Mark 14:4

An Exegetical Analysis of γὰρ in Mark 14:5 and Matthew 26:9: Implications for Reported Speech and Narrative Voice

The synoptic accounts of the anointing at Bethany (Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9) present a complex exegetical challenge when compared with John’s version (John 12:1-8). Specifically, the function of the postpositive particle γὰρ in Mark 14:5 and Matthew 26:9 raises questions regarding the nature of the reported speech and the narrative voice. While John explicitly attributes the criticism of waste to Judas Iscariot, Matthew and Mark state that “the disciples” or “some” were indignant and said, “To what purpose is this waste?” The subsequent clause, introduced by γὰρ, explains *why* it was considered a waste, stating that the ointment “could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” This analysis will investigate whether this γὰρ clause represents a continuation of the direct speech of the indignant individuals, a summary of their thoughts, or an explanatory comment from the evangelist, exploring the grammatical and rhetorical implications for understanding the narrative and its portrayal of the characters’ perspectives.

Mark 14:4-5 (Nestle 1904)

Ἦσαν δέ τινες ἀγανακτοῦντες πρὸς ἑαυτούς, καὶ λέγοντες, Εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη τοῦ μύρου γέγονεν; 5 Ἠδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο πραθῆναι ἐπάνω τριακοσίων δηναρίων, καὶ δοθῆναι τοῖς πτωχοῖς.

Matthew 26:8-9 (Nestle 1904)

Ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἠγανάκτησαν, λέγοντες, Εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη; 9 Ἠδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ μύρον πραθῆναι πολλοῦ, καὶ δοθῆναι πτωχοῖς.

John 12:4-6 (Nestle 1904)

Λέγει οὖν εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ, Ἰούδας Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτης, ὁ μέλλων αὐτὸν παραδιδόναι, 5 Διὰ τί τοῦτο τὸ μύρον οὐκ ἐπράθη τριακοσίων δηναρίων, καὶ ἐδόθη πτωχοῖς; 6 Εἶπεν δὲ τοῦτο, οὐχ ὅτι περὶ τῶν πτωχῶν ἔμελεν αὐτῷ, ἀλλ’ ὅτι κλέπτης ἦν, καὶ τὸ γλωσσόκομον εἶχεν, καὶ τὰ βαλλόμενα ἐβάσταζεν.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• Mark 14:4: SBLGNT omits καὶ before λέγοντες.
• Mark 14:5: SBLGNT adds τὸ μύρον after τοῦτο.
• Matthew 26:8: SBLGNT omits αὐτοῦ after μαθηταὶ.
• John 12:4: SBLGNT omits the comma before Ἰούδας.
• John 12:6: SBLGNT omits commas before οὐχ ὅτι and after αὐτῷ. SBLGNT reads ἔχων (present participle) instead of εἶχεν (imperfect indicative).

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes

The textual tradition for γὰρ in Mark 14:5 and Matthew 26:9 is overwhelmingly stable across major textual witnesses, including significant early manuscripts and versions. The NA28 apparatus indicates no variants concerning the presence or absence of this particle in these specific verses, affirming its secure place in the text. The primary textual variations noted (as listed above for SBLGNT comparison) are minor and do not impact the core question of γὰρ‘s function.

Lexically, several terms are crucial for this exegesis:

• γὰρ (gar): This postpositive conjunction typically indicates cause or explanation, functioning to elaborate on a preceding statement or thought (BDAG, s.v. “γὰρ”). It can introduce the reason for an action, a thought, or a statement. Importantly, γὰρ is frequently used in both direct and indirect speech contexts to provide an explanation or justification from the speaker’s perspective, or by the narrator to explain something to the reader (e.g., Mark 8:35-38 in the example provided in the original text, where a series of γὰρ clauses continues Jesus’ direct speech).
• λέγω (legō): Meaning “to say, speak, tell” (BDAG, s.v. “λέγω”), this verb introduces speech or thought. In an oral culture, the distinction between a direct, verbatim quote and a reported summary of what was said or a widely circulated sentiment can be fluid. The use of λέγοντες (present participle, “saying”) in Mark 14:4 and Matthew 26:8 indicates an ongoing act of speech.
• ὅτι (hoti): As a conjunction, ὅτι can introduce both direct speech (functioning much like quotation marks) and indirect speech, or it can serve as a causal conjunction meaning “because” (BDAG, s.v. “ὅτι”). In John 12:6, it is used causally to explain Judas’s motive. While related to reported speech, its function differs from γὰρ in that it does not inherently serve an explanatory role for a preceding statement in the same way γὰρ does.
• ἀγανακτέω (aganakteō): Meaning “to be indignant, be angry, be annoyed” (BDAG, s.v. “ἀγανακτέω”), this verb describes a strong emotional reaction, indicating displeasure or outrage. In the context of the anointing, the indignation stems from the perceived “waste.”
• ἀπώλεια (apōleia): Meaning “destruction, ruin, waste” (BDAG, s.v. “ἀπώλεια”), in these passages it specifically refers to the perceived squandering of a valuable resource. The monetary value ascribed to the ointment is central to the complaint.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The central exegetical problem in Mark 14:5 and Matthew 26:9 revolves around the scope of the direct speech introduced by λέγοντες and the function of the subsequent γὰρ clause. Both evangelists use a similar construction: an introductory clause describing the disciples’ indignation (ἠγανάκτησαν in Matthew, ἀγανακτοῦντες in Mark) followed by λέγοντες, introducing direct speech (“Εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη;” / “To what purpose is this waste?”). The question is whether the following γὰρ clause (“Ἠδύνατο γὰρ τοῦτο πραθῆναι…” / “For this could have been sold…”) remains part of their direct speech or constitutes an explanatory comment by the narrator.

Grammatical Analysis:

The conjunction γὰρ typically introduces a reason or explanation for the preceding statement. When it appears within reported speech, it generally signals that the speaker is offering their own explanation or justification. Mark’s style, as evidenced by passages like Mark 8:35-38, often employs a series of γὰρ clauses to continue the direct discourse, with each clause explaining or elaborating on the previous one, all still attributed to the original speaker. Similarly, Mark 5:28 (“ἔλεγεν γὰρ ὅτι ἐὰν ἅψωμαι…” / “For she said, ‘If I touch…’“) shows γὰρ introducing the woman’s reasoning for her action, which is itself reported speech.

In Mark 14:4-5, the initial direct question “Εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη τοῦ μύρου γέγονεν;” (“To what purpose has this waste of the ointment occurred?”) clearly comes from the indignant individuals. The subsequent γὰρ clause provides the immediate and logical reason for their assessment of “waste”: its high monetary value and potential use for the poor. If the evangelist intended a narrative aside, a different construction might be expected (e.g., a new sentence or a more explicit narrator marker). The seamless transition strongly suggests that the γὰρ clause continues the expression of the disciples’ indignation, articulating the economic rationale behind their protest. This aligns with Mark’s general tendency to attribute comments to specific individuals or groups (Mark 14:4 states “some were indignant… and saying”).

Matthew’s account in 26:8-9 mirrors Mark’s construction very closely, also employing ἠγανάκτησαν, λέγοντες followed by the direct question and the γὰρ clause. The grammatical structure supports the same conclusion: the γὰρ clause provides the disciples’ rationale, voiced as part of their complaint.

Rhetorical Analysis:

From a rhetorical perspective, attributing the γὰρ clause to the indignant disciples has several effects:

• Heightened Immediacy: It allows the reader to hear the disciples’ full argument and perspective directly, immersing them in the scene and the conflict it generates.
• Characterization: It characterizes the disciples as having a specific, pragmatic (though misguided) reasoning for their indignation, rooted in economic considerations and concern for the poor (even if this concern is ultimately revealed as a pretext in John’s account, particularly for Judas).
• Narrative Consistency: It maintains a consistent narrative voice for the disciples’ protest, flowing directly from their initial exclamation. If it were a narrator’s comment, it would momentarily shift the narrative perspective, which is less likely given the direct speech markers.

The “oral culture” argument, as raised in the initial discussion, is relevant here. In such a context, what is “said” might not always be a precisely recorded verbatim utterance but could represent a widely circulating sentiment or the gist of a collective complaint. The γὰρ clause could therefore represent the collective, underlying reasoning that fueled the disciples’ indignation, even if not every single individual articulated the full sentence aloud. This interpretation harmonizes the grammatical evidence for it being part of the reported thought/speech with the realities of oral transmission.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on the grammatical analysis of γὰρ‘s function in reported speech and the typical narrative style of Mark and Matthew, it is most probable that the γὰρ clause in Mark 14:5 and Matthew 26:9 forms part of the direct or reported speech of the indignant disciples. It provides their immediate explanation and justification for considering the anointing an act of “waste.” The flow of the text, particularly with λέγοντες preceding, strongly indicates that the reason for their indignation is articulated by them, not solely by the narrator.

Three possible translation suggestions for Mark 14:4-5 are offered below, each with a brief explanation highlighting the nuances of interpretation regarding the γὰρ clause:

1. “But some were indignant among themselves, and saying, ‘To what purpose has this waste of the ointment occurred? For this could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.‘ And they were grumbling against her.”

   This translation understands the γὰρ clause as a direct continuation of the disciples’ speech, representing their explicit reasoning for their indignation. The italics are used here for emphasis of the analyzed clause, not as a textual feature.

2. “But some were indignant among themselves, saying, ‘Why this waste of ointment? It could have been sold for over three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor.‘ And they began to rebuke her.”

   This option also treats the γὰρ clause as part of the reported speech, but renders it more smoothly into English, often by omitting “for” when the explanatory nature is inherent in the flow of argument. It subtly implies a rhetorical question followed by an immediate answer or justification from the speakers themselves.

3. “But some were indignant among themselves, and saying, ‘To what purpose has this waste of the ointment occurred?’ (For it could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.) And they were grumbling against her.”

   This translation treats the γὰρ clause as a narrator’s parenthetical explanation of the *reason* for the disciples’ complaint, rather than words explicitly uttered by them. While grammatically possible, it is less likely given Mark’s usage of γὰρ within direct discourse and the immediate context following λέγοντες. The parentheses explicitly mark it as an authorial aside.

In conclusion, the first two translations are preferred, reflecting the strong grammatical and rhetorical evidence that the disciples themselves voice the economic rationale for their indignation. This interpretation provides richer characterization and maintains a consistent narrative perspective on their spoken protest, even if the “saying” encapsulates a general sentiment rather than a precisely recorded verbatim statement.