There is no reason, therefore, derivable from this critical speculation why we should desert the natural understanding of Mark's (and Luke's) narrative and its relation to Matthew's which lies on its surface. And our confidence in it will be greatly strengthened, if we will attend for a little to the alternative interpretations of it which have been proposed. These are very numerous and very divergent. They may be arranged, however, in a not unnatural sequence, and we may thus be enabled to survey them without confusion, and to catch their essential significance with some

ease.

The interpretation which imposes on Mark's (and Luke's) narrative a repudiation by Jesus of the predicate "good", with its involved contrast of Him with God, was already current among the Arians,35 and possibly even in certain. heretical circles of the second century.36 It is only natural that it should be widely adopted again in modern Liberal circles. Wilhelm Wagner in an interesting sketch of the history of the interpretation of the passage37 chooses G.

Omit this unjustified presupposition and no ground remains for either form of conjecture. An (unsuccessful) effort was made long ago by A. Hilgenfeld (Kritische Untersuchungen über die Evangelien Justins, der Clementinischen Homilien, und Marcions, 1850, pp. 220 f., 362, 426; Theologische Jahrbücher, 1853, pp. 207, 235 f.; 1857, pp. 414 ff.; cf. ZWT, 1863, pp. 361-2, note 3) to discover an older form of text of which both Mk. (and Lk.) and Mt. are modifications in doctrinal interests; cf. also W. Bousset, Die Evangeliencitate Justins, 1891, pp. 105-106, and (as a curiosity of critical literature) F. C. Conybeare, Hibbert Journal, I, i (Oct., 1902), pp. 109-112. See the detached note below (note 87).

So we are told explicitly by Athanasius (Migne, Pat. Graec., 26, col. 985 C) and Epiphanius (Pat. Graec., 42, col. 229): see also Ambrose (Pat. Lat., 16, col. 563) and Augustine (Pat. Lat., 42, col. 800); and as well the Clementine Homilies (Pat. Graec., 2, coll. 404, 405), on which see Dom Chapman, ZNTW, IX (1908).

Marcion is reported by Epiphanius, H. 33, 7 (p. 339, cf. p. 315) to have read the passage: "Call me not good; one is good, even God the Father" (but cf. Hippolytus, Ref. Haer., viii, 19). See further Hilgenfeld and Bousset as above, note 34), and especially Th. Zahn Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons,1 II, 1890, pp. 483 f. See the detached note below (note 87).

"ZNTW, viii (1907), p. 156.

Volkmar as the representative of this mode of interpreting it. In Volkmar's view,38 what is given expression in Jesus' reply is that in the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Him God is the sole Good, to whom homage is due. God is the supreme Good, and the adoration of Him the highest aim of the Kingdom of God. "Jesus is the announcer and even the King of the Kingdom of God on Earth, but not the supreme Good itself, which is to be adored. The Son of Man sought only to lead man to the perfect worship of God." To make his meaning clearer he adds: “Also He went (Mk. i. 9) to the baptism of repentance in consciousness of sin (sündbewusst)." Perhaps, however, the spirit of this interpretation is better expressed by no one than by H. J. Holtzmann39 who writes: "We see Him who is addressed, in the consciousness of His own incompleteness, in remembrance of His severe moral battles and conflicts, in prevision of the approaching tidal-wave of a last and most violent trial, draw back, point above, and speak the humbly great word: 'Why callest thou me good? No one is good, except God alone' (Mk. x. 17-18; Lk. xviii. 18-19; cf. with this the deflection of Mt. xix. 16-17 which even the dullest eye must recognize as tendential). There is only one who stands above the world, without variableness or the necessity of ethical development, the eternally unchangeable God. By this, Jesus affirmed the fixed and immovable interval which separates Godhead and manhood in the moral sphere, as in Mk. xiii. 32 = Mt. xxiv. 36 He opens the same gulf between the two natures in the intellectual sphere. On both occasions Jesus takes His stand simply on the side of manhood." He goes on to say that the Lord's prayer, which he insists was not merely given to His disciples but was prayed by Jesus in company with His disciples, bears witness to the same effect, in its petitions for forgiveness and for protection from the evil one.40 Among English writers Die Evangelien oder Marcus und die Synopsis, 1870, p. 469. "Lehrbuch der NT Theologie, II, 1897, p. 268.

251:

Cf. also F. Barth, Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu, 1907, p. "On the one side, Jesus takes His place wholly over against

41

J. M. Thompson affords an example of the same general point of view. "The stress in the last sentence is on 'good' not 'me'," he writes, "but this hardly lessens the force of the passage. It is not enough to suggest that the young man's idea of goodness needed correction, and that Jesus would point him from a wrong to a right meaning of the word. Nor is it Jesus' intention to deny as man any equality with God. The address, 'Good Master' contains no such suggestion. Theology is out of place in this passage, which deals with plain words in a plain way. There is in fact no adequate alternative to the natural interpretation. Jesus did not think Himself 'good' in the sense in which the young man had used the word, and in the sense in which it would be commonly used of God. . . . . . . If He did not at this time feel Himself to be good in the sense in which God is good, neither did He think Himself to be divine in the sense in which God is divine." "A broad distinction is drawn-a distinction which cannot reasonably be confined to the simple ground of 'goodness'-between Jesus and God." Perhaps, however, no more pungent emphasis has been thrown upon this view than that thrown upon it by C. G. Montefiori.42 "The reply of Jesus," he writes, "is of the utmost significance. It is obvious that no divine being would or could have answered thus. Jesus knew Himself to be a man. . . . Yet it is a noble character which peeps through the fragmentary and one-sided records-none the less noble because we may be sure that of Jesus, both in fact and in his own estimate of Himself, the adage was true: 'there is no man that sinneth not'."

1943

God on the side of man, and confesses Himself to possess the imperfection of human nature”—laying no claim to omniscience (Mk. xiii. 32), omnipotence (Mk. x. 40) or moral perfection (Mk. x. 17 f.). This last passage is misinterpreted if it is made to imply the deity of Christ: "the Christ of dogma would have spoken thus; the historical Jesus on the other hand refuses the predicate 'good', as belonging to God alone."

"Jesus according to S. Mark, 1909, p. 159, also p. 254.

"The Synoptic Gospels, 1909, I, pp. 246-7.

"The attitude of P. W. Schmiedel to the sinlessness of Jesus, and

The nerve of this interpretation resides of course in the contention that a repudiation of the epithet "good" is necessarily involved in the question, "Why callest thou me good?" (Mk. x. 18; Lk. xviii. 19). This contention is unjustified: whether the question involves a repudiation of the epithet "good", or is a call to a closer consideration of the implications of the original request, is a matter for the context to determine; and the context very decidedly determines it in the latter sense. Nevertheless the contention is often given very vigorous expression; and by no one is it given more vigorous expression than by Wilhelm Wagner, who writes as follows:44 "Whoever cannot attribute to Jesus. the use of language more to conceal than to reveal His thought, whoever rather holds the opinion that Jesus really meant His words in the sense in which they must be understood by every unprejudiced hearer,-cannot help allowing that Jesus in Mk. x. 18 distinctly distinguishes between God and Himself, and that He just as earnestly rejects the predicate ayalós for Himself here, and reserves it for God, as in Mark xiii. 32 he denies knowledge of the day of the Parousia for His own person and ascribes it to the Father

the bearing of our passage upon it, is revealed in the following words from the paper contributed by him to the volume called Jesus or Christ? printed as a "Hibbert Journal Supplement" for 1908 (p. 68):-"As far as Jesus is concerned, it is certain that all the writers of the New Testament assumed His sinlessness, even though they speak of it with remarkable infrequency. But we are surely not at liberty to see a proof in this aspect of the matter, when we consider the attitude of veneration in which they stood towards Him, and the kind of being whom they held Him to be" [the meaning is that the testimony of the New Testament writers is invalid, because from their point of view they must have held Him sinless]. "Nor can we regard the passage in the Fourth Gospel (viii. 46) as an expression of Jesus Himself in view of the character of the book in which it stands. All the more importance attaches to Mark, x.16-18: 'Why callest thou me good? There is none good save God'. It is true that philologists are now proving with much zeal that the original Aramaic word means 'gracious' [gütig]; but they do not reflect that Jesus cannot have justly regarded Himself as morally good, if He repudiated even the epithet 'gracious'."

"ZNTW, viii (1907), p. 154.

alone." Wagner does not admit, however, that in thus repudiating the predicate "good" of Himself, Jesus confesses Himself a sinner. Thus we are advised that it has been found possible to hold to the interpretation of Jesus' response to the young ruler which sees in it a repudiation of the predicate "good", and yet escapes from the ascription of conscious sin to Jesus. There are in fact more ways than one in which this has been attempted. A series of variant interpretations of our passage has thus arisen, differing from one another in the sense put upon the term "good" or in the explanation offered of Jesus' intention in repudiating that predicate, but agreeing that He does repudiate it in some sense, not involving the confession of sin on His part. Some account should be given of these mediating methods of exposition.

Wagner himself, in company with a considerable number of recent expositors, 45 wishes to take the term "good" in the sense, not of moral excellence, but of graciousness, kindness. This, in itself attractive, suggestion is rendered nugatory, however, by the unfitness of the address, "Kind Master" as a preparation for Jesus' reply. Johannes Weiss seems to be right when he remarks of the ȧyalé: "The questioner clearly wishes to express by it not merely his reverence but also his conviction that Jesus, as a perfect man, is able to give new life and particular information as to

"For example, G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, E. T., p. 337: "The proper translation is 'Kind Master'"; J. Wellhausen on Mark x. 18 (p. 86): "Ayalós means less 'sinless' than ‘gracious'"; Karl Thieme, Die christliche Demut, 1906, pp. 106-7; M. J. Lagrange, on Mk. x. 17: "Goodness of heart (Schanz, Wellhausen, Spitta) rather than moral perfection (Loisy, etc.); ảyalós can mean goodness, it is true, but also the goodness of benevolence (Mt. xx. 15) and this is always the case when in the O. T. it is said that God is 'good' (Spitta: cf. W. Wagner, ZNTW, 1907, pp. 143-161)"; F. Spitta, ZNTW, 14 (1908), pp. 12 ff.; J. Lebreton, Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinité, I, 1910, p. 235, etc. Contra, e.g. Wohlenberg, Kom. zu Markus, p. 273, note 89; P. W. Schmiedel as above, note 41. Wagner thinks that Justin Martyr already took the 'good' here in the sense of 'kind'; but see on this the note of J. Moffat, The Expositor for January, 1908, p. 84.