^{Page 1 note 1} Holtzmann, H. J., Die Synoptiker (Hand-Commentar z. NT, I) (1889), p. 162.Google Scholar

^{Page 1 note 2} Schmidt, K. L., Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (1919, reprinted 1964), p. 155Google Scholar; Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St Mark (⁶ 1963), p. 298.Google Scholar

^{Page 1 note 3} K. L. Schmidt, op. cit. p. 154. On the other side Wendling, E., Die Entstehung des Marcus Evangeliums (1908), p. 53 n. 1,Google Scholar refers to the ‘parallele Einschaltung iii. 6–19’, in which the Evangelist has afterwards added the names of the twelve apostles: ‘Derartige Nachlieferungen sind bei Epigonen nichts Ungewöhnliches.’ Also Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (³ 1957),Google ScholarErgänzungsheft (² 1962), p. 9,Google Scholar asks: ‘Aber stand nicht dieses Material der Phantasie beliebig zur Verfugung?’ But personal documents, in addition designated as their ‘Call’, cannot be invented so easily.

^{Page 1 note 4} K. L. Schmidt, op. cit. p. 156. Cf. also the list of ‘genuine tradition’ in Taylor, V., Mark, p. 298.Google Scholar Further Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Mk (Th.H.N.T. II) (³ 1968), pp. 119 f.Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., Das Evangelium nach Mk (N.T.D. I) (¹¹ 1967), p. 69.Google Scholar

^{Page 2 note 1} What form the historical relation of Jesus to his native town took remains an enigma (cf. Preuschen, E., ‘Das Wort vom verachteten Propheten’, Z.N.W. XVII, 1916, 35).Google Scholar W. Bauer also only indulges in speculations about it (‘Jesus der Galiläer’, in: Festgabe für A. Jülicher, 1927, pp. 16Google Scholar if. = Aufsätze und kleine Schriften, ed. by G. Strecker, 1967, pp. 91 ff., 106)Google Scholar. How D. Flusser knows that ‘Jesus rightly suspected that his own people would not believe in him’ remains his secret (‘Jesus in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten’, 1968, p. 23)Google Scholar.

^{Page 2 note 2} With M. Dibelius against V. Taylor.

^{Page 2 note 3} Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, ² 1913 (=³ 1963), p. 143Google Scholar; cf. Schulz, S., Die Stunde der Botschaft (1967), p. 13.Google Scholar

^{Page 2 note 4} Cf. Pesch, R., ‘Levi.Matthäus (Mc ii. 14/Mt ix. 9; x. 3)’, Z.N. W. LIX (1968), 40 ff.Google Scholar and from the same author ‘Ein Tag vollmächtigen Wirkens Jesu in Kapharnaum (Mc i. 21–34, 35–39)’, in Bibel und Leben 9 (1968), 114–28, 17795, 261–77.Google Scholar

^{Page 2 note 5} Cf. on this the fundamental methodological reflections in Schreiber, J., Theologie des Vertrauens. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung des Markusevangeliums (1967), pp. 11 ff.Google Scholar, in which he relies on W. Wrede. I myseli however, see in Schreiber's case the danger that a good method may be overdriven and thereby deprived of its heuristic fertility.

^{Page 2 note 6} Cf. Schneemelcher, W., ‘Evangelien’, in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, , Ntl. Apokryphen, I (³ 1959), 46Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., ‘Historic und Theologie in den synoptischen Passionsberichten’, in Viering, F. (Hrsg.), Zur Bedeutung des Todes Jesu (1967), pp. 37 ff.Google Scholar; Zimmermann, H., Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre (1967), pp. 214 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 2 note 7} Die Entstehung des Marcus-Evangeliums (1908), pp. 52 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 2 note 8} ‘Das Wort vom verachteten Propheten’, Z.N.W. xvii (1916), 33–48.Google Scholar

^{Page 2 note 9} Gesch. d. syn. Trad. pp. 30 f.

^{Page 2 note 10} History and Interpretation in the Gospels (1935), pp. 182 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 2 note 11} The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, I (1953), 47 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 2 note 12} Mysterious Revelation. An Examination of the Philosophy of St Mark's Gospel (1963), pp. 58, 137 ff., 201 note 24, 253.Google Scholar

^{Page 2 note 13} ‘Historic und Verkündigung bei Markus und bei Lukas’, in Die Bibel und wir. Ges. Aufs. II (1968), 156–81.Google Scholar

^{Page 3 note 1} History, pp. 182 ff.; cf. Burkill, T. A., Mysterious Revelation, p. 128 n. 47.Google Scholar

^{Page 3 note 2} op. cit. p. 239 n. 24 (cf. the brief references to our text pp. 87, 146, 159, 205). Marxsen, W., Der Evangelist Markus. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums (² 1959)Google Scholar does not deal with our text at all. Also S. Schulz (note 7, above) mentions it only occasionally. Only Robinson, J. M., ‘Das Geschichtsverständnis des Markus-Evangeliums’, Abh. z. Theol. d. A u. NT, XXX (1956)Google Scholar and T. A. Burkill (see p. 2 n. 12, above) deal with it in detail.

^{Page 3 note 3} In the Markan summaries there are passages (cf. vi. 53–6; i. 32–4; iii. 7–12), in which the success of Jesus is not interpreted and valued, because here only the fame of Jesus through his public healing is to be accentuated (cf. Luz, U., ‘Das Geheimnismotiv und die markinische Christologie’, Z.N. W. LVI (1965), f2 f.Google Scholar). But that a public failure of Jesus is explained by a proverb known everywhere and learnt by experience (No prophet is popular in his native town, and no doctor cures his relations, v. 4); that the unbelief is accepted and neither reproved nor refuted; that no discussion takes place; that Jesus leaves the ‘battlefield’ without fighting—all these are, at first sight, strange features in the Markan picture of Jesus.

^{Page 3 note 4} Cf. Lightfoot, , History, pp. 182Google Scholar ff.—Conceding that there are many problems in the arrangement of the material A. Farrer recognized clearly this aspect, and rightly demands that we read the Galilean activity of Jesus in chapters i-vi ‘as a foreshadowing of events at Jerusalem. The crisis in the synagogue is the crisis in the temple… The “countrymen” who rejectJesus are not the Nazarenes but the Jews’ (A Study in St Mark, 1951, p. 147).Google Scholar

^{Page 3 note 5} If Formgeschichte is right in showing that each single piece of tradition has in itself a christological sense (cf. Conzelmann, H., Grundriβ der Theologie des NT, 1967, p. 160Google Scholar), then it is remarkable that the commentaries on vi. 1–6a do not concern themselves with the question of its meaning, either with regard to the tradition which Mark probably used or to the Markan presentation. For the christological title in our pericope Hahn, cf. F., Christologische Hoheitstitel (F.R.L.A.N. T. LXXXIII) (1962), 351 if., esp. pp. 394Google Scholar f.; Cullmann, O., Die Christologie des NT, 1957 (³ 1963), p. 30Google Scholar; Friedrich, G., Th.W. VI, 842 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 4 note 1} Our passage vi. 1–6a comes nearest to finding a place in the theology of Mark as E. Schweizer has developed it (‘Die theologische Leistung des Markus’, in Ev. Th. XXIV [1964], 337Google Scholar ff. and in NTD, 1 [1967]).

^{Page 4 note 2} It has long been recognized that Mark carried through his christological conception as consistently as possible, but not without violence to the material. Cf. Bornkamm, G., ‘Evangelien, synoptische’, RGG³, II, 761Google Scholar; Riesenfeld, H., ‘Tradition und Redaktion im Markusevangelium’, in Ntl. Studien für R. Bultmaun (² 1957), p. 164Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., ‘Gegenwart und Zukunft in der synoptischen Tradition’, Z.Th.K. LIV (1957), 294.Google Scholar

^{Page 4 note 3} R. H. Lightfoot may have the same feeling when he remarks: ‘The six verses devoted to the story of rejection are characterized at first sight by extreme simplicity.’ History, p. 185.Google Scholar

^{Page 4 note 4} This is the sense in the parallel proverb Pap. Oxyrh. I, 6 (Klostermann, E., Apocrypha, II, Evangelien, ³ 1919, p. 19).Google Scholar Cf. also the Agraphon 51 (Grenfell and Hunt, I, 9, 11. 33–5) ουδέ Ιαγρός ποιει θεραπειας εις τούς Υινώσκοντας αύτόν (Resch, A., Agrapha. Auβerkanonische Schriftfragmente, ³ 1967, p. 69).Google Scholar A further parallel now appears in the Gospel of Thomas, Logion 31 (P. Labib, pl. 87, 5–7): ‘Jesus hat gesagt: Es gibt keinen Propheten, der aufgenommen wird in seinem Dorf; nicht pflegt ein Arzt zu heilen die, die ihn kennen’ (translation by J. Jeremias, Oxyrhynchos-apyros, I, in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, , Ntl. Apokryphen, I, ³ 1959, 1969).Google Scholar Further material in Bauer, W., Wörterbuch zum NT (⁵ 1958), 1263.Google Scholar

^{Page 4 note 5} Holtzmann, H J., Synoptiker, p. 161.Google Scholar

^{Page 5 note 1} ‘When die Psychologie richtig sieht, ist dies leicht verständlich’(so Flusser, D., Jesus, p. 23).Google Scholar But the question is simply whether psychology has the right view for the character of our story.

^{Page 5 note 2} So Weiss, J., Die Schrften des NT, I (² 1907), 124.Google Scholar

^{Page 5 note 3} Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium nach Markus (Meyer 1, 2) (¹⁴ 1957), p. 110.Google Scholar Cf. also Preuschen, E., Z.N.W. XVII (1916), 41Google Scholar, who speaks of an ‘innerlich unmöglichen Bericht’.

^{Page 5 note 4} Cf. Welihausen, J., Dos Evangelium Marci (² 1909), p. 43Google Scholar; Klostermann, E., Dos Ev. d. Mk (H.N.T. III), (⁴ 1950), p. 55,Google Scholar with Weiss, B., Dos Eu. d. Mk. und Lk. (Meyer 1,2), (⁴ 1901), p. 89Google Scholar; Bl-Debr, . Grammatik d. ntl. Griech. (⁹ 1954), p. 245Google Scholar; Holtzmann, H.J., Syn. p. 161Google Scholar; Knox, W. L., The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, I (1953), 49 note 2.Google Scholar For Taylor, V., Mark, p. 299,Google Scholar notes on ol πολλοί that ‘there was an undercurrent of dissatisfaction which in the end prevailed’.

^{Page 5 note 5} Cf. Hirsch, E., Frühgeschichte des Evangeliums, I (1941), 44Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., Th.W. VI, 451, 15ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 5 note 6} Cf. Goguel, M., ‘Le rejet de Jesus a Nazareth’, Z.N. W. XII (1911), 321 ff.Google ScholarSchweizer, E., N. T.D. I, p. 69.Google Scholar

^{Page 5 note 7} Welihausen, J., Das Evangelium Marci (² 1909), p. 43Google Scholar; Grundmann, W., Markus, p. 120Google Scholar; Lightfoot, , History, p. 185.Google Scholar

^{Page 5 note 8} Klostermann, , Markus, p. 55.Google Scholar

^{Page 5 note 9} Hirsch, E., Frühgeschichte, p. 43.Google Scholar

^{Page 5 note 10} E. Hirsch, pp. 43 f.

^{Page 6 note 1} So Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu (1966), P. 214Google Scholar; Schmid, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus, R.N.T. II (³ 1954), 115 f.Google Scholar

^{Page 6 note 2} So Holtzmann, H. J., Synopliker, p. 161.Google Scholar

^{Page 6 note 3} Cf. Bauer, W., Wörterbuch z. NT (⁵ 1958), p. 484.Google Scholar

^{Page 6 note 4} Bultmann, R., Geschkhte der syn. Trad. p. 31.Google Scholar So also Weiss, J., Schrsften, p. 124Google Scholar (but he also supposes that the opinion of the people changed); Taylor, V., Mark, p. 299Google Scholar; Lightfoot, , History, PP. 186 f.Google Scholar; Dibelius, M., Formgeschichte, p. 107Google Scholar; Burkill, T. A., Mysterious Revelation, P. 138 n. 48.Google Scholar E. Schweizer, N. T.D. i does not enter into this question, while Schniewind, J., Das Ev. nach Mk, N. T.D. I (⁶ 1962), p.91Google Scholar speaks of an ambiguous attitude, which would quite accord with the proverb in u. 4. A too modern explanation, I suppose.

^{Page 6 note 5} So rightly Wendling, E., Enistehung, p. 53.Google Scholar

^{Page 6 note 6} Knox, W. L., Sources, pp. 47 ff.Google Scholar has clearly recognized this difficulty, and concludes from it that Mark here is dealing with an isolated unit of tradition, which originally reported only a failure of Jesus. Mark or someone later achieved agreement with the conventionally successful Jesus by changing the original έλεγου (v. 2b) into έξεπλήσσουτο λέγουτες (p. 49). The last is not a convincing argument, because the whole verse is Markan composition and just the έξεπλήσσουτο in it is especially in his style (see below). The supposition of an originally unsuccessful Jesus in Nazareth, however, I do not think as improbable as Bultmann, R., Gesch. d. syn. Trad., Ergh. p. 9.Google Scholar Bultmann, p. 35, thinks it possible to understand v. 3 similarly to v. 2, as an expression of true admiration—except the strange addition: καί ήσκαυλίзουτο έυ αύτῷ, but it is not easy to understand why a success of Jesus should in the tradition be intentionally changed into a failure, which-as we see in u. 5 b, in Matthew and in Luke-was afterwards laboriously shaped back again into a success.

^{Page 6 note 7} Wendling, E., Entstehung, p. 55.Google Scholar

^{Page 7 note 1} This also is already noticed by Welihausen, J., Marcus, p. 43.Google Scholar

^{Page 7 note 2} Instead of many, cf. only Bultmann, R., Gesch. d. syn. Trad. p. 31.Google Scholar

^{Page 7 note 3} For Matthew and Luke cf. Haenchen, E., Aufs. II, 158 ff.Google Scholar; for Brun, Luke L., ‘Der Besuch Jesu in Nazareth nach Lukas’, in Serta Rudbergiana (Symbolae Osloenses Fasc. Supplet. IV; Oslo, 1931), pp. 7–17Google Scholar; Violet, B., ‘Zum rechten Verständnis der Nazarethperikope Lk iv. 16–30’, Z.N. W. XXXVII (1938), 251–71Google Scholar; Finkel, A., ‘Jesus’ Sermon at Nazareth (Lk iv. 16–30)’, in Abraham unser Vater. Festschr. f. O. Michel (1963), pp. 106–15Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., Milk der Zeit (³ 1960), pp. 25 ff.Google Scholar; Schürmann, H., Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den syn. Euangelien (1968), pp. 39 ff.Google Scholar; for van Segbroeck, Matthew F., ‘Jésus rejeté par sa patrie (Mt. xiii. 54–8)’ in Biblica, XLIX (1968), 167 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 7 note 4} Cf. Dibelius, M., Formgeschichte, p. 107Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., Gesch. d. syn. Trad. p. 31Google Scholar; Haenchen, E., Ges. Aufs. II (1968), 161 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 7 note 5} On the following cf. Lohmeyer, E., Des Eu. nach Markus (Meyer 1, 2), pp. 110 f.Google Scholar

^{Page 7 note 6} Cf. p. 4 n. 4 above.

^{Page 8 note 1} Lohmeyer, E., Markus, p. 110.Google Scholar

^{Page 8 note 2} ibid. and p. 112.

^{Page 8 note 3} Whether v. 6 b represents the end of our pericope or the introduction to the following mission of the disciples, remains undecided. In any case the verse is a redactional transition formula, and it may be correct to attach it, with most interpreters and modern editions of the text, to the passage following.

^{Page 8 note 4} Schmidt, K. L., Rahrnen, p. 156.Google Scholar

^{Page 8 note 5} Gesch. d. syn. Trad. p. 30.

^{Page 8 note 6} This conjecture was first made by Wendling, E., Entstehung, pp. 53 f.Google Scholar Cf. also Preuschen, E., Z.N.W. XVII (1916), 33–48.Google Scholar

^{Page 8 note 7} Cf. the first edition of his Formgeschichte, p. 78 with the second edition, pp. 106 f.

^{Page 8 note 8} Formgeschichte, 2nd ed. p. 107.

^{Page 8 note 9} Taylor, V., Mark, p. 298.Google Scholar

^{Page 8 note 10} Haenchen, E., Aufs. II, 160 n. 10.Google Scholar Cf. also Schrage, W., Das Verhaitnis des Thomas-Euangeliums zur synoplischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Bibelübersetzungen (1964), pp. 75 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 8 note 11} Cf. E. Haenchen, ibid.

^{Page 9 note 1} Der Weg Jesu, p. 220. So also Schweizer, E., N.T.D. I, p. 69.Google Scholar

^{Page 9 note 2} The most striking parallel is Mk. I. 21, 22, 27, which was printed already by Wendling, E., Enistehung, p. 52Google Scholar as a synopsis to vi. 1–2. But compare also ii. 13; ix. 31; x. i. Cf. on this Bultmann, R., Gesch. d. syn. Trad. pp. 363 if.Google Scholar; Schulz, S., Botschaft, pp. 26 ff.Google Scholar; Schreiber, J., Theologie, pp. 83 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 9 note 3} So still Wohlenberg, G., Das Eu. nach Markus (Komn. z. NT, ed. by Zahn, Th.), II (¹, ² 1910), 169.Google Scholar

^{Page 9 note 4} i. 28, 29, 35, 38; ii. 13; iii. 6; vi. 12, 34, 54; vii. 31; viii. 11, 27; ix. 30; xi. 11 f. The remaining 23 we may, following Luz, U., ‘Geheimnismotiv’, Z.N.W. (1965), p. 15Google Scholar n. 24, suppose to be traditional. Cf. also Bultmann, R., Gesch. syn. d. Trad. p. 364Google Scholar; Schulz, S., Botschaft, pp. 26 f.Google Scholar

^{Page 9 note 5} vii. 24; ix. 30; x. I. In vi. 10 f. we find it within the words of Jesus.

^{Page 10 note 1} Cf. the epigraphical testimony in W. Bauer, Wörterbuch, cols. 1262 f. In the NT see also Lkii. 3D; Acts xviii. 25 D, 27 D; John iv. 44. Cf. Schaeder, , Th. W. IV, 879Google Scholar; ed. Lohse, art. ‘Nazareth’, RGG (³IV), col. 1388; Dalman, G., Orte und Wege Jesu, pp. 61 ff.Google Scholar Doubted by Braun, H., Jesus (1969), p. 39.Google Scholar

^{Page 10 note 2} Gesch d. syn. Trad. p. 364. So also Marxsen, W., Der Elangelist Markus, p. 42Google Scholar with reference to v. 4.

^{Page 10 note 3} Cf. Schulz, S., Botschaft, p. 27.Google Scholar

^{Page 10 note 4} Wellhausen, J., Marcus, p. 42Google Scholar; Klostermann, E., Markus, p. 55Google Scholar; Taylor, V., Mark, p. 299.Google Scholar

^{Page 10 note 5} Lagrange, M.-J., Évangile selon St Marc (1966), p. 147.Google Scholar

^{Page 10 note 6} Luz, U., Z.N.W. (1965), p. 12Google Scholar n. 9 counted that άκολουθετν appears in Mark 19 times (Matthew 25 times, Luke i times). From these passages he thinks iii. 7; vi. 1; x. 52 to be redactional, and probably also ii. 15 and x. 32. Trocmé, E., La formation de l' Éuangile selon Marc (1963), p. 128Google Scholar thinks the accompaniment by the disciples to be redactional in i. 21 a; ii. 15–16; iii. 20; iv. 34; v. 31, 37; vi. 1; viii. 34; xi. II, 15a, 2v, 27; xii. 43.

^{Page 10 note 7} Against Schmidt, K. L., Rahmen, p. 153.Google Scholar

^{Page 10 note 8} Cf. Bultmann, R., Gesch. d. syn. Trad. p. 368.Google Scholar

^{Page 10 note 9} ibid.

^{Page 10 note 10} Cf. Strecker, G., Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (F.R.L.A.N.T. LXXXII) (1962), p. 130.Google Scholar

^{Page 11 note 1} So already Schmidt, K. L., Rahmen, p. 154.Google Scholar On the parallelism of Jesus and the disciples in Mt. cf. Strecker, G., Gerechtigkeit, pp. 191 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 11 note 2} Cf. Haenchen, E., Ges. Aufs. II, 161 f., 169 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 11 note 3} Cf. Schulz, S., Botschafl, p. 72.Google Scholar

^{Page 11 note 4} Cf. E. Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 109; Johnson, S. E., Gospel according to St Mark, p. 112Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., N.T.D. I, p. 69.Google Scholar On the composition of Mark compare now Pesch, R., ‘Naherwartungen, Tradition und Redaktion in Mk xiii’, Kommentare und Beiträge zum A und NT (1968), pp. 58 f.Google Scholar Why Schreiber, J., Theologie, p. 205Google Scholar thinks himself able to conclude from the composition of Mk vi thatJesus turned at once away from Nazareth and from the disciples towards the mission and towards the people, I cannot understand.

^{Page 11 note 5} Cf. Trocmë, E., Marc, p. 107.Google Scholar

^{Page 11 note 6} Luz, U., Z.N.W. (1965), p. 22.Google Scholar

^{Page 11 note 7} Cf. U. Luz, ibid. p. 21 n.60 and E. Trocmé, Marc, p. 151.

^{Page 11 note 8} Schweizer, E., ‘Anmerkungen zur Theologie des Markus’, in Neotestamentica (1963), p. 95.Google Scholar But compare before him already Robinson, J. M., Geschichtsverstãndnis, pp. 67 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 11 note 9} Schulz, S., Botschaft, p. 27Google Scholar: ‘markinische Szcnerie’. Otherwise Bultmann, R., Gesch. d. yn. Trad. p. 367.Google Scholar Important is the variation in Mt xiii. 54, where we find ‘their synagogue’. Here there is polemic, while in Mk we find no trace of it.

^{Page 11 note 10} Schreiber, J., Theologie, p. 87.Google Scholar

^{Page 11 note 11} Contrary to Schreiber, J., Theologie, pp. 87 ff.Google Scholar, who finds in the Markan description ‘eine massive Abwertung der jüdischen Sabbatfrömmigkeit’ (p. 87). The sabbath would be for St Mark like ‘the night’. But this is an equation which is quite wrong. Cf. for criticism R. Pesch (see p. 2 n.4, above), p. 193 n. 48.

^{Page 12 note 1} Compare on this Schulz, S., Botschaft, pp. 29 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 12 note 2} So Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu, pp. 216, 219.Google Scholar

^{Page 12 note 3} This was noted already by Dibelius, M., Formgeschichte, p. 238.Google Scholar Cf. Schulz, S., ‘Die Bedeutung des Markus für die Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums’, in Studio Evangelica, II (T. U. LXXXVII, 1964), 135 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 12 note 4} Cf. Bultmann, R., Gesch. d. syn. Trad. pp. 367 f.Google Scholar

^{Page 12 note 5} έξεπλσσουτο redactional in Mk. i. 22; vii. 37; xi. 18; cf. x. 26; Acts xiii. 12.

^{Page 12 note 6} Bultman, R., Gesch. d. syn. Trod. pp. 241, 371Google Scholar; Betz, H. D., Lukia, s von Samosata und das NT (1961), pp. 159 ff.Google Scholar; Schille, G., ‘Die Seesturmerzahlung Markus iv. 35–41 als Beispiel nil Aktualisierung’, Z.N.W. LVI (1965), 31.Google Scholar

^{Page 12 note 7} Peterson, E., Είς θεóς (1926), pp. 193–5Google Scholar; Weinreich, J., Antike Heilungswunder (1909), pp. 195 ff.Google Scholar; Dibelius, M., Formgeschichte, pp. 91 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{Page 13 note 1} Wendling, E., Entstehung, p. 53.Google Scholar

^{Page 13 note 2} Cf. Wendling, E., Entstehung, p. 53.Google Scholar

^{Page 13 note 3} Cf. Lagrange, , Mark, p. 148Google Scholar: ‘…puisqu’il n'a pas fréquenté les écoles rabbiniques…’.

^{Page 13 note 4} So for example Grundmann, W., Markus, p. 120.Google Scholar

^{Page 14 note 1} B1.-Debr. § 298, 2.

^{Page 14 note 2} Cf. Acts vi. 3, 10, where the juxtaposition of πνεūμα and σοφ│α also represents the wisdom-address as a gift of God (Wilckens, U., Th.W. VII, 515, 7 f.Google Scholar).

^{Page 14 note 3} Cf. Schulz, S., Botschaft, pp. 46, 54 f., 73 f.Google Scholar

^{Page 14 note 4} John (vi. 42) answers the πóθεν according to his christology of pre-;existence. The fact that Mark does not answer in this way is a further indication of his ignorance of that idea (with P. Vielhauer, E. Schweizer, S. Schulz against J. Schreiber).

^{Page 14 note 5} Cf. for this Vielhauer, P., Aufs. p. 212.Google Scholar

^{Page 14 note 6} For this cf. Schulz, S., Botschaft, pp. 46 ff.Google Scholar: ‘Das Inkognito des Gottmenschen’.

^{Page 14 note 7} Cf. Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jenz, p. 214.Google Scholar

^{Page 14 note 8} Cf. Schulz, S., Botschaft, p. 63.Google Scholar

^{Page 14 note 9} Cf. Blinzler, J., ‘Die Bruder und Schwestern Jesu’, S.B.S. XXI (1967).Google Scholar

^{Page 14 note 10} For this cf. Blinzler, J., ‘Brüder’, pp. 28 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 15 note 1} Kiostermann, E., Markus, p. 55Google Scholar; Bornkamm, G., Jesus von Nazareth (1956), p. 181 n. 3Google Scholar; Grundmann, W., Markus, p. 120.Google Scholar

^{Page 15 note 2} J. Biinzier, p. 47 n. 29: ‘Angenommen, Jakobus und Joses seien die Söhne einer Schwester der Herrenmutter, Judas und Simon die Söhne eines Bruders des hi. Joseph gewesen, dann hätte die Äußerung der Nazarethaner bei Mk lauten müssen: “Ist das nicht…der Sohn der Schwester der Mutter des Jakobus und Joses, der Sohn des Bruders des Vaters des Judas und Simon?” ’

^{Page 15 note 3} Jesus (² 1950), p. 220.Google Scholar

^{Page 16 note 1} Cf. Dibelius, M., Formgeschichte, p. 53.Google Scholar

^{Page 16 note 2} Cf. Stählin, G., Skandalon. Untersnchungen zur Geschichte eines biblischen Begrffs (1930), pp. 136 ff.Google ScholarHumbert, A., ‘Essai d’une théologie du scandale dans Jes synoptiques’, in Biblica, XXXV (1964), 1–28.Google Scholar

^{Page 16 note 3} Cf. Stählin, G., Th.W. VII, 349 n. 61.Google Scholar

^{Page 16 note 4} Burkill, T. A., Mysterious Revelation, p. 139.Google Scholar

^{Page 16 note 5} So correctly Stählin, G., Th.W. VII, 350, 5ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 16 note 6} Cf. Lightfoot, R. H., History, p. 188 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{Page 16 note 7} Frühgeschichte, p. 44.

^{Page 16 note 8} Cf. p. 8 above.

^{Page 16 note 9} Entstehung, p. 55.

^{Page 17 note 1} Weiss, B., Markus, p. 90Google Scholar; cf. also Branscomb, , Mark, p. 101.Google Scholar

^{Page 17 note 2} So correctly Schweizer, E., N.T.D. I, p. 69.Google Scholar

^{Page 17 note 3} Burkill, T. A., Mysterious Revelation, p. 139.Google Scholar His conjecture that the original tradition ended with υ. 5 a deserves to be mentioned. This oldest tradition would then be an impressive illustration of the baneful consequences of unbelief; those who do not show the respect and honour which are due to the divine prophet necessarily preclude themselves from receiving the marvellous blessings which he can bestow upon them. If this is so, verse 5b may have been added by St Mark (Matt. xiii. 58 seems to presuppose a Markan text which included verse 5b) who mistook verses a and 6 to signify that Jesus was completely frustrated by the hostility of his own people; by interpolating verse b he transforms a complete failure into a partial one. Nevertheless, I think that v. 5b can be explained more easily as the addition of a later writer. See what follows.

^{Page 18 note 1} Cf. Schweizer, E., N.T.D. I, p. 222.Google Scholar

^{Page 18 note 2} Conzelmann, H., ‘Gegenwart und Zukunft in der syn. Tradition’, Z. Th.K. LIV (1957), p. 294Google Scholar; Ed. Schweizer, , Z.N.W. (1965), p. 8Google Scholar; Schulz, S., Botschafl, p. 15Google Scholar; Marxsen, W., Einleitung in das NT (³ 1964), p. 122Google Scholar; Weeden, Th. G., ‘The Heresy that Necessitated Mark's Gospel’, Z.N.W. (1968), pp. 145 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 18 note 3} We use this expression in the following as a cipher for specific facts which can be comprehended by it, and not in the sense of a fixed motif of Religionsgeschichte (for criticism cf. Martitz, W. V., Th. W. VIII, 337 ff.Google Scholar and E. Schweizer, ibid. p. 367, 16 ff.). That the expression θετος άυήρ is not to be found either in the miracle stories before Mark or in the Markan redaction does not mean anything, for the christology of Mark here as there is not included in the title, but in the theme which governs the material. So correctly Vielhauer, P., Aufs. p. 154Google Scholar; Schulz, S., Botschqft, p. 69Google Scholar; cf. also p. 46, especially note 57.

^{Page 19 note 1} Conzelmann, H., Historie und Theologie, p. 40.Google Scholar On the theological primacy of δύυαμις in Mark cf. Robinson, J. M., Geschichtsuerständnis, pp. 67fif.Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., Neotestamentica, pp. 95 ff.Google Scholar; Eu. Th. X1V (1964), pp. 340 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 19 note 2} Cf. Held, H.-J., Mt als Interpret der Wundergeschichten, p. 183.Google Scholar

^{Page 19 note 3} Cf. Luz, U., Z.N.W. (1965), p. 17.Google Scholar

^{Page 19 note 4} Cf. Schulz, S., Botschaft, p. 63.Google Scholar

^{Page 19 note 5} ibid. p. 64. Cf. Chr. Maurer, , ‘Das Messiasgeheimnis des Markusevangeliums’, N.T.S. XIV (1967/1968), pp. 515 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 19 note 6} Cf. Schweizer, E., Z.N.W. (1965), p. 8 n. 37.Google Scholar

^{Page 19 note 7} Cf. Conzelmann, H., Grundriß der nil. Theologie, p. 159Google Scholar; Kummel, W. C., Einleitung in das NT (¹⁴ 1965), pp. 50ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 20 note 1} Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu, p. 215.Google Scholar

^{Page 20 note 12} Cf. Conzelmann, H., Historie, p. 40.Google Scholar

^{Page 20 note 13} Hoskyns, E. and Davey, N., Das Rätsel des NT (1957), pp. 101 f., 110Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., Grundrß der ntl. Theologie, p. 163Google Scholar; Ph. Vielhauer, , Aufs. pp. 213 f.Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., Z.N.W. (1965), p. 3Google Scholar; N.T.D. I, p. 222.Google Scholar

^{Page 20 note 14} Cf. Conzelmann, H., Historie, p. 44Google Scholar; Schulz, S., Botschaft, p. 75.Google Scholar

^{Page 21 note 11} On the theme of miracle and faith cf. Schiatter, A., Der Glaube im NT (⁶ 1963), pp. 150 ff.Google Scholar; Bieler, L., −ΕΙΟΣ ΑΝΗρ, I, 113 ff.Google Scholar; Held, H. J., Matthus als Interpret der Wundergeschichten, WMANT I (1960), pp. 264 ff.Google Scholar; Robinson, J. M., The Problem of History in Mark (² 1962), pp. 73 ff.Google Scholar; Schulz, S., Botsehafi, pp. 64 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 21 note 2} So Ebeling, G., Won und Glaube (1960), pp. 220 ff., 236 f.Google Scholar

^{Page 21 note 3} So Käsemann, E., Exegetische Versuche und Bes. I (1964), 228Google Scholar; RGG, ³ II, 995.Google Scholar For the discussion cf. Gässer, E., Den Glaube im Hebräerbnief (1965), pp. 71 ff.Google Scholar

^{Page 21 note 4} Cf. Burkill, T. A., Mysterious Revelation, p. 138.Google Scholar Rightly also Johnson, S. E., St Mark, p. 14Google Scholar: άπιστία means that ‘which shuts out the grace of God’.

^{Page 21 note 5} Conzelmann, H., Historic, p. 47.Google Scholar

^{Page 21 note 6} Cf. Conzelmann, H., Historic, p. 48.Google Scholar

^{Page 21 note 7} So Schweizer, E., N.T.D. I, p. 69.Google Scholar

^{Page 21 note 8} So for example Kümmel, W. G., Einl. p. 45.Google Scholar

^{Page 22 note 1} Hahn, F., Das Verständis der Mission im N. T. (1963), pp. 102 f.Google Scholar; cf. also Grundmann, W., Markus, pp. 13 f.Google Scholar; Pesch, R., Naherwartungen, p. 59 n. 80.Google Scholar

^{Page 22 note 2} Cf. Vielhauer, P., Aufs. pp. 208 f.Google Scholar

^{Page 22 note 3} Cf. on this Conzelmann, H., Historie, pp. 43 f.Google Scholar

^{Page 22 note 4} Cf. H. R. Preuss, Galiläa im Markus-Evangelium. Diss. Göttingen, 1966, pp. 182 ff.

^{Page 22 note 5} Schweizer, E., N.T.D. I, p. 70.Google Scholar

^{Page 22 note 6} Schulz, S., Botschaft, p. 68Google Scholar; Schweizer, cf. E., N.T.D. I, p. 70.Google Scholar

^{Page 22 note 7} Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu, p. 220.Google Scholar

^{Page 22 note 8} Cf. on this Robinson, J. M., Geschichtsverstãndnis, p. 101.Google Scholar

^{Page 22 note 9} ibid.

^{Page 23 note 1} Schreiber, J., Theologze, pp. 235 f.Google Scholar

^{Page 23 note 2} Schweizer, E., N.T.D. I, p. 70.Google Scholar