Mar_6:14-16. See on Mat_14:1-2. Comp. Luk_9:7-9. Mark bears the impress of the original in his circumstantiality and want of polish in form.
ὁ
βασιλεύς
] in the wider sense
ἀδιαφόρως
χρώμενος
τῷ
ὀνόματι
(Theophylact): the prince (comp. the
ἄρχων
βασιλεύς
of the Athenians, and the like), a more popular but less accurate term than in Matthew and Luke:
ὁ
τετράρχης
. Comp. Mat_2:22.
φανερὸν
γὰρ
ἐγέν
.
τ
.
ὄν
.
αὐτοῦ
] is not to be put in a parenthesis, since it does not interrupt the construction, but assigns the reason for the
ἤκουσεν
, after which the narrative proceeds with
καὶ
ἔλεγεν
.
As object to
ἤκουσεν
(generalized in Matthew and Luke) we cannot, without arbitrariness, think of aught but the contents of Mar_6:12-13. Comp.
ἀκούσας
, Mar_6:16. Antipas heard that the disciples of Jesus preached and did such miracles. Then comes the explanation assigning the reason for this: for His name became known, i.e. for it did not remain a secret, that these itinerant teachers and miracle-workers were working as empowered by Jesus. Comp. also Holtzmann, p. 83. According to Grotius, Griesbach, and Paulus (also Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 797), the object of
ἤκουσεν
is:
τὸ
ὄνομα
αὐτοῦ
, so that
φαν
.
γ
.
ἐγέν
. would be parenthetic. This is at variance with the simple style of the evangelist. According to de Wette, Mark has been led by the alleged parenthesis
φανερὸν
…
αὐτοῦ
to forget the object, so that merely something indefinite, perhaps
ταῦτα
, would have to be supplied. But what carelessness! and still the question remains, to what the
ταῦτα
applies. Ewald (comp. Bengel) takes
φανερὸν
…
προφητῶν
as a parenthesis, which was intended to explain what Herod heard, and holds that in Mar_6:16 the
ἤκουσεν
of Mar_6:14 is again taken up (that instead of
ἔλεγεν
in Mar_6:14
ἔλεγον
is to be read, which Hilgenfeld also prefers; see the critical remarks). But the explanation thus resorted to is not in keeping with the simple style of the evangelist elsewhere (in the case of Paul it would create no difficulty).
ὁ
βαπτίζων
] substantival (see on Mat_2:20). Observe with what delicacy the set evangelic expression
ὁ
βαπτιστής
is not put into the mouth of Antipas; he speaks from a more extraneous standpoint. Moreover, it is clear from our passage that before the death of John he can have had no knowledge of Jesus and His working.
αἱδυνάμεις
] the powers
κατʼ
ἐξοχήν
, i.e. the miraculous powers, the effluence of which he saw now also in the working of the disciples.
Mar_6:15. The difference between these assertions is that some gave Him out to be the Elias, and so to be the prophet who was of an altogether special and distinguished character and destination; but others said: He is a prophet like one of the prophets, i.e. (comp. Jdg_16:7; Jdg_16:11), a usual, ordinary prophet, one out of the category of prophets in general, not quite the exceptional and exalted prophet Elias. Comp. Ewald, p. 258 f. The interpolation of
ἤ
before
ὡς
could only be occasioned by the expression not being understood.[97]
Mar_6:16.
ἀκούσας
] namely, these different judgments. Mark now relates the more special occasion of the utterance of Herod.
ὃν
…
Ἰωάυνην
] a familiar form of attraction. See Winer, p. 148 [E. T. 205].
ἘΓΏ
] has the stress of an evil conscience. Mockery (Weizsäcker) is, in accordance with Mar_6:14 f., not to be thought of.
οὗτος
] anaphorically with emphasis (Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 19): this is he.
αὐτός
] the emphatic He, precisely he, for designation of the identity. Observe the urgent expression of certainty, which the terror-stricken man gives to his conception: This one it is: He is risen!
[97] The Recepta
ὅτι
προφ
.
ἐστίν
,
ἢ
ὡς
εἷς
τῶν
προφ
. would have to be explained: he is a prophet, or (at least) like to one of the prophets.