Meyer's NT Commentary
Mark 14:2. δέ] B C* D L א, vss. have γάρ. So Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is from Matthew 26:5.
Mark 14:3. καί before συντρ. is, with Tisch., following B L א, Copt., to be deleted. A connective addition.
τὸ ἀλάβ.] Fritzsche, Lachm. read τὸν ἀλάβ., which is attested by A D E F H K S U V X Γ, min. Tisch., following B C L Δ א**, has τὴν ἀλάβ., and this is to be preferred. The ignorance of the transcribers brought in τό and τόν.
κατά] is wanting in B C L Δ א, min. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A supplement, instead of which D has ἐπί.
Mark 14:4. καὶ λέγοντες] is with Tisch., in accordance with B C* L א, Copt., to be deleted. It is a gloss after Matthew, instead of which D reads καὶ ἔλεγον.
Mark 14:5. τὸ μύρον] is wanting in Elz., but is decisively attested. The omission is explained from Matthew 26:9 (where τοῦτο alone is genuine). The preponderance of evidence forbids the supposition that it is an interpolation from John 12:5. D, min. have it before τοῦτο, and in א τοῦτο is wanting.
Mark 14:6. Instead of ἐν ἐμοί Elz. has εἰς ἐμέ, in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from Matthew.
Mark 14:8. αὓτη] is only wanting, indeed, in B L א, min. Copt. Syr. utr. (bracketed by Lachm.), but is rightly deleted by Tisch. It is an addition, which is not found till after ἐποίησεν in Δ. Comp. Matthew 26:12.
Mark 14:9. After ἀμήν very considerable evidence supports δέ, which Lachm. has bracketed, Tisch. has adopted. It is to be adopted; the omission occurred conformably to the usual expression of Mark, in accordance with Matthew 26:13.
τοῦτο] is wanting in B D L א, min. Cant. Verc. Vind. Corb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. It is from Matthew 26:13.
Mark 14:14. After κατάλυμα Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. (in brackets) Tisch. read μου, following B C D L Δ א, min. Sax. Vulg. It. (not all the codices). As μου has this strong attestation and yet is superfluous, and as it does not occur at Luke 22:11, it is to be held as genuine.
Mark 14:15. The form ἀνάγαιον (Elz.: ἀνώγεον) is decisively attested.
Before ἐκεῖ is to be read with Tisch. καί, in accordance with B C D L א, 346, vss. It dropped out in accordance with Luke 22:12.
Mark 14:19. καὶ ἄλλως· μήτι ἐγώ] is wanting in B C L P Δ א, min. vss., including Syr., utr. Vulg. After the example of earlier editors, suspected by Griesb., rejected by Schulz, struck out by Fritzsche and Tisch. But the omission might just as easily have been brought about by means of the preceding μήτι ἐγώ as by reason of the startling and even offensive superfluousness of the words, which, moreover, are not found in Matthew, whereas no reason for their being added can at all be conceived of without arbitrary hypotheses.
After λάβετε, Mark 14:22, Elz. has φἀγετε, in opposition to decisive evidence. From Matthew.
Mark 14:23. The article before ποτήριον (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) has in this place even stronger evidence against it than in Matthew 26:27, and is, as there, to be struck out.
Mark 14:24. τὸ τῆς] This τό is, as in Matthew 26:28, to be deleted on considerable evidence with Tisch. (Lachm. has bracketed it).
καινῆς] is wanting in B C D L א, Copt. Cant. Deleted by Tisch., and rightly, as also at Matthew 26:28.
περί] B C D L Δ א, min.: ὑπέρ. So Lachm. and Tisch. Περί is from Matthew, from whom also codd. and vss. have added εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτ.
Mark 14:27. ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ] So Elz. and the editors, except Fritzsche and Tisch., read after σκανδαλ. Yet Mill and Griesb. condemned the words. They are decisively to be rejected as an addition from Matthew 26:31, as they are wholly wanting in preponderant witnesses, while others merely omit ἐν ἐμοί, and others still ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ. Lachm. has the latter in brackets.
διασκορπισθήσεται is an emendation (comp. on Matthew 26:31), instead of which, with Lachm. and Tisch., διασκορπισθήσονται is to be read, and that with Tisch., after πρόβατα (B C D L א, min.).
Mark 14:29. καὶ εἰ] Fritzsche, Tisch. read εἰ καί. Either is appropriate, and with the evidence divided no decision can be arrived at, even if εἰ καί was introduced in Matthew.
Mark 14:30. σύ after ὁτι is wanting in Elz., in opposition to decisive evidence.
ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ] B C D L א, min. Lachm. Tisch. have ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί. Rightly; if this order of words were from Matthew 26:34, the ἐν also would not be left out in it.
In what follows τρίς με ἀπ. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be written. The received order is from Matthew.
Mark 14:31. ἐκ περισσοῦ] B C D א, min. have ἐκπερισσῶς. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the unusual word was partly exchanged for the simple περισσῶς (L, min.), partly glossed by ἐκ περισσοῦ.
ἔλεγε] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐλάλει, following B D L א. The Recepta is a correction. Comp. on Mark 11:23.
μᾶλλον] is wanting in B C D L א, vss., including Vulg., It. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A gloss on ἐκ περισσοῦ; hence min. have it also before these words (comp. Mark 7:36), and this course Fritzsche has followed.
Mark 14:35. As at Matthew 26:39, so here also προσελθών is strongly attested, but it is to be rejected.
Mark 14:36. τὸ ποτήρ. ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ τοῦτο] D, Hil.: τοῦτο τ. π. ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ; K M: ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ τ. π. τ.; A B C G L U X Δ א, min. Or. vss., including Vulg.: τ. π. τοῦτο ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ. In this variety of readings the last is so preponderantly attested that it is, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., to be adopted.
Mark 14:40. ὑποστρέψας] Lachm. has πάλιν ἐλθών, following B L א, Copt. Pers. w. Ar. p. (D and cod. It. have merely ἐλθών). πάλιν ἐλθών is the more to be preferred, seeing that Mark is fond of the word πάλιν, and that he nowhere has the word ὑποστρέφω. But transcribers referred and joined the πάλιν to εὗρ. αὐτοὺς καθεύδ., in accordance with which ἐλθών then became glossed and supplanted by ὑποστρέψ. Accordingly the subsequent πάλιν, which by Elz. Scholz, Tisch. is read after αὐτούς, and is not found in B D L א, min. vss., is, with Lachm., to be deleted.
Instead of καταβαρυνόμενοι, Elz. Scholz have βεβαρημένοι, in opposition to preponderant evidence. It is from Matthew.
Mark 14:41. Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have τὸ λοιπόν. But the article has come in from Matthew, in opposition to considerable evidence.
Mark 14:43. After Ἰούδας Fritzsche has Ἰσκαριώτης, Lachm. and Tisch. ὁ Ἰσκαρ.; and this addition, sometimes with, sometimes without the article, is found in witnesses of weight (but not in B א). Rightly; the omission is explained from the parallels.
ὤν] after εἷς has against it such decisive evidence that it cannot be maintained by means of the parallels, nor even by Mark 14:10. It is to be deleted, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.
πολύς] is wanting in B L א, min. vss. Condemned by Rinck, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. From Matthew.
Mark 14:45. Lachm. only reads ῥαββί once, following B C* D L M Δ א, min. vss., including Vulg., codd. It. But this reading is from Matthew 26:49, whence also χαῖρε has intruded into codd. and vss.
Mark 14:46. ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τ. χεῖρας αὐτῶν] Many various readings, of which Lachm. has τ. χεῖρας ἐπʼ αὐτ.; Tisch.: τ. χεῖρας αὐτῷ. The latter is attested by B D L א** min. vss., and is to be preferred as the less usual (see on Acts 12:1, the exegetical remarks), which was altered in accordance with Matthew 26:50.
Mark 14:47. τις] has, it is true, important evidence against it; but, as being superfluous, and, moreover, as not occurring in Matthew 26:51, it might have been so easily passed over, that it may not be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch.
Instead of ὠτίον read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B D א, 1, ὠτάριον. The former is from Matthew.
Mark 14:48. The form ἐξήλθατε (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested.
Mark 14:51. εἷς τις νεανίσκ.] Lachm. Tisch. read νεανίσκ. τις, following B C L א, Copt. Syr. It. Vulg. (D: νεανίσκ. δέ τις, without καί). The Recepta is to be maintained; νεανίσλος τις is the most prevalent mode of expression.
Instead of ἠκολούθει, read, in accordance with B C L א, συνηκολούθει (so Lachm. and Tisch.). The current simple form has crept in also at 37.
οἱ νεανίσκοι] is wanting in B C* D L Δ א, Syr. Arr. Pers. Copt. It. Vulg. Theophylact, Rightly condemned by Griesb. (but see his Comm. crit. p. 179) and Rinck, deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. It came in by means of the gloss τὸν νεανίσκον, which was written in the margin beside αὐτόν, as Slav, still renders τὸν νεανίσκον instead of αὐτὸν οἱ νεανίσκοι. The τὸν νεανίσκον written in the margin was easily changed into οἱ νεανίσκοι, since the absence of a fitting subject for κρατοῦσιν might be felt.
Mark 14:52. ἀπʼ αὐτῶν] bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch., has considerable testimony against it; yet, as being quite superfluous, it was more easily passed over than added.
Mark 14:53. αὐτῷ after συνέρχ. is wanting in D L Δ א, Vulg. It. Or. Deleted by Tisch. An omission from misunderstanding.
Mark 14:65. ἔβαλλον] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἔλαβον on decisive evidence. ἔλαβον not being understood, was variously altered.
Mark 14:67. Ἰησοῦ ἦσθα] B C L א have ἦσθε τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. So Lachm. and Tisch. D Δ, min. vss., including Vulg. and codd. It., have τοῦ Ἰησ. before τοῦ Ναζ. The latter is in accordance with the usual mode of expression, and with Matthew 26:69. ἦσθα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ is to be adopted; this τοῦ Ἰησοῦ following was omitted (so still in min., Fritzsche), and was then variously restored.
Mark 14:68. οὐκ … οὐδέ] Lachm. has οὔτε … οὔτε, following B D L א, Eus. So now Tisch. also; and rightly. See Matthew.
τί σὺ λέγεις] Lachm. and Tisch. have σὺ τί λέγεις, following B C L Δ א, min. Rightly; σὺ was omitted (so still in D, Vulg. It.), and then was restored at the place that first presented itself after τί.
καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε] is wanting, indeed, in B L א, Copt. Colb. (bracketed by Lachm.); but the omission is manifestly caused by comparison with Matthew.
Mark 14:70. καὶ ἡ λαλία σου ὁμοιάζει] So Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche, after Γαλιλ. εἶ. But the words are wanting in B C D L א, min. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. codd. It. Eus. Aug. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpolation from Matthew 26:73, in accordance with the very old reading in that place (D, codd. It.), ὁμοιάζει. If the words were genuine, they would hardly have been passed over, containing, as they do, so familiar and noteworthy a particular of the history; the appeal to the homoeoteleuton is not sufficient.
Mark 14:71. Instead of ὀμνύειν (comp. Matthew), ὀμνύναι is sufficiently vouched for by B E H L S U V X Γ, min.
Mark 14:72. εὐθέως after καί is wanting in Elz., but it is attested by B D G L א (which, with L, has not ἐκ δευτ.), min. Syr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. codd. It. Eus., and adopted by Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Nevertheless it was far easier for it to be introduced from Matthew 26:74 than for it, with its prevalent use and appropriateness, to be omitted. Hence, on the important evidence for its omission (including A C), it is, with Tisch., to be struck out.
Instead of τὸ ῥῆμα ὅ, the Recepta has τοῦ ῥήματος οὗ, in opposition to decisive witnesses, among which, however, A B C L Δ א, min. Copt. Sahid. read τὸ ῥῆμα ὡς. Lachm. and Tisch. have the latter; and with this preponderant attestation, it is to be regarded as original (followed also by Luke 22:61).
After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.Mark 14:1-2. See on Matthew 26:2-5. Comp. Luke 22:1-2. Including this short introduction of simple historical tenor (in which Luke follows him), Mark is, in the entire narrative of the passion, generally more original, fresh, and free from later additions and amplifications of tradition than Matthew (comp. Weiss, 1861, p. 52 ff.), although the latter again is the more original in various details.
τὸ πάσχα κ. τὰ ἄζυμα] the Passover and the unleavened (חמצות), i.e. the feast of the Passover and (which it likewise is) of the unleavened. Comp. 3 Esdr. Mark 1:19 : ἠγάγοσαν … τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν τῶν ἀζύμων. On τὰ ἄζυμα as a designation of the feast, comp. 3 Esdr. Mark 1:10 : ἔχοντες τὰ ἄζυμα κατὰ τὰς φυλάς.
ἔλεγον γάρ] This γάρ (see the critical remarks) informs us of the reason of the ἐζήτουν πῶς previously said; for the feast was in their way, so that they could not at once proceed, but believed that they must let it first go quietly by, so that no tumult might occur. Victor Antiochenus remarks: τὴν μὲν ἑορτὴν ὑπερθέσθαι βούλονται· οὐ συγχωροῦντο δὲ, ἐπειδὴ τὴν προφητείαν ἔδει πληροῦσθαι τὴν ἐν τῇ νομικῇ διατυπώσει, ἐν ᾗ τὸ πάσχα ἐδύετο, μηνὶ πρώτῳ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ· ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ τῷ μηνὶ καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τὸ ἀληθινὸν πάσχα ἔδει θυτῆναι. A view right in itself; not, however, according to the Synoptic, but according to the Johannine account of the day of the death of Jesus.
ἔσται] shall be, certainty of what was otherwise to be expected. Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 140.
But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.
And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.Mark 14:3-9. See on Matthew 26:6-13. Comp. John 12:1-8, who also has the peculiar expression πιστικῆς, either directly from Mark, or from the form of tradition from which Mark also adopted it. Luke has at Mark 7:36 ff. a history of an anointing, but a different one.
μύρου νάρδου] On the costliness of this, see Pliny, H. N. xiii. 2.
πιστικῆς] See on this word, Fritzsche in loc. and in the Hall. Lit. Z. 1840, p. 179 ff.; Lücke on John 12:3; Winer, p. 89 [E. T. 121]; Wichelhaus, Leidensgesch. p. 74 f.; Stephani Thes., ed. Hase, VI. p. 1117. πιστικός, in demonstrable usage, means nothing else than (1) convincing, persuading (Xen. Cyrop. i. 6. 10 : πιστικωτέρους … λόγους, Plato, Gorg. p. 455 A: ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐστι … πιστικὸς μόνον), thus being equivalent to πειστικός; (2) faithful, trustworthy (Artemidorus, Oneir. ii. 32, p. 121: γυνὴ πιστικὴ καὶ οἰκουρός, comp. πιστικῶς, Plut. Pel. 8; Scymn. orb. descr. 42), thus equivalent to πιστός. The latter signification is here to be maintained: nard, on which one can rely, i.e. unadulterated genuine nard, as Eusebius, Demonstr. ev. 9, calls the gospel the εὐφροσύνη τοῦ πιστικοῦ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης κράματος (where the contextual reference to the drinking lies not in πιστικοῦ, but in κράματος). The opposite is “pseudonardus” (Plin. H. N. xii. 12. 26), with which the genuine nard was often adulterated (comp. also Dioscor. mat. med. i. 6 f.). This is the explanation already given by Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus (both of whom, however, add that a special kind of nard may also be intended), and most of the older and more recent commentators (Lücke is not decided). But Eritzsche (following Casaubon, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, Maldonatus, and others of the older expositors quoted by Wolf, who deduce it from πίνω) derives it from πιπίσκω, and explains it as nardus potabilis. Certainly anointing oils, and especially oil of spikenard, were drunk mingled with wine (Athen. xv. p. 689; Lucian, Nigrin. 31; Juvenal, Sat. vi. 303; Hirtius, de bell. Hisp. 33. 5; Plin. H. N. xiv. 19. 5; and see in general, Hermann, Privatalterth. § 26. 8, 9); but the actual usus loquendi stands decidedly opposed to this view, for according to it πιστός doubtless (Aesch. Prom. 478; Lobeck, Technol. p. 131) has the signification of drinkable, but not πιστικός, even apart from the facts that the context does not point to this quality, and that it is asserted not of the ointment, but of the nard (the plant). The usus loquendi, moreover, is decisive against all other explanations, such as that of the Vulgate (comp. Castalio, Hammond, Grotius, Wetstein, Rosenmüller): spicati; and that of Scaliger: pounded nard (equivalent to πιστκῆς), from πτίσσω, although this etymology in itself would be possible (Lobeck, Paralip. p. 31). Others have derived πιστικῆς from the proper name of some unknown place (Pistic nard), as did Augustine; but this was a cutting of the knot.
πολυτελοῦς] belongs to ΜΎΡΟΥ, not to ΝΆΡΔΟΥ, which has its epithet already, and see Mark 14:5. Comp. Matthew 26:7.
ΣΥΝΤΡΊΨΑΣΑ] neither: she rubbed it and poured, etc. (Kypke), nor: she shook the vessel (Knatchbull, Hammond, Wakefield, Silv. crit. V. p. 57), but: she broke it (Sir 21:14; Bar 6:17; Dem. 845, 18; Xen., et al.), namely, the narrow (Plin. H. N. ix. 35) neck of the vessel, for she had destined the entire contents for Jesus, nothing to be reserved.
τὴν ἀλάβ.] ἈΛΆΒΑΣΤΡΟς occurs in all the three genders, and the codices vary accordingly. See the critical remarks.
ΑὐΤΟῦ Τῆς ΚΕΦΑΛῆς] (see the critical remarks) on him upon the head, without the preposition usual in other cases (Plato, Rep. iii. p. 397 E), κατά before Τῆς ΚΕΦΑΛῆς (Plato, Leg. vii. p. 814 D; Herod, iv. 62).
Mark 14:4. But there were some, who grumbled to one another (uttered grumblings to one another). πρὸς ἐαυτ., as at Mark 11:31, Mark 10:26, al. What they murmured, is contained in what follows, without καὶ λέγοντες. Comp. the use of ΘΑΥΜΆΖΕΙΝ, mirabundum quaerere, in Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 511 f.
Mark 14:5. ἐνεβριμ. αὐτῇ] they were angry at her. Comp. Mark 1:43.
Mark 14:7. καὶ ὅταν θέλητε κ.τ.λ.] certainly an amplifying addition of tradition, found neither in Matthew nor in John.
Mark 14:8. What she was able (to do) she has done; the greatest work of love which was possible to her, she has done. Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 30: διὰ τὸ μηδὲν ἔχειν, ὅ τι ποιῇς.
ΠΡΟΈΛΑΒΕ Κ.Τ.Λ.] Beforehand she hath anointed my body on behalf of embalming (in order thereby to embalm it). A classical writer would have said προλαβοῦσα ἐμίρισε (Xen. Cyr. i. 2.3; Thuc. iii. 3; Dem. 44, 3, al.). Passages with the infinitive from Josephus may be seen in Kypke, I. 192. We may add that the expression in Mark already betrays the explanatory tradition.
Mark 14:9. εἰς ὅλον τ. κόσμον] as in Mark 1:39. The relation to ὍΠΟΥ is as at Matthew 26:13.
 Holtzmann, p. 95, attributes to this episode the significant purpose of introducing the attitude of the betrayer, whose psychological crisis had now set in, in making advances to meet the Sanhedrim. But this could only be the case, if Mark and Matthew had named Judas as the murmurer. Now Mark has τινές in general, and Matthew designates οἱ μαθηταί as the murmurers. John is the first to name Judas.
 Mark having retained the Latin word, but having given to it another form. See also Estius, Annot. p. 892.—Several codd. of the It., too, have the translation spicati; others: pistici, Verc.: optimi.
 Still the possibility of its being the adjective of a local name may not be called in question. In fact, the Scholiast, Aesch. Pers. 1, expressly says: τάδε μὲν Περσῶν πιστὰ καλεῖται … πόλις ἐστι Περσῶν Πίστενρα καλουμένη, ἥν συγκόψας ὁ ποιητὴς Πίστα ἔφη. Lobeck, Pathol. p. 282, remarks on this: “Somnium hoc est, sed nititur observatione licentiae popularis, qua nomina peregrina varie et multipliciter interpolantur.” On the taking of it as a local designation depends the translation pistici, which the Vulgate also, along with codd. of It., has in John 12:3, although in the present passage it gives spicati.
And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.
Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.
And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.Mark 14:10-11. See on Matthew 26:14-16. Comp. Luke 22:3-6.
εἶς τῶν δώδεκα] has a tragic stress.
And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.
And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?Mark 14:12-16. See on Matthew 26:17-19. Comp. Luke 22:7-13. The marvellous character of the ordering of the repast, which is not as yet found in Matthew with his simple πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα, points in Mark and Luke to a later form of the tradition (in opposition to Ewald, Weiss, Holtzmann, and others), as Bleek also assumes. Comp. Matthew 26:18. This form may easily, under the influence of the conception of our Lord’s prophetic character (comp. Mark 11:2 f.), have originated through the circumstance, that the two disciples met the servant of the δεῖνα, to whom Jesus sent them, in the street with a pitcher of water. Assuredly original, however, is the sending of only two disciples in Mark, whom thereupon Luke 22:8 names.
ὅτε τ. πάσχα ἔθυον] on which day they killed the paschal lamb (Exodus 12:21; Deuteronomy 16:2; Deuteronomy 3 Esdr. Mark 1:1, Mark 7:12), which occurred on the 14th Nisan in the afternoon. See on Matthew 26:17.
Mark 14:13. ἄνθρωπος] The connection (see Mark 14:14) shows that the man in question was a slave; his occupation was the carrying of water, Deuteronomy 29:10; Joshua 9:21; Wetstein in loc.
κεράμιον ὕδατος] an earthen vessel with water. Comp. ἀλάβαστρον μύρου, Mark 14:3. “The water pitcher reminds one of the beginning of a meal, for which the hands are washed,” Ewald.
Mark 14:14. τὸ κατάλυμά μου] the lodging destined for me, in which (ὅπου) I, etc. The word ΚΑΤΆΛ., lodging, quarters, is bad Greek, Thom. M. p. 501. But see Pollux, i. 73, and Eustathius, ad Od. iv. 146, 33, Rom.
Mark 14:15. αὐτός] He himself, the master of the house. On the form ἀνάγαιον instead of ἈΝΏΓΑΙΟΝ (Xen. Anab. v. 4. 29), which is preserved in the old lexicographers, see Fritzsche in loc.; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 12 [E. T. 13]. In signification it is equivalent to ὑπερῷον, עֲלִיָה, upper chamber, used as a place of prayer and of assembling together. Comp. on Mark 2:3, and see on Acts 1:13.
The attributes which follow are thus to be distributed: he will show you a large upper chamber spread, i.e. laid with carpets, in readiness.
ἐτοιμάσ. ἡμῖν] arrange for us, make preparation for us. Comp. Luke 9:52.
 Neither here nor elsewhere have the Synoptics expressed themselves ambiguously as to the day of the Last Supper. See Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 96 ff. (in opposition to Aberle in the theol. Quartalschr. IV. p. 548 ff.).
And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.
And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.
And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.Mark 14:17-25. See on Matthew 26:20-29. Comp. Luke 22:14-23.
μετὰ τῶν δώδεκα] Those two are to be conceived as having returned after the preparation.
Mark 14:18 f. ὁ ἐσθίων μετʼ ἐμοῦ] not said for the purpose of making known the fact, but the expression of deeply painful emotion.
εἷς καθεῖς] man by man. See on this expression of late Greek, wherein the preposition is adverbial, Wetstein in loc.; Winer, p. 223 [E. T. 312]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 27 [E. T. 30].
καὶ ἄλλος] an inaccuracy of expression, as though there had been previously said not εἷς καθεῖς, but merely εἷς. Mark in particular might be led into this inaccuracy by his graphic manner.
Mark 14:20. ὁ ἐμβαπτ.] not at this moment, and so not a definite designation of the traitor (as Bleek will have it), for after Mark 14:19 it is certain that the eating was not immediately proceeded with (comp. on Matthew 26:23); but neither is it generally: “qui mecum vesci consuevit,” Beza; but, like ὁ ἐσθίων μετʼ ἐμοῦ, Mark 14:18, referring generally to this meal, and withal more precisely indicating the traitor to this extent, that he was one of those who reclined nearest to Jesus, and who ate with Him out of the same dish. According to Lange, indeed, the hand of Judas made a “movement playing the hypocrite,” and met the hand of the Lord, while the latter was still in the dish, in order with apparent ingenuousness to receive the morsel. A harmonistic play of fancy, whereof nothing appears in the text.
Mark 14:24. εἶπεν] namely, while they drank, not before the drinking. A deviation from Matthew and Luke, but not inappropriate, as Jesus gives the explanation not afterwards (in opposition to de Wette), but at the time of the drinking (ἐστί). A very immaterial difference, to be explained not from Mark’s mere love for alteration (de Wette), but from a diversity of the tradition, in respect to which, however, the greater simplicity and independence on the form of the ecclesiastical observance, which mark the narrative in Mark, tell in favour of its originality (in opposition to Baur).
ΤῸ ΑἿΜΆ ΜΟΥ Τῆς ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗς] my covenant-blood, as Matthew 26:28. The definition, “the new covenant,” came in later; as also “for the forgiveness of sins” is a more precise specification from a further stage of development. Comp. on Matthew 26:28. And the direction, “Do this in remembrance of me,” is first added in Paul (twice over) and in Luke. See on 1 Corinthians 11:24.
 Comp. also Rückert, Abendm. p. 72.
 But observe how the idea of reconciliation is already in the case of Mark implied in the simple ὑπὲρ πολλῶν. Even Baur (neut. Theol. p. 102) acknowledges this, but thinks that these very words contain a later modification of the narrative.
And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.
And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?
And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.
The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.Mark 14:26-31. See on Matthew 26:30-35.
Mark 14:29. καί εἰ] even if. On the difference between this and εἰ καί (which here occurs as a various reading), see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519 f.
ἀλλʼ] in the apodosis of a connecting sentence, at certe; see Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 341 f.; Klotz, p. 93.
Mark 14:30. σύ] has the emphasis of the contrast with ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐγώ.
σήμερον ταύτῃ νυκτί] (see the critical remarks) impassioned climax: to-day, in this night. As to πρὶν ἤ, see on Matthew 1:18.
δίς] a later form assumed by the utterance than in Matthew. Comp. Mark 14:68; Mark 14:72. Even John 13:38 has it not. There was no occasion for a later simplification (Weiss), if the characteristic δίς was there from the first.
Mark 14:31. ἐκπερισσῶς ἐλάλει] (see the critical remarks): but he was speaking exceedingly much. Observe the difference between this ἐλάλει and the subsequent ἔλεγον (comp. on Mark 1:34 he latter is the simple, definite saying; the former, with ἐκπερισσῶς, is in keeping with the passionate nature of Peter not even yet silenced by Mark 14:30. The word ἐκπερισσ. is not preserved elsewhere.
ἀπαρνήσομαι] οὐ μή, with the future (see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 410 ff.), denotes the right sure expectation. Comp. on Matthew 26:35.
And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.
But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.
But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.
And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.
But he spake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. Likewise also said they all.
And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray.Mark 14:32-42. Comp. on Matthew 26:36-46. Comp. Luke 22:40-46.
Mark 14:33. ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι] used in this place of the anguish (otherwise at Mark 9:15). The word occurs in the N. T. only in Mark, who uses strongly graphic language. Comp. Mark 16:5-6. Matthew, with more psychological suitableness, has λυπεῖσθαι.
ἕως θανάτου] See on Matthew 26:38, and comp. Sir 37:2; Clem. 1 Corinthians 4 : ζῆλος ἐποίησεν Ἰωσὴφ μέχρι θανάτου διωχθῆναι, Test. XII. Patr. p. 520.
παρέλθῃ ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ] Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 527: ηὔξατο … ἵνα παρέλθῃ ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ ἡ ὀργὴ κυρίου.
ἡ ὥρα] the hour κατʼ ἐξοχήν, hora fatalis. It passes over from the man, when the latter is spared from undergoing its destiny.
Mark 14:36. Ἀββᾶ] אֵבָּא; so spoke Jesus in prayer to His Father. This mode of address assumed among the Greek-speaking Christians the nature of a proper name, and the fervour of the feeling of childship added, moreover, the appellative address ὁ πατήρ,—a juxtaposition, which gradually became so hallowed by usage that here Mark even places it in the very mouth of Jesus, which is an involuntary Hysteron proteron. The usual view, that ὁ πατήρ is an addition by way of interpreting, is quite out of place in the fervent address of prayer. See on Romans 8:15. Against the objections of Fritzsche, see on Galatians 4:6.
παρένεγκε] carry away past. Hahn was wrong, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 209 f, in deducing from the passage (and from Luke 22:24) that Jesus had been tempted by His σάρξ. Every temptation came to Him from without. But in this place He gives utterance only to His purely human feeling, and that with unconditional subordination to God, whereby there is exhibited even in that very feeling His μὴ γνῶναι ἁμαρτίαν, which is incompatible with incitements to sin from His own σάρξ.
ἀλλʼ οὐ] The following interrogative τί shows how the utterance emotionally broken off is here to be completed. Hence somewhat in this way: but there comes not into question, not: ἀλλʼ οὐ γενέσθω.
Mark 14:41. καθεύδετε λοιπὸν κ.τ.λ.] as at Matthew 26:45, painful irony: sleep on now, and take your rest! Hardly has Jesus thus spoken when He sees Judas approach with his band (Mark 14:42-43). Then His mood of painful irony breaks off, and with urgent earnestness He now goes on in hasty, unconnected exclamations: there is enough (of sleep)! the hour is come! see, the Son of man is delivered into the hands of sinners! arise, let us go (to meet this decisive crisis)! see, my betrayer is at hand! It is only this view of ἀπέχει, according to which it refers to the sleep of the disciples, that corresponds to the immediate connection with what goes before (καθεύδετε κ.τ.λ.) and follows; and how natural is the change of mood, occasioned by the approaching betrayers! All the more original is the representation. Comp. Erasmus, Bengel (“suas jam peractas habet sopor vices; nunc alia res est”), Kuinoel, Ewald, Bleek. Hence it is not: there is enough of watching (Hammond, Fritzsche). The usus loquendi of ἀπέχει, sufficit (Vulgate), depends on the passages, which certainly are only few and late, but certain, (pseudo-) Anacreon, xxviii. 33; Cyrill. in Hagg. ii. 9, even although the gloss of Hesychius: ἀπέχει, ἀπόχρη, ἐξαρκεῖ, is critically very uncertain. Others interpret at variance with linguistic usage: abest, sc. anxictas mea (see Heumann, Thiess), or the betrayer (Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 103 f.); ἀπέχειν, in fact, does not mean the being removed in itself, but denotes the distance (Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 5; Polyb. i. 19. 5; 2Ma 11:5; 2Ma 12:29). Lange also is linguistically wrong in rendering: “it is all over with it,” it will do no longer. The comparison of οὐδὲν ἀπέχει, nothing stands in the way,—in which, in fact, ἀπέχει, is not intransitive, but active,—is altogether irrelevant.
 See Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 506. He would leave ἀπέχει without any idea to complete it, and that in the sense: it is accomplished, it is the time of fulfilment, the end is come, just as Grotius, ad Matthew 26:45 (peractum est), and as the codex Brixiensis has, adest finis, while D and min. add to ἀπέχει: τὸ τέλος. The view deserves consideration. Still the usual it is enough is more in keeping with the empirical use, as it is preserved in the two passages of Anacreon and Cyril; moreover, it gives rise to a doubt in the matter, that Jesus should have spoken a word equivalent to the τετέλεσται of John 19:30 even now, when the consummation was only just beginning.
And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy;
And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.
And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.
And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?
Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.
And again he went away, and prayed, and spake the same words.
And when he returned, he found them asleep again, (for their eyes were heavy,) neither wist they what to answer him.
And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand.
And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.Mark 14:43-52. See on Matthew 26:47-56. Comp. Luke 22:47-53. The brief, vivid, terse narrative, especially as regards the blow of the sword and the young man that fled (which are alleged by Wilke to be interpolated), testifies to its originality.
δεδώκει] without augment. See Winer, p. 67 f. [E. T. 84 f.].
σύσσημον] a concerted signal, belongs to the later Greek. See Wetstein and Kypke, Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 196.
ἀσφαλῶς] securely, so that He cannot escape. Comp. Acts 16:23.
Mark 14:45. ῥαββὶ, ῥαββί] The betrayer himself is under excitement.
Mark 14:49. ἀλλʼ ἵνα κ.τ.λ.] sc.: ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν ἐξήλθατε κ.τ.λ., Mark 14:48. Comp. John 9:3; John 1:8; John 13:18.
Mark 14:50. It would have been more exact to name the subject (the disciples).
Mark 14:51 f. συνηκολούθει αὐτῷ] (see the critical remarks): he followed Him along with, was included among those who accompanied Jesus in the garden.
σινδόνα] a garment like a shirt, made of cotton cloth or of linen (see Bast, ep. crit. p. 180), in which people slept. “Atque ita hic juvenis lecto exsilierat,” Grotius.
ἐπὶ γυμνοῦ] not to be supplemented by σώματος, but a neuter substantive. Comp. τὰ γυμνά, the nakedness, and see in general Kühner, II. p. 118.
If οἱ νεανίσκοι were genuine, it would not have to be explained as the soldiers (Casaubon, Grotius, de Wette), since the context makes no mention of such, but generally: the young people, who were to be found in the ὄχλος, Mark 14:43.
Who the young man was, is not to be defined more precisely than as: an adherent of Jesus, but not one of the Twelve. The latter point follows not from Mark 14:50 (for this young man also, in fact, had fled), but from the designation εἷς τις νεανίσκ. in itself, as well as from the fact that he already had on the night-dress, and therefore had not been in the company at the table. There was no justification, therefore, for guessing at John (Ambrose, Chrysostom, Gregory, Moral, Mark 14:23), while others have even concluded from the one garment that it was James the Just, the brother of the Lord (Epiphanius, Haer. lxxxvii. 13, as also in Theophylact). There are other precarious hypotheses, such as: a youth from the house where Jesus had eaten the Passover (Victor Antiochenus and Theophylact), or from a neighbouring farm (Grotius), or Mark himself (Olshausen, Bisping). The latter is assumed also by Lange, who calls him a “premature Joseph of Arimathea;” and likewise by Lichtenstein, who, by a series of combinations, identifies the evangelist with a son of the master of the house where the Passover took place. Casaubon aptly remarks: “quis fuerit hic juvenis quaerere curiosum est et vanum, quando inveniri to τὸ ζητούμενον non potest.” Probably Mark himself did not know his name.
It must be left undetermined, too, whence (possibly from Peter?) he learned this little episode, which was probably passed over by Matthew and Luke only on account of its unimportance.
ΓΥΜΝΌς;] “pudorem vicit timor in magno periculo,” Bengel.
 Not possibly Saul (the subsequent Apostle Paul), who had run after Him from curiosity, as Ewald, Gesch. der apost. Zeit. p. 339, conjectures.
 According to Baur, only a piquant addition of Mark; according to Hilgenfeld, it is connected with Mark’s conception of a more extended circle of disciples (Mark 2:14?).
And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.
And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him.
And they laid their hands on him, and took him.
And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?
I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.
And they all forsook him, and fled.
And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.Mark 14:53-54. See on Matthew 26:57 f. Comp. Luke 22:54 f.
τρὸς τ. ἀρχιερ.] i.e. Caiaphas, not Annas, as appears from Matthew.
συνέρχονται αὐτῷ] is usually explained: they come together to Him (the high priest), in which case the dative is either taken as that of the direction (Fritzsche), or is made to depend upon συν: with him, i.e. at his house, they assemble. But always in the N. T. (Luke 23:55; Acts 1:21; Acts 9:39, al.), even in John 11:33, συνέρχεσθαί τινι means: to come with any one, una cum aliquo venire (comp. Winer, p. 193 [E. T. 269]); and αὐτῷ, in accordance with the following ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, is most naturally to be referred to Jesus. Hence: and there came with Him all the chief priests, i.e. at the same time, as Jesus is led in, there come also all the chief priests, etc., who, namely, had been bespoken for this time of the arranged arrest of the delinquent. This view of the meaning, far from being out of place, is quite in keeping with the vivid representation of Mark.
πρὸς τὸ φῶς] at the fire-light, Luke 22:56. See Raphel, Polyb. p. 151; Sturz, Lex. Xen. IV. p. 519 f. According to Baur, indeed, this is an expression unsuitably borrowed from Luke.
 Whither? is clearly shown from the context, namely, to the ἀρχιερεύς. This in opposition to Wieseler, Synops. p. 406.
And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.
And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.Mark 14:55-65. See on Matthew 26:59-68.
Mark 14:56. καὶ ἴσαι κ.τ.λ.] and the testimonies were not alike (consonant, agreeing). At least two witnesses had to agree together; Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15; Lightfoot, p. 658; Michaelis, Mos. R. § 299; Saalschütz, p. 604. The καί is the simple: and. Many testified falsely and dissimilarly.
Mark 14:58. ἡμεῖς] we, on our part: the ἐγώ also which follows has corresponding emphasis.
χειροποίητον … ἄλλον ἀχειροποίητον] peculiar to Mark, but certainly (comp. on Mark 15:29) a later form of the tradition resulting from reflection (at variance with John’s own interpretation) as to the meaning of the utterance in John 2:19, according to which there was found in that saying a reference to the new spiritual worship of God, which in a short time Christ should put in the place of the old temple-service. Comp. Acts 6:14. Matthew is here more simple and more original.
ἀχειροπ.] is an appositional more precise definition to ἄλλον. See van Hengel, Annotat. p. 55 ff. Comp. on Luke 23:32.
Mark 14:59. οὐδὲ οὕτως] and not even thus (when they gave this statement) was their testimony consonant. The different witnesses must therefore have given utterance to not unimportant variations in details (not merely in their mode of apprehending the saying, as Schenkel would have it). It is plain from this that one witness was not heard in the presence of the other. Comp. Michaelis, Mos. R. § 299, p. 97. Others, like Erasmus, Grotius, Calovius, in opposition to linguistic usage and to the context (see Mark 14:56), hold that ἴσος is here and at Mark 14:56 : sufficiens.
Mark 14:60. Two questions, as at Matthew 26:62. If we assume only one, like the Vulgate, and take τί for ὅ, τι: answerest thou nothing to that, which, etc. (Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 120 f.; Lachmann, Tischendorf, Ewald, Bleek, and various others), it is true that the construction ἀποκρίνεσθαί τι is not opposed to it (see on Matthew), but the address is less expressive of the anxiety and urgency that are here natural to the questioner. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 217 [E. T. 251], harshly suggests that “hearing” should be supplied before ὅ, τι.
Mark 14:61. Well known parallelismus antitheticus, with emphasis. Inversely at Acts 18:9.
ὁ εὐλογητός]κατʼ ἐξοχήν, הַבָּרוּךְ, God. Used absolutely thus only here in the N. T. The Sanctus benedictus of the Rabbins is well known (Schoettgen, ad Romans 9:5). The expression makes us feel the blasphemy, which would be involved in the affirmation. But it is this affirmation which the high priest wishes (hence the form of his question: Thou art the Messiah?), and Jesus gives it, but with what a majestic addition in this deep humiliation!
Mark 14:62. The ἀπʼ ἄρτι in Matthew 26:64, which is wanting in Mark, and which requires for what follows the figurative meaning, is characteristic and certainly original. On ΜΕΤᾺ Τ. ΝΕΦΕΛ., comp. Daniel 7:13 (עִם); Revelation 1:7. That figurative meaning is, moreover, required in Mark by ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμ τ. δυν., although Keim finds in this interpretation “arbitrariness without measure.” Luke only, Luke 22:69, while abbreviating and altering the saying, presents the literal meaning.
Mark 14:63. ΤΟῪς ΧΙΤῶΝΑς] a more accurate statement, in accordance with the custom of rending the garments, than the general ΤᾺ ἹΜΆΤΙΑ in Matthew 26:65; see in loc. People of rank wore two under-garments (Winer, Realw.); hence τοὺς χιτ.
Mark 14:64. κατέκριναν κ.τ.λ.] they condemned Him, to be guilty of death On κατακρ. with an infinitive, comp. Herod, vi. 85, ix. 93; Xen. Hier. vii. 10.
Mark 14:65. ἤρξαντο] when the “guilty!” had heen uttered. A vivid representation of the sequel.
ΤΙΝΈς] comp. previously ΟἹ ΔῈ ΠΆΝΤΕς, hence: some of the Sanhedrists. The servants, i.e. the servants of the court, follow afterwards.
προφήτευσον] usually: who struck thee, according to the amplifying narratives of Matthew and Luke; Mark, however, does not say this, but generally: prophesy! which as Messiah thou must be able to do! They wish to bring Him to prophesy by the κολαφίζειν! The narrative of Mark, regarded as an abbreviation (Holtzmann), would be a singularity without motive. Matthew and Luke followed another tradition. The veiling of the face must, according to Mark, be considered merely as mocking mummery.
And after some of the Sanhedrists had thus mocked and maltreated Him, the servants received Him with strokes of the rod. To them He was delivered for custody until further orders. This is the meaning according to the reading ἔλαβον (see the critical remarks). On the explanation of the reading ἜΒΑΛΛΟΝ, they struck Him, see Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 138. As to ῥαπίσμασιν, see on Matthew 26:67 The dative denotes the form, the accompanying circumstances, with which on the part of the servants the ἔλαβον took place. Bernhardy, p. 100 f. Comp. the Latin accipere aliquem verberibus (Cic. Tusc. ii. 14. 34).
 It is not to be accented ἶσος, as in Homer, but ἴσος, as with the Attic and later writers. See Fritzsche in loc.; Bentley, ad Menandr. fragm., p. 533, ed. Meinek.; Brunck, ad Arist. Plut. 1113; Lipsius, grammat. Unters. p. 24.
 This was the result, which was already from the outset a settled point with the court, and to the bringing about of which the judicial procedure had merely to lend the form of legality. The defence of the procedure in Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 623 ff., only amounts to a pitiful semblance of right. Against the fact as it stood, that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, they had no law; this claim, therefore, was brought into the sphere of the spiritual tribunal under the title of blasphemy, and before the Roman tribunal under that of high treason. And into the question as to the ground and truth of the claim—although in the confession of Jesus there was implied the exceptio veritatis—they prudently did not enter at all.
For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
But neither so did their witness agree together.
And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:Mark 14:66-72. See Matthew 26:69-75. Comp. Luke 22:56-62.
κάτω] below, in contrast to the buildings that were situated higher, which surrounded the court-yard (see on Matthew 26:3).
Mark 14:68. οὔτε οἶδα, οὔτε ἐπίσταμαι] (see the critical remarks) I neither know nor do I understand. Thus the two verbs that are negatived are far more closely connected (conceived under one common leading idea) than by οὐκ … οὐδέ. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 706 f. On the manner of the denial in the passage before us, comp. Test. XII patr. p. 715: οὐκ οἶδα ὃ λέγεις. The doubling of the expression denotes earnestness; Bornemann, Schol. in Luk. p. xxxi. f.
προαύλιον] Somewhat otherwise in Matthew 26:71. See in loc.
καὶ ἀλ. ἐφ.] and a cock crew; peculiar to Mark in accordance with Mark 14:30.
Mark 14:69. ἡ παιδίσκη] consequently the same; a difference from Matthew 26:71. It is still otherwise in Luke 22:58.
πάλιν] would, if it belonged to ἰδοῦσα αὐτόν (as taken usually), stand before these words, since it would have logical emphasis in reference to ἰδοῦσα, Mark 14:67. Comp. subsequently πάλιν ἠρνεῖτο. Hence it is, with Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, and Fritzsche, to be attached to ἤρξατο, on which account, moreover, C L Δ א have placed it only after ἤρξ. So Tischendorf. Still the word on the whole is critically suspicious, although it is quite wanting only in B M, vss.: the addition of it was natural enough, even although the λέγειν here is not addressed again to Peter.
Mark 14:70. ἠρνεῖτο] Tempus adumbrativum (as so often in Mark). The second πάλιν introduces a renewed address, and this, indeed, ensued on the part of those who were standing by. Hence it is not: πάλιν ἔλεγον οἱ παρ., but: πάλιν οἱ παρ. ἔλεγον.
καὶ γὰρ Γαλιλ. εἶ] for thou art also a Galilean; i.e. for, besides whatever else betrays thee, thou art, moreover, a Galilean. They observed this from his dialect, as Matthew, following a later shape of the tradition, specifies.
ἐπιβαλών] not: coepit flere (Vulg. It. Goth. Copt. Syr. Euthymius Zigabenus, Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Heinsius, Loesner, Michaelis, Kuinoel, and others), as D actually has ἤρξατο κλαίειν, which certainly also those versions have read; expressed with ἐπιβάλλειν, it must have run ἐπέβαλε κλαίειν, and this would only mean: he threw himself on, set himself to, the weeping (comp. Erasmus and Vatablus: “prorupit in fletum;” see also Bengel); nor yet: cum, se foras projecisset (Beza, Raphel, Vater, and various others), since ἐπιβαλών might doubtless mean: when he had rushed away, but not: when he had rushed out,—an alteration of the meaning which Matthew 26:75, Luke 22:62, by no means warrant; nor yet: veste capiti injecta flevit (Theophylact, Salmasius, de foen. Trap. p. 272; Calovius, L. Bos, Wolf, Elsner, Krebs, Fischer, Rosenmüller, Paulus, Fritzsche, and others), which presupposes a supplement not warranted in the context and without precedent in connection with ἐπιβάλλειν, and would, moreover, require the middle voice; neither, and that for the same reason, is it: after he had cast his eyes upon Jesus (Hammond, Palairet); nor: addens, i.e. praeterea (Grotius), which is at variance with linguistic usage, or repetitis vicibus flevit (Clericus, Heupel, Münthe, Bleek), which would presuppose a weeping as having already previously occurred (Theophrastus, Char. 8; Diodorus Siculus, p. 345 B). Ewald is linguistically correct in rendering: Breaking in with the tears of deep repentance upon the sound of the cock arousing him. See Polyb. i. 80. 1, xxiii. 1. 8; Stephani Thes., ed. Hase, III. p. 1526; Schweighäuser, Lex. Polyb. p. 244 f. Thus we should have to conceive of a loud weeping, answering, as it were, to the cock-crowing. From a linguistic point of view Casaubon is already correct (κατανοήσας); then Wetstein, Kypke, Glöckler, de Wette, Bornemann (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 139), Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 127 [E. T. 145]: when he had attended thereto, namely, to this ῥῆμα of Jesus, when he had directed his reflection to it. See the examples for this undoubted use of ἐπιβάλλειν with and without τὸν νοῦν or τὴν διάνοιαν, in Wetstein, p. 632 f.; Kypke, I. p. 196 f. The latter mode of taking it (allowed also by Beza) appears more in accordance with the context, because ἀνεμνήσθη κ.τ.λ. precedes, so that ἐπιβαλών corresponds to the ἀνεμνήσθη as the further mental action that linked itself thereto, and now had as its result the weeping. Peter remembers the word, reflects thereupon, weeps!
 Lange: “he rushed out thereupon,” namely, on the cock crowing as the awakening cry of Christ. First a rushing out as if he had an external purpose, then a painful absorption into himself and weeping.… Outside he found that the cry went inward and upward, and now he paused, and wept.” A characteristic piece of fancy.
 So also Linder in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 562 f., inappropriately comparing περιβάλλειν, and appealing to 2 Kings 8:15 (where the word, however, does not at all stand absolutely) and to Leviticus 13:45 (where the middle voice is used).
And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.
And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.
But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer's NT Commentary
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.