Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 15

Mark 15:1. ἐπὶ τὸ πρωΐ] B C D L א 46, Or. Lachm. Tisch. have merely πρωΐ. But why should ἐπὶ τό have been added? The omission is easily explained from the fact that the transcribers had the simple conception mane (Vulg.; comp. Matthew 27:1).

Instead of ποιήσ. Tisch. has ἑτοιμάσ., following only C L א, without min. vss. and Fathers. But it is worthy of consideration, as ποιήσ. might easily come from Mark 3:6.

Mark 15:4. καταμαρτ.] B C D א, Copt. Aeth. It. Vulg. have κατηγοροῦσιν. So Lachm. and Tisch.; the Recepta is from Matthew 27:13.

Mark 15:7. συοτασιαστῶν] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have στασιαστῶν, following B C D K א, min. Sahid. But how easily the syllable συ dropped away before στ, even although no scruple might be felt at the unusual συστασ.! συ has scarcely been added to make it undoubted that Barabbas was himself an insurgent with the others (Fritzsche), which assuredly apart from this every transcriber found in the words.

Mark 15:8. ἀναβοήσας] Lachm. Tisch. have ἀναβάς, following B D א* Copt. Sahid. Goth. Vulg. It. Approved also by Schulz and Rinck. The ἀναβάς was not understood, and, in accordance with what follows (Mark 15:13-14), it was awkwardly changed into the ἀναβοήσας, which was as yet in this place premature.

Mark 15:12. ὃν λέγετε] Lachm. has deleted this, on too slight evidence. If it had been added, it would have taken the form τὸν λεγόμενον from Matthew 27:22. But τόν is to be adopted before βασιλ. (with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.), according to A B C δ א, min., to which also D may be added as reading τῷ βασιλ. Out of the swerving from ὅν to τόν is explained the omission of ὃν λέγετε, which happened the more easily after Mark 15:9.

Mark 15:14. The reading περισσῶς (Lachm.), instead of the Recepta περισσοτέρως, is so decisively attested that it may not be derived from Matthew 27:23. Somewhat more weakly, but still so considerably, is ἔκρο ζον (Lachm.) in the sequel attested (A D G K M, min.; δ: ἔκραζαν), that this also is to be adopted, and ἔκραζαν is to be regarded as a repetition from Mark 15:13.

Mark 15:17. ἐνδύουσιν] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἐνδιδύσκουσιν, which Griesb. also recommended, and Schulz approved, following B C D F δ א, min. Rightly; the familiar verb supplanted the unusual one.

Mark 15:18. The Recepta βασιλεῦ is to be maintained; ὁ βασιλεύς (Griesb. Scholz) is from Matthew and John. The evidence is divided.

Mark 15:20. σταυρώσιν] Lachm. and Tisch. have σταυρώσουσιν, following A C D L P δ, min. (B has not got ἵνα σταυρ. αὐτ. at all). With this preponderant attestation, and as the subjunctive so easily intruded itself, the future is to be adopted.

Mark 15:22. Before γολγ. Fritzsche and Tisch. have τόν, following B C** F L δ א, min. Rightly; the article, superfluous in itself, was left out in accordance with Matthew.

Mark 15:23. πιεῖν] is with Tisch., following B C* L δ א, Copt. Arm., to be struck out as being an addition from Matthew 27:34.

Mark 15:24. Instead of διαμερίζονται Elz. has διεμέριζον, in opposition to all the uncials.

Mark 15:28. The whole of this verse is wanting in A B C D X א, min. Cant. Sahid. Condemned by Griesb., Schulz, and Fritzsche, deleted by Tisch. It is an ancient, but in the case of Mark a foreign, interpolation from a recollection of Luke 22:37 (comp. John 19:24).

Mark 15:29. ἐν τρισὶν ἡμ. οἰκοδ.] Lachm. and Tisch. have οἰκ. τρ. ἡμ. As well the omission of ἐν as the putting of οἰκ, first, is sufficiently well attested to make the Recepta appear as an alteration in accordance with Matthew 27:40.

Mark 15:30. καὶ κατάβα] Lachm. Tisch. have καταβάς, following B D L δ א, Copt. Vulg. codd. It. The Recepta is a resolution of the participle; comp. P, min.: καὶ κατάβηθι (in accordance with Matthew).

Mark 15:33. καὶ γενομ. (Lachm. and Tisch.) is to be adopted instead of γενομ. δέ on preponderating evidence; but in Mark 15:34 the Recepta τῇ ὥρᾳ τῇ ἐνάτῃ is, following A C E G, etc., to be maintained.

Lachm. Tisch. read τῇ ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ, which suggested itself in accordance with Matthew 27:46.

Mark 15:34. The words ἐλωΐ κ. τ. λ. are very variously written in codd. and vss. The Recepta λαμμᾶ is in any case rejected by the evidence; between the forms λιμά (Lachm.), λαμά (Tisch.), and λεμά, (Fritzsche), in the equal division of the evidence, there is no coming to a decision.

Mark 15:36. τε] has important but not preponderating evidence against it; it is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. But if it had been added, καὶ περιθ. would have been written (Matthew 27:48), which, however, is only found in a few cursives. On the other hand, previously instead of εἷς, τις is to be read with Tisch., and the following καί to be deleted with Lachm. The Recepta is moulded after Matthew.

Mark 15:39. κράξας] is wanting only in B L א Copt. Ar. (deleted by Tisch.), and easily became objectionable.

The arrangement οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπ. in Lachm. and Tisch. is attested by B D L δ א, min. The Recepta is from Luke 23:47.

Mark 15:41. αἳ καί] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely αἵ. So also Rinck. But the collocation of the two almost similar syllables was the occasion of the dropping away partly of αἵ (A C L δ, min. vss.), partly of καί (B א, min. vss.).

Mark 15:42. The reading πρὸς σάββατον in Lachm. (instead of προσάββατον) is nothing but a clerical error.

Mark 15:43. ἦλθεν] Decisive evidence gives ἐλθών. So Matthaei, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., approved also by Griesb. ἐλθὼν … τολμ. εἰσῆλθε was resolved into ἦλθεν … καὶ τ. ἐ. This καί before τολμ. occurs still in min. Syr. utr. Vulg. Euthym.

Mark 15:44. πάλαι] Lachm. has ἤδη, in accordance with B D, Syr. hier. Arm. Copt. Goth. Vulg. It. Theophyl. A repetition of the previous ἤδη.

Mark 15:45. σῶμα] B D L א: πτῶμα. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; σῶμα appeared more worthy.

Mark 15:46. καί before καθελ. is wanting in B D L א, Copt. Lachm. Tisch. A connective addition.

κατέθηκεν] B C** D L א, min. have ἔθηκεν. So Fritzsche, Lachm. But how easily the syllable κατ dropped out after καί, especially since Matthew and Luke also only have the simple form!

Mark 15:47. τίθεται] In accordance with decisive evidence read, with Lachm. and Tisch., τέθειται.

Mark 15:1. See on Matthew 27:1-2. Comp. Luke 23:1.

ἐπὶ τὸ πρωΐ] on the morning (Mark 13:35), i.e. during the early morning, so that ἐπί expresses the duration stretching itself out. Bernhardy, p. 252. Comp. Acts 3:1; Acts 4:5. As to συμβ. ποι., comp. on Mark 3:6. They made a consultation. According to the more significant reading ἑτοιμάσ. (see the critical remarks), they arranged such an one, they set it on foot. On what subject? the sequel informs us, namely, on the delivering over to the Procurator.

καὶ ὅλον τὸ συνέδρ.] and indeed the whole Sanhedrim. Mark has already observed, Mark 14:53 ( πάντες), that the assembly was a, full one, and with manifest design brings it into prominence once more. “Synedrium septuaginta unius seniorum non necesse est, ut sedeant omnes … cum vero necesse est, ut congregentur omnes, congregentur omnes,” Maimonides, Sanhedr. 3 in Lightfoot, p. 639.

Mark 15:2-5. See on Matthew 27:11-14. Comp. Luke 23:2 f. Matthew has here inserted from the evangelic tradition elsewhere the tragical end of Judas, just as Luke has the discussion with Herod; Mark abides simply and plainly by the main matter in hand; nor has he in the sequel the dream of Pilate’s wife, or the latter’s washing of his hands. Doubts, however, as to the historical character of these facts are not to be deduced from this silence; only the tradition had narrower and wider spheres of its historical material.

Mark 15:4. πάλιν] See Mark 15:2.

Mark 15:5. οὐκέτι] At Mark 15:2 he had still answered.

Mark 15:6-14. See on Matthew 27:15-23. Comp. Luke 23:13-23.

Mark 15:6. ἀπέλυεν] “Imperfectum ubi solere notat, non nisi de re ad certum tempus restricta dicitur,” Hermann, ad Viger. p. 746.

ὅνπερ] quem quidem (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 724), the very one whom they, etc.

Mark 15:7. μετὰ τῶν συστασιαστ] with his fellow-insurgents. συστασιαστής occurs again only in Josephus, Antt. xiv. 2. 1. In the classical writers it is συστασιώτης (Herod, v. 70. 124; Strabo, xiv. p. 708).

ἐν τῇ στάσει] in the insurrection in question, just indicated by συστασιαστ. It is hardly assumed by Mark as well known; to us it is entirely unknown.¹⁷⁴ But Bengel well remarks: “crimen Pilato suspectissimum.”

Mark 15:8. What Matthew represents as brought about by Pilate, Mark makes to appear as if it were suggested by the people themselves. An unessential variation.

ἀναβάς] having gone up before the palace of Pilate (see the critical remarks).

αἰτεῖσθαι, καθώς] so to demand, as, to institute a demand accordingly, as, i.e. according to the real meaning: to demand that, which. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 427; Schaef. O. C. 1124.

Mark 15:9. τὸν βασιλέα τ. ἰουδ.] not inappropriate (Köstlin), but said in bitterness against the chief priests, etc., as John 18:39.

Mark 15:10. ἐγίνωσκε] he perceived; Matthew has ᾔδει, but Mark represents the matter as it originated.

Mark 15:11. ἵνα μᾶλλον] aim of the ἀνέσεισαν (comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 204 [E. T. 236]), in order that he (Pilate) rather, etc., in order that this result might be brought about.

Mark 15:13. πάλιν] supposes a responsive cry already given after Mark 15:11 on the instigation of the chief priests. An inexact simplicity of narration.

Mark 15:15-20. See on Matthew 27:26-31. Comp. Luke 23:24-25.

τὸ ἱκανὸν ποιῆσαι] satisfacere, to do what was enough, to content them. See examples from Diog. Laert., Appian, and so forth, in Wetstein and Kypke. Comp. λαμβάνειν τὸ ἱκανόν, Acts 17:9.

Mark 15:16. Matthew has: εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον; the vividly descriptive Mark has: ἔσω τῆς αὐλῆς, ὅ ἐστι πραιτώριον, into the interior of the court, which is the praetorium, for they did not bring Him into the house and call the cohorts together thither, but into the inner court surrounded by the buildings (the court-yard) which formed the area of the praetorium, so that, when people went from without into this court through the portal ( πυλών, comp. on Matthew 26:71) they found themselves in the praetorium. Accordingly αὐλή is not in this place to be translated palace (see on Matthew 26:3), but court, as always in the N. T. Comp. Mark 14:66; Mark 14:54.

On the ὅ attracted by the predicative substantive, comp. Winer, p. 150 [E. T. 206]

πορφύραν] a purple robe. Matthew specifies the robe more definitely ( χλαμύδα), and the colour differently ( κοκκίνην), following another tradition.

Mark 15:18. ἤρξαντο] after that investiture; a new act.

Mark 15:21. See on Matthew 27:32. Comp. Luke 23:26.

ἵνα σταυρώσουσιν] See the critical remarks. On the future after ἵνα, see Winer, p. 257 f. [E. T. 360 f.].

Only Mark designates Simon by his sons. Whether Alexander be identical with the person named at Acts 19:33, or with the one at 1 Timothy 1:20, 2 Timothy 2:17, or with neither of these two, is just as much a matter of uncertainty, as is the possible identity of Rufus with the person mentioned at Romans 16:13. Mark takes for granted that both of them were known, hence they doubtless were Christians of mark; comp. Mark 10:46. But how frequent were these names, and how many of the Christians that were at that time well known we know nothing of! As to ἀγγαρ., see on Matthew 5:41. The notice ἐρχόμενον ἀπʼ ἀγροῦ, which Luke also, following Mark, gives (but not Matthew), is one of the traces which are left in the Synoptical narratives that the day of the crucifixion was not the first day of the feast (see on John 18:28). Comp. Bleek, Beitr. p. 137; Ebrard, p. 513. It is not, indeed, specified how far Simon had come from the country (comp. Mark 16:12) to the city, but there is no limitation added having reference to the circumstances of the festal Sabbath, so that the quite open and general nature of the remark, in connection with the other tokens of a work-day (Mark 15:42; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:56; Matthew 27:59 f.), certainly suggests to us such a work-day. The ἀγγαρεύοντες being the Roman soldiers, there is the less room on the basis of the text for thinking, with Lange, of a popular jest, which had just laid hold of a Sabbath-breaker who happened to come up.

Mark 15:22-27. See on Matthew 27:33-38. Comp. Luke 23:33 f., who here narrates summarily, but yet not without bringing in a deeply vivid and original trait (Mark 15:34), and has previously the episode of the daughters of Jerusalem.

τὸν γολγοθᾶ τόπον] γολγ. corresponds to the subsequent κρανίου, and is therefore to be regarded as a genitive. According to Mark, the place was called the “place of Golgotha,” which name ( ὅ) interpreted is equivalent to “place of a skull.”

Mark 15:23. ἐδίδουν] they offered. This is implied in the imperfect. See Bernhardy, p. 373.

ἐσμυρνισμ.] See, on this custom of giving to criminals wine mingled with myrrh or similar bitter and strong ingredients for the purpose of blunting their sense of feeling, Wetstein in loc.; Dougtaeus, Anal. II. p. 42.

Mark 15:24. ἐπʼ αὐτά] according to Psalms 22:19 : upon them (the clothes were lying there), as Acts 1:26. Whether the casting of the lot was done by dice, or by the shaking of the lot-tokens in a vessel (helmet), so that the first that fell out decided for the person indicated by it (see Duncan, Lex., ed. Rost, p. 635), is a question that must be left open.

τίς τί ἄρῃ] i.e. who should receive anything, and what he was to receive. See, on this blending of two interrogative clauses, Bernhardy, p. 444; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 824; Winer, p. 553 [E. T. 783].

Mark 15:25. This specification of time (comp. Mark 15:33), which is not, with Baur and Hilgenfeld, to be derived from the mere consideration of symmetry (of the third hour to that of Mark 15:33), is in keeping with Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44. As to the difference, however, from John 19:14, according to which, at about the sixth hour, Jesus still stood before Pilate, and as to the attempts at reconciliation made in respect thereof, see on John.

καὶ ἐστ. αὐτ.] ἐστ. is not to be translated as a pluperfect (Fritzsche), but: and it was the third hour, and they crucified Him, i.e. when they crucified Him;¹⁷⁵ as also in classical writers after the specification of the time the fact is often linked on by the simple καί. See Thuc. i. 50, iii. 108; Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 7, vii. 4. 12. Comp. on Luke 19:43. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 220 C.

Mark 15:29-41. See on Matthew 27:39-56. Comp. Luke 23:35-49.

οὐά] the Latin vah! an exclamation of (here ironical) amazement. Dio Cass. lxiii. 20; Arrian, Epict. iii. 23. 24; Wetstein in loc.

ὁ καταλύων κ. τ. λ.] gives us a glimpse of the original affirmation of the witnesses, as it is preserved in Matthew 26:61 (not in Mark 14:58).

Mark 15:31. πρὸς ἀλλήλ., inter se invicem, belongs to ἐμπαίζ.

Mark 15:32. Let the Messiah the King of Israel come down now, etc.,—a bitter mockery! The ὁ χριστός applies to the confession before the supreme council, Mark 14:61 f., and ὁ βασιλ. τ. ἰσρ. to that before Pilate, Mark 15:2. Moreover, we may attach either the two forms of address (Lachmann, Tischendorf), or the first of them (Ewald), to what precedes. But the customary mode of apprehending it as a double address at the head of what follows is more in keeping with the malicious triumph.

πιστεύσ.] namely, that He is the Messiah, the King of Israel. καὶ οἱ συνεσταυρ.] agrees with Matthew, but not with Luke. See on Matthew 27:44. It is to be assumed that Mark had no knowledge of the narrative of Luke 23:39 ff., and that the scene related by Luke belongs to a later tradition, in which had been preserved more special traits of the great event of the crucifixion, but with which the historical character of the exceedingly characteristic scene is not lost. See on Luke, l.c.

Mark 15:34.¹⁷⁶ ἐλωΐ] the Syriac form for אֵלִי (Matthew), which latter appears to have been what Jesus uttered, as is to be inferred from the scoff: ἠλίαν φωνεῖ.

Mark 15:36. λέγων,] a difference from Matthew 27:49, whose account is more original (in opposition to Holtzmann), because to remove the aspect of friendliness must appear more in keeping with the later development. In consequence of this difference, moreover, ἄφετε is to be understood quite otherwise than ἄφες in Matthew, namely, allow it, what I am doing, let me have my way,—which has reference to the scoffing conception, as though the proffered draught would preserve the life till Elias should come. The view that in Mark 15:35 f. friends of Jesus are meant who misunderstood His cry of ἐλωΐ, and one of whom had wished still to cheer Him as regards the possible coming of Elias (Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 490), is in itself improbable even on account of the well-known cry of the Psalm, as indeed the ἄφετε, ἴδωμεν κ. τ. λ., comp. Mark 15:30, sounds only like malicious mockery.

Mark 15:37. ἐξέπνευσε] He breathed out, i.e. He died. It is often used in this meaning absolutely in the Greek writers (Soph. Aj. 1025; Plut. Arist. 20).

Mark 15:39. According to Mark, the centurion concluded from the fact of Jesus dying after having cried out in such a manner, i.e. with so loud a voice (Mark 15:37), that He was a hero. The extraordinary power ( οὓτω δεσποτικῶς ἐξέπνευσε, Theophylact, comp. Victor Antiochenus: ΄ετʼ ἐξουσίας ἀπέθανε) which the Crucified One manifested in His very departing, made on the Gentile this impression—in which his judgment was naturally guided by the circumstance that he had heard (Matthew 27:40) of the charge brought against Jesus, that He claimed to be Son of God. According to others (as Michaelis, Kuinoel, de Wette), the unexpectedly speedy dying of Jesus, who had just before emitted a vigorous cry, made that impression, upon the Gentile, who saw in it a favour of the gods. But in order to express this, there would have been necessary under the circumstances before ἐξέπν. an accompanying definition, such as ἤδη or εὐθέως. Baur, Markusev. p. 108 f., illustrates the remark even from the crying out of the demons as they went forth (Mark 1:26, Mark 5:7, Mark 9:26); holding that Mark correspondingly conceived of the forcible separation of the higher spirit, through which Jesus had been the Son of God,—therefore after a Gnostic manner. Comp. also Hilgenfeld and Köstlin. Wrongly; because opposed to the doctrine of the entire N. T. regarding Christ the born Son of God, as indeed the heathen centurion, according to the measure of his conception of sons of God, could not conceive of Him otherwise. We may add that the circumstantial and plain statement of motive, as given by Matthew and Luke for the centurion’s judgment, betrays the later manipulators (Zeller in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1865, p. 385 ff., gives a contrary opinion), to whom Mark in this place seemed obscure or unsatisfactory.

ἦν] in His life.

Mark 15:40. ἦσαν] aderant; comp. Mark 8:1.

καὶ ΄αρ.] among others also Mary.

τοῦ ΄ικροῦ] cannot according to the meaning of the word be without arbitrariness explained as: the younger, although the James designated is the so-called Younger, but as: the little (of stature, comp. Luke 19:3). Hom. Il. v. 801: τυδεύς τοι μικρὸς μὲν ἔην δέμας, Xen. Cyr. viii. 4. 20. An appeal is wrongly made to Judges 6:15, where in fact ΄ικρός is not the youngest, but the least, that is, the weakest in warlike aptitude.

Mark does not name Salome, but he indicates her. According to John 19:25, she was the sister of the mother of Jesus. Comp. also Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 171. Thus there are three women here recorded by Mark. So also Matthew 27:56. To distinguish the Mary of James from the mother of Joses, so that four should be adduced (Ewald, l.c. p. 324), there appears to be no sufficient ground (comp. the Remark after Mark 15:47); on the contrary, Mark and Matthew would have here expressed themselves in a way very liable to be misunderstood; comp. on Matthew.

Mark 15:41. αἳ καὶ κ. τ. λ.] as they were now in the company around Jesus, so also they were, while He was in Galilee, in His train, αἵ applies, we may add, to the three who were named. Beside these there were among the women present yet many others, who had gone up with Him to Jerusalem.

Mark 15:42-47. See on Matthew 27:57-61. Comp. Luke 23:50-56.

ἐπεί as far as προσάββ. gives the reason why Joseph, when the even had come, etc. With the commencement of the Sabbath (on Friday after sunset) the business of the taking away, etc., would not have been allowable.¹⁷⁷ Hence the words are not to be put in parenthesis. Mark has not ἐπεί elsewhere, and it is noteworthy that John also, John 19:31, has it here precisely at the mention of the παρασκευή, and in his Gospel the word only occurs elsewhere in Mark 13:29. Certainly this is no accidental agreement; perhaps it arose through a common primitive evangelic document, which John, however, worked up differently.

ὅ ἐστι προσάββ.] which—namely, the expression παρασκευή—is as much as Sabbath-eve, the day before the Sabbath. On προσάββ., comp. Judith 8:6.

Mark 15:43. The breaking of the legs, John 19:31 ff., preceded this request for the dead body, and it is to be supposed that Joseph at the same time communicated to Pilate how in the case of Jesus, because He was already dead, the breaking of the legs was not applied.

ὁ ἀπὸ ἀρι΄αθ.] The article designates the well-known man. See Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. iii. 1. 5, iv. 6. 20.

εὐσχήμων βουλευτ.] is usually explained: a counsellor of rank. See on the later use of εὐσχήμ., in contrast with the plebeians, Wetstein in loc.; Phryn. p. 333 and Lobeck thereupon; Acts 13:50; Acts 17:12. But, as the characteristic of rank is already involved in βουλευτής, there is the less reason to depart from the old classical meaning of the word. Hence: a seemly, stately counsellor, so that the nobleness (the σεμνότης) of his external appearance and deportment is brought into prominence.

That by βουλευτής is meant a member of the Sanhedrim,¹⁷⁸ may be rightly concluded from Luke 23:51. This is in opposition to Erasmus, Casaubon, Hammond, Michaelis, and many others, who conceive of him as a member of a council at Arimathea.

καὶ αὐτός] on his part also, like other adherents of Jesus. Comp. John 19:38.

προσδεχόμ.] comp. Luke 2:25; Luke 2:38; Acts 23:21; Acts 24:15.

τὴν βασιλ. τοῦ θεοῦ] the kingdom of the Messiah, whose near manifestation—that subject-matter of fervent expectation for the devout ones of Israel

Jesus had announced. The idea of the kingdom is not Petrine (Lange), but one belonging to primitive Christianity generally.

τολμήσας] having emboldened himself, absolutely; see Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 173. Comp. Romans 10:20.

Mark 15:44. εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκε] he wondered if He were already dead (perfect; on the other hand, afterwards the historic aorist: had died). It is plain that Pilate had had experience, how slowly those who were crucified were accustomed to die. εἰ after θαυ΄άζω denotes that the matter is not as yet assumed to be beyond a doubt. See Boissonade, ad Philostr. Her. p. 424; Kühner, II. p. 480 f.; Frotscher, Hier. i. 6; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 195.

πάλαι] the opposite of ἄρτι. Whether He had died (not just only now, but) already earlier. He wished, namely, to be sure that he was giving away the body as actually dead. See on πάλαι, dudum, as a relative antithesis to the present time, Wolf, ad Plat. Symp. p. 20; Stallbaum, ad Apol. Socr. p. 18 B.

Mark 15:45. ἐδωρήσατο] he bestowed as a gift, without therefore requiring money for it. Instances of the opposite (as Cic. Verr. v. 46; Justin, ix. 4. 6) may be seen in Wetstein.

Mark 15:46. καθαιρεῖν] the proper word for the taking away from the cross, Latin: detrahere, refigere. Comp. Mark 15:36. See Raphel, Polyb. p. 157; Kypke and Loesner in loc.

λελατ. ἐκ πέτρας] hewn out of a rock. Comp. Matthew 27:60. The same fact is expressed in Mark according to the conception from whence; and in Matthew, according to the conception wherein. Of the fact that the grave belonged to Joseph, Mark gives no hint, neither do Luke and John; see on Matthew 27:60.

ποῦ τέθειται] The perfect (see the critical remarks) indicates that the women, after the burial had taken place, went thither and beheld where He has been laid, where He lies. The present would indicate that they looked on at the burial.

REMARK.

In Mark 15:47, instead of ἰωσῆ Lachmann and Tischendorf have adopted ἡ ἰωσῆτος, following B δ (L has merely ἰωσῆτος) א**, as they also at Mark 15:40 have ἰωσῆτος, following B D L δ א** (in which case, however, B prefixes ἡ). This is simply a Greek form of the Hebrew name (comp. the critical remarks on Mark 6:3), and probably, on the strength of this considerable attestation, original, as also is the article ἡ, which is found in A B C G δ א**. Another reading is ἡ ἰωσήφ, which occurs in A, 258, Vulg. Gat. Prag. Rd., and is preferred by Wieseler, chronol. Synopse, p. 427 f., who here understands the daughter or wife of the counsellor Joseph of Arimathea, and so quite a different Mary from the Mary of James. But (1) this reading has the very great preponderance of evidence opposed to it; (2) it is easily explained whence it originated, namely, out of the correct reading of Matthew 13:55 ( ἰωσήφ, see in loc.), from which place the name of Joseph found its way into many of the witnesses (including Vulg. and codd. It.), not only at Mark 6:3, but also at Mark 15:40 (Aeth. Vulg. It. Aug.) and Mark 15:47; while the underlying motive for conforming the name of Joses to that of Joseph the brother of Jesus, Matthew 13:55, might be found as well in the assumption of the identity of the brethren of Jesus with the sons of Alphaeus, as in the error, which likewise was already ancient (see Theophylact), that the mother of Jesus is meant and is designated as the stepmother of James and Joses. (3) A Mary of Joseph is never named among the women of the Gospel history. But (4) if Joseph had been the counsellor just previously mentioned, Mark would have written not merely M. ἡ ἰωσήφ, but M. ἡ τοῦ ἰωσήφ., and would, moreover, assuming only some accuracy on his part, have indicated the relation of kinship, which he has not omitted even at Mark 15:40, where, withal, the relation of Mary to James and Joses was well enough known. Finally, (5) the association of Mary of Magdala in the passage before us of itself entitles us to suppose that Mary would also have been one of the women who followed Jesus from Galilee (Mark 15:41), as indeed at Mark 16:1 these two friends are again named. On the whole we must abide by the Maria Josis at the passage before us. Mark, in the passage where he mentions her for the first time, Mark 15:40, names her completely according to her two sons (comp. Matthew 27:56), and then—because she was wont to be designated both as Maria Jacobi (comp. Luke 24:10) and as Maria Josis—at Mark 15:47 in the latter, and at Mark 16:1 in the former manner, both of which differing modes of designation (Mark 15:47; Mark 16:1) either occurred so accidentally and involuntarily, or perhaps were occasioned by different sources of which Mark made use.