¹ V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark, London, 1952. Cited hereinafter as T. Citations not followed by page numbers come from T.'s notes to the vss. discussed. Citations in double quotation marks are those taken as points of departure for the comments following them.

² See also T.'s comments on 5.29, 31 f., ‘The imperfect indicates a long and penetrating look.’ (?)

³ Cf. Knox, W., The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, I, St. Mark, Cambridge, 1953Google Scholar, P I ‘His’ (Mark's) ‘style is merely that of a poor writer of Greek reproducing popular stories in a very bald and simple form, with a few tricks of writing which enable him to produce an effect of vivid narration.’

⁴ That the early Church was embarrassed by the baptism is shown from its self-contradictory attempts to explain it (Mt.) and to suppress it (Jn.), as well as its self-contradictory propaganda against the Baptist (v.s. in 1.1–8). But we hear of no responsible attempt to deny the baptism. Therefore it must have been undeniable. This argument is judged conclusive by Percy, E., Die Botschaft Jesu, Lund, 1953Google Scholar (Lunds Univ. Ärs. Avd. 1, 49.5) pp. 5 f.

⁵ T. p. 143.

⁶ (Unless otherwise specified, the quotations in this note come from T.'s introductions to the sections concerned.) 1.21–8 is ‘primitive,’ 29–31 & 32–34 are ‘Petrine,’ 40–45 ‘preserves the rugged form of early testimony’; 2.1–12 (or, at least, the miraculous part of it) depends ‘on primitive tradition’; 3.1–6 is ‘based on reminiscence,’ 7–12 ‘was compiled from primitive testimony’; 4.35–41 ‘belongs to the best tradition, probably that of an eyewitness, and presumably Peter’; 5.1–20 is ‘nearer the record of an eyewitness’ than the ‘rounded form which Miracle-stories possess’; 21–4 & 35–43 is ‘a record based on personal testimony,’ 25–34 ‘rests on excellent tradition’ and its connection with its present frame is ‘historical’; 6.35–44 ‘has not yet attained the rounded form of a Miracle-story proper and stands nearer the testimony of eyewitnesses,’ 45–52 is an account ‘of actual events remembered’; 7.24–30 is ‘primitive,’ 31–7 ‘is taken from life’; 8.1–10 is a doublet of 6.35–44 (p. 630), 22–6 is ‘genuine’ and ‘its realism shows it to beanything but a product of invention.’ Not only did Jesus prophesy his passion, but the different stories in which Mk. tells of his doing so are reports of distinct recollections of correspondingly different particular occasions (v. inf. in 8.31). 9.2–8 is an account of ‘actual experience,’ 14–29 goes back ‘to actual recollection and history’; 10.46–52 because of its ‘detail and vividness’ is ‘drawn from good Jerusalem tradition’; 11.1. 1 – 10 is the record of an ‘eyewitness’ and 14.12–16 is just as good; 14.17–21 is ‘historical,’ 26–31 depends ‘ultimately on Petrine testimony.’ A survey of the introductions to these sections would show that most of T.'s estimates were based on nothing more than ‘vivid’ details. These details become evident when any Markan story is contrasted with ‘the rounded form of a Miracle-story proper’ — a form which T. never accurately defines, and which none of the Markan stories possesses. The details revealed by such contrast are almost never late additions; they regularly show that the stories in which they occur have not yet attained the ultimate rotundity.

⁷ E.g. his comments in 5.21 ff. (inf.), or his introduction to 10.46–52, or his arguments for the historicity of the sending for the colt (p. 452).

⁸ The other possibility, אבזטלש, is more specifically political and even less appropriate. R. Bultmann's objections to the equivalence ὲξουσία-אחזשו (Gnosis, JTS, NS 3 (1952) 20 f.) are applicable only to the usage in Paul's Corinthian correspondence.

⁹ There is, of course, no question that the prophets claimed to be sent by God, nor that this claim was in its nature a claim to authority. The question is: Was it customary to speak of prophets as ‘having authority,’ ‘prophesying by authority,’ or the like? The answer to this question is, No.

¹⁰ Already in I Cor. 7.10.

¹¹ Noted by B. Easton, A Primitive Tradition in Mark, in Studies in Early Christianity, ed. S. Case, N. Y., 1928, p. 96.

¹² This principle should be applied in many instances where T. has attempted to defend the authenticity of Markan sayings by reference to their accord with sayings attributed to Jesus in later strata of the Synoptics, e.g. p. 212, the use of Mt. 6.16 to bolster Mk. 2.20.

¹³ C. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, N. Y., 1936, p. 9; Black, M., An Aramaic Approach &, Oxford, 1946, p. 120Google Scholar, follows Torrey; T. follows them.

¹⁴ Cadbury, H., Mixed Motives in the Gospels, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc, 95(1951) 117 fGoogle Scholar. esp. 119–20.

¹⁵ Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus, Leipzig, 1931Google Scholar, in loc.

¹⁶ Cf. inf. in 8.1–26, the note on Jesus' refusal to give a sign. See also Taanith 18b. This explanation of the story was suggested by Bultmann, R. (Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 2nd ed., Göttingen, 1931, p. 31Google Scholar). Knox, W. (The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, I, St. Mark, Cambridge, 1953, p. 47Google Scholar) objects: “It is clear that Matthew understood οὐκ ἐδύνατο as meaning real inability … and modified it accordingly.” But Matthew can hardly have believed that Mk. contained evidence of Jesus’ inability to perform miracles, so his modification must be understood, not as a deliberate suppression of such evidence, nor even as a correction of Mark's ‘error,’ but as a change of phrasing designed to eliminate an expression he thought likely to be misunderstood. (The history of the criticism of the passage has justified his opinion.)

¹⁷ Lk. 13.32 f., admired by T., p. 308, but the saying has the calm confidence of a vaticinium ex eventu.

¹⁸ The Herods of Judea, Oxford, 1938, p. 176Google Scholar.

¹⁹ JTS, NS 4 (1953) 72.

²⁰ This explanation I owe to Prof. Saul Lieberman.

²¹ As in Acts 10.14,28; 11.8 and prb. in Rom. 14.14; Heb. 10.29(?) and Rev. 21.27.

²² V.s. in 1.41. This paragraph summarizes the discussion of the question in my Tannaïtic Parallels to the Gospels. Philadelphia, 1951Google Scholar (JBL Monograph Series, VI) p. 32. Let me take this opportunity to correct the statement of S. Zeitlin, in his review of the same in JQR 43 (1952–3) 196 ff. He there (pp. 198–9) attributes to me a conjecture which I expressly repudiated (that κοινός ‘served as an abbreviation for’ זילוח חדחטל יזשע) and then, without noticing the explanation actually given, proceeds to a conjecture of his own, that κοινός translates באזםמ. But this wholly misses the point, for באזםמ definitely means ‘unclean, filthy, blemished, unfit for sacrifice.’ There is no reason why anybody should translate it by κοινός (for words like ἀκάθαρτος were readily available) and Zeillin gives no example of such translation. In fact, when he himself translates the Greek of the text, he has to translate באזטמ by ‘common’ and to put the translation of his supposed equivalent כאזטמ, ‘unclean,’ in brackets after it, as an explanation. The problem is to find some Hebrew word which could mean at least ‘not certainly clean’ and could be translated by κοινός. That word is םמם.

²³ This notion, and the supporting argument from location, are found in Bacon, B., The Gospel of Mark, New Haven, 1925, pp. 162–4Google Scholar. To this T. refers on p. 357 and also to Rawlinson, A., The Gospel According to St. Mark, 7th ed., London, 1949, p. 86Google Scholar. Rawlinson only says, ‘it appears not impossible that there may be some truth’ in Bacon's notion, but Bacon adds, to the argument from location, this: The miracle must be for the Gentiles because Mk. intended to represent Jesus as having finally broken with the Jews by his sayings on purity in 7.1–23. This is untenable in the face of Mk. 12.28–34 (the saying on the great commandment). But quite apart from such specific objections, all such theories are improbable because they rest on the supposition that Mk. was an extremely careful writer, a master of indirection, who hid his message in hints and parallelisms and allegories. On the contrary, Mark is unquestionably folk-literature and lower-middle-class religious propaganda; it has no indirection whatever and its composition is slipshod.

²⁴ 13,000 in Scythopolis, Josephus, War II.468; 10,500 in Damascus, ib. 561; colonies in Hippos, Gadara, Gerasa and the other cities, ib. 478, 480.

²⁵ Mt. 4.15. Josephus, Life, 30 & 67.

²⁶ Jesus' failure to produce a sign of his Messiahship was evidently one of the strong points of Jewish polemic, cf. I Cor. 1.22. The Gospel answers, to it are numerous and self-contradictory: In Lk. 11.16 f. the demand is left unanswered because, the verse suggests, they were tempting him, and everybody knows God is not to be tempted: Dt. 6.16; Mt. 4.7//Lk. 4.12. In Mk. 8.12 Jesus, without giving any reason, simply says that no sign shall be given to that generation. In Mt. 12.39 a nd 164 and Lk. 11.29 he says the generation is wicked and adulterous and — implicitly, therefore (cf. sup. on 6.5)—no sign will be given it except that of Jonah. In Jn. he gives signs frequently (2.11; 3.2; 4.54; 6.2; 7.31; 9.16; 11.47; 1218,37), but when he is asked point blank, ‘What sign do you show us?” the answer is first a challenge not apt to be taken (2.18 f.: Destroy this temple and in three days I shall raise it up.), later an evasion of the question (6.30 ff.). Such a body of apologetic material suggests that ‘sign’ cannot mean simply ‘miracle.’ Jesus almost certainly did perform ‘miracles’ of healing and even his enemies admitted he cast out demons (by Beelzebub). Therefore ‘sign’ must mean a miracle of some special sort which would prove that the person who performed it was the Messiah, and it appears that even for his followers Jesus did no ‘sign’ during his lifetime. His opponents knew this and made the most of it. His followers attempted first to explain the fact by abusing his opponents, then to prove it unimportant by appealing to his resurrection, and finally to deny it by exaggerating his miracles. They may also have tried to contradict it by circulating a story that he gave his ‘sign’ (the Transfiguration) in secret to his three most intimate disciples, but forbade them to speak of it till after his resurrection (Mk. 9.9).

²⁷ He is also forced to suppose that ‘the stupidity of the disciples is exaggerated’ and the whole latter half of the narrative is a Markan invention (p. 364). These conclusions should be remembered when he argues elsewhere that Mark is ‘not a creative writer’ (p. 140), that ‘the limitations of Mark point to his fidelity to tradition’ (ib.) and that the ‘Messianic secret’ (for which the disciples’ stupidities — 4–38,41; 5–31; 6–37,52; 84,17,33; 9–6,10; 10.38 — provide as much evidence as Jesus’ commands of secrecy) is reducible to Jesus’ own unwillingness to be recognized as Messiah before the fulfilment of his Messianic fate (p. 123).

²⁸ E.g., those discussed in Tannaïtic Parallels (dt. sup. on 7.1 f., n. 22), Ch. 7, and exemplified in Appendix C, ib. (comparison of Mishnah Peah with Tosephta Peah). See also Melamed, E., Halachic Midrashim of the Tannaim in the Talmud Babli, Jerusalem, 1943, pp. 24–33Google Scholar (m Hebrew).

²⁹ The Teaching of Jesus, Cambridge, 1931, pp. 260Google Scholar ff.

³⁰ The other instances are in the prophecies of suffering (8.31; 9.31; 10.33), after the Transfiguration (9.9,12), in the answer to the sons of Zebedee (10.45), in the prophecy of the End (13.26), in the Last Supper (14.21 bis), and in Gethsemane, just before the arrest (14.41).

³¹ The words ‘35 f., and 37’ (p. 404, line 8 of the text) are probably a slip for ‘35 and 36 f.,’ the division indicated earlier in the introduction (p. 403) and in the commentary on 36.

³² For a collection of these see Tannaïtic Parallels (cit. sup., n. 22), ch. VIII.

³³ The cautious attempt at reconciliation by E. Percy (pp. 116–22 of op. cit. sup. in note to 1.9–11) recognizes the inconsistency of the preserved sayings and rejects at least the most extreme of them, Mk. 7.15.

³⁴ Burkitt, F., The Gospel History and Its Transmission, Edinburgh, N.D. (1907), p. 285Google Scholar.

³⁵ E.g. sup. in 5.21 ff. the quot. from T. p. 289, cf. T. p. 140. Many similar passages could be cited.

³⁶ Cf the Odyssey 4.399–424; 10.281–301,504–40; 11.100–37; I Sam. 9.16; 10.2–7; Mt. 17.24–7; R. Dawkins, Modern Greek Folktales, Ox., 1953, 64 ff., 74 f., 77, 100 ff., 119 f., 198–202.

³⁷ It is noteworthy that Mt. 21.43 identifies the vineyard as the Kingdom — the realization of which election is the potentiality.

³⁸ םידהאל טךעו ומאג לבמ.That ‘others’ means ‘Gentiles’ is clear from the many places in which the two words appear as variants in parallel texts, e.g., Siphre on Dt. 23.25 / / Melamed, op. cit., p. 448, no. 314 (I prefer to cite Melamed in this instance rather than the sources, since he gives a critical text.); Siphre on Dt. 19.4 // Midrash Tannaim ad loc.; Mekhilta on Ex. 21.35 / / Mekh. of R. Simon ad loc; and, for the general principle, Melamed, op. cit., p. 132, nos. 188a and 189. It is clear also in such passages as Mekhilta of R. Simon on Ex. 22.6 f., “‘When a man gives his עו money or utensils to store and they are stolen from the house of the man (storing them), if the thief be found he shall pay double, but if the thief be not found, then the owner of the house shall be brought near to God, to show whether or not he has taken the goods of his עו.’ (The use of the word) עו excludes ‘others’ and excludes resident aliens. (This) I cannot (conclude) except in a case when (the Israelite) gave (the goods) to a Gentile, whence (can it be concluded that also if) the Gentile gave to him (the law does not apply) ? The text says, ‘Whether or not he has taken the goods of his עו’ (and, by using the word עו twice, indicates that this law shall not apply when a Gentile is either the giver or the receiver of the missing property).”

³⁹ So Mekhilta and Mekhilta of R. Simon on Ex. 21.14,35; 22.8; M.R.S. on Ex. 22.6,9,13; Siphra on Lev. 20.10; Siphre and Midrash Tannaïm on Dt. 19.5; 24.10. The three exceptions are (1) Dt. 13.7 lists various persons who might tempt you to commit idolatry, and among them ‘your עו who is (dear) as your own self.’ Siphre comments, ‘“Your עו” — This is a proselyte. “Who is (dear) as your own self” — This is your father.’ (2) Dt. 15.2 prohibits a man's exacting debts from his עו and his brother. Midrash Tannaïm comments, ‘“His עו” — This is a proselyte. “And his brother” — This is a born Jew.’ (Since a proselyte is, in the eyes of the Jewish Law, a Jew, these examples in no way contradict the statement above, that OT עו is always understood in Tannaïtic legal commentaries to mean fellow-Jew.) Finally (3) Midrash Tannaim on Dt. 19.5 takes the word עו in the clause ‘it struck his עו and he died,’ as excluding from the scope of the law on accidental manslaughter any man who accidentally kills himself.

⁴⁰ The Rabbinical interpretation of עו was retained even by some Christian writers in their exposition of Jesus' saying on the great commandments, so Aphraates, Demonstratio II, de caritate:‘ut omne opus legis in hoc tendebat, ut ad amorem Domini Dei sui perducerentur, et diligeret homo propinquum carnis suae tanquam semetipsum,’ tr. by J. Parisot in Patrologia Syriaca I.i, col. 62 (my italics).

⁴¹ Cf. sup. in 10.13–16.

⁴² The Teaching of Jesus, Cambridge, 1931, 260 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ The only element of Jesus' apocalyptic teaching which would certainly have had to be changed, ‘explained’ or suppressed before 70 A.D. would have been a false prophecy of specific events for a date prior to 70. (Can it be that Jesus' unusually clear and emphatic refusal, in Mk., to set a date, contradicts some deliberately lost tradition of a date which he did set?) By the same argument those sayings of Jesus which predict the End within the lifetime of his hearers must have been fixed in widespread and probably written tradition before the course of events proved them false. But it must be remembered that the passing away of a generation is an extremely gradual thing and one of which the terminus — especially in the ancient world with its limited means of communication — can hardly be fixed. It must have been well after 100 A.D. before Mk. 9.1 & 13.30 began to embarrass apologists.

⁴⁴ Contrast the frank recognition of Jesus’ apocalyptic expectations by E. Percy, pp. 175 ff. of op. cit. sup. in 1.9–11, n. 1.

⁴⁵ T.'s notion that Mk. 13.32 (Of that day … none knows, not the angels … nor the Son, but only the Father.) must be original because, ‘Its offence seals its genuineness,’ is a serious anachronism, resting on the supposition that because the verse gave offense to the Athanasian party of the fourth century it must therefore have been offensive to all Christians of the first century, and therefore none of them could have invented it. If it had been so offensive, none of them would have copied it, either. Actually, there is no earlier trace of its supposed offensiveness than its appearance in the Arian controversy and its omission by some later uncials and versions in the text of the Matthaean parallel (and Mt. abbreviates). It is never referred to by the apostolic fathers nor by the apologists. The first father to notice it, Irenaeus, accepts it at face value and finds no trace of heresy in it. On the contrary, he uses it to reproach the heretics (II.42.3, Harvey; 28.6, Stieren): ‘Irrationabiliter autem inflati, audaciter inenarrabilia Dei mysteria scire vos dicitis; quandoquidem et Dominus, ipse Filius Dei, ipsum judicii diem et horam concessit scire solum Patrem, manifeste dicens, (Mk. 13.32). Si igitur scientiam diei illius Filius non erubuit referre ad Patrem, sed dixit quod verum est, neque nos erubescamus, quae sunt in quaestionibus majora secundum nos, reservare Deo.’ See further ib. 43.3: ‘Etenim si quis exquirat causam, propter quam in omnibus Pater communicans Filio, solus scire horam et diem a Domino manifestatus est, neque aptabilem magis, neque decentiorem, nee sine periculo alteram quam hanc inveniat in praesenti, quoniam enim solus verax magister est Dominus, ut discamus per ipsum super omnia esse Patrem. Etenim Pater, ait, major me est. Et secundum agnitionem itaque praepositus esse Pater annuntiatus est a Domino nostro ad hoc, ut et nos, in quantum in figura hujus mundi sumus, perfectam scientiam et tales quaestiones concedamus Deo.’ The purpose of his argument is to demonstrate that there are some things above human knowledge, that the ‘prolation’ of the Son from the Father is one of these, and that therefore the inability of the orthodox to explain it is no sign of weakness in their position. In such an argument he would never have dared use Mk. 13.32 as he does if it were itself a center of controversy. So his use of it indicates not only that he himself accepted its plain sense, but that most of his expected readers, whether orthodox or heretic, did so too. This indication is borne out by the neglect of the verse by the other ante-Nicene fathers. Clement, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Cyprian never mention it; it is not mentioned in the history of Eusebius. So the evidence for ‘its’ (anti-Nicene) ‘offence’ is nil. T. asks ‘What Christians would have created the saying?’ (p. 522) and thinks the question unanswerable. But (as already suggested) there may have been Christian groups — especially those closely connected with Jerusalem — which soon saw theological reason to emphasize the humanity of Jesus. Such reason may have been backed up by a practical concern to discredit the teaching of missionaries like Paul who were competing with the missionaries they sent out. Yet it is not necessary to refer this saying to such a group, nor even to recall the other suggestion already made — that Jesus' unusually vigorous refusal to date the End is intended to contradict some date which had been attributed to him and had proved wrong. A simpler, but quite adequate, motive would be the desire to explain the fact that the leaders of the Christian group, for all their talk about the proximity of the End, did not have any clear tradition about its exact date and did not themselves take the risk of dating it. Therefore they had to explain the somewhat humiliating fact that Jesus had not revealed the exact date, even to his closest followers. They passed on the humiliation to Jesus and made him explain in Mk. 13.32 that this is a secret kept by the Father to Himself. The same explanation is put in the mouth of the risen Lord in Acts 1.7. Is that, too, a reliable report of a historical utterance?

⁴⁶ I Thess. 5.2,4; II Pet. 3.10; Apoc. 3.3; 16.15; Mt. 24.43 // Lk. 12.39.

⁴⁷ Translations and comments in Tannaïtic Parallels (cit. sup. in 7.1 f., n. 22), P. 35.

⁴⁸ E.g. on 7.27b (It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.) T. comments, ‘The apparent harshness of the saying of Jesus is softened by the fact that He speaks of κυνάρια, not κὑνɛς.’

⁴⁹ E.g. on 14.62 (You shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right of The Power and coming with the clouds of Heaven): ‘The phrase ὄφɛσθɛ κτλ. does not necessarily describe a visible portent, but more probably indicates that the priests will see facts and circumstances which will show that Psa. cx.i and Dan. vii.13 are fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus.’ or, on 14.36, ‘It is alien to the spirit of Jesus that He should ask for the cup to be taken away if it is no more than one of personal suffering and death.’ See also the exact definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost (p. 244), the explanation of the psychological nuances involved in the stilling of the storm, &c.

⁵⁰ V. sup. in 1.5; 4.26; 7.24; 8.1,31 &c, esp. the first note to the comment on 7.24. This sort of argument should have been given its coup de grace by form criticism; see the remarks of Percy, op. cit. (in 1.9–11, n. 4), Introduction, esp. p. 2.

⁵¹ V.s. in 6.35; 8.1.

⁵² V s. in 1.21; 4.38; 5.21; 6.5; 11.2.

⁵³ V.s. in 6.35; 11.2.

⁵⁴ V.s. in 1.1; 2.17; 7.24; 9.33; 10.3,13; 11.27; 14.26; 15.1; 16.15.

⁵⁵ V.s. in 1.41; 6.6; 11.1.

⁵⁶ V.s. in 1.9; 2.5; 4.11; 8.38; 10.3; 13; 14.25; and the first two notes to this paragraph.