Mark 5:21

Restoration and Healing

5:21 When Jesus had crossed again in a boat to the other side, a large crowd gathered around him, and he was by the sea.

Mark 7:31

Healing a Deaf Mute

7:31 Then ¹  Jesus ²  went out again from the region of Tyre ³  and came through Sidon ⁴  to the Sea of Galilee in the region of the Decapolis. ⁵ 

Mark 8:25

8:25 Then Jesus ⁶  placed his hands on the man’s ⁷  eyes again. And he opened his eyes, ⁸  his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.

Mark 9:50

9:50 Salt ⁹  is good, but if it loses its saltiness, ¹⁰  how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”

Mark 10:24

10:24 The disciples were astonished at these words. But again Jesus said to them, ¹¹  “Children, how hard it is ¹²  to enter the kingdom of God!

Mark 10:34

10:34 They will mock him, spit on him, flog ¹³  him severely, and kill him. Yet ¹⁴  after three days, ¹⁵  he will rise again.”

Mark 10:51

10:51 Then ¹⁶  Jesus said to him, ¹⁷  “What do you want me to do for you?” The blind man replied, “Rabbi, ¹⁸  let me see again.” ¹⁹ 

Mark 11:27

11:27 They came again to Jerusalem. ²⁰  While Jesus ²¹  was walking in the temple courts, ²²  the chief priests, the experts in the law, ²³  and the elders came up to him

Mark 14:40

14:40 When he came again he found them sleeping; they could not keep their eyes open. ²⁴  And they did not know what to tell him.

Mark 14:61

14:61 But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest questioned him, ²⁵  “Are you the Christ, ²⁶  the Son of the Blessed One?”

Mark 15:12

15:12 So Pilate spoke to them again, ²⁷  “Then what do you want me to do ²⁸  with the one you call king of the Jews?”

---

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ map For location see Map1-A2; Map2-G2; Map4-A1; JP3-F3; JP4-F3.

⁴ map For location see Map1-A1; JP3-F3; JP4-F3.

⁵ sn The Decapolis refers to a league of towns (originally consisting of ten; the Greek name literally means “ten towns”) whose region (except for Scythopolis) lay across the Jordan River.

⁶ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁷ tn Grk “his”; the referent (the blind man) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁸ tn Or “he looked intently”; or “he stared with eyes wide open” (BDAG 226 s.v. διαβλέπω 1).

⁹ sn Salt was used as seasoning or fertilizer (BDAG 41 s.v. ἅλας a), or as a preservative. If salt ceased to be useful, it was thrown away. With this illustration Jesus warned about a disciple who ceased to follow him.

¹⁰ sn The difficulty of this saying is understanding how salt could lose its saltiness since its chemical properties cannot change. It is thus often assumed that Jesus was referring to chemically impure salt, perhaps a natural salt which, when exposed to the elements, had all the genuine salt leached out, leaving only the sediment or impurities behind. Others have suggested the background of the saying is the use of salt blocks by Arab bakers to line the floor of their ovens: Under the intense heat these blocks would eventually crystallize and undergo a change in chemical composition, finally being thrown out as unserviceable. A saying in the Talmud (b. Bekhorot 8b) attributed to R. Joshua ben Chananja (ca. a.d. 90), when asked the question “When salt loses its flavor, how can it be made salty again?” is said to have replied, “By salting it with the afterbirth of a mule.” He was then asked, “Then does the mule (being sterile) bear young?” to which he replied: “Can salt lose its flavor?” The point appears to be both are impossible. The saying, while admittedly late, suggests that culturally the loss of flavor by salt was regarded as an impossibility. Genuine salt can never lose its flavor. In this case the saying by Jesus here may be similar to Matt 19:24, where it is likewise impossible for the camel to go through the eye of a sewing needle.

¹¹ tn Grk “But answering, Jesus again said to them.” The participle ἀποκριθείς (apokriqeis) is redundant and has not been translated.

¹² tc Most mss (A C D Θ Ë^1,13 28 565 2427 Ï lat sy) have here “for those who trust in riches” (τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ [τοῖς] χρήμασιν, tou" pepoiqota" epi [toi"] crhmasin); W has πλούσιον (plousion) later in the verse, producing the same general modification on the dominical saying (“how hard it is for the rich to enter…”). But such qualifications on the Lord’s otherwise harsh and absolute statements are natural scribal expansions, intended to soften the dictum. Further, the earliest and best witnesses, along with a few others (א B Δ Ψ sa), lack any such qualifications. That W lacks the longer expansion and only has πλούσιον suggests that its archetype agreed with א B here; its voice should be heard with theirs. Thus, both on external and internal grounds, the shorter reading is preferred.

¹³ tn Traditionally, “scourge him” (the term means to beat severely with a whip, L&N 19.9). BDAG 620 s.v. μαστιγόω 1.a states, “The ‘verberatio’ is denoted in the passion predictions and explicitly as action by non-Israelites Mt 20:19; Mk 10:34; Lk 18:33”; the verberatio was the beating given to those condemned to death in the Roman judicial system. Here the term μαστιγόω (mastigow) has been translated “flog…severely” to distinguish it from the term φραγελλόω (fragellow) used in Matt 27:26; Mark 15:15.

¹⁴ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “yet” to indicate the contrast present in this context.

¹⁵ tc Most mss, especially the later ones (A^[*^] W Θ Ë^1,13 Ï sy), have “on the third day” (τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, th trith Jhmera) instead of “after three days.” But not only does Mark nowhere else speak of the resurrection as occurring on the third day, the idiom he uses is a harder reading (cf. Mark 8:31; 9:31, though in the latter text the later witnesses also have τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ). Further, τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ conforms to the usage that is almost universally used in Matthew and Luke, and is found in the parallels to this text (Matt 20:19; Luke 18:33). Thus, scribes would be doubly motivated to change the wording. The most reliable witnesses, along with several other mss (א B C D L Δ Ψ 579 892 2427 it co), have resisted this temptation.

¹⁶ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

¹⁷ tn Grk “And answering, Jesus said to him.” The participle ἀποκριθείς is redundant and has not been translated.

¹⁸ tn Or “Master”; Grk ῥαββουνί (rabbouni).

¹⁹ tn Grk “that I may see [again].” The phrase can be rendered as an imperative of request, “Please, give me sight.” Since the man is not noted as having been blind from birth (as the man in John 9 was) it is likely the request is to receive back the sight he once had.

²⁰ map For location see Map5-B1; Map6-F3; Map7-E2; Map8-F2; Map10-B3; JP1-F4; JP2-F4; JP3-F4; JP4-F4.

²¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

²² tn Grk “the temple.”

²³ tn Or “the chief priests, the scribes.” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 1:22.

²⁴ tn Grk “because their eyes were weighed down,” an idiom for becoming extremely or excessively sleepy (L&N 23.69).

²⁵ tn Grk “questioned him and said to him.”

²⁶ tn Or “the Messiah”; both “Christ” (Greek) and “Messiah” (Hebrew and Aramaic) mean “one who has been anointed.”

sn See the note on Christ in 8:29.

²⁷ tn Grk “answering, Pilate spoke to them again.” The participle ἀποκριθείς (apokriqeis) is redundant and has not been translated.

²⁸ tc Instead of “what do you want me to do” several witnesses, including the most important ones (א B C W Δ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 892 2427 pc), lack θέλετε (qelete, “you want”), turning the question into the more abrupt “what should I do?” Although the witnesses for the longer reading are not as significant (A D Θ 0250 Ï latt sy), the reading without θέλετε conforms to Matt 27:22 and thus is suspected of being a scribal emendation. The known scribal tendency to assimilate one synoptic passage to another parallel, coupled with the lack of such assimilation in mss that are otherwise known to do this most frequently (the Western and Byzantine texts), suggests that θέλετε is authentic. Further, Mark’s known style of being generally more verbose and redundant than Matthew’s argues that θέλετε is authentic here. That this is the longer reading, however, and that a good variety of witnesses omit the word, gives one pause. Perhaps the wording without θέλετε would have been perceived as having greater homiletical value, motivating scribes to move in this direction. A decision is difficult, but on the whole internal evidence leads toward regarding θέλετε as authentic.