sIvIt!

^*i-,^

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

MACMILLAN AND CO.. Limited
LONDON - BOMBAY • CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO
ATLANTA • SAN FRANCISCO
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA. Ltd,
TORONTO

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
it
EDITED WITH
AN INTEODUCTION AND A COMMENTAEY
BY
C. G. MONTEFIOEE
TOGETHER WITH A SERIES OF
ADDITIONAL NOTES
BY
I. ABKAHAMS

IN THREE VOLUMES
VOL. I

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTINS STREET, LONDON
1909
All right! reserved

Camfctiligr :
rBlNTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A
AT THE UNIVEBSITY PBBS8.

V". S ,-, \ •

Wi^'h^

¦jQ^'m.

iA

TO
F. G. M.

(biXTpov yap avvat/icoTaTov Kal Seafio^ aXi/ro? evvoLa<s evtoriKrj^
T) Toil ev6<i 6eov tlim]. Philo, Be SpedaMbus Legifms, Lib. i. {De Mona/rehia)
Chap. VII. (Mangey ii. p. 219).

TO avyyeve^ oiJ% aTfiari fierpetrat fiovov, irpVTavevova-r]^ uXtj-
6e{a<;, dWd irpd^ea>v o/ioioTijri Kai Brjpa rSiv avroSv.
Philo, Be Ndbilitaie, Chap. i.
(Mangey 11. p. 438).

'?''Nin -iDNn k'?b' KDimn ui idk : htd '?nJ ^b nt • mx nn'?in lao
n p n'tyy D« ¦ 'DJJ nun "jbpn' 'n^j^priJi "pwn 'dv non ntan' 'manji
; iniN r\m cn^K niDnn ¦ nt3» nnx w
Sifra 89 b on Lev. xix. 18, and Genesis Babba Chap. xxiv. ad fin.
Cp. Bacher, Bie Agada der Tannaiten, Vol. I. p. 417) n. 4,
p. 422, n. 1. (Ed. 2, 1903.)

<ro(jiia...fi.ia 8e oSa-a navTa hvvarat, Kai fi4vov<7a iv avTr/ ra iravTa Katvt^et,
KQi Kara yeveas els ^x°^ oirLas jieTa^alvov<Ta <f>iXovs 6eov Kal Trpo(f>rjTas
KaTafTKCvd^et. Wisdom of Solomon vii. 27.

The Country Parson... as he doth not so study others as to neglect the
grace of God in himself and what the Holy Spirit teacheth him, so doth he
assure himself that God in all ages hath had his servants, to whom he hath
revealed his Truth as well as to him ; and that as one Country doth not bear
all things, that there may be a Commerce, so neither hath God opened or
wiU open all to one, that there may be a traflSck in knowledge between the
servants of God for the planting both of love and humility.
George Herbert, The Country Parson, Chap. iv.
"The Parson's Knowledge."

The Humble, Meek, Merciful, Just, Pious and Devout Souls are every
where of one Religion ; and when Death has taken off the Mask, they will
know one another, though the divers Liveries they wear here makes them
Strangers. iSome Fruits of Solitude, by William Penn.
(Part L Number 519.)

PREFACE

I HAVE sufficiently explained the nature and object of my
book in the Introduction and in the opening words of the
commentary upon Mark. It is unnecessary to recapitulate what
is there said.
It had been for many years the desire of my friend Mr Israel
Abrahams, Reader in Talmudic and Rabbinic Literature in the
University of Cambridge, and myself to join together in some
work upon the New Testament. The Additional Notes which he
is going to contribute to the present book will be a partial fulfil
ment of our old desire. I had greatly hoped that these Notes, in
which Mr Abrahams' wealth of Rabbinic learning will be used to
illustrate and explain the Gospel text, would have appeared
together with my own commentary. I keenly trust, though this
hope has been, to my deep regret, disappointed, that they will
appear (as the third and concluding volume of the work) before
the end of 1910. It is right to add that while Mr Abrahams and
I are in general accord in our estimate of the Gospels, he is in no
way responsible for what I have written, and does not, as a matter
of fact, agree with every part of it.
For the benefit of my Jewish readers (for whom my book is
specially intended) I have given the translation of each Gospel
separately, and as a whole, before the commentary upon it. I am
anxious that they should first of all read the story as it stands,
undisturbed by breaks or verse divisions or remarks. The trans
lation is then repeated before each section of the commentary.
The character of the translation is set forth in § 2 of the Intro
duction.

viii PREFACE
At an early stage of the book Dr Carpenter, the Principal of
Manchester College, Oxford, was good enough to read through
a considerable portion of the commentary. I owe a great deal to
his suggestions, and I have ventured to include (without asking
his permission) some of the observations which he pencilled upon
the margin of the paper into the body of my work. In most cases
I have added his name.
The book does not pretend to learning. If it were not for my
special point of view, I should have no justification to write upon
the Gospels at all, and in any case I am keenly conscious of my
own temerity and inadequacies. There are numbers of books
which any scholar ought to have read and absorbed, whereas I,
partly through lack of leisure, have entirely neglected them.
And the textual side of Gospel study I have almost wholly
omitted from view. If it be asked : ' Why then do you venture
to throw your work at the public?', I can only reply that the
peculiar point of view, to which I have alluded, may, I hope, make
my book of some interest and use to a few persons in my own
religious community and to a few persons outside it.
Though I speak of a ' peculiar point of view,' it hardly needs
saying that I am specially dependent upon the labours and re
searches of the great scholars who have given their lives to
Biblical or New Testament study. The names and the books of
those to whom I have most frequently gone for help will all be
mentioned in the course of the commentary: I ought, however,
here to state that the writers to whom I owe the most, and have
quoted most often, are Loisy and Wellhausen, and next to them,
I think, H. J. Holtzmann and Johannes Weiss. But I must con
fess, to my shame, that I have not yet been able to study the
works of Dr E. A. Abbott. This grave omission, from which my
book is bound to have suffered greatly, I hope to make good upon
some future occasion.
I owe the index to the care and patience of my friend and
secretary, Miss W. Seymour, to whom my best thanks are due.

PREFACE ix

List of those authorities who are quoted
UNBER Abbreviations
Loisy (Alfred). Les ilvangiles Synoptiques. (1907.) 2 Vols.
Cited as E. S.
Wellhausen (Julius). Das Evangelinm MarcL (ed. i.) (1903.)
Das Evangelium Matthaei. (1904.)
Das Evangelium Lucae. (1904.)
Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien. (1905.)
Where the reference is obviously to the commentary upon
the particular Gospel concerned, I have quoted it simply as
W. References to the Einleitung are given thus : W. Einlei
tung.
Weiss (Johannes). Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments iibersetzt
und...erklart [by J. Weiss and other scholars].
Vol. I. Die drei alteren Evangelien, von J. Weiss.
and ed. (1907.) Referred to as 'J. Weiss.'
Carpenter (J. E.). The first three Gospels; their origin and
relations. 4th ed. (1906.) Quoted as 'Carpenter.'
Holtzmann (H. J.). Die Synoptiker (in the Hand-Commentar
zum Neuen Testament). 3rd ed. (1901.) Quoted as ' Holtz
mann.'
Weiss (Bernard). Die Quellen des Lukas Evangeliums. (1907.)
Quoted as B. Weiss, Quellen A.
Weiss (Bernard). Die Quellen der synoptischen Ueberlieferung.
(1908.) Quoted as B. Weiss, Quellen B.
Allen (W. C). A critical and exegetical commentary on the
Gospel according to S. Matthew. (1907.) Quoted as
'Allen.'
Gould (N.). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel
according to S. Mark. (1901.) Quoted as 'Gould.'
Menzies (A.). The Earliest Gospel (a commentary on Mark).
(190 1.) Quoted as 'Menzies.'
Plummer (A.). A critical and exegetical commentary on the
Gospel according to S. Luke. 4th ed. (1901.) Quoted as
' Plummer.'

X PREFACE
Swete (H. B.). The Gospel according to S. Mark. 2nd ed.
(1908.) Quoted as 'Swete.'
Klostermann (Erich). Commentary on Mark, forming the first
part of ' Die Evangelien ' in the Handbuch zum Neuen
Testament. (1907.) Quoted as ' Klostermann.'
(The commentary on Matthew appeared too late for me to use.)
[N.B. I should like to add that I was only able to use
Professor B. W. Bacon's ' The beginnings of Gospel story' (a com
mentary upon Mark), 1909, in revising my Introduction. And my
book was printed off before I could make any use of Wendling's
Die Entstehung des Marcus Evangeliums (1908) Nicolardot, Les
Proc4d4s de Redaction des Trois Premiers Kvangelistes, 1908, and
Sharman's The Teaching of Jesus about the Future according to
the Synoptic Gospels, 1909.]
0. G. M.
September, 1909.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOL. I.

Introduction (pp. xvii — cviii).
SECTIOW PAGE
I. Character of the work : the Jews and the Gospels : the Jewish
point of view  xvii
2. Contents of the work : the Synoptic Gospels : origin and
meaning of the word '•synoptic'  xx
3. The sort of books the Synoptic Gospels are : their dates and
their sources  . xxii
4. The Gospel of Mark. Who was Mark? The statements of
Papias  xxv
5. The relation of Peter to the Gospel of Mark . . xxvii
6. Mark and Paul .... . xxxi
7. The sources of Mark ... xxxiii
8. The supposed narrative source  xxxiv
9. The 'speech' or 'sayings' document known as Q. The rela
tion of Mark to this source  .xxxvi
10. Wellhausen, Julicher, and Harnack on Mark and Q . . xxxviii
II. Date and divisions of Mark  . xii
12. The Gospel of Matthew : its relation to Mark xlii
13. The relation of Matthew and Luke to Q . . xliii
14. Harnack's estimate of the size and character of Q xliv
15. The parallels of Q with Mark  xlvi
16. Date and origin of Q  xlvii
17. Tests for authenticity of sayings attributed to Jesus . :;lviii
18. The theories of Mr Allen and Professor Burton ... 1
19. Other sources of Matthew besides Q and Mark. The "doubly
attested sayings" .... . . lii
20. Matthew as editor. His point of view. His relation to Juda
ism and the Old Testament. His date .... liii

xu

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 21. Is Matthew 'catholic' or Judffio-Ohristian ? ....
22. ' Kingdom of heaven' in Matthew : authenticity of the parables
peculiar to Matthew 
23. Loisy on Matthew 
24. Renan on Matthew 
25. The Gospel of Luke and its sources
26. B. Weiss and Loisy on the sources of Luke .
27. Date of Luke. The 'great Insertion' ....
28. Luke's Gentile point of view : his sympathy for ' sinners ' and
the poor : the authenticity of his special materia) : his date .
29. The relation of date to authenticity 
30. The condition of the Jews during the age of Jesus
31. The Law and the State : classes of the people : Rabbis and
Phari-sees 
32. The Law and the infant Church : persecution and intolerance .
33. The Messianic hope. Did all classes observe the Law ? .
-34. The 'Am ha-aretz' and the neglected 'multitudes' .
35. The various classes of people with whom Jesus came in contact :
formalists and outcasts ; liberals and apocalyptLsts. The
Essenes 
36. The contradictions of Judaism : the one God and the national
cult 
37. Were the Jews and the Rabbis of a.d. 30 religiously inferior to
those of 300 and 600 A.D. 'i ...... .
38. The condition of Galilee in the age of Jesus
39. The ' prophetic ' character and mission of Jesus : the ' lost
sheep ' • the Kingdom of God : Jesus and the Law .
40. Jesus as healer : the forgiveness of sins
41. Jesus and the claim to Messiahship . ...
43. The relation of Jesus to God 
43. Changes made in the teaching of Jesus after his death : (a) Israel
and the Gentiles ; the Pharisees and the Law
44. (6) The Messiahship and the relation to God
45. The various problems raised by the life of Jesus .
46. The Jewish conception of the Messiah and the conception
formed by Jesus 
47. Jesus and the 'masses' 
48. Jesus as prophet : did he intend to found a new religion ?
49. The Gospels, the New Testament and the Jew
50. The Gospels, the Rabbinical Literature, and Judaism .

PAGR Iv
Ivi
Iviii lix Ix
Ixi
Ixii
Ixiv
Ixvii
Ixviii IxixIxxi
Ixxiv Ixxv

Ixxvii
1 xxxii
Ixxxiii Ixxxiv
Ixxxvii
Ixxxviii l.'jxxix

xc
xcii
xciv xcvi xcix ci
ciii

Translation of the Gospel according to Mark
(pp. 1—37).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xiu

Commentary (with translation) upon the Gospel according
to Mark (pp. 38 — 392).

A. The Prelude. Chapter i. 1 —
(i) John the Baptist
(2) The Baptism of Jesus
(3) The Temptation .

13-

B.

The Ministry in Galilee and in the territory of Philip, i. 14 —
vii. 23.
The Mission in Galilee 
The call of Simon, Andrew, James, and John
Jesus in the Synagogue at Capernaum ; the unclean Spirit
The mother-in-law of Simon Peter ; many healings
Further activity in Galilee 
The healing of the leper 
Healing of the paralytic man 
The call of Levi ; Jesus eats with sinners and tax-collectors
Fasting 
The Sabbath 

measure for measure

J 7
^(lO,
Note on the 'Son of Jfan'
¦I (ii) Healing on the Sabbath
(12) Many healings .
(13) The twelve Apostles .
(14) Attack and defence .
(15) Jesus and his family.
(16) The parable of the Sower .
(17) The hidden and the revealed
(18) The seed that grows of itself 
(19) The mustard seed 
(20) Storm at sea 
(21) The Gadarene swine 
^22) The daughter of Jairus and the woman with an issue .
(23) The cold reception of Jesus at Nazareth . . . .
(24) The sending of the Twelve 
(25) Jesus, Herod Antipas, and John the Baptist .
(26) The return of the Apostles and the feeding of the five
thousand 
(27) Jesus walks on the lake . . . . .
•i (28) The washing of hands 

3845 55

56
61 636768 70
748487
9c93
107no
112 114118 120
126
129132134136
140
145
147 ISO
153156
160

XIV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

C. Jesus journeys northwards into Tyrian territory, then through
Decapolis and the territory of Philip, back to Galilee, vii.
24 — ix. 50.
(i) The northward journey and the Phoenician woman
(2) Healing of a deaf and dumb man .
(3) Feeding of the four thousand .
(4) A sign refused .
(5) The lack of bread
(6) A blind man healed .
(7) Jesus the suffering Messiah ; Peter and Jesus
(8) The Transfiguration 
(9) The epileptic child 
(10) Second prediction of suffering, death and the Resurrection
(11) Who is the greatest? — Of stumbling-blocks and other
matters 
D. Jesus on the way to Jerusalem, x. i — 52.
(i) Of divorce 
(2) Jesus and the children ...
(3) The danger of riches ; wealth and the Kingdom
(4) Third prediction of suffering and death ....
(5) The sons of Zebedee 
(6) Bartimaeus . . . . ¦ 
E. The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem and his teaching in the city.
xi. I — xiii. 37.
(1) The entry into Jerusalem 
(2) The barren fig tree ...
(3) The purification of the Temple
(4) The fig tree and faith
(5) The authority of John
(6) The parable of the vineyard
(7) 'Give unto Caesar' ....
(8) The woman taken in adultery (John vii. 53
(9) The life of the resurrection
* (10) The greatest commandment
(11) Whose Son is the Messiah?
(12) Attack upon the Scribes .
(13) The widow's mite ....
(14) The End and the 'Parousia' .
F. The Passion and Resurrection, xiv. 1 — xvi. 20.
(l) The decision of the Priests and Scribes
(2) The anointing in Bethany .

-viii. ii)

177 182
184
186188
I go
192
212
217222

234242
245
2SS
256
261

264
269
271
272
274276
279282284286290
294295
297308
313

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XV

(3) The betrayal ....
(4) Preparation for the Passover meal
(5) Prediction of the betrayal .
(6) The Last Supper
(7) Peter's denial foretold
(8) Gethsemane
(9) The arrest .
(10) The trial before the Sanhedrin ,
(11) Peter's denial
(12) Jesus before Pilate
(13) Jesus, Pilate and Barabbas
(14) Jesus is mocked by the soldiers
(15) The Crucifixion .
(16) The death of Jesus
(17) The women who saw
(18) The burial of Jesus .
(19) The empty tomb
(20) Later version of the Resurrection

PAGE 316 317
319 321 333335341 344357
359362 366
368 371 376
3S6390

Note on Mark xii. i — n .

392

INTEODUCTION
§ I. Character of the work: the Jews and the Gospels:
the Jewish point of view.
The task which I have set before myself in this book is, I am
fully aware, far too great for my narrow learning and capacities,
yet it is one which ^o urgently needs doing that I have ventured
to make a small beginning towards its accomplishment.
The book is fragmentary and tentative. A Jewish commentary
to the entire New Testament is required, and here I have only
given a commentary upon a portion. Moreover, it is fragmentary
and tentative for other reasons as well. If I had waited for
several more years I might have gained much fresh knowledge,
and modified many opinions here expressed. But it seemed best
to wait no longer. Life is uncertain, and other duties make the
hours which can be given to study few and sometimes even far
between. The book is also tentative because I am in many respects
a pioneer. For of Jewish exposition of the Gospels there has
been little. Endless Christian commentaries exist, written from
many different points of view, with great learning and splendid
patience, but Jewish commentaries can hardly be said to exist at
, all. Jewish scholars have usually taken up an attitude towards
the New Testament, and more especially towards the Gospels,
which does not lend itself to impartiality. It has not been a very
fruitful and light-giving attitude. A main effort has been to show
• that to various admittedly admirable sayings of Jesus reported in
¦ the Gospels there are excellent parallels in the Old Testament or
• the Rabbinical writings. An atomistic treatment has usually been
^ adopted. The teaching of Jesus has not been much discussed and
• appraised as a whole. And where it has been so discussed, the
line has been rather to depreciate or to cheapen. Jewish writers
have either looked for parallels or for defects. Considering what
Judaism and the Jews have had to suffer at Christian hands, this
Jewish treatment of the Gospels is not astonishing. No wonder
M. b

xviu INTRODUCTION
that the Jews should show some injustice towards the literary
origins of a religion from the adherents of which they have
suffered such gross and terrible wrongs. No wonder that they
should express some disdain at this supposed superior and super
fine teaching of love which, so far as they are concerned, has so
generally proved itself a religion of violence, cruelty and hate.
No wonder that they should desire to defend the excellence of
their own religious writings and of their own religion, which have
been so constantly depreciated and misunderstood by Christian
writers. All this is quite human, quite natural.
It may be added that till just recent times it was scarcely
possible for Jews to dissociate the Christian claim that Jesus lived
an exceptional life, and that his teaching was uniquely great and
original, from the further Christian claim that he was divine, or
indeed that he was God. It was the divinity of Jesus that was
for Jews the true stumblingblock to any scientific estimate of his
teaching. If all Christians had been Unitarians from the first,
a drawing together and a good understanding between Jew and
Christian as regards the place of Jesus in the history of Judaism
and of religion would have been far easier. The objections to
Jesus as a heretic, or as an iconoclast, or as a critic of the Law,
would not have been so insuperably difficult. Moreover, for many
centuries to say that Jesus was a good man and a fine teacher,
but not divine, was exceedingly dangerous. It meant the stake
or the sword. Hence to keep complete silence was much easier,
and this negative attitude gradually became extremely general.
And when the danger of speech was removed, the old objections
and stumblingblocks were still in force.
Yet in England the time has come when it is right and possible
for a Jew to look at the Gospels in a more historical, comprehensive
and impartial spirit. This at all events is my aim, and though
I am very deficient in learning, the circumstances of my educa
tion, environment and life, perhaps too the 'cross bench' cast of
mind with which I chanced to be born, have given me some
advantages for its partial attainment.
I do not want to depreciate the Rabbis or their teaching, but
I have no desire unduly to exalt them. And at the same time I
do not want to depreciate Jesus or unduly to exalt him. It may
sometimes be necessary to indicate parallels or contrasts, but the
object which I have set before myself is to find neither the one
nor the other. So far as I can, I am anxious to get at the facts
and to let them speak for themselves ; to look at things as they
really are.
Yet I know that one cannot get rid of one's upbringing, one's
origin, and one's own peculiar point of view. I have no doubt

INTRODUCTION xix
that a Buddhist or Mohammedan critic would be able to detect in
my book many a prepossession and a prejudice. Yet that I shall
seem to Jewish critics too Christian, and to Christian critics too
Jewish is, I trust, likely, and is to me a source of some hope that
now and then I may have said the truth.
I also realize that the scientific or historical character of the
book is spoiled, as it were ab initio, by the fact that it has a by no
means purely scientific object. The book has been mainly written
for Jewish readers, though I fear it is not probable that many will
read it. It has turned out somewhat too long and too dull. It is,
however, mainly written for Jewish readers, though I hope that
a few Christian readers may find some of its pages not without
a certain interest.
It seems to me (for reasons into which I cannot here enter)
that it is of great importance for Jews to understand and appreciate
aright the life and teaching of Jesus. What should be the right
relation of Judaism to that teaching ? What place should Jesus
and his teaching take or fill in the religion of ' his own people '
to-day? What should be the place of the New Testament in
Jewish eyes and for the Jewish religion? To find the due and
proper answer to these questions seems to me one of the most
important duties which lie before modern, and especially before
liberal, Judaism. Up to now, the work has been hardly tackled
at all, at least not to any serious or profitable purpose. And this
is another reason why my own book is tentative. For under such
circumstances, when a man is not following in a well-beaten path,
it is not likely that he, in his loneliness, will make much progress.
I am not so conceited or silly as not to realize this. Not only is
my own book but a commentary upon one small piece (though
the most important piece) of the New Testament, but it is a mere
temporary beginning, a provisional contribution. To find the long-
delayed answers to so large a problem one man will not suffice, or
one generation.
I shall be content if I have contributed a little material and
a few unsystematic suggestions towards the right and final answer
' — if indeed a final answer there can ever be. This commentary
upon the Synoptic Gospels does not contain (it is not its aim) any
systematic presentation of the life and teaching of Jesus or any
systematic discussion of the relation of that life and teaching to
modern Judaism. It deals with the various points as they arise
in their place in the narrative, and it deals with them, moreover,
very often in a somewhat halting and undecided way.
For this is one more reason why my book is tentative. To
several of the problems connected with the life of Jesus, and to
some connected with his teaching, I myself, with the material at
b 2

XX INTRODUCTION
our command, do not, so far, see my way to any clean-cut and
decisive replies. Thus, when I do not feel sure, I prefer to express
my uncertainty. I have freely quoted from the works of great
scholars and distinguished authorities. The reader will, at all
events, hear what they think, and perhaps he will judge between
them more rapidly or confidently than I, so far, have been able
to do. The quotations are almost all from the works of great
Christian scholars, German, French, and English. Though I have,
as it were, sat at the feet of these scholars, and learned from them
a very great deal, I have not hesitated to point out where, from
my Jewish point of view, they seem to me prejudiced and therefore
inaccurate, or when they seem ignorant of matters about which a
more intimate knowledge of Jewish thought, and a more intimate
experience of Jewish life, can bring correction.
That my own book may be soon superseded by another book
from a Jewish pen which will be more learned, more impartial,
and more conclusive than mine, I earnestly hope. Meanwhile
even provisional books and provisional suggestions may have theu:
temporary uses. Such, I hope, may be the case with mine. If
its readers will judge it as a whole, they will judge it as it asks to
be judged.

§ 2. Contents of ihe work : ihe Synoptic Gospels :
origin and meaning of the word synoptic.
My work consists of a translation of, and a commentary upon,
the first three Gospels — Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or according
to the order in which they are here placed — Mark, Matthew, and
Luke. The translation is based upon the Authorised Version.
I have, however, made many changes, mainly in order to obtain
greater accuracy. Sometimes the variation is due to the fact
that a better and earlier Greek text can now be obtained than
was known to the translators of King James's Version or to their
predecessors. Occasionally the changes are due to the omission
of an archaism. (I fancy that many Jewish readers coming to
the Authorised Version of the New Testament for the first time
would suppose that John the Baptist's head was brought to
Herod upon a horse.) I have, however, not sought to produce a
consistently modern version, though I have derived help and
benefit from a frequent consultation of Dr Moffatt's and of
Dr Weymouth's interesting translations.
The first three Gospels are frequentlj' called the Synoptic
Gospels, because ' they are all constructed on a common plan,
and from first to last, amid minor differences, the teaching and

INTRODUCTION xxi
work of Jesus are presented from the same general point of
view' (Carpenter, First Three Gospels, p. 7). The use of the
word Synoptic as applied to the first three Gospels is due to
J. J. Griesbach, a German theologian of the eighteenth century.
In 1774 he published the first part of a new edition of the
' historical books of the New Testament,' containing a synopsis of
the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.' In his preface (p. iv.)
he states that the ordinary editions of the Gospels are unsuited to
students. ' For,' says he — and as not one person in a thousand is
likely to look up Griesbach's book, his actual words (translated
from the Latin) are worth quoting— 'in the first place, if Matthew,
Mark, and Luke are commented on one by one in the order in
which they follow one another, the frequent repetitions of narratives
recorded by two of them, or by all three, steal away too large a
portion of our small span of time without any corresponding
advantage. Hence it seemed worth while to construct a sort of
synopsis of these three Gospels, in which the parts common to all
three, or to two of them, should be put side by side in such a way
that the interpretation of one Evangelist should serve to make the
rest intelligible, or at least leave but a few points over for ex
planation. Indeed one may hope that a synopsis of this kind will
contain several advantages.' There had been harmonies of the
Gospels compiled before for apologetic purposes. Griesbach is
careful to point out that his new synopsis is not one of these.
Later commentators on the basis of what Griesbach had done, used
the adjective synoptic to characterize those first three Gospels of
which it was possible and useful to form a synopsis. I have not,
however, discovered who was the first man to do this. Perhaps
I should add for those of my readers who know no Greek that
sun (aijv) in Greek means ' with ' and apsis (o-\}ri^) means ' look,
appearance, sight.' Hence sunopsis {crivoy^ti) means 'a seeing
together, a general view.' The adjectives sunoptos (avvoirTO'i), ' that
can be seen at a glance,' and sunoptikos {(twotttiko^), ' seeing the
whole together,' are both used by good Greek writers.
It will, therefore, be noticed that of the four Gospels this
book only includes three. The fourth, the Gospel of John, is
omitted. The reason is that, whilst the first three Gospels treat
their subject from this common point of view and arrangement,
the fourth is different in both. It has a different conception of
Jesus, and tells in many respects a different history. The words
which it puts into Jesus's mouth are peculiar and special. More
over, this fourth Gospel is less historic than the first three ; it
gives 'an interpretation of the person and work of Jesus rather
than a record of his words and deeds' {First Three Gospels, p. 9).
Notable, great and important as this Gospel is, it can — and indeed

xxii INTRODUCTION
must— be studied by itself, and not together or in conjunction
with the first, the allied, three. Therefore it forms no part ot the
present more limited undertaking. For that undertaking, though
limited, is yet sufficiently, and more than sufficiently, arduous,
intricate, and obscure.
§ 3. The sort of hooks ihe Synoptic Gospels are :
their dates and their sources.
What sort of books are these first three Gospels ? The
answer is best obtained by reading them, but some preliminary
words are necessary or advantageous. I wish I could just transfer
to this Introduction the pages of Dr Carpenter's book. The First
Three Gospels: their Origin and Relations. It contains so much
in so small a space, and is the product of such wide knowledge
and such high impartiality. I have quoted from it already, and
shall constantly quote from it again. The fourth edition, to which
my references belong, was published in igo6 (by Philip Green,
5 Essex Street, Strand, London, W.C.), and coits sixpence. If
all my Jewish readers at least would spend sixpence, and read
Dr Carpenter's book before or together with mine, it would be
a great advantage for them. It has 395 pages, but they are not
big ones. Dr Carpenter writes from the point of view of a
Unitarian Christian, but I cannot imagine that anyone, whether
Jew on the one hand, or Trinitarian Christian on the other,
could be hurt or unprofited by his words.
The first three Gospels tell of the life and death and alleged
resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The word Gospel means 'good
spel,' 'spel' signifying 'speech' or 'story.' It is thus intended to
be a literal translation of the Greek word eiayyiXiov (euangelion)
or ' good tidings.' We keep the Greek in the word ' evangelist,'
but 'evangel' for 'Gospel' is rare. German and French both use
the Greek form : les evangiles, die Evangelien. When we speak of
the four Gospels, or of the Gospel according to Mark, we mean
the particular books in which the preaching of the Good Tidings
and the life of the preacher are recorded. Some remarks upon
the original meaning of the word will be found in the note on
Mark i. i.
The Gospels, like the books of the Hebrew prophets, are not
easily brought under any previously existing class or category of
literature. The veteran and learned theologian, H. J. Holtzmann,
whose little prejudices (as they seem to me) I have now and then
ventured to indicate, but from whose splendid and laborious com
mentary, I, like hundreds of others, have freely and gratefully

INTRODUCTION xxiu
drawn, rightly says of the Gospels: ' Both in form and in contents
they are unique in ancient literature: they form a group by
themselves, and they cannot be assigned to any of the traditional
and then existing classes of literary composition — not even to the
class of Jewish didactic stories which would seem otherwise to
lie nearest at hand' {Hand-Commentar, third edition, p. 36).
Some admirably suggestive remarks as to the excellence of the
Gospels and its causes are given by Renan in Les jSvangiles,
chapters v. and vi.
The first question that suggests itself to anybody to ask about
the Gospels is. When were they written ? As to that question no
complete agreement has yet been reached by scholars. But the
limits of variation are not very wdde. It is generally believed that
the Gospel according to Mark, the oldest Gospel, and one main
source of the other two, was in existence in the form in which we
now possess it very soon after the destruction of the Temple in
70 A.D. Matthew and Luke are later: we may roughly place
them somewhere about 90 to lOO A.D. We have, therefore, to
remember that the earliest Gospel was written not more than
forty years after the death of Jesus. If a disciple of Jesus was
thirty years old when his Master died, he Was not much more
than seventy years old when the Gospel of Mark saw the light.
But we are able to push even the literary sources for the life
of Jesus still further back, and nearer to the date of his death
(a.D. 29 or 30, as is generally supposed). For though scholars are
not even yet wholly at one as to the origin and character of Mark;
still it is pretty generally agreed either that a shorter form of the
Gospel, as we now possess it — an Urmarcus, to use the German
word — or that one or more of Mark's sources, were written in
Aramaic. This Urmarcus, or these sources, will take us back
some ten to twenty years more, that is from 70 to 50, or not more
than 20 years after the death of -Jesus.
Again, these sources were either themselves drawn up by eye
witnesses, or they drew upon, and were at any rate the partial
product of, the stories and reminiscences of persons who had
actually lived and talked with Jesus. An oral tradition was at
their base, and is, therefore, at the base of Mark. For even when
Mark — the Greek Mark as we have it now — was written and
issued in its present form, there must have been several persons
yet living who had seen and spoken with Jesus. Still more must
such persons (and in greater numbers) have existed when the first
Aramaic Urmarcus or when the earliest Aramaic sources (in
their earliest and most primitive form) were composed.
Jesus himself, so far as we know, wrote nothing. He had,
however, many disciples, and eastern disciples of ah eastern

XXIV INTRODUCTION
Master have retentive memories. When he was put to death,
there must have been a store of reminiscences of his words
and deeds. When his disciples began to preach that he was
the Messiah, they drew upon this store. They comforted theni-
selves for the loss of the Master's presence by repeating his
words and recalling his deeds. At first, for a few years after the
crucifixion, the need for writing down these reminiscences may
not have arisen; all the more, as for these few years the disciples
still expected that the End of the Age, or, as we may also call it,
the End of the World, would soon ensue. But after a time the
necessity for such written records would naturally make itself felt.
The disciples and eyewitnesses became fewer and died; there was
a danger lest the words and deeds of the Master should be for
gotten or wrongly told; as the new religion — for this it soon
became — was preached to ever wider circles, the need for written
documents became greater. Thus in the most natural way collec
tions of the Master's sayings, records of his life and of the miracles
which he wrought, must gradually have been composed. Luke,
writing about 90 to 100 A.D., speaks of many such narratives and
collections as already in existence.
We naturally ask. What relation does our oldest Gospel bear
to these oral traditions and reminiscences ? Have we in it the
exact written precipitate or record of what contemporaries and
disciples of Jesus saw and heard ?
This is a very difficult question. How we answer it partly
depends upon our different points of view. What I mean wUl be
made clear bj' an example. In the sixth chapter of Mark Jesus is
reported to have made, through miraculous multiplication, five
loaves and two fishes suffice for a good meal to five thousand men.
He is also reported to have walked upon the sea. If we are
willing to believe these miracles, we shall be inclined to say that
these events were remembered and repeated by the disciples, and
may easily enough have been reported to the author of the Gospel
of Mark by a man, or by men, who actually saw them take place.
If, on the other hand, like the writer of this book, we do not
believe that the miracles happened, then it seems tolerably certain
that whatever substratum or residue of non-miraculous fact these
stories may contain, they could not have been directly reported, in
the form in which we now possess them, to the writer of the
Gospel by actual eyewitnesses. We must, at any rate, assume
that the eyewitnesses thought they saw a miracle when they did
not see one, or that they exaggerated, or that their memories soon
gave way. Or we must assume that, even before Mark or his
sources were written, many of the eyewitnesses had died, or that
the writer or writers drew rather from the general volume of

INTRODUCTION xxv
popular oral tradition, aa it had constituted itself in the Christian
community, and as it was floating about in their environment,
than from the direct reports and communications of the actual
disciples or eyewitnesses of the Master's deeds and words. It is
probable that for different stories and speeches one or other of all
these various 'assumptions' would have to be used. The facts
require, or are the product of, all of them, though in various
degrees.

§4. The Gospel of Mark. Who was Mark? The
statements of Papias.
Passing from such general considerations, one asks more
specifically. Is anything actually known as to the origin of the
oldest Gospel ? Who was Mark ? Is he the author of the
book which bears his name ?
There was a John Mark of whom we hear several times in
various New Testament books. His mother's name was Mary, and
she lived in Jerusalem and belonged to the Christian community.
To her house Peter is said to have come when he escaped from
Herod's prison (Acts xii. 12). He was the cousin of Barnabas
(Colossians iv. 10), and is said to have accompanied the apostle
Paul on some of his travels (Acts xii. 25, xiii. 13, xv. 37-39;
Philemon 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11). Moreover in Jerusalem Mark is
supposed to have become acquainted with, and a constant com
panion of, the apostle Peter. In the first Epistle of Peter (v. 13)
he is spoken of as at Rome. 'She {i.e. the Church) that is in
Babylon {i.e. Rome) salutes you, and so does Mark my son {i.e. my
spiritual son),' Thus it is further supposed that Mark wrote his
Gospel in Rome. And to Mark, the author of the Gospel, there is
supposed by some to be an allusion in the Gospel itself (see note
on xiv. 51, 52), and it is even conjectured that the place of the
Last Supper was the house of Mark's mother. As to the value of
these traditions, so far as they bear upon the problem of the
authorship of the second Gospel, something will be said later on.
The oldest reference to Mark as a writer comes from Papias,
Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, who wrote about 140-150 A.D.
Excerpts of his work have been preserved by Eusebius, Bishop of
Caesarea, 265-340 a.d. Papias, then, is quoted by Eusebius as
having received information from ' John the Elder,' as follows :
'This also the Elder used to say: Mark, having become Peter's
interpreter, wrote accurately all that which he (Mark) repeated (or
remembered), though not in order, that was said or done by the
Christ. For he had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but

xxvi INTRODUCTION
afterwards, as I have said, followed Peter, who used to frame his
teaching according to the needs (of his hearers), but not as making
a connected series, or narrative {avvra^tv), of the Lord's discourses
(or words). So Mark committed no fault, in that he wrote down
(or, as having written down) some particulars {evia) just as he
(Mark) repeated them from memory. For he took heed (but) to
one thing, to omit none of the facts that he heard, or to make no
false statement in his account of them.'
In this statement of Papias there are several words which are
a little uncertain, and as a whole it gives rise to a great deal of
doubt and discussion.
First, as to a few of the details. Up to what point is Papias
quoting the Elder? Probably only up to the end of the first
sentence (' done by the Christ '). The rest is the commentary of
Papias. Next, what is the meaning of 'interpreter' {ep/irjvevTi^^) ?
Some think the word means that Mark merely became the
interpreter of Peter by writing his Gospel. But this explanation
is extremely unlikely. The word ep/iTji/euTj;?, ' interpreter,' must
indicate a personal relationship. And the probable meaning is
that Mark orally translated Peter's Aramaic discourses and
preachings into Greek, and then carefully wrote down what he had
orally said. Thirdly, as to the word e/xvrj/jLovevcrev. What is its
exact meaning ? Who is its subject ? Some have rendered ' all
that he (Peter) mentioned,' but more probably 'all that he (Mark)
repeated (from memory)' is meant. The word may also mean
' remembered,' and in that case too either Peter or Mark may be
its subject. The same doubt exists about oTre/iprjfioveva-ev a little
further down. That word is probably to be translated 'as he
(Mark) exactly repeated them from memory.' Peter spoke in
Aramaic ; Mark translated orally, and then, later on, wrote down,
as accurately as he could, the discourses which he remembered,
and had himself verbally delivered. Another important detail is
the phrase 'not, however, in order,' ov fievroi rd^ei. Does this
refer to chronology ? More probably it refers to what Loisy calls
' la bonne distribution des matiferes.' Perhaps the Elder thought
that Matthew arranged his material better than Mark. 'After
wards, as I have said, he followed Peter.' What does 'afterwards'
mean? Taken in connection with 'as I have said' it probably
means that Papias had elsewhere remarked that Mark had
'followed' Paul, and now he tells us that 'later on' he became
the follower and interpreter of Peter. Lastly, what is the meaning
of ' some particulars, matters or things ' {evia) ? We must not
apparently suppose that this word evia ('some things') implies that
to Papias only a part of the Gospel of Mark goes back to Mark.
Papias is alluding to our Gospel and not to a part of it. The

INTRODUCTION xxvu
' some things ' simply refer to the separate particular teachings
and preachings of Peter according as Mark remembered them.
The value of the statement of Papias would be increased if we
knew more about Papias's authority, John the Elder. But from
another fragment of Papias, quoted by Eusebius, it is practically
certain that John the Elder was not the apostle John, and indeed
was probably not an apostle at all or an immediate disciple of
Jesus. 'If,' says Papias, 'anyone arrived who had followed the
Men of Old Time (the Elders) {'iraprjKo'KovOriKW tk toi<; Trpea-
^VTepoii), I enquired as to their words : what Andrew or what
Peter said or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or
any other of the disciples of the Lord, or what Aristion or John
the Elder [the disciples of the Lord] say.' Here clearly the
apostle John and John the Elder are distinguished from each
other, while the bracketed words are in all probability a gloss. It
is not even certain that Papias had spoken directly with John the
Elder : he may only have spoken with someone who had ' followed '
him. Under these circumstances the statement of Papias simply
comes to this : that a disciple of the disciples told him a tradition
about the origin and authorship of the Gospel of Mark. Thus,
as Loisy justly observes, what Papias, on the authority of John the
Elder, says of Mark and of Matthew, has not a strictly historical
character, and one has even the right to ask if his statements are
not semi-conjectures, ' compldtant des demi-renseignements,' about
books already in credit, which needed to be covered with an
important name in order to maintain the authority they had
acquired, at a time when nobody quite knew how they had acquired
it {E. S. I. p. 24).
It is necessary to test the assertions of John the Elder by an
examination of the Gospel itself and by such other evidence as
may be available. The connection of Mark and Peter mentioned
in the so-called first Epistle of Peter is of little importance. The
Epistle is in all probability not authentic, and was written after
the Gospel. Perhaps even the very mention of Mark's name in
that Epistle is not without connection with the attribution of the
Gospel to a disciple of Peter. ' Ce serait une mention interess^e,
comme le dire de Jean I'Ancien' {E. S. i. p. 113). In any case
the Mark who was Peter's disciple can hardly have been the Mark
who was the companion of Paul.
§ 5. The relation of Peter to the Gospel of Mark.
If we test and compare the Gospel of Mark as we now possess
it with the statement of Papias, there are various questions to be
asked: Does the Gospel give the impression of being in its

xxviii INTRODUCTION
entirety the work of a disciple of Peter ? Or, indeed, does it
even give the impression of being the literary precipitate of
Peter's discourses? Is it not rather composite, either in the
sense that one person did not write it all in the form in which
we now possess it, or in the sense that written sources were used
by its author and incorporated into his work, or in both senses at
once? Lastly, is Papias right in saying of our Gospel that it
lacks raft?, 'order, arrangement'?
As regards the last question, we have seen that rd^K {' order')
to John and Papias probably meant not chronological order, but
the right arrangement of material and discourses. 'Jean pouvait
trouver, et il trouvait sans doute, que Marc avait moins d'ordre
que Matthieu' {E. S. I. p. 26). Nevertheless it has to be admitted
that, even so, the statement of John is rather surprising, for, as
Loisy observes, ' les morceaux de Marc ' are not ' des catecheses
mises bout a bout.' Mark may have Petrine material, but in no
sense can it be regarded, so far as order is concerned, as a mere
collection of Peter's sermons and teachings and discourses. Prof
Bacon says that the tradition which Papias records 'is warmly
apologetic in purpose, and aims to show that Mark, although not
agreeing with Matthew in the "order," nevertheless "made no
mistake, while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered
them ; his one care was neither to omit anything that he had
heard or to set down any false statement therein'" (Bacon,
Beginnings of Gospel Story, 1909, p. xx.).
The other questions involve a discussion of the substance
and the details of the entire Gospel, and cannot be profitably
examined in a brief Introduction of the kind suitable to this
particular book. The great authorities are by no means unani
mous in their answers. Suffice it to say that, following such
scholars as Loisy, Wellhausen, Bacon and many others, who,
differing in many points, agree in this, I cannot regard the
Gospel of Mark as being in its entirety the work of a disciple of
Peter. It is, as Loisy says, not ' la transcription d'un temoignage
original et direct touchant I'enseignement et la carriere de Jesus.'
It is not the work of a man ' spdcialement attache a Pierre, et
qui tiendrait de I'apdtre meme ce qu'il raconte a son sujet'
{E. S. I. p. 25). It is not the work of a man who was careful to
collect the sure evidence of those who had seen and heard Jesus,
and who could have known the circumstances of his death, but it
is rather an anonymous compilation, a more or less heterogeneous
residuum of the historic tradition of the life and teaching of Jesus,
and of the interpretations, corrections, and additions which the
labours of early Christian thought had introduced into that tradi
tion {E. S. I. p. II 2).

INTRODUCTION xxix
Nevertheless it may be fairly safely assumed that some of
Mark, or some of Mark's material, goes back to, or is based upon,
the reminiscences and statements of Peter. Over and above the
tradition to this effect, there are some positive arguments to be
drawn from the Gospel itself. These will be noticed in their place.
The opening scenes of the Galilsean ministry are located in Peter's
home : the Gospel begins to be detailed where Peter had personal
knowledge. The story of Peter's denial must, it is argued, be due
to him and him alone : would tradition have invented a story so
damaging to the reputation of the great apostle ?
Scholars vary in their opinion as to the amount of the 'Petrine'
material in Mark. For example, Dr Carpenter accepts the tradi
tional view to a considerable extent. ' How Peter's reminiscences,'
he says, 'were shaped into our Mark we cannot tell.' But he
thinks that ' at any rate it remains probable that the main facts
of our second Gospel were derived from Peter; the baptism, the
ministry in Capernaum and on the lake, the choice of the disciples,
the enlarging work, the opposition and the conflict, the confession
of the Messiahship, the journey to Jerusalem, the entry into the
capital, the last days of gathering danger, the fatal night of anguish
and desertion — of all these he may have spoken. The leading
outlines of the immortal story are drawn from the life. Here
Jesus thinks, prays, speaks, feels, acts, as a man' {First Three
Gospels, p. 231). The many graphic touches which we shall
frequently notice in Mark bespeak, to many scholars, the eye
witness. On the other hand, there seems to be much in the Gospel, as
we now have it, which cannot proceed from Peter, just as, if Peter
had been its main source, many things would probably be different
from what we now find and have.
To begin with, if the Gospel were the work of a disciple of
Peter, one would suppose that we should have heard somewhat
more about him and perhaps even that the place assigned to
him would be other than what it is. Or must we say that Peter
was very modest, and kept his own relations with Jesus in the
background? Julicher indeed says: 'Dass Petrus in unserem
Evangelium besonders hervortritt, wird nicht zu leugnen sein'
{Einleitung, p. 276). But it is dubious whether the mention of
Peter in x. 28 and xi. 21 means very much, even though Matthew
in his parallel to xi. 21 has the disciples generally, and not Peter.
Julicher seems to think it very significant that in xvi. 7 Peter is
specially singled out for mention {cp. xiv. 29). As against such
arguments we have the arguments of Bacon, who points out that
the first trace of an individual role for Peter is the rebuke
viii. 29-33. 'Thereafter he appears in ix. 5, x. 28, xi. 21, xiv.

XXX INTRODUCTION
29-37, 66-72. With the single exception of xi. 21 he appears
always as the object of rebuke and correction.' The American
professor goes even so far as to say: ' Sight by hypnotic suggestion
has few more curious illustrations than the discovery by writers
under the spell of the Papias tradition of traces in Mark of special
regard for Peter! How different in this respect is our First
Gospel.' It does really seem the case as regards Peter that in
Mark we hear comparatively little about him; and moreover—
a very important point — there is a tendency (unlike Matthew) to
depreciate (in a Pauline manner) the intelligence and, to some
extent, the position, of all the Galilsean apostles, including Peter
{cp. Bacon, op. eit. pp. xxiv.-xxvii.). If the author of Mark had
'followed' Peter, might we not assume that his Gospel would have
been longer. Wellhausen observes that the traditional material
which Mark reduces to writing is 'comparatively rich for Jerusalem,
but poor for Galilee.' Would this be so if this tradition went back
to the apostles ? ' It would rather seem as if the narrative tradi
tion in Mark did not mainly proceed from the intimate friends
of Jesus.' 'It has for the most part a somewhat rough popular
manner. In the form in which we now possess it, this tradition
must have passed through many people's mouths to have reached
its present rather blunt and rough-hewn shape' {Einleitung, p. 53).
Then, again, there are the miracles. Do these not imply and
require a certain time and growth, a certain amount of transmission
or development from mouth to mouth ? Thus, to quote Wellhausen
again, he observes: 'Are we to suppose that Peter was the authority
for the sudden call of the four "fishers of men " ? Did he testify to
the walking on the sea, to the passing of the evil spirits into the
swine, the healing of the woman with an issue through the power
of Jesus's dress, or the cure of the deaf and the blind by spittle ?
And why are we not told more, or not told more credible things,
about the intercourse of the Master with his disciples?' {Einleitung,
p. 52). But other scholars, for example Renan, would not hold
that the miracles prevent us from accepting the view that Mark
embodies many of the direct recollections of Peter. The miracles,
the 'materialistic thaumaturgy,' are, he thinks, quite in keeping
with Peter's disposition. The Gospel of Mark is ' une biographie
ecrite avec credulite.' The miracles are no proof of its unhistoric
character. 'Things which upset us in the highest degree were
matters of everyday occurrence to Jesus and his disciples. The
Roman world even more than the Jewish world was a dupe to
these illusions. The miracles wrought by Vespasian are of precisely
the same type as those of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.... But the
characters in the legend, the vagueness of the circumstances, the
indistinct softness of the outlines are very noticeable in Matthew

INTRODUCTION xxxi
and in Luke. In Mark, on the other hand, everything is vivid and
lifelike : we feel that we are in the presence of reminiscences ' {Les
iiVangiles, p. 1 18). Thus do the authorities differ !
There are indeed two or three strands or elements in the
Gospel of Mark as we now possess it. And it may be, and it has
been argued, that the very co-existence of these different strands
is a proof for the historical character of one of them. Mark has
not produced a consistent picture of Jesus. All the more proof
that some of the traits of this inconsistent picture were drawn or
taken from the life. This seems a good argument up to a point.
But it is not a good argument for the theory that Mark as a whole
is the written precipitate of the discourses of Peter. Underneath
the real or apparent freshness and immediateness of the narrative —
or shall we rather say often encompassing and modifying and mis
interpreting it ? — there can be found the dogmatic theories of the
theologian. These theories we shall hear of in the course of the
commentary. Mark's object is to prove that Jesus is the divine
Messiah, the Son of God. But if, in spite of this conception of his
hero, a simpler, and more human figure can nevertheless well be
discerned beneath all later theological overwrappings in the pages
of Mark, are not many critics right in regarding this as a tre
mendously powerful argument for the accuracy and primitiveness
of the tradition, which, in spite of the later accretions and develop
ments, still keeps its original character ? Has not Mark reported
many things faithfully? And of these many things must not
Peter be the ultimate source and authority ? Harnack, at any
rate, seems to go too far when he says {Lukas der Arzt, p. 86, n. i)
that Mark either almost made of Jesus a divine spectre {nahezu
ein gottliches Gespensi) or already found such a conception existing.
A vehement and learned advocate for the faithfulness of Mark as
an incorporator of true historical tradition is Professor Burkitt,
whose lectures on 'the Gospel history and its transmission' are
delightful and easy reading. The third lecture deals with, and
eloquently pleads for, the great historical value of Mark.

§ 6. Mark and Paul.
We have seen that, according to Papias, the author of the
second Gospel, whose name was Mark, was not only a ' follower '
of Peter, but also a 'follower' of Paul. Putting aside the question
of detail — whether, that is, the Mark alluded to in certain epistles
attributed to Paul and in the Acts was the writer of the Gospel 
there is the further, larger and far more important questipn
whether the Gospel of Mark, as we have it now, shows traces of

xxxii INTRODUCTION
Pauline doctrine and Pauline views, whether, though it includes
many genuine sayings of Jesus, and much historic information
about the last year of his life, it puts these sayings and informa
tion in a Pauline setting, and in so doing to some extent changes,
modifies and adds to them ?
This larger question will often be alluded to iu the commentary.
The authorities greatly differ; some strongly denying, some strongly
emphasizing, the Pauline character of Mark. For myself, I am
inclined to agree with Bacon and Loisy, and to accept Mark's
Paulinism — within certain limits. How far this Paulinism may
cause us to suspect the historic accuracy of certain words and
phrases which are put in Jesus's mouth is a delicate and difficult
question which will occasionally be alluded to in the commentary.
The measure and kind of the Paulinism, which Loisy, not, as I
think, improperly attributes to Mark, are put forth by the French
commentator in a paragraph of his Introduction which I will here
translate. 'Mark may have been a disciple, he was certainly a great
admirer, or rather a warm partisan, of Paul. His Gospel is a
deliberate Pauline interpretation of the primitive tradition. His
Paulinism is not confined to certain expressions, to certain scraps
of phrase or doctrine which he might have borrowed from Paul.
It rather consists in the general intention, the spirit, the dominat
ing ideas, and in the most characteristic elements of his book. It
is significant that Jesus in x. 45 declares that he came to give his
life as a ransom for many. But it is more significant still that the
story of the Last Supper has become the story of the institution of
the Eucharist by means of the introduction of formulse which are
directly inspired by the Pauline conception of the Eucharist — a
conception which itself depends on the Pauline theory of redemp
tion. What is said (iv. 10, 11) of the divine and intentional
blinding of the Jews through the parables is related to the ideas
of Paul on predestination, and to the experiences of Paul's ministry
both inside and outside Israel. Indeed the influence of Paul, and
even a certain keenness for him personally, a desire to apologize
for his conduct and action, make themselves constantly a little
felt, whether, for example, in the writer's attitude towards the Jews,
or in his method of judging and representing the characters of the
Galilsean apostles who in one place are almost identified with the
Jews (viii. 17, 18). The Sabbath stories seem to point towards the
abrogation of the Sabbath for Christians ; in connection with th&
saying on true defilement, the Evangelist definitely argues — and
in the very spirit of Paul — against the observances of the Law.
It is in Paul's interest that the story of the strange exorcist is.
related or perhaps invented ; it is in order to reserve for Paul one-

INTRODUCTION xxxiii
of the first places in the Kingdom of God that Jesus refuses to
grant the request of the sons of Zebedee (see the commentary,
p. 257). The Evangelist is not however more hostile to Peter and
the other apostles than is Paul himself: he only permits himself
to judge them, and not to admire or approve of them without
qualifications. He does not enter into the details {les spdcialitSs) —
one might say the subtleties — of the Pauline theology, whether
because of a certain sense of restraint which the story of the history
of Jesus imposed upon the narrator, or because his cast of mind
inclined him to general and simple ideas, or because the teaching
of Paul only came to him indirectly through an intermediary, and
he himself had never heard the apostle or read his writings'
{E. S. I. p. 1 16). There may be some exaggeration in this estimate
of Loisy's, but I think that there is also much truth.

§ 7. The sources of Mark.
How then are the various elements in Mark, including also
certain unevennesses, doublets, and additions, to be accounted for ?
There are certain scholars who hold that (with the exception of
chapter xiii.) there is little or nothing behind our Mark other than
oral tradition. (Whether Mark was originally written in Aramaic
is a separate question which need not concern us here.) Mark was
known to and used by Matthew and Luke very much in the form
we know and have him now, and a shorter edition of his book, an
Urmarcus, never existed. Or, again, it has been held that, though
behind our Mark there is nothing but oral tradition, yet both in
Aramaic and in Greek there was more than one ' edition ' of the
book. The work as we have it now has gone through expansions
and additions. The difference between these two views is not
of very great importance when they are both contrasted with a
third view to which, after much hesitation, I now incline. That
third view (which may or may not be combined with the second)
is that our Gospel of Mark is a compilation, that Mark had written
sources, which have not survived. These written sources may have
been originally written in Aramaic, while Mark itself may have
been written from the outset in Greek. And these sources, or some
of them, may conceivably have been also known to Matthew and
to Luke. This third view is maintained by Loisy and by Bacon
as well as by other scholars. It is, especially in one important
part of it, strongly denied by Wellhausen, while other scholars are
less definite one way or the other.
u. c

xxxiv INTRODUCTION

§ 8. The supposed narrative source.
The first of these hypothetical sources was, it is supposed, a
narrative of the ministry and death of Jesus. It may have included
in a shorter form a large number, in fact the large majority, of the
stories which the second Gospel now contains. Thus Loisy thinks
that this narrative source may have embraced, after a brief men
tion of John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus and his return to
Galilee, (i) The call of the first disciples.
(2) The incidents of the first Sabbath at Capernaum, except,
probably, the story of the man with the unclean spirit (i. 23-27).
(3) The basis {lefond) of the story of the paralyzed man.
(4) Perhaps the call of Lovi.
(5) The action taken by Jesus's relations.
(6) The basis probably of the story of the man with the
unclean spirit among the Gadarenes.
(7) The basis probably of the story of the daughter of Jairus.
(8) The story of the preaching of Jesus at Nazareth.
(9) General indications about the despatch of the disciples and
their return.
(10) The journey to Gennesareth.
(11) The journey to the district of Tyre.
(12) Perhaps the story of the Canaanite woman.
(13) The confession of Peter with the promise of the near
Parousia and the reflections on the coming of Elijah.
(14) Perhaps the healing of the epileptic child.
(15) The return to Capernaum, and
(16) Perhaps the story of the children brought to Jesus for his
blessing. (17) The departure for Judaea, and
(18) Perhaps the story of the rich young man.
(19) The journey to Jerusalem.
(20) Perhaps the question of Peter about the future lot of the
disciples, and the promise of the thrones.
(21) The Messianic entry at the mount of Olives.
(22) The expulsion of the money-changers from the Temple.
(23) The question of the priests about the 'authority' with
which Jesus is endowed.
(24) The question of the Pharisees about the tribute-money.
(25) Probably also the question of the Sadducees about the
Resurrection.

INTRODUCTION xxxv
(26) The sa3ang as to whose son is the Messiah.
(27) The story of the woman taken in adultery,
(28) Perhaps the story of the widow's mite.
(29) A saying as to the destruction of the Temple.
(30) The basis of the narratives about
(a) The betrayal by Judas.
(6) The Last Supper.
(c) The night at Gethsemane.
(d) The arrest.
(e) The denial of Peter.
(/) The trial and condemnation of Jesus before Pilate.
(^f) The mockery scene at the prsetorium.
(A) The crucifixion and the death.
It is this narrative source which may have supplied the basis
for what John the Elder was reported to have said about Mark
and Peter. In that source there may perhaps be heard ' an echo
of apostolic evidence and specially of the reminiscences of Peter.
A special and direct relation of the author of this source with
Peter is possible and even probable, though by no means necessary.
A story such as Peter's denial goes back to Peter and could only
have got into the tradition through him. But the man who first
wrote the story down may have had it from intermediaries: still
more therefore could other stories such as the confession of Peter
and the arrest have been narrated to him by others. He may
have drawn from the common memories of the Galilasan apostles
just as well as from one individual. But as this first writer may
well have had relations with Peter, and as the origin of the tradi
tion about the origin of the second Gospel is thus more easily
explained, there is nothing to prevent us from assuming that a
disciple of Peter collected this series of reminiscences from the
mouth of the apostle himself In any case it is certain that Peter
played a preponderant part in the formation of the traditional
apostolic teaching {la catechese apostolique), and that consequently
the fundamental traditions at least of the Gospel story go back
to and proceed from him' {E. S. i. p. 114).
This narrative source, which Loisy further assumes to have
had certain accretions (such as the fuller story of the baptism, the
story of the temptation, the miraculous feeding, and the trans
figuration) added to it before it came into the hands of the author
of our Mark, may have been written in Jerusalem or in Judsea,
some ten to twenty years before the second Gospel — say between
50 and 60 A.D. Thus for the basis of the Gospel story, the evidence
would go back very closely to the events which are recorded.

xxxvi INTRODUCTION
§9. The 'speech' or 'sayings' document known as Q.
The relation of Mark to this source.
Was the narrative source which has here been assumed the
only written source which the author of our Mark knew and used ?
Here we come to a disputed and very important question. It is
very important for the following reason.
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke, both larger than Mark, are
both, as wholes, undoubtedly later than Mark, and both undoubtedly
used Mark as one of their sources. That Mark is the oldest of the
Gospels, and that Matthew and Luke made use of him, is one of
the most certain and assured results of the prolonged, minute and
exhaustive investigation by scholars into the Gospel narratives
and texts. It may be said that, practically speaking, everybody
is agreed upon this subject. Between them, Matthew and Luke
take up and use almost the whole of Mark's verses from i. i to
xvi. 8. But in addition to what they borrow and adapt from
Mark, Matthew and Luke have a great deal — especially of discourse
by Jesus — which is not found in Mark. Of this extra matter, a
considerable part is common (with textual variations) to them
both, while some is peculiar to each. As it is unlikely either
that Matthew used Luke, or that Luke used Matthew, for this and
other reasons it is generally acknowledged that what is common
to both Matthew and Luke, together perhaps with some of that
which is special to each, was taken from some source or sources
which they both drew upon and used. The material, at any rate,
not in Mark, and common to both Matthew and Luke, is usually
supposed to be drawn from one particular source, which is generally
known and designated under the title of Q (Q being the first letter
of the German word Quelle, 'a well, a source'). This common
material includes some most important sayings of Jesus ; for
instance, it includes a large portion of the Sermon on the Mount,
and such an immensely important saying as Matt. xi. 25-27
(Luke X. 21, 22). The date and origin of this source become
therefore a matter of the first importance. The material common
to both Matthew and Luke, which in all probability was drawn
from this source, enables us to make some conjectures about its
nature. It was mainly a collection of the sayings of Jesus : it
doubtless contained a few brief narratives, but these narratives
were included as settings and occasions for sayings and discourses
rather than for their own sake: it closed apparently before the
story of the Passion.
A further observation of great importance about this source
is — and here we come to the crucial point — that over and above

INTRODUCTION xxxvii
material which is common to both Matthew and Luke, and is not
found in Mark, it must also have contained material which is con
tained in Mark. We find, for instance, in Luke the same sayings
recounted twice over, once, as it is easy to see, from Mark, and once
from the extra source (Q).
What, then, is the deduction ? There are three alternatives.
The passages which are common to Mark and the extra source may
be due to both having drawn from the same common oral tradition;
or again they may be due to the extra source (Q) having borrowed
from (and adapted) Mark ; and, lastly, they may be due to Mark'
having known and borrowed from (and adapted) the extra source \
(Q). It may be said at once that each of these three hypotheses
has its own special difficulties. But if we put the first hypothesis
on one side, the difference between the second and third in signifi
cance becomes at once apparent. For if Q borrowed from Mark,
then Q, including perhaps all those important sections which are
common to Matthew and Luke, but are not found in Mark, is
later than Mark, i.e. it was written down after 70 A.D. But if
Mark borrowed from Q, then Q, including presumably the sections
which are not found in Mark, but are common to Matthew and
Luke, is earlier than Mark; i.e. Q was written down before 70 A.D.,
and may be, so far as Mark is concerned, indefinitely earlier. In
that case the authenticity of the words attributed to Jesus by Q
becomes the more likely.
The second hypothesis — that Q borrowed from Mark — is main
tained by Wellhausen with great brilliancy and force ; the third
hypothesis, within varying limits, is strongly upheld by Loisy,
Bousset, B. Weiss, Bacon and several other scholars.
After considerable hesitation I have come to the conclusion
that, within certain limitations (to be shortly alluded to), the 1
third hypothesis is the true one. Q, at any rate in its oldest i
form or edition, is older than Mark.
More must be said of this source in the paragraphs on Matthew
and Luke, Meanwhile let me add that Loisy not unreasonably
holds that for this source too — Q, the Logia, le recueil de sentences
— Peter must also have been an authority. Like the narrative
source, the 'sayings' source was not formed without him. The
date of both sources may be about the same ; their place of origin
(Jerusalem), their original language (Aramaic), may also be the
same. And the spirit of the two sources, 'so far as one can judge,
was about the same. Both expressed the recollections and the
faith of the earliest Christian community without any influence of
Pauline theology : the Galilsean apostles appeared in both as the
authorized witnesses of the life and the teaching of Christ ' {E. 8.
1. p. 114).

xxxviii INTRODUCTION
Loisy suggests that the following bits of Mark may be due
toQ: (i) The summary of the preaching of John. __
(2) The stories about the Sabbath (ii. 23-28, 111. 1-6).
(3) The dispute about Beelzebul.
(4) The parables.
(5) The saying about Jesus eating with tax-collectors and
einners (ii. 17).
(6) The saying about fasting (ii. 19, 20).
(7) The saying about that which defiles a man.
(8) The answer to those who asked for a sign (viii. 12).
(9) The saying about the leaven of the Pharisees (viii. 15).
(10) The saying about the renouncement (viii. 35).
(11) The teachings given at the last stay of Jesus at Capernaum
(ix. 33-50).
(12) The saying about divorce.
(13) The sayings about service (x. 42-45).
(14) The curt summary which is all that Mark gives of the
discourse against the Pharisees (xii. 38-40).
(15) Certain bits in the apocalyptic discourse.
It will be noted in the course of the commentary that with
regard to some of these passages the supposed ascription to Q is
very doubtful, but to deny this ascription for all of them seems to
me now more doubtful still. After B. Weiss's two last books I
think that the trend of opinion will more and more incline to the
hypothesis that, in some form of it or other, Mark knew Q and
used it.

§ 10. Wellhausen, Julicher, and Harnack on Mark and Q.
The reasons which induce Wellhausen to hold that Q is every
where later than Mark are largely, though not exclusively, due to
a comparison of the form and the environment of certain passages
in Mark, parallels to which are also found in Matthew and Luke
and were presumably borrowed from Q, with their environment
and form in Luke and Matthew. In every case he finds reasons
for thinking that form and environment in Q suggest a later date
for Q. Thus there are some nine verses in Mark which are parallel
to some nine verses in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (which
occupies 107 verses in all). Wellhausen holds that the originality
in the case of each of these nine verses is on the side of Mark.
And so on. We shall have occasion to notice some of Wellhausen's
arguments about such parallel passages, together with those of hia

INTRODUCTION xxxis
opponents, in the course of the commentary. But in addition to
these comparisons Wellhausen has general reasons as well. He
holds, for instance, that the general religious point of view of Q is
later than that of Mark. Into this delicate and difficult point I
cannot enter here: it will be incidentally alluded to more than
once in the commentary upon Matthew. But there is a further
argument which more especially concerns Mark. It is this. The
Gospel according to Mark is much the shortest of the Synoptics.
Luke is a little longer than Matthew, and Mark stands to Matthew
in the proportion of two to three. Mark consists of stories and
incidents in the life of Jesus, together with some specimens of
his oral teaching. But the stories occupy a far bigger space than
the words. Of speeches which occupy more than two or three
continuous verses, or which do not, as it were, form part of the
narratives and stories, there are very few. They certainly do not
occupy more than one-fifth of the first twelve chapters. Hence
the question arises : Did the author of the Gospel of Mark absorb
and reproduce all that he had heard, and all that he had read (if
written sources were known to him), about the life and teaching
of Jesus ? It is not so much in connection with incidents and
stories in Jesus's life that this question is important ; its main
importance lies in connection with what Jesus said, with his
speeches, parables, and oral teaching. Of these there is a great
deal in Matthew and Luke which is not found in Mark. Did Mark
know of the existence of all these extra speeches, or did he not ?
If many of them existed in Q, and if Mark knew and used Q,
why did he omit them from his book ? On the fact of this
omission, which one must agree with Julicher in regarding as very
remarkable {im hochsten Grade merkwilrdig), Wellhausen naturally
lays stress. For he holds that there is no reason to believe that
Mark deliberately omitted from his Gospel many sayings and
words of Jesus which nevertheless were known to him.
' Mark indubitably desired to record the whole tradition — the
words of Jesus as well as the stories about his life and death. It
cannot possibly be allowed that he did not include all that was
available to him, or that he left out what had already been written
down before him. He was in no wise a mere maker of a supple
ment. If, without and against his intention, a few things escaped
his notice, yet the gleaning of old and authentic material which
he left over for others cannot have been much richer than his own
harvest. The Sermon on the Mount is not only unknown to him,
but entirely contradicts his representation of Jesus's Galileean
ministry ' {Einleitung, p. 86).
It cannot be denied that there is some force in Wellhausen's
contentions. Jiilicher, who, as I have said, admits that the fact of

xl INTRODUCTION
the omissions is remarkable, also attempts to explain it. And
doubtless his explanations, if we hold that the arguments which
go to prove Mark's use of Q are too strong to be rejected, must be
accepted for lack of better. He (like other scholars) thinks that
we must take into grave account the nature and object of Mark's
work and book. Mark's great object was to show that Jesus was
the Messiah, the Son of God. Hence, like Paul, he c^es not care
so much for Jesus's sayings as for his person, his Messiahship, his
relation to God. He desired to depict the life and^ Messianic
character of Jesus rather than his teaching. His Gospel was
intended for the use of missionaries and preachers. To convert
the heathen, it was useful for the proof of the Messiahship and the
superhuman character of Jesus, with a description of his many
miracles, and of his Passion and death, to be in the hands of the
preacher. 'On the other hand the precepts which Jesus had given,
his teachings about prayer, trust in God, forgiveness of sin and so
on — these were reserved for those who had already accepted the
new faith ' {Einleitung, p. 286). In another connection the same
author observes that perhaps Mark (in obedience to the maxim
contained in Matt. vii. 6) was anxious to entrust only so much
of the holy words of the Master to the publicity of a Hellenistic
world as it must needs know in order to realize his greatness.
We can scarcely attach much cogency to this suggestion : perhaps
we may rather accept his other observation that the only tolerable
explanation which he can think of for the smallness of space
given in Mark to Jesus's words is that a collection of that
kind {i.e. Q) was already in the hands of believers. The oldest
edition of Q is thus known to Mark, but because it exists, he
does not think it necessary to make use of it in his own work.
So too thought Renan, who further supposed that the spirit of
Peter, 'un pen etroit et sec,' was perhaps the cause 'd'une telle
suppression.' But, perhaps, on the whole the least unsatisfactory explanation
(for one can hardly call it more) of the difficulty is that the Q
which was known to Luke and Matthew was other and bigger than
the Q which was known to Mark. In other words, as was implied
in the preceding paragraph, Q went through several expansions
and editions: it grew, and was added to from time to time. We
may perhaps assume, in the words of Julicher, ' a gradual ex
pansion and growth of Q fi-om some isolated series of sentences to
that sort of half-Gospel, in which we can first trace its existence
in history' ('Ein allmahliches Anwachsen von Q aus losen
Spruchreihen zu dem Halbevangelium als das es dann in der
Literaturgeschichte auf uns stosst'). 'Its beginnings would go
back to a very early period, long before Mark: while, later on,

INTRODUCTION xii
under the influence of Mark, it would have become more and more
rounded off and completed' {Einleitung, p. 322). It is difficult to
believe that if Mark had known of such a saying as Matt. xi. 27,
he would have not taken care to include it in his book. What
more significant evidence and proof of the unique relation of Jesus
to God? It may be added that the great theologian Harnack, who in
1907 published a small and immensely valuable treatise on Q —
the apostolic and early character of which he warmly defends —
then held that the verbal parallels between Mark and Q were not
due to either having borrowed from the other. Both he then held
were independent of each other, though Q was older than Mark.
The verbal parallels were due to common oral tradition. 'No
proof can be given,' said the great Harnack in 1907, 'of any
literary relationship between the two works. And this fact is an
indication that we must not date Q all too early : for had Q been
already long in circulation, we could neither understand that Mark
did not know it nor that he did not make use of it, even though
he wrote at a distance from Palestine ' {Sprilche und Reden Jesu,
p. 172). Since 1907 Harnack has announced that B. Weiss has
converted him. Mark did make use of Q. But, so far as I am
aware, Harnack has not given his explanation why the use of Q
made by Mark was so exceedingly small.
Whether Mark had any other written sources before him
besides the ' Petrine narrative ' and some early edition of Q cannot
be ascertained. It is not impossible. We may at any rate assume
with some' certainty a special and probably Jewish source for
much of the apocalyptic oration in chapter xiii.

§ II. Date and divisions of Mark.
The author wrote his book, as we have already indicated, in all
probability soon after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The place
where the book was written is generally supposed to be Rome,
though Wellhausen on this point too mistrusts the tradition. But
at any rate, as Loisy observes, it seems impossible that the author
of Mark should have written his work in Palestine or in a locality
where 'la tradition des premiers ap6tres et des disciples immediats
de Jesus aurait 6tii largement representee.' 'This circumstance
does not exclude Rome, but does not decisively recommend it;
nevertheless the presentation of Mark by the side of more complete
Gospels, or the probability that it was compiled in a country of
Latin speech (though its use of Latin words is not a decisive
argument seeing that Roman rule had necessarily introduced many

xlii INTRODUCTION ^
Latin words even in the East), can be invoked in support of the
more or less traditional hypothesis. Perhaps even it is due to its
character as an old Roman Gospel, rather than to the origin of one
of its sources, that the book owes its attribution to a disciple of
Peter' {E.S.i.-p. 119).
Mark can be spUt up into various divisions and sub-divisions.
With regard to these divisions and sub-divisions there is room for
some diversity of opinion among different scholars. But as to the
main breaks and pauses there can be little doubt. After a sort of
introduction or prologue extending over the first 13 or 15 verses
of his first chapter there comes the first big part, containing the
record (brief and fragmentary) of the Galilsean ministry. This
extends down to vi. 13. Then from vi. 14 to the end of chapter x.
extends a section which Wellhausen divides into two parts, the
first of which (vi. 14-viii. 26) he entitles 'Jesus unsettled and
wandering ' {Jesus auf unsteter Wanderimg), while the second, from
viii. 27 to the end of x., he calls ' Jesus on the way to Jerusalem.'
Bacon would prefer to make the section vi. 14-viii. 26 a third
division of a big Part I. extending from i. i to x. 52. The rest
of the book from xi. to the end clearly falls into two parts, of
which the first, xi.-xiii., deals with the entry into, and the teaching
in Jerusalem, and the second, xiv. to the end, with the Passion and
resurrection. Mark has a very clear idea of the course and issue of the
ministry of Jesus and presents us with a clear and reasonable,
and, upon the whole, an assuredly historic picture. There can
be little doubt that the main historic outlines of the brief public
career of Jesus and of the circumstances of his death are to be
really found in Mark, and are only to be found there. Problems
indeed there are which the Gospel suggests and raises in plenty.
They will meet us in the course of the commentary. But, in
spite of them, we are enabled to get from Mark a sure insight into
the general course of that last fateful year or eighteen months of
Jesus's life, and also into some main elements of his teaching and
character. We cannot be grateful enough to the author of this
Gospel.

I 12. The Gospel of Matthew: its relation to Mark.
We have now to speak of the Gospel of Matthew.
It has already been said that almost the whole of Mark is
incorporated in Matthew, who also to a very considerable extent
follows the order of Mark's narrative, both as to the sequence of
the stories which Mark relates, as well as naturally in the general

INTRODUCTION sliii
outline of the life. In Matthew, as in Mark, we find Jesus first
teaching in Galilee, passing for a brief space northwards, out of
Galilee, on to heathen soil, and then turning again southwards and
moving towards Jerusalem. But Matthew is much longer than
Mark. As regards the last days of Jesus's life, the arrest, the trial,
and the crucifixion, there is no great difference between them —
136 verses in Matthew and 119 verses in Mark. But Matthew
opens his book with a long genealogy and with an account of
Jesus's birth and infancy, which are wanting in Mark. These
occupy forty-eight verses. From the opening of his book to the
beginning of the events of the Passion, Mark has thirteen
chapters and 539 verses. From the point where Mark begins to
the same place in the narrative, Matthew has twenty-three chapters
and 863 verses, that is, 324 verses more than Mark, or just three-
fifths as much again. Of this large amount of extra material a
very considerable proportion consists of speeches — reports of words
said by Jesus rather than of things done by him.
But in reality the extra material of sayings is still larger. For
many narratives in Mark are considerably curtailed in Matthew,
and there are a few things in Mark which do not appear in
Matthew at all. Roughly speaking there are some 410 verses in 1
Matthew which contain sayings of Jesus which are not found in a
Mark, and of these 410 verses we may take it that some 230 have |
more or less close parallels in Luke, while some 180 verses are
peculiar to Matthew. Thus Matthew (like Luke) is composed of
three parts : material common to him and Mark, material common
to him and Luke, material found only in him. (It should, of
course, be remembered that much of the Mark material which
is reproduced in Matthew is also reproduced in Luke.)

§ 13. The relation of Matthew and Luke to Q.
Of those portions of Matthew which have no parallel in Mark,
and which, as we have seen, as regards the sayings of Jesus,
amount to about 180 verses for what is peculiar to Matthew,
and about 230 verses for what he shares with Luke, the more
important and more interesting portion is that which is common,
more or less completely and verbally, to the first and the third
Evangelists. This portion, as I have already said, is supposed by
most great scholars not to have been borrowed by Matthew from
Luke, or by Luke from Matthew, but to have been taken by both
Matthew and Luke from a common source, now generally spoken
of as Q. It will be convenient to adopt this same nomenclature
here.

xliv INTRODUCTION
Some remarks about Q have already been made in the
preceding section. We have seen that the original character and
range of the document are still in dispute. It probably began
with the baptism of Jesus, and thus, like Mark, regarded Jesus
as entering upon his Messianic office from that moment. It
included the temptation, but most scholars hold that it did not
include any account of the Passion or resurrection. It was
'essentially a collection of the sayings and speeches of Jesus, and
where it incorporated any story, it did so in order to give the
occasion and background of a saying or a speech. I have already
mentioned Harnack's book on the subject of Q, in which the great
theologian earnestly and even vehemently pleads for Q's primitive
character, authenticity and early date. I have also mentioned
how Wellhausen maintains a contrary hypothesis, arg'uing that
Q is later than Mark, and that the words which Q puts into the
mouth of Jesus must always be regarded with more suspicion
than those which are assigned to him by Mark. Not that Well
hausen would by any means wish to controvert the authenticity
of all the Q material. But he does hold a much smaller proportion
to be genuine than Harnack, who practically accepts the whole.
How much of what we now find in Matthew and Luke may
be assigned to Q ? This is a still disputed question, and can
never be ascertained with certainty. Harnack is very cautious.
His estimate of Q comes only to about 202 verses, while some
28 verses more are regarded as doubtful. Loisy assigns to the
source a very much larger quantity of verses. For example, many
of the parables which are only found in Matthew or are only
found in Luke, Loisy assigns to Q. B. Weiss, again, in his
estimate of Q, differs both from Harnack and from Loisy. Never
theless, all that Harnack allots to Q is also allotted to him by
Loisy and Weiss. Wellhausen thinks it doubtful whether all
those passages which are common to Luke and Matthew may
with assurance be always assigned to one source only. And I am
inclined to think that if we are driven to assume that Mark knew
Q, we must, at any rate, accept the hypothesis of Jiilicher that Q
went through many editions, and that while its oldest bits are
very old, its latest bits, and the form in which Matthew knew and
used it, are as late as, or later than, Mark.
§ 14. Harnack's estimate of the size and character of Q.
Harnack, as I have said, is very emphatic on the authenticity
and originality of the 202 verses which he thinks may most
probably be assigned to Q. These verses comprise the following

INTRODUCTION xiv
passages from Matthew, though Matthew has not by any means
always preserved the most original form.
Matthew iii. 5, 7-12.
iv. i-ii.
v. 1-4, 6, 11-13, 15, 18, 25, 26, 32, 39, 40, 42, 44-48.
vi. 9-13, 19-33.
vii. 1-5, 7-14, 16-18, 21, 24-38.
viii. 5-13, 19-22.
ix. n, 38.
X. 7, 106, 12, 13, 15, i6a, 24-40.
xi. 2-13, 16-19, 21-23, 25-27-
xii. 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 38, 39, 41-45-
xiii. 16,17,31-33.
XV. 14.
xvii. 20 6.
xviii. 7, 12, 13, 15, 21, 22.
xix. 28.
xxiii. 4, 12, 13, 23, 25, 27, 29-32, 34-39-
xxiv. 26-2 8, 3 7-4 1 , 43-5 1 .
xxv. 29.
All these verses have their parallels in Luke. The scholars
are not in agreement as to the question whether Luke or
Matthew has better preserved the original text of Q. In some
passages doubtless it is Luke who has done so, in other passages
Matthew. Reference will be made to this question in several
places in the commentary. In some passages the verbal agree
ment is much closer than in others.
Another question concerns the order. A considerable part of
the 202 verses appears in the same order both in Matthew and
Luke, and on the basis of this agreement Harnack has drawn up
a table of contents for at least a large portion of Q. The com
bination of sayings into long and formal speeches which we find
in Matthew existed already in Q, though not to the same extent.
But there was already in Q, much where we find them in Matthew,
the Sermon on the Mount (in a shorter form), the oration to the
apostles on their being sent upon their missionary journey, the
speech about John the Baptist, the diatribe against the Pharisees,
and a speech about the Parousia and the 'last things.' On the
whole Harnack is of opinion that Matthew has preserved the order
of Q better than Luke. B. Weiss, who has a different and more
generous estimate of the amount of material to be assigned to Q,
also often differs from Harnack as to the question of order and as
to the original text and its comparatively better preservation in
Matthew or Luke.

xlvi INTRODUCTION
Both what we find and what we do not find in Q are in accord
ance with Harnack's special conception of Jesus and his teaching.
One is therefore bound to weigh very carefully his pleadings foi
Q's authenticity. Nevertheless, an outsider like myself reading
Q (as picked out from Matthew and Luke by Harnack) has the
impression that the much larger majority of the 202 verses as
signed to it contain nothing which Jesus may not have uttered, and
that the large majority of them contain very much which he most
probably did utter. It seems quite true that Q, when Matthew's
editorial additions and settings are peeled off, has no distinctive
tendency. It is, as Harnack says, a compilation of discourses and
sayings, ' the arrangement of which has no reference to the Passion,
with an horizon which is as good as absolutely bounded by Galilee,
without any clearly discernible bias, whether apologetic, didactic,
ecclesiastical, national, or anti-national' (Harnack, op. eit. p. 121,
E.T. p. 171).
Whether we could say the same thing if Q included all that
Loisy, or even B. Weiss, would make it include, may well be
doubted. But as to those sections of Matthew and Luke which
are only found in those two Gospels respectively, Harnack says
with great caution: 'it is probable a priori, and even certain, that
much which is peculiar to Matthew and Luke was taken from Q,
but I do not venture to mention any part of the material special
either to Matthew or Luke, which one is justified in allocating
to Q' {op. eit. p. 130).

§ 15. The parallels of Q with Mark.
It may be convenient to mention here the few parallels in Q
to passages in Mark. I have already indicated that some of these
will come up for discussion in the commentary. There are three
possible explanations : Mark borrowed them from Q ; Q borrowed
them from Mark; both Mark and Q knew them independently
from a common oral tradition. The first and third, or the second
and third of these explanations may both be used for different
passages. (i) To four verses in that portion of Matthew's Sermon on
the Mount which Harnack assigns to Q there are four isolated
parallels m Mark. (I do not here give the parallels in Luke.)
Thus Matt. V. 1 3 corresponds with Mark ix. 50.
V. 15 „ j^ iv. 21.
V. 32 „ ,, X. II.
» vii. I „ „ iv. 24.

INTRODUCTION

xlvii

(2) Again, in those verses which Harnack assigns to Q from
the long oration in Matthew when Jesus sends out the apostles,
there are seven parallels, namely.
Matt. X. 10 corresponds with Mark vi. 8.
X. 14 „ „ vi. II.

X. 26
X. 33
X. 38
X- 39
X. 40

IV. 22.
viii. 38.
viii. 34.
viii. 35.
ix. 37.

(As to the inclusion of Matt. x. 40 in Q, Harnack declares
himself very dubious.)
(3) Again, in Matthew's chapter about Beelzebul and Jesus's
defence against the Pharisees, there are three important parallels :
Matt. xii. 25 corresponds with Mark iii. 24.
„ xii. 32 „ „ iii. 29.
„ xii. 39 „ „ viii. 12.
In addition to these we have (4) the parallel between Matt.
xvii. 20 and Mark xi. 23, and (5) there is the parable of the
mustard seed, which in Matthew and Luke Harnack holds was
taken from Q and not from Mark (Matt. xiii. 31, 32; Mark iv.
31, 32).
The deductions and arguments which these parallels have
suggested to scholars will be alluded to in the commentary.

§ 16. Date and origin of Q.
I have already stated that Q's birthplace was Palestine, that it
was probably written originally in Aramaic, and that in its oldest
form it goes back to a very early date, say between 50 to 60 a.d.
Is anything more known, or to be inferred, as to its author ? Here
too some weight may be assigned to a statement of Papias. He
says (whether on the authority of John the Elder or no is un
certain), 'Matthew wrote the sayings (of Jesus) in the Hebrew
language, and each one interpreted them as he was able'
(MaT^ato? ixev ovv '^0pai'Bi SiaXeKTq) rd Xoyia avveypd'^aTO,
rjpfjirjvevae B' avrd, co? ^v SvvaT6<; e/cacTTo<i). Papias was here
alluding to our Gospel of Matthew. It is, however, absolutely
certain that the first Gospel was not written by an apostle, and
that its date is nearer 90 or 100 than 60. Hence the suggestion
has found lavour with some scholars that the Logia, or sayings
which tiie apostle Matthew really drew up, was that source of the

xlviii INTRODUCTION
first Gospel which is now known as Q. Harnack calls this
suggestion ' uberwiegend wahrscheinlich ' ; Loisy, on the other
hand, is very much more sceptical. How did Q get lost ? Would
a book properly guaranteed as an apostolic work, and presented as
such to the earliest Christian communities, have so easily dis
appeared? The matter can never be now ascertained. Loisy,
like Julicher, allows for some growth and expansion of the original
Q : ' S'il a et6 compose en arameen, on n'aura pas tarde k le
traduire en grec. Des interpolations judeo-chr^tiennes, qui ont
leur ^cho jusque dans Luc, y avaient ^t^ bient&t introduites, avec
les complements divers' {E. S. i. p. 143). Some of these 'com
plements divers' are, I am inclined to believe, later than Mark.
But, in spite of these additions, Q remains a most valuable
and ancient authority for the utterances of Jesus and for his
conceptions of religion and morality, if not also for his conception
of his own person and of his relation to God.

§ 17. Tests for authenticity of sayings attributed to Jesus.
Let me say, however, here and at once, that the importance
of the question of the authenticity of all the words assigned to
Jesus in Q (or in the Synoptic Gospels as a whole) must not
be exaggerated. Or rather let me put it thus : the importance
of the Gospels for modern Judaism does not merely hinge upon
the question of authenticity. From one point of view the question
of authenticity does not indeed greatly matter.
The excellence of the Sermon on the Mount is neither impaired
nor increased if Jesus said all of it or much the greater part of it,
or if he did not. Modern Judaism must study the words ascribed
to Jesus and take up an attitude towards them, whether Jesus
spoke them or no. But historically or biographically the question
whether all the Sermon on the Mount, or whether Matt. xi. 25-27,
is authentic or not remains very important and interesting. Though
these authenticity problems can never be definitely resolved, they
are bound to retain their fascination aud attractiveness.
One very popular argument may be here mentioned which is
combated by Wellhausen. It can only, however, be most briefly
alluded to. It is commonly said that the greatest, most striking,
most original things in the Gospels must be authentic because only
Jesus could have thought of them. It can be shown, it is said,
that his disciples or reporters were mediocre men for the most
part, who often misunderstood their Master, and were certainly
not capable of creative and original thought. On the contrary,
we find instances in which a too daring utterance of the Master

INTRODUCTION xlix
has been subjected to compromise and commonplace by addition
or qualification. I had never been quite persuaded by this argu
ment. Each case must be dealt with on its merits, and when so
dealt with, the argument does not always seem to hold. For
instance, one of the noblest sayings in the Gospels is surely :
'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do' (Luke
xxiii. 34). But this verse is almost certainly not authentic.
Hence I was very much interested to find that Wellhausen raises
a protest against a too constant use of the argument that the
value of the contents is the guarantee of the authenticity. 'Truth,'
he says, 'testifies only to itself and not to its author' ('Die W^ahr-
heit bezeugt nur sich selber und nicht ihren Autor '). And then
he goes on to make a remark, which Julicher calls a 'kiihnes
Wagnis' {Einleitung, p. 341), but which seems to me to gain
support from the fine and noble things which are occasionally due
to the editors and glossators of the Hebrew prophets : ' The spirit
of Jesus continued to live in the earliest community, and it was
the community which not only created the Gospel about him, but
also developed his moral teaching upon the basis which he had
laid down. The ethical teaching of the community was therefore
the true product of what Jesus had said and been : those words in
which his spirit was made manifest seemed (and with good inward
reason) to be equal in value to that which in similar circumstances
he himself would have said ' {Einleitung, p. 86).
I do not undervalue the arguments on the other side, of which
I will mention some more in a moment ; but I do strongly urge
that Wellhausen's argument must also be given its proper weight.
Take such a passage as Matt. xxv. 35-40. Can anything be
imagined more superb? Anything which, given and assuming
the point of view of the writer, is more redolent of true inspiration ?
But is it not certain that this passage was not spoken by Jesus ?
Wellhausen perhaps presses too greatly the canon that as the
measure for the authenticity of the words assigned to Jesus we
have first and foremost to take the degree of literary testimony.
Thus in the first degree of value would come what is said by
Jesus in Mark, next what is said by him both in Matthew and
Luke (Q), and lastly, what is said by him only in Matthew and
only in Luke. Wellhausen admits that the oral tradition is older
than its written precipitate and not only older but larger. But
he urges that in the course of time (and of a comparatively
short time) the primary authentic tradition diminished, and the
secondary unauthentic tradition increased. And in opposition to
the current opinion he holds ' that the oral tradition of the sayings
and speeches gradually increased and developed in much greater
bulk than the tradition of what Jesus did and what befell him '
M. d

1 INTRODUCTION
('dass die tJberlieferung des Redestoffs sich im Lauf der Zeit yiel
starker entwickelt und vermehrt hat als die des erzahlenden Stoffs')
{Einleitung, p. 85).
On the other side, we have to remember that Jesus may or
even must have repeated some of his sayings, parables and
teachings again and again, and that the memories of orientals
who write little, and use no notebooks, is very retentive. After
his death the words of Jesus will have been constantly recounted
to fresh disciples ; they will have been treasured up and pondered
over. Hence it may be argued that, if there are not definite
internal reasons which plead for a later date, we may fairly
confidently assign to Jesus the words ascribed to him by Matthew
only and by Luke only, if they are words which seem to harmonize
with his character and teaching as we can gather and infer them
from the pages of Mark and (as most scholars, in spite of Well'
hausen, would add) of Q.
It is indeed the words ascribed to Jesus in the Synoptic
Gospels which argue for the historical character of the man and
of his life. I would like to quote here the measured statement of
the great philosopher Wundt, which I happened to come across in
turning over the leaves of his huge VolkerpsychliMtgie (Zweiter
Band, 'Mythus und Religion,' Dritter Teil, 1909, p. 528): 'No
unprejudiced person, who is only tolerably familiar with the ways
in which myths are formed, and who has also fairly followed the
growing discovery and elucidation of the sources of old oriental
legends, can to-day any longer doubt that with the exception of
a few incidents in the narrative of the Passion, which probably
possess an adequate historic attestation, the outward life of Jesus
is a tissue of legends. But that which these legends leave un
touched, and that which is never found in their mythological
counterparts and predecessors, is the series of sayings and speeches
of Jesus, as they have been handed down to us in the Synoptic
Gospels.' § 18. The theories of Mr Allen and Professor Burton.
It should perhaps be added that the conceptions about Q,
even in the cautious form in which they are enunciated by
Harnack and Wellhausen, are not accepted by all scholars,
Mr Allen, for instance, has considerably different views about the
sources of Matthew, and consequently about Q. He thinks that
It is rash and impossible to assign all those sections of Matthew
for which there are parallels in Luke, but not in Mark, to one
common source. The great varieties of language and 'context
with which we are confronted in respect of these parallel passages

INTRODUCTION Ii
is, as he thinks, a very valid objection to such a hypothesis.
[Has the considerable agreement in order, which Harnack in his
book on Q pointed out, perhaps sufficed to modify this opinion ?]
Allen remarks that if Wellhausen is right in supposing that some
of the variants between Matthew and Luke imply a different
Greek translation of an Aramaic original, or that we have to
assume that both Evangelists knew and used the Aramaic as well
as one and the same Greek translation, then this very supposition
is an argument against a common source. For that 'the two
Evangelists had access not only to a Greek translation of the
supposed common written source, but also to the Aramaic original,
is a clumsy theory.' It is 'a complicated and unnecessary con
jecture that the two Evangelists sometimes altered their Greek
original and sometimes substituted for it a new translation from
the original Aramaic' The 'great amount of disagreement in
substance, in setting, in order and in language, between Matthew
and Luke in these sayings [of Jesus], is only explicable if they
were not directly using a common source.'
Allen's own theory which in one important point coincides
with Burton's, seems, however, open to grave objections. He
makes a list of all the sayings and speeches attributed to Jesus
in Matthew which are peculiar to that Evangelist. He finds that
the gi'eat majority of these sayings have ' a common character.
They are (a) parabolic, or (&) anti-Pharisaic, or (c) strongly Jewish-
Christian, or {d) couched in Jewish phraseology ' {Gospel according
to St Matthew, p. liv.). Hence he assumes that they came all, or
in large part, from a single source. It is this source which was
the Logia of Matthew of which Papias speaks. 'If the editor
of Matthew borrowed these sayings from the Matthean document,
whether it lay before him in its original form or in a Greek trans
lation, we have at once an explanation of the reason why the name
Matthew attached itself to the first Gospel of which these sayings
form a substantial proportion.' Precisely the same hypothesis is
taken up by Professor Burton in his interesting, but unsatisfying,
pamphlet, Principles of Literary Criticism and the Synoptic
Problem (1904). The hypothesis, he argues, 'explains as no
theory which makes the Matthean Logia a source of both Matthew
and Luke or of all three Synoptists can explain, how the present
Gospel of Matthew obtained the name ' (p. 41).
But is it not a fatal objection to this theory that it makes the
oldest document the home and source of sayings which are so
obviously later, such as xiii. 24-30, 36-43, xvi. 17-19, xviii. 15-20,
xxiii. 34-38, xxv. 31-46? Some portions of what is peculiar to
Matthew may come from Q or from some other ancient source,
but surely very far from all.
d2

lii INTRODUCTION
From this special Matthean source Mr Allen further supposes
that the editor of Matthew borrowed also many of the sayings
which he has in common with Luke, but in a different form and
context. From other Greek translations of the Logia than that
which the first Evangelist used, 'excerpts and groups of sayings
passed into one or other of the "many" evangelic writings with
which Luke was acquainted.' ' When Luke wrote his Gospel, he
found these sayings dispersed in many quarters. Some of them,
e.g. the Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer, had passed through
many stages since they were first extracted from the Logia
(p. Ix.). The net result of Mr Allen's hypothesis is, however, that
almost all those words of Jesus in Matthew which Harnack
assigns to Q, Mr Allen assigns to the Matthean Logia, but this
collection contained in addition (according to Mr Allen) all or
most of those sayings which are peculiar to Matthew. And
Mr Allen is only able at the last to explain satisfactorily the
frequent 'remarkably close' agreement between Matthew and Luke
on the very doubtful hypothesis that Luke ' may well have read
the first Gospel, and have been sometimes influenced by it' (p. Ix.).
As against the theories of Allen and Burton it may, I think,
be said that in spite of certain difficulties, which are not to be
denied or slurred over, the ordinary theory of Q, in one or other
of its various forms, still holds the field.
§ 19. Other sources of Matthew besides Q and Mark.
The 'doubly attested sayings.'
That Matthew was not limited to the two sources Mark and
Q is tolerably clear. He, like Luke, had more than two sources,
and much of that portion of his contents, which is peculiar to
himself, hiay yet not have been written by himself, but be taken
from other sources of which we now know nothing. It may also
be observed that embedded in those portions of the 'speech'
material in Matthew and Luke which was not drawn from Q
(according to Harnack's estimate of Q), there are a few more
parallels with Mark. These parallels, too, probably imply in many
cases that neither the sources of Matthew and Luke borrowed
from Mark nor Mark from those sources. Such parallels would
form a group of what Professor Burkitt calls ' doubly attested
sayings.' He draws up a list of thirty-one such sayings in all,
but the independence of the Matthew or Luke source from Mark,
and of Mark from the Matthew or Luke source, needs careful
testing in each particular case. In many of the thirty-one in
stances it is, to say the least, doubtful {Gospel History and its
transmission, pp. 148-166).

INTRODUCTION liii

§ 20. Matthew as editor. His point of view. His relation
to Judaism and the Old Testament. His date.
So much then of Matthew's sources. But the writer who
borrowed or used all these sources is not an unimportant element
or factor in his own book. As he borrows, he sometimes changes ;
he edits, groups, expands, comments. He has his own point of view.
It may be that these editorial additions and settings sometimes
obscure the authenticity of the material which Matthew has used,
and that even in sayings and parables which are only found in the
first Evangelist a greater proportion is authentic than sceptical
scholars will allow. Thus Matthew has some seven parables
which are peculiar to him (xiii. 24-30, 44-50, xviii. 23-35, xx.
1-16, xxi. 28-31, xxv. 1-13, 31-46). Of these Wellhausen ob
serves : ' They are the elaborately worked out products of careful
deliberation ; they are not the creations of the particular moment,
but (from the standpoint of Jesus) they refer to the future. All
of them deal with the Kingdom of Heaven, regarding it as a
sown field, or as a vineyard, or as the earthly sphere of labour of
the household servants of God ; he as king, or master, or landlord,
on the one side, is opposed to the slaves or the sons (it comes
to the same thing) of his household on the other; they work
together on his property, and among each other they are marked
off by unimportant outward, and also by important inward, differ
ences. At the last, they receive their reward, in that, distinguished
now by the inward worth of their service, some of them are
received into the kingdom of glory, while others are rejected'
{Einleitung, p. 69). But these assertions must be tested in each
individual case, and especially as regards the meaning which may
have been originally intended, and the meaning which Matthew
would have us give to each particular parable of the seven. So
regarded Loisy may be right in thinking that the parables of the
treasure and the pearl and the net (xiii. 44-50), the parables of
the wicked servant and of the workers in the vineyard (xviii. 23-
35, XX. 1-16), and the parable of the two sons (xxi. 28-31), may
without much hesitation be assigned to Q and be authentic, while
we may hesitate more as to the origin of the parable of the wise
and foolish virgins (xxv. 1-13), and perhaps still more about the
parable of the tares (xiii. 24-30).
The author of the Gospel of Matthew appears to have been
of Jewish origin, and to have been specially interested in the
Jewish aspect of Christianity. He probably thought that Chris
tianity — for by his time one can speak of the new religion as
distinct from the old — was the true development of Judaism,

liv INTRODUCTION
the fulfilment and consummation of the Law and the Prophets.
'The disciples are a new legitimate Israel, and bound together by
a New Law which takes the place of the Old. The keynote of
the work is not the opposition of Law and Grace, as in S. Paul,
but the opposition of the Old Law and the New ' (Burkitt, op. eit.
p. 1 88). The author was much interested in showing (according
to the usual strained and arbitrary exegesis of his time) that the
main incidents of Jesus's career were a fulfilment of Old Testament
predictions. Hence it is in Matthew that we have the largest
number of Old Testament quotations. ' Matthew ' wrote in Greek,
and many of his quotations are taken from the Septuagint. But
others seem translated direct from the Hebrew — a fact which has
been variously explained. It may be that the author understood
Hebrew and made these translations himself; it may be that in
these instances he is merely borrowing from a source which already
contained them.
The date of Matthew is generally supposed to be about 90 to
100 A.D. The commentary will show that his conce|)tion of Jesus
was more developed than that of Mark. Jesus cainot be allowed
to deprecate his being called ' good.' His miracles'^are heightened.
His simple humanity, so clearly reflected in Mark, is obscured.
Whether the virgin birth episode existed in the earliest form of
Matthew is, however, disputed.
The Christian Church is organized. There are parties in it;
good members and bad. It has its own officers and discipline.
The indications of all this will be alluded to in the commentary.
The first Gospel contains a curious mixture of ' particularist '
and ' universalist' sayings. It is in places intensely anti- Jewish ;
in others it seems, on the contrary, to ascribe great validity and
honour to the Law and even to the official exposition of the Law.
These contrasts have been variously explained. It seems safest to
assume that, for the most part, the particularist or 'legal ' passages
are quotations, and that to Matthew they no longer mean what
they originally meant. They are spiritually interpreted, or again
they are intended to press the authority of the Old Testament as
a whole against certain extreme, though Christian, teachers who
sought to depress its divinity and excellence. Some have seen in
these particularist and legal sayings the opposition of the Jewish-
Christian author to the Paulinists. But this view is very much
more doubtful. Yet Professor Burkitt is probably quite right in
saying that ' no book of the New Testament is so full of thoughts
and expressions which have a real parallel in Rabbinical literature.
The Evangelist is, so to speak, a Christian Rabbi, though no doubt
he would have disclaimed the title. If the Gospel of Mark is most
closely in touch with History, the Gospel of Matthew is most

INTRODUCTION Iv
closely in touch with the Talmud. Like the other Gospels it is in
form a narrative of the earthly life of Jesus Christ, but it sets forth
that life with reference to the questions that most nearly concerned
a Church composed of Palestinian Christians. No doubt the
Evangelist felt himself and his brethren separated from the mass
of his unbelieving fellow-countrymen. The Christians form an
Ecclesia, a Society, of their own (xviii. 17), distinct from ordinary
Jews.... But even so, the unbelieving Jew is nearer than the
Gentile and the tax-gatherer; he that is outcast to the Jew is
outcast also to the Evangelist' (Burkitt, p. 191).
The relations of the first Gospel to the third are still disputed.
It is extremely doubtful whether either knew of the other. A few
words more upon the subject will be said in the next paragraph.

§21. Is Matthew ' catholic ' or Judceo-Christian ?
The Gospel of Matthew has been called by Renan ' the most
important book that has ever been written.' It won for itself
immense popularity, and the first place in the list of the four
Evangels. It is the catholic Gospel, not merely because of the
passage about Peter, but because of its inclusiveness. It does not
reconcile differences very successfully, but still it includes them.
As a whole it does not, therefore, incline to any one party, but
occupies a middle place. ' Conservative towards tradition, it yet
stands at some distance from its spirit. It is a catholic Gospel,
and its genuinely catholic sentiment and tone have won for it its
first place among the four' (Jiilicher, Einleitung, p. 265). Its
grand collection of speeches and parables give it a peculiar
character. The Gospel of Matthew is the Gospel of the Sermon v.
on the Mount. This alone may have helped to secure it its place
of honour among the books of the New Testament and in the
hearts of men.
Wellhausen is inclined to press the Judaeo-Christian character
of Matthew, and to limit its catholic character much more than
Julicher. ' Matthew has the primitive Christian community
of Jerusalem present before him, which, in spite of everything,
yet sought to hold fast to Judaism. The Christian hostility
to the official representatives of the Law is nowhere expressed
more bitterly than by him : only by him are they stigmatized
absolutely and without qualification as hypocrites, who in truth
are not what they seem, and are called upon to be. But this
enmity is at the same time a rivalry for the same goal — for the
fulfilment of the Law, for righteousness. The goal for Christians
is set on a much greater height than for the Jews, but for

Ivi

INTRODUCTION

that very reason they claim to be the true representatives of
Judaism, and refuse to allow the false representatives {i.e. the
Jews) to drive them out. They still take part in the Temple
service in Jerusalem (v. 23-25) ; they pay the Temple tax ; when
no higher duty conflicts, they observe the Sabbath strictly
(xxiv. 20). Fasting, praying, and almsgiving remain for them
also important exercises in righteousness. Outside Jerusalem
they restrict their missionary activity to Jews, they exclude
heathen and Samaritans, and refuse to throw their sacred pearls
before swine (vii. 6, x. 5). All this is very clearly expressed ; it is
laid down as a principle; and it has more weight for the funda
mental character of Matthew than some real and some apparent
contradictions to it, which also occur. In spite of his keen
opposition to the official and aristocratic elements in Jewry which
were hostile to Christianity, Matthew is still very anxious to
maintain the connection of the humble Christian community, who
were drawn from the lower strata of the population, with their
Jewish roots and soil : in language and manner he is a Rabbi who
believes in Jesus the Messiah, and hei-ein he is distinguished and
different from Mark' {Einleitung, p. 70). The evidence for this view
of Matthew will be noticed in the commentary. If the passages
on which Wellhausen would rely are merely faithful quotations from
the ' source,' it may be that Jiilicher's view is the mor^^ccurate ; the
older the Gospel as a whole, the more probable is Wellhausen's
view ; the later it is as a whole, the more probable is Jiilicher's.

§ 22. ' Kingdom of Heaven ' in Matthew : authenticity
of the parables peculiar to Matthew.
Wellhausen, as I shall notice in the commentary, presses the
view that the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew means (not as it did
originally to Jesus, and as it did to Mark, the ' eschatological '
Kingdom of the future), but the present Kingdom as realized,
though, so far, more or less imperfectly realized, in the Christian
Church. Thus he says : ' The Kingdom as present, especially as
it appears in Matthew, was founded by Jesus : he is its necessary
condition. It was his purpose to found it, and for that very
object does he appear, from the beginning of his ministry, openly
as the Messiah. From the beginning too his teaching is specially
directed to his disciples, in order to explain to them how his
community is to be constituted, and what is to befall it in the
future. He no longer (as in Mark) scatters his teaching seed upon
the ground, careless of the result, but through his teaching about
the Kingdom he sows the Kingdom itself, which is compared with

INTRODUCTION Ivii
the sown field or with the plant in the same way as with the vine
yard. That by the Kingdom he means the Church (the eKKX-rjcria)
cannot be mistaken, though from reasons of historic propriety
Matthew usually avoids the name. His true meaning is specially
clear when he talks of Scribes and stewards, of older and younger
elements, of worthy and unworthy members, of the Kingdom of
God ; or again when he says that John the Baptist, though the
greatest Jew, is yet smaller than the lowliest member of the
Kingdom. This equivalence of Kingdom and Church is perfectly
intelligible ; for the community was the product of Jesus's activity,
and was regarded as the vestibule of heaven. But nevertheless
this identification of Kingdom with Church is entirely Christian; it
cannot have been achieved by Jesus, or, still less, have been assumed
by him. And yet in Matthew he does assume it, without regarding
any explanation of it as necessary. He speaks to his disciples as
if they were already his community and organized as such : he
projects himself into a future situation as if it were already
present' {Einleitung, p. io6).
In all those sayings of Jesus in Matthew upon the basis of
which Wellhausen constructs his opinion, it is, however, necessary
to ask how far they may not owe this later aspect to the editor,
and how far, divested of setting and editorial modifications, they
may not be genuine products (borrowed from some source) of the
teaching of Jesus. Professor Burkitt, while admitting that the
above passage fi-om Wellhausen contains 'a great deal that is
undeniably true,' yet pleads most earnestly for the historical and
authentic character of much which Matthew puts into the mouth
of Jesus. At the worst the sayings of Jesus in Matthew (peculiar
to that Gospel) are to be considered ' rather as adaptations of what
the disciples had remembered of their Master's teaching than as
new inventions made for the purpose.... The greater part of the
substance of the teaching, and all that is most fresh and picturesque
in its expression, come from historical reminiscence of the Master's
words — Nowhere in early Christian literature, except in the
three Synoptic Gospels, do we find that picturesque outlook on
men and nature that finds expression in the Parables of Jesus'
{op. eit. pp. 195, 199). There seems to me a good deal of force in
these arguments.
Even Wellhausen, in spite of his own scepticism, and though,
like other scholars, he holds that Matthew as a whole was written
after the fall of Jerusalem, is yet obliged to point out that the
background of the early Christian community at Jerusalem
is very often clearly discernible even in those passages which
are not derived either from Q or Mark. ' Some of them, as for
example Matt. xvii. 24-27, must be drawn from a relatively

Iviii INTRODUCTION
old tradition. In the case of others we may help ourselves by the
hypothesis that a Christian community existed m Jerusalem even
after the destruction of the city, and that it contmued to move on
the old lines. But we must also reckon with the possibility that
Matthew kept to the form of the tradition of the community ot
Jerusalem of set purpose, even though he occasionally destroyed
it' {Einleitung, p. 88). Thus Wellhausen's scepticism leads hira
to more than one dubious hypothesis.

§ 23. Loisy on Matthew.
On the other hand, the narratives which are peculiar to
uMatthew have rarely, if ever, any historical value. As Loisy
observes : ' They have rather the character of legendary develop
ments than of truly traditional recollections.' The desire to find
fulfilments of O.T. predictions or allusions in the life of Jesus
has led to the creation of incidents of which it is ' unnecessary to
observe that the historic value is nil.' Especially in the chapters
which deal with the birth of Jesus is the influence of O.T. pro
phecies most noticeable. ' II ne semble pas que ces r^cits aient
le moindre fondement historique.' Loisy regards it as probable
that the wide deflection of the birth and infancy narratives from
historic reality and probability makes it likely that they and the
Gospel of which they form part, 'acquired their essential traits
outside Palestine and the Jewish-Christian communities of that
country, in a land where, and at a time when, no eyewitness of, or
even well-informed person about, the life of Jesus existed' {E. S. I.
pp. 140, 141). The author 'knew Hebrew, but had in view readers
who did not. He was probably born a Jew, but he was not of
Palestine : he wrote in the East, perhaps in Asia Minor, or rather
in Syria : by origin Jewish-Christian, he has a universalist spirit,
though without polemical arriere-pensee in favour of Paul or
against the Galilsean apostles : he unifies the apostolic tradition
and regards the apostles as a sacred group of whom Peter is in
some sort the representative ; he neutralizes the effect of the
Judaizing sayings he quotes by a symbolic interpretation of them.
To those who wished to advocate Jewish observances and live
without rules he opposed the perfection of the Christian Law. A
man of tradition, (jne might even say, a man of the Church, he
wrote a Gospel truly churchly and catholic : one might be almost
tempted to see in him, if not one of the first bishops, at least one
of those venerable personages who as elders or overseers governed
those communities in which germinated the institution of that
monarchic episcopacy which was the heir and successor of its

INTRODUCTION lix
apostolic forerunner. His book may be ascribed to somewhere
near the year lOO; it can not be much earlier or much later'
{E. S. I. p. 143)- § 24. Renan on Matthew.
It is perhaps undesirable or unnecessary to say much more in
a brief Introduction such as this about the Gospel of Matthew.
Those who do not know them already may be strongly recom
mended to read Chapters X. and xi. of Renan's Les Evangiles, in
which there are a number of remarks about Matthew, his relation
to Mark, and the comparative authenticity of the sayings which
he attributes to Jesus, full of suggestiveness and expressed in the
most delightful and exquisite of styles. What can be better than
this about the double character of Matthew, his combination of
opposites ? ' L'^vangile de saint Matthieu, comme presque toutes
les compositions fines, a ete I'ouvrage d'une conscience en quelque
sorte double. L'auteur est k la fois juif et chr^tien ; sa nouvelle
foi n'a pas tu^ I'ancienne et ne lui a rien bt6 de sa poesie. II
aime deux choses en meme temps.... La Loi subsiste-t-elle ? Oui
et non. Jesus la d^truit et I'accomplit. Le sabbat, il le supprime
et le maintient. Les ceremonies juivesj il les observe et ne veut
pas qn'on y tienne' (pp. 209, 210). Or this about the difficulty
of saying which of the speeches and parables were really said
by Jesus and which were not. ' La Vie de J^sus et I'histoire
de la redaction des Evangiles sont deux sujets qui se penetrent de
telle sorte qu'il faut laisser entre eux la limite indecise, au risque
de paraitre se contredire. En realite cette contradiction est de
pen de consequence. Jesus est le veritable createur de I'Evangile ;
Jesus a tout fait, mSme ce qu'on lui a prete : sa legende et lui-
m§me sont inseparables : il fut tellement identifie avec son idee,
que son idee devint lui-meme, I'absorba, fit de sa biographie ce
qu'elle devait Stre' (p. 204). And so on with much more of
admirable mingling together of paradox and truth, or rather of
truth made more visible by the paradox of its form. Or lastly,
what can be more suggestive or thought-provoking than the
sentences about the impression made upon us by the book as a
whole ? ' L'effet general est celui d'un palais de fees, construit
tout entier en pierres lumineuses' (p. 198). Loisy is, I think, too
depreciative in his estimate of Matthew's style and manner and
power of story-telling {E. S. i. p. 259), while Burkitt's ascription
to him of ' great literary skill and dignity ' scarcely seems to hit
the nail precisely on the head. Is not Renan perhaps nearer
doing so when he calls Matthew's Gospel 'un chef d'ceuvre de
litterateur populaire ? . . . Un genie aerien qu'on touche, qu'on

Ix INTRODUCTION
embrasse, mais qui ne se heurte jamais aux cailloux du chemm
nous parle, nous ravit. On ne s'arrgte pas a se demander sil
salt ce qu'il nous raconte. II ne doute de rien et ne salt rien.
C'est un charme analogue a celui de I'affirmation de la femme, qui
nous fait sourire et nous subjugue' (p. 198).

§ 25. The Gospel of Luke and its sources.
The Gospel of Luke is the longest of the three Synoptics.
It contains some 1146 verses, whereas Matthew contains about
1 07 1. It has also the largest amount of matter peculiar to itself
Among this matter are several of the most beautiful of the
parables. Some of these parables seem not merely very worthy
of Jesus, which is an unsafe criterion, but on general grounds
likely to belong to him. For this and for other reasons we must
not be too hasty in assuming that what is peculiar to Luke
can not have been said by Jesus.
Luke opens with a short but highly interesting preface, in
which the author speaks of his own position and object. He was
no eyewitness or apostle ; he writes upon the basis, and with the
help, of many who have preceded him. Thus he, too, wrote at a
period when many written sources existed, though in his case, as
in Matthew's, the two most important of those sources were
probably Mark and Q. Still, we must assume that his peculiar
matter is not mainly his own composition, but usually rests upon
sources, the exact number and nature of which can no longer be
convincingly ascertained. '"
The question of the sources which are peculiar to Luke is
being much discussed at the present time, but, so far, no generally
accepted conclusions have been arrived at. The question is very
important for many reasons, not all of which I can mention here.
It is, however, obvious, inasmuch as Luke contains a large number
of parables (some thirteen) and of sayings which are not found
except in his Gospel, that if it could be ascertained or cogently
inferred that all or most of them came from one or two early
sources, the degree of authenticity to be ascribed to them would
be considerably increased. And in addition to the parables and
sayings there is the narrative. Here, too, there is a number of
extra stories and incidents, while some incidents recorded by
Mark are recorded differently and with varying touches by Luke.
Especially is this the case in the story of the Passion, where,
moreover, these special touches of Luke sometimes seem to show
in themselves indications of greater historical probability. If
these touches and the extra parables were due to one and the

INTRODUCTION Ixi
same source, might not that source be one of the best and earliest
documents now embedded or drawn upon in the three Synoptic
Gospels? Such, then, is the character and significance of the
problems raised by the special sources of Luke.

§ 26. B. Weiss and Loisy on the sources of Luke.
A thorough investigation of Luke's sources has recently been
carried through by B. Weiss. It is very doubtful whether his
conclusions as a whole will stand the test of time. In one sense it
may be said that they simplify the problem too much, and that
they do not sufficiently allow for the ' many ' sources which Luke
may not only have known, but also used. According to B. Weiss
Luke used three sources only — Mark, Q, and a third source, which
Weiss calls L. To this third source B. Weiss assigns a very con
siderable quantity of the Gospel, beginning from the first chapter
and ending with the last. The first two chapters (excluding the
prologue) he practically ascribes to L entirely, and the same may
be said for the entire story of the Passion and the resurrection
contained in the last three chapters (with the exception of some
18 versfes in chapter xxii.). Of the intervening chapters from iii.
to xxii. inclusive, which contain some 834 verses in all, Weiss
assigns 346 to L, or a little more than two-fifths. And this source
he regards as very old, of Judseo-Christian origin, and extremely
trustworthy and ' authentic'
Thus Luke would be the most valuable and important of the
three Synoptics, containing as it would large portions of three such '
early and trustworthy sources as Mark, Q, and L.
I fancy that the severe scrutiny of scholars will upset a con
siderable portion of these conclusions. The naive and childlike
confidence reposed in the accuracy of the narratives of the birth
and infancy in chapters i. and ii. has justly aroused the wonder of
Harnack, disposed though the great theologian is in other points
to allow great importance and value to Weiss's researches. And
even putting these chapters aside (and for our purposes they are
the least interesting and important portion of the entire book),
there is, I think, grave doubt whether Weiss has not ascribed too
much to one and the same source. It is doubtful — though the
matter can not be gone into here — whether there is sufficient
hnguistic and other evidence to justify Weiss's amazing confidence
and assurance. It is still more doubtful whether the incidents and
narratives assigned to L are really due to the same source as the
parables and sayings assigned to him. The parables and sayings
seem in many cases much older than the incidents and narratives.

Ixii INTRODUCTION
Moreover Weiss's theory is extremely complicated. Not all of
the material peculiar to Luke does he assign to L. Some of it
(including five parables) he assigns to Q (about 60 verses in all).
But, on the other hand, he believes that the L material in Luke
includes a considerable quantity of parallels to Q. To this extent
Weiss, as it were, makes some concession to the arguments of
Mr Allen, for he holds that we can discover in Luke the use of the
same oral tradition in two distinct sources, Q and L. And not
only to Q does he discover parallels, but even, in a few passages,
to Mark. The particular cases where these parallels are assumed
will mostly be indicated in the commentary.
Quite opposed to the theory of Weiss, on which I will not
longer dwell (for the character and peculiarities of the hypothetical
source L are as yet, at any rate, too uncertain and hypothetical to
discuss in a popular work of this kind), are the analysis and con
clusions of Loisy. He also seems to me not to allow enough
margin for the many sources which Luke may have known and
used. His view is that all the parables and almost all the sayings
which are peculiar to Luke were taken by that Evangelist from Q,
One seems to see in Loisy — though perhaps I am wrong here — an
unconscious desire to keep for Jesus as many of the parables and
sayings as he possibly can. As Q and the narrative source of
Mark are the oldest sources of the Gospels, the more sayings and
parables that can be allocated to Q, the more of them are likely to
be authentic. It is, however, to be doubted whether Loisy has
sufficiently taken into account the peculiar character of many of
Luke's special parables which (together with a, few of the incidents)
seems to set them into a special class by themselves, and to suggest
for them a special source.
For the incidents peculiar to Luke Loisy admits a special
source in three or four cases. In others, again, he (rightly, I
think) holds that we must look to the inventiveness of the
Evangelist. In yet a third class (notably for the story of the
Passion) he believes that the special source is none other than
the narrative source of Mark which the Evangelist, as it were,
occasionally consulted and drew upon as well as Mark.

§ 27. Date of Luke. The 'great insertion.'
The date of Luke is assigned by most scholars to about the
same period as Matthew, namely, 90-100 A.D. It has been
supposed by some that Matthew knew Luke's Gospel, by others
that Luke knew Matthew's. It seems more probable that neither
knew of the other's. Which is earlier ? As to this point, too,-

INTRODUCTION Ixiii
opinions vary, and this is not wonderful, for the evidence is con
flicting. For instance, the bits taken by both Evangelists from Q
sometimes appear in an earlier form in Luke and sometimes in
Matthew. The additions and accretions to them seem sometimes
more developed and significant in Luke, and sometimes in
Matthew. Loisy's general view is that 'in preserving a larger
number of sayings in separate places (d Vital disperse) Luke ha,s
doubtless kept to the order of the old Logia better than Matthew,v
but, like Matthew, he has not refrained from additions, touchings
up and curtailments. Sometimes he abbreviates, sometimes
he paraphrases, sometimes he separates, sometimes he brings
together. On the whole he seems to have respected the text of
his source less than Matthew' {E. S. i. p. 165). As regards the use
which the first and third Evangelists make of the second, we may
observe one highly curious and notable feature in Luke. He
follows Mark in his order of events fairly closely up to the end of
Mark's ninth chapter. In spite of various insertions from Q or
other sources he never leaves Mark for long together. But at this
point he makes a huge intercalation, and leaves Mark altogether
for several chapters, namely from ix. 5 1 to xviii. 14. Jesus during
this intercalation is supposed to be journeying from Galilee to
Jerusalem. At xviii. 1 5 Luke resumes his excerpts from Mark, very
nearly where he had left them off. In this huge intercalation he
places much of the matter which is peculiar to himself And he
has a peculiar view of how Jesus journeyed to Jerusalem. Mark
makes him go through Persea on the ' other side ' of Jordan ; Luke
makes him pass through Samaria. Some few words about the
great intercalation will be read in the commentary. The cause
and meaning of it are obscure, and no satisfactory explanation has,
so far, been given. It is perhaps the simplest hypothesis to suppose
that Luke put in his big insertion the majority of those sayings,
parables and anecdotes for which his sources afforded him no
indication of place or time. Almost all the sayings and parables
peculiar to him are to be found in the insertion, together also with
a certain amount of Q material common to him and to Matthew,
which Matthew has placed and grouped in other connections. On
the other hand, in some passages Luke keeps more closely to the
text of Mark than does Matthew. Dr Carpenter writes cautiously:
' Matthew in its present contents is presumably the latest of the
three.' Wellhausen, on the other hand, takes with his usual con
fidence the opposite view. In many incidents and conceptions he
thinks that Luke shows a later stage of development than
Matthew. So, too, Wellhausen also notes a certain ' inwardness '
and individualization in Luke, which, with other things, points
forward to the still later author of the fourth Gospel. In the story

Ixiv INTRODUCTION
of the Passion, with certain elements that seem older or more
historic than anything in Mark, there are others which point to a
later stage than Matthew. So too in the story of the resurrection.
These indications of later date will be alluded to in the com
mentary.

§ 28. Luke's Gentile point of view : his sympathy for ' sinners '
and the poor : the authenticity of his special material : his date.
If Matthew is perhaps written from a Jewish -Christian point
.iifjsdgw, Luke is undoubtedly written from the point of view of the
vGontile? Not that there is much or any distinctive Paulinism in
"^ffireiSF^pel, or a marked antagonism to the Law. Thus Loisy justly
remarks of the author of the third Gospel: 'he is not interested in
the essential theology of Paul; one might almost say that he
ignores it ;- he is not anxious, like the redactor of Mark, to defend
the person of the great apostle and to make his ideas prevail in
the gospel tradition; in certain very characteristic passages
(notably in xxii. 24-27) he neglects the Pauline additions of Mark
and keeps to the primitive statements' {E. S. I. p. 173). 'Really
and truly,' says Jiilicher, ' Luke did not take over from Paul more
than that which the Church as a whole took over from him, to
wit, the idea of the universality of salvation, and the conception
of the boundlessness of the divine grace ' {Einleitung, p. 292).
But Luke's universalism has no polemic tinge. He has not to
combat any specifically Judseo-Christian view.
He is a 'universalist' in a quite simple sense, as to the manner
born. Though Luke preserves from his source sentences which
might seem to show the contrary, he himself has apparently little
knowledge of, interest in, or sympathy for, specifically Jewish
considerations. He is unacquainted with Hebrew, and the geo
graphy of Palestine is unfamiliar to him. Jesus sends his seventy
disciples directly and emphatically to the Gentiles. The twelve
apostles symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel, but the seventy
correspond with and symbolize the Jewish idea of the seventy
nations of the worid. More will be said of this in the notes.
A further noticeable feature of Luke's Gospel is his marked
-Sympathy for that side of the teaching and life of Jesus which had
jbo do with sinners and the poor. A 'tinge of asceticism' (Burkitt,
p. 214) pervades his Gospel (though this,— at least as regards the
source L,— is warmly denied by Weiss). For the repentant sinner
he has profound pity. Some of the finest stories, parables, and
sayings which illustrate the compassion and love which Jesus
showed, and which God feels, for the sinner who repents, are

INTRODUCTION Ixv f — s
peculiar to Luke. Peculiar also to him are his sympathy for the .
poor and needy, and his somewhat accentuated antagonism to the -i
rich. He has, as Loisy observes, 'une certaine note psychologique,^
un sens profond des choses de I'slme, un ton penetre, ce je ne sais
quoi qui vient du cceur et qui touche le coeur ' {E. S. i. p. 260).
He is fond of contrasts in pairs. Thus we have the contrasts of
Martha and Mary, Pharisee and Publican, the rich man and
Lazarus, and so on. Well|iauseii, concisely says : ' The main type
and antitype which thesevpairs^rovide is that of the self-con
scious righteous and the huinble sinner, and the favourite theme
is that repentance is possible for all, whatever their situation and
circumstances, that it is necessary for everyone, and that it i^^
easier for the ne'er-do-well than for the virtuous. Luke has j
a marked affection not merely for the desj)ised and degraded
" cr^j»d,U2jit_also_for outcast individuals. He press"es the saying_Ji
that the sick, not the healthy, need the doctor' {Einleitung,
p. 69). Luke, as Renan has said, is pre-eminently the GosgfiLflf -,
£argivenes3.__Cflnversion is_possible for all Lt is also pi^^eminently
the Go^el of humility. And the greatest of the virtues is alms
giving." NoEThowever^ in a Pauline sense is Renan justified in
calling Luke the Gospel of pardon obtained by faith. Harnack
points out the grave difference, in spite of his insistence upon the
accuracy of the traditional authorship. Luke's ' faith ' is less dog
matic and profound, and his philanthropy is less limited and
reserved {Lukas der Arzt, p. lOO). There is a certain family
likeness which runs through the stories and parables peculiar to
Luke, and Wellhausen is perhaps right in saying : ' may their
value be as great as you please, nevertheless these special portions
{diese Novellen) of Luke cannot be put on the same level (of authen
ticity) as the products of the old tradition ' {Einleitung, p. 70).
Naturally a good deal depends upon the question whether the
peculiar matter found only in Luke comes from some old and
trustworthy source. I am inclined to think that as regards many
of the special sayings and parables this is indeed true. Even
though these sayings and parables may have been originally said
(in a more primitive form) by Jesus, yet we can imagine a collec
tion of sayings and parables in which one particular aspect of
Jesus's teaching was specially emphasized. And this seems to
have been the case as regards his teaching about forgiveness and
humility, the poor and the rich, and the boundlessness of the divine
mercy. Such stories, sayings and parables as those contained in
vii. ',6-50, X. 29-37, XV. 11-32, xvi 19-31, xii. 15-21, xvii. 9-14,
do seem to have a certain character in common, and may be due
to a common source. Nevertheless this source would faithfully
reflect — as it seems to me — one aspect of the character and

Ixvi INTRODUCTION
teaching of Jesus. That aspect of the Master in which he
appears as the friend of tax-collectors and sinners is prominent
in Luke, and this prominence may be due to a special source.
This hypothesis is strongly pressed by Bacon. It is the ' special
.source of Luke' which gives us a 'constant' (yet historic)
'~"' depiction of Jesus as the champion of the "little ones," the
unrecognized " sons " or " daughters of Abraham," the spiritually
disinherited masses, publicans, women, Samaritans, outcasts from
the Synagogue, scattered sheep, lost sons' {op. eit. p. xxxvii.).
There is, I think, a good deal of truth in this, thoudLwhether
there existed anything resembling 'spiritually disinherited j^^,
is open to the very gravest doubt.. On this point Bacon is^still
—under the spell of the old authorities and the old ideas. But
apart from this special point, we may hold to a good deal of what
is said by the American professor.
As regards the universalism of Luke, on the other hand, that
seems neither to go back to his sources nor to Jesus. B. Weiss
observes: 'von einer Heidenmission ist in L so wenig die Rede
wie in Q.' The special sayings and parables do not touch the
question of universalism one way or the other, and as to the good
Samaritan there is much reason to suppose (though no Christian
commentator is likely to admit it) that he comes from a verbal
alteration of the original story. Th-e universalism of Luke is due
to himself He is ever ready to use or adapt a traditionai-story
for symbolic and universalist purposes.
The third"Fvangelist7'then, is ' a Gentile writing for Gentiles.'
Do we know who he was more precisely ? From very old times
the Gospel has been attributed to Luke, the 'beloved physician'
and the friend of Paul mentioned in Colossians iv. 14. If this
Epistle is genuine, which is very doubtful, Luke might have
written the Gospel about 80 or 90 A.D. This is the opinion of the
great theologian Harnack, who has written a book to prove that
Luke was the author of both the Gospel and the Acts. In this
conclusion Harnack adopts the view of most English conservative
theologians, and especially it may be noted that he too maintains
that there is linguistic evidence to show that the author was a
physician. Harnack's contention is, however, far from being con
clusively proved. And it may be gravely questioned whether
80 A.D. is not somewhat too early a date for Acts as well as for
Luke. Nevertheless it is possible that if Luke was bom 4hout
30, he could have written the Gospel as late as 100. This iis the
view of Professor Burkitt, who believes in the traditional author
ship, but holds that Luke had read and used Josephus, and/ that
his book was written about 100 A.D. As the date is in anj]; case
much the same, the question of the authorship is for our pu/iposes

INTRODUCTION Ixvii
of very secondary importance. The likelihood of the authenticity
of its special material is neither increased nor diminished. And
the importance and beauty of the third Evangelist's book are
largely independent of its exact date. A distinguished classical
scholar once observed to me that of the three Synoptists Luke
seemed to him to have the 'keenest and deepest appreciation of'r'
the humanity and divinity of Jesus.' (The speaker did not mean
divinity in the sense of deity.) This may be rightly said and
finely observed, and even if Luke's Novellen are not authentic,',,
they may nevertheless be truly illustrative of the genuine spirit,'
of the Galilaean teacher.
Each of the first three Gospels has thus its own specific interest
and importance.

§ 29. The relation of ' date ' to ' authenticity.'
It may, however, be observed in passing that the authenticity
of a given saying of Jesus or of a particular incident about his
ministry is not to be merely measured, or always chiefly measured,
by the supposed date of the ' source ' which records it. Here one
must bear in mind those considerations to which Julicher in his
Neue Linien has again rightly called attention. It does not follow,
he argues, that a given passage is authentic in direct proportion
to its age. Even if, for example, Q, or ' the special source ' of
Luke, were always younger than Mark, it would not necessarily
follow that some parts of Q, or of the special source of Luke,
might not be more authentic than some parts of Mark. The point
is : where would tradition remember truly, and where w^ould it,
unconsciously or consciously, add, alter, and embroider ? Is not
Jiilicher right when he says that what must be looked at with
most suspicion should be 'those sections of the Gospels which '
deal with the appraisement of the person of Jesus and with the
representation of his self-consciousness'? ('die direkt auf die
Schiitzung der Person Jesu und die Darstellung seines Selbstbe-
wusstseins bezuglichen Partien ') (p. 73). If this be so, we shall
be disposed to regard as more presumably authentic those words of
Jesus in which he does not speak of his own powers, or of himself,
or of his future. We shall be disposed to regard those doings
of Jesus as more presumably authentic which are not specially
Messianic or specially miraculous or specially in accordance with
the later beliefs of the Christian disciples, as they were rapidly
formed between 30 and 60 a.d. Over the Messianic consciousness
of Jesus, and over those words and deeds of his which betray it, a
dark shadow of doubt must continue to hover. We cannot get

Ixviii INTRODUCTION
beyond the Jesus ' des altesten Gemeindeglaubens '—the Je.sus as
the faith of the earliest community conceived him. Old history
and new faith are fused together ; the picture of Jesus, which the
Synoptics show, has not only many painful gaps, but is throughout
covered with a varnish which here and there does not allow any
thing of the original to shine through {Neue Linien in der Kritik
der evangelischen Ueberlieferung, p. 71). Just where we most
want to know, we must always be content to conjecture.

§ 30. The condition of the Jews during the age of Jesus.
Jesus was born in the year 4 B.C. or perhaps a year or two
earlier. He died probably in 30 A.D. The Gospels of Mark,
Matthew, and Luke were compiled, as we have seen, between the
years 70 and lOO A.D. It is, therefore, desirable for those who
read these books to know something about the history of the
Jews during that period of 100 years. Something ought to be
known of the external history ; something of the internal condition.
But this knowledge cannot be given here ; it must be sought else
where. Jesus's birth falls in the last years or even year of the reign of
Herod the Great. The fortunes and deeds of this remarkable
man should be read in Josephus. He exercised, we have to
remember, a kind of quasi-independent rule under the overiord-
ship of Rome. When he died his territories were divided. His
son Archelaus received, and was confirmed by Augustus in the
possession of, Judsea, Idumsea, and Samaria. He was not called
king, but ethnarch. A second son, Antipas or Herod Antipas,
often merely called Herod in the Gospels, was given Galilee and
Persea. His title was that of tetrarch, 'a title which was often
used for rulers of a divided kingdom without reference to its
precise etymology.' In the Gospels he is sometimes called king,
but this is technically an error. Another son of Herod called
Philip received some more north-eastern portions of Palestine,
which had been attached to Herod's dominions by Augustus.
The town of Csesarea Philippi was in the territory of Philip.
The reign of Archelaus did not last long. He seems to have
ruled with harshness and cruelty, and not to have possessed his
father's ability for extricating himself from a difficult situation.
So when the Jews complained of him to Augustus, and he had to
appear at Rome, his defence was not accepted, and he was deposed
and banished (6 A.D.). Henceforth, with one brief interval, Judsa
and Samaria were directly administered by Rome. There was a.
Romau Procurator whose headquarters were usually at CsesareaL

INTRODUCTION Ixix
Above him in rank and authority was the Legate or Governor of
the province of Syria; he was of senatorial rank, whereas the
Procurator was only a 'knight.' Thus Judsea during the life of
Jesus was under the direct authority of Rome, although a certain
measure of home rule was still allowed. The Sanhedrin was
apparently not only the highest legal court, but the high priest's
council of government. The high priest presided ; his influence
was predominant. But the power to inflict and carry out the
death sentence had been removed from this native court by the
Romans. The Jews were eager to regain the power, and illegal
executions were not unknown. In Galilee, on the other hand,
Herod Antipas occupied the place of the Roman administrator
in Judsea. His reign continued till after the death of Jesus.
Ultimately (39 a.d.) he too was bereft by Caligula of his tetrarchy
and banished to Lyons.

§ 31. The Law and the State: classes of the people:
Rabbis and Pharisees.
It is very difficult to form any adequate or accurate picture of
Jewish life in the first half of the first century A.D. A condition
of things existed which in many respects was very different from
anything which has existed since. Moreover, there was less
homogeneity of conditions then than afterwards. There must have
been a great diversity of life, of manners, of opinions.
The history of the Jews from the Maccabean revolt till the
crucifixion of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple is a curious
one. It seems to show that the domination of the Law was un
suited for national independence. On the whole, it must be said,
that the supremacy of the Law in political affairs bred a good deal
of fanaticism and tended to produce a certain amount of cruelty.
On the other hand, it made heroes and martyrs, and taught men
how to die unflinchingly for their ancestral religion.
It is hard to think of the Jews as independent or as persecuting ;
one can but think of them as persecuted. For 1900 years per
secutions in one form or another, and in one degree or another,
have been their recurring lot. After the fall of their State and
the horrors of the Hadrianic war, they formed separate and alien
religious communities in a hostile environment; they were despised,
ill-treated, mocked at and abused. Intervals and breathing spaces
there are, but this is the general story. Their virtues have been
those of hidden lives and of obscure communities. But their
• beloved Law becomes more supreme than ever. It constitutes
' their manhood. It trains their intellect. It is their recreation.

Ixx INTRODUCTION
their joy, and their solace. It is their treasure and their guide.
There are practically no parties ; who would remain a Jew, it he did
not love the Law ? And the love of the Law expresses itself on
the same lines : he who loves the Law fulfils, or seeks to fulfil, its
enactments. Rome and the Church oppress, degrade, torture, and
kill ; the Law brings poetry, and hope, and idealism, and God.
Under Herod the Great and Antipas and the Procurators too,
the Law doubtless to some extent brought these blessings. In
Judsea and in Galilee during the years 1-30 A.D. there roust have
been many retired, quiet men and women who lived pious lives
according to the Law and did not concern themselves with politics.
But there was also much more. There were many other types
and classes.
For though the Romans are the ultimate rulers and arbiters,
a Jewish State is in existence. An ecclesiastical State in some
measure; for though Herod is anything rather than a servant
of priests, and Antipas is not the servant of Rabbis, still the
Pentateuch and its developments are yet in large measure the
Law of the State. Certainly the connection of Church and
State was not a happy one in Judsea, and produced some
unpleasing results and characters. We have, then, to do with
a State. Even when Archelaus is deposed, and Judsea is under
the administration of the Roman Procurator, we may never
theless still in a certain sense speak of a continuing Jewish
State. And, like every other State, this one too has its various
parties and classes, many of whom largely disappear after its
destruction. It has soldiers and politicians; it has nobles and
priests and rulers. It has schemers and agitators. It has all
these and more, and all of them either feel religiously — whether
according to a pure religion or no, an outward or an inward one,
need not here be considered — or use religion for their own pur
pose. The national and political life was mixed up with religion
in a peculiar way, not wholly to the advantage either of the one
or of the other.
And with this variety of classes and persons there existed, as
I have already indicated, a variety of thought. The distinctions of
Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes are familiar to most people,
yet they hardly represent with accuracy what actually existed.
They are not very informing. The ruling priests at Jerusalem
seem to have constituted the mainstay and chief element of the
Sadducees. They were in a sense conservative. The letter of the
Law was enough for them ; they did not want the developments
of the Rabbis. In doctrine too they were against innovation.
Thus we hear that they would have nothing to say to the doctrine
of the Resurrection, in which we may nevertheless assert with

INTRODUCTION Ixxi
confidence that eleven-twelfths of the nation already firmly ¦
believed. Many of these priests, and many of the nobles and
' rulers,' possessed, I should think, but a very formal and outward
religion. We may compare them with many of the bishops,
barons, and rulers of the middle ages.
In spite of the intense devotion of the Jews to the Temple,
the religious teachers of the people were not the priests. The
Temple was the mark of the national life as well as the public
expression of its religion. Unlike any other nation, the Jews
offered sacrifices at one spot only, and upon this single Temple
were concentrated all the glory and pride which among any other
people were distributed over a hundred different fanes. Yet in
spite of this adoration of the Temple — to thousands a distant
Temple which they rarely saw — the Judaism of the day was not
a priestly religion, though priestly ideas of cleanness and unclean-
ness filled an important part of it. The Synagogue and the
Rabbi overshadowed the Temple and the priest.
The Rabbis and their followers constitute the Pharisees. It
is probably no exaggeration to say that five-sixths of the nation
were Pharisaic more or less, though where and how the limits ran
it is hard to say. The Rabbis of 30 a.d. were not quite identical
with the Rabbis of 300 a.d. For among them too there must
have been many types and kinds. Some combined politics with
religion; others kept themselves aloof from the governing and
political world.

§ 32. The Law and ihe infant Church: persecution
and intolerance.
The rule of the Law had only gradually asserted itself after
Ezra. It was growing during the Persian period (450-330 B.C.),
and during the Greek period after Alexander. But the stages of
its growth can no longer be traced. It was subjected to a counter
current and a cross influence by the introduction and development
of Hellenism. Then came the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes,
the Maccabean revolt, the restored national independence and the
heightened national consciousness. The Law begins to rule not
merely the actions of private life, but the public working of the
State. And, as is so often the case, fanaticism and intolerance go
hand in hand with, or follow hard upon, heroism and martyrdom.
The same temper which breeds the martyr breeds the fanatic.
The Maccabean heroes kill the recusants or the lax to-day ; they
are ready to be killed themselves to-morrow. And when seated
in the saddle of power, they impose the Law upon others by sheer

Ixxii INTRODUCTION
force. Militant Judaism extends its borders, and whole territories
must submit to compulsory circumcision.
This is not the place in which to speak of the history of the
infant Church from the death of Jesus to the end of the century
But the readers of the Synoptics must be prepared, both in the
words ascribed to Jesus and outside them, to find a reflection of
circumstances and moods which fall within those seventy years.
And prominent among those circumstances will be this, that the
young Christian community suffered persecution from the Syna
gogue. Even while the early Christians of the Jerusalem
community observed the ceremonial enactments of the Law,
there was still enough difference to make occasional persecution
highly probable. A family quarrel is often the bitterest _ of
quarrels. That the new community believed that the Messiah
had already appeared was in itself a serious point of difference.
A lax attitude toward the Law was soon to follow. The Christians
had their own organization, their own meetings, their own
expectations. Worst of all the Christians soon began to assert
that the Founder of their faith was a divine being, a very
incarnation of God. He became the object of worship. This
to the Jews seemed rank idolatry. The dominant Pharisaic
religion could not brook or tolerate so marked and serious a
dissidence. Renan is possibly right in saying that but for the
Roman overlordship, and the difficulties put in the way of Jews
exercising the right of life and death, the persecution would have
been more grave and more extensive. The historian has to record
what he finds. He may interpret the facts, but he cannot conceal
or alter them. It can hardly be denied that the secular perse
cution of the Jews by Christian authorities may be regarded as
the abiding and multiplied revenge of the short and occasional
persecution of the Christiana by the Jews. 'Persecute your
enemies even unto the hundredth generation' has been the
principle according to which the Church has exercised an awful
punishment upon the primary offending of the Synagogue.
Judaism, like Christianity, could in those days be hardly other
than intolerant. Like Christianity it was better and more attractive
in low places than in high ones. For the Jews, like the Christians,
believed in the exclusive rightness of their own faith as well as in
the soleness and exclusive sovereignty of their own God. To believe
correctly was a virtue; to believe otherwise a moral defect, a
social injury. Toleration combined with such a faith was at
that time impossible.
Successful fanaticism grows by what it feeds on. Yet it
may also be said that it grows by persecution. Still though
stimulated by persecution as well as by success, fanaticism, when

INTRODUCTION Ixxiii
persecuted, is generally unable to issue in act. And its effect upon
character is partly checked and hindered by other influences and
agencies. The men who breathe wild imprecations upon their
persecutors are often within their own community models of
gentleness, piety, and love. But successful and active fanaticism
tends, as it would seem, to harden and dry up man's soul. Hence
we notice, from the Maccabean revolt to the destruction of the
State, a certain fierce and arid temper of mind and type of
religion which are unpleasing to our modern ideas.
On the other hand, it must be said that the political domination
of a national religious Law never got a really fair chance. The
Maccabean rulers never properly and completely freed themselves
from trouble and turmoil with the Hellenistic Syrian power.
Under Simon's son, John Hyrkarius (135-104 B.C.), the height of
Maccabean power is reached; yet towards the close of his reign
Josephus records that the seeds of future trouble were sown by
John's quarrelling with the Pharisees, or national party, and
'joining the Sadducees.' His son Alexander Janneus, who suc
ceeded him after a year of bloodshed and confusion, passed much
of his reign in wars, both external and civil. The Pharisees are
his declared and life-long enemies. He slays, according to
Josephus, no fewer than fifty thousand of his own people. Upon
his death-bed he recommends his wife Alexandra to be reconciled
with and to obey the Pharisees; his advice is followed for nine
years (76-67). The violent feud between her two sons, which
breaks out after her death, leads to the introduction of Pompey
and the overlordship of Rome (63).
There followed twenty-three troubled years till the accession of
Herod the Great. It was thus partly due to the native rulers, and
partly to the Roman governors and administrators, that the land
was never happy and at ease. Intrigue and oppression, corruption
and cruelty, often or usually prevailed. In addition to this there
was in the Roman period a frequent violation of Jewish suscep
tibilities. Herod wanted to play the Hellenistic and cultivated
king. His baths, gymnasia and temples grossly offended the
intense religious feeling of the people. The Roman governors
were avaricious and imprudent. The last and the worst of them,
Gessius Floras, aimed directly at stirring up insurrection and war.
Thus the people were constantly kept in unrest, excitement and
wretchedness. There was every opportunity given for hatred and
religious bitterness. The 'zealots' and ultra-nationalists, who
finally got supreme control, were the natural product of the events
and policy pursued by the rulers. Fanaticism was, as it were,
artificially fed and stimulated. The religion of the day was
exclusive, anti-heathen, and rigorous : the Law breathes a spirit of

Ixxiv INTRODUCTION
hostility and antagonism and ruthless severity to all idolatry,
idolaters, and image worship. But the fierce passions of men
could have been tolerably easily kept in check and abeyance
by scrupulous respect for national and religious susceptibilities:
instead of which they were constantly ruffled and violated.
§ 33. The Messianic hope. Did all classes observe the Law?
Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the Mes
sianic hope should have revived. We do not hear much about it
in Josephus, but there were special reasons why he desired to keep
it dark. The blacker the actual condition of things was, the more
men hoped for the coming of the Golden Age, when Israel should
be prosperous, powerful and free, and when righteousness and
peace should reign supreme. With the invariable optimism of the
Jews — without which they could hardly have survived their age-
continued miseries — the final crisis, the breaking of the dawn,
were not merely longed for, but expected in the near future. The
end would come soon. The old order would soon close for ever :
the new order was about, to begin. The Kingdom of God was
surely at hand. These hopes and beliefs were combined with the
now almost universally accepted doctrine of the Resurrection of the
dead. They were often, but not necessarily, associated with the
figure and expectation of the Deliverer-King, the Messiah-Prince,
of whom some of the prophets, and notably Isaiah, had spoken.
It is these hopes and expectations which form the background, and
explain the appearance, of John the Baptist and his preaching.
It is, however, to be remembered that we are dealing with
a society which is not homogeneous. It may be called, with
perhaps as much right as any other, transitional. I have spoken
of the domination of the Law, and of a certain fanatical temper.
But the domination of the Law was not quite complete. The
legalism of 300 A.D. embraced the entire body of Jews more equably
and with fewer exceptions than the legalism of 30. It was more
all-pervading, yet, what to many will seem odd, there is some
evidence and reason to think that this more all-penetrating
legalism of 300 was sweeter, more spiritual, and more inward thau
was the legalism of 30. It was more religious, less national. It
had become more assimilated with, more part and parcel of, the
entire life of every individual Jew. The legalism of 30 seems to
have left a certain section of the people outside its influence. It
had not absorbed everybody. Some there were who, for one
reason or another (and the reasons are obscure), did not live
according to the Law. They have either fallen out of the

INTRODUCTION Ixxv
ranks of the legal army or they have never entered them. There
were nobles and rich landowners who were above the Law, there
were unfortunates who were below it. There were occupations,
such as that of tax-collectors, soldiers, and others, upon which the
Rabbis and Pharisees, for one reason or other, looked with sus
picion. Either the occupation prevented those who followed it
from obeying the ritual enactments of the Law or it made them
likely to disobey its ethical commands. Those once outside the
legal ranks the Rabbis and Pharisees seem to have made little or
no effort to reclaim or convert. They were left severely to them
selves. Yet these classes could not have been very large.
It must, however, be frankly stated that the foregoing remarks
are really based upon inferences from the Gospel narratives them
selves and upon little more. They therefore rest upon dubious
evidence. For what the Evangelists say, and what Jesus is
made to say, about the Pharisees, the Rabbis and the Jews
generally is naturally to be taken with the greatest caution and
suspicion. What Catholics say about Protestants, or Protestants
about Catholics, or Jews about Christians (I quite admit that this
hits me), or Christians about Jews, must always be very critically
regarded. But the evidence of the Gospels comes very much
under this category. It was inevitable that the Pharisees and the ^
Rabbis should be presented as worse than they really were. And ¦
similarly it was inevitable, if there existed a small section of
persons who were outside the ranks of the 'respectable' classes
that observed the Law, that this section should be represented as
larger and more important than it really was.
The unfortunate thing is that in the Rabbinical literature we
get no clear and undisputed evidence which substantiates the
Gospels. To begin with, that literature is almost all of it very
much later than the first century after Christ.
And not only was it written later, but the Rabbis whose
utterances and stories it reports and chronicles, the circumstances
it reflects and tells of, were almost all later than Jesus, later
than the fall of the State, later than the Hadrianic revolt. If
you cannot argue on the good side from the Talmud, you cannot
argue on the evil. The evils and the excellences of the Talmudic
periods are not necessarily the same as those of the period of
Jesus. § 34. The ' am ha-aretz ' and the neglected ' multitudes.'
The Rabbinic literature does indeed contain various statements
and sayings — more especially sayings and statements about certain
people, or a certain class of people called 'people of the land,'

Ixxvi INTRODUCTION
am ha-aretz— -which have been much used in supposed sub
stantiation of the Gospel narratives about ' sinners ' or about what
Matthew makes Jesus say respecting the multitude who were
harassed and prostrate like sheep without shepherds. It has been
freely supposed that the sinners and neglected multitude of the
Gospels and the am ha-aretz of the Talmud are one and the
same. But this identification is precarious. The Talmudic passages
about the am ha-aretz are obscure, and their meaning is disputed.
They were written down long after the age of Jesus, and many of
them seem to refer to a period after his death. The features
which characterize the Talmudic am ha-aretz do not appear to
be the same as those which characterize the Gospel ' sinners ' or
'multitudes.' It is therefore unsafe to use the passages in the
Talmud in illustration or confirmation of the passages in the
Gospels. The researches of Dr Biichler have even made it
possible that the Talmudic am ha-aretz did not belong to the
' multitude ' at all, that they were not poor and unhappy and
d.egraded, but rich and comfortable and prosperous. The Rabbis,
at any rate, were drawn from the people, and were emphatically
of the people. Many of them were extremely poor; working
with their hands in the day-time, studying, discussing and
teaching in the evenings and on Sabbaths and festivals. An
habitual antagonism between them and the 'multitude' is out of
the question. And thus though it would be unsafe to aver that
the Gospel narratives are totally inaccurate, it would be equally
unsafe to regard them as more than exaggerated representations
of the facts. Dr Biichler holds that there is no Rabbinic evidence
that any portion of the population, whether in Judsea or in
Galilee, consisted of poor, despised persons who did not observe
the ritual Law, and had ' fallen out of the legal ranks.' The
people who did not observe the Law were the rich rather than the
poor: the 'tax-gatherers' were rich, as even the Gospels allow,
and so in all probability were the ' sinners.' The am ha-aretz are
especially held up to reprobation in Rabbinic literature, because
they did not carefully tithe their land. Therefore they were
possessors of property, with whom a 'submerged tenth' is not
usually identified ! We thus see how doubtful and obscure all the
Gospel allusions to poor, neglected, or spiritually unhappy people
really are. (See further Additional Note 43.)
If there really did exist a 'submerged tenth,' who neglected
the Law, disliked the Rabbinic teachers and were disliked by
them in return, we may feel fairly sure that it was a small tenth
and no more. The mass of the nation at any rate, both women
and men, held with keenness and affection to the Rabbinical

INTRODUCTION Ixxvii
religion, and the leaders of the Pharisees were the leaders of the
people. Josephus is not likely to be wrong when he emphasizes
over and over again that the Pharisees had ' the multitude ' on
their side. Those who hated the Scribes and Rabbis must have
been few. Yet we may perhaps assume that between them and
those who followed whole-heartedly the Pharisaic faith and the
enactments of the Law, there were probably some who admired,
but followed at a distance, or who followed only partially, or who
followed with discontent, reluctance, weariness, or dissatisfaction.
To a few the Law did perhaps present itself rather as a burden
than a grace, as a worry and a bondage rather than as a distinction
and a joy. The Law of 30 was not the Law of 300. It had not
yet become the solace, poetry, and pride of a hunted and despised
people. It produced, we may believe, more failures, less happiness,
less spiritual satisfaction and well-being. The degrees between
joyful observance and full content on the one hand, and complete
neglect or ' outsidedness ' on the other, were probably very many.
There were many degrees and shades of observance and neglect.
Such outsiders, who were perhaps more numerous in Galilee than
in Judsea, were attracted by the teaching and personality of Jesus,
and to such persons (the ' sick ' and ill at ease) did he deliberately
and with compassion turn and minister. He cheered them and
brought to them a new hope, a new light. He led them to God.

§ 35. The various classes of people with whom Jesus came in
contact: formalists and outcasts; liberals and apocalyptists.
The Essenes.
We may, then, suppose that in Galilee Jesus had come into more
or less close personal contact with various classes of persons, before
his ministry began. First and foremost there were the Pharisees
and the Rabbis, — the great majority of the total population. '
These we may describe as the conforming members of the estab
lished Church with their leaders and teachers. The measure of
their conformity or their enthusiasm doubtless varied among the
adherents of that 'church,' as it varies among the adherents of
any existing ' church ' to-day. But yet we may call them roughly
and rightly the party of the Pharisees. There can be little doubt
that the parents of Jesus belonged to this ' party,' and that he was
brought up to obey the enactments both of the Written and of
the Oral Law, so far as that second or Oral Law had been yet
developed or was generally observed among ordinary persons.
Jesus, then, knows the Pharisees; he also knows the prosperous
rich, the landowners and nobles, neither whose moral nor whose

Ixxviii INTRODUCTION
ceremonial standard of living comes up in many instances to a
high level. And again he knows others such as merchants,
shepherds, tax-collectors, soldiers, who are looked upon with grave
suspicion by the Pharisees because their occupations and way of
life either rendered it difficult for them to observe the ceremonial
law, or subjected them to moral temptations from which they
were commonly thought not to escape unscathed. And then
again he perhaps knew a few others, poor, despised, unfortunate,
degraded — not many in number, but in quality and circumstance
interesting and important — who also were not supposed to belong
to respectable society, and from whom Pharisees and Rabbis kept
carefully aloof For all such outcasts, whether rich or poor, Jesus
felt much concern. For sinners and for unfortunate persons, for
the spiritually destitute, for the physically afflicted, for the un
happy of all kinds, he had an open ear and a loving heart. He
observed that no official teacher or Rabbi sought them out : yet
they were children of Israel all, and if the call to repentance arose,
surely they should not be left outside. Beneath their wayward
and sinful and affiicted lives he could discern hearts which were
susceptible to stirring appeal or personal affection.
But in addition to these, there were other classes in Israel as
well. The tendency of the Pharisees and Rabbis was to interpret
the Law more and more strictly, and to increase the wall of legal
severance which separated the Jew from the Gentile. It would
be unfair to say that the Rabbis deliberately extended the cere
monial at the expense of the moral Law, but it is true to say that
their devotion to the non-moral side of the Law did occasionally
produce evil results on the moral and spiritual side both in
themselves and in their followers. It is a true paradox that the
more universal, everyday and obvious the dominion of the cere
monial Law became, the less also in some important respects grew
its moral and spiritual dangers. When everybody strictly observes
the Sabbath, and when nobody eats milk and meat together, the
fulfilment of such ceremonial enactments gives no distinction.
They have almost become customs of propriety, the neglect of
which would indeed be outrageous, but the observance of which is
nothing to boast of. Distinctions, differences and 'merits' had
once more to become concentrated upon the moral laws, which, by
the very constitution of human nature, are by some obeyed well,
by others feebly, and by yet others transgressed. But in the
days of Jesus the domination of the ceremonial Law, as inter
preted by the Rabbis, was not yet, as we have seen, coterminous
with the whole population.
It may also be observed that Judaism was not wholly wanting
in liberal tendencies in those days, and men of such tendencies

INTRODUCTION Ixxix
were probably not only to be found outside of Palestine. There
were those who held and believed that the true circumcision was
of the heart rather than of the flesh, and who were willing to
argue that, for the proselyte at least, such spiritual circumcision
was all that God required or that man should ask. They were
anxious to throw the moral laws of the Pentateuch into strong
relief, so that the dangerous multiplication of ritual and cere
monial enactments might be counteracted. Ceremonial laws were
symbols, perhaps allegories, of spiritual and ethical realities.
Whether Jesus was influenced by any such persons it is impossible
to say. It is not inconceivable.
About such matters the student should read (with caution) the
many works of the Jewish scholar Moritz Friedlander, and the
recent admirable book of Dr G. Klein (of Stockholm), Der dlteste
christliche Katechismus und diejiidische Propaganda-literatur.
Others there were who studied deeply the prophets rather than
the Law. They fed their hopes upon the Messianic utterances of
the book of Daniel, and following in the wake of the writer of
that book, they dreamed visions and wrote them down. The
apocalyptic writers are by no means to be identified with the
liberals, but yet they stand off the line of the regular and orthodox
Rabbis. They and their disciples were the most ardent believers
in the near coming of the crisis, the denouement, the Judgment.
But, on the whole, they were less spiritual than the Rabbis,
who, by the way, regarded it as a sin to calculate the advent of
the Messiah. The Judgment to the apocalyptists was inclined to
become all too exclusively a judgment upon Israel's foes. That
Jesus was influenced by them seems likely. At all events we
know that he began his short ministry because he believed that
the End was at hand, and that he must proclaim its coming. But
he markedly differed from the apocalyptic seers in keeping more
closely than they to the teaching of the oldest and the greatest
of the prophets. Sin would be struck down within Israel as well
as without it. John the Baptist struck a similar note : indeed
from him it was that Jesus heard it and passed it on.
The religious ferment and variety of the age of Jesus are also
illustrated by the brotherhood of the Essenes. It is still a disputed
point among scholars whether their customs, doctrines, and rites
as described by Josephus and others were due to any extent to
foreign influences, and if so what these foreign influences were. In
some respects they exaggerated certain rules and habits which pre
vailed among the stricter Pharisees. Thus they laid great stress
upon bodily purifications and purity, and upon the observance of
the Sabbath. But in other matters they broke new ground. They
formed a communistic brotherhood, and for the most part remained

Ixxx INTRODUCTION
through life unmarried. Those who read Josephus' account of
them in the eighth chapter of the Second Book of the War will
be reminded of some things in the Gospels and in the teaching of
Jesus. Such points are the stress laid upon continence, the
objection to money, the habits in travel, the dislike to oaths,
perhaps, too, the communistic brotherhood. But in other respects
there is the strongest unlikeness. Jesus, as we shall see, laid no
stress upon outward purity, he was probably not over particular
about dietary laws, he was not intensely strict in Sabbath ob
servance ; above all he did not 'keep himself to himself; he
moved freely among 'unclean' and outcast persons; he sought
these out and did not avoid them. In the Pharisaic and Essenic
sense he did not ' hate the wicked and help the righteous.' Thus
Jesus was certainly not an Essene, though he may have been
attracted and influenced by certain points of their doctrine.
Whether John the Baptist had closer relations with them is
not so clear, but it is not very likely.

§ ^6. The contradictions of Judaism : the one God
and the national cult.
The existence of these various types and classes shows that the
Judaism of the first century was not only full of variety, but that
it might also be said to be full of contradictions. To a certain
extent these contradictions have not been overcome in Judaism
even to-day. These contradictions were and are largely due to
the fact that a pure monotheistic doctrine was wedded to a
national ritual. 'Tribal customs formed the outer expression of
what was, in its fundamental tenet, a universal creed. The result
was confusion. It was the more noticeable before the Temple fell
because of the incongruous mixture of nationality and religion.
The laws of the nation were also its religious doctrines and its
ceremonial rites. Politics and religion were closely blended. The
greatest religious hope was also the greatest political hope, the
greatest national hope. This tended to obscure the purity of
religion. It is one of the remarkable points about Jesus that he
is apparently interested only in the individual and in religion.
He does not concern himself with politics or with the national
life. An apparent effect of this peculiarity upon his conception
of the Messiah and his office will be often alluded to in the notes.
Paul consciously freed himself and his religion from national
contradictions and confusion by means of a theory. Jesus freed
himself of them unconsciously by his pure religious genius. They
dropped away from him, neglected and unnoticed.

INTRODUCTION Ixxxi
One contradiction to which I have referred would not have
arisen in an ordinary heathen religion, or even in one where only
one god was worshipped, but that god merely and solely the god
of the nation. For a national cult and national religious laws
would harmoniously fit a national god. But though the God
whom the Jews worshipped was in a special sense their God, their
national God, he was also much more. He was the only God ; the
one and unique God; the God of the whole world. But such a
universal God required a universal cult. A national worship does
not fit him. Hence the contradictions and confusions to which
I have alluded. They are illustrated in the attitude of the Jews
towards proselytism. I have already referred to the existence of
a liberal school of thought among the Jews, and to the view,
expressed by one Rabbi (and probably shared by many), that
circumcision of the flesh was unnecessary for the new-comer.
There is evidence that outside Palestine, and to some extent also
within it, there was a considerable amount of propagandist fervour,
crowned with a considerable amount of success. This is not the
place in which to speak at length about a most intensely interesting
chapter of Jewish history. But that Judaism for various reasons
exercised a great fascination upon the heathen in the first century
before and after Christ is undoubted. It is also certain that there
was, in one way and another, a good deal of effort expended in
order to obtain proselytes. (I am not merely alluding to the
compulsory proselytization and circumcision of adjacent tribes
between the times of Judas Maccabseus and Herod the Great.)
Yet there was always a certain difficulty about proselytes, and
a school of thought existed which was opposed to them, for the
convert had not only to adopt a new religion, but a new
nationality. The Jews were proud of their monotheistic religion. In a,^.
sense they were keen to push it and to proclaim its merits, but
they were hampered by their nationalist Law. They wanted to
stand high in the opinion of outsiders, but their Law to a
considerable degree made them hostile to foreigners, and unable
and unwilling to associate with them. To this Josephus bears
abundant witness. The proselytism which many of them attempted
was often, as it would seem, undertaken less for the benefit of the
heathen than for the glory of their nation or the glorification of
their creed and Law. Jewish proselytes, we may well believe,
were readily influenced by the preaching of Paul. For here, amid
some blurring of monotheistic purity, and in spite of grave infrac
tions, through alien dogmas, of the ethical and religious teaching
of the prophets and of Jesus, is at last reached a religion where
doctrine and cult are homogeneous and equally universalist, a
M. /

Ixxxii INTRODUCTION
religion a central feature of which is that, before a common
allegiance, there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, and
no profit in circumcision or uncircumcision.
§ 37. Were the Jews and the Rabbis of 30 a.d. religiously
inferior to those of 300 and 600 a.d. ?
A theory has been started, to which allusion will be made in
the notes, that the religious condition of the Jews in the age of
Christ was much inferior to what it became after the awful
purgation of the war and the destruction of the State. This
theory has been partially accepted in the foregoing remarks, but
only in a very modified form. The legalism of 300 and 600 was
probably superior to the legalism of 30. There were unpleasing
elements in the very varied religious phenomena of 30, from
which the more restricted and homogeneous religious phenomena
of 300 and 600 were free. The aristocratic priesthood and the
political Pharisees, with their externalism and selfish interests,
disappear. The outcasts and submerged tenth at the opposite
end of the scale disappear also. All become nearer, and conform
more closely, to a single type, and find in conformity to that type
their satisfaction and highest good. The others disappear or
become Christians. Less extremes and less variety existed in
600 than in 30. There was less breadth and less liberalism on
the one hand, but also less ignorance, aridity, and political
externalism. It is a different question whether the average and ordinary
Rabbi of 30 was inferior in moral and religious worth to the
average and ordinary Rabbi of 600, or whether the religion which
he taught in 30 was inferior to the religion taught by his successor
in 600. The theory of improvement was invented, not as a result
of an examination of the evidence, but in order to save the
accuracy of Jesus's sweeping indictments against the teachers of
his time in certain portions of the Synoptic Gospels. It is more
probable that this difference between the average and ordinary
Rabbi of 30 and 600 is largely imaginary, and that the denuncia
tions put into Jesus's mouth are too sweeping and generalized. Of
this there will be something to say in the notes. Probably Jesus
did not condemn so profusely as his reporters — with whom the
great conflict between Jew and Christian had begun — make out.
Probably they darken the shadows to increase the light. Probably
Jesus himself, like Jeremiah and the prophets and every other
religious reformer, exaggerated. He too tended to think that
those who differed from him must be bad, and he failed to realize

INTRODUCTION Ixxxiii
that minute ritual observance may both lead up to God and
away from Him. In this failure he is followed by even the
most impartial theological historians at the present day, who
think that 'legal' and 'spiritual' are necessarily antithetic or
opposed to each other. Both in 30 and in 600 there were
doubtless good Rabbis and bad Rabbis, and both in 30 and 600
a distinctively legal religion had the defects of its qualities.
Formalism and externalism, self-righteousness and hypocrisy,
were its faults in 600 as well as in 30, but we may well believe
that, especially in middle-class society, these faults were in 30 no
less than in 600 the exception and not the rule.

§ 38. The condition of Galilee in ihe age of Jesus.
In any appreciation of the character and teaching of Jesus it
would have to be borne in mind that he was a native of Galilee.
And it remains to be asked whether the somewhat general and
vague conclusions which have been reached as to the religious
condition of the Jews in the first century after Christ need special
modification or emphasis in any particular direction for the case
of GaUlee. Its population at that period was predominantly,
though not exclusively, Jewish. It was fertile, and thickly
populated. It has been supposed that the number of ' outcasts
and sinners,' or, in other words, of persons who did not scrupulously
observe the ceremonial Law, and were despised and condemned
by orthodox Rabbis and Pharisees, was proportionately greater in
Galilee than in Judaea. This, however, is by no means certain.
Nor does much good evidence exist for what Professor Cheyne
has called their imperfect legal orthodoxy. In fact, another
scholar observes that ' upon the whole they are said to have been
strict in their religious observances.' It has also been supposed
that the number of Rabbis who taught and argued in Galilee was
far smaller in proportion to its population than in Judsea. From
the Gospels it has been inferred that ' the Messianic hope burned
more brightly in Galilee than anywhere else in Palestine ' ; but
this inference has not much to back it up outside the Gospel
narratives. That the land was far from the capital must count
for something. It will have contained many pious families who
lived quiet and simple lives, and did not meddle with politics.
In such a family it may be that Jesus of Nazareth was born.

/2

Ixxxiv INTRODUCTION
v/§ 39. The 'prophetic' character and mission of Jesus : the 'lost
sheep ' : the Kingdom of God : Jesus and the Law.
In the admirable Introduction to his commentary upon the
Synoptic Gospels M. Loisy has two luminous chapters upon
the career and the teaching of Jesus. I dare not follow him
even upon the smallest scale; but I would like to indicate very
briefly some of the points or problems as regards the teaching, at
any rate, to which the reader's attention must be called.
.J Jesus is often described (especially in Luke) as a prophet.
And it is from the prophetic point of view that his teaching, with
the conflicts which it brought about, must primarily be regarded.
This does not mean that Jesus was specially a foreteller of future
events. It means that Jesus seems in many respects to take up
the role, and to continue the teaching, of the eighth and seventh
century prophets, of Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
Like the prophets he announces a doom — a doom upon the
unrepentant, upon sinners. It is true that the Judgment, the
ddnouement, the crisis, which is imminent, will affect the Gentile
as well as the Jew. But Jesus — so far at least as we may gather
from the fragments of his teaching which have been preserved
to us — was mainly concerned to emphasize the doctrine that
Israel, just because of its ' sonship,' would not be exempt from
punishment. There are many sinners in Israel ; sinners in high
places as well as in low. And many who proudly think themselves
secure will, unless their hearts are changed, be swept away in the
coming storm. We may conceive that Jesus would have heartily
concurred in the famous words of Amos : ' You only have I known
of all the families of the earth ; therefore will I visit upon you all
your iniquities.' It is not improbable, therefore, that Jesus may
have predicted the fall of the Temple, even as we find it stated in
Mark (xiii. i, 2).
But Jesus was not merely the prophet of collective or general
doom. He is much more the teacher of the individual than was
Amos or Isaiah. By his time religion was individualized : the
process which had begun with Ezekiel was completed — or shall
we say completed by him ? Jesus, like Ezekiel, is the watchman :
he is to warn the wicked and to turn him from his evil way.
He is sent, as he himself says, to the lost sheep, to the sinners.
But to them, as we have seen and shall abundantly see, his message
is not merely one of denouncement. He goes among them and
eats with them. He will touch their heart in a number of
different ways : he will touch it by arousing admiration, hope,
and love, by encouragement, and consolation, by powerful sugges
tion that the bonds of sin ,can be, and have been broken, and

INTRODUCTION Ixxxv
that a new life can be, and has been begun. Like the God of
whom Ezekiel teaches, Jesus has 'no pleasure in the death of
the wicked,' he is desirous 'that the wicked turn from his evil
way and live ' ; and so he goes about, intentionally and directly,
' to seek that which was lost and to bring again that which was
driven away ' (perhaps driven away by the false severity, or pride,
or carelessness of man). He will ' bind up that which is broken
and strengthen that which is sick.'
This we may regard as a new, important and historic feature
in his teaching. And it is just here that opposition comes in and
begins. To call sinners to repentance, to denounce vice generally,
is one thing. To have intercourse with sinners and seek their
conversion by countenancing them and comforting them — that is
quite another thing. Did not all respectable persons pray and
resolve ' to keep far from bad companions,' to avoid the dwelling-
place of the wicked ? How can one keep the Law of God if one
associates with sinners ?
In the next place Jesus's teaching was prophetic because he
announced the coming of the Kingdom of God. The Judgment is
to culminate in the Kingdom. Indeed the real importance, so to
speak, of the Judgment is that it must herald and usher in the
new order. The Kingdom of God is the central feature in the
teaching of Jesus, and to his conception of it attention must
constantly be directed. To enable as many to enter the Kingdom
as the conditions would allow, and to enunciate and explain what
these conditions are, occupied much of his time and care. Many
who thought that they would infallibly enter it would, he held, be
excluded. Many whom others thought would be excluded he,
Jesus, would cause to enter. So far as it was supposed that, if
the Kingdom were soon to come, all Jews would enter it from the
mere fact of their birth, Jesus, we may be sure, like the true
prophet that he was, combated a confidence so erroneous and
irreligious ; whether, however, he went further, and, building upon
and developing certain well-known prophetical utterances, declared
that the inmates of the Kingdom would be rather Gentiles than
Jews, is a point upon which opinion is still divided. Two things, •
at any rate, seem clear. First, that Jesus himself never dreamed '
of any preaching outside Israel (either directly or by his disciples). •
Secondly, that no universalist element in his teaching constituted
any part of the conflict between himself and the Jewish authorities,
whether Sadducean or Pharisaic.
The Kingdom is the starting-point and the goal of Jesus's
teaching. But much lies in between. A large proportion indeed
of his entire religious and moral teaching lies in between : most
of that for which his teaching is cared for and admired to-day.

Ixxxvi INTRODUCTION
And here we once more see in him the prophet. What are
the conditions of entry into the divine Kingdom ? Like Ezekiel,
Jesus represents the entry both as a grace and as a guerdon.
'God will give you a new heart: make you a new heart,' says
Ezekiel. And Jesus says: 'God will choose those who_ are to
enter, and he will bring them in ; strive to enter the Kingdom,
"and this is how you should set about it.' The demands of the
prophets are the demands of Jesus. Justice and charity towards
man, humility and love towards God ; the prophets had inculcated
these, and Jesus inculcated them again.
But the great point of resemblance was this. The prophets
had said outward worship, sacrifices, ceremonial religion, are of
little good and little avail. Inwardness, moral goodness — these are
sJifae essentials. Jesus took up this teaching. And as sacrifices
played a far less important part than heretofore in Jewish life —
at any rate outside Jerusalem — as quite other outward forms and
ceremonies were now predominant, it is these which he depreciates,
and in the heat of argument is even led on to attack. It is the
laws about the Sabbath, or about food, the rules about clean and
unclean, which he criticizes and arraigns.
Jesus resumes the role of the prophets, but since Amos and even
since Jeremiah spoke, how immeasurably great was the difference !
For Amos and Jeremiah spoke when there was no universally
accepted code, no Mosaic Law, regarded on all hands as perfect,
authoritative, and divine.
Thus Jesus, with his clear prophetic insight, his pure religious
spirit, is brought up sharp against a tremendous obstacle. The
Law does not indeed say that it is more important to observe the
Sabbath than to 'love mercy': it does not indeed say that not to
eat rabbits is of greater consequence than to ' walk humbly with
God.' But it does say that all its ritual and ceremonial commands
are the direct ordainment of the perfect God, and that they were
to be perpetually observed throughout all the generations of Israel.
Was then the Law not divine ? Or had Jesus power to abrogate
it? Here comes in "the tragedy; here is the great dividing line
between the new Master and the old teachers. Here is where the
conflict begins. What was the attitude of Jesus towards the
Law? How is it that the Law is to be both disobeyed and obeyed?
To be honoured in its breach as well as in its observance ? We
can now see that to the mind of Jesus there was, as it were, set
an impossible task. It was impossible for him to be wholly con
sistent; impossible for him to formulate any consistent theory.
Upon the rock of the Law the new prophet was bound to stumble.
To this point, then, to the relation of Jesus to the Law, to his
criticisms of various legal enactments, to his conflicts with his

INTRODUCTION Ixxxvii
opponents, and to their criticisms of him, the attention of the
reader will have constantly to be called. Jesus and the Law —
this is one of the great problems of his life ; and it is a problem
in which we have to try our utmost to understand his opponents
and our utmost to understand him.
An essential feature of the prophet is the sense of commission
and vocation. He is called by God to deliver a message, and
thus stands towards God in a certain special relation. What he
speaks he speaks in God's name, and he believes that it is the
divine spirit which impels him to his work and directs his words.
Jesus does not preface his speeches with 'Thus saith the Lord,
but in the conviction of inspiration, in the assurance that he too
was called and chosen by God to do a certain work, he entirely
resembles Amos, Isaiah and Ezekiel.

§ 40. Jesus as healer : ihe forgiveness of sins.
Different times require different kinds of prophetic manifesta
tion. Jesus not only speaks, but also acts. He heals. And in
his healings he sees of necessity the most evident proof of his
divine mission. The healings would not of themselves have
produced a conflict, but if the healer was suspected and criticized
on other grounds, then it was almost necessary to urge that the
healings were due not to divine agency, but to the power of evil.
Neither friend nor foe had any other explanation than these to
offer. If Jesus, because he attacked the Law, was no messenger
of God, then his very healings proved him to be the messenger
of the Devil. This logic was irresistible, and the conflict was
sharpened at this point.
Jesus called men to repentance : and with the call there went
not merely denunciation, but comfort, consolation, encouragement.
He sought to open the eyes of the blind, to lead the prisoners
from the prison. An older prophet had begun his message with
the assertion that the iniquity of Jerusalem had been pardoned.
Jesus dealt with individuals rather than with the community as
a whole, but he too seems to have felt that part of his message
was to announce to this person and to that an emancipation from
the bondage of sin. Strange results ensued from his activities.
Bodily ailments, in which, with the majority of his contemporaries,
he often saw a punishment for sin, were healed by him: those
who had hitherto led a sinful or dubious life were converted by
his word. Had not then God given to him the power to cancel
the punishment of sin and to turn the sinner from his iniquity ?
Was he not, now and again, impelled as God's messenger, to say

Ixxxviii INTRODUCTION
to this or that individual on whom the effects of sin lay heavy,
and in whom he saw the possibilities of a better life, ' thy sins are
forgiven ' ? Upon this feature of the activity of Jesus we shall
have to dwell early in the commentary upon Mark. It may
have been emphasized too strongly by the Evangelist, but it was
probably historic, and it may also have constituted, as Mark's
narrative declares that it did, one cause of the conflict between
Jesus and the Rabbis. Did he ascribe to himself a power which
belonged only to God ? Misconception on such a delicate subject
was only too likely to arise.
§ 41. Jesus and tlie claim to Messiahship.
But Jesus did not — so the gospel story would have us believe —
merely regard himself as the chosen prophet of God, invested, as
the other prophets before him, with a divine message and with God-
given powers. At some period of his career the conviction seems to
have come to him that he was yet more than a prophet, that he
was in fact none other than he of whom prophets had spoken and
for whose coming so many generations had yearned, the Anointed
One, the Messiah, the King. In what sense did Jesus believe him
self (if indeed he did so believe at all) to be the Messiah ? Here
we touch upon the central problem of the gospel story. Was his
Messiahship effective during his life or only latent ? Was he only
the Messiah to be, and when would he be invested with his kingly
office? And what sort of office was it to be? A king, such as
Isaiah of Jerusalem conceived him, ruling in righteousness over
a liberated people, a powerful monarch, just and good and kind,
but yet a real monarch, such as other monarchs are, though ruling
for his people's good and not for his own ? Or was his kingship
merely spiritual? Was he to rule only over men's hearts and
minds as the revealer of a new and higher conception of life,
of goodness and of love ? Was the scene of his kingship to be
Palestine ? or was there to be a new heaven and a new earth, and
was the Kingdom of God, in which he, the Messiah, should rule,
to be that semi-material realm to which the quickened dead
should rise again ? And was this kingship with which he was
to be invested to come to him during his lifetime, while he was
still clothed with ordinary flesh and blood, or must he first pass
through some great change, undergo perchance suffering and
death, and only through these attain unto his glory ? All these
are questions to which various answers can be, and have been,
given, some of which, with the arguments on this side and on
that, will be submitted to the reader's judgment in the course of
the commentary.

INTRODUCTION Ixxxix
If Jesus in any of these senses claimed to be the Messiah, or
if his disciples claimed the Messiahship for him, this claim would
have been the greatest and the sorest source of conflict with all
the Jewish authorities. So far as the Sadducean priesthood is
concerned, for the obvious reason that a claimant to the Messiah-
ship meant the displacement of their regime, popular disturbance,
and war with Rome. So far as the Pharisees and Rabbis were
concerned, for one main reason, and perhaps for another. That a
prophet and teacher who had dared to criticize the Law and had
denounced the official exposition of it, should then claim to be
Messiah, was an insufferable pretension and arrogance. And just
possibly, the Messiah whom Jesus claimed to be, or to become,
was not, in the opinion of the Rabbis (whatever else he was), the
Messiah whom older prophecy had described and foretold. Not
so would the Son of David appear to claim his own.

§ 42. The relation of Jesus to God.
Lastly, did Jesus just because, or partly because, he felt him
self to be Messiah, feel himself to be more than 'a mere man,'
feel himself in some special relation to the Divine Father ? For
was not the Messiah the Son of God ? Jewish thought had not
remained wholly content with the purely human conception of
Messiah contained in Isaiah xi. Some thinkers and dreamers had
come to picture the Messiah as a semi-divine being, pre-existent,
already and for long ages back living with God in heaven till the
fated moment of his descent upon earth should arrive. If Jesus
came to the conclusion that he was Messiah, did he therefore also
believe that he was nearer and more akin to God than all other
men — if not less human, yet certainly more divine ? Or was the
process just the reverse ? Was it his purely religious conception
of sonship which led him on to the belief in his Messianic vocation ?
Did he hold that none had felt God to be their Father with the
same intensity that he felt it ? Did he believe that, just because
he was God's son as no man before him had ever been, therefore
he was, or would be, God's anointed ? These questions too will
be alluded to in the notes. Their immense importance needs no
proving. And if Jesus put forward any such personal claim, if he
ascribed to himself any semi-divine powers or nature, the opposition
of Jewish teachers would be increased tenfold. For even though
some thinkers and dreamers might hold that Messiah was, or
would be, more than man, such a theory was very different from
a regular claim made by a particular living individual, whose
' mere humanity ' seemed obvious to every eye. Such a claim from

xc INTRODUCTION
such a person was almost blasphemy: no man might venture to
arrogate unto himself the qualities and the nature of the divine.
Such, then, are some of the main features in the teaching and
the position of Jesus which present problems for discussion and
for doubt. Such, too, are the main features which seeni to have
brought about his conflicts with the Rabbis and the priests, and
ultimately to have caused his death.
And all these features became exaggerated after the crucifixion
and in the later reports of his life and teaching. The question
which constantly presents itself to us is : how far did these features
actually appear in his lifetime and in his actual, historic ministry?

§ 43. Changes made in ihe teaching of Jesus after his death :
(a) Israel and the Gentiles; the Pharisees and ihe Law.
For with his death the whole perspective changed. It really
speaks exceedingly well for the accuracy and honesty of the oldest
sources that we can discern as much history in the Gospels as (in
the opinion of most critics) we actually can — that we can discern
through theory, exaggeration, legend and even myth, the true
lineaments of the historic Jesus.
If Jesus preached the Kingdom, his followers preached him.
As Loisy says : ' What the apostles began to preach was not the
story of the Christ, still less a system of doctrine, a scheme of
teaching drawn up and fixed by him, nor was it the proclamation
of the Kingdom of Heaven as Jesus himself had formulated it up
to the very day before his death. The unexpected death of the
preacher, ignominious and terrifying as it was, had deranged the
equilibrium of their faith; and when this faith found once more
a firm basis {assiette) in the belief of the Resurrection, it had
already advanced a large step beyond the limits within which the
teaching of Jesus had been confined. For now, in order to diffuse
itself, that faith had not to ^peak idirectly of the Kingdom, but
of the Christ, whose manife&tation' had to be shown as certain,
although retarded {dont il falladt que la manifestation parut
acquise, bien quelle f4jt retardde). j Instead of first of all believing
in the Kingdom which had not yet come, one had to believe in the
Messiah who had come. To prove to the Jews that Jesus, though
he died on the cross, was none the less the Messiah, — this was the
task which was now imposed upon his disciples. For its fulfilment
it was not sufficient for them to use their memories ; they had to
find new arguments for the support of their faith' {E. S. I. p. 176).
A crucified Messiah, and a Messiah whose history should
consist of two parts — the first part an ordinary, human life ending

INTRODUCTION xci
in a shameful death ; the second a later, yet unfulfilled appear
ance in heavenly glory (both of them conceptions unknown to
Judaisni) — had now to be championed and maintained. And
with this huge change other changes came as well. The breach
with the Synagogue gradually widened. The Law was more and
more neglected and violated — at least by many of the new-comers
and under the influence of Paul. The new religion began to be
preached, and to find its warmest and best adherents, among the
Gentile world. These very changes brought about an inevitable
exaggeration of the original points and features of conflict.
First, as regards doctrine, apart from the personality, nature
and office of the Master himself.
Jesus had undoubtedly, prophet-wise, denounced the sinners
in Israel, and possibly he had even foretold, like Jeremiah, the
destruction of the Temple. These historic sayings become,
after his death, unconsciously exaggerated. The privileges of
Israel are to be taken away ; the holy city is to be destroyed (as
the disciples of the disciples themselves witnessed) ; no longer
unbelieving Israel, but the new Israel, the community of Christian
believers, is to inherit the ancient promises and to enter into the
Kingdom of Heaven. For those Israelites who refuse to accept
Jesus as the Messiah the doom is Hell, with its everlasting punish
ment, with its wailing and gnashing of teeth unto the end of
time. Jesus in his lifetime had conflicts and differences of opinion
with the Pharisaic champions of the Law, with the Rabbis of
Galilee and of Judsea. "rhough his death was primarily caused
by the priests and the Romans, yet doubtless some of the Rabbis
in Jerusalem were also privy to his arrest and assented to his
condemnation. This conflict becomes exaggerated. From the
beginning the Pharisees and Scribes are his enemies ; they
denounce him ; he denounces them. They are all bad ; they are
full of sins and corruption ; they long to compass his destruction
and his death.
In respect to the teaching of Jesus about the Law, as in
respect to his teaching about the Gentiles, the tendency to
emphasize and exaggerate was checked by a cross-current. For
one section of the earliest Christians still cared for and observed
the Law. Jesus had not attacked and violated the Law to such
an extent as to make this legal position untenable for any of his
adherents. He had adopted a prophetic attitude towards the
Law. The Inward rather than the Outward ; love rather than
sacrifice ; this was his position. Whether he had formulated any
more theoretic point of view may well be doubted. Thus we find
in the Gospels exaggerations of both kinds. ' Not one jot or tittle

xcu INTRODUCTION
of the Law shall ever pass away till all is fulfilled.' On the other
hand we find the conception that at least one Mosaic ordinance
was given to the Israelites because of the hardness of their hearts.
We find a theory announced that Jesus came to ' complete ' the
Law, not to ' destroy ' it, but this completion in regard to such
an important element of the Law as the dietary injunctions
comes upon occasion to something not remotely resembling abro
gation. Here in each case the question as to historical accuracy
needs careful weighing. Have the reporters exaggerated the
hostility of Jesus to the Law, have they exaggerated his esteem
for it ? Have they, rather than he, formulated his theoretic atti
tude towards it ?
And so as to the Gentiles. Did Jesus contemplate, again
prophet-wise, the inclusion of the Gentile world in the community
which he sought to found ? Did he bid his disciples preach the
gospel to all nations, or did he bid them carefully avoidj those
who were not of Israelite blood ? What was his own altitude
towards the heathen ? Did he share ' Jewish particularism,' or
had he consciously and deliberately overcome it ? The double
tendency in the Gospels makes the answer the more difficult and
uncertain.

§ 44. (b) The Messiahship and ihe relation to God.
But exaggeration was naturally most rampant in all that had
to do with the person and office of the Master.
Jesus had undoubtedly performed some striking wonders of
' healing.' These are made more wonderful still. Fresh miracles
are invented; ordinary events are turned into miracles. The
ministry of Jesus becomes one long exhibition of divine power,
fighting the powers of darkness. Jesus is always in the right;
his opponents are always in the wrong. He reads men's thoughts
and hearts. He, not so much as God's prophet, but in virtue
of his own personality and authority, announces and grants
the forgiveness of sin. He is the Messiah, and God proclaimed
his Messiahship to him at the very beginning of his ministry.
If, for certain reasons of his own, he concealed that Messiahship
for a while, the powers of darkness at any rate always knew him
for what he was. He foreknew and foretold the sequence of his
life and death : all was prearranged, foreordained. He predicted
his arrest, his Passion, his resurrection ' on the third day.' His
life becomes a divine drama; even his teaching becomes a mystery,
which was intended to darken the minds of all except the Elect.
Jesus foresaw the persecutions of his disciples from the hands of

INTRODUCTION xcui
the Jews. He told them how they were to behave under these
persecutions : he gave rules for the new community and its
government. The cross upon which he died becomes an emblem
of his teaching. Those who would be his disciples must be
prepared to die even as he died, nay even to bear their cross
daily in a life of hardship, self-denial and renunciation. If Jesus
the Messiah suffered at his death, the suffering tends to be
regarded as even anticipated in his life : he is, at least, a homeless
wanderer who has nowhere to lay his head in safety and repose.
Jesus the Messiah 'rises' after his death to immortal life.
This too he predicted and foreknew. Did the historic Jesus fore
see his death ? Did he go to Jerusalem to conquer or to die ?
Had he at any rate a vague presentiment — anticipations of disaster
to himself, though not to the Kingdom ? Did he think that the
service he had to render to the coming and imminent Kingdom
might even demand his own death ? In that case he might also
have held that if he had to die before the Kingdom came, he would
rise again soon in order to share in it or to become its chief All
these are questions which the Gospel narratives insistently demand
of us. The ' line of exaggeration ' it is not difficult to see. Jesus
knows exactly all that is to happen. First his death, then his
resurrection, then (after an interval) his reappearance on the
clouds in glory as openly manifested Messiah. To the Death
succeeds Resurrection ; to the Resurrection succeeds a triumphant
Parousia. Then will the drama of Israel and the world conclude :
the Messiah will be also the judge — the heavenly judge who shall
assign to all then alive and to the risen dead their portions of
gladness or of misery for ever and ever. Amid all this develop
ment and ' exaggeration ' how are we to discover the sense in
which the historic Jesus accepted the Messiahship for himself,
what he meant by it, and what he anticipated would be the
manner of its manifestation ?
The Messiah was God's son. Had not the Psalmist made God
say of him : ' Thou art my son : this day have I begotten thee ' ?
Both in this Messianic sense, and in a spiritual sense, Jesus may
well have felt and held himself to be the Son of God. Here too
the Gospel 'exaggerates' upon a historic basis. It pushes the
date of his sonship backwards: it hardens the meaning of it,
separating Jesus ever more and more from other men, increasing
his measure of divinity, magnifying his conception of it, till
finally we get the stories of the infancy, the annunciation and
the miraculous birth. Jesus becomes the Son of God not merely
as the Messiah, but as metaphysically related to the Godhead.
He becomes not merely a divine being, but a part of God himself,
with powers hardly inferior to those of his Father. And with

xciv INTRODUCTION
these exalted powers there comes an increased and deadly
particularism. If Jesus, like all passionate reformers, could not
imagine that there could be any right which was not on his own
side, his disciples soon came to believe that none could know God
and love him well unless they believed in Jesus and his divinity.
It was a very early ' exaggeration ' of his prophetic impetuosity
which made them make Jesus say : ' All things have been delivered
unto me by my Father ; and no one knoweth the Son, save the
Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and
he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.' Or is this
famous passage authentic ? Did Jesus carry his claims so far ?
Did his conception of God, and of his own sonship, and of their
relations to each other, amount even unto this ? Here we have
the problem of authenticity at its acutest and most important
point. However this special question may be determined, it is at any
rate at these very points where conflicts soon arose between the
Christian and the Jew, and where the centre of gravity of the
new religion lies, that the records of the Gospels are to be most
critically examined. And this whether they deal with incident
or with teaching. But a large part of the teaching, including
the famous paradoxes of the Sermon on the Mount, lies outside.
And just as it is quite certain that, however much (if such be
our judgment) this teaching transcended or even contradicted
the teaching of contemporary Rabbi and Scribe, Jesus could
nevertheless have gone on inculcating it for ever without coming
to an evil end, so also is it here that we may look for the greatest
accuracy in the record and the greatest measure of authenticity.
Wellhausen's caution as regards the tradition of the teaching and
the sayings may well be borne in mind, but it has, I venture to
think, to be checked by this other principle or test which has
just been laid down.

§ 45. The various problems raised by the life of Jesus.
A commentary upon the Gospels is in any case not also a
'Life of Christ.' Whether the material for such a Life exists
may well be doubted. And the Introduction to such a tentative
commentary as this is still less the place in which to attempt it.
Only incidentally, and as occasion arises, will the commentary
discuss questions relating to the character of Jesus, the nature
and development of his teaching, the manner of his life and
death. It will also occasionally consider how far the Gospel
narratives can be regarded as historic, and how far the Jesus of

INTRODUCTION xcv
actual fact must be conjecturally supposed to have differed here
and there from Jesus as Mark, Matthew, and Luke portray him.
Perhaps, however, before bringing these few introductory pages
to a close it may be desirable to call attention once more in yet
another way to those problems to which, in the notes, the reader's
attention will more frequently be directed.
The exact years of the birth and death of Jesus may still
be in dispute, but that he was born about 4 B.C. and died about
30 A.D. seems fairly certain. And what appears equally sure is
that the length of his ministry did not extend over more than a
year and a quarter, or a year and a half Hence it follows that
all the problems about Jesus to which any answer is possible are
concentrated about the last two years of his life. How he lived,
what he did and how he developed, fi:om infancy till he was about
thirty-two, we cannot say.
The short last section of his life of which the Synoptic Gospels
tell may be roughly divided into two portions of unequal length.
The first of these is the Galilaean period ; the second the journey to
Jerusalem, and its results. It may be said that the main problem
of his life is contained in the question. How did he come to die ?
Or, again, the question may be put thus : To what end did he go
to Jerusalem ?
Among other difficult matters which this question involves is
the fundamental problem as to what Jesus thought of himself
This problem has been touched upon already. Did Jesus suppose
himself to be the Messiah, and, if so, in what sense ? Did he start
the Galilsean ministry with this idea, or did the idea only assume
definite shape and conviction towards its close ? We shall see that
while Jesus from first to last seems to have believed in the imminent
end of the world, or of the Existing Order, he did not, probably, for
a while, regard himself as the Messiah. He felt himself to be
divinely sent, a prophet like the prophets of old, but not at once,
or very soon, the Messiah.
Some scholars, we shall hear, think that Jesus never claimed to
be the Messiah at all. This we shall consider a less probable
hypothesis. But if he claimed to be the Messiah, what sort of
Messiah did he conceive himself to be ? Was it completely new
wine which he poured into that old bottle ? Here we shall see that
controversy rages, and that no final and satisfactory result has
been, or probably can ever be, attained.
Did he call himself the Son of Man, and, if so, with what
intention, and with what relation to the Messianic title, to the
ordinary Messianic conception, or to his own Messianic claim ?
Many theories can be drawn up; many varying answers can be
given. Some fit some of the facts and statements ; others fit

xcvi INTRODUCTION
others. None, perhaps, fit all. Hence the difficulty of coming
(with such meagre and in parts untrustworthy material) to any
confident and certain result.
Among the minor questions which the fundamental question
includes are these: What was the view of Jesus concerning the
rule and overlordship of the Romans ? And upon what charge or
charges — whether false or true — was he condemned to die by the
Jewish authorities and by the Roman governor ? Who is respon
sible for his death ? Even here, too, the answers that may be
given, with fair arguments and show of reason, are different, and
even here, while we shall see that one answer is more probable
than another, definite certainty cannot be arrived at.
The main elements of the teaching of Jesus were laid down
and spoken in Galilee. If the question be asked, What was thef
character or nature of this teaching? the answer is partly dependent
upon the answer to that other question. What did Jesus thiht and
teach about himself? But we shall see that it is only partly soj
dependent. It is, moreover, only partly dependent upon, or'
connected with, Jesus's belief in the imminent End of the Age.
We shall observe that Jesus was not always thinking of that great
event. It formed, doubtless, the background for all his teaching,
but much of that teaching was spoken as if no such terrific change
was at hand ; or, at any rate, much of it was applicable to, and
was even intended for, ordinary conditions of existence, such as they
were when his words were said, and in some respects, at least, such
as they are even to-day. Whether there was any change or
development in the religious and ethical teaching of Jesus, whether
the demands he made upon those who would be his true disciples
were increased, whether his teaching was at first less ' apocalyptic '
and became more so, are also questions which will be noticed as
they arise. This last question is to some extent connected with
the meaning to be assigned to that term frequently upon Jesus's
lips — the term with which his ministry opens — but of which the
precise signification is still often doubtful and disputed — namely,
the famous 'Kingdom of God,' or, as Matthew calls it, the 'Kingdom
of Heaven.'

§ 46. The Jewish conception of the Messiah and ihe
conception formed by Jesus.
The various theories about Jesus and the ultimate objects of
his brief career often rest upon fragile bases. Many of them seem
to do violence to some part or other of the Gospel evidence or to
the evidence of the Rabbinical literature. Or if they do not do

INTRODUCTION xcvii
violence to what the Gospels say, they seem, if I may put it thus
oddly, to do violence to what they do not say.
Take, for instance, the question as to whether Jesus thought
himself to be the Messiah, and if so, what sort of Messiah he
thought himself, or wanted, to be. The hypothesis that he never
identified himself with the Messiah at all cuts the gordian knot
too crudely. It explains some facts, but it leaves others — and
more important and crucial ones — unexplained. It is not merely
that various stories recorded in the Synoptics must be regarded as
unhistorical, but the very career of Jesus, with its crisis and
its end, become vague and difficult to understand.
Yet not much less difficult is the conception, repeated in a
hundred different forms and shades, that Jesus did indeed claim
to be the Messiah, but such a Messiah as had never before
been thought of, above all things not a Jewish Messiah. He
allowed his disciples to regard him as the Messiah : he had no
better name to invent ; but it was a mere shell, a mere name, for
something totally different from the ordinary Jewish conception.
In the course of the commentary this hypothesis will crop up again
and again, and we shall see how arbitrary and difficult it is.
What is usually meant by the ' ordinary Jewish conception of
the Messiah ' ? "The answer must be : something extremely
disagreeable. Indeed the ' ordinary Jewish conception of the
Messiah,' created by Christian theologians as a foil to the ' pure
spiritual ' conception of Jesus, is an eviscerated conception in
which all the cheap things are left in (and exaggerated) and all
the valuable things are left out.
The ' ordinary Jewish conception of the Messiah ' means, so far
as I can gather, that of an intensely ' national ' and ' legal ' king,
under whose warlike and bloody rule the Jews avenge themselves
upon their enemies, kill the majority, enslave the rest, and live in
gorgeous, outward, material prosperity for ever and ever. Now
this is a caricature for many reasons. It is a half truth, and
we know what half truths are.
The desire for prosperity, for freedom, for ' imperial ' rule in
the place of cruel subjection, was doubtless strong in the popular
mind, and the desire for revenge — after Titus — was not even absent
from all the Rabbis. But the essential feature of the ordinary
conception of the Messiah was that of a righteous king ruling over
a righteous people ; the Messianic era was indeed one of prosperity,
but far more was it one of peace and goodness and the knowledge
of God. So far as it was this, why should not Jesus have wished
to be the Jewish Messiah ? What is there so very dreadful and
immoral and unspiritual in the conception of Isaiah xi. — of a
righteous king and a God-fearing and righteous nation?

xcviii INTRODUCTION
But, then, there comes another difficulty. We talk of the
' ordinary Jewish conception of the Messiah.' But what was ' the
ordinary Jewish conception of the Messiah ' in the age of Jesus ?
And was there one prevailing conception at all ? We do not really
and certainly know. The idea of the warlike king seems to have
been on the wane. God would accomplish the redemption and
establish the Kingdom at his own time and in his own way. The
king would rather teach than fight. He might be discovered
perchance healing the sick, and only ascend his ' throne ' when all
' enemies ' had disappeared or been converted.
So although Jesus did not — and this is certain — conceive that
the assumption of his throne and the establishment of the Kingdom
would involve his own appearance at the head of an army, never
theless he would not, for this reason, have formed a conception
which was un-Jewish and unfamiliar.
If he had formed a conception of his Messianic office which was
wholly unlike that of most of his contemporaries, why did he choose
and allow the name ? Why did he not reject it ? Why did he not
more clearly explain : ' Though I do not object to your thinking me
the Messiah, and though I shall die as King of the Jews, yet you must
understand that my Messiahship, even after my resurrection, will
never remotely resemble the ordinary Jewish conception of the
Messiah ' ? Why was it left to the author of the fourth Gospel to
make him say that ?
We shall be inclined to believe that most facts (though not
necessarily all the facts) will be accounted for if we suppose that
Jesus did believe that, either at a ddnouement before his death or
at the Parousia after his death, he would ' rule ' over a righteous
people. We have no means of deciding what he thought would'
be the fate of the huge Gentile world. Perhaps he thought (with
the best utterances of the older prophets) that they would all be
' converted ' and become voluntary subjects of his Kingdom — all of
them, at least, who had escaped the Judgment. For Jesus, like his
contemporaries, undoubtedly believed in a Judgment, and moreover
he seems to have believed that the number who would be 'lost' in
the Judgment would be (to our ideas) painfully large. Among those
victims of the Judgment there would doubtless be, in his opinion,
a number of Gentiles as well as a very large quantity of Jews.
Those who remained over, whether Jewish or pagan by birth,
would now become pure worshippers of the One God and loyal
subjects of the Messianic King.

INTRODUCTION xcix

§ 47. Jesus and the ' masses.'
It has recently been supposed by Prof Bacon that Jesus
regarded himself as the Messiah, or was willing to let others so
regard him, only in so far as he stood forth "as the leader, champion,
and vindicator of the disinherited sons.' The Messiah to Jesus
had no ' theocratic connotations ' ; it meant merely ' He who brings
Israel into its predestined relation of sonship to God.' Over and
over again does Prof. Bacon speak of the ' masses ' and of Jesus
as their champion. The ' masses ' are apparently put on one
side : a few Rabbis, Pharisees, and priests on the other. He speaks
of the ' narrow cliques of scribes and Pharisees,' ' the chaberim of
synagogue orthodoxy on one side, the am ha-aretz, the masses of
the people on the other.' These masses are ' spiritually dis
inherited.' This is probably the weakest theory of all, so far as
the facts are concerned. Prof. Bacon allows that Jesus ' did follow
a role that led to his execution by Pilate as a political agitator '
(p. 106). Nevertheless all that he will allow as to the Messiah-
ship is this championship of the ' disinherited masses ' ; only thus
may Jesus have 'regarded his calling as in some remote sense
Messianic' But there is little evidence of disinherited masses, even within
the Gospels. Even the Gospels scarcely imply that the masses
had no religion which they cared for or brought them comfort, or
that the Rabbis were not their teachers or their friends. And
outside the Gospels the evidence is the other way. The Pharisees,
as Josephus tells us, formed the popular party. They have the
people on their side. And if ever there was a teaching class
drawn from the people, it was the Jewish Rabbis of old — men
who took no pay for their studies and services, and in many
cases earned their living by their hands. As I have already
mentioned the am ha-aretz may possibly be not poor folk, but
rich folk. In any case they are not the people — a more dubious
identification was never made. There were doubtless many bad
Rabbis in those days as later ; the Talmud itself castigates such,
but the greater number of Rabbis, even as they sprang from the
people, loved the people, taught the people, and had the people at
their back. The masses were not disinherited : the martyr race
par excellence found, and continued for long ages to find, its best
happiness in the practice of its religion. There was no need for
Jesus to teach them that God was their Father ; they knew it all
along. They knew it then ; they continued to know it ; they
know it now. If they had not known it, they would not have died
in thousands for their faith : if they did not know it, they would

INTRODUCTION

not be suffering now. With the leading priests at Jerusalem the
case is different, but even there, and in spite of the oppression and
dishonesty which undoubtedly were practised by many, we must
not suppose that either Rabbi or people was not attached to the
Temple and its services. We must not measure the men of ancient
time by modern standards.

§ 48. Jesus as prophet : did he intend to found
a new religion?
It does not, however, follow from what has just been said that
the teaching of Jesus was not greater or more original than that of
the ordinary teacher of his day. It undoubtedly was. And there
is a further point still.
That the teaching of Jesus was in important points opposed to
the teaching of the contemporary Rabbis seems certain. I have
ventured to say that Jesus, at any rate in his earlier ministry,
seems most aptly to be described as a true successor to the old,
and especially to the great pre-exilic, prophets, Amos, Hosea,
Isaiah. And this is the impression which he made upon his con
temporaries. They, too, found his teaching new, inspired, prophetic.
The difficulties which such teaching brought to its author, and the
honest opposition which it encountered, were due to the ;profoundly
important fact that when Amos and Isaiah spoke there was no
authoritative, divine, ' Mosaic ' Law in existence, and when Jesus
spoke there was. Of the relation, partly conscious and partly, as
it were, unconscious, in which Jesus stood to the Law there will
be much to say in the notes. Jesus, as I have said, had to hark
back from the Law to the prophets. His teaching is a revival of
prophetic Judaism, and in some respects points forward to the
Liberal Judaism of to-day.
Another gravely important question which may be asked about
his teaching is : Did he intend to found a new religion ? This
question is distinct from the other one as to whether his teaching
is sufficiently novel, distinctive, and comprehensive as to justify a
separate religion with a separate name being founded upon it,
even apart from any doctrine as to his Messiahship or divinity.
Such might be the position of much modern Unitarianism, for which
doubtless there would be much to say. Whether Jesus himself
intended to found, or foresaw the founding, of a new religion apart
and distinct from Judaism, is, however, another question. It is
clearly in part dependent upon the views which Jesus held as to
the end of the world. If he thought that that end was near, he
can hardly have also intended to found a new religion and a new

INTRODUCTION ci
religious community. Taken all in all, it seems probable that
Jesus was not the conscious founder of the Christian Church. He
was and meant to remain a Jew. Or rather the question of
separating from the Synagogue never presented itself to his mind.
He wanted to purify, to quicken, to amend, but not to break away
and make a fresh beginning. He continued the work of Amos,
Hosea, and Isaiah. His Kingdom of God, from one point of view,
was a reformed Judaism. And possibly it may come to pass that
in his teaching there may be found a reconciliation or meeting-
point between a Reformed or Liberal Judaism and a frankly
Unitarian Christianity of -the distant future. That Judaism and
that Christianity may find that they differ in name, in accent, and
in memories rather than essentially or dogmatically. I'hat Judaism
and that Christianity may both claim Jesus as their own.
§ 49. The Gospels, the New Testament and the Jew.
It might be asked: What is, or what should be, the Jewish
interest in the New Testament, in the Synoptic Gospels, or in the
life and character of Jesus ? To these questions, too, the com
mentary will supply some incidental answers. The origin of
any great religion which has filled so immense a place in the
history of the world must surely be of interest to every cultivated
person. To know something about a Book and a Person that have
been of such huge importance in the world, and that are of such
great importance still, is a right and reasonable thing — a desirable
part of knowledge. But the European Jew lives in a Christian
environment, a Christian civilization. He has absorbed much of
this civilization himself; he breathes it in; it is part of him.
He reads the history of the country of which he is a citizen.
This civilization and this history are all unintelligible without
Christianity. They rest upon the New Testament and the
Gospels. The book which has had the greatest influence upon
European history and European civilization is the Bible. 'The
Jew does not mind saying and repeating this. But he too often
forgets that the Bible which has had this influence is not merely
the Old Testament. It is the Old Testament and the New
Testament combined. And of the two, it is the New Testament
which has undoubtedly had the greater influence and has been of
the greater importance. It is the Gospels and the life of Christ
which have most markedly determined European history and most
influenced for good or evil many millions of lives. If it is an
improper ignorance not to have read some portions of Shakespeare
or Milton, it is, I am inclined to think, a much more improper
ignorance not to have read the Gospels. 9 3

cii INTRODUCTION
The curiosity of the Jew as regards these writings might also
be legitimately aroused when he reflects that the Gospel hero was
a Jew, and that the books of the New Testament were mainly
written by Jews. Jewish ignorance of the Gospels is indeed not
unnatural. It has many causes which I will not here enumerate.
It needs, even to-day perhaps, some detachment of mind to say :
' I will read and study the book upon which is based the religion
which has inflicted upon my ancestors such incalculable cruelty
and wrong. I will read and study the book from which comes the
religion which vaunts itself to be a religion of love, but which, so
far as my race is concerned, has usually been a religion of hate. I
will read aud study the book from which proceeds a monotheism
less pure and lofty than my own, a monotheism, if it can be called
such, which has deified a man and invented the Trinity; I will
read and study the book from which was evolved the religion
which pretends to have superseded and to be superior to my own
— to be purer and better than my religion, of which the cardinal
doctrines are contained in such words as: Hear, 0 Israel, the
Lord thy God the Lord is One. Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love
mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God ? '
Yet this detachment of mind must now be demanded.
Judaism, and therefore the Jews or some Jews, must answer the
questions, and answer them better and more impartially than they
have yet been faced and answered: What is the right Jewish
attitude towards the New Testament ? what are we to think about
the Gospels and the Gospels' hero? I cannot believe that the
best and final answers will be merely negative. They will not
be framed upon the familiar lines that what is new in the
Gospels is not true, and what is true is not new. Does Judaism
really expect that in the future — even the distant future — the Old
Testament will be 'accepted' and the New Testament 'rejected'?
Does Judaism really expect that the Bible, for the Europe of the
' Messianic ' age, will be a smaller Bible than the European Bible
to-day ? Will it include the Old Testament only ? But if such
an idea is inconceivable, if the Bible for Europe has been
constituted once and for all — whatever men may think of its
theologies — should not Judaism take up some more reasoned and
studied attitude towards so permanent a part of the religious
literature and religious consciousness of the Western world ?
One view which will be incidentally maintained and supported
in this commentary is that Judaism has something to gain and
absorb from the New Testament. There are teachings in the New
Testament, and above all in the Gospels, which supplement and

INTRODUCTION ciii
carry forward some essential teachings in the Old Testament. It
seems true to say that for moral and religious value neither the
Old Testament can dispense with the New Testament nor the
New Testament with the Old Testament. I will not attempt to
sum up here the special excellences and values of either. So far
as the Gospels are concerned, these excellences will be alluded to
in the commentary. But over and above the excellences in detail,
there is the spirit or impression of the whole. So too with the
Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible. The strong, virile, healthy
tone of the Old Testament religious teaching is sometimes con
trasted with a certain sentimentality and introspectiveness in the
New. Its vigorous social and ' collective ' morality — its insistence
upon justice and righteousness in society and the State — are also
sometimes contrasted with a certain marked individualism in the
New. Contrasts proverbially exaggerate, yet there may be some
thing not wholly false in this contrast as in others. Meanwhile
we need both the Old Testament's imperative demand for a
righteous nation, and the New Testament's insistent emphasis
upon the value of the individual soul ; we need both the severity
of justice and the tenderness of love. As regards the latter pair
of apparent opposites they are both present in both Testaments,
but in different ways. And these different ways could themselves
be made to form one illustration the more for my contention that
an Englishman, a German, or a Frenchman, be he Christian or be
he Jew, has something to gain, something of moral or religious
value to absorb, both from the New Testament and the Old, or, if
the collocation be more emphatic, both from the Gospel and the
Law.

§ 50. The Gospels, ihe Rabbinical literature and Judaism.
And if it be said that the Jew is not confined to the Old
Testament, but that he has also the Rabbinical literature, and
that therefore he need not study the New Testament, there are
several rejoinders. First, there are things of value in the New
Testament which are not to be found in the Rabbinical litera
ture. Secondly, whereas in the Rabbinical literature the great
things are scattered around and among a huge mass of third
and fourth rate material, in the New Testament they are found
knit together in a small compass, emphasized, concentrated, and
condensed. Thirdly, the great things in the Rabbinical literature
are often the casual utterances of a hundred different authors,
whereas, in the New Testament, they to a great extent form an
essential part of the teaching of one or two great minds, and they

civ INTRODUCTION
are strikingly and splendidly expressed. Fourthly, the Rabbinical
literature is unwieldy, huge, and suited for the specialist only;
whereas the New Testament is small and short, instinct with
genius, first-class literature, and, as regards the Gospels, quite
suited for modern readers. Being first-class, it bears translation.
Being the work of genius, it is a book not for one age, but
practically, like Shakespeare or Homer, for all time. Fifthly, the
average Jew is not acquainted with the Rabbinical literature even
if it could supply the place, which it cannot, of the New Testament
and the Gospels. Except the Liturgy, which, as it includes the
Sayings of the Fathers, is, I admit, a very important exception,
he knows the Old Testament only. Sixthly (and this is perhaps
the most important point of all), the religious value of the
teaching of the Synoptic Gospels for the modern Jew is not to be
measured by the presence or absence of parallels to the various
sayings of Jesus in the later Rabbinical literature. I do not
merely refer to the fact that almost all the parallels are later
in date. I am not thinking of the question. Upon which side
is the originality? When Talmud and Gospels are compared,
the originality is almost al ways on the side of the Gospels. But
this is not my present point, which is the following. Jewish
apologists have a habit of breaking up the Gospels into fragments.
They are somewhat inclined to do the same with their own litera
ture. But a great book is more than its own sentences taken
singly or disjointedly. A great personality is more than the
record of its teaching, and the teaching is more than the bits of it
taken one by one. It must be viewed as a whole. It must be
judged as a whole — so far, at least, as this is possible. It has
a spirit, an aroma, which evaporates when its elements or frag
ments are looked at separately. This piecemeal way of looking
at a book, a teaching, a person, is perhaps partially one of the
evil results of Jewish legalism. Virtue, as Plato would say, is
cut up into pieces and made into mincemeat. It suffers in this
process. Virtue is more than a parcel of virtues; character is
more than its elements. A man is more than the sum of this and
that and the other. Righteousness is more and other than a
number of excellent positive commands and excellent negative
ones. There is a certain spirit and glow about the teaching of
Jesus which you either appreciate or fail to appreciate. You
cannot recognize or do justice to it by saying, 'The teaching
of Jesus comprises the following maxims and injunctions. Of
these some are borrowed from the Old Testament, some are
paralleled by the Talmud, and a few are impracticable.' The
teaching of Jesus, which has had such gigantic effects upon the

INTRODUCTION cv
world, is more and other than a dissected list of injunctions. It
is not merely the sum of its parts : it is a whole, a spirit.
That spirit has the characteristics of genius. It is great,
stimulating, heroic. One may not always agree with it, it may
not always be ' practical,' but it is always, or nearly always, big
and grand. Even if you could find separate close parallels for
970 out of, say, the 1000 verses in the Gospel in which Jesus
is the speaker, and even if you put them together and made
a nice little book of them, you would not have produced a
substitute of equal religious value. The unity, the aroma, the
spirit, the genius, would all have fled. Or, rather, you could not
infuse them into your elegant collection of fragments and tit-bits.
Morceaux choisis remain just morceaux choisis.
This is by no means to say that a good compendium of
Rabbinic ethics and religion would not be very valuable and
helpful for our religious life, We should be the better for it.
We need both the Rabbinic compendium and the Gospels. For
the life of every day we need both. The great, heroic teaching, and
the detailed and more average teaching. We want them both.
The teaching which demands the most complete self-sacrifice,
which is inspired by the most thoroughgoing idealism, and the
teaching which is not so far removed from, and addresses itself
more directly to, the average righteousness and the average
wickedness of ordinary and everyday life. As the right condition
of the elementary school depends ultimately upon the University,
so average, ordinary, humdrum life needs — to keep it as stretched
as may be — the idealisms of ethics and religion which are so much
above its level. In hours of comfort and peace these idealisms are
needed all the more. Persecution and misery supply to a great
extent their own idealisms ; they transfigure the ordinary into the
heroic. The religious and ethical teaching of Rabbinic literature
is above the level of Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus (and these too
have their place and value), but it deals perhaps somewhat too
often in rather small coin. I am speaking of the general mass,
and of the spirit of the whole. A few individual sentences which
will be quoted against me cannot suffice to prove the contrary.
Just ordinary people need, in addition to the admirable sayings
and exhortations of the Rabbis, the ideal and heroic spirit which
inspires the teaching of the Synoptic Gospels. ' A man's reach
must exceed his grasp ' — just upon earth must it do so, even for
the non-angelic beings that we are. We know that ' little deeds
of kindness and charity, well within our power,' make the wheels
of life run more smoothly. But the little deeds are not enough.
We must not be satisfied with them. Or, rather, to keep them
sweet and clean, to multiply them and preserve them, one needs

cvi INTRODUCTION
the great deeds too. Or, at least, the desire for them, the apprecia
tion of them. We require the heroic teaching and the example of
heroes to stimulate and call out our own poor powers to the full.
We require them to make us conscious of our own failures, to
destroy conceit and self-righteousness, to purge us of anything like
moral Philistinism or religious snobbery. Religious and ethical
teaching must produce not merely right and excellent actions,
but also (and above all) noble characters. I will not emphasize
the distinction between the commands, ' Do this ' and ' Be this,' or
urge that, upon the whole, the Rabbinic teaching tends to the
former type, and the Gospel teaching to the latter. Something
too much, perhaps, has been made of this difference, though a
philosopher so removed from the orthodox Christian standpoint
as Leslie Stephen seems to press it. But it is, at any rate, not
wholly unimportant and unreal, and its application to Talmudic
and Gospel teaching not wholly inaccurate. It is in a country
like England, where the Jews have full rights^ianki complete
liberty, that the large demands and the heroic stmure of the
Synoptic teaching would be of advantage for the production of
noble and ideal personalities, for the production of people who
grandly are, as well as of those who only rightly do.
It may be said that there is much in the Gospels and in the
other books of the New Testament to which the Jew will always
take exception and which he will always regard as false and
erroneous. This is so, and therefore at this time of day it is
impossible for the Jew to make his Bible include the New Testa
ment. To what I said about this matter in Vol. ii. of my Bihk
for Home Reading, pp. 779 and 780, I myself still adhere. But
the Liberal Jew at any rate will not be deterred from gaining all
the good he can from the Gospels (or from the rest of the New
Testament) because there are manj": things in it which he holds
to be erroneous. The Pentateuch also contains things which he
holds to be erroneous, it also contains a lower and a higher. So
too the Prophets. But he does not cherefore reject them. He
regards them historically, aud gratefully-, accepts and ardently
treasures whatever there is in them whicsh is true and good and
great. He perceives that each section of the Old Testament has
in it something special, invaluable, unique. He would not dis
pense with the Law because he has the Prophets, or with the
Wisdom literature because he has the Prophets and the Law.
Even within the Prophets themselves, he would not dispense with
Jeremiah because he has Isaiah, or with the 'minor' prophets
because he has Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. In the same way,
he will, I believe, be glad to study and absorb (even though they
are not a portion of his ' Bible ') the Gospels and the other books

INTRODUCTION cvii
of the New Testament. They too are sui generis; they too can
add something of value and power, something fresh and distin
guished, to his total religious store.
These remarks are general and tentative. They make no
attempt to estimate the teaching of Jesus as a whole, or its right
place in modern Judaism, or its measure of novelty and truth.
And if they do not attempt this, the commentary will not do so
either. It will give a few suggestions and incidental appreciations ;
nothing more. The same limitation holds for the question as to
the attitude which Judaism is to take up towards the Gospel hero
himself. For the teaching of Jesus is not put forward in the
Gospels as a philosopher puts forward his teaching impersonally in
a book. It is bound up with a certain life and character. This
question has been also alluded to in the previous section of this
Introduction, and a brief hint given as to the sort of solution in
which the present writer is himself inclined to believe. Let me
add this one further remark. Whether the life and character of
Jesus, as they can be inferred from the Synoptic Gospels, or as
they are presented to us in those writings, are completely historic
or no is undoubtedly a question of the gravest moment. But it
does not follow that this life and character are of no value, because
we can never determine their precise proportions of truth and error.
We can derive some help fi:om the life of Moses as presented to us in
the Pentateuch, even though we are aware that that life as thus pre
sented is by no means wholly historic. Such a use of such an 'ideal'
biography is not to be deprecated. A similar use has been and
can be made of the life of Jesus as presented to us in the Synoptic
Gospels. That life, too, is partly ' ideal,' but it may be a great and
inspiring ideal none the less. In such a light it may be possible
for the Liberal Jew at any rate to regard it, and it may become
for him a great and valuable religious asset. Especially for those
who feel that Liberal Judaism is largely prophetic Judaism, will
the prophet of Nazareth — as his contemporaries with true instinct
entitled him — be cherished and admired. Perhaps in the future
Christianity and Judaism will be able to shake hands over the
Sermon on the Mount and the fundamental elements in the moral
and religious doctrine of Jesus. They will perhaps allow the vexed
question of originality to slumber. A great Christian scholar has
said (Paul Wernle, The Sources of our Knowledge of the Life of
Jesus, E.T., pp. 162, 163), 'What is crucial' in the words of Jesus
is ' trust in God, purity of heart, compassion, humility, forgiveness,
aspiration — this and nothing else. This is the will of God, as
epitomised in the Sermon on the Mount ; he who does it is Jesus'
mother and sister and brother.' Assuredly, if this be so, there have
been very many Jewish mothers and sisters and brothers of Jesus

cviu INTRODUCTION
all these long years from Jesus until now. For Jewish teachers
have never ceased to say that these things were the essential will
of God, and many Jews and Jewesses have never ceased to practise
them. And, lastly, may I venture to hint at one reason why it is
that, in the words of the great scholar, ' what the Master desired
first and before all things shines forth upon us out of the Gospel
to-day ' so brightly and wonderfully, and why it seems to be so
much more a discovery to him than to his Jewish reader ? Is it
not because, to quote his own words again, he and those who feel
with him 'have been satiated with Christology even to nausea,'
and therefore doubtless ' long for God ' ? The Jew, on the other
hand, has always rejected all Christology, and has ever found his
way, direct and without a mediator, to the Divine Father.

MARK

CHAPTER I
The beginning of the gospel concerning Jesus Christ, the
Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, ' Behold,
I send my messenger before thee, who shall prepare the way for
thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye
the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.' So John the
Baptist appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming the baptism of
repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And there went out
unto him all the land of Judsea, and all the inhabitants of Jeru
salem, and they were baptized by him in the river of Jordan,
confessing their sins. And John's clothing was of camel's hair,
and he had a leathern girdle about his loins ; and he ate locusts
and wild honey. And he proclaimed, saying, 'After me cometh
one who is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not
worthy to stoop down and unloose. I have baptized you with
water: but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.'
And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from
Nazareth in Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
And straightway as he came up out of the water, he saw how
the heavens parted, and the Spirit like a dove descended upon
him. And a voice from heaven said, ' Thou art my beloved Son ;
in thee I am well pleased.'
And immediately the spirit drove him into the wilderness.
And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted of Satan ;
and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels ministered unto
him. Now after John was thrown into prison, Jesus came into
Galilee, and proclaimed the good tidings of God, saying, 'The

2 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God hath drawn nigh ; repent
ye, and believe in the good tidings.'
Now as he walked along the lake of Galilee, he saw Simon
and Andrew his brother casting a net into the lake: for they
were fishermen. And Jesus said unto them, ' Come ye after me,
and I will make you become fishers of men.' And straightway
they left their nets, and followed him. And when he had gone a
little further, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his
brother, who were also in a boat, mending their nets. And
straightway he called them : and they left their father Zebedee
in the boat with the hired servants, and went after him.
And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the
sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. And
they were amazed at his teaching, for he taught them as one
having authority, and not as the scribes.
And straightway there was in their synagogue a man with
an unclean spirit ; and he cried out, saying, ' What have we to
do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us?
I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.' And Jesus
rebuked it, saying, ' Hold thy peace, and come out of him.' And
the unclean spirit tore him, and cried with a loud voice, and came
out of him. And they all marvelled, so that they discussed among
themselves, saying, 'What is this ? a new teaching with authority!
And he commands the unclean spirits, and they obey him ! ' And
immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region of
Galilee. And forthwith, when they had come out of the synagogue,
they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James
and John. But Simon's wife's mother lay in bed with a fever,
and they told him of her. And he came and took her by the
hand, and raised her up; and the fever left her, and she waited
on them. And in the evening, when the sun had set, they brought
unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed
with demons. And all the city was gathered together at the
door. And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases,
and cast out many demons ; and he permitted not the demons to
speak, because they knew him.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 3
And in the morning, very early, before the dawn, he rose
up, and left the house, and went to a solitary place, and there
prayed. And Simon and his companions pursued him. And when
they found him, they said unto him, 'All seek for thee.' And
he said unto them, 'Let us go elsewhere, into the neighbouring
villages, that I may preach there also: for to that end I came
out.' And he went and preached in their synagogues throughout
all Galilee, and cast out demons.
And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling
down to him, and saying unto him, ' If thou wilt, thou canst make
me clean.' And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand,
and touched him, and said unto him, ' I will ; be cleansed.' And
immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.
And he sternly charged him, and forthwith sent him out, and
said unto him, ' See thou say nothing to any man : but go, shew
thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing what Moses com
manded, for a testimony unto them.' But when he went out, he
began to publish it much, and to spread the story abroad, so that
Jesus could no more openly enter into any city, but he remained
outside in lonely places : and they came to him from every quarter.
CHAPTER II
And when after some days he returned to Capernaum, it
was reported that he was in the house. And many collected
together, so that there was no room to hold them even before
the door; and he spoke the Word unto them. And some came
unto him, bringing a paralyzed man, who was carried by four.
And as they could not bring the man up to Jesus on account
of the crowd, they took him on to the roof of the house where
Jesus was, and having made a hole through it, they let down the
bed whereon the paralyzed man lay. When Jesus saw their faith,
he said unto the paralyzed man, ' Son, thy sins are forgiven thee.'
But some scribes were sitting there, who argued in their hearts,
'What blasphemy does this man say? who can forgive sins but
God alone ? ' And immediately Jesus perceived in his spirit that
they so argued within themselves, and he said unto them, ' Why
argue ye thus in your hearts? Which is easier: to say to the

4 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
paralyzed man. Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and
take up thy bed and walk ? But that ye may see that the Son of
man hath power on earth to forgive sins,' (he said to the paralyzed
man), 'I say unto thee. Arise, and take up thy bed, and go home.'
And he arose, and at once took up the bed, and went forth before
them all ; so that they were all utterly amazed, and glorified God,
saying, 'We never saw anything like this before.'
And he went forth again by the lake side ; and all the crowd
resorted unto him, and he taught them. And as he passed by, he
saw Levi the son of Alphseus sitting at the tax house, and he said
unto him, ' Follow me.' And he arose and followed him. And it
came to pass, that Jesus sat at table in his house, and many tax-
collectors and sinners sat also with Jesus and his disciples: for
there were many who followed him. And when the scribes of the
Pharisees saw him eat with tax-collectors and sinners, they said
unto his disciples, 'Why does he eat with tax-collectors and
sinners ? ' And Jesus heard it and said unto them, ' The strong
have no need of the physician, but they that are sick : I came not
to call the righteous, but the sinners.'
And the disciples of John and the Pharisees used to fast. And
some people came and said unto him, 'Why do the disciples of
John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not ? ' And
Jesus said unto them, 'Can the wedding guests fast, while the
bridegroom is with them ? As long as they have the bridegroom
with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come, when the
bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast
in those days.
'No man seweth a piece of undressed cloth on to an old
garment : for, if he do, the patch draggeth away from it, the new
from the old, and the rent is made worse. And no man poureth
new wine into old wine skins : for, if he do, the wine doth burst
the skins, and the wine is lost as well as the skins. [But new
wine for new skins !] '
And it came to pass that he went through some corn fields on
the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck
the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, ' See, how they
do what is not permitted on the sabbath day ! ' And he said unto
them, 'Have ye never read what David did, when he had need,

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 5
and he and they that were with him were hungry ? How he went
into the house of God, while Abiathar was high priest, and ate the
shewbread, which only the priests may eat, and how he gave it
also to them who were with him ? ' And he said unto them, ' The
sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath : there
fore the Son of man is lord also of the sabbath.'

CHAPTER III
And he entered on another occasion into the synagogue ; and
there was a man there who had a withered hand. And they kept
watching him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath
day; so that they might accuse him. And he said unto the man
who had the withered hand, ' Stand up and come forward.' And
he said unto them, 'Is it permitted to do good on the sabbath
rather than to do evil? to save life rather than to kill it?' But
they held their peace. And he looked round on them with anger,
being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, and he said unto the
man, ' Stretch out thine hand.' And he stretched it out : and his
hand was restored. And the Pharisees went out, and straightway
took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might
destroy him.
But Jesus with his disciples retired to the lake ; and a great
multitude from Galilee followed him ; and from Judsea, and from
•Jerusalem, and from Idumsea, and beyond Jordan, and about Tyre
and Sidon, a great multitude, who had heard what great things he
did, came unto him. And he told his disciples to have a boat
ready for him, so that he might not be crushed by the crowd.
For he had healed many, so that all who were afflicted pressed
upon him in order to touch him. And the unclean spirits, when
they saw him, fell down before him, and screamed, saying, 'Thou
art the Son of God.' And he rebuked them much that they
should not make him known.
And he went up on to the mountain, and called unto him
whom he desired; and they came unto him. And he appointed
twelve to be with him, and to send them forth to preach, and to
have power to cast out demons. So he appointed the Twelve, and
Simon he surnamed Peter. And (he appointed) James the son of

6 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
Zebedee, and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed
Boanerges, which is, sons of thunder, and Andrew, and Philip, and
Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of
Alphseus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Canaanite, and Judas
Iscariot, who betrayed him.
And he went into an house. And a crowd collected together
again, so that they could not even eat bread. And when his
relatives heard of these things, they set forth to lay hold of him:
for they said, ' He is out of his mind.'
And the scribes who came from Jerusalem said, 'He has
Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons.'
And he called them unto him, and said unto them by way of
parable, ' How can Satan cast out Satan ? And if a kingdom be
divided against itself, that kingdom cannot endure. And if a
house be divided against itself, that house cannot endure. And if
Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot endure,
but cometh to an end. No man can enter into a strong man's
house, and plunder his goods, unless he first bind the strong man;
and then he can plunder his house. Verily I say unto you. All the
sins and blasphemies wherewith the sons of men blaspheme, shall
be forgiven them, but he that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit
hath no forgiveness for ever, but is guilty of eternal sin.' Because
they said, ' He has an unclean spirit.'
And his mother and his brothers came, and, standing outside,
sent unto him to call him. And a crowd was sitting round him,
and they said unto him, ' Behold, thy mother and thy brothers are
outside and seek thee.' And he answered them, saying, ' Who is
my mother, or my brothers ? ' And he looked at those who sat
around him, and said, ' Behold my mother and my brothers. For
whoever doeth the will of God, he is to me brother, and sister, and
mother.' CHAPTER IV
And he began again to teach by the lake side : and there was
gathered unto him a great crowd, so that he entered into a boat,
and sat therein on the lake ; and the whole crowd was by the lake
on the land. And he taught them many things in parables, and

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 7
said unto them in his teaching : ' Hearken : behold, there went
out a sower to sow. And it came to pass, as he sowed, some seed
fell on the way side, and the birds of the air came and devoured
it up. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much
earth : and it sprang up quickly, because it had no depth of earth.
But when the sun rose up, it was scorched ; and because it had
no root, it withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the
thorns grew up, and choked it, and it bore no crop. But some
seed fell on good ground, and bore a crop which sprang up and
increased, and yielded thirty, and sixty, and even an hundred
fold.' And he said unto them, ' He that hath ears to hear, let
him hear.'
And when he was alone, they that were about him, together
with the Twelve, asked him concerning the parables. And h&
said unto them, ' Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom
of God : but unto them that are without, all is said in parables ;
in order that seeing they may see, and not perceive ; and hearing
they may hear, and not understand ; lest they should return, and
be forgiven.' And he said unto them, ' Ye understand not this parable ? how
then will ye understand all the other parables ?
'The sower soweth the Word. And these are they by the way
side : there the Word is sown, and when they have heard it, Satan
cometh immediately, and taketh away the Word which was sown
in them. And these are they who are, as it were, sown on stony
ground ; who, when they have heard the Word, immediately receive
it with gladness: but they have no root in themselves, and so
endure but for a time : afterward, when affliction or persecution
ariseth for the Word's sake, immediately they fall away. And
these are they who are sown among thorns ; these hear the Word,
but the cares of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and
the other desires enter in, and choke the Word, and it remaineth
unfruitful. And these are they who are sown on good ground;
who hear the Word and receive it, and bear a crop, thirty, and
sixty, and even an hundred fold.'
And he said unto them, 'Is the lamp brought in to be put
under the bushel, or under the bed ? and not rather to be placed
on the stand ? For there is nothing hid, which shall not be

8 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
revealed ; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should
come to light. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.'
And he said unto them, ' Take heed what ye hear : with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you, and even more
shall be added thereto. For he that hath, to him shall be given :
and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which
he hath.' And he said, ' The kingdom of God is as if a man should cast
seed into the ground ; and he sleepeth and ariseth, night and day,
and the seed sprouteth and groweth up, he knoweth not how.
For of herself the earth bringeth forth her crop ; first the blade,
then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. But when the
crop is ready, immediately he sendeth forth the sickle, because the
harvest hath come.'
And he said, ' Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God ?
or with what parable shall we represent it ? It is like a grain of
mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than
all the seeds that are in the earth. But when it is sown, it
groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and throweth
out great branches : so that the birds of the air can lodge under
the shadow of it.'
And with many such parables spake he the Word unto them,
as they were able to understand it. And without a parable spake
he not unto them : but when they were alone, he explained every
thing to his disciples.
And the same day, when the even was come, he said unto
them, 'Let us cross over unto the other side.' And when they
had dismissed the crowd, they took him, even as he was, in the
boat. And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat
upon the boat, so that it became full. And he was in the stern of
the boat, asleep on a pillow : and they awoke him, and said unto
him, ' Master, carest thou not that we perish ? ' And he arose, and
rebuked the wind, and said [unto the sea], ' Peace, be still.' And
the wind dropped, and there was a great calm. And he said unto
them, ' Why are ye so fearful ? have ye still no faith ? ' And they
feared exceedingly, and said one to another, 'Who is this man,
that even the wind and the sea obey him?'

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK

CHAPTER V
And they came unto the other side of the lake, to the country
of the Gadarenes. And as he landed from the boat, immediately
there met him [out of the tombs] a man with an unclean spirit,
who dwelt among the tombs. And nobody had been able to bind
him even with a chain : for he had been often bound with fetters
and chains, but the chains had been torn asunder by him, and the
fetters broken in pieces : and no one was strong enough to subdue
him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains and
in the tombs, shrieking, and cutting himself with stones. But
when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and fell down before him, and
cried with a loud voice, and said, 'What have I to do with thee,
Jesus, thou Son of the most high God ? I adjure thee by God,
that thou torment me not.' (For Jesus had said unto him, ' Come
out of the man, thou unclean spirit.') And Jesus asked him,
'What is thy name?' And he answered, saying, 'My name is
Legion : for we are many.' And he besought him much that he
would not send them away out of the land. Now there was there
upon the mountain a great herd of swine feeding. And they
besought him, saying, ' Send us into the swine, that we may
enter into them.' And Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean
spirits went out, and entered into the swine : and the herd rushed
down the cliff into the lake, (they were about two thousand) ; and
they were drowned in the lake. And the swineherds fled, and
told the story in the city and in the country. And the people
came out to see what had happened. And they came to Jesus, and
saw him that was possessed with the demon, sitting down, clothed
and in his right mind : and they were afraid. And the eye
witnesses told them what had happened to him that was possessed
with the demon, and also about the swine. And they began to
entreat him to depart out of their territory. And as he was
getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed with the
demon 'entreated him that he might go with him. Howbeit Jesus
permitted him not, but said unto him, 'Go home to thine own
people, and tell them what great things the Lord has done for
thee, and how he has had compassion upon thee.' And he

IO THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
departed, and began to proclaim publicly in the Ten Cities what
great things Jesus had done for him : and all were amazed.
And when Jesus had crossed over again in the boat unto the
other side, a great crowd gathered unto him, and stood by the
edge of the lake. And, behold, there came one of the rulers of
the synagogue, Jairus by name ; and when he saw him, he fell at
his feet, and besought him greatly, saying, 'My little daughter lies
at the point of death : come and lay thy hands on her, that she
may be healed, and may live.'
And Jesus went with him ; and a great crowd followed him,
and pressed around him. And a woman, who had had an issue
of blood twelve years, and had suffered much from many physicians,
and had spent all her fortune, and was not benefited, but rather
grew worse, having heard the tales about Jesus, came up in the
crowd, and touched his garment from behind. For she thought,
' If I only touch his clothes, I shall be cured.' And straightway
the source of her issue dried up ; and she felt in her body that
she was healed of her affliction. And Jesus, realizing immediately
that power had gone out of him, turned round in the crowd, and
said, 'Who touched my clothes ?' And his disciples said unto him,
' Thou seest the crowd pressing around thee, and thou sayest.
Who touched me ? ' And he looked round to see who it was that
had done it. But the woman, fearing and trembling — for she
knew what had befallen her — came and fell down before him, and
told him all the truth. But he said unto her, 'Daughter, thy
faith has cured thee ; go in peace, and be healed of thy affliction.'
While he yet spake, there came some men from the ruler of
the synagogue's house, and said, 'Thy daughter is dead: why
troublest thou the Master any further?' But Jesus overheard the
word that was spoken, and said unto the ruler of the synagogue,
' Be not afraid ; have but faith.' And he allowed no man to go
on with him, except Peter, and James, and John the brother of
James. And they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue,
and he heard an uproar, for they wept and wailed loudly. And
when he had entered in, he said unto them, ' Why make ye this
uproar, and weep ? the child is not dead, but sleeps.' And they
laughed him to scorn. But he drove them all out, and took with
him only the father and the mother of the child, and his com-

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK II
panions, and entered in where the child was lying. And he took
the hand of the child, and said unto her, ' Talitha cvmi ' ; which
is, being interpreted, ' Maiden, I say unto thee, arise.' And
straightway the girl arose, and walked ; for she was twelve years
old. And they were utterly beside themselves with amazement.
And he strictly ordered them that no man should know it ; and
he said that something should be given her to eat.

CHAPTER VI
And he went out from thence, and entered into his native
city ; and his disciples followed him. And when the sabbath day
was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many, hearing
him, were astonished, saying, ' Whence has this come to him ?
what wisdom is this which has been given unto him ? and have
such miracles been wrought by his hands ? Is he not the
carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and
Juda, and Simon ? and are not his sisters here with us ? ' And
they took offence at him. But Jesus said unto them, 'A prophet
is not without honour, except in his own city, and among his
kin, and in his house.' And he could not perform there a single
miracle, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and
healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief So he
went about the villages around, teaching.
And he called unto him the Twelve, and began to send them
forth by two and two ; and he gave them power over unclean
spirits ; and he commanded them that they should take nothing
for their journey, save a staff only; no bread, no wallet, no money
in their purse. They were only to be shod with sandals ; and
they were not to put on two coats. And he said unto them,
'Wheresoever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart
thence. And whatever place will not receive you, nor hear you,
depart thence, and shake off the dust under your feet, as a
testimony against them.' And they went forth, and preached
that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and
anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.
And king Herod heard of him : for his name became known.

12 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
And some said, 'John the Baptist is risen from the dead, and
therefore miraculous powers are active in him.' Others said, ' It
is Elijah.' And others said, 'He is a prophet, like one of the
prophets.' But when Herod heard of him, he said, 'John, whom
I beheaded, is risen from the dead.' \
For Herod himself had sent and seized John, and bound him
in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife: for he
had married her. For John had said unto Herod, 'It is not
lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.' Therefore Herodias
hated him, and would have killed him, but she could not: for
Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy
man, and he protected him; and when he heard him, he was much
perplexed, and yet he heard him gladly. Now on an opportune
day, when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet to his lords and
high captains, and to the chief men of Galilee, the daughter of
Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and his guests.
And the king said unto the damsel, 'Ask of me whatsoever thou
wilt, and I will give it thee.' And he sware unto her, 'What
soever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, even unto the
half of my kingdom.' And she went forth, and said unto her
mother, 'What shall I ask?' And she said, 'The head of John
the Baptist.' And she went in straightway with haste unto the
king, and asked, saying, ' I wish that thou give me forthwith the
head of John the Baptist on a dish.' And the king was exceeding
sorry ; yet on account of his oath, and on account of his guests,
he did not like to refuse her. So the king at once sent an
executioner, and ordered him to bring John's head : and he went,
and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head on a dish,
and gave it to the damsel : and the damsel gave it to her mother.
And when his disciples heard of it, they came and took away his
corpse, and buried it in a tomb.
And the apostles gathered themselves together unto Jesus,
and told him all that they had done and taught. And he said
unto them, ' Come ye by yourselves into a lonely place, and rest
a while.' For there were many coming and going, and they had
no leisure so much as to eat. And they went away by boat to
a lonely place by themselves. But many saw them departing,
and noticed whither they were going, and they hurried thither

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 13
on foot from all the cities, and arrived before them. And Jesus,
when he disembarked, saw a great crowd, and he was moved with
compassion toward them, because they were as sheep without a
shepherd: and he began to teach them many things.
And when the day was now far spent, his disciples came unto
him, and said, 'This is a lonely place, and the hour is already
late. Send the people away, that they may go into the farms
and villages round about, and buy themselves something to eat.'
But he answered and said unto them, ' Give ye them to eat.'
And they said unto him, 'Shall we go and buy two hundred
shillings worth of bread, and give them to eat ? ' He said unto
them, ' How many loaves have ye ? go and see.' And when they
had found out, they said, ' Five, and two fishes.' And he bade
them make them all sit down by companies upon the green grass.
And they sat down in rows, by hundreds and by fifties. And he
took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looked up to heaven,
and said the blessing ; and he broke the loaves, and gave them
to his disciples to set before them ; and the two fishes he divided
among them all. And they did all eat, and were satisfied. And
they took of the broken pieces twelve baskets full, and also of
the fishes. And they that ate of the loaves were about five
thousand men.
And straightway he made his disciples get into the boat, and
cross over to the other side, unto Bethsaida, while he dismissed
the people. And when he had sent them away, he departed unto
the mountain to pray. And when evening was come, the boat
was in the middle of the lake, and he alone on the land. And he
saw them distressed in their rowing ; for the wind was against
them: and about the fourth watch of the night he came up to
them, walking upon the lake, and he meant to have passed by
them. But when they saw him walking upon the lake, they
supposed it was a ghost, and cried out : for they all saw him, and
were troubled. But he immediately spoke to them, and said,
' Take courage ; it is I ; be not afraid.' And he went up to them
into the boat ; and the wind dropped. Then were they utterly
beside themselves with amazement, for they had not understood
about the loaves : for their heart was hardened.
And when they had crossed over, they came unto Gennesaret,

14 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
and moored the boat there. And when they got out of the boat,
straightway the people recognised him. And they ran through
that whole region, and began to bring those that were sick on beds
to wherever they heard that he was. And whithersoever he
entered, into villages, or cities, or farmyards, they laid the sick in
the open places, and besought him that they might touch if it
were but the border of his garment : and as many as touched him
were healed. CHAPTER VII
And the Pharisees, and some scribes who came from Jerusalem,
gathered round him. For they had seen some of his disciples eat
bread with unclean, that is to say, with unwashed hands. For
the Pharisees, and all the Jews, observing the tradition of the
Elders, do not eat without first washing their hands. And when
they come from the market, till they have washed, they eat not.
And many other customs there are, which they have received and
observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and brazen vessels.
So the Pharisees and scribes asked him, 'Why walk not thy
disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread
with unclean hands ? ' He said unto them, ' Well did Isaiah
prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written. This people
honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And
vainly do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the com
mandments of men. So ye, neglecting the commandment of
God, observe the tradition of men.'
And he said unto them, ' Ye do well to reject the command
ment of God, in order that ye may keep your tradition I For
Moses said. Honour thy father and thy mother; and. Whoso
revileth father or mother, let him die the death : but ye — if a
man say to his father or mother. That by which thou mightest
have been benefited from me is Corban, — (that is, an offering), —
ye no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his
mother. Thus ye make the word of God void through your
tradition, which ye hand down ; and many such like things ye do.'
And he called all the people again unto him, and he said unto
them, ' Hearken, all of you, unto me, and understand : There is

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 15
nothing outside a man, which entering into him can make him
unclean ; but the things which come out of a man, these are
what make him unclean.'
And when he had entered into the house away from the crowd,
his disciples asked him concerning the saying. And he said unto
them, 'Are ye, too, so unintelligent ? Do ye not perceive that
whatever entereth into a man from without cannot make him
unclean ? For it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly,
and goeth out into the privy.' [Thus spake he, making all foods
clean.] And he said, ' That which cometh out of the man, that
maketh the man unclean. For from within, out of the heart
of men, come the evil thoughts — unchastity, thefts, murders,
adulteries, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, envy,
blasphemy, pride, foolishness : all these evil things come out from
within, and they make a man unclean.'
And from thence he arose, and went into the district of Tyre.
And he entered into an house, and wished that none should know
it: but he could not escape notice. For, straightway, a woman,
whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, and who had heard
of him, came and fell at his feet: (now the woman was a heathen,
a Syrophoenician by race); and she besought him that he would
expel the demon from her daughter. But Jesus said unto her,
'Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the
children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.' And she answered
and said unto him, ' Yes, Lord : yet the dogs under the table eat
of the children's crumbs.' And he said unto her, ' For this saying
go thy way; the demon has gone out of thy daughter.' And
when she came to her house, she found her daughter lying upon
the bed, and the demon had departed.
Then he left the district of Tyre, and came by way of Sidon
unto the lake of Galilee, through the midst of the district of the
Ten Cities. And they brought unto him one that was deaf and
stammered ; and they besought him to put his hand upon him.
And he took him aside from the crowd, and put his fingers into
his ears, and touched his tongue with his spittle, and looking up
to heaven, he sighed, and said unto him, 'Ephphatha,' that is, 'Be
opened.' And straightway his ears were opened, and the fetter
of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke plainly. And he enjoined

I6 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
them to tell no one; but the more he enjoined them, the more
did they proclaim it. And they were exceedingly astonished,
saying, ' He has done all things well : he makes the deaf to hear,
and the dumb to speak.'

CHAPTER VIII
In those days there was again a great crowd, and they had
nothing to eat. And Jesus called his disciples unto him, and
said unto them, ' I feel pity for the people because they have now
tarried with me three days, and have nothing to eat: and if I
send them away fasting to their own homes, they will faint by
the way : moreover some of them came from far.' And his
disciples answered him, ' Whence can one satisfy these men with
bread here in the wilderness ?' And he asked them, ' How many
loaves have ye?' And they said, 'Seven.' And he bade the
people to sit down on the ground : and he took the seven loaves,
and spoke the blessing, and broke them, and gave them to his
disciples to set before the people; and they did so. And they
had a few small fishes : and he spoke the blessing, and told them
to set these also before the people. So they did eat, and were
satisfied: and they took up of the broken bits that were left,
seven baskets full. And they who had eaten were about four
thousand. And when he had sent them away, straightway he entered
into a boat with his disciples, and came into the district of
Dalmanutha. And the Pharisees came forth, and began to dis
pute with him, demanding from him a sign from heaven, in order
to tempt him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said,
' Wherefore doth this generation demand a sign ? verily I say
unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.'
And he left them, and entering into the boat again, crossed
over to the other side. Now they had forgotten to take bread
with them, and they had not in the boat more than one loaf
And he enjoined them, saying, ' Take heed, beware of the leaven
of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.' And they argued
with one another, ' We have no bread.' And Jesus perceived it,

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 17
and said unto them, 'Why do ye argue that ye have no bread?
do ye not yet perceive or understand ? is your heart hardened ?
Having eyes, see ye not ? and having ears, hear ye not ? and do
ye not remember ? When I broke the five loaves among the five
thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up ? ' And
they said, ' Twelve.' 'And when the seven loaves among the four
thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up?'
And they said, ' Seven.' And he said unto them, ' Do ye still not
understand?' And they came to Bethsaida ; and they brought a blind man
unto him, and besought him to touch him. And he took the
blind man by the hand, and led him out of the village ; and he
spat into his eyes, and put his hands upon him, and asked him if
he saw anything. And he looked up, and said, ' I perceive men,
for I see them like trees, walking.' Then Jesus put his hands
again upon his eyes, and he looked steadfastly, and was restored,
and saw everything clearly. And he sent him away to his house,
saying, ' Go not into the village.'
And from there Jesus went, with his disciples, into the
villages of Csesarea Philippi : and on the way he asked his
disciples, saying unto them, 'Whom do men say that I am?'
And they answered, ' John the Baptist ; and others, Elijah ;
and others. One of the prophets.' And he asked them, 'But
ye — whom say ye that I am ? ' And Peter answered and said
unto him, 'Thou art the Messiah.' And he sternly admonished
them that they should tell no man of him.
And he began to teach them that the Son of man must
suffer much, and be rejected by the Elders and the chief priests
and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
And he spoke the word quite openly.
And Peter took him aside, and began to rebuke him. But
he turned round, and looking on his disciples, he rebuked Peter,
saying, 'Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou thinkest not the
thoughts of God, but of men.' And he called the people unto
him together with his disciples, and said unto them, 'Whoever
would follow after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
cross, and follow me. For whoever would save his life shall
lose it; but whoever would lose his life for my sake and the
M. 2

1 8 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
gospel's, he shall save it. For what can it profit a man to
gain the whole world, and to forfeit his life? For what can
a man give as the price of his life ? For whoever shall be
ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful
generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he
cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.' And he
said unto them, 'Verily I say unto you. There are some of those
who stand here who shall not taste death till they see the
kingdom of God come with power.'

CHAPTER IX
And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James
and John, and led them up on to an high mountain, apart by
themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his
raiment became shining, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth
could whiten it. And there appeared unto them Elijah with
Moses : and they talked with Jesus. And Peter said to Jesus,
'Master, it is good for us to be here: let us make three tents;
one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.' For he
knew not what he should say ; for they were sore afraid. And a
cloud arose and overshadowed them : and a voice came out of the
cloud, saying, 'This is my beloved Son: hearken unto him,'
And suddenly, when they looked round, they saw no one any
more, except Jesus only with themselves.
And as they came down from the mountain, he commanded
them that they should tell no man what they had seen, till the
Son of man had risen from the dead.
And they kept the command, but among themselves they
disputed what ' rising from the dead ' might mean. And they
asked him, saying, ' How is it, then, that the scribes say that
Elijah must come first?' And he answered and told them,
'Elijah verily cometh first, and putteth all things in order; yet
how then is it written of the Son of man, that he must suffer
much and be despised ? But I say unto you that Elijah hath
come already, and they have done unto him whatsoever they
wished, as it is written of him.'

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 19
And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great
crowd around them, and some scribes disputing with them.
And straightway all the crowd, when they beheld him, were
greatly amazed, and running to him, welcomed him. And he
asked them, 'What are ye disputing with one another?' And
one of the crowd answered and said, ' Master, I brought unto thee
my son, who is possessed by a dumb spirit; and wherever the
spirit seizes him, it tears him : and he foams, and gnashes his
teeth, and wastes away : and I asked thy disciples to cast it out,
but they could not.' Then Jesus answered and said to them,
' 0 unbelieving generation, how long shall I be with you ? how
long shall I bear with you ? bring him unto me.' And they
brought him unto him : and when he saw Jesus, straightway
the spirit convulsed him ; and he fell on the ground, and rolled
about, foaming. And Jesus asked his father, ' How long ago is it
since this has happened to him ?' And he said, 'From childhood.
And ofttimes it has thrown him into the fire, and into the
water, to destroy him : but if thou canst do anything, have
compassion on us, and help us.' Jesus said unto him, 'If thou
canst, sayest thou? All things are possible to him that believeth.'
And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said, 'I
believe; help thou mine unbelief When Jesus saw that more
people kept running up to him, he rebuked the unclean spirit,
saying unto it, 'Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I command thee,
come out of him, and enter no more into him.' And the spirit
shrieked, and rent him sore, and came out of him : and he was as
one dead; insomuch that many said, 'He is dead.' But Jesus
took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.
And when Jesus had gone into the house, his disciples asked
him privately, ' Why could not we cast it out ? ' And he said
unto them, 'This kind goes not out except by prayer [and
fasting].' And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee ;
and he desired that none should know it. For he taught his
disciples, and said unto them, ' The Son of man will be delivered
into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and after he has
been killed, he will rise after three days.' But they understood
not the saying, and were afraid to ask him.
And they came to Capernaum: and when he was in the

20 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
house, he asked them, ' What did ye discuss among yourselves on
the way?' But they held their peace : for on the way they had
argued among themselves who was the greatest. And he sat
down, and called the Twelve, and said unto them, ' If any man
desire to be first, let him be last of all, and servant of all.' And
he took a child, and set him in the midst of them : and he embraced
him, and said unto them, 'Whoever shall receive one of these
children in my name, receiveth me : and whoever receiveth me,
receiveth not me, but Him that sent me.'
And John said to him, ' Master, we saw one casting out
demons in thy name, and he does not follow us : and we sought
to prevent him, because he did not follow us.' But Jesus said,
' Prevent him not : for no man who doeth a miracle in my name,
will readily speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is
for us. For whoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in
my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he
shall not lose his reward. And whoever shall cause one of these
little ones that believe to stumble, it were better for him that a
millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the
sea. And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is
better for thee to enter into Life maimed, than having two hands
to go into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched. And
if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is better for thee
to enter lame into Life, than having two feet to be cast into hell.
And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, pluck it out : it is better
for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than
having two eyes to be cast into hell : where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with
fire. Salt is good : but if the salt have lost its saltness, wherewith
will ye season it ? Have salt in yourselves, and keep peace with
one another.'
CHAPTER X
And he arose from thence, and came into the district of Judaea
beyond the .Jordan : and crowds collected unto him again ; and he
taught them again, as he was wont.
And the Pharisees came and asked him, in order to test him:

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 21
'May a man divorce his wife?' And he answered and said unto
them, ' What did Moses command you ? ' And they said, ' Moses
permitted him to write a bill of divorce, and to send her away.'
And Jesus said unto them, ' To suit the hardness of your hearts
he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation :
He made them male and female : therefore shall a man leave his
father and mother, and cleave to his wife ; and they two shall be
one flesh: so then they are no more two, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man separate.'
And in the house his disciples asked him again about this
matter. And he said unto them, ' Whoever divorces his wife, and
marries another, commits adultery against her. And if a woman
divorce her husband, and marry another, she commits adultery.'
And they brought young children to him, for him to touch
them : and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But
when Jesus saw it, he was indignant, and he said unto them, ' Let
the little children come unto me, and prevent them not : for of
such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you. Whoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall
surely not enter therein.' And he embraced them and blessed
them, putting his hands upon them.
And as he set forth upon his way, one ran up, and knelt
and asked him, ' Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit
eternal life?' And Jesus said unto him, 'Why callest thou me
good ? no one is good except God alone. Thou knowest the com
mandments. Do not commit adultery. Do no murder, Do not steal.
Do not bear false witness, Defraud not. Honour thy father and
mother.' And he said unto him, ' Master, all these have I
observed from my youth.' Then Jesus looked at him, and felt
love for him, and said unto him, 'One thing thou lackest: go thy
way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou
shalt have treasure in heaven : and come, follow me.' But he was
sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great
possessions. And Jesus looked round about, and said unto his disciples,
'How difficult is it for them who have riches to enter the kingdom
of God 1 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.' And

22 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus spoke again
and said unto them, 'Children, how difficult it is to enter into the
kingdom of God!' And they were appalled beyond measure,
saying among themselves, ' Who then can be saved ?' But Jesus,
looking at them, said, ' For men it is impossible, but not for God :
since for God all things are possible.'
Then Peter began to say unto him, 'Lo, we have abandoned all,
and have followed thee.' And Jesus answered and said, 'Verily I
say unto you, there is no man who hath abandoned house, or
brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for
my sake, and the gospel's, who shall not receive back an hundred
fold : now in this age, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and
mothers, and children, and lands, though with peKiecutions ; and
in the world to come eternal life. But many that are now first
shall be last; and the last first.'
And they were on the way going up to Jerusalem ; and Jesus
went on in front of them ; and they were amazed ; and they that
followed were afraid. And again he took the Twelve aside, and
began to tell them what would happen unto him. 'Behold, we go
up to Jerusalem ; and the Son of man will be given up unto the
chief priests and unto the scribes ; and they will condemn him to
death, and will give him up to the heathen. And they will mock
him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and kill him : and after
three days he will rise again.'
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came unto him,
saying, ' Master, we wish that thou wouldst do for us whatever we
ask thee.' And he said unto them, 'What do ye wish that I
should do for you ? ' They said unto him, ' Grant unto us that we
may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in
thy glory.' But Jesus said unto them, 'Ye know not what ye ask;
can ye drink of the cup that I am to drink of ? and be baptized
with the baptism that I am to be baptized with ?' And they said
unto him, ' We can.' And Jesus said unto them, ' Ye shall indeed
drink of the cup that I am to drink of: and with the baptism
that I am to be baptized with shall ye be baptized : but to sit on
my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give ; but it
shall be for them for whom it is destined.'
And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant with

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 2^
James and John. But Jesus called them to him, and said unto
them, 'Ye know that they who are supposed to rule over the
nations lord it over them ; and their great ones play the tyrant
over them. But it is not so among you : but whoever wisheth to
become great among you, let him be your servant ; and whoever
of you would be the first, let him be the slave of all. For the
Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his
life as a ransom for many.'
And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho
with his disciples and a large crowd, a blind beggar, Bartimseus,
the son of Timaeus, sat by the way side. And when he heard
that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say,
' Jesus, son of David, pity me.' And many rebuked him that he
should hold his peace : but he kept on crying all the louder, ' Son
of David, pity me.' And Jesus stood still, and said : ' Call him.'
And they called the blind man, saying unto him, 'Be of good
cheer, rise ; he calls thee.' And he, casting away his cloak, sprang
up and came to Jesus. And Jesus answered and said unto him,
'What wouldst thou that I should do unto thee?' The blind
man said unto him, ' Master, I would that I might see again.'
And Jesus said unto him, ' Go thy way ; thy faith has healed
thee.' And immediately he received his sight again, and followed
Jesus on the way.
CHAPTER XI
And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage
and Bethanj', at the mount of Olives, he sent forth two of his
disciples, and said unto them, ' Go to the village before you : and
immediately as ye enter it, ye will find an ass's colt tied, whereon
no man has yet sat ; loose it and bring it here. And if any man
say unto you, Why do ye this ? say ye. The Lord has need of it,
and he will send it back again here very soon.' And they
departed, and found the colt tied by the gate outside in the open
place ; and they loosed it. And some men who stood there said
unto them, ' What do ye, loosing the colt ?' And they said unto
them even as Jesus had commanded: and they permitted them
to take it. And they brought the colt to Jesus, and laid their

24 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
cloaks upon it; and he sat upon it. And many spread their cloaks
upon the way: and others strewed plants which they cut from
the fields. And they that went before, and they that followed,
kept crying : ' Hosanna ; blessed be he that cometh in the name
of the Lord : blessed be the kingdom of our father David that is
coming ; Hosanna in the heights.' :
And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple : and
when he had looked round at everything there, as the hour was
late, he went out unto Bethany with the Twelve.
And on the morrow, when they left Bethany, he was hungry :
and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he went up to it to
see if he should find anything on it : and when he came to it, he
found nothing but leaves ; for it was not the season for figs. And
Jesus spoke and said unto the tree : ' Let no man eat fruit of thee
again for ever.' And his disciples heard it.
And they came to Jerusalem : and Jesus went into the temple,
and began to drive out them that sold and bought in the temple,
and he overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats
of them that sold doves ; and he would ff^efc allow anyone to carry
a vessel through the temple.
And he taught, saying unto them, 'Is it not written. My house
shall be called a house of prayer for all nations ? but ye have
made it a den of thieves.' And the chief priests and the scribes
heard it, and sought how they might destroy him : for they feared
him, because all the people were amazed at his teaching. And
when evening was come, he went out of the city.
And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree
dried up from the roots. And Peter remembered, and said unto
him, 'Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is dried up.'
And Jesus, answering, said unto them, ' Have faith in God. For
verily I say unto you, that whoever should say unto this mountain,
Lift thyself up, and hurl thyself into the sea; and did not doubt
in his heart, but believed that his word would come to pass : to
him it would come to pass. Therefore I say unto you. What
things soever ye pray for and ask, believe that ye have received
them, and they will be yours. And when ye stand and pray, if ye
have aught against any one, forgive him, that your Father who is
in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.'

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 25
And they came again to Jerusalem : and as he was walking in
the temple, the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders came
up to him and said : ' By what authority doest thou these things ?
and who gave thee this authority to do these things ?' And Jesus
answered and said unto them, 'I will also ask of you one question;
do ye answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these
things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men ?
answer me.' And they deliberated among themselves, saying, ' If
we say. From heaven ; he will say. Why then did ye not believe
him ? Or shall we say. From men ?' But they feared the people :
for all held John to be really a prophet. So they answered and
said unto Jesus, ' We do not know.' And Jesus said unto them,
' Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.'

CHAPTER XII
And he began to speak unto them in parables. 'A man
planted a vineyard, and set an hedge around it, and dug out a
wine press, and built a tower. And he let it to husbandmen, and
went abroad. And at the proper time he sent to the husbandmen
a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen his share
of the fruit of the vineyard. And they seized him, and beat him,
and sent him away empty. And again he sent unto them another
servant ; and him they wounded and reviled. And again he sent
another; and him they killed. And he sent many others; and
eome they beat, and some they killed. But he had still an only
and well-beloved son : him he sent last unto them, saying. They
will have respect for my son. But those husbandmen said among
themselves. This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the
inheritance will be ours. So they seized him, and killed him, and
cast him out of the vineyard. What will the lord of the vineyard
do ? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the
vineyard unto others.
'And have ye not read this passage in the scripture: The
stone which the builders rejected is become the comer-stone.
This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?'
And they sought to take him prisoner, for they realized that

26 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
he had spoken the parable against them : but they feared the
people, so they left him, and went their way.
And they sent unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the
Herodians, that they might entrap him by his words. And when
they were come, they said unto him, ' Master, we know that thou
art truthful, and hast regard for no man : for thou respectest not
the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth. Is it
lawful to give tribute to the Emperor, or not ? Should we give
it, or should we not give it ?' But he, perceiving their deceitful
ness, said unto them, ' Why tempt ye me ? bring me a silver coin,
that I may see it.' And they brought it. And he said unto them,
' Whose is this image and superscription ? ' And they said unto
him, 'The Emperor's.' And Jesus, answering, said unto them,
' Pay to the Emperor what is the Emperor's, and to God what is
God's.' And they marvelled at him greatly.
John vii. 53-viii. 11
And they went, each one, to his own house. And Jesus went
to the Mount of Olives. And early in the morning, he returned
to the temple, and all the people came unto him, and he sat down,
and he taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought
unto him a woman taken in adultery, and putting her in the
midst of them, they said to him, ' Master, this woman was taken
in the very act of adultery. Now Moses commanded us in the
Law that such women should be stoned; what then sayest thou?'
And they said this to try him, that they might have something
with which to accuse him. But Jesus stooped forward and wrote
with his finger upon the ground. But when they continued
asking him, he raised his head, and said unto them, ' He that is
without sin amongst you, let him be the first to cast a stone at
her.' And again he stooped forward, and wrote upon the ground.
And they, having heard that, withdrew one by one, beginning with
the eldest ; and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she
was, in the midst. And Jesus lifted his head, and said to her:
'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned thee?' And
she said, ' No one. Lord.' Then Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn
thee. Go, and from henceforth sin no more.'
Then came unto him some Sadducees, who say there is no

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 27
resurrection; and they asked him, saying, 'Master, Moses wrote
for us. If a man die, and leave a wife and no child, his brother
must marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now
there were seven brothers: and the first took a wife, and dying
left no seed. And the second married her, and died without leaving
seed : and the third likewise. And all seven left no seed : last
of all the woman died also. In the resurrection, therefore, when
they rise, whose wife will she be of them ? for all the seven had
her to wife.'
And Jesus answering said unto thein, 'Does not this prove
that ye err, and that ye neither know the scriptures nor the
power of God ? For when they rise from the dead, they neither
marry nor are given in marriage ; but are as the angels in heaven.
But as regards the dead, that they rise : have ye not read in the
book of Moses, in the story of the burning bush, how God spoke
unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob ? He is not the God of the dead, but the
God of the living : ye do greatly err.'
Then one of the scribes who had heard them disputing together,
and had perceived that Jesus had answered them excellently, came
up and asked him, 'Which commandment is the first of all?' And
Jesus answered him, ' The first of all the commandments is. Hear,
0 Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is One : and thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. And the second is
this. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other
commandment greater than these.' And the scribe said unto him,
'Excellently, Master, thou hast said the truth, that He is One, and
there is none other but He : and to love Him with all one's heart,
and with all one's understanding, and with all one's strength, and
to love one's neighbour as oneself, is much better than all burnt
offerings and sacrifices.' And when Jesus saw that he answered
intelligently, he said unto him, 'Thou art not far from the kingdom
of God.' And no man ventured to ask him any more questions. And
Jesus went on teaching in the temple, and said : ' How can the
scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David ? For David
himself said in the Holy Spirit, The Lord said to my lord. Sit thou

28 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David
himself calleth him lord; how is he then his son?' And the
mass of the people heard him gladly.
And he said unto them in his teaching, 'Beware of the scribes,
who love to walk in long robes, and to be saluted in the market
places, and to have the first seats in the synagogues and at feasts:
who devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers:
these shall receive all the heavier punishment.'
And Jesus sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the
people throwing money into the treasury: and many that were
rich cast in much. And a poor widow came and threw in two
farthings, which make a halfpenny. And he called unto him his
disciples, and said unto them, ' Verily I say unto you, this poor
widow has thrown in more than all who have thrown into the
treasury : for all they threw in from their superfluity ; but she
from her poverty has thrown in all that she possessed, even all
her living.' CHAPTER XIII
And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples said
unto him, 'Master, see, what grand stones and what grand
buildings!' And Jesus, answering, said unto him, 'Seest thou
these great buildings ? There shall not be left one stone upon
another, which shall not be thrown down.'
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the
temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him
privately, ' Tell us, when shall these things be ? and what is the
sign when all these things are to be fulfilled ?'
And Jesus, answering them, began to say, 'Take heed lest any
man lead you astray : for many will come in my name, saying. It
is I, and they shall lead many astray. And when ye hear of wars
and rumours of wars, be ye not alarmed ; for these things must
happen ; but the End is not yet. For nation will rise against
nation, and kingdom against kingdom : and there will be earth
quakes in divers places, and there will be famines : these are the
beginnings of the Pangs.
' But ye — take heed to yourselves : for they will deliver you

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 29
up to law courts; and in synagogues ye will be beaten: and ye
will be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, to bear
witness before them. For the gospel must first be proclaimed
unto all nations. But when they take you away, and deliver you
up, have no care beforehand what ye shall speak, but whatsoever
shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye : for it is not ye
that speak, but the Holy Spirit. And brother will deliver up
brother to death, and the father his son ; and children will rise up
against their parents, and will put them to death. And ye will
be hated of all men for my name's sake : but he that endureth
unto the end, he shall be saved.
' But when ye shall see the Abomination of Desolation, stand
ing where it ought not (let him that readeth give heed), then let
them that be in Judaea fiee to the mountains : and let him that
is on the roof not go down into the house, neither enter therein,
to take anything out of his house: and let him that is in the
field not go back to fetch his cloak. But woe to them that are
with child, and to them that give suck in those days ! And pray
ye that it may not be in the winter. For in those days there
will be affliction, such as hath not been from the beginning of the
world which God created until now, and will not be again. And
if the Lord had not shortened those days, no flesh would be
saved : but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen out, he hath
shortened the days. And then if any man shall say to you, Lo,
here is the Messiah; or, lo, he is there; believe him not. For
false Messiahs and false prophets will arise, and will perform
signs and wonders, to cause the elect, if it be possible, to go
astray. But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold everything
unto you.
'But in those days, after that affliction, the sun will be
darkened, and the moon will not give her light, and the stars
will fall from heaven, and the heavenly powers will be shaken.
And then will be seen the Son of man coming on the clouds with
great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels, and
will gather together his elect from the four winds, from the utter
most part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
' From the fig tree learn a parable : when its branch becometh
soit, and it putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near; so.

30 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
too, ye, when ye see these things happening, know that he is nigh,
even at the door.
'Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass
away, till all these things shall have taken place. Heaven and
earth shall pass away : but my words shall not pass away. But as
to that day and as to the hour, no man knoweth, not even the
angels who are in heaven, and not even the Son, but only the
Father. ' Take ye heed, watch : for ye know not when the time is. For
it is as if a man went abroad, and left his house, and gave authority
to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded [the
porter to watch. Watch ye therefore : for ye know not when the
master of the house cometh, whether at even, or at midnight, or
at the cockcrowing, or in the early morning : lest coming suddenly,
he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you, I say unto all:
Watch.'
CHAPTER XIV
Now it was two days before the feast of the passover and of
the unleavened bread : and the chief priests and the scribes sought
how they might capture him by craft, and put him to death. For
they said, ' Not on the festival, lest there be an uproar among the
people.' And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,
as he sat at table, there came a woman having an alabaster cruse
of precious ointment of pure balsam; and she broke the cruse,
and poured the balsam on his head. And some were angry, saying
among themselves, 'Why has this waste of ointment been com
mitted ? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred
pieces of silver, and have been given to the poor.' And they re
proached her. But Jesus said, 'Let her alone; why plague ye
her ? she has wrought a good deed towards 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 has done what she could:
she has anointed my body beforehand for its burial. Verily I say
unto you. Wherever the gospel shall be preached throughout the
whole worid, that which she has done shall also be spoken of in
her memory.'

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 3 1
And Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, departed unto the chief
priests, to betray him unto them. And when they heard it, they
were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought a
good opportunity to betray him.
And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrifice
the passover, his disciples said unto him, ' Whither wouldst thou
that we go and prepare for thee to eat the passover ?' And he sent
two of his disciples, and said unto them, ' Go ye into the city, and
a man will meet you bearing a pitcher of water : follow him. And
into whatever house he goes in, say ye to the master thereof. The
Master says. Where is my chamber where I may eat the passover
with my disciples ? And he will shew you a large upper room,
furnished with couches and ready ; there prepare for us.' And his
disciples departed, and came into the city, and found as he had
said unto them: and they prepared the passover.
And in the evening he went thither with the Twelve. And as
they sat and ate, Jesus said, ' Verily I say unto you. One of you
will betray me, who is now eating with me.' And they were
grieved, and said unto him, one after the other, 'Surely not I?'
And he answered and said unto them, ' One of the Twelve, who
dippeth with me into the dish. For the Son of man indeed de-
parteth, as it is written of him : but woe to that man by whom
the Son of man is betrayed ! Better were it for that man if he
had never been born.'
And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and said the
blessing, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, ' Take, this
is my body.' And he took a cup, and spake the blessing, and gave
it to them : and they all drank of it. And he said unto them,
'This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many.
Verily I say unto you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the
vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.'
And after they had sung the Hallel, they went out to the
mount of Olives. And Jesus said unto them, ' Ye will all stumble ;
for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep will be
scattered. But after I have risen, I will go before you to Galilee.'
But Peter said unto him, ' Even if all shall stumble, yet will not I.'
And Jesus said unto him, ' Verily I say unto thee. This day, even
in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou wilt deny me thrice.'

32 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
But he spoke the more vehemently, ' If I must die with thee,
I will not deny thee.' So also said they all.
And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane : and
he said to his disciples, ' Sit ye here, while I pray.' And he took
with him Peter and James and John. And he began to be dis
tressed and troubled, and he said unto them, ' My soul is exceeding
sorrowful unto death : tarry ye here, and watch.' And he went
forward a little, and threw himself upon 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 came and found them sleeping, and said unto Peter,
' Simon, sleepest thou ? Couldest not thou watch one hour? Watch
ye and pray, that ye come not into temptation. The spirit is
willing, but the flesh is weak.' And again he went away, and
prayed, speaking the same words. And he returned, and found
them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy ; and they knew not
what to answer him. And he came the third time, and said unto
them, ' Sleep ye still 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 spoke, came Judas, one of the
Twelve, and with him a band with swords and bludgeons from the
chief priests and the scribes and the Elders. Now the betrayer
had given them a token, saying, ' Whomsoever I kiss, that is he ;
seize him, and lead him away safely.' So as soon as he had come,
he went straightway up to Jesus, and said, ' Master ' ; and kissed
him. And they laid their hands on him, and seized him. But
one of the bystanders drew his sword, and smote the servant of the
high priest, and cut off his ear. And Jesus answered and said
unto them, 'Have ye come out to capture me with swords and
with bludgeons, as if against a thief? I was daily with you in
the temple, teaching, and ye seized me not : — but the scriptures
must be fulfilled.' Then they all forsook him, and fled. Yet a
young man followed him, clad only in a linen shirt upon his naked
body ; and they seized him. But he let the linen shirt slip, and
fled from them naked.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 33
And they led Jesus away to the high priest : and all the chief
priests and the Elders and the scribes assembled together. And
Peter followed him at a distance unto the court of the high priest :
and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.
And the chief priests and all the High Court sought for evidence
against Jesus, to put him to death ; but they found none. For
many bore false witness against him, but their evidence did not
agree. Then some rose up, and bore false witness against him,
saying, ' We heard him say, I will destroy this temple which is
made with hands, and after three days I will build another made
without hands.' But even in this their evidence did not agree.
Then the high priest stood up among them, and asked Jesus,
saying, 'Answerest thou nothing to that which these bear witness
against thee?' But he held his peace, and answered nothing.
Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, 'Art thou
the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One ?' And Jesus said, ' I am :
and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the
Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.' Then the high
priest rent his clothes, and said, ' What further need have we of
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 strike him with their fists, and to say unto him, 'Prophesy':
and the servants dealt him blows.
Now Peter was below in the court And one of the maids of
the high priest came, and when she saw Peter warming himself,
she looked at him, and said, ' Thou too wast with Jesus the
Nazarene.' But he denied it, saying, ' I do not know or under
stand what thou sayest.' And he went out into the outer court
yard. And the cock crowed. And the maid saw him, and began
again to say to the bystanders, ' This is one of them.' And he
denied it again. And a little after, the bystanders said again to
Peter, 'Verily thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean.'
But he began to curse and to swear, saying, 'I know not this man
of whom ye speak.' And straightway the cock crowed a second
time. Then Peter called to mind the word which Jesus had said
unto him, ' Before the cock crow twice, thou wilt deny me thrice.'
And he wept.
M. 3

34 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

CHAPTER XV

And straightway in the early morning the chief priests, with
the Elders and scribes, and the whole council prepared their
decision, and having bound Jesus, led him away, and dehvered
him to Pilate. And Pilate asked him, ' Art thou the King of
the Jews?' And he answering said unto him, 'Thou sayest it.'
And the chief priests vehemently accused him: but he answered
nothing. And Pilate asked him again, saying, ' Answerest thou
nothing? see, of how much they accuse thee!' But Jesus
answered nothing more ; so that Pilate marvelled.
Now at the festival, he used to release unto them one prisoner,
whom they chose to beg off. And the so-called Barabbas lay
bound with the rioters who had committed a murder in the in
surrection. And the crowd came up, and began to demand what
Pilate was wont to do for them. But he answered them, saying,
' Do ye wish that I release unto you the King of the Jews ? ' For
he realized that the chief priests had delivered him up out of envy.
But the chief priests incited the people, that he should rather
release Barabbas unto them. And Pilate answered again and said
unto them, ' What then shall I do with him whom ye call the King
of the Jews ?' And they cried out in answer, ' Crucify him.' Then
Pilate said unto them, ' What evil has he done ?' But they cried
out the more vehemently, ' Crucify him.' And so Pilate, wishing
to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered
Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
Then the soldiers led him away into the courtyard, which
is the Prastorium ; and they called together the whole cohort.
And they clothed him with purple, and wove a crown of thorns,
and put it upon his head, and they began to salute him, 'Hail,
King of the Jews ! ' And they beat him on the head with a cane,
and spat upon him, and bent the knee, and did him reverence.
And when they had mocked him thus, they took off the purple
from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to
crucify him.
And they compelled one Simon of Cyrene (the father of
Alexander and Rufus), who happened to be passing by from the

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 35
country, to carry his cross. And they brought him unto the place
Golgotha, which is, being translated. The place of a skull. And
they offered him wine mixed with myrrh : but he did not take it.
And they crucified him, and they divided his garments, casting
lots for them, what each man should take. And it was the third
hour when they crucified him. And the inscription of the charge
against him was written above him: 'The King of the Jews.'
And with him they crucified two thieves; the one on his right
hand, and the other on his left
And the passers-by reviled him, wagging their heads, and
saying, 'Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in
three days, save thyself, and come down from the cross.' Likewise
also the chief priests with the scribes mocked him, saying to one
another, ' He saved others ; himself he cannot save. The Messiah !
The King of Israel ! Let him descend now from the cross, that we
may see and believe.' And they that were crucified with him
scoffed at him.
And at the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land
until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with
a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ?' which is, being
translated, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?'
And some of the bystanders, when they heard it, said, ' Behold, he
calls Elijah.' And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and
put it on a cane, and gave him to drink, saying, ' Let alone ; let us
see whether Elijah will come to take him down.' But Jesus
uttered a loud cry, and expired. And the curtain of the temple
was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. And when the
centurion, who stood by, opposite to him, saw that he so expired,
he said, ' Truly this man was a Son of God.'
There were also some women looking on from a distance, among
whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the
Little and of Joses, and Salome (who already, when he was in
Galilee, had followed him, and attended to him) ; and many other
women who came up with him unto Jerusalem.
And as the evening was already at hand, because it was
the Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of
Arimathaea, an honourable councillor who himself too was waiting
for the kingdom of God, came, and ventured to go to Pilate, and
3—2

36 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled that he should
have already died, and he summoned the centurion, and asked him
whether he was long dead. And when he was informed by the
centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. And he bought fine linen,
and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him
in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone
against the door of the sepulchre. And Mary Magdalene and Mary
the mother of Joses watched where he was laid.

CHAPTER XVI
And when the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary
the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that they
might go and anoint him. And very early in the morning of the
first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre, at the rising
of the sun. And they said among themselves, ' Who will roU away
for us the stone from the door of the sepulchre ?' And when they
looked, they saw that the stone had been rolled away : for it was
very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young
man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment;
and they were sore afraid. But he said unto them, 'Be not
afraid: ye seek Jesus the crucified Nazarene; he is risen; he is
not here : behold the place where they laid him. But go, tell his
disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there
shall ye see him, as he said unto you.' And they went out, and
fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed;
and they said nothing to any one ; for they were afraid.
[Now after he had risen, early on the first day of the week, he
appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven
devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as
they mourned and wept. And they, when they heard that he was
alive, and had been seen by her, believed it not. After that he
appeared in another form unto two of them, as they were walking
and going into the country. And they went and told it unto the
others, but they did not believe even them.
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at table,

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 37
and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart,
becau.se they believed not them who had seen him risen. And he
said unto them, ' Go ye throughout all the world, and preach the
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. And
these signs shall follow them that believe : In my name shall they
cast out demons ; they shall speak with new tongues ; they shall
take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall
not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover.' Now after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was taken up
into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of God. But they
went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord helping them and
confirming the Word through the signs which followed it.]

MARK

CHAPTER I
1-8. John the Baptist
{Op. Matt, iii i-6, ii, 12; Luke iii 1-6, 15-18)
I The beginning of the gospel concerning Jesus Christ, the
2 Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, 'Behold,
I send my messenger before thee, who shall prepare the way for
3 thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye
4 the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.' So John the
Baptist appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming the baptism of
5 repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And there went out
unto him all the land of Judaea, and all the inhabitants of Jeru
salem, and they were baptized by him in the river of Jordan,
6 confessing their sins. And John's clothing was of camel's hair,
and he had a leathern girdle about his loins ; and he ate locusts
7 and wild honey. And he proclaimed, saying, 'After me cometh
one who is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not
8 worthy to stoop down and unloose. I have baptized you with
water : but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.'
The object of these notes is by no means to make another
commentary superfluous even for a Jewish reader. There are
many points and difficulties in the Gospels about which my notes
will give little explanation or which I shall discuss inadequately—
and this partly from lack of space and largely from lack of learning,
My main purpose has been to concentrate attention upon those
passages in the Gospels which have religious value or interest for
Jewish readers at the present time. Passages which do not possess
this interest or value I have sometimes dealt with rather cursorily.
It is not implied that such passages do not possess other kinds of
interest, historical or theological, even for Jewish readers. They
may also be of great importance for the full comprehension of the

I. 1-8] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 39
Gospels as a whole. They may possess great religious interest for
the student of religion, to whatever creed he belongs, and great
religious value to the Christian believer. All I mean is that they
have comparatively little interest or value to Jewish readers from
a purely religious point of view.
Among the inadequately discussed passages are some which
have special relation to Christian dogma and belief concerning the
person and Messianic consciousness of Jesus. These are treated
from a purely historical point of view. No attempt is made to
discuss how far Jesus was right or wrong in any claim he may have
made, or any consciousness that he may have had, that he stood
nearer to God than any other member of the human race. My
point of view is frankly that of a Jew, that is of some one who
stands outside every form and phase of Christianity. I try to write
about Jesus as an impartial but sympathetic, critical but ap
preciative. Christian believer might write about Mahommed or
Buddha. That Jesus did not literally fulfil the Old Testament '
conditions and characteristics of the 'Messiah' is obvious. Whether '
he fulfilled them in some higher and spiritual sense it is in these '
notes unnecessary for me to discuss. Jesus is not ' our Lord ' to '
the Jewish reader, and can never become so. Our interest in him,
from the purely religious point of view, is limited to his con
tributions to religious teaching. That the love of him and the
service of him have been, and are, immense motives to Christians
of all sorts and shades, no one can deny ; such love and service
can with Jews be felt and rendered only to God. Thus, whether
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and in what sense and at what
stage of his life ; whether he thought himself nearer to God than
all other men ; whether, and in what sense, he believed himself to
be the Son of God — all these to Jewish readers are questions of
a purely historical and scientific interest. We shall not admire
his moral and religious teaching either more or less because he
believed himself, or did not believe himself, to be the Messiah ;
we shall certainly not admire his character more if he thought
himself the ' Son of God ' in a special sense ; we shall assuredly
not admire it less if he did not.
Mark has a very brief introduction before coming to close grips
with his subject — the life and the death of the Messiah. A few
necessary lines about John the Baptist lead on to the baptism
of Jesus, and then to the beginnings of his ministry. Mark pre
sumably knows no details of his ancestry, or of his childhood or
birth. Indeed he passes over the baptism and the return to
Galilee and the first preaching there with a few short and rapid
strokes, so that one can regard the introduction as extending to

40 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [I. i-8
15 (so W.) with as much justification as confining it to 1-8.
Mark starts the details of his story with the coming of the new
Preacher to the Lake of Galilee and to Capernaum. Of what
happened before that he seems to know no more than the barest
outline as regards the baptism (9-1 1), the temptation (12, 13)
and the earliest preaching in Galilee (14, 15). It may be argued
that Peter's recollections, of which, it is believed, Mark made use,
could naturally go no further back than the incidents which come
before us in i. 16 and after.
I. It seems best, with W., to put a full stop at the end of the
verse after the words ' Son of God,' and to translate ' Beginning
of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.' The words
are the title for the whole book. They mean : The beginning of
the story of Jesus Christ.
' In the apostolic age the word gospel does not denote a book,
but a spoken proclamation. Only in the second century did the
Lives of Christ begin to be called Gospels. The original gospel
was a spoken proclamation of the great Christian facts, the
Messiahship of Jesus and the fulfilment of the prophecies in
Him.' The earthly life of Jesus was only the beginning of this
proclamation. The more important part was that which came
after his death and was still to come. Hence ' what Mark pro
poses to tell is how the gospel began in the earthly ministry of
Jesus' (Menzies).
The origin of the technical meaning of the word evangelien
{evayyeXiov), ' good tidings ' or ' gospel,' is apparently to be found
partly in the use of the verb {evayyeXi^as) in the Greek version of
the later chapters of Isaiah, partly in the already current Greek
use of the noun to signify ' good tidings.' The noun, evayyeXiov,
occurs in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septua
gint) two or three times, and also another form evayyeXia. The
verb evayyeXi^eiv occurs some twenty times. The passages in
Isaiah xl. 9, lii. 7, Ix. 6, Ixi. i, are worth looking up. So, too.
Psalms xl. 9, Ixviii 11, and xcvi. 2. The word has also been
found in inscriptions in connection with the worship of the
Emperors. It occurs in a now famous inscription found at Priene
in a passage about the birthday of the divine Augustus (the
date is about 9 B.C.). ' [The birthday] of the god was for the
world the beginning of good tidings on account of him ' {t&v St
avTov evayyeXlwv, cp. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, p. 267). It
is a pity that we have not adopted an identical rendering in
English {i.e. ' evangel ' instead of ' gosjjel '), like the German ' das
Evangelium.' The oldest use of the word in Christian literature is reflected

I. 1-8] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 41
in Mark. W. holds that in its special Christian sense the word
could not have been used by Jesus. For, in Mark, Jesus himself
is, almost always, the content of the gospel. He is the good
tidings. He is the gospel. In this sense too is the word em
ployed by Paul. Mark's whole book is to be the story of the
career and death of Jesus the Messiah. Hence his book is the
gospel of Jesus. Jesus in Mark is made to follow and adopt this
usage. Out of seven times in which the word is used, five occur
in speeches of Jesus. (The other two places are i i and i. 14.)
He speaks of ihe gospel, meaning not what he has to say and
teach about religion, morality, and the Kingdom, but practically
himself ' For my sake and for the gospel's ' are close synonyms.
' For the sake of the gospel ' means for the sake of making known
the tidings about Jesus. ' The gospel is to be preached unto all
the nations ' means that Jesus Christ and his life and death are
to be preached. The one exception to this usage in Mark seems to
be i. 14, 15, where, however, in truth the meaning is still the same,
however inappropriately put into the mouth of Jesus. Jesus could
only have said ' Repent, for the Kingdom is near ' ; the words
' Believe in the gospel ' would have had no meaning to his con
temporaries at the outset of his ministry. Jesus is thus made to
use the word in a proleptic or anticipatory sense.
In Matthew, and in Luke (who only employs the verb and not
the noun, whereas Mark and Matthew employ only the noun and
not the verb, except Matt. xi. 5), the usage is different. To
them the gospel is the contents of Jesus's teaching. The gospel of
the Kingdom means the tidings and teaching about the Kingdom.
Jesus proclaims that with him the Kingdom has appeared upon
earth, and this proclamation is the gospel. His teaching is the
gospel which he preaches. But this use of the word is not earlier
than its use in Mark, but later, just as the Kingdom as present is
later than the Kingdom as future.
It is disputed whether the oldest reading had ' Son of God '
after the words 'Jesus Christ.' If it had, the phrase must be
understood either in the same sense as in iii 11, or in the higher
Pauline sense as a heavenly being, of divine nature, though distinct
from and subordinate to God. See i. 1 1 and iii. 1 1.
'Jesus Christ.' The wording was originally 'Jesus the Christ';
'Jesus the Anointed'; 'Jesus the Messiah.' But here 'Christ'
has already become a proper name, a surname for Jesus ; therefore
it has lost the article. This is a rare use. In Mark it is only
found again in ix. 41. Merx {Die Vier kanonisclien Evangelien,
II. 2, p. 10) attempts to show that the original wording was
probably 'Beginning of the gospel'; then 'Jesus Christ' was
added and to this was appended 'Son of God.' For the

42 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [I- i-8
Rabbinic use of the word * Christ ' or ' Messiah,' as a personal name,
see Additional Note i.
2, 3. W. and Loisy regard the quotation as a very early
interpolation. Mark never in his own person quotes the Old
Testament. There are other difficulties. The quotation is made
up of Malachi iii. i and Isaiah xl. 3. Was the Malachi passage
erroneously supposed to come from Isaiah ? Or is the Isaiah
quotation original to the writer of verse I, and was the Malachi
passage prefixed later? The latter is more probable.^ In Matt.
xi. 10 (Q) and Luke vii. 27 the Malachi passage is applied to John
by Jesus. B. Weiss, on the other hand, regards the whole passage
as a reminiscence of Q (the old, extra source of Matthew and
Luke), but not as an interpolation {Die Quellen, A, pp. 189-192,
B, p. 200).
The Malachi quotation follows the Hebrew rather than the
Septuagint, which is another reason why it may be regarded as
not having been inserted at the same time as the Isaiah quota
tion, which follows the Septuagint. But the Malachi quotation
makes an important change from the Hebrew to render it suit
able for the context. The Hebrew has : ' Behold I send my
messenger, and he shall prepare a way before me.' Whereas
Mark has : ' my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy
way,' that is before the face of Jesus. The way which John pre
pared may be taken to mean his preaching of repentance. There
is also a notable change in the quotation from Isaiah (which
otherwise follows the Septuagint and erroneously adds 'in the
wilderness ' to ' a voice that cries,' instead of to ' prepare ye ' : see
Revised Version). Septuagint and Hebrew read alike: 'make
straight in the desert a highway for our God.' But in lieu of ' a
highway for our God ' Mark puts ' his paths.' The object of this
seemingly small change was to make 'the Lord ' of the first clause
a synonym, not for God, but for the Messiah — a complete violation
of the original. Evangelists and Rabbis were both frequently
guilty of forced and strained interpolations of the text. Here we
have a misrendering or alteration for religious purposes. It may,
however, not be deliberate. It may be unconscious ; under the
influence of preconceived ideas, writers sometimes misquoted
from memory to suit their own views.
4. Without the quotations the order would be clearer. ' Be
ginning of the gospel. John was in the desert, preaching,' &c.
The wording is notable : 'A baptism of repentance for the forgive
ness of sins.'
We need not assume that the baptism is regarded as a sort of
magical or sacramental prophylactic or safeguard. Those who did

I. 1-8] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 43
not repent could not be saved at the Judgment, whether they had
been baptized or not
The baptism is to be the outward sign of an inward repentance,
and this repentance is to lead to the forgiveness of sins. It was,
as Loisy says, in view of the coming Kingdom that the remission of
sins was urgent. The confession is to be understood as a free,
public confession and of a general character {E. 8. i. p. 393).
The great method to obtain forgiveness, according to Rabbinic
doctrine, was through repentance. For the Rabbinic doctrine of
repentance, see my article on 'Rabbinic Conceptions of Repentance,'
J.Q.R. Vol. XVI. January 1904.
For the Jewish reference to John and for the Rabbinic practice
and theory of baptism, see Additional Notes 2 and 3.
The best translation seems to be : ' John the Baptiser appeared
in the wilderness and preached,' &c.
The wilderness is the low country by the Jordan, called the
Araba (desert or steppe) in the Old Testament. See 2 Sam.
ii. 29, &c.
5. The concourse of people must be exaggerated.
The immersion was the worshipper's own act. ' Baptized by
John' would mean 'under his influence and by his instigation
and sanction.'
6. His dress is reminiscent of 2 Kings i. 8 and Zech. xiii. 4.
His food indicates the ascetic.
7. At once with John's utterances comes up the vexed question
as to the relation of Mark and Q. It is pretty certain that Q
contained a record of John's baptisms and preaching of which
we find pieces in Matthew and Luke. But does Mark depend on
Q, or has Q used Mark ? W. strongly urges the latter, B. Weiss
the former. Mutually independent they can scarcely have been.
The detailed arguments do, it must be confessed, plead for Weiss's
view, though the Q which Mark knew may have been a shorter
and more primitive Q than the Q which Matthew and Luke may
have used. And also : ' II pent y avoir des intermediaires entre
les documents primitifs et nos evangiles.' So Loisy (i. p. 122,
n. 3) who is on the whole on Weiss's side, though with reserves
and caution. Thus he says : ' The agreement of Matthew and
Luke in the Baptist's speech — notably as to the "fire" — has led to
the supposition that both borrowed it from a common source, qui
pourrait avoir dtd abrdgde dans Marc lui-meme' {E. 8. I. p. 401).
John proclaims himself to be the forerunner of one mightier
than he. It is notable that Mark, unlike Matthew and Luke, does
not represent John as proclaiming that this mightier one will also

44 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [I. i-8
hold the Final Judgment. Yet Mark must mean that John is
the forerunner of the Messiah. John proclaims the advent of
the Messiah, without knowing who he is. If he did announce
the Messiah's near advent, he did not refer to Jesus in particular.
To the Evangelists, however, Jesus is the Messiah, and thus John,
as the forerunner of Jesus, is the forerunner of the Messiah.
Indeed, the urgency of the call to repentance by John must be (as
in the case of .Jesus in verse 15) because the time is soon at hand
when repentance will be impossible. For repentance belongs to,
and is only possible within, the old era. The new era will show
the results of repentance or the results of obstinate sin.
' Mightier than I.' In what respect ? Either generally more
potent, invested by God with greater authority (shown in his
healings, teachings, miracles, &c.), or specifically in the higher
mode of his baptism.
There is some reason to believe that John did not proclaim
the coming of the Messiah. The story in Mark is coloured by
later Christian reflection. In any case John did not recognize in
Jesus the Messiah : Jesus was to him merely one among the
many who sought baptism, and was not in any way distinguished
from the rest by a supernatural revelation {cp. Loisy, i. p. 185).
8. W. says: 'The baptism with Spirit is a baptism without
water ; i.e. no real baptism, but a substitution for it by means of
something better. This higher baptism is the giving of the Spirit,
which here appears as the speciality of the mission of Jesus.
Water and Spirit are here opposites: they exclude each other.
Afterwards the opposition was bridged over by creating a Christian
baptism with water and Spirit. But in truth the Christian com
munity only adopted the rite of (water) baptism after the Master's
death from the disciples of John.'
On this view, ' baptizing with the Spirit ' means a baptism in
a good sense, the reception of a precious and divine gift. The
meaning would be cognate to that of Isaiah xliv. 3, Joel ii. 28.
In the Messianic age — in the Kingdom — the Spirit of God was to
be poured out over all who were worthy or chosen to enjoy the
beatitudes of the new era. The possession of the Spirit meant a
higher enlightenment, a fuller knowledge of God, a more perfect
accomplishment of His will. On the other hand, the extra source
of Matthew and Luke (Q) spoke of a baptism with ' Holy Spirit
and fire' (Matt. iii. 12, Luke iii. 16). But some think that ' Holy
Spirit' has been inserted from Mark, and that what Q had
was only ' with fire.' This would mean a baptism in an evil or
ironic sense — a baptism of punishment. It would refer to the
consuming fire of the Messianic Judgment. Cp. Amos vii. 4,

L 9-1 1] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 45
Mal. iii. 2. And it may be argued that this is the more original
version, and that it is more in character with what John is likely
to have said. So e.g. Loisy. Mark made a 'Christian' change
substituting 'spirit' for 'fire'; Matthew and Luke combined his
reading with the reading of the source. And originally doubtless
what John said was more different still. For He who gives the
fire baptism to sinners is not the Messiah but God. ' La tra
dition chretienne lui a fait dire du Messie ce qu'il avait dit de
Dieu meme ' {E. S. i. p. 402).

9-1 1. The Baptism of Jesus
{Cp. Matt, iii 13-17; Luke iii 21, 22)
g And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from
Nazareth in Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
10 And straightway as he came up out of the water, he saw how
the heavens parted, and the Spirit like a dove descended upon
1 1 him. And a voice from heaven said, ' Thou art my beloved Son ;
in thee I am well pleased.'
A complete commentary upon the Gospels must devote pages
to this tiny section, but I can be exceedingly brief.
The religious value of the Gospels for Jewish readers to-day
has nothing to do with the story of the baptism. Nevertheless,
that Jesus was baptized by John may be regarded as historic. It
was, moreover, in all probability a turning-point in his life — the
near antecedent of his taking up John's task and continuing
John's message, though on other lines. We cannot tell whether
Jesus thought he saw, and fancied he heard, strange sights and
sounds on that occasion. No critical reader to-day can believe,
I suppose, in the literal truth of IO and 1 1. For him the question
needs no discussion. Jesus, we may assume, comes, as Matthew says,
with the express purpose of being baptized. He wants to hear and
see the new prophet. What he has been told of him may fit in
with the aspirations and presentiments of his own soul. It may
be, and has been, asked : was he conscious of special sins because
he' sought the baptism? It is not necessary to believe this:
M. Loisy is perhaps not too 'prepossessed' when he says, 'The
baptism of repentance did not render guilty those who received it
without sin; a righteous man could submit to it in order to
signify his determination to hve purely, without confessing sins
which he had not committed; he manifested his resolution to

46 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [I. 9-n
prepare himself, according to his capacity, for the coming of the
Kingdom' {E. S. I. p. 405). Perhaps I ought just to notice that
B. Weiss, still urging the dependence here of Mark upon Q,
considers that the original form of the celestial words is in Matthew
(iii. 17). Now there the voice says, not ' Thou art,' but ' This
is ' &c. Weiss thinks that the original subject of elhev (he saw)
was not Jesus, but John {cp. John i 32). But how in this case
could John have ever doubted whether Jesus was the Messiah ?
And how could such an idea of the baptism be primitive ? So
too if, as Weiss thinks. Matt. iii. 13-15 were in Q, then assuredly
Q in such a form is no early document.
10, II. What may be the historic, or rather the inward,
psychological fact at the basis of the stories of the baptism and
the temptation it is impossible to say. Yet it is not unhkely
that the baptism did mark a decisive epoch in the views and
feelings of Jesus as to his mission, and that it was succeeded by
no less important developments in some lonely wanderings in the
desert. As Loisy says, in asserting that it was only Jesus who
heard and saw, Mark is as much a psychologist as it was possible
for such a writer to be. Loisy himself is at grave variance with
most critical theologians because he holds that in one important
point the Evangelists are largely in the right : the baptism was
the moment when the conviction that he was, or would be, the '
Messiah definitely and convincingly entered the consciousness of
Jesus. This is how Loisy pictures to himself the genesis and
growth of that conviction.
' What may be regarded as the solid foundation of the tradi
tional narrative is that Jesus found in his baptism the decisive
revelation of his Messianic mission, and that the consciousness
of his divine sonship took hold of him with a strength which it
had not possessed before and which it would never lose again.
But tradition, as a matter of fact, has never held, and criticism
cannot admit, that this revelation was strictly the first revelation,
that it was not prepared by the whole previous life of Jesus, and
that it was not subsequently completed. The revelation of the
baptism could have been addressed only to a spirit ready to receive
it ; on the other hand, the historical meaning of the narrative of
the temptation is that Jesus had to learn more of the divine
conditions of his mission ; and it may be said that this progressive
instruction, which was to some extent the result of experience,
continued till his death. If it is permissible to hazard a conjecture
on such an obscure subject, it might be said that Jesus, in the
humble home of Nazareth, had grown up as son of God through
piety, through the expansion of his pure soul under the eye of the

L 9-n] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 47
heavenly Father, without at first any special thought of the great
part which the Son of God, the Messiah, was to play in the world
being mingled with the intimate converse of this soul with God ;
we may suppose that these special thoughts presented themselves
to him later on either through the mere influence of the current
Messianic ideas, or as the effect of the preaching of John which
announced the near coming of the Kingdom of God ; however that
may be, the meeting with John is a circumstance that is wholly
appropriate to a definite revelation ; there, by the side of the prophet
who was giving himself out as the forerunner of the Messiah, or
at least as the herald of the heavenly Kingdom, Jesus, who was
already son of God by the inward consciousness of his union with
the heavenly Father, had the supreme intuition of his divine
mission, and felt himself to be the Son of God, the Messiah
promised to Israel. The future would gradually teach him how
he would accomplish this mission, and it was the moral conditions
of his vocation which at first appeared most clear to him. But it
was as Messiah, the agent and the founder of the heavenly
Kingdom, that he determined to preach the gospel, and not as a
preacher of the goodness of God towards sinners ' {E. 8. I. p. 408).
Perhaps it should be added that M. Loisy does not use ' fils de
dieu ' and ' filiation divine ' in the same sense as that in which it
is used in the Christian creeds. As regards the term ' Son of God '
he especially states in a footnote that W. is right in observing
-that the Messiah is called Son of God, like Israel, as Israel's
representative. It is false, he adds, that the term was coined
by Jesus himself as the expression of his ' conscience filiale,' his
special ' Kindschaftsbewusstsein.' Jesus was Son of God as the
predestined Messiah. 'In the Wisdom of Solomon every truly
pious man is a "son of God," just as every Jew calls God his
father' (W., Mark, p. 6).
Jesus, then, alone sees and hears. The baptism is the equiva
lent of anointment. The words uttered by the voice from heaven
are a reminiscence of Isaiah xlii. I, 'Behold my servant whom I
uphold ; my chosen, in whom my soul delighteth,' and Psalm ii. 7,
' 'Thou art my son ; this day I have begotten thee.' 0 u/09 fiov o
dya'Kr)To<i, ' Thou art my beloved son.' According to W. this would
mean to a Semitic writer, not ' my beloved son,' but ' my preferred
son,' ' mein bevorzugter Sohn ' : in other words, ' my best loved son.'
It is not, however, intended to compare Jesus with other sons.
Jesus, in his own consciousness, knows himself now to be the
Messiah. He enters the water as an ordinary individual; he
comes out of it as the Son of God, the Messiah. Thus, according
to Mark, Jesus became the Son of God at his baptism. He is not
the Son of God through his birth. At the baptism he receives the

48 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [I. 9-1
Divine Spirit and becomes thereby, as Pfleiderer ( Urchristentum, i.
p. 338) says, a superhuman being, an instrument of the Spirit, as
he shows by his miracles. The immediate effect of the Spirit is
that it drives him forth into the wilderness.
The view that, according to Mark, the baptism made Jesus the
Son of God by putting within him the Divine Spirit, is strongly
combated by J. Weiss. He holds that, though this was most
probably the view of the old tradition, which Mark followed and
embodied, Mark himself had advanced beyond it. To him Jesus
was Son of God from his birth, as he was to Paul — and this
quite independently of any virgin birth. The oldest form of the
heavenly voice was probably, 'Thou art my Son, to-day I have
begotten thee ' {i.e. Psalm ii. without Isaiah), "rhis is found in
one important reading in the story of the baptism in Luke.
This form Mark avoided in order not to make the Sonship
begin at the baptism. What the baptism did was to make Jesus
realize his Sonship. He realizes that he is the heavenly com
missioned and appointed Messiah, and his earthly work has now
to begin. J. Weiss holds that both to the Christian community
for whom and among whom Mark was written, and to Mark
himself, ' the Christ ' and ' the Son of God ' are synonymous terms ;
cp. the various terms in i. 24, iii 11, v. 7, and xiv. 61. It may
here be noted, by the way, that the more advanced the Christology
of Mark (and if Paul's main letters are genuine it can hardly have
fallen far short of Paul's), the more trustworthy must be the many
stories and phrases in his Gospel which imply a purely human
conception of Jesus, whether to himself or to others.
Yet even to Mark the Son of God meant something totally
different from what later Christian dogma meant by it. It meant
something nearer to Jewish conceptions. As Israel is God's son,
so the Messiah, the king of Israel, is God's son too. This did not
mean that the Messiah was a part of God, or himself God. Even
when the Messiah was regarded by certain schools of Jewish
thought as a semi-divine being, he was no more God than an angel
was God. Yet an angel may be described as a semi-divine being.
It is important that the words of the voice are partly made
up from Isaiah xlii. i. 'The servant of the Lord' was identified
with the Messiah. And in Greek iral<;, the rendering of the
Hebrew ebed, means both ' servant ' and ' child.' If one could
show that Jesus himself thought that he was the ' servant,' and
that he fulfilled the servant's rdle, if one could show that he
believed that the ' servant ' was the true Messiah rather than, or
as well as, the king predicted in Isaiah xi. (and a far higher and
better Messiah too), or that he accepted the one sort of Messiah:
ship and rejected the other, many difficulties would be solved.

L9-II] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 49
But in the Gospels Jesus never makes a really definite pronounce
ment on the matter. We do not know whether he thought the
king Messiah of Isaiah xi. a mistaken conception or not. If the
account of his entry into Jerusalem is tolerably accurate, he can
hardly have done so wholly. Yet he never alludes to Isaiah xi,
and though to him the Messiah was undoubtedly a king in a
certain sense, he was probably more and other than the righteous
ruler of that famous chapter. It is impossible ever to know how
Jesus interpreted the great Messianic utterances of the prophets.
He may likely enough have formed no consistent theory about them.
In the Targum {i.e. the Jewish Aramaic translation of the Old
Testament) Isaiah xlii i reads : ' Behold my servant, the Messiah.'
And the servant of Isaiah lii. 13-liii. is also specifically called
the Messiah. Yet the very same writer who thought that the
'servant' was the Messiah probably also thought that the king
of Isaiah xi was also the Messiah ! In matters of religion the
human consciousness is often unaware of the oddest inconsistencies.
The religious mind, guided mainly by feeling and aspiration, makes
up its own conceptions and interpretations ; it takes and leaves
and combines; exegesis, consistency, historic interpretation, are
remote and indifferent to it.
Let me, however, attempt thus early to say a few words as
regards the vexed question of the Messianic consciousness of Jesus.
And first as to the character of the problem, the sources for its
solution, and the answers which have been given. The only
material available with which to answer the question is contained
in the three Synoptic Gospels. Yet here the evidence is so small,
so firagmentary, so dubious, and even so contradictory, that learned
scholars have disputed over it for generations, and dispute over it
still. Some think that Jesus did not believe himself to be the
Messiah ; others — most others — that he did. Of the second class,
some think that he only very gradually came to the conviction
that he was the Messiah ; others, that he believed himself to be
so from the beginning of his ministry. But even if we neglect
the view that Jesus did not believe himself to be the Messiah,
even then the doubts and divergencies are by no means over. For
even supposing that he held himself to be the Messiah, what sort
of Messiah did he think that he was ? What was his conception
of the Messiah ? And did that conception change and modify in
the course of his ministry? What was his conception of the
Messianic office, of the work which the Messiah had to do ? What
part had the Messiah to play at the end of the existing order
and in ushering in the new order?
Now the answers to these questions not only are dependent
upon, and suffer from, all the uncertainties due to the fragmentary.

so THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [L 9-U
dubious, and often legendary and miraculous character of the
Synoptic material, but they also suffer from a further uncertainty,
which to an uninformed Jewish reader of the present day is, at
first, surprising.
The ordinary uninformed Jew to-day thinks of the Messiah
partly in terms of one or two salient passages of Isaiah, and
partly in terms of late Jewish theology. To hina the Messiah
is essentially the figure described in Isaiah xi. A righteous ruler,
purely human, who restores the Jews to their own land from their
exile, and inaugurates a lasting reign upon earth of peace and
goodness and the knowledge of God. The Messiah, in fact, ushers
in the earthly Kingdom of God. Nothing is more inaccurate than
the assertion that the Jewish conception of the Messiah is merely
material, and merely political, and merely national. It is, doubt
less, all three. It involves, precisely like the new era in the
Gospels, a destruction of enemies, but its most essential feature is
the coming of righteousness and peace. When the Messiah has
done his work, men ' shall beat their swords into ploughshares and
their spears into pruning-hooks ; nation shall not lift up sword
against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.' When the
Messiah has done his work" God ' will turn to the people a pure
language, that they may call upon the name of the Lord, to serve
him with one consent.' ' And the Lord shall be king over all the
earth ; in that day shall the Lord be One, and his name One.'
This is what the ordinary, uninformed Jewish reader thinks of the
Messiah and of Messiah's work and its result.
But it does not follow that what the ordinary Jewish reader
thinks to-day is what was thought by all the contemporaries of
Jesus 1900 years ago. And this is the further uncertainty alluded
to just now. We do not exactly know what was the prevailing
conception, or what were the various conceptions, of the Messiah
and of his office in the days of Jesus.
We have some evidence which is earlier ; we have much
evidence which is later. We have little which is contemporary.
But we know from the apocalyptic literature that the old con
ception of the Messiah had been modified considerably. To begin
with, the Messiah was not to all Jews of that age so purely human,
so merely ' a man,' as he was to the author of Isaiah xi, as he is
to the ordinary Jewish reader to-day. He had become to some
circles, to some thinkers, a more dr less divine or supernatural
being. He had, perhaps, been combined with other conceptions,
as, for instance, it may be, with the archetypal Man, who was not
mere man, but ' superman,' pre-existent and heavenly. This was
one change, and that a great one.
Another was that, to some thinkers, the Messiah was not the

Lg-ii] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 51
warrior who fights against Israel's foes, and then inaugurates an
earthly era of righteousness and peace. The doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead had profoundly modified and enlarged the
conception of the whole Messianic age Doubtless Israel was still
to be freed from its oppressors; it was to live in its own land,
happy, triumphant, prosperous and peaceful. But the whole
denouement and transformation, culminating in the Resurrection
of the Dead and the Last Judgment, was to be brought about by
the more direct and sudden interposition and intervention of God.
The successful and righteous warrior, the virtuous and prosperous
ruler, made way, among some groups and persons, for a more
mysterious, semi-divine, semi-human Figure, who should preside
over the rapidly changing scenes of a vaster and grander drama.
Men's conceptions of the nature and office of the Messiah may
perhaps, in the age of Jesus, have ranged from the old conception
(which is also the modern Jewish conception) to the other con
ception which has just been sketched. Between the two extremes
there would be room for many combinations and degrees, which
might be held by different persons, more or less distinctly, at the
same period. What, however, was the Messianic conception in
Nazareth and Capernaum, what in Jericho and Jerusalem, in the
age of Jesus it is scarcely possible to say with precision. Did
Galilee differ from Judsea ? Do the more supernatural and enlarged
conceptions of the apocalyptic writers imply that such conceptions
were widely spread among the common people, or were they rather
the possession and the dream of but a few ? Did the ordinary
Rabbi, the official teacher, as well as the populace, ignore them
and pass them by ? Or was the entire conception of the Messiah
little thought of and little prominent in those days ? All these
questions are only to be conjecturally answered. Adequate material
for an adequate answer is, unfortunately, lacking.
One therefore comes back to the question. What sort of Messiah
did Jesus suppose himself to be — if he supposed himself to be
the Messiah at all — with added uncertainty. Still a few points
emerge. It would seem that Jesus was affected to a considerable
extent by the great developments of the Messianic conception to
which allusion has been made. The dreams of the apocalyptic
writers can hardly have escaped his notice entirely. He was not
unfamiliar with them. Hence we may assume that the Messiah to
him was something more and other than the Messiah of Isaiah xi.
He was a being who was to take a leading part in a greater
drama. (Yet that greater drama, the coming of the Kingdom,
with all that this involved, including, perhaps, the Final Judgment,
at first overshadowed the personal or individual element. Jesus
starts by preaching the Kingdom; not the Messiah or himself.)
4—2

52 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [L9-11
God was going to make an end of the old order : there was no
need for man to fight: the Roman dominion would presumably
fall to pieces of itself, or through divine agency, when the new
order and the divine Kingdom were established. In this sense,
then, the Messiah to Jesus was not a ' political ' personage ; not a
warrior ; not an ' earthly ' prince ; not a ' merely Jewish ' monarch.
In this sense he was to Jesus probably more like the Messiah of
apocalyptic dreamers. Nor is it improbable that many Rabbis
and Pharisees, who were not apocalyptists, shared these opinions.
To many of them it was only God, and not the Messiah, who
would destroy the power of Rome.
But this newer Messiah, because a bigger, less purely human —
if you will, less purely Jewish personage, was not, therefore,
necessarily, more virtuous, more spiritual, less prejudiced. What
is Jewish and national may yet be ethical ; what is superhuman
and mysterious may be unethical. To Isaiah and to those Jews
who thought on these political and ' national ' lines, the Messiah
meant the triumph of righteousness and the destruction of wicked
ness; to the apocalyptic dreamers he did not mean anything
better ; perhaps the stress upon righteousness was, indeed, lessened.
It is even doubtful whether the nationalism of the apocalyptic
dreamers was less intense than the nationalism of those who
rejected these apocalyptic visions and stuck to the prophets and
to Isaiah xi. Wrede in his excellent essay on the teaching of
Jesus about the Kingdom of God is rather inclined to overestimate
the spirituality of later Jewish teaching and to underestimate the
spirituality of such old passages as Isaiah xi He exalts the
17th Psalm of Solomon, for instance. It is indeed fine and
spiritual, but I hardly call it less political or more spiritual than
Isaiah xi. or ii. 1-4. And, on the other hand, we have no clear
evidence that Jesus thought of the Kingdom, and of the Messiah's
work in connection with that Kingdom, upon deliberately unnational
lines. There is no clear evidence that he rejected the primacy
of Israel, or its continuance as a nation, in the new order and in
the Kingdom. There is no special advance to be noted here, just
because, or as a result, of the fact that, the Kingdom was to be
established by direct divine intervention, and the Messiah was
not to be a successful warrior and mere earthly king. It is not
here that the advance of Jesus, if indeed in this province of
thought he made an advance, can be found to lie. But it does
seem as if other elements of his teaching and character had their
reflex influence upon his conception of the Messiah.
For we may reasonably argue that Jesus, as a great and
original rehgious and ethical teacher and thinker, could hardly
not have allowed his religious and ethical views to affect his

Lg-ii] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK S3
conception of the Messiah. It is not right to call his ethical
doctrine a mere ' Interims-Ethik.' Righteousness was to be the
keynote of the new Kingdom, as well as the passport of admission
within its gates. Like many another religious teacher, Jesus did
not ask himself the question how far the virtues upon which he
laid such great stress would be needless, or incapable of being
realized and practised, in the renovated world. He was keen
about them for their own sake, apart from their immediate effects.
He did not consider the difficulty that their effects would (partially,
at any rate) hinder their continuance.
And among those virtues upon which he laid stress may we
not safely assume that the virtue of self-sacrifice, of service for
the sake of others, was undoubtedly one ? Is it not reasonable,
then, to suppose that he looked upon his own life as a service,
and that this thought may even have developed into the idea that
he might have to die in order to complete his service? Death
would not be the end; death was to no man the end; certainly
not to the righteous ; least of all to the Messiah. Was the glory
and was the triumph perhaps only to come after the life of service
had been ended by a death of sacrifijCe ? If the principle of non-
resistance was adopted by him in his ethics for daily life, it is not
unnatural that it should have been adopted by him as regards his
own special life and his position as Messiah. Hence we see how
it may have come about that his conception of the Messiah may
have been modified. The Messiah was no more the conqueror
and the warrior-prince : what destruction there was to do would
be done by God. The Messiah would, indeed, rule in the perfected
Kingdom, but this rule was hardly looked upon in the ordinary
way, and the stress was not habitually laid upon it. The stress
was rather often laid upon the Messiah's work in the present and
the near future, a work of service, even of lowly service, and a work
which was, perhaps, to culminate in death. This, then, may have
been the special development made by Jesus to the conception of
the Messiah ; and such a view would fit in with the supposition
that Jesus identified the Messiah with the mysterious Man (Daniel
vii. 1 3) who was to be sent by God at the great crisis to superintend
the final consummation, and that he believed that this Man was
himself — himself as he was to be in his glory, rather than himself
as he then was.
Renewed reflection leads me to think that I may not perhaps
have sufficiently aUowed for the curiously negative attitude of
Jesus towards national and political questions. It remains true
that, as I have said, there is no clear evidence that Jesus rejected
the primacy of Israel, or its continuance as a nation, in the new
order and in the Messianic Kingdom. One passage which would

54 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [L 9-11
imply this may have been written and composed many years
after his death. But it also seems to be true, as Wrede well
puts it, that the nation as such never appears to interest him at
all. Instead of the nation he is always concerned with individuals.
A man's qualifications for the Kingdom are not decided by birth,
but rigidly and exclusively by character. 'The hopes of Jesus
were absolutely neutral as regards the opposition of Israel and
the Roman dominion. Who would give a thought to the fall of
the Roman Empire, when he looks forward to the overturning of
heaven and earth ? It is not as if we found any sympathy with
the national enmity to the Romans. But we find rather a clearly
expressed indifference. It is just in this point that Jesus plainly
stands apart from the most exalted passages in the Psalms of
Solomon. His attitude is in extreme opposition to that of the
party of the Zealots. So far is he from revolutionary thoughts
that the whole question seems to fail to interest him. It is im
possible too that he should have adopted this position only in the
later period of his life, it was clear from the beginning of his
career' (Wrede, 'Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes' in Studien
und Vortrdgen, p. 116). I have elsewhere suggested that the
more national aspirations of Jesus may have been neglected or
omitted by Mark, but the comparatively early date of this Gospel
makes such a supposition less easy. On the other hand Dalman
seems to go too far when he says: 'There is no doubt that Jesus
developed his thoughts about the Kingdom of God (or Rule of
God, as Dalman thinks we ought to call it, Gottesherrschaft) in
conspicuous opposition to the Zealots. According to the " Give
unto Caesar'' saying, he saw in the political rule of the Romans
no diminution {Beeintrdchtigimg) of the Kingdom of God. The
Rule of God has not to remove the rule of strangers over the
nation, but all powers hostile to God within the soul of man ' {Die
Worte Jesu, l. p. 113). This is surely exaggerated. So too it is
exaggerated when Mr Gardner says that Jesus's conception of the
Kingdom of the Messiah 'was quite consistent with the maintenance
of the Roman Empire' {Growth of Christianity, p. 51). M. Loisy
hits the mark more nearly when he says that though the work of
Jesus had nothing in common with that of a Judas Maccabseus,
yet ' the chosen of the Kingdom will be dependent on no human
power ; the servitude under which Israel labours will be destroyed ;
there will remain no place for the authority of Csesar in the city of
God : but God Himself, and not man, will substitute His rule for
that of men. In his reply to the tribute question (Mark xii 13-17)
the respect which Jesus shows for the constituted authorities is
quite negative. He in no wise intended to sanction the right of
the Emperor as a principle of the Society which was to come.

L 12, 13] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 55
The Emperor belongs to the providential order of this world, like
Sennacherib or Nebuchadnezzar : he does not belong to the
definitive order of the Kingdom, and his power will fall, as is
befitting, with the power of Satan, of whom he is, in certain
respects, the representative' {E. 8. i. p. 231).
How far Jesus was influenced in his career and thought
by the 'servant' passages of Isaiah xlii. and liii. it is impossible
to say. But we may note that the references to the servant
passages seem to belong to Matthew and Luke rather than to
Mark. See Matt. viii. 17, xii 17-21 ; Luke iv. 18, xxii 37. The
idea of a suffering Messiah was not, so far as we can gather,
suggested to Jesus by Isaiah liii. The idea, as W. says, might
have been found in that wonderful chapter, 'aber da wird sie in
den Evangelien nicht gefunden ' {Einleitung, p. 91, n. i). But
Dr Carpenter says: 'How far this aspect [i.e. the aspect of the
Messiah as the servant] of the Messiah's work had been realized
by popular imagination at the time of Jesus, it is impossible to
estimate. In the stream of apocalyptic literature it has no place
at all. It is unconnected with the doctrine of the two ages ; it is
independent of the royal line of Judah ; it seems on a different
plane from the visions of the New Jerusalem, or the great Judgment
of the Son of man. It lies altogether apart from the expectations
of those who hoped that Messiah would 'restore the kingdom to
Israel' (Acts i. 6). Yet its presence in the Gospels is palpable.
We may not always be able to accept as genuine the incidents or
sayings through which it is expressed. But when we try to trace
it back to its source, shall we be wrong if we ascribe it, at least
provisionally, to Jesus himself?' {First Three Gospels, p. 92).
For the Spirit assuming the form of a dove, see Additional
Note 4. 12, 13. The Temptation
(Cp. Matt iv, i-li; Luke iv. 1-13)
12 And immediately the spirit drove him into the wilderness.
13 And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted of Satan ;
and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels ministered unto
him. Though Mark's account may be the older, it will be better to
reserve what I have to say on the subject of the temptation for
the notes on Matthew. Harnack {Spriijche und Reden Jesu,
p, 137, English translation, p, 195) thinks that Mark followed a
different version of the temptation legend from that given in Q,

56 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [I. 12, 13
the document ('Redenquelle') which is embedded in Luke and
Matthew. In it, perhaps, Jesus did not fast, but was fed by the
angels. Both in Mark and in Q the temptation is 'Messianic':
i.e. it is the temptation of the Messiah, not of an ordinary in
dividual. The victory of Jesus over Satan is not mentioned ; it is
assumed. 'He was with the wild beasts.' The meaning is not
quite clear. This touch is found in Mark only. The animals may
be mere 'scaffolding' as some think ; they heighten the desolate-
ness of the wilderness. Cp. Isaiah xiii. 21 ; 2 Mac. v. 27. They
may also be interpreted Messianically. Cp. Job v. 23 ; Ez. xxxiv.
25 ; Ps. xc. 13. The wild beasts cannot hurt the Son of God.
Merx (11. 2, p. 11) says that the temptation in Mark gives him the
impression of being an excerpt from a larger account, an extract,
not a primary statement enlarged by others. It must be confessed
that there is something to be said for this view. Loisy notes that
the narrative, brief as it is in Mark, has many striking epithets and
traits. He does not think that Luke and Matthew merely enlarged
Mark's account, but that all three Evangelists probably drew from
a common source, which Mark curtailed and partly changed. To
B. Weiss the source is Q. It is perhaps worth noting, even if
Weiss makes too much of it, that though, according to Mark i. 4,
Jesus is already in the ' wilderness,' in i. 12 he is, unnecessarily,
said to be impelled into it. This ' Widersinn ' is, according to
Weiss, explained, because in i 4 Mark does not depend on Q, but
puts forward his own view of the scene of the baptism in order to
show the fulfilment of Isaiah xl. 3; in i 12, on the other hand,
Mark is quoting Q, who (Matt. iv. i) treats the scene of the tempta
tion as in the wilderness. This is only one small instance of the
extreme minuteness of Weiss's method and work.

14, 15. The Mission in Galilee
{Cp. Matt. iv. 12-17; Luke iv. 14, 15)
14 Now after John was thrown into prison, Jesus came into
15 Galilee, and proclaimed the good tidings of God, saying, 'The
time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God hath drawn nigh; repent
ye, and believe in the good tidings.'
It is implied 'that Jesus did not return to Galilee at once,
after the baptism and the temptation, but that a period, the
duration of which is not defined, elapsed before he made this
journey ' (Menzies). Jesus only began his public ministry after
the imprisonment of John. We may assume that the fact that

L 14, IS] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 57
John could not continue his message impelled Jesus to take it up
and enlarge it. Loisy, as we have seen, thinks that Jesus now
already had the conviction that he was the Messiah, but few critical
theologians will agree with him here. ' It may be supposed that
Jesus made up his mind to speak in his turn, because the approach
ing Kingdom was now without a prophet, and because it pertained
to him, rather than to anyone else, rather than to John himself, to
prepare men for this coming' {E. S.i. p. 429, cp. especially pp. 212,
213, 403, 435).
' The time is fulfilled.' Whether Jesus used these exact words
or no, there is no reason to doubt that their sentiment was his.
For ' the whole sictivity of Jesus can only be understood from his
conviction that the time of preparation {die Frist) which God had
appointed to the world was now at an end ' (J. Weiss).
'Believe in the good tidings or gospel.' For W.'s view of
these words see note on i. i. If he is right, Jesus could not have
used the phrase. The words can, however, also be, and have been,
interpreted to mean, 'believe in the good news that the Kingdom
of God is at hand.' The words are omitted in Matthew. Some
find, both in them and iu the phrase 'the time is fulfilled,' the
influence of Paul. Moreover, 'repent, and believe in the good
tidings,' though by no means an inconsistent, would be an unusual,
combination. 'Repent, for wrath is at hand,' is what one expects.
If that is what Jesus said, he began like John and like Amos.
'The day of the Lord is at hand.' 'The day' implies a judgment.
Men must repent in order to avoid condemnation and to secure
the good time which is to follow. Jesus says: 'The Messianic era,
the Kingdom of God, is at hand. To enjoy its fruits, to escape
its terrors, repent. So only can ye enter it.' (For the Rabbinic
doctrine of 'the Kingdom,' see Additional Note 5.)
In Matthew the_ wording of Jesus's message is simpler, and
this is one of the cases where Matthew seems to have preserved
an earlier and more authentic form of the words of Jesus than
Mark (Matt. iv. 17, 'Repent ye, for the Kingdom of heaven is at
hand '). Matthew expresses the purport of Jesus's teaching in
terms ' plus satisfaisants que ceux de Marc et qui pourraient ainsi
venir du recueil de sentences' {E. 8. i. p. 122). Dr Carpenter
says of Mark's elaboration : 'The fulfilment of the appointed time
carries us into the thought of the apostle Paul, cp. Gal. iv. 4;
and the use of the term "the gospel" as a summary of the
teachings of Jesus, coupled with the demand for faith — not in
God (xi. 22) but in it — warns us that we have here the language
of the apostolic age.' {Cp. the addition of 'the gospel' in
Mark viii. 35 as contrasted with Matt. xvi. 25, and in Mark
X. 29 as contrasted with Matt. xix. 29.) {First Three Gospels,

5 8 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [L 14, 15
p. 209.) The message which Jesus, like John, spoke at first was
not a good tidings, not a gospel. It was a message of doom for
the unrepentant, of solemnity for all. Apparently people were
forgetting that the Great Day of the Lord was not merely a
day on which Israel's enemies were to be punished or destroyedi
From the prophetic point of view it was a day in which the sinners
in Israel should also be punished. Only after Jesus had passed
away could the saying 'Repent' be regarded as a good tidings. It
then came to mean: 'believe in Jesus as the Messiah, join the
Christian community.' This could be pretty easily done. Hence
in such circumstances 'repent, for the day of the Lord is at hand,'
became a tidings not of severity, but of gladness.
Thus it would seem that the earliest message of Jesus was on
old, familiar lines. But he does not say that the Messiah has
come, or that he himself is the Messiah. Why this reserve ? By
far the most reasonable view is that he had not as yet come to
think that he was the Messiah. This explanation is, however,
strongly condemned by Loisy, who takes quite a different line.
'As for the reticence of Jesus about his Messianic character, it is
the result of the fact that this character was not part of the
subject matter of the gospel ; the object of the good news was the
near coming of the Kingdom, and the person of the Christ does not
become essential to the Kingdom and cannot even be manifested
in its true character except at the coming; in a certain sense
Jesus was called to become Messiah and was not yet Messiah,
because the Messiah, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, was
the prince of the great Coming: it pertained to the Father to
himself declare his Christ, and therein no doubt lies the principal
motive which caused Jesus to behave as the herald of the Kingdom
which was coming, without taking advantage of a title which
would not have its full significance till the Kingdom had actually
come. The Synoptic Gospels do not contain the least sign of any
variation in Christ's consciousness of his vocation, and the surprise
which has been felt at not finding a greater number of explicit
assertions on this subject in his discourses is perhaps due to a
failure to understand the historical conditions of his ministry'
{E. 8. 1, p. 43 5, cp. p. 2 1 3). However this may be, the real greatness
of Jesus consisted in that side of his teaching which was indepen
dent of these old watchwords and battle-cries. Though the more
original and beautiful parts of his teaching are, as it were, set in
the framework of the conception of the coming Messianic era, and
were partly produced by this dominant idea, they are yet in
dependent of the framework, and they can be detached from it
and can survive it.
Doubtless the teaching of Jesus is partly to be estimated and

L 14, 15] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 59
described by whatever conclusions we come to about his view of
his Messiahship and office. Yet it is an important fact, and one
of which we must take adequate note, that there is a good deal of
his religious and ethical teaching which was not directly related
to or dependent upon any eschatological conceptions, any belief in
the nearing end of the world. Or, if this goes too far, it is
at least right to urge that there is a good deal in his finest
religious and ethical teaching which can survive such conceptions
and be easily detached from them. For example, the 'inwardness'
of his teaching, his spiritualisation, or screwing up the standard,
of human righteousness and human religion. His estimate of cere
monial observances and ritual uncleanness. His heroic paradoxes
concerning the love of one's enemies. His looking at morality
and religion in the light of a few great illuminating and unifying
principles, such as the love of God and the love of man. His
doctrine of a needful childlike attitude of mind; his doctrine of
faith. His attack upon certain aspects of the doctrine of pro
portionate retribution and reward. His insistence upon eager
service, upon lowliness in service, and upon the nature of true
greatness or superiority. His doctrine of actively seeking out the
sinner and the outcast in order to redeem them. His doctrine
of self-sacrifice. Here are large and important teachings, either
quite independent of or easily detachable from, any eschatological
opinions. A certain difficulty has been pointed out by Brandt (' Jezus en
de messiaansche verwachting,' in Teyler's Theologisch Tijdschrift,
1907, pp. 461-518; a very suggestive and interesting article). A
teaching Messiah was not, says Brandt, in accordance with Jewish
conceptions of him. Moreover he who believes that the Day of
Doom and Change is soon at hand will not give general moral
teaching. For these reasons Brandt supposes that most of the
teaching of Jesus which we find recorded in the Gospels was, where
genuine, not only given before Jesus believed that he was the
Messiah, but also before he accepted the opinion of John that the
Great Day was soon at hand. This would imply a teaching period
before the baptism, and before the announcement with which his
public career is made to start: 'Repent for the time is fulfilled
and the Kingdom is at hand.' But though we may avoid some
difficulties by this hypothesis, it seems too venturesome and too
unsupported. A good deal of controversy still continues as to the sense or
senses in which Jesus used the expression the Kingdom of God.
There is no doubt that he often meant by it the new era, the
Messianic age, the earth as it would be when ruled wholly by God
and responsive to his rule. The Kingdom of God would exist

6o THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [L 14, 15
upon earth when the dominion of Satan was wholly destroyed,
or when sin and iniquity were no more. This Kingdom was
future, but at the same time it was near at hand. Only those
who, on the one hand, made the utmost sacrifices in the right
spirit would enter the Kingdom. And, on the other hand, the
Kingdom would come as a gift. It would be given as a gift to
those who were by nature and grace fitted to receive it. The
childlike in heart alone could enter the Kingdom. So far all is
pretty clear and pretty uncontestable. But some think that Jesus
did not only use the phrase in this single sense, (i) The Kingdom
is not, apparently, on all occasions to be located upon earth. It is,
apparently, also used as a synonym for what we call 'heaven': i.e.
Jesus sometimes speaks as a modern preacher might, who tells us
that when the 'righteous' and the 'elect' die, they enter upon a
heavenly life, the real and true life of the soul. The Kingdom
seems sometimes to mean this heavenly life. (2) The Kingdom is
also sometimes, but rarely, said or implied to be already present.
This may have several meanings, of which one is easy, the others
more hard. The easy meaning (a) is that the Kingdom has
practically begun with the appearance and preaching of Jesus.
The decisive moments are near at hand. J. Weiss says that under
these circumstances it was as natural for Jesus sometimes to say
the Kingdom is already present, and has begun, and sometimes to
say the Kingdom will come, as it is natural for us when dark
clouds are rolling up and the lightning flashes on the horizon to
say either 'a storm is coming' or 'there is a storm.' But (6) the
Kingdom as present seems also to be used in other senses still. For
(a) it seems sometimes to be considered as a process,
which would not come suddenly by divine interposition, but
gradually by the inward working and ferment of the teaching
of Jesus upon and within the hearts of men. And again,
(/8) it seems sometimes to be used in an ideal way of the
true disciples or of the true Church, as if the company of
those who had the right faith in God and in the tidings did
actually constitute the Kingdom in its present, though not
completed, realization.
But (7) it seems also to be used as if the Kingdom
were what Dr Carpenter calls a 'spiritual fact,' 'a symbol of
living spiritual relations,' as a principle living and working
in the hearts of men, as if it were something not visible
or concrete, not to be realized by a divine revolution, no
Kingdom to be created upon a regenerate earth, but some
thing invisible, spiritual, and inward. You enter this
Kingdom, only in so far as this Kingdom enters you. If

I. 16-20] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 6 1
you are spiritual, 'righteous' in the higher and newer sense,
then you are already in the Kingdom, for the Kingdom is
in you, and so far as the Kingdom has a collective significa
tion, it is made up of those spiritual men and women in
whose souls the Kingdom already is.
In which sense the Kingdom is used, and whether it is
really ever definitely used in any of the last three senses,
must be determined on each particular occasion by the
context and meaning of each individual passage. We shall
often have occasion to refer to the question again.
Meanwhile it may be said that it seems most probable that
for both the historic Jesus and the Jesus of Mark the Kingdom
had nearly always, at bottom, its eschatological signification. It
is the Messianic Kingdom of the near future. In Matthew the
Kingdom in the sense of the Church as already existent, the
fellowship of believers, comes also to the fore. How far it is ever a
' process ' or an ' inward spiritual fact ' is very much more doubtful.

16-20. The Call of Simon, Andrew, James, and John
{Cp. Matt. iv. 18-22; Luke v. i-ii)
16 Now as he walked along the lake of Galilee, he saw Simon
and Andrew his brother casting a net into the lake : for they
17 were fishermen. And Jesus said unto them, ' Come ye after me,
18 and I will make you become fishers of men.' And straightway
19 they left their nets, and followed him. And when he had gone a
little further, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his
20 brother, who were also in a boat, mending their nets. And
straightway he called them : and they left their father Zebedee
in the boat with the hired servants, and went after him.
On returning to Galilee, Jesus either did not go back to his
own home in Nazareth, or he went there first and then went on
to Capernaum. (So Matthew.) His doings at or near Capernaum
occupy Mark L i6-vi. 13, and form, in W.'s division of Mark, its
first part. Chapter i 1-15 forms the introduction.
Mark gives us no real biography of Jesus ; what we find is a
series of tales and sayings only partially arranged from a chrono
logical point of view. The first thing he could discover about
Jesus's missionary career in Galilee was the call of the four chief or
earliest apostles. Of the effect of the general proclamation given
in i. 14, 15, he tells us nothing. In fact, it seems to be forgotten.

63 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [I. 16-20
or to have no definite result. The reputation which Jesus acquires
in Galilee (i. 28) seems to rest on different grounds. But directly
one begins to read the Gospel one enters on a land of half-hghts
and shadows, a land of puzzles and problems, though also a land of
beauty and distinction.
17. 'Fishers of men.' Here the individualistic side of the
mission of Jesus is indicated. He seeks to convert and save,
some here and some there. He would be a shepherd of souls and
bring them into the Kingdom. Whether these four men were
really 'called' by Jesus in this particularly dramatic way is
another matter. It may have been less sudden and absolute.
But that there was a call, and even that the story goes back to
Peter's own recollections and statements, many commentators
and critics believe. To Mark, the Messiah's call could only have
seemed absolute, imperative and complete. By the men called,
Jesus was not acknowledged or recognized as the Messiah, but as
a teacher, or (at most) as a prophet. Cp. the sceptical remarks of
Bruckner in the Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,
1907, p. 56. The story, he thinks, is not history, but allegoric
poetry. "The call of Elish a is its ultimate basis. Loisy admits the
influence of Elisha upon the redaction, but thinks the sudden call
is likely enough. The idea of the Kingdom was not new; the
apparition of an inspired preacher was not disconcerting; Jesus
may have won them over in a few moments by the charm and
authority of his words {E. 8. 1. p. 437). But their abandonment of
their nets and boats was less absolute thain the Evangelist would
have us believe. Luke avoids the difficulty of the abruptness.
He places the call after Jesus's entry into Capernaum, and indeed
after he had already taught a little while and had become known,
among others, to Simon. Merx, on the basis of a minute critical
investigation of the text of Mark, thinks that this order is original.
W. is generally dubious about the Petrine reminiscences. ' Is
Peter to be the warrant for the sudden calling of the four fisher
men ? Is it supposed that he witnessed the walking on the sea or
the going out of the evil spirits into the swine, the healing of the
woman with an issue of blood through the power of a garment, of
the dumb man and the blind man by spitting ? And why are there
not more reports and more trustworthy reports about the inter
course of the master with his disciples ? It rather appears that
it was not specially by those who were intimate with Jesus
that the stories as we find them in Mark were handed down'
(Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 52).

I. 21-28] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 63

21-28. Jesus in the Synagogue at Capernaum —
The Unclean Spirit
{Cp. Luke iv. 31-37)
21 And they went into Capernaum ; and straightway on the
22 sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. And
they were amazed at his teaching, for he taught them as one
having authority, and not as the scribes.
23 And straightway there was in their synagogue a man with
24 an unclean spirit ; and he cried out, saying, ' What have we to
do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth ? [art thou come to destroy us ?
25 I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.' And Jesus
26 rebuked it, saying, ' Hold thy peace, and come out of him.' And
the unclean spirit tore him, and cried with a loud voice, and came
27 out of him. And they all marvelled, so that they discussed among
themselves, saying, 'What is this? a new teaching with authority!
28 And he commands the unclean spirits, and they obey him!' And
immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region of
Galilee. 21. Mark's favourite 'straightway' causes difficulty. One
way out is to suppose it means 'on the first Sabbath after the
fishing.' More probably the two sections are not nearly so closely
connected in time.
The Sinaitic Syriac (which may be referred to, for short, as
S.S.) omits the ev6v<i both here and in 23. It also omits 'and
they went into Capernaum.' Is this original or secondary ? Merx
after an elaborate examination of the textual evidence says that
, the evOvf is interpolated. Moreover he says that rot? ad^^acriv
means ' on Sabbaths ' (in the plural).
On the freedom of teaching in the synagogues at that time,
see Additional Note 6.
22. 'As one having authority.' This famous phrase also
occurs (borrowed from Mark) at the end of the Sermon on the
\ Mount, Matt, vii 29. Cp. Luke iv. 32. 'He was without out-
\ ward authority, while the Scribes were the acknowledged teachers
of the nation ; and yet the impression which his teaching made,
and theirs failed to make, was that of authority' (Gould).
His teaching is original. It was not deduced from passages in

64 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [1. 21-28
the Law. It did not refer to the sayings of older teachers. It
seemed charged with power. It was independent. There seemed
nothing between it and God, by whom it was inspired. In this it
resembled the teaching of the prophets, and seemed different from
the method and form of the teaching of the ordinary Rabbi, just
as it was often very different in matter. So we may draw out
the meaning of the phrase with tolerable accuracy. See, however.
Additional Note 6. The main connotation of 'authority' to
the Evangelist seems to be that of inspiration. Jesus seemed as
one possessed of the divine Spirit. Cp. Bergmann, Jiidische
Apologetik im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, p. 33, n. 3. More
specifically, the phrase (a5s i^ova'iav e^tov) has been held to refer to
his Messianic authority. Cp. the use of the word 'authority' in
xi 28. 23. Mark gives no rdsumd, or contents, of Jesus's teaching.
He merely describes it in general terms. He now proceeds to
illustrate at much greater length (for the miracles prove the
Messiahship rather than the teaching) the other side of Jesus's
activity — his expulsion of demons and his healings. This takes
him to ii. 12.
To Mark, Jesus was the Messiah. That he was the Messiah
was known, to himself at least, from his baptism. It must also
have been known to supernatural powers all along. Hence the
demons must have recognized him for what he was. They recog
nized their master, the Being who was to put an end to their rule.
On the other hand, Mark has a tradition (which we may
assume to be in accordance with actual history) that Jesus did
not openly claim to be the Messiah till later in his career. Hence
the demons must have been told to hold their tongues upon the
subject. The Messiahship was proved by the wonders Jesus
performed; it was stupid, hardhearted, obtuse, of people and of
disciples not to understand that Jesus was the Messiah ; and yet
it was intended that they were not for some while to recognize his
Messiahship. Thus Mark is involved in contradictions. The Messiah is, and
is not, recognized. He should, and he should not, be acknowledged.
His Messiahship is constantly revealing itself and as' constantly
ignored — both by wicked opponents and even by dull disciples.
How much theology and how little history there must be in all
this is very apparent.
24. The demon in the man speaks in the name of his class.
Hence his use of the plural ' we.' ' The Holy One of God ' the
demon calls Jesus — i.e. the Messiah. Israel is also the Holy One

L 21-28] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 65
of God, just as he is God's Son. The epithets of Israel were
transferred to the Messiah. But this, with the parallel in Luke
iv. 34, is the only place in the Synoptics where Jesus, or the
Messiah, is called the Holy One of God. For the demonology of
the age, see Jewish Encyclopcedia, 'Demonology,' and Conybeare,
' Christian Demonology,' in J. Q. R. Vol, VIIL 576-608 ; ix. 59-1 14,
444-470, 581-603.
25. Jesus bids the demon be silent. He does not wish his
secret to be betrayed. Originally, as W. says, the shrieking of the
demon was a mere shriek. If Jesus said, ' Be still,' this may have
meant, ' Cease to rage, and leave the sufferer.' Doubtless Jesus
himself believed that the cause of epilepsy and other nervous
disorders was demoniac possession. The shrieking cries were
afterwards in some cases supposed to have been intelligible words,
or to have included them. The origin of such a tale as that here
given may lie in the facts that
{a) Jesus did sometimes order the patient (to his mind,
the demon) to be quiet ;
(6) He may sometimes (though hardly when, as in this
case, the cure took place in a synagogue) have urged the
cured man not to spread abroad the news of his cure, in
order that he might not be besieged and importuned byxan
inordinate number of patients.
I feel rather doubtful about (6). First of all, it was very
unlikely in the loquacious East that such a command would for
a moment be observed ; it was so unlikely, that Jesus could hardly
have thought it worth while to give it. Secondly, as one of the
objects of his mission was to heal the afflicted, why should he have
wished to hide his powers under a bushel ? I think it more likely
that all the orders about silence are due to theorising. Even
though silence is ordered, the report of the marvels wrought
spreads more and more ! It may be noted, moreover, that this
miracle, like many others, is wrought quite openly before a large
number of persons.
That Jesus worked many great cures can hardly be doubted.
Whether many of his cures relapsed we are, of course, not told.
We must always remember that we are dealing with a biography —
if we can call it so — of unmixed eulogy. Only light is allowed to
fall upon the hero. Allowance must be made for exaggeration:
as the opponents are drawn too black, so Jesus himself is perhaps
drawn too white. The lineaments of the true historic Jesus can
never be fully known. We only hear of the last year of his life,
and that is set in a golden glow, a haze of pious adoration and
glory. M. S

66 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [L 21-28
The limits of the influence of a pious and lofty mind upon
certain kinds of diseases and nervous disorders are, I suppose,
scarcely to be fixed. For the Rabbinic cures of this kind, see
Additional Note 7.
It has been rightly pointed out that the healings wrought by
Jesus were the outflow of his pity. He cared not only for the
soul, but also for the body. He was better and greater than a
mere exorcist. The diseased people whom he sought to help
were doubly and trebly objects of his pity, (i) They were in
themselves miserable or unhappy. (2) Many were more or less
regarded as outcasts, smitten by the hand of God. (3) Some were
' possessed ' by demons ; i.e. sick spiritually as well as bodily. He
did not merely want to show his power; he pitied, and yearned
to heal. Loisy has a fresh explanation of the outcry of the 'demon'
and of Jesus' rebuke. The theme of Jesus' discourse was the
Kingdom, and he would without doubt mention the coming
defeat of Satan and his satellites. The man who thought him
self possessed of a demon would have become excited ; he sees in
the conqueror of Satan his own conqueror, and hence cries out
against Jesus, whose name has been mentioned to him. Jesus is
not astonished at this. For he believes himself to be the pre
destined vanquisher of Satan, so he has no hesitation in issuing
orders to the demon, whose master he is also to overcome. He
bids the demon be silent and leave his victim {E. S. I. p. 450).
This explanation does not impress me as very likely.
The belief in demons who dwell in man and exercise a
malignant activity from within him was then quite general ; it
was far more widely prevalent than in the older period. The
prophets seem quite free from this belief. In this respect they
were more 'modern' than Jesus.
In his interesting pamphlet, Mehr Licht, F. Delitzsch has
broached the theory that demoniac possession and exorcisms are
(so far as the Jews are concerned) of Babylonian origin. It is a
distinction {ein Ruhm) of old Israelite religion that it is free from
a belief in demons. The doctrine of devils or demons was in
troduced partly in the Exile, and partly by the foreign colonists
from Babylonian cities who were settled in Galilee and Samaria
in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. ' Auf diese Weise erklart
sich tiberraschend, warum gerade in der Vorstellungswelt Jesu
von Nazareth und seiner galilaischen Schtiler der Damonen- und
Teufelglaube solche Bedeutung gewonnen hat' (p. 52).
27. The reading and punctuation are rather doubtful. One
can render as the Revised Version, or perhaps better: 'a new

1.29-34] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 67
teaching with authority.' In that case the exclamation takes up
what was said in 22, and adds on to it the impression produced by
the wonderful exorcism.
To J. Weiss, who presses with excessive emphasis the theory
that many of Mark's narratives are direct reproductions of stories
told him by Peter, the eye-witness (as to the value of this theory
Schmiedel's article ' Gospels ' in the En,cyclopoBdia Biblica is worth
consulting), there must be a great deal of historic truth in the
details of the incident of the man with the unclean spirit. To
squeeze this truth out, or to force it in, he has to assume
(a) That Jesus had just spoken of the coming Kingdom
of God and of the end of the kingdom of Satan.
(6) That the sick man inferred from this that Jesus
himself was the Messiah.
(c) That Jesus was annoyed that the lips of a 'possessed'
man should have proclaimed the secret of his soul, of which
he had as yet spoken to no one.
But what a number of assumptions have we here, and what
dubious ones ! Jesus has already to think himself the Messiah.
His Messiahship is announced by the sick man, yet nobody pays
any attention. Is it not safer to believe that, though Jesus may
early in his career have healed a sick man in the synagogue at
Capernaum, the words in 24 and 25 are apocryphal? But if we
can put no trust in the accuracy of this ' Petrine ' reminiscence,
must we not be somewhat sceptical as to the accuracy of any other ?

29-34. The Mother-in-Law of Simon Peter —
Many Healings
{Cp. Matt. viii. 14-17; Luke iv. 38-41)
29 And forthwith, when they had come out of the synagogue,
they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James
30 and John. But Simon's wife's mother lay in bed with a fever,
31 and they told him of her. And he came and took her by the
hand, and raised her up ; and the fever left her, and she waited
on them.
'32 And in the evening, when the sun had set, they brought
unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed
33 with demons. And all the city was gathered together at the
34 door. And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases,
S— 2

68 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [L 29-34
and cast out many demons ; and he permitted not the demons to
speak, because they knew him.
29. It is possible that there has been a transposition of the
original order. Perhaps the healing of Simon's mother-in-law
took place before the preaching in the synagogue and on the
evening of Jesus's arrival at Capernaum.
30. Another kind of healing is now exemplified. Here it is
not a case of demoniac possession ; it is an ordinary case of
sickness. 31. Jesus touches the sick patient. This is the usual pro
cedure in Mark.
32. Two classes of cases are here clearly distinguished : the
sick and the possessed. Both are cured. The sick persons are
brought to him after the Sabbath is over. Holtzmann observes
that it is allowed by Jewish law {Mishnah Sabbath, x. 5) to carry
a living person on a stretcher, if in need, on the Sabbath. The
reason why they waited to bring their sick till the sun had set
was because they believed that Jesus would perform no exorcism
or healing upon the Sabbath day.
This may be so, but it is noticeable that Jesus heals the
woman (v. 34) on the Sabbath, and nobody seems to notice the
fact. So, too, the man in the synagogue is healed, and no objec
tion is raised. The criticism of Sabbath healings is not made
till iii. 1-6. It would seem as if the incidents of 23-26 and 29-31
had not really occurred on a Sabbath at all.
34. The demons are again made to keep silent, for the same
reason as in 25.

35-39. Further Activity in Galilee
{Cp. Matt. iv. 23-25 ; Luke iv. 42-44)
35 And in the morning, very early, before the dawn, he rose
up, and left the house, and went to a solitary place, and there
36, 37 prayed. And Simon and his companions pursued him. And when
38 they found him, they said unto him, ' All seek for thee.' And
he said unto them, ' Let us go elsewhere, into the neighbouring
villages, that I may preach there also: for to that end I came
39 out. And he went and preached in their synagogues throughout
all Galilee, and cast out demons.

I- 35-39] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 69
35. Holtzmann thinks that Jesus wished to avoid the crowd
and the ' Jewish ' desire for miracles. Is there adequate evidence
of this? One object of his leaving the house early was to pray, as
his wont was, out of doors in a lonely place. And if he then,
instead of returning to the village, goes elsewhere in Galilee, he
goes on a preaching tour in the district and expels the demons.
There is no sign of any wish to avoid publicity. He does not
want to be detained in Capernaum, it is true, but he does want
to preach and heal elsewhere. I notice that Klostermann takes
the same line. 'Die Vermutung, dass Jesus einer weiteren
Heiltatigkeit babe ausweichen wollen, entspricht kaum der
Meinung des Mc' irpoai evvv^a Xiav, 'very early in the morning
before daylight.'
Other commentators take other views. Menzies, for instance,
draws a sharp distinction between 'healings' and exorcisms. Jesus
was always ready to do the latter; they belonged to his mission.
' Healings ' hindered it ; for preaching was his real work. He
therefore takes flight to resume his preaching. Some think (as I
have suggested above) that he merely meant that Capernaum must
not selfishly monopolise his attention. The commentators forget
that we have no stenographic report, and that we cannot put any
reliance on casual phrases, all the more as Mark has his theories
and his theology. There may be some intention here to indicate
that the Messiahship might be prematurely revealed if Jesus
remained too long in one place. The most usual explanation is
best given by Loisy :
'Mark shows clearly that the attitude of the people ot
Capernaum gave Jesus more anxiety than encouragement. He
had come to preach repentance, and he found himself a magician.
He foresees that the excitement aroused by his miracles will not
be calmed on the next day, that people will beg for further acts of
healing, and will not turn their thoughts to being converted, so
that his undertaking is exposed to the danger of taking a false
direction from the beginning. In order to escape from this
first difficulty, he decides to go away as soon as possible; he
has been hospitably received at Simon's house, but he does not
remain there the whole night ; he leaves the house and the town
before daybreak, without even informing his new disciples, and he
goes apart into a desert place to pray. After the emotions and
the bustle of the preceding day, he feels the need of calm self-
collection in the presence of his Father. But as soon as Simon
and the three other disciples have ascertained his absence, they set
out in pursuit of him, and join him at the place where he had
stopped. All Capernaum had come back in the early morning
and had been disappointed by his sudden departure; the disciples

70 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [1. 35-39
tell him so, thinking to induce him to return for the very reason
which made him leave. Instead of going back to those who are
asking for him, he resumes his journey in order to escape from the
enthusiasm of the people of Capernaum, and carry the gospel
elsewhere, into the neighbouring villages; it is indeed for this
very reason that he had set out' {E. S. I. p. 460).
I do not find this very satisfying.
38. ' I came out ' — i.e. from the city. But the phrase is odd.
Does it mean from ' heaven ' ? In that case it would be a later
'theological' reading. S.S. and other authorities have merely:
'I came.' W. points out that the first day at Capernaum, in which this
last section may also be included, has a typical significance. We
had already heard of (i) the choice of disciples; (2) the exorcisms;
(3) the healings; (4) the crowds and the growing reputation.
Now come (5 and 6) two further important first examples of
customary practice.
' First, the solitary prayer at night or in the early morning, not
in a room, but under the open sky, up a mountain or in some
secluded spot. Secondly, the itinerant preaching {das Wander-
predigen). Hardly lias Jesus set foot in Capernaum before he
seems forced to leave it. But it should be noted that Capernaum
remains his headquarters, and his wanderings are restricted to
Galilee. Of the places which he visits, few are named. An
itinerary is wanting.' 40-45. The Healing of the Leper
{Cp. Matt. viii. 1-4; Luke v. 12-16)
^o And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling
down to him, and saying unto him, ' If thou wilt, thou canst make
41 me clean.' And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand,
42 and touched him, and said unto him, ' I will ; be cleansed.' And
immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.
43, 44 And he sternly charged him, and forthwith sent him out, and
said unto him, ' See thou say nothing to any man : but go, shew
thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing what Moses com-
45 manded, for a testimony unto them.' But when he went out, he
began to publish it much, and to spread the story abroad, so that
Jesus could no more openly enter into any city, but he remained
outside in lonely places : and they came to him trom every quarter.

L40-45] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 71
Did Mark obtain this story from oral tradition or a written
source? According to B. Weiss {Quellen, A, pp. 159-162) this
story was found in Q. It followed immediately upon the Sermon
on the Mount, and was put there in order that the saying in 44
(Matt. viii. 4) might illustrate the principle laid down in Matt.
V. 17. All this is highly problematical and doubtful. Loisy will
only go so far as cautiously to suggest that Matthew may possibly
have known the source of Mark, and that if this source was Q,
then the anecdote may have belonged ' to a secondary redaction '
of that document, ' oil Ton tenait a representor J6sus comme un
fidele observateur de la Loi' {E. 8. i. p. 124).
However miraculous the story may be, there is a great air of
historical verisimilitude in its human touches. 'Le gros du
recit n'a aucunement I'apparence d'une fiction ' {E. 8. I. p. 466).
Moreover, the bearing of Jesus, his curious mixture of compassion
and severity, his insistence upon the man's obeying and fulfilling
the letter of the Law, all seem to indicate that the story has a
historic background.
Nevertheless, it is hard to see how there can be much history
in it, because it can scarcely be interpreted except as a tale of
miraculous healing of actual disease. In order to avoid the
difficulties of such a miracle, and yet to maintain the historical
character of the story, it has been supposed by some commentators
that the man was already cured, and that all that he asked Jesus
to do was to pronounce him formally clean in order that he might
not have the trouble. of going to Jerusalem. ' Cleanse me' means,
according to this theory, 'declare me to be clean.' Jesus does this
by touching the man, and thus shows that he regards him as clean.
Nevertheless he bids him fulfil the Law and show himself to the
priest. This story is then supposed to have been turned in the
telling and retelling into a miraculous cure, and in this form it is
incorporated in the Gospel. The artificiality of this hypothesis
needs no proving. It is more or less accepted, however, by
J. Weiss, who holds that, as it stands, the story cannot be regarded
as historic or possible. Leprosy is not a nerve-disease, which
'suggestion' or the influence of personality can cure. J. Weiss
would not, however, so much mind sacrificing this story, as he
does not regard it as forming part of the supposed ' Petrine '
reminiscences. This is the first (or, counting the call of the four disciples, the
second) of the many stories in which Jesus does actions which
either are like the actions of Elijah and Elisha, or which are in
marked contrast to their actions. It is not to be inferred that the
stories are, therefore, historically baseless, but it would be equally
exaggerated (in my opinion) to declare that the Old Testament

72 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [1. 40-45
parallels or contrasts have had no influence upon the form of the
stories as we now possess them in the Gospels.
If the man was actually a leper it would appear, as Gould says,
that ' it was a part of Jesus's disregard of the merely ceremonial
part of the Law that he allowed these unclean persons to approach
him. It did not accord with his nature to obtrude this disregard,
but he had no scruples whenever the Law interfered with higher
things.' For the position of the leper in Talmudic law, see
Additional Note 7.
43. i/x^pifj.Tjo-dfj.evoi. Revised Version, margin, has ' sternly
charged.' An even more severe expression would be perhaps a
more accurate translation. The healing probably took place in a
room of a house (not in a synagogue as Weiss supposes), and Jesus
rebukes the man for coming into the room and sends him forthwith
out of it — not because the cure is not complete, but because he
transgressed the Law by entering it. So, too, he bids him offer the
customary sacrifice of purification, et? fiaprvpiov aiiroh may
mean 'that all may know' that you are cured. See Leviticus xiv,
Or, again, it may mean that the priests and the people are to
perceive that Jesus does not disregard the Law. The former
explanation is more likely.
The anger which Jesus seems to display here has not un
naturally caused the commentators great difficulty. The causes
assigned to it vary widely. The explanation given above is not
particularly satisfactory ; for why should Jesus be so indignant at
the man breaking an enactment of the ritual law ? But other
explanations are hardly better. Weiss supposes (in spite of
'straightway' and the plain meaning of 42) that the cure had
only begun, and that Jesus drove the man indignantly out of the
house (or synagogue as Weiss thinks) lest he should infect others !
Menzies, on the other hand, thinks that Jesus, though in his pity
he cured the man, was afraid that he would now have endless
lepers brought to him for healing, which would interrupt his
preaching. Hence he wishes the cure to be kept as dark as
possible, and that the regular routine at Jerusalem should not be
omitted. Gould supposes that Jesus ' is vexed at the whole situa
tion of which the man makes a part, at the clamour over the mere
externals of his work.' And he thinks that Jesus bade the man
go to Jerusalem simply because he was, as it would seem, in favour
of an observance of the ceremonial law, when its observance did
not, on any particular occasion, conflict with a higher principle,
with a higher moral law. Perhaps Klostermann gives the simplest
and best explanation of the 'sternly charged.' He supposes that
it does not really belong to 'sent him out'; that is merely neutral.

L40-45] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 73
*he despatched him.' The participle ifi^pifir)<TdiJ.evo<! (sternly
charged) is intended to accentuate the order, 'See that thou sayest
nothing to any man.' It is interesting, and perhaps more in accord
ance with the original text, that the S.S. omits ' and he forthwith
sent him out.'
45. Jesus is reported here to avoid all cities and villages.
This seems unhistoric. The order to keep the cures secret is
specially characteristic of Mark. It can hardly be historic. For
how could Jesus have possibly imagined that such miraculous
healings would remain unknown? 'The orders for concealment
constantly repeated, and as constantly disobeyed, are part of the
theory and conception which control the Gospel of Mark. See
note on i. 23.
' The statements of Mark,' says Dr Carpenter — i.e. the prohibi
tion of publicity — 'are an endeavour to harmonise the traditional
notion of the teacher as Messiah with the fact that during the
first part of his ministry he nowhere assumed that function. ...But
the preacher who begins by announcing that the Kingdom of God
is at hand is forced hy degrees to consider his relation to it. So far
from claiming the Messianic function at the opening of his career,
he only slowly realizes it ; and even when he finally accepts it, he
resolutely refuses to make it known, viii. 30.... The title which he
at length accepted was rather thrust upon him by circumstance
than deliberately chosen. It was adopted with reluctance, and an
anxious avoidance of publicity ; it involved so much which he
could not share ; it failed to express so much that he desired ; yet
no other designation spoke in the same way either to his own soul
or to the heart of his time ' {First Three Gospels, pp. 206-208).
One explanation of the command for silence is, as we have
seen, that Jesus did not want his healings to interfere with his
main work of preaching. He healed because he pitied, but not in
order to show his power. The healings hindered his orderly move
ments. Again, ' the miracles were sure to be treated as external
signs, whereas Jesus relied on internal signs. As external ex
hibitions, moreover, of a supernatural power they confirmed the
people in their expectation of a national worldly Messiah, and
raised in them just the false hopes which Jesus was seeking to
allay. And finally, by the excitement they created, they inter
fered with the quiet methods of Jesus's spiritual work' (Gould).
I cannot help feeling that this explanation (however ingeniously
and variously expressed) is somewhat too modern. Menzies is
honest enough to see that it will not work as regards the demoniac
possession cases, and so he puts them into a class by themselves.
And a very big class or proportion of the healings they must have

74 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [1. 40-45
been ! I can understand that Jesus refused to work a ' sign ' on
command, but I find it more difficult to believe that he did not
want his own chosen miracles to be known. He does not ever
seem to refuse to heal, when he has the opportunity. The distinc
tion between 'internal' and 'external' signs, drawn by Gould,
would hardly have been familiar to him. His healings were, as he
believed, miraculous ; they were wrought by God's Spirit ; he had
no modern difficulties about them or dislikes to them. The view
of Wrede, though not necessarily pushed to the lengths to which
Wrede pushes it, seems to me more likely. It is the view that
the command for silence is part of the theory which Mark has
elaborated. Jesus was the Messiah from the beginning of his
ministry. He knew who he was all along, and so did the demons.
But men did not recognize him, partly because they were obtuse,
and partly because Jesus consciously veiled and concealed his
Messiahship till a late period in his ministry. Cp. quotation from
Dr Carpenter above and note on i 23.
The special healing here related is doubtless peculiarly difficult,
because while suggestion, influence of personality, faith, and so on,
may, and often do, cure epilepsy and nervous disorders, they can
hardly be adequate to cure leprosy. It must, therefore, remain
quite doubtful what the basis of fact in such a tale actually was.
Nevertheless, we shall not be perturbed by the favourite argument
(used, for example, by Gould), that 'you cannot separate the
miracles from the rest of the story,' and that ' they stand or faU
with the historicity of the whole account of Jesus.' Of how many
persons and stories might such an argument be used ? We shall
continue cheerfully to discredit the miracles, but to maintain the
historical character of Jesus.
The command of silence in this particular case may conceivably
mean that the man was not to conduct himself as cured until he
had been to Jerusalem and fulfilled the regulations of the Law
(Weiss). But the historic kernel of the story can hardly now be
recovered.

CHAPTER II
1-12. Healing of the Paralytic Man
{Cp. Matt. ix. 1-8; Luke v. 17-26)
I And when after some days he returned to Capernaum, it
2 was reported that he was in the house. And many collected
together, so that there was no room to hold them even before
3 the door; and he spoke the Word unto them. And some came

II. I-I2] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 75
unto him, bringing a paralyzed man, who was carried by four.
4 And as they could not bring the man up to Jesus on account
of the crowd, they took him on to the roof of the house where
Jesus was, and having made a hole through it, they let down the
5 bed whereon the paralyzed man lay. When Jesus saw their faith,
he said unto the paralyzed man, ' Son, thy sins are forgiven thee.'
6 But some scribes were sitting there, who argued in their hearts,
7 ' What blasphemy does this man say ? who can forgive sins but
8 God alone ? ' And immediately Jesus perceived in his spirit that
they so argued within themselves, and he said unto them, ' Why
9 argue ye thus in your hearts? Which is easier: to say to the
paralyzed man. Thy sins are forgiven thee ; or to say. Arise, and
10 take up thy bed and walk ? But that ye may see that the Son of
man hath power on earth to forgive sins' (he said to the paralyzed
II man), 'I say unto thee. Arise, and take up thy bed, and go home.'
12 And he arose, and at once took up the bed, and went forth before
them all; so that they were all utterly amazed, and glorified God,
saying, ' We never saw anything like this before.'
Chapters ii. and iii. i-6 give a series of stories dealing with
the opposition or conflicts between Jesus and the ' Scribes and
Pharisees.' It does not follow that these incidents, if historic,
really happened in this exact order or in such rapid succession.
' La combinaison est r^dactionnelle, et les ^Mments qui y sont
entres ne semblent pas avoir 4t& pulsus directement dans la
tradition orale ' {E. 8. i. p. 87). Are we to assume that this story,
like the previous one, was taken by Mark from a written source,
and that this written source was Q ? So argues B. Weiss, Quellen, A,
pp. 162-166. Loisy is not quite decided. For the history of the
paralytic man Matthew ' pourrait bien d^pendre aussi de Marc et
de sa source' {E. 8. 1, p. 125). It is noteworthy that there are odd
correspondences as against Mark between Matthew and Luke
(Matt. ix. 5, Luke v. 23 ; Matt. ix. 7, Luke v. 25 ; the order of words
in Matt. ix. 6, Luke v. 24). The question must be left an open
one. But if Weiss is right, then Mark ii 5 6-10 must have already
stood in Q when Mark was compiled, and Loisy's suggestion that
it is a later insertion (see below) could less easily be sustained.
I. The house may have been the house of Peter or not.
House, desert, mountain, and lake are the conventional localities
for the various scenes of the drama.

-jQ THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IL i-i2
2. 'He spoke the Word.' W. would regard the phrase as
meaning no more than 'he taught' or 'spoke.' More probably
the Word here means the special Word — the specific teaching
about the Kingdom: the ' Heilsbotschaft.'
4. The Greek word direaTkyaaav would mean literally that
they took off or uncovered the roof They unroofed the roof
W. thinks that the Aramaic original meant only : ' they took him
up on to the roof (by the outside staircase). I have adopted this
conjecture in the translation.
5. 'Their faith,' including the faith of the patient himself,
for if he had not had faith that Jesus would cure him, he would
not have allowed himself to be taken up on to the roof and then
dropped down through the opening. The healing was intended from
the first to follow rapidly upon the proclamation of forgiveness.
For the healing is the visible sign and proof of the reality of the
forgiveness. But perhaps the forgiveness was assured him first in
order that the man's heart might be encouraged and lightened, and
that thus his body as well as his soul might become receptive to
the religious and moral power of Jesus. But, as Klostermann says,
the reason why Jesus in the case of this one particular patient, so
specially calls attention to the forgiveness of sins remains unknown.
I cannot believe in the accuracy of Loisy's exegesis here. He
thinks that, taking the narrative as it stands, Jesus was not
referring to the man's paralysis and that he did not mean to imply
that the 'forgiveness' was the prelude to the healing. In the
story as it stands now, the healing is only introduced through the
criticism of the Scribes, and was not implicit in the forgiveness.
I cannot believe this, though it must be admitted that there is
nothing in the narrative which implies that the soul of the man
was burdened with the consciousness of sin, or that Jesus read his
anguish in his eyes, and wanted first of all to secure his inward
peace. This is too modern, and reads an added meaning into the
text. But surely Loisy goes too far on the other side when he
says : ' Que Jesus, par la remission des p6ch6s veuille faire esp6rer
au paralytique sa gu^rison corporelle, ou subordonner celle-ci a
celle-la, le text ne le fait nullement entendre' {E. 8. i. pp. 475, 476).
8. Even in Mark, though not to the same extent as in
Matthew and Luke, Jesus appears as the reader of men's hearts,
capable of discerning their secret thoughts and penetrating their
attempted dissimulations. He is conscious of this power, and
makes it known, sometimes with a certain irony (W.).

IL I-I2] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 77
9. The mere saying of either is eqvally easy. What is doubt
less meant is, that the power to forgive the man's sins is proved
by his cure, which is, therefore, the really difficult and important
thing. If his disease is cured, this shows that God, ipso facto,
has forgiven his sin. ' It may be doubted whether Jesus regarded
the healing as more difficult, and whether his argument comes to
this : he who can do more, can do less. It seems rather to mean :
he who can do the one thing, the divine work of healing, must
be able to do the other thing, the divine work of forgiveness'
{E. 8. I. p. 478, n, 2). But Loisy is now inclined to hold that the
whole passage about pardon, and the Son of man's power, had
been added later to the original story of healing. The old story
is found by passing from 5 a straight on to 1 1 {E. 8. i. pp. 479,
88, 107). The insertion is a bit of Christian polemic against
the Jews or of the Pauline Christology of Mark.
Jesus adopts the current view that the malady is the result
of sin. Nor, however much some theologians would desire it,
does he ever really combat the doctrine, false and strange as it
seems to us, that disease implies sin. The theologians quote
Luke xiii. 1-5 and John ix. 2 ; but the second passage is not in
point, and in fact is the exception which proves the rule, while
the first cannot surely be used to prove so large and revo
lutionary a doctrine. See the note in Luke. Dr Carpenter,
however, writes : ' We know too little of the teaching of Jesus to
make this negative statement of yours of any use. I do think
that the implication of the tower of Siloam story makes against
the doctrine ; and so does his general view of the divine action
in nature.' Personally, even after weighing what Dr Carpenter
has written, I venture to remain unconvinced by it.
Were the Scribes right in saying that Jesus blasphemed ?
On the hypothesis that Jesus was God, or a part of God, they
were not. But as they could not know this, and as they would
have refused to believe it, whatever miracles Jesus might have
performed, I am inclined to think that from their point of view
they were justified. The forgiveness of sins in the strict theo
logical sense is God's supreme prerogative, and no man can
arrogate it to himself What, however, we may conceive Jesus to
have meant was this : he recognized and perceived in himself this
strange power of healing, which he believed God had granted him
for special and peculiar ends. He shared the usual belief that
special maladies, such as paralysis, implied previous sin. But
he was also filled with compassion for these poor sinners, many
of whom were, he thought, more sinned against than sinning,
while others had perhaps only violated some difficult ordinance
of the ritual law. He looked into their souls, and saw, or thought

78 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [II. 1-12
he saw, characters which were not in themselves essentially wicked ;
characters which were capable of, as they were supremely worth,
a moral and religious regeneration. Combining these factors,
we may understand how Jesus came to say, ' Thy sins are
forgiven ' ; he says it as the human messenger of God ; he says it
because he knows that he can prove it (by his healing), and because
he believes that the healing and forgiveness are part of the mission
which God has entrusted to him at this supreme moment of the
history of his race. (Doubtless Mark means more than a sense of
mere delegation. 'Mark did not intend that Jesus was a mere
announcer of the divine forgiveness, but that Jesus of himself
forgave sins' (Klostermann).) But the Scribes could not appreciate
this, nor was it unreasonable on their part to disbelieve it. Even
miracles were suspicious, and might have other origins than the
will of God. Thus their integrity was no less than the integrity
of Jesus, though, as with other reformers and apostles, he could
not appreciate them, and they could not appreciate him. Each
side called the other bad names, and from one point of view each,
and from another point of view neither, was justified in doing
so. If, of course, Jesus said the words in verse 10, and really
meant by the Son of man himself, then the justification of the
Scribes would become all the greater. For then it would have
to be admitted that Jesus does not speak as if he were the mere
mouthpiece of God. He does not even say that God has 'dele
gated' to him the divine power of forgiveness. He seems to
assert it, without qualification or explanation, as a sort of native
right, an authority inherent in himself. Such a claim could
hardly have failed to have been regarded by the Scribes as
blasphemous. It may perhaps be worth while to note that Menzies is wrong
when he thinks the reason why the Scribes were indignant was
because they thought sin could only be forgiven by offering a
sacrifice and having absolution formally pronounced by the priest.
This misrepresents the Rabbinic religion and even the Priestly
Code of the Pentateuch. Deliberate sin could not be forgiven by
a sacrifice; nor did its forgiveness need sacrifice, whether in
Jerusalem or in Galilee. The entire ground of opposition to Jesus
was that he claimed to himself the exclusive prerogative of God.
It had nothing to do with sacrifice.
An equally large error is made by Pfleiderer, who, in spite of
all his splendid learning, is not without his share of the usual
German Protestant prejudices about the ' legal," outward ' religion
of the Pharisees and the Rabbis. Pfleiderer says that, according to
the Pharisaic idea, God Himself could not forgive from free grace,
' but allows every sin to be paid off and worked off by good works

II. I-I2] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 79
and expiatory sufferings.' This sounds almost grotesque to those
who know something about the inner reality of the Pharisaic and
' legal ' religion from the age of Jesus to the present day. It is a
calumny to say that what Jesus said and did was in full accord
ance with the religion of the prophets and the Psalms, but in full
contradiction to the ' legal ' religion of the Pharisees ( Urchristen
tum, I. p. 636). Nothing can be proved by more abundant and
overwhelming evidence than that the conception of God as forgiving
firom fi:ee grace was a fundamental and familiar feature of the
Pharisaic religion, just as it still remains so. The only question at
issue between Jesus and the Rabbis was whether any mxin had the
power to say, ' Thy sins are forgiven.' That God constantly forgave,
that forgiveness was His usual, if exclusive mdtier, was universally
believed. See further. Additional Note 8.
10. Mark makes Jesus here use the expression Son of man as a
synonym for himself. But Jesus does not elsewhere (except in
ii 28) so use the term in Mark before the scene at Csesarea Philippi,
and then only to the Twelve. Yet here, if by Son of man we are
to understand Messiah, he suddenly lifts the veil, which still
surrounds him, even for his disciples, in the very presence of his
adversaries. To avoid this difficulty, and for many other reasons, it
is supposed by some theologians, among whom Schmidt and W. are
prominent, that what Jesus really said was that men (in this case
himself) can have the power and authority (given or delegated by
God) to declare the forgiveness of sin. The Scribes hold that such
forgiveness is God's exclusive and never delegated prerogative,
whereas Jesus avers that men may on occasion be entrusted with
the power, and that as a matter of fact he has the power, as he
can and will proceed to show by removing the paralysis. Jesus,
speaking in Aramaic (so runs the argument), used the customary
expression ' son of man,' which, however, in Aramaic merely means
'man.' The translator, however, of an Aramaic original into
Greek, translated the phrase too literally, and thereby inaccurately.
Moreover, the translator did not appreciate or share the doctrine
which Jesus enunciated. He agreed so far with the Scribes in
holding that, with one exception, there was and could be no man
who could forgive sins. That exception was Jesus himself Hence
the translator thought that when Jesus said ' Son of man ' he
could not have meant simply 'man,' but must have meant himself,
Jesus, the Messiah. Hence he must have used the term ' Son of
man' as a synonym for himself as the human and yet divine
Messiah. This view of the passage is supported by the argument
that as in Aramaic 'son of man' habitually means 'man,' the
Scribes, if Jesus meant by it something special or mysterious,

8o THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [II. i-i2
could only have inferred by the connection or context in which
the term was used that it was intended to bear a quite special
signification. But there is no such connection or context here to
have enabled them to make such an inference. The context here,
it is urged, does not afford the smallest necessity to deviate from
the usual meaning, because the words ' man has power on earth
to forgive sins ' in opposition to the words ' only God in hea,ven
can forgive sins ' yield an excellent sense. And since the Scribes
could only have understood Jesus's words in this sense, Jesus
himself can only have meant them in this sense, if he had not the
intention to lead his auditors astray and to conceal his thoughts by
his speech. It is urged that the original meaning and intention
of the phrase ' son of man ' and of the utterance of Jesus in this
place are, oddly enough, still preserved in Matt. ix. 8, where we
read: 'When the multitudes saw it, they were afraid, and glorified
God, who had given such power unto men' The meaning is not
that every man has the power or authority to announce the for
giveness of sins, but that some men may or can have the power.
Thus argue Schmidt and Wellhausen ingeniously in support of their
opinion that Jesus did not use the term 'son of man' to mean
himself as Messiah. Schmidt seeks to strengthen his argument
by quoting Matt, xviii. l8, where Jesus enjoins upon his dis
ciples ' to exercise this blessed privilege of assuring their fellow-
men of the pardon of their sins when their disposition should
justify them in doing so' {Prophet of Nazareth, p. 107). But this
passage is found only in Matthew and is of doubtful authenticity,
and does not mean exactly what Schmidt supposes.
In spite, however, of the curious words in Matt. ix. 8 (the
weight of which must duly be acknowledged), the argument
deduced from this particular story does not seem to me convincing.
Surely the real point at issue between the Scribes and .Jesus was
not as to the possible powers of man, but as to the actual powers
of Jesus himself Jesus is not concerned to champion the possible
powers and prerogatives of exceptional men as men; he is cout
cerned to champion and prove his own. He wants to prove that
he has power to forgive sin, and surely not as man (this is too
modern an idea), but as the commissioned officer and delegate of
God, perhaps even definitely as the Messiah. It is not unreasonable
to suppose that, if anything resembling this tale really happened in
the early days of his ministry, Jesus should have said, ' To show you
that / have power to forgive sins, I say to this man,' &c., and that
afterwards ' Son of man,' when it became a recognized title for
Jesus, was substituted in the written account of the story for ' I.'
But it seems to me improbable that Jesus, at such a juncture and
moment, wanted and meant to assert that man, or some men, or

II. I-I2] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 8i
specially privileged men, as apart from, or in addition to, himself,
possessed the power and the right of forgiveness.
A further consideration of the passage suggests the same
conclusion. For the story cannot be regarded as if it were a
stenographic report of what actually occurred. The 'Scribes
sitting there' — to hand, as part of the stage scenery, whenever
wanted — make one a little suspicious, the supernatural knowledge
shown by Jesus in verse 8 no less so. The miracle of healing is
used as a proof of Jesus's divinely given power to pardon sins.
The original historic story may have been limited to such an act
of healing. If, indeed, the view were correct that Jesus spoke not
of his own special power to forgive sin, but of man's power, the
talk with the Scribes might be historic. But it should be noted
that the miracle of the healing which proves the power of for
giveness can hardly be regarded as within the range of general
human capacity. Because Jesus is invested with the divine power
of working a miracle, therefore it is reasonable that he should
claim and possess the power of forgiveness of sins. Hence it would
seem as if Jesus grounded his power and right to forgive sins, not
on the fact that such a power was within the range of man's
capacity and privileges, but because he had special power, above
the power of man. Schmidt, indeed, thinks that we have here one
of those startling sayings which, by ascribing to man such unusual
prerogatives or powers, helped to bring about the erroneous
identification of Bar nasha (Son of man) with ' Jesus.' Like W.,
he argues that to the Scribes Bar nasha (Son of man) could only
have meant 'man,' but this argument can be met either (with
Fiebig) by holding that Jesus purposely used a term of himself
{i.e. 'the Man') which by others could be misinterpreted (an
unsatisfactory explanation), or (with Wrede) by holding that the
conversation, in the exact words here recorded, did not take
place. Matt. ix. 8 doubtless remains a difficulty, but I find it
still more difficult to believe that Jesus would have claimed for
man, and not for himself alone, in virtue of his special mission and
office, the power of forgiving sins. In a magazine article to which
I have lost the reference, M. Loisy took the same line. ' Con9oit-
on si ais^ment que J^sus ait revendiqu^ pour tons les hommes le
pouvoir de remettre les p^chds ? La dispute n'a de sens que s'il
parle de lui-mSme comme Fils de I'homme.' And Holtzmann
points out that the power to forgive sins is connected with the
power to work miracles. The latter is the greater power in the
eyes of those addressed ; it is a power exceeding -the usual powers
of man, a power only belonging to an exceptional man, and as such
the Son of man (that is, the Messiah) is regarded. Moreover,
Jesus does not say, ' / forgive you your sins,' but (maintaining the

82 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [II. 1-12
exclusive rights of God), ' Your sins are forgiven.' He speaks as
the confidant ( Vertrauter) of God, as the proclaimer of His grace
and love, as the bearer of His revelation. The old Hebrew prophets
also announced forgiveness of sins, speaking in the name of God.
Dr Drummond, however, holds that Jesus on this occasion did
make ' this high claim on behalf of mankind.' The authority to
forgive is by Jesus ' included among the prerogatives of mankind,
which each man must exercise according to the nature and extent
of his gift.' Dr Drummond goes on to say, ' The look that pierces
the heart, the gentle words of forgiveness, may heal the suffering
of a sinful life, even as Christ healed the sinful woman whom the
Pharisees, scandalised at this contact with sin and tampering with
the rights of God, would have driven to despair and ruin. How
many die in their sins because men take upon themselves not to
forgive ? He who lives with a holy piety in his heart is, wherever
he goes, a dispenser of divine grace, and pronounces forgiveness
with a God-given authority. Scribes and Pharisees may caU this
blasphemy if they please ; but such, I believe, was the thought of
Christ ' (' Use and Meaning of the phrase " Son of Man " in the
Synoptic Gospels,' Journal of Theological Studies, 1901, pp. 539-
571). What are we to say to this doctrine? I am inclined to
think it is too modern. 'Forgiveness' to a Jew of the age of
Jesus, and even to Jesus himself, had a human and a divine side.
One man could forgive the wrong which another had done to him.
That side of forgiveness is not here in question. On its divine
side forgiveness meant the abrogation of the present or future
result of the sin upon the doer. In some cases, therefore, it meant
that man was not to be ' punished ' or ' annihilated ' after death ;
in others, as in the story before us, it meant that the present
consequence of sin (in this case the man's paralysis) would be
removed. Either of these meanings lay within the divine sphere.
Nevertheless, Dr Drummond's remarks are not without justifi
cation. It is not too modern to suppose that Jesus so profoundly
pitied certain kinds of 'sinners,' and that his insight into the
recuperative capacities of the soul was so keen, that he was able
by his encouragement and sympathy to awaken their sense of the
redemptive love of God and of hitherto unsuspected powers of
moral regeneration. He hated sin, but he loved the sinner. It
is, to some extent, a question of words. If Jesus said : ' Your sin
is forgiven, lead a new life from now,' it meant, perhaps, much the
same as if a modern disciple of his were to say, 'Do not think
yourself an outcast from God's pity or God's love. Do not think
yourself an outcast from human pity and human love. You can
lead a better life: God will help you to do so. Forget the evil
past, and we will forget too. We will forgive you, so far as our

II. I-I2] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 83
human action and love are concerned, and if you start afresh, God,
I feel sure, will also forgive your past iniquity.' If a man spoke
thus to-day — and spoke thus from his heart and not merely from
his lips — spoke with all the magic of a strong and loving person
ality, would there be so much difference between his words and
what we may conjecture to have been the meaning of Jesus,
if the kind of words attributed to him in verse 5 be authentic ?
If 50-10 are an interpolation, it is obvious that the interpolator
meant Son of man to be interpreted as a synonym of the Messiah.
And, on the whole, it does seem as if the intended reasoning of the
passage made this view, in any case, more probable. In his Com
mentary Loisy is still of this opinion. 'The argument supposes
that the formula "Son of man" means Jesus, that it is not a mere
equivalent for the personal pronoun, that it signifies the character
in which the Christ guarantees the remission of sins and that it
must have been intelligible to his hearers. The theory of Mark
on the pre-ordained obduracy of the Jews makes it unnecessary for
him to explain why the Scribes did not understand. The formula
is therefore necessary to the plan of the discourse ; and it is the
whole discourse which appears under suspicious conditions' {E. 8.
I. p. 480). It must be confessed that Jesus does not elsewhere in
Mark ascribe to himself the power to forgive sins in the same
direct and authoritative form. Apart from the Messianic difficulty
which the passage raises there is thus this further one (unless it be
interpreted on the lines of Wellhausen). For, as Loisy justly says,
' la remission des pech^s par le Christ rentre plus naturellement
dans le cycle des id^es chr6tiennes que dans I'enseignement de
Jdsus' {E. 8. I. p. 476).
1 1. There is no doubt, as Loisy says, that lib would hook and
fit on well to 5 a. * Jesus seeing their faith says to the paralyzed
man : I say to thee, rise, take up thy bed and go home.' The
construction of the whole passage is rather awkward. Jesus begins,
in addressing the Scribes, a sentence which he ends in addressing
the paralyzed man. The commentators say, remarks Loisy, in
his ironic manner : ' Trait pris sur le vif! ' But this supposed
'vivacity 'of the narrative is more probably a 'gaucherie' of the
redactor. ' At the bidding of Jesus, the sick man arises, takes up his bed,
and goes out in the presence of the astonished assembly. Every
body is amazed and God is glorified for such a wonder. Mark sums
up the general impression in the words "We never saw anything
like this before." A very natural expression in such extraordinary
circumstances, and the more appropriate here because, in the
second Gospel, Jesus has as yet done no such startling miracle at
6—2

84 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [II. 1-12
Capernaum and in public. No one takes notice of the use of the
Messianic title or of the claim to forgive sins, a claim which the
miracle is considered to have justified. The conclusion of the
story has reference only to the beginning, as if the healing alone,
and not the Messiah and his prerogatives, had been in question.
It would seem, therefore, that the Messianic argument has been
added to a narrative which was already fixed in tradition and even
in a written account ' {E. 8. i. p. 480).
If Loisy is right, much of the disputations upon the passage
would become superfluous. It may be then that Jesus never
ascribed to himself the power — even the delegated power — to
forgive sins. At any rate, this is the only place in Mark where he
asserts or employs this power. Difficult indeed it is to resolve the
problems of the Gospels and of the life of Jesus. And much may
turn upon the authenticity of a single verse ! We have already
noticed a reason for supposing that the insertion of 5 6-10 — if
insertion it be — must have been already added to the story in the
' source ' whence Mark took his narration. Moreover, as the story
is the first of the series in which Mark describes conflicts of Jesus
with the Pharisees, he would not have put it in this place unless
the insertion which contains the conflict had already been there.
But it is to be noted that it is the first of the series, and therefore
the insertion might conceivably have been interpolated by the
redactor.

13-17. The Call of Levi — Jesus eats with Sinners and
Tax-collectors
{Cp. Matt. ix. 9-13 ; Luke v. 27-32)
13 And he went forth again by the lake side ; and all the crowd
14 resorted unto him, and he taught them. And as he passed by, he
saw Levi the son of Alphseus sitting at the tax house, and he said
15 unto him, 'Follow me.' And he arose and followed him. And it
came to pass, that Jesus sat at table in his house, and many tax-
collectors and sinners sat also with Jesus and his disciples: for
16 there were many who followed him. And when the scribes of the
Pharisees saw him eat with tax-collectors and sinners, they said
unto his disciples, ' Why does he eat with tax-collectors and
17 sinners?' And Jesus heard it and said unto them, 'The strong
have no need of the physician, but they that are sick : I came not
to call the righteous, but the sinners.'

II. 13-17] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 8$
13. 'He went forth again by the lake side.' A rather awkward
formula of transition. He had 'gone forth' before (i 25) and he
had been 'by the lake side' before (i. 16) : he had not gone forth
to the lake before. The formula may be intended to show that
Mark means us to understand that the incident he is about to
tell was not connected in time with what has preceded. He is
only about to give another example of conflict (B. Weiss,
Quellen, B, p. 203). The conflict, perhaps also the call of Levi,
which is now (probably only artificially) connected with it,
happened at a later period in the ministry, but still at a time
when Jesus was teaching publicly and widely popular.
14. ' Because of its situation near the borders of the tetrarchy
of Herod Antipas, and its proximity to the road which led from
the Mediterranean coast to Damascus, Capernaum possessed
several toll stations occupied by numerous tax-collectors ' {E. 8. I.
p. 483). The call of Levi is related on the same lines as the call of the
first four apostles. It betrays the same hand, says W., to which
observation Loisy adds that this hand is not that of the ' r6dacteur
«$vangelique ' i.e. of Mark. Mark had written sources.
Levi may have heard of Jesus and even been present at some
of his teaching, before he was asked to be his disciple. His ' call '
is related here (at whatever exact moment of the Galilsean ministry
it may have happened) to serve as the introduction and explana
tion for the second ' conflict ' with the Pharisees which is now to
follow. 15. 'His house,' that is Levi's house; there is an interval
between 14 and 15. Some think it doubtful whether 15 was
originally connected with 13, 14, 'Ein Gastmahl im Hause des
Levi fiigt sich nicht luckenlos an 14 an, und das ovk rjXdov
KoXeaai 1 7 ('I came not to call') wurde besonders gut passen,
wenn Jesus selbst der Veranstalter des Mahles ist ' (Klostermann).
On the other hand, Jesus is never represented as having his own
house or ' table ' at Capernaum, so it remains most probable that
the host is Levi. It is perhaps best with Weiss to make rjaav
yap TToXXoi refer to the disciples and to put a full stop or colon
after avTw. 'For they (the disciples) were many, and they
followed him.' Who were the ' sinners ' ? For this question and
its implications, see Additional Note 9.
16. 'Scribes of the Pharisees' is an odd term. Note that
Scribes or Pharisees appear and disappear, just as the writer
requires them. They are part of the stage property and scenery,
like ' the house ' and ' the mountain.' Here their presence is

86 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IL 13-17
improbable. Did they come unbidden to the banquet and look
through the window ? The story seems to lead up to the great
saying of Jesus at its close. This, rather than the details of its
mise-en-scene, must be regarded as ' perfectly authentic ' {E. S. i.
p. 108). And that Jesus did consort and eat with tax-collectors
and sinners is, without doubt, quite historic. On the question of
'ceremonial defilement' in eating, see Additional Note 10.
17. The saying of Jesus very aptly describes a most important
part of his character and ministry. He sought to bring back
into glad communion with God those whom sin, whether real or
imaginary, had driven away. For him sinners (at least certain
types of sinners) were the subject, not of condemnation and
disdain, but of pity. He did not avoid sinners, hut sought them
out. They were still children of God. This was a new and
sublime contribution to the development of religion and morality.
When tenderly nurtured women work in the streets of London,
and seek to rescue the degraded victims of deception or cruelty,
they are truly following in the footsteps of their Master. But it
should be noted that there is nothing anti-Jewish in the bearing
and teaching of Jesus in this matter. It is only a development of
the best Old Testament teaching, and it fits in with the Rabbinic
teaching upon repentance. But to deny the greatness and
originality of Jesus in this connection, to deny that he opened a
new chapter in men's attitude towards sin and sinners, is, I think,
to beat the head against a wall.
Dr Carpenter is, I think, certainly right in urging that 'if
every saying in the Sermon on the Mount could be found in the
language of prophet or psalmist, of Rabbi or Scribe, we should stUl
ask what teacher had shown the same passionate sympathy with
the poor, the suffering, the sinful ; who, before him, had sought
them out and shared their meals ?... what writer of apocalypses,
portraying the great banquet of the Kingdom, had deliberately
announced: "I am not come to invite the righteous, but sinners"?'
{First Three Gospels, p. 363).
Nevertheless, the Rabbis would not have condemned Jesus
merely because he cared for the outcast, the poor and the sinner.
They too welcomed the repentant sinner. And they were intensely
eager to relieve distress, to mitigate suffering. Any other descrip
tion of them is untrue. But the Law of God came first. God
came before themselves, and even before their neighbour. As
Jesus says that a man for the sake of the Kingdom must on
occasion leave his father or hate his mother, so they would have
said that all other relationships must be put lower than the Law
of God. If your father bids you transgress the Law, do not obey

II. 18-22] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 87
him. The enactments by which they developed the written Law
were not a benefit to themselves ; they were honestly intended as
a fence and honour to the Law. It is all very well to speak, as
even Dr Carpenter does, of ' legal casuistry,' or of ' restraints of the
Law ' versus ' human need and human rights' {op. eit. p. 364). But
should not God go before man ? The Law was perfect, immutable,
divine. God must know best ; His commands must be perfect, must
be divine. Was Jesus to be commended when he said that a man
must on occasion hate his father, and are the Rabbis to be merely
blamed if they say that a sick man whose life is not in danger must
be cured on Sunday and not on Saturday, seeing that his cure
involved what they, in all honesty, and sincerity, believed to be an
infraction of the divine Law ? It is easy to speak of ' their
sanctimonious piety ' and of ' long-drawn pretence.' But how far
more historic to suppose that Jesus, in his new and passionate
enthusiasm, misunderstood his opponents ! Jesus would not have
been condemned and hated because he cared for the sick and the
suffering and the sinful ; he was condemned and hated because he
violated the letter of the Law and justified the violation.
It is amusing that Holtzmann is careful to point out that
Mark does not discuss or raise the question whether any righteous
people really existed. Holtzmann, like Matthew, can hardly con
ceive that a righteous Pharisee or Scribe could have ever walked
the earth ! Even Jesus, in all the passionate one-sidedness of a
religious reformer, hardly went so far as this. There may, how
ever, lie in Jesus's words a certain irony: 'You are the righteous
people, as you would fain believe, and therefore I need not call you
to repentance : you need no doctor.' J. Weiss supposes that Jesus
only said up to the word ' sick.'
For the current opinion of tax-gatherers and its origin, see
Additional Note 11. 18-22. Fasting
{Cp. Matt. ix. 14-17; Luke v. 33-39)
18 And the disciples of John and the Pharisees used to fast. And
some people came and said unto him, ' Why do the disciples of
19 John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not ? ' And
Jesus said unto them, ' Can the wedding guests fast, while the
bridegroom is with them ? As long as they have the bridegroom
20 with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come, when the
bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast
in those days.

88 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [II. 18-22
21 'No man seweth a piece of undressed cloth on to an old
garment: for, if he do, the patch draggeth away from it, the new
22 from the old, and the rent is made worse. And no man poureth
new wine into old wine skins : for, if he do, the wine doth burst
the skins, and the wine is lost as well as the skins. [But new
wine for new skins !]'
18. The first sentence, as W. notes, was probably added later.
It is wanting in Matthew and Luke. The subject of epxovrai is
an indefinite ' they,' ' some persons.' Moreover the Pharisees are
not original to the story. They were added to make the story
serve as the third 'conflict,' and because of 21 and 22 which
concern them and not the 'disciples of John.' The odd phrase
'disciples of the Pharisees,' modelled on 'disciples of John' is
also added. A comparison of Mark with Matthew would seem
to show that originally the contrast was between the disciples of
John and the disciples of Jesus. They who ' came ' are to he
distinguished from the disciples. They asked Jesus, ' Why do the
disciples of John fast, and your disciples not fast ? ' (in spite of the
fact that there was, perhaps, some relation or sympathy between
the two leaders).
To what fasting is the writer here alluding? It can only, I
presume, be to private and additional fasts, which were voluntarily
undergone by individuals. It can scarcely refer to the public
fasts of the community, and least of all to the obligatory fast upon
the Day of Atonement. On the whole subject of private and
public fasts and the Rabbinic attitude towards them, see Additional
Note 12.
19, 20. The two verses hang together and are both of them
allegorical. The bridegroom is Jesus, the Messiah. While he
lives, the companions rejoice. When he is taken from them, they
grieve. Fasting is only legitimate — if this application does not
draw too much out of the words — when the heart is sorrowful,
when it is the outward expression of inward grief. It has no
value in itself Is it intended to deny the worth of fasting as a
religious act, as a good and holy work, an opus operatum, a legal
Leistung'i Quite possibly. But at this period of his ministry
Jesus would or could not have thus foretold his own death. The
hidden, yet obvious allusion to himself as the Messiah is strange,
when we remember that it is not till much later that he speaks of
his Messiahship and imminent death to the disciples.
If, with W., we suppose that after Jesus's death his disciples
adopted the habit of fasting, the passage would provide a justifica-

II. 1 8-22] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 89
tion for their deviation from the habits of the Master, and it would
give authority to this justification by ascribing it to Jesus himself
But, as W. says, it does not seem likely, if he himself took up a
hostile attitude towards fasting, that he would thus early have
permitted a future change in the conduct of his disciples, or used
so peculiar a justification.
The best explanation of the verses on the assumption of their
substantial authenticity is to suppose that in 19 Jesus explains why
his disciples reasonably do not fast, while in 20 he explains why those
of John reasonably do. From his disciples John has been snatched
away — he is in prison — and thus they have a good reason for
fasting. So Loisy (in long detail) in E. 8. i. pp. 496-499. In
that case there is only parable and no allegory. The bridegroom
is only a bridegroom, and he is not meant to be Jesus. One has
also to suppose that the text was somewhat modified when the
parable was interpreted as an allegory, and the bridegroom was
supposed to be Jesus. Verse 20 would originally have run more
like this, ' But if the bridegroom is taken away, then they fast.'
The definite, ' The days will come when ' &c., and ' in that day '
would belong to the 'redaction.' Moreover aTrapB^ ('taken away')
would to the redactor refer to the death of Jesus; originally it did
not mean death, and only referred to the arrest and imprisonment
of John. On the whole W.'s interpretation seems simpler.
21, 22. These two verses are in reality quite independent of
the preceding passage. They are of grave importance. ' The rule
that one must patch an old garment with old cloth is not observed
to-day, and seems to have been thought odd even by Luke. The
meaning is clear. A rusty kettle goes wholly to pieces if you try
to mend it. The old garment and the old wine-skins can hardly
mean anything else than Judaism. Jesus does not oppose the
Jewish people to the Kingdom of God, which comes without
human interference, but he contrasts its present condition with
that which he holds to be right, and for which he was already
working; he lays down no rules of the divine activity, but of
human action, and more clearly and especially of his own. The
advanced radicalism of these rules or principles is very remarkable;
practically he does not apply them. For, so far as he is concerned,
he holds fast to Judaism and to the Old Testament. It is also
very noteworthy that he declares the creation of new forms to be
necessary, whereas in fact he left everything in this department
to be devised by his community after his death. Yet we need not
for this reason doubt the authenticity of the saying: there is
much in the doings and sayings of Jesus which is for us inex
plicable' (W.).

go THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [II. 18-22
In the connection in which the adages now stand they may be
supposed to mean that the disciples of Jesus, as the representatives
of a new religious tone, temper, and point of view, cannot usefully
continue the old forms, such as fasting, which grew out of, and
only suit, old and superseded religious views and presuppositions.
J. Weiss thinks that originally the sayings may have been, how
ever, intended as a warning against attempting to enforce the
consequences of the new doctrine upon those who are as yet
unable to receive them. Freedom might be dangerous to certain
unprepared minds. The thought would then be like i Cor. viii.
10-13, Romans xiv. 13-23. But it seems unlikely that Jesus
would have taken this line.
I will also add a passage from a note of Menzies, for these
words of Jesus are so extremely important that it is well to know
what the ablest commentators say of them. 'The movement
Jesus has set on foot is a fresh and growing thing ; it is impossible
to set limits to its expansion, irrational to confine it to forms
which were not made for it. The lofty consciousness of Jesus here
finds expression, that as his gospel is one of joy, it is also one of
freedom. He reverenced the forms of the religious life of his time,
but he saw them to be inadequate to the new principle of which
he was the herald to the world. He set no forms for his followers
to observe: they can appeal to him for principles but not for
forms.' I do not find very much from which I dissent in this note
of Menzies, but I am doubtful whether Jesus was clearly conscious
of any ' new principle.'
The passage gives rise to many reflections. It may be argued
that Liberal Judaism in any of its forms is an attempt to patch
the old with the new, to put new wine into old bottles. Is it
impossible that many generations can observe the Passover, if
men have ceased to believe in the miraculous passage of the Red
Sea, or that God ordered the Israelites to eat unleavened bread ?
I think a good answer can be found, but the argument is serious,
and needs most earnest consideration.

23-28. The Sabbath
{Cp. Matt. xii. 1-8 ; Luke vi. 1-5)
23 And it came to pass that he went through some com fields on
the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck
24 the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, ' See, how they
25 do what is not permitted on the sabbath day!' And he said unto
them, ' Have ye never read what David did, when he had need.

IL 23-28] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 91
26 and he and they that were with him were hungry ? How he went
into the house of God, while Abiathar was high priest, and ate the
shewbread, which only the priests may eat, and how he gave it
27 also to them who were with him?' And he said unto them, 'The
28 sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath : there
fore the Son of man is lord also of the sabbath.'
The fourth conflict. B. Weiss, Quellen, A, pp. 148-153, would
assign this story also to Q, but his arguments are not convincing.
23. 'The story, placed as it is somewhere near the shore of
the Sea of Galilee, implies a date somewhere in April or May'
(Burkitt, The Gospel History and its transmission, p. 80, n. i).
"The crucifixion took place a year after this date. How long Jesus
had taught before it is uncertain.
24. For the reason why plucking the ears would be a violation
of the Sabbath, see Additional Note 13.
25. The first justification which Jesus gives for the conduct
of his disciples is a strange one, for there is nothing to show that
they were in real straits for food. The analogy seems, therefore,
strained. The reference is to the story in i Samuel xxi. 1-6.
Abiathar is a mistake for Ahimelech. It is not intended to argue
that if David acted in a certain way and violated the Law, a fortiori
may a greater than David do so.
27, 28. The second justification is quite different. As the
Evangelist understood it, it means that Jesus, as the Messiah, is
allowed and empowered to violate upon adequate occasion the
regulations about Sabbath observance. For the Sabbath was
given to man for man's sake, for his benefit and joy ; it was not
intended that man should be the slave of the Sabbath, and suffer
because of it.
The argument is supposed by some commentators to become
more logical if we assume that originally 'Son of man' in the
conclusion meant merely ' man.' ' So man is lord of the Sabbath.'
The same questions are raised here as in ii. 1-12. Was it meant
that man has, or rather that some men have, the power to forgive
sins and to break the Sabbath law, or that only the Messiah has
this power ?
The Kal in 28 is best rendered by 'even.' The Messiah in
cludes in his authority power over the Sabbath. Or, according to
the other interpretation, ' even of so important an institution as
the Sabbath man has, or may have, control.' I do not think

92 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IL 23-28
that the argument is necessarily illogical even if Jesus did here
use ' Son of man,' or rather ' the Man,' to mean himself as the
Messiah. For if the Sabbath was made for man, it is reasonable
enough that ' ihe man,' the divine or semi-divine or divinely com
missioned ruler of men, should be its arbiter and lord. If Jesus
did not use the term ' Son of man ' to mean himself, did he then
say : ' Therefore / am lord of the Sabbath day ' ? This is im
probable, and we must in that case assume either that Schmidt
{Prophet of Nazareth, pp. 108, 109) and W. are right, or that the
whole sentence {i.e. verse 28) is later than Jesus. And, indeed,
this last supposition seems, perhaps, on the whole the most
probable. 27 is authentic; 28 is added and unauthentic. For,
as Loisy says, if ' son of man ' in 28 means merely ' man,' why is
' son of man ' not used instead of ' man ' in 27, or ' man ' instead of
'son of man' in 28? Again, while 27 continues the thought of 26,
28 does not. Because the Sabbath was made for man, therefore
the violation of it mentioned in 26 was justifiable (as the Rabbis
say, ' God's commands were given for man to live by '). The
general principle of 27 confirms and explains the example of 26.
From the fact that man was not made for the Sabbath, it follows that
man can be dispensed from its observance, when that observance,
instead of doing him good, would do him harm, hot that the Messiah
has the right to dispense men from its observance. Jesus does not
appear to claim authority over the commands of the Law in virtue
of his Messiahship. He seems to allow to every man the right to
interpret the Sabbath law like himself But he would not have
said that man is ' maitre du Sabbat institue par Dieu.' So 28
seems 'surajout^e' {E. 8. i. p. 512).
The Rabbinical literature contains a similar saying to that
of verse 27, which is only found in Mark. For the wording of it,
as well as for some remarks upon the Rabbinic observance of the
Sabbath, see Additional Note 13.
So far as we can gather, Jesus's attitude towards the Sabbath
was something like the attitude of Liberal Judaism to-day. It
must be observed rather in the spirit than in the letter. The
regulations for its observance must not be allowed to destroy its
intention. Directly the Sabbath becomes a burden the object of
the Sabbath is frustrated. The aim is the important point : how
precisely we carry out the aim is less important. Nevertheless,
one must not push the antithesis between Jesus and the Rabbinic
- teaching too far. Gould, for instance, goes too far when he says :
'The old religion attempted to regulate conduct by rules and forms,
the new by principles and motives, and these are foreign one to
the other.. . .Judaism is a system of rules, Christianity of principles.
And so far as the Sabbath is a rule, that is, so far as it is Jewish,

II. 23-28] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 93
Jesus does abrogate it in these words.' Judaism is not without
principles, however much Christianity may be devoid of rules.
The antithesis reads nicely, but is, in point of fact, untrue.
It is, moreover, a remarkable fact that, in spite of the many
restrictions and regulations, the Sabbath was upon the whole a
joy and a blessing to the immense majority of Jews throughout
the Rabbinic period. Yet this fact does not detract from the
greatness and originality of Jesus. His teaching is an excellent
counterbalance to that casuistic minuteness which is the danger
of legalism. It is emancipating ; it enables one to breathe freely.
In modern times, at any rate, and with modern ideas, the Sabbath
can hardly be observed except on the lines suggested by Jesus.
It is, however, to be noted that Jesus does not say that the
law forbidding a man to pick corn upon the Sabbath was merely
Rabbinic, and not Biblical. He does not say that to pick corn is
not ' work.' He does in a subsequent passage distinguish between
the Biblical laws and the Rabbinical or traditional laws, but here
he takes higher ground. He seems, as Menzies says, to concede
that a breach of the Law has taken place ;, only it is an excusable
and proper breach, and may be taken to illustrate the higher
principle according to which the Sabbath should be observed.
Further Note on ihe ' Son of Man.'
It may be desirable to append here some general remarks upon
the important term ' the Son of man,' and upon its meaning and
usage in the Synoptic Gospels. The subject is one of fascination
and of difficulty. For the meaning of the term is greatly disputed,
and quite a large literature has come into being about it. It is
impossible to give more than a bare outline of the discussion and
of the problem (which has far-reaching implications) in this place.
The term 'the Son of man' is in the New Testament (with
one exception. Acts vii. 56) only found in the Gospels, and there
it is exclusively put in the mouth of Jesus as a designation of
himself, or, possibly, of the Messiah or of some mysterious, heavenly
Being. It is never used of Jesus by anybody else or by the
Evangelists themselves.
The term as used in the Gospels undoubtedly often goes back
to, or has some relation with, a famous passage in Daniel vii. 13.
There in one of the visions of the Day of Judgment, which are
found in that earliest of the apocalyptic writings, it is said : ' And
behold there came with (or 'on') the clouds of heaven one like
unto a son of man, and he came even unto the Ancient of Days,
and they brought him near before Him. And there was given
him dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples.

94 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [II. 23-28
nations, and languages should serve him ; his dominion is an ever
lasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom
that which shall not be destroyed.' The book of Daniel was
written about 165 B.C., during the persecutions of Antiochus
Epiphanes. Before Daniel we find the prophet Ezekiel addressed
over and over again as son of man. In this usage it is merely a
poetical synonym for ' man.' It is intended to emphasise the frail
humanity of the prophet in contradistinction to the God who ad
dresses him. It is as much a synonym for 'man' as when we read in
the eighth Psalm, ' What is man that thou art mindful of him, and
the son of man that thou visitest him ? ' In Daniel too ' one like
unto a son of man ' means merely ' one like unto a man,' but the
question is, who is this man ? It is usually said that the figure
symbolizes Israel, or 'the faithful kernel of Israel,' and this still
seems a very probable explanation. Some scholars suppose that
it means an angel, or, specifically, the angel Michael, the guardian
of Israel, and some that it means the Messiah. Anyway, it is
very probable that the passage and the figure were soon Messiani
cally interpreted. In the book of Enoch, an apocalyptic compila
tion, not the work of one writer or of one date, the term ' son
of man ' constantly occurs in one particular section. Here there
can be little doubt that it means the Messiah, and that he is
conceived as a supernatural being, pre-existent in heaven before
his appearance upon earth, and different from the old purely
human monarch of Isaiah xi. He is very distinct and different
from God, but he is more than ' a mere man.' The date of this
section of Enoch is disputed, but is most probably pre-Christian.
Some scholars, however, like Dr Carpenter, think that the lan
guage of the section ' is under strong suspicion of interpolation by
Christian hands.' But this is not the prevailing view. Professor
Toy says : ' The conception of the heavenly man in Enoch is one
of the most grandiose in literature. A splendid being of heavenly
origin stands by the side of God, and is by him invested with
supreme authority in the world. He was chosen before the foun
dation of the world, has existed from the beginning, but is to be
revealed to men only when the time of consummation shall arrive,
when he will intervene to judge the world, to punish the wicked,
and to establish the righteous in perfect, never-ending felicity.
He is a man, but a glorious celestial man, the renewer and re
generator of the world, the introducer of the final age of perfection
when all the inequalities and ills of life shall be abolished for the
righteous. With this description the portraiture of the Son of
man in the Gospels literally agrees. He sits at the right hand
of power, and at the decisive moment comes in clouds of glory,
gathers his chosen ones from all the world, dispenses rewards and

II. 23-28] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 95
punishments, sums up human history, and ushers in the final
scheme of things. Such passages in the New Testament testify
to the fact that in the generation following the death of Jesus
he was identified with the Enoch figure, the Enoch eschatology
was attached to his person, and utterances in accordance with
this conception were put into his mouth. At the same time he
was identified with the Old Testament Messiah, and his purely
human experiences were interpreted as fulfilments of Old Testa
ment predictions. From these two sources the person of Jesus, as
it appears in the Synoptic Gospels and in certain other New
Testament writings, was constructed.' Prof Toy thinks that it
is unlikely that the conception of the Heavenly Man in Enoch is
of Christian origin. Its starting point is Daniel vii, but in
Enoch the celestial figure is represented much more distinctly as
an individual, and ' as far above any angel.' ' Such divinization
of man ' [does it really go so far ?] ' is probably to be ascribed to
the Greek atmosphere in which the Jews of the first century B.C.
lived. It was not adopted by the Judaism of the succeeding
time ' (' What Christianity owes to Judaism,' in Addresses before
the New York State Conference of Religion, Series vi. No. i,
Feb. 1908, pp. 29-32). In the fourth (or as it is also called the
second) book of Esdras the figure of the ' son of man ' reappears,
but this book was written many years after Jesus and even after
Mark. It remains, therefore, not definitely provable, whether
from apocalyptic or Rabbinic sources, that the phrase was used
by any contemporaries of Jesus as a designation of the Messiah,
though, as Dr Carpenter says, ' the possibility must be admitted.
And the language of Paul concerning the Second Man from
heaven points to a doctrine of some kind of heavenly type'
{First Three Gospels, p. 83, n. i).
As to the use of the term in the Synoptic Gospels there are
two main theories.
The first is that the historic Jesus never used the phrase of
himself, and that the Gospel usage is inaccurate and unhistoric.
The second is that he did use it of himself, though by no means
necessarily in all the places in which it is at present ascribed to him.
The first theory has two main forms. The first form regards
the Greek words ' Son of man ' as a mistranslation of the Aramaic
bar nasha. Bar nasha is literally 'son of man,' but it is an
Aramaic idiom simply meaning ' man.' So in Hebrew hen adam
is a poetic equivalent for ' man.' The first theory, then, in its
first form, holds that in Aramaic, and, moreover, in the Aramaic
of Jesus and his contemporaries, bar nasha was not a poetical
synonym for 'man,' but a frequent, ordinary idiomatic usage,
meaning just simply ' man.'

96 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IL 23-28
How, then, did it come about that a phrase meaning ' man *
was, in certain passages only, translated into Greek by 'Son of
man ' ? Why was this mistranslation limited to passages spoken
by Jesus?The reply is not quite satisfactory. Still, even if the theory
in its first form is true, there may be no quite satisfactory reply
possible. Schmidt's answer in the Encyclopcedia Biblica is that
in certain passages in an old apocalypse, fathered later upon Jesua,
there was a prediction (based upon Daniel vii 13: 'There came
with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man') of a
mysterious Man coming on the clouds at the Day of Judgment
or at the advent of the Messianic age. Mark xiii. 26 is the
primary reference (' Then they shall see the Son of the man coming
in clouds with great power and glory'). This apocalyptic pre
diction was in the Greek translated ' the Son of the man,' partly
under the influence of the mysterious figure of Daniel, and partly
because it was believed that the more elaborate translation
heightened the mystery. In the Septuagint translation of Daniel
' Son of man ' has no articles, either before ' Son ' or before ' man,'
and this may have been the case originally in the apocalypse
which is the basis of Mark xiii. But this apocalyptic ' Son of man '
was rapidly identified with Daniel's ' Son of man,' and then with
Jesus. Hence the starting-point was given for Jesus to be made
to call himself the Son of man. Moreover, as Jesus had spoken
of man generically in startling terms on some four or five occasions,
it was believed that what he had said of man {bar nasha) he could
only have meant of one man — i.e. of himself Hence in these
passages ' Son of man ' (with the implication that ' Son of man '
was a title which he called himself) was used to replace ' man.'
If in four or five passages ' Son of man ' was used to mean ' Jesus,'
it was easy to extend the number. In genuine utterances of
Jesus, the Son of man could and would be substituted for the
personal pronoun, while in unauthentic passages, more especially
in mysterious and apocalyptic predictions, the term would be all
the more willingly used. It would heighten the mystery.
The other form of the first theory would admit that in sovfie
places where 'Son of man' occurs it is a substitution for 'man'
{i.e. that in these places, Mark ii 10 e.g., the phrase originally
meant 'man,' not 'Jesus'), but to this explanation it would add,
another — namely, that in other places 'Son of man' was, foUowing
Daniel and Enoch, used to mean the Messiah, or, at any rate, a
distinct semi-human, semi-divine individual. Hence when Jesus,
or passages ascribed to Jesus, spoke of the coming of this mys
terious being, the passages mean what they say, only they did not
mean to the original speaker or writers {though they do mean to the

II. 23-28] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 97
Evangelists) Jesus himself. Jesus, or the writers of the passages,
meant a being other than he, a great semi-divine Being, perhaps
the Messiah. Thus in some places ' Son of man' meant originally
merely ' man,' while in others it meant the special, heavenly Man,
the 'Man upon the cloud,' the fore-runner, perchance, of the
Messiah, or the Messiah himself {cp. the quotation from Prof. Toy,
cited on p. 95).
Again, it is specially noticeable that in Mark the phrase
' Son of man ' is not used by Jesus of himself (except twice) till
after the scene at Csesarea Philippi, where he acknowledges his
Messiahship. The term grows in its use by Jesus. Mark has it
fourteen times, Matthew thirty, Luke twenty-five. Moreover,
omitting the use of it in Mark ii. 10, 28, we have the further fact
that, with one possible exception (Mark x. 45), it is used by Mark
only in passages in which Jesus speaks of his coming death,
resurrection, or Parousia. Jesus does not commonly use it as a
mere synonym for 'I.' This fact seems to show that the use of
it must have started, as it were, at that end. If its origin is in
Mark xiii. 26, and if it is pre-Christian, it might gradually become
thrown further back in its usage by the Evangelists. That existing
apocalyptic documents do not show clearly that ' Son of man ' was
used as a synonym for Messiah is no certain proof that in some
circles it was not so used. If an apocalypse which included a
passage like Mark xiii. 26 (the coming of the Heavenly Man in
glory), was put into the mouth of Jesus, the Son of man would
soon be supposed to mean himself, and then it might be naturally
used by him to signify himself in such passages, where events
are spoken of which were to lead up to his own coming in glory —
i.e. his betrayal, death and resurrection. It would be a further
step when, as in Matthew and Luke, the term becomes sometimes
a synonym for ' I.'
But many difficulties remain ; especially the grave difficulty
why ' Son of man ' is only used by Jesus himself, and never of him
by others or by the Evangelists.
So we are led on to the second main theory which holds that
Jesus did, at one time of his life, at any rate, speak of himself
occasionally as the Son of man. It must, however, be admitted
that this theory too is also open to objections. It is strange that
in the Epistles of Paul no allusion is made to this title. It is also
strange that Jesus in the Gospels never explains it, and yet that
its use seems to cause no special surprise.
It must also be admitted that no wholly satisfactory explana
tion of the reason why Jesus used the term to mean himself has
ever yet been given. The suggestions that he used it to indicate
that he was the ideal man, or that he sympathised with lowly

98 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [II. 23-28
humanity, or that he was not a political Me.=;siah, and so on, are
all fraught with grave objections. No less questionable seem the
suggestions according to which he used the term in some sort
of composite sense — ideal man, suffering servant, representative
of humanity, united together under the idea of Messiahship.
Difficult again is the view that Jesus gave the term 'a varying
application according to circumstances,' which is elaborated by
Dr Drummond. None of these explanations seem to explain why
the term is not only closely connected with the figure in Daniel,
but is mainly used by Jesus in passages which deal with his death,
resurrection, and Parousia.
It is another question whether, if Jesus did not call himself
Son of man, he did not claim to be Messiah. Schmidt thinks that
the second negative follows from the first, but this is by no means
the case.
The vexed question has, perhaps, entered into a fresh stage by
the researches of Grossman on the origins of Jewish eschatology.
Grossman fully admits that 'the son of man' meant in Aramaic
merely ' the man.' He further argues that since the Septuagint
renders the Hebrew ' ben adam ' by uto? dvOpooirov (son of man), we
may assume that in the 'Greek jargon' of the Alexandrian Jews vio<i
dvOpccTTOv (son of man) was completely synonymous with dv6pa)'iro<s
(man), and that the same will have been the case with the Greek-
speaking Palestinians. But he gives grounds for believing that
' The Man ' was a current appellation of an old apocalyptic figure.
This figure was not invented by the author of Daniel, but was
borrowed by that author from old apocalyptic traditions and material,
and identified with the people of Israel. The figure in Enoch and
Ezra iv. was not merely elaborated from Daniel (any more than it
was merely elaborated from Daniel in the old apocalypse contained
in Mark xiii.) ; it was borrowed and elaborated from current
apocalyptic material. 'The Man' was a shortened form of some
longer original; perhaps 'the first man.' 'The' is emphatic: 'The
Man' is the well-known, mysterious, heavenly Man, with special
functions predetermined for him at the Last Judgment. He is
not of Jewish origin, but borrowed by Jewish writers from foreign
apocalyptic material and tradition. He is a parallel figure to the
Messiah, but of quite different origin. The Messiah is an earthly,
the Son of man a heavenly figure. Yet they could easily become
identified or confused with each other, just as in Daniel the Son of
man is identified with Israel. As the functions of the Messiah at
the Last Judgment and in the new age became more exalted, it
was all the easier to identify or combine him with the apocalyptic
figure of the 'Son of man,' or rather of 'the Man.'
If all this be accurate, the following deductions emerge. If

11.23-28] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 99
Jesus spoke about ' the Man,' he might have been understood by
all who had heard of the current apocalyptic traditions and con
ceptions. He may have used the term to signify a being other
than himself, or he may have used it of himself as the Messiah.
If he did not believe himself to be the Messiah, or before he had
come to the conclusion that he was the Messiah, he may have
distinguished 'the Man' from himself, and a reflection of this
usage may perhaps be still seen in those passages where in one
clause he uses the personal pronoun, in the second the Son of man
(as if he and the Son of man were not identical). But if and when
he felt himself to be the Messiah, he can only have meant by ' the
Man,' when and if he used the term, himself Lastly, it may now
be found in many places and passages in the Synoptics where
Jesus did not employ it himself. Each occasion must be judged
on its own merits. The fact that the term is never applied of
Jesus, but always only used by him, is a good argument in favour
of the view that he did actually employ it.
We must, indeed, admit that we can trace within the Synoptics
themselves the growth of the application of the term to Jesus.
Thus in Luke vi. 22, where Matthew has ' me,' Luke has ' Son of
man,' and the same is the case in Luke xii. 8. Again, in Mark viii.
27 Jesus says : ' Who do they say I am ? ' (and so in Luke ix. 1 8),
whereas Matthew has, ' Who do they say that the Son of man is ? '
In his last book {The Prophet of Nazareth) Schmidt has
again reiterated his arguments that Jesus never claimed to be the
Messiah, and never used 'Son of man' or 'the Man,' whether of
himself or not of himself Of passages where Son of man occurs,
some four or five only go back, as he thinks, to authentic sayings
of Jesus, but in each of these cases not Jesus, and not the Messiah,
but man generally, is meant. These cases are Mark ii. 10 and 28,
Matthew viii. 20 and xii. 32, and a passage at the root of the
present predictions of suffering and death. Of these passages the
suggested interpretation is most likely in Mark ii. 10 and 28
(human power to forgive sins; man lord of the Sabbath). In
Matthew viii. 20 and xii. 32 it seems to me most improbable
{cp. the notes on these verses), while the view that Jesus said,
when death began to appear to him as a possible issue of his
career, 'man must pass away' (Mark xiv. 21), and added, ' but he
will rise again' (Mark ix. 31), seems exceedingly strained.
{Prophet of Nazareth, pp. 118, 125.)
One further difficulty to the view that Jesus used the term
Son of man to mean himself may, however, here be added. For
was not ' the Man ' a more exalted and half-divine being than the
historic Jesus thought himself to be ? If Jesus claimed to be the
Messiah — and I still think he did — was not his conception of the
7—2

lOO THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IL 23-28
Messiah humbler (if more spiritual) ? Was it not in ihat respect
nearer to the old Messiah of the prophets or to the servant of
Isaiah 1. and liii ? We may perhaps get over this difficulty in the
following way. In the later months of his short ministry Jesus
may have come to believe not only that God had invested him with
a lofty office (though it was the greatness of service), but also that
if in the discharge of that office he must encounter death, he would
be transformed, or raised, after death into the veritable Son of
man of the apocalyptic seers. There is a certain attractiveness in
Schweitzer's theory that Jesus gradually identified himself with
the heavenly Son of man, who was also the Messiah, and that he
believed he would be transformed into that super-earthly being.
But it is surely inaccurate to say that at that time the Messiah
was generally regarded as an ' iibernatUrliche Personlichkeit.'
Reimarus, whom Schweitzer has now made many of us read, with
his insistence upon the old ' political ' or theocratic Messiahship, is
not, in truth, so easily disposed of
In his excellent and informing pamphlet. The Messianic Con
sciousness of Jesus (1907), the veteran scholar, H. J. Holtzmann,
has investigated the subject anew. We see from his book, and
from the survey of opinions which he gives, how widespread is the
desire to dissociate Jesus from anything Jewish. The Jewish
Messiah is depressed and depreciated, and Jesus is magnified and
exalted. He must, so far as possible, be kept free from all contact
with what is Jewish, and specially from the contamination of the
Jewish conception of the Messiah. For the Jewish Messiah is a
mere conquering king, a political, particularistic figure, whose
sole function it is to cause the Jews to triumph over their enemies
and to make them the supreme world-power. Far better Daniel's
man who comes upon the clouds than the Jewish Messiah with his
selfish Jewish empire, his odious Jewish triumphs. The anti-
Jewish bias, the desire to press to the utmost the difference
between Jesus and Judaism, to depress the one and to magnify
the other, is constantly apparent. No one would imagine in
reading Merx, for example, or others of his stamp, and even
Holtzmann himself, that there was any ethical or spiritual side to
the ' Jewish ' Messiah. The Judenmessias would appear to be a
sort of Napoleon, protected and inspired by the narrow 'Jewish' God.
The impartial historian will not deny that there was a 'particu
larist' and 'national' side to the Jewish Messiah, which was
sometimes more and sometimes less prominent. But it is not
impartial to deny or ignore that there was another side also.
Jesus had not to go beyond Isaiah for a conception of the Messiah
which was both Jewish and ethical, far more ethical, indeed, than
the 'Man' of Daniel vii 13.

II. 23-28] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK loi
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given ;
And the government shall be upon his shoulder ;
And his name shall be called Wonder-Counsellor,
Divine Hero, Father of Glory, Prince of Peace.
For the increase of dominion and for peace without end.
Upon the throne of David and upon his Kingdom,
To establish and support it by justice and by righteousness.
From henceforth even for ever.
And the most complete, essential description of the Messiah,
which has always dwelt most abidingly and lovingly in the Jewish
consciousness, is the following (Isaiah xi.) :
And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse,
And a branch of his root shall bear fruit.
And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him.
The spirit of wisdom and understanding.
The spirit of counsel and might,
The spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord.
And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes,
Neither arbitrate after the hearing of his ears :
But with righteousness shall he judge the poor,
And arbitrate with equity for the afflicted of the land :
And he shall smite the tyrannous with the rod of his mouth.
And with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins.
And faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
This, upon the whole, is the truest, fullest picture that we have
of the Jewish Messiah. This is the prevailing Jewish conception
of that king and of his rule, to which the yoke of the Law is
ultimately to lead, and hence this is the portion of the prophets
which, perhaps already in the age of Jesus, was ordained by the
Rabbis to be read in synagogue upon the festival which com
memorates the giving of the Law (Pentecost).
One wonders whether the historic Jesus, who, after all, is
considerably hidden, as well as considerably revealed to us, in the
Synoptic Gospels, did not appreciate the picture drawn in Isaiah xi.
What did he think of his own relation to that figure, to the
righteous ruler filled with the spirit of God ? It must be freely
confessed that there is no reference to Isaiah xi. in the Synoptic
Gospels. Holtzmann himself clings to the view that Jesus regarded
himself as the Messiah, but not as the ' Jewish ' Messiah, or Son
of David. The remarkable passage in Mark xii. 35-37, the signifi
cance of which cannot be denied, sufficiently proves this. On the

102 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [II. 23-28
other hand, the trial proves that a Messiah in some sense Jesus
did claim to be. If Jesus (a) believed that the Kingdom was soon
to come, (6) that he was to bring about, or be closely connected
with, its coming, and (c) that he was invested by God with a
special mission, how could he help drawing the conclusion that he
was the Messiah ? ' He was bound to think Messianically.' Only,
as there were many varieties and kinds of Messianic conceptions
then current, some more ethical, others less, some more national,
others less, some more apocalyptic, others less, some more ' super
natural,' others less, there was no reason why Jesus should not
fasten upon the particular conception which suited his own ideas
and character best, or which seemed most in consonance with his
mission and his destiny. This conception he might himself develop
and modify.
The point of departure must always be the scene at Caasarea
Philippi. Holtzmann's view of Mark viii. 27-32 is determinative
for his whole conception of the ' Messiahship ' of Jesus. He held
himself to be the Messiah, but only the Messiah of Daniel vii. 13
— the ' Son of man ' Messiah, a Messiah who would come upon the
clouds, but who before he so came must suffer and die. Holtzmann
lays stress upon the fact that the more habitual use by Jesus of
the term Son of man (at least in Mark) is in passages where either
his suffering or his future coming in power and glory are referred
to (viii 31, 38 ; ix. 9, 12, 31 ; x. 33, 45 ; xiii. 26; xiv. 62). Holtz
mann supposes that the Son of man conception of the Messiah was
specially .suitable to Jesus because it had nothing to do with
nationalism, or political rule, or a conquering king, or Davidic
descent. He may, indeed, at first not have identified the Son of
man with himself He was led to do so (a) by the close connec
tion of the ' Man ' with the ' Kingdom ' which he (Jesus) was to
inaugurate ; and apparently (6) by being able in the ' Son of man
Messiah ' to combine his own Messianic consciousness with the
growing conviction that before the final triumph there lay defeat
and death.
But Holtzmann's view by no means solves every difficulty.
We do not know what the current apocalyptic conception of ' the
Man ' exactly was, nor what was his exact relation to the Messiah.
It is not certain that Jesus would have identified himself vvith so
mysterious and supernatural a figure. Even Holtzmann admits
that there is great difficulty in deciding whether Jesus, in using
the term, desired to make his own Messianic position and concep
tion clear or to keep them dark. Did he give a new meaning to
a term so far used in a somewhat different sense ? And did he
deliberately intend his disciples only gradually to perceive its
newer and deeper import ? A graver difficulty in Holtzmann's

II. 23-28] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 103
way seems to be that Daniel's Son of man is himself by no means
free from ' national ' setting. The everlasting kingdom is to be
the kingdom of the ' people of the saints ' ; in other words, all
nations are to serve the Jews. Then, again, why should Jesus
have chosen the Son of man nomenclature, or clung with special
intensity to the Son of man prophecy, or identified himself and his
Messiahship with the Son of man, when and because he realized
that he must suffer and die before the establishment of the King
dom and his own ultimate triumph ? What close connection is
there between suffering and Son of man ? Holtzmann does not
explain. Moreover, if Jesus went to Jerusalem in order to conquer
and succeed, and not to suffer and die, the whole hypothesis falls
to the ground.
But Holtzmann seems right in urging that if and when Jesus
did think himself to be the Messiah, he could hardly have used
the term Son of man except as meaning himself For the Son of
man stands too near to the Kingdom to be any other than the
Messiah. There is not room for both Son of man and Messiah.
The two must be one and the same. But a Kingdom without a
Messiah to bring it was hardly conceivable. Believing in his
mission and inspiration as he did, Jesus was compelled, sooner or
later, to identify the Messiah with himself.
On the whole, perhaps, the soberest and safest view of the Son
of man problem is that taken by M. Loisy, who says :
' However purely religious and moral was his conception of the
Kingdom, Jesus did not any the less on that account regard him
self as the Messiah promised to Israel, and the future king of the
elect. If he applied to himself, on very rare occasions, the titles
of " Son of God" and " Son of man," these formulas were for him
but synonyms of Christ, and we are the less authorized to seek in
them for special shades of his thought and the personal expression
of his inmost feelings because it is quite possible that the majority
of the passages in which they occur belong to the traditional gloss
upon his teaching' {E. 8. 1. p. 192).
' If he sometimes made use of the title "Son of man'' borrowed
from Daniel, in order to apply it to himself, he must have attached
no other meaning to it than that of Messiah ; and it seems very
hazardous to discover a special significance in it, related to the
idea, personal also, which Jesus is supposed to have formed of his
mission. Such a hypothesis could be accepted only if Jesus had
made use of this formula very frequently or by preference. Now
it is the Evangelists who show the preference, and its use by
Jesus, except in a very restricted measure, does not appear
probable. The Evangelical texts seem to establish a special
relation between this title and the idea of the suffering Messiah ;

I04 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [II. 23-28
but the relation and the idea belong only to tradition ' {E. S. i.
P- 243)- ' 'The first generation of Christians contended with the Jews on
the right of Jesus to the character of Christ, and to the glorious
royalty announced by Daniel in the famous passage relating to the
"son of man," who represents and introduces the reign of the Saints.
Men were never weary of repeating, or of ascribing to Jesus, the asser
tion that he was the "Son of man" whom Daniel had seen in spirit,
the Christ of the parousia, he for whom the Christians were always
waiting, and whose legitimate claims Caiaphas had failed to recog
nize. The repeated use of the title "Son of man" in the discourses
of Jesus is the result of this preoccupation of the compilers with
this idea. The comparison of the texts suggests that it has been
introduced into the written tradition, and does not usually belong
to the oldest redaction of the Gospel discourses ' {E. 8. I. p. 193).
If this be correct, the controversy is reduced in importance.
When Jesus used the term, which was not often, he meant by it
the Messiah, but he did not put into it special meanings of his
own. The great theologian Harnack also thinks that Jesus used
the term occasionally of himself, and that he meant by it the
Messiah. It will be convenient if I here add a summary of
Harnack's latest view both of the Son of man problem, and, more
generally, of the Messianic consciousness of Jesus and of his con
ception of the Messiah. This view is partly based upon his
elaborate study of Q. In his reconstruction of that document the
Son of man occurs some seven times : Matt. viii. 20, Luke xii. 8
(perhaps, cp. Matt. x. 32), Matt, xii 32, Matt xi. 19, Luke xi. 30,
Matt. xxiv. 44, Matt. xxiv. 39. Three or four of these passages are
not connected with Last Things or Judgment. Clearly, says
Harnack, Q meant by the term the Messiah. And the great
theologian adds : ' It is still very probable to me that the term in
Jesus's mouth had never any other meaning. In each individual
case where Q makes Jesus speak of himself as the Son of man, one
cannot be certain that he did so. But that he did use the term
of himself and to mean the Messiah, this Q makes enormously
probable' {Sprilche und Reden Jesu, p. 166, n. i, E. T. p. 239,
n. i). The whole document of Q, as it can be picked out and
pieced together from Luke and Matthew, is dominated by the
theory that Jesus was the Messiah. Harnack, however, thinks
that one cannot follow the compiler of Q the whole way. One
must remove the Messianic consciousness implied in the story of
the baptism and the temptation. One must neglect the use of
'the Son of man' in the earlier period of the ministry. If one does
this, then one can obtain from Q a very early conception of Jesus
which, as Harnack thinks, is historic and accurate. I will quote

11.23-28] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 105
Harnack's own words, but before I do so I would like to point out
that those words are controlled by the, as I believe, unhistorical
theory that Jesus felt himself to be (of course only in a spiritual
and moral sense) the special Son of God, with a knowledge of God
and a realization of sonship such as none had possessed or felt
before him. Hence Harnack's desperate efforts to maintain the
authenticity of Matt. xi. 25-30. The consciousness of sonship was
earlier than the consciousness of Messiahship. The first was the
preparation for the second. For the consciousness of Messiahship
never meant anything else than a consciousness of something
which he would become. Hence the consciousness of what he was
had to precede the consciousness of what he was going to be, and
only if this prior consciousness had reached the height of the
' Sohnesbewusstsein ' could it have formed the bridge to the
consciousness of Messianity.
The notes on Matt. xi. 25-30 will show how doubtful this
whole theory is, and on what slender support it rests. And,
indeed, a Jewish admirer of Jesus cannot help hoping that he
never believed that no pious Jew in his own age or before him
had a sense or a knowledge of God equal to his own. To a Jewish
mind, if Jesus believed that he was nearer to God and felt God
nearer to him than other men, such a belief would have meant
that he was in truth removed from Him. Jesus, like the prophets
of old, may, indeed, have believed that his teaching was inspired
and indubitably right. Such certainty is not inconsistent with
humility. He may have regarded obedience to his commands as
equivalent to the doing of God's will, but his Jewish admirers will
cling to the hope that he did not believe that he was a better,
wiser man, with a fuller knowledge of God, than anybody who had
ever lived. And this is what Harnack's view of him seems to
imply. The true Jesus is, one hopes, better revealed in the humility
of Mark x. 1 8 than in the self-assertion of Matt. xi. 27. However
this may be, the following is the great theologian's view as to the
development of Jesus's conception of his Messiahship, which, as he
thinks, Q either reveals or does not contradict. It is, in fact,
deduced from both Mark and Q, and thus has the greater claim
to be regarded as accurate and historical: 'We now have before
us a compilation of sayings in which the speaker is a teacher,
a prophet, one who is more than a prophet — -the final decisive
Messenger of God; but so surely as he demands unconditional
obedience to His commands, in which the will of God is expressed,
and calls upon men to follow Him, so little does He do this with
the expressed self- witness: 'I am the Messiah.' Rather He points
simply to His miracles and His works (in so far as He does not
count upon the self-evidence of His commands in their appeal to

106 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [II. 23-28
the hearts of His hearers). If one therefore neglects the term
' Son of man ' — which was certainly used by our Lord, though we
cannot be sure that it is genuine in any particular saying — Jesus
first asserts His claim to the Messiahship in the sayings at the
close of the source, hut only in connection with and under the
imagery of the Second Coming ; He who already in His pre.'^ent
state of existence is more than a prophet and greater than John,
He who is the Son, will be the coming King and Judge.
'Critical investigation of the accounts in St Mark seems to
compel us to the conclusion that our Lord during the first and
longest period of His ministry does not speak of Himself as the
Messiah (because He at first neither regarded Himself as Messiah,
nor indeed could so regard Himself) and even rejected the title of
Messiahship when it was applied to Himself, but that, on the
other hand. He was possessed by the strongest conviction that as
a messenger of God He was entrusted with a mission of decisive
import, and that He knew God as none other knew Him — a con
viction to which He again and again gave expression ; and that at
a later period after He had accepted at Csesarea Philippi the
confession of the disciples : " Thou art the Messiah " — i.e. " Thou
wilt be He," He from henceforth (though indeed still with reserve
until the entry into Jerusalem) called Himself the son of man,
and with growing confidence proclaimed His Parousia, i.e. His
Messiahship. There is nothing in the compilation of discourses
in Q, if only we neglect the introduction, which can be alleged to
be discrepant with this picture of gradual development. We can
not, it must also be acknowledged, derive from Q certain testimony
to the detailed accuracy of this picture, because Q pays such slight
regard to chronology ; nevertheless Q also bears witness to the
main position, in that in the sayings collected in Q the Messiah-
ship is only clearly expressed under the form of the Parousia, and
in that in these sayings our Lord claims faith not because He is
the present Messiah — this is unthinkable — but because He works
the works of God and proclaims His Commandments ' {Sayings of
Jesus, English edition, p. 244, original German, p. 169). It should
be distinctly stated that the use of 'our Lord' in the Eughsh
version is no exact translation of the German. Harnack simply
says Jesus. Again, where the English version has St Mark, St
Matthew, &c., Harnack has simply Mark and Matthew. The
English capital H's iu the pronouns, ' he,' ' his,' &c., when these
pronouns refer to Jesus, are also no feature of the German
originaL

III. 1-6] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 107
CHAPTER III
1-6. Healing on the Sabbath
(Cp. Matt, xii 9-14; Luke vi 6-1 1)

I And he entered on another occasion into the synagogue; and
2 there was a man there who had a withered hand. And they kept
watching him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath
3 day ; so that they might accuse him. And he said unto the man
4 who had the withered hand, ' Stand up and come forward.' And
he said unto them, 'Is it permitted to do good on the sabbath
rather than to do evil ? to save life rather than to kill it?' But
5 they held their peace. And he looked round on them with anger,
being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, and he said unto the
man, ' Stretch out thine hand.' And he stretched it out : and his
6 hand was restored. And the Pharisees went out, and straightway
took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might
destroy him.
The fifth ' conflict.' For the Rabbinic laws in regard to sick
ness and surgical operations upon the Sabbath, see Additional
Note 13. As with the other 'conflicts,' so of this one, Loisy
supposes that it goes back to some earlier written source. See the
quotation from Vol. i. p. 87 at the beginning of Chapter II. The
conclusion of the story before us was originally intended (see note
below) to prepare us for the denouement of Jesus's career : neither
story nor conclusion was intended to occupy this particular place
in the source from which the redactor has taken them (p. 88).
I. Had the narrative in i Kings xiii. 4-6 any influence upon
the growth or wording of this story ? So, long ago, thought
Strauss in his Lehen Jesu (Vol. IL p. 125, ed. i).
2. It seems somewhat unnecessary to assume, as Prof Bennett
does {Life of Jesus according to St Mark, p. 40), that the whole
inciileut had been arranged by the Pharisees, that ' they chose a
Sabbath when Jesus would be in the synagogue, and arranged
that there should be present a man with a withered hand ; they
themselves also attended to see what Jesus would do.'

I08 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IIL i-6
4. The meaning seems to be : ' On the Sabbath day should
one not rather do good than evil, rather save a life than kill it ? '
To heal is regarded as an instance of doing good. Thus not
to heal is equivalent to doing evil, for if the life is not saved, it
is killed. But the reasoning of Jesus seems to be casuistical. More than
once it seems as if he wished to win a dialectical victory without
really meeting the objections squarely. He seems to evade the
argument by a counter argument, which, however ingenious, is
not really to the point. Sometimes, too, it seems as if he would
not give a straight answer to a straight question, but sought to
elude the question by an ingenious parry. How far these evasions
and dialectical puzzles are historical, and how far, if so, they were
morally justifiable, are difficult points. Jesus seems to take the
line that the questioners were insincere, and only sought to
entrap him. He was therefore justified in avoiding their snares
by puzzles, counter problems, and evasions. He is only frank to
those who are frank.
The casuistry here is that it could not be argued that the man
with the 'withered hand' was in any danger of his life. The
healing could very well have been put off till the morrow, had
Jesus been so minded. Yet, even though there was no question
of life or death, Jesus thought himself justified in not postponing
the cure. Apparently his real view was that any good action, or
any kind of healing, should not be postponed for the sake of the
Sabbath. This view would lead, if pushed home, to very wide
consequences. The truth is that each case must be judged upon
its own merits.
Assuming, as I do, that miracles, in the ordinary sense of the
word, were not wrought by Jesus, the question arises : Does the
sudden healing of a withered arm fall within or without the Umits
of the possible ?
5. Note the strong expression 'with anger.' He considers
their heart hard because they do not believe in him and recognize
the force of his argument. Of course the Evangelist tells the
story, like all his other stories, to make all our sympathies go
with Jesus, and to put the Pharisees in the worst possible light
Hardness of heart does not mean callousness of feeling, but
unsusceptibility of mind. ' The Pharisees were " hardened " by
previous conceptions against his new truth' (Gould). The two
parties could not understand each other. Their point of view was
different Jesus could not understand them; they could not
understand him; and so each was unjust to the other. Here, as
always, the words of Jowett are true and in point: ' We only learn

IIL 1-6] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 109
the true lesson to be gathered ' from these stories ' when we place
ourselves above them.' We must be independent before we can
be just ; or, in other words, before we can draw near to the truth.
6, The Herodians were the adherents of Herod Antipas, the
tetrarch of Galilee. 'They are no regular party, but they are
the government men, who, like Herod himself, are afraid of every
movement ' (W.). Loisy thinks they are Herod's functionaries.
Considering that Professor Burkitt believes that Mark is not
' based on older literary sources,' and that it was not written till
thirty or forty years after the crucifixion, it is somewhat remark
able how much accuracy he assigns to it. The statement in iii. 6
is quite historic, he supposes. At that very point the Pharisees
and the government men did plan how they might get rid of
Jesus. It seems difficult to suppose that this bloodthirsty intention
existed so early. Are there adequate grounds for believing that
the Pharisees and the 'bureaucracy' joined hands at this stage,
or that either were embittered enough against Jesus to concert
together for his death ? We may try to get over the difficulty by
saying that this story really occurred at the close of the Galilsean
ministry (so B. Weiss). Or we may take the line of J. Weiss who
does not regard iii. 6 as accurate for this special moment. Mark,
as it were, sums up the inevitable conclusion from the antagonism
between Jesus and the Pharisees, Who were guilty of Jesus's
death ? Mark answers : the Pharisees, as the representatives of
orthodox legal Judaism, and the Herodians, as the opponents of
everyone who might be dangerous to Herod's house. Loisy takes
much the same line. ' It is probable that the stories which have
just been narrated, the object of which is to show the objections
raised against Jesus by the Pharisees on the subject of the
Sabbath, partially at any rate anticipate the events which are
now to follow. One can easily imagine that the believers in the
gospel, in relating the dealings of Jesus with the rigorists among
the Jews, should have grouped together a certain number of
anecdotes about the Sabbath, ending in this conclusion : thus the
Pharisees began to dislike Jesus and resolved to destroy him.
The conclusion is relative rather to the whole series of stories
than to this one in particular : it indicates the final ddnouement of
the struggle entered into by Jesus against the Pharisaic spirit.
Nevertheless it may be said that this conclusion would be better
motived and more in place, if it came after some utterance
denoting the Messianic pretensions of Jesus. For it was this
which might cause disquietude to Herod and his partisans, to
whom the Pharisees, who were no friends of theirs, would not have
resorted unless confronted by a common danger' {E. S. i. p. 519).

IIO THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IIL i-6
But from iii. 6, according to Professor Burkitt, 'a new era in the
ministry is opened.' Here is the ' final rupture with the religious
authorities in Galilee. No longer does Jesus preach in the syna
gogues, except once (and that unsuccessfully) in his own home at
Nazareth. His aim is no longer the rousing of the niultitudes,
as it had been hitherto, but the instruction and training of his
own disciples. He now begins to organise his followers into an
organisation which was destined to develop into the Christian
Church' {op. eit. pp. 68, 69, 81). vi. 34 is exceptional (is vii. 14
aiso ?). Thus Professor Burkitt regards the call of the twelve and
the despatch of them upon missionary work as strictly historic,
whereas W. calls it in question. To the one distinguished scholar,
even the mountain of iii. 1 3 is historic ; to the other, the passage
which 13 opens (13-19) is a later editorial insertion.

7-12. Many Healings
{Cp. Matt xii 15-21; Luke vi. 17-19)
7 But Jesus with his disciples retired to the lake ; and a great
8 multitude from Galilee followed him ; and from Judsea, and from
Jerusalem, and from Idumsea, and beyond Jordan, and about Tyre
and Sidon, a great multitude, who had heard what great things he
9 did, came unto him. And he told his disciples to have a boat
ready for him, so that he might not be crushed by the crowd.
10 For he had healed many, so that all who were afflicted pressed
II upon him in order to touch him. And the unclean spirits, when
they saw him, fell down before him, and screamed, saying, ' Thou
12 art the Son of God.' And he rebuked them much that they
should not make him known.
From here till viii. 26 it is not easy to discern the plan or
framework upon which Mark has arranged his material. ' La plus
grande confusion regno dans le rdcit.' The present section may
have been drawn up by Mark to prepare for the dispute (in
iii. 20-30) about the source from which Jesus draws his power of
exorcism. The crowds from distant parts, the inconvenient pressure, and
the charges to the unclean spirits, must all be taken with many
grains of critical salt in order to reduce the incidents here spoken
of to their real historical proportions. Jesus's commandment to
the unclean spii-its not to make him known, with their instant

IIL 7-12] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK III
recognition of him as the Son of God, are part and parcel of
Mark's theology and scheme. Mark is not by any means the
mere simple narrator. He has a theology which the facts must
be expanded, modified, and interpreted to suit.
7. dvexooprjirev. Mark seems to imply that Jesus seeks to
avoid useless disputes with his adversaries. He no longer preaches
in the synagogues.
1 1. When Mark says that the unclean spirits fell down before
Jesus, he of course means that the men who were supposed to be
possessed with these ' spirits ' fell down. ' Son of God.' ' This
title was a Messianic title, denoting theocratic sonship, and there
is nothing here to indicate that it is used in any other than this
common sense' (Gould). For the phrase, see Carpenter, First
Three Gospels, pp. 76-81.
There is no good and convincing evidence that Son of God
was a current Messianic title at the time of Jesus, but, neverthe
less, it is quite Kkely that such was to some extent the case.
Israel had been called God's son for a long while, and the great
kings, such as David and Solomon, had also been metaphorically so
called. The ' Son ' in Psalm ii was interpreted (perhaps rightly)
to be the Messiah, and here we find the famous phrase : ' Thou
art my Son; this day I have begotten thee.' If Jesus was called
Son of God while he lived, he was called so as being the Messiah,
not in any metaphysical sense. He could be man, Messiah, and
Son of God in one. But the pre-existence of the Messiah in heaven
had also become a floating Jewish conception by this time. If
the Messiah was pre-existent, he was semi-divine, or angelic, and
this is the conception which Paul had of him, perhaps even before
he identified the Messiah with Jesus. To Mark, the Messiah Jesus
was no mere man. He was probably already regarded by Mark
as divine, though that might not prevent him having been born
upon earth of a human father and a human mother. Paul and
the author of the fourth Gospel seem either not to know of the
virgin birth or not to accept it. Another eaily conception was
that Jesus only became Son of God in any real sense at his
ascension. He was the Messiah, but his Messiahship was latent.
He was made and appointed Messiah and Son of God by his
resurrection and ascension. ' God has made him both Lord and
Messiah, this Jesus whom ye crucified' (Acts ii. 36). And Paul
says that Jesus was ' declared (or appointed) to be the Son of
God in power by his resurrection (Romans i 4). That Jesus
regarded himself as divine or semi-divine is improbable. He
would, at most, only have acknowledged himself to be ' Son of

112 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IIL 7-12
God' in a simpler Messianic sense, or he may have believed,
towards the end of his ministry, that he would be transformed
into a higher kind of being (the ' heavenly man ') after his death.

13-19. The Twelve Apostles
{Cp. Matt. X. 2-4; Luke vi 12-16)
13 And he went up on to the mountain, and called unto him
14 whom he desired ; and they came unto him. And he appointed
15 twelve to be with him, and to send them forth to preach, and to
16 have power to cast out demons. So he appointed the Twelve, and
17 Simon he surnamed Peter. And (he appointed) James the son of
Zebedee, and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed
18 Boanerges, which is, sons of thunder, and Andrew, and Philip, and
Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of
19 Alphseus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Canaanite, and Judas
Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Disciples are mentioned before this section. An inner ring is
now specially marked out. The vocation or purpose of the Twelve
seems here anticipated from vi. 7, to which place Matthew relegates
the whole incident. Perhaps it is, as Loisy says, introduced here
to prepare for the saying of Jesus about his true relations
{E. 8. I. p. 89).
As to the names, Boanerges is etymologically obscure : see
Luke ix. 54. Iscariot is also of doubtful signification. Andrew
and Philip are purely Greek names.
W. observes, ' Es versteht sich von selbst dass die Beilegung
von Beinamen wie Kepha und Boanerges nicht abrupt geschehen
kann und kein historischer Akt ist.' But is there reason to deny
that Jesus may, on some occasion and for some reason or other,
have given these new and extra names to these particular men ?
Where is Levi, so prominently mentioned in ii. 14 ? It cannot
be assumed offhand that he is identical with Matthew, though
the first Gospel makes this identification and it is generally
accepted. See note on Matt. ix. 9.
W. thinks that both iii 7-12 and 13-19 are 'editorial ad
ditions ' {Redaktionsstiicke). 13-19 he calls ' statistics in the form
of historic narrative.' He points out that iii 20-30 and 31-35
join on well with the group of stories in ii. i-iii. 6. Perhaps, he
adds, 7-12 should really be placed immediately before iv. 1-9.

IIL 13-19] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK II3
The situation points to this : Jesus is by the lake with a multitude
pressing about him ; a boat is got ready for him. Whereas in
the present arrangement the boat ordered in iii 9 is not used;
Jesus goes up a mountain, and afterwards returns to Capernaum.
But in iv. i he really embarks on the boat which has been ready
for him since iii. 9.
The functions of the Twelve are succinctly described, and may
be regarded as repeating and confirming Mark's view of the
Master's own mission : (a) proclamation of the coming Kingdom ;
(6) the expulsion of demons. When and how the Twelve were
chosen may not have been precisely known to the Evangelist. Of
the fact of the ' college ' of Twelve he knew, and he wanted to
date, localize and describe its institution. The persons referred
to in verse 13 as going up to Jesus into the mountain are the
Twelve. The choice of the apostles prepares and explains the
saying in verse 35.
J. Weiss, in an excellent and elaborate note, comes to much
the same conclusions as W. Jesus must have had an inner and
outer circle of disciples : but whether at any given moment, or
even early in his ministry, the inner circle was fixed at twelve
is extremely doubtful. Loisy thinks that the Twelve are his
torical. The number is symbolic, yet 'il ne laisse pas d'etre
historique.' Jesus chooses twelve men, because his message is
to the Jews, and he means to preach the gospel to them only
{E. 8. 1, pp. 528, 208, 209). The list of the Twelve is given, with
variations of detail, in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The Greek
names Andrew and Philip would imply that Hellenistic or Hellen-
istically inclined Jews were from the first among the disciples
of Jesus. J. Weiss thinks it is not inconceivable that Jesus may
have understood Greek, or even have spoken it. Why and when
Jesus gave to Simon his surname Peter (or Rock) is obscure.
'Eine unbeugsame Felsennatur scheint Petrus gerade nicht ge-
wesen zu sein.' 'The name of Peter, taking into consideration
the way in which Mark introduces it, means what Matthew
subsequently states : Simon, the first disciple that Jesus enlisted,
becomes the head stone of the apostolic college and of the society
which is to be formed for the Kingdom of God' {E. 8. i. p. 529).
But this seems to give the name an explanation, which in Jesus's
mouth is unlikely. If there are Petrine reminiscences in Mark,
there ought hardly to be this uncertainty about the Twelve.
Might not Peter have explained the meaning of his own surname ?
J. -Weiss can only suppose that Peter did not ' think it worth
while' to tell. But could not Mark have asked him?

114 the synoptic gospels [iil 20-30
20-30. Attack and Defence
{Cp. Matt. ix. 32-34, xii 22-32, 36, 37 ; Luke xi. 14-23, xii 10)
20 And he went into an house. And a crowd collected together
21 again, so that they could not even eat bread. And when his
relatives heard of these thing.s, they set forth to lay hold of him :
for they said, ' He is out of his mind.'
22 And the scribes who came from Jerusalem said, 'He has
Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons.'
23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them by way of
24 parable, ' How can Satan cast out Satan ? And if a kingdom be
25 divided against itself, that kingdom cannot endure. And if a
26 house be divided against itself, that house cannot endure. And if
Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot endure,
27 but cometh to an end. No man can enter into a strong man's
house, and plunder his goods, unless he first bind the strong man;
28 and then he can plunder his house. Verily I say unto you. All the
sins and blasphemies wherewith the sons of men blaspheme, shaU
39 be forgiven them, but he that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit
30 hath no forgiveness for ever, but is guilty of eternal sin.' Because
they said, ' He has an unclean spirit.'
This paragraph opens with the beginning of the story about
Jesus's family and how they seek to put him under restraint.
But the story is no sooner begun than it is suddenly interrupted
by another story (22-30), so that the original tale is not resumed
till 31. The true explanation of these phenomena is not by any
means certain. In one other place Mark has a story within a
story, but there the interposed story is inserted with propriety,
and even with artistic effect. Here, on the contrary, it would
seem that there is a real interpolation. At what stage did it
arise, and whence was it taken ? W. regards it as an insertion,
but nevertheless quite independent as compared with the corre
sponding sections in Matthew and Luke. We have still to
consider it as the work of Mark. Loisy, on the other hand, while
also holding that it is an insertion, supposes that it is borrowed
from Q. ' Marc a dfi la prendre a la source oh. Matthieu et Luc
I'ont emprunt^e ' {E. 8. 1, p. 88). And finally, Dr Carpenter says
that 'it is practically certain that verses 22-30 have been introduced
from Matthew and Luke.' In that case the insertion would have

IIL2O-30] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK US
no bearing upon the question : Did Mark know Q ? Of course
B. Weiss holds that the narrative in Q which is preserved best by
Luke is older than, and has been used by, Mark {Quellen, A,
pp. 11S-I18).
20. The story of Jesus's family is awkwardly hooked on at
this point and given an awkward setting. It was not because
Jesus was unable to take his food on account of the crowd that
his family said he was mad. What his family hear about is his
preaching and his miracles : but when they arrive from Nazareth
they are made to find the circumstances stated in verse 20.
Assuming that Mark knew Q, it would certainly seem as if he
had deliberately omitted the occasion for the dispute and dis
cussion of 22-30 recorded by Matthew (xii. 22) and substituted
for it the opening of the story about the family, with the words
eXeyov on i^ia-rij, ' They said he was beside himself The miracle
recorded in Matt. xii. 22 is a far more natural prelude for the
dispute than what we now find in Mark.
21. 01 Trap avTov. Not 'his friends,' but 'his relatives.' The
same people axe referred to as in 31-35. The S.S. has 'his
brothers,' which Merx regards as original. By inserting 22-30
between 21 and 31 Mark provides a tolerable, but unoriginal,
connection for the charge of the Scribes. His relations say, ' He
is mad ' : the Scribes say, ' He has Beelzebul.' His madness is a
demoniac possession. M. Loisy says that e^ea-ri] does not mean
' he is mad ' (in the ordinary sense of ' mad '), but that he is in a
state of ' exaltation mystique qui lui fait perdre le sens reel de
la vie et de sa propre condition ' {E. 8. 1, p. 698).
22. J. Weiss points ont that the two charges in verse 22 are
not quite the same. The first says : Jesus is possessed ; he is the
devil's slave. The second says : He is the devil's partner or ally.
In Jesus's reply, verse 27 specially refers to the view that he is
possessed, the devil's slave. This charge is ridiculous, for how
could he who has overcome the devil be himself the devil's slave ?
Beelzebul means ' Lord of the dwelling ' ; the variant Beelzebub
means ' Lord of the flies,' and is mentioned in 2 Kings i. 2 as a
god of the Philistines. We have to assume that Beelzebul must
have been one of the current names or by-names of Satan or the
devil. The appearance of the Scribes from Jerusalem is very sudden.
They speak as if they had appeared before and were already known.
Luke, as W. points out, puts ' some people,' which is more likely to
be correct. ' The description of the precise people addressed is, as
8—2

Il6 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IIL 20-30
in other cases, an addition. Jesus in truth had not so exclusively
to deal with Scribes and Pharisees.' On the other hand, M. Loisy
says : ' There is nothing surprising in the fact that there gathered
round the Saviour some Scribes from the capital, either drawn
thither by a sentiment of personal curiosity, or possibly come
with a commission to observe the movement which was taking
shape in Galilee' {E. 8. 1, p. 698). In this passage the Jerusalem
Rabbis are introduced as even exceeding in their enmity the
opponents of ii.-iii. 6 ; they are the most poisonous specimens of
the viper's brood (Matt, xxiii 33).
23. The argument is simple. Satan would not expel Satan.
None of Satan's lieutenants would expel him. (A sort of a king
dom of demons is assumed under the presidency of a chief) If a
demon is expelled from a man, it must be by a power which (a) is
wholly other than, and opposed to, Satan's, and (6) is superior in
strength to his strength.
24, 25. Two examples or parables illustrate the main conten
tion. No empire or house divided against itself can endure.
It must fall to pieces. So if Satan's kingdom or power were
divided against itself, it could not endure.
26. The wording ought to be : If Satan were divided against
himself, he would not be able to stand, but he would come to an
end. But instead of that we have : ' If Satan is divided against
himself, he is not able to stand, but he comes to an end.' The
reason for this logical inexactitude is that as a matter of fact
Satan is coming to an end, though for a different reason. The
reason is given in the second parable, in the next verse. Satan's
power is falling, not because there is division in the Satanic king
dom, but because Satan has encountered a power stronger than
bis own.
27. So now we have the second example of the strong man
in his house and of the yet stronger hero who binds him and
pillages the house. The comparison is put somewhat more fully
and explicitly (B. Weiss thinks, more originally) in Luke. But
it has possibly been, as Loisy thinks, made more allegorical than
it was originally. For to the Evangelist the strong man is Satan
himself; his 'goods' are perhaps the demons, and the stronger
man who binds him and pillages the house is Jesus.
28, 29. Whether this passage originally belonged to the fore
going section may be doubted. The way in which Mark explains
the coimection in 30 is rather awkward. Nevertheless it does not

IIL 20-30] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 117
by any means form a bad conclusion, and can be easily made to
have a direct bearing upon the attitude of the Scribes towards
the exorcisms of Jesus. It is not a question, as it would seem, of
sins in general, but only of blasphemies. It is therefore possible,
as W. suggests, that the words rd dfiaprrjiiara KaX ai ^Xaa-(pri/jilai
may be a later insertion due to the text of Matthew. In that
case the rendering would be : ' All shall be forgiven unto the sons
of men whatsoever they may blaspheme ; but he,' &c. The unfor
givable blasphemy is to deny the results of the divine Spirit and
to ascribe them to Satan. The Jews admit that the works of
Jesus can only be due to supernatural power, but this power they
declare to be not divine, but Satanic. Such a view Jesus holds
to be not only irrational (for Satan would and could not expel
Satan), but also blasphemous. W. points out the prophets were
quite similarly indignant by a denial that they were moved by
the Spirit. There seems no question that this famous utterance
was also preserved in Q, and that Q's form of it is substantially
found in Luke (xii. 10). Matthew gives a conflation of Q and
Mark. The only point of difference among scholars is: which
form is more original, or which is nearer to the original, Q or
Mark ? Naturally W. argues one way, B. Weiss the other. The
version in Luke speaks of words uttered against the Son of man.
In favour of the originality of this version, it is argued : would
any later writer have allowed that an insult against the Son of
man, i.e. Jesus, was pardonable ? Is it conceivable that a saying
which had not that meaning originally would have been given
such a twist or change ? And, secondly, are not the odd words
* sons of men ' in Mark iii. 28 a relic of the original ' Son of man '
in Luke xii. 10 ? But the arguments on the other side are very
strong. The form in Luke xii. 10 would imply that Jesus here
spoke of himself as the Son of man, the difficulty of which
assumption we have already noted. Again, he would draw a
subtle distinction between an attack or insult against him in his
merely human capacity, and an insult against the divine Spirit
within him, when e.g. he expels a demon. But this is surely too
subtle and theological and late a distinction. Mark's version is,
therefore, more probably original, though not necessarily in the
exact form in which we now have it. See further the notes on
Matt xii. 31 where W.'s explanation of the 'sons of men' in
Mark iii 28 is also given.
We disagree with Jesus in his teaching on this point, though
we understand his sensitiveness. To us, who have been taught
from our childhood the infinite mercy of God, there can be no sin
for which there can be no forgiveness. We do not believe in
eternal punishment.

II 8 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IIL 20-30
I wrote this note remembering, and deeply influenced by, the
simple and excellent religious teaching of my childhood. It was
a wise and right thing to make children recoil in horror before
the conception of a loving God who yet consigns his frail children
to everlasting penalties and pains. Nothing does modern Judaism
greater credit than its passionate antagonism to this pitiless dogma.
At the same time I see the justification from another, perhaps
more philosophical, point of view, of Dr Carpenter when he writes
bidding me remember that : ' Forgiveness is something much more
than remission of a punishment. I doubt whether in the highest
morality punishment can be remitted. Forgiveness to be complete
is the act (and state) of more than one person. It takes two:
(i) the person who forgives, who restores the condition of moral
harmony, sympathy and love, on his side ; and (2) the person who
repents and re-enters the life of obedience and affection. The
condition of (2) is essential to the whole process. As long as he
remains wilful and unloving, he cannot be forgiven ; the injured
father, husband, friend — God in the heavenly world — may be all
ready and longing, but they cannot forgive one who does not want
to be forgiven. The person who is in a state of blaspheming the
Holy Spirit is self-excluded from forgiveness : God's love does not
reach him. How this condition is to be changed, what energies
of grace may be required, what start in a new life under fresh
conditions, how many lives of discipline and patience may be
needed, we cannot tell. Ultimately the divine love will win;
but of the process and the time we know nothing. How far
Jesus realized what we call " eternity," it is impossible to decide ;
but I do not think that this passage, truly understood, implies
eternal punishment, as against the infinite mercy of God. The
ultimate punishment is Ezekiel's remembrance and loathing,
which we shall not desire to abridge, knowing its purifying power.'
But the enormous difference between the views here put forth
and the ordinary view of Rabbinic Judaism (shared in all proba
bility by Jesus) is this: According to the old view there was
rarely, if ever, any effective repentance after death, even if the
sinner wished it. Thus punishment was merely penal or retribu
tive, not purifying. 31-35. Jesus and his Family
{Cp. Matt, xii 46-50; Luke viii 19-21)
31 And his mother and his brothers came, and, standing outside^
32 sent unto him to call him. And a crowd was sitting round him,
and they said unto him, 'Behold, thy mother and thy brothers are

in. 31-35] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK II9
33 outside and seek thee.' And he answered them, saying, 'Who is
34 my mother, or my brothers?' And he looked at those who sat
35 around him, and said, ' Behold my mother and my brothers. For
whoever doeth the will of God, he is to me brother, and sister, and
mother.' The narrative begun in verse 21 is now resumed. This story
could only have taken place early in the career of Jesus. The
action of his family depends upon their opinion that he is
'possessed' (21). This also explains, and perhaps justifies, his
sarcastic reply. They send to fetch him away and take him
home. J. Weiss has an excellent note upon the harsh bearing of
Jesus towards his mother and family. He points out that it is
explicable (and perhaps justifiable) on the grounds (a) that his
family did not understand or believe in his mission, (&) that his
whole soul was so filled with this mission that there was no room
in it for family ties and interests, and (c) (the most important of
all) that his special work implied and demanded a separation
from, an abandonment of, all worldly connections and occupations.
A placid devotion to the peaceful atmosphere of family life could
not easily be united with his passionate yearning for the Kingdom
of God. Yet for all that there is a certain violation or froissement
of Jewish sentiment as to parents in this passage. It will be
further alluded to later on.
32. The omission of his father must not be attributed to the
fact that Mark knew the story of the virgin birth. Perhaps the
father was already dead. At any rate, if the mother had known
that her child had been miraculously born, and that he was the
'Messiah of God,' she would hardly have acted as she is here
represented. Some MSS. add ' and thy sisters.' But the sisters
have probably been deduced from verse 35 and vi. 3. In 34
Jesus only speaks of mother and brothers. In 35 he mentions
the sisters, because 'pr^sentes ou non, ses soeurs sembleraient
devoir lui ^tre aussi proches que ses freres' {E. S. i. p. 722, n. 3).
Matthew rightly interprets 'those sitting around him' to mean
his disciples, or more particularly, the Twelve.
35. 'The will of God,' i.e. generally. 'The righteous man is
my brother.' Cp. Matt. vii. 21.

120 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IV. 1-20
CHAPTER IV
1-20. The Parable of the Sower
{Cp. Matt, xiii 1-23 ; Luke viii. 4-15)
I And he began again to teach by the lake side : and there was
gathered unto him a great crowd, so that he entered into a boat,
and sat therein on the lake; and the whole crowd was by the lake
2 on the land. And he taught them many things in parables, and
3 said unto them in his teaching : ' Hearken : behold, there went
4 out a sower to sow. And it came to pass, as he sowed, some seed
fell on the way side, and the birds of the air came and devoured
S it up. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much
earth: and it sprang up quickly, because it had no depth of earth.
6 But when the sun rose up, it was scorched ; and because it had
7 no root, it withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the
8 thorns grew up, and choked it, and it bore no crop. But some
seed fell on good ground, and bore a crop which sprang up and
increased, and yielded thirty, and sixty, and even an hundred
9 fold.' And he said unto them, ' He that hath ears to hear, let
him hear.'
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him, together
II with the Twelve, asked him concerning the parables. And he
said unto them, ' Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom
of God: but unto them that are without, all is said in parables;
12 in order that seeing they may see, and not perceive ; and hearing
they may hear, and not understand ; lest they should return, and
be forgiven.'
13 And he said unto them, 'Ye understand not this parable ? how
then will ye understand all the other parables ?
14, 15 ' The sower soweth the Word. And these are they by the way
side : there the Word is sown, and when they have heard it, Satan
cometh immediately, and taketh away the Word which was sown
16 in them. And these are they who are, as it were, sown on stony
ground, who, when they have heard the Word, immediately receive
17 it with gladness: but they have no root in themselves, and so

IV. I-20] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK I2i
endure but for a time: afterward, when affiiction or persecution
i8 ariseth for the Word's sake, immediately they fall away. And
these are they who are sown among thorns ; these hear the Word,
19 but the cares of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and
the other desires enter in, and choke the Word, and it remaineth
20 unfruitful. And these are they who are sown on good ground;
who hear the Word and receive it, and bear a crop, thirty, and
sixty, and even an hundred fold.'
A fresh section containing parables extends from iv. i to
iv. 34- . .
The original narrative seems interrupted after 9. The section
10-20 is probably secondary, and in it verses 11 and 12 form a
further interpolation. It may also be argued that 21-25 would
not have been put where they are if 26-29 had originally followed
20. The addition of the extraneous sayings in 21-25 can only be
understood if the main theme is finished and is not subsequently
resumed. The second parable (26-29) appears in fact as a mere
variant of the first; the third (30-32) betrays its later date by its
peculiar conception of the Kingdom of God, which is of a kind that
appears nowhere else in Mark, and which prepares the way for
Matthew. So argues W. {Einleitung, p. 55).
W. has also some good remarks upon the parables generally :
' That Jesus liked to speak in parables was already shown in
iii 23. Between metaphor, proverb, parable, and allegory the
Semitic term mashal, mathla, makes no difference.... A mere
saying is called 'jrapa^oXij, 'parable,' in vii. 17. Thus we may not
set up sharply defined categories, as if we were dealing with Greek
rhetoric. It is true that the Semitic parables often touch on a
single point, which is set in high relief, while everything else
remains outside the comparison and in darkness. But often the
parable applies to many points, and it then corresponds with or
comes near to allegory. One must not exclude allegory too
trenchantly. Not all the parables must be interpreted by a single
principle; one must consider each case separately.' (See also
Additional Note 14.)
Whence did Mark obtain his parables ? If it was, as Loisy
and others think, from Q, and if all Matthew's parables came also
from that source, how can we adequately account for the fact
that the point of view of several of Matthew's parables seems
undoubtedly later than those of Mark, and to reflect a fairly
advanced stage of Christian development ? Are we here too to
press Jiilicher's explanation — that Q was constantly growing so
that the Q which Mark knew and used was a much smaller and

122 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IV. 1-20
earlier Q than the Q from whom Matthew and Luke drew so
much of their material ? One has the feeling as if this explanation
must not be ridden too hard. Of our section in Mark Loisy says :
'The discourse containing the parables (1-34) is an artificial
composition which in its present form is intended to explain the
rejection of the Jews, but of which the redaction has passed
through more than one stage. As the saying about retribution,
the comparison of the lamp, the parable of the mustard seed,
certainly existed in the ' recueil de discours ' (Q) which Matthew
and Luke used, we may believe (il est a croire) that they were
taken thence by Mark and that the parables of the sower and of
the seed (26-29) have the same origin ' {E. 8. l. p. 89). B. Weiss
thinks that Luke's form of the parable of the sower is more
original (nearer to Q) than Mark's, but Loisy, on the contrary,
thinks that both Luke and Matthew are here only dependent
upon Mark
2. ' In parables,' i.e. in a parabolic way ; iv ry SiSax^, ' in the
course of his teaching.'
3. 'The parable of the sower comes first, not only because
tradition associates with it an explanation of the general aim of the
parables, but because it is the parable of the Word, and because it
had of itself an almost universal character which marked it out as
the typical parable. It must have occupied the first place in the
oldest collection of parables, even before speculation on the
mysteries of teaching by parables and on the special reasons why
Jesus chose that method of teaching had begun ' {E. S. L p. 730).
4. irapd rrjv oSov, 'along the path.'
7. The thorns fulfil the same office as weeds {cp. Matt, vii 25).
W. points out that in the Old Testament there is no word for
' weeds,' but that ' thorn and thistle ' represent them.
10-20. The explanation of the parable. A ' secondary ' sec
tion. 10. 'His companions as well as the Twelve.' Were they all
in the boat? Or has Jesus landed? But in 35 he is still in the
boat. The Twelve had not, so far, been specially mentioned. .
The plural ' parables ' is odd. Only one had been, so far, spoken.
In fact at this point there is intercalated a general statement
embodying a theory about the parables as a whole. We may
suppose that an original singular has been, on account of the
interpolation of 11 and 12, changed into the plural.

IV. I-20] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 123
II, 12. 'The mystery of the Kingdom,' i.e. you are permitted
to understand its laws and constitution, the conditions of entering
it, and so on.
But it may be doubted whether this explanation of the phrase
is adequate. For the word ' mystery ' is not lightly used. Is Wrede
more right than wrong in holding that the mystery of the King
dom refers to Jesus's own position in the Kingdom as well as to
the Kingdom itself? His Messiahship is the mystery which is to
be revealed to the disciples — in spite of their obtuseness — but
hidden from the world at large till death and resurrection reveal
it. Jesus himself, therefore, we may safely assume, did not speak
these words. Moreover, private teaching when the disciples are
alone with Jesus seems to be an indication of secondary portions
of Mark. The word 'mystery' is only here found in the Synoptics.
An esoteric teaching was wholly alien to the historic Jesus : he
did not regard and present the Kingdom as a mystery (Loisy,
E. 8. 1, p. 741). He pities the multitude, and would not wish to
darken, but to enlighten them. Moreover, iv. 2 1 contradicts these
two verses, and the parable itself contradicts them. For all
understand the Word, but not all take it to heart. Jesus may
have used parables to make people think, and even to test intel
ligence, but surely not to keep his meaning dark except to a few
special disciples. Menzies rightly says that it is impossible to
believe that Jesus said or thought what is in these verses. They
suggest Romans xi. 7, 8, and later reflection and experience.
Professor Burkitt, in his intense desire to establish the his
torical character of Mark, even seeks to save these verses. They
are 'appropriate to the situation.' Jesus after the scene in the
synagogue has come to a 'definite breach' with the Jewish
authority. His new Kingdom can only be inaugurated by ' a long
period of gradual growth, the long and intimate intercourse ' of
Jesus with his disciples. (But this long period is, at the most, a
year.) ' If Jesus is now outside the old synagogue, the people of
the synagogue are equally outside the new Church.' Hence the
propriety of verse 11. "To his disciples he will give further ex
planations, but if those outside misunderstand his teaching, he has
other work than to go out of his way to answer thefr cavils ' {op.
dt. pp. 86-88). This explanation would imply that the 'you' means
not only all disciples, but all would-be disciples too, for Professor
Burkitt himself admits that it was only the ' hostile ' whom Jesus
meant to exclude, not those who came and asked him in a friendly
spirit, even in the case of 'outsiders.' But the words, naturally
interpreted, do not bear this sense. They certainly suggest the
explanation given above, and seem later than, and unworthy of,
Jesus. The parable itself implies that the seed bears fruit and

124 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IV. 1-20
that the Word has had some good success among those who heard
it. The conception of 11 and 12 is Pauline. The expression
ot e^to, ' they who are without,' is semi-technical. It is used in the
Preface to Sirach of those who are ignorant of the Law. The
corresponding Hebrew term was used also of the heathen. Cp. its
use in i Cor. v. 12, 13. Jesus would hardly have made or admitted
this wall of severance between those within and those without.
13-29. After the interruption of 1 1 and 12 a fresh start is made.
The explanation of the parable of the sower is now given. The
section seems later than the parable and, probably, not authentic,
but earlier than 1 1 and 1 2. Jesus is in the boat. But he is
supposed to give the explanation to the disciples alone, when they
are by themselves. Yet in 26 he speaks another parable under
the same circumstances as 1-9, namely in the boat. The expla
nation is, as Loisy says, a sort of ' enclave ' stuck into the middle
of the parables. The enclave is itself not homogeneous. Hence
the muddle that the disciples ask for the meaning of the parables
in the plural; the single question was to serve for the answer
in II, 12, and in 1 3-20. The reason of the question is to be
sought, first in that the parables really became less clear to a
later age, secondly in that an explanation was sought for the fact
that the Jews had rejected the teaching of Jesus. This rejection
or blindness was declared to be providential; and therefore the
parables were intended not to enlighten them, but to deepen their
darkness. It is to be noted that the explanation mixes up the
' allegorical ' details with the things which they ' allegorise.' The
Word is the seed, not the men ; yet the different kinds of crop are
represented by men. The hearers should really have been identified
with the soil, not with the seed. In the original story the details
may not have been intended to have the precise meaning now
assigned to them. In other words, it was a parable, rather than
an allegory. 14. The Word is the special 'Word' concerning the Kingdom.
15. Wellhausen places a colon at oSoi^. Oi irapd rfjv 6S6v is
to be explained, and the explanation begins with oirov. The
ground on which the seed falls represents the men who hear the
Word. Loisy would, however, render : ' And they by the way side
where the Word is sown are they to whom, when they hear, Satan
comes straightway and takes away the Word which has been sown
in them.' Satan is here the general cause of evil issues. He is no special
evil, like the carea of the world, and therefore is not typified by

IV. I-20] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 125
the birds in the same way as the thorns typify the cares. The
introduction of Satan is, however, on the way to the view taken
in 1 1 and 1 2, and another step is taken in Luke viii 1 2, ' that
they may not believe and be saved.' Satan comes to those who
are predestined to an evil end.
17. irpoa-Kaipot, 'endure for a while.' W., ' wetterwendisch.'
The era of persecution has already begun. On the first per
secutions of the Christians by the Jews, see Additional Note 15.
The main purpose of the parable is to explain 'pourquoi
I'Evangile ne compte pas plus d'adherents, pourquoi surtout il ne
retient pas tout ceux qui ont paru I'accueillir.' Mark and Matthew
want to explain why the apparent gains of the gospel have suffered
loss : Luke also adds the thought of showing in relief the faithful
endurance of those who remain constant. Thus the Christian
community is already constituted ; the Christian religion is a
faith ' qui est combattue au dehors, et qui exige, avant la recom
pense, une longue pratique du desinteressement et de la mortifica
tion ' {E. 8. 1, p. 757).
W. calls the explanation of the parable 'correct and beautiful.'
Whether he regards it, though inserted later into Mark, as never
theless authentic in substance, is not quite clear to me. As to
the parable itself he says :
' Jesus is not so much teaching here as reflecting aloud upon
the results of his teaching, which results do not differ from those
of true teaching in general. "I scatter the seed; I know not
whither it may fall. Mostly, for sure, upon unfruitful soil.
Nevertheless I must sow it ; in some hearts at least it will bear
its fruit." The old prophets felt the same. Isaiah (quoted here
in iv. II, 12) not only preached to deaf ears, but his very preaching
makes them deaf: so is it decreed; yet he has to preach, all else
is God's affair. But the resignation of Jesus does not amount to
the despair of Elijah and Jeremiah, This difference is not only
due to his higher faith in God, but also that, unlike them, he had
a great visible result. Moreover, just as Isaiah vi. does not really
belong to the beginning of Isaiah's ministry, so Jesus in Mark iv
has already had experiences which keep him from any self-
deception as to the value of the applause which the people render
him.' Menzies says : ' The parable gives us under a thin disguise
the experiences of Jesus as a preacher.' He has had some
failures, but in spite of these he looks for, and is sure of, success
in the end. The parable could not have been spoken very early
in the ministry.
M. Loisy also urges that the parable is merely meant to explain
the diverse, actual results of Jesus's preaching. ' II ne s'agit pas

126 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IV. 1-20
d'autre chose, et Ton n'a pas k chercher dans le Semeur la penst?e
essentielle de J^sus touchant sa propre mission ' {E. S. i. p. 759).
What strikes one also in the parable of the sower is that Jesus
does not seem to speak and think as if the old order, the natural
world, were soon coming to a violent end. He speaks rather as if
there were to be a long process in which righteousness should, as
it were, gradually come by its own. The Kingdom of God upon
earth, the reign of goodness and truth, will surely come, but only
gradually. His own person is not the centre of all things. The
drama does not consist of his life, his death, his resurrection, and
the Last Judgment — all closely following each other — but it consists
in the gradual reception of his teaching by a dull and reluctant
world. This second, truer, and more modern conception may
have existed in his mind as well as the more eschatological and
apocalyptic conception. And perhaps he did not perceive their
inconsistency.

21-25. The Hidden and the Revealed —
Measure for Measure
{Cp. Matt. V. 15, X. 26, vii 2, xiii 12, xxv. 29; Luke viii 16-18,
vi 38, xi 33, xii 2, xix. 26)
21 And he said unto them, 'Is the lamp brought in to be put
under the bushel, or under the bed ? and not rather to be placed
22 on the stand ? For there is nothing hid, which shall not be
revealed ; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should
23 come to light. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.'
24 And he said unto them, ' Take heed what ye hear : with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you, and even more
25 shall be added thereto. For he that hath, to him shall be given :
and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which
he hath.' A collection of somewhat disconnected sentences, but for that
very reason not unlikely to be original, i.e. to spring from the
mouth of Jesus himself.
21 occurs in Matt. v. 15, with a different meaning. The
light in Mark is the teaching of Jesus, and this is doubtless
original. 22, which joins on fairly well to 21, also contradicts 11 and 12.
At any rate, it declares that any esoteric doctrine is only to be

IV. 21-25] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 127
temporary. What for a time may have been reserved for a few is
ultimately to be given to the world. The mystery of the hidden
Messiahship, the reserve of Jesus in his lifetime, are not to be
followed by the disciples. So Mark may have understood the
saying. In Matthew the saying occurs x. 26. Dr Carpenter
thinks that, as spoken by Jesus, both 21 and 22 'obviously refer
to the propagation of "the Word," which is not to be hidden
away privately, but brought forth for the common good.' Or the
two verses may mean that the consummation of the Word will be
the Kingdom, and that the Kingdom will be ultimately public
and visible {E. 8. l. p. 761). Whether Mark found these verses
in Q is disputed.
24. The first part of this verse seems merely to mean ' Pay
attention' {cp. the beginning of iv. 3 and end of vii. 14). Hear
rightly and with good understanding. Luke has ' take heed how
ye hear,' i.e. hear with intelligence. The subsequent adage is
not connected with the first part of the verse or with what has
preceded, and W. thinks that its place may be merely due to
the outward resemblance of the word 'hear,' occurring in both
23 and 24. The adage is found also in Matt. vii. 2 and
Luke vi. 38. As to the meaning of the verse one can ask :
(a) what did Jesus mean by it ? (6) what did it mean to the
compiler of the source whence Mark took it, assuming that he did
so ? (c) what did it mean to Mark ? As regards the third, some
suppose that it relates to the measure of attentiveness which the
disciples pay. According to your attentiveness will be the measure
of your gain. But if you attend well, you will find in the words of
Jesus more than you could have suspected. Or, again, it may mean:
if you act according to the teaching, you will be abundantly re
warded. The original meaning may be the same as the parallel
in Matt. vii. 2 : God will show to man the same measure which he
shows to his neighbour. Jesus attacks the doctrine of tit for tat
in some of its forms, but in others he maintains and retains it.
25. Though this verse is supposed to prove 24, it is more
probably independent of it. The saying also occurs in Matt.
xiii. 12, xxv. 9; Luke xix. 26. Loisy thinks that Mark took the
sentence from the parable of the talents. But against this view,
W.'s argument seems strong. Whether, he says, the saying has its
true origin in that parable may well be doubted. 'Why should
Mark have thought of detaching it from the context and making
it unintelligible? Generally speaking, a number of detached
sayings, loosely strung together on a thread of a purely external
connection, raises the presumption of originality. Not that the
discourses of Jesus were nothing but a series of apophthegms, but

128 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IV. 21-25
that in many cases only striking details of his speeches were re
membered, and these were subsequently used as stones for a new
structure. No doubt in Holtzmann and elsewhere one can read attempts
to connect 21-25 together, and to relate them all to the special
knowledge ascribed and granted to the disciples in iv. 10. But it
cannot be said that the attempts are very successful or result in
very natural explanations.
If W. is right in his view that ' for ' attempts a connection
where none originally existed, the twenty-fifth verse must be
considered and explained by itself
The adage seems profoundly and sternly true. He who does
not advance falls back. He whose knowledge or goodness is alive
and real necessarily improves in knowledge and goodness; he
whose knowledge or goodness is conventional and sterile has no
real grip upon either knowledge or goodness ; his possessions are
no real possessions, and what he falsely has he will actually lose.
B. Weiss and Holtzmann suppose that Mark means by the
saying, If you attend to the teaching, — to what you hear, — ^your
knowledge will increase and increase ; if you do not attend, you
will soon even forget what you have heard {Quellen, A, p. 143).
There are interesting Rabbinic parallels quoted by Wlinsche,
Neue Beitrdge.
The above argument of W.'s seemed and still seems to me
of cogency. It has, however, been directly met by Bousset
{Theologische Rundschau, 1906, p. 14) in the following way: 21-25
is, he thinks, a very artificial composition with a clearly recognizable
tendency. Mark wants to make Jesus express his astonishment
and pain at the blindness and obduracy of the people, but also his
confidence that his words will not always be misunderstood or
hidden, and his exhortation to the disciples that they at least are
to ' hear ' in the right way. He does this by picking out words
of Jesus and stringing them artificially together. If we compare
Mark with the parallels in Matthew and Luke, it has to be con
fessed about 21 (the lamp and the bushel) that its original
meaning and reference are lost. Matt. v. 1 5 is certainly secondary,
and the connection in Luke xi. 33 seq. is doubtful. But Mark
iv. 22 has a more original place in Matt. x. 26, Luke xii. 2; 24 in
Matt. vii. 2, Luke vi 38 ; and 25 in Matt. xxv. 29, Luke xix. 26.
Mark tore the verses out of their original setting because he
wanted them for his own purposes. And Bousset adds: If the
words of Jesus were first of all reproduced in the arbitrary con
fusion of Mark iv. 21-25, i* is very hard to see how such a large
and well arranged tradition of his words as we find in Q could
have come into being. Who is right — W. or Bousset ?

IV. 26-29] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 129
26-29. ''^he Seed that grows of itself
(Mark only)
26 And he said, ' The kingdom of God is as if a man should cast
27 seed into the ground; and he sleepeth and ariseth, night and day,
and the seed sprouteth and groweth up, he knoweth not how.
28 For of herself the earth bringeth forth her crop ; first the blade,
29 then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. But when the
crop is ready, immediately he sendeth forth the sickle, because the
harvest hath come.'
The situation is the same as iv. i. We now get a fresh
version, as it were, of the parable of the sower.
Another way of looking at the matter would be to hold that
the interpolated section includes 21-25 ^s well as 10-20, and that
with 26 a fresh specimen of Jesus's teaching in parables is given.
Jesus may have used the image of a sower in more than one
way, and Mark or his source may have grouped 1-9 and 26-29
together. For the other view, see the quotation from W. at the
beginning of the chapter. The Kingdom of God is compared to a
process. The seed is sown ; though some of it is wasted, some
is successful. But it needs time ; yet, once sown, the good seed is
bound to ripen and bear its fruit. Jesus preached the Word ; the
perfect Kingdom of God will appear in its season.
Jesus can only do the part given to him by God. He must
not attempt to bring about the Kingdom of God by violence or
storm {cp. Matt. xi. 12). Nor is it for him to tell when precisely
the Judgment and the Kingdom will come. Directly the seed
he has sown has ripened, God will begin his harvest. The quo
tation from Joel iv. 13 in 29 shows that the Judgment is alluded to.
26. If Jesus spoke this parable and the parable of the sower,
can he also have believed that the end would come so quickly,
that the new era had in fact begun ? For in the new era there
is no actual development. On first thoughts it might rather
seem as if the parables sprang from those who saw the young
Christian community before them, and believed that a long and
glorious future lay in front of it. But against this view there
is the difficulty that, as Dr Carpenter says, the early Christians
were all convinced that the end was at hand. Perhaps, then, Jesus
had both ideas in his mind and gave expression to them upon
different occasions, as I have suggested in iv. 17. Dr Carpenter
says : ' I agree ; and in this respect there was, I think, a change.

130 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IV. 26-29
not for the better (from our point of view). Jesus became more
eager, not for his own personal triumph, but for God's, and so he
became more apocalyptic'
29. Srav TrapaSoi 6 Kapjr6<i, ' when the fruit permits,' i.e. is
ripe. In this verse some would argue that another idea seems
to peep out. ' Der Schluss,' W. says, ' schiesst fiber. Durch den
Bauer guckt der Weltrichter hervor, der bier nichts zu tun hat'
Merx, following S.S., would omit the 'straightway' {ev6v<;), where
by, as he thinks, the apocalyptic haste and suddenness are removed.
Much hangs on a word. But the sense which he gives to the verse
is doubtful. What is meant by God 'takes the fruit to him
self when it is ripe ' ? This would bring into the conception of
the growing Kingdom a fresh idea, as if the point of the Kingdom
lay in the gathering of individual souls to heaven, when they had
been perfected upon earth. Loisy maintains that 29 is an essential
part of the parable. The harvest completes the story : it is the
goal of the seed and the sowing. ' Like the husbandman, Jesus
sows the Kingdom by preaching the gospel ; it does not pertain
to him to produce the harvest, that is to say the complete coming
of the Kingdom, and men ought not to be impatient because this
coming is not brought about at once ; that is the business of God,
as the actual and mysterious development of the Kingdom is his
work and his secret ; it is not on that account less certain that
the harvest will arrive without undue delay : for a man sows only
to reap ; at the moment designed by Providence, the sower will
become a reaper. Miracles are not designedly excluded, nor are
the moral conditions of the coming, so far as individuals are con
cerned, the object in view. The parousia is regarded as close at
hand, without any consideration of the death of Christ as an
intermediate condition. Between the time of the sowing, i.e. the
preaching of the gospel, and the time of the harvest, i.e. the
glorious coming of the Messiah, nothing is placed except the work
of germination, the progress of the Word and of faith amongst
men, which depends on God alone. It may be said that the
Kingdom is already on the earth in the grain which is sprouting,
but it is there only in a state of preparation. The full reality of
the Kingdom is the great coming' {E. 8. I. p. 765).
W. has some interesting remarks on the two parables, 1-9 and
26-29. 'In the former parable differences in the value of the
soil are spoken of: here not. There the seed only ripens when the
soil is good ; here it ripens always. There the tone is resigned,
because the outlook is limited to the near foreground ; here the
tone is hopeful, not exactly jubilant, but full of calm confidence,
because the vision is turned towards the distance and contemplates

IV. 26-29] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 131
the whole. The sower can go his way; he has begun a process
which will complete itself and reach its goal without him — in time.
Of course the seed is here, too, the Word ; that from the Word
comes faith, and from the society of the faithful the Kingdom of
God, is a result which lay nearer to the community than to Jesus.
' It is noticeable that neither Matthew nor Luke reproduces
this section. It is hardly possible that it was not found in their
Mark ; for a late insertion it is too original. Perhaps they mistook
its originality, or thought it a mere variant of 2-8 ; or, perhaps,
they could not well conceive Jesus so apart and withdrawn from
his own creation.. . .Rightly, though freely, Goethe understood
the parable : Mein Acker ist die Zeit.'
It is just this sentence of Goethe which seems to me so odd
in the mouth of Jesus. W. is anxious for us to believe that these
more modem conceptions, so removed from the apocalyptic spirit,
which ever believed that the end was imminent, were the thought-
creations of the historical Jesus, or at all events reproduced with
accuracy his own Adews.
Another alternative is possible. It may be, as Loisy thinks,
that 29 is by no means so alien to the rest as W. supposes. It
may be that Jesus gave a less extended meaning to the parable
than we are inclined to do. Even in the parable the full corn arises
and ripens quickly ; so, perhaps, did JeSus think it would be with
the Kingdom of God upon earth.
Menzies rightly says we must not ' be too sure that in this, as
in other parables of growth, Jesus meant to indicate the view that
the Kingdom was to arrive gradually by development, rather than
suddenly by the act of God. The prophetic ministry was to pre
pare the way for that last act. But it was very near at hand ;
it would burst on the world before the disciples had gone over
the cities of Israel. If there was a pause before the final act,
it was not strange ; the same thing happened in the natural world
in the case of the sower.' Pfleiderer thinks much the same. The
point of the sower parable he takes to be that the Kingdom could
only be prepared for by the proclamation and teaching of the good
tidings. How soon precisely the seed would ripen and the harvest
come, God alone knew. There is no idea of a long development
or process, or a gradual improvement of mankind ( Urchristentum, I.
pp. 623, 624).
And Wrede says well : ' It may be allowed therefore that the
subject of development is treated here, but it is not a develop
ment in this world, but a hidden development in the operations
and plans of God, of which man sees nothing. And the Kingdom
does not develope from its beginning to its consummation, so that
at the end it is something different from what it was at the
9—2

132 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IV. 26-29
beginning, but it is the coming of the one and the selfsame Kingdom
which gradually draws near' (Wrede, Vortrdge und Studien, p. 112).
J. Weiss thinks that the parable must be taken in close
connection with the former parable of the sower. It is stiU
the Word with which Jesus is here concerned. As the farmer
sows and then waits, so only can Jesus fulfil his mission : preaching,
collecting, preparing. He cannot force the advent of the Kingdom,
any more than the farmer can force the appearance of the fruit
Many of his adherents probably urged him to take action, but
he speaks with disapproval of those who would seek to obtain
the Kingdom by violence (Matt. xi. 12). The actual bringing
of the Kingdom is not the work of man, and not his work ; it
is God's work ; he (Jesus) has to proclaim that God will rule,
and that man must prepare himself for that rule and make himself
worthy of it.
Jiilicher {Einleitung, 1906, p. 286) thinks that the reason for
the prominence given by Mark to the parable of the sower — why
he chose it, out of the many parables of Jesus which he must
have known, as an example of the Master's teaching — is that
Mark wanted to point out that Jesus had foreseen the cleavage
which his teaching had produced among his people, and that
he had predicted and explained beforehand the slowness of the
progress of his cause. Jesus had not only foreseen everything
which had happened, but he had not even wished things to happen
otherwise. Even at 60 or 70 A.D. the delay in the arrival or
completion of the Kingdom must have seemed a huge delay,
sorely needing explanation, to the believing disciples. What would
they have said to the unarrived or uncompleted Kingdom after
1800 years!
I feel somewhat doubtful as to whether this remarkable parable
was, as Loisy thinks, taken by Mark from Q. But still more
sceptical do I feel towards the theory of B. Weiss that the parable
is only a free adaptation of the parable of the tares in Matt
xiii 24-30 {Quellen, A, p. 134). This seems a strange, almost
perverse idea. On the other hand, the mustard seed parable, now
to follow, may possibly have been taken from Q.

30-34. The Mustard Seed
{Cp. Matt, xiii 31, 32; Luke xiii 18, 19)
30 And he said, ' Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God ?
31 or with what parable shall we represent it ? It is like a grain of
mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than

IV. 30-34] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 133
32 all the seeds that are in the earth. But when it is sown, it
groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and throweth
out great branches : so that the birds of the air can lodge under
the shadow of it.'
33 And with many such parables spake he the Word unto them,
34 as they were able to understand it. And without a parable spake
he not unto them : but when they were alone, he explained every
thing to his disciples.
The mustard seed is the Kingdom as represented by and
existing in the Christian community. From small and lowly
beginnings it is destined to become the greatest thing on earth,
to include all humanity in its embrace. Whether the fulfilment
is to come soon is not stated, but it is, on the other hand, not
imphed that it is far off.
One can imagine that in the humble beginnings of the
Christian community the parable would be encouraging and
suggestive. In this parable the Kingdom — here only in Mark — is not
the Kingdom of the future which on a renovated earth God will
himself establish, it is not the perfected Divine Rule of the new
era, but it is the growing Kingdom as represented by the
Christian community. As W. says, the Kingdom is here 'das
historisch sich entwickelnde, nicht das eschatologische.' And the
seed is not the Word, but the Kingdom. It may therefore be
questioned whether this parable was really spoken by Jesus.
Wrede makes an attempt even in this parable to preserve for
the Kingdom its complete, 'ready made,' and eschatological
character. But the attempt is hardly successful, and he himself
puts it forward somewhat hesitatingly. He supposes that it is
not the Kingdom which grows and spreads, but the circle of
those who are to possess or live under it.
Of the thirteen places in which, in Mark, Jesus speaks of the
Kingdom, this is the only passage where it seems definitely to
mean the growing Christian Church. In i 14, ix. i, 47, x. 23-25,
xiv. 25, its eschatological sense seems clear, iv. il, 26 do not
contradict that sense. For the other three passages, x. 14, 15,
and xii. 34, see the notes ad loc. Loisy also would attempt to
keep the parable for Jesus, It is the coming of the Kingdom,
not the Christian community, which was originally compared to
the quick growing mustard : the parable does not necessarily set
forth the rapid expansion of Christianity, but its object is to
remove the doubt which the humble beginnings of the gospel
might cause as to its fulfilment in the Kingdom {E. S. i. p. 771).

134 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IV. 30-34
But was this doubt one which could have arisen within the year
of Jesus's ministry ? Moreover Jesus did not say that his gospel,
humble in its beginning, would grow or turn into the Kingdom.
He simply announced that the advent of the Kingdom was near,
and that it would suddenly make its appearance.
31. ov. W. points out that ea-ri is really the meaning here.
The participle supplies the place of the finite verb. The mustard
seed is at first the smallest, but as it grows it becomes the largest
of plants. 32. There is a reminiscence of Ezekiel xvii. 23. The Messianic
Kingdom which is here predicted is of the same kind as that of
the old prophets in their larger, quieter, and more universalistic
moods. It is to be a Kingdom of peace and righteousness and
of the knowledge of God. Jesus, we have to remember, takes up
again the wider messages of Isaiah, and even of Ezekiel too, it
may be said, in such momentary phases of his teaching as are
reflected in xvii. 23, where, under the shadow of the Tree of
Israel, all the birds of every wing shall dwell. Cp. also Ezekiel
xxxi 6; Dan. iv. 12, 21.
33 seems to indicate that Jesus used the parable to help his
hearers to understand his meaning. To its author — the earlier
redactor — the parables, though difficult, were nevertheless spoken
to be understood by all who heard them, so far as their capacities
admitted. 34, on the contrary, follows the point of view of verses
10 and II. It is the work of the latest redactor, who thinks
that the object of the parables was to darken or harden the Jews,
and who even forgets that Jesus spoke much to the people not in
parables at all. 35-41. Storm at Sea
{Cp. Matt viii 18, 23-27; Luke viii, 22-25)
35 And the same day, when the even was come, he said unto
36 them, 'Let us cross over unto the other side.' And when they
had dismissed the crowd, they took him, even as he was, in the
37 boat. And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat
38 upon the boat, so that it became full. And he was in the stern of
the boat, asleep on a pillow : and they awoke him, and said unto
39 him, ' Master, carest thou not that we perish?' And he arose, and
rebuked the wind, and said [unto the sea], ' Peace, be still.' And

IV. 35-41] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 135
40 the wind dropped, and there was a great calm. And he said unto
41 them, ' Why are ye so fearful ? have ye still no faith ? ' And they
feared exceedingly, and said one to another, ' Who is this man,
that even the wind and the sea obey him?'
B. Weiss supposes that there was a storm story in Q from
which Mark borrowed, and which he expanded. He cannot, I think,,
be said to have proved his case {Quellen, A, pp. 166-169). Loisy
thinks that the storm story, the Gadarene swine story, and the
daughter of Jairus story, were already combined in this order in
Mark's other ' narrative source,' and that Matthew may have known
and used this source as well as Mark {E. 8. 1, pp. 89, 108, 125).
35. It is not explained what the motive was for this departure
to the other side of the lake. Was it to gain some repose or to
carry the tidings to other centres ? On the other side of the
lake there were indeed many Jews, but they dwelt amid a large
number of pagans.
36. Jesus is still in the boat. The disciples ' take him with
them,' just as he was, without further preparation. These words,
however, are due to the redactor. Originally the story must have
meant to imply that Jesus was on land, and that he determined
to cross over to the other side of the lake. ' They take him with
them ' is an odd phrase, if Jesus is already with them in the boat ;
'as he was' is added to mask the difficulty.
The remark that there were other boats present too has no
bearing upon the story, and may therefore point to a real historic
tradition. 39. Codex Bezae (D) omits 'the sea,' W. thinks, rightly.
For it is the wind which is regarded as a spirit, not the sea.
41. Was Jesus justified in charging them with want of faith?
Hardly, I think. It may be said that a man in a storm at sea
should not be afraid, because he should not fear death, but it
cannot be said that faith in God will of itself prevent the wreck
of the ship and the death of the passengers. Faith should make
one willing either to die or to live. It cannot prevent death.
Dr Carpenter writes dissenting. 'The want of courage is
traced to lack of faith, with the implication that the man who
feels himself in God's hands will not be afraid of shipwreck or
death or anything. He can meet catastrophe calmly.' So too
Menzies. But I think this is too modern. The narrator clearly
meant that they should have faith that God would not suffer them
to perish.

136 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IV. 35-41
Wellhausen has an interesting note on the relation of this
story to the story of Jonah. But I think he underestimates the
importance of the Old Testament stories and characters in the
gradual manufacture (on a real historical basis) of the life of
Jesus as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. This, however, is
the note, and my readers may judge for themselves :
' That he sleeps during a storm at sea is a trait which Jesus
shared with Jonah, but otherwise there is no similarity. Our
story is not the echo of the story of Jonah. And in general the
notion that the Gospel stories owe their origin to Old Testament
types is seldom true; it is usually the opposite of the truth,
What was known and reported about Jesus did not agree with
"what is said in the Old Testament about the Messiah or with what'
the Jews expected of him; it had to be proved with difficulty
that, to the eyes of the initiated, the contradiction disappears.
The "original Old Testament Gospel," as Credner called it, is
really something additional, and not the kernel of the whole ; in
Mark it is almost wholly wanting; it is most apparent, and occupies
most space, in Matthew.'
If we read the Jonah story in the Greek version, it seems
impossible to doubt that it has influenced the story in Mark.
Cp. Schmidt, 'Die Komposition des Buches Jona,' in Zeitschrift
der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft, 1905, p. 298. Yet it is con
ceivable, as J. Weiss earnestly argues, that the story may have
a historical basis. Jesus sleeps during a storm. The disciples
in their fear wake him up. He rebukes them; the wind soon
drops. Here were the historic materials at hand for a miraculous
tale. Loisy takes much the same line {E. 8. I. p. 798)

CHAPTER V
1-20. The Gadarene Swine
{Cp. Matt, viii 28-34 ; Luke viii. 26-39)

I And they came unto the other side of the lake, to the country
2 of the Gadarenes. And as he landed from the boat, immediately
there met him [out of the tombs] a man with an unclean spirit,
3 who dwelt among the tombs. And nobody had been able to bind
4 him even with a chain : for he had been often bound with fetters
and chains, but the chains had been torn asunder by him, and the
fetters broken in pieces : and no one was strong enough to subdue
5 him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains and

V. i-2o] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 1 37
6 in the tombs, shrieking, and cutting himself with stones. But
7 when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and fell down before him, and
cried with a loud voice, and said, ' What have I to do with thee,
Jesus, thou Son of the most high God ? I adjure thee by God,
8 that thou torment me not.' (For Jesus had said unto him, 'Come
9 out of the man, thou unclean spirit.') And Jesus asked him,
'What is thy name?' And he answered, saying, 'My name is
10 Legion : for we are many.' And he besought him much that he
II would not send them away out of the land. Now there was there
12 upon the mountain a great herd of swine feeding. And they
besought him, saying, 'Send us into the swine, that we may
13 enter into them.' And Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean
spirits went out, and entered into the swine : and the herd rushed
down the cliff into the lake, (they were about two thousand) ; and
14 they were drowned in the lake. And the swineherds fled, and
told the story in the city and in the country. And the people
15 came out to see what had happened. And they came to Jesus, and
saw him that was possessed with the demon, sitting down, clothed
16 and in his right mind : and they were afraid. And the eye
witnesses told them what had happened to him that was possessed
17 with the demon, and also about the swine. And they began to
18 entreat him to depart out of their territory. And as he was
getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed with the
19 demon entreated him that he might go with him. Howbeit Jesus
permitted him not, but said unto him, ' Go home to thine own
people, and teU them what great things the Lord has done for
20 thee, and how he has had compassion upon thee.' And he de
parted, and began to proclaim publicly in the Ten Cities what
great things Jesus had done for him : and all were amazed.
A strange story! It is wonderful, observes W., that this
folk-tale {dieser Schwank) should have been attributed to Jesus.
It must have had an independent origin. 'II ressemble a un
gros conte populaire' {E. 8. i. p. 799).
It is perhaps enough to mention here that B. Weiss supposes
that this tale also formed part of Q, and that the short form which
it assumes in Matthew is not an abbreviation of Mark, but in the
main a reproduction of Q. Mark has expanded. Loisy more
cautiously confines himself to saying : ' La sobri^t^ du r^cit [of

138 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [V. 1-20
Matthew] pourrait tenir en partie k ce que Matthieu a connu la
source dont Marc lui-m^me depend ' {E. 8. i. p. 125).
I. ' There are three forms of the name of the people with
whom Jesus is now brought into contact. Matthew has Ga
darenes, Luke in many good MSS. has Gergesenes. But Gardara,
the capital of Persea, is at a distance from the Sea (Lake) of
Galilee ; and the Gergesenes, if the name is connected with a
tribe of Girgashites (Genesis x. 16), were west of the Jordan.
In Mark, and also in Luke, the reading Gerasenes ia best sup
ported. It cannot refer to the town Gerasa, on the frontier of
Persea, which is about thirty miles from the southern end of the
Sea of Galilee. Modern research has discovered a place called
Gersa or Khersa, on the east side of that sea, which satisfies the
requirements of our passage, there being a steep slope from
the high ground into the lake' (Menzies). The inhabitants
on the east side of the lake were mixed. There were many
pagans as well as Jews. Hence the herd of swine.
2. The ' possessed ' person is, in this case, a violent madman.
He is represented as dwelling among the tombs, inasmuch as he
avoids all human intercourse, and partly because the popular
belief was that demons liked to haunt cemeteries.
8 is retrospective. ' For Jesus had said to him,' &c.
9. As the unclean spirit is to go into a herd of pigs, there
must be more than one spirit. This verse makes and explains
the transition from the singular to the plural. Perhaps Jesus
asks for the name, because, in the popular idea, in order to lay
a spirit effectually, it is desirable or even necessary to know its
name. It was also part of the popular belief that demons live in
herds of beasts, and that a whole number of them can reside in a
human body. A demon does not like to mention his name ; perhaps
he avoids it also here, and gives his number instead (W.).
10. The unclean spirits do not want to go back to their own
place (the desert or hell) ; they can easily change the human or
animal body in which they have taken up their abode.
13, 14. The spirits are disappointed. Their wish is granted,
and yet they are dispossessed of their chosen new home. The
unclean pigs are drowned, and their heathen owners lose 2000
beasts. These incidents are perhaps part of a popular Jewish
tale, unconnected originally with the life of Jesus.
In his book, Das dlteste Evangelium (p. 1 88) J. Weiss tried hard
to argue that the story is historical, and not even disagreeable to

V. 1-20] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 139
those who can see a little deeper. The pigs were frightened by
the man's raging ; he rushed at them in his final paroxysm ; they
ran in their fright over the cliff. The man had a sort of idde fixe
that the demons inside him wanted to get into the pigs. These
elaborate attempts do not seem to me very successful. In Weiss's
later commentary on the Gospels the notion that the man had a
fixed idea that the demons desired to leave him and enter the pigs
seems to have been wisely dropped. The best remarks on the
origin, growth, and meaning of the story are to be found in
Carpenter's First Three Gospels, pp. 166-169.
17. They ask him to leave partly, perhaps, because they do
not wish to lose any more property, partly because the presence
of so powerful a miracle-worker makes them afraid.
We are to gather that they are not Jews, but pagans. Whether
the man who is cured is a Jew or not is uncertain. Jesus carries
out their wishes and returns to the Capernaum side of the lake.
Have we here a sort of veiling of the fact that this attempt at
preaching the Kingdom on the other side of the lake was for
some reason or other a failure or that Jesus had to return ? Loisy
says : ' Les evangelistes ont ^vite de mettre cet echec en relief, et
Jesus lui-m^me a pu se rendre compte, en voyant cette population
qui ^tait en partie paienne, que le terrain n'etait nullement
prepare' {E. 8. i. p. 796).
19. Jesus refuses to allow the man to become one of his
disciples ; he does not desire to have a stranger among his own
immediate followers. At any rate, whatever the reason, he bids
him go home and tell his family what the Lord (here meaning
God) has done for him. If the man was a pagan, this might
mean that he was to convert his family to the knowledge of the
one true God, the Lord (Jehovah, Yahweh).
It is generally supposed that this bidding of Jesus constitutes
an exception to the usual command of secrecy and silence. It is,
however, doubtful whether it is so, for the man is only bidden
to tell h\s family. He is to keep within the privacy of his house,
whereas, instead, he publishes the wonderful cure all over the
Decapolis, but Jesus had not suggested or ordered this. On
the contrary, the words of the order look rather as if he wished
the man to keep among his own household. The order, there
fore, is probably no exception to the rule. Cp. viii. 26. On the
opposite hypothesis we can adopt some such explanation, for
example, as Gould's, who supposes that as the place was ' rarely
visited ' by Jews, and as Jesus now had to leave it, the publication
of the story could only do good. Here were no enemies to mis
understand; no injudicious friends; no people to be blinded by

140 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [V. i-zo
miracles to spiritual work. No false conception of the Messiah
would be aroused as in Galilee. Or, again, if there is an exception,
it may be that Mark has here forgotten his theory.
20. ' Decapohs, the ten city district, is the name applied to
the cities, east of the Jordan, liberated by Pompey from Jewish
rule, which united in the ten city alliance. These cities had been
Hellenistic since the Syrian conquest, had been conquered and
subjected to Jewish rule by the Maccabees, and were finally
liberated by Pompey' (Gould).
As the highest portions of the Synoptic Gospels excel the
average teachings of the prophets, so the lowest portions fall
beneath them. How pure and free the prophets are from the
superstitious ideas about demons and demoniac possession to
which Jesus, like many others of his time, was a victim !

21-43. The Daughter of Jairus and the Woman
WITH AN Issue
{Cp. Matt. ix. 18-26; Luke viii 40-56)
21 And when Jesus had crossed over again in the boat unto the
other side, a great crowd gathered unto him, and stood by the
22 edge of the lake. And, behold, there came one of the rulers of
the synagogue, Jairus by name ; and when he saw him, he fell at
23 his feet, and besought him greatly, saying, 'My little daughter lies
at the point of death : come and lay thy hands on her, that she
may be healed, and may live.'
24 And Jesus went with him ; and a great crowd followed him,
25 and pressed around him. And a woman, who had had an issue
26 of blood twelve years, and had suffered much from many physicians,
and had spent all her fortune, and was not benefited, but rather
27 grew worse, having heard the tales about Jesus, came up in the
28 crowd, and touched his garment from behind. For she thought,
29 ' If I only touch his clothes, I shall be cured.' And straightway
the source of her issue dried up ; and she felt in her body that
30 she was healed of her affiiction. And Jesus, realizing immediately
that power had gone out of him, turned round in the crowd, and
31 said, 'Who touched my clothes?' And his disciples said unto him,
'Thou seest the crowd pressing around thee, and thou sayest.

V. 21-43] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 141
32 Who touched me?' And he looked round to see who it was that
33 had done it. But the woman, fearing and trembling — for she
knew what had befallen her — came and fell down before him, and
34 told him all the truth. But he said unto her, ' Daughter, thy
faith has cured thee ; go in peace, and be healed of thy affliction.'
35 While he yet spake, there came some men from the ruler of
the synagogue's house, and said, ' Thy daughter is dead : why
36 troublest thou the Master any further ?' But Jesus overheard the
word that was spoken, and said unto the ruler of the synagogue,
37 'Be not afraid; have but faith.' And he allowed no man to go
on with him, except Peter, and James, and John the brother of
38 James. And they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue,
39 and he heard an uproar, for they wept and wailed loudly. And
when he had entered in, he said unto them, ' Why make ye this
40 uproar, and weep ? the child is not dead, but sleeps.' And they
laughed him to scorn. But he drove them all out, and took with
him only the father and the mother of the child, and his com-
41 panions, and entered in where the child was lying. And he took
the hand of the child, and said unto her, ' Talitha cumi ' ; which
42 is, being interpreted, 'Maiden, I say unto thee, arise.' And
straightway the girl arose, and walked ; for she was twelve years
old. And they were utterly beside themselves with amazement.
43 And he strictly ordered them that no man should know it ; and
he said that something should be given her to eat.
How well these stories are told ! The vivid touches are mostly
omitted by Matthew {e.g. 26, how the woman had seen many
doctors and been put to much expense).
There is a certain inimitable touch of sarcasm at the pompous
and noisy lamentations (38) for the girl who was not, after all,
really dead.
What are we to regard as the basis of this story ? Did it
happen ? Was the girl really not dead ? Was it a case of
apparent death only ? This is the best hypothesis. But, if so,
how did Jesus realize this before he had seen the girl ? Per
haps the story has been expanded from a simpler and more
natural original. The tales of Elijah and Elisha may also have
been of influence in shaping the story as we now find it. Note
the charming touch at the end : ' He bade them give her some
thing to eat.' This may also point to the child having been in

142 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [V. 21-43
some sort of faint. Loisy thinks the motive of the order is the
same as that of the order for silence. The child is not to be
treated as a resurrected being. Her parents are to act as if
(which is the case) she had woke up after a long sleep, when she
would naturally need some food.
M. Loisy tries his best to deal with the story as if, in Mark at
any rate, we had to do with a most accurately reported tale. And
I think that, upon the whole, this is a reasonable line for a
commentator to take. Let him, at all events in the first instance,
do his best with the narrative before him. The order for silence
at the end M. Loisy, here as elsewhere, seeks to set in the best
possible historical relief See below on verse 43. But finally the
difficulties seem to surge up against him, and he adds : ' It must
be confessed that some difficulty is caused to the historian by the
direction to keep silence, which, in spite of the explanations pre
viously given, is not natural, and tends to throw suspicion on
the reality of the event. After the transfiguration, the same
direction will be met again, addressed to the same disciples:
and it will further be observed, from the criticism of the other
narratives in which Peter, James, and John appear, that the
mention of the three apostles is not a guarantee of historicity.
A tradition, the subject of which is the miracles of Jesus, is in
evitably legendary. All that can be said about the healing of the
woman with an issue and the raising of Jairus's daughter is that
they are probably not myths, and that they proceed from real
incidents' {E. 8. 1. p. 826).
In 36 the words ' Fear not ; only believe,' have a wonderfully
solemn and beautiful effect. Whether such a faith was reasonable
need not here be discussed. It could not lightly or easily be
answered. The whole story is told with consummate art.
Note that here only we find a story within a story. {Cp.,
however, iii. 20.) The interval and necessary pause between the
departure of Jesus to see the dying girl and his arrival at the
house are admirably filled up by the incident of the woman with
the issue.
28. ' The woman seeks to be cured in this surreptitious way
because of her uncleanness ' (Gould).

29. 'larai. The perfect passive. 'The conviction
through her mind : I have received a permanent cure ' (Swete).
34. 'Thy faith has cured thee.' 'In x. 52 this is apparently
to be taken literally, but after the words about the power issuing
from Jesus (30), it can only mean here that her faith has led her
to the true agency of cure ' (Menzies).

V. 21-43] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 143
J. Weiss points out that if the story is historical, the cure
could only have been due to what he calls ' auto-suggestion.' The
excitement and faith of the woman cause the blood to cease
flowing. But then the explanation of Mark, and Jesus's feeling
that 'power' had gone out of him, must be abandoned. Pro£
Bennett is very clever in trying to put the miraculous or semi-
miraculous incidents in such a way that (a) they become more
credible, and (6) that they redound to the unique greatness of
his hero. Thus here he says: 'He was sensitive to influences
which did not affect others. In this incident He distinguished
the woman's timid touch amid the pressure of the jostling crowd,
as a mother, even in her sleep, singles out her infant's feeble cry
from a babel of loud noises. There was, so to speak, an emotional
circuit set up between Him and her, so that He felt the shock
of her importunate demand for healing and the immediate drain
upon His mysterious forces. By such an experience even He was
startled ' {op. eit. p. 77).
36. trapaKovaa'i. The meaning is not quite certain. It may
mean simply ' overheard.' On the basis of the usage of the word
in the Septuagint, Swete explains that Jesus heard, but heeded
not. He spoke as if he had not heard, passed the words by in
silence, aud followed his own course.
39. ' She is not dead, but sleeps.' Jesus says this before he
has seen the child. He is still sure that she is not really dead.
Jesus himself does not believe that he is going to perform the
miracle of bringing the dead to life. From first to last he is
convinced that the child is not dead. Prof. Bennett has a good
remark here from his own special point of view. He says : ' Jesus
had set out for Jairus's house in the assured conviction that He
was going to heal the child ; the news of her death seemed in
credible because He was not conscious of any power or commission
to raise the dead. So that if they were right. His conviction that
He was going to heal the child was a mistake. That was im
possible, therefore He knew that she was not dead. This view
may have been confirmed to Him by some mysterious intuition,
such as that by which He was made aware of the woman's touch
and its meaning ' (p. 72>).
J. Weiss has good remarks upon the amazing faith of Jesus.
If, as he says, the story is not a mere legend, it can only be
explained upon the strength of this faith, which other stories
equally reveal. This faith was a fundamental feature of his
character, which can neither be explained nor described; one
may approve of it or not, it has to be recognized. His faith
was a sort of inspiration, which overcame him with overmastering

144 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [V, 21-43
power. So far as we know, this faith during the period of his
brief ministry did not play him false, except perhaps at Nazareth.
Whether xv. 34 means a disappointment of faith is disputed.
43. The order for concealment is hard to credit here. How
could Jesus have imagined that it could be obeyed ? Moreover,
there was the child alive whom everybody had supposed to be
dead. The order is, one may suppose, merely inserted by Mark
in accordance with his general theory. Perhaps it is fair to give
Loisy's defence of the prohibition. 'If Jesus forbids them to
relate what has happened, it is in order that there may be no
talk about the miracle, and that it may not be announced as
a resurrection. Let who will say that the child was not quite
dead ; no one is to contradict it. Jesus is not desirous that people
should believe that he has come to raise the dead, as he heals the
sick, and he fears lest the fame of such an extraordinary prodigy
should excite an untimely movement in public opinion. A con
siderable number of persons had heard that the daughter of Jairus
was dead, but only a few had entered the child's room, and what
Jesus himself had said might have aided the belief that she had
only swooned. If the parents did not speak and Jesus was absent,
soon nothing more would be thought of the matter' {E. S. I.
p. 825). As with the preceding story, so here too it is disputed whether
Mark has expanded from Q, or whether Matthew has contracted
from Mark. The most interesting point comes in as regards verse 30.
W., who, of course, holds that Mark did not know Q, thinks that
Matthew omitted this part of Mark's story because it was distasteful
to him. B. Weiss, on the contrary, thinks that in the original
story, as (in his opinion) it was found and read by Mark in Q, this
' material ' explanation of the miracle was wanting. If Matt. ix. 21
was in Q and not merely taken from Mark v. 28, it was only the
woman who (wrongly) thought that to be cured she must touch
Jesus's dress. What really cured her was her faith and her faith
only, even as Jesus says in Matt. ix. 22, Mark v. 34. Loisy,
though he leaves the question open whether the source of Mark
was known to Matthew, nevertheless thinks that Mark is here
more original than Matthew. The words, 'thy faith has healed
thee,' really presuppose ' that the miracle has been accomplished
without Jesus having intended it.' The healing was prior to
Jesus's utterance, and not after it or at the same time with it.
The traits which Matthew suppresses are just those which plead
for the historicity of the story {E. 8. I. p. 818).

VL 1-6] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 14S
CHAPTER VI
1-6. The Cold Reception of Jesus at Nazareth
{Cp. Matt. xiii. 53-58; Luke iv. 16-30)
I And he went out from thence, and entered into his native
2 city ; and his disciples followed him. And when the sabbath day
was come, he began to teach in the synagogue : and many, hearing
him, were astonished, saying, ' Whence has this come to him ?
what wisdom is this which has been given unto him ? and have
3 such miracles been wrought by his hands ? Is he not the
carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and
Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?' And
4 they took offence at him. But Jesus said unto them, ' A prophet
is not without honour, except in his own city, and among his
5 kin, and in his house.' And he could not perform there a single
miracle, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and
6 healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. So he
went about the villages around, teaching.
I. Jesus now attempts another missionary enterprise. He
will essay to preach the tidings in his own native village. But
for different reasons his venture at Nazareth is as much a failure
as his venture on the other side of the lake.
2, 3. There seems some little confusion in the narrative.
What his fellow townsmen say about him must refer, at least
partially, to his reputation, for he did no wonders at Nazareth.
'To be astonished at' is elsewhere used as nearly equivalent to
wonder and admiration. But the men of Nazareth, on the contrary,
cannot see anything so very wonderful in his teaching.
It is, however, quite possible that what the Evangelist means
to suggest is that they were half amazed, half annoyed. They
are half inclined to marvel and believe, but this very half-belief
makes them the more irritated and incredulous. His teaching
seems very wise ; but yet how could this man, whose family they
know so well — just ordinary people — say such wise things ? He
was no Rabbi by profession, and had not frequented any Rabbinic
school. It is impossible. This seems time to human nature. They
do not want to believe. If Jesus were a veritable prophet, it

146 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VI. 1-6
would be annoying. 'We are as good as he, but we could not
teach as he does, and we could not do the wonders which he is
said to have done. Therefore, after all, his teaching is not wise,
and he did not do the wonders ! '
3. The 'carpenter, the son of Mary' in Mark as compared
with the 'son of the carpenter' in Matt, xiii 55 and 'son
of Joseph' in Luke iv. 22, is very noteworthy. Perhaps, as
J. Weiss argues, it rests upon a later manipulation of the text.
The Mark which Matthew and Luke knew probably had a reading
more like theirs. Why should they have changed it ? Indeed,
Merx points out that there is good evidence, drawn from the
Armenian and a MS. of the old Latin translation, that the earliest
form was ' the son of the carpenter Joseph and of Mary.' In his
text Loisy defends the accuracy and priority of the reading in Mark
(as we have it now) as against the reading of Matthew and Luke,
but in a footnote {E. S. i. p. 833, n. 6) he turns round and is inchned
to accept Merx's suggestion.
5. This strong expression, ' He could do no wonder there,'
is only found in Mark. To perform his miracles Jesus usually
needed a predisposition of faith, and a certain excited expectation
of success. The few healings are apparently not regarded by the
narrator as miracles. Did Jesus try and fail ? Prof Bennett seeks
to avoid this conclusion. He says Jesus did not try. For (a) his
fellow townsmen did not believe he could succeed (and therefore,
I suppose, brought no difficult cases to him), and {b) he himself
did not feel the spiritual impulse which moved him to undertake
miracles, and assured him of power to perform them (p. 82).
Holtzmann, on the contrary, holds that Jesus tried and failed.
The greater the evidence for the historical character of Mark's
narrative: 'It makes a deep impression of historical accuracy
(verse 5) when we hear how in the face of such unbelief, even
Jesus's power to perform miracles fails. It became exhausted, as
soon as the indispensable conditions which call out his conscious
ness of power are wanting' (Holtzmann, in loc). Loisy seems
inclined to agree. ' If he were unable to perform miracles in his
own country, it was not owing to a momentary failure of power,
but to lack of faith in those on whom this power might have been
exercised. A few sick people only had confidence enough to be
healed. However the mention of these cures looks like a rectifying
gloss, which the compiler has added to a narrative which included
no miracle ' {E. 8. I. p. 837).

VI. 7-13] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 147

7-13. The Sending of the Twelve
{Cp. Matt ix. 35-38, X. I, 5-16, xi i ; Luke ix. 1-6, x. 1-12,
xiii 22)
7 And he called unto him the Twelve, and began to send them
forth by two and two; and he gave them power over unclean
8 spirits ; and he commanded them that they should take nothing
for their journey, save a staff only ; no bread, no wallet, no money
9 in their purse. They were only to be shod with sandals; and
10 they were not to put on two coats. And he said unto them,
' Wheresoever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart
II thence. And whatever place will not receive you, nor hear you,
depart thence, and shake off the dust under your feet, as a
12 testimony against them.' And they went forth, and preached
13 that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and
anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.
Jesus is not daunted by his failure at Nazareth. He proceeds
to the ' villages round about,' and sets forth his teaching to thefr
inhabitants. Of what happens there, and how he fared, we are
told nothing. The narrative passes on to quite different matters.
We are informed that Jesus determines to make his chosen
disciples partners in his work. It is too large for one man. The
Great Day might dawn, the Kingdom might come, and how few
Israelites — even in Galilee — would have had an opportunity to
repent and be saved. Therefore let six small companies traverse
through the land, warning and healing. Was the mission of the
Twelve also due to the growing difficulties and opposition which
Jesus had experienced ? So thinks Loisy, who, with B. Weiss, also
maintains that Mark drew this section from the same source (Q)
whence Matthew and Luke take their longer speeches to the
disciples. ' Visiblement emprunt^ a une relation plus complete,'
he says in the Introduction {E. 8. p. 89). In the Commentary he is
slightly more cautious. Thus he says : ' After the first difficulties
which the Pharisees threw in his way, and above all in the presence
of the popular movement which increased around him, Jesus had
chosen the twelve apostles ; henceforward he usually had them
with him, and he prepared them to help him ; lastly, having ex
perienced the hostility of the Pharisees and of the Gerasenes, the
indifference and coldness of his fellow-citizens and his relatives, he
10 — 2

148 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VI. 7-13
decided to associate his disciples with his work of evangelisation.
The selection and the mission are two correlative facts, and as it
were two outstanding points in the general plan of the second
Gospel. The editor seems to attach more importance to the
mission even than to the instruction which is connected with it, for
he evidently abridges the latter, and it is difficult to believe that
he is not depending on a written source in which the mission
serves as a motive for a discourse of considerable length, as in
Matthew. This source must be that on which Matthew draws
himself, and whence also comes the speech which in Luke is
addressed to the seventy-two disciples ' {E. 8. L p. 856).
On the other hand, we have W. regarding the section as a
later insertion ('ein dem Grundplan fremdes Zwischenstiick'), and,
moreover, as entirely unhistorical. Thus he writes about both
iii. 13-19 and vi 7-13 : 'They contain no historic traditions. The
order of the apostles {das Apostolat) is (thus early) founded by
Jesus, but nevertheless no practical results ensue. The twelve
make an experiment, and are afterwards just as dependent and
passive as before, although the experiment is supposed to succeed.
In truth, Jesus arranged no trial journeys for his " seminary."
But, as witness and evidence for the manner of the oldest Cliristian
mission in Palestine, these instructions have great value.' J. Weiss
thinks that to question the historical character of Jesus sending
out his disciples upon missionary work in his lifetime is unnecessary
hypercriticism. Why should he not have done so ? The possible
harvest was great ; his own opportunities and powers were limited ;
the Great Day, which would bring the Kingdom, was near at hand.
The setting and the instructions may belong to a subsequent
generation. 7. ' He gave them power over the unclean spirits.' This is
enlarged in Matt. xi. by the addition ' and to cure every malady and
sickness.' What are we to suppose that Mark meant by this,
and is the assertion historical ? Neither question is easy to
answer. I cannot help feeling exceedingly dubious as to its
historical character. That Jesus felt that he had been given
power by God to expel demons is likely enough. But that he
felt that he could delegate or pass on this power, seems far less
probable. Was it not a power to be won from God by faith
rather than handed on as by magic? For how can we assign
any meaning to what Jesus is here said to do, except one which
is at least semi-magical {cp. Acts viii. 15-19, xix. 6 referred to
by Holtzmann). If they were to expel and cure by invoking the
name of Jesus (as Loisy thinks, cp. ix. 38), what is this but naked
supernatuialism or magic ? But this does not seem in keeping

VI. 7-13] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 149
with the character of Jesus. It may be noted that B. Weiss
supposes that Jesus really only gave the apostles power to heal
sicknesses. This was all that Q mentioned as we still can see in
Luke X. 9. It is Mark who added (unhistorically) the expulsion
of demons. B. Weiss thinks that Luke x. 17 is a proof of his
suggestion. 'Even (or also) the demons were subject to us in thy
name.' They are quite astonished at this; it was unexpected,
and beyond the powers which had been originally entrusted to
them {Quellen, A, pp. 1 24-1 31).
8. The apostles are to take no luggage or provisions with
them : even their attire is to be most simple ; one coat must suffice.
Not even copper money are they to carry.
II. TOTTO?, says W., means here no more than house. But
this does not seem necessary. It may refer to a locality in which
no friendly house is found. Bousset holds that Mark has repro
duced his original (Q) unclearly. The point is that in each place
(totto?) the apostles are to choose one house and stick to it. ' For
a testimony unto them ' : i.e. to indicate to them that all intercourse
with them is utterly cut off. No attempt is to be made to convert
the unwilling. He who will not hear must be left to his fate.
There is no time for delay. Before the Kingdom has fully come
there is ever so much still to do. B. Weiss affirms with his usual
emphatic positiveness (one cannot help wishing that all was really
so ' offenbar ' and ' unwiderleglich ' in the Synoptic Gospels as this
venerable and distinguished scholar supposes) that what Luke has
in X. 1 1 (Q) is primitive as compared with Mark vi. 1 1. A symbolic
speech has been turned by Mark into a symbolic act. Holtzmann
is inclined to agree. Loisy thinks the explanation is different.
Luke's ' symbolic speech ' is due to conveniences of redaction, so
that he may not have to repeat textually what he had already
said in ix. 5. For the whole passage, cp. Acts xiii. 51.
12. Repentance is the main burden of the original message
of Jesus, in accordance with Mark i 14. The new era is hard at
hand ; it has, indeed, already begun. 'They who would reap good
from it and not evil must repent of their sins.
13. Anointing with oil is only here mentioned in the Gospels.
Cp. James v. 14.
M. Loisy observes: 'Although such anointings were of frequent
use in ancient medicine, the reference here is not to a purely medical
prescription, since it is presumed that the cures are miraculous.
On the other hand, the oil cannot be regarded as merely a symbol
of the supernatural power of the apostles, for it forms a real means

I50 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VL 7-13
by which the healing is achieved. In that age and in that environ
ment, the idea of purely natural medicine did not exist, and the
art of healing was more or less confused with magic, the remedies
being charms. The anointing of which Mark speaks partakes at
once of the nature of a religious rite, as the exorcisna by which
the demons are driven out, in so far as a divine virtue is supposed
to be attached to it, and of a remedy, in so far as real efficacy in
healing was attributed to the element itself {E. 8. l. p. 901).
'Apostolic ' poverty was a new thing in Judaism. The praise
and worship of poverty may not be the highest righteousness and
verity, but yet they constitute a wonderful phase of human good
ness, a wonderful chapter in the history of man. Doubtless they
wrought evil as well as good ; but without them, without such
gospel passages as these, there would have been no St Francis.
And surely the world would be much poorer without the Sacrum
Commercium and the Fioretti, and poorer still without the life,
personality, and example of St Francis himself. See also Ad
ditional Note 16.

14-29. Jesus, Herod Antipas, and John the Baptist
{Cp. Matt. xiv. 1-12; Luke ix. 7-9, iii 19, 20)
14 And king Herod heard of him : for his name became known.
And some said, 'John the Baptist is risen from the dead, and
15 therefore miraculous powers are active in him.' Others said, 'It
is Elijah.' And others said, 'He is a prophet, like one of the
16 prophets.' But when Herod heard of him, he said, ' John, whom
I beheaded, is risen from the dead.'
17 For Herod himself had sent and seized John, and bound him
in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife : for he
18 had married her. For John had said unto Herod, ' It is not
19 lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.' Therefore Herodias
20 hated him, and would have killed him, but she could not : for
Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy
man, and he protected him ; and when he heard him, he was much
21 perplexed, and yet he heard him gladly. Now on an opportune
day, when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet to his lords and
22 high captains, and to the chief men of Galilee, the daughter of
Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and his guests.
And the king said unto the damsel, ' Ask of me whatsoever thou

VL 14-29] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 15 1
23 wilt, and I will give it thee.' And he sware unto her, ' What
soever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, even unto the
24 half of my kingdom.' And she went forth, and said unto her
mother, ' What shall I ask ? ' And she said, ' The head of John
25 the Baptist.' And she went in straightway with haste unto the
king, and asked, saying, ' I wish that thou give me forthwith the
26 head of John the Baptist on a dish.' And the king was exceeding
sorry ; yet on account of his oath, and on account of his guests,
27 he did not like to refuse her. So the king at once sent an
executioner, and ordered him to bring John's head : and he went,
28 and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head on a dish,
and gave it to the damsel: and the damsel gave it to her mother.
29 And when his disciples heard of it, they came and took away his
corpse, and buried it in a tomb.
With this section begins, according to W., the first portion of
the second main division of Mark, which first portion goes down
to viii. 26, and is named by W., ' Jesus auf unsteter Wanderung.'
The section before us now, 14-29, is intended, in the present
form of Mark, 'to occupy the attention of the reader' (to use
Loisy's words) between the departure of the Twelve and their
return, in verse 30. It is, as he says, a ' veritable hors-d'oeuvre
qui pourrait avoir 6t6 substitu^ deliber^ment a quelque indication
touchant I'attitude hostile que le t^trarque avait prise a regard
de Jesus ' {E. 8. i. p. 90). Loisy has here accepted as probable
the views of W. 'That scholar holds that this part of Mark has
been much touched up and altered by a late redaction. The real
connection of events was darkened. In our present text, 14-29
is only used to fill up the interval between the sending out of the
apostles and their return. Herod cannot originally have merely
served to fill this gap. Nor can he have been dragged in merely
to give an opportunity for telling the story about the Baptist's
death. Herod must have belonged to the proper connection of
events ; his appearance at this juncture in the story of Jesus must
have had some point and importance.
Now in vi. 45 Mark makes Jesus leave the territory of Herod,
and go on to ground where Herod had nothing to say ; he appears
in the Decapolis, in the territory of Philip, and in the neighbour
hood of Tyre and Sidon ; afterwards he passes through Galilee,
but secretly (ix. 30), and only on the way to Jerusalem.
According to the oldest tradition the reason for all this must
have been his fear of Herod Antipas. And therefore Herod's

152 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VI. 14-29
'hearing' of Jesus stands at (and forms) a turning-point in
Jesus's life.
Thus W. conjectures that 14-16 must originally have ended
"with an indication of danger, a threat at Jesus's life. Why is
this now omitted? The answer can be elicited from Luke xiii 31.
There Jesus is advised to depart, because ' Herod would fain kill
thee.' He answers that he must indeed soon depart, not because
of Herod, but because he must die in Jerusalem and not elsewhere.
Clearly it was not liked that the motive of Jesus's departure from
Galilee should be his fear of Herod. Hence it was desired to
cancel the hostility of Antipas against John and Jesus altogether,
and to turn the villain into a good man. In Mark (17-29) he
likes to listen to John, and is miserable that he cannot save his
life. The guilt of his execution is, as far as may be, removed
from him and assigned to Herodias. In Luke xxiii. 15 he says
that Jesus is guiltless. And whereas in Luke xiii. 31 he wants
to kill him, in Luke ix. 9 he desires to see him.
14. He ' heard.' What did he hear ? It is usually said that
he heard about the despatch of the apostles. W., however (like
Matthew and Luke), thinks differently. There is no real con
nection between 7-13 and 14-29. What Herod ' heard ' was about
Jesus himself, not about the apostles. He heard of his appearance
at Capernaum, which from the first created great sensation, and
the news of which must have penetrated to Antipas tolerably
early. Loisy is inclined, however, to keep the ordinary inter
pretation. The apostles, sent by Jesus, attracted attention to
their Master. Herod Antipas (the son of Herod the Great) was
properly not the ' king ' but the ' tetrarch ' of Galilee and Peraea.
There are two readings, ' he said ' and ' they said.' Loisy
prefers ' he said.' W., on the contrary, observes : ' Of course one
must read " they said " ' {i.e. people said).
Though not absolutely necessary, it is probable that John
must have been supposed to have worked miracles in his lifetime,
or the conjecture that 'miraculous powers' were active in him
after his death would hardly have been thought of It is note
worthy that the hypothesis that Jesus is really John resurrected
implies that 'le grand eclat de la predication galileenne est survenu
seulement apr^s Ja mort du Pr^curseur' {E. S. I. p. 918).
15. That Jesus was a prophet like the old prophets seems to
have hit the mark most nearly. His freshness and originality, his
power and confidence, his assurance of direct divine inspiration,
are all points of resemblance between him and them. Like them,
' he spoke with authority, and not as the Scribes.' It is important
to note that none suppose he is the Messiah, though some think that

VL30-44] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 153
he is Messiah's precursor. So far, then, Jesus could have made
no Messianic pretensions ; his secret, if the secret had yet dawned
upon him, had not been discovered.
16. Herod may conceivably have really said this. 'II a pu
reellement dire, parlant en homme politique, et en face d'une
nouvelle agitation messianique k comprimer, Voila Jean ressuscit6 ! '
{E. S. I. p. 919).
17-29. Now follows a sort of footnote or appendix, explaining
how Herod came to hold the view he did about Jesus, and how
John had met his end. The story of John's death is full of
historical improbabilities, and may be regarded as legendary.
Herodias was not the wife of Herod's brother Philip, but of
another brother, also called Herod. The real reason of Herod
Antipas's fear of John is indicated in Josephus {Ant. xviii. 5. 2).
18. For this law, cp. Leviticus xviii. 16, xx. 21.

30-44. The Return of the Apostles and the Feeding
OF the Five Thousand
{Cp. Matt. xiv. 13-21 ; Luke ix. 10-17)
30 And the apostles gathered themselves together unto Jesus,
31 and told him all that they had done and taught. And he said
unto them, 'Come ye by yourselves into a lonely place, and rest
a while.' For there were many coming and going, and they had
32 no leisure so much as to eat. And they went away by boat to
33 a lonely place by themselves. But many saw them departing,
and noticed whither they were going, and they hurried thither
34 on foot from all the cities, and arrived before them. And Jesus,
when he disembarked, saw a great crowd, and he was moved with
compassion toward them, because they were as sheep without a
shepherd: and he began to teach them many things.
35 And when the day was now far spent, his disciples came unto
him, and said, 'This is a lonely place, and the hour is already
36 late. Send the people away, that they may go into the farms
and villages round about, and buy themselves something to eat.'
37 But he answered and said unto them, ' Give ye them to eat.'
And they said unto him, 'Shall we go and buy two hundred

154 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VL 30-44
38 shillings worth of bread, and give them to eat ? ' He said unto
them, ' How many loaves have ye ? go and see.' And when they
39 had found out, they said, ' Five, and two fishes.' And he bade
them make them all sit down by companies upon the green grass.
40) 41 And they sat down in rows, by hundreds and by fifties. And he
took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looked up to heaven,
and said the blessing; and he broke the loaves, and gave them
to his disciples to set before them ; and the two fishes he divided
+2, 43 among them all. And they did all eat, and were satisfied. And
they took of the broken pieces twelve baskets full, and also of
44 the fishes. And they that ate of the loaves were about five
thousand men.
The apostles return, and report to Jesus their experiences.
But there seems to have been no tradition as to what these were.
Mark, at least, says no word upon the subject. It would also
seem as if the story of the five thousand had at first nothing to
do with the return of the apostles, and that the journey of Jesus
with them across the lake (if indeed the scene of the feeding
was originally placed there) was not primarily motived or caused
by the desire to give them a rest after their exhausting labours.
As the narrative stands now, the return of the apostles is used
as a transition to the miracle of the feeding. But 'as the
scene of the feeding is placed on the other side of the lake, " in
a desert place," the apostles have also to be taken across. This
is strangely done. They are to rest after their tiring journey,
yet because of the pressing crowd they cannot rest at home, but
only after another journey into the desert. Nevertheless they
get no rest after all. For the " crowd " also is wanted, and
so it must come too. The people go round the lake, as if they
knew the situation of the desert place quite well, and they arrive •
at the goal, which they do not know, by a detour on foot, more
quickly than Jesus, going straight by boat. This looks like an
artificially made connection ' (W.).
34. Note again the pity which Jesus feels for the neglected
' multitude.' It is also characteristic and charming that he is
not merely anxious to look after their souls. He thinks of their
bodies also {cp. v. 43, viii. 2).
The miracle may, perhaps, have a historical basis. Numbers
soon get magnified in oral tradition, and a kindly gift of food is
turned into a miracle. W.'s note is as follows :
'There is no reason to regard the feeding of the people as

VL30-44] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 155
unhistorical. Matthew recounts it as a great miracle. But the
miracle depends on the numbers, and numbers always get ex
aggerated in oral tradition. Eliminate these, and the kindly
picture remains of a fair evening and a lonely spot by the lake,
with a crowd lying in groups upon the grass, and the disciples
moving among them and distributing bread and fish. The point
of the story is that Jesus does not merely dismiss the people with
sermons, but also looks after the needs of their bodies, convinced
that the store brought for him and his disciples will also suffice for
his unbidden guests.'
Dr Carpenter, on the contrary, thinks that ' the interpretation
of the story as a materialisation of the Teacher's ministry of the
word, the " bread of life," through the confusion of a symbol with
a fact, is far more in accordance with [then existing] modes and
tendencies of thought. It seems more probable, however, that
the narrative is due to the blending of various imaginative im
pulses, in which suggestions from different sources, working, it
may be, on some actual reminiscence, have been moulded together
into one whole.' There were the Old Testament counterparts —
the manna, the widow's cruse : above all, the twenty loaves of
barley from which lOO men ate and ' left thereof Dr Carpenter
thinks, however, that these 'examples needed some closer con
nection with the actual work of Jesus to have much real share
in calling forth a corresponding incident.' He finds this in the
story of the last supper and in the common meal which in the early
Church preceded the celebration of the eucharist. Had Jesus
only once eaten with his disciples ? ' Gradually the Church con
ceived the picture of its own usage in the wilderness. There too
the brethren had heard the word. There too, in the Teacher's
presence, they had "sat down" as at tables in orderly array.
There too had been brought the simple gifts of bread and fish.
There too the blessing or thanksgiving had been offered, the loaf
broken, the food carried round' {First Three Gospels, Tpp. 187-189).
M. Loisy takes very much the same line, but he distinguishes
between Mark's view and the views of Matthew and Luke. In
Mark, the miracle symbolizes how the Christian community lives
on the words of Jesus, and also on its communion with him. In
Matthew and Luke it is a figure of the community united together
by Jesus in the common love feasts, the eucharistic meal. The
twelve baskets originally symbolized the idea of the inexhaustibly
fertile Word, and then, to the Evangelists, the spiritual benefits of
the gospel, of which the apostles (there is one basket for each
apostle) are the depositaries. Whether any incident, no longer
ascertainable, was, together with the O.T. passages, the point of
departure for the symbolic tale, as we have it now, or whether it

156 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VL 30-44
was some saying of Jesus and the memory of the common meals
at which he presided, cannot be made out {E. 8. I. pp. 936 — 938).
Prof Pfleiderer thinks much the same, but with a difference.
The story, he believes, is partly due to the very practical question
whether meetings of the early believers for teaching and edification
were to be concluded with a common meal paid for by the common
purse. Some would argue that the funds did not suffice for large
gatherings. ' Send the people away,' they argued. But a more
compassionate and trusting spirit prevailed, and the common meals,
which also reflected the habits of the Master, were established.
The 'holy communion' in the restricted sense of the word was
originally one with the 'Liebesmahl' of the community {Ur
christentum, Vol. I. p. 354)-
However the origin of the story be accounted for, the influence
of the Elijah and Elisha tales must have been very great. As
usual, Jesus must surpass whatever these ancient heroes accom
plished. And no one can read 2 Kings iv. 42-44 without being
convinced that at least the major portion of the story has its origin
there. The parallelism is extremely striking.

45-56. Jesus walks on the Lake
{Cp. Matt. xiv. 22-36)
45 And straightway he made his disciples get into the boat, and
cross over to the other side, unto Bethsaida, while he dismissed
46 the people. And when he had sent them away, he departed unto
47 the mountain to pray. And when evening was come, the boat
48 was in the middle of the lake, and he alone on the land. And he
saw them distressed in their rowing; for the wind was against
them : and about the fourth watch of the night he came up to
; them, walking upon the lake, and he meant to have passed by
49 them. But when they saw him walking upon the lake, they
50 supposed it was a ghost, and cried out : for they all saw him, and
were troubled. But he immediately spoke to them, and said,
51 'Take courage; it is I; be not afraid.' And he went up to them
into the boat; and the wind dropped. Then were they utterly
52 beside themselves with amazement, for they had not understood
about the loaves : for their heart was hardened.
53 And when they had crossed over, they came unto Gennesaret,
54 and moored the boat there. And when they got out of the boat,

VL 45-56] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 157
55 straightway the people recognized him. And they ran through
that whole region, and began to bring those that were sick on beds
56 to wherever they heard that he was. And whithersoever he
entered, into villages, or cities, or farmyards, they laid the sick in
the open places, and besought him that they might touch if it
were but the border of his garment : and as many as touched him
were healed.
'Le r^cit de la premiere multiplication est ^troitement li^ a
celui de Jesus marchaut sur les eaux. Marc a dii trouver les deux
r^unis dans la tradition, et sans doute dans une redaction qu'il
complete a sa maniere, en observant que les ap6tres n'avaient pas
compris ces deux miracles symboliques ' {E. 8. 1, p. 90). But the story
of the feeding, like that of the temptation and the transfigura
tion, does not belong, according to Loisy, to the first edition of the
sources, but was added in a ' redaction intermediaire ' {E. /S. i. p. 1 1 5 ).
45. There is some geographical difficulty here. It seems
implied in 32 that Jesus had crossed over to the other, eastern,
side of the lake. Perhaps ' to the other side ' has been wrongly
added on here from Matt. xiv. 22. Bethsaida lay at the mouth of
the Jordan, on the north side of the lake. It was not in Antipas's
territory, but in that of Philip, who enlarged it and called it
Julias. What was the need of haste? Why did Jesus compel the
disciples to leave him ? That they might get to Bethsaida before
night ? Could he not have dismissed the ' crowd ' in their presence
and gone with them ? Or was it in order that he might be alone
and pray in solitude ? There seems, as J. Weiss says, something
fragmentary and strange about the narrative.
The miracle seems to be a variant of iv. 35-41. But the
marvel is heightened. It is impossible to say with certainty how
the legend of the mfracle grew up. One may conjecture that the
narrative of Mark is intended to have various spiritual meanings
and foreshado wings. 'II s'agit,' says Loisy, 'd'un ddpart et d'un
retour du Christ, sous lesquels on pent entrevoir le grand depart
de la mort, et le grand retour dans la gloire ' {E. 8. I. p. 941).
Dr Carpenter thinks that we have here again the materialising
of symbols. ' The emblematic language of the Hebrew Scriptures
was constantly in the hearts and upon the lips of the Christian
believer.' We know how often the metaphor of the great waters
and an escape from them meets us in the Hebrew Bible. The
Christians would have faith even amid stormy waters : for Christ
could save them. 'Out of some such utterance of trust has

158 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VI. 45-56
probably come the story of the disciples in their passage across
the lake, distressed by a contrary wind' {First Three Gospels,
pp. 179, 180).
48. They started rowing in the late afternoon. When did
Jesus see them in their distress ? And how could he see them
at night in the ' middle ' of the lake from the mountain ? One
must not ask these questions of a legendary narrative. To the
narrator, as Loisy says, absorbed in the deeper meaning of the tale,
they did not exist.
Jesus proceeds to walk forth upon the waters of the lake, and
just before the dawn (the fourth watch) he overtakes the disciples.
Why did he intend at first to pass in front of them and not to
enter the boat (a detail only mentioned by Mark) ? Was it just
to show himself master over wind and water ? Holtzmann ap
parently accepts this explanation. What he calls a Schauwunder
is performed. Loisy thinks that for Jesus to intend to pass the
boat merely to show his miraculous powers would be puerile, if,
as in the case of the miracle itself, some deeper meaning were
not thereby conveyed. 'La perspective parait s'6tendre du cas
present k celui de la resurrection ; et elle va, en r6alit6, de la resur
rection au dernier avenement ' {E. 8. i. p. 942). The conversation
between Jesus and the disciples recalls, he thinks, the stories of the
resurrection. But if this be so, the parallels are not with anything
in Mark. They are with Matt, xxviii 10 and especially with Luke
xxiv. 37-39.
52. Mark's persistent attribution of spiritual blindness to the
disciples becomes here exceedingly awkward. The greatness of
the miracles of the feeding or of the walking upon the water
could not have escaped their notice. What, however, he perhaps
wishes to indicate is that the ' mystery ' of the Kingdom, though
' given ' to the disciples, was not apprehended by them till after
the resurrection. Tradition, indeed, told of some definite re
cognition of Jesus as the Messiah at Cassarea Philippi, but the
deeper nature of the Messiahship, and the realization that its
true manifestation was only to come after Jesus's death and
resurrection, were still hidden from them. The 'hardness' of
their heart was as divinely wrought as Pharaoh's. Or we may
explain, with Loisy, more generally, that Mark means to say that
the deeper meaning of the miracles, their inner and spiritual
signification, were at first unknown to those who were nevertheless
their eye-witnesses. They did not (till after the resurrection)
understand what had been going on before their eyes.
53. Gennesaret is the name of a district, not a town. But in

VL45-S6] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 1 59
45 they were to go to Bethsaida, and Bethsaida did not belong to
Gennesaret. Some explain that they were driven out of their
course by the wind and had to land where they could. Genne
saret was south of Capernaum, and in Galilee. The population
is delighted to have Jesus again among them, and desire to use
the precious opportunity for all that it is worth. Jesus seems
to pass from place to place without stopping anywhere. He is
' auf unsteter Wanderung,' and does not want to remain in Galilee.
M. Loisy has some important suggestions upon the section
53-56. 'Jesus and his disciples land in the district of Gennesaret,
between Capernaum and Magdala. The formula of transition,
"and having crossed over" appears to take no account of the
preceding narrative, and the connection of this notice with
the mfracle of Jesus walking upon the waters may possibly
not be original.... It may be supposed that in the oldest re
daction of the Gospel history this voyage came after the return
of the apostles (note the parallelism of 32, 33 and 54, 55), and
that the district of Gennesaret is the place to which Jesus
retfred at first with them; as he was immediately recognized
and fresh crowds rushed to follow him, he went away altogether
and moved towards Tyre and Sidon. The argument with the
Pharisees about the washing of hands is an insertion ; it did
not take place in the country of Gennesaret, but at Capernaum,
of Jesus's return to which there is, however, no mention. In
the same way it is possible that the narratives of the loaves
and the walking on the waters have been inserted between the
return of the apostles and the departure for Gennesaret.... It is
quite evident that the Saviour had not come to Gennesaret to
preach there, that he had believed that there was a chance that
he would not be recognized ; that the assembly of the crowd did
not induce him to stop there, that he pursues his journey as if
he had wished finally to reach a place where he and his disciples
would be in peace and safety.... We are reduced to conjectures
about the motives which inspired the conduct of Jesus. The
desire of devoting himself to his disciples is an insufficient motive,
considering that on every other occasion the Saviour had not
failed to encourage the faith of those who came so eagerly to
him. It may be surmised that he feared attracting the attention
of Herod if he excited the enthusiasm of the people in the district
near Tiberias. Perhaps this was the reason why he had not yet
gone there, although the district was not far from Capernaum.
Having now failed to pass by it unnoticed, as he had hoped, he
judged it expedient to go away from it as quickly as possible. The
name of Herod will occur a little farther on, in a declaration which
suggests that the attitude of the tetrarch towards the gospel

l6o THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VL 45-56
movement was rather disquieting. It seems clear that if Jesus
had avowed himself the Messiah in Galilee, he would have met
in his own country the fate which awaited him in Jerusalem ' {E. S.
I. pp. 946-948). With this we may usefully compare W.'s notes
on vi 30-33 cited above. The last sentence of Loisy's suggests
much food for thought. Have we here the true explanation why
Jesus keeps his Messiahship hidden ? It is not exactly because
his Messiahship is spiritual, and the ordinary Jewish conception
of it is ' political,' for his Messiahship includes and implies a new
world and the downfall of the Roman power, but because for the
present the powers of evil are too potent. The moment for open
declaration and for ' come what may ' has not yet arrived. The
ddnouement must take place in Jerusalem.

CHAPTER VII
1-23. The Washing of Hands
{Cp. Matt. XV. 1-20)
r And the Pharisees, and some scribes who came from Jerusalem,
2 gathered round him. For they had seen some of his disciples eat
3 bread with unclean, that is to say, with unwashed hands. For
the Pharisees, and all the Jews, observing the tradition of the
4 Elders, do not eat without first washing their hands. And when
they come from the market, till they have washed, they eat not.
And many other customs there are which they have received and
observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and brazen vessels.
5 So the Pharisees and scribes asked him, 'Why walk not thy
disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread
6 with unclean hands ? ' He said unto them, ' Well did Isaiah
prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written. This people
7 honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And
vainly do they worship me, teaching as thefr doctrines the com-
8 mandments of men. So ye, neglecting the commandment of
God, observe the tradition of men.'
9 And he said unto them, ' Ye do well to reject the command-
10 ment of God, in order that ye may keep your tradition ! For
Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and. Whoso
1 1 revileth father or mother, let him die the death : but ye — if a

VII. 1-23] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 161
man say to his father or mother. That by which thou mightest
have been benefited from me is Corban, — (that is, an offering), —
12 ye no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his
13 mother. Thus ye make the word of God void through your
tradition, which ye hand down ; and many such like things ye do.'
14 And he called all the people again unto him, and he said unto
15 them, ' Hearken, all of you, unto me, and understand : There is
nothing outside^a man, which entering into him can make him
unclean ; bat the things which come out of a man, these are
what make him unclean.'
17 And when he had entered into the house away from the crowd,
18 his disciples asked him concerning the saying. And he said unto
them, 'Are ye, too, so unintelligent? Do ye not perceive that
whatever entereth into a man from without cannot make him
19 unclean? For it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly,
and goeth out into the privy.' [Thus spake he, making all foods
20 clean.] And he said, ' That which cometh out of the man, that
21 maketh the man unclean. For from within, out of the heart
of men, come the evil thoughts — unchastity, thefts, murders,
22 adulteries, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, envy,
23 blasphemy, pride, foolishness : all these evil things come out from
within, and they make a man unclean.'
It has been already said at the close of the last chapter that
this scene with the Pharisees has been here interpolated. Its
locale is probably Capernaum, and it may have taken place at the
close of the Galilsean ministry. Perhaps it has been placed here,
as M. Loisy says, as a suitable preliminary to the journey of Jesus
on to pagan soil, and perhaps also there was a desire to show the
facilities offered by Christianity to the conversion of the Gentiles.
The section is of profound significance and value ; it raises
questions of the deepest importance. As regards its compilation
it is clearly composite, as the various fresh beginnings and
resumptions (9, 14, 17, 20) sufficiently indicate. The saying in
15 is the main basis for the whole. It is traditional and
authentic. Was it found in Q and did Mark take it thence ? So
thinks Loisy, who would also add for the same source 5 and 9-13.
2. For the laws of the Rabbis dealing with ablutions, and
especially with washing the hands before meals and with the

l62 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VII. 1-23
cleansing of dishes, see Additional Note 10. The accuracy of
Mark's editorial explanations is there discussed.
3 and 4 are an editorial parenthesis. The main sentence is
resumed (with irregular construction) in 5-
3. TTVKvd, Revised Version, 'diligently*; Holtzmann, 'often.'
Another reading is Trvy fifj, ' with the fist,' which some explain to
mean 'carefully,' 'vigorously.'
?; irapdSoai^ tcSv trpea ^vTepcov, ' the tradition of the Elders.'
The phrase is sufficiently explained by reference to Josephus
{Ant. XIII. 10. 6) and to Swete's note. The ' Oral Law,' codified
later on in the Mishnah, was then in its formative period.
6. In his reply Jesus takes a double line. The ffrst is that
this human tradition, which he is blamed for disobeying, has
become the means whereby his questioners have transgressed the
commands of God. The observance of these ritual enactments has
led to the neglect of the moral laws of God. Hence (it is implied)
it is surely not unreasonable that Jesus should disregard this
human tradition. The second line of reply relates to the act itself
of which the disciples are accused. This second ' line of reply '
does not come till 14. The first line is contained in a double
form, 6-8 and 9-13. For both these two short sections deal with
the relation of the ' tradition ' to the ' commandment of God.' It
is implied in the one section, and asserted in the other, that through
the observance of the ' tradition ' the ' commandment of God ' is
annulled or violated. These two sections are thus independent of
each other. They are parallels. (It may also be observed that
the quotation in 7 is based upon the Septuagint. The Hebrew
text does not give the desired meaning and opposition. Hence
we may, with J. Weiss and Loisy, infer that Jesus did not upon
this occasion quote Isaiah. But as it is not precisely the Septua
gint which is quoted, Klostermann argues that one cannot safely
assert that only a reader of the Septuagint and not Jesus could
have quoted the saying.) In the phrase 'And he said unto them,'
repeated in 6 and 9, we may discern the joints of a composite
speech. Both 6-8 and 9-13 quote a sentence from Scripture to
prove the same thesis.
Yet 6-8, by- itself, is not strictly any proof whatever that the
observance of the tradition causes the violation of the Law. It is
a mere assertion, which assumes what has to be proved. The
'commandment' which is violated for the sake of observing the
tradition is, I presume, the general and fundamental command
ment that God is to be honoured from the ' heart ' — loved with all

VII. 1-23] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 1 63
thy heart, as it says in Deuteronomy. If, then, the Pharisees
who observe the tradition are the people of whom Isaiah speaks,
they do violate the Law. Nevertheless it is not proved that the
' observance ' causes the violation. Hence it may be argued either
that 6-8 is a mere introduction to the proof given in 9-13 (so
Matthew treats the passage), or that 9-13 was added to cover
the weakness of argument in 6-8. It must be admitted that
Matthew's order of the reply is more logical and cogent, but this
is not necessarily due to his being more original. Still it may
perhaps be that the answer which Jesus actually made was
similar to that which we now read in Matt. xv. 3-6 and in
Mark vii. 9-13.
Note that 'the tradition of the Elders' is called in 8 'the
tradition of men,' in 9 and 13 'your tradition.' It would seem
that Jesus did really take up a position (despite Matt, xxiii. 3)
of definite antagonism to the ominously increasing Oral Law. Does
he, then, oppose tradition, which is merely ' human,' to the Pen-
tateuchal law, which is ' divine'? The commandment of God which
is violated by the tradition is a law of the Pentateuch. But it is
not merely a Pentateuchal law; it is an injunction of the Decalogue.
It is conceivable that Jesus would have unhesitatingly recognized
the divine authority of the Decalogue, and yet have had his
doubts about the divine and binding character of the Pentateuchal
legislation as a whole. And it may, indeed, be argued that in this
very section Jesus virtually abrogates a most definite and elaborate
Pentateuchal law. But he does not, as we shall see, do this directly,
and it may even be that the full consequence of the great principle
laid down in 15 was not present to his own mind, or that he did
not desfre that his disciples should practically draw out those
consequences in their own lives. It cannot be assumed offhand
that Jesus himself transgressed the dietary laws of Leviticus and
Deuteronomy, or even that he would have approved of his disciples
transgressing them. Such deductions must remain uncertain, one
way or the other. Dr Carpenter, however, thinks that ' 1 5 cuts
athwart the whole scheme of dietary laws; and this principle,
together with that of man's lordship over the Sabbath, seems to
me to amount to a complete breach with the Law on its ritual and
institutional side.' Gould agrees : ' What Jesus says abrogates the
distinction between clean and unclean, which forms so essential a
part not only of tradition, but also of the Levitical part of the
Law itself
9. /eaXto? is usually here taken in an ironical sense to mean
' excellently,' ' thoroughly.' W. translates interrogatively, ' Do ye
well that ye,' &c. 11 — 2

l64 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VII. 1-23
II, 12. The translation of the Revised Version is correct It
preserves the broken construction of the Greek. The construction
would be mended if with W. Xeyere be omitted : ' But ye, if a
man,' &c., ' no longer suffer him,' &c.
' Corban ' is literally ' sacrifice ' ; here it means the oath used
on the occasion of a particular kind of vow.
' Ye no longer suffer him to do aught ' : he is not allowed to
benefit his parents. The words are ironical. The meaning is:
' he need no longer benefit them'; he need no longer, he even may
not any longer, use that which is now ' Corban ' for the benefit of
his parents.
,The passage is very difficult. It is difficult, {a) because the
rule which Jesus here attributes to tradition is in flat contradiction
to the law as laid down by the Mishnah, as commented on by the
Talmud, and as universally accepted and interpreted by all the
Jewish codifiers ; (6) because the assertion that the Pharisees
violated the Law of God in order to maintain, or in maintaining,
their own rules is not proved by the instance quoted. On the
contrary, the instance fails just at the crucial point.
First of all, what is the usual interpretation of the passage ?
It is that the son, in order to annoy his father, dedicated or vowed
for the use of the Temple a given part of his property. That part
is, therefore, interdicted from his father, who may not benefit from
it, or use it. If the son repent, he may nevertheless not let his
father profit from, or use, the property thus vowed. The Scribes
will not let him off his vow. It is, I presume, implied that the
Scribes and the priests were in collusion, and because of the
advantage which accrued to the Temple, they refused to annul
the vow. ' The Rabbis,' says Mr Menzies, for instance, ' decided
that the duty to the Temple must take precedence of that to
parents.' Mr Hart calls this explanation of our passage 'a striking
example of the exegesis which is dominated and directed by
religious prejudice.' Anyway, it is inaccurate.
To begin with, 'Corban' does not mean that the property was
dedicated to the use of the Temple. The word is used as a mere
oath. When I say ' Corban, if you shall ever eat anything that is
mine,' this does not mean that my eatables are dedicated to the
use of the Temple, in which case neither I nor you might eat them,
but merely that, so far as you are concerned, they are 'dedicated';
you may never eat what is mine. I should sin in letting you eat
any of my food, so long as the vow stands, and you, if you ate,
would sin also. The Temple does not come in.
With this limitation, however, the usual interpretation might
conceivably be right. In a fit of passion I vow, with the oath and
formula of Corban, that my father is never to eat at my table, or

VII. 1-23] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 165
to receive any of my property. I then want to be absolved from
my vow. The Scribes will not let me. They gain no profit, and
the Temple gets no profit one way or the other. But they say : as
you have made the vow, you must abide by it.
Now if Jesus had said that the Scribes and Pharisees maintain
what is less important and neglect what is more important ; that
they are anxious to observe the sanctity of vows, biit in doing so,
they are willing to let the more sacred duty of the fifth command
ment go to the wall, the passage would, so far, be intelligible. But
how can it be regarded as a case of Scripture versus tradition ?
Where does it say in the Pentateuch, where does 'Moses' say,
that vows which conflict with a more important demand may and
should be annulled? Nowhere does it say so. The annulling,
not ihe maintenance of vows, was the work of tradition. It is to
the Pharisaic tradition that are owing all the elaborate rules for
annulling vows, and by a curious irony of fate the Pharisees have
been constantly assailed just on' the ground that they so readily
allowed dispensation of vows. Hence the illustration does not seem
to flt the thesis. The particular instance is not a case where the
word of God is abrogated by tradition. Deut. xxiii. 21-23 speaks
of fulfilling vows, not of their annulment. So too Leviticus xxx.,
where the only exceptions are certain vows of certain women.
Otherwise: 'When a man voweth a vow unto the Lord, or sweareth
an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word;
he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth'
(Numbers xxx. 2). Hence, one could attack the Scribes, perhaps,
for not abrogating one 'word of God' in favour of a more important
'word of God,' but certainly not for abrogating the word of God in
favour of tradition. The only possible explanation would be to
suppose that Jesus forgot that a ' word of God ' and ' a law of
Moses ' were as much in question on one side as on the other, and
that, in his moral enthusiasm, he regarded the decision of the
Scribes that the vow could not be annulled, even though the
parent suffered, as Scribe law and not Mosaic Law, human law
and not divine Law.
But the difficulties of the passage are not yet over. For the
odd thing is that according to the Rabbinic law as codified in the
Mishnah, and commented on in the Talmud, the Rabbis are on
the side of Jesus, and take his very line. Even Schtirer, whose
interpretation of the Mishnah is inaccurate on the whole, admits
that 'so far the practice blamed by Jesus goes further than the
law as codified in the Mishnah ' {Geschichte des jildischen Volkes
im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3rd ed. Vol. il p. 494, n. 108). That is
to say, if a man make a vow from which his parents would suffer,
then the vow can be annulled. The passage in the Mishnah is

i66 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VII. 1-23
clear, though it has been frequently misunderstood by Christian
commentators. Yet the Talmud and all the Jewish mediaeval
commentators are in no doubt as to its meaning. It occurs in
"* Nedarim viii i : ' Rabbi Eliezer said, The door is opened for
a man on account of the honour of father and mother. But
the Chachamim (literally wise men, the majority of the Rabbis)
forbid it.' These words mean : Suppose a man has made a
foolish vow (in general, from which his father does not materially
suffer). If he reflects : What disgrace I bring upon my father
by this foolish vow, or if it is said to him, would you have made
this vow had you reflected that people would say to your father
'What a son is yours; what hasty vows he makes'; then these
arguments are not enough to cancel the vow. It cannot be
annulled. He, and even his parents, must bear the consequences
of his rash action. That this interpretation is correct seems
certain by what follows. ' Nevertheless, where the vow has to
do with his father or his mother, there the Rabbis agree with
Rabbi Eliezer that the door is opened to him on account of the
honour of father and mother.' Precisely, therefore, where parents
, would suffer from the vow, would and could the vow be annulled.
Thus we have the further difficulty that Jesus and the Rabbis do
not here differ ; they agree. One can only get out of the difficulty
by assuming that Jesus came in contact with some Rabbis who
held that, even when the Law directly affected the parents, it
must nevertheless be upheld, and that even here it could not be
annulled. For this view Mr Abrahams tells me that there is no
dfrect evidence, but it is not at all improbable that so vast an
innovation as the annulment of vows met with opposition at first.
We should thus have here an instance, not of a general antagonism
between Jesus and the Pharisaic law, but of the participation of
Jesus in the discussion of the application of the law to life.
Sometimes the Rabbinic opinion finally formed itself (as here) on
the side which Jesus approved ; sometimes it took a turn in a
dfrection different from the opinion of Jesus. In any case the
passage cannot be used to prove the dangers and moral evils of
legalism. It cannot be proved to show that the horrid Rabbis
taught that by a convenient vow a man might easily find a way
of disobeying the fifth commandment. The truth is that the
Rabbis taught a tremendous respect and reverence for parents.
In this matter they are perfectly sound ; indeed on family rela
tions they are keener than Jesus.
For a different view of the whole passage see Mr Hart's
intensely interesting article ' Corban,' Jewish Quarterly Review,
Vol. XIX. pp. 615-650.
13. TrapeBaKare. This tense is odd. As W. says, one expects

VII. 1-23] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 167
either ' which ye hand on ' {wapaSlSoTe) or irapeKa^ere, ' which ye
have received.'
'Many other such things ye do.' Jesus mentions no other,
and even the Christian commentators do not, so far as I know,
supply the deficiency.
14. Jesus now turns to the people, having dealt with and
disposed of the Scribes, and proceeds to give the true explanation
and justification of the conduct of his disciples. He lays down a
moral principle of great depth and beauty, but to the plain man
neither complicated nor obscure. He bids the people understand
it, and he must have wished them to understand. We may
suppose that, if the whole story has a historic basis, Jesus
enunciated the principle to all his listeners, and at the same time
added such illustration and elucidation as might be necessary.
But Mark, true to his theory, assumes that the principle was not
even understood by the disciples, and required to be specially
explained to them. Moreover, he calls the principle a parable,
a dark saying, though it can scarcely be so regarded. The Hebrew
mashal, however, means not only parable, but also adage, proverb,
&c., and perhaps parable is used in a similar extended sense in
this passage. See note on iv. i.
Jesus calls the people 'again.' They had not been present or
summoned before. The ' again,' says M. Loisy, seems to refer to
similar situations, and especially to the scene when the parables
were delivered (iv. i). "There too we find an 'again.' It is a
further indication that the section has undergone touching up,
and that the mise-en-scene has been superadded to the dialogue.
The primitive elements probably are the criticism of the Pharisees,
the statement as to the violation of the Decalogue, and the declara
tion as to defilement.
M. Loisy also holds that 'la forme un peu ^nigmatique' of the
declaration was the reason why it was regarded as a parable which
the auditors could not have understood and which needed a com
mentary. As in the case of the explanation of the sower, so here.
The explanation (17-23) is not the work of Jesus, but of the
community. 15. For the Rabbinic conceptions and laws of clean and
unclean and thefr application in everyday life, see Additional
Note 10.
As was said in the note on verse 14, it is hard to suppose
that what Jesus says here is a parable, i.e. that there is some
spiritual truth over and above the words themselves which the
words imply or refer to. In that case the commentary (17-23)

1 68 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VII. 1-23
would have to say something different from the declaration, whereas
it seems to say the same thing in other terms. The only way in
which 1 5 can be interpreted as a parable in a strict sense would
be to assume that its meaning is that, even according to the Law,
a man is defiled, not by what enters him, but by what goes out
from him, i.e. by morbid issues, by leprosy, eruptions and so on.
Then the spiritual interpretation or application would follow in
17-23. But this explanation is unlikely, first because to press
legal points of this kind does not seem in Jesus's manner, secondly
because of the difficulty as to forbidden food, which if eaten, does
enter into the man and does make him unclean. It is inadequate
to say that the foods which the Law forbids are not thought of or
referred to, because to eat them is a deliberate sin. M. Loisy is
right in urging that not only is the whole explanation too ' subtle,'
but the exception which has to be made as to forbidden foods
renders the explanation altogether too thin : ' By what enters
into the man the hearers could understand nothing but food,
and as the debate had reference to the question of purity or
impurity, the idea of impure food could not be absent from their
minds nor from the thought of Jesus; within the limits of the
Law, it is literally false to say that man cannot be polluted by
what he eats ' {E. 8. I. p. 959).
Nevertheless a certain difficulty remains, over and above the
mere fact that the declaration is called a parable. It is this : the
first part of the declaration seems to speak of what is material ; in
the second it would speak of what is spiritual. ' The things which
go in,' go in literally ; ' the things which go out,' go out meta
phorically. Words and thoughts, and the sins of the heart, do not
' go out ' of a man in the same sense as food ' goes in.' Yet this
irregularity is after all not very awkward, and gives far the best
sense. M. Loisy indeed suggests one other alternative explanation,
but it seems to me so very odd and unlikely that I refrain from
quoting it. It will be found in E. 8. I. p. 960.
The principle which Jesus lays down is that there is no such
thing as religious impurity in a material sense. Religious impurity
can only exist within the moral and spiritual sphere. A man
cannot be religiously defiled except by an offence committed in
the sphere of religion. Now to Jesus the sphere of religion was
the inward realm of the spirit. Inward defilement, the defilement
of the heart by the sins of the heart, is the only possible religious
defilement. Only that which goes out of a man can defile a man, that is,
make him religiously unclean. There can be little doubt that
Matt. XV. II interprets the principle fairly correctly. What
goes into the man from without cannot defile him religiously.

VII. 1-23] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 169
' Going into ' refers to the mouth, and ' going out of has the same
main reference, though it does not exclusively refer to the mouth,
for a man's deeds as well as his words are alluded to. What comes
out of the mouth comes from the heart, and the heart is the seat
of religious uncleanness as it is the seat of religious purity. Things \
cannot be religiously either clean or unclean ; only persons. And
persons cannot be defiled by things; they can only be defiled
by themselves, by acting irreligiously. Or the principle may be
worded thus : ' Spiritual things can defile the man, and these
only, not such material articles as food. And of course this means
that the real man is the spiritual part, and that defilement of the
physical part does not extend to the spiritual part, which con
stitutes the real man. That can only be reached by spiritual
things akin to itself The principle that spiritual and spiritual go
together, and that the material cannot penetrate the spiritual,
which is impervious to it, is needed in the interpretation of
Christianity as well as in the reform of Judaism' (Gould). In
voluntary action, however, the phyisical act may be spiritualised.
If this be not allowed, Gould's words go too far. A voluntary
sexual defilement is physical and yet also spiritual ; but an in
voluntary defilement is physical only.
So far as the principle uttered by Jesus can be applied to the
particular subject in dispute, we must, I suppose, assume that the
connection is this. In the process of eating, the hand touches the
food to be eaten and then touches the mouth. (In ancient times,
before knives and forks and spoons were in common use, the hand
touched the food and the mouth much more than now.) If, then,
the hand is not washed before food, some impurity, some particle
of an unclean object, may be conveyed to the mouth and thus
render the eater unclean.
More probably, however, we have to assume that the section
beginning with verse 14 is only loosely connected with what
precedes, and deals directly with the question of forbidden or
'unclean' foods, and with the true and false conception of cleanness
and uncleanness. For this question, as J. Weiss points out, was
of far greater importance to Mark's readers than the washing of
hands. Had the Gentile Christian to observe the Jewish dietary
laws ? Had he to keep himself apart from eating with unbelievers ?
We know how pressing and urgent this question became. Mark
can report that there was a great saying of the Master's which
gave all Christians the right liberty in these outward matters.
He finds a convenient place to quote it here where another
question concerning outward purity had just been dealt with.
Another view is that Jesus deliberately, and in accordance
with his usual manner, gave no direct answer to the question

I70 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VII. 1-23
asked him. He answers it indirectly, first by throwing cold water
upon the authority and value of that tradition which he is blamed
for disregarding, and then, secondly, by laying down a much wider
general principle as to the relation of the outward to the inward
in true morality.
It must be noted that the discussion has nothing to do vfith
cleanliness, nor can we properly defend the ancient ritualistic
practice by saying that it is dirty to eat with unwashed hands,
that cleanliness is next to godliness, and so on. That is not the
issue involved. Ritual washing might be in fact a very per
functory cleansing, and often is so to-day. The question is one of
religious defilement. It is the same question which is at the
root of all the dietary laws. Eating a rabbit defiles you and
makes you unclean. Eating a chicken (if a properly killed chicken)
does not. According to the principle laid down by Jesus, no thing
can make you unclean. You can only make yourself unclean by sin.
The principle seems profoundly true. It destroys with a
prophet's blow the terrible incubus from which all ancient
religions suffered, that certain objects or physical states are in
themselves taboo or religiously unclean. Doubtless our modem
conceptions of clean and dirty may have had a religious origin ;
doubtless, too, there is a certain moral duty in physical cleanli
ness, a certain inter-connection between the material and the
spiritual. But this is a totally different thing from the theory
of religious uncleanness. That rested upon very ancient super
stitions, which, again, themselves depended upon polytheistic or
' animistic ' conceptions of still greater antiquity. Ritual religion
(which made up a considerable part of priestly religion) was
largely concerned with practices which turned upon, or were
developed out of, these superstitious conceptions. The reason
why dead bodies, or a woman at certain moments in her life,
were in themselves ' unclean,' or produced religious uncleanness,
was not because they were dirty. It was because the dead body
and the woman were the seat, or belonged to the province, of
certain hostile or dangerous spirits. It is these ideas which are
also at the root of the dietary laws. Religious uncleanness either
means being connected with alien, hostile, or dangerous spirits
and influences, or, secondly, it means being in a condition to which
your god objects, and when it is, therefore, dangerous to approach
him. And this condition is physical, and itself probably related
to the former cause of uncleanness. In any case the god is
regarded as moved to pleasure or wrath by physical objects or
conditions, whereas the God of the prophets is so moved by moral
considerations only (reckoning idolatry for the moment as a part
of morality).

VIL 1-23] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 171
The old, outward conception of religious uncleanness as caused
by things, and not only by immoral acts, is still present in the
Pentateuchal laws ; it was maintained and sadly elaborated by the
Rabbis. It is the motive of an immense number of their laws
about women, and is doubtless also the motive of their laws about
ablutions. But, as Additional Note 10 explains, there are two kinds
of cleanness: there is (i) the 'cleanness' vvhich every layman must
observe ; there is (2) the cleanness of the priest, which the layman
has only then partially to observe when he enters the Temple at
Jerusalem, or performs some specific religious act. The second
was far more onerous than the first. Christian commentators
frequently confuse the two together, and burdens are assigned
to the ordinary life of the lay Jew from which he was and is
entfrely free.
These confusions are indicated in the note. But the principle
of ritual uncleanness was not disputed, though the old superstitions,
and the more ancient conceptions upon which it ultimately rested,
had entirely disappeared. Ritual uncleanness had no more any
thing to do with spirits or hostile influences. It existed because
it was in the Law, because God had ordained it. The prohibition
of rabbit and hare was regarded either as due to the fact that
these were sacred animals in heathen religions, or, simply, as due
to the fact that God, for some good reason, thought it better for
the Israelite not to eat these animals. Feelings of disgust soon
grew up in regard to the animals which were forbidden. Hygienic
motives also played their part. The holy God was supposed to
regard physical as well as moral foulness with disgust, and the
Israelite, who must be holy like his God, was to keep himself from
the one foulness as well as from the other. There was a tendency
to pass from the old conceptions of ritual uncleanness to the newer
conceptions which are expressed in the proverb, ' Cleanliness is
next to godliness.' Spiritual purity may not unreasonably be
symbolized or typified by material purity. A dirty church or
synagogue strikes us as peculiarly inappropriate and undesirable.
But all this is a very different thing from technical religious un
cleanness in the legal sense. For the other sort of uncleanness,
which the proverb speaks of, we need no laws or casuistical
enactments. Common sense, and cultivated feelings of decency
and propriety, are safe and adequate guides. Where these fail,
laws and enactments will not supply their place and fill the
deficiency. Jesus was, therefore, I think, quite right in the great principle
which he lays down in Mark vii. 15. It is the same principle as
that involved and implied in the superb saying of Theano, the
wife or daughter of Pythagoras. @eavd> eptoTTjdeiaa -iroaraia yvvrj

172 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIL 1-23
aTr' dvBpo<! KaOapevei, 'Atto fiev roii IBiov, enre, irapay^prjfia, dirii
Be Tov dXXorpiov, ovBeirore. Such a saying lifts a load, and re-
haoves a nightmare, from the human mind and thought. A mass
of ritual superstitions is made superfluous. The world is profoundly
indebted to Jesus for his liberating and clarifying words. They are
spoken in the very spirit of Amos and Hosea. The true province
--of religion needed to be defined. It was made the greater and the
purer by being limited to the realms of spirit and personality.
'The dietary laws and the laws of clean and unclean have doubtless
often led, as they led in the days of Jesus, to formalism, hypocrisy,
self-righteousness. Outward ' cleanliness ' can often mask inward
corruption. Yet, though all this be so, it was impossible for the Jews
to accept the saying, nor can we safely say that Jesus was con
sistent in asserting it. For though the occasion which (as Mark
tells the story) drew it forth was a Rabbinical law, though it was
only a Rabbinical law which the disciples transgressed, yet the
great principle laid down by Jesus runs directly counter to the
laws of the Pentateuch.
Now the Pentateuch makes no difference between some laws
and other laws. It does not say the moral laws are divine and
eternal, the ritual laws are human and temporary ; it ascribes the
same divinity and immutability to them all.
From the Pentateuchal and Rabbinic point of view, the dietary
laws, the laws about women, the laws about corpses and ablutions,
were as much given by the wise and righteous God as were the
laws about honouring our parents or loving our neighbours. If
the one set of laws is divine, so is the other set. It was quite
/illogical for Jesus, in one breath, to appeal to the ' Law of God,'
violated by Rabbinical enactment, and to enunciate a principle
"antagonistic to that Law in another. The dialectically trained
Rabbis must have seen the flaw in Mark vii. 15. Jesus did not
say that the Pentateuch was not in all its parts the Law of God.
He did not bid his disciples to violate the ceremonial law. He
did not urge them to eat rabbit and hare. All he wished them to
neglect was the Rabbinical law about washing the hands. It was
only in reference to that law that he enunciated his principle.
Yet this great principle flies in the face of the dietary laws which
are ordered in the Pentateuch by God. But if the wise and
perfect God has ordered them, they too are wise and perfect. If
the wise and perfect God has said that what enters into man's
mouth can and does defile him, then He must be right and Jesus
must be wrong.
How far Jesus was conscious of his own inconsistency is
doubtful. How far in his own mind he separated the moral

VII. 1-23] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 173
from the ritual law, and thought that God had ordered the
one, but had not ordered the other, we do not know. But we
do know that he never enunciated the principle of such a separation
and difference of origin. Moreover, there are a few indications
that he himself obeyed and urged others to obey the ritual laws
of the Pentateuch. Loisy observes: 'It may be admitted that
Jesus does not directly attack legal observances, but he believes
and affirms, at least implicitly, that these prescriptions have not
in themselves a moral character; in any case, he lays down a
principle which destroys them' {E. 8. I. p. 959).
But if Jesus was unaware of his own inconsistency, the Rabbis
must have perceived it well enough, and they were quite justified
in denying his principle and the authority of him who uttered it.
The truth is that Amos could have uttered the principle
without inconsistency, because in his day there was no perfect
immutable divine Mosaic Law in existence ; and we, to-day, can
consistently utter the principle because we no longer believe in
such a Law — because we do separate the moral from the ritual —
but Jesus could only utter the principle at the cost of an in
consistency, which does not, indeed, lessen the greatness of the
principle or of him who spoke it, but which justifies, exonerates
and explains the opposition and disbelief of the Rabbis and
Pharisees, who saw more clearly than Jesus whither the principle
must tend and how much it implied.
We may agree with J. Weiss that the principle laid down
by Jesus was of epoch-making greatness and significance. More
questionable, however, is it where he says : ' Hier ringt sich aus
einer Religion des Kultus und des Priestertums eine neue Religion
der Innerlichkeit und des Gewissens los.' For what the Lutheran
commentator cannot fathom is that there can be a religion of
forms and ceremonies, and even of priests, which may also be,
for many of its believers and practisers, a religion of inwardness
and conscience. The two religions are not necessarily contra
dictions in terms. And still more false is it when he goes on
to say : ' Mit diesem Gedanken ist dem Judentum die Axt an
die Wurzel gelegt.' Is there only, can there only be, one kind
of Judaism? We know better. And surely, of all others, a
commentator like J. Weiss should be the last to make these
rash assertions. What ! There can be a Christianity without
miracles, without the virgin birth, without a bodily resurrection,
without the divinity of Christ in any dogmatic sense of the word,
but there can be no Judaism without the dietary laws and the
conception of physical and outward purity ! Liberal Judaism has
at least as good a right to its name as the non-mfraculous Unitarian
Christianity of Weiss.

174 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VII. 1-23
It may also be observed that it is quite possible for a modern
Jew to observe, and justify his observance of, dietary laws while
yet admitting the truth of the principle of Mark vii 1 5, He can
be quite free from the old superstitious idea that any material
thing is religiously unclean, but he may yet maintain that the
discipline and self-restraint and self-sacrifice involved in (e.g.)
observing a number of dietary laws among an environment which
does not observe them may have useful ethical results. He will
not maintain that the laws are from God, but he will argue that
they form a useful bond for ' keeping Jews together,' for ' main
taining a connection with the past,' and that for these reasons,
as well as for their ethical value as a discipline, he chooses freely
to obey them freely. As regards the special Jewish method of
' killing,' he may say that it is more merciful. And all the dietary
laws he may justify and cling to on the ground of hygiene. He
may even, though perhaps somewhat fancifully, argue that the
connection between the moral and physical nature of man is
subtle and obscure, and that allegiance to dietary laws may
have some undefinable but real moral influence. Such an atti
tude is quite justifiable, but largely modern. It does not really
touch or affect the question as it presented itself either to Jesus
or to the Rabbis.
16 has probably been interpolated from iv. 9, 23.
17-23. This is the commentary upon, or explanation of,
verse 15. It is closely parallel to, and modelled on, the section
iv. 10-20, which explains the parable of the sower. 'L'ela-
boration de la presente p^ricope appartient a la mSme couche
traditionnelle.' Thus M. Loisy, who goes on to make the following
interesting remarks. 'The question of the disciples excites the
same astonishment in the Saviour as in the section of the sower;
they are then as destitute of intelligence as the crowd! This
kind of appreciation of the intellectual resources of the Galilsean
apostles may very well be a more important and more certain
trace of Paulinism than those which it has been sometimes sought
to discover in the second Gospel. For the Christ goes on to show
them that foods are neither clean nor unclean, that morality is
not concerned with the material of nourishment ; he teaches them
therefore one of the doctrines which is dearest to Paul, and
which it must be supposed that they afterwards forgot, if Jesus
really said to them what Mark relates in this passage. But the
doctrine of Paul is not treated in the manner of Paul ; it is dis
cussed from the point of view of common sense, and in that
homiletical tone and rather heavy and diffuse style which

VII. 1-23] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 1 75
characterises the explanation of the so wer.... There is nothing
in the idea which is not in conformity with the spirit of Jesus,
but it is expressed with a kind of rude nawete which we do
not find in his discourses' {E. 8. i. p. 964). W. says more
laconically that 17-23 stands in the same relation to 1-15 as
iv. 10-20 stands to iv. 1-9 {Einleitwng, p. 55).
18 repeats or explains 15. Only the heart, the will, can be
really good or evil. Only the will, the heart, can be profaned or
defiled. Kant's famous dictum, ' There is nothing good but a good
will,' is another form of Jesus's principle.
19 is grammatically hard. The nominative participle Ka6a-
pi^tov seems to agree with the accusative d^eBpmva.
The word o^eBpmv, only found here, is usually translated
'privy,' though why the 'privy' can be said to cleanse food is
not quite easy to see. Perhaps it is said to do so, as Schanz
holds, because it receives and removes all those parts of food
which the human body cannot assimilate and are unsuitable for
the maintenance of life. W. says that d^eBpd>v means bowel
{Darmkanal). The bowel purifies food, in that it ejects what
is 'unclean.' Suidas says that d^eBpcov signifies to fjiepo<; tov
<Twp,aTo<i TO Trepl Trjv e^oBov. The manuscript ' D ' has 6')(eT6';,
which means the intestinal canal. The S.S. has a different, and,
as Merx thinks, a truer reading, which would mean that food
does not cause impurity, inasmuch as it simply passes through
the body, is evicted, and does not enter the heart.
Some commentators have thought that Kadapi^av refers back
to Xiyei. ' Thus spake he — , making all foods clean.' But Kada-
pi^cov seems too far off to go with Xiyei, though it makes fine and
trenchant meaning if so interpreted. It is thus taken by R.V.
The words 'making all things clean' may, thus regarded, be a
note by an editor who sees the wide effect of Jesus's words. The
addition necessitates the resumption of the speech by eXeyev Be
oTi in 20.
20. The outward material thing cannot cause spiritual or
religious impurity. The seat of impurity, as of purity, is the
heart, the will. Thence spring evil thoughts and passions, which
result in evil words and deeds. These go out of a man and defile
him. Menzies holds that 20 is ' a word of Jesus bearing on the
subject in hand and suitably placed here. The three following
verses seem to be added by the Evangelist, in illustration. The
list of sins is very similar to those in Galatians v. 19-21 and
Romans i 29-31.'

176 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIL 1-23
' The thought of the Evangelist is clearly defined, though his
style is confused. He condemns the whole system of uncleanness
and legal purification, in order to place the idea of cleanness and
uncleanness, of good and evil, where it ought to be, that is in the
conscience of man, not in the materiality of external objects. He
is thinking, moreover, only of Jewish observances, and he did not
mean that greediness was not a sin ; for excess in eating and
drinking comes from a perverse will, and it is not for what he
takes, but for the excess committed when he takes it, that man is
to be blamed. Nor did he mean to condemn fasting, which does
not imply the moral reprobation of the food from which one
abstains, and which gets all its value from the will which
inspires it. Merit and sin have their principle, not in the things
themselves, but in the persons who use them ' {E. 8. 1. p. 966).
Looking back upon the whole incident after 1900 years, we
see that while both parties had a certain right upon their side,
though neither could persuade the other, Jesus was more pro
foundly right and more essentially true. The future was with
him, not with the Rabbis and Pharisees. His principle would
gradually win the day. It represented a higher and purer con
ception of religion than the opposing principle which is embodied
in the Pentateuchal law. Liberal Judaism has consciously accepted
it. Jesus himself, with his keen moral and religious intuitions,
went straight to the essential truths of religion. He probably
did not realize the confiict between the principle, which he had
laid down with such clear conviction, and the teachings of the
Law. Such conflicts between new and old are often invisible
to those who, while ardently possessed of new creative truths,
have not thought out their relation to old doctrine in which they
still partially believe. In this respect the Rabbis saw, likely
enough, more clearly than Jesus. But for all that, his conception
of religion was in this point, just because the Rabbis were tied to
the perfection and divineness of a heterogeneous code, profounder
and truer than theirs.
Prof. Pfleiderer, I notice, says much the same. He holds that
Jesus was unaware of the implications of his own principle, and
that he did not consciously intend to attack the Pentateuchal law.
'It is the nature of all, and especially of religious heroes and
reformers (think of Luther !) in the most exalted moments of
their struggle against the old to utter thoughts, the far-reaching
range of which is concealed even from themselves, and compared
with which the conservative moods of thefr quiet days lag far
behind. Hence the manifold contradictions in the life and
thought of the men, in whose minds two epochs struggle against
one another' (Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, 1. p. 356).

VIL 24-30] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 177
24-30. The Northward Journey and the Phcenician Woman
{Cp. Matt. XV. 21-28)
24 And from thence he arose, and went into the district of Tyre.
And he entered into an house, and wished that none should know
25 it : but he could not escape notice. For, straightway, a woman,
whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, and who had heard
26 of him, came and fell at his feet : (now the woman was a heathen,
a Syrophoenician by race) ; and she besought him that he would
27 expel the demon from her daughter. But Jesus said unto her,
' Let the children first be filled : for it is not meet to take the
28 children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.' And she answered
and said unto him, ' Yes, Lord : yet the dogs under the table eat
29 of the children's crumbs.' And he said unto her, ' For this saying
30 go thy way; the demon has gone out of thy daughter.' And
when she came to her house, she found her daughter lying upon
the bed, and the demon had departed.
What lay before Mark as his authority for the story of the
Canaanite woman ? B. Weiss insists that the story was already
included in Q, and that it is Q's version which we find in Matthew.
Loisy is more cautious. But he and others hold that ver.se 27 in
Mark with its addition ('Let the children be first satisfied') is
secondary as compared with Matt. xv. 26. Hence Mark must have
found the story already ' r^digee,' and possibly Matthew may have
known and used the source, ' plus simple et plus succincte,' which
is at the base of Mark. But even if we accept the very plausible
view that Matt. xv. 26 is primary, it might be that little more or
no more than this saying was known to Matthew, and that for the
story he entirely depends upon Mark.
24. ixeWev. That is, probably, from Gennesaret (vi. fin.).
The section vii 1-24 is interpolated. What is the motive for
this journey? It has been variously interpreted. Was it to
enable Jesus to be alone with his disciples and to teach them
especially as to the lot which was to befall their Master? This
seems very doubtful, in view of thefr subsequent amazement and
incomprehension. Was it to avoid the plotting Pharisees, who
sought to kill the innovating teacher ? This is conceivable, but
not probable. Did he seek for rest and quiet to meditate upon his

178 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIL 24-30
future prospects and chances ? The entire journey {i.e. not only
24 but 31) is more probably due to the reasons given on yi 30-33.
But it is strange that Jesus, instead of going to Bethsaida as he
had intended, changes his route and goes north. The territory of
Tyre formed the northern border of Galilee. Is this particular
journey of Jesus placed here, as J. Weiss thinks, to indicate that, in
true consistence with what we have just heard, Jesus did not con
sider the heathen as unclean? Wernle (who thinks that Mark
had little before him but isolated stories, sayings, and traditions)
supposes that the journey is fabricated. ' Mark had before him the
story of Jesus's meeting with the Gentile woman and the help
which he gave her ; this needed a scene in a Gentile district, and
accordingly Jesus must have journeyed into the neighbourhood of
Tyre ' {Sources of cmr knowledge of the Life of Jesus, translated by
Lummis, 1907, p. 123).
26. She was a Phcenician by race and nationality, a Greek,
i.e. a heathen, by religion.
27. Jesus very clearly and somewhat unkindly states that his
own mission is restricted to the Jews.
'Dog' was a frequent term of abuse and contempt used by
Jews about Gentiles. If it be true that Kvvdpiov means the house,
or domesticated, dog, it is improperly put into the mouth of Jesus.
The language of the statement is assimilated to that of the reply,
where it is in place.
' Let the children be satisfied first ' : Matthew omits these
words, and apparently this is more original. They are a softening
of the uncompromising reply and suggest the woman's answer.
They are often said to be due to Pauline influences {cp. Romans
i. 16, ii 10, ix. 24). In any case it does seem pretty clear that they
give a theoretic basis for the later view that, while the Jews were
to be offered the gospel first, the Gentiles were to receive it next.
The food of salvation is destined for them also. The ' children ' in
the interpolated clause anticipate the use of the word in the
original response. How could Jesus, says Loisy, have told the
woman that her child would be healed when he had completed all
the miracles he had to accomplish in Israel ? Mark has allegorized
the saying and the story. He looks to the future: the original
saying did not. B. Weiss notices that ov icaXov is specifically
Marcan: Matthew's ovk e^eariv is more original. For another
view see the note on Matt. xv. 28.
28. Only here is Jesus called Kvpie in Mark. It is a heathen
woman who calls him so. The appellation, however, may mean

VII. 24-30] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 1 79
no more than our ' sir.' For the real meaning of the word mis
translated ' crumbs ' (rather ' bits of bread ') see note on Luke
xvi. 21. The admirable reply of the woman is both touching and
brilliant : ' there is a place for dogs in the household, and there is
a place for Gentiles in God's world ' (Gould).
29. Jesus is moved by her humility and courage. He declares
that her request has been granted because of her noble reply.
Matthew makes Jesus praise her faith, the greatness of which
induces (and perhaps enables) him to grant her prayer. The
emphasis upon faith most authorities regard as specifically
characteristic of Matthew, but B. Weiss attributes it already to Q.
It is too subtle an explanation when he says that Mark by his
change wishes to indicate that Jesus fulfils the woman's request
because, as her reply shows, she recognizes the prerogative of Israel
while pointing out how he may nevertheless heal her child. It is
noticeable that the healing takes place ' from afar,' merely by ' word,'
which is unusual in Mark. The other instance was the healing
of the centurion's son. Both are cases of heathens being healed.
Do the Evangelists mean to imply that the Gentiles will be 'saved'
by the ' Word,' without the bodily presence of the Christ ? So
Augustine, and M. Loisy agrees. Yet he thinks that there must
have been a traditional story or memory, which was originally quite
independent of all symbolic interpretation {E. 8. 1, p. 977). But
the highly miraculous character of the story makes its accuracy
suspicious. For Jesus suddenly cures a third person, who knows
presumably nothing about him. The child is cured through the
courageous faith of its mother. This is sheer miracle. It seems
to me an instance of false exegesis and a wrong way of trying to
strip a narrative of its miraculous quality in order to preserve its
historical character when Holtzmann says : ' The girl meanwhile
had become quiet,' and upon her return the mother finds her
' lying upon the bed, probably exhausted after the last attack. It
is only Matthew who speaks of an immediate and permanent
result' Surely Mark implies a complete and instantaneous cure
no less than Matthew. Are we really to suppose that the story is
historical so far as the request of the woman and the reply of
Jesus are concerned, but false as regards the cure? The child
was lying, after a severe attack, exhausted and quiet upon its bed.
There was no cure. This seems an unsatisfactory solution.
Wellhausen notes that there can be no doubt that the prin
ciple, or line of action, laid down by Jesus in his reply, which he
is induced exceptionally to abandon in this case, was seriously
meant, and had hitherto been followed. Though he never says so
expressly, and lays no stress upon it, Mark regards it as self-evident 13 — 2

l8o THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VII. 24-30
that Jesus should limit his activity to the Jews, proclaim the
Kingdom of God to them, and summon them to repentance. Such
utterances as those in Matt. viii. 11 are never found in Mark.
Only in the [late] eschatological speech, Mark xiii. 10, does Jesus
predict the extension of the preaching of the gospel to the heathen.
But has not W. omitted to notice the implication of xiv. 9 ? Yet
this verse too is almost certainly later than Jesus.
Schmidt, I am inclined to think, tends to be a little one-sided
when he refuses to believe that Jesus could have shared the usual
Jewish limitations as regards the heathen world. Still, let my
readers judge for themselves. Schmidt says : ' There is no reason
to question the assistance Jesus gave to the child of a Phcenician
woman. But the conversation that is said to have taken place
is quite incredible. It is as impossible to believe that Jesus should
have refused to help a sufferer in Northern Syria on the ground
that it would not be right to help a dog of a Gentile, as that he
would praise as an instance of marvellous faith her willingness
to debase herself by accepting such a gratuitous insult in order to
secure a favour. It is sad enough that a Jewish Christian was
still capable of inventing this story. The more difficult it was to
make his thought understood in these foreign parts, the more
anxious Jesus must have been to commend his message by deeds
of kindness ' {Prophet of Nazareth, p. 276). J. Weiss has another
explanation. Jesus has left Galilee because he realizes that the
Jews are impervious to his teaching. They are hopeless. He
wants to be alone; he is immediately troubled by this heathen
woman. For a moment he is upset by the situation and answers
gloomily. Yet the cloud soon lifts, and he is, as ever, ready to
help a human being in the hour of need. J. Weiss knows too
much, I fancy, nor was the object of Jesus's journey a desire to be
alone because the Jews were impervious to his teaching.
Loisy thinks that the story is more or less historic ; it rests upon
fact, but the significance which the Evangelists give to it is theirs
alone. Jesus had not the smallest intention to announce the
Kingdom to the Gentiles; nor does he mean that the turn of
the heathen will come later. Though Mark's account is more
primitive than Matthew's, or rather, as Loisy would put it, though
Mark has deviated less than Matthew from the original source
which lay before them both, yet it is he, and not Jesus, who i&
responsible for the words, ' Let the children be satisfied first ' in
27. Jesus means to say simply that his miracles are wrought
for the Jews, the children of God, and not for the Gentiles, who
stand towards God and the Jews as dogs stand to the master and
children of the house. There is no thought of the future. Yet
the situation of the story must be real. It was not invented for

VIL 24-30] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK l8l
the saying. That saying (about the dogs) must have been spoken
on an occasion ' analogous ' to that which is described in Mark and
Matthew. Without it, Jesus would have had no interest to define
his relation to the heathen {E. 8. I. pp. 970-977).
The story is one of great beauty and charm. Whence this
wonderful attractiveness of so much of the Gospel narrative, this
marvellous combination of power and simplicity ? Whence this
impression of firstclassness, of inspiration ? Surely because the
Gospels are the early result of the impression produced by a great
and inspired personality. However uncertain it may be whether
what we read in any single passage was really said or done by
Jesus, only a real Jesus could have caused the Gospel. Without
Jesus, no Mark.
"The sublime figure of the Christ, portrayed to us by the first
three Evangelists, was, in a certain sense, created by the Church.
But if, in turn, we ask what was the moral and religious power
by which the Church was created, only one answer is possible i
it was the personality of Jesus, his faith, his truth, his love ' {First
Three Gospels, p. 326).
Nevertheless, do we know enough of the life of Jesus to speak
of his character in the customary terms of absolute and unqualified
eulogy ? We hear that his life was a perfect exhibition of divine
love, that it was one long and perfect sacrifice, in fact that it was a
perfect life, the product of a perfect character. And so on, with
endless variations. And yet we have to remember that Jesus
lived only thirty-three years or so, and that of this short life we
only know the events of a year or a year and a half In the
Galilaean period we do not know of much which requfred great
sacrifice. There is no reason to suppose that Jesus lived a life
of great pain, difficulty, and renunciation. A religious teacher
who made a great impression upon many was well looked after.
He had no difficulty in obtaining food or lodging.
Again, of the events of this year many are historically dubious,
many are mixed up with incredible miracles. We do not know
(to pass on to the Jerusalem period) whether Jesus went up to
the capital to conquer or to die. Let us assume that he went
to die, that he felt that his own death was the necessary pre
liminary for the full establishment of the Kingdom. It was a
fine determination. Nobody would wish to detract from it, but
I cannot perceive that even this act of self-sacrifice entitles us
to say of his character that it was the most perfect character, and
of his life that it was the most perfect life that has ever been
lived. It is a life
(a) of which we know very little, and only during some
eighteen months in all ;

1 82 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIL 24-30
(b) of which the incidents are very few ;
(c) which is very uncertain, and much mixed up with
miracle and legend ;
(d) which is recorded by biographers who seek to
eulogise and exalt to the utmost of their ability.
While, therefore, willing to pay my tribute of admiration to
the life and character of Jesus, so far as we know about them or
can ascertain them, I cannot see any reason to speak of them
as the acme and embodiment of every conceivable perfection. He
is a great teacher and a noble man, whom we must greatly admire:
our adoration will be reserved for God.
Yet through the mists of miracle and legend we see a character,
not indeed perfect, for his attitude neither to his mother nor to
his opponents seems to me without question, but yet noble; a
character, moreover, finely balanced and tempered. Jesus was
virile, but gentle ; severe, but pitiful. He was confident, yet
humble. Aloof from the world, yet not gloomy. What a grand
grip he had upon essentials, upon the fatherhood of God, and
upon the service of God in the service of man. How positive was
his goodness. How he hated shams, meanness, hypocrisy, self-
righteousness. These hatreds reveal the sort of man he was,
filled with pity for the outcasts of society, with scorn for the
respectably virtuous who so carefully avoided evil and yet per
formed so little good. I can quite realize that it is easy, and to
those brought up in a Christian environment justifiable, upon the
basis of what we know about Jesus, to conjecture and amplify and
idealise. 'An ideal,' says Jowett, 'necessarily mingles with all
conceptions of Christ.' This ideal, which varies from age to age,
' may be conveniently spoken of as the life of Christ.' But this
ideal is not the actual character or actual life of the historic
Jesus, ' of a person scarcely known to us,' as Jowett admits, whose
biographies are full of doubt and uncertainty {Life and Letters of
Benjamin Jowett, Vol. n. pp. 151, 445).
31-37. Healing of a Deaf and Dumb Man
{Cp. Matt. XV. 29-31)
31 Then he left the district of Tyre, and came by way of Sidon
unto the lake of Galilee, through the midst of the district of the
32 Ten Cities. And they brought unto him one that was deaf and
stammered ; and they besought him to put his hand upon him.
33 And he took him aside from the crowd, and put his fingers into

VIL 31-37] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 183
34 his ears, and touched his tongue with his spittle, and looking up
to heaven, he sighed, and said unto him, 'Ephphatha,' that is, 'Be
35 opened.' And straightway his ears were opened, and the fetter
36 of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke plainly. And he enjoined
them to tell no one; but the more he enjoined them, the more
37 did they proclaim it. And they were exceedingly astonished,
saying, ' He has done all things well : he makes the deaf to hear,
and the dumb to speak.'
31. This verse would indicate, if it is accurate, that Jesus
took a very extended journey before returning to the Lake of
Galilee. He would have gone far northwards, and then eastwards
and back again to the south. But so protracted a journey seems
improbable. It appears likely that Mark wanted to place the
mfracles that follow upon heathen soil forthe sake of his symbolism.
They are wrought as Jesus passes through the Decapolis on his
way back to the lake. They symbolize the salvation of the
Gentiles to whom the gospel is also to be rendered. W. thinks
that Sidon is a misrendering of Saidan, which was a variant for
Bethsaida. The geography of Mark is somewhat confused, and
gives rise to much discussion in the commentators, which I pass
over in silence.
32. Is the man a Jew ? According to Loisy, he was so in the
traditional story which had no special place or time ; to Mark he
was a heathen, and he symbolizes the giving of the gospel to the
Gentiles. The population of the Decapolis was mixed.
33. The healing process is here conducted in a strange, half-
magical way. One wonders what is the measure of historical basis
for this curious tale. Spittle was regarded in antiquity as
possessed of healing properties. Tacitus records that Vespasian
cured a blind man in Alexandria by wetting his eyes with his
spittle {Histories, iv. 81).
34. He ' sighed.' The word here means that he was praying.
For the prayer, cp. Elijah in i Kings xvii. 19-21 or Elisha in
2 Kings iv. 33-35.
It is amusing how the great authorities vary in their
judgments. To W. healings by touch are older and more original
than healings by the mere word. Mark usually makes Jesus
employ a touch of one kind or another (as here), rarely a mere
word. With Matthew it is otherwise. J. Weiss, on the other
hand, thinks touching is secondary. According to the oldest view.

1 84 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIL 31-37
the healings of Jesus were accomplished by a mere word. Jesus
' orders ' the ' demon ' of sickness. The conception that he healed
by touch is more reflective. Still more so is the idea that he used
popular medicinal means (as here). The mfracle becomes less
spiritual ; but also there is a sort of semi-rationalistic explanation.
W.'s view seems to me more likely than J. Weiss's.
Loisy sees nothing necessarily unlikely in Jesus using these
remedies, as in his eyes they were. Jesus does not want to be
regarded, he does not regard himself, as an all powerful worker
of miracles by his own mere personality. The case of demon-
expelling stands apart, for the demons are personal beings, and they
must be expelled by the mere order of God's messenger. But in
the case of ordinary maladies Jesus either attributes his heahngs
to the faith of those who implore his aid, or he acts like a doctor,
who trusts m God and thinks that he effects his cures by ordinary
remedies through divine help So with words. The ' Word ' was
also a remedy, a means of curing, just like touching a little saliva ;
nevertheless these means were not regarded as independent of the
divine will. Thus Loisy denies that the term ' magic ' is in place,
and even my ' half-magical ' should therefore, according to him, be
deleted {E. 8. 1. p. 981).
36. Jesus would not have been the ' Menschenkenner ' he was
if he had thought that such a miracle, wrought in public, could
remain unknown. All these prohibitions are part of Mark's theory,
and, likely enough, have little historic basis.
These stories are partly told, and partly made up, with an eye
to the fulfilment of prophecy. Cp. Isaiah xxix. 18, xxxv. 5, 6.

CHAPTER VIII
1-9. Feeding of the Four Thousand
{Cp. Matt. XV. 32-39)
I In those days there was again a great crowd, and they had
nothing to eat. And Jesus called his disciples unto him, and
2 said unto them, ' I feel pity for the people because they have now
3 tarried with me three days, and have nothing to eat: and if I
send them away fasting to their own homes, they will faint by
4 the way : moreover some of them came from far.' And his
disciples answered him, ' Whence can one satisfy these men with

VIII. 1-9] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 185
5 bread here in the wilderness ? ' And he asked them, ' How many
6 loaves have ye ? ' And they said, ' Seven.' And he bade the
people to sit down on the ground : and he took the seven loaves,
and spoke the blessing, and broke them, and gave them to his
7 disciples to set before the people ; and they did so. And they
had a few small fishes : and he spoke the blessing, and told them
8 to set these also before the people. So they did eat, and were
satisfied: and they took up of the broken bits that were left,
9 seven baskets full. And they who had eaten were about four
thousand. W. notices that viii 1-26 does not really carry the story
forward from the point at which it had arrived in vii. 37. It runs
parallel with vi. 34 — vii. 37. It does not indeed cover the whole
ground, viii 1-9 corresponds with vi. 34-44 (the miraculous
feedings); then in viii 10-21 (itself composite and interpolated)
we have a crossing back again to the other side of the lake, as in
vi. 46-52, while 22-26 corresponds with vii. 31-37 (in each case a
similar mfracle). For vi. 53-56, vii. I-23, vii 24-30 there are no
parallels. These sections are, however, 'vermutlich ein oder
vielmehr zwei Zwischenstiicke' themselves. Are we then to assume
that Mark had already two groups of written passages before him,
which he combined ? It looks rather like it. But W. does not
like to admit such a conclusion. He says : ' Der Umstand, dass
hier nicht bloss einzelne Varianten, sondern zwei Gruppen von
Varianten erscheinen, gibt zu denken. Doch sind die Gruppen
klein, sie bestehn eigentlich nur aus drei Stiicken, die schon von
der mtindlichen Tradition in dieser Reihenfolge batten iiberliefert
sein konnen.'
The miracle of the four thousand is a close variant of the
feeding of the five thousand in vi. 31-44. Note that Jesus again
shows pity for the material exhaustion of the people. In vi. 34 he
pities thefr spiritual destitution. Neither pity is unhistorical. He
clearly cared for people's bodies as well as for their souls. Cp. v. 43.
Mark must, it is supposed, have found two separate miraculous
feeding stories in his sources. Probably these were two written
sources. Mark seems to use the two feeding stories for two
different purposes. The one symbolizes the preaching of the
' Word ' to the Jews ; the other symbolizes its presentation to the
heathen. Jesus alone gives the true Word, which the peoples
cannot find elsewhere.
7. The parallelism of the two stories extends to the odd way
in which the fishes are introduced, for in both they seem to come.

1 86 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIII. 1-9
as M. Loisy says, ' quelque peu en surcharge ' {E. 8. 1, p. 987, n. 3).
It is a question whether there is a symbolism in the fish, and why
they have been added.
8. Note that the word for 'baskets' differs in the two
narratives. In the first it is ko^ivoi ; in the second it is airvpiBe<s.
This points to two different written sources.

10-12. A Sign Refused
{Cp. Matt. xii. 38-42, xvi. 1-4 ; Luke xi 29-32)
10 And when he had sent them away, straightway he entered
into a boat with his disciples, and came into the district of
II Dalmanutha. And the Pharisees came forth, and began to dis
pute with him, demanding from him a sign from heaven, in order
12 to tempt him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said,
'Wherefore doth this generation demand a sign? verily I say
unto you. There shall no sign be given unto this generation.'
As viii. 1-9 is a variant of vi. 34-44, so viii. 10 is the variant of
vi. 45. In both cases, after the miraculous feeding, Jesus enters a
ship and crosses over the lake.
10. Where is Dalmanutha? Nobody knows for certain: some
think on the east, some on the west, side of the lake. W. thinks
the former. J. Weiss the latter. H=- supposes that this scene
with the Pharisees should really be connected with vi. 53-56, the
healings in Gennesaret. J
II. As the first miracle of the lojfves is followed by the
disputation with the Pharisees about ablutions, so the second is
followed by a quarrel about ' signs.' Loisy supposes that the
stories are inserted from the same motive in both cases. To the
gospel, the true nurture of souls, is opposed the false Judaism,
which is 'outward' and demands 'signs.' He also believes that
II, 12 come from Q. If they are a later insertion, as W. thinks,
this would be all the likelier. The Pharisees are represented, as
usual, in the worst light. They ask Jesus for a sign in order to
tempt him. Apparently this means that they knew that Jesus
ought to refuse them — i.e. that he ought to refuse to substantiate
his special powers or his Messiahship by miracles. Or does ' tempt
ing ' mean that they believed he could not perform a miracle on

VIII. IO-I2] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 187
a grand scale, and that they tempted him to try so that he might
fail ? Dr Carpenter, however, holds that 'trying' or 'testing him'
(TretjOafovTe?) is Mark's interpretation. The demand was a trial
to Jesus because he felt he ought to refuse it. This is what
Mark wishes to indicate, without reference to the purpose of the
Pharisees. In any case, they are the bad people in asking for a ' sign ' ;
Jesus is the good man in refusing them. At the best they suffer
from ' incurable Wundersucht' But is not this unjust ? Jesus, in
the narrative as we now have it, had already performed two
gigantic miracles, which were surely 'signs,' and are treated as
such in 17-20. Moreover he had appealed to his miracles of
healing, yet, by his own admission, there were Rabbinic exorcists
as well as he. And successful ones too! Hence, when Jesus
made assertions implying the imperfections of the Law, was it
unreasonable to ask for a special miracle in order to prove these
bold assertions contradicting the letter of the Law, which it was
a dogma of faith to regard as true and perfect from beginning to
end ? Perhaps Deut. xiii. 1—3 should have made them refrain, but
the passage scarcely applies, for Jesus, at all events, was not
suggesting the worship of ' other gods.* It is right to remember
constantly that there is a great deal to be said for the Pharisees
and Rabbis, whose relations with Jesus we only hear of from their
bitter enemies, who wanted to depict the Master as all light and
his adversaries all darkness.
The reason why Jesus refuses the miracle, according to
J. Weiss, is because he perceives in the demand the unbelief, the
mockery and the hatred of his opponents. Hence he is filled with
bitterness and defiance. To demand a sign is the proof of their
ineradicable 'superficiality and outwardness.' The faith that Jesus
required is of a quite different kind. To the modern Christian of
J. Weiss's school, who disbelieves in miracles, this may be very
comforting. But the superficiality is proved none the more. In
the days of Jesus everybody believed in miracles, and Jesus was
only too glad when people believed that his miracles were divinely
ordered. His teaching and his miracles went together. But that
teaching ran counter to the written and to the oral Law. Now
the Law itself had foretold that prophets might arise who would
'dare to speak in God's name what God had not commanded.'
Was it not likely that Jesus, who spoke against the Law, was such
a prophet ? The words in Deut. xviii 20-22 may have, moved
many to reflection. If, however, Jesus were to foretell some sign
which ' followed and came to pass,' then, perhaps, it might be safe
to think that God, who of old had said that the Law was to be a
' statute for ever throughout your generations,' had really changed

1 88 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIIL to-12
his mind. The ' sign from heaven ' is a miracle over and above
mere exorcisms and healings.
W. thinks that 11 and 12 are a later insertion, and that 13
repeats 10. Those who were dismissed are the same in 13 as in 9.
Jesus could not so lightly 'dismiss' the Pharisees. 'Again'
{irdXiv) in 13 is a harmonising way out of the difficulty.
12. ' Wherefore' &c. 'Der Sinn der Frage bei Mc. soil wohl
sein : sie begehren das Zeichen gar nicht wirklich, warum tun sie
denn so ?' (Klostermann). Or it may be that the meaning of the
question is in an answer which is implied but not stated. ' They
ask for signs with a wrong motive, therefore I will not give them.'
We have here one more example of the fact that neither Jesus nor
the Pharisees could understand each other. From their point of
view the Pharisees were justified in showing the utmost caution
towards, and the utmost suspicion of, a teacher who either violated,
or taught by implication the violation of, the Law. A sign from
their point of view was reasonable enough. But though the
Pharisees may have been justified in asking, it does not follow that
Jesus was not right in refusing. There is something in Gould's
view, though it is pressed, perhaps, too far or too hard. The mfracles
of Jesus were ' uses of divine power, but not displays of it.' He
refused to prove his power by empty marvels ad hoc. ' He refuses
to do anything as a sign, and yet his life was full of signs.' Note
that whereas Isaiah offers a sign to Ahaz, who says that he will
not tempt God, Jesus refuses a sign.
The Greek MSS. say Jesus 'sighed in spirit' {dvaarevd^a^),
but the S.S. has, 'he was wrath in spirit,' which Merx thinks is
more original.

13-21. The Lack of Bread
{Cp. Matt, xvi 5-12; Luke xii. i)
13 And he left them, and entering into the boat again, crossed
14 over to the other side. Now they had forgotten to take bread
with them, and they had not in the boat more than one loaf
15 And he enjoined them, saying, 'Take heed, beware of the leaven
16 of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.' And they argued
17 with one another, ' We have no bread.' And Jesus perceived it,
and said unto them, 'Why do ye argue that ye have no bread?
do ye not yet perceive or understand ? is your heart hardened ?
18 Having eyes, see ye not ? and having ears, hear ye not ? and do

VIII. 13-21] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 189
19 ye not remember ? When I broke the five loaves among the five
thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up ? ' And
20 they said, ' Twelve.' ' And when the seven loaves among the four
thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up?'
21 And they said, ' Seven.' And he said unto them, ' Do ye still not
understand ? '
W. remarks that 13 or rather 9, which 13 resumes and repeats,
must originally have been followed by 22. The redactor having
now two feeding stories in his narratives is able to reflect about
them both in 14-21.
15. W. thinks that this verse has no connection with 14,
16-21. An isolated saying of Jesus is given a wrong place and
connection. For the ' leaven ' is not the teaching of the Pharisees
or of Herod, but their evil disposition. They are united in their
hatred of Jesus. The disciples are to beware of their hostility and
guile, not of being infected by their teaching.
For the Rabbinic use of the word 'leaven,' see Additional
Note 17.
Certainly the omission of 1 5 makes the connexion and sense
much more natural. 16 follows well on 14, though, it must be
admitted, only if we may render, like W. : ' Und sie machten sich
Gedanken daruher, dass sie kein Brot hatten.' But is this transla
tion possible ? It is, however, adopted by Klostermann. The
usual interpretation of the words in 16 is that they discussed with
each other what the warning of Jesus (in 15) precisely signified,
and that they took it to refer to thefr neglect to take enough
bread with them — a strained meaning, as must be admitted, but
not out of accordance with the general theory of Mark as to the
spiritual blindness of the apostles.
Jesus's rebuke seems at first sight to mean that the disciples are
never to have a fear of material wants. By his miraculous powers
Jesus, if they have faith, will always provide for them in every
emergency. So Matthew understands the passage. The obtuse
ness of the disciples is awkwardly exaggerated. They do not even
remember the surprising mfracles of the feeding the 5000 and the
4000. But this explanation is clearly inadequate. There must prob
ably be more in the rebuke than a mere reference to the miracles
as outward events. More is intended than the mere injunction
not to fear material want because Jesus can always, if need be,
through his miraculous powers, provide the necessary food. There
is a spfritual reference as well. Hence there seems more reason
to accept the explanation of Loisy. He too holds that 15 contains

I90 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIII. 13-21
a historic saying of Jesus, but unlike W., he regards this saying
as the source round which 14-21 has been formed. Moreover he
interprets the saying, not as W. does, but spiritually. He, however,
holds that Jesus only spoke of the leaven of the Pharisees, meaning
by that their false piety, and not also of the leaven of Herod. (If
he had spoken also of the leaven of Herod, then W.'s interpretation
would be necessary. The interpolator who added ' the leaven of
Herod ' meant by it the false, irreligious, mundane, spirit of Herod.)
The Evangelist or the redactor invented the forgotten loaves
to make a connection for the saying about the 'leaven.' The
disciples are then made to misunderstand this saying, and Jesus in
his reply hints that the mfracles of the loaves had a spfritual and
symbolic meaning. The saying about the 'leaven' was meant
spiritually. The miracles of the loaves, though true in fact, were
also — so the redactor would inform us — meant symbolically. He
perhaps would even have given a symbolic meaning to the
forgotten food (in verse 14), namely, the inadequacy of the ancient
apostles to bring about the expansion of Christianity. The
multiplied loaves is a symbol of the salvation offered to the Jews
and the Gentiles. And the intense stupidity of the apostles is
once more shown to be ' a thesis of the Evangelist, rather than a
fact of history.' It nevertheless symbolizes a reality, namely, that
the disciples during the lifetime of Jesus never suspected certain
facts which afterwards became apparent, i.e. the universal destina
tion of the gospel, the abrogation of the Law, the institution of a
new community of which Jesus was the centre, and of which the
breaking of bread was to be both the symbol and the bond. Thus
Loisy urges that Mark adds to the most ancient traditions, already
partly written, considerations inspired by Pauline universalism and
by the later developments of Christianity. The verses which give
1 5 its setting are written from ,the same point of view as those
which give the explanation of the parable of the sower and the
explanation of the saying of ^fae true defilement. And note that
the language recalls previously used expressions. Cp. iv. 12, vi. 52,
vii. 18. Verse 18 is modelled on Jeremiah v. 21 and Ezekiel xii 2
{E. S. I. pp. 1001-1006).

22-26. A Blind Man Healed
(Mark only)
22 And they came to Bethsaida ; and they brought a blind man
23 unto him, and besought him to touch him. And he took the
blind man by the hand, and led him out of the village ; and he

VIIL 22-26] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 19T
spat into his eyes, and put his hands upon him, and asked him if
24 he saw anything. And he looked up, and said, ' I perceive men,
25 for I see them like trees, walking.' Then Jesus put his hands
again upon his eyes, and he looked steadfastly, and was restored,
26 and saw everything clearly. And he sent him away to his house,
saying, ' Go not into the village.'
Here, finally, is the variant to vii. 31-37. If we do not accept
the view of W. given at the opening of the chapter, the question
presents itself, why did the redactor add on and insert this
' variant ' ? Was it merely that finding it, and thinking it to be
an extra, independent, fresh instance of the mfraculous powers of
Jesus, and not wishing that such an instance should be forgotten,
he was anxious to secure a place for it in the Gospel ? But its place
near the second miracle of the loaves makes it possible that Loisy
is right in seeing in the redactor's motive a more symbolic intention.
' La gu^rison de I'aveugle parait figurer I'adh^sion des apotres a la
foi messianique, tout comme la guerison du sourd-muet figure la
conversion des gentils, et I'origine de I'Eglise hell6nochr6tienne.'
And is the miracle inserted in this special place before the confes
sion of Peter, to symbolize and prepare the way for that dissipation
of spiritual darkness in the apostles which the confession is to
reveal? {E. 8. I. pp. 1007, 1008). It is noticeable that both
variants are unused by Matthew. He objected, W. thinks, to the
magical method of healing. It seemed to him unworthy of the
Master. J, Weiss, as in vii. 31-37, thinks the story is suspicious
and secondary. The minutely described procedure makes the
narrative no more credible. ' A semblance of naturalness is given
to the mfracle of almighty power by this exact description ; it
almost appears as if the cure was only started by the touching and
the spitting, and then completed itself. But our confidence in the
report is not thereby strengthened in the least. For these details
do not make the sudden cure of ever such a mild disease of the
eyes any clearer ; they only betray to us that the narrator, in spite
of all his belief in miracles, is already beginning to reflect how it
was possible for Jesus to perform such an act And it is a very
simple-minded explanation of the miracle that the power of Jesus
was successful, not, it is true, the first time, but still the second.'

192 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIIL 27-IX. i

viii 27-ix. I. Jesus the Suffering Messiah —
Peter and Jesus
{Cp. Matt, xvi 13-28; Luke ix. 18-27)
27 And from there Jesus went, with his disciples, into the
villages of Csesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his
disciples, saying unto them, 'Whom do men say that I am?'
28 And they answered, ' John the Baptist ; and others, Elijah ;
29 and others. One of the prophets.' And he asked them, 'But
ye — whom say ye that I am ? ' And Peter answered and said
30 unto him, 'Thou art the Messiah.' And he sternly admonished
them that they should tell no man of him.
31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must
suffer much, and be rejected by the Elders and the chief priests
and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
32 And he spoke the word quite openly.
33 And Peter took him aside, and began to rebuke him. But
he turned round, and looking on his disciples, he rebuked Peter,
saying, ' Get thee behind me, Satan : for thou thinkest not the
34 thoughts of God, but of men.' And he called the people unto
him together with his disciples, and said unto them, ' Whoever
would follow after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
35 cross, and follow me. For whoever would save his life shall
lose it ; but whoever would lose his life for my sake and the
36 gospel's, he shall save it. For what can it profit a man to
37 gain the whole world, and to forfeit his life? For what can
38 a man give as the price of his life ? For whoever shall be
ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful
generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he
IX. I cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.' And he
said unto them, ' Verily I say unto you. There are some of those
who stand here who shall not taste death till they see the
kingdom of God come with power.'
Here begins a new section of the Gospel of the greatest import
ance and significance. W. calls viii 27-x. the second portion of the
second main division of Mark. He entitles it : ' Jesus on the way

VIIL 27-IX. i] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 193
to Jerusalem.' It is, however, doubtful whether these divisions
and sub-divisions represent the intention or mind of the Evangelist.
M. Loisy thinks that the confession of Peter does not to Mark
form 'an essential division' of his book, though it must have
formed ' un point capital ' in the source from which the confession
was taken. Moreover the correspondence of the blind man in
viii. 22-26 with the blind man of x. 46-52 indicates a sort of
' sectionnement ' in vi. 30-x. (which Loisy calls roughly the fourth
part of the book) that would allow one to put a break at viii 26,
and treat viii. 27-x. as a separate section {E. 8. i. p. 85, n. i). We
may also notice, with W., the curious parallelism between the
opening of vi. 14-16 (with which W. begins his second division)
and viii 27 seq. In both cases the question is discussed who
Jesus really is.
'Now only,' as W. says, 'begins the gospel as the apostles
proclaimed it ; before this one does not perceive much of it. The
determination to go to Jerusalem causes a remarkable change. A
transfigured Jesus stands before us, and the two miracles of
healing, which are inserted, seem almost out of place. He no
longer teaches general doctrine, but prophesies about himself.
He speaks to his disciples rather than to the people. To them he
reveals his nature and mission. But he does this esoterically.
They are not to tell it to anyone till the predictions are fulfilled,
and even they themselves do not till then understand it. The
opportunity to reveal the secret is given by the confession of
Peter, "Thou art the Messiah." Jesus induced that confession,
and he accepts it with a correction ; he is not the Messiah who is
to restore the kingdom of Israel, but quite another Messiah. He
does not go to Jerusalem to restore the Jewish kingdom, but to be
crucified. Through suffering and death he enters into glory, and
only thus — through this same path — can others follow him thither.
The Kingdom of God is no Jewish kingdom ; it is only intended
for certain chosen individuals, his disciples. The idea of the
possibility of a general repentance of the whole people is entirely
abandoned. Instead of a summons to repefttance addressed to
all, we have the demand, "Follow me," the demand of discipleship,
which only very few can fulfil. And the conception of discipleship
itself assumes a new and higher meaning. It no longer merely
implies following and accompanying Jesus in his lifetime, but,
mainly, following him in his death. Discipleship as imitation is
possible even after his death, and, indeed, it only then properly
begins. His cross is to be carried after him. For the Kingdom's
sake the disciples are to abandon people and family; they must
sacrifice everything which binds them to life ; they must sacrifice
life itself. Reform is impossible ; the enmity of the world cannot
M- 13

194 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIIL 27-IX. i
be overcome. A violent breach with the world is demanded,
leading to martyrdom. Thus the situation and the mood of the
early Christian community is here reflected beforehand in Jesus,
as he goes forward to meet his fate. Upon this depends that
lofty pathos in which the introduction to the Passion excels the
Passion itself
Clearly, therefore, if W. is right, there is a good deal of
prospective history in this section, and less of historical record.
For Jesus seems to project himself not only into his own
future, but also into the future of his community. His disciples,
the members of that community, are threatened with persecutions ;
martyrdoms are hinted at ; the sons of Zebedee are to suffer a
similar fate to that of their Master, yet they are not necessarily
to hold a higher rank in the future Kingdom of God. The general
hope is narrowed. Only those who believe in Jesus and follow him
may confidently expect to enter the Kingdom. The commands of
the Law, as given to the Jews, are inadequate (W. presses x. 21
and 29). To his followers, and not to the general public, Jesus
now addresses himself. They are told of the fate which lies before
him, and are enjoined to be ready to follow in the same dark path.
Whether the confession of Peter had actually the epoch-making
importance which Mark assigns to it is a question to which no
final answer can ever be given. If Mark viii. 28 is accurate, Jesus
had till then {i.e. for the greater part of his ministry) neither
himself claimed to be the Messiah, nor had others, outside his
chosen disciples, thought that he was so. And this is probably
correct. Dr Martineau, on the other hand, thinks that the historic
reality which verse 30 half conceals and half reveals was that
Jesus, when Peter said 'Thou art the Messiah,' disclaimed and
disavowed the title and office. He was not the Messiah. This
seems a very hazardous interpretation of the verse. On the other
hand, if Jesus had neither claimed nor been thought to be the
Messiah till the scene at Csesarea Philippi, it is not quite easy to
understand how so very soon after we can account for the wording
of X. 47, or, still more, for an event like that recorded in xi 10,
where Jesus is openly hailed as Messiah. Is the explanation
adequate that, in spite of his earnest prohibition, the disciples now
began to talk of his Messiahship, and so made the rumour of the
coming Messiah pass quickly on to Jericho and Jerusalem ? One
may, of course, argue that the wording (' son of David ') in x. 47
is not to be relied on, and that xi 10 is not historical or that
it has been 'Messianically' coloured.
The degree of importance which attaches to the question
whether Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and to his admission of
his Messiahship at Csesarea Philippi, is also influenced by the

VIII. 27-IX. i] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 195
possibility that, as W. says, Jesus accepted the name of the Jewish
ideal, but altered its contents. But the uncertainties of the subject
are reflected in what W. then proceeds to add : ' Jesus would not
lose in importance for us, even if he did not do this, but only gave
himself out as the fulfiller of the Old Testament. I moreover
admit, first, that he had an outward cause to leave Galilee (see
vi. 30-33), and that he did not go to Jerusalem with the mere
intention of being crucified there ; secondly, that the predictions
about the Passion, in which the subject is the Son of man, are
open to the suspicion of a later date; thirdly, that it remains
unclear whether in Jerusalem Jesus himself openly appeared as
the Messiah, or whether he was only taken to be the Messiah by
the people, and therefore accused by the authorities before Pilate.'
The conclusions of W. may need some modification if we hold
that the confession of Peter, with the promise of the near Parousia
and the remarks about Elijah, were taken and elaborated by Mark
not from oral tradition, but from a written source. This is Loisy's
opinion {E. 8. i. p. 1 14). That Q contained a ' Petrusbekenntniss' is
urged by B.Weiss, but his arguments do not seem in this instance of
much weight, and they largely depend upon unacceptable views
about the Son of man. For Loisy the source is not Q, but the narra
tive source, which he assumes as Mark's second written authority.
On the other hand, there are verses in the present section such
as viii. 35, 38 which may, as will be seen, depend on Q. Whether,
however, because they were in Q, the quotations from W. would
be invalidated is another question. It does not necessarily follow
that they would. Neither in Mark nor in Q, as Bousset reminds
us, can we be sure that we find the ipsissima verba of Jesus.
Both Q and Mark, the former as well as the latter, may often
reflect the later thoughts of the community as it attempted to
recall and record the words of the Master, crucified and in glory.
The gigantic fact of the crucifixion, and what was believed to
have happened to the crucified one after his death, involuntarily
coloured and altered a good deal of what he had actually said.
27. The disciples had been away from Jesus, and had returned
to him (vi. 30). Both during their absence and since their return
they had had opportunities to hear what was said of him by the
people with whom they came in contact. Jesus wishes, therefore, to
know whether his Messiahship has been recognized. This seems the
more obvious meaning of the question. He finds out that though
some think him the forerunner, he is not supposed to be the
Messiah. Then Jesus pushes the matter further. Do the disciples
rest content with the opinions of others ? Have they guessed no
better ? Such must be the meaning of Mark in this conversation.
13—2

196 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIII. 27-IX. i
But whether Jesus introduced the subject in this manner we have
no means of knowing.
28. Cp. vi. 14, 15. 'A prophet ' ; that is, probably, not a
prophet risen from the dead, but a new prophet on his own
account. Luke, on the other hand, understands the words to
mean a risen prophet, and it must be confessed that this makes a
better parallelism. The three alternatives are precisely the same
as those given in vi. 14-16.
29. Obviously, if Jesus had already told the disciples that he
was the Messiah, the question would have had no meaning.
30. eiririfida. In 32 and 33 this word means 'rebuke.' Here
it seems to mean no more than ' admonish.'
Dr Weymouth renders : ' strictly forbade.' In verse 32 he
renders the same verb {eiririimv) 'remonstrate' and in 33
'rebuke.' A good deal turns on this verb. J. Weiss, at least,
lays great stress on it. He thinks it must have the same meaning
in all three verses. The scene at Caesarea Philippi rests, to Weiss,
upon Peter's ' reminiscences.' Peter ' remembered ' that when he
had told Jesus that the disciples supposed him (Jesus) to be the
Messiah, Jesus instead of being pleased was agitated. ' Er herrschte
sie an.' Why was this ? J. Weiss holds that the reason was that
Jesus discerned in Peter's ' gestures and tone ' something which
made him realize that the disciples had not advanced beyond the
' Jewish ' conception of the Messiah. But Jesus knew that, if
indeed he was the Messiah, he was not the political Messiah who
was to conquer and triumph. If he was the Messiah, he was
rather Daniel's heavenly ' Man,' who was at last to come down
from heaven upon clouds. And in any case a heavy fate lay first
in store for him. For he must suffer and die ; and this it is which
the disciples have to be told. The confession of Peter is a mere
introduction to that which is to follow. The theory of J. Weiss is
ingenious, but hardly convincing; yet surely it is improper to
speak of it or of similar theories, as Merx does, as an ' unwtirdige
Albernheit fiir Kinder.' Klostermann holds that the ' rebuke,' or
' admonishment,' is only relative to the order of silence. Jesus
accepts the title of Messiah, but it is not to pass beyond the inner
circle of the disciples. At the same time he gives it a new content
by what immediately follows. His active Messiahship must be
preceded by suffering and death.
The disciples, then, from this time forth are to know that Jesus
is the Messiah, but the people are still to be in ignorance of it.
Those who deny that Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah have
to suppose that the verse means that Jesus forbade the disciples to

VIIL 27-IX. i] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 197
speak of his Messiahship because it was untrue ; he was not the
Messiah. Thus Schmidt {Prophet of Nazareth, p. 277) : ' Jesus
charged his disciples not to say that he was the Messiah. He
did not wish that men should believe in him as the Messiah and
confess him as such.' But then, if the language attributed to
Jesus is what he really said, one wonders that he was not more
definite. Rather than charging his disciples not to say he was
the Messiah, it would have been simpler and clearer to have
charged them to say that he was not the Messiah.
Why did Jesus not wish to be known as the Messiah ? If
he knew he was the Messiah, why should he not have said so
openly, in order that all might have had the better chance of
believing in him and in his message ? Is there something in
Dr Martineau's argument that 'the injunction to conceal the claim
is inconsistent with his having made or sanctioned it,' that 'to
keep it out of sight, not to press it passionately and always upon
the nation at an hour so critical, were simple betrayal of the
divinest trust' {Seat of Authority in Religion, 5th ed., p. 386) ?
Or may we not argue, as the evidence that Jesus claimed to be
the Messiah is too great to be avoided, that the unhistorical part
of the matter is the injunction to silence and to secrecy ? Are
not these rather due to Mark's theory than to history ? Or may
we assume that the order to keep silence is historical, but the
reason not the one which Mark would have us suppose ? May it
not well be that Jesus knew the imminent danger which a pro
clamation and acknowledgment of his Messiahship would involve ?
He was determined at whatever risk to proclaim his Messiahship
at Jerusalem, but he would not do so before. Or perhaps he
thought that God Himself by some sudden act would reveal it,
and that he must not anticipate the divine revelation. In that
last case the Messianic entry must be regarded as unhistorical.
I have already alluded to the favourite theory that Jesus
believed himself to be the Messiah, but in quite a new sense.
He was a purely religious Messiah, who would have nothing to
do with politics. He would not restore the Jewish kingdom.
He was the Messiah in the sense that he was about to introduce
the Kingdom of God. By his new teaching a certain number
of persons were to be made fit for that Kingdom, while those
who rejected him were to be excluded. Or, again, it is argued
that he felt himself to be the servant-Messiah of Isaiah xlii. and
liii. Only after suffering and death would his true Messiahship
begin. The Kingdom of God was intended for the Jews. It is ac
knowledged by W. and other great commentators that Jesus did
not look beyond the limits of the Jews in his ministry and

198 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIII. 27-IX. i
teaching. The Kingdom is for Jewish believers. It is to cor
respond with the old Jewish Messianic age. But what part the
Gentiles, and especially the Romans, are to play in that age is
not stated. Here the commentators in their interpretations of
Jesus's mind seem to fail us. All they emphasise and reiterate
is that Jesus's Messiahship and Messianic age had nothing to do
with the ' impure ' political aspirations of the Jews. Jesus, then,
does not desire to be known as the Messiah, so that the people
may not think that their hopes are to be fulfilled and the yoke
of the Romans shaken off. But if Jesus believed himself to be
the Messiah in this new sense, why did he not say so plainly?
Whatever some might think, or whatever he might think of the Son
of man and his coming, it is certain that the bulk of the people
connected the Messiah with political independence, with a con
dition of liberty, righteousness, and prosperity. So much, at any
rate, was still adhered to in the predictions of the prophets and
in their delineations of the Messiah. If Jesus believed that this
Messiah of the prophets was 'impure' and false — that this Messiah
would never appear — why did he not say so ? Why did he dally
with the Messianic idea at all and permit others to dally with it ?
Why, if we follow up J. Weiss's arguments, did he not separate
off the Son of man idea more clearly from the Messiah idea ? He
might be a far higher person than the Jewish Messiah ; he might
even be the Son of God in a special sense ; but why did he claim
and believe himself to be the Messiah, or at any rate allow
himself to be called so by Peter, if he did not fulfil the ordinary
conditions, nay, if those very conditions were ' impure,' political,
and never to be fulfilled ?
We have seen that the clearest picture of the old prophetical
Messiah in the Old Testament is Isaiah xi. But if the com
mentators are right, the prediction of Isaiah xi is ' impure ' and
'political.' Moreover, it will never be fulfilled, and Jesus never
intended to fulfil it. One cannot help wondering what Jesus
thought his own relation was to the Messiah described by Isaiah,
or whether he definitely thought that Isaiah was wrong? Was
there only to be a Messiah, like the servant in Isaiah xlii and
liii, who would suffer and die, and come again, and inaugurate
a purely spfritual kingdom ? Even so, the Romans were surely
not to be the rulers in the new age after the Parousia and the
Judgment. But, in that case, was there not a political element
in the expectations of Jesus after all ?
Or did Jesus, for that very reason, make no claim to be the
Messiah ? Did he rebuke Peter for suggesting that he was the
Messiah ? And if so, did he believe, though he was not the Messiah,
that, nevertheless, the true Messiah would ultimately come ?

VIII. 27-IX. i] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 199
Some great commentators have thought so, and the idea would
explain many difficulties, but it would also create fresh ones. The
whole story and fate of Jesus are difficult to understand if in some
sense or other he did not claim to be a Messiah, or the Messiah, a
king, or the king, of the Jews.
Dr Carpenter remarks here that it is a curious testimony to
the ingenuousness of the records that it is possible to ask so many
questions of them. If they were the result oi reflective imagination,
there would be answers, or suggestions of answers. No one is in
any doubt as to the view of Rome and its fate in the Book of
Revelation. As it is, one is wholly without clue to Jesus's politics.
In fact, one cannot say that he had any ; the interruption of the
world-order by a great divine display is not a political conception,
though it may destroy an empire. Thus on general principles it
is doubtless right to say that there would be no Roman suzerainty
in the new age. But this is not so much a political as a religious
expectation. The overthrow of the Roman power would be by
some dramatic coup from heaven. There is no question of revolt,
or organised effort, in the sphere of politics. [I may mention that
this 'dramatic coup from heaven' is the prevailing idea of the
Rabbis in the Talmud as to the coming of the new age.]
Pfleiderer thinks that Jesus must have regarded himself as the
Messiah in a theocratic sense, akin to the ordinary conceptions of
the Messiah current among his disciples. He too asks why, if
Jesus wanted or claimed to be a new spiritual Messiah, did he not
give a clear explanation to his disciples ? Why did he accept the
popular ovations at his entry into Jerusalem ? (Vol. L pp. 662,
663.) Pfleiderer conjectures that Jesus was beginning to think
seriously that he was or might be the prophesied Messiah at the
time of the episode at Csesarea Philippi. Yet, when Peter hails
him definitely as Messiah, he is frightened and astounded. Hence
his command of silence. On the journey to Jerusalem he becomes
more and more familiar with the idea ; he no longer prevents his
Messianic vocation being known ; at Jerusalem his words and
actions all point in the same direction. It is obvious that all
these theories are more or less conjectural. Pfleiderer himself
allows that none can tell whether Jesus even to the last was
wholly convinced of his Messiahship. To me his conviction seems
more likely than his uncertainty. In any case the whole history ¦
of his later days seems unintelligible unless he sanctioned and
countenanced the Messianic beliefs about him of his immediate •
followers. And he would not have sanctioned them unless he had •
shared them.
Dr Carpenter describes the growth of the Messianic conscious
ness of Jesus, as we find it delineated in Mark, in the following

200 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIIL 27-IX. i
Words: 'The preacher who begins by announcing that the Kingdom
of God is at hand is forced by degrees to consider his relation to it.
So far from claiming the Messianic function at the opening of his
career, he only slowly realizes it ; and even when he flnally accepts
it, he resolutely refuses to make it known. This representation
appears to be far more in accordance with historical probability —
outward and inward — than that of Matthew ' (in whose narrative
Jesus is Messiah to himself and to others from the beginning of
his ministry). ' It is not likely that Jesus would have been long
allowed to proclaim the royal dignity which the assumption of the
Messianic character involved both in the eyes of the people and
of their Roman over-lords. Nor does it seem consistent with his
early teaching about the Kingdom that he should have taken up
at the outset any sort of official connection with it. The title
¦which he at length accepted was rather thrust upon him by
cfrcumstance than deliberately chosen. It was adopted with
reluctance, and an anxious avoidance of publicity; it involved
so much which he could not share ; it failed to express so much
that he desired ; yet no other designation spoke in the same way
to his own soul, or to the heart of his time ' {First Three Gospels,
p. 208). Dr Carpenter has a wonderful way of making his con
ception of Jesus intensely plausible ! My readers, however, will
remember the dubious and meagre evidence for several of the
above admirably worded sentences.
Jiilicher points out that the disciples would not have found
the death of Jesus a stumbling-block had they not believed him
to be, and had he not claimed to be, the Messiah ; the death of a
prophet was not fatal to the truth of his prophetic inspiration.
On the contrary. Nor could the belief in the Messiahship have
arisen from a void. At Csesarea Philippi Jesus, according to Mark's
story, wanted to provoke the Messianic confession in order to be
able to explain that he had to suffer, die and rise before his
Messianic reign would begin, and that therefore nothing must
be said as to his Messiahship in public. Tradition (reflected in
Mark) busied itself to establish two points as regards the life of
Jesus. Ffrst, to show that his miracles and prescience proved him
to have been the Messiah ; secondly, to show why his Messiahship
was not widely known, and why even the disciples had failed to
understand him. Jiilicher thinks that there is historic reality at
the back of the tradition. Jesus in actual fact (not having the
same conception of the Messiah as his contemporaries) did not want
his Messiahship proclaimed and trumpeted abroad, and he did
more or less clearly foresee or foref eel the likelihood of his own
violent death {Neue Linien in der Kritik der Evangelischen Ueber
lieferung, 1906, pp. 23-28).

VIII. 27-IX. I J THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 20i
31. The first prediction of his sufferings or Passion. M. Loisy
holds that the confession of Peter is historic and the order for
silence also. The announcement of suffering and death and resur
rection is not. The true sequel of 30 is ix. i. He is disposed
to agree with Schmiedel, who says {E. B. n. Col 1887): 'The
confession must have been one of the supreme moments in the
joyous consciousness of Jesus — the discovery that he was finding
recognition as the Messiah and winning his battle. Suffering and
death are the very opposite of all that is looked for in the Jewish
Messiah, and what Jesus at that moment could have looked forward
to for himself.' The reason of the order for silence was because
Jesus's conception of the Messiah was that of the Messiah in his
glory, and the Messiah in glory was not realized in him while he
yet preached the Kingdom. He had a short preliminary task
to fulfil, before the Messiahship could be announced or openly
conferred by God. Soon, however, he would show himself as
Messiah in Jerusalem. At this period he did not predict, or even
foresee — so I gather that M. Loisy means — his own death. ' Jesus
n'allait pas a Jerusalem pour y mourir ; il y allait pour preparer
et procurer, au risque de sa vie, I'av^nement de Dieu.' Even
the evening before his death he does not do more than (xiv. 25)
say to his disciples that he would soon be with them in the
Kingdom: he announced to them his near Coming, in spite of
death — if he must undergo it. The resurrection was 'sous-
entendue' in the hypothesis of death. The precise predictions
are due to redaction and not to history {E. 8. 11. pp. 17-20,
and especially I. pp. 212-215).
Set, * must.' What was the ' must ' ? In the eyes of the
writer, doubtless because the divine purpose in sending Jesus to
earth could only be fulfilled by his death.
The ' Elders and the chief priests ' represent the clerical and
lay aristocracy in Jerusalem.
'After three days,' so in ix. 31, x. 34. In Matthew and Luke,
' on the third day,' which is not necessarily the same thing. The
origin of ' the thfrd day ' is to be found in Hosea vi. 2. It is less
easy to see how ' after three days ' can be accounted for, except by
the Jonah sign: Jonah i. 17, Matt, xii 40. The two different
expressions may imply variants in the 'schema' of the resurrection
(Loisy, E. 8. 11. p. 171) or they may mean the same thing. The
first and third day need not be taken as full days. In order to
maintain the thesis that Jesus predicted his resurrection, but did
not predict anything so precise as when it would exactly happen,
the theory has been suggested that 'after three days' means
merely 'in a short time,' 'soon after death,' and that after the
event the phrase was altered by oral tradition to ' on the third

202 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIII. 27-IX. i
day.' Hence the identity of Matthew and Luke here as against
Mark (so B. Weiss, Quellen, A, p. 39). But the correspondence
of Matthew and Luke may be explained as due to later correction.
Jesus calls himself here, not the Messiah (he never uses this
title of himself), but the Son of man. On any critical basis
either {a) we must assume that the prediction has been greatly
elaborated ; at the outside, Jesus, at this crisis, may have begun
to believe that his end would be death; he may have attained
the thought that this death was God's will, and that he must not
cease from his teaching in order to escape it ; he may even have
come to believe that he would suffer in Jerusalem : or (6) we may
hold that the expectation of death was not yet present to his
mind, and that the entire verse is premature.
If Jesus foretold his o-wn resurrection, it is odd that the
disciples should have been so surprised when it took place, or
when they thought that it took place. If he believed that he was
to die a shameful death, why did he say on the cross, ' My God,
why hast Thou forsaken me ? '
Dr Carpenter thinks that the cry on the cross may be explained
as a kind of final confession of faith, for the Psalm contains the
most triumphant affirmation that the Kingdom is the Lord's
{First Three Gospels, p. 393).
J. Weiss supposes that Jesus did anticipate and predict his
sufferings and death. Why should he not have foreseen that the
bitter opposition of the Scribes, the fickleness of the people, the
fears of the authorities, would make this end inevitable ? Some
times he may have hoped that he would succeed without martyr
dom ; even at Gethsemane he prays that this may be possible ;
but usually his mood and conviction are different. The details of
his Passion — these have been filled in after the event — he did not
foresee, but only the hard necessity of ultimate triumph being
prepared and made way for by suffering, conflict, and death. For
through, and in spite of, death the prophecy of Daniel will be
fulfllled. ' In ihr wird irgendwie auch sein Schicksal beschlossen
liegen. Wie es sich verwirklichen soil, das wird er Gott anheim-
gestellt haben.' In this sense Weiss holds both the prediction of
the Passion and of the resurrection to be historic. ' Der Wortlaut
im Einzelnen gehort der tJberlieferung zu.' An attractive theory,
the vagueness of which (as regards Jesus's view of his precise
relation to, or identity with, the ' Man ' of Daniel) is perhaps its
best recommendation. But still only a theory.
It is interesting that on this difficult question scholarship has
hardly advanced beyond the temperate words in which Strauss
summed it up over seventy years ago. ' If Jesus in any period of
his life thought himself to be the Messiah, as to which there can

VIII. 27-IX. i] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 203
be no doubt, and if he called himself the Son of man, he was
bound, it would seem, to expect that "coming on the clouds"
which was predicted of the Son of man in Daniel : the only
question is if he thought of this as a transfiguration {Verherr-
lichung) which would happen during his life, or as something
which would only befall him after his death. According to
statements like Matt. x. 23, xvi 28 [Mark ix. i], one might
conjecture the prior alternative ; yet it is always possible that if,
later on, his death seemed certain to him, his conception assumed
the latter form, from which point of view Matt, xxvi 64 [Mark
xiv. 62] would have been spoken' {Das Lehen Jesu, 11. p. 373
first ed.).
32. ' Openly.' Most commentators say this means ' clearly,'
' deliberately,' to all the disciples. M. Loisy calls this chicanery.
One has, he thinks, to suppose that Mark has already forgotten
the order of 30, that the crowd, mentioned in 34, is already
assumed to be present here. There was no need for Peter to
take Jesus 'aside,' if there was no crowd. The other disciples
share his sentiments. But at Csesarea Philippi there was no
crowd. The disciples were alone with Jesus. This harsh criticism
of the current explanation of 'openly' does not seem quite justified.
Peter at any rate might have taken Jesus aside in order not to
rebuke his Master in the hearing of the other disciples.
The rebuke of Peter because he did not realize, as Paul
realized, the essential importance of the death and resurrection of
Christ in the ' economy of salvation ' is, Loisy holds, as fictitious
as its environment. It rests upon Mark's theory of the spiritual
dulness of the disciples. ' The Evangelist has not only introduced
a new conception alongside of the story of the acknowledgment
of the Messiahship, but he has also broken the connection of this
story, not recollecting that Jesus was alone with his disciples near
Csesarea Philippi, amd that no crowd could be around them there.
The announcement of the Passion and the rebuke of Peter are
therefore set in a fictitious framework : the rebuke is not his
torically guaranteed any the better than the prediction which
occasioned it, or than the framework in which it is placed. It
is connected with Mark's thesis of the mental dulness of the
apostles. All that follows the Messianic acknowledgment (31-38)
has the same unreal and adventitious character which marks the
previous passages where the same idea is put forward. In the
source, in which the confession of Peter was first narrated, there
was no announcement of the Passion, no rebuke of Peter, no
speech to the people, but very probably the confession was followed
by the saying which we now find after that speech (i.e. ix. i).

204 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIII. 27-IX. 1
wherein, no regard being paid to what has just been said of the
Passion and the resurrection, the near coming of the Kingdom of
God is foretold' {E. 8. ll. p. 20).
For what did Peter rebuke him ? It would seem that Peter is
appalled at the revolutionary idea of a suffering and dying Messiah.
He wants to lead Jesus away from such thoughts. A Messiah
who does not conquer, but is himself conquered, who does not
overcome others, but is himself overcome, is to him a monstrous
impossibility, a contradiction in terms. Away with the thoughts
and conceptions and policy which could make the Master's career
issue in such a shameful end. Thus he is a tempter, like the
devil in Matt. iv. 10. W. says that the right translation is not
' Get thee behind me,' but ' Away from me.'
33. ov <j)poveiv rd tow deov, &c. A Pauline expression (Romans
viii. 5). The political Messiah is human; the religious, spiritual,
suffering and dying Messiah is divine. It is a noble answer. And
yet, as we have seen, and shall again see, it is not easy to explain
and account for the death of Jesus unless he was, at any rate,
thought to be, or to wish to be, a political, theocratic Messiah.
34-38. The second intercalation between 30 and ix. i. It
contains a short and highly important lesson on renunciation a'nd
the conditions of discipleship. But though it is intercalated, as
Loisy, perhaps justly, supposes, yet Mark may very probably have
drawn some of its material from Q. For Matthew and Luke
reproduce two parallels to it. Not only have we Matt. xvi. 24, 25
as the equivalent of Mark viii. 34, 35, but we have also Matt.
X. 38, 39 ; and not only have we Luke ix. 23, 24, but we have also
Luke xiv. 27 and xvii. 33. And for parallels to Mark v^. 38 we
have Matt. x. 33 and Luke xii. 9 as well as Matt, xvi 27 and
Luke ix. 26. And many scholars hold that the passages, e.g. in
Matt. X. 33 and Luke xvii. 33, which came from Q are more
original than, and are the dfrect source of, thefr parallels in Mark
viii 35 and 38. See further the notes on 34, 35 and 38.
34. As to the crowd who suddenly appear here, cp. the note
on 32. It may indeed be argued that the secret of the Messiah-
ship {i.e. that Jesus is the Messiah, and that he is to suffer aud
die) is for the disciples only, but that the lesson of renunciation is
for all. But whence the crowd came is unexplained. Swete
says : ' Even in the villages of Csesarea the Lord was recognized
and followed by the Jewish population.' This makes things
rather too easy. But in truth Jesus really turns away from
the multitude though he summons them, because he lays down
the most difficult demands, which only very few could satisfy.

VIII. 27-IX. i] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 205
J. Weiss thinks that 'the people' were added mistakenly by a
later redactor, who perhaps was thinking of Luke xiv. 25. To
avoid tautology W. translates :
' He who would follow me, let him deny himself and take up
his cross; so will he follow me.' He says that the Aramaic
original of koI dKoXovdeiraj fioi would justify this, certainly more
sensible, rendering. But J. Weiss justifies the usual view. There
is a kind of pun. The first 'follow' means merely 'be my disciple';
the second means 'follow me upon my road of suffering' {cp. Luke
xiv. 27).
' Let him deny himself Self-renouncement is required ; that
is, as Gould simply puts it, the disciple 'is to cease to make himself
the object of his life and action.'
Jesus says : ' It is not he who follows me in life, but he who
follows me to death, who is my disciple.' In Lam. iii 27 we read :
' It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth.' For
the yoke we here have ' the cross.' This can only refer to Jesus's
crucifixion ; the disciples are to suffer martyrdom willingly. This
metaphorical application of the crucifixion, which has not yet
happened, is most peculiar at this place and time, for it must
have been wholly unintelligible to his hearers. The cross appears
here already as the symbol of Christianity. But Jesus has not
carried it for all : each must carry it after him. Cp. x. 39, ' the
cup which I drink, ye must drink ' (W.). The section from 34-38
is elaborated, according to Loisy, from an authentic utterance of
Jesus which Mark found in his source — i.e. Q, or the 'recueil
des discours' — and placed in this environment. The original
'nidus' of the speech is contained (a) in the saying, 'he who
would save his life must lose it,' &c., and (6) in the -witness which
Jesus will render to the divine Judge as to those who denied or
acknowledged him (Matt. x. 32) {S. 8. 11. p. 23). The second
parallel to 34 in Matthew is x. 38 and in Luke is xiv. 27. The
question is, therefore, whether these passages came from Q in the
form in which we now read them. Of course B. Weiss ardently
thinks so {Quellen, A, p. 144; B, p. 46). In that case the allusion
to the cross was also in Q. Loisy is more cautious. ' Neither
Matthew nor Luke in these two verses have a primitive colour.
Perhaps the original was : " If any wishes to follow after me, let
him deny himself' Nevertheless, Mark viii. 34 may have been
all deduced from 35. And 34 may have influenced Matt. x. 38
and Luke xiv. 17 either directly or through the intermediary of
their common source ' {E. 8. 11. p. 23, n. 4). So complicated are
the questions raised by the Gospels !
35. He who finds martyrdom in this life will live again in the

2o6 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIII. 27-IX. i
Kingdom. He who avoids martyrdom, and thus saves his life in
this world, will lose it in the next world.
The passage 35-37 is purely eschatological. It does not mean
that to gain the higher life we must forego the lower life. Nor
do any of the parallels in the Synoptics, Matt. x. 39, xvi 25,
Luke ix. 24, xvii. 33, mean this. Perhaps John xii. 25 may have
this signification, but the Synoptic passages have not They teach,
as Menzies says of those verses in Mark, ' the conditions of obtaining
the better life beyond.' The parallel in the Talmud (Tamid 32 a)
seems to have a less distinctly eschatological meaning. How early,
we would like to know, did the saying of Jesus receive a purely
spiritual signification, without reference to anything which may
happen to us after death ?
' For me and the gospel.' The gospel is added, says Holtzmann,
to make the saying applicable even after Jesus's death.
W. says that the gospel here means much the same as ' me,'
for in Mark Jesus is not the proclaimer, but the content of the
gospel. The gospel is the Christ preached by the apostles.
The version in Q (Matt. x. 39 and Luke xvii. 33) seems more
original relative to Mark than the parallels to the previous verse.
The higher simplicity and originality of Luke xvii. 33 is strongly
urged by Bousset {Theologische Rundschau, 1906, p. 10). The
addition ' for me and the gospel ' is wanting in Luke. Matthew
has only 'for me' (as also in xvi. 25 and Luke ix. 24). The whole
question of the use of to evayyeXiov is interesting and compli
cated. In spite of its absence in Luke (who only uses the verb
evayyeXl^eaOai), in spite of Matthew's omission of the noun in
Matt. X. 39 and his substitution in other places of to evayyeXiov
toQto, or to evayyeXiov t^? ^a<TiXeia<;, W. holds nevertheless that
Mark is always older than any other source of Matthew and Luke.
What Matthew and Luke do is that they consciously try to avoid
or modify the obviously proleptic usage of Mark. But they only
make the anachronism greater. For Jesus is made to proclaim
a gospel which consists in this that he is the actual, present
{gegenwdrtige) Messiah, and that he brings the actual, present
{gegenwdrtiges) kingdom upon earth (see Einleitung, p. iii).
36 repeats the same idea as 35. The immortal life is worth
more than the whole material world. The grandest life on earth
is purchased dearly if it be at the cost of the life of the great
world to come, the life after the reappearance of Christ, the life of
the New Jerusalem and the Messianic age. This, I take it, is the
simple meaning of this verse. 'Le vocabulafre,' says Loisy, 'est
tout paulinien : I'idee du " monde " est a peu pres ^trangere a
I'enseignement du Christ synoptique ' {E. 8. 11. p. 23, n. 2).

VIII. 27-IX. i] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 207
37. This verse is an echo of Psalm xlix. 8, and hence we may
account for the word ' give ' where ' receive ' would make a better
sense. For the meaning is, what can a man obtain in exchange
for giving up his true, eternal ' life ' ?
38. W. argues that though 38 belongs to the same school of
thought as 35, it is of older date. For the demand upon disciple
ship made in 38 does not go so far as that in 35. It is less
absolute. Moreover, the Son of man in 38 is a different figure
from the Son of man in 31. For in 31 he is synonymous with
Jesus as about to suffer and die, whereas in 38 he is the glorified
figure of Daniel and of Jewish eschatology. 'Nor in 38 is he to
be entfrely identified with Jesus ; he was, at least originally, con
trasted with him. For the phrase: 'he who is ashamed of me,
of him the Son of man will be ashamed,' sounds oddly if ' I ' and
' Son of man ' {i.e. Jesus and Son of man) were intended by the
original author of the sentence to be one and the same person.
Hence the deduction would be that 38 was written when the
identification of Jesus with the Son of man was not complete.
35 and 31 would represent a more developed Christology than 38.
The transitional phraseology whereby Jesus is partly distinguished
from, and yet partly identified with, the Son of man is further, as
it would seem, illustrated by the strange use of ' Father ' in the
phrase 'in the glory of his Father.' The Son of man is here
modelled upon the Son of man in Daniel, but the words ' in the
glory of his Father ' would not fit that figure. On the other hand,
except in xiii 32, Jesus never (in Mark) call^ God his Father. He
never uses such a phrase as 'in the glory of my Father.' Once
only does he address God in the vocative as Father, but the
meaning there is the same as in the Lord's Prayer {cp. Luke xi. 2,
' Father,' not ' Our father '). It is, however, quite possible that
38, like 35, is based upon a saying which was recorded in Q and
is preserved in Matt. x. 32, 33. Bousset {loc. dt.) is strongly of
this opinion. In Mark the 'Son of man' has been substituted
for the personal pronoun in Matthew. And in Mark, Jesus, the
Son of man, is clearly the heaven-sent judge, whereas in Matthew
he only gives evidence before God, who is Himself the Judge.
Bousset denies that in Mark viii. 38 the Son of man can ever
have been meant to be distinguished from Jesus. If Jesus
believed that he was the Messiah, as even W. admits, how can
there have been room in his mind for another quasi-Messiah, the
Son of man ?
Loisy takes much the same line. In the older passage.
Matt. X. 32, 33, 'Jesus had said that he would confess before God
those who had confessed him before men and that he would deny

2o8 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIII. 27-IX. r
those who bad denied him ; now (in Mark) he threatens those
who should be ashamed of him and his words "in the midst of
this adulterous and sinful generation," that is to say those who,
failing to understand the mystery of the Passion, should regard
the death of Jesus as a reproach, and should thus be ashamed of
the gospel before the Jews. The spirit and even the language of
Paul can be recognized in this development {cp. Romans i. 16).
The antithesis has thus lost its clearness, for if it is plain what
denial by the Christ means, it is less easy to understand in what
his being ashamed will consist. Jesus appears as judge and not
as witness ; he does not present men to his Father, he comes in
the glory of the Father and is accompanied by the angels. This
apocalyptic mise-en-scene is also in accordance with the taste and
ideas of Paul. The Christ-judge has no more witness to give;
his attitude towards those who have yielded to the scandal of the
cross will be that of a divine monarch, offended in his dignity'
{E. 8. IL p. 25).
The angels accompany the Son of man (here undoubtedly
identified with the Messiah) when he comes down from heaven for
the Last Judgment
ix. I. Some hold that this verse is an addition to viii. 38.
' And he said ' marks the addendum. It is, moreover, argued by
W. that it means that the date of the Judgment is postponed.
For viii. 38 declares that those who rejected, or were afraid to
acknowledge, Jesus would be rejected by the Son of man at the
Judgment Day. It is implied that the Judgment will take place
during the lifetime of all those who have rejected him. Here (in
ix. i) it is said that Jesus will not come as soon as that; but he
will, at all events, come before all his disciples have passed away.
Thus the date of the verse must be a time when most of Jesus's
disciples had died, but when the hope was still clung to that the
few survivors would witness the long-expected Parousia.
On the other hand Loisy, as we have seen, thinks ix. I the
true sequel of viii. 30. It is primitive and old, though probably even
this ' old ' saying we have not in its first and most authentic form.
Probably the assertion had a more absolute character. ' They
who are here will not die.' But many apostles were already dead
when the text received its present form. ' Coming in power ' may
also not be original ; it may be a Pauline expression (Romans i 4).
In any case ix. i says nothing of Jesus's death and does not imply
it. It is at least doubtful, says M. Loisy, and he has clearly
shown which way his own convictions tend, whether Jesus, at the
time of the confession of Peter, had conceived his death as the
indispensable condition of the coming of the Kingdom.

VIII. 27-IX. i] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 209
But whatever the date when 38 and ix. i were written, they
do not in one important respect greatly misrepresent the dominant
thought of Jesus. The Kingdom was near — the Kingdom in its
true eschatological sense.
' The coming of the Kingdom of God in power ' : iv Bvvdfiei
means the Kingdom in its completed development; in the full
realization of its strength. The Kingdom in one sense has already
begun ; it exists potentially. The final and perfect realization will
take place at the Parousia.
Is it possible that the historic Jesus did of a truth predict his
death and spiritual resurrection, but that he did not predict his
return or manifestation on or above the earth as the holder of the
Great Assize? That he predicted his dvdaTaai<; but not his
irapovaia ? Or did he also say something about his own part in
the general resurrection and Judgment? The former alternative
seems less unlikely than the latter.
W., on the other hand, if 1 understand him aright, holds that
the historic Jesus predicted neither his resurrection nor his (second)
advent {Trapovaia). But the doctrine of his resurrection was
believed in and taught before that of his (second) advent or
coming in glory. Hence men began sooner to make him predict,
and to say that he predicted, his death and resurrection than his
(second) advent. That his resurrection and ascension betokened
the near coming of the Kingdom was believed before it was
believed that he himself would come again upon earth to in
augurate and establish the Kingdom and to act as judge at the
Great Assize. The ' Son of man ' in Mark xiii. 26 was originally
not Jesus; he was even for a short time not Jesus when this
Jewish apocalypse was taken over and Christianised. The
differentiation between ' me ' (Jesus) and the ' Son of man ' in
viii. 38 points to a time when the Son of man was not yet identified
with Jesus. Hence it is to be explained that in this section
of Mark (viii. 27-x.) Jesus only predicts his death and resur
rection, and not his Parousia. ' Of his Parousia he only speaks
in the Christian appendix to the old Jewish apocalypse in
xiii. and enigmatically in xiv. 62. But it by no means follows
from this reluctance of the oldest Gospel to allow Jesus to predict
his Parousia that the belief in it was not already firmly planted in
the Christian community. Only from this belief can we account
for the inconsistency that Jesus in Mark viii. 27 seq., though he
does not predict his Parousia, yet calls himself the Son of man in
a specifically Christian and anti-Jewish sense.'
The identification of Jesus with the Son of man arose, W.
thinks, with the growth of the belief in the return (the Parousia).
'Jesus, it was held, must have predicted his Parousia. Never-
M. 14

210 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIIL 27-IX. i
theless, a scruple was felt to make him say straight out, " I shall
shortly reappear as Messiah in power and glory." So that at first
he was made to say : " The Son of man will appear in the clouds
of heaven." He could say that without definitely meaning himself
It was left to Christian interpretation to understand that he did
mean himself, and on this point there was no lengthy hesitation.
The next step was to make the Son of man the subject of pre
dictions of the Passion and the resurrection, where the words
could obviously be only a synonym of Jesus. And, finally, the
phrase became in the mouth of Jesus a mere equivalent for the
first person singular, even in passages unconnected with such
predictions. This last usage we find in Matthew and Luke and
John, in Mark only once.' (Apparently W. refers to x. 45; he
does not count ii. 10, 28. See the notes on those passages.)
Looking back upon the words of the famous passage beginning
' He who would follow me ' (verse 34), one sees what a profound
ethical and religious influence they have had upon the world.
Like many other words of genius, they have this sovereign quality,
that they are capable of wide and varied application. It may be
true that their original meaning is strictly eschatological. One
can reduce them to the rather bald statement : he who would
enjoy eternal life must be willing to abandon this earthly life, or
even to suffer martyrdom. But though this be the original
meaning, the words were soon more liberally and variously in
terpreted. First of all comes the conception of ' following Christ ' : the
conception of leading a life of hardship and poverty, of purity and
sacrifice, for his sake, for the sake of truth, for the sake of man,
for the sake of God. Jesus kindled an unceasing personal devotion
for himself; but he also has represented the other terms. To
follow him has been for endless noble souls to labour and renounce
for the sake of truth, for the sake of man, for the sake of God. No
one can fail to recognize what a rich addition to the moral and
religious store of the world this following of Christ has been and
has brought about.
Its distinctive and moral note was upon the active and positive
side. For it might be said that from the Maccabsean age (Psalm
xliv. 22) the Jews have suffered and renounced and undergone
martyrdom and persecution, for the sake of truth and for the sake
of God. And this is quite true. But the Jewish devotion has
been rather passive than active. Sooner than give up or abandon
the truth, sooner than renounce the Law and the Unity of God,
they would suffer or die. The new note in the following of Christ
is its activity. The best disciples have wanted not merely to
endure, but to battle with evil, to win proselytes, to transform the

VIIL 27-IX. I] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 211
world, to redeem the fallen, to cure the sick, in the name and for
the sake of Christ.
Then come the two simple Greek words, dirapvrfadadai eavrov,
' let him deny himself Here again we have what is practically a
new conception. Self-denial was not unknown before Christ ; but
the clear conception of it and the ideal which it suggests were, I
think, new, and they in their turn have exercised an immense
influence upon men's thoughts, aspirations, and actions. More
restricted, but not less intense, has been the effect of the next
words : ' let him take up his cross.' The true follower of the
Master, in proportion to the perfection of his discipleship, must
endure and renounce, suffer and die.
When we come to the rest of the passage, beginning, ' For who
soever would save his life shall lose it,' some shadows, I fancy, mingle
with the light. So far as the passage has made men realize that
what we may call the things of the spirit — truth and righteous
ness — are not only rather better than the things of sense, but on
a different plane, better in kind, it can only have done good. Or,
again, so far as it has made men realize that the ultimate right
thing for each one of us is to develop his own best self to the
utmost, that in the long run the cultivation of the soul is the final
end of all education and development, it has lifted men above
temptation and nerved them to higher things. The doctrine it
preaches is the same as that preached by Plato. To him the only
thing a man should care for is his soul. Her he must, as his true
life's work, seek to array ' not in some foreign attire, but in her
ovra proper jewels, temperance and justice and courage and nobility
and truth — in these adorned, she is ready to go on her journey to
the world below when her hour comes.' It is quite true that
on the hypothesis of a future life, or even perhaps without it, it
cannot profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul, foregoing
the highest of which he is capable.
But while all this is true, it may be questioned whether the
passage and others like it have not induced the false individualism
which has sometimes marred certain phases of the Christian life —
that false individualism whereby the religious life has sometimes
been set in antagonism to the life of the family and the life of the
State. There may be such a thing as a selfish or even morbid
anxiety about the saving of one's soul, leading to exaggerated
asceticism, hermit-like withdrawal from the world, or neglect of
the closest duties of man. Judaism has rightly, I think, never
sanctioned or admired a double kind of religious life. Its ideal
is that a man should be in the world, though not of the world.
To neglect, abandon, or disobey your parents for the sake of the
State or the community may be, under certain cfrcumstances,
14—2

212 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [VIIL 27-IX. 1
advisable and justifiable ; to do so for the sake of your soul is
extremely dubious. Again, the saving of one's soul is sometimes
a little like happiness ; it is best found when least sought. It is
not always the safest, surest, and healthiest way to save one's soul
to think too much about it.
But these reflections do not detract from the magnificence of
the passage, nor do they tend to make us question the valuable
religious and moral effects which the passage has produced in the
history of the world.

CHAPTER IX
2-13. The Transfiguration
{Cp. Matt. xvii. 1-13; Luke ix. 28-36)
2 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James
and John, and led them up on to an high mountain, apart by
3 themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his
raiment became shining, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth
4 could whiten it. And there appeared unto them Elijah with
5 Moses : and they talked -with Jesus. And Peter said to Jesus,
' Master, it is good for us to be here : let us make three tents ;
6 one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.' For he
7 knew not what he should say ; for they were sore afraid. And a
cloud arose and overshadowed them : and a voice came out of the
cloud, saying, 'This is my beloved Son: hearken unto him.'
8 And suddenly, when they looked round, they saw no one any
more, except Jesus only ¦with themselves.
9 And as they came down from the mountain, he commanded
them that they should tell no man what they had seen, till the
Son of man had risen from the dead.
10 And they kept the command, but among themselves they
II disputed what 'rising from the dead' might mean. And they
asked him, saying, ' How is it, then, that the scribes say that
12 Elijah must come first ? ' And he answered and told them,
'Elijah verily cometh first, and putteth all things in order; yet
how then is it written of the Son of man, that he must suffer
13 much and be despised ? But I say unto you that Elijah hath

LS.2-I3] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 213
come already, and they have done unto him whatsoever they
wished, as it is written of him.'
The transfiguration follows dramatically upon the previous
scene. The Messiahship is divinely confirmed. Moreover, the
resurrection also is implied and guaranteed. Jesus is shown as
he will be when he has risen. For the moment his material
earthly body is transfigured into what it will be after the resur
rection. How old is the tale ? And whence did Mark obtain it ?
No one can say with certainty. B. Weiss, not very successfully, as
I venture to think, claims it for Q in a somewhat shortened form
(see Quellen, B, p. 65, and A, pp. 184-187). Loisy ascribes it, like
the tales of the baptism, of the temptation, and of the miracle of
the loaves, to an ' intermediate redaction ' of his old, narrative
source {E. S. L p. 115). It is not the work of Mark himself, and
its original purpose was not, as now for Mark, to emphasise the
Messiahship, and the salvation of the world by the death of Jesus,
but to counterbalance the scandal of his death by the anticipation
of the glory, and to picture the fulfilment of the Law and the
prophets in the Christ of the gospel ' {E. 8. l. p. 92).
2. Note ' after six days.' Why this singular statement ?
Wellhausen's explanation is given below. But the more obvious
explanation is that the story is based upon Exodus xxiv. 12-18.
It is ' after six days ' that Moses enters into the midst of the cloud.
The transfiguration in 3 is intended to outdo the shining of Moses
in Exodus xxxiv. 29. Where was the mountain ? In such a story
as this we need not ask. It is the same mountain as in Matthew
xxviii. 16. Note that Jesus takes with him Peter, James and
John, as he does in v. 37 (Jairus's daughter) and in xiv. 33
(Gethsemane). 'Les trois r^cits, dans leur forme actuelle, appartien-
nent a la meme couche de redaction, et les mSmes preoccupations
thdologiques et apolog^tiques, le meme art symbolique ont dii
avofr part a leur formation ' {E. S. 11. p. 31).
3, 4. Moses, like Elijah, is supposed not to have died as other
men. He is in heaven, not in Sheol. There is an old apocalypse
called the Assumption of Moses. But there is another reason for
the choice of these two men. Their joint appearance with Jesus
is to show that the great representatives of the Law and of
prophecy recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and do him homage.
5-7. The unity of the story is broken, says Loisy, by the
'inept' remark of Peter, who wanting to retain Jesus in his glory,
would unconsciously desfre to prevent the Messiah from redeeming

214 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IX. 2-13
mankind through the cross. It may, therefore, be that the verses
were added by Mark.
5. ' Rabbi ' instead of the usual Greek SiBd(rKa\€. So xi. 21,
xiv. 45.
Several commentators think that the right translation is, ' It
is well that we are here ' (not ' it is good for us to be here,' it is
pleasant here): i.e. it is fortunate that we are here, for we can
make three huts for you and Elijah and Moses.
6. Peter and his colleagues do not understand that Jesus
must die in order that the prophecies may be fulfilled. He wants
to see the Messiah in his glory all at once; he does not understand
the mystery of salvation through the cross. For the transfigura
tion is clearly connected with the predictions of the Passion; it
justifies and explains them.
7. The cloud is the supernatural cloud which in the Penta
teuch conceals and reveals the presence of God. For ' overshadowing
them ' one of the Syriac translations has ' him ' (Jesus), which W.
thinks is correct. But it seems an unnecessary change. ' Them '
means Jesus, Elijah, and Moses. At the baptism God had spoken
only to Jesus as to his sonship; now the disciples are also informed.
It is probable that ' Son ' here goes beyond ' Messiah ' and means
more. Both baptism and transfiguration may, as Loisy thinks,
represent later stages of Christological development than the con
fession of Peter.
8. Moses and Elijah vanish. Before the new authority, the
higher revelation. Law and prophecy must yield and give place.
The glory of the Christ makes the glory of Moses and the prophets
disappear. Compare the argument in 2 Corinthians iii. (Pfleiderer,
Urchristentum, I. p. 365).
9-13 are an appendix to the transfiguration story. The last
three verses are very hard.
9. In accordance with the general theory of Mark, the fiill
revelation and affirmation of the Messiahship are only to be made
known after the resurrection. But not only this. For why may
not even the other apostles know ? says the relentless Loisy. To
the historian it is as clear as day : before the death of Jesus no
one had ever heard of the transfiguration. The story grew up out
of the resurrection story; it is a product of the later tradition (.E. /S.
I. p. 93. II- p. 40)-

IX. 2-13] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 21$
IO. 'They kept the saying': i.e. either they observed the
command that they were not to talk about the transfiguration,
or they kept hold of and remembered this saying about his
resurrection. ' Questioning among themselves ' : i.e. discussing among them
selves. A Messiah who should suffer and die and rise from the
dead was an enigma to them.
1 1- 1 3 do not seem connected with IO. Perhaps Mark put the
passage here because he somehow connected the question about
Elijah with his appearance at the transfiguration, but originally
11-13 seem to have nothing to do with that story, and to refer
rather to ix. i, with which they make a good connection.
TT/jwToj/. Before the appearance of the Messiah in glory Elijah
must come. Apparently the difficulty which the disciples imply is
this, that before the coming of the Messiah, Elijah, according to
the teaching of the Scribes, must come 'and restore all things':
i.e. put things to rights. 'To this Jesus replies, that Elijah was
indeed to come first and that he was to put all things to rights,
but he asks the disciples to remember the other prophecy of the
suffering Messiah. The final explanation is given in verse 13.
Elijah had already come, but he could not put things to rights
because he was prevented from doing so. And this very prevention
was also in accordance with prophecy. Thus Elijah has appeared
already, though he was not able to do what was expected or pre
dicted of him (Malachi iv. 5, 6). Nevertheless, Jesus asserts that
the seeming failure of Elijah (=John the Baptist) was also pre
dicted in the Scripture. By this he apparently means that the
seeming failure of Elijah in i Kings xix. typifies and foretells the
seeming failure of John the Baptist. To the suffering and dying
Messiah there corresponds a suffering and dying precursor. Jesus
seems to accept the ordinary interpretation of Malachi iv. 5, 6, but
to say that its non-fulfilment by John (who was Elijah) was due to
the fault of the unbelieving Jews. And the ultimate reason why
John-Elijah could not put all things to rights was because to have
done so would have interfered with what was to follow : the Passion
and death of the Messiah.
W.'s explanation is a little different. He puts a note of
interrogation at Travra in 12, and makes Jesus deny that putting
all things to rights was to be the function of Elijah. '(Do you
say that) Elijah must first come and restore all things ? But in
that case what becomes of the prophecy that the Messiah must
suffer and die ? {i.e. if all things are put to rights, the Messiah
cannot suffer). Jesus disposes of the belief of the Scribes by
appeals to prophecy. But in 13 he says that Elijah has already

2l6 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IX. 2-13
come {i.e. as John), and he has suffered in accordance ¦with pre
diction. But neither explanation is very satisfactory. It is hard to
think that the passage has not been touched up and confused.
Several scholars, J. Weiss, for example, and Volter, and Loisy, have
supposed that the words, ' and how is it written of the Son of man
that he must suffer and be set at naught ' have been added. They
break the connection. ' Ce qui s' oppose k la venue future d'^^lie
n'est pas la ndcessitd de la passion, mais cette venue dejk acquise a
I'histoire. L'annonce de la passion vient en surcharge et accuse une
retouche dans la redaction primitive' {E. 8. 11. p. 43). Even so the
argument is not good, for Jesus first of all admits the opinion of
the Scribes that it was foretold of Elijah that, on his reappearance
he was to put all things to rights, but he then goes on to say that
his being prevented from doing so and his violent death were also
scripturally foretold. Without the interpolation of 12 b, Loisy
thinks that the passage is historical. There is nothing said of the
Messiah's death or his own. John has come ; prophecy has been
fulfilled. ' Rien, par consequent, ne s'opposait k I'avfenement pro-
chain du royaume. ^Que le Messie lui-meme diit attendre un sort
semblable a celui d'Elie, c'est-a-dire de Jean, le texte ne le faisait
pas supposer. La mort d'Elie ne r^pugnait pas au programme
apocalyptique ; elle pouvait m^me y ^tre comprise, tandis que celle
du Messie n'y etait pas prevue. On trouverait done un sens
complet k la rdponse de J^sus, sans faire intervenfr la moindre
allusion a sa mort. La reference aux Ecritures n'atteint pas les
proph^ties anciennes qu'k travers la tradition apocalyptique con-
cernant le sort d'Elie, les persecutions subies par celui-ci ne
pouvant figurer qu'assez imparfaitement la mort du Baptiste.
J^sus aurait vu I'accomplissement des propheties dans la mort de
Jean, et n'aurait pas attendu I'apparition personnelle du prophfete
avant la manifestation du royaume ' {E. 8. II. p. 44).
In verse 12 we have the highly important statement that the
sufferings of the Son of man (who must here equal the Messiah)
are predicted in Scripture. 'This is the only passage in Mark in
which such a prediction is alluded to. The allusion can only be
to Isaiah liii. It was only gradually that this chapter assumed
its Christological importance. If the historic Jesus had really
thought that he was not the ordinary Messiah, but the servant of
Isaiah xlii. and liii, should we not have had more allusions to and
quotations from these chapters in the oldest Gospel ? Would not
Jesus himself have quoted them, and would not his citations have
been remembered and chronicled ?
For the Rabbinical view and tradition about Elijah, see Jewish
Encyclopcedia, ' Elijah.'

IX. 14-29] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 217
W., and, independently of him, Dr Kohler, in the Jeiuish
Encyclopcedia (article ' Jesus '), have suggested that the trans
figuration was originally a story of the resurrection. So too
Loisy. W.'s note runs as follows:
' It was, according to Romans i. 4, through the resurrection
that Jesus was proclaimed the Son of God. He appears in the
company of Elijah and Moses because they too passed straight
from earth to heaven, and are not, like all other men, in Sheol.
The six days (in ix. 2) one might be inclined to identify with the
six days of the Passion. It would not be inconsistent with the
narrative in Mark xvi. if Jesus had ascended into heaven imme
diately after death. But as the story speaks, not of the act of
resurrection, but of the appearance of the risen one to the three
disciples, one can interpret the six days as the interval between
the death of Jesus in Jerusalem and his appearance in Galilee.
According to i Cor. xv. 5, Jesus first appeared to Peter alone.
With this it would suit that Peter (viii. 29) first recognizes him as
the Messiah. The transference of the transfiguration {i.e. resur
rection) to this place is easily intelligible ; it is in keeping with the
whole section, viii. 27-ix. 13. For throughout viii. 27-ix. 13, as
in the transfiguration story itself, Jesus is really afready trans
figured, the crucified and risen one.'
J. Weiss pleads that the story rests upon a true vision of Peter,
which was enlarged and expanded into the present story. It is a
true ' reminiscence.' The ' Petrine ' origin of the stories in Mark
has to lead those who cling to it to very dubious lengths.
Excellent remarks on the transfiguration are to be found in
Dr Carpenter's First Three Gospels, pp. 143-15 1. As Moses and
Elijah represent the Law and the prophets, so does the transfigu
ration represent pictorially the relation of Messiah to these two
great powers of the Jewish Church, and their supersession by the
new dispensation. Dr Carpenter thinks that the transfiguration
is Pauline. Peter would like to find room for Moses and Elijah
along with Christ. But this is not the view of Paul. By the
death and resurrection of Jesus the need of Law and prophets has
disappeared. Jesus is, and should be, alone. The transfiguration
shows us poetic imagination seeking to give shape to the thought
of Paul 14-29. The Epileptic Child
{Cp. Matt. xvii. 14-20 ; Luke ix. 37-43, xvii. 5, 6)
^4 And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great
crowd around them, and some scribes disputing with them.

2l8 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IX. 14-29
15 And straightway all the crowd, when they beheld him, were
16 greatly amazed, and running to him, welcomed him. And he
17 asked them, 'What are ye disputing with one another?' And
one of the crowd answered and said, ' Master, I brought unto thee
18 my son, who is possessed by a dumb spirit ; and wherever the
spirit seizes him, it tears him : and he foams, and gnashes his
teeth, and wastes away : and I asked thy disciples to cast it out,
19 but they could not.' Then Jesus answered and said to them,
' 0 unbelieving generation, how long shall I be with you ? how
20 long shall I bear with you ? bring him unto me.' And they
brought him unto him : and when he saw Jesus, straightway
the spirit convulsed him ; and he fell on the ground, and rolled
21 about, foaming. And Jesus asked his father, ' How long ago is it
since this has happened to him ? ' And he said, ' From childhood.
22 And ofttimes it has thrown him into the fire, and into the
water, to destroy him: but if thou canst do anything, have
23 compassion on us, and help us.' Jesus said unto him, ' If thou
canst, sayest thou ? All things are possible to him that believeth.'
24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said, 'I
25 believe; help thou mine unbelief When Jesus saw that more
people kept running up to him, he rebuked the unclean spirit,
saying unto it, ' Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I command thee,
26 come out of him, and enter no more into him.' And the spirit
shrieked, and rent him sore, and came out of him : and he was as
27 one dead; insomuch that many said, 'He is dead.' But Jesus
took him by the hand, and lifted him up ; and he arose.
28 And when Jesus had gone into the house, his disciples asked
29 him privately, ' Why could not we cast it out ?' And he said unto
them, ' This kind goes not out except by prayer [and fasting].'
A comparison of this section with the corresponding sections in
Matthew and Luke makes it probable that (i) Mark has enlarged
his source with a view to symbolism, and (2) that this source
(Q, according to B. Weiss, Quellen, A, pp. 187-189, B, p. 66) was
also known to Matthew and Luke.
The setting of the miracle seems to have been partly influenced
by the narrative in Exodus xxxii 1-6. The Israelites wrangle
with Aaron while Moses is still upon Mount Sinai. If they behave
ill in the absence of Moses, the disciples are helpless without their

IX. 14-29] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 219
Master. B. Weiss makes a good point by showing that there are
traces in Matthew and Luke that in the source the child was
not possessed of a demon at alL He had epilepsy, and of this
Jesus healed him. Perhaps Mark added on the demon and the
possession to make the child thus represent 'humanity delivered
by Jesus of its spiritual deafness and rendered capable of praising
the God whom Jesus has revealed to it.' So Loisy {E. 8. il p. 50).
14. The Scribes are very out of place. They are not mentioned
again. Nor is the subject of dispute. W. would like to omit them,
and to translate, 'he saw a great crowd around them, and that
they were disputing with one another.' (So in 16 he translates
reflexively, ' What are ye disputing about among yourselves ? ')
The dispute is as to why the disciples are unable to effect the cure.
The ordinary ¦view is that those whom Jesus questions in 16 are
the crowd. He asks: What are ye disputing about with them
(the disciples) ?
15. ' They marvelled.' Why? Some commentators say because
Jesus arrived so suddenly and just at the appropriate moment.
But are not others justified in thinking that the wonder is rather
due to visible remnants of the transfiguration still clinging to the
face and form of Jesus ? Cp. Exodus xxxiv. 30. Swete objects to
this view because ( i ) Mark drops no hint of such a phenomenon,
(2) it would have betrayed what Jesus wants to keep secret, (3) the
result is just the opposite of what happened in the case of Moses.
In his case the people feared to come nigh : in the case of Jesus
they ran up to him. But this ' contrast' may be intentional.
19. To whom is Jesus's outburst addressed? Who are they
who have awakened his anger ? It is not easy to say. The request
of the father showed no incredulity: on the contrary. Does he
specially address the disciples, because their lack of faith had made
them fail to cure the child ? Would Jesus have said of them
before the crowd that he longed to be quit of them ? Or did he
address himself to the crowd, either because they wanted to try
the powers of the disciples without believing in them, or because
they were always anxious for a miracle ? Both the last explanations
seem very strained and unlikely, and to be without any justifica
tion in the text. On the whole, the lack of faith in the disciples
seems the best explanation. Jesus generalizes, and includes in
their want of faith the whole generation of which they form a part.
As Loisy says, the reproach to the disciples is not more severe than
what Jesus had already said to Peter. And everybody could be
associated in the same rebuke, in so far as Judaism and the
judaizing apostles were concerned. It is the Paulinizing Evangelist

220 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IX. 14-29
who speaks, rather than the historic Jesus. The exclamation of
Jesus, inexplicable from the point of view of actual history, is
justified from the point of view of symbolism. And the father is
included in the rebuke, so far as he represents the unbelieving
crowd. In the primitive story the incapacity of the disciples was
explained by the especial maliciousness of the demon or the
peculiar difficulty of the malady, and neither father nor crowd was
blamed {E. 8. IL p. 53).
The words ascribed to Jesus are doubtless meant, as J. Weiss
says, to indicate that Jesus feels sure that his earthly career is
soon to be closed. He even yearns to be called away from his
fruitless labours. As W. quaintly puts it, Jesus, in true accordance
with the conception of him in this section, has one foot already in
the other world, and can hardly adapt himself to the earthly
turmoil to which he has returned.
23. Note the insistence of Jesus upon the sovereign power of
faith. According to what has been said before about the lack of
the disciples' faith in the powers of healing which Jesus had
granted to them, the exclamation, ' If thou canst ! sayest thou ;
all is possible to him who believes,' should refer to Jesus himself
' I, at all events, have enough faith ; therefore I can heal.' But
this is not what Jesus means here. He means : ' If you (the
father) have enough faith, then I, Jesus, shall be able to heal your
son.' It may be noted here that the noun Trto-Tt? (faith) occurs some
five times in Mark, the verb Tria-Tevoo some ten times, while
diTKTTia occurs once, and aVtcrTo? twice. The faith which Jesus
possesses and demands is trust in God and in the powers which
God has given. Here, for instance, the father has to have faith
that God has really granted to Jesus the power to heal (or to
expel demons). Jesus did not ask for faith in his own person as
such, or in his Messiahship. It was Paul who first made this faith
— faith in Christ as redeemer — the test of salvation. He changed,
as Professor Wahrmund rightly says, the words ' Follow me ' into
' Believe in me.' And thus the first significant step was taken on
that road which led from inwardness to externalism, from liberty
to servitude. Jesus sat at table with sinners and tax collectors :
in the circle of Pauline Christianity, the question is already raised :
' What has the believer to do with the unbeliever ? ' {Religion und
Klerikalismus, p. 14).
24. One cannot but be struck with the nobility of the outcry,
' help thou my unbelief : i.e. if my belief is still not adequate,
help me to increase it. The beseeching request to help his un
belief is itself a confession of faith. But it is possible that the

IX. 14-29] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 221
words should be taken to mean : ' what is wanting in my faith do
thou helpingly supply': i.e. though I do not believe enough,
nevertheless help me.
25. iTna-vvTpe^ei. Apparently this means (not that Jesus
had taken father and child apart, and that the people are running
up to them, but) that the crowd keeps becoming greater. To put
an end to their importunity, Jesus waits no longer, but proceeds
to work the miracle. On the other hypothesis, Jesus cures the
child before the crowd, eager to see the wonder, has arrived. For
27 seq., cp. Chapter v. 39-42, The one passage may have been
imitated from the other.
28-29. An appendix to the story. When Jesus gives private
explanations, we know that the Evangelist himself is at work. We
have seen how difficult it is to account for Jesus's rebuke if it was
addressed to or included the disciples. As an instance of ' reading
into ' the text, I may quote the explanation of Swete. ' The
disciples had trusted to the quasi-magical power with which they
thought themselves invested : there had been on their part no
preparation of heart and spirit.' And it seems strange to-day to
read : ' Spirits of such malignity were quick to discern the lack of
moral power and would yield to no other.'
29. The power requisite for such healing can only be obtained
by earnest and assiduous prayer. Some MSS. add also kuI
vqaTeia, 'and through fasting' (Matt. xvii. 21). Here the
position taken up in 23 seems changed. It is not faith that
works the miracle, or gives the power to work it, but prayer.
To combine the two views one would have to say that the prayer
produces the faith. But the natural order is for the faith to
produce the prayer. Hence, perhaps, W. is right in thinking the
verse hardly conceivable as a saying of Jesus. He points out that
Matthew must have found it difficult, for he seems to have substi
tuted for it his xvii. 20. Undoubtedly 28 and 29 are on a lower
religious plane than 23. ' The immediate feeling of certain conquest
and ascendancy peculiar to the primitive Christian enthusiasm is
seen in the process of disappearing ; circumstantial preparations
and ritual acts are needed in order to become master of the evil
spirits' (J. Weiss). Klostermann rightly says that the reply of
Jesus (even without the 'fasting') is very obscure. 'Does he
mean to reproach the disciples with having omitted to pray, and
relied instead on the mere magical power of working miracles ? '
What are we to say of the faith preached and praised in this
story ?

222 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IX. 14-29
It seems at first remote from us because it is so connected
with the miraculous. We certainly do not believe that faith can
work miracles in the ordinary sense of the word; and it seems
almost impossible to believe that, through the faith of A, B, who
is unaware of that faith, can be healed. We do not clearly see why,
if Jesus could miraculously cure the epileptic boy, so that he
never had epilepsy again, and fully and permanently recovered his
speech, he could not have done so whether the father of the child
believed in his miraculous powers or not. It may, however, be
argued that the faith of A, who is intensely interested in the cure
of B, may help C to perform it.
But we are in truth attempting the impossible in such inquiries.
We can never know what measure of historical truth underlies the
tale. And with regard to Peter and Jesus walking on the sea, we
neither believe that the story happened, nor that such a thing
could happen. No amount of faith that he would be able to walk
on the sea would enable a man to do it.
But because we cannot use the sayings of Jesus about faith
literally in the form in which we have them, it does not follow
that they are valueless or false. The power of faith and the value
of trust are still enormous. Jesus as the prophet of faith and trust
has still a message to the world.

30-32. Second Prediction of Suffering, Death
and Resurrection
{Cp. Matt. xvii. 22, 23 ; Luke ix. 43-45)
30 And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee;
31 and he desired that none should know it. For he taught his
disciples, and said unto them, ' The Son of man ¦will be delivered
into the hands of men, and they will kill him ; and after he has
32 been killed, he will rise after three days.' But they understood
not the saying, and were afraid to ask him.
The journey to Jerusalem now begins. Jesus passes through
Galilee incognito. For the reason see the note on vi 30-33.
What he told the disciples in 31 is made the reason for the
secrecy of 30, but it does not properly explain it. In the oldest
form, or in the source, of Mark, one may conjecture, with Loisy,
that ix. I, II, 12 a, 13, 30, 33 a followed hard upon each other.
The French scholar is in full agreement here with W. : ' S'il
traversait incognito la Galilee, c'etait pour ne pas attirer I'attention

IX. 33-50] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 223
d'H^rode ; il n'dtait pas autrement preoccupe de sa mort prochaine
ni de I'instruction des disciples ' {E. 8. II. p. 61).
The predictions of his death are repeated several times. They
are inserted without any close connection with their context, nor
do they refer to each other. The predictions can only in the most
limited sense be historical. Pfleiderer thinks that Jesus's entry
and action in Jerusalem, as well as his last words upon the cross,
give the undoubted impression that he went to Jerusalem not to
die, but to fight and to conquer. Defeat and death may have
crossed his mind as a possibility, but not more than this, just
as they cross the mind of a general upon the eve of battle
{Urchristentum, I. p. 360).
32. The disciples, as usual, are obtuse. In ix. 11 they ask
questions; here they are represented as afraid to do so.

33-50. Who is the Greatest ? — Of Stumbling-blocks
and other Matters
{Cp. Matt, xviii. 1-9; Luke ix. 46-50, xvii. i, 2)
33 And they came to Capernaum : and when he was in the
house, he asked them, ' What did ye discuss among yourselves on
34 the way ? ' But they held their peace : for on the way they had
35 argued among themselves who was the greatest. And he sat
down, and called the Twelve, and said unto them, ' If any man
36 desire to be first, let him be last of all, and servant of all.' And
he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and he embraced
37 him, and said unto them, ' Whoever shall receive one of these
children in my name, receiveth me: and whoever receiveth me,
receiveth not me, but Him that sent me.'
38 And John said to him, ' Master, we saw one casting out
demons in thy name, and he does not follow us : and we sought
39 to prevent him, because he did not follow us.' But Jesus said,
^ ' Prevent him not : for no man who doeth a miracle in my name,
;4o will readily speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is
41 for us. For whoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in
ll my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he
1:42 shall not lose his reward. And whoever shall cause one of these
' little ones that believe to stumble, it were better for him that a

224 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IX. 33-50
millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the
43 sea. And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is
better for thee to enter into Life maimed, than having two hands
45 to go into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched. And
if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is better for thee
to enter lame into Life, than having two feet to be cast into heU.
47 And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, pluck it out : it is better
for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than
48 having two eyes to be cast into hell : where their worm dieth not,
49 and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with
SO fire. Salt is good : but if the salt have lost its saltness, wherewith
will ye season it ? Have salt in yourselves, and keep peace with
one another.'
This section can be split up into three or four sub-divisions,
but these are not clearly marked. We may mark off 33-37, 38-41,
42-48, 49-50. There is a certain parallelism between 33-37 on
the one hand, and x. 35-45 and x. 13-16 on the other. The lesson
given in ix. 35 is almost verbally the same as that given in x. 43, 44,
and it has therefore been inferred, with much probability, that
different settings have been given by Mark to one and the same
saying which he has taken from his source {i.e. Q, according to
B. Weiss, Loisy and other scholars). Again the incident with the
children is twice repeated. It occurs in ix. 36 and x. 16. Doubt
less it is one and the same incident which has suggested both
forms of the story. It is even held that the occasion and setting
of the lesson given in ix. 35 and x. 42 was a single incident which
only the Evangelist has doubled.
34. ' Who was the greatest ? ' But the words may mean not
greatest now, but who urill be greatest in the Kingdom. So
Matthew (xviii. i), and, what is very important, so the S.S.
Cp. also, for the wording, Luke xxii 14, which may be the
original form of the opening of the story.
35. 'He called the Twelve.' This is odd, for in 33 Jesus is
indoors with his disciples. Why need he 'call the Twelve' ? Yet
there seems no distinction to be made between the Twelve and
those disciples who have been mentioned in 33.
Jesus is here supposed to read the hearts of the disciples. He
knows about what they have been talking. In Matthew the
disciples openly ask him the question, which is more natural.
The saying in 35 means: The only test of superiority in my

IX. 33-So] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 225
Kingdom is service. He who serves best shall be regarded as ¦
the greatest. It is these simple and profound sayings which seem
best to reflect the historical Jesus. How can anyone fairly and
honestly argue that such a sublime saying is not an ethical and
religious gain over and above the great ethical and religious stores
in the Old Testament ? And if it could be shown that all the •
great sayings of Jesus were verbally and textually contained in the
Talmud, it might still be justly argued that the lack of faniiliarity ,
with the New Testament is a great loss to the Jews. For most '
Jews do not know the Talmud. Their religious literature is con-
flned to the Old Testament and the Prayer-book. And in the
huge bulk of the Talmud the great passages are overwhelmed
and lost to view by the mass of trivial, worthless or second-class
matter. Moreover, no collection of Rabbinical sayings that I am
acquainted with can rival the sayings of Jesus in impressiveness,
profundity, and power. To have been familiar with them from
childhood must surely be an important ethical and religious asset
in people's lives. And once again we mark in this verse the note
of active devotion and personal service. Kindness and charity
{gemiluth, chesadim) are familiar enough in the Rabbinical litera
ture. But I do not think I am wrong in supposing that this touch
of eager personal service, especially towards the sinner and the
outcast, was a special characteristic of the religion of Jesus, and a
new thing when he preached it.
J. Weiss, while holding that the original meaning of Jesus's
saying was that true greatness consists in service {cp. Mark x. 43),
thinks that the saying has here received another stamp. It is a
judgment sentence. He who seeks to be first in the Kingdom
shall be degraded. He shall be the last, the servant of all. Not
the apostles, but the child is the true representative of Jesus.
The saying of 35 reappears many times in the Synoptics. Cp.
Mark x. 43, 44; Matt. x. 26, 27, xxiii 11 ; Luke ix. 486, xxii 26.
The simplest (perhaps most original) form is Matt, xxiii. 1 1,
36. W. argues that 36, 37 is ' a separate whole,' and that it is
not closely connected with 33 and 34. [35 6 is wanting in the MS.
D, and W. suggests that it may have been added here to make a
better connection between 33, 34 and 36, 37.] For what 36 and
37 say is how others are to be treated by the disciples, not how
they are themselves to behave. The child is not here a type of
humility and ' Anspruchslosigkeit ' (as in x. 15), but the type
of the poor and the simple who are to be welcomed and served
in the name of Christ. 37 can be connected with 35, inasmuch
as the servant of all, who is the greatest of all, is also he who
receives the smallest and humblest for the sake of Christ.

226 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IX. 33-50
How, says Loisy, could a real child so represent Jesus that in
'receiving' it one receives him ? Matt. x. 40 suggests, Loisy thinks,
the real meaning. The child is an apostle. 'Ce n'est pas le
premier enfant venu que pent se pr^valofr du nom du Christ : car,
pour ^tre re§u " au nom " du Christ, il faut porter ce nom avec
soi. L'enfant si recevoir est done envoy6 de J6sus, comme J6sus est
envoye de Dieu. C'est I'apGtre, comme on le voit en Matthieu,
oil cette sentence a place dans le discours de mission. Marc fait
recommander aux Douze d'avofr egard aux "petits" ap6tres; on
pent croire qu'il a surtout en vue le " petit " Paul, le " moindre des
apotres," qui n'etait " pas digne d'etre appel6 ap6tre," mais qui
croyait avoir autant fait que " les grands ap6tres " et ne leur etre
inferieur en rien' {E. 8. Ii. p. 69). If this hidden meaning is
the true one, which seems to me somewhat doubtful, the con
nection between 33-35 and 36-37 would be found. Both teach
the same lesson to the same people.
37. Cp. Matt X. 40 ; from Q. Did Mark also take his verse
from that source ? He adds ' in my name.' Is this a translation
of the Hebrew idiom, meaning ' for my sake ' ? Or does it mean :
' because I desire it,' ' as a part of Christian duty ' ? In Mark
the phrase is put into the mouth of Jesus in ix. 37 and 39,
(perhaps also in ix. 41), and in xiii. 6 {cp. xiii. 13, xvi. 17). The
' name,' W. asserts, is not Jesus, but Christ ; but if the phrase is
a mere translation of the Hebrew idiom, it is neither the one
nor the other. For then it merely means ' for my sake.' Merx
holds that the meaning is : ' for the reason, or on the ground, that
he belongs to me.' The phrase is correctly interpreted in 41,
'because ye belong to Christ.' Heitmiiller, who in his excellent
book Im Namen Jesu has given all these ' name ' passages the
most thorough investigation, holds that even here the usual
meaning, i.e. the invocation of the absolute calling upon, the name
of Jesus can still be maintained. ' He who, invoking my name,
receives one of these children.' But he thinks that perhaps in
this particular passage ' for my sake ' may be the right rendering.
'Receiveth me.' If the service is done for the sake of the
Master, and because he desired it, it is reckoned as if it had been
done to the Master himself The dynamic effect of this saying
has been enormous. All social service wrought in Christ's name
and spirit is wrought to him. Who can measure or count the
deeds of sacrifice and love to which this saying has prompted ?
'Him that sent me.' What are we to make of this? Is it
part of a unique self-assurance in Jesus, part of his consciousness
that he was a superior being, the Messiah, the Son of God,
perhaps himself divine? There seems no absolute necessity for

IX. 33-So] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK ^27
this. Isaiah, no less than Jesus, believed that God had 'Sent'
him. Doubtless Jesus believed that he was sent by God, and he
probably held that he Was the Messiah. Yet the saying, which
Mark records, 'Why callest thou me good? Oaly God is good,'
shows that he did not ascribe to himself a sinless pre-eminence of
perfection. Social service is the right service of the Messiah, aUd it
is also the right service of God. If Jesus said this verse, I Would
venture to think that he did not mean that any service rendered
to himself was a service rendered to God, but rather that the
service of the poor was the service both of himself and of God.
' Receive.' In what sense is the word used ?
The literal meaning need not be pressed. To receive the child
may mean to serve it, to show it kindness. But possibly, if the
child is a type of a lowly and despised matt, then to 'receive'
the child means to accept and receive such a man into the Christian
brotherhood. But in what sense can Jesus himself be ' received ' ? In what
sense can God be ' received ' ?
Do the words mean more than that a good deed done for the
sake of Jesus is like a good deed done to him, a good deed done
for him is like a good deed done to God ?
But the use of the word ' receive ' suggests mystidal meanings.
The indwelling spirit of Christ or of God may be said to be 're
ceived ' through goodness, self-sacrifice, and love. God and Christ
may both be said to ' dwell ' in man or be united with man. If
the verse occurred in the fourth Gospel, that would be its meaning,
but it is scarcely likely that this mystical meaning is the correct
interpretation of a passage in Mark. There is no doubt that in
the precisely identical parallel passage of Matthew, the word
' receive ' has a far simpler sense (x. 40). For there the sayiUg
occurs as part of the discourse to the apostles when Jesus
despatched them upon thefr missionary journey {cp. Luke x. 16).
If, as Loisy thinks, Mark has taken it from the common source,
i.e. Q, which may have contained Matt. ix. 37, 38, x. 5 6-8 a, 9-I6,
23-25, 40, then the meaning of the word 'receive' is quite simple
and natural. It includes the giving of hospitality, the acceptance
of the teaching of Jesus through the mouths, and in the persons,
of his emissaries. It must be admitted that the simpler sense
of ' receive ' would seem to make Matt. x. 40 (Q) more primitive
than Mark ix. 37 (Loisy, E. 8. l. pp. 896, 897). Loisy indeed holds
that the whole section, Mark ix. 33-50, presents the character of
an ' artificial and awkward compilation.' This theory is the very
antithesis of W.'s as quoted at the end of this chapter.
Even if, in this passage, we are to consider the child as the
type for the lowliest and most despised person who would belong
IS— 2

228 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IX. 33-50
to Christ, the incident to which our passage goes back, and which
recurs in Mark x. 13, may be regarded as historical. The affection
which Jesus shows towards children is probably a historic and
characteristic trait. It, too, has had its good effect in the history
of the world. Only Mark mentions that Jesus took the child in
his arms. Cp. x. 16, where only Mark records that Jesus embraces
and blesses the children.
38-40. The section 38-40, or rather 38-41, presents some
difficult problems, and has been very variously interpreted. One
has to start from 41. This verse is clearly parallel with Matt.
X. 42. Now we have seen reason to believe that Mark ix. 37 is
based upon the source of Matt. x. 40 and that Matt. x. 40
represents the original, and not Mark ix. 37. How about ix. 41 ?
Is that verse the original for Matt. x. 42, or does Matt. x. 42, like
X. 40, also come from Q, and is it more original in form than
Mark ix. 37 ? If Matt. x. 42, like x. 40, is drawn from Q, why
does the change of ' you ' into ' little ones,' which Mark made, for
his own purposes, in ix. 37, appear now in Matthew ? And on the
other hand, why does Mark have 'you ' in ix. 41 instead of 'little
ones ' ? If, on the other hand, Mark ix. 41 is the original of
Matt. X. 42, the change of Mark's ' you ' into ' little ones ' is also
rather curious.
Though Mark ix. 37 has 'little ones' (literally 'one of
these little children'), and ix. 41 has 'you,' there seems to be
some connection between the two verses: both speak of doing
good, or being kind to others 'in the name of Christ,' or because
the recipients are Christians. And if 41 no less than 37 is based
upon Q, then the link between them becomes greater. What
then about 38-40? Why are these verses intercalated?
Some hold that there is a mere verbal connection. 38 has
been hung on to 37 on account of the words ' in my name.' This
is rather unsatisfactory on account of 41 which one would like to
put nearer to 37. Dr Carpenter {First Three Gospels, p. 228)
says that ' the incident described in Mark ix. 38-40 so obviously
shatters the sequence of 33-37, and 41-47 that it has been widely
regarded as a late insertion founded on Luke ix. 49, 50.' But on
p. 210, n. I he states that Mark ix. 38-41 (and not 40), breaking
the connection of 37 with 42, seems to have been added from
some other source {cp. Luke ix. 49, 50).
Very ingenious is the theory of Loisy. He holds that Mark
ix. 41 is the original of Matt. x. 42. B. Weiss, of course, thinks
the contrary, and I am inclined to agree with him. Moreover
Loisy's own theory seems strengthened upon this hypothesis. He
points out that though 41 is connected with 37, and though thes&

IX. 33-5°] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 229
'idees connexes ne devraient former qu'une seule sentence,' yet
that the 'you' of 41 is linked to the sentence 'he who is not
against us is with us.' [Still more would it be so linked if with
the MS. D we read ' you ' for ' us ' in both parts of the saying.
And if 41 is based upon Q, and if Q's wording is kept in Matt.
X. 42, then 40, especially in D's form of it, would explain the
change from 'little ones' to 'you' in 41.]
Why then did the Evangelist put 38-40 between 37 and 41 ?
Once more Loisy brings in Paul to provide the explanation.
The Evangelist could not express his meaning openly, but he
thought his readers would perceive it. The story is very unlikely
as history, and the saying, ' He that is not against us is for us ' is
modelled upon the authentic, 'He that is not for me is against
me,' which Mark has omitted (Matt xii 30).
' If the little one who must be received as if he were Jesus
himself is in some way the apostle Paul, it is easy to imagine
that John the son of Zebedee here represents the Judaizers who
opposed him. ...But the Saviour condemns the attitude of John;
it is not possible that a man who does miracles in his name
should speak ill of him, or should not be in the true faith of
Christ, since he has the Spirit of God which works in Christ.
The reasoning is Pauline in substance and even in form {cp.
I Cor. xii 3). The words " He who is not against us is for us "
would be open to suspicion if taken in a general sense ; they are
the sentence, " He who is not for me is against me " turned round
into a defence of the apostle. And the conjunction, artiflcial as
it is, of this reflection with the words concerning the cup of cold
water, becomes quite natural, if it is Paul who is not against the
gospel but for it, and Paul again who, bringing to the saints of
Jerusalem the alms of the Gentiles, has a right to his reward
before God' {E. 8. il p. 74; cp. i. p. 95).
Note that ' in my name ' means in 38 and 39 something very
different from what it meant in 37, if in 37 it meant 'for my
sake.' In 38 and 39 it means merely the utterance of the actual
name, as part of an exorcist's formula. It baa here its old and
regular meaning of ' invoking the name by saying it aloud.' The
'name' of Jesus was believed to possess as strong a power in
protection or exorcism as the name of God. There is no difference
in meaning between the two different Greek prepositions in 38
and 39.
The situation suggested by 38 could hardly have happened in
Jesus's lifetime. It reflects a later age, when the reputation of
the Christian community was great enough to tempt outsiders to
try thefr fortune as exorcists by using the name of Christ. Such
people are not to be checked; perhaps one thing may lead to

230 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IX. 33-50
another, and they may become full members of the new brother
hood. The statement that a man, who is no disciple of Jesus,
nevertheless exorcises demons by the name of Jesus, is extremelv
peculiar and interesting. We are intended to suppose that the
exorcisms were successful. The ' name ' is enough. It has a
magical force, and compels the demons to yield to its power.
Radical criticism has made great use of this passage, as proving
that Jesus the Saviour was a known god or demi-god before Jesus
of Nazareth was born. But of this there is no room to speak
here. J. Weiss thinks that Jesus's reply in 40 is half ironic. ' Let
him be ; the man will not readily revile the name from which he
earns his bread. We have, at all events, one friend in the hostile
populace.' [But was the populace yet so hostile ?] ' It is some
thing, or even much, that he does not oppose us and hinder our
work.' The saying, Weiss holds, has a pessimistic tenor. Things
are so bad that it is something even to have this negative sort of
friend. Finally, W. thinks that though 38 makes as it were a fresh
beginning, it yet continues the thread of the preceding verses.
For it also teaches humility to the Twelve. He who exorcises
demons in the name of Christ, and thus acknowledges him, is not
to be repudiated, even though he does not join himself to the
Twelve. [It is, however, doubtful whether the man's employment
of the name as an exorcising formula is meant to imply any real
acknowledgment. And it must be admitted that the use of such
a formula, during Jesus's lifetime, is extremely unlikely.]
Whatever the first meaning and origin of the saying, 'He
who is not against us is for us,' it was soon capable of extended
applications. It can indeed be used for most broad and liberal
interpretations. Swete says : ' The man who is not a declared
enemy of the Christian brotherhood may be provisionally regarded
as a friend.' And one can go further still. The man who is in
sympathy with the fundamental teaching of Jesus is his true
follower, whether he acknowledges him or no. Or again: all
men who love goodness and God belong to the same religion and
are allies in the same cause.
41. If Loisy's hypothesis be rejected, and Dr Carpenter's
also, one can connect 41 with 40 by saying that the smallest
service rendered to the disciples, just because they are disciples,
will be recognized and rewarded. At least it indicates an inclina
tion to and friendliness towards Christ, even if the doer of the
service does not yet bear his name.
' In my name, because ye belong to Christ.' Another reading"

IX. 33-5°] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 23 1
is ' in the name, because ye belong to Christ.' Heitmtiller thinks
that this other reading (without 'my') is right, and that the
meaning is 'on the ground that ye are Christians.' But if
'my' is read, then he holds that one must render: 'for my
sake, because ye belong to Christ.' It is to be noted that the
formula, 'because ye belong to Christ' is Pauline {cp. i Cor.
iii 23). The wording of Matt. x. 40 ' in the name of a disciple '
may be nearer to the original. Swete makes the remark that
Christ without the article is never elsewhere used by Jesus in the
Synoptics. 42-48. This section deals with stumbling-blocks, but 42 treats
of the moral seduction of others, while 43-48 treats of the moral
seduction of oneself. It appears to be based upon material which
is also found in Q ; it may be directly taken from Q.
42. This verse makes a link between the preceding section
and 43-48. But it connects best with 37 {cp. Dr Carpenter's
second hypothesis that 38-41 is a later insertion. First Three
Gospels, p. 210, n. i). It has been argued {e.g. by Bousset) that
the original form of the verse is best preserved in Luke xvii. i, 2
(Q). Where Mark has ' one of these little ones who believe,' Luke
has, more simply, ' one of these little ones.' The absolute use of
inaTevm, to mean the Christian believer, is secondary and late.
Nevertheless it is probable that Mark's addition is a correct
interpretation. Humble adherents and believers were probably
referred to, even in the original, not children, as Holtzmann
and J. Weiss believe. The sin condemned is that of seducing
humble believers from their faith, making them apostatise. a-Kav-
SaXa and aKavBaXi^eiv are expressive words, for which, as W.
points out (on Matt, xiii 41), there is no precise German (or
English) equivalent. ' Cause to stumble,' ' seduce,' &c., are none
of them quite satisfactory renderings for the verb, nor will
'stumbling-block' do well for the noun.
To seduce others from their faith is the greatest of sins. The
Rabbis thought the same. To them Jeroboam was the type of
the greatest sinner, because he not only did evil himself, but
'caused Israel to sin.'
43-47 are connected with 42 by the word vKavBaXi^eiv, but
deal with quite a different subject. The temptations here referred
to are not brought to others, but occur, through the weakness of
the flesh, to oneself. These verses are perhaps earlier and more
authentic. They occur in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt
V. 29, 30) as well as in Matt, xviii 8, 9. B. Weiss thinks that
the entire section about 'stumbling-blocks' existed in Q in the

232 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IX. 33-50
order in which we find it in Mark, i.e. Luke xvii. i, 2 was
succeeded by Matt. v. 29, 30. Even if this was not the case, it
may nevertheless be that 43-47 are based upon Q.
The advice which Jesus here gives is clearly not to be taken
literally. But the form of the maxims rests upon the conception
— still widely prevalent — that in the life of the resurrection a
man's outward form is the same as that which he had when he
died. If you die with one eye, you will only have one eye when
you 'rise.'
The term ' life ' is used as equivalent to the ' Kingdom of God.'
It has a somewhat late look used thus absolutely : the term is not
used in Matt. v. 29, 30, though we find it in Matt. vii. 14, where
it is, however, used in contrast to ' destruction.' Here it seems to
wear almost a Johannine air. 'The fire that shall never be
quenched ' seems added as an explanation of ' Geherma.'
The ' life,' and therefore the Kingdom, are thus regarded as
future, not present. When were the hearers of these maxims
supposed to enter the Kingdom ? Apparently after death, at the
resurrection, when Jesus in his risen glory, appearing upon earth
again, would admit the good into the full beatitude of the
perfected Kingdom, and send the bad to everlasting heU.
The advice which Jesus here gives is that we are not to
provoke danger and call it forth. Far better to nip it in the
bud, and to pray, 'Lead us not into temptation.' The word
'Gehenna' only occurs here in Mark. For the origin and Rab
binical use of the word see Jewish Encyclopcedia.
48. The reference is to Isaiah Ixvi. 24. The worm is the
decomposed body, which is to continue to feel pain, and to be
burned with constant fire. The quotation, wanting in Matthew,
seems to be added here only in order to make a verbal connection
for the following verse. ' That the reference here is to an eternal
fire is certain ; whether eternal pain for the condemned is thought
of or connected therewith is doubtful.' So J. Weiss, who adds,
characteristically: 'This is the foundation passage {Grundstelle)
for the horrible doctrine of the everlasting pains of hell, a doctrine
which is, indeed, consonant with the outward Jewish dogma of
retribution, but not with the gospel of the God whose nature is
love.' Yet Christianity has made much greater use of the horrible
doctrine than Judaism, and Judaism has freed itself from it more
easily and completely than Christianity. The doctrine of divine
forgiveness is so fundamentally Jewish that it was quite easy for
Judaism to see that the horrible doctrine of eternal punishment
was in flagrant violation of its own clearest and chiefest teaching.
It is amusing to think that from the Jewish pulpit, under which

IX. 33-50] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 233
I sat for many years, the horrible doctrine of eternal punishment
and eternal pain was habitually referred to as characteristically
Christian. So apt are we to attribute opinions which we dislike
to our neighbours 1 It is needless to tell my Jewish readers that
J. Weiss's words are merely the product of prejudice. His
scholarship is, I hope, reflected in what follows, which I trust is
true, though I feel extremely doubtful. 'Happily,' he says, 'it
is very unlikely that Jesus himself gave any occasion {Anlass) to
this horrible doctrine. For the judgment of fire, according to
Jesus, is a rapid process, which leads to annihilation. In the
Judgment it is a question of death or of life.' May it be so!
49. Many attempts have been made to connect 49 with the
preceding passages, but they have not been very successful. The
' eternal fire ' seems to have suggested the idea of purification by
another sort of fire.
The verse has been taken to mean that everyone must be
purified by the fire of tribulation. But this seems somewhat
strained. Loisy takes it to be a sort of false connecting link
between 48 and 50, and to refer to the final crisis of the world, the
universal conflagration, in which the wicked would perish, but
which the just would pass through purified and unharmed {E. 8.
II. p. 84). Many MSS. add : ' And every sacrifice shall be salted
with salt,' which seems to mean 'just as every sacrifice is purified
(salted) by salt.'
50. This verse, again, seems merely outwardly hung on to
49. Indeed, the two halves of it seem to have been originally
independent. For the first half cp. Matt. v. 1 3 ; Luke xiv. 34.
The salt in Mark, as in Matthew and Luke, is meant to be the
disciples. They are to season and purify the world. If the
purifying condiment has lost its purifying quality, its environment
cannot freshly season or purify it. 'The hope of the world lies in
the disciples: if they become proud and impure, who can make
them pure and humble ?
The second half of the verse uses the metaphor in a different
way. The disciples themselves are not salt (as towards the world),
but they are to have salt in themselves, and to be at peace one
with another. This may mean, perhaps, that they are to be pure
and humble, uncontaminated by the soilure of the world. But
perhaps it means that they are not to quarrel, the end of the long
section returning to the subject with which it opened (33). ' The
compiler of the discourse, wanting to bring Jewish and Greek
Christianity into accord, gives to the former counsels of goodwill
and charity ' {E. 8. II. p. 83).

234 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [IX. 33-50
With regard to the many disconnected sayings in the last
verses of this chapter W. observes:
'Very characteristic and without doubt of a primary nature
in order of time are the isolated, disconnected and paradoxical
sayings of Jesus in Mark ix. 48-50. They have the appearance
of undigested morsels {unverdaute Brocken). Yet how could
Mark have wished or wanted to tear them out of their context,
and thus make them unintelligible, if in his time they had
already possessed a context ? It was only later on that they
were better understood, arranged, and brought into good con
nection' {i.e. in Matthew and Luke and, before them, in their
special source Q or the 'Redenquelle'). Compare also W.'s
remarks in his Einleitung on p. 85. The same argument, with
Bousset's reply to it, has come before us on iv. 25. And here it
is strongly disputed by Loisy. To him all this section of Mark
presents the character of an artificial and maladroit compilation.
Not by such passages can one prove that Mark is primitive
relative to Q.
CHAPTER X
I- 1 2. Of Divorce
{Cp. Matt. xix. 1-12)
I And he arose from thence, and came into the district of Judsea
beyond the Jordan : and crowds collected unto him again; and he
taught them again, as he was wont.
2 And the Pharisees came and asked him, in order to test him :
3 ' May a man divorce his wife ? ' And he answered and said unto
4 them, ' What did Moses command you ? ' And they said, ' Moses
permitted him to write a bill of divorce, and to send her away.'
5 And Jesus said unto them, ' To suit the hardness of your hearts
6 he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation :
7 He made them male and female : therefore shall a man leave his
8 father and mother, and cleave to his wife ; and they two shall be
9 one flesh : so then they are no more two, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man separate.'
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again about this
1 1 matter. And he said unto them, ' Whoever divorces his wife, and
12 marries another, commits adultery against her. And if the woman
divorce her husband, and marry another, she commits adultery.'

X. I-I2] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 235
This passage is one of the most important in the Gospels.
In no other point was the opposition of Jesus to the Rabbinic
law of profounder signiflcance. The religious position of woman
and the law of divorce form the least attractive feature in the
Rabbinical system. If the general status of women among the
Jews has, nevertheless, been tolerably satisfactory, this is scarcely
because of their laws, but in spite of them. The unerring ethical
instinct of Jesus led him to put his finger upon the weak spots and
sore places of the established religion. Of all such weak spots
and sore places this was the weakest and the sorest. And the
weakest and sorest it still remains. The reform, or rather the
renouncement, of the Orientalisms in the laws about women is
one of the greatest necessities of orthodox Judaism. Fast bound
in the bondage of a code, from which it cannot shake itself free
without losing its own identity, orthodox Judaism (like other
' orthodox ' creeds) is in a difficult and unenviable position. On
the other hand, as a wise friend has pointed out to me, it is
a remarkable fact that both in ancient and modern orthodox
Judaism woman has often, and even usually, received a high place
of honour. It has been held that the duties of wifehood and
motherhood were in themselves sanctioned and sanctified by God,
and thus rightly dispensed a woman from many ritual enactments.
Her place within the family has always been high and revered.
' Comparisons are odious,' but it is pretty certain that among the
very poor the Jewish woman is not less honoured in her home than
is her Gentile neighbour in hers. So true is it, as Mr Abrahams
has said, that 'Judaism is the great upsetter of the probable.
Analyse a tendency of Judaism, and predict its logical conse
quences, and then look in Judaism for consequences quite other
than these ' {Judaism, p. 69).
The Rabbinic law of divorce starts from Deqt xxiv. i. It is,
and remains, doubtful what the verses precisely mean. What
is the ' unseemly thing ' which if a man find in his wife, he may
divorce her ? To his eternal honour, Shammai, an older contem
porary of Jesus, said it meant, and only meant, unchastity. But
to his eternal dishonour Hillel said it meant all kinds of other
reasons as well. The Rabbinic law most unfortunately followed
Hillel, and it allowed, and still allows, divorce for many and many
a reason over and above and outside of adultery. See Additional
Note 18.
Though the words in Deuteronomy are doubtful, it would
seem as if mere adultery could not be the only meaning. For
by the Law (Deut. xxii 22) the adulteress was to be put to
death. The version of this section in Mark differs in important respects

236 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 1-12
from the version in Matthew (xix. 1-12). In Mark the question
is asked quite generally, 'May a man divorce his wife?' In Matthew
the question is, ' May a man for any reason divorce her ? ' In other
words, the question there is, What attitude does Jesus take up on
the point at issue between Hillel and Shammai? The parallel
passages (Matt. v. 31, 32; Luke xvi 18) must also be taken
into account.
At first sight it might seem as if Mark can only then be sup
posed to give the more original and accurate report of what Jesus
really said, if W.'s interpretation of Mark be accepted. That
interpretation robs the difference between Matthew and Mark ot
any considerable importance. It assumes that Jesus did not
mean to say that, even if a woman had committed adultery, she
must not be divorced, and that in the lifetime of that guilty
woman the guiltless husband must never marry again. It supposes
that adultery was not in question. For though Shammai held
that unchastity ought to be the only ground for divorce, there is
no reason to suppose that the ordinary custom and law from the
earliest period onward had not been in accordance with the opinion
of Hillel, namely, that a man was able to send his wife away for
a number of reasons unconnected with unchastity. Adultery was
a separate affair, which was not dealt with by anything so mild as
a mere bill of divorce. The penalty of adultery was death. See
Additional Note 18.
On this view the discussion in Mark must be supposed to
exclude adultery, though it does not mention adultery. Matthew,
to avoid any unclearness, adds words which make adultery the
exception to the general canon which Jesus lays down. Gould
seems to agree with W.
I. 'He arose from thence,' i.e. from Capernaum. See ix. 33.
It is assumed that a period has just elapsed during which Jesus
had withdrawn himself from the people. He now resumes his
public teaching. But he finally leaves Galilee. Prof Bennett
says : ' Jesus left Galilee, and crossing the Jordan came to the
eastern districts opposite Judaea. He now felt safer than in
Galilee. The eastern borderlands were less settled : the population
was largely of Gentiles, and was more dfrectly under the govern
ment of Rome. There was less opportunity for official persecution
or popular fanaticism, and the desert offered a refuge from danger.
Hence Jesus resumed His public ministry ' (p. 144).
Some think that the xal after 'JovBaia<s should probably be
omitted. So in the MS. D, in the S.S., and in the parallel verse
in Matthew. Persea would thus be described as ' the Judsean lan^
beyond Jordan.' Others think that Jesus preached first in Judsea,

X. I-I2] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 237
then in ' Persea,' whence he made his way to Jerusalem for the
Passover. 2. The MS. D and the S.S. omit 'the Pharisees,' perhaps
rightly. Matthew brought them in according to his wont, and
then they may have been added in Mark.
' In order to test him.' What does this mean ? Was the
question asked because the answer was anticipated? Did the
questioners want Jesus to say something definitely against the
Law ? So Menzies and Loisy. Perhaps the conversation arose
from no such intention, but casually. Dr Carpenter thinks that
the words 'testing him' may mean no more than that they wanted
to see what attitude he would take up on a difficult and dis
puted subject. So Gould : ' testing him. This was a test, not a
temptation.' 3. Jesus replies to the question by grasping the nettle boldly.
He asks. What did Moses order upon the subject ? But, as Loisy
has pointed out, the 'Moses' passage he meant was not the 'Moses'
passage which the Pharisees at once thought of ' Les Pharisiens
tendaient un piege k Jesus, maintenant c'est lui qui les guette,
et il est silr de les prendre ' {E. S. 11. p. 197). In Matthew the
arrangement is different.
5. The expected reply having been given to his question, Jesus
then proceeds to state that the ' command ' in Deuteronomy was
only given in view of the Israelite ' hardness of heart.' ' a-KXrjpo^
[here] means hard, in the sense of rough or coarse, rather than
unimpressible. xapBia is the common word for the inner man
generally in the New Testament. The whole word [a-KXr/poKapBia,
' hardness of heart '] denotes the rude nature which belongs to a
primitive civilisation' (Gould).
The Mosaic law was in certain cases a kind of second best.
The highest law could not, or would not, have been obeyed. So
there was a concession made to human weakness or 'hardness.'
The divorce enactment was not a law, but a dispensation. This is
a fine interpretation of much of the Mosaic law, and may be com
pared with Maimonides's view of sacrifice. Both are equally un
historical, though, from a sort of universal or world-historic point
of view, one can see that Jesus was in the right.
6. Jesus now proceeds, as it were, to correct Moses by Moses.
The fundamental law of marriage is not destroyed by the dispen
sation of divorce. That was a temporary concession, and has no
validity or meaning for the true children of God. The right
translation of 6 is doubtful. W. takes the first three Greek

238 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 1-12
words to equal ' In the beginning of Genesis ' {i.e. the first book of
the Pentateuch). After these words he supposes that one must
supply, ' Moses wrote.' Thus one gets : ' In the creation story,
however, (Moses wrote) : Male and female,' &c.
The ordinary translation is given in the Authorised and
Revised Versions: 'But from the beginning of the creation,
male and female made he them.' In either case, from 'he
made' down to 'one flesh' is a citation by Jesus from Genesis.
9. Marriage is the highest unity. Man and wife are one
flesh. One flesh by divine decree. Monogamy is assumed, as
in Genesis. (This unity, on W.'s hypothesis, can be broken by adultery,
but in no other way whatsoever.)
What, then, God has so joined together man has no right to
sunder {cp. I Cor. vii lo).
The ' man ' who sunders would be the husband when he gives
the letter of divorce. But those who would attempt to reply to
Jesus by asserting the divineness of the Pentateuchal law, would
doubtless urge that it is not man who sunders, but God; for it
God, through Moses, gave the command, it is God who permits
and sanctions the sundering divorce. Nowhere more than here
does Jesus go nearer to denying the absolute divinity, permanence
and perfection of the Law. Yet one can see that he was not
himself conscious of doing so. Or, at any rate, the theory of the
hard heart was devised to soften the blow, to preserve the inspira
tion of the Law, while at the same time maintaining its ethical
inadequacy. 10-12. As in vii. 18, Jesus gives a further explanation to the
disciples privately. These two verses have therefore to be put on
the same level as the explanations of the ' sower ' and of spiritual
defilement. Nevertheless the saying they enshrine may be old
and authentic in substance. One need not be troubled by ' the
house,' or ask whose house it was. It may well be the house
where Jesus was staying at, the particular place where he then
happened to be.
A saying about divorce is also found in Matt. v. 32 (Sermon
on the Mount) and in Luke xvi. 18. It may be, as Loisy says,
that Mark has drawn his saying from the same source whence
Matthew and Luke drew theirs {i.e. Q). It may also be, as he also
suggests, that, in better conformity with its envfronment, the
saying is a traditional gloss on 8 and 9, which sought to complete
the teaching of Jesus by that of Paul. ' Le caractere pratique de
cette glose lui aurait valu d'entrer, avec adaptation au jud^o-
christianisme, dans une redaction secondafre du recueil de discours.

X. I-I2] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 239
oil Matthieu et Luc I'auraient connue' {E. 8. IL p. 199). An
argument in favour of the first hypothesis would be that of all
the four forms in which the prohibition of divorce appears in the
Synoptics, that of Luke seems the most original. See below.
II. In II and 12 Jesus adds something new. To divorce
your wife is a sin, but that sin is not adultery. If, however, in
addition to divorcing her, you marry another woman, then to the
sin of divorce you add the fresh sin of adultery. But Harnack
does not think that this distinction between {a) the sin, which is
not adultery, of divorce, and (6) the sin, which is adultery, of divorce
plus remarriage, is intended by Mark. He says (a) this view
contradicts the context of 1-9, (6) is artificially introduced into
the wording of the passage, and (c) ignores the fact that in
Oriental life remarriage regularly followed divorce.
fioixaTai iir avTrjv, he commits adultery in respect of his first
wife. The assertion of adultery following on divorce occurs four
times in the Synoptics, but in each of the four passages there are
varieties in detail. Mark predicates adultery {a) of the man, who
having divorced one woman, marries another, (6) of the woman,
who having divorced (or being divorced from) her husband,
marries again. Matt. v. 32 predicates adultery (a) of the woman,
who being divorced, marries again, (b) of the man who marries a
divorced woman. [Mark's second case is the same as Matthew's
first case, though Matthew assigns the evil to the man who by his
action causes the woman to sin.] Matt. xix. predicates adultery
(a) of the Tnan, who having divorced one woman, marries another,
and there is no second case (6) mentioned. Finally, Luke predi
cates adultery (a) of the man, who having divorced his wife,
marries another, and (6) of the man who marries a divorced
woman. There are thus three different cases, A, B and C: — two
in which adultery is predicated of men {A and jB), and one in
which adultery is predicated of woman {C). Mark has A and C,
Matt. V. has C and B, Matt. xix. has A, Luke has A and B.
The case of the woman is mentioned twice ; the case of the man
divorcing and marrying again thrice ; the case of the man marrying
a divorced woman twice. I am inclined to think that B. Weiss is
probably right. The oldest and most original form of the saying
is Luke's. Jesus spoke to men, and where women are not
specially before him, it is probable that he would allude to man's
sin rather than to woman's. Moreover, it is man who divorces, and
it is man's divorcing that Jesus blames and would stop. Hence it
seems likely that.he should predicate adultery for each remarrying
possibility, i.e. whether you yourself divorce aud then marry
another woman, or whether another man having divorced, you

240 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 1-12
marry the divorced wife. If B. Weiss is right, the first hypothesis of
Loisy's becomes the more probable, and the divorce passage in Q
(the form of which was Luke xvi. 18 rather than Matt. v. 32)
is probably older than Mark. Holtzmann says cautiously that
Luke's version is either a happy combination of Matt. x. 32 with
Mark x. 11 'oder — das Urspriingliche.'
12. The preceding verse is clear and intelligible. But the
1 2th, according to the usual and most authorised text, gives rise
to great difficulties. It says: 'And if the woman divorce her
husband, and marry another, she commits adultery.'
But, according to Jewish law, the woman could not divorce
the man. It is this disparity which is the second great blot and
evil of the Jewish law of divorce. The woman, in true accordance
with Oriental conceptions, is the subordinate of the man. The
Jewish law — to its credit be it said — made some improvements
in her insecure and unequal position; but she remained, and
remains, religiously and legally, the inferior. Her husband can
divorce her even if she has not committed adultery; she cannot
divorce him even though he has committed adultery.
In these circumstances it seems inconceivable that Jesus could
have made a statement so inconsistent ¦with Jewish law and life.
It is hardly likely that Mark could have written such a statement
(as to I Cor. vii. 13, Paul often writes as if he had never been
familiar with the Jewish religion). But the important MS. D
(Codex Bezse), upon which W. so often relies, reads Kal idv yvvrj
i^eXdrj diro tov dvSpo<; Kal dXXov yafi-qcrrj : i.e. If a woman is
divorced from her husband and marries another man, she commits
adultery. W. thinks this reading the original. Thus the man and
the woraan are put by Jesus, so far as he could, upon an equality.
If the divorced woman marries again, she commits adultery as
well as the man. If this reading is correct, it is then certain that
the case of the woman who had already committed adultery must
be excluded. For if she had been divorced for adultery, it would
not be said that she commits adultery if she marry again. If the
usual reading is retained, we must explain, with Menzies and others,
that ' Mark, writing for Gentile readers, with whom the wife can
claim divorce as well as the husband, adds a sentence to meet the
case.' Cp. First Three Gospels, p. 220.
Thus Jesus breaks away from and condemns the prevailing
and dominant Jewish law of divorce. He associates himself with
Shammai in asserting the inviolability of marriage except where
the woman has committed adultery. And he goes further than
Shammai because he says that not only should it be forbidden
for a man to divorce his wife except for adultery, but that if he

X. I-I2] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 241
does so, and if either he or his wife marry again, both he and she
are themselves guilty of adultery.
But there is another interpretation of x. 11, 12, which holds
that the qualification made by Matthew, ' except for unchastity,'
misrepresents the Master's teaching. According to this interpre
tation Jesus rejects all divorce, whether for adultery or for any
other cause whatever.
One cogent argument against W.'s view of our passage is that,
when Jesus lived, adultery was in all probability no longer
punished by death. The harsh law of the Pentateuch had already
fallen into desuetude. If a woman committed adultery she was,
in all probability, no longer killed, but given a bill of divorce.
If this be really so, then Jesus may consciously have included
adultery as one of the reasons which do not justify divorce. He
may have meant to urge that the marriage bond is inviolable.
The one fiesh can never be made two. This is the interpretation
which the Roman Catholic Church has given to his words. See
further the note on Matt. v. 32.
Prof Burkitt holds that there is a special allusion to a special
case in x. 12. The exact wording of the text may not represent
what Jesus said, because a woman, according to Jewish law, cannot
divorce her husband. But suppose the words ran more like this :
'If a woman leaves her husband and marries another, she commits
adultery.' Such a case had happened. Herodias had left her first
husband, Herod (erroneously called Philip in Mark vi. 17), in order
to marry his half-brother Antipas. Prof Burkitt supposes that
this famous case was alluded to by Jesus {op. dt. pp. 98-101).
The Syriac version puts the woman before the man ; it reads :
'The woman who leaves her husband and becomes the wife of
another does indeed commit adultery, and that man who leaves
his wife and takes another does indeed commit adultery.' Here
the man and woman are put on the same level. And the doctrine
of the one flesh may be taken to imply that the same conduct
which is invalid and wicked and illegitimate in a woman is invalid
and wicked and illegitimate in the case of a man. If a woman
cannot and may not divorce or leave her husband, a man cannot
and may not divorce his wife. This reading of the Syriac version
is in accordance with the reading of the MS. D, quoted above, and
is accepted by Julicher. Compare the note on Matt. xix. 8.
Mr Allen holds that the text of Mark is logical, consistent,
and defensible as it stands. It is true that ' no woman could
divorce her husband by Jewish law. But that is no reason why
the Lord should not have expressed Himself as Mark records.
There were exceptional cases of divorce by women in Palestine.
Cp. Salome, Josephus, Ant. book xv. ch. vii. 10 : " She sent him
u. 16

242 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 1-12
(Costobar) a bill of divorce, though this was against the Jewish
law (and dissolved her marriage with him)." And there is no
reason why He may not have been acquainted with the possibility
of divorce by women in the West, or why, even if He had not
this in view. He may not have emphasised His point by stating
the wrongfulness of divorce on either side of the marriage tie.'
If Jesus absolutely forbade divorce, he went further than most
of us can follow him. We may even hold that the rigid interpre
tation of his words has been productive of grave evils. But we
shall cherish his championship of womanhood. He does seem to
have felt that woman had been hardly dealt with, and that she
should not be treated more harshly than man. The exquisite
story of the woman taken in adultery in John viii. i-i i seems to
touch a similar note. The story is out of keeping with the rest
of the Johannine gospel, and ought to have found a place in the
Synoptics. In spite of its small MS. authority, and of the fact
that it is only found in John, it may possibly be historical. And
here we seem to find Jesus, not condoning or belittling sin, but
yet nobly unwilling that the woman should be singled out for
scorn and punishment.

13-16. Jesus and the Children
{Cp. Matt, xviii 3, xix. 13-15; Luke x^viii. 15-17)
13 And they brought young children to him, for him to touch
14 them : and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But
when Jesus saw it, he was indignant, and he said unto them, ' Let
the little children come unto me, and prevent them not : for of
15 such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you. Whoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall
16 surely not enter therein.' And he embraced them and blessed
them, putting his hands upon them.
A touching section, the humanity and grace of which are
marred by Matthew. Like the passage about divorce, it has no
relation with its context. We have seen that there is a certain
parallel to a part of this section in Mark ix. 36. -Verse 15 has
its parallel in Matt, xviii. 3. In this place Matthew omits it.
Whether this implies that the dispute as to precedence (Mark
ix. 33) did really include in its earliest form the incident of Jesus
putting a child before the disciples (ix. 36) and then saying to
them what we now read in x. 15 and Matt, xviii 3, I will not

X. 1 3-1 6] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 243
attempt to decide. Such is the opinion of B. Weiss. It is
conceivable that Matt xviii. 3 (Q) is the source of Mark x. 15,
but it does not appear to be one of the most likely of these
supposed borrowings of Mark from Q. It does not seem to me
impossible that the child of ix. 36 and the children of x. 13 may
both be historic. W. argues that the human traits of x. 13-16
prove its priority to the variant ix. 35-37, but it does not seem to
be quite necessary to assume that the two passages are variants
at all. 13. Cp. 2 Kings iv. 27. Is there a magical element about
the Master's mere ' touch ' which is unsympathetic to Matthew ?
With him the touch is turned into Jesus putting his hands upon
thefr heads. But probably Mark meant by 'touching' what
Matthew has said {cp. verse 16). Putting the hand upon the
person's head was a regular accompaniment of the act of blessing
{cp. Genesis xlviii. 14). It is reasonable enough to suppose that
Jesus was genuinely fond of children. At the same time there
is here, as so constantly in all the stories about him, the curious
parallel with, or contrast to, the stories of Elijah and Elisha.
Compare Mark x. 13-16 with 2 Kings ii 23. See also Additional
Note 19.
14. 'Of such,' t£v ToiovTcov. Does Jesus refer to real children
too ? Loisy thinks he does, as well as to those who have a pure,
child-like mind. The indignation shown or felt by Jesus is
mentioned by Mark only. The earliest Evangelist is not afraid
or unwilling to indicate that the Master was a man, who could
be moved by strong emotions. Dr Carpenter says : ' The Jesus
of Mark is a man with a man's wrath and disappointment....
The leading outlines of the immortal story are drawn from the
life.' For ' it remains probable that the main facts of Mark were
derived from Peter.' In Mark, far more than in Matthew and
Luke, ' Jesus thinks, prays, feels, speaks, acts, as a man ' {First
Three Gospels, pp. 217, 231).
The child symbolizes or represents the temper in which the
Kingdom must be received. Humble trust, a complete lack of
assertiveness, no consciousness of ' merit ' or desert, simple con
fidence and purity — these are the qualities which Jesus means to
indicate in the character of the true child. The Kingdom can
only be entered by those who can approach it in such a spirit.
To those who have it, the highest good, as the dfrect gift and
grace of God, can and will be given.
W. points out most aptly how Shakespeare has felt the con
trast between this section and the section which follows it. For
16 — 2

244 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 13-16
here the Kingdom is a gift which one must accept as a child, there
it is only to be won by effort and self-denial.
The passage from Shakespeare occurs in the famous soliloquy
of Richard II. just before his death (Act V. scene V.) :
...No thought is contented. The better sort.
As thoughts of things divine, are intermixed
With scruples, and do set the word itself
Against the word:
As thus, 'Come, little ones,' and then again,
'It is as hard to come as for a camel
To thread the postern of a small needle's eye.'
15. Are we to assert that the Kingdom is present, because
the text speaks of receiving it as a child ? The second part of the
verse shows that this would be an error. As Wrede points out,
the passage means that he who has not the childlike mind at the
time when the Kingdom arrives will not be suffered to enter it.
Loisy, however, says : ' The Kingdom of God does not here refer
exclusively to the Parousia, still less to the preaching of the gospel,
but rather to the scheme of salvation in its entirety. Hence it is
possible to say that a person receives the Kingdom and that he
enters into it : " to receive " better suits the preaching of the
gospel and the divine grace which gives it; "to enter" looks
rather to the eternal felicity to which the righteous will be
admitted. To receive the Kingdom is properly speaking to
accept the announcement of it with the faith and the sentiments
which are fitting ' {E. 8. 11. p. 205).
16. ivayKdXiadfievo<} is peculiar to Mark. Cp. ix. 36. But
by W., as we have seen, Mark x. 13-16 is regarded as more
original than ix. 36, where a single child is placed for didactic
purposes before the disciples, as a sort of concrete, though symboUc,
example of the ' little ones who believe.' KarevXoyei. The word
is only found here in the N.T. ' The force of Kara seems to be
intensive — He blessed them fervently, in no perfunctory way, but
with emphasis, as those who were capable of a more unreserved
benediction than thefr elders. Instead of the mere touch for
which their friends had asked. He laid his hands on them' (Swete).
The picture of Jesus embracing and blessing the children has
rightly sunk deep into the human heart. It would be unjust to
contrast with it, as has sometimes been done, the picture of
2 Kings ii. 23. For in the one the children are brought to Jesus
to be taught; in the other they mock at the prophet on the
road. Yet the beauty, the significance, the ethical force and the
originality of the Gospel story, as of the great saying in 15, can
also only with injustice be overlooked, cheapened, or denied.

X. I7-3I] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 245

17-31. The Danger of Riches — Wealth and the
Kingdom
{Cp. Matt. xix. 16-30; Luke xviii 18-30)
17 And as he set forth upon his way, one ran up, and knelt
and asked him, ' Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit
18 eternal life ? ' And Jesus said unto him, ' Why callest thou me
19 good ? no one is good except God alone. Thou knowest the com
mandments. Do not commit adultery. Do no murder. Do not steal.
Do not bear false witness. Defraud not. Honour thy father and
20 mother.' And he said unto him, ' Master, all these have I
21 observed from my youth.' Then Jesus looked at him, and felt
love for him, and said unto him, ' One thing thou lackest : go thy
way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou
22 shalt have treasure in heaven : and come, follow me.' But he was
sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great
possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and said unto his disciples,
' How difficult is it for them who have riches to enter the kingdom
25 of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
24 needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.' And
the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus spoke again
and said unto them, ' Children, how difficult it is to enter into the
26 kingdom of God ! ' And they were appalled beyond measure,
27 saying among themselves, ' Who then can be saved ? ' But Jesus,
looking at them, said, ' For men it is impossible, but not for God :
since for God all things are possible.'
28 Then Peter began to say unto him, 'Lo, we have abandoned all,
29 and have followed thee.' And Jesus answered and said, ' Verily I
say unto you, there is no man who hath abandoned house, or
brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for
30 my sake, and the gospel's, who shall not receive back an hundred
fold : now in this age, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and
mothers, and children, and lands, though with persecutions ; and
31 in the world to come eternal life. But many that are now first
shall be last; and the last first.'

246 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 17-31
' L'anecdote du riche a dt ^tre conservee pour elle-m^me k la
tradition, sans attache speciale au voyage de Judee. Marc I'a
placee en cet endroit pour remplir le cadre qu'il a ouvert au
ministfere de Jesus en Peree' {E. 8. II. p. 207).
17. That which in ix. 43 had been called simply ' life ' is here
called • eternal life.' Both are equivalent to, and identical with,
the Kingdom of God (ix. 47 and x. 14, 15). Here, once more, the
Kingdom is something which man must seek to inherit, and can
inherit, by his own right-doing. Cp. the note on x. 14.
18. The reply of Jesus is of the utmost significance. It is
obvious that no di^vine being would or could have answered thus.
Jesus knew himself to be a man. The verse is naturally extremely
inconvenient to orthodox Christian commentators who think that
Jesus was God or was divine. It is interesting to see how they deal
with it. It appears that one traditional way out is to say that 'Jesus,
as often, answers from the point of view of the questioner.' So
Schanz, the capable Roman Catholic commentator, who honestly
insists on the correct translation of the verse, but adds that the
words do not exclude ' dass Jesus seiner hoberen Natur nach selbst
zu diesem gottlichen Wesen gehoren kann.' It is pleasant to know
that Jesus was a better and purer monotheist than Schanz would
have him to be. Even Mr Allen, though he honestly acknowledges
that the changes in Matthew are ' probably intentional,' says that
the meaning in Mark ' seems to be : Why go out of your way to
call one whom you regard as a human teacher good ? ' W. Wagner
has contributed an interesting article upon the exegesis of the
verse to the Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,
1907, pp. 143-161. Wagner himself strongly urges that 'good'
to both questioner and respondent means, not ' morally perfect,'
or 'sinless,' but beneficent, 'giitig.' Thus Jesus has not denied
his sinlessness or moral perfection in this passage ! It is only the
quality of ' beneficence ' which he reserves for God and refuses for
himself! {Cp. also what Spitta says in the same Zeitschrift, 1908,
pp. 12-20, who presses certain details in the order of the narrative
in Luke, and its relation with what immediately precedes it.) It
may indeed be true that 'good' means here, as W., too, says,
rather beneficent than sinless, but surely the historic Jesus would
have been equally disconcerted at the idea of sinless moral per
fection being ascribed to him. The simplest meaning that can be
attached to the word ' good ' is also the truest. Jesus meant no
more and no less than what any unsophisticated and unprejudiced
reader would understand him to mean. ' Merit lives from man to
man.' Only God is good in the sense of faultless. If Jesus was

X. I7-3I] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 247
in the human sense ' good,' he was also humble, and where, in the
Gospel narratives, he is represented as least humble, he seems least
good. The divine being may know himself sinless ; a man can only
sin in fancying that he is without sin. We know too little of Jesus
to describe his character fully; his eulogistic biographers do not
allow anything which seems to them a fault to obscure thefr hero.
The invectives of Jesus against his opponents and those who
differed from him in religious opinion are to his biographers
wholly admirable. We shall judge otherwise. Yet it is a noble
character that peeps through the fragmentary and one-sided
records — none the less noble because we may be sure that of
Jesus, both in fact and in his own estimate of himself, the adage
was true : ' there is no man that sinneth not'
19. The order of the commandments seems strange. No less
so that 'thou shalt not covet' is omitted, and 'thou shalt not
defraud' put in its place. But the S.S. omits 'thou shalt not
defraud,' which appears to be not original. It is perhaps specially
introduced as suitable for a rich person.
Over and above the order of the commandments, the entire
reply of Jesus is strange. An enumeration of merely negative
commandments, even though they form part of the famous Ten,
is unusual with him. He is keen to avoid the negative morality,
the mere avoidance of wrong, which is one of the dangers of
legalism. If he had replied by quoting Deut. vi. 5, Leviticus xix. 18,
it would have seemed more natural. Did he mean to indicate that
he was no bringer of a new morality? The old commandments
were good enough for men's salvation if only they were followed ?
For I think W. is right in saying that, in spite of 21, Jesus meant
what he said ; he meant that a faithful observance of ' the com
mandments ' was enough to secure 'eternal life.' Yet 19, so
interpreted, would scarcely seem consistent with the inadequacy
of the old commandments as proclaimed in the Sermon on the
Mount. 20. Some MSS. read, i^vXa^dfi'nv, i.e. 'I have kept myself
from doing these things ' ; if this is right, we may suppose that the
command 'Honour thy parents' has been interpolated. Some
read, i^vXd^a, ' I have observed.'
The man is disappointed. He had expected Jesus to say
something new. Moreover, though he has kept the ordinary
commandments, he does not feel by any means sure that he has
'deserved,' or that he will attain, eternal life. He is conscious that
he has done nothing out of the common. He has made no great
or special effort. He ought to do something more if he is to

248 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 17-31
obtain the great gift or guerdon. To know what this something
more should be he comes to ask Jesus.
21. One must not make a general principle out of what
Jesus here says. The reply is relative (a) to the particular
individual, (h) to the particular epoch. The man's morality had
been somewhat negative ; he had committed no wrong, but he had
attained to no high standard of right. He had injured no man,
but he had not benefited many. His abstentions from ¦wrong
doing had made no great calls upon him. He had not shown
much self-sacrifice and self-denial. He was, perhaps, dimly conscious
himself of this inadequacy or imperfection. Not all was right
within him, though he had done no wrong. It is not surely un
warrantable to suppose that Jesus realized this. The old com
mandments, of which Jesus selects a few as typical or as examples,
are sufficient for salvation if they are fully and actively carried
out. It all depends upon the ' how ' ; it all depends upon the will
and the heart Jesus, therefore, to test the real ethical quality of
the man, bids him make a big and complete sacrifice. Let him
give up his fortune and private ties, let him become a disciple. If
he will do that, there is no doubt that his heart is keen on goodness,
his will powerful enough to put the desires and ideals of his heart
into operation. If he will do that, there can be no doubt, and he
need feel none, that he has fully kept the commandments, and
that he will inherit eternal life. The above seems the more
probable explanation of what Jesus says here. But it may also
be that in accordance with what he has already laid down, he is
simply telling the man the conditions of discipleship, and adding
that such discipleship is the highest life, sure to result in, though
not the absolute condition of, the heavenly and eternal life.
Loisy goes a little further , he says : ' Although the programme
marked out by Jesus is, in actual fact, a programme of perfection
which is not suitable for all men, since its universal application
would throw all the arrangements of life into confusion, it is not
announced as an optional programme and a work of supererogation ;
it is imposed upon those who intend to follow the Saviour, that is to
say, on those who intend to take an active part in the coming of
the Kingdom of heaven, to represent the gospel in the eyes of the
world, to co-operate with Jesus in the salvation of their brethren,
and to assure for themselves beforehand a place in the city of the
elect. At the moment when Jesus spoke, whosoever sincerely
desired the reign of God was bound to leave everything in order
to follow him who was bringing it upon the earth ' {E. 8. II. p. 214).
But it is not a fair criticism of Jesus's words to suppose that he
here lays down the one means or canon of salvation for everybody

X. I7-3I] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 249
throughout the ages. It is also a false criticism when the counsel
of Jesus is condemned because it would not be to the benefit of
existing society if all of us were to give all we possessed to the
poor. The point here is not what would benefit society, but what
will be a difficult thing for the individual. And who can deny
that for the average excellent citizen it would be a hard sacrifice
to sell all he has and give it to the poor ? The questioner did not
refuse to comply with the advice which Jesus gave him because
the advice was 'quixotic' or 'impracticable,' or 'not for the benefit
of society,' or ' not even good for the poor,' but because he did not
want to give up his possessions and make the sacrifice. Jesus
divined where the shoe would pinch. If the man was really keen
about goodness, let him make the one great sacrifice which would
prove his keenness. Or was he merely a professor ? ' The words
are not a general counsel of perfection, but a test of obedience and
faith which the Lord saw to be necessary in this particular case '
(Swete). This seems fair exegesis.
Then, too, one must remember that Jesus believed that the
end of the existing order was imminent. In the new order there
would be no need of wealth and no social inequalities. But, lastly,
we must also admit that Jesus, as we see from what follows, and
as we gather from other passages, did regard personal poverty as a
mark of the ideal. He had a bias in favour of poverty, and against
riches. At the same time, what was said for a particular purpose
at a particular time to a particular individual must not be turned
into a universal rule, and then laid to the account or charge of
him who said it. As to the effects in history of Jesus's words, that
is another matter. The effects have been immense, and both for
good and for evil.
The fragment from the Gospel of the Hebrews is interesting.
How can a man be said to have fulfilled the commandments of the
Lord when he lives in comfort and wealth, and so many of his
brethren are in distress ? ' And the Lord said to him : how canst
thou say I have fulfilled the law and the prophets. For it is
written in the Law, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, and
behold many of thy brothers, children of Abraham, are covered
with filth, and thy house is full of good things and nothing goes
from it to them.'
'Treasure in heaven.' See Matt. vi. 20. The human touch
that Jesus felt an affection for the man, who was honest, if narrow,
is omitted by Matthew and Luke.
The ¦ one thing which was wanting ' was the ideal ; an en
thusiasm or passion for righteousness. The man possessed, if one
may say so, ordinary morality ; he could not rise to ideal morality.
Jesus would seem to imply that God in his mercy will not refuse

2SO THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 17-31
' salvation ' to those who, though without great or complete self-
denial, yet obey the fundamental commands of morality ; but to
be a, follower of Jesus demanded complete self-surrender. Or even:
to be a follower of Jesus demanded a breaking away from the
ordinary ties and interests of the world.
23-31. The paragraph which succeeds to the refusal of the
man to make the sacrifice which Jesus asked seems ¦written from
a still sterner point of view. And we also see from it how the
conception of the ' Kingdom ' seems to vary. The Kingdom in
one sense is already being realized in the small number of persons
who have gathered round Jesus. They have accepted its conditions,
'received its yoke,' and made the sacrifice it demands. But, in
another sense, the Kingdom is only to be realized after the end of
the old order, at and after the resurrection of the dead. It is
equivalent to the ' world to come,' or ' life everlasting.' And the
conditions which secure the entry to the Kingdom, as realized
in and among the followers of Jesus, are transferred to the other
Kingdom beyond the grave, or at all events after the Judgment
and resurrection. The conditions of the Kingdom in the one
sense are made the almost imperative conditions for the Kingdom
in the other sense. This is a most significant increase of severity,
but one can see how the varying sense of the conception of the
Kingdom could bring it about.
W. has a very important note dealing with these differences
about the conditions of ' eternal life ' or the ' Kingdom of God.'
He says:
' In spite of the words " one thing thou lackest," Jesus regards
the fulfilment of the commandments as adequate for the acqui
sition of eternal life {cp. Luke xvi. 29). Only for his disciples and
followers does he demand something more, or rather something
totally different: a complete severance from the world. But finally
he declares that this complete discipleship, with its abandonment
of all earthly ties and goods, is the general and indispensable
condition for everyone who would enter into the Kingdom of
God. That is a tremendous increase of demand. The distance
from the one stage to the other is so great that it only becomes
intelligible on the supposition that a historic development lies
between the two {unter Voraussetzung eines dazwischen liegenden,
Prozesses).' 23-25. An important question here arises. In 24 Jesus says
generally (according to the best MSS.), ' how difficult it is to enter
the Kingdom.' In the previous verse he had said, ' how difficult
it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom.' Are we to understand
that, in spite of the omission of the qualifying words 'for the rich,'

X. I7-3I] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 25 1
24 means the same as, and no more than, 23 ? This seems to be
the opinion of some commentators. If, on the other hand, 24 is
general, and is, with Holtzmann, to be compared with such state
ments as Matt. vii. 13, 14, then there is much to be said for
W., who, with the Codex Bezse (D), would transpose 24 and 25.
We then get an intelligible intensification. Jesus first speaks of
the difficulty of the rich (in 23 and 25). The disciples are
'astonished.' Not satisfied with this, Jesus begins again, and
makes the statement general : ' how difficult for all men it is to
enter the Kingdom.' At this they are amazed still more, and
say, ' Who then can be saved ? ' Such a question would have far
less force and meaning if, as in the ordinary text, it immediately
followed the verse about the rich and the camel.
There are thus two statements to be considered :
(i) How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom,
(2) How hard it is for anyone to enter.
As to (i), it seems a fact that Jesus had a bias against property
and in favour of poverty. A similar bias, less definitely expressed,
is visible in the Psalms. One has to criticise the statement of
Jesus differently, according as one interprets the Kingdom to
mean : (a) the life of ' heaven,' ' salvation,' and the like, or (6) the
highest life on earth. If it means the former, we should (to my
mind) justly regard the saying of Jesus as harsh, unjustifiable,
and presumptuous. It is not for man to know the manner and
the laws of the life beyond the grave. But to exclude whole
classes, or indeed permanently to exclude any, from its blessedness
conflicts with our conception of the goodness of God. The horrible
doctrine that most men are ' lost ' and that few are ' saved ' seems
to have been held by Jesus as well as by the author of the fourth
book of Ezra. The latter had natural qualms against the odious
doctrine, which do him the highest honour. It remains a mournful
religious puzzle that Jesus, if such verses as Matt. vii. 13 were
said by him, with all his pity and love for the sinner and the
outcast, had no such qualms.
On the other hand, if the Kingdom merely means the highest
life on earth, then there is a good deal to be said for Jesus's
statement. It is a diflicult thing for a rich man to lead the
highest life. But there is little reason to suppose that Jesus
meant this. For the Rabbinic view on riches, see Additional
Note 20.
The second and wider statement, ' how hard it is for anybody
to enter the Kingdom,' cannot be discussed here. It would take
too long. One must, at any rate, distinguish. It is hard for anyone
to live the highest life. Goodness is not easy. But we may also

252 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 17-31
say that by his own actions it is hard for anyone to ' merit ' the
blessedness of eternal life. For 'merit lives from man to man,'
and not from man to God. The eternal life must be a grace
granted, not a guerdon won. Yet the hope is universal, and any
dogma which would permanently exclude many, or even any, from
a blessedness to be allotted to some is both repugnant in itself as
well as flagrantly inconsistent with the goodness of God.
Merx, mainly following the reading of the S.S. (which reads
both in 22 and in 24 ' who trust in their riches,' and thus agrees
with the old ' Textus Receptus,' followed by A.V. and here by R.V
also), thinks that Jesus was not speaking about the general difficulty
of entering the Kingdom at all. Nor even was he speaking of
wealth without qualifications. Only those who trust in their wealth
have these difficulties. The text was more than once altered in
an ascetic direction. On the other hand, many commentators
think that the reading of the S.S. and the ' Textus Receptus' was
a deliberate attenuation of the old drastic assertions. Perhaps
23 and 25 are what is really primitive ; 24, says Loisy, ' appartient
sans doute a une redaction secondaire, mais les vv. 26, 27 semblent
appartenir k la meme couche que 24' {E. 8. 11. p. 216, n. 4). Loisy
thinks that Mark has combined a reflection as to the general
difficulty of salvation with a reflection on the special difficulty of
salvation for the rich. The remark in 27 applies to the general
reflection. The grace of God will help the inadequate powers of
man, and some will be ' chosen ' for salvation. Loisy suspects
behind 27, 'the doctrine of Paul on divine "election" and on the
power of grace' {E. S. 11. p. 217).
27. Jesus qualifies his own statement. It is hard, but not
impossible. By his own effort the rich man, or any man, can
' hardly ' enter ; by God's grace he may. Here we have the same
antinomy as is alluded to by Shakespeare ; the highest exertion is
demanded, but the result is due to the grace of God. At least to
some extent, Jesus here gives back what he had before taken
away. In our modern Jewish faith we go yet further. By God's
grace we hold that all human souls shall ultimately enter the
Kingdom of Heaven. We are convinced 'Universalists.'
28-31. Peter's remark and Jesus's reply seem joined to what
has preceded by an ' artifice redactionnel ' {E. 8. i. p. 94).
28. Peter's interjection means that he and his fellow-apostles,
who have divested themselves of everything for the sake of Jesus
and his cause, must and ought therefore surely to inherit the
life eternal.

X. I7-3I] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 253
29. To this Jesus replies that they will. All who have made
the sacrifice of family ties and of personal property for the sake of
the gospel will receive their reward.
'The meaning of 29 and 30 is brought out a little more clearly
if, ¦with W., a colon is put after eKUTovTairXactiova^ He and others
also suppose that the original saying ended with this word. The
'hundredfold' reward is simply eternal life, understood not ex
pressed. Afterwards the ' hundredfold ' was interpreted. We are
now told that the reward is twofold : the main reward is the life
eternal, but even in this world the faithful disciples will receive,
in lieu of the property or family they g;ive up, their place and
thefr share in the Christian community, although this collective
property and family can only be shared in amid persecutions.
{Cp. Acts ii. 44, 'All that believed were together, and had all
things common; and they sold thefr possessions and goods, and
parted them to all, as any man had need.' So, too, iv. 32, Romans
xvi 13, 'Salute Rufus... and his mother and mine'; and cp.
1 Cor. iii 22, iv. 15 ; 2 Cor. vi 8-10.)
Notice the omission of the ' wife.' Is it implied that one may
and must at the gospel's call abandon brother, sister, mother,
child, but one's wife one must not abandon ? See Burkitt's Early
Eastern Christianity, p. 119.
Loisy gives another explanation : ' It would have been awkward
to mention the wife in the second clause along with the brothers,
sisters, and children, who were to be restored an hundredfold f
perhaps too the Evangelist considered that the married apostles
had not really left thefr wives, and that, if they had, this sacrifice
would have been without direct compensation in this world. In
the spiritual sense in which Jesus means it, there can be no
allusion except to brothers, sisters, mothers, children. Fathers
might also have been mentioned, but perhaps Mark refrained from
including them in the second enumeration, because the Christian
language of his time did not admit the use of this word in the
plural' {E. 8. n. p. 219).
The verse is an interesting confirmation of Acts ii. 44, but was
surely said and written in the first period of persecution of the
infant Church, many years after the death of the founder. But
note that the words 'with persecutions' are wanting in the parallel
passage in Luke and Matthew. ' They seem to betray the later
hand of one who had, indeed, found anew in the hearts and homes
of believers the dear relationships which he had himself surrendered,
but who knew likewise at what price of danger and suffering they
must be won ' (Carpenter, First Three Gospels, p. 210).
J. Weiss also thinks that the passage is not authentic. For
Jesus supposed that the end of the old order was at hand. There

254 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 17-31
was therefore hardly time for any earthly reward of those who had
made renunciation. 0. Holtzmann, on the other hand, thinks that
we have here the conception of a Messianic Kingdom before the
eternal and future world (a distinction known also to the Rabbis
and prominent in 4 Ezra) : ' am Ende dieser Welt irdische Giiter,
in der kiinftigen Welt das ewige Leben ' {Neutestamentliche Zeit-
geschichte, p. 393).
B. W^eiss argues with some force that the original of Mark x. 29
is Matt. xix. 29, which, of course, he assigns to Q. See Quellen, A,
p. 123, B, p. 68. Loisy rejects this view, holding that only Matt
xix. 28 is primitive. See below.
31. Many persons who are now rich and prominent shall in
the life to come be last — i.e. excluded ; while many who are now
poor, and in the world's view last, shall be among the first and
the most prominent in the life to come. The disciples who have
' lost ' all on earth shall be foremost in the Kingdom of God. Cp.
for other uses of the saying Matt. xx. 16; Luke xiii 30. From
another point of view there is to be no pre-eminence of station or
merit in the ' Kingdom.' ' Whosoever would be first among you
shall be servant of all' See below, verse 44.
Mr Allen thinks that 'it seems best (with Swete) to under
stand the words as a rebuke to the self-complacent spfrit imphed
in Peter's words : It may be difficult for the rich to enter into the
Kingdom, but we who have left all are in no danger of exclusion.
Christ's words are a warrant for this confidence, and at the same
time a rebuke and a warning. The ambiguity lies in the " first "
and " last." Does He mean, Many who first became my disciples
will find greater difficulty of entry than many who followed me at
a later period ? Or is " first " used of rank rather than of time :
Many who now seem to hold a position of privilege will then find
themselves in the lowest place ? ' M. Loisy has special and in
teresting views on this section. The adage in 3 1 is very authentic:
to Jesus it seems to have meant that tax-collectors and sinners
will enter the Kingdom, and that self-righteous Pharisees will be
excluded. But to Mark it means a hit at Peter and the anti-
paulinists. ' It is not only the Twelve who will have a high place
in the Kingdom, but all who have 'renounced' for its sake, as Paul
had done. The Twelve who think themselves first will have to
yield place to those who come later. ' Paul et ses pareils devien-
dront premiers, et dans I'Eglise et dans le royaume eternel' {E. S. IL
p. 22 1 ). Loisy regards 30 as certainly secondary. A double felicity,
a reward in this world, and not only in the world to come, is not the
oldest point of view. The Christian fraternity was not the recom
pense Jesus had in view, but Paul found a reward in it, though it

X. 32-34] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 255
came with persecutions. [This view assumes that one cannot break
up 30 and interpret ' hundredfold,' as W. does.] What Matthew
has in xix. 28 is certainly authentic. Matthew preserved it and
combined it with what he found in Mark. Mark omitted it on
purpose. The primitive story probably contained only this : Peter's
question in Matt. xix. 27 (Mark x. 28) and the reply in Matt.
xix. 28.

32-34. Third Prediction of Suffering and Death
{Cp. Matt. XX. 17-19; Luke xviii 31-34)
32 And they were on the way going up to Jerusalem ; and Jesus
went on in front of them ; and they were amazed ; and they that
followed were afraid. And again he took the Twelve aside, and
33 began to tell them what would happen unto him. ' Behold, we go
up to Jerusalem ; and the Son of man will be given up unto the
chief priests and unto the scribes ; and they will condemn him to
34 death, and will give him up to the heathen. And they will mock
him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and kill him : and after
three days he will rise again.'
32. Here, for the first time, Jerusalem is distinctly stated to
be the goal of the journey and the scene of the final catastrophe.
One must assume that, in addition to the Twelve, there were
others who also accompanied Jesus upon his fateful path. Cp.
X. I. The S.S. omits irdXiv, which alludes to ix. 31. Is Merx
right iu saying 'Der Text ist eine Doppelung, die durch irdXiv
markiert is't ' ?
34. It is strange that each prediction is, as it were, in
dependent of the other. Jesus here tells what is going to happen
to him as if he had never mentioned the subject before. That
the prediction in its present detailed form is a vatidnium post
eventum needs no proving. Yet Jesus may have had some
dark ominous feeling that he was destined to suffer and die in
Jerusalem. That he had more is not very probable. For though
the cry on the cross can be explained away, it is perhaps rather
more likely that the great denouement, which, in the Gospel story,
Jesus is represented as expecting to happen soon after his death,
at his Parousia, he really expected to happen after his arrival at
Jerusalem, and without the necessity of his death. The con
ception of his death as a ransom was not his own. In his mind

2S6 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 32-34
it was surely through his life and his teaching that he hoped to
benefit his people, not through his death. For another view cp.
the note on 45. M. Loisy thinks that these predictions in Mark
are founded upon a narrative in which the eventuality of death
was merely indicated, and when the hope of a near triumph was
prominent {restait au premier plan). Jesus went to Jerusalem,
led by a great hope, but without dissimulating to himself the
possible danger. The disciples saw chiefly the danger; Jesus
encourages them with hope. This was the real historical situation,
which 32 still faintly shows {E. 8. II. pp. 223, 233).
35-45. The Sons of Zebedee
{Cp. Matt. XX. 20-28 ; Luke xxii. 24-27)
35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came unto him,
saying, ' Master, we wish that thou wouldst do for us whatever we
36 ask thee.' And he said unto them, 'What do ye wish that I
37 should do for you ? ' They said unto him, ' Grant unto us that we
may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in
38 thy glory.' But Jesus said unto them, ' Ye know not what ye ask:
can ye drink of the cup that I am to drink of? and be baptized
39 with the baptism that I am to be baptized with ? ' And they said
unto him, ' We can.' And Jesus said unto them, ' Ye shall indeed
drink of the cup that I am to drink of: and with the baptism
40 that I am to be baptized with shall ye be baptized : but to sit on
my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give ; but it
shall be for them for whom it is destined.'
41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant with
42 James and John. But Jesus called them to him, and said unto
them, 'Ye know that they who are supposed to rule over the
nations lord it over them ; and their great ones play the tyrant
43 over them. But it is not so among you : but whoever wisheth to
44 become great among you, let him be your servant ; and whoever
45 of you would be the first, let him be the slave of all. For the
Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his
life as a ransom for many.'
' Comme la seconde annonce de la passion, la troisieme est
suivie d'une querelle entre les disciples, touchant les premieres
places du royaume des cieux. L'analogie des situations pourrait

X. 3S-45] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 257
expliquer celle des incidents qui se produisent ; mais I'emploi des
mimes elements traditionnels doit faire admettre comme seule
vraisemblable I'idee de combinaisons parallfeles, sur un fond commun
de materiaux diversement arranges' {E. 8. Ii. p. 235). Again the
question of grades and ranks in the future Kingdom is raised, but
from a rather different point of view. The section gives the
impression of a mixture of history and legend, of early and late,
which can never be unravelled. It rests probably on some vague
recollections of a conversation between Jesus and the two apostles,
but what actually took place cannot now be ascertained. M. Loisy
doubts the historicity of the incident. It seems to rest, he thinks,
upon Jesus's predictions about the thrones which Matthew preserved
and Mark omitted (Matt. xix. 28). The language is not so simple
as the usual language of Jesus ; it is also especially noteworthy
that the disciples, who fail to understand what Jesus means in his
dfrect predictions {e.g. ix. 32), here understand perfectly (verse 39)
the two metaphors. 'It is very significant that in Mark Jesus
refuses two thrones to the sons of Zebedee just after he has,
according to Matthew, promised thrones to the Twelve. May we
not, therefore, conjecture that the demand of the sons of Zebedee
and the refusal of Jesus replaces the promise of the twelve thrones,
in order that none may make use of that promise against Paul and
his missionary colleagues?' {E. 8. i. p. 96). ' Has not one the right
to conjecture that the evangelist is continuing his polemic against
the "judaizers," and that it is these who are aimed at in the
lessons which Peter, James and John receive ? ' {E. S. 11. p. 223).
37. It is not said that the ' glory ' referred to is the ' glory '
of the Parousia after the death and resurrection. But we must
suppose that this is assumed.
38. Jesus can only promise them a death of suffering like his
own. The places of honour in the world to come are not his to
give. Is it implied :
{a) That the highest distinction which his true disciples
should aim at or desire is to suffer like their master — a pre
eminence in suffering, not in glory ?
or, (6) That only through such suffering can any pre
eminence in the future world be obtained?
Perhaps both thoughts were in the mind of the writer.
The cup is used in the Old Testament as a metaphor for
affliction; cp. Isaiah Ii 17; Jer. xlix. 12, &c. The waters of affliction
are also familiar, especially in the Psalms.
The question means: Can you face the pain and the death
M. 17

258 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 35-45
such as I am about to undergo ? Can you face martyrdom ? The
baptism is of blood. It is a baptism of death, which will usher
in the everlasting glory. ' Can they stand at his side in all those
afflictions which are coming upon him ? That is the fellowship he
has to offer them. This pathetic question shows more accurately
than the set predictions the anticipations Jesus now had in his
mind. The questions are only intelligible if he did not clearly
realize the details of his impending sufferings.' So Menzies. It
is an important note, as giving a fair argument for the theory
that Jesus did foresee a calamitous end at Jerusalem, though
the words in which he spoke about it have been frequently
modified and made definite to suit the actual result.
39. In this passage martyrdom seems predicted for both
James and John. If only James had been martyred (Acts xii 2),
the prediction that both would die the martyr's death would
perhaps not have found a place in the gospel. Hence this passage
suggests doubts as to the trustworthiness of the tradition that
John died peacefully at a very advanced age,
J. Weiss also supposes that both John and James were
dead when this passage of Mark was written, and their death by
martyrdom has influenced its form. They asked for a high honour,
and this, in a sense, has been granted them in a way other than
they meant. Through death they have reached their Master's
heavenly throne. They ask for what they did not understand.
For unconsciously they ask for their own death. On the other
hand, Harnack thinks that in this verse we have a prediction of
Jesus which was only half fulfilled. Hence Luke suppressed it.
41-45. Authentic words of Jesus seem expanded and put by
the Evangelist into an artificial connection with the preceding story
(so Loisy, E. 8. 11. p. 239). In that case we need not be surprised
that the reply which Jesus makes to the ten does not seem in
keeping with what he had to reply to. The ten are irritated
that James and John had asked for a special place in the perfected
Kingdom. What Jesus says is that within the community there
must be no question of ruler and servant. Within the community
the only pre-eminence to be sought for and acknowledged must be
a pre-eminence in service. He who serves best is by that very
fact the greatest. The question of what is to happen after death
or at the Parousia is neglected.
42. A careful comparison of 42-45 with Luke xxii. 25-27
certainly leads to the very strong probability that Luke's version
is more primitive than Mark's. This is one of B. Weiss's very best
instances. See Quellen, A, pp. 141, 142. There really does seem

X. 35-45] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 259
good reason to think that Luke has here preserved the text of Q
which Mark used as well as he, but altered more. In each verse
and statement Luke's language is more simple and more ' concrete'
than Mark's, and in Luke nothing is said of the redemptive or
vicarious death, and the term Son of man is not employed. The
'rule' of the best Christian disciples in the Kingdom must be
quite different from the external, ordinary, tyrannical rule of
Gentile rulers over thefr kingdoms. They rule for their own
advantage, but their rule is no true or genuine rule. Outward rule
and outward subjection are the marks of the Gentile. 01 BoKovvrei;
dpxeiv rmv idvwv, ' they who are supposed to rule ' ; for these
words mean that the Gentile rulers are, as Plato would say, not
true rulers. But they may merely mean : ' they who are accounted
or known to be rulers.'
43. Cp. ix. 35. BiaKovQi} is a servant who waits at table. In
the Messianic banquet the greatest is he who is the lowliest.
Greatness among the citizens of the Kingdom — among the
members of the Christian community — is only to be won by
service and humility. Hence among them there must be no
dispute about primacy or ranks. The present ' is ' seems to in
clude the future. And the future {earai) ' shall be ' seems used
for the imperative. ' Among you ' refers not to the Kingdom, but
to the Christian brotherhood.
Pre-eminence in service, greatness in humility — these were
noble conceptions which Jesus introduced to the world. And
though humility and charity were well-known ideals among the
Rabbis, the particular form and combination in which we find
them here are, I think, as highly original as they certainly were
highly stimulating and productive.
The true meaning of the verse is, indeed, as J. Weiss rightly
says, that the disciples of Jesus are not to seek after rule, but to
find their life's purpose in service. Yet Weiss is wrong when he
says that the teaching runs counter to a fundamental conception of
Judaism. For Jesus is not here speaking of national rule. It is
quite true that the Jews did yearn for rule over the heathen.
They did desire that the tables should be turned. But that is
not the rule which is here opposed by Jesus. He does not allude
to it one way or the other. A man might be keen that his op
pressed nation should rule over its oppressors, and yet in his private
life exhibit the most devoted service. But this is not to detract
from the originality of Jesus. That he could regard his life — at
any rate his earthly life — as a service, that he could see in this
service his mission and his Messiahship, was indeed a triumph of
moral grandeur' and of religious inspiration. 17 — 2

26o THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 35-45
45. The Lord of the Kingdom came to serve. Therefore his
life can be the pattern for all.
The conception of the Xvrpov, ' the ransom,' is quite different.
Only here do we find it placed in Jesus's mouth. We may see in
it the influence of Pauline ideas and terminology. Cp. Romans
XV. 3 ; Gal. i 4, ii. 20. So Loisy, most strongly : ' The idea of
the life given as a ransom belongs to another current of thought
than the idea of service' {E. 8. II. p. 241). The commentators
compare i Tim. ii. 6, which may, however, be based upon Mark.
Jesus gives his own life for the sake of many lives, avri does not
here mean ' in the place of,' ' in the stead of,' but ' for the sake of
But the idea that his life is a substitute for that of others is closely
approached. I do not see that the word 'many' constitutes a
difficulty. Not all, but only some, can profit by his death. Those
who accept and believe in him receive the benefit of his death,
and join him in ' eternal life.' In Luke xxii. 27 the ransom idea
is wanting. W. admits : ' The step from service to the sacrifice of
life as a ransom is a fjierd^aa-i^ eh dXXo yevo<s. Light is thrown
upon it by the ceremonial of the last supper, when Jesus adminis
ters his flesh and blood in the bread and wine.' The passage in
any case seems to show the influence of Isaiah liii. J. Weiss says :
'It is indeed far from inconceivable that Jesus had included
the idea of his approaching death in his work of service and
love. Nay, it is even probable that he was convinced that his
death would in some way be beneficial to the men whom he had
striven to win by deed and word. But whether he thought
exactly of a sacrificial death or of vicarious penal sufferings, such
as — according to the later interpretation — the fifty-third chapter
of Isaiah is supposed to have described, must remain doubtful.
For us to-day, to whom the notion of an offering for sin offers
many difficulties, it is pleasant that we may be satisfied with the
thought that his death was just the same as his whole life: a
faithful service to the brethren.'
Though the whole passage in its present form is later than
Jesus, the ethical conception of greatness realized in lowly service
may surely and safely be ascribed to him. Moreover, Jesus may
just conceivably have realized that his death would be to the
advantage of many ; that many would enter the Kingdom as an
effect of his death. Menzies takes this view, naturally trying to
keep as many words for Jesus of those ascribed to him as he
possibly can. He thinks ' Jesus became reconciled to the prospect
of death when he saw that he was to die for the benefit of others.'
This is a possible view, though I think it an unlikely one. It
is rebutted by Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, I. p. 372. Holtzmann
thinks that Xvrpov here is a translation of an Aramaic word

X. 46-52] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 261
which may merely mean ' deliverance.' Jesus ' delivered ' people
by causing them to repent. 46-52. BaRTIMjEUS
{Cp. Matt. ix. 27-31, XX. 29-34; Luke xviii. 35-43)
46 And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho
with his disciples and a large crowd, a blind beggar, Bartimseus,
47 the son of Timseus, sat by the way side. And when he heard
that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say,
48 ' Jesus, son of David, pity me.' And many rebuked him that he
should hold his peace : but he kept on crying all the louder, ' Son
49 of David, pity me.' And Jesus stood still, and said : ' Call him.'
And they called the blind man, saying unto him, 'Be of good
50 cheer, rise ; he calls thee.' And he, casting away his cloak, sprang
51 up and came to Jesus. And Jesus answered and said unto him,
'What wouldst thou that I should do unto thee?' The blind
man said unto him, 'Master, I would that I might see again.'
52 And Jesus said unto him, ' Go thy way ; thy faith has healed
thee.' And immediately he received his sight again, and followed
Jesus on the way.
The section viii 27-x. ends with a healing of a blind man just
as the section vi. 14-viii. 26 ends with the healing of a blind man.
' In the present arrangement of the narratives, the blind man at
Jericho is a pendant to the blind man at Bethsaida and his cure,
symbolically interpreted, paves the way for the Messianic mani
festation which is to be enacted on the Mount of Olives, just
as the cure of the blind man of Bethsaida paves the way for
the confession of Peter; nevertheless the subject-matter of the
miracle {la donnee fondamentale du miracle) seems anterior to its
interpretation. But it is permissible to ask whether the blind
man, who in Luke is still anonymous, was not so also in Mark's
source. The same doubt exists for Jairus, who is anonymous in
Matthew'(^. <Sf. Lp. 96).
47. Jesus does not here make any open objection to being
called the son of David. In Mark he has not been so called before.
Undoubtedly, 'son of David' is, to Mark, a mere paraphrase for
'Messianic King.' But one must not make too much of an epithet.
How can we be sure, if the Bartimseus episode happened at all
(and be it remembered its essence is a miracle, which ' suggestion '

262 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 46-52
can hardly account for), that Bartimseus used the appellation 'son
of David ' ? Loisy hesitates. He says that the reserve which
Jesus had imposed upon his disciples must now have ceased. The
blind man must have heard that Jesus was supposed to be the
Messiah. On the other hand it has to be admitted that the
Messianic acclamation is no better prepared for here than the
declaration of the demons in Galilee. In 51 Bartimseus calls
Jesus only 'Master' {E. 8. 11. pp. 250-252).
48. Why did ' they ' censure him ? Is the case parallel with
X. 13 ? Then we must assume that it was in order not to trouble
Jesus on his journey, or that their march might not be interrupted.
Weiss takes other ground. He says ' they ' bid him be silent in
order that their secret may not prematurely be revealed, for only
at the entry into Jerusalem do they purpose to proclaim him the
Son of David, or Messiah. This explanation seems less likely.
Bartimseus is no real separate name ; it means merely ' Son of
Timseus.' 52. Jesus, in contrast with viii. 22-26, heals by his mere
word. The story is told with rare simplicity and grace.
In his remarkable Introduction to the first three Gospels (only
115 pages in length, and yet crowded with fresh and original
matter) W. gives a more connected statement of his views con
cerning the Messiahship and 'Messianic consciousness' of Jesus.
Brilliant and suggestive as his views are, it can hardly be said
that they are without difficulty.
He admits that Jesus was crucified as the Messiah. Yet Jesus
never openly proclaimed his Messiahship. On the other hand,
W. strongly maintains the authenticity of Mark xii. 35-37, and in
this passage he allows that Jesus takes pains to refute an argu
ment against the hypothesis that he is the Messiah. To all
appearances he had no objection to others seeing in himself the
desired hero in whom the hopes of Israel should be fulfilled. And
W. admits, further, that the political Messiah was what ' all the
world' understood by the word.
Nevertheless W. still strongly holds to the view that Jesus
had no political aspirations. He had no intention to raise up the
fallen throne of David. He did not feel the yoke of the heathen,
but the yoke of an enslaving tradition; he did not attack the
Romans, but the chief priests and the Scribes, and these caused
his ruin. He wanted to create a religious rebirth of his people,
though not merely by winning individuals — for in that case he
need not have gone to Jerusalem. 'Als Regenerator konnte er
wol den Namen des jiidischen Restitutor in integrum acceptfren.

X. 46-52] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 263
obgleich er das Politische davon abstreifte. Es ist zwar eine
Akkommodation ' (p. 93). W. always returns with especial delight
and emphasis to the parable of the sower. Here is the real Jesus :
here we may find what he really considered himself to be. He is
a teacher Teaching is his true mission. In Mark, throughout
the Galilsean period we find him teaching, not about his Messiah-
ship, not even about the future Kingdom, but what comes in his
way, about true morality and true religion. Even in Jerusalem
he does not teach about the Kingdom, though he twice uses the
well-known term. The section viii. 27-x. stands by itself
W. never faces the difficulty why Jesus, if he so deliberately
turned away from all ideas of political Messiahship, yet allowed
his followers, and allowed the crowd, to think he was the Messiah.
Why did he play with such a dangerous term ? Is not another
solution also conceivable ? Is it not possible that much of the
'political' hopes of Jesus — as they gradually ripened before and
during the days at Jerusalem — have been deliberately removed
by the Evangelists? They had been so completely falsified by
the event. The event showed that the only possible Messiah that
Jesus could have been was a Messiah who attained his kingdom
by suffering and death.
Or may we argue that this ' suffering ' Messiah was not merely
the creation of the ' event,' but partly the creation of Jesus him
self, in so far as he adopted and modified the 'Son of man' Messiah
of the apocalyptic seers ? We have also already seen that the
'political' elements in the world- drama were to be, as it were,
God's business rather than the Messiah's. It is in consonance
with the character of Jesus that the Roman question, and the
supremacy of Israel as an independent nation, should have been
thrust into the background or dropped. It was the moral regene
ration of Israel he was keen about, not its 'political' glory.
Again, if Jesus had come to realize that before God disclosed him
as ' the Man from heaven ' he might have first to die, the detailed
predictions of his sufferings, death, and Parousia would easily have
grown up. He was the Messiah, and he came to Jerusalem to
assume his Messianic functions. Was it to be without the interlude
of death, or was it to be after death ? He may have gradually
come to believe in the second alternative, and have stated it to
his disciples. Yet he could not refuse or deny any Messianic
greetings he might receive, for in God's own good time he would,
indeed, be revealed as Messiah. This hypothesis may conceivably
be nearer the truth than either Pfleiderer's or W 's, but it is, and
remains, like theirs, a mere hypothesis, which the material at our
command can never disprove or prove. W. is, indeed, strongly
opposed to it, because, for one thing, he holds that Jesus never

264 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [X. 46-52
called himself, or believed himself to be, the ' Son of man.' He
argues that the section in Mark viii. 27-x. is dominated by certain
ideas and terms which are not those of the historic Jesus. The
' Son of man ' who is prominent in this section is a transfigured
and heavenly Messiah, in opposition to the earthly Messiah of the
Jews. Jesus dies upon earth to enter into his heavenly glory.
His followers are to follow the same path. They, too, through
martyrdom, are to enter life and glory and the Kingdom of God.
In this section Jesus projects himself {i.e. is made to project him
self) not only into his own future, but into the future of his
community. This conception of the suffering Messiah is not to he
accounted for even by Isaiah liii To the repeated predictions in
Mark that the Son of man must suffer and die no proof from
Scripture is appended. There is, therefore, a great jump from the
true and original Messiah to this other sort of Messiah, who had
only the name in common, and was really no true Messiah at all.
This jump cannot be explained except post factum. The old
Messiah was abolished by the crucifixion, aud with the resurrec
tion a new one began. The Messiah upon the cross, a paradoxical
contradiction in terms, became the shibboleth of a new faith, the
foundation of the Christian gospel. The result of the death of
Jesus was antedated and changed into his purpose. How far this
argumentation is convincing is one thing ; as to the brilliancy
and clearness with which W. puts it forward there can be no
question. It may also be noted that, as Holtzmann has also stated,
there is little allusion to Isaiah liii. in the Synoptics. Luke xxii.
37 is isolated. We have no direct evidence that Isaiah liii. played
an important part in the consciousness and thought of Jesus.

CHAPTER XI
I-II. The Entry into Jerusalem
{Cp. Matt. xxi. i-i I ; Luke xix. 28-38)
I And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage
and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sent forth two of his
2 disciples, and said unto them, ' Go to the village before you : and
immediately as ye enter it, ye will find an ass's colt tied, whereon
3 no man has yet sat ; loose it and bring it here. And if any man
say unto you. Why do ye this? say ye. The Lord has need of
4 it, and he will send it back again here at once.' And they
departed, and found the colt tied by the gate outside in the open

XL I-I I] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 265
place ; and they loosed it. And some men who stood there said
unto them, ' What do ye, loosing the colt ?' And they said unto
them even as Jesus had commanded: and they permitted them
to take it. And they brought the colt to Jesus, and laid their
cloaks upon it; and he sat upon it. And many spread thefr cloaks
upon the way: and others strewed plants which they cut from
the fields. And they that went before, and they that followed,
kept crying : ' Hosanna ; blessed be he that cometh in the name
of the Lord : blessed be the kingdom of our father David that is
coming ; Hosanna in the heights.'
And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple : and
when he had looked round at everything there, as the hour was
late, he went out unto Bethany with the Twelve.
Here begins the last section of the Gospel. It can be divided
into two parts, the first telling the story of the entry into Jeru
salem, the conflict with the authorities and the apocalyptic
discourse, and extending over chapters xi, xii. and xiii. ; the
second recording the story of the Passion, the entombment and
the resurrection (xiv. to end). 'The whole narrative of the
ministry at Jerusalem is dominated by one sole thought : Jesus
is the Christ who must fulfil the prophecies and achieve the
salvation of the world through his death : he knew his own
destiny and the future of humanity. Les elements de cette
demonstration, pris de c6te et d'autre, se presentent en desordre.
It is very probable that the story of the Messianic avowal on the
Mount of Olives and that of the purification of the Temple were
furnished to Mark by tradition. He had at his disposal a short
text which he has expanded {wn texte assez court qu'il a glosd) '
{E. 8. I. p. 96).
I. Whether Jesus had already friends in Bethany, which was
a village on the south-east side of the slopes of the Mount of Olives,
is uncertain, but it seems likely.
2. ' The village before you.' Holtzmann says this village was
Bethany, but the text seems to make a distinction between the
two. The young ass is that ass — ' the colt, the foal of an ass ' — of
Zech. ix. 9. Jesus here implicitly proclaims himself as King and
Messiah. If this tale be true, Jesus is, to say the least, not afraid
to take action which would imply that he regards himself, and
wishes others to regard him, as the ' political ' Messiah predicted
by the prophets.

266 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XI. i-n
3. ' The Lord.' Jesus here for the first time gives himself this
name. The sub-intention is ' the Messiah.'
' At once,' i.e. Jesus will send the ass back as soon as he has
done with it.
4. TT/ao? TTjv Ovpav e^co i-jrl tov dfjL(f)6Bov. Dr Weymouth
translates : ' at the street door of a house.' ' The foal was tied up
at a house-door, but outside, not in the house, but in the street '
(Swete). It is at least strange that Justin says that the ass was
attached to a vine. Have we here a fulfilment of a Messianic
prophecy, and was d/i<f>6Bov originally dixtreXov ? The Septuagint
of Genesis xlix. 1 1 runs : BeafLevwv irpoi dfiveXov tov irStXov avTov,
Kal TTJ eXiKi tov ttwXov rri<; ovov aiirov. Strauss suggested that
the origin of the tied ass is to be sought here {Leben Jesu, ist ed,,
II. p. 294).
8. A crowd accompanies him to the gates of the city. They
strew leaves and herbs upon the ground. o-TtySaSe? are not
branches, but 'layers of leaves,' as the margin of the Revised
Version has it. For the garments, cp. 2 Kings ix. 13.
9. Psalm cxviii. 26. The right translation is : ' Blessed in the
name of the Lord be he that cometh.' Yahweh is invoked and
asked to bless. But perhaps though this is the correct translation
of the Hebrew, the Evangelist took it to mean ' Blessed be he that
cometh in the name of {i.e. as sent by) the Lord.' ' He that
cometh ' is almost a technical term for the Messiah in Matt, xi 3.
'Hosanna' is the Hebrew 'save,' with the enclitic 'na' added to
the imperative. It is an appeal for help to the king {cp. 2 Sam.
xiv. 4 ; 2 Kings vi. 26) or to God.
10. ' Hosanna in the heights ' {cp. Job x^vi. 19, xxv. 2). ' Grant
salvation in heaven, so that salvation may descend upon Messiah
on earth.' (So Weiss.)
Dalman points out that 'save in the heights' is scarcely an
explicable Hebrew or Jewish phrase. The explanation given by
W^eiss is somewhat strained. Help should come from heaven,
rather than be given in heaven. Dalman thinks that Mark, like
Matthew and Luke, misunderstood the meaning of Hosanna. They
supposed that it meant praise or glory to Jesus the Messiah. Hence
Mark adds ' in the heights' on the lines of Psalm cxlviii I, ' praise
him in the heights,' where the Septuagint has iv toi<s v^iaT0i<;
as here. Jesus, according to Mark, is welcomed by this cry as the
Messianic King. 'Hosanna' becomes equivalent to 'Hail.' If,
however, the cry was merely ' Save now, O God. Blessed in the
name of the Lord is he that cometh,' Dalman thinks that nothing

XI. i-ii] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 267
Messianic was intended. 'The teacher and wonder-worker of
Nazareth was greeted with joyous cries and benedictions.' The
entry received its Messianic colouring a good while after the
event occurred (Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, i. pp. 181, 182). So,
too, Wrede.
II. Jesus, as a new-comer, on this, perhaps his first, visit to
the capital, inspects the Temple and its surroundings. Loisy takes
another line. Mark does not mean that Jesus goes to look at
things as a provincial who sees the capital for the first time.
'Marc veut seulement preparer la scene du lendemain.' Jesus
may have been at Jerusalem before, at former festivals. Never
theless Mark's narrative does exclude any previous visit to
Jerusalem since the opening of his ministry. To explain the
attitude of Jesus one must assume something new. 'That new
element is his ministry and its exercise. If he was in Jerusalem
before, it was as an ordinary pilgrim. Now ' il fait la visite de
Messie, et cette visite est la premiere ' {E. S. 11. pp. 268, 269).
W. acutely says : ' Rationalising is here unpermissible. Jesus
did not order the ass beforehand, and make a previous arrange
ment with its owners. He foreknows the chance coincidence,
because God, who dfrects what is apparent chance, is with him.
The ass serves no ordinary purpose; it is the ass of Messianic
prophecy. Thus Jesus proclaims himself as the Messiah. According
to Zech. xiv. 4, Yahweh was to appear on the Mount of Olives,
and popular Jewish faith held that the Messiah would appear
there. 'Yet this imposing demonstration has no effect. Neither
priests nor Romans pay any attention. And yet the Romans
might have been expected to take umbrage. Hence one can
hardly believe that Jesus was the responsible author of the inci
dent. If it took place, it must have happened without his intention
and have possessed no special importance. It is conceivable that
the populace in a moment of excitement acclaimed him as Messiah,
and it is also not improbable that he made no actual protest
against thefr doing so.
'The Gospel tradition lets us see that Jesus's journey was no
mere harmless pilgrimage, but that there was a special reason for
it and a special purpose. He must have arrived there some while
before the Passover. Mark tries to limit the period between his
entry and his death to a week, but the material can hardly be
fitted in to so short a time. He seems to have acquired acquaint
ances and connections in Jerusalem, and these cannot be accounted
for on the strength of previous visits, when ' [if such took place]
'he would not have been known as the great prophet from

268 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XL i-ii
Galilee. In Bethany he seems to have laid the foundations of
the subsequent Christian community in Jerusalem. In xiv. 49
he says : ' I have been daily with you in the Temple, teaching ' ;
two days would not justify ' daily.'
' Thus the concourse of people who accompanied him from the
borders of Judsea (x. i), who passed by Jericho (x. 46), and
descended the Mount of Olives with him, did not go with him
because of the festival, but because of himself, in expectant
anticipation of what he might do in the metropolis. It seems
very likely that the people were inclined to regard him as the
Messiah, and to interpret his journey to Jerusalem Messianically.
The step from prophet to Messiah was easily taken ; false prophet
{yjrevBo-n-po^ijTt}^) and false Messiah (•v^evSo^pto-Tos) in Josephus
and the Gospels mean much the same thing.'
J. Weiss holds that the entry, as described by Mark, is, in
many respects, unhistorical. Jesus had earnestly kept back, and
refrained from, all Messianic claims. What purpose could such a
demonstration have served ? Is it conceivable that Jesus would
himself have given occasion for any Messianic proclamation and
acclamation by the excited populace ? Such an entry was not
referred to at the trial. If any hailed him as the Messiah, it was
his entourage, not those to whom he came. It is, at any rate,
highly remarkable that, in Matt. xxi. 11, upon the question being
put by the excited populace, 'Who is this man?' the reply is
given, ' It is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth.' It is not said : ' It
is Jesus the Messiah.' Hence some others agree with Dalman
that the entry was not ' Messianic ' at all. The great prophet
enters the city amid the acclaim of his followers: his fame has
gone before him, and he is greeted with enthusiasm. But this is
all. The view of Schweitzer is highly peculiar. He supposes
that the entry into Jerusalem is 'for Jesus Messianic, for the
people un-Messianic' Jesus desired to fulfil, unknown to others
{insgeheim), the prophecy of Zech. ix. 9. Yet the ovation which
he received was more than the reception given to a teacher.
Hence, for this and other reasons, Schweitzer supposes (it is part
of his whole theory) that the people thought that Jesus (as we
are told in viii. 28) was the returned Elijah, who was to precede
the Messiah. Jesus plays with his own Messianic consciousness
and secret, for he is convinced that the people will not understand
or guess. It is only Judas who, later on, betrays his secret (that
he is the Messiah) to the High Priest {Von Rdmarus zu Wrede,
PP- 391. 392). It is very doubtful whether this newest theory
will hold the field.
Merx holds that the Messianic entry is a late interpolation.
It has been inserted in a geographically unsuitable place. Jesus

XI. I2-I4J THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 269
has reached Bethphage (as Matthew rightly reads), which was not
a village, but a farm, of importance because it marked the official
boundary of Jerusalem (Merx proves this by citations from the
Talmud). There was no village in front of them. Bethany lay
behind them. Jesus rode on an ass into Jerusalem as many others
had done ; afterwards, after his death, the ass was interpreted
Messianically, and the story, as we now find it, spun out. John
xii. 14 (especially in the Syriac version, where it simply says
' Jesus rode on an ass ') gives some support to this theory. Merx,
Uke all who disbelieve in Jesus's Messianic claim, lays great stress
upon Matt. xxi. 11, and all the more stress, as he upholds the (at
least comparative) priority of Matthew over Mark.
Other scholars hold that there is no reason to suppose that
Jesus did not approach or enter somewhat in the way described.
So Loisy. ' La consigne provisoire qui avait 6t6 donn6e k C^saree
de Philippe etait maintenant rompue. L'heure etait imminente,
et la voix du peuple ne faisait que pr^luder k la voix de Dieu '
{E. 8. 1, p. 2 1 5). Dr Carpenter also thinks that the incident really
happened; the ride was planned, and called forth response both from
the disciples and the general crowd. Yet the question remains :
why, if his Kingdom was to be so purely spiritual, so unlike that of
the Messiah of the prophets, did he nevertheless seek to fulfil the
Messianic prophecies ? Why did he raise the very expectations
which he thought outward and wrong, which he did not desire to
fulfil ? Gould grasps the nettle boldly, but his words are uncon-
¦vincing. He says • ' The acceptance of him as King, and not
merely as prophet, was what he demanded.' His entry was 'a
public proclamation of his Messianic claim.' But his programme
remains unchanged. He will still only be the teacher and bene-
fector. His Kingship is service, and so remains. ' The multitude
who followed him thought that with the announcement of the
claim the programme would change. But the unchanged pro
gramme means that Jesus, just as he was, claimed Kingship and
would be King only by spiritual enforcements. The distinct claim
to be a King is followed immediately by the revolutionising of the
whole idea of Kingship.'
12-14. The Barren Fig Tree
{Cp. Matt. xxi. 18, 19)
; 12 And on the morrow, when they left Bethany, he was hungry :
13 and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he went up to it to
' see if he should find anything on it : and when he came to it, he

270 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XL 12-14
14 found nothing but leaves ; for it was not the season for figs. And
Jesus spoke and said unto the tree: 'Let no man eat fruit of thee
again for ever.' And his disciples heard it.
A good deal has been written about this story, which finds its
continuation in 20-25. Has it any historic basis whatever? Has
a parable, such as that of Luke xiii. 6-9, been turned first into an
allegory, and then externalised into a^ miracle ? For the purpose
of this book it is needless to discuss these very hypothetical ques
tions. The story has, in any case, no moral or religious value for
us to-day. 14. For the question as to the date when figs ripen in Galilee
and Judsea reference must be made to the larger commentaries.
There seems no reason to suppose that fig trees had not usually
their leaves in April, though Swete asserts this ('the tree was
prematurely in leaf), and then adds the strange remark: 'it was
reasonable to expect a corresponding precocity in regard to the
figs.' Jesus bids the fig tree be barren for ever. It seems a
strange thing to do, for the tree was not in fault. If the story
has any historic basis, we cannot imagine that Jesus acted in so
irrational a way as this. At the least the story must have been
greatly perverted from what actually took place.
Holtzmann and Menzies think Jesus spoke of the fig tree,
which had leaves but no fruit, as an image of the Pharisees or
Jews. Their piety was mere outward foliage and show ; there was
no fruit of holy deeds and holy life. Such people must become
drier and drier ; they are rejected of God, and only fit for
destruction. Dr Carpenter points out that Luke omits the story of the fig
tree, and that in lieu of it he has a parable of a fig tree. See
Luke xiii 6-9. Dr Carpenter thinks that the parable was the
original. The idea of it has become materialised in the story [the
idea, namely, of Israel's religious barrenness and rejection]. For
' the report of the Teacher's word, as it was passed from hand to
hand, dropped one detail on its transit in one direction, took up
another along a different line, and thus gradually split into two
distinct shapes. In one of these the meaning of the parable was
clearly retained. The other was remembered as a story — a fig tree
in full leaf — a doom — a withering — but its significance was gone :
it became a mere anecdote, which of course attached itself in time
to Jesus. Then it was fitted with a place and date, due possibly
to some actual reminiscence, and in this shape it was incorporated
into the traditions. But in sifting the material available for his
work the third Evangelist had sufficient insight to choose the

XI. 15-19] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 271
parable' {First Three Gospels, p. 178). J. Weiss, too, and Loisy
have similar explanations. To them also the story as it stands
is a 'legend.' But what about Peter and his reminiscences in
verse 21 ? 15-19. The Purification of the Temple
{Cp. Matt xxi 12, 13, 17; Luke xix. 45-48)
15 And they came to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple,
and began to drive out them that sold and bought in the temple,
and he overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats
16 of them that sold doves ; and he would not allow anyone to carry
a vessel through the temple.
17 And he taught, saying unto them, 'Is it not written. My house
shall be called a house of prayer for all nations ? but ye have
18 made it a den of thieves.' And the chief priests and the scribes
heard it, and sought how they might destroy him : for they feared
19 him, because all the people were amazed at his teaching. And
when evening was come, he went out of the city.
15. For the facts as to what actually went on in the precincts
of the Temple and 'the Court of the Gentiles' see Additional
Note 21. It is possible that if Mark's narrative depends on an
earlier written source, the purification incident followed there
immediately on the entry. Verse 1 1 may be redactional to make
a break and allow for the story of the fig tree. And 27 seq.
would follow well on 18, 19. Some would see in the purification
an act of Messianic authority.
16. Mark only. See the same Additional Note. Not to
permit anyone to carry a vessel through the Temple shows Jesus
in an unexpected light. If a Rabbi were so particular, the German
theologians would call it externalism. When an external act
shows a lack of reverence for the House of God, he is rightly keen
to condemn it. It is usually supposed that what was objected to
was the use of the Temple as a short cut from one quarter of the
city to another. This had already been prohibited by Jewish
law. Josephus says that no one was allowed to carry a vessel
into the Temple {Against Apion, 11. 8). Loisy thinks that 16 is
perhaps secondary.
17. The allusion is to Isaiah Ivi 7 and Jeremiah vii 11.
The Isaiah passage has ' a special appropriateness in the present

272 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XL 15-19
context ; for the part of the iepov which the Lord has just
reclaimed from secular use was the Court of the Gentiles, where
alone within the precincts Gentiles were at liberty to pray' (Swete).
The ' thieves ' may refer to the cheating practised by sellers, or the
reference may be more general. The Temple has become a meeting
place of scamps. If this story is historical, we have to assume that
Jesus at first occupied a position of some power in Jerusalem.
His followers are numerous enough to execute his orders in the
Temple, and important enough to allow him and them to be
undisturbed in their unusual and high-handed proceedings. Of
his teaching no specimen is given. The Scribes and priests are
afraid to lay hands upon him, though they would fain get rid of
him. J. Weiss accepts the historical character of the story, but
thinks that it must have happened at an early period in Jesus's
career. The fourth Evangelist places the event at the opening
of Jesus's ministry, and Weiss agrees with him. His reasons are
twofold. First, the attempt of Jesus could not have been success
fully carried out at the end of his ministry, when the attention of
the authorities must have been directed to all his doings. He
would have been quickly stopped. Secondly, Jesus would hardly
have shown at the end of his life this great interest in the purity
of the Temple. Would he have cared to make this effort for mere
outward worship ? But it is dangerous to abandon Mark for John.
A more probable view would be that what Jesus did was something
much smaller than is here represented. Everything tends to be
magnified in the Gospel report — the mfracles, the opposition, the
attention excited, the renown, the doings, and all. If the Gospel
narratives were accurate and unexaggerated, the silence of Josephus
would be scarcely explicable.
18. 'They sought to destroy him, /or they feared him, /or
the people were amazed at his teaching.' This is possible ; but it
is more probable, as W. says, that the first ' for ' should be rendered
' but.'
20-25. The Fig Tree and Faith
{Cp. Matt. xxi. 20-22, xvii. 20, vi. 14, xviii. 35)
20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree
21 dried up from the roots. And Peter remembered, and said unto
him, 'Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is dried up.'
Z2, 23 And Jesus, answering, said unto them, ' Have faith in God. For
verily I say unto you, that whoever should say unto this mountain,

XL 20-25] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 273
Lift thyself up, and hurl thyself into the sea; and did not doubt
in his heart, but believed that his word would come to pass : to
24 him it would come to pass. Therefore I say unto you. What
things soever ye pray for and ask, believe that ye have received
25 them, and they will be yours. And when ye stand and pray, if ye
have aught against any one, forgive him, that your Father who is
in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.'
22. Mark has used the story of the fig tree in an awkward
manner. To draw from the success of Jesus's imprecation a
lesson on faith is putting it to strange uses, and giving a bad
example of what faith can do. To say that the success of the
imprecation was due to Jesus's faith in God, his conviction that
God would fulfil his prayer, suggests strange uses of faith
and prayer. Is the believer, as Loisy rightly says, ' selon son
caprice,' to ask for, and to see accomplished, any miracles which
come into his head — to make the vine which gave no grapes
sterile for ever, or to remove mountains, 'a son gre,' which he
might like better to see elsewhere ? Only those miracles which
the interests of faith justify can be referred to. Yet the most
authentic utterances of Jesus on the efficacy of prayer have a
form almost as absolute as 23, 24 (Matt. vii. 7-1 1 ). The artificiality
of the connection between the successful curse of the fig tree and
the lesson about faith is less the apparent exaggeration of the
assertion than the incoherence of the whole passage, seeing that
the malediction of the fig tree was not, properly speaking, either
an act of faith or a prayer {E. 8. Ii. p. 288). The story is used
as a peg on which to hang utterances of Jesus which were not
originally connected with it. The mountain and the lake suggest
Gahlee rather than Jerusalem. Menzies thinks that the meaning
is that with God's help there is still hope for Israel. Jesus still
has faith. This interpretation seems strained.
24. Again one must notice the immense (and probably his
torical) stress which Jesus lays upon faith. Cp. Matt. vii. 7-1 1.
We cannot to-day accept the doctrine as here laid down. As
to the power of faith on the one hand, and of prayer on the other,
there can be no doubt. Nevertheless, we shall, I think, be com
pelled to admit that there are limits to faith, which Jesus would
not have recognized or allowed. Verse 24 shows that you cannot
explain away 23 as a mere Oriental exaggeration and picturesque
way of speaking.
25. An addition which is out of place. It is perhaps an
insertion due to Matt. vi. 14. The expression, ' Father in heaven,'
M. 18

274 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XI. 20-25
is only here found in Mark. W. says that Mark may have known
the Lord's Prayer, which may already have been employed in the
community, but did not venture to ascribe it as a whole to Jesus.
Jesus with him gives principles for prayer, but no formula.
Cp. xiv. 38 for another parallel to the Lord's Prayer in Mark. 22-24
find their parallels in Matt. xxi. 21, 22, xvii. 20 and Luke xvii. 6,
while 25 finds its parallel not only in Matt. vi. 14, but also in
Matt, xviii. 35. Loisy supposes that all those passages go back to
Q, the ' recueil de discours.' The primitive sentence was probably
something like this : ' If you have even as much faith as a grain
of mustard seed, you could say to this mountain. Remove and cast
thyself into the sea.' Luke, perhaps influenced by the fig tree
with which Mark has brought the saying into connection, has
substituted 'sycamore tree' for 'mountain.' Observe too, that
xvii. 20 in Matthew is not far removed from xviii. 35. All the
more reason to believe that Mark has got his 22-24 ^'^d his 25
from Q. He has reproduced them freely. Verse 24 is also parallel
with Matt, xviii. 19, vii. 7-1 1. In 25 Mark has combined the lessons
of Matt. V. 23, 24, and of xviii 35 (vi 12-15). Matthew does not
here reproduce Mark's 25, because he had treated the subject
before so fully. It must be admitted that it does seem very
probable that Mark is here picking and choosing from a more
primary source. If so, what becomes of W.'s argument as to
the Lord's Prayer? Its authenticity becomes immensely more
probable. It would seem likely that Matthew transcribed Q in
these passages more accurately, while, as Loisy says, Mark repro
duced the sayings from Q 'freely,' perhaps even from memory.
He combines them awkwardly into a speech which has neither
the precision of personal recollections nor the exactitude of a
regular transcript {E. 8. II. p. 290).

27-33. The Authority of John
{Cp. Matt, xxi 23-27; Luke xx. 1-8)
27 And they came again to Jerusalem : and as he was walking in
the temple, the chief priests, and the scribes, and the Elders came
28 up to him and said : ' By what authority doest thou these things ?
29 and who gave thee this authority to do these things ? ' And Jesus
answered and said unto them, 'I will also ask of you one question;
do ye answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these
30 things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?
31 answer me.' And they deliberated among themselves, saying, 'If

XL 27-33] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 275
we say. From heaven ; he will say, Why then did ye not believe
32 him ? Or shall we say, From men ?' But they feared the people:
33 for all held John to be really a prophet. So they answered and
said unto Jesus, ' We do not know.' And Jesus said unto them,
'Ne^ither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.'
28. 'By what authority doest thou these things?' The
'things' {raijTa) can only mean the purification of the Temple.
The verse is really the continuation of 18.
The object of the question is apparently to make Jesus declare
himself If he let others acclaim him as Messiah, why will he not
definitely himself say of himself that the Messiah is he ? Or, at
any rate, is his mission of God ? Does he claim special divine
inspfration ? Has he a direct mandate from God ?
29. True to the policy of silence and semi-evasion which Jesus
is represented as adopting towards the outer world (whether he
really adopted it is another matter, about which no one can know
for certain), he asks his questioners a counter-question, which,
from his vantage-ground of knowing the inward thoughts of his
adversaries, he foresees will not be answered. Under the word
' baptism ' we must include John's activity and teaching as a whole.
If the priests had answered that John's mission was of God, the
rejoinder of Jesus would, we may imagine, have been: Why
did you not listen to him ? J. Weiss thinks that Jesus could only
have given an evasive reply. It is not tactics, but his attitude to
the whole Messiah question, which compels him to take this line.
He cannot discuss the matter with these people. They could not
understand his point of view.
32. The construction is broken off. ' Or shall we say. From
men ? ' But that would not do, they said to themselves — so one
has to supply — for they feared the people.
33. The ignorance of the Scribes is mere pretence. They
refused to believe in John, but their sin was all the greater, for
they knew, or at any rate more than half-suspected, that John was
a messenger of God. Menzies says Jesus held that he need not
reply to thefr question because by their own rejoinder they had
shown that they could not appreciate the qualifications of a
religious teacher. If they cannot estimate John aright, neither
can they estimate him. If the purpose of Jesus's question was not
merely to evade the issue, we may suppose, with Bernhard Weiss,
that Jesus refuses to answer because, for his Messianic prerogatives,
he could only have appealed to the authority of the Baptist ; while
18—2

276 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XI. 27-33
the untruthfulness of his questioners would make them incapable
of receiving the witness which his own life gave to his Messianic
claim. Dr Carpenter thinks Weiss's suggestion weak, because
there is no trustworthy evidence (Matt. iii. 14 is not such) to
show that John applied his language about the ' coming one ' to
Jesus, or that he recognized him as the Messiah. On the other
hand, John's doubts are clear. Matt. xi. 2. How, then, could
Jesus have appealed to the authority of John in support of his
own claim? It may, however, be that the Evangelists meant to
give the meaning suggested by B. Weiss. In the actual historic
scene the refusal to answer must have meant to imply that the
questioners stand condemned by their incredulity towards a
prophet of God. If they had answered, ' From God,' Loisy supposes
that we may conceive that Jesus would have said that John's
testimony to the near advent of the Kingdom was a sufficient
justification of his own authority. This seems doubtful. For the
one does not follow from the other. Perhaps all that Jesus would
have replied would have been : ' Even so is my authority from
God.' The whole scene, J. Weiss thinks, confirms his view that the
purification of the Temple episode happened early in the ministry.
The attitude of the Scribes is inconceivable, he says, at this late
period. Why should they not deny the inspiration of John ?
Would the people still believe in him after his imprisonment and
even his death ? But one cannot get rid of the difficulties of the
Synoptic narrative by accepting the still greater difficulties of the
Johannine.

CHAPTER XII
I-I 2. The Parable of the Vineyard
{Cp. Matt, xxi 33-46; Luke xx. 9-19)
I And he began to speak unto them in parables. 'A man
planted a vineyard, and set an hedge around it, and dug out a
wine press, and built a tower. And he let it to husbandmen, and
2 went abroad. And at the proper time he sent to the husbandmen
a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen his share
3 of the fruit of the vineyard. And they seized him, and beat him,
4 and sent him away empty. And again he sent unto them another
5 servant ; and him they wounded and reviled. And again he sent
another; and him they killed. And he sent many others; and

XII. I-I 2] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 277
6 some they beat, and some they killed. But he had still an only
and well-beloved son : him he sent last unto them, saying, They
7 will have respect for my son. But those husbandmen said among
themselves. This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the
8 inheritance will be ours. So they seized him, and killed him, and
9 cast him out of the vineyard. What will the lord of the vineyard
do ? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the
vineyard unto others.
10 'And have ye not read this passage in the scripture: The
stone which the builders rejected is become the corner-stone.
II This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?'
12 And they sought to take him prisoner, for they reahzed that
he had spoken the parable against them : but they feared the
people, so they left him, and went their way.
It would seem very doubtful whether this parable can be
ascribed to Jesus himself In its present form, at any rate, it
reflects a later situation, and assumes his death. Nor is it quite
easy to see what form it could origifialTy have had, if it was spoken
by Jesus. It has been suggested {e.g. by Brandt) that the parable
originally consisted of 2-5', 9 only. This seems doubtful. The
episode of the son seems hardly capable of being so completely
cut out. The parable would be somewhat poor and too short
without it. It cannot, with whatever prunings, be turned into a
good parable, with the verisimilitude of the more genuine parables.
It is an allegory, as Loisy and others point out, from start to
finish. 'It gives a sort of "general" philosophy of Israelite
history, in so far as that history ' (from the writer's point of view)
' has its culmination in the ministry and death of Jesus Christ'
Perhaps it belongs to the same stratum in the redaction of the
whole Gospel as the passages in which Jesus describes the details
of his death and his resurrection {E. 8. il p. 319). It is, as W.
remarks, curiously different from the cautious replies given by
him in xi 27-33 ^'I'd ^ii- ^3-^7- Here he provokes his an
tagonists openly, and clearly implies that he is the Son of
God; whereas, in the most authentic passages in Mark, he never
implies that in a special and unique sense he is God's Son.
On the other hand, it may be argued with Dr Carpenter that
his caution does not consist in a concealment of the Messianic
claim or character, to which the entry gave the utmost publicity,
but in avoiding argumentative traps. ' The Son of God ' may be
used in a Messianic rather than in a dogmatically theological
sense. Menzies says : ' The words do not contain an explicit

278 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIL 1-12
declaration of the divine Sonship.' No one has more clearly
shown than Loisy how unnatural or even absurd the parable is as
a parable. The incidents will not work. It only makes sense as
a transparent allegory. As to the date, he says that the whole
has rather the air of an argument of the first Christians against
the Jews than of a speech of Jesus to the people or the notables
of Jerusalem {E. 8. IL p. 312). 'II n'y avait pas lieu, avant
revenement, de montrer dans la mort de Jesus le dernier terme de
la patience divine' (p. 319).
I. The vineyard parable quotes and follows Isaiah. 'Jesus
was not wont to draw from the O.T. the matter of his stories'
(Loisy). The vineyard is, in one sense, Israel, in another, the
Kingdom. Its owner is God. The absence of the owner, de
manded by the development of the allegory, is unsuited to God.
The husbandmen are, partly, the leaders, priests. Scribes and
Pharisees as representing the people ; partly, the people them
selves. The parable is not quite consistent.
2-5. The various servants represent the prophets whose
messages Israel refused to hear.
6. The son is Jesus. The Kingdom is his. Hence he may
be called the ' heir.' It is amazing that Menzies should think this
clearly 'party' parable is 'a telling representation of the fact of
the decay in Jesus's time of the sense of the nearness and reality
of God.' There is no adequate evidence that God was not as near
and real to a large percentage of Jews in A.D. 30 as there is over
whelming evidence to show and prove that He was near and real
to them in A.D. 300.
9. Who are ' the others ' ? This is not clearly indicated.
Some think that the poor and the outcast, the repentant tax-
collector and sinner, are intended. More probably, as in Matthew,
the ' others ' are the Gentiles.
10, II. Some think that these verses are an addition, and
that the true close to the parable is 9. The stone is Jesus. ' This
is the Lord's doing,' i.e. the stone came from God. Rejected
by the Jewish religious authorities, the stone has become the
chief stone of the world's spiritual edifice. Loisy denies that
the verses are an addition. The allegory is not complete
without it. 'Le sort ulterieur du fils importe au narrateur;
mais celui-ci ne pouvait pas dire que le fils ressusciterait et qu'il
serait glorifie au ciel, sans abandonner la fiction de la vigne'
{E. S. n. p. 312).

XIL 13-17] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 279
12. The phrasing of the verse is odd. Loisy thinks that the
last few words, 'so they left him, and went their way,' belong
properly to xi. 33 and should be followed by xii. 13. 'But they
feared the people ' is an attenuation of xiv. 2, after xi. 32. The
parable of the vineyard was originally placed just before the opening
of the Passion, and xii. 12 is a sort of echo or repetition of xiv. i, 2,
which may be supposed to have run something like this : ' They
realized that he had spoken the parable against them. And they
sought how they should lay hold of him by guile to put him to
death. For they said : not during the festival, lest there should
be a tumult among the people. Now the Passover and the festival
of the unleavened bread were to take place after two days ' {E. 8.
n. pp. 315-318).

13-17. 'Give unto Cesar'
{Cp. Matt. xxii. 15-22; Luke xx. 20-26)
13 And they sent unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the
14 Herodians, that they might entrap him by his words. And when
they were come, they said unto him, ' Master, we know that thou
art truthful, and hast regard for no man : for thou respectest not
the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth. Is it
15 lawful to give tribute to the Emperor, or not? Should we give
it, or should we not give it V But he, perceiving their deceitful
ness, said unto them, ' Why tempt ye me ? bring me a silver coin,
16 that I may see it.' And they brought it. And he said unto them,
'Whose is this image and superscription?' And they said unto
17 hira, 'The Emperor's.' And Jesus, answering, said unto them,
' Pay to the Emperor what is the Emperor's, and to God what is
God's.' And they marvelled at him greatly.
13. The series of questions, which was begun by the priests
in xi 27-33, is now, after the interruption of xii 1-12, resumed
and continued till xii 34.
W. remarks that it is odd to meet the 'Herodians' in Jeru
salem ; their place is in Galilee. The explanation is that friends
and foes of Rome are to unite in the question, so that Jesus
may be endangered whether he says yes or no. ' The Herodians,
upholders of the native monarchy, were averse to any political
disturbance, which might complicate the relations between the
Roman government and that monarchy, and could not desire any

28o THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XII. 13-17
Messiah to succeed' (Menzies). Or we may suppose that they
desired that Judsea, instead of being governed by the Romans,
should be under a prince of their own family. In that case both
the questioners would be supposed to be hostile to Rome. So
Loisy {E. 8. il. p. 333).
14. They flatter him in order to induce him to give a direct
ansvVer. The fiercer party among the Jewish nationalists held that it
was not permissible to pay tribute to Rome {cp. Josephus, Ant.
book XVIII. ch. i i ; Acts v. 37). If Jesus said it was permissible,
how could he claim to be the Messiah ? Was not the Messiah to
usher in the era of national independence ? If he said it was not,
there would be trouble for him with the authorities.
15. inroKpia-i.'i, 'dissimulation.' Jesus recognizes that he is
not being asked for the sake of getting at the truth, but in order
to trip him up. They ' tempt ' him to deny the authority of the
Emperor by boldly declaring his Messiahship.
Jesus has no money. He asks for a silver denarius (worth
about 8^d.). These coins were not made in Palestine. The copper
coin which alone was made there bore no head or figure on it, on
account of Jewish susceptibilities. The denarius would have on
it the head of the deified Augustus.
17. What are we to say of this famous answer? It implied
that there was a field in which the Emperor had authority, but
that religion, without interfering with the legitimate rights of the
Emperor, could exist in its fulness notwithstanding. The rule of
Rome need not interfere with the practice of religion.
It is very important to notice that the bulk of the Pharisees
took much the same line. The Scribes and legalists at all events
were by no means keen to raise the standard of revolt. They
expected God to destroy Rome just as Jesus did. There was
no great difference in this respect between them. The com
mentators ignore this agreement or deny it. It is inconvenient,
perhaps, but the evidence seems to show that it is true. The
importance of the saying is diminished when we remember that
Jesus, in any case, believed that the rule of Rome was only going
to last quite a short time. For either before his death, or after it
and at his reappearance, would come the new age and the
perfected Kingdom, and then the Roman dominion would dis
appear. The rule of Rome was to disappear by God's agency, not
by man's. Not by revolt and force of arms, but when the Son of
man comes down from heaven will the heathen domination cease.

XIL 13-17! THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 28 1
'Der Weg Gottes,' as J. Weiss well says, 'geht von oben nach
unten.' That was just ¦what the great majority of the Rabbis
held. As a matter of fact, the answer was primarily intended to be
non-committal. It maintains the policy of caution. Once more
Jesus cleverly avoids a dilemma. W. holds that no more was
intended, though a denial of the theocracy may be found as the
implication of his reply. He sets up no principle by which one
can clearly sever the claims of God and the claims of the Emperor.
He only asserts that each has his rights and claims, which we may
legitimately satisfy. We cannot use his answer as a solution of
any of our own difficulties, except in so far as it may seem to assert
that state and religion are two separate and not connected terri
tories. And W. seems to me right when he calls Ranke's opinion ,
that our passage is the most important and far-reaching of the
words of Jesus, ' etwas profan und recht verkehrt.'
Loisy's remarks upon the passage seem to me very judicious
and sensible. Jesus means, he says, that ' civil obedience, attested
by the payment of the tribute, no more contradicts than it abolishes
the obedience which is due to God. The first of these duties does
not interfere with the second. The first is trivial in comparison
with the second. Let men observe it without attaching greater
importance to it than it possesses, and let them give their minds
above everything to the essential duty, which is moral and religious
duty. Jesus emphasises the lawfulness of political power and of
tribute much less than the insignificance of these things in com
parison with the Kingdom of heaven. It is implied that the
Kingdom of heaven is not to be established by violence, by a
rebellion against the established order; in the interval before its
coming, one should pay to Csesar the tax which attests his
sovereignty, and it would be foolish to believe that God and his
reign would gain anything by the rejection of an obligation of this
kind. Let the things of this world be esteemed according to the
smallness of their value, and let these duties be discharged
according as there is necessity ; but let men know above all that
the greatest thing lies elsewhere, in fidelity to the heavenly Father.
It would be to falsify the thought of Jesus to suppose that the
debt to Csesar is on the same plane, or that it has the same
absolute and definite character as the duty towards God. Nothing
was farther from his thoughts than to establish a principle in
accordance with which the boundaries of the domains of God and
those of Csesar might be rigidly defined ' {E. 8. Ii. p. 336).
See also Additional Note 22.

282 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [John VIL 53-Vin. n
The Woman taken in Adultery
(John vii. 53 — viii. Il)
53, t And they went, each one, to his own house. And Jesus went
2 to the Mount of Olives. And early in the morning, he returned
to the temple, and all the people came unto him, and he sat down,
3 and he taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought
unto him a woman taken in adultery, and putting her in the
4 midst of them, they said to him, ' Master, this woman was taken
5 in the very act of adultery. Now Moses commanded us in the
Law that such women should be stoned ; what then sayest thou?'
6 And they said this to try him, that they might have something
with which to accuse him. But Jesus stooped forward and wrote
7 with his finger upon the ground. But when they continued
asking him, he raised his head, and said unto them, ' He that is
without sin amongst you, let him be the first to cast a stone at
8 her.' And again he stooped forward, and wrote upon the ground.
9 And they, having heard that, withdrew one by one, beginning with
the eldest ; and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she
10 was, in the midst. And Jesus lifted his head, and said to her:
II 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned thee?' And
she said, ' No one. Lord.' Then Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn
thee. Go, and from henceforth sin no more.'
According to many critics it is most probable that in the oldest
story of the life of Jesus in Jerusalem there followed between the
'Give unto Csesar' incident, and the question of the Sadducees,
the tale of the woman taken in adultery. Why this tale dropped
out of the Synoptics, and why it found an incongruous and un
satisfactory home in some MSS. of the fourth Gospel are questions
upon which I need not enter here. W. regards the story as
certainly apocryphal {Einleitung, p. 70). Loisy says ' it is morally
certain that the story is an authentic part of the most authentic
parts of the Gospel ' (Ze quatrieme Evangile, p. 542 at top). Thus
do the great authorities differ ! The internal difficulties of the
story are very great, and these difficulties make me incline some
what towards the opinion of W. But if it is not true, it is at least
hen trovato, and quite in keeping with some of the moral state
ments, paradoxical, searching, strange and exalted, but elusive, of
the historical Jesus. In any case it may usefully be included here.

JohnVIL53-VIILii] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 283
2. Thus this story, if authentic and put in its right place,
makes and marks a fresh day in the Jerusalem ministry.
3. How and why was the woman taken and brought before
Jesus? Did_ her accomplice escape? Did the 'Scribes and
Pharisees ' seize her in order to bring her to justice — to a court —
and was the Temple near where she was seized, and did the idea
strike these Scribes and Pharisees to see if they could use this
woman as a snare for the Galilsean teacher? And why should
Scribes and Pharisees have been present and in such convenient
numbers ? All these quite unanswerable questions give rise to
the gravest suspicion.
Again it is a very dubious matter whether adultery was, or
could be, at that time, punishable with death. Many great
scholars think that it was not.
5. Another difficulty. The law does not say that adulteresses
are to be stoned except in the special case mentioned in Deut.
xxii. 23. Was this woman betrothed ? If not, the Rabbinic law
arranged that when the Pentateuchal ordinance fixed no particular
kind of death, the guilty person should be strangled.
6. What was the ' temptation ' or ' test ' ? Probably this.
Jesus was supposed to be merciful to sinners, perhaps especially
to women. If, then, his opinion were asked, and he were tempted
to urge that this woman, if she repented, should be forgiven, then
he could be brought into conflict with the letter of the God-given
Law. Jesus guesses what they would be at. Perhaps he is morally
wroth that this woman in her shame should be used for such a
purpose. He refuses to look upon them or upon her ; he will not
add to her shame. At any rate, be her guilt what it may, it does
not concern him; it is not for him to decide and condemn her.
He therefore abstractedly makes marks in the dust on the floor.
So one may interpret his action. One need not ask : What did he
write ?
7. Forced to reply, Jesus once more raises another issue.
He neither condemns nor acquits. What does he mean ? It is
easy to admire and to vaguely paraphrase his words ; it is less easy
to understand them. It would be ludicrous that no one should
judge criminal cases who was not himself ' sinless,' conscious of no
sin. In that case there would be no judges or juries in the world.
The words of Jesus are relative to his questioners. Do they imply :
( I ) It is not for anyone except the regularly constituted
tribunal to condemn this woman. It is not for you, therefore,
or for me, to condemn her.

284 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [John VIL 53- VIIL n
(2) 'Judge not' You seem glad to condemn. But
should one not be sorry and reluctant ? Perhaps too : was it
for you to seize her ? Are you guilty of no sins, whether sins
of the flesh or others, for which you should not be seized ?
(3) Should this woman's shame be used as a means with
which to entrap me?
(4) Is it conceivable that the very absence and escape of
the probably greater culprit makes Jesus the more scrupulous
about condemning the woman ? Is not society always readier
to punish the woman than the man? Was not Jesus the
champion of womanhood ?
The words make a deep impression upon us even though we
cannot be wholly certain as to the precise meanings they are
intended to convey.
9. It seems doubtful whether this dramatic retirement is
historically likely. The gloss of some MSS. ' convicted by their
own conscience ' is what is intended. Loisy says : ' lis s'en vont
assez confus, mais non contrits.' Loisy would here know too much,
a fault he is not slow to blame in others. Again ' beginning with
the eldest,' to which some MSS. add ' even unto the last,' is very
obscure and doubtful It raises suspicion. It was no regular
court : why then should the eldest have been the first to sneak off?
The narrator thinks of a court with a regular order and precedence.
He falls out of his narrative, and thus casts doubt upon the whole.
II. The final scene between Jesus and the woman is im
pressive in its brief simplicity. His words, as Loisy well says, are
a harmonious union of dignity and goodness. His point of view,
says Holtzmann, is that of Ezekiel xxxiii. 11. 'Repent and live.'
He was sent to call sinners to repentance and to save them. He
is no judge in the ordinary sense of the word. ' L' application
juridique de la Loi ne le regarde pas ; mais I'&me de la pecheresse
et son saint ne peuvent lui ^tre indifferents. S'il s'interdit de la
faire mettre a mort, c'est pour I'engager a bien vivre, s'il ne
condamne pas la coupable, il ne laisse pas de condamner le pdche '
{Le quatrieme Evangile, p. 549).

18-27. The Life of the Resurrection
{Cp. Matt xxii 23-33 5 Luke xx. 27-38)
18 Then came unto him some Sadducees, who say there is no
19 resurrection ; and they asked him, saying, ' Master, Moses wrote

XIL 18-27] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 285
for us. If a man die, and leave a wife and no child, his brother
20 must marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now
there were seven brothers : and the first took a wife, and dying
21 left no seed. And the second married her, and died without leavino-
22 seed : and the third likewise. And all seven left no seed : last
23 of all the woman died also. In the resurrection, therefore, when
they rise, whose wife will she be of them ? for all the seven had
her to wife.'
24 And Jesus answering said unto them, 'Does not this prove
that ye err, and that ye neither know the scriptures nor the
25 power of God ? For when they rise from the dead, they neither
marry nor are given in marriage ; but are as the angels in heaven.
26 But as regards the dead, that they rise : have ye not read in the
book of Moses, in the story of the burning bush, how God spoke
unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac,
27 and the God of Jacob ? He is not the God of the dead, but the
God of the living : ye do greatly err.'
18. After the Pharisees have had their 'test' comes the turn
of the Sadducees. Their question is put in order to show that,
whatever answer be given, the theory of resurrection leads to
absurdity. If Moses ordered the so-called Levirate marriage
(Deut. xxv. 5) he cannot have believed in the resurrection.
Jesus shows that no absurdity is involved. The conditions of
the resurrection life are unlike those of the present life. There
is no marrying or giving in marriage.
Though the popular view may have been that the ordinary life
on earth, interrupted by death, would be resumed at the resur
rection, this was not the official doctrine of the Rabbis. The locus
classicus on the subject is Berachoth 17 a, and runs thus : — ' Rab
used to say : In the world to come there is no eating or drinking
or marrying or envy or hate ; but the pious rest with crowns upon
their heads, and are satisfied with the glory of God.'
This was the official doctrine, and it doubtless was already the
view of all educated Pharisees at the time of Christ But see also
Additional Note 23.
19. Cp. Deut XX. 5-10 and Genesis xxxviii 8. W. thinks
that this kind of marriage was no longer practised at the time of
Christ. 24. ov Bid TovTO. 'Your very question, with the dilemma

286 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIL 18-27
you suppose involved, and your consequent denial of the resur
rection, show the measure of your error. They show that you
know neither the Scriptures (which prove the resurrection) nor
the power of God (who makes the resurrection life to differ from,
and be higher than, the life on earth).' The second point is taken
in 25 ; the first point in 26. There is a certain parallelism of
words and phrase with i Cor. xv. 33, 34 dealing with the same
subject. 26. The proof of the resurrection is of the usual fanciful kind
when proofs from Scripture are attempted. As God is (as all
admit) the God of the living and not of the dead, and as He calls
Himself to Moses the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who had
died long ago), these patriarchs must still live ; and this, again,
can only mean that they will ' rise ' or have ' f isen.' Is it assumed
that they are now iu ' heaven ' ? Or are they only potentially
alive, while, at the resurrection, they will live fully once more?
' The inference seems to be that when the words were spoken the
patriarchs were still living, and that their resurrection was a natural
and probable corollary ' (Allen). The idea apparently is that the
dead are waiting for the resurrection, not asleep, but with full
consciousness, whether of pleasure or pain. But only the righteous
dead are thought of, or referred to, in this passage. Yet Schmidt
is scarcely justified in saying that Jesus's answer shows that 'he
did not hold the common Pharisaic view. He believed that
those who were accounted worthy of a resurrection were raised
immediately after death ' {Prophet of Nazareth, p. 283).

28-34. The Greatest Commandment
{Cp. Matthew xxii. 34-40; Luke xx. 39, 40, x. 25-28)
28 Then one of the scribes who had heard them disputing together,
and had perceived that Jesus had answered them excellently, came
29 up and asked him, 'Which commandment is the first of all?' And
Jesus answered him, ' The first of all the commandments is. Hear,
30 0 Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is One : and thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
31 with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. And the second is
this. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other
32 commandment greater than these.' Aud the scribe said unto him,
'Excellently, Master, thou hast said the truth, that He is One, and
33 there is none other but He : and to love Him with all one's heart.

XII. 28-34] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 287
and with all one's understanding, and with all one's strength, and
to love one's neighbour as oneself, is much better than all burnt
34 offerings and sacrifices.' And when Jesus saw that he answered
intelligently, he said unto him, 'Thou art not far from the kingdom
of God.' Both B. Weiss and Loisy suppose that the story of the greatest
commandment is taken from Q, but from very different reasons.
Those which Weiss puts forward do not seem to me very probable.
Somewhat more likely are those of Loisy. He notices that in
Luke it is the Scribe and not Jesus who gives the answer, and
declares which commandments are the greatest. In Mark the
Scribe is made as it were to repeat the answer which Jesus has
already given him. 'Nothing more awkward {froid) than this
repetition.' May we not conjecture that Mark used a source where
the Scribe gave the answer, as he now does in Luke, and that this
answer was put into the mouth of Jesus in order to do him honour,
and to permit of its being classed among the victorious replies of his
ministry at Jerusalem ? (In the source there may have been no
place or date attached to the tale.) M. Loisy rather shyly ventures
to suggest that the combination of Deut. vi. 4 and Leviticus
xix. 18 was not beyond the power of a Rabbi. And after all it is
in the parable of the Samaritan and not in the quotation from the
Law that the true doctrine of Jesus about charity is contained !
Moreover, would Luke have ventured to ascribe so excellent a
reply to a Pharisee if the source had attributed it to Jesus ?
{E. 8. II. pp. 347-352.) J. Weiss's view is quite similar.
It is pleasant to come once more upon a passage of value for us
to-day, which we have not had since x. 44. One more question is
put to Jesus. He has triumphantly answered priest, Pharisees,
and Sadducees. Now an individual RabBi comes upon the scene.
His question, however, is not asked in any hostile spirit, nor with
insidious intent. Therefore it is frankly answered. This paragraph
shows us Jesus as the true successor of Amos and Isaiah; he
. speaks as they would have spoken. And here, too, Mark allows
us to see for once that there were good men even outside the
followers of Jesus and among the Pharisees. But such a con
cession is somewhat too arduous for Matthew. As W. says,
Matthew cannot abide ' dass Jesus sich mit dem Rabbi auf dem
Boden des edelsten Judentums zusammenfindet.'
29. The reply of Jesus is very significant. Like the good
Jew he is, he at once quotes the Shema as the first and highest
' commandment. The love of the One God is the supreme ordinance.
' Next to it he places Leviticus xix. 18. The bringing together of

288 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XU. 28-34
these two commandments is highly striking and suggestive. They
are to this day the main part, though not the complete whole, of
the Jewish religion.
W.'s note is excellent. 'Jesus answers with two sayings of
the Law, which the Rabbi also acknowledges to be its flower and
kernel. Only here does Jesus (using the words of the Old
Testament) speak of the love of God and of one's neighbour;
usually he does not give verbal utterance to them. Monotheism
is no theory; it is a practical conviction; it is the spring of inward
character and the motive of our conduct to our neighbour. It is,
in other words, the motive of morality; and morality, according
to the right supplement of the Scribe, belongs to the service of
God and is the right worship of Him ; it is of more value than all
sacred actions which are specially rendered to God and are of no
use to anyone else. The combination of the two sayings, which in
the Law occur in different places, is very important for the under
standing of the whole passage ; the combination was first effected
in this way by Jesus.' But see also Additional Note 24.
32. Has the Rabbi heard rumours that Jesus arrogates to
himself some vague sort of quasi divinity, and is he, therefore,
delighted with his frank confession of pure, unadulterated mono
theism? It looks almost as much, for the Rabbi proceeds to
emphasise the doctrine of the One God with renewed intensity.
The verse is spoken to the heart of every Jew. It contains the
essence of Liberal Judaism in a nutshell.
33. The conclusion of the verse recalls Hosea vi. 6 and the
many similar prophetic passages.
34. W. says : ' Thus one can be, already on earth, in the Kingdom,
or near it, or far from it. The conception is less markedly eschato
logical here than in x. 17-31. Nor does Jesus say to the Rabbi,
" Abandon everything, and follow me." The love of God and one's
neighbour is not the same as the renunciation of the world. The
decalogue may indeed be excelled (x. 21), but the monotheistic
faith, as represented in the combination of Deut. vi. 4, 5 with
Leviticus xix. 18, cannot be excelled, not even by discipleship and
martyrdom.' But the words ' Thou art not far from the Kingdom of God,'
which seem at first sight simple, contain several problems and
difficulties. First of all do they imply that the Kingdom is
present ? If so, this is already a difficulty in Mark, at least for
those who share the views of W., of J. Weiss, and of Wrede upon
this vexed question. There is also a difficulty in supposing that
these very words were spoken by Jesus himself For W. at least

XII. 28-34] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 289
holds that the Kingdom as present is later than Jesus. It is his
creation and he is its ' correlative ' {Einleitung, p.' 105). He founds
it as the Messiah. The Kingdom as present is practically the
Christian community, the Eccleda. It is composed of those who
believe in the Messiahship of its founder. 'From the Kingdom
as present Jesus, as the Messiah who is already present, is in
separable {ih. p. 1 06). Therefore he himself cannot have spoken of it.
Now the words, ' Thou art not far from the Kingdom,' would seem
almost necessarily to imply that the Kingdom is present. It can
hardly mean ' You tdll nearly enter the Kingdom, though not
quite.' They must rather mean, ' You are at present very near
Something which already exists.' Here, then, we must admit is
one of the very rare instances in which in Mark the Kingdom is
spoken of as something which already exists. But there is another
difficulty about the words. We may say that their meaning is
such that we should be glad to doubt the correctness of their
attribution to Jesus. For W. may, perhaps, be right in pointing
out {Einldtung, p. 104) that what is implied is that morality is
not enough to secure the entry into the Kingdom. 'He who
knows that the love of God and one's neighbour is the sum of
the Law is, however, only not far from the Kingdom of God, and
he who has kept all the commandments from his youth up, still
lacks the chief thing, and even John the Baptist lacks it. [The
reference is to Mark x. 21 and Matt, xi 11.] And this chief
thing is the acknowledgment of Jesus, the imitation of him, and
the adhesion to his body of disciples — an adhesion which is not
bound up with his life, but starts most effectively with his
death.' [Thus W^. modifies what he had said in his note upon
the verse (in the commentary), quoted above. His words there
would fit rather the ungrudging and unqualified reply of Jesus in
Luke : ' Thou hast answered right : this do and thou shalt live.']
If what W. says in his introduction be accurate, we have here,
half concealed under a pretty phrase, an intense particularism.
It heralds eodra ecclesiam nulla salus. No particularism can be
more undesirable than that which asserts that morality is not the
adequate condition for entry into the Kingdom of God, or into
' heaven.' The particularism based upon right belief (characteristic
of Christianity) seems to me more objectionable than the par
ticularism of descent (characteristic of Judaism). The old Jews
said frankly : The heathen in the lump are bad. This was narrow
enough, but at all events there was a certain naive and healthy
narrowness about it. It still preserves the supremacy of morality,
and renders it possible for a Rabbi to urge that the righteous of
every nation shall be ' saved.' But if morality is not the test for
heaven — can there be a worse particularism than this ? Be as
u. 19

290 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XII. 28-34
good as you please, and yet you shall not enter in unless you
believe that Jesus is the Messiah, or some other dogma quite
outside morality — this is surely a particularism more immoral and
more dangerous than any foolish pride of race. Let us hope that
Jesus was free from it.

35-37. Whose Son is the Messiah ?
{Cp. Matt, xxii 41-46 ; Luke xx. 41-44)
35 And no man ventured to ask him any more questions. And
Jesus went on teaching in the temple, and said : ' How can the
36 scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David ? For David
himself said in the Holy Spirit, The Lord said to my lord. Sit thou
37 on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David
himself calleth him lord; how is he then his son?' And the
mass of the people heard him gladly.
M. Loisy rightly says that the words 'no man ventured to
ask him any more questions ' come awkwardly here. They would
find a better place after xii. 27, or perhaps they stood originally at
the close of the section about the woman taken in adultery,
which may have stood in the narrative source of Mark in the
place where the ' greatest commandment ' stands now.
The meaning of this paragraph seems clear, but the more clear
the meaning, the stranger does it seem. Jesus certainly seems to
say : How can it be asserted that the Messiah is the son of David,
if David regards himself as inferior to the Messiah ? A father
would not call his son ' lord,' but David calls the Messiah ' lord.'
(Jesus shares the ordinary belief of his time as to the authorship
of the ' Davidic ' psalms.) Apparently this must imply that Jesus
claims to be the Messiah, though he be not the descendant of
David. (The genealogies in Matthew were made up later to prove
that he was.) Jesus seems not to wish to be regarded as the
'son of David.' This is extraordinarj'. For how could he be
the Messiah if he was not the Messiah of prophecy ? If the Old
Testament was wrong, and the prophets spoke falsely, why did
Jesus not say so ? Why did he not say, ' There will be no Davidic
Messiah, but I am something far higher than the mere Davidic
Messiah of the prophets ' ? The puzzle is that Jesus wants both
to refute and to fulfil the Old Testament and its prophecies. He
is the predicted Messiah ; and he is not the predicted Messiah.
One asks in vain: (i) Did he really take up this illogical position?

XII. 35-37] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 29 1
(2) Was he conscious of the illogicalness ? I hardly think that to
say that Jesus thought he was the servant-Messiah of Isaiah
xlii and liii but not the Messiah of Isaiah xi. is an adequate
answer. Dr Carpenter thinks that the explanation is that the
'Old Testament does not speak with one voice. The Gospel
writers were no more historical critics than Jesus himself If
they and he fastened on the servant passages (Messianically in
terpreted), the only way open to them was to ignore the Davidic
king passages.' But the difficulty of this seems to me to be that
Jesus does not here merely ignore. He goes out of his way to
attack. He combats the doctrine which the 'Davidic king
passages' emphatically teach.
Jesus, on the other hand, J. Weiss supposes, had a higher,
more apocalyptic conception of the Messiah. He was a heavenly
being who would descend from heaven upon the clouds. If he be
the Messiah, or rather if he is to become the Messiah, a miracle
from God must raise him upon his divine throne. He does not
want to be a son of David who through his legitimate descent
shall become an earthly king. Only a divine miracle can make
Jesus the true heavenly Messiah that is to be. Weiss apparently
means to imply that the Messiah, as a heavenly being, is not of
human descent. Schweitzer, who shares the views of Weiss as to
the character of the Messianic consciousness of Jesus, has a very
interesting view of the present section. He says : ' There is no
question of a denial of the Davidic descent of the Messiah. Jesus,
as in the entry, is playing with his secret. He asks, How can the
Messiah be under David, according to his descent, as his son, and
yet, in the Psalm, be called by David David's " lord " ? The real
answer is : through his transformation and Parousia, when natural
relationships will be annulled, and the scion of David, who is the
predestined "Son of man," will assume possession of his rule.
Hence, far from denying Davidic descent in this passage, Jesus
assumes it. And this makes one wonder whether he did not
really already in his lifetime look upon himself as a descendant
of David and whether he was not regarded as such. Paul, who
otherwise does not show any interest in the earthly phase of the
Lord's existence, yet nevertheless certainly assumes the descent
from David' {Von Reimarus zu Wrede, p. 392). Schweitzer is
fantastic, and I fear his argumentation is not very sound, but his
view on this section would undoubtedly avoid a real difficulty.
Failing a better explanation, we must suppose that the interest
of Jesus in the question which he raised was caused on the one
hand by the conviction that he was the Messiah, and on the
other by his knowledge that he was not descended from David.
The common belief that the Messiah must be a scion of David's
19 — 2

292 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIL 35-37
house stood seriously in the way of his own recognition as Messiah.
In any case the story seems to show the inadequacy of the idea
that he consciously wanted to be quite a different sort of Messiah
from the ordinary ' political ' Messiah expected by the populace
and the Rabbis. For if he was only a ' spiritual ' Messiah, the
question whether the customary belief in the Messiah's Davidic
descent was justified or not would have had no interest for him
one way or the other. But here we find him implying that he
was the predicted theocratic king, even though he was not of
Davidic descent. He pits David in the iioth Psalm against
Isaiah xi. Cp. Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, I. p. 378, and also W.,
who says : ' He regarded himself as the Messiah, though he was
not the son of David. He corrects the Jewish conception ac
cording to which the Messiah is to be a second David and to
re-establish his ruined kingdom.' Menzies thinks we can do
adequate justice to the words by supposing that their 'obvious'
point is that, 'on the authority of David himself, a higher and
more spiritual view of the Messiah must be substituted for the
current one. To his own lineal descent Jesus does not refer.'
Certainly, if Jesus wished to teach ' a higher and more spiritual
view of the Messiah,' he might, one would have thought, have
adopted fuller, clearer and more deflnite language. Might not
Cleopas have learned better than to say : ' we hoped that this was
he who should redeem Israel ' ? Loisy says : ' Jesus a conscience
d'etre plus grand que Solomon, plus grand que Jonas, plus grand
que David lui-meme, et cons6quemment son titre est superiour
k la filiation davidique....He did not consider himself as the
descendant of David, and anticipated and met the objection that
could be taken from this circumstance against his divine mission.
Stripped of all theological subtlety, his speech means that the
Messiah has no need to be son of David, and that his dignity
comes from a higher source ' {E. 8. n. pp. 361, 363).
In a striking posthumous essay of the late lamented Professor
Wrede ('Jesus als Davidssohn' in Vortrdge und Studien, 147-177),.
whose early death is so great a loss to New Testament research,
the distinguished author essays to show that the section is not
authentic. In any case the passage cannot be used to prove that
Jesus desired to show that his Messiahship was spfritual and
unpolitical. For the term ' son of David ' had no greater political
or national signification than the term ' Messiah ' itself Both re
ferred to a national king. Both are mere titles, and the one has
no more an exclusive political meaning than the other. The only
meaning the passage can have is in connection with the question
of descent. ' Whose son is the Messiah ? ' Jesus is supposed to
have started the subject in the course of his teaching. Wred&

XII. 35-37] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 293
notes: (i) It is never indicated that the fact that he was not of
Davidic descent was thrown in Jesus's teeth to show that he was
not the Messiah. (2) Where else does Jesus thus speak about the
Messiah or his own Messiahship to the people ? (3) Is this kind
of argument characteristic of Jesus ? Wrede says it gives him the
impression of ' Spitzfindigkeit und Buchstabelei' It is more like
the reasonings of the Rabbis. (This is perhaps a too subjective
argument.) (4) It is uncertain whether at this period Psalm ex.
was currently interpreted of the Messiah among the Jews. (5) If
Jesus attacked and denied the Davidic origin of the Messiah, why
did his teaching have no effect upon his disciples ? On the other
hand Wrede's own explanation of the passage is not without its
difficulties. He supposes that it is intended to press and prove
the divine Sonship. Jesus is not the son of a man. In the
Letter of Barnabas Psalm ex. is used to prove this thesis. But
the date of this letter is about 1 20 to 1 30 a.d. Wrede has to
assume that the virgin birth had very early advocates and grew
up at a very early date. Mark, though he does not elsewhere
allude to the theory, although he includes many stories which
seem to deny it, might yet have also included one story which
implies and defends it. Not even according to the flesh is Jesus
David's son. Except to prove the divine Sonship there could
have been no interest in disproving a descent from David. That
the historic Jesus — a son of a carpenter in Galilee — knew much
about his own ancestry is very unlikely. Dfrectly Jesus was
believed to be the Messiah, his Davidic descent would be assumed
as a matter of course. But when the divine Sonship idea grew
up, then it had to be questioned, and it had to be shown that the
Messiah could be proved from the O.T. itself not to be the son of
David. The positive side of Wrede's essay seems weaker than the
negative side. Dalman practically assumes that Jesus was conscious
of his special divine Sonship, and that this is what he is alluding
to here. He does not obtain his Messianic pretensions because he
is David's son, but because he is God's Son. (The virgin birth is
not exactly affirmed, nor is the Davidic descent exactly denied.)
Few critical readers will agree with Dalman. Nor will many, t
think, agree with the subtle explanation of B. Weiss. His descent
from David has nothing to do with his mission and destiny as
Messiah. Not because he is David's son does he obtain and fulfil
these, but because he is to obtain and fulfil these, therefore is he
David's son {Quellen, A, p. 57). It remains the case that the
obvious explanation is the one taken by W. and others. Jesus at
any rate depreciates the Davidic descent and seems even to deny
that the Messiah could be David's ' son.' To say that he only
intends to put a puzzle : how is the Messiah both David's son and

294 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XII. 35-37
his lord, how can a ' son ' also be a ' lord,' seems hardly to do full
justice to the passage. But if it does mean this, and is authentic
too, it is certainly a powerful passage for those who believe that
Jesus had the conviction that he was, or would soon be, in some
way or other more than the ordinary man. He was, or would soon
be, the heavenly Man, the Man from the clouds, whose earthly
genealogy, in his life before his glory, was of no importance in
comparison with his heavenly nature.
35. None venture to question him. So Jesus in his turn puts
a question. 36. The reference is to Psalm ex. I.
37. TToOev seems here to mean merely ' how.' How can the
Messiah be the son of the very man who calls him ' lord ' ? Fathers
do not call their sons ' lord.'
Loisy thinks that the whole passage ' probably comes from a
good source,' but the connection is only artificial. It is a debris of
tradition, ' garde hors de son cadre et de son contexte primitifs.'
So too 37 b — the pleasure with which the people listened to Jesus
— is a debris of the same kind, without relation either to what
precedes or to what follows {E. 8. i. p. 98).

38-40. Attack upon the Scribes
{Cp. Matt, xxiii. I, 6, 7; Luke xi. 43, xx. 46, 47)
38 And he said unto them in his teaching, 'Beware of the scribes,
who love to walk in long robes, and to be saluted in the market-
39 places, and to have the first seats in the synagogues and at feasts:
40 who devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers :
these shall receive all the heavier punishment.'
38. Twv deXovTcov, ' who like.' They are accused of liking to
walk in long robes, and to be respectfully greeted in the market
place, and to have the best seats at synagogues and banquets.
The next verse deals with moral offences. They are hypocrites in
prayer, and rob the widow. How the last charge was carried out
in practice is not stated. It is perhaps implied that they acqufred
an authority over women, and let themselves be richly paid for
their advice. Some think that they obtained money by offering
to pray for them. This charge is not in Matthew. It is peculiar to
Mark. These charges, if applied to a whole class, refute them
selves by their violence. There were good and bad Rabbis then.

XII. 41-44] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 295
as there have always been good and bad priests and good and bad
clergymen. For the Talmudic evidence about the morals of the
Pharisees and Scribes of this period, see Additional Note 25. We
may assume that it was the bad Pharisees and Rabbis (Mark, it
is to be noted, does not here mention the Pharisees) who were
attacked by Jesus. The Talmud speaks of hypocritical Pharisees,
who loved to show off a pretended piety. The Assumption of
Moses it is believed by some scholars alludes to Pharisees who
are pretenders and hypocrites and eat the property of the poor.
Josephus usually praises the Pharisees and dilates upon their good
qualities. In one place, however {Ant book xvii. 2), he speaks
of them as a party {fiopiov) yepaipeiv to deiov Trpoa-iroiov/jievov
(making men believe that they are favoured by God), and he says
that the women were influenced by them {oh vTrrJKro r] yvvaiKoo-
vItks). There was doubtless some material for attack.
From another point of view these verses raise great problems.
Are they all which Mark knew of any attack upon the Scribes in
Jerusalem ? Wellhausen would, I suppose, say yes. Loisy, on the
other hand, thinks quite differently. He thinks that the long
oration (mainly from Q) in Matt, xxiii. against the Pharisees was
known to Mark, just as the Sermon on the Mount was known to
him. 'Le redacteur abrege le discours que contenait la source
commune de Matthieu et de Luc; mais on dirait que ce resume
a ete fait de memoire, sans souci d'exactitude, par un homme qui
avait egalement dans 1' esprit le discours centre ostentation dans
I'accomplissement des oeuvres de pi6te ' {E. 8. 11. p. 364). B. Weiss
of course takes the same line. He argues cleverly that the awkward
grammar of 38 and 39 {OeXovrcov first joined with the infinitive and
then with the accusative) is merely due to a reminiscence of what
we now read in Matt, xxiii. 6, 7 {Quellen, A, p. 148).
41-44. The Widow's Mite
{Cp. Luke xxi 1-4)
41 And Jesus sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the
people throwing money into the treasury: and many that were
42 rich cast in much. And a poor widow came and threw in two
43 farthings, which make a halfpenny. And he called unto him his
disciples, and said unto them, ' Verily I say unto you, this poor
widow has thrown in more than all who have thrown into the
44 treasury: for all they threw in from their superfluity; but she
from her poverty has thrown in all that she possessed, even all
her living.'

296 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XII. 41-44
41. For the 'treasury' and its arrangements see Encyclopcedia
Biblica, s.v. 'Temple,' par. 36, and Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible,
s.t;.' Treasury.' x'^Xkov does not mean here probably ' copper money,'
' small change ' literally, but rather ' money ' generally. For rich
people were there also, giving much.
42. She puts in two separate ' mites,' though she could have
kept one for herself XeTrrd Bvo, ' two lepta.' The ' lepton ' was
half a 'kodrantes' {i.e. the Latin quadrans). Thus it was the
eighth part of an as, and the one hundred and twenty-eighth part
of a denarius. (The value of a denarius was about ninepence.) A
lepton was the smallest copper coin in circulation, and less than a
third of a farthing. In contrast to the bad Scribes, who 'eat'
widows' property, we have now the tale of the good widow and
her sacrifice.
44. ' All her living ' or possessions {'oXov tov ^iov) must be
understood to mean all that she possessed at the moment The
S.S. omits the words; they may be a gloss (Klostermann). The
moral of the story is quite Rabbinic. There is no new touch
in what Jesus says here, though W. observes that the little tale
goes more to one's heart than all the miracles, of which the first
part of Mark is full.
W. notices that, except for the fig tree, Jesus performs no
miracles in Jerusalem, and works no healings or exorcisms. More
over, the difference between chapters xi. and xii and the previous
section viii. 27-x. 45 is very noticeable. 'The mournful mood
which Jesus showed on the way to Jerusalem ceases in Jerusalem
itself; it gives place to a mood of confidence and energy. Jesus
seems buoyed up by the enthusiasm of the multitude. The near
and certain death does not fill his heart or his words; there is only
one prediction of death, and that is in the interpolated parable of
the vineyard. The purification of the Temple brings about a
conflict with the chief priests, but Jesus avoids accentuating it;
he bears himself with caution and cleverness against his opponents,
and , yet without concessions or compromise. W^e hear np words
about the inevitableness of the cross, not only for him, but also for
his disciples, about their having to follow him to death, or about the
complete renunciation of the world in view of the near approach
of the Kingdom; the sections xii. 28-34 ^^'^ ^- 17-31. though
outwardly alike, are inwardly totally dissimilar. These deep-going
differences are hardly to be explained by the fact that in xi. and
xii. Jesus is no longer speaking, as in viii 27-x. 45, privately to
the disciples, but openly before the people at large. And why in
Jerusalem does he no longer speak to his disciples, except in the
certainly spurious apocalypse xiii, and on the last day ? He had

XIII. 1-37] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 297
opportunity enough during the evenings at Bethany to talk to
them about himself and the meaning of his imminent sufferings
and death, and yet not a word is reported about it.'
The legitimate deduction from these observations which W.,
I presume, would have us draw is that the picture of Jesus in
Jerusalem, as given in xi. and xii, is more authentic and moie
historic than the deviating picture of him as given in viii
27-x. 45.

CHAPTER XIII
1-37. The End and the 'Parousia'
{Cp. Matt xxiv. 1-36; Luke xxi 5-33)
I And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples said
unto him, 'Master, see, what grand stones and what grand
2 buildings 1' And Jesus, answering, said unto him, ' Seest thou
these great buildings ? There shall not be left one stone upon
another, which shall not be thrown down.'
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the
temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him
4 privately, ' Tell us, when shall these things be ? and what is the
sign when all these things are to be fulfilled ?'
5 And Jesus, answering them, began to say, ' Take heed lest any
6 man lead you astray : for many will come in my name, saying. It
7 is I, and they shall lead many astray. And when ye hear of wars
and rumours of wars, be ye not alarmed ; for these things must
8 happen ; but the End is not yet. For nation will rise against
nation, and kingdom against kingdom : and there will be earth
quakes in divers places, and there will be famines : these are the
beginnings of the Pangs.
9 ' But ye — take heed to yourselves : for they will deliver you
up to law courts ; and in synagogues ye will be beaten : and ye
will be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, to bear
10 witness before them. For the gospel must first be proclaimed
II unto all nations. But when they take you away, and deliver you
up, have no care beforehand what ye shall speak, but whatsoever
shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye : for it is not ye
12 that speak, but the Holy Spirit. And brother will deliver up

298 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIII. 1-37
brother to death, and the father his son ; and children will rise up
13 against their parents, and will put them to death. And ye will
be hated of all men for my name's sake : but he that endureth
unto the end, he shall be saved.
14 'But when ye shall see the Abomination of Desolation, stand
ing where it ought not (let him that readeth give heed), then let
15 them that be in Judsea flee to the mountains : and let him that
is on the roof not go down into the house, neither enter therein,
16 to take anything out of his house: and let him that is in the
17 field not go back to fetch his cloak. But woe to them that are
18 with child, and to them that give suck in those days ! And pray
19 ye that it may not be in the winter. For in those days there
will be affliction, such as hath not been from the beginning of the
20 world which God created until now, and will not be again. And
if the Lord had not shortened those days, no flesh would be
saved : but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen out, he hath
21 shortened the days. And then if any man shall say to you, Lo,
22 here is the Messiah ; or, lo, he is there ; believe him not. For
false Messiahs and false prophets will arise, and will perform
signs and wonders, to cause the elect, if it be possible, to go
23 astray. But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold everything
unto you.
24 'But in those days, after that affliction, the sun will be
25 darkened, and the moon will not give her light, and the stars
will fall from heaven, and the heavenly powers will be shaken.
26 And then will be seen the Son of man coming on the clouds with
27 great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels, and
will gather together his elect from the four winds, from the utter
most part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
2S ' From the fig tree learn a parable : when its branch becometh
29 soft, and it putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near ; so,
too, ye, when ye see these things happening, know that he is nigh,
even at the door.
30 'Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass
31 away, till all these things shall have taken place. Heaven and
32 earth shall pass away : but my words shall not pass away. But as
to that day and as to the hour, no man knoweth, not even the
angels who are in heaven, and not even the Son, but only the Father.

XIIL 1-37] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 299
3, 34 ' Take ye heed, watch : for ye know not when the time is. For
it is as if a man went abroad, and left his house, and gave authority
to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the
35 porter to watch. Watch ye therefore : for ye know not when the
master of the house cometh, whether at even, or at midnight, or
36 at the cockcrowing, or in the early morning : lest coming suddenly,
37 he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you, I say unto all:
Watch.' This apocalyptic oration is, as a whole, certainly unauthentic.
Much of it is built up upon the familiar lines of Jewish apocalypses
from Daniel (164 B.C.) onwards. It has very slight interest for us
to-day, and little or no religious value. Judaism freed itself of
apocalyptic drearaings sooner than Christianity, but both religions
have long advanced beyond them now.
How much of the oration from 5 to 37 goes back to Jesus is
very doubtful. Verse 32 seems most likely to be authentic. As
regards the rest, the portions which are of Jewish origin, or of
Christian origin, or, lastly, which proceeded from the mouth of
Jesus, can never be distinguished with certainty. The oldest
parts, representing the original Jewish apocalypse, may be 7, 8,
14-20 and 24-31. Christian editors, including the Evangelist,
will account for what remains. It is even questionable whether
! any part was said by Jesus of what we now possess. J. Weiss
indeed argues that there is no reason why Jesus should not have
conceived of the future upon the ordinary lines of the prevailing
Jewish apocalyptic teaching. Because people to-day dislike the
fantastic doctrines and conceptions of the apocalyptic writers, that
is no reason why Jesus should not have shared them. 'Wie er
sich mit seiner Messiasvorstellung an die Weissagung des Daniel
angeschlossen hat, so werden auch in anderen Zukunftsdingen
die Lehren der Apocalyptik fur ihn massgebend gewesen sein.'
As the chapter is of little or no religious value to us to-day, it
is not necessary for me to discuss the question of origin and source
at any length. Suffice it to say that, with the exception of the
words in verse 2, W. rejects the whole. At the other extreme
stands B. Weiss, who will have nothing to do with any ' Jewish
apocalypse' theory. For Weiss practically the whole of the
apocalypse in Mark from 5 to 32 comes from Q {i.e. 6, 8-21,
24-31). If it was all in Q, then, I presume, Weiss would say it is
all authentic. In between these two extremes stands Loisy who
accepts the theory of a Jewish apocalypse for 6-8, 14, 17-20, 24-3 1,
and thinks that Mark has expanded these passages by bits taken
from Q, and relating to the conduct which the disciples will have

300 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIIL 1-37
to follow during the age of persecutions, to the coming of the
Kingdom and to the right preparation for that coming. The end
of the speech (33-37) is a sort of abridgment of parables in which
Jesus recommended his hearers to keep themselves ready for the
sudden and unexpected manifestation of the Kingdom {E. 8. i. p. 99).
The verses which Loisy thinks are from Q will be pointed out in
their proper place. It may, however, be added here that the
occurrence of a passage in Q is not by any means an absolute proof
of its authenticity.
I, 2. Probably Menzies and other commentators are right in
supposing that a very marked difference must be made between i, 2,
and the rest of the chapter. They strongly press the authenticity
of 2. On the other hand for the date of Mark as a whole, Wemfe
may be right in arguing that if the Temple had stood when he
wrote, its utter destruction would hardly have been put in the fore
front of the discourse on the future. Yet the Temple was burnt,
not destroyed in the way indicated in 2. And its destruction is
not alluded to in the rest of the chapter. In Revelation xi i, 2
it is assumed that the actual Temple will be spared. It is, more
over, not unlikely that Jesus, like a new Jeremiah, should have
predicted the destruction of the Temple. This may account for
the hostility felt towards him, perhaps even for the revulsion of
popular feeling. It is in accordance with his prophetic character that
Jesus should predict the destruction of the Temple. It is also in
accordance with the spiritual character of his religion. It is also a
mark of his originality, and of his elevation above the religious
level of his age. For though it is exaggerated to say that the
Jews believed that God lived in the Temple and not elsewhere; or
that the presence of God among his people was conditioned by the
existence of the Temple, the old ideas did still hang about men's
minds, and the continuance of the religion apart from the Temple,
and all the better for its loss, was hard to conceive.
The question is put, and the answer is made, privately ; it is
not said that the pronouncement in 2 was said publicly, but
some prediction of the kind must have got abroad {cp. xiv. 58).
Loisy thinks that the wording of 2 cannot perhaps be pressed as a
mark of authenticity. It may be merely a conventional way of
expressing the complete ruin of the building. He is inclined to
hold that the present wording of the prophecy of 2 has been
substituted for the words : ' I will destroy this temple and rebuild
it in three days.' Jesus would not have referred in that case to
the destruction of the Temple by human enemies, but to his own
action after his Glory. The material Temple would be ended, and a
' spiritual' Temple put in its place {E.S.ii. p. 396). This hypothesis.

XIII. 1-37] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 30 1
tentatively and hesitatingly put forward, does not seem to me
very likely. But Loisy seems on safer ground when he points out
how natural it was that the anxious desire to know when the End —
the advent of the Messiah in glory — would come, should manifest
itself as the years went by, after the crucifixion, and nothing
happened. On the other hand, the most authentic of the utterances
of Jesus seem to show that while he always regarded the End as
imminent he did not, for that very reason, announce any particular
signs of it. On the contrary, he denied that there would be such
signs over and above his own preaching and teaching and miracles.
Thus M. Loisy says :
' The question raised in the three Synoptics is not in harmony
with the situation a few days before the death of the Saviour, but
with that of Christian believers who, some forty or fifty years
after the Passion, made great efforts to reconcile what Jesus
had really said concerning the approaching End with the post
ponement of that End. The explanation, easily found, was that
certain things had to happen first ; these things were the signs of
the End which was to come immediately after them ; the apocalyptic
tradition described them, and it was not very difficult to link its
indications to certain very authentic details of Jesus's teaching,
such as the words about the destruction of the Temple, which
were fulfilled by Titus, though in a sense very different from that
in which Jesus had intended them. In this way the apocalyptic
anticipations, which seem to have had no place in the preaching
of the Saviour, have been introduced into the literary tradition of
the Gospel ' {E. 8. 11. p. 400).
And Loisy uses Luke xvii. 20 and xii. 54 as strong proofs of
his argument :
'Apart therefore from the great apocalyptic discourse, the
attitude of the Christ in regard to this question of signs was in
variable and his teaching very consistent. The truth of his words
was to be proved by the event, and it was these words which were
the sign of that approaching event, of the Judgment of God which
was about to come. No other signs were needed; the sign was being
given, he was present. It is hardly necessary to remark that this view
is incompatible with that which is at the root of the apocalyptic
discourse, where we find the description of a series of events, that
is to say of signs, which were to be the indications of the Parousia.
In this fact lies one of the strongest arguments, if not the strongest,
which can be alleged against the authenticity of the Synoptic apoca
lypse. Unless we admit two contradictory currents in the thought
and teaching of Jesus, we are compelled to choose between the
declarations which exhibit the Kingdom as imminent without any
other sign than the Gospel itself and those which exhibit it as

302 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIIL 1-37
delayed till after a series of events which were to be accomplished
before it was realized. The choice of the historian cannot be
doubtful ; the declarations of the first series are in keeping with
the teaching of Jesus ; those of the second series are an apologetic
explanation of the delay, which, notwithstanding the declarations
of the Saviour himself, the Parousia experienced' {E. 8. n.
p. 405). 4. What is Tavra ('this' or 'these things')? In this connection
it would seem to mean the destruction of the Temple as a sign of
the beginning of the End. But really what the disciples ask is
something different. They want to know what is to be the sign
of the body of events which are to prelude and mark the coming
of the End. ravra looks forward, not back. The question is really
twofold : When will the End be ? By what sign will one recognize
its imminence ? What is to be the indication that the End of
the existing order of things is at hand ? When will the Son of
man come ? Loisy notes that the apocalyptic oration is said
privately to the four disciples only — a mark of its secondary
character {cp. iv. 10, vii. 17, &c.). It is not a real speech, but 'a
description made to be read.'
5-37. The apocalyptic oration now begins. The old original
apocalypse has three parts or divisions — ' tableaux ' as M. Loisy
calls them. In the first are described certain preliminaries of
the great event (S-8); in the second we have the desolation of
Judsea (14-20); the third tells of the commotion of the heavenly
bodies and the appearance of the Son of man (24-31). Matter
which does not belong to the original apocalypse opens the
speech, and is added after each section. Thus to the first section
are added the verses 9-13, to the second 21-23, to the third 32-37.
The additions are mainly warnings and instructions how to
behave in view of or during the great event; they teach how
one may traverse, without injury to one's eternal salvation, the
troublous days which are to precede the End of the present order
and the coming of the Kingdom.
5. The opening words contained in this verse may be the
composition of the Evangelist. Note /SXeireTe four times repeated
(S. 9. 23, 33). There is a practical object in what is to follow.
Mark not only wants to explain the delay in the coming of
the Messiah in glory, but perhaps also to urge that even the
troubles of the period in which he lived (near 70 A.D.) were
not the signs of the End. They were at most premonitions.
6. This verse is obscure. It is doubtful whether it comes

XIII. 1-37] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 303
from the old apocalypse, or whether it is an addition. As it
stands it can only allude to persons who not only pretended to be
the Messiah, but Jesus the Messiah. They are people who come
using the name of Jesus and who say that they are Jesus. Of
such false claimants we know nothing. If the verse belongs to
the old apocalypse, Loisy thinks we might assume that God was
the speaker. The deceivers come and speak in the name of God.
They say, 'I am he,' that is not necessarily the Messiah, but
God's messenger, an inspired prophet or the like. We know of
nobody before Bar Cochba, who claimed to be the Messiah, but the
mere claim of being divinely sent or inspired might be ascribed to
Judas the Galilsean, to Theudas, to the promoters of the great
revolt or even, if the apocalypse is of Jewish origin, to the
initiators of the Christian movement {E. 8. IL p. 402). But even
this explanation is awkward.
7. What are these wars ? As the verse comes from the old
apocalypse (of which the date may be somewhere between 60 and
70), the wars need not necessarily refer exclusively to the war
between the Jews and Rome. Yet the beginning of the troubles
between Judsea and Rome are probably referred to. The wars
are the preliminaries of the End.
8. dpxn coBivcov Tavra, ' these are the beginnings of the
Pangs.' 'The allusion is to the Rabbinic doctrine of the pains
(the travail or labour pains of the Messiah). W. translates mBivcov
as if it were an epexegetical genitive : ' these things are (only) the
beginning — the pains.'
9-13. Mark's addition to the first section of the apocalypse.
Cp. the parallels in Matt. x. 17-22, xxiv. 9-14; Luke xii 11, 12,
xxi 12-19. Have we to suppose with Bousset, B. Weiss, Loisy
and others that the substance of the passage was already in Q —
in the speech to the apostles when they were sent out on their
preaching mission in Galilee ? In that case surely there were
passages in Q which were later than Jesus and never proceeded
from his mouth.
9. The Christians will be persecuted and ill-used by both
Jews and heathens. " To bear witness before them.' They witness
to the truth of the gospel by their endurance under persecution
and pain. The 'witness' becomes the ' martyr.' Matt. x. 18 has, ' To
bear witness to them (the Jews) and to the heathen (lit. nations).'
10. This verse is not found in Matt. x. Loisy regards it as a
paraphrase or enlargement of the omitted words in the preceding

304 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIII. 1-37
verse ' and to the heathen.' The passage is, nevertheless, an in
terruption, for II is the proper sequel to 9. Though a similar
phrase is put into the mouth of Jesus in xiv. 9, the verse is
probably due to the influence of Paul {E. 8. 11. p. 413).
12. A customary trait in the description of the pangs of the
Messiah in Jewish apocalypses. For its O.T. basis see Micah vii 6.
W. does not quite agree with Loisy as to the Jewish sections of
the chapter: he ascribes to this source verses 7, 8, 12, 14-22,
24-27. 14-20. The second section of the apocalypse.
14. 'The Abomination of Desolation.' The reference is to
Daniel ix. 27, xi 31, xii. 1 1. The phrase of Daniel is supposed to
signify the altar of Zeus set up by Antiochus Epiphanes upon
the altar in the Temple of Jerusalem. Probably the rendering
' Desolation ' is wrong. It should be the ' Abomination of Horror,'
i.e. a horrible abomination. Perhaps the writer of this apocalypse
in Mark did not know more than that it was to be a profanation
of the Temple. Or, 'the outrage on Jewish feeling which he
anticipates is the setting up of the worship of a living man....
The Emperor's image [may be placed] where it ought not —
namely, in the Holy of Holies' (Menzies, who thinks that the
apocalypse was put in circulation a few months before the capture
of Jerusalem). Note that it is not anywhere clearly implied that
the Temple will be destroyed. Hence the date is presumably
prior to 70. It may be that an attack by powers of darkness
upon the Temple is meant. There is no allusion to the war with
Titus. ' Let him that readeth give heed ' ; either an indication that the
apocalypse was written, not said, or an interpolation from Matthew,
for there the book of Daniel is directly quoted. In the second
alternative the meaning is, ' let the reader of Daniel mark.' The
first alternative is more probable.
The inhabitants of Judsea are not to take refuge in the capital,
for things there will be even worse. These horrors are the true
beginning of the true End.
15. The staircase, W. says, was (at least in the village houses)
outside, and led on to the street.
20. ' No flesh ' ; the horizon of the writer is for the moment
limited to Palestine. M. Loisy, on the contrary, thinks all mankind
and not the Jews only are referred to. For the sake of the elect,
the interval between the beginning of the End and the End itself
is made short.

XIIL 1-37] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 305
Almost all the apocalyptic writers are hard: they delight in
horrors ; many will perish ; few will survive ; many are ' lost ' ;
few are ' saved ' ; these are their cruel and favourite common
places. Dr Carpenter thinks that the sudden lapse from prophecy
to retrospect makes it probable that this verse was a note added
later. 21, 22. These verses may also be of Jewish origin. Loisy
thinks that they are not part of the main apocalypse. He
regards the psissage as taken from another oration upon the
same subject. Of false Messiahs, we know of none among the
Jews till Bar Cochba in 131. Are these deceivers supposed to be
Jewish impostors, whose miracles might seduce even the disciples
of Jesus ? {cp. verse 6). For false prophets, cp. Acts v. 36, viii
9-1 1, xxi 38; Revelation xiii 11-17. 'False Messiahs' is not
found in the MS. D.
24-31. The thfrd section and act of the apocalypse.
24. The days and the tribulation refer to what was said in
verse 20. The End, the ddnouement, is at hand.
26. The 'Son of man.' The 'Abomination' is the sign of the
beginning of the End; the 'Son of man' is the sign of its con
summation {cp. Daniel vii. 1 3).
Holtzmann says : ' When the apocalyptic Son of man (from
Daniel) took the place of the old prophetic son of David, the
earthly form of the Messiah seemed merely the necessary pre
liminary to his heavenly form, upon which the main emphasis
now fell.'
Originally, says W., the Son of man was not identified and
identical with the Christian Messiah in this apocalypse. But the
Christian redactor made this identification. 'To him Son of man
equals Messiah, and Messiah equals Jesus. Here, then, we mark the
transition to the Christianising of the term 'Son of man,' and to
its being stamped afresh as a sort of proper name for Jesus — at
first for the Jesus of the Parousia. This is in accordance with
W.'s theory that Jesus himself did not call himself the Son of
man. If, on the other hand, Jesus believed that he was, or
would, as it were, turn into, the heavenly Son of man predicted
by Daniel and the apocalyptic dreamers, then he could have
adopted such a verse as this, and meant it of himself
27. The 'elect' Jews are gathered in from the dispersion.
But to the editor, to Mark, the ' elect ' are the Christians. The
apocalypse is here, at all events, pleasantly silent over the final
destruction of enemies and the wicked. 'From the uttermost part
M. 20

306 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIII. 1-37
of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven ' is a queer mixture,
made up of such passages as Deut. xxx. 4 and xiii. 7.
28-31. Loisy regards these verses as part of the original
apocalypse. He thinks that, 'the absolute assertion concerning
the words which will not pass away is in the ordinary tone of the
apocalypses much more than in that of the Gospel. Jesus did not
thus speak of his teaching, and it may be supposed that the
seer, the original author of the apocalyptic discourse, was making
God Himself, and not the Christ speak ' {E. S. II. p. 436). W., on
the other hand, thinks that 28-31, as well as 32-37 'are later
than the apocalypse. They are purely Christian, and date, as it
would seem, from the period after the destruction of Jerusalem.'
28, 29. The parable of the fig tree. It does not, at first, seem
much of a parable. As the foliage of the fig tree means the
approach of the summer, so the ' signs ' of chapter xiii. mean the
coming of the End. ' In 24-27 the End itself had been described.
But time had shown that the destruction of Jerusalem was not
the End, after all. So it was made merely a preliminary sign of
the End. These postponements and changes are characteristic of
apocalypse' (W.).
The parable of the fig tree may have more meaning if the
conjectures of Schwartz be adopted. He supposes that we may
have here the traces of a popular superstition that the reflowering
of a certain dead fig tree in or near Jerusalem would be the signal
of the coming of Messiah. Hence the choice of the fig tree for a
remark for which any tree, or all trees, would do as well. The
mention of summer instead of spring may also mean that the
Messianic harvest is nigh. (The story of the barren fig tree may
also find its explanation from this supposed superstition.)
J. Weiss admits that there is a certain contradiction between
29, which says that one can foretell the coming from certain
signs, and Luke xvii. 20, where it says that the Kingdom will
not come by ' observation.' And again there is a contradiction
between 30 and 32: for in 30 it says that the coming shall be
before this generation is all dead, and in 32 it says that not even
the Son knows the hour. Both points of view were current
in the oldest Church, and, perhaps even, both were combined
or side by side in the mind of Jesus. Signs were important, and
yet not too important. Too much stress must not be laid upon
them. In the last resort the precise hour was unknown and un
knowable. Though the coming may be expected before all ' this
generation' die, yet the exact hour is not foretellable. iyyv'i
etTTiv. Who or what is near ? Probably the appearance of the
Messiah, the Son of man.

XIIL 1-37] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 307
30. Though the coming of Christ is delayed, it will happen
before the ' generation ' of the writer has perished — i.e. before all
human beings then living have died — within, at the most, 100
years. A perilous prediction !
31. 'Jamais le Christ de I'histoire n'aurait dit: le ciel et la
terre passeront, mes paroles ne passeront point' {E. 8. i. p. 99).
The 'words' are either the words of the apocalypse, or, as W.
thinks, the words of Jesus as a whole. But this seems less likely.
32. It is probable that this verse did not originally belong to the
apocalyptic discourse which ends appropriately with 31. Histori
cally, on the other hand, it is reasonable enough that Jesus should
have foretold that the Kingdom was very near, that it would come
suddenly, but that only the Father knew the exact hour. For
here all signs and reckonings are abandoned. Nobody knows,
except God. Here only, in Mark, are 'Son' and 'Father' used in
this specifically Christian sense {cp. Matt, xi 27). This is a
verse of great importance. It is possible that it is a genuine
fragment, at least in part, of the teaching of Jesus himself Jesus
always proclaimed that the End was near, but it is reasonable
enough that he should have said that the exact moment — the day
or hour of its coming — was only known to God. There was all the
more reason to be and keep ready, for the Kingdom would come
suddenly and unexpectedly. It is possible, as Loisy thinks, that
the words ovBe ol dyyeXoi iv oi/pavS, ovBe 6 vlot; (' not even the
angels in heaven, not even the Son') are a gloss. Then Jesus
would have said: 'The day and hour none knows except the
Father.' ' In the form given to it by Mark, the declaration seems
to indicate an apologetic intention, as if it were desired to justify
Christ for not having stated the time of a coming which was seen
to be delayed, by alleging that, according to Jesus himself, it was
a point about which the angels were in ignorance, and about
which the Messiah might very well be ignorant also. In the
circumstances of the preaching of the gospel the simple assertion
of the Father's secret would have been sufficient, and the absolute
use of the word Son to designate the Saviour belongs neither to
the language of Jesus nor to that of the primitive gospel tradition.
If it has not been added by the Evangelist, then the whole verse
falls under suspicion. In any case, Mark has done nothing but
emphasise an idea expressed by Jesus himself {E. 8. IL p. 438).
33"-37- ^or the origin of the passage see the note at the
beginning of the chapter. These five verses draw the moral of
32. Jesus will come again, though none can say when. Hence
let every Christian be prepared : neither impatient nor negligent.

3o8 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIIL 1-37
but ready. Let each do his duty faithfully, so that none be
caught napping. The discourse began privately, but the end is
obviously addressed to the whole Christian community.
Is the ' doorkeeper ' to be pressed in the application of the
parable ? Is he Peter, or the apostles ?
For 'the cockcrowing' (3 A.M.), cp. xiv. 30. The night is
divided into four parts beginning at 9 p.m., midnight, 3 a.m., and
the dawn. This is the Roman method of division and may be
due to the Evangelist.

CHAPTER XIV
I, 2. The Decision of the Priests and Scribes
{Cp. Matt. xxvi. 1-5 ; Luke xxii. i, 2)
I Now it was two days before the feast of the passover and of
the unleavened bread : and the chief priests and the scribes sought
2 how they might capture him by craft, and put him to death. For
they said, ' Not on the festival, lest there be an uproar among the
people.' The story of the Passion is not only told with consummate
distinction and beauty, but gives the impression of a well ordered
and connected narrative. Up to this point the life of Jesus from
the beginning of his Galilsean ministry has only been told in the
roughest outline. As we have seen, many of the stories are
grouped together from a non-chronological point of view ; others
seem to possess no true and clear indication of place and time.
But for the last few days of the life of Jesus all seems changed ;
the connection seems clear and good, one event succeeds in time
to another and there are no gaps unfilled. We seem to follow
Jesus almost hour by hour from the repast at the house of Simon
to the morning of the resurrection. Yet Loisy is probably right
in pointing out that this good connection has been artificially
obtained, and that here as elsewhere we have, even in Mark,
to deal wi|Jih what he calls ' entrecroisement et superposition' of
traditions. Many difficulties crop up when we question the narra
tive more closely.
I. Tjv Be TO irda-xa Kal rd d^v/jia fierd Svo r)fiepa<;. What
does this refer to ? What is the event which preceded by ' two
days ' the festival of the Passover. In the book as we have it
now, the reference must be to the story of the anointment. This

XIV. 1, 2] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 309
happened two days before the Passover. But, as we shall see,
this story is probably intercalated. The primitive object of the
date seems to refer to something more important The machina
tions of the priests and the Scribes can also not be intended.
For these did not begin at a special fixed time. As the imperfect
tenses show, they were going on for some while : ' they were seeking
how to kill him.' Some have thought that the reference is to
verse 10. It was two days before the Passover that Judas went
to the chief priests. But this too has been shown by Loisy to be
unlikely. His own hypothesis is that the story of the anointment
has taken the original place of the Last Supper. It is this which
took place two nights before the Passover {E. 8. IL p. 491).
But the very meaning of the verse is uncertain and variously
explained. The natural meaning would appear to be that the
beginning of the Passover was to take place two days after the
day at which the story has now arrived. Thus, if the first night
of Passover — the opening of the feast — fell on Thursday evening,
the day where we now are is Tuesday ; if the first night fell on
Friday evening, the day where we now are is Wednesday. But
the phrase is in any case an odd one. The 'Passover,' the sacrifice
of the Paschal Lamb, is stated in Lev. xxiii. 5 and 6 to fall on the
fourteenth day of the month; the feast of unleavened bread on
the fifteenth. The Passover, that is, was sacrificed towards sun
set, the feast of unleavened bread began with sunset, of the same
day, i.e., the beginning of the fifteenth. See more on this subject
below. That Jesus was crucified on a Friday seems pretty certain.
Mark xv. 42 mentions this date almost casually. It is not likely
that it was invented. A great question in dispute is whether
this Friday was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread or
whether that first day was Saturday. The former date is the
implication of the Synoptics; the latter the view of the fourth
Gospel. Under ordinary circumstances when Synoptics and fourth
Gospel disagree, there is little hesitation as to which is the more
historic. But in this particular case there is reason to hold that,
somehow or other, the fourth Gospel has recorded accurately, the
Synoptics falsely. It is true that the more probably accurate
date fits in with the theology of the fourth Gospel. For Jesus is
crucified on the same day as the Paschal Lamb is killed. He is
in his own person the Paschal Lamb — sacrificed once and for all,
and making the observance of the old Jewish imperfect Passover
superfluous and unnecessary. Hence we might suppose that the
date was arranged to suit the theory. But it would rather seem
as if the right date was maintained because it corresponded and
fitted in with the theoiy.

3IO THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. i, 2
Mark, or at any rate one of the two traditions which he
followed, wanted to turn the ' Last Supper ' which Jesus ate with
his disciples into a last Passover meal. Hence the probably
accurate date, according to which the Friday on which Jesus was
crucified was the morning of the day towards the sunset of which
the Passover was offered, was changed into the probably inaccurate
date according to which Friday (and not Saturday) was the first
day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Mark seems to know this double tradition, for xiv. i, 2 would
at least imply that the intention was to get Jesus executed before
the Passover began; nor is it definitely said that the intention was
not carried out. It has even been supposed that the fact that
Jesus was crucified the day before the Passover suggested the
explanation of the date given in our passage.
To put the crucifixion on the first day of the Feast of
Unleavened Bread, or to use common language now, the first day
of Passover, causes great difficulties. That the trial should have
been held upon the first night of the festival would have been a
flagrant violation of Jewish law. That the Romans would have
crucifled Jewish criminals upon the first day of Passover is
extremely unlikely. J. Weiss thinks that he can discern in the
'Passion' narrative of Mark two strata of narratives, embodying
two traditions, the one older and generally more authentic, which
accepted the historic date of the crucifixion, the other later and
less accurate, which adopted the wrong date. To the second
stratum he assigns xiv. 3-9, 12-25, ^^^ 53-65-
On the Johannine hypothesis, then, the day of which xiv. i
speaks is Wednesday. The Passover would begin on Friday at
even. On the other hand, Holtzmann supposes that the Greek phrase
/lerd Bvo ^fiepa<; {' after two days ') can be equivalent to ' on the
next day.' In that case the day spoken of would, on the Johannine
hypothesis, be Thursday. On the Synoptic hypothesis it would be
Wednesday. But ' after two days ' probably does not mean here
' on the following day ' : it means that a whole day lay in between
the day of which it speaks and the day on which the opening of
the festival fell.
W. holds that the day spoken of in xiv. I is Thursday, not
Wednesday. He comes to this conclusion even though he supports
the Johannine hypothesis of the date of Jesus's death, and trans
lates fierd Bvo fip,epa<; 'after two days.' For Mark wrote for western
readers. Hence, though for Jewish readers the first day of Passover
began on Friday at sunset, for western readers the first day was
Saturday. Therefore, if it is said that the Passover was 'after
two days,' the day implied is not Wednesday, but Thursday. But

XIV. 1, 2] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 31 1
how can this be accurate when we have the phrase in 12, ' on the
first day of the Unleavened Bread,' where the meaning clearly
is ' the evening before the first day ' ? Hence it seems that the
day alluded to in xiv. i must be Wednesday, not Thursday, which
seems also to give more time for 10 and il.
Strictly speaking, the phrase ' two days before the Feast of
the Passover and the Unleavened Bread' is a contradiction in
terms. For the Passover fell on the afternoon of the 14th. The
Unleavened Bread on the 15 th. Hence two days before the
former would be three days before the latter, and two days
before the second would be one day before the first. But in view
of the phrase in xiv. 12 we must assume that one and the same
period is alluded to: i.e. the afternoon and evening of the 14th.
If this was Thursday, then Tuesday is alluded to, if this was
Friday, then Wednesday is alluded to.
2. The more obvious meaning of this verse is that the Jewish
authorities desired to get the execution over before the festival.
They were afraid that the popular teacher and reformer might
have many sympathisers among the people, who till his arrest had
heard him gladly. More especially, if Jerusalem became full of
festival pilgrims from Galilee and elsewhere, any attempt to put
Jesus to death might easily provoke a riot, in which the priests
and Scribes would not escape the vengeance of the crowd. Hence
it was urgent to seek for some pretext by which the inconvenient
Galilsean teacher — or, shall we say, the aspirant to the Messiah-
ship ? — might be quickly got rid of W. supposes that the ruling
priests waited on purpose till near to the festival in order that
the sentence might be quickly passed and rapidly executed by the
Roman governor.
Another interpretation of the verse is that the authorities
meant to let the festival go by, and the pilgrims disperse to their
homes, before they acted, but that their hands were forced by the
unexpected deed of Judas (verses 10 and 11). This seems less likely.
Brandt's conclusions {Die Evangelische Geschichte und der
Ursprung des Christentums, 1893) are more negative. He holds :
{a) That the Synoptic date for the crucifixion is im
possible. Jesus could not have been crucified on the first
day of Passover.
(6) The Johannine date is due to the author's theology,
and is not necessarily historicaL
(c) That Jesus was crucified on a Friday is certain.
The very existence of the Christian Sunday— -(the 'third
day ') on which his resurrection is celebrated — proves that
the crucifixion must have taken place on Friday.

312 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. i, 2
The exact date of the crucifixion relative to the Passover
cannot, Brandt thinks, be now ascertained. It may have been
a few days before the festival, it may have been a few days after
it ; it may have even been in one of the intervening days between
the first day and the last. Brandt is possibly too negative.
In his deeply interesting and quaintly written treatise, Das
letzte Passamahl Christi etc., Dr Chwolson attempts to harmonize
the Synoptic and Johannine narratives. Jesus, he thinks, was
crucified on the fourteenth of the month, which fell on a Friday.
The first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, or, as we popu
larly call it, the first day of Passover, synchronized that year
with the Sabbath. So far the date of the fourth Gospel is
right. But the Synoptics only contradict this date apparently.
It is usually argued that as the Synoptics state that Jesus
held a Paschal meal with his disciples on Thursday evening,
they must imply that he was crucified on the first day of the
festival. Chwolson gets over this by showing the probability
that when the fourteenth of the month Nisan fell on a Friday,
the Paschal lamb was slain on the Thursday. In Leviticus xxiii.
5 {cp. Exodus xii 6; Numbers ix. 3) it is stated that the Passover
is to be sacrificed ' between the evenings.' In later times this odd
expression was interpreted to mean in the afternoon, that is before
sunset. In earlier times Chwolson shows that it was taken to
mean the first hour or two immediately after sunset. Also, did
the killing and washing of the Paschal Lamb conflict with the
keeping of the Sabbath ? In later times it was held that it did
not do so, but in earlier times it was held, as Chwolson shows, that
it did. 'Thus when the fourteenth of the month fell on Friday, it
was not held to be legitimate to kill the lambs on that evening,
and they were killed and roasted on Thursday instead. The
Paschal meal could be celebrated on the same evening too, and
probably most Pharisees did celebrate it then, although the bread
used at such an antedated meal was leavened and not unleavened
bread. Thus Jesus was crucified before the seven days' Festival
of Unleavened Bread began, and yet he celebrated on Thursday
evening the Paschal meal with his disciples.
Another arrangement is suggested by Loisy. Suppose the
event which occurred 'two days before the Passover' was the Last
Supper. Suppose this was held on a Thursday, then the Passover
would have been held on a Saturday evening. The first day of
the Unleavened Bread festival would be Sunday. This date would
fit in neither with the Synoptic nor with the Johannine chrono
logy, but it would avoid the difficulty, which Loisy regai-ds as
almost as great, of the coincidence of the crucifixion with the day
on which all the final preparations for the Passover feast were made.

XIV. 3-9] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 313
Loisy further thinks that it is not wholly certain that the day
of the crucifixion was Friday. For instead of the day of the
resurrection being deduced from the Friday, it is possible that
Sunday was chosen as the day of the resurrection, and hence the
Friday, reckoning backwards, was invented as the day of the
crucifixion {E. S. II. p. 491). But probably Loisy's extreme
scepticism is unjustified. It remains probable that the crucifixion
happened on a Friday.
For some further remarks upon the subject, see Additional
Note 26. The main dates of Jesus's life and death are, in any
case, fairly sure. He was born before Herod the Great's death
(4 B.C.). John the Baptist preaches in 28 a.d. ; Jesus may have
been baptized the same year. He himself begins to preach, say,
early in 29, and is crucified in 30. The exact date may have
been Friday, April 8th. The month and day of the year are
computed according to an astronomical calculation that there was
a full moon on Thursday, April 7th, and to a tradition recorded
by Clement of Alexandria.
3-9. The Anointing in Bethany
{Cp. Matt, xxvi 6-13 ; Luke vii. 36-50)
3 And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,
as he sat at table, there came a woman having an alabaster cruse
of precious ointment of pure balsam; and she broke the cruse,
4 and poured the balsam on his head. And some were angry, saying
among themselves, 'Why has this waste of ointment been com-
5 mitted ? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred
pieces of silver, and have been given to the poor.' And they re-
6 preached her. But Jesus said, 'Let her alone; why plague ye
7 her ? she has wrought a good deed towards me. For ye have the
poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them
8 good : but me ye have not always. She has done what she could :
9 she has anointed my body beforehand for its burial. Verily I say
unto you. Wherever the gospel shall be preached throughout the
whole world, that which she has done shall also be spoken of in
her memory.'
This story is, in Luke, given a different setting, and referred
to a much earlier date in the life of Jesus. How much of it is
historical is dubious. In the fourth Gospel the anointing takes
place before the entry into Jerusalem ; J. Weiss thinks this date

314 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 3-9
is more probable. Here the story seems to break the connection
between verse 2 and verse 10. It is, as W. and others think,
' secondary ' and late. If the date ' after two days ' referred to the
Last Supper which originally came close after it, then the place
{i.e. Bethany) assigned to the dinner (now the dinner of the
anointing) may also, in the original document, have been related
to the last repast of Jesus with his disciples {E. 8. i. p. 100). If
it was not a Psissover meal, it need not have been, and probably
was not, held in Jerusalem.
3. Jesus is at table. Whether the meal is in the evening or
earlier is not stated. It may be argued that we are to assume
that Jesus had been in Jerusalem, and had returned to sleep in
Bethany. Simon the leper is spoken of as if he were well known.
There seems no reason to doubt that he is a historical character.
He is doubtless called the leper because he had formerly been
leprous, though he now was cured.
The woman is not named. The older tradition did not know
her name. As time went on, the tendency to give names to such
anonymous persons grew stronger. Hence, in the fourth Gospel,
the woman is identified and named.
The object of her action is to show Jesus honour, and this she
does by using up all the valuable balsam, and even breaking the
vessel of alabaster in which it is contained.
4. 'Some' are indignant at the waste. The MS. D turns
the ' some ' into the ' disciples,' which seems reasonable. This
reading is followed by Matthew.
6-9. Jesus's reply. Whether any of this reply is historical is
uncertain. J. Weiss would wish to claim as historical 6 and 7.
Even in that case we have to assume that Jesus thought that his
death might possibly be nigh. By this time, even though he
went to Jerusalem to triumph and not to die, he may have come
to realize that death would be the more probable issue of his
venture. He may have said, ' Me ye have not always with you,'
with a sort of wistful implication that the end was not far off.
Whether historic or not, the story is beautiful, and the words
of Jesus in 6 and 7 are touching and significant. Special occasions
justify special actions. An act of love and reverence may justify
exceptional and costly means. The teaching of 6 and 7 supple
ments (and only apparently contradicts) the teaching of Matt. xxv.
36-46. Both are justified in their season, and we can still in their
due season make justified application of both.
8. The first three Greek words are not quite easy. ' She has
done what she could' — what it was in her power to do. As J. Weiss

XIV. 3-9] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 315
says, the words would be suitable to a .situation such as that of Mark
xii. 44 : less so here, for the owner of the balsam is not a poor
woman who gives her all. The words are generally interpreted to
mean : she has done what could only then be done and not again ;
i.e. as the next phrase explains, she has anticipated the anointment
of his corpse, which was attempted after his death, but not carried
out. This interpretation seems to put into the three Greek words,
0 'io'X'^v iiroirjaev, more than they can contain.
But, in any case, the eight following words definitely make
the curious statement that the woman by anticipation anointed
his body for burial. This may merely mean that she has done it
beforehand, or inverted the order. But it may also allude to, or
have been coined because of, xvi. i. There three women go early
on the morning of the resurrection to the tomb, in order to anoint
the Master's dead body. But, as Jesus has already risen, they are
unable to carry out their purpose. The anointing which the three
women tried in vain then to accomplish had already been done in
Bethany by anticipation. It may, however, be noted that the
Greek words are different. In xvi l the verb used is dXei^eiv.
The material is dpaafiara. Here the verb is /ivpi^eiv, and the
material is p,vpov vdpBov.
In either nuance of meaning the words are inconceivable in
Jesus's mouth. He not only assumes his death, but also his
burial, and nobody is astonished.
As to how far xiv. 8 and xvi. i are in accordance with Jewish
custom, see Additional Note 27.
9. The third portion of Jesus's speech also bears the mark of
a later date. The word ' gospel ' {evayyeXiov) would hardly have
thus been used by him. "The good tidings here clearly imply the
full story of Jesus's life, and sufferings, and death. (At the same
time the 'proclamation' or preaching is still verbal.) Jesus's
vehement assurance that the woman's deed shall always be in
cluded in the gospel story awakens a suspicion that it was not
always a part of it. Surely the woman's name should have been
part of her 'memorial,' and this is omitted (W.). Holtzmann
thinks that the verse in its present form may have been enlarged
and 'edited.' Perhaps Jesus said: 'Her deed shall never be
forgotten'; 'when my story is told, her deed shall always be
remembered.' Thus do the commentators weave hypothesis to
hypothesis, and add argument to argument. They play among
the shadows of an irrecoverable past. Happy are they, as to me
it seems, whose religion does not depend too greatly — happiest they
whose religion does not depend at all — upon the historic accuracy
of a miraculous and quasi-legendary narrative, written for purposes

3i6 THE SYNOPTIC GOSBELS [XIV. 3-9
of edification or conversion by excitable and credulous men, to
whom the sovereign sacredness of historic fact was a distant and
unknown conception.
As to the original meaning of the anointing, Pfleiderer, follow
ing Van Manen, makes the suggestion that it was an anointing,
not for anticipated death, but for anticipated kingship. The
woman's faith in the near approach of the Messianic Kingdom
showed itself in her thus anointing its king {Urchristentum, I.
p. 386). 10, II. The Betrayal
{Cp. Matt xxvi 14-16; Luke xxii 3-6)
10 And Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, departed unto the chief
1 1 priests, to betray him unto them. And when they heard it, they
were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought a
good opportunity to betray him.
10. There seems no good reason to suspect that the action of
Judas Iscariot is not historical. That a disciple betrayed the
Master would hardly have been invented by legend. Mark says
nothing of his motive. Much has been conjectured. Was he
disappointed that Jesus did not actively assume the Messianic
role ? Did he want to force his hand ? Had he been a disciple
for a short time only, and therefore misunderstood the character
and aims of the Master? Brandt supposes that he had only
joined Jesus upon the latter's arrival in Judsea {op. dt. pp. 484,
485). (Iscariot is supposed to mean 'the man from Kariot,' a
place already mentioned in Joshua xv. 25. W. thinks this
explanation impossible, and that the name has, so far, not been
capable of explanation. Cp. his note on Mark iii 19.)
At first sight it might seem that no betrayer was necessary,
for Jesus was by this time well known {cp. verse 48). But the
desire of the authorities was to effect a secret arrest, and for this
purpose Judas's offer was convenient and timely. Perhaps Jesus
changed his night quarters on purpose. He may have suspected
what was planned. To know where he would be on any pai-ticular
night some espionage or treachery was necessary.
The historical character of Judas Iscariot is confirmed by the
further reflection that the historical Jesus would not have wished
one of his own disciples to betray him, and we may safely assume
that he did not foresee that he would do so. The prediction of
18 was a natural, but later, growth, when an explanation was
needed for the fact that Jesus had admitted into the inner ring of

XIV. 1 2-1 6] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 317
his disciples a man who misunderstood and betrayed him. We
need not interpret 'then,' with which Matt. xxvi. 14 begins, too
strictly. It is not to be assumed that Judas had no relations with
the authorities till that particular moment. {Cp. E. S. 11. p. 501.)
II. evKaipco<}. Having made his arrangement with the
authorities, and having received a promise that his treachery
would be suitably rewarded, Judas now seeks for a convenient
or opportune moment in which the arrest may take place.

i2-i6. Preparation for the Passover Meal
{Cp. Matt, xxvi 17-20; Luke xxii. 7-14)
12 And on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrifice
the passover, his disciples said unto him, ' Whither wouldst thou
13 that we go and prepare for thee to eat the passover ?' And he sent
two of his disciples, and said unto them, ' Go ye into the city, and
14 a man will meet you bearing a pitcher of water : follow him. And
into whatever house he goes in, say ye to the master thereof. The
Master says. Where is my chamber where I may eat the passover
15 with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room,
16 furnished with couches and ready ; there prepare for us.' And his
disciples departed, and came into the city, and found as he had
said unto them: and they prepared the passover.
12. How far is this section historical? W. rejects it alto
gether, on the ground (a) of its miraculous character, which is
like the equally unhistorical passage xi. 1-7 ; (6) of its supposition
that Jesus ate the opening Paschal meal with his disciples, whereas,
according to the fourth Gospel and to W., he died before Passover
began. Note the curious parallelism in construction and wording
with xi. 1-4. Rauch {Z. N. W. iii. pp. 308-314) would regard
12-17 ^ * later insertion. Originally the passage 18 seq. was
a continuation of the meal in Bethany. That the meal was the
Passover meal and that its locale was Jerusalem was a later de
velopment. If the Synoptic date for the cruciflxion be retained, one might
assume that an arrangement which Jesus had made with a house
holder in Jerusalem was turned into a miraculous coincidence.
Menzies and others think that Jesus had arranged all the details
beforehand, even down to the man with the water jar who was
to be on the watch for the despatched disciples. The danger of

3i8 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 12-16
arrest was great. The smaller the number of those who knew
where he was to be the better. This does not seem very probable.
J. Weiss, who accepts the Johannine chronology, thinks that
the passage may ' hochstens ' contain some recollections of the
room in which Jesus ate his last evening meal with the disciples.
Cp. as a possible basis for the whole i Sam. x. 2-5.
' On the first day of the Unleavened Bread.' This is a loose
expression. What is meant is : on the day the sunset of which
was the beginning of the festival. ' The first day of Unleavened
Bread' would extend to a Jew from sunset to sunset. Chwolson
assumes that the original text has been mistranslated. In any
case what is meant is clear enough. The Paschal meal had to be
eaten, , say, on the evening of Thursday. On Thursday morning
the disciples ask Jesus where he will eat it. The odd thing is
perhaps that no arrangement was made before Thursday morning.
But this detail need not be accurate. Chwolson has shown that,
strictly speaking, 'the first day of (the feast of) Unleavened Bread'
would be the fifteenth of Nisan, and could not mean the fourteenth.
In Numbers xxviii. 16 the fourteenth day is called the Passover;
the fifteenth day is said to be a feast, on and from which the seven
day festival of Unleavened Bread starts. The same phrases are
used in Leviticus xxiii. 5 and 6. Chwolson's final explanation of
the words in Mark and Matthew is that the original Aramaic ran
NnDS'n *&p NtoVl. This meant, 'on the day before the Passover,'
i.e. on the thirteenth. But the word ?ftp can also mean ' first.'
Hence the translators rendered ' on the first day of the Passover
(festival).' This reading is still found in some versions and MSS.
It was further altered to ' on the first day of Unleavened Bread,' to
which the words ' when they sacrifice the Passover ' were added as
a gloss (Chwolson, p. 180 of his new edition).
Jesus, against his wont, is in the daytime not in Jerusalem,
but goes there at evening in order to eat the Passover.
1 3. The ' man ' is the servant of the owner of the house in
14. One could hardly get into the city without meeting (as Loisy
observes) more than one water carrier, especially at such a period
of the year. The ' man ' is known to Jesus, but not to the disciples.
'All this is extremely vague and has scarcely the look of a really
historical reminiscence ' {E. 8. II. p. 509).
15. dvdyaiov, 'an upper chamber'; icrrpmiMevov, 'spread with
couches,' ' mit Tischpolstern belegt ' (B. Weiss).

XIV. 17-21] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 319
17-21. Prediction of the Betrayal
{Cp. Matt, xxvi 21-25 ; Luke xxii. 21-23)
18 And in the evening he went thither with the Twelve. And as
they sat and ate, Jesus said, ' Verily I say unto you. One of you
19 will betray me, who is now eating with me.' And they were
gi-ieved, and said unto him, one after the other, 'Surely not I?'
20 And he answered and said unto them, ' One of the Twelve, who
21 dippeth with me into the dish. For the Son of man indeed de-
parteth, as it is written of him : but woe to that man by whom
the Son of man is betrayed ! Better were it for that man if he
had never been born.'
17. The 'Twelve' is used loosely. Two were already in the
city. 18. The two paragraphs 18-21 and 22-25 both deal with the
events of the 'Last Supper.' Note the words 'as they ate' repeated
in 22. W. would distinguish between the two paragraphs. The
second is for him historical ; not the first.
How much of the incident is due to Psalm xii. 9 ? A critical
view of the story can hardly allow a large amount of historical
basis. Even J. Weiss thinks the most we can do is to suppose
that Jesus may have expressed some fear or anticipation that one
of his disciples or friends would betray him. It is improbable, as
he says, that Judas, after his visit to the authorities, returned to
close intercourse with Jesus. He suddenly reappears upon the
scene in 43. So too Loisy. The prediction of the betrayal has
been intercalated in the story of the Last Supper. It is not
historical {E. 8. 11. p. 515).
20. The reply of Jesus in this verse is very peculiar. The
Twelve are present; yet he does not say, as in 18, 'One of you,'
but ' One of the Twelve,' as if they were not with him, or as if he
were not speaking to them. Is this the effect of an old tradition
that Jesus had said that one of the Twelve would betray him ?
In the second part of the verse the words, ' who dippeth with
me into the dish ' is not intended to refer specifically to Judas.
It is not implied that at that very moment when Jesus was speak
ing Judas dipped his hand into the dish. Judas is not singled
out, for all dip into the dish. It merely means ' one who is dining

320 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 17-21
with me.' Or the words may mean ' one who has lived in familiar
intercourse with me ' {cp. Psalm xii. 9).
In Luke the prediction of the betrayal takes place after the
communion scene, and the words are still vaguer : ' Behold the
hand of him who betrayeth me is with me at the table.' If the
prediction is historic, Luke's version seems the best.
The desire for greater definiteness is seen in Matthew's version,
in which Judas asks if he is the betrayer, and Jesus replies ' Thou
hast said,' which is perhaps equivalent to ' Yes.' The change of
the participle from the present {ifi^avro/jievo';) to the aorist
(e'/i/Sai/ras) is probably meant also to point and single out Judas
('he who has just dipped').
That Jesus should have definitely said before the others that
Judas would betray him is very improbable. Would Judas then
have been allowed freely to leave the table (Mark does not record
his departure) and to effect his purpose ?
The dubious historical character of the prediction of the
betrayal is emphasised by Wrede in his excellent essay, Judas
Ischarioth in der urchristlichen Ueberlieferung. The story he
thinks is a vatidnium ex eventu. Jesus is endowed with a super
human insight. Moreover Jesus knows that Judas will betray
him, and though he is on his guard against his enemies, who
do not know his exact whereabouts and quarters, he yet to the
last tolerates the traitor at his side. Is it conceivable that the
disciples could have said, ' Lord, not I ' ? ' An sich selbst konnte
hier jeder Jiinger zweifellos am wenigstens denken.'
'The dish.' Most commentators say the Passover dish 'cha-
roseth,' that is, a semi-liquid compound made up of almonds, figs,
dates, spices, and vinegar. (But W. — independent as usual — says
it means the gravy of the roasted lamb.) The participators- in
the Passover meal dip the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs
in this charoseth mixture and eat them.
21. To some — e.g. to W. — this verse is the more suspicious
and late because the ' Son of man ' twice occurs in it. To others
— e.g. J. Weiss — the words are ' very old,' and possibly were even
spoken by Jesus himself The expression virdyei ('goes away,'
'departs') is vague and mysterious. It is used again in the fourth
Gospel (vii 33, viii. 21, 22).
What is the Scripture reference ? Is it to Isaiah liii. ? This
does not seem certain.
Whatever the historical evidence of the scene may be, its
solemnity and impressiveness cannot be denied.

XIV. 22-25] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 321'
22-2;. The Last Supper
{Cp. Matt, xxvi 26-29; Luke xxii 15-20)
22 And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and said the
blessing, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, ' Take, this
23 is my body.' And he took a cup, and spoke the blessing, and gave
24 it to them : and they all drank of it And he said unto them,
'This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the
vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.'
These four verses can be dealt with at any conceivable length.
To discuss them and their parallels in the other Gospels and in
Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians in full detail a whole book, as big
as this book and bigger, could easily be written. But immensely
important as these verses are in the history of Christian theology
— and indeed we might add, in European history — much as they
have contributed to the weal and woe of the mediseval and modern
world, it is unnecessary to dwell upon them at any great length
in a book or commentary intended primarily for Jewish readers.
So far as Jews are interested in them from a general point of view,
they can read about them in the endless works of Cliristian theo
logians. Jews will never commemorate the rite then instituted
by Jesus, if instituted it was ; its precise meaning is for them, as
Jews, one of very minor and secondary importance. It is of pro
found importance and interest for them to consider whether, and
how far, and in what, the moral and religious teaching of the Sermon
on the Mount excels the teaching of the Old Testament and the
Rabbis. What precisely Jesus meant by the words attributed to
him in Mark xiv. 22-25 does not greatly concern them. They
need no communion except with God. They worship the Father
and Him alone, not materially or by the help of bread and wine,
but, to quote the language of the fourth Gospel, 'in spirit and
truth.' The problems raised by the four verses are very numerous, and
the divergence of the commentators is extreme.
To begin with, was the Last Supper the Passover meal?
Those who accept the Synoptic date for the crucifixion think that
it was ; those who reject this date, and believe that the first night
of Passover was on Friday and not on Thursday, think that it was
not. In the latter case it need not necessarily have been, and
most probably was not, held in Jerusalem. The words of Mark

21

322 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 22-25
and the words of Paul (i Cor. xi. 23-25) do not compel one to
believe that it was the Passover meal. And even if it was the
Passover meal, the rite or actions mentioned in the four verses of
Mark seem to stand, or can stand, out of close connection with the
special rites of the Passover.
But whether the Last Supper was the Passover or no is really
a subsidiary question. Far more important and far more intricate
and perplexing are the questions :
{a) What did the words, as we find them in Mark,
exactly mean to Mark ?
{b) Can we, on the basis of what Mark says, and of
what Paul says, and of what Luke and Matthew say, draw
any conclusions as to what Jesus did and said, and as to
what he meant by what he did and said ?
It will be seen that the answer, at least to the second question,
must be exceedingly problematic. The differences between Mark
and Paul and Luke (in whom we have to take account of a most
important variety of reading) are sufficiently serious to make it
doubtful as to what exactly Jesus did. As what he did is doubtful,
how can we penetrate with any degree of certainty to what he meant
in that which he possibly did ?
The main points in dispute are, first, whether Jesus intended
to institute a rite to be celebrated after his death, or whether he
did something, or acted some symbol, for the sake of his disciples
then present, once and for all. Secondly, whether what he did was
a symbolic rite of communion, or whether it symbolized the offering
or sacrifice of himself that he was going to make for the benefit of
his community by his approaching death.
As to the second question, there can be no doubt that the
conception of the Last Supper as a symbolic or dramatic repre
sentation of a sacrifice, even if not intended by Jesus, was soon
ascribed to it and to him, after his death. And as such it is
regarded by Mark and by Paul. But soon the rite was not merely
regarded as a dramatic symbol or representation. The bread and
wine were not merely symbols, but in some mystic sense they
became that which they symbolized, at least for those who in faith
and purity received them. The process, which culminated in the
full Roman doctrine of ' transubstantiation,' began early. But the
other idea of communion was maintained or developed, as well as
that of a sacrifice. And, indeed, the two could pass into each
other. For sacrifice and communion to the ancient world are two
aspects of the same thing. Moreover the mystic and sacramental
idea of the ' elements ' — of the bread and wine — was generated or
stimulated by the idea of communion. By means of a joint

XIV. 22-25] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 323
participation in sacred food the eaters are knit unto the god and
to one another.
We may also surmise, with high probability, that though the
words which Mark employs do not definitely say that the rite was
instituted for repetition, still Mark, like Paul, meant his readers
to infer, as he himself believed, that it was. In his days, when he
wrote, the ceremonial was practised not only as an imitation of
the Last Supper, but with the idea that a command of Jesus, then
enjoined, was being faithfully carried out.
It is, perhaps, therefore, the more remarkable that Mark, unlike
Paul, says nothing about repetition, or as to a rite instituted
' for the sake of remembrance.' Hence there seems, for this reason,
as for others, much to be said for the view held by W. and by
others, that the rites mentioned by Mark, as performed by Jesus
at the Last Supper, were intended to be something done once and
for all as between himself and his disciples.
According to most of those who take this view, what Jesus did
was, in anticipation and expectation of his approaching death, to
celebrate an act of sacramental communion with his disciples, in
order that they might hold together after his death and to some
extent supply his place. I will quote a few words from W., in
which this view of the rites of the Last Supper is very clearly put
forward :
' The ancient idea (then still alive among the Jews) of sacra
mental union by eating the same food lies at the bottom of the
rite {cp. I Cor. x. 17). The body of those who have taken part in
the same meal is renewed from the same source, and becomes one
and the same.' ' The historic Last Supper had for its motive the
near death of Jesus. It was a special act through which a society
was founded, an act of brotherhood between the twelve disciples,
in order that, when thefr head was gone, they might yet keep
together and in a certain sense represent, and be the substitute
for, their chief The making of a covenant is effected once and
for all ; it needs, and can tolerate, no repetition.'
By the act of communion Jesus knits the disciples to one
another and to him. He will still be mystically and spiritually
present among them after his death till the Kingdom is established
and the will of God has been fulfilled.
What remains to say will best be said in a more detailed con
sideration of the words themselves.
22. 'While they were eating.' Mark does not say that the
rite was instituted at any special portion of the meal. To reach
the conclusion that the regular meal was finished (whether the
Passover meal or no), or that what was now to come was a special

324 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 22-25
addendum or extra, one has to make deductions and combinations
which are scarcely legitimate.
evXoytjffav, 'said the blessing.' The word evxapiffrrja-a^,
used for the wine in the next verse, means the same thing.
Although Jesus had already eaten bread and drunk wine at this
meal, and said the blessing over them, still, as he was now going
to use bread and wine for a special purpose, he says the blessing
over again. We need not assume that we have here to think of
the special Passover blessings for bread and wine.
'sKXaaev, 'broke.' Tremendous conflicts cluster round this word.
Was the breaking a mere detail, a mere necessary preparation or
precedent for the distribution, or was a symbolism intended in
the action of breaking ? Many think the latter. ' Even as I
break the bread, so will my body be broken by death.' This view
is held by those who think that the rite symbolized the coming
sacriflce; but it is not necessarily held by all of them. The
breaking of the bread, says Holtzmann, was 'ein in Form einer
symbolischen Handlung gekleideter Anschauungsunterricht' (p. 99).
But the body of Jesus was not ' broken ' by the crucifixion. Menzies,
who adopts the view that the rite symbolized the death of Christ
as his final gift for the benefit of others, denies that the 'breaking'
is a part ofthis symbolism. W., in his usual emphatic style, says
that the breaking is ' obviously ' {selbstverstwndlich) only a prepara
tion for its distribution, not a symbol. The wine was not scattered
{verschiittet) to symbolize the pouring forth {Vergiessung) of the
blood. 'He gave it to them.' These words involve a further warm
dispute. Did Jesus himself eat and drink ? Mark does not say
that he did so, nor do the other two Symoptics, nor does Paul.
Some of those who hold that the rite was a symbol of his death,
think that he did not do so. Those who hold sacramental or
Roman views of the bread and wine tend to argue on this side.
The disciples eat of the sacrifice ; they partake of that which
symbolizes it; he who is to be sacrificed cannot partake of himself
Menzies, though his point of view is quite different, yet strongly
emphasises his conviction that Jesus did not eat or drink. ' He
cannot drink of the draught he has compared to his own blood ; it
is a thing he gives ; it is for others, nor for him.'
Those commentators, on the other hand, who see in the rite a
communion between Jesus and his disciples are naturally keen to
argue that Jesus must himself have eaten and drunk. The
omission to say that he did is merely due to the fact that his own
eating or drinking, as obvious, is assumed and taken for granted.
Some would see in Luke xxii. 17, 18, a proof that Jesus did not
share in the wine which he bade the disciples drink. W. calls this

XIV. 22-25] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 325
'eine unglaubliche Wortklauberei' If Jesus did not eat and drink
with the disciples ' dann fiele die ganze Communio dahin.'
' This is my body.' This is the shortest formula as regards the
bread which we possess. Luke and Paul have extra words. In
their brief and mysterious character we may see reason to believe
that they are authentic.
What did they mean to Jesus ? Gould seems to me justified
when he says that to give them any material or semi-material
or 'realistic' meaning is to interpret them in violation of the
general teaching of Jesus. ' It would pull down all that he had
been at pains to set up throughout his ministry — a spiritual
religion.' The words rather mean 'this bread represents my
body.' At the most we may assume the idea of communion
through the common partaking of the same food. Jesus may be
supposed to say, ' regard this bread as my body, and by eating it
let us form one society, let us be united to each other; be you
united to me.' Because Jesus himself also eats of the bread which
they eat, it is as if they had partaken of him and become one with
him. If Jesus alluded to his death as a sacrifice or gift rendered for
the sake of others, we can best interpret 'this is my body,' as
Menzies interprets it. ' Even as I give you this bread, so I shall
give up my body.' But this does not seem a very obvious idea or
obvious parallelism.
23. We now come to the second portion of the rite, and are
at once confronted with fresh puzzles and difficulties.
First, as to the four last words of the verse : 'which is shed (or
poured out) for many.' W. regards them as an addition to the
more original remainder. The idea of communion is crossed by
them with the idea of a symbolizing, of the sacrificial death.
There remains, then, if these words are removed, the phrase :
'this is my blood of the covenant.'
Now, J. Weiss points out that the words 'of the covenant' join
awkwardly on to the words 'my blood.' Hence the suspicion is
aroused that here too we have an addition assimilating Mark to
Paul, and that the oldest form is, 'this is my blood,' in close
parallelism to 'this is my body.'
If so, then, to Mark, the meaning of the whole would be : 'as
the wine is poured forth from the chalice, so was the blood (or life)
of Jesus spilt as a sacrifice.' The wine symbolizes the death of
Jesus just as the bread does.
But if Jesus spoke the first four words {i.e. ' this is my blood '),
he meant by them in all probability much the same as he meant by
' this is my body.' The wine, too, formed part of the communion

326 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 22-25
rite. Because they ate and drank what he ate and drank, there
fore — regarding the bread and wine as symbolizing his body and
blood — they had become one with him ; he had knit them to
him by a sacramental bond. W. would keep ' of the covenant.'
It is an epexegetical genitive : my blood, which is or forms the
covenant. This part of the rite W. regards as semi-sacrificial. The wine
recalls the blood of the sacrifice by which communion was origin
ally made. This seems to me very doubtful, as the days in which
blood was drunk lay so very far off. But W. says : ' The meal (the
bread) sufficed for making a union. But it is only a shadow of
the old union {Verbriiderung) by sacrifice. This was done, not
merely through the sacrificial meal, but more solemnly by the
sacrificial blood, which the participants applied to themselves in
the same way as to the god {i.e. the idol on the altar), by smearing
or sprinkling. This sprinkling was a softening down of a more
original drinking. Another softening down was the substitution of
red wine for blood. Wine is a better means of uniting together
than bread ; it symbolizes the blood, which is more important than
the flesh, and is regarded as the equivalent of the very life itself,
the essence of what is holy and divine. Hence Jesus does not
combine the bread and the wine in one act ; he puts the stress
upon the wine : the sacrifice is added to the meal.'
There is, however, some reason to think that the original rite
performed by Jesus was limited to the bread. An important MS.
reading in Luke, accepted by many scholars, and one interpreta
tion of that reading, would suggest that the symbolic act in the
Last Supper was confined to the breaking and distributing of the
bread, and that the wine was not brought by Jesus into any
connection with his blood and with his death. This view is
supported by the fact that in many of the oldest Christian com
munities water was used in the celebration of the 'communion'
and not wine. Moreover, this was especially done in the Palestinian
communities who kept most closely to the original traditions and
were least influenced by Paul.
I would also venture to suggest how difficult it is for us to
believe that a Palestinian or Galilsean Jew could have suggested
that in drinking wine his disciples were, even symbolically, drink
ing blood. For the horror with which the drinking of blood was
regarded by the Jews is well known.
Taking the words in Mark as we find them, a reference to the
covenant of Exodus xxiv. 8 is pretty clear. Whether Jesus intended
such a reference is far more doubtful, even if he spoke part of the
verse. But to Mark the new covenant was to be sealed by blood,
even as the old covenant which it transcends or supersedes. Some

XIV. 22-25] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 327
such idea was doubtless in the mind of the writer of i Cor. xi. 25,
and of our verse in Mark.
Even if Jesus only said 'this is my body,' we may hardly
assume that this communion ceremony was not performed by
Jesus with the feeling, and because of the feeling, that his death
was nigh. W. says : ' Some have doubted whether Jesus was
conscious of his approaching death, and whether the disciples
could have understood this background of his action. But he
knew the danger which threatened him. He passed the night
out of doors. The scene at Gethsemane is fundamentally historic :
his fear of death, his wish to avoid it, do not fit in with the con
ception of later writers that he went to Jerusalem with the intent
to die there. That the disciples did not realize the seriousness of
the situation, and that, therefore, they could not have understood
at the moment the allusion at the Last Supper to his death, must
be admitted. Yet the words which Jesus then said — his last
words to them when together with him — would have remained in
their minds, even though not understood, till the very short interval
had passed when, after his death, their true significance was revealed
to them.' Thus W. argues that in to alfid jmov, if not already in to crmfid
fwv, one must admit a reference to the imminent death. He adds :
'Nevertheless the two short statements remain dark and mysterious.
The only comparatively safe thing to do is to set forth the circle of
old ideas from which their explanation must start. In that age of
general religious ferment these old ideas were then coming to fresh
life in various places.'
25. If Jesus did not himself drink when he handed the cup,
the words must imply that he had drunk before at the meal — the
usual Passover cups, if the supper was the Passover meal — but
that he would thenceforth drink no more, and so did not drink of
the cup which he now hands round to his disciples. More prob
ably, however, the words imply that he now drank again, and that
this solemn draught was to be his last.
The words in their general sense are clear. Jesus says that he
will drink no more till he drinks the new wine in and of the King
dom of God. It is the wine of Isaiah xxv. 6. The joys of the
Kingdom are constantly referred to in Rabbinical literature under
the metaphor of pleasures of food and drink. Jesus accepts and
uses the metaphor ; indeed, we cannot be sure that it was merely
a metaphor to him, for there might be such a thing in the world
of the resurrection and of the Kingdom as a drinking which is only
semi-material. Jesus's last words are spoken in a tone of proud
confidence and joyous hope, which is very remarkable.

328 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 22-25
' Kaivov is not the word for new wine, for which veov is used,
but Kaivov denotes a new kind of wine. In the making of all
things new, the dvaKaivaari^ (Romans xii. 2 ; Titus iii 5), there is
to be a new festal meeting and association of Christ and his
disciples — a realization of these earthly feasts and symposia, which
are brought to an end in this Last Supper ' (Gould).
Does Menzies deduce from the verse too much or not when
he writes: 'Jesus knows that his death is at hand, and his drinking
is over for the present. But he will drink again. The separation
will be very short to which he is looking forward, and after it he
will be in the Kingdom of God where all is new, the wine as well
as other things.... 'The verse certainly shows that he looked for the
advent of the Kingdom to take place at once ; his death was to be
the signal for its appearance ; he was to return at once out of the
realm of death to take his place in it at the head of those whom
by dying he has enabled to enter it ' ?
In its present connection, the verse appears to indicate a two
fold conviction in the mind of Jesus : he is about to die, but the
Kingdom of God will surely come, perhaps even is near at hand.
Though Jesus may have gone to Jerusalem not to die, but to
initiate the Kingdom, he may now have realized that this was
not to be, and that, even if he was the Messiah, it was probably
God's will that he should end his earthly career by suffering
death at his enemies' hands : nevertheless he did not waver in his
conviction that the Kingdom was coming. By his death, or in
spite of his death, the Kingdom would come. His noble faith in
God was not weakened by adverse circumstance.
W. lays great stress upon this verse. Whereas Brandt does not
hold that its words are authentic {op. dt. pp. 288-302), W. considers
that there is no saying of Jesus which gives us more the impression
of authenticity than this one. But why he thinks so is because he
finds certain implications in the saying, which are by no means
obviously to be found there. It is true, as W. points out, that Jesus
does not speak of his Parousia, of his return in power as the Messiah.
But is it not going too far to say that he does not represent himself
as the Messiah at all ? ('Es ist unverkennbar, dass er sich in diesem
Augenblicke gar nicht als Messias gibt, weder als gegenwartigen,
noch als zukiinftigen.') Is it not going too far to say that he only
regards himself as one of the guests at the table, at which the
elect are to sit, after the Kingdom, without his agency {ohne sein
Zutun), shall have come, and that anybody else could have ex
pressed the hope that he would take part in the joys of the
Kingdom in precisely the same words ? It is true he does not
speak of his own special resurrection {seine singulare Auferstehung),
but is it not going too far when W. seems to imply that this 'most

XIV. 22-25] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 329
authentic ' utterance of Jesus shows that he did not think that he
had any special part to play either in the Kingdom itself when
established, or in bringing it about?
On the assumption that W. and others are right in holding
that at the Last Supper Jesus did not institute a rite to be
repeated after his death, but performed a rite as between himself
and his disciples, once and for all, it may be asked how it came
about that the rite was perpetuated and developed into a solemn
liturgical practice and ceremony ? Into this question I cannot
enter here. Sufficient for our purpose to say that it is supposed
that the rite grew up as it were from a twofold stem. On the one
hand, it was the custom of Jesus to share common meals with his
disciples ; he broke bread with them habitually. At these meals
there may have sometimes been wine ; more usually only water.
This practice of common meals was continued after the Master's
death, and he was even supposed to be, in a sort of spiritual sense,
still present among the disciples (' Die alte Tischgemeinschaft mit
dem Meister wurde festgehalten. Das machte sich von selbst, er
hatte es nicht ausdriicklich beim letztenmal befohlen.') But the
second stem was a conscious imitation of the Last Supper itself,
with a modified and more sacrificial interpretation of the com
munion rite. An immense step in the development of the rite
must have been given by the teaching of Paul. Into all this,
however, these notes cannot enter.
Pfleiderer's view is partly dependent upon his peculiar inter
pretation of 25. He supposes that at the ' Last Supper' Jesus did
not look forward to imminent death, but to the near victory of his
cause upon earth in his life-time. He will drink wine again ; not
at the resurrection and not in heaven, but in the flesh, upon earth,
when the Kingdom has been established. (This view W. calls 'ein
schlechter Spass.') So, too, Pfleiderer supposes that Matt xix. 28,
and Luke xxii 29, 30, refer to a banquet and to a dominion, not
separated from the time of speaking by the death of Jesus and the
general resurrection, but to be realized in the life-time of Master
and disciples alike.
Hence Pfleiderer admits no allusion to Jesus's death in the
original meaning of 'this is my body.' He denies the authen
ticity of the cup and of ' this is my blood,' mainly upon the
ground that the purified and oldest text of Luke knows nothing of
any sacramental interpretation of the wine or of its relation to the
blood of Jesus. (See the notes on Luke xxii. 15-20.) 'This is
my body' meant to Jesus: 'by eating this symbol of my body,
that is, of my life, you are united to me and to one another, and
we all become one body, one inseparable whole' {cp. i Cor. x. 17).
What Jesus intended to do ' was simply to make a covenant of

330 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 22-25
friendship by the common participation of religiously consecrated
food.' Jesus did not want to make a new covenant to replace the
old. ' He did not want to destroy Law and prophets, but to fulfil
them.' The new meanings ascribed to the bread and the wine, the
new covenant, the atonement wrought by the death, all these
things are due to the teaching of Paul ( Urchristentum, l. pp. 388,
683). Loisy's commentary upon the Synoptic Gospels was not pub
lished till the above notes had been written. It will be less
confusing if I do not attempt to alter those notes, but only add
here a short statement of his views which are important and far
reaching. To begin with, Loisy holds that all three Gospels mean the
same thing in spite of their divergencies. More particularly Luke
in spite of his difference of order, &c., nevertheless does not mean
anything different. The ' institution of the Last Supper ' has the
same meaning to him as to Mark and Matthew (Loisy accepts the
reading of D as the primitive reading of Luke, i.e. he includes
verse 19 up to 'my body' and rejects the rest of 19 and all 20).
Secondly, he holds that all three go back in idea — not
necessarily in language — to Paul. To Paul the eucharist, the
sacramental blood and wine, includes the notions of sacramental
communion and of the representation of the Christ's sacrificial
death. The two are closely and inseparably allied. Just so also
the brief words of Mark ' this is my body ' cannot merely imply the
creation of a sacramental union between the disciples and Jesus.
They also refer to his imminent death and to that death as a
sacrifice. This is more clearly expressed in the words about the
cup and the blood. The breaking of the bread, and the wine in the
cup, prefigure and symbolize this sacrifice, and though the words
' do this in recollection of me ' are wanting, the Evangelists none
the less intend the acts of Jesus to be regarded as the institution
of a liturgical rite, commemorating and symbolizing his sacrifice,
and securing a perpetual union with him through the eating of
bread and the drinking of the wine. The faithful receive mystically
his body and blood and so become one with him.
All this is Pauline doctrine and goes back only to Paul. The
new covenant supersedes the old covenant of Exodus xxiv. 8.
If Luke does not make Jesus say of the wine, 'this is my blood,'
nevertheless he means the wine also to be sacramentally understood.
But from his omission of the words 'this is my blood,' we may
infer that the reference of the bread to the body of Christ preceded
that of the wine to his blood. Paul himself makes Jesus say, not
' this is my blood,' but ' this cup is,' that is, represents, ' the new
covenant made in my blood.'

XIV. 22-25] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 331
Did, then, Jesus say ' this is my body' ? As Loisy thinks that
the words cannot be stripped of their Pauline tenor, he is driven to
deny this. He largely agrees with Andersen's remarkable article
in the Zeitschrift der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft (Vol. iii. 1902,
pp. 1 15-134). But there are special indications which tend to the
same conclusion. Note, in the first place, the 25 th verse of Mark's
14th chapter. Contrast it with 24. The two belong to different
' courants d'idees,' and with a little reflection one can see that only
the words of 25 would have been intelligible to the disciples. The
words of 24 only contain a meaning for those who are already
acquainted with Paul's theory about the redemptive death of
Jesus. Note, in the second place, that in Mark the words ' this is my
blood,' &c. are not said till the disciples have drunk of the cup
(Matthew transposes the order). But these words should precede,
not succeed thefr drinking. On the other hand, the words in 25
rightly follow the distribution of the cup. Thus in the source
from which Mark drew his narrative the statement in 24 did not
occur. He added the Pauline words of 24, which he did not
necessarily take from i Cor. xi. 25, but from the eucharistic rites
of the communities founded by the apostle.
Then, as to the words 'this is my body.' They correspond
with 'this is my blood' and must stand or fall with them, even
though they occur (unlike 'this is my blood') in the true Luke.
The original for the bread is similar to the original for the wine.
As Jesus said of the wine that he would drink of it no more till he
drank it in the Kingdom, so he said of the bread that he would eat
of it no more till he ate it in the Kingdom. Whether the last
meal was the Passover or not (and this Loisy leaves an open
question), the original saying about the bread is more or less pre
served in Luke xxii. 16 as the original saying about the wine is
preserved in Mark xiv. 25. In order to find room for ' this is my
body' Luke applied to the entire meal words which had originally
been said of the bread alone. (See last paragraph on next page.)
The sort of isolation in which 'this is my blood' stands in
Mark, and ' this is my body' in Luke, the impossibility of explain
ing them by the context — while they are so easy to understand in
Paul — tend to show that the body and the blood have been
intercalated in a narrative where bread and wine were only
mentioned in relation to the approaching Messianic banquet and
Kingdom. M. Loisy implies that even if the words were supposed to have
been merely ' this is my blood ' and ' this is my body,' yet they
could not be reasonably attributed to Jesus. He does not think
that they can be limited in their applicaiion to the mere idea of

332 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 22-25
communion (as in W.'s interpretation), or that the idea of the
sacrificial death can be excluded from them. He holds that the
anticipation {la perspective) of the Messianic banquet excludes
the remembrance {le memorial') of the death. It was only the
fact of that death and the faith in the risen Christ which inter
polated (here as elsewhere) the mystery of the redeeming death in
the gospel of the Kingdom and ' le grand avfenement ' {E. 8. il.
p. 540). The real words of Jesus, ' I shall not eat or drink again,' may
perhaps imply his death, but they do not announce it. Like all
the other authentic sayings of Jesus, they maintain the point of
view {la perspective) of the imminent Messianic advent. They
do not imply that a long time will elapse before the Kingdom
comes ; nor do they directly say that the death of Jesus must first
intervene. They do imply that a radical change is close at hand
and that one cannot depend upon the morrow; to-morrow the
expected Kingdom will perhaps be there, but perhaps, on the other
hand, there will be a terrible crisis before the Kingdom, which is
nevertheless near at hand, actually arrives {cp. E. 8. i. p. 219).
How out of the Last Supper as it actually happened was
developed the institution of the eucharist is another matter, on
which I need not dwell here. It probably owes its origin (a) to
the historic common meals which Jesus was wont to partake of
with his disciples, and (6) to the inventive genius of Paul. For
the common meals continued after Jesus's death, perpetuated his
memory, and still united his disciples with him who was yet alive,
and yet among them, though invisibly. Paul was the first to
conceive and represent this common meal as an institution which
commemorates the Saviour who had given up his body and shed
his blood for the salvation of the world, and which had been
founded by the will of Jesus himself.
Andersen agrees with W. in omitting from the original Luke all
xxii. 19. His view is that the original narrative was something
like this: 'Jesus spoke the blessing, broke the bread, gave it them,
and said. Take, eat. For I say to you, I shall not again eat of it till
it is eaten fresh in the Kingdom of God {i.e. Luke xxii. 16). And
he received the cup, and spoke the blessing, and said. Take this
and divide it among you {i.e. Luke xxii. 17). For I say to you that
I shall not drink from this product of the vine until that day when
I drink it new in the Kingdom of God ' {i.e. Mark xiv. 25). Upon
this basis Mark's narrative was constructed and elaborated.

XIV. 26-31] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 333
26-31. Peter's Denial foretold
{Cp. Matt xxvi 30-35; Luke xxii 31-34)
26 And after they had sung the Hallel, they went out to the
27 mount of Olives. And Jesus said unto them, ' Ye will all stumble ;
for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep will be
28 scattered. But after I have risen, I will go before you to Galilee.'
29 But Peter said unto him, ' Even if all shall stumble, yet will not I.'
30 And Jesus said unto him, ' Verily I say unto thee, 'This day, even
in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou wilt deny me thrice.'
31 But he spoke the more vehemently, ' If I must die with thee,
I will not deny thee.' So also said they all.
26. Loisy thinks that 26 was 'originally' followed by 32.
The intervening story was made up to show that two events had
been predicted, namely Peter's denial and the flight or defection
of the apostles. Only the first of these is really described in the
Gospel, for xiv. 50 'n'est qu'une amorce pour le recit de [la]
dispersion.' Verse 28 is inserted to prepare the way for the story
of the empty tomb, a tale which implies the presence of the
apostles in Jerusalem the second day after the Passion, in contra
diction to what had been said of thefr immediate dispersion and
flight {E. 8. 1, p. 100). What Loisy means is that in the growth of
the story of the Passion the predictions naturally represent a later
stratum than the facts which are predicted. On the other hand,
the dispersion and flight of the disciples are historical : the clear
relation of it has been suppressed. Verse 28 puts a new face
upon the matter. The disciples went to Galilee after the dis
covery of the empty tomb, in order to obey the order implied in
the prediction.
"The definite Passover meal, which had not at any rate
been directly alluded to since 16, is now again mentioned. For
vp.vrj<TavTt<i seem to mean 'having sung the "Hallel" Psalms,'
i.e. the well-known festival Psalms cxiii-cxviii. so familiar to
every Jew. These were then sung at the end of the meal. Jesus
leaves the city and goes out to the Mount of Olives. It has been
thought that Bethany as his nightly quarters belongs to a
secondary tradition. Mark xi. 19 says simply that he went for the
night outside the city. Are we to assume that the particular
place whither he went on this fatal evening was his usual nightly
resting place ? ou the road to Bethany, but not in Bethany ? (so
Loisy, E. S. 11. p. S46). Others suppose, as it was the Jewish

334 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 26-31
custom to pass the first night of Passover in the city, that Jesus
went to the Mount of Olives and not to Bethany, because the
Mount was technically regarded as within the city. The question
is obscure. For, as we have seen, it is doubtful whether the Last
Supper was held on the first night of Passover, and not certain
that it took place in Jerusalem. ('Ob in der altesten Tradition
der Ort der Abendmahls Jerusalem gewesen ist lasst sich bezwei-
feln.' W.)
27. Jesus predicts the defection of the disciples. There seems
no reason why he should not have done this, though of course any
one can argue, if he pleases, that the prediction was made up to
suit the event. Assuming that certain recollections of Peter were
one of the sources of Mark, the words of Jesus in 17-31 may go
back to the memory of the disciples and of Peter. It is not incon
ceivable that Jesus may have felt that his disciples, however ready
to share with him in his ordinary life and in his journeys, were not
made of adequate stuff to cleave to him if the hopes to which they
clung were rudely shattered, and if he, whom they believed to be
the Messiah, should be captured by his enemies.
If the opening words of the verse are authentic, the quotation
from Zechariah (xiii. 7) was added later. The words are slightly
altered to suit the occasion. (' I will smite ' for ' smite.')
28. Though this verse can obviously not be attributed to
Jesus by any thoroughly critical commentator, it is yet of much
importance. For it seems to show, what is confirmed by other
evidence, that the locality where Jesus was first seen, after his
death, by his disciples was Galilee. The verse, as Holtzmann says,
interrupts the connection, for 29 follows far better immediately
after 27a. It is wanting in the Fragment found in the Faijum in
Egypt. Peter does not make the slightest allusion to it. Perhaps,
however, it is Mark who himself added the verse to his source.
J. Weiss has a peculiar view about this verse, which is perhaps
worth mentioning, as showing the endless possibilities for diver
gences of opinion in the interpretation of the Gospel narratives.
To begin with, he denies that verse 50 implies of necessity that
the disciples in their flight returned to Galilee. Secondly, he
argues that verse 28 does not say that Jesus will appear to his
disciples in Galilee. On the contrary, what the verse says is that
Jesus after his resurrection will go before them to Galilee, and
Weiss thinks we may assume in addition: with the intention of
establishing or awaiting there the Kingdom of God. Now, in this
sense, the prediction was not fulfilled. Hence Weiss supposes that
we have here ' ein hochst eigentumliches und unerfindbares Wort
Jesu,' from which we can gather his fixed conviction that his circle

XIV. 32-42] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 335
of disciples, scattered by his death, would be once more collected
together by him after his resurrection.
All this seems improbable. It is more than doubtful whether
Jesus ever predicted his resurrection, reappearance, and renewed
activity upon earth in this definite sense and way.
29-31. May not this famous passage also contain a historical
basis? Would Peter have allowed the story to grow up if there
were not truth in it ? The precise details and wording are another
matter. The impetuosity and eagerness of Peter are admirably
drawn, and are perhaps true to his actual character. But Loisy
regards the whole prediction as unhistoric. It was made up after
the event, just as the prediction of the dispersion of the disciples
as a whole.
30. 'Before the cock crow twice.' Only Mark (though not in all
the MSS.) speaks of two crowings. It is disputed whether there
was a real cock, or whether the crowing had not grown out of the
fact that ' cockcrowing ' was used as a technical term to indicate a
particular hour in the night — 3 a.m. In any case the double
crowing is, as we shall see, highly effective in the fulfilment. The
meaning may be that Peter will have denied his Master three
times between the beginning and end of the watch (3 a.m.-
6 A.m.) — the two crowings marking the two limits of time. But
the source in all probability spoke of only one crowing.
The writers of the Gospel maintain a splendid level of dignity
and pathos throughout the story of the Passion. (For Jewish readers
is it quite unnecessary to add that 'Passion' is used in its older
sense of suffering ?) Whether Mark xiv. and xv. tell truth or
fiction, or whatever combination of the two, in simple sublimity
and exquisite pathos they reach the very highest rung of the
literary ladder. They are matchless.
31. How far may we find in Peter's words Loisy's interpre
tation of them ? ' They talked of dying with their Master, without
being yet convinced that he had to die ; this is what Mark intends
us to understand, while also letting us divine that many of them
did really afterwards die for the Christ' {E. 8. 11. p. 550).
32-42. Gethsemane
{Cp. Matt, xxvi 36-46 ; Luke xxii 39-46)
32 And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane : and
33 he said to his disciples, ' Sit ye here, while I pray.' And he took

336 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 32-42
with him Peter and James and John. And he began to be dis-
34 tressed and troubled, and he said unto them, ' My soul is exceeding
35 sorrowful unto death : tarry ye here, and watch.' And he went
forward a little, and threw himself upon the ground, and prayed
36 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
37 wilt' And he came and found them sleeping, and said unto Peter,
38 ' Simon, sleepest thou ? Couldest not thou watch one hour? Watch
ye and pray, that ye come not into temptation. The spirit is
39 willing, but the flesh is weak.' And again he went away, and
40 prayed, speaking the same words. And he returned, and found
them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy ; and they knew not
41 what to answer him. And he came the third time, and said unto
them, 'Sleep ye still and take your rest? It is enough. The
hour is come ; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands
42 of sinners. Rise up, let us go ; lo, he that betrayeth me is at
hand.' Jesus is repre-'^ented as fully convinced that the hour of his
arrest, the beginning of the fatal End, is nigh. The narrator
shows him to us almost divinely prescient, but in a moment of
human weakness, turned by faith into new strength. The details
of the exquisite story must not be pressed, but it may well have
a historic basis. For the tendency was to turn Jesus from a man
into a God, and a God has no moments of fear or agony, even if he
j is about to die. Thus the author of the fourth Gospel omits the
: scene altogether ; it does not fit in with his theology or his con
ception of the ' divine word ' made flesh. The disciples may have
seen that Jesus was wrestling in prayer ; they may have perceived
that he was in trepidation and sore mental distress; they may
have noticed that at the moment of the arrest, before they left
him, he alone was perfectly collected and calm. Upon this know
ledge, the story, as we have it now, may have been built up. Yet
one cannot but marvel at the wonderful grace and beauty, the
exquisite tact and discretion, which the narrative displays. 'There
is not a word too little ; there is not a word too much.
32. Gethsemane means ' oil press ' or ' olive garden.' Accord
ing to the fourth Gospel this garden or enclosure was a place to
which Jesus had often resorted with his disciples, and where Judas
would naturally seek him out.
Jesus, says W., did not leave the house in which he had

XIV. 32-42] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 337
supped merely in order to pray. He feared arrest, and sought to
avoid it by passing the night in the open air.
33, 34. Three special disciples are allowed to accompany him.
Though he cannot depend upon them entirely, he does not perhaps
wish to be quite alone in this dark hour. Luke says nothing of
the distinction between the three and the other eight. Had Luke
a separate source, or did he, as Loisy thinks, use the source which
Mark himself had drawn upon ? In any case the three disciples
are as doubtful here as in the transfiguration. The motive is to
show that the chief disciples are still without intelligence. They
go to sleep. 'The intention of the Pauline redactor is always
the same, and that intention explains better than the hypothesis
of personal recollections the most characteristic peculiarities in
Mark's narrative.' ' At the end of the story, no difference is made
between the three and the eleven ; Jesus, returning to the three,
is found also with the eleven, and is speaking to them when
Judas arrives. No more here than elsewhere does it seem
probable that the redactor fills up with special Petrine recol
lections less precise data of the general apostolic tradition.' ' Once
more and for the last time does he desire to emphasise the
dulness and apathy of even the chief apostles before that mystery
of the Passion, which Jesus in his prayer at Gethsemane had
again revealed to them' {E. 8. i. p. loi, 11. pp. 560, 566). (The
feelings of Jesus are drawn out with great delicacy and charm by
Menzies, in his admirable Commentary ; it is only on re-reading it
that one sometimes asks : does not its author expound and know
too much ?)
Peter and the two others see physical signs of fear and distress.
Moreover, Jesus says to them, ' My soul is very grieved, even unto
death.' The word irepiXviro^ is used in the Greek translation of Psalms
xlii. 5, II, xliii. 5. It is usually rendered 'very sorrowful.'
Menzies has ' in great suffering.' ' Even unto death ' is a reminis
cence of Jonah iv. 9. As to the meaning, it is either, 'I would
that I were already dead,' i.e. ' I would that the awful experiences
I have to go through were over,' or (J. Weiss) ' my grief is so great
that I feel as if death were upon me.'
The words in which Jesus's fear and distress are depicted are
very strong: iKOaii^elaOai Kal dBrjuovelv, 'to be full of terror
and distress,' is Dr Weymouth's rendering.
35. He had asked the three disciples to wait and watch.
They were to give him timely notice should intruders appear upon
the scene. Or perhaps ' he wanted them to watch with him, to
share his vigil, not against human foes, but against the flood of
M. 22

338 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV 32-42
woes overwhelming his soul. If possible, he would have com
panionship in his extreme hour' (Gould). He then goes a little
way off from them in order to pray. They see him praying, but
then fall asleep. It is reasonable therefore to argue, with W. and
J. Weiss and others, that Jesus went far enough off to make them
unable to hear what he said even if he prayed aloud. Moreover,
if they fell asleep, they would not have heard. The words which
Mark gives are a consummately successful attempt to express what
the situation demanded — what the fear and despair of Jesus,
contrasted with his subsequent calm, suggest that he must have
said in his prayer. Loisy notes that Luke starts and ends
with words which Mark has only once in 38. With his theory
that Luke knew and used the source which Mark employed,
he presses the words and finds in them the clue to the prayers
ascribed by Mark to Jesus in 35 and ^6. What Jesus said
to the disciples was, not, 'pray that you may not be tempted,'
but, 'pray that / may not be tempted.' [Luke has omitted
the fie (I) in xxii. 40, but otherwise has made no change.]
Apparently, though he is not definite about this (but cp. E. 8.
I. p. 219) Loisy regards this request as historical. Jesus asked
his disciples to pray, and himself prayed, that he might not have
to encounter the supreme 'temptation' of death. This is the
meaning of 35, and the words in 36 repeat the same idea. The
cup is Pauline, and recalls the ' cup ' of the new covenant. ' Not
what I will, but what thou wilt' is based upon the Lord's
Prayer. Hence ' it was not necessary that Peter, James and John
should have heard the words in order that Mark could have written
them' {E.8. u. p. 562-568).
36. dXX ov Ti iyco OeXco dXXd ri a-v. One must supply
yevrjaerai, not yeveaOco, on account of the ov. The simple and
sublime words show prayer at its highest. ' Not what I will, but
what thou wilt.' The lesson of Gethsemane speaks to all. If
we learn from the lives of heroes, we too have something here to
learn. How much strength has the recollection of the prayer at
Gethsemane given to endless human souls! And why should it
not, even though for us Jesus is neither God nor Messiah, give
strength to Jewish hearts also? We must restore this hero to
the bead-roll of our heroes; we must read his story; we must
learn from it and gain from it all (and it is not little) which it
can give us and teach us.
The ' hour ' is the hour of doom : the fixed and predestined
hour; the hour of crisis which was now at hand.
37. The disciples clearly are still un.suspicious. Of course the
contrast is intended. Jesus knows; they are ignorant. Some

XIV. 32-42] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 339
{e.g. Loisy) hold that the sleep of the disciples is Mark's creation ;
others that it is historic. But, as J. Weiss says, the conduct of
the disciples is unintelligible and inconceivable, if they had already
been told that within the next few hours the moment of crisis
would come. Hence, though Jesus may have foretold to his
disciples that in the hour of danger they would desert him, he
cannot have said to Peter, 'Within the next few hours you will
deny me thrice.' But J. Weiss holds fast to the sleep. He thinks
it was told by Peter, and that Peter should have told this, for him
discreditable event, is a proof of the honesty of the tradition.
38. If we put aside Loisy's explanation (see note on 35), this
general injunction and adage seem quite out of place. At any
rate, as W. says, it ' fallt hier aus dem Ton.' Perhaps the saying
and command were both uttered by Jesus upon another occasion.'
As the words stand, they may be explained to mean : be vigilant
and pray that you do not succumb to temptation (which will soon
befall you). Sudden danger, for which men are unprepared,
makes the body unable to obey the mind when the peril comes,
seizes the body and overawes the ' willing ' spirit.
39. The triple going and coming are dramatic, but scarcely
historic. 40. We may compare this verse with ix. 6. It is a kind of
supernatural sleep which is portrayed to us, which it must be
admitted throws doubt upon its authenticity.
41. There is some doubt as to the rendering of the opening
words. Some take them interrogatively. 'Do ye still sleep on
and take your rest ? ' Others take them ironically : ' sleep on
then, and rest.' Or they may be taken to mean, ' sleep on : it
now matters not ; I fear no longer ; I do not need your support ;
I am resigned, and you cannot prevent the destined doom, which
is the will of God.' to \onr6v is odd in any case. Some render
'henceforward'; others, 'now.' The words are wanting in the
S.S., as also is direxei.
dire-)(ei. The meaning is disputed. W., who would bracket
the intervening words as secondary, would connect direxei closely
with iyeipeaOe, i.e. ' Enough of sleep ; stand up.' B. Weiss says it
means, ' it is enough : ye can sleep on now.' Jesus has conquered
in the arduous battle ; he needs his disciples and their companion
ship no more. The hour is come and he is ready for it. Dr J. de
Zwaan (in Expositor, 1905, p. 459-472) has given a new and
interesting explanation of aTrexei. He denies that there is any
adequate evidence for the impersonal use, or for the meaning.

340 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 32-42
suffidt, 'it is enough.' On the other hand, he finds that in the
papyri the word is often used for acknowledgments of money, where
it means, ' I have received.' So too here, Jesus knows that Judas
is meditating his betrayal ; he realizes that this betrayal will have
been brought about for the sake of money, and that money will be
its result. So now, when he catches sight of Judas and his band,
he says : dirixei, ' he did receive ' (the promised money) ; he has
succumbed to the temptation. The subject of direxei is therefore
Judas. Deissmann seems to think favourably of this interpretation
{Licht mm Osten, p. 76).
' The hour is come.' These words W. would regard as
' secondary,' on account of the use of ' Son of man.' The ' hour ' is
the same as the hour in 35. J. Weiss also thinks that the sentence
looks like a sort of quotation from ix. 31, or similar passages.
'Sinners.' In what sense is the word used? W. says 'the
"sinners" are, elsewhere, the heathen, who do not fit in here.'
But this is rash, for 'sinners' is also used, as in ii 15 (in the
phrase 'tax-collectors and sinners'), of Jews. Differing from
Menzies, I think that ' sinners ' is used here to characterise those
who are the enemies of the Messiah.
42. The former verse (from dTrexei) possibly, but this one
certainly, are spoken under the consciousness, whether through
sight, or sound, or both, that the arresting party are at hand.
The speech becomes more agitated. It ends hastily.
dycofjiev. 'As the hour has come, it must be met worthily.
It must not find the disciples lying on the ground, but standing
by the Master's side. " Let us go," does not point to flight, but to
an advance to meet the approaching party' (Menzies). And J.
Weiss says : ' Jesus feels the presence of the betrayer even before
he is there, and goes with his disciples to meet him ; nevertheless
the next verse begins as if Jesus were interrupted in his words by
the approach of Judas and his band.' We have, then, I suppose,
to understand that Jesus sees or hears men drawing near; he says
' Let us go forth to meet them ' ; but hardly are the words out of
his mouth before the men are already upon him.
Loisy {E. 8- 11. pp. 569, 570) supposes that the 'historic tradition,'
the source of Mark, only knew the words: 'Now rest and sleep' —
a permission or invitation which was cut short and frustrated by
the arrival of Judas. But Mark wanted to show that the ' Son of
man ' was not surprised by the event. Once more he must fore
tell his destiny. ' It is enough ' is an uncertain and inadequate
transition. Loisy even supposes that these words may be an echo
of those which Jesus is reported by Luke to have said about the
swords. (But Mark has dTrexei, Luke has 'iKuvov iariv.)

XIV. 43-52] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 341
43-52. The Arrest
{Cp. Matt xxvi 47-56; Luke xxii 47-53)
43 And immediately, while he yet spoke, came Judas, one of the
Twelve, and with him a band with swords and bludgeons from the
44 chief priests and the scribes and the Elders. Now the betrayer
had given them a token, saying, ' Whomsoever I kiss, that is he ;
45 seize him, and lead him away safely.' So as soon as he had come,
he went straightway up to Jesus, and said, ' Master ' ; and kissed
46, 47 him. And they laid their hands on him, and seized him. But
one of the bystanders drew his sword, and smote the servant of the
48 high priest, and cut off his ear. And Jesus answered and said
unto them, 'Have ye come out to capture me with swords and
49 with bludgeons, as if against a thief? I was daily with you in
the temple, teaching, and ye seized me not : — but the scriptures
50, 51 must be fulfilled.' Then they all forsook him, and fled. Yet a
young man followed him, clad only in a linen shirt upon his naked
52 body ; and they seized him. But he let the linen shirt slip, and
fled from them naked.
43. Jesus is speaking to the three disciples, according to the
strict interpretation of the narrative, but the local separation of
the three from the eight is now ignored. It is somewhat note
worthy that Judas is explained to be ' one of the Twelve,' just as
if nothing had been said about him before. But probably no
deductions are to be drawn from this.
Who form the ' crowd ' ? Not, it is generally supposed, Roman
soldiers (as in John), and not the regular Temple guard, but an
unorganised band hired for the occasion. If the arrest took place
the night before, and not the night of, the Passover, many
difficulties are avoided.
44. The betrayal with a kiss is not mentioned by the author
of the fourth Gospel. It is a little difficult that this ' sign ' was
necessary in the case of a man who had been prominently teaching
in Jerusalem for some while ; but it was night time, and we need
not suppose that Jesus was well known to everybody. 'The sign
given by Judas,' says Gould, 'had nothing unusual about it, but
was the ordinary form of salute.' He adds : ' The motives of Judas
in this extraordinary treachery are hard to understand. In
judging of them, we have to remember that he was one of the

342 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 43-52
Twelve chosen by Jes\is to be his most intimate companions [there
may, however, be some doubt as to the length of time he had been
with Jesus], and we must not undervalue that choice by ascribing
to Judas motives of such utter and irredeemable vileness as would
make him an impossible companion for any decent person. It
may be that he had for his purpose in this extraordinary move to
force Jesus to assume the offensive against his enemies. This is,
at least, vastly more probable than the mercenary motive hinted
at in the fourth Gospel.' The ' kiss ' is perhaps rather suspicious,
on account of the parallels, 2 Sam. xx. 9 ; Prov. xxvii. 6. On the
other hand it may be argued that 44 is only the inference drawn
by Mark from the tradition of what actually had occurred.
46. In Mark, Jesus says no word to the betrayer.
47. In Luke the attempt at resistance on the part of the
disciples takes place before the arrest. In Mark we have to
suppose that they are so appalled and overcome by the sudden
onset of Judas and his band that, till the arrest is effected, they
are unable to make the smallest movement.
The words eZs Se ti? TtSi" irapeaTr^KOTcov, ' one of the bystanders,'
are very peculiar. So far we have not heard of any one else being
present at Gethsemane except the Twelve. But perhaps we must
keep the section 32-42 apart from 12-31, and interpret the
' disciples ' of 32 to mean more than the Twelve, or rather Eleven.
Even then ' one of the bystanders ' is odd, for one would at least
expect ' one of the disciples.'
' His sword.' Thus some at least of the entourage of Jesus are
armed, and, expecting an attack or onset, are prepared to resist it.
Jesus does not rebuke the action of the 'bystander.' (For a
further consideration of the subject see the notes on Luke.)
The 'servant' of the high priest is probably the leader of the
band. It is not said that upon the action of the bystander
reprisals followed. Or, at the threat ofthis, did the disciples flee?
We cannot reproduce what exactly happened.
48. The speech of Jesus is somewhat inappropriate for such a
scene of scuffle, confusion, and alarm ; but it is filled with a quiet
dignity. It is addressed rather to those who sent the 'crowd'
than to these men themselves — to the masters, not to their
servants. Luke seems to feel this, and makes the authorities
present, which is healing one inappropriateness by creating another.
Jesus implies that he would have readily allowed himself to
have been arrested in broad daylight in the Temple. The reply
of the authorities would presumably have been that an arrest in
the city or the Temple might have provoked from the excitable

XIV. 43-52] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 343
populace effective resistance and riot. The swords of the arresting
troop were not unjustified in view of the fact that swords were not
absent among the disciples or friends of Jesus.
49. ' Daily.' The interval between Jesus's arrival at Jerusalem
and his arrest must have been fairly lengthy to justify this ex
pression. Mark himself, as we have seen, would apparently confine
the interval to three days. If the Last Supper and the arrest
happened on a Thursday evening, Jesus entered Jerusalem, ac
cording to the Marcan chronology, on Monday (see Mark xi. 11,
12, 20, xiv. 3, 17). Luke seems to have preserved the more
accurate tradition in xxi. 37, 38.
'But [this has happened] in order that the Scriptures might be
fulfilled'; so literally. Two explanations are possible. Jesus means
generally that he resigns himself to the arrest, because his capture
and death are part of the divine will and foretold in Scripture. So
e.g. Menzies : ' What Scripture had foretold of the death of the
Messiah had come to pass, and so Jesus submits to the arrest,
protesting against the manner of it, but recognizing in the fact
itself the will of God.' In this case the ypa^a'i (Scriptures) might
be Isaiah liii. On the other hand, J. Weiss says that the ypa<pa,i
cannot be those 'which merely speak generally of the death of
Messiah.' The allusion must be to passages in which the special
manner of Jesus's arrest seemed to be portrayed. But what
passages the Evangelist had in his mind we cannot telL
50. Whither they fled is not stated. The general view of the
commentators is that Mark implies that before long they all
returned to Galilee.
51, 52. Only Mark has this curious incident. Who was this
'young man'? Brandt thinks he must have been one of the
Twelve. But this seems extremely unlikely. A popular idea at
present is that it was the Evangelist Mark himself It is often
supposed that Jesus ate his Passover meal in the house of Mark's
mother (Acts xii. 12), 'and Mark might have followed the party
unseen when they left for the Mount of Olives ' (Menzies). But it
is by no means sure that this Mark was the author of our Gospel.
And, again, it is not sure that these two verses, ignored by Matthew
and Luke, are not a later addition. There are also other argu
ments against the suggested identification, upon which it is
unnecessary to dwell.
(rvvr)KoXovdei. The word is rather peculiar, but it occurs in
Mark v. 37, and need not imply, as Brandt thinks, that the youth
was one of the Twelve. The term eh tk veavia-KO<i seems intended
to exclude the disciples.

344 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 43-52
He had only a linen shirt on. Why was this ? It does not
seem clear. Those who think that he was Mark suppose that
when the party broke up late, after the Passover meal, he hurriedly
followed them en ddshabille. This seems very peculiar and un
likely. But if he did not come from the house in which Jesus had
held the Last Supper, where did he come from ? Was he a work
man or watchman living in some hut in the olive garden ? (So
some older commentators quoted by Schanz.) W. says: "The
young man is undoubtedly not one of the Twelve; he seems to
have jumped out of bed only after the scuffle had begun as he is
only clad with his nightshirt.' But, one would like to know, from
a bed in what house? W. is very severe upon the attempt to
ascertain who the young man was. After pointing out that Mark
gives him no name, any more than he names the servant of the
high priest or the man who cut off the servant's ear, while later
tradition invented names for the latter two, he adds in his biting
way : ' Christian Rabbis have also guessed who the young man in
the shirt was, namely the Evangelist Mark himself As if they
were justified in wasting their ingenuity !'
The peculiarity of the whole incident lends some little strength
to the old hypothesis that it is due to two passages in the Old
Testament: Amos ii. 16 and Genesis xxxix. 12. M. Loisy is
inclined to share this view. How, he asks, could the incident have
become known ? Did the youth in his flight meet Peter and tell
him the story? But, then, ought we not to know more about
him ? The Messianic interpretation of Amos ii. 16 may have
suggested the entire incident.
53-65. The Trial before the Sanhedrin
{Cp. Matt xxvi 57-67; Luke xxii. 54, 55, 63-71)
53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest : and all the chief
54 priests and the Elders and the scribes assembled together. And
Peter followed him at a distance unto the court of the high priest :
and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.
55 And the chief priests and all the High Court sought for evidence
56 against Jesus, to put him to death ; but they found none. For
many bore false witness against him, but their evidence did not
57 agree. Then some rose up, and bore false witness against him,
58 saying, ' We heard him say, I will destroy this temple which is
made with hands, and after three days I will build another made
59 without hands.' But even in this their evidence did not agree

XIV. 53-65] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 345
60 Then the high priest stood up among them, and asked Jesus,
saying, 'Answerest thou nothing to that which these bear witness
61 against thee?' But he held his peace, and answered nothing.
Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, ' Art thou
62 the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One V And Jesus said, ' I am :
and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the
63 Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.' Then the high
priest rent his clothes, and said, ' What further need have we of
64 witnesses ? Ye have heard the blasphemy : what think ye ?' And
they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
65 And some began to spit on him [and to cover his face], and
to strike him with their fists, and to say unto him, 'Prophesy':
and the servants dealt him blows.
It is impossible, and for my particular purpose even un
necessary, to enter with fulness and detail into the many questions
raised by the trial of Jesus — if trial it can be called — both before
the Sanhedrin and before Pilate. So far as Rabbinic law throws
fight upon the trial — which violates that law in almost every
particular — some remarks will be found upon the subject in
Additional Note 28.
We shall never be able to tell or decide with any certainty
what took place in the high priest's house or before Pilate. We
shall never be able to tell and decide with certainty what share
the Jewish, and what share the Roman, authorities had in the
death of Jesus. A few general observations may be desirable at
this juncture.
(i) The desire of the Evangelists is clear — to increase the
share of the Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion; to diminish
the share of Roman responsibility. Pilate is whitewashed as
much as possible; the Jewish authorities are condemned. We
shall see many indications of this desire as we proceed.
(2) It does not follow because the trial of Jesus before the
Sanhedrin or high priest violates Jewish law in many important
points, that therefore the account given of it cannot be true.
There have been illegal trials at all times, and even the flimsiest
legal forms have sufficed to get rid of an enemy.
(3) The Jews, it is alleged, on the strength of a dubious
passage in the Jerusalem Talmud, had been deprived for some
years of the right of putting a criminal to death. Hence it was
necessary to find some decent pretext, to go through some legal

346 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 53-65
forms, to discover some suitable ground, before demanding the
infliction of the death penalty from the Roman authority.
(4) Not only, as we shall see, is the story of the trial before
the Sanhedrin (and also before Pilate) very obscure, but it has to
be remembered that no disciple of Jesus was present upon either
occasion — certainly not upon the former. The disciples, those
who collected and handed down the traditions about the life and
death of Jesus, could only have heard of what took place at second
hand. J. Weiss thinks there must have been many discussions,
conversations, questionings and arguments between friends and
foes of Jesus after his death about the grounds of his condem
nation and the details of his trial. This indeed is not impossible,
but it is, of course, only conjecture. (He also thinks that Joseph
of Arimathaea may have been present and reported, which we
shall see is doubtful.)
(5) On the whole, while the details of the trials can never
be ascertained with certainty, the balance of probability strongly
inclines to the view that the Gospel narratives are so far correct
in that Jesus was really put to death by the Romans at the
instance and instigation of the Jewish authorities, and more
especially of the ruling priesthood. That there was any meeting
of the full Sanhedrin is most doubtful ; doubtful also is the part
played by the ' Scribes ' and Pharisees ; but that the Sadducean
priesthood was at the bottom of the arrest and of the ' trial,' and
that the result of this 'trial' was adequate to obtain a condem
nation from Pilate, cannot reasonably be doubted.
As to the internal government of Jerusalem and Judsea at
that time, and as to the composition of the Sanhedrin, see Ad
ditional Note 29.
53. Mark does not mention the name of the high priest.
Is it because the name was not mentioned in his source 'ou le
role du grand pretre n'avait aucun relief? {E. 8. 11. p. 593).
Difficulties begin at once. How could the full court be got
together so rapidly in the middle of the night ? Jesus could
hardly have arrived at the high priest's house much before
midnight. When was the arrest arranged ? Not many hours,
we may presume, before it took place. It is usually supposed
that it was only after the Supper that Judas arranged the arrest,
and obtained his troop from the authorities. Did they at that
hour of night send out messengers to summon the 'Scribes and
chief priests ' together that a court might rapidly be constituted?
Did they assume that the arrest would be successful, and that
Jesus would be brought to the high priest's house at the very
hour when he actually arrived ?

XIV. 53-65] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 347
_ In addition to the difficulties, there are the illegalities. No
trial for life might be held at night, and the court which tried
such an offence was specially constituted, and consisted of twenty-
three members, not of the whole Sanhedrin.
Who are the chief priests ? Menzies observes : 'There was but
one [high priest]; but the office appears to have conferred an
indelible character, and there were always at this period a number
of men who, after serving as high priests for a time, and being
deposed by the government, still busied themselves with public
affairs and exercised great influence.' More probably Mark means
merely the chief priests who constituted the main Jewish au
thority, or the priestly members of the Sanhedrin.
The house of the high priest was not the right locale for the
court to meet in. This is another little ' irregularity ' to add to
the account.
54. There seems no reason to doubt this statement. Thus
Peter could know nothing of what passed in the room or hall
upstairs. He remained in the 'court-yard.'
55. The entire court is present, and immediately proceeds to
the trial. But the court is both prosecutor and judge — a further
' irregularity.' In Luke, as we shall see, the court does not meet
till the morning, which J. Weiss thinks is more probably correct.
The court does not merely hear evidence, but looks for it. We
ask, how have the witnesses been obtained at this hour of night ?
Where did they spring from? Were they kept in constant at
tendance lest their evidence should be suddenly required ? W.
says, it is true : * That the witnesses are at hand in the middle of
the night need cause no difficulty. Das Verhor war vorbereitet
und die Sache hatte Eile.' But though haste was necessary, that
the trial was prepared is asserted, but not proved. The Psalmist
(xxvii. 12) says: ' False witnesses are risen up against me,' and in
such Old Testament passages the origin of some of the ' witnesses '
in Mark xiv. 56 may probably be found. It was important for the
early Church to show that their Master and Lord had been put to
death upon a false charge, and that no consistent evidence could
be found against him.
56. 'The evidence did not tally,' as Menzies renders the
words. It would seem, as Holtzmann says, that the witnesses
were examined separately with closed doors. But more probably
the picture of the witnesses sought out by the prosecuting judges,
but giving inconsistent, and therefore obviously false, evidence, is
rather imaginary than real.

348 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 53-65
57. At this point the whole big question can be raised : What
was the charge for which Jesus was condemned ; or. What was the
charge which sufficed for the Jewish authorities to salve their
consciences and to make Jesus, in their opinion, worthy of death ?
It does not follow that the charge upon which they were able to
condemn him as a Jewish court was the same as the charge which
they brought against him before Pilate, but to distinguish between
the two causes a difficulty.
The narrative (58) speaks of one specific charge made by
witnesses, and of one point confessed, upon interrogation, by Jesus
himself (62). The condemnation follows upon the confession, not
upon the charge made by the witnesses. The confession is that
Jesus was the Messiah; the charge is that he had foretold the
destruction of the Temple. If either or both of these matters
furnished the pretext for his condemnation, there is the difficulty
that neither of them, according to Rabbinic law, constituted
blasphemy. W. takes the strong line that the charge brought up against
Jesus which sufficed for his condemnation before the high priest,
was his prediction of the fall of the Temple. Thus 58 is, in
substance, authentic and historical ; 61 b and 62 are interpolations
and unhistorical.
The statement of the witnesses in 58 is, in substance, the
same as that made by Jesus in xiii. 2, which W. regards as most
authentic and original. It is alluded to in xv. 29. Now W. asserts
that though such a prediction may not be blasphemy according to
the letter of the Mishnah, yet it was blasphemy according to
Jewish sentiment and opinion right away from Jeremiah's days
(Jer. xxvi.) till the days of Jesus. For the Temple was the seat
of God. To foretell its destruction was blasphemous {cp. Acts vi 13,
as regards the case of Stephen). Moreover, W. points out that in
Matthew the two witnesses who spoke of this prediction are not
definitely called false witnesses, and their evidence is not said to
be inconsistent. (In his ' Notes on Matthew,' however, W. has to
acknowledge that this argument is not worth much ; for Matthew
calls all the evidence false, and all the witnesses lying. The last
two are included in the general category.) That they bore false
witness, and that thefr evidence did not tally, is Mark's judgment,
not that of the Sanhedrin. If their evidence was inconsistent and
false, why is it separated from that of the witnesses in 56, and
treated differently by the court? Matthew shows that the text
of Mark has been 'edited,' for in his narrative Mark xiv. 59 is
wanting, and for i-\frevBofjiapTvpovv in 57, Matthew has merely
eitrov. Hence W. asserts that 'this blasphemy' was the legal
' Todesschuld ' ; it was proved by consistent witnesses, to whom no

XIV. 53-65] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 349
objection could be taken, and by his silence Jesus confirmed and
acknowledged it.
W. seems to have come to this opinion, not because he wants
to deny that Jesus, in one sense or another, claimed to be the
Messiah. For he expressly says that he takes no objection to the
contents of xv. 2, in which Jesus seems to admit his Messiahship
to Pilate. But he thinks it is impossible to believe that the claim
to Messiahship constituted blasphemy. He says : ' To the Jews a
man who claimed to be Messiah was not a criminal, as he was to
the Romans. Even though there can be no doubt that Jesus at
the last did give himself out as the Messiah, and was for this
crucified by Pilate, yet his condemnation by the Jewish authorities
must have had formally another ground. According to Jewish
ideas there was no possible blasphemy {lag darin un/moglich dne
Gotteslasterung) if a man said he was the Messiah, the Son of God.'
Before this view is criticised, it must be explained why, if the
prediction of the Temple's destruction was the real blasphemy,
and the real ground of Jesus's condemnation, the Gospel narrative
does not say so. The reply is manifold. First, Pilate, anyway,
condemned Jesus for claiming the Messiahship. Surely then the
Sanhedrin had done the same. Secondly, the Messiahship, when
Mark wrote, was the great difference between Jew and Christian.
Jesus to the latter was Messiah and Son of God; to the former
he was not. Surely he had been sent to his death because the
Jews refused to recognize his Messiahship and his divine Sonship.
Thfrdly, we can trace in the Gospels themselves a disinclination
to allow that the words attributed to Jesus in 58 contained any
truth. Thus Mark, or an editor, speaks of the evidence as false
and inconsistent and Luke leaves this charge out altogether. Just
because the tradition still accepted to a large extent the Jewish
reverence for the Temple, and felt that an attack upon it would
have given the Jewish authority the legal pretext they required,
did it, half consciously, half unconsciously, seek to get rid of this
historic ground of Jesus's condemnation and to substitute for it
another. As to the form of the prediction, it is probable that originally,
if the witnesses quoted it, it was nearer to what we read in xiii. 2.
J. Weiss points out that the evidence shows that the prophecy in
its literal sense was 'unendurable' to the early Christians. In
John ii 21 the temple to be destroyed is explained to be Jesus's
body, which is to be destroyed and to rise again. Mark stands
half way. He interprets at any rate the rebuilding of the temple
spiritually : the new temple is the Christian Church {cp. 1 Cor. iii.
17 ; I Peter ii. 5). Weiss further points out that it is not said that
Jesus will build up another temple within three days, but after

350 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 53-65
three days ; that is, after a short interval. The idea is that the
building will, through a divine miracle, become ready all at once ;
it will descend — like the new Jerusalem — from heaven. Jesus in
all probability did not say that he would destroy the Temple. Its
destruction was part of the divine judgment, and as God would
destroy the old Temple, so would God create the new one. Menzies
takes a similar view.
W.'s trenchant interpretation of the trial, whereby the accuracy
of 61 h and 62 are wholly rejected, and the entire weight is thrown
upon 58, seems doubtful. For we must surely believe that the
Messiahship claim was at least ventilated, and that it was resolved
that Jesus was to be denounced to Pilate upon that ground. It
seems somewhat rash in a narrative, the whole of which is so shaky
and dubious as xiv. 55-64, to pin one's faith upon one piece, and
strenuously to reject another. Lastly, though the prediction about
the Temple may have been nearer blasphemy than the claim to be
Messiah, still, on the one hand, it was not technically blasphemy
according to Jewish law, as later codified ; and, on the other hand,
if ' blasphemy ' could have been stretched to suit the one offence,
it could also have been stretched to suit the other. The claim
to be Messiah, without any of the ordinary qualifications of a
Messiah — a claim admitted by a solitary prisoner in the full power
of his enemies — must have seemed a presumptuous insolence, a
kind of taking God's holy promises in vain. It could, perhaps,
have been regarded as blasphemy by those who had predetermined
to put out of the way a man who challenged the legitimacy of
their authority, their claims, their rectitude, and their teaching.
Holtzmann argues in this strain. J. Weiss thinks that the judges
would not have ventured to pass a formal verdict of guilty of
death because of blasphemy, when no technical blasphemy had
been uttered. Hence he supposes that there was no regular
verdict or regular condemnation, as mentioned in 64 ; but that
the confession wrung from Jesus that he was the Messiah seemed
enough to the authorities as a basis upon which to bring Jesus
before Pilate and to demand his execution. Luke does not mention
a formal verdict and condemnation. Something, too, may be said
for the argument that Mark ii 7 shows that blasphemy was an
elastic conception, not confined to the mere pronouncement of
God's name (Yahweh). There is also force in Menzies's words: 'If
the condemnation was illegal, it may have come about in various
ways. A charge of constructive blasphemy was likely to be made
against him by those who were familiar with his utterances in
Galilee, e.g. those as to the forgiveness of sins (said, ii. 7, to be
blasphemous) and as to the Sabbath. A condemnation on such a
charge lay within the competence of the Sanhedrin, and was likely

XIV, 53-65] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 35 1
to impress the mind of the Jews. It is not unlikely that the
charge was blasphemy, but the report of the trial cannot be con
sidered full or satisfactory.'
60. The high priest 'stood up in the midst'; so literally.
This is usually taken to mean that he got up, left his seat, and
stood in front of Jesus. But the phrase may merely mean 'got up.'
61. Jesus makes no reply. This may be quite historic. The
judges would not understand his point of view, his aims, his hopes,
or his belief. But one remembers Isaiah liii. 7, and is a little
doubtful. It is, no doubt, highly curious, as W. says, that the high priest
does not say, ' Your silence means a confession,' does not, in fact,
pursue the charge of 58 at all, but raises a totally fresh question.
As to the form of the question, Jewish readers must especially
notice that the high priest's question does not imply that the very
idea of 'the Son of God' is itself a blasphemy. It is assumed by
him that the true Messiah would be ' the Son of God.' Nor was
Mark inaccurate in making the high priest use such words. The
later metaphysical and more developed conception of the ' Son of
God ' had not yet arisen. The Messiah was the Son of God ; in
the Messianically interpreted second and eighty-ninth Psalms he
is actually so called. In the age of Jesus the purely human
character of the Messiah was not insisted on by Jewish teachers
as it became insisted on after the development of Christianity.
Room was given for wide speculations and fancies as to his nature
and pre-existence; he stood in a special relation to God, and was
in a pre-eminent sense his Son. But, of course, he was a separate
and subordinate being, distinct from, and created by, God. In this
sense only does the high priest speak of him as God's Son, and only
in this sense does Jesus mean that he is Son and Messiah. The
' Blessed One ' is merely a circumlocution for God. To a Jew, as
Loisy says, the phrase ' Son of God ' would have implied no ' id6e
metaphysique ' which he rightly and truly says is more ' conforme
a I'esprit de la gentilite ' than to that of Judaism. The phrase
would indeed be blasphemous if it implied the incarnation of a
being ' qui ^tait, pour ainsi dire, quelque chose de Dieu.' And
if the scene, as Loisy thinks, has been invented by the Evangelist,
or by Christian tradition, then nothing is more easy to explain
than that it would have been supposed that the Jews regarded the
ascription of the title by Jesus to himself as blasphemy {E. S. IL
p. 604). On the other hand, if it was no blasphemy for the real Messiah
to be spoken of, and to speak of himself, as the Son of God in the
Jewish and contemporary sense, it might conceivably be regarded

352 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 53-65
as blasphemy for a man to claim to be that Son, when he was not.
J. Weiss points out that, when the fourth Gospel was written, the
Jews are said to be indignant because Jesus called God his own
{'IBiov) Father, thereby making himself equal with God. And
when the Wisdom of Solomon was written, the wicked are said
to taunt the righteous man because ' he calls himself the child of
God, he vaunts that God is his father.' They urge, in words which
seem oddly relevant to the trial of Jesus : ' Let us see if his words
be true, and let us try what shall befall him in the ending of his
life. For if the righteous man is God's son, he will uphold him,
and he will deliver him out of the hands of his adversaries. With
outrage and torture let us put him to the test, that we may learn
his gentleness, and may prove his patience under wrong. Let us
condemn him to a shameful death ; he shall be visited according
to his words.' If the judges sought for a plea on which to condemn
Jesus, his confession of the Messiahship would surely have sufficed,
even if, in the most technical sense, it was not blasphemy.
If Jesus is asked 'Art thou the Messiah?' the further question
is implied, ' Do you expect to become the King of the Jews, and
to do all that we have been taught to believe that Messiah will
do ? ' Jesus, in his reply, asserts that he will do what has been
predicted of the Messiah ; but he implies that the fulfilment will
only take place after his death.
62. The first part of the reply of Jesus is a formal acknow
ledgment of his Messiahship. In Matthew and in Luke he does
not do this. (Compare the parallel passages and the notes to
them.) Some {e.g. J. Weiss) suppose that in this respect Matthew
and Luke are nearer the truth. Weiss thinks that the marked
divergence of Luke must show that he followed a different account
or version of the trial which was also more authentic and accurate
than that of Mark. In Matthew's ' Thou hast said,' some have
thought that Jesus means to say, ' You suggest that I am or claim
to be the Messiah, but I do not.' We have, however, seen reason
to believe that Jesus did in some sense or other claim to be the
Messiah. J. Weiss thinks that Jesus, as the version in Luke
records, refused to answer, because there was no common ground
between accuser and accused. He did indeed believe that he was
the Son of God, and he did believe that it would probably please
God to effect the transformation from the one era to the other
era, from the old kingdom of sin and violence to the new Kingdom
of righteousness and peace, through him. But his conviction thai;
he was the Son of God was a sanctuary of faith into which he
allowed none to enter, about which he would not speak, which he
could not and would not explain to his enemies. And as to the

XIV. 53-65] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 353
Messiahship, that, too, in his conception of it, would be unin
telligible to them. But how subjective all this is, how conjectural!
It may be more or less true, it may be false. How can we hope
to guess with any approach to certainty what Jesus may have
meant, when we do not even know with any assurance what he
actually said ?
Jesus proceeds not merely to acknowledge his Messiahship
(which, as J. Weiss says, is here shown to have been in truth not a
secret of his disciples, but actively discussed among the populace),
but he also volunteers a statement that the famous prediction of
Daniel is soon to be accomplished before their eyes. He combines
with Daniel vii 13 the equally famous phrase of Psalm ex. i : 'The
Lord said unto my lord. Sit thou at my right hand.' If Jesus said
these words we can hardly think that he distinguished between
himself, the Son of man, and the Messiah. The Son of man must
be the Messiah, and both must be himself Though now, as
Menzies says, ' a Messiah in disguise, he is on the point of being
invested with all that belongs to the office. The Messiah, as
spiritual-minded Jews conceived him, is about to appear. Even
his enemies will see Jesus clothed with all the power and splendour
of the Son of man, sitting, as that personage was expected to do,
on the right hand of the Power, the powerful or Almighty One
(Jesus also avoids the divine name), and coming with the clouds
to execute His judgment and set up His Kingdom.' If Jesus said
the words, this seems their most obvious explanation. But J. Weiss
ventures to think that we may regard the words, at any rate as
Luke gives them (xxii 69), as historical, and yet suppose that
Jesus did not necessarily mean to identify himself with the
mysterious Son of man. What Jesus was sure of, and never more
sure of than now, when all earthly hope had vanished and his own
death was at hand, was that the new era would soon begin, that
the Kingdom was about to come. Hence triumphantly he quotes
the old prediction, convinced that the hour was nigh. God would
fulfil His word : ' so oder so, sei es mit ihm, sei es ohne ihn, daruber
spricht er sich nicht aus.' Dr Carpenter takes much the same line.
' He may be cut off, like the Anointed Servant of an older age,
from the land of the living ; but the judgment, the resurrection,
are nigh, when he will see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied.
Undaunted, then, he confronts the anger of the council, the wrath
of the high priest ; as though he said. You may kill me, but you
cannot baffle God ! Messiah may perish, but the Son of God will
come!' {First Three Gospels, p. 390).
W. argues against the historical character of the verse. " Jesus
not only acknowledges that he is the Messiah, but calls himself
the Son of man and predicts his Parousia. It is very improbable
M. 23

354 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 53-65
that he ever did that, but most improbable of all that he did it
before the Sanhedrin.... The solemn scene is pleaded as proof
of authenticity. But if Luther's "Here stand I," when half Europe
was listening, is not by any means free from doubt, how can these
words of Jesus, spoken much less openly, and in the absence of his
disciples, be guaranteed by the solemn scene ? ' In truth one's
judgment must be left in suspense. But in view of what they
had to report to Pilate, it does seem as if the judges would naturally
have tried to get some evidence against Jesus, and some confession
from himself, as to his rumoured Messiahship. Beyond this we
cannot go.
63. The high priest tears his clothes. This was quite in ac
cordance with Jewish law and custom upon hearing a blasphemy.
But it may not be meant here in a purely legal sense. To tear
one's clothes might also be a sign of horror and grief
If W.'s view that 616 and 62 are later interpolations be correct,
then 63 follows on 61 a. But then, how could the high priest say,
' ye have heard the blasphemy ' ? It is rather lame to argue that
Jesus's silence was interpreted by the high priest as a confession,
or to point out that at all events Mark, unlike Luke, has not the
words 'from his mouth.'
64. Thus Mark records a formal condemnation. It is this
which J. Weiss and others regard as unhistorical. It is part of
the tendency to throw as much blame as possible upon the Jews,
as little as possible upon the Romans. Luke does not mention a
formal verdict. It would be enough to assume that an informal
meeting of the Sanhedrin or of some of its leading members was
held, at which Jesus was interrogated, and perhaps even some
evidence taken against him. It was considered that enough had
been elicited with which to obtain his successful condemnation
from the Roman procurator.
M. Loisy goes furthest in denying the historical character of
the trial before the high priest. He supposes that Luke has
preserved from the source which both he and Mark used one
accurate point. The meeting of the Jewish authorities (not a
regular sitting of the Sanhedrin, but a hurried and informal con
sultation) took place in the morning. There were not two meetings,
as Mark would have us believe, but one only. At this meeting the
denunciation of Jesus to Pilate was arranged. Whether Caiaphas
then interrogated Jesus is uncertain ; probably he did not do so.
Probably the whole scene before Caiaphas is spun (with a particular
object), out of the scene before Pilate, one historical fact, and
certain Old Testament passages and predictions. It is not certain
that the Sanhedrin, subject to confirmation by the Romans, could

XIV. 53-65] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 355
not have condemned a man to death, but Caiaphas and his friends
preferred to denounce Jesus to Pilate as a false Messiah, because
judgment could be more quickly obtained, while the judicial pro
ceedings would be protected and guaranteed against any popular
movement, and upon the Roman governor would be placed the
responsibility of the condemnation.
As to the scene of the trial before Caiaphas, the saying about
the Temple is taken from words of Jesus which he had undoubtedly
used. But Loisy holds that the words (Mark xiv. 58) ' made with
hands ' and ' made without hands ' have been added to the text, to
indicate that the Temple of which Jesus was thinking is the
Christian society or church, founded on the faith in the risen
Christ. The true form of the words is maintained by Matthew,
except that he softens 'I will destroy' into 'I can destroy.'
Loisy holds that what we now read in xiii. 2 is less original than
the words as found in Matthew (with this slight correction), and
depends upon them. Cp. the notes to that passage.
The second part of the trial deals with the Messianity of
Jesus, and depends upon the historic trial before Pilate.
The object of the whole scene is to fix the responsibility for
Jesus's death definitely upon the Jews. It was desirable that the
founder of the new religion should not seem to have been con
demned by a just verdict of Pilate. On the other hand, it was
a delicate thing to accuse Pilate of prevarication, and it was
impossible to deny that the death sentence had been uttered by
him. But the Jews were in any case the accusers of Jesus ; they
were the enemies of nascent Christianity ; they were detested in
the pagan world. Nothing then was more easy than to enlarge
their part in the tragedy so as to shift upon them the entire
responsibility of the verdict. Hence the elaboration of the trial
before Caiaphas. Pilate has only to confirm a sentence passed by
the Sanhedrin. Hence the episode of Barabbas. The execution
of Jesus was the crime of the Jews ; the Roman governor was
guiltless {E. 8. II. p. 610).
Though Loisy holds that Jesus's assertion about the Temple
was not mentioned formally before Caiaphas in the way indicated
by Mark, it may nevertheless have been mentioned to Pilate.
For it may well have been regarded as an evidence of Messianic
pretension. Thus Loisy rejects the scene as it stands as well as W.'s
amendment. He also refuses to admit the compromise of Dalman
that the blasphemy was only limited to the words about the Son
of God being seated at God's right hand, or the compromises that
the high priest alleged a blasphemy where there was none, or
that the Messianic claim in the mouth of a man as impotent as
23 — 2

356 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 53-65.
Jesus appeared to be amounted to blasphemy. ' The story of the
nocturnal sitting of the Sanhedrin has been inserted into a
narrative (known to Luke) in which Peter's denial followed the
arrival of Jesus at the high priest's house, and in which the sole
meeting of the enemies of Jesus took place in the morning in
order to draw up the denunciation which was to be submitted
straightway to the Roman governor (i.e. join xiv. 53 a, 54, 66-72,
XV. i). The trial before Caiaphas has been deduced from the trial
before Pilate, the Evangelist desiring to throw upon the Jews the
responsibility of the Saviour's death. Mark is anxious to make
the Sanhedrin pronounce the death sentence. The object of the
questioning of Jesus is to bring about this sentence, and as the
Evangelist knew that such a judgment could not have been
obtained in the very early morning previous to the appearance of
Jesus before Pilate, he devised a sitting at night. The words
attributed to Jesus about the Temple (which Mark has enlarged)
may have been borrowed from the real trial, when the denuncia
tions of the members of the Sanhedrin and the depositions of the
witnesses, which Mark transposes to the nocturnal session, had
their proper place. The declaration according to which the Christ
is called " Son of God " corrects beforehand the historic definition
of the charge which gave the motive of Jesus's condemnation :
namely, the avowed claim to the kingship over Israel: this
declaration, if understood in the sense in which the Evangelist
understood it, is blasphemous in the eyes of the Jews, and the
blasphemy explains the sentence of death. The series of outrages
which follows the condemnation seems derived from the mocking
scene at the Prsetorium and to have been drawn up to show an
accomplishment of prophecies' {E. 8. 1. p. 102).
65. Who are the 'some' who spit upon Jesus and hit him
with their fists ? It is usually assumed that they are some of the
judges. This seems most unlikely. Menzies says : ' Is it some of
the councillors who do these unworthy acts, or others who are
there, perhaps some of the witnesses ? We cannot tell.' Mark
distinguishes them from the servants or attendants, whose turn
comes later. Luke speaks only of the men who captured him,.
and if any part of the ill-treatment is historic, this version
seems the most likely. ' To cover his face.' Matthew and Luke
explain this by adding to the word 'prophesy,' 'who is it that
struck thee?' Others explain that Jesus is to foretell to the
strikers their punishment. Perhaps putting a cover over his face
is only meant to indicate that a prophet must be withdrawn from
the visible world in order to receive his inspiration, or to obtain a
vision. W. thinks that the words 'to cover his face,' which are

XIV. 66-72] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 357
wanting in the MS. D, and in the S.S., are interpolated.
' Prophesy ' means merely, ' We will teach you to prophesy,' or
' We will make you give up prophesying ! ' pairiajiara are
apparently blows upon the cheek. Either ' they received him —
took him over into safe custody — with blows,' or the phrase is a
Latinism, and means the same as is indicated in another reading
{e^aXov for eXa^ov) : ' they dealt out to him blows.'
How far is this verse historic? It is conceivable that the
attendants or slaves, to whom Jesus was entrusted after the trial,
ill-treated and abused him, though it is not easy to say who could
have reported it. J. Weiss goes so far even as to call the narrative
'an extremely life-like and vivid scene which undoubtedly depends
upon the recollections of an eye-witness.' Menzies is more cautious.
' It is not necessary to suppose,' he says, ' this scene to be formed
on Isaiah I. 6; the various incidents explain themselves quite
naturally.' That the members of the highest court of the Jews,
at any rate, should have forgotten their position, and sunk to the
vulgar cruelty attributed to them, seems far from 'natural.' Holtz
mann is a little more cautious still. 'As regards the fulfilment of
X. 34, the particular colours {die Farhen im Einzelnen) may be due
to Micah iv. 14 ; Isaiah I. 6, liii. 3-5 ; i Kings xxii. 24.' This has
been shown by Brandt in detail. Almost every word in Mark xiv.
65 is taken from the Greek versions of the Old Testament, in the
passages referred to by Holtzmann. Even the covering of the face
seems to rest upon a mistranslated and misunderstood expression
in Isaiah liii 3. Finally, the contemptuous summons, ' prophesy,'
seems to depend upon i Kings xxii. 24. Thus the historical
character of this verse is exceedingly dubious. Loisy, too, as we
have seen, rejects it. Like the trial itself, he regards it as a ' de-
doublement ' of the ill-treatment of Jesus by the soldiers (xv. 16-20).

66-72. Peter's Denial
{Cp. Matt xxvi 69-75; Luke xxii 56-62)
66 Now Peter was below in the court And one of the maids of
67 the high priest came, and when she saw Peter warming himself,
she looked at him, and said, 'Thou too wast with Jesus the
68 Nazarene.' But he denied it, saying, ' I do not know or under
stand what thou sayest.' And he went out into the outer court-
69 yard. And the cock crowed. And the maid saw him, and began
70 again to say to the bystanders, 'This is one of them.' And he
denied it again. And a little after, the bystanders said again to

358 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XIV. 66-72
Peter, ' Verily thou art one of them : for thou art a Galilsean.'
71 But he began to curse and to swear, saying, 'I know not this man
72 of whom ye speak.' And straightway the cock crowed a second
time. Then Peter called to mind the word which Jesus had said
unto him, ' Before the cock crow twice, thou wilt deny me thrice.'
And he wept.
The admirably dramatic scene of Peter's denial may reasonably
be supposed to rest upon his own honest report and confession,
though the minor details are open to question. J. Weiss prefers
the version in John, but Brandt has shown how improbable it is
that this variant is historical.
66. The story takes up the situation in which Peter had been
left in 54.
67. The fire shines upon Peter's face and reveals him.
68. He goes further off, to escape detection, into the outer
court. The first crowing of the cock is only found in Mark, and
not in most of the good manuscripts. The two cockcrowings are
highly dramatic, but probably not historical. {Cp. verse 30.)
69. In this outer court there are many persons collected,
'not perhaps members of the household only, but attendants of
councillors summoned to the meeting, and others ' (Menzies). The
same girl notices him again. Matthew speaks of a second gfrl.
70. They recognize him as a Galilsean, according to Matthew,
from his speech or accent. This seems probable.
71. dvade/MaTi^eiv. The verb means ' to call down curses upon
oneself (if one is not telling the truth).
72. The word eiri^aXmv is hard. Its meaning must be 'to
call to mind,' ' to become attentive.' Peter, however, had already
been reminded by the cock. The word may be corrupt. It is
wanting in Luke and Matthew. W. suggests that Mark originally
had only the pregnant phrasing: 'And straightway the cock crowed
a second time. And he remembered and wept.' ' Dem Urmarcus
sahe es ahnlich, dass er sich hier auf zwei Worte beschrankte : sie
verfehlen die Wfrkung nicht.' The whole scene is indelibly fixed
in the consciousness of the Western world. It is full of beauty,
and yet awe-inspiring too. It tells its own lessons, and its moral
need not be drawn out. Loisy regards the triple denial as historic;
not so the prediction and the recollection and the tears. He

XV. 1-5] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 359
thinks the original story which Mark enlarged can easily be picked
out of the narrative and restored.
The source is followed accurately up to 68 a. Then Peter is
wrongly said to have gone out ' to the outer courtyard ' (or vestibule).
This is put in here because in the original story his going out is
connected with the cockcrowing. To avoid the natural meaning of
' he went out,' ' to the outer courtyard ' is added, which really con
tradicts it. Then in 69 one must omit ' saw him ' and ' again,' which
are added by the Evangelist. Their removal gets over the difficulty
that the same girl seems to speak to the same people among
whom Peter had been sitting before, and that the apostle is still
there, though he had moved away. In 70 one can omit ' a little
after ' and ' again,' intended to lengthen out the incident, and to
accentuate the triple denial. Then in 72 the words must originally
have run : ' And he went out, and a cock crew,' or ' And he went
out,' and it was ' cockcrow,' i.e. dawn. Thus the second crowing,
the recollection of the prophecy, the apostle's grief, all belong to
the work of 'redaction.' Peter hurried to get away, as he felt
himself in peril. Did he make his way at once to Galilee, or did
he stay in Jerusalem till the Friday evening? We cannot say:
probably the latter. 'Toujours est-il que, s'il y a quelque part
dans le second ^^vangile un souvenir personnel de Pierre, c'est le
r^cit du reniement en la forme oil I'a trouve Marc' {E. 8. 11.
p. 618).
CHAPTER XV
1-5. Jesus before Pilate
{Cp. Matt, xxvii i, 2, 11-14; Luke xxiii 1-5)
I And straightway in the early morning the chief priests, with
the Elders and scribes, and the whole council prepared their
decision, and having bound Jesus, led him away, and delivered
2 him to Pilate. And Pilate asked him, ' Art thou the King of
the Jews?' And he answering said unto him, 'Thou sayest it.'
3 And the chief priests vehemently accused him: but he answered
4 nothing. And Pilate asked him agam, saying, ' Answerest thou
5 nothing ? see, of how much they accuse thee !' But Jesus
answered nothing more ; so that Pilate marvelled.
¦ In the story of the trial before Pilate, the formal accusation
is wanting at the beginning, and the condemnation at the end.
It is hard, to see why the governor, without yet knowing anything.

360 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XV. 1-5
asks Jesus if he is the King of the Jews, and why the accusations
of the priests, which become useless after the avowal of Jesus,
were not made earlier. The transposition has been effected by
the redactor (one gets a better connection by reading 3 or 3-5
before 2) either to make the Pilate trial different from the trial
before Caiaphas, or to make the silence of Jesus more marked, or,
more probably still, to introduce the incident of Barabbas. For
the favour, unexplained and inexplicable, which Pilate is supposed
to have shown to Jesus has its reason, according to Mark, in the
silence of the accused, not in the avowal of his Messianic claim.
The episode of Barabbas corresponds {fait pendant) with the
judgment of Caiaphas; it is interpolated in the historic tale of the
trial before Pilate to make us understand that the governor did
not condemn Jesus, but that he merely allowed him to be put to
death, in accordance with the sentence of the Sanhedrin, after
having in vain essayed to free him from the hatred of his foea'
{E. 8. 1, p. 103).
I. We now pass from a difficult and hardly conceivable trial
before the Jewish authorities to a difficult and hardly conceivable
trial before Pilate. The historic residue in both cases seems to
reduce itself to the bare fact. Some Jewish authorities procured
the arrest of Jesus. They found some means of holding or de
claring him worthy of death — some charge upon which they could
secure his condemnation from Pilate. He was brought before
Pilate, and Pilate condemned him to death. The first fifteen
verses of Chapter xv hardly contain anything more historical
than the short summary contained in these few words : brought
before Pilate, he was by Pilate condemned to death.
Mark's favourite evdvi: need not cause us difficulty or delay.
irpeot is enough. Jesus was crucified at 9 A.M. Hence he must
have been brought before Pilate very early in the morning.
cvfi^ovXiov eroifidaavre^. The text is not certain. Some
MSS. read instead av/ji^ovXiov Tronja-avTei. The meaning is far
from clear. If the first reading be taken — and its authority is
greater — the meaning may be: 'having formed a resolution,' or
' having prepared their decision.' If we read ironjaavTev, ' having
taken counsel ' or ' having held a consultation ' might be the trans
lation, perhaps also ' having taken a decison.'
In either case the idea is that the court comes together a
second time. A second meeting was necessary by Jewish law,
but then this second meeting must be held on another day,
whereas the sessions at night and at dawn would be both on the
same day, according to the Jewish method of reckoning, by which
the day begins at sunset.

XV. 1-5] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 36 1
The interpretation of the words most consistent with what
has gone before would be, as W. says, 'having drawn up their
decision, their verdict ; nachdem sie den Beschluss fertig gestellt
hatten.' The expression, ' the chief priests with the Elders and scribes
and the whole council,' seems too full. W. would bracket 'the
Elders and scribes.' One might better include in the bracket
'the whole council' also. The object of the redundancy is to
emphasise the wide and general Jewish responsibility for Jesus's
death. It is a further question whether or no the entire responsibility
on the Jewish side should fall solely upon the priests. (As to this, |
see Encyclopcedia Biblica, art. 'Synedrium,' columns 4841 at bottom, |
and 4842 at top ; and Additional Note 30.)
Jesus is now bound. Mark does not add Pilate's office ; Matthew
calls him o riye/jid>v — the governor. It was the custom for the
Roman procurator to come to Jerusalem from Csesarea, his usual
residence, at the season of the Jewish festivals. Apparently this
was done as a precautionary measure in case of any disturbance.
2. The opening of the verse implies what is not clearly stated,
unless it is implied in I. The Jewish authorities must have made
some formal accusation of Jesus to Pilate. Whether this was done
by word of mouth or by written charge, or both, is not said, and
remains uncertain.
Whether Jesus was condemned by the Jewish authorities
because of what he said about the Temple, or because of his
claim to be Messiah — it must certainly have been the latter
allegation with which he was charged before Pilate. But the term
Messiah is translated by the Roman authority into its purely
political equivalent: 'Ejng of the Jews.'
Jesus, interrogated by Pilate, replies : ' Thou sayest it.' This is
usually interpreted to mean an absolute confession. It is alleged
that 'Thou hast said' is a recognized form of affirmation, or a
Jewish form of assent This is, however, disputed and doubtful.
(See Additional Note 31 ; and also the corresponding passage in
Luke.) And from what follows it can be argued either way : either
that Jesus confessed, or that he practically refused to answer. No
certainty can be achieved. Anyway, Jesus did not deny the
charge. It would be consistent both with his practice of evasion
before "hostile critics, and with his own spiritualised conception of
the Messiahship and Kingship, if he neither affirmed nor denied.
He was not the King of the Jews in Pilate's sense of king ; yet he
was or was to be, their king, in another sense, and even in this
^ark hour, his faith in this kingship, to which God had appointed
him, did not succumb or fade away.

362 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XV. 1-5
3. W. finds difficulty in this verse, at least in its present
place. It is not right, he says, that the question put by Pilate
should precede the accusations of the priests. And if Jesus had
already confessed, there was no need for Pilate to urge him to speak.
On the other hand, if ' Thou sayest it ' is not a confession, we can
imagine that the priests, frightened lest their plan should not
succeed, made fresh charges connected with, and bearing upon, the
main charge of the kingship {cp. Luke xxiii 5). But we really
know, and can know, nothing definite of what went on before Pilate.
Loisy conceives that what the primitive narrative and tradition told
was that Jesus, denounced before Pilate as false Messiah, did not
reply. Interrogated by Pilate, he confessed his Messiahship. The
condemnation followed. The favour which Pilate is supposed to
have shown him is 'unexplained and inexplicable' {E. 8. il
P- 635)- 4, 5. Pilate presses for a reply to the charge, and Jesus, in
accordance with Isaiah liii. 7, preserves silence. Pilate marvels
that he does not try to defend himself
What probably happened was that upon Jesus's confession or
refusal to reply Pilate condemned him out of hand. But such
a brief narrative would not have suited the Evangelist or even
his sources. Two efforts had to be made. The first was to show
that Jesus acted in accordance with prophecy; the second, still
more important, was to show that the true authors of the con
demnation were not the Romans, but the Jews. Pilate knew well
enough that Jesus was innocent. There was no danger in him.
He was no revolutionary, any more than his disciples and followers.
Pilate yielded to Jewish hatred and clamour. 'The guilt fell upon
the Jews, not upon the Romans. The whitewashing of Pilate and
the Romans was most important, not only in order to blacken the
hated Jews, but in order to show to the world that the Roman
governor would have wished to save Jesus : that in his eyes there
was nothing criminal in the founder of the Christian religion.
And if the founder was harmless, equally harmless must he his
followers. 6-15. Jesus, Pilate and Barabbas
{Cp. Matt, xxvii 15-26; Luke xxiii 18-25)
6 Now at the festival, he used to release unto them one prisoner,
7 whom they chose to beg off. And the so-called Barabbas lay
bound with the rioters who had committed a murder in the in-
8 surrection. And the crowd came up, and began to demand what

XV. 6-15] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 363
9 Pilate was wont to do for them. But he answered them, saying,
10 ' Do ye wish that I release unto you the King of the Jews ? ' For
he realized that the chief priests had delivered him up out of envy.
n But the chief priests incited the people, that he should rather
12 release Barabbas unto them. And Pilate answered again and .said
unto them, ' What then shall I do with him whom ye call the King
14 of the Jews ?' And they cried out in answer, ' Crucify him.' Then
Pilate said unto them, ' What evil has he done ?' But they cried
15 out the more vehemently, 'Crucify him.' And so Pilate, wishing
to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered
Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
6. The trial is now interrupted by an unexpected incident —
of a very doubtful historical character. Its object is still further
to whitewash Pilate, and to throw the responsibility of the cruci
fixion upon the Jews. Pilate would have saved Jesus. The Jews
insist upon his execution. They prefer that Jesus should die
rather than Barabbas.
The first two verses of the section are intended to explain
what is to follow. The custom alluded to in verse 6 is wholly
unknown. It is extremely improbable in itself; and, whatever
basis the Barabbas story may have, this part of its setting is
almost certainly fictitious. We may also doubt whether the
Romans would have pardoned a leader of a revolt.
7. The statements about Barabbas seem very precise, and
suggest that some historical reminiscence is at the bottom of the
tale. Loisy, however, calls them ' tr^s vagues, sous une apparence
de precision' {E. 8. Ii. p. 642). Barabbas lay 'bound with them
who had made insurrection, who in the insurrection had committed
murder ' (so literally). What insurrection is referred to ? Is Mark
quoting textually from his source? He speaks as if everybody
knew to what he was referring. Is this, however, merely 'a
popular, one might even say childish, way of presenting a fact of
which the writer himself knows nothing ' ? {E. 8. 11. p. 642, n. 4).
We are in complete ignorance.
o Xeyofievov Ba/3a/3/3a?. The phrase is peculiar. 'The so-
called Barabbas.' Was it a nickname ? For surely the words do
not mean merely ' a man called Barabbas.' Barabbas is supposed
to mean 'son of the father,' that is, of the 'master'— the teacher.
Was he the son of a known Rabbi? We hear of Rabbis m the
Talmud called e.g. Rabbi Samuel Bar Abba, and Rabbi Nathan
Bar Abba. (For some further conjectures about this man and his
name, see Additional Note 32.)

364 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XV. 6-15
8. The crowd appear upon the scene quite independently of
Jesus and his trial. Pilate is sitting in his tribunal at the wonted
place and time ; or the hour was announced beforehand. It was
very early in the morning. The people came, we may suppose,
to prefer thefr requests and complaints, but more especially, ac
cording to the narrative, they came to take advantage of the
custom which has just been explained in verse 6. But ' ni ces
details ni les suivants ne semblent k discuter au point de vue de
I'histoire ' {E. 8. Ii. p. 643).
9. Pilate sees his chance. He would like to release Jesus,
and thinks here is his opportunity. (The historic Pilate was a
man of different mould — stern, pitiless and cruel.) He suggests
that the prisoner to be released should be Jesus.
Pilate's words (' Do ye wish that I release unto you the King of
the Jews?') are, says Holtzmann, to be regarded as a mixture of
pity and contempt. 'Shall I release this harmless simpleton who
apparently calls himself your king ? ' The narrative implies that
the people know what is going on, and that Jesus has been con
victed upon the charge of claiming to be King of the Jews. Pilate
is supposed to think, not unnaturally, that Jesus, though hateful to
the priests, is liked among the people at large.
10. Pilate's view is that Jesus is not worthy of death. His
kingship is not antagonistic to the Roman supremacy. This, at
least, is what we may suppose that Mark would wish us to think
that Pilate meant. Beyond this we cannot, of course, go, for that
the historic Pilate had any such opinion as is here ascribed to him
is extremely improbable. Mark's Pilate sees through the whole
thing. He realizes that Jesus is to be executed, not because, from
the Roman point of view, he deserved it, but because he was for
some reason or other obnoxious to the Jewish priests.
II. The deepest responsibility is the priests'; and here
probably the story is true enough. Not the 'Pharisees,' not
the ' Elders,' not the ' Scribes,' but the governing priesthood,
were the true, or, at any rate, the main, authors of Jesus's
death. Barabbas, it is implied, was well known and popular. Hence
the priests suggest to the populace to ask for Barabbas instead of
Jesus. Matthew has a different version. He makes Pilate himself
proffer the two, and bid the people choose between them.
That the people are now against Jesus is — though probably not
historic — not psychologically incredible. Jesus had disappointed
them. He had played and lost. The hopes which he had aroused
in them had been dashed to the ground by his arrest. Let him

XV. 6-15] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 365
pay the penalty for his folly. It is also possible that the priestly
party had helped to this change of feeling. Loisy is more sceptical :
'That the people, when Jesus was once a prisoner, should have
passed suddenly from admiration to hate, that not content with
preferring Barabbas, they should have demanded in their rage the
crucifixion of Jesus, that Pilate should have lent himself to this
furious caprice, or that the priests should have had time (verse 1 1 )
between the suggestion of Pilate (9) and the people's reply to
change thefr feelings towards Jesus — all these are traits that
belong rather to legendary fiction than to history, and rather
resemble a theatrical effect in a melodrama or in a childish play
than historical reality ' {E. 8. 11. p. 644).
12. The rejoinder of Pilate is almost ludicrously inappropriate
for a Roman governor. But the motive is obvious. The Jews are
to pronounce the sentence, not Pilate. Not thus were Roman
governors wont to deal with their prisoners !
Pilate's words again assume that Jesus and his claim are well
known. The interrupted trial is to be concluded. But the people
and not Pilate are to be the judges. What do they wish Pilate to
do with the man whom they call their King ? Another reading is
rather easier. ' What would ye — say !— that I should do with the
King of the Jews ? '
13. The people demand the punishment of death in its most
terrible form. Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution,
introduced by them into Palestine, and reserved for the worst
offenders and criminals. The famous cry, ' crucify him ! ' is cer
tainly unhistoric ; but of what oceans of human blood and of what
endless human misery has this invention been the cause! irdXiv,
says W., must here be regarded as equivalent to an Aramaic
'but," thereupon.' Or perhaps it merely refers to verse 11. There
the people cry out for the release of Barabbas ; here they cry out
again, but this time for the execution of Jesus.
14. Pilate is even made to go so far as to urge that Jesus is
quite innocent But the Jews will hear of no defence or ex
culpation, and Pilate has to give way.
15. Pilate is anxious, or thinks it best, to satisfy the people.
Hence he releases Barabbas, while Jesus is condemned to death
by crucifixion. Before the sentence was carried out, the criminal
was scourged. Note vapeBcoKev. ' The Evangelist tries to avoid
saying that Jesus was sentenced and condemned by Pilate. He
wants the reader to understand that Pilate was constrained by the

366 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XV. 6-15
Jews to allow the sentence of death pronounced by the Sanhedrin
to be carried into effect' {E. 8. 11. p. 645).
W. attempts to preserve a certain amount of the story: 'When
Pilate came up to Jerusalem for the festival, he held his court
there upon serious cases in which the judgments of the native
tribunals needed confirmation : he could occasionally exercise his
power of pardon. These cfrcumstances probably are at the bottom
of the tale  Pilate does not consider the mere fact that Jesus
regards himself as King of the Jews an adequate ground for his
condemnation, seeing that he has not broken the peace, or done
anything to get the kingdom into his hands.' Not very con
vincing. Brandt has a different view. He 'takes the kernel of the
story to be that a certain prisoner who had been arrested in
connection with some insurrection, but against whom no crime,
or at least no grave crime, could be proved, was released on the
application of the people, who intervened on his behalf because he
was the son of a Rabbi. The incident, even though it was not
simultaneous with the condemnation of Jesus, gave occasion in
Christian circles for the drawing of this contrast : the son of the
Rabbi was interceded for and released; Jesus was condemned.
In the course of transmission by oral tradition the statement of
this contrast might gradually, without any conscious departure
from historical truth, have led to the assumption that the two
things happened at the same time on the same occasion. Finally,
the liberation of a seditious prisoner — in any case a somewhat
surprising occurrence — seemed explicable only on the assumption
of some standing custom to account for it ; this assumption must
presumably have arisen elsewhere than in Palestine.' This extract
from the Encyclopcedia Biblica, art. 'Barabbas,' well sums up
Brandt's hypothesis, which seems somewhat far-fetched.

16-20. Jesus is mocked by the Soldiers
{Cp. Matt, xxvii. 27-31)
16 Then the soldiers led him away into the courtyard, which
is the Prsetorium; and they called together the whole cohort
17 And they clothed him with purple, and wove a crown of thorns,
18 and put it upon his head, and they began to salute him, 'Hail,
19 King of the Jews ! ' And they beat him on the head with a cane,
and spat upon him, and bent the knee, and did him reverence.
20 And when they had mocked him thus, they took off the purple

XV. i6-2o] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 3^7
from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to
crucify him.
i6. Jesus is now at the mercy of the Roman soldiery. He is
utterly bereft of friend and earthly hope. To the physical agony
of the scourging there is added mockery and insolent contempt.
The narrative in its brief intensity is very poignant.
Jesus is led away from the presence of Pilate — (it is not said
where he is scourged, or even whether the scourging preceded the
scene of the mockery) — into the courtyard of the house where the
governor was living.
' Which is the Prsetorium ' seems to be a gloss inserted from
Matthew, who thinks of Jesus as taken from the governor's house
to the barracks of the soldiers. But the meaning of Prsetorium
in the Gospels is disputed. Matthew probably meant by it the
fortress of Antonia, which was the headquarters of the Roman
garrison. Or it may be that the trial is supposed by Mark to
have taken place at this citadel, to which Pilate had come.
A cohort {atrelpa) consisted of 6oo men. The numbers are
a detail. 17. Whether the scene is historic is doubtful. There are
arguments on both sides. (See below.) The crown of thorns
parodies the royal laurel wreath.
19. With the mock homage insult and blows are mingled.
The KaXafio';, or reed, is to represent a sceptre. In Matthew it
is first put in his hand, and then he is hit with it. A stick or
cane made of a stout reed is what is meant.
20. This verse seems to imply that the scourging had already
taken place. His own clothes had been removed from him for
the scourging, and after it he is invested with the purple to add
insult to agony. Now his own clothes are put on him once more.
Recent investigations have made it rather less unlikely that
the scene of Jesus being mocked by the soldiery may be historical.
There are curious parallels to the Gospel story, into the details of
which I cannot, however, enter. We know about the Persian
festival of the Sacsea, at which a prisoner condemned to death
was put upon a mock royal throne, invested with royal purple,
and allowed to have his royal will for a season. After that he
was flogged and hanged. This practice has many parallels, and
goes back to widespread religious ideas and ceremonies, of which
the learned author of the Golden Bough has so much to tell us.
And Philo records an odd scene once enacted in Alexandria, of
which the mock hero was one Carabas, a name that gives us

368 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XV. 16-20
pause. It is conceivable that the soldiers — possibly Orientals-—
seeing that Jesus was condemned upon the charge of kingship,
may have mocked him in the way in which the hero of the Sacsea
and of similar ceremonies and carnivals was mocked. Some, among
whom is Loisy, see here and in what Philo says the origin of the
incident of Barabbas. Does the name Carabas conceal the name
of Barabbas ? Was Jesus delivered up to the soldiers to be crucified
'in the style of or 'in place of Barabbas, who would then be not
a historic individual, but the name of a personage who figured as.
king in popular festivals parallel to the Roman Saturnalia and
the Persian Sacsea? {E. 8. n. pp. 653, 654).

21-32. The Crucifixion
{Cp. Matt xxvii. 32-44; Luke xxiii 26-43)
21 And they compelled one Simon of Cyrene (the father of
Alexander and Rufus), who happened to be passing by from the
22 country, to carry his cross. And they brought him unto the place
23 Golgotha, which is, being translated. The place of a skull. And
they offered him wine mixed with myrrh : but he did not take it.
24 And they crucified him, and they divided his garments, casting
25 lots for them, what each man should take. And it was the third
26 hour when they crucified him. And the inscription of the charge
against him was written above him: 'The King of the Jews.'
27 And with him they crucified two thieves; the one on his right
hand, and the other on his left.
29 And the passers-by reviled him, wagging their heads, and
saying, ' Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in
30, 31 three days, save thyself, and come down from the cross.' Likewise
also the chief priests with the scribes mocked him, saying to one
32 another, ' He saved others ; himself he cannot save. The Messiah !
The King of Israel ! Let him descend now from the cross, that we
may see and believe.' And they that were crucified with him
scoffed at him.
Until the death of Jesus Loisy supposes that the Evangelist
followed an older source, which he enlarged and embroidered. The
older source contained 'sobres indications' concerning the departure
from the Prsetorium, Siinon of Cyrene, the crucifixion, the inscrip
tion on the cross, the two robbers, the insults of the passers-by and

XV. 21-32] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 369
of the robbers, the last cry of Jesus, and the exclamation of the
centurion. Thus older and more historic portions of the narrative
would be 206, 21, 22 a, 24 a, 26, 27, 29, 30, 326, 37, 39 {E. S. i.
p. 104). 21. The statement contained in this verse is, in all probability,
historic. The two men, Alexander and Rufus, were probably
known both to the Evangelist and to many of his readers. They
knew from their father that he had been compelled to carry the
cross (or part of it) upon which Jesus was suspended, dyyapeveiv
is the technical word for 'impress' {cp. Matt. v. 41).
The usual idea is that Jesus was too exhausted by the scourging
and the mental agony to carry his own cross, as was the prevailing
Roman custom.
Simon came from the country; not necessarily from work
among the 'fields.' But still, though this is not necessary, the
words would be more natural if the day of the crucifixion were
not a holiday — not the first day of the Passover. However, Siinon
may have merely been returning from a walk or visit, such as
would have been permissible on the festival. It is even supposed
that if field work had been meant, the Greek would have been
diro TOV dypov, and not merely diro dypov.
22. The place of the crucifixion must have been some hill
outside the city walls, which, from its shape, was called ' skull,' or
' skull place.' It cannot any longer be identified.
23. The 'wine' referred to must have been the concoction
which was given to Jews who were about to suffer the penalty
of death, in order that they might lose consciousness. The pre
paration of this drugged wine seems to have been left to the hands
of the ladies of Jerusalem, who, doubtless, regarded making and
giving it as a deed of piety.
Who offered the wine to Jesus -^ We are not told. Was it
the women who 'looked on from a distance'? (40). It must,
anyway, have been offered by Jews or Jewesses.
It was not • wine mixed with myrrh,' for apparently myrrh would
have, if anything, the contrary effect. The Talmud says that it
was frankincense which produced the benumbing result upon the
consciousness. , , . • t^ t. i_
Jesus refused the wine. This, too, may be histoiic. Lither he
determined to suffer with full consciousness, or he had still not
given up hope of a miraculous intervention from God. Some are
mclined to think the verse an addition to the ' source (a doublet
of the vinegar (36), says Loisy, and an incident in which the
fulfilment of ancient prophecies was indicated). Note in the Greek
24

370 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XV. 21-32
the presents in 22 and 24, with the past tense in 23. In my
English translation I have put the past tense throughout.
24, 25. The awful event is narrated briefly, simply, calmly.
The division of the garments is an embroidery, in order to show
the fulfilment of Psalm xxii. 18; but it is a fact that the clothes
of crucified persons, who suffered quite naked, were the perquisites
of the executioners.
The 'third hour' is 9 A.M. Some think that verse 25, with its
repetition of the fact of the crucifixion, is a later addition. Matthew
and Luke do not give the hour.
26. ' The inscription of the charge against him was written
above him : The King of the Jews.' This, again, may be historical ;
for it was customary to attach a tablet, with the crime or charge
for which the condemned were to suffer, either to their necks or to
the cross itself
Jesus, then, suffered because he was accused of claiming to be
King of the Jews. The brief words were enough to tell the tale.
27. In spite of 28, which has been inserted from Luke xxii. 37,
and is wanting in the best MSS., the statement that two other
men were crucified with Jesus may be historical. We need not
suppose an intentional, added ignominy. Their execution was due,
and it was convenient to crucify the three criminals on the same
spot. 29. How far what now follows is historical is doubtful. For
it closely follows the expressions of Psalm xxii. 7; moreover, it
is not easy to see who could have reported the incidents and
the words.
It is natural that W. should regard 29 as historical, for it
supports his theory that Jesus was condemned for his prediction
about the Temple.
30. The taunt, even if not historic, admirably^ fits the situation,
and augments the horror.
31. The statement about the priests and the Scribes may be
rejected with the utmost confidence. They would not have come
out on purpose to feast their eyes upon the spectacle of their
enemy upon the cross. That kind of thing rather befits the officers
of the Inquisition than the members of the Sanhedrin. Brandt
thinks the words in 32 are a sort of echo of taunts often made in
later days by opponents. ' He, who, as you would have us believe,
was the Saviour of the world, the Messiah, could not save himself
Why, if he were God's Son, did he not come down from the cross?'

XV. 33-39] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 37 1
(Compare the reasoning in Wisdom of Solomon ii. 17-20, which is
dfrectly used in Matt, xxvii. 43.)
Equally doubtful are the revilings of the robbers. Who re
ported them ? 33-39. The Death of Jesus
{Cp. Matt, xxvii. 45-54 ; Luke xxiii. 44-47)
33 And at the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land
34 until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with
a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' which is, being
translated, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?'
35 And some of the bystanders, when they heard it, said, ' Behold, he
36 calls Elijah.' And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and
put it on a cane, and gave him to drink, saying, 'Let alone; let us
37 see whether Elijah will come to take him down.' But Jesus
38 uttered a loud cry, and expired. And the curtain of the temple
39 was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. And when the
centurion, who stood by, opposite to him, saw that he so expfred,
he said, ' Truly this man was a Son of God.'
33. Jesus, according to Mark, endured six hours of agony
upon the cross before his death. Often, before the release of
death came, a much longer interval elapsed.
The darkness which fell upon the face of the land (or earth)
happened at noon. There can be no ordinary natural eclipse of
the sun at the full moon of Eastertide. The miracle depends upon
such passages as Amos viii. 9 ; Exodus x. 22 ; Jer. xv. 9. More
over, darkness and eclipses were often supposed to have happened
on specially solemn occasions. Thus an eclipse of the sun is said
to have taken place upon the Ides of March, at the murder of
Csesar, 'at the sixth hour till night.'
34. According to Mark, Jesus only makes one utterance upon
the cross. He quotes the words of Psalm xxii. i, applying them
to himself Two questions present themselves. The first is : Did Jesus
really say the words ? The second is : If he said them, what did
he mean ? , ¦ p
Many scholars think that, like the other borrowings from
Psalm xxii, these words too were borrowed from the same source,
not by Jesus, but by the Evangelist, or by tradition. Jesus died
with a 'loud cry.' What did he say ? What had he said ? Pious
24 — 2

372 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XV. 33-39
phantasy soon found answers ; hence what we now read in Mark
and Luke. Jesus was the Messianic hero predicted and represented
in the Psalm. Therefore, he is made to quote its opening words,
not because those who put these words in his mouth thought that
he was, or that he believed that he was, forsaken of God, but
because they are the opening words of the Psalm — because they
were merely taken to mean an impassioned invocation unto God.
So, for instance, argue Brandt and J. Weiss. The latter says :
' The Evangelist probably did not trouble himself as to the deeper
meaning of the words ; he probably just regarded and used them
as a fulfilled prophecy from a Messianic psalm.' So too Loisy. If
Luke and John disliked to attribute the words to Jesus, that only
shows that Christian feeling was more ' afiSn^ ' in the last years of
the century than about 70 {E. 8. II. p. 685). It is argued, more
over, that the only reporters of what happened at the crucifixion
were the women who 'stood afar off.' They might have heard
the 'loud cry,' but would not have distinguished any words.
Others argue that just these words would not have been as
signed to Jesus. Why should the dying Messiah have been made
to indicate any lack of faith, even though the famous Messianic
Psalm opens with these words ? Luke clearly felt the objection to-
them. Hence he substituted a quotation from Psalm xxxi 5.
Those who regard the words as authentic interpret them in
different ways. Dr Carpenter's interpretation has been already
alluded to. ' What do the words mean ? ' he asks. ' Do they
denote defeat and desolation?' Though such an interpretation
is natural at first, it ' seems inconsistent with the whole character-
of Jesus, and especially with the inner history of the fatal night.
The possibility of death had been in sight for weeks. He had
come to Jerusalem ready to face the worst. As it approached,
it proved indeed a trial more grievous than even he had fore--
seen. But in Gethsemane he had solemnly offered himself to
God. Could he flinch when the offer was accepted ? What pain
and shame could undo his trust, or sever the fellowship of his
spirit with the Father ? It is more congruous, therefore, with
his previous attitude, to interpret the cry as a final declaration of
faith. The verse opens the passionate pleading of one of Israel's
hymns ; but the Psalm which begins with desolation closes with..
glowing hope (24-28) :
He hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted ;
Neither hath he hid his face from him ;
But when he cried unto him, he heard...
And all the ends of the earth shall remember, and turn unto the Lord. .
And all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.
For the kingdom is the Lord's ;
And he is the ruler over the nations.

XV. 33-39] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 373
' With this last affirmation of the Kingdom Jesus died ' {First
Three Gospels, p. 393).
Mr Menzies and Holtzmann argue in much the same way.
On the other hand, B. Weiss considers, not without force, that
to make Jesus think of the whole Psalm and its close in quoting
its opening words is somewhat arbitrary, and introduces into 'a
moment of immediate feeling ' ' das Fremdartige der Reflexion.'
Jesus believed that God, if he chose, could effect his purpose in
another way — all is possible to God — and thus he asks in his
agony, why has God refused to him special and miraculous in
tervention ? Pfleiderer argues strongly on the same side. For such
an interpretation fits in with his whole picture of the last days at
Jerusalem, and his view that Jesus until the last believed that
the Kingdom was to be realized upon earth, and in his own life
time, not through his death. His words upon the cross imply
that he regarded his fate as the shipwreck of his holiest hopes.
Of this view we shall hear more in the notes on Luke.
35. Did Jesus say the words, if he said them, in Hebrew or
in Aramaic? Mark reports them in Aramaic; Matthew largely
in Hebrew. The misunderstanding spoken of in verse 35 requires
the Hebrew. 'Eli' could be mistaken for 'Elijah'; not the Aramaic
' Eloi' Moreover, the bystanders would have understood Aramaic,
their own language ; they might not have understood, and hence
might have misinterpreted, the Hebrew sounds. Jesus might well
have known the Psalms in Hebrew. ' The Aramaic may,' says
Menzies, ' be due to a corrector who reflected perhaps that Aramaic,
and not Hebrew, was spoken in Palestine at this time.' So, too,
Brandt. The bystanders must ha,ve been Jews, who alone would know
about Elijah and his connection with the Messiah. But that there
were Jews present as well as Roman soldiers seems unlikely.
Elijah was to prepare the way for the Messiah. Moreover,
there is frequent mention of him in Jewish legend as appearing to
people in moments of distress and danger. It seems strange that
B. Weiss should say that 'without doubt' Roman soldiers are
meant, and that it is 'very improbable' that they would not have
heard of Elijah. Equally strange is his view that the soldiers
knew the meaning of the Syriac and Aramaic ' Eloi ' well enough,
and that the interpretation they give of it is only a malicious
perversion. 36. On the other hand, if the man who offers the sponge
drenched with vinegar was a soldier, a difficulty arises as to the
end of the verse. There are various suggestions.
It seems necessary that the man with the sponge should be

374 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XV. 33-39
one of the group mentioned in 3 5. Were they then not soldiers but
Jews ? And was this Jewish bystander allowed to take some of the
soldiers' wine and give it to Jesus ? But this seems extremely un
likely. But if it was a Roman soldier who held up the sponge to
the sufferer (by means of fixing the sponge upon the end of a tall
cane) in order to relieve the agonising thirst, how could he have
said what follows at the end of the verse ? The difficulty was felt
by Matthew, who changes the subject (' but the others said '), and
the S.S. does the same in this very verse of Mark.
The meaning of the words apparently is that the giver of the
drink wants to prevent his companions from hindering him in his
act of mercy. Hence he affects to follow up what had been said
before, and suggests that they should allow him to keep Jesus
alive by the drink in order that they might see whether Elijah
would come to take him down from the Cross. All this, however,
seems very strained.
The difficulties are about equally great, whether the giver of
the drink is conceived to be a Roman soldier — for then he knows
about Elijah, and the 'bystanders' must also be soldiers — or
whether the bystanders and the giver of the drink are all Jews.
Hence, W. regards 35 and 366 as later inventions — partly at least
upon sesthetic grounds. 'The impression made by the moving cry
of despair is painfully spoiled by the misunderstanding of the on
lookers. Yet it might easily have come into the mind of Christians
who talked Aramaic and were ignorant of Hebrew. They might
readily have thought that the Messiah in the moment of his
deepest need would have called upon the man who was to prepare
and make smooth his path: "Elijah, Elijah, where art thou?," and
this interpretation would have the more quickly occurred to them
as it removed the stumbling-block of the Messiah thinking him
self forsaken by God.' Or perhaps the play upon words was
created by the Jews. The disciples said Jesus cried out ' Eli, Eli'
But no ' Eli' — i.e. no Elijah — came. There was none to rescue or
intervene. Whether the episode with the sponge is historical cannot be
decided. Roman soldiers had a drink called posca, which was
made of water, vinegar and egg. There may, therefore, have been
the necessary material present. On the other hand. Psalm Ixix.
21 : ' In my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink,' causes suspicion.
Luke uses the vinegar at an earlier period. {Cp. Luke xxiii. 36.)
Loisy thinks that the earliest tradition knew of only one ' cry' before
the death. This was interpreted and explained and doubled in
various ways. The ascription of the exclamation in Psalm xxii.
(a fulfilment of prophecy) to the dying Messiah; the call upon
Elijah, the precursor of the Messiah, grew up independently, and

XV. 33-39] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 375
were then combined. Independent too at first was the fulfilment
of Psalm Ixix. The vinegar owes its origin to the Psalm; it is not
the posca. Moreover this drink ' fait double emploi avec le vin
aromatisd dont Marc a parl^ plus haut ' {E. 8. 11. pp. 684-686).
37. It is implied that Jesus accepted the proffered drink.
But it did not keep him long alive. He gave one last loud cry —
a cry which may have reached to the ears of the women who
watched from a distance — and expired.
A good deal has been written about the loud cry — its possibility
and its meaning. Usually sufferers upon the cross died of slow
exhaustion. Jesus seems to have died after a comparatively short
period of agony. Perhaps some vital organ gave way : there was
a momentary spasm of acutest pain, a loud cry, and then all
was over.
Brandt thinks the ' loud cry ' unlikely to have been invented,
and therefore probably historic. So too Loisy. It is probably the
only detail which comes from the primitive tradition. The women
may have heard the cry; or Simon of Cyrene {E. 8. IL pp.
680, 681).
38. The curtain of the Temple is rent in twain. The symbolic
meaning of the mfracle is that, through the death of Jesus, there
was now a complete and unimpeded access to God. 'In the Jewish
Temple God was behind a veil, which was never lifted except once
a year to the high priest; but Christians have access or admission'
(Menzies). The thought is elaborated and clearly expressed in
Hebrews x. 19-25, ix. 1-12; Ephesians ii 14-18. Oddly enough,
though Jesus would have been the last to wish it, the 'access' to
the Father, so immediate and intimate in prophetic and even
in Rabbinic Judaism, has been obscured by the doctrine of the
Mediator and of the divine Son. It is a curious frony that Jesus,
who would so intensely have disliked the idea that he, or any
other man, should stand between the divine Father and his
human children, has yet been made to occupy this position.
There was no gulf and so no bridge was required ; yet for the
sake of an imaginary evil, a needless remedy was devised.
Another interpretation of the passage is apparently favoured
by W., and has ancient support. The rending of the veil means
the mourning of the Temple ; it bewails, not the death of Jesus,
but its own imminent destruction.
39. The centurion calls Jesus ' a Son of God.' On what does
he base his remark, which is not out of place in a heathen's mouth,
for ' Son of God ' would merely mean to him a demi-god, a divine
being ? The usual interpretation is that the captain is impressed

376 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XV. 33-39
by the ' loud cry,' so unusual from those who suffered on the cross.
Instead of languor and prostration, Jesus at the very moment of
death shows vigour and power. Though this view is shared by the
MS. D., which adds Kpd^avra to ovTa)<;, W. calls it 'scurrilous
nonsense,' perhaps because B. Weiss, among others, adopts it.
Hence he supposes that the oi/toj? ('thus') means 'under such
circumstances,' and refers it to the 'darkness' mentioned in 33.
This seems less likely.
' The captain,' says J. Weiss, * stands at the end of the Gospel
as the type and forerunner of the countless bands of heathen
who have been won over to the message of the crucified one.
The conjecture is near at hand that the captain became afterwards
a Christian.' In that case, his utterance might be authentic. In
the Gospel according to Peter he is called Petronius. But Mark
does not know his name, which gives rise to justifiable doubts;
and Brandt roundly asserts: 'Dass wir mit einer evangelischen
Dichtung zu thun haben, ist offenbar.' There were many motives
which would have stimulated the invention, and it provides a fine
conclusion to the story. The 'loud cry' was, probably, to the
Evangelist a ' cry as of thunder,' a supernaturally loud cry ; such
as, to the captain's mind, only a god could have uttered at such a
moment, on such an occasion. Loisy also is suspicious. He denies
that 'Son of God' means merely in the centurion's mouth 'divine
hero ' or ' demi-god.' Not so did the Evangelists understand it.
We have to do with a regular conversion, a true confession of
faith. Perhaps the centurion is intended to represent the first
homage rendered by the Gentile world to the world's Saviour.

40, 41. The Women who saw
{Cp, Matt, xxvii 55, 56; Luke xxiii 48, 49)
40 There were also some women looking on from a distance, among
whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the
41 Little and of Joses, and Salome (who already, when he was in
Galilee, had followed him, and attended to him) ; and many other
women who came up with him unto Jerusalem.
Here we have a probably historical, and, if so, a valuable, re
miniscence. The crucifixion was, though from a distance, actually
witnessed by some of Jesus's own female friends. Incidentally,
too, Mark makes an important statement that already in Galilee
Jesus had been followed and waited on by some women, and that

XV. 42-47] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 377
others had joined him on his way to Jerusalem. Luke had made
a similar statement at an early stage (viii 1-3). There can be
little doubt that in Jesus's attitude towards women we have a
highly original and significant feature of his life and teaching.
Mary of Magdala is so called from her place of birth or
residence, near Tiberias. There is no reason whatever to identify
her with the woman who had been a sinner, of Luke vii
The second Mary is said here to be the mother of James the
Less and of Joses. ' ' James is called the Little or the Less to
distinguish him from the other "celebrities" of the name. But
whether it designates him as less in stature, or in age, or of less
importance, there are no data for determining' (Gould). Some
conjecture that this James the Less is James the son of Alphseus,
the apostle mentioned in iii 18. The more famous James was
the son of Zebedee. According to another tradition, Mary was the
daughter of James.
The 'many others' may be an unhistoric exaggeration. Matthew
does not mention them. Salome was apparently the mother of the
sons of Zebedee, if we may make this inference on the ground that
Matthew, in place of Mark's Salome, puts ' the mother of the sons
of Zebedee.' Loisy points out that the women are mentioned in this place
to prepare for, and lead the way to, the story of the burial and the
story of the empty tomb. As he regards neither of these stories
as historical, he is disposed to be somewhat sceptical as to the
presence of the women. At aU events their presence cannot be
regarded as attested by the oldest tradition. 'La presence de
celles-ci [the Galilsean women] a Jt^rusalem, autour de Jdsus et
ses disciples, pent Stre une denude de I'histoire, et meme leur
presence sur le Calvafre : mais cette donnde dtait tout a fait
accessoire dans la tradition, tant qu'on ne songea pas a fafre de ces
femmes, qui pouvaient bien, en effet, Stre rest^es k Jerusalem
quand tons les apdtres etaient de}k partis, les premiers tdmoins de
la r&urrection ' {E. S. il. p. 708).
42-47. The Burlal of Jesus
{Cp. Matt, xxvii 51-61 ; Luke xxiii 50-56)
43 And as the evening was already at hand, because it was
43 the Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of
Arimathsea, an honourable councillor who himself too was waiting
for the kingdom of God, came, and ventured to go to Pilate, and
44 asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled that he should

378 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XV. 42-47
have already died, and he summoned the centurion, and asked him
45 whether he was long dead. And when he was informed by the
46 centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. And he bought fine linen,
and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him
in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone
47 against the door of the sepulchre. And Mary Magdalene and Mary
the mother of Joses watched where he was laid.
42, 43. The burial of Jesus, as described in this paragraph,
is probably, in substance, historic. As has been pointed out, its
main points 'tradition was not likely to have invented.' Isaiah
liii. 9 is inadequate for that, and is not quoted in the Gospels.
That the body of Jesus was buried is confirmed by Paul in i Cor.
XV. 4. The part played by Joseph of Arimathsea (his birth-place or
residence is usually identified with Ramathaim mentioned in
I Mac. xi. 34, or with the locality mentioned in i Sam. i i) is
also probably to be regarded as historic. Mark calls him evaxw^v
/SovXeuTT??, ' an honourable councillor,' which is usually interpreted
to mean that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. If so, the obvious
question arose : what part had he played at the trial ? and this
was answered by Luke xxiii. 51. More probably the words mean
merely, as the adjective so applied leads us to infer, a man of
high social rank. It is highly rash to assume, as J. Weiss does,
that Joseph was present at the trial, or even that any part of the
account of the trial in the Gospels is due to him.
Joseph is said to be also himself expecting the Kingdom of
God. This does not mean that he was a disciple of Jesus, or that
he even expected Jesus to bring the Kingdom about. There were
Pharisees who eagerly expected the Kingdom — and even expected
it soon. Such a one was Joseph. He may have been sympathetic
towards Jesus and his teaching, but it does not follow that he was
a regular disciple, though it was only natural that Mark's words
would soon be understood in that sense. It seems, however, very
unlikely that Joseph was not even in sympathy with Jesus or his
teaching, but that he simply acted (more probably as the repre
sentative of the Sanhedrin) in order to carry out the law of
Deuteronomy. 'Speed was essential; the law enjoined burial,
and it also enjoined the Sabbath rest. The only way of fulfilling
the law of burial without breaking the Sabbath law was to use a
grave close to the place of crucifixion ' (so Lake, The Resurrection
of Jesus Christ, pp. 174, 182).
Matthew calls him ' rich.' This addition is probably not due
to Isaiah liii. 9, but was suggested by his action and position.

XV. 42-47] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 379
'eva^r/fiav had obtained in vulgar speech the meaning "rich,"
though it properly means " of good standing " ' (Lake, p. 50).
Only here, for the first time, and quite casually, does Mark
mention that the day of the crucifixion was Friday. The words
are not without difficulty. Jesus died at 3 p.m. The sun would
set between six and seven. Joseph can only have heard of the
death some little while after it took place. Indeed, Mark says
'it was already evening.' The word o^Jria^, W. urges, never means
an earlier moment than sunset. Hence, W. says that he cannot
understand what ivei, ' since,' refers to. It cannot, he contends,
imply that because it was not permissible to take a body down
from the cross and bury it on the Sabbath, therefore there was no
time to lose. For the Sabbath had already begun. Perhaps,
however, the meaning may be that Joseph was anxious that as
little of the Sabbath as possible should be defiled by the body (or
bodies, though we hear nothing of the two thieves, or whether
they were yet dead) remaining upon the cross. John xix. 31
attributes this anxiety to the Jews. Perhaps, too, the law of
Deut. xxi 22, 23, had to do with the matter.
In any case, the verse makes the Synoptic chronology very
unlikely. For if Jesus was crucified upon the first day of Pass
over, one holy day was succeeded by another, and the words,
J7S17 oi|rta? yevofiivr]^, iirel tjv TrapacrKevrj ('as the evening was
already at hand, because it was the Preparation ') become quite
unintelligible. They have only a meaning if the Friday was not a
festival. Loisy continues his scepticism. Even the Friday is to
him dubious. ' The Passover of the Last Supper in the Synoptics,
and the Passover of the crucifixion in the fourth Gospel, the Sabbath
eve of the burial, and the Sunday of the resurrection, are symbolic
data, from which it is now difficult for the historian to disentangle
the point of departure in the actual facts. Note too that Mark's "for
it was Friday " comes as a sort of extra {comme en surcharge). Yet it
is only by this sort of gloss — though, one must admit, already known
to Matthew, Luke and John — that the day of the week on which
the crucifixion took place has been ascertained ' {E. 8. 11. p. 700).
Lake too suggests that the c\a.use i'irei...'n-pocTd^0aTov ('because
it was... Sabbath') may be an addition to the original text. It
appears that iirei is nowhere else found in Mark (Lake, p. 52).
Only Mark has 'ventured.' But it is very plausible. For,
according to Roman law or custom, the bodies of crucified persons
were not buried. They were allowed to rot where they hung.
44. Pilate's wonder is probably invented. He is astonished
that death should have supervened so rapidly. It is clear that
the early death was looked upon as something of a wonder or

38o THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XV. 42-47
a divine mercy. Six hours of appalling agony is little ! One
shudders to think of such agony prolonged for a whole day, or
even longer, as it would appear did occasionally happen.
45. Pilate grants Joseph's request. It is implied that a bribe
or payment would not have been unusual; but Pilate sanctions
the burial without any such preliminary. It has been suggested
that 44 and 45 may have been added later. 'There is a very
harsh change of subject which disappears if 44 and 45 are omitted,
and the word iBrnprjaaro is not found elsewhere in the New
Testament except in 2 Peter i 3 ' (Lake, p. 53).
46. The sun must have set ; yet Joseph is able to buy the
linen he required. The vault in which Joseph places the body
may have been near the place of crucifixion. It is not said by
Mark that it was his own grave-vault, or that no use had been
made of it before. It is not said that it was intended to be the
final resting-place of the body. The vault was hewn out of the
rock, as places for burial are in the East (Menzies). But the
details of the tomb may be due to Isaiah xxii. 16, xxxiii. 16
(Septuagint). So, too, the stone which Joseph rolled against the
opening may be due to the narrative which follows, or to the
stone of Gen. xxix. 2, 3. But, as Menzies says, ' the tomb had to
be guarded against wild beasts and against thieves; and this
was commonly done in the way here described.' (See the article
'Tomb' in Encyclopcedia Biblica)
Joseph appears suddenly, and as suddenly disappears. The
following remarks of Brandt deserve consideration : ' There is
every reason to believe that the man who buried the body of
Jesus did not belong to his regular adherents, that he executed
his pious work as quietly as he could, and afterwards showed
himself no more in Jerusalem. For otherwise, when the Galilseans
returned with the cry, " Jesus has risen," Joseph, whether gladly
or reluctantly, would have had to play a part. Neither the Jewish
authorities nor the disciples would have left him in peace ; friend
and foe would have talked much more about the tomb than is
now noticeable in the tradition.... Ramathaim was not far from
Jerusalem. The expression "Joseph of Ramathaim" indicates
that the person so named had not continued to live there ; but
that he was or remained a resident in Jerusalem is not by any
means implied. Perhaps before or soon after the disciples returned
to the city he left Judsea and went abroad. Perhaps his very
name first became known abroad, through some accidental com
bination of circumstances, and then came, through tradition, to
the knowledge of the Evangelist' {op. eit. p. 312).

XV. 42-47] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 381
Loisy thinks that the entire story of Joseph and of the
entombment is as unhistoric as the discovery of the empty tomb
itself 'On pent supposer que les soldats d^tachferent le corps
de la croix avant le soir, et le mirent dans quelque fosse commune,
oil I'on jetait pgle-m^le les restes des supplicids ' {E. 8. 1. p. 223).
If this scepticism is justified, and the body of Jesus was treated as
Loisy supposes, there would be something wonderfully dramatic
in such a fate for such a corpse. Here is the body of a man who
is to exercise the greatest influence of any man of all mankind
upon the history and civilization of the worid, who is to be
worshipped as God by untold millions of men, thrown unregarded,
uncared for, into a common ditch, to mingle undistinguished with
the malefactors' bones which filled it. That would be indeed a
contrast and an irony worthy of the event and its results.
47. The two Marys watch the burial. It is not said whether
they had remained all the time at the same place from which
they saw the crucifixion ; but this is perhaps implied. If the
tomb was near the cross, the women could have seen how the
body was recovered and buried. It is hardly to be inferred, with
B. Weiss, that they went, after the burial, up to the spot and
looked at it. The imperfect edecopovv rather implies that they
watched from their post the process of entombment. Or if the
point is pressed, that only two women see the entombment, we
may assume that these two leave their former post of observation,
and, following Joseph, draw nearer to the grave.
The second Mary is called Mapla r) 'Ioxt^to?. W. says this
must be translated ' the daughter of Joses,' which would conflict
with XV. 40. But Swete says : ' so. fJ,i]T7)p,' and so Holtzmann.
The point is unimportant. All the details of the story of the
entombment, says Loisy, are conceived in view of, and to lead
up to, the discovery of the empty tomb. Mark would impress
upon our notice that the same people who saw the entombment
saw also the empty tomb. He only wants to introduce a little
variety in making a considerable number of persons watch the
death of Jesus, while two only of these witness the entombment,
and three the discovery of the empty grave {E. 8. il p. 707).
It is hardly desirable to add any general note upon the
crucifixion and death of Jesus. For, if a beginning were to be
made, it would not be easy to stop. Those who believe in a God
of Righteousness can only bow the head in awed and yet trustful
submission at the strangely mixed means which He takes for the
progress of mankind, at the painful and involved interconnection
of good and evil. In spite of the endless misery which was to

382 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XV. 42-47
come upon the Jews because of the death of Jesus ; in spite of the
false theology and the persecutions and sore evils (apart wholly
from the Jewish misery) ; in spite of the wrongs which were to be
done to liberty, to enlightenment, to toleration, aud to righteous
ness by the Christian Church — one yet sees that the death of
Jesus, even as his life, was of immense benefit to the world.
Christianity, as we know it, and as Paul made it, was due to his
death as much as, if not more than, to his life. Some fundamental
truths of Judaism (though not all of them) have been taught to a
large proportion of the world by Christianity ; and while in some
directions it obscured those truths, in others it expanded them.
That this might be done, the ' chosen people ' have had to suffer.
For the law of election seems to go even further than Amos
realized, though what he said was sufficiently startling and revolu
tionary. For Amos said : ' You only have I known out of all the
inhabitants of the earth; therefore I will visit upon you your
iniquities.' But even this is not enough. Nineteen centuries of
suffering compel us to realize that for some august reason or
purpose we must say, ' You have I called : therefore ye shall suffer
undeservedly.' The precise proportion of responsibility which belongs to any
section of the Jews of Jerusalem for the death of Jesus must
always remain doubtful and uncertain. But the probability, as we
have seen, is that the Sadducean priesthood, perhaps backed up
by some of the leading Rabbis, were responsible, together with the
Romans, for his death. Yet what matters this, so far as God is
concerned ? We are disposed to find a difficulty in the ' third or
fourth generation' of the Second Commandment. Yet if the death
of Jesus had been unanimously voted by the entire Jewish people,
with votes taken by plebiscite or referendum, what difference would
it make ? Thfrd or fourth generation ! Why, there have been
fifty generations ! And the roll is not yet ended, and there seems
no prospect of its close ! For in substitution of the Master's
command, ' Ye shall love your enemies,' Christianity has forged
another : ' Ye shall hate your enemies to the fiftieth and sixtieth
generation.' But this is the will of God in His scheme for the progress of
the world. We do not understand why. But the Jews have ever
to realize that they have received the consecration of supremest
suffering, and that they still remain the hunted, hated, wounded,
but deathless witnesses of God.

XVL] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 383

CHAPTER XVI
It is unnecessary for the purposes of this book to add lengthy
notes to the brief narratives which tell the story of the resur
rection. It would suffice, for those who want to gain a very
convenient conspectus of the whole subject, to read the article
on the resurrection nai-ratives in the Encyclopcedia Biblica. There
will be found a complete summary of the facts and of the main
theories. There, too, is enumerated the full tale of the incon
sistencies of the various Gospels with each other, and with the
statements of Paul. For the purposes of this book it is the
narratives about the life and teaching of Jesus which are of
the greatest importance, while those which tell of his death
are less important, and those which describe his resurrection are
least important of all. Dr Carpenter, in that splendid chapter
of his book which he calls ' The Jesus of History,' says : ' The
resurrection is not here discussed, as it belongs properly to the
history of the Church.' And this is doubtless correct. But, over
and above this reason, there are others which make lengthy notes
upon the resurrection chapters unnecessary in this place. For
this book is not polemical, and it is also not an apology. It
frankly assumes the Jewish point of view. If a Jew were to write
a commentary upon the Gospels in order to show why, in spite
of them, he remains in religion a Jew, and does not become a
convert to Christianity, he would have to show why the resur
rection narratives are wholly insufficient for, and do not even help
towards, his conversion. He would then have to dwell at length
upon their difficulties and inconsistencies ; he would have to show
why he ranges himself with those Christian critics, such as the
author of the article in the Encyclopcedia Biblica, who deny the
empty tomb, the material or semi-material risen body, or even
the 'objective' vision. But the author of this book need not enter
into these discussions. He writes frankly as a Jew, and, therefore,
as one who does not so 'believe in' the resurrection as would
logically compel him to change his creed. He is not concerned
either to defend his own faith or to attack the faith of others.
The most probable views of the resurrection stories to the
present commentator are based upon the assumption that there
is a real foundation for these stories. In other words, that the
disciples, or some of them, saw a vision of Jesus which they believed
to be a vision of their risen Master. The assumption is that in
that sense, and within these limits, the Gospel narratives are
historic. It is an assumption, for it can never be proved; but,
all things considered, it seems the most probable assumption — far

384 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XVL
more probable than the opposite assumptions, that the stories are
fabricated, or that the disciples told what they knew to be false,
or that they are completely legendary, and grew up as legends do
grow up, no man knowing how.
If, then, there is historic truth at the bottom of the narratives —
though the truth did not include much (such as the empty tomb)
which the narratives now contain — that truth can, roughly stated,
be one of two main possibilities : Either the disciples, or some of
them, or one of them, not merely saw a vision of Jesus, but what
they saw ivas Jesus in some special supernatural manifestation ;
or, though the vision was real to them, it was, as we should now
say, ' only a vision,' and had no further reality, being exclusively a
' product of the mental condition of the seer.'
The first of these possibilities, again, may be held in the form
that the disciples saw what we should call the ' spirit ' of Jesus,
either ' in true spirit form or in some kind of acquired visibility,'
or, it may be heid in the form that what they saw was ' only a
visionary image without any real appearance of Jesus,' but that
' this visionary image was produced in their souls immediately by
God in order that they might be assured that Jesus was alive '
{Encyclopcedia Biblica, art. ' Resurrection,' col. 4077). And even in
the first form we may hold, as Prof Lake has pointed out, that the
real spiritual being was only perceived by the disciples under the
conditions and limitations of their minds and senses. The 'being'
had an objective existence, but what they 'heard' or 'saw ' was due
as much to them as to 'it' (Lake, pp. 271, 272).
Many persons, both Jews and Christians, would hold that no
one could believe the first possibility (in either form) and yet
legitimately remain a Jew. I do not myself believe this possibility
—(I think the vision was purely ' subjective ') ; but, nevertheless,
I do not think that the objective vision possibility could not be
held by a Jew. For if we believe in the immortality of the soul,
we shall also believe that the spirit of Jesus survived death, and
it may have been the will of God that the disciples should be
miraculously accorded this particular vision. So it may have been
the will of God that Mohammed may have been accorded a ' super
natural' vision. When I think of the gigantic results of both
Christianity and Mohammedanism, it seems to me, in some moods
and for some reasons, less difficult to believe that they are based
upon, or partly built up from, certain special divine interventions
than that they are based upon what we call ' illusions.'
But, on the other hand, it is, for other reasons, our scientific
duty to do without miracles when we can. If all other miracles
are ill-founded, it is probable that this one is ill-founded too.
The whole building up of the resurrection narratives can be

XVL] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 385
adequately accounted for on the subjective vision possibility ; and
again, the appearance of the subjective visions to the disciples, or
to some of them, can also be accounted for with adequate psycho
logical verisimilitude. Not only has the objective vision hypothesis
its own difficulties, but it is also more ' economical ' to be content
with the subjective vision hypothesis, if it can be adequately
accounted for with fair and reasonable arguments.
No one who accepts the doctrine of 'immortality' will hesitate
for one , moment to believe in the ' resurrection ' of Jesus, if by
resurrection we mean that his life did not terminate upon the
cross. If others ' live again,' then, d, fortiori, one of the best of
men so lives. But to the Jew, and to all those who hold the
subjective vision hypothesis, the resurrection of Jesus is not
the proof or pledge of general human immortality ; but, on the
contrary, the belief in general human immortality is the proof
and pledge of the ' resurrection of Jesus.' If we believe already
in human immortality, it does not, in one sense, make much
difference whether we accept the objective or the subjective vision
hypothesis : Jesus, in either case, is alive, whether the disciples
' really ' saw him or not. If, on the other hand, we do not believe
in human immortality, we shall still less believe in the objective
vision hypothesis. Thus, to those who have not grown up in, or
who have not retained, the old Christian theology, the 'resur
rection ' of Jesus has no central importance. Their faith does not
hinge on it ; the Gospel narrative can neither upset their faith
nor confirm it.
A difficulty to my own mind in the subjective vision hypo
thesis, as set forth and explained, for example, by Schmiedel and
Arnold Meyer, is one which, to many minds, will not seem a
difficulty at all. It is, perhaps, less a difficulty than a sadness.
It is the same difficulty or sadness which presents itself to me
when Professor Margoliouth, in the plenitude of his great know
ledge, would have me believe that Mohammed was largely a
conscious impostor. It is hard to be content that great religious
results should have had not quite satisfactory causes. The sub
jective vision was, in one sense, an 'illusion.' Yet upon this
illusion hinged the great religious result which we call Christianity.
So, too, it is hard to be content that any dross and error should be
mingled with the pure gold of the prophets. But we cannot hope
to understand the means which God allows or wills (whichever
word may be preferred) in the development and production of
human righteousness and knowledge. His will is done. Righteous
ness and knowledge, which are the only 'proof of God, exist and
increase. We must not stumble because we cannot understand the
means. M. =^5

386 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XVI. 1-8
1-8. The Empty Tomb
{Cp. Matt, xxviii. i-io; Luke xxiv. i-ii)
I And when the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary
the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that they
2 might go and anoint him. And very early in the morning of the
first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre, at the rising
3 of the sun. And they said among themselves, 'Who will roll away
4 for us the stone from the door of the sepulchre ?' And when they
looked, they saw that the stone had been rolled away : for it was
5 very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young
man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment;
6 and they were sore afraid. But he said unto them, 'Be not
afraid : ye seek Jesus the crucified Nazarene ; he is risen ; he is
7 not here : behold the place where they laid him. But go, tell his
disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee : there
8 shall ye see him, as he said unto you.' And they went out, and
fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed:
and they said nothing to any one ; for they were afraid.
I. The second Mary is here called the mother or, as W.
thinks, the daughter of James. Cp. the statements in xv. 47 and
XV. 40. 'They make the necessary purchases late on Saturday evening.
That the women determine to anoint a corpse which had already
been entombed two days and wrapped round in its cere-cloths
seems very strange. W. calls it a 'bold thought.' It seems to
me more — it seems to me a thought which is not likely to be
historic. In any case the women could hardly have thought of
anointing the corpse unless they knew that the entombment had
been meant to be, and was, of a temporary character only. J. Weiss
says : ' How could the women reckon upon the stone being rolled
away ? The cause assigned for their visit to the grave is very
unlikely.' 2. They arrive very early on Sunday morning at the grave.
But the sun has risen.
3. They have no idea or thought that Jesus may have risen.
On the contrary, their one preoccupation is the question of the
heavy stone at the mouth of the grave. Who will roll it away
for them ?

XVI. 1-8] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 387
4. The stone has been already rolled away : for it was very
big. The second part of the verse seems awkward. That the
stone was very big does not prove that it was rolled away. The
words would be more suitable after verse 3. In their present
place they can only be regarded as a loose way of expressing the
implied thought that the rolling away of the stone was something
very portentous and remarkable. (So Klostermann.) Who had
rolled the stone away ? Is it implied that this was done by Jesus
himself? He ' rises,' rolls away the stone, and disappears. Or has
the stone been rolled away by invisible divine power ? ' In any
case,' says Loisy, ' it is understood that the stone had to be rolled
away in order that Jesus might come out.'
5. The women, flnding the stone removed from the mouth,
enter into the vault. Instead of seeing, as they expect, the body
of Jesus, they see an angel. The angel looks like a young man,
but his white (priestly) garments, as well as the mere fact of his
presence in that strange place, reveal his angelhood. {Cp. 2 Mace.
iii. 26; Revelations vii 9, 13.) It is also important to note that
one good MS. has merely ' having come to the tomb ' {i.e. iXdovcrai
for eia-eXOova-ai). Is this original ? Prof Lake strongly holds
that the young man is not an angel, but a man. The narrative,
in its essence, is historical.
6. The angel's words : ' Ye seek Jesus, the crucified Naza
rene,' sound a little strange. Menzies says that they are 'in
character. Jesus is not described in terms a believer would use,
or with any reference to his Messiahship, but in such words
as might be used to identify him either to a follower or an un
believer.' The angel then announces the fact of the resurrection. Jesus
has risen in his own very body. The angel shows the place where
the body had been put, and this place is empty, "rhe MS. D
reads : ' He is risen, he is not here, lo, there is the place where
they laid him.' Is this, as Lake is inclined to think, the original
text ? See below. (Lake, p. 69.)
7. Is there a contradiction here with xiv. 50 ? W. and others
think there is, inasmuch as xiv. 50 supposes that the disciples
had fled, immediately after the arrest, to Galilee (except Peter),
whereas this verse would imply that they are still near or in
Jerusalem, and that the women are to tell them to proceed at
once to Galilee. But it must be admitted that it does not say
in xiv. 50 that they fled at once to Galilee. When exactly they
dispersed to their homes, whether after or before the crucifixion,
is not stated. In any case our verse, like xiv. 28, is meant to
25—2

388 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XVI. i-8
account for the fact that the first appearance of the risen Jesus
took place in Galilee, perhaps also to account for the flight of the
apostles and to justify it. Lake suggests that the true explanation
of xvi. 7, by which we can maintain its consistency with xiv. 50
and yet explain that verse as implying that the disciples had
already scattered to Galilee, is that the meaning of 'he goes before
you into Galilee ' {cp. xiv. 28) is, he will be in Galilee before you.
Before you arrive in Galilee, which will take you some time, Jesus
will already be there (Lake, p. 76)-
' There shall ye see him ' ; that is, the disciples, not the
women. The words which the women are to repeat are addressed
direct to the disciples.
8. It is highly remarkable that the women are expressly
stated to have disobeyed the angel's order. And if they did not
obey it, how did it become known ? Did they go with the disciples
to Galilee and tell them there, either before or after the visions of
the risen Jesus had occurred? But this is a very strained ex
planation. And, on the other hand, the reason for the women's
silence is far from clear. That the occurrence at the tomb filled
them with awe and fear is reasonable enough ; but that, when they
joined their friends, they still said nothing seems most peculiar.
The trembling and bewilderment are psychologically inadequate.
The only explanation which is possible seems to be that it was
known that the disciples were unprepared for what they saw in
Galilee. The faith in the risen Messiah owes nothing to the dis
covery of the empty tomb. No story of the empty tomb had
reached the apostles when that faith was born within them. The
empty tomb story grew up afterwards. Hence it had to be ex
plained why the women kept silence; this is done as well as
might be. When the story of the empty tomb became current
and accepted, the need was no longer felt for the silence of the
women. Its improbability, on the contrary, became felt. Hence
the change in Matthew and Luke.
The opening word of the verse i^eXOovaai ' is not represented
in the Arabic Diatessaron and in some MSS. is altered to ukov-
aavTe'i' (Lake, p. 62).
What follows after verse 8 is from another hand. It is inter
polated and late. W. thinks that Mark always ended at 8. It
was the intended end. Nothing is wanting. The resurrection is
announced and proved. Others hold that the end has been lost,
or that the writer was suddenly prevented from concluding his
work. No certainty on this point is possible. The present ending
is rather abrupt and awkward. To end a sentence with ydp
seems odd. ' It is therefore probable that the sentence originally

XVI. 1-8] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 389
ran "for they were afraid of the Jews" or some such phrase'
(Lake, p. 72 init.).
The more radical critics reject the story of the empty tomb as
entirely unhistorical. Attempts have been made to retain the
story and get rid of the miraculous elements. Thus it has been
supposed that the women did go to the tomb and did find it
empty, but that the reason was that the Jewish authorities had
removed the body. Or, again, it is conjectured that Joseph had
only provisionally put the body in his own vault, and had had it
removed to another resting-place before the visit of the women.
Or, again, it is conjectured that Mary Magdalene alone visited the
tomb (so John), and that she had a vision, or trance, or seizure
there, and that her vision may have grown into the present story.
But, as Loisy well points out, the story is all of a piece. The
angel is not added later ; he cannot be removed without destroying
the whole. In fact, all the above conjectures are very doubtful.
For the entirely legendary character of the story it is argued
that Paul knows nothing about it. Secondly, that if the story
had happened, the women would not have disobeyed the order
of the angel. Mark's statement that the women said nothing
implies that the story of the empty sepulchre was unknown when
the disciples had the visions in Galilee of the risen Jesus, and
that it is, in fact, a later tradition. How the story arose is not
quite easy, but the growth of legend is often difficult to explain.
If Jesus had risen, as the disciples believed after the visions in
Galilee, then, on current theories of the resurrection, the tomb
must have been empty. 'Therefore no hesitation was felt in
declaring that (according to all reasonable conjecture) the women
who had witnessed Jesus's death had wished to anoint his body,
and then had come to know of the emptiness of the grave. In
the fact that, according to Mark and Matthew, this was not alleged
regarding the male disciples, we can see still a true recollection
that those disciples were by that time no longer in Jerusalem.'
So Schmiedel, in Encyclopcedia Biblica. The defenders of tradition
and miracle may not unreasonably argue that this is rather a poor
explanation. But, nevertheless, the story itself, and the supposition
of the empty sepulchre, and of the rolled-away stone, are much
more difficult still. It is better to assume that the body of Jesus
remained where it was placed without disturbance or miracle.
After the above paragraph was written Prof Lake's book
appeared. His view is rather peculiar. He holds that there is no
reason to believe that Paul was unacquainted with the story of the
empty tomb. (It is in any case difficult to prove a negative.) More
over, he thinks that the story in Mark in its essentials is accurate
and historic. The women go to what they think is the tomb : they

390 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS [XVI. i-8
find it open. ' A young man who was in the entrance, guessing
their errand, tried to tell them that they had made a mistake in
the place. " He is not here," said he ; " see the place where they
laid him," and probably pointed to the next tomb.' But the
women were frightened at the detection of thefr errand and fled.
They heard very imperfectly, or not at all. Later on when they
were rejoined by the men who had experienced the visions (or
when, as I should put it, they rejoined the men in Galilee), they
remembered the incident at the tomb. But if Jesus was risen,
then the tomb was empty; so they came to believe that the
young man was an angel, and that what he had told them was
that Jesus had risen and that he had given them a message for
the disciples (Lake, pp. 246-253, 193, 199). It does not seem to
me likely that this explanation, or ' suggestion,' as Lake calls it,
will permanently hold the field. Its ingenuity, however, is most
undeniable.

9-20. Later Version of the Resurrection
9 [Now after he had risen, early on the first day of the week, he
appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven
10 devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as
1 1 they mourned and wept. And they, when they heard that he was
12 alive, and had been seen by her, believed it not. After that he
appeared in another form unto two of them, as they were walking
13 and going into the country. And they went and told it unto the
others, but they did not believe even them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at table,
and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart,
15 because they believed not them who had seen him risen. And he
said unto them, ' Go ye throughout all the world, and preach the
16 gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall
17 be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. And
these signs shall follow them that believe : In my name shall they
18 cast out demons ; they shall speak with new tongues ; they shall
take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall
not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover.'
19 Now after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was taken up
20 into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of God. But they

XVL9-20] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 391
went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord helping them and
confirming the Word through the signs which followed it]
The Gospel of Mark ends with xvi 8. Whether the true end
has been lost, or whether xvi. 8 was the intentional — though, to
us, oddly abrupt — end, is disputed among scholars. But the
passage which now follows (9-20) is certainly unauthentic. It
is wanting in some of the best MSS. It is wanting in the S.S.
It is a compilation unlike Mark in style and vocabulary. It
contradicts implicitly, if not explicitly, what Mark had said as
to the scene of the apparitions being Galilee. It presupposes
Matthew and Luke and John. It has allusions to them all, and
also to Acts.
9-1 1. This ' appearance ' depends on John xx., but has a few
touches from Luke xxiv.
12, 13. This depends on Luke xxiv. (the Emmaus story).
14. The final 'appearance,' which depends partly on Luke
xxiv. 41-43 and partly on passages in Acts. The words which
Jesus speaks contain many echoes. Thus 15 depends on Matthew
xxviii. 19.
16. Cp. Acts xvi 31 ; John iii 18.
17. The signs refer to Acts ii, or to the ' tongues ' of Paul in
I Cor. xii., xiv.
18. The snake-lifting is curious. Some see an allusion to
Acts xxviii. 3-5. Perhaps it is only another way of putting Luke
X. 19. 19. The description of the ascension is suggested by some
verses in Acts. {Cp. Acts i 8-1 1, ii 33.)
' The resurrection of Jesus is a Christian belief, not a fact of
Gospel history. And if one were compelled to regard it as a
historic fact, one would be obliged to admit that this fact is not
guaranteed by evidence which is adequately sure, consistent, clear
and precise ' {E. 8. il. p. 798). With these words Loisy ends his
^reat commentary.

392 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Extra Note on Mark xii. i-ii
Prof. Burkitt, always keen to champion the genuineness of whatever
Mark says about, or ascribes to, Jesus, and specially anjcious to disprove
the theory of Mark's Paulinism, essays to show that the parable of the
wicked husbandmen is authentic, 'a genuine historical reminiscence' of
words which Jesus actually spoke on this particular occasion. One of his
chief arguments is that, if it were the ' product of later Christian reflection,'
it would contain a reference to the resurrection. For my part I think Loisy's
elaborate analysis of the parable and his conclusions, already referred to in
the notes, are more convincing than Prof. Burkitt's most ingenious pleadings.
As to the absence of any reference to the resurrection, see note on verses
10, 1 1. Prof. Burkitt thinks that the forecast of the parable was not fulfilled.
For after 70 a.d. the vineyard in the literal sense was not given to anybody
else at all ; it was desolate. But one need not suppose that the parable, even if
later than Jesus, was written after 70. What it does suggest is that the
position of vantage relative to God held before by the Jews is now to be held
by ' others,' i.e. by Christians.
Prof. Burkitt strongly holds the view that Jesus not only foresaw his
death, but regarded it as the divinely appointed means for hastening on the
Day of Judgment, and thus for bringing in the Kingdom. Hence he presses
the authenticity of the conversation appended to the transfiguration, in spite
of its suspicious environment. ' For even in the transfiguration,' says this
doughty champion of Mark, 'we have practically a narrative of what St Peter
thought he remembered having seen,' while Mark ix. 9-13 is 'a piece of true
historical reminiscence.' Just as the herald had to suffer and die, so too does
Jesus discern that he, the Messiah, must suffer and die likewise. In John's
fate he reads his own, ' even though no Scripture seemed to indicate it.' So
too with Mark x. 45. There is no Paulinism here. All that the verse says
is that the death of Jesus will bring ransom and redemption to many — to
the true Israel. The wicked husbandmen will be slain, the sinners will
perish, 'but the true Israel will be delivered from their enemies and God
will reign over them. He will come and visit his vineyard.' Just so does
Jesus say in xiv. 24, that his blood will be poured out 'for many' — to the
advantage of many. And this result of his death was to happen very soon.
I do not think that this interpretation does justice to the language of x. 45.
But I agree with Prof. Burkitt that 'after the event it was easy enough
to pick out Isaiah liii. and give it a Christian interpretation, but there is
nothing to show that this was ever done by anyone before the Passion in
Jerusalem. The one reference to Isaiah liii. in the recorded words of Jesus
is the more or less ironical warning to the disciples on the last night that
soon their Master would be reckoned among lawless folk (Luke xxiii. 37 ;
cp. Isaiah liii. 12). The identification, the synthesis, of the Messiah and the
Sufiering Servant, is the result of the Crucifixion, not an anticipation of it '
(Burkitt, ' Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen,' in Transactions of the Third
International Congress for the History of Religion, Vol. 11. pp. 321-328).

I'

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 01340 8373

.'AVfr'

»1!ht;?»*

4';*

t ',":

B'e'j.V

4Si