Discovery Box| (0.15) | (Joh 11:16) | 3 sn One gets the impression from Thomas’ statement “Let us go too, so that we may die with him” that he was something of a pessimist resigned to his fate. And yet his dedicated loyalty to Jesus and his determination to accompany him at all costs was truly commendable. Nor is the contrast between this statement and the confession of Thomas in 20:28, which forms the climax of the entire Fourth Gospel, to be overlooked; certainly Thomas’ concept of who Jesus is has changed drastically between 11:16 and 20:28. |
| (0.15) | (Joh 10:16) | 3 sn The statement I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold almost certainly refers to Gentiles. Jesus has sheep in the fold who are Jewish; there are other sheep which, while not of the same fold, belong to him also. This recalls the mission of the Son in 3:16-17, which was to save the world—not just the nation of Israel. Such an emphasis would be particularly appropriate to the author if he were writing to a non-Palestinian and primarily non-Jewish audience. |
| (0.15) | (Joh 10:11) | 2 sn Jesus speaks openly of his vicarious death twice in this section (John 10:11, 15). Note the contrast: The thief takes the life of the sheep (10:10), the good shepherd lays down his own life for the sheep. Jesus is not speaking generally here, but specifically: He has his own substitutionary death on the cross in view. For a literal shepherd with a literal flock, the shepherd’s death would have spelled disaster for the sheep; in this instance it spells life for them (Compare the worthless shepherd of Zech 11:17, by contrast). |
| (0.15) | (Joh 10:3) | 5 sn He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. Some interpreters have suggested that there was more than one flock in the fold, and there would be a process of separation where each shepherd called out his own flock. This may also be suggested by the mention of a doorkeeper in v. 3 since only the larger sheepfolds would have such a guard. But the Gospel of John never mentions a distinction among the sheep in this fold; in fact (10:16) there are other sheep which are to be brought in, but they are to be one flock and one shepherd. |
| (0.15) | (Joh 8:6) | 3 tn Or possibly “Jesus bent down and wrote an accusation on the ground with his finger.” The Greek verb καταγράφω (katagraphō) may indicate only the action of writing on the ground by Jesus, but in the overall context (Jesus’ response to the accusation against the woman) it can also be interpreted as implying that what Jesus wrote was a counteraccusation against the accusers (although there is no clue as to the actual content of what he wrote, some scribes added “the sins of each one of them” either here or at the end of v. 8 [U 264 700 al]). |
| (0.15) | (Joh 1:45) | 1 sn Nathanael is traditionally identified with Bartholomew (although John never describes him as such). He appears here after Philip; in all lists of the twelve except in Acts 1:13, Bartholomew follows Philip. Also, the Aramaic Bar-tolmai means “son of Tolmai,” the surname; the man almost certainly had another name. Other alternatives than Bartholomew have also been suggested, e.g. James the son of Alphaeus; see C. E. Hill, “The Identity of John’s Nathanael,” JSNT 20 (1998): 45-61. |
| (0.15) | (Joh 1:11) | 4 sn His own people did not receive him. There is a subtle irony here: When the λόγος (logos) came into the world, he came to his own (τὰ ἴδια, ta idia, literally “his own things”) and his own people (οἱ ἴδιοι, hoi idioi), who should have known and received him, but they did not. This time John does not say that “his own” did not know him, but that they did not receive him (παρέλαβον, parelabon). The idea is one not of mere recognition, but of acceptance and welcome. |
| (0.15) | (Luk 23:51) | 2 tc Several mss (א C D L Δ Ψ 070 ƒ1,13 [579] 892 1424 2542 al) read the present participle συγκατατιθέμενος (sunkatatithemenos) instead of the perfect participle συγκατατεθειμένος (sunkatatetheimenos). The present participle could be taken to mean that Joseph had decided that the execution was now a mistake. The perfect means that he did not agree with it from the start. The perfect participle, however, has better support externally (P75 A B W Θ 33 M), and is thus the preferred reading. |
| (0.15) | (Luk 20:42) | 1 sn The Lord said to my lord. With David being the speaker, this indicates his respect for his descendant (referred to as my lord). Jesus was arguing, as the ancient exposition assumed, that the passage is about the Lord’s anointed. The passage looks at an enthronement of this figure and a declaration of honor for him as he takes his place at the side of God. In Jerusalem, the king’s palace was located to the right of the temple to indicate this kind of relationship. Jesus was pressing the language here to get his opponents to reflect on how great Messiah is. |
| (0.15) | (Luk 19:26) | 2 sn The one who has nothing has even what he seems to have taken away from him, ending up with no reward at all (see also Luke 8:18). The exact force of this is left ambiguous, but there is no comfort here for those who are pictured by the third slave as being totally unmoved by the master. Though not an outright enemy, there is no relationship to the master either. Three groups are represented in the parable: the faithful of various sorts (vv. 16, 18); the unfaithful who associate with Jesus but do not trust him (v. 21); and the enemies (v. 27). |
| (0.15) | (Luk 12:39) | 2 tc Most mss (א1 A B L Q W Θ Ψ 070 ƒ1,13 33 M lat syp,h sams bo) read “he would have watched and not let” here, but this looks like an assimilation to Matt 24:43. The alliance of two significant and early mss along with a few others (P75 א* [D] e i sys,c samss), coupled with much stronger internal evidence, suggests that the shorter reading is authentic. |
| (0.15) | (Luk 9:55) | 2 tc Many mss ([D] K Γ Θ ƒ1,13 [579] 700 2542 pm it) have at the end of the verse (with slight variations) “and he said, ‘You do not know what sort of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy people’s lives, but to save [them].’” This variant is clearly secondary, as it gives some content to the rebuke. Further, it is difficult to explain how such rich material would have been omitted by the rest of the witnesses, including the earliest and best mss. |
| (0.15) | (Luk 6:15) | 2 sn The designation Zealot means that Simon was a political nationalist before coming to follow Jesus. He may not have been technically a member of the particular Jewish nationalistic party known as “Zealots” (since according to some scholars this party had not been organized at that time), but simply someone who was zealous for Jewish independence from Rome, in which case the descriptive term applied to Simon means something like “Simon the patriot” (see L&N 25.77 and especially 11.88). |
| (0.15) | (Mar 15:27) | 1 tc Most later mss add 15:28 “And the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘He was counted with the lawless ones.’” Verse 28 is included in L Θ 083 0250 ƒ1,13 33 M lat, but is lacking in significant Alexandrian and Western mss and some others (א A B C D Ψ). The addition of the verse with its quotation from Isa 53:12 probably represents a scribal assimilation from Luke 22:37. It was almost certainly not an original part of Mark’s Gospel. The present translation follows NA28 in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations. |
| (0.15) | (Mar 15:15) | 2 sn A Roman flogging (traditionally, “scourging”) was an excruciating punishment. The victim was stripped of his clothes and bound to a post with his hands fastened above him (or sometimes he was thrown to the ground). Guards standing on either side of the victim would incessantly beat him with a whip (flagellum) made out of leather with pieces of lead and bone inserted into its ends. While the Jews only allowed 39 lashes, the Romans had no such limit; many people who received such a beating died as a result. See C. Schneider, TDNT, 4:515-19. |
| (0.15) | (Mar 14:41) | 2 tc Codex D (with some support with minor variation from W Θ ƒ13 565 2542 it) reads, “Enough of that! It is the end and the hour has come.” Evidently, this addition highlights Jesus’ assertion that what he had predicted about his own death was now coming true (cf. Luke 22:37). Even though the addition highlights the accuracy of Jesus’ prediction, it should not be regarded as part of the text of Mark, since it receives little support from the rest of the witnesses and because D especially is prone to expand the wording of a text. |
| (0.15) | (Mar 12:36) | 1 sn The Lord said to my lord. With David being the speaker, this indicates his respect for his descendant (referred to as my lord). Jesus was arguing, as the ancient exposition assumed, that the passage is about the Lord’s anointed. The passage looks at an enthronement of this figure and a declaration of honor for him as he takes his place at the side of God. In Jerusalem, the king’s palace was located to the right of the temple to indicate this kind of relationship. Jesus was pressing the language here to get his opponents to reflect on how great Messiah is. |
| (0.15) | (Mar 12:13) | 3 sn Pharisees and Herodians made a very interesting alliance. W. W. Wessel (“Mark,” EBC 8:733) comments: “The Herodians were as obnoxious to the Pharisees on political grounds as the Sadducees were on theological grounds. Yet the two groups united in their opposition to Jesus. Collaboration in wickedness, as well as goodness, has great power. Their purpose was to trip Jesus up in his words so that he would lose the support of the people, leaving the way open for them to destroy him.” See also the note on “Herodians” in Mark 3:6. |
| (0.15) | (Mar 10:2) | 4 sn The question of the Pharisees was anything but sincere; they were asking it to test him. Jesus was now in the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas (i.e., Judea and beyond the Jordan) and it is likely that the Pharisees were hoping he might answer the question of divorce in a way similar to John the Baptist and so suffer the same fate as John, i.e., death at the hands of Herod (cf. 6:17-19). Jesus answered the question not on the basis of rabbinic custom and the debate over Deut 24:1, but rather from the account of creation and God’s original design. |
| (0.15) | (Mar 6:48) | 5 sn The statement he wanted to pass by them is somewhat difficult to understand. There are at least two common interpretations: (1) it refers to the perspective of the disciples, that is, from their point of view it seemed that Jesus wanted to pass by them; or (2) it refers to a theophany and uses the language of the Greek Old Testament (LXX) when God “passed by” Moses at Sinai (cf. Exod 33:19, 22). According to the latter alternative, Jesus is “passing by” the disciples during their struggle, in order to assure them of his presence with them. See W L. Lane, Mark (NICNT), 236. |
