Mark 14:61

ἐσιώπα καὶ οὐκ�. So [3333][3334][3335][3336] 33. Again the double negative and superfluous fulness; Mt. has ἐσιώπα only. Euthymius gives two reasons for the silence; βλέπων μὲν καὶ τὸ δικαστήριον παράνομον, εἰδὼς δὲ καὶ ὅτι μάτην�. With regard to the first, the Sanhedrin had no right to make Him a prisoner, no right to hold a nocturnal sitting, no right to use false witnesses in support of an iniquitous prejudgment. Moreover, by declaring their inability to decide whether the Baptist had a Divine commission, they had abdicated. There was nothing for Him to reply to, for all evidence against Him had broken down. All three Gospels have ἀπεκρίνατο (Matthew 27:12; Luke 23:9). The aor. mid. is rare both in LXX. and N.T. (Luke 3:16; John 5:17; John 5:19, but not Mark 12:23; Acts 3:12).

[3333] Codex Sinaiticus. 4th cent. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Katharine on Mount Sinai. Now at St Petersburg. The whole Gospel, ending at Mark 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1911.

[3334] Codex Vaticanus. 4th cent., but perhaps a little later than א. In the Vatican Library almost since its foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest treasures. The whole Gospel, ending at Mark 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1889.

[3335] Codex Ephraemi. 5th cent. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out, and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it; but a great deal of the original writing has been recovered; of Mark we have Mark 1:17 to Mark 6:31; Mark 8:5 to Mark 12:29; Mark 13:19 to Mark 16:20. In the National Library at Paris.

[3336] Codex Regius. 8th cent. An important witness. At Paris. Contains Mark 1:1 to Mark 10:15; Mark 10:30 to Mark 15:1; Mark 15:20 to Mark 16:20, but the shorter ending is inserted between Mark 16:8 and Mark 16:9, showing that the scribe preferred it to the longer one.

πάλιν … ἐπηρώτα. This does not mean that the high-priest repeated his question, but that he made another appeal. The appeal is quite a new one. Jesus had accepted the acclamations of those who hailed Him as “He that cometh” and as “the Son of David.” Did He Himself claim to be the Messiah? the Son of the Blessed? The latter expression would be used in order to avoid using the Divine Name. Mt. substitutes “the Son of God,” having stated that Caiaphas put this question with a solemn adjuration, Ἐξορκίζω σε κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. After such words there was no point in avoiding the Divine Name. Jewish thought had by no means always identified the Messiah with the Son of God. But it was sometimes done; e.g. Enoch cv. 2; 2Es 7:28-29; 2Es 14:9; and Caiaphas would know this. For the Sanhedrin’s purpose it was much more important that Jesus should be got to claim the latter title. The populace had not hailed Him as the Son of God; if He could be led to say that He was the Son of God, a charge of blasphemy could be established. Elsewhere in N.T. εὐλογητός is a predicate of ὁ Θεός in doxologies.