¹ sn Divide…scatter. What is predicted here is a division of their tribes. Most commentators see here an anticipation of Levi being in every area but not their own. That may be part of it, but not entirely what the curse intended. These tribes for their ruthless cruelty would be eliminated from the power and prestige of leadership.

² sn It is his royal priestly status that makes Melchizedek a type of Christ: He was identified with Jerusalem, superior to the ancestor of Israel, and both a king and a priest. Unlike the normal Canaanites, this man served “God Most High” (אֵל עֶלְיוֹן, ʾel ʿelyon)—one sovereign God, who was the creator of all the universe. Abram had in him a spiritual brother.

⁵ tn This short temporal clause (preposition + Piel infinitive construct + subjective genitive + direct object) is strategically placed in the middle of the lavish descriptions to sound an ominous note. The entire clause is parenthetical in nature. Most English translations place the clause at the end of v. 10 for stylistic reasons.

¹ tn Heb “rose 15 cubits.” Since a cubit is considered by most authorities to be about 18 inches, this would make the depth 22.5 feet. This figure might give the modern reader a false impression of exactness, however, so in the translation the phrase “15 cubits” has been rendered “more than 20 feet.”

¹ tn There are three groups of land animals here: the cattle or livestock (mostly domesticated), things that creep or move close to the ground (such as reptiles or rodents), and the wild animals (all animals of the field). The three terms are general classifications without specific details.

³ tc Most witnesses, including several significant ones (א A C² P Ψ 5 33 81 436 442 1611 1735 1852 2344 2492 M al sy bo), have νεκρά (nekra, “dead”) here, while P⁷⁴ reads κενή (kenē, “empty”). Both variants are most likely secondary, derived from ἀργή (argē, “useless”). The reading of the majority is probably an assimilation to the statements in vv. 17 and 26, while P⁷⁴’s reading picks up on κενέ (kene) earlier in the verse. The external evidence (B C* 323 945 1175 1243 1739 sa) for ἀργή is sufficient for authenticity; coupled with the strong internal evidence for the reading (if νεκρά were original, how would ἀργή have arisen here and not in vv. 17 or 26?), it is strongly preferred.

¹ tc Most witnesses, including some significant ones (א D² 1881 M), read δεσμοῖς μου (desmois mou, “my imprisonment”) here, a reading that is probably due to the widespread belief in the early Christian centuries that Paul was the author of Hebrews (cf. Phil 1:7; Col 4:18). It may have been generated by the reading δεσμοῖς without the μου (so P⁴⁶ Ψ 104), the force of which is so ambiguous (lit., “you shared the sufferings with the bonds”) as to be virtually nonsensical. Most likely, δεσμοῖς resulted when a scribe made an error in copying δεσμίοις (desmiois), a reading which makes excellent sense (“[of] those in prison”) and is strongly supported by early and significant witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western text-forms (A D* H 6 33 81 1739 lat sy co). Thus, δεσμίοις best explains the rise of the other readings on both internal and external grounds and is strongly preferred.

¹ tc ‡ The majority of mss, including a few significant witnesses (א² D E [Ψ] 1739 M sy sa), have the negative particle οὐ (ou) here, effectively turning the high priest’s words into a question: “Did we not give you strict orders not to teach in this name?” But the earliest and most significant mss, along with some others (P⁷⁴ א* A B 1175 lat bo), lack the particle, making this a strong statement rather than a question. Scribes may have been tempted to omit the particle to strengthen the contrast between official Judaism and the new faith, but the fact that v. 27 introduces the quotation with ἐπηρώτησεν (epērōtēsen, “he questioned”) may well have prompted scribes to add οὐ to convert the rebuke into a question. Further, that excellent witnesses affirm the shorter reading is sufficient ground for accepting it as most probably authentic. NA²⁸ includes the particle in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity.

⁷ tc ‡ Most witnesses, especially later ones (A Θ Ψ ƒ¹³ M), read ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (ho Iēsous, “Jesus”) here, while B C have ᾿Ιησοῦς without the article and א D W ƒ¹ 33 565 al lat lack both. Because of the rapid verbal exchange in this pericope, “Jesus” is virtually required for clarity, providing a temptation to scribes to add the name. Further, the name normally occurs with the article. Although it is possible that B C accidentally omitted the article with the name, it is just as likely that they added the simple name to the text for clarity’s sake, while other witnesses added the article as well. The omission of ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς thus seems most likely to be authentic. NA²⁸ includes the words in brackets, indicating some doubts as to their authenticity.

³ tn Probably an allusion to Ps 89:35-37. It is difficult to pinpoint the passage in the Mosaic law to which the crowd refers. The ones most often suggested are Pss 89:36-37; 110:4, Isa 9:7, Ezek 37:25, and Dan 7:14. None of these passages are in the Pentateuch per se, but “law” could in common usage refer to the entire OT (compare Jesus’ use in John 10:34). Of the passages mentioned, Ps 89:36-37 is the most likely candidate. This verse speaks of David’s “seed” remaining forever. Later in the same psalm, v. 51 speaks of the “anointed” (Messiah), and the psalm was interpreted messianically in both the NT (Acts 13:22, Rev 1:5; 3:14) and in the rabbinic literature (Genesis Rabbah 97).

² tc Most mss (P^66,75 B L T W Θ Ψ 070 0105 0250 ƒ^1,13 M sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” (οὔπω, oupō) here. Those with the reading οὐκ are not as impressive (א D K 1241 al lat), but οὐκ is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10. On the one hand, it is possible that οὐκ arose because of homoioarcton: A copyist who saw oupw wrote ouk. However, it is more likely that οὔπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later. As for Jesus’ refusal to go up to the feast in v. 8, the statement does not preclude action of a different kind at a later point. Jesus may simply have been refusing to accompany his brothers with the rest of the group of pilgrims, preferring to travel separately and “in secret” (v. 10) with his disciples.

¹ tc The number and order of the first few names in this verse varies greatly in the mss. The variants which are most likely to be authentic based upon external evidence are Amminadab, Aram (A D 33 565 [1424] pm lat); Amminadab, Aram, Joram (K Δ Ψ 700 2542 pm); Adam, Admin, Arni (P^4vid א* 1241 sa); and Amminadab, Admin, Arni (א² L X [Γ] ƒ¹³). Deciding between these variants is quite difficult. The reading “Amminadab, Aram” is the strongest externally since it is represented by Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine witnesses, although it is significantly weaker internally because it disrupts the artistic balance of the number of generations and their groups that three names would preserve (see TCGNT 113, fn. 1 for discussion). In this case, the subtle intrinsic arguments that would most likely be overlooked by scribes argues for the reading “Amminadab, Admin, Arni,” although a decision is quite difficult because of the lack of strong external support.

³ tc Most witnesses (א² B² L Θ Ξ Ψ ƒ^1,13 M sy bo) have ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία (en anthrōpois eudokia, “good will among people”) instead of ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας (en anthrōpois eudokias, “among people with whom he is pleased”), a reading attested by א* A B* D W (sa). Most of the Itala witnesses and some other versional witnesses reflect a Greek text which has the genitive εὐδοκίας but drops the preposition ἐν. Not only is the genitive reading better attested, but it is more difficult than the nominative. “The meaning seems to be, not that divine peace can be bestowed only where human good will is already present, but that at the birth of the Saviour God’s peace rests on those whom he has chosen in accord with his good pleasure” (TCGNT 111).

² tc Most mss (A ƒ^1,13 M lat sy) have καινῆς (kainēs, “new”) before διαθήκης (diathēkēs, “covenant”), a reading that is almost surely influenced by the parallel passage in Luke 22:20. Further, the construction τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης (to tēs kainēs diathēkēs), in which the resumptive article τό (referring back to τὸ αἷμα [to |aima, “the blood”]) is immediately followed by the genitive article, is nowhere else used in Mark except for constructions involving a genitive of relationship (cf. Mark 2:14; 3:17, 18; 16:1). Thus, on both transcriptional and intrinsic grounds, this reading looks to be a later addition (which may have derived from τὸ τῆς διαθήκης of D* W). The most reliable mss, along with several others (א B C D^c L Θ Ψ 565), lack καινῆς. This reading is strongly preferred.

¹ tc The words “when they rise again” are missing from several significant witnesses (א B C D L W Δ Ψ 33 579 892 c r¹ k sy^p co). They are included in A Θ ƒ^1,(13) M lat sy^s,h. The strong external pedigree of the shorter reading gives one pause. Nevertheless, the Alexandrian and other mss most likely dropped the words from the text either to conform the wording to the parallel in Matt 22:28 or because “when they rise again” was redundant. But the inclusion of these words is thoroughly compatible with Mark’s usually pleonastic style (see TCGNT 93), and therefore most probably authentic to Mark’s Gospel.

³ tc Most mss, especially the later ones (A^[*^] W Θ ƒ^1,13 M sy), have “on the third day” (τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, tē tritē hēmera) 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 it co), have resisted this temptation.

² tc Most witnesses, including several significant ones, read καινῆς (kainēs, “new”) here. Homoioteleuton is a possible reason for the omission, since the article, adjective, and noun are all first declension genitive singulars (τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, tēs kainēs diathēkēs, “the new covenant”), but the likelihood of excellent, early, and sufficiently diverse witnesses all making the same mistake is remote. A much more probable scenario is that the addition of καινῆς was motivated by the parallel in Luke 22:20. It is a natural expansion on the text. Coupled with the fact that the shorter reading is found in such good and diverse witnesses (e.g., P^37,45vid א B L Z Θ 0298^vid 33 mae), it most likely is the initial text.

¹ tc Most mss (א*^,2b C L N W Γ Δ 0106 33 565 1241 1424 M) have an expanded introduction here; instead of “For God said,” they read “For God commanded, saying” (ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἐνετείλατο λέγων, ho gar theos eneteilato legōn). But such expansions are generally motivated readings; in this case, most likely it was due to the wording of the previous verse (“the commandment of God”) that caused early scribes to add to the text. Although it is possible that other witnesses reduced the text to the simple εἶπεν (eipen, “[God] said”) because of perceived redundancy with the statement in v. 3, such is unlikely in light of the great variety and age of these authorities (א^2a B D Θ 073 ƒ^{1, 13} 579 700 892 lat co, as well as other versions and fathers).

² tc Most mss (L W Δ Θ 0233 ƒ¹³ 33 565 579 700 1241 1424 M sy sa Didache) read (though some with slight variation) ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν (“for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen”) here. The reading without this sentence, though, is attested by generally better witnesses (א B D Z 0170 ƒ¹ lat mae Or). The phrase was probably composed for the liturgy of the early church and most likely was based on 1 Chr 29:11-13; a scribe probably added the phrase at this point in the text for use in public scripture reading (see TCGNT 13-14). Both external and internal evidence argue for the shorter reading.

² tn The translation of this line is a little uncertain because of the double prepositional phrase which is not represented in this translation or most of the others. The Hebrew text reads, “I will bring in to them, against mother of young men, a destroyer at noon time.” Many commentaries delete the phrase with the Greek text. If the preposition read “against” like the following one this would be a case of apposition of nearer definition. There is some evidence of that in the Targum and the Syriac according to BHS. Both nouns “mothers” and “young men” are translated as plural here though they are singular; they are treated by most as collectives. In the light of 6:4, noontime was a good time to attack. NJPS has, “I will bring against them—young men and mothers together—….” In this case “mother” and “young men” would be a case of asyndetic coordination.