[1] Dibelius, M., Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1966) 40, 49–50.Google Scholar

[2] Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970) 228.Google Scholar

[3] For example: Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Markus (THKNT 2; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1971) 220Google Scholar; Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus (KEK 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1967) 224CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pesch, R., Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT 2/2; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1977) 168.Google Scholar

[4] See Koch, D.-A., Die Bedeutung der Wundererzählungen für die Christologie des Markusevangelium (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1975) 127Google Scholar; Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKK 2/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag and Benziger Verlag, 1979) 109.Google Scholar

[5] See Lohmeyer, E., Markus 227Google Scholar; Kertelge, K., Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (SANT 23; München: Kösel, 1970) 179Google Scholar; D: Koch, A., Wundererzählung 127, 129.Google Scholar

[6] This is the only healing miracle in the synoptic tradition which contains the proper name of the person healed. Although Bultmann, R. (Tradition 228Google Scholar) refers to the ‘ruler of the synagogue, Jairus’ in Mark 5. 22 as another example of a proper name appearing in a miracle story, it should be noted that the name of the person healed, Jairus' daughter, is not given.

[7] Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1959) 447Google Scholar. See also Bundy, W. E., Jesus and the First Three Gospels. An Introduction to the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Harvard, 1955) 410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[8] Jeremias, J., Neutestamentliche Theologie. Erster Teil. Die Verkündigung Jesu (Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971) 93–5.Google Scholar See also Trilling, W., Christusverkündigung in den synoptischen Evangellen (BiH 4; München: Kösel Verlag, 1969) 159.Google Scholar

[9] Gnilka, J., Markus, 109.Google Scholar

[10] Schille, G., Die urchristliche Wundertradition. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem irdischen Jesus (Arbeiten zur Theologie I, 29; Stuttgart: Lawler Verlag, 1967) 26 f.Google Scholar

[11] Kertelge, K., Wunder Jesu, 180.Google Scholar

[12] Achtemeier, P. J., ‘“And he followed him”: Miracles and Discipleship in Mark 10. 46–52’, Semeia 2 (1978) 121.Google Scholar

[13] P. J. Achtemeier, ‘And he followed him’, 125; D: Koch, A., Wundererzählung, 129–30Google Scholar: ‘In Mk 10:46–52 liegt also eine Wundertradition vor, die deutlich die Züge einer Personallegende trägt. Sie handelt weniger von der Wundermacht Jesu als von dem Glauben des blinden Βαρτιμαίος. Mk 10:46–52 is keine Bekehrungsgeschichte, eher eine Nachfolgeerzählung.’

[14] The formal elements are 1. Editorial Introduction: Luke 5. 1; Mk 10. 46a; 2. Setting of the scene: Luke 5. 2–3; Mark 10. 26b; 3. Dialogue, verbal conflict: Luke 5. 4–5a; Mark 10. 47–48; 4. Resolution of the conflict: Luke 5. 5b; Mark 10. 49; 5. Chief character acts: Luke 5. 6a; Mark 10. 50; 6. Miracle described: Luke 5. 6b–7; Mark 10. 52a; 7. Second dialogue; Luke 5. 8–10a; Mark 10. 51; 8. Word of comfort: Luke 5. 8b; Mark 10. 49; 9. Conclusion, reaction of the central character: Luke 5. 11; Mark 10. 52b. For a complete discussion of how and why the Marcan narrative varies slightly from the formal structure, see P. J. Achtemeier, ‘And he followed him’, 122–5.

[15] See Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium (HTKNT 4/3; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1975) 410–13Google Scholar; Schürmann, H., Das Lukasevangelium (HTKNT 3/1; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1969) 273.Google Scholar

[16] For this discussion we Klein, G., ‘Die Berufung des Petrus’, ZNW 58 (1967) 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pesch, R., Der reiche Fischfang: Lk 5, 1–11/Jo 21, 1–4: Wundergeschichte - Berufungserzählung - Erscheinungsbericht (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1969)Google Scholar; Brown, R., The Gospel According to John XIII–XXI (AB 29A; New York: Doubleday, 1970)1089–92.Google Scholar

[17] Habel, N., ‘The Form and Significance of the Call Narrative’, ZAW 77 (1965) 297–323.Google Scholar

[18] N. Habel, ‘Call Narratives’, 298.

[19] See N. Habel, ‘Call Narratives’, 314.

[20] See N. Habel, ‘Call Narratives’, 298.

[21] See N. Habel, ‘Call Narratives’, 314.

[22] See N. Habel, ‘Call Narratives’, 299.

[23] Hahn, F., Christologie Hoheitstitel. Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1966) 262.Google Scholar

[24] See N. Habel, ‘Call Narratives’, 304.

[25] See N. Habel, ‘Call Narratives’, 300.

[26] The sequence in the narrative concerning Saul is similar. The objection in 1 Sam 9. 21 precedes the call in 10. 1 and the sign in 10. 2–6. See N. Habel, ‘Call Narratives’, 300 n. 10; Kutsch, E., ‘Gideons Berufung und Altarbau Jdc 6:11–23’, ThLZ (1956) 79.Google Scholar

[27] Cf. Hultgren, A. J., Jesus and His Adversaries (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979) 82–4.Google Scholar

[28] See the prayer of the Pharisee recorded in the Talmud (b. Ber. 28b) which equated those who sit on the street-corner with those who will be condemned. ‘I thank thee, O Lord, my God, that thou has given me my lot with those who sit in the house of learning, and not with those who sit at the street-corners… I run toward the life of the age to come, and they run towards the pit of destruction.’

[29] N. Habel, ‘Call Narratives’, 299.

[30] N. Habel, ‘Call Narratives’, 304.

[31] N. Habel, ‘Call Narratives’, 300.

[32] Cf. N. Habel, ‘Call Narratives’, 304.

[33] N. Habel, ‘Call Narratives’, 301.

[34] N. Habel, ‘Call Narratives’, 305.

[35] Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1959).Google Scholar

[36] Knox, W. L., The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (2 vols.; Cambridge: University Press, 1953) vol. 1, St Mark.Google Scholar

[37] Albertz, M., Die synoptische Streitgespräche (Berlin: Trowitzsch und Sohn, 1921).Google Scholar

[38] See Robbins, V. K., ‘The Healing of Bartimaeus (10. 46–52) in the Marcan Theology’, JBL 92 (1973) 228.Google Scholar

[39] See Mark 3. 20; 6. 1; 8. 22; 10. 1; 11. 15, 27; 14. 32 where the verb appears in the introductory verse.

[40] See Stein, R. H., ‘The “Redaktionsgeschichtlich” Investigation of a Marcan Seam (Mc 1.21f)’, ZNW 61 (1970) 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 15: ‘Certainly the use of the genitive absolute is a Marcan stylistic characteristic.’ Jeremias, J. (The Eucharistic Words of Jesus [London: SCM Press, 1966] 174Google Scholar) notes that a characteristic feature of Mark's Greek is his frequent use of paratactic καί.

[41] See Gnilka, J., Markus, 108.Google Scholar

[42] See Pesch, R., Markusevangelium, 170.Google Scholar

[43] See Roloff, J., Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus.Historische Motive in den Jesus-Erzählungen der Evangelien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970) 122Google Scholar; V. K. Robbins, ‘Healing’, 230; Gnilka, J., Markus, 108.Google Scholar

[44] See Dibelius, M., Formgeschichte, 49–50Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., Das Evangelium nach Markus (NTD 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1968) 127Google Scholar; Roloff, J., Kerygma, 121Google Scholar. Busemann, R. (Die Jüngergemeinde nach Markus 10. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung des 10. Kapitels im Markusevangelium [BBB 57; Königstein/Ts.-Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlag, 1983] 162–3Google Scholar) considers άπό ΊεριΧὠ to be redactional.

[45] See n. 10 above.

[46] See Fuller, R. H., The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: MacMillan, 1971) 34–6.Google Scholar

[47] See Dibelius, M., Formgeschichte, 49–50.Google Scholar

[48] See Bultmann, R., Tradition, 228Google Scholar; we n. 6 above.

[49] Gnilka, J., Markus, 109.Google Scholar

[50] 'O νίός Τιμαίον is not Marcar, since the evangelist explains Aramaic words by placing after them ὅ έστω (cf. Mark 3. 17; 7. 11, 34; 12. 42; 15. 16, 42). So Roloff, J., Kerygma, 122Google Scholar n. 50. The translation of this name points to the tradition of the Bartimaeus narrative in a Hellenistic-Jewish milieu.

[51] See V. K. Robbins, ‘Healing’, 227.

[52] See H: Kuhn, W., Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (SUNT P; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1971) 224Google Scholar n. 38; Also D: Koch, A., Wundererzählungen, 131Google Scholar; Roloff, J., Kerygma, 125–6.Google Scholar

[53] See Gnilka, J., Markus, 108.Google Scholar

[54] See Roloff, J., Kerygma, 126 n. 67Google Scholar; Gnilka, J., Markus, 111.Google Scholar

[55] D: Koch, A., Wundererzählungen, 131Google Scholar n. 27: ‘Καί ήκολούθει αύτῷ hat als Bestandteil der vormk Erzählung keine selbstständige Bedeutung, sondern unterstreicht die πίστις des Geheilten.’

[56] Bultmann, R., Tradition, 260.Google Scholar

[57] See D: Koch, A., Wundererzählungen, 129 n. 15.Google Scholar

[58] Lohmeyer, E., Markus, 226.Google Scholar

[59] See Roloff, J., Kerygma, 126 n. 67.Google Scholar

[60] In some sections in Mark άκολουθείν is redactional but in these cases the verb is not predicated of an individual but of Jesus' disciples and the multitude, for example Mark 2. 15; 3. 7; 6. 1;10. 32.

[61] See Burger, C., Jesus als Davidssohn (FRLANT 98; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970) 43–5, 59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; V. K. Robbins, ‘Healing’, 230–6.

[62] See Roloff, J., Kerygma, 123Google Scholar: ‘Markus dürfte die Perikope bereits mit der Erweiterung v. 48–50 vorgefunden haben.’

[63] See Koch, D.-A., Wundererzählungen, 128.Google Scholar

[64] Busemann, R. (Jüngergemeinde, 169–70)Google Scholar contends that Mark added the positive behaviour of the crowd for a catechetical reason: ‘zur Nachfolge gehört wegen der Sendung durch Jesus die ständige gegenseitige Ermutigung und Erinnerung an das Gerufensein von ihm’.

[65] Roloff, J., Kerygma, 123–4.Google Scholar

[66] See Busemann, R., Jüngergemeinde, 169.Google Scholar

[67] See Busemann, R., Jüngergemeinde, 170.Google Scholar

[68] See Busemann, R., Jüngergemeinde, 168.Google Scholar

[69] Hahn, F., Hoheitstitel, 262–4Google Scholar; Kertelge, K., Wunder, 180–1Google Scholar; Burger, C., Davidssohn, 43–5Google Scholar; V. K. Robbins, ‘Healing’, 231. Pesch, R. (Markusevangelium, 171Google Scholar, n. 21) considers the often cited tension between the two titles to be unfounded.

[70] V. K. Robbins, ‘Healing’, 232.

[71] See Pesch, R., Markusevangelium, 169Google Scholar, n. 3. R. Pesch holds that V. K. Robbins overestimates the redactional meaning of verses 47 f.

[72] See Wrede, W., Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evan iien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1969) 278–9Google Scholar; W. Wrede believes that the passage has nothing to do with the Messianic secret. See also Gnilka, J., Markus, 108.Google Scholar

[73] See Busemann, R., Jüngergemeinde, 169.Google Scholar

[74] See Burger, C., Davidssohn, 62–3Google Scholar; V. K. Robbins, ‘Healing’, 234.

[75] See Roloff, J., Kerygma, 123Google Scholar; Pesch, R., Markusevangelium, 167–8.Google Scholar

[76] Some commentators, such as D: Koch, A. (Wundererzählungen, 132Google Scholar) and Schweizer, E. (Markus, 127Google Scholar) have seen a parallel between the Bartimaeus narrative in 10. 46–52 and the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida in 8. 22–26. The healing at Bethsaida is followed by the first open teaching of Jesus concerning the suffering of the Son of Man (8. 27–32) and the Bartimaeus narrative is followed by the Passion narrative. One can attribute the position of the narratives concerning the blind men to the Marcan redaction but there is little agreement oconcerning the evangelist's intention. One must agree with D: A. Koch that a metaphorical understanding of ‘seeing’ as ‘believing’ is, in both narratives, questionable (cf. D: Koch, A., Wundererzählungen, 71–2Google Scholar). Like-wise, that a blind person, contrary to the ‘seeing’ crowd, acknowledges Jesus as ‘Son of David’ forces the intention of the narrative. One can best describe the intention of the Marcan redaction in the broader terms of Schweizer, E. (Markus, 128). Immediately before the Passion narrative begins the evangelist gives his readers a demonstration of faith and discipleship.Google Scholar

[77] Burger's, C. (Davidssohn, 61Google Scholar) holds that the command to silence is directed toward the messianic title. The only difference between the earlier commands to silence and Mark 10. 48 is that the latter is to preserve that side of the messianic secret which is revealed immediately with Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, i.e. Jesus is heir of David. The complete secret of Jesus' sonship is first revealed after the crucifixion. This position is somewhat forced. See also Busemann, R., Jüngergemeinde, 168.Google Scholar

[78] Räisänen, H. (Das ‘Messiasgeheimnis’ im Markusevangelium. Ein redaktionskritischer Versuch [Helsinki, 1976] 149Google Scholar) notes: ‘Von der Davidssohn-Bezeichnung macht Markus nirgends von sich aus Gebrauch.’

[79] See Busemann, R., Jüngergemeinde, 168.Google Scholar

[80] See Gnilka, J., Markus, 108.Google Scholar

[81] Hahn, F., Hoheitstitel, 262Google Scholar. So also Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (London: Lutterworth Press, 1965) 111.Google Scholar

[82] See Hahn, F., Hoheitstitel, 262–4.Google Scholar

[83] See Burger, C., Davidssohn, 72–91Google Scholar; V. K. Robbins, ‘Healing’, 234.

[84] So Fuller, R. H., Foundations, 112.Google Scholar He points out that the first occurrence of the cry in verse 47 is, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy upon me,’ but the second occurrence in verse 48 omits the name ‘Jesus’. This suggests that the earlier tradition contained only one cry, ‘Jesus, have mercy upon me.’

[85] See Lohfink, G., Paul vor Damaskus (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 4; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1966) 63.Google Scholar