Mark 16:9

παρʼ ἧς ([3572][3573][3574] rather than ἀφʼ ἧς ([3575][3576][3577][3578][3579][3580]), an obvious correction.

[3572] 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.

[3573] Codex Bezae. 6th cent. Has a Latin translation (d) side by side with the Greek text, and the two do not quite always agree. Presented by Beza to the University Library of Cambridge in 1581. Remarkable for its frequent divergences from other texts. Contains Mark, except Mark 16:15-20, which has been added by a later hand. Photographic facsimile, 1899.

[3574] 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.

[3575] Codex Alexandrinus. 5th cent. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to King Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. The whole Gospel. Photographic facsimile, 1879.

[3576] Codex Bezae. 6th cent. Has a Latin translation (d) side by side with the Greek text, and the two do not quite always agree. Presented by Beza to the University Library of Cambridge in 1581. Remarkable for its frequent divergences from other texts. Contains Mark, except Mark 16:15-20, which has been added by a later hand. Photographic facsimile, 1899.

[3577] Codex Monacensis. 10th cent. Contains Mark 6:47 to Mark 16:20. Many verses in 14, 15, 16 are defective.

[3578] Codex Oxoniensis. 9th cent. Contains Mark, except Mark 3:35 to Mark 6:20.

[3579] Codex Sangallensis. 9th or 10th cent. Contains the Gospels nearly complete, with an interlinear Latin translation. The text of Mark is specially good, agreeing often with CL. At St Gall.
[3580] Codex Petropolitanus. 9th cent. Gospels almost complete. Mark 16:18-20 is in a later hand.

9. Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωὶ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη. These words again give the impression of a ragged edge. The preceding passage has no proper conclusion. This passage has no proper beginning, for there is no nom. to ἐφάνη. Evidently something has preceded in which Jesus has been mentioned. The two edges do not fit one another. Whatever these twelve verses may be, they were not written as a conclusion to Mk’s account of the first hours of the first Easter Day. Instead of giving the sequel of the first visit to the tomb, they begin with another account of the first visit to the tomb, agreeing with that of Jn, but not agreeing with that of Mk. Mary Magdalen, one of the three women mentioned by Mk, is here quite alone, and she is introduced, not as a person who has just been mentioned, but as a person who needs to be described. In Mark 15:40; Mark 15:47 and Mark 16:1 she is named as one about whom the reader is sure to know; here she is introduced as a stranger. We should probably take πρωί with ἀναστάς rather than with ἐφάνη.

πρώτῃ σαββάτου. The expression is found nowhere in Mk, who never uses either σάββατου or σάββατα in the sense of “week.” Contrast Mark 16:2 and parallels. Excepting Luke 18:12, “the week” in N.T. is generally plural, τῶν σαββάτων. The nearest parallel to πρώτῃ σαββάτου is κατὰ μίαν σαββάτου (1 Corinthians 16:2).

ἐφάνη. Another expression not found elsewhere in N.T. In Luke 9:8, ἐφάνη is used of the reappearance of Elijah, but nowhere is this verb used of an Appearance of the risen Lord. Contrast Luke 24:34; Acts 13:31; Acts 26:16; 1 Corinthians 15:5-8.

παρʼ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει. A third expression not found elsewhere. The usual constr. is ἐκβάλλω ἐκ. Where ἐκ is not suitable we have ἀπό, as in Acts 13:50; Exodus 10:11; Exodus 23:31; Leviticus 21:7, etc.; παρά is not suitable.

ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. Lk. states this in his first mention of Mary Magdalen (Mark 8:2); it indicates an obsession of special malignity. It is out of place to suggest a parallel with the “seven other spirits more evil than himself” (Matthew 12:45), or a contrast with “the seven Spirits which are before His throne” (Revelation 1:4; Revelation 3:1). We have no ground for thinking that Mary of Magdala had been exceptionally wicked, or that demoniacs generally were persons of very vicious lives. See on Mark 15:40. Seven is a typical number, as made up of two other typical numbers, three and four. These ideas about numbers are widely spread, and there is no need to suppose any borrowing from astrology, or Mazdeism, or other foreign sources. Plurality on an impressive scale is meant. The demons could not be counted.