Schleiermacher) has absolutely no foundation in the N. T., not even in the history of the marriage feast at Cana. Nor yet can it be maintained, with Keim (p. 84), that the conviction of being the Messiah gained strength in Jesus gradually from His first emergence up to the decisiveness, which first makes itself manifest at Matthew 11, where He announces the present kingdom, no longer merely that which is approaching. For the approaching kingdom is throughout—only according to a relative conception of time—from the beginning onward to Luke 21:31 to be taken in an eschatological reference; and it presupposes, therefore, a Messianic self-certainty in the Son of man, who with this announcement takes up the preaching of the Baptist.

[55] With greater truth, because more naturally, it might be said that that trait places in so much stronger a light the resignation of those who were called, seeing that they forsook a business so successfully prosecuted. Comp. Ewald, p. 192. We may more surely affirm that it is just a mere feature of the detailed description peculiar to Mark. Comp. Weiss, l.c. p. 652.

Mark 1:21. εἰσπορεύονται] Jesus and His four disciples. According to Mark, they go away from the lake to Capernaum, not from Nazareth (thus Victor Antiochenus, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, and others, following Luke), and not away from the mount (according to Matthew 8:5). Matthew and Luke have differently restored the right historical sequence, the absence of which was felt in the abrupt report of Mark, Mark 1:21. They thus found here something of the ἔνια, which the fragment of Papias pronounced to be wanting in τάξις (see on Matt. Introd. p. 42 f.).

εὐθέως τοῖς σάββ.] i.e. immediately on the next Sabbath, not: on the several Sabbaths (Euthymius Zigabenus, Wolf, and many others), which is forbidden by εὐθέως. σάββατα, as in Mark 2:23; Matthew 12:1; Luke 4:6; Colossians 2:16.

ἐδίδασκε] What, Mark does not say, for he is more concerned with the powerful impression, with the marvellous deed of the teaching, the general tenor of which, we may add, Mark 1:14 f. does not leave in any doubt. This synagogue-discourse has nothing to do with the sermon on the Mount, as if it were intended to occupy the place of the latter (Hilgenfeld).

Mark 1:21-28. Comp. Luke 4:31-37, who in substance follows Mark; in opposition to the converse opinion of Baur, see especially Weiss, p. 653. Matthew, freely selecting, has not the history, but has, on the other hand, the more striking casting out of demons contained in Mark 5:1 ff. Mark lays special stress on these healings.

It is only with Mark 1:21 that Mark’s peculiar mode of handling his materials begins,—the more detailed and graphic treatment, which presents a very marked contrast to the brevity of outline in the annalistic record of all that goes before. Perhaps up to this point he has followed an old documentary writing of this character; and if this comprised also in its contents Mark 1:1-3, the introduction of the Bible quotation in Mark 1:2-3, contrary to the usual custom of Mark elsewhere, is the more easily explained. And the fact that now for the first time an independent elaboration begins, is explained from the circumstance that precisely at this point Peter entered into the service of the Lord—from which point of time therefore begins what Peter in his doctrinal discourses had communicated of the doings and sayings of Christ, and Mark had heard and recorded (fragment of Papias).

Mark 1:22. Comp. Matthew 7:28 f., where the notice of Mark is reproduced unaltered, but placed after the sermon on the Mount; and Luke 4:32, where the second part of the observation is generalized and divested of the contrast. It is very far-fetched, however, in Hilgenfeld, who in Mark 1:22 sees a sure indication of dependence on Matthew, to find in the fact, that Mark already here makes Capernaum appear as the scene of the ministry of Jesus just as in Mark 1:29, the Petrine character of the Gospel. See, on the other hand, Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 56 ff.

As to ἦν διδάσκ. and ὡς ἐξουσ. ἔχων, see on Matthew 7:28 f.

Mark 1:23 f. Ἐν πνεύμ. ἀκαθάρτῳ] to be connected closely with ἄνθρωπος: a man in the power of an unclean spirit. See on ἐν Matthiae, p. 1141. Comp. Mark 5:2; 2 Corinthians 12:2; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 84 [E. T. 96]. As to the demoniacs, see on Matthew 4:24; and as to the miracles of Jesus in general, see on Matthew 8:4.

ἀνέκραξε] he cried aloud (see Winer, de verbor. cum praepos. compos. usu, III. p. 7), namely, the man, who, however, speaks in the person of the demon. Comp. Matthew 8:29, where also, as here, the demon immediately discerns the Messiah.

ἡμᾶς] me and those like to me. “Communem inter se causam habent daemonia,” Bengel.

ἀπολέσαι] by relegation to Hades, like βασανίσαι in Matt. l.c.

ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ] the hallowed One of God (John 10:36) κατʼ ἐξοχήν (see Origen and Victor Antiochenus in Possini Catena), a characteristic designation of the Messiah, which here proceeds from the consciousness of the unholy demoniac nature (Luke 4:34; Acts 4:27; Revelation 3:7; John 6:69). In a lower sense priests and prophets were ἅγιοι τοῦ θεοῦ. See Knapp, Opusc. I. p. 33 f. The demon does not name Him thus as κολακεύων αὐτόν (Euthymius Zigabenus, and before him Tertullian), but rather by way of giving to His ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς the impress of hopeless certainty.

Mark 1:25 f. Αὐτῷ] to the demon, who had spoken out of the man.[56]

The demon, before he goes forth, once more gives vent to his whole fury on the man by tearing (σπαράξαν) him. Comp. Mark 9:26; Luke 9:42.

[56] To refer φιμώθητι, with Strauss, II. p. 21, following older expositors, merely to the demon’s declaration of the Messiahship of Jesus, is, in view of the general character of the word, arbitrary. It is the command of the victor in general: Be silent and go out! Strauss appeals to i. 34, iii. 12. But these prohibitions refer to the time after the going out.

Mark 1:27. Πρὸς ἐαυτούς] is equivalent to πρὸς ἀλλήλους (Luke 4:36). The reason why the reflexive is used, is the conception of the contradistinction to others (they discussed among one another, not with Jesus and His disciples). See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 20. Fritzsche explains: apud animum suum. But συζητεῖν stands opposed to this, designating as it does action in common, Mark 9:10, Mark 12:28; Luke 20:23; Luke 24:15, al.; so also in the classics.

τί ἐστι τοῦτο;] a natural demand in astonishment at what had happened for more precise information as to the circumstances of the case.

In what follows we must read: διδαχὴ καινὴ κατʼ ἐξουσίαν· καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις … αὐτῷ! See the critical remarks. They give vent by way of exclamation to what has thrown them into such astonishment and is so incomprehensible to them, and do so in the unperiodic mode of expression that is appropriate to excited feeling: a doctrine new in power! and He commands the unclean spirits, etc.! They marvel at these two marked points, as they have just perceived them in Jesus. Lachmann attaches κατʼ ἐξουσίαν to καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι κ.τ.λ. But this is manifestly opposed to the connection, according to which κατʼ ἐξουσίαν looks back to the foregoing ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων. This applies also in opposition to Ewald, who reads διδαχῇ καινῇ: “with new teaching He powerfully commands even the devils.” A confused identification of the teaching with the impression of the miraculous action is here groundlessly discovered by Baur,[57] and used as a proof of dependence on Luke 4:36. Even with the Recepta ὅτι the two elements of the exclamation would be very definitely correlative to the two elements of the ministry of Jesus in the synagogue respectively.

κατʼ ἐξουσίαν] defines the reference of καινή: new in respect to power, which has never yet occurred thus with the impress of higher authorization.

[57] Who holds that Mark has not been able to enter into Luke’s mode of view, but has kept to the διδαχή of Jesus in the sense of Matthew, without himself rightly understanding in what relation the καινὴ διδαχή stood to the ἐπιτάσσειν κ.τ.λ. Baur, Markusevang. p. 11; comp. theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 69 f. See, on the other hand, Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 128.

Mark 1:28. Εἰς ὅλην τ. περίχ. τ. Γαλιλ.] not merely therefore into Galilee itself, but also into the whole region that surrounds Galilee. Comp. Luke 3:3; Luke 8:37. This wide diffusion, the expression of which is still further strengthened by πανταχοῦ (see the critical remarks), is not at variance with the εὐθύς (Köstlin finds in the word “a mistaken fashion of exaggeration”), which is to be estimated in accordance with the lively popular mode of expression. Criticism becomes confused by the stress laid on such points.

πανταχοῦ] with the verb of motion, as is often the case among the Greeks: every-whither. Comp. on ἀλλαχοῦ, Mark 1:38.

It is to be observed, we may add, that this first miracle, which Mark and Luke relate, is not designated by them as the first. Hence there is no inconsistency with John 2:11 (in opposition to Strauss).

Mark 1:29 ff. See on Matthew 8:14 f.

ἐξελθόντες] Jesus, Peter and Andrew. James and John are thereupon specially named as accompanying.

The short narrative is condensed, animated, graphic,[58] not subjected to elaboration, against which view the mention of Andrew, whom Matthew and Luke omit as a secondary person, cannot well be urged. Comp. Weiss, p. 654.

[58] In this point of view the sickness is denoted by the words κατέκειτο πυρέσσ. as severe enough not to allow the event to be treated as a simple soothing of the over-excited nervous system (Schenkel). Mere psychological soothings of this kind would simply stand in utter disproportion to the sensation produced by Jesus as a worker of miracles.

Mark 1:29-39. In connection and narrative, Luke 4:38-44 is parallel. But compare also Matthew 8:14-17, which proceeds by way of abridgment.

Mark 1:32 f. Ὀψίας … ἥλιος] an exact specification of time (comp. Matthew and Luke) for the purpose of indicating that the close of the Sabbath had occurred. “Judaeos religio tenebat, quominus ante exitum sabbati aegrotos suos afferrent,” Wetstein, and, earlier, Victor Antiochenus.

πρὸς αὐτόν] presupposes that before the evening He has returned again to His own dwelling (Mark 2:1; Mark 2:15). It is not Peter’s house that is meant.

πάντας τοὺς κ.τ.λ.] all whom they had.

Here and at Mark 1:34, as also at Matthew 8:16, the naturally sick are distinguished from the demoniacs; comp. Mark 3:15.

ἡ πόλις ὅλη] comp. Matthew 3:5. So also in the classical writers (Thuc. vii. 82.1; Soph. O. R. 179); comp. Nägelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 103.

Mark 1:34. πολλοὺς … πολλά] therefore not all, which, nevertheless, does not presuppose attempts that were without result. It was already late, and in various cases, moreover, the conditions of healing might be wanting.

ἤφιε] as in Mark 11:16. Imperfect, from the form ἀφίω, with the augment on the preposition; see Winer, p. 74 [E. T. 97].

λαλεῖν … ὅτι] He allowed them not to speak, enjoined on them silence, because they knew Him. They would otherwise, had they been allowed to speak, have said that He was the Messiah. Kuinoel, Bleek, and others erroneously take it as if the expression was λέγειν … ὄτι. The two verbs (comp. on John 8:43; Romans 3:19) are never interchanged in the N. T., not even in such passages as Romans 15:18; 2 Corinthians 11:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; hence “to say that” is never expressed by λαλεῖν, ὅτι.

As to the reason of the prohibition, see on Mark 5:43 and Matthew 8:4.

Mark 1:35-39. Luke 4:42-44 is less characteristic and more generalized.

ἔννυχον λίαν] when it was still very dark. ἔννυχον is the accusative neuter of the definition of time, as σήμερον, αὔριον, νέον, etc. The word itself is often found also in classical writers, but not this adverbial use of the accusative neuter (3Ma 5:5; see, however, Grimm in loc.). Comp. ἐννυχώτερον, Aesop, Fab. 79. The plural form ἔννυχα (in Lachmann and Tischendorf, following B C D L א, min.) is, however, decisively attested, although likewise without sanction from Greek usage;[59] in Soph. Aj. 930, πάννυχα is adjective.

ἘΞῆΛΘΕ] out of his house, Mark 1:29. Comp. Mark 2:1.

ΚΑΤΕΔΊΩΞΑΝ] only occurring here in the N. T., more significant than the simple form, expressive of the following up till they reached Him; Thuc. ii. 84. 3; Polyb. vi. 42. 1; Sir 27:17; Psalm 22:18.

καὶ οἱ μετʼ αὐτοῦ] Andrew, John, and James, Mark 1:29. Under this expression is already implied the conception of the historical prominent position of Peter. But such an expression does not betray any special Petrine tendency of the Gospel.

πάντες] puts Jesus in mind of the multitude of yesterday, Mark 1:32; Mark 1:34.

ἈΛΛΑΧΟῦ] with a verb of direction, comp. Mark 1:28 and on Matthew 2:22. The following ΕἸς ΤᾺς ἘΧΟΜ. ΚΩΜΟΠ., into the nearest (Herod. i. 134; Xen. Anab. i. 8, iv. 9; Joseph. Antt. xi. 8. 6, and frequently; comp. Acts 13:44; Acts 21:26) villages, is a more precise definition of ἀλλαχοῦ. See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. iv. 23, v. 35, and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 127; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 22.

κωμοπόλεις] villages, only used here in the N. T., but see the passages in Wetstein.

εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐξῆλθον] for that (namely, to preach abroad also) is the object for which I have left the house, Mark 1:35. Schenkel invents here quite a different connection. In opposition to the context, others understand ἐξῆλθον of having come forth from the Father. So Euthymius Zigabenus, Maldonatus, Grotius, Bengel, Lange, and others; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius. A harmonizing with Luke 4:43.

[59] Hesychius has the adverb νύχα, equivalent to νύκτωρ.

Mark 1:39. Κηρύσσων εἰς τὰς συναγωγ. αὐτῶν κ.τ.λ.] There is the conception of direction in εἰς: announcing (the Gospel) into their synagogues. He is conceived of as coming before the assembly in the synagogue and speaking to them. Comp. the well-known modes of expression: ἐς τὸν δῆμον εἰπεῖν, Thuc. v. 45, εἰς τὴν στρατίαν εἰπεῖν, Xen. Anab. v. 6. 37; John 8:26, ταῦτα λέγω εἰς τὸν κόσμον. Comp. Mark 14:10; Romans 16:26. The following εἰς ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν specifies the geographical field, into which the κηρύσσειν εἰς τὰς συναγωγ. αὐτ. extended. Comp. Mark 13:10; Luke 24:47. We may add that this tour is not invented by Mark as a happier substitute for the Gadarene journey of Matthew 8, as Hilgenfeld assumes it to be, which is a vagary in the interest of antagonism to the independence of Mark. Holtzmann appropriately observes that Mark 1:35-39 is one of the most telling passages in favour of Mark’s originality.

Mark 1:40-45. Comp. on Matthew 8:2-4, where this history follows immediately after the sermon on the Mount, and that in a shorter, more comprehensive form in accordance with Mark. In Luke (Mark 5:12 ff.) the narrative of the draught of fishes is previously inserted.

γονυπετῶν αὐτόν] see on Matthew 17:14.

Mark 1:41.[60] ΣΠΛΑΓΧΝΙΣΘ.] subordinated to the participle ἘΚΤΕΊΝΑς; see Winer, p. 308 [E. T. 433]; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 249.

Mark 1:42. ἀπῆλθεν ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ] so also Luke. But he has omitted the following Κ. ἘΚΑΘΑΡ., to which Matthew has adhered.

Mark 1:43. ἘΜΒΡΙΜΗΣΆΜ. ΑὐΤῷ after He had been angry at him, wrathfully addressed him (comp. Mark 14:5, and on Matthew 9:30). We are to conceive of a vehement begone now! away hence! With this is connected also the forcible ἐξέβαλεν. Observe the peculiar way in which Mark depicts how Jesus with very earnest zeal desired and urged the departure of the man that was healed. Moreover, the statement that the cure took place in a house (ἐξέβαλεν) is peculiar to Mark, who in the entire narrative is very original and cannot be following the colourless narrative of Luke (Bleek). It is true that, according to Leviticus 13:46, comp. Numbers 5:2, lepers were forbidden to enter into a house belonging to other people (see Ewald in loc., and Alterth. p. 180); but the impulse towards Jesus and His aid caused the sick man to break through the barrier of the law, whence, moreover, may be explained the hurried and vehement deportment of Jesus.

Mark 1:44. As to the prohibition, see on Matthew 8:4, and on Mark 5:43.

The prefixing of σεαυτόν (thyself) is in keeping with the emotion, with which the withdrawal of the person is required.

περὶ τοῦ καθαρ. σου on account of thy cleansing, i.e. in order to become Levitically clean.

Mark 1:45. Comp. Luke 5:15 f. Mark has peculiar matter.

ἐξελθών] from the house. Comp. Mark 1:43.

ἬΡΞΑΤΟ] ΕὐΓΝΏΜΩΝ ὪΝ Ὁ ΛΕΠΡῸς, ΟὐΚ ἨΝΈΣΧΕΤΟ ΣΙΓῇ ΚΑΛΎΨΑΙ ΤῊΝ ΕὐΕΡΓΕΣΊΑΝ, Euthymius Zigabenus. The beginning of this breach of the imposed silence is made prominent.

τὸν λόγον] Euthymius Zigabenus: ὋΝ ΕἼΡΗΚΕΝ ΑὐΤῷ Ὁ ΧΡΙΣΤῸς, ΔΗΛΑΔῊ ΤῸ ΘΈΛΩ, ΚΑΘΑΡΊΣΘΗΤΙ. So also Fritzsche. But Mark, in order to be intelligible, must have led men to this by a more precise designation pointing back to it. It is the story, i.e. the narrative of the occurrence (Luther appropriately has the history), not: the matter (so usually; even de Wette and Bleek), which λόγος in the N. T. never directly means (not even at Mark 2:2, Mark 8:32; Luke 1:4; Acts 10:36); as, indeed, also in classical writers (see Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. p. 277) it never absolutely means the matter in itself, but the point spoken of, the state of things that is under discussion, or the like. As to the distinction between λόγος and ΦΉΜΗ, see Bremi, ad Isocr. Paneg. p. 32.

μηκέτι] no longer, as He could hitherto.

ΔΎΝΑΣΘΑΙ] moral possibility, if, namely, He would not occasion any tumult.

ΚΑΊ] not: and yet (Kuinoel, de Wette, Bleek, and others), but the simple and. Instead of going publicly into the city, He was outside in solitary places, and people came to Him from all quarters. A simple account of what was connected with His sojourn in the solitude; He did not withdraw from this concourse, but He would not excite any sensation in the city.

[60] If the leper had come to Jesus when he was already substantially healed, as Schenkel in spite of ver. 45 thinks probable, what charlatanry would the Lord have been practising at ver. 41 f.! And yet, even according to Schenkel (p. 373), Mark is assumed to have had the narrative from the mouth of Peter.