The Gospel of Mark step-by-step

[patrick457]

18: And John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, and they came and said to Him: “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not?”

And Jesus said to them: "*Can the sons of the bridechamber fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.

No one sews a piece of unshrunken cloth on an old cloak; otherwise its fullness pulls away from it, the new from the old, and the tear gets worse! And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well. But one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.*"

Fasting: While there are certain days in a given year where all Jews in general would fast (such as the New Year or Yom Kippur), some people fasted regularly week by week. We learn from this passage that regular fasting was the practice of John’s disciples (5:33). The Prophetess Anna fasted regularly (Luke 2:37), as did Cornelius the Centurion (Acts 10:30 in some texts). Paul, too, may have practiced regular fasting, though this isn’t entirely clear (2 Corinthians 6:5; 11:27), The Pharisees also practiced regular fasting (Matthew 6:16-18). They fasted twice a week, on Mondays and Thursdays (Luke 18:12).

Can the sons of the bridechamber (Yioi tou nymphonos) fast while the bridegroom is with them: In rabbinic fashion, Jesus responds to the challenge with another question. This provides the second typical element of the pronouncement story: a superior question or argument. The grammatical form of the question (which begins with the particle me) signifies the expectation of a negative answer. The disciples are here implicitly compared to wedding guests who are enjoying the presence of the bridegroom.

In addition to identifying the time of His presence as a wedding feast, verse 19, especially in light of verse 20, implicitly describes Jesus Himself as the bridegroom of the feast. What does this mean for the audience? The audience may have been familiar with the Old Testament depictions of God as the bridegroom of his people (cf. Isaiah 61:10, 62:4-5; Ezek. 16; Hosea 1-3); it is unclear, however, whether the Judaism of Jesus’ time understood the term “bridegroom” itself to have directly Messianic significance. Such an identification has no direct evidence to support it. However, the audience, already aware that Jesus is the Christ (1:1) and the beloved Son of God (1:11), will realize that in the person of Jesus, God is present to His people in an unprecedented way.

In weddings in Jesus’ day, the bridegroom and his family were expected to put on the celebration (John 2:9-10), and banquets are held in the groom’s house.

First, the groom and his friend would go to the bride’s home to fetch her and her attendants, friends and relatives, and the couple would lead them in a procession to the groom’s house (cf. Matt. 25:1-13) where the celebration (a huge banquet) would take place. The procession was usually done at night, so that those busy in the day might attend, and that, in accordance with the oriental love of scenic effects, the weird panorama of lights and torches might play an engaging and kindling part.

Hospitality was here especially a sacred duty, and, of course, greatly ministered to the joy of the occasion. An oriental proverb is significant of the store set by it:

“He who does not invite me to his marriage
Will not have me to his funeral.”

Though the marital consummation would take place that night in a chamber on which stood the bridal bed with a canopy, the party might go on for as long as a week with friends and family who had traveled some distance to attend (there were obviously no cars nor trains), as refusing an invitation to a marriage is considered a grave insult.

But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them: Jesus now changes the scenery by introducing a note of suspense and sorrow. Since normally the guests, rather than the bridegroom, would depart from the wedding feast, the statement that the bridegroom will depart, and in fact be “taken away” is shocking and surprising to the audience, which has just been told about the joy of the wedding guests in the presence of the bridegroom.

The verb “taken away” (aparthe), while in itself not implying a violent death, echoes the use of the same verb in Isaiah 53:8 to speak of the Suffering Servant: “By oppression and judgment he was taken away (erthe)*…he was cut off *(airetai) from the land of the living.” The audience is thus startled in the midst of the joy of the wedding feast to hear already a prediction by Jesus of His violent death.

No one sews a piece of unshrunken cloth on an old cloak: The cloak (also translated as garment or robe) mentioned is a himation, a sort of outer garment (usually made of wool, with rich men having ones of silk or linen) worn over the tunic, which was wrapped around the body as a sort of protection against the weather. At nighttime people usually used these cloaks as blankets/bedcovers. Jesus here states a well-known fact: No one patches a tear in an old himation with an unshrunk cloth, since if that patch starts to shrink, the tear will eventually just get worse.

The cloak, while an everyday object, also has a symbolic significance. In various religious traditions, the cosmos is compared to a garment (cf. Psalm 102:26). By comparing his mission to a new piece of cloth which cannot be patched on an old garment, Jesus is subtly indicating to the audience that His presence brings a new creation, and cannot be accommodated to the worn-out categories of the old order and of the Jewish religious authorities.

New wine into old wineskins: Wine was made by treading barefoot on the grapes in a wine press, a square or circular pit hewn out of the rock 2 to 3 feet deep, or dug out and lined with rocks and sealed with plaster. The juice then flowed through a channel into a lower vessel, a winevat which functioned as a collecting and fermenting container for the grape juice or must.

http://israel.biblicalstudies.info/winepress_neot_kedumim.jpg
A wine press hewn out of the rock in Neot Kedumim.

In the warm climate of Palestine, grape juice began to ferment very quickly and strongly (frequently on the same day for juice pressed out in the morning, but never later than the next day) and there was no easy way to prevent fermentation (thus it is quite improbable that Jesus drank simple ‘grape juice’). After the first state of fermentation had taken place in the winevat, the wine was separated from the lees (that is, sediment of dead yeast, tartar crystals, small fragments of grape skins, etc.) and strained through a sieve or piece of cloth. After four to six days it was poured into clay jars lined with pitch (amphorae) or animal skins for storage and further fermentation.

At the end of 40 days it was regarded as properly “wine” and could be offered as a drink offering. The practice after this point seems to have varied, no doubt depending on the sort of wine that was being made. Certain kinds were left undisturbed to age “on their lees” and were thought to be all the better for so doing, but before they were used it was necessary to strain them very carefully.

The superiority of old wine to new was acknowledged by the Jews, in common with the rest of the world, but in the wines of Palestine acetous fermentation, changing the wine into vinegar, was likely to occur at any time due to the climate. Three years was about the longest time for which such wines could be kept, and “old wine” meant only wines that had been, stored for a year or more.

http://historicconnections.webs.com/Amphora3.jpg
An amphora.

Wineskins were made of whole tanned goatskins (sheep, ox or camel skins are not unknown, however) where the legs and tail were cut off and had been sealed, with nubbins bulging out where the legs once were, the neck tied off where the wine has been poured in. The whole large skin bulged almost to bursting as the carbon dioxide gas generated by the fermentation process stretches it to its limit. Fermentation in the wineskin might continue for another two to four months until the process slows down and stops. By that time the skin has been stretched to its limit. The alcohol is probably about 12%, and the collagen protein that gives the leather its stretching ability has been stretched out, and probably denatured by the alcohol, destroying its natural resiliency. The skin’s ability to contract and stretch again has been lost.

The wine will burst the skins…One puts new wine into fresh wineskins: One could not put newly-created wine into old wineskins as the gas pressure from the fermentation would be great that the formerly-inflexible old skin would rupture, and the new wine would gush out onto the ground and become wasted.

COMMENTARIES:

1.) Commentary by St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Oration 30, 10):

Can the Children of the Bridechamber fast while the Bridegroom is with them; whether He be considered as visible in bodily form (for the time of His sojourning among us was not one of mourning, but of gladness), or, as the Word. For why should they keep a bodily fast who are cleansed by the Word?

2.) Commentary by St. John Chrysostom (Homily 16 On the Statues):

I have heard the Lord saying, No man puts a piece of new cloth into an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up takes from the garment, and the rent is made worse. Neither do men put new wine into old wine-skins; else the wine-skins burst. The souls of some are like an old garment: an old wine-skin. It is not renewed by the faith, nor renovated by the grace of the Spirit. It is yet weak and earthly. It affects the things of this life. It flutters eagerly after worldly show. It loves a glory that is present. Should a soul hear at once, even from the first, that if he becomes a Christian he will become immediately a prisoner, and will be encompassed with a chain; feeling ashamed and indignant, he will recoil from the word preached.

3.) Commentary by Tertullian (On Prayer 1):

The Spirit of God, and the Word of God, and the Reason of God— Word of Reason, and Reason and Spirit of Word— Jesus Christ our Lord, namely, who is both the one and the other, — has determined for us, the disciples of the New Testament, a new form of prayer; for in this particular also it was needful that new wine should be laid up in new skins, and a new breadth be sewn to a new garment. Besides, whatever had been in bygone days, has either been quite changed, as circumcision; or else supplemented, as the rest of the Law; or else fulfilled, as Prophecy; or else perfected, as faith itself. For the new grace of God has renewed all things from carnal unto spiritual, by superinducing the Gospel, the obliterator of the whole ancient bygone system; in which our Lord Jesus Christ has been approved as the Spirit of God, and the Word of God, and the Reason of God: the Spirit, by which He was mighty; the Word, by which He taught; the Reason, by which He came.

 

[patrick457]

23-28: And it happened that He was going on the Sabbath through the grainfields, and His disciples began, as they made their way, to pluck the heads of grain. And the Pharisees said to Him: “Look! Why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

And He said to them: “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry–he, and those who were with him? How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which it is not lawful but for the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”

And He said to them: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

http://www.pattybrdarphoto.com/ISRAEL/1018WheatFieldGalileeLarge.jpg
A wheat field in Galilee.

Parallels in other Gospels: Matthew 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5.

OVERVIEW

Following the format of the former pericope, Jesus and His disciples are here again questioned by the Pharisees on a specific matter (here the question is ‘why are they picking grains on the Sabbath’), to which Jesus, in true rabbinic fashion, replies with another (superior) question.

DEFINITIONS

Grainfields: The land near the Sea of Galilee the perfect place to cultivate crops as it is flat, fertile and irrigated by the lake and the Jordan River. In fact, even today there are many fields of grain (such as wheat) in and around the area.

Pluck the heads of grain: While this act may seem a bit objectionable to us (especially if you’re the owner of the grainfield!), picking kernels of grain in somebody else’s field is permissible in Mosaic Law, as long as it is done by hand and not by implements, such as a sickle (Deuteronomy 23:25).

What is unlawful on the Sabbath: Jewish law (halakha) enumerates 39 melakhot, all of which are forbidden to do on the Sabbath. These were: (1) sowing, (2) ploughing, (3) reaping, (4) binding sheaves, (5) threshing, (6) winnowing, (7) sifting (selecting), (8) grinding, (9) sifting in a seive, (10) kneading, (11) baking; (12) shearing the wool, (13) washing it, (14) beating it, (15) dyeing it, (16) spinning, (17) putting it on the weaver’s beam, (18) making two thrum threads, (19) weaving two threads, (20) separating two threads, (21) making a knot, (22) undoing a knot, (23) sewing two stitches, (24) tearing in order to sew two stitches; (25) catching deer, (26) killing, (27) skinning, (28) salting it, (29) preparing its skin, (30) scraping off its hair, (31) cutting it up, (32) writing two letters, (33) scraping in order to write two letters; (34) building, (35) pulling down, (36) extinguishing fire, (37) lighting fire, (38) beating with the hammer, and (39) carrying from one possession into the other. Each of these thirty-nine principal prohibitions contained within itself numerous related items that were banned on the Sabbath day.

The 39 principal works have been arranged in four groups: the first (1-11) referring to the preparation of bread; the second (12-24) all connected with dress; the third (25-33) all connected with writing; and the last (34-39) to all the work necessary for a private house.

Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), in his work The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (originally published 1883), says that:

…If a woman were to roll wheat to take away the husks, she would be guilty of sifting with a sieve. If she were rubbing the ends of the stalks, she would be guilty of threshing. If she were cleansing what adheres to the side of a stalk, she would be guilty of sifting. If she were bruising the stalk, she would be guilty of grinding. If she were throwing it up in her hands, she would be guilty of winnowing…

Even today, Orthodox Jews (and perhaps many Conservative ones) hold to the concept of the 39 melakhot that on the Sabbath that a non-Jew (designated as the “Shabbat goy”) usually assists Jews in these days by performing tasks which would be beneficial for Jews but would be forbidden for them to perform (for example, before the 20th century, Shabbat goyim commonly lit (or re-lit) stoves in Jewish homes in the winter).

Have you never read what David did: cf. 1 Samuel 21:1-9.

Abiathar was high priest: Out of the Synoptics, only Mark names the high priest (Matthew and Luke omit any mention of him). According to 1 Samuel however, the high priest at the time is Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father; the latter is not introduced into the narrative for another chapter (1 Sam. 22:20).

What possible avenues for a solution do we have for this so-called “Abiathar problem?” The five leading contenders are as follows (follow the link for a more in-depth discussion of these):

1.) The text is wrong and needs to be emended;
2.) Jesus is wrong (or intentionally midrashic) or had embellished the story and this needs to be adjusted to;
3.) Mark’s source (Peter?) is wrong (or intentionally midrashic);
4.) Mark is wrong (or intentionally midrashic);
5.) Our interpretation of the passage in question is wrong and needs to altered.

Consecrated bread: (Hebrew: לחם פנים lechem (hap)pānīm, literally: “Bread of the Presence”, also “Showbread”, “Shewbread”; Greek “Artous tis protheseōs”) This refers to the cakes or loaves of bread which were always present on a specially dedicated table, in both the Tabernacle, and after that, the Temple in Jerusalem as an offering to God (Exodus 25:30).

Lord of the Sabbath: If Jesus, the very Lord of the Sabbath, was not offended by His disciple’s actions, then these sideline critics should not have been either.

COMMENTARIES

1.) Commentary by St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, III 40):

Objection 3: He who consents to anything is of the same mind as he who does it, according to Romans 1:32: “Not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” But Christ, by excusing His disciples, consented to their breaking the Law by plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath; as is related. Therefore it seems that Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law.

Reply to Objection 3: The disciples, when, being hungry, they plucked the ears of corn on the Sabbath, are to be excused from transgressing the Law, since they were pressed by hunger: just as David did not transgress the Law when, through being compelled by hunger, he ate the loaves which it was not lawful for him to eat.

2.) From the Haydock Commentary:

When he had need. In necessity many things are done without sin, which in other circumstances it would be unlawful to do. (Bristow)

Under Abiathar. The priest from whom David had these loaves, is called Achimelech, 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 21. The most probable answer to this difficulty is, that the priest had both these names of Achimelech and of Abiathar, as also his father had before him. For he that (1 Kings [1 Samuel] 22) is called Abiathar, the son of Achimelech, is called 2 Kings (2 Samuel) 8:17, Achimelech, the son of Abiathar. See also 1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 18:16. (Witham)

Others say that Abiathar, son of Achimelech, was present, and sanctioned the deed of his father, thus making it his own. (Denis the Carthusian)

Ver. 28: The Maker of the law may abrogate or dispense with it when and where, for just cause, it seems good to him: thus the Church can dispense with, change, or abrogate, for just reasons, the discipline of the Church founded upon Church authority. This we prove also from the action of David, (ver. 26, above) which the Scripture notices without blaming it, because the observance of the law, prescribed for the utility of man, must yield to the necessities of man.

3.) Commentary by St. Augustine (Against the Apollinarians, Question 80):

It is foolish to believe the evangelist’s account that He ate and not to believe that He was really hungry. Yet it does not follow that everyone who eats is hungry. For we read that even an Angel ate (Genesis 18:8), but we do not read that he was hungry. Nor does it follow that everyone who is hungry eats. He may either restrain himself due to some obligation or lack food or the means to eat…Now, just as the fact that Jesus ate food is unintelligible without a body, so the fact that He felt hunger is impossible without a soul.

 

[patrick457]

3:1-6: And He entered again into the synagogue, and there was a man there who had a withered hand. And they watched Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him.

And He said to the man who had the withered hand: “Stand up here in front.” And He said to them: “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. And when He had looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man: “Stretch out your hand!” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

And the Pharisees went out and immediately took counsel with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.

*http://home.halden.net/vibeke/tissot/203.jpg
Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?

Parallels in other Gospels: Matthew 12:9-13; Luke 6:6-10.

OVERVIEW*

After going back to the synagogue at Capharnaum, Jesus encounters a man with a withered hand/arm (the Greek word cheir can mean both). Meanwhile the Pharisees still observe Jesus if He will break (in their opinion) more Sabbath laws.

DEFINITIONS

Again: This indicates that this is the same synagogue as the one in 1:21-28.

That they might accuse Him: The Sabbath conflicts are quite difficult to evaluate. Jesus Himself observed the Sabbath (as evidenced by Him going into the synagogue, which Luke in his Gospel explicitly mentions), never broke any regulations found in the Torah, and used pharisaic methods of argument to back up His (and His disciples’) deeds.

One should also note that by Jesus’ time, pharisaic tradition(s) were diverse and still developing; perhaps we can assume that these Pharisees did not subscribe to how Jesus interpreted the Law (which in their opinion may have been too ‘lax’), and thus their opposition to Him.

Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil: Jesus here invokes an exception to the Sabbath prohibitions.

We should at first note that contrary to modern-day popular opinion, the Pharisees were not the strictest of the Jewish parties. Their intent was to interpret the law so that it could be obeyed by ordinary persons under the conditions of daily existence; however, they were strict in one important aspect: handing out the death penalty to those who intentionally violate the Sabbath.

Summarizing the pharisaic view on the Sabbath would be difficult, as the tradition is not monolithic (Pharisees at times disagreed with each other on specific matters); generally, however, they attempted to define precisely what could be done and what could not be done during a Sabbath day.

The pharisaic halakhah tended to be more humane and easier to obey than that of a cloistered community such as Qumran, as attested by the ‘loopholes’ allowed on some of the more incovenient Sabbath laws and the exceptions to the rule. For example, circumcisions could be practiced during the Sabbath and the rules themselves could be disobeyed if one’s life is in danger.

The Pharisaic tradition only allowed healing in cases where the patient’s life is in danger; Jesus’ question effectively broadened this principle by permitting the doing of any good act on the Sabbath. In the version found in Matthew (12:11ff), Jesus uses a typical rabbinic argument “from lesser to greater”: if a sheep can be rescued from a pit on the Sabbath (which some authorities do allow), how much more would it be lawful to do good to human beings.

Herodians: A sect or party mentioned in the New Testament as having on two occasions–once in Galilee, and again in Jerusalem–manifested an unfriendly disposition towards Jesus. In each of these cases their name is coupled with that of the Pharisees. According to many interpreters the courtiers or soldiers of Herod Antipas (“Milites Herodis,” Jerome) are intended; but more probably the Herodians were a public political party, who distinguished themselves from the two great historical parties of post-exilic Judaism (the Pharisees and Sadducees) by the fact that they were and had been sincerely friendly to Herod the Great, the King of the Jews, and to his dynasty (cf. such formations as “Caesariani” or “Pompeiani”). Presumably their interests here would have been secular rather than religious; so if they were to bother with someone like Jesus, it would be for the sake of maintaining public order. These Herodians are only mentioned twice in Mark and once in Matthew — never at all in Luke or John.

One could notice that the reaction of a substantial number of Jews has gone from being amazed to one of outright opposition. Mark has already begun to foreshadow Jesus’ death, with this as well as the saying about the bridegroom and fasting in Mark 2:19-20. Some find it improbable these two groups worked together, as the Pharisees opposed Rome and Herod was backed by and supported Rome; Mark however may have been highlighting the dual nature and seriousness of the opposition to Jesus.

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 1. He entered again into the synagogue, viz. of Capharnaum. The man was there either, of course, on account of the Sabbath, or to be cured by Jesus Christ.

Ver. 4. A difficulty here arises, how to reconcile St. Mark with St. Matthew. St. Mark puts the words into the mouth of Jesus Christ: Is it lawful? When St. Matthew says, that they interrogated Him: Is it lawful? To cut the knot of this apparent difficulty, we must understand that they first put the question to our Lord, whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day or not: and that Jesus understanding their secret thoughts, that they wished to have some grounds of accusation against him, placed the sick man in the midst of them, and said what St. Mark here relates of him: Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath-day, or to do evil? (St. Augustine)

2.) Commentary by St. Athanasius (Apologia de Fuga 12):

Wherefore also the Word Himself, being made man for our sakes, condescended to hide Himself when He was sought after, as we do: and also when He was persecuted, to flee and avoid the designs of His enemies. For it became Him, as by hunger and thirst and suffering, so also by hiding Himself and fleeing, to show that He had taken our flesh, and was made man…When He was showing Himself to be God, and made whole the withered hand, the Pharisees went out, and held a council against Him, how they might destroy Him; but when Jesus knew it, He withdrew Himself from thence.

3.) Commentary by St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew 40, 1):

Again He heals on a Sabbath day, vindicating what had been done by His disciples. And the other evangelists indeed say, that He set the man in the midst, and asked them if it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath days.

See the tender bowels of the Lord. He set him in the midst, that by the sight He might subdue them; that overcome by the spectacle they might cast away their wickedness, and out of a kind of shame towards the man, cease from their savage ways. But they, ungentle and inhuman, choose rather to hurt the fame of Christ, than to see this person made whole: in both ways betraying their wickedness; by their warring against Christ, and by their doing so with such contentiousness, as even to treat with despite His mercies to other men.

4.) Commentary by St. Augustine (The City of God 14, 9):

If these emotions and affections, arising as they do from the love of what is good and from a holy charity, are to be called vices, then let us allow these emotions which are truly vices to pass under the name of virtues. But since these affections, when they are exercised in a becoming way, follow the guidance of right reason, who will dare to say that they are diseases or vicious passions? Wherefore even the Lord Himself, when He condescended to lead a human life in the form of a slave, had no sin whatever, and yet exercised these emotions where He judged they should be exercised. For as there was in Him a true human body and a true human soul, so was there also a true human emotion. When, therefore, we read in the Gospel that the hard-heartedness of the Jews moved Him to sorrowful indignation, that He said, “I am glad for your sakes, to the intent ye may believe,” that when about to raise Lazarus He even shed tears, that He earnestly desired to eat the passover with His disciples, that as His passion drew near His soul was sorrowful, these emotions are certainly not falsely ascribed to Him. But as He became man when it pleased Him, so, in the grace of His definite purpose, when it pleased Him He experienced those emotions in His human soul.

 

[patrick457]

By the way, does anybody have any suggestion for this thread?

Also, up to here, I’ve been using a rather literal ‘translation’ (actually a composite from various translations, which were then compared with the Greek) from Mark, which explains the omnipresent "And"s; should I leave it as it is or should the text be rendered in a more dynamic manner?

 

[Angelos]

Could we discuss the sections that are peculiar to Mark (the verses that distinguish Mark’s Gospel from the others at the first sight)?

 

[patrick457]

Could we discuss the sections that are peculiar to Mark (the verses that distinguish Mark’s Gospel from the others at the first sight)?

Could you please elaborate a bit?

 

[Angelos]

Could you please elaborate a bit?

Sure.

When I hear the beatitudes recited from the NT, I know for sure that the lecture is from the Gospel of Matthew. When I hear the narrative of Jesus’ presentation in the Temple, I figure out that the reading is from the Gospel of Luke.

I want to list and discuss the accounts that exclusively belong to Mark and his distinct writing style.

(Reference to Abiathar’s being the high priest is a good example)

 

[patrick457]

Splendid Idea.
Who’s going to do it, though?
If you’re going to do it, can I suggest that the ‘list’ be broken into a series of posts by chapter or by pericope; that way, you could post more comprehensively about them.

 

[Angelos]

Splendid Idea.
Who’s going to do it, though?
If you’re going to do it, can I suggest that the ‘list’ be broken into a series of posts by chapter or by pericope; that way, you could post more comprehensively about them.

Since this thread belongs to you, I shall definitely need your permission and help to post the parts that occur only in Mark’s Gospel. I also want that we discuss the elements and notions peculiar to Mark and compare Mark’s style to that of the other Evangelists

I shall try to post the first item tonight

 

[patrick457]

7-12: And Jesus withdrew to the sea with His disciples; and a great multitude followed Him from Galilee; and also from Judea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and beyond the Jordan, and from the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, hearing what great things He did, came to Him.

And He told His disciples to have a little boat ready for Him because of the crowd, lest they crush Him; for He had healed many, so that all those who had diseases pressed around Him to touch Him.

And unclean spirits, whenever they saw Him, fell down before Him and cried out: “You are the Son of God!” And He sternly warned them that they should not make Him known.

Parallels in other Gospels: Matthew 4:24-25; Luke 6:17-19.

OVERVIEW:

Jesus withdraws to the sea of Galilee with His disciples (perhaps due to the threat of the Pharisees and Herodians plotting to kill Him); however, even there they are still overwhelmed with crowds, some of which had come from distant locales.

DEFINITIONS:

Idumea (Greek Idoumaia): The Greek name of the nation of Edom. The nation of Edom is known to have existed back to the 8th or 9th century BC, and the Bible dates it back several centuries further. Recent archaeological evidence may indicate an Edomite nation as long ago as the 11th century BC, but the topic is controversial. It is mentioned in Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions in the form “Udumi” or “Udumu”; three of its kings are known from the same source: Kaus-malaka (meaning ‘[the god] Kaus is king’ or ‘Kaus rules’) at the time of Tiglath-pileser III (c. 745 BC), Malik-rammu at the time of Sennacherib (c. 705 BC), and Kaus-gabri (‘Kaus is mighty’) at the time of Esarhaddon (c. 680 BC).

According to Egyptian inscriptions, the “Aduma” at times extended their possessions to the borders of Egypt. After the conquest of Judah by the Babylonians, the Edomites were allowed to settle in the region south of Hebron. They prospered in this new country, called by the Greeks and Romans “Idumaea” or “Idumea”, for more than four centuries.

Strabo, writing around the time of Christ, held that the Idumaeans, whom he identified as of Nabataean origin, constituted the majority of the population of Western Judea, where they commingled with the Judeans and adopted their customs.

1 and 2 Maccabees refers to a Seleucid general named [Gorgias](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgias_(Syrian_general) as “Governor of Idumaea”; whether he was a Greek or a Hellenized Edomite is unknown. Some scholars maintain that the reference to Idumaea in that passage is an error altogether (Josephus, for example gives his governorship as being in Jamnia). Judas Maccabeus conquered their territory for a time in around 163 BC. They were again subdued by John Hyrcanus (c. 125 BC), who forced them to observe Jewish rites and laws. They were then incorporated with the Jewish nation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lestine.gif/300px-First_century_palestine.gif

The Hasmonean official Antipater the Idumaean was of Edomite origin. He was the progenitor of the Herodian Dynasty that ruled Judea after the Roman conquest. Under Herod the Great (Antipater’s second son) Idumaea was ruled for him by a series of governors, among whom were his younger brother Joseph and his brother-in-law Costobarus.

After the Jewish Wars the Idumaean people are no longer mentioned in history, though the geographical region of “Idumea” is still referred to at the time of St. Jerome (4th-5th century).

Beyond the Jordan: While Mark does not mention any specific locale, some think that he had the region of Perea (Greek for “[the country] beyond”) in mind here. Perea (or Peraea; see map above) is located on the western shore of the Jordan River and the eastern side of the Jordan River valley, from about one third the way down from the Sea of Galilee to about one third the way down the eastern shore of the Dead Sea; it did not extend too far inland. Perea was mostly Jewish and part of the tetrarchy controlled by Herod Antipas. It later passed to Herod Agrippa II, but eventually it was absorbed into the province of Syria.

Tyre and Sidon: Tyre (‘rock’) is an ancient Phoenician city. It was founded around 2750 BC according to Herodotus and it appears on monuments as early as 1300 BC. Philo of Byblos (in Eusebius) quotes the antiquarian authority Sanchuniathon as stating that it was first occupied by one Hypsuranius. Sanchuniathon’s work is said to be dedicated to “Abibalus king of Berytus” – possibly the Abibaal who was king of Tyre.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7834/tyrealminacollonnadedstci5.jpg
The ruins of a colonnaded street in modern-day Tyre.

The city originally consisted of two distinct urban centers, one on an island and the other on the adjacent coast, before Alexander the Great connected the island to the coast during his siege of the city. One was a heavily fortified island city amidst the sea (with defensive walls 150 feet high and the latter, originally called Ushu (later, Palaetyrus, by the Greeks) was actually more like a line of suburbs than any one city and was used primarily as a source of water and timber for the main island city.

The commerce of the ancient world was gathered into the warehouses of Tyre; its merchants were the first to navigate the Mediterranean waters and to found colonies in various places (as far as Spain). The city was particularly known for the production of a rare and extraordinarily expensive sort of purple dye, produced from the murex shellfish, known as Tyrian purple. This color was, in many cultures of ancient times, reserved for the use of royalty, or at least nobility.

Sidon (‘a fishery’), meanwhile was one of the most important Phoenician cities, and may have been the oldest (it was inhabited since 4000 BC and perhaps even as early as Neolithic times). From here, and other ports, a great Mediterranean commercial empire was founded. Homer praised the skill of its craftsmen in producing glass (Sidon’s most important enterprise in the Phoenician era) and purple dyes. It was also from here that a colonizing party went to found the city of Tyre. Tyre also grew into a great city, and in subsequent years there was competition between the two, each claiming to be the metropolis (‘Mother City’) of Phoenicia.

This city (usually along with Tyre) was frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, with the book of Judges describing Sidon as Tyre’s ‘mother city’.

By reporting that crowds from far-flung places such as Perea or Tyre or even Idumea came to see and hear Jesus, Mark seems to emphasize that reports about Jesus has spread fast ‘across the land’, which is plausible when one considers that ancient cultures are an ‘oral-based’ culture (given the low literacy rates), where the written word is only considered secondary and a supplement to the spoken one.

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9241/sidonviewofoldcitytm2.jpg
A view of the Old City in Sidon.

"You are the Son of God!"…And He sternly charged them: cf. Mark 2:23-26; 33-34. This is the third time Mark mentions unclean spirits attempting to name Jesus’ true identity, with Him silencing them.

COMMENTARIES:

1.) Commentary by St. Augustine (Letter to Sixtus):

Unless the Holy Spirit dwells in the clean house after the remission of sins, does not the unclean spirit return with seven other spirits and will the last state of that man not be worse than the first? And in order that the Holy Spirit may dwell there, does He not breathe where He will, and is not the charity of God, without which no one lives a good life, ‘poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us’? This is the faith which the Apostle defined when he said: ‘For neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by charity.’

And that is obviously the faith of Christians, not of demons. ‘For the devils also believe and tremble,’ but do they love? If they had not believed, they would not have said: ‘Thou art the holy one of God’ or ‘Thou art the Son of God,’ but if they had loved, they would not have said: ‘What have we to do with thee?’

2.) Another Commentary by St. Augustine (On the Psalms 50, 2):

We have heard who are the gods that being made are justified, because they are called the sons of God: and who are the gods that are not Gods, to whom the God of gods is terrible? For another Psalm says, “He is terrible over all gods.” And as if you should enquire, what gods? He says, “For all the gods of the nations are devils.” To the gods of the nations, to the devils, terrible: to the gods made by Himself, to sons, lovely.

Furthermore, I find both of them confessing the Majesty of God, both the devils confessed Christ, and the faithful confessed Christ. “You are Christ, the Son of the living God,” said Peter. “We know who You are, You are the Son of God,” said the devils. A similar confession I hear, but similar love I find not; nay even here love, there fear. To whom therefore He is lovely, the same are sons; to whom He is terrible, are not sons; to whom He is lovely, the same He has made gods; those to whom He is terrible He does prove not to be gods. For these are made gods, those are reputed gods; these Truth makes gods, those error does so account.

 

[patrick457]

Since this thread belongs to you, I shall definitely need your permission and help to post the parts that occur only in Mark’s Gospel. I also want that we discuss the elements and notions peculiar to Mark and compare Mark’s style to that of the other Evangelists

I shall try to post the first item tonight

As the OP of this thread (I’m starting to not like thinking about a thread as ‘belonging’ to someone as though it is one’s property; while certain individual rights need to be respected, a thread IMHO belongs to anyone else as much as the opener), you have my permission.

Since I have covered chapters 1-2 and part of 3 here, you’ll need quite a bit of catching-up to do.

 

[Angelos]

As the OP of this thread (I’m starting to not like thinking about a thread as ‘belonging’ to someone as though it is one’s property; while certain individual rights need to be respected, a thread IMHO belongs to anyone else as much as the opener), you have my permission.

Since I have covered chapters 1-2 and part of 3 here, you’ll need quite a bit of catching-up to do.

I guess it is a bit early for you to say this

Below I am posting the first example to let you know what I mean. If you think this sort of a study is not a good idea or does not belong in here (your project), please tell me quickly. I do not want to be imposing.

Peace

 

[Angelos]

EXCLUSIVE ELEMENTS OF MARK’S GOSPEL & WRITING STYLE

The way Mark quotes the prophecy from Isaiah while defining John the Baptist and his mission in the wilderness before Jesus’ baptism is unique:

Mark 1:2-3 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet:

[INDENT]Behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare the way before thee.
 A voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare ye the way of the Lord; make straight his paths.

[/INDENT]

This full quotation attributed by Mark to prophet Isaiah does not only help one note it as a detail peculiar to the evangelist, but also leads many to question the source Mark used for his first prophecy adopted from the Old Testament. The ascription of a prophecy taken from prophet Malachi (3:1) to Isaiah turns into a controversial issue between those that are eager to find mistakes in the Holy Scripture and thus debunk the theory of its infallibleness and those that adapt alternative readings or work out solutions in defense of the infallible word of God.

Some critics reading the first chapter of Mark’s Gospel blame Mark for mistakenly confusing two prophets as a result of his lack of theological knowledge. Christian scholars, on the other hand, regard this supposed mistake as a natural result of Mark’s deliberate efforts to combine two distinct but related prophecies about the Messiah’s precursor. The insertion of a certain prophecy of the OT into another one is neither unthinkable nor very common in the NT. If we focus on this combination of the two prophecies (Malachi and Isaiah) under one name (Isaiah) in Mark’s Gospel, the following questions arise:

a) Why does Mark combine these two prophecies at the expense of Malachi’s name? In other words, why does he prefer keeping Isaiah’s name in his text rather than Malachi’s while referring to the owner of those prophecies?

b) Does the way Mark quotes this prophecy have any theological reasons or is it only associated with his stylistic choice?

Any suggestions or answers?

 

[patrick457]

I guess it is a bit early for you to say this

Below I am posting the first example to let you know what I mean. If you think this sort of a study is not a good idea or does not belong in here (your project), please tell me quickly. I do not want to be imposing.

Peace

While it does seem that that needs a separate thread (I guess I spoke too early ), the concept and the writing style is very good.

If you will, I will give my personal answer to the question above:

Some critics reading the first chapter of Mark’s Gospel blame Mark for mistakenly confusing two prophets as a result of his lack of theological knowledge. Christian scholars, on the other hand, regard this supposed mistake as a natural result of Mark’s deliberate efforts to combine two distinct but related prophecies about the Messiah’s precursor. The insertion of a certain prophecy of the OT into another one is neither unthinkable nor very common in the NT. If we focus on this combination of the two prophecies (Malachi and Isaiah) under one name (Isaiah) in Mark’s Gospel, the following questions arise:

a) Why does Mark combine these two prophecies at the expense of Malachi’s name? In other words, why does he prefer keeping Isaiah’s name in his text rather than Malachi’s while referring to the owner of those prophecies?

b) Does the way Mark quotes this prophecy have any theological reasons or is it only associated with his stylistic choice?

It seems that Mark here follows an exegetical practice (attested in Rabbinic literature) in which two persons who have said quite similar things or led similar lives are conflated into one and the same person. The purpose of this collapsing down of identifies was to enact a principle of praising the righteous and pious, and honoring those due such praise.

Talmudic scholar Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes, in his work The Student’s Guide to the Talmud (originally published in Hebrew as Mevo ha-Talmud, “Introduction to the Talmud”) relates a practice of the rabbis of quoting various persons under one and the same name; they “adopted as one of their methods that of calling different personages by one and the same name if they found them akin in any feature of their characters or activities or if they found a similarity between any of their actions.” Thus, Malachi and Ezra are said to be the “same person” (Meg. 15a) because they both say similar things (cf. Malachi 2:2, Ezra 10:2). Rabbi Chajes gives examples of as many as three people being treated as one person because of such similarities.

Thus, when Mark conflated the two prophets together, he deliberately gave attribution to the one who is the most deserving of honor and praise (in this case, Isaiah).

It would seem that this ‘error’ was noticed by some pious scribes early on, who then amended the text to read ‘the prophets’ (the reading followed by the Byzantine textual type, the Textus Receptus, and the KJV).

 

[Angelos]

While it does seem that that needs a separate thread (I guess I spoke too early ), the concept and the writing style is very good.

This is what I expected to hear. This sort of a study must go to another thread because of the question-answer section. Thanks for giving your opinion

If you will, I will give my personal answer to the question above:

It seems that Mark here follows an exegetical practice (attested in Rabbinic literature) in which two persons who have said quite similar things or led similar lives are conflated into one and the same person. The purpose of this collapsing down of identifies was to enact a principle of praising the righteous and pious, and honoring those due such praise.

Talmudic scholar Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes, in his work The Student’s Guide to the Talmud (originally published in Hebrew as Mevo ha-Talmud, “Introduction to the Talmud”) relates a practice of the rabbis of quoting various persons under one and the same name; they “adopted as one of their methods that of calling different personages by one and the same name if they found them akin in any feature of their characters or activities or if they found a similarity between any of their actions.” Thus, Malachi and Ezra are said to be the “same person” (Meg. 15a) because they both say similar things (cf. Malachi 2:2, Ezra 10:2). Rabbi Chajes gives examples of as many as three people being treated as one person because of such similarities.

Thus, when Mark conflated the two prophets together, he deliberately gave attribution to the one who is the most deserving of honor and praise (in this case, Isaiah).

It would seem that this ‘error’ was noticed by some pious scribes early on, who then amended the text to read ‘the prophets’ (the reading followed by the Byzantine textual type, the Textus Receptus, and the KJV).

Thanks for the insight. Actually, I was unaware of such a literary technique employed by many writers and commentators in Judaism.

Here is how I generally answer the people asking me those questions.

Mark combined the prophecy in Malachi with that in Isaiah because both prophecies referred to the same person and his mission (John the Baptist). Your response also supports this view.

The reason why Mark chose to insert a verse in Malachi into Isaiah’s prophecy about the Messiah’s precursor was partially because he, unlike Matthew and Luke, did not narrate how Jesus gave testimony to John the Baptist when questioned by John’s disciples. To compare and contrast:

**Matthew 11:10 **
For this is he of whom it is written: Behold I send my angel before my face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.

Luke 7:27
This is he of whom it is written: Behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee

Interestingly, Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke refers to the prophecy in Malachi while identifying John the Baptist as His precursor and a great prophet. This prophecy, however, is introduced by Mark at the beginning of John’s prophetic ministry as a part of Isaiah’s text probably because Mark did not attribute this reference to Jesus Himself through a separate account as in Matthew and Luke.

More to the point, Mark did not deem it necessary to give the name of prophet Malachi in addition to prophet Isaiah in his Gospel because all of the four Evangelists (including John) gave the name of the same and one prophet (Isaiah) while highlighting the fulfillment of a certain prophecy through John the Baptist’s mission.

Consequently, Mark’s technique and style are relevant to the other accounts in his Gospel and harmonious with the narratives concerning John the Baptist’s mission in the other three Gospels.

 

[patrick457]

This is what I expected to hear. This sort of a study must go to another thread because of the question-answer section. Thanks for giving your opinion

You’re welcome. And, sorry for the incovenience.

Thanks for the insight. Actually, I was unaware of such a literary technique employed by many writers and commentators in Judaism.

I myself never knew of such until recently. By the way, I was thinking that perhaps this literary device also explains Matthew 27:9-10, where the narrator attributes a (rather loose) quote of Zechariah to Jeremiah?

Here is how I generally answer the people asking me those questions.

Mark combined the prophecy in Malachi with that in Isaiah because both prophecies referred to the same person and his mission (John the Baptist). Your response also supports this view.

The reason why Mark chose to insert a verse in Malachi into Isaiah’s prophecy about the Messiah’s precursor was partially because he, unlike Matthew and Luke, did not narrate how Jesus gave testimony to John the Baptist when questioned by John’s disciples. To compare and contrast:

**Matthew 11:10 **
For this is he of whom it is written: Behold I send my angel before my face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.

Luke 7:27
This is he of whom it is written: Behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee

Interestingly, Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew and Luke refers to the prophecy in Malachi while identifying John the Baptist as His precursor and a great prophet. This prophecy, however, is introduced by Mark at the beginning of John’s prophetic ministry as a part of Isaiah’s text probably because Mark did not attribute this reference to Jesus Himself through a separate account as in Matthew and Luke.

More to the point, Mark did not deem it necessary to give the name of prophet Malachi in addition to prophet Isaiah in his Gospel because all of the four Evangelists (including John) gave the name of the same and one prophet (Isaiah) while highlighting the fulfillment of a certain prophecy through John the Baptist’s mission.

Consequently, Mark’s technique and style are relevant to the other accounts in his Gospel and harmonious with the narratives concerning John the Baptist’s mission in the other three Gospels.

Very good explanation! Note that there’s also a trace of Exodus in Mark’s quote (Exodus 23:20a), where it is said: “Behold, I send an angel before your face, to keep you by the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.”

Notice that the phrasing in Greek is quite identical:

Septuagint Exodus: “Kai idou, egō apostellō ton aggelon mou pro prosōpou sou, ina phylaxē se en tē odō opōs eisagagē se eis tin gin ēn ētoimasa soi.”

English: “And, behold, I send my angel (messenger) before your face, that he may keep you in the way, that he may bring you into the land which I have prepared for you.”

Mark: “Idou, apostellō ton aggelon mou pro prosōpou sou, os kataskeuasei tin odon sou.”

English: “Behold, I send My messenger (angel) before your face, who will prepare your way before you…”

 

[Angelos]

Very good explanation! Note that there’s also a trace of Exodus in Mark’s quote (Exodus 23:20a), where it is said: “Behold, I send an angel before your face, to keep you by the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.”

Thanks for this precious piece of information.

 

[patrick457]

13-19a: And He went up into a mountain and called those whom He wanted, and they came to Him. And He made twelve [whom He also named *apostles] that they might be with Him, and that He might send them out to preach, and to have authority to cast out demons. [And He made the twelve:] and He gave to Simon the name Peter; and James the (son) of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and to them He gave the name Boanerges, that is, “sons of thunder”; and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the (son) of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him.

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/992/exhortatiorc6.png

DEFINITIONS

And He went up into a mountain: Perhaps no specific mountain is in view here, but rather a more general trek ‘into the hills’, so that Jesus could apparently escape the crowds and focus His attention to His chosen group. Some, however, identify this mountain as the Horns of Hattin (Arabic: Kurn Hattin), a double hill (actually an extinct volcano) that was famous as the place where Saladin defeated the Crusader army on 1187, bringing an end to the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Incidentally, this mountain was also identified as one of the possible locations of the Sermon on the Mount (however these hypotheses have fallen in recent decades since it lacked verisimilitude and due to recent archeological discoveries).

http://206.47.170.43/channels/images/horns453.jpg
The ‘Horns of Hattin’.

And He made: ‘Made’ (Greek poieo) is a Semitic idiom, also found in the Septuagint, which means ‘to appoint’ or ‘to constitute.’

Twelve: That they were all male may have been due to the sociologal climate of the time (as many societies at the time were patriarchal-based) or to some other purpose; however, we do see female followers and supporters of Jesus in later passages.

Aside from practical purposes (a group of twelve members is basically still quite small and manageable, and can still fit in a small fishing boat when the need arises), the number twelve may have been chosen for a symbolic purpose, as twelve is the number of the tribes of Israel.

Whom He also named apostles: While there are MSS which include this phrase (some of them early and important), others omit it entirely, and some have it in a different place, such as a 5th-century manuscript of the Gospels known as the Codex Washingtonianus. It should also be noted however that this particular Codex has a lot of unique features in it. It renders the above passage as thus:

And He made twelve disciples, that they might be with Him, whom He also named apostles, and that He might send them out to preach the Good News, and to have authority to cast out demons, and to travel around proclaiming the Good News.

And he gave to Simon the name Peter, and He gave to them the name Boanerges, that is, “sons of thunder”. Now there were these: Simon, and Andrew, James, and John, and Philip, and Martholomew (sic), and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the (son) of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him.

See here for a detailed discussion about this phrase.

That He might send them out to preach: Jesus now gives them roles, which are, in a sense, an extension of His own mission; indeed, they are to fulfill these missions only because Jesus had ‘sent them out’ for this purpose. They would not actually embark into exorcisms and preaching until later on (6:7), but would at first prepare themselves for the task by ‘being with’ Jesus as His travelling companions (as opposed to the crowds who come and go). Perhaps Mark is intending to show the role of the disciple here, in that their personal involvement with and training by the master is the prerequisite for the active ministry which follows.

Peter (Greek: Petros): In Aramaic and Syriac, the equivalent term is Kêphâ, meaning ‘rock’. In the Gospel of John, and in some of Paul’s Epistles, the Greek transliteration Kephas (with an -s suffix added to make the noun masculine), is used.

At that time, it was not really a name in current use (there are no known pre-Christian usages of the name in Greek, and there is only one instance of the Aramaic version being used as a name in antiquity), but was deliberately coined by Jesus as a ‘nickname’ of sorts; eventually, the man originally named Shimon bar-Yonah came to be known by this title. Mark does not elaborate any more on this name change, which suggests the circumstances around this were already well-known to Mark’s audience.

Jesus changing Simon’s name might have an echo in the Old Testament, where God acts in the same manner by changing the names of some OT figures (Abram=Abraham or Jacob=Israel come to mind).

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued

Boanerges: The (Palestinian) Aramaic or Hebrew equivalent for this is usually interpreted as B’nai regeš (‘Boane+rges’) or B’nai rogez, meaning “sons of anger” or “sons of commotion”. Rōgez means “agitation” or “anger” (in Job 37:2 the phrase Rōgez-qōlo refers to the “sound of thunder”), while regeš means “a crowd” or “commotion.”

However, some argue that the suffix ‘-rges’ is actually a misreading of Aramaic r’am (thunder), due to the similarity of samekh to the final mem. This is supported by one Syriac translation of the name as ‘bnay ra’mâ’. The Syriac Peshitta, meanwhile reads ‘bnay rğešy’ (sons of anger), based on a Byzantine reading of the original Greek.

Others have proposed that Mark may have originally written Boneregem (a more clearer transliteration of B’nai-r’am), which a copyist later changed to Boanerges under the influence of the Greek words boaō and ergon, thus making the latter mean “shout-workers” or “loud-voiced”. Some opt for a variation of this, which attributes the variation to a Greek copyist who misread the (in this theory) original Aramaic.

Cananean: While Matthew and Mark use this term, Luke (6:15) identifies Simon as a ‘Zealot’, and thus many modern translations choose to substitute Zealot for Cananean (or Canaanite).

Although Simon, like the majority of the apostles, was most likely a Galilean, the designation “Cananean” is regarded as of political rather than of geographical significance (indeed, the term is said to come from the Hebrew word qana or the Aramaic qan’ānā, meaning ‘the Zealous’).

Zealotry was a theocratic-nationalistic movement in 1st century Judaism, founded by Judas of Galilee (also called Judas of Gamala) and Zadok the Pharisee in 6 AD against Quirinius’ tax reform. Josephus mentions them as one of the four main parties in Second Temple period Judaism (the others being the Essenes, the Pharisees and the Sadducees) and records that they “agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord.” (18.1.6).

Their name, which in Hebrew is qanai (frequently used in plural form, qana’im), means one who is ‘zealous’ on behalf of God. The term derives from Greek zelōtēs, meaning “emulator, zealous admirer or follower.”

However, Simon being called a ‘Zealot’ is not really sufficient evidence that he is one; at the time of Jesus, the term still had a wider connotation than merely meaning the revolutionary movement described above. Simon may have been merely described as a ‘Zealot’ due to his religious ‘zeal’.

Iscariot: There are still ongoing debates over the meaning of the word Iscariot. Some advocate that the term originally referred to the Sicarii, a particularly violent (perhaps splinter) branch of Zealotry based in Galilee who used terroristic tactics, such as going to popular assemblies with small daggers hidden under their cloaks, stabbing Romans or those who symphatized with Roman rule to death, and finally disappearing into the crowd to avoid detection, to obtain their objective.

Others postulate that the word is from the Hebrew Ish-Kerioth, meaning “man of Kerioth” (a town in southern Judea).

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 13: He spent here the whole night in prayer, not that he who had all things to bestow, stood in need of prayer, or had any thing to ask; but to teach us that we must undertake nothing without previously recommending the affair to heaven, in humble and fervent prayer.

Ver. 14: The number twelve is mystical, as appeareth by choosing Mathias to full up the place of Judas: they are the twelve foundations, under Christ, of the heavenly Jerusalem (Apocalypse 21).

Ver. 15: He gave his apostles the power of curing maladies both of soul and body, and of expelling devils, that they might prove the truth of their doctrines by the authority of miracles. (Bible de Vence)

Ver. 16: The evangelist here gives the names of the twelve. First, Simon, to whom he gave the name of Peter, in Greek, Petron, which signifies a rock; thus shewing that upon him his Church should be founded, as on a rock, never to be overturned. (Tirinus)

Polus, in his Synopsis Criticorum on this verse says that some Greek copies have, Proton Simona, First, Simon, which he believes to be the genuine reading: “nec dubito quin haec sit germana lectio.”

Ver. 17: And he called James, etc. The words, he called, are no addition, as they only express the literal sense: they are included in what is said, ver. 13, that he called to him whom he would.

Boanerges, the sons of thunder, or thunderers, is only to express their great zeal. (Witham)

He gave also the two sons of Zebedee the name of Boanerges, (Boanerges) from the Syriac, Benairegesch; or the Hebrew, Beni, sons, regesch, thunder, noise or tumult. In conformity to their name, we find these two apostles asking Jesus, (Luke 9:54) ‘Wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, to consume them?’ They spread the fame of the gospel through the whole world. So great was the zeal of St. James, that he incurred the resentment of king Agrippa, and was the first of the apostles to seal the doctrines of Jesus Christ with his blood. St. John also fulfilled the import of his name, as appears form his gospel, epistles, apocalypse, and the sufferings he underwent at Rome for the faith. Sts. Peter, James, and John, were the only apostles to whom our Saviour gave particular names, a mark, perhaps, of his special affection for them. (Tirinus)

 

[patrick457]

19b-21: And He came into a house, and again (the) multitude came together so that they are not able even to eat bread; and when those from the side of Him heard it, they went out to seize Him, for they said: “He is beside Himself!”

DEFINITIONS
Those from the side of Him (Greek: Oi par 'autou): This idiom means ‘those who were on His side’ by birth (relatives) or by relation (followers or acquaintances). This is usually translated as relatives or family in other English Bibles due to the common use of this idiom in the Septuagint in that sense/s. Bernard Orchard’s A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1953) says that:

The usual interpretation is that relatives (or followers) of Christ, disturbed by reports, came out to take charge of him. The following points are to be noted.

(1) The phrase oi par autou does not necessarily mean relatives (friends). It has a wide usage which would include disciples, followers, members of a household. It is not certain that the persons designated by this phrase are the same as ‘his mother and brethren’. Even if they are, there is no reason for thinking that our Lady shared in the sentiments of the others, though she would naturally wish to be present when the welfare of her divine Son was in question.

(2) ‘For they said’, rather, 'For people were saying’. If this is correct, then 21b refers to reports which reached Christ’s friends, not to an expression of opinion by them.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Biblical Association’s A Commentary on the New Testament (1942) gives another interesting interpretation:

20f. These two verses are peculiar to Mark and their interpretation is very uncertain. One interpretation is that which is given in our translation (i,e., the Confraternity Version) and explained in the foot-note. This explanation presupposes that there is some connection between these verses and 31ff; but this is not certain.

They went out: from where? Hardly from Nazareth, which is not mentioned in the context. Moreover, His own people is a very dubious translation of the Greek which means literally “those by Him,” i.e., those who were with Him in the house. Finally, it is to be noted that the Greek word for crowd is masculine, singular; therefore the Him and He may just as well be translated as “it,” referring to the crowd.

Hence it is possible to translate 21 as follows: “But when they who were with Him (in the house) heard it, (i.e., the enthusiasm of the crowd outside), they went out (of the house) to lay hold of it (the crowd, to keep it in check), for they said, ‘It (the crowd) has gone mad.’” This is the interpretation of the group of ancient MSS [manuscripts] known as the “Western Family” of MSS.

He is beside Himself: In modern-day parlance, “He is out of his head” or “He has gone loony.” The same charge was also brought against Paul (cf. Acts 26:24; 2 Corinthians 5:13).

COMMENTARIES:

1.) Commentary by a 7th-century abbot (the very first formal Commentary on Mark):

It continues: And they came home, etc., as far as he is out of his mind.

Mark is the only one to tell the story of Jesus coming home with his disciples. He records that again crowds gathered so that they could not eat bread, and that the disciples thought that he had gone out of his mind…The home they come to is the early Church. The crowds which stop them from eating bread are sins and vices, for whoever eats unworthily, eats and drinks to his own condemnation, not discerning the body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:29). Therefore the Lord is in a rage, saying, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, etc., as far as, you will not have life in you (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27, 29; John 6:53).

2.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 21. And when his friends had heard of it: Literally, his own. We cannot here understand his apostles, for they were in the house with him; but either some of his kindred and friends, or some that were of the same country and town of Nazareth, though perhaps enemies to him.

For they said: It is not certain who said this, whether his friends or his adversaries.

He is become mad: By the Greek, he is not himself. Christ might be called a madman by the Scribes and Pharisees, when he blamed their vices and when he preached with such extraordinary zeal. Or, as the Greek implies, he was thought to be transported out of his wits, and, as the Protestant translation has it, was beside himself. If they were his friends that said this of him, they did not think so, but only pretended it, that they might get him safe out of the hands of his adversaries. (Witham)