Commentary in Simple English on the Gospel that Mark wrote

Bibliography

1.Versions

The English 'Authorised Version'"The Newberry Bible", Hodder & Stoughton,London

The 'Revised Version', Oxford University Press, 1887.

R A Knox, The New Testament, Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd,London 1951

"The Moffatt Translation of The Bible", Hodder & Stoughton, London 1957.

Dr R F Weymouth"The New Testament in Modern Speech", James Clarke & Co London 1908

"The Amplified New Testament",Marshall Morgan & Scott,London 1968

"The New English Bible",Oxford University Press & Cambridge University Press, 1970

"The Bible in Today's English Version", United Bible Societies.

"The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English",Zondervan, Grand Rapids,America, 1986

"The Revised English Bible", Oxford University Press & Cambridge University Press, 1989

"God's New Covenant",Heinz W. Cassirer,Erdmans,Grand Rapids,Michigan,1989.

2. Works on Mark's Gospel.

"Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: St Mark": Bp.J.C.Ryle, James Clarke & Co Ltd 1965.

A Harmony of the Gospels: John Calvin (3 volumes). Translation by A W Morrison. The St Andrew Press, Edinburgh 1972.

"The Gospel according to Mark" in "The Expositor's Bible" Series. G A Chadwick, Hodder & Stoughton London 1902.

"The Gospel according to Mark" (in the Tyndale N.T. Commentaries) R A Cole. The Tyndale Press, London 1966.

"The Gospel of Mark" (in The Daily Study Bible),Rev William Barclay, The St Andrew Press, Edinburgh,1965.

The Gospel according to Mark (in The New International Commentary) W L Lane,Eerdmans, Grand Rapids,Michigan,1990.

Other Works

Deserving of particular mention. "The Gospel of the Kingdom" by C H Spurgeon. Passmore & Alabaster, London 1893.

Articles in "Journal for the Study of the New Testament".(abbreviated to JSNT in the notes) University of Sheffield - JSOT Press 1983-1994.

References to B.A.R. are to the Biblical Archaeology Review and to B.B.R. are to the Bulletin for Biblical Research.

Notes

[1.1] Eusebius The History of the Church Penguin Classics 1965,pp 88,152,210. See also P.J.J.Botha ‘The Historical Setting of Mark's Gospel: Problems and Possibilities’ in JSNT. 51, 1993 pp 27-55. This article is perhaps symptomatic of the feeling that the time has come to turn away from the debate on the ‘synoptic problem’ if studies in the Gospels are to make real progress.

[1.2] (1: 1) At Mark 10 :46 we read: ‘Then they came to Jericho‘. It looks as though the story of Zacchaeus (Luke 19 :1-10) has been crossed out at this point. Mark may have had the story of the birth of Jesus. Maybe Peter crossed it out. Verses 1 and 2 are awkward.

See JSNT 58 pp 3-18 for an article by P.J.Sankey on Mark 1 :1-15.

[1.3] (1:3) E.K.Broadhead in JSNT 52 [1993] at pages 3-18 ‘Jesus the Nazarene: Narrative Strategy and Christological Imagery in the Gospel of Mark’ draws attention to the references in this Gospel to Nazareth. (1 : 9; 1 : 24; 10 :47; 14 : 66; 16 : 6). It is significant, perhaps, that in Mark's Gospel, Jesus is always the man who came from Nazareth. In 6 : 1, Mark is introducing the Nazareth synagogue scene, yet he avoids naming Nazareth. In Luke's Gospel, Jesus is conceived and brought up in Nazareth and he also speaks in the synagogue there.

‘Jesus of Nazareth’ may be just the simple way of speaking of Jesus in His humanity. Similarly, the ‘Son of Man’ references (including 2:28; 8 : 38; 9 : 9; 10 : 45; 14: 62) may be a way that Jesus had of speaking of Himself or of stressing the reality of His human nature , which always involves a lofty truth. See [2.3] below.

At the other end of the spectrum we have the witness borne to Christ:-

(a) by the Father: 1 : 11; 9 : 7.

(b) by an unclean spirit 1 : 24.

(c) by a Jewish fisherman 8 : 29.

(d) by a Roman officer 15 : 39

(e) by Jesus Himself 6 : 50; 13 : 6; 14 : 62.

We must look at the range of sources of this testimony to see the nature of Mark's doctrine of the Person of Christ.

[1.4] (1:10) J.B.Gibson in JSNT 53 (1994) at pages 3-34: "Jesus Wilderness Temptation according to Mark" provides a very useful and detailed discussion of verses 10-13. See also A.B.Caneday in B.B.R. 9 at page 19. Neither is quite convincing.

[1.5] (1:14) See John Rogerson, The New Atlas of the Bible: Macdonald & Co 1985,London & Sydney. p 130.

[1.6] (1:21) The ruins of a synagogue have been excavated at Capernaum, but this is later than the time of Jesus. The ruins of a church may mark the site of Peter's house. See E Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures: London IVP 1973. p100.

See Mendel Nun in B.A.R. July 1999 for the archaeology of the Sea of Galilee. There is no tidal movement, of course, but about a thousand years after the time of Christ, the level of the sea rose by about a metre. Recent droughts have reduced the level again. This has uncovered 16 or 17 small ports around the lake. Places like Capernaum had a sea wall of stone with a series of stone jetties or piers, forming small docks. Many photographs of fishermen standing by the lake shore create a rather false impression.

Many of the boats on the lake were not only fishing. Food from the east side of the lake was shipped to the west side to feed the large population there. There must have been a trade in goods, too, from the west side to the east. Some crossings of the lake in the gospels may have been for such purposes.

Usually we read that the unclean spirit is in a man. In verse 23 Mark tells us that the man was in the unclean spirit. This may just mean that it was a specially bad case but in English we say ‘He was in a good mood’ or ‘He was in a bad temper’ and possession by unclean spirits may be spoken of in the same way in some other languages.

[1.7] (1:20) See E K Broadhead ‘Christology as Polemic and Apologetic’ in Journal for the Study of the New Testament (JSNT) 47. 1992, pp 21-34. His main argument is not altogether convincing but ‘compassion’ in verse 41 may well mean ‘anger’ - anger that the priests could do nothing to help in such cases. Or the meaning could be that the man was so angry that he touched Jesus.

[2.1] (2:1) Atholl Gill ‘Beyond the Boundaries‘: ‘Marcan Mission Perspectives for Today's Church’ in ‘Mission to the World’ supplement to the Baptist Quarterly January 1991 pp 35-41, detects a structure for the section of the Gospel from 1:14 to 8:21. More helpful is an article by Barbara Green, O.P.‘Jesus' Teaching on Divorce in the Gospel of Mark’ in JSNT 38, 1990. pp 67-75 which sets out three ‘chiastic’ structures, the first from 2:1 to 3:6, with its focus at 2:18-22; the second from 8:27 to 9:13, with its focus at 8:34 to 9:1 and the third at 9:14 to 10:45 with a focus at 10:1-12. These might indicate the extent of Peter's ‘sermons‘!

[2.2] (2: 1-12) An article written by Jeffrey Gibson ‘Jesus' refusal to produce a sign’ (Mark 8: 11-13) in JSNT 38, 1990, pp 37-66, is very helpful on the subject of signs.

[2.3] (2:10) Scholars argue endlessly about ‘Son of Man’ and just what it means. An artlcle by U Luz ‘The Son of Man in Matthew: Heavenly Judge or Human Christ’ in JNST 48, 1992, pp 3-21, is much more helpful than most others.

The articles by G.D.Kirchhevel in B.B.R. are by no means easy reading. However his article in B.B.R. 9 at page 181, ‘The Son of Man passages in Mark’ appears to be very useful.

a) Psalm 8:4 speaks of the Son of Man, In verse 8 he is given authority. This is echoed in Mark 2:10 and 28. Kirchhevel translates the last words of Psalm 8:8 as ‘(the One) traversing paths of seas’ and sees this echoed in Mark 6:48. The second half of Psalm 8:6 is echoed in Mark 1:13.

b) He sees Christ as the Beloved One of Isaiah 5:1, echoed in Mark 12:6. We might add Mark 9:7. He then detects echoes of Isaiah 5:26-30. These are in Mark 8:38, 13:26 and 14: 62. All three speak of Christ as the Son of Man who will come in glory. This part of the argument may not seem quite so strong.

c) There are nine more uses of ‘Son of Man’ in Mark In all these Kirchhevel finds echoes of the words of Isaiah as follows:-

Mark 8:31,9:9 with Isaiah 52:13

Mark 9:12 with Isaiah 53:3

Mark 9:31 with Isaiah 53:6b

Mark 10:32b-34 with Isaiah 53:8a

Mark 10:45 with Isaiah 53:10b

Mark 14:21 and 14:41 with Isaiah 53:12c

The nine uses in Mark follow the same order as in Isaiah. I am not able to evaluate the argument which may in fact be a good deal stronger than appears here. I find it attractive and Kirchhevel goes on to suggest that here Mark’s ‘Son of Man’ is equivalent to Isaiah’s ‘Servant of the Lord’.

[2.4] (2:14) Herod Antipas was Tetrarch (Ruler of a quarter part) of Galilee from 4BC. to 39AD. He was a son of Herod the Great King of Judea from 37BC to 4BC.

[2.5] (2:27) See also D J Moo ‘Jesus and the Authority of the Mosaic Law’ in JSNT 20, 1984, pp 3-49, on Matthew 12: 1-5.

[2.6] (2:28) Lane (pages 96-98 and 120) takes the view that the first part of verse 10 and the whole of verse 28 are not the words of Jesus but ‘asides’ by Mark to his readers. It might be better to say Mark's source which we assume to be Peter! - rather than Mark himself. This is not unattractive, looking at Mark's Gospel in isolation, which is really what Lane is doing. We should be sensitive to the difficulties in harmonising with Matthew and Luke; and if Mark does represent a source like Peter, why should such an aside also appear in the other two Gospels? And would Mark - or Peter! - have chosen to refer to Jesus as ‘the Son of Man’ rather than simply as ‘Jesus‘?

Verse 28 is the real answer to the Pharisees question in verse 24 and therefore cannot be detached.

The verse raises two other questions:-

1. At what level is ‘Lord’ used here - at the secular level of ‘Master’ or ‘Owner’ or as the equivalent of ‘Jehovah‘.

2. By ‘Sabbath’ are we to understand the Jewish Sabbath or the Divine rest on the seventh day from the work of creation and the blessing upon it.

My inclination is to say that both levels of meaning are present. Jesus is both the Master of the Jewish Sabbath, with authority to set it free from human customs: but He is also ‘Jehovah’ Who rested from the work of creation and blessed the seventh day: so He has not come to take it away from men but to restore it to them in a fresh form.

[3.1] (3:1) There is an old tradition in the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’ that this man was a stonemason. He asked for Christ's help because he could not work and was ashamed to beg.

[3.2]( 3:16) There are interesting traditions in Eusebius but some are not reliable. The following are some examples:-

Simon Peter, also called Cephas, is spoken of often all through the New Testament. He was married (Mark 1 : 30 and 1 Corinthians 9 :5). After Acts 15: 11 he drops out of the Acts of the Apostles, but his travels took him to Antioch (Galatians 2 : 11) and no doubt to Corinth. In 1 Peter 5 : 13 'Babylon' is usually thought to mean Rome, but there were Jews in Babylon and there is no reason why Peter should not have gone there. Peter is thought to have been put to death by the Emperor Nero in 64AD at Rome. His wife was led away to death before him and to her Peter said ‘My dear, remember the Lord‘. Peter had children, one a daughter with paralysis.

The death of James son of Zebedee is recorded in Acts 12 2; this was about 42AD.John, his brother is thought to have lived to old age at Ephesus (in what is now Turkey) and to have died naturally, not as a martyr.

Andrew may have gone to Scythia (now the Ukraine or South Russia)

Philip may have settled in Hierapolis in Turkey.

Bartholomew may have gone to India and preached to the Jews there, leaving Matthew's Gospel with them.

Thomas went to what is now Persia.

he name of Thaddeus is linked with Edessa, in South East Turkey.

part from Judas Iscariot we know nothing of what happened to the other members of the Twelve.

[3.3] (3:29) See, for example, John Bunyan's ‘Grace Abounding‘, much of which is taken up by his struggle with these words.

[3.4] (3:32) Tradition has it that James the Lord's brother became the leader of the Jerusalem church: and no doubt, wrote the Epistle of James. Eusebius has a tradition about two poor peasants, grandsons of Jude, the brother of Jesus, appearing before Domitian, Caesar from 81-96AD. The family of Jesus drop out of the life of the church from then on.

Many Christian people find it hard to believe that Mary, the Lord's mother gave birth to several more children after the birth of Jesus. Many of them think that the ‘brothers and sisters’ of Jesus were the children of Joseph and a previous wife who had died. There are other explanations which are offered, but there are slight indications in the New Testament that the ‘brothers and sisters’ were younger than Jesus, and it is best to understand them simply being the children of Mary and Joseph.

[4.1] (4:2) See P B Payne ‘The Authenticity of the Parable of the Sower and its interpretation‘. in Gospel Perspectives 1. (JSOT. Press Sheffield) 1983, p 163. He writes in some detail on this passage as does M Sabin, JSNT 45, 1992, pp 3-26. Neither is much help.

[4.2](4:4) For ploughing in Palestine see K.E.Bailey, ‘Through Peasant Eyes’ Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1983 pp 29 & 30. Throwing the seed - ‘broadcasting‘- can be done with great skill, but seems not to have been the custom in Palestine.

[4.3](4:12) These words are not easy. Rev A Motyer in his long awaited and welcome book, The Prophecy of Isaiah Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester 1993, makes the point that what God said to Isaiah did not stop him from preaching to the people of his day. At the end of Isaiah 6 there is also a mention of ‘seed’ a link with Mark 4. There is an article on Isaiah 6:9-10 in BBR 8 pp. 167-186 but I have not found this much help.

[4.4](4:26) John Newton in ‘Letters of John Newton’ Banner of Truth Trust Edinburgh, pages 13-28, compares ‘the stalk, the head and the full corn’ to the stages of the Christian life. This is a helpful concept but Newton's letters are tough reading.

[5.1] (5:1) Gadara was about 8Km from the Lake; Gerasa was nearly 50Km away. There is still a place called Kersa or Koursi on the Lake. The area was known as Decapolis, the ten Greek cities.

[5.2] (5:5) Heathen religion often includes cutting the flesh and tattooing and some think the man was suffering as a result of such heathen practices.

[5.3] (5:25) The woman's name is said to have been Veronica. Eusebius claims to have seen a memorial in bronze put up by her at her house in Caesarea Philippi. This showed her kneeling in front of Jesus. Two other writers also speak of this.

[6.1] (6:3) The word for carpenter could also mean a worker in stone or metal, or a builder. The Jerusalem temple was being re-built and there would be no lack of work. A worker in wood is the most likely meaning. There was also no lack of building work near Nazareth. Only 6km away the city of Sepphoris was being rebuilt.

[6.2] (6:7) In Jewish Law ‘the one sent is as the man who commissioned him‘. This principle, known as ‘shaliah‘, is behind Jesus sending out His disciples here and also in John 20 : 21. So later they report back to Him (verse 30). See also Chapter 11 : 28.

[6.3] (6:17) Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us this, and also gives the name of the daughter of Herodias as Salome. ‘Antiquities of the Jews’ Book 18 chapter 5 section 2. Mark has a lot of detail in these verses. Peter may have heard what happened from 'the leading men of Galilee'. (verse 21) But could Manaen have been a source? (Acts 13:1) He would have known Peter and Mark.

[6.4] (6:35) The famous Byzantine mosaic of the five loaves and two fishes comes from Tagbha, which is too far west to be the location of the miracle.

[6.5] (6:50) How does ‘ego eimi’ back-translate into Aramaic? It seems to me that some at least of the circle around Jesus would have known that the Septuagint translation of the sacred name Jahweh (traditionally Jehovah) as ‘Kurios’ was quite inadequate and both ‘ego eimi’ and the repeated use in Revelation of the circumlocution ‘Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come’ (eg Revelation 1 v 8) can be seen as attempts to represent the significance of the name. (Kurios would have been in use by Greek speaking Jews as an equivalent to 'Jehovah' before the Septuagint Version was made: and so would other religious vocabulary.)

[6.6] (6:52) A fragment of a scroll from Cave 7 at Qumran appears to be Mark 6:52 and the following verses. If so it must be dated before AD 67 and before the Codex format was used.3

[7.1] (7:1) There were visitors from Rome in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out. (Acts 2 :11). Those who believed at that time would have taken the good news about Jesus back to Rome. About twenty years later, Claudius, the Roman Emperor ordered all Jews, whether they were Christians or not, out of Rome (Acts 18 :2). This was probably because of trouble between those Jews who believed in Jesus and those who did not. Paul reached Rome about ten years later around 60AD. By then there were many Christians, not all Jews, in Rome. (See the Epistle to the Romans, especially Chapter 16) but they did not feel able to witness to the main body of Jews in Rome until Paul came. (Acts 28 : 13). Acts 28 : 24 tells us that many more Jews believed and verse 30 tells us Paul stayed there about two years. Many people think Paul was set free and resumed his travels.

[7.2] (7:3) For example, the hand washing of verse 3 was not to get the hands clean. A 'handful' of water was enough to wet both hands. A Jewish Rabbi put in prison by the Romans nearly died of thirst because he used his water ration for this ritual washing!

[7.3] (7:34) Atholl Gill op.cit. suggests that ‘Be opened’ is part of Jesus' prayer. The heavens are opened for a Gentile. Note another ‘deep sigh’ in Chapter 8 :12.

In the Bulletin for Biblical Research Vol. 10 (2000) there is an article at page 71 by S E Porter entitled “Jesus and the use of Greek”. This is an introduction to the question as to how much Greek Jesus spoke. In Mark 7:24 - 30 Jesus is no doubt using Greek when he speaks to the woman but Aramaic when he speaks to the disciples. The Greek speaking woman does not understand what he says to them. In verses 31 - 37 Jesus is in the Decapolis which was largely Greek. It is just possible that he was speaking Greek and so the Aramaic word “Ephphatha” came as something of a surprise.

However the articles in Biblical Archaeology Review, July 2000, on Sepphoris seem to establish that in the New Testament period the city was solidly Jewish. This weakens the argument that Jesus and his father would have worked there and would have used Greek. Sepphoris was only 4 miles from Nazareth.

[8.1] (8:11) See Jeffrey B Gibson in JSNT 27, pp31-47; this is a useful article.

[9.1] (9:36) R.V.G.Tasker in ‘St Matthew’in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Tyndale Press 1971 p.185, remarks that little children were regarded as insignificant or unimportant in the time of Jesus. Jesus had an affectionate regard for them which is unique among teachers and writers of the ancient world. F.Gerald Downing has collected quotations from First Century writers in his book ‘Strangely Familiar’ Manchester, 1985 published by the author. But on this subject his material does not really contradict Prof. Tasker's view.

[10.1 ] ( 10:10) See Barbara Green. op.cit

[10.2] (10:2) Some rabbis thought that the "uncleanness" which the Law spoke of was only adultery. Others said that if a wife put too much salt in her cooking or over-cooked the food, she should be divorced. Divorce was so common in the time of Jesus that women hesitated to marry.

[10.3] (10:17) In ‘Through Peasant Eyes’ op.cit at p 157 K.E.Bailey discussed the passage in Luke's Gospel. He makes a strong case for the unity of these verses. He is helpful but not entirely convincing on other issues.

[10.4] (10:22) An ancient tradition added ‘He began to scratch his head, and it did not please him. And the Lord said to him: "How can you say that you have kept the Law and the Prophets, since it is written in the Law that you shall love your neighbour as yourself. Look, many of your brothers, sons of Abraham, are clothed in filth and dying of hunger; your house is full of many good things and nothing goes out from it to them"’.

[10:5] (10:45) In 'Gospel Perspectives I' at page 137 there is an article on this verse by S.H.T.Page.

[10.6] (10:52) An article by John Wilkinson "The Way from Jerusalem to Jericho", was first published in March 1975 and reprinted in "The Biblical Archaeologist ReaderIV Almond Press, Sheffield in 1983 (See pages 367-376).

[12.1] (12:1) See K.R.Snodgrass in BBR 8. (1998) pp.186-216 for a summary of recent work on this passage.

[12.2] (12:10) See also Zechariah 3 :9 and 4 : 7. The stone cannot be the keystone of an arch - the last stone put in position at the top centre of an arch, which locks all the others into position. The arch had not come into use. Such a stone might not have six faces (like a cube, or most building blocks) but seven, as in Zechariah 3. A cornerstone is the first to be put in position. It must be laid accurately since the line of the walls is fixed by it. Capstone - the top stone at a corner which completes the building - seems to be the true meaning here.

[12.3] (12:18) See the article by J G Janzen in JSNT 23 pp 43-58 (1985) which is valuable for this passage.

[12.4] (12:27) See the article by Joseph Osei-Bonsu in JSNT 28 pp 81-101 (1985).

See also "The Resurrection of the Dead" by Karl Barth: English Translation by H.J.Stenning, Hodder & Stoughton, London 1933.

‘Not therefore, some transition of man to a merely non-bodily existence. Of such, Paul knows nothing whatever. The persisting subject is rather just the body. It is "natural" body this side, "spiritual" body beyond the resurrection. (p201)’......‘the end of God's way is corporeality’ (p.203).

[13.1] (13.1) See Biblical Archaeology Review November 1995 page 39 for the size of the stones in the western wall of the temple. They are up to 600 tons and 11 feet high. One is 42 feet long aand may be 14 feet deep.

[13.2] (13:4) The picture of the triumph of a Roman general in the streets of Rome is behind at least two passages in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 4 : 9 and 2 Corinthians 2 :14-16. Incense would be burning on every altar on the route of the procession - an odour of death to those doomed to die. The prisoners in their misery were at the end of the procession.

[13.3] (13:24) T.R.Hatina in BBR 6 at page 43 'The focus of Mark 13:24 - 27' argues that these verses do not relate to the second coming of Christ but to the destruction of the Temple. The argument is that such language was used in the O.T. and ancient Jewish literature. The disciples, the implied audience of Jesus would it is argued have understood it in this way.

Whilst it is not unreasonable to argue that the disciples would hear Jesus in this way it is also reasonable to argue that Jesus broke out of traditional ways of speaking.

For our purpose, we may allow Matthew 24:3 to influence our view of the passage in Mark, the more so if we incline to the priority of Matthew over Mark.

[14.1] (14:3) Another suggestion is that it is only a nickname and that he was really Simon ‘the Jar Merchant’ which would have sounded much like ‘the Leper’

[14.2] (14:24) I find this interpretation helpful. Lane op.cit. takes the view that the first breaking of bread is intended before Judas went out. He takes the cup to be the third cup. See D.B.Carmichael JSNT 42 1991, pp 45-67. for an article ‘David Daube on the Eucharist and the Passover Seder‘ This suggested to me the interpretation I have followed which has the advantage of harmonizing with the full text of Luke 22 verses 17-20, except that we must understand that Luke has postponed telling of Judas (verses 21-23) something which belongs more logically between verses 16 and 17.

[14.3] (14:24) Karl Barth ‘The Resurrection of the Dead‘, op cit, p.71,commenting on the words of Institution in 1 Corinthians 11. ‘Paul's interest is not, as in a later age, fixed on the relation of element and thing, but on the action as such. Those who take part in it thereby proclaim (upon that which they receive Paul lays no stress) that they know their Lord......’ I would fully agree with this. The conflict in the church has been regarding the bread and wine, which have been stressed at the expense of the actions

[14.4] (14:32) The Biblical Archaeology Review July 1995 at page 26 there is an article which argues that Gethsemane was a cavern used for pressing olives. This was a place of pilgrimage in ancient times. She claims that the Greek does not actually speak of a garden or grove. But not all the action could have taken place in the cavern.

[14.5] (14:32) Baxter and Ziesler ‘Paul and Arboriculture: Romans 11 17-24)’ in JSNT 24 pp 25-32 1985, is valuable but seems to raise questions about the olive tree rather than answer them.

[14.6] (14:53) Jewish law made no provision for holding a prisoner on remand. A few other aspects of the system which have a bearing are as follows:-

a) The witnesses to the alleged offence made the arrest. They then acted as the prosecution in the court.

b) The Jewish Council had 70 members: but it could act if 23 were there.

c) There was no Court of Appeal.

d) The High Priest was out of order in questioning Jesus.

e) The rules of evidence were strict. Evidence might be classed as ‘vain‘, worthless; or ‘standing’ good enough to be further examined; or ‘adequate’ for which two or more witnesses had to be in detailed agreement. It is harder to agree on a lie than on the truth!

f) It was out of order to conduct a trial at night where the death sentence was involved.

The Jews had the right to stone any Gentile who went beyond the Court of the Gentiles. This seems to have been unique in the Roman Empire.

[14.7] (14:71) The gospels all agree that the cock crowed when Peter denied his Lord for the third time. We know that the Romans divided up the night into four watches - see Mark 13 :35 - so at three o'clock in the morning there would be a bugle call. This was called the cock crow (‘Gallicinium‘). I take it that this ‘cock crow’ was heard at the end of verse 68.

[15.1] (15:1) Pontius Pilate was born in Spain and had served in Germany. He became prefect or governor of Judea in AD 26 and stayed 10 years. He was harsh and had no liking for the Jews. His base was at Caesarea Maritima but the Roman governor would be in Jerusalem at festival time in case of trouble!

[15.2] (15:2) It was essential in a Roman trial that the person accused should be brought face to face with his accusers: they were the prosecution, as in a Jewish court, and the accused stood with his accusers all round him (Acts 25: 16). He needed an advocate - a person ‘called alongside to help’ - to stand by him. The advocate was not a legal expert but a person of good standing who would tell the judge what a good chap the accused was. Jesus had no advocate! Nor did Paul on a later occasion. (2 Timothy 4: 16). The Roman Governor sat on a ‘bema’ or judgment seat to show his authority. There were three stages:-

1. A public ‘accusatio‘;

2 The ‘interrogatio’ by the judge; and

3 The ‘excusatio’ or defence by the accused.

Only the small minority who were Roman citizens (like Paul) had the right to appeal to the Emperor (Acts 25 verse 11). Paul's appeal was a ‘provocatio’ which halted the proceedings. There was also an appeal against sentence (‘appellatio’ ) Our Lord did not have these rights.

[15.3] (15:7) The armed uprising in which Barabbas took part was one of many and was not so important as to find a place in the history of the times. It is interesting to note that this was going on during the ministry of Jesus. Jesus did not become involved in it!

[15.4] (15:21) W.W.Wessel in 'Mark' from page 178 is unusually full on the details of crucifixion. (Zondervan Grand Rapids 1995 in the series Expositor's Bible Commentary.)

[15.5] (15:39) Earl S Johnson in JSNT 31 1987, ‘Is Mark 15.39 the Key to Mark's Christology‘? at pp 3 -22 discussed verse 39 in great detail, asking what ‘the Son of God’ would have meant when spoken by a Roman centurion.

[15.6] (15:46) See Eric M Meyers ‘Secondary Burials in Palestine’ 1970, reprinted in the Biblical Archaeologist Reader IV, Almond Press, Sheffield 1983.

[15.7] (15:47) Martin Biddle, ‘Jerusalem, The Tomb of Christ’ in Current Archaeology 123 p.107, 1991 gives an account of recent research at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the traditional site of the tomb. The Garden Tomb is the right kind of tomb, and there are difficulties regarding the location of the Holy Sepulchre site.

[16.1] (16:1) Williams L Craig in "From Easter to Valentinus" JSNT 52 pages 19-39 has a main line of argument which need not concern us. However, he does make the useful point that in His resurrection appearances, Jesus is not said to have shining clothing. His appearance is thoroughly human.

The transfiguration is the one occasion in the Gospels when the clothing of Christ was shining. The other occasion is perhaps John's vision in Revelation 1 : 12-16 (though even here it is His eyes, face and feet which shine, not His clothing).

There are shining figures in the Gospels (Matthew 28 : 3; Luke 24 : 4,23; John 20 : 12). The ‘young man’ of Mark 16 :5 is wearing a white robe, which is not said to have been shining. This does not prove that he was not an angel, of course! In no way does this imply that there were no angels about.