77

pp. 668-680), though MSS evidence is awanting. Weiffenbach was content with deleting 12b (idoù éyw... σoû) as an ancient gloss and interpolation, thereby "opening a beautiful and grand portal" to the gospel. Reuss, however, went further, and conjectured that vers. 1-20 (1-15) were a subsequent addition, compiled from or parallel to Mt and Lk, prefixed to the original gospel which opened with Jesus in Kapharnahum. Along with 169-20 this prelude was added to round off the narrative (§§ 189, 240). Dr. Paul Ewald, while refusing to go so far, has recently suspected at least vers. 1-3 as a later addition (Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu seiner Lösung, 1890, pp. 178-180), since the quotation, if that in 1528 be put aside as non-authentic, would be the solitary reference to OT prophecy made by the author. "Wir haben denn eine Schrift, welche nach Anfang und Ende durchaus zusammenstimmend dem Bilde entspricht, welches wir uns, wie sich zeigen wird, von jenen Aufzeichungen des Hermeneuten Petri machen dürfen." Holtzmann, too, ingeniously conjectures that in the original Mark only the Isaiah quotation existed, the Malachi passage being an insertion from Mt 1110, Lk 727. The correct solution is probably given by Professor Nestle, who (Exp. x. pp. 458-460; Einf. p. 130 f., ETr. 260 f.; Phil. Sacra, pp. 45, 46) regards evayyetov I. X., afterwards expanded into ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, as the original title of the gospel-a heading which was subsequently taken as the opening of the text. Similarly Bruce (ExGT, ad loc.), Swete (ad loc.), and Zahn (Einl. ii. p. 220f.). In early Christian literature (cp. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litt. bis Eusebius, i. pp. 988-1020), apyn never occurs thus as the opening of a book, while Kados1 (1 Ti 13) is used in such a position four times, κabárep four times, as twenty-eight times. This natural explanation of ver. 1 as the superscription might cover Mt11 also.

The other explanations of vers. 1-3 are best given by Schanz (Commentar über das Evglm. d. heiligen Marcus, 1881, pp. 59-62).

724-826-Suspected also by Paul Ewald (op. cit. pp. 181-189) partly on the grounds of style and language, which he finds inconsistent with the rest of the gospel, partly as the episode seems to be interpolated for the first time at a later stage of the evangelic tradition. By omitting 11-3 724-826 169-20 from the extant Mark, he reaches what appears to him to represent the Ur-Marcus. As the first of these passages is crucial, it may be added that the main alternatives in regard to Mk 11 are (a) the canonical, and (b) the textual hypotheses. When the former is adopted, the book opens with ver. 2; the preceding words were added when it occupied the first place among the canonical gospels, thus forming an introductory title to all four. In process of time this general heading naturally became absorbed in the text of the gospel which stood closest to it. The improbabilities of this theory suggest, (b) that the words in question form the author's own title to his book. It is clumsy and contrary to Mark's direct style to take them with ver. 4, and to regard the intervening quotation as a parenthesis. They probably form a heading and description not for the opening (14-8 or 14-15), but for the whole book. It is intended to portray the start and origin (cp. Ac 11, Heb 23, Jn 1527) of the gospel of Jesus in his lifetime, and particularly-in accordance (Ac 1036 f.) with early tradition-from the mission of the Baptizer ("The Christian church sprang from a movement which was not begun by Christ. When he appeared upon the scene, the first wave of this movement had already passed over the surface of the Jewish nation," Ecce Homo, chap. i.). Such, on this hypothesis, is the programme of Mark. The unique quotation 1 Yet in Mk-Mt it consistently refers to a preceding sentence.

from the OT is only another proof of the exactness with which the author strove to reproduce the primitive tradition of Jesus upon this point. Soltau, however (Eine Lücke d. Synopt. Forschung, pp. 1-7), has recently adhered to those who delete 12b, adding also 1125. 26 (from Mt 614. 15). Mk 11-11 is unfortunately amissing in Syr-Sin. See further, Addenda.

Mark 938-40 (41)-Perhaps one of the few interpolations inserted (from Lk 949-50?) by another hand: note especially the interruption of the argument between vers. 37 and 41, and the reference to the Name (?). For this and other instances vide Pfleiderer, Urc. pp. 391, 392, 416, and Carpenter, First Three Gospels, p. 280 n. Keim, however, attributes the paragraph to the writer of the gospel (iv. 334), who has misplaced it, and this "episodical" view is quite sufficient for the data; similarly Schanz (pp. 304, 305) and Weiss (-Meyer, pp. 162-164). In common with many who reject the Ur-Marcus hypothesis (recently defended by Réville, 1. pp. 472-477), Sir John Hawkins (Horae Synopticae, p. 122) takes the extant gospel as practically representing the Petrine source used afterwards by Matthew and Luke. He finds, nevertheless, the hand of a later editor or scribe or owner of a gospel, in passages like 1' ('Inσoù XpiσTov), 941 (öri X. éσté) [“ a marginal gloss," Schmiedel, EB, i. p. 752], 835 and 1029. 30 (mention of gospel and of persecutions), 637 and 145 (the numerals, 200 and 300), 513 (the 2000) and 1456-59 (the disagreement of the false witnesses). The list might be extended, however. For Zahn's admission, see above, pp. 28-29. He remarks, à propos of oτi XpiσTOû ÉσTé (941), "it is not the words of Jesus but of his church (Ro 89, 1 Co 323, 2 Co 107) that we hear." Which is undeniable, and points either to the insertion of these words in a genuine logion, or more probably to the apostolic origin of the whole passage in its present form. Blair (Apost. Gospel, p. 81 f.) traces a series of such secondary features and references throughout Mark with considerable skill, as does Schmiedel (EBi, ii. 1850 f.).

Mark 13.-An analysis of the eschatological section in the synoptists (Mk 13 Mt 24-Lk 21) yields the interesting result,1 that along with the sayings of Jesus the evangelists have incorporated a "small apocalypse," which lay before them already in written form. This apocalypse, printed above in darker type, consists of matter set in the usual triple division common to apocalyptic literature (e.g. Apoc 912 1114). ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων—Mk 137. 8 Mt 246-8

وو

-

=

1314-20 =
1324-27 =

Lk 219-11.

2415-22 =
2429-31 =

(2120-24).
2125-27 (28)

θλίψις παρουσία The intervening passages (e.g. Mk 139-13. 21-23) are Christian2 exhortations conceived in a different spirit of comfort, and interpolated between the apocalyptic phases to emphasise the Christian atmosphere, while the saying Mk 1330. 31 Mt 2434. 38Lk 2132. 33 may quite well be a genuine logion of Jesus. Although details of reconstruction differ, the

1 "Es gibt wenig Hypothesen, die sich in den Grundzügen ihres Bestandes so unausweichbar erwiesen und so einleuchtende Begründung erfahren haben, wie diese" (Holtzmann). The distinction between genuine and later sayings cannot be carried out as precisely, however, throughout the rest of the discourse. The general hypothesis that outside passages have passed into the evangelic tradition is an inference from the literary situation of the evangelists, and rests on evidence both within (e.g. Lk 1149-51) and without the NT. [EB, ii. 1892, § 150; Spitta, Urc. ii. 178 f.] 2 The feud between kinsfolk is a standard trait of apocalyptic (4 Esdras 59, 624 etc.); so is the international quarrel of Mk 138 (4 Esdras 55, Apoc Bar 4932 etc).

3 Wendt, e.g. (LJ, i. p. 10 f.; Teaching of Jesus (Eng. tr.), ii. p. 366 n.), finds the oracle in the words preserved by Mk 137-9a, 14-20. 24-27. 30, which represent a JewishChristian apocalypse, absorbed for the most part in external and political circumstances.

apocalypse as a whole detaches readily from the context, and forms by itself an intelligible unity, even although it has been overlaid with fresh colours by the various evangelists or by their predecessors. It forms a fly-leaf of prophecy, a palimpsest which lies beside the surrounding contents of the gospels with a distinctly alien appearance. A fragment from it is also used elsewhere in Lk 1731.

Like most apocalyptic sketches, it goes back for its scenery and imagery to Daniel, from which it derives the ideas common to itself and the Jewish pseudepigrapha. Coincidences are to be noted between it and the Johannine apocalypse, but these are little more than the stereotyped conceptions of the general apocalyptic literature.

(The parallels are quoted from Matthew, as that gospel preserves the apocalypse in a more primitive form-cp. μηδὲ σαββάτῳ, εὐθέως—than even Mark, a proof that the original text was accessible to the author of Matthew. Such parallels might be multiplied, as Baldensperger shows, The rest of the chapter contains genuinely Christian elements, which the redactor has blended with the other piece. For another ingenious reconstruction by J. Weiss, cp. SK, 1892, p. 259 f. He distinguishes a Jewish apocalypse in Mk 1314. 17-20. 21.256-27, and refuses to admit that even the rest of the chapter is in its present form a unity. Vers. 9-13 and 28-31 originally occupied other settings. Kabisch simply finds an interpolation in Mt 2415-31; Réville (ii. p. 310 f.), in Mt 2411-12. 26-28.37-51 251-46, disinters fragments of the Logia.

66

1 In Luke 2113 μaprúpov may have its darker and later sense of martyrdom (Clem. Rom. 5), as J. Weiss suggests, although the customary interpretation, an opportunity for bearing witness," serves well enough. In vers. 12-15 Paul and Stephen are certainly in the author's mind as he writes.

2 These formed part of the apocalyptic stock-in-trade, and are probably due to little else than the fashion of the literary tradition. But, as it happens, contemporary phenomena of nature can be found to match most of the descriptions; cp. particularly Renan's vivid picture, L'antéchrist, chap. xiv.

3 Remarkable enough to deserve printing in full, as an instance of the general

similarities:

Mt, ὁ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος οὗτος σωθήσεται=Esd. 97. 8, et erit omnis qui salvus factus fuerit et

qui poterit effugere per opera sua vel per fidem, in qua credidit, is relinquetur de praedictis periculis et videbit salutare meum. + As is well known, Papias attributed an apocalyptic passage to Jesus (Iren. adv. Haer. v. 33. 2) which originally belonged to one of the pre-70 A.D. sources of the Apocalypse of Baruch (chap. 27-30). The same tendency betrays itself in the attribution to Jesus of passages taken from or founded on the Wisdom literature (Mt 1128-30, Lk 1149). On the exposure of the early church to such theologoumena, cp. Harnack, HD, i. pp. 100-105. It may be (as Driver, after Sanday, conjectures: DB, i. pp. 12, 13) that the language of the original synoptic apocalypse was more general, and that, "during the years of agitation and tension which preceded the final struggle of A.D. 70, it was modified so as to give more definite expression to such apprehensions." All literature of that class was liable to such revision and adaptation. But there is really no evidence in this case to justify the supposition. Apocalyptic interpretation was never greatly concerned to be literal.

almost indefinitely from the current literature of the time). How congenial such utterances were to the feverish age, 60-70, in Jerusalem and Palestine, may be illustrated from Josephus story of the wild peasant who roamed through the capital in the year 62, howling in a wail of doom, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" His name is given as Jesus ben Ananias.

The date and the character of the synoptic apocalypse are allied questions. If its origin be in Caligula's age, a product-like some part of the Johannine apocalypse-of the stress and horror stirred up then by his desecrating insults to Judaism, it is of Jewish origin (Iselin, ZSchz, 1886, p. 134 f.). Against this, however, must be set the general result of recent criticism upon the larger apocalypse, which does not seriously favour the Christian exploitation of Jewish pieces. It is much more probable that the small apocalypse is a Jewish-Christian production, composed amid the restlessness and fevered anticipations of the seventh decade 2 by some Palestinian author, as the horrors and fears of the Roman campaign began to throw their shadows over the country and the church. Hausrath, like Colani, Pfleiderer, and Keim, dates it (iv. p. 247) from or just before the years 68-70 A.D., as it seems to have a certain retrospect of suffering and warfare already behind it, while Renan seems to put its composition after the siege altogether (?). Wendt more probably locates it somewhere between 60 and 70; in the earlier part of that seventh decade it is most reasonable (with Weizsäcker) to look for its period, before the crisis had become definite. Spitta, however, holds to the period c. 40 A.D. (Offenbarung Johan. pp. 493-497), interpreting the apocalypse as an outcome of Caligula's freak, while J. Weiss (SK, 1892, pp. 246-270) chooses widely between 40 and 69. But really almost any of these periods would suit the conditions and nature of the synoptic apocalypse. It represents the growth of semi-literal imagery round the nucleus of language that was used by Jesus in a free and ideal sense, a growth fostered by the Messianic hopes of the period, and by the undoubted connection of Jesus with these hopes in the primitive evangelic tradition.

Generally, the theory of this "small apocalypse" was started by Colani (Jésus-Christ et les Croyances Messianiques de son Temps, 1864, p. 201 f.), and Weiffenbach (Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu, 1873, pp. 69 f., 135 f.), adopted by writers like Baldensperger and Schwartzkopff, from the side of research into Christ's consciousness, and reinforced by others from the side of literary and historical criticism, e.g. by Vischer (TU, 11. 3, p.9 n.), Pfleiderer (Jahrb. d. Theol. 1868, pp. 134-149; Urc. p. 402 f.), Simons, Mangold (-Bleek), Weizsäcker (44, ii. p. 22 f. (c. 64-66 A.D.)), Renan (L'antéchrist, chpp. iii. xii.; Les Evangiles, pp. 123-125), Carpenter (First Three Gospels, pp. 247-250), and Cone (Gospel Criticism, p. 276 f.). Keim has a full exposition (v. p. 235 f.); cp. also Holtzmann (Einl. pp. 363, 373, 374; HC, i. p. 259 f.; NTTh, i. pp. 327, 328), Wernle (Syn. Frage, pp. 212-214), O. Holtzmann (Das Ende des jüdischen Staatswesens, p. 669), Cheyne (EBi, i. pp. 21-23), Charles (Crit. Hist. Eschatology, p. 324 f., dating

1 In this event, and if the sivua sūc ipnuŵoras be identified with the "man of sin" (2 Th 21-12), it follows that the author of the third gospel has altered the original purport of the saying. In his hands it is shaped into a picture of the Roman siege of 68-70 A.D.; indeed his whole treatment of it reflects the wider experiences and retrospect of Christians in the outside Empire.

2 It was a time, says Tacitus (Hist. 1. 2), "Opimum casibus, atrox proeliis, discors seditionibus, ipsa etiam pace saevum. Quattuor principes ferro interempti. Trina bella civilia, plura externa ac plerumque permixta." Josephus (Ant, xx. 8. 5) bears a similar testimony to the demoralised and excited condition of Palestine.

it 67-68), and apparently W. A. Brown (DB, iii. pp. 676, 677), with Dr. G. L. Cary (IH, i. pp. 274-292), and Schmiedel (EBi, ii. 1857).

There are adverse discussions in Godet's Luke (ad loc.), and Briggs' Messiah of Gosp. (1894), chap. iv. ; also in Haupt's Die Eschatol. Aussagen Jesu in d. Syn. Evgl. (1895), pp. 21-45, which is the fairest conservative statement of the case.1 Like Weiss and Beyschlag, Dr. Sanday still hesitates (DB, ii. pp. 635, 636), and even to Prof. Bruce the critical analysis was "ingenious but not convincing" (ExGT, i. p. 290; cp. The Kingdom of God, chap. xii.). Stevens (NTTh, pp. 152-156), while admitting that Matthew's version "involves Jesus in a tissue of contradictions," chooses also to refer the incongruities of the discourse to "subjective combinations and misapprehensions on the part of the early disciples." Similarly even Bacon (INT, p. 211), and Barth (Hauptprobleme d. Lebens Jesu, 158 f.).

The well-known references in Papias and Irenaeus, to say nothing of the freedom with which Luke has handled the primitive evangelic tradition, show how easily edifying material could be attributed to Jesus, particularly as the early Christians breathed apocalyptic hopes and fears at the age when the sources of the gospels were composed, and even later (vide Kabisch, Eschatologie des Paulus, 1893, pp. 1-12). It has often been conjectured that this apocalypse is actually the oracle which, according to Eusebius (ΗΕ, III. 5. 2, 3, κατά τινα χρησμὸν τοῖς αὐτόθι δοκίμοις δι' ἀποκαλύψεως πρὸ τοῦ πολέμου ἐκδοθέντα κτλ), was the means of prompting the Christians to migrate from Jerusalem to the refuge of Pella in Peraea. At any rate, this fly-leaf of prophecy was intended, like other apocalypses (Apoc 1318 179) to be read (o avayiwσkwv voeirw= Barn. 29£ 46, ovviévai our óþeiλere, 4 Esdras 610)2 and solemnly pondered in view of the crisis. Its incorporation with the eschatological utterances of Jesus is due (a) to the probable existence of genuine eschatological sayings in the evangelic tradition, which received fresh accent and emphasis when the crisis of 65-70 arrived; and (b) to the vivid zest for apocalyptic ideas which gained more and more foothold in the Palestinian circles of early Christianity, especially during these years of crisis. It is quite a precritical idea to confuse this position with the dogmatic assumption (omne vaticinium ex eventu) that Jesus could not have foreseen the course of events beyond his own lifetime. The point is, that whatever he could have uttered, it is in the highest degree unreasonable to attribute to him this programme of events and ideas, many of which were not even upon the horizon in the third decade of the first century (notice even Paul's references, some nineteen or twenty years later, 1 Th 413-18). Unless historical criticism is to be deliberately abandoned, the only method of reaching back to the genuine eschatological logia of Jesus is to strip away

1 Though even Haupt is forced to admit (p. 45) the possibility that alien words may have been attributed to Jesus in good faith, but erroneously; also, that later ideas of time and events have been worked into his words. Cp. Holtzmann, GGA (1895), p. 329 f. "So much of the Jerusalem discourse as is true apocalypse represents the belief of the early church; so much of it as is simple prophecy of suffering ending in victory speaks to us from the heart of Jesus himself" (Cary). But it is doubtful whether these two elements can still be disentangled with much certainty. [N. Schmidt (Journ. Bibl. Lit. 1900, p. 22) dates the apocalypse too late.] 2 Cheyne aptly compares Dante, Inf. 961-63 ̧

"O you that have a sane intelligence,

Look ye unto the doctrine which herein

Conceals itself 'neath the strange verses' veil" (W. M. Rossetti). There is no need to attribute the words in Matthew to Jesus, in Mark to the evangelist (IH, i. p. 276).