Mark 3:14 — “Whom He Also Named Apostles”: Addition or Omission?

Passage: Mark 3:14

Received reading: “He appointed twelve, that they should be with him,” without the parenthetical naming clause.

Principal competing reading: “He appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles, that they should be with him.”

Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.

“And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach.” — Mark 3:14

On the mountain Jesus chooses twelve for two linked purposes: to be with him and to be sent to preach. The Textus Receptus passes directly from the number to those purposes. Many witnesses insert the parenthesis, “whom he also named apostles.” Critical editions have variously printed, bracketed, or omitted it.

Luke 6:13 says that Jesus chose twelve “whom also he named apostles.” The verbal agreement is close enough to supply an obvious history of addition. A reader familiar with Luke could place the title beside Mark’s account, first as a marginal clarification and then within the sentence.

A fitting clause can still be secondary

The inserted words suit Mark’s context. The noun apostolos is tied to the verb “send,” and verse 14 says Jesus appointed the men so that he might send them to preach. Naming the “sent ones” at that point creates meaningful wordplay. Internal fitness, however, does not establish that Mark wrote the parenthesis; it explains why a Lukan clarification would be welcomed and retained.

The received sentence is not defective. Appointment, companionship, mission, preaching, and authority over demons define the office without using the noun. Mark later calls the returned missionaries “the apostles” at 6:30, so the Gospel knows the title in an undisputed location.

Omission remains possible. A copyist could move from “twelve” to the purpose clause and skip a parenthesis, particularly in a passage where another statement about making the Twelve appears near verse 16. The early support for the longer form therefore deserves more than dismissal as a late gloss.

Yet Luke’s exact clause gives addition a more specific cause than the omission theory supplies. The phrase explains too neatly what Mark is already showing through the sending verb. Its presence in strong ancient witnesses demonstrates early harmonization or early textual division, not necessarily original authorship.

Mark later uses “apostles” at 6:30 when the sent men return and report their work. That secure occurrence means the office and title do not depend on 3:14. The disputed clause instead explains when the name was conferred. Distinguishing existence from first naming keeps the stakes proportionate and allows the textual decision to rest on transmission rather than on fear that apostolic authority will vanish.

The shorter received form should stand. It leaves apostolic identity fully intact and allows Mark to name the group explicitly when the missionaries return from the work for which they were appointed. This is a case where an attractive, orthodox, ancient sentence can be true and still belong to the parallel rather than to Mark’s line.

Sources and further reading

• F. H. A. Scrivener, ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
• Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010), text and apparatus.
• Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on the stated passage.
• Mark 3:13–19; 6:7, 30; Luke 6:12–16.