^{page 308 note 1} If John xxi is an appendix to John by another hand, its writer may have relied on a tradition which made Peter see the Lord first (xxi. 7 being taken as ‘Johannine’ tampering with this originally pro-Petrine tradition). It is possible but unlikely that The Gospel of Peter reflects the currency of this tradition before it was attached to John's Gospel.

^{page 308 note 2} Cf. Paul defending his own experience of the risen Christ, and so his own apostleship in that light (I Cor. ix. 1, xv. 7–10).

^{page 308 note 3} See Evans, C. F., Resurrection and the New Testament (1970), p. 83,Google Scholar for the quotation. On Matt. xxviii. 16–20, see esp. Bornkamm, G., ‘The Close of Matthew’ (Lecture to Oxford University, 1967)Google Scholar and Barth, G., in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, Eng. trans. (1963), pp. 131 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 4} Vs. 12 is abesnt from the Bezan text, but a number of considerations weigh in favour of it in Luke: (a) it is not obviously adapted from John xx. 2–9, the Johannine account referring to two disciples, and (b) Luke xxiv. 24 cries out for a prior incident (as xxiv. 22 = xxiv. 1 ff.). Admittedly the reference to тινές тν σũν ήμĩν in vs. 24 creates difficulties, as Peter alone is mentioned in vs. 12; but this must be matched by the discrepancy between vs. 24 and vs. 11. (c) A powerful array of MSS: ℵ A B W Θ, etc.

^{page 309 note 1} Though not in the longer ending of Mark, yet cf. the Petrinism of the shorter ending.

^{page 309 note 2} History of the Synoptic Tradition, Eng. trans. (1963), pp. 284–5.Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 3} For apologetic problems concerning the resurrection, cf. esp. Mark xii. 18–27, Matt. xxviii. 11–15, John xxi. 24, Acts xvii. 32, Justin, , Frag. de Resurrectione, II-VGoogle Scholar, Origen, , Contra Celsum, esp. II. 57 ff.,Google Scholar etc.

^{page 309 note 4} Only in Luke does Mary Magdalene appear in a pre-resurrection context (viii. 2), clearly a Lucan ‘pro-feminist’ editorial passage.

^{page 309 note 5} So, for example, Nineham, D. E., Saint Mark (1963), pp. 431–2.Google Scholar

^{page 310 note 1} H. B. Swete identifies this Mary as the wife of Clopas (John xix. 25) and as the mother of James son of Alphaeus (Mark iii. 18) but as the ingenious further identification of Clopas and Alphaeus as יפלח seems to be ruled out by the Syriac versions, an alternative suggestion is called for (cf. his Gospel according to St Mark (1909 ed.), pp. 389–90 and p. 113)Google Scholar.

^{page 310 note 2} The Gospel according to St Mark (1966), p. 598.Google Scholar Taylor prefers Swete's interpretation.

^{page 310 note 3} So Schmid, , Das Evangelium nach Markus (1958), p. 304Google Scholar (as the most important), and for the earliest strong defence of this position, Ambrose, , De Virginitate, iii. 14.Google Scholar Mark xv. 40 is the locus classicus for the usage of õ μικρõς as ‘the younger’, not ‘the small’. It is clearly an ‘aramaism’, based on a hebraic nomenclature, for = small, or young or (though lacking the ) younger, the last meaning satisfying the case because the younger James, Jesus' brother, succeeded the older James, a key apostle, as a leader of the Church (cf. e.g. Acts xii. 2, 17).

^{page 310 note 4} Mark's mission work was in Asia Minor (Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24, Acts xv. 39) and eventually at Rome (I Peter v. 13, II Tim. iv. 11, cf. Papias). James' death dates to A.D. 62 (cf. Joseph, ., Antiquit. xx. ix. 1Google Scholar in Origen, , Contra Cels., I. 47Google Scholar and Eusebius, , Hist. Eccles., II, xxiii. 19 ff.Google Scholar) and Mark may have associated his death with general Neronian persecution (x. 30 (a helpful way to explain it?) and xiii. 9).

^{page 310 note 5} The accounts of appearances to James in The Gospel of the Hebrews (in Jerome, De viris illustribus, 2) and alluded to by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccles. VII. 19)Google Scholar are later untrustworthy accounts, yet cf. recent Nag Hammadi Apocalypses of James (Böhlig-Labib, Kopt.-gnost. Apokalypsen aus Codex V).

^{page 310 note 6} Peter is named first amongst an inner group of disciples in these passages, cf. Lowe, J., Saint Peter (1956), p. 6.Google Scholar On the view that the denial only is being alluded to, see Nineham, op. cit. p. 447.

^{page 310 note 7} Mark's παρ' αὐτου⋯ is best translated to include Jesus' family and their friends; so Klostermann, E., Das Markusevangelium (1950 ed.), p. 42,Google Scholar etc.

^{page 311 note 1} For the idea of insult in vi. 1 ff. see esp. Russell, J. K., ‘The Son of Mary (Mark vi. 3),’ E.T. LX. (1948–1949), 195,Google Scholar and cf. Luke iv. 22, John i. 45, vi. 42.

^{page 311 note 2} Matthew uses this saying as an opportunity to bestow the title of άδελφολ on Jesus' disciples (cf. xii. 49), whereas Luke uses it as a form of parable on hearing and doing the will of God.

^{page 311 note 3} Some MSS include ‘the Son of God’.

^{page 311 note 4} The pattern of ‘individualization’ in the empty-tomb tradition is fascinating to follow. Matthew quickly drops the clumsy Μαρλα ή του⋯ Ίακώβου καλ Ίωσήφ μήτηρ for ή ἄλλη Μαρλα (xxvii. 61, xxviii. 1) and identifies Salome (correctly?) as the mother of the sons of Zebedee (xxvii. 56). Luke, whilst speaking of γυναΙ⋯κες in xxiii. 49 and 55, gives but one list in which the second Mary is the mgrother of James only, and (unknown?) Salome is replaced by Joanna (xxiv. 10, cf. viii. 3). In John and pseudo-Mark, Mary Magdalene is singled out especially, although John puts her in a ‘list’ in xix. 25, whilst The Gospel of Peter, as it were completing the tendency, singled her out as heading a nameless company of women (xii. 50–1).

^{page 312 note 1} Westcott, B. F., Saint John (London, 1882), p. 276,Google Scholar and following him, though with a different slant, Lightfoot, R. H., St John's Gospel; a commentary (ed Evans, ) (1956), p. 317.Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 2} For Ps. xxii. see esp. John xix. 24b; on a previous reference to Ps. lxix. cf. John ii. 17, cf. 22.

^{page 312 note 3} So Ps. lxix. 7–9 (LXX), 8–10 (MT): ‘It is for thy sake that I have borne reproach / that shame has covered my face / I have become a stranger to my brothers / an alien to my mother's sons / for zeal for thy house has consumed me / and the insults of those who insult thee have fallen on me’. The quotation of this Psalm in ii. 17 is also connected with Jesus' emancipation from family ties, as Jesus is made suddenly to leave his family in Cana in order to clear the temple at Jerusalem, there quoting MT vs. 10 of the psalm.

^{page 312 note 4} A reminiscence seems also preserved in Luke's peculiar use of tradition in iv. 16–30, v. 1 ff., see Conzelmann, H., The Theology of Saint Luke, Eng. trans. (1960), p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 312 note 5} Later literature confirms Peter as head of a ‘centre’ group, see Daniélou, J., The Theology of Jewish Christianity, Eng. trans. (1964), p. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 1} See Cullmann, O., Peter; disciple, apostle, martyr, Eng. trans. (1962), pp. 25 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 2} A view partly based on the inference that Mark and John play down the kinship connections of Jesus. Cf. also Hegesippus' account, esp. in Eusebius, , Hist. Eecles. III. 11;Google Scholar 20. 6; 32. 6, cf. I. 7. 11, and see Stauffer, E., ‘Zum Kalifat des Jacobus,’ in Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, IV (1952), 193 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 3} See esp. Schweizer, E., Gemeindeordnung im Neuen Testament (1959),Google Scholar sect. n, Marxsen, W., in The Significance of the Message of Resurrection, etc. (ed Moule) (1968), p. 33,Google Scholar cf. esp. Gal. i. 1, 16, I Cor. xv. 7.

^{page 313 note 4} I am assuming that Paul's source ends with the last couplet ‘James and all the Apostles’, but for other interpretations see esp. Evans, , Resurrection, pp. 43–6.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 5} I.e. in John and the ‘longer ending ’ of Mark. It is just possible (though clearly conjectural), however, that J. H. Bernard is right in identifying Magdalene with Mary of Bethany (John xi. 1, xii. 3, cf. Luke x. 39, 42).

^{page 314 note 1} A. Plummer indefensibly evades this fact by contending that Joseph and Jose(s) ‘are different forms of the same name’, but against this note Mark xv. 43 and the Wolfenbüttel MS on Acts i. 23, iv. 36 (two different people referred to), and the fact that the distinction between the names is fixed enough in the Hebrew of this period (cf. Sot. i. 9, Bab. Bath. x. 7, Hall. iv. 11, Mikw. x., etc.) to warrant separate genitive constructions upon transliteration into Greek (Mark vi. 3, xv. 40). Some MSS (such as N) do read two different names in these last two verses, others use Ίωσή without its genitive form, but Kilpatrick and Souter correctly select the unusual shorter nomenclature as the best attested, any Markan Ίωσήφ being assimilated from Matthew. It is true also that Mark xv. 40 and Matt. xxvii. 56 lack in the Sinaitic Syriac version and run (daughter), but this reading is not well attested. It may be derived from an anti-James source.

^{page 314 note 2} The title may have been dropped, however, because Matthew knew of James' later title, ‘the Just’ (Eusebius, , Hist. Eccles. II. 23Google Scholar). Hegesippus over-idealized when he asserted that James had this title from Jesus' day (in Ibid. II. 23. 4).

^{page 314 note 3} Cf. esp. Bultmann's, Theology of the New Testament, Eng. trans. (1965), I, 45.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 4} Cf. I Cor. xv. 4 and the juxtaposition of έτάφη and έγήγερται, and also Foulkes, F., ‘Some aspects of St Paul's treatment of the resurrection of Christ in I Corinthians XV,’ A.B.R. XVI (1968), 27Google Scholar (‘A Jew could not exclude the physical from his concept of resurrection’). Gal. i. 16b hardly contradicts this point. For Paul on an earlier, certainly fleshly view of the resurrection, see I Thess. iv. 16 f. and cf. U. Wilckens, in Moule (ed.), op. cit. pp. 58–9.

^{page 314 note 5} See esp. Pannenberg, W. in ‘A Dialogue on Christ's resurrection,’ in Christianity Today, XII, no. 14, pp. 10 f.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 1} We have no defence of the James group's position in the canonical NT. The Epistle of James may have emerged from this circle, but it cannot be made out to be an anti-Petrine or even an anti-Paulinist document (on the crucial passage, ii. 14–26, see Jeremias, J., ‘Paul and James,’ E.T. LXVI (1955), 368 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 2} See esp. Evans, , Resurrection, pp. 67–81,Google Scholar and the literature cited there.

^{page 315 note 3} Cf. Lightfoot's, R. H., examples in Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels (1938), pp. 10–18.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 4} From Knox, W. L., ‘The Ending of St Mark's Gospel,’ H.T.R. xxxv (1942), 23.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 5} On this cf. Bultmann, , History, pp. 285, 345 ff.Google Scholar; Wilckens, , loc. cit. p. 71,Google Scholar and esp. Mark viii. 30, ix. 9.

^{page 315 note 6} Cf. esp. Lagrange, , Évangile selon saint Marc (1929), p. 448;Google Scholar Knox, loc. cit. pp. 13 f. etc.

^{page 315 note 7} A point forcefully made by Lightfoot, , The Gospel Message of St Mark (1950), pp. 82 f.Google Scholar

^{page 315 note 8} So A. Plummer, W. C. Allen (though he later retracted), E. J. Goodspeed, P. Parker, etc.

^{page 316 note 1} On Matthew following Mark, see esp. Dahl, N. A., ‘Die Passionsgeschichte bei Matthäus,’ N.T.S. II (1955–1956), 17 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 2} The key verb ποάυω is missing, however, bur conclusions drawn from that could be many and contradictory!

^{page 316 note 3} W. Marxsen correctly surmises the προάγω prophecy to be Markan; it clearly ‘disrupts’ Mark xiv. 27, 29 (Der Evangelist Markus (1959), pp. 47 ff.Google Scholar, cf. Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus (1937), p. 311Google Scholar and Evans, C., ‘“I will go before you into Galilee”’, J.T.S. v (1954), 3 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 4} The threefold reminder is characteristic of Mark, see esp. on the ‘eucharist’ (vi. 39–44, viii. 6–9, xiv. 22–6), on υιòς θεο (in the best-attested MSS iii. ii, v. 7, xv. 39), χριστός (i. i, viii. 29, xiv. 61 ), lsquo;άуαπηηός’(i. 11, ix. 7, xii. 6), on Lordship above and associated with David (ii. 23–8, x. 46-xi. 10, xii. 35–7), etc. There are also two έυώ ειμι sayings of significance (vi. 50, xiv. 62). A satisfactory third one is absent, but for a possible explanation see below. And of vital importance are the three predictions of the passion (viii. 31, lx. 32, x. 33).

^{page 316 note 5} Bultmann suggests a word rearrangement (op. cit. p. 285 n.). Swete (op. cit. p. 399) and Moffatt, Burkitt, Taylor, etc. following him seem to suggest a short closure following xvi. 8 which foreshadows Farrer's, A. conjectured: ‘But the name Jesus became manifest in all the world’ (St Matthew and St Mark, London (1966), p. 146)Google Scholar and C. F. D. Moule's parenthesis from ει⋯χεν to έφοβου⋯ντο γάρ, followed by καλ εύθύς λέγουσιν τοĩς μαθηται⋯ς περλ πάντων (cf. ‘St Mark xvi. 8 once more’, N.T.S. II (1955), 58–9).Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 1} See Farrer, op. cit. pp. 145 ff.

^{page 317 note 2} Kilpatrick, (Origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew (1946), p. 48)Google Scholar adds χαλρειν, θοβει⋯σθαι, άπαγγέλλειν and άπέρχεσθαι but detailed analysis of Markan usage disallows us from putting too much store by such judgements, and for φοβοũμαι see next note.

^{page 317 note 3} Κρατέω seems characteristically Markan, but one must be careful, cf. Hauck's comments quoted in Kittel's, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Eng. trans. (1965), III, 911 n.1.Google Scholar Concerning φοβοũμαι again Matt. follows certain Markan usages (Matt. xiv. 5, 27, 46, xxv. 25(?)) or seems to take from sources (x. 26, 28, 31) but he also has his own characteristic usage (i. 20, ii. 22, ix. 8, xiv. 30, xvii. 6, 7, xxvii. 54 and xxviii. 5), which change Mark's έκθαμβου⋯μαι. Against this, however, must be weighed Mark's own characteristic usages (iv. 41, v. 15, 33, 36, ix. 32, x. 32, xi. 18) and the crucial factor, the context (Mark xvi. 8, cf. Matt. xxviii. 8). The phrase ũπαγε άπάγγειλον occurs only at Mark v. 19, and not in Matt. For the command υ⋯παγε see below, and on õράω: Matt. has only three of his 13 uses meaning anything spiritual, these including the verse being examined with xxviii. 7 (from Mark) and v. 8 (Q). For Mark's spiritual usage see Mark viii. 15, 24, ix. 4, xiii. 26, xiv. 62, xvi. 7, and cf. C. Evans, loc. cit. pp. 14 ff.

^{page 317 note 4} Matt. alters ούδενί ούδέν εīπαν, wanting to stress that the message ‘got through’, a stress he apparently does not find in Mark.

^{page 317 note 5} Fiction surrounds appearances to Peter, James and Mary in apocryphal literature, but there are no examples of entirely devised appearances to people for whom no such appearances have already been attested.

^{page 318 note 1} See Brun, L., Die Auferstehung Christi in der urchristlichen Überlieferung (1925), pp. 9 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 2} Esp. Lohmeyer, , Galilāa und Jerusalem (1936), pp. 10 ff.;Google ScholarMichaelis, W., Die Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen (1944), pp. 62 ff.;Google Scholar Marxsen, op. cit. pp. 49 ff.; C. Evans, loc. cit. pp. 17–18; Hamilton, N. Q., ‘Resurrection Tradition and the Composition of Mark,’ J.B.L. LXXXIV (1965), esp. pp. 219–21.Google Scholar And cf. Lightfoot, , Locality, p. 73,Google Scholar and Nineham, op. cit. p. 446, on Mark's use of ο⋯ράω in the above verse, and Hamilton, loc. cit. p. 418, on xii. 18 ff.

^{page 318 note 3} The υίός άνθρώπου in this verse need not necessarily refer to the Danielic figure (see esp. vs. 12, cf. ii. 10, 28, viii. 31, ix, 31, x, 32).

^{page 318 note 4} So Kümmel, W. G., Promise and Fulfilment, Eng. trans. (1957), p. 78,Google Scholar following Wellhausen, Schlatter, Hirsch, etc. Οράω in xiii. 26, xiv. 62 does not confirm the parousia argument; Mark uses the word for any spiritual sight, see viii. 15, 24, ix. 4.

^{page 318 note 5} According to this view, xiv. 27 f. and xvi. 7 mean that Jesus is present in the church's preaching in Galilee, i.e. in the Gentile mission (a view the editor brought to my notice, Evans, cf., Resurrection pp. 80–1.Google ScholarBest, E., The Temptation and the Passion; Markan Soteriology (1965), pp. 174–7).Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 1} It does not seem to have been noted that there is an important inverse realtionship between iv. 38 and xiv. 33 b, 37, 40. On sleep and death in the NT cf. I Thess. iv. 13 – v. 11.

^{page 319 note 2} Could the story of the Gerasene have been once passed down as a midrash on LXX Ps. XXX (amongst others)? A chronological understanding of the psalm yields interesting parallels: Ps. xxix. 1b (Mark. v. 14–17), 2a (έκέκραξα) (v. 7, κράξας), 2b (8, 13, 15), 7a (v. 8, 13) (the two stages of the healing), 7b (v. 18–19 A a), 8–9 (either 6–7 or 18), 10 (v. 19), 11–12 and 1a (v. 20). Elements of other psalms such as xlix. 14 on the animals, or lxviii, 6 on vss. 2–3, 4, 19a (Nineham) could well be in the background.

^{page 319 note 3} On ‘fear’ one should note that Mark distinguishes between όβος and θαũμα; they are never assimilated except in iv. 41 where most commentators perceive a special kind of ‘fear’ (Swete, Lagrange, Nineham), a fear which, in my view, is connected with LXX Ps. xxxii (xxxi). 6–9 (and so. vs. 8 ϕοβηθήω), a key passage in early Christian literature used to affirm that it was Christ, the Logos, who had control over creation (John i. 3, II Pet. iii. 5 (within 1–7), Ignatius, , Ephes. xv. 1,Google Scholar Clement Alex. Exhort. IV. 54, etc., though see I Macc. x. 8).

^{page 319 note 4} So ix. 9–10 especially, and one should also note how proclamation of resurrection is denied to Jairus (v. 43) (because he was a Jew?), cf. the Gentile Gerasene (v. 19).

^{page 319 note 5} This was concluded from a detailed analysis of the Markan. Novellen as isolated in Dibelius' Formgeschichte des Evangeliums.

^{page 319 note 6} Mark does not use έκθαμβοũμαι as a ‘response’ to a numinous ‘happening’ so much as a prelude to a numinous occurrence (see ix. 15, xiv. 33). The θαμβοũμαι in x. 32 also has this effect, and so does its use, introducing Jesus' teaching, in i. 27 (so διδαχή καινή).

^{page 319 note 7} So esp. Bousset, W., Kyrios Christos (1926 ed.), p. 65.Google Scholar It is unlikely that Mark should have been considering the status of this tradition alone at this consummating stage of his Gospel, or that the ‘empty tomb’ tradition was not a well-known one, at least in Christian circles.

^{page 319 note 8} Cf. esp. Hamilton, loc. cit. pp. 415 ff., who on p. 418 takes Mark xii. 18–27, a very anti-Sadducean, rabbinical passage, as the central core of Mark' resurrection theology; Strack-Billerbeck, cf., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (1926), 1, 885 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 1} Cf. i. 44, ii. 11, v. 19, 34, vi. 38, vii. 29, viii. 33, x. 21, 52, xi. 2, xiv. 13, 21, xvi. 7. Matthew copies Mark 6 times omits 5 times, and alters twice. He has only 2 usages independent of Mark, iv. 10 (= Q), v. 24 (source material?).

^{page 320 note 2} Not that the other evangelists make the young man an angel (or angles) because Mark is unconvincing. My hypothesis is (a) that Mark meant the lad to be an angel, and (b) that Matthew, Luke and John possessed the original ending of Mark. It was simply developing tradition which led to the heightening of the numinous, and cf. later angelogical preoccupations, Matt. i. 20, 24, ii. 13, 19, iv. 6, 11, xviii. 10 etc., Luke i–ii, John i. 51, v. 4.

^{page 320 note 3} Matthew neverusesMark's κθσαμβου⋯μαι or his θαμβου⋯μαι, cf. Mark i. 27, ix. 15, x. 24, 32, xiv. 33 (as well as xvi. 5); cf. Matt.'s parallel passages (although the verbs do not seem to be the decisive factore in all these cases). Mark means ‘troubled’ by έκθαμβσūμαι, not ‘astonished’ (see ix. 15, xiv. 33, xvi. 5).

^{page 320 note 4} See Mark v. 41 (om. Matt. ix. 25), vii. 34 (om. Matt. xv. 30), x. 51 (ῥαββουνελ) (cf. Matt. xx. 33 (κυ⋯ριε)), xiv. 36 (άββά ο⋯ πατήρ) (cf. Matt. xxvi. 39 (πάτερ μου)), xv. 34 (altered to the Hebrew in Matt. xxvii. 46).

^{page 320 note 5} Mark v. 41 concerns resurrection, vii. 34 concerns the opening up of the gentile mission from Galilee (vs. 31 Mark's geography is important!), x. 51 concerns spiritual sight (although άναβλέπω rather than ο⋯ράω is used) but there are strong resurrection associations in x. 49 f. (θάρσει, cf. vi. 50 and comments below, έγειρε, not called for in context, ῥαββουνελ cf. John xx. 16, and also the ũπαγε in vs. 52, cf. Mark xvi. 7, Matt. xxviii. 10 (= Mark?)). Mark xiv. 36 and xv. 34 concern the prelude to, and actual death of Christ, so in view of the preceding aramaisms and these, one connected with the resurrection would be very appropriate as a finishing touch.

^{page 321 note 1} Mark uses άλλά with a certain angularity to counter negatives, cf. esp. i. 45, v. 19, 26, vii. 25, ix. 8 (some MSS), 22, 37, xiv. 49, etc., Matthew not often following him here. Εφοβου⋯ντο γάρ certainly does not demand, of necessity, a μή clause (Bultmann).

^{page 321 note 2} See Moule, ‘St Mark xvi. 8’, loc. cit. p. 59.

^{page 321 note 3} Despite its omission in certain MSS, Souter is probably right in retaining this saying in Luke (does it come from Mark rather than John?).

^{page 321 note 4} The context of Zeph. iii. 11–20 suits this; the rebellion against God in vs. 11 suggests crucifixion, the humble and lowly ones in vs. 12 the women, the implications about telling the truth in vs. 13 the message, and the victorious rejoicings of vss. 14–20 the resurrection.

^{page 321 note 5} See also Hermas (Vis. I. i, 4; I. ii, 2; IV. ii, 2). Strack-Billerbeck (op. cit. I, 1054) translate χαλρετε into rabbinical , but this is too literal, for it is just a matter of transferring from the Semitic to the Greek form of greeting (cf. Dodd, , in Studies in the Gospel, ed. Nineham) (1957), p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 321 note 6} Only one set of logoi is added to Mark (see Matt. xxvi. 50, cf. Mark xiv. 45). The change in xxvi. 56 does not take away from Jesus' words in Mark xiv. 49b; the differences in Matt. xxvi. 64 and Mark xiv. 62 have resulted from assimilation to Mark xv. 2 and his apparent lack of understanding over the έγώ ελμι sayings as of post-resurrection significance (cf. Matt. xxiv. 5, cf. Mark xiii. 6, Matt. xxvi. 22 (depreciative), cf. Mark xiv. 19 (Μήτι έγώ). See also Dahl, loc. cit., esp. pp. 30 ff.

^{page 322 note 1} Matthew's use of κρατέω in xxviii. 9 probably serves this purpose also.

^{page 322 note 2} John prefers φλλοι to άδελφολ (see xv. 13–15). Thus i. 41, 42, ii. 12, vi. 8, vii. 3, 5, 10, xi. 2, 19, 21, 23, 32 refer to ordinary kinship, although xxi. 23, belonging to another post-resurrection context, shows that John (or an editor?) knows the meaning of ‘brother’ in the church. Here it seems to mean more than the Eleven.

^{page 323 note 1} Cf. Dodd's, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (1963), pp. 442–3Google Scholar for a more theological angle, though nothing in his position contradicts the above.

^{page 323 note 2} Here Jesus comes to those περλ Πέτρον, saying ∧άβετε ψηλαφήσατέ με καλ Ĩδετε, ο⋯τι ου⋯κ ει⋯μι δαιμο⋯νιον άσώματον. The two main verbs are reminiscent of Luke xxiv. 39 (ψηλαφήσατέ με καλ Ĩδετε), but because Ignatius is writing on the subject of bodies both άσώματος and δαιμονικο⋯ς (ii. 1), it is reasonable to assume that he used a quotation pertaining to this very issue which came from a source like, but other than, Luke. (Cf. Luke's πνευ⋯μα σάρκα καλ ο⋯στέα ου⋯κ έχει in xxiv. 40.)

^{page 323 note 3} ψηλαϕάω is foreign to Mark, άσώματος is foreign to the NT, although the reference to a δαιμόνιον fits in rather well with the Markan approach.

^{page 323 note 4} Cf. Altaner, B., Patrology, Eng. trans. (1960), p. 123,Google ScholarChadwick, H. in New Cath. Encycl. VIII, 94Google Scholar on the debate over its genuineness. Procopius of Gaza (c. 465–528) first ascribed the treatise to Justin, but cf. also Methodius, , De Resurr. II. xviii. 9 ff.,Google Scholar much earlier.

^{page 323 note 5} Quotations from Mark: Frag. de Resurr. II, VIII (exact), and see III for the passage beginning with Luke xx. 34 but returning to Mark xii. 25. Quotations from the LXX are close but not exaet, see esp. v. The reference to the Ascension in IX cannot be taken as a quotation from Acts i. 9.

^{page 323 note 6} Frag. de Resurr. IX (Migne, Pat. Graec. VI, cols. 1588–1589.Google Scholar The φησλ between πλοτιν and Ι⋯δετε has been omitted, as it is probably Justin's.

^{page 323 note 7} It is a characteristic setting for apologetic argument. Its vagueness is accentuated by the fact that in the second century the role of μαθητής was open to anyone (cf. Ignatius, I Ephes. i. 2, Trall. v. 2, Rom. iv. 2, v. 3, Diognetus, , Epist. xi. 1Google Scholar (άποστο⋯λων μαθητής), 2, Mart. Pol. xvii. 3, etc.), whilst the office of άπτ⋯στολος was specially reserved to the twelve and a few others (esp. I Clement, xlii. I. 2, xliv. 1, Justin, , Apol. I. xxxix. 1,Google Scholar Acts on Paul, etc.)

^{page 324 note 1} Important for Justin's purposes in this context, see his īνα δείξη τήν σαρκικήν.

^{page 324 note 2} ούπω is used 5 times in Mark, twice in the sense of ‘not’ as here, 3 times in the sense of ‘not yet’; Matthew uses it twice, both as ‘not yet’, and Luke has one usage of no real significance, xiii. 54 (some MSS read ούδέπω).

^{page 324 note 3} The whole phrase ου⋯πω έθετε πιστιν is found in Mark iv. 40 (N B D etc.) and έθετε πλοτιν in both iv. 40 and xi. 22. Matt. xvii. 20, xxi. 21 (έάν έθητε πλοτιν) and Luke xvii. 6 (ελ έθετε πλστιν) are ‘Q’ passages.

^{page 324 note 4} Mark's usage of Ι⋯δετε (vi. 38) is connected with his many uses of the singular Ι⋯δε (ii. 24, iii. 34, xi. 21, xiii. 1, 21, xv. 4, 35, xvi. 6). Matthew uses Ĩδετε once (xxviii. 6 following Mark's Ι⋯δε), and Ι⋯δε in xxiv. 20, 22, 25 (parable of the talents) and xxvi. 65. Luke uses Ι⋯δετε twice in the resurrection verse, xxiv. 39, but neither Ι⋯δετε nor Ι⋯δε anywhere else.

^{page 324 note 5} Mark twice uses this phrase of Jesus (vi. 50, xiv. 62) in significant contexts, and cf. xiii. 6. Matt. xiv. 27 follows Mark vi. 50, and Luke xxi. 8 follows Mark xiii. 6, otherwise both Matthew and Luke detract from Mark's meaning and theology.

^{page 324 note 6} Ps. cvii. 26–30 is susceptible to a ‘spiritualization’; Yahweh delivers from the waters of death, Yahweh leads who trust in him to eternal life.

^{page 325 note 1} Apart from Matt. xxviii. 9, Luke xxiv. [12] and John xx. 19, see also John xxi. 7 and Barrett's, C. K. comments, The Gospel according to St John (1955), p. 483.Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 2} Mark is fond of the verb διαστέγγομαι (cf. Mark v. 43, viii. 36 (2), viii. 15, ix. 9, cf. synop. parallels), and for reproach in other traditions see below. There may have been a reproving sense in John xxi. 15–17 (cf. xviii. 15–27).

^{page 325 note 3} Eta Linnemann has argued that Mark xvi. 15–20 is original Mark (see ‘Der (wiedergefundene) Markusschluß’, in Z.Th.K. LXVI (1969), esp. pp. 269 ff.,Google Scholar and if this is correct, Mark did include a commission to the apostles, although Linnemann unfairly assumes that this required an appearance- as against a ‘heavenly’ command (cf. Acts ix. 6) (vs. 19 does not require it, and the first verse of her reconstruction (p. 286) is glaringly Matthaean).

^{page 325 note 4} So έϕοβοũντο γάρ is changed to μετά ϕόβου καί χαρα⋯ς, ούδενί ούδήν εἰπαν to ήδραμον άπαγγεīλαι τοīς μαθηταīς αύτοũ, and ούπωήχετε πίστιν to αί δέ προσελθοũσαι έκράτησαν αύτοũ τούς πόδας καί προσεκύνησαν αύτῷ.

^{page 325 note 5} For its thoroughly Lukan character, see Ehrhardt, A. A., ‘The Disciples of Emmaus,’ N.T.S. x (1963), 182 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 1} Luke xxiv. 44–52 is a Lukan conclusion something akin to Matt. xxviii. 16–20 in its purpose and Grundlagen.

^{page 326 note 2} Even though Matt. does play down the ‘Jerusalem’ appearance to the women (so Lohmeyer), it is crucial that he does actually retain it; see Elliott-Binns, L., Galilean Christianity (1956), p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 3} That John knew Mark see Stauffer, E., ‘Agnostos Christos’, in Background of the NT and its Eschatology (ed. Davies and Daube) (1956), pp. 282 ff.,Google Scholar but the argument against John's Knowledge is equally strong.

^{page 326 note 4} The ‘political’ element, possibly involving Ephesus, is most overt in his treatment of the ‘beloved disciple’ at the empty tomb; he enters last, but elieves (xx. 8–9).

^{page 326 note 5} The phrases έγώ ελμι, μή φοβεĨσθε appear in some MSS of Luke xxiv. 36 (G P W, etc.). Can I suggest assimilation from the original ending of Mark?

^{page 326 note 6} On the form-critical factors associated with Jesus' resurrection commands see esp. Dodd, , in Studies, p. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 7} On the other hand, if Linnemann is right, the original Mark already contained such a charge (loc. cit. p. 286).

^{page 326 note 8} Even non-canonical Gospels; the Gospel of Peter, aware of all four Gospels (Turner, 1913),Google Scholar adopts a decidedly Petrine pose, annulling the effect of the women's experience (following Luke, but as by deception appearing to follow Mark xvi. 8 regarded as the end) and placing an appearance to Peter (and the disciples) in Galilee (following Mark, Matthew and esp. John). Again this is an attempt to solve discrepancies.

^{page 327 note 1} Cf. this conclusion to Beare's (in Christian History and Interpretation (ed. Farmer) (1967), p. 181Google Scholar), although most of the above does not detract from his position. Amongst the λο⋯γοι one could also include a reproach, cf. Luke xxiv. 25, 38, John xx. 29, pseudo-Mark xvi. 14, Freer Logion, originally stemming from the οΙ⋯πω έθετε πλστιν in Mark.

^{page 327 note 2} Even if Linnemann is correct on Mark xvi. 15–20, this positon would need only partial modification.

^{page 327 note 3} Paul may have known the tradition Mark relates, even though it did not belong to his παράδοσις (a pro-Petrine statement?). Paul does not forget about Jesus' paraentage, but Mary is not important for him from the viewpoint of authority; see Zückler's, article in Realencycl. f. Prot. Theol. u. Kirche (1903), XII, 311.Google Scholar

^{page 327 note 4} Streeter satisfactorily counters this view (Four Gospels (1924), p. 341)Google Scholar.

^{page 327 note 5} Not that church ‘politics’ and esp. the primacy of Peter were not important later, see I Clem. i. 5, Ignat. Rom. i. 1f., Gospel of Peter, i. 60, etc., but the conflict involving Peter and Jesus' family seems to be over.

^{page 327 note 6} In the ‘longer ending’ the great commission might just as well be at Jerusalem (cf. Linnemann!), such a commission being omitted in Luke, but delivered to the disciples in Galilee according to Matt. xxviii. 16–20.

^{page 328 note 1} It is faintly possible that Pap. 45 is a first edition, yet see below.

^{page 328 note 2} See esp. Farmer, W. R., Synoptic Problem (1964)Google Scholar, passim, , and Linton, O., ‘Evidences of a Secondcentury Revised Edition of St Mark's Gospel,’ N.T.S. XIV (1968), 321 ff.,Google Scholar 353.

^{page 328 note 3} Disregarding the Freer Logion and the shorter ending and associated problems, the slightly variant readings for Mark xvi. 9, 15, 17, 18, 20 can be explained in terms of misreading (9), word omission (17), assimilation from Acts xxviii. 3 B b (18) and from Matt. xxviii. 19 (15), and in terms of piety (20).

^{page 328 note 4} The statement in Hermas Sim. VIII. iii. 2 is the same in spirit to both Mark xiii. 10 and xvi. 15, but it is difficult to demonstrate that it was a definite allusion (see Pernveden, L., The Concept of the Church in the Shepherd of Hermas (1966), pp. 84–5).Google Scholar Justin's Apol. I. i. 45: έξελθο⋯ντες, πανταχου⋯ έκήρυξαν is close to Mark xvi. 20 (έξελθο⋯ντες έκήρυξαν πανταχου⋯), but not convincingly so, because Justin prefaces this comment with άπο⋯ Ιερουσαλήμ, a phrase not obviously tied to Mark xvi. The notion of going forth to preach has already been touched on by Justin (i. 39) and here he merely reinforces it. On πανταχο' 's Homily on Luke Eusebius' Hist. (III. xxiv. 7- based on Clement?) and Theod. Mopsuest. on John, the relevant passages conveniently ordered by Crehan, J. H. in The Gospels Reconsidered (ed. Cross) (1960), pp. 36 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 6} In the West Tertullian claimed that the Gnostic Valentinus used the complete Gospel collection (Praescript. Haer. XXXVIII), and both the heretic Marcion and the saint Irenaeus (who knows the longer ending of Mark, cf. Contr. Haer. III. x. 6) presume the same use (cf.Tertull. Adv. Marc. IV. 4, Iren. untr. Haer. III. v-xii). In the East one notes Tatian's Diatessaron, and see Ephraim of Nisibis, Comment. (Commentaires de l'Évangile concordant ou Diatessaron, trans. Leloir, 1966), p. 340, where Tatian's harmony of Mark xvi. 15 and Matt. xxviii. 19 is probably best preserved.

^{page 328 note 7} Cf. Marcion's recension of Luke, the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (c. A.D. 140) and other gnostic and apocryphal transformations.

^{page 328 note 8} In xvi. 9–20, pseudo-Mark reflects obvious acquaintance with Luke's traditions, see vs. 12, cf. Luke xxiv. 13 ff.; vs. 9 (παρ ής έκβεβλήκει έπτά δαιμο⋯νια), cf. Luke viii. 2; vs. 14, cf. Luke xxiv. 30, 38, 42–3; and vs. 19, cf. Luke xxiv. 51, Acts i.

^{page 329 note 1} It is unfortunate that Pap. 45 (third century) does not contain Mark xvi, but here again we are dealing with the remains of a five-fold Gospel-Acts collection. Seventh-century MSS containing Mark xvi (E46, E47) are too late and too related to MS families to be taken too seriously on their own, and these along with other post-fourth century ‘loose’ MSS of Mark should be treated as having been physically separated from what was originally a ‘four-Gospel collection text’.

^{page 329 note 2} Only late MSS put alternative endings side by side.

^{page 329 note 3} Eusebius, Quaest. Evang. ad Maria. I, and Jerome, Epis. XX ad Damas. are both concerned about the theological problem of the chronological uniformity of the Gospels regarding the resurrection occurrence.

^{page 329 note 4} For Origen (as the most important ‘text critic’ of the first three), see esp. Metzger, B. in Biblical and Patristic Studies (for R. P. Casey) (1963), pp. 93–4.Google Scholar Jerome, however, towers above his predecessors, although he is too late to reflect useful evidence concerning an original ending, and both he and Eusebius (writing in the same area) may well have been the legatees of numerous copyists (perhaps Alexandrian?) who favoured a ‘conservative’ telos at γάρ.

^{page 329 note 5} On their familiarity with alternatives, cf. Souter's edit. of the NT at Mark xvi. On my interpretation, the ‘conservative’ ending at γάρ caused ‘conjecture’, such as the Freer Logion and, I would suggest, the shorter ending. It is not impossible, however, that the shorter ending was earlier than the longer; it could follow on logically from my reconstruction (as part of the ‘first edition’ ending), but Aland's, K. recent attempt (‘Bemerkungen zum Schluß des Markusevangeliums’, Neotestamentica et Semitica(Black Festschrift) (1969), pp. 157 ff.)Google Scholar to argue that it is adequate on its own as the original closure, fails to answer the objection that πάντα δέ τά παρηγγελμένα…έξήγγειλαν does not follow logically upon ου;⋯δέν εΙ⋯παν (except in a very forced way), and fails to give any convincing rationale for the appearance of the (more dominant) longer ending or for the complete disappearance of the shorter ending from some MSS.