Table Of ContentThe Gospel
According
to St. Mark
Second Edition
VINCENT TAYLOR
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING
TO ST. MARK
By the same author
*
THE CROSS OF CHRIST
J'ORGIVENESS AND RECONCILIATION
A Study in New Testament Theology
THE FORMATION OF THE GOSPEL TRADITION
JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE:
A Study of the Passion-Sayings in the Gospels
THE LIFE AND MINISTRY OF JESUS
THE NAMES OF JESUS
THB PERSON OF CHRIST IN NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
THE GOSPEL
ACCORDING TO
ST. MARK
THE GREEK TEXT
WITH
INTRODL'CTIO~. ~OTES, AND INDEXES
BY
VINCENT TAYLOR
PH.D., D.O. (Lond.), HoN. D.O. (Leeds), HoN. D.O. (Dublin),
HoN. D.O. (Glasgow), F.B.A
SO~IETIME PRINCIPAL AND FERENS PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT
LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE AT WESLEY COLLEGE, HEADINGLEY, LEEDS
SECOND EDITION
M
MI\.CMILLAN
© The Rev. Dr Vincent Taylor 1966
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 2nd edition 1966 978-0-333-08520-2
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission
of this publication may be made without written permission.
No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied
or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance
with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1956 (as amended).
Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to
this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and
civil claims for damages.
First edition 1952
Reprinted 1953, 1955, 1957, 1959, 1963
Second Edition 1966
Reprinted 1969, 1972, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1984
Published by
THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 2XS
and London
Companies and representatives
throughout the world
ISBN 978-1-349-00571-0 ISBN 978-1-349-00569-7 (eBook)
DOl 10.1007/978-1-349-00569-7
This book is sold subject
to the standard conditions
of the Net Book Agreement
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
T
HIS commentary was begun in the earlier years of the
War, and, in its first stages, was sometimes written in
circumstances when access to books was not easy, in the con~
viction that the time had come to attempt to harvest the rich
gains which have gradually accumulated through the labours
of many scholars in Markan fields. Over half a century has
passed since the great commentary of Henry Barclay Swete
was first published by the House of Macmillan, and, although
other commentators have written learned works, no British
commentary on the same scale has been attempted. The
reason is not far to seek. The literature on questions of intra~
duction, text, language, theology, and exegesis, in English,
German, French, and Swedish, in encyclopaedias, mono~
graphs, and learned journals, is immense. Indeed, a would~
be commentator might easily spend the whole of his life in
reading and evaluating these contributions and fin'd at the
end that he had scarcely begun to write a line of his com~
mentary; for, in addition to other inquiries, he must follow the
history of criticism in general and the development of modern
theology, the exegesis of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha
and Pseudepigrapha, the Rabbinical writings, the main
currents of Hellenistic thought, the history and fortunes of
primitive Christianity, the problems of science, religion, and
philosophy. No knowledge, in fact, pertaining to literature,
art, history, liturgiology, and theology, is out of place in such
an undertaking.
It may be suspected, however, that not only the scale of
the necessary reading has led scholars to pause, but also the
risk of appearing to presume to write a definz"tz"ve commentary
on St. Mark, when many vital questions are still the subject
of debate. Can we yet say that the time has come when, in
the words of Mark iv. 29, we must put forth the sickle because
the harvest is come ? I believe we can, provided we recognize
that in due course other harvests will be reaped, perhaps
richer and more varied still.
vi PREFACE
I hasten to say that in this work I have no thought of
attempting to write a definitive commentary. I am content
rather to report progress and perhaps to· stimulate others to
essay the task. It is not by one commentary, but by a series,
that we are most likely to make real progress. And, for the
encouragement of others, I may say that there is no task so
rewarding. When we write monographs on such questions
as the Parables, the Kingdom of God, or the Son of Man,
we read everything germane to such inquiries, but other
subjects, which do not make the same appeal, have perforce
to be passed by. In writing a commentary this method is not
possible. Every theme that arises must be followed, and
every line of inquiry into which it opens. The commentator
is compelled to be catholic in his sympathies, international
in his outlook, hospitable in his interests.
Since no one can be adequately equipped for such an
undertaking, I feel it incumbent upon me to indicate to the
reader fields in which he must look for better guidance than
that which I can give; and two in particular, patristic studies
and the question of Semitisms. On the side of patristic
studies I have little to offer, partly because I have no special
competence in this field, and partly because the need is so
fully met in the classical commentaries of Swete and Lagrange.
The question of Semitisms has interested me for many years,
and I have followed the most important discussions carefully ;
but, while not without knowledge of the subject, I am not
in any sense a Semitic specialist. The subject cannot be
omitted in a modern commentary, and I have therefore sub
mitted all that I have written on this topic to the scrutiny of
my friends, Dr. Wilbert F. Howard, Dr. Norman H. Snaith,
and Dr. Matthew Black. For their friendly and faithful
criticisms and suggestions I am most grateful, but, of course,
the final responsibility for what I have written is my own.
Among many valuable commentaries I am especially
indebted to those of Swete, J. Weiss, Lagrange, Rawlinson,
and Lohmeyer. A commentary like that of Swete, which
has guided the studies of two generations of British students,
acquires a new interest in the eyes of anyone who tries to
follow in his footsteps. If we allow for the want of adequate
guidance in historical questions, of which Swete was fully
PREFACE
aware, as the comments in the Prefaces to his second and
third editions show, it is impossible to exaggerate the value
of this monumental work, and especially its contributions to
linguistic studies, patristic interpretations, and exegetical
discussions. In some sense it is the greatness of Swete's work
which has stood in the way of his successors. If, with some
courage, but with humility, I venture to follow in his steps,
it is because historical questions can no longer be ignored
and because a wealth of discussion is available such as did
not obtain in his day.
In this commentary a special interest has been taken in
the obscure period which lies behind the composition of the
Gospel. I hope I have given adequate consideration to the
invaluable Papias tradition, which is so sound that, if we did
not possess it, we should be compelled to postulate something
very much like it. But the Gospel is not to be explained by
the simple hypothesis of an Apostolic eyewitness. More than
a single generation lies between it and the events and sayings
of the historic Ministry of Jesus, and in many important
respects the Gospel reflects the worship, theology, and cate
chetical interests of a living Christian Church. In spite of
its manifest defects Form Criticism has forced this conviction
upon us, and, although the criticism of Bultmann and others
is excessively radical, much is to be learnt that is positive and
constructive. I hope that in my treatment nothing merely
polemical, still less discourteous, has been allowed to appear,
for we learn most from those from whom we are compelled
to differ.
The commentary is based on a modified form of the text
of Westcott and Hort. Subsequent discoveries, especially
those of the Washington Codex, Codex Koridethi, the Sinaitic
Syriac MS., and the Chester Beatty Papyri, and further study
of the Western and Caesarean texts and the Georgian and
Armenian versions, have established a widely held conviction
that many of Hort's readings need revision ; and in this matter
I have felt it right to continue the first steps taken by Swete
so long ago. I have fully used the extensive critical apparatus
in S. C. E. Legg's Nouum Testamentum Graece. For this
reason I have not attempted to provide a critical apparatus
of my own, but have fully discussed many important textual
'riii PREFACE
variants, especially when they bear on questions of exegesis.
Professor T. W. Manson has been kind enough to read what
I have written and to examine the text, and I have profited
greatly by his criticisms and suggestions. In questions of
Jewish interest I have frequently used the massive Kom
mentar of H. L. Strack and P. Billerb eck, and in considering
points of New Testament theology I have freely drawn upon
the rich resources of G. Kittel's Theologisches Worterbuch.
The grammatical works of Blass, Debrunner, Moulton,
Howard, and Robertson have been constantly used as well
as Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek Testa
ment and that mine of theological knowledge, Moulton and
Geden's Concordance to the Greek Testament.
The methods I have followed may be briefly indicated.
In the Introduction I have discussed the critical, grammatical,
theological, and historical questions, and, in this way, have
sought to avoid the need of discussing repeatedly the same
points later. In the Commentary the text is treated in larger
divisions, and then in sections containing the several narra
tives and sayings-groups. To all these, short introductions
are provided and special questions are discussed in detached
notes. At the end of the volume additional notes are supplied
on hrger questions to which the answers must necessarily
be of a more general and speculative character. In this way
I have tried to make the Commentary serviceable to readers
who hold different views from mine, for I recognize that a
commentator succeeds when he stimulates others to reach
better results than his own. An asterisk is appended to lists
of Markan passages recording the full use of a particular
Greek word, and two asterisks when the complete New Testa
ment record is given. When other commentaries and well
known works are mentioned, only the page number is supplied
and abbreviations when more than one book is in question.
For these references the Bibliography will serve as a key.
Other abbreviations, I hope, will cause no difficulty. In
general, I have supplied the data for discussion fully, especi
ally when the issues are evenly balanced. At the same
time I have expressed persoltal opinions in the belief that
the reader has the right to know what the commentator
thinks ; but I need hardly add that these opinions have
PREFACE
IX
no more authority than belongs to prolonged and careful
study.
I gladly take the opportunity to express my deep gratitude
to a few friends who have assisted me in various ways. In
addition to those I have mentioned earlier I am indebted to
my colleagues, the Rev. Dr. H. Watkin-Jones and the Rev.
A. Raymond George, M.A., who were kind enough to read
the typescript of the section on the Theology of the Gospel
and Note B on the Twelve and the Apostles, and the Rev.
Owen E. Evans, M.A., B.D., who has compiled the Index
of Proper Names; and to the Revs. Dr. H. G. Meecham,
Dr. C. Leslie Mitton, and Dr. C. Kingsley Barrett, who
have shared with me the laborious task of correcting the
proof-sheets. For the help so generously given I am deeply
grateful, but of course the final responsibility for errors which
may remain is my own. I wish also gratefully to acknowledge
the courtesy and skill of the staff of Messrs. R. and R. Clark,
of Edinburgh, whose accuracy is known the world over. In
the hope that I mav have contributed a little to reveal further
the significance and meaning of St. Mark's Gospel I bring
my work of a decade to an end. I count it an immeasurable
privilege to have been permitted to write a commentary on
a Gospel which is one of the greatest treasures of the Church
and one of the most influential and astounding books in the
world.
VINCENT TAYLOR
WESLEY COLLEGE
HEADINGLEY, LEEDS
16th December 1950
A2
