out of place on Jesus' lips and to be accordingly an intrusion into the text from the later point of view of His followers." There seems to be no reason, how- ever, why 'Christ' (xpcarSc) even without the ar- ticle may not be taken appellatively^* (cf. Lk 23^) ;
""^ Dalman, Words, 305-6, explains the words " that ye are Christ's " as an intrusion; on the ground that they are an unnecessary explana- tion of a jiou nvhich is not genuine. Even Swete, in loc, following Hawkins, Hor. Syn., p. 122, is inclined to see here " a later writer's hand," and Keil, like Dalman, affirms boldly that " art ^pcaToo luri is an explanatory statement adjoined by Mark to iv Svo/ian [louT
28 It is so understood here e.g. by Fritzsche and Meyer; and Delitzsch points out that sometimes * Messiah ' is used among the Jews them-
The Designations in Mark 17
and in that case, no reason why our Lord may not have told His followers that no one who should do them a benefit " In the name that they are the Christ's," i. e., on the ground that they are the servants of the Mes- siah, should lose his appropriate reward. In this view our Lord would no doubt be once again claiming for Himself the Messianic dignity; but He would not be doing it in language Inappropriate upon His lips, espe- cially at a period in His ministry subsequent to the great confession of Peter at Csesarea Phlllppi (8^^), after which, we are expressly told (8^^'^"), Jesus began to teach both formally and quite openly what and who He was and what was to befall Him in the prose- cution of His mission. The thought thus brought out differs In nothing from that of Mt iC*^ and the mode of expressing the thought is equally appropriate with that recorded there, on the lips of One who knew Him- self to be Teacher and Lord only because He was the Christ. At the same time it must not be too easily assumed that our Lord could not speak of Himself as
* Christ ' taken even as a proper, or quasi-proper, name, although we need not dwell upon this at this point.^^
It was because He announced Himself as the
* Christ ' and was widely understood to possess claims
upon that dignity that, when He was
_,°^^ arraigned before Pilate, it was precisely
upon His pretensions to be ' the King
of the Jews' that He was Interrogated (15^'"®). On
Jewish lips this title naturally was corrected to ' the
selves without the article — according to Dalman, however, only in the Babylonian Talmud {Words, p, 292). Dalman, loc. cit., says that anarthrous Xpiaro'z occurs in the Synoptics only in the phrases ' Jesus Christ' (Mt i^'is, Mk ii), 'Jesus surnamed Christ' (Mt i^^ 27",22)^ 'Lord Christ' (Lk 2"), 'King Christ' (Lk 232), and here. 29 Cf. below, pp. 59J^y.
1 8 The Designations of Our Lord
King of Israel' (15^-), which again is identified with the appellation ' the Christ' (15^-). In this form also Jesus was far from repelling the Messianic ascription, but on the contrary expressly allows it (15"). To all appearance, however, neither ' the Christ,' nor ' the King of Israel,' was more current as a Messianic des- ignation than the kindred form ' the Son of David ' (i2^^ cf. 11^^),^° though this title appears in Mark's narrative only once as actually applied to Jesus ^jq47,48^^ The blind man at the gates of Jericho, hearing that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by, and wishing to ask a favor at His hands as the expected King of Israel, knew no better name by which to ad- dress Him than ' Son of David.' It was the faith thus expressed which Jesus commended in him when He responded to his appeal, — thus accepting this Mes- sianic title also (lo^^-^^-^-, cf. 11^^). It is quite unten- able, therefore, to suppose that Jesus wished to repel this designation" in the question He put as He taught in the temple (12^^), "How say the scribes that the Christ is the son of David," when " David himself '* (and speaking "in the Holy Spirit") "calls Him rather Lord? " He does not deny that He is David's
30 Holtzmann, A^. T. Theologie, I. 243, speaks of it as " the most pop- ular and comprehensive of all the Messianic titles," and supposes that the underlying Jewish feeling of Matthew shows itself in the impor- tant role which he makes this folk-cry play in his Gospel (Mt 9-'^ 12-^
15^2 2030.31 21". 15 22'^-'*'^).
^^ So e.g. Wellhausen (as before him Strauss, Schenkel and others): " Jesus represents it as merely a notion of the scribes that the Messiah is the son of David, and refutes it by a statement of David's own which proves the contrary. An incitement to enter upon this question He had only in case it concerned Himself. He held Himself for the Messiah, though He was not the son of David," etc. Cf. on the con- trary the remarks in Dalman, IVords, p. 286: also Meyer's good note.
The Designations in Mark 19