The Gospel of Mark step-by-step

[patrick457]

35-43: While He was still speaking, they came from the ruler of the synagogue’s house saying, “Your daughter has died! Why bother the Teacher any longer?”

But Jesus, overhearing the word spoken, said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not be afraid; only believe!” And He would not permit anyone to follow Him except Peter, James, and John, the brother of James.

And they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue; and He saw an uproar: weeping, and great wailing. And when he had entered, He said to them, “Why are you making an uproar and weeping? The child is not dead but is sleeping.”

And they laughed at Him. But He, having put them all out, took the father of the child and her mother and those who were with Him, and went in where the child was lying. And taking the child by the hand He said to her, “Talitha koum,” which means, “Little girl, I tell you, arise!”

And immediately the girl got up and began walking (for she was twelve years old), and they were amazed with a great amazement. And He strictly charged them that no one should know this, and commanded them to give her something to eat.

*http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/2048/11464991cl7.png
“Little girl, I tell you, arise!” *
PARALLELS IN OTHER GOSPELS: cf. Matthew 9:18-26, Luke 8:40-56.

DEFINITIONS:
Overhearing the word spoken: Some modern translations render the participle parakousas as ‘ignore’ (which is a possible meaning) rather than ‘overhear’.

Only believe: The Greek word ‘pisteuo’ is in the present continual sense, which would render the sense as ‘only keep on believing’.

Peter, James, and John, the brother of James: The limitation to three disciples may have been necessitated by the size of the room in which the girl lay, but is consistent with Jesus’ tendency to allow only the three nicknamed disciples to accompany Him on moments with special significance (cf. 9:2; 13:3; 14:33).

Not dead but is sleeping: It is possible that Mark’s account refers to someone in a coma (a death-like state), but the fact that both Matthew and Luke makes clear that the account refers to a raising of the dead, and that derision greets Jesus’ words may in fact point that even Mark believed the girl was dead.

Mark is probably not using the word katheudei (sleeping) as a metaphor for the condition of the deceased (sleep is commonly used as a metaphor for death, yet in the LXX and NT a different word, koimaomai, was usually used for it). Probable is the view that the statement’s contrast lies in who Jesus is and what He is about to do – namely, to raise the girl. The girl is dead and her death is not merely ‘like’ sleep, but in Jesus’ presence it is sleep rather than the terminus of life. It is not the girl’s end, but an interim condition.

They laughed: Whether the girl’s parents or even Peter, James and John joined in the derision here is quite unclear from the text.

Talitha koum: A few Greek manuscripts (such as Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus) of Mark’s Gospel have this form of the text, but others (Codex Alexandrinus, the Byzantine Text-type and the Vulgate) write ‘koumi’ instead. The latter became the Textus Receptus, and is the version that appears in the King James Version and many English-language Bibles (as ‘Talitha cumi’).

The Aramaic is ‘Tlīthā qūm’. The word ţlīthā is the feminine form of the word ţlē, meaning “young”. Qūm is a verb meaning ‘to rise, stand, get up’. In the feminine singular imperative, it was originally ‘qūmī’.

However, there is evidence that in speech the final -ī was dropped so that the imperative did not distinguish between masculine and feminine genders. The older manuscripts, therefore, used a Greek spelling that reflected pronunciation, whereas the addition of an ‘i’ was perhaps due to a bookish copyist.

And commanded them to give her something to eat: This, preceded by an admittedly less-successful command to secrecy (the motif of the Messianic secret), seems to serve both to underline the reality of the girl’s return to life and perhaps to reveal Jesus’ practical concern for physical as well as spiritual need. Also, in a narrative context it seems like a move from the high drama of Jesus conquering death to the banality of everyday life.

COMMENTARIES
1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 35. Ruler of the synagogue. His house is understood.

Ver. 36. Only believe. Dissenters grossly abuse this and other similar texts of Scripture, to prove that faith alone will suffice for justification; whereas God only declares, that he requires a faith in his almighty power for the performance of miracles, and that without this necessary predisposition, he will not do any miracles. See ver. 5, of the following chapter.

Ver. 41. Only three resurrections from the dead are mentioned as performed by our Saviour: one just dead; one carried out to be buried; and Lazarus, already in his tomb. These represent the different states of sinners dead in sin, some more desperate than others. To such as have been for years in sin, and have none to intercede for them, we must apply the words of Christ, suffer the dead to bury the dead. (Ven. Bede, and St. Augustine, de verb. Dom. serm. 44.)

2.) Commentary by St. Jerome (Against Jovinianus, II.2.17):

For whenever He raised anyone from the dead He ordered that food should be given him to eat, lest the resurrection should be thought a delusion. And this is why Lazarus after his resurrection (John 12:2) is described as being at the feast with our Lord.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued
3.) Commentary by St. Jerome:

Someone may wonder or ask: Why are these three apostles always chosen and the others sent away? Even when He was transfigured on the mountain, these three were with Him. Yes, these three were chosen: Peter, James and John. But why only three? First there is the mystery of the Trinity embedded in this number, a number sacred in itself. Second, according to Moses, Jacob set three peeled branches in the watering troughs (Gen. 30:38). Finally, it is written: “A three-ply cord is not easily broken (Eccles. 4:12).” Peter is chosen as one upon whom the church would be built. James is the first of the apostles to be crowned with martyrdom. John is the beloved disciple whose love prefigures the state of virginity.

4.) Commentary by St. Augustine (Sermon on New Testament Lessons 48):

He comes to the house, and finds the customary funeral rites already underway, and He says to them, “Why do you make a tumult and weep? The child is not dead, but sleeping.” He spoke the truth. She was in a certain sense asleep — asleep, that is, in respect of Him, by whom she could be awakened. So awakening her, He restored her alive to her parents.

 

[patrick457]

6:1-6: And He went away from there and came to His fatherland, and His disciples followed him. And when the Sabbath had come He began to teach in the synagogue, and many hearing Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? And what is the wisdom that is given to Him, and such mighty works are done by His hands? Isn’t this the craftsman, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own fatherland and among his own relatives and in his own household.”

And He could do no mighty work there, except that He laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. And He was shocked because of their unbelief. And He went about the villages in a circuit, teaching.

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/958/54773322pm0.jpg
“Isn’t this the craftsman, the son of Mary?”

He began to teach in the synagogue: In the Middle East hospitality was expected for visiting teachers, and here we see Jesus preaching once more in a synagogue (people were usually invited or asked permission to preach during synagogue services).

Synagogue: Some detractors argue that since Nazareth was a small village it couldn’t have had a synagogue of its own, and indeed, as of the present there is no evidence of a 1st century synagogue at the area.

However, Jewish worship could be carried out wherever ten men (a minyan) assemble; as Nazareth is estimated to have a population of 200-400 during the time of Jesus, this would have been possible. It did not even have to have a special building of its own – any building that could also function as such may have also served the purpose. Additionally, since very little archeological investigation has been possible in Nazareth, as unlike Capharnaum later and modern buildings obscure the original site, any remains of a 1st century synagogue (if any) may still be lying hidden, waiting to be discovered.

Where did this man get these things? Ancient people, unlike the autonomous and private people of our modern era, knew each other very well (in fact, people could be said to have been minding each other’s business) and kept track of family lines, which is very important in 1st-century Jewish culture which was group-oriented emphasized honor and shame greatly. They measured themselves in relation to one another. People exerted vigilance over their neighbors; on the other hand, those being watched were constantly concerned for appearances that would preserve their honor and prevent them from ‘losing face’ in public.

Astonished: Jesus surely surprised the inhabitants of Nazareth (the Greek word literally means that they were “knocked out” by His words and deeds, a verb also used in 1:22 and 11;18 in relation to Jesus’ teaching). They all knew Jesus. They knew Mary and Joseph and all their relatives. Yet here He was talking to them like this.

This astonishment is not just a mere case of familiarity breeding contempt; the ancient idea that geographical and hereditary origins determine who a person is and what his capacities will be also come to play here. With political correctness still 2000 years in the future, the ancient world was filled with what we in the modern age would consider as “prejudices” and “stereotypes” which were widely accepted as truth, sometimes including the targeted group itself.

Galilee was a province that Judeans considered as backwards and unclean because of its ‘mixed’ population of Jews and Gentiles and its status as an economic and cultural “outsider”, with Galileans being stereotyped as uneducated, boorish, peasant hillbillies who spoke in funny accents and who were prone to become rabble rousers (such as the Zealots led by Judas of Galilee). Nazareth was a very small and obscure village literally off the beaten tracks. Jesus was a man who were both. Add to that His coming from a so-so family of no notable worth and His work as a tekton for some years. How could this ex-tekton (a Galilean and Nazarene to boot!) come back here in front of us after being gone for quite some time, talking like this?

And such mighty works are done by His hands? The original Greek of this third question is syntactically difficult and has a number of textual variants. Another rendering of this sentence would be, “so that mighty works are accomplished by His hands.”

Craftsman: The Greek word “tekton,” which is traditionally rendered as ‘carpenter’, is rendered as such here to show the fact that the word has a wider meaning than the traditional rendition, as tekton can also be used to refer to anyone who works with his hands in hard material (a builder or a stoneworker, for instance). While most manuscripts describe Jesus Himself as the tekton, there are variants which state “Is this not the son of the craftsman?”, probably through assimilation to Matt. 13:55.

The son of Mary: This is the only time Mary is explicitly mentioned in the whole Gospel. This appellation is unusual as sons are usually named in relation to their fathers, i.e. patronymics. A significant minority of early manuscripts has a variant which states “the son of the craftsman and Mary.”

Though some authors state that naming a person in relation to the mother is insulting, other men at the time of Jesus were identified by their mothers: e.g. Josephus mentions a certain “Joseph son of Iatrine” (=“midwife”; Josephus Life 185) and a “John the son of Dorcas” (Jewish War 4.145; cf. Acts 9:36).

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued

Brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon: Of the four ‘brothers’ of Jesus named here, only two (Judas aka Jude and James) appear in the NT. Since the family of Jesus had patriarchal names (James=Jacob, Joses=Joseph, Judas=Judah, Simon=Simeon), some have suggested that they reflect either a “pious” Jewish family or one with resurgent religious feeling and pride in their ancestral heritage.

Are not His sisters here with us? Who these are are not named. The mention of Jesus’ trade along with His relatives serves to emphasize Jesus’ ‘ordinariness’, which provides the source of the scandal.

As for whether these are actual biological brothers of Jesus or merely His relatives, while many Protestant denominations consider them as Jesus’ actual flesh-and-blood siblings and the children of Joseph and Mary, Catholics and Orthodox (and even some Non-Catholics/Orthodox) take the view that Jesus was Mary’s only son, and that the ‘brothers’ mentioned here either refer to children of Joseph from a former marriage, making them Jesus’ half-brethren (the opinion popular in the East) or are merely relatives or kinsmen of Jesus (the opinion held by St. Jerome and is the one that holds sway in the Western Church).

And they took offense at Him: The Greek verb literally means “they were scandalized (eskandalizonto, from skandalon “a stone that trips a person”) at Him.” This means that the inhabitants of Nazareth could not move beyond their prejudgments to accept the actions and teaching of Jesus.

The verb is in the imperfect tense, suggesting an ongoing condition, i.e. they were being scandalized or taking offense at Him or finding Him to be a stumbling block.

A prophet is not without honor, except in his own fatherland: Jesus applies to Himself an aphorism that seems to have circulated independently, with minor variations. Parallels to this saying have been found in Hellenistic literature, however none of these uses the word ‘prophet’. What is clearly referenced here is the rejected prophet motif present in the OT (2 Chr. 24:19, 36:16; Neh. 9:26, 30; Jer. 35:15; Ezek. 2:5; Hos. 9:7; Dan.l 9:6, 10). Also in Isaiah 53:3 (LXX) the Suffering Servant is without honor (atimos) amongst his own people.

This saying also stresses the honor-shame culture that Jesus lived in. One’s public rating and the ‘face’ one has in his own hometown is important yet here Jesus must labor in a situation where the people who should honor Him the most give Him the least ‘face’ as He stands apart from His own kin; and ‘standing out’ was a cause of shame and dishonor for the whole family, especially in a village culture like Nazareth’s.

He could do no mighty work there, except that He laid his hands on a few sick people: The focus is not so much on Jesus’ inability as on the amazing lack of faith, but clearly Mark sees a connection between faith and healing, as the story of the woman with the issue of blood shows. Lack of faith limits the reception of help readily available from Jesus; i.e. Jesus was not able to exercise His power in these circumstances.

He was shocked because of their unbelief: “Shock” (ethaumazen, also translated as “marvel”) is a word that is usually (positively) applied to the crowds who observe the power of Jesus. Though ‘unbelief’ (apistia) is used only here and in 9:24, it reflects the stark alternatives in Mark between belief and unbelief.

The story (and the first section of Mark’s Gospel) ends here, as they often do, with shock or marvelling or amazement, but ironically instead of the multitudes the one who expresses amazement here is Jesus.

And He went about the villages in a circuit: The comment links this with 6:1 where Jesus began His sojourn by teaching and also provides a transition between His rejection by friends and family to a teaching tour of the vicinity. Much of Jesus’ teaching occurs while He is on the move, as in here.

PARALLELS IN OTHER GOSPELS: Matthew 13:54-5; Luke 4:20-30. The core saying is also mentioned in John 4:44 and the (apocryphal) Gospel of Thomas 31.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/935/50187300.JPG
Modern-day Nazareth.

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 1. After the miracles that Christ had performed, though he was not ignorant how much they despised him, yet that there might be no excuse for their disbelief, he condescended to return to them. (Theophylactus)

Ver. 3. St. Matthew relates that they asked: Is not this the son of the carpenter? It is not improbable that both questions were asked; it was certainly very natural to take him for a carpenter, who was the son of one. (St. Augustine)

They were scandalized at his lowly birth and humble parentage. Hence Jesus Christ takes occasion to expose the malice and envy of the Jews, in refusing him, and to show that the Gentiles would more esteem him. See Luke 4:25, and John 1.

[Ver. 5. *And he could not

[1]* do any miracle there.*]

[1] Ver. 5. Non posse in Scripture, is divers times the same as nolle. So Genesis 37, it is said of Joseph’s brothers, they could not, (non poterant) i.e. would not, speak to him peaceably. See John 12:39, etc.

2. Commentary by St. Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 88):

[Jesus] was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter; and He appeared without comeliness, as the Scriptures declared; and He was deemed a carpenter, for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life.

3.) Commentary by Origen (Commentary on Matthew, 10.16, 19):

And Mark says, And He came into His own country and His disciples follow Him (Mark 6:1). We must therefore inquire whether, by the expression, His own country, is meant Nazareth or Bethlehem,— Nazareth, because of the saying, He shall be called a Nazarene (Matthew 2:23), or Bethlehem, since in it He was born. And further I reflect whether the Evangelists could have said, coming to Bethlehem, or, coming to Nazareth. They have not done so, but have named it His country, because of something being declared in a mystic sense in the passage about His country,— namely, the whole of Judea,— in which He was dishonoured according to the saying, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country (Matthew 13:57). And if anyone thinks of Jesus Christ, a stumbling-block to the Jews (1 Corinthians 1:23), among whom He is persecuted even until now, but proclaimed among the Gentiles and believed in,— for His word has run over the whole world,— he will see that in His own country Jesus had no honour, but that among those who were strangers from the covenants (Ephesians 2:12), the Gentiles, He is held in honour. But what things He taught and spoke in their synagogue the Evangelists have not recorded, but only that they were so great and of such a nature that all were astonished. And probably the things spoken were too high to be written down. Only be it noted, He taught in their synagogue, not separating from it, nor disregarding it…

…Perhaps, as in the case of material things there exists in some things a natural attraction towards some other thing, as in the magnet for iron, and in what is called naphtha for fire, so there is an attraction in such faith towards the divine power, according to what is said, If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove (Matthew 13:58). And Matthew and Mark, wishing to set forth the excellency of the divine power, that it has power even in unbelief, but not so great power as it has in the faith of those who are being benefited, seem to me to have said with accuracy, not that He did not any mighty works because of their unbelief, but that He did not many there (Mark 6:5). And Mark also does not say, that He could not do any mighty work there, and stop at that point, but added, Save that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk and healed them (Mark 6:5), the power in Him thus overcoming the unbelief.

 

[patrick457]

7-13: And He summoned the twelve and began to send them out two by two; and He gave them authority over the unclean spirits, and He charged them that they should take nothing for the way except a mere staff — no bread, no bag, no money in their belts — but to wear sandals, and not put on two tunics.

And He said to them, “Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there. And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you depart, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” And they went out and proclaimed that men should repent. And they were casting out many demons and were anointing with oil many who were sick and healing them.

http://kingofpeace.org/images/Jesus_sends_12.jpg
And He summoned the twelve and began to send them out two by two…
DEFINITIONS
Began to send them out (apostellein): The same verb is used in 3:13-14. But at the initial call it described the purpose of Jesus while here this purpose is fulfilled. The verb conveys a sense of delegated and representative authority, so that the mission of the twelve is both from Jesus and through the power of Jesus.

Two by two: Because of the use of the judirical term martyrion (“evidence” or “witness”) in verse 11, the paired missionary activity may reflect the law that two witnesses are required when charging a person (cf. Deut. 19:15; Num. 35:30; 2 Cor. 13:1). Another possibility is that it reflects the concrete missionary practice of the early Church (1 Cor. 9:2-6).

For the way (hodos): Since hodos in Mark also connotes the ‘way of discipleship’ the instructions may not be merely travelling directives but are also symbolic of the demands of discipleship.

Gave them authority: The verb edidou is notable as it is a third-person singular, which suggests “He gave to each one of them individually authority over unclean spirits.”

Staff…No bread, no bag, no money in their belts…: The disciples are told to carry only what was absolutely necessary. Short distances between Galilean towns make the taking of bread unnecessary, of a bag in which to carry the bread, and an extra tunic for warmth while sleeping outdoors. Ancient Middle Eastern hospitality for visitors in the towns eliminate the need of small change (the Greek word used is chalkon, which refers to copper coins) for buying bread and meat and staying at commercial inns.

On the practical level the staff is used for support and for protection against bandits or wild animals. In the OT the staff is also a symbol of authority and power (take for example Moses’ or Aaron’s staff; see also Ps. 23:4; Mic. 7:14).

Mark’s missionaries resemble the Israelites who were preparing to eat the Passover meal in Exodus 12:11, who were ordered to wear “sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand.” If there is an Exodus motif here it is very subtle, and may serve as a prelude to the feeding of the multitude in the wilderness (6:32-44), the testing of the people (8:14-21), and the revelation on a mountaintop (9:2-8).

Some commentators had suggested that this directive was an intentional parody of the ‘frugality’ practiced by wandering philosophers (such as the Cynics) or rhetors and wonderworkers, as even they carried bread in a beggar’s bag. Jesus may have been seeking to distinguish His band from venal travelling philosophical and religious missionaries. However, it is still very questionable as to whether the Cynic was a familiar figure in 1st century Galilee, thus any links to this pericope and the known characteristics of Cynics are more likely to be the result of a similar concept of mission than deliberate imitation or adoption.

Others see a parallel with the instruction (M. Berakhot 9:5) that a person is forbidden to go up the Temple Mount with a staff, or sandals, or wallet, or dust on his feet (the usual equipment of a traveller), which suggests that Jesus is thus sending His disciples on a holy errand:

One should avoid showing disrespect to the Eastern Gate because it is in a direct line with the Holy of Holies (i.e., a direct line led from it through the other gates up to the inner shrine). A man should not enter the Temple Mount with his staff or with his shoes on or with his wallet or with his feet dust-stained; nor should he make it a short cut (kappandaria) and spitting [on it is forbidden] a fortiori.

**Take nothing for the way except a mere staff…wear sandals: ** In the parallel accounts at Luke 9:3 and Matt. 10:9-10 the disciples are forbidden to ‘carry’ a staff, while Matthew goes further, forbidding sandals. Some answer this seeming contradiction among the Gospels as follows:

Matthew used the verb ktaomai (“to procure, acquire”), instead of airō (“to take”) that Mark uses; so the disciples were not to acquire additional staffs or sandals – but to use the ones they already had. But Luke says, “Take nothing for the journey – no staff (rhabdon),” presumably no additional staff; while Mark says, “Take nothing for the way except (Mark 6:5) a mere staff (rhabdon),” presumably the one they already had. Each writer stressed a different aspect of Jesus’ instructions.

Alternatively, Jesus may have been speaking in hyperbole, in the fashion of a wisdom teacher and not in the legal precision of a Pharisee. The main point of the instruction is that Jesus called His missionaries to travel simply, without the normal provisions for a journey. They had to depend on God for their support.

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued

Not put on two tunics (chiton): People usually wore only one tunic. Sometimes they may have worn another tunic or outer garments as a protection for the cold (Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 17.136 mentions a slave who wore two tunics); however, Jesus proscribes such a use as He does not envision not a mere camping trip, but a reliance on the good graces of available hospitality. Some also see in the order against change of clothing the eschatological urgency of the mission.

Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there: The home that welcomes them is to be the missionary base of the disciples; they are not to move around from house to house.

Shake off the dust that is on your feet: In Jewish sources a rather similar custom of shaking foreign dust off one’s clothing as an act of deprecation when someone is travelling outside the Holy Land is attested. Thus perhaps the point is to treat such inhospitable people as ‘Gentiles’, ultimately subject to God’s judgment. Some manuscripts (perhaps under the influence of Matthew 10:15) interpret this in the light of the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah, and so clearly see it as a symbolic ritual. Jesus’ words ring ominously, coming soon after His own rejection at Nazareth.

As a testimony against them (Greek: Eis martyrion autois): The act is explained as a “testimony/witness/evidence” either “against” or “for” them as a sign of judgment or a call to repentance. Mark uses the same phrase in 1:44 in Jesus’ orders to the leper and in 13:9, where the appearance of Christians before assemblies, rulers and kings because of the name of Jesus will also be eis martyrion autois.

Proclaimed that men should repent: The disciples now do what John and Jesus did in 1:4 and 1:14-15, respectively.

Casting out many demons: Exorcisms and confrontations with demons follow in their mission like that of Jesus’ (1:21-28). In fact, Jesus’ principal activities (preaching, exorcising, and healing) characterize the mission of the disciples.

Anointing with oil many who were sick: The use of oil is mentioned in association with healing only here in the Gospels (also see James 5:14). Oil was used medicinally in ancient times (cf. Isaiah 1:6; Jeremiah 8:22, 51:8), and the action of the Good Samaritan in pouring oil and wine over the wounds of the traveller (Luke 10:34) was probably common practice.

The use of oil may have been for a pragmatic, medical measure (which Jesus, with His more direct power, may have had no need to use) but its use may also be seen in a more symbolic way, sometimes to express joy or honor (Ps. 23:5; 45:7; Is. 61:3) or the blessing of God (Lev. 14:15-18). The anointing of the sick, both here and in James 5, is therefore likely to be a symbol of God’s care for and restoration of the patient.

Catholics and Orthodox see a connection between these passages and the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick (aka Extreme Unction), in which the recipient is anointed with oil.

 

[patrick457]

PARALLELS IN OTHER GOSPELS: Matt. 10:5-15; Luke 9:1-6.

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 13. It was usual for the Jews to prescribe oil as a proper thing to anoint the sick; but its virtue in the present instance, when used by the apostles, was not natural but supernatural, and was derived from him who sent them; because this unction always produced a certain and constant cure in those who were anointed. This miraculous gift of healing the sick with oil, which Christ conferred on his apostles, was a prelude or gradual preparation to the dignity to which he raised this unction, when he established it a perpetual rite in his holy Church. (Rutter)

With oil, etc. This anointing the sick, was at least a figure of the sacrament, which Christ was pleased to institute for the spiritual relief of persons in danger of death: and which is fully expressed by St. James, in his Catholic Epistle. (James vi.) The Council of Trent says this sacrament was insinuated in St. Mark, and published in the Epistle of St. James. (Council of Trent, session XIV.1) (Witham)

2.) From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1506 Christ invites his disciples to follow him by taking up their cross in their turn (cf. Mt 10:38). By following him they acquire a new outlook on illness and the sick. Jesus associates them with his own life of poverty and service. He makes them share in his ministry of compassion and healing: “So they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.” (Mk. 6:12-13)

1507 The risen Lord renews this mission (“In my name…they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover [Mk 16:17-18]”) and confirms it through the signs that the Church performs by invoking his name.116 These signs demonstrate in a special way that Jesus is truly "God who saves."117

1508 The Holy Spirit gives to some a special charism of healing (cf. 1 Cor 12:9, 28, 30) so as to make manifest the power of the grace of the risen Lord. But even the most intense prayers do not always obtain the healing of all illnesses. Thus St. Paul must learn from the Lord that “*my grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness *(2 Cor 12:9),” and that the sufferings to be endured can mean that “*in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his Body, that is, the Church *(Col. 1:24).”

1509 “Heal the sick!” (Mt 10:8) The Church has received this charge from the Lord and strives to carry it out by taking care of the sick as well as by accompanying them with her prayer of intercession. She believes in the life-giving presence of Christ, the physician of souls and bodies. This presence is particularly active through the sacraments, and in an altogether special way through the Eucharist, the bread that gives eternal life and that St. Paul suggests is connected with bodily health (cf. Jn. 6:54, 58; 1 Cor. 11:30).

1510 However, the apostolic Church has its own rite for the sick, attested to by St. James (Jas. 5:14-15): “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders [presbyters] of the Church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” Tradition has recognized in this rite one of the seven sacraments.

1511 The Church believes and confesses that among the seven sacraments there is one especially intended to strengthen those who are being tried by illness, the Anointing of the Sick:

This sacred anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a true and proper sacrament of the New Testament. It is alluded to indeed by Mark, but is recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James the apostle and brother of the Lord (Council of Trent (1551): DS 1695; cf. Mk 6:13; Jas 5:14-15).

1512 From ancient times in the liturgical traditions of both East and West, we have testimonies to the practice of anointings of the sick with blessed oil. Over the centuries the Anointing of the Sick was conferred more and more exclusively on those at the point of death. Because of this it received the name “Extreme Unction.” Notwithstanding this evolution the liturgy has never failed to beg the Lord that the sick person may recover his health if it would be conducive to his salvation (cf. Council of Trent (1551) DS 1696).

3.) Commentary by St. Jerome (Against Jovinianus 2:6):

Are all commanded not to have two coats, nor food in their scrip, money in their purse, a staff in the hand, shoes on the feet? or to sell all they possess and give to the poor, and follow Jesus? Of course not: but the command is for those who wish to be perfect. On the contrary John the Baptist lays down one rule for the soldiers, another for the publicans. But the Lord says in the Gospel to him who had boasted of having kept the whole law: “If you will be perfect, go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and come, follow me (Matthew 19:21).” That He might not seem to lay a heavy burden on unwilling shoulders, He sent His hearer away with full power to please himself, saying If you will be perfect.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued

4.) Commentary by St. Augustine (The Harmony of the Gospels, II.30.75):

1. Accordingly, as our Lord ordained what the apostle declares Him to have ordained,— namely, that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel,— He gave these counsels to the apostles in order that they might be without the care of providing or of carrying with them things necessary for this life, whether great or the very smallest; consequently He introduced this term, neither a staff, with the view of showing that, on the part of those who were faithful to Him, all things were due to His ministers, who themselves, too, required nothing superfluous. And thus, when He added the words, For the workman is worthy of his meat, He indicated quite clearly, and made it thoroughly plain, how and for what reason it was that He spoke all these things. It is this kind of power, therefore, that the Lord denoted under the term staff, when He said that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only. For the sentence might also have been briefly expressed in this way: Take with you none of the necessaries of life, neither a staff, save a staff only. So that the phrase neither a staff may be taken to be equivalent to not even the smallest things; while the addition, save a staff only, may be understood to mean that, in virtue of that power which they received from the Lord, and which was signified by the name staff [or, rod], even those things which were not carried with them would not be wanting to them. Our Lord therefore used both phrases. But inasmuch as one and the same evangelist has not recorded them both, the writer who has told us that the rod, as introduced in the one sense, was to be taken, is supposed to be in antagonism to him who has told us that the rod, as occurring again in the other sense, was not to be taken. After this explanation of the matter, however, no such supposition ought to be entertained.

1. In like manner, also, when Matthew tells us that the shoes were not to be carried with them on the journey, what is intended is the checking of that care which thinks that such things must be carried with them, because otherwise they might be unprovided. Thus, too, the import of what is said regarding the two coats is, that none of them should think of taking with him another coat in addition to the one in which he was clad, as if he was afraid that he might come to be in want, while all the time the power (which was received from the Lord) made him sure of getting what was needful. To the same effect, when Mark says that they were to be shod with sandals or soles, he gives us to understand that this matter of the shoe has some sort of mystical significance, the point being that the foot is to be neither covered, nor yet left bare to the ground; by which the idea may be conveyed that the gospel was neither to be concealed, nor yet made to depend on the good things of earth. And as to the fact that what is forbidden is neither the carrying nor the possessing of two coats, but more distinctly the putting of them on—the words being, and not put on two coats,— what counsel is conveyed to them therein but this, that they ought to walk not in duplicity, but in simplicity?

1. Thus it is not by any means to be made a matter of doubt that the Lord Himself spoke all these words, some of them with a literal import, and others of them with a figurative, although the evangelists may have introduced them only in part into their writings—one inserting one section, and another giving a different portion. Certain passages, at the same time, have been recorded in identical terms either by some two of them, or by some three, or even by all the four together. And yet not even when this is the case can we take it for granted that everything has been committed to writing which was either uttered or done by Him. Moreover, if any one fancies that the Lord could not in the course of the same discourse have used some expressions with a figurative application and others with a literal, let him but examine His other addresses, and he will see how rash and inconsiderate such a notion is. For, then (to mention but a single instance which occurs meantime to my mind), when Christ gives the counsel not to let the left hand know what the right hand does, he may suppose himself under the necessity of accepting in the same figurative sense at once the almsgivings themselves referred to, and the other instructions offered on that occasion.

 

[patrick457]

14-20: And King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known. And some were saying, “John the Baptizer has been raised from the dead, and that is why mighty powers are at work in him.”

But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others said, “He is a prophet, or like one of the prophets.” But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised up.”

For Herod himself had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because he had married her. For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” And Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to kill him, but she could not (because Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was greatly perplexed, and yet he enjoyed listening to him).

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/1211/800pxmachaeruspanoramaqu7.jpg
Herod himself had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife…
PARALLELS IN OTHER GOSPELS: Matthew 14:1-5; Luke 9:7-9.

DEFINITIONS

King Herod: Herod Antipas (short for Antipatros) (before 20 BC – after AD 39) was a first century AD ruler of Galilee and Perea, who bore the title of tetrarch (“ruler of a quarter”). Antipas was a son of Herod the Great, who had become king of Judea, and Malthace, a Samaritan woman who was one of Herod’s wives. His date of birth is unknown but was somewhere before 20 BC. Antipas, his full brother Archelaus and his half-brother Philip were all educated in Rome.

After inheriting his territories when the kingdom of his father Herod was divided upon his death in 4 BC, Antipas ruled them as a client state of the Roman Empire. He was responsible for building projects at Sepphoris and Betharamphtha, and more importantly for the construction of his capital Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Named in honor of his patron, the emperor Tiberius, and originally being considered ritually unclean by pious Jews due to it being built over a cemetery, the city later became a center of rabbinic learning.

Antipas was not Herod’s first choice of heir. That honor fell to Aristobulus and Alexander, Herod’s sons by the Hasmonaean princess Mariamme. It was only after they were executed (c. 7 BC), and Herod’s oldest son Antipater was convicted of trying to poison his father (5 BC), that the now elderly Herod fell back on his youngest son Antipas, revising his will to make him heir. During his fatal illness in 4 BC, Herod had yet another change of heart about the succession. According to the final version of his will, Antipas’ elder brother Archelaus was now to become king of Judea, Idumea and Samaria, while Antipas would rule Galilee and Perea with the lesser title of tetrarch. Philip was to receive Gaulanitis (the Golan Heights), Batanaea (southern Syria), Trachonitis and Auranitis (Hauran).

Because of Judea’s status as a Roman client kingdom, Herod’s plans for the succession had to be ratified by Caesar Augustus. The three heirs therefore travelled to Rome to make their claims, Antipas arguing he ought to inherit the whole kingdom and the others maintaining that Herod’s final will ought to be honored. Despite qualified support for Antipas from Herodian family members in Rome, who favored direct Roman rule of Judea but considered Antipas preferable to his brother, Augustus largely confirmed the division of territory set out by Herod in his final will. Archelaus had, however, to be content with the title of ethnarch rather than king. Eventually, Archelaus was deemed incompetent by Augustus and replaced with a prefect in AD 6, while Antipas would govern Galilee and Perea for forty-two more years.



King: This title is technically incorrect, since Augustus denied to grant Antipas the title that his father enjoyed, so that he remained as tetrach of Galilee until he was deposed in 39 AD (and is consistently so described by Luke). However, this were probably of little significance in Galilee, where Antipas acted and was popularly recognized as “king”; in fact, it was his active campaigning for the title which led to his eventual deposition and exile.

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued

And some were saying (Elegon oti): The original Greek text varies among manuscripts and could be rendered alternatively, “And he (Herod) was saying (Elegen oti).” The “some” version offers a rather more coherent sequence, assuming that the sequence is interrupted after “and King Herod heard” by a series of popular opinions, before being resumed with Antipas’ endorsement of the first opinion. The change from ‘elegon’ (which is very widely supported) to ‘elegen’ may have been a ‘correction’ by an editor who did not recognize the break in the sentence and therefore assimilated the verb to the preceding phrase “And King Herod heard of Him…”

John the Baptizer has been raised from the dead: This statement is quite odd, since even though groups such as the Pharisees hoped for the general resurrection, expectation of individuals returning to life before the eschaton is virtually unknown at this time in Judaism. The idea of the return of a great man after death is paralleled later in myths about Nero redivivus, though it is not easy to understand how John could be thought to have ‘resurrected’ in the person of someone who had been already known and active before John’s death. Perhaps, ‘has been raised’ is better seen not as the articulation of a belief in the resurrection (still less involving the idea of reincarnation), but as a rather clumsy but vivid way of expressing a sense of continuity such as is better conveyed in the imagery of the transfter of the ‘spirit of Elijah’ to his disciple Elisha (2 Kings 2:15).

Another suggestion is that this statement was actually ironic and mocking, as Antipas was unlikely to have shared the Pharisaic beliefs in an afterlife and the resurrection of the dead (though he may have had been influenced by a superstitious Hellenistic belief in the dead coming back to haunt their killers).

Mighty powers: The theory was that this power is at work in Jesus because He was actually ‘John raised up’. This way of putting things is especially apropos for a Greco-Roman audience which believed in certain humans as conduits for divine power.

Are at work in him: According to popular thought preternatural powers ‘resided’ in a miracle worker just as an evil power occupied a demoniac.

He is Elijah: Elijah or Elias (Hebrew: Eliyahu) was a prophet in Israel in the 9th century BC who appears in the Bible (both in the Tanakh/Old Testament and the New Testament), the Talmud, the Mishna, and the Qur’an and is considered a great figure in the three Abrahamic religions. According to the Books of Kings (1 Kings 17-2 Kings 2), Elijah prophesied a drought that lasted for more than two years, raised the dead, brought fire down from the sky, and ascended into heaven by a whirlwind, among other things.

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/1032/319pxelijahiconsinaic12tt2.jpg
A 13th-century icon of the prophet Elijah, from St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mt. Sinai.
John was himself already described in language similar to that of Elijah (1:6; cf. 2 Kings 1:8), and the link will be strengthened further in 9:11-13. If Jesus is thought by some to be another John, then it is not surprising that he is also seen as another Elijah. The expectation of a return of Elijah during the last days as the harbinger of the coming of the Messiah (cf. Malachi 3:23-24) is well documented and still continues today in various Jewish rituals, such as in the traditional hymn Eliyahu haNavi:

Elijah the Prophet, Elijah the Tishbite,
Elijah, Elijah, Elijah the Gileadite
Speedily and in our days come to us,
With the Messiah, Son of David,
With the Messiah, Son of David.

He is a prophet, or like one of the prophets: Popular opinion views Jesus as a prophet in contrast to His friends and kin who do not honor Him as such. The proposed identifications of Jesus become less and less specific, moving from John to Elijah to a more generic prophetic figure. Since Hebrew prophets were generally not miracle workers this may refer to a return of a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15-18; cf. Acts 7:37). The community at Qumran hoped for the coming of the “the prophet and the messiahs of Aaron and Israel” (1QS 9:11), and there were different popular prophetic figures in the 1st century: the Samaritan prophet (Josephus, Antiquities 18.85-89), the Jewish rebel Theudas (Acts 5:36; Josephus, Ant. 20.97-98), and the unnamed Egyptian (Josephus, Jewish War 2.261-63 = Ant. 20.169-71; cf. Acts 21:38)

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued
John, whom I beheaded: Herod’s question about the identity of Jesus presupposes the earlier death of John, so the account of John’s death serves as a literary ‘flashback’. In this statement, more strongly than the subsequent narrative, the responsibility for John’s death is solely Herod’s.

For Herod himself: The flashback to John’s arrest begins with the explanatory word gar (“for”, “because”).

Because he had married her: Early in his reign, Antipas had married the daughter of King Aretas IV Philopatris of Nabatea. However, while staying in Rome with his half-brother Herod (son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II), he fell in love with his host’s wife Herodias (granddaughter of Herod the Great and Mariamne I). Antipas and Herodias agreed to divorce their previous spouses in order to marry each other. On learning of this, Aretas’ daughter travelled to Machaerus, from where Nabatean forces escorted her to her father. Relations between Antipas and Aretas soured and in time preparations began for war. This feud eventually was one of the elements that led to Antipas’ downfall in 39 AD. Herodias and her former wife (also named Herod) had a daughter named Salome, who married another Antipas’ half-brother Philip (yet another son of Herod the Great by his wife Cleopatra of Jerusalem).

Some believe that Mark got his detail wrong since he assumes that this Herodias was the wife of Philip (Herod’s half-brother who bears the name actually married Herodias’ daughter Salome) while Josephus relates that she was married to a ‘Herod’.

However, some point out that all of the Herod dynasts had second names (Herod Antipas, Herod Archaeleus, Herod Agrippa, Herod Jones, etc.) but Josephus doesn’t say what the second name of this Herod was. Critics simply assume that Mark has confused this Herod with a different Herod named Philip. But some point out that there is no evidence that Mark has done this, and thus there no reason to suppose that there was not more than one Herod Philip in the mix that Mark is referring to (some note that the Herod family already had one such situation with Antipater and Antipas [the latter is a diminutive of Antipater], and add that the such dual naming was not infrequent in Hellenistic times).

Whether or not Mark was wrong in his identification here, it is undeniable that the relation of the descendants of Herod by his ten wives (many of whose sons and grandsons are all named Herod) is utterly confusing, which may be the cause of this alleged discrepancy.

Bound him in prison: Herod putting John in jail to placate Herodias is historically likely, as imprisonment was in general not a form of punishment in itself but a way of holding a person until his case has been cleared up or judgment had been rendered.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3083/tmpphpwk8l0zej6.jpg
The fortress of Machaerus as seen from below.

According to Josephus (Ant. 18.5.2), the location of this prison is Herod’s fortified hilltop palace called Machaerus (the Black Fortress) located in the region of Peraea, east of the Dead Sea. Some suggest that Herod’s banquet was actually held in Herod’s capital of Tiberias, since Galileans attend it. Perhaps Herod had John moved to Tiberias at some point, but the trek from the Machaerus to there would take longer than an overnight trek (cf. Ant. 18.5.2). On the other hand, it is also likely that the banquet was actually held at Machaerus since the story envisages that it was at the same place the banquet was held (archeological digs have even uncovered two dining rooms, one large, the other small, within the confines of the fortress).

The fortress of Machaerus was originally built by the Hasmonean king, Alexander Jannaeus (104 BC-78 BC) in about the year 90 BC. It was destroyed by Pompey’s general Gabinius in 57 BC, but later rebuilt by Herod the Great in 30 BC to be used as a military base to safeguard his territories east of the Jordan.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9919/phpgievv7amtu6.jpg
The ruins at Machaerus.

Upon the death of Herod the Great, the fortress was passed to Antipas who held it until his deposition and exile in 39 AD. Eventually, Machaerus passed on to Herod Agrippa I until his death (44 AD), after which it came under Roman control. Jewish rebels took control after 66 AD during the First Jewish Revolt. Shortly after defeating the Jewish garrison of Herodium, the Roman legate Lucilius Bassus advanced on Machaerus with his troops and began siege in 72 AD. An embankment and ramp were created in order to facilitate Roman siege engines but the Jewish rebels capitulated before the Roman attack had begun. The rebels were allowed to leave and the fortress was torn down, leaving only the foundations intact.

The site lain forgotten until it was visited in 1807 by the Frisian explorer Ulrich Jasper Seetzen, and the name of the village on the plateau to the east of the mountain (Muqāwir in Arabic) reminded him of the name of Machaerus in Greek. The archaeological excavation of Machaerus was begun in 1968 by Jerry Vardaman, then of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and later director of the Cobb Institute of Archeology at Mississippi State University. In 1973, the German scholar, August Strobel, identified and studied the wall by which the Romans encircled the defenders within the fortress. In 1978-1981, excavations were carried out by Virgilio Corbo, Stanislao Loffreda and Michele Piccirillo, from the Franciscan Biblical Institute in Jerusalem.

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued
It is not lawful for you: cf. Leviticus 18:16; 20:21. Josephus (Ant. 18.116-119) attributes John’s execution to Herod’s fear of John’s preaching and his popularity, which Herod feared might lead to rebellion. Then again, by preaching against Herod’s marriage, and previous sending away of the Nabatean princess, along with John’s prophesying of a potential rival to the dynasty, Herod may have viewed John as essentially being on Aretas’ side and thus committing sedition (John was preaching in the Jordan River which marked the western edge of Antipas’ territory of Perea, and was thus under his turf), so there is no contradiction between these two accounts.

And Herodias had a grudge against him: The Greek eneichen literally means ‘had it in for’ John. Herodias is starkly introduced as one who long wished to kill John; this is underscored by the sequence of verbs in the imperfect tense. She is here pictured like Jezebel who plotted the death of Elijah (1 Kings 19:1-3).

Another element present here is the motif of John’s death being a prefigurement to Jesus’ own (just as John is Jesus’ precursor or forerunner, so is his death is also a foreshadowing of Jesus’). Like Jesus, John preaches repentance and is rejected, all the while earning the ire of the higher-ups, who begin to plot his death. Mark’s comment in 1:15, where John is described as being ‘handed over’ (paradidomi; the same word used by Mark to describe Jesus’ arrest) strengthens the connection.

Because Herod feared John: Mark now introduces an editorial comment with another use of the word gar (“because”, “for”, or in a more loose manner, “You see”). Herod’s fear in this flashback seems to be in contrast with his matter-of-fact statement in v. 16.

A righteous and holy man (Andra dikaion kai agion): This agrees with the Josephus’ depiction (Ant. 18.117-118) of John as a good man who preached the two sums of virtue for Hellenistic Jews: righteousness (dikaiosynē) and piety (eusebeia; i.e. proper relationship with God).

Kept him safe…perplexed…enjoyed listening: These three verbs stand in contrast to Herodias’ description in 6:19. Again the contrast between a strong and vengeful woman and a vacillating king shows a similarity to the conflict between Jezebel and Elijah (1 Kings 18:1-46; 21:1-29). Herod here exemplifies the seeds who fell into the rocky ground in Jesus’ parable (4:16-17): he receives the word with joy but the ‘seeds of the Word’ do not take any root. There is also a parallel here with Pontius Pilate, who thought Jesus as innocent yet executed him anyway when the demand became more stronger.

Greatly perplexed (Polla ēporei, also “greatly baffled”): The majority of MSS (Alexandrinus [A], Ephraemi Rescriptus [C], Bezae [D], Ë1, 33, Ï, Latin [lat], Syriac [sy]) have “and he did many things (Polla epoiei)”, while the best MSS (Sinaiticus א], Vaticanus **, Regius [L], Washingtonianus [W], Koridethi Θ], 2427, co) support the reading followed in the translation.

The variation may be no more than a simple case of confusion of letters, since the two readings look very much alike. The verb poieō (“I do”) certainly occurs more frequently than aporeō (“I am at a loss”), so a scribe would be more likely to write a more familiar word. Further, even though the reading epoiei is the harder reading in terms of the sense, it is virtually nonsensical here, rendering it most likely an unintentional corruption.**

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/741/172554.JPG

1.) Josephus on John the Baptizer (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, chapter 5.2):

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John,who was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure to him.

2.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 14. The Herod here mentioned was the son of Herod, from whom St. Joseph fled with Jesus and Mary into Egypt. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xlix. in Matt.)

How great was the envy of the Jews, is easily to be conceived from this passage. They can believe that John is risen from the dead, and appeared in public again, although no one gave testimony that this was the case: but that Jesus, so much favoured by God, who worked so many and so great miracles, should be risen again is incredible, although attested by angels, by apostles, by men, women, and persons of every denomination. They still assert that the body of Jesus was stolen. (Ven. Bede)

3.) Commentary by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 1.11.1-3):

Not long after this John the Baptist was beheaded by the younger Herod, as is stated in the Gospels. Josephus also records the same fact, making mention of Herodias by name, and stating that, although she was the wife of his brother, Herod made her his own wife after divorcing his former lawful wife, who was the daughter of Aretas, king of Petra, and separating Herodias from her husband while he was still alive. It was on her account also that he slew John, and waged war with Aretas, because of the disgrace inflicted on the daughter of the latter. Josephus relates that in this war, when they came to battle, Herod’s entire army was destroyed, and that he suffered this calamity on account of his crime against John. The same Josephus confesses in this account that John the Baptist was an exceedingly righteous man, and thus agrees with the things written of him in the Gospels. He records also that Herod lost his kingdom on account of the same Herodias, and that he was driven into banishment with her, and condemned to live at Vienne in Gaul.

4.) Commentary by Tertullian (Ad Martyras 2):

Let us drop the name of prison; let us call it a place of retirement. Though the body is shut in, though the flesh is confined, all things are open to the spirit. In spirit, then, roam abroad; in spirit walk about, not setting before you shady paths or long colonnades, but the way which leads to God. As often as in spirit your footsteps are there, so often you will not be in bonds. The leg does not feel the chain when the mind is in the heavens. The mind compasses the whole man about, and whither it wills it carries him. But where your heart shall be, there shall be your treasure (Matthew 6:21). Be there our heart, then, where we would have our treasure.

 

[patrick457]

21-29: And a day of opportunity had come, when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his chief men, and the chiliarchs, and the leaders of Galilee; and when his daughter, Herodias, came in and danced, she pleased Herod and those who reclined at table with him; and the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you want and I will give it to you.” And he swore (many things) to her, “Whatever you ask of me, I will give it to you, up to half of my kingdom.”

And she went out and said to her mother, “What should I ask for?” And she said, “The head of John the Baptizer.”

And at once she came in with haste to the king and made her request, saying, “I want you to give me, on a platter, the head of John the Baptizer immediately.”

And being very dejected, the king did not want to reject her because of his oaths and because of those reclining at the table. And the king sent an executioner at once to bring his head; and he went and beheaded him in the prison and brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother. And when his disciples heard this, they came and took his corpse and laid it in a tomb.

http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/a/images/armory_puvis.behead.lg.jpg
At once the king sent an executioner to bring John’s head; and he went and beheaded him in the prison.
PARALLELS IN OTHER GOSPELS: Matthew 14:6-12.

DEFINITIONS
Gave a banquet: While some say that it is likely Mark envisages the banquet as being held at Herod’s capital of Tiberias (which in turn would contradict Josephus’ account of John being imprisoned at Machaerus), Machaerus, while being primarily a fortress, also served as a palace (Josephus mentions that Herod the Great ‘built a wall round the very summit and erected towers at the corners, each 27.4 m high. In the middle of this enclosure he built a palace, breath-taking in size and beauty’). Archeological digs have in fact had two triclinia (banquet-halls): one large, the other small. This would fit with Mark’s story which seems to imply that Herod and his wife were in different rooms throughout the episode; also, none of Herod’s other palaces (as at Tiberias) share this feature.

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/5299/machae20la0.jpg
A plan of the palace/fortress of Machaerus. 1: The point where the aqueduct connects with the fortress, 2: The east tower, 3: Peristyle, with a cistern underneath, 4: The triclinium or banqueting room, 5: The thermal baths built by Herod the Great, and 6: The north tower and remains of the lower city.

Chiliarch: On the Greek army of the Hellenistic period, a chiliarch was a commander of a thousand-men platoon. The office was an adaptation by Alexander the Great of the Persian Achaemenid Empire’s rank of hazarapatish (‘a thousand leader’ or ‘commander of a thousand’). The word continued in use in later ages: Greek writers usually wrote of “chiliarchs” when referring to the Roman legionary tribunes. Here, Mark uses the term perhaps to refer to local military commanders, possibly even Roman officers (though they could be Herod’s local militia commanders).

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued
The leaders of Galilee: This raises the above-mentioned problem of the location of John’s execution since Machaerus was a long way away from Galilee than Tiberias is. Either Mark was unaware (or Josephus was misinformed) of the specific location or (perhaps more likely) that the Galilean elite were invited to Perea for the occasion or were already there as part of Herod’s entourage.

And when his daughter, Herodias: The reading adopted in the translation, ‘Tis thygatro autou Herōdiados’, is supported by א **(“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus”) D L Δ 565 pc; it is also the most difficult reading internally since it describes Herodias as Herod’s daughter.

Other readings are less awkward, but they do not have adequate external support. The reading ‘Tis thygatros autēs tis Herōdiados’ (“the daughter of Herodias herself”) is supported by A C (W) Θ Ë13 33 Ï, but this is also grammatically awkward. The easiest reading, ‘Tis thygatros tis Herōdiados’ (“the daughter of Herodias”) is supported by Ë1 pc, but this reading probably arose from an accidental omission of autēs in the previous reading. The reading ‘tis thygatro autou Herōdiados’, despite its historical difficulties, is most likely original due to external attestation and the fact that it most likely gave rise to the other readings.

Though commonly identified as Salome (after Josephus), Herodias’ daughter from her previous marriage to Herod Philip I, the daughter is never actually named in the NT. While we do not (as of now) know of any daughter of Antipas from his marriage with his first wife or with Herodias, if he did have a daughter, then she would have presumably been named Herodias after her father. At least one scholar has argued that the dancer is to be identified with an actual daughter of Herod and his (unnamed) first wife.

Although the verses that describe the interaction between mother and daughter do not name them, the accounts assume that Herodias is the dancer’s mother. Thus, ‘Herodias his daughter’ could only also be Salome if she went by both names, a practice attested among Judean royalty in antiquity. Since Salome’s father is also named Herod, she could conceivably have also been named Herodias. Yet, if Mark actually suggests the parents of the dancer were Antipas and Herodias, then she cannot have been Salome.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Salome_coin.jpg
Salome, on a coin issued by her second husband, Aristobulus of Chalcis during 56-57 AD.
On the other hand, in Matthew 14:6, whereas Codex Bezae names her ‘Herodias, his daughter’ as in Mark 6:22, all other manuscripts name her as daughter of Herodias. In the mid 2nd-century, St. Justin Martyr, in retelling this story, names neither the mother nor the daughter but does identify the dancer as the niece (exadelphē) of Herod. By this, Justin may mean that he understands her to be the daughter of Herod’s brother. In the light of Matthew’s version of the events, as well as Justin Martyr’s interpretation of the events, these may, in turn, suggest that ‘Herodias, his daughter’ is an early error (perhaps by Mark or more probably, an early copyist) that was subsequently ‘corrected’ by later scribes.

Came in and danced: Some commentators suggest that for a princess to appear dancing before a male audience was culturally unthinkable; however, Herodian culture was influenced by Roman culture more than traditional Judaism, and Tacitus’ accounts of far-worse excesses in 1st-century Rome leaves little reason to disbelieve this story.

The girl: The daughter here called a korasion, the same term used in 5:42 for a twelve year-old girl. The daughter here could have been an adolescent (if the daughter was really Salome, she may still fit this age-group as she is thought to have been born in 14 AD and thus would have been in her mid-teens at the time of John’s death), and so the narrative could conceivably depict a child’s performance rather than the sensuous and seductive dance (the Dance of the Seven Veils) of later art and literature; in fact, there is nothing in Mark’s text that suggests a dance with sexual overtones and Jewish literature shows that there were several kinds of dancing (just like today), and that it could be a perfectly respectable exercise in which eminently respectable people took part.

And he swore: Though ‘royal oaths’ are characteristic of Hellenistic leaders, the taking of oaths was a serious issue in Judaism and early Christianity, and oaths were not taken lightly (cf. Matt. 5:34-36; Jas. 5:12; the Mishnaic treatise Nedarim). Herod seems to become more alienated from his Jewish roots as the narrative progresses (especially ironic considering that he kept an appearance of being pious and sensitive to Jewish tradition).

Up to half of my kingdom: Extravagant gifts to successful entertainers are a favorite means of displaying one’s wealth in many cultures, but to offer a half of one’s own possessions is more a traditional hyperbole than a serious offer (1 Kings 13:8, Luke 19:8). It simply meant that the speaker was very grateful and wished to bestow a generous reward.

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued
She came in with haste…immediately: The Greek is dense with terms denoting speed and urgency.

And being very dejected (Greek: perilypos): This conveys a very strong emotion and is used elsewhere by Mark only of Jesus in Gethsemane: “My soul is exceeding sorrowful (perilypos), even unto death” (14:34). Herod’s inability to do the right thing recalls the attitude of the rich young man who left Jesus “sorrowful” (hypomenos), and his emotion contrasts his earlier joy at listening to John (v. 20). He is once more representative of the seed that fell to rocky ground (4:16-17).

Because of his oaths and because of those reclining at the table: Even though Herodias stands behind John’s death, the blame ultimately falls over Herod who becomes an example of those “who are supposed to rule over Gentiles” (10:42). In order not to appear as an oathbreaker, and therefore, not to ‘lose face’ (note the honor-shame mentality cropping up once more!) before his cronies, he caves in to the demand. The shadow of the cross also looms in the background over this part of the story, in that Pilate will also cave in to similar pressure in ordering Jesus’ execution, who Himself is put to death under civil authorities.

This also reminds us of a saying by the Jewish rabbis: a good woman may marry a bad man, for by doing so she would end by making him as good as herself, but a good man may never marry a bad woman, since she would drag him down to her own level.

Executioner (Greek: Spekoulator, from Latin speculator): The word originally meant “lookout,” “spy,” “scout,” “sentinel,” or “a lookout officer;” but, under the emperors, “a member of the bodyguard” who protected them. Roman speculators were employed as messengers, watchers and executioners, with ten such officers being attached to every Roman legion.

The narrative portrays Herod’s spekoulator (a personal bodyguard) as a participant at his banquet since Herod sends the executioner “at once” and the executioner leaves. The presence of such points to the Roman influence behind Antipas’ administration.

Beheaded (Greek: apekephalisen): Mark uses an unusual word here to refer to John’s beheading (a causative active tense of a late verb apokephalizō, “took his head off”). Josephus (Ant. 14.39; 14.140; 15.36; War 1.185; 2.241) uses the more normal pelikizein. In War 2.241 beheading is parallel to crucifixion in that it was a type of execution designed to defame the person so treated; Josephus recounts that Antony beheaded Antigonus so that the latter’s fame among the Jews would be diminished (Ant. 15.9-10).

If John was beheaded at Machaerus, then the name of the place becomes sadly appropriate, since Machaerus comes from the Greek word machaira, meaning ‘sword’.

Platter (Greek: Pinax): The Greek literally means ‘flat board’ and refers to a shallow plate with a very short stand customarily used at feasts. The brutal irony is that John’s head is now served as one of the “courses” at the royal banquet. From here, the narrative rapidly ends: the executioner brings the head to the daughter, who in turn gives it to her mother. There is no indication from the text that Antipas saw the head, and no further description of the reaction of Herodias.

http://thanasis.com/sphnx1r.jpg
An ancient Greek plate depicting Oedipus and the Sphinx.

His disciples: John’s disciples are mentioned elsewhere in the Gospel only in 2:18 where their practice of fasting is compared to that of Jesus’ disciples. According to the Gospels John worked principally in the region of Judea (Mk. 1:2-6; Lk. 3:1-18; Jn. 1:19-42, 3:22-24), and Jesus begins His ministry in Galilee only after the arrest of John. Jesus evokes John’s memory in debates with the authorities in Jerusalem (11:30-33), so that John’s disciples would presumably still be active in Judea.

They came and took his corpse and laid it in a tomb: Since lack of burial was considered horrific by the ancients (and since giving someone a proper burial was considered an act of piety), John, as a last act of honor by his disciples, is provided with a tomb to be laid on.

Here, the flashback to John’s ‘passion’ closes with yet another foreshadowing of Jesus’: both John and Jesus are buried, not by their own family in their respective ancestral graves, but by friends and disciples in tombs that they do not themselves own (Mark will even use the same two words that used here, ptōma and mnēmeion, respectively meaning ‘corpse’ and ‘tomb/monument’, to refer to Jesus’ dead body and sepulchre in 15:45-46).

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES
http://www.archangelsbooks.com/prodimages/Large/Icons/1JB50.jpg

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 20. Herod, (Custodiebat eum, suneterei auton. The Protestant translation, observed him) etc. The sense both of the Latin and Greek text seems to be, that Herod entertained and showed a particular respect and value for John the Baptist: yet some expound it, that he had a watchful eye over him, and sought only for an occasion to take him off. (Witham)

Ver. 26. It is customary, in Scripture, to give the generally prevailing sentiment at the time; thus Joseph is called by the blessed Virgin , the father of Jesus; so now Herod is said to be stricken with sadness, because he appeared to be so to the company at table, though within his own breast, he secretly rejoiced that he had an opportunity of destroying an importuning monitor, with an exterior shew of piety and honour. (Ven. Bede)

Ver. 29. Church history informs us, that the Christians were accustomed to frequent this tomb with great piety and respect, till the reign of Julian the apostate, at which time the pagans, through hatred for Christianity, broke open his tomb, and dispersed his bones; but immediately after, thinking it better to burn them, they endeavoured to collect them again. But some religious of a neighbouring convent, joining themselves to the pagans, under pretence of collecting the bones to burn, secreted the greater part of them, and sent them to Philip, at Jerusalem, who sent them to Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria; and in the reign of Theodosius, the temple of Serapis was converted into a Christian church, and dedicated to the honour of St. John the Baptist, where his relics were deposited. (Gloss. Ordina.)

2.) Commentary by St. Ambrose (Concerning Virginity, 3.6.26-29):

1. And since we must not cursorily pass by the mention of so great a man, let us consider who he was, by whom, on what account, how, and at what time he was slain. A just man, he is put to death by adulterers, and the penalty of a capital crime is turned off by the guilty on to the judge. Again the reward of the dancer is the death of the prophet. Lastly (a matter of honour even to all barbarians), the cruel sentence is given in the midst of banqueting and festivities, and the news of the deadly crime is carried from the banquet to the prison, and then from the prison to the banquet. How many crimes are there in one wicked act!

1. A banquet of death is set out with royal luxury, and when a larger concourse than usual had come together, the daughter of the queen, sent for from within the private apartments, is brought forth to dance in the sight of men. What could she have learned from an adulteress but loss of modesty? Is anything so conducive to lust as with unseemly movements thus to expose in nakedness those parts of the body which either nature has hidden or custom has veiled, to sport with the looks, to turn the neck, to loosen the hair? Fitly was the next step an offence against God. For what modesty can there be where there is dancing and noise and clapping of hands?

1. Then, it is said, the king being pleased, said unto the damsel, that she should ask of the king whatsoever she would. Then he swore that if she asked he would give her even the half of his kingdom. See how worldly men themselves judge of their worldly power, so as to give even kingdoms for dancing. But the damsel, being taught by her mother, demanded that the head of John should be brought to her on a dish. That which is said that the king was sorry, is not repentance on the part of the king, but a confession of guilt, which is, according to the wont of the divine rule, that they who have done evil condemn themselves by their own confession. But for their sakes which sat with him, it is said. What is more base than that a murder should be committed in order not to displease those who sat at meat? And, it follows, for his oath’s sake. What a new religion! He had better have forsworn himself. The Lord therefore in the Gospel bids us not to swear at all, that there be no cause for perjury, and no need of offending. And so an innocent man is slain that an oath be not violated. I know which to have in the greatest horror. Perjury is more endurable than are the oaths of tyrants.

1. Who would not think when he saw some one running from the banquet to the prison, that orders had been given to set the prophet free? Who, I say, having heard that it was Herod’s birthday, and of the state banquet, and the choice given to the damsel of choosing whatever she wished, would not think that the man was sent to set John free? What has cruelty in common with delicacies? What have death and pleasure in common? The prophet is hurried to suffer at a festal time by a festal order, by which he would even wish to be set free; he is slain by the sword, and his head is brought on a platter. This dish was well suited to their cruelty, in order that their insatiate savageness might be feasted.

 

[patrick457]

30-34: And the apostles gathered together around Jesus, and they reported to Him everything that they had done and taught. And He said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest a while” (because many were coming and going, and they did not even have time to eat). And they went away by themselves in the boat to a desolate place.

And many saw them going and recognized them; and they ran together on foot from all the cities and arrived there before them. And He came out and saw a great multitude, and He had compassion on them, because they were like sheep not having a shepherd. And He began to teach them many things.

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/3300/lectionco7.jpg

PARALLELS IN OTHER GOSPELS: Matthew 14:13-14; Luke 9:10-11.

DEFINITIONS

The apostles: Apart from the disputed variant in 3:14 this is the only time the twelve are called ‘apostles’ (“those sent out”), which fits the context since they were sent out by Jesus earlier in 6:7.

Rest (Greek: anapausasthe): This may allude to Psalm 23:2 (22:2 LXX), where the shepherd cares for the psalmist by the restful or ‘still waters’ (literally "water of rest anapauseōs]). Other possible allusions to Psalm 23 are the green grass (Ps. 23 [22]:2; Mk. 6:39) and the provision of a meal by the shepherd (Ps. 23 [22]:5; Mk. 6:41-42). “Rest” is also used for the Promised Land (Ex. 33:1-14; Deut. 12:9-10; Josh. 1:13; Jer. 31:2), Jesus promises to give rest to the weary in Matt. 11:28-29, and a ‘sabbath rest’ is promised for the people of God in Hebrews 4:9-11.

Many were coming and going: The presence of large crowds echoes 3:20 and continues the frequent motif in the early part of the Gospel where the crowds virtually hem Jesus (2:4, 13; 3:9, 32; 4:1, 36; 5:21, 24, 30-32).

They did not even have time (Greek: eikairoun): The Greek has the nuance of finding both the time and opportunity to do something (in this case, to take a break and have some food). Ironically, the disciples would not eat but would give the hungry something to eat.

By themselves (Greek: kat’idian): This is used elsewhere of special instruction (4:34; 9:38; 13:3) or revelation (9:2) given by Jesus to the disciples. Yet here the privacy is short-lived, and there is no instruction given.

Desolate place (Greek: Erēmos topos): This evokes the journey of the children of Israel in the wilderness (Greek: erēmos) and the feeding of manna (Exodus 16:1-35; Numbers 11:1-10; Psalms 78:24, 105:40). This is the third voyage across the Sea of Galilee (the third in Mark).

While Mark does not mention any specific locale, Luke (9:10) places it in Bethsaida (it is now believed by some that there were two Bethsaidas, one to the east and the other to the west of the Jordan river) and John (6:23) near Tiberias.

Recognized them: This is yet another instance where Jesus’ hopes of going around incognito has been thwarted (1:44-45; 5:20; 7:24, 36).

They ran together on foot from all the cities: Mark uses ‘poleis’ (cities) in a loose sense of ‘inhabited places’ in contrast to deserted or less-populated areas (1:33, 38 kōmopoleis]; 6:56).

Because they were like sheep not having a shepherd: This evokes the image of Israel in the Old Testament as in need of protection and guidance (Num. 27:17; 1 Kgs. 22:17; 2 Chr. 18:16). Also, God is the shepherd of Israel (Zech. 11:17); in Isaiah 40:11 it is said that God “will feed his flock like a shepherd.”

Had compassion (Greek: esplagchnisthē): The verb (see also 1:41; 8:2; 9:22) comes from the Greek word splagchna, the origin of the English word ‘spleen’. The word in Greek originally denoted entrails that were removed in ritual blood sacrifices, eventually becoming a generic term for ‘organ’ or ‘guts’; it was never used in the pre-Christian Greek world to mean mercy or compassion as it later came to mean.

However, in the Septuagint and other Jewish writings, splagchna began to be used to translate Hebrew words having the sense of the seat of impulsive emotions (say, anger or anxious desire), including more positive feelings like mercy and compassion, reflecting the idea that these feelings come ‘from the guts’.

The term here is a virtual synonym to oiktrimoi (Hebrew rachamim, “merciful love” or “tender love,” such as the tenderness a mother feels for her baby), which in the Old Testament is an attribute of God (cf. Ps. 86:15; 111:4; 112:4; 145:8; Isaiah 54:7-8).

Began to teach them: This is a characteristic Markan phrase that often introduces significant material (4:1; 6:2; 8:31). Teaching and feeding are not in opposition, since eating and drinking are often used to symbolize the reception of wisdom (Sirach 15:3; 24:19-21; Prov. 9:5). Mark also juxtaposes miracles with teaching to emphasize his picture of Jesus as a teacher with authority and power (1:22, 27).

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/940/50159031.JPG
He had compassion on them, because they were like sheep not having a shepherd.

1.) Commentary by St. Bede (Exposition on the Gospel of Mark 2.6):

The great happiness of those days can be seen from the hard work of those who taught and the enthusiasm of those who learned. If only in our time such a concourse of faithful hearers would again press around the ministers of the word.