¹ Although this tripartite classification is widely accepted by gospel critics, it is rejected by some (so Maddox, R., ‘The Function of the Son of Man according to the Synoptic Gospels’, NTS 15 [1968–1969] 73).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Υίὸς τοῦ θεοῦ is omitted from several manuscripts, including ℵ# Θ 28 pc arm^pt Ir Or Bas Viet Hier^pt.

³ I refer the reader to the standard introductions to the New Testament and the Synoptic Problem for a consideration of the various arguments. Guthrie, D. (New Testament Introduction [London: Tyndale, 1970])Google Scholar and Stein, R. H. (The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction [Nottingham: IVP, 1988])Google Scholar, among a host of others, take the conservative line. Butler, B. C. (The Originality of St Matthew [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1951])Google Scholar and Farmer, W. R. (The Synoptic Problem [Dillsboro: Western North Carolina, 1964])Google Scholar are among the dissenters. An important critique of the Griesbach hypothesis can be found in Talbert, C. H., McKnight, E. V., ‘Can the Griesbach Hypothesis Be Falsified?’, JBL 91 (1972) 338–68.Google Scholar

⁴ So Gundry, R. H., Mark - A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 596–603.Google Scholar

⁵ So Pryke, E. J., Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel (Cambridge: CUP, 1978) 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Johnson, E. S., ‘Mark 10.46–52: Blind Bartimaeus’, CBQ 40 (1978) 191–3;Google ScholarBest, E., Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSS 4; Sheffield: JSOT, 1981) 139.Google Scholar

⁷ Pryke, (Redactional Style, 24)Google Scholar, for instance, refers to Mark 10.46–52 as a case of ‘Marcan Literary Construction’.

⁸ Burger, C., Jesus als Davidssohn (FRLANT 98; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 59–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Johnson, , CBQ 40 (1978) 191–204,Google Scholar who feels that these verses, though secondary, are pre-Markan.

⁹ Mark's characteristic use of ἅρχομαι + infinitive is considered by Pryke, (Redactional Style, 79–87).Google Scholar Of the 26 instances of this device in Mark, he considers 20 to be certainly redactional (1.45; 2.23; 4.1; 5.20; 6.2, 7, 34, 55; 8.11, 31, 32; 10.28, 32, 41, 47; 11.15; 12.1; 13.5; 14.19, 33). See also the earlier work of Turner, C. H., ‘Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical on the Second Gospel - VIII’, JTS 28 (1927) 352–3.Google Scholar Note, however, the objections of Best (Following Jesus, 140) to the redactional nature of ἅρχομαι in this case.

¹⁰ Gundry, , Mark, 597.Google ScholarRobbins, (‘The Healing of Blind Bartimaeus [10:46–52] in the Marcan Theology’, JBL 92 [1973] 224–43)Google Scholar also seeks to distinguish between the themes of discipleship and christology, but argues that in 10.46–52 they inform one another. See also Weeden, T. J., Mark - Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 59–64.Google Scholar

¹¹ It has been argued that the mantle (ίμάτιον) which Bartimaeus discarded was not generally worn, but was used for the collection of alms (see Hooker, M. D., The Gospel according to St Mark [London: A. & C. Black, 1991] 253).Google Scholar

¹² The only instance of ἑν τῇ ὁδῷ outside the discipleship section is in 8.3.

¹³ So Hooker, , Mark, 198.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The Synoptic parallels reverse this order: Κύριε ἑλέησον ἡμᾶς υίὲ Δαυίδ (Matt 20.30); Ἰησοῦ υίὲ Δαυίδ, ἐλέησόν με (Luke 18.38).

¹⁵ The possible therapeutic nature of the Son of David is argued by Berger, K., ‘Die königlichen Messiastraditionen des Neuen Testaments’, NTS 20 (1973–1974) 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Kelber, W. H., The Kingdom in Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 94.Google Scholar

¹⁷ But not so uncommon in later Judaism (see the rabbinic evidence marshalled in Strack, H. L., Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch 4 [München: P. Beck, 1924] 26).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Significantly, the cleansing of the Temple (11.15–18) comes hard on the heels of this episode, whereas in John this event is brought forward by some way (John 2.13–22).

¹⁹ See the discussions in Manson, T. W., ‘The Cleansing of the Temple’, BJRL 33 (1950–1951) 271–82;Google ScholarSmith, C. W. F., ‘No Time for Figs’, JBL 79 (1960) 315–27;Google Scholaridem, ‘Tabernacles in the Fourth Gospel and Mark’, NTS 9 (1962–1963) 130–6;Google ScholarBurkitt, F. C., ‘“W” and “Θ”: Studies in the Western Text of Mark - “Hosanna”’, JTS 17 (1916) 139–52;CrossRefGoogle ScholarFarmer, W. R., ‘The Palm-Branches in John 12:13’, JTS ns. 3 (1952) 62–6;Google ScholarMastin, B. A., ‘The Date of the Triumphal Entry’, NTS 16 (1969–1970) 76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Derrett, J. D. M., ‘Law in the New Testament: The Palm-Sunday Colt’, New Testament Studies 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978) 165–83.Google Scholar

²¹ The connection is made in certain early Christian literature (e.g. Justin Apology 1.32).

²² Especially Gundry, , Mark, 632–3.Google Scholar

²³ See also John 12.15.

²⁴ Matt 21.9: Ὡσαννὰ τῷ υίῷ Δαυίδ; Luke 19.38: ΕὐλογημένοςὁἐρχόμενοςὁβασιλεὐςἐνὀνόματιΚυρίου; see also John 12.13: Ὡσαννά Εὺλογημένος ὀ ἑρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου, καί ὀ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.

²⁵ Of course, the idea might conceivably be that Jesus is the one who has the authority to requisition the tethered colt which, by implication, is the rightful property of the ruler of Judah.

²⁶ Hooker, , Mark, 257.Google Scholar

²⁷ Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKK 2.2; Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979) 114.Google Scholar Another reason given is that carpeting the road with garments (11.8) would seem unnecessary if Jesus was riding a colt.

²⁸ We should be aware, however, that this abrupt change of number, from plural to singular, is a relatively common Markan trait (1.21; 5.1–2; 10.46; 11.15, 27) and need not always be very significant.

²⁹ Καί + verb of motion (εἰσῆλθεν) + εἰς + location; characteristic use of περιβλεψάμενος (five times in Mark, but only once elsewhere in the gospels). For further details see Best, E., The Temptation and the Passion (SNTSMS 2; Cambridge: CUP, 1965) 82;Google ScholarNeirynck, F., Duality in Mark (BETL 31; Leuven: Leuven University, 1972) 52;Google ScholarPryke, , Redactional Style, 24Google Scholarpassim.

³⁰ Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘The Son of David Tradition and Mt. 22:41–16 and Par.’, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London: Chapman, 1971) 122–6.Google Scholar

³¹ Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963) 51,136–7.Google Scholar

³² Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St Mark (London: MacMillan, 2nd ed. 1966) 492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ Bultmann, , History, 136–7;Google ScholarBranscomb, B. H., The Gospel of Mark (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1937) 224.Google Scholar

³⁴ Bultmann, , History, 137.Google Scholar

³⁵ j.Ta'an 4.8.68d; b.San. 97b, 98a all attribute the messianic use of Son of David to rabbis of the early-mid-second century AD. The earliest extant reference to such a use (probably embodying an even earlier tradition) is apparently Mid. R. Gen. 85.153a, which dates from the latter half of the third century AD. See Lane, , Mark, 437 n. 66.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ferguson, J., ‘The Cleansing of the Temple’, ModCh 24 (1981) 30.Google Scholar

³⁷ See Lane, , Mark, 435–6.Google Scholar This interpretation would correspond to the suggestion of Hahn, (Titles, 252)Google Scholar that the πόθεν of v. 37 should be rendered not ‘whence?’ (ASV) or ‘how?’ (RSV), but ‘in what sense?’

³⁸ So Lane, , Mark, 436;Google ScholarCranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel according to Mark (Cambridge: CUP, 1959) 382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁹ Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone, 1956) 163–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Only in Mark 6.2; 8.4; 12.37.

⁴¹ Gundry, (Mark, 723)Google Scholar suggests that the origin in question is the Old Testament. The question καί πόθεν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν υίός; is not rhetorical, but demands an answer: ‘Where in the Scriptures does one find the scribal view that the Messiah is David's son?’

⁴² John 7.27bis, 28; 8.14bis; 9.29, 30.

⁴³ Brandon, S. G. F. (The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church [London: SPCK, 1951])Google Scholar works on the hypothesis that Mark's Gospel actually post-dates that cataclysmic event, and is to be understood against the background of the triumphal march into Rome by Titus in AD 71, with the slaves of Judea in his train.

⁴⁴ Kelber, , Kingdom, 96–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ambrozic, A. M., The Hidden Kingdom. A Redaction-Critical Study of the References to the Kingdom of God in Mark's Gospel (CBQMS 2; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1972) 43.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Several attempts have been made to show that the presentation by Matthew and Mark of Jesus as a healing and exorcising Son of David represents a significant christological development within the New Testament. Among the relevant studies are: Duling, D. C., ‘Solomon, Exorcism and the Son of David’, HTR 68 (1975) 232–52;CrossRefGoogle Scholaridem, ‘The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew's Christological Apologetic’, NTS 24 (1977–1978) 392–410;Google ScholarChilton, B. D., ‘Jesus ben David: Reflections on the Davidssohnfrage’, JSNT 14 (1982) 88–112;Google ScholarLövestam, E., ‘Jésus fils de David chez les synoptiques’, ST 28 (1974) 97–109;Google ScholarFisher, L. R., ‘Can This Be the Son of David?’, Jesus and the Historian: Written in Honour of Ernest Cadman Colwell (ed. Trotter, F. T.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) 82–97.Google Scholar