Comentarios bíblicos

In this chapter, we have a short account of the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus: and the joys and triumphs which it furnished all believers with, will be very acceptable to those who sympathised and suffered with Christ in the foregoing chapters. Here is, I. Christ's resurrection notified by an angel to the women that came to the sepulchre to anoint him, Mk 16:1-8. II. His appearance to Mary Magdalene, and the account she gave of it to the disciples, Mk 16:9-11. III. His appearance to the two disciples, going to Emmaus, and the report they made of it to their brethren, Mk 16:12,13. IV. His appearance to the eleven with the commission he gave them to set up his kingdom in the world, and full instructions and credentials in order thereunto, Mk 16:14-18. V. His ascension into heaven, the apostles' close application to their work, and God's owning of them in it, Mk 16:19,20.

Early in the morning after the Sabbath, the three Marys come to the sepulcher, bringing sweet spices to embalm the body, Mark 16:1-4. They see an angel who announces the resurrection of our Lord, Mark 16:5-8. Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene, who goes and tells the disciples, Mark 16:9-11. He appears also to the two disciples who were going into the country, who also tell it to the rest, Mark 16:12, Mark 16:13. Afterwards he appears unto the eleven, and commissions them to preach the Gospel to all mankind, Mark 16:14-16. And promises to endue them with power to work miracles, Mark 16:17, Mark 16:18. He is received up into heaven, Mark 16:19. And they go forth to preach and work miracles, Mark 16:20.

CHAPTER 16.

THE RESURRECTION.

CHAPTER 16

Mark 16:2. τῆς μιᾶς] Lachm. has μιᾷ τῶν, following B 1. From John 20:1, as is also τῇ μιᾷ τῶν in L Δ א, Eus. Tisch.

Mark 16:8. After ἐξελθ. Elz. has ταχύ, in opposition to decisive evidence, from Matthew 28:8.

Mark 16:9. ἀφʼ ἧς] Lachm. has παρʼ ἧς, following C D L 33. Rightly; ἀφʼ is from Luke 8:2.

Mark 16:14. After ἐγηγερμ. A C* X Δ, min. Syr. p. Ar. p. Erp. Arm. have ἐκ νεκρῶν, which Lachm. has adopted. A mechanical addition.

Mark 16:17-18. The omission of καιναῖς, as well as the addition of καὶ ἐν ταῖς χερσίν before ὄφεις, is too feebly attested. The latter is an exegetical addition, which, when adopted, absorbed the preceding καιναῖς.

Instead of βλάψῃ Elz. has βλάψει, in opposition to decisive evidence.

Mark 16:19. After κύριος read, with Lachm. and Tisch., Ἰησοῦς, which is found in C* K L Δ, min. most of the vss. and Ir. As an addition in the way of gloss, there would be absolutely no motive for it. On the other hand, possibly on occasion of the abbreviation ΚΣ., ΙΣ., it dropped out the more easily, as the expression ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς is infrequent in the Gospels.

The entire section from Mark 16:9-20 is a non-genuine conclusion of the Gospel, not composed by Mark. The external grounds for this view are: (1) The section is wanting in B א, Arm. mss. Ar. vat. and in cod. K of the It. (in Tisch.), which has another short apocryphal conclusion (comp. subsequently the passage in L), and is designated in 137, 138 with an asterisk. (2) Euseb. ad Marin, qu. 1 (in Mai, Script, vet. nov. coll. I. p. 61 f.), declares that σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις the Gospel closes with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. Comp. qu. 3, p. 72, where he names the manuscripts which contain the section only τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων. The same authority in Victor Ant. ed. Matth. II. p. 208, states that Mark has not related any appearance of the risen Lord that occurred to the disciples. (3) Jerome, ad Hedib. qu. 3; Gregor. Nyss. orat. 2 de resurr. Chr.; Vict. Ant. ed. Matth. II. p. 120; Sever. Ant. in Montfauc. Bibl. Coisl. p. 74, and the Scholia in several codd. in Scholz and Tisch., attest that the passage was wanting in very many manuscripts (Jerome: “omnibus Graeciae libris paene”). (4) According to Syr. Philox. in the margin, and according to L, several codd. had an entirely different ending[179] of the Gospel. (5) Justin Martyr and Clem. Al. do not indicate any use made by them of the section (how precarious is the resemblance of Justin, Apol. I. 45 with Mark 16:20!); and Eusebius has his Canons only as far as Mark 16:8, as, indeed, also in codd. A U and many min, the numbers really reach only thus far,[180] while certainly in C E H K M V they are carried on to the very end. These external reasons are the less to be rejected, seeing that it is not a question of a single word or of a single passage of the context, but of an entire section so essential and important, the omission of which, moreover, deprives the whole Gospel of completeness; and seeing that the way in which the passage gradually passed over into the greater part of the codd. is sufficiently explained from Euseb. ad Marin. qu. 1, p. 62 (ἄλλος δέ τις οὐδʼ ὁτιοῦν τολμῶν ἀθετεῖν τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ἐν τῇ τῶν εὐαγγελίων γραφῇ φερομένων, διπλῆν εἶναί φησι τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν, ὡς καὶ ἐν ἑτέροις πολλοῖς, ἑκατέραν τε παραδεκτέαν ὑπάρχειν, τῷ μὴ μᾶλλον ταύτην ἐκείνης, ἢ ἐκείνην ταύτης, παρὰ τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ εὐλαβέσιν ἐγκρίνεσθαι). See Credner, Einl. I. p. 107. And when Euthymius Zigabenus, II. p. 183, designates those who condemn the section as τινὲς τῶν ἐξηγητῶν, not, however, himself contradicting them, the less importance is to be attached to this after the far older testimonies of Eusebius, and others, from which is apparent not the exegetical, but the critical point of view of the condemnation. Moreover, this external evidence against the genuineness finds in the section itself an internal confirmation, since with Mark 16:9 there suddenly sets in a process of excerpt-making in contrast with the previous character of the narration, while the entire section in general contains none of Mark’s peculiarities (no εὐθέως, no ΠΆΛΙΝ, etc.,—and what a brevity, devoid of vividness and clearness on the part of the compiler!); in individual expressions it is quite at variance with the sharply defned manner throughout of Mark (see the notes on the passages in detail, and Zeller in the theol. Jahrb. 1843, p. 450); it does not, moreover, presuppose what has been previously related (see especially Mark 16:9 : ἀφʼ ἧς ἐκβεβλ. ἑπτὰ δαιμ., and the want of any account of the meeting in Galilee that was promised at Mark 16:7), and has even apocryphal disfigurements (Mark 16:18 : ὄφεις … βλάψῃ).

If, in accordance with all this, the section before us is decidedly to be declared spurious, it is at the same time evident that the Gospel is without any conclusion: for the announcement of Mark 16:7, and the last words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ themselves, decisively show that Mark did not intend to conclude his treatise with these words. But whether Mark himself left the Gospel unfinished, or whether the conclusion has been lost, cannot be ascertained, and all conjectures on this subject are arbitrary. In the latter case the lost concluding section may have been similar to the concluding section of Matthew (namely, Matthew 28:9-10, and Matthew 28:16-20), but must, nevertheless, after Mark 16:8 have contained some incident, by means of which the angelic announcement of Mark 16:6 f. was still, even in spite of the women’s silence in Mark 16:8, conveyed to the disciples. Just as little with reference to the apocryphal fragment[181] itself, Mark 16:9-20,—which already in very early times (although not by Mark himself, in opposition to Michaelis, Hug, Guericke, Ebrard, and others) was incorporated with the Gospel as a conclusion (even Syr. has it; and Iren. Haer. iii. 10. 6 quotes Mark 16:19, and Hippol. Mark 16:17-18),—is there anything more definite to be established than that it was composed independently of our Gospel, in which case the point remains withal undecided whether the author was a Jewish or a Gentile Christian (Credner), as indeed at least πρώτῃ σαββάτων, Mark 16:9 (in opposition to Credner), might be used by one who had been a Jew and had become conversant with Hellenic life.

Against the genuineness the following have declared themselves: Michaelis (Auferstehungsgesch. p. 179 ff.; Einl. p. 1059 f.), Thies, Bolten, Griesbach, Gratz, Bertholdt, Rosenmüller, Schulthess in Tzschirner’s Anal. III. 3; Schulz, Fritzsche, Schott (Isag. p. 94 ff., contrary to his Opusc. II. p. 129 ff.), Paulus (exeget. Handb.), Credner, Wieseler (Commentat. num. loci Marc. xvi. 9–20 et Joh. xxi. genuini sint, etc., Gott. 1839), Neudecker, Tischendorf, Ritschl, Ewald, Reuss, Anger, Zeller, Hitzig (who, however, regards Luke as the author), Schenkel, Weiss, Holtzmann, Keim, and various others, including Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 4). In favour of the genuineness: Richard Simon (hist. crit. p. 114 f.), Mill, Wolf, Bengel, Matthaei, Eichhorn, Storr, Kuinoel, Hug, Feilmoser, Vater, Saunier, Scholz, Rinck (Lucubr. crit. p. 311 ff.), de Wette, Schwarz, Guericke, Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange, Bleek, Bisping, Schleiermacher also, and various others.[182] Lachmann, too, has adopted the section, as according to his critical principles it was necessary to do, since it is found in most of the uncials (only B א have it not), Vulg. It. Syr., etc. We may add that he did not regard it as genuine (see Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 843).

[179] Namely: πάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήγγειλαν· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλε διʼ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κἡρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας. After that L goes on: ἔστην δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ· ἀναστάς δὲ κ.τ.λ.

[180] Vv. 15–18 occur in the Evang. Nicod. 14, in Thilo, p. 618; Tischendorf, p. 242 f. They might therefore have already appeared in the Acts of Pilate, which composition, as is well known, is worked up in the Gospel of Nicodemus. Ritschl, in the theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 527, would infer this from Tertullian, Apol. 21. But scarcely with warrant, for Tertullian, l.c., where there is contained an excerpt from the Acts of Pilate, is founded upon the tradition in the Acts of the Apostles, foreign to the Synoptics, regarding the forty days.

[181] That it is a fragment, which originally stood in connection with matter preceding, is plain from the fact that in ver. 9 the subject, ὁ Ἰησοῦς, is not named.

[182] Köstlin, p. 378 ff., ascribes the section to the alleged second manipulator of the Gospel. Lange conjectures (see his L. J. I. p. 166) that an incomplete work of Mark reached the Christian public earlier than that which was subsequently completed. According to Hilgenfeld, the section is not without a genuine groundwork, but the primitive form can no longer be ascertained; the evangelist appears “to have become unfaithful to his chief guide Matthew, in order to finish well by means of an older representation.”

Mr 16:1-20.

ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE WOMEN ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--HIS APPEARANCES AFTER HIS RESURRECTION--HIS ASCENSION--TRIUMPHANT PROCLAMATION OF HIS GOSPEL. ( =

Mt 28:1-10, 16-20; Lu 24:1-51; Joh 20:1, 2, 11-29).

The Resurrection Announced to the Women

(Mr 16:1-8).

1. And when the sabbath was past--that is, at sunset of our Saturday.

Mary Magdalene--(See on

Lu 8:2).

and Mary the mother of James--James the Less (see

Mr 15:40).

and Salome--the mother of Zebedee's sons (compare

Mr 15:40 with Mt 27:56).

had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him--The word is simply "bought." But our translators are perhaps right in rendering it here "had bought," since it would appear, from

Lu 23:56,

that they had purchased them immediately after the Crucifixion, on the Friday evening, during the short interval that remained to them before sunset, when the sabbath rest began; and that they had only deferred using them to anoint the body till the sabbath rest should be over. On this "anointing," see on

Joh 19:40.

See this passage explained in the notes at Matthew 28:1-8.

Mark 16:1

Sweet spices - "Aromatics." Substances used in embalming. The idea of sweetness is not, however, implied in the original. Many of the substances used for embalming were "bitter" - as, for example, myrrh - and none of them, perhaps, could properly be called "sweet." The word "spices" expresses all that there is in the original.

Anoint him - Embalm him, or apply these spices to his body to keep it from putrefaction. This is proof that they did not suppose he would rise again; and the fact that they did not "expect" he would rise, gives more strength to the evidence for his resurrection.

And anoint him - Rather, to embalm him. This is a proof that they had not properly understood what Christ had so frequently spoken, viz. that he would rise again the third day. And this inattention or unbelief of theirs is a proof of the truth of the resurrection.