454
ce ον
γέρθη, οὐκ ἔστιν GSe- ἴδε, ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὗτόν. πάγετε, εἴπατε τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ, ὅτι προάγει
7. ἀλλ᾽
ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν: ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν ὄψεσθε, καθὼς εἶπεν ὑμῖν. 8. Καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ταχὺ 1 ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου : εἶχε δὲ 2 αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις' καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον, ἐφοβοῦντο ydp.®
1 SSABCDLAZ omit ταχν (Tisch., W.H.).
2 yap for δε in SBD vet. Lat. cop. syr. verss (Tisch., W.H.). 3 On verses 9-20, in relation to the Gospel, vide below.
another world.—yép6n, etc. : note the abrupt disconnected style: risen, not here, see (ἴδε) the place (empty) where they laid Him. The empty grave, the visible fact; resurrection, the inference; when, how, a mystery (ἄδηλον, Euthy.). —Ver. 7. ἀλλὰ, but; change in tone and topic; gazing longer into the empty grave would serve no purpose: there is something to be done—go, spread the news! Cf. John xiv.31: But... arise, let us go hence!—xai τῷ Πέτρῳ, and to Peter in particular: why? to the disciple who denied his Master? so the older interpreters—to Peter, with all his faults, the most important man in the disciple band? so most recent interpreters: ut dux Apfostolici coetus, Grotius.—6r1, recit., introducing the very message of the angel. The message recalls the words of Jesus before His death (chap. xiv. 28).---ἐκεῖ, there, point- ing to Galilee as the main scene of the reappearing of Jesus to His disciples, creating expectation of a narrative by the evangelist of an appearance there, which, however, is not forthcoming,— Ver. 8. ἐξελθοῦσαι, going out—of the sepulchre into which they had entered (ver. 5).--ἔφυγον, they Πεά, from the scene of such surprises. The angel’s words had failed to calm them; the event altogether too much for them.— τρόμος Kal ἔκστασις, trembling, caused by fear, and stupor, as of one out of his wits. — Tpdpos = “tremor corporis ” : ἔκστασις = “stupor animi,” Bengel.— οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπον: an unqualified state- ment as it stands here, no ‘“‘on the way,” such as harmonists supply : ‘‘ obvio scilicet,” Grotius.—éhoBotvro yap gives the reason of this reticence so unnatural in women: they were in a state of fear. When the fear went off, or events happened which made the disciples in- dependent of their testimony, their mouths would doubtless be opened.
So ends the authentic Gospel of Mark, ‘without any account of appearances of
the risen Jesus in Galilee or anywhere else. The one thing it records is the empty grave, and an undelivered message sent through three women to the disciples, promising a reunion in Galilee. Strange that a story of such thrilling interest should terminate so abruptly and unsatisfactorily. Was there originally a continuation, unhappily lost, containing, e.g., an account of a meeting of the Risen One in Galilee
‘with His followers? Or was the evange-
list prevented by some unknown cir- cumstances from carrying into effect an intention to bring his story to a suitable close? Wecannot tell. All we know (for the light thrown on the question by criticism, represented, e.g., by Tischen- dorf, Nov. Test., G. Ed., viii., vol. i., pp. 403-407; Hahn, Gesch. des. N. Kanons, ii., p. gto ff.; Westcott and Hort, Intro- duction, Appendix, pp. 29-51, approaches certainty) is that vv. 9-20 of Mk, xvi. in our N. T. are not to be taken as the ful- filment of any such intention by the author of the second Gospel. The ex- ternal evidence strongly points this way. ‘The section is wanting in 9B and in Syr. Sin. Jerome states (Ep. cxx., quaest. 3) that it was wanting in nearly all Greek copies (‘omnibus Graecis libris pene”), and the testimony of Eusebius is to the same effect. The in- ternal evidence of style confirms the impression made by the external : charac- teristic words of Mk. wanting, words not elsewhere found in the Gospel occurring (e.g., ἐθεάθη, v. 11), the narra- tive a meagre, colourless summary, a composition based on the narratives of the other Gospels, signs ascribed to believers, some of which wear an apoc- typhal aspect (vide ver. 18). Some, in spite of such considerations, still regard these verses as an integral part of Mk.’s work, but for many the question of present interest is: what account is to be given of them, viewed as an indubi- table addendum by another hand? Who wrote this conclusion, when, and with