CHAPTER 8

Mark 8:1. παμπόλλου] B D G L M N Δ א, min. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Goth. Vulg. It. have πάλιν πολλοῦ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. But the former being an ἅπαξ λεγόμ. in the N. T., might very easily have been changed into πάλιν πολλοῦ, as πάλιν was used in Mark so frequently, and in this place (it is otherwise at Mark 7:14) was so appropriate.

Mark 8:2. Instead of ἡμέραι, Elz. has ἡμέρας. A correction, in opposition to decisive evidence, as is Matthew 15:32.

μοί] is, according to B D, with Lachm., to be deleted as a supplementary addition. It is from Matthew 15:32.

Mark 8:3. ἥκουσιν] As A D א, min. have ἥκασιν (so Lachm.), and B L Δ Copt. have εἰσίν (so Tisch.), ἥκουσιν is condemned by preponderant counter-evidence. But as, moreover, almost all the versions deviate from the simple εἰσίν, we must abide by the reading of Lachm. If εἰσίν had been glossed by a verb of coming, the praeterite ἧκα, not elsewhere found in the N. T., would hardly have been the word chosen for that purpose. Mark has the verb ἥκειν only in this place.

Mark 8:6. παρήγγειλε] B D L Δ א have παραγγέλλει. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the historical present was lost in the connection with the praeterite.

Mark 8:7. εὐλογήσας εἶπε παραθεῖναι καὶ αὐτά] Many variations. Griesb. regards merely εὐλογ. εἶπε παραθεῖναι as genuine. Lachm. has ταῦτα εὐλογ. εἶπεν παρατεθῆναι καὶ αὐτά. Fritzsche: εὐλογ. εἶπε παραθ. αὐτά. Tisch.: εὐλογ. αὐτὰ παρέθηκεν. It may be urged against Griesbach, that a reading without any pronoun has not been preserved at all in the Codd. In the midst of the confusion of readings that has arisen from the double pronoun, that one is to be retained which has in its favour the relatively greatest agreement of the most important uncials. And this is: εὐλογήσας αὐτὰ (B C L Δ א, min. Copt.) εἶπεν καὶ ταῦτα παρατιθέναι (B L Δ א**, to which, on account of the pronoun and its position, C also falls to be added with: εἶπεν· καὶ ταῦτα παράθετε). This consensus is more important than that which Lachm. has followed (principally relying upon A). The reading of Tisch., simple as it is, and not giving occasion to variation, is too weakly attested by א*.

Mark 8:9. οἱ φαγόντες] is wanting in B L Δ א, min. Copt. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. It is from Mark 6:44.

Mark 8:12. σημ. ἐπιζητεῖ] Schulz, Lachm. Tisch. read ζητεῖ σημ., in accordance with B C D L Δ א, min. vss. The Recepta is from Matthew 16:4.

Mark 8:13. ἐμβὰς πάλιν] B C D L Δ א, min. Copt. Arm. have πάλιν ἐμβάς. This is to be adopted, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., as the better attested order.

εἰς τὸ πλοῖον] Lachm. reads εἰς πλοῖον, following A E F G M S V X, min. Fritzsche and Tisch. have entirely deleted it, following B C L Δ א, Corb. Germ. 1, Tol. The latter is right; ἐμβάς had its notion completed.

Mark 8:16. λέγοντες] is wanting in B D א, min. It. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.; the former has subsequently, with B, min. It., ἔχουσιν (comp. D: εἶχον). As well λέγοντες as the first person of the verb was introduced in accordance with Matthew 16:7.

Mark 8:17. ἔτι] is wanting in B C D L Δ א, min, Copt. Verc. Lachm. and Tisch. As well the omission as the addition might have been occasioned by the last syllables of συνίετε; but more easily the addition, as the connection (οὔπω) so readily suggested an ἔτι.

Mark 8:21. πῶς οὐ] Lachm. has πῶς οὔπω, following A D M U X, min. Syr. utr. Perss. Goth. Vulg. It. Theophyl. Tisch. has merely οὔπω, following C K L Δ א, min. The latter is to be regarded as the original. To this οὔπω, πῶς was added (Lachm.) from Matthew 16:11; and in accordance with the same parallel, πῶς οὔπω passed into πῶς οὐ (B, Elz.).

Mark 8:22. ἔρχεται] ἔρχονται is rightly approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. See on 38.

Mark 8:24. ὡς δένδρα] Lachm. and Tisch. read ὅτι ὡς δένδρα ὁρῶ, following decisive evidence. The Recepta is an abbreviation to help the construction.

Mark 8:25. καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὸν ἀναβλέψαι] Many various readings; but not such as to warrant the total condemnation of the words (Griesb.), since they are only wanting in a few vss. The most fully attested is καὶ διέβλεψεν, and this is adopted by Tisch., following B C* L Δ א, min. Copt. Aeth. Καὶ διέβλεψεν, not being understood, was variously glossed.

ἐνέβλεψε] Lachm. Tisch., following B L א** min. (Δ, min. have ἀνέβλεπεν), read ἐνέβλεπεν, which is to be adopted, as the aorist was easily introduced mechanically from what preceded.

Instead of ἅπαντα (approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.), Elz. has ἅπαντας. But the former is attested by B C D L M Δ א, min. vss., also Vulg. It. (D has πάντα). ἅπαντας is to be regarded as an emendation, on account of τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, Mark 8:24.

Mark 8:26. μηδὲ εἰς … κώμῃ] very many variations, arising out of the apparent inappropriateness of the meaning; but not such as to justify the striking out of the second half of the sentence (μηδὲ εἴπῃς τινὶ ἐν τ. κώμῃ), with Tisch. (B L א, min. Copt.). In this way it was sought to help the matter by abbreviation. Others amplified (Vulg. It.) and altered (D).

Mark 8:28. ἕνα] Lachm. Tisch. have ὅτι εἷς, following B C* L א, Copt. The Recepta is an alteration on account of the construction. If ὅτι εἷς had come in in accordance with Luke 9:19, ἀνέστη would also be found in Codd.

Mark 8:29. λέγει αὐτοῖς] B C D* L Δ א, 53, Copt. Cant. Verc. Corb. Colb. have ἐπηρώτα αὐτούς. Recommended by Griesb., approved by Schulz, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.; the Recepta is from Matthew 16:15.

Mark 8:31. ἀπό] B C D G K L א, min. have ὑπό. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.; ἀπό is from the parallel passages.

Mark 8:34. Instead of ἀκολουθεῖν (which Griesb. Scholz, and Tisch. have adopted), Elz. Fritzsche, Lachm. read ἐλθεῖν. Both readings have weighty attestation; but ἐλθεῖν is from Matthew 16:24.

Mark 8:35. Instead of τ. ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν in the second half of the verse (Griesb. Scholz), Elz. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have τ. αὐτοῦ ψ., again following A B C* L Δ א. From the preceding clause, and in keeping with the parallel passages.

Mark 8:36. ἄνθρωπον] read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A C* D, min. Or.: τὸν ἄνθρωπον, As well the omission of the article as the reading ἄνθρωπος (E F G H L M X Γ Δ א* min.) is from the parallels.

Mark 8:37. ἢ τί] Tisch. reads τί γάρ, following B L Δ א, 28, Copt. Or.; ἢ τί is from Matthew 16:26.

Mark 8:1-10. See on Matthew 15:32-39.

ἐν ἐκ. τ. ἡμέρ.] An unessential difference from Matthew, but still a difference.

παμπ. ὄχλου ὄντος] when very many people were there. The presence of such a crowd is intelligible enough after the miraculous cure that has just been related (in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 85). On εἶναι, equivalent to παρεῖναι, comp. Mark 15:40; John 7:39; Dorvill. Charit. p. 600. On πάμπολυς, only found in this place in the N. T., see Wetstein. Comp. Plato, Legg. vii. p. 819 A (πάμπολυς … ὄχλος), Polit. p. 291 A; Lucian, Herm. 61.

Mark 8:2. In the nominative ἡμέραι τρεῖς, Hilgenfeld finds an indication of dependence on Matthew 15:32. Why not the converse?

Mark 8:3. τινὲς γὰρ κ.τ.λ.] information peculiar to Mark concerning the previous ἐκλυθ. ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, but still belonging to the words of Jesus: hence ἥκασιν (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 744), have come; not: had come (Luther).

Mark 8:4. πόθεν] With surprise the disciples thus ask, as on the desert surface (ἐπʼ ἐρημίας) there is no place whence loaves for their satisfaction were to be obtained.

Mark 8:7. Mark (it is otherwise in Matthew) narrates in this place (otherwise at Mark 6:41) two separate actions in respect of the loaves and the fishes.

According to the reading: καὶ εὐλογήσας αὐτὰ εἶπεν καὶ ταῦτα παρατιθέναι (see the critical remarks), we must translate: and after He had blessed them, He bade set these also before them.

With the small fishes thus, according to Mark, Jesus performs a special consecration (comp. on Matthew 14:19), as to which, however, in εὐλογ. there is nothing to be found of itself higher than in εὐχαρ. (Lange: “the pre-celebration of the glorious success”). The thanksgiving of Jesus was a prayer of praise (comp. 1 Corinthians 14:16). On εὐλογεῖν, with accusative of the object, comp. Luke 9:16, 1 Corinthians 10:16,—in the sense, namely, of uttering over the object a prayer of praise (ברכה), blessing it.

Mark 8:8. περισσ. κλασμ. ἑπτὰ σπυρ., remains left over in pieces seven baskets. The definition of measure is added, according to the Greek usage, in the form of an apposition; Kühner, II. p. 117.

Mark 8:10. Δαλμανουθά, named nowhere else, was doubtless (comp. Matthew 15:39) a village or hamlet on the western side of the lake, in the neighbourhood of Magdala (or else Magada; see on Matthew 15:39). See Robinson, III. p. 530 f. Ewald, indeed, Gesch. Chr. p. 376 (comp. Lightfoot), conjectures that in Dalmanutha we have the Galilean pronunciation of the name of the town צלמון, where, according to the Mishna, many Jews dwelt. But comp. on Matthew 15:39. The present village Delhemija (Robinson, III. p. 514, 530) lies too far to the south, immediately above the influx of the Hieromax, eastward from the Jordan.

The specification of a better-known place in Matthew betrays itself as later; although Baur thinks, that by such variations Mark probably only wished to give himself a semblance of being independent.

Mark 8:11-13. See on Matthew 16:1-4, who narrates more fully out of the collection of Logia, and from the tradition adds the Sadducees.

ἐξῆλθον] namely, from their dwellings in the district there. A trait of graphic circumstantiality. Lange imports the idea: as spies out of an ambush. But it is not easy to see why Mark 8:11 should fitly attach itself, not to the history of the miraculous feeding (which could not but serve to enhance the sensation produced by Jesus), but to Mark 7:37 (Holtzmann). Between Dalmanutha and the place of the feeding there lay in fact only the lake.

ἤρξαντο συζ. αὐτῷ] How they made the beginning of disputing with Him, is told by ζητοῦντες κ.τ.λ.: so that they asked, etc.

Mark 8:12. ἀναστενάξας] after that He had heaved a sigh (comp. Mark 7:34), namely, at the hardened unbelief of those men.[111] A picturesque feature here peculiar to Mark. Comp. Mark 7:34.

ΤΊ] why—in painful certainty of the want of result, which would be associated with the granting of their request. “Tota hujus orationis indoles intelligitur ex pronuntiatione,” Beza.

εἰ δοθήσεται] a thoroughly Hebraistic expression of asseveration (never shall, etc.), by the well-known suppression of the apodosis. See Köster, Erläut. p. 104 ff.; Winer, p. 444 [E. T. 627]. According to Mark, therefore (who has not the significant saying as to the sign of Jonas adopted by Matthew from the collection of Logia already at Mark 10:39 ff., and in this case at Mark 16:4), a σημεῖον is altogether refused to this generation of Pharisees.[112] For them—these hardened ones, for whom the signs already given did not suffice—none should be given; the σημεῖα, which Jesus gave everywhere, were in fact sufficient even for their conversion, if they had only been willing to attend to and profit by them.

ΠΆΛΙΝ ἘΜΒΆς] without ΕἸς ΤῸ ΠΛΟῖΟΝ (see the critical remarks), which is, however, by means of ΠΆΛΙΝ obvious from Mark 8:10. Comp. Xen. Cyrop. v. 7. 7 : ὥστε ἐμβαίνειν, ὁπόταν Νότος πνέῃ, Dem. 29. 26, and many other places in the classical writers.

ΕἸς ΤῸ ΠΈΡΑΝ] to the eastern side of the lake (comp. Mark 8:10). Holtzmann is wrong in saying that Jesus here passes over for the second time to the western side; see on Mark 8:22.

[111] This is all that is shown by the following painful question. Lange arbitrarily holds that Jesus sighed on account of the commencement of His separation from the dominant popular party; that there was, at the same time, a forbearing reservation of His judicial power, and so forth.

[112] By passing over the sign of Jonas, Mark has effaced the point of the answer, which Matthew and Luke have furnished.

Mark 8:14-21. See on Matthew 16:5-11, whose narrative is less concise and more explanatory.

ἐπελάθοντο] quite as in Matthew 16:6, and therefore not: viderunt se oblitos esse (Fritzsche, Kuinoel). The disciples (Mark 8:15) form the subject, as is evident of itself; for they ought to have taken care as to the provision of bread, but forgot it.

εἰ μὴ ἕνα κ.τ.λ.] a statement, which is quite in keeping with the peculiarity of Mark, and perhaps proceeds from Peter (in opposition to Hilgenfeld).

Mark 8:15. ὁρᾶτε is absolute; and ἀπὸ τῆς ζ. κ.τ.λ. belongs only to βλέπετε, the construction of which with ἀπό (comp. Mark 12:33) is not, with Tittmann, Synon. p. 114, and Kuinoel, to be analysed: avertere oculos, but: take heed on account of, etc. Comp. προσέχειν ἀπό (Matthew 16:6); φόβος ἀπὸ τῶν πολεμίων (Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 53), al.

τῆς ζύμης τῶν Φαρισαίων] According to Matthew (see on Mark 16:6), ζύμη is a figure for pernicious doctrine, and there appears no reason for assuming any other reference here, such as to the mali mores, the character (Bleek, Holtzmann), the mental tendency (Schenkel), and the like. See on Matthew 16:6. Jesus warns against the soul-perilling doctrines, which at that time proceeded as well from the leaders of the hierarchy (the Pharisees) as from the political head (Herod Antipas). Herod was a frivolous, voluptuous, unprincipled man (see Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 47 f.); and the morally vile principles and maxims, given forth by him, and propagated by the Jews who adhered to him (the Herodians, iii. 6; see on Matthew 22:16), are the ζύμη Ἡρώδου. A wrong attempt at harmonizing will have it that Herod is mentioned (Heupel) as a Sadducee (which, however, he never was; see on Matthew 14:2), because Matthew 16:6 has καὶ Σαδδουκαίων.

Mark 8:16. According to the correct reading (see the critical remarks): and they considered with one another, that they would have no bread. With respect to the indicative present ἔχουσι, comp. on Mark 6:45, and Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 203.

Mark 8:19-20. This dialogue form is characteristic of Mark’s vivid mode of representation.

πόσων σπυρίδ. πληρώματα κλασμάτων] See on Mark 6:43. Observe here, also, as well as in Matthew, the alternation of κοφίνους and σπυρίδων, in accordance with Mark 6:43 and Mark 8:8.

By the fact that, after those two miraculous feedings, they still could take thought one with another about want of bread, they show how much they still lack discernment. The reproach of Mark 8:17-18[113] refers to this. But in ΟὔΠΩ ΣΥΝΊΕΤΕ, Mark 8:21 (see the critical remarks), the ΟὔΠΩ applies to the instruction that has just been catechetically conveyed Mark 8:19-20, and is therefore a later οὔπω than that in Mark 8:17, standing related thereto by way of climax. Schenkel regards as incorrect all that is said of this reference to the miraculous feedings, in consistency with his view that these did not happen at all in the manner narrated.

[113] On the thought of ver. 18, comp., besides Isaiah 6:9 f., Xen. Cyr. iii. 1. 27: ὦ θαυμασιώτατε ἄνθρωπε, σὺ δέ γε οὐδὲ ὁρῶν γινώσκεις, οὐδὲ ἀκούων μέμνησαι, Dem. 797. 3 : οὕτως ὁρῶντες … ὥστε τὸ τῆς παροιμίας ὁρῶντας μὴ ὁρᾶν καὶ ἀκούοντας μὴ ἀκούειν.

Mark 8:22-26 are found in Mark only.

It is not the Bethsaida situated on the western shore of the lake (Mark 6:45) that is here meant (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Heumann, Heupel, Köstlin, Holtzmann; comp. Bleek and several others), but the north-eastern Bethsaida, completed by the tetrarch Philip (called also Julias, in honour of the daughter of Augustus; see Josephus, Bell. ii. 9. 1, iii. 3. 5; Antt. xviii. 2. 1, xviii. 4. 6; Plin. N. H. v. 15; Wieseler, chronol. Synopse, p. 273 f.; Robinson, Pal. III. p. 566 f.; Ritter, Erdk. XV. p. 280.; Ritter, Erdk. XV. p. 280; Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 46), from which Jesus goes forth and comes northwards into the region of Caesarea-Philippi (Mark 8:27); see Mark 8:13. The weakly-attested reading Βηθανίαν (D, Cod. It.) is an ancient alteration, from geographical ignorance of any other Bethsaida than the western one. Ewald, indeed, following Paulus, has again (Gesch. Chr. p. 378) preferred this reading, because Bethsaida Julias was not a κώμη, Mark 8:26; but it was Philip who first raised it to the rank of a city, and hence its designation as a village may still have been retained, or may have been used inaccurately by Mark.

The blind man was not born blind. See Mark 8:24.

Mark 8:23. ἐξήγαγεν] see on Mark 7:33.

The spitting is to be apprehended as at Mark 7:33. As in that place, so here also, Jesus held it as necessary to do more than had been prayed for.

Mark 8:24. ἀναβλέψας] after he had looked up (Mark 6:41, Mark 7:34). Erasmus erroneously interprets it: to become seeing again (Mark 10:51), which is only conveyed in καὶ ἀποκατεστ. κ.τ.λ.

According to the reading ὅτι ὡς δένδρα ὁρῶ περιπατοῦντας (see the critical remarks): I see the men, for like trees I perceive persons walking about, I observe people walking who look like trees (so unshapely and large). This was the first stage of seeing, when the objects appeared in vague outline and enlarged. More harsh is Ewald’s construction, which takes ὅτι as the recitative, that indicates a new commencement of the discourse.

We cannot decide why Jesus did not heal the blind man perfectly at once, but gradually. But it is certain that the agency does not lose, by reason of its being gradual, the character of an instantaneous operation. Comp. Holtzmann, p. 507; Euthymius Zigabenus: ἀτελῶς δὲ τὸν τυφλὸν τοῦτον ἐθεράπευσεν ὡς ἀτελῶς πιστεύοντα· διὸ καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν, εἴ τι βλέπει, ἵνα μικρὸν ἀναβλέψας ἀπὸ τῆς μικρᾶς ὄψεως πιστεύσῃ τελεώτερον, καὶ ἰαθῇ τελεώτερον· σοφὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἰατρός. Comp. Victor Antiochenus and Theophylact. So usually. According to Olshausen, a process too much accelerated would have been hurtful to the blind man. This is an arbitrary limitation of the miraculous power of Jesus (see, on the other hand, Strauss, II. p. 66). According to Lange, Jesus desired in this quiet district, and at this momentous time, “to subdue the powerful effect of His miracles.” As though the miracle would not even as it occurred have been powerful enough. According to Strauss, the gradual character is merely part of Mark’s effort after vividness of representation.[114] A notion unwarranted in itself, and contrary to the analogy of Mark’s other narratives of miracles.

Mark 8:25. καὶ διέβλεψεν (see the critical remarks): and he looked stedfastly (Plato, Phaed. p. 86 D; comp. on Matthew 7:5), and was restored. This stedfast look, which he now gave, so that people saw that he fixed his eyes on definite objects, was the result of the healing influence upon his eyes, which he experienced by means of this second laying on of hands, and which the restoration immediately followed.

καὶ ἐνέβλεπεν (see the critical remarks) ΤΗΛΑΥΓῶς ἍΠΑΝΤΑ] Notice the imperfect, which defines the visual activity from this time continuing; and how keen this was! He saw everything from afar, so that he needed not to come close in order to behold it clearly. ἐμβλέπειν, intueri, see Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 10, al. In the classical writers used with τινί (Cyrop. i. 3. 2; Plat. Pol. x. p. 609 D), but also with τινά (Anthol. xi. 3). ΤΗΛΑΥΓῶς (far-shining) with ἐμβλέπειν denotes that the objects at a distance shone clearly into his eyes. Comp. Diod. Sic. i. 50: ΤΗΛΑΥΓΈΣΤΕΡΟΝ ὉΡᾶΝ, Suidas: ΤΗΛΑΥΓΈς, ΠΌῤῬΩΘΕΝ ΦΑῖΝΟΝ.

Mark 8:26. ΕἸς ΟἾΚΟΝ ΑὐΤΟῦ] He did not dwell in Bethsaida, but was from elsewhere, and was brought to Jesus at Bethsaida. See the sequel.

ΜΗΔῈ ΕἸς Τ. ΚΏΜΗΝ Κ.Τ.Λ.] This ΜΗΔΈ is not wrong, as de Wette and Fritzsche judge, under the impression that it ought to be ΜΉ only; but it means: not even: so now Winer also, p. 434 [E. T. 614]. The blind man had come with Jesus from the village; the healing had taken place outside in front of the village; now He sends him away to his house; He desires that he shall not remain in this region, and says: not even into the village (although it is so near, and thou hast just been in it) enter thou. The second μηδέ is: nor yet.

The second clause, μηδέ εἴπῃς κ.τ.λ., is no doubt rendered quite superfluous by the first; but Fritzsche pertinently remarks: “Jesu graviter interdicentis cupiditatem et ardorem adumbrari … Non enim, qui commoto animo loquuntur, verba appendere solent.” Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, Lange, and various others take ΤΙΝῚ ἘΝ Τ. ΚΏΜῌ to mean: to one of the inhabitants of the village (who may meet thee outside). A makeshift occasioned by their own addition. And why should not Mark have simply written τινι ἐκ τῆς κώμης? As to the prohibition in general, comp. on Mark 5:43.

[114] In fact, Baur, Markusev. p. 58, thinks that thereby the writer was only making a display of his physiological knowledge on the theory of vision. And Hilgenfeld says, that Mark desired to set forth the gradual transition of the disciples from spiritual not-seeing to seeing primarily in the case of one corporeally blind. Thus the procedure related by Mark would be invented by Mark!

Mark 8:27-38. See on Matthew 16:13-27. Comp. Luke 9:18-26.

ἐξῆλθεν] from Bethsaida (Julias), Mark 8:22.

εἰς τ. κώμας Καισαρ.] into the villages belonging to the region of Caesarea.

Mark 8:28. With the reading ὅτι εἷς τῶν προφητῶν (see the critical remarks), εἶ is to be supplied. Matthew was the more careful to insert the name of Jeremiah from the collection of Logia, because he wrote for Jews.

Mark 8:29. Mark and Luke omit what Matthew relates in Mark 8:17-19. Generally, Matthew is here fuller and more original in drawing from the collection of Logia. According to Victor Antiochenus and Theophylact (comp. Wetstein, Michaelis, and others), Mark has omitted it on purpose: ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ χαριζόμενος τῷ Πέτρῳ κ.τ.λ. According to B. Bauer, the narrative of Matthew has only originated from the consciousness of the hierarchy. Both these views are arbitrary, and the latter rests on quite a groundless presupposition. As the remarkable saying of Jesus to Peter, even if it had been omitted in the collection of Logia (Holtzmann), cannot have been unknown to Mark and cannot have its place supplied by Mark 3:16, it must be assumed that he purposely abstained from including it in this narrative, and that probably from some sort of consideration, which appeared to him necessary, for Gentile-Christian readers.[115] Thus he appears to have foregone its insertion from higher motives. To Luke, with his Paulinism, this passing over of the matter was welcome. The omission furnishes no argument against the Petrine derivation of our Gospel (in opposition to Baur, Markusevang. p. 133 f.), but it is doubtless irreconcilable with its subserving a special Petrine interest, such as is strongly urged by Hilgenfeld and Köstlin. Comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 58 f. And to invoke the conception of a mediating Petrinism (see especially, Köstlin, p. 366 f.), is to enter on a field too vague and belonging to later times. Observe, moreover, that we have here as yet the simplest form of Peter’s confession. The confession itself has not now for the first time come to maturity, but it is a confirmation of the faith that has remained unchangeable from the beginning. Comp. on Matthew 15:17.

Mark 8:31.[116] τῶν πρεσβ. κ. τῶν ἀρχ. κ. τῶν ΓΡΑΜΜ.] Although these three form one corporation (the Sanhedrim), still each class is specially brought before us by repetition of the article, which is done with rhetorical solemnity.

μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρ.] after the lapse of three days. Comp. Matthew 27:63. More definitely, but ex eventu, Matt. and Luke have: τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, with which ΜΕΤᾺ ΤΡ. ἩΜ., according to the popular way of expression, is not at variance. See Krebs, Obs. p. 97 f.

Mark 8:32. καὶ παῤῥησίᾳ κ.τ.λ.] a significant feature introduced by Mark, with the view of suggesting a still more definite motive for Peter’s subsequent conduct: and openly (without reserve, frankly and freely) He spoke the word (Mark 8:31). παῤῥησίᾳ stands opposed to speaking in mere hints, obscurely, figuratively (John 11:14; John 16:25; John 16:29).

ἘΠΙΤΙΜ.] to make reproaches, namely, ὡς εἰς θάνατον ῥίπτοντ ἑαυτὸν ἐξὸν μηδὲν παθεῖν, Theophylact. But “Petrus dum increpat, increpationem meretur,” Bengel. Comp. ἐπετίμησε, Mark 8:33.

Mark 8:33. ΚΑῚ ἸΔῺΝ ΤΟῪς ΜΑΘΗΤᾺς ΑὐΤΟῦ] when He had turned Himself towards him and beheld His disciples. The latter clause gives more definitely the reason for the stern outburst of the censure of Jesus; He could not but set an example to the disciples, whom He beheld as witnesses of the scene. Moreover, in ἐπιστραφείς there is a different conception from that of ΣΤΡΑΦΕΊς, Matthew 16:23.

Mark 8:34. Jesus now makes a pause; for what He has to say now is to be said to all who follow Him. Hence He calls to Him the multitude that accompanies Him, etc. Mark alone has clearly this trait, by which the ὄχλος is expressly brought upon the scene also (Luke at Mark 9:23 relates after him, but with less clearness). Comp. Mark 7:14. This is to be explained by the originality of the Gospel, not by the ΠΡῸς ΠΆΝΤΑς of Luke 9:23 (which de Wette thinks Mark misunderstood). Comp. Hilgenfeld, Markusevang. p. 61.

ὅστις] quicunque, not at variance with the sense (Fritzsche), but as appropriate as εἴ τις.

ἀκολουθ.] both times in the same sense of discipleship. See, moreover, on Matthew 10:38.

Mark 8:35. See on Matthew 10:39. τ. ἑαυτοῦ ψ.] expression of self-sacrifice; His own soul He spares not.

Mark 8:37. τί γάρ (see the critical remarks) gives the reason for the negative sense of the previous question.

Mark 8:38. ΓΆΡ] proves from the law of the retribution, which Jesus will fully carry out, that no ransom can be given, etc. Whosoever shall have been ashamed to receive me and my doctrines—of Him the Messiah shall also be ashamed (shall not receive him for His kingdom, as being unworthy) at the Parousia! As to ἐπαισχυνθ., comp. on Romans 1:16.

Τῇ ΜΟΙΧΑΛΊΔΙ] see on Matthew 12:39. This bringing into prominence of the contrast with the Lord and His words, by means of ἘΝ Τῇ ΓΕΝΕᾷ … ἉΜΑΡΤΩΛῷ, is only given here in the vivid delineation of Mark; and there is conveyed in it a deterrent power, namely, from making common cause with this γενεά by the denial of Christ. The comparison of Matthew 12:39; Matthew 16:4, is not, on account of the very dissimilarity of the expressions, to be used either for or against the originality of Mark, against which, according to Weiss, also ΣΏΣΕΙ, Mark 8:35 (Matt.: ΕὙΡΉΣΕΙ, which Luke also has), is supposed to tell. Nevertheless, Κ. ΤΟῦ ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΟΥ, Mark 8:35, is an addition of later tradition.

Ὁ ΥἹῸς Τ. ἈΝΘΡΏΠ.] Bengel aptly says: “Nunc non ego, sed filius hominis, quae appellatio singularem cum adventu glorioso visibili nexum habet.” Comp. Mark 14:62.

And as to this mighty decision, how soon shall it emerge! Mark 9:1. What warning and encouragement in this promise!

[115] Beza, however, justly asks: “Quis crediderit, vel ipsum Petrum vel Marcum praeteriturum fuisse illud Tu es Petrus, si ecclesiae Christianae fundamentum in his verbis situm esse existimassent?”

[116] The view that Jesus Himself now for the first time clearly foresaw His death (Weizsäcker, p. 475; Keim, geschichtl. Chr. p. 45), conflicts, even apart from the narrative of John, with Mark 2:20. Comp. on Matthew 16:21. Moreover, we cannot get rid of the mention of the Parousia, Matthew 10:23, and the interpretation of the sign of Jonah, Matthew 12:39 f. (comp. on Luke 11:30).