CHAPTER 10

Mark 10:1. διὰ τοῦ] is wanting in C** D G Δ, min. Syr. Pers. Aeth. Goth. Vulg. It. On the other hand, B C* L א, Copt. have καί. So rightly Lachm. and Tisch. This καί was, in some cases, deleted in accordance with Matthew 19:1; in others, more precisely defined by the description contained in διὰ τοῦ.

Mark 10:4. With Lachm. and Tisch. the order ἐπέτρεψεν Μωϋσῆς, following B C D L Δ, min., is to be preferred.

Mark 10:6. ὁ Θεός is wanting in B C L Δ א, Copt. Colb. Corb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition by way of gloss, which appeared necessary here, although not at Matthew 19:4.

Mark 10:7. πρὸς τ. γυν.] Lachm. has τῇ γυναικί, following A C L N Δ, min. codd. It. Jer. From Matthew. Tisch. has now again deleted κ. προσκολλ. πρὸς τ. γυν. αὐτοῦ, nevertheless only following B א, Goth. It lies under a strong suspicion of being an addition from Matthew.

Mark 10:10. εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν] So also Lachm. and Tisch., following B D L Δ א, min. Cant. 10 :The Recepta ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ (Fritzsche, Scholz) is an emendation.

αὐτοῦ περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ] On decisive evidence we must read, with Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch., merely περὶ τούτου. The first αὐτοῦ is a current addition to οἱ μαθηταί; by τοῦ αὐτοῦ (D: τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου) τούτου was glossed for the purpose of more precise definition.

Mark 10:12. Tischendorf’s reading: καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαμήσῃ (B C L א and Δ, which, however, has καί before γαμ.), is a stylistic emendation.

γαμηθῇ ἄλλῳ] Lachm. Tisch. have γαμήσῃ ἄλλον, following B C* D L Δ א, min. A mechanical repetition from Mark 10:11 (whence Δ has even ἄλλην instead of ἄλλον!).

Mark 10:14. Before μή Elz. Fritzsche, Lachm. have καί, which is wanting in witnesses deserving consideration, and is added from the parallels.

Mark 10:16. Instead of ηὐλόγει Lachm. (as also Scholz) has εὐλόγει. But B C Δ א, min. Vict, have κατευλόγει (L N: κατηυλ.). It is to be adopted, with Tisch.; this compound, which does not elsewhere occur in the N. T., was unfamiliar to the transcribers. Its position before τιθείς (omitting the last αὐτά) is attested by B C L Δ א, min. Copt. Syr. p. ms. Vict. (Fritzsche, Tisch.). But it was precisely the threefold αὐτά that gave occasion to error and correction.

Mark 10:19. The arrangement μὴ φον., μὴ μοιχ. (Lachm. Tisch.), is found in B C Δ א** min. Copt. Ar. Colb.; but it is from Matthew 19:18.

Mark 10:21. The article before πτωχοῖς is wanting in witnesses of such preponderating character (condemned by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm.) that it appears (as also in Matthew 19:21) as an addition.

ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν] is wanting in B C D Δ א, 406, Copt. Vulg. It. Clem. Hilar. Aug. Ambr. Other witnesses have it before δεῦρο. Bracketed by Lachm. But how easily the words were passed over, as the parallels have nothing of the kind!

Mark 10:24. τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ τοῖς χρήμ.] is not found in B Δ א, Copt. ms. Deleted by Tisch. But if it had been added, the addition would have been made in accordance with the text of Matt. or Luke, or according to Mark 10:23. The omission was meant in the interest of stricter morality, which regarded the πεποιθότας, etc., as quite excluded.

Mark 10:25. διελθεῖν] The εἰσελθεῖν, commended by Griesb., adopted by Tisch., has indeed considerable attestation, but it is from Matthew 9:24, and in this case the significant change of the verbs in Mark was not observed.

Mark 10:28. ἠκολουθήσαμεν] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἠκολουθήκαμεν, following B C D. A mechanical similarity of formation with ἀφήκαμεν, occurring also in some witnesses in Matthew and Luke.

Mark 10:29. Only B Δ א (ἐ. αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰ.), Copt. have the simple ἔφη ὁ Ἰησ. (Tisch.) instead of ἀποκρ. ὁ Ἰ. εἶπεν, but they are correct. Comp. on Mark 9:12; Mark 9:38.

ἢ πατέρα ἢ μητέρα] The reverse order is found in B C Δ 106, Copt. Goth. Colb. Brix. Lachm. and Tisch. It is to be preferred, ἢ πατέρα was in some cases placed first, in accordance with the natural relation; in some cases also, in consideration of Mark 10:30, it was altogether omitted (D, Cant. Verc. Corb Harl.). On account of Mark 10:30 ἢ γυναῖκα has also been omitted (B D Δ א, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Or. Lachm. Tisch.).

After καί the second ἕνεκεν is added by Griesb. and Tisch., following preponderating evidence. The omission is explained from Mark 8:35.

Mark 10:30. μητέρας] Lachm. has μητέρα, following A C D, Verss.; the plural was objectionable.

Mark 10:31. The article before the second ἔσχατοι is indeed deleted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch.; but following Matthew 19:30 it dropped out so easily, and, moreover, it is found still in such important testimonies, that it must be restored.

Mark 10:32. καὶ ἀκολουθ.] B C* L Δ א, 1, Copt. have οἱ δὲ ἀκολουθ. This is rightly followed by Ewald, and is now adopted by Tisch. The οἱ δὲ not being understood was set aside by καί. But the attestation is to be the more regarded as sufficient, that D K, min. Verc. 10 :Chrys. are not to be reckoned in favour of the Recepta, because they altogether omit κ. ἀκολ. ἐφοβ., of which omission the homoioteleuton was manifestly the cause.

Mark 10:33. The article before γραμμ. (Elz.) is, with Scholz and Tisch. (in opposition to Griesb. Matth. Fritzsche, and Lachm.), to be maintained. The testimony in favour of its omission is not preponderating, and comp. Matthew 20:18.

Mark 10:34. The order ἐμπτύσουσιν αὐτ. κ. μαστιγ. αὐτ. (Lachm. Tisch. Rinck) is found in B C L Δ א, min. vss., including Vulg. and codd. It. But the ἐμπαίξ. and ἐμπτύσ. were considered as belonging together. Comp. Luke 18:33.

Elz. has τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ; so also Fritzsche, Scholz. But B C L Δ א, vss. have μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας. Approved by Griesb. Schulz, adopted by Lachm. Tisch. The Recepta is to be maintained. See on Mark 9:31.

Mark 10:35. After αἰτήσ. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have σε, following A B C L Δ א** min. vss. To be adopted. It was easily passed over as being superfluous. D K have it before the verb. An incorrect restoration. א* has entirely omitted ὃ ἐάν down to δὸς ἡμῖν.

Mark 10:36. ποιῆσαί με ὑμῖν] Lachm. Tisch. have ποιήσω ὑμῖν, which was also approved by Griesb. An alteration in remembrance of passages such as Mark 10:51, Mark 14:12, Matthew 20:32, in which also the bare subjunctive was sometimes completed by ἵνα ποιήσω.

Mark 10:38. Instead of καί (in Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche) read, with Rinck, Lachm. and Tisch., ἤ, which Griesb. also approved, following B C* D L Δ א, min. Copt. Arm. Ar. Vulg. It. Or.; καί came from Mark 10:39.

In Mark 10:40 also ἤ is to be adopted on almost the same evidence (with Rinck, Lachm., and Tisch.); καί is from Matthew 20:23.

After εὐων. Elz. has μου, which is deleted on decisive evidence.

Mark 10:42. Read καὶ προσκαλ. αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B C D L Δ א, 406, Syr. Copt. codd. It. The Recepta is from Matthew 20:25.

Mark 10:43. Instead of the first ἔσται, Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐστίν, which Schulz also approved, in accordance with B C* D L Δ א, Vulg. It. The future came in from Matt., and on account of what follows.

Mark 10:44. ὑμῶν γενέσθαι] Lachm. has ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι, following important evidence, but it is from Matthew 20:27.

Mark 10:46. After τυφλός read with Tisch. προσαίτης, omitting the subsequent προσαιτῶν. So B L Δ Copt. Comp. א, τυφλὸς καὶ προσαίτης. The Recepta is from Luke 18:35.

Mark 10:47. ὁ υἱός] Lachm. has υἱέ, following B C L Δ א, min. From Luke. Comp. Mark 10:48.

Mark 10:49. αὐτὸν φωνηθῆναι] B C L Δ א, min. Copt. have φωνήσατε αὐτόν. So Fritzsche and Tisch. And rightly; the accusative with the infinitive was introduced through the fact of ἐκέλευσεν being written instead of εἶπεν, after Luke 18:40 (so still Ev. 48, It. Vulg.), and remained, after εἶπεν was restored, the more easily because Luke has it also.

ἔγειρε] See on Mark 2:9.

Mark 10:50. ἀναστάς] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀναπηδήσας, according to B D L Δ א, min. vss. (including Vulg. It.) Or. The Recepta is a “scriptorum jejunitas” that mistakes the peculiarity of Mark (Tisch.).

Mark 10:51. The form ῥαββουνί (Elz. ῥαββονί) has decisive evidence.

Mark 10:52. Instead of τῷ Ἰησοῦ (Elz., Scholz, Rinck), A B C D L Δ א have αὐτῷ (Tisch.), which attestation is decisive.

Mark 10:1-9. See on Matthew 19:1-8.

κἀκεῖθεν] points back to Mark 9:33.

καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου] see the critical remarks. He came to the borders of Judaea, and that (see Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 9 ff.; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 145) on the further side of Jordan, “ipsa Samaria ad dextram relicta” (Beza). At Jericho He came again to this side, Mark 10:46. See, moreover, on Matthew 19:1.

καὶ συμπορ. κ.τ.λ.] And there gather together to Him again crowds of people. πάλιν, for previously, at Mark 9:30 ff., He had withdrawn Himself from the people.

Mark 10:2. Mark has not the properly tempting element in the question, but it is found in Matt.: κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν (see on Matthew 19:3). That this element was not also preserved in the tradition which Mark here follows, may very naturally be explained from the reply of Jesus, which ran unconditionally (even according to Matt. Mark 10:4-6). Mark therefore has not the original form of the question (Bleek, Weiss, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Harless, Ehescheid. p. 30), nor does he make the question be put more captiously (Fritzsche), nor has he made use of Matthew incorrectly, or with alterations consonant to his own reflection (Saunier, Baur), because the Jewish points of dispute as to divorce were to him indifferent (Köstlin); but he follows a defective tradition, which in this particular is completed and corrected in Matthew. De Wette’s conjecture is arbitrary, that Mark presupposes that the Pharisees had already heard of the view of Jesus on divorce, and wished to induce Him to a renewed declaration on the subject. The perilous element of the question does not turn on the divorce of Herod (Ewald, Lange). See on Matthew.

Mark 10:3. Here also the tradition, which Mark follows, deviates from Matthew, who represents that the commandment of Moses is brought into question not by Jesus, but by the Pharisees, and that as an objection against the answer of Jesus. But it is more natural and more forcible that the reply of Jesus should start immediately from Deuteronomy 24:1, and should first elicit this Mosaic ἐντολή—on the right estimation of which depended the point at issue—from the mouth of the questioners themselves, in order thereupon to attach to it what follows.

Mark 10:4. ἐπέτρεψε] emphatically prefixed (see the critical remarks): Moses permitted, in saying which their ἔξεστιν, Mark 10:2, is present to their minds. See, moreover, on Matthew 5:31. They prudently refrain from saying ἐνετείλατο.

Mark 10:5. τ. ἐντολὴν ταύτ.] the commandment of the putting forth a writing of divorcement.

Mark 10:6. The subject (as ὁ Θεός is not genuine) is to be taken out of κτίσεως (ὁ κτιστής). See Kühner, II. p. 36, 4.

Mark 10:7. Christ makes Adam’s words at Genesis 2:24 His own. It is otherwise, but less directly and concisely, given in Matthew.

ἕνεκεν τούτου] because God created men as male and female—in order to correspond with this arrangement of the Creator.

The futures indicate what will happen in cases of marrying according to God’s ordinance.

Mark 10:10-12. See on Matthew 19:9. The two evangelists differ from one another here in respect of the place, of the persons to whom Jesus is speaking, and partially of the contents of what He says. Certainly Matthew has furnished the original shape of the matter, since what Mark makes Jesus say only in the house and merely to His disciples (Mark 10:11 with the not original amplification of Mark 10:12) is withal an essential element of the reply to the Pharisees, and does not bear the character of a special private instruction, whereas the private communication to the disciples, Matthew 19:10-12, which as such is just as appropriate as it is original, is indeed “the crown of the whole” (Ewald).

εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν] having come into the house (in which at that time they were lodging). The same brevity of expression occurs at Mark 13:9.

πάλιν οἱ μαθηταί] again the disciples, as previously the Pharisees.

περὶ τούτου] (see the critical remarks): upon this subject.

Mark 10:11. ἐπʼ αὐτήν] in reference to her, the woman that is put away.[132]

Mark has not the μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ (Matt.), which makes no essential difference, as this ground of divorce is obvious of itself as such. See on Matthew 5:32. Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 410.

Mark 10:12. καὶ ἐὰν γυνὴ ἀπολύσῃ κ.τ.λ.] Matthew has quite a different saying. The narrative of Mark is certainly not original (in opposition to Schenkel), but puts into the mouth of Jesus what was the custom among the Greeks and Romans, namely, that the wife also might be the divorcing party, and very often actually was so (see on 1 Corinthians 7:13, and Wetstein in loc.; also Danz in Meuschen, N. T. ex Talm. ill. p. 680 ff.), which was not competent to the Jewish wife (Deuteronomy 24:1; Josephus, Antt. xv. 7. 10), for the instances of Michal (1 Samuel 25:41), of Herodias (Matthew 14:4 f.), and of Salome (Josephus, Antt. xv. 7. 10) are abnormal in respect of their rank; and the cases in which, according to the Rabbins, the wife might require that the husband should give her a writing of divorcement (see Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 806 f.) do not belong to the question here, where the wife herself is the party who puts away. The proposition in the passage before us is derived from an Hellenic amplification of the tradition,[133] which, however, in Matthew is again excluded. Comp. Harless, p. 25f. According to Kuinoel (comp. Lange), Jesus purposed to give to the apostles, as future teachers of the Gentiles, the instruction requisite for judging in such a case. But He must have said as much, as the question had reference to the Jewish relation of divorce.

μοιχᾶται] the subject is the woman (comp. Mark 5:11), not the ἄλλος. Moreover, Grotius appropriately says: “Mulier ergo, cum domina sui non sit … omnino adulterium committit, non interpretatione aliqua aut per consequentiam, sed directe. Ideo non debuit hic addi ἘΠʼ ΑὐΤΌΝ.”

[132] Observe that Jesus here of necessity presupposes the acknowledgment of the principle of monogamy. Theophylact and many others, including Lange, Ewald, and Bleek, have erroneously referred αὐτήν to the second wife. Erasmus appropriately says: “in injuriam illius.” Comp. Calvin and Bengel: “in illam.” It is only thus that its emphatic bearing is brought out; the marrying of the second wife makes him an adulterer towards the first.

[133] According to Baur, from a reflection of Mark on the equal rights of the two sexes.

Mark 10:13-16. See on Matthew 19:13-15, who gives the narrative only by way of extract. Comp. Luke 18:15-17.

ἅψεται] From the mere touch on the part of the holy man, who assuredly was also known as a friend of children, they hoped to derive blessing for their children. So too Luke. It is otherwise in Matthew, in whose account, instead of the touch, there is already introduced here the more definite laying on of hands, which was performed by Jesus at Mark 10:16.

Mark 10:14. ἠγανάκτησε] “propter impedimentum amori suo a discipulis oblatum” (Bengel).

Mark 10:15 is also adopted by Luke 18:17, but not by the abbreviating Matthew. Whosoever shall not have received the kingdom of the Messiah as a child, i.e. in the moral condition, which resembles the innocence of childhood (comp. Matthew 18:3); Theophylact appropriately says: τῶν ἔχοντων ἐξ ἀσκήσεως τὴν ἀκακίαν, ἣν τὰ παιδία ἔχουσιν ἀπὸ φύσεως.

In δέξηται the kingdom (which the coming Messiah establishes) is conceived as coming (Mark 9:1; Matthew 6:10; Luke 17:20, al). It is erroneous to explain the βασιλ. τ. Θεοῦ as the preaching of the kingdom (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Kuinoel, and many others).

Mark 10:16. ἐναγκαλ.] as at Mark 9:36.

κατηυλόγ.] only occurs in this place in the New Testament; it is stronger than the simple form, Plut. Amator. 4; Tob 11:1; Tob 11:17. It expresses here the earnestness of His interest. How much more did Christ do than was asked of Him!

Mark 10:17-27. See on Matthew 19:16-26. Comp. Luke 18:18-27. As well in the question at Mark 10:17, and in the answer of Jesus Mark 10:18-19, as also in the account of the address to the disciples Mark 10:23 f., and in several little peculiar traits, the narrative of Mark is more concrete and more direct.

εἰς ὁδόν] out of the house, Mark 10:10, in order to prosecute His journey, Mark 10:32.

γονυπετ.] not inappropriate (de Wette), but, in connection with προσδραμών, representing the earnestness of the inquiry; both words are peculiar to the graphic Mark. With an accusative, as at Mark 1:40. See on Matthew 17:14.

Mark 10:18. The variation from Matthew is so far unessential, as in the latter also the predicate ἀγαθός is attributed to God only. But in Matthew it has become necessary to give to it, in the relation to the question, a turn which betrays more a later moulding under reflection[134] than the simple and direct primitive form, which we still find in Mark and Luke.

ΤΊ ΜΕ ΛΈΓΕΙς ἈΓΑΘΌΝ; ΟὐΔΕῚς Κ.Τ.Λ.] Ingeniously and clearly Jesus makes use of the address ΔΙΔΆΣΚΑΛΕ ἈΓΑΘΈ, in order to direct the questioner to the highest moral Ideal, in whose commands is given the solution of the question (Mark 10:19). He did this in such a manner as to turn aside from Himself and to ascribe to God only the predicate ἀγαθός, which had been used by the young man in the customary meaning of holding one in esteem (excellent teacher, Plat. Men. p. 93 C; comp. the familiar Attic ὦ ἀγαθέ or Ὦ ʼΓΑΘΈ; and see Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 642), but is taken up by Jesus in the eminent and absolute sense. “Thou art wrong in calling me good; this predicate, in its complete conception, belongs to none save One,—that is, God.” Comp. Ch. F. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 78 ff. This declaration, however, is no evidence against the sinlessness of Jesus; rather it is the true expression of the necessary moral distance, which the human consciousness—even the sinless consciousness, as being human—recognises between itself and the absolute perfection of God.[135] For the human sinlessness is of necessity relative, and even in the case of Jesus was conditioned by the divine-human development that was subject to growth (Luke 2:52; Hebrews 5:8; Luke 4:13; Luke 22:28; comp. Ullmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. 700); the absolute being-good, that excludes all having become and becoming so, pertains only to God, who is “verae bonitatis canon et archetypus” (Beza). Even the man Jesus had to wrestle until He attained the victory and peace of the cross.[136] This is overlooked from dogmatic misunderstanding in the often attempted (see as early as Augustine, c. Maxim, iii. 23; Ambros. de fide, ii. 1) and variously-turned makeshift (see Theophylact, Erasmus, Bengel, Olshausen, Ebrard; comp. also Lange, II. 2, p. 1106 f.), that Jesus rejected that predicate only from the standpoint of the questioner (if thou regardest me as only a human teacher, then thou art wrong in calling me good, etc.). Wimmer (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1845, p. 115 ff.) thinks that the young man had been ambitious, had said διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ as captatio benevolentiae, and presupposed the existence of ambition also in Jesus; that, therefore, Jesus wished to point his attention by the τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν to his fault, and by the ΟὐΔΕῚς ἈΓΑΘῸς Κ.Τ.Λ. to bring to his knowledge the unique condition of all being-good, in the sense: “Nobody is to be called good, if the only God be not called good, i.e. if He be not assumed and posited as the only condition of all goodness.” In this explanation the premisses are imported, and the interpretation itself is incorrect; since with οὐδεὶς κ.τ.λ., λέγεται cannot be supplied, but only ἘΣΤΊ, as it so frequently is in general propositions (Kühner, II. p. 40), and since ΟὐΔΕῚς ΕἸ ΜΉ means nothing else than nemo nisi, i.e. according to the sense, no one except (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 524).

Mark 10:19. The certainly original position of the μὴ φονεύσ. is to be regarded as having at that time become traditional. Comp. Weizsäcker, p. 356.

ΜῊ ἈΠΟΣΤΕΡ.] is not a renewed expression of the seventh commandment (Heupel, Fritzsche), against which may be urged its position, as well as the unsuitableness of adducing it twice; neither is it an expression of the tenth commandment, as far as the coveting applies to the plundering another of his property (Bengel, Wetstein, Olshausen, de Wette), against which may be urged the meaning of the word, which, moreover, does not permit us to think of a comprehension of all the previous commands (Beza, Lange); but it applies to Deuteronomy 24:14 (οὐκ ἀποστερήσεις μισθὸν πένητος, where the Roman edition has ΟὐΚ ἈΠΑΔΙΚΉΣΕΙς Μ. Π.), to which also Malachi 3:3, Sir 4:1, refer. Comp. also LXX. Exodus 21:10. Jesus, however, quotes the originally special command according to its moral universality: thou shalt not withhold. According to Kuinoel, He is thinking of Leviticus 19:13 (οὐκ ἀδικήσεις κ.τ.λ.), with which, however, the characteristic ἈΠΟΣΤΕΡΉΣῌς is not in accordance. Least of all can it be taken together with ΤΊΜΑ Κ.Τ.Λ., so that it would be the prohibitory aspect of the commanding ΤΊΜΑ Κ.Τ.Λ. (so Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 391), against which may be decisively urged the similarity of form to the preceding independent commands, as well as the hallowed and just as independent τίμα κ.τ.λ.; moreover, Mark must have written ΜῊ ἈΠΟΣΤΕΡ. ΤΙΜῊΝ ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤΈΡΑ Κ.Τ.Λ., in order to be understood. In Matthew this command does not appear; while, on the other hand, he has the ἈΓΑΠΉΣΕΙς ΤῸΝ ΠΛΗΣΊΟΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., which is wanting in Mark and Luke. These are various forms of the tradition. But since ἈΓΑΠΉΣΕΙς Κ.Τ.Λ. (which also occurred in the Gospel of the Hebrews) is most appropriate and characteristic, and the ΜῊ ἈΠΟΣΤΕΡΉΣῌς is so peculiar that it could hardly have been added as an appendix to the tradition, Ewald’s conjecture (Jahrb. I. p. 132) that the original number of these commandments was seven is not improbable. That which did not occur in the Decalogue was more easily omitted than (in opposition to Weizsäcker) added.

Mark 10:20. διδάσκαλε] not ἈΓΑΘΈ again.

Mark 10:21. ἨΓΆΠΗΣΕΝ ΑὐΤΌΝ] means nothing else than: He loved him, felt a love of esteem (dilectio) for him, conceived an affection for him, which impression He derived from the ἐμβλέπειν αὐτῷ. He read at once in his countenance genuine anxiety and effort for everlasting salvation, and at the same time fervid confidence in Himself. The conception of meritum de congruo is altogether foreign to the passage. Grotius appropriately remarks: “amat Christus non virtutes tantum, sed et semina virtutum, suo tamen gradu.” The explanation: blandis eum compellavit verbis (Casaubon, Wolf, Grotius, Wetstein, Kuinoel, Vater, Fritzsche, and others), is founded merely on the passage in Homer, Od. xxiii. 214, where, nevertheless, it is to be explained likewise as to love.[137]

ἕν σοι ὑστερεῖ] see on John 2:2. Yet, instead of σοι, according to B C M D א, min., σε is, with Tischendorf, to be read. Comp. Psalm 23:1. The σοι occurred more readily (comp. Luke) to the transcribers.

ἄρας τ. σταυρ.] Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34. It completes the weighty demand of that which he still lacks for the attainment of salvation; which demand, however, instead of bringing salutarily to his knowledge the relation of his own inward life to the divine law, was the rock on which he made shipwreck.

Mark 10:22. ΣΤΥΓΝΆΣΑς] having become sullen, out of humour. Except in the Schol. Aesch. Pers. 470, and Matthew 16:3, the verb only occurs again in the LXX. at Ezekiel 27:35; Ezekiel 28:19; Ezekiel 32:10.

ἮΝ ΓᾺΡ ἜΧΩΝ] for he was in possession of much wealth.

Mark 10:23. On the significant and solemn περιβλέπειν, comp. Mark 3:5; Mark 3:34; Luke 6:10. Comp. also ἐμβλέψας, Mark 10:21; Mark 10:27.

οἱ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες] The article τά is to be explained summarily. The possessions are regarded as an existing whole, which is possessed by the class of the wealthy.

Mark 10:24. The repetition of the utterance of Jesus is touched with emotion (ΤΈΚΝΑ) and milder (ΤΟῪς ΠΕΠΟΙΘΌΤΑς Κ.Τ.Λ.), but then, at ver, 25, again declaring the state of the case with decision and with enhanced energy,—an alternation of feeling, which is to be acknowledged (in opposition to Fritzsche), and which involves so much of what is peculiar and psychologically true, that even in ΤΟῪς ΠΕΠΟΙΘΌΤΑς Κ.Τ.Λ. there is not to be found a modification by tradition interpreting the matter in an anti-Ebionitic sense, or a mitigation found to be necessary in a subsequent age (Baur, Köstlin, p. 329, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann). These words, which are intended to disclose the moral ground of the case as it stands, belong, in fact, essentially to the scene preserved by Mark in its original form.

Mark 10:25. ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ΤΡΥΜΑΛ. Κ.Τ.Λ.] through the eye of the needle. The two articles are generic; see Bernhardy, p. 315. Observe also the vivid change: to go through … to enter into.

Mark 10:26. καί] at the beginning of the question: “cum vi auctiva ita ponitur, ut is, qui interrogat, cum admiratione quadam alterius orationem excipere ex eaque conclusionem ducere significetur, qua alterius sententia confutetur.” Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 3. 10; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 146 f. Comp. John 9:36; John 14:22.

[134] This primitive form is alleged, indeed, by Hilgenfeld (in the theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 414 ff.; comp. in his Zeitschr. 1863, p. 364 f.) to have been no longer preserved even in Mark and Luke. He finds it rather in the form of the words which has been preserved in Justin, c. Tryph. 101, and among the Marcosians (similarly in Marcion): τί με λέγ. ἀγαθόν; εἷς ἐστὶν ἀγαθὸς, ὁ πατήρ μου, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς; and holds these words to have been altered, in order to deprive them of their probative force in favour of the Gnostic distinction between the perfect God and the imperfect Creator of the world. But the Gnostic exegesis might find this probative force just as suitably in our form of the text (in behalf of which Justin, Apolog. i. 16, testifies), if it laid stress, in the εἷς ὁ Θεός, on the reference to the supreme God, the Father of Christ. See also on Luke 18:19.

[135] Comp. Dorner, Jesu sündlose Vollkommenh. p. 14.

[136] Comp. Keim, geschichil. Chr. p. 39 ff., and, moreover, at p. 108 ff.

[137] Penelope in this passage says to her husband: be not angry that I loved thee not thus (ὧδʼ ἀγάπησα) as soon as I saw thee,—namely, thus as I do now, when I have embraced thee, etc., v. 207 f.

Mark 10:28-31. See on Matthew 19:27-30; Luke 18:28-30. Matthew is in part more complete (Mark 10:28 coming certainly under this description), in part abridging (Mark 10:29), but, even with this abridgment, more original. See on Matthew 19:29.

ἤρξατο] “spe ex verbis salvatoris concepta,” Bengel.

The question in Matthew, τί ἄρα ἔσται ἡμ., is obvious of itself, even although unexpressed (not omitted by Mark in the Petrine interest, as Hilgenfeld thinks), and Jesus understood it.

Mark 10:29 f. The logical link of the two clauses is: No one has forsaken, etc., if he shall not have (at some time) received, i.e. if the latter event does not occur, the former has not taken place; the hundredfold compensation is so certain, that its non-occurrence would presuppose the not having forsaken. The association of thought in Mark 4:22 (not in Matthew 26:42) is altogether similar. Instead of the ἤ, there is introduced in the second half of the clause καί; which is: and respectively. The principle of division of Mark 10:30 is: He is (1) to receive a hundredfold now, in the period prior to the manifestation of the Messiah, namely, a hundred times as many houses, brothers, etc.; and (2) to receive in the coming period (“jam in adventu est,” Bengel), after the Parousia, the everlasting life of the Messiah’s kingdom.

The plurals, which express the number a hundred, plainly show that the promised compensation in the καιρὸς οὗτος is not to be understood literally, but generally, of very abundant compensation. Nevertheless, the delicate feeling of Jesus has not said γυναῖκας also. So much the more clumsy was Julian’s scoff (see Theophylact) that the Christians were, moreover, to receive a hundred wives! The promise was realized, in respect of the καιρὸς οὗτος, by the reciprocal manifestations of love,[138] and by the wealth in spiritual possessions, 2 Corinthians 6:8-10; by which passage is illustrated, at the same time, in a noble example, the μετὰ διωγμε͂ν (comp. Matthew 5:10 ff; Matthew 10:23; Matthew 13:21; Matthew 23:34). The latter does not mean: after persecutions (Heinsius conjectured μετὰ διωγμόν, as also a few min. read), but: inter persecutiones (in the midst of persecutions, where one “omnium auxilio destitui videtur,” Jansen), designating the accompanying circumstances (Bernhardy, p. 255), the shadow of which makes prominent the light of the promise.

Mark 10:31. But many—so independent is the greater or lower reception of reward in the life eternal of the earlier or later coming to me—many that are first shall be last, and they that are last shall in many cases be first (see on Matthew 19:30; Matthew 20:16); so that the one shall be equalized with the other in respect of the measuring out of the degree of reward. A doctrine assuredly, which, after the general promise of the great recompense in Mark 10:29 f., was quite in its place to furnish a wholesome check to the ebullition of greediness for reward in the question of the disciples, Mark 10:28 (for the disciples, doubtless, belonged to the πρῶτοι). There is therefore the less reason to attribute, with Weiss, a different meaning to the utterance in Mark from that which it has in Matthew.

[138] Comp. Luther’s gloss: “He who believeth must suffer persecution, and stake everything upon his faith. Nevertheless he has enough; whithersoever he comes, he finds father, mother, brethren, possessions more than ever he could forsake.” See, e.g., on μητέρας, Romans 16:13; on τέκνα, 1 Corinthians 4:14 ff.; on ἀδελφούς, all the Epistles of the New Testament and the Acts of the Apostles (also Acts 2:44).

Mark 10:32-34 See on Matthew 20:17-19. Comp. Luke 18:31-33. Mark is more detailed and more characteristic than Matthew.

ἦσαν δὲ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ] The occurrence with the rich young man had happened, while they went out εἰς ὁδόν, Mark 10:17; now they were on the way (ἀναβαίνοντες is not to be taken with ἦσαν). Jesus moves on before “more intrepidi ducis” (Grotius), and the disciples were amazed; but they who followed were afraid,[139] for the foreboding of a serious and grave future had taken hold of them, and they beheld Him thus incessantly going, and themselves being led, to meet it! See Mark 10:24-26, the μετὰ διωγμ., Mark 10:30, and the declaration, Mark 10:31. Comp. John 11:7-16.

πάλιν] refers neither to Mark 11:31 (de Wette), where there is nothing said of any παραλαμβάνειν, nor to Mark 9:35 (Fritzsche), where the ἐφώνησε τοὺς δώδεκα, which happened in the house, is withal something entirely different; but to—what is just related—the partial separation of Jesus from His disciples on the way, after they had previously gone together. Only in part had they followed Him fearfully; most of them had remained behind on the way amazed; He now made a pause, and took again to Himself all the Twelve (hence in this place there is put not merely αὐτούς, but τοὺς δώδεκα).

ἤρξατο] so that He broke the previous silence.

Mark 10:34. The Gentiles are the subject of ἐμπαίξ as far as ἀποκτ. (comp. Matthew). Instead of ἀποκτενοῦσιν Matthew has the definite, but certainly later, crucifying.

[139] According to the reading οἱ δὲ ἀκολ. ἐφοβοῦντο; see the critical remarks. The matter, namely, is to he conceived in this way, that the majority of the disciples stayed behind on the way in perplexity, but those among them who followed Jesus as He went forward did so only fearfully. As to this use of οἱ δέ, see on Matthew 28:17.

Mark 10:35-45. See on Matthew 20:20-28. Luke has not this scene.

As to the variation from Matthew 20:20 f., where the peculiar putting forward of the mother is (in opposition to Holtzmann, Weizsäcker, and others) to be regarded as the historically correct form, see on Matthew.

θέλομεν, ἵνα] as at Mark 6:25; John 17:24; and comp. on Luke 6:35.

Mark 10:37. ἐν τῇ δόξῃ σου] not: when thou hast attained to Thy glory (de Wette), but: in Thy glory, which will surround us then, when we sit so near to Thee.

Mark 10:38. ἤ] or, in other words.

The presents πίνω and βαπτίζομαι picture the matter as being realized. The cup and baptism of Jesus represent martyrdom. In the case of the figure of baptism, however (which latter Matthew by way of abridgment omits; it is alleged by Baur that Mark has taken it from Luke 12:50), the point of the similitude lies in the being submerged, not in the purification (forgiveness of sins), as the Fathers have apprehended the baptism of blood (see Suicer, I. p. 627), which is not appropriate to Jesus. Comp. the classical use of καταδύειν and βαπτίζειν, to plunge (immergere) into sufferings, sorrows, and the like (Xen. Cyrop. vi. 1. 37; Wesseling, ad Diod. I. p. 433). On the construction, comp. Ael. H. A. iii. 42: ὁ πορφυρίων λούεται τὸ τῶν περιστερῶν λουτρόν, al. See in general, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 520.

Mark 10:40. ἤ] or else on the left, not put inappropriately (Fritzsche); the disciples had desired both places of honour, and therefore Jesus now says that none depends on Him, whether the sitting be on the right hand or else on the left.

ἀλλʼ οἷς ἡτοίμασται] Matthew has added the correctly explanatory amplification: ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου.

Mark 10:41. ἤρξαντο] Jesus, namely, at once appeased their indignation.

Mark 10:42. οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν] peculiar to Mark and original, denoting the essential basis of the Gentile rule,—the having the repute of rulers,—not equivalent to οἱ ἄρχοντες (Gataker, Raphel, Homberg, Kypke, Rosenmüller, and many more), but: “qui censentur imperare, i.e. quos gentes habent et agnoscunt, quorum imperio pareant” (Beza, comp. Casaubon and Grotius). Comp. Galatians 2:9; Winer, p. 540 [E. T. 766]; Möller, neue Ansichten, p. 158 ff., who, however, as Fritzsche also, explains: who imagine themselves to rule, which in itself (as τῶν ἐθνῶν refers to the Gentiles, whose rulers were no shadow-kings) and in respect of the context (which requires the general idea of rulers) is unsuitable. Compare, moreover, the close echo of the passage before us in Luke 22:25 from tradition.

Mark 10:43. The reading ἐστίν is as little inappropriate (in opposition to Fritzsche) as Matthew 20:26.

Mark 10:45. καὶ γάρ] for even. As the master, so the disciples, Romans 15:3.

Mark 10:46-52. See on Matthew 20:29-34. Comp. Luke 18:35-43. Matthew has abridged the narrative, and, following a later tradition (comp. on Matthew 8:28), doubled the persons. Only Mark has the name of the blind man, which is not interpolated (Wilke), and certainly is from trustworthy tradition.

Βαρτίμαιος] The patronymic בַּר טִמְאִי, as was often the case (comp. Βαρθολομαῖος, Βαριησοῦς, Βαρσαβᾶς), had become altogether a proper name, so that Mark even expressly prefixes to it ὁ υἱὸς Τιμαίου, which, however, may be accounted for by the fact of Timaeus being well known, possibly as having become a Christian of note.

τυφλὸς προσαίτης] (see the critical remarks): a blind beggar.

Mark 10:47. “Magna fides, quod caecus filium Davidis appellat, quem ei Nazaraeum praedicabat populus,” Bengel.

Mark 10:49. θάρσει, ἔγειρε, φωνεῖ σε] a hasty asyndeton. Comp. Nägelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 80.

Mark 10:50. ἀποβαλ. τὸ ἱμάτ.] depicts the joyous eagerness, with which also the ἀναπηδήσας is in keeping (see the critical remarks). Comp. Hom. Il. ii. 183: βῆ δὲ θέειν, ἀπὸ δὲ χλαῖναν βάλε, Acts 3:8; Dem. 403, 5.

Mark 10:51. ῥαββουνί] רַבּוֹנִי, usually: domine mi. See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2179. Yet the yod, as in רבי, may also be only paragogic (Drusius, Michaelis, Fritzsche); and this latter view is precisely on account of the analogy of רבי more probable, and is confirmed by the interpretation διδάσκαλε in John 20:16. The form רבוני is, we may add, more respectful than רבי. Comp. Drusius.