[1] After two days was the feast of Passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by stealth, and put him to death.
-Mark 14:1= the chief priests and scribes “seek to kill” (εζητουν αποκτεινωσιν) Jesus for his statements.
-Jeremiah 26:21= on how King Jehoiakim “sought to kill” (εζητουν αποκτειναι) the prophet Urijah of Shamaiah who spoke against Jerusalem. Though this same phrase is used of the eunuchs trying to kill Artaxerxes in Esther 2:21! Perhaps Mark means to draw attention to their impotence? No, most likely the unfortunate prophet who was killed in Jeremiah’s time is meant by the allusion. Though one is reticent to bring up Rabbinic materials as being late, but there is a tradition in -Bavli, Makkot 24 = Rabbi Akiva explain’s Isaiah 8:2’s “two faithful witnesses who are named Uriah the priest [=ha-Kohen] and Zechariah ben Yeberechiah” as meaning the destruction prophesied by Uriah ben Shemaiah (who was executed for his preaching) in Jeremiah 26 must happen first before the restoration foreseen by the prophet Zechariah can occur. It is actually possible the authors of these OT materials might have intended such an allusion via intertextuality. The Book of Revelation 2 alludes to the “2 witnesses” theme but for some reason names one of them ‘Antipas’ = a Herodian name? Who can say why? At any rate, Mark begins to use Zechariah in the background more than ever in chapters 13-14 of this gospel.
-Mark 14:1 the chief priests [αρχιερεις] wonder how “by treachery” [δολω] to “seize him” [κρατησαντες] which is soon after repeated at verses 46-47 by allusion to “seizing” [εκρατησαν] the servant [δουλου] of the chief priest [αρχιερεως], so the same words but in reverse order and ‘doulou’ substituted for ‘dolo’. Exodus 21:14 makes an exception for the law of refuge for accidental manslaughter, stating that if any should set against their neighbor “to kill [αποκτειναι] by treachery [δολω]” then grasping the altar won’t be valid as protection from vengeance.
-cf. “but if” [εαν δε] at Exod 21:14 = suggested Mark 14:1 “it was” [ην δε]?
-the phrase “after two days” has resonance with Hosea 6:2.
[2] But they said, “Not on the holiday, lest there be an tumult of the people.”
-Psalm 74:4= the singer tells God: “On your holiday those detesting you boasted (against you).”
Here the books of Kings intrude randomly again! See how=
-2Samuel 17:9= “Some might say, ‘There is a tumult among the people [θραυσις εν τω λαω]!’”
-Mark 14:2 = the temple authorities “said, We shouldn’t (=arrest Jesus) during the holiday, because there might be [μηποτε] a tumult among the people [θορυβος εσται του λαου].”
[3] And (Jesus) being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he reclined at a meal, there entered a woman having an alabaster box of spikenard myrhh-ointment (very costly!) and she broke the box, and poured it on his head.
-Mark 14:3= “In the house [εν τη οικια] of the leper [του λεπρου]…”
-here Mark makes it probably the most plain that he intends to show his version of his Messiah as “flouting the law” purposefully and publicly, as Paul did. The entire chapter 14 of Leviticus is concerned with minutiae over how to tell whether being “in the house” [εν τη οικια] (=a phrase that seems to be obsessively repeated by the Torah writer at verses 35, 43, twice in 44, twice at 47, and 48) of a leper (=line 3 [του λεπρου]) made one unclean or the house unclean—even specifically mention ‘one who has eaten in the house’ as the characters are pictured doing in this scene. Jesus and those with him blatantly ignore there being anything controversial at all. Throughout the gospel, it is possible that Mark has subtly meant to show the Temple itself as a ‘leper’s house’—just as the priest in Lev 24 is to examine the house then come back later and re-examine to be certain, just as Jesus makes two visits to the temple at Mark 11. In the Torah, if after the second visit the priest deems the place uninhabitable due to uncleanness, then the building shall be “broken down, the stones of it, and carried off…” (Lev 14:45)= compare how at chapter 13 Jesus’ predicts of the Herodian Second Temple that (soon?) “not one stone will be left upon the other.”
-it seems like Mark hasn’t made a reference to the Elijah/Elisha cycle in a while. Is this scene echoing the anointing of commander Jehu as king of Israel? 2Kings 9:6= the young prophet “entered into the house” and “poured chrism-oil on his head.”
-Isaiah 25:6-7= “and YHWH Tzebaoth shall makes a feast for all nations upon this mountain (=Tziyyon) and … they shall drink wine. They shall anoint/christen with myrhh-oil upon this mountain.”
-Psalm 23:5 refers to anointing of the head, a theme that though present in the passion is displaced by Mark to beginning of chapter 14 possibly due to his obsession with reversal of expectations .
-Psalm 133:3 mentions ‘life unto the aeon’ right after speaking of Aaron having myrhh poured over his head.
-Psalm 133:3 mentions ‘life unto the aeon’ right after speaking of Aaron having myrhh poured over his head.
-the mention of Jesus “reclining” [κατακειμενου] and that it was liquid “spikenard” [ναρδου] are influenced by the opening lines to Song-of-songs 1:12= “My spikenard [ναρδος] gave off scent until the time when my king went to his lying down [ανακλισει αυτου].”
[4] And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, “Why was this waste of the ointment made? [5] For it might have been sold for more than three hundred coins, and have been given to the poor.” And they murmured against her.
-what is odd about this discussion is that it is ironic that these bystanders are merely hypothetically discussing doing what Jesus himself urged the rich man of man of chapter 10 to do. Now somehow this is unsatisfactory?
-Mark 14:1= the high priests “seek” [εζητουν] after two days (from the holiday of Unleavened Bread) how “to kill” Jesus, just as at the finale the women after two days (from the holiday of Passover) come to the tomb and the youth says “You seek” [ζητειτε] the one having been “killed.” So here both these groups, Jewish women and Jewish leaders, don’t understand that their actions as performed by them are futile and ultimately irrelevant, and the comparison is negative. Jesus has eluded both groups in the end! The same with one of the women, Salome, who “had bought [ηγορασαν] some spices” [αρωματα], a detail obviously meant to be doubling of the previous paragraphs where Joseph of Arimathia (whose city-name rhymes with the Greek word for ‘spices’, see below) “buys” [αγορασας] a shroud. Both these characters’ acts are meant to be pointing backwards to Mark 6:37, the first miracle loaf-multiplying, where the disciples wonder about food for the crowd. Jesus suggests: “You feed them!” They then redundantly ask: “Should we buy [αγορασωμεν] 200 denarii worth of bread?” So anyone “buying” is shown to be acting wrongly and thus is worthy of censure. This is not to mention those “buying and selling” [αγοραζοντας] in the temple whom Jesus physically attacks in chapter 11.
[6] And Jesus said, “Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
-Another interesting bookend is the details of Mark 14:3 dinner at the leper Simon’s home, “those reclining” [κατακειμενου] see how the woman “poured out” [κατεχεεν] (a quasi-pun on ‘reclining’?) while in verse 4 they ask about “this loss” [απωλεια]. This might help explain the brief parable in Mark 2:22 where new wine forced into old bags “pours out” [εκχειται] and the bags are “destroyed/lost” [απολουνται]. Because of this parallel one is tempted to think that the phrase “this waste of perfume/myrrh has occurred” [απωλεια τον μυρον γεγονεν] has it’s echo in the quasi-homonym Greek line from the same chapter, 14:25 where Jesus promises for this is that last time in a while he will partake of “the fruit of the vine” [γεννηματος της αμπελου] So in these three examples wine, blood (in verse 24: εκχυνομενον), and myrrh are “poured out. ” Also in both the leper’s dinner and the last supper Jesus begins a pronouncement about the poured out liquid that begins with the phrase “amen I say to you” [in both verse 9 and 25 = αμην λεγω υμιν]. One suspects the ultimate image is one of Judaism and the Torah being ‘spilled out’ to make room for the ‘new wine’ of ‘The Way’ of Paul’s ‘lawless’ creation called Christianity. Note how the woman’s jar is ‘broken’ to be ‘poured out’ on his ‘body’ while a few lines later at the eucharistic institution Jesus ‘breaks’ bread that he identifies as his ‘body’ and offers blood to be ‘poured out.’
[7] “’For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good’ —but me you have not always!
-Jesus here quotes Deut 15:11= “The poor will never cease from out of the land.”
[8] She’s done what she could: she is come beforehand to anoint my body for burial.
-a woman who interrupts a communal meal to perform a ritual that Jesus declares as being ‘good’ and somehow equivalent to a burial benefice? One wonders how this might relate to Ecclesiastes 7:1-2= “A good name is (prized) above precious oil, and your day of death (to be preferred over) your birthday. It’s better to enter a house of mourning than go into a house of a banquet.”
-there is in Mark “myrhh” [murou] “worth above three hundred drachma” while in Exodus 30 there is “500 shekels worth of muron” (vv 23-24) and in lines 32-33 it is warned that any who “anoints a human being (lit. ‘flesh of a man’) with this (special cultic) oil or makes some for their own personal use shall be utterly obliterated!” =such a rule may give great irony to Jesus statement that this woman “has christened him for burial” —as in, getting anointed by the cultically incorrect stuff could get you justly killed according to the exact letter of Mosaic law. And the Messiah sneakily flouting these rules is part and parcel of the gospel’s very point, especially in Mark and Paul’s version. (verse 31 of Exod 30: “To the sons of Israel you shall speak [λαλησεις] … that holy this oil shall be unto all generations” might have inspired Mark’s “what she did (=lit. ‘made’) shall be spoken of [λαληθησεται] as a memorial.”
-Esther 2:12 mentions the eponymous Jewess’ heroine’s year-long beauty beauty “treatment” (θεραπειας), six months of ‘αρωμασι’ and [in verse 13] six months “anointed with myrhh oil”
[9] Amen I say unto you, “Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she has done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.”
-Mark 14:9= “what she did “ [εποσησεν]
-Joshua 4:7-8= “The Jordan ceased before the ark of the Lord of All the Earth and these stones there shall be [εσονται] a memorial [μνημοσυνον] to you forever. And did thus [εποσησαν] the sons of Israel…”
-the odd phrase “memorial to her” [μνημοσυνον αυτης] is an exact cultic technical term in Leviticus 2 (cf verses 2, 9, 16) Notice how verses 1 and 15 have “pour oil upon it” and lines 4-5 have “unleaved” (see Mark 14:1 = αζυμα).
-it is one of the grand ironies of Mark that the woman who he proclaims as famous for all future generations is left purposefully unnamed by him! It has been suggested she somehow represents Eurykleia, the servant of Odysseus in Homer’s Odyssey who recognizes her master while washing him when he returns in disguise. All those themes are present here, and her name does mean ‘Famous’…
[10] And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.
-The scene where the scribes accuse Jesus of being an agent of Beelzebul at Mark 3:22-30 was inserted at this point to make time pass in the narrative, for Jesus family (his “own”, as Mark puts it) to “seek” him out and eventually find him. The author has done likewise with Mark 14:3-9 where Simon the leper’s supper is sandwiched between the chief priests “seeking” a betrayer and then soon after Judas and the authorities coming upon them suddenly “even while Jesus was still speaking.” Which in itself may parallel that in chapter 3 where Jesus seems to have been giving a sermon when he’s interrupted to be told his relatives await him outside. As usual, being “outside” is implied to be wrongheaded at best, evil and damned at worst (see Jesus hermeneutical key given at 4: ). By pairing secretly Jesus family with the betrayer at the ending, he is marking them out by example. Again, it also likely the gospel authors of all stripes and denominations have intended to erase some historical memory of Jesus ‘brothers’, whatever this may mean, as having had any authority, something Paul is so concerned about, as revealed in his feigned indifference to their influence.
-Judas betrayal at 14:10 may allude to Zechariah 11:13f = Matthew 27:9f thinks this is from Jeremiah for some reason.
[11] And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.
-Mark 14:11 = and they “hearing, rejoiced” [ακουσαντες εχαρησαν] and promised to give silver [αργυριον].
-Esther 3:9, 11 = Haman bribes king Artaxerxes with “silver” [αργυριον]
-Mark 6:20 = Herod “having heard” [ακουσας], verse 22 = “was pleased” [αρεσασης]
-Genesis 37:26-28 = at Judah’s (‘Judas’ in Greek!) suggestion the brothers sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites for 20 silver coins.
-Testament of Gad 2:3 = the patriarch admits he and brother Judas sold Joseph for 30 silver coins, but they told their brothers it was only 20 and split the rest between them. (! It seems very ironic that even in ancient times the original ‘Jew’ Judah had the reputation—even among those of his ethnicity writing about him fictionally—of being greedy and underhanded! One can see why Christian critics refuse to see Mark as the anti-Semite he is because they argue a Jew can’t be one and the circular reasoning ties them in knots.)
-Testament of Judah 17:1 and 18:2 = on how he doesn’t mean for Joseph to be killed, only to be ‘out of the way’ just as Matthew 27:3-4 has Judas not wanting to actually kill Jesus but only have him removed form public.
-Exodus 21:17= specifies death penalty for whoever would “kidnap and bully an Israelite, then give him over [αποδωται]” = some connection to Judas here “giving over” [παραδω] his master?
[12] And the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover [lamb], his disciples said to him, “Where should we go and prepare the passover?”
-Mark 14:16= they prepared the Passover [ητοιμασαν το πασχα], verse 17= and evening it having become [οψιας γενομενης], verse 18= they “were eating” [εσθιοντων]
-Joshua 5:10= they observed the Passover [εποιησαν το πασχα]… at evening [αϕ’ εσπερας]… verse 11= and they ate [εϕαγον] some unleavened bread [αζυμα] — see Mark 14:12 where αζυμων is mentioned.
[13] And he sent forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, “Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.
-Gal 6:17= βασταζω… στιγματα
-Gal 6:5= each his “troubles bear” [ϕορτιον βαστασει]
-Gal 5:10= you shall “bear judgement” [βαστασει το κριμα]
[14] And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the superintendant of that house, ‘The Master says, ‘Where is the guest-room, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?’
-1 Samuel pours oil on Saul’s head and then tells how he’ll meet various people when asking about his father’s missing donkey = this has inspired Mark 14 incidents where Jesus is anointed then 2 disciples are told how meet some random guy in town, which is a minor reiteration of the incident with donkey in chapter 11. Notice that Mark 11:1-6 and 14:13-16 are doublets, based partly around material from the incident at 1Samuel 9:11 where Saul and slave-boy find out where the “seer Samuel” lives. Some women carrying water lead a servant to a man who then anoints his master. Notice how the evangelist in changing the stories has reversed the genders: Jesus is anointed by a jar-bearing woman and then a water-carrying man leads his servants to an unknown house. It is also surely no coincidence that at 1Sam 9:22 the prophet sets up a meal for the two boys at a “lodging” [καταλυμα] just as the anonymous man the disciples find show them a “rental-hall” [καταλυμα]. In terms of the story order in Mark, it is interesting that 1Sam 10:1 has Saul anointed as “oil poured [κατεχεεν] down his head [επι την κεϕαλην αυτου]” and then a mention of “two men” and in verse 5 Samuel explains how “it shall happen that when ever [ως αν] you go into the city [εις την πολιν] you will meet [απαντησεις]…”; just as the alabaster-jar lady “poured [κατεχεεν] it over his head [αυτου κατα της κεϕαλης]” then a few lines later Jesus urges “two men” to “go into the city [εις την πολιν] and there you’ll meet [απαντησει] a man… and where ever [οπου εαν]…” And finally in 1Sam 9:8, since they can’t locate the missing donkey they seek, Saul advises his go-to guy to offer “silver” to the ‘man of God’ for information about this, just as the authorities in Mark 14:11 promise “silver” to Judas and then he “seeks” opportunity to hand over some intelligence about his teacher’s whereabouts. There is also the parallel in that they are introduced to Samuel during preparation for a ‘feast-day’, just as it is nearly Pesach in the gospel narrative.
-Mark 14:14 use of the word “guest-room” [καταλυμα] was clearly borrowed by Luke 22:11 and may have been inspiration for Luke 2:7 nativity story where there is no room at the “inn” [καταλυματι]. Luke 1:15a = has same phrase as 1Samuel 1:9, 15 [= ενωπιον κυριου]
-Raymond Brown, 'Birth of the Messiah' (pg 671) = “In 1Sam 1:18 (no Hebrew original) it is the place where Elkanah and Hannah stayed on the way to Shiloh, and that story is certainly part of Luke’s background in the infancy narrative.”
[15] And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us.”
-Mark 14:3= “broke the jar” αλαβαστρον… συντριψασα (broke)
-Jeremiah 19:1 = the Lord tells Jeremiah to get an “earthenware pitcher” and he “shall break” it [συντριψασα] (=verse 10), then in next verse: “so it won’t be able to be repaired” This will be a sign that Judah shall be destroyed.
-Jeremiah 19:9 = “you shall eat the flesh of your sons”
-Mark 14:8 = “for the entombing” [εις τον ενταϕιασμον]
-Jeremiah 19:11 = there’s no “place to bury” [τοπος του ταϕηναι]
-Mark 4:4 + 32 = πετεινα του ουρανου
-Jeremiah 19: = the Lord says: “I’ll give their dead to be food for birds of heaven” [πετεινοις του ουρανου] shall devour corpses
-Jeremiah 35:4 = Jerry brings the Rechabites into a “cubicle” at the temple which is “above” (εναπω) the house of Maaserah ben Shallum [=verse 5] and has a “jar” (κεραμιον) of wine.
-Jeremiah 27:18= Jerry says to false prophets: if the word of the Lord is with them: “let them meet me (απαντησατωσαν) [=the same rare word used of man bearing waterjug in mark 14!!] that they should not carry in (εισενεχθησωνται) the vessels (σκευη) being left behind in Babylon.” Verse 22 says these items will stay behind in Babel until “the day of visitation” and “ I will return them to this place” (τοπον τουτον). 27:16 has the false prophets say: “Behold, the items (σκευη) of the Lord’s house shall return (επιστρεψει) from Babylon.”
-Mark 14:15 = a man with κεραμιον leads them to house where owner shows the “upper room” (ανωγεον) for the feast.
-Jeremiah 35:6= answering Jerry’s command to drink wine: “In no way shall we drink wine… into the forever.” (ου μη πιητε οινον … εως του αιωνος)
-Mark 14:25 = “No longer in any way shall I drink from [=fruit of the vine] until [=kingdom come = forever?]” (ουκετε ου μη πιω εκ … εως)
-Jeremiah 35:14 the sons of Rechab “drank not unto this day (εως της ημερας ταυτης)”
-in one of the oddest discrepancies of the OT, in the MT of Jeremiah 27:19-22 the Temple vessels would one day be restored, but the LXX of the same passage, 34:19-22 claims they would "never be restored!" A locus classicus of how translation can alter meaning even unto total reversal!
[16] And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found it even as he had said unto them: and they made ready the Passover. [17] And in the evening he arrived along with the twelve.
-Mark 14:16 The disciples get to the city and “find it as he said to them” [ευρον καθως ειπεν αυτοις]. This phrase is later repeated to the 3 ladies by the mysterious young man at the tomb (at 16:7)= “You shall see him (in Galilee), as he said to you.” [οψεσθε καθως ειπεν υμιν]
-2Samuel 23:22 = “No Passover [pesach] was celebrated since the time of the Judges.” (= this puns on the Hebrew word for “lame” [piseach], like former prince Mephibosheth of the House of Saul ‘whom David hated’ yet due to realpolitik and political expedience he has invited to his table.)
[18] And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, “Amen I say unto you, ‘One of you which eats with me shall betray me.’”
-Psalm 41:8-10 might be implied behind Mark 14:18, if so not only is verse 9 of that hymn in view here: “my bosom-buddy who ate of my bread has turned against me” but also line 10 where the speaker asks God to: “Raise me up, that I might repay them!” =so in the background here we have Jesus as Titus, the son/prince exacting vengeance on Judas/the Jews. Brilliantly done—such thinking has led to the death of millions but what a whopping allegory!
-Robert M Fowler, 'Loaves and Fishes' (pg 138)= “The Markan Last Supper narrative must not be removed from the context of the ominous predictions of 14:18-21 and 27-31, for the entire narrative has been constructed as a natural outgrowth of the feeding stories in Mark 6 and 8 and the discipleship failure depicted there. That the discipleship of the 12 ends so ignobly in Mark is not surprising in view of the incredible obtuseness of the disciples narrated already in Mark 6-8.”
-using the middle of meal to bring up that one ‘one of the twelve’ will ‘deliver him up’ seems out of place. Why choose this time? Of course the answer may be literary borrowing by Mark. The Testament of Gad 2:3 portrays Jacob’s sons deciding to “sell” their brother during the middle of dinner as well! the ‘Patriarchs’ text novelizes the story thus: after placing Joseph in a pit, the 12 sit down to eat. During the meal, Judah [=Judas] suggest they sell their brother into slavery to Ishmaelites for ‘thirty pieces of gold’—something Matthew may later draw from for his embroidery upon this gospel.
-parallels between this chapter and chapter 6= a man getting special attention from a women who has entered a banquet (Herod and Salome in 6, Jesus and the nameless yet somehow destined-to-be-famous female in 14); a severed head in a serving-dish in 6, a cup of metaphysical blood and a dish dipped into by someone intending betrayal in 14,
[19] And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, “Is it I?” and another said, “Is it I?” [20] And he answered and said unto them, “It is one of the 12, that dips with me in this dish.”
-though a later source, in the rabbinic Midrash 15a on Ruth 2:14, Boaz words about vinegar are taken as an oblique reference to the Messiah, and his phrase ‘Approach this place’ is expounded as meaning ‘the messianic kingdom’ and ‘eat thy bread’ as meaning the ‘bread of the kingdom’ while ‘dip in vinegar’ is explained as ‘sufferings’; connected to Isaiah 53:5 to the suffering servant: ‘he was pierced for our sins’
- the word for “dish” here [τρυβλιον] is rare and used elsewhere at Sirach 31:14 which admonishes the rich: “stretch not thy hand wherever it wishes, thrust it not with him into the dish.” Considering this that same chapter mostly scolds the rich for “going after gold” at others’ expense, it doesn’t seem to far of a ‘stretch’ to see Mark using these items to reference Judas subtly.
[21a] “The Son of man indeed goes, as it is written of him:
Mark 14:21 says “The Son of Man goes as it written of him.” The meaning of this appears to be that the earlier Mark 14:18 reference to “one who’s eating with me” is drawn from Psalm 41:10, something the author of John 13:18 assumes and thus makes explicit in his work. But Luke 22:21 eliminates the phrase “as it is written” [καθως γεγραπται], probably because he couldn’t figure out exactly which text Mark is view, since on the face of it only 1Cor 11:23 would match this? Yet Mark perhaps intends to invoke Daniel 7:21, 25 where the “saints/holy-ones” (=who collectively are the ‘Son-of-Man’) are “handed over” [παραδοθησεται].
[21b] but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had never been born!”
-1 Corinthians 9:16b= “Woe unto me it is [ουαι δε μοι εστιν] if I don’t announce the good news” seems somehow to be what inspired Mark 14:21 “Woe unto that man” [ουαι δε τω ανθρωπω] (by whom son of man is delivered up). The reason this seems so is that the remainder of that sentence (=”better that he’d never been born) is so similar in thought and sense to 1 Corinthains 9:15b = “Good for me rather to die, than my boasting should nullify their salvation.” [καλον γαρ μοι αποθανειν]
-for the Passover/Last Supper scenario the disciples are described as “reclining” [ανακειμενων] at 14:18 and after being presaged their fate, they “began to be dejected” [ηρξαντο λυπεισθαι] in verse 19. This mirrors the supper where John the Baptist was beheaded, making it by Mark’s own parallelism a kind of anti-eucharist meal of some sort. At Mark 6:22 “those reclining” [συνανακειμενοις] with Herod are mentioned just before in verse 26 the tetrarch “began to be dejected” [περιλυπος γενομενος] over his rash oath. More strangely, Jesus remark to the 12 that “it were best if” his soon-to-be betrayer “were never born” [ει ουκ εγεννηθη] is paralleled by Mark 6:21’s detail that Herod was waiting the “best time [ευκαιρου] to hold a birthday supper” [γενεσιοις δειπνον]. The word birthday in Greek is of course a variant of the word for ‘born.’ And of course there is irony in the tetrarch’s life celebration being juxtaposed to the messiah’s death dinner.
[22] And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
-Exodus 23:25= if one makes certain to “only serve the Lord” as “your God” YHWH promises that he will personally “bless [ευλογησω] your bread [αρτον] and wine”
-Mark 14:22= after dinner is served he “took bread [αρτον] and having blessed [ευλογησας] it…”
-note how at Exod 23:24 God commands his followers to “break [συντριψεις] up” all pagan idols/objects just as Jesus “breaks [εκλασε] up” the flatbread.
[23] And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
-Psalm 75:8= “For a cup (of wrath) is in the Lord’s hand, of undiluted mixture of wine… all [παντες] the sinners of the earth shall drink [πιον] it !”
-Revelation 14:10 partially quotes the above sentence
-Jeremiah 25:17= at God’s instruction, Jeremiah “took [ελαβον] the cup [το ποτηριον] … and gave to drink from it [εποτισα] to all [παντα] of them, the peoples I’d been sent unto…”
-Mark 14:22= Jesus “took [λαβων] the cup [το ποτηριον] … and gave it [επιον εξ αυτου] for to drink to all [παντες] of them.”
-though it has gone mostly unnoticed for centuries, this is language of CURSING—Jesus/the Lord is damning his own by making them drink blood, a thing vociferously condemned as detestable to “eat” [Leviticus 17:11f] and “being forced to eat flesh etc” is a motif of Gentile or disobedient nations getting a monstrous comeuppance. See Paul’s “Any who drink unworthily drink to their own peril” at 1Corinthians 11:27-29.
-Is there some odd connection between the Eucharistic institution scene and the incident at Genesis 40 where the baker in prison with Joseph is told “In three days Pharaoh will remove your head, hang you on a wood-timber and the birds will eat [ϕαγεται] that flesh of yours [τας σαρκας απο σου].” Compare Mark 14:22 = “Eat [ϕαγετε] this body of mine [το σωμα μου]!” Then Gen 40:21 has the re-hired wine-taster “give [εδωκε] the cup [το ποτηριον]” to Pharaoh just as Jesus “gave[εδωκε] the cup [το ποτηριον]” to them.
-1Corinthians 11:23 Paul explain his version of the eucharist (=some dream of his? a visionary interpretation of Genesis 40?). He presents Jesus as saying: “Do this [τουτο ποιετε] in memory [αναμνησιν] of me [εις την εμην].” This clearly recalls Gen 40:14= Joseph in jail imploring the wine-taster to “remember me [μνησθητι μου] of yourself [δια σεαυτου] whenever good things [ευ] happen [γενηται] to you.” It is from borrowing this sentence that Mark created the strange construction at 14:21 “it were good [καλον ην] he not born” [ουκ εγεννηθη] which in Greek so resembles Joseph’s words to his cellmates.
-Paul’s “I’ve handed over [παρεδωκα] this to you” = Mark has added this into the context in a negative way (as always!) by making the “handing over” into a Greek euphemism for “betrayal.” How clever!
-Could Mark (or even Paul?) have been drawn to the lovely poetic coincidence that the baker locked in with Joseph is beheaded like John the Baptist and also crucified like Jesus? The chef’s dream has him with food from “storage bins” poured on his head in symbolism of his future execution. Mark gives us John’s head “on a plate.”
[24] And he said unto them, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.
-Exodus 24:8= “Behold the blood of the covenant” [ιδου το αιμα της διαθηκης]
-Mark 14:24 “This is my blood of the covenant.” This neatly and most artfully rearranges a sentence from Zechariah 9:11= “the blood of my covenant with you” [=reading against the grain in Greek, Mark has changed ‘blood of my covenant’ into ‘covenant in my blood’, —a shocking literary/theological feat!] (=while John 19:34, 37 alludes to Zech 12:10 ‘him who’ve they’ve pierced’ though the 4th evangelist seems to go out of his way to alter his phrasing, always disagreeing with both the LXX and MT)
-It is important to remember that star of Mark 14 is a doublet of the beginning of Mark 11 where Jesus rides a donkey into Jerusalem. The author made use of Zechariah 9:9 in creating that triumphal imagery. Then in Mark 14 ‘s ‘last supper’ scenario, Mark cleverly reverses the language of Zechariah 9:11, purposefully transforming ‘the blood of Your covenant’ into Jesus mysterious pronouncement on the new ‘covenant in my blood.’ Notice how at Zech 9:15 YHWH promises the Jews stunning success when they attack their enemies in the future: “they shall drink their blood like wine!”
-Since Mark makes Jesus quotes Zechariah 13:7, it is possible he also has Zech 13: 5-6 in mind in the background of the Passion? In that section some hypothetical false prophet is asked ‘Where did you get these wounds in the middle of your hands?’ and they answers ‘From blows I got in the house of my beloved.’ Perhaps the evangelist wants this to be a fleeting reference to crucifixion nails? But the confusing phrases are apparent in the Hebrew: ‘between the hands’ is a euphemism indicating ‘on [the back of] the shoulders’ while the ‘scars’ earned at a ‘friend’s house’ [lit. in Hebrew] are likely references to the tattoos applied by/to the priests of Baal [whose cultic title the Beloved/Friend = ’ahab’ is the word used]. Also curious is that the gospel writer has Jesus self-identify with the ‘beaten shepherd’ on Zech 13, even though that failed leader is struck down due to not tending the sheep with care and punished for his neglect. But no one could ever accuse the NT authors of being consistent in their metaphors. It is also interesting that Mark may be calling indirect attention to John the Baptist’s clothing from chapter one (verse 6= ενδεδυμενος τριΧας … δερματινην). The fake visionaries of Zech 13 “put on hairy-hide coverings, (ενδυσονται δερριν τριχινην) because they lied!” [whatever this means!]. Finally, there is the theme of ‘family turning against you’ at this point in Zechariah—the parents of phony mediums will “bind them” and say: “You shall not live!” This is telling because Judas’ betrayal is likely Mark’s invention and historically—if anything resembling such can be salvaged from these myths—Judas seems have been Jesus’ brother. So we might have a bit of residue of how such a tale of ‘blood relations out for blood’ could have been polemically constructed.
-the ‘new agreement/testament’ which ‘God has promised’ in Romans 11:27 must refer to Jeremiah 31:31.
-Mark 14:24’s “for many poured out [πολλων εκχυνομενον]” it a subtle reference to Isaiah 53:12= “he was poured out [הערה] unto death” —strangely though, the LXX translates this as “handed over” [paredoqh], oddly also using that same Greek work to translate an entirely different Hebrew word in that sentence: “made intercession for” [יפגיע]! But it is obvious that this allusion to Isa 53:12 is intended, for the OG version uses the word “many” [πολλους, πολλων] twice in that verse.
[25a] “Amen I say unto you:
-Matt and Luke both delete the amen of Mark 14:25 = Testament of Abraham 8:7 and 20:2 [=x 2] have Amen I say to you
-Jeremiah 28:6 = the word ‘amen’ stands at the beginning of Jeremiah’s wish, but is still responsorial, not declarative (= in LXX this is at 35:6).
[25b] ‘I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.’”
-Mark 14:25a = “in no way drink [ου μη πιω] from the fruit of the vine [γεννηματος της αμπελου]
-though the circumlocution “fruit of the vine” appears at Isaiah 32:12 in a negative manner also appropriate to the context here, it also likely that a reference to Numbers 6:3 is in view. Twice in that sentence it is repeated that one under a Nazirite vow “must not drink [ου πιεται] wine” then Num 6:4 mentions not consuming any kind of “produce of grapevines” [γινεται εξ αμπελου] = something which Mark has seized on and mixed with Habakkuk 3:17 = “Even if the fig-tree won’t blossom, or there be no fruit on the vine [γενηματα εν ταις αμπελοις] … yet still I shall rejoice in the God of my salvation.”
-then the Numbers 6:5 concerns how a Nazir must not cut his hair: “a razor shall not arrive on his head until whenever [εως αν] should be fulfilled the days [αι ημεραι] of as many [οσας] he vowed to the Lord.” It is in parody of this that Mark 14:25b continues and ends = “until [ες] the day [της ημερας] whenever [οταν] I should drink anew…”
-not to mention that there was in probably no town called ‘Nazareth’ in the times Mark’s novel pretends to be writing about, so the Nazirite vows of the Torah likely have more to do with this terminology being applied to the figure of Jesus.
[26] And when they had sung a hymn, they went out onto the Mount of Olives.
-At 2Samuel 15:32 the Mount of Olives is called: “where one is wont to go and pray.”
-Mark 14:26 might have some passing overtones of David’s flight from Jerusalem in 2 sam 15:16
-the error of Abiathar in Mark 2:26 = 2Sam 15:24 = has Abiathar escape to Jerusalem with the Ark.
-Raymond Brown, ‘Death of the Messiah’ (p 128 vol 1) = “Indeed, Dibelius has argued that motifs from the last part of Zechariah were woven together with great ingenuity in the PN so that they contributed to its shaping; see also Bruce “Book.” For instance, the beginning of Zech 13 peaks of a fountain opened for the house of David, constituting a a possible connection between the mention of the Mount of Olives in Zech 14 and the mention of the Ascent of Olives in the David story of II Sam 15, both used by the Gospels. Chapters 9-14 of Zech are also in mind in other Gospels passages that proceed and follow the Olives/Getsemane scene in the context of Jesus’ passion.”
-Aileen Guilding in her theory of the lectionary background for John invokes Zechariah 11:6 (read before Passover) “I will deliver … each into the hands of his king [malko].” (=about Malchus high priest’s servant) —see also “the servant of the king” in 1Samuel 29:3.
[27a] Jesus said: “All ye shall be offended because of me this night:
-Mark 14:27a= “due to me [εν μοι] you shall stumble [σκανδαλισθησεσθε]” (quite a verb form!)
-Exod 23:33= YHWH warns against associating with pagan idolators who might “make you sin against me [pros me], for if you serve other gods it shall be to you an occasion for stumbling [προσκομμα].” [a very similar sentence appears again at Exodus 34:12ff]
[27b] for it is written, ‘I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.’
-Mark 14:27 = the citing of Zechariah 13:7 here may recall Mark 1:6 = “he was appareled in camel hair and animal skins’ [ενδεδυμενος τριχας καμηλου και ζωνην δερματινην] and Zechariah 13:4 = “false prophets shall “put on hide coverings of hair because they’ve lied!” [ενδυσονται δερριν τριχινην ανθ’ων εψευσαντο]
-it is extremely strange that the sentence Jesus refers to here from Zechariah refers to the just and well-deserved punishment of a neglectful shepherd who abuses his flock, ‘fattening them to eat their flesh’ and so forth! But similar to Matthew 2’s quoting of Hosea 11 which is also a negative portrayal of Israel, these authors didn’t too often care for the plain sense of a reading. Yet with Mark, one might guess he intends for Jesus to be the innocent stand-in for the ‘bad leader’ who should be killed? Yet one must intellectually always keep in sight the double-minded nature of the Jewish scriptures: David is portrayed in a way that can so easily be construed as entirely negative that the author(s) of Chronicles had no compunction with totally altering the books of Kings with prudish impunity. I highly suspect it was such a blatant example as Chronicles (or dare one say Josephus works as well?) that led authors like the gospel fabricators to compose their novels of Biblical fan-fiction.
-Israel rejecting Cyrus as their shepherd leads to an "unknown servant" returning the exiles at Isaiah 42:7 and 49:9-13. The late 2nd temple literary motif of the leader who became too popular and is 'eliminated' by the authorities may go back to the return from Babel= see 'The Cambridge History of Judaism, volume 2: The Hellenistic Age' (page 528, footnote 2) = “Where overzealous hierocrats stepped out of line, they were apparently disposed of by the Persians, as suggested by the disappearance of Zerubabel.”
[28] “But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.”
-More prophet Zechariah, and more oddity! It’s obvious Jesus/Mark means here by choosing the term ‘arising’ [εγερθηναι] to recall to Zech 11: 16 where YHWH promises to “raise up” [εξεγειρω] a punishing shepherd, seemingly a foreign king who shall kill the ‘worthless shepherd’ who has badly tended the people Israel. But Mark actively misinterprets two lines of Zechariah to refer to resurrection? So strange… Also by placing this after a quote from Zech 13:6, it’s also likely Mark wants us to remember how that same Greek word is used in the next line of LXX Zech 13, verse 7 where God angrily commands ‘Arise [εξεγεθητι], O sword, against the sheep-herders!’ This leads one to think perhaps the ‘Son of Man’ figure is meant somehow to have the identity of ‘the returning triumphant Messiah’ and the Roman general/emperor Titus arriving to quell a former province and eradicate Judaism. As always, Mark is likely making several allusion at once, not only to Zach but Ezekiel 34:22-24 where it’s mentioned how God will “raise up” a “shepherd, my servant David”, which itself reiterates 2Samuel 7:12 this is promised to “David’s seed/sperm.” The author of Zechariah has is reworked imagery from Jeremiah chapters 23 and 30.
[29] But Peter said unto him, “Although all shall stumble, yet will not I.”
-Mark 14:27 = Jesus tells disciples = “All will be scandalized due to me” [σκανδελισθησεσθε εν εμοι] in this night [εν τη νυκτι].” It is vaguely possible that the description “in this night”, though likely drawn from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians ‘last supper’ scenario, might be meant to echo Numbers 22:19 = where Balaam orders the ambassadors from King Balak to “remain behind [υπομεινατε] here this night!” [την νυκτα ταυτην], while he goes off to talk to God. In Balaam’s case this is in a dream where God’s tells him he must do the opposite of what is expected, in mark 14:34 it is Jesus going off to pray in the garden where he inquires if God will do the unexpected and make the ‘cup pass from him.’ Note how Jesus tells the disciples to “Remain” [μεινατε] as does Balaam to the ambassadors. Also Mark 14:30 Jesus predicts to Peter that he’ll deny/reject his teacher “in this night” [εν τη νυκτι ταυτη] = the same phrase as in Numbers, seemingly redundantly inserted into a sentence that is modeled on Elisha’s promise to his teacher that he won’t “reject” him.
[30] And Jesus saith unto him, “Amen I say unto thee, ‘That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.’” [31] But Peter objected more vehemently, “If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any way.” Likewise also they all agreed.
- the use of “amen” again may relate to the end of LXX Psalm 41.
-Raymond Brown, Death of the Messiah p 135 vol 1 =
“Of particular interest is that Luke (=22) and John (=13), differing in this passage from each other and from Mark/Matt, may echo in vocabulary and theme the scene in II Sam 15 of the flight of David from Absalom […] Jus before David crosses the Kidron valley and goes up the Ascent of Olives, he speaks to Itai the Gittite, warning him that he (David) is not certain where he will be going, and so Ittai should not come along but turn around and take his brothers (men) with him. Ittai objects, “Wherever my lord shall be, whether for death or life, there will your servant be.” Italics point out similarities to Luke and John…”
[32] They got to a place named Gethsemane: and he told his disciples: “Sit over here, while I go pray.”
-Exodus 24:2= “Moses alone shall approach unto God, the others shall not accompany him, the people shall not go up with him.”
-Mark 14:32 Jesus says to disciples: “Sit here [καθισατε ωδε] while [εως] I pray [προσευξομαι].”
-Genesis 22:5 = Abraham tells servants: “You sit [καθισατε αυτου] with the donkey while we go over there [εως ωδε] and we’ll return after “doing obeisance/worshipping.” [προσκυνησαντες] (just like Mark 14:35 = “pray” [προσηνυχετω] and “having gone forth a little” [προελθων μικρον])
-less certain is if Mark 15:40 (where the women “view” Jesus’ execution “from far off” [μακροθεν] and a few lines later they “saw the place where they put him [που τιθεται]”) is an echo of Genesis 22:4 where Abraham views where he is destined to kill Isaac in some implied mystical foresight: he “saw the place, from far off” [τοπον μακροθεν]. The gospel of John seems to interpret these Genesis lines Kabbalistically, having Jesus claim at 8:56: “Abraham saw my day from afar off, and rejoiced.”
[33] And he took with him Peter, James and John, and began to be anxious and very heavy; [34] And saith unto them, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful —even unto death! Wait here and keep look out.”
-Sirach 37:2= “Is it not a sorrow [λυπη] unto death [εως θανατου] when your companion [εταιρος] and friend [ϕιλος] is turned enemy [εχθραν]?”
-It is likely Mark had in mind this scripture, so redolent with import due to Judas’ turning traitor. But he has colored it with language from Jonah
-Psalm 42:6 has some connections to Jonah, the waves, ///
-Mark 14:34 = Jonah 4:9 = psalm 42:6?
-Raymond Brown, ‘Death of the Messiah’ (p 154-55 vol 1) = “…we saw that II Sam 15 was the source from which the Marcan tradition drew the motif of the Mount of Olives and John drew “across the winter-flowing Kidron.” (15:23) If here from the same psalm Mark echoes the “very sorrowful” while John echoes the “disturb,” most likely we should think of a preGospel association of such Scripture passages with the picture of Jesus’ anguish as he faced death. […] Finegan (Uberlieferung 70) and Boman (“Gebetskampf” 271) do not hesitate to claim that Mark 14:34 is a combination of Ps 42:6 and Jonah 4:9.”
[35] He went forward a little, fell on the ground, and prayed that—if it were possible—the hour might pass from him.
-Raymond Brown, Death of the Messiah p 160 vol 1 note 15 =
In an important study Best (Temptation xxiii) argues that Mark transferred to the temptation of Jesus at the beginning of the Gospel the defeat of Satan and the cosmic powers presented by other NT writers in the passion. I do not think that view does justice to the Marcan picture of a ministry marked by struggles with demons who must be dispossessed. Although not as emphatically as for Luke, the periasmos in Gethsemane for Mark continues the peirazein by Satan in 1:13.
[36a] And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee;
-Gen 22:7= Isaac asks plaintively: “Father?” [MT: אבי] (=LXX πατερ ο)
-Mark 14:36= αββα ο πατηρ
-Philo, Abraham 175 either invents or knows of a tradition about Abram answering his son’s query. As to where the sacrificial animal would come from, the patriarch responds: “I don’t know but…. all things are possible with God.” [παντα δ’ισθι θεω δυνατα]
-Mark may have spread segments from Gen 22 into both chapters 1 and 14 of his gospel=
-Mark 14:38 has “testing/trial” [περασμον] while 1:13 has περαζομενος, which corresponds to Gen 22:1= και εγενετο … θεος επειρασε
-Mark 14:40= “having returned [υποστρεψας]”
-Genesis 22:5= Abraham tells his servants “We will return [αναστρεψομεν]…”
-Gen 22:4= Abraham “split” [σχισας] the wood = does this having something to do with the paired details of the “split” heavens in chapter 1 while it is the temple-curtain chapter 15.
-Mark 1:11= “This son of mine, the Beloved.” [ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος]
-Gen 22:2= “Your beloved son” [υιον σου τον αγαπητον]
- our gospel author’s knowledge of Philo or the interpretive tradition he is extrapolating from would explain then why Jesus makes this statement in his Getsemane prayer of 14:36! Philo’s ‘De Flacco’ and ‘Embassy to Gaius’ has a beggar called ‘Carabas’ dressed in royal regalia and mocked/beaten and hailed as ‘king.’ Here Mark may be borrowing from this Alexandrian philosopher’s writings—most surprising if so! Could our gospel author Mark perhaps be Philo’s nephew and turncoat politician Tiberius Alexander —who, according to Josephus, “abandoned the tradition of his forefathers (forsook Judaism)”?
[36b] take away this cup from me: nevertheless let not not my will, but what you want (be done).”
-here is more from Jeremiah 25= at verse 28 God tells him: “If they don’t want to take the cup (of cursing offered) … then declare, thus says YHWH Tzebaoth: ‘In drinking, you shall drink!’” =note also the threatening manner of Mark 10:29 where Jesus tells James and John: “Indeed, even the cup I’ll be drinking, you shall drink!”
- the composition of the Lord prayer=
-Matthew copies Mark’s 14:36 Getsemane prayer but takes out the Aramaic word Abba, writing only ‘You, father’ while later Luke removes the pronoun too, no letter οmicron, and Luke has Jesus garden prayer begins with just “Father!” as does his Lord’s prayer in Luke .
-Mark 14:36= “Thy will not mine” is also where Matthew 6 got the idea for “Thy will be done” phrase.
Luke adds “each day” [το καθ’ ημεραν] to Matthew’s rare phrase επιουσιος, seemingly to clarify. He has taken this from Exodus 16:5, so it’s likely manna is the bread referred to here. Whereas Matthew put the request for daily bread as an aorist imperative, once and done, Luke instead has present imperative, altering δος (=give once only) to διδου (give, continuously). There may be in the background Proverbs 30:8= “Feed me with the food that I need.”
-Ben Sirach 28:2= “Forgive your neighbor when he wrongs you and your sins all will be pardoned when you pray.” The influence on Mark 12 should be plain.
-Luke 11:4 “we forgive everyone indebted” [αϕιεμεν παντι οϕειλοντι], a catch-phrase repeated often by Luke (see 6:30, 40; 14:11; 18:14)
[37] And he returned, and finds them sleeping, and said to Peter, “Simon, you’re sleeping?! You couldn’t stay woke even one hour?
-at Getsemane, Jesus finds Peter unable to stay awake, and derisively calls him ‘Simon’, as if in disappointment. He hasn’t been named as such since verse 16 of chapter 3. His nickname is being here revoked by his master. Jesus is, in effect, “un-naming” him, perhaps also rejected him as a disciple. (=this was suggested by David Rhoad and Donald Michie in ‘Mark as story: an introduction to the narrative of the gospel; from Philly, Fortress 1982) pages 127-129
-Talmud Bavli, Temunah 16a (Soncino 109)= a faithful Joshua asks a moribund Moses: “Master, have I ever left you, even for one hour?”
[38a] “Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.
-It is very likely Matthew later was inspired by the sentence to compose part of ‘Lord’s prayer’: “lead us not into a test”
[38b] “The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak!”
-Psalm 51:12 “Grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.” = Mark 14:37-8 willing/weak
-Mark 14:38 = Psalm 78:39-41 (=77 in LXX) =this mixes ‘testing, ‘flesh’, ‘spirit/breeze’ (σαρξ , πνευμα , επειρασαν) [a negative exodus example.]
[39] Again he went away, and prayed the same prayer. [40] When he returned, he found them asleep again, (for their eyes were heavy) neither were able to answer him.
-Mark 14:40b= γαρ οι οϕθαλμοι αυτων βεβαρημενοι και ουκ ηδεισαν τι αυτω αποκριθωσι
-Genesis 48:10= οϕθαλμοι Ισραηλ εβαρυνθησαν απο του γηρους και ουκ ηδυνατο βλεπειν
[41a] And he returned the third time, and said ”Remain sleeping then, and take your rest:
-1Sam 3:8= God calls the sleeping Samuel three times [εν τριτω]— see ibid verse 6 when Eli says: “I didn’t call you child, return [αναστρεϕε] and sleep [καθευδε].”
-Mark 14:40= “having returned [υποστρεϕας] he found them sleeping [καθευδοντας].”
-1Sam 4:13b-14a= the guy reporting the bad news “entered the city [εισηλθεν εις την πολιν] … and Eli heard [και ηκουσεν Ηλι]…” (compare Mark 2:1= “Again he entered [παλιν εισηλθεν εις] and it was heard [και ηκουσθη] that…”)
-1Sam 3:2= “His eyes [οι οϕθαλμοι αυτου] were darkened and he was not able [ουκ εδυνατο] to see [βλεπειν].”
-Mark 14:40 = “Their eyes were weighed down [οι οϕθαλμοι αυτων] and they weren’t able [ουκ ηδεισαν] to think of what to answer him.”
-1 Corinthians 15:5-6 “he appeared” [ωϕθη] to some brother who have since “fallen asleep” [εκοιμηθησαν] This might relate to the Gethsemane scene in Mark 14:40 where Jesus returns from prayer to find the 12 “sleeping” and their “eyes [οϕθαλμοι] weighed down.” This, however weak a link, would be another subtle understated dig against the disciples, not being vigilant and dying before the master’s return. It also may be implying they don’t truly “see” in the same way Paul does. For earlier in 1 Corinthians 11:30 Paul goes on about how “many are weak’ [ασθενεις] and “have gone to sleep [κοιμωνται], apparently due to their “not seeing” or properly understanding Paul’s view and theology on the “body of the Lord”, who eat and drink judgement on themselves. Mark 14:37 has Jesus asks disciples “Why are you sleeping? [καθευδεις]” then in next line pronounces their flesh “weak” [ασθενης]
That Mark seems to be using these two allusion, both as in 1 Cor after a mention of the Lord’s supper, seems again to be a vague criticism of the 12.
[41b] “It is enough, the hour is come—behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
Isaiah 55:9 = “But as the distance [απεχει] from heaven to earth, so the distance [απεχει] between your ways and Mine.” This word is used without explanation, apparently out of place? in Mark 14:41 as Jesus is arrested.
-Deut 3:26= When Moses asks if he can actually enter the promised land, YHWH says he can only look over the mountain: “Let that be sufficient to you, speak no more of this matter.”
-see ‘Barabbas and Esther’ pgs 1-27 by Roger David Aus = here it is suggested that “Enough” [απεχει] the odd parenthetical aside at Mark 14:41 that seems so out of place in that context, might simply refer to the moribund Moses’ wish to not be fated to perish. See also Deuteronomy 34:4. It is pointed out that 2 Corinthians 12:8 where Paul says God/Christ told him “Let my grace be sufficient for you.” [αρκει σοι]
-Deut 3:26= When Moses asks if he can actually enter the promised land, YHWH says he can only look over the mountain: “Let that be sufficient to you, speak no more of this matter.”
-see ‘Barabbas and Esther’ pgs 1-27 by Roger David Aus = here it is suggested that “Enough” [απεχει] the odd parenthetical aside at Mark 14:41 that seems so out of place in that context, might simply refer to the moribund Moses’ wish to escape his fate (See also Deuteronomy 34:4). It is pointed out that 2 Corinthians 12:8 where Paul says God/Christ told him “Let my grace be sufficient for you.” [αρκει σοι] may refer obliquely to this Deuteronomy incident.
[42] Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand. [43a] And immediately, while he was still speaking
(see further down for discussion of Gen 29)
-the reason Mark earlier chose a scene of dinner for Jesus prediction of betrayal is likely because of the narrative of 2Kings 6, where Elisha does something similar=
-Mark 14:18= “one of you will betray [παραδωσει]”
-2Kings 6:11= king of Syria asks his servants: “shouldn’t you revel to me who it is who betrays [προδιδωσι] me to the king of Israel?”
-2Kings 6:!8= Elisha “prayed” [προσηυξατο] that the Syrian soldiers attempting to arrest be stricken temporarily blind, then at verse 21 Israel’s king asks if he “should strike them” with his sword but Elisha prevents him. (=cf how Jesus “prayed” [προσηυξατο] at Mark 14:39)
-2Kings 6:32= Elisha, who is sitting at the dinner-table with with “the elders” [οι πρεσβυτεροι] and he suddenly predicts to them that the king has sent an assassin (=“a son of a murderer”) to: “remove [αϕελειν] my head.” (=cf. how right after Judas’ appearance on the scene, in Mark 14:47 one of the arresting party has “his ear(lobe) removed [αϕειλεν]”)
-2Kings 6:22= “While he was still speaking [ετι αυτου λαλουντος] with them [μετ’ αυτων] a messenger came to them.” (=the assassin)
-Mark 14:43 = “and immediately while he was speaking [και ευθεως ετι αυτου λαλουντος] and with him [μετ’ αυτου] a great many … elders [των πρεσβυτερων].” (cf. Daniel 9:21 = “and while I was speaking [και ετι μου λαλουντος] Gabriel appeared.”)
-2Kings 6:19= Elisha tricks soldiers: “Come after me, I’ll lead you [αξω] to the man you seek!”
-Mark 14:42= “Arise we should lead on [αγωμεν].”
-2Kings 7:1= Elisha predicts “at this same hour tomorrow [η ωρα]…”
-Mark 14:43= “The hour [η ωρα] has arrived…”
[43b] there comes Judas, one of the 12, and with him a great multitude with swords and bats, from the chief priests, scribes and elders.
-Proverbs 25:18 = “Just like a club and a sword and pointed bow are the man bearing false witness against his friend.”
-the book of Proverbs might be in the background again later when Jesus is offered ‘vinegar’ at Mark 15—in Prov 25:20 vinegar is mentioned then the next verses gives the sobering reverse-psychology advice to: “give your enemy food if he’s hungry and if he thirsts give him a drink”, which Paul is quoting cynically when he opines such passive-aggressive behavior will “heap hot coals on their head” at Romans 12:20. This chapter of Proverbs must have had some hold on the imaginations of the NT writers, for it gets utilized several times, with interesting results.
-Luke 14:7-11 about lying in the more humble couch at a ‘wedding feast’ so that if lucky you might be invited up to the higher/better place in the social order = has likely been suggested to the author by Proverbs 25:6-7 (better that kings say to you: ‘arise [αναβαινε] up to me’ than for to be humbled you [ταπεινωσαι σε] by a mighty one), which is where Luke has pilfered the ‘arise’ [προσαναβηθι in Luke 14:10] and ‘being humbled’ [ταπεινωθησεται in 14:11] part of this Jesus saying from. Also in line 10 of Luke there seems to be a callback to Mark 6, Herod Antipas’ birthday, because here are the “those reclining” [συνανακειμενων] and the “dinner” [δειπνον in verse 12] so central to that episode.
-Proverbs 25:5 = “slay the impious before the face of the king.” Is this connected to Luke 19 where the rejected King, clearly based on Josephus description of Herod Archelaus recall to Rome, says “bring them and slay them before me!” ?
-We have seen in this book’s introduction that Matt 5:25f is a brief homily on Proverb 25:8f.
-2Sam 19:18 = Shmei Bar Gera begs forgiveness of king David after passing over the Jordan. There is no proof at all of this, but notice how much the following from this David incident mirror what happens to Simon Peter at the end of Mark 14 =
-Shmei begs that ‘his lord’ not remember his ‘lawlessness’ and forget his ‘sins’, nor ‘recall as much as I did wrong your servant on the day my lord went forth from Jerusalem. All this sounds like it could easily be a baptismal confession of some kind!
-Mark 14:68 = Peter “denied” [ηρνησατο] that he knows Jesus
-Samuel 19:21 = Abishai Bar Zara asks David if he should “kill him” (=Shmei) because he had “cursed [=κατηρασατο] the Christ of the Lord! [τον χριστον κυριου]” verse 22 David answers: “that the Sons of Zeruah (Abishai’s family) have become ‘diabolical’ (i.e. Satanic in the MT Hebrew but the implication is still there in Greek. See elsewhere in this volume for places where a character in scripture named Simon is called ‘devil’ or the like. David ends by stating: “No man of Israel shall die today.” Perhaps by having all this in the background of both John and Jesus’ blameless executions, there may be some irony intended here.)
-2Samuel 19:22 = David angrily asks Abishai, who wants permission to slay Shmei for mocking the king in his time of weakness, retorts in rejection: “What is it to me and to you!” [τι εμοι και υμιν] (this is a repeat of 16:10 where the scene of Shmei cursing David is narrated. Notice how in 16:9 Abishei is enraged at Bar Gera and wants permission to “remove his head” = like Mark 6:27) —that is also the first thing the first demon we encounter says in Mark’s gospel, who like the ‘Legion’ of Chapter 5 speaks in the plural (through the man in the synagogue) at 1:24 = “What is it between us and you [τι ημιν και σοι]?”
2Sam 20:9 = Joab betrays Amasa “with a kiss” [καταϕιλησαι] (like Judas at Mark 14:45 (= κατεϕιλησεν), (=though this word is also used of those who choose to serve Absalom instead of David at 2Samuel 15:5 where Absalom acts as judge of Israel and men come to do obeisance to him (=as did Joab at 2sam 14:33, though this is ironically reversed at chapter 20!) and next verse then he stabs him and “all his guts pour out” —a detail the author of Acts later borrows for Judas’ death. 2Sam 20:12 has the detail “middle of the road” which sounds like where Papias’ bizarre legend about Judas’ death most likely has been creatively developed from.
-2Samuel 20:21 = a woman tells Joab she can get the rebel Sheba ben Bichri’s “head removed and tossed over the wall!” then in chapter 21 David crucifies alive seven sons of Saul, except Mephiboseth son of Jonathan while 22:51 “doing mercy to his Anointed [χριστω]”
-John quotes 2Sam 15:23 as part of his Passion midrash
-2Samuel 15:32 = in distress over the crisis, David’s “chief-friend” [αρχιεταιρος] Hushai comes for a “meeting” [απαντησιν]: “tearing his robe” [διερρηχως τον χιτωνα αυτου]
-Mark 14:60 where “having risen up [αναστας] the chief-priest [αρχιερευς] ... verse 63= “having torn his inner garments” [διερρηξας τους χιτωνας αυτου]
[44] And he that betrayed him had given them a signal, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.
-Isaiah 8:15= “They shall approach (εγγιουσι) and men being in safety [ασϕαλεια] will be captured.”
-Mark 14:44 = after they “approach” (ηγγικε in v. 42) Judas tells the arresting party: “Take him away safely [ασϕαλως].”
-Isaiah condemns those who consult mediums or wizards to ask the future from ghosts: Isaiah 8:19= “Why do they inquire about the living from the dead?” = this gets reused cleverly by Luke’s version of the resurrection: at Luke 24:5, an angel at the tomb ask the women: “Why do you seek the living among the dead?”
-Also, both Isaiah 8:19 and Luke 24:5 have the word ρημα [=saying/aphorism] in the sentence following. In reusing this line from Isaiah about idolators, Luke seems to accuse the original disciples of somehow being idolators by returning to Jesus’ tomb. The author appears to imply that by not recognizing God as transcendent, they return to his supposed tomb [=that is, The Jerusalem Temple]! Remember how for traitors like Paul the temple is a ‘table of demons.’ It is likely the accusation against Paul, that he has ‘betrayed’ his people is behind the counter-story that Judas [=Jews] betrayed his/their own ‘king.’
-Mark 14:44= an “agreed-upon signal [συσσημον]… lead him off [απαγαγετε]”
-2Kings 2:1= the Lord “led” [αναγαγειν] Elijah to heaven with a “rumbling” [συσσεισμω]
[45] And as soon as he was come, he goes straightway to him, and says, “Rabbi, rabbi!” —and kissed him.
-Gen 29:13= “Laban embraced and kissed Jacob.”
-there is a strange tradition among the rabbis who when reading Deuteronomy 26:5 they changed “a wandering Aramean was my father” into “a Syrian tried to kill my (fore-)father,”—changing the vowels so this might refer to Laban’s treatment of his relative Jacob. Note that this sneaky disciple ‘Judas’ has the same name as one of Jesus’ brothers, as do ‘Simon’ and ‘James.’ This is similar to ‘treacherous’ Laban being Jacob’s family.
-Gen 27:26-27= Isaac says to Jacob who is disguised as Esau: “Approach [εγγισον] and kiss [ϕιλησον] me!” This is redundantly repeated in the next line: “Approaching [εγγισας], he kissed [εϕιλησεν] him.” = in the same way Mark 14:44-45 repeats “kiss [ϕιλησω] … he kissed [κατεϕιλησεν]. At Mark 14:42 Judas “approaches” [ηγγικε]. Note also that Isaac tells Edom at Gen 27:35 that “his brother” has tricked him “with stealth [δολου]”—the same description Mark gives the plot against Jesus at 14:1= “by treachery” [δολω]!
-is there some possibility that Jesus’ off-topic discussion of “the one eating with me also betraying me” at 14:18-20 has something to do with the incident at Gen 25:29f where Edom sells/trades his “rights as first-born” to Jacob for “a bowl of spicy soup” which he eats together with his duplicitous brother. Line 34 describes how he ‘ate and drank and they set out [ωχετο].’ A reader should notice that Mark neglects to tell us at what point Judas left the party. Was this due to some editorial fatigue? Perhaps he intends for us to glean from dependence on the Genesis story to imagine Judas sharing the meal (‘eating and drinking judgement unto himself’ as Paul in 1 Corinthians would label those who don’t ‘see things’ his way) and then leaving to bring the arresting officers.
-Mark 6:25 “and having entered immediately with haste to the king she said…” [και εισελθουσα ευθεως μετα σπουδης … προς τον βασιλεα λεγουσα]
-Mark 14:45 “and having come forward immediately … he said” [και ελθων ευθεως προσελθων … λεγει]
-Gen 33:4= και κατεϕιλησεν αυτου (=exactly same as Mark 14:45b)
[46] And they laid their hands on him, and took him.
Mark 14:46 = ”They laid hands on him [οι δε επεβαλον επ’ αυτου τας χειρας] and seized him.” (drawing ever so slightly upon 2Sam 18:12 = messenger tells Joab: “In no way [ου μη] would I lay my hands upon” [επεβαλω την χειρα μου επι] the king’s son!”) Maybe Mark has noticed that a similar phrase occurs also at Genesis 22:12 and this has perhaps led to his choice of linking one or another of these free-floating associations.
-or is some reinterpretation al la Kabbalah in mind here, perhaps a spiritualizing of a temple ritual? Leviticus 3 several times specifies how the “priest” shall “place his hands upon” the head of the devoted animal and also “remove the lobe” its liver and kidney in order to achieve a proper “salvation.” Mark gives us in this chapter a servant of the “priest” whose “ear(-lobe)” is “removed” after his fellows “place their hands on” Jesus, who is obviously counts as a stand-in for the passover lamb at the very least! Leviticus 3 ends (line 17) by pointedly forbidding the “eating of blood”—something the very ironic Markan Jesus has instructed his servants to do earlier!
-1Esdras 9:20 LXX= "lay violent hands upon" [επιβαλλειν τας χειρας]
[47] And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
-it is extremely vague but just reasonably possible that an interlinear allusion to “sword” [μαχαιραν] can be read into Genesis 49’s prophecy about Simeon via the Hebrew homophone 'dwelling-places' [מכרתיהם] (=verse 5) mentioned in context of 'cruel instruments.' This might explain why by the time of the late gospel of John that author decides to simply name Simon as the culprit of this assault, though all the synoptics have differing versions.
-Joshua 5:14 The angel tells Joshua “Now I’ve come!” [νυνι παραγεγονα] —like Simon in Mark 15:21 who is also “conscripted”— this is a military term, echoing the man/angel in Joshua 5:15 who self-identifies as ‘commander-in-chief’ of the Lord’s army.
-Joshua 5:13= the commander of God’s army is for some reason “standing nearby … and drew his sword [εστηκοτα … ρομϕαια αυτου εσπασμενη] and Josh asks: “are you one of ours, or against us?”
-Mark 14:47f = “A certain one standing there unsheathed his blade” [εις δε τις των παρεστηκοτων σπασαμενος την μαχαιραν]
-Mark 14:47= he hit [επαισεν] (=the high priest’s servant with sword)
-Joshua 5:14 = at the sight of the angelic strategos, Joshua “fell” [επεσεν] on his face then calls himself this being’s “servant” [οικετη]
-Matthew has noticed the other Gen 22 borrowing of Mark, and added an extra one, also making it clear it’s one of the disciples doing the violence while in Mark who knows who is doing what. But notice how succinct Matt’s addition is=
-Matthew 26:51 = a disciple “stretched forth his hand to unsheathe the blade.” [εκτεινας την χειρα απεσπασεν την μαχαιραν αυτου]
Genesis 22:10 = Abraham “stretched forth his hand to take the blade.” [εξετεινεν Αβρααμ την χειρα αυτου λαβειν την μαχαιραν]
-for cutting off high priest’s ear to ritually disqualify him see the meeting between Hyrcanus and Antigonus (rage-biting a la Mike Tyson!) at Josephus Antiq. 14.13.10 (365-66) and Tosefta Para. 3.8
-Raymond Brown, ‘Death of the Messiah’ (p 274 vol 1) = “In Mark Jesus makes no response to the person who cut off the servant’s ear, a silence that fortifies the possibility that for Mark this person was not a disciple. As we shall see, after the incident Jesus speaks only “to them” (14:48), i.e., to the crowd from the chief priests. (It is unlikely that Mark considered the sword-wielder to be one of “them.”)
[48] And Jesus answered and said unto them, “Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to arrest me?
-Genesis 22:9 = Abraham “put Isaac onto the wood-sticks [ξυλων]” verse 10: “he took hold of [λαβειν] the knife/sword [μαχαιραν]” = Mark 14:48 = Jesus asks those come to arrest him: “Do you come here with swords [μαχαιρων] and wood-sticks [ξυλων] to take hold [συλλαβειν] of me?”
-Only in Mark 14:48 is the term for arrest κρατεω not used (as it is 8 times elsewhere) for “arrest” but only here as συλλαμβανω, a word used in reference to the order to have Jeremiah and Baruch arrested at LXX Jeremiah 36:26 and 37:13 (in MT these are in chapter 43-44)
-Jeremiah 38:4 “Let this man be put to death! … He doesn’t have the welfare of this people at heart so much as its ruin!”
[49] “I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.”
-this seems to be the Marcan author giving us the aside that, ‘yes it’s strange it took so long for him to get arrested, but it was because of the literary pattern embroidered from the OT yada yada yada…’
[50] And they all forsook him, and fled.
-Mark 1:18, 20 = in another example of Mark’s extraordinary subtlety, there is a bookend involving ‘abandoning family.’ The two pairs of brothers Simon/Andrew and James/John have “left” [αϕιεναι] their fishing-nets and their father. Compare Mark 14 where all “having left/abandoned him” [αϕιεναι]. Mark’s emphasis on “all” points backward to just hours before when “all” of them had sworn they wouldn’t “deny” Jesus.
-2Samuel 17:2 (Ahitophel tells Absalom how he plans to kill David ‘at night’) = “I shall come upon him … and startle him, and all [πας] those people with him shall flee [ϕευξεται] and I’ll strike him while he’s alone.”
-Mark 14: = “All [παντες] abandoned him and ran off [εϕυγον].”
-see also 2Sam 17:12= “We won’t leave behind even one man to him (=David).”
-Mark 14:43 = Judas arrests Jesus along with “the elders” [πρεσβυτερων]
-2Sam 17:4 = Ahitophel’s advice to murder David is “pleasing” [ηρεσεν] to Absalom and “the elders” [πρεσβυτερων]
-Mark 14:12 = “Hearing this, they were pleased. [εχαρησαν].”
[51] And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth wrapped around his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
-If Joshua 5 is in the background here in the angel unsheathing a weapon, also in that scene we saw in chapter one that ‘sandals’ reference there is drawn from that incident. If it is in view here, notice the following=
-Joshua 5:21= has old and “young” [νεανισκου] then 22-23: has Joshua ask two νεανισκοι to lead out Rahab, just as in Mark 14:51 there is one youth then and unexplained two (or more) youths (plural)
-Isaiah 20:4, 6= “young men [νεανισκους] shall go naked [γυμνους] … we’d hoped to flee [ϕυγειν] to them for help…”
-Mark 14:51-52 = “a young man [νεανισκος] … fled naked [γυμνος εϕυγεν]”
[52] And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
- Here is imagery from the Joseph story intruding again! In Genesis 39 the teenage Joseph is sexually harassed by the older wife of his master Potiphar. When she sneaks up behind him while they were alone in the house together and commands: “Lie with me.” He escapes nude like our disciple here. Is this some resurrection metaphor? A baptism reference? Truly there is some profound Kabbalah interpretation behind our gospel writer’s imagery we can only guess at.
-Genesis 39:12b= “Leaving behind his clothes … he fled” [καταλιπων τα ιματια… εϕυγε]
-Mark 14:52= “Leaving behind his clothes … he fled” [καταλιπων την σινδονα … εϕυγεν]
-One is led to suspect all this ‘clothing’ imagery, whether called ‘himatia’ or ‘sindona’ is a signifier for some kind of Kabbalistic esotericism now sadly lost to us.
[53] And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes. [54] And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.
-Matthew 26:58 = Peter waits outside to see “the end” (το τελος) = is this connected to the phrase “to the end” [εις το τελος] that appears as superscription in about one third of the LXX Psalms? The Greek appears to be intended to translate a phrase meaning ‘the choir director’ but the NT author has cleverly used it out of context. (Psalms 9:19; 44:24; 74:19; 103:9; in the Psalm titles it has a mem before it, making it a Pi'el participle. The Hebrew root means "preeminent" or "enduring")
-Jeremiah 36:22 = King is “sitting” in the “courtyard” (αυλε) of his “winter palace” with a “grate of a fire” in front of him. He shreds and burns Jeremiah’s scroll and in verse 24: those watching “were not amazed, not did they tear their robes” (=at this disrespect of scripture)
is there some tinge of Leviticus 6:9 where, in the context of discussing offerings to expiate lying or swearing falsely (which Simon is about to do!) it mentions how the holocaust altar shall have its fire “kept burning through perpetually all night until morning, and not be extinguished.”
[55] And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none. [56] For many bore false witness against him, but their stories didn’t agree.
-Mark 14:55= they search for “testimony against” [κατα … μαρτυριαν]
-Mark 14:56= “and equal [ισαι] they were not [ουκ ησαν]”
-Exodus 23:1-2= “Thou shalt not [ου] assent together [συγκαταθηση] with the wicked to become an unjust witness [μαρτυς]. You shall not be [ουκ εση] among the evil majority of people.”
-Mark 14:55= Sanhedrin “sought and didn’t find” [εζητουν … ουχ ευρισκον] any damaging testimony against Jesus. This may be subtle reference to these same men later being killed by the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. Isaiah 41, which like Isaiah 53-54 is underlying several notices in the passion narrative, has the line (verse 12): “You shall seek but not find [ζητησεις ου με ευρης] the men who drunkenly insult you, for they shall be as one not being!” One suspects this is one of those unstated yet never-the-less present allusions to the punishment of Jesus generation for their rejection of him, according to internal Markan logic. Those who cut off the Messiah are later killed by the ‘prince who is to come’—the Roman general Titus. Mark is subtly drawing our attention to a prediction of the wicked’s comeuppance and hoping we might compare their fate ironically with their worthless power over Christ at this point in the story. The author has clustered this section with these allusions, like a branch bursting with grapes.
[57] And there arose certain ones giving false witness against him, saying, [58] “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.’”
-Jeremiah 45:4-5= God criticizes Jeremiah’s prodigious protege Baruch, saying: “I’m going to demolish what I’ve built … and (yet) you seek great things which you should not.” =One wonders if this idea is in the background of James and John Zebedee jockeying for position a few chapters ago?
-Daniel 2:34 = Daniel has a ‘vision of the night’ where he sees a “stone… not cut by human hands” becoming larger and larger until it “filled the whole world.” Obviously, some purposeful misunderstanding of something Jesus’ stated publicly [concerning this scripture mixed with Mark 12:10 earlier in the text] is what is meant by the witnesses’ statements. Maybe these nameless ones are intended by the narrator to have been those within earshot of Jesus parable at Mark 12:1f?
-Exodus 15:17 mentions the “sanctuary made by your hands [κατειργασω], O Lord,” =Mark 14:58’s temple “(re?)built without hands” (=repeated in Matt 26:61 and John 2:19 seem to think God will rebuild the new age temple; the final editor of Luke omits this from his gospel because for literary reason he moves this accusation against Jesus and has the stoners of Stephen make this charge in Acts. Sibylline oracles 5:414-434 think the Messiah and God together will build the temple, this seemingly based on Daniel 7:13.
-here the word used by Mark, “hand-made” [χειροποιητος], is used by Leviticus 26:1 to refer to lifeless, worthless “idols” [=MT: פסל]
-one is very tempted to see some influence of Paul here and the beginning of chapter 13= see 2 Corinthians 5:1f= “If our earthly tent is destroyed, we have a building [οικοδομη] from God, a house made without hands [αχειροποιητος].”
[59] But neither so did their witness agree together.
-Deuteronomy 19:19 = false witnesses, if proven wrong in court, should “have done to them what they wanted to do to them they accused!”
-those who “stand up to give false witness” [ανασταντες εψευδομαρτυρουν] at Mark 14:55-57 takes from LXX Psalm 35:11 where “jurors unjust” [μαρτυρες αδικοι] “rise up” [ανασταντες] against the song’s narrator (see also Psalm 26:12)
-1 Kings 21:13 = on the martyr Naboth = “They bore (false) witness against him and then led him [εξηγαγον] outside the city to stone him.”
-note that it is people who have been paid specifically to “eat” at the table on a fast day with Naboth, who betray with false testimony. Just as in Mark 2 we saw Jesus not fasting and now in 14-15 the pseudo-recounting of “speaking against” something, “God and king” for Naboth and the Temple for Jesus.
In the next chapter the parallel is complete=
-Mark 15:20 = “They led him out [εξαγουσιν] to crucify him [σταυρωσωσιν].”
-Psalm 35:11= "Malicious witnesses come forward to accuse me of things I do not know."
[60] And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, “Have you nothing to answer against these witnesses?”
-Mark 14:60= high priest asks Jesus: “You have nothing to answer?” [ουκ αποκρινη ουδεν] which may be inspired by Isaiah 41:28’s “They won’t answer me.” [ου μη αποκριθωσι μοι], which may be the ultimate source of the earlier Mark 11:33= “We don’t know.” Jesus: “Then I won’t answer you.” [ουκ οιδαμεν … αποκριθεις ουδε]
-Chronicles Targum on geneology at 1Chron 3:24 associates the the name Anani(as) [meaning in Hebrew ‘cloudy’ with Dan 7:13 and ‘clouds of heaven’ imagery. The targum goes on the explicitly say the Messiah’s name will due to this will be “Ananias.”
[61a] But he was silent, and answered nothing.
-2Kings 18:36= after being harangued by the Rebshekah the Assyrian king Sennacherib’s emissary, the people of Jerusalem don’t respond: “They kept silent [εσιωπησαν] and didn’t answer him [απεκρινθησαν] a word, since the king had commanded, saying: ‘You shall not answer [αποκριθησεσθε] him.’”
-this theme of “keeping quiet”, besides literalizing poetry about Isaiah’s so-called ‘suffering servant’ somewhere hovering in the background of Mark’s diatribe here is Leviticus 5:1 in which it’s said that if “someone hears a voice of (magical) conjuring or is witness to this [ουτος μαρτυς] and is fully-conscious [συνοιδεν] of it yet doesn’t report it, is responsible for his own sin.” (=compare Mark 14:59-60 the repetition of “this testimony” [ουτως … μαρτυρια] and “these witnesses” [ουτοι … μαρτυρουσιν].) It is also quite interesting that Leviticus 5:4f is about those who ‘swear’ or ‘make an oath’ inadvertently, instructive when it comes to Simon’s protestations at the end of this chapter.
[61b] Again the high priest asked him: “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed? [62] And Jesus said, “I am: and you will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
-because Jesus has earlier quoted Psalm 110 at chapter 12:36, it’s likely here we have a reference (the ‘Power’ etc) to LXX Psalm 109:1f.
1Kings 22:15-17 = Micaiah ben Imlah tells Ahab: “Israel, scattered on the mountains like sheep without a shepherd. YHWH said ‘These have no master/lord, let each go home unmolested.” This may underlie Mark 14 where Jesus’ disciples escape without consequence, which connects to the lying prophets of Zechariah/Amos because there a ‘lying spirit” is ascribed to them. 1Kings 22:23 condemns Ahab: “The Lord has pronounced disaster upon you!”
Micaiah is allowed to be “beaten” by Zedekiah, one of these ‘false prophets’ who’d earlier pretended to be a ‘bull goring Aram’ to demonstrate his visions. This is much like the ‘false witnesses’ who “beat/slap” Jesus’ at his Sanhedrin trial, mockingly encouraging the blind-folded prisoner to “prophesy” who hit him. Zedekiah asks Micaiah: ‘What kind of spirit left me and entered you?’ The prophet responds: “Behold, you will see [οψει] on the day you enter the inner chamber of a store-room to hide!” (=verse 25). This might have given the idea for Mark to have Jesus respond to the priest by starting out “You will see [οψεσθε] the Son of Man etc…”
Is Micaiah’s saying related to Isaiah 26 ?
1Kings 22:28 = Micaiah tells Ahab “if you return in peace, the Lord never spoke through me!” Ahab had earlier been condemned by Micaiah (anonymously) for sparing the captured King ben Hadad. In 1 Kings 20 Micaiah asks a bystander to “strike him” and then puts on a bandage over his eyes as disguise. Later Ahab himself dies while in disguise.
[63] Then the high priest ripped his own clothes, and cried, “What need we any further testimony? [64] We all heard the blasphemy: what think you?” And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
-“having torn [διαρρηξας] his robes”=
-when Joash is unexpectedly proclaimed king in 2kings 11, the queen mother Athaliah “rips her robes” [διερρηξε … τα ιματια] and cries ‘Treason!’ (this could also be translated: ‘conspiracy’) This occurs amidst a child-prince being dressed with regalia. Note also how after this Jehoiada the priest opines she is unworthy to even be killed in the Lord’s house, so she is “led outside” [εξαγαγετε] (=2Kings 11:15) to be executed.
-Mark 15:20 = “They led him out [εξαγουσιν] to crucify him [σταυρωσωσιν].”
-Raymond Brown, Death of the Messiah, volume 1 page 501
“Others scholars contend that here Matt and Luke are not dependent on Mark but on another source, pointing out that they agree once more against Mark in having the Greek phrase for “at the right” after the participle “sitting,” while Mark has it before. But in the latter detail they are simply following the Greek word order in Ps 110:1, which shaped the Son-of-Man saying. […] The fact that all three Gospels have the unusual “the right hand of the Power” (not the wording of the psalm) makes extremely unlikely two independent sources.”
-Psalm 35:4-5 = “Those who seek my life … plan evil against me … May their path be dark, with YHWH’s angel in pursuit.” [= one can see how it could be read into this psalm that at Christ’s return he will be appear in his ‘vengeful’ aspect, like the malak who struck down the Egyptian first-born.]
-there are parallels here to chapter 3= just as Jesus is here judged to be “guilty” [ενοχον] of blasphemy, he had himself given a judicial decision on those “guilty of an eternal sin” who had ascribed the works of the holy spirit to diabolical powers. Also the Sanhedrin’s “way of thinking” [συμβουλιον] in 14:64 connects to 3:6’s “consultation.” Coming up in a few lines at Mark 15:14 we have Pilate’s question ‘What evil has he done?’ [εποιησεν κακον] which mirrors Jesus question at 3:4 concerning whether it is better to do evil [κακοποιησαι] than heal.
-Mark 14:64= “‘How does it appear [ϕαινεται] to you?’ And they all judged him worthy of death [θανατου].”
-there might be in view here just a hint of Pharaoh’s threat at Exodus 10:28 = “Whatever day you see my face (next) you shall die [αποθανη]!” to which Moses answers, “As you’ve said, I won’t appear [οϕθησομαι] to you in person (any longer).” (might there be also some vague rhyming between ‘son-of-man- [υιος ανθροπου] and ‘before-my-face’ [εις προσοπου]?)
-Leviticus 21:10= "The priest who is called 'great', who has the Christ-oil upon him, shall not tear his clothes."
[65] And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, “Prophesy!” and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
-1Kings 22:16 Ahab put Micaiah “under oath” to tell the truth and in 1Kings 22:24 Zedekiah the false prophet ‘slaps’ Micaiah.
-Isaiah 50:6 = “slaps” [ραπισμασιν]
[66] And as Peter was in the courtyard below, there approached one of the maids of the high priest:
-Esther 4:11= “whoever goes into the inner courtyard [εν τη αυλη] uncalled, for them there is no salvation!”
[67] And when she saw Peter warming himself, she peered closely at him, saying: “You also were with Jesus the Nazarene.”
-Mark 14:67 = the word for Peter “heating himself” [θερμαινομενον] rhymes neatly as a homonym or quasi-anagram of the word Mark chooses for explaining what Golgotha means: “being translated is” [μεθερμηνευομενος].
-in his rewriting of this scene, John 18:16-17 has a woman gatekeeper (thyroros) interact with Peter. This word was earlier used at John 10:3 where Jesus proclaims that “the gate opens only to the true shepherd’”— Is this more Markan style negativity toward Simon Peter by a gospel author? Would this make Peter the ‘thief’ of John 10:1 because the gatekeeper wouldn’t allow him entrance? One would not be surprised if some kind of interpretation was meant to be foisted upon us by the evangelistic editors.
[68] But he denied, saying, “I know not, neither understand I what your talking about.” And he went out into the porch as the cock crowed.
-Gen 18:15= ηρνησατο δε Σαρρα λεγουσα: ουκ εγελασα
-Mark 14:68= ο δε ηρνησατο λεγων ουκ οιδα
-Gen 18:8= “he stood by” [παρεστηκει] (=the servant under the tree)
-Mark only uses this Greek word for ‘comprehend’ [επιστομαι] here, it has the underlying meaning of ‘interpreting of commenting on a text.’ By its use here, one may suspect Mark is implying Simon Peter had no comprehension of the Scriptures. Again, Paul’s presence is right offstage in this play.
[69] And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, “This is one of them.”
-Mark 14:69= maidservant says to “those standing by” [παρεστηκοσιν]
-Mark 14:69= “the maidservant, seeing…” [παιδισκη ιδουσα]
-Mark 14:71= an oath [ομνειν]
-Mark 14:66 = “There came forth one of the maidservants…”
-2Samuel 17:17-18 = Jonathan and Ahimaz go to the spring of Regel. A maidservant came forth and reported to them.
-Mark 14:66 = Peter was “in the courtyard below [εν τη αυλη κατω]”
-2Samuel 17:18 = “They entered into [εισηλθον] … a well in the courtyard [εν τη αυλη] and went down below [κατεβησαν] (into) there.
-Esther 3:2-4 = those “in the courtyard” [εν τη αυλη] tell Haman that Mordecai is a Jew
-There are some more vague parallels between 2 Samuel and the ned of Mark chapter 14= in 2Sam there is also a ‘maidservant’ who ‘enters in’ and ‘reports’ about some character meant to be incognito, like Simon the spies ‘go out’ or ‘go down’ into a ‘courtyard.’ There is a ‘well’ for ‘cooling’ rather than Peter’s ‘bonfire’ for ‘hand-warming.’ A guy from Absalom’s side ‘views’ the two spies, just like the lady in Mark 14 here. The reason one guesses at some significance here is that Matthew uses the next detail of that story in 2Sam 17 to create his version of Judas the betrayer’s death, the suicide by hanging of Ahitophel.
[70] And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, “Surely you’re one of them: for you’re a Galilaean, your accents betrays it.” [71] But he began to curse and to swear, saying, “I know nothing of this man whom you speak!”
-Here we have it, the punchline of this gospel. What Mark writes here he means both ironically and literally: Simon/Peter (=Cephas from Galatians?) know nothing about Jesus. Just as Paul insinuates his arch-enemies (the apostles?): “They preach a different Jesus” than him (=2Corinthians 11:4).
[72a] And the second time the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said unto him, ‘Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.’’
-Mark 11:21 = “Peter remembered/recalled” [αναμνησθεις αναμνησθη ο πετρος] (=the fig tree)
-Mark 14:72 = “Peter remembered/recalled” [αναμνησθη ο πετρος] (=the rooster saying)
-Mark 13:35= “the cockcrow [αλεκτοροϕωνιας] … (verse 36=) appearing [ελθων] suddenly [εξαιϕνης]”
-Mark 6:27 = Herod gave orders to “the guard [σπεκουλατωρα] and immediately [ευθεως] … he went forth [απελθων]…”
-Letters of Pliny, 10.96.3 = the Bithynian governor explains how when interrogating suspects he personally “asks the accused at trial whether they are Christians, and if they confess I ask again a second and then third time under threat of punishment.” (cf. Martyrdom of Polycarp 9:2-3 = the saint is compelled to “deny” [αρνεισθαι], to “swear” [ομοσον] and “revile” [λοιδορησον] the name of Christ)
[72b] Thinking about this, he wept.
-Mark 14:72= Peter remembered Jesus’ “saying” [ρηματος] and “wept” [εκλαιε]
-Gen 21:16 = “(Hagar) sat down—even as [ωσει] far away as [μακροθεν] an arrow can be shot [βολην].”
-Mark 14:54= Peter followed after (Jesus’ whereabouts) “from afar [μακροθεν], even as much as [εως εσω] into the high-priest’s courtyard [αυλην] and sat down with some officers. At verse 68 he “goes forth” onto the porch, just like Abraham’s maid is described twice as “going forth” in Genesis 21:14-16.
-Gen 21:13-16= After being “cast out” [εκβαλε], the “maidservant” [παιδισκης] Hagar is by the Well of Oaths [Ορκου]. She comments on not wanting “to see” [ιδω] her child die, as the baby begins “crying [εκλαυσεν] loudly.”
-Mark 14:66-69 = When a “maidservant” [παιδισκη] “sees” [ιδουσα (repeated twice)] and “takes a long look at” [εμβλεψασα] Peter, she accuses him of being companions with ‘the Nazarene,’ to which he answers: “I don’t know (him) [ουκ οιδα] nor do I know [ουδε επιστομαι] what you’re talking about.” In verse 71 he denies similarly, swearing an oath [ομνειν] strongly to this effect. At verse 72 he remembers Jesus foretelling this incident, and so “thinking on this [επιβαλων] (literally: ‘casting about’), he starting crying [εκλαιε].”
Genesis 21:31 explains how a certain aquifer was dubbed ‘Well of Oaths’ due to it being where Abraham made King Abimelech formally swear not to ever harm his descendants. Just previous to this, the Philistines had been fighting with Abraham over water rights. The patriarch criticizes their king for allowing his own servants [παιδες] to maliciously deny others access to wells. Abimelech answers: “I don’t know [ουκ εγνων] who [τις] did this thing you’re talking about!”
-Does the “warming fire-pit” where Peter is “stared at” intently by a nosy woman (=Mark 14:54, 67) function thematically as the opposite of Gen 21:19 with Hagar “opening her eyes” and “viewing” [ειδε] a plentiful water-source which she is refreshed by? Notice the earlier incident at Gen 16:7-8 where a still pregnant Hagar hides from her tormentor Sarah by hiding near a spring—but a curious angel shows up to inquire: “Where do come from?” This is like Peter getting glared at by snoopy bystanders suspicious of his origins. Several verbs meaning ‘peer’ or ‘gaze’ are associated with Hagar in Gen 21:13-14 —she calls the fount she loitered by, where an angel “appeared” [οϕθεντα] and “glanced [επιδων] upon” her, as the “Well of glimpsing (God) face-to-face [ενωπιον ειδον].”
-Also, Gen 21:11 mentions how when Sarah insisted that Ishmael and his mother be evicted, this “appeared [εϕανη] to be a very harsh quote/quip [το ρημα] to Abraham.” This may connect to Peter recalling Jesus “quote/quip” [του ρηματος] about his lying betrayal (=Mark 14:72), one that obviously is ‘harsh’ enough to make him break down in a frenetic recrimination.
But all this might not be the only part of Genesis borrowed by our author. Peter’s denial at Mark 14:68 [= ο δε ηρνησατο λεγων ουκ οιδα] faintly reminds one of Gen 18:15 when “Sarah swears that she didn’t laugh” [= ηρνησατο δε Σαρρα λεγουσα: ουκ εγελασα] at God’s promise she would bear a son despite being more than 90 years old. This second half of the same sentence is definitely echoed in the final climactic sentence of Mark’s gospel, 16:8, as a sort of punchline.
-Gen 21:14= at the Well of Oaths (v. 13=) the “maidservant” Hagar παιδισκης; v 16 the child “cried” [εκλαυσεν]
-Judges 2:4-5= after an angel tells the people that foreigners will always be obstacles [σκανδαλον]: “as he spoke these words, the people wept” [εκλαυσαν]
-as difficult as it may be for modern people to accept, it is obvious this is meant to be Simon/Peter/Cephas ultimate condemnation and damnation and doom, as final and irreversible (in the mind/intention of the gospel author) as Judas hanging himself at Matt 27:3-5 is meant to fulfill ironically the punishment meant to be meted out to those who commit manslaughter as per Leviticus 24:17f. In that same spot of Matthew, Judas’ designation and description as “the traitor” is as transparently a metaphorical storytelling tactic as is the name of Ahitophel (‘traitor’ in Hebrew [אחיתפל]) in 2Samuel 17:23, the figure who turns on king David and then in shame “goes and hangs himself’ [και απηλθεν … αρπηξατο] (=compare Matthew: και απελθων αρπηξατο). Why is it then hard to believe that there is purposeful resonance in the name Judas being a homonym among other things of the Greek word for Jews in general, an anti-Semitic par excellence if there ever was one. And Simon himself might have the nuance of the Shema in his nomen, failing ‘to hear’ when it’s built into his own personal title. There is likely in the name Petros a reference to the ‘stumbling block’ of the Torah that Paul creates by forcing two lines from Isaiah together (see the comment in this book on Mark 12:12).
-note that this term ‘eballe, balon’ etc is frequently used of Shimei bar Gera who casts stones at the fleeing David, cursing him along the way. Using this to his own advantage, the king chooses to interpret this action as a kind of atropaic magic, remarking in verse 12: “If somehow through this the Lord’s sees my humiliation and returns favor to me, all the better…”
-Joshua 23:14 “the good sayings of the Lord have not failed and he as well can bring on other evils, until he’s removed you from this land he gave you.”
-Joshua 24 = (Josh sets up a stone as witness against the people in verse 22 =) “You witness against yourselves in choosing to serve YHWH.”
EXCURSUS ON YOM KIPPUR =
-Isaiah 6 = the prophet think’s he’s “lost” since being merely “a human being of impure lips” he’s seen the “king” but he is “cleansed” by an angelic figure placing coal from the altar on his mouth= is this related to Leviticus 16 where the incense cleanses the priests after being in YHWH’s presence in the holy of holies? Was a statue in there?
One of Mark’s greatest misdirections is making us readers think or assume he is using Jesus’ passion as a Passover metaphor. He is in fact comparing him to the Yom Kippur scapegoat, even while illuminating imagery from Isaiah’s ‘suffering servant’ songs.
Though the Yom Kippur ritual for the Aaronic high priest is thoroughly laid out in Leviticus chapter 16, the extra elements of how it was practiced in the Herodian temple of the Roman era exists in rabbinic materials. Several details from there match up with and explain why the Marcan author is presenting the disciple Simon Peter a certain way. Here we present them in no particular order=
-Tosefta, Yoma 1:3= the Kohen is separated from his wife for 7 days, while he stay temporarily in a place called ‘the store-room of oil.’ [=the Yerushalmi version of Yoma 1:1 says “the ‘chamber of oil’ is just a nickname.”]
-Yerushalmi, Yoma 1:6; 39b = (Neusner 14:44) the high priest would be ‘read to, aloud’ by his colleagues to keep him awake, and snap their fingers if he dozed off during the vigil. [= see Bavli, Yoma 19b in Soncino 86]
-Yerushalmi Yoma 5:2. 42c has preserves the opening statement of the Kohen’s whispered prayer while before the ark: “May it be your will…” (see also 53b and Bavli tractate Taanit 24b)
= this is quite similar to Jesus prayer at Getsemane (which seems to mean ‘oil-press’ or many be corruption from Beth instead of Get in which case it would mean ‘store-room of oil’ as in the above). Jesus concern with his ‘fellow-priests’ dozing may derive from this temple cult tradition here.
-Mark 15:20= the soldiers strip the prisoner of the regalia they’d costumed him in and then re-clothe Jesus in his own clothes.
-Mishnah Yoma 7:4 = the kohen gadol ‘strips off his clothes’ then the other priests ‘bring his own garments, which he puts on.’
-Mishnah Yoma 1:8 = “cockcrow doesn’t arrive before the Temple Court was full of Israelites.” [meaning the area was thronged before morning in anticipation of the momentous impact the holiday had]
--Bavli, Yoma 20b= ashes are removed form the temple altar "At cockcrow" usually, but on Yom Kippur "when the High Priest is weak, they do it at midnight." = Yoma 3:5 uses and spells out phonetically in Hebrew [אסטניס] the Greek loanword for "weak" [ασθενης].
-Mishnah, Tamid 1:1 says that if a young priest assisting the high priest on Yom Kippur has a seminal emission the night before, he is to “go downstairs” below the chambers of Abtimas to immerse in a mikveh pool located there, and then to dry off should “warm himself before the fire.” -Just like Peter in Mark 14:67 and 54!
-Mishnah, Yoma 1:5 = the elder priests would force the high priest to take an solemn oath not to change anything at all in the ritual.
-Tosefta Yoma 1:8 (cf. Sifre Achare Mot and Pereq 3) explains that an oath was imposed on the functioning Kohen of that festival because there had been in the past an unfortunate incident where a certain Kohen named ‘Boethus’ had begun to swing the censer while still outside the Holy of Holies curtain, in violation of Levitical rules that explicitly state that any man who attempts this rite incorrectly “shall surely die!” (=Lev 16:2f) The rabbis remark that this action and cloud of it caused: “terrified the whole house.” (=i.e. the temple staff felt endangered by the Torah’s curse). Yerushalmi Yoma 1:5, 39a and Bavli yoma 19b (=cf. 53a) mentions that he “died within three days” and a legend is given about how he was found with a calf-print on his shoulder—meaning he’d been killed in punishment by one the hybrid ‘living creatures’ that guard God’s throne from Ezekiel 1:7. Historically, one suspects that zealots would have murdered such a figure as Boethus to prevent him being publicly paraded as an example of the Law being breached with consequence. If this anecdote has any veracity it might refer the ‘Simon’ imported by Herod the Great from Egypt to become leader of his renovated temple complex, a person whose family were influential Sadducees for another century but who were controversial due to being ‘foreign’—which would explain the absent-minded operational error during his duties. See the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 9:6 = "the Kanna'im kill a priest serving at the altar in a state of ritual uncleanness by breaking his skull with clubs.
-This indeed would explain the strange incident of Peter’s oath along with his warming before the fire and odd ‘rooster-call’ motif which seem to have no scriptural precedent.
-Mishnah, Yoma 6:2 = as the scape goat left the city limits, the Alexandrians (called here ‘Babylonians’ euphemistically) would pull the goat’s hair to incite it forward, all the while repeatedly yelling: “Bear (our wrongs) and begone!”
-it is possible that the prophet Isaiah is using imagery from this cultic action when describing the suffering servant’s role: Isaiah = He gave his back to the smiters and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair.
-in rabbinic tradition it is recorded that if the goat became too injured or exhausted from being abused, the man could pick it up and ‘bear him on his shoulders.’ The parallel of this in Mark’s passion would be the mysterious Cyrenian Simon who carries Jesus cross, who like the ‘fit man’ of Leviticus 16 comes from ‘the countryside.’
-Mishnah, Yoma 6:5= no one would accompany the man chosen to drive the animal outside the city limits, but the instead “noble women stood at a distance, and beheld the sight.”
-Much like the mysterious ‘women’ who had accompanied Jesus mentioned at the ned of Mark chapter 14.
-Leviticus 16:23b = “he shall put it aside there” [αποθησει αυτην εκει] (the high priest inside the sanctuary)
-possible slight allusion in Mark 16:6b = youth at tomb invites women to view “the place where they put him” [τοπος οπου εθηκαν αυτον]
No comments:
Post a Comment