The Gospel According to St. Mark Second Edition VINCENT TAYLOR THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK By the same author * THE CROSS OF CHRIST J'ORGIVENESS AND RECONCILIATION A Study in New Testament Theology THE FORMATION OF THE GOSPEL TRADITION JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE: A Study of the Passion-Sayings in the Gospels THE LIFE AND MINISTRY OF JESUS THE NAMES OF JESUS THB PERSON OF CHRIST IN NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK THE GREEK TEXT WITH INTRODL'CTIO~. ~OTES, AND INDEXES BY VINCENT TAYLOR PH.D., D.O. (Lond.), HoN. D.O. (Leeds), HoN. D.O. (Dublin), HoN. D.O. (Glasgow), F.B.A SO~IETIME PRINCIPAL AND FERENS PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE AT WESLEY COLLEGE, HEADINGLEY, LEEDS SECOND EDITION M MI\.CMILLAN © The Rev. Dr Vincent Taylor 1966 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 2nd edition 1966 978-0-333-08520-2 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1956 (as amended). Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. First edition 1952 Reprinted 1953, 1955, 1957, 1959, 1963 Second Edition 1966 Reprinted 1969, 1972, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1984 Published by THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 2XS and London Companies and representatives throughout the world ISBN 978-1-349-00571-0 ISBN 978-1-349-00569-7 (eBook) DOl 10.1007/978-1-349-00569-7 This book is sold subject to the standard conditions of the Net Book Agreement PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION T HIS commentary was begun in the earlier years of the War, and, in its first stages, was sometimes written in circumstances when access to books was not easy, in the con~ viction that the time had come to attempt to harvest the rich gains which have gradually accumulated through the labours of many scholars in Markan fields. Over half a century has passed since the great commentary of Henry Barclay Swete was first published by the House of Macmillan, and, although other commentators have written learned works, no British commentary on the same scale has been attempted. The reason is not far to seek. The literature on questions of intra~ duction, text, language, theology, and exegesis, in English, German, French, and Swedish, in encyclopaedias, mono~ graphs, and learned journals, is immense. Indeed, a would~ be commentator might easily spend the whole of his life in reading and evaluating these contributions and fin'd at the end that he had scarcely begun to write a line of his com~ mentary; for, in addition to other inquiries, he must follow the history of criticism in general and the development of modern theology, the exegesis of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the Rabbinical writings, the main currents of Hellenistic thought, the history and fortunes of primitive Christianity, the problems of science, religion, and philosophy. No knowledge, in fact, pertaining to literature, art, history, liturgiology, and theology, is out of place in such an undertaking. It may be suspected, however, that not only the scale of the necessary reading has led scholars to pause, but also the risk of appearing to presume to write a definz"tz"ve commentary on St. Mark, when many vital questions are still the subject of debate. Can we yet say that the time has come when, in the words of Mark iv. 29, we must put forth the sickle because the harvest is come ? I believe we can, provided we recognize that in due course other harvests will be reaped, perhaps richer and more varied still. vi PREFACE I hasten to say that in this work I have no thought of attempting to write a definitive commentary. I am content rather to report progress and perhaps to· stimulate others to essay the task. It is not by one commentary, but by a series, that we are most likely to make real progress. And, for the encouragement of others, I may say that there is no task so rewarding. When we write monographs on such questions as the Parables, the Kingdom of God, or the Son of Man, we read everything germane to such inquiries, but other subjects, which do not make the same appeal, have perforce to be passed by. In writing a commentary this method is not possible. Every theme that arises must be followed, and every line of inquiry into which it opens. The commentator is compelled to be catholic in his sympathies, international in his outlook, hospitable in his interests. Since no one can be adequately equipped for such an undertaking, I feel it incumbent upon me to indicate to the reader fields in which he must look for better guidance than that which I can give; and two in particular, patristic studies and the question of Semitisms. On the side of patristic studies I have little to offer, partly because I have no special competence in this field, and partly because the need is so fully met in the classical commentaries of Swete and Lagrange. The question of Semitisms has interested me for many years, and I have followed the most important discussions carefully ; but, while not without knowledge of the subject, I am not in any sense a Semitic specialist. The subject cannot be omitted in a modern commentary, and I have therefore sub mitted all that I have written on this topic to the scrutiny of my friends, Dr. Wilbert F. Howard, Dr. Norman H. Snaith, and Dr. Matthew Black. For their friendly and faithful criticisms and suggestions I am most grateful, but, of course, the final responsibility for what I have written is my own. Among many valuable commentaries I am especially indebted to those of Swete, J. Weiss, Lagrange, Rawlinson, and Lohmeyer. A commentary like that of Swete, which has guided the studies of two generations of British students, acquires a new interest in the eyes of anyone who tries to follow in his footsteps. If we allow for the want of adequate guidance in historical questions, of which Swete was fully PREFACE aware, as the comments in the Prefaces to his second and third editions show, it is impossible to exaggerate the value of this monumental work, and especially its contributions to linguistic studies, patristic interpretations, and exegetical discussions. In some sense it is the greatness of Swete's work which has stood in the way of his successors. If, with some courage, but with humility, I venture to follow in his steps, it is because historical questions can no longer be ignored and because a wealth of discussion is available such as did not obtain in his day. In this commentary a special interest has been taken in the obscure period which lies behind the composition of the Gospel. I hope I have given adequate consideration to the invaluable Papias tradition, which is so sound that, if we did not possess it, we should be compelled to postulate something very much like it. But the Gospel is not to be explained by the simple hypothesis of an Apostolic eyewitness. More than a single generation lies between it and the events and sayings of the historic Ministry of Jesus, and in many important respects the Gospel reflects the worship, theology, and cate chetical interests of a living Christian Church. In spite of its manifest defects Form Criticism has forced this conviction upon us, and, although the criticism of Bultmann and others is excessively radical, much is to be learnt that is positive and constructive. I hope that in my treatment nothing merely polemical, still less discourteous, has been allowed to appear, for we learn most from those from whom we are compelled to differ. The commentary is based on a modified form of the text of Westcott and Hort. Subsequent discoveries, especially those of the Washington Codex, Codex Koridethi, the Sinaitic Syriac MS., and the Chester Beatty Papyri, and further study of the Western and Caesarean texts and the Georgian and Armenian versions, have established a widely held conviction that many of Hort's readings need revision ; and in this matter I have felt it right to continue the first steps taken by Swete so long ago. I have fully used the extensive critical apparatus in S. C. E. Legg's Nouum Testamentum Graece. For this reason I have not attempted to provide a critical apparatus of my own, but have fully discussed many important textual 'riii PREFACE variants, especially when they bear on questions of exegesis. Professor T. W. Manson has been kind enough to read what I have written and to examine the text, and I have profited greatly by his criticisms and suggestions. In questions of Jewish interest I have frequently used the massive Kom mentar of H. L. Strack and P. Billerb eck, and in considering points of New Testament theology I have freely drawn upon the rich resources of G. Kittel's Theologisches Worterbuch. The grammatical works of Blass, Debrunner, Moulton, Howard, and Robertson have been constantly used as well as Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek Testa ment and that mine of theological knowledge, Moulton and Geden's Concordance to the Greek Testament. The methods I have followed may be briefly indicated. In the Introduction I have discussed the critical, grammatical, theological, and historical questions, and, in this way, have sought to avoid the need of discussing repeatedly the same points later. In the Commentary the text is treated in larger divisions, and then in sections containing the several narra tives and sayings-groups. To all these, short introductions are provided and special questions are discussed in detached notes. At the end of the volume additional notes are supplied on hrger questions to which the answers must necessarily be of a more general and speculative character. In this way I have tried to make the Commentary serviceable to readers who hold different views from mine, for I recognize that a commentator succeeds when he stimulates others to reach better results than his own. An asterisk is appended to lists of Markan passages recording the full use of a particular Greek word, and two asterisks when the complete New Testa ment record is given. When other commentaries and well known works are mentioned, only the page number is supplied and abbreviations when more than one book is in question. For these references the Bibliography will serve as a key. Other abbreviations, I hope, will cause no difficulty. In general, I have supplied the data for discussion fully, especi ally when the issues are evenly balanced. At the same time I have expressed persoltal opinions in the belief that the reader has the right to know what the commentator thinks ; but I need hardly add that these opinions have PREFACE IX no more authority than belongs to prolonged and careful study. I gladly take the opportunity to express my deep gratitude to a few friends who have assisted me in various ways. In addition to those I have mentioned earlier I am indebted to my colleagues, the Rev. Dr. H. Watkin-Jones and the Rev. A. Raymond George, M.A., who were kind enough to read the typescript of the section on the Theology of the Gospel and Note B on the Twelve and the Apostles, and the Rev. Owen E. Evans, M.A., B.D., who has compiled the Index of Proper Names; and to the Revs. Dr. H. G. Meecham, Dr. C. Leslie Mitton, and Dr. C. Kingsley Barrett, who have shared with me the laborious task of correcting the proof-sheets. For the help so generously given I am deeply grateful, but of course the final responsibility for errors which may remain is my own. I wish also gratefully to acknowledge the courtesy and skill of the staff of Messrs. R. and R. Clark, of Edinburgh, whose accuracy is known the world over. In the hope that I mav have contributed a little to reveal further the significance and meaning of St. Mark's Gospel I bring my work of a decade to an end. I count it an immeasurable privilege to have been permitted to write a commentary on a Gospel which is one of the greatest treasures of the Church and one of the most influential and astounding books in the world. VINCENT TAYLOR WESLEY COLLEGE HEADINGLEY, LEEDS 16th December 1950 A2