CHAPTER 5

Mark 5:1. Γαδαρηνῶν] Here also, as in Matthew 8:28, occur the various readings Γερασηνῶν (B D א* Vulg. Sax. Nyss., so Lachm. and Tisch.) and Γεργεσηνῶν (L Δ א** min. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Or.). The Recepta is to be retained, according to A C E, etc., with Fritzsche and Scholz. See on Matt.

Mark 5:2. ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ] is here more strongly attested (B C L Δ א, min. 5 :Brix., to which D also with ἐξελθόντων αὐτῶν falls to be added) than in Matthew 8:28. To be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch.; ἐξελθόντι αὐτῷ (Elz.) is from the parallel passages.

εὐθέως] which Lachm. has deleted, is only wanting in B, Syr. Arm. 5 :Brix. Vind. Colb. Corb. 2. The omission is explained from the parallels, from which also has arisen the reading ὑπήντησεν (B C D L Δ א, min. Lachm.).

Mark 5:3. οὔτε] B C D L Δ א 33 have οὐδέ. So Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.; and of necessity rightly.

ἁλύσεσιν] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἁλύσει, following B C L 33, Colb.; the Recepta is from what follows.

οὐδείς] Lachm. and Tisch. have οὐκέτι οὐδείς, following B C * D L Δ א, min. Vulg. It. Arm. Looking to the peculiarity of this notice and the accumulation of the negatives, we must recognise this as correct.

Mark 5:7. εἶπε] λέγει has preponderating evidence; approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.; εἶπε is from Luke 8:28. But Mark is fond of the historical present. In Mark 5:9 also the simple λέγει αὐτῷ (instead of ἀπεκρίθη λέγων in Elz.) is rightly adopted by Griesb. on preponderant evidence.

Mark 5:9. Λεγεών] B* C D L Δ א* 69, Syr. Copt. It. Vulg. have Λεγιών, and this Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted. The Recepta is from Luke.

Mark 5:11. Instead of πρὸς τῷ ὄρει, Elz. has πρὸς τὰ ὄρη, in opposition to decisive evidence.

Mark 5:12. After αὐτόν Elz. Matt. have πάντες, which Lachm. brackets and Tisch. deletes. It is wanting in B C D K L M Δ א, min. vss. Afterwards Elz. Matth. Scholz, Lachm. have οἱ δαίμονες, which Griesb. rejected, and Fritzsche and Tisch. have deleted, following B C L Δ א, min. Copt. Aeth. The Recepta πάντες οἱ δαίμονες is to be maintained; these words were omitted in accordance with the parallels; but they are quite in keeping with Mark’s graphic manner.

Mark 5:13. ἦσαν δέ] is on considerable evidence to be deleted as supplied (Tisch.).

Mark 5:14. Instead of ἀπήγγ. Elz. has ἀνήγγ. But the former is decisively attested.

ἐξῆλθον] has come in from Matt. and Luke instead of the genuine ἦλθον (A B K L M U א** min. vss.), which Griesb. approved, Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted.

Mark 5:15. The omission of the καί before ἱματ. (Tisch.) proceeded from Luke.

Mark 5:18. ἐμβάντος] A B C D K L M Δ א, min. Vulg. It. have ἐμβαίνοντος. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is from Luke 8:37.

Mark 5:19. Instead of καὶ οὐκ, Elz. has ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ, against decisive evidence.

ἀνάγγειλον] Lachm. Tisch. have ἀπάγγειλον, following B C Δ א 50, 258. A mechanical change in conformity to Mark 5:14.

Instead of πεποίηκε, Elz. has ἐποίησε, contrary to decisive evidence.

Mark 5:22. ἰδού] before ἔρχ. is wanting in B D L Δ א 102, vss. (also Vulg. It.). Suspected by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. From Luke 8:41, contrary to the usage of Mark.

Mark 5:23. παρεκάλει] A C L א, min. have παρεκαλεῖ. Recommended by Griesb. and Scholz, adopted by Fritzsche and Tisch. The imperfect is from Luke 8:41; the present is in keeping with Mark’s manner.

The reading ἵνα σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ has preponderant attestation by B C D L Δ א, min. (adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.); ὅπως (Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz) instead of ἵνα may be suspected of being an amendment of style, and the more current ζήσεται flowed easily from Matthew 9:18.

Mark 5:25. τις] is wanting in A B C L Δ א, min. Vulg. 5 :Vind. Colb. Corb. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche and Lachm., and justly so; the weight of evidence is too strong against it, to admit of the omission of a word so indifferent for the sense being explained from the parallels.

Mark 5:26. Instead of αὐτῆς, Elz. Tisch. have ἑαυτῆς, against so preponderant evidence that it is manifestly the result of a gloss, as also is the omission of παρʼ (D, min. Syr. utr. Vulg. It.).

Instead of περί, Tisch. has τὰ περί. So B C* Δ א. τά, being superfluous, dropped out after the preceding syllables.

Mark 5:33. ἐπʼ αὐτῇ] ἐπʼ is wanting in B C D L א, min. Syr. Copt. Verc. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. That ΑΥΤΗ is not the nominative belonging to the following verb (as it is understood in Cant. Corb. Vind.) was noted in the form of gloss, sometimes by ἐπʼ, sometimes by ἐν (F Δ).

Mark 5:36. εὐθέως] deleted by Tisch. following B D L Δ א, min. Syr. Arr. Perss. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. But regarded as superfluous, nay, as disturbing and incompatible with the following reading παρακούσας, it became omitted the more easily in accordance with Luke 8:50.

ἀκούσας] B L Δ א have παρακούσας. So Tisch. and Ewald also. Rightly; although the attestation of the vss. is wanting (only one Cod. of the It. has neglexit). The difficulty of the not understood compound occasioned the substitution for it of the current simple form.

Mark 5:38. ἔρχεται] A B C D F Δ א, min. vss. have ἔρχονται. So Lachm. and Tisch. The plural might just as well have been introduced from what precedes, as the singular from what follows and Matthew 9:23. But the preponderance of the witnesses is decisive in favour of the plural.

After θόρυβον Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have, on preponderant evidence, added καί. Being superfluous, it was the more easily absorbed by the first syllable of κλαίοντας.

Mark 5:40. ὁ δέ] Lachm. has αὐτὸς δέ, on evidence considerable doubtless, but not decisive. From Luke 8:54.

After παιδίον Elz. and Scholz have ἀνακείμενον, which Lachm. has bracketed, Tisch. has deleted. It is wanting in B D L Δ א, min. vss. An addition by way of gloss, instead of which are also found κείμενον, κατακείμενον, and other readings.

Mark 5:1-20. See on Matthew 8:28-34. Comp. Luke 8:26-39. The narrative of the former follows a briefer and more general tradition; that of the latter attaches itself to Mark, yet with distinctive traits and not without obliteration of the original.

Mark 5:2. ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ … ἀπήντησεν αὐτῷ] The genitive absolute brings the point of time more strongly into prominence than would be done by the dative under the normal construction. See Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 307, 135; Pflugk, ad Eur. Med. 910; Winer, p. 186 [E. T. 259].

ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκ. See on Mark 1:23.

Mark 5:3. οὐδὲ ἁλύσει οὐκέτι οὐδεὶς κ.τ.λ. (see the critical remarks): not even with a chain could thenceforth any one, etc. So fierce and strong was he now, that all attempts of that kind, which had previously been made with success, no longer availed with him (οὐκέτι). On the accumulation of negatives, see Lobeck, Paralip. p. 57 f.

Mark 5:4. διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν κ.τ.λ.] because he often … was chained. See Matthaei, p. 1259.

πέδαι are fetters, but ἁλύσεις need not therefore be exactly manacles, as the expositors wish to take it,—a sense at variance with the general signification of the word in itself, as well as with Mark 5:3. It means here also nothing else than chains; let them be put upon any part of the body whatever, he rent them asunder; but the fetters in particular (which might consist of cords) he rubbed to pieces (συντετρῖφθαι, to be accented with a circumflex).

Mark 5:5. He was continually in the tombs and in the mountains, screaming and cutting himself with stones.

Mark 5:6. ἀπὸ μακρόθεν] as in Matthew 26:58.

Mark 5:7. ὁρκίζω σε τὸν Θεόν] not inappropriate in the mouth of the demoniac (de Wette, Strauss), but in keeping with the address υἱὲ τ. Θεοῦ τ. ὑψ., and with the desperate condition, in which the πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον sees himself to be. On ὁρκίζω as a Greek word (Acts 19:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:27), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 361.

μή με βασανίσ.] is not—as in Matthew, where πρὸ καιροῦ is associated with it—to be understood of the torment of Hades, but of tormenting generally, and that by the execution of the ἔξελθε, Mark 5:8. The possessed man, identifying himself with his demon, dreads the pains, convulsions, etc. of the going forth. Subsequently, at Mark 5:10, where he has surrendered himself to the inevitable going forth, his prayer is different. Observe, moreover, how here the command of Jesus (Mark 5:8) has as its result in the sick man an immediate consciousness of the necessity of the going forth, but not the immediate going forth itself.

Mark 5:8. ἔλεγε γάρ] for he said, of course before the suppliant address of the demoniac. A subjoined statement of the reason, without any need for conceiving the imperfect in a pluperfect sense.

Mark 5:9. The demoniac power in this sufferer is conceived and represented as an aggregate—combined into unity—of numerous demoniacal individualities, which only separate in the going forth and distribute themselves into the bodies of the swine. The fixed idea of the man concerning this manifold-unity of the demoniac nature that possessed him had also suggested to him the name: Legion (the word is also used in Rabbinic Hebrew לגיון, see Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1123; Lightfoot, p. 612),—a name which, known to him from the Roman soldiery, corresponds to the paradoxical state of his disordered imagination, and its explanation added by the sick man himself (ὅτι πολλοί ἐσμεν; otherwise in Luke), is intended to move Jesus the more to compassion.

Mark 5:10. ἔξω τῆς χώρας] According to Mark, the demons desire not to be sent out of the Gadarene region, in which hitherto they had pleasure; according to Luke (comp. Matt.: πρὸ καιροῦ), they wish not to be sent into the nether world. A difference of tradition; but the one that Luke followed is a remodelling in accordance with the result (in opposition to Baur), and was not included originally also in the account of Mark (in opposition to Ewald, Jahrb. VII. p. 65).

Mark 5:13. ὡς δισχίλιοι] without ἦσαν δέ (see the critical remarks) is in apposition to ἡ ἀγέλη). Only Mark gives this number, and that quite in his way of mentioning particulars. According to Baur, Markusevang. p. 43, it is a trait of his “affectation of knowing details;” according to Wilke, an interpolation; according to Bleek, an exaggerating later tradition.

Mark 5:15. ἦλθον] the townsmen and the possessors of the farms. Here is meant generally the coming of the people to the place of the occurrence; subseqently, by κ. ἔρχονται πρὸς τ. Ἰησοῦν, is meant the special act of the coming to Jesus.

καθήμ.] He who was before so fierce and intractable was sitting peacefully. So transformed was his condition.

ἱματισμένον] which in his unhealed state would not have been the case. This Mark leaves to be presupposed (comp. Hilgenfeld, Markusevang. p. 41); Luke has expressly narrated it, Mark 8:27. It might be told in either way, without the latter of necessity betraying subsequent elaboration on the narrator’s part (Wilke), or the former betraying an (inexact) use of a precursor’s work (Fritzsche, de Wette, and others, including Baur), as indeed the assumption that originally there stood in Mark, Mark 5:3, an addition as in Luke 8:27 (Ewald), is unnecessary.

The verb ἱματίζω is not preserved except in this place and at Luke 8:35.

τὸν ἐσχηκ. τ. Λεγ.] contrast, “ad emphasin miraculi,” Erasmus.

Mark 5:16. καὶ περὶ τ. χοίρ.] still belongs to διηγήσ.

Mark 5:17. ἤρξαντο] The first impression, Mark 5:15, had been: καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν, under which they do not as yet interfere with Jesus. But now, after hearing the particulars of the case, Mark 5:16, they begin, etc. According to Fritzsche, it is indicated: “Jesum statim se sivisse permoveri.” In this. the correlation of καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν and καὶ ἤρξαντο is overlooked.

Mark 5:18. ἐμβαίνοντος αὐτοῦ] at the embarkation.

παρεκάλει κ.τ.λ.] entreaty of grateful love, to remain with his benefactor. Fear of the demons was hardly included as a motive (μὴ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ τοῦτον εὑρόντες πάλιν ἐπιπηδήσωσιν αὐτῷ), Euthymius Zigabenus; comp. Victor Antiochenus, Theophylact, Grotius), since after the destruction of the swine the man is cured of his fixed idea and is σωφρονῶν.

Mark 5:19. οὐκ ἀφῆκεν αὐτόν] He permitted him not. Wherefore? appears from what follows. He was to abide in his native place as a witness and proclaimer of the marvellous deliverance, that he had experienced from God through Jesus, and in this way to serve the work of Christ. According to Hilgenfeld, Mark by this trait betrays his Jewish-Christianity, which is a sheer figment.

ὁ κύριος] God.

καὶ ἠλέησέ σε] and how much He had compassion on thee (when He caused thee to be set free from the demons, aorist). It is still to be construed with ὅσα, but zeugmatically, so that now ὅσα is to be taken adverbially (Kühner, II. p. 220). On ὅσος, quam insignis, comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 377.

Mark 5:20. ἤρξατο] a graphic delineation from the starting-point.

Δεκαπόλει] See on Matthew 4:25.

ἐποίησεν] aorist, like ἠλέησε. On the other hand, in Mark 5:19, πεποίηκε, which is conceived of from the point of time of the speaker, at which the fact subsists completed and continuing in its effects.

ὁ Ἰησοῦς] ὁ μὲν Χριστὸς μετριοφρονῶν τῷ πατρὶ τὸ ἔργον ἀνέθηκεν· ὁ δὲ θεραπευθεὶς εὐγνωμονῶν τῷ Χριστῷ τοῦτο ἀνετίθει, Euthymius Zigabenus.

The circumstance, moreover, that Jesus did not here forbid the diffusion of the matter (see on Mark 5:43; Matthew 8:4), but enjoined it, may be explained from the locality (Peraea), where He was less known, and where concourse around His person was not to be apprehended as in Galilee.

Mark 5:21-24. See on Matthew 9:1; Matthew 9:18. Comp. Luke 8:40-42, who also keeps to the order of events.

παρὰ τὴν θάλ.] a point of difference from Matthew, according to whom Jairus makes his appearance at Capernaum at the lodging of Jesus. See on Matthew 9:18.

Mark 5:23. ὅτι] recitative.

τὸ θυγάτριόν μου] Comp. Athen. xiii. p. 581 C; Long. i. 6; Plut. Mor. p. 179 E; Lucian, Tox. 22. This diminutive expression of paternal tenderness is peculiar to Mark. Comp. Mark 7:25. It does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.

ἐσχάτως ἔχει] a late Greek phrase. See Wetstein and Kypke, also Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 389.

ἵνα ἐλθὼν κ.τ.λ.] His excitement amidst grief and hope speaks incoherently. We may understand before ἵνα: this I say, in order that, etc. This is still simpler and more natural than the taking it imperatively, by supplying volo or the like (see on Mark 12:19).

Mark 5:25-34. See on Matthew 9:20-22; Luke 8:43-48.

Mark 5:26. Mark depicts with stronger lines than Luke, and far more strongly than Matthew.

τὰ παρʼ αὐτοῦ] what was of her means. How manifold were the prescriptions of the Jewish physicians for women suffering from haemorrhage, and what experiments they were wont to try upon them, may be seen in Lightfoot, p. 614 f.

Mark 5:27. ἀκούσασα] subordinated as a prior point to the following ἐλθοῦσα. Comp. on Mark 1:41.

The characteristic addition τοῦ κρασπέδου in Matthew 9:20, Luke 8:44, would be well suited to the graphic representation of Mark (according to Ewald, it has only come to be omitted in the existing form of Mark), but may proceed from a later shape of the tradition.

Mark 5:28. ἔλεγε γάρ] without ἐν ἑαυτῇ (see the critical remarks) does not mean: for she thought (Kuinoel, and many others), which, moreover, אמר used absolutely never does mean, not even in Genesis 26:9, but: for she said. She actually said it, to others, or for and to herself; a vivid representation.

Mark 5:29. ἡ πηγὴ τ. αἵμ. αὐτ.] like מְקו̇ר דָּמִים (Leviticus 12:7; Leviticus 20:18), not a euphemistic designation of the parts themselves affected by the haemorrhage, but designation of the seat of the issue of blood in them.

τῷ σώματι] διὰ τοῦ σώματος μηκέτι ῥαινομένου τοῖς σταλαγμοῖς, Euthymius Zigabenus. Still this by itself could not as yet give the certainty of the recovery. Hence rather: through the feeling of the being strong and well, which suddenly passed through her body.

μάστιγος] as at Mark 3:10.

Mark 5:30. ἐπιγνούς] stronger than the previous ἔγνω.

ἐν ἑαυτῷ] in His own consciousness, therefore immediately, not in virtue of an externally perceptible effect.

τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ δύν. ἐξελθ.] the power gone forth from Him. What feeling in Jesus was, according to Mark’s representation, the medium of His discerning this efflux of power that had occurred, we are not informed. The tradition, as it has expressed itself in this trait in Mark and Luke (comp. on Matthew 9:22), has disturbed this part of the narrative by the view of an efflux of power independent of the will of Jesus, but brought about on the part of the woman by her faith (comp. Strauss, II. p. 89), the recognition of which on the part of Jesus occurred at once, but yet not until after it had taken place. This is, with Weiss and others (in opposition to Holtzmann and Weizsäcker), to be conceded as a trait of later origin, and not to be dealt with by artificial explanations at variance with the words of the passage (in opposition to Ebrard and Lange), or to be concealed by evasive expedients (Olshausen, Krabbe, and many others). It does not, however, affect the simpler tenor of the history, which we read in Matthew. Calovius made use of the passage against the Calvinists, “vim divinam carni Christi derogantes.”

τίς μου ἥψατο τῶν ἱμ.] who has touched me on the clothes? Jesus knew that by means of the clothes-touching power had gone out of Him, but not, to whom. The disciples, unacquainted with the reason of this question, are astonished at it, seeing that Jesus is in the midst of the crowd, Mark 5:31. In Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange,[91] and older commentators, there are arbitrary attempts to explain away that ignorance.

Mark 5:32. περιεβλέπετο ἰδεῖν] namely, by any resulting effect that might make manifest the reception of the power. The feminine τὴν τ. ποιήσασαν is said from the standpoint of the already known fact.

Mark 5:33. πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν] the whole truth, so that she kept back nothing and altered nothing. Comp. Plat. Apol. p. 17 B, 20 D; Soph. Trach. 91; and see Krüger on Thuc. vi. 87. 1.

εἰς εἰρήνην] לְשָׁלו̇ם, 1 Samuel 1:17; 2 Samuel 15:9; Luke 7:50, al.: unto bliss, unto future happiness. In ἘΝ ΕἸΡΉΝῌ (Jdg 18:6; Luke 2:29; Acts 16:36; Jam 2:16) the happy state is conceived of as combined with the ὝΠΑΓΕ, as simultaneous.

ἼΣΘΙ ὙΓΙῊς Κ.Τ.Λ.] definitive confirmation of the recovery, which Schenkel indeed refers merely to the woman’s “religious excitement of mind” as its cause.

[91] According to Lange, for example, the conduct of Jesus only amounts to an appearance; “He let His eyes move as if (?) inquiringly over the crowd” (περιεβλέπ. ἰδεῖν κ.τ.λ.).

Mark 5:35-43. See on Matthew 9:23-25. Comp. Luke 8:49-56. The former greatly abridges and compresses more than Luke, who, however, does not come up to the vivid originality of the representation of Mark.

ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχισυν.] τουτέστιν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκείας τοῦ ἀρχισυν., Euthymius Zigabenus.

ἔτι] since now there is no longer room for help.

Mark 5:36. According to the reading παρακούσας, this (comp. Matthew 18:17) is to be taken as the opposite of ὑπακούειν, namely: immediately He left this speech unnoticed; He did not heed it for one moment, but let it remain as it was, and said, etc. In this way is set forth the decided certainty.[92] He has heard the announcement (Mark 5:35), but at once let it pass unattended to. Ewald is incorrect in saying that He acted as if he had failed to hear it. That He did not fail to hear it, and, moreover, did not act as if He had, is in fact shown just by the μὴ φοβοῦ κ.τ.λ. which he addresses to Jairus. The Itala in the Cod. Pal. (e. in Tisch.) correctly has neglexit.

μὴ φοβοῦ κ.τ.λ.] as though now all were lost, all deliverance cut off.

Mark 5:37. According to Mark, Jesus sends back the rest (disciples and others who were following Him) before the house; according to Luke 8:51, in the house.

Mark 5:38. θόρυβον καὶ κλαίοντας κ. ἀλαλ.] an uproar and (especially) people weeping and wailing. The first καί attaches to the general term θόρυβον the special elements that belong to it, as in Mark 1:5, and frequently. ἀλαλάζω not merely used of the cry of conflict and rejoicing, but also, although rarely, of the cry of anguish and lamentation. See Plutarch, Luc. 28; Eur. El. 843.

Mark 5:39. εἰσελθών] into the house. A later point of time than at Mark 5:38.

Mark 5:40. ἐκβαλών] irritated, commanding; He ejected them. Among the πάντας, those who are named immediately afterwards (παραλαμβ. κ.τ.λ.) are not included, and so not the three disciples (in opposition to Baur).

Mark 5:41. ταλιθὰ κοῦμι] טָלִיתָא קוּמִי, puella, surge. It is a feature of Mark’s vivid concrete way of description to give significant words in Hebrew, with their interpretation, Mark 3:18, Mark 7:12; Mark 7:34, Mark 14:36. On the Aramaean טליתא, see Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 875.

ΤῸ ΚΟΡΆΣΙΟΝ] nominative with the article in the imperative address, Bernhardy, p. 67; Kühner, II. 155.

ΣΟῚ ΛΈΓΩ] a free addition of Mark, “ut sensum vocantis atque imperantis exprimeret” (Jerome).

ἜΓΕΙΡΕ] out of the sleep, Mark 5:39.

Mark 5:42. ἮΝ ΓᾺΡ ἘΤῶΝ ΔΏΔΕΚΑ] not as giving a reason for the word ΚΟΡΆΣΙΟΝ (Euthymius Zigabenus, Fritzsche), but in explanation of the previous remark, that the maiden arose and walked about; she was no longer a little child. Bengel appropriately observes: “rediit ad statum aetati congruentem.” The circumstance that she was just in the period of development (Paulus) is certainly in keeping with the thought of an apparent death, but is alien to the connection.

Mark 5:43. ΔΙΕΣΤΕΊΛΑΤΟ] He gave them urgently (ΠΟΛΛΆ) injunction, command. See on Matthew 16:20.

ΑὐΤΟῖς] those brought in at Mark 5:40.

ἽΝΑ] the purpose of the ΔΙΕΣΤΕΊΛ. ΠΟΛΛΆ. Comp. Matthew 16:20; Mark 7:36; Mark 9:9.

ΓΝῷ[93]] ΤΟῦΤΟ: namely, this course of the matter. The prohibition itself, as only the three disciples and the child’s parents were present (Mark 5:40), has in it nothing unsuitable, any more than at Mark 1:44, Mark 7:36, Mark 8:26. When Jesus heals publicly in presence of the multitude there is not found even in Mark, except in the cases of the expulsion of demons, Mark 1:34, Mark 3:12, any prohibition of the kind (Mark 2:11 f., Mark 3:5, Mark 5:34, Mark 9:27, Mark 10:52). Mark therefore ought not to have been subjected to the imputation of a tendency to make the sensation produced by the healings of Jesus “appear altogether great and important” (Köstlin, p. 317; comp. Baur, Markusevang. p. 54) by His design of wishing to hinder it; or of the endeavour to leave out of view the unsusceptible mass of the people, and to bestow His attention solely on the susceptible circle of the disciples (Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 135). In our history the quickening to life again in itself could not, of course, be kept secret (see, on the contrary, Matthew 9:26), but probably the more detailed circumstances of the way of its accomplishment might. Jesus, although He was from the outset certain of being the promised Messiah (in opposition to Schenkel), by such prohibitions did as much as on His part He could to oppose the kindling of precipitate Messianic fanaticism and popular commotion. He could not prevent their want of success in individual cases (Mark 1:45, Mark 7:36); but it is just the frequent occurrence of those prohibitions that gives so sure attestation of their historical character in general. Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 117 f. It is quite as historical and characteristic, that Jesus never forbade the propagation of His teachings. With His Messiahship He was afraid of arousing a premature sensation (Mark 8:30, Mark 9:9; Matthew 16:20; Matthew 17:9), such as His miraculous healings were calculated in the most direct and hazardous way to excite among the people.

καὶ εἶπε δοθῆναι κ.τ.λ.] not for dietetic reasons, nor yet in order that the revival should not be regarded as only apparent (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), but in order to prove that the child was delivered, not only from death, but also from her sickness.

[92] Which, however, all the more precludes the thought of a mere apparent death of the maiden (such as Schleiermacher and Schenkel assume).

[93] The subjunctive form γνοῖ (like δοῖ, etc.), which Lachmann and Tischendorf have (comp. Mark 9:30; Luke 19:15), has important codices in its favour (A B D L) and against it (including א), but it is unknown to the N. T. elsewhere, and has perhaps only crept in by error of the transcribers from the language of common life.