CORNELL

UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

FROM

The Heirs of the -fiuthor

 Cornell University Library
BS2290 .P16
Few notes on the Gospels according to St

3 1924 029 292 145

olin
 Cornell University
Library

The original of tliis book is in

tine Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in

the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029292145
A FEW NOTES ON THE
GOSPELS ACCORDING .

TO ST. MARK AND. . .

ST. MATTHEW. ....

BASED CHIBFCY ON
MODERN GREEK . .

BY

ALEX. PALLIS

LIVERPOOL
THE LIVERPOOL BOOKSELLERS' CO. LTD.
1903
A FEW NOTES ON THE
GOSPELS ACCORDING
TO ST. MARK AND
ST. MATTHEW
A FEW NOTES ON THE
GOSPELS ACCORDING
TO ST. MARK AND
ST. MATTHEW
BASED CHIEFLY ON
MODERN GREEK
By ALEX. PALLIS,1?.ti V'^.^S-

LIVERPOOL
THE LIVERPOOL BOOKSELLERS' CO. LTD.
1903
-^
/ill Rights Reserved
 PREFACE

When I was engaged in translating the Gospels into Romaic,^

I had occasion to examine closely a number of passages which
seemed to me to have been misinterpreted ; in some instances

because the force of the Greek had been misunderstood, and in

others because the text was corrupt. In the following pages will

be found a few brief Notes in which some of these passages are

discussed. So far as I know, the suggestions which I offer are

now put forward for the first time. If, however, it should happen
that any of them have been anticipated by others, I trust that

the omission to acknowledge the fact will be ascribed not to

unwillingness or negligence, but to the circumstance that, being

a busy man, I have not had the leisure to read all the commen-
taries which have been written on the Gospels.
From my Notes it will be seen that my mother tongue can
furnish many clues to New Testament problems. The spirit of

ancient Greek has been preserved with comparative fidelity in its

modern descendant, and I am convinced that a systematic study

of the Scriptures in the light thrown on them by the Romaic
would yield valuable results. To give only one example, a

curious instance of the usefulness of Romaic in Biblical inter-

pretation is afforded by John x. 24, ews ttotc t^v i/'dx^v tJ/j.wv

'
H NBA AIAGHKH Karct rd BariKOcJ x^PhpO'<t>o li^ratjipaaiUvri diri riv

'AX^f. niW-n (Liverpool : The Liverpool Booksellers' Co. Ltd.).

vi PREFACE

oipets, a phrase which survives in the modern is Trore Oa /is

jSya^eis rrjv i^i^x^, Aow long will you plague us ? (See Vlachos, v.

eySya^o), "/iov 2;8yaX t^i/ i/^vx^ [^p.]> >! "^'^ martyrisd ;

assomme ;

harceld.") If, however, the investigation which I advocate is to

be fruitful, it must be carried out in the immediate future. A

strange disposition prevails among the wealthier classes m
Athens to despise their own language, and to regard the use
of French as a mark of gentility; this tendency is aped by
their social inferiors, with the result that Romaic is rapidly

becoming debased and adulterated with Gallicisms, and will

soon lose those characteristics which link it to old Greek, and

have invested it with such nobility and loveliness. Indeed, if

this unfortunate fashion spreads as quickly as it has done of

late years, only the lapse of a few generations will be required
to cause Greek to become practically extinct.^

The present series of Notes relates only to passages in the

Gospels according to St. Mark and St. Matthew, but I hope

shortly to have an opportunity of dealing in the same way with
the other two Gospels.

^ My countrymen fancy that contact with the Turks has spoilt their

language. As a matter of fact, during the Turkish period Greek rather

improved than suffered. Its misfortunes began after the formation of the
Greek kingdom through the action of the Greeks themselves, who first

attacked it with pedantic neologisms, and now strive for its ruin by the
use of a foreign language.
ST. MARK
 ST. MARK

Mark i. 6

'Eo-Ouc dKpiSas Kol fi.Ki aYpiOf.

Many, probably, will agree with the view expressed in the

Encydopmdia Biblica {v. "Husks," p. 2136): "Common sense
tells us that locusts would not have been preferred by the
Baptist as his habitual food to nourishment supplied by the

soil." This observation derives considerable support from the

fact that, in other instances where Jewish tradition represents

men as having been driven into the desert either by stress

of circumstances or by a passion for asceticism, their food is

said to have been what the soil produced. Thus Bavovs,

an ascetic closely resembling the Baptist, is described by

Josephus (
Vif. 2) as Tpo<j)rjV rrjv avTOfjifXTUii <f>voiixvr]V irpoa-tjit-

pofitvoi. Again, Judas Maccabseus, having retired into the

desert, iv tois opeai SU^rj <Tvv Tois p-CT avTov Koi rrjv ^opTtoSt]

Tpoipriv (nrovfievoi BiereXow (2 Macc. v. 27). Compare also

2 Esdr. ix. 26, And there I sat among the flowers, and did eat of

the herbs of the field, and the meat of the same satisfied me xii. 51, ;

But I sat in the field seven days and in those days I did eat only
. . .

of the flowers of the field, and had my meat of the herbs. Also

Dan. iv. 22, 30, xai ypprov ui<i ^ovs ^tr^ic. The writer in the

Encycl. Bibl. suggests that by aKpCSes carob pods are meant.

If this interpretation were possible, it would no doubt remove

 ST. MARK [I- 6
4

one difiSculty ; but there is no authority for aKpU as meaning

anything except a locust, and for a carob pod the Biblical word
is KfpaTwv. Nor are the words /xAi aypiov less puzzling. Eat-

able honey, according to Jewish tradition, was prized as a

delicacy, and was not considered to be hard fare, such as the
context evidently requires. Cp. Ex. iii. 8, ets y^v dyaOrjv cis

y^v peova-av ydka kol fieXi; Ezek. xvi. 19, cre/iiSaXiv Kai cXaiov

KOL /xiX-i, ItpuifiuTO. ere J

Cant. iv. 1 1, Kijpwv aTrocTTO^ovcri X"^'?
arov, vv[ji.<f>ri, etc. We cannot suppose that by p-iXt aypiov in-

edible honey is meant ; for it is incredible that a strict ascetic,

careful of his diet, would eat that which was avoided by ordinary
people. Lastly, I would observe that, whatever the Baptist
ate, his food must necessarily have been such as to sustain
life, and no man can subsist on a diet composed exclusively

of locusts and honey. Locusts and honey at all times could

only have been used as Trpoo-^dyia.
In my opinion, both dxpiSas and piXi are corrupt. With
regard to dxpiSac, I suspect that two words have coalesced into
it, the first of which is obscure,^ but the second of which,
most probably, was pi'^as (PIZA2 PI AAS). Roots, which
consist, according to the popular notion, of all the parts of a
plant that are in the earth, would comprise bulbs and tubers,
such as colocasia antiquorum, and these afford very tolerable
nourishment. Cp. Job xxx. 4, iti^avXurp.ivoi, tVStets iravros
aya^ov, 01 Kai p'iZp.'i fuAuv ip,a(r(rSivTO.

Coming now to the consideration of p.(Xi, it is to be ob-

served that, as is well known, we constantly find in the New

Testament the intentional replacement of words by their syno-
nyms, or by other words which apparently suit the context
equally well. Cp. Matt. v. 47, dSeA^oi-s .^^ovs ; 47, iOviKol
reXZvai; vii. 4, Ik aTrd; viii. 34, ojtus tva; ix. 14, ttoXXo.

' See, however, the Note on p. 46.

 ;

I- 6] ST. MARK 5

TTVKvd; 36, co-KuX/icVot cKAcXu/ttVoi J

X. 2^, tTtpav aXkrjv; xiii.

29, ^ijo-tv Xtyti; 30, (mi fJi-fXPi-', XV. 6, Aoyov vo/xoy evroXijvj

22, tKpa^ar eKpauyoo-ei/ J xvi. 27, tjJi' irpa^iv ra tpya; xviii. I,

oipa ^fiipa; xix. 28, v/xeis arrot; xx. 34,

6p.ii.a.Tiiyv 6<^6aKijmv;
xxi. 31, wTcpos hf.vTtpo's (7xaTos; xxii. 10, vvp.<^mv yti/xos;

xxiv. 45, oi/cToas OfpawfCa's ; Mark i. 26, ^(oi/^o-ai/ Kpd$av

111. 30, afiapriai Kpiircios; iv. 19, atuivos jSwv ; xiv. 44, crva--

cnjp.ov (rr)fiaov ; and numerous other instances. Most instruc-

tive on this point, as showing how recklessly the scribes were
altering the sacred texts from the very earliest days of Christi-
anity, is what we are told by Origen (I take the passage from
Tischendorf's eighth edition of the N.T.), pa/xa o-iy/iatVet tottov

v^/7j\ov, 061V ev TKTi Toll' avTiypaL<f)iov tov Trpo^ijrov yiypaitTai tfxov^

ev ry inl/rjXrj TjKova-Or]. Now p,eAi and KTjpiov are synonyms in

the Sacred Books (cp. Prov. xxiv. 13, ^tiye /leki, vli, ayaOov
yap K-qpLov ; Cant. iv. 11, K-qpiov aTrocrTa^outri x^^^V '^'"i v'vp.tfn],

etc.), and I suspect that K-tipwv stood once in the text; but,
being a comparatively rare word in the sense of honey, it was
replaced by its synonym pAXi on grounds similar to that ad-

duced by Origen in the case of 'Pap.d. Further, I suggest that

KtipCov was a misreading of KapTrov (KAPIION KHPION).

Should I be right, the corruption must have occurred very
early, certainly before the Gospel according to St. Matthew
was compiled, perhaps in a copy made from the archetype
itself. Such, indeed, were the circumstances under which the
first books of the early Christians were written that misread-
ings of this kind could hardly be avoided; for the narratives

circulated in a community of men who were poor and could

only afford cheap writing materials, perhaps second-hand,

faulty membranes and bad ink, and who, being ill-educated,

would probably neither write correctly nor, in copying, take such

pains as a practised literary man would consider necessary.

My conclusion, therefore, is that, instead of l<r6mv ajcpiSas

 ;

6 ST, MARK [II- 7, 19

KOI ^eXi aypiov, the archetype read ia-Ooiv . . . ptfos koi Kaprrov

aypiov, that is, eating roots and wild fruit. With this sentence

compare Strabo, 513, ol p-lv olv tv toTs vijo-ots ow c^"'^*'

a-iropiiJLa 'PIZO^oyoBcri Kot AFPIOIS xP^vrai KAPIIOIS.

Mark ii. 7

OuTCii XaXei.

The force of this phrase has been missed. The meaning

is, he speaks at random, ovtu being equivalent to the classical
avTws (or sometimes outws). The idiom has been preserved in

modern Greek. See Vlachos, Atlwcov 'EXXijvoyaXXiKov, v. ira-i,

"to etira irai [<f>p.], je I'ai dit sans consequence; j'ai parld en
I'air."

Mark ii. 19

Mt| Surarrai 01 uiol Tou i<u)jii|>ui'o; iv u 6 fUfK^ios y.er air&y iari,

n\<rreueiv

I think that the meaning of the word w/xi^Gvos is misunder-

stood when it is taken to indicate a bride-chamber. It is cleap

from Matt. xxii. 10 that banquets were given in the wfi^iav, which-
cannot have been possible in a bride-chamber. The wordj I-

believe, signifies a banqueting-hall, in which the wedding feast'

took place, perhaps also the wedding itself. Such halls are
common in India at the present time. Weddings in that country

are grand affairs, and are followed by very costly entertainments,

on which the savings of many years' hard work are spent. To

these feasts a great number of relatives and friends, or even all

the caste fellows in the place, are invited ; and, as the private
houses are small and totally inadequate for such large gatherings,
public halls of a kind have been provided in which guests are

entertained. It is evident from what we find in the New Testa-

ment (see Matt. xxii. 2 ff.) that weddings in Palestine were also
 ;

in- 14] ST. MARK 7

followed by great feasts, and I venture to suggest that, owing to

circumstances similar to those which prevail in India, public
halls must have existed in that country for the convenience of

those who entertained. This interpretation of vi;/x<^o)v is borne

out by the passage quoted at the head of this paragraph, which
states that the sons of the vv/x.<^<ijv, namely, those who are in the

wfi<j>o}v, cannot be expected to abstain from eating and drinking

in other words, that they are there for the purpose of eating and
drinking. Should my view be correct, then viol rov w/x.^wos
must simply be interpreted, (Ae guests at a wedding.

But, though the context seems to require the interpretation

which I have submitted, there is no denying that vvfi<j)oyv,

according to its formation, should mean a brides quarters, in

which sense we find it in the only two passages of the Old

Testament in which it occurs. It is a point, then, for further
investigation, whether wfi^wv has not displaced ya/ios everywhere

in the New Testament, as it has done apparently in Matt. xxii. lo,

where Codex B gives on the margin the variant ya/^os, written by

the original scribe himself.

Mauk III. 14

Kal eiroiT)0'ci' ScuSeku ous Kai diroaToXous iivofiaaev tva iLaiv jict*

auTOu KOI diroffT^XT) auTOus KT)pua(rcii< koI Ixeti' c|ouo'iai' Ix^iiXXeii'

Tol Saifiofia. Kal eiroiTiaEi' tous Sc^ScKa Kal ir^6ir|KEi' OfOfia tu

Zifiui'i n^Tpoi'.

So runs this passage in Codex B, but we find no small

diversity of reading in other MSS., a circumstance which in itself

proves that the original text has been considerably tampered

with. The passage, as it stands, is in fact highly unsatisfactory

on several grounds. In the first place, liroirjtrev SoSScxa, without

a complement of the predicate, such as we find in phrases like

Acts ii. 36, Kvpiov avTov Kal Xpiarbv iirovrjaev 6 eos, cannot mean
8 ST. MARK [HI- 14

he appointed twelve, as the words are conveniently rendered, but

only he made or created twelve. Nor can we evade the difficulty

by construing tTroirjcrev iva Za-iv, because we should then be

forced to construe iwoCrjo-ev Iva aTroareXXri, and such a construc-
tion is impossible. In the second place, iva airoariXkri e^*"'
i^mHTiav yields no satisfactory sense; at best it might mean so
that he might send them forth to acquire authority, a meaning
which is here inadmissible. Thirdly, the repetition koL fToCrja-tv

instead of iirohiviv ovv is strange and unusual. Fourthly, it is

surprising that the writer should at once proceed to state what

was the surname given to Simon without first mentioning, as is

done in Luke vi. 14, that Simon was appointed one of the apostles.
Lastly, it is equally surprising that the name of Andrew should
be separated from that of his brother Simon, and inserted further
on between those of the brothers John and James and those of
the brothers Philip and Bartholomew. Like John and James,
Simon and Andrew are linked together everywhere else (Matt. iv.

18, 21, X. 2, xvii. I ; Mark i. 16, 19, ix. 2 ; Luke vi. 14, ix. 28;
John i. 45), with the sole exception of Mark xiii. 3, where, however,
'AvSpe'as is an interpolation, because he is there given a special
importance which he is not shown elsewhere to have possessed.
With regard to tiroiijo-ev, I venture to suggest that it is a
corruption of eTotyu-ao-ev (without augment ; see Dr. Jannaris,
Hist. Gr. Gr., 717). Compared palseographically, the two
words, ET01MA2EN EnOIHSEN, are similar enough ; so much
so, that in Ps. cxviii. 73 the reading varies between tTot/iacrai' and
iiroCrja-av. With this alteration the syntax becomes grammatical (cp.
Acts xxm. 23, iToifidarare trTpaTtcuTas Staxocrtovs ottids iropfvOwcnv)

and the sense appropriate, And he made ready twelve, whom also
he named apostles, to the end that they might be with him, and that
he might send them forth to preach. Then in the place of xal

ix^iv roiis SolSeKa, I suspect that there once stood these words,
TrpSyrov ^Cfjuava (this on manuscript authority) Toy toS 'loim Kal


IV. 21, 27] ST. MARK 9

'AvSpiav Tov aS\<jiov tov 2tju,(i)vos, in accordance with the parallel

sentence which follows, 'laKto^ov tov tov Zt^tSalov koI 'Iwdvrjv tov
dSeX<^oi' Tou 'laKw^ov. These words were most likely rubbed off

for the purpose of making room for the sentence, koL c^etv

Saifwvia. As, however, they consisted of fifty-two letters, and

the sentence inserted of only thirty-five, there was a considerable
space left blank, and I suggest that it was with the object of
filling up this gap that the superfluous words koI iiroirjcrtv rois
SoiSe/co were interpolated, this addition bringing up the spurious
letters to fifty-six.

Mark iv. 21

MiQTi pxTai 6 Xux>'OS.

The word ip^erai is impossible, and has been condemned by

several critics. D gives an-Ttrat, and it is such a sense that
we require. I suspect that St. Mark used a Latin root and
wrote apSsTtti (from arded). In St. Matthew we find the equiva-

lent of the Latin word, i.e. Kalova-i (v. 15).

Mark iv. 27

Kal 6 o"ir(Spos pXairra xai juTjKUKETai u$ ouk olZev auras.

The words is ovk olSev avros clash with the spirit of the

passage, expressing as they do a certain surprise in the mind

of the sower that the seed should grow and become a tree
without any trouble being taken by him. The point of the

parable, on the contrary, is that the sower, after sowing, reverts

to his usual life in the certainty that the seed will do its work
though he pays no further attention to it. I am, therefore,

inclined to think that the text originally read, is iKaOcvSev

(EKA0EYAEN OYKOIAEN) avros, wMst he himself was sleep-

ing. For the use of As instead of cms, cp. John ii. 23, xii. 35,

n-fpnraTUTi o)S to <^Ss ev^Tt ; xil. 36.

 lO ST. MARK [VI. 20

Mark vi. 20
'0
Y^P "HpciSrjs i+oPeiTo tAc '\udvy\v ei8i>s airhv ofSpa SiKaioc

KOI aYiof, Kal auccTi^pci adT^i', Kai dKOuo-as ofirou iroXXo rjir^pci,

Kai ii]8^<i>s auToG i^kouec.

A good deal of confusion seems to have crept into this

passage, of which traces exist in the variety of reading which

has come down to us. Codex B omits the particle koi before

crwer^pei. Again, some MSS. give cTroiei instead of ^opa. This

was the reading before the translator of the Syr. Sin., whose
rendering (according to Mrs. Lewis) is and many things that he

heard from him he did. Then, an old Latin version gives quia
miilta faciebat, and another quod multa faciebat. It is indis-

putable that the passage presents serious difficulties. In the

first place, there is no reason why Herod should fear John;
nay, the fact that he seized and imprisoned him is a proof
that he did not. We should have rather expected that, as is

stated in the account given in St. Matthew, Herod, like the

chief priests and the elders,^ feared the people, who revered

John as a saint and a prophet, and was unwilling to exasperate

the multitude by executing him. I incline to think that, where

we now find 'I(oavi;v, there was once a lacuna which was errone-

ously filled in by that word instead of by oxXoi' os, and that

the text originally ran thus, o yap 'HpciSijs iijio/SelTo tov o;(\ov os
ci8a)S aiiTov avSpa Si/catov kol ayiov (TvveTrjpei avTov : For Herod
feared the people, who, knowing that he was a righteous man
and a holy, watched over him. The absence of koX before
crvvT-^pa in Codex B points to the relative pronoun having
dropt out before etSws. In the second place, it is strange that
Herod should listen with pleasure to the very man who was
reproaching him with his misdeeds. Much more likely is it

' See xi. 32.

 1

VI. 21] ST. MARK 1

that ^Biios avTov T^Kovev refers, like the preceding clause, to the

people, who listened to John's preaching with pleasure, just as

they gladly listened to the teaching of Jesus according to the

narrative of St. Mark, which is couched in almost identical terms

(xii. 37), Kol o iroA.rs oxA-os ijkov(v avTov ^Scus. Lastly, with

regard to the words koI axouo-as ovtoC woWa. ^6pu, if what I

have already urged is well founded, they cannot possibly stand

in their present form, as the subject of ^optt would necessarily

be o oxAos ; nor can they stand even if we assume "HpuSijs to be

the subject, for there is no reason why Herod should be said to

feel any agreeable surprise at John's discourses and this is what

the words must mean if they mean anything if it is supposed
that he had already acquired a conviction (tiSms) of the Baptist's

righteous and saintly character. Moreover, the variety in the

readings of our MSS., as shown at the beginning of this para-

graph, adds considerably to the suspicious appearance of these

words. What, however, was their original form I am quite unable

to suggest.

Mauk VI. 21

Kal yefo^i^i^s iqfi^pas e^Kaipov.

The usual interpretation, and when a convenient [it should be,

an opportune^ day was come, is very wide of the mark. There
was nothing in the day itself which made it specially oppor-

tune for bringing about the Baptist's execution; it was by

mere accident that the chance presented itself. Had the day

been considered by Herodias as advantageous, we should have

expected to find that everything had been arranged beforehand,
and that her daughter would have promptly answered, there
and then, Herod's question without going out to take her
mother's advice. Now, the word evxaipos sometimes meant
empty (see Sophocles' Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine

Periods), and in modern Greek et/xat tvKatpoi means both

 ;

12 ST. MARK [VI. 56

/ am empty and, by an extension of meaning, / am at leisure

(see Vlachos, v. evKaipo? . . .

qui a du loisir ; libre ... vide

creux). This second signification it must have also had even at

the period when the Gospels were written ; for we find that its

derivative tv/cai/aG meant then to be at leistire (see Sophocles, v.

tvKaipS)), a meaning which it still retains (see Vlachos, v. ivKaipZ).

Hence tvKatpos ^fJpa is an empty day, a day without work, a day

of leisure, and is a synonym of (ryoK^i ( =a holiday; see Sopho-

cles). Compare also Liddell and Scott, v. evKoxpla. crxpX-q. The

words at the head of this paragraph mean therefore. And on
a festival day. They were inserted in order to show how it

chanced that the daughter of Herodias came out to dance, and

through her dancing prevailed on Herod to behead the Baptist.

Makk VI. 56

Kal Sirou t.v Eio-eiropEUETO, is Kwfias ?) els iroXets \ etS dypous,

iv Tais dyopais eTideaat' tous daSei'Ourras.

I can understand a market-place in a town, or even in a

hamlet; but how can there exist a market-place out in the

dypoi or open country ? I have no doubt that instead of kv rais

dyopats we must read iv Tats dynats (ArVIAlS APOPAIS), in

the roads. This conjecture is strikingly borne out by the Syr.

Sin. Codex, in which, according to the translation by Mrs. Lewis,

we have Wheresoever Jesus entered into cities, or villages, or
fields, or streets (I presume that the Syriac word for roads
means also streets). That the Syr. Sin. gives both fields and
streets may be accounted for by the circumstance that dyviais
stood as a correction on the margin of the Greek MSS. from
which that version was made, and that the translator regarded
the word not as a correction, but as an addition. A further

confirmation of my view is to be found in the reading of

Codex D, Iv Tais irXaTiais. Compare also Acts v. 15, Start koX
VII. 3] ST. MARK 13

is Tcis irXaTtios eKcj>ep(iv Tovi afrOtveii Kal riOfvai almost a

repetition of the passage under consideration.

Makk VII. 3

'EAf )iT) iruYfiTJ i>ii|/urrai t&s \ilpa^.

The word iruyii-g can only mean 6y or wif/i the fist; and
to wash one's hands with one's fists must be considered,
despite all the desperate efforts to prove the contrary, a most

imperfect method of washing. Respecting the usual interpre-

tation diligently, which is based upon a Syr. version. Dr.
Bloomfield justly remarks, "It would seem that the Syr.

translator rendered by guess, and, being in utter ignorance

of the force of the word, rendered as well as he could."
The Syr. Sin. translator, on the other hand, being at a loss
how to translate, has chosen to ignore the word altogether.
May not nvy/iy be a corruption of either 7n]yrj = witA fresh
water from the well (cp. the classical x^P''"A injyatos), or of
the word irrjyaua}

With regard to the latter suggestion, I would refer to

Hesychius, who states, "mjyaioy to oa-rpaKov o koL apSdviov
ofwiwi Xiyerai." Now, ocrrpaKov means an earthen vessel,

and dpSovioi' a water -pot; irqydiov therefore would mean

an earthen water -pot; and should this word have existed

in the passage which we are discussing it would signify a water-

pot such as, according to John ii. 6, stood in every

Jewish house, containing the water with which the inmates,

before eating, or on entering the house after contact in

the market-place with unclean persons or things, purified

themselves.

On palaeographic grounds, however, the reading injy^ is

much preferable.
 ST. MARK [VII. 11, 19
14

Mark vii. 11

KopPoi' (S eoTi Swpoi') o &v H ^)iOu u+eXriefjs.

The usual interpretation of this passage, TAat wherewith

thou mightest have been profited by me, is so contrived as to

yield some sort of plausible meaning; but the words in the

text cannot, without undue straining, be thus construed. The
straightforward rendering is, That wherewith thou mayst (or

wilt) be profited by me ; and this sense obviously does not suit

the context. The meaning required is, What I may owe you
is Korban, which we obtain by writing o^ciAijTai o-ot instead

of &^(ki\B%%.^ This, I am persuaded, is the genuine reading.

'0(f>u\(a, in the sense of / owe as a duty, is frequent. Cp.

o^(.i\u in Matt, xxiii. i6.

Mauk VII. 19

KaOapi^of -a&VTO. th. PpujxaTa.

The meaning of ftpiafiara has been misunderstood in this

passage. No doubt the usual signification of ^piofia is meat;

but it also signifies rottenness, being another form of ^pZ/jLoi

or (less correctly) )8po/ios, which means stench. See Sophocles'

Lexicon, in which the verb jSpto/j.!!} is also cited in the sense

of to stink. These words are, of course, derived from )8t)3pa)o-K-

cr^at, to be eaten by worms.''' And inasmuch as what is infested

by worms is putrid and noisome, fit/Spio/j.ivo'; has come to

mean rotten (Josh. ix. 5, kox 6 aprtyi ovriov ^pos koi tvptoriSiv

Koi Pi^piop.f.vo's), offensive, and the nouns from the same root
to mean rottenness, and then stench. In modern Greek the
verb ppiapS) exists unaltered in the sense of to stink (Vlachos,
" PpwiiM- sentir mauvais ;
puer "), whilst the noun, in the

1 fl$BAHeHS0*EIAHTAISOI.
^ Cp. Isa. li. 8, lis (pia PpaB^aovTai Oiri o-7;t6s.
 ;

Vn. 26, Vni. 34-IX. 1] ST. MARK 15

feminine form ^pio/jut, is a specific term for both stench and

filth (Vlachos, "ySpu/ia- mauvaise odeur, saletd; ordure").
Thus KaOapi^ov vdvTa ra fipdfiara means which thing (or

circumstance) clears away all impurities. The syntax is clearly

explained by Dr. Bloomfield in accordance with Fritzsche's

view.

Mauk VII. 26

'H 8e Yut>f) TJi/ 'EXXrifis Zupo<|ioii'iKio'cra.

The only correct formation of the compound word both in

classical and modem Greek, in so far as the copulative vowel

is concerned, is iSv/ro^oiviKuro-a, as it is found in several MSS.
and it would have been impossible for any Greek of any period,
whether educated or illiterate, to utter it differently. Whence
then comes it that in some MSS., including Codex B, we find

the utterly barbarous ^Sv/aa^oiviKto-o-a with a as a copulative

vowel? The prevalence of this reading is exceedingly strange.
It seems to me to point to an error in the text ; and I suspect

that the Evangelist wrote, y\ Sc fivr\ ^v 'EXXiyvts y^pa., ^oiviKtcro-a,

And the woman was a Greek widmv from Phoenicia. The

reading yjipa. has been preserved in the Syr. Sin., which, accord-
ing to Mrs. Lewis, reads. This woman was a widow. Some
editors divide the word ^vpa<f>oiviKia-<ra into ^vpa ^oiviKicra-a ; but
this expedient only creates another difficulty, since it makes
Svpa precede instead of following ^oiviKia-a-a, as it should do in
conformity with the order ^oiviKura-a Ik Svpias.

Makk VIII. 34-IX. 1

It is likely that the whole of this passage is a later addition,

transferred to this place from Matt. xvi. 24 ff. Its style is quite

unlike that of St.Mark ; but my chief reason for thinking it to

be an interpolation is that, as we shall see further on, the word
 6

1 ST. MARK [IX. 10

8(oo-et is impossible in Matt. xvi. 26, and is a corruption of

St^tToi. Here, however, the word 8<3 or Sot equally militates

against common sense ; and, as it is impossible for palseographical

reasons to regard it as a corruption of Sc^at, we must conclude
that its presence is due to the word S<aa-i having been copied
in an altered form from Matt. ; and, if so, it must necessarily
have been brought in together with the whole passage, with
which it is organically connected.

Mark ix. 10

Kal t6>> XoYor cKpaTTjorai'.

It is to be observed that in some other passages where our

Lord, in conversing with his disciples, refers to his approaching
death and subsequent resurrection, the Evangelists remark that
his intimations were not understood. Thus lower down, ver. 32,

he makes such an allusion, and the comment is at Se ^v6ow

TO prjfia. I think, therefore, that originally we had here Kal rbv
koyov ovK Kpa.Tr]<rav (ovk having dropt out before ck owing to
a certain similarity of sound), which would mean, and they did
not understand the saying. This conjecture is confirmed by
Luke xviii. 31, a passage which seems to have been suggested
by the comment in Mark; for it will be observed that as St.

Mark says, orav 5 nios toB dvOpianov tK vtKptov avaa-ry- Kal rbv

Xoyov OVK iKparrja-av, SO St. Luke writes, TtXtadrja-eTai iravTo toj

vlo) Tov avOpmirov irapaSoBi^arfTai yap koi dvaoTiJo-CTaf Kal avTot

ovSev TovTiav awfJKav.

KpaTLv in the sense of to understand is a Latinism

reproducing the verb tenere, a similar Latinism occurring
in connection with the verb fiaardiav, a synonym of Kpareiv,
in John xvi. 12. Compare also x'^P"" in Matt. xix. 11,
(where see Weiss's note), as a translation of the Latin verb
ca^ere.
 7

IX. 39] ST. MARK 1

The particle oi is rather apt to fall out of, or to be deducted

from, or to be added to, the text. An indisputable case occurs
in Codex B, which in Luke xiv. 27 gives oo-rts ovv /Saa-Td^ei

instead of oo-rts ow ov fiaa-ra^ei. Similarly in Matt. viii. 30 we

find rjv 8k /xaKpav instead of rjv 8" oi frnKpav, a reading proposed

by de Beze and preserved in Latin versions. Dr. Hort in his

Introduction, p. 1 2^, remarks :
" A bolder form of correction is

the insertion of a negative particle, as in Luke xi. 48 and Rom.

iv. 19; or its omission, as in Matt. xxi. 32 (ov being easily lost,

it is true, after toB) ; Rom. v. 14 ; Gal. ii. 5, v. 8." Two similar

cases exist in John v. 47- and xv. 20, where we should, I believe,

write in the former instance, d 8e tois SKeLvov ypa/i/xacrtv irto-reverE

(MSS. ou TTiOTtuerc), irSs Tois e/iois pruiMtnv ov (MSS. without the

negative) iria-Tevcre, and in the other, tl Se rov Xdyov fiov ovk

in^pTjtrav, Koi Toy vp.iTpov ov rr]pri<Tov(Ti (MSS. without the nega-

tives in both members of the sentence).

Makk IX. 39

OuSeis yip Surqcrerai raytii KaKo\oYi<Tai ^.

The word Ta^ii is wrongly rendered quickly. It is a synonym
of avpiov, and in this passage means on some future day, which

is often the meaning of avpiov also. Compare Josh. iv. 6, ojav

ipunTa. <ji 6 vids cov avpiov; xxii. 27, ovk epovcri to. TCKva v/iSiv
avpiov, etc. Ta^v in the sense of avpiov or irpoii (cp. the German
Morgen) occurs likewise in Isa. Iviii. 8, ror^ pay-qa-erai irpiai/jLov

(? TTpioivov) TO <^5s arov Kal TO. iapxiTa. a-ov Ta;^v avarekii ; and is

Still so used in modern Greek, either in the form of raxv or

of Taxid. A popular rhyme says :

kC S\\a K&vovv t4 raxi ;

that is, one thing they say in the evening and another they do in

2
 8

1 ST. MARK [IX. 49

the morning. Byzantios, in his Modern Greek Lexicon, gives

"Taxa rayy. 'Ejr., tSt Kvpiov koX "Rovfivov." See also Janna-
rakis's Deictsch-Neugriechisches Handworterbuch, v. Morgen.

Mark ix. 49

nds Y^P iTupi d\i(T6i^(rTai.

Some wonderful feats of exegesis have been performed to

explain how a man can be salted with fire ; but the ingenuity of
the commentators is out of place in dealing with a passage
found in a narrative so simple and direct as St. Mark's Gospel,
and furnishes in itself a presumption that their explanations
are wrong. The truth, I believe, is that the text is corrupt,

and that instead of dXtcr^iJcreTat we ought to write dyi'icrftJo-cTai,

an allusion to purification as by fire, that is, as complete a

purification as that to which silver and gold are submitted by
means of fire (Num. xxxi. 23, ttSv irpayfia o SicAeuo-tTat ev TTvpl

Kai KaOapurBt^crtTai aW r] t<3 vSaTi roC dyvr/xou ayvitrO'^creTai).

Such a metaphor we also find in Isa. i. 25, iTrdiia t^v x"P<i /^o"
CTTt o- /cat mpuKTia ets KaOapov ; Zech. xiii. 9, Trupucrci) avTois is
TTvpovrai TO apyvpiov Kai Soki/jlu) airovs is SoKi/ict^eToi to xpvaiov.
Similarly Matt. iii. 11 says, auros i/^Ss ^airritrei { = ayvi<rei
/JaTTTifuv) eV TTvevfian ayiia kol irvpL For dyi/tZ^av instead of
KaOapi^tLv as applied to fire, cf. Num. xix. 17, t^s o-ttoSiSs t^s
KaTaKiKav/xivrji tov dyvur/iov.

The sentence jrSs yap Trvpl dXio-^jjo-cTai is very loosely

connected with what precedes it, and seems a later addition

suggested by the mention of irvp in ver. 48. Similarly, when

dyvicr^)}o-Tat became dXio-^o'cTat, then the words koXov to aXos
apTva-tre, which follow and which do not suit the context were
imported in a modified form into this place from the familiar
passage of Luke xiv. 34, where they form part of quite a
different theme; and these words seem at length to have
 9

X. 23, 40] ST. MARK 1

occasioned a further addition, namely, that of the exhortation

Mark x. 23

A^Y^'
"'^S Suo-KoKus elffeXeuo-on-ai.

In this passage ttuJs is wrongly translated how ; it is used with

a declarative force, being an equivalent to ort, ikat. It is thus
that Matthew (xix. 23) understood it, for he says, Xeyu v/uv 'OTI
n-Xovo-ios Sva-KoXtDi eJcreXeuo-erai. In modern Greek ircos (more
correctly ttus) is really the only declarative particle used collo-

quially, and Dr. Jannaris (Ifisf. Gr. Gr., App. VI. 13) gives

instances of its use from a period as early as the first and second
centuries. In the Gospels I cannot trace another clear example
of this usage. Luke xviii. 24, it is true, repeats ttius, but it is not
clear that he did not misunderstand its force in Mark x. 23, and
so employed it in an exclamative sense. Similarly, though in

Mark x. 23 there is nothing in the syntax of Aey" avrots, rtwa,

ircSs Sva-KoXov la-Ti to prevent us from regarding 7r<3s as declarative

(cp. Mark i. 40, Xcywv out<3, TS-vpit, oti, iav fle'Xjjs, Bvinj ft,e KoSapurai ;

Luke xiii. 23, fmi Se rts avT(Z, Kxpie, ei oXiyot 01 o-ufo/itvoi ; xxii.

49, elirav, Kvpie, ei iraTa|o/tev), Still the passage appears to be an

importation from St. Luke, and the particle must be understood

in the sense in which St. Luke used it. It is likely, however,

that the declarative use of 7r<3s in the Gospels was originally much
more extended than would now appear, and that when their

language was gradually revised towards classicism tGs was often

changed into on.

Mark x. 40
Ti 8e KaBiaai K SeJiSi' /iou ?) e| euavufiov ouk ftrriv ifiov

SoCmi, dXX' ois qToifiooTOi.

As the text stands at present there is only one construc-

tion possible, which is to connect ia-Tiv both with cfibv and



20 ST. MARK [XI. 3, XII. 1, 9

with ots ^oifiaa-rai, and only one rendering is possible,

u( to sit on my right hand or on my left hand it is not in my

power to give, but in the power of those for whom it has been

prepared. What we obviously require is this, But to sit on my

right hand or on my left hand I may not give to other than

those for whom it has been prepared. Therefore it seems to

me that we must read, ovk vttw e/ibv SoCi'ai aXA,ots ^ iTroi/xao-Toi

(or aXXoK ^ ots ^ToiiJ.aiTTai).

Respecting i/xov, it seems to be due to the attraction of

TO 8c KaOia-ai. Strictly speaking, we should have expected /iol

in its place.

Makk XI. 3

Kal u6Js dTrooTA.\i irdXii' auTOf fiSe.

It is clear that the sense required is what we find in Matt.

xxi. 3, namely, that if the disciples state that the Lord has need
of the colt, its owner will at once send it; and not that the

owner would only allow it to be led away upon a promise that it

will at once be sent back again. I therefore suspect that in

the place of irdXiv airbv there once stood toi' tt&Xov (nOAON
HAAIN.)
Mark xii. 1

nupyoc.

The meaning of this word is misunderstood. It does not

signify a tower, but a country villa with an upper storey. In this

sense it is still used in modern Greek. Such villas were formerly

very frequent in Greece, and were built, as described in this

passage, with a wine-press underneath. They are still to be met

with occasionally.

Mark xii. 9
Kal 8(i)aei rhv d.fi.ireXui'a aXXois.

There is no suggestion of the vineyard being given away,

but of its being let out; /caicSojo-ei should, therefore, be read
 ;

XII. 24, 88] ST. MARK 21

instead of Kal Sma-ti. The word is correctly transmitted in

ver. i; Matt. xxi. 33, 41, koL tov a/i.TreXZva eVScoo-CTai aXXots;
Luke XX. 9. The error appears to be a very old one, as it is

repeated in the parallel passage of Luke xx. 16.

Mark xii. M
Oi Sii TouTo irXamo'dc jx}) i8<Sts rets YP'^'ix^S

Commentators justify the interrogative form by a reference

to xi. 17. But the question in that passage implies an affirma-

tion, whereas here it is put as though there were some hesitancy

and doubt in the mind of Jesus ; and such a feeling is entirely

inconsistent with the context. The words oi Sta, tovto are

corrupt, and should be changed into oiSevos rovrtav. Our

Lord was asked whose wife the woman would be, and he
answers. She shall be the wife of none of them.

The corruption has been brought about by the practice

which scribes had (i) of writing the numeral A instead of TrpoJTos,

eis (see Cobet, Variae Lectiones, p. 122); and (2) of indicating a

final N at the end of a line by a dash drawn over the preceding

vowel. Thus the text

originally had OYAATOYTO

which was read OYAIATOYTO
instead of OYAEN02 TOYTON.

Mauk XII. 38

'Ev CTToXais irepnraTeii',

The great Reiske conjectured oroats; and this suggestion

is now confirmed by the Syr. Sin. From a note printed on

the margin of Mrs. Lewis's translation, I understand that this

document uses the Greek word itself.

22 ST, MARK [XTV. 3, 41

Mark xiv. 3

NdipSou nurriKyj'i.

I need not stop to prove the impossibility of rendering

TTioTtK^s either as genuine or liquid, since others have already
performed this task far more thoroughly than I could. I will at

once say that the word which the Evangelist wrote was ttico-tik^s.

The word -n-ua-n) or Trua-TiKri is not recorded in dictionaries,

nor have I been able to trace it in other books ; but we have
(i) the verb irii^o) in the sense of (o press (for the purpose of
extracting), cp. Micah vi. 15, o-v Tnicreis iXaCav Koi ov fjir] a.\elij/r]

fXaiov ; and (2) the noun TrUa-fia, respecting which Sophocles

says, "irUa-fia . . . extract in pharmacy (Diosco. i. io6)." In

Geoponicon (xx. 28) we also find /xvpo/SoXdvov irtew/na, though in
this case the word denotes not the extract itself, but the pulp
left after pressing. Thus an extract of vdpSo's would be vdpSov
ttUkt/juj. or vapSos mtarri (compare iTToKTrj) ; and mpSos TTteoTtKij

would mean exactly the same thing, though the adjective is

formed as if it meant of an extracted kind. Cp. Ex. xxxvii. 21, to.

v(f>avTa. Kal to. pa^iScvra Koi to. ttoikiXtiko. (instead of ttoikiXto) ;

cp. also Ex. xxx. 25, fivpov ixvptxj/iKov ; 35, Ov/iiafia fjivpolriKov.
What, of course, was poured over the head of our Lord was
not the extract of vapSos itself, but oil which was strongly im-
pregnated with an infusion of that perfume; it was a (TKoiaa-ia

iXalov tjSvcrfJiaTos (Eccles. x. l).

Makk XIV. 41

'AirexEi, TJXdcv 1^ upa.

It is enough, the favourite rendering of oWx", is derived

from the Vulgate. But though the whole range of Greek
literature has been ransacked in search of passages where
dxtx might signify sufficit, only two examples have been
 J

XIV. 41 ST. MARK 23

found, namely, Anacr. xxvii. 33, and Cyr. Hag. ii. 9. This
dearth in the case of an expression in such frequent use as
Enough is most extraordinary, seeing that it cannot be urged
in this instance that a word belonging to vulgar Greek must
have been constantly altered in our MSS. Even the passages
discovered are hardly trustworthy. In Anacreon, St^phanus
was most likely right in conjecturing o.irrj(t.; and in Cyril the

context seems to require Ltriyia. Then again the attempt to

explain how An-tx" has come to mean sufficit has not proved
a success. Besides, as the word is placed in the text, no
reader or hearer could help connecting it with mpa, thus mis-
understanding the whole passage as meaning the hour is distant

(this being the usual sense of airi^a), it has come. Why,

moreover, should not the Evangelist have said dpicci, so as not

to occasion such a misunderstanding? Further, even if ajrex"

meant sufficit, it would not at all suit the context; and the
explanations so far given are based upon guesses and far-

fetched subtleties. Lastly, MSS. tradition varies considerably

in this passage.

I agree with M. Biljon that "lectio absurda est." Now,

what is likely to have been written under the circumstances
narrated in the Gospel ? Our Lord announces the approaching

end of his life, and in the Scriptures such proclamations of

impending great events are generally invested with additional

solemnity by being twice, or even thrice, reiterated. Thus
we have in Mark himself, i. 15, ?rjrXiJp<orat 6 Kaipot koX rffyiKiv

rt fiaa-iXtia. Cp. also Ezek. vii. 12, rjKeL 6 Kaipos, tSoii ^ ^/tpa;
xxi. 25, iJiMt ^ -^liepa. iv Kotjou dSiKias, Tripai ; xxx. 3, tyys ttjJ.ipa

ToO Kvpiov TTtpos iBvSyv ia-rai ; vii. 3, ^Kt to iripas tVl crk v*"
o Kaipos, iTfyiKev ^ ^pa. What we, therefore, require is a word
of a similar import to that of ^Mtv and the want is, I believe,
;

met by iiriarq. Cp. 2 Tim. iv. 6, o Katpos i^s dvaXwews pw

i<t>'(m}Ktv ; Luke xxi. 34, irpoo-exere it.r(iroTt iiruTT^ i) nfiipa.
24 ST. MARK [XIV. 41

fKiivY] ; I Thess. V. 3, i<j>ia-raTai airois oAeSpos. This word was

first misread into airia-rrj, and from aTrea-rri it finally became

dTTEx". Exactly the same fluctuation between amx^i and dTrecrn?

is found in Mark vii. 6. My conjecture is amply supported by

MSS. authority. One old Latin version gives adest finis, venit

hora ; a Syriac version gives appropinquavit finis et vemt hora

(see Tischendorf's eighth edition); and, most important of all,

the Syr. Sin. has the hour is come, the end is at hand. In fact,

from these readings and that of D, which gives d?rext -^o reXos

KoX rj S)pa, and on the strength of the passages from Ezekiel

quoted above, one might further infer that the text originally

ran thus, cTrecrrr; to rekos, rjXOei' -q wpa.

But how has the Latin version si/fiia't arisen? AVe have
seen in my note on Mark i. 6 that in the New Testament we
constantly find words replaced by their synonyms. Now, a
synonym of iiriarrj is <t>6a.vi, which the Latin translator prob-
ably found in the text as a varia lectio, and which he rendered
by siifficit. For in modern Greek ^Oivu. (really ^rdi/ei) means
not only advenit but also sufficit (Vlachos, " <j)6avm, arriver . . .

suffire"), and apparently vulgar Greek has had the word in

both these meanings from the days when the Gospels were
written. It is true that in the literature of those times no
instances of the use of <ji6a.va in the sense of sufficit seem to

have been traced hitherto; but this failure is not surprising

if we consider how old is the art of tampering with colloquial
Greek and replacing its peculiarities by classical words and forms.
I may, in conclusion, add that the preceding phrase, KaflevSeTt

ToKoiirov KOi avaTra.vi(r$e, is badly translated by Sleep on now

and take your rest. To\oitov is equivalent to ow (just as in

modern Greek), and the passage is well explained by Sophocles,

V. XoLTTov, as implying a rebuke. It should be rendered, Do ye
then sleep and rest? I.e. this is not a time for sleep and rest;
for, behold, the hour is come, and the Son of Man is betrayed.
XIV. 61] ST. MARK 25

Mark xiv. 51

Neai'io'Kos tis aunr]KoXoiS6i auTU nepifit^\r\fi,ii'Oi tnv^6va eiri

yufj.i'ou- Kai Kparouo'ii' auroc, 6 8c KaTaXtirin' Ti]v <jivZ6va yuju'os

e^iuyEi'.

The usual interpretation of the words iirl -yu/tvoi), over his

tiaked body, presupposes an eUipsis, the words understood being

ToS o-w/uaros; but no example has been adduced illustrative of

this ellipsis, nor apparently does the phrase 7rt yu/ii/oC tov

o-oi/iaTos occur elsewhere. In Greek, in order to convey the

notion dose upon the skin, the words kv XP or hrX yjum'iK, or

some similar combination, would have to be used, and such a

phrase is in fact found in Lev. xvi. 4, jrepio-KfXts Xivow hrrax hn
Tov xpMTos airov. Not Only is the expression hn yvfivov singular,

but it is difficult to believe that any man would have adopted

such peculiar outdoor attire as a mantle over his skin, which
seems to imply that while iii the house he was nude. Add to

this, that if the incident really occurred as it is narrated in our

present text, we should reluctantly have had to conclude that the

only object of the young man in relating his curious adventure

was to represent himself in a humorous light.

The fact of the matter, however, is that the words em

yvfjLvcw are corrupt, and have assumed this form under the
influence of yv/tvos in ver. 52, which was wrongly taken in its

literary sense as meaning naked, whereas here it means without

his cloak, i.e. yv/ivoi t^s crtrSdvos. Liddell and Scott, v. yv/xvos,

state :
" In common language yv/xvo^ meant lightly clad, i.e.

in the undergarment only (x'twv), without the Ifidnov." The

correct reading, I have no doubt, is o-tvSova dx' Aiywrou, i.e. a

cloak of Egyptian linen. Cp. Ezek. xxvii. 7, /Sva-a-os /tera Trot/ctXtas

i$ Alyvirrov. As is well known (see JSntycl. Biblica, v. " Linen "),

the finer qualities of linen cloth (a-ivSwv or /Ju'cro-og) were the

products of Egypt. What the Evangelist wished to convey

26 ST. MARK [XIV. 72

is now clear, namely, that he wore on the eventful night a cloak

of Egyptian linen, and that he owed his escape to the sacrifice
of this costly garment, which he left in the hands of the hostile

crowd to wrangle over. The palaeographical resemblance be-

tween AnAirVHTOY (or AnEFYnTOY) and EHirYMNOY is

close enough to have caused the error if the writing had become
faint, especially when the copyist was, as I suggest, under the

influence of the yr/^vos dose by.

Mark xiv. 72

Kal JiriPaX(i' ExXaie,

The usual interpretation of imfiaklov, and when he thought

thereon, cannot possibly stand. Though iiri^aXXm (or ^jriySolXAa)

Tii/i' Sidvoiav) is applicable to mental action, it does not mean

merely to think on, but to ponder over; and Peter had no need
to ponder over the words of Jesus and argue out their application.

He would be overcome with grief if only they suddenly flashed

on his mind. I incline to think that i-m^a\u)v means iinjSa^v
TO I/xoTioi' or cirt)3X57/ia, having drawn on his cloak ; that is, having
drawn it over his head or face. In great grief it was usual with
the Jews to cover their heads or faces (see Encycl. Bibl., v.

" Mourning "). What has probably misled commentators is

that classical Greek, in order to express this idea, would have

used the middle voice, i.e. eVtySoXo/ytevos. But see Gen. xxxviii.

14, irepUfiaXf to OepuTTpov kol tKaXA-onrwraTO. Similarly we find

Deut. xxiii. 13, koL g^rayaywv KoXvi/reis Tr]v axr\rjiJU)(Tvvr]v aov (a

passage which has Ukewise been misunderstood).
ST. MATTHEW
 ST. MATTHEW

Matt. ii. 6
Bt|6\ce)1., yrj 'loijSa, ou8a|xws ^Xoxiorr) et iv tois ^yefiotrif

'louSa,

If Bethlehem is to be regarded as one of the princes of Judah,

as is commonly supposed, it is strange that instead of iXaxCa-rq
the text does not give us eXaxioros. To me whatever may
be stated in Micah, either in Hebrew, of which I am ignorant,
or in the Septuagint it seems clear that what the Evangelist
wished to convey is that Bethlehem was not the least of the

chief cities of Judaea, since it was to give a king to Israel. He

should, therefore, have written -^e/jLovLo-iv (supply irdXco-iv). An
^/tovts iroXis is et princely city, a capital; cp. Strabo, 371, tcis

fiye/xovCSas oia-a^ 8vo TroAeis. Whether, however, he actually did

write that form or not is doubtful, for he may have used
ijyefwariv as a feminine, in the same way as we find MS. A
giving, in Mark vii, 26, not 'EA.A.tjvis, but 'EAX171', a form which
is evidently a grammatical slip, and not a reminiscence of

poetic classical Greek.

Matt. hi. 11

'Eyw }ikv ujtas Pairriju Iv uSari is fi.eTdvoiav.

When a man came for baptism, he wished to be purified

of sin, and he must, therefore, have already acknowledged his

 ;

30 ST. MATTHEW [V. 14, 28

sins and repented of them. But the words eU ixerdvoLav, mean-

ing as they do /or the purpose of repentance, reverse the order

of things, and make baptism precede repentance. They cannot,

accordingly, be right, and must be interpolated. That the same

words are an interpolation in Matt. ix. 13 and Luke iii. 16, is

proved by their absence from some of the best MSS.

Mait. v. 14)

Ou Siifarai iriiXis KfM^^voA cirdcou opous KEi^^nj.

This saying also seems to be an interpolation, for it is out

of harmony with the specific teaching of Jesus in this passage.

The burden of the context is that the disciples are not to

conceal their lives from the world because their good works
resemble a lamp which does not serve its purpose if it is hid
whereas the force of the proverb concerning the city set on a
hill is that those whose lives are conspicuous must be good
because their actions cannot be kept out of sight. In the one
case there must be no concealment because the life is good;
in the other the life must be good because there can be no
concealment. It is in this sense that Clement (see Preuschen's
Antilegomena, p. 82) makes use of the proverb, xp^ o"" t^v
iKK\7j<riav is ttoXiv iv vij/ti ioKoSoiJ,r]fji.ivqv ^iXoOeov tytiv Ta^iv

KoX ^loiKTjtTiv KaXr)v. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the

parallel passages of St. Mark (iv. 21) and St. Luke (viii. 16)
the saying does not appear.

Matt. v. 28

The words irpos to tVi^u/i^o-at air^i/ are capable of meaning

either {i)with intent to desire her (cp. vi. i), or (2) in proportion
 1;

VI. 6] ST. MATTHEW 3

to his desire (2 Cor. v. 10). Neither rendering yields a satis-

factory sense, for (i) desire grows out of sight, and does not
precede it ; and (2) not only does the man who looks at a
woman in proportion to his desires sin, but he also who simply
desires, however little he may look at the object of his desire.

To me it seems that 6 /SXcVwv ywaiKa is the exact equivalent

of the modern Greek phrase ottwos Koii-afei ywaiKa {yvvaiKa

being used in a collective sense instead of tis yumiKes), which
does not signify merely he who looks at women, but also he who
pays attention, who is not indifferent, to women. BXeVctv in this
case means i<jji<TTa.vai to ojifia (cp. Prov. ix. 18, /xiySe 7rioTijtn;s

TO (Tov on/jLa Trpos ailnjv). Further, instead of wpos to i'mOv/x^a'at

the correct reading is, I think, Trpb rov imOv[i.rjiTai. The passage
would thus mean : Whoever looks at a woman he, before desiring

her, has already sinned. By a somewhat similar hyperbole

it is said in Wisd. vi. 13 of Wisdom, that <l>6dvtL tovs itriOv-

/AoBvTas TTpoyvtatrOrjvai = wpoyivuiCTKerat irpo rov Tiva iwiOv/XTJa'ai

auT^S. Cp. also Matt. vi. 8, olS^v yap 6 vaT-qp v/jLtttv Siv xpetav

e)(fTc Trpb TOW dvoifai to (TTO/xa (so Codex D).

Matt. vi. 5

^iXoucii' if rais crui/aYUYOis koI iv tois yufiais tuv -nKareiCtv

irpo(Te6\<T6ai, oirus ^avSxriv tois dc6p(4irois.

No ostentation seems to be involved in the act of praying

in a synagogue, where people congregate for devotional purposes

but it would be a different thing to stand and pray in the road.

I thought, therefore, at first that instead of o-wayojyals we

should perhaps read dywaw, a word which has in another

place (Mark vi. 56) been corrupted. We should thus have

streets and roads joined together as in Luke xiv. 21, th tos

TrXaretas Koi pvfiai ; Isa. XV. 3, iv Tats TrAaTttas avr^s (cat iv rah
pv/iats avT^s. But for palseographic reasons a-wo)(p.li is far
 ;

32 ST. MATTHEW [VI. 11, 22

more probable, and suits the context admirably, i.e. At the

meeting-points and in nooks of the streets, or, in other words,

everywhere in the streets. The scribe seems to have been led

into error by carrying in his mind ev rats o-wayMyais xat pv/tats

which he had just copied in ver. 2, where, however, crvvaywyats

is in its proper place.

Matt. vi. 11

"Xhv apToi' i^ixuc TOK ^iriouo'ioi'.

Scaliger has already derived eiriovVioi' from kma/ai, and I

hold it to be another form of the participle iinavra, just as

Trepiowiov, cKova-wv are alternative forms of Treptovra, e/covra. It

means which falls to our share, and has the same force as
hri^aXKov and erriySoWovTa in Luke XV. ] 2, TO iinj3a.\Xov /Ji-epoi

TTJi ovcrias, and l Mace. x. 30, tov ^fiia-ovs rov Kapirov tov

7rt/3aX\ovTos [1.01. In their intransitive sense imftdXXeiv and

imevai are often synonymous. Thus in respect of time they

both mean to follow, to come on (cp. 2 Mace. xii. 38, n\% i/i8o-

fiaSoi T^s irtj8aAAovtri;s, and I Chron. xx. i, ev tw eiridvTi eret)

and they also coincide in the significations of to attach, and

to occur to one's mind (orav iin^dkXy ^ ctkci^is), as any one
may see by a reference to Liddell and Scott. Hence I conclude
that they are likewise synonymous in the sense of to fall to one's

share. Thus explained, tov aprov ^p.un' tov iTnovaiov is identical

with the Hebrew of that part of Prov. xxx. 8 which, in the margin

of the Revised Version, is translated the bread of my portion (see

Encycl. Bibl, v. "Lord's Prayer").

Matt. vi. 22
AirXoC;.

This word simply means aya^os, good, as is shown both by

the antithesis to the following -n-ovripbi, and by the use of SnrXo-
Tepov in xxiii. 15, where it plainly signifies x^^pova.
VII. 6] ST. MATTHEW 33

Matt. vii. 6

Mr) 8aiT TO aYiOf tois kuctIc firfie |3(i\r]T Tous (lapyapiTOS

ufjiuc efiirpoo'BEi' tui' xoipo))'.

In spite of all efforts to make good sense of this passage,

it still remains pointless as it stands. Taking the latter part

of the verse, we could understand an injunction not to cast

pearls before swine as food, if pearls were a kind of dainty

prized by men, though not likely to be appreciated by swine.

But, however foolish a man might be, why should he think

that he treated swine well in giving them pearls to eat, when
he himself never ate pearls? As regards the first part of the
sentence, if ayiov means consecrated meat, as is generally sup-

posed, we are left to wonder why it should irritate dogs to be

given such food, when the probability is that, as dogs are very
fond of meat, they would be conciliated and made friendly by
being offered such choice morsels. But the absurdity of the
present reading will, I think, be best made apparent by my
explaining how the passage originally stood, at least in so
far as the second part of the verse is concerned.
There seems to have been current among the Jews a proverb
applicable to cases of misplaced kindness or favour, which ran

thus : Deck not a hog with a nose ornament. Luckily, this

saying has been preserved in Prov. xi. 22, wa-inp evmnov iv

pivi vos, ovru><s -ywatKi KaKo^povi icaWos, as is a Jewel in a swine's

snout, so is beauty in a silly woman. From Ezek. xvi. 12, kox

i8ii)Ka IvuiTLov Trepl tov fivKTrjpd aov, it is clear that among Jewish
women the fashion obtained of wearing jewellery in the nose,
a custom which still prevails in India, where such ornaments
are either rings or pearls. The proverb, in allusion to this

fashion, declares that it is favour misplaced to adorn swine

with nose-rings which can only be valued by women. Now,
3
 ;

34 ST. MATTHEW [VH. 15

it must be observed (i) that ^aXXtiv means not only (o cast,

but also to place, to put (in which sense only it is used in modern
Greek) ; cp. Mark vii. 33, lySaXt tovs SoktuXovs ts to. wra, etc.

and (2) that, in our MSS. of the New Testament, we find several
instances where the reading fluctuates between efi-irpoa-Bev and
fvunriov (cp. Mark ii. 12; Luke xii. 9; Acts x. 4), as well as

between ivavriov koi ivwTTiov (cp. Mark ii. 12; Luke i. 6),

showing that ivMinov, not being classical enough, was often

altered. If, then, in the passage under consideration we take
fir] ySaXijre in the sense of do not put, and replace i/jLTrpoa-Biv

by the correction ENnniON, and again consider this as a corrup-

tion of ENnXION (see the passages quoted above from Proverbs

and Ezekiel), we at once obtain a rational meaning, Fut not your
pearls as ornaments in a swine's snout. This emendation would
further necessitate the change of xotpw to x'P<"S' Owing to

this genitive I had long considered whether, instead of IvuiTiov,

we should not read iv rais purlv or iv tois pwOoiviv (cp. Ezek.

xvi. 12, Kol tSwKa ivwTiov vipl tov pAiKTrjpa. a-ov) ; but, on palseo-

graphic grounds, Ivwtwv and xo'po's seem to be far more likely.

The probability of my suggestion is increased by the. words

" turn and rend you " ; for, to pierce the nose of a swine might

very well bring about this result.

It is more difficult to guess what is hidden under pJi} SGre to
ayiov Tois Kvalv. It is possible that to aytov is a corruption of
rpL)(a.wTov ; but I shall refrain from further discussing this sug-
gestion until I feel more confident of its correctness than I do
at present.

Mait. VII. 15

"EpxoiTOi iv iv%i^a,a<. irpo^drui', laoiOeK %i tiaw Xukoi apiravcj.

As neither do sheep clothe themselves nor was it the dress

which gave the prophets their pious appearance, the reading


Vm. 9] ST. MATTHEW 35

iv&vijuun cannot stand. The meaning, of course, is that the

false prophets /<?oi as meek and innocent as lambs, but that
their true nature is that of wolves. I think, therefore, that the
original reading was v t'Seo-i irpojSaTaiv. Cp. Luke iii. 22,
KaTa^rpiai to irveS/iia to ayiov aw/iaTiKw eiSct ois Trtpiarepav

(? TTcpwrepas) ; Ezek. i. 26, o/jLoim/jia ms etSos avOpiairov ; Prov.

Vil. 10, fj hi yvvT) (TvvavrS. avT<3 elSos ixovaa TropviKov ; Judg,
viii. 18, <I)S EiSos /J'Opfjir} vlZv ^aa-iXiaiv; Num. xi. 7, to tiSos airov
tiSos KpuoToWou.

Matt. viii. 9

AfOpuiros tijii uiro Elouo-iaf e)(iav uir' ifiaiirbv oTpajuiiTa;.

I see from M. Biljon's edition that Dr. Holwerda has con-

jectured fTT e^ouo-tas. The alteration of inro into i-irl is clearly

required by the context, and had already been suggested in a

volume entitled Conjectures on the New Testament, which was
published in London in 1772. A similar corruption can be seen
in Mark iv. 21, where in Codex B viro rrjv X.vxyia-v was at first

written instead of tVt -rr/v Xvxyiav; and in Matt, xxviii. 14, where
our MSS. vary between iirl and vtto. But the alteration into the

genitive, though the construction with that case is the one which

is mostly used (Dan. iii. 3, rvpavvoi /tcyaXot ol iir i^ova-iZv, etc.),

is not necessary. Compare Apoc. vi. 8, koI iSodri avrow Uovo-lou

iirl TO rerapTov Ttjs y^s; Sir. XXX. 28, (jtiXm jxij 8(3s e^ovo-tW iirl o-e.

Indeed, if the language of the Scriptures had not been largely

changed by the introduction of classicisms, we should find pre-
positions followed by the accusative much more frequently than
is the case in the texts as they have been transmitted to us.

Thus, in Matt. xiv. 19, we have the readings irrl tov \6pTov and
im, ToS xopTOV ; in ver. 26, lirl TrjV 6dXacr<rav and em T^r
6a\a<T(nip ;
(in xxviii. 5, cts tov vaoi' and iv tw yam) ; and there are
several other similar instances.
 ;

36 ST. MATTHEW [IX. 18, 36

Matt. ix. 18

Kol. Ifyvirai..

This expression can only mean, And she will go on living,

and can only apply to a person still alive. When the notion of

to come back to life is required, it can only be conveyed by the

compound verb aval^rfv. Hence I think that we should here
read K6.vaiy]<je.ro.i.. In four other passages (Luke xx. 24, 32
Rom. xiv. and perhaps Apoc. xx. 5) where the idea is that
9 ;

of " coming back to life," our MSS. give both koX c^tjo-ev and koI

avii,ri<Tv ; and in all these cases the first reading seems to have
been induced by the fact that koL ave^rja-ev was originally written

Kavf^W^ (cp- Matt. xxvi. 15, where we find both xdyoi and
Koi iy<!) ; xxviii. 10, KaKfi and Kal cxet, etc.), which could easily

be misread into Kal lfi?o-v (KANEZHSENKAIEZHSEN).

Similarly Kava^ijcrerai became koI f^o-erai. It is also a question

whether in John xi. 25 we should not read k&v aTroOdvy

ava^-qa-erai, the loss of the preposition being due to the simi-

larity of the preceding letters.

Mati'. IX. 36

'EcrKuXiXECoi Kal ippi]idvoi, (tKrcl irptS^ara fif) cxoiTa iroiji^fa.

The rendering of ippi/j.h'oi by scattered which is found in

the English version, though suiting the context perfectly, is

out of the question, since the Greek for to scatter is (rKopTrit,u)

and not piTrrut ; and I am unable to see how commentators have

come to consider these verbs as synonymous. On the other
hand, jacentes, the translation of the Vulgate, is, of course,
possible in the sense of lying ill (Matt. viii. 6, ^i^X-qra.!, iv ry
oLKia TrapoXuTiKos), but it does not seem to me to be appropriate

in this passage. Uncared-for sheep do not lie down, but are

at once scattered (Matt. xxvi. 31, Trard^m rov iroifiiva koI
 ;

X. 10] ST. MATTHEW 37

Staa-KopTTLorOriaroi'Tai ra irpofiara; 3 Kings xxii. 17, toi' 'lo-jOa^A.

Sifa-Trapixeyov iv rots opecrtv us noiixviov <S ok lort KOijj.riv), and

often become a prey to ifian or beast. So far as I know, this

is the uniform description of shepherdless sheep in the

Scriptures; Cp. Judith xi. 19, aiwi avrous is wpo/Sara ots

ovK lOTi TroLixriv; Ezek. xxxiv. 5, Sucrirdpr) ra wpojSaTa fiov 8ia

TO firj civat TTOiixiva.^ /cat tyevf)6r) ets KaTd^po>ixa. iracri rots drjpioK

Zech. xiii. 7, Trard^aTe tous Troi/tei'as xal iK(rird(TaT( to. irpo^ara.

As eppi/io/oi, therefore, does not suit the context, I had long

ago conjectured ipptiy/xivoi, mauled (cp. Matt. vii. 6, ixrjwoTt
<TTpa<^(.vT<s p-q^tixTw v/jLOLi) ; and I find in Tischendorf s eighth
edition that there exists manuscript authority for this emenda-
tion. The reading has, however, been so completely neglected
that neither Professor Blass nor M. Biljon even mentions it.

The corruption most probably arose from the fact that ippriy/xivoi

was regarded as a participle, not of prjywfjLii but of the form

prjo-a-w, which occasionally meant to throw down (cp. Mark ix.

18; Luke ix. 42; and the Romaic pri)(yu>), and so it was
altered into its classical equivalent ippifnevoi.

Nor do I see any necessity for taking co-KvX/teVot in its

metaphorical sense and translating it distressed. Its original

force, mangled, is perfectly in keeping with the context. The

multitude, in their forlorn state, without a guide and a pro-
tection against the attacks of the Devil, are likened to shepherd-

less sheep mangled and mauled by the beasts of the desert.

MA'n-. X. 10

Mt) m^pai' JAif)8 uiroSi^fiaTa ni)8e pcipSof.

The picture which these words bring up before the mind's

eye is that of an Eastern fakir, who travels barefoot and
scantily clad, begging his way. But, almost invariably, such
beggars carry a rude staff to lean upon. These sticks are not
38 ST. MATTHEW [XI. 23

articles of luxury, and involve no expense. Hence I think

that, instead of /xijSe pd/SSov, the correct reading is aXA' f/ pdfiSov

(aXy ij = i fiTji cp. Dan. iii. 28, /ii/Ss wpoa-KWi^a-uMn iravTi Otio

a\X' ^ Toi tw), in accordance with the correction in .

Mark
vi.8. M and AA being interchangeable in old manuscripts,
YnOAHMATAAAHPABAON (i.e. vvoS-^/mt aW was read r/)

as YnOAHMATAMHPABAON Under the influence of /a^

TTTjpav, and ft^ was afterwards changed into fji^Si in accordance

with the proximate /ti^Se. Should my suggestion be correct, it

would follow, that the blunder occurred very early, as the

injunction to the disciples to carry no staff is repeated in

Luke ix. 3 in a way which precludes the supposition of an

error.

The contrary mistake seems to have crept into Mark vL 8,

where we find dA\' wroStSefievovi instead of /xt/S' mtiSeStfjLa'ovi.

Were the present reading correct, the words would not have
been placed in that part of the sentence which mentions the
articles that the disciples should not possess, but at the
. end
after xat /t^ ivBvcraa-Oai Svo \iTuivas. Compare also Isa. xx. 2,

where yujuvos Kal dvinrdSuros are parallels.

Matt. XI. 23

Kal (Tu, Ka4>ap>'aou|x, ^f) euj oCpai'ou ui|/u9i^(ri|], lus AiSou

KOTaPi^cn).

No satisfactory construction or interpretation has so far been

evolved out of this vexatious reading, which is that of our best

MSS. The variae lectiones 17 vtl/wOeia-a and rj v\fro>6-q<;, which are

found in more recent MSS., no doubt obviate our difficulties, but
are plainly attempts at emendation. The sense which they yield
is so easy and obvious that it is difficult to see how they could
have been corrupted into the reading found in the older MSS.
Now, it is a well-known fact in palaeography that when
XI. 23] ST. MATTHEW 39

similar syllables occurred in immediate succession, one of them

was apt to be overlooked by the copyist, and so to be left out
of the text. For instance, in Codex B we find, Luke xiv. 27,

ooTis ow /SaoTTaftt instead of oo-tis ovv ov ^aa-rd^u, and Matt.

xix. 17, f<TTiv instead of els icrriv. If, then, our text was origin-

ally KA*APNAOYM0YMHEn2, it would be liable to be copied

as KA^APNAOYMHEOS, and the present reading would natur-
ally result. If allowance is made for this easy slip of the

copyist, the passage would read, koL o-v, Kac^apvaov/x, ov fir]

?<i>s ovpavov vil/uiOi^crr], And thou, Capernaum, thou shalt not be

exalted unto heaven.

,
My correction is corroborated in a curious way by an
extract from Athanasius which is quoted by Professor Blass, and
which runs thus : ov lus rm) ovpavov vtj/io&jjs,. dXX Iws 'AiSov

Kora/SijoT;. In this citation eav is a classical literal paraphrase

of tl, which is so often met vfith in the Septuagint as an

alternative of ov /jltj, and of which traces are also found in the

New Testament (cp. Mark viii. 12; Heb. iv. 3). Thus the

reading in the old MSS. evidently varied between ou /xr] and

tl, that is, between two words of the same import, a fluctuation
of a kind which may be said to be characteristic of the Scripture

text (see my Note on Mark i. 6). In fact, the variation between

ci and ov exists in Mark viii. 1 2.

It will be observed in the passage from Athanasius that the

second member of the sentence is introduced by dXAa. I incline

to think that this conjunction was not added by Athanasius,

but was found by him in his text. It is with dAAa, or rather

dXA." ^, that the second member of a sentence generally com-

mences if the first begins with tl having a negative forces or wjth

ov firi. Cp. Ezek. xiv. 16, tl viol ij OvyaTtpii o-o)9^tro-rat dXX'

ij avTol fJLOVOi <Tia6ri(Tovrai; 18, ov /i^ pvg-ovrai vioiis ovSe Ovyartpwi

dAA' jj avToi iwvoi iTiaO^crovTai.

Thus the passage under consideration, according to all



40 ST. MATTHEW [XII. 43, 44

probability, had at first this form : Kal crv Ka<j)apvaovfj., ov fj-rf

(or ei) 0)5 ovpavov vi/'oi^iJotj dX\' r/ tios "AiSou KaTa^rjcrg.

Matt. xii. 43

Ai^pXETai 8i' dcijSpui' TOT7UI' Jtjtoui' dmirauo-ii'.

The explanation commonly given of these words is that

"waterless places" are deserts, which were reputed to be the

haunts of demons. It is to be observed, however, that, whereas
Isaiah (xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14) represents demons as delighting

in desert solitudes, our text implies the contrary. The evil

spirit seeks rest and " findeth it not." The passage, moreover,

seems to require that the demon should seek repose in many

places before it returns to its previous abode in the man. I am
inclined to read Sia /^vpiW tottwv, through numberless places.
The palseographic difference between AIAMYPKiN and AIA-
NYAPflN is inconsiderable. The present reading is repeated
in St. Luke, and the corruption must .have occurred early.

Matt. xii. 44

Kal eXOoi' cupiaKEi [TOf olKOf] axoXd^oi^a, aeo'apufiEi/oi' Kal

KEKOO'p,T)|JI,^VOI'.

The word o-xoXa^oira is wrongly rendered by empty. The

correct interpretation is on holiday. This is clear from the
words "swept and garnished." In the ancient world, when
people were not punctilious about cleanliness, and when all

dwellings, even those of wealthy people, resembled workshops,

grinding, spinning, and weaving being daily employments,

houses were not swept and garnished except for such occasions
as a Sabbath, a holiday, or a wedding, when work stopped.
The Vulgate in translating vacantem appears to me to have

given the word the sense which I suggest. For (r)(p\a.tfa is a

 ^^^- 2] ST. MATTHEW 4I
synonym of dpyZ, cra^^an^o), being derived from o-xoXri, which
means a holiday. See Sophocles's Lexicon, v. <txoM; and
compare the Romaic word (TKoK-q, which is a specific term
for a holiday (Vlachos, " <txo\i\ [read o-koXi;], jour
de fete,
chomable"). It may be pointed out that the usual rendering
would represent an empty house as "swept and garnished,"
whereas, on the contrary, such houses are naturally neglected

and full of dust.

MaTI'. XVI. 2

'Oijrios -i^vay-lv^^ \iytn " EuSia, iruppdUi yip 6 oupa.v6s-"

KOI Trput "Irniepov xei/A^"'. iru^pdjei yelp (rruyydlay 6 oupoi'ds."

If, when the sky is fiery (which is the meaning of irvppd^ei),

fair weather is indicated, it cannot also be fiery when foul
weather is threatening; at any rate, an observer would not
be able to prognosticate contrary weather from exactly the
same sign. I, therefore, am disposed to hold the second
mippd^u to be an error, the more so as the sky cannot be
simultaneously fiery {irvppdim) and gloomy (tmryvos); and in
its place I would read x"P<Ce, * dawns. Thus the observer
in the morning, looking up at the sky, would say : The day
breaks gloomily, we shall have foul weather; and this is exactly
what the context requires.
The word \apd^i, i.e. il dawns, as an impersonal verb has
been preserved in modern Greek, which also uses yXvKoxapd^a
(? from \vKri + xapd^ei), xapafiara, yXvKOxa-pa-lJMTa (besides the
nearly obsolete but delightful x-P"-^yV ^'^'i X"P"MV'^)- See
Vlachos, " xapafei, le jour commence h poindre ; le jour perce."

And Sophocles in his Lexicon quotes an instance of this

verb in the form x^-P"-"'"''^

from as early a date as Agathias
(a.D. 582): "tov opOpov xpa(r<ro/tei^v, dawning."

' Popularly felt as X'^P^ + "iy^ and X"/''^ + V/^PO"

42 ST. MATTHEW [XVI. 26,, XX. 16

Mait. XVI. 26
"H Ti Suaet OMflpuTTOS dtToXXayiio Trjs <|>ux>is outoC ;

This question can only be taken as implying that a man

will give everything in exchange for his life ; but, as it stands,

it conveys exactly the reverse meaning. The nature of the

difficulty is shown by the preceding question, n i^eXij^o-eTai

av^pcDTTos; to which the answer is ofiSeV. The parallel question,

Tt Bioau; which is put in exactly the same form, necessitates

the same answer, ovStv. The reply required, however, is ttSlv ;

and to bring this response the question should have been put
in k negative form, i.e. tC ov Sdxrti;

That there exists an error in the text is beyond doubt. But

I do not think that in this instance there has been a loss of the
negative. The meaning required seems to be this As it is :

no profit to a man if he win the whole world at the sacrifice

of his life, so a man will aaej>( nothing in exchange for his
life. This sense we obtain by altering, Scocrci into Beierau The
change thus modifies the question into one which, like the
preceding clause, requires ovSti/ as an answer,

MArr. XX. 15

'H 6 6<t>6aXfi.o$ crou iron]p<Ss iimv oti iyit dyaOos elfu;

Dr. Bloomfield was no doubt quite correct in explaining that

oc^OaXfjioi Tfovtjpbi can mean an envious eye; but, even if we
grant that the words are used in that sense in the text, I do not

see that they make the sentence logical. For the drift of the
remonstrance would then be : Js your eye envious because T am
generous 1 or Are you envious because I am generous 1 This
question clashes with common sense. A man does not acquire
an envious nature because he sees a good action ; but, being
already envious, he hates to see generosity. Nor are matters
 ;

XXm. 37, XXV. 31] ST. MATTHEW 43

improved by assuming that the text means : Are you envious of
my good action 1 because (i) Greek would have expressed this

sense by using yivtTai, and not eori, and (2) one envies the
recipient of a gift, not the giver.

I suspect that the textoriginally read /lurOos, and not o<^^dX/to9.

If so, the sentence was perfect, and expressed exactly what one
would have expected under the circumstances narrated by the
Evangelist. The householder would then reason thus : My friend,
I do thee no injustice, since I pay thee according to our agreement
if I choose to be generous to others, that is no business of thine,

nor does it make my payment to thee (o /uo-Boi o-ov) wrong*

Mait. XXIII. 37
'lepouvaXfiji ^-^\i6oPoXo0era tous AifoorroXjiivous irpos outi^k.

The last two words are rendered in all the versions by

to her, which is, in truth, the only meaning that they will yield.

But it is very awkward that the apostrophe should thus, imme-

diately after starting, lose its apostrophic form and lapse into
narrative, and then as suddenly revert to its original style. If,

however, we Only change the breathing of avrrjv and write avr^v,

we shall obtain what we should have expected, i.e. io thee. For

instead of the personal pronoun, the reflective seems sometimes
to have been used. So in John xiv. 11, wio-TevcTc /<.oi on iyo)

fv T<a TTarpi Ktti o Kwrrip Iv iftoi, il 8e /a^, 8ta ra. (pyo. avTov

{ = IJU)v) iruTTeviTi )ioi XX. ; 18, cwpaKa rov Kvpiov koX ravra ttirev

air^B ( = i/jiol, as some Latin versions translate). We should prob-

ably find this usage more often in our texts if it were not for

classical influence.

MA-rr. XXV. 31

*Em BpoKoo 86$r)s auTou;

Though the usual rendering, i.e. on the throne of his glory,

more likely interpretation is, I think,
is, of course, possible, the
44 ST. MATTHEW [XXVI. 50

on his throne of glory, the pronojin being taken with the word
dpovov, and the genitive Sdfr;s being regarded as equivalent to an
adjective such as ei/So|os or \afi.Tcpo<s, in accordance with the well-

known periphrasis which is explained in Blass's Gram., % 35, 5.

Cp. I Kings ii. 8, 6povov Sofijs ; Sir. xlv. 7, oroX^v 8of ??s ; Isa. ii.

16, ttXoiW KaXXovs, etc.

Matt. xxvi. 50

'Eraipc, iif o -irdpEi.

To treat l^ o irapet as an interrogation is inadmissible in

Greek, which would require rt or -ri Sri or i-Trl ti. The explana-

tion given by EuthymiuSj 81' o irapayiyova^ r/yow to Kara, (Tkottov

n-parre rov Trpoo'x^p-a.TOi acl>U[itvoi, is extremely ingenious and

grammatically possible; but, unless such a phrase was usual
and idiomatic for which there is no evidence it could not
have been understood without the addition of ttohjo-oi/. Besides,

it breathes a harshness which is incompatible with our Lord's

kindly nature and courteous mode of address.

I incline to think that E* was originally written EY, the

pronunciation of which in modern Greek is the same, and

could not have been very dissimilar at the time when the
Gospel was written. If, misled by the close similarity of sound
which existed between the two words, a copyist, writing from
dictation, put down E$ instead of EY, he was likely to have

added 8 almost mechanically in order to complete the sentence.

The text might thus originally have read "Eraipe, c3 trdpu ( = v
^A.6es. Cp. John xi. 28, o StSatrxaXos irdpio-Ti, etc.), of which
the meaning would be : Welcome, friend. Compare Soph. Aj.
92, (US (.V Kapia-Ti]';. The expression has been preserved in
modern Greek in a formula which is an exact paraphrase of my
conjecture, KaXols rjpOfs ! See Vlachos, v. tpxo/jiai, " KoXws rjXOi's

[read ^p^es], soyez le bienvenu." If at the present time in Greece



XXVn. S8] ST. MATTHEW 45

a friend were greeted, as Jesus was greeted by Judas, with the

words Tid (Tov, Sda-KoXe ( Xaipe, 'Pa^^l), he would answer,

in exact accordance with my restoration of the text, KaXSs ^p6tg,

ISXafiri, or KaA,o o-to fiXdfii] ( = 'Eraipe, ev Trdpei). And if this
greeting occurred when the friends were meeting after a more
or less prolonged separation, they would probably also kiss one
another.

Matt, xxvii. 28

Kai EfSuirarrEs auroc x^aP'uSa kokkii'T)!' -TTEpiedrjKai' auru

This is the reading of the best MSS. 'ExSvo-ai/Tes, which is

found in A and some other MSS., is plainly a correction, made

for the purpose of giving the passage sense, just as in the same
MSS. the words x^oj^^Sa kokkCvtjv have been placed after irepi-

iOijKav, in order, as Alford points out, to avoid the construction

c/cSiJcravTes avTOV j(Xaju,v8a. Had exSicrai'Tes once Stood in the

text, it is hard to understand by what process it could have
become ivSva-avre's, a word which cannot yield good sense if

TrepUOriKav is allowed to stand.

My view is that evSwavTes is correct, but that irepic'^ijicav

avTiS has been transmitted to us by error, the original reading

being TrepUa-rqcrav avTov, i.e. iAey stood round him. For irtpi-

o-T^vat Tivoi, cp. Acts XXV. 7, nrepiC(rTi]<Tav airov ot 'lovSoioi ttoWcl

Kol fiapia amM/naTa (ftipovTK. My suggestion is seemingly sup-

ported by the Munich Latin version (q), which gives et induerunt

eum chlamidem coccineam. circumdederunt eum\et purpure7ii\. If

circumdederunt in this passage was meant in the sense of irepi-

eOrjKav, and not in that of Trepico-njcrav, should not the personal

pronoun, which depends upon it, have been put in the dative
case, and not in the accusative ?
 ^

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON MARK I. 6

Since writing my Note on Mark i. 6 it has occurred to

me that dxptSas is a misreading of pt^as. There can be no

doubt that, at the time when the Gospels were written,

must have been construed colloquially with the accusative.^

Dr. Jannaris {Hist. Gr. Gr., 1570, footnote) gives an instance

of this^ ,
construction from a papyrus of as early a date as
B.C. 1 6 1-2. In books this usage seemingly does not appear
before the eighth century; but am, which is used as an

alternative^ for , is found joined with an accusative in

writings of the second century (Dr. Jannaris, 15 17). Such

a construction would not occur in literature unless it had
obtained colloquially for a very long period previously, and
had become habitual and almost unavoidable.
Now, a professional scribe, accustomed to bookish Greek

in which ck would invariably be construed with the genitive,

would be apt to misread EKPIZA2, and unconsciously reproduce
another word of plausible similarity, which would make classical
syntax, such as AJCPIAAS. If my conjecture ever has the good

fortune to be proved by documentary evidence, it would give

an idea of the enormous extent to which the language of the
Gospels, especially that of St. Mark, was revised towards classi-
cism when Christianity advanced in prestige and the Sacred
Books came into the hands of men of classical learning;

' iK, in the form of o'x, is so construed in Romaic.

" Dr. Jannaris, however, queries the quotation.
 ;

ADDITIONAL NOTE 47
for in our existing MSS. there has not survived a single direct
instance of the construction of or arro with the accusative. I
suspect, however, that we have indirect evidence of this syntax

not only in the passage under consideration, but also in i Cor.

ix. 7, where the present readings, t6v Kap-irbv and ix tov Kapwov

(ovK l<r6Cu), most probably represent two different expedients for

avoiding the unclassical Ik tov Kapirov. In fact, one of the old

Latin translators, in giving de frudum as his rendering, seems

to have been translating Ik Kapirov literally.

For hrdiav IK pi^ai Koi Kapirov ( = #c pi^lov Kal Kapirov), cp.

Mark vii. z8, to, Kvvapia io'diovinv dirb twv ij/ixiwv ; Luke XX.

16, xopToxrO^vai eic tSv KcpaTtW; I Cor. ix. 7, Ik rov Kapirov

OVK ia-OUi; xi. 28, e/c tov apTov icr6iT<o ( = Tov apTov ; cf. ver. 27)

Num. XV. 1 9, OTav icrOryri v/xcii diro tSiv dpTtav Trj^ y^', etc.

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND CIBB LIMITED, EDINBURGH

NOTES ON ST MARK
AND ST MATTpEW
By A!iEX. P^LLIS

NEW EDITION

Price Three Shiltinga net

OXPOp^ NIVERSITY PRESS

LONSON- BDIHBUBOH aiJiSOOW LBIPZla ,

NBW TOHK TOBOMTO MBI^OUaHH j_ G4PB

: HUMPHREY /^Fois)
NOTES ON ST MAKE
AND ST MATTHEW
By ALEX. PALLIS

NEW EDITION

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD
1932
 ,^

External testimonies to authenticity can seldom ^'f

he so satisfactory and convincing as not to need

support and confirmation from interned probabi-
lities. There are many striking instances in which
the most imposing external testimonies have proved
to be worthless and deceptive.

Strauss

Printed in Great Britain

 There are traditions that St Matthew's Gospel was translated
from Hebrew and St Mark's from Latin and recently it has been ;

argued that St John's is a version from Aramaic, and furthermore

that the author of the Apocalypse, though he wrote in Greek, was
really thinking in Hebrew.
If these notions rested on facts, we should be witnessing a
unique phenomenon. For the phrasing and the narratives of all
these works nowhere halt but proceed throughout in a most
charmingly unconstrained and homely style. For only one trans-
lator to accomplish this would be a notable achievement but that ;

four translators so marvellously gifted should simultaneously have

shone forth staggers credibility. The mystery deepens if we reflect
that those authors, though richly endowed with native eloquence,
were not trained men of letters, such therefore as would be meti-
culous as to how they performed their task they would have felt
;

satisfied that they did well if they translated literally, thus pro-
ducing texts more or less similar to those of the Septuagint.
If it is retorted that the case of the Septuagint is an extreme
one, I shall transcribe as a specimen a version made
by an approved
author who
handles his original Greek with skill. Eusebios in
his Ecclesiastical History 10-7 thus renders part of an imperial
epistle ; 'ETretS'^ Ik 7rX.i,6v(OV 7rpayfj.a.T(i>v cj>aLveTai 7rapeiov6evrj6eL(Tav ttjv

Oprja-KiLav if rj KOpv<j>aia t^s ayLWTaTTqq iirovpaviov aiSuis <f>vXaTTeTat

fj-eydKov; kivSvvov^ ivrjvo-)(ivai, tois St^/xoo-iois irpayixaa-iv, avTrjV re ravTr/v

iv6tcrft,u><; dva\r](f>6e'i<Tav xal cjjvXaTTOjxivrjv //.eywrTrji/ evTV)(iav rio 'P(OyOiaiKft)

OVOJJM.TL, Kai (TufjLiraa-i rots tS>v dvOpiinruiv irpdyfjt.acnv iiaipTOV euSat/xoviW,

irapea)(riKVai, tS>v deiutv evepyecriiov tovto Trap)(Ov(T!i>v, iSo^ev ekciVovs

Tov; avSpas tovs rfj 6(f>ei\oixevr] dyiOTrjTi Koi ttj tov vofiov tovtov irapESpia

Ttts VTrij/Detrtas tocs i^ lavTSv -rrj ttJs Octets OprjcTKeia'S 6epaireLa, Trapi^ovras
Nothing could be more
Tuiv Kajj.drwv tS>v iSiuiv to, eiraOX-a KO/itVacr^at.

involved and awkward it is almost incomprehensible and quite

;

unlike Eusebios's original sentences. Elsewhere in his book (8-17)

Eusebios presents us with another translated piece, and there by
saying that ytttreySaAe Ka-ra to Swarov testifies that, try hard as he
iv PREFACE
did, he failed to produce anything which in his own estimation
was at all satisfactory. In those times the art of properly trans-
lating was of course unknown.
As regards the Greek phrases asserted to represent Semitisms,
I have embodied a few specimens in my note on Mk 4-22, which I
think prove that such assertions are due to inadequate familiarity
with Hellenistic Greek and the Greek of to-day ; the Semitisms in
Howard's list are no better. And now I may proceed to contribute
some observations respecting the Marcan Gospel which tradition
says was translated from Latin, a theory expounded at length by
M. Couchoud (The Crozer Quarterly January 1928 [English trans-
lation], and The Journal of Theological Studies October 1928), but
controverted by ProfessorsPernot(Eevue de I'Histoire desEeligions
Janvier- Fevrier 1927) and de Zaan (Mnemosyne Vol. LVI Pars iii).
M. Couchoud adduces several passages which he contends yield
a more satisfactory sense in the old Latin than in the Greek texts.
I interpret these passages quite differently in my notes. But in-
terpretations are a subjective matter voluminously contestable,
without any prospect as a rule of either contestant being induced
to surrender. Therefore, just by way of illustration I will deal here
with only one of those passages.
It is 14-41 Ka$vSiTi ToXoiirbv Kal avaTraiifcr^e . . . cyetpecr^e. By
taking KaOevSere and avaTravea-Oe as imperatives there ensues of
course a flagrant contradiction with iyeipea-de. But as Sopho-
cles, a high authority second to none, has shown, those verbs
are in the indicative mood, and the sentence is an interrogation
which implies a deprecation, the Lord saying 'Is it so then,
you sleep ? Eise and let us depart.' In this way the contradiction
vanishes. Couchoud objects that roXonrov rebuts this acceptation
;

but on the contrary, it renders the interrogative character clearer.

Cf. XII Patr. Lev. 14-4 iav v/xeis a-KOTta-OrJTe iv aa-efieia, tl Xolttov to.
iQvrj 7roiriaov<Ti ; if ye he darkened in ungodliness, what then will the
For Xolttov (or ToXomov) is equivalent to oZv, which
Gentiles do ?
often accompanies interrogative sentences (see Liddell and Scott).
Hesseling, Jean Moschos p. 74 'Aoittov signifie done, ainsi (cf. 107-
20.143-17, etc).' Sophocles 'Adverbially, Xonrov = ovv, now then.'
 PEEFACE V
And so in MGk, in which it has entirely extruded ovv. BXaxos
' XoiTTov (o-uV8(r/xos), done, eh Men. Aotirov apvela-Be ; ainsi vous re-
fusee ? {koL h/apBpws) TO koiTTov TL ehre ; eh Men, gu'a-t-il dit ?.'

However, I will readily grant that some of the old Latin versions
occasionally yield an apter sense than our present Greek texts. Is
this surprising ? Those versions were made from older Greek texts
than those we now possess, and it is only to be expected that oc-
casionally they must record good readings. I have myself found
them helpful not only (1) in Mark 3-21.6-20.14-41, but also (2) in
Matthew 2-6.8-30.18-24.27-14. (3) Luke 7-33.7-40.11-35.11-47.24-
32. (4) John 2-9.2-11.3-4.3-31.9-6.19-21.21-9.21-19. (5) Acts 1-18.
28-6. (6) Eom.2-29. Very helpful have likewise proved the readings
of the Syr. Sinaiticus.
I may add another instance. In the Acts (27-41) Luke according
to our present texts states that Paul's ship was wrecked at a spot
where two seas meet, hiOaXaa-a-ov. I was puzzled as to the reason for
this detail, because it is not intimated how such a configuration
of the coast contributed to the wreck. I tried to find a solution by
examining what Greek word the Latin version vadosum represents,
and tentatively suggested XmoOdXacra-ov. Professor Hesseling, who
read my note, wrote to me suggesting hvcrdaXaa-a-ov, exposed to a had
sea. Everything at once broke into evidence. This particular agrees
with the information 17 Se Trpv/xva ikvero vtto t^s /Sias, by the force of
the waves, and at the same time Sva-6d\aaa-ov fits the Latin undosum
(vndosum), subsequently misread as vadosum.
Couchoud is impressed by the fact that in Mark often the same
word is represented in three different ways, as for instance 10-46
Trpoa-aLTwv-iTraLTuiv-Trpoa-aiTr]';, and argues that such differences could
not have arisen on the basis of a Greek original, but that rather
they resemble the little differences which work by different trans-
latorswould show.
Such variants, howevei-, are not peculiar to Mark. They exist
extensively in Luke's Gospel, which so far has not been suspected
of being a version, though that may come some day. Here are 22
examples from its first two chapters only. 1-8 evavTi-ivavTiov-lvuTriov.
1 7 irpoeXmcTiTaiTrpocreXiva-eTai-TropevcriTaL-TrpoTropeva-iTaL. 1 7 avrovKv-
 vi PEEPACE
piov-^ov deov. 26 raXtXatas-raXtXat'ai''louSaias lorSa. 56 (is-wcrre
omitted. 63 koL lOavft-aa-av Trai/Tes, avetax&V Se to o'TOfx.a avTOV irapa-

XP^P-a Koi (iXv9rj) r) yXwacra avrov-KoX irapayprip-a- eXvOfj fj yXCxrcra avTOv

KoXlOaviw-a-CLV TTo.vTi';. 77 auTwv-^/xGv omitted. 2-1 a.Troypd(f)e(r6aiTov

d.Troypa.(j>e(T6aLa.Troypd.\l/a(r6at. 3 '7r6Xiv-TraTpiBa)(U)pav. 8 eTrl rrj^ TroifJ-vri^

iiTL TTjv TTOi/Ji.vrjviv TTj TTOtfjivrj. 21 l7rXi^<T6rjcraviTrXr]pii>6r](7av(TVVTeXc

adrja-av. 22 avTwvavTovavTrjs-OTaitted. 26 Trplv ij av~7rp\v i;-2(os av. 37

cTwj/ (os TO>v 0)5 Itwv. 37 Tov lepov (yaov)a.7ro Tov lepoviKTOv IcpoO. 38
'
lepov(TaXr]p.iv'lpov(TaXTjiJ.ivT(i Icrpai^X. iO Itt avTOiir avrZiir' avrov
iv avTio. 42 dva/3aiv6vT<j)v avTUiVdvajiavruiv avTZvave/Brjcrav ol yoveis av-

Tov exovres avTOV. 43 uTre/ittvei' aTre/icii'ei/ cTreyiiEivev eyu.etvei'. 44 /coi rots

yvwoTTOisKai iv tois yvwcrTOts omitted. 45 evpovre'sevpovTe's avrovevpi-
CTKovTE'S. 62 (To^laTfi (TO<j>Laiv rfj croi^ia.

And against these divergences we must set those words and ex-
pressions which are constant. These are incomparably more nu-
merous what are we then to suppose ? Were the various pre-
;

sumed translators equally gifted and did they all hit upon exactly
the same words and expressions ? That would have been a marvel
no less astounding than the legendary unanimity of the seventy-
two scholars who produced the Septuagint. As an illustration of
what happens when two equally eminent specialists translate the
same text I may transcribe the first sentences of Thucydides as
done by Bloomfield and by Jowett. Thus

Bloomfield Jowett
Thucydides, an Athenian, hath Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote
composed this history of the the history of the war in which
war of the Peloponnesians and the Peloponnesians and the
Athenians, as they waged it Athenians fought against one
against each other. He com- another. He began to write
menced the work immediately when they first took up arms,
on the breaking out of the war, believing that it would be great
persuaded that it would be an and memorable above any pre-
important one and the most vious wars,
memorable of those that had
preceded it.
 PEE FACE vii

Compared with the differences exhibited in these extracts the

Marcan texts are a mere nothing.
variants in the
And there is more. Triple variants in Mark exist not exclu-
sively in the Greek but as often in the Latin texts. Cf. 1-10 in
eum-in ipsum-super eum-super illum-eo. 11 in te complacui-in
quern complacui-qui bene mihi complaouisti. 14 postquam-post-
quam autem-sed postquam-factum est postquam. 1 6 retia-retias-
synagogam docebat eos-
retiam. 21 statim sabbatis ingressus in
ingrediens cum eis sabbatis in synagogam Capharnaum docebat
populum-ingredientes Capharnaum continuo intravit sabbatis in
synagoga et docebat eos. 21 ingressi sunt-ingrediuntur-introie-
runt-iverunt. 25 dicens-et dixit-dixitque ei. 34 ejeeit-ejiciebat-et
qui daemonia habebant ejiciebat ilia ab eis. 37 invenerunt dicunt-
invenissent dixerunt-dicentes. 40genibusvolutans-adgeniculansse
-genuflexo. 41 extendens et tangens-extendit et tetigit-extendens.
44 principi sacerdotum-principibus sacerdotum-sacerdotibus. All
these from one chapter only.
The true explanation of such divergences manifestly is no
other than that the earliest Christians were not critics, such as
would punctiliously transcribe, but ordinary readers who would
not be conscious of any harm if occasionally they altered in their
own copies the wording of their models to suit their individual
tastes. See further my note on Mk 1-6.
The frequent variant of the article missing is another argument
which has been advanced in support of a Latin original. This again
is nothing peculiar to Mark. The same phenomenon abundantly

occurs in Luke. In his first two chapters I find it in 1-5.5.6.15.17.

25.25.26.36.58.69.70.74.2-7.12.21.22.23.23.39.52.52. Likewise in
Jn 1-21.24.25.27.28.31.32.33.35.44. And so forth in innumerable
passages. Iwas curious to see how this matter stands in classical
by contact with foreign languages and I examined
texts untainted
Hude's apparatus criticus on the first book of Thucydides the ;

variant in question occurs 78 times.

Another argument urged is that several sentences, being longer
in the Greek than they are in the Latin texts, must denote ampli-
fications of a Latin original. Variations, however, of longer and
viii PREFACE
shorter sentences are equally a feature of our Greek texts. I
have counted 65 in the first five chapters of Luke, and I dare-
say I missed several, the work of picking them out being exces-
sively tedious. I will give a few specimens, which I think meet
the case. 1-29 im tZ Aoyo) (8i)6Ta/Da;:^^7;-omitted. 75 ras fj/jiefia'S fijxSiV-
To.'S ^fj.ipas rrj's ^m^s riix,C>v. 2-12 tv tfxxTvrj icnrapyav(Ofjievoi'eaTrapyav(a-

fiivov (kol) Kilfievov iv (jyarvrj. 40 iKpaTaLOVTO-iKparaiovTO Trvevfj-aTi. 42

avaPawovTUivavaPaivovTinv avTuiv eis 'lepocroXvyUa dv/3?ycrav ol yovets av-
ToB i')(0VTi<i avTov. 44 (ruyyevea'LVcrvyyaif.criv koX yvoxXTOis- 46 KaOeQo-
fjievoviv T<u lepZ KaOet^ofxevov. 51 Trai'TaTravra ra prjji.aTa (ravTo). 3-7
EKTropcvOjuei/ots eKTTopevo/iei'Ois oy(koi';. 14 fxrjSeva hia<TUcrr)Te- fi-q^iva

aSiKij(rr]Te, jx-qhiva Siaaeiarjre. 4-2 ovSiv itjiayevovBiv e<j>ayv ovBi cjrtei'.

1 SLacj>v\a.^ei ere Sia^vXa^et ere ev Trdaai's rais oSots aov. 1 4 7rpL)(iiipov

TrepL)(<i>pov xuipa';. 5-7 ^vOi^eaOaLuxTTe irapa. ti fivOi^ecrdai. 25 <^ b
KaTeKiTo-To /cAtviSiov (^' o KaTKeiTo. Numerous such amplifications
exist also in Matthew, as for instance 3-6 'lopSavrj-'lopSavrj Trora/^o).

5-27 ippiO-qlppiOr) rois ap^aioi's. 8-31 diro(jTtA.ov fjfjLO.'iiiriTpfij/ov rj/juv

dTrtX^tij/. 1 1-8 iv /j.aX.aKOL'S-iv juaXa/cots i/iari'ots. 1 2-35 OrjcravpovBrjcravpov

TTjs KopSias. And so forth.
The only effective argument in favour of a version from Latin
would be to produce words and expressions which are normal as
Latin but malapropisms as Greek. Let us discuss some of the
items asserted to be of this nature.
1. K TraiSiodev of 9-21 and dTro p-aKpoOev of 11-13 are alleged to re-
produce epueritia and e longinguo by pleonastic bad Greek forma-
tions. But such formations are very common. Of. Lk 16-23.22-54.
23-49 aTTO fxaKpodiv. Mt 27-51 wKavwdiv. Also Hom. 19 f oipavd^ev.
Jannaris 435 quotes the following : 2Reg.20-2 dTro oiria-Oiv. Polyb.
40-6-1 air' iKuOev. Epiph.2-437c and Call.88-1 Sltt' ivTv6ev. Mai. 117-
22 Ik vrjTTioOev. 35-5 Ik TratStd^tv. Why cannot e pueritia and e lon-
ginguo be translations of Ik TraLBtoOev and dTro p.aKp60iv?
2. (Tv/xl3ovX.iov TTotT^o-avres ol a.p)(^Lpu^ of 15-1 is Called a bald
Latinism ; why. Anyhow cf. Acts 23-13 o-vvo/jlw-
I do not follow
criav 7roir]<ra.fji,evoi. Thuc. 1-67 ^XXoyov iroL-rjcravTi';. Proteuaggelion

Jac.8 aniji/SovXiov iyivero tSi' a.p^iep(Dv, which in an active form

would be (Tvp-IBovXiov liroi-qa-av ol apxtepei^. In MGk there is no
 PEEFACE ix

other way of framing this phrase than by /cavwras (= TroH^o-ai/res)

3. On the authority of Lagrange, not an authority of the highest,

n-poo-Xa^ofi.evo'S of the Sentence 8-32 Trpoo-Xapo/Jievo^ airov 6 IlETpos is
taken exclusively to signify helping, and being inapplicable in
such a sense it is set down as a Latinism. But cf. Lk 9-47 iiriXa/io-
/x,VOS TratSioi'. Philem.8 Trpoa-Xa^ov avrbv ws ifxi. Polyb.1-37 (nrov8d-

^ovte's Ttvas TToAcis Trpoa-XajSia-Oai. Arist.Lys.202 TrpoaXajiov fnoi tov

Koirpov. Achar.1216 roviriovi TrpoaXafiea-de. No doubt TrpO(TXap,/3a.viv
or 7rpoa-Xaft.pa.vea-6ai may Occasionally and figuratively mean to help,
but its more frequent signification is to seize or to draw towards
oneself.

4. (eiTTcv) ioOfivai [avrrj] (^ayciv of 5-43 is Said to translate ut da-

retur manducare, and to represent the Latin construction where an
infinitive serves as subject of a passive verb. Still, not only is the
phrase repeated in Lk 8-55 Sicrafei/ ai-r^ SoOrjvai ^ayetv, but the con-
struction as a genuine Greek construction is further proved, if
proof indeed be needed, by for instance Lk 24-46 yeypairrat Tra^et;/

TOV XpLCTTOv Koi dvaoTT^vai. Antiph.Chor.l3 irpoo-eriTaKTO wveicrOai. 40

TrpoeipT^/iivov dpyecrdai. Thuc. 5-29 iyiypawTO evopKov ctvac -n-poa-deivaL.

The infinitive <^ayttv attaches itself to BoOrji/ai as it does to Sotc in

Lk 9-13 Sore avTOis <j)ayeiv and to iSwKare in Mk 25-35 eStoxaTe fiot

<f>ayelv.

5. Another argument is derived from 14-3 ovto's airov iv Bijda.via.

V Trj o'lKia, S'jU.oJi'os tov XsTrpov, KaTaKt/ji,ivov avTov ^X6tv yvvij.The two
absolute genitives without a conjunction are called an awkward
construction, and therefore supposed badly to render the Latin
cum esset et recurnberet. There exist numerous examples
in Betharkia
elsewhere of two participles so unconnected. Cf. Lk 5-28 /caTaXtTrmv
irdvTa dvacTTas rjKoXovO^i. 7-37 eTriyvovaa oti KaraKtiTai iv Trj oIkio, tov

^apiaaiov, KO/ito"a(ra S.Xdfiao'Tpov Koi (TTacra irapa tovs TroSas avroB

KXaiOvcra. 9-16 Xa/Siav tovs mvTi apTOv;, a.va/3Xeij/ai eh tov ovpavov ev-

Xoyrjcrev. 23-11 i^ovOvrj(rai avTOv 6 'H/dwStjs xai e/i7rai'fas, irtptySaA.coi'

ia-OrjTa Xa/xirpav aviTreixif/ev avTov. Such examples abound in Luke.

Cf. also Mt 3-1 TrapayCviTOLi 'Itoavi/iys Kr]pva-cr<ov iv rj} iprip-w Xiytav.

Antiph.Herod.29 a.woTpa.TvoiJ.a'Oi touSc tov Xoyov tnjA.Xay8dvTs iftaa-d-

X PEEFACE
VL^ov Toiis avOpioirovi. Aesch. Ag. 1054 W, 3> TaXati/a,ToV8' iprnJ-wa-aar' oxov

eiKova avdyKYi. And so forth. That the examples which I have pro-
duced are not absolute but ordinary participles makes no difference
so far as the propriety of the construction is concerned. I should
indeed say that the above Latin wording cum esset in Bethania et
recumberet simply vitiates the Greek, which by not connecting
the participles states at a time when Jesus was in Bethany there
came a woman in the hour of his reclining.
Similarly 9-28 cto-tX^oVros airov ets oIkov, ol /jLadriTOL airov cVt;-
6.

paJToDv airov is branded as a very faulty construction, betraying a

translator. Nothing is commoner than anacoloutha of this kind so ;

common in fact are they, that one might call them almost normal.
Jannaris 2145 registers innumerable examples. Cf. alsoLk 7-42
ix-q iyovTiov airSiv a-TroSovvai, aficfiOTepoK ixoLpicraTO. 17-12 eia-ep)(op.evov

airov eis Tiva KW/x-qv, vm^vTrjo-av avrZ. 18-40 eyyicravTO^ avTOv iTnjpu)-
Trjo-ev avTov. An exceptionally ungrammatical anacolouthon is Lk
7-32 iraiStOK ToTs iv ayopa Ka6r]fJ.ivoi? Ae-yovTes, i.e. \iyov<n.

7. Constructions with Iva p.ri after verbs of prohibition, such as

irapcKaXci, iirerLfj,a, StcuTEtXaTo, are called barbarous, and tVa fnij is

asserted to represent the Latin ne. But such constructions exist

in great numbers elsewhere, which shows that they are neither

barbarous nor Mark's peculiar Latinisms. Cf. Mt 16-20 Siea-TctXaro
Tois p.a6rjTali Lva. jx-qhan. iiiruxriv. 12-16 iirTifn]frev avTol^ "va p-rj <pavepbv

airov TTOf/jcroia-Lv. Tik. 8-Zl TrapeKaXovv airov tva p-rj iiriTa^ri, 18-39 eTrcTi-

p,(iyv airiu lva (Tiyqarj. 22-32 ihefjOrjv Xva p,T] cfcXtTrij rj jricrrL'; crov. Jn 18-

36 Ol vTrrjpirai av ol ip.ol yyyusvitfivro Xva p-r/ TrapaSoOw. Apoc.9-4 ippiOrj

aurais Lva p.rj dStKiytrtuo-iv. 1 Euag.Thom. 1 4 Tra/jijyyeiXe rfj p,rjrpl airov

oTTojs ( Lva) p.rj diroXvcrcts. And similarly without the negative
Thuc.5-36 eStovTo BotcoTois ottojs (= tva) jrapaSScrt, etc. See Sopho-

cles VV. airairiu), /3ovkop.aL, 8ea), Siayopevw, ivriWop.ai, i^airito, iiop-

Ki^m, lTriKa\eop,ai, i7nrip.d(i), ipiardo). This construction of iVa with
the subjunctive represents a prospective infinitive, which Jannaris
copiously illustrates in App.VI.B.a. Therefore we find Jn 5-18
et,'qrovv airov airoKreivat, and lCor.14-12 ^fjTeiTe tva Trepiacrevrjre. 14-
5 6e\ta Trdvra's i/iSs XaXeTv yXwo-crats, p.aWov Se tVa irpotftrjrevyjre (
=^ irpo-

(l}yjreveiv). Jannaris explains this development in his 2097 ' lva

 PKEFACE xi

with the primary subjunctive had established itself during Greco-

Boman times as the almost universal substitute for every infini-
tive excepting the declarative, and so had become a very common-
place expression.'
8. We now come to 11-13 rjXOev iSetv idv riia-nv iv airrj, the con-
struction of which is considered un-Greek on the ground that iav
instead of ei is joined to an indicative. This is not peculiar to
Mark. Cf. iJn 5-15 iav o'Sa/juv. Polyb.9-31-2 Av Trpo8ii^<j>aT.
Schol.Arist.Eq.482 Sci'fets ia-v iriirpaKTai. Jannaris 1987 states
' The two parallel conjunctions as theyd and ia.v or av, synonyms
were even in classical times, became gradually identical in mean-
ing, the only distinction being their respective constructions.
Before long, however, this syntactical difference was also levelled,
and the two groups of conditional particles became in every respect
synonymous and interchangeable. At this stage of complete iden-
tity the stronger naturally prevailed over the weaker, and thus eav
invaded the domain of et.' Moulton and Milligan s.v. lav 'The
difference between lav and d is considerably lessened in Hellen-
istic Greek with the result that the former is found fairly frequent-

ly with the indicative.' Nothing commoner.

9. The last point concerns the syntactical position of the pro-
noun. Couchoud says : ' De fa9on generale en latin le pronom
complement en grec
direct est plac6 de preference avant le verbe ;

il est autrement.' Mark

supposed to follow the
is Latin construc-
tion, and as a proof examples like the following are quoted tva :

avToB aiJ/oivTai, ovBei'S la-^vev avrov Sa/xdcraL, rk jJ-ov -qxpaTO, rpts jxt awap-
vrjfryj.

To begin with, Mark does often follow the construction which

be genuinely Greek
is said to ; in fact, it looks as if he follows it

more frequently than the Latin one, as witness 1-24 ^X^es airoXio-ai
YjfXMi ; 3-2 t depaireva-ei avTOV. 3-2 tva KaTT^yoprjaruxriv avTOv. 3-19 os Kal
TrapeSwKev avrov. 4-12 /i^ ttotc a(f>i6y avrois. 4-38 ov /xeXei croi ;
5-20
oo-a iTTOLTjcrev avrZ. 5-33 elSvta o ylyovev avrrj. 5-42 ira /iiySeis yvw tovto.
6-11 OS av jir] Se'^Tai rjjj.a^ firjSt aKovcnacnv vfj-wv. 6-25 OiXm iva ef avr^s

Sws /toi. 6-48 ^^eXe irapeX^ctv avTovs. 8-11 f/p^avTO uv^rjTeiv avrZ. 8-38
OS yap av lirai(rxvv6rj fie. 9-22 iva aTroXea-g avrov. 9-28 on rjiiel^ ovk
 2

xii PEEFACE
rjSvvi^6rjfjLv iK^aXw avTo ;
9-41 oi yap av TroTia-rj v/jlo.'S. 9-43, 44, 47
iav (TKavSaXi^rj ere, 10-35 o ia.v aln^a-o}/i.4v (re. 10-36 tl 6eX.Te iroirjo-at /xe

vjuv J
1 1-3 TL TTOULTe TOVTO j 1 1-1 3 1 apa ivprjcru tl. 11-25 Lva a.<f>TJ v/xlv.

On the other hand, the construction which is said to betray

Latinisms is widely encountered elsewhere. Of. Lk 6-26 orav vp.S.'s

KoXtos eLTroicTLv. 7-2 os yv avrw Ivrip-os. 9-48 os iav ip.e Si^rai. 10-40
Lva p.0L o-vvavTLXd^rjTaL. 6-32 iroia vpZv X'^P'* e<'"''tv ; 7-42 tis avTOV
ayainjcrei ; Mt 5-46 ov)^l /cat oi reXSvat to avTO 7roLov(rLV ; 1 1-3 rj erepov
TrpocrSoKZp.ev ; 17-25 tl (tol SokciJ 19-17 tl p. eptoTas ; 20-6 n <B8e

co-njKaTc ; 22-18 tl p. Treipa^crc ; 25-37 TroTe are u8op.ev (repeatedly) ;

Jn 20-15 TTOV avTov eOrjKas ; Proteu.Jac.8 tl ovv avTriv TTOL-^crw/xev ; 14

TL ovv avTr/v TTOL'^croi ; 17 ttms avTrjv airoypdipo/jLaL ; lEuan.Thoni.7 Troi'a

yairrqp tovto l/3d.aTa<rev ; 1 Act.Pil.l tl outojs iiroLiQcraTe ; Ceb.Tab.20

TTovavTov dirocTTiXku ; Antiph. Herod. 65 etrisTiva tpoLTo. Luc.Somn.
4 fi.i) avTov vircpl3dXuiix.ai. 1 tjv 8 ifx.oX TreWrj. 1 eis /JLaKpdv ere StSafo/tat.
Nigr.6 ixdpTvpd cr TrapadrjcreuOaL iOiXo), 8 ii,erpL<ji% /xi XvTrrj(TLV eoi/ce.

10 a/JLeLvov iLxev avTov aKOveiv. Prom. 1 Upop-rjOea /le eTvaL ^ijs ; Tim.
8ia. TavTO, <roL avTifSpovTov iroXpa, 39 el's old pe irpdypaTa IpPdXXei^.
Pall.LauS. 1107 TiaT-qpovp ere OiXeL iSciv. <rv pe eiXoyrjaov. 1114 iav
prj iyii) (re irapaKaXicTW. i8e ovv croL evayyeXit^opaL. Dem.Olyn.3'34 tl

vpA.v \apL(ropaL ; Thuc.5-9 orav ipe bpa.% TrpocrKeLpevov. 5-37 et 7ro)S oi

BotwTot cr(j>LcrL ^vppa^oL yevoLVTo. And

on ad infinitum.SO
Thus then with regard to Mark's being a translation
from Latin
I think I am justified in saying Not Proven.
To me it is perfectly clear that all the primitive scriptural works,
whether canonical or apocryphal, were composed in Greek by
authors whose mother tongue was Greek some of them may ;

have possessed a mere smattering of Aramaic, but practically

none knew Latin.
 ST MARK
1-4. yei'TO 'ludi'i'rjs 6 ^airri^ui' Iv ttJ ip'f\l'.ia Kr\p<i<r<i(av PairriafJia. So
WH in virtual agreement with Mt 3-1 TrapayiveraL 'Itoawijs 6 fiarrTi-

cTTTis Krjpva-a-oiv Iv ttj IprifjiM. But D and the old Latins, besides some
other authorities, give iyiveTO 'Iwai/vijs ev Ty e.prjlJ-<a /SaiTTL^wv, thus
connecting iv ry iprip-w with iyivero. And so the Vulgate fuit loannes
in deserto. Hence I infer that 6 jiairTilfav (or o ySaTrno-T^s) as a distinc-
tive term from John of Zebedee was inserted in subsequent times
when Christians absorbed John of Zechariah as one of their saints
(see my note on Jn 3-25). Luke 3-2, who no doubt took his in-
formation from Mark, omits this term, stating JyeVero prjixa 6eoC
171 '\iaa.vvqv viov Za'^apiov, koI rjXdev cis Tracrav rrjv irept^iopov tov 'lopSd-

vov KTjpv<T(ro>v, Moreover, /3a7rTKr/xa renders o PaTni^uiv superfluous.

Primitively the text must have run iyivero 'IwavvTj? kv ry Iprjixia

KTipva-a-tov pd.TrTL<Tp.a, a kindred construction to which is l-14 5A.^cv

'ItjctoSs eis T-i]v VaXiXaCav Krypvcrcrtov to evayyeAiov.
Should my surmise be well founded, it follows that Luke con-
sulted an older exemplar of Mark than the one that Matthew copied,
namely one into which o paTTTit,wv had not yet intruded.
6 Pa-n-Tiiuf. A participial by-form of the noun /SaTrrio-T^s, probably
a demotic form in Hellenistic times. Cf. 5-14 oi /Soo-kovtcs = oi
/Joo-Koi. 15-21 TrapayovTa = Tra/DoSmjv. Mt 4-3 o 7reipa^<ov= 6 iretpao-rr/s.

9-12 01 laxpovrK = ol iiytet?. 19-4 6 Troirjcra'S =6 ironjT^s, the Creator.

21-42 oi oiKoSo/ioCvTcs = 01 OlKo8o/iOt. 25-9 TOVS TTWXOVVTO.'; =3 Toiis

TTCoXijTas. 28-4 ol Tr]povvTes = ol TrjprjTol, (jjvX.aKC'S. Lk 3-14 a-Tparevo-

puivoi = (TTpaTiSiTai. Philo,Opif.M. 13 o iroiSiv = itohjttjs, etc.

1-6. TJi' Be 'ladi'i'i]S eo-Oiui' iiKpiSas Kai (JieXi aypioi'. Many probably

will agree with the view expressed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica

s.v. Husks p.2136 '
Common sense tells us that locusts would not
;

have been preferred by the Baptist as his habitual food to nourish-

ment supplied by the soil.' This observation derives considerable
support from the fact that in other instances, where Jewish tradi-
tion represents men as having been driven into the desert either by
B
2 ST MAKK I

stress of circumstances or by passion for asceticism, their food is

said to have been vegetarian. Thus Bai/oBs, an ascetic closely resem-
bling theBaptist, is described by Josephus (Vit. 2) as Tpo(^rjv rrjv avro-
fjioTw^ (jivo/jiivriv ffpoo-^epo/itvos. Judas Maccabaeos (2Mac.5-27), hav-
ing retired into the desert, iv tois opea-t ttilt] a-vv tois fier'avTov Koi T-^v

XoprdiSrj rpocjyrjv (TiTov/xevoi SiTe\ovv. Compare also 2Esdr.9-26 and

there I sat among the flowers, and did eat of the herbs of the field and
themeat of the same satisfied me. 12-51 tut I sat in the field seven
days,and in those days I did eat only of the flowers of the fleld and
had my meat of the herbs. So in Dan.4-30 Nabuchadnezzar, when he
was driven into the desert away from the society of men, xoprov a>s
/3oi)s T]a6u. In wherever we come across an account of strict
fact,

ascetics, their food is described as being exclusively of what the

soil produces, and that is their chief characteristic. So Euseb.HE.
2-23 'la.Kta[ioi ofiSe efjuj/vxav (j>aye. ClemA.Paed. 2-1-16 Mar^atos /Jiiv
ovv 6 a.TToa'ToXo'; (nrepfxartav koI aKpoSpvuiv /cat Aa^avo)]/ avev KpeZv j.T-

Xap-Pavev. Euseb.HE.2-17 OepaTrevToi olvov p-iv to irapajrav oiS* a.7ro-

yivovTai, aXk ovSc twv ivaipuyv Ttvos, vSwp 8k /xovov avTOis icm, to ttotov,
Koi 'TTpodoij/rjp.a p.cTapTov aAes Koi otctcottov. Diog.Laert. Vit.Heracl.9-1
'HpaKXetTos E<^ecrios iv tois opeai SiyTaro vroas a-iTovp.voi koX /Joravas.
Exactly so Dorotheos, Moses, Hero, Poseidonios, are described by
Palladios.
It is true that locusts have constituted an article of food in
the East. Lev. 1 1-22 among allowable foods includes aKpiBa koI ra
Diodoros 3-29 and Strabo 772 mention aKpiSotpdyov^ in
op,oia avTTj.

Aethiopia. And, as is well known, such is the case even at the

present time, and notably on Mount Sinai (see Ka^avr^aKijs, Tafet-

Scvovras p. 199). But to assert that the Baptist, an austere ascetic
if ever there was one, passed over vegetables, the cleanest and
handiest of foods, and unlike all other ascetics betook himself to
animal diet is I conceive untenable. An apt illustration of the ab-
horrence felt by ascetics towards taking life in any form is the
anecdote concerning Macarios, who as a penance for killing a
gnat sat naked for six months in the desert ' where gnats were as
large as wasps '. To get over the difficulty the writer in the Ency-
clopaedia argues that by dKpiSas carob pods are meant ; but there
I ST MARK 3

exists no authority for dxpis denoting anything else but locust, and
for a carob pod the biblical word is KepdrLov, so called from its
similarity to a horn.
I have no doubt that dxPfAAS is a primitive misreading of
'PIZAS, and to this error the fact that the amanuenses were familiar
with locusts as a common article of food has possibly contributed.
Eoots, which according to the popular notion consist of all those
parts of a plant which grow in the earth, would comprise tubers,
bulbs, and rhizomes such as colocasia antiquorum, and these
afford considerable nourishment ; George Sandys, A Eolation of
a Journey begun a.d. 1610 p. 102, says that in his time colocasia
was largely consumed by the Egyptians. Some such sort of edible
rhizome must be meant by Herod. 2-92 17 pt^a tov Xiotov tovtov eSwSi/iT;
Ktti iyyXvacrei eTTieiKecos, tov (TTpoyyvXov, fj.iyeOo'; Kara pJrjXov. Ci. also Job

30-4 n'e<f>avXi(TfJiVOL, ivSeel^ Travroi ayaOov, dt Kal pt^as ^Xioi/ (^ (f>VTii>v)

Ifiacra-UvTo. Mingana's translation of Serapion's Life of John the

Baptist, Bulletin of Eylands Library July 1927 p. 449, bears out my

suggestion^ for the Baptist's food is described as grass, no doubt a
rendering of the Greek x^Pto^ = ^^''^ and the English translator>

adds in a footnote '

the author seems to identify the locusts in con-
nection with the food of John with a kind of grass, and this is also

the opinion of some ancient writers." Further support is afforded

by the Commentaries of Isho'dad of Merv p. 23 (Mrs Gibson's trans-
lation), which state others say that the locusts are tender roots
'

like parsnips '.

Proceeding now to the consideration of the word fjiiXi, I would

observe that the Evangelist's intention must have been to say that,
as John's dress was of the coarsest kind, so was his food of the
poorest. But honey in the Scriptures is reckoned, as it were, a
great luxury. For Deut.32-13 and Ps.80-17, in enumerating the
luxuries bestowed by God, mention /acAi ex ircVpas. Of. also Ex. 3-8
cts yrjv a,ya,6r)v, etg yrjv p4ov(rav ydXa Koi/JieXi. Ezek. 16-19 (np-LOaXiv Kai
eXatov /cat p-iXi ti/'w/ticra ere. Cant. 4- 11 K-qpiov aTrooTa^ovo-i x^^^'t "''"''

vv/jitjiri. The ancient commentators evidently have felt the impos-

sibility of an ascetic indulging in honey, and that is why they
asserted that the honey meant was not that which is sweet, but of
4 ST MARK I

a bitter and hateful kind, such as the bees of the wilderness make
(see Isho'dad p. 24).
I would now observe that, as is well known, we find throughout
the New Testament the words by their
intentional replacement of
synonyms or by other words which apparently suit the context
equally well. So Mt 5-47 aSeX.(j}OW-<filX.ov;. 47 iOviKol-TeXwvai. 7-4 e/c-
(XTrd. 8-34 oTTtos-'va. 9-14 TToAA.a-TTUKi'a. ZQ ia-KvXjjLivoi-iKkcXvixivoi. 10-23
lTpavaX.Xy]v. 13-29 <f>r]o-lv-(l)r]-Xiyei. 30a)s-/iex/"'"XP'- 1 5-6 Adyov-vd/iov-

ivToXi^v. 22 eKpa^ev-iKpav-yaa-ev. 16-27 rrjv Trpa^iv-ra. epya. 18-1 wpa-

rj/j-ipa. 19-28 vfiel^-avToL 20-34 6ixiJ,a.Tmv-6(^6aXiJLwv. 21-31 iVrepos-SciJ-
Ttpos-etr^^aros. 22-10 vvyu.(^un/-ya/xos. 24-45 oi/ccTetas-^epaTrcias. Mk 1-26
(j)ti)vrj(ravKpd^av. 3-29 d/Aa/DTias-aynapriJ/xaTos-KptVecos. 4-19 aiuii/os-yStov.

14-44 (nj(r(Trjixov-cnjfj.eiov, and SO forth. Particularly instructive, as

showing how recklessly the scribes were tampering with the sacred
texts from the earliest days of Christianity, is what we are told by
Origen at Mt 2-18 (I take the passage from Tischendorf) pa/xa a~rj-
jxaivei Toirov vij/rjXov, odev tv tlcti tuiv dvTiypac^MV tov irpoiprjTov yeypairraL
<f)u>vT] ev ry vij/riXfj riKovcrdrj. Now, p-iXi and K-qpiov are convertible terms
in the sacred books ; cf. Prov.24-13^dye/j.Ai,d7a6di/yapKj^/Diov. Cant.
4-1 1 Krjpiov aTToarTa^ovcn x^^^V '"""j ^H-'t^Vj ^c. Thus, I believe that

KYjpiov stood once in the text ; but being a comparatively rare word
was replaced by its synonym /xiXi. on grounds
in the sense of honey, it
similar to that adduced by Origen in the case of pa/xd. And further,
I believe that KHPl'ON was a misreading of KAPHON. Should I be
right, the corruption must have occurred very early, certainly be-
fore Matthew was compiled, it may be from a copy made from the
archetype itself. Such were the circumstances under which the first
books of the early Christians were written that misreadings of this
nature could hardly be avoided ; for the narratives circulated in
a community of poor men who
could only afford cheap writing
materials perhaps palimpsests, faulty papyri or membranes and
who, being Paul so describes himself), would
ill-educated (even
probably neither write distinctly, nor in copying take such pains
as a practised literary man would consider indispensable.
My conclusion therefore is that instead of iadimv dKptSas koI /xiXi
aypiov the archetype read iaOiiov pi'^as /cat Kapirbv aypiov. For parallel
I n ST MAEK 5

instances compare Strabo 513 oi fih ovv iv toTs v-^a-oi^ ovk exovre'; a-rro-

pt/itt PIZO<^ayovo-6 /cat 'ArPIOI? ^pSivrai KAPHOIS. Herod. 1-202

avOpdnrov^ ot a-LreovTai fjLtv PIZAS to 6ipo<;, KAPIIOYS Se airo ScvSpc'tov
T^v X^ili-^pivriv. Pallad.Laus.1179 /Spax^a-i (f>oiv(.KLOis 8ieyev6p,r]v koI ei
Kov BOTANAS ^pov 'APPIAS.
I have now I think produced sufficient evidence to convince any-
one who wUl consider the point with an open mind. But that is the
difficulty.
1-12. TO iri'eufji.a auToi' EKPtiWei is TT)!' epTjjioi'. This was copied from
Mt 4-1 avrixOy} eh rijv tprjp.ov vtto tov But Mark, by sub-
irvevp.aTO's.

stituting TO Tn/EVyua and t/c/SaAXci and av-qx^Vt ^^^

for vtro toS Trvew/iaros
entirely obscured the point of the primitive legend. See note on
Mt4-1.
1-26. a-napaiav auTor. Convulsing Mm. The rendering tearing, due
to the Vulgate, is inaccurate, for an epileptic is not torn but con-
vulsed. In MGk one of the significations of a-irapacra-iii (in the form
of a-irapd.Sl,<a) is to fall into convulsions ; a fish, for instance, when
landed o-irapd^ct. BAd^^os '
cnrapd^w, se dehattre ' and ' o-Trapay/xos, con-

vulsion.' Hellenistically a-Trapda-ao) must have possessed not only an

intransitive but also an active force, for Sophocles records from the
fourth century A.D. '
o a-wapd.KT-q'i =; o a-Trapda-a-iov.'
1-43. auTu eu9^us tlePaXei/ auTOK. This harsh rebuke
(i,|3pi|j,T|adfjti/os

and treatment of the unfortunate leper as though he had inflicted

his malady on himself is uncalled for and l^i^aXiv by itself, with- ;

out some indication whither (as in Jn 9-34 iii/SaXov avrbv e^m) or

whence, either expressed or readily suppHed by the context (as
iK^aXibv vdvTas of 5-40, where k tov o'Lkov is understood from v.38
IpXovTai. eis tov oIkov), sounds too indefinite. But l^ijiaXev without

whither or whence, and only with a personal object, is specifically

applied to the casting out of devils ; so 1-34 Satp.6via iroXXa i^f/SaXe.

6-13 8ai//,oVia TToXXa iie/SaXXov, and very often. I presume therefore
that Koi e/i/Jpt/iijo-d/xei/os avTZ i^iftaXev avTov was at one time an
alternative marginal reading to v. 2 5 /cat iTreTLp.rja-ev avru, 6 'Ijyo-oBs

Xiywv "E^eX^e tf auToC, the rebuke being thus addressed not to the
leper but to the unclean spirit.
2-7. ouTO) XaXel. The force of this phrase has been missed. The
6 ST MAEK n
meaning is he speaks at random, he rants, ovno being equivalent to
the classical avras (or sometimes oijtws), dKTJ. Cf. DioChrys.613-6
ovT(i)s (offhand, as Field interprets at Jn 4-6), <^avAa)s re Koi d/cojui/'us.

The idiom has been preserved in MGk BXdxos s.v.eTo-t (= ;

ovtw) 'to
elira Ito-i, je I'ai dit sans consequence, j'ai parle en I'air.' See also
my note on Jn 4-6 and Blaydes on Soph.Aj. 1207.
I may here refer to Thuk.7-74 koI cTretSij kol ws ovk tvOv^ mpfx-rjo-av,

where from not understanding the force of ws Stahl and others

delete kol eTreiS?;. It is in every day use in MGk as crcrt kol Itui (=u)s
KoX &), meaning in any case.
2-8. Ti. How? See note on 8-12.

2-15. r\ua.v ycip itoXXol Kai TJKoXoudou;' auTu. The conjunction stands
for a relative pronoun. Similarly 15-25 ^v Se wpa tpltt] /cat (= ore)

iaravpcDcrav avTov. 6-50 Travrcs yap avTov elSov koI iTapa^Orjcrav (=irai'Tes
yap, oT elSov aiTov, irapaxGrjcrav). It is a paratactic popular form of
speech. The commas generally placed after -n-oXkoi, Tpirrj, cTSov, are
better away. Pernot, La Langue des i^vangiles p.l96 koX n'a pas :
'

d'autre valeur que o'i; meme construction en grec moderne.'

2-19. (XT) %uvavra,i, ot uioi Tou i'U|x4>u>'0s Iv S> b fUfji(|>ios (aet' auTui' iinw
i'ii)aTeu'eii' ; The meaning of the word vd/ai^uIvos is misunderstood
when it is taken to indicate a hride-chaniber. It is clear from Mt 22-10
iTrhfjcrd-q 6 vvp.<f>av dvaKet/xcVmi/ that banquets were given in the vvp.<J3U}v,

and this cannot have been possible in a bride-chamber. The word

must which the wedding feast took
signify a banqueting-hall, in
place, perhaps also the wedding Such halls are common in
itself.

India at the present time. Weddings in that country are grand

affairs, and are followed by costly entertainments on which the

savings of many years' hard work are spent. To these feasts a great
number of relatives andfriends, or perhaps even all the caste-fellows
in the place, are invited and as the private houses are small and
;

inadequate for such large gatherings, public halls of a kind have

been provided in which guests are entertained. It is evident from
what we find in the New Testament (see Mt 22-2f) that weddings
in Palestine also were followed by great feasts, and I venture to
suggest that, owing to circumstances similar to those which prevail
in India, public halls must have existed in that country for the con-
II ST MAEK 7

venience of those who entertained. This interpretation of vu/i^wi' is

borne out by the lemma of this note, which states that the sons of
the vu/A^oiv, that is, the men who are in the vd/x^wv, cannot abstain
from eating and drinking in other words, that they are there
;

for the purpose of eating and drinking. Should my view be cor-

rect, then 01 viol Tov wiJi4>S>vo's must be interpreted the guests at
a wedding.
But, though the context requires this interpretation, there is no
denying that vvix<f>d>v according to its formation should mean a
Iride's quarters, in which sense we find it in the only two passages
of the Old Testament (Tob.6-14 and 16) in which it occurs. It is
a moot point then whether vvix<t>(i)v has not displaced ya/ios every-
where in the NT, as it has also done apparently in Mt 22-1 0, where
Codex B gives on the margin the variant ya/^os, written by the
original scribe himself.
So I wrote in 1903. Since then I have noticed that Zorell (1911)
adopts my interpretation of It was not in Grimm (1903).
vvfji.(j}u>v.

I may add that the Egyptian o-v/iTroVia (see Milligan's Vocabulary)

were probably banqueting halls of the same description as the
Indian ones. And I have been informed by M. Scrini, a resident of
Beirut, that such halls exist in Syria even at the present time.
2-21. aipei TO irXripuna dir'auTou t6 Kaii'oi' toG iraXaiou. Such is the
reading adopted by Tischendorf, other readings being to TrXT^poi/m.

avTOv (instead of to irXi^pw/ia and diro TOV iraXaiOv (instead

OLTT avTOv)

of ToC irakaLov). A passage borrowed from Mt9-16 acpet yap to irhq-

pwfia avTOv aTTO tov l/xaTLOV, the WOrds a-rr'avTov representing a.TO TOV
IfjiaTLov of Matthew after their corruption from airo ^-qKTTov
ip.aTiov

(see my comment on that passage). The words to Kaivov and tov

iraXaLov are explanatory of to irX^pw/ia and airov respectively, and

most probably in the first instance they were noted as such on the
margin. Mark seems to have taken atpei of Matthew in the sense

of d<;!)aipet instead of in that of Xa/x/Sdvu, and to have thus misunder-

stood his sentence as meaning the Vulgate aufert supplementum
novum a veteri, an absurd meaning. Luke 5-36 oiScls im^X-qfm airo
lliaTLOV Kaivov a^La-a? iiri^dXXeL eirt IfjidTiov
TraXawv has understood

Matthew correctly. Such modern expositors as I have consulted

8 ST MAEK II HI

seem to have shirked grappling with the difficulties of the

me to
passage they merely adopt the Vulgate interpretation.
;

2-23. eyeVeTO auTW iv T019 crd^^acni' [T7apa]iropeucr9ai 8id TUf (nropi-

fioiv, Kal 01 fji,a6r]Tai auTOu Jjp^ai'TO 6861' iroieii' TiXXoi/Tes Tou9 ardxuas.

Apart from the fact that 6S6v Troieiv in the sense of to make one's way
isfound only as a Hebraism (see Field) in Judg.17-8, it ought to be
clear that it is redundant after TrapairopeveaOai ; with that sense the
text would say lykv^-ro airbv irapaTrop^vta-Oat Koi ol fxad-qrai rjp^avTO

TrapaTTopevea-Oai. Besides, we miss the motive of the disciples in

plucking the ears of corn it was of course to eat them, and this
;

isexpressly stated in the parallel passages (1) Mt 12-1 iv IkcCvw tw

KaLpS) i-jropevOrj 6 'Irjcrovs rots cra./3j3a<ri,v Sta twv (nropiixuiv, ot 8e fJiaOrjTal

avTov eTTUvaaav koL r)p^a.vTO tlWhv aTa)(ya's Kal iaOUiv, and (2) Lk 6-1
iyevero Se iv cra/S/Saro) SLairopeveadai avTov Sta cnropijxwv koI tTikXov
01 fjiaOrjTai airov Toy's (rra^^ua? koL tjctOiov. The right reading is

evidently SeiTrvoTroteiv =
make a meal, representing iaduiv in Mt
to

and Lk. Both SeiTvoTroieiv and apiaTOTroielv are frequently encoun-

tered.
3-4. elcari tois o'tipj3a(7ii' dYadoiroiTJcrai ; r\ KaKoiroirjaai ; So Souter
punctuates, I think rightly. The Lord's question is ironical ; it

essentiallymeans What do you wish me then to do on a Sabbath

:

Day? to do harm perhaps rather than do good ? It is in the second

colon that fiakXov must be understood, and not in the first as is
generally assumed.
3-5. cKTEii'oi' TTji' \eipd (Tou. Thls should not be rendered by stretch
forth thy hand, but obviously by stretch forth thy arm, for, as shown
by MGk, x^'P could be employed instead of ySpaxtiov. BA-a^os s.v.xept
'X^pt, main; [crui/ejcSoxiKSs] hras ; eKoirrjKav to. x^P'-"- i^-ov, fai les bras
rompus.' In the same way TroiJs could stand for ctk\o's or KvrjfjLrj cf. ;

Apoc. 10-1 avTov (OS crrvXoi Trvpbs, where Charles hurries to

01 TToScs

the conclusion that tto'Scs in the sense of legs must be a Hebraism.

But again compare the MGk ttoSi (ttoSiov) BAdixos s.v. ttoSl rpl/j^ow ; '

rd TToSta Tov, les jamhes lui flageolent.' See my note on Lk 6-10.

3-14. iTToirjo-Ei' 8<j8Ka ous Kal diTOCTToXous (ii'OfAaaei' IVa fio'ii' uer'auTou
Kal IVa diroo-TeWT) auTous Kr\puaaeiv Kal e.)(eiv e^ouaiai' CK^dWeii/ rd 8ai-
pioi/ia. Kal iroiir](T6i' tous SuStKa, Kal eirefliqKei' oi'ojjia Tu Ziixuci nerpoc.
in ST MAEK 9

So runs this passage in Codex B, but there is no small diversity

of reading in other Mss, a circumstance which points to the orig-
inal text having been tampered with. The passage as it stands is
in fact unsatisfactory on several grounds. In the first place, liroirjo-ev
SwSeKa without a complement of the predicate, such as we find in
phrases like Acts 2-36 Kvpiov airov koI Xpio-Tov 6 Oeos iTroirjcrev, cannot
mean he appointed twelve as the words are conveniently glossed,
but only he made or created twelve. Nor can we evade the difficulty
by construing eTroirja-ev iVa Scriv, because we should then be forced
to construe itroL-qaev iva dTToo-reAXi^, an impossible construction. In
the second place, tva aTroo-TeXAjj ^x^tv i^ova-iay yields no satisfactory
sense at best it might signify so that he might send them forth to
;

acquire authority, and this meaning is inadmissible. Thirdly, the

repetition koL liroCrjcnv instead of iTrotrjo-ev ovv is strange and un-
Greek. Fourthly, it is surprising that the writer should at once
proceed to state what was the surname given to Simon without
firstmentioning, as is done in Lk 6-14, that Simon was appointed
one of the Apostles. Lastly, it is equally surprising that the name
of Andrew should be detached from that of his brother Simon, and
inserted further on between those of the brothers John and James
and those of the brothers Philip and Bartholomew. Like John and
James, so are Simon and Andrew linked together everywhere else
(Mt 4-18. 10-2. 17-1. Mkl-16. Lk6-14. Jn 1-45), with the sole ex-
ception of Mk 13-3, where 'ArSpeas is an interpolation, as I point out
in my comment upon that passage.
With regard to iiroLrjo-tv, I believe it is a corruption of iroifiaa-ev

(without augment; see Jannaris 717). Compared palaeographi-

cally, ETOIMASEN and EEEOIHSEN are very similar, so much so
that further on, in 15-1, we find the reading varying between ctoi-

IJ.dcravTK (which Tischendorf prefers) and Troii^a-avres, and in Ps 118-

73 between kTOLixaa-av and iiroi-ria-av. With this alteration the syntax

becomes grammatical; cf. Acts 23-23 eTot/iao-are crrpaTim-as Sta/co-

alovs OTTMS iropevO<o(riv. Barn. 14-5 'Iricrov os K tovto fjToiiJ.a.a-Ori, iva

SiaO-qrai iv fjiMV SiaO'^Krjv. ApoC.8-6 ol eTrra ayyeAo6 fjTOiiJ.atTav avTOvs

Lva a-aXma-wa-iv. Similarly 2KingS 5-12 fjTOt//.a(Tev avrbv Kvptos cis /3a-

a-iXia ( = tva ^ fiaaiXiv's). As the object of cTot/iao-cv we have to supply

c
10 ST MAEK III

Ij-aO-qTas in the same way as in Lk 10-1 av&a^ev 6 Kvpio's Koi hipovs

i/3Sofi.-^KovTa. The sense now is and he made ready twelve disciples
:

whom also he named Apostles, to the end that they might be icith him
and that he might send them forth to preach. I surmise that Barnabas
19-7, in saying 7JX6ev [6 0tos] oi Kara -rrpoa-anrov KaXearai aW. 60 ois to
TTvev/xa rjToifjLaa-o', gathered his idea from our passage. Cf. further
Lk 1-17 eTot/j,ao-ai KvpL(o Xabv KaT(.crKevaa/j.ivov (passage derived from

Sir.49-12 Xabv ayiov Kvpita rjTOijj.aap,ivov is Sdfav).

With regard to the words koL cx^"' ^iovortav iK^aXXeiv to. Sai/Mvia,
Koi iTroLTjcrev roiis ScliSeKa, I believe that in their place there once stood

these words : Trpwrov "SiLjAUiva (this on manuscript authority) tov tov

'Iu>va Koi 'AvSpiav tov aSeXcf^ov toC ^tp-tavos in agreement with the next
parallel sentence 'la.K(a/3ov tov tov Ze^eSaiou koI 'Iuxxvvtjv tov dSeXtfiov
TOV 'la/cmjSov. These words were most likely rubbed off in order to

make room for the sentence koL e^eiv i^ova-Lav iKJidWeLv to. SaLp.6via

out of a desire to invest the Apostles with prodigious power. As,

however, they consisted of 52 letters whereas the sentence inserted
consisted of only 35, there was a considerable space left blank, and
I suggest that was with the object of filling up this gap that the
it

superfluous words koX hroC-qcraf tous SmSexa were interpolated, this

addition bringing up the spurious letters to 56.
3-21. dKouaai'Tcs ot irap auTOu e^r)\9oi' Kparijcrai auroi', eXeyoc ydp on
e^eo-TT]. In the previous verse we are informed that crowds went

eagerly to listen to Jesus's preaching, and one would have expected

his friends (pi Trap' avTov) to be elated at his success rather than look
upon it as a sign of insanity. But it is conceivable that his enemies
were alarmed by this success and minded to arrest him, giving out
to the multitude that he was mad and dangerous. D, however, gives
KoX oVe TjKovo'av Trepl avTOv ot ypapp.aTel'i Koi oi XotTTol, as do the old
Latins ; besides one ofthem reads ^apio-aloi instead of XonroL Ac-
cordingly Toup has conjectured dKova-avTi<; ot ^apicratot Trepl avTOv.
In this form perhaps this verse was a variation on the next one,
in which Jesus is accused of having dealings with Beelzeboul.
3-29. eVoxos o-Tii' aicufiou d(jtapTT)(jiaTos. I.e. guilty of eternal punish-
ment, such as the enormity of his sin comports. Similarly Enoch
21-6 iSedrja-av 3>Se p-f-XP'- ''"O'' TrXrjpu>a-ai p.vpCa eT-rj, tov )(fi6vov twv ap.ap-
 ;:

Ill IV ST MAKK 11

rr]fi.aTti)v airZv, Until they complete ten thousand years, namely such
lengthy time as their sins deserve. HermP. 3 Vis. 7-6 orav jSaa-avi-
(tBuxtlv Kol iKTr\rjpu>(TWiTiv To.^ fj/j.ipa's riov a./jLapTiu>v airmv.

3-30. oTi eKEyoK iri'u|xa dKiidapToi' exEi. Probably a marginal com-

ment.
4-6. oTE dwETEiXec 6 rjXios. A reproduction of the error dvaretXavros
of Mt 13-6, showing that the parable of the sower was taken from
Matthew, and not vice versa. See note on that verse.
4-21. fill Ti 6 Xuxi*? EpxETai ; The correctness of ep)(Tai has been
disputed, and Naber proposed atperai (see Baljon). But I fancy that
it was chosen in view of the advent of the Lord who came into the

world to enlighten us, as a light comes, or is brought, into a room

(Weiss wenn die Lampe ins Zimmer gebracht wird) where men
:

sit in darkness such men, when the light was being brought in,
;

would exclaim There, the light is coming. There is an evident

:

connection between 6 Xvj(vos iLp\(.Tai and Jn \-9 -qyTo to aXrjOivov, <j>ii>i

b <f>iOTL^u TrdvTa avOpuyirov, ip)(6fievov els tov KOiTfiov.

4-22. ou Y^P ^""''^ '''<' KpuirTdf i&.v p,f) ii'a ttiafEpudT], ouSe iyivtro diro-
Kpu<f)oi' dXV Ii'a Here dXXa means the same as the
Eis <t)ai'Epdi' e\6t|.

foregoing iav p-rj, both being alternative forms of elfirj, except. G. C.

Eichards has also perceived that in this passage iav p.r) and dXXo. are
parallel, but has added that this is a usage which Aramaic explains
but Greek does not. This has been rebutted by Moulton and Milli-
gan V. dXXa, but I may as well contribute my note on Eom.14-14
ei/A^ = dXXa. It is found so employed in lCor.7-17. Gal. 1-7, etc.

Accordingly, the reading in Mk 4-22 and 9-8 varies between dp.r)

(illustrated by Blaydes at Arist.Eq.l86) or iav p.ij and dX\d. It often
takes the form av p.r] (see note on v. 11) or iav p.Tj cf. Gal.2-16. In ;

this form, namely dyn^ or d/^e, it survives in MGk ; see Jannaris,

1982. Keversely, dXX'^ is frequently substituted for dp.7i in its

meaning of ttXtji/ or nisi ; cf. Just.352a rts Tvcj>Xbi dXX' r/ ol jraiSes p.ov

Illustrated by Blaydes at Arist.Eq.953. But Gen.21-26 ouSt^Kouo-a

dXXa (a variant dXX' ^) a~qp.epov shows that even a simple dXXa could
substitute eip,rj in the sense of nisi. Apparently therefore dXX' tj is

merely dXXa with its ending assimilated to that of elp.rj, and to this
also points the combination irXrjv ^ (corrupted by Kock into TrXr/v
12 ST MAEK IV

el at Arist.Nub.361 and 734), where in point of sense ^ is redun-

dant.' Add Mk 9-8 oiSeva elSov aXXa (a variant el/xr]) Tov 'Irja^ovv. Thuc.
3-71 /jLTiB^ripovi 8fx^a-6ai. aXX.' ^ /xia vrfi, where See commentators.
For some time there has been abroad an epidemic of supposed
Semitisms. Besides the above example, I have noticed the following:
1. oTj/tTToo-ta a-vfiTTocria. See my note on 6-39.

2. repetition of airov. See my note on Mt4-5.

3. avaa-TCLcra liropevOr]. Cf. Lk 1-39, where I have commented as

follows When a sudden or immediate action is told, dvao-Tas or

: '

iycpOeh is added as if one had been quietly sitting and unexpectedly

rose up to activity. Such examples exist in abundance. The same is
exactly the case in MGk, which in similar cases employs a-rjKwvov
fiai = lyupojxaL. So this idiom has nothing to do with Hebrew, as is

supposed if it exists in Hebrew, it is a coincidence.' Linguistic

;

coincidences are not infrequent.

4. </)5s =^re. See note on 14-54.
5. oTL avTov. On Jn 1-161 have commented as follows : 'Equal to
the genitive of a relative pronoun. Charles in the Greek Versions
of the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs p. Iv, and Burney in the
Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel p. 76, misconceive this idiom
as a Semitism, and assume it to be one of the proofs that both these
works are but translations from the Aramaic it is a proof of ;

no value. Pernot, in reviewing Burney's book in the Revue des

Etudes Grecques, Janvier-Mars 1924 p. 128, writes "Aprfes tout ce
qu'on a 6crit sur la construction ov ovk elpn iKavos Kv\j/a's Xvcrai tov

IpLovra Tuiv v7ro8r]p.d.TU)v avrov (Mk 1 -7), on est surpris de la voir encore
qualifi^e d'hebraisme. Le gr. mod. coincide ici d'une fa9on frappante
avec I'hebreu : irov est I'equivalent de ascher I'homme a qui j'ai dit
;

= I'homme que {ascher or ttov) je lui ai dit femme que (ascher ou; la
TTov) j'ai vu I'enfant d'elle, etc. II phenomfene linguisti-
s' agit la d'un
que bien connu, et courant en franyais populaire par exemple [cf.
Daudet, Lettres de mon Moulin, Le Cure de Cucugnan Les gens :

de Cucugnan, que c'est moi qui suis leur prieur]." This is a legitimate
idiom both Hellenistically and at present, and I have fully illus-
trated it myself in my note on Eom.8-29. I have explained there
that oTi represents an indeclinable conjunction which replaces re-
IV ST MAEK 13

lative pronouns in all their forms.' In replacing a genitive or

dative or one with a preposition the corresponding demonstrative
pronoun is subjoined in the same form.
6. I have noticed lately in one of the learned Eeviews that the

variant Xeyoi/res as equivalent to So^avres in Jn 11-31 is called a

Hebraism. My note on that verse runs as follows The variant Xe- :
'

yovTcs is rather better attested and perfectly suitable. It means

SoKoCvres, thinking, as it does also in MGk. BAaxos s.v. Xeyw " Ae'yets vh.
TO Ka.iJi.ri ; croyez-vous qu'il lefera?" So SKings 5-5 Xiyto olKoSofuja-ai,

I am thinking of building. Judg.15-2 cura oVi jjua-wv lft.i<j-ri<Ta<;, I thought

you hated. Ps. 105-23 cure toC i^oXoOplfaL, he thought of exterminating,
etc. This signification dates from as far back as Homer cf. r366 ;

yj T l<^aLfx.riv Ti(Ticr6ai. al94 8'^ yap yu-iv t(j>avT cttiSt^/j.ioi' elvai. Similarly

Jn 7-44 a variant lAcyov for -^deXov and 11-13 eXeyov for cSofav.'
Coraes, "AraxTa 2-116, refers to Soph. El. 8 ^anKnv MvxT/ras opav and
Hesych. '
<j>a.v, ii7re\a/?ov, iXeyov. '

7. Charles, in XII Patr.Jud.9, states :

'
crweVco-a Trpos avTrjv. This
peculiar clause recurs in xiii. 3, 7 ; Test. Jos.ix. 5. So far as I am aware,
not only quite unexampled but quite impossible [sie^ in Greek.
it is

Nor can it be explained as a corruption native to the Greek. We

must therefore have recourse to the Hebrew. Yet the sense of the
phrase is obvious from a comparison of the three passages. It de-
notes a licit or illicit sexual connection. ' The phrase means in Greek
exactly what Charles requires, namely I lay, I went to bed, ivith her.

Cf. Petruseuang.5 irepiijpp^ovTO 8e rroXXoi /xiTO. Xv)(yuiv vofj-i^ovTiS OTL

vvi itrnv tTTEcrav re, many thought that it was night and loent to bed

(wrongly rendered by Preuschen as siefielen ein). Sophocles v. mirTu)

'to lie with =
a-vyyiyvo/jLaC tlvi. Apophth.309b. Joann.Mosch.2892b,

fiera Ttvos. [3065 6 d8eA.<^os crov iirta-iv ets ttjv yuvai/ca]. Jejun. 1921d,
eis dySaTTTtCTTOi' =: (jDyytyi/ecr^ai aj3a.irTiarT(a yvvaiKi.' BAa;^os S. V. TriirTO)

nous coucher.' Curious that Charles never

'wa/Aevva7rVw,u,e>/, allons

consulted Sophocles. And I may here submit that to anyone who

deals with Hellenistic Greek three works at least are indispens-
able : Sophocles's Lexicon, Jannaris's Grammar, and Moulton and
Milligan's Vocabulary.
8. Charles further in his Kevelation vol. 1 p. 259 is puzzled how to
14 ST MAEK IV

reconcile ol ttoSes with o-tvXoi. of ApoC.10-1 ol iroSes airov d)S (TTvXoi

and he saw in ttoSes a Hebraism ; but see my note on 3-5.

TTv/Dos,

9. Apoc. 15-11 iXaXei <Ls SpaKoiv. Charles's comment p.cli is 'a

dragon does not speak.' Nor do the following animate and inani-
mate objects speak monkeys, locusts, cicadas, swallows, and other
:

birds, flutes yet, as a glance at Liddell and Scott would have

;

shown, the verb XaXSi expresses their various voices or sounds. It

is therefore unnecessary to trace back iXakei to a Hebrew word,
which in its turn is suspected to be an error for another Hebrew
word. I was curious to see what Charles's comment is on 1-15 17
(jiuivri avTov ii'SKJiuivrj iSartov (F. S. Smythe, The Times 22.8.1931 'the

insistent voices of the distant torrents '), considering that waters

have no voice ; but no Hebraism is there suggested.
10. irejAxl/as 8ia tChi (jiaSTjToJK. See note on Mt 11-2.

11. iyivero af9p(i)iros dTreaTaXjjiei'os Trapi 0ou, ofojia auTu 'ladvvrfi.

See note on Jn 1-6. To the instances quoted in that note add Lucian,
lnd.YoC.7 Trapa KiofiiaSiStv TiVi-iroirjrrj, Av<Ttyoia;^os eKaAciTO. Philo, Flac.
1 51 15 TrjV XvTrpoTOLTrjV tS)V V Alyaiw, Fvapa KaXiirai, BiiLKecrOai., Euseb.
EH.6-5 T6v8iKa(rTr]V,AKvXa'syjv tovto) ovofia. Hom.S355 AlyvirTov Trpo-
7rdpoi.0e,9a.povSi fe KLKXi^crKovcn. o25& ios iir^Xde, okA.i;/x.Vos S'oi/oyu,a

^v. o403 v^crds Tts, "Sivpirj KLKXrjcrKiTai.

We shall now dismiss Hebraisms, Aramaisms and Semitisms.

4-22. KpuTTToi'. Expositors have failed to perceive that Kprnrrov here
means KpvTrrov iv rrj yy, TeOa/x/xevov, as it stands in the 4th logion of
the New Sayings of Jesus published by Grenfell and Hunt. It refers
to the concealment of valuables by burying them in the earth for
safety. Cf. Mt 13-44 Orjcravpio KeKpy/JL/j-ivm iv tw dy/Dw, where Wetsteln
comments solebant et avari et qui invasionem hostilem metuebant
'

aurum suum defodere,' and illustrates this sort of precaution by a

mass of quotations, out of which I may cite Josep.B. 7-5-2 )(pvcriov
Koi dpyvpov Kal to. t^s aXAijs Tip-idtTaTa Karao-Kev^s, airep ol KeKTrj/x.ivoi
TTpoi Tas dSTyXovs tov iroXijiov Tv;^as Kara y^5 djroTE^Tjo-avprjKecrai/. Cf.
also Mt 25-18 wpv^fv yrjv Kol OTreKprvij/cv to dpyvpiov.
Eeverting to the logion quoted above, I think Grenfell and Hunt
were not right in preferring to complete it by ovk iyep6rj(TeTat instead
of by OVK OLTTOKaXytfiOi^criTai,
IV ST MAEK 16

And in the Logia of 1897 iav ixr/ vrja-Teicr-qn Tov Kocr/xov oi fjJq evprjre
rijv /SacnXuav tov 6eov, kol iav fi-q (ra^/SaTicrriTe to (xipPaTOV ovk oxj/ecrOe

TOV -TTttTepa, I have no doubt that to aa^PaTov is an old misreading

of TOV craTavav, both vrja-Teva-rjTe and craP/SaTicrrjTe being used meta-

phorically in the sense of ye Iceep aloof from.

And in the second logion Ac'yei 'I . . . ot cAkovtcs ^//iSs . . . -^ fiaaiXua
... I submit the following as a more plausible restoration
h' ovp.
than the one suggested by Grenfell and Hunt Ae'-yei 'laKwySos avTZ :

Tives ot eX/covTes ^ju.as ets d'n-toA.etav (or 6\e6pov or iinOv/ji.ta's) Koi ttote 17

jSacriXeta iv ovpavZ t<TTai ; For it looks as if the question

Acytt 'Iijo-ovs . . .

was put by a disciple, to which the master replies, and this disciple
presumably is James, for c\koi/ts in a pejorative sense occurs in
Jam. 1-14 VTTO T^s iSias cTri^u/itas efeXfcdjaevos koI ScXea^Oyuevos. The con-
tinuation TO. TTiTetva kt\ would comport with cAkovtcs eis arrwA. if its
scope is that the whole creation conspires to drag you on to perdition.
4-24. pX^Trere. TaJce heed. Cf. Mt 16-6 opS.T Koi irpoaix^Ti. Eph.5-15
/SXtTTETe iruls TrepnraTiiTe. 1 Acts Pil. 1 5-3 ySXeVcTe /at^ttcos p,r] dva-yi/oj. AlT.
Epict. 1-3 6pS,T vvv Kal TTpocre^eTe.
pXeTrere Ti aKouere. Take heed as to what ye are taught. In my note
on Lk 8-18 I have fully illustrated the meaning of aKovnv = to he
taught. What the teaching is to which attention is being drawn
either here or at Lk 8-18 is left unspecified, for I believe that the
following Iv <S fiiTpw jjATpuTi ktX forms a new detached sentence.
4-26. OUTUS eo-Tii' 1^ PacriXeia toO deou (Jis iav afdpuiros |3dXr) toi' airopoi'

em TTJs Yrjs Kal Ka6EuSr) Kai eyeipTiTai i/iJKTa Kal r\)j.ipav, Kal 6 airopos
pXatrrdi'T] Kal (JiT|Kui't)Tai us ouk oiSec auros. The clause ws ovk oiSev
avTos, expressing as it does a certain surprise in the mind of the
sower that the seed should grow and become a tree without any
trouble being taken by him, clashes with the spirit of the passage.
The point on the contrary is that the sower after sowing reverts
to his usual life in the certainty that the seed will do its work
though he pay no further attention to it. The text therefore ori-
ginally must have read obs iKa.0ev8ev auTos, whilst he himself was sleep-
ing. This idea that things will take their own satisfactory course
whilst a man sleeps must have been quite popular, for we find it

in Menandros Frag. 460 avTop-aTa yap to, irpaypMT iirl to a-viJi,<jiipov pu

16 ST MAEK IV

kAv KaOevSys, and in Philostratos Apol. 3-4 ol 'IvSol S' a/^a rjfiepa (Tiopovi

avaipovvrai tov a.p<ij[x,aTO?, ov8i TrovifcravTes ovoev dWa paovp-oi, re Kai

KaBevBovrei. And similarly in English

God makes the wheat grow greener

While farmer be at Ms dinner,

quoted in Blackmore's Lorna Doone oh. 9.

4-28. KapTro<|)opet irpaJTOi' \6pT0v, etrei' (rrdxiii', eirev ir\r]pi\ ctitoi'. As
WH remark, the variant ttXi^pt/s o-itov, relegated by vSoden to the

supplementary apparatus, is probably right. It exists in a minus-

cule, another proof that minuscules should be treated with due re-
spect. The indeclinable form TrXyjptj'; is abundantly illustrated by
Moulton and Milligan from papyri. It is again encountered in Mk
8-19 and strongly attested, but this time not mentioned by either
WH or vSoden.
4-29. oral' 8e TrapaSw 6 Kapiros. It is not surprising that the ancient
interpreters (see Bloomfield) were puzzled as to the meaning of this
clause, for in its present form it means nothing. Modern students
have interpreted it by tvhen the fruit has offered itself or when the

fruit allows. But evidently the context demands when the fruit is
ripe, as given by the EV; and why could not the Evangelist have
said this in a direct fashion, as is his wont, instead of in the round-
about way which the modern interpretations suggest? But it seems
to me that he did say it in his own simple style only the word ;

which he really employed, namely tVtSS, was corrupted. Cf. Philo,

OpifM. 12 a-vvavierai [o Kapiros] is oyKov iiriSiSov'S TeXetoTaTOv. Acts
Andr. 12 uiripp.a.Tuiv a ovK iiriBwuei. o.vLo~xpvTa. See further Liddell and
Scott S.V, eTriStSoj/it.

4-33. KaSft)? TiSuVai/To a.Koueii'. The Vulgate renders j?-OMi!^o<eraw<

audire, adopted apparently by all modern interpreters. I confess

I do not follow this interpretation. My opinion is that Kadm stands

for 0)5, as for instance it does in Acts 15-14 i^rjyrjaaTo /caucus (= ws,
the way in which) -KpSirov 6 ^eos itrta-Keij/aTo, and is equivalent to Iws,
as 0)5 is in Jn 12-35 TrcpnraTen-c o)s ro <^ois
^X^''"^-
2-23 o)s Sc v iv rots
'Icpoo-oAu'/iois. Thuc.4-117 Tovs yap 8r) dvSpai irepl irXetovos cVotowro
Kop-Ca-aa-BaL (is (= ecus, if the reading is correct) Irt BpacrtSas rivTvxti.
IV V ST MAEK 17

The meaning thus would be as long as they could stand by and listen,
which is not dissimilar to Xen. Mem. 1-1-10 eXeyc i^kv us to ttoXv, tois
Se ySovXojiiEi/ois i^rjv aKoveiv.

4-36. irapaXap.pdi'Ouo-ti' auxoi', a>s f\v, iv tu irXoiw. Couchoud remarks

'Could they have taken him in any other way ? The phrase as he
was is practically meaningless.' But in r)v clearly means the same
as the more familiar phrase is or Sxnrep dxtv = without loss of time;
cf. Thuc. 3-30 /xot SoKtl ttXuv Trplv iKTTvcTTOvs yivdcrOat SxTTrep c^o/tei/,
etc. Bloomfield '
it may be taken to mean, as in many passages of
the best writers, quam celerrime.' Alford refers to Jos.BJ. 1-1 7-7 avTos
oJS r/v eVt 6epjUos ek tS>v oirXwv Xov(rOyu.evos get.

two Mss) aXXa (Tischendorf adds Se after

4-36. Kai (omitted in
aXXa on the authority of a great number of respectable Mss) irXoTa
fii' [ier'auToO. Why record that the Lord was accompanied by other
vessels when they do not come into play in any way ? But there
would be an object in mentioning it if the contrary were stated,
for the absence of other boats which might render help would
account for the terror of the disciples. I read therefore [koI] oiXXa Si

irXoia ovK rjv For avrmv there is fair documentary evidence.

fiiTavTUiv.

The absence of the negative is a very frequent occurrence see ;

particularly note on 9-10.

4-41. Tis apa oIStos eanr, on Kal 6 ofe^os koi i^ BaXoaaa uTraKOuouaii'
auT<3; According to my note on Eom.8-29 otl-ovtZ = <S. Cf. Narrat.
Joseph. 5-2 T4S Icttlv ovtos, otl OVK liroir)tTa.<s fjie ocftO^vai, avrZ (ori-avTZ =^
<J). Several other examples in my above note on Eomans ; see also
p. 12, 5.
5-23. ii'tt emflfjs. An imperative ; see Jannaris 1914b and my
note on Kom. 16-2.
5-36. n^i (fioPou, ]i.ovov iriCTTeue. On the parallel passage Lk 8-50 Pro-
fessor Sophia Antoniadis, L'l^vangile de Luc p.75, remarks that
lx.6vov is rather an adversative conjunction. The same is the case in
Plat.Leg.644c Xiyi fjiovov = hut do speaJc. Arist.Thesm.660xp^ iin-

a-KOTreiv o-LunrrJTTavTaxrj, ixovov Si^pri jxr] PpaSvvuv. Eur.Cyc. 563 ey^cS,

a-iya p-ovov. Aesch.Ag.l31 oTov (Schol. pAvov) py tis aya KVi<j)a.(Tr].

5-38. dXaXdJoi'Tas. Naber praefert oAoXu^ovTas. oXoXvCeiv et aXaXd-

^uv frequenter confunduntur. Vide Valckenaerad Eur.Phoen.p. 1 20.

18 ST MAKE V vi

E sententia Naberi etiam in versione LXX aliquoties hoc mode

erratum fuit. Baljon.
6-8. Tea (jtTjSei' aipaaiv els oSoi' elfiT) pdpSoi' fi.oi'oi', (jit) apToi/, (at) irrjpai',

fi^ EiS tV Jcai'T]!' x'J'^KOi', dW uiroSeSejjieVous crafSdXia, Kal (at) ecSuoTio-Se

8uo xiTufas. The injunction was that the disciples should go their
way clad in the scantiest possible fashion, and of course barefoot,
as in fact is shown by the parallel passage Mt 10-10 yiir^St viro^yjixaTa.

Cf. Isai.20-3 TTOpeiov koX a<j>eXe. tov (tolkkov oltto tijs 6(Tcf)voi crou, /cai ra
a-avSdXLa <Tov vir6\v<jai a.7ro tZv ttoSZv crov, Kai -Troirjcrov ovitcds, iropevofxevo's

yv/jLvoi Kal di/uTroSeros (a sentence which most probably suggested our

text). Similarly, David (2Kings 15-30), when on his journey he had
to throw off all show of luxury and comfort, travelled barefoot,
iTTopevtTo avviroSero's. Therefore in the above passage we must read

/xr;8' irTToSeSf/xei/ovis a-avSdXia. If the command were to wear sandals,

its natural position would have been after ei/iij pdjSSov in the form

Kttt vTroSeSefxivovs o-avSdXia. See also my note on Mt 10-10.

6-15. Trpo<t>r]Tif]s ws eis tSiv irpo<|>r]Twi'. Meyer, who compares Judg.

16-7 ois eh Twi' avOpw-rruiv, is justified by the traditional state of the
text in interpreting 'he is apropliet like one oftheprqphets, i.e. a usual
ordinary prophet, one out of the category of prophets in general.'
But this depreciates Jesus, whereas by comparing him to the Bap-
tist, whom they revered the people showed their excep-
(cf.11-32),
tional esteem. The Evangelist's idea must have been that by a body
of public opinion the Lord was raised to the very highest rank of
prophets, a rank higher than even that of either John or Elijah.
Something like this most likely was in the mind of Wordsworth,
whose note is a prophet, equal to one of the old prophets.' The text,
'

however, does not lend itself to such a sense. Primitively I guess

it read 7rpo<^^rr;s eh tmv !rpo(f>T]TC>v (as in 8-28), or rather simply Trpo-

(^T)T;s 19. Euseb.EH.4-15(173)TSvy/i'^vTOTt irept^oryTos/idpTusetsTts

eyvwpt^cTo IIiovios. In Luc.Peregr.l5, when the charlatan, as is the
way of all charlatans, promised the plebs unlimited gifts, they
cheered him by shouting {avcKpayov) eva (f>L\6a-o<f>ov, ha (^iXoTrarptv,
eva Aioyivovs Kal KpdnjTos lr]XwTr]v, a unique philosopher, a unique
patriot, a unique emulator of Diogenes and Crates. Cf. also Arr.Epict.
3-2 Ti's apKTTO's l(TTL tS>v cjuXotTO^uiv ; Ilapwv Tts IXtyev on cis i^tXoo-oc^os
VI ST MAEK 19

o SiLva. lAct.Pil. 16-5 KvpLOi eh Koi TO ovofiaavTovev. The superlative

force of eis is well known from such passages as Hom.M 243 eh
olwvbs apio-Tos. So in Latin; cf.Virg.Aen.3-221 felix una ante alias
virgo, Cat.xxii.lO unus caprimulgus. It still exists in MGk in the
phrase evas koX evas ( = is Kal eh) ; cf. BXa;^os S.V. eh oXoi evas Koi
'
eva's,

tous choisis.' The error is a primitive one, for Matthew in 16-14 ^

eva Tu)v Trpo<j)rjrS)V and Luke in 9-19 Trpo^ijnjs Tis Tuiv a.p)(ai(Dv avecrTrj

have taken their descriptions from our passage as it stands at

present.
6-19. ei'eix^i' auT(3. I.e. evcKoret airZ; cf. Gen. 27-41 iveKorei 'Hcrau
TU) 'IaK(o/3. MGk expresses itself by an almost exact idiom tov to
Kparovcre p.ecra rrjs.

6-20. 6 ydp 'HpciSiq? i^o^elro toc '\(iidvvqv ei8i)s aurhy aifSpa SiKaioi/ koI
Syioi/ koi <TUi'Tiipi auTof, Ktti dKoucas auTOu iroXXA rjiropei, Kal i^Seus
auTou Y]Koui'. A good deal of confusion has crept into this place, of
which Most Mss give n-oX.X.a
traces exist in the variety of readings.
eiroiei,and similarly several Latin versions, including the Vulgate,
exhibit multa faciebat, whilst others add quia or quod before facie-
bat. The Syr.Syn. version according to Mrs Lewis is and many things

that he heard from him he did. A most important variation, which

may afford a clue to the origin of the confusion, is that of Codex B,
which omits xai before crvverqpeL.
But it leaps to the eye that the present text involves insuperable
difficulties. To begin with, there is no reason why Herod should

fear John nay, the fact that he imprisoned him is a proof that he
;

did not. We should have rather expected that, as is stated in the

account given in Mt 1 4-5 {diXoiv avTov aTroKrelvai ii^ofirjBri TOV o)(X.ov,

oTi ill Trpo4>-qrr)v avTov el)(ov), Herod, like the priests and the elders
(Mk 11-32 etpojSovvTO TOV Xaov, airavTcs yap el)(ov tov 'loidvvrjv ovtixK otl

Trpot^r/TTjs ^v), feared the people, who revered John as a saint and
a prophet, and hewas unwilling to exasperate the multitude by
executing him. The same is said of the chief priests with regard to
Jesus in Mt 21-46 ^ijTOuvres avTOV KpaTrjcrai i(j>o/3rj6rja-av Toiis o;(Aous,

eVetS'^ (US irpo4>r]T7]v avTov etxov. Compare also with regard to Peter and
John son of Zebedee Acts 4-21 juiySei/ evpia-KovTe^ to irms KoXacrtavrai

avTOv's Sia TOV Xaov, oti TrdvTes eSofa^ov tov 6eov eirl tZ yeyovoTi, ; and
20 ST MAKK vi

with regard to the disciples compare Acts 5-26 aireXduiv 6 a-Tparrjyos

trill' Tois vJTT^perais ijyayov airov?, oi fiera /Bias, i(f)o/3ovvTO yap tov Kaov.
Therefore, where we find must once have existed
tov 'Itodwrjv there
a lacuna which was erroneously filled in by those words instead of
by TOV ox^ov OS. In the second place, it is strange that Herod should
listen with pleasure to the very man who was reproaching him with
his misdeeds much more likely is it that again lySews avTov tjkov^v
;

refers to the people, who listened to John's preaching with pleasure,

just as they listened to the teaching of Jesus according to the narra-
tive of Mk 12-37, which is couched in almost identical terms, koI 6
TToAvs ox^oi ^Kovev avTov ^ScMs. Lastly, if what I have already urged
is well founded, the sentence koI aKovo-as avTov ttoXAo. rjiropu cannot
possibly stand in its present form, as the subject of r/Tropet would
necessarily be o oxA.os ; nor can it stand even if we assume 'HpwST^s
to be the subject, for how could Herod be said to feel any agree-
able surprise at John's discourses and this is what the words mean
if they mean anything if it is supposed that he had already ac-
quired a conviction (ciSws) of the Baptist's righteous and saintly
character ? Finally, I may refer to what is said of Jesus in Mk 1 1-18
rjKova-av ol apx(.epel^ xai ol ypap.p.aTU.'s, koI it,iqTOvv ttoIs avTov a.TToXio'oiariv

i<l>opovvTO yap avTov, ttSs yap 6 6)(\o's l^eTrXrjcrcrero kirX Trj StSa^g avrov.
I will now state how I think the original text ran, thus : 6 yap
HpuSjys e0o/3etTO tov ox^ov, os, etSws avrbv aySpa BUaiov Kal ayiov /cat

ctKovo-as avTov ttoWo. a (this a having dropped out owing to the pre-
ceding a) eirotet (so a variant instead of rjirop^i), crwiT^pei avTOv /cat

^Silo's avTov ^Kovev, for Herod feared the multitude, ivMch, knowing him
as a righteous man and a holy and hearing of his many ivories that he
wrought, watched over him and
him with pleasure. The con-
listened to
fusion was brought about by crui/tTijpet having been missed and
then supplied in the margin, whence it was restored to the wrong
place with the addition of the conjunction Kal, which is absent in
Codex B. The disturbance is a very ancient one, for Lk 23-8 6 8e
HpcoSTjs iSibv TOi/ 'Itjo-ovv c'xapr? Ai'ai/, rjv yap ef 'iKavmv xpovmv Oi\(ov iSelv
avTov Slo. to aKoxieiv Trepl avTov is a palpable imitation of the present
form in our passage.
6-21. yevojiivr^s i^ixepaj euKoipou, oTe'HpuSiQS tois yei/caiots auTouSci-
VI ST MAEK 21

TTi'oi' ETToiTio'Ei'. The usual interpretation when a convenient [it should

be an opportune] day was come wide of the mark. There was
is

nothing in the day itself which made it specially opportune for

bringing about the Baptist's execution ; it was by mere accident
that the chance presented itself. Had the day been considered by
Herodias as advantageous, we should have expected to find that
everything had been arranged beforehand, and that her daughter
would have promptly answered Herod's question without going
out to take her mother's instructions. Now, the word evKaipos some-
times meant empty, as Sophocles explains ; and in MGk elfxai evKai-
pos means both I am and by an extension of meaning I am
empty,
at leisure, cf. BXaxos '
a du loisir, vide.' This significa-
evxatpos, qui

tion of J am at leisure it must also have had even at the period

when the Gospels were compiled, for we find that its derivative
evKaipui meant then to he at leisure ; see Sophocles, who refers to
Acts 17-21 'AOrjvaxoL Si cts oiSiv erepov rjixaipovv rj Xeyeiv ri Kaivorepov.
lCor.16-12 eXevaerai orav ev/catp^oTj. The
fact that Phrynichos ful-
minates against it and shows that its use at that
calls it /Sdp^apov
period was very extensive (see Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary);
it has in fact survived to the present day, BXa^os orav eiKaipijo-w = '

quand je serai libre.' Hence cvKatpos 17/iepa then meant an empty day,
i.e. a day without work, a day of leisure, being a synonym of a-xoXrj

(a holiday ; cf. lAnaph.Pil. 1 to cra./3/3arov IXeyev avroTs o 'Irjcrovi /xrj

elvai a-xoXriv, quoted by Sophocles. Mt 12-44 oIkov trxoAa^ovTa =a

house having a holiday, as I explain at that place). Eefer further to
Liddell and Scott s.v. cvKaipia, o-xoXi;. The synonymity is also shown
by Philo, Gai.175 eixatpouVas koX crxoXat,ov(ras. The words there-
fore yevop.o'rj'; rjp.ipa's evKaipov mean when a festival day arrived, and
so is the Armenian version, as I now see in Zorell and they were ;

inserted with the object of showing how it chanced that the

daughter of Herodias came out to dance, and through her dancing
prevailed on Herod to behead the Baptist. Finally, I may add that
Zorell quotes a Syriac word corresponding to iVKaipo's, which, as he
states, signifies nonnumquam diemfestum.' Walter Bauer, the most
'

recent (1928) lexicographer of the NT, does not seem to approve of

the signification festival day ; at any rate, he does not mention it.
22 ST MARK vi vii

6-39. CTujATroffia CTUfiirdaia. The repetition of the noun to express the

distributive idea is Hebraistic. Gould. So also Meyer, Grimm, and
Zorell. Milligan the construction can no longer be regarded as
'

Hebraistic, see Prol.p.97.' It is a locution in everyday use in MGk,

as is also Svo 8vo of v. 7. Jannaris has collected numerous instances
of this idiom in 666-3, and concludes his note by saying This '

mode of indicating distribution has since spread widely, and is now

the commonest in MGk.'
6-48. pxeTai irpo9 auTous TrepnraTfcii' em ttjs OaXacro-ijs. Perhaps sug-
gested by Job 9-8 iriparaTuiv ws tTr'tSa^ous Im 6aXa.a-<rr]^, and 38-16
^X^Es 8c iirl TrrjyrjV 6aXaa-(rr]i, iv 8e ixv^cri-v a^vcrtTOv TrepieTraTrjaa';.

6-56. oTTou &y eiaeiropeueTO, els KujJias r\ els iroXeis t) els Aypous, if rais

dYopais eriSeo-ai' can understand a market-place in

Tous daOefoui/Tas. I
a town, or perhaps in a village, but how can there exist a market-
place out in the aypoi or open places ? I think that instead of iv rais
dyopais we ought Taw dyutats (APYIAIS-ArOPAIS), in the
to read iv
roads. This conjecture seems to me to be borne out by the Syr.
Sinaiticus, in which according to the Lewis translation we have
Wheresoever Jesus entered, into cities or villages or fields and streets
(I presume that the Syriac word for roads means also streets). That

the Syr.Sin. gives both fields and streets may be accounted for by
the circumstance that ayvial^ stood as a correction of dyopats on the
margin of the Greek Ms from which that version was made, and
that the translator regarded the word not as a correction but as an
addition. A further confirmation of my view seems to be the read-
ing of Codex D iv Tots TrXaTct'ats. Cf. also Acts 5-15 olo-re Koi eh rds
TrXarcias iK(j>peLV Toy's dtr^ei/eis koI TiOivai, almost a repetition of the

passage under consideration.

The incongruity of aypol combined with ayopal seems to have
struck some ancient students, and this is probably the reason why
some documents omit r] d<s a.ypov%.
7-3. iav p.T) iruyfiY) vl'^iavTai rds xip<s. The explanations given as
to how a man is able to wash his hands with his fist cannot even
be called serious ; a man uses his fists for boxing, not for washing.
Nor is the interpretation diligently warranted. Common sense says
that, the object of the washing being purification, the Jews must
VII ST MAEK 23

have been enjoined to do their ablutions by using pure fresh water

i.e. -rriyrj. So Josephus says Ap. 31 that Moses ordered
from the spring,
purifications -n-rj-yaitov vSaTOiv Xovrpoi'S, Of. also Lev. 11-36 TrXijv irriyljiv

ta-rai KaOapov. ClemK.Hom.9-19 Trrjyrj a.7roXovcrayu,cvoi. TheMishnain

the enumeration of the varieties of water mentions (see Schiirer
2-2.28-3) spring water still running (= irriyrj) as proper to use for
the washing of hands, A similar ritual practice obtained among
the Greeks. Of. Eur.Alc.lOl Trrjyaiov x^pvi-l^a- IphA.1478 x^P^'^^'^^
Trayalcn. When at Colonos Kadap/jLOi (466) is recommended to Oedi-
pous by the Chorus, he is told i^ auppmov xoas Kpi^vrjs iveyKov (Schol.
ef aevvdov irrjyrji v&mp apvcrat) and ;(oas xiacrOaL, Tpicrcrds (Blaydes 8r-
cras) ye Trijyas (Blaydes Trrjyrjs). See Liddell and Scott s.v. x^P^'-'^- The
correction irijyg is so obvious that I should not be surprised if it

existed somewhere in the catacombs of learned periodicals. The

addition of ^vyp.rj to vlfacrdaL in Pallad.Hist.Laus. (see Moulton-
Milligan) is no doubt an imitation of the Marcan passage.
7-4. Paimo'p.ous TroTiiipiaii' Kai leo-Tui' Kal xit^Kibii' Kal KXifuf. Out of
deference to N and B, supported by a few other documents, Souter
discards koI kXwSiv and WH relegate it to the margin. The Eevisers'
footnote is ' many [read : most by far] ancient authorities add and
couches.' No doubt the omission in t^ and B is due to the improba-
bility of couches being submitted to frequent washing. The trans-
lator of Syr. Sinaiticus must have been equally puzzled, and along
with K\LvS)vhe omitted no doubt read kol xaX-
koI xaXKiui', for his text
Kutav (this adjective exists in severalGreekMss) kXivw. Possibly the
primitive reading was kol XoiirStv = etc, instead of koL kXlvZv. Of.4- 1 9 at
fiepifivai Tov attuvos /cat rj airarq tov ttXovtov koI at Trept to. Koltto. iiridvfi.iai.

I may
add that the omission in {<? and B strengthens consider-
ably Burgon's contention that their texts have suffered critical
manipulation.
7-11. ectc eiTTi] afOpuiros T<5 Trarpi if]
rfj fJ"]Tpi Kop|3ai' (o iaTiv Supoc) o
ecii' e^ ep.ou u4>6XT]6tjs, ouk^ti &i|>iTE auToi/ ouSef irotrjcrat T(3 iraTpl r[ jrj

p.T]Tpt. The usual interpretation of o iav i$ /j.oi; ii<^i\-q6ri<; by that

wherewith thou mightest have been profited hy me is so contrived as to
yieldsome sort of plausible sense but the words cannot without;

undue straining be thus construed. The straightforward rendering

24 ST MARK vii

is that tvherewith thou mayst (or toilt) le profited ly me, and this sense
obviously does not comport with the context. What we require is

what I may owe you is Tcorhan (= Kopftav eo-n), i.e. has been contri-
buted to the funds of the temple, and this we obtain by correcting
iav ii ifjLOV <J<^eA,ry6j5s by o cav i^ ifjiov oi^etAiyTai o"ot. Ihe palaeo-
graphical similarity of these two terms is evident. 'OcjiiX<o in the
sense of I owe as a duty is frequent ; cf.Lk 17-10 o oH^et/Vo/xci/ woL^crai

TreTTOti^Ka/xev, etc.

Mr Gantillon of Oxford was good enough to convey to me his

own version. He says The real meaning will always escape those
'

who do not know the Mishna. Kop/3a.v does mean offering, true.
But idiomatically at the time when the Gospel was framed it meant
by a profane asseveration {not) a bit. So the whole passage (spoken
with irreverent and unfilial violence) is you ivill get nothing at all :

out of me. The old explanation that the son said : I have offered to

the Temple what you might expect for your maintenance is simply a
guess. Of course, o ia-nv Swpov is a gloss which has misled every-
body for centuries.' This gloss, if it is one, owes its presence to
Josep.Ap.22 Tov KaXovfjLevov opKov KOpfBav . . . SijAoi St u)S av tnroi ti9
K Trj'S 'E^paiwv fji.e6epiJirjViv6fj,vos SiaXeKTOv Suipov Oeov.
7-12. ouKeri d<t>ieTe auroi' ouSei' Troi^crai tS) Trarpi. I.e. a^terc avroi'
firjSlv tTL TToi^a-ai ria Trarpl, him (allow him to) do nothing fur-
you let

ther for his father, you release him from any such future obligation.
It is the well-understood idiom, in which a negative belonging to
the infinitive is attached to the governing verb cf. Plat. Men. 2 3 9a ;

ovK a^wvfjLev SovXol lvai= aiiovp.ev p,r) ti/at SoCAoi, and often. The
Vulgate version ultra non demittis eum quidquam facere patri suo,
in which all expositors seem to acquiesce, surely conflicts with
common sense how could a man, on the ground that he had con-
;

tributed to the funds of the Temple, have been forbidden to assist

his needy parents ? To act thus would have conferred additional
merit. It is curious that the English translators also went wrong
considering that they had before them Luther's version und so lasst
ihr hinfort ihn nichts thun seinem Vater.
7-13. TTJ irapaSoaei ufji.ciii' p -irapeSuKaTE. Most probably TrapiSodrjTe.
In Esther 8-[10] twv TraXaLOTipmv u)s TrapeScoKa/AEv IcTTopiZv the correct
 ;

VII ST MAKK 25

reading no doubt is us (or &v) Trape866r]iJi.iv. The error, if it is one, is

probably due to the infrequent use of TrapaScSo/iai Ti=8i8aa-Ko/Aat rt,

for in the NT it only occurs in Eom.6-17 ets ov TrapeSodrjre TvTrov=

ts Tov Tvirov ov TrapeS66r]Te.
7-18. ou fOEiTC OTi irfii' t6 e^otQev EiinropEuofjiO'oi' eis ^i>y ai'Opuiroi' ou
Surarai aurSi' Koii'ua'ai, on ouk eitnropeucTai auTou eIs rrji' KapSiak, &\\
EIS TT)!/ KOlXiai' Kal EIS TOI' d<)>E8p<ijl'a EKTTOpEUETai, Ka6api^oi> Trdi'Ta TCt

Ppcifiara. The meaning of ppoSfiara has been misunderstood. No

doubt the usual signification of ppw/j-a is meat ; but it also signifies

rottenness, being another form of y8pG/x,os or (less correctly accord-

ing to Sophocles) |Spo/Aos, which means stench. Sophocles quotes
numerous instances of /SpSifia, jSpafieai, /SpZ/jio';, /SpcDjuolSijs, all in an
offensive sense. They seem to be derived from fti^puxTKea-BaL, to ie
eaten by worms cf. Isa.51-8 &s tpia PpwO-qa-ovTai. inrh ctijtos. Mt 6-19
;

lJ,rj dyjcravpi^iTi vplv Orjcravpovs Ittl rrji y^'Sy oirou <r^s koI /JpGcrts a.(j>avi^i.

And inasmuch as what is infested by worms is putrid and noisome,

/36/3pu)/*Vos has come to mean rotten (cf. Josh.9-5 6 apros avTwv ei-

and the nouns from the same root

ptoTiSv Kal ySfySpto/xei/os), offensive,
seem to have acquired the sense of rottenness and then of stench.
Cf. Job 5-3 ippiLOr] avrSiv rj Siaira. In MGk the verb ppusp-ui exists
unaltered as=fo stink, cf. BAaxos 'ySpw/iiu, sentir mauvais, puer'
whilst the noun in the feminine form Ppia/jia is a specific term for
both stench and filth so BXaxos /Spw/xa, mauvaise odeur, salete,
; '

ordure.' Thus, Kadapilov Travra TO. PpiifMTa. signifies which thing, or

circumstance, clears away all impurities. The syntax is clearly
explained by Bloomfield in accordance with Fritzsche's view.
There is, however, a which must not be shirked. Is it
difficulty
admissible that the same word meant both food and filth ? There
must have been some difference in the pronunciation. Was ppmjxa
in the sense oi filth pronounced Ppop-a ? If so, my derivation from
PiPpiL(j-Kf.<r6ai perhaps falls to the ground. In Joel 2-20 we find ava-
^TjO'erai rj (ra-n-pia aiVoB Koi dvaySijo-erat 6 y8po/tos airov.
7-26. i\v Se iq yuKT) 'EWrji'ls 5!upo<j>oii'iKto-o-a. The only correct forma-
tion of this compound both in classical and modern Greek, in so
vowel is concerned, is Svpo^otvtKto-o-a, as it is
far as the copulative
found in most Mss, and it would be impossible for any Greek of
26 ST MAEK vii viii

any period, whether educated or illiterate, to utter it differently.

Whence then comes it that in some Mss we find the barbarous

^vpa(jiOLVLKL(r(ra with u as a copulative vowel ? This seems to me to
point to an error. I believe the Evangelist wrote ^v Si rj ywij 'EXXiyvis

XVP; ^oLViKKTaa, and the woman was a Greek widow from

Phoenicia,

i.e. a Greek-speaking Jewish widow. Mark and, more particularly,

Luke are fond of sympathetically introducing widows into their

narratives ; cf. Mk 12-42. Lk 2-37.4-26.7-12.18-3.21-2. The reading
Xnpa. has been actually preserved in the Syr. Sin. which according
;

to Mrs Lewis reads this woman was a widow. Some editors divide
'S,vpa<j>oivLKi<j(Ta into 2v/Da *otviKto-cra ; but this only creates another
difficulty, inasmuch as it makes 'Zvpa precede instead of following
^oivLKitTtra, as it should do in conformity with the order 4>otvt(o-cra

Ik Svpias.
7-32. fioyiXdXoi'. Several Mss exhibit /ioyytXaXov, a form recom-
mended by Griesbach and supported by the Hellenistic yttoyyos
(see Sophocles and Moulton-Milligan) and the modern /xouyyos, a
specific term for dumb. Most likely the variant p.oyyikaXov repre-
sents the real popular form of the word, /uoytXaXos being a puristic
expedient resorted to by pedants who, in their anxiety to avoid the
sound yy, which they fancied was vulgar, created /xoyiXaXos as a
would-be compound from /*dyis + XaXio. That /xoyiXaXos exists in
Oxyr.Papyri is no conclusive proof of its genuineness, consider-
ing how very ancient is the fraudulent art of purism and how it
more or less infected most scribes. M. Filindas, however, an
eminent authority on Greek etymologies, adopts the opposite view,
and considers that the MGk /iovyyos is a development of /Aoyo's.
7-34. di^apXeij/as eis rov oupafoi' iaTiva.t,iv. The (rTvay/x,os meant is

the sigh of one inwardly praying in fervent emotion, so that

ia-Tivai,iv virtually =pra/ed! inwardly. Cf. Enoch 9-10 ai tlrvx^i evrvy-

^dvovcnv /i^XP' ''^'^^ TTvXliiv tov oipavov koi avijit) o (TTe.vayp.o'i avTuiv. The
same is the force of iv eavrois (Treval,ofx.ev in Eom.8-23, where see my
note.
7-35. Sco-jAOS Tr]9 >(\i!}<j<jt\%. In MGk yXtoo-o-oSc'rrjs.
8-2. i\y,ipa\. rpeis irpoa(ji^i'ou<rn'. Repeated in Mt 15-32. A colloquial
contraction for rpcig rip-ipai u<j\v i^ ov Trpotr/xtVoutriv. Similarly Deut.
VIII ST MAKK 27

8-4 ovK lTvX(j>Or](rav ISov T(r(rapa.K0VTa ITT]. Jos.1-11 In rpets rjjjiipaL kol
i/AEis StaySaiVcTE. Jon. 3-4 cVi Tpeis ri/xipai Koi Nivev^ KaraaTpaffi-^creTat.
Oxyr.Pap.1216 evtawTos <n^ixepov eKTOs <rov eifii.

8-12. Ti 11 Y^''^^ <*"T1 SilTEi arjueioc; Euthymios TL, TOVTeaTi StoTi.'

'

And so probably all interpretations. But it is a much stronger ex-

pression than a simple SiaTt or ichi/ ; it breathes a feeling of im-
patience and indignation, as ttuIs does in Gal. 2- 14 d a-v iOviKw'; i,ri%

xGs TO Idvri dvayKci^eis lovSa'iteiv ; So a more accurate rendering would

be how. The same remark applies to 2-8 rt TavTo StaXoyt^eo-^c ei/ rats
KapSCai^ vfiiav ;

1 8o6rjaTai Trj yeyea TauTi) (njficioi'. Origen commenting upon et

says ' TOUTtcTTiv ov. ' Euthymios ' iStco/ia yap tovto Tiys 'EjSpatSos Sia-
was
Xektou.' It of course imitated from the Septuagint ; see my note
on Mt 2-6.
8-24. pXcirci) T0U9 di'6puirous, on us Sei'Spa opia TrepnraToui'Tas. I see
the men, for Isome men walking as trees. This renders exactly
see
the wording of the text, and it is of course thorough nonsense. A
variant pxiiruy tov<s avOpunrov: ws ScVSpa ircpiiraTovi'Tas, I See the men
walking as trees, is The Evangelist must have written
equally inept.
on BivSpa ecupa u)s TrepuraTovvTa^, I see the men,
/SXeTTUi TO-us avOpwirovi;,

and he said that he saw men because he was seeing trees as if they
were walkers-hy. That is to say In his imperfect state of eyesight
:

at that moment, when it had not yet been fully restored, the blind
man confusedly distinguished the movement in the branches of
the trees caused by the breeze, and he fancied it was the walking
of persons. Somewhat similarly in Judg.9-36, when Gaal perceived
a multitude descending the mountain and informed Zebul, the
latter replies Trjv a-Kiav tG>v opiwv trii pXiiru^ (is avSpas.
TrepnraToui/Tas. In a substantival sense ; see note on 1-4.
8-28. oTi CIS Tui' ispo^r\TS)v. See note on 6-15.

8-33. ou (tipoi^eis rd tou Oeou. A

political expression, as explained in
my note on Eom.8-5, where I refer to Arist.Pax,640 As <f>pova to.
Bpao-iSov, which is copiously illustrated by Blaydes. The literal in-
terpretation is thou dost not take sides with God.
8-34. -irpoo'KaXco'dfjiEi'os Toc o)(\oi' <7uc tois fJia6T)Tais outou ctirei' auTois.
A continuation of an episode in which the Lord converses with
28 ST MAEK viii

his disciples and Peter whilst he proceeds on his way accompanied

by them alone, no other people following, and which ends in 9-1
with eXiyev airots 'A/a^i/ Xiyui vfuv oneuTLV tivk mSe tuiv icrTrjKoriDV otrivts

oil fir] yeva-wvTai Oavarov ews av tSuxriv rrjv ySatriXeiav tov Oeov iXrjXvuviav.
These last words are addressed to the disciples also, for they evi-
dently allude to the legendary immortality promised to John. So
both at the beginning and the end the episode is concerned with
the disciples alone and no other persons come in at all. Therefore
oxXov of V.34 must be an error, the more so as, were it retained,
auToTs of 9-1would refer to the multitude instead of to the disciples.
Thus, it ought to be clear that tov SxXoy has displaced tov TliTpov.
Peter is singled out by name as the most important disciple of the
twelve, as he is also in 16-7 eiTrare rots jxad-qToi'i avTOv Kol T(o nerpci),
in Lk 9-32 o Se IleVpos koI ol aiiv avT(a, and in Evang.Hebr. (see
Preuschen's Antilegomena p. 8) venit ad Petrum et ad eos qui cum
Petro erant. Further, in Mk 9-5 and Lk 8-45 Peter appears as the
leader or spokesman of the disciples. In our passage in fact there
was a special occasion for Peter being mentioned, inasmuch as he
had just been conversing with the Lord.
8-37. Ti yap 8oi (or 8(5 or Swaet) ai'Spuiros AcTaXXaYfia T-i^s >|'uxt]S

auTou ; The original probably is in Mt 16-26, from which it was

imported together with its corruption of Se'^erat into Swcrei.

fie. In my note on Lk 9-26 I have

8-38. 09 yap eii' liraio-xui'Sr]

suggested that this an allusion to the sneering in vogue among

is

anti-Christians, which made many Christians shy and in con-

sequence of which they hesitated to call themselves Xpta-Tiavoi. To
the existence of this sneering I referred in my note on Kom.1-16.
Cf. also 1 Pet. 4- 16 t 8e [tis] u)S Xpia-Tiavb? [7rdcr;^i], fir] aicrxyvicrOco, etc.

The sneering, as I suggested, was

word Xpto-ros, which the
at the
enemies of Christianity pretended to derive from xp^w in the offen-
sive sense of besmearing, so that by Xpio-navoi they meant the be-
smeared. The spelling Xprjanavo^ which is that of the Sinaiticus
(at lPet.4-16) and has partially prevailed, as shown by the French
Chretien, probably represents a device to avoid the stigma attach-
ing to and to claim a derivation from the epithet xp^Jctos.
xp^<i>

This spelling is attributed by Tertullian in Apol.3 to the ignorance

IX ST MAEK 29

of Latin-speakingmen, but it seems rather to have been invented

by the disingenuousness of Justin, who in lApol.4 saysoo-ov ye Ik
Tov Karrfyopov/jLevov rjfj,S)v ovoynaros ^(pTja-TOTaTOL iirap^o/xtv, and again
Xpicmavol yap eivai KarqyopovixiOa, ro Se ^(pifjcrTov jjucreicrBai ov St/catov.
The sneering musthave been very prevalent evendown to the times
of Clement of Alexandria, for he also, although an exceptionally
learned man, who could not have been taken in by so palpable a
false derivation, is driven to adopt it, for in Strom.2-4-18 he says
01 ck Toi/ XptcTTov 7re7ricrTviKOTS xpijcTToi T eicri Kol KiyovTai.
9-10. Kai Toi' Xdyoi' f.Kp&Tt\ao.v, irpos eauTOUS o-ui'r)ToGi'Tes Ti loTii" to

EK i/eKpSi/ di/aoTfjcai. It is to be observed that in some other passages,

where our Lord in conversing with his disciples refers to his

approaching death and subsequent resurrection, the Evangelists
remark that his intimations were not understood. Thus lower
down, in v. 31 diroKrav^eis /x-era Tpeis rj/xipa's ava(TT-^(TTai, he makes
such an allusion, and the comment which follows is oi 8e rjyvoow
TO prjfxa. I think, therefore, that originally we had here Koi tov
\6yov ovK iKparrjo-av (ovk having dropped out before ck owing to a
certain similarity of sound), which would mean and they did not
wnderstand the saying. This conjecture is confirmed by the parallel
passage in Luke 18-31 ; for, as Luke says TeAeo-^i^o-cTai wavTa tZ
vl& TOV avOpdrrov, irapa^oOritrerai yap koi avatrrrjcrerai, Kai avroi ovoiv
TovToiv a-vvTJKav, so Mark must have preceded him with orav 6 vl6<;

TOV avOpiinrov Ik veKpSiv avacrTrj Koi tov Aoyov ovk iKpaTrjaav.

KpaTeiv in the sense of to understand may perhaps be a Latinism
reproducing the verb tenere, a similar probable Latinism occurring
in connection with the verb l3a(TTdt,iv, a synonym of k/dotcTv, in Jn
16-12 ETt iroXXa e;!^(i) Xeyetv iplv, aXk'ov SvvaaOe ySao-Ta^eiv apn. Of.
also Mt 19-11 oil iravTcs x^poi'o-i tov Xoyov tovtov, where x^p^'^may
represent the Latin capere, or comprehendere, though the English
to talce in, as well as the Greek a-vWap-f^dveiv, point to the notion of
XtDpciv = to understand not being exclusively Latinist.
The particle ov is apt to fall out of, or to be added to, the text.
An indisputable case occurs in Codex B, which in Luke 14-27
gives oo-Tis oSv /Jao-Tct^et instead of oVtis ovv ov ^aard^u. The same
Codex omits ovin 1 Cor. 6-9 olSlkoi 6eov (SacnXiiav ov K\rjpovoiJ.rja-ova-iv.


30 ST MARK ix

Similarly in Mt 8-30 we find ^v 8e jxaKpav instead of rjv 8' ov /taKpav,

a reading proposed by de Bfeze and preserved in several Latin ver-
sions. And no doubt also in Xen.Anab. 1-8-8 xporo) Se o-uxvoi the
original reading w^as xpo''? 8'ov o-vxi'tji. Coraes in Hippoc. Vol.2 p.45
adduces several very striking instances of similar errors. Hort in
his Introduction p. 124 remarks A bolder form of correction is
: '

the insertion of a negative particle, as in Lk 11-48 and Rom.4-19;

or its omission, as in Mt 21-32 {ov being easily lost, it is true, after

rov) ; Eom.5-14 Gal.2-5 ; ;

5-8.' Eefer further to my notes on Jn 5-46
and 15-20.
9-11. eTTTipcuTOJi' auTOf XcYOKTes On Xeyouaii' ktX In ; 9-28 on likewise
stands as an interrogative, and I have traced it further in Barn. 8-4
Siari 86 T/DtS TToi^K ; OTl 8 TO tpiOV 771 TO ^vXcV j 7-9 TL OVV TOVTO icTTlV j

Koi OTL Tov iiriKaTapaTov i<jTi<f>avo)/j.vov ; But the Armenian version

gives quid est hoc quod, namely rt oti, which, so far as I can follow
vSoden, exists also in some Greek Mss. Cf. Acts 5-4 n oti. Wov iv
TTj KapSia crov to Trpayp-a tovto ;
5-9 tl oti o^ve^wv^drj iiplv Trupdaai to
TTvevp-a ; Further, tl oti is recorded as a variant in the above men-
tioned verse 9-28.
9-12. dTroKaSicrrdi'ei. Alford at Mt 2-4 ttov 6 Xpio-ros yevvaTaL ob-
serves ' The present tense is often used indefinitely of subjects of
prophecy, e.g. 6 ipxap-fvoi Mt 11-3. Hebr. 10-37 ; ip^iTai, in an ex-
pression exactly parallel to this, Jn 7-42 [fxij yap oXpto-ros epx^''""'']-'

That is to say, the present tense, which strictly speaking would

only be applicable to that which introduces a prophecy (i.e. the

prophetic book says, or it is said in the prophetic books), is trans-
ferred to the prophecy itself So in Mt 17-11 'HAias/iv ipxero-iihe
meaning is : the prophetic book says that Elija shall come.
9-13.'H\ia9 e\i^Xu6e Kal eTTOirjcrai'auTU ocrarjdEXo)' kuSus Y^ypaTrrai
ir' auTof. The sentence xa^ws yeypaTTTat iir'avTov (that is, respecting
John identified with Elijah) should properly
have followed 'HAtas
lXrjX.v6e, for the prophecy meant can be no other than that of Isaiah
quoted at the introduction of this Gospel. The sentence /cat iTroi-qa-av

avT<2 oa-a ^OeXov is parenthetical.

This verse seems to me to have once followed 'HAtas /Jiiv i\6uiv

n-pSiTov aTTOKadiaTcivu TrdvTa, yes, it is written that Elijah must first
IX ST MAKK 31

come, hut I assure you that Elijah has already come. The period
KaX irGi'S yeypairraL iirl tov vlbv tov dvdpunrov Lva ttoXXo, TrdOy] Koi i^ov-

SevtaOy ;an intrusion from the margin, where some reader was
is

asking information as to how in the prophetic books the Lord's

trials are predicted. I cannot otherwise discover any sense either

in the Greek or in the Latin quia scriptum est super filio hominis ut
multa patiatur et innulletur.
That this part of the Gospel is a translation from the Latin, as
has been contended by Couchoud, is ruled out by the fact that
innulletur is manifestly a reproduction of the Greek i^ovSevwOrj, as
Pernot has indicated.
eiroiT)aac auTu oo-a ijfleXoi'. The meaning is not that the scribes
did to Elijah that which they wanted in the sense that they acted
towards him according to a preconceived and definite design,
but there is a strongly ironical tone in ^OeXoy, so that the phrase
indicates in a general way that the scribes behaved, as it were,
according to their own sweet will, an improper conduct being
implied. The phrase is still alive in MGk as tov Ixavav on ^^eXav
(or oTi Toiis KaTe/3-rjKe, just as it Struck their fancy). BAaxos does not
quote it, but s.v. 6iX(a he quotes '
Sexerat oiroiov OiXei, il regoit qui

ton lui semble,' where 6eXu breathes the same irony as yj6e\ov of our
passage. Cf. also 2ActPil.2 a Oi\ova-L (whatever strikes them) Xiyovcrtv.
9-15. irpooTp^x'''''^s T|<7irdJoi'To auroi'. An old misreading rrpoa~)(i-

povTK, recorded in D, has been supposed to be a translation of the

Latin gaudentes had it been so, we should have had a simple
;

XaijoovTes, or unorthographically x^povTcs. But what is the matter

with Trpoa^TpexpvTK ? It Seems to me to be a better reading.

9-18. Throws him down. See my note on Lk9-42.
pi^o-o-ei auToi'.

Hesych. 'piyo-cret, KOTa/SaXXci.' Cf. Exod.14-16 evapov ry paySSoi crou

Kol prj$ov avTrjv. This signification of prjo-a-w is even found in the

Classics. Cf.Eur.Bacc.633 Sto/iar' eppyj^ev xMa^) and Thuc.4-69 ra

fjiaKpa. Tct'x'? aTToppT/^avrcs.
9-18. eiTTOi' Tois (ji.a6ii]TaLS crou ii'a auTO cKPtiXuaii' Kal ouk t(r)(>'<''ni'. '0 8e

diTOKpiOEis auTOis Xeyci *! y^*"^"^ airtoros, eus ir^Te Trpos ujaSs eaofiai ; eus
TTOTc df^^ofiai u)i.S>y ; As the text stands, the rebuke must refer to the
preceding avrols, and that again to the preceding fmOrjTais. But
 ;

32 ST MAEK ix

what had the done to deserve such a severe, or any, repri-

disciples
mand ? On the contrary, to-xvcrav implies that they had done their
best to help the patient. Moreover, in answer to the disciples' ques-
tion in V.29 as to the cause of their insuccess, the Lord says calmly,
and even consolingly, that such evil spirits can only be overcome
by prayer. I consider therefore that the words S> ycveo, aTrio-ros, ecus
TTOTe TTpb'i ifxds ccro/jtai ems ttotc a.vi^ojj,ai vfuSiv were foisted in from
; ;

Matthew 17-17, where see note.

9-19. (3 yei-ea airto-ros. See my note on Mt 17-17.
9-21. iroaos xp''s eo'tIi' us touto yiyovev For a)s we have a variant
;

ii oil (or atji'ov), which is the normal way of expressing since, as

required by the above phrase, but this variant is highly improb-
able, for it could not have been displaced by ws, which as being an
equivalent of cms, iintil, would at first sight have certainly been felt
unsuitable. I believe that cLs is correct it is found in lCor.1-6;

i7r\ovTL(T6rjTe Kadii'; ( = d)s, i^ ov) ro jxaprvpiov i^e/SaiwOrj ev v/jlIv. Soph.

OT. 115 Trpb's oTkov ovkcO ik(.B' <i)s dircaraA?; (ws irpSiT' icrTaXr] ?). Thuc.4-
90-3 17/iepa dpfa/itvot TptTTj a)s(= e^ oxi) oIko6(v ZpjjfqcraLV. Similarly ote
and Ittei ; cf. Thue.1-13-3 cti; B' tern /xaXurra TptaKocna ore 'Afj,ivo-

kXtj? ^Xdev. Aesch.Ag.40 Se'/caTov Itos toS' eTret McveXaos ^S' Xyajnejurcov
(TToXov rjpav.
9-22. ei Ti Sufaaai, fiorfdiqaov fjfi.lv cnrXayxi'icrOcls c()>'i^fjias. 'O 8e 'ln]-

o-oOs eiTrei' auTu rh ei huvaaai' irdii'Ta Sui'aTa t^ itio-Tuoi'ti. Some docu-

ments add TTia-Tevcrai after 6t Svvaa-ai. I have seen no explanation of
TO el Svvacrai which appeals to me as even remotely plausible. But

so far as the context is concerned, it seems to require trii 8i Swacrat

jTio-TeBcrat

9-25. aXaXoc Kai k(i>4>&i' iri'eujjio. I.e. the spirit that causes dumb-

ness. The evil spirit of course itself would not be considered to

be dumb.
9-26. o"7ropd|ai' auroi'. For cnrapda-a-ia as an active verb see note on
1-26.
9-28. eTTTjpwTui' auToi/ oTi. A variant rt on ; see my note on 9-11.
9-37. OS i^v If tS>v TraiSiui' toutwi' S^^rgrai Itti tw ofofxari uou kt\.
This verse was originally followed by vv. 42 to 48 Kai os ear a-Kav-
SaXia-Tj tva tSiv iJLiKpSiv TOVTtav ktX, but its eirt t& 6v6p.aTi fjLOv drew from
IX ST MARK 33

some other work vv. 38 to 41 where there occurs iv tZ ovofLan aov

and ETTt rC ovoixarC ;uov. In the same way vv. 43f koI iav <TKavha\Ct,-q
o-e r}
x^^p crov ktX. were inserted hecause of Ss av o-KavSaXCa^ of v.42.
Further, irvp of v. 48 attracted v. 49 because of ttu/di, and aXLo-OrjcreTaL
of V. 49 attracted v. 50 because of Kakov to aXas. See notes on 9-49.
Mt22-7 and 22-10. This bewildering practice was that of Jewish
doctors; Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash p. 20 'In
Talmud anything and everything with the remotest connection
with the subject is brought in to the grievous perplexity of the
reader.'
<|)r) auTu 6 'lojdi'i'ifjs ... 09
9-38. y"P ouk earii' Ka9' i^jioji', uirtp t|(ji(ji'
eaTic. This part must be a development of Lk 9-50 aTroKpi$d's Be
6 lojctvvjjs ehrev . . . bs yap ovk eomv Ka6 -rffiuiv,
virip ^/j.wv i(TTiv. For it

is only in Luke and the Acts) that pre-eminence is attri-

(8-51.9-28
buted to in the nine passages in Mark and two in Matthew
John ;

in which John's name is linked with that of James, it is the latter

that is mentioned first. Compare further the Gospel according to
the Hebrews 1 8 (Preuschen's Antilegomena p. 7) Bominus autem,
cum dedidisset sindonem servo, ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei and see ;

my note on kpvtttov 4-22. In Lk 8-51 lUrpov koI 'Iwavvqv koL 'laKiafiov

some documents omit koX 'Iwavvriv, which omission reduces to a
single one the cases wherein Luke in his Gospel attributes pre-
eminence to John.
9-39. ouScis Y<lp ecTTii' OS iroiii<Tet Sui'afj.ii' ettI tm oi/ofJiaTi fjiou Kal %uvf]-
o-erai raxu KaKo\oy!]aoi The word raxy is erroneously rendered
(le.

quicTdy after the Vulgate cito. It is a synonym of avpiov, and in this

passage means on some future day, which is often the meaning of
avpiov also. Cf, Josh.4-6 orav e/Dcora o-e 6 uios a^ov avpiov. 22-27 ovk
ipov(TL TO. TKva vfjiZv avpiov, etc. Taxv in the sense of avpiov or tt/ocui

(cf. the German morgen) occurs likewise in Isa.58-8 rore payrjo-erai

Trpijiip.ov {irptaivov ?) to (jiols a-ov Kai to, iap-aTO, <xov raxy dvareXei. It is

still SO used in MGk in the form of raxv or ra^ia. A popular rhyme

says
aX.\a Xeve to J3pa8v
Ki'aXXa Kavovv to Tax",

that is, one thing they say in the evening and another they do in the
F
34 ST MAEK ix x

morning. Byzantios the Lexicographer gives raxia, raxv/lSe avpiov.'' '

Jannarakis, Deutsch-Neugriechisches Handworterbuch 'morgen,

avpiov, Taxva.'
9-49. iras yelp irupl d\i(TeV]aeTai. Expositors have displayed a great
deal of ingenuity in struggling to explain hov7 a man can be salted
with fire. But in a narrative so eminently simple and direct as
Mark's Gospel there is no place for exegetical ingenuity the need ;

for it furnishes in itself a presumption that their explanations are

fanciful. The truth is that the text is corrupt, and that instead of
aXtaO^o-eTai we ought to read ayvia-6-q<jTai, an allusion to purifica-

tion as by fire, that is, as complete a purification as that to vrhich

silver and gold are submitted by means of fire ; of. Num.31-23 vrav

TrpayfJLa o SitXevtrerai iv Trvpl koI KaOapicrdrjcreTai, dXA. rj t<S voart rod

ayvuTixov ayvia-OrjcrtTaL. Such a metaphor we also find in Isa.1-25
CTraf0) TTjV X^P^ /^^ ^""^ "^^ ''"' TTVpuxToi is Ka.6a.p6v. Zech. 1 3-9 TTVpWCrili

avTOv? a)S TTVpovTai to dpyvpiov /cat SoKip,S> avTOv^ a)S SoKi/jux^tTai ro

Xpvo'iov. Isa.4-4 TO cu.p.a iKKaOapiCL eK /iccrov avrCjv iv irvf.vp.aTi, Kav<Tva<;.

Similarly Mt 3-1 1 avTO<; v/xas fSairTiaei ( = ayvian /SaTTTi^oiv) iv ttvcv-

IxoTL dyto) Kat irvpL For a.yvCt,ei.v instead of KaOapit,eiv as applied to fire

cf. Num. 19-17 TTJ'S ctttoSiSs t^s KaTaKeKav/xivr]'; tov ayvi<Tp.ov,

The sentence ttSs yap aSl okurOrjcriTaL (dyvto-^ijo-cTai) is entirely
unconnected with what precedes, and seems a recent addition
suggested by the mention oiirvp in v. 48. In the same way, when
ayvia-BrjO-iTai became a.\i(r6rjaeTaL, then the words KaXov TO aXas, iav
Sk TO dAas avaXov yeVijrai, iv tlvl avTO apTvo-T which foUoW and ;

which do not suit the context, were imported in a modified form

from the familiar passage of Luke 14-34 KaXov ovvto aXas, iav Se to
aXa^ p-iopavdrj, iv tlvl apTvOria-eraL where they form part of quite a
;

different theme ; and these words seem at length to have occa-

sioned another addition, namely, that of the exhortation ix'^Ti iv

iavTol^ aAas /cat elprjveveTe iv dXXi;Xot5. See note on 9-37.

9-50. iay Be to aXas araXoc ycViriTat. Mark misunderstood Matthew
5-13, where see note.
10-12. i&v auTT) d-noXu<Ta(Ta toi' a^Spa auTtJs y'^M""!! aXXoi', (ioixaTai.

Clearly the variant yap.rj6y aXXw, strongly backed by Ms authority,

is the only appropriate reading.
X ST MARK 35

10-20. TttuTa Trdi/Ta e<|)uXa^d(jir]i' eK ceoTiriTog (iou. 'O 8e Irjo-ous i(Ji.|3Xe\|/os

auTw Naber has taken exception to rjyd-n-rjo-fv, for

f)Ydirr)<Tec auToi'.

the sense required is that Jesus was well pleased with the young
man's answer. I suspect that the right reading is rjyaOwiv airii. So
in Dan.6-23, when Daniel gave a satisfactory answer, the King is
said to have been pleased with him, rjyaOvvdy] iir avrQ. Cf. further
Mart. Mt. 10 rjyaOvvOrj Trpos &pav iirl ry KaOdpcreL avTwv. The active
instead of the middle voice occurs in Jdg.17-13 eyvwv on ayadwel
11.01. This verb does not occur in the NT, but there are several ex-
amples in the Septuagint ; in fact, it is probable that our passage

was suggested by that in Daniel quoted above.

10-23. X^yei tois |jia6T)Tais auToG irus SuctkoXus ot ra )(fi-l\\i.a.Ta e'xoi/TCS

CIS TTji' ^avCKdav tou eeou eio-eXeiiaoi'Tai. In this passage I think ttSs
is wrongly translated Jiow ; it seems to me that it is used with a
declarative force as equivalent to on, that. It is thus that Mt 19-23
understood it, for he says Xeyco vjjIv on ttXoijo-ios Suo-koXojs elcreXtv-

In MGrk TTcos is in reality the only declarative particle used

trcTtti.

colloquially, and Jannaris (App.VI 13) produces instances of

such a usage from a period as early as the first and second cen-
turies. I cannot trace in the NT another clear example save the one
in the next verse. Luke 18-24 repeats ttcos, but it is not certain that
he did not misunderstand its force in our passage, and so employed
it in an exclamatory sense. It is likely, however, that the declara-

tive use of irSs in the NT was originally extensive, but that, when
the Scriptures were eventually adopted by literati, then irSs was
systematically changed into on.
10-24. Xeyei auTois TcKi/a, ttcus Suo-koXoc icrn. The construction
is a hyperbaton ; cf. 1-40 Xeyuv airoi 'Kvpu, on lav ^eXijs, Swao-ai fx,

KaOapia-ai. Lk 1 3-23 eiirev Si Tts avr<3 Kvpa, tl oXiyoi ot (TU)t,6ii,e.voi. 22-49

tWav Kvpie, et iraTalo/iev. Acts 1-6 iTrrjpuiToiv avrov XiyovT<s Kupie, ei

Iv Tw \p6vu> TOVTto a.TTOKaOio'TdveLS rijv jSacriXciav. Xen.Anab. 7-1-11

yrpoa-aveLTreLV, os av fJi,r] irapij els tyjv e^iracTLV, on avTOS avrov alnda-erai.

36 eK'^pviev, os av dXu evSov uiv tS>v cTTpanoiTwv, on ireTrpda-erai. I may

add that exclamations are not in the style of the NT.
10-32. Ktti ISajiPoui'TO, oi Be dKoXouGoui'Tes e4>oPoui'TO. There was
nothing in what the Lord had just said to cause any amazement or
36 ST MARK x

alarm on the contrary, it was cheering inasmuch as it promised

;

an immense reward to the men who had already abandoned every-

thing to become his adherents. On the other hand, in vv. 33 and 34
a very grave announcement is made, which ought to inspire the
disciples with both amazement and anxiety, but strangely enough no
hint is given as to the impression produced. It is possible therefore
that the words aKokovdovvm icjio^ovvTo once followed v.34 in the
ol Be

form a verb which includes both amaze-

01 Sk a.KovovT<s iOaft/BovvTo,

ment and anxiety, and that i(f>ofiovvTo represents a variant. Luke in

the parallel passage 18-34 koI avrol ovSiv Tovrmv a-vvyJKav seems to
me to have had before him merely iOafi^ovvro without <f>o/3ovvTo.
10-38. 8ui'a<r0 TTieii' to iroTiipioi' o eyu irico) rj to ^dimo'fji.a o eyi)

(BaiTTiJofJiai PairTiCT6T]cai, ; Ol 8e etira;' auTu Auvdji-eQa. 'O 8e 'lT]aoGs ciTrei'

auTOis To irOTigpioi' o eyu irifO) irieaQe Kal to |3dimo'(jia o eyu |3airTi^0|ui,ai

Paimo-6rio-o-6. This passage was suggested by Lk 12-50 (where

see note) after the corruption of /iaadvLcrfjia jiacravia-O^vaL into /SawTi-
(Tfi.a. /SaTTTKrdrivaL.

10-40. TO 8e Ka6iaai ek 8e|ifc)i' jjiou t) eJ eu(i)vuji,av oSk iiniv ifiov

8oOi'ai dXX'oIg inToijiaaTai. Both here and in the parallel passage

Mt 20-23 there is an addition v/jIv, strongly attested in versions,
which I believe to be the primitive lection instead of
ifjiov. For it

seems that, retorting to the presumptuous demand of James and

John, our Lord wished to inculcate humility and disinterestedness
in the spirit in Mt 20-26 os iav diXy iv vfuv /xtyas yevecrOai Icrrat v/jiu>v

SiaKOVOs, KOI OS av 6i\rj iv v/juv tivai TrpSros 'ia-Tai v/xSiv SoCAos. In the
same spirit the disciples are told in Acts 1-7 ovx vfjLwv ia-n yvwvai
Xpovovs Kol Kaipovs, ovs 6 irarrjp Wero iv rfj tSta i^ovaia. Cf. also Dan.
2-27 TO ixva-vrjpiov ovk ia-rc (rotfiwv avayyelXai, aXX' fj ectti ^eos iv ovpavia
aTrOKaXvTrTdiv fnva-T-qpia. Mic.3-1 ov-^ vfj.lv i<TTL rov yvwvat to /cpi/ta. Mt
16-4 a-rjfj.uov ov So^i/o-ETai airy ei/j.rj to a-qfielov 'Iwva. Probably the
alteration was prompted by a disinclination on the part of some
transcriber to admit that James and John would not be exalted to
the very highest rank in heaven.
10-45. 8oui'ai TTji' il/uxV auTou XuTpoK di'Ti iroWaii'. In my note on
Eom.5-15 I pointed out that ol ttoXXoI was a Gnostic term signify-
ing the common herd as distinct from the Tvuia-TiKoi or possessors
X ST MARK 37

of penetrating wisdom. The spirit of the Gospel is to repudiate

Gnostic pretensions. Cf. Mt 11-25 aTrUpv^^ai ravra a-iro a-0(jiS>v Kal
(j-vviT&v Koi o.ireKo.Xvij/a'; aira. vrjmoi^. message is to care Its cardinal
for and protect the ttoWoI, the weak and humble, as His Holiness
the Pope re-echoed just recently. It is a message which Christianity-
adopts with theoretical enthusiasm, and with very rare exceptions
resolutely discards in practice. All respect and admiration are
reserved for the successful oppressor.
10-48. iTverlfuiiv auT(5 TToWoi. There is recorded in van Soden a
variant ttoWo., which I had myself guessed independently. The
phrase is repeated in 3-12 ttoXXo, cTrcrt/xa avrois. Cf. also 1-45 Kripva-

creiv TToXXa. 5-10 Trape/caXet airov ToAXa. 5-43 SiecrTeiXaro avTOi's iroXXa.
15-3 KaTTjyopovv avrov iroXXd. Jam. 3-2 TroXAa irTaCop.tv. Eur. Tr. 1009
ivovBirovv ere rroXXd. And SO frequently. The subject is o o-)(Xo^, and
this being missed, iroXXh. was misread as ttoXXoI, for it supplied a
subject to lTre.TLfi.tiiV.

10-50. dTroj3aXd)i' TO ijxaTioi' auTou, dfaTrmSi^cras fi\6ec irpos toi' Irjcouf.

Cf. Hom.BlSS jSrj 6e.e.Lv, a-Ko Se )(Xa.'ivav jSoiXe, where Eustathios

' li/a iv tZ And Blaydes on Arist.Nub.il 04 adduces
OecLv paov rpixTj.'
several similar passages from various authors. But what probably
the beggar did was just the reverse. For it is, and no doubt was,
usual for beggars in the Levant, and elsewhere, to spread their
coats, or some kind of cloth, in front of them for charitable passers-
by to throw there any alms they might feel pleased to bestow. This
custom was not unusual even with men of a certain standing.
Koi)Koi)A.6S, Aio. Tijs 'lEiXXrjviKrj^ 'IcrTo/Dia? koI tov 'YjXXrjviKov Bi'ov p. 54,
says 'Ot tepets, 01 iarpoL, ol StSdcTKaAot, KaTaTaKTrjv r/ixipav is KevrpiKov
OTJ/AECOV TOV )(WpiOV eCTTpWVOV (TLv86va, fTT avTrji Se ol KOLTOIKOI t^lpovTK aTTC-

6iT0V axTov, Kpidrjv, dpajSoaiTov koX to, TOiavTa.' All Pasha of Yanina
once, wishing to recoup his loss caused by fire, called for contribu-
tions from the public by having a carpet spread in the square of the
town, himself standing by. In the same way, the beggar had spread
his coat, and afterwards'picked it up in order to rush towards Jesus
without leaving behind his belongings. So probably the original
readingwas not a.Tro/3aXa>v but iTn/SaXiav, putting on. Cf. Acts 12-8,
where the angel tells Peter to follow after dressing. Also Jer.1-17
38 ST MARK xi

iripi^oia-ai ttjv 6a4)vv aov koI ava<m}6u Perhaps a literatus deliberately-

altered it so as to assimilate it to the Homeric episode just quoted.

I may point out a similar mistake in Barn. 3-2. We find there
ov8' av (TaKKov evSv<Tr]aOe Koi inroSov VTrocrTpdxrrjTe, but inasmuch as
ashes were not spread under but over the dress, the reading must
have been iiria-Tpiocn/jTe.

11-1. ore iyyit.ouai.v ei9 'lpO(ro\u(ji.a. The syntax of ore with the
present tense when the reference is to past events is not com-
mented upon by such expositors as I have consulted ; it seems to
me impossible. The right reading must be ^yyt^ei/, as it stands in D
and some other Mss, or more probably iyyit,oa-av (without augment,
see my note on 3-14), which could easily be misread as iyyi^ovaLv.
The suffix -ocrav is very common, cf. Jn 15-22 dxo<ra.v. 2 Thes.3-6
TrapeXd/Socrav, etc ; Jannaris deals with it in 791, citing numerous
instances.
11-2. irflXoi' SeSefieVoi' l^'ov ouSeis ouiro) dfdptdir&jf eKdOKjef. In my
comment on Jn 19-34 I have noted '
The anxiety to prove Christ's
perfect freedom from physical pollution out of deference to Jewish
susceptibilities goesback to his entry into Jerusalem, when, as we
are told, the ass upon which he sat had not been ridden before.'
See also note on 15-46.
11-3. ecii' Tis Ufiii/ cl'iTT] Ti TTOieiTE TOUTO, 6iT7aT 'O Kupios auTou )(peia>'

exei, Kai cuSe'us auToi' diroorTAXci iidXii' (SSe. It is clear that the sense
required is the same as we find in Mt 21-3 idv ns v/juv e'mrj ti, ipure
OTi 6 Kvpioi avTUiv )(peiav t)^eL, eidews Se awoa-TeXei airoii?, namely, that
if the disciples state that the Lord has need of the colt, its owner
will at once send and not that the owner would only allow it to
it,

be led away upon a promise that it shall immediately be returned.

I therefore believe that in the place of avrov dTroo-reAAei 7raA.11/ there
once stood dirocmXel (so a variant) tov ttwXov.
idy Tis ufitc eiirri. In my note on Jn 18-15 I have suggested that
the person meant is probably Mark, and submitted the reason why
his name was suppressed.
11-4. eupoi' Toc iruXoi' SESep.ei'oi' irpos tt)1' 6upa;' eju em ty)? dfji<j>d8ou.

Since the colt was tied at the door outside, was not indispensable
it
to add that this happened in the lane. That is why it is far more
XI ST MAEK 39

probable, as Michelsen contended, that the text primitively read

CTi (airb?) T^s a/iTTcXou. Justin,! Apol.32, in quoting our passage or
a passage similar to ours, says ircuXos ydp tis ela-rrJKu eV nvi cto-oSw

[= Trpos Trjv ^i;pav] KWjx-qi irpos a/XTreXoi' SeSc/aevos. And ClemA.Paed.

1-5-15 Tov iroiXoi', <^rjcri [17 ypa<j>-q\, irpoaiS-rjaev d/xireXo). Tischendorf
has missed these quotations from the Fathers. The idea was evi-
dently suggested by Gen. 49-11 8ecriJ.evuiv irpo's afiTreXov TOV TTwXov
avTov. It was a block from a vine driven into the ground in front
of the house for the purpose of tying animals to it.

11-13. 18(1)1' auKYJi' dTTO jxaKpoOei' e'xouaac (|>uX\a, TiXSec el apart upr\an,

iv fUTrj" Kttl eXBi)!' Eir'auTTji' ouSEf cSpci' eifiT) <|>uXXa, 6 yt^p Katpog ouk r\v

auKav, Kai dTTOKpiOeis etirei' aurrj Myjketi ek <rou eIs toi' aiufa (11)8619

Kapiroi' (jxlyoi.. If it was then not the proper season for figs, none but

a futile person would have felt any vexation at not finding any.
Here again Michelsen is right in reading o yap Kaipos rjv o-vkiov,

except that this sentence should be restored after eJ apa tl evp-^a-ei,

iv avTrj. Further, the words 'ixpvcrav ij>vkXa are no doubt an intrusion.

11-14. KOI diroKpiSels eIttev aurrj Mtjketi els roi* aiwi'a ek crou p.t)8eIs

Kapirof (Ixiyoi. Kal iJkouoi' ot pa6if)ral auroo. 15 Kal Epxoi'rai eis lEpo-

aoXujxa . . . 20 Kal irapairopeuop.Ei'oi irpui EtSof rr)!' ffUKTJi' efigpafj.p.EVt]!'

Ik piiuc. 21 Kal di'ap.cir]o-6ls 6 flErpos to the end of v. 25 rd Trapairroj-

(lara The disturbance noticed in the foregoing comment

ufiui'.

continues at this passage. V. 20 must once liave followed v. 14, as it

does in the parallel passage of Mt 21-18ff, for why should the story
of the iig-tree have been split ? Then, the words i^kovov ol /xa^ijrai
avToC in the form icat rjiropow (as suggested in my note on Jn 2-9)
ot fjuidrjTai avTov should follow V. 20 elSov t-^v (tvk^v i^r]pafj.p.evriv Ik

pii&v in accordance with Mt 21-19 iirjpdvSrj Trapaxpfjixa rj crvKTJ, Koi

iSovTES 01 fiaOriTol ldav)i.a(Tav (= rjiropovv). Lastly, the portion from

the end of V. 1 9 should follow the
\. 1 5 Kat cpxovrai is 'lepoaoXvfia to

conclusion of the narrative connected with the episode of the fig-

tree. To make matters easily intelligible I will repeat the whole

passage treated of, starting with v. 12 :

Kal rg itravpiov, i^eXOovTwv avTuiv aTTO Br]davia?, iireivaa-ev. Kai ISoiV

crvKrjv diro jjiaKpodev, rjXdev d apa Tt. ivprjcra iv airrj, 6 yap Kaipoi rjV

(TVKUiv. Kai eXBiiv iTr'aiiTrjv ovSiv evpev flp-rj cjivXXa. Kai diro/cpi^Eis eittev
40 ST MAEK xi

airy Mt/kcti cts rbv alSiva Ik (tov ft,rjSeli Kapirov (fxiyot. Kai Trapairopevo-

fjLivoi irpu)! etSov rr/v (rvKrjv ii7]pafi.p.ivr]v Ik pitfitv. Kai rjiropovv oi /xaOrj-

Tol avTov. Kat avafuvrjo-deh 6 IleT/Dos Xe'yet avrZ 'Pa/3^i, i'Se 17 otjk^ ^v

KaTrjpdcroi i^TJpavrai. Kat aTroKpi^eis o 'Iiyo-ows Xc'yet avTois Ei ex^'''^ (^

note on V.22) ttlo-tiv Oeov, dp.rjv Xeyo) ijuiv oTt os av eiir?; t opeL tovtu>

ApBrjTi KOI /BXyjdrjTi eis ttjv ^aXao-o-ar Kat /t-^ SiaKptOfj iv rg KapSia avrov
dWa TTLa-Tevy on o A.aA.t yiverai, co-rat airu. Ata toBto Aeyu) v/Atr, Travra
oo-a irpo<Tevx<T9 koX aireia-Oc irKnevere otl XajSyre (see note on V. 24),
Kai o-Tat vplv. Kat orav a-ri^KrjTe Trpocrev)(6p,evoi, d^tTe et Tt ix^'''^ Kara.

Ttvos, iva Kat o n-arrjp vp.Syv 6 ev rots ovpavOLS d.<j^xi ^^M'"

''"'* irapaTrTwpxiTa

vfjuiov. 15 Kat ipxovTai tts 'lepocroXu/ia down to V. 19.

11-15. Kat epxorrai is 'lpoa6Xu(jia, Kai eio-eXBii' ets to tepoi' lipJaTO

cK|3aXXti' Tous iruXoui'Tas . . . Kai ouK r)<f>ii' tea T19 SieyeyKr) crKeuos.

This episode reminds one of Nehem. 1 3-7 Kat rjXOov eWlepova-aXr/p,, Kat
(TvvrjKa v Trj irovqpia. rj iTroirj(Tev 'EXtaa-t/3 Tw TojjSta, 7rotijo-at ai ya^o-

<j>vXa.Kiov iv avXy olkov tov Otov, Koi Trovripov /not l<j>avr] (X(f>oSpa, Kat ep-

piij/a TrdvTa to. (TKevr] o'Ikov To)/3ta efo) (xtto tov yat^ocjivXaKiov, Kat etTra Kat

iKa.6dpuT<xv TO. ya^oi^uXciKta.

11-19. oraf 6i|/ eY^i'^TO, eJeTropcuoi'TO. Qu. i^^iropevOrjcrav in accord-

ance with eyeVero.
11-22. e'x"^ TTtoTii' 6eou. 'Afir)i' Xeyw up.ii'. Most probably et ^x^Te
ma-Tiv 6eov, d/xrjv Xeyio vp,2v, for the asyndeton sounds extremely
awkward. For a similar loss of et see my note on Mt 2-6.
TTio-Tti' eeou. The addition of 6cov invests ttlo-tiv with intensity.
I have treated of this peculiarity in my note on Lk 1-6. To the in-
stances there recorded add Gen. 13-1 3 aytiapTtoXot kvavTiov tov Oeov
crt^o^pa.. Apoc. 19-17 to Scittvov to /ley a rov ^ov = to jxiyicrTOV. Ps.
35-7 17 SiKatocrvvrj crov (lis opyj 6eov.

11-24. irdi'Ta owa irpoaeuxeo'fle Kai aiTeiaBe iriarcueTE on eXci^ete, koi

EiTTai ufi.iv. A prayer for a favour is not for one already bestowed
but for one to come. As proved by eo-rat ipuv, it is a future favour
that also on Lord promises. I read therefore
this occasion the
XdySijTE (recorded in D and other Mas as Xyjp.ij/ea-6e) instead of eXd-

/Sete, an aorist subjunctive in a dependent clause which is equiva-

lent to a future indicative. Cf. 13-11 yu,^ 7rp0iJ.ipLp.va.Te tl Xo.Xifja~qTi.

14-14 TTov ia-Tiv TO KaTdXvpd pov ottov to Trdo-i^a <^dyo) ; Mt 6-25 /*^
XII ST MAEK 41

fiepifware ti <^yyp-i. Also Lk 23-31 el iv t<3 vyp<a ^Xo) ravra ttolovo-iv,

iv Tio ^ijpZ Ti yivrjTai ; ActaTho.73, 23 (from Jannaris, 2016) aprov

TovTov Troirj(70v bv ot co-^tovres atfiOapTOL iiafi^dviacriv. The infrequency

of such a construction may have caused the misreading.

irpoo-eiJxeo-Sc Kai atTi(T06. So exactly in MGk for alTua-Oe irpocrcvxo-
fLevoi.

12-1. upu^Ef uTro\r)i'ioi' Kai UKoSofj,T|crEi' irupyoc. The meaning of

TTvpyov is misunderstood. It does not signify a tower but a country
villa with an upper storey, in which sense it is still used in modern
Greece. Byzantios the Lexicographer explains -n-vpyoi as 'o-ttiti

(= house) TreTpoKna-Tov koI vij/rjXov Such eh ttjv t^oxrjv. Chateau.'

mpyoi are referred to by Coraes in his Homer B, pp. Xfi' and X<tt'
as country villas. They were formerly very frequent in Greece, and
were built, as described in this passage, with a wine-press under-
neath.
Since I wrote to the above effect I have come across Milligan's
note (see Vocabulary), from which I have learnt that Preisigke and
E. Meyer have since advocated the meaning farm-luilding. But a
farm-building is iiravXi's. might be in a town,
Moreover, a iripyo's

and such was that of Timotheos mentioned by Aristophanes in

Plut.180 and interpreted by Blaydes as 'domus magnifica et
magnis sumptibus extructa.' Of. Herod. 4-164 irvpyov IBuotlkov, i. e.
a private tall building, such as you would expect to be a public
building. The fact of our irvpyo's being built with a wine-press un-
derneath does not make it a farm-building ; in my young days the
principal landowners at Athens had such presses even in their
town residences, and I have lived in such a house myself. The
missionary Hartley, Eesearches in Greece (1831) p. 369, says fre- '

quently the grapes are pressed out at home.' Zorrel's interpreta-

tion 'turris qualem vinitores Palaestinenses in vineis extruere sole-
bant atque etiamnum solent ' is equally inexact. A wvpyoi derives
its name from its tallness ; its use and its locality are immaterial.
After several abortive attempts
12-4. iKe^aKiuiaav Kai T|Tinao-ai'.
by others at explaining or correcting iKet^aXCwa-av, Michelsen at last
hitupon the correct treatment by altering it to iiecftavXicrav (or it

might be iK<j>avXLa-av augmentlessly, see note on 3-14). So in Job

42 ST MARK xii

30-i aTifj.01 is joined with 7re0avA.r/j,Voi. And 1 Kings 15-9 Ipyoi/

^Ti/iwyUEVOV /cai i^ovSevia/Jievov ^ iKTre<j)avX.LcrfJi.ivov. The following aTrc-

KTctvav is likewise suspect.

12-9. Ktti 8(ocrt Toi' djjnrEXui'a aWois. There is no suggestion of the

vineyard being given away but of its being farmed (cd/cSoia-et should ;

therefore be read instead of koL Swcrei in accordance with the variant

ekSmo-ci at Mt 21-41. The word has been correctly transmitted in 12-1.

Mt 21-33. Lk 20-9 iiiSoro avrbv yeiopyol's. Mt 21-41 tov dfjLTreXwva Ik-

S(oo-Tai aA.Aois. The error appears a very old one, as it is repeated
in the parallel passage Lk 20-16.
12-14. d\r)flT)s 1 Kttl ou (icXei aoi ircpi ouSei/os. Similarly Philost.
Ap.6-31 oX-qdev^LV iKTr\-^TTcrdai re vtto fJ.yjSivb'S = tO tell the truth
without being cowed hy anyone. And in my note on Apoc.3-1 7 I have
explained that oiScv xpuav l-)(u> = ou fxeXei fx.oi TTcpi ovSevos is a phrase
preserved in MGk
and currently employed to express independ-
ence, meaning / care not, I am indifferent whatever people may do
to, or say or think of, me (something like Milner's damn the con-
sequences !). I there illustrated the phrase by several extracts.
Referring to 1 Cor. 7-37 os 8e ia-TrjKev iSpalos, /J-rj i^wv avayK-qv, /cat

TovTo KKpiKev, Trjpciv TT]v iavTov -Trapdevov, quoted in my Preface to

St Luke, where I corrected irapOivov by TrapOeviav, virginity (cf.

Armitage Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels p. 35 the virgins '

that are men and the virgins that are women, who have kept their
virginity '), I may take this opportunity of explaining that the
words /xr] x<^v oLvdyKrjv, Caring nothing as to what people may think,
were added in view of the Jewish abhorrence of celibacy.
12-24. ou 8ia TouTo TrXacfio-fie fir) elSores Tcls yp**"}"*? ; Commentators
justify the interrogative form by a reference to 11-17 ov yiypairrai
oTL o otKos f-ov oIko's 7rpoo-v;(^s K\r]6-qaTai
But the question in that
passage implies an affirmation, whereas here it is put as though
there were some hesitancy and doubt in the mind of Jesus ; and
such a feeling is of course inconsistent with the context. The words
therefore Sia. and they should be changed into
toCto are corrupt,
Our Lord was asked whose wife the woman would
ouSei/os rovTOiv.

be, and he answers She shall he the wife of none of them. The
corruption has been brought about by the scribes' practice of
XII XIII ST MARK 43

(1) writing the numeral A

instead of -n-pSTos or ets (see Cobet,
Variae Lectiones p. 122; and Blaydes, Arist.Vesp.684), and (2)
indicating the final N at the end of a line by a dash drawn over
the preceding vowel. Thus the text
originally had OYAATOYTCO
which was read OYAIATOYTO
instead of OYAENOS TOYTON.
12-25. ouT yafiouo-ii' oure yap.itrKO^'Tai. The variant ya/xi^ovTaL is

the true one. As shown by 1 Cor. 7-3 8 yajxilui signifies the same as
ckSiSm/xi Ovyaripa or vlbv eh ya/Aov, to give one's daughter or son in
marriage ; therefore the middle yafjii^ovrai would mean reciprocally
to do so. This would suit exactly the context, they neither marry
themselves nor exchange children in marriage, effect marriages.
The lection yafxio-Kovrai means nothing; but the other variant Ik-
yafjiL^ovrai is possible, the preposition having the same force as in
ckSiSw/hi. The same remark applies to Mt 22-30. Lk 17-27. 20-35.
12-27. iroXu ifKavairBe. A variant gives ttoWoL So perhaps iroWa ;

see note on 10-48.

12-38. v (TToXais irepiTraTeii'. Eeiske conjectured o-roai?, and this
has now been
confirmed by the Syr.Sinaiticus, which, as I under-
stand from a note on the margin of the Lewis translation, uses the
Greek word itself. Similarly in Herod. 3-52 o-tojjo-i was corrupted

in one Ms into aroXycn, which may perhaps have been noticed by

Eeiske.
13-3. Ka0T))Ji.'i'ou auTou eii to opos rC)v i\aiCii' Karei'ai'Ti toG tepou,
irT)p(5Ta auToc Kay'iSiai' HcTpos Kal 'laK(i)|3o9 Kal '\advvi]'s koX 'AvZpias.
Andrew's name must be a recent addition (1) because it is detached
from that of his brother Peter, and (2) because he is given a special
importance which he is not reported elsewhere to have enjoyed.
13-9. Eis p.apTupioi' auToig. Transferred from Mt 10-18 with its

probable error of avToi's instead of eaurois.

13-22. eyepOiiaoi'Tai yap i|/eu8oxpicrT0i Kai i|/u8oiTpo4>T)Tai. Probably
written a posteriori. Such epithets were freely flung at each other
by competitors when heresies and rivalries invaded the Church.
Hegesippos has exposed these incidents, according to the quotation
from his writings preserved by Eusebios in his EH. 4-22. His
 U ST MARK XIII

words were : Ap)(eTai B'6 ij3ov6L^ Sia to /x^ yevea-Oai avTov Ittlctkoitov
VTro<j>6iLpuv. Atto tu>v iiTTa. aipicnuiv . . . eKacrro'S iStcos koI ere/Dtos loiav

So^av Trapuarj-ydyocrav. 'Atto Tovrmv ij/evSo'x^picrTOi, ij/vSoTrpocj>7iTai. if/evo-

aTToa-ToXoL, otVcvcs i/xipurav rrjv evoxriv Trj<; iKKXr/aria'; <f)0opi/Ji.aiOi^ Aoyots

Kara, rov Oeov koI Kara rov XpLcrrov avrov.
13-27. dir'aKpou yr\'s eus aKpou ouparou. So also Philo, Cherub. 29
av oipavov Trepdroiv p-^XP'- yV'^ ecr^ctTcov.

13-28. diro Se ttjs <ruKT)s jiCtSeTe tt)i/ TrapaPoXi^i'" oral' auTYJs rj^r\ 6

kXciSos diraXos YefTjTai Kai ek4>ut) rd (|>uX\a, yicwcrKeTe on eyyug t6 6po9

ifTTiv. Paley on Hes.Op.679 refers to this passage, and adds in its '

native places the fig-tree is the first to put out its leaves, even

before the vines.'

13-29. iyyvs ifrTiv em Bu'pais. The Latin translator has added
finis as the subject of eyyiis, thus supplying the very opposite to
what the context demands, i. e. the beginning of the new era.
This is clear from the comparison with the new sprouting of the
fig-tree. Luke grasped the correct sense, for in the parallel passage
21-31 he says yLvdxTKin on eyyus icrriv rj paaikua tov 6eov, and in V. 2 8
iyyclei r/ aTroAvr/Doucrts vp.wv, i. e. the beginning of the new era.
13-34. cos S.vQpbiTTO'S dTr68T)[AOS, d<|)is TTfV oiKiai' auTou Kal Sous TOIS
SouXois auTou Tr\v i^ouaiav, eKdcTTW to Ipyoc auTOu, Kal t5 Supupu ivirei-
XttTO IVa ypriYopf). rprjYopeiTe ovv. Supply oiVaJS eo-Tiv rj Sipa or opoiov
(expressed in the Syr.Syn. by like as a man) or something of
a similar import. Cf. 4-26 oijtws 1<tt\v rj ^axnXua tov 6eoC ws iav (or
av) dvOpmiro's /SaXjy tov cnropov iirl ttjs yrji. Cebes,Tab. 19 outoos avToiis
(io'ayet Trpos Tas dpeTas d)s dv ei tis, Trpos laTpov av Srjirov ycvdyacvos, Trpo-
Tepov KaOapTLKo'i's lil3o.\ TO. voaoTToiovvTa. Lucian,Peregr.45 opOLOV
(OS e'l ( := av) Tis, ivl a-Tavpov dvajS^o-ecr^at piXXiav, to iv too SaKTvXco -irpoa--

jtTaicrpa 6epaTrevoi. Philo,Spec.Leg.3-28 opoiov yap is el (= dv) /cat

Ta pipy] TOV auipaTO?, Trj<; Kara (pva-LV dppoviai iKCTTavTa, (TTacndifli jrpos
aXXtjXa. Horn. A467 tS fiKeXr] ws ti (= av) fe fiiwaTo (?). Which ex-
amples prove that dv dropped out before avOptoiroi. The KV translates
well by It is as ivhen a man except that i/ should be substituted for

The parable is incomplete. The word yprjyoprj must have been

followed by the continuation of the story, in which it was related
xin XIV ST MARK 45

how, when the master unexpectedly returned home, the porter was
surprised in riotous revelry instead of attending to his duties ;

and then how he was severely chastised. This continuation was

something like what we find in Mt 24-48 ff (of. also Lk 12-42ff) i^v
Se 1171; 6 KaKos 8oi)A.os eKcivos iv rrj KapSta avTOv Xpovt^ei o Kvpios fjiov,

taBLrj 8e kcll Trivy fJLiTa tZv /jl(6v6vt<j}v, ^fct 6 KVpio^ tov SovXoi) Ixeivov iv
fjfiipq. ^ oi TTpoaSoKo. Koi Iv wpa rj ov yivwcTKei Koi ^i)(0T0fJ.rjO-u avTov. It
is to moral ypijyopcire ovv refers. The
this continuation that the
same moral yprjyopelTe ovv is found in Mt 25-1 3 as a conclusion from
a parable i. e. be watchful then lest ye be overtaken by the same
:

disaster as the porter. A Latin translator fancied thiit he could

obviate the diflSculty by altering uis into quomodo and ovv into
sic, a rather feeble and transparent manipulation. See note on

14-41.
14-3. yuVT] Uy(pu(r(x, dXiipao-Tpoi' ^upou I'dpSou irio-TtK'fjs ttoXuteXous*
aucTpiij/aaa to dXdPaarpoi' KaTex^Ei' auToO TrJ9 KecjjaXTJs. I need not stop
to point out the impossibility of rendering Tncm.Krj's either as
genuine or liquid, since others have done so quite successfully.
I will say at once that the word which the Evangelist wrote was
jTieo-TtK'^s, extracted. The word Tn^a-Tr] or irua-TiKr) is not recorded in
dictionaries, nor have I traced it in other books ; but we have
(1) the verb and Trie^w iKine^ui in the sense of to press for the purpose
of extracting and to express, cf. Micah 6-15 a-v Trte'o-ets iXaiav koX
oil fir] aXsLij/rj cAaiov. Geopon.9-18 TOV Kapirov ttji Tpej3iv6ov K0.6a.Trep

7j iXala iKirielo/xivov ; and (2) the noun TrUa-fxa, respecting which

Sophocles says ' 7rtecrju,a, extract in pharmacy (Diosco. 1-106).' In
Geoponicon 20-28 we also find fnvpo^oXdvov 7rtecr/xa, though in this
case the word denotes not the extract itself but the pulp left after
pressing. Thus an extract of vdpSos would be vdpSov TrUafia or vdpSos
TTtecTT^ (compare o-TaKi-iJ) and vdpSos TrtecrTiKrj would mean the same
;

thing, though the adjective is formed as if it meant of an extracted

kind, as ttoikiXtlko. is a by-form oi ttoikiXto. in Ex.37-21 to, i<f>avTa.

Koi TO. pa^iSevTo. Kal TroiKiArt/cd; cf. also Ex.30-25 {xvpov p-vpetj/LKov. 35
6vp,Lap.a /xvpeij/LKOv.

What of course is said to have been poured over the head of the
Lord was not an extract of vdpSos itself, but oil impregnated with
46 ST MARK xiv

an infusion of that perfume, that is, a o-Kewao-ia ikaLov yj^virixa.TO';

(Eccles.10-1) or eiSScs eAatoi/ (Hom./8339).

the complaint that this was a great waste the text pre-
From
sumably means that the whole contents of the cruse were poured
out. That would have been enough almost to suffocate. The fact

of the matter, however, is that the episode was borrowed from

Polybios 26-10, where it is related that AvTtoxos 'ETric^avr;?, when
annoyed by a flatterer, iTroirja-ev avrov Karaxyd^vai t^s Ke(f>aXrjs f-^y-'
crrov Kepi/jLLOv TroX-VTeXearTaTov fj.vpov, Trjs <rTa.KTrjs {= Trteo-TiK^s) KaXov-
and that the contents of such a cruse were quite enough
fxiv-qs,

Travras ovaarTavTai KvXUcrOai Xovo/JLevovs tw fjivpio. The Similarity of

the two narratives is too close to permit of any doubt as to the
original source.
14-8. o <T)^ev iTro'iy]<Te. Perhaps 'la-xya-ev. Cf. Didach^ ch.6 o Swr;,

TOVTO TToUl.
14-14. Tw oiKoSeo-iTOTr]. To the Owner ; see my note on Mt 13-52.
14-20. ets K rStv SwSeKa, 6 cpPaTTTOfiefos (JiT'efiou els to TpujSXioi'.

Since the disciples in Oriental fashion were dipping their bread

all

into the same dish, the Lord's answer was no indication as to

who would be the traitor, as Alford points out it was an evasive ;

answer, but such as implied a complaint that one who was sharing
a meal should be so impious as to betray. So Celsos in Origen
2-20 avOpuyTTO) 6 KOivov^cra? rpaTrefrys ovk av en eTre^ovXevaev, This
complaint is more expressly indicated in Jn 13-18 o rpcuycov /xet'

ifjiov Tov apTOv iirrjpKev eVe/^e t-^v Trrepvav avTov, a passage which
primitively was connected in all probability with the Eucharist
incident.
14-24. t6 uirep TToWoj)' cKxui'ojjiei'oi'. See note on 10-45.
14-38. TO fiev irkeujAa irp66u(jio', i^ aApJ &(Tdevr\s. See note on Mt
26-41.
14-40. ^<7a>' yap ol 6<)>6aXp,oi auTutv KaTaPapui'6|j[,)'oi. The variant
KaTa/Se^aprjixevOL is probably due to the fact that Kara^apwofJievoi
possesses the force of a perfect tense, as the present occasionally
does ; refer to my note on Lk 7-8. Similarly in Gal. 3-23 the reading
varies between crvvKXeLo/jievoL and a-uvKeKXeurfuevoi.
14-41. KoSeuSeTc roXoiiroi' koI avaTtwieaQe. Badly translated by
XIV ST MAEK 47

Sleep on now and take your rest, for toXoittov is equivalent to oZv,
just as in MGk, in which both roXomov and Xovirov are specific terms
for ovv. Here accompanies an interrogation as it does in 2Act.
it

Pil.3-2 ToXotTTov /8ao-tXvs ei and probably in ib. ch. 6 also the right
;

lection is toXoittov (Mss koX Xolttov) aXrj6u)'S rifj-ei? Xeyofnev ori to o-a/3-
P0.T0V ov T-qpii and so forth. Luke 22-46 saw the interrogation,
;

for he reproduces the sentence by tl KaOtvSere On the parallel ;

passage Mt 26-45 Tischendorf remarks Schu. avaTravea-de ; [that is,

'

interrogatively] interpungi vult et in Mt et Mc (confirmat h.l.U

teste Treg., ego non notavi).' Our sentence is well explained by
Sophocles V. XoiTToi/ as implying a rebuke. Thus the right rendering
is do ye then sleep and rest f i. e. this is not a time for sleep and
rest, for behold the hour is come and the son of man is betrayed.
watch the Expositors in their struggles to
It is interesting to
reconcile KaOevBen in the imperative mood with the following
iyiipecrdf. One of the most amusing attempts is that of the old

Latin translator who imagined that he discovered a way out by

assuming that a short interval {post pusillum) elapsed between the
two commands. See note on 13-34.
14-41. diTEXEi, TiXdef 1^ upa, ISou irapaSiSorai 6 ulos toG a,v%p<i-noa

19 tAs xii.pa.% tSiv dfiopTuXfli'. 'EyeipEaSe, ayap-^v. It is enough, the

favourite rendering of a-n-ixu, is derivedfrom the Vulgate. But
though the whole range of Greek literature has been ransacked in
search of passages where dTrt'xtt might signify sufficit, only two
examples have been found which are thought to bear this signifi-
cation, namely, Pseudo-Anacr. 27-33 aTri)^ei, ySXcVo) yap avTrjv, and
Cyr.Hag.2-9 i/jiov <f>7]crlv to dpyvpiov kol to y^pvcrCov, Tovrea-riv aire)(eL

Koi imrX-^pwfmL.This dearth in the case of an expression in such

frequent use as enough is extraordinary, seeing that it cannot be
urged in this instance that a word belonging to vulgar Greek
must have been constantly tampered with in our Mss. But even
the passages discovered are untrustworthy. In Anacreon Etienne
was certainly right in correcting aTrex^ ^.nd in Cyril the context
',

requires aTrixio I have received my due (cf. Mt 6-2 and my note).

Then again the attempt to explain how dircxet has come to mean
sufficit has by no means proved a success. Besides, where the word
48 ST MARK xiv

is placed in the text, no reader or hearer could help connecting it

with wpa, thus misunderstanding the passage as meaning the hour

is distant (this being the usual sense of a-Trix^i), it has come. Why-

should not the Evangelist have said dp/cti so as to avoid such a

misunderstanding ? Further, even if airix^i means sufficit, it vrould
not suit the context, and the explanations so far given are based
upon guesses and far-fetched subtleties. Lastly, Ms tradition varies
considerably. Thus, Baljon was justified in saying ' lectio absurda
est.'

What have been written under the circumstances

is likely to

narrated in the Gospel ? Our Lord announces his approaching

end, and in the Scriptures such proclamations of impending great
events are generally invested with additional solemnity by being
twice or even thrice reiterated. So Mark in 1-15 himself says ire-
TrXrjpuiTai 6 Kaipo'S /cat fiyyiKiv rj jiaaiXeCa, Cf. also Ezek.7-12 rjKn 6

Kaipb?, ISov rj yp,pa. 21-25 ^kcl fj fijxipa iv KaipZ dStKtas Trepan, 30-3
eyyv's fj/JLepa Tov Kvpiov, Trepas idvZv (.(rrai, 7-3 i^xet to Trcpas IttI

<t\, rjKu 6 Kaipo'S, ry^yiKev rj rj/xipa. Therefore, what we require is a

word of a similar import to that of ^kOev, and this is supplied by
iTri(7Tq, Cf. 2Tim.4-6 o Kaipo'S rrj<s dvaXucrtols p^ov i<j>eaT7jKv, Lk 21-34
7rpO(Tc)(eTe p-rj ttotc ctticttt^ fj rip,pa iKEivrj. lTheS.5-3 i<j)icrTaTai avTots
o\e6po's. This word was first and from aTria-n] it
misread airia-TT),

finally degenerated into aTrixei. Exactly the same fluctuation be-

tween airix^i and aTTco-Tr/ is found in Mk 7-6 and the tendency ;

of a.irCTT-q to be misread is further illustrated by its appearing as

a variant aTrea-nv in lClemR.3. In eh. 15 of the same work we find
with v.l. airecrTiv. My conjecture is amply supported by docu-
arrix^i

mentary authority. One old Latin version gives adest finis, venit
hora ; a Syriac version gives appropiitquavit finis et venit hora ;

and, most important of all, the Syr. Sinaiticus has the hour is
come, the end is at hand. In
from these readings and that of
fact,
D, which exhibits dTre^Et to tcAos Kal
rj Sipa, as well as on the
strength of the passages from Ezekiel quoted above, which most
probably afforded a model for the sentence in Mark, one might
further infer that the text primitively ran eVeW?; to tcXos, rjXOtv r)

&pa.
XIV ST MARK 49

But how has the Latin version arisen ? We have seen

sufficit

in my note on Mk 1-6 New

Testament we constantly
that in the
encounter words misplaced by their synonyms. Now a synonym of
iiricTTr] is (ftOdvei, which the Latin translator must have found as a

variant and rendered by sufficit. For in MGk <f>6dvei. (really (jiTavei)

signifies not only advenit but also specifically sufficit so BAaxos ;

'
ipOdvw, arriver, suffire.' Probably this signification was initiated

at about the time when the Gospels were written. I have traced
the following passages from that period in which <jidd.vL seems to
mean sufficit '
Philo, Flac.l crv/XTrav jj-kv dSiK-^o-ai to i$voi ov Svvrjdil';,

c</)' ocroDS S' i<l>6avev ( = sufficed, was able) dvi/Keorois Trepieireipe KaKoli.

Philost.Apoll.8-2 el [jlIv oiroa-a aTratTEt^ Blky] fuy;^o)pt /Aot Xe'ycii', ovk

av (j>6dvoL 8Lafx.Tprj9iU ovBl 6 v/i/?/3is = Tiber would not be sufficient

if it went through the whole measure of its course. In the Expositor
1903 p.438 Moulton quoted from a papyrus t^s ci's airavro^ (Moulton
ttTravTas) (Tov ^iXav^pcoirias (jiOavova-r]^
of your philanthropy which is
sufficient to benefit everybody.
14-49. 11H1V irpos u)xas iv t<3 lepu SiSdo-Kui' Kal ouk cKpaTi^CTaTc (le,

AXVii/a irXifipufiuo-n' at Ypa<|>ai. Kal d<tieVTes auToc ecjiuyoi'. Commen-

tators assume that the scriptures meant are those which in a
general way allude to the Lord's death. But the text refers to
special scriptures, which foretold that the Lord would be seized
upon at that very time and place, and not in the temple ; and
such a prophecy exists nowhere. How are we then to account for
this reference to such a prophecy? We must turn to Jn 18-8

a.cj>Te TOVTOVi virdyeiv, "va ir\-qp<ii6fi 6 Xoyos ov ehrev, otl os Sc'SuKas p,oi
This passage shows knowledge as
OVK d:rwXeo-a Jl avrSiv ovhiva.
to the disciples having deserted their master and dispersed, and
probably it was meant to excuse their conduct, which among
Christian circles must have been bitterly blamed. This attempt
at an excuse in course of time apparently was distorted by the
Christian public into what appears in our text, namely, that the
scriptures contained a prophecy foretelling Jesus' arrest outside
the temple, a prophecy which had of necessity to be fulfilled.
14-51. ets Tt9 i^eai-icrKOS a\ivt\Ko\oi&e\. auTW (tw 'lr)(TOu) irepiPepXTuxeVos

aifSdi/a em yufAi-oO, Kal Kparouaw ainoV 6 Se KaraXiiroji' tV tru'Soca

H
50 ST MAEK xiv

yofii/os ecfmyei'. The usual interpretation of iirl yvf^vov by over Ms

naked body presupposes an ellipsis, i.e. tov awfxaro<s ; but no ex-
amples have been adduced illustrative of this ellipsis, nor, as far
as I know, does the phrase iirl yvixvov rov o-w/xaros occur elsewhere.
In Greek, in order to convey the notion close wpon the skin, the
words ev xp$ or lirl xpwTos, or some similar combination, I think,
would have to be used, and such a phrase is in fact found in Lev.
16-4 n-e/Dto-KeAk Xlvovv co-rat tVt toCxp<di"os avTov. Not only is the ex-
pression e;rt yiJ/xvoC singular, but it is difficult to believe that any

person would have adopted such peculiar outdoor attire as a mantle

over his skin, which implies that while in the house he was nude.
Add to this that, if the incident really occurred as it is narrated
in the Gospel, we should reluctantly have had to conclude that the
only object of the young man in relating his adventure was to
represent himself in a humorous light.
The fact of the matter, however, is that the words ctti yv/tvou are
corrupt, and have assumed this form under the influence of
yv/Avos in V. 52, which was wrongly taken in its literary sense as
meaning naked, whereas it means yv^vo's rrj's o-ivSovos, without Ms
cloak. This signification is fully illustrated by Wordsworth and at
Arist.Eccl.409 byBlaydes. And further, refer to Liddelland Scott,
who state '
In common language yu/xvbs meant lightly clad, i. e. in
the undergarment only (x'l"'"'') without the i/xarioi/.' The correct
reading must have been o-ivSdva air Xlyv-mov, i. e. a cloak of Egyp-
tian linen, Cf. Ezek.27-7 p-ia-cro^ fj.Ta jrotKtXtas i^ Alyvirrov. As IS

well known (see Encycl.Biblica s.v. Linen), the finer qualities of

linen cloth (crivSmv or were products of Egypt. In Proverbs
ySuVo-os)

7-16 the love-sick maiden, who

invites her lover to her nuptial
couch, tricks it out with Katptats and a.jj,<j>iTdTroii aTr'AtyvTrrov. What
the Evangelist wished to convey is now clear, namely, that on that
eventful night the young man wore a cloak of Egyptian linen, and
that he owed his escape to the sacrifice of this costly garment (cf.
Jud.16-8 (TToXrjv Xivrjv cis aTrdrrja-iv airoC), which he left in the hands
of the hostile crowd to wrangle over. The palaeographical resem-
blance between AnAirYHTOY and EnirVMNOY is close enough
to have caused the error, especially if AHErYIITOY stood in an
XIV ST MARK 51

old copy (see Oxyrh.Pap.No 1101 'EyvVTov) and if the amanuensis

was, as I suggest, under the influence of the yv/xvos close by.
I may add that the author of the XII Patr.Jos.8-3, who evi-
dently imitates the phrasing of our passage, must have actually
understood yuyui/os as naked, since he states that Joseph KaraXcti/fas

rov x'Tuiva, i. e. having abandoned Ms undergarment, ttjivyev. Gen.

39-12 correctly says to. ludna. (=: to i/acxtiov) =; the overgarment.
14-54. (|)as =fire. So MGk cjxaTia, fire, as explained in my note
on Lk 22-56.Light came eventually to mean fire because in
ancient times households were ordinarily illuminated by the light
shed from fireplaces ; cf. Hom.T64 v^rjo-av ^vXa <^oo)s (Etymologicon
Magnum and PKnight ^aos) ifjLev r/Si OipicrOai. Isa.50-11 iropeveade
T(3 (fnarl TOV TTvpo^,
14-54. 01 8e dpxiEpeis Kal oXoi' rb cruceSpioi' I^i^toui' kotA tou iTjaou

ftapTupiai' eis t6 dafarucrai auroi', Kal oux upio-Koi'. Suggested by Dan.

6-4 Kal oi TaKTLKol /cat ol (rarpaTrai e^iyrow 7rp6<j)a<Tiv evpilv Kara AavirjX,
Kal iracrav irpocjiacriv Kal TrapairTiap-a Koi d/ATrAaKijyua oi^ evpov Kar'airov,

OTl TTICTTOS r/V.

14-56. iroXXol yap EiJiEuSop.apTupoui' Kar'auroG, Kal laai al jiaprupiai

ouK r[<Tav. These depositions concerned other points and not the
demolition of the temple. Being discordant, they were treated as
worthless and no action was taken upon their testimony. That is

what Mark means, but his account cannot be considered satisfac-

tory. If the witnesses were found to be false from the fact of their
depositions being untenable, they would have been stoned, for
according to Jewish law a false witness was liable to the same
penalty as the accused would suffer if his guilt were proved. The
fact of the matter is that for a plausible account of the trial we
must turn to John, whose brief narrative rings true in its sim-
plicity. The Synoptics in their own presentation were influenced

by 3 Kings 20-10 e-y/ca^io-aTe 8vo avSpas viows Trapav6/J.uiv Kal Kara-

lx.apTVpy)(TaTii>a-av avTOv Xiyovrei 'HXoyrjcre (Mss evXoyrjai) Oeov Kat /Sacri,-

Xia, Kal i^ayayiruKTav auVov xai Xi0oftoXrj(rdTOi(rav avTOV.

14-57. Kai rive's di'ao-Tdi'Tes ei|;eu8op,apTupoui' Kar'auroG XeyofTes on
'Hfjieis T|Kouo'a|j,i' auroG \iyo\>TOS on 'Eyu KaraXucro) roi* I'aow . . . Kai
ouSe ouTa)9 lar) rff fi fiaprupia aurcji'. Kal dkaards 6 dpxiepeus t9 ro
52 ST MAEK xiv

fiiaov iiry\piiTi]<Tei' toi' 'Ii]<toui' Xcyoii' OuK aTTOKpifr) ouSei' ti outoi (tou

KaTa|xapTupou<nc ; If several witnesses concurred in accusing Jesus

of scheming to demolish the temple, their depositions could not
have been said to be discordant. As a matter of fact, the chief
priest considered them trustworthy as being in agreement, and
for that reason he summons the accused to listen to, and answer,
them. It is plain therefore that the words koX ovSe ovtojs ta-i] t)v fj

fxapTvpCa. avTwv were inserted by an interpolator who misunder-

stood I'crai of V. 56 as signifying /air, Jms<, not concordant.
14-58. eyi) KaTaXueroi toi' raoi'. There must have been at one time
a legend current that Jesus did actually declare that he would
demolish the temple, to which seemingly we have a reference in
13-2 ySA-ETTCis Tavra^ Tots /xcyaXas oiKoSoytias ; ov fjLr) a<j)e6rj wSe Xi'^os eiri

XlOov OS ov fi-rj KaTaX.v67J. John almost expressly records this legend

in 2-19 Xvaare Tovvabv tovtov Koliv Tptalv ^/xepaK iyeput avTov. But in
course of time this legend proved inconvenient and was repu-
diated ; it was then explained that when speaking of the temple
Jesus really meant his own body, as John remarks in 2-21 ckcivos
Se IXeye Trept [tov] vaov tov (Tw/xaTO's avTov. That is why the wit-

nesses are called i/ftuSo/idpTv/jes. And the object of the repudiation

perhaps was to remove any cause, whether reasonable or other-
wise, which the Jews might allege, or did allege, in justification

of the condemnation.
14-65. oi uirtjpeTai, paTrio-jjiao-ii' auToi' eXaPof. TJie attendants took
him over with blows. The phrase dates from those times when, on
a criminal being sentenced, he was taken over by the guards and
led away to prison or execution, all the way from first to last

suffering blows and all manner

Lord also of indignity, as the
So likewise James
suffered according to the description in 15-19.
was said by Clement of Alexandria {Euseb.EH.2-23) to have been
treated, namely, awo tov Trrepvyiov /Se/SXrjcrOai ivX(o re ttjv irpos 6a.-

varov TreirXrixdai. The phrase eventually ceased to portray the origi-

nal proceeding and became an ordinary expression, which merely
denoted they started belabouring. In this general sense it recurs in
Act.Ioan.90 el to iri'ao-/Aa (Tov (= thy touch, a derivative from Tridlo),

Mss Tiaafxa) TOLavTrjv d.X.yrjS6va TreTTOi-qKiv, ti ei pairia- iJ,acriv ^e IXaySts ',

XIV ST MAEK 53

XII Patr.Jud.5-5 iXd/So/xev avVoiis iv o-ro/iaTt /laxaipa^. It survives

to the present day as t6v -n-qpave (= avrov JXaySoi/) //. tis ^kih{= pa-
ma-fjiacriv), as I have translated in my version. Naber has proposed

eTraiov for tka^ov, which shows the utility of some acquaintance

with the Greek (the real language of the people, not the fraudulent
purisms) of to-day.
14-72. di'ejjii'i^o-St) 6 FltTpos to pr\ft.a &s elitev auTu 6 '\i\(tous, oti flpii'

dVcKTopa ^<avr\<jai Sis, rpis fie dirapk'i^crr|, Kal eiriPaXuc cKXaiEf. The
usual interpretation of im^aXibv, when he thought thereon, cannot
possibly stand. For though einySaXXu) (or 7ri/3a\A.co ttjv Siavoiav) is
applicable to mental action, it does not mean merely to remember,
but to ponder over, and Peter had no need
ponder over the to
words of Jesus and argue out their application he would be over- ;

come with grief if only they suddenly flashed on his mind. I in-
cline to think that i-n-L^aXitv means iTn^aXwv to [//.anov or inL^X-rj/xa,
having drawn on his cloak ; that is, having drawn it over his head

and face. In great grief it was usual with the Jews to cover their
heads or faces (see Encycl.Bibl.s.v. Mourning). What has probably
misled commentators is that classical Greek, in order to express
this idea, would have used the middle voice, i. e. extySaXoyaei/os. But
cf. Gen. .38-14 irepii/SaXe to Oepia-rpov koI eKaXXunricraTO. Similarly we

find Deut. 23-13 koI eTrayaywv (instead of i-n-ayayo/j.^vo';) KaXvi/ftis Tr]v

do-x'?/*oo-uVijv (Tov (the meaning of which has likewise been misunder-

stood).
Since writing the above in 1903, I have come across Field's
note on the same theme. He examines eTriySaAtov from all points
with admirable learning and reaches the same conclusion as I am
urging. To the instances with which he illustrates it I may add
Plut.Phoc.34 iviKaXvxj/avTO Kal kolt(o KVXj/avTe': iSaKpvov. Enoch, 13-9
iKaOrjVTO -irevOovvTes irepiKiKaXyfuixevoL rrjv 6\j/LV. So among his weeping

sons Priam was (0163) ivrvTra.'s iv x^^^ (*!" ^ tSs x^'*'''T?)

KiKaXv/x/jiivos- AeSch.Cho.80 SaKpvoi S' v(l>' elp.dr(t)V. Upon this last

passage Blomfield comments as follows :

' Ex more scilicet, quo
plorantes velabant capita: vid. multis philologos ad Marci C. 14.
72. Isocrat.Trapez.p.714.ed.P.Steph. ey/caXvi/fa/tevos tKXaic.ABRESCH.
Stanleius confert Homer.Od.A.114. Aa/cpv S'aTro /3Ac</)dpft)v xaA'aS's
54 ST MARK xiv xv

ySaXe, Trarpb'S a.Kovtra';, ^^atvav Tropffivperjv avT 6(j>6a\iJ.ouv dvatrxw. et

Eurip.Suppl.llO. 'Siirov Kar-qp-q x^.avL^ioi'i avunopZ, Aiy ,
iKKaXvij/a?

Kpara, koI irapu's yoov. Adjice ibid.295. OrGSt.280. Hv'yyove, Tt xXaeis,

6p.fi.a Oela-'eia-oyiriTrXuyV, Plat.Phaed.p.97. Wyttenb. Za-T lyKoXvxjja-

/icvos a-TrUXaiov Ift-avTov. Epigram, in Hecubam Anthol.5,33.p.389.
(j&apos yap iwiKpiixh d/i(^t irpoa-unrw 'F^/xara fxev BuKwrnv' dTrayycAXoucri

8e TTcVXoi li.evdo's VTTO^pvxi-ov, K^KXaa/xivoi axpi ireSiXwv. 2Regg. 15,30.

ex vers. LXX. koL Aa/31S avefSaivev iv ry ava/Sda-ei tS)V iXaiuiv, ava^aivwv
Kal KXaio>v, Kairrjv Ki<^aXyiv iTnK^KaXvp.ji.ivo';. Euripides apud Aristoph.
Ran. 942 Aeschylum sic ridet, XlpwrLdTa piv yap eva yi nva KaOeia-ev

iyKaXviJ/a';, 'AxiXXia tiv', ^ Ntoj8r;v, to TrpocruyTrov ovx} Scikvus, Tlpoaxrj/j.a

'
T^S T/oayu)8ta5, ypuf ovras ouSe tovtl.
Field states that Theophylactos interprets by eirtKaXui/fd;u,vos Trjv
Ke<f>aXijv. The Revisers must have known this, and it is strange
that they preferred the version when he thought thereon, which
Field justly calls frigid and lifeless.

15-2. ail XcYeis.Frank Morrison, Who moved the Stone, p. 38,

'
Thou sayst was the traditional form in which a cultivated Jew re-
plied to a question of grave or sad import. Courtesy forbad a direct
Yes or No.'
15-10. eyii'wo-KCi' yap oti 8ia. (jjOofO^ irapaScScuKcio-ai' auToi'. It is the
contrary that really happened, namely, Pilate was not aware that
the Jews were actuated by hatred ; but Mark copies Matthew's
27-18 with the disfigurement of ovk fjSu into gSet explained at that
verse. Mark's copying is clear in 15-19 and 15-46, where see notes.
15-11. aviareiaav Tov oxXof. The old Latin translator, not being
familiar with avea-ua-av, rendered persuasertmt populo, whence D
IVeicrai' t<S oxXw with the preposition disregarded.
15-19. eTu-iTToi' TTif K4>"^V auTou KoXdfiio. Mark In copying Mat-
thew's 27-29 did not grasp the point of the episode, and therefore
does not mention that the cane was first placed in the hands of
Jesus as a mock sceptre. Isho'dad perceived the matter properly,
for at Mt 27-29 he says they put upon his head a thorny crown
'

instead of a diadem, and a reed instead of a golden sceptre which

kings are wont to hold in their hands.' And in the same way at
O-103 Odysseus, in treating ''Ipos mockingly as a Koipavos TTTwxiov,
XV xYi ST MARK 55

places in his hand a royal a-K^wTpov in the form of a rough

stick.
15-23. Ktti eSiSoui' auT(3 eafiupi/iafiecof olyov, 6 hk ouk eXaPei/. Mark
repeats the interpolation in Mt 27-34, where see note.
15-34. ets Ti ^YKaTeXiire's fJie ; Eespecting the D variant els tl &vd-
Sio-as /xe refer to note on the parallel passage Mt 27-39 to 46.
15-38. TO KaTaireTaerfJia Tou Kaou crxio-9r] eis 8uo Airo aviaQev eois kutu.
'iSui' 8e 6 Kci'Tupiui' 6 irapecTTTiK^S e^ Ikai'Tias aurou on outu Kpci^as
^ei7i'utr6i', eiTrei' 'A\r)9Ss outos 6 ai/dpuTros uto9 rji' Scou. In Mfc 2 7-5 Iff
the centurion's anguish is occasioned by a series of portents
but ;

Mark, in condensing Matthew's account, makes the centurion's cry

follow the first portent only, namely, the rending of the veil, though
that is the very one which from where he stood the centurion could
not witness.
15-39. oTi ouTu Kpd^as eJeTvceuaei'. Tliat after Ms Cry he thus ex-
pired, that after his cry he died and his death caused such a
i. e.

portent. For the position of outo), which is to be construed with

i^iirvevcrev, cf. Lk 15-10 ovTUiS Aeyco Vfuv yivera-L X<*P'> that is, out<us

yiverai.

15-40. 'loKuPou ToC p,iKpou. Paspati remarks that this should be

interpreted by young James or [better] by James the younger,
which is also meant by the Vulgate minoris. Cf. Eom.9-12 o/iet^wv
SovXevcru TiS ikdrra-ovi = the elder shall serve the younger. Gen. 29-16
ovo/JLa rrj fiu^ovi Aeto. koX ovojxa rg vecaripa. "Pa-)(riX. Soph. OK 374 )(p6-
vci) ix,dt,<iiv. And comformably in MGk. The version James the less (or

little) is inaccurate.
15-46. eOtiKEkauToc ef p,i>Y]fjiEi<>i o ?jc XeXaTOfj.Tip.ecoi' K Trerpas. Mt 27-
59 says eUrjKev avTO kv rZ KaivZ auVoB /xv?;/itu) o iXaTOfxrjcrev evrrj irirpa,
the point of which is that the sepulchre was new, i. e. that it was
unpolluted by a previous corpse ; see my note on Jn 19-34. But
the point was missed by Mark ; see notes on 11-2 and 15-19.
16-2. Xiac Trpwl rrj jxia tui/ o'ajSjBdTui' [Mapia rj MaySaXrivr] and her
companions] epxckxai eirl to p.frjp.Eioi' di'ttTeiXaiTos Tou igXiou. Con-
cerning people whose habit it was to rise exceedingly early, since
owing to the absence of adequate artificial lights they went to bed
immediately after dusk set in, A.iW Trpial must indicate an hour well
 2

56 ST MAEK xvi

before dawn ; cf. 1-35 irpwl evvvx^ A.tai' dvaoras i^XSev. There is

therefore a clear contradiction between Xiav irpwl and avaretKavTo^

Tov riXiov, as has been pointed out long ago. From Jn 20-1 Mapta
t) MaySaAijv^ epx^raL Trpoil o-KOTt'as It6 ovarjs ts rb iJ.VTjp.eLOV I infer that
the Evangelist wrote or /xj^tto) a.vareCXavTO'; TOV rjXiov, when the
ovirai

sun had not yet Jewish morning rites had to be performed

risen.
well before dawn refer to Schurer 2-1-24. Frank Morrison, Who
;

moved the Stone, p. 116 They could hardly go before sunrise be-
'

cause it would be dark [this is answered by my foregoing remarks],

and possibly also because the city gates would not be open." If the
gates would not have been open, then the Evangelist must have
supposed the women to have spent the night outside Jerusalem.
16-3. Ti's diroKu\i<Tei i\^lv toc XWoi/ Ik Tfjs Oupas tou (A>'tifi,iou ; Kal
di'aP\ei|<a(Tai dEupoGo-ic on di'ttKeKuXiOTai 6 \i6os, rji/yctp |i.Yas <7<{>d8pa.

Bloomfield '
This clause [^v yap p.iya<s o-^oSpa] cannot be referred to
what immediately precedes. To remove this difficulty it is better

to suppose that the words have reference not to the clause which
immediately preceded but to the one before that, i. e. Tts avoKuXi-
cTEt y)p,Zv TOV XlOov airo T^9 6vpa% tov p.vqp.uov the intermediate words ;

being regarded as parenthetical. Yet the construction at ko.1 ava^Xi-

ij/aa-ai will not admit of the parenthesis, and thus the difficulty re-

mains in its full force ; and would seem impossible to remove

it

it except by transposing the words as is done by Newc. and Wakef.

But for that there is no authority.' But there is authority, indeed

very excellent authority, in the Gospel according to St Peter 1
(see Preuschen's Antilegomena p. 18), which runs thus rts Se :

aTroKvXicreL rjplv koI tov Xidov tov TeOivTa iirl Tyj<s Ovpa's tov p.vriiJ.uov,

iva elcreXOova'aL irapaKaOiO-Owp.ev avria Kal iroirj(TiMp.ev to. 6<j>eiX6iJt.eva ;

Mc'yas yap rjv 6 XWoi, where p.6yas yap ^v b XWo's comes immediately
after the women's questioning. But no authority is needed ; the
necessity for the transposition is imperative.
 ST MATTHEW
1-23. i8ou rf irapQiyos if yoorpl ^ei Kal ri^erai uiof, Kal KaXeo'ouaii'
'E)jifjiai'ouT]\. The only essential part of this prophecy
TO ofofia auTou
from Isa.7-14 is the one which predicts the birth from a virgin ;

the words koI KaXicrova-iv to ovofta avrov 'E/j./iavov)jA, upon the mean-
ing of which interpreters, both ancient and modern, have expended
so much thought, were added because they formed part of the sen-
tence as popularly quoted, though they were not applicable to the
idea which that sentence was intended to illustrate. I have ex-
plained this practice in my note on Acts 15-16 and Rom. 4-7. At
the latter verse I have further referred to Eph.4-8.Eom.8-36.9-9.
9-17.1 Cor.3-15, where afiros Si crwdrjoreTai ia redundant. See also my
note on 12-18. An unmistakable instance is that in 27-10, where
see note.
In XII Patr.Zab.9 bv av eKAcfrjTat Kvpio'S 'lepovcraXrjfji. ovofj.a avT(iJ,

possibly 'le/DovtraX^/A instead of 'EfjLfj.avovr]\ is due to a lapse of

memory.
o ecjTic. Which means. Of. Jn 18-38 ti icmv a^Oeia what is the ;

meaning of truth ? what dost thou mean by truth ? See my note on

that passage, where numerous examples of this sense of ia-rlv are
adduced.
o ia-Tiv ficSepfiYji'fud/io'oi' (j.eG'i^jjiwi' 6 6e6s. Probably a student's mar-
ginal note.
2-6. ou8ap,u9 IXaxio-TT) et iv toTs i^yefioo-ic 'loiJSa. This is from Mich.
5-2, which however, as Micha's text now stands, states the con-
trary, i.e. oXiyocTTOS ct ToB elvai iv ;!^i\iaa-ii/ 'lou'Sa. Accordingly Blass
bracketed oiSa/xGs, though it is indispensable to the context. The
error is in Micha, where the reading originally was 6A.iyocrTos ei

1 = oAtyoo-Tos ovK (for this signification of d = ov see my note on

Mk8-12) it The disappearance of one cl in front of another was
almost inevitable. In our passage also at one time there must have
existed the original d el of Micha, and not oiSayuSs el. For old Latin
versions give both numguid and non, of which the latter reproduces
a short negative and the former points to an interrogative particle ;
 ;

58 ST MATTHEW n m
both these conditions are fulfilled by d. Bowyer conjectured ovk
oAtyOCTTOS.

Another error in Micha is x'^'ao-iv, which i^ye/ido-iv of our passage

shows to have originally been x'^'apx"'^! * word occurring in the
Apocalypse and frequently in the Septuagint.
2-13. eycpOei's. Tor the addition of avao-rasor eyep^elswhen an im-
mediate or sudden action is indicated see my note on Lk 1-39. I
demonstrated there that this, being a familiar idiom in MGk, can-
not come from the Hebrew as has been supposed. Similarly Hom.
(r47 dvacrras avToi IXecr^o).
iffGi cKei. I.e. /xeve, Sidrpi/Se eKei. So 2-15 yjv eicet ecus t^s TeXevTrji;
HpuJSoD. 1 7-4 KaXov Icttlv rj/m.^ SiSe etvat. 17-17 ew; ttotc ecroyiiai fJieO v/jiZv

1 Tim. 4-1 5 ravTa jj-eXira, Iv tovtol^ 'lctOl =: c/x/ieve, etc.

2-18. tlxjCT) ei' 'Pa(ia tikouo-Gt), K\aud{j,d9 Kal d8upp,os. The Version a
voice after the Vulgate is not accurate ; it should be a cry or scream,
as shown by KXau^/xos and oSvpfjio?. Cf. Gen. 45-2 a(j)rjKe (Jxjdvtjv fj-era
K\av6fj.ov. So the German version Geschrei. In MGk it would be
^icjxovrjTo (ext^mvijToi/), interpreted in BXa^o's by oris prolongds.
oTi ouK elo-ii'. For they are not living ; see my note on Acts 9-39.
3-4. auTos Se 6 '\(i)dvvi]s. The Eevisers, in their fatal tendency to
follow Attic usage, have rendered now John himself. But the AV,
though in reality it reproduces the Vulgate ipse, renders well and the
same John, i.e. the aforesaid. For this sense of avros see Moulton
and Milligan. Jannaris 1420 'Since Greco-Roman times o airos
is used like the Latin idem, the one referred to, the said (cp.WSchmid

iii, 66). Euagr.2561a 6(^uXovt(.<s tov ovtov irpoTpi^acrOan AtocTKopov, et

passim.' D and several other Mssomit the article (omitted also in

Mk 1-6) and give auVos Se 'Iwavv?;?, which, conjointly with the ex-
amples recorded by Jannaris, makes it probable that the original
reading was 6 auVos 8e Imawijs, and the aforesaid John.
3-7. T7o\Xou9 rSiv aptcraiui' Kal SaSSouKaiuv ep)(o|xeVous em to fid-

That any Sadducees at all, men of inordinate arrogance and

TTTio-fia.

who as a privileged class upheld a strict status quo and combated

all enthusiasts and innovators, went to John for baptism is in-

credible such a step would have been regarded by them as funda-

;

mentally incompatible with their interests and dignity. The words

Ill ST MATTHEW 59

Kol %ahSovKai(x)v, I think, were palmed off by an interpolator prone

to exaggeration and totally ignorant of the social conditions pre-
vailing in Palestine at that period. We possess an indication of
this in the Gospel according to the Ebionites, which only states
t^rjXOov Trpos avrbv ^apia-aloi (see Preuschen's Antilegomena p. 9).
Luke seemingly thought it unlikely that either Sadducees or
Pharisees degraded themselves by approaching John, for in the
parallel passage 3-7 he ignores both these classes.
3-11. iyti) \i.kv ^atrtiiia uftag iv uSari eis (ieTdyoiac. The words eis

jncTctvotav can of course only mean /or the purpose of repentance in ;

other words, so that repentance may follow baptism. But when a

man came for baptism, he wished thereby to be purified of sin,
and must have already confessed his sins and repented therefore ;

confession and repentance preceded but did not follow baptism.

Cf. 3-6 E/SaTTTt^ovTO iio/xoXoyovixivoL (= after confessing) ras afxapTiai;
avTuiv. It was the remission of sins that followed baptism; cf.

Mk 1-4 l3a.Trri,(Tjxa fxeTavoias ets a(f>ecnv a/jiapTimv. The correct order in

full is in Acts 2-38 ixiTavorjcraTe koX ^awTiaO^Tio l/cao-ros vfi-Siv ds
aif>(Tiv tZv a.fi.apTiu>v vp.G>v. Manifestly then
tis p-erdvoiav, which did

not figure in Tatian's texts, an amplification, perpetrated by

is

one who was imperfectly acquainted with the Hebrew and Chris-
tian theory of baptism. We find identical interpolations in Lk 3-
16 iyu> pilv vSaTt ySaTrrt^a) v/xSs and in Jn 1-26 iyiu p.\v /SaTrrtfo) iv

wSari, where ets fxeTdvoiav is added in versions.

ou ouK eifii iKakos Tcl uiro8i]|xaTa paardaai.. I.e. to remove his shoes,

as Pernot translates, ySao-rd^eiv being a synonym of a'ipuv, to remove.

As such a synonym it recurs in 8-17 ras v6<rov% eySao-rao-ev and Eom.
16-1 TO, do-^ci'Tj/xaTa tSjv dSvvdrwv jiacrTd^eiv. The Oriental practice of
removing one's shoes before entering a temple or house is well
known. This was often done for the master by a menial, who had
to stoop and after unlacing the shoes remove them and so the ;

parallel passage in Mark 1-7 runs ov ovk dp.i. tKavos Kvi/fas ACcrat tov
lp.dvTa TU>v VTToSrjiJidTUiv avTov. Cf. also Lucian.Herod.5 o Se Tts p.dX.a

SovXlku)s d^aiptl TO cravSdXiov eK rov iroSos (quoted by Wetstein).

Aesch.Ag.935 inraC tis dp^SvAas Xvol rdxos (quoted by Blomfield).
The English to bear is a mistranslation.
 60 ST MATTHEW m iv
auTos ujaSs |3airTi(Tei ei' irceufjiaTi dyio) Kal irupi. He it is who will
purify you not merely by an immersion into water but by inspir-
ing you with a holy spirit, and the purification will then be as com-
plete as when gold is purified by fire.

3-15. a(j)e9 apTi. Exactly as in MGrk a^io-e Tu>pa, leave off, stop
that (give over), now, which is commonly addressed as a friendly
remonstrance to an importunate and officious friend. And so the
following d^tiyo-iv avTov he leaves Mm, (alone), he presses him no
further. Previous expounders have missed the real meaning of this
passage. See also note on iare, cms tovtov (= leave off, go no further)
of Lk 22-51.
'
irpeiroi' lorli' fijiZv nX-qpdcra.i Trao-ai' SiKaioaufTji'. The primitive no-
tion must have been wXrjpSxraL Travra, i.e. fulfil all the prophecies.
To this points the Gospel according to the Ebionites, which runs
a^e?, OTL ovTu) iarlv irpeirov, TrX.r}pii)6rjvaL Travra (Preuschen's AntilegO-
mena p. 10).
4-1. TOTE 6 'Iyjo-oOs di/Y^xSr) eis TrjK epijfxov uiro tou iri'EUfjiaTOS. This is
another instance (see my note on 3-15) of the primitive conception
having changed character in course of time. The interpretation of
iirb Tov Trfev/jLaTOi by 0/ the Spirit probably renders correctly the

sense as it was intended by the Evangelist. But in the original

legend this TrvevpM was an actual ttvoi), a Mast, as is clear from the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, where it is said (Preuschen's
Antilegomena p. 4) that apn tX.a^i fj.e p-rirqp ixov, TO aytov irvf.vp.a,rj

iv fjua ruiv rpi)(uiv p-ov, Kal aw^veyKe /xe ets to OjOos to /ie'ya aj3u>p. In a
similar way, as told in the Talmud, the Messiah was carried away
from his mother by a tempest (Schtirer 2-2 p. 164) and in the ;

commentaries of Isho'dad of Merv (Gibson translation p. 28) Jesus

is said to have been suddenly transported like Philip, who was

caught away by the spirit of the Lord (Acts 8-39). This idea was
probably suggested by what we find in Ezek. 11-24 aviXa^i /xe
TTVivpa Koi Tj-yayi f/.e ek yrjv XaXSaiav. 37-1 i^rjyayi p, iv Tri/eu'/taTt kv-
pios Koi edjjKe p.e iv /xia-io tov ircStov. 43-5 dfE'Aa/Se' p.e Trvevfjia Kal dcrTj-
yayi p.e eis Trjv av\T}v t^v ia-wTepav ;
passages which possibly in-
spired also 4 Kings 2-16, where it is related that on Elijah's dis-

appearing it was asked of Elisha p.rj ttote ^p^v airov 7rveB/x,a KvpLOv Kal
IV ST MATTHEW 61

ippixf/ev avTov i<f>' eV tSi/ opeW. Accordingly, I should say that in the
primitive form the reading was wo TrvevfiaTos and not iwo tov ttvcv-

fjLaros.

The primitive idea ofa blast is further obscured inMarkl-12,who

distorts Matthew's av^x^V ^""^ '''"^ Tri/cv/xaros into to Trvtv/xa auTOV Ik-
jSaXXci ; and it is finally obliterated in Luke's 4-1 'Iijo-oSs 81 wf.v-
/xaros ayiov irXripri^ viricrTpeij/ev diro tov 'lopSdvov Kal ^ero iv Tw irveu-

fiari iv rfj ip^/xw.

The conception of being wafted or carried away by a blast re-

appears in several places. I have already referred to Acts 8-39. Cf.
further ApoC.1-10 iyev6p.rjv iv 7rve.vp.aTi (eis Xlarju-ov). 4-1 o-aXTriyyos

XaXouoTys /ACT ip.ov \iy(x>v avd^a S>8e . , . tv6eu)s iye.v6p.iqv iv Trvevp,aTi.

17-3 air-qveyKev p.e eh ipTqpLOV iv Trvevp,aTi. 21-10 dir-^veyKev p,e iv irvev-

p,aTi iir opos p,eya Kat, vij/rjXov. Isai. 57-13 TravTas av/iOS (=TveCjUa)
Xrpl/eraL koi avoiau Karaiyis. Enoch (Charles's translation) p. 74 a
whirlwind carried me offfrom, the earth and set me down at the end of
the heavens, p. 101 I had teen carried off in a whirlwind. Similarly
IIom.Z345 ws/a' 6<J3e\' ot^eo-^at Trpofftepovaa KaKrj a.vep.010 OveWa. cis opos.

1)63 lireird /a' dvapva^acra OveWa o(!;^oito Trpo^epovaa KaT rjepoevTO. KeXevOa.

4'5. irapaXajjiPdvci auToi' 6 SiciPoXos ets rr]V&yiav iroXii' Kal CTTT|<Tei' au-

Tof.Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus (English translation p. 46), calls

the repetition of avrbv a Semitism. It is perfectly Greek. My trans-
lation, made long before I saw Harnack's remark, in 1902, is totcs :

TOV Trrjyaivei 6 8idj8oXos aTrjv ayia X<^pa ' '''O'' ecTTijcre. The repetition
such a phrase is almost indispensable. Luke, whose
of the article in
style, when he does not affect the Septuagint, cannot be reproached

with not being quite Greek, says 2-7 iaTrapydvuiaav avTov koI aveKXivav
avTov. 4-29 i^i^aXov avTov Kal rjyayov avTov. 11-22.12-37.19-43, etc.
Hesseling, Jean Moschos p. 62 Les tendances analytiques de la
'

koine amenaient la repetition du pron. pers. avTos. Get emploi, in-

connu au gree classique mais trfes r6gulier en grec moderne, n'est
pas un hebraisme.'
4-15. raXiXoia Tui' eefut'. That is, iOvLKi}, dma-TO';, idolatrous. A peri-
phrasis similar to Lk 16-8 (where see my note) olKov6p.ov tijs dSiKtas

= dStKoi', idolatrous. So also 3 Kings 18-25 7rpo<j>TjTaL<; t^s alcrx^vv^-

Evident Septuagintisms.
62 ST MATTHEW iv v

4-23. irepifJYei' ei' oXr) TJj TaXtXaia. . . Kai dirfiXSei' i^ aKof) auTou els

o\r)i' TT)i' According to Tischendorf a variant crvvopiav, con-

lupiav.
tiguity, exists in Codex r (not recorded in vSoden's massive appa-

ratus nor in Baljon's). This more modest claim is likely to have

been better justified, and is in agreement with the parallel pas-
sages Mk 1-28 l^rjXBev Tj aKOT] avrov . . . ck oA.ijr Trjv vrepix'^pov Trj'sTa-

XiAatas, and Lk 4-14 {nria-Tpeij/ev 6 'Irjcrov? ek rrjv TaXi^aMV, koI <i>y]IJ.-q

i^rjXQtv Kaff'6\.T}^ T^s TrepiXf^pov -rrepl avrov. Cf. also Lk 4-37 iieTropevero

yXOi Trepl avTOv ets Travra tottov ttJs Tcepix^pov. 7-17 e^Apev o Xoyos
oStos Iv oXyj rrj 'lovSaia irepl avrov /cat Trdcrrj rfj Trept^oi/DO). Mt 14-35
oLTria-reiXav ets oXrjv rrjv 7repLX<apov, Kal irpoa-TQveyKav avrZ -rravras rovi Kaxois

xovTa5. The word a-wopiav is recorded in Liddell and Scott. Being

very rare, it could easily have been misread or misheard as Svpiai/.

5-3. (ittKaptoi 01 TTTuxol Tw TTKcufiaTt. Modern critics as a rule ex-

plain this famous sentence as ol raireivol Kal a-vvrerpipL/jLivoi rrjv 8i,d-

voLav after Chrysostom, who based his acceptation upon Ps.33-19

cyyiis Kvpios rots (rwrtTpi/ijiieVots rrjv KapSiav, Kai rov; raTreivovi toI Trveu-

/iart o-(uo-ei. It is a totally arbitrary acceptation ; besides, xaTreivoi

and crwrTptyu,/xeVoi rrjv Sidvotav are respectively covered by the fol-
lowing TT/Datis and TTivdovvri's. To me it seems that ol tttuix"'- '''V
TTvevpLari can only mean ot p.rj dp/covVrcos Trvevp-ariKol, the inadequately
spiritual, and to exalt such men at all is the reverse of the inten-
tions of the NT. Luke 6-20, who borrows from this passage, only
beatifies the poor, pure and simple without any qualification, and
so does XII Patr.Jud. 25-4; and if the Kyriaka Logia, as Epi-

phanios states, assumed their form in an Ebionitic centre, then the

exaltation of such tttio^oi was a matter of course. So t<3 Kvevp.an is

most probably an intrusion, interpolated with the object of ob-

viating any possibility of the Ebionites, who were stigmatized by
the Church Catholic as heretics, appealing to this logion as a proof
that the Lord specially cherished them for they called themselves ;

jTTOixot. As a matter of fact, Symmachos, and probably others after

him, did make such an appeal see Euseb.HE.6-1 7. In my note on

;

Eom. 15-23 and 24 I have produced another instance of the Church

Catholic striving to eliminate a favourable reference to Trrwxol in
Holy Writ.
V ST MATTHEW 63

The sequence on airSiv Io-tlv fj mere re-

/3a<n\ua. Tuiv oipavZv is a
iteration of V. 10. It has supplanted oTL-n-XovTia-OTja-ovTai, which the
addition of rZ irvevixaTi rendered unsuitable. There can be no doubt
of this, because XII Patr.Jud.25-4 states ol ttt^xoI Sm Kvpiov ttXov-

5-6. iJiaKapioi 01 ireii'ui'Teg Kal 8i\|(Mi'Tes ttji' SiKaiocruVr]!/. Here again

I am inclined to think that rrjv SLKaiocrvvriv is supposititious. It is
more consonant with the sentiments of the Gospels that there
should be a blessing and a prompting to care for all men, without
any distinction, who are in dire distress.
5-10. auTui' 0-711' ff tUv oupavuy. In all the other [laKapi-
jSao-iXeia

a-jMH the benefit is expressed in the future tense. Therefore the

reading of D, i.e. ta-re(= co-rai), d erit, must be the true one. In
V. 3 icTTLv may be correct, the reiteration having taken place after
the change in v. 10.
5-11. oral' weiSio-uo-ii' u)ji,d;. See note on Mk 8-38.
5-13. ujieis iare to a\as ttjs yyjs, i^v & to aXas (j.upai'Sfi , iv Tii-i dXi-
<T6r\tTTai ; ELs ouSei' icrxuei ti. The meaning of this perplexing pas-
sage I take it is as follows Ye are the salt of the earth, the wise
:

men and improvers of mankind by your example and instruction,

and if that salt is contaminated, if ye wise men lose your wisdom
and turn sinners, how can this earth be salted, how can mankind
be improved and saved ? Such salt is only good to throw away, ye
would deserve to be consigned to perdition. From this it will ap-
pear why fiiapavOy has been chosen it stands for fjLdipavOrjre with;

vfjLLs as its subject. To salt in its specific sense fiuipavOrj is of course

inapplicable.
The verse in an altered form was borrowed from Mk 9-49 after
d.yvi(r6i]trTai was Corrupted into aXiadija-eTaL.
5-14. Ufji.er; iare to (fiws tou Koapou. Ou Sui/aTai iroXis KpuPrji/at eirdcoj

opous KEi|jiei/r], ouSe Kaiouo'ii' Xuxi'oi' Kal riQiaaiv auroi' uiro toi/ p.oSiot',

dXX'eiri rr)!/ Xuxi'tai' Kai XafiTrei irScric tois ei* Trj oiKiot. The proverb con-
cerning the city set on a hill is in disharmony with the context.
The burden of the context is that the disciples must not conceal
from the world because their good works resemble a
their lives
lamp, which does not serve its purpose if it is hid whereas the ;
64 ST MATTHEW v

force of the proverb is that those whose lives are conspicuous must
be good because their actions cannot be kept out of sight. In the
one case there must be no concealment because the life is good, in
the other the life must be good because there can be no conceal-
ment. It is in this latter sense that the proverb is quoted by
Clement of Rome Hom.3-67 ^p^ ovv T-qv eKKXrfcriav (Ls ttoKiv iv vij/ti

olKoSojj.ovixivrjv (piXodeov ?x^''' ''"'^f"' "<*' SioLKyjaiv KaXi^v, The proverb

was not in our text vs^hen Mk 4-21 and Lk 8-16 were redacted.
As a logion without context it reappears in Oxyr.Pap.1898 p.3
irdAis olKoSo/irj/Jiivrj iiraKpov opov^ vij/riXov koi lirnqpiyixivy] ovre Treadv

Swaroi ovre Kpv/3rjvai,

5-14. u(xis eoTTE TO <})(Ss Tou KotTfiou. Cf. XII Patr.Lov. 1 4-3 MS yap
iCTTiv 6 ^A,ios Kadapo^ tvwinov Kvptov ( = Ka.6apuiTaTO<s, see my note on
Lk 1-6) kiri rrjv yrjv, ovtoi Koi v/xets (= the Patriarchs) iare oi (^cuo-r^pes

Tov 'liTparjX Trapa TrdvTa TO. Wvq. Arist.Plut.640 yiicya PpoToiai ^e'yyos

5-15. ouSe Kaiouo-t;' Xuxi'oi'. It is due to the antecedent clause having

been incorporated that the original ov or ovhkv became ouSe. Such
a change has occurred in other places see my note on Lk 23-40. ;

For ovSfi/ = ov see Jannaris 1798 and 1799 ; also my notes on

Lk 23-40. Jn 20-9. Apoe.3-17. The evolution of ov into ouScv and /x^
into /xr^Sev I have traced to classical times cf. Thuc.4-68 l^rjXovv ;

ov^hi OTC iLcracTi. 4-78 i)(d)pei ovSiy i-mtry^uiv. Xen.Mem. 2-1-30 Sta to
fxT]Sv t'x^"' '"'
"o'i??. Eur.Med.155 f/.7]Sev roSe Xia-aov. Plat.Soph.
254c Xdyou evSccis /xiyStv ytyvixi/JnOa. Leg.672c ttSv ^Zov, octov avrSj
n-poa-rjKei vovv CX"'' TiXewOevri, toiovtov ovSiv (:= ov, ovSdAtos)
X'' '"'ore
4>viTaL (a passage misunderstood). Arist.Ean.434/i7;S6v/AaK/Davd7rA,-
6ri<s. Vesp.1478 opxavixaro^ Trj<; vvktos ovSev iraverai, where the Scho-
liast ' ovSei' iravo-CTat dvTt tov ov iravcriTa.i, (us TrapO fji-qpin [A412lu)S
'

apiCTTov 'A)(ai.!i>v ovSev Ti.(rev avTi tov ovk tTia-ev.' So the phenomenon
in question goes back to Homer.
5-17. (XT) rojiiCTTiTe oTiTJXSoi' KaTaXucrai tSi" Ndfxoi' fj to6s npo<j>iiTas ( =
the Books of the Law and of the Prophets), ouk riX6oi' KaTaXCtrai
dXXd In the course of time it was sought to attach the
TrXripuaai.

Law and the Prophetic Writings to the new religion, for it was
from quotations out of those books that Apologists endeavoured to
V ST MATTHEW 65
demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah expected. To the same
effect and from the same motive we find Rom.3-3 1 No/aov ovv Karap-

yov[itv SiaTrj'i Trto-Tews ; M^ yevoiro 'AXka. 'Nofi.ov icrTuJ/xev. See my

I

note on that passage. Such passages ofa controversial tenor cannot

be earlier than the middle of the second century, when the Apo-
logists first emerged.
Ye have leen instructed. See my note on Jn 5-30.
5-21. TJKoucraTe.
To the instances there cited add Xen.Mem.4-7-5 ouSe tovtwv ye
dviyKoos rjv = was untaught.
Tois dpxctt'ois. Those called ruiv iraAat rLvh by Philo,Mut.Nom.8.
5-25. To-01 euTOUc tS di/riSiKu ctou raxu ecus otou el (jier'auToO ii> ti^

685, (jn^iroTe o-e irapaSu 6 dfTiSiKos t5 Kpirfj Kai 6 KpiTr)s T(5 uirtjp^TT], Kai
is <j>uXaKTH' ^\ii]6r\<Trf. As the text now stands, it must mean that the
debtor who is threatened with imprisonment to show goodwill
is

towards his creditor ; but the reverse is only rational, namely,

that the debtor should do his best to obtain his creditor's favour.
This would accord with the sentiment expressed in the preceding
verses, where it is enjoined that, if a man has offended his brother,
he should straightway proceed to effect a reconciliation. To practi-
cally the same effect E.Eleazar (Taylor's Pirqe Aboth p. 124) ex-
pounded that transgressions between a man and his fellow the
'

day of expiation expiates not until he reconcile his fellow.' I be-

lieve therefore that originally the text ran tcr;^e evvow tov avTiSt/cdv

crow.For this sense of to-xe = obtain of. Arist.Eq.689 fu/t/xaxous 17/xas

i^iav ewous. Eur.IT. 350 hvcrvovv /xe X-qtj/io-Oe, etc.

5-28. irSs 6 ^Xiiriav yui/aiKa irpos to eTriflupTJo-ai aurrji' rjST) ejioixeuo-ec

ouTTii' iv TTJ KapSia auTou. The phrase o ^Xeirav yvvalKa is the exact
equivalent of the MGk ottoios /cotra^et yvvaiKa, in which yvvatKa is
used collectively instead of rets ywaiKas, and Kotra^ei does not sig-
nify merely looks at but pa^s attention, is not indifferent, to women.
So pXhruv in this case means if^Lo-Tavai to oju/ta, cf. Prov.9-18 yu.i;Se

iTTwrqa-rj^ to aov ofj-fia irpos avr-rjv. Similarly XII Patr.Ben.8-2 o

e^oiv Stavoiai/ KaOapav oix opa yvvaiKa eis iropveiav. Keub.2-4 Tn'en/x.a
o/Dcio-etos ixeO'ov yiviTai imOv/jiia. The precept againstlookingatwomen,

derived probably from some sentence in the Law, must have been
quite common, and some strict Pharisees interpreted its pxiirew in
K
 ;

66 ST MATTHEW v

its literary so that, in order to avoid seeing women,

sense of to see,

they went about with their eyes either veiled or in a way shut
see Eenan, Jesus, pp. 230 and 341.
As regards irpos to eTri6u(ji,Yjo-ai, it seems to me that it can only
mean with intent to desire hernot appropriate, for desire
; if so, it is

grows out of sight and does not precede it. Possibly the primitive
reading was trpo rov imOvfji^a-ai ai-n^v. The passage would thus mean
whoever holes (lasciviously) at women he, lefore desiring them, has
already sinned. By a somewhat similar hyperbole it is said in Wisd.
6-14 of wisdom that <f>OdveL tov's iiriBv/JiOvvTa'S irpoyvMa-Orjvai =: TTpo-

yivuMTKiTai Trpo rov riva iTTiBvixrjcraL auT^s. Cf. also Mt 6-8 oioci' yap o

iraT-fjp vft.u)V wv y(piiav ^X^^^

'"^9 '^"^ avoi^ai to (rro/Jia (so Codex D).

Isai. 65-24 -irpiv rj KCKpa^ai avTOvs iyu> viraKOva-ofiai airHv. A mistake

of the same kind exists in XII Patr. Dan. 4 irpSrrov yap rpiiru Tr]v

aKorjv, Kol ouTcos oivveL (= irapo^vu, exasperates) Tov vovv Trpos to vo^o-at
TO p-qdlv, where clearly the right reading is Trpo rov vorja-ai to prjdev.

5-29. o-u(ji,<t>epet
y^P "'>' ''''* diroXTjTat ev rStf (jieXui' (tou. This is sheer
tautology, for in the following verse the Lord proceeds to say that it
a man that one of his members should rather perish.
is profitable for

In the original form of the logion, which exists in Mark 9-47, it is

said that a man should prefer to enter the kingdom /xoi/o^^aX/xos.

Accordingly, instead of tS>v p-eXSiv we must read tCiv o/t/xaTcoi/, of the

eyes, the more so as the eye is nowhere else called /ie'Xos.

5-33. diro8(oo-is St Tw Kupiu tous opKous CTou. When thou swearest

by the name of Jehovah, thou contractest a debt, this debt being
thy oaths, i. e. the thing that thou swearest to do, and this debt
thou art bound to pay back (dTroSwo-eis) by fulfilling thy contract.
5-34. fiT) dp.ocai. oXus. Cf. Epict.Mand.33 opKOv Trapairrja-ai.
5-36. ou Sui'avai. \i.!,a.v Tpix"' Xeukt)!' TroiTJaai t) jxeXaifac. Bowyer Xev-
KYjv iToirjaaL p.4\aivav, tkou canst not change one white hair into black,
which isa distinct improvement.
5-40. TU QiKovri o-oi KpiBrji'ai Kal tSi- xiTwm aou XaPeii', a<f>ES auTu koI
TO ifiArioy. Probably casually copied from Lk 6-29 a.7ro tov aipovros
<TOv TO l/xaTiov /cat tov \iTuiva fx-q Koikvaifj's.

5-45. TOU TTOTpis up.cSi' tou if oupayois, oti t6v J]Xi,oi' auTou di'aTeXXci.
Here oti = os, as Eusebios and other fathers, as well as versions,
 vvi ST MATTHEW 67

interpret. So 6-5 ol VTroKpiral ort(= ot) ^tXoCa-ti'. 6-26 to, ireTciva roC
ovpavov oTi ov o-Treipova-Lv. By numerous examples in my note on Eom.
8-29 have I illustrated this usage of on as equivalent to a relative
pronoun.
5-48. eaeade GUI' u(ji,eis TeXeiot us 6 irar^p ujjioii' 6 oupdetos tAcios Jaric.
It is extraordinary that we should be expected to be as perfect as
our heavenly father. But we may be reasonably enjoined to be com-
passionate after the example set us by God, and that is how Luke
puts it in the parallel passage 6-36 yiveaOe oiKTip/u.oi'cs, Ka6i>s owaTijp
v)i.!iv olKTip/xwi/ ia-TLv. In fact, this is the only fitting conclusion [ovv)
from the foregoing commandments to be kind and forbearing.
Hence I think that the primitive reading was lAcot and cAews.
Some expositors have assumed our passage as it stands to be after
Deut. 18-13 TcXetos 4'crei ivaVTiov Kvpiov tov 6eov (tov J
but to be
humanly perfect in the eyes of God is quite a different thing from
being equally perfect with God.
6-1. irpoaXeT Se rr]!/ SiKaiocrui't]!' ujxui' fir) iroieii' Ep.npoo'Oci' tS)v av-
dpiiiriav irpos t6 Seaflrii'ai auToig. An injunction probably drawn from
Epictetos, who in Enchir.47 says k&v aa-Krja-aC Trore Trpoi ttovov OeXrj^,

creawTW Koi fiy] rots I'^u). Likewise, Lk 14-28 rts yap i^vp,Q}V, deXmv irvp-

yov otKoSo/A^crat, ovf^t irpwrov Kadlcras ij/rjipi^eL rrjv SaTrdvrjv, el e)(^L eis

aTrapTicTfiov ktX was probably suggested by the Enchiridion 29 irptaTov

iiTL<TKi\^ai biTOiov icrn to Trpay/jia, elra Koi rr]v (reauToC (f>v(Tiv Kara/iaOe ct

Bvvacrai ySaoracraf. And other like instances might be cited of bibli-

cal social recommendations having been derived from the Greek
philosophers. See note on 7-3.
6-2. dirE'xouaii' tw (Aiaddf auTui'. They have been paid (see Moulton

and Milligan's Vocabulary s. v. awix'^) their wage. The English ver-

sion of jxL&dov by reward is a paraphrase, not a strict translation.
6-5. oral' irpo<reuxr]o'0e, ouk ea^aQe 6s ol uiroKpiTal, oti (^ o'i, see my
note on 5-45) <f>iXouo-ii' iv xats orui'aywYais Kal Iv rais yui'iais tSiv irXa-
T6i(ii' eo'TUTes irpoo-eux(r9ai oireos ^avS)aw Tois di'9p(uirois. There would
be no ostentation in praying in a synagogue where people congre-
gate for devotional purposes but it would be a different thing to
;

stand and pray in the road. I thought therefore at first that instead
of avvayioyal's We should read a.yvial's, a word which in Mk 6-56 was
68 ST MATTHEW vi

corrupted ; see my note. We should thus have streets and roads

joined together as in Lk 14-2 1 ets ras TrAaretas koL pv/xa^ and Isa. 15-
3 iv Tais TrAaTttais avTrjs koI iv Tats pvfiai? air^s. But palaeographically
o-nvoxais is closer and suits the context admirably, i.e. at the meeting-
points and words everywhere in
in nooks of the streets, or in other
the thoroughfares. The amanuensis must have been led into error
by carrying in his mind iv rais crwaycoyats Koi iv rais pv/xais, which
he had just copied in verse 2.
6-6 irpoo-eulat tw irarpi aou tu iv tu KpuiTTu. D and a few more
.

documents correctly (see note on v. 18) Trp6cTv$ai TiSiraTpi a-ov iv

Kprnrria, i.e. n-pdcrevfat iv t5 KpyirrZ tZ jrarpi crov, pray to thy father

privately, a lection favoured by Griesbach, but, in accordance with

the practice of counting Mss, not adopted by him or such other
editors as I have consulted, Blass excepted. That iv tZ kpvtttm re-
presents the genuine lection is indisputably proved by the Syr.
Sinaiticus version. One cannot too often stress Bentley's dictum
nobis et ratio et res ipsa centum codicibus potiores sunt.
6-11. Toi' apTor r\fi.&v toi' tirioucnoi'. Scaliger had already derived
i-n-Lovo-tov from iwLivoLi, and I hold it to be a by-form of iiriovTix, just as
jrepiovfTiov eKova-Lov are alternative forms of inpiovTa iKovra. It was
probably chosen as its suffix carried the notion of a gift ; cf. Suidas
'TO tj/j.ep-^a-iov, TO Kad'rjfjiipav SiSd/ici/ov.' Oxyr.Pap. No. 1275 (1914)
yjp.iprjiTiio's Spa)(^p,u>v CKarbv Teaa-apaKOVTo.. It means which falls tO OUr
share, having the same force as i-n-L/SdWov and i7ri/3d\.\ovTos in Lk
15-12 TO iiriPdWov iji.ipos T^s ovo-tasand IMacc. 10-30 tov rjp.i(rovs toB
Kapirov TOV iwi^dkXovTOi In their intransitive sense iiripdXkuv
p-oi.

and iTTtevai are often synonymous. Thus, in respect of time they

both mean to follow, to come on compare 2Macc. 12-38 t^s /3So/ia8os
;

T^s inilSaWova-rjs with lChron.20-1 iv tZ iirLovTL iTei. They also co-

incide in the significations of to attack and to occur to one's mind
(oTav iTnf3dX\ri rj (jKiipii), as any one can see by a reference to Lid-
dell and Scott. Thus explained, tov dpTov rj/xZv tov iiriova-iov is iden-
ticalwith the Hebrew of the prayer in Prov.30-8, which in the
margin of the EV stands as (feed me with) the bread of my portion
and in the LXX as (avvTa^Sv fxoi Se to, hiovTO. koI) to. avTapK-q. Isho'-
dad's the bread that we need practically comes to the same thing.
VI ST MATTHEW 69

According to Delitzsch (see Taylor, Pirqe Aboth p. 1 80), in Lk 1 1-

3 Tov ETTtowioj' appears in Hebrew likewise as of our portion. It is

possible that this sentence of the Lord's Prayer was suggested by
(TvveXtiav avTO CKaoTos to KadrJKOv avrio of the story of manna in
Exod. 16-21.
6-12. a<|)S nfJ.ii' Ta 0(|>ei.Xi^p,aTa rifiiav (is Kal T^fieis d<{>iefj,ec tois 64>eiXe-
Tais i^fiGc From Sir.28-2 a<^6S dStKi^jua T&i ttXtjo-lov crov, koI t6t Berj-

6e'rros (Tov al d/iaprtat crov XvOi^crovTai.

is Kal iijxeis &<^Uji.ev. The supplicant is presumed to have been

forgiving all along those who had injured him.
6-1 3. pGaai iq(Aas diro tou Trocr]pou. I.e. diro tov Trovyjpov avOpunrov, airo

iravTos TTovijpov avdpwTTov, in accordance with Ps. 16-13 pBo-ai t^v ij/v

jfTjv fxov diro dcreySovs.

6-16. (1^ YH'eo-9e &s ol uTroKpirai o-KuSpuirol, dcfjafi^ouai ydp rd irpocruira

auTui'. Suggested by this is XII Patr.Jos.3 oi vr]a-T(.vovTK Smtov 6eov
TOV x"P"' Xo-ix/Sdvova-iv, those
7rpoa-(i>Trov ttjv who fast for God's Sake
(must) assume a cheerful countenance.
d4>ai'i^oucri. The version disfigure is not exact nor forcible enough ;
it should be ruin, spoil completely. Such is the meaning in MGk ;

'Qka.)(p<i V. a.<f)avL^(i} ' ruiner, abimer.' Sophocles quotes an instance

from the sixth century -Ijij/TjO-e to oij/dpiov Kai rj<f>dvicriv avTO diXiav, he

roasted the fish and ruined, spoiled, it purposely.

6-18. OTTfus p.ri <t"*''|ls Tols di'6puirois rf\arei<i>v dWd tu irarpi <tou tw iv
TU KpuTTTU, Kal 6 TTaTi^p (TOU 6 )3\eir<i)i' iv t5 KpuirTU diroSuo-ei crot. It is
surely preposterous to say that the heavenly father will see you
because he is chamber ; but that is precisely what
in your hidden
the text implies.The universal conception of deity is that its vision
can penetrate everywhere, even into the depths of your heart. The
construction of course is dXXd ottos ev KpVKT^ 4>avy'S tZ iraTpia-ov

vYjo-Tevuiv. Not only is t<o ev t KpvTTTia absurd by itself, but besides,

had it been right, 6 /SXiirtav iv tw KpvirTZ would have been an inept
addition. The error in this verse has also apparently dragged v. 6
down into the mire, but fortunately there we possess the variant
iv tZ KpvirTta, preserved in D and a few more documents including
the Syr. Sinaiticus. Cf. Arr.Epict.1-14 orav KXdfrrp-i tos 6vpa.<; Kal

(TKOTO'S ivhov TroLrjcrrjTe, neixvYjcrde jJLTjSeTrOTe Xeyetv fWVOL icTTi. Ov yap a-T,
 70 ST MATTHEW vi tii

aXX 6 Oca's vSov iari, Koi 6 v/j-iTepo'S Satyncov ecrrt, KaL tis XPeta tovtol's

^MTOS CIS TO ySAcTTtlV a TTOlUTe ',

6-19. o-T)S Ktti ^puais. Cf. Prov.25 o-ijs ti/ Ifiariw Koi a-KwXr]^ ^Xm. It
is the action of worms in eating out wood that /BpSxTLi represents.
See note on Mk7-18.
Siopuo'o'ouo'i.i'. Houses TT-^Xivai {ci. Job 4-19 tovs KaroiKovvra'; oiKtas
TnyXtVas) are had in view which, being built of bricks merely dried
in the sun, such as can be seen to the present day in Macedonia,
India, and no doubt elsewhere, were easy to dig through, a method
of burglary mentioned also in Arist.Plut.565 Kke-n-reiv koct/j-lov Icttlv

Koi Toy's Toi^^ovs Si.opvcr<Teiv. Cf. TOLxmpv)(0's, Toi)(wpv)(ilv.

6-23. el oSc TO <j><Ss TO iv ao\ ctkotos eorli' (the variant eorai is pre-
ferable), TO CTKOTos iro<Toc ; Expositors I think have missed the point
of this sentence. It is I believe this : If thou, Jew, who art en-
lightened from thy knowledge of Holy Writ, wilt become blinded,
what will a Gentile become who is in darkness ? But the idea is
not very felicitously worded it is more lucidly put in XII Patr. ;

Levi 14-3 i/tas IcTTt ol cjxaaTTJpe^ tov IcrparjX Trapa. irdvTa to. eOvrj, /cat iav
Vjucts aKOTurd^Te Iv derc/Stta, Tt Xonrbv to. Wviq TronQcrovcTiv Iv TvijiXtticrei

SidyovTK ; Similarly Eom. 2-19 TreVot^as (thou Jew) re a-eavrov oSriyov

etvat TVfjiXioVj <^tL)S rtoi/ Iv (tkotgc,

6-25. (ir) fji,epi|ji,i'dT Tr) <|/ux|| u}>.S)V Ti (fxiYilTe. For ij/v)(rj := KotXi'a See
my note on Lk 12-22.
^d.yi\Te. The subjunctive as explained in my note on Mkll-24.
6-26. Ta ircTeii'A toO oupai/ou, oti ou o'Treipouo-ii'. Here also otl = d ;

see note on 5-45.

7-1. (IT) Kpii/eTE ii'a (AT) KptSfJTe. Cf. Sir.28-1 o IkSlkuiv Trapa Kvpiov

ivprifrei (i.e. eipijcreTai Trapo. Kvpiov) iK^Urja-LV. Jam. 2-1 3 fj yap Kpiai's

dw'Xews Tw jXYj TTOirjaavTi IXtos.

7-3. Ti Se pXeireis to K(ip<|>09 th iv tu 6<|)9aX)ji,w tou a.8eX<|)ou crou, Tr)f 8e

eV tu o-m 6<}>9aX|xu SoKoi' ou KaTafoeis ; Cf. Menand.Frag.631 oiSeh
icj> lavTOv TO. KaKO. a-vvopa (raqico?, krepov S'a.<T)(rjp.ovovvTO? oi/cerai. 710
oral/ Ti /xeXXj^s twv TreXas KaKYjyopiiv, o.vto's to. cravroC irpluTov iTrta-KewTOv
Ka/cd. Aesop. 303 Tlpop-rjOtv^ TrXdo-as ttote dv6pu>irovi8vo ir-qpa's i^ avTwv
aTTCKpc/xacre, Tr]V jxkv dXXoTpuov KaKwv, Tr]v 8e iSioyv, koI ttjv /xev tC)v 69vi-
wv jj.irpoa-Oiv eVa^e, t-^v Se Irepav OTriadev a.Tn^pTTf]a-e. See note on 6-1.
 :

VII ST MATTHEW 71

7-6. (x^i Bute to ayioi' tois kuctIi' |XT)8e P(1\i()T tous (lapyapiTa; uy-Stv Ifi-

irpoo-Occ r&v xoipui/, firf irore KaTairaTi)a(ocrii' auTou; Ik tois iroali' auTui'

Kai <rrpo<j>e(Tcs pi^luorii' 6|xas. In spite of all efforts to make good sense
of this passage, it still remains pointless as it stands.
1. Taking the latter part of the first clause, we could understand

an injunction not to cast pearls before swine as food if pearls were

a kind of dainty prized by men, though not appreciated by swine.
But, however foolish a man might be, how could he think that he
treated swine well in giving them pearls to eat when he himself
never ate them ? There has been current among the .Tews a proverb
applicable to cases of misplaced kindness or favour, which ran thus
Beck not a hog with a nose ornament. The proverb has been preserved
in Prov.11-22 axTrreplviaTLOv iv pLvlvbs, ovtws yvvaiKi KaK6(f)povL ko.Wo'S,
as is a jewel in a swine's snout, so is beautt/ in a silly woman. From
Ezek. 16-12 tSoKtt ivioTLov Trepl tov /xvKTrjpd. crov it is clear that among
Jewish women the fashion obtained of wearing jewellery in the
nose, acustom such as prevails at the present time in India, where
nose ornaments are either rings or pearls. In allusion to this
fashion the proverb declares that it is favour misplaced to adorn
swine with nose-rings, which can only be valued by women.
Analogous sayings are Lucian. Advers.Indoct. 4 ovos Xvpas d/covets.
:

5 Ti KvvL Koi paXaveCm ; Heracl.Ephes.51 ovoi crvpp.aT {sweepings) av

eXoivTO [jLaXkov ^ )(pva-6v. Arist.Vesp.604 TrpcoKTos Xovrpov irepiyuyvo-
/*i/os, where Blaydes compares Crat.2-234 vsStapdSuv. A MGk pro-
verb ^avets KOTTO kcu. (j-aTTOvvi crairowt^ovTas yovpovvi, yOU lose labour

and soap should you shampoo a pig. A Japanese proverb gold coins to
a cat. Cic.Att.1-19-2 (see Liddell and Scott) to iirl rfj 4><^Kfj fivpov.
And so forth (see B]aydes,Arist.Vesp.280). I would now observe
(1) that ;8aA.Xetv means not only to cast, but also to place, to put cf. ;

Mk 7-33 IjSaXe Tovs SaKTvXovs ek to. Sira, etc, and in this sense it is
now exclusively employed in MGk ; (2) that in our Mss we find

several instances where the reading fluctuates between eix,Trpo(Tdev

and ivrnmov as in Mk 2- 12.Lk 12-9. Acts 10-4, as well as between

evavTiov and ivwiriov as in Mk 2-12.Lk 1-6, and this shows that
ivunrLov not being classical enough was often altered. If then in

the passage under study we take /^i? /SaXryre in the sense do not put.
72 ST MATTHEW vii

and replacing e/xTrpoa-Oev by the correction ivwirtov consider this as

a misreading of ivon-Lov (see the passages quoted above from Prov.
11-22 and Ezek.16-12), we at once obtain a rational injunction,
namely, fx-ajSl /SaXrjTe tovs iJXJ.pyapiTa<; vfiStv ivwnov rots xoipoL';, and
be not so foolish as to bestow your kindnesses upon undeserving
folk as a man would be who placed a jewel in a hog's snout. The
change of rot's xotjoois into the genitive would have followed as a
matter of course when ivwriov became ivw-n-iov.

2. As regards to ay lov, means consecrated meat as is generally

if it

supposed, we are left to wonder why it should irritate, as the con-

text evidently implies, dogs to be given such food, when the natural
thing is that, as dogs are very fond of meat, they would be made
friendly by being offered such choice morsels. What we need is an
injunction parallel to ft7;8e /SdA.7jre roiis /jLapyapiras v/jlHv ivotnov tois
XoipoLs, and therefore I read /j.r] 8cot (or rather S^a-rjTe) rpixcT'Tov

Tots Kvcrlv, attach no lace to dogs; cf. Ezek. 16-13 ret TrcptySoAata a-ov
^vacriva Kal T/Dtp^aTrra.

3.There remains the difficulty of prjioxj-iv ip.S.';, if it be taken to

mean rend you, for swine are not tusked animals, and to assume,
as has been done, that the Evangelist meant wild boars is a wholly
fantastic idea. I believe myself that prj^ma-tv ipi.a.'s means throw you
down (in the mud), an acceptation illustrated in my note on Mk 9-
18, and that the sentence p.rjTroTe KaTaTrarrjcruKTiv avTous iv Tots TTOtTiv
awTcoi/ KoX o-T/Da<^eVTES pri^toa-iv vp.a's was suggested by Dan.8-7 eppi\j/v

(6 K/Dios) avTov IttI TTjv yrjjv kol (ruvTra.T-rj(Tev {trampled Upon) avTov.
Tots Kvo-tv-Tots x<"'po'S- Most probably rais Kva-lv-rali )(OLpoL';.

7-12. TrdcTa oui/ oo-a &!> Ge'XrjTe ilea TTOiCitriy ujAii' ot a.ydp(aiTOi, ouTus Kal
u)i.i9 iroieiTe auTOis' oBtos ydp iariv 6 N6)j.os Kal ot npoit>{]Tai (the initials

in capitals, since the books of the Jewish Law and those of the
Prophets are meant). This is no conclusion from the preceding
clause, whereas by ovv one is indicated. The passage appears not
to be in its proper place ; it must once have stood after v. 2 iv ui

fJiiTpia p,iTpiT fXCTprr]6i^(TeTai VfUV,

7-13. ff 686s r\ dirdyouffa eis Tr)!/ airiiXeiav ktX. I do not find that
commentators have paralleled Hesiod, Op. 287 Trjv piivToi KaKOTrjra
Kal iXaSo'v ia-Tiv iXicrOai prfiSiwr Xurj fiiv oSos, p-dXa 8'eyyu^i vaCei.
VII viii ST MATTHEW 73

T'^s 8'dpeT^s IBpujTa 6eo\ Trpoirdpoi6ev W-qKav dOdvaToi, (jLaKpoi 8e koI

opOioi oT/xos S avT'^v Kal rprj^v'; to TrpSiTOv.

7-14. i\ 686s 11 dirdyouaa ets tV t,<ar\v. The verb dTrdyw by virtue of
the preposition includes the meaning of astray, and so does not
cohere with ek -rqv i,uir)v. Unless it was originally virdyovaa, the
author must unconsciously have been carried away by having used
aTrdyovo-a in Connection with eis rqv 6.Tr(j)Xe.iav. The verb which suits

best is dyovara, and it will be observed that Cebes in the parallel

passage Tab. 1 5 says rj 6S6s 17 dyovo-a irpo's Tr]v dkr]6ivi]V TraiZdav, and
again Tab. 1 1 iiriGv/JLiav rr/v CIS TTjV dXrjOLvrjv iratSeLav dyovcrav and Trjv

86^av rr/v dyovcrav els ttjv dX-rjOivyjv iraiSeiav. Cf. also Soph.OT. 734 686s
ets TavTo dyti.
7-15. TTpoae'xeTE diro tui' i|/u8oTrpo<|)T]Tui', oiru'es epxo'Tanrp6s u|j.as iv
iv%ufi.a<riv TTpo^dTbiv, eucoSei' 8e eio-ir Xukoi SpiraYes. As neither do sheep
clothe themselves nor was it the dress which gave the prophets
their pious appearance, the reading ivSv/j-aa-i cannot stand. The war-
ning of course is that false prophets look as meek and innocent
as lambs, but that their true nature is that of wolves. I think,
therefore, that the original reading was iv etSecri Trpo/Sdrtav. Cf. Lk
3-22 KorrajBrivai. to irfcvyiia to dytov (TW/JLaTiKto i8et ws TrepicTTepav (irept-

a-Ttpds ?). Ezek.1-26 o/xotco/ia cos ttSos dvOpoiirov. Prov.7-10 17 8e yvv-q

a'vvavTq avTia eiSos ^ovcra TTopviKov. Judg. 8-18 o)S e'Sos //.optfirj vlSiv

fiaaikiutv. Num. 11-7 TO TSos avTov eiSos KpvardXXov.

7-19. irai' 8ei'8poi' jat) iroioui' Kapir6i' Ka\6i' eKKoTrTerai Kal tis irupPdX-
Xexai. Markland (see Baljon) athetized this verse. It interrupts the
sequence of thought, and was doubtless added because 8eV8po>' aa-
had been mentioned in the previous
irpov verse. Of this practice I
have treated in my note on Mk 9-37.
7-24. oo-Tis b>Koi6p,r\aev auTou Tfii/ oiKiai'eirl tt|I' n-erpai'. Thesame meta-
phor of building upon a rock in Ps. 39-3 la-Tqa-iv i-n-l Trirpav Toy's TrdSas

fwv. 60-2 iv-TTiTpa. vij/toa-ds pa, thou hast raised (built) me upon a rock.

Probably those verses from the Psalms suggested this in Matthew.

8-4. EKadapio-Sr] auVoO i\ Xe'irpa. A variant diravTov (ignored by
vSoden) is supported by the Syr.Sinaiticus the leprosy was cleansed
from Mm,. Cf. Deut.19-13 Ka6apiL<s t6 at/xa i^ (= d7r6) 'Icrpa'^A.

8-9. afOpuiros i[i.t uiro c^ouo'iai' (several documents add rao-cro-

L
 74 ST MATTHEW viii

/ti/os), exuf uir efi.auToi' inpaTuiTa's . Holwerda (see Baljon) has con-
jectured iir i^ova-ia?. The alteration of vtto into iirl is obviously de-
manded by the context, and had already been suggested in a volume
entitled Conjectures on the New Testament, published in London in
1772. A like corruption can be seen Codex B
in Mk 4-21, where in
wo rrjv kvyylav was at first Written instead of Ittl tJjv Xv^viav ; and
in Mt 28-14, where our Mss vary between i-n-l and viro. But Hol-
werda's alteration into the genitive, though the construction with
that case is the one which mostly obtains, as Dan. 3-3 Tvpavvoi /ac-
yaXoi 01 Itr i^ova-Lwv etc, is unnecessary. Cf. Acts 7-10 KaTearrjcrev
avTov 7iyovfj.vov ctt AtyviTTOv. Apoc.6-8 iS66r] auTOis i^ovaia ctti to t-
raprov t^s yrj's. Sir. 30-28 <^iAw yar; Sis i^ova-iav iirl (tL As Jannaris says
1246, the accusative gradually succeeded in extruding the other
oblique cases altogether from the domain of the prepositions. In-
deed, if the language of the Scriptures had not been tampered with

by an occasional introduction of classicisms, we should find pre-

positions followed by the accusative much oftener than is the case
in the texts as they have been transmitted to us. Thus, in Mt 14-
19 we have the readings lin. tov xoprov and IttI tov x^prov ; in v. 26
7rt Tr]v OaXaacrav and i-rrl rrji daXdatrrj^. Similarly, 27-5 cis tov vaov
and Ev Tw vau. And there must occur several like instances.
8-12. is TO cTKOTos TO lifaTepov. Tho AV ifito the outer darkness. It
should be the outermost, the comparative standing for a superlative.
Jannaris 514' The comparative sometimes stands, especially since
Hellenistic times, for the relative superlative. This misapplication,
which was undoubtedly due to the influence of popular speech, has
spread ever since.' Jannaris quotes our passage, besides Mk 4-31
p-LKpoTepos TTovTiav tZv o-irepparwv. Lk 21-3 TrXelov TrdvTwv. 1 Cor. 15- 19
ikeeivoTepov TrdvT<ov avOpdinroiv, etc. See also my note on 11-11.
8-17. auTos tAs dffSefeios Tifiwi' ^Ka^ev (Isa.63-9 avros iX.VTp(ua-aT0
avTOvs Koi dvi\a/3v airovis) Kai Tas c(5o-ou9 i^d<Traaev (Isa.53-11 ras
a^aprtas avTwv auTos dvourei). The AV, rendering himself took our
infirmities and hare our diseases, is inaccurate ; at this place both
ikap^v and i^da-raa-iv are synonyms of rjpe, took away, removed, as
Bleek and others have interpreted. Cf. Sir.38-7 tV auTots eOepdTreva-e
/cat ripe TOV irovov avToC.
VIII IX ST MATTHEW 75

8-20. exouo-ic ... TCI ireTEifa tou oupafou KaTaaKrjkUCTEis. From Ps.
83-4 (jTpovULOv ivpev lavrZ olKiav kol rpvyiiv vocrtrtav iavrrj.
8-22. a<J)es tous cExpous 6di|/ai tous eauTui' j-eKpoug. The AV, followed
by Weiss, let the dead lury their dead. This is the correct rendering,
for ai^es as a learned substitute for lao-e represents the M6k as (see
Jannaris 1916), which, when as a hortative it accompanies an
aorist subjunctive of the third person, converts that subjunctive
intoan imperative. It is possible that actually the primitive read-
ing was ia<r, and this being perhaps regarded as too demotic was

changed into a<^es. So we find the more learned a^cre, d^ijo-ei,

OLi^i-q'i as variants for eao-are, eao-ci, eas in Acts 5-38, ICor. 10-13,
Apoc.2-20. Of. also Acts 19-30, where the reading fluctuates be-
tween ovK. iuav and iK<i)\vov. The RV has substituted leave for let in
accordance I presume with Attic usage, for at the time of the re-
vision the great Cobet, the sovereign pontiff of Atticism, stood at
the zenith of his influence.
TOUS KEKpous. Coraes (or Paspati) suggested tovs vetaKopovs.
8-24. creio-fios (ieyas eyeceTO ei' Tr| GaXdo-ar) <3aTe to irXoioc KaXuirre-
o-6ai uiro Tutf KUfidToii', ouros 8e EKadcuSEf. An evident adaptation of the
first chapter of Jonas iyivero k\vS(dv /leyas kv ttJ daka.o'crri, Kal to ttXoI-

ov EKivSweve To5 (TVVTpifirjvai , . . 'louvas 8e e/cd^cvSe. From Matthew this

episode travelled into Mk4-35 and Lk 8-22.
8-27. TTOTairos eo'tii' outos oti Kal ot SkEfioi Kal i^ 6dXao-o-a uttokouou-

aiv auTu ; Respecting oTi-airS = cS see note on Mk 4-41.

8-30. r^v Se fxaKpcii' &tt' auTuv dyEXr). Read S'oi /iaKpar in accordance
with the Latin non longe and Mk 5-11 rjv 8e cKet Trpos tZ Spu.
8-31. El ekPoXXeis Tafias. The present form in a future sense is

probably imitated from Gen. 4- 14 d e/cySaAXeis /xe (n^/xepov.

8-34. iSoi'TES auToi' irapeKaXEo-ai' owus (lETaPri aiyo tojc optui' outui'.
What was the motive of the Gadarenes in anxiously requesting
Jesus to depart from their borders ? It must have been that they
were afraid of further losses of property. Luke felt that some mo-
tive underlay their conduct, but he had recourse to a vague ex-
planation, namely, that they were seized with great fear.
9-13. Ti ECTTii-. What the meaning of. is see note on 1-23. . . ;

9-16. ouSeIs Be EiripdXXEi EmPXrujia pdKous dyi'dctjou etti ifiaTiwiraXaiu"

76 ST MATTHEW ix

aipei yap to irXiipwua (= cViySAiy/xa) auToO diro tou tfiaiiou Kai xetpoi'

(Txi<rp Y^i'ETai. pointed out as a foolish act to

The sense is clear. It is

cutapiece off a sake of patching

new and serviceable garment forthe
a ragged and worthless garment. But the second part of the present

text conveys exactly the contrary, i.e. that it is foolish to cut a piece

offan old garment, for in the absence of any qualification tow t//,aTiov
must hark back to lixarM iraXaiZ. The original reading must have
been 0.71-0 xpw^^ lixariov, from a serviceable garment. For xptjcrTov as
applied to materials cf. Theophr. Char. 4-5 Ta.tixa.rLa-xpri<jTa.iJ.iTal3aX-
Xea-dai = to change one's garments whilst they are still serviceable.

lEsdr.8-56 ^tjo-tov xo^^kov. Jer.24-2 crvKtav xpTqcrTwv. Ezek.27-22 Xi-

6mv -xfi-qtrrinv. Enoch 32-1 vaphov ^(pijo-TOi;, etc.

9-18. apxui'. Grandee, nobleman, in which sense Sophocles cites

an instance from the VII and another from the XI century. Such
is likewise its MGk meaning in the form o apxovTM, which BAaxos

interprets by seigneur, notable, homme d'un rang eleve, homme de

condition. The interpretation ruler of the synagogue, derived from
Mk and Lk, is certainly erroneous.
This episode was copied from Matthew into Mark 5-22 (and
thence into Luke 8-41) and not vice versa, for, had Mt found apxi-
o-wayouyos, he would not have changed it into a.px<^v, which in the
sense of would have been too indefinite. On the
ap;;^io-wvdy)yos

other hand, it is intelligible that Mark, overlooking the demotic

signification of oipx<v, reproduced it by what he fancied that it

meant as a learned word.

9-18. iq SuydTtjp jjiou apTi 6T\EuTr|ai', dX\& eXdui' eiriSes Tr\v X^^P"* "'O''

eir'auTT)!' Kal ^vjaeTai. It seems to me that tpfjo-erai. can only mean she
will go on living ; if so, it only applies to a person still alive. When
the notion of to come bach to life is required, I think the proper
verb to use the compound dva^'^v. Accordingly, we should write
is

In four other passages (Lk 15-24. 20-32. Eom. 14-9, and

KCLva^rja-eTaL.

perhaps Apoc. 2 0-5), where the idea is that of coming back to life,
our Mss exhibit both Kal 'i^rja-cv and koI ave^ijo-er. In all these cases
Koi t,ri(Tev may have been induced by the fact that koI avi^-rjcrcv was
originally written Kavit,ria-iv (cf. Mt 26-15, where we find /cdyo) and
Kai eyoj, 28-10 KaKel and Kal eVei), which could easily be misi-ead as
IX ST MATTHEW 77
Kol i^7](Tev. In the same way perhaps in our clause /cdvafijo-eTat be-
came Kal ^lyo-erai. It is further a question
whether in Jn 11-25 kolv
airoOavri ^crerai We should not read
the loss of the pre-
dva^'^a-eTai,
position being due to the similarity of the preceding letters. How-
ever, of. Ezek.37-6 and 14 Swo-o) Trvcu/xd /xov ek
V"? koi t,ri<Ti(Tei.
9 ifitftva-rjcrov eh tods veKpovi Koi ^rjo-aTtatrav.
9-34. 01 Se <l>api<Taioi eXeyoi' 'Ei/tu ap-j^ovrndv Saifioi'ifc);' cKJ^dWei tA

Satfidcia. This paragraph absent from the Syr. Sinaiticus, D, and

is

two old Latins ; as the Mss were intended for recital at the ser-
was most probably often omitted
vices, it as disrespectful.
9-36. ISuc Se Tous o)(\ous iaTrkayxvladi] Trepl auTui/, on rfaav i<rKu\fiivoi
Kttl eppif^EfOi ucrel irpoPara pr) Syioyra iroip^fa. The rendering of ippt-
/ieVoibyscattered, though perfectly consonant with the context, is out
of the question, since the Greek for to scatter is a-KopitCla or fTKiKvvvp.t
and not ptVrco ; and I do not see how commentators have come to
consider these verbs as synonyms. On the other hand, jacentes,
the translation of the Vulgate, is of course possible in the sense of
lying ill (Mt 8-6 /Si/SXT^TaL iv rij oIklo. TrapaXvTiKO's) but seems inappro-
priate in this passage. Uncared-for sheep do not lie down, but are
at once scattered ; cf. 26-31 trara^w t6v iroi/xeVa kol ^laa-KopmaOri-

a-ovTo.1 TO, 7rp6/3aTa. SKingS 22-17 tov 'la-parjX Siea-Kopiria-fj-ivov iv rots

opeortv (is 7roip.viov ai ovk ivi TroLfurjv. They are scattered and become
a prey to man and beast. So far as I know, this is the uniform
description of shepherdless sheep in the Scriptures. Cf. Jud. 11-19
d^ts avTov's (OS irpojia.Ta ots ovk tort irot/Aijv. Ezek.34-5 Siecnrdpfj to. irpo-

PaTo. fj,ov Sid. TO /j,rj etvai Troi/ieVas kol iyevqOr] eis KaT(i/3piop.a irdfri tois

Orfpioi's. Zech. 1 3-7 TrardfaTe rovi iroip.ivai Kal iKo'iracaTc to. Trpo/SaTa.

As, therefore, ippinivoi ill suits the context, I had long ago conjec-
tured ippiqyfiAvoL, mauled, and I found since in Tischendorf s edition
that there exists authority for this reading. It has, however, been
so completely neglected that neither Blass nor Baljon nor Souter
even mentions it. The corruption arose from the fact that ipprjy-

ftevoi was assumed to be a participle not of p^yvvfjn, but of the form

p-fjo-a-w, which occasionally meant to throw down (see my note on

Mk9-18), and so it was disfigured into its classical equivalent

lppip.ivoi.
78 ST MATTHEW ix x

Nor do I see the necessity for taking eo-KvA/xcVoi figuratively and

translating it by distressed. Its original force mangled is perfectly
in keeping with the context. The multitude in their forlorn state,
without a guide or protection against the attacks of the devil, are
likened to shepherdless sheep mangled and mauled by the beasts
of the jungle.
10-9. fir) KTriai\<T6e XP'"''*' fiilSc Spyupoi' (Jir]8e X"^''0'' ^is ras t'^va.q

ufiui', )ir) irTJpai' els oSoc firjSe Siio xiTcokag (H]8e uiroSiifjiaTa fiTjSe pd^hov.
The which these words bring up before the mind's eye is
picture
that of an Eastern fakir, who travels barefoot and scantily clad
begging his way. But invariably such beggars carry a rude staff to
lean upon. So in Philosoph. 9-4-20 the Essenes, a sect of fakirs, are
thus described : irepiiaa-L TTjVTrarpwav y^v ixrjSiv ^epovTts ttXtjv ottAou (
=
pa/3Soti). In 4Kings 4-29 Elisha commands Gehazi with the words
\a/3e TTjv jSaKTTjpiav fiov iv rrj \upi (tov kol Sevpo. Similarly a distinc-
tive feature of theCynic philosophers was the PaKrqpia which they
carried about see Lucian.Peregr.15 and 24. And Firdusi, accord-
;

ing to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, set off with no better equip-

ment than his staff and a dervish's cloak. Hence I am persuaded
that instead of /xtjSc pd/3Sov the original reading was dXA' ^ pa/3Sov=
elp-rj pdySSov, but Only a staff; cf. Dan.3-28 yiiijSe -n-pocrKwria-uKTi TraiTt
dcZ aXX ri 6iZ, etc. M and AA being interchangeable in old
TO)

manuscripts, YnOAHMATAAAHPABAON (i.e. v7roS^/iaT'dAX'-^)was

read as YnOAHMATAMHPABAON under the influence of /x,^ Trrj-

pav, and was afterwards changed into pLrjhi under the influence
fj-rj

of the proximate /iijSe. The blunder has been carried on into Lk 9-

3, where see note. For the contrary error see note on Mk 6-8.

10-16. yivicrde oiji' <)>p6i'i(Ji,oi us ot o4>eis Kai dKepaioi as at irepio-Tepai.

From Prov.8-5 voTJa-are aKaKoi (= aKepatoi) Travovpyiav, ol 8e (XTratSeuTOt
evOeadc KapSiav (= vovv, <j>p6vijcnv), but SO modified as to fit the ex-
hortation at present needed. In the troubles and perplexities which
must beset them, the Apostles are exhorted to be circumspect, and
now adopt the cunning of a serpent on the watch (cf. Gen.49-17
o(/)t5 <^' oSov iyKa6iijp.vos iirl TpijBov), and anon the look of guilelessness
of a dove (cf. Isai. 59-11 ws apKO^ koX ojs mpianph. a.p,a Tropiva-ovTai).

yivea^e. As applied to snakes it means he ; as applied to the

X ST MATTHEW 79

doves it means o-xiy/^aTto-^r^Te, assume the form of, cf. Arist.Nub. 348
yiyvovTaL irS.v o tl fiovkovrai.
<|)p(5i'i(ioi. In a pejorative sense as it is in Isai.44-25 a.Tro(TTpi<f>iov

ff>povift.ovi (= Travovfyyovs, bad men) eis to. OTrtVci). Gen.3-1 O01S V

<j>povLfjL(i>TaTOi TrdvTwv tZv 6rjpi(i}v. Similarly cro(/>os; cf. Jer.4-22 0-0(^01
eicrt Tov KaKOTTOifja-ai.
10-18. eirl i^ycfjioi'as 8e Kal PacriXels ixOrfaeade eVeKei' Ifiou els flap-
Tu'pioi' auToTs Kal tois eQvetnv. In accordance with the parallel passage
Lk 21-12 a.7rayop.ivovs 7rt ^ao-iXets /cai ijyc/iovas tveKev rov ovo/j.aTO'; /xov,

ctTTO/Sijo-eTat ii/iiv eis /jtapTvpiov, the text originally I believe read cis

p.apTvpiov avTol'S or iavToi'S = ii/iiv, the addition /cat Tots eOvea-LV being a
reminiscence of 24-14 eh fx.apTvpLov Traa-iv rots e6ve<nv. For it seems to
me that what the Evangelist meant to say was that the tribulations
of the Apostles would prove their zeal in the good cause and eventu-
ally constitute a strong commendation in their favour before the
heavenly judgment-seat. Cf. Acts 10-4 at iXerjfioavvai aov dvi/3r]crav eh

fjivy]p.6(7VVOV efjLTTpocrOev TOV 6eov. Proteu.Jac. 1 ecrrai to ttj^ a.cf>ia-eu>^ pov

Kvpuo eh tXacr/Aov efjLoL was carried on to Mk 13-9.
The mistake aurots
Luke gleaned his sentence from Matthew and not from Mark as
is shown by aTrayop-evov;, which reproduces dx0rjcrecr6e of Matthew

and not the Marcan 13-9 a-TaOrja-ea-Oe.

10-20. SoGi^aeTai yfirp ujxti' iv eKCict) Tr| (Spa ti XaXi^ariTe. Probably
suggested by Exod.4-15 eyto dvot^ui to (TTOjxa trov KoX TO CTTop-a avTov
Kal <ru/iySi;Sdcra) vp.d's Tt iroirjo'eTe (qu. TrOLrjo'TjTe).

10-25. 1 Toi' otKoSeairoTH]!' BceX^e^ouX iireKiiXea'ai', iroaoi p.aXXoi' tous

oiKiaKous auTou. Such is apparently the reading of all our documents,
with the exception of the first hand of the Vaticanus, which ex-
hibits t oLKoSea-TTOTri and rots otKtaKots. What I think was conveyed
is that Jesus was accused of having dealings with the devil in ac-
cordance with 9-34 iv tZ d/D^ovTt tSiv Saip-ovitav CKySdXXtt to. Sat/xoi'ta ;

if SO, Lachmann was right in preferring the datives of the Vati-

canus. Such a base aspersion was actually proffered by the Jews.
Leible, Jesus Christus in Talmud p. 44, says far from denying '

the miracles, the Talmud admits them, but imputes them to Sa-
tanic artifices.' I may add that our verse does not cohere with
either what precedes or what comes after, and I suspect it may be
80 ST MATTHEW x

an accretion embodying the Talmudic imputation, or perhaps it

followed originally v. 22 taea6e fx.iaov/jLevot virb iravTOiv Sio. to ovofj.a fiov.

10-27. KY)pu|aTe em rajv iotfidTiav. Cf. PrOV. 1-21 iir aKpoiv Teix^<ov

(qU. TOL)(<liv) Krjpv<T(TTai.

10-28. Toi'Sui'djjiei'oi'Kaiij/uxTii' Kai o-fljia dTroXco-ai ivyeevvg. A variant

I3a\uv ei's yiiwav. Supported by the Syr. Sinaiticus, suits the con-
text better, but it is difficult to account for its alteration. Perhaps
aTroOitrdai, cf. Polyb. 24-8-8 eis <f>vXaKr]v airoOi(rOai.

10-29. EC e^ auTUi/ ou iretreiTai em Tr]y yrji' acEU ToO irarpos ufiuii'. Cf.
Amos, 3-5 et (= ov) TrecreiTai opvcov iirl Trjs yrji avev l^evTov. 2 Kings
14-11 t (= ou) !re<re'LTai airo ttjs Tpi,)(os rov vlov aov etti ttjv yrjv. Ben-

gel conjectured Trd.yrjv, and I certainly think it far more probable

that the Evangelist wrote ovk e/xTTEo-Eu-at Ets ttju -n-dyr^v, not only be-
cause this lection yields a much more satisfactory sense but also
because Clem. Horn. 12 -31 reproduces the passage by avev yap r^s
Tov 6eov ySouA'^s ovSk crTpov66^ Iv irayi^i ip-TreiTeiv e^ei. Cf. also Prov.
12-13 E/ATriTTTEi Ets TToyi'Sas. Sir.9-3 fXT^ TTOTe ifxiricrrj'; eh ras irayiSas.

1 Tim. 3-7 tVa fjirj els 6veioi<riuiov ifjiTreo'rj /cat TrayiSa. 6-9 epuTTiirTOvo'iv Et5

TreipatTfJibv /cat TraytSa. Ps. 34-8 iv Trj irayiSt 7rEO"o{ivTai ^ 717 iraytSi Eyit-

TTEcroCi/Tat. Tob.14-10 eVe'tteo'ei' Ets T^v iraytSa. Aesop.270ts TrayrjV

ejXTretrelv. Ael.VH. 1-2 irayi; rots e/xTri-n-Tovai. Prov.6-5 opveov Ik Trayi-

Sos. 7-23 o-ttevSei uxTwep opveov Ets TraytSa. Xen. Mem. 2-1-4 Tots O-qpa-
rpois efjLiriTrrova-L. Similarly in Enoch 10-7 y^s supplanted xXiyy^s,
and in Lk 14-34 y^v supplanted Tayyv.
10-35. 8ix<i<''a'' avQpairoy Karcl tou iraTpos auTou. Mich. 7-6, whence
this was taken, states vtos (and not avOpw-n-os) dnixd^eL Trarepa, and
clearly also here the genuine reading is vioV. For (1) this is what
comports with the context (2) ;
it is the reading of D, the Syr.
Sinaiticus, and other documents ; (3) as he says TraTrjp iirl vi<a in the
parallel passage 12-53, Luke must have found vlov. The error was
occasioned by utov having been misread as ANON, a frequent com-
pendium for avOpiDTTov ; see my note on Eom.7-23.
10-41. 6 Sexojj.ei'OS irpo<()iiiTii]i' els ocofia 7rpo(t>TiTou fiiaOoi' 7rpo<|>^TOu

Xifi(A\)/eTat, Kal 6 Sexop.Ei'os SiKaioi' eIs ocofia SiKaiou |j[,iar96i' SiKaiou \^fji,<|/-

Tttt. As the text stands, and ek ovofjM St/catov are

Ets ovop.a wpo</>^Tou

entirely useless. Where is the merit in welcoming a prophet as a

X XI ST MATTHEW 81

prophet, or a Sixaios as a SiVaios ? The merit consists in welcoming

as prophet and SUaios persons who can lay no claim to any such
dignity. Instead oi irpo^riT-qvand StKatov (= Israelite, see my note
on Lk 16-8) we should read fjLaOrjTrjv (or aX-qTr]v a wanderer) and
aStKov (= idolater, see the same note), the exhortation being that a
good man should extend the same kindness and hospitality to
insignificant or unworthy individuals as he would do to superior
persons. This would be consistent with the gospel teaching
as evinced by Jesus' treatment of Martha, Zacchaeos, and the
adulteress; compare also Mk 2-17 ovk rjXOov KoXia-ai htKolov^ aW
dfjiapTwXov^.
11-2. 7rEp,(J/a5 8i& Tui' fi,a9r\TiJiv auToO elirei'. Meyer '
Trt/jLij/as abso-
lutely ; the following Sia belongs to dwiv, not to ire/t-
tcov ixaQr^rSiv

i/fas (de Wette), because this latter connection would involve the

supposition of a Hebraism.' Not so, for 8ia with the genitive often,
especially post-classically, denotes hy means of, a usage of which
Jannaris 1531 adduces several examples. Meyer's Hebraism is
further disproved by MGk, in which Tri/juj/a'; 8ta tZv fUL6rjTu>v has
an exactly corresponding locution a-rikvovTa's /xe tov'; { jxeTo. rZv,
instrumentally) /xa^iyraScs ; cf. Jannaris 1532 'Another mode of
expressing instrumental relation was sometimes resorted to, even
in classical antiquity, by means of the preposition iJiera. with geni-
tive. This last expedient met during Hellenistic and Byzantine
times with a great popularity, and so ended by becoming universal
in Neo-Hellenic, chiefly in the abbreviated form /te [
= /x^to. vnth
accusative].' The meaning is having sent a deputation iy the dis-

ciples, having sent the disciples as a deputation.

11-7. KaXafji.of uTTo dc^fiou o-aXeoojjiei'oi'. Imitated from Job 13-25 <i)s

(j>vXXov Kwovficvov VTTo dve'yuou.

11-11. 6 8e fiiKpoTEpos iv TT] PauiXetot tSiv oiipavdv fieijui' auTou Io'tii'.

I.e. o fXaxLo-roi ; see my note on 8-12.

11-12. diro Be tS>v ^(iepfii' '\<a6.vvou toG PaiTTioTou <ds apri iq PaaiXeia

yS>v ou'pai'ui' Pid^exai Kal Piao-ral dpird^oucrii' aur-l\V irdi'Tes ydp ol flpo-
<J>tJTai Kal 6 N6(jios Ius 'Xaavvou iTpo(|);^Tuo-ai', Kal ei ScXere Se^aadai, au-
Tos eo-Tii' 'HXias 6 fi^XXwc epxeirflai. 'O x<^i' (Sra dKoueru. Taken from
Luke after ySain-t^eTai was corrupted into jStd^crat in 16-16 (where
M
 '

82 ST MATTHEW xi

see my note) o Nojuos koI ol IIpo^^Tat ews 'Iwawov' a-n-o Tore rj fta(riXeia

Tov Uiov ivayyeXi^erai koL ttSs ts avrrjv yStaferat.

1 1-16. Tiifi Se ofioicacro) rrjc yecccii' TauTTji' ; Taylor, Pirqe Aboth p. 61

' the Eabbinic parables like those of the NT are commonly intro-
duced by some such formula : to what is the matter like ?
ofioia eo-Tic iraiSiois iv dyopais Ka0r])ji.VoiS, a irpoiK^oiyoGvTa TOis erai-

pots Xeyoucrti' HuXi^aafjLEi' ujaTi' Kal ouk tipxIlcraaBe, 9pif|i'if)CTa(J.f icai ouk
cKotl/ao-SE. The common version of TratStbis by children is incorrect,
as I have pointed out in my note on Jn 2 1 -5.
Surely it could not have
been said of children that they would pipe and especially dirge in
market-places. The proper sense is TraiSes, lads, lioys, mates, simi-
larlywith MGrk iraiSta and French enfants. After the classical period
the diminutive addition became a mere sufBx without any diminu-
tive force ; see my said note on John.
11-23. Kal ail, Ka<|)api'aoufi, (it) ecus oupai'oO ui|/(ij9iicrT|, cus aSou Kara-
piPaaOrjcrt). No satisfactory construction or interpretation has so far
been evolved out of this reading, which is that of some of our good
Mss. The variants rj v^f/todacrano doubt obviate our
and rj iif/iiiO-q's

difBculties, but are plainly attempts at emendation. The sense

which they yield is so easy and obvious that it is hard to see how
they could have been corrupted into the other reading.
It is a commonplace in palaeography that when similar sylla-
bles ran in immediate succession, one was apt to be overlooked by
the copyist, and so to be left out. For instance, in Codex B we find
Lk 14-27 oo-Tis ovv /Saa-Ta^ei instead of ocrris ovv ov j3acrTo.^ei. If then
our text was originally KA$APNAOYMOYMHEn2, it would be
liable to be copied as KA^APNAOYMHEOS, and the present
reading would ensue. If allowance be made for this slip, the pas-
sage would read koL o-v, Ka(j>apvaovfji, ov
and jxr] 2ms ovpavov vx^/oiOrja-Q,

thou, Capharnaoum, thou shalt not be exalted unto heaven.

This correc-
tion is corroborated by an extract from Athanasios quoted by Blass,
which runs thus lav ews tov ovpavov vxj/mOij';,
: Itos aSov KaTafSriay]. aW
In this citation iav is an alternative Septuagint by-form of ov ix-q ;

cf. Nehem. 13-25 iav {= ov firj) SSire rots Ovyaripa'S i/xCiv tois vlots av-

tS>v Koi iav (= oi p-rj) Xa/Srjre airb ruiv OvyaTepuiv avroJv toI'; viots v/xoiv.

A more common alternative of ov ixi] is et = iav, as explained in my

 S

XI xii ST MATTHEW 83

note on Mk 8-12, where tl and ov co-exist. Thus, the reading once

evidently varied between ov and iav or d, that is between two
ixr/

words of the same import, a fluctuation of a kind which may be

said to be a scriptural feature see my note on Mk 1-6. ;

It will be observed in the passage from Athanasios that the

second member of the sentence is introduced by aXXd. I think this
conjunction was not added by Athanasios but was found by him
in his text. It is with aXXa, or rather with dXX' ^, that the second
member of a sentence generally commences if the first is intro-
duced with 1 ( = iav) having a negative force, or with ov fi-q ; cf.
Num. 14-30 ei (= ov j,ij) v^ueis tJa-eXevcreo-^c eh rijv y^v aXX'-^ XaXe/3.
Ezek.14-16 ei (^ ov fji.ri) viol Tj Ovyaripii (Tui6-^aovTai dXX'^ avTol /Jio-

VOL o'tad'^CTOVTaL. 18 ov far] pvirovTai viovs oiSe dvyarepa^ dXX 17 avroi

/xovoi, aiiiOyjo'OVTai.

Thus, the passage under study had once this form : /cat erii,

Ka<j!>apj/aot)/<., ov fJt,r] lios ovpavov vij/iaOtjcrfj, aW rj ecos aSov KaTa/3ij3a-

a-Orja-r], and fhou, CapJiamaoum, shalt not be exalted unto Jieaven hut

shalt lie lowered unto hell, which is the same as the variant (see Tis-
chendorf ) iav ( = oi ju,^) Jcos tov ovpavov ixj/wOys dXX' ttos aSov KaTa^rjcry.
11-27. irap866T). The same as eStSax^r; ; see my note on Lk 10-22.
11-29. oTi = OS ; see my note on 8-27.
12-8. Kupios ydp eo-Tii' too o-ajSpdrou 6 utos too dkSpciirou. If yap were
right and introduced a causal sentence, then all the foregoing ar-
gumentation would have been superfluous but the sentence stands ;

well if it be a conclusion from that argumentation. Therefore I read

apa, which has similarly been misread in Eom.4-13. 5-17. 7-8. 7-15.
12-15. idepiireuaev auTous irdi'Tas Kai, eireTip.T](ri' auTois Iva p,T) (fia-

i/epof auToi' iroti^auo'ii' oirus irXriptoOTJ to pTjSei'Sid HoaVou. The word

Kal iireTLp.rj(T(v aurois iva p,rj <f>avp6v avTov iroLi^crwa-iv are parenthetical,

the quotation from the Prophet being intended to foretell the

healing and not the eVtTi/i.->yo-is.

12-18. ISou 6 irais p.ou oi' ijp^TKra, 6 dYairriTds /Jtou els of T]u8dKir)o-Ei' i^

<|/ux^ fiou. @r\ao> to irceOfid (lou eir'auTOi' Kal Kpiaiv tois e6i'<rii' diray-

yeXei. Ouk epio-Ei ou8e Kpauydaei ou8e dKOUoei Tis iv Taig irXaTEiais ttik

i)bivi]v auTou. KdXojioi' o-u>'TTpi(JifJ.Vo' ou KaTed^et Kal Xicoi' Tuifiop.ei'oi' ou

o-PeVei, U)S & eK^dXi] els fiKos ttjc Kpi(rii'. Kal t5 ov6\i.ari auToO i6vi]
84 ST MATTHEW xir

^17100(711'. The only relevant parts of this prophecy are (1) IBov 6 irai:^

fuxv Oi^aw to
fjiov ov ypiria-a, 6 ayairrjTO's /xov eh ov -fjihoK-qa-ev 7] f^-ov,

and (2) kol t(S ovofnaTi avTov Wvr] iXmovcTiv. For

TTVivixa. fxov i-n-'avToy,

it is only these parts which indicate that Jesus

as the beloved son

of God shall be granted holy spirit and possess power to heal, so

that through him {tZ 6v6fj.aTi avroi) the world may be inspired
with hope. The other parts were thrown in because they exist in
the prophetic extract see my note on 1-23. ;

12-27. el cyi) ef BeeX^ePouX ekPciXXo) to, 8aifi6i'ta, ot uloi u/Aui' iv Tii'i

eKPdtXXoucni' ; See my note on the parallel passage Lk 11-19.

12-31. q Se Tou TTkeufiaTos pXa(T<|)r)(Aia ouK d<j>9TiaeTai. Evidently the
author of DidachJi ch. 11 assumed tov Trvcu'/xaros to mean the priest-
hood, for he says Kai Travra irpocfjrJTrjV XaXovvra iv irvev/iaTL (= ea; Ca-

thedra) ov TTUpdcreTe ovSe StaKpivciTe' Traaa yap d/j-apTia a4>Srja-eTai, avrr]

SI rj d/jLapna ovk acj^edi^a-eTai. This claim to a Sort of infallibility was
apparently first evolved among the Eabbis, for according to Leible
p. 87 the Talmud says '
Wer tiber die Worte der Schriftgelehrten
spottet, durch siedenden Kot gerichtet wird.'
12-32. Kal OS eai' ciiri] Xdyoi' Karci, tou ulou tou di/SpuTrou, d<j>e6ii<rTai

auTU)' OS i'a.v e'iirr] KaTo. tou irceujxaTOS tou dyiou, ouK d(|>e6TJ(7eTai auTO) out

iv Touro) Tw alfli'i ouTe ei* tu (ieXXoi'Ti. An evident variation in a more im-

pressive form of the preceding sentence Traa-a d/xapTia koL (iXaa-^y)p.ia

afjiiOrjcreTai tois dv^puTrois, rj Se tov Tri/ev/xaros jSXa.a-(j>T]iJ,ia ovk aijiedrja-eTai.

KaTot TOU utou TOU d>'6polirou. In order to make clear that by this

phrase he meant the same as toTs avOpwirot^ of the preceding verse,

the interpolator should have said Kara vlov dvOpunrov, i. e. Kara dv-
dpMTTov. In its present form the phrase inevitably leads to the
misunderstanding that it refers to Christ.
12-43. OTac SeTO dKdSapTOi' TTi'eujia e^eX9ri diro tou di'6puirou, Si^pXETai
8i' di'uSpci))' Toirui' ^niTOuc di'dirauaii' Kai oux eupicrKei. T6t Xeyti Eis Toi*

oiKoi' p.ou eirioTpe>|o oQev |tjX6oi', Kai eXSoi/ EupicTKEi axoXd^orTa , cetrapu-

fiivov Ktti KeKoo-p.rjp.eVoi'. The explanation commonly given of dvvSpuiv

TOTTuiv is that waterless places are deserts, which were reputed to be
the haunts of demons. But it is to be observed that, whereas Isaiah
in 13-21.34-14 and Baruch in 4-35 represent demons as delighting
in desolate solitudes, our text implies the contrary ; the evil spirit
XII ST MATTHEW 85

seeks rest in such places and finds none. Our passage, moreover,
requires that the demon should seek repose in many places before
it returns to its previous abode in the man. Hence I believe that
the primitive reading was Sio, ij,vpiwv tottwv, through numberless
places. The palaeographic difference between AIAMYPIfJN and
AIANYAPflN is so inconsiderable that the scribe could easily lapse
into the misreading if he had in his memory, as he must have had,
Ps. 62-2 iSiij/iija'e croL fj ^v^rj /lov iv yy ipi^jj.<o koL afidrto koL avvSpm and
Prov.9-12 OS ipelSerai IttI ij/evSecTiv Siairopeutrat Si avuSpov Ip-qjxQV.
di'dirauo-ic oux upi<rKi, An idea suggested by Isa.34-14 ovoKivrav-
poi evpovre's awTOis avaTraviTLV.

cr)(o\(loi'Ta. wrongly rendered by empty. The correct in-

This is

terpretation is on holiday, as is clear from the addition swept and

set in order {KKocrjxrjp.vov). In the ancient world, when people were

not punctilious about cleanliness, and when all dwellings, even

those of well-to-do people, resembled workshops pounding, spin-
ning, weaving being daily employments houses were generally
swept and set in order only for such occasions as a sabbath, or a
holiday, or a wedding, when work stopped. The Vulgate in trans-
lating vacantem seems to me to have given the word the sense
which I suggest. For a-xoXd^to is a synonym of apyZ a-a^/San^ui, be-
ing derived from crxoX^, which means a holiday ; in this sense
Sophocles quotes from Anaph.Pil.1-1 to o-ayS/Sarov airois eXeyei/ o
it

'Iijo-ols iJi,7] elvat. (TxoXrjv rj TrapanjprjaBai, Jesus was telling them that the

sabbath was no holiday and need not be observed. Compare also the

MGk a-Koktj, which is a specific term for holiday ; BA.dxos ' o-xo'Xr;

[read aKoXyj], jour de fete, chomable.' It may be further pointed out

that the usual rendering would represent an empty house as clean

and set in order, whereas on the contrary empty houses are natur-
ally neglected and full of dust.
Lastly, what is the moral of the allegory ? The explanations so

far advanced are far too recondite and unsuitable for such simple
folk as the Gospels were intended for. It appears much more
probable that Ewald was right in thinking that something dropped
out before v. 43 if so, the verse must have had this form [o/iotov]
;

ft)S icLV TO aKadaprov irvevfJ-a, iieXdov (xtto tov dv6pu>wov, SupxrjTai 8ia fiv-
86 ST MATTHEW xii xiii

pLOiv Toirwv ^rp'ovv dvairavcriv kol fX-rj fvpCfrKig. Cf. note OH lYLk lA-o'i,

where a similar disturbance seems to have come about.

(itj l^av P(i9os y^is, 11^'" ^e
13-5. E^ai'eTeiXei' 8ia to &va.ri\avros ekou-

fiariaeri. That should have unskilfully been employed in

dvaTEAXeii'
different senses in two clauses placed side by side raises a strong
suspicion, for the passage otherwise presents an excellent style.
But the Syr. Sinaiticus furnishes a very suitable variant, i. e. im-
Xa/xi/ftti/Tos, for the Lewes version runs with the shining of
the sun

which was upon it. I find an almost identical substitution in 4-16

Tois Kadrjfievots iv xuipa- koX (Tkio. Oavdrov <j>S)i avireiXev airots, where
avcTeiXci' reproduces Aa/yii/^ei of Isai.9-2 oi KaToiKovvres iv X'^P? "''"?

davdrov <^Ss Xafiij/ei, <^' v/i5s. Compare also v. 43 iKXdpxI/ova-iv 0)5 6 ^Xios.

XII Patr.Lev.18 dvaXayu.i/'et m 6 ^Xios. Philo,Opif.l01 /xr/i/oetSoSs

iTTiXd/xxj/ew's. Gigant.3 to o-kotos 6 ^Aios e?riXd/ii/'a9 diroaKiBvrjCTLV. In

the parallel passage Mk 4-5 there is a variant iie/iXdaTrja-ev for i^avi-
reiXev, but eiriXd/ii/favTos is a more significant word ; it yields the
idea of a strong light scorching the young plants. As regards dva-
TetXavTos it merely marks the feeble sunlight of the morning.
13-11. ojAii' S^SoTai Ta (xuo-ngpia ttjs paaiXeias Tui' oupacuc,
Y'''^'"*''

cKeiVois 8e ou Se'Sorai. Probably suggested by Philo,Migr.Abr.l35

ovSevlyap ixPW crv(rTa6ivTa KaTiSelv axpcos on p.r] tu TreiroirjKOTi. bee

also my note on Mk 10-40.

13-22. ^ dirciTT] tou irXouTou. The bewitchment or lure of riches. Cf.
Judith 16-8 IXct/Se a-ToXrjv Xlvtjv ek dTrdTr]crLV avrov. 10-4 EKoXXcoTrtoraTO
(TCJioSpa ts dirdTijdiv ot^OaXpMV. 13-16 rjirdrrjcrev avrov to TrpocrtoTrov fwv
eis diTwXuav avrov. XII Patr.JoS.9 Koap-ovp-ivrj Trpbi d-Trdrrfv jxov. Jud.
11-2 i8u)v auT^v oivoxoowcray rjTrart^drjv (= ewXaviJ^ijv). Pallad.154 ixTra-

raaOai Tw ravrrji xaXXei. The version <Ae deceitfulncss of riches ill

comports with the context.
13-25. ec Tu KadEuSEif tous &vdp<iirous. The English version while
men slept takes no account of the article. The proper interpretation,
as pointed out long ago by Michaelis (see Meyer), is the men, i. e. the
workmen, labourers, those who in v. 27 are referred to as ot SovXoi
TOU oiKoSco-jroTou. Those who support tohile men slept argue that by
such a phrase night is designated ; why cannot night be designated
by while the men slept ?
XIII XIV ST MATTHEW 87

13-52. iras YPt'F''H'fTcus |j,a6i]TEu6Eis ttj Pao-iXeia t&v oupavuv Sjioiiq

iaTiv dfOpcuTTO) oIkoSeoitott] oiTTis eK^iiXXEi EK Tou dricTaupou auTou Kaifd
Kai -iraXaiii. What the context requires seems to me to be this : A
man, having acquired the new faith, discards (E/c/JaAXtt) from his
convictions every obsolete Eabbinical notion, as a well-to-do man
casts out of his rich store what heand outworn.
finds to be unclean
In the same way the fishermen cast out of their catch all bad and
useless fish, and the angels expel the wicked from among the
righteous. Therefore, instead of Kaiva I read Koiva, unclean. The tra-
ditional reading, whether we take iK^aWti as = brings forth or =
casts out, is pointless what would be the object of oikoSeo-ttottjs in
;

bringing forth the whole of his amassed store, or why should he

throw away the good with the bad ?
YpajAfiaTeus. I doubt its Correctness.
oiKoSEcnroTr). A man well-to-do. It is exactly the MGk voiKOKvprj's =
oiKOKvpio's. BXa;^os 'oLKOKvprj's, howime de condition, qui est dans I'ai-

sance, aise.'
EK^dXXEi. Casts out ; of. 48 e'Ioj e/SaXov.

13-55. Wktoi'os. It is not exact to specialize te'ktwi' as carpenter ; it

means generally artisan, craftsman, the one who in Italian is called

maestro and in MGrk /iao-roprys, terms which include a carpenter,
builder, shoemaker, blacksmith etc, whether he be a master or a
simple journeyman.
14-2. EKEpYouCTii' iy auTci. I. e. ivepyovcTLv avT(o ; see my note on ire-

7rXrjpo<l3opr]p,ivuiv iv vfuv of Lk 1-1.

14-9. XuirT)9Ei9 6 PaaiXEUS, 8tA tou? opKOUS Kal TOus crui'ai'aKEtiAEVous

Eir^TpEi|/Ei/ Soflfii'ai. Imitated from Dan. 6-1 4, where it is said that,

when Daniel was denounced, the King irokv ikviriq6-q i-n-'avTZ, but
had to consent to his execution. Another imitation, but this of
our passage, is in Act.Pau. et Thee. 3 5 koI a-Tvyvda-as iiriTpeij/iv oijye-

fiibv Xiymv Xlout o ^ovXcl.

XuttyjOeis. I. e. Kaiirep XxnTt^Ods. So Philem.8 irapprjCTiav ^x'^v eVtTaa-

<TUva-OL, Zia. ttjv aya-rr-qv jxaXXov -rrapaKaXw. Xen.Cyr. 1-4-5 fiovXop.evo';

ov SvvaLTO irapex^LV. Plut.608b d Se Tt j3ovXop.ivq ov TTE'n-on/Kas.

14-18. ^iperi (loi SSe outou's. Clearly c^EperE is here an aorist. So

is it in MGk, in which ^veyKov has died out. Jannaris 996, 293
88 ST MATTHEW xiv-xvi

' Since post-classical times popular speech has extended the stem
<^p- to the future and aorist (cp. 903), as : Moiris 261 olo-e 'ArTtKuis,

4>^pe iXXTjviKw'; Koi KOLvm.' So 2 Act.Pil.9-4 eiTre rois VTnjpiTaLS avTov

ayayiiv vSwp' koL ovTOi 'it^epov = rjveyKov.

14-22. fji'ttyKacref tous fAaSriTdg ep.Prji'ai is to irXoioi'. I. e. directed.

See Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary and my note on Lk 14-23,

Such appears also to be the meaning of rjvayKalev in Arist.Eq.507
t p.iv Tts a,vr]p rStv ap^aLwv K(0yU.o)So8iSacrKaA.os ij/tSs rjvdyKa^ev Xeiovra's
hrrj 7rpo5 to Oearpov TrapajirjvaL. Also irpoda.vayKa.tprj in Vesp.611.
15-13. <|)UTeia. The version ^Zaw< is inaccurate ; it should be pZaw-
tation in the narrow sense of vineyard, the Kar'iioxw plantation.
As a demotic term for vineyard it is still extant ; BAa;^os ' ^urcta
{Srj/jLOTLKw^) IttI d/iTTt'Aoi; [= applied to vineyard].'
15-14. is ^oduvov ireo-oui'Tai. Several witnesses record ifjiTrecrovvTaL,

which is a better lection though it is only mentioned on the mar-

gin of WH's edition. Cf. 12-11 eai' e/xTreViy cis /369vvov. Lk 6-39 6ts

P66vvov ijj,Tri(TovvTai. 14-5 6ts <f>peap i/jLTrecreLTai. Exod. 21-33 iav Se tis
di/ot^g Xa.KKOV Kol i/jLTrear) Iku /xotT^o^, Ps. 7-16 e/xTrecrctrai eli ^odpov.
Ecc.10-8 (Sir.27-26) 6 opvcrcrmv j366pov eis avTov ip.7recreiTai. Is. 24-18

and Jer.31-44 eyU.7recretTat CIS Tov fSodvvov.

15-33. iroSef x\^v Iv tprjfiia aproi too-outoi ; From Num.1 1-13 tto-

pev fxoi Kpca SoCvai rravTi to) Aaai towtw ;

16-2. 6<(ria9 YCi/ojAekr^s X^yere EuSia, TTUppdj^ci ydp 6 oupai'os' koi irpMi
Jil(xpoc xeifii"", iruppdjei ydp uTuyva.'t,<iiv 6 oupaciSs. This would have
coincided with the rhyme A red morning shepherd's warning, a red
night shepherd's delight but for the addition o-ruyvd^iov. For the sky
cannot be said to be simultaneously fiery (which is the significa-
tion of TTvppd^ft) and gloomy (o-ruyi'os). In the place, therefore, of the
second 7rvppdt,ei I would read ^apd^Ei, dawns. Thus, the observer in
the morning, looking up at the sky, would say The day breaks
gloomily, we shall have foul weather, and this is what the context re-
quires.
The word x-P^l^'- ^s an impersonal verb has been preserved in
MGk, which also uses yXv/coxapd^ei (perhaps from XvKr; + ^(apd^ct),
Xapa-p^ara, y\vKo-)(a.pap.aTa., besides the nearly obsolete but delightful
Xapavyri and ^apa/^ept (felt as x^pa + o-iyv and X"-P"- + VP-^P")- BAd^os
XVI ST MATTHEW 89

'
xapafet, lejour commence apoindre ; le jourperce.' And Sophocles in
his Lexicon quotes an instance of this verb in the form x<^pa.a-iTeTai

from as early a date as a.d. 582 ^Tovop6pov)(apa.a-<roiJi,ivov, dawning.'

16'18. iriiXai a'Sou ou KaTio-xua-ouaii/ au-rijs. In accordance with Job
38-17 avolyovjai 8e croi <^o;8a) TrvXai, Bavarov, TrvXatpoi Sc SBov iSovtcs cre

iirrrj^av, instead of TTvXai aSov our verse should read irvXuipol aSou,

the rather as KaTLo-xvcrovcnv clearly implies a fight (cf. Acts 19-16

KaraKvpievaas afKJiOTepwv t(T)(U(rev Dan.
KaTavrCiv = KaTicr)(v(Tev avTwi/.
(LXX)8-8 o rpoiyos Tu>v alymv Ka.Tia~)(y<r cr<j}6Bpa), and the fight would
not be with the gates but with the guards at the gate. But most
probably irvXai aSov is due to a lapse of memory on the part of
Matthew.
16-24. el Tis 9eXei 6Trio-<o (aou IXSeTi', dirapi'Tio'do-Sci) iauTW Kal Apdrot
Tov CTTaupoi' auTou Kal dKoXouOEiTu jxoi' os ydp &v di\r\ TfiK <|<uxt]I' aurou
traaai diroX^o-ei auTr)i', os h'&v AiroKlarf tt|I' <|'uxt)1' auTOu ivenev efiou eu-

pi^o-ei auTiii'. An evident exhortation to martyrdom, such as was not

infrequent in primitive Christianity. I have touched upon this sub-
ject in my note on Eom. 5-4.
16-26. Tj Ti Suaci avOpuiiros &yTdWay)i.a ttjs (J/oxris auTou ; This ques-
tion can only imply that a man will give everything in exchange
for his life but as it stands it conveys the reverse meaning. The
;

answer to the preceding question ti ax^eXjjSiycrerat avOpwiros is ovSev;

the parallel question n Suio-et, which is put in the same form, ne-
cessitates the answer oiSeV. The reply expected, however, is irav,
and to bring this response the question should have been put in a
negative form, i. e. ti ov Sdia-u ;

That there an error in the text is palpable. But I do not

exists
think that in this instance there has been the usual loss of the
negative (see note on Mk 9-10). The meaning intended seems to be
this As it is no profit to a man if he win the whole world at the
:

sacrifice of his life, so a man will accept nothing in exchange for

his life. Which sense we obtain by correcting Swa-n into Se^eTai.

This change thus modifies the question into one which, like the
preceding clause, requires oiSeV as an answer. The parallel clause
in Mk 8-37 ti yap Swo-ct (or Sot) avdpoiiros avraXXayfux t^s 4'^XV^ "^^"^
was borrowed from Matthew after the corruption.
90 ST MATTHEW xvi-xviii

di/TciXXayiJia. Of. Lycurg.Leocr.88 rrjv iSiav i/'uxV ^'^ ''"^s Koiv^s

o-WTrjpLa'; a.vTLKaTaX\a.TTe(r6aL = Tr]v iSiav i/'uxV 8ix^cr6ai a.vra.XXayfi,a

T^s KoiV'!]'; (Ttj)Tr]pCa<i. Arr.Epict.3-15 avTiKaTaWd^aa-dai tovtuiv a.Trd6eiav.

17-4. KaXoi" itrriy i^jiSs <38e etcai. Le., jj.uvai ; see note on 2-13.

17-12. eTroiTjaai' iy auTM oo-a r|ee'\r]<7ai'. They acted towards Mm

according to their sweet will ; see note on Mk 9-13.

iv auTu = auTu ; see note on 14-2.

17-17. & yei/ecl airtoros Kai 8i,crrpa/i(ii'T|, eug irore cctojaoi (J.e9 ujiui' ;

In the present state of the text it is hope-

<DS iroTe dwc'toixai u|aui' ;

less to account for this rebuke in a manner at all plausible. There

is, however, a variant S yevca Trovrjpa, and if that be the original

reading, altered in accordance with 8ia rfjv oAiyoTrto-n'av v/xS>v of v. 20,

and if ews ttote to-o/xat ixS'vfjLwv be an intrusion inspired by anti-
Jewish animosity, the rebuke would fit well as one addressed to
the evil spirits.

<js iroTe di/e'^ofiai CijiSiy ; A reminiscence from Isa.46-4 avi^ofiai

17-22. (jiAXct 6 utos Tou di'Spcjirou irapaStSoo-fiai els x^^P""? &.vdp<iirb>y.

Instead of avOpwTrmv, which is pointless, I read lOvSiv as is found in

20-19. Mk 10-33. Lk 18-32. Acts 21-11. The corruption due to the
fact of a.v6pu>Tru>v often being compendiously written ANON, for
which idvZv was misread. See note on 10-35.
18-10. pXtTTOuini' TO irpoo'djiroi' tou irarpos p.ou. See note on 16-23.
1 The reason is this, i. e. the following example will
8-23. Sid TouTo.

clear up the matter for you. Similarly Sta tovto stands by itself in
Kom.5-12. lCor.11-10.
ISao-iXei, OS T|9'XT]o-ei' jui/apai, Xdyoi' fieTd rCiy SouXwi' auTOU. 'Ap^ajiiyou

8e auToO o'ui'aipEii', iTpo(Ty\yi\6i] ets ThatauTM 6(j)iXeTt]s [ivpibty ToKavToiy.

any one should have conceived a slave debtor, or any debtor at all,
of such a colossal sum as 10,000 talents, is incredible. In view of
this Origen, as well as modern expositors, is driven to the expedi-
ent of taking ixvpLwv as in a general way indicating a large sum.
But in V. 28 the sum owing to the fellow-slave is specified, namely
e/caToi/ S?)vapta, and likewise the sum owing to the master must have
been specified. The genuine lection has been preserved in a Latin
version, and it is eKaro'v.
 1

XVIII XIX ST MATTHEW 91

18-30. direXfli)!' cPa\Ei<. The addition of aireXOoiv indicates the in-

dignation or the disapproval of the narrator ; see my note on Jn.
12-11.
19-3. 1 eJeaTii' dTToXuaai ttji' yui'aiKa auTou Karol iraaai' alriay. Cf.
Phllo, Spec. Leg. 3-6 dvSpos a.iraXXayu<ra yvvri Ka.6' r/v a.v TV)(rj irpocjiacriv.

Deut.l9-15/xapTDp^(rat Kara, avOpu>Trov KaraTracrav alnav.P&USajl.Fhoc.

32-6. Thuc.5-1 Kara TraXatav rt^/a airiav.
19-11. ou irdcTes \<i)poO<ri,\' toi' Xoyoc toutoi', dXX'ois S^Sorai. There is

nothing recondite in what the Lord had just said to the Pharisees,
namely, os av airoXvcni Tr)v yvvoLKa airov ei/j-rj eiri iropvcta Koi yafjirjcrr)
a\\7]v, fJiOL)(aTai, koI 6 aTroXeXv/xei/ryv yajx'^cra'; /JLOLxarai, making it neces-
sary to add that only a few specially favoured individuals could
comprehend his words, as is the case in Mk 4-11 and Lk 8-10. Nor is
there any logical connection between that pronouncement and the
subjoined case of eunuchs. There ought to be no doubt that vv. 1
and 12 do not belong to this place. Some conclusive answer, how-
ever, on the part of the Lord to the remark of the disciples {d ov-
Ttas i(TTLV rj aiTLa tov avOpoiirov /jLera t^s ywaiKos, ov (rvfitjiepei. yafujaai)

is indispensable ; when it was lost, the gap was filled in anyhow.

19-12. 6 SuKajxcKos xupelv x^peiTu. He who is able to take it in, let

him take it in. Cf. Aesch.Agam.39 lyui ft.a6ovai.v aiSCi kov fnaOova-i. X-q-
601JML. Eur.IT.563 oXwXev ws oXmXe Tolcriv eiSocrtv. For xwpctv = to Com-

prehend ct. Philosoph. 5-4-26 8ia to /xyj iravTa^ X"P">' '^i' aX-qOeiav.

Pseudo.Phocyl.83 ov X<"P" jj-eyaX-qv SiSaxijv.

The practice of self-mutilation by Christian fanatics must have

spread alarmingly in Egypt, so that in the end the Eoman autho-
rities interfered and forbade it, as we are informed by Justin 1 Apol.

29 ^Sj? Tts Ttav Tjfj.eTipiov yStySXt'Siov dveSojKev iv 'AXeiavSpeia ^rjXiKi rjyi'

IJ.oveCovTL dftoJv {requesting) imTpiij/aL larpZ Tovs StSw/iOus avTov dtfte-

Xelv, a.v(.v =
yap T^s fiyep.ovo's eTrirpoTr^s ( permission) tovto TrpaTreiv
aireLprja-Oai ol tKei iarpol eXeyov. And possibly it is for fear of the au-

thorities that our author only hints at the practice without giving
any particulars as to names etc.

19-16. SiSdcTKaXe, ti &yadby TroiTJCTU Xva X" ^'"V aWi'ioi' ; 'O Se dirty

auTU Ti fie cpuTas irepl tou dyaSou ; Eis eo-tii' 6 dyaeos. Copied in a de-
formed state from Lk 18-18 SiSaa-KaXe ayaOe, Ti -rroiyja-as Iwrjv alwviov
 ;

92 ST MATTHEW xix xx

KXrjpovoiJ.rj(T(i) ; EiTTCv 8c avrZ o 'It^o-oCs Tt' yue Xeyets ayaOov ;

Ovoeis dya-
6os dfx.y} ets, ^eos. I explain in my note on that passage that what
Luke places in the Lord's mouth is probably a far-off echoing of

the Gnostic controversy respecting a 6cos aya6b<s and a ^cos St/catos.

Xva e'xo). Mss exhibit o-xS, vv^hich appears a classicism. In

Several
my note on Kom.1-13 I have shovyn by numerous instances ex-
tending to classical times that ixeiv is often equivalent to crx^'iv,

Xa/3av. See also my notes on remark in

Jn 5-39.14-21. But, as I

that note, classical purists have occasionally tampered with the

present and imperfect forms changing ex<^ ^^^ eXxov into o-xS and
io-xov. Additional examples are Mk 14-8 and Ijn 2-28, where the

readings fluctuate between dx^v-lx'of^^v ^^^ Icrxev-trxw/u.ej'. In Gal.

2-4 tx^fj-ev is a misreading of eixo/xev = ecrxo/iev, iXA^Ofiev.

19-22. TJi* yap e'xui' KTi^fiara iroXXa. The Syr.Sinaitious apparently

found KTrjfji.aTa KaXa. For KaXos = iroXiis or yueyas cf. Gen. 1 5-1 5 rpa-
<j>ci'iiv yypa KaXio. XII Patr.Iss.7-9 a-^iBavev Iv yripei koXZ. Arist.Eq.
923 S<ijcreis e/xot Kokrjv Si'ktjv. Even in IIom.2290 KUjxriXia KaXa the
meaning of koXo. is ttoXXo.. Corupare a good deal, etc.
20-2. <Tu(i4)&)i'ri(Tas EK Srji'apiou. Weiss '
mit i$ zur Bezeichnung
des Punktes, von dem aus man zur Vereinbarung kam.' Not so ;

K simply stands in a distributive sense. Similarly Atto with the

genitive, which in so many functions has replaced Ik, is now ex-
clusively employed with the accusative in place of the classical ava.
see Jannaris 1515.
20-3. I|e\9(ii'. D 8tefeA.6aJv. Was this perhaps originally /3' l^eXOwv
meant for Sevrepov i$(X6!hv, but misread as Sk iiiXOiov and finally
as Su^iXOuiv? For Origen (see Tischendorf) says rov's dpyoiis eSpe

SevriptDS i^eXBijiv.

d(t>6aXp.69 cou irociiipos loTiv on eyoj dyaflos eljii

20-15. ^ 6 Bloom- ;

field was no doubt correct in explaining that ocpOaX/jLo? TrovT/pbs

means an envious eye but even granted that the words are so used,
;

I do not see that they make the sentence logical. For the drift would
then be Is your eye envious because I am generous for Are you envious
:

because lam generous ? Such a question clashes with common sense.

A man does not acquire an envious nature because he sees a good
action ; but being already envious, he hates to see generosity. Nor
XX XXI ST MATTHEW 93

are matters improved by assuming that the text signifies Are you :

envious of my good action ? Because (1) Greek would have expressed

this sense by yiverai and not Io-tIv, and (2) one envies the recipient
of a gift but not the giver.
The text I believe originally read ft.io-Oo's, and not o^^aXynos. If
so, the sentence was perfect and expressed exactly what one would
have expected under the circumstances narrated. The employer
would then reason thus My friend, I do thee no injustice, since I
:

pay thee according to our agreement if I choose to be generous ;

to others, that is no business of thine, nor does it make my pay-

ment to thee (o /jLLcrOoi a-ov) wrong.
A similar error exists in XII Patr.Iss.4-6 vavTa bpS. (perhaps Spa)
iv i6vTrjTL KapSt'as, /u,^ 67ri8ep(Oyacvos 6(j)6a\iJL0V'; trovrjpov'; airb rrj'S TrXdvrj';

Tov where the right reading must be ij.lo-Oov';, gains. '0(j>-

Koa-fj-ov,

OaXfwvs irovrjpovs instead of 6<j>6a.XiJLOv TTovrjpbv by itself discloses the

error.
o Be'Xoi xoitjaai iv Tois IfJioTs. I. e. rots /x.ots, instrumentally ; see my
note on 14-2.
20-23. TO 8e KuBio-ai ek SEliuf p.ou Kal e^ Euufu'fji.ui' ouk Effxii' ijioy 8oG-

cai dXX'oIs ^Toi)ji,a(TTai. See my remarks on Mk 10-40.

20-28. Soui'ai TT]c i|/ux]i' aurou Xurpoi' &vr\ iroXXui'. See my note on
Mk 10-45.
21-1. Eis Bii)9<|>aYT) irpos to opos. Near or by the mount. Cf. 4-1 6 oxXos

TTpoi TTiv OdXacrcrav im rrjs yrjs ^(rav. Mt 3-10 ^ aiivr] Trpos rrjv pi^av tS>v

Sa/Bpwv Kiirai. Most Mss by far give irpos to bpo's and are supported
by the parallel passages in Mark and Luke still, in spite of this ;

overwhelming evidence in favour of Trpos, some editors of the

B school adopt the B reading eis to opos ; that is really going
too far.

21-28. acepuiros eixei* riKva 8u'o. Both here and at v. 33 dvOponro's

r]v olKoSea-TTOTT)'; a fair number of Mss read avOpwiro's rts. Here the ad-

dition of Tis even indispensable.

seems preferable, and at v. 33 it is

In both places I believe the indefinite pronoun took the form of

Eis, which being expressed by the letter A in front of ANPnn02
eis ypap-p^.-
could easily have been overlooked. Cf. 8-19 irpoa-eXdmv
TEu's. 9-18 iSoii apxo>v ets iX6u>v irpoa-eKvvei. In Mk 14-51 eis tis VEavt-
94 ST MATTHEW xxr xxii

a-KO's is an evident conflation of ets vcavtV/cos and a learned correction

veavLOTKOs Tis.
21-33. oiKoScairoTijs. Well-to-do man ; see note on 13-52.

21-35. Of fikv eSeipac, ov 8e dir^KTeii'ai', ov Se Xi6oP6Xr)<ra>'. By a not

uncommon ingenuity, which, in a determination not to question
the absolute impeccability of the traditional text, strives to explain
away every impossibility, some expositors account for the addition
of iXLdoj36\rj(rav after aTriKTeivav by assuming that stoning was a
particularly atrocious form of slaying whereas it was the legal
;

Jewish method of execution. I hold ov Si iXi6o/36X-r]a-av to be

spurious does not figure in the parallel passage Mk 12-5.

; it

22-7. 6 Pao-iXeus oipylirBii], Kal T7/Jn|(as ra aTpaTeufiara auTou airii-

Xecrei' tous <|)oi'rs Ikeii'ous Kal tt|1' iroXtf auTui' i'eTrpT)0'ei'. An incon-

gruous accretion occasioned by the fact that the host in v. 2 is

called a king see my notes on 7-19 and Mk 9-37. For how is it
;

rational to say that, whilst the feast was ready, it was held over
until an army could be sent and a city burnt down ?
22-9. iropeueaOe oBi' em Tas Sie^oSous Tuc oiSiv, Kal oSs &y EuprjTe Ka-
Xeaare eis tous ydfiou?. Kal eleXGofres ot SoSXoi eKcicoi eis TCis ooous

o-ui'i^Y"Y'' irai'Tas. The servants are commanded to proceed to what

are called in Ezek.48-30 at 8iEK/3oAai r^s ttoXems. For, owing to the
being walled round and their streets excessively narrow from
cities
overpopulation and overbuilding, the market-places, where the
people congregated, were outside the gates. Cf. Gen. 34-20 ^X6e Se
'E/;i/Lt(i)p Kal ^v)(ejj, 6 vlbs avrov tt/dos ttjv ttvXtjv t-iJs irdXtoJS airSv koI i\d-
Xrjcrav irpos Toiis a.vSpa.% T^5 TrdXctos. Prov. 1-20 cro(j>ia iv efdSots v/JLvel-

Ttti, IttI Se TTvXaii TrdXeoJS Oappovtra Xiyti. Jer.19-2 i^eXevairi etsTO ttoXv-

avSpiov (= congregation), o icrxLV iirl tZv TrpoOvptov TTvXi]';. Job 29-7 ef-

eTropevo/jLrjV opOpios iv ttuXtj (so Dr FriliggOS, Mss ttoXei), iv Se TrXareCaLS

ETt^ETO /JLOV 6 St't^pos. Ezek. 16-25 irr apx^jS ( = StEfdSov) irdcrrj^ oSov wko-

Sd/ivjcras ra iropvtla. crov. It is from out of the motley crowd collected

in the market-places in front of the city gates at the exits of the
streets that the servants were to invite guests to the feast.
EIS T^S oSoUS. I.e. EIS Tas SiE^dSous tS>v 6&S>V.
22-10. o-ui'T^Yayoc TTcirras oo-ous upo>',Troi'r]pous te Kal AY^flo"?, KaleirXi^-

ctSy] 6 ydji.o's dcaKEijiEi'wi'. 11 Eio-eXflui' 8e 6 jSaaiXeus OEdo-ao'Oai tous

xxiixxiii ST MATTHEW 95

dcaKEi^cfous eiSec Iki acdpuiroi' ouk ivZeZufiivov Ji/Suiia ydfiou, 12 Kal

X^yei auTu 'EraTpe, iru? ciafjXOes olBe |it) ex**'' tVSufia y^C'O'' ;
'0 Se e<}>i-

ficidi]. 13 T<5t 6 PaonXEus elire toIs SiaKocois Arfaavre? auTou TroSag Kal
XEtpas eKpdXere auToi' els to ctkotos to i^uTepov' eKCi eaTai 6 KXaudfios
Kttl 6 jSpuyixos tSiv oSoi'Tui'. 14 PloXXol ydp el(nv kXtitoI, oXiyoi 8e eKXexToi.

It is clear that vv. 11 to 14 are an additional accretion, for since

people indiscriminately had been invited to the feast, there was
no occasion for any surprise if not only one but many turned up
who could not be attired in gala raiments. The reason for the ad-
dition was that ya/ios was mentioned, and this was sufficient for
a scribe to insert a passage from another work, in which he re-
membered that ya/xos was mentioned. See note on 22-7.
22-10. di'aKeifi^i'coi'. Of those reclining at meat, messmates. The
interpretation of guests is paraphrastic.
22-16. ou fiiXei o-oi -rrepl ouSevos. Thou art not intimidated hy any-
thing, thou dost thy work fearlessly; see my note on Mk 12-14.
Apoc.3-17.
22-34. oi Be ^apicraioi, dKouaai'Tes oti e(f>ip,(i)ai' tous laSSouKaious,
auvl\y(Pi\<ia.v eiri to auTo. D
and several versions, including the Syr.
Sinaiticus, record the variant hrainov, which is well worth con-
sideration, for it indicates the hostile intention with which the
Pharisees surrounded the Lord. Cf. 27-27 a-vvqya.yov iir'avrov oX-qv
TTjv a-ireipav. Jud.7-23 liTi(TVvrj)(6-q(Tav iras 6 A.aos iirl O^i'av. Ps.30-14
iv tZ (Tvva)^6rjvaL airovs a/xa en-' ejtte, toD Xa^elv Trjv \pv')(fiv fiov i/SovXev-

cravTO. Mich. 4-11 lTriavvq)(6r)(jav ctti ere Wvq ttoXXo.. Dan. Bel 29 liri-

<rvvrj)(6rj 6 o^Xos ttJ's p^wpas ew avrov.

23-15. TrepidyeTe TTjc QaKaatrav Kal Tr]V ^Tjpdc iroiTJo-ai ei/a TrpocnriXuToi',

Kal oToi' yei/tiTai, TroteiTC auToc utoi' yeeci'Tis StirXoTepoi' ujaui'. The ver-
sion ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves is not
correct. As ciTrAoiis means dya^os, good (cf. 6-22 iav ovv 6 6<^^aX/xos
crov aTrXovirj . . . iav he 6 where dirXoBs stands
o<j>6a.XiJxi<; aovTTOvrjpbs y,

in antithesis to must mean Tvov-qpoi, had there-

ttovij/dos), so SlttXovs ;

fore hnrX&Tipov must signify xipo"^) worse, and not twie as tad.
Moreover, it seems to me that the more likely thing for the Lord
to have said was that an idolater is bad enough, but that, when
the Pharisees take him in hand, they deteriorate instead of im-
 ;;

96 ST MATTHEW xxiii

proving him ; if so, the original lection must have been not vfxwv
but iavTov, vfhich according to a well-known idiom signifies than
he was before.
23-16. OS ^'&v dfjioar] ei* TUXP""'^ Tou yaou 6<}>ei\ei. Here again the
version of o^eiAct by is a debtor (or bound by his oath) is erroneous
it should be sins, as o^etA.T;s = a/taprajAbs, and the Syr.Sinaitieus
translates accordingly. No doubt Septuagintisms. The idea is : A
man should not swear at all, it being a sin to do so in any form,
whereas the Pharisees laid it down that merely to swear by the
temple was no binding oath, it becoming such, and therefore en-
tailing a sin, when it was taken by the gold of the temple.
23-23. iriv Kpiaiv Kai toc eXeoc. Cf. Ps. 32-5 iX.eyj/ji,oa-vvr]v Koi Kpicnv.
Hos. 2-19 iv KpijxaTi Kal iv cAcei. 12-6 tX.eov koI KpitTLv. The meaning
of K/DiVis is the same as Si/catoo-wi? ; cf. Ezek.18-19 and 18-21 St/caio-
crwijv Kol tXeos. The AV translates it by judgment, which is vague
besides, it is unlikely that among the things inculcated hiKaioavvq
would have been left out.
23-25. Ka6api^cT to eloiflei' tou iroTTjpiou Kal Ttjs Trapov|/i8os, eo'u6ei'

8e yefioucrii' e^ dpTrayTJs Kal dKpaaias. The simile was perhaps sug-

gested by the Jewish belief that hollow earthen vessels were not
susceptible of defiling from the outside, though they were from
the inside. See Schiirer 2-2-28-3.
dKpaaias. A variant irXeove^las as a parallel to dpiray^^ seems more
suitable.
23-30. 1 TJiAeSa. If we Were
see note on 2-18.
living ;

23-32. u(xis irXripwcreTE (so B

and some other witnesses) to fiETpoc
rav iraTipuf u/j.wi'. The Pharisees admit that they are descendants
of murderers, and on the principle that the sins of fathers are
inherited by the sons (cf. Num. 14- 18 d?ro8tSoiis ayuaprtas iraTipiav
IttI TiKva), they shall be made to pay for the guilt of those mur-

derers. The passage appears to be a reminiscence of Lev. 26-39 ol

KaTokiK^divTK d<^ vp-Siv Karaijidap-rjcrovTaL 8ia ras afxaprCas avTmv kol 8ia
Tas d/iapTtas Tuii' TraTepoiv avTiav.

Ye sliall pay. For this sense of irXripZ see my note on

irXripciffETE.

Acts 21-26, where I explain that -n-X-qpuivu) in MGk is a specific

term for to pay, and further refer to Herwerden, Lexicon Graecum
XXIII ST MATTHEW 97

Suppletorium 'TrXrjpovv, (pecuniam) reddere. IGSI 956,' and to

Philostr. ApoIl.6-2 ipavov irkrjpiaa-iv = Subscription to a cluh (Cony-
beare). I presume that, as this signification was rare in that Hellen-
istic period, -n-XripwcreTe was misunderstood and so changed to TrX-qpw-
crare = iKTrXrjpuxraTe, which is now the reading of almost all Mss.
TO fiirpov Tui' iraT^pui' vfidv. What should have been meted out to
your fathers. Cf. 4 Kings 21-13 ektcvS iirl 'Upova-aXrjfj. to p-hpov Sa-
fnapw, I shall extend to Jerusalem as much as should te meted out to
Samaria.
23-34. dTTOOT^Wd) irpos ujxas irpo<j)iiTas Kal (ro<f>ous Kai ypauuiaTers.
The laudation of both a-o^ol and ypap.p.aTels implied in this passage
is inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospels; cf. 11-25 dn-eVpvi/fas

TavTa aTTO <TO<j>S>v Ka.i a'vveruiv Koi a.TrcKo.X.vxj/a'i avra vrjirLois, and various
other passages. It would accord with the evangelical spirit if in-
stead of 7rpo^i;Tas Kol (Toi^ois /cat ypa/x/iaTets (a variant according to
Tischendorf omits o-o<^ovs and another according to vSoden omits
ypa/xfjiaTw) the original was irpo<l>-qTai /cat otyt'ous. The combined
execution of irpotfirjTwv koI dyiwv is likewise denounced as an excep-
tionally heinous crime in Apoc. 16-6 at^aa aytojv /cat irpoc^ijTwv i^i^eav.
18-24 atju-ttTa ctytcov /cat n-po<j>r]T(ov evpidn]. These two classes are further
joined together in Apoc. 11-1 8 Tots irpoc^rjTa.i's koX tois tiytots and 18-

20 01 ayioi koX oi aTrdcrToXoi /cat ot ivpo^rjTaK.

23-35. oirctfs c^flt) e<|)' upas irai/ otjAa SiKaioi/ kiCjiyv6\).vov m Tijs Y'^s.

Since it is not the guilt of the present murders nor of those to be

committed hereafter which shall recoil on the present genera-
tion,but the guilt of those committed in the past, lK-)(yv6p.vov must
stand for the perfect iKKexvfi.ivov. See my note onMk 14-40 and on
Lk 7-8.

oirus eX6) <f>'up.as Tray oT)j,a. Cf. Dan(LXX).Suz.52 -^Kacrt crou (per-

haps croi) at d/xapTiai as eTrotets.

23-37. 'lepou(Ta\T)(ji, 'lpou(ra\T)fA, iq diroKTeiroucra tous irpo(J>i7Tas Kai Xi9o-

PoXoucra tous dTrooTaXfieVous irpos auTr)!/, iroo-aKts r)6iKr\aa. iiriauvaya-

yeiv TO, T^Ki/a <rou. The words jrpbs avrrjv are rendered in the EV by to
her, which in truth is their proper translation. But it is extremely
awkward that the apostrophe should thus immediately after start-

ing lose its apostrophic form and lapse into narrative, and then as
o
98 ST MATTHEW xxm xxiv
suddenly revert to its original style. If, however, we only change
the breathing of avrrju and write avTrjv, we shall obtain what we
should have expected and actually find in the Vulgate, the AV,
and Luther, i. e. to thee. See Jannaris 546 and 1406, who traces
the substitution of the third person of the reflexive for the first and
second persons to classical times. Such is the breathing in the Ms
M, recorded by Tischendoif but missed by van Soden. The same
treatment required in Jn 14-11 Tna-Teveri fioi on cyu) iv tQ Trarpl /cat
o iraTTip iv ep.oi' et 8e /ii), Sio, to. epya avTov ( = i/xov) TncrreviTe fj-oi, and
20-18 iwpaKa tov KvpLOV koi rawa cTttei' avrfi (= e/xot). The reading
avTo. in Jn 14-11 is an evident device for getting over the difficulty

of avTov. We should probably find this usage oftener in our texts

if it were not for classical manipulation. In 9-3 the reading varies
between eaurois and auTois ; in Lk 1-24 and 1-66 between iavTuiv
and avTwv.
23-38. d4>ieTai 6 oikos uhCiv. So BL and two versions all other
iijuv ;

Mss add have explained in my note on the parallel pas-

iprjixoi. I
sage Lk 13-35 that this addition is due to misunderstanding atf}U-
Toj., which was taken to mean is left whereas it means lyKaToku-

-Trerai, is heifig forsaken. But whether it travelled from Matthew to

Luke or the other way about cannot be determined probably from ;

Luke to Matthew. The translation of v^uv by unto you, or to your

own disposal as Meyer puts it, is wrong ; it is an ethic dative.
6 oiKos u/Auc. The whole Jewish nation is meant. Cf. oIkos 'IcrparjX.
24-3. ToG opous tS)v i\aiS>v. Originally I presume it was tov opous
'EXea)!/, and so do we find it as a variant (cAeSv) in XII Patr.Neph.
5. So VeSiwv 'EXwv XeySpwi/ etc.
24-7. XiiAol Most documents omit Aot/xoi. But plague
Kttl Xoifjiot.

was one of the calamities most dreaded in old times in the Le-
vant it continued to rage almost endemically until quite recent
times and it is hardly likely that it would have been forgotten

in this enumeration of evils, especially as Aiynos and XoLfj.oi are so

frequently linked together. Cf Lk 21-11. XII Patr.Jud.23. Orac.
Sib.3-4 269 540. Tert.Apol.26 fames et lues, etc. See my note on
Eom.8-35.
24-14. Kr)pux9irio-eTai touto to euayyiXiov tyjs PaaiXcias iv oXt| rfi ol-
XXIV ST MATTHEW 99

KOUfj.^i'T) is fiapTupioi/ Trao'ii' ToTs tQvecriv, koItotc tJ^ci totcXos. All com-
mentators, ancient and modern alike, have failed to grasp the im-
port of this passage, which to me seems plain. It is that, when the
Gospel will have been preached in all the world and all the heathen
nations, having adhered to it, will have secured a testimony in their
favour before the judgment-seat so that all may be saved, then the
end will come. See my note on Eom.11-27.
24-19. ouai 8e Tttis ei/ yao-Tpl X'''''''"S ""'^ '^-^'' 0l^fijoij<rais. Instead
of mothers being twice but no children threatened with the im-
pending woe, the following quotations, in which a catastrophe is
alluded to, show that children must have been included among
the victims therefore the original reading was not rais OriXa^ova-aK
;

butrois OrjXd^ovarL. 1 Kings 15-3 ctTroKTevets drro dvSpos /cai Iws ywaiKos,
Kol CLTTO vrpriov 0)5 6y)Xdt,0VTO?. 22-19 eTrarafev diro avSpo'S <ds ywatKos,
aTTO vqiriov ews ^ijXa^ovTos. 4 Kings 8-12 ra vrjirLa avrdv evo-tcrts Koi

Ttts iv yauTpi l-)(ov(Ta.^ avruiv a.vappyi^e.L%. Jud. 16-5 tods Vavto-Kous /tov

di'A,rv Kai TO. OrjXd^ovTd. /Jiov O-qa-uv is cSai^os Kai to. vrjTrid jMyv Siacrciv

eh TTpovojjJrjv koX tois vapOevovi /xov o-KvXeCcrat. Jer.51-7 ivaTL v/ttis jroifi-

T KaKo. p-eydXa etti if/vxa^S i/x.Gv, iKKOij/aL vp-wv avOpunrov Kal yvvaiKa,

vypriov KOL BrfXatfiVTa U p.ia-ov 'lovBa; Lament.2-11 eTapaxdrj rj Kap&ia

p,ov 7ri TO o-ui/Tpt/A/ia T^s Ovyarpo'S Xaov p.ov iv Tw eKXenreLV vrjiTLOv Kai

6r]Xdt,ovTa. Ezek.9-6 Trpea-^vrepov Koi veavLO-Kov Koi irapBivov Kai vrpna

KOI yuvatKas dirOKTiivaTi. Gen. 32-11 p.ri ttotc iX6uiv TraTo^j; fie Kal fir)-

Tepa iirl tekvois. Hos. 14-16 to. VTroTLrBia avTiov fSac^icrfli/crovTai Kal al iv

ya<7Tpl e)(ova-aL airSiv ZiappayqcrovTai. In fact, this last passage I be-

lieve has suggested our Evangelist's description. My conjecture
Tois 6-qXdlov(TLv is made safe by Origen's remark ' in multis exem-
plaribus scriptum est vae sugentibus.'
24-28. o-irou yAp e&k ^ to Appa-
irTUfia, Ki orucaxSilo'oi'Tai oi deroi.

rently a proverb. seems to be

Its application to the present case
this The son of man shall reveal himself with the suddenness of
:

a flash of lightning as inevitably as wherever there is a carcase

(xj/evSoirpofjjrJTaL) eagles sweep down to tear it up.
24-40. els irapaXajiPdi/ETai Kal eis d<t>ieTai . . . (iia irapaXoixPdceTai

Kal p,ia d<()ieTai. The position is that of a man who, being obliged
to take to flight, is just allowed time to take away with him to
100 ST MATTHEW xxiv-xxvi

safety half his slaves. Cf. Zech.14-2 i^fXeia-erai rb rijjiUTV t^s iroAeMS
iv aX^ixakuKTua., ol 8c KaiaXoiiroi tov Xaov fJLOV ov fj-rj i^oXodpevaSxTLV.
24-51. 8i)(OTOfii^(rei auToc Kal to jxEpog auToO fjiETa tuv uTroKpiTui' 6:io'i..

The bad slave had just been described as exceedingly violent and
dissolute and how can such a man be regarded as nothing worse
;

than a hypocrite ? or how can a hypocrite, however contemptible

his character, be regarded as an abandoned criminal who deserves
execution ? I suggest KaTaxptrcov, those condemned to death. The mis-
creant slave shall be cut in thrown away upon
two and his corpse
that infamous heap, where the corpses of men executed are thrown
(see Eenan, Jes. p. 445) for jackals and vultures to devour them.
Cf. Heliod.Aeth. 7-25 j3apj3apiKal'; iKKei/xeda aiKiaii, TOts KwraKpiroi^

ivapiOfjiOvfJievot.

25-1. TTapSeVois. I. e. TraiSicrKais, maids, servants, analogous to vcu-

repoi. of Acts 5-6, where see my note.
25-14. oJcnrep y^ip akOpuiros diroSTjp.oii' iKoKea-ev. Read Sxrirep yap av
av6p(inros kt\. See note on Mk 13-34. The syntax is : o/xolov yap ia-riv

SxTirep av cKaAccrc.
25-16. elpydo-aTo iv auToig. I.e. avrols, instrumentally ; see note on
20-15 ev Tois eyUOK.
25-17. <i)(rauT(i)s 6 tci 8uo eKepSrio-ei' aXXa 8oo. There is no point in
representing the second servant as acting in exactly the same way
as the first did. But in the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see
Preuschen's Antilegomena p. 6) one of the servants squanders his
master's money /iera iropvwv koI aiXrjTpLSwv, and such must have been
the primitive story.
25-21. xapdv. Paspati points out that xapa, as in MGk (in the
plural), means ya/xos, wedding,
25-36. Titr8eVr]<ra Kal eTi-aKe'\)/a(T0e pie, ei* (|>uXaKrj rjp.rji' Kal riXOare irpos
pe. XII Patr.Jos. 1 gives iv (f>v\aKrj fifx.riv Kal o o-mrrip 6X"pn-a)cre fx..

1 believe that l-)(apl.T(j>a- fie, obtained my reptieve, were the words in

the work from which both authors drew, for riXdare Trpo's /te says
nothing different to besides only being appropriate
iTreo-Keij/acTdi p.,

to the case of those who are either sick or in mourning.

26-6. Tou 8e 'lif|0-ou ye.vo\),ivo\i Iv Bt\Qa.vla iv oiKia Sijjioji'os Tou Xeirpou.

I thoroughly disbelieve either that any people gathered in the house

XXVI ST MATTHEW 101

of a leper, or that the Evangelist could have imagined such an ex-

traordinaiy occurrence as possible. For (1) Jews, and all ancient
peoples, felt the most pitiless loathing of lepers, and (2) the Evan-
gelists took great pains to demonstrate that Jesus throughout never
came into contact with anything unclean (see my notes on Jn 12-
15 and 19-34). The expedient of getting over the difficulty which
such expounders as I have consulted adopt, namely, that Simon
had formerly been a leper but must have been cured by the Lord,
is poor, and no doubt was suggested by such passages as 8-3 etc.

When did this cure take place ? how is it that it has not been re-
corded when other such cures have ? Perhaps rov fUKpov = the
younger; cf. Mk 15-40 'laKu>j3ov tow /juKpov. A correspondent has
suggested to me that XeTrpov is a corruption of liiTpov.
26-18. irpos Toc Seti'a. Probably Mark meant ; see note on Mk
1 1-3. The preposition signifies to the house of.
26-25. diroKpifleis Be 'louSas 6 Trapa8i8ou9 auToi' ciTre Mi^ti eyci i(ii,

'PaPPi ; Ae'yei auTu Zi) eliras. A very unskilful interpolation. When

the Lord answered in v. 23 6 i/j.jSd.ij/fi.'; /ier ip-ov ttjv x^V"- ^'' '''
'''P^'

jSA-io), ovToi he spoke evasively, since all the disciples

p. irapaSuxrec,

in the Oriental fashion were dipping their sippets in the same

dish ; but now the Lord's answer to Judas contradicts v. 23, for it

is quite outspoken as to Judas being the intending betrayer.

<xu etiras. Le. yes ; see my note on Mk 15-2.
26-28. TouTO ydp iarw to aljid piou ttjs Kaii-Tis 8ia6ii]Kr]s. Some editors,
following B and a few other documents, omit /catv^s. But it is in-

dispensable, so that a contradistinction may be emphasized to

Exod.24-8 i8ov TO axjxa r^s 8iaOi^K7j^ ^sSte^eTO KvptO'S Trpbs v/J.S,';. By a
plain Law would have been understood. I
TYJs 8ia.6rjKr)^ the Mosaic
presume Kaivyj% was discarded by those theologians who would not
admit that any other SiaOrJKT] existed save the one delivered by
Christ.
26-37. rjp^aTO XuTrla6ai Kal dStijjioi'Eii'' tote Xtyei auTois FleptKuTrds
ecTTii' iq '|'ux''i P'O" *<^S 0ai'cTOU. From Jon. 4-8 diXiyo\j/v)(yjcre kol d.7reXe-

yTO rriv i/'v^^'^v aiToC . . . koL elTre S<^o8pa \eXvTr7]p.ai iyto ccos davdrov.
26-41. TO nei/ TTkEuiJia irpo9u|jioi', 1^ Be o-dpl do-Oei/i^s. A sentence uncon-
nected with the preceding yprjyopuTe /cat Trpocrevxeo-di tva p.rj eio-cX-
 102 ST MATTHEW xxvi

6r]T CIS 7retpa<r/,oV. In fact, expressing as it does an excuse for the

sleep of the disciples, it is contradictory to the Lord's complaint
of their want of vigilance. It was, I have no doubt, a marginal com-
ment upon the interrogation ovk IcrxvcraTe fx.iav Sypav ypyp/oprjaai ij.er

ifjLov, and it submitted that, though the disciples would fain have
kept vigilant, their fatigue forced them to sleep. The same sentence
exists in Mk 14-38, whither it must have travelled from Matthew.
26-49. irpo<T\6(Oi' tu'Itjctou elirev Xatpc 'PaPPl, Kal KaTe<|)iXT)(Tei' auTof.

Contrary to what is generally believed, there was nothing special

in the famous kiss of Judas. Because to kiss on meeting after an
absence more or less prolonged, such as is implied in this episode,
was customary among friends both with the Jews and the Greeks.
Cf.Exod.4-27 crwijVTrja-iv avrZ iv tZ opei Kal KaT<pLX.rj(rav (Moses and
Aaron) dXAiyAous. Xen.Cyr. 1-4-28 rj Koi iv Ilepcrats v6p.os {custom) ia-Tlv
ovTO's (Tvyyevu'S cj>i\eLV ; MaXitrra, tjxxvai, orav ye tS<i)criv dXA.ijXoi;s Slol

)(p6vov. The custom continued among the Greeks until quite recent
times. George Sandys, A Eelation of a Journey begun a.d. 1610,
p. 79 and so likewise the Greeks kiss in their salutations after a
'

long absence.' It is pretty usual even at the present time.

26-50. eraipe, e(|>*o irdpei. To treat e<^' o Trdpci as an interrogation
is inadmissible in Greek ; Meyer the relative o is never used in'

direct (Lobeck,Phryn. p. 57), but only in an indirect question.'

The Greek would require ti or tCotlov Im or ttsri. Cf. 14-31 eisti
cSta-Tttcras Acts 10-21 tis yj aiTLa Si ^v n-dpecrTe The explanation ad-
; ;

vanced by Euthymios 8i o wOLpaylyova<;, rjyovv to Kara (ravrov Trpdrre

'

Tov irpotrxriixaTOi ingenious and grammatically possi-

d<^t/ivos,' is

ble ; but, unless such a phrase was usual and idiomatic, for which
there is no evidence, it could not have been understood without
the addition of -n-oirjcrov, and why would the Evangelist have left it
out?
I believe that E4> was originally written EY, well, the pronun-
ciation of which in MGk and could not have been dis-
is identical

similar at the time when the Gospels were framed. In fact, in

inscriptions of the year b.c. 120 we find d7reX<^Tepos and eTrt'oTcc^cre ;

see Jannaris misled by the similarity of sound, a copyist

51. If,
writing from dictation put down E<l> instead of EY, he was likely
XXVI ST MATTHEW 103

to add o almost mechanically in order to complete the sentence.

The text thus originally I believe read 'Eraipe, ev irdpu ( = eS ^X^es),

of which the meaning would be Welcome, friend. Cf. Soph.Aj. 92

(US ev rrapia-Trji. The expression is preserved in MGk in a formula
which is an exact paraphrase of my conjecture, i.e. KaXms rjp6K. See
BXa^os s-v. epxofmL ' KaXus^Xfies [read ^p^es], soyes le Menvenu.' If at
the present time in Greece among the people a friend were so
greeted, as Jesus was greeted by Judas, with the words Tida-ov,
Bda-KaXe (=xatpe, TaySySi), he would answer, in exact accordance with
my restoration, KaXSs yjpOe'S, p\d.p.-q, or KaX<Js o-to Pka.iJi.-q (= iralpe,
ev Trdpei).
26-59. it,r\Touv iJ/euSofjiapTupiai' Kara tou 'lnjcrou oirug auToc dacariocrou-

orii', Kttl oux eupoi' iroXXoii' irpocreXfloi'Tuc <|/u8op.apTup(.)i'. If the Sanhedrin

sought false evidence, it cannot be said that they found none
when many false witnesses came forward. This part was loosely
copied from Mark 14-55, who states that the Sanhedrin sought
evidence, fiapTvpiav, but that the evidence offered was unreliable.
But even Mark's account is not convincing ; see my note on
Mk 14-56.
Situs auTof 6ai'aT(uo-ouo-ii'. A variant OavaTuxrwari, adopted by most
editors. But cf. Arist.Plut.326 ottws lueade, where Blaydes has pro-
duced a mass of similar examples.
26-60. uCTTepoi' 8e irpoo-eX66i'Tes 8uo eiiroc Outos <j>t| Sui'ap.ai KaraXuffai

Toi' caofTou Oeou Kal 8i.d,Tpi(i)V 'qp.epuf oiKo8o)jifia'ai ainov. Kai dfaords o

dp)(icpEus eiTTEi' auTU Ou8i< diroKpini) ti outoi aou KaTajiapTupoOffu' ; O 8e

'itjo-ous effKoira. Kal dirOKpiSeis 6 dpxicpcus elirei' auTU 'E^opKi^o) (re Kard
TOU 6eo0 TOU Jwi'Tog 'iva r\\iXv eiirr)s el ctu el 6 Xpioros. This part was also
transcribed from Mark in a very casual fashion. Mark's account
is that the chief priest examined Jesus on the point of the
first

demolition of the temple, and that getting no answer he passed

on to the second point regarding the pretensions of Messiahship ;

whereas in Matthew, when Jesus is accused of an intention to de-

molish the temple, the chief priest calls upon him to answer the
accusation, and he does so in terms implying that the accusation
concerned not the demolition of the temple but the Messiahship.
26-62. ou8i' diroKpii'T) ti oStoi crou KaTa/jiapTupouaii' ; Here ovhev =
104 ST MATTHEW xxvi xxvii

ov. See note on 5-15. From not realizing this usage of ovSev West-
cott and Hort were led to punctuate wrongly after aTroKpLvrj.
26-68. irpo<j)iiTeucroi' ruilv, Xpio-je, tis eotic 6 iratcras ere Here again ;

Matthew has negligently transcribed Mk 14-65 in not saying that

it was after Jesus' head was covered that he was asked to guess the

person who struck him.

27-10. cSuKeK auTCi eis rov dypoi' tou KepajJieug Ka9a (TuyeTaiey (xoi Ku-
pios. The words Ka6a a-wh-aiivwere added because they
/xoi Kvpioi
formed part of the prophecy as popularly quoted, though they
were not applicable to the circumstance which that prophecy was
intended to foretell. See note on 1-23.
27-14. ouK direKpiSr] auTu irpos ouSe %v prjjia. This is clearly a mis-
take, for it could only apply to a series of questions, whereas Pi-
late only questioned once. But D and some old Latins exhibit ovk
aTreKpiOrj avri^ iv prj/xa, he did not ansiver a single word, which must
be the right reading, indicating that in reply to Pilate's question
Jesus kept perfectly silent. So 15-23 ovk aTr^KpiOri avrfj \6yov.
3KingS 18-21 ovk aireKpiOrj 6 Aaos Adyov. lActs Pil.16-8 OVK ema-ey
prjjxa h/. 15-5 oiSeis iroX/ji.Tja'ev XaX^crat avT^ p^f^^h and oiiK iKpvxj/ev

avr<L) pTJfw..

27-18. TJSei ydp oti Sid <j>66koi' irapE'ScoKai' auroy. This isno explana-
tion of the question which Pilate had put to the crowd as to
whether he should release Jesus. But it is such an explanation if
we read ovk ^Sci. For thus we should be informed that Pilate put
his question in his ignorance of the deep-seated animus against
Jesus which was impelling the Jews to press for his death. This
would be in conformity with the policy pursued during the Apo-
logetic times when the controversies with the Jews ran high and
a strong desire prevailed to throw the responsibility for the execu-
tion entirely upon them and absolve from blame the Eoman au-
thorities as represented by Pilate for in those times Apologists
;

were anxious be on friendly terms with, and were fulsomely

to
flattering, the Romans, being eager to turn to the advantage of
their own side the Jewish unrest and resistance to a compulsory
poll tax. See my note on Eom.13-1 to 10. The intention to excuse
Pilate is clear in both Matthew's and Luke's accounts ; and Jn 19-
XXVII ST MATTHEW 105

11 goes so far as to intimate that it was from heaven that Pilate re-
ceived authority to condemn our Lord. An intention of this kind
has survived in numerous other places. Cf. Acts 3-13 'lyjcrovv ov
v/ieis fjiiv 7rapeSu)Kar Koi rjpvrjaaaOe Kara irpoa'unrov WiXdrov, KpivavTO^
iKiLvov awoXveiv. In Acts Petr.et Paul. 41 Pilate says (j>^6vw ovv ol

dp)(Lepeli Kar'avTOv KLVov/xevoi iKpoLTrjcrav (imprisoned) Koi i/xol airov

irapeSwKav /cat aA.X dvT a\Xu>v KaTaij/evaroLfji.Ei/oi eXeyov jxiiyov avTov elvai.

In Parad.Pil.9 Pilate prays to the Lord /aij (rwairoXeoTys p-e peTarCiv

TTov-qprnv 'EySpai'ojv, oTt dyvodv eirpa^a, and this almost expressly con-

firms ovK ^Sei. Subsequently, when occasion for fearing and flatter-
ing the Eomans no longer existed, Pilate was joined in the respon-
sibility, and it was then that the negative before iJSet was removed.

In Mk 15-10 we also have eytVoxr/ctv and not ovk cyiVtDo-Kev there ;

we cannot say now whether the negative was removed, or Mark

copied Matthew after its removal.
I may add that according to the Talmud Jesus did enjoy the
favour of the Eoman authorities ; see Leible p. 81.
27-19. Ka6T)(icou Se auTou eiri tou Pi^fiaros, direaTeiXec irpos auToi/i^
yui'f) auTOU X^y"""'''^ MtjSci' (toi kuI tu Sikuiu ckeii'O), iroXXol yap ira6ai'

Karomp Si'auToi'. Not only is this episode pointless, for the

ai^lxEpof

warning leads nowhere, but it is also squeezed into and interrupts

the discussion between Pilate and the Jews. It certainly does not
belong to the original redaction of this Gospel. It was either trans-
ferred from 1 Act.Pil. 2 Xeyet avToh o UiXStos iSoii iirepij/ev fj yvvrj pov
Xiyovcra Mr^ScV croL kol tS dv6pu>Tr(o tZ Stxaio) touto), ttoXXo, yap hradov
Si'airov vuktos, or it was in another work from which both authors
drew. But in Act Pil. the episode fittingly concludes with Atto-
KpiOivTK 01 lovSatoi Xiyovcriv t&I IltXaTO) M^ ovk ^hrapiv croi ort yoiys

eoTiv ; iSoii ovtipoTToXrjpa iTrepij/e irpos rrjv yvvoLKo. aov, for it IS a Con-
clusion which was intended to expose the iniquity of the Jews in
accusing Jesus of magic. For the Jews did actually launch this
accusation ; it Talmud (see Leible p. 45 and Her-
stands in the
ford, Christianity inTalmud and Midrash p. 344ff) as originating
with Eabbi Elieser, whose dictum was that Jesus brought magic,
which was buried in his skin, from Egypt, the classic home of
magic. Cf. also Just.Tryph.69 n-apa7ron/o-as o Xeyo/Atvos SiaySoXos iv

p
106 ST MATTHEW xxvii

TOis "EXXrjo-L Xix^rjvai iTroirja-ev d)S Sta tcov iv AlyvTTTM fx,a.y<av Ivripyqa-i.

Euseb.EH.3-26 rjv S'Spa SiaySoAw^s ivepy^ia'S TO ji-iya. r^s Q(.o<j(.^da.%

fWCTypiov eTTt /Aayeta o'Trovoao'at otapaAetv.

When the above episode is eliminated together with v. 21 diro-

KpiOeU Se 6 riyepMV cittev auTOts TtVa OeXere avro tS>v Svo a.Tro\va<o vp.LV,
which is a manifest variation upon v. 1 7 etTrev airois o lltXaTos TtVa

^e'AcTe aTToXva-iii vplv, the narrative proceeds smoothly.

27-24. oTi ouSei' u<|)\ei. That it is no good. This signification of

(ii^eXet is preserved in MGk in the form tpeXS. or <j>eXa.eL. BXa^oi s.v.

(fieXui '
avTo Sev (fieXa TiVoTe, cela Jn
ne vaut rien.' See my note on
6-63. The version that he could prevail nothing, or that he prevailed
nothing, is wrong altogether. Similarly, in translating he prevailed
nothing Mrs. Lewis must have misunderstood her text. The Vul-
gate, however, by its version nihil proficeret shows that St Jerome
grasped the true meaning, except that it should be nihil proficit.
27-28. irepi9T)Kai' auTu x^"!*"^'* kokkii'iji', Kal TrXcJafTes arii^avoy ii
&KavdCiv iiridr^Kav ettI ttjs Ke<j>a\^s auTOu, Ktti KdiXafiOf iv rfj Selid au-
ToO. Kal yoi'UTreTiio'ai'Tes ejAirpoaSei' auTOu ei'Eirai^oi' outw XEYOfTes XaTpe
6 |3a(TiXEu9 tUv 'louSaid)!/. All this bears a highly suspicious resem-
blance to what Philon describes in Flacc. 6 crvveXdcravTe^ tov aOXiov
(Karabas, a poor fellow afflicted with imbecility) fiexP'- toC yvpva-
crtov, /3v/3Xov piv evpvvavre'; avrl SiaSr^jU-aros iTriTiOiacTLV avTOV rrj Ke(j)aXfj,

^apauTTpuiTio Se to aXXo crSipa Trepi/JaXAoveriv avrl ^j^XaynvSos, olvtI Se

cTK^TTTpoi) jipay^y Ti irairvpov Tprjpa. ISwv tis dvaSiSoocrii'. Eirel Se Steice-

KoaprjTO eis /SacriXe'a, veariai pd/SSov; eiri tSiv <opoiv t^ipovTes avn Xoyxp-
(j}6pu}v eKaTcpuidev elaTT^Kecrav pipovpevoi Sopv<j)6povi. Et^' erepot Trpocrrje-
crav, 01 piv u)S a.crTra(Top,evoi, ktX.
27-29. irX^^aKTes o'Tei|>ai'oi' ii dKai'6fli' l'n'e9r]Kai' eiri rrjs K((>aXTjs auTOu.
This infliction of a mock crown was practised up to the time of
the Inquisitors, who when they sentenced polygamists to whip-
ping caused in some cases infamous mitres to be placed upon
their heads. See William M.Cooper, A History of the Rod p. 91.
27-33. T<5iro>' Xey^p.ei'Of roXYo6a, o earii' Kpaciou toitos Xeyijiei/os. It
is obvious that Xeyo/ievos (or the variant Xey6p.evov) after Xeyo/xevov
cannot be right ; read iXXrjvi^opevo^ or eXXrjVL^opevov. Cf. Thuc. 2-

68 r]XXrjVLa-6y]a-av t^v vvv yXGiaaav, etc ; see Liddell and Scott.

XXVII ST MATTHEW 107

27-34. ISuKai' aurfi meic olvov fiSTa, x^^S ^l\l,ly)Ii^'oy, Kal yeuadjXEvo's
ouK This verse, which represents that the vinegar
fieiKr\(Tv iriEii'.

was offered before the crucifixion, must be a theological accretion,

inserted with the object of establishing that the prophecy in Ps.
68-22 eSoiKav 19 TO PpS>ix,a. fiov xo^rjv Kal is Trjv Sii/^av /aou itrOTurdv /xe

ofos was duly fulfilled. The vinegar according to v. 48 was given

after the crucifixion.
Trieir. A variant iruv, adopted by Tisehendorf, may represent
muv
with the vowels in synizesis, as suggested in my note on Jn 4-7.
27-39. 01 8c TrapaTTOpEuofjiEi'oi pXao'<|>i]|xoui' auTof kii'Dui'tes Tots KE(t>a-
XAs auTui'. From.Lam.2-15 Trdvm ol Trapairopivoix^voi oSov icrvpia-av
Kol iKivr](rav Tr]v Ke(j>a\rjV avTwv. Cf. also 4KingS 19-21 i^ovhivmcrf. ere
Kat ifi,VKTT^pi(r crc TrapOivoi Ovydrrjp %lu>v, iwl croi KecfiaXrjv avrijs iKivija-e

dvydryjp 'lfpovcraX.ijfji,. Isa.37-22 iipavXicre ere Koi i/ji.vKT-qpi(ri ere, evri crot

Ke<l>aXTjv eKivrja-e. Previous commentators have referred to Ps. 21-8

TraVTes ot ^ecopouvTes /xe i$iJ,VKTrjpi.(rdv fie, tKivqcrav Ke(j>aX.yjv. 108-25 eye-
vrj9rjv ovetSos avTots' etSotrav /ie, ecraXevtrav Ke<^aXa5 avrwv.
27-39 to 46. 01 8e irapaTropcuop.ei'oi E|3\ao'(t>^fjioui' auTOf Kiraurres Tas
KE(t>a\cls auTui' Kal X^yoi/Tes . . . lucroi' aeauToi' ei utos el toO 6ou. 'Ofjioius

Kai 01 dpxiEpeis cjj.iraiJoi'Teg (ietA tui' Ypap.fJiaTEui' Kai irpEa^uT^pui' eXeyoi"

. . . riEiroidEi' Eiri Tor 6e6i', puo-ciaOu auTSr ei 6e'Xei auToi/ ... To 8' auTo koI
01 Xr](rraloi ffuoTaupuOEi'TES auTU biviZit,ov auTu . . . 'Av^Po^qtrev 6 'irjcoOs
Xiyiijy
(jxocfi (jLEyciXr] "\va, Tip.E EyKaT^Xiires
. This episode seems to
. . ;

me have been inserted as a fulfilment of what, according to

to
Justin Tryph.lOl, was thought to be a prophecy in Ps.21-7 eyw Se
ei/At . . . oveiSos dvdpwTTWv Koi iiovOevrj/jia X.aov' TrdvTes ot Oe(i)povvTi<s /xe
(TrapaTTopevo/jLevoi) lp.vKTrjpi.(rdv /xe, iXdXrj<Tav iv x^iXecriv, iKivijcrav Ke(f>a-

Xrfv. HATTto'er cttI Kvptov, pvo'dtjOhi avrov, craxraTOj avrov on OeXei avTov.
Therefore I suspect that the original reading was not tva n p.e iy-

/caTeAtires but ets tl (oi/etSio-as /tc in accordance with the variant pre-
served at Mk 15-34. This, as being too offensive and unlikely to
have been intended by God, was discarded in favour of the proxi-
mate iva Tl ey/caTeXiTTts /ite of the same Psalm.
27-47. TifES 8e T&y ekei ecttutcoi' aKouo-ai'Tes eXeyoi' oti HXiaf ^lavei
ouTOS. Kal euSeois 8pa(ii)i' eis e^ auTUi', Kal XaBwi' o-Troyyoi' irXigaras te

ojous Kal irEpidels KoKdjiia, eir^TijEi' auToi'. That this description of a

108 ST MATTHEW xxvii xxviii

soldier, who on hearing Jesus invoke Elijah was inspired with the
idea of giving him to drink, comes from our Evangelist I cannot
believe. It is a recent importation from Jn 19-29, but the interpo-
lator in his casual way overlooked the fact that there the drink is

given in answer to Jesus saying I am thirsty. It will moreover be

observed that ol Z\ Xonrdi IX^yov "A(fm "8(o//tV ei epp^erat 'HXias (Twcrwv
avTov fits better if the clause in question does not intervene.
27-52. TO. jj.i'rjfieia o.vEa)(6r\a-av Kal iroXXa o-<j|JiaTa tuk KiKoi}j.r]fi,iv<iiv

dyiui' TJYp9T)o-aK. Suggested by Isa.26-19 avacTTi^a-ovTai ol veKpoi kol

iyepdi^a-ovTai ol iv tois /xi/tj/xci'ois koI evi^pavOrja-ovrai ol iv Trj yyj. Cf. also

Dan. 12-2 ttoWoI tZv KaOevSovTwv iv y^s )(ii>p.a.Ti iieyepOi^a-ovTai. Just.

Tryph.72 ifj-vi^crOr] Si Kvpios 6 ^eos aytos 'Io-parj\ rfii/ vKpu>v airov rStv

KiKoip-riixivwv ets yrjv x")/U-aTo?. Iren. 4-33-12 mortuorum suorum qui

predormierant in terra limi. In accordance with these passages I
should say that the original reading was not tSjv KeKoi/xij/AeVwi' dyiuiv

but TUIV KiKOLp-yifxivuiv V y^.

aii^aja. I. e. Xitfava, remains, corpses. This meaning exists in

Aesch.Cho.720 and the recent verses Hom.2161 and *169 and I
daresay elsewhere.
27-53. 6|e\6oi'Tes ck tUv fj.i'Tifjiciaii' fjiET^ tt)!/ eyeptny auToO. W^ere the
words fjLeTa. Trjv eyepcriv avTov genuine, they would have followed the
account of the resurrection. They were foisted into this place be-
cause was thought impious to suggest that any one arose before
it

Christ it was Christ that was to head the movement into the new
;

life. Compare 1 Cor. 15-20 wvl Sk Xpicrros eyi^ytprat CK veKpSiv, aTrap)(r]

TtDV KeKOLfJLrj/JLfVdlV. Col.1-18 OS icTTiV apXTj, TTpWTOTOKO'S CK tSiV VCKpulV.

Apoc. 1-5 6 TTjocoTOTOKos Twv vKpS>v. Act.Thom.48(45) 6 //.ovoyevijs vTrdp-
^WV, 6 TTpWTOTOKOS TToXXwV aScXtjiUlV.

27-65. ex^re KouaraUav. That is, o^eVe, Xa/Sere ; refer to my com-

ment on Lva crx(i> of 19-16. The word Kouo-ruSiai/ must denote Eoman
soldiers, and of such the priests had none ; therefore ex^re cannot
be an indicative.
28-4. diro 8e toO <(>oPou auToG eaeiaSi^crai' ot TT)poufT9 Kat eyef^Sriaac
us i-eKpoi. Perhaps iij/vxdrjo-av. Cf.Lk 21-26 dTroi/fv^oVrcov dv^pwTrtov diro
</>o/?ov. Ezek.21-7 Tracrai
x^P^ irapaXvO^crovTai. kol iKxj/vi^i iraa-a adpi.
Philo,Gai.29 TmrrjyoTuiv w' e/CTrX^^ews.
XXVIII ST MATTHEW 109

28-14. Kai i&,v dKOUo'drj toOto eirl toO i^Y^H'<^''^>''1f'^^S Treiaojiei' auToi' koI

ufiSs dfn.epijjii'ous iroiiio-o/ji.ei'. There are many passages where irtiduv =

to square, and it is in this sense that ireiaofi^v is employed in this
verse. Cf. Thuc.5-16 Tr/v TTp6ji,avTiv rrjv iv AcXc^ois iirgTimvTO airov
Treio-ai = subomed as Bloomfield renders. Arist.Eq.68 d [j-rj fiUva-
7rtcrT, you do not square me, etc. See my note on
a7ro9avu<T6, if
Acts 12-20. In the Apostolic times the Roman officials were held
in very poor esteem, as we may gather from Acts 24-26, where
Felix is represented as having an eye to a bribe. Pallad. 118 /x-^iroTe

)(prjfii,acnv o ap)((DV Sia(j)9apirj. Arr.Epict.3-3 i\i^\vOe kXc'tttt/s av6-

VTraros.

28-17. i86i'TS auToi" T7po<reKui'r](7ac, ot 8e tSiCTTaaai'. I.e. aAAot Si. Cf.

Arist.Eq.600 where see Blaydes.
irpid/xivoi KtLOuiva's, ol Se koi er/copoSa,

It is strange, however, that this extraordinary proceeding on the

part of some disciples, who held back whilst all the others imme-
diately recognized and worshipped the Lord, should be dismissed
with a bare statement without any particulars as to who so behaved.
In Jn 20-27, where the episode of Thomas's doubt is narrated, the
point is seriously taken up and developed. I am confident there-
fore that de B^ze's emendation oiSe iSia-Toa-av, which I had myself
reached independently, is correct. The immediate recognition is
thus emphasized as important merit cf. 21-21 iav c'x')'^^ ma-TLv koI
;

fjirj 8iaKpi6^Te. 14-31 oXtyoTTicrre, ets ti eSto-rao-as ; Acts 10-20 Tropcvow

o-iiv avTols ft.rjSlv SiaKpivopievo^. Jam. 1-6 o yap SiaKptvo/Atvos lotKE kXv-
S<ovi ^oAdo-cn^s dve/ti^o/icVo). The change may have been induced by
Mk 16-11 d.Kovcrai'Tes on t,rj koI iOedOrj VTravTrj'S rprLOTrjfrav.
PRINTED IN SEEAT BRITAIir AT THE TIHITIIRSIIT PRESS, OXPOKD
BT JOHN JOHNSON, PRINTEE TO THE UNIVERSITr
 SABIb lltJTHOR
NOTES ON ST JOHN ANiJ THE .:^pCALYTSE.
j^ 3s. net.

|ST I/UKE AND TSE ACTS, 3s. net.

Jail? ST siApK: and st matthew.

New edition. 3s. net.

TO Tfltfe ROMANS. A Goimnentajfy. 5s.net.

THE TW^t^^- SECOND BOOK OF THE

ILIAD. With critical notes. 3s. net.

TBpe 2 RHAPSbDY OP 3^HE II^AD. 3s. net.

AEKA 4PBANITH MAAAIAPOY mY0IA

KAPYAtA. Versions in Modem Greek (Euripides,
t]^Jr6ltilpS ; Shakespeajes, Merchant of Venice; Thuoy-
dides,Book I- i ^^^fei^es from^ ^mk, Bmgmann,
'
Hans Andersen, &e.). 10s. 6d. net.

THE 11^^ tB^SliATED INTO MODERN

<'.''-^ '

-,<3BEEK.'^^' 'los. 6d.

THE GOSPELS TRANSLATED INTTO MODERN

GBEEEi';^;, :M*h":, >- Out of print.

iSOl^BJOCLES* ^A^teoNE. ;.|pth-a Greek Com-

mentary. "i?gfTt Out of print.
NOtilS ON ST LUKE
AND THE ACTS
By ASix; PALLIS

Price Thre6 SMUirtga

OXFORD tpHVEftSlTY PRESS

BDINBtrBaH O^iSQQI^ IJilFZia OOPSNHAOBN
msiw^ot^ X0B03TO UEiiBotrBmi e^FznowK
'

BOIlIBAY CAI.OUTTA UADSAS SHAlTaHAI

liONDON : HUMPHREY MILFORD

J 1928
NOTES ON ST LUKE
AND THE ACTS
By ALEX. PALLIS

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

EDDrBTJRQH GLASGOW LEIPZIG COPENmlOEN
NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE CAPETOWN
BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS SHANGHAI
LONDON HUMPHREY MILFORD
:

1928
 has been well said that a new theory, if
yentually proved true, has often to run
rough three phases. In the first place, every
le exclaims that the theory is not true; then,
'.at it is contrary to religion ; lastly, that

everybody knew it long ago.

Sib. Eobekt Bail.

Printed in Great Britain

 The following pages conclude the series of suggestions which
I have ventured to contribute towards the elucidation of the
canonical historical books of the New Testament.
My intention when I embarked in my Scriptural studies
was to extend them so as to embrace St Paul's genuine Epistles,
namely the Corinthians, Galatians, Thessalonians, and Phile-
mon. But this section bristles with difficulties surpassing those
encountered in the Gospels ; such in fact as I in view of my age
and other drawbacks cannot hope to surmount.
As an example of such difficulties I may touch upon a grave
error in lCor.7-37. This verse runs thus : 8y Se eaTijKiv kv rfj

KapSta avTov iSpaios /^fj e'x'*"' ot,vdyKr}v, i^ovaiav Se ex^' nepl

Tov ISlov OeXrj/iaros koX tovto KeKpiKev ev rfj ISia KapSiajTijpeTv

rfif iavTov irapOevov, KaXSis and indicates that in the

Troirjaei,

apostolic times there existed fathers who possessed power to

enforce single life upon their daughters. Not only is this in-
credible by itself, but the fact also of no such question being
hinted at elsewhere is unaccountable, for considering its social

importance we should have expected to find it raising a storm

of impassioned controversy. What is the explanation ? I believe

this, that the original word in the above sentence was not
napSivov but napOeviav, virginity, a term which could equally
well apply to men as to women. With this correction its pur-

port is : any man

But if be own viind and
unshakable in his
indifferent as to what the world may think (see my note on
Apoc.3-17), and being master of his own will decide to preserve
his virginity, that man will do well so to act. Nor does the
mischief stop at the corruption of napOevtav, for a good part
of the seventh chapter has been organically recast so as to
harmonize with irapOevov,
This is my note on Lk 22-19) particularly re-
another (see
grettable erratum, forby the textual changes it effected it must
occasionally have incited naive young women to renounce the
world and parents to incarcerate in nunneries recalcitrant or
inconvenient daughters.
 ST LUKE
1-1. EireiSV] irep iroXXoi iire^elpi^aav dcard^aadai SiVjyrjcrii' irepl tSiv

'n'irXT)po(t>opT||ui,Ei'(i)i' iv r\\i.lv irpayp.dTui' Ka6ci)S irapeSoaai' i^fiii' oi dir' dpxrjs

auTiSTTTai Kai iirr]p^Tai yccop.Ei'oi tou Xiyo", eSoJe Kdp,ol, irapY)KoXou6r]K<STi

aviadev irdaiK dxpiPus, Ka6c|i]9 croi ypdy^iai, KpdTio-Te OeoiIjiXe, ifa Eiriycids

Trepl &v Kartixiifliis \6y(i>v TrfV do'(j>(iXiai'. I believe that St Luke's

thought was essentially this Though : many have previously tried their
hand at composing a history of our faith as told by the original eye-
vritnesses and co-workers, still I think it desirable to address to you
an account of my own. It is the outcome of an exhaustive investigation
of all the facts, and will serve I expect to confirm the trustworthiness
of that instruction which you received at your conversion.
drnTdfao-Sai. Origen and other expositors take the preposition in
the sense of again. But this is untenable, for in iroXXol St Luke no
doubt included all previous historians, whereas Origen's interpreta-
tionmust imply that they in turn were preceded by yet other com-
pilers.The preposition seems to me to possess no particular force but
to have been added by analogy with avaypa^xn. Cf.Arrian.Prooem.
(quoted by Liddell and Scott) oo-a a/u^w iwiypaij/av, ravra eyo) dva-
ypa.<f><ji. Origen at this place twv iXOovrtav im tyjv a.vaypa(jirjv rmv evay-
yeXiwv. Polyb.1-1 tois trpo rjfjiZv avaypdcjiovcn rets Trpafets. Epic. Herod. 35

tS)V Trepl (jiva-eo)^ a.vayiypap,fx.iv(i>v. Josep.BJ. 1-1 8ir;yi;/AaTa a.vaypa.<^ov(TLV.

In my note on Rom.1-11, I have adduced other similar analogical

additions in iiriirodC) (Rom.1-11), crwfmprvpSi (Rom.2-15), cjriyvcDo-is

{Rom.3-20), vTrepviKui (Rom.8-37), ifjufjiaOelv (Soph.Ant.175), formed

after iTriOvfJiM, crvvr]yop!ii, i7rLaT-^fJi.y], virepixui or {nrep/SaWoi, ivvo^crai.
Nor do I think that Ta^aa-dat means to set up in order, as some
editors accept conformably to the Vulgate ordinare, for this disagrees
with Luke's poor estimate of the performances of his predecessors ;
it merely means to compile, as avari^aa-daL also does in Iren.3-21-2 tovs

rSiv TrpoyeyovoTiov irpo<f>r]Tu>v iravra's avara^o-a'aai Aoyovs.

tS)v Tr6TrXr)po(f>opT)(ji6V(oi' iv ^fiii'. Which have been accomplished among

us. Euthymius, however, in saying tS>v ySe/Sawo^evTuv ev t]iuv evidently

takes TrXrjpocjiopZ in its alternative sense of to inform, and the writers

B
2 ST LUKE ^

of several documents, which give and not ev rj/uv, must no doubt

rj/juv

have understood iTiir\-qpo<j>opy)ix.ivu}v in the same way. Sophocles cites

several examples from the fifth century and one from the seventh of
7r\r]po(J3opui as = to inform, and of irXyjpo^opl.a from the fourth cen-

tury as = information. The same is the traditional sense of both the

verb and the noun in MGk. In the New Testament we find Rom. 4-21
trX-qpotjiop-qdii'i in the sense of /Se/SaLwOeU and Rom. 14-5 TrXrjpo<j}opL-

adta = let him be advised or enlightened. The reading ev fuxiv, which

is universally adopted, is not against Euthymius's version. Jannaris
1562 '
The metaphorical (instrumental) use of iv becomes consider-
ably frequent in Hellenistic times, notably among Biblical writers
and their imitators, who often go so far as to place it beforeany
dative, a phenomenon which points to Hebrew influence, and more-
over indicates the retreat of the loose dative.' Cf.Mt 10-32 6/ioXoyi;-

(ret ev ip-oi. 12-24 ov/c e/cySdAAtt to, Sai/xovia etyu.^ iv tiS BceX^e^ovA,
14-2 al Svvd/J,is ivtpyovcriv iv avru. 17-12 iTroiri<To.v iv avria ocra rfOiX-q-

<Tav. lCor.9-15 iva ovtui yen/rat Iv i/ioL Apoc.14-2 Kidapii^ovTiov erTats

Kiddpai's, and often ; see my note on Rom.1-19. If Euthymius is righti

Toll' imrXrjpoifioprjixivoiv iv r/fuv Trpayixdruiv Kaduii irapiSoo'av would vir-

tually express the same as tS>v TrapaSeSo/xti/wv iv rifuv irpay/tartov KaScus
TrapiSocrav. And I am inclined to think that he is right, for, as ob-
served by previous scholars, Luke's introduction somewhat recalls
that of Thucydides, and tS>v iren-Xrjpocfioprjp.evoyv iv rjp,Lv irpayfmTwv
Ka6i)'s Trapi8o(Tav appears to imitate the style of tov iroXefiov us iroXe-
There are other passages in Luke which must have been in-
fjurja-av.

spired by his classical schooling. In v. 3 n-a.priKoXovdrjKOTi avmBev iraa-iv

a.Kpifiu)'; was borrowed from Demos.285 TraprjKoXovdrjKOTa Tots -irpdy-

p.a(riv ii apx^s (= avwOtv) and 423 aKpipia-Tora etSuis iyia /cai iraprj-

KoXovdrjKwi aTracn. Acts 17-21 'AOrjvaioL Sk TravTes eis ovSiv crepov iVKai-
povv Tj Xtytiv TL 7] aKovfLv Ti KotvoTcpov was cqually taken from Demos.
43 TreptiovTcs irvvBdvta-dai Kara Trjv dyopav AeycTat
ti Kaivov; and the
address avSpts 'Adrivaioi in Acts 17-22 smacks also of Demosthenes.
Moreover, Acts 17-17 BuXiyeTO iv rrj ayopS. Kara. Tracrav rjfiipav irpos Toiis

iraparvyxdvovTa^ and 17-18 ^ivoiv SatjuoviW Soxei KaTayyeXeiis etvai are

reminiscences of the history of Socrates. If Luke was thus imbued

with Attic literature, he must have known by heart the first lines of
 .

I ST LUKE 3

Thucydides, and it is most likely that consciously or unconsciously he

has partly reproduced their style.
1-2. Ka9u9 -napiZocrav ruiXy oi dir'dpxijs auToirroi Kal 6irT|p^Tai yeyi-

fievoi Tou Xoyou. No comma should be marked before these words, for
they are closely connected with -ireirXrjpoKfiopTjixeymv, or with dvara-

^axj-Oai Ziriyqcrivsome editors contend; the comma creates the im-

as
pression as though they were parenthetical.
1-3. Kaee|T]s croi ypdi^at. An obvious imitation either of Thuc.2-1
yiypaTTTaL 8e e^s and 5-26-1 yeypa^c 8e Kal ravra 6 airo's ou/cuStSijs
'AOrjvaLoi e^s, or more probably of the beginning of Thucydides, which
must originally have run iweypaff tov n-oXep.ov tZv HekoTrovv^a-Ciov koL
'AOrjvaitav i^s (omitted in our Mss) uis iiro\iii.r]<Tav.

1-6. SiKaioi d|i.4>6Tepoi ^I'oi'Tioi' tou 0oB. A variant ivunriov (here as

well as at v. 8. 24-19. Mk 2-12) shows that IvavrCov and ivutTnov are
synonymous, so that evavribv tov Oeov is identical with evunrtov tov Oeov,
which again is a periphrasis for a dative, no doubt a Hebraism cf ;

4-7 iav irpoo-fcwTjo-jjs ivwiriov i/j.ov. 1-74 XaTpeveiv ivunriov avTov (repro-
ducing the preceding avT<5, see my note). 10-21 iyivcTo u8o/cia l/^Trpoo-
Oivaov. Acts 6-5 ^pio-ev 6 Xoyos ivioiriov tov TrXiy^otis. 1 Jn 3-22 to, dpeo-Ta
Ivunriov avTov, etc. ; it is a usage very common in the Septuagint, cf.
Dan. (LXX) 9-10 cSio/cas iviLTnov Mwa-rj. Numb. 32-4 yrjv rjv TrapaSiSuiKev
Kvpioi iviaTTiov Tutv viCiv'la-pariX, etc. See my note on Rom. 12- 17. There-
fore ScVaiot ivavTiov TOV Oeov ^ SiKaioi tZ 6eia. Regarding the addition of
6<5 or 6eov Coraes in hisAtaktavol.2 p.l56 explains that it stands for a
superlative degree, and quotes Ps.79-11 ras KeSpovs tov 6eov = ifriXo-
TaTas. Jon.3-3 Nivev^ voXk p.fya.X.r] tZ tiiZ = p-eyLcrTr]. Acts 7-20 aa-Teio's
r<S6e<S = do-TetoTaros. Add Protev.Jac.lO d/iiai/ros tw 6e<2. Similarly Lk
1-15 fj.iya's iviairiov tov Kvpiov. Gen. 1 0-9 ytyas Kvvrjyos ivavnov Kvpiov tov
Oiov. IKings 16-12 dya^os opdaei Kvpi<a=most handsome tolook at. Sir.
18-26 Ta)(^^va vavTi Kvptou = Tap^ivoTara. Likewise 2Cor.ll-2 ^rjXCi vp.a.'s

6eov ^?A<o. Coraes further points out that in MGk Ow when combined
with adjectives raises them to superlatives, like OeoTpeKo^, OiorvtjiXos,

^eoyu/ivos, utterly mad, totally blind, stark naked. Accordingly SUaioi

ajxtjiOTepoi ivavTiov tov Oeov of Our passage simplymeans a.p.(f>6Tepoi. SiKaio-
TaToi, both most righteous.
1-15. \i.iyas iyiiiviov tou Kupiou. L e. /xeyto-ros ; see preceding note.
4 ST LUKE I

1-16. -iroXXoOs tGc ul&v 'itrpariX emiTTp^+ei em Ku'pioi' Tof 9e6>' auTui'.

Kai auTos irpoeXeu'iTETai iv^Tnov airoO kv itvii^ari Kai SurtijAet 'HXiou ciri-

OTp^i|(ai KapSias iraTe'paii' em reKfa koI direifleis ei* <|)poi'iicrei StKaiOJi'. Some
deplorable confusion seems to have occurred at this place. For {irpoe-
must refer to the Messiah -whose irpoSpo/^os John
Xeva-erai ivwrnov) airoO
was whereas as the text stands it states that John was to be Trpo-
to be,
8po/Aosnot of the Messiah but of God, an impossible conception. It seems
to me that where we have now TrokXovg rCJv vlZv 'la-parjX i-mcrTpiffi,

iirl Kvpiov Tov 6e.ov avTU)v there stood originally a reference to Christ, the

more so as that sentence states nothing different in substance toiirurrpe-

ij/ai airuOi'i's iv 4>pov^<ret. Si/catW. I cannot believe that Luke was such a

casual writer as the present text of the above clause makes him out.
1-17. iTrL<TTpl<^aiev^povr\(ri.^iKal,(i}i'. I.e. eU (I>p6vi]criv SiKaiwv. Cf. 4-1

mero iv rrj Ip-qpM. Rom. 1-23 r{SXa^a.v T'^v Sofav rov 6f,ov iv o/jiouiyfian

eiKoVos. 1-26 /iCTiyXXafav r^v aXrjdeiav tov 6eov ivrio i/revSet, etc. Jannaris
1565 ' during the period of confusion iv was used very frequently for

CIS. Lk 9-46 eicrTJXdiv SiaXoyicr/xos iv avTOts. 23-42 orav eX.Orj's iv ry

;8ao-iXeta crou. Ael.4-18 KariJX^c IIXaTtov iv StKcXiot, etc'
1-24. auwe'XaPei' 'EXiadPeO iq yuvT) auTOU Kai irepie'Kpu^e;' eauTT)i' (Jiiji'as

irei'Te, X^youao on outu (loi TreTroiTjKei' 6 Kupios iv igfi^pai; als eTreiSci'

d<i>eXeIi' TO oi/eiSos (lou. It was a matter of great pride and exultation

for Elizabeth tohave conceived, especially after such a prolonged dis-
appointment, and she would have been eager to proclaim her preg-
nancy to all her relatives and friends if she kept back the joyful ;

news, she must have had an imperative reason. What was that reason?
It ought evidently to be indicated in the words ovTui /tot irerroirjKiv 6

Kv'ptos ktX; but as the text now stands they contain no reason. I suspect
that TreiroirjKiv 6 Kvpio's is a misreading of /te/tiywKcv 6 Kvptos, namely,
that by a divine message Elizabeth was commanded to keep her con-
dition secret for a time. This command is not explicitly mentioned in
our Gospel, but it figured probably in the narrative whence Luke
drew, and he may have thought being a well-known part of
that, it
the legend, it sufS.ced if he merely explained how it happened that
Elizabeth remained silent for five months. There are other instances
where it is said that certain events were not divulged at the precise
moment of their occurrence ; as mysteries (see my note on Eom.11-25)
I ST LUKE 5

thieywere reserved until the pre-appointed time, in this case perhaps

until Mary first should become acquainted with the great event.
So in Protev.Jac.20-4 a voice from heaven tells Salome, who had
assisted at the birth of the Lord, SaXu/iry, /x,^ avayyuXrj'S oa-a eTSes
TrapdSo^a l(os ov thriXBrj eis 'lepovi7aX.r]ij, 6 ttolI'S. Cf. also Evang.Thom.
II SteT^pet (Mapt'a) iv airy to. fxvo'T'qpuj. a tySXtTrcv avrov (tov '\r)(Tovv)

iroiovvra. Lk 2-19 M.apiafJi irdvTa a-vver^pei to. fn^/xara ravra, (rvvPdX-

Xovtra iv ry KapSii^. avTrji. Dan. 7-2 8 to p^/J-a ev rj} KapSia p-ov coT^pi^a.
XII Patr.Lev.B (rvveTi^povv tovs Aoyous tovtovs iv rrj KapSia p,ov. 8-19
iKpvxf/a Kai ye tovto iv r-g KapSia fiov Koi ovk dvjjyyciXa avro tivl avOpmrm
irn Trj<; yrj';.

irepiiKpuPev. An imperfect. Sophocles registers several examples of

KpvySo) = Kpv-iTTia. It is the MGk form.
1-28. Kx<*P''T<^f'e'"l' A demotic form for ^apUa-cra. Cf. Schol.Arist.
Achar.867 iirixapiTios avrl tov Kix'^piroipivw^. Hesychius (quoted by
Wetstein) y^apUvra, Ke^apLT<Dfi.iva. The Vulgate correctly gratid plena.
In this sense still alive in MGk as -^^apiTuipivri ; Vlikhos 'p^apiTto/ieros,

charmant, plein de grdces,' with which Esth.5-2 to irpoo-wTo'v a-ov

XapiTwv and 4 Mac. 8-3 iirTa JiSeX(f>oL iv Travrl p^apitvTts maybe

pLca-Tov

compared. Some expositors in rendering who has met with kindness

(from God) have been misled by v. 30 evpts X"-P'-^
Trapa tw Oe^. I should
translate gracious or gentle lady.
1-35. 8i6. A variant Sioti. See my note on Acts 20-26.
1-39. di'ttCTTtto-a Se Mapi&p. iv rais iqfjiEpais Toiixais enopEiiOi]. When a
sudden or immediate action is told, araoras or iyepOus is added as if

one had been quietly sitting and unexpectedly rose up to activity.

Examples exist in abundance. Cf. 10-25. 15-18. 15-20. 17-19. Acts
6-6. 8-26. 11-28. Mk 16-9. Mt 9-19. But from their frequent use these
participles are added even when an ordinary movement is started.
The same exactly is the case in MGk, which in similar cases employs
(rriK(i>vovp.ai = iyeipop.ai. So this idiom has nothing to do with Hebrew,

as is supposed ; if it exists in Hebrew, it is a coincidence.

1-45. Kai fiaKapia i^ iriareuo-ao-a on eoroi reXeioio-ts rois XeXaXrjp.e'i'Ois

auTTJ irapa Kupiou. Mary expressed at first the same doubts as Zechariah

when the divine message was delivered to her, and there was no occa-
sion for her faith being particularly extolled. Besides, when she had
6 ST LUKE I

been called by Elizabeth God's mother, the highest possible praise

was already bestowed upon her. I believe this verse does not come
from Luke, but was an enthusiast's marginal exclamation prompted
by iSoii rj SovXifj KvpLOv, yivoiTO fJLOi Kara, to p^yt fov of V. 38.
1-58. ifieyakuve Ku'pios to eXeos auTOu (ieT'auTijs. The emprotheton
is equivalent to a dative, as it is also in 10-36 6 wotiyo-as to IXcos /iT
avTov. See my note on Acts 9-39.
1-72. iroiTJo-ai eXeos (lerci TUi' iraTEpwi' i^iJ.Si' Kai (irrjaSrji'ai 8ia6i^Kr)S.

Editors have gone astray in taking these infinitives as denoting pur-

pose. The words twv iraTipwv show quite clearly that voirjo-ai has
ixera
reference to the past, and therefore cannot denote purpose. In imitation
of a Septuagint or sacred style which makes an abuse of the infinitive,
TTOLrja-ai and ynvr/o-^-^vat stand for participles; cf. Ruth 4-14 euXoyijTos

Kvpios OS oi KariXvai (= o p-r] KaraXwas) O'ot Tov ay^uTria Koi KaXicraL

(^ /caXtVas) TO ovoixa trov. Dan. (LXX) 3-29 tjvofj.ria^aii.iv ciTrooT^vai \ =

aTToo-TavTes). And with participial force are they joined with euAoyijTos
Kv'pios o 6f.oi 'IcrpariX of v.68 ; in ordinary style the phrasing would
have proceeded thus: 4\oy7jTos Kvpios 6 ^eos'Itrpa^X o Trotijo-as(reference
to the past) IXeos /xera. tZv Traripwv fifnutv koX /xviyo-^cts (reference to the
present) Sia^jJ/ciys. Cf. Jud.13-17 uXoyr;ros 6 6os 57/xojv o efowSevwcras.
Ps.71-18 v\oyjjTos KvpiO's 6 6coi rov 'Itrparjko troiljiv 6avfx.a.<TLa. Luke no
doubt must have considered the Septuagint style indispensable in a
solemn canticle such as Zechariah's ; but in point of eccentricity his
construction of this passage is the limit. This comment equally applies
to V. 54.
1-74. XaTpeueii' auTu ei' octiottjti Kal SiKaiocrui'ii] iviairiov auToS. In my
note on 1-6 I have referred to ei/wTrtoi/ with a genitive as another form
of the dative. In this passage also ivrnviov airov is nothing else than
a periphrasis of airii and merely reiterates the preceding dative. For
similar repetitions cf. Enoch 13 ivw-n-iov airCiv koI dv^yytiXa avrots. 14
Tois av6pwTroL<: XaXeiv iv avroZi. The Syr. Sinaiticus, however, omits
airZ, the Lewes translation rendering that we might serve before him
in uprightness on the other hand, one Greek Ms (see Soden) omits
;

ivtinnov airov, the learned transcriber possibly having thought that,

besides sounding too barbarous, it was superfluous after airZ.
1-77. ToO Soui'ai yi'clo-ii' o-urrjpias tco Xou auTOu iv d<|>Ea'ci duapriui', A
I n ST LUKE 7

sentence too concise and peculiar in formation, such as Luke is fond

of when he affects the Septuagint style, but its drift is clear enough,
namely, so that he may bestow upon his people wisdom (good sense)
leading to the remission of sins and to the acquirement of salvation.
In full (TtiiTT]piai would be eis Trepnroirja-tv a-iorrjpCas, as in lThes.5-9.
With Bovvai yvmcriv <70)Tijptos compare Rom.2-20 fwpfjitoa-iv r^s yvoxretoi

yvuKTiv. The same as ippovrja-iv, sagacity, thoughtfulness. Cf. Rom.

11-33 ;8a6os(ro(^tasKaiyvo)a-<os Otov. The same is probably the meaning
in Lk 1 1-52 KXaSa t-^s yvuxxva^. For the converse to this cf. lPet.2-15
o.<j>p6viov ovOpuiTTutv ayvioatav. The word yvtuo-is is still alive in demotic
MGk in the form of yvwa-rj, generally quoted by purists as yvSxru.
Vlakhos V. yvma-Li 'exet yvlao-iv, il est tres-intelligent, c'est un homme
sense.' And yvcoo-TiKos is the sagacious, prudent, and tactful man.
1-79. ilpx\vr\^. See my note on Apoc. 7-10.
Of salaam or (TtiiTqptws.

2-11. A saviour, that is to say (see my note on

ffUTTip, OS eoTi XpicTTiSs.

Jn 1 8-38), CAmi. I have explained in my note on Rom.10-6 that Luke

being unacquainted with Hebrew (see my note on 11-42) imagined
that was with Mecrcrtas that the word a-uiTrjp was related and not with
it

Another notable instance of this confusion occurs in Acts 4-10

'Itjo-oSs.

iv T<o 6vop.aTi \ri(Tov XpicrToS ovtos irapecTTrjKev vyvq'S- Kai ovk ecrrtv Iv

SXKia ouSevi r) criOTripia, ov&i yap ovofux icrriv irepov iv (o Sei (r<a6rjvai,. The
confusion started with the Gnostics, who are alluded to in Iren.1-31
XpTTOi) bv Kal (TiOTrjpa Xiyovcriv.
2-15. TO prifia. Neither the version thing nor the version saying quite
correspond with prjfixi. It is the Semitic dahar, explained by Miss Har-
rison in 82 to signify both word and deed. Luke of course
Themis p.

took it from its translation in the Septuagint cf. Gen.22-16 eTroiT^was ;

TO fnjim TovTo, and often. I do not know whether the English language
possesses an analogous term perhaps matter would be the nearest.
;

TO yeyocos. The English version here gives that is come to pass, where-
as at Acts 10-37 to yo'op.evov is translated by which was published.
I should suggest at both places which has been bruited.
2-17. iyvJipiaav. The "Vulgate eognoverunt. So also Euthymius ' iirXir]-

po<j)opjjOr](Tav.'

2-19. avverl\pei. See my note on 1-24.

 8 ST LUKE n
auf^tiWoucra iv Trj KapSia auTrjs. The same as awTiO^icra iv ry KapSia
avT^g, cf. 1-66 tOevTO 7ravT iv rrj KapSta avTwv. For /8aXA.a) of course
often signifies to put, as always in MGk so Mk 7-33 cySaXe tous
;

haKTvkov^ avTov eis to. una avTov. How the English translators came to
render and pondered them in her heart I cannot follow ; it should be
and laid them up together in her heart, in the same way as Wo/to of
V. 66 has been rendered by laid up.
2-32. 4>(Ss cts diroKdXuiliii' eflfuc. A light for lifting the blindness of

the heathen. Buthymius '

eis a.va./3\.eij/iv tu>v idvuiv rStv TeTV(li\foiJi,vtov rfj

irXav-g.' The sentence with such an interpretation tallies with what

has inspired it, i. e. Isa.42-6 ISo/ca o-e ets <^Ss iOvZv avol^ai 6cl>6aXfiov';
TV(ji\S>v combined with 49-8 Aeyovra rots iv tw o-Koret dvaKaXv(l>6^vai.

2-34. ouTos KeiTai els arj/icioi' Ai'TiXYof*E''0''- -A^n allusion to the dis-
putes and discussions for and against, which were proceeding in Lk's
time concerning the claims made as to Jesus being the Messiah, Cf.

Protev.Jac.20 ilcrrjXOev fj fj-aia KOI enre rrj Mapta/A ^^rjiJ.d.TLaov (reavTrjv,

ov yap fiiKpo? ayuiv irepiKtiTai wtpl (tov. Orig.Jerem.15-4 (Preuschen's

Antil. p. 5) 01/j.oi iyii, p^^Tep, ojs rtVa p,e ctekcs avSpa Si.Ka^6p,tvov koX
SiaKpivo/Ad'oi/ iv Trdo-ri rfj yrj ; The expression was probably borrowed
from Josh. 4-6 Iva virap^oymv vpiv ovtoi eis urjixiiov Keip.evov Bid TravTos.

2-35. o-ou 8e auTrjs Ty)V i^uxV SieXcucreTai po(j,4>aia. From Ps. 104-18
(quoted by Wetstein) a-(,Br]pov Si^A^ev fj ^jrvxyi airov. Cf. also Job 20-25
Sic^eX^oi 8ta crwp,aTos avTov /3eA.os.

Situs Slv. In my note on Rom. 15-24 in commenting upon wcrdv

I have observed ' Generally written is dv ; but it should be written
as one word, for it is the same as orav with ore replaced by its equi-
valent (OS. In MGk adv (from wo-av) = orav. A further development is
oTTtoo-av of Acts 3-19 and probably Lk 2-35. Cf. also eTrctv, iireiSdv.'

OTTiiyirdy diroKaXu<f>6uo'ii' may be

eK iroXXwc KapSiui' SiaXoyi'O'P'Oi. This
rendered either by that thoughts out of many hearts maybe revealed or
by that thoughts out of many hearts may be enlightened. But inasmuch
as Mary's anguish is eventually to prove a benefit to mankind, the
latter version seems preferable, except that e/c should be eliminated,
as it is in D, in the Syr.Sinaiticus, in several old Latin and other
versions with this elimination the meaning would become so that the
;

thoughts of many hearts, so that many minds, may be enlightened. The

ii-iv ST LUKE 9

Latin translator of lAct.Pil.16-2, -which is a parallel passage, has

rendered ut revelerentur cogitationes multorum cordium, and therefore

he found no Ik in his Greek text.
2-38. XuTpoxni' lEpou(7aXi^^. A scribe, moved by the anti-Jewish
passions of his time, would not allow that '\a-parik{i.rj>^, which appears
as a variant in our Mss, would ever be redeemed, and so he changed
it into 'lipov(Ta\-qij,{i\-r)ij}j.

3-15. irpoo-SoKui'Tos 8e tou Xaou, dirEKpifaro 6 'loidrfrjs \i-^iav. What

were the people expecting? Plummer asks. There is nothing in the con-
text pointing to an expectation. Such explanations, as for instance
Weiss'ssie waren in Spannung, namlich in folge der Gerichtsver-
'

kundung des Taufers (v.9),' are rather far-fetched. I suggest -n-poa-a-

KovovTo^, the preposition being added by analogy with Trpoo-ex") ; see
my note on avaTtx^aa-dai of 1-1. Cf. 19-11 6.kov6vtiov Se avTUiV ravra,
wpocrdw eLTre. 20-45 o.kovovto'; Si TravTos tov X.aov, cTire.

3-18. irapaKaXui'. Instructing. Commenting upon irapaKXiJo-ccos in my

note on Rom. 15-4, I stated that the context demands the meaning
of msfrucf ion, which 7rapaKA.r;o-6s seems to possess equally in Acts 13-15
and lThe8.2-3 ; also in Lk 3-18.
3-23. ois efojAiJeTo. Expunged by Scholten (see Baljon).
4-1. riyero ^c TTJ epiifiu. The AV correctly into the wilderness, see my
note on 1-17 ; but the Revisers have substituted in the wilderness.
4-7. iA.v Trpo<TKui'i^(rr)s iv<iTri.ov ifiou. The AV correctly renders if thou
wilt worship me, for the emprotheton is equivalent to a dative, as ex-
plained in my note on 1-6 ; but the Revisers have again in this instance
vitiated the sentence by altering it into if thou wilt worship before me.
4-18. Kr]pu$ai alxp,aX(iTois a<|>ecrii' Kai TU(j>Xois di'(pX<|(ii', dTTooreiXoi

TEOpauo-p.ecous iy &^iaei. Isa.6 1-1, which Luke quotes, runs thus: aTre-

cTTaXKe fie la.(7(w6aL tovs cn}VTerpijxiJ.ivovs rrjv KapSiav, Kfjpviai aixfi^aXmroii

arj>cnv. So (XTrocrTtlXai TiOpavcrfi.euov's iv a,(j>ea-ei of our passage Corresponds
with a-TTio-TaXKi fje Idcraa-Oai roils a-vvTerpifJiixivov's rrjv KapSlav of Isaiah,

the reference being to those in pain or distress, as is also in Ps.146-3

6 ltl)ft,evos Toiis a-wTiTpLfi.p.ivov's tIjv KapSiav and in Jer.3-22 la(rop,ai ra crvv-

TpifjinaTav/jiGiv. To such unhappy people the relief brought is thus tacris,

and not ai^to-is, which is only appropriate to the case of prisoners. In-
:stead therefore of ev a<j>a-ei,it seems to me that we should write iv Ida-ei.
a
 10 ST LUKE IV

A similar misreading exists in Hebr.9-22 ^^topts alfi.areKxvo'iai ov yiverai

a<t>arK ] read lacrt?, the allusion evidently being to a cure by blood-
letting. Further, in Acts 3-16 Trto-Tts has been substituted for 'acrts ;

see my note. Perhaps, however, iv dvecrti is a more probable correction,

as being palaeographically nearer. Cf. 2Cor.7-5 oiSefiiav icrxnK^^v avecriv
fj a-ap$ ^/JLtov, aXX'iv Travrl OXL^o/jievoi. 8-13 ov yap iva akXois avecrts,
v/uv 6\i\pi^. 2']'hes.l-7 Tots 6Ai/3oyaevots avta-iv.

4-22. lOaujiaJoi' eirl tois Xoyois -njs x^^P'tos tois eKiropeuojiei'ois ek toO

oToftaros outou, Kal IXeyoi' Oux outos eorii' 6 utos 'l(ii(7ii<t> ; This ex-
pression of admiration on the part of the congregation is discordant
with the next sentence Kal etire irpos airovs UavTcos ipeiTe /wi ttjv Trapa-
ySoX'^v TavTrjv 'larpe, Otpairtvirov tnavrov, which indicates a hostile atti-
tude and some sort of previous altercation. I surmise, therefore, that
a lacuna exists before Kal eiTre.

4-36. Kal aui'tXclXoui' irpos dXXi^Xous X^yoi'TES Tis 6 Xoyos outos, oti

( = 0$) iv ^^oucia ciriTiiao'Ei, tois dxaOdpTois iri'Eijp.aari ; The

Kal 8uKa|Xi
version this word wide of the mark. The combination of 6 Aoyos
is

ovTos is still alive in MGk in the form of tov Xoyov tov as a respectful
expression, which avoids avTos as too crude and corresponds to his
Honour in English ; it is frequently used ironically, as it is in this
passage. Vlakhos v. Xoyos ' rov Aoyou /iera tSiv ktijtlkZv avruvvyiiiolv (rov

TOV /ias = vous lui elle eux elles ; n Aeyet rov Xoyov tov; que dit ce Mon-
sieur ? KoTi fx,a.<i eiTTc Kal tov Xoyov tov [etpcovtKois], ecoutez ce que dit
cet autre.' It was likewise in Hellenistic times, and perhaps earlier.
Sophocles V. Xoyos ' With the genitive of the personal pronoun it
forms a periphrastic personal pronoun. Sept.Reg.3-17 Sia o-To/iaTos
Xoyov fiov. Porph.Adm.170-7 wo tov Xoyov v/^Sv, essentially v<^' =
vp-uiv.' Add IKingS ^Kovo-a ev TJ7 y^ jiiov Tre.pl tov Xoyov o-ov, which
Origen in Cels.3-45 interprets irepl Phil.4-17 tov Kapirov tov
o-ov.

7rX.ovd^ovTa ets Xoyov vp.C>v = eis v/aSs. Mart.Petr.5 yvvaiKes tov Xoyov
= iXXoyipoi. The nominative is encountered in Wisd.18-15 6 Travro-
8vvap.6'S o-ov Xoyos = 6 iravToSwa/ios o-v. Similarly Wisd.16-26 to prjad.
orov (= o-v)tovs a-ol iruTTevovTai SiaTrjpel. Perhaps also in 1 Kings 18-8
TTOvripov icfidvri to p^/xa iv o<^^aXp,ors SaovX Trepl tov Xo'yov tovtov, i. e.

TTipl AoviS, in MGk = irepl tov Xoyov tov. That this acceptation is
correct is proved by Kal ^piavro Xe'yciv iv eavTois Tt's ovtos eo-tiv os koL
 vvi ST LUKE 11

d/x,apTtas dijfctijo-iv; of 7-49, the first part of which is parallel to the first
part of our passage. Similar respectful expressions are the combina-
tions with irvtyfiM, Suva/its, irpoaunrov, ovofia.
oTi = OS, asstands in 7-49. See my notes on Rom.8-29 and Jnl-16.
it

5-2. Ta SiKTua. The variant aTriirkwav in the form aTriirXvvav

lirXui'oi'

is strongly attested. That would be the MGk feVXaivav (= i^i-TrXwov,

an imperfect), they washed the salt water off their nets. Tischendorf 's
hrXwa.v is in any case wrong, for it is the aorist, whereas clearly the
imperfect is required.
5-34. ^Xeuaoi'Toi Se i^fi^pai, koI oral' dirapOrj Air' auTuc 6 vu^^[os,TOTi
fYjo-TcuVouo-iK. The usual expression with Luke is to say otc 8e eXev-
(TovTai rjft-ipai, koI totc vrjcrTv<Tov(Tiv, the particle Koi being thus exple-
tive. See my note on Acts 22-20.
6-10. iKTtii'oi' rf)!' xeipA o-ou. Stretch forth your hand. So the English
version ; but it should rather be stretch forth your arm, ^elp often stand-
ing for arm. So also MGk, which likewise employs ;ro8i[ov] for o-kc'Xos.

6-11. eirXi^o-OitjcTac droias. Probably dvoias is here used in the sense

of a/jMpTLa's, as its synonym a<f)po(rvvrji occasionally is. Cf. XII Patr.
Lev.7-3 a<f>pocrm''r]v tirpa^av iv 'l<rparj\ p.ia.vavTi Trjv aS^Xffi-^v p-ov. Ecc.
7-26 dtre/JoBs a<f>poarvvriv. Wisd.12-23 tovs Iv a<l>po(rvvrj ^utrjs (:=v a/jiap-

roiXiS ^larj) /SiwcravTas. Ps.48-11 a^puiv Koi dvous, etc. So doruvcTOS often
= d/xaprojXos. A variant dvo/ttas, recorded by Soden, probably is also
due to its author considering that something like d/^apTias was here
required. Bentley likewise conjectured dvo/*tas. Or the original reading
may have been dyvotas, which so often occurs as a synonym of dyna/o-
Ttas. Cf XII Patr.Zab. 1-5 ov
. p.vri<TKop.a.L on vapavo/xlav iiroi-qcra. irXrjv

TTjv dyvoiav ^v fTrotTjcra itn tov 'lu)a-q<l>. Lev.4-13 edv iratra o-vvaymyr]

ayyo^o~rj koL yvuxrdrj avTOis ij dpapria. lEsdr.8-72 oi afiapnai rjpMV

CTrXeovacrav Kai^ai ayvotai rj/xSiv vircp^veyKav. Ezek.46-20 ra VTrep a-yvotas

Koi TO. VTrkp a/jLaprias. Dan.(LXX)4-29 at dpMpTtaL p-ov Koi al ayvocaC p.ov

eirXrjpwOria-av (cat IScrjOrjv VTrep Tuiv a.yvoiS>v p-ov. Acts And. Mat. 12 dyvotov
TOV SiaySdXov, etc. Similarly dyvoS = d^aprdvco ; no doubt a Hebraism.
6-22. eKpdXuaic to oi/ofia vfiiav 6s irofripdc. This phrase is still quite
current in the form ^ydtfn ( = iK^aWo)) icavevos KaKo ovop,a or simply
which means / bring forth and make public
PyaZfiy to ovop.a Kavefos,
somebody't name as that of a had man. Byzantios the Lexicographer v.
12 ST LUKE VI Tii

ifiyd^oi [= EKySaXXo)] '

e/SyaXero ovo/jm tov KOpira-iov [of the girl], SriXaSrj
iSv<r<l>rjij,r]cr to Kopcrcri, a phrase almost identical with that of Deut.
22-19 e^veyKV ovoix.airovr]p6v iiTL rrjv TrapOivov,3,Tid with that of Lk 6-22
OTttv iK^dXuKriv to ovojjuol vp,uiv cos TTOvrjpov.' Vlakhos v. ijByaivui \_= k-
)S(uvo)] records the proverb KaWuTepa fiyy to jxaTt a-ov TTapa va
va. croC

(TOV Pyy TO ovofjLo, better that thy eye should come out than that thy name
should come out. Therefore the Tersion tJiey cast out is an error, due to
taking /SaXXio in its classical sense, whereas Hellenistically often, and
at present always,y3aA.Xa) is a synonym of ti^tjjih; cf. Mk 7-33 e/3aXe tovs
8aKrvXovs ets to, wTa, see my note on Plummer with others has 2-19.
entirely misunderstood this sentence when he says Throw your name '

contemptuously away, reject it with ignominy, as an evil thing. It is

used of hissing an actor off the stage and otherwise dismissing with
contempt.'
6-29. Ktti rovxnSjva (it) Namely, let him strip you of every-
KtiXocrrjs.

thing, down to your very shirt. Compare the MGk tov a<j)ure p.k to ttovko.-
jjiLcro (= viroKdixia-ov), he took away all his belongings short of his shirt.
6-38. ^iipov KaXoi/, ireirieo'jji^i'oi' a^aoK^v^ivov imepiKy^uvo^^vov. Euthy-
mius ' f.iix>6a<ri yap oi KaXois /JUTpovvTcs tov (tItov, cViTt^ei/res t<S /xoSlw tos
^eipas, TTti^uv avTov im to. kAtu), koX [XaKTi^ovras] o-aXevetv Iva. (ru/xircViy,

KoX iin/3dXXiv i;'a v7repeK)(y6rj .' It is exactly the practice at the present
time in certain bazaars in India where corn is sold by a measure of
capacity. Luke has inverted the order of things by saying Tmneo-fxivov
(Tta-aXevfjiivov ; it is the shaking that comes first. Luke, however, may
not be responsible for the inversion, as there exists a variant which
first. Weiss also is incorrect in saying
places a-craXtvp.vov durch '

Zusammendriicken oder durch Schutteln oder should be replaced ;

'

by und.
6-48. oiKo8ofjiTJo-6ai. Naber wKoSofi-rjaOai. But Jannaris 716 'Initial
otremains, even in classical antiquity, but notably in post-classical
antiquity, without augment.' He also refers to Phryn.i3i ' wkoSout/kcv
Sia TOV (OL a.pi(TTa eptis, aXKov 8ia tov oi,' which shows that in Phryni-
chus's time the unaugmented form was quite common Meisterhans ;

(Grammatik der Attischen Inschriften) states 'vomVerbum oiKoSoueo)

findet sich viermal die augmentlose Form oiico8o/x.r;/j,eVot.'

7-8. UTTO E^ouoriaf Tao-o-dfiEfos. I.e. vtto i^ovcriav Terayp.ivo'i. Cf. Diod.
VII ST LUKE 13

16-11-15 Tovis v<l>riyeiJMvias TETay/xeVotis. There occur other examples

where the present participle is employed for the perfect. Cf. Mt 23-35
OTTUS i^Oy t't> v[JLa.'s irav al/ia SiKaiov iK)(yv6fJLevov. Compare Mk 1 4-40 -qa-av

yap ol 6<^daX/i.oi avrlov KaTa^apwo/J-^voL with Lk 9-32 ySeyffapTjyiievot virvio.

Luke repeats here the error in Mt 8-9 virb iiova-iav, which, as I have
explained elsewhere, should be iirl i^ova-tav.

7-29. ttSs 6 \aos dKoiicras Kal ol TEXui/ai ESiKaiuo-ai/ rhv 6e.ov ^aimcrQiv-

res. This should express the opposite to oi vo/jllkoI tyjv /3ovX.ijv toC 6tov
riOfTTjcrav eh coutovs /xij ySaTrTior^ci/Tts which follows ; but the text does
not express this thought. Instead of stating that the people and even
publicans consented to be baptized in order to secure justification, it

states oddly enough that itwas God who obtained justification by

their baptism; which is sheer blasphemy. The right reading could only
have been either iSiKaiwOt^a-av, or eSiKaiuicravTO, or iSiKaimcrav iavTOV'S, t(3

6e<o. Ithink the last is the most probable reading, for besides conforming
to the construction oi rjOinjo-av fls lavrovs it best accounts for the change
of the dative into an accusative ; when lavrovi dropped out, the dative
no longer accorded with iSiKaiuia-av and the alteration followed as a
matter of course. This guess is corroborated by the Syr. Sinaiticus, the
rendering of which is jtcstified themselves to God. Cf 16-15 StKaioSvTes
iavTovi ivuiTTLOv Tuiv a.v6p(iyir(i)v (^ rots dv6p<iJirois). Rom. 3-20 ov SiKatoi-
6rjcreTaL TrScra a-ap^ ivioTnov avrov. IKingS 1 2-7 SiKauoa-io v/tas ivainov
KVptov. Ps. 142-2 oi SiKawo^i^o-erai iviitiriov (rov ttSs ^Zv.

7-30. is eauTotJS. In my note on Rom. 1-1 9 (I>avep6v Icttlv iv airois

I commented as follows: ' Jannaris 1562 says " The metaphorical

(instrumental) use of iv becomes considerably frequent in Hellenistic
times, notably among Biblical writers and their imitators, who often
go so far as to place it before any dative, a phenomenon which points
to Hebrew influence and moreover indicates the retreat of the loose

dative." The partiality to this idiom in consequence of its frequent

appearance in the LXX eventually led to its being employed instead
of the genitive with iiro. See note on 8-4. Cf. lCor.6-2 iv i/uv KpCveraL
6 Koo-fws. Col. 1-1 6 iv avrZ iKTi(T6rj to. iravTa. This further led to a most

absurd abuse in that iv airiS was occasionally foisted by writers affect-

ing a sacred style upon active verbs as a sort of repetitionof the subject.
So Eph.1-4 i^eXe^aro ij/uas iv airw. 1-9 rjv Trpoidiro iv avTw (= ^ Trpotridrj
14 ST LUKE "^^^

vir'avTOv). 2-15 iva roiis 8vo ktiotj ev airZ. 2-16 dffOKTttVas T^v ex^pav
ev avrZ. Eom.1-24 aTi/ia^ecr^ai to. auifjiara airZv Iv airois (Mss caUTOis).
1-27 iv aiTors(some Mss give iv iavroLs) diroXa/t/3ai'ovTs. XII Patr Sim.
6 o 6eos '^^t (is avOpiDTTO's /cai (raj^tov cv avT<S Tov 'Aoa/x. Col. 2-1 5 upia/j.-

Peia-a^ airovs iv avrZ. Mart.Petr.7 6 Kvpios 6eju,eXia)o-ti. >' auTw xai

TrXaTwci v auTO). Similarly lThes.1-5 iyevqdrjixtv iv v/juv (read iv ^/J.'iv).

[Add Jn 13-32 6 ^eos So^do-tt avTov iv avrw]. A further preposterous

development was to substitute eis airbv for iv avT<2. Cf. Lk 7-30 [our
passage under discussion] yjdeTrjcrav eis iavrovs (airovs?). Eph.1-5
TTpoopia-a^ rj/jLcii is viioSecrtW is avTov. Col. 1-1 6 irdvTa cts auTov cKTUTTat,
which repeats the foregoing iv avT<2 iKTia-Oi] rd Travra.' Since then my
conviction has been strengthened that in our passage we must accord-
ingly read and not the textual eh eavrov's.
eis airovs
7-33. |jiTi (Ai]Te oTi'oi' iricui'. The Baptist could not have
dpToc idQiiay
been accused of gluttony if he ate bread. The original reading seems
to me to be that of D and most of the Latin and other versions which
omit apTov and oTvov, it being meant by ia-diuiv that John was not
indulging in ordinary food but strictly limited himself to hard fare.
Probably aprov was intruded by one who wished to point out that the
Baptist's food was d/cptSes Kai p-iXi aypiov, and not bread as is the food
of other people; when aprov was thus clapped on, o'vov would naturally
follow suit.
7-35. eSiKaiuBrj 1^ aoifiia diro Toll' epyur auTTJS. Read 2a)U.dpia for o-o^ia.
We have here a loose quotation in the form of a proverb from the
savage stigmatization addressed to Jerusalem inEzek.16-51 Sayodpeia
Kara rds ij/xtVets Tuiv dp.aprtSi' <tov ov^ rj/jLapre, Koi eTrAiy^was ras avofiLai

crov {/Trip airas (i.e. virip ^a/jidpeiav and 3o8o/Aa), /cai eStKato)0-as rds
aStXfjxxs <Tov (i.e. "Stafxaptiav and 3dSo/J.a) iv Tracrais rais avop-iail crou all

iiroirjcrai. The meaning is that Samaria by comparison has proved

righteous in her sinful works. 23-4 2ayu,dpeta ^v 'OoXa xat 'lepovcraXijp.
^v 'OoXt/3d, As Samaria's sinful works, according to Ezekiel, have been
thrown into the shade by those of Jerusalem, so the sin of your obsti-
nate unbelief has thrown into the shade all previous known iniquities.
In Ezekiel there are further comparisons of Jerusalem with 2o8o/ia
and Supid; the latter would be nearest palaeographically to cro<^ia, but
on the whole I think Sa/idpcta is the most probable lection.
vii ST LUKE 15

7-37. yui'}) ^Tis TJi' iv TJj iTiiXei dfiapruXos. I.e. ywrj iroXmio}, a woman
about the town, a public woman. Sophocles records an instance of
TToXtTiKijin this sense from Theophanes Continuatus 430, and I seem
to remember that Dr. Milligan has quoted another instance in one of
his writings, but I cannot now recall in -which. Cf. alsoClemA.Protr.
2-13 iropvrjv TToXiTiSa. Plut.Lucul.6 TlpaiKia tis tjv 6vo/J.a, Tuiv itft'uipa

KOI Xa/mpia SiajSoijTUi' Iv rrj 7rdA.i, ret fji,lv aWa KpiLTTWv ovBkv aviSrjv
Xen.Mem.3-11-1 yvvaiKoi iv rjj irokei oias (ruveivai
irai.povairj's "yvvat/cos.

tZ ireCOovTL (=any one who paid, see my note on Acts 12-20). The word
preserved in MGk in the form Brip-oiria, a public woman, exactly as in
Heliod.3-3 Sij/iolScts yui'atKas. Neither Grimm nor Zorell comment upon
iv rg TToXei. As a matter of curiosity I may add that the Byzantine
pedants attached the epithet ttoAitikos to the modern verse of fifteen
syllables as an opprobrious term, i.e. prostitute.

d)jiapT(>)\6s. Paspati (refer to my footnote on Jn 15-8) states ' to-day

public women are called afiapTUikal among themselves, and ap-aprdvo)
is to follow the profession of a harlot.'
7-38. <7Td(Ta Siricru Trapol, tous iriSSos auToO KXaiouaa, ijpJaTo Ppi^f^eiv Toig
iroSas auTou tois SiiKpuai Kal rais Opi^l ttjs Ke^jaXTJs auTTJs E^^fia^E, Kal

KaTEit>iXEi TOUS iroSas auToC Kal Y]Xi<t> Tu fiiipa. This passage cannot have
been suggested either by the narrative in Mark (14-3) or by that
in Matthew (26-7), for in those narratives no washing of feet is men-
tioned, and the complaint made against the woman is not that she
was a sinner as in Luke, but on the score of so much costly perfumed
oil being wasted; moreover, in Mark and Matthew the head of the Lord

is anointed whereas in Luke the feet only are so treated. Luke's account

must have come from some other work now lost, which being perhaps
loosely phrased led him into a regrettable misconception, he in his
turn dragging down everybody else who has since read this passage.
Judging by the construction of KOTe<^tAet rovs -n-oSas avTov Kal iJXeti^E
T<S livpto we must conclude that Luke meant rov's iroSas to be an object

not only of KaTtc^tXct but also of rjK.u<f>, and so have all commentators,
so far as I know, understood the syntax. But in the original work I
surmise that ijXei^e was unconnected with rois iroSas or meant so to be.
For, in the first place, how could the woman neglect to anoint the head,
which was the obvious and most important thing to do, and only
16 ST LUKE VII VIII

anoint the feet? Secondly, -washing of feet is frequently mentioned in

Scripture(cf.Jnl3-5.Gen.l9-2. 18-4. 24-32. 43-23. Judg.l9-21.1Kings
25-41. 2Kingsll-8. Cant.5-3),butnowhereisit accompanied with their
anointment. In the lost work the object of ^Xei<^e must have been t-^v
Ke<jja\^, either explicitly expressed or to be supplied. The absurdity
of the feet being anointed must have equally struck some transcriber
or transcribers at v. 46 eXaicp t^v Kt^aXryv fiov ovk ^Acu/'as, avrrj Si fivpw
^\eii(/i ixov TovisTToSas, for D and several Latin and other witnesses omit
Toiis TToSas and only give eXatV) ttjv KccfiaXTJv /jlov ovk ijXeti/fas, avrr] Se

/xvpio ijAet^e, i.e. rijv Kf^aXrjV.

KaT(|)iXei Tous iroSas. Cf. Esth.[5] <j>iX,uv ra TriX/JLara ttoSiuv avrov. An

Oriental sign of humility, preserved in the kissing of the feet of high
dignitaries of the Christian Churches. I have seen it done at Jerusalem
and at Samos.
7-40. eXiKv TTpos auToi'. The variant dixit ad Petrum, or dixit Simoni,
is well worth consideration.
7-45. io-fi\9oi'. Griesbach has given preference to the variant eto-^X-

6iv. Pernot, Etudes sur la langue des Evangiles, p. 201 ' Les meilleurs
manuscrits donnent dcrriXdov, que conservent les Editeurs, mais la

lefon tia-riXOiv, quoique beaucoup moins attestee, est la seule logique,

car la femme n'est venue que lorsque Jesus prenait son repas. C'est
probablement a la presence de daijXdov'J. 44 qu'estdue son intrusion
au V. 45.'

8-4. Tui' Kard ttoXii'. The men belonging to a town, the townsmen. Cf.
Acts 21-21 Tovs Kara to. Wvy). 24-14 iruTTivuiV Train rots Kara rbv vo/xov
=zbelieving all that exists, or is recorded, in the Law. Similarly Acts
15-19 Tois airo tSiv i6vu)v,

8-14. iropeuojiefoi aui'iri'iyocTai. In my note on Jn 12-10 {nrrjyov koL

iwLcrTevov I have commented as follows :
'
In MGk, when reference is

made to a man's action with disapproval or astonishment, to the verb

denoting that action the verb Tr-qyaivu (= v-irdyei, iropevirat.) is often
added without any notion of going,' and I have illustrated this pecu-
liarity by abundant examples. "We have a like case here; the versions
therefore which go forth and are choked or as they go on their way they
are choked are incorrect.
8-18. pXe'ircTc ouc irfls dKouerc. Take heed how ye are instructed. Cf.
Tin ST LUKE 17

Hebr.2-1 Set Trepto-o-oTepws irpoa-exeiv ^/aSs rots ixKoutr^eKrt. Ap.3-3 /xvij-

/xovEve oJv irSs etA,ij<^as = ifiaOe^, ^/couo-as (cf. Arist-Bq-OSgr^i/ Awpto-Tt

/Aovi;v av apfjArTea-Oai Tqv.kvpav, aWrfv 8'ovk iOekeiv Xa/Sctv. Ran. 251
rovrl Trap v/toiv Xa/A/Savo), i.e. fjLavSdvo). Plat.Theaet. 175e ap/iovCav \6yiav

Xa/8orro?, etc, all these examples quoted by Blaydes at Arist. Bq.991).

For ctKovciv = tobeinstructed cf. Jn 5-30 Ka.6iis aKovta Kpwm. 6-45 axouo-as
Trapa tov iraTpos koI fiadmr. 8-38 a 7jKov(TaTe irapa. tov Trarpos Troieire.
Mt 5-21 r/Kova-aTe on, ippiOri tois dp;(aiots. Xen.Mem.4-7-5 oiS tovtoji/
dvijKoos ( = Mwmntcf d) ^v ; see my notes on Jn 5-30 and Rom.10-17.
8-23. d<|>uTri'(i)(ri'. So Pbilostr.ApolI.8-7 a-TreKadevSov. The preposition
the same as in the MGk airoKOLix-qdriKi, he fell off to sleep.
8-24. Sn^YEipac aiTOf \i>iovTe% 'ETrtoTciTa eiriordTa, d7ro\\u|XE6a. 'O Se
SiEycpScls eTreTip,T|cre t<5 di'Efjiu Kal tm kKuSuki tou uSaros, Kal eiraua'ai'TO

Kai ey^fETo ya^Vl- ^""^ 8e auTois flou x\ tticttis 6)aGi' ; ^o^rfiivr^'i Be

Edaup.airai' \^yoi'Ts irpos dW^XouSTis Spa oijtiSs la-nv; So far as I know
no scholar has taken exception to <J3oj3rj64vTe's Si idav/mcrav, but such a
statement seems to me paradoxical it states that as a consequence of
;

their terror the disciples were astonished, whereas the only rational
sequence would be the reverse, i.e. that having been first struck with
amazement they were seized with terror. My opinion is that no deri-
vative from (/)d/3os figured in the original text, for there is none in the
parallel passage of Mt 8-25, which is practically identical with that of
Luke, running thus : ^yupav avrbv XcyoiTEs Kupte, crSxrov, a.TroXXvfie6a.

Kat Xeyei auTow Ti SetXot icrrf, oXtyoTrtcrToi ; Tote iyepdd'S iTTiTi/xria-e TOts
avep.oL's Kal rfj $aXa,(T(rrj Kal iyivTO yaX-qvr) p.iya.X'q. Oi Se avOptniroi

l6avf>,a<Tav XiyovTK IIoTaTros icrriv ovto? ; I suggest IIoi! rj mcrrts vfiwv

;8iy; Havre's Se iOav/j-acrav. When describing anything wondrous Luke is

particularly fond of adding that everybody was astonished, and it is

unlikely that he failed to do so this time. Cf. 4-36 iyivero Odfi/lo's iirl

irdvTas Kat crvveXaXow Trpo's dXX?^XoDS XeyovTE?. 2-47 i^LcrravTO Seitcivtes.

2-18 TravTES ol aKOucravTES E^av/xacrav. 1-65 Kat cyEVETO etti iravTas (fio^o'si

5-9 6d.ii.po<s Trepiitrxiv avrbv Kal Travras. 5-26 EKcrTao-is eXa^ev airavTa^.
7-16 Xa/?E Se <^oy8os airavTas- For ttov rj moTts v/xSiv efirj cf. 2Act.Pil.
10-2 TOV SU/3ria'av to. aya6a ocra iiroiijcra^ ; Horn. 229 Trrj EjSav V)(u>Xai;

B 339 4-
^V OTivOecTLai re Kal opKia yS^cTETai rjfuv ; Gal. 15 ttov ovv 6
7717

yaaKaptcr/ios vfamV, 2Pet.3-4 ttov ecttiv rj brayyeXla; Asch.Socr.Dial.3

D
18 ST LUKE VIII IX

{quoted by Bloomfield) wov to, wpoaOev aixw"-'^". Possibly on becoming ;

faint in the prototype (.p-q Traires was read as <l)oPrj6ivTK under the in-
fluence of Mk 4-40 i<jiol3rj6rja-av <f>6/3ov /JLeyav.

8-29. iroXXois yap xpo>'ois crui/TipirdKei aurdi'. For it had seized him
manyyears ago. The sense of xpovos = year is illustrated in Sophocles
by many instances, which those of this passage and 20-9, as well
to
as of may be added. It is the specific term
Oxyr.Pap.1424 and 1593,
in MGk for year. The wish ippSicrBai ere xpovois ttoXXoZs which occurs in
the above Oxyr.Papyri corresponds exactly with the MGk greeting
vycKs Koi -)(p6via iroXXa, good health and many years to you. The English
version oftentimes is of course erroneous, as has already been pointed
out by Meyer, the error starting with the Vulgate; but Meyer's own
rendering during a long time Both with the sense oi often-
is no better.
times and of during a long time we should have had the present a-wap-
TTo^a and not the plusquamperfect. The Vulgate's imperfect arripiebat
is an additional error.
9-3. fi,y]hkv aipere is Luke repeats here the mis-
ttji' oBok, fii^Te pd^Soc.
take jitr/Se pdySSoi' which At that place I have com-
exists in Mt 10-10.
mented as follows 'The picture which these words bring up before the
mind's eye is that of an Eastern fakir who travels barefoot and scantily
clad, begging his way. But invariably such beggars carry a rude staff
to lean upon. These sticks are not articles of luxury and involve no
expense. Hence I think that instead of /aijSc puySSov the correct reading
is dXA.'^ pa./3Sov (dXX'ij = ei /Jii], cf. Dan. (LXX) 3-95 fjLrjBi Trpoa'Kvvrjama-L
6eZ kripia aXK'rj Oeio) in accordaoce with what 6-8, namely, is in Mk
1 /ji-rj pdySSov. M and AA being interchangeable in old manuscripts,
YnOAHMATAAHPABAON (that is, iiroB-^naTaXX'^) was misread as
YIIO AHM ATAMHPAB AON under the influence of wripav, and p.!)
/jltj

was afterwards changed into yuijSe in accordance with the proximate

/tiySe. Should my suggestion be correct, it would follow that the blunder
occurred very early, as the injunction to the disciples to carry no
staff is repeated in Lk 9-3 in a way which precludes the supposition

of an error.' Cf. also Philos.9-4-20, where the Essenes, a species of

fakirs, are described as travelling /tr/Sei/ (^epovres ttXt^v o-ir\ov= pd^Sov.
9-4. eis fji/ &i> oiKiai' eiaAflrjTe, Ki fji^i<cTE Kal iKelQev E^cpxcaSe. The
Vulgate renders in quamcumque domum intraveritis, ibi manete et inde
IX ST LUKE 19

ne exeatis, a reading supported by one old Latin, one Greek minuscule,

and the Aethiopian version, but ignored by Baljon and Souter. Soden,
however, has done well to record it-though he does so half-heartedly-
for it is the genuine reading, i.e. fi^ i^pxe<T6e. The Apostles are exhorted
to stay in one house and not to wander from house to house like common
beggars. See my note on 10-7. That a minuscule offers this lection is

one out of many proofs that the minuscules are not to be despised as
isthe fashion. For the loss of the negative see my note on Jn 5-46 and
more particularly my note on Rom.1-19.
9-13. ouK Eio'ii' yifi-iv itXeIo;' f\ tt^i'tc aproi kuI Suo 1}(0ue$, ei p<i^Ti iropEu-

SefTEs ^fiEis &yopdcrii>fiev eis irAvra toi' Xaoc toOtoi' Ppiifiara. The text as
it stands must imply that the disciples had the means of buying food
for five thousand people, which of course is out of the question.
Besides, there is an insuperable difficulty in the combination el jx-^ti,

for fju^i always introduces an interrogation and ei does not comport

with such ;
you cannot say if do etc ? The manuscript
you perhaps wish
U, however, does not read which yields an admirable sense,
tl but 17,

i.e. or is thy wish (spoken ironically) ^erAa^s that we should ourselves

go and buy food for all this crowd ? That we have to do with an interro-
gation is proved by the parallel interrogation of Mk 6-37 dTreX^ovTES
dyo/Dao-ojyu.ei' BiaKouiuiv Br/vapiiov aprous ;

9-26. OS Y^P Sf ^iraiCTX'"'0ii f^*- An allusion probably to the sneering

in vogue among the enemies of the followers of Christ of which many
of them were shy and in consequence of which they hesitated to call
themselves Xpurnavoi. This sneer or oveiSos is implied in Mt 5-11
fiMKapiOL ECTTE OTttV oi/EtStVcotTtv vjj.S.'S. Hcbr. 11-26 fiii^ova itXovtov Tjyqa^dr

/j,vos tSiv AlyviTTov 6r](ravpu>v tov ovEiSKr/xoi/ tov Xpurrov. lPet.4-14 ei

OVElSl^EO-^E EV OVOfJLaTl XpLCTTOV, fiaKOLpLOl. 16 El Se 0)S XpttTTlaVOS (tW

7raa-;!^Ei), firj alcrxyveadoy. Tat.Graec. 1 7 koX v/aeis Se yEXcoTOS ^v p,ri airo-irav-

arj<T6e, tSiv avTZv wv Trep koX oi yoj/TEs TL/jLiopiutv aTToXavcreade. The last

quotation shows that the sneer was intended to be such as to excite

mirth. What was it that gave rise to the sneer ? I believe it was the
word Xpio-Tos, which the enemies of Christians pretended to derive

from xp'w in the oftensive sense oi besmearing. It is also in allusion to

this that probably 2Cor.2-15 refers to EvwSta, meaning that if, as we are
sneered at, we emit an odour, that odour is a sweet one.
20 ST LUKE IX

9-30. oiTifcs T]o-ai'. Id est. Cf. 2-11 crwr^p, os ecTt Xpio-Tos.

9-31. e^oBoi'. The going out of the corpse from the house,funeral, and.
by extension death, exitus. The word as ^oSt (= t^oStoi/) still alive in
demotic MGk in the sense of funeral.
9-33. (jiT| ei8a)s o \4.yii. This can only mean not knowing what he says,
which obviously conveys an impossible sense; but by distorting the
present tense of Xc'yci into an aorist and rendering not knowing

what he said the translators have made things worse, creating an

impression as if Peter had previously uttered some outrageous remark.
What the situation calls for is clearly that St Peter -was confused
at the apparition and at a loss what to say. In accordance with this
some few minuscules read rikiyrj as it stands in the parallel passage of
Mk 9-6 ov yap gSiL tl aTroKpi6rj (cf. also v. 58 ovk )(^ei ttov t'^ v KE^aX^v
KXivr). Mk 8-1 p."!} ixpvTwv TL <j>dywtTi. Xen.Mem.2-1-30 Sia to /jirjSiv
^x^'-^
oTi TToiijs. lEvang.Thom.7 tl t7rw ovk olSa), but as usual their reading
has been neglected. The Vulgate correctly nesciens quid diceret.
9-39. Kai <nrap<l(ro-i auToi'. In several documents this preceded by
is

Kol pri<T<TiL, which I believe to be right. It was probably omitted because

pT^a-a-ei was thought to express the same as a-irapdcrcreL but it signifies ;

throws down (see my following note), and this is what happens to the
unfortunate epileptics.
9-42. Eppri^ec auTov. Threw him down. So in the AV, but exaggerated
by the Revisers into dashed him down. Sophocles under v. pmwiii
(= p-qcrcrw) quotes this very passage in the sense of to throw down.
In MGk prjo-cr<u in the form of prixym has displaced pltttw. Coraes in
Plut.Sull.37 says 'to Trap'rjfuv pyixy' itrTLV avTO to apxalov prjo-fTui, p-qyvvut

71 pT^yvvfjLL.' We
can watch the beginning of this evolution in Eur.Bacc.
633 SiofjiaT eppYj^ev ^ayiia^e.

9-51. TO -irpdau'iroi' auTou ccmgpi^c tou iropeuEaOai tts 'lEpouiraXi^iji. Cf.

Dan. 9-3 eSwKa to Trpocroiwov p,ov iTrl KvpLOv Tov Oeov tov iK^TjTrjcraL,

^o-TTipi^E Eis 'lEpouo-aXrjp,. Cf. Enoch 24-2 opri iTravaToXas ia-TrjpLyfjLeva.

10-4. ^.TiS^fa KaTo, Tr]v 6861' dairdor) o-Oe. An injunction not to imitate
who in order to extort alms often stop passers-by with their
beggars,
whining salaams or salutations; see my notes on 9-4 and 10-7. The
way scantily clad as fakirs or mendicants,
disciples are to go on their
but to avoid anything that would assimilate their manners to those
X ST LUKE 21

of importunate yagrants. Probably something of the same sort is en-

joined in 4KingS 4-29 lav evpjjs avSpa ovk eiXoyrycreis avrbv, kol iav ev-

XoyqfTrj (re av-qp ovk aTroKpiOrja-i] avrZ. Robinson, The Evangelists and
the Mishna p. 2 1 6, referring to our passage, remarks '
In times of great
anxiety and concern in the state mutual salutations were prohibited.'
But there is no trace of anxiety and concern at this place.
10-7. iv auTJj 81 TT] oiKioi (iecETE iiT&iovTe^ Kal iricoiTes T&. irap'airStv

S|tos ytip ipy^Ti]S Tou (iktOou auTou (XT) jieTa^alvtre i^ oiKias els oiKiai'.
As pointed out in my note on 9-4, the Apostles are commanded not to
comport themselves after the manner of undignified mendicants, who
go a-begging from house to house. Such a nuisance must have been in
the order of the day in those times. For, taking advantage of the pro-
verbially blind enthusiasm of new converts,there must have issued forth
a crowd of vagabonds who went about representing themselves as
Apostles and men persecuted for their stubborn loyalty to their new
faith ; they would point to their poverty as if it were the result of their
personal sacrifices, addingmany other pitiful tales, and thus in the
name of Christian fellowship eliciting contributions from the credulous.
Similar tricks are not unknown in our own times. That the traffic in
Christianity was not inconsiderable is shown by 2Cor. 2-1 7 ovya.picrp.ev
<i)S ot TToWol KaTnjXivovre's tov \6yov tov Beov.

10-8. eo-Siexe rd napanQip.eva ojiii'. A further injunction bearingupon

manners, which directs the Apostles not to behave like gluttons but
just eat decently what is put before them. So Weiss hier lediglich in '

dem Sinne, nehmen soUen, was man ihnen bietet, ohne weiteres
dass sie
zu fordern.' The same admonition in Sir.34-16 c^aye ws avOpunro? to.
TrapaKelp-evd <roi, Kal p.rj Sia/xacreo jxr/ p.LirrjO'^i (probably /iva-a^^gs, lest thou
excite disgust) ; TraBo-ai irploTO's x^P"' iratSeias (i.e. like a well disciplined
man) koI p.ri dTrXijo-Tevou. Similarly in MGk rpSiye a-av avOpw-rtos, which is
a current expression and means eat like a man and not ravenously
like a beast.
10-11. rhv Koi'iopToi' diro(i.aCTCT6jji,0a. Valckenaer remarks 'verbum
aTTopLda-o-ea-dai his in libris inusitatum, neque ab aliis, quod sciam,
Judaeis graecientibus adhibitum,' and corrects dTroTivao-o-o'yue^a in ac-

cordauce with 9-5 tov Kovioprbv otto tSiv iroSuiv aTroTLvagaTe. Mt 10-14.

Mk6-ll.
22 ST LUKE x xi

10-22. irdrra irapcSody] jxoi uiro tou Trarpos pou, koI ouSeis yivda-Kinis
i<mv 6 utos ei)XT| 6 iraTT)p Kal tis eoTif 6 TraTTjp ctfir) 6 uios koi <;> tai' Poi5-

Xt)Tai 6 utos diroKaXui|/ai. All commentators translate all things have

been delivered to me, but the following words oiSck yivuxTKei. ktX de-
monstrate that irapeSodi] iJLOL denotes have been taught, exi>lained, to me.
In my note on Rom.6-1 7 I haye commented as follows 'irap8o6r;T= eSt-
BdxOrjTe, you have been taught. So Sophocles in v. TrapaStSw/it. Cf. Just.

56c (is iSL8d)(6rjiJLev a(j>d6v<j>'s TrapaSiSorres. Euseb. EH. 6-18 yvaf).erpiav

TrapaSiSovs. In this sense Mt 11-27 (=Lk 10-22)7rdvTa/xotirap8o6r;i7ro

Tov Trarpos p.ov and Acts 4-33 direSiSow (probably vrapeSiSow) to fivorq-
piov(Mss fx.apTvpiov). Similarly the simple StSoVat, cf. Jn 17-8 rap^fiara
a SeScuKas /aoi SeSwKa avrots. 17-14 cyo) Se'StoKa avrots tov Xoyor crov.'

10-29. 6&\.o)v SiKuiuo-ai cauroi'. The shown by avicn-r] and

scribe, as
iKTreipa.t,(Dv of V. 25, approached Jesus with hostile and insidious inten-
tions, and there is nothing in the text to show that he modified his
attitude ; on the contrary, by his further question koL tli Icttiv /hou
TrX-qcrtov be still endeavours to trip up the Lord. I do not therefore con-
sider that SiKaLuxrai is right. The original reading, it seems to me, was
OiXuiv SoKt/wto-at T(. airov, desiring to make a trial of him once more,
what is stated by cKircipa^eii/ in v.25 being here repeated by its synonym
BoKi/jui^iLv. Compare similar attacks made by the scribes as related at
1 1-53 rjp^avTo OL ypap,jxarih aTTOO'TOyu.t^etv avrov Trcpl irXiiovwv eveSpcvovTES
avTov and at 20-20 d-iricrTeLXav iyKadirov; vTroKpivop-evovi iavTovi SiKaiovi
etvat iva eiriXa/SuvTai avrov \6yov. The change was probably brought
about by the influence of the rebuke addressed to the Pharisees in 16-15
v/xeis ia-TC ot StKaioBi'Tes eavTovs ivtoTrtov Tuiv avOpijiiriav.

10-40. 1^ 8e M(ip9a TrcpieoTraTO Trepl Martha's Sta- ttoXXt)!' SiaKoi'iai'.

KovLa changed character in the legend of later times and she became
glorified as a saint specially interested in charity cf. Acts Phil.94 ij ;

hi M.a.p6a IittIv r) hixiKovova-a tois TrXyjBicnv koX Kommcra o-<^oSpa. See my

note on Jn 11-5.
10-41. 6\iy(av 8e eori XP^^"^ ^ ivo^. A locus desperatus. Part of the
corruption is ^ ivbs, which probably represents a marginal comment
referring to oXiyuiv and meaning 'or write evos.' A few documents omit
r] tvds.

11-8. i Kal ou Suo-Ei ivaaTas 8icl t6 elfoi auTou (|>iXoi', Sid ye rhy
XI ST LUKE 23

S(iS(ri auTu oo-ci)i' xp?)l^i. The words Sid ye t-^v

dfaiSciai' auToS cyEpOEig

avalSeiav avTov have been translated yet because of his importunity,

though admittedly avaihuav means shamelessness. It has been supposed
that the neighbour who asks for the loan of the three loaves persists in
his request, making himself importunate and objectionable, a make-
shift view which I presume emanates from St Chrysostom, for Euthy-
mius says dvoiSeiai' Sk ewrc r^i' ivLfiovrjv t^s aiT^trco)?.' By a novel
'

method of translation it is this supposed importunity which our ver-

sions give and not what our text explicitly states. As a matter of fact
there is nothing in the text which points to an importunity ; on the
contrary, the neighbour's request is made politely and only once. On
the other hand, it is clear from the context that his friend returns no
rude answer but hands the loaves ; he does so, however, not simply
because he is asked by a neighbour, that is not a sufficient inducement
for him to overlook an inconvenience, but for a better reason, namely,
because he sees him in a real fix and thinks it a duty to help him
out of his diflBculty. Therefore read Sid ye Tr/v tvSeiav airov, yet because

of his need, which is in accordance with Deut.15-7 ov /trj crvo-c^ty^ets

T'^v Y"p<x crou diro Tov dSeXtftov (tov tov i-TriSeo/Jifvov' dvoiyoiv dvoi^fis ras

Ycipas (TOV avT<a koI Sdvfiov Savicis airio ocroi' iTriSierai, KadoTi ivSeeirai.
Cf. also Isa.25-4 iyivov tois dOv/jiiqa-acri SievSeiav <TKTry]. Act.Thom.149
irXripwTrjs rSiv i/J-uiv v<TTepi7/.aT0>v koI rpotftevi Trjs i/J.yj'; ivSeiai. Just.292b
Tas irpoo-^opas koI rets 6vcria^ SitvSeiav {because he was in need ?) 6
6ebs iverukaTo Troieiv ; The same thought in Xen.Mem.2-7-1 ras (XTroptas
Tuiv ^i\u>v SilvSuav ivapKeiv. The idea of importunity was probably
suggested by 18-7 6 Se fleos ov yu.-^ n-onqari ttjv iKSiKrja-iv Twv tKXeKTWv
avTOV Tuiv l3oii>VTU>v avrio ^/j.epas Kai vvktos ;

11-13. -nveufia oytoi'. A variant Sofia ayaOov seems to me preferable,

for a bestowal of the Holy Ghost is here incompatible with the con-
text. Bentley '
illud Trvevfjia dyiov est ex interpretatione.'
11-19. \'y6T ei- BeeXJePoiiX iK^dWeiv (le rd Saiftocia. El Se eyii eV

BteXJePouX eK^dWia t& Saifiocia, ot utol 6fi.S>v iv rivi tKpdXXouai ;

Aii
TOUTO KpiTal ujiui' auTOi eaocrai. El Se iv SaKTuXw Oeou iyii ^KpdXXw ra
8ai)i6cia, apa e+eao-ei' e<|)'u(Aas ^ PacriXeia tou 6eo0. A passage too con-
cisely worded, and has become exceedingly obscure. I believe
its drift

it to be this You accuse

: me of having dealings with the devil on
24 ST LUKE xi

the ground that I cast out devils, asserting that it is by the agency of
Beelzeboul that such miracles are performed. But your own friends
claim that they too cast out devils (since there are exorcists among
you, see Acts 19-13), and by your reasoning they must bave dealings
with Beelzeboul. Such an imputation would be resented by them, who
would treat you as liars. I thus land you in a dilemma either you ;

must admit that your which you will not do, or

friends are infamous,
that I cast out devils by the help of God. As you are driven to elect
the latter alternative, you must also admit that the kingdom of God
is upon you, in other words that I am the Messiah.

11-21. iv eipiqcr) eori to. uirdp^ovra, auToS. I.e. to. vTra.p)(ovTa dvTov
tcTTLv iv a-uiT-qpia or crto^ovTat ; also in 19-42. For ilp-qv-q '= salaam,
a-iarqpia see my note on Apoo.7-10.
11-22. eirai' 8e io'X''P<5Tpos aurou eireXfliji' v\,KT]fji^ auToi', ttji' iracoirXioi'

auToG atpEi ^<|>'tJ cirETroidei Kal toI SiaSiSbKrif. The clause

aKuXa auToG
Kat TO. (TKvXa avTov StaStSwtrii' was no doubt taken from Isa.53-12 Tun/
'urxvpSiv fxepLei a-Kv\a. But a-KvXa here is not a well-chosen word, for it

is not the vanquished who obtain spoils {a-KvXa), but the victors. It
has been pedantically used because it stands in Isaiah. Matthew 1 2-29
fitly replaces a-Kvka by a-Kcvrj which is not in Isaiah, and this shows
that his verse was borrowed from Luke.
11-24. di'uBpui'. I have explained in my note on Mt 12-43 that
dvvSpuiv is an early misreading of /jLvpiuiv.

11-35. (TKOTrei ouc (i^ to <|>Ss to iv croi (tkotos icnly. 36 El ou;' to irStjii

CTOU SXoy ^oneivov p.T| S^ov ti p.pos aKoreivov, eorai ^laravov SKov (us otoc
6 Xu'xcos TTJ doTpairji ((xuTi'^r] ae. This extraordinary sentence has had its

defenders no wonder, for there is no textual monstrosity in the New

;

Testament which has not been upheld by arguments more or less in-
genious. I thought at one time that perhaps, in accordance with Euthy-
mius (TKOTreL ovv /jlt] 6 voBs (TKOTicrOrj and Gal. 6-1 ctkottIov (reavrov p.rj Koi (tv
TreLpaa-6'rji, the text originally read a-Koim ovv /xrj to <^ms to iv croi o-kotos

tcrraL (^ ^, yivTjrai, cf. Mk 14-2 juij iv rfj ioprrj ixrjirore Oopv^oi ecrraL.

Hebr.3-12 /3X7rT /x-^OTe ea-rai tv tivl KapSia irovqpd. Protev. Jac.9 d>o/3-n-
6r]T /ATjTTtos i(TTai toDto), tva -g to CTU>jxa. crov oXov <f>uiTeLvov, firj 'iyov tl uepos
(TKOTeivov (OS OTav 6 \v)(yo'; rfj acnpaTrri (jtiarL^rj at. Thus as a conclusion
from what preceded we should have an advice to the listeners to heed
XI ST LUKE 25

lest their doings degenerate into sins. But D and old Latins drop v. 36,
and I am now inclined to think that, so far at least as that verse is con-
cerned, it was a clumsy marginal note which, being cacographically
scribbled in the first instance, took different forms. For the Syr.Sinaiti-
cus gives Therefore also thy body, when there is in it no lamp that hath
shone, is dark ; thus while thy lamp is shining, it gives light to thee.
An old Latin says si ergo corpus tuum, lucernam non hahens lucidam,
obscurum est, quanta magis, cum lucerna luoeat, inluminat te. Another
Latin gives si enim corpus quod in lucernam non hahuerit lucen-
te est

tem, tibi tenebrosa est ; quanto magis autem lucerna tuafulgens lucebit te.
11-41. Tctli'oi'Ta 86tc c\Eir))xoo'ui'T)v. An admonition repeated in 12-33
7ro)X-iy(raT ra virdp^ovTa vfjiSiv Koi 8ot cXer^/tocrvvTjv ; it is on the lines of
Tob.4-8 (US a-oi virap^oi (= to, Ivovto) Kara to irA^^os n-OLijaov If avTwv
iXerjiJiocTvvrjv. The admonition comes in abruptly because there is a play

upon the word ivovra, which means both contents as well as what you
can. As it were We speak about the cleanliness of the ea-wdtv (the
:

ivovTo) ;
yea, give ra ivovra (what you can afford) in alms, and then
everything will come right. I have indicated similar artifices in my
notes on 12-22. Rom.6-3. 7-4 and more especially 10-8.
11-42. dTToScKaTouTe to t^SuOctjj.oi' Kal to itr]yavov koi ttSi' \d](a,vov. As
the Jews did not tithe every herb but only such as are fragrant,
irav Xa;^avov is suspect.The parallel passage in Mt 23-23, from which
Luke drew, mentions to avrjOov, and this may have been the original
reading, the more so as there exists documentary evidence, recorded
by Soden, in its favour. What reason could Luke have had for re-
placing TO avrjBov, One of the most fragrant herbs, by every kind of
herb ? Or, was he perhaps ignorant of the Jewish (see my note on 2-11)
custom and thought that it did not matter much if he deviated from
Matthew's words ?
11-44. tA t& aSrjXo. Graves without any signs indicating
iii-ijiieia

that they are such probably graves of the very poor. Encycl. Bibl. v.
;

Medicine p. 3007 'the disposal of the dead was extramural ordinary ;

earth burial with or without coffins was perhaps the commonest.'

11-47. ouol ufuv, OTi oiKo8o/jiiT T&, (J.i'ir](iia tS>v irpo<tiT]Tui', oi Se iraT^pes

ujiui' dire'KTeii'ai' auTous. "Apa fiaprvpis e<rr Kal orureuSoKeire tois epyots

tS>v iraTepuc up.ui', oti auTol p.kv iiriKreivay auTous, ujieis Se oiKo8op.eiT.
26 ST LUKE xi

In its present form there is no possibility of eliciting a sane meaning

out of the text, for not nonsensical to say that, inasmuch as they
is it

built the tombs of the prophets and thus honoured them, the lawyers
eyinced approval of the deeds of their ancestors who had murdered
those honoured prophets That is, however, exactly what the text tells
?

us. But in D and several old Latins (disregarded by Baljon) there is

a variant yndpTvpe's iare /xfj cruvivSoKCLv, which affords a perfectly appro-

priate sense. A lawyer urged a strict adherence to the burdensome
traditions of the Jews, and Jesus answers Ye inconsistent hypo- :

crites You build the tombs of the prophets whom your ancestors
!

murdered how can we then follow the example of your ancestors as

;

you urge, when by your own action io honouring those prophets you re-
pudiate the deeds of your ancestors and protest that we must dissociate
ourselves from their principles ? For fj.a.prvpi'; la-re. /jlti crvvevSoKelv =
fiapTvptcrOe ixr] ovvevSoKiLv, you protest that we must not concur in, cf.

Nehem.9-29 iTrefiaprvpia avTOis iTrurrpiij/ai auroiis is tov vo/xov (tov. 13-15

Trep.apTvpd.p.r]v iv fjixipq. wpatretus avrSiv (^ iire/jiapTvpa/jLrjv /xi] irnrpacrKeLv).
Herod. 5-92 iirLixapTvpo/Jieda fj,r] KaricTTavai, 93 iire/jiapTvpovTO p-ri Troteeiv.

Thuc.6-29 iTre/jLapTvpeTO p,rj aTroVTOi Tripi airov Sta/SoAas aTroSi^^ecrOai.

Aesch. Eum. 646 v/j,as S'aKoveiv TavTeyio /iaprupo/xat.

fjiapTvpe^ icrre. Q,u. /jiaprvpecrde or i-Tn/jiapTvpea-Oe.

1 l-53.r]p|ai'TO iyi\siv koI diroaronijeii'* auToi' xepl TrXeiocuc. Respecting

ivexeiv Meyer correctly remarks not to be angry as usually inter- '

preted, which would require a qualifying addition such as ^oXov

(Herod.1-118. 6-119. 8-27).' But his own interpretation they began
terribly to give heed to him in a hostile sense is quite as inadmissible,
for the hostility of the scribes did not begin on this occasion but was
of long date. Nor is the reference to Mk 6-19 iviixev avro! to the
point ; that means him a grudge, and such an
ip.viqa-LKa.KeL airtS, bore
interpretation is equally incompatible with
-ijp^avTo. The context
demands a notion of pressing (by arguments and contradictions), and
the variant cruvt'xciv, which is recorded in several Mss, seems to me to
meet the case. Cf. 8-45 avuexovai ae kol a-n-oOXijBovai. 19-43 oi e.)(6poL
aov TrepiKVKXtiiaova-i ae /cat avvi^ovai ae TrdvTodev. With this agrees also
the Vulgate graviter insistere.
* Most Mss give diroo-TO/ian'feii'.
 ;

XI XII ST LUKE 27

With regard to aTroo-TOfii^eiv I do not know where the English trans-

lators have found that this verb means to provoke him to speak of
many things. Sophocles renders aTrooro/u'^a) by to put difficult questions
to any one, and refers to Evang.lThom.6-3 ijpiaro diroaToixi^eiv tov
BiBdcTKoXov, Kot ovK L<T)(y(Tv avTia aTTOKpLO^vai, and evidently this is the
correct sense here. The word is still familiar in MGk, but its import
has become more forcible. Cf. Vlakhos '
aTroa-TOfjM, fermer la bouche a
qtielqu'un [by arguinghim into a corner], reduire au silence,confondre.'
The Vulgate gives os eius opprimere, which looks as if it understood
the word in the MGk sense, which is also that of Evang.lThom.19-2
iaavfjia^ov ttui's TratSi'ov virap^tav ctTrocTTO/At^ct tovs irpicr^vTepovi.
12-3. o<ra ec Tij o-KOTia ciiraTe ei* tu (|>Ci>tI dKouaOi^vETai. The scope of
this sentence is not different to that of the following 8 Trpos to oZs
iX,a\r](raTe ev rots ra/ietois Kr]pv)(6rjae.Tai eiri Tuiv SiD/xaTOiv, except that it

represents a man choosing not a private but a dark place io which

to confide a secret. But why should darkness be necessary for such a
purpose ? What is essential is privacy {iv tois raixdoi^) ; darkness is

quite beside the point. I therefore read oo-a iv ry a-KOTia eVotcire ev T<a

<f>oyrl cx^Orjo-crai, for it is Strange that the case of a bad word should
be mentioned but nothing said about that of a bad deed. The corrup-
tion was due to cTroietTc having been misread as diran, after which
64>drjo-Tai would easily lapse into akova-Orja-tTai. It follows then that
Mt 10-27 o Xtyo) v/juv iv t^ (TKOTiq. eiiraTe iv Tta (jxari koL o els to ovi
ctKovere Ktjpv^aTe iiri tSiv Bui/jia.Tmv is a later addition borrowed from
Luke after the corruption of his text.
12-15. oTi ouK iv T<o iTEpicro'Eueii' Tiki i^ J"^ auTou effTic eK roty {nrapx6vTii)v
auTou. I think that ^torj here stands for jSi'os = TrXovroi (cf. 8-43, etc)
in this signification it occurs twice in Herod.8-105.* If so, the sense
is for a man's wealth does not consist in the abundance of his worldly
possessions, this thought as a conclusion being again pressed in
V. 21 ovTcos 6 6i!](ravpi^ii)V iavTia koL p-rj ets Oebv ttKovtuiv. To express
his idea St Luke seems to have used a very peculiar construction,
which in ordinary style would have been oiStj/i yap ecrnv r/ ^(orj
irepLacrSiv v-irap^ovTuiv.

* Cf. also Horn, f 96 -yap ot fou^ ^v affitfTos. 208 ^anjv kSdaavro. 7r429 xarcL
^cy^f (payefitv pevofifcia iroWrjv,
 28 ST LUKE xii

12-20. 6 ee(5s. Qu. 6 edvaro^.

12-22. fii] (lepifikaTE TTJ <J(uxfi (= irepi ttjs t'l'X'is. cf. V. 26 Ti irepi tuk
Xonrwc (jicpifjii'aTe ;) Ti (jxlyriTe p.r)8e tw ucijiaTi u/xwi' Ti ecSuoTQaOc. The
antithesis both here and at the parallel passage of Mt 6-25 is between
providing for the outside needs of one's body and satisfying the inside
cravings of one's belly. Therefore the version of i/ojx'^ by life is not
correct ia fact, it creates a false antithesis between the body as a
;

whole and life. There are many passages where i/fu^^ as a Hebraism
signifies belly. Cf. Deut. 12-23 ov j3pio6ria-tTa.i fj xlrv^^ fJ^^To. twv upeSiv.

24-2 ^ayjj a-TaKJniXrjv ocrov xjrvxtjv crov l/xwXrjcrdTJvai, Job 38-39 i/oi^as

SpaKovToiv i/jLTrXTjOfLi. Prov.19-15 i/'vx^ aepyov Trtivacru. 25-25 vScu/j

xjnixpov 4'^XO Sii/fiutn; Trpocr/jvis. Sir.34-29 iriKpia ijmxrj's oivo's irtvo/icvos

TToXv's. Hos.9-4 avTwv Tats xj/v^^ai'S avTwv ovk elcreXevcrovTai. The

01 apTOi

synonymity of and KoiXia is shown likewise by Cant. 5-4 y KoiXta

>j/vxrj

fwv idpo-qdrj iiravTov, where KoiXl,a = heart, soul. It was because of this
synonymity being well felt that iI'vi^tKos avOpunro'; came to mean a man
addicted to gluttony or generally to materialism, as opposed to irvev-

/AartKos, the spiritual man. In MGk xjmxi-Kb is the region of the belly.
In the words immediately following -q yap ijrvxr] TrXeiov icrn t^s
Tpotfi^'s I think ij/vxr) implies its specific signification of soul. For similar
artifices see my note on 11-41.
12-29. p.T| JiQTeiTE Ti 4)ciyr]TE Kal ti irirjTe Kal (xt| ficTEupi^eadE. The
Vulgate renders nolite in sublime tolli, in which it is followed by
Luther but as Grimm rightly remarks, such an interpretation pa-
; '

rum quadrat ad antecedentia.' The true interpretation is shun dis-

orderly conduct, for nvlrjTe points to Luke having had in view riotous
drunkards. Cf. v. 45 ib.v 8e eLirrj o SovAos ckeivos XpovL^n 6 Kvpioi mow
ipX^o-Oai, Koi ap^ryrai TvimLV Toiis TratSas Koi ra^ TraiSto-Kas, icrOUiv re Koi
TTLvetv Kal /xedvcTKicrOaL. Such recommendations of a rather puritanical
spirit we have also in Rom.13-13 cio-xi^/iovws ircpiTraTi^o-iD^er, f^ij kcoum?
Eph.5-4 /aijSc ovopLa^ia-Bia Iv Vfuv /xiopoXoyia ^ eirpaTreXia.
Kal /iE^ais.
lCor.10-7 also repeats the contemptuous words of Ex. 32-6 iKaOia-ev
6 Aaos (jtayiiv Kal ttuiv Kal avicrrqcrav Trait,uv. Sophocles quotes three
instances from the and seventh centuries of iJ.tTitiipLt,ou.ai
fifth, sixth,
in the sense of to he frivolous or in high spirits, toamuse or enjoy one-
self, and four others from the third and fourth centuries of /iTe<pr/Aos.
xn ST LUKE 29

as equivalent to levity, amusement, jesting. CIemE.lCor.30 had in his

recollection Eom. 13-13 /t^ Kco/tois koI /xiOai's in saying (f>evyovTei iji,i6a<s

Koi veiDTepto-juovs, where we must no doubt correct /*eTo)pto-/tovs. In

Protev.Jac.6-2 for hnirXavrnv avrrjv {= amused her) there is a variant
jx,iTiil)piiTav. Both the verb and the noun are still alive in MGk, though
rather obsolescent. Vlakhos r. iJiT(iipL^oiJ.aL ' badiner, plaisanterjouer,'
and V. fieTiopov ' badinage, plaisanterie.' Also fjATtapoi is still alive in
the sense of buffoon, jester, scurra, though overlooked by Vlakhos.
Wagner, Carmina Graeca Medii Aevi, p. 144, quotes va a-vvrvxca-Lv
oXiyovTCTLKa Tiva tZv p.iTiutpurp.aTm', to say a few jocular things.
12-36. iroTe dcaXuffT) k tu>v ydfLuv. The English version, misled by the
Vulgate quando revertatur a nupiiis, renders this by when he will re-
turn from the marriage feast. But avaXvui means to depart ; Sophocles
V. avaXvui besides other instances cites our passage in support. The
original meaning is to weigh anchor ; Liddell and Scott to ' loose from

the moorings, to weigh anchor, Lat. solvere ; and so generally to depart,

go away.' It is clear that if avakva-g meant he will return, the following

A.^dvTos would be superfluous.
12-37, p,aK(ipioiolSouXoi ckeii'oi oSso Kupio9X0i)i'upi^aiYpr)Yopoui'Tas'
dp.T])' Xeyu ufjiii/ on ise.pi.t/aaeTa.i, Kal dfaKXifCi auTOUS Kal irapcXduf Sia-
Kon^aEi auTois. K&i* iv ttj SeuT^pa K&f eV ttJ TpiTrj (j>uXaKr) eXSr] Kal eupT]

ouTu, fjiaKdpioi elcTii' keii/oi. It has been sought to account for the strange
condescension of the master by theological arguments, seeing that on
its own merits the idea of the master waiting upon his slaves is

thoroughly preposterous, especially when applied to the East where

the point of dignity is so strong ; see my note on Rom. 16-1. 1 cannot
believe that the words d/x'ijv Xiyw kt\ come from Luke, not only because
they are so bizarre but also because they split the clauses fiaKapioi oi

SoCXot EKcivot oil's 6 KvpLOi iXOuJv evpijo-et yprjyopovvTas and Kav iv ttJ Sev-

ripa Kav iv T^ Tp^rg (jivXaKrj iX6r] koI ^vprj ovto), fjLaKapiOL eicrtv iKeTvot.

To me the words in question seem to apply to guests who, unexpect-

edly perhaps, arrive at a hospitable house bringing glad tidings, and
to have been intruded here from another work.
12-45. i&v 8e Eiirr) 6 SouXos xpoylt,ei 6 Ku'pios pou epxeadai Kal apjT|Tai
eo-eiEii' T Kal triyeiv Kal peOuVKeaOai. The proper conduct of a servant
during his master's absence is given in XII Patr.Jos.3-5, where Joseph
30 ST LUKE XII

says that iav dircS-^fJiu 6 Kvpio's jjlov, olvov ovk (.ttlvov koL rpirjixipi^oiv

IXajjupavov jJiov rrjv Tpo(f>rjv.

12-49. irup TiXSoi' fiaKf.lv iirl rrji' yrji', Kal Ti BlKia ei r]8r] dcV]((ieri; fid-

TTTio-na Se ex<^ Pairrio-Bficai, Kal ttus ctuc^xo/^"" ^"S otou TeXetrSrj ;

It does

not seem to me that any one has ever elicited any plausible meaning
out of this passage. That it is corrupt the words y8a7rTicr/ia e^t" ^-
TTTia-OrjvaL ought to make plain, since Jesus' baptism had already been
performed. I suggest Trvp ^X6ov /JaXciv iirl ttiv y^v, koI ti ttev^S el Sei

ava<j>6rjvai ; /3acravio-/xa l^o) /3aa-avur6^vai, Koi ri (Tvvi-)(Ofi.ai p,rprws reXecrOfj ;

/ have come to set fire upon the earth and why do I grieve if it is to be

kindled ? a torture I have to be tortured and why am I distressed if it

should be fulfilled ? Jesus seems at first to fall into an agitated state at

the impending strife and his own sufferings, but suddenly to rally and
stifle his anguish, calling to mind that those misfortunes had been
pre-ordained for a divine purpose and were part of his mission. To
practically the same effect Jn 12-27 vvv fj
^xq p^ov TtrapaKTat kol tC
eirro) ; Ko.rep, arCicrov p, Ik r^s (Spas toutj^s ; 'AXXo, 8ia tovto ^X^ov is rijv

wpav TavTTjv. 1 8-1 1 to TrOTrjpiov b Se'StoKe fi,OL 6 iraT-qp ov /xr] ttiw avTo ;

Sei dca^jSfivai. Cf. Mt 24-6 Sei yevea-Oai, etc.

|3aa'ai'io'9>ii'ai. Corrupted also in lCor.15-29 eVei ti vocqaova-Lv oiySa-

TTTi^o^u.ei'ot VTTip t5>v veKpwV, el oXojs veKpol OVK iyeipovTai, tikoI ^aTTTi^ovTai
virep avrSiv ;
(where read fiaa-aviiofievoi and /Saaavi^ovTai, that is, why
do people take so much trouble for their sake ? Cf. Gal.5-1 1 ei ireptTop.r]v
cTi Krjpvcra-ii}, ti Iti SLu>Kop.ai if 1 am to preach circumcision still, why
;

should I be willing still to undergo persecution^ HermP.9Sim.9 d ovv

<j>rjp.l, Kvpif, dvayKTij i<TTi, tl (rtavTov jSacraj/i^ets ; why does thou take so
much trouble? Pseudo-Ignat.Trall.lO tiVos eveKev iyia SeSe/xat koL evxop.aL
6ripi.op,a^(7ai, ; Stapeav ovv diroOvi^crKui). In Ignat.Eph.8 /3a(Tavi^op.ai, has
been corrupted into a.yvit,op.ai. Reversely, in Lk 16-16 iy jSacnXeia tov
Oeov evayyeKt^eTat, koi jras tls avrrjv jSid^trai it is most probable that
jSia^erai has supplanted ^aTrTl^erai.
\ia= p.eW<j}. Cf. Jannaris, App.IV, 13, and my note on Rom. 9-10.
H^TTois TXe<T6YJ. Against this conjecture of mine it must be admitted

that it is difficult to account for the change of //.i^ttoos into o)s otou or
into the variant toi's ov.

12-57. ri Se Kal d<|>'lauTui' ou Kpii>T to 8iKaioi> ; Read iKJi'iavTuiv, in

xii-xiY ST LUKE 31

your own christian courts ; cf. 1 Cor. 6-1 KpLveaSai IttI rmv dSiKwv koi ov-xji

7rl Tu>v SiKaiiov. 6-5 Kplverai ktn amaTdiv. Acts 24-20 Tt evpov aZiKruxjo,

oravTOS /iou liri rov oTjvcSptou ; 24-21

(a wrong eyo) KpLvofjiaL f.<jivp,u>v

variant v<l>vix>v, as in this passage).* This injunction in

Luke is an
anachronism, for the Lord addresses Jews and he is unlikely to have
recommended them to avoid their own Jewish courts. It is an injunc-
tion suggested by what was happening in later times when Christians
were urged not to appeal to non-christian courts but settle their
differences among themselves. This feeling is referred to in lCor.6-1
roXjxS. TL'svp,SiV7rpS,yijM)(0)v irposToverepoi' KpivecrOai Ittl tZv aSiKwvKal oi;(i
iirl r<ov aytwv ; 6-5 ovk evi iv vp.lv ovStts (ro^os o? Swrjaerat SiaKp7vaL dva
p,iaov rov dSeX^oC avrov, dAXa dSe\<^os p,Ta aSiXcfiOV Kpivirai koI tovto eirl
dmcTTtov; That Luke had in view Jewish and not Roman courts is clear
from V. 59 ov p-rj i^iXdy; iKsWev eoDSov Kai to ccrp^aToi' XeTrrov aTToScos, which
indicates a civil case ; the Romans only interfered in criminal cases.
13-32. itiaeis diroreXw ar\fj,pov koi aupiof Kal ttj rplrq TtXeioufiai*
ttXt)!' Sei 116 tr-qfiepov Kal aupioi' Kal Tj l)(o(ji^i'r] TropUa6ai. If the text is
right, a comma should be marked after the second avpiov, and ido-eis

airoTeXiiv supplied. I.e. / must perform my

and to-morrow
cures to-day
and then proceed on the day following. But more probably a word like
epyd^co-^at has been lost after avpiov.

13-35. d<|>iETai uplv 6 oTko; ufiwi'. Many documents add Ip-qpoi, the
addition being due to misunderstanding at^Urai, which was taken to
mean is left whereas it means iyKaraXuTrirai, is being forsaken. The
translation of the Syr.Sinaiticus by is forsaken does not perhaps re-
produce its text with complete exactitude. For dc^terat := cy/caTaXet'-

Trerai cf. Mt 24-40 cTs TrapaXa/AySdverai kol ets dc^terat. In MGk also

eyKaTaXetTTO) is expressed by d^tVto = acj>irjp.L.

6 oiKos 6(10)1'. Your nation ; cf. oIkos 'lo-par/A..

ujiii'. An ethic dative, for you.

14-7. IXeye Se irpos tou9 KeKXr)(jiVous iropaPoXiii'. And he told a ^/arable
aiming at guests. According to the more usual expression it would be
eiSTOvs /ckA.17/11/oiis. Cf. Xen.Mem.3-14-4 vo/iuras 6 rcavio-KOS ds avrov
elpTjcrOcu TO. Xe^Oivra.

* The same blunder in Thuc.1-97-1 dird icoivwv ^w6Soip Bov\fv6vTo}v,-vi'here read

im. Cf. 6-40-2 i<p' iavrfis (7 ttiSXis) aKoirovaa. Heliod. 2-17 k<p' eauTwv av aKowoiftev.
32 ST LUKE XIV

14-8. oTai' K\r)0fis uTr(5 Tifos els Y<if*o''S {to a festivity), fiT) KoraKXiO^s
eis tV irpuTOKXiaiai', (ju^ttote ecTifKSTepos crou r] KEKXrjp.^i'OS uir'auTou, Kai

i\db>v 6 ore Kai outoi/ KaX^aas epei <TOt Aos toutu tottoi', koI tote ap|r] fier

aliTxuvr\s Toc eax'^TOi' tottoi' Kaxe'xeti'. This is also enjoined in Prov.25-7

(quoted by previous commentators) Kpelaa-ov yap o-ot to p-qurjvai avd-

Paive Trpos yu.e i) TairuvSxTai. ere ev irpoa-iinrto hwdaTov (in the presence of a
superior person). Cf. also Lucian.683 ^xeis i-TrX to SeiTrvov ovkcO o/j.oloi';

fVTi/jLOS ovSk xepi/SXeiTTOs rots irapot/criv, a\X'y]v TW aAXos hreiaeXOri vea-

Xia-Ttpos, ets TOVTricrio crv, koI ovtios cis T^v a.Tip.oTa.Ti^v ywi/t'ai' efwo-^eis

KaraKeio-ai. What is portrayed in these passages actually takes place in

India; at receptions an early guest may be shown to the best place, but
if subsequently a more important person arrives, that early guest will
be asked quite coolly by the host to yield his place to the new arrival.

14-14. (jLUKctpios ecrei on The conjunctive

ouk c)(ou<nf di'TairoSoui'ai <7oi.

is declarative and not causal, and it should not be disjoined from

fxaKapioi i<Ti by a punctuation as is usually done. The meaning is thou

shalt he fortunate from the fact that they are unable to make a return
to thee.
14-18. Tip^orro diro jiids irdcTES iropaiTeTo-Gai. I.e. dtro /iias (fxovrj'S, as
some commentators have already explained. Cf. Lucian, Nigr. 14 ava-
jiorjo'a.i jiiia (jxovfj Travras Sxrirep ecTKCyn/ieVovs. Herod. 5-93 aTras Tts avToiv

<j>(iivrjv prj^m alpiero tov KopivOiov ttjv yvwp.'qv. The phrase has come
down to MGk as ^ovo/ttSs (probably through ij.6vov ov yuiSs) and Sta/uSs,
meaning at once.
14-23. e5eX6e ets Tcis 68ous Kai <|>paYfxous Kai di'dyKao-oi' eio'eXdeii'.

The English and the usual signifi-

translators, misled by the Vulgate
cation of avayKii^eiv, have rendered avdyKaaov by compel and constrain.
But there is no trace of a necessity for compulsion either here or at
Mk 6-45 and Mtl4-22,where this verb recurs. The meaning suitable at
all these passages is that of directing or requesting and this applies ;

also to Oxyr.Pap.2083 tt/v yvvaiKa -fivdyKaa-iv viif/at. Such is occasionally

the meaning of dvayKa^eiv in post-classical Greek, as Professor Pernot
has pointed out to me.
14-34. edf 8e koI to fiXas /lupafSfj, iv Tti'i dpTuSi^aeTai ; oure els yi\y
cure els Koirpiai' eijOeToi' lariv. The text is defective, for who has ever
heard that salt was or is employed in Palestine for improving the soil ?
 xiv-xvi ST LUKE 33
The natural thing to have said first of all surely was that bad salt
isno longer fit for food. This we obtain by correcting yrjv by ray^v.
Cf. Hesych. v. rayr] '
fj oTJVofis tSv irpoi TpoK^trjv dvayKaitov.' Originally
Tayr] meant ration, but eventually its meaning evolved into food
generally. At Oxyr.Pap.1139 the editors say 'the word is commonly
used for food, e.g. Chron.Pasch.1386 17 rayrj avrov Trapa tov ftaaiXtm.'
It is still a familiar term for ration^ but the verb raytto) means not
only to ration but principally to feed. Vlakhos v. rayi^u) '
nourrir,
donner a manger, donner en ration.' Sophocles registers two examples
of ray l^w =
to feed from the ninth and tenth centuries. At Mt 10-29

yrjv seems to have displaced

irdyiqv. The change of Tayrjv into jqv Ta.9.Y

have been caused by a reminiscence of IKings 2-8 avKTrS. a.Trb yrjs

irevrp-a kolI airo Koirpia'S iyeipei TrTai)^6v. As regards is Koirpiav I do not
think that it has been added because Kon-pia has anything to do with
salt, but by way of emphasis as the very opposite of food.
15-10. -^Iverai The English version there
ytaph, IviSntiov tS>v dyy^oii'.

isjoy in the presence of the angels. But Ivunriov twv dyyeXojv is merely
equivalent to tois dyyeXots; see my note on 1-6. Euthymius at v. 58
' ivutTTlOV (TOV, TOUTCOTIV tS CTe.'

15-29. e(j,ol ouS^iTOTE eSuKa; ipi,^oy. Thou hast never given me (even)
aJcid. Goats, not producing wool, which was the chief source of wealth
in primitive times, were considered animals of comparatively low
value. The good son complains that his father would not sacrifice for
his sake a young one of his least valuable animals.
16-8. iTn)yiae.v 6 Kupios tov o'\,kov6^ov ttjs dSiKias on ^povl^a<i eiroirjcrec.
How could the master praise his steward who had robbed him ? It was
not the master, not o KvpLo^, but the viol tov atajyos tovtov, the men of
this wicked world, i.e. Koa-p.o's, who praised the shrewdness of the
dishonest steward. In aiming at worldly goods they understand how
to acquire them by efficient though dishonest ways ; but the men of
light and faith, who aim at salvation, do not understand how to secure
it. All this looks like a thrust at certain avaricious men who would not
contribute towards the needs of their fellow Christians, and the thrust
is continued in v.ll. The same error in lCor.7-22 6 yap iv /<vpia)(read

KOfT/Jiui) KXrjdiii 80SX0S a,TreXev6epo? Kvpiov icrriv. AtlCor.11-11 wehave

a reverse misreading in the variant Koa-fi-m (see Tischendorf) for Kvptw.
34 ST LUKE xti

Toi- The steward of unrighteousness, i.e. the

oiKoi'ofioi' Trjs ASiKias.
steward of heathendom, dSixias being practically the same as the
following Tov aiwos tovtov. In the same sense it recurs in 16-9 fxa/j-ava
dStKias and in 18-6 Kpi-rrj^ Trji ctStKias. So also v. 11 aStKos /^a/iiDva?.
TTJi

For by extension of meaning aStKos =

heathen, idolatrous, gentile cf. ;

lCor.6-1 roXfjM tis vfiG>v, Trpoiyfia ;^a)V7r/3os tov irepov, KpivecrOai eTrlrolv
dStKoiv KOL ov^t iirl rwv aytiav ; Apparently a Hebraism ; cf. 2Kings 7-10
wos d8iKtas= a heathen. Esth.l-[5] SiKaLwv Wvo'; = the Jewish nation*
is TT)!' Y''^i' tV iainiiv elo-i. ylre in i/ieir own times. Strictly speak-

ing, we should have Iv rrj yevea ttj iavTZv, cf. Gen.6-9 reXetos wv iv rrj
yevea avrov, etc. ; but in Hellenistic times eis with the accusative was
often used in cases where classically the norm is iv with the dative,
cf.1-20 ir\-qpui6rj(TovTai eis tov Kaipov avTuiv, etc. ; see Blass's Grammar
39, 3 and 4.

16-9. TTOH^craTE EUUToTs if'^^oi'S EK ToG p.ajjiui'a TTJs dSiKias, Iva orai'
^kXittt) Se'^ui'Tai ujiSs eis Tcis aiwcious (TKf]vds. The import is : Create for
yourselves friends by charity and sacrifices out of your worldly (t^s
dSiKi'a?) wealth, so that, when you lose it by your death, those friends

by bearing witness to your goodness may procure you a better wealth,

an eternal bliss in the heavenly abodes.
16-11. el oui' iv Tu dSiKU fiufji.ui'a iricrTol ouk iyiveuBe, to dXrjdii'oi' tis

ufiic irtcrreuo-Ei; If you have not proved yourselves good trustees in this
life by making proper use of your insignificant worldly (dSt/ccp) wealth,
who will entrust to you that wealth of holiness which is in heaven ?
TO dXriOtfof =: TO StVatov, the holy, in contrast to the preceding t(3
dSt'/co). In my note on Rom.3-7 I have stated 'dXi^Seia. From the con-
text it is employed in the same sense as
clear that dX^^cia is here
SLKaioa-vvrjv in V. 5. Apparently a Hebraism; cf. Ps.24-10 IXeos kol

aXyfiua. See my notes on 3-21. 14-7. 15-26. Also 2 Kings 2-6 Trot^o-ai
Kvpios 11.^6' vp-Syv eXeos /cai aXrjVuav, Tob.13-6 iroirjorai ivunnov avTOv (tov
Kvpiov) aX-qOeiav, etc' See also my note on Jn 3-33.
16-12. 1 iv T(S dXXoTpiu TTiffToi OUK iyive.aie., to ufxETEpov tis 8(5(Tei

6(111' ; This verse is an interpolation, intruded by a commentator who

misconceived the sense of the antecedent verse. He took dStKu to mean
* Lightfoot at Gal.2-16 the word duaprtoKol was almost a
'
synonym for eSvrj
in the religious phraseology of the Jews.'
 ;;

XVI ST LUKE 35

the treasure which does not belong to you, which you acquired by unjust
means, and to oXtijOlvov to mean the treasure which is your real and
Were the verse genuine, we should have
rightful property. to conclude

that Luke penned a meaningless sentence.

16-16. 1^ PaoriXEia Tou deou EuayY^^^^^Tai xal irds els auTfic ^id^ETai.
In justification of jSid^eTat expositors (see Meyer) have referred to
passages like Thuc. 1-63 jiiaa-oucrBai e.h ttjv TloTuSaiav, but there ySta-
<ra.cr6ai means to force one's way into, as Jowett accurately translates
this presupposes a strong resistance, and it is inadmissible that re-
sistance was offered on the part of the kingdom of God to those who
were eager to enter it; the will of God was that men should adopt
Christianity and thus enter heaven. The Peshitto adds eicreX^eiv, its

translator evidently having taken ySia^erat in the MGk sense oi making

haste; such a sense is intelligible, but the addition of eto-eA.^eo' would
be indispensable. Here cis avTrjv jSia^irai can only mean is forced into
it. But where do we find that men were forced to embrace Chris-
tianity ? On the contrary, the complaint in the New Testament is that

Christians were persecuted and forced to keep back from the Gospel
cf. 21-12 iTri/3a\ov(riv e<^'uyU,as Tcts p^eipas avrZv Koi Stm^ovtri, TrapaStooi'Tes

CIS ras crvvaywyai koI (ftvXaKa.'S, aTrayofiivovs im ySacrtXcts /cai rjyeixova?

VKv Tov ovojMLToi fiov, etc. lu my vicw /Sidlerai is an error for ^mrTL-

ferat (see my note on 12-49), the import being: The Law and the
Prophets and their commandments, which you Pharisees advocate,
were only valid until John but since his advent it is the kingdom of
;

God, i. e. Christ, which is preached and which all righteous men em-
brace, as shown by the fact that they hasten to be baptized in the
name of Christ. Mt 1 1-12 dirb 81 twv -^/J-eprnv 'loidwov tov pairTLO-TOv eo)S
dprt r) ftacriXeui tSiv ovpavwv yStd^erai kol jSiaa-Tol apTrd^ova-LV avrqv was
borrowed from Luke after his text suffered mutilation.
16-25. dir^XaPes tcI 6.ya.&& aou iv Trj a)fi <tou Kai Adjapos ofioiws rd

KaKci- vuv Be flSe TrapaKaXeirai, au Se oSufacrai. The antithesis to Iv ttj

Iwfi a-ov requires oJSc, but the antithesis to av 8e requires the variant
o8e. The original reading must have been o8e S8e. So Chrysostom
ovTos (S8e and Epiphanius olSe wapaKoKiiTai 6 avTos Ad^apos. As at the
time when this gospel was written w8eand o8e had a very similar,if not
identical, sound, one of them would almost inevitably be disregarded.
36 ST LUKE xvii-xix

17-5. np^afles ^ii* iriariv. Eiirc Be 6 Ku'ptos El lxT ttiotii' us kokkoi'

civdireias, IKiyere &v t) auKajxii/u rauTT) Kpi^(i9T|Ti Kal (|)UTu6if|Tt ec rf

GaXtco-ar), Kal uirf\Kou<rev &v u}i.'iv. The Lord's answer is not relevant to
the request of the disciples for a bestowal of faith ; to be such it
should have contained a hint as to whether or how it would or could
be bestowed. Instead of which the Lordis made to go off the point

and mention the mighty wonders which the Apostles would perform
ifthey had faith. Therefore I think that ttrxw was the original word
and not ma-nv. By this reading the Apostles ask for power, and the
Lord answers that what they need is faith if they had faith, they ;

would be invested with power.

17-6. 1 xeT. The variant d etx^re is preferable.
17-10. SouXoi ixp''^ i'Jfi'iv. We are mere slaves, men of no account,
to whom no thanks at all are due whatever trouble we may take
in the service of our master. Luke seems to use axpiioi as the reverse
of )(prj(TTOL.

1 8-6. 6 KpiTT)s TTJs dSiKias. The judge of the unjust, or idolatrous,

world ; see my note on 16-8.

18-19. ou8ls dyaSos l(Ji.T) is, 6<5s. In my note on Rom. 5-7, I have
suggested that this clause is probably an echoing of the Gnostic con-
troversy respecting a 6eos SiKatosand a 6eos aya66s. If so, the addi-
tion 6 Trarrip after which Marcion has been accused as being
6(.o%, of
the author, most probably was originally part of the clause. That it
is feebly attested would be no wonder once it became controversial;

matter and was attributed to Marcion, it would of a certainty have

been systematically erased from all books read in the churches such ;

was, for instance, the case with the story of the adulteress in Jn 7-53
(where see my note). With the exception of N B, all Mss give o ^eos ;

but the article must have been added when o TraTrjp was erased. Even
the transcribers of NB at first wrote o ^cos, which demonstrates the
tendency at the time of all transcribers to add the article.
Luke's clause has been copied into Mt 19-17 rt dya^or irotijo- (oo/a

t^o) ^<u-^v aliavLOv ',

O 8e fiTrev airZ Tt /x epcuTOts irepl tov ayaOov ; 15

icTTiv 6 dyaSos, but it has been bungled in the copying.

19-12. dfSpuirds Tts EuyEi'Tis ETropEu'Sn) ls x<ipav jjiaKpoti' Xa^Eii' eoutu
Pao-iXfiai'. The nobleman described is a private person, and it is
XIX ST LUKE 37

curious that such a person should be represented as going in search

of a kingdom. But probably Luke had vaguely in his mind the history
of Archelaus and Antipas, who at the beginning of the first century
travelled to Rome to place before the Emperor their respective claims
to the kingdom of Palestine.
19-13. KaX^cras Se 8^Ka SouXous lauToG ESuKCf auToT; S^ku |xms. In the
parallel passage of Mt 25il, from -which Luke drew, three slaves only
come into the narrative, and that is the case also in Luke according
to one of the readings of v. 20, which is adequately attested and gives
tTcpos, meaning of course the remaining one, i. e. the third one.

1 read therefore rpas for Seko. The lapse from V=^three to 1= ten was
a very easy matter, for it is well known that confusions of this kind in
numerals are a familiar feature of Mss. The alternative reading of v. 20
cVepos (without the article) would not invalidate Sexa, but one does not
see why seven more slaves should be brought in as Kox^a Trpoa-ioira.

19-16. TrpocreipYdo-aTo. Blaydes at Arist.Eq.840 with his usual tho-

roughness has illustrated ipyd^ta-Oai as denoting to acquire.

19-21. aipEi9 o ouK cdTjKas. Plummer perhaps

'
a current proverbial
expression.' The proverb occurs in Philo (see Taylor, Pirqe Aboth,
p. 143) a fjiT] KaTi6rjKv iJir]B'a,vaipu(T6a.i, Add Aelian.VH. 3-46 o /jltj Kcvridov

fi7} Aaju/Savc. Meyer quotes Josep.Ap.2 o ixirj KaridrjKe tis ovk avaipi^-
trcToi and Solon (in Diog.Laert. 10-2-9) a /iij tOov /xr] avihg.
19-23. o-ui' TOKO) Sy eirpa^a auT(5. Ishould have collected it with interest.

The English have unfor-

versions, in rendering hrpa^a by required,
tunately reproduced the Vulgate inaccuracy exegissem. Here hrpaia
stands for da-eirpa^a, as it often does classically (see Liddell and Scott).
So 3-13 fi-qSkv Trapa to StaTiTay/xevov v/uv 7rpa.<T<7eT, where again the AV
is inaccurate in rendering exact, and still more the RV with its extort.

19-25. Kal etiroi' auTu KupiE, xei ScKa jifas. Bleek (see Plummer)
rejects this verse in accordance with its omission in several Mss, in-
cluding D and Syr.Sinaiticus. Whether interpolated or genuine, it is

not in its The answer to the master is that the first slave
original form.
had already received his reward, and the reward was not the deposit
of the ftvat but towns. Therefore the reward mentioned in the answer
ought to be in terms of towns. So instead of /xvSs I read KOip.a<s.

19-31. i&v Tis ujxas IpuTa AiaTi \ueTC, outus epeiTe oti ktX. This punc-
 38 ST LUKE xix xx

tuation lends an emphasis to ovtcos for which there is no occasion. The

punctuation should be SmtC Xvere ovTca^ ; why do you loose like that ?

i. e. -without a right, arbitrarily. So exactly it would be in MGk yiari

XvveT cTcrt (=oi!Ta)s) ;

19-38. elprivi] Iv oupava Kal Sola iv u\|<i<rTOis. The IvapBpa stand for
simple datives, of which idiom I have treated in my note on 1-1,
where I comment upon Iv rjfuv. Respecting ^Ipi^vrj I have explained in
my note on Apoc.7-10 (see also my note on Lk 11-21) that it is a
synonym of a-uiTrjpia, reproducing the Oriental salutation salaam. So
that iv ovpav(a elp-^vr/ would mean blessings to heaven or heaven be
blessed ; it follows that So^a iv vij/l<ttois means glory to the highest or

the highest be glorified. Cf. Rom. 16-2 7 <Ly 8o'^a eh tovs alZvas. 1 Tim.
1-17 Oe<S Tip-r] Koi So^a, etc. It is an aTvos or thanksgiving, as in fact
is evident from ^p^avro alvelv rbv Oeov of v. 37.

19-42. el eyifus ktX. The apodosis to this truncated sentence is some-

thing like v av trot el)(e, it would have been well with thee. Such trun-

cated sentences with av (= el) are quite frequent in MGk. Vlakhos v.

av ' [cTTi ux^s] u) KoX av -^px^To ! ah ! s'il pouvait venir ! '

61 Eyi'us Kal au. Meyer my piadrjTaL' No comparison is intended.

' as
In MGk Koi (TV is often added in commiserations, as it were thou
unhappy city ! Plummer the Kal crv [perhaps] implies no com-
'

parison.'
Tci irpos eiprjcT)!'. I.e. to, Trpos criaTtipLav. See my note on 11-21.
19-43. oTi fi^ouo'ii' kt\. This depends from KkaCm, to be understood
from eKkavuev of V. 41. Namely, I weep over thee, for days shall come
upon thee, etc.
19-44. eTriaKoirijs. Euthymius eTriyneXetas.' As a derivative of Itti-
'

a-KeTTTOfiaL this noun means a visit for comforting or succouring those

who are either sick or in mourning or in prison here metaphorically ;

employed as if Jerusalem, which was looked upon as a moral delin-

quent, were physically afflicted.
19-48. 6 Xaos yelp airas e^EKp^naro aurou dKouue. Euthymius 'SiSao-KO-
p-evo?.' See my note on 8-18.
20-9. dTr68i^fi.T|<T6i' xpoi'ous TToXKou's. Went abroad for many years. The
version of xpovovs ttoXXovs by for a long time, due to the Vulgate, is

not correct ; that would be expressed by the singular, as in Acts 14-3

 .;

XX ST LUKE 39

iKavov xpovov Sierpiij/av, etc. As explained in my note on 8-29, vpovos

is often employed in the MGk sense of eras.
20-16. Kol ScSiTEi Toi' dixTTEXufu aXXois. As it is not a question of the
vineyard being made a gift of but farmed, the correct reading must
be Koi, exSuJo-ci, i. e. KaKBuxrei, and not koI Swerei, It is so higher up in
T. 9 icfivTevcrev a/jLTreXStva kol i^iSoTO auTov yeupyois. I haTC commented
upon a similar my note on Mk
fault in 12-9, comparing the parallel
passages Mk and Mt 21-33 kol e^e'SoTo avrbv ye<apyoli. So also
12-1
Mt 21-41 Tov afjiireXutva exSolcreTat aWots yewpyois. It may be, however,
that Luke copied faithfully Mk 1 2-9 after its corruption.
20-20. iyKaBiTou?. The same as tVeSpeiJovTas (ISpa of course being a
derivative of l^o/xoi), lying in wait. Cf. Gen. 49-17 o<^is i<ji'6Sov e'yxa-

6-qixevos iirl rpijiov, and metaphorically Jez. 35-5 iveKaOia-a^ t<o o'kio
'ItTpaTjX 80A.U). By extension iyKaderos occasionally is employed in the

sense of deceitful (compare insidiosus), and generally of rogue, Trayovp-

yos, as it is likewise here : cf. v. 23 Karavoijo-as Si avrSiv rrjv iravovpylav.

In the same way iviSpa means not only ambush but also treachery
cf. Plat.Legg.908d SoAou koL iviSpas irXiypijs. InThuc.1-66 t^v t^dpav
T<ov KopivfliW I have corrected into rrjv iviSpav twv TLopivOiav. The
verb i/8pi;(i) follows suit; cf. Dem.836 et p^ t(u
xp^V ^veSpevdrjfjiev,

if we had not been deceived by time, as Liddell and Scott interpret.

ClemR. in Homilies is very fond of eveSpevo) in this sense. In Narrat.
Josep.2 the author most probably had our iyKaOerov^ in view in
saying tSovTts rijv KadeSpav Tu>v Xoip-wv ; if so, the true reading there
must be t^v iyKaOiSpav twv Xoip-Zv. The same notion in Oijpav of
Rom.11-9 and Karaa-KOTr^a-ai of Gal.2-4. Cf. also Philostr.ApolI.7-26 to
e(f>eSpov. 7-2 7 vtto tov Aop.Tiavov KaOeip.VOi {iyKaOetp-eyoi ?). In Oxyr
Pap. 1114 wpos TO /jLTjUe/jLiav evSepav Trept ras (TTpamoTiKa'S rpoc^a? yeveadai
Hunt of course is right in correcting iveSpav and translating fraud.
20-26. ouK layfiKiav iniKa^iaiai tou pi^|xaTos. The definite article must
point to a distinct p^jua. Which is it ? As the text stands this p^p,a
must be airoSore to. Kaitrapos ^a.l(rapi. koX to, tov 6iOv T<a 6e<S, which,
however, does not tally ; there is nothing in that answer which can
be so twisted as to lend a handle for controversy. Luke no doubt
wrote OUK to^verav iiriXaftecrOai avTov prjp.a (or p^p,aTos), they were not
able to lay hold of him by a single word. Cf. Mt 22-15 oti/m^ovXiov
 ;

40 ST LUKE xx-xxi

eXaySov ottws avTov TraytScvcroxrir ev \o'ya). In fact, at 20-20 airia-reiXav

IVa iiriXd^oivTai avTov Xoyov (or Xoyov) we have a repetition of this
very expression. Cf. also Narrat.Josep.1-3 i/'euSes prj/xa OiXwv avrov
KaraXaftia-Oai, which is a reproduction of our passage, except that it

attributes to Judas what Luke relates of the iyKaOerovs.

20-37. OTi Se eY^^P''''''"' ^ feitpoi Kai, Mucttjs ifi-qyiKrev em Trjs Pdrou,

ii)S Xeyei Kupio;' to;' deov 'AjSpaafj. Kal 6ebv 'laaaK Kal Oeo^ 'laKc6p* Oeog 8e
ouK loTii' viKpHy dXXd l,iivTmy, irdvTes yip aura) t,S>aiv. The argument is

that at a time when Abraham and Isaac and Jacob had passed away,
God spoke to Moses and called himself a; God of those Patriarchs
therefore they were then living. But the addition of Se to ^cos ovk

i(TTLv Titiates the argument and creates a vicious circle ; it states

that, since God is a God of living, Abraham is also living. The Syr.
Sinaiticus, however, gives and behold he is not a God of the dead, and
Curetonius similarly et ecce deus, etc. ; moreover, several old Latins
state deus ergo mortuorum nan est, all these variations expressing
logically this clause as a conclusion. This is in accordance with the
parallel readings of Mt 22-32 and Mk 12-26, which omit Se, thus
stating Nay, God is not a Qod of the dead, as Abraham's example
proves he is a God of the living, and Abraham as being alive will in
;

due time rise, and along with him the other dead. I therefore think
that the particle Zl is spurious, which is further proved by its being

omitted by D
and Origen (see Tischendorf).
The following words irdvTi^ yap avriu ^wcnv make things worse. If
the proof of God being a God of the living is that all live by his help
(see my note on Rom.14-4), why bring in at all Abraham's example as
a proof? These words do not exist in the parallel passages of Matthew
and Mark, and I have no doubt they are supposititious.
21-3. dXrjSus Xcyu ujjii^ on i^
x^P"* T '"T'^X^ ''""I irXeio^ irdrru^ c^aXe^,
irdkTes ycip oijTOi Ik tou irepicro-euoi'TOs auTOis c^aXof eis tci Supa, auTT] 81
K Tou ucrTpiii|j.aTos auTTJs. In a somewhat similar spirit Xen.Mem.1-3-3
OvtrCa's Se Ovuiv {^(OKparrji) /iiKpds diro p-iKpuiv oiSiv rjyaro jxnova-Oai tS)V
CLTrb iroXXSiv koI /xeyaAcov ttoXXoi Kai /xeydXa 6v6vTU}v. Hesiod.Op.336 KciS
Bvyap-iv S'tpSttv Lp dOavaTOUTL Beoicnv.
21-24. 'lepouaaXriix earai iraToujieVr) utto i^vSiv axpi TrXr]pa)6a)(n Kaipol
iivm. The import probably is that the old Jerusalem will be trodden
XXI XXII ST LUKE 41

down by the heathen until the ruling period of the heathen is com-
pleted (cf. Acts 24-27 8tTias TrXjjptoSttcnjs), and the new and holy
Jerusalem, that described in Apoc. ch. 21, descends.
22-6. -irapaSoSfai outoi' arep oxXou auToTs. The interpretations without
a crowd or without a tumult or in the absence of the multitude are not
correct ; the meaning is without any trouble or inconvenience to them.
In this sense oxXos is recorded by Sophocles, for he says '
oxX-rjcri^
oxXos, vexation, annoyance, trouble.' Cf. oxAiypos, ivoxX-eiv, dvei/dxA,?jTos,
and Acts Ioan.60 ripi/ia XaXoByrcs dStoxXiyroi avrZ iyevo/xeOa, by speaking
softly we caused him no trouble, we did not disturb his sleep. The mis-
understanding of the sense reaches to a long time back, and to it is

due the variant TrapaBovvai auroi' aurots airep o)(\ov.

22-16. ou fjiT) ^iyo} aOrd. There is a variant e^ avrov strongly attested,
which the AV has followed, and it seems to me to be far preferable
to airo, for it is intelligible that airo should be substituted in accor-
dance with the foregoing to irdaxa. tfiayiiv, whereas I do not see that
any one would think of altering airo into the less obvious construction
of ^ avTov. Cf. Jn 6-51 lav TW <^dyg ek tovtov tou aprov, where Origen
quotes K TOVTOV tov aprov as tovtov tov aprov (see Tischendorf ). For the
syntax cf. ICor. 11-28 ex tov afrrov eo-^ttro). Numb.16-19 orav a-6r]Tt

aTTo tS>v aprcav, etc. Bloomfield interprets ef auroS by henceforward,

which is strange on the part of such a superior scholar.
eus OTOu irXripuGTi iv TJj paaiXEia. The subject is to Tra(T)(a., i.e. e<i)s otov
6 /catpos ToB Trdcrxa Trk-rjpwOfj iv Trj ftacnXeLa, when we shall be reunited.
For irXrjptoOy o Kaipoi cf. Jn 7-8 6 xatpos o c/ios ovTTto 7reTrXi^pu>Tai.
22-1 7. SE^dfiEros iroTi^ptoc, Euxapiorrjo-as eItte Adt^ETE touto Kai 8iap,pi-
(jaTE Eis EttUTOus. 1 8 \iy<i> yAp ufiTi' on ou (it) triia airo toO vuv diro toG yEt'ci^-

(laTOS Tfjs dfiireXou eojs otou i^ jSaaiXcia tou Seou eXOt). 19 Kai Xa^ui^ dpTOC
Euxapi'O'T^qa'as KXao- Kai E'SuKEf auToIs X^yui' Touto eoti t6 o'up.d fiou to
UTTEp up.cSl' SlSdp.EI'OK, TOUTO TTOIEITE EIS TTJl' EJATJI' dl'dp,CT]all'. 20 Kai TO T70T11-

piot" <&<TauT(i)S fiETol TO SEiircTJo-ai XEyui' Touto to iroTiqpioi' ^ KUii'^ SiaOl^Kt)

iv T(i ai|jiaTi (jidu, to uirkp up.ali' EKxui'dp.Ei'oi'. That this passage has been

transmitted in a most confused condition springs to the eye, but apart

fromits inherent improbability we have the fact that vv. 17 and 1 8 are
omitted by several witnesses. In the parallel narratives of St Mark(l 4-23)
and St Matthew (26-27) but one drink is brought in, and one alone was
G
 42 ST LUKE xxii

necessary, since it fulfilled the purpose of paralleling the wine with the
Lord's blood ; the second drink in Luke is purposeless. Besides I think
Siafiepia-are can only have been intended to apply to the bread. My
opinion is that the original text ran as follows: Kat Xa/Sthv aprov
fv)(apicrn^(Ta'S exXaa-e koX eSuiKev aurots Xiywv TovTO itrri to trio/xa /j-ov to

VTrep viJ.ZvSiS6fj.ivov' Aa/Jere tovto koI Sta/itpwrare etseaurovs. Kai oef a/xevos
TO TTOTrjpiov (so several Mss instead otTrorypiov) ev-^apL(jTrj(Ta<; elire Tovto
to TTOTrjpiov 7) Kaivr) SiaBrjKrj iv t<S aljxaTL /xov, to virkp ifxCiV iKxyvo/xevov'
tovto irtere ets ttjv tfjTjv avdiXTaa'iv. Aeyoj Si vfjiv otl ov //.ij ttlw euro

Tov vvv aTTo Tov ycvv^fiaTOS Trji ajXTriXov ecus oTOV q jBauikeia tov ocov
iXdy.
The disturbance most probably proceeds from a marginal note which
aimed at conforming the text to the home service on the Passover Eve.
That service commences with a blessing of sanctification over the wine
and drinking the wine, the cup afterwards in the course of the meal
being passed round again.
22-18. X^yu ydp uft,lv. I read Acyw 8c v/xTv and place the whole of v.l8

at the end of the narrative in accordance with Mark and Matthew.

22-19. TouTo iroieiTc. Read tovto mcTe. For similar corruptions see
Jn 4-7 and 4-10, where for -n-ulv there are variants jroietv, and XII
Patr.Jud.14-7, where the reading is mvrj, ttiVci, ttltj, ttUi, ttoiu. In
lCor.11-25 TToittTE is repeated, but that part of the Epistle is not
genuine. Justin also gives TrouiTe, having taken it no doubt from Luke
after the corruption. If iroieiTc were correct, it would have been placed
at the end of the narrative. Should my conjecture be well-founded, as
I think it is, all those casuistical controversies connected with the
Eucharist have raged thanks to an erratum.
is Tr)!' ifirfv dkdfii'Tiffii'. I think ets Ttjv ifjrjv avdarTaaiv.
22-31. J.i.jxijiy, lOou 6 SaTai'ds i^r^rriaaTO up.dsTOu <riyi,d<Tai us tov (tItoi'.

Eyu oe e8;g6T]>' irepl o-ou IVa (at) eKXiirr) i^ ttio-tis aou, Kai au ttote eiri<jTpei|<as
aTTJpi.^oi' Tous d8e\<|>ou's aou. This cannot be a reflection upon the conduct
of the disciples, for their conduct is commended in v. 28 by iruets Si
ia-TC ol Sia/A/x.Vj;/coTs ficTifiov iv tois Treipao-yaois yuou. must be an It
utterance of distress at some unsatisfactory event which happened in
St Luke's time. This event is, I believe, the desertion of the faith by
numerous Christians either from dread of persecution or from disap-
XXII ST LUKE 43

pointment at seeing the faithful die contrary to the promise of im-

mortality which they thought had been made to them. Such an apostasy
is alluded to in Acts 20-29 oTSa on daeXevcrovraC yttera rrjv a^it^tV /jlov

XvKot ^apevi is iyiias /xr] <jii8o|.roi tov ttol/xviov, kol i^ ifumv avrZv dva-
CTtjaovTai avopei AaXowTes Sictrrpaju/xcva rov d/iroiT7rav Toiis /j-aOr/Tai oirt'crco

avTwi/. Accordingly the scope of our passage must be : Simon, Satan

will derange theminds (for c^Tiytraro read cKo-T-^cret) of the faithful and
make a plaything of them but thou shalt remain steadfast, and re-
;

visiting thy weak brethren shalt bring them back to the fold. Some-
what similar thoughts are Apoc.2-10 iSov jxiXXei ySaAXtti/ 6 Sta^oXos
f vjxuiv ts (jivXaKrjv iva TreipacrOrJTi Koi f-X'F^ OXixj/iv 'rjp.epuiv Se/ca' yivov
TTKTTOS, Kal Saitro) trot tov cnifjiavov t^s ^<^s. XII Patr.Ben.3-3 lav rot

irvtv/JiaTa tov BeXtap cts Traaav TTOVTjplav OXLij/ew^ tKcrTTjcrcotrti' vp.S.'s (cf. 2
Chroil.15-6 o ^eos iiitTTrjo'iV avrovs iv Trda-r] OXixj/ei), ov //.r] KvpLcvcrwaiv
v/jlIuv.

6 larayas elriT^^o-aTO ufifig. It is a strange conception that Satan

should entreat God for, whom else was he to entreat ? to deliver
the disciples or the faithful to him as his prey. Expositors seek to justify
the text by a reference to Job 1-11 oTrocrTeiXov ttiv x^V"- ^'''" ''''' ">/""

TrdvTuiv wv e\t' ^ p^rjv eis TrpoutoTvov ere ivXoyrjtreL (read aXoyrjcru both
here and at 2-5). Tore ewrev 6 Kvpio^ tZ StaySoX&i 'ISov TravTa oara eariv
avTw St8a)/x,t iv Ty x^v' <''" ' ^^^ *^^ analogy is very remote, if indeed
there is any. I emend l^T-qa-aTo by iKo-T-^a-ei ; cf. 2Chron.l5-6 o 6e6s
i^io-Trjaev avTOvi. 3Mac.l-25 eTretpSvro tov a.yipm)(0v avTOv vovv i^LO-TO,-
vetv T^s ivTi6viJ,rjp,ivrj^ /SovX^i, etc. In XII Patr.Ben.3 there exists the
same misreading, for the text fluctuates between t^crTiyo-cocrt and efat-

Tijcrwvrai.

ufias. Apparently the whole Christian body meant.

22-32. TrioTpe'v|as (rrrtpiiov tous d8X<|>ou's trou. This reminds of Paul's

suggestion to Barnabas in Acts 15-36 cTrta-TpEi/'avTcs 8^ iTTLo-Keip^/xida

Toiis dSeXcjiovs. Peter here likewise is instructed to revisit the Christian
brethren and reconfirm them in their weakening faith.
22-36. dyopaadria (a(x<*'P''' I ^^^^ repeatedly lingered over the pur-
port of this sentence in combination with iSov ixaxa-ipai Swo and Ikovov
ia-TL of V. 38, but it is bafQing. Not only is it incredible by itself that

the Lord should have recommended his disciples to arm themselves.

44 ST LUKE xxii

but such arecommendation flatly contradicts v. 51 where he deprecates ,

Tiolence and forthwith proceeds to cure the wound which one of his
disciples had inflicted. Such explanations as that he forewarns the
Apostles of the dangers which would beset them henceforward in their
mission are forced and ignore the immediate use of a weapon in v. 49.
22-45. eX6oi)>'iTp6s Tous fia9Y]TCis eiSpcf auTOug Koip.ufi^i'ous dTroTrjs XuTrif]S.

Grief does not induce sleep (as we all have experienced) but keeps
awake, whatever imaginative critics may say to the contrary. Cf.Eccles.
2-23 TTtptcnratr/ibs avTov /cat ye iv vvktI oi Koi/xaTai fj KapSia avTOV. 8-16
ISelv Tov TrepuTTracr/jLov Tov ireTTOirjixivov em rqi y^Sj on Kai hr fip.ipa. /cat iv
VVKTL vTTvov 6<j>6a\p,ol^ avTOv ovK (TTi ySAcTTiov. Sir. 34-1 9J
/jLipi/xva avTOv
acfiidTa VTTVOV. Jer. 51-33 iK0tp.i^6rjv iv crrevay/AOts, ava.Travo'iv ov)(^ evpov.
Dan. 2-1 i^icrry] ro Trvevfia avTOv Kal 6 virvoi avTOV iyivero avr'avTOv. 6-18
(the King being agitated) iKoip-rjO-q aSctiri/os /cat o vtttos aTria-rri wiravrov.
lMac.6-10 a.<j)iO-TaTai 6 iJirvos airo T<av ot^QaXpMV p-ov koI (rvpTriTrTuiKa

TTj KapSia aTTO r^s pepipvrj';. XII Patr.Jud.18 o-uv;^t airrov iv ttovoi's koL
poyipovs, TOV VTTVOV iKSiiaKei djr'avrou. Sim. 4 iv rapa^-g Sti'Trvt^et tov vovv.
Hom. 4 ovSi piv vTTvos Tjpee TravSafuiTwp. Shaks.RJ.2-3 where care
lodges sleep will never lie. Heliodorus in Aeth.2-15 states the contrary,
i.e. w/Dos ^&v Kuipa. Sia to VTnpjBaXkov Tijs Xvtttjs wXCaOrjcrav, but being
a pedant mindful only of sound he talks at random. Read Koipwpivov;
7rt T^s y^s. Cf. Acts Andr.Mat.17 ircpL/iXeij/a.pfvos etScv tovs /j.aOrjTa';

avTov KaOevSovTa'i iirl t^v y^v, which looks like an imitation of our
passage.
22-47. irpoVipxeTO auTou'g. Cf.Mk 6-33 TrporjXdev avrou's. At Eom.12-10
in commenting upon aXKrjXovs vpo-qyovpevoi I pointed out that this con-
struction with the accusative instead of with the genitive is a Latinism
reproducing antecedentes, and have quoted as other instances this
passage and Phil. 2-3 aXXi^Xovs i7yoij/ivot. lThes.5-13 -^yela-Oai avTov's.
Pseudo-Ignat.Tars. 9 tovs yovets wpoiyyeio-^c. Souter adopts the variant
avTwv, though feebly attested, and suppresses avTovs, probably by an
oversight.
22-51. earc lus tou'tou. A comma should be marked after iare. It is
the current MGk phrase Twpa, cf. Mt 3-15 a<^s apTt),
d<^io-Te (or d^itrTe

ws avTov (or (OS avTov Kat prj 7rape/ct), leave off, go no further.
22-56. KaSrifiet'oi' TTpos to <|>ws. The AV correctly as he sat by the fire.
XXII xxiii ST LUKE 45

The KV as he sat bythe light of the fire seems a compromise between the
opposing views of the Revisers, some of whom probably contended for
the AV interpretation, whilst others preferred the Vulgate sedentem ad
lumen. But ^Gshere as well as at Mk 14-54 means/re. Bloomfield calls
this signification a Hebraism, but the MGk ^laria, a specific term for

fire, proves that it was genuinely Greek.

22-63. oi <Tuvi)(pVTS outov fviirait,av auTu ScpofTES, kuI iTEpiKaXuij/ai'TES
ouToi' inr]p(uTb> auToi> XtYocTES irpocji^^Teuo-oi'. The parallel passage in Mk
14-65 states i^p^avro rives i/XTrrvtiv avriu koX TrepiKaXvTTTeiv to Trpoa-wirov

avTov Kal Ko\a(j)it,eiv avTov koI Xiy^iv airia 7rpo<f>-qTev(rov. From which I
conclude that Luke did not write iviirai^ov a.vT<a but iviTrrvov avrw.
22-68. iA.v ujiii' ciiro), ou jjit) Tri<TTu(rr)Te' iav Se epuTtjau, ou (j,t| diroKpi-

GrJTe. As the text stands it indicates that Jesus might have been allowed
to argue with, and silence, the chief priests, which is out of the ques-
tion. For much less was he subjected to the indignity of being beaten

as related by Jn 18-22. Michelsen corrects iav Se ipoiT-^trrjTe, ov a.Tro- //.r]

Kpt,6S>, which I believe to be right, and I had conjectured the same

myself. Luke oratorically develops Mk 14-61 6 Se imdnra koI ovk air^KpC-

vaTO ouSev.
23-6. Kal dp^dfiEras diro ttjs faXiXaias. See my note on Acts 10-37.
23-28. OuyaT^pES 'lEpoucaXrip,, (|>'EauTd$ kXaiETE Kal eirl to, xEKi'a u^Stv,

oTi iSou Epxoi'Tai iqpi,^pai kv uTs Epouai p,aK(ipiai at oTEipai Kal at KOiXiai

at ouK EyEi'i'Tjoraf Kal |j[,a(7Tol o'l ouk EdpEil/ac. The Lord of course alludes
to the which was then threatening the Jewish nation at the
ep7///,o)(ns

hands of the Romans. So that the following proverb d iv t<3 iypia ^'X<p
TaSra xoioBorir, iv tm f i?p<i> tl yivrjTai. means that, if in times of peace,
such as is enjoyed to-day, such enormities are perpetrated, what will
happen when the impending epTy/Awcrts comes upon you ?
23-40. ouSe <|io|3f o-u Toi' GeSc, oti iv tu auTu Kpifji,aTi eT ; I do not see

the force of ouSe. Several documents record ov8iv, and that is the proper
lection, being an equivalent of a simple oi. Our passage is reproduced
in Acts Pil.10-2, and there also the reading fluctuates between ovSei/

and Jannaris 1798 and 1799 We very often find oiSiv as mere
ovSe. '

equivalent of oi. OiSkv was reduced by aphaeresis to Siv, a form ever

since universally current in MGk.' This evolution of oi into ouSev and
/nij into ij.tjSev I have traced to classical times ; cf. Plat.Soph.254c Xoyou
46 ST LUKE xxiii xxrv

ivSeei'; /jLfjSev yiyvwfieda. Herod.5-34 ovScviravTO)? Trpoo-eScVovro eirl crc^eas

Tov (TToXov TOVTOv 6pjx'^a-ea-6ai. Xen.Mem.2-1-30 Sta to ixrjSkv tx^Lv o tl

TTotfis. Eur.Bacc.209 Sl' iptOfiZv ovSev{ = oiK)avii(reai BiXu. See my note

on Jn 20-9.
oTt = OS. In many places, and my note on Rom.8-29,
chiefly in

I have shown that often ort represents an indeclinable conjunction

-which replaces relative pronouns in all their forms.
24-21. T|\T7io(Ji,ei' oTi auTos Iot-v a fieXXoJi' XuTpou(r6ai roi/'lo-paiiX' dWd
ye Ktti (r\)V irSffi toutois rp'iTt\v TauTrjc i^fiepai' ayci d(|> ou Taura eycceTO.

'AXXd Kal yvvalKh Tikcs i^noii' li,4.aTr[<io.v r\\La.s. There has crept a dis-
turbance into this passage. After recounting the occurrences connected
with Jesus' trial and execution the natural way for the disciples to
proceed was to mention the time when those things happened, and
then as a climax to their bewilderment to add the extraordinary re-
port of the women. I think therefore that the original text was ;7X7ri'-

t,0fx.ev OTi avTOi Icttlv 6 jxiXkiav XvTpova-Oai tov 'Icrpa-rjX. TpiTYjv Se ravTrjv

rjfjiipav ayu a.<fe'ov Tavra eyeVero. AXXa ye Kat o'vv iracri totjtois koI yv-
vaiKt's Tives cf rjixuiv i^io'TTjcrav Where a-vv iracrt toijtois is placed
rjjJLci';.

in the text the emphasis and culmination fall upon Tplrrjv TavTr/v fj/j.epav

as if that lapse of time were the most extraordinary thing of all that
happened. In 16-26 ev TrScrt toutois likewise introduces a culmination.
24-32. ouxt ff KapSia i^fiSi/ Kaiofji,VT] r\v iv ^p.ti', <>s eXdXci r\iuv i\> TJj

oSu, (OS Sirikoiyei' r^filv rds ypaifids ; It does not seem to me that Kaiofievr]

fits the context ; its meaning would be ardent, passionate, or distressed.

Sophocles V. (cato) quotes from Nicol.Damasc. (beginning of Christian
era) 30 Kato/Aevos tu Tr60<o avrr]';. Add Horn. a48 aXXd /jlol afx<j)OSrja^'i
(read 'OSuo-ei') 8ai<^povi SaicTat ^Top. Deut.19-6 Stcofas 6 ayxi.a-TV(jiv, OTi
TrapaTeOippLavTai ttj KapSta. 4KingS 22-13 opy^ Kvptov iKKeKav/xirr]. Ps.
88-47 EKKav^T^o-eTat rj opy-q aov. 2MaC.10-35 TrvpwOivTK rots 6vfi.oiS. 3
Mac.4-2 (TTivo.yp.o'i'; iviTrvpuipivrj's Trj<s KapSias. Plut.Mar.l6 OvpLos airrjs
Trapio-Ta/x.evos l^i6ipp.aivi kcu Sie^Xcye tcIs i/nj;^ds. Herod. 5-1 9 o-ytSdv (yev

avaKaio/xivov (rvvirjp.L tovs Xoyous OTi e^eXeis Troiectv Tt veuiTepov. XII Patr.
Neph.7 Katd/xiyi' Tots o-irXdy;)(i'ois /xov dvayyttXai, my heart VHis all aglow
with the desire to announce. D gives KtKaAv/x/xevT;, which was probably
taken from 2Cor.3-14 iTriaptitdrj to, vOT^/xaTa avTu)V, a^pi yap t^s a-^p-epov
fj/ji.epa'S TO avTO KaXv/t/xa im Trj avayvtaaei Tijs TraXatSs Sia^iyKiys p,ivu. In
xxiT ST LUKE 47

the old Latin yersions we find a rendering excaecatum, which, as al-

ready remarked by critics, leads to imrr]puiit,ivq, blinded. This once must
have been written -TrcTrvpoifJiivr], burning, for which its synonym KaioiJ,ivrj
was substituted. As any one can see for himself at a glance, such sub-
stitutes are a very frequent feature of the New Testament ; I quote as
instances Mt 6-47 d.SX(j>ovi<f>Lkovi. 47 iOviKolTfXZvai. 7-4 eKairo.
34 07ra)5 iVa. 9-14 iroAAa TiTJKva. 3 6 ccrRvX/xep'oi /cXeXv/xVoi. 15-6Xdyov
vd/tov VToXi^v. 20-34 6iJ.jji,a.TU)v6<f>daXix<!>v. Mk 1-26 <f)<av7](TavKpdiav.

3-30 afj.apTLa^Kpiaeia';. 4-19 aiSvos /8tov. 14-44 crv(Ta~r]iJi.ov(Tr]fji.eiov, etc.

But I think that mirrjpiaix.ivr) itself was a misreading of Kitrwpoip.ivri,

for in T. 45 it is said Sii^vot^ci' auTulv rov vovv tov (ruvievai Tas ypacjia';,
and a-uviivai is often encountered in the same sentence with TriDpovaOai
as its antithesis. Cf. Mk 6-52 ov yap o-vvrJKav i-irl tois apTOts, aXk'rjv rj

KapSia avTwv Tmrwpiop.ivq. 8-1 7 ovirm voeirc ovhk crvvUre ; TreTrwpiOfxivrjv

I^CTE T^v Kaphiav vfiMv; Jn 12-40 iTrioptocnv avTwv Trjv KapSiav, iva p,r]

vo^a-oiat Trj KapSi'a. So here TrcTrwpo/icVr; of V. 32 would form the anti-

thesis to a-vviivai of V. 45. Another variant in our passage is gravatum,
Pt^a.pr)ix,h/r), which equally leads to Tmrmpuiixivr]. Cf. Exod.7-14 ;Se/3a-

prjTai rj xapSta $apaa)=7rE7rc6/Da)Tai, both the verbs jiapucrBai and Tnopov-

a-dat signifying to be hardened. The same reading is also represented

by the other Latin translation obtusum.

(OS cXdXEi iQfJ.ii' ei* TTJ 68u, (is SiY^i'oiYEi' rifuv tcIs YP'*'t"^s. For the repeti-
tion of <i)S cf. 4-25 TToXXal XOpai rjtrav, ote iKXeia-drj 6 ovpavos, (is iyevTO

Xi/A()s. Herod.8-56 (Ss (r^i iir]yyi\$rj (i)s tcx*-

24-41. dirioToui'Taji' auToii' dwo rijs X'^P"*- '^^^ ^^^^ cannot be right,
for surely one rejoices if one believes in the reality of a joyful event,
not if one disbelieves it. I read airoaiyoivTiJiv, which palaeographically
is pretty close to d7rta-TowT(uv. Thus we see the disciples struck with
aphasia from their overwhelming joy at the sudden reappearance of
their beloved master. Cf. ClemR.Hom.14-9 acjiaa-Lq. (TV(7)(^divm Ik t^s

<x7rXi7(7Tov xapas. Of dTrotriyoi = to be silent Sophocles cites one example

from the Constitutiones Apostolorum.
 THE ACTS
1-1. irpl irtJi'Tuc Siv (= &) TJplaTO 6 'irjerous iroieii' re Kai 8i8(ia'Keii' oxpi
^s ^fi^pas di'e\ii/j.ij>9i(). Peculiarly expressed for Trtpl TravTuiv wv 6 'Itjo-ovi
i-iroir]<T T Koi eSiSafe dTr'dpx^s a)(pt dvoXi^/Ai/reos, concerning everything
from beginning to end which Jesus did either in acts or in teach-
ing. Cf. T. 21 v TravTi XPoVo) u dcnjXOe kol ii^XOev e^'rjfjLoii o KvpLoi
Irjo-ovg op^d/iEvos diro Tou ySaTTTicr/Aaros 'Iwavfou ecjs r^s ij/Aepas -^s

dveXijiit^^jy.

1-2. i'TeiXd|j.Ei'os ToTs diroo-ToXois Sicl iri'eup.aTOS dyi'ou ous cleX^laTO.

The words Sia wTev/iaros dycov are generally connected
with ivreiXd-
/icvos;but the commandment to the Apostles as related at the end of
Luke's gospel was direct and not through the Holy Ghost. Our Evan-
gelist means that the selection of the Apostles, that narrow circle of
the twelve, was the result of guidance from above, and so is the
matter understood in Peter's Predication referred to by Clement of
Alexandria Strom.6-6-48 e^eXe^d/Ajjc v/aSs SwSeKa yua^iyras /cptms dftovs
e/Aot), oSs 6 Kvpioi rjOeXrjcrev. An invocation for a similar guidance we
have further on in v. 24 erv, Kvpie, KapSioyvuMj-ra iravTiav, dvdBei^ov ov

cfeXe'^w. Nor is there anything ungrammatical or anomalous in con-

necting 8ia Trvev/Aaros with efeXefaro. Cf. 5-35 Trpoa-ix^Te iavTOii etti tois
dvOpuyrroLi toutois ti //.eXXeTe wpdtrcreiv = Trpdcrareiv cttI tois dv6p<aTrois.
20-18 i7n<TTa(T0 aTTO TrpuiTrji rjixipcv; irals fieOi/jiSiv iyevoixrjv = iytvopjrjv
ofTTO TrpwTTjs -^piipas.

1-6. iirripiariay auToi' X^yoiTes KupiE, ei it> tu XP'^'''? toutco diroKa9i-

orrdi'eis Tr]v PaaiXeiai' tc3 'lapaV^X; Elite 8c irphs auToiis Ou^ u)i<av eari
yviavai xp6i>ous ?j Kaipo6s, ous 6 iraTT|p e9eT0 iv Tt I8ia E^ouo-ia. The
answer put in the mouth of the Lord was no doubt meant to explain
away the awkward point of no iraXtyyV(rts forthcoming, such as the
converts were promised and ardently were longing for. In my note
on Jn 14-2 I have said 'At that time the adherents to Christianity,
who had expected an advent of the kingdom of God in their lifetime,
were bitterly disappointed to see the deaths of the faithful.'
 "

50 THE ACTS i

1-15. di'ttorrAs rierpos iv (i^tru tui' dSeXcfiui' elirev {r\v te oxXos oi'Ofj.dTwi'

iri r& auTo <is cKaToe etKoati') 'AkSpes d8e\<|)oi. The parenthesis requires
^v 8e as de B6ze conjectured.
di>o)jidT(i'. Preserved in MGk in the form dvo/x.aTos = person, indivi-

dual. In 1 Kings 4-10 for TpiaKovra xtXtdSES rayixaTinv read ovo/iarov.

Philostr.Apoll.Epist.66 \(oov ovofia = a better person, as Conybeare
correctly suggests.
1-16. irpoeiTTE t6 iri'Eup.a to aYtoc 8id oT(5p.aTOS AaPlS iTEpl 'louSa toG
yevofiiyou 68t|you toi9 o-uXXaPoua-i rbv 'Itjo-oui', oti KaTT)pi9(n)fi^co9 ii\v iy

ufiiy. Here ort =

os, being the indeclinable conjunction which replaces

relative pronouns in all their forms; see my note on Rom. 8-29 and
Jn 1-16. The translator of the Vulgate saw the relative force of oti,

for it renders qui connumeratus erat. Neither as causal nor as declara-

tive dependent from TrpoiiTre does it suit the context.
1-18. Trpir]i'r)S yei'op.ei'os The expression Trpijv^s yivo/jLCVoi
eXdKijcre.

for Trp-rjviji irecriyv is unparalleled. Read Tre/Direv^s yevd/ncvos, becoming

distended, swollen, to which both Papias's (see Tischendorf) 6 'louSas
Trprjo-Och and the variant wpti^^s in i^ AC, as well as in other Mss,

point. We have confirmatory evidence in Acts Thorn. 33 o 8e Spa.K<ov

4>vcrrjdii's iXd.Kr](Tv, which I consider is an imitation of our passage,

and in the Vulgate suspensus, an error no doubt for distensus. The
word occurs in Hippocrates as a medical term, and to Luke, if he was
a physician, it must have been familiar. Cf. also my note on 28-6,
where I emend 7ri[jiTrpacrOai kol Karairi'Tmiv.
tXdKT]tr. Its synonym iij/6<jirjcr is a specific term in MGk for it died

when referring to the death of an animal ; if applied to a human being,

it implies scorn or hatred on the part of the speaker, similarly to the
French crever. Such must have been the feeling which inspired iXa.Kr]cre.

2-1. iv T<3 o'Ufj.iTXi]poua'6ai Ttji' r\ji,ipay Tr\s TrefTTiKooTijs. A variant ras

fi/xipas, preserved in versions, is preferable. Cf. 20-6 p.Ta. ras ^/i.epas

tG>v a^viJ.uiv. Lk 2-6 i-irXi^crdrjcrav al fifnipai tov tc/cciv. 1-23 i7r\-^(r6r](ra.v

at fjfi.ipai T-^s XeiTOrpytas. 2-22 kTrX-qcrO-qcrav at rjfx,ipai tov Ka9apLC7fwv.

9-51 iv T(a (TviJLirXrjpovcrOaL ras rj/j.cpa'S riys dvaX'^/jiij/ews.

2-3. oi<|)6r]<7ai' yXoi(7crai uo-ei irupos Kai iKotdnrev i^'iya iKatrroy, The
variant iKoBwav is the only possible lection grammatically;
but
iKaOia-fv, having secured precedence through the early editions of the
H HI THE ACTS 51

New Testament, continues, and will probably continue, to sway the

judgement of editors.
2-5. Jjcrai' 8c iv 'lepouo-aXfip, KaroiKoun-ES 'louSaioi a^SpES EuXaj^Eis
Airo iraiT-Ss eSi'ous. Blass ' Pessime interpolatum in plerisque (praeter >^)
'lovSatot, cum de gentilibus manifesto agatur.' I have surmised this
interpolation myself.
2-9. 'louSoiai'. Hemsterhuis Tery plausibly BiOwLav.
2-25. EK 8e|i<Si' |jiou EOTic. Drusius (see van Manen, Conjecturaal-

Kritiek) eo-tt? according to Theophylactus's to Si ek ScftSv iardvatrov

iraripa XtyecrOai vvv.
2-26. Eir'EXmSt = Ev TrerroiOrja-u, Cf. lClemR.45-8. 57-7 KaraxTKr)-
vtixret, ETr'eXirtSt Koi ri(TV)(dcreL a^dySws. Judg.18-7. 18-10. XII Patr.Ben.
10-11. Oxyr.Pap.1597, where Grenfell ev eXttiSi. I have quoted these
instances in my note on Rom.4-18.
2-45. 8iE|j,^pi^oi> auri irao-i KaOdri av tis xps'""' s*X*. Venema cor-
rectly KaO'o Tl.

2-46. irpoo-KapTEpoui'TES 6fi,o9u(jia86i' iv tu lEpu kXCi/t^s te KaT'oiKoi'

S,pTov fiETfiXiip.pai'oi' Tpo<j)T]s. This reads as if the faithful continued
steadfastly in the temple and partook of nourishment both there and
at home. Read TrpocreKapTepovv Travre^ o/xoOvixaSov. Cf. 2-1 TJcrav a?ravTS
o/Jiodv/jiaBov. 5-12 r/crav 6iJLo6viJ,aSov aTravTCi iv Trj OTToa. The meaning is

that they all clung in a body to the temple and in a body broke bread
at home and partook of nourishment.
3-6. El* Tc3 ovoji-aTi 'It)o-ou Xpiorou. As I have explained in my note

on Rom.6-3, the invocation primitively was in the name of Jesus

alone, so that the addition of XpLorrov here and at 4-10. 16-8. lCor.6-
11. Gal.3-27 is highly suspicious.
3-8. E^aXXoiAEcos. Read with Blass E^aXa/tEvos.
c$aXX6)ji,E>'os EOTT) Kal irEpiEiraTEi, Kal EiarjXSE auf auTois els to Upoi'
nepnraTdy Kal dXXojiEi'OS Kal aii'ciii' 70v 6e(5c. By saying TrepnraTSiv Luke
wished to intimate that the paralytic was now able to walk without
any assistance. But the addition aXXofjievo^ rather imparts a comical
turn to the narrative, for it represents the man as if he entered the

temple and glorified God dancing. It is due to the foregoing efaXXo-

jnEvos that the primitive reading dyaXXiw/iEi/os (so also Naber) was

corrupted to oXXo/iEvos through the classical ayaXXo/AEvos- To this

52 THE ACTS m
points the reading of D ^aipoji.ivos and that of E y(a.ipu>v, though added
after TrepwirdTCi.
As regards the form ^aip6yi.ivo<s it is not ' nihili ' as Blass says. It
is the MGk form, which was already established in the Hellenistic

period as shown by the examples from the second and third centuries
registered by Sophocles. It was inevitable that the middle would
displace the active voice when the people acquired the middle voice
sentiment in accordance with such verbs as ^So/xai, ripTrofuxi, 6XLlBoiJ.ai,

axOofiai, etc.
3-12. Ti dTcieT (is tSia Suydfici 5] Euo-e^eiaireiroiTiKOcri tou TrepiTraTEii'

auToi'; It has already been realized that cvcre/Seta is due to a mis-

reading. Read ivepyeCa. It is a ev Sia Svolv, i. e. ivepytia. Svva/i0)s. Cf,

Eph.3-7 Kara rrjv ivepyeiav Trjs 8wa/tU)S. Phil. 3-21 Kara j-^i' ivipytiav

Tov Svvaa-6aL. Mk 6-14 ivepyovcriv ai Svvd/J.ei'; iv airoi. Gal.3-5 ivepyZv

hwd/jLeis iv v/uv. Col. 1-2 9 ttjv ivtpyciav airov rqv ivepyovfjievrjv iv i/MOi

iv Swdp-CL.
3-16. Kal em tt] irtoTci tou ov6ji.aTOS auToG toutoj' ov deiapeire Kal oiSaTE
iartpioiae to oi<op,a auTofl. This and the following clause Koi rj irUrm rj

hCavTOv iSoiKev avria rrjv oXo/fXiypt'ay tovttjv aTrevavri TrdvTiov v/j,Ci)V state
essentially the same thing, and one of the two must be an interpola-
tion. I believe it is this one, for its style is far too stilted even for Luke,
TOV ovop-aTos avTov and to ovo/xo avrov being nothing else but one of
the usual respectful periphrases (see my note on Lk 4-36) for the
simple pronouns avrov and avTos. It was interpolated after the cor-
ruption of laai's into Trtoris.
Kal 1^ laais (see next note) p Si'auTou eSuKcf auTu Trji' 6XoK\i]piai'
TaiTt\v. This hangs together with o Oeos cSdfacrc tov TralSa aiTot) 'Irjcrovv,

the intervening words being parenthetical. The scope is that God has
glorified his son by bestowing upon him such healing powers as would
effect the miracle of restoring the lame man.
lao-is (= act of curing) is my correction of the
textual ttio-tis, which
is distinctly wrong, for must exist in the person
if faith is to cure, it

who is to be cured, as is the case in Mt 9-22 and 28. Mk 5-36 but ;

in this passage the faith of the lame man is not brought in. At 4-22
this miracle is called to crrjp.fiov toSto t^s lao-eoos. In the same way
TTtWis has usurped the place of lao-ts in lCor.12-9, causing the intru-
ni IV THE ACTS 53

sion of 3,Xk(0 Si ;^apr/taTa lafjidruyv iv tm ivl Trvev/J-ari.; and at Lk 4-18

I have shown that iv should most probably be corrected by iv
at^e'crei

ida-ei. I may mention that in the passage from ICorinthians just quoted
there is another error in 8taK/>tcreis jrvev/Aarcov, which should be altered
into SiaKpiaeK opafjidrtov.
3-19. diro irpoo-ctfirou tou Kupiou. Another respectful expression for
aTTo rov KvpLov. See my note on 3-16.
3-24. oo-oi EXil\it)cra>' Kal Ka-n^YyeiXai' Tcis ilH^pas TauTas. An idiomatic
phrase, which in full would be ocrot i\dX.7]crav{ = ol XaXjJo-avTcs) iXdXrjo-av
Kol KaTTQyyaXav ; in other words, oi XaX-^o-avTts ov /xovov iXdXrjcrav dXXa
Kol KUT'^yyeiXav. Cf Demos. 12 av ftiv yap, o(Ta dv Tis Xd/3r], Koi (rway] =
ov fxovov Xa/3rj dXXa Kol a-wcrrj. Job.23-13 o avTos Tj6iXr](Ti koX iTrotrjare, etc.
4-3. rl\pr\ai.v. A synonym of (jivXaKrjv, prison.
4-12. ou8e yiip oi'oijia (iariv irepov iv u Set o-udTJcai. An allusion pro-
bably to the Hebrew meaning of 'Iijo-ovs in accordance with Mt 1-21
KaX<7is TO ovo/Mi avTOV Ir](Tovv, avTos yap crwcrci tov Xaov avrov diro
rZv d/xapTiuiv avTcov.

4-16. OTi (icc yelp yvbioTov <ri\)itiov yiyove iiairSiv Traai tois Karoi-
Kouaii' 'lEpouaaXTjp, (|>a>'Ep6i'. The word
yvoiarov can only mean known
or knowable, and
were given this sense, the result would be an
if it

absurd sentence, namely, that a known, or knowable, sign vias wrought

is clear to all, which to all intents and purposes is the same as that a

char sign was wrought is clear to all. In order to avoid I presume

this absurdity, the English translators were reduced to paring down
and have rendered yvwa-rov by notable. I suspect that the original
reading was o-wcttov, a word in everyday use to-day in the sense of
right, correct, proper, com])leie, see Vlakhos. It is not recorded in Dic-
tionaries of old Greek in this sense, but it has its equivalent in crws,

which comes from the same root. Cf. Xen.Cyrop.7-4-13 crwa dTro&ovvaL
ra -^^prjiwra. Arist.Lys.488 Iva rdpyvpiov a-Zv Trapi^oL/j.^v. Coraes at Plut.
AemP.36, in commenting upon Hom.T^28 vvv toi o-Ss aiTrvs oXe^pos,
states '
(is av 17 a-vvqOeia tjialr] ctojo-tos.' Cf. also da-uMTTov (presumed by
Cobet to be an error for d^itaTov, not a very felicitous conjecture)
^iov in Plut.Alcib.3, which probably means improper, wrong. By the
change I suggest we obtain this sense :that a proper (not a charla-

tanish) sign was wrought is clear.

54 THE ACTS iv v

4-17. dirEiXTja-cuixEOa. Bentley 'forte i-TraireiXrjcrwi^eOa.'

4-21. fjiir|8Et< Eupio-KocTES TO TTus KoKdaavTai. In accordance with Lk

19-48 oux vpio-Kov TO Tt TTOi-qcruio-iv, here yin;8ev stands for a simple fx.^,

as often. See my note on 23-40.

4-25. 6 ToO Trarpos ^fifii' 8ia ircEuiiaTos ayiou CTTOfJiaTos AaPlS iraiSos crou

The words tow Trarpos ij/iulv

ihtiav. are in the air where they are placed.
Apparently a marginal note intended to follow AafilB as they do in
Lk 1-32 AttyStS Tov Trarpos avTov and Mk 11-10 tov Trarpos 17/tcov Aa/ilS.
8ict iri'EufiaTOS = er Trvcvyiiari. Cf. Mt 22-43 Aa/3tS ei/ TrvciJ/iart Kvpiov
avTov KaXet Jannaris 1381 ' the instrumental datiye is sometimes
replaced, notably in post-classical Greek, by the preposition 8ia [with
the genitive].' And ei/ Trvv/taT6=Tn'uyLiari; see my note on imrX.rjpo-

(ftoprjfiivmv iv v/juv of Lk 1-1.

8ia iri/EufjiaTos dyiou arofiaros A0P18. St Luke here affects, as he often

loves to do, a Septuagint style as expressive of solemnity. See my
note on Lk 1-72.
4-33. dTTESiSouf TO p.apTupioi' 01 dTrdo-ToXoi Tr)s di/aaTdwEais Tou Kupiou
'lr)o-ou XpioToO. As pointed out in my note on Rom.6-17, cxTrEStSow
stands for TraptStSovr, iSiSaa-Kov, taught, preached, and to fiaprvpiov does
not comport with it in this sense. I therefore incline to think that the
right word is ro /j.ua-rr;ptov. Cf. 1 Cor. 2-1 KarayyeXXajj/ i/juv to fivo-r-^piov
TOV deov, where likewise ro yuaprvpiov has been substituted in several
Mss. Eph.6-19 yvoipiaai, to p-vaT-qpiov tov tvayyeXiov. Col. 4-3 XaX-^aai
TO fiva-Trjpiov row XpiiTTov. See also my note on Rom. 11-25.
There
is no idea that the servants
5-6. di/ao-Toii'TEs Se 01 fEuTEpoi.

were and then rose to perform their duty, as it has been

sitting
thought. As I mentioned in my note on Lk 1-39 avaa-Taa-a Se Mapiap.
kwopevOt), the participles eytp^Eis or dvao-ras are frequently added
simply to indicate the commencement of a movement.
01 I'EciiTEpot. I.e. 01 iraiSi's, servants, porters, whose business itwas to
carry out the needful at funerals. So also veavia-Koi in v. 10. Compare
the MGk 7ratSt[ov], the French garcon == waiter and the Spanish mozo.
5-13. Tuv 8e Xoiirflc ou8i9 EToXfJia KoXXaaOai auToig. No persons are
specified in the foregoing so that here there might be a reference to a
rest (XotTTMv). But the Apostles were in a body preaching in Solomon's
porch, namely, within the court of the temple over which the Levites
 :

V THE ACTS 55

as the servants of the temple had jurisdiction and for order in -which
they were responsible. I conclude that Luke meant to say that the
Ijevites for fear of the people dared not forbid the Apostles to pursue
their work within the court. I read therefore toIv 8e AtvirZv oiSiU
eToA./ia KoiXvaai avrovi. This also makes ouScis iToX/xa intelligible ;

otherwise, since the people were exalting the Apostles, there was no
occasion for diffidence on the part of any one about following them.
5-17. di'aorAs (see my note on v. 6) Se 6 dpxiepeus koI Tr<Ji'Ts ot aur

auTw iit\ria6i\a-av JrjKou koI eir^PaXoi' tois x^^P^S. A rather anomalous

construction ; in a regular style the sentence would run o Se apxiepev's
Kol TraVTes ot <riiv avrio 7rXi^cr6ri<Tav ^irj\ov kol avacrravTe'S liri^aXov Tw;

Xupa's.
5-17 to 42. These verses did not form part of the original work but
are a rechauffe of 4-1 to 22 with the addition of Gamaliel's address.
The following parallelism will show this clearly

5-17. lire/SaXov rets x^ipas em Toiis 4-3. iireftaXov avTot's ras ;^tpas koI
diro<rTdA.oi;s Kal edtvro aurovs iv tdevTO els rrjp'qfnv
Tr/pijcrci

5-19. 8ia VDKTOS r/voi^e ras 6vpa<s 4-3. eis Tr]v avptov, rjv yap ka-Tripa

5-21. ap^iepevs Kal ot crvv avrio 4-5. (rvva\6rjvaL avTuiv rovs ap)(ov-
(TvveKa.Xi(rav to oTJveSptov Kal ras kol toiis Trpecr^vrepovs Kat
irSo'av T^v yepovaiav tovs ypayu.//,aTts
5-26. ov /xTa ^tas, itf>oj3ovvTO yap 4-21. fitjSev evptaKOVTes to irws ko-
rbv Xaov XdcrtavTac avTovs 8ta tov Xadv
5-27. auTOtis <rTrj(Tav iv tu (rvve- 4-6. o-TiJo-avTes avrovs iv tu yueo-oi

Sptu) Koi iirrjpiLrriiTev i-TrvvBavovTO

5-29. Treidap^^elv Set Oeio //.oiXXov t] 4-19. el ScKaLov icrTLV v/i5i' aKoveiv
dvOptinroii /iaXAoj/ rj rov 6eov
5-30. yjyeipev ov vjiels 8t-
'liqcrovv, 4-10. 'Ir/o-ov ov vp,eh ea-Tavpoxrare,
)(eipLcraa-de KpepAa^avres ov o deoi rjyeipev
5-40. Trpoa-KaXecra/xevoi tovs aTro- 4-18. KaXeq-avTes avTOVs irapyj-yyei,-

(TToXovi Traprjr^ytiXav p.ri XaXeiv Xav fjurj <j)0eyye(r6aL em rQ ovo-

eTTi tZ ovo/xari tov Itjo'Ov. fjLari Irjtrov.

Then the episode of the angel who opened the prison is a reminis-
cence of 12-7 ff and probably also of 16-26. Furthermore, Gamaliel's
address is pointless, nor is his advice really carried out (though we
are told that it was), for the Apostles were not let off, considering that
56 THE ACTS v-vii

before discharge they were scourged. In fact, shortly afterwards we

have Stephen's episode, when he was put to death in the presence of
the chief priest without any interference on his part to save him in

conformity with Gamaliel's advice.

6-20. irdi'Ta tci piijiaTa Ttjs Juris TauTH)?. Probably TaSra. So Manen.
5-21. Trapayefo/AEcos. As there is no other place indicated, we should
have to assume that the chief priest visited to lepov, which is men-
tioned in the preceding verse. If that were so, however, we would
have been told what was his object in repairing there. In the absence
of any such information irapayevo/ji.evoi remains too indefinite to be
sound.
FT ^'i^Eii' iirl Tu ocofi.aTi
5-40. Tous dTToariXous Seipai'TES irapi^YYti^'i''
ToO 'itjaou. Itwas for the offence of heresy that the Apostles were
scourged, in the same way as according to 22-1 9 Paul at one time was
treating the Christians. E. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud
and Midrash p. 336 'Jacob of Ch.N. was called to account by R.Haggai,
who ordered him on each occasion to come and be scourged for having
given a wrong decision. Jacob asked R.Haggai by what authority he
scourged him. The Rabbai quoted texts to show that Jacob's teaching
was wrong, after which Jacob lay down and submitted to be
scourged.'
6-7. TToXus T o^Xos Tcji/ iepiiav utti^kouoi' Ttj iriorei. It is beyond belief

that a great crowd of priests were converted. A scandal of such

sensational magnitude could not have been dismissed with a perfunc-
tory notice, nor could it have remained without grave consequences.
Even if Mt 3-7 iSiiv St iroXXoiis tS>v ^apuratuiv koX SaSSou/cawDv ipxofie-
vous i-rrl to /3a.TrTi.(7[ji.a be genuine, it was one thing to seek purification
and quite another to fall in with such a claim as that Jesus was the
Messiah. Most likely for Upiwy we should read 'EjSpatW, to which
the variant 'lovSaiwv seems to point.
7-5. eirifjYyeiXaTO Soufai auTw (several minuscules eirii)YYiXaTO auT<3

Soufai, adopted by Souter) els Ka,r<i<r)is<nv aur^ii' Kal tu <nr^p|xaTi outou

(lET auToi'. This flatly contradicts the preceding ovk ISajxev avrta kXtj-

povo/jLiav iv avrg oiSe fiyjp.a TroSoi, and it is hopeless to strain after

explaining the contradiction away. Luke was a gentleman highly cul-
tured, and it is inadmissible that he would have perpetrated such
vn THE ACTS 57

a palpable incongruity without being struck by it. He must have had

in mind Gen. 12-7 w^^i; /cvpios t "A/Spa/x, koX tra-EV avria Tul o-irep/taTt

o-ov Sa)o-(u TTjv yrjv Tavrrjv, SO that he probably wrote einjyyEiXaTo auTw
Sowat [eis KaTd(7xfriv] auT'^v t(3 (TTrepimTi, avTov, but some transcriber
remodelled the quotation in accordance with Gen. 48-4 Sdxro) croi rrjv

y^v TavTrjv KaX Tt! u'lripjj^wri crov [/.eta (re.

7-19. rh yivos f\ii.<av. Having acted mllainovMy to-

KaToo-o<|)io-((ii'os

wards our As jravoCpyos often stands for o-o^os, the reverse may
race.

equally obtain and o-o^os be employed in a pejorative sense for

jravoCpyos- So that KaTacro^io-a/i,ci/os most probably means the same as

KaTOTravovpyqo'afi.evos cf. Ps.82-4 eirt tov Xaov crou KaTiravovpyT^(TavTO

;

yv<!iix.-qv. In any case the English version and the same dealt suhtilly
with our kindred, or race, is not correct ; there was no subtlety in
Pharaoh's acts to which Karao-o^io-ayu.ci'os refers as does also Koraa-o-
<t>t<7uiii,6a of Exod.1-10 but open hostility.
7-20. dcrreios t(5 Ocu. I.e. dffTei(5TaTos. See my note on Lk 1-6.
7-25. Ifofiije & auci^fai toJs dSeX<|)ous. I do not see the point of
ivo/u^i. Probably rjp//.o^e or ivi^pp,o^e, it was fitting on the part of the
brethren that they should understand.
7-38. oijTos eo-Tic 6 y^vi^^vo^ iv t? iKKKi\(i[a iv tt) epi^jxcd (xercl tou
dyY^ou TOU XaXounros auTU ei tu opei Zira Kal tSiv Ttaripiav i^p.ui'. The
syntax generally adopted of connecting tZv iraripav with p,Ta. tov
ayyiXov, i. e. /itra tov ayyiXov koX tZv rraTcpMv, appears to me unsatis-
factory ; what was the object of emphasizing such a fact as that
Moses was in the desert with the Jewish ancestors, especially since it

was already said in the preceding verse that Moses spoke to them ?
The author's intention was I think to convey that the angel spoke to
Moses and the ancestors, and therefore that tS>v Traripwy stands for
the dative, a usage which is now thoroughly established ; see Jannaris
1350 and Hatzidakis, Einleitung p.223. Cf.Act.Petr. et Andr.5 Sos

Toiis /Sous TOV Kvpiov avTwv = give the oxen to their owner, and further

on dvayyeiXov Tjj yvvaiKi (tov koX tu>v TeKvtov (Tov = inform thy wife and
thy children, a mixing of the cases as in our passage. It would, how-
ever, be unfair to tax Luke with such grossly unscholarly grammar,
and I surmise that Koi tS>v irarepaiv -^/jluiv does not come from his pen.
7-42. OTpei)iE 8e 6 Oeos Kal 'ttupeSukei' outous XaTpeueic rrj orpaTia

I
58 THE ACTS vii viii

ToO odpacoG. Blass points out the difficulty of translating ea-rptxl/e by

turned, and suggests that the right reading might be Sua-Tpeij/e.

The notion that God in his wrath distorts the minds of sinners and
involves them in additional sin exists also in Ps.80-12 ovk t^kov(Tv 6
Aaos Trji (jtiiivrj'; fiov Koi 'lapar/X. oil TrpoiricTX^ /tot, Koi e^aTrecrreiXa avrovg
Kara to. iTriTr]SevfJi.aTa tu>v KapSiwv avrSiv' TTOpevcrovTaL iv Tot's iTnrrjSev-

/jUKTLV ovtZv. Cf. further Mt 13-15 iTra)(yv6rj y KapSia tov X.aov tovtov
Kai TOis dxrl Papiiii% rjKOvcrav "Kau tows o<^6aAju.ous avruiv iKai/jiiJ,v(7av, ixrfTrore

iSoKTl TOlS OcjidaklXOVi KoX Tol'S i>(Av aKOVCTUXTl Kol T^ KapSlO. (TVvSxTl KoX

fTn<rTpij/<i)iTi Kal Idcro/xai aurovs. Rom.1-28 KaOiai ovk iSoKifji,a(Tav tov

0ebv ;^t>' ev iTriyvuicrei, TraplSioKCV avToiis 6 Otoi ets aSoKi/xov vovv iroiiiv

TO, jx-q KaBrjKOVTa. 2Thes.2-10 Trjv dydinjv Tijs dX.rj$eiai ovk iBi^avTO, Kal
Sia TOVTO irip.TTii avToi^ 6 6eos ivipyeiav TrXdvr]^ ts to TritrTtCtrai avroiis
Tw \j/ev&ei, iva KpiOSxri TravTcs ol /jlt] TrioTcvcraj'Tes Trj akrjOeia oAA'eiSo-

Kijo-avTcs T^ dSiKta. Compare further Lycourg.Leoc.92 ot yap 6eo\ oiZh/

TrpoTipov ^^0L0va^lv r] Tcoi' irovrjpSiv dvOpiaTTWv ttjv Bidvoiav Trapdyovai, where
Euripides's iambics are quoted orav yap 6py^ Saip.6v(av ^Xd-Trrr] Tivd,

TOVTavTO tt/dGtov, iia(j)aipfLTaL <j>p(vC>v tov vovv tov i(r6\ov, ets Si tyjv

X"'p<u Tpiirei yv<ofji,rjv, iv'elSrj p.rjhh' wv dfiaprdvu, Hom.S 3 11 ck ydp (rtfieusv

(Leeuwen et Costa cr<^t) tf>peva^ c'XeTo IlaXXas 'Ad-^vrj. This was a hack-
neyed notion, hence the proverb /icopatVci Kvpios ov jSovXcrat aTroXecrai,
a most unkind thought.
7-44. KaOus Sierd^aTo iroirjaai outiii'. Regarding Kadw^ avTrjv = rjv

see my note on 10-38.

7-5 1 . dTrepiT/irjToi KapSiais Kai tois aalv. Probably Kal Tots dxrl ySapcis.
7-59. Tbv lT^<t>afot> iriKaXou(jiEi'oi' Kal X^yoiTo. Bentley considered that
either 6v {6e6v) dropped out after [iirtKaXovfjievlov or kv (kvplov) before
Kal [XcyovTaJ.
8-1. lauXos 8e fiv o'ui'EuSoKui' ttj dmipEorci auTou. This information,
coming so closely upon what we are told in 7-58, i.e. that the
witnesses against Stephen laid down their garments at the feet of
Saul, seems to me entirely superfluous.
8-2. <JweK6ji.urav 8e toi' ZTE'<|)acoi' ai-SpEs EuXaPfils koi ETroiT|o-ai' kottetoi/
jx^yai' Eir'auTO. Not in their proper place they should be restored
;

after Kal tovto elirihy iKOLfirjOr] of 7-60. De Beze placed them after ttj
dvaipidei of 8-1.
Till THE ACTS 59

8-4. Siaoirap^i'TES Si'^\6oi> EuayYEXi^cSfj.Ei'oi. The aorist is unsuitable

both here and at 10-38; cf. v. 40 Sitpxoixtvo^ evi^yyeXt^ero. Probably
SiTJyov. For Sidyeiv with a participle = to continue doing what the par-
ticiple denotes see Liddell and Scott.
8-7. iroWoi y&p tC>v ixpvr'^v iri'CuftaTa dxddapTa, ^oui/Ta ({xdcfj jiEyiiXr),

anacoluthiamhabet vel in mediocri scrip-

^fi^pXocTo. Blass 'lectio iroAAot

tore intolerabilem.' Quite so, but the primitive reading was ttoXXoI^,
an ethical dative, to which point D irapa ttoXAois and d a multis.
8-23. Eis Y^P X^V ifiKpLas Kal auvheanov dSiKias op&i ite ocra. I
cannot discern any sense in elvat eis xoX^v (=x^V' ^^ Jannaris
iv

1548), nor does ;^oX-^ denote, as we should have expected, anything

parallel to avvSea-fwi. I suggest crxoA^v Tropveias, the meaning being
for I see thee belonging to a heathenish school and to an association of
iniquity, not to an association of peace (cf. Ephes.4-3 iv tZ o-uvSccr/iai

T^s EtpijvTys). We would thus obtain a parallelism between a-xoXrjv and

avvBecr/xov and another between ?ropvetas and aSiKtas. There occur
several such combinations in which figures iropveia; cf.2Cor. 12-21 rfj

aKadapa-ia Koi tropvua. Rom.1-29 KeirXrjpmp.ivov's irdaig dSiKia, Tropveia.

Hos.6-9 avo/JLLav iTTOLrja-av, eiSov iropvuav Tov E^pai/i. Jer.3-2 iv Tats

'TTopvf.uwi crov Kal iv Tats Kaxiais crou. 13-27 y dnp-ia crov koX tj jxaixf^ia

(TOV. Jez. 23-27 tois atrt^eia^ crov Kol rrjv iropvuav (tov. 23-29 alo'xyvrj

TTopvda^ (TOV Koi axri^iiA crov. 23-35 Xaj8e rfp/ da-iftudv aov kol Triviropvuav
(TOV. Corruptions of iropvefa I have indicated in my note on Rom.1-29,
referring to lCor.5-8. Sir.41-17. Is.47-10. Jer.13-27. XII Patr.Reub.
3-3. 4-11. Jud.14-2. Dan.5-5. And at this passage when (TxoXrjv was

corrupted into x^V' ^^ ^^ ^y ^^^ iropvetas to lapse into irtKpt'as

owing to the association of gall with bitterness ; cf. Deut.29-18 cyxo^S
KOL irtKpia. However, the sentence reads like a quotation, and until
the original is traced, nothing really reliable as to the genuine form
of the sentence can be advanced.
-iropi'Eiai'. In its general sense of a bad or heathenish act, as often.
otuVSeo-jioc. Association in a pejorative sense, conspiracy, of which
Sophocles registers two instances, i.e. 4Kingsll-14 and Jer.11-9.
8-39. OTE 8e di'e'|3Ti<rai' ek tou uSaros, iri'eGpa Kupi'ou fjpirao-E Toy iXnriroi'

Kal ouK eISec auTOC ouke'ti 6 eui'Ouxos, EiropEUETO ydp ttji' oSoi' auTou xaiput'.

iXiinros 8e eupidi\ eis "AJutoi/. I cannot believe that Luke is responsible

60 TEIB ACTS viu ix

for this childish tale. I suspect that originally the text read iiropevOr],
and when this was corrupted into evpiOrj, a miracle was imagined and
the story of Philip being carried away by a spirit was concocted. The
original text ran probably thus : ore St dve/Jr^o-av k tov vSaToi, 6 fih

evvovxpg i-jropevero Tr]v oSbv airov ;;^ai/)0)V, $tA,i7r7ros 8e l-n-opevOrj eis A^toTOr.

For a similar fiction see my note on Jn 5-3.

9-7. ot 8e acSpes ot aukoScuorres auTw \<rrl\Ki\.<Jav ivveoX, dKouoi-Tes ^h
Tijs <|>o)i'rjs, (iijSeVo 8e 8eo)poui<Ts. An evident copy of Dan.10-7 Ihov iyo)

AavirjX /xovos rrjv orrracTLav, koL ol avSpes ol p.erifi.ov ovk iSov Ti]v

oTTTaa-iav, aXXi] (see my note on Rom. 14-1 4) Ixo-Tacrts p-fyaX-rj eVeVtcrcv

iir'avTOvs. Soph.Aj.l5 tvpaO^'s crov, k&v airoTrros ^S o/acos, (f><Lvrjp.'a,Kovto.

See my notes on 10-14. 17-18. 17-22, and more particularly 27-19.

9-16. lyi) ydp uTro8ei|o> auTU ocra 8ei auToi' uTrcp tou oKOfiariSs |J.ou

The verb iwoSeUvvfu occurs in five other places of the New

iraSeii'.

Testament, and its meaning in every case is to teach, the force of the
preposition being the same as in viroypaxfito, iiroypapp.o's, v<f>7]yovp.ai.
And TraOeiv does not accord with such a sense of viroSeiiu), for it is

irrational to say that Paul would be taught what he was to suffer.

For TraOeLv to be right we should have not viroBEiioi but something
like cLTrayyeXS), XaXr/tro), Trpoepia (cf.lThes.3-4 irpoXiyop.iv vpZv oVi p.e.X-

Xop.tv 6Xi^a-6aL). Therefore I think that it is wrong, having displaced

TToieLv or perhaps Trpaa-a-eiv, as is made certain by v. 6 XaXrjdija-eTaL croi

o Ti ere Set iroieiv and by 22-10 Tropevov eis Aa/xacrKov xd/cet croi Xakrj-
6rj(TeTai rrepl TrdvToov Siv reraKTai what we
croi Troirjcrai. This is besides
should have expected, namely, that Paul would be told what it was

his duty to do. The change consciously or unconsciously must have

come about at the time when the minds of Christians were full of the
merit of martyrdom.
Ttjv kXivtjv and
9-34. &ydcrrr\Qi Kai arpSMrov aeauTu. Expositors supply
interpret arise But in this way Peter is made to
and make thy bed.

tell Aeneas to rise from his bed and return to it. What we must

supply is <jiayLv, that is to say, Aeneas was to rise from his bed and
make a couch ready so that he might recline there and refresh him-
self. So in Mk 14-15 dvioyaiov e<TTpwp,evov denotes an upper room with
the (TTptapvaX, i. e. the couches upon which the crvvSenrvoi were to
recline, made ready. Cf. also Herod.9-82 KXtVas ev earpuip.eva'i Ka^
IX X THE ACTS 61

irapaa-Ktvriv /xeyaXoirptTria tov Suttvov. Jud.12-25 ecrrpoicrev axn-n ra kw-

Sia a i^a^t eis to ia-dieiv. Amos 6-4 /caracnraTaXGvTes eirt rais (TTpiap.va'is

avTfov Kal i<t6ovtk, stretching upon their couches wantonly and feasting.
Ezek.23-41 tKaOov iirl KXlvrji i(TTp(i>fiivrj^ Kal TpaTre^a KCKOo-fj/q/xevrj trpo

Trpoo-coTTOi) avTTJ's. In MGk o-Tpcovco TO TpaTrit,!. or simply o-rpmvo) means

to lay the tablecloth etc in preparation for the meal. Peter on this
occasion did -what Jesus did according to Mk 5-43, where it is said
that when the damsel rose up he bade her friends let her partake
of food. Cf. also Evang.lThom.l7 o-oi Aeyw, /Jpec^os, ^^o-ov, koX tiOv^
a.vaj3\e\ffa^ iyeXacrev. EItte Se ry yvvaiKi ^Apov avTO kol 80s ydXa.
9-39. oaa eitoici fieTauTwi' oucra q AopKds. The same as 00-a cTrotei
avToi's 7) AopKo.? ^Zcra, those things which Dorkas did to them (for
them) when alive. Cf. 10-2 ttoiSiv eXeTj/xooTJvas t5 XaZ. Lk 8-39 StiyyoO
oo-a (troLrjai aoi 6 6eos. For jjier'avrSiv = aurois see my note on Apoc. 1 4-
13, where I have referred to Mk 6-50 iXdXrjae per'avrSiv. Lk 10-36 6
xoiijo-as TO cXeos /jber'airov. Tob.12-6 iiroii^cra /jLeO'v/xStv. 2Esdr.6-8 p.-^

TTOTe Ti TTOLTQa-rjTf p-eTOL Tu>v TrpEa^vTipuiv ( = TOts irpeo-/3vTe/30is, Kara, toiv

irpa-j3vTp<j)v). Bloomfield at Acts 14-27 oo-a iTroirjO-fV 6 ^cos p-^TavTSiv

calls this usage a Hebraism.
oucra =: tfaa-a. Cf. Mt 2-18 KXawvcra to, TeKva avTrjs, otl ovk ('utiv.

24-30 el rjp.iv iv rats qp-ipat.'s tGi' Trareptav ^p.uiv. Mk 1-13 ^v p,eTa. twv
6r]pLUiv. Rom. 8-5 ol Kara crdpKa ovtes (cf. 8-12 Kara, cdpKa t,^v), etc.

10-10. Trapao-KeuoJoi'Taii' Be auTui'. No persons being mentioned in

the foregoing to whom avTiov could be applied, the reading ei, airZ,
which is recorded in an old Latin, is preferable. Blass deletes avroiv,
but then how are we to account for its presence ? Both Baljon and
Soden suppress the variant ei, but it by Tischendorf,
is registered
who can be shown by this and several other instances to be un-
replaceable. The subject of -irapaa-Kiva^ovrdiv is impersonal. Cf. 21-10
iTrip.ei'ovToyv 8e rjp.ipa's TrXeiovs, KaT^XOi Tts airo Trjs louoatas. 21-31
^T/jTOvvTUiv aiiTov aTTOKTeivai, ave^rj ^ao-ts. Mt 1 7-1 4 iXOoVTuiv irpos tov
o^Xov, TrpoarjXOev avTSi. Herod. 5-11 TcXeco^evTwv Se dp<j>OTipoL(ri, ovtoi
p,iv KaTo. dXovTO iTpdrrrjcrav. Thuc.4-135 aXcr6op.ivu>v, (XTTT^yaye ttoXlv t^v
arpaTiav, and often.
10-11. T^o-o-apo-ic dpxaiS KaQUjievov. L e. Tiaa-apdiv a/cpois. Cf. Eur.
Hippol.762 iK^-ria-aVTO TrAcKTas ireurpATUtv dpx<*S.
62 THE ACTS ^

10-14. MriSojAus, KiJpiE, OTt ouUiTOTe e+ayoi' irai' KOicof Kal iKddapTOV.

Copied from Ezek.4-14 Mr;8a/xSs, Kvpif, ^ i/^x^ /*" * i^-tfuavTaL ev

aKaOapa-ia, ovSl ectreX^Xv^EV cis to crTo/x.a /iou ttSi/ icpcas ewXov. See my
note on 27-19.
10-30. diro TT(pTt)S il|i^pas (i^XPi TauTrjs tt]9 i3pos i]|i.r]i' ttjc ivy6.Tr\v

irpo<7uxopii'os. This can only mean since four days ago until this hour
I have been saying prayer of the ninth hour, and it has been re-
my
cognized that such a sense is unsuitable. It seems to me that we must
follow the -variant rijv iwaTrjv &pav and eliminate rrji tupas; com-
pendiously wpas and Sipav could be written &pa, and if this was missed
and noted at the margin, it could mistakenly have been combined
with TavTijs instead of with rrjv iwdrriv. By this correction we obtain
the meaning since four days ago until this, i.e. counting from this;
cf Gen.31-2 x^'S xal Tpirrjv rjp.ipav. lMac.9-44 ov yap icrri a-rjixipov cos
xOh Kai rpiTTqv r)p.ipav. Lucian,Halc,3 itopaKa^ Tpinqv r/fjiepav (= before

yesterday) ocros -^v o )(eip.(!>v. Herod.6-86 KararpLT-qv yeveav rr]v ciTre/ieo.

Cornelius had in his mind to say that he had been praying all these

four days at his usual ninth hour, but the apparition occurred during
his prayer of four days ago.
10-33. KaXws eiroirjo-as jrapayci'op.ei'os. I thank thee for having come.
This idiom of rendering thanks recurs in 15-29 e^ S>v huxrqpovvTK
kavTovs eu wpa^cTe, from which if you keep yourselves we shall be thank-

ful to you ; itsmeaning comes out clearly in Phil. 4-1 4 koXcos Jiroi^o-aTe
cruyKoivojvTjcravTes p.ov rrj dXCi^ii, I thank you for having sympathized
with me in my sorrow. Expositors apparently have not perceived what
this idiom represents, but Hunt has done so, for in Oxyr.Pap.1189 tv
TToirjirti's KO|u.ra/Acvos and 1215 KaXus iroiiycrtts ikOiov he translates re-

spectively kindly receive and please come. Similarly 3Jn 6 KaXSs ttol-q-
treis Trpoire/Jiil/a's dfi'tos rov Oeov. SKings 8-18 KaXuJs cTrotT^cras on iyivrjBri

im, TYjv KopSlav (rov, / thank thee for having thought of it. 1 Mac. 11-43
KaXSis iroii^o-cis aTrooTetXas /iot avSpas oi (Tvp.p.a)(fia-ov(Tiv. Lucian,Icar.l3
JjKio ere a.7ro\v(T0>v t^S irapowT/s oTropCas. Ev ye iiroirja-a'S, ^v S' iyia. Char.
24. Harmon.l. Plat.Lys.204a ijSe'ojs av a-ot ^ueraSiSot/xev. KaXSs, ^v S'cyo),
TToiovvre's. Similarly Soph.Aj.94 icaXcos tXcfas, / thank thee for thy
kind words,
10-37. oiSare t6 yei'op.eKOi' piip.a Ka9'o\T)s rfjs 'louSaias dpldfxcras diro
x-xii THE ACTS 63

Tfjs TaXiXoias. The construction is inextricably tangled, and therefore

Blass looks upon dp^a/ievos oltto ttjs ra\i\ata9 as an interpolation from
Lk 23-5 StSacTKCOV Ka6'6\rjs TTji 'louSatas Koi dp^a/ievos dwo t^s raXtXat'as.
That we have before us an interpolation is evident, but the question
is as to where it has been intruded, whether in the Acts or in Luke.
I think that in Luke, because the clause there should run SiBaa-Kuiv

Kafi'oXijs r^s 'lovSat'as dp^a^evos diro r^s TaXiXatas, namely without the
conjunctive, its addition being explicable if it introduces a marginal
comment ; and on the other hand, if in our passage dp^a/xevos dTro rrjs

roXiXatas be transferred after 'lepovaaX-rj/j. of v. 39 i^/xets //.dprvpe^ irav-

T(ov S>v i-TTolrjcriv tv t rfj x^poi tZv lovSaio)!/ koL Iv lepovcraX^jU., all would

run smoothly and logically, and moreover the two passages would then
coincide.
10-38. 'lr)<Tou>' Toc diro Najap^x. These words, being connected with
TO yivoixevov prjixa of the preceding verse, should have had the form
TTcpi 'Ir/trov Tov airb Na^apeV; but the Evangelist had them in his
mind as an object to ^yeipe of v. 40 tovtov 6 6eos yjyeipe, where they
are repeated as tovtov.
&s Ixp'''''*'' nuToi'. The same as ov exp'-o'^''; see my notes on Jn 1-16
and Ilom.8-29, where I refer to Mk 14-72 to p^p-a <us (= on) eLTnv.

Lk 22-61 TOV Xoyou (is eiTrcv. Acts 7-44 17 a-K-qvr] KaOib^ SicTafaTO Troirjcrai

avTijv \KaduiS avTrjV := tjv),

8iT]X9i'. Probably Siijycv. See note on 8-4.

12-2. di-etXe Se 'idKu^oi' Toi' d8X<t>di' 'loidccou iia\aipa. Spurious. A
marginal note by a fanatic who took the present opportunity to hold
up Herod to execration as pushing his iniquities to the point of
having James, John's brother, beheaded. If this James was executed
at all, which is exceedingly doubtful, it was not at this precise
moment, for James, to whom Peter refers at v. 17, is John's brother,
and not the Lord's brother as is generally assumed from a desire to

reconcile the statement in this verse with that of v.l7. It is highly

improbable that Peter would have wished to communicate with the
Lord's brother who so far had been a sort of persona muta, and not with
the son of Zebedee who from the beginning was his coworker in the
apostolic history. In Gal. 1-1 9 tov dScX^ov tov Kvpiov must be equally
spurious, because he is represented as an apostle whereas he was not.
 ;

64 THE ACTS xii

12-12. auciSui' Se riKGei' is ttic oiKiai' Mapias. It is supposed that

cniviSuiv reiterates the foregoing vvv olSa dk-rjOw, on which supposition
its object can only be the same as that of otSa, i.e. on iiairia-reiXe Kvpto?

Tov ayyeXov avTOv koX cfetXcrd jxi e*c x'^ipo's HpcuSov. But why should
the consequence of such a thought have been to move Peter to betake
Mary ? My opinion is that o-uvlSuiv is corrupt
himself to the house of
what we should have expected is a word denoting at once or eagerly
or rapidly. Accordingly Hammond conjectured a~irevSu>v ; but the ori-

ginal word was rather avvT^lviav, hurrying, Sophocles registers four

examples from Dionysios of Halicarnassos, Philo, and Plutarch. Add
Philostr.ApolI.2-33 i)(uipovv o-wt^lvuiv. 4-17 dvjjet ^vvretVas. 6-5 avSpl
aXvovTi p-aXXov rj $vvTivovn. Polyb. 5-47-4 otji/tovos Tropua. Eur.Bac.
1091 (TvvTova Bpofx,i^fw.Ta. Wetstein and Meyer marshal a number of
instances where cmviSuiv is met with. Naturally it must often occur,
but the point is as to its business here ; the explanations given are
surmises for which there does not exist the slightest support in the text.
12-20. ireio-afTes BXcio-toi'. Having paid or bribed. Cf. Xen.Mem.3-1 1-

1 ywatKos oiScnjs ev ttj ttoXu Kokfj^ koX otas avv^ivai tQ tteWovti. Liddell
and Scott refer to this passage and Lys.l 10-13. Xen.An.1-3-9, as well
as to Arist.Vesp. dvaTreTreto-yoicVos. The English version having made
Blastos their friend is unwarranted.
12-23. irdTo|ei' auTOK ayyeXos Kupiou &vd'&y ouk cSuke S^^ar tu Oeu.
Interpreters have misunderstood this passage to mean that Herod
was punished for not leaving to God alone the glory due to him but
arrogating it to himself by acquiescing in the impious flattery of the
Tyrians. But Sowai So'^av tZ deZ simply means to pray to God, cf.
IKings 6-5 Swo-tTeTol Kvptia Sdfav ottcos Kov<f>ia-r] tt]v X"pa airov d^'v^uolv
Ktti airo Tu>v 6e.u>v (read vlwv) i/j.u>v, etc. And the prayer often is for
forgiveness; cf. Jn 9-24 (see my note) Sds Sdfav
tS et&, ^p.tls oiSa/tev
oTi 6 avOpiOTTOi ovTos dp.apTio\6i ia-TLv, pray to God that thou
be for-
given, for this man with whom thou hast come in contact is, as
we
know, a sinner. Apoc.16-9 ov /AETevdiyo-av Sovvai Sd^av t ^cS, they did
not repent so as to pray to God for forgiveness. 11-13
dTrc/cTaveijcrav
ovoVara dvOpiiirtov x'A.td8S iirra, Kal ot XotTrot c/x^o/3oi iyivovTO koX
eSuiKav Sdfav T&> BeZ, they prayed to God for forgiveness. lEsdr.9-7
rivoiJ.rja-aTi tov irpoa-diivai d/taprias Tu 'I<Tpar]X, Kal vvv Sore 6fj.o\oyiav
 ;

XII XIII THE ACTS 65

So^av TO) 6eZ. In Josh. 7-1 9, -when a crime is brought home to Achar,
Joshua tells him 86s Sofav cri^fjiepov tZ Kvpiia, pray to-day to the Lord
for forgiveness. So is it in this passage. What the Tyrians shouted
was a blasphemy, and Herod was punished for not deprecating
that blasphemy by praying to God for forgiveness. Such is the Greek
feeling to this day, for the Greeks look upon a blasphemy as a sort
of infectious sin, and on hearing one they often cross themselves
and exclaim Oeo's (fivXdioi, that is to say, Qod save us from such a sin

and forgive us.

The above sentence having been misunderstood from ancient times
to mean that the glory -which was addressed to Herod should have
been addressed to God has caused the addition of the article to Sofav
but most witnesses record simply Sofac, and Tischendorf remarks
'dici solet Souvat So'^ar ^6(3, cf. Lk 17-18. Jn 9-24. Eom.4-20, quorum
locorum nullo lectio fluctuat,' but in spite of this just remark he
adopts rrjv Sd|av in obedience to the combined authority of N B, logic
thus being sacrificed to a theory. My interpretation of course does not
admit of the article.

1 3-8. ^rjTOi' 8iao-Tp^v|/ai toi' di'SuiraToi' diro tyjs irioreus. Valkenaer cltto'

CTTpiij/ai in accordance with 3-26 a.TrocrTpe.(^uv eKoxTTOv airb tZv irovrj-

piCiv.

x^''P<''Y'^Y''5- If in order to walk after the

13-11. irepiiyiov e^i^Tci
Elymas needed assistants to lead him by the
loss of his eyesight

hand, he could not go about by himself. That is, however, what

the text states. I thought at one time that perhaps not wepiayuiv but
n-epvaXyZv, in great distress, might be the original reading, tbe cor-
ruption being the same as in XII Patr.Zab.6-5, where there is a
variant a-uvdyuiv for crvvaXymv. I think now that Paul's curse affected
Elymas in the manner of the following imprecations: Deut.28-28
Trara^at ere Kvpios aopaxrla. koj. ecrei ij/7j\a<l>S)V fjLea-rjfji/Spia^ ws et Tts

ij/rika<j)T^<TaL TV<j}Xos iv tZ (tkotcl. Job 5-14 r/jxepa^ crvvavTrj<reTaL airols

CTKOTO?, TO 8e fuecrrjfjijSpLvbv xl/i]Xa<f>-qcraicrav laa vvktC Isa.59-10 ij/rjXatjiyj-

a-ova-iv ois Tv<f>Xol toTxov. It is therefore much more likely that the

original word was a synonym of ij/T]Xa^S>v, and that if so it must be

jrepLxj/avwv, groping round. Compare Hesychius v. xj/aXdcra-u ip-qXacfiS., '

ij/avu.' Also Horn. 6195 km KaXabs SiaKpivete arjfia afitfiacjxiwv, groping

K
66 THE ACTS xiii

round; see Coraes,'^ATaKTa \ol.4 p.398. Probably Elymas's episode was

suggested by the imprecations just quoted; see my note on 27-19.
13-12. eKTrXYio-ffdnecos m t^ 8i8ax^ tou Kupiou. What caused Sergius
amazement was the miracle that had just been wrought, and miracles
did not ensue through SiSa;^^ but Swa/ici.
13-15. \6y<K irapaK\^(7us. A word of instruction. See my note on
Lk 3-18.
13-18. lis T(T(rapaKoi'TaeTri xp'5>'<'. I-C etos T<T(TapaKO(TTov eros, until

the fortieth year. For us = Ims (as in MGk) cf. Mk 4-27 /jLrjKvveraL us
exa^evStv (Mss ovk oTSei/). Jn 2-23 ojs St rjv 1/ IcpocroXu/tois. 12-35 irept-

iraretTe ws to <^s 'X*'''^"

^^ ws to <^Ss ^X^'''^
TriCTTeueTC.

13-23. i]Y<*Y* l<rpaT|X o-urripa. The combination ayoi crcor^pa is

unheard of, nor is it logical. A variant, howeyer, rjyupe, well sup-

ported, is the verb suitable at this place as demonstrated by v. 22
ijyeipc Tov AaySiS is /SacrtXc'a and other passages. But theory in this
case has again prevailed over logic and the usage of language. A
similar corruption at 14-2, where D exhibits iTr^yayov for iirijyupav.
Cf. chiefly 5-30 6 6tos tu>v Trarepiov rjp,u>v ^yeipev 'Irjcrovv, which is

virtually a reproduction of our passage. Cf. also Mt 24-11 i/fcuSoTrpo-

<jj7JTai lyipB-qiTOVTai.

13-27. TouTOi' &,yvoi\<javTi<i koI rds <|>(i>i'As Tui' irpo(|)r]Ta)i' tAs kotA irdi'

o'dPPaToi' di'ayii'uaKoiAei'as Kpiyafres eirXi^pfcxrai'. That there is something

amiss in this passage it is evident. As usual, several well-meant
attempts have been made at obviating the impossibility of the con-
struction ; but fruitlessly. I think the reading originally was tovtov,
ayvoriaavm ras <^o)vas T<3v '!rpQ<f>-qTu>v Tas Kara irav crd/S^aTOv dvayivu)-
(TKo/icVas, KpivavTK f<l>yXu><j-av, him they, having failed to fathom the
voices of the prophets though read every sabbath, brought to judgement
and nailed up, crucified. Cf. 2-36 tovtov tov 'I-qa-ovv ov vp-tts eo-Taupco-
<TaT. 4-10 Irjcrov XpLo^TOv tov Na^ojpatou ov vp,w i(7TavpmaaT. Herod.
9-120 uaviSi (Mss (TovtSa) Trpocnracra'aXevcravTK.
13-28. |iT)8efiiof amai> Sacdrou up6i'Ts ^n^o-acTO niXciTOc dcaipEdrji'ai

untrue that the elders found no fault in Jesus such as

auT^i'. It is

would render him liable to capital punishment on the contrary, all ;

along that is what they had been intent upon proving. It was Pilate
who found no cause for condemnation, as Luke tells us in 23-4 o Se
xiii-xv THE ACTS 67

IltXaTos cLTTf TTpoi Tovi apxiepeti Kal Toiis o^Xous OvSev evpia-KO) aiTiov iv
TM avOpwirw TovT(a. I emend therefore tvpovroi, i. e. tov UiXdrov. In
pedantically strict grammar we should have evpovra in agreement
with IltXaTov; but cf. 4-1 XaXovvrmv airZv Trpoi tov \abv liria-njo-av
auTois. Thuc.4-41-4 iroAAoE/cis tjtoiTwvrmv outovs airpaKTOvs aviTrc/jLTrov.
Heracl.4 KaKol /idprvpei avOpwiroia-iv 6<j>9a\fji,ol Kal Zra /Sap^apovi ijrvxa.^

ixovTiov, Aeneas, 10-22 yevop,evov avrov iv rrj 'Ip-ipa^ Tripfiws eKcXeuo-ci/

avTov Kipip.a/uv, etc.
13-40. 6au(j[,<i<TaT Kal d<f>af laOTjTC. From Habac.1-5 Oav/ida-aTe OavpA-
(Tia KoX d4>avL(T6r]Te. Therefore dt^avUrO-qTi is right here ; but probably it
is wrong in the LXX, where perhaps the genuine reading is (ftwna-OrjTe

or ivmTLcrdrjTe.
13-42f. 'EjidtToii' 8e auTui' irapcKciXoui' els to )XTa$u crcip^aToi' XaXtjSrji'ai
auTOis Tcl pigjAara TOUTa. AuScio-tis 8e Ttjs aucayuYtis 'rJKoXoddrio'ai' iroXXol
T&v 'louSaiui' Kal rS>v aePoixiviav irpotrriXuTui' tu riauXu Kal tu Bapyd^a,
oiTii'cs irpo<rXaXoui'Ts outoIs cirEidor auTOus irpoaficVeii' tj) x^^piTi tou BeoO.
These verses are highly suspicious. If, as they state, a great number of
Jews were converted, Paul ought to have felt elated at the extraordi-
nary success of his preaching, whereas in the subsequent verses we see
him in a highly indignant mood against the Jews as a body, to the
extent that he shakes off at them the dust of his feet. Besides in vv. 45
and 50 it is all the Jews without exception that appear as his oppo-
nents and persecutors.
ficTa|u. Preferably l^s as in D and other Mss. Cf. v. 44 tw Se ipxppxvio
<ra/3^dTia.

14-1. eyei'CTo Se cc 'iKonu Kayo, to outo eiatkOetv auTous eis Ttji' (Tuvay<a-

y-qv. The English versions follow the Vulgate simul and render Kara to
avTo by together. But Blass recte Gigas similiter (K. Schmidt), pessime
'

vulg. simul,' comparing Lk 17-30 Kara to. aiiTo. and Acts 17-2 Kara to
eico^os T<o HavXia. The latter passage runs as follows els co-craXovi/crji' :

OTTou ^v crvvayuiyrj Tmv lovSaiiov, Kara oe to eiojaos T(3 TLavXw uc^XOe w/sos

airovs, and its similarity with the passage under comment is un-
mistakable. Cf. also Herod.4-155 Kara Taura iOicriri^i ol koL Trporepov.

14-27. ciroii()o-ei' (lET ouToli'. The same as hroiiqcrev aurots. See my note
on 9-39.
15-10. Tl ITEipd^ETC TOl* 9e6l' ETTlOElfOl ^UyOI' ETTl TOl' Tp(ixt)^OI' TUC
68 THE ACTS xv xvi

fiaOrjTciJi', Of ouTC ot Trar^pes iqjji.ui' out6 i^juleTs iaxucrafi^v paordo-ai ;

An
anachronism similar to that of Jn 7-19 ov Mwa^s cScokcv v/Arr tov

No'/tov ; Kai where I have commented as

oiScis ef w/iGi' Troiet toi/ No/ioi/,
follows was in later times, when the controversy with regard to
:
'
It

circumcision was raging and the Jews were insisting upon conformity
to the Mosaic Law, that the argument was devised of the Jews them-
selves not conforming to the Law, inasmuch as by the destruction of
Jerusalem they could no longer continue the prescribed sacrifices which
according to the Law should be performed exclusively there.'
15-14. 6 6e6s eireffKei|)aTo XaPeic e^ idvStv \a.oy tu oi'd/iari outou. Le.

Xa^uv eavTip Xaov i^ i6vu>v, to take to himself, to adopt, a people out of

the nations or heathen. Cf. Deut.4-34 iireLpacrev 6 ^eos da-eX6!av Xa/3eiv

iavTM Wvo';. For tw 6v6fj.aTL avTov=- iavTw see my note on Lk 4-36.

15-16. (Aero, raura dfaarpeil/ai Kai di/oiKoSofiiiaa) Tr]!/ aKr\vr]i' Aa^lS rf)!'

TTETTTUKuTai', Kai Tcl KaTeoTpafifi^ca auTYJs di/oiKoSoni^CTu Kai dkopdoiau auTT|i',

oiTci)s di' eK^TTr^o-aio-ic ot KardXcnroi t<ov avQjydittav rov Kupioc Kai irdvTa rd
dvr\ <!>' ous eTTiKEKXiiTai TO oi'op.d /xou i-K auTous. Out of this quotation
the only essential part is oVujs av iK^rjTi^cruKTiv ol KaTaXouroi twv avdpw-
TTUIV TOV KVpiOV KoX TTaVTa TO. tdvr] i(f> OVS iTTlKiKXrjTaL TO OVO/Jid jXOV k-JT

was a frequent practice of quoting a whole passage as it was

avTou's. It

popularly quoted as a proverb, though only a part of it was applicable

to the idea which it was intended to illustrate. See my note on Rom.
4-7 and 8, where I have referred as other instances of this practice to
Rom.8-36. 9-9. 9-17. lCor.3-16. And I have explained at Rom.3-4 that
even the essential words have to be understood not in the exact original
form but so modified as to fit the idea of the author, as at Rom.15-3.
lCor.1-31. lPet.2-7. XII Patr.Sim.6-2, etc. In our passage the words
e^'oSs ETTtKe/cXiyTai must be understood in the form <^'oSs
to ovo/xd /xov
iiriKX-qdrja-erai to ovo/jia fiov. In early Christian works this peculiarity,

one might say this eccentricity, was much abused, probably in imita-
tion of the style of Jewish doctors.
15-29. u irpdJcTc. We shall he indebted to you ; see my note on 10-33.
16-17. cKpa^c XeYOuaa OStoi ol afSpuiroi SoGXoi tou 6cou tou u(|iiotou

Eio'lf, 01 KaTayY^XXouo-ii' i^fiic t&hv o-uTTjpias. The damsel, trusting that

by an intervention of Paul and his companions she would obtain her
deliverance from the evil spirit that was tormenting her, follows them
XTi XTii THE ACTS 69

persistently, (KaraKoXov^oBcra), exalting them as ministers of the very

highest God, men who promised to save or heal mankind. In the end
Paul yields to her importunity in the same way as in Mk 7-29 Jesus did
when he was beseeched by a widow to cure her demoniacal daughter.
17-11. euyei'^o'Tepoi. Better conducted. The reverse in 2Mac.l2-14
avaymyoTepov i^^pmvTO rots Trcpt tov 'louSav.
17-18. i,ivii>v Saifji.oi'iui' 8oki KaTayyeXeus elfai. A reminiscence of the
history of Socrates; see my note on Lk 1-1.

17-20. Ti tv fi^Xoi Taura eli/ai. A reading strongly supported by both

Greek witnesses and Latin versions, the sense of which is what might

these things mean cf. v. 1 8 tL av OiXoi and my note on Jn 18-38, where

;

I have adduced numerous examples showing that elvat = to mean. This

was the reading formerly followed, but new theories have now dispos-
sessed it in favour of nVa ^e'Xci raSra thai, by which the graphic repre-
sentation of the puzzle in the minds of the inquirers is obliterated.
1 7-22. "Ai/Spss 'ASrji'aioi, Karci irdrra cog SEicriSaifjiocEtrrepous ujaSs 6e<tfpS.

Luke re-echoes the fame of the Athenians, who owing to the great crowd
of statuary in their city were renowned as a people foremost in piety.
Their fame is also referred to in Josep.Ap.2-11 tovs 8e {'Adrjvaiov^)
cucrcySecTTaTous tS>v 'EXXiJvcoi' airavres Xiyovaiv. Paus. 1-17-1 tovtois oe
(tois ' A.O-qvaioL's) ov to, eh <j>i\avOpo)Trtav fJLOvov KadicrrrjKev, dXXa koL dtovi
iv<TJiov<Tiv aXXcov ttXIov' Kol jap AtSoCs a-f^icTi /8a)/ids Itrri Kai ^rjp.Tj's Kai

'Op/tiys (read 'OjiK^^s). Philostr.Apoll.6-3 ' Adrjvrja-iv, ov koI ayvwcrTwv 8ai-

jadi/wv ySw/XQi iSpwrai. Lycurg.Leocr.15 e5 lo-re, S 'AOr/vaioi, otl n-Xtlo-TOV

Sia<f>epiTe Tu>v aXXtov av6pu)Trwv t(o wpos tovs Oeovs evcre^io'; X^"'"

There was subtlety on the part of St Paul in

SEio'iSaifjLoi'EOTEpous.

addressing the Athenians not ^coo-t/Seo-Tepous, which he would have

considered was only applicable to worshippers of the one true God, but
SewriSoi/Aoveo-Tepovs. Such an address must have sounded to them as a

compliment, since in their language deal and BaCp-ove^ were practically

synonymous terms, whilst on the other hand it expressed Paul's con-
tempt of their idolatry, for to him Seia-iSacfwve's could only mean
worshippers of demons.
1 7-23. Afadeiapuv ri (rePda/Aara ufiZv cupoi/ Kai Pufibv iv u eTreytypairTO
'Ayfuaria flew. Was this suggested by Philostr.Apoll.6-3 'AdTijvrja-iv ov

/cat ayv(!)(TT<i)V Sai/xdv<ov ;8a)/x.oi tSpwrai ?

 ;

70 THE ACTS xvn xviii

17-26. iiro'mai re ii ivbs irav 9fos ivOpdrruv KaroiKeii' tirl iroi'Tos

irpoacdirou ttis y>]S- Surely the import intended cannot have been to say
that God made every nation dwell on all the face of the earth as the
text reads, but that God from one progenitor created every nation that
dwells on all the face of the earth. We have therefore to emend KaroiKovv
of. Josh. 24-18 iravTa to. Wvy] to. KaromovvTa rrfl/ yrjv, etc.

opio-as irpooreTayfi^fous Kaipous Kal Tos 6po90'tas Ttjs KaroiKias outui'

li\Tiiv Til- 6e6i'. A passage grievously corrupt. For (1) after saying that
God appointed periodical seasons the text should proceed to enumerate
some of the benefits accruing from this periodicity, such for instance
as those mentioned in 14-17 ovpavodev -^/juv icroiis StSovs koI (caipois
Kapwofjiopov?, ifjiirurXSiv Tpo<ji^'i Koi eicfipocrvvrj^ ras KapSiai ^/itovl and (2)

t,-rjTLv Toi/ Oiov is in the air. The original I have no doubt has suffered

an extensive lacuna. Also perhaps some reader, having misunderstood

Kaipovs to mean times and not seasons and fancying that the point
pressed was that God fixed the present time as the limit for repentance
in accordance with v. 30 tovs xP^^^ ''^^ ayvotas vTrtpiSwy 6 ^eos ravvv
irapayyiWfL tols a.v6piliTroi<s jxeravoilv, has inserted (cat ras opoOeo'La's t^s
icaToiKtas avTwv in imitation of Wisd.12-20 roiis ^(povovi koi tottov 8l!>v

cLTraWayuxTL r^s KOKtas. Or these words may have been suggested by

Isa.45-18 6 ^eos 6 /caraSci^as tt/v y^v koX Trotijcras avTrjv, avroi Buopiaev
(compare opt'cras) avri^v' ovk cis kvov hrot-qa-ev airrjv aXXa KaroiKucrOai
tTrXacrei/ avri^v.

Trpoo-TeTayjjieVous Kuipous. Neither Trpoa-TtTayp.ivov's nor the variant

TrpoTeTayjj.ivov; are suitable, the prepositions of both the participles
being superfluous after opicras. The other variant TtTay/jiivovi Kaipois,
stated seasons, is preferable by far.

18-2. TTpoo'TiXSei' ouTois, Kal 8iA to 6p.0TX*''' eii'cii ejisce irap'ouTois.

Naber correctly 6fWTxvo<i.

18-5. &s 8e KaxTJXOoi' dirS Ttis MaKcSoi'ias o te ZiXas Kal 6 Ti|i66eo9,
crui-eixeTo tu X6ya) 6 RauXos. What happened was this, that Silas and
Timothy came down from Macedonia bringing the collections secured
there, those referred to in 2Cor.8-2ff. This timely succour enabled Paul
to dispense with his craft, at which he was previously obliged to work,
and he was thus freed to devote himself assiduously to his preaching.
This assiduous application to the preaching is aptly expressed by
XVIII XIX THE ACTS 71

crvveix^To tZ Xoyo), for (rvvexpficu Tivi in one of its significations (cf.

Prov.5-20 /jLTjSi means exactly the same

a-vvexpv ayKaXais t^s /a^ iSios)
as Trpoa-e^o/ial rivi, cf. a-vyKoWw and Trpoo-KoXXw and Trpoa-ixio-OaL ^ to
;

adhere to, cf. Arist.Vesp. 105 wpoo-exo/tti'os toI kiWi (Blaydes t-iJ (cfy/cXtSi).

Piut.l 095 TO ypahiov &a-irtp Xeircts T<i) fi-eipaKita -rpoa-La-^eTai, 'where Schol.
irpo(n(r\Tai ^ irpocTKoXXaTat. In fact, oTJVt;^To t<3 Xdyo) is not essentially
diiferent to et)^eTo tov Xoyov, except that by the addition of otiv the
object had to be in the dative.
TuXoyw. To the preaching. CL 14^-12 6 riyov/jievoi tov Xoyov, the leader
in the preaching. 20-2 TrapaKaXeVas airovs Xdy<o iroXXu. Lk 1 0-39 irapa-
KapcerPeicra Trapa Tovs Tro'Sas tou Kvpiov ^Kove tov Xoyov avTOv, etc.
18-18. KcipcifiEcos Keyxpeais, etx* Y"P ^^xV- Is this
ri)!' KE<|)aX^i< iv

a misunderstanding on the part of St Luke, -who probably was not

quite clear upon the Jewish customs, or is it an interpolation? Because,
so far as I know, the rite of shaving of a Nazirite could only be
performed in the temple at Jerusalem.
18-26. eSiSao-Kei' dxpi^us tcI irepi toG 'irjo-oO. If, as we are informed
in the following verse, Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside to teach
him more accurate {a.Kpij34aTpov) Christianity, it is obvious that his
knowledge of the matter was inexact. We
must therefore read dra-
KpijSnis (Sherlock ovk aKpt/3s), the negative having been missed owing

to the antecedent [cSiSao-xJev. An identical error in 24-22, where we

find aKpi^ia-Tepov instead of avaKpi/Sia-Tepov. Respecting the frequent

loss of negatives see my notes on Rom. 1-1 9 and Jn 5-46.

19-2. ciTTi'cuna aYioK eXdPere irioreuoracTes. If you received holy spirit
when you became ina-Tol, that is, when you were baptized. In my note
on Rom. 13- 11 I commented otc ' 7n(rTi)crap,v. Practically=at tAe <ime
of our baptism, for it was by the baptism that men became Christians
or believers. So in Acts 19-2 Tria-Tiva-avTcs is an equivalent of /SairTt-
(rdiVTK, as the following e/Jain-to-^TjTe shows.'
19-14. i\aav Be Tiros iKeuo, 'louSaiou dpxiEp^us, tirrct utoi touto (exor-

cisms) TToiourres. Of course it is out of the question that a high priest

of Jerusalem and his sons, who were Sadducees swollen with pride,
would have demeaned themselves so low as to roam about as exorcists
and make a living in so disreputable a manner nor do I believe that ;

even a provincial chief priest could have so disgraced himself. But

72 THE ACTS xix xx

the priestly class practised medicine, most frequently applying occult

methods (see Encyclopaedia Bitalica v. Medicine, p. 3006), and as a
matter of course exorcisms ; it is possible therefore that the original
lection Tvas not apxiepiws but apxidrpov icpccos.

19-16. KaraKupieuo-as dfjKfioTepuf taxuce Kar'auriSi'. This is the same

as KaraKvpLivaas ap.<j)OTep(iiv KareKvpUvtrev avTutv. One of the two Terbs
must be wrong.
dfji<t)OTpa)i'. I. e. of the father and the sons.

laxuae Kar'auTui'. Cf. Dan.(LXX) 8-8 6 rpdyos tCiv alySiv KaTLcr^vire

crtftoSpa.

19-21. enriiiv on (iETci. to yvla9ai jte eKei Sei fi Kai 'P(5(it)1' iZelv.

Probably spurious.
19-28. fieydXrf i^ "Aprejits 'Ecjjeaiuv. This apparently was the usual
way of cheering. Cf. Heliod.8-9 iirb ^apas e/c/So^crat Koi jneyaAovs tovs
Cecils iiriKakeLcrOai. 8-15 Oeovs T /icyaAous /cai SiKrjV dvaKaXovvre?. Wet-
stein also compares Aristid. p. 292 i/36(av Sij ivrio SvupaTi us av virap
re Koi iir ovupaTL TTiX.crfjiV(o, Meyas o AaKXrjTrios. 295 to ttoXvu/xj'ijtov

TOVTO /3ou)VTU)V Me'yas 6 AcTKX.rprio';.

20-9. KaPeJofitfos 8e tis I'eai'ias oi'dp.aTi Eutuxos eiri ttJ9 SupiSos, KaTe-

X<5p-i'09 Strvu Papei SiaXEyojiei'ou too flauXou iirl irXeioi' (^who was being
overcome by heavy sleep in consequence of Paul's protracted discourse),
KaTEcexSels diro tou utti'ou eireo'Ei' diro too TpiaTeY"" KctTO) Kal y\p6i] fEKpo;.

KaTa|3cts Be 6 flaOXos eTre'iTEo-ei' auTco Kal aufxirEpiXaPuf eiive. Paul's object

was to bring the youth back to life and ; it was believed that to effect
such revivals it was necessary not merely to fall upon the dead person
but to breathe into him. Cf. Jez.37-9 ificjiva-rjcrov cts tows vc/cpoiis koI
^rjo-aTuxj-av. In SKings 17-21 Elija h'i<^vcnq(Te tm iraiSapt'o) when he
brought him back to life. In 4Kings 4-34 dvifi-q ('EA.io-atos) Kal lK0iii.rj6r)

{lay) 7rt TO TratSapiov koi eByjKC to (TTO/xa airov im to (TTopLa avrov it is

not expressly stated that Elisha breathed into the child, but this is

implied in the saying that he placed his mouth upon the child's mouth.
Similarly Evang. Infant. Arab. 43 locum in quo vipera eum momorderat
afflavit, quo facto extemplo sanatus est. The belief in revival by breathing
must have originated in Gen.2-7 ivecfi^arjcrev eis to irpoa-diirov avTov
TTvoYjv t.m^'s. Thus the original reading I suspect was not EVeVeo-tv but

ivi7rvV(Tv, which is a synonym of ivi<j>va-y]o-v; cf. Wisd. 15-11 toi'

XX THE ACTS 73

fnrveva-avTa airio \jn)-)(y)v ivepyovcrav kol Ijx^va-rja-avTa TrveCyu.a ^toTt/coy.

Nor do I feel much confidence in a-vfjiTreptXa/idiv ;

probably once it was
(TVfi.Trepi^a\o)v,havinff Covered him with a cZoai, of which verb Sophocles
records one example, the preposition having the same force as in
(TvyKaXviTTta. Both errors probably induced by Gen. 33-4 TrepiXa/Suiv
avTOV 7rpo(reTr(TV eirt tov Tpaxy/Xov avrov.
Karcxojxei'os Sirvia |3apET. This is the reading of D. Cf. Heliod.5-2 virvco

Kol TavTa /3a6iL KaTe(r)(rjiJi.vov. 6-14 virva KareL^iTO. Philostr.Apoll.2-7

KaT(Txrj/jiivoK T<S otvo). 2-36 /ite^jj KaTta-)(rifj.evovs. All Other Mss give
Karaipepofjievo^ wvai fiaOei, which is quite as good; cf. Act.Thom.109
ih VTTVov KaTrivi-)(6riv PaOvv. Heliod.5-1 ih xnrvov KaTa.(jiipu. 5-2 vTrrjve)(9r]
T(3 vTTVta. Philostr.Apoll.1-5 ets vttvov dTrrj)(6r] (no doubt virrD^Orj). But
the reading of D seems to me preferable, because vn-vos ySa^iis can only
apply to a person who was already fast asleep, and not to one who
was gradually being overcome by and this must have been sleep,
Eutychus's condition as he sat in the window.
KaTecexflels diro tou utti'ou. Having been home down hy the sleep. The

rendering being borne down is not quite exact. A few Mss omit these
words (see Soden), probably because the amanuensis thought them
superfluous after xaratjicpd/XEvos virvw.
20-13. ouTO) yap TJf SiaTeTayfiei/os. For so had he made his arrange-
ments. The participle is reflexive = SiareTaxMS kavTw.
20-26. BioTi. A variant Sid. The same variant at Rom.3-20. IThes.
2-18. 3-1 (only in B). 1 Pet. 2-6, and elsewhere. Perhaps Sio is preferable
everywhere.
KaSapds Eijjii diro tou ai/iaTos Ts6.vT(av. The context shows plainly that
Paul was not protesting that he had tried his best to safeguard his
disciples from punishment in this world, but from the consequences in
the next of their perhaps disregarding his preaching. The amanuensis
was carried away by his recollection of the familiar phrase in Mt 2 7-24
d^tods ei/it aTTo tov at/^aTos tov SiKaiov tovtov, and unconsciously tran-
scribed ai/xaros instead of KpitxaTO's.

20-35. irdi/Ttt uire'Scila up.ii'. I have always shewed you. Expositors

have misunderstood TravTa as meaning all things; it means always,
ever, as in MGk,see VUkhos. Cf. lCor.11-2. 13-7 (opposed to the fol-

lowing ovSeVore). XnPatr.Iss.3-8. Philos.8-2-12. Orig.Cels.3-57 irai/ra

I.
74 THE ACTS xx xxi

tU Ikuvov a(l>opZvTa?. Achil.Tat.S-llTravTao-tyuio-av. 5-13-3. HerP.3Vis.

6 TTOLVTa iTrepwras, where the old Latin version correctly gives semper,
Lucian, Asin. 22 17 8e ttols ovre ifji.(j>ayeLV rt ^OeXev ovre irieiv, dWa
iravTa eK\aev. ibid, tl yap fiplv hoKii rpi^et-v tov ovov tovtov iravra Kara^

TTiTTTovTa; Descens.Inf.6-2 per omnia = Sia TravTa,for ever. Also avavra ;

cf. Achil.Tat.7-16-4. Also classically, as in Arist.Nub.1381 aiV^avo'/ie-

i/os CTov iravTa rpavXi^ovTO's tl vooirj^, Hyperid.Lyc.l6. But the word,
owing to its being rather demotic, was often changed into TravTore;
so in lCor.11-2, where P iravTOTi. 2Cor.7.14. HermP.Mand.10-3,
where likewise a variant iravTorc. In HermP.lVis.2 the Mss give
iravTOTi y(XS)v, but the old Latin version is omnia ridens translating
iravra literally. In Lucian.54 and Clem.Hom. 11-13 it is corrupted into
TO, TnxvTa. In Eph.1-23 the chief Mss likewise read to, iravTa, but a few

minuscules have preserved the correct lection Travra. It stands for

TrdvTa TOV xpovov ; cf. Dem.1445. Hyperid.Lyc.l6 SLarpi^wv iv Ty iroXct

TOV a-iravTa )(p6vov. Herod. 8-100 ^v Tavra tov iravTa jxeTa^v xpovov yevo-
p.eva (read yeuop-evov). 9-106 (j>povpiovT'; tov Travra )^p6vov. Xen.Mem.
1-4-16 tov Trdira )(p6vov. 2-1-33 tov del xP^^ vfivov/x.evoi.
iia-rraTia/xivov;

Pbilostr.Apoll.7-24 -n-apOivov ova-av tov del )(fi6vov. Just.222c. Pans.

2-6-1 TTavTo. TOV )(p6vov SLaTtXicraaiv. Similarly /xiKpov and fuKpov XP~
vov; cf. Jn 7-33. 13-33. Also aKaprj in Arist.Nub.496. Most of these
examples cited in my note on Rom. 8-28.
20-37. eTriirEo-orres m rof Tpdxr)\oi' Tou riauXou KaT<j)i\oui' auToi'.

From Gen. 33-4 TrcptXa/Joji' avTov TrpocrtTreo'ev etti tov Tpa,y>yjXov avTov Ka.i

KaTetjiiXrja'ev avTOV.

21-3. di'a<}>di'ai'Tes 8e tt)I' Kuirpoi' Kal KaTaXiirocres aurri)' Euucufxci'.

Read dnotfiyvavTes ', cf. Philostr.Apoll. 1-20 tt/v Srj tu>v TroTap.wv fxtcrrjv o

Tiyprji d7ro(f>aLVi Koi 6 Eui^paTTjs, which shows that airo^atvo) is a syno-

nym of airupyo) in the sense of Herod. 7-43 iv apia-Tepy airipyiav 'Voltclov
TToXlV.

21-13. ri iToieiTe KXaioi'Tes ; What is the good of weeping? I have

illustrated this force of Troiiiv in my note on Jn 11-47, quoting ICor.
15-29 Tt TTOiijo-ovo-iv 01 j3a.TrTi^6/j.ivoi (read /Sao-avi^ofjievoi) vTrep Tuiv veKpuiv;

what is the good of toiling so hard for the sake of

are dead men who
for good and all ? added there that the phrase n TroLov/xev survives
I
exactly in MGk in the form Tt Kai/ou/ie (= Kd/ivo/iv 7roioi)/icv) and =
XXI THE ACTS 75

that it implies a negative, i.e. there is no sense in the way we are

acting.
21-23. clali' r\\u.v aifSpES T^crcrapes euxV ^Yfivres i^iainSiV toutous
irapaXapi)!' dY''^'''8''l'''i aw aurois Kal %aTsi.vi\ixov ex'ourois. Prom Numb.
6-14ff, -where the details of the purification of Nazirites are recounted,

we can see that the expenses of the prescribed rites were very heavy,
and poor applicants would be unequal to meeting them. For a certain
class of rites it was permissible for the priests to grant a reduction in
favour of the poor ; of. Lev. 2 7-8 eav Se raTretvos ^ ttj Tt/j.'^ii/ he be too
poor compared with the first estimate made as to how much he should
pay), o-n^a-tTai ivavTiov Tov lepccos Kal TifiTJaeTai avTov 6 icpcvs" Kadarrep
i(r)(yii 7) )(elp tov ei^afjiivov TifLrjtriTai avTov 6 Upivs. But in the above-
quoted chapter from Numbers no such reduction is mentioned, and

presumably the costs of the purification of Nazirites came within that

rule which fixed costs absolutely and allowed no reduction cf. Bxod. ;

30-15 6 ttXovtwv ov irpoo'Orja'ei koX 6 irevo/xevos ovk ikaTTOvt^trei. If so,

the only way out in the case of impecunious Nazirites was for
charitable persons of means to come forward and guarantee payment
in their behalf. This is what Paul was asked to do.
dyciaGiiiTi crw auTois. I have some difficulty in understanding this.

If Paul was to be purified jointly with the four Nazirites by the same
purification as they, as the text certainly means, he must have been
under a vow himself; but such a vow on his part is recorded nowhere ;

the one mentioned at 18-18 is not applicable.

21-26. dyctaOeis eio-rjei is to lEpoc Siayy^XXui' Trji' eKirXi^pwo'ti' rStv

^p.Epui' ToG dyviCTjiou. As dyvKrOei's and ayvicr/xov stand SO close together,

they are apt to be misunderstood as referring to the same kind of
dyvicr/ios, whereas the former of course denotes the ordinary ayi/ttr/tos

which every worshipper about to enter the temple had to go through

and the latter the special purification of the Nazirites.
SioyyeXXui' tt)C eKirXi^puo-ii' rHy r\i).epS)v tou dyfur^ou ea>s ou iT-pocrr]i'^x9Tj

uirep Ecos EKdcTTou auTui' i^ irpo<7<|)op(i. Expositors in striving to invest the

words with some sort of plausible sense have strained their sense to
the utmost. They can only mean announcing the fulfilment of the days
of the purification until such time as the offering for every one of them
will have been offered or completed, and it is readily seen that such

L 2
76 THE ACTS xxi

a sentence is incoherent. What Paul undertook to do and what we

should haTe expected him to declare is that he was ready to defray,

or stand guarantee for, the costs of the purification in behalf of himself
and each one of his companions. I read therefore TrXT^puia-iv for iKir\ripu>-
criv and SairavSv (cf. T. 24 Sa7ravr?o-ov) for rnj-eprnv, i.e. announcing the

payment against the expenses of the purification until such time as the
offering in behalf of every one of them will have been offered. In this way,
it seems to me, the stress also laid upon {nrip evos eKdcrrov avrSv is

Paul emphasizing that he would pay for each and all of

intelligible,

his poor companions. The corruption came about probably through

the mind of the transcriber being familiar with such current phrases
as Lk 2-22 ore iirX-^a-Orjo-av al rjixipai tov Kadapiajxav. Tob.8-20 iav /jltj

trXrjpiiiOioa-iv at rjixipai tov ya.fi.ov. Ezek. 5-2 Kara T-qv TrXrjpoxriv tSv fjp.^pS>v

TOV a-vyKXeuT/xov. Dan. 10-3 (U9 TrXi^piocrews TpiCsv l/38o/xa8(oi' fifiipuiv.

lMac.3-49 roiis Na^ipatous ot iirXripuiCTav rots ^yiiepas. Numb. 6-13 oStos

6 vofj.o's ToG tv^afievov' t/ av fifxipa. irXrjpwayj r]ji.ip(K (^^s.
irXi^puffK'.Payment. Sophocles registers one example of TrXr/puo-ts in
this sense and two of TrXijpiorijs = payer. Herwerden, Lexicon Graecum
Suppletorium 7rAi7povv, (pecuniam) reddere. IGSI956.' AddPhilostr.
'

ApoIl.6-2 ipdvov TvXrjpmcnv = subscription to a club (Conybeare). In MGk

irXripiavw, TrXripoiixri, irXijpmT^s are current and specific terms for to pay,

payment, payer.
ews oij irpotr-qvixQi]. Until the irpoa-cjiopa will have been offered. Alford
aptly refers to Plato, Gorg.506 ^Si<as av SieXeyo/jLrjv ews dTre'Stu/ca. Crat.
396 ovK av iTravojjirjv tws aTmreipddrjv. Add Eur.Bac. 359 jxifi-qva^ ^Sn] Kal

TTplv k^ia-TTj's ^/devSv (Badham's iitoTuii unnecessary). Perhaps also

Apoc. 10-7 orav /xiXXr] craXTTL^eiv Kal (TiXicrOr] to when he
/JLvcrTi^pLov,

will sound and the mystery will have been fidfilled (contrary to my
note at that place).
21-34 to 22-22. I distrust all this part. It is strange that the
chiliarch should have allowed Paul to address the frenzied crowd and
thus add fuel to the flames ; and stranger still that the crowd should
be willing even for a moment to listen to him.* But Luke cannot be

* When addressed by adverse speakers, even such a comparatively unim-

passioned body as the House of Commons cannot refrain from uproarious
scenes.
XXI XXII THE ACTS 77

responsible for this paradox. The fact of the -words eKe'Xtvo-ev ayecr^at
avTov els rrjv Trapefi/SoX.rjv being repeated in t. 24 points to an inter-
polator; in my notes on Jn 11-5 and 18-16 to 27 I have shown that
such repetitions are a feature in interpolations.
21-35. PaaTdJecrSai airbv uir6 tUv orpaTiMToic. The Vulgate, followed
by the English version, ut portaretur a militihus. The correct transla-
tion is that he was held of the soldiers. Such is the meaning of ySaorio
in MGk, as also of KparS), which is a synonym ; so VlAkhos v. /Saa-TS)

'Bl. Kol Kparu) (=see also KpaTui).' This synonymity was already in
force during Hellenistic times, so that /Jao-Ta^to-^ai here may be com-
pared with 3-11 KparovvTos avTov rbv TleTpov. Apoc.2-1 6 KparZv Toil's

eirra aaripas iv rfj Sefia, etc.

22-3. TTEiratSeufiei'os Karci dRpi^Eiac Tou Trarpuou v6y.ov, Hemsterhuis

very plausibly tov irarpi^ov vd/tov.

22-5. <is Kai 6 dpxiepeus fiaprupei (xoi. D fj.apTvp-i^a-u, which is the only
apposite reading, for Paul could not say that the chief priest was
then bearing witness, but that he would do so if appealed to.

22-15. oTi eo-T] (xapTus auT(i) = (iI earrj /xaprvs- See my notes on 10-38.
Jn 1-16. Rom. 8-29.
22-20. oT e^exeiTO to aXfia ZTE4>di'ou tou p,(ipTupos ffou, Kai auTOS ']fiiT'

e(|)eaTcis. The English version adds also, giving /cat an intensive or

additive force ; but it is only the superfluous idiomatic expletive so
often encountered in apodoses. Cf. Lk 2-21 ot i7rX.-^cr6r]a-av rjp.ipai oktui

TOV irepLTefj,?v avTov, kol KX-rj6rj to ovofia avTov J-qaovs. 2-27 Iv tu

da-ayayfiv kol avTos iSiiaTo, etc. So is it in MGk when the temporal
particle is /^o'Ais ; Vlakhos v. /xo'Ais '/xdAis e(j}6aa-e Koi avex^p-qa-e, a peine
arrive il repartit.' The Vulgate correctly cum funderetur sanguis
Stephani testis tui, ego astabam.
22-23. piTTTOui'TdJi' Tot ijAaTia Kttl KOCiopTOf PaXXdi'Ttiii' els Toc depa.
Apparently done by way of imprecation. Of. Nehem.5-13 ttjv avaPoX-qv
ynou i^eriva^a Kai eiTrov Ovrw's iKTivdiai o dtos Travra avSpa os ov crrrja-ei,

TOV Xoyov TovTov. Exod.9-10 2Aa/3e rr]v aidaX-qv Kai -?racrev avTrjv Mcovcriys

ts TOV ovpavov KOL iyivcTO eXK-q.

22-25. ois 8e irpoe'reii'ai' auTOi' tois ifiaaiv, elire irpos toi' eo-TUTa sko-

Tdi'Tapxoi' 6 riauXos ei avGponrov 'Pup.aioc Kai dKaTaKpiToi" e^eo-Tti' ujiii/

jiatrriieiv. Cf. Oxyr. Pap. 1186 to ttjv Sta tZv Lfj.a.vT<av aiKuav virop-ivnv
78 THE ACTS xxii

ia-rlv fxlv koI em tSv BovXiktjv rvxt^ elXrixoTiDV aviapbv, ov fj-r/v Kara to
iravreXU aTrqyopevixivov, iX.ev6epovq Se avSpas TOiavrrjV vfipeiv vTrofi,tviv

OVTf TOIS VO/iOlS oLKoXovOov aSiKctav T X'"' ^O"''"''

TTpocTEicai'. Bentley ' an irapiTtivav ?

'

22-30 to 23-10 (and perhaps to 23-11). An accretion by an unskilful

hand, which was suggested by the episode described in Jn 18-19 ff,
when Jesus was ill-treated for daring to answer the chief priest. For
(1) As Blass justly remarks ' si facinus erat vincire ciyem Romanum,
conveniebat ut tribunus re cognita non postridie sed statim vinctum
solveret.' (2) Paul was dragged before the Court with the object of his

conduct being investigated, and naturally he was expected to defend

himself; and he could not start his defence more mildly, so that there
was no cause for his being treated so ignominiously. (3) That he should
have called the President Totxe KeKovtap-ive is unthinkable ; this insult

is a reminiscence of that addressed to the Pharisees in Mt 23-27

c&apio-aiot vTroKpLTol, ort Trapo/iOtdt^tTt racjbots KCKOviafj.ivoi'S. (4) It is im-
possible that Paul should not recognize the chief priest his must ;

have been a familiar figure to every citizen of Jerusalem, nor could a

man versed in the law as Paul was be unaware of the fact that the
Court would be presided over by that dignitary. (5) By his answer in
23-5 ovK ^8v, dSeXi^ot, on ecrTiv apxi-^p^^s Paul is represented as in
a subdued mood, whereas in v. 6 by eKpa^cv he all at once assumes
a riotous boldness. (6) That the Pharisees, Paul's avowed persecutors,
seconded his defence instead of taking advantage of his peril to doom
him is out of the question. (7) The words ovSev xa/cov evpLa-Kop-ev ev tZ
avOpwirio TovTo) are a plagiarism of Pilate's answer in Lk 23-14 ovSev
iVpOV IV T<U dvOpiOTTia TOUTO) WiTlOV.

The fraud is carried on in 23-26 ff rov avSpa tovtov o-v\\rj<j)6evTa viro

Twv louSai'uji' /cat ixiXkovra avaipetcrOai vtt avTwv, tTricTTas crwv t<u OTparev-
jxaTi iieiXo/Jirjv p.a6oiV on 'PoD/xatos co'n. BovXo/xevds T eirtyvSrai ttjv

a'lTLav SiTjv iveKaXovv avrio KaTrjyayov avrbv eis to crviveSptov avTu>v. 'Ov
(vpov iyKaXov/xivov Trepl ^rjTrjp,dT<jiv Tov v6/j.ov avrSiv, /xrjSh' 8c a^iov
Oavdrov rj Secrp,u>v yK\rj/x.a t^ovra. Mryv.v^curijs 8e p.oi. eVtjSouX^s ts tov
avSpa i(Tf(r6ai, cf avT^'i linpLXJ/a tt/dos crt. Here the words /3ovXd/xvos t to
lyKk-qpji. xovTa must be supposititious, if sucli are vv. 22-30 to 23-10.
The sentence ov tvpov iyKaXov/xtvov irepl t,-qT-qii.dTtiiv tov vofjiov avTuyv is
xxiirxxiA'^ THE ACTS 79

an evident suggestion from Gallio's answer in 18-15 u Se ^rji-^fiaTd

eo-Tt trepl \oyov koI ovofJUXTUiv kol vo/jlov tov KaO^i/jLa^ oifreaOt avTOL.

Lastly, eiritTTots crvv tiS arpaTev/xaTi must refer to 21-32 ira.paXa/3uiv

a-rpanuiTai Kal iKarovTapxovs. Therefore the following words /jmOuiv on

'Pco/iaios eo-Ti are not in their original position, for the fact that Paul
was a Roman citizen became known after the chiliarch went down
with his troops ; their proper place is after eTre/ti/fa tt/do's <re, where
they would explain that Paul being a Roman citizen was sent away
from Jerusalem in order to be saved from the fury of the mob.
23-15. 6|ui,<J)ai'iaaT6 rfl X''^"^PX'? "'"'' '''^ <rvve^pi(a, oirus KaTaydyrj auroc
is ufios. Paul was in custody in the Roman camp, where the Sanhe-
drim had no jurisdiction. Therefore a-iiv toI o-vveSpL<a is not in its

proper place ; it should follow tois ap;^ipeCo-i /cat rots wpeo-ySurepois of

V.14. Cf. 22-30 Toiis djop^tcpeis Koiirav to (rvviSpiov. Mk 14-55 ot dp^^ttpets

Kat oXov TO avviSpiov. 16-1 oi dp^icpeis fiera riov TrpetrySwrepwv Koi ypafJi-

fiaT(ov Koi o\ov TO (rvviSpiov.

23-25. TrKJToXT)v Ixouaai' toc tuttoi' toutoi'. Markland tov Tpoirov,
referring to 1 Mac. 15-2 (eino-ToXat) vipu^ovcrai tov Tpoirov tovtov. But
cf. from Liddell and Scott Plat.Ilep.414a is iv tuVoj, fj,rj Si aKpijSeia?,
elprjcr$a.t. Legg.718c elTreiv olov tlvi tvttoi, etc. On the contrary, it is
more likely that rvnov should be substituted for rpoVov in lMac.15-2.
24-2. iroWfjs eipi^cT)? kt\. St Luke pokes fun at the sophists of his
day, mimicking their turgid oratory.
24-3. irdi'TT) re Kal iracTaxou d'iro8E)(6p,E0a. An object to d7ro8t;^0(U.6a
seems indispensable. Probably irdvTa tc koI iravTax^, everything and in
all ways. The meaning of 7ravTa)(ov must be in all places, as the
English version gives ; but what have the places to do here ?

24-11. Sui'ajXEkou aou imyviovai,. Read Sedyiicvos a-ov i-myvCivai. Cf. 26-4
SeoyLiat jWLKpodvp.oi'; aKOvaai /xov.

24-13. ou8e irapacrTTJcrat Sui'ai'Tai aoi irepl &v vSv KaTTiyopoucri (lou.

Supply pApTvpa^. Liddell and Scott fji.apTvpa? irapio-TavTai Isae.47. 39,

'

tc.; also irapafTTrjiraa-dat Tiva, to produce him as witness, Id. 76. 27,

Dem.915. 12, etc

24-14. Kara ttji' oSoc f)v X^youaii' oipeo-ii' outoi XarpeMOi. If the text is

sound, the subject of Xe'yovo-iv must be impersonal, i.e. 6 Xaos or some-

thing similar. But Paul at that time was not concerhed with the
80 THE ACTS xxiv xxv

general public ; he was countering his accusers who were present and
who had just (v. 6) called his faith aipecnv twv Na^MpaiW. I think

therefore that instead of ovtw we should read ovtol, Paul pointing at his

accusers with his finger.

T7i(TTU(i)i' irao-i TOis KOTCi Toi' i/ofioi/ Kttl Tois 1' Tois irpo4>)Tais Y^YP'^f''"

|i,eVois. Believing all that is recorded in the Law and all that is written
in the Prophets. No connexion between toi^ Kara t6v vo/aov (see my note
on Lk 8-4) and tois ytypajxixivois-
24-20. T) ouTol ouTOi elirdToxrai' ti eupoi' dSiKiijia o-rdi'Tos /Jiou eiri tou
o-ukeSpiou, Tj irepl fiias Taurrjs <j)a)i'^s tJS expa^a iv auTois (tto)S, oti irepi

dkao-Tctacbis I'EKpfii' eyoj Kpii/oixai o-i^fiepoi' ij>'ufi&)i'. A continuation of the

interpolation begun at 21-34 and carried on in 22-30ff. It betrays the
same lack of skill. It makes Paul beg the question, for his enemies
did not attack his doctrine regarding resurrection but complained of
his having introduced Gentiles into the temple. Probably this inter-

polation has usurped the place of some sentence which completed the
antecedent clause rives 8e cuko t^s 'Ao-ias louSaiot, ovs eSet tTri croO

Trapetvat /cat Karrjyopeiv et ti e^otcv Trpos /a.

24-22. 6 <l>TJ\i^ aKpiPearepoi/ eiSus Ta irepl ttjs 68ou. Felix as a Roman

was imperfectly acquainted with the new faith, as Gallio was (18-14),
and for that very reason he brought his wife, a Jewish lady able to
understand and judge, to listen to Paul's outpourings. Accordingly
read dvaKpi^eo-Tepov in the same way we have corrected di/aKptjScos for
;

aKpt/JaJs in 18-25. It is another case of the loss of the negative; see my

note at that verse.
68ou. So did Confucius call his own system.
24-25. 8iaXYO(jiVou 8e auxou (too HauXou) irepl SiKaiocrui'ijs Kal ey'^P'*"

Teias Kal tou Kpi|JiaTos tou (ie'WocTos, (ji(t>o|3os yefofiecos 6 ijXiJ. Why
should Felix have taken any fright? There was no reason, nor does
his answer betray anything resembling alarm ; on the contrary, he
was out for a bribe (v. 26) in full security. Probably ejxtfio/So? yevd/;(,evos
was intruded from a desire to represent Felix's feelings as the same
with those of Pilate as stated by Jn 19-8 ore ow ^Kova-ev b XltAaTos
toCtoi' tov Aoyoj', /xaWov c^o/Sry^i^.

25-3. aiToup.ei'oi X'^P'-''

Kar'auToO. A strange phrase, to explain and
defend which even such a thorough scholar as Bloomfield is reduced
XXV XXVI THE ACTS 81

to saying that it is a brief form of expression for alrovix^voi xapw iv

Siiqi Trj KaTavTov. But why presume such a roundabout locution when C
and several other respectable documents provide Trapavrov, which is
exactly what the context calls for? But I presume the reason is that
preference must be given to the more difficult reading, a theory which
is perfectly reasonable on the whole, but the application of which can

be overdone. The syntax aireii' ti irapd tii'OS is very common.

25-22. ePouX<5(jiif|i' Kai auros too d^dpc^irou dKOuo-ai, I.e. i/SovXofujv av.
For the omission of av, which is met with even in classical texts, see
my notes on Eom.9-3 and Jn 7-28.
25-25. KareXaPofiY]!' |j[,ir)8ei' a|ioi' Qavdrou auToi' ireirpaxei'oit. I.e. ov
KaTiKaP6p.rjv Ti a^iov Oavdrov avTov Tre7rpa)(ivai,
26-16. fidpTupa oil' Te EiSes [/At] if re d4>6i^o'o)jiai aoi. Neither the version
a witness both of those things which thou hast seen and of those things
in the which I will appear unto thee, nor the version a witness of the
things wherein thou hast seen me and of the things wherein I will appear
unto thee, are justified by the text; in fact, even apart from the text
both appear to me lame. I believe that S>v etSes must indicate the
marvels which Paul witnessed in the past and consequently that the
subjoined words must indicate that marvels were to be wrought there-
after ; if so, 64>d^a-o/j.ai. must be an error for 6(j>6^crTat. I may add that
St Luke seems to have forgotten the fact that Paul witnessed no other
marvel prior to the apparition on his way to Damascus and for a
moment to have imagined him as one of the Apostles.
26-24. tA TToXXd ae ypafifiaTa eis p.ai'iai' irepiTpeirei. Read TrapaTpeVei,
i.e. Trapa(j>poveLv (re ttolu. Cf. Pans. 4-4 TrapiTpajr-q 6 Ti.o\v)(6-pris k toC
vov. Similarly TTapa^epo), irapacr<^aAA.a), TrapaTrAa^o). In Hom.i/'14 oi ere

ircp iftXaijfav read o" ere 7rapi/3X.aij/av.

The statement as to Paul being highly educated is discordant with

2Cor.ll-6, where Paul calls himself an iStwrrj? tw Xoyw. Cf. also
lCor.2-4 o Xdyos p-ov koI to K-qpvypA /xov ovk iv Trei^ots (?) cro<^ias Adyois.

26-28. iv oXiyw p.e ireiBeis XP'""''"*'''' iroiriaat. The AV almost thou

persuadest me to be a Christian. That is the sense required, butthe words
only yield the absurd meaning almost, or in a little, thou persuadest me to
make a Christian. Read ^ia-navia-ai,to adopt Christianity. The RV with
but little jjer suasion thou wouldestfain make me a Christian is fanciful.
82 THE ACTS xxti xxvii

27-7. fj,T| irpoaefii'TOS ^fifis toO ivifiou. Read firj Trpoa^to <oj'tos (so also
Markland), the wind not permitting us to steer ahead. Cf. 27-13 aa-uov
irapikiyovTO. Paus. 5-6-5 ot av/jL0i iirixova-L Tov Trpocru) to vSiop. Herod.
9-2 ovBe eoiv Uvai eKacrTepu), etc.

27-15. fiT) Sufafiefou di'TOtfidaXfJieii' tu dc^fio), eiriSicTes i|>cp6ji.e9a. Cf.

Lucian, 1VH,6 i-Trirpeij/avTe^ ovv T<u TrvevjxaTL Kal irapahovm kaurovi
ix(.iixat,6ixc6a. See note on 27-19.
27-17. uTToJui'i'ui'Tes to ttXoioi'. Qu. i-iri^wvvvvTK.
27-19. Kal TT TpiTj) iQfi.^pa auToxEipss ttji' otkeut])' tou ttXoiou cppii|(ai'.

Prom Jon. 1-5 Kai e/CySoAijv CTroiijcravTO Ttoi/ (r/ceufiv tSv ev T<u ttXolu) eis t^v
6d\aa-crav tov Kov<f>i.a6rjvai dir'avTSiv, Were this passage written by
Luke himself, what could we conclude else but that he was romancing ?
See my notes on 9-7. 10-14. 13-11. 17-18. 17-22. 27-15. 27-40. Possi-
bly, however, the passage is spurious.
27-21. ttoXXtjs re dcriTiag Blass non sunt haec bene
uirapxoiio-ijs. '

structa neque enim in oratione Pauli cibi capiendi mentio fit neque
;

Tore habet quo referatur.' Add that the point of food is taken up by
Paul in his subsequent speech vv. 33ff. At this moment what he
exhorted his fellow-passengers to was to be of good cheer; cf. 22
TavCi/ TrapaivSi v/aSs ev6vjjt.eiv and 25 Sio evdv/xuTe. It follows that Luke
described them as being in a state of discouragement, the original
word being aOv/ita^. So also Straatman.
27-27. uTrec(5oui' oi i/aurai Trpoo-dyeii' xifcl auTois x^pac. I suggest 7rpo<7-
avyd^eiv or irpoaavyav meaning thus would be that the sailors
; the
dimly distinguished some land which was dawning in front and
appeared to them as a sort of luminous speck in the darkness. With
TTpoa-avydCeiv xpav compare lMac.6-39 to, opr; KaTTjvyalev. The Vulgate
apparere seems to me to favour such a conjecture. It has been sought
to defend the text by assuming an optical delusion on the part of the
sailorsbut is it at all likely that Luke in a matter-of-fact description
;

would have expressed an approach to land in the form of a delusion?

The English version the shipmen deemed that they drew near to some
country presupposes rivl avrov's x>pa, an excellent reading.
27-33. TrpoaSoKolcTeg ao-iToi. No doubt Trpoa-KapTepovvTes ao-iroi,
patiently going without nourishment. Cf. Xen.CP.2-3-13 Trpos Xt/iov /cat

Trpos Si'i/fos Koi Trpos ptyos Kaprepeiv. Plut.Mor.987e Trpos Sifav iyKapTepi]-
xxTii XXVIII THE ACTS 83

(ravTa. 4Mac.l4-9 Trda-xovrei h/eKaprepovv. In view of the context,

wpoaSoKZvTK without an object means nothing.

27-40. Kaxeixoi' eis toi* aiyiaXof ircpiireo-oi'Tes 8e els Toirov ZiddXafra-ov
cTT^KEiXa;' TT|i' I'aOi', Kal 1^ fikv irpi^pa IpEio-acra Efteii'Ei' dcrdXEuros, i^ Be
Trpup.ca eXueto utto ttjs pias* 44 Kal outus Ey^cETO trdvTas Siao-uSTJi'ai Eiri

tV Yi>'. There is a curious similarity between this description and

that of Lucian,652 irpos tlvo. ijiova fjLaXaKrjv aTrvOvvovTa Trjv vavv, ol
Trpoa'cve)(deLcra efJLeXXev avTT] p\v ^pe/xa Kal Kara crxpXrjv SiaX.vO'^CTecrOai,

avTOL Sc a(7(j)aX.S>'S airo^rjo'ia'Oai ^aptTt (cf. V. 24 KexdpiO'TaL (roi 6 6eo^

TravTas Toris irXeovras) Kal evfieveCq. toD 6eov. See my note on 27-19.
SiOdXaacroi'. Where two seas met. Such a detail, however, is of no
importance except perhaps as satisfying the curiosity of geographers
and it is not apparent why it should have been mentioned. But
TrcpiircaovTC's shows the author's idea to have been that the ship by ill

luck went upon a bad spot, and the word therefore required is one
indicative of such a spot. An old Latin translates vadosum. This
would meet the context, for it would account for the ship having
run aground; but I cannot discover which Greek word it represents
Qu. XiTToSdkacrcrov ; cf. Xnroyews.
28-3. ^puydvav. Paspati translates of brushwood in accordance with
MGk usage as against of sticks of the English version. The mistaken
acceptation of sticks has led to a further inaccuracy in rendering
o-uo-Tpe'i/favTos by when Paul had gathered instead of when Paul had
rolled together.
28-6. TTpoaESi^Kui' auToi> (j.^Xeii' (?) 7ri|iirpa(r6ai rj KaTaTriirrEii' &^v<i>

I'EKpdi'. If the barbarians expected Paul to swell, they must have

expected him to die also ; surely he could not swell and live. Head
Kal KaTaTTtTTTEiv ; and so the Vulgate existimabant eum in tumorem
convertenduni et subito casurum et mori. See my note on 1-18.
PBINTED IN ENGLAND AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD
BT JOHN JOHNSON PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
 BY THE SiJI^ AUTHOR
KOtES ON ST JOHN AND THE APOCALYPSE;
8s. net.

A FEW NOTES ON THE GOSPELS ACCORD-

ING TO ST MARK AND ST MATTHEW. Based
chiefly on Modem Greek. 5. net.

TO THE ROMANS. A Commentary. 10. 6d.

THE TWENTY-SECOND BOOK OP THE ILIAD.

With critical notes. 5. net.

AEKA APBANITH MAAAIAPOT KOT^IA

KAPTAIA. Yersions in Modem Greek (Euripides,
Cydops; Shakespeare, Merchant of Yie^ice:; Thacy-
dides, Book I; passages from Kant, Bragmanio,,
'

Hans Andersen, &c.). 10. 6d. net.

THE ILIAD TRANSLATED INTO MODERN

GREEK. 10.6d.

THE GOSPELS TRANSLATED INTO MODERN

GREEK. 5.

SOPHOCLES' ANTIGONE. With a Greek Com-

mentaiy. Out ofprint.
 NOTES ON ST. JOHN
AND THE APOCALYPSE
By ALEX. PALLIS

Price Three Shillings

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

LbNDON EDINBUKQH GLASCiOW COPENHAGEN

NEW YORK TOBONTO MELBOURNE CAPE TOWN

BOMBAY CAIiCriTA MADRAS -SHANGHAI

HUMPHEEY MILFORD
 NOTES ON ST JOHN
AND THE APOCALYPSE
By ALEX. PALLIS

HUMPHREY MILFOED
OXFOED UNIVERSITY PRESS
 Printed in England
At the Oxford University Press
By John Johnson
Printer to the University
 St John's Gospel differs from tho Synoptics in two
special features. The first is a uniformly homely diction,
reproducing in thirty-one instances demotic Modern
Greek ; whereas the Synoptical language is tainted in the
case of St Mark and St Matthew with the inconsistencies
inherent in all compilations, and in the case of St Luke
with would-be classicisms and Septuagint peculiarities.

Its second feature is an acquaintance with some historical

facts, as is indicated in my comments on 3-25. 10-7.
12-15. 14-2. 17-15. 18-8. 18-10. 18-15. 19-24 19-34. 20-2.
21-20.

These Notes will be followed soon, I hope, by others

dealing with St Luke and the Acts.
 Nobis et ratio et res ipsa centum codicibus potiores sunt.
Bentlet

La critique ne connait pas de textes infaillibles; son premier

principe est d'admettre dans le texte qu'elle ^tudie la possibilite
d'une erreur. Renan
 ST JOHN
1-1. 6 \oyos TJi/ The word abode near, or by the side,
Trp^s Toc Beov.

of God. Practically the same as 1-18 6 fwvoyevrj'; vio's 6 tov els rov
koXttov tov TTttTpos and Rom.8-34 os Icmv iv BeiiS. rov irarpo's. For
Tpos with accusative = by the side o/cf. Acts 5-10 eOmj/av {avrrjv) irpoi
TOV avSpa avT-^s- Also 4 Kings 1 0-15 di/e/JtjSao-ev avrov irpos airov (wl
TO ap/ia, etc.
1-4. r(V TO <|)ciJs rSiv di'9po5irci)i', Kal to ^C>s iv rfj o-KOTia ^alvei Kal i^

aKOTia auTo ou KaTeXaPei'. That Christ was the eternal light of man-
kind formed of course the foundation of a Christian's belief; and
what could have prompted our Evangelist in addressing other
Christians to affirm that darkness the darkness of sin did not
overtake Christ, as if such an eventuality were conceivable That is, ?

however, what our text does by saying avTo. It was men who walked
in the darkness of sin, and by his advent Christ enlightened them and
prevented their being overwhelmed thereby. The correct reading is
therefore not aiTo, but auTovs, namely tovs dvOpiairovs, as corroborated
by 12-35 ircpiTraTeiTE <!)S ro <^(iJs e'x^'''^ I^V cKoria vp,as KaTaXajBy and
''''''

12-46 ^Gs eis tov koct/jlov iX.-qXvOa iva ttSs o iricrrevoiv ets e/xe Iv T^ crKOTia
p,rj p,eivr]. It is possible that 1 Jn 1-5 o 6eos <^Ss io'Ti Kal uKorCa iv auTco
ovK co-Tiv has been inspired by our passage, and that iv airw represents
auTo; but its absurdity is there eliminated to some extent by not saying

^ a-KOTLa avTO ov KariXa/Sev, but a-KorCa. iv avT<p ovk 'itTTiv, which merely
reaffirms that o ^cos <^a)s eo-Ttv.

1-6. eyei'STO a^Spuiros dTreoraXfiefOS Trapd 6eou, ovo\i.a a,in!a'\iii6.vvr\%.

Burney looks upon this construction as an Aramaism. But Pernot has

disproved this view by directing to Odys. 1,366 OStis e/tot yc ovofj-a.

Add Herod. 1-1 79 eo-Tt Se aXXrj Tro'Xts airexova-a okto) rnJ-epiuiv oSov am
BajSuXSvos, *Is ovvofia avT'g. "Evda icrri KOTap.os ov p,iyai, *Is /cat t&>

troTa/jua to ovvo/xa. 205 yvvrj tSiv Maaa-ayeTitav /Jao-tXcia, To/xupts oi rjv

ovvo/jM. Euseb. EH.2-23 tov aSeXfjiov 'Irjo-ov, 'la/cco/Jos ovofm avTu. 3-4
n
2 ST JOHN I

'ApioirayiTrjv Ikclvov, Aiovvmos ovo/ia avrS. 4-11 aWov riva, MapKos

avT^ ovofjia.. The variant w ovofxa airui 'Iwavvr]^ is a more frequent

construction, but here less probable.

1-13. 0 ouK i^ aijiiroiv, ouSe Ik 6eXiinaT0S erapKos ou8e eK 6e.\r]ii.aros
dcSpos, dXV Ik eeoO iyvv^6i]<iav. The statement that believers v^ere not
born in a carnal nor do I find such a peculiar theory
way is false,

advanced anywhere else in the Gospels it was after they believed in, ;

and by their baptism acknowledged, Jesus as the Messiah that men

became God's adopted children. The true position is represented by
iyevv^O-r], by which in accordance with sense it
is to
the variant os . . .

Jesus alone that an immaculate birth is attributed. The relative os

refers to to ovo/xa airov, which is a periphrastic equivalent of airov ;

cf. 2-23 iTTLO-Tcvcrav eis to ovo/xa avTov =: cis airov, etc.

ej atfj.diTui'. The plural instead of the singular as referring to a

statement repeatedly mentioned. I have dealt with this idiom in my

note on Rom. 13-13.

Ik 66\^p.aTos dcSpos. Practically a repetition of Ik 6eXi$/xaros aapKo's.
But in Nativ.Mar.4-1 we have sine virili commixione virgo generabit,
which possibly was borrowed from here. If so, its author must have
found Ik jut-yjuaTos dvSpds.
1-16. oTi auToO. Equal to the genitive of a relative pronoun.
Charles, in the Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, p. Iv, and Burney, in the Aramaic Origin of the Fourth
Gospel, p. 76, misconceive this idiom as a Semitism, and assume it
as one of the proofs of both these works being but translations from
the Aramaic ; it is a proof of no value. Pernot, in reviewing Burney's
book in the Revue des Etudes grecques, Janvier-Mars 1924, p, 128,
writes very much to the point as follows :
'
Aprfes tout ce qu'on
a ecrit sur la construction oi! ovk el/A txavos Kvij/a's Xvcrai tov t/xavra

tSv iiTToSij/iaTwv avTov (Mk 1-7), on est surpris de la voir encore

qualifiee d'hebraisme. Le gr.mod. coincide ici d'une fa9on frappante
avec I'hebreu: Troi) est I'equivalent de ascher ; I'homme a qui j'ai

dit = I'homme que (ascher ou ttov) je lui ai dit ; la femme que

{asher ou iroC) j'ai vu I'enfant d'elle, etc. II s'agit la d'un phenomfene
linguistique bien connu, et courant en franjais populaire par exemple
[cf. Daudet, Lettres de mon moulin, Le Cur^ de Cucugnan : Les
I II ST JOHN 3

gens de Cucugnan, que c'est moi qui suis leur prieur].' This idiom is

a legitimate one of the Greek language both in Hellenistic times and

at present, and I have fully illustrated it myself in my note on
Rom.8-29. have explained there that ort represents an indeclinable
I
conjunction which replaces relative pronouns in all their forms.
AdPop.ci' X'*?'"' ^''''' X'^P^'. It is possible to render we have
received grace in succession to (another) grace, and expositors have
produced a sufficient number of instances in support. But x-P'-^

must mean reprieve or redemption from sin, and it is against the

whole Christian theory that anything before the advent of Christ
redeemed us from sin. According to that theory men were in hope-
less sin and doomed to condemnation and punishment, and Christ
came to rescue them by substituting grace or reprieve for condemna-
tion. I read therefore lKa.j3oixev )(dpiv avrl Kpi/iaros. For Kpi/xa = con-
demnation see Dictionaries.
1-21. 6 irpofliriTiiis et <ru ; No doubt, as pointed out by previous
criticSj the prophet meant is the one predicted by Moses and referred
to in the 18th chapter of Deuteronomy. In full it would be 6 Trpot^T^njs

6 lp\6jj.evo's w Tov KocTfiov ; cf. 6-14.

2-9. (OS 8e YeuffaTO 6 apxirpiKXi^os to uSwp oti'oi' yeyvi])J.lvov Kal ouk
^8et iroflei' eo-Tii', ot 8e As the
SictKoi'oi rjSeio-oi' oi Tii/rXriKiSTes to uSup.

text stands it was at a loss to

states that, although the ap^i-TpUXivo's
account for the presence of the good wine, the servants knew whence
it came. If so, it is strange that they kept silent and left their chief
in his bewilderment. An old translation, however, records et videntes

factum mirabantur; this comports with the spirit of the passage,

which is that everybody was puzzled, especially the servants who
had actually just filled the vessels with water. Accordingly read
fjiropova-av for ^Seicrai/. The suffix -ovcrav as in Nehem.4-18 ukoSo-

p.ova-av, etc. ; see Jannaris 789. Probably also in Mk 11-14 instead

of y^Kovov ol /jLaOrfToX we should read rjiropovv ol ixad-qrat,.

2-10. e\d(7<Tu. Inferior. Commentators aptly compare Hebr.7-7 to

eXaTTov vTTo ToC KpuTTovo's ciXoyciTttt. In the same sense HermP. 3Vis.
7-6 ToVo) iroXii eXdTTov(, badly interpreted in the old Latin version by
minore. Cf. 'Wisd.9-5 eXdo-o-cov Iv (rvvicra, etc.

2-11. TouTrji' ittoli\<Tiv ApX'!"- -^ variant, which is strongly attested,

 .

4 ST JOHN n
gives rr]v apx^v. What does the article represent ? It is probably
a remnant of irptaT-qv, the text originally reading Trpw-nqv apxqv.
Such a reading is actually recorded in the old Latin versions as
primum initium, and the Sinaiticus likewise adds Trpdirrjv, though
placed after TaXiXatas. And similarly Epiphanius (see Tischendorf)
TTpwTov crrjiJ.uov. This combination is preserved in MGk in the verb
TTpuiTapxi^oi, registered by VUkhos.
Kaou ToO o-cdfiaros auTou. This is against normal
2-21. irepl Tou
usage, which would omit the first article; see Cobet, Var. Lect.,
pp. 164 and 532. The same peculiarity in 8-44 ck tov Trarpos tov Sta-
/SdXov ecTTt, but a variant drops the article before Trar/oos, and Origen
(see Tischendorf) remarks '
o.fji<jiL/3oX.ov etn-ep eip-qTo to Trporepov apOpov.'
2-23, TToWot eirioTeuaac eis to oi^ojuia auTou OEcopoui'TES aurou tA
oT)(ji,eia a eiroiei" auTos 8e 6 'Irjcrous ouk cmuTEuei' auToi' (read with
several Mss eauTOK) aurols Sia to aoToi' yiviLaKe.\.v irdrxas, Kai oti ou

Xpetai' etxef Iva tis (lapTupi^CTT) irepl tou afdpuTTOu. The force of Sio.

having been misunderstood has led to the corruption of the text. It

is here a preposition of purpose. Sophocles v. 8id 6 '
Sta to with the
infinitive = Iva with its appropriate mood. Jos. Ant. 9-4-5, p. 482
Slot TO Kov(j>OL 7rpo5 TO <j}evyLV elvai = tva wen. Epiph. 1-956 C Sia to elvai
= iva y. Apophth.292c Sta to vXoyrj9rjvai p. = iva evXoyrj6ivr]v
Leont.Cypr.l741a Sici Anast.Sin.709d. Mai. 388 Sia
to K0Lp.S.a6ai.
TO Tous dcpas (j>rja-lv dXAdfat, for a change of air, says he. Epiph.
Antec. 3-7-3, p. 580 Sia to Trao-iv eivai 7rp68i^Xov = iva etr].' The last
example is identical in sense with our Sid to yivwa-KeLv irdi/Tas. This
usage is also illustrated by Jannaris 1522.^ The context further

demands iirLo-Tov instead of eTrio-Teuev, cf. 2 Mac. 7-2 4 Si' opKtuv liriarov.
The drift of the whole passage now is that many believed on Jesus on
the strength of his miracles and urged him in his own interest to re-
veal his divinity to the general public also by the performance of
further miracles ; cf 7- 3 vTraye eis tt^v 'louSaiav iva rai oi p.a6r)Tai crov
.
(?)
dtuipria-iacri to. But he refused to comply and would
epya aov a iroicis.

not explicitly assert himself, for (/ca^oTi) indeed he needed no one's

testimony and cared (see my note on Apoc. 3-17) not if none understood
who he was.
' See also my note on Rom. 3-25.
11 III ST JOHN 5

2-25. Kttl oTi. Read KaOon, as emended by Holwerda. I had

myself made the same guess independently,
3-4. TTus Siicarai afSpoiTros Yfi'r]9i)>'ai yipiay uy ; So far as I am
aware, no scholar has taken exception to yipwv u>v ; but its absurdity
ought to be clear. Jesus had just said that to see the kingdom of God,
to secure communion with God, one must be reborn, the point
i. e.

insisted upon being a rebirth, meaning a spiritual birth. To this it

is a rational answer on the part of Nicodemus, who did not under-
stand the point of the spiritual birth, to ask What dost thou mean :

by saying that a man must be born anew ? how is that possible ?

But as the text stands Nicodemus makes the mad retort that, so far
as an old man is concerned, he cannot be born at all. The primitive
reading, however, was not yipwv iuv but aviadev. It is preserved in an
old Latin version, which gives denuo (= ai/w^ev, anew, cf. Gal.4-9
TrdXiv avoiOev SovXeveiv diXire), and in the conflate reading of two
Greek Mss, which give aviodev yipmv &v.
3-5. 0.;' \>.i\ Ti9 yevv'r\&T^ A regeneration by
li, uSaros Kal Tri'eu)JiaTos.

water or baptism is Nicodemus was arguing

beside the point here.
concerning a material birth as though such a birth had been suggested,
and Jesus corrects him by pointing out that he had not referred to a
material but a spiritual birth. Had our Lord's thought been that a
regeneration by water was equally indispensable, he would have
repeated it in v. 8 (where ex toC vSaros of some Mss is an evident
intrusion). Baptism in course of time became a rite of such supreme
importance as a proof of conversion, that i'Saros was interpolated
here
as it also was in vv. 6 and 8 so that baptism might appear an
injunction of the Lord ; see my note on 6-51.
3-2L iroiui' Ttji' dXTJeeiaf. As explained in my note on 3-33 (see
also on 14-17), aXriBaa is a synonym of hiKaiocruvq, aytoarvvr], righteous-

ness, holiness. So that ttolZv ttjv aXriOuav = ipyarrj^ r^s BiKaLoavvrj';

== Swatos epyaTijs ; the reverse of 8-34 iroicov ttjv a/jiapTLav and Lk 13-

27 ipydrai dSiKias.
3-25. eyeVcTO oiji' Ji^njo-is eK rCiy fia6ii\rutv '\ii)dvvou ficTct louSaiou.

Bentley's emendation /aetoi tSv 'Itjo-ov is certain. This was one of the
disputes so prevalent between rival Eabbinic schools. The point in
dispute was as to which was the Prophet predicted (see my note on
6 ST JOHN III

1-21), -who possessed the right to baptizeand consequently to remit

sins. The had maintained that this was their
Baptist's disciples
master's priTilege, and they probably went so far as to claim in his
faTour Messiahship of. t. 28, where the Baptist Tehemently protests
;

that all along he had been making it clear that he was not the Mes-
siah, and this protest must have been in answer to the claim advanced
by his disciples. Our Gospel by appealing to this, the Baptist's own,
testimony, as well as to that in 1-20 wyuoAoyr/o-e /cat ovk ripv-rjcraTo, /cat

wfioXoyTjcrev on ovk el/xl iyii 6 Xptoros, repudiates the pretentions of his

school, and in 4-1 ^/covo-av ot $a/Dtcratot otl 'I-qaov's 7rA.t'ovas fJ.adrjTo.';

TToiel Koi /3a7rrt^t fj 'luavvTjs further supports its own version by

pointing out that the public favoured Jesus in this matter ; cf. also
10-41 TToXXol rj\6ov irpo5 avTov (tov 'Itjo-ovv) /cat eAeyoi/ ort 'Icoavvjys /lev

arj/jLiov CTTOtrjcrey ovSev, iravra Se ocra etircr 'loidvi'iys irepl tovtov (rov Irj-

a-ov) 6Xr]6ri noWol eTTLorTevo-av els auToV. This version, being sup-
rjv, /cat

ported with a certain amount of heat in 10-41 by 'Iioavi/T/s fniv (nifA.uov

iiroLr]crev ovSkv, and Still more emphatically in 1-20 by u)/ioAoy7;cr /cat

OVK rjpvT^craTo, /cat iiix.oK6yq(re.v otl ovk ei/A eyo) o XpicTTOs, indicates that
the altercation had not yet subsided by the time of the composition
of this Gospel. That the two schools ran concurrently for some con-
siderable time is proved by the case of ApoUos, who, when according
to Acts 18-24ff. and 19-3ff. he was at Ephesus and Corinth, referred
to John's baptism as if it were still practised. Their antagonism is

passed over in silence by Luke in the Acts, but is probably disclosed

in 1 Cor. 1-12 cKatrros vjxuiv XiyeL Eyo) /acv elfxl IIavA.ov, iyo> Si 'AttoXXu).

Our Evangelist in saying (in 4-22) that Jesus himself was not baptiz-
ing confirms, as we should have expected, that our Lord himself kept
aloof from these wrangles.
The alteration of the text must have been effected when Christians
came to absorb the Baptist as one of their saints and were loath to let
it appear that there ever existed anything but cordial relations between
him and Jesus; to this points the Baptist's exaltation in Mt 1 1-7 ff.
The original change was /xera 'louSatW, a reading which is very
strongly attested, to the extent that Tischendorf says 'pari antiqui-
tate praestat lectio 'lovSatW ;
' but I suppose the singular number was
finally adopted from a desire to show that it was but a single casual
individual who presumed to question the rights of Jesus.
Ill ST JOHN 7

Ka6apiiT)j.ou. A synonym of baptism.

3-29. 6 E(rrT)K^5 Kai aKouoii' outou. Exactly as in MGk tov (= os)

o-tIku Koi Tov aKova, where cttckci does not denote that the listener is

actually standing, but it is added to show that the listening is done

attentively and patiently, i. e. without any sign of the listener with-
drawing or even moving.
3-31. 6 2)1' K -rijs Y'']S eKTrjg y^s i(Tri. An extraordinary truism. But
the Sinaiticus and Latin versions give IttI tijs y^s ia-rl, and this no
doubt is the original reading, effecting a contrast between him who,
originating from heaven and being spiritual, stands high above all and

him who, originating from the earth and being y^iVos or xot/cos, lingers
below upon the earth. The sentiments and utterances of this ^oI'kos
are conformably ^olko. ; or terrena, as Tertullian interprets, his text
further on probably giving ra ttjs yijs AaXei and not Ik T-iJs y^s XaXei.
3-33. 6 Xapjji' aurou ttji' fiapTuplav icr^pdyiaev on 6 Seos d\r]6T)S iariv.
This is surely absurd ; how could possibly a man be imagined whose
endorsement is God ? The text
necessary to prove the righteousness of
is and we should read i<Tct>pdyia-ev airov 6 6os on dXi/^^s
corrupt,
icTTiv. Jesus means that whoever does not repudiate him or his word

receives God's seal or affirmation that he is a righteous man. To the

same effect in 6-27 Jesus says that whoever accepts his meat or gos-
pel receives God's seal or approval. Probablyitwas the unusual syntax
of Xa/Swv instead of tov Xaftovra that brought about the corruption.
Such a syntax, however, is not uncommon ; cf. Apoc.3-1 2 6 vlkwv ttoi-^ctw

avTov. 3-2 1 o vi.kS)v SajcrcD avT(S. 6-8 6 Kadrjix^voi iirdvoi avTOV ovojia avT<S

6a.vaT09. Lk 12-36 iva iXOovTOS avoL^iacnv avrii, etc.

3-33. dXr]6iis. A synonym of SiKaio's, aytos, righteous, holy. In my

note on Eom.3-7 I have stated 'dXi;^a. From the context it is clear

that aX^dua is here employed in the same sense as SiKaLocrvv7]v in v. 5.

Apparently a Hebraism; cf. Ps.24-10 eXtos koI aXi^Oaa. See also my

notes on 3-21. 14-17. 15-26. Cf. Lk 16-11. Also 2Kings2-6 -rroirja-ai.

Kvpio^ jxid' vfimv eXeos koX dXiy^etav. Tob.13-6 iT0Lrj<jai ivwTTLOv avTOV

{tov Kvpiov) aX'^duav, etc'

3-34. ou yap eK p-lrpou 8i8w<n to irceujAa. For Christ, God's messenger,
does not mete out the Holy Spirit in short or bad measure, but in a
measure ardOfj-iov koX SiKaiov (Prov. 16-11) ; he receives God's words, in
8 ST JOHN iiiiv

whicli the diTine spirit is embodied, and retails them to mankind in

their exact form.
K |XTpou. I.e. iv KaKOfieTpia. ; cf. Oxyr. Pap. No. 1447.
4-6. cKaee'JeTo outus ^iri Jerram in the Guardian ' of
tt] in]Yr]. C. S. '

2nd Sept. 1900 writes as follows 'As regards the sense of outcos in
:

Mk 2-7, noted in your review of Pallis's book, allow me to mention a

word in John 4-6 iKaO^lero ovroi's iirl ttj Trrjyfj, he sat
similar use of the
was (R.V. margin) at the well. The idea conveyed is that
thus or as he
of an easy unrestrained attitude, such as a tired traveller might
assume. This usage of ovto)'; is also classical : for instances see Lid-
dell and Scott. In Latin sic is similarly used, especially in the phrase
sic temere, as in Hor. Od.2-11-14. I think that in the account of St
Paul's shipwreck in the Acts, in the verse translated strake sail and
so were driven, oiJ'tms might well be rendered at random. If so, this

may serve as another instance of the same usage.' Cf. also Lucian.
Scyth.5 oi/fi yipovTa ootids Stj/jlotlkCi'; eo-raXynevoi'. Asin.20 8ia tl ovtu>

Kadity Koi ov TrapacTKEvd^m apKTTov ; The same usage obtains in MGk.

Trrjyfj. A well. So in MGk 7rjyyaSt(ov).

4-7. irieTi'. Some of our earliest witnesses give iretv, a form adopted
by Tischendorf, who shows from Herodianus its genuineness ; it

occurs also in Oxyr. Pap. No. 1353. It probably represents Tnelv with
the vowels in synizesis.
4-11. ouT airXTifjia ext9 Kal to <t>pEap eorl |3a8u' iroOev oui' \is to
u'Sup TO Idv The emphasis falls upon to t,u>v, the woman arguing that
;

Jesus could not supply water so superior to that from the well, since
that well and that water were given by the patriarch Jacob himself,
a superior man to Jesus. But D and the Sinaiticus, as well as other
witnesses, do not record ovv, thus making the woman's question a
direct answer to the foregoing eSwKev av ctol vSwp ^aJv. It would then
appear that the words ovre avrXyifxa x's koX to (jipiap ectti ^aOv were
originally absent. When added, it is these words that are emphasized,
and the emphasis is then quite pointless.
4-35. Iti TeTpdixTii/os cori Kal 6 depia/jids Ep^cTai. Read apTi for tn. Now
is the fourth month of the year (counting from springtime), and the har-
vest therefore is at hand. No satisfactory sense can be elicited with m.
4-36. 6 Ocpiiuf (XKrOoc Xap.^di'ci. The reaper fiia-Bovrai (passively,
see Liddell and Scott), takes up a job, is engaged to reap.
IV T ST JOHN 9

4-38. els rbv kottoc aurwK EicEXriXudaTE. Probably ek rov toVov. You
have taken, or usurped, their place. Cf. Acts 1-25 Xajifiv rov tottov t^s
SiaKovia?. 1 Cor. 14-1 6 avaTrX-qpiov tov tottov tov ISuHitov. In Gal. 6-2
avaTrkrjpuxTere tov vofJLOv tov XpLorov read probably tov tottov.
4-44. aurSs ydp 6 Ntjo-ous efiapTuptjaei' on irpo<f>iiTY)s ef rfj i8ia TrarpiSi

TinV ouK Ixei. The difficulty of this passage has been noticed by both
ancient and modern expositors, and several expedients have been
resorted to in endeavouring to overcome it all of them exceedingly ;

far-fetched. The verse was originally a marginal comment meant to

apply to v. 42. The Samaritans believed in Christ, though least ex-
pected to do so, and the commentator remarks that Jesus himself
had already affirmed, as recorded in the Synoptics, that a prophet
would not be received in his own country, implying that, if he were
received anywhere, it would be among aliens, such as the Samaritans.
Both avTo? and IfiapTvprja-ev add point to this explanation.
5-2. eoTi 8e iy rots 'lpo(ro\ufJioi9 em Tjj iTpoPaTiKTJ Ko\u)xj3i^dpa,
^
liriXeyojAeVr) 'EPpaiorl Bif]0eor8i, irecTe crTods \outTa. We should surely
write with Theodore IttI ttj TTpo/SaTiK-rj KoXvfu^rjOpa. Cf. Oxyr. Pap.
No. 1151 6 ^05 Trjs TrpojSaTLKTJ^ Ko\vfj./3-q0pas. Similarly Josep. men-
tions Ko\vfji/3ij6pav ocf><i>v, (TTpovBiov, afuvy^aXov, etc. was not
B)j6cr8a.

the name of the KoXv^p-qBpa, since it means a house of mercy. It must

have been the name of a shed divided into five compartments, and the
compartments having no walls in front, as is often the case in the East,
would appear as porches. This name B7y6<rSa, owing to its ending in -a,
was taken for a feminine noun hence the dependent participle is in
;

the feminine gender. The meaning is A'ow in Jerusalem by the Bath of :

the what in Hebrew is called Br]6ea-&a (i. e. a house of mercy

Sheep there is

which in Hebrew is called Bethesda)and this house has five porches.

5-3. KaTEKEiTo ttXtjGos tSi' Ao-devouvrbiv, Tu<j>Xaii', \(iA!t>v, i-qpiav, ekScxo-
fiivuv TT)!' ToO uSajos K.ivri<nv . . . avOpoiirov ouk \(a, tea oTai/ rapaxflf to

u8(i)p |3ciXt) p,e is Tr)c KoXu|x|3i^6paf tv cu Se epxofiai iya, aXXos Trpo ejxoO
KaTaPaii/ei. In this passage we have to deal with two corruptions.
The first corruption is Kivqa-iv, a misreading of K&ma-w, pouring out.
The afflicted were lying about in the shed waiting for fresh water to
be poured out into the bath, for the water of the previous day, being
contaminated by leprous and other diseased bathers,would be renewed
c
10 ST JOHN V

eyery morning, Sophocles records several instances of xevoo) and /ceVuo-ts

as applied to contents emptied or poured out. Cf. also Cant. 1-3 fnvpov
iKKvij}$kv ovofia. a-ov. This is an analogous usage to that of the English
Terb to empty. The second corruption is rapaxdrj, a misreading of
7rapaxy6rj. Cf. Herod. 4-75 ai yuvai/ces vSup Trapa)(ovtjai (for the purpose
of bathing).In Oxyr. Pap. No. 1499 occurs the noun Trapa^vj-ij?, mean-
ing an attendant at the public haths, as Grenfell and Hunt explain,
and another instance is recorded in Liddell and Scott from Athenaeus.
So that orav Trapa)(y6fj to means when the water is poured out into
Z&uip
synonym of Kevui6rj.
the bath, irapaxvOfi being thus a
Now, when these two corruptions were committed, a miracle was
imagined, and so the legend about an angel agitating the water was
formed and interpolated into the text but the legend is absent from ;

several most important Mss. Some Mss omit also the words iKSexo-
p.vu3v Tr\v Tov vSoTos KLVfjaiv, but these are indispensable, first because
some reason had to be assigned for the presence of the diseased crowd
at the bath, and secondly because the word Kivrjcnv formed the founda-
tion of the legend. On the other hand, the clause in v. 7 er w 8e
px"
/iat eyo), aXXos irpo c'/aov KaTa/Satvu evidently belongs to the legend.
5-5. TpiaKorra oktu Itt) ^xiav. Who had been thirty-eight years. Cf.
Mart.Polyc.9 oySo-qKovra koX e^ Ittj l;(a) SovXevwv, I have been serving
these eighty-six years.^ This idiom is still current. Vlikhos in v. fj^w
'
TToo-ov Kaipov e^^Te tts TcLs 'A^Tjvas ; de2>ui3 quand etes-vous d,Athenes ?
'

5-17.6 iraTiip [iou lus apri epya^erai, KaYi) Epy'^^OF'^i'- My father works
until now (i. e. all the week by making the
inclusive of the Sabbath)
sun rise, by raining, etc. Since he works incessantly not resting even
on the Sabbath, so do I also work incessantly, following his lead.
5-19. ou SufOTai 6 uios iroieii' d<t>' eaurou ouSek, iav (ii^ ti pXeirj) TOi'

TTttTEpa iroioui'To. The meaning required is exactly what the English

version gives, the son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the
father doing ; but this presupposes o ti instead of rt, and o ti no doubt
was the original reading. As it stands the text says that the son can
do nothing of himself unless he sees the father doing something, which
is out of the question. At Rom.14-14 I have shown that lav fx-r] et =
/i^ = aXXd ; cf. Gal.2-16.

' Several other examples in Sophocles v. ex""-

T ST JOHN 11

As I am instructed I judge. For olkovij) as

5-30. Ka9&)s dKou'u KpiVo).
equivalent to / am instructed, I learn as from an iDstruc-
SiSdo-xo/jiai,

tor cf. Mk4-24. Mt5-21. Heb.2-1, and my notes on Jn 6-45. 8-38.

Rom. 10-1 7. On the last place I have commented as follows :
'
aKpoaral
= disciples or pupils in Kom.2-13. Philos.6-5-42, etc. See Sophocles
in vv. aKova-fjLa {= a lesson, discourse), oIkovo-t^s, aKpoao-ts. Thomas
Robinson, The Evangelists and the Mishna, p. 27 " The expression :

io/tearvras used by the Jews as equivalent to receiving as a tradition."

In Greek, however, dKovu, being a synonym of dxpoujuai, could simply
be equivalent to receiving instruction without necessarily involving a
reference to tradition. Cf. Jn 6-45 axowas irapa rov irar/Dos koL /xaOwv.'
5-35.Tie\Yi(raTe. Peerlkamp in v. Manen's Conjecturaal Kritiek ovk
(see my note on 5-46) rj6e\rjaaT.
5-39. SoKEiTE iy aurais t,b>r\v aitii'ioc ex^'*"- ^ "" think that by them you
will obtain eternal life. I have pointed out in my note on Rom.1-13
by numerous instances extending to classical times that ex^tv is often
equivalent to crx"'', Aa/Jetv (e. g. Mt 27-65 ex^re KoucrriuSiav = Xd/iere
Kova-rwBiai'). So is it in this passage ; the study of the Scriptures by
the Jews had as its object the attainment of future life in heaven.
For 8okS> (= iXmCo)) with the aorist infinitive instead of with the
future cf. Lk 6-34 eAtti^ete X.a/3eiv, etc.

5-39. cKeTcai. eiaiv at (iaprupouo-ai iTEpl efiou, Kal ou BeXete eX6ii' irpiSs

(J.E tva tay]y ex^te. A query

should be marked after exV'^- '^^^ Scrip-
tures bear witness that I am the Messiah and since you are acquainted
;

with this fact by your familiarity with the Scriptures, how is it that
you are so ill-advised as not to come to me ?

5-44. Trills Sui/aw^E up,Eis TrioTEuo-ai 86|ai' -irapd dXXi^Xui' Xapc^draKTES,

Kal Tf)c So^ai' ri]v irapd tou p.oi'ou 6eou ou I^titeite ; There is something
wrong in this sentence, for there is no logical connection between the
two clauses. Perhaps ttoJs Swao-^E v/iEts Sofav xopd dAAi;X(UV Xaix^dveLV
Koi Trjv Sofav ktX. How is it possible for you, or any sane person, to
prefer glory bestowed by another man, and not rather seek that glory
which comes from God ? I cannot, however, account for the intrusion

of irUTTevcraL.
5-46. El ydp ETTIOTEUETE MuCTt), ETTIOTEUETE Of EJiol, TTEpl yop EJIOU EKEiraS

'ypai|ii'' El Se Tois EKEik-ou Ypdfifiao'ii' OU TTMrrEUETE, irws TOIS EflOlS pTJfiao-i

12 ST JOHN vvi
iriaTcuo-eTe;The sense required seems to me to be I accuse you of not :

believing Moses, for if you did, you would believe me, whose advent

he has foretold if, however, you affirm that you believe his prophe-
;

cies, how is it that you reject me and my words ? Accordingly I should

write el Se rots Ikuvov ypdfifjiaiTt. iricrTeveTe, Trios rots e/xots pT^/xaa-iv ov

TTia-TeveTe ; The negative is lost, as it also seems to have been in 5-35.

15 20. 21-12. Acts 18-25. 24-22. In my note on Rom.1-19 I have
fully commented upon its very frequent loss.

6-22. TTJ eiraupioi' 6 o)(\os 6 O-Tt)K0J9 irepai' tyJ9 0a\(o-<Tr)9 elhov on

irXoidpioc SXKo ouk r\v eKei ei fit) ty, Kal on ou o-ukeicrTJXSe TOis (J.a9T)Tais

auTOu 6 lr]0'ou9 el9 to irXoioc, dXXA p.di'oi oi p.a9r]Tal aurou dTrr]X6oi' ktX.

The passage is very intricate and somewhat disturbed, but the import
is clear. What is meant is that, though the multitude had noticed
that the disciples alone left on the previous day in the only boat then
available, and Jesus therefore, they thought, ought to be on their own
side by the lake, him and thinking perhaps of another
still, not finding
possible miracle,they went across to search for him whither they knew
that his disciples had gone. The difficulty of the passage is increased
by the article ot having dropped out before dSov without its addition ;

the text reads as if it were on the morrow that the disciples saw that

there had not been another boat.

jxe oux on e'iSeTE <rt\)x.f.ia, dXX' on c^xxyeTe.
6-26. tT|TetTe The multi-
tude is taunted with having searched out the Lord in the hope of being
fed over again. That is why he tells them not to concern themselves
with material feeding.
6-27. Ipyd^eo-fle |ji,t| tt)!/ Pp&Jcrii' ti]v diroXXup.eVrii', dXXa ttik ^pSxriv Tr]v
filvouaay 19 l<aT]y aiwcioc, f[V 6 U169 Tou di/Spcuirou u/xic Swo-ei' toutoc vdp
6 irarrip ia^pdyiixev, 6 0e69. Owing to its proximity to vibs, tovtov by
a misapprehension has been supposed by previous commentators to
mean the son. But it seems to me that we have to deduce its force
from ipyd^e(r6e rr/v /Jpujcrtv ttjv p-ivovcrav ; tovtov is the man who works
for meat that abideth unto eternal and thus
life, receives from God
the seal of righteousness. See my note on 3-33.
6-32. ou Mgj(t!)9 eSuKEw up.lv toi- dprov ek tou oiipavou, dXX' 6 TroTT)p jiou
SiSuo-ic ujiii' Toc apTOK K TOU oupacou Toc &\r\6i,v6v. There is somethin"'
amiss in this passage. It is an answer to v. 31 01 Trarepe? i7/j,oiv to


Ti ST JOHN 13

jLiavva l<f>ayov Iv T17 iprjiiw, and by saying ov Moxr^s 4'SuKtv that fact is
denied, though it is admittedly true. Besides, if the intention of the
Evangelist was to say that the bread in the desert was not supplied
by Moses but by God, we should have had not StStocrtj' but eSuxev ; nor
was there any occasion, for objecting that Moses did not give the bread,
since the multitude had not mentioned Moses at all. The error lies in
ov, which originally was ei, and this occurring so often as an equiva-

lent of oi(cf. Mk 8-12 1 So^ijo-erai where Origen' et, rovrea-TLv oi,'etc.)

gave place to ov. By substituting d we get this meaning, that, though
you have once received bread from above as you have just men-
tioned (that bread which according to the Scriptures Moses gave you),
still the real and true bread from heaven is that given by my father.

For ei aXXa = ei /cat aXKa. cf. Plat. Soph. 254 C t Trdcrrj a-a<j>r]veLa ii,r]

Svvd[]i,e6a Xa^eLV, dXX. ovv \6yov ye evSeeis /x.jySei' yLyvutfjieda, etc. See
Stallbaum, Plat. Phaed.91b.
6-39. irav o ScSuke = iravTas oSs Se'SajKc. So also in 17-24.
6-45. irSs 6 dKouaas irapd. toO Trarpos Kai |jia6(ur. Every one who,
having received instruction from the father, has learnt. For the sense
of oLKovtLv = to he instructed see my note on 5-30. The proof that this
is the meaning lies in the preceding StSa/croi.

6-51 to 58. idv Tts <j)<iY'!;i

ek toutou too aprou, ii](r6Tai els Toi' alufa'

Kai 6 apT09 Se oc eyi) hiiva rf udpi /Jiou iarriv uirep rrjs Tou KocrfJiou ^UTJs.

52 'Efjiaxoi'TO oSc irpos dXXi^Xoug ot 'louSaioi Xyoi'T9 nC>q Sufarai outos

fifiiv SoCcai TT)!' adpxa (jjayeli'; 53 EtircK ouc auT0i9 6 'Itjo-ous 'A(jit)1' dp.r)!'

Xeyu ufiiv, edc p.T] <|)cyT)Te tt)1' o-dpKa tou utou tou di<6pc^irou Kai irirjTe

auTou TO atfia, ouk ^)(STe J(UT)f iy eauTois. 54 'O Tptiyuf p,ou r^v o-dpKa
Kai mvbtv (Jiou to atfia e'xei t,<jyr]i' aiiii'ioi', Kai eyi> di/aon^au aurov if Trj

co'X'i'Tr) i^P'^pa. 55 'H ydp cdpi fjiou dXr]9T)s eori jSpuo-is Kai to aifid (iou

dXTjSiiis eo-Ti irdcris. 56 'O Tpcfiyui' fxou tt)i' o-dpKa Kai iriviv /xou to at/xa ei'

ejiol fieVei, Kdyjj ei* auT<3. 57 KaOus dire'crreiXe (le 6 t,S)v TraTf|p, Kdyi) t,C>

8ict Toc iraT^pa. Kai 6 Tptoyui' p,e, KdKeicos irjaerai 81' ep.^' 58 outos eorii'

6 cIpTos 6 EK tou oupacou KaTuPds.The sentiments embodied in these

verses are similar to those expressed by Luke in his account of the
Last Supper. But at that place there was an intelligible occasion for
referring to the blood, that of the wine at the supper ;
here no such
occasion exists. It is remarkable moreover that up to v. 51 Jesus, in
 14 ST JOHN VI VII

speaking of himself, confines bis remarks to the heavenly bread only

and no mention is made of the blood ; the point of the blood only ap-
pears at V. 53, but disappears again at v. 68. So that I have no doubt
that vv. 53 to 56 are an interpolation intruded by a theologian after
the Eucharist had become established as a most momentous rite of the
liturgy (see my note on 3-5). But the interpolation starts from xai 6
apTo^ of V. 51, for the -words -which follow that verse hang -with
vv. 63 ff. ; and it extends to o cktov oipavov xaraySas of v. 68, -whose
-writer has missed the theme, -which does not concern merely the bread
but the living bread. From oi Kadihi tcftayov of v. 58 the text links up
quite naturally -with ^Tjo-erai cis rbv alwva of v. 51.
6-61. ciSus 8c 6 Mtjctous iv eairru on yoyYuJouo-i irepi toutou ot fxa9T|Tai
auToO. D gives i8u)S 8e 6 'Iiyo-oCs on iv eaurots yoyyv^ovcri irepl to'utov ot
fi.a6rjTai avTov, -which is a better reading. The disciples were discuss-
ing the matter Iv eauTots, i. e. among themselves and apart from Jesus,
not wishing their master to hear that any doubts of his word had
crossed their minds had they not been discussing apart, the Evange-
;

list would not have said that Jesus understood (eiSus) their murmurs,
but that he heard (dKovVas) them. Similarly Mt 9-3 Tivh tS>v ypa/j.fj.a-

reiov L7roy iv eauTots Ovtos l3Xa.cr(f)-qp.i!.. Kat eiSojs 6 'Ir/o-oSs ras Jj/^Uyiiijo-cts

avTm> d-TTiv. Mk 2-8 cTrtyvovs 6 'l7;o-ovs ort ovrios StaXoyt'^ovTat Iv taVTOis,

Xcyet avTOts.
6-63. ouK bi4>EXei. Is no good. This signification of oK^eXei is pre-
served in MGk in the form ^eXa or <^eXaei. Vlakhos v. ^eXw avro ' Zh>
<^eXa TtVore, cela ne vaut rien.' So in Mt 27-24 tStbv Se 6 UiXaTos ori
ov^lv dxfieXii = and when Pilate saw that it was no good, that it was
useless. Similarly Lucian. Somn.3 oiBev o^eXos.
7-3. uiraye eis ttji' 'louSaiaf ii^a Kai oi (laOrjrat o-ou Oetiip-ffaiiuri Tci Ipva
aou. The words Koi ol /xaOrjTaL aov cannot be genuine. As shown in
V. 4, Jesus was not urged to show his works or miracles to his disci-
ples, who naturally knew them, since it was on the strength of the
miracles that he had secured their adherence; he was urged to make
his works known to the world, namely, to the general public of Ju-
daea. In fact, V. 7 shows that the people among whom he was to
appear were such as would hate him, consequently not his disciples.
The third person plural Oetop-^auxj-L has an impersonal subject but ;
VII ST JOHN 15

this not having been understood, theologians sought to complete the

sentence by the addition of a personal subject. Hence the original read-
ing Koi Ki dtoyprja-wcn was altered into /cat ot fi.a6r)Tai crov deiaprjcruiCTL,

7-19. ou MwoTJs eSuKee ufiXy toc Ndfjioi' ; Kal ouSels i^ ujxuk iroiei toi/

H6y.oy, An
anachronism. It was in later times, when the controversy
with regard to circumcision was raging and the Jews were insisting
upon conformity to the Mosaic Law, that the argument was devised
of the Jews themselves not conforming to the Law, since by the de-
struction of Jerusalem they could no longer continue the prescribed
sacrifices which according to the Law should be performed exclusively
there. This point is touched upon in Gal. 5-3, equally an anachronism,
and constituted one of the favourite arguments of the Apologists with
which they imagined they could confound the Jews. It will also be
noticed that the above words have no connection either with what pre-
cedes them or with what comes after whereas n /ne ^T^ren-e aTroKTuvai
;

naturally follows the protest of Jesus that he had done no wrong.

7-21. ei> cpyoi' iroiii]aa Kal irdi'Tes 6au)jideTe. The work meant must
naturally be the miraculous cure of the paralytic as told in ch. 5, at
whichthe Jews were astonished and indignant because it had been per-
formed on a sabbath and here also in vv. 22 and 23 the argument
;

runs upon the Jewish objection to a performance on the sabbath. But

in the above sentence this essential point is ignored, and Jesus speaks
as if the Jews objected to his ever doing any work at all. The Syr. Sin.,
however, adds in your sight after iiroirjo-a, and possibly in the place
of in your sight there once occurred a lacuna, which originally was
occupied by iv o-ayS/Sa, but which the scribe of the Sinaiticus or of
one of its archetypes filled in by what he regarded as plausibly fitting

the context.
7-23. oKoi' ai'Spwiroi' uyirj liroiT)o-a. Battier in v. Manen's Conjec-
turaal Kritiek conjectures ;(o)Xov for oXov.
7-24. (iT) KpiVere Kar o<|/ii', dWa ttii' SiKai'ai' Kpio-iv Kplvare. Jvdge not
by appearances, but render a fair judgment. Wetstein had already
very aptly compared from Lysias ovk a^iov air oi/fcojs, u> ^ovXr;, oiVe
<f)iX2v ovre fuxrelv ovBiva, aXX.' In tuiv epycov arKOTTilv. Cf. also Prov. 24-38

aiSua-dai Trpocruyirov iv xpicret ou KaXov. A comparison of these two ex-

amples makes the synonymity of Trpoa-unrov and o^iv safe. But we
16 ST JOHN Tii

might further compare 1 Kings 16-7 /xt] iinpXi\pri's iirl Trjv ot/fiv avrov,

OTi avOpui-iro's oi/'ETai is Trp6(T0)Trov, 6 8c debs oi/rcrat ts KapSiav. So that

the above sentence is similar to Mt 22-16 aXyjOfis el, ov yap ^XcTrcts ets

Trpoa-WTTOV aydputiraiv, and Lk 20-21 6p6S>i Xeycts kol SiSao-Kcis /cat ov

Aa/xySdi/cis wpdcrojTrov. Jesus asks his objectors to judge him fairly and
not to be guided by his modest social position. Akin to this is Gal.

2-6, where Paul writes to the effect that in his sight the authority of
the Apostles stood high in spite of the fact that once they were fisher-
men and socially humble people.
Apparently this injunction of treating humble people not with dis-

regard but fairly had become proverbial. Cf. Deut. 1-1 6 Kpivare StKai'o)?,

OVK iiTiyvuicnj irpocriinrov iv Kpicru Kara rov jxiKpov Kai Kara Tov //.eyav.

Isa. 11-3 ov Kara, t^v So^av Kpwei ouSe Kara rrjv XaXiav iXtyiei, aWa
Kpwu TttTTcivo) Kpi(TLv. Thcsc two Ust examples quoted by Wetstein.
7-28. Kd)j.e oiSare Kal oiSare iroeef eijjii. In 8-19 Jesus declares the
contrary by saying ovTi ijj,e oiSare ovre tov irarlpa. p.ov. The correct
reading therefore must have been kol/jlI ySeire, et ySeire Trd^ev el/xt, in
accordance with what follows in 8-19 el ifjie ySeiTe, koL tov iraTepa

fjLov -^Sene av. For the omission of av in the apodosis cf. 8-39 el TeKva tov
'A/Spad/J. icTTe (^ore ?), to, epya Toi) 'A^paap. eirotetre. 9-33, etc. In my
note on Rom. 9-3 I have referred to Blaydes, Arist. Ean.866, where it

is seen that the omission of av dates back to classical times.

dir' ejiauToO ouk cXi^XuSa, dW eo-th/ dXtjOci/os 6 Trefixjias jJie. Probably
eX.i^\v6a is a misreading of cAaA7;o-a. Cf. 7-17 aw' ep,avTOV \aXu>.
8-44 K The sentence aXX ecrTiv aX-qdivo's 6 Tre'/xi/'as /xe
tSiv ISlwv XaXet.

is a concise equivalent (see my note on Rom.1-8) to aXX' Ik tov irep.-

ypavTos p.e, os ecTTiv aXr/divos; SO that the whole clause, if my suggestion
were introduced, would be the same as 1 2-49 ef i/xavTov ovk eXdXrjaa,
aXX' 6 Trepxpas fxe TraTTjp, airds poi ei'ToA.'ijv Sc'Sodkc tl XaXrjcru). Similarly
in 16-13 said of the Holy Ghost that o4 XaXrjcreL a<f eavTov, dXX'
it is

ocra oLKOvaeL XaXi^a-ei., Cf. also 8-26 iroXXa e)((iD irepl vfiZv XaXelv, aXX' 6

Trep.if/a'S p,e aXrjOt]'; eaTiv, xdyo) a TqKovtra Trap' avTov, TavTa XaX(a els tov
Koo-p-ov. Possibly eXi^Xvda was introduced as forming an antithesis to
Tre puj/as.

7-29. Trap' aurou elfii. The Sinaiticus gives Trap' avrZ elpX, and the
Syriac Sinaiticus Trap' airZ rjp.'qv. whioli is a much better reading. Cf.
VII ST JOHN 17

1-1 Xo'yos ^v Trpos tov 6e6v. 1 7-5 ry Sdfjj ij etxpv Trapa croi. The Syr. Sin.
variant is not recorded by v. Soden, and Baljon goes so far as not even
to mention rrap' avrw. I am at a loss to understand what purpose their
masses of material serves, more especially v, Soden's ponderous accumu-
lation, if readings which, to say the least, are plausible or possible are

thus arbitrarily ignored. Tischendorf's is still our best register of

variations, being not only accurate and objective but also lucid.
7-38. 6 irioreuui' eis fjie, Kadci>9 etirei' i^
yP^4>^) iroTajjiol Ik Trjs KotXias
auToO peucroutTW uSaros Jfii'Tos. It is wonderful that Ik t^s KoiXiasavTov,
which verges on the grotesque, should have been calmly accepted as
rational for so long. It has been defended by various expedients one ;

is that /coiXtas stands for KapSi'as. It certainly does in the Septua-

gint (cf. Prov.20-27. Sir.19-12, etc.), that is, in a translation made
hurriedly by incompetent hands, and therefore made literally its ;

occurrence in such a work does establish its use in Hebrew, but an

author writing in original Greek, however poor he might be, could
never have employed KoiXta for KapSt'a. What could have tempted him
to do so ? Would a sane person speaking or writing in English, where
belly and heart are terms designating two distinct common organs, as

is equally the case in Greek, say belly and mean heart ?

The allusion evidently is to Ps.77-16 Sieppijie Trirpav iv ip^pw kol

iiroTCcrtv airois u)S iv a.j3vcrcr(a iroWrj, Kai. k^-qyayev vSiDp 6k TreVpas Koi
Ka-njyayev d)S combined with Isa.48-21 vSwp Ik ;reVpas
Trora/xovi vSara,

i^d^ei auTOis, <j)(i.a-6ri<TeTaL Trerpa koX pvycrerai, vSuip. Our Evangelist has

taken Trorapol from n-oTapov's of the Psalmist and pevcrova-iv from pvij-
cTCTat of Isaiah. Further, in these passages the chief marvel is that
the flow of water emerged ck irerpai, as likewise in Exod.17-6 Trara-
fets T^v irirpav Kal efeAevtrerat ii airijs vSutp. Neh.9-15 vS<p Ik irerpas

i^veyKas avTols. Ps. 1 1 3-8 tov crrpeij/avTO^ rrjv Trirpav eis Xipva^ vSaTiav

Koi Tijv aKpoTopov ts TTi^yots v^aroiiv. Wis. 11-4 iSodr] avrots Ik iriTpa^

aKpoTopov vSuip Kal tapa Sii/fTjs e/c XCOov (TKk-qpov. Thus, the quotation in
our passage would be deficient in point if it did not include e/c TriTpws,

of which however ck t^s is probably a remnant. As regards KotXias,

the only word in the above passages which might be so misread is

(tkXijpov of Wis. 11-4. I correct therefore irorapol Ik irerpas (r/cXTypas

avTco (the dative as in Isa.48-21. Neh.9-15. Wis.11-4 above quoted)
D
18 ST JOHN Tii VIII

pe.v(Tov(TLV. I would paraphrase thus : To him who believes in me, {in

the words of the Scriptures) rivers of living water will flow out. The
quotation was from memory, and therefore should not be taken liter-
ally, but applied in a form so altered as to suit the sentence which
it illustrates of this peculiarity I have cited several examples in my
;

note on Rom.3-4.
7-39. TouTO 8e tlire irepl tou irceu')j.aTos ktX. A comment upon ck Trji

KoiXias avTov p^va-ovcriv in its corrupt state. The verse therefore is

spurious.
7-41 . Mt| yap K rfjs TaXiXaias 6 Xpiaros epxerai; Mij yap is still alive

in MGk as /^i^yapi or /iiyyapis. VUkhos '

/Jt-rj-ydpL rbv etSa; est-ce queje I'ai
vu? comme sijel'avais vu.' It is registered by Sophocles in v. p.'^, who
explains the answer expected being no.' In English it would be ex-
'

pressed as nearly as possible by But has anybody ever heard of such a

thing as that Christ comes from Galilee ?

7-53. The beautiful story of the adulteress, one of the gems of the
New Testament, is absent from a great many documents. It is not hard
to discover the reason why. The answer of our Lord oiSi iyu> o-e Kara-
KpLvm must have appeared monstrous to hypocrites and sticklers for

propriety.
8-25. clirei' auTois 6 'li^aous t^v dpxV on (or 3 ti) Kal XaXoi ujaic. The
meaning oirrjv apxV is still a puzzle ; the interpretations so far given
are unconvincing. The next words 6' ti koI XaXio i/uv are probably the
prototype of the MGk current phrase avro -ttov eras Xeo) = what I tell

you {it is what I tell you and nothing else), which often disputants
in Greece employ when they wish to reassert their opinions without
further discussion.
8-33. direKpt9T)aai'. As the text stands the subject must be the men
who had believed Jesus. But the language of the following verses, in
which a charge is preferred of enslavement to sin, is so severe that
it could not possibly be addressed to believers. I suspect therefore
that before aTrcKpLOrjaav a section has been
lost, where hostile Jews

were brought into the discourse, vehemently dissenting from, and

possibly threatening, our Lord.
8-37. dXXct ^it]TeiT6 (AC diTOKTeTi'at. Nevertheless you seek to murder me.
You may be descendants of Abraham, but that does not prevent you
vm ST JOHN 19

from seeking to murder me, i. e. but all the same you are murderers.
For dXA.a := nevertheless, it is a fact however that, see my notes on
Rom.5-14 and 7-7.
6 Xdyos 6 efjiSs ou x'^P^'' *'' ^V^v. My word cannot he taken in by you,
it passes the capacity of your head and intelligence. The phrase is still

alive in MGk, though turned the other way about. VUkhos v. )(iDpZ

'avTo Bev TO x<"p^^o vols /".ou, cela me passe ; c'est au dela de ma portee.'
And so likewise Hellenistically ;cf. Mt 19-11 ov ttcivtcs x'"P^o-l tov

Xoyov. Philosoph.5-4-26 Sio. to /xtj iravras ^o/Deti' tyjv oXi^OeLav. Pseud.

Phocyl.83 (from Liddell and Scott) ov x<i>P" /tcyaXiyv SiSa^ryv.
8-38. a eyi) lupaKa irapd tu irarpl XaXoi, Kal ufjieis oiji' & rJKoucraTC irapi
Tou irarpos ttoicite. /n the same way
I speak of what I have seen at as
my father's, so are you doing what your own father has instructed (see
my note on 5-30) you to do. The father imputed to the disputants is
Satan, as he also is in tv. 41 and (twice) 44 so Alford, Meyer, and ;

others. Similarly in Mart.Petr.7 it is said of 'AyptWas that Staxovos

icTTiv T^s TraTpLKrj'; avrov ei/epyttas.

8-39. 1 TeKca tou 'APpadp, eore, tA, epya tou 'A^pacifj. eiroieiTe. Hol-
werda rja-Te instead of ecrre (see my note on 7-28) in accordance with
sense and the variant ^re.
8-43. Aid Ti TTji' XaXiai' ttji' iy.r]v ou yii'uo-KeTe; "Oti ou Siii/ao-fle dKoueii/

Thv \6yov Tov i[i,6v. an evident tautology between t'^i' X.aXia.v

There is

TTjv ifiriv and tov Xoyov tov e/xo'v in fact, between the whole of the first
;

and the whole of the second clause. I read tov deov^ for tov efj.bv, for
there is a contrast between obedience to God our heavenly father and
to Satan the father of the wicked. The change must have been con-
sciously effected so as to bring the second clause into conformity with
V. 51 idv Tis TOV Xdyor tov iixbv Ti]p-q(Tri. Translate : Why cannot you
acknowledge (cf. 8-54 Xe'yCTe on 6eos i/xSv Io-ti, koI ovk eyT/wxare avToV.

lCor.8-3 t Se Tis aya-Tra tov 6ebv, oStos eyvoiaTai vir avrov) what I say'?
Because you cannot obey Qod's word. For aKoveLv = to obey cf. v. 47 to,

prjfj.aTa tov diov aKovei. Isa.30-9 o Aaos dirci^rjs i(TTi.v, viol i/fcuSets, ot ovK

fj^ovXavTO oiKoveLV tov vofj-ov tov Oeov, etc.

8-44. <|(i5o-TY)S eo-Ti Kai 6 -n-arrip auTou. This habit of including one's

1 Cf. Rom. 8-7 (where see my note) to ^pivrjim t^s aapxbs ex^pa us 8iov, rS
ydip v6fiai TOV $eov oix xnroTaaaiTai, oiSc 70^ SivaTm.
20 ST JOHN '"i 13:

father in an abuse very prevalent in the Levant. So in Greece the

is

vulgar invariably curse one's father and occasionally mother. I under-

stand that in Arabic all one's forbears are thrown in. In the Arabian
Nights (Madrus' translation, vol. 2, p. 11 8) I find Le barbier ne partit
qu'en maudissant le marchand, le pere et le grand-pere du marchand.
Our Gospel in this part is manifestly fanciful.
8-48. ou KaXus Xeyofiei' ^fieis ; So exactly in MGk Koka. Se Xifxc i/x.^l's,

are we not right in saying 'I And similarly Mk 7-6 /caXais TrpoecfirJTevaev

'Ho-atas Trcpi vfjLutv, Isaiah was right in prophesying about you.

SaiixoKioc Ixeis. In MGk elo-at Sai/xovicr/ieVos, thou art mad. It was
believed in the Levant that insane people had a devil in their belly;
and they were often subjected to daily whipping in the belief that the

whipping did not hurt the patient but the devil within, who to avoid
further annoyance would eventually come out. This must have been
the reason why E. H. Jones was severely belaboured by the Turks at
Mardeen when he feigned madness (The Koad to En-Dor, p. 266).
8-50. ly^^^ " ^l Tr]!' 86|ai' jxou" eorii' 6 I'qTav Kal Kpivay. But I do
not seek my own glory ; there is One who seeks it and decides, in whose
hands it is whether to bestow upon me glory or not. For this sense of
KDiVeiv cf. Acts 3-13 Kpivavro^ eKeivov a/TroXveLV. 20-16 KeKpiKH yap 6

XlavA-os TrapaTrXiva-ai, etc. Weiss has come very close to the right inter-
pretation by rendering der sie sucht und danach richtet, oh sie ihm
ertheilt wird.
8-53. 'APpaclfi. oo-ns dir^Sawe. D instead of octtis gives on, which may
be the original reading; see my note on 1-16.
8-56. 'APpad/x TiYaWidaaTO Iva iSr) ttjc i\\iipa.v Tr\v i^p-^v. For the
causal force of Iva. see my note on 9-39.
9-2. Tis ^(lapTEi' ii'a Tu4)Xos yevvr\iT^; Who has sinned that he should be
born blind ? See my note on 10-17.
9-6. CTT^XP'"'^'' ''UToO Toc irrjXow em tous d<t>6aX|j[.oiJS. Respecting airrov

Bloomfield remarks with reason that it is in opposition to usus linguae,

since im)(p(u> is never construed with the genitive. Nor can it be con-
strued with 6(p6aXpov? ; where it stands must be construed either
it

with eTrixp^a-cv or with -n-rjXov. D gives airZ, which makes the syntax
unobjectionable. But in some old Latins we have superunxit eum luto,

i-Trixpi-a-ev avTov TiZ irriXm, and this probably is the original reading.
Cf. 11-2 dXeti/facra Tov Kvpiov p.vpw. Mk 6-13 rjX^i^ov iXaita ttoXXovs.

IX ST JOHN 21

Acts 10-38 expto-ev avTov Trvev/xaTL. Num. 35-25 (.j(^pL<jav avTov tw eXaiu.
Jud.10-3 exP^a-aro ixvpw. Ps. 88-21 tv ekiu i)(f>UTa. aiiTov. Jer. 22-14
K6XPio-/AeW ev fjiikTio. Lucian.Luct.il fivpia xp^cravrf's to crUfiLa. Arist.
Rhet.3-2 Tw crtoAo) ra iratSta 7rapaXu<^ov<Ti, etc. The following in v. 11
eTr)(pL<riv fiov rovi o<^6aX/xovs is not different.
9-1 7. Ti o-O Xeyeis ircpi auTou, on r\voiii <7ou tous 64>9aX(ious; What dost
thou say of him, (thou) whose eyes he opened ? For 6Vt a-ov = whose
see my note on 1-16. All commentators, at any rate as many as I have
consulted, have gone astray over this sentence.
9-24. 80s So^ac T(3 flew" i^ficis oiSa/iei/ on 6 cti'Spwiros outos djxapToiXos
Pray to God that you be forgiven, /or this man with whom you
eoTii'.

have come into contact is, as we know, a sinner, who has sinned by
curing you on the sabbath. So in Acts 12-23 av9' S>v ovk cSwke t^v
Soiav tZ 6e<S, for he did not pray to Ood for forgiveness when he heard
the blasphemy and did not deprecate it. For StSoVat Soiav rZ OeZ =
to pray to God Kings 6-5 Scoo-ere t<3 Kvpiw So^av ottos KovtjiLcrrj ttjv
cf. 1

^etpa avTov, etc.

9-27. eiTToi' ufily rj8r] Kai ouk rjKoiio-aTe. Meyer rightly marks a query.
I told you already, and did you not hear f Namely, you have heard,
what need is there to repeat what I have clearly told you already ?

9-29. TouToi' Se OUK oiSo/aei' iroSey eoTi. Exactly as in MGk avrov Siv tov
namely, he is unknown, a nobody. An expres-
iipov/jLe diro ttov elvai,

sion of contempt. That is how the man understood the Pharisees, for
his answer is That is where the marvel comes in you say that he is a
:
;

nobody, but yet this nobody of yours is good enough to open men's eyes.
9-39. els Kpifia cyi) eis toi' Koafiov toGtoi' ^\6oi' tea ol fir) |3\e'iroi'TS

PX^iruo-i Kal ot pXe'iroi'Tes tu(})Xoi YeVufTai. A sentence obscurely phrased,

but its import is perfectly clear. The ignorant (ot /xt; ySAeVovTes) have
understood that I have come into the world as the Messiah, but the
Pharisees {ol ySAcVovTes), who are versed in the Prophets, have become
callous and indifferent to the prophetic voices which indicate my
Messiahship; the result of my advent therefore must result in their
condemnation.
Kpijia. Condemnation, as often; see Grimm and Zorell. In ap-
pearance Kplfx-a applies to both the ignorant and the learned, but
that it means condemnation and in reality applies to the learned

Pharisees alone is clear from v. 41, where Jesus deals with them ex-
22 ST JOHN IX X

clusively, and by charging them with sin foretells their condemnation,

since condemnation is the consequence of sin.
ica. Not telic but causal ; cf. 8-56 'A/Spaa/x ^yaXXtao-aro iva iSri tyjv

rjjj.epav ttjv ip.iiv. See Jannaris 1741 (though all his examples are not
applicable).
10-3.TOuT(i) 6 Supwpog aTOiyei, Kal to, irpoPaTa Tr]9 (jx^Kr]? auTOu dKouei,

Kal TO, i8ia irpoPara (jJUKel Kar' oTOjia. I suspect that the first to. irpof^aTa

is an interpolation, and that it is not the sheep that attend to the shep-
herd's voice but the 6vpusp6<;. Cf. Apoc.3-20 ea-TrjKa i-n-l Trjv Ovpav /cat

Kpovoi' idv Tis a.Kova~rj t^s c^cDviJs /iov Koi avoi^ rrjv Ovpav, ela-eXevaofiai.
The text as it stands says that the sheep obey the voice of the Ovpuipo:;
and he calls them one by one but the natural thing is not for the
;

6vp<jip6? but for the shepherd to call the sheep and then for the sheep,

recognizing his voice, to follow. This is what the elimination of the

first Ta Trpo/^ara accomplishes.
<i>oivi. For the change of subject see my note on 18-16.
10-4. eKpdXT]. Leads out to graze ; in sense an aorist to the preced-
ing iidyei. So exactly in MGk /Syd^ei, takes out ; for example, ySyafw
TO iraiSt oTTov TrepnraTo, / take out the child for a walk.
10-7. eyu eip.1 iq 9upa TUf irpoPaTui'" irciKTes oo-ot TJXfloc T7p6 ep,ou KX^Tirai

i(rl Kal \r)CTTai, dXV ouK r]Kouo-ai' aurfii' rd irpoPara. By a stretch one can
take rj 6vpa twv 7rpoy8aT(ov for rj 6vpa t^s avX'^s tZv Trpo^driDV, but how
can we reconcile oVot ^\dov -n-pb ifj.ov with rj 6vpa ? Upo i/xov must mean
and therefore oo-oi ^X^oi' must mean ocrai Bvpai rjXOov,
n-pb ttJs dvpa's,

which is and could not have been written by an

utterly absurd
even moderately rational author. I have no doubt that instead of
7] 6vpa Tuiv 7rpo/3dTUJv We should read 6 KvpLoi rSsv vpolSdrmv, tlie

master of the sheep, cf. Mk 12-9 6 Kvptos tov ap-n-iXZvo^. Palaeo-

graphically between 6vpa and Kvpioi there is sufficient similarity to
have caused the mistake under the influeuce of 6vpa in vv. 1 and 9.
The words dXX' ovk ^Kova-av avrSiv rd Trpo/Sara in v. 8 I surmise were a
marginal note by an enthusiast, who declared that Christians had not
heeded the commands of previous false prophets.
Who are the men alluded to as KXiirrm and Xya-Tai? Cerinthus and
the Gnostics, to whom probably reference is made in Acts 20-29
cla-eXevcrovTai, pLiTO. trjv acfuiiv pov Xvkol /^apeis is v/xSs /irj <j>u86p,evoi rov
TTOL/jiVLov, are precluded by -n-po ipov ; nor can the Pharisees be meant,
X ST JOHN 23

for r)X6ov points to Prophets. However strong tbe language is, either
Moses is alluded to, or more probably the Baptist and his disciples,
those discussed in my note on 3-25.
10-10. Iva, l,(iri\v 'i\<i><n koI irepio-o-oc eyfoitnv. That they may have food
and have even more food than is sufficient. An expression current in
MGk yia. va. e)(ovv rr] 6po<j}i^ Tovs Koi /j.^ to Trapairdvui. For ^wr] = Tpo<f>rj

cf. Judg.17-10 TO. Trpos ^coijv (Tov. Sir. 4-1 rijv ^(ayjv tov tttwxov /xy] diro-

oTEp^oTjs, both these examples being quoted by Sophocles. In t. 9

^(oriv is expressed by vo/x,^v. The Vulg. vitam is wrong.

10-17. 8icl TOUTO |XE 6 iraTrip dyaira, on eyi) TiSijjii Tr)C 'l^ux^i' fiou, ilea

itKw \<P<ij auTYJi'. lilva is given a telic sense, then this passage reads
as though the Father's love came from the fact that Jesus would re-

ceive back his soul ; in other words, that Jesus was making no sacri-

fice, a strange notion of merit. But Iva here has a metabatic force, the

clause Iva TToXiv XafSw avrrjv being equal to dA.A.a. \yi}/ofj,ai TraXtv avTYiv.

It is a favourite idiom with our Evangelist. Cf. v. 38. 9-2. 17-2. But
also 1 Cor. 3-18 /xmpo's yevicrSw, Iva yivr^rai (70<j>6';. 2 Cor. 1-1 7. 7-9. At
Rom. 5.21 v-irepeTreplcraivcrev rj xapL^, iva, Siairep eySao-o-tAeucrev tj d/xapTia,

ovTui'sKal rj x^P's /SacnXevcrri I have noted 'And so grace shall reign.

Cf. TheodM.at Gal.5-17 "to tvaovK lirl amas eiTTEV, aXX! (OS aKoXovOov."
So in 11-11. Jn 10-38, and often.' Thus the Father's love comes solely
from the sacrifice, and iva iraXiv XdySw avrriv is merely an encouraging
remark to the disciples that the soul will not be lost for ever.
10-24. Pernot writes (seeMededeelingen der Koninklijken Akademie
vanWetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde Deel 57, Serie A, No. 5) as
follows: 'cus TroT TT)!' >|fuxV''1M'^'"''"p^''S; y^ulg. quousque animamnos-
tram tollis ? Les traductions donnent jiisqu'a quand tiendras-tu notre
esprit en suspens ? II s'agit en realite d'une expression trSs famili&re,
qui s'est conservee en grec moderne, comme Pallis n'a pas manque de
I'apercevoir, et qui signifie litteralement jusqu'a quand vas-tu nous
arracher I'dme ? c.-a.-d. jusqu'a quand vas-tu nous tracasser de la sortef
[Cf. Clem. Hom.6-2 /ai; /J-e di/a/JaXAo/ievos /SatraviCTTys].

Ces trois derniers exemples ' s'expliquent, on le voit, par le grec

Pernot comments also on Lk 14-23 dvivKacrov etcrcXfletv.

' Non pas force-les '

mais imite-les a entrer, comme le prouvent les emplois de ce verbe dans le grec
du moyen age.' And on Mk 14-8 i7poeXa|3 nvpicroi, pov to o-upa eis tov evTa-
<))iao-p6v. '
Le verbe a ici le meme sens qu'en grec moderne, elle a juste a temps
oint mon corps pour la sepulture.'
24 ST JOHN X XI

byzantin et moderne. Le grec actuel est, dans cette question, un ele-

ment important, peut-etre ne serait-il pas exagere de dire capital.

Peu de personnes se doutent des liens tr&s etroits qui unissent la
langue du N.T. et celle qu'on emploie aujourd'hui a AthSnes. Le
grec du N.T. est certainement plus proche, a beaucoup d'egards, du
grec moderne que de celui du y^ si6cle avant notre fere. II serait aise

de citer dans les Evangiles plus d'un passage, dont seuls ceux qui
connaissent bien moderne peuvent sentir la finesse et gouter
le grec
toute la sayeur. Quand on n'a sur ceci que des connaissances livres-
ques, ce qui est fatalement le cas de la plupart des savants occiden-
taux, on ne pent s'imaginer a quel point cette langue du N.T. est en-

core une langue Tivante.'

10-25. el-nov vfuv Kai ou irioTeu'eTc. A query should be marked. See
my note on 9-27.
10-29. 6 iraTiip (iou os SeSuKe jioi fj.et^wi' irdi'Tui' iari. This is the read-
ing for which the context evidently calls, and the variant oiraTijp /xov

o Se'ScDKe jjLOi TrdvTuiv jxv,t,ov etrrt is worthless. Cf. 14-28 6 Trarrjp jj-ei^wv

But how has so unsuitable a reading as 8 /ict^ov arisen ?

/iov eo-rt.

Perhaps we had originally on in the sense of os (see my note on 1-16),

and its sense being missed, it was disfigured to o, and then the predi-
cate naturally followed in the neuter.
10-38. tea ycuTC = koX totc yvuxreo-Oe. See my note on 9-2.
11-5. T|ydira Se 6 'lr]o-ou9 tti>' MapSar. A variant MaptW instead oi
Map^av I suspect represents the original reading, prominence being
thus given to Mary, as is also given in v. 1, where the order of the

names is Mapias Kal Map^as. In v. 19 the order is reversed, and one

document omits Mapiav altogether, both of which changes I imagine are
due to the fact that the woman who anointed Jesus and who accord-
ing to this Gospel in chap. 12 Mary, was branded in Lk 7-37 as iv
is

T-rj TToXei a/x,apTto)Aos, i. e. as a prostitute. But in v. 2 the reminder that

Mary was she who anointed
the Lord prepares us for her activities
in the following narrative and the narrative in v. 45 is wound up by
;

saying that the believing Jews who were present at the miracle had
come to Mary. But not only has Mary's name been tampered with,
but the whole episode seems to have been amplified in favour of
Martha, who in later times became glorified as a saint specially in-
XI ST JOHN 25

terested in charity ; cf. Acts Phil.94 rj Se MapOa iarnv r) StaKovoBo-a rots

irXriOicriv Kai Koirilocra <T<f>6Spa.
The amplification starts in v. 20 with vTrqvTri(rv and runs down to
iKtivrj Sc (1)5 ^Kovcrev of V. 29. Originally the text must have run ij ovv
Ma^ia, (OS ijKoiKrev on 6 Itjo-o Js cp^erat, r/yepOrj Ta)(u Kal 7jp)(eT0 irpos ai-

Tov" ot oSv 'lovSaxoL (y. 30 being eliminated) ot ovtcs ktX. For it is

curious that, whereas according to y.29 Mary shows eagerness to rush

forward and meet Jesus, in 20 for no special reason she lingers
y.

inactiYely at home, leaving to Martha the office of welcome. As usual

in amplifications (see my note on 18-16 to 27), some of the wording
in the genuine part is taken up in the accretion. So we have in y. 20
1^ oSv Map^aojs rjKovorev and in the amplified part of y. 29 e/cciVij Se is
T^KOvaev ; again, Kvpie, el rj'; S>Se, ov/c av aTriOavi /xov o d8cX<^os of Y. 32 is

repeated in y. 21. These repetitions generally occur at the beginnings

of amplifications as is the case here. The amplifier was unskilful, for
in Y. 22 by Kal vvv olSa otl ocra av otTJjoT; tov 6ebv Swcrei trot o 6eo^ he has
represented Martha as though she expected a miracle, and this miracle
could be no other but the resurrection of her brother; but by oTSaon
dvaoTTjo-eTai iv rrj icr)(a.Trj r/ixipa. she is represented as not now expect-
ing a resurrection or any miracle, going so far in y. 39 as to deprecate
the reopening of the grave. Also the section Xeyti avrZ ri aSeXtjii] of
Y. 39 to Trjv So^av toC 6eov is due to the amplifier.
If what I say further on respecting the part 12-1 to 11 is justified,
it follows that the above amplifications were introduced subsequently
to the interpolation of that part.
11-9. ouxi 8u8cK(i CLcrii' upai TTJs iQ)iEpas; 'Edv tis irepiTraTrj iv rf) i^fXEpa,

ou irpoo-KOTTTei, oTi TO <t"5s Tou Koajjiou TouTou pXe'irei" edf 8^ ns irepnraTV)

iv Trj KUKTi, TrpoCTKOirrei, on to (j>u9 ouk eorii' iv auru. There is plenty of

time, as much as twelve hours, of light in the course of a day, and a
sensible man, by taking advantage of any one of those hours, may go
about his work without fear of coming to grief ; not so an ill-advised
person who, by preferring the night, risks stumbling. Cf. 12-35 irepi-

TaTctre cos to <f>5)'S ;;^eTe tva /xtj CTKOTLa v/x5s KaTaXd^rj, Kai o -ireparaTuiv iv

ry a-KOTia. ouk otSe ttov vn-dyei. As regards myself, Jesus says, I walk in
the light of day and have nothing to fear. The disciples had just told
their master to beware, and he answers that, proceeding righteously
and doing no wrong, he is afraid of nothing.
B
 26 ST JOHN XI

1 1-10. TO <j)(is ouK loTii' if auTU. Bloomfield '

to <^U)S ovk ea-TLV iv avTo
seems to be a popular expression for to ^ms ovk ta-Tiv airw, he is desti-
tute of the light, as in 12-35.' Respecting iv ainS = airm I have noted
on Eom.]-19 'i'avTors = aiTors. Seenoteonv. 9.6-2. Cf.8-3 ev w(=w)
rjadivu (read rjcrda/ovv). Apoc.14-2 xi^api^ovTov iv toli Kiddpai^. Mt
17-12. lCor.7-15. Gal. 1-16, and often.' The expression cart /tot rt

for / have something is very good and current classical Greek.

11-12. el KeKoinT]Tai, (r<D9rj(TTai. If he has fallen asleep, it (i.e. his
sleep) will come to an end. This meaning of o-w^-^vat = to come to an
end is still alive in MGk. Coraes in his note on Plut.Aem.Paul. p. 416
says *
7radrjTiKii>^ rj fxio'io^, olov iatoOrj t) oIkooo^ti' Sophocles V. (XiL^fo
'
Pass. o'dJ^'^vat :=A,i7ya). lThom.Evag.8-2 iatHOrjcrav ol vtto t^v Karapav
avTov Treo-ovres, came to an end.' The translations he will recover or
he will be saved are against the context.
11-31. So^ai'Tes. The variant XeyovTcs is rather better attested and
perfectly suitable. It means SoKoCvrej, thinking, as it does also in MGk.
Vldkhos V. Aeyo) '
XiyeK va to Kafirj; croyez-vous qu'il le fera ? '
So
SKings 5-5 Xiy<a otKoSo/A^crat = lam thinking of building. Judg.15-2
Mra OTi ixLcrmv ifjiLo-rja-a^ =: I thought you hated. Ps.105-23 cTttc toO
i^oXodpevaaL = he thought of exterminating, etc. The same is the force
of A7(oinRom.lO-18. 10-19. 11-1. 11-11. It dates from as far back as
Homer; cf.r366 ^ t' i<^ap.fjv Ticrea-dai. al94 S-^ yap fj.iv ecftavT (xev (l)rjv?)
iirihrjiMiov flvai. Similarly Jn 7-44 a variant e'A.eyov for rjd^Xov, and 11-
13 cXfyov for eSofai/.

11-33. ct'ePpifii^o-aTo tu iri'eufiaTt Kal eTctpa^ei' lauToi'. The words

irdpa^iv iavTov, i. e. irapai)(6-r] iv iavrZ, are probably a glossa, for they
mean nothing different to ivel3pLp.rjaaTO tw Trveu/iaTt, i. e. evfySpt/iijo-aTo
iv iavrii (,cf. V. 38 i/x./3pLfj,u>p,evo^ iv iavrZ), was agitated within himself.
1 1-4] . ndTep, eiy^apiuTio aoi oti T)Kouads fiou. 'Eyu Se ^Seic oti ircti'TOT^
(iou dKouets, &W&. 8id Tot- o^Xoi' Toi' irepieorUTa eliroi', ii/a irioTEuauo-ii'
OTI ou HE diTEOTEiXas. I am not quite sure that the import of this pas-
sage has been thoroughly grasped by previous commentators. The
words ndrep, vxapia-TS> crot oTt ^/covo-ds p.ov were spoken aloud in the
hearing of the bystanders, whom Jesus wished to understand that for
the resuscitation of Lazarus which was about to be performed he had
prayed to God, as all pious people would do who beseech for a divine
 XI XII ST JOHN 27

favour, and that he had prayed to him as to his father, God granting
his prayer as to his son and deputy upon earth. The following words,
however, are addressed to God in an aside, and explain the reason why
he uttered IlaTep, cvp^apio-TO) croi oti ^Kovcras /nou. After this aside he
bids Lazarus loudly to come out of the grave.
1 1-47. Ti TToioufjiEi'; oTi ouTos 6 afBpuTTos TToXXci orr)(i.eia iroiEi. What are
we about ? "We are acting futilely in the way we proceed, allowing this
man to perform his miracles. Cf. Acts 21-13 TtTrotetre KXatovres; what
is the good of your weeping ? 1 Cor. 15-2 9 rt TroL-qa-ovaw ol jSmrTL^o/jL^voL
(read ^aaavi^ofjLivoL) iirep tG>v viKputv; what good is there in toiling so
hard for the sake of men who are dead for good and all ? The phrase
Tt TToiov/xev survives exactly in MGk in the form rt Karov/xE (= Ka/xro-

ju,v = KOLoviJ.iv), and it implies a negative, i. e. there is no sense in the

way we are acting. Often it takes an affirmative form, namely, hlv
Kavov/j-e TiTTora, we do no good.
1 1-48. dpoucrii' i^ij.oii' Kttl Toc Toiroi' Kai to e6i'os. Will destroy both our
country and our nation. Cf. Act.Paul. Thecl.32 dpO-^Tia 17 ttoAis inl ttj

dvo/ita Tavrrj.

Toj/ TOTToi', Our country, our native land. So in MGk.

12-6. TO yXuo-o'OKOfJioi' e^ui' Ta jSaXXoixEca EpdorajEc. The versions
took away or carried are not exact. The meaning of ySao-rS in MGk
is often to keep (for oneself) in an unfavourable sense of embezzling.
Reversely, having for i)(wv is too literal ; we do not say of a cashier
that he has the cash or of a clerk that he has the books, but that they
keep the cash or the books. I should suggest that the best rendering
would be keeping the money-bag he misappropriated the contributions.

12-1 to 11. A passage awkwardly splitting the narrative concerned

with Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. It is an accretion made up from
the Synoptics. The interpolator was unskilful for by saying that
;

Ad^apos Ew ^v Ik tZv dvaKEt/UEVmv he has represented him as a guest

whereas he was the host. Nor did he understand his text Mark and ;

Matthew quite intelligibly state that Jesus was anointed in view of

his impending burial, but, though according to v. 5 the ointment had
already been used up for that purpose, the interpolator says that Mary
was to keep it for subsequent application. The section T^Xeiij/e Toil's

jroSas Tov 'Irjo-ov koI i^e/juiie rais Opiilv airrjs Tovs iroSas avTov is from
28 ST JOHN XII

Luke. The interpolator took ^Xeti/rcroiis TroSasToB 'It/o-ov from Lk 7-46

^Xeiij/i fiov Tovi TToSas, and he took efe'/j-af e Tais dpi^lv avrq^ Tovi iro'Sas
avTOV from Lk 7-38 rais Opi^l t^s KitfiaX.rj'S avrrjs i^fj.aie {tovs TToSas).

That is the reason for the repetition of tous vrdSas ; an original writer
would of course have written ^Xenj/e tovs TrdSas tov 'Itjo-ov /cat efe/ia^ev

aVTOVIS TOLS 6pL^lv avT^s.

12-10. ePouXeuo-arro Se ot dpxiepeis Iva koX rbv Aci^apoi' aTroKTeicuo-ii',

OTi iroXXol 8i' auTOK UTrrjyoi' T<t>v 'louSaiui' Kai eirioreuoi' els rby Irjo'oui'. In
MGk, when reference is made
man's action with disapproval or
to a
astonishment, to the verb denoting that action the verb Trqyaivu (^
viray^L, iropeu'cTat) is often added without any notion of going. So is it

here. By virqyov being added to iiria-Tevov the indignation of the

chief priests is indicated at so many Jews believing in Christ. The
rendering therefore went away and believed, as well as the marking
of a comma after rCiv 'lovSaicov, are wrong. This MGk peculiarity
goes back to Hellenistic times. Cf. Mt 18-30 ainXdijv t/JaXcv airov ets

TTjv <l>v\aKrjv. 22-15 TTOpevOtvre^ ol ^apLaaloi crv/x^ovXiov eXa/Sov OTTUi's

avTov TrayiSeva-uicnv (where it is wrong in the English version to split

the clause by marking a comma after Pharisees). Lk 8-14 Tropevd/tcvoi
o-u/xBTtyovTai (where go forth and are choked in the A.V. is likewise
wrong, whilst as they go on their way they are choked of the R.V. is

even absurd). Several examples of this kind occurring in the Septua-

gint point to a similar usage in Hebrew. Cf. Gen. 35-21 i-n-opevOr] 'Pov-

fir]v KoX iKoip-T^Or] /ATa BaXAas. Deut. 11-28 iav TrXavT]6rjTe aTro t^s oSoC
^S ivTLXa.fj.riv vfuv iroptvdivTK Xarpivnv 6eoli erepots. 29-1 8 TropevdivTi's
XarpevcLV toIs 6cols Tu>v idvSiv. 29-26 TroptvOtvTe's iXdrpevtrav Oeoh irepoi'S.

Jos.23-16 TTopivdivTK Xarp^viTijTi fitots iripois. Judg.14-3 iropevy Xa^tlv

yvvoLKa airo twi' dXXo<^ijAo)i'. Jer.3-8 iirop^vdrj Koi iTropveva-e. Occasion-
ally, however, no disapproval is meant, as for instance in Jn 15-16
iva i/Atis vTrdyrjTe koI KapTrov <j>pr]Te. I may add that in Travra ehrflv of
Mart.Petr.2 the word irdvTa should not be eliminated as Lipsius sug-
gested, but emended into jSdvra ( iTopv6ivTa).
12-15. KaSiQfiei'os em iruXoc oi/ou. Zach.9-9, whence this was taken,
gives TTiaXov viov, and not irSXov ovov. One might account for the di-
vergence by ascribing it to a lapse of memory but that in v. 14 the text
says ovapiov, which is the same as ttuiXov veov. It was essential that
XII XIII ST JOHN 29

Jesus should be represented as having sat upon an animal which had

not been polluted (see my note on 19-34) by the touch of mortal man ;

cf.Mk 11-2 ttZXov <^' ov ovScis ovTTta avdpdnrwv tKaOiare. Hence ttSXov
ve'ov seems indispensable.
12-16. oT iSo^ao-Ori 6 "Itio-ous. When Jesus was teatified ot dl&A.. See

my notes on 17-19 and 21-19.

12-27. Ti eiiru; ndrep, aSiaov (Jie eK Tijs <3pas toutijs; 'AWo Sia touto
TJXSoi' is rtji' oSpac TauTpc. ndrcp, Sijaaocaou to ofo^a. H\9i' oZv (f>ci)i'r)

The reading with to ovo/ia

K ToG oupai'ou Kai ISolacra Kal irdXic So^dcroj.
has nothing to recommend it. It is not apparent what prompts our
Lord's prayer as it stands in the text it is only by surmises unwar-
;

ranted by the words that commentators, who desperately hold fast to

their predilections for certain manuscripts, strive to explain it. But
a variant gives tov viov instead of to and this is what the con-
ovo/j-a,

text demands. Both in what precedes and what follows Jesus speaks
of himself. He does not deprecate his passion, since for that very pur-
pose he was incarnated, but he prays for his prompt deliverance and
glorification, i. e. for his prompt return to heaven. The heavenly
voice answers that as he was glorified before (by being enthroned on
the right hand of God), so shall he be glorified again by being received
up into heaven. That So^dcria designates this dvaATji/fis is clear from
iav vij/id6!!> Ik t^s y>is of v. 32.
13-32. Ktti 6 Oeos 8o5do-i outoc iv auTu. In my note on Rom.1-19
<j>avep6v icrnv iv auTots I wrote as follows: ' Jannaris 1562 says :

" The metaphorical (instrumental) use of iv becomes considerably fre-

quent in Hellenistic times, notably among biblical writers and their

imitators, who often go so far as to place it before any dative, a

phenomenon which points to Hebrew influence and moreover indicates
the retreat of the loose dative." The partiality to this idiom in conse-
quence of its frequent appearance in the LXX eventually led to its being
employed instead of the dative with iiro. Cf. Rom.8-4 to SiKaioi/ia tov

voiJiov TrXrjpiaSy iv vfuv (= v<^' v/j-iov). 1 Cor.6-2 cV ifjuv Kpiverai 6 Koa-fX-os.

This led to a further most absurd

Col. 1-1 6 ev airoi iKna-Or] to. -irdvTa.

abuse in that iv avT<S was occasionally foisted upon active verbs by

writers affecting a sacred style as a sort of repetition of the subject.
So Eph.1-4 efeXe'^aTO ij^uas iv avT<2. 1-9 r/v -KpoiOtTO iv ovt(3 (= ^ irpoe-
30 ST JOHN XIII XIV

riOri W avTOv). 2-15 iva Tovi Svo KTicrrj iv avTU. 2-16 airoKTeiva'S ttjv

iX&pav V avTii. Rom. 1-24 aTifjui^earOai to. o-to/iaTa airlhy iv avToli (Mss
cavTOis). 1-27 iv airots (some Mss iv eavTOts) avTi.Xafj.fid.vovTe'S- Col.

2-15 6piafj.^eva-as avTovs iv avTio. Mart.Petr.7 ^cyucXiwo-et iv aiirw koI

Kpivel iv avT<S. XII Patr. Sim. 6 ^iu d)S av9punros Kal crw^coi/ iv avT<5 tov

'ASa/i. Similarly 1 Tlies.1-5 iyev^6rjfj.v iv vplv (read fjplv).' Tlje same

is the case in this passage a sort of repetition of o 6w.
; iv avrm is

This idiom, however, is too learned and artificial for St John's style,
and therefore I suspect that koL 6 6eos So^ao-et avrov iv airii along with
Koi evdii^ oo^dcreL avrov are not genuine.
13-38. ou (JIT) dXcKTup <t)Mfr)aTl eus oij ATrapi/iio-T) (le rpis. Nay, it will

not he long before thou deniest me thou wilt deny me be/ore even this
;

very night is spent and the cock crows thrice. But I suspect that rph
is spurious, being intruded with the object of bringing John's story

into harmony with that in the Synoptics. It seems to me that Peter

only denied his master once, for there was only one occasion on which
he was asked whether he was with Jesus, that recorded in 18-25 the ;

denial in v. 27 is only in appearance a second denial, for it is but an

affirmation of the previous one. For the denial to the maid see my
note on 18-16 to 27.
14-2. iv TY] oiKia Tou irarpos (Jiou (xoral iroXXal tialv el 8e y.i], eiirof &y
ujilv oTt iropuo|xai. cToip.dcrai tottoc ufiii/. This is a positive riddle un-
solved so far. But I may venture a suggestion that possibly instead
of el 81 fjiT] cTttov av vfuv otl the original reading was rjSrj elirov i/xlv on,
as I have already told you, lam going to prepare your abode among the
numerous heavenly resting-places. I should say that this alteration
meets the context. At that time the adherents to Christianity, who
had expected an advent of the kingdom of God in their lifetime, were
bitterly disappointed to see the deaths of the faithful and as a con- ;

solation to them, Jesus is represented as having clearly foretold that all

would die, as even himself and the Apostles had died, but that such
deaths only meant a transition from this world to bliss in heaven.
An explanation of the awkward fact of the deaths had also to be
given to the Thessalonians ; see 2 Thes.2-1 ff. My suggestion, however,
presupposes a previous conversation respecting Tropfvo/xai kToiixaacn
TOTTov v/uv, but no such conversation is recorded in our Gospel.
 ;

XIV ST JOHN 31

The idea of this consolation may have been suggested by Isa.56-4

rdBt Xeytt Kupios Ocrot av <j>v\di(ovTaL to, craySySaTot fwv koI cKXi^uivTai, d
iyi) 6e\(a Kai a.VTe)((ovTai rrji Sia^Tj/cijs /Jiov, SaJtro) auTois iv T<S ot/co) jjLcyv Kot
iV TM Tl\eL fiOV TOTTOV OVOIJ-CUTTOV.

Av &fi.lv on iropEuo|xai. Usually a semicolon is marked between

etiroi'

and on, and the English Version translates accordingly. But Ch.
vi/itv

Brustonin the Revue des Etudes grecques, Janvier-Mars 1925, p. 16,

points out that the correct rendering is je vous aurais dit que je vais.
That is what my own translation of the Gospels gives.
14-16. Taylor in Pirqe Aboth, p. 69, says
irap(iKXT)To>'. We have :
'

here in a Hebrew form the word irapafcXiyTos, or advocate (1 Jn2-1),

one who is called to a person's aid, which is rendered, perhaps
wrongly,COMFOKTEE in Jn 14-16 and 26.15-26.16-7.' But 7ra/3aKA.i7Tos
must have a meaning analogous to one of the meanings of irapaKaXvy,
and that of comforting suits the spirit of the passage admirably. I,

says Jesus, was sent to you by my father to cheer you in this miserable
world with the assurance of a better life hereafter ; when I am gone,
my father will send you the Holy Ghost as a continuator of my office.
MapoLKkyp-oi certainly signifies an advocate or mediator in IJn 2-1
but how does an advocate come into this passage ?

14-17. TO TTi/euiJia rrjs dXTjfieias. A periphrasis both here and in 15-26

for TO aXriOhox olXtiOlvov Trvev/ia, my note on 3-21) Ghost,
the Holy (see
akrjOU being a synonym of aytov, as explained in my note on 3-2 1 The .

same combination twice occurs in XII Patr. Jud.20 in contrast to to

TTvevfM T-^s irXdvrj^, the context there showing that ttXcivtjs means of sin,
and therefore that means of holiness, as it does in this passage.
dXij^eias
14l-20. yvdaevde ufiets- The pronoun added with emphasis it is you ;

who will know and not o Koa-jxa^ (cf. vv. 17 and 22), the wicked and
infidel world.
14-21. 6 ^Yfiiv Tos ei'ToXds |Jiou Kal TTipfii' auTcts. In my note on Kom.
1-13 I have suggested that cxwv stands here for crxav, as it often does
(see my note on 5-39), for otherwise there would be a tautology, Ixcoi'

as a present and rripun/ being practically synonymous. Or perhaps the

true reading is iroiS>v and not rripSiv. Cf. Neh.1-9 eav ipvXdirjTe tcIs iv-

ToXas fj,ov Koi TTOf^a-rjTe avrd'S. 10-29 <^vXa(70-EO-^at Kal Troielv Tcts evToXas.

LeT.26-3TasVToXas/tov <^uXao-(77;o-^ Kal Tron^(TrjTe. Josh.23-6<^uXaa'0-iv

Kai TTOielv TtdvTa to. -yeypayn/xcva, etc.

32 ST JOHN xiT XV

14-22. Ti yiyovey; How is it possible? The same is the sense in

2Act.Pil.ll-3.
Ti ye'yoi'ei' on ^(iic (leWeis iii^avit^iv o-eauToc Kai ouxi tw k6o-(a<i); Aire-

Kpt9ii) 6 'iticroOs Kttl etirec auTu 'Edf tis dyaira fi, rpf Xoyoi' fiou TripTJo'et koi

6 irariip (lou dyair^o-et auToi' Kal irpos auTOK eXeoo-dfJieSa Kal /xoi^i' irap auTu
iroiTiao/ieea. How is it possible that thou shouldst manifest thyself to us
and not to (all) the world ? If we see thee, all the world equally will.
Jesus' answer is not direct, but its meaning is clear Nay, all will :

not see me the one whom my father and I shall visit and to whom
;

thus we shall manifest ourselves is he alone who loves me as you do

and keeps my commandments.
14-30. epxerai yap 6 tou Kocrpiou a.p\ii)v. Kal h> cfioi ouk Ixei ouSei',

dW on dyairw rov irar^pa, Kal KaOus

Xva yi'i 6 KoafJios |Jioi o ei'ereiXaTO

iraTTip, ouTO) iroiu.

For the ruler of this world namely, death identified

with Satan is coming; he has no power over me, and if I temporarily
submit to him, / do so to obey my father's desire that I should sacrifice
myself for the sake of the redemption of all men. This is evidently
the import of this passage, and it demands eit' e/iot and not Iv Ift-oi
15-1. r\ afjnreXos. Paspati' contends, and I agree with him, that
a/xTreXos here means vineyard, and not vine. It is the kXtjixxi further

on that is the vine, erroneously interpreted the branch. Both these

errors are due to the Vulgate. Liddell and Scott register one instance
of a/ATreXos in the sense of vineyard. In MGk d/x7re'Ai(ov) and KXrj/jia

are specific terms for vineyard and vine respectively.

15-8. iv TouTw eSo^dtrSr) (read 8oSao-9ii(TETai) 6 iraTiip (lOu, ii'a Kopiroi'

TToXui' <|)^pr)Te Kal yev{\(re(rQe e/xol p,a9t]Tai. By this fact shall my father
be glorifiedand you shall prove yourselves in the eyes of the world my
true disciples, namely by the fact ofproducing much good as a conse-
quence of your adherence to my precepts. It seems to me that So^a-
<jdria-Tai is indispensable, for in his whole discourse Jesus speaks of the
future ; besides, were iSoidcrdri correct, instead of (jiiprjre we should
have had a past tense.
ika Kapiroi' iJ'e'pT''^- The same as an ivapOpov infinitive. Cf. 6-29 tovto

Dr.'AXf'faySpos Ilao-TrdTjjs delivered a lecture at Constantinople on the occa-

1

sion of the publication of the Ri viaed Version. This lecture was afterwards
published in a pamphlet fmm aiiii c-i n ^i.me valuable suggestions.
XV XVI ST JOHN 33

coTi TO tpyov Tov 6iov, Lva. tnxmxn^Te (^=z to TrioTEveiv) ets ov aTrecTTuXtv.
17-3 avrrj oe 1(ttiv f) aliiivio'S ^(i>rj, iva yivdcrKwcrL (to yiviixTKnv auToiis) ore

Tov fiovov aXr]Bivov Oeov. Lk 1-43 ird^ev jj.oi tovto, iVa cX^j; rj fJ-'^rrjp (to

eX^av Ty]Vfi,r)Tipa) tov Kvpiov /xov ; 2 Jn 6 avTrj icrTiv rj ayairq, t;'a Trtpt-

Trarw/x.ci' (= to TrcptTraTctv fifj.aq) Kara, Tas JvToAas. Jn 4-34 Cjnov Ppu>p.a,

iariv "va Troiijtro) ( ^ to TTOvqo'aC /xe) to ^eXr/jua tov irc/xi/'avTOS ju.e.

Kttl yeKiio-ecrae IjAol |jia9tiTai. The import would have been clearer if
this sentence stood after kv touto) Soiaa-O-^a-eTai 6 TraT-ijp /jlov ; indeed,
that may have been its position originally.
15-20. ei Toi' \6yo\' pou TiipT]o-ai', Kal toi' ufj.^repoi' Tijp^^aouoif. The
context requires a negative before both iT^prja-av and T-qprjo-ovcnv (for

its loss see my note on 5-46), for TavTa irai/Ta TroLrjo-ovcnv cis i/iSs Sto.

TO 6Vo/id /xou, OTi OVK oiSao'i TOV Trip,ij/avTa, jxe. of the following verse, as
well as p,i(ru v/tSs 6 Koarp.o's of v. 19, assert that this blind and malig-
nant world has ever hated the Apostles, and therefore nothing but
violence, and not conformity with their teaching, was to be expected
therefrom.
15-26. oraf 8e eXflr) 6 irapaKXtjTos, to T!ve.\)y.a Tfjs dXii)6eias, eKeiros
(iapTupi^crei irepl ep,ou, Kal u(/,els 8e (iapTupeire, oti dir' Ap)(T)s (ji.t' e/iou eore.

After saying that the Holy Ghost shall bear witness of him, it is

strange that Jesus should invoke the testimony of the disciples, who
after all were but mere men. I read koX vplv Se /ji.apTvprja-i. Not only
shall the Holy Ghost testify of me, but of you also, who from the begin-
ning have been cleaving to me through all my vicissitudes. John
mostly says fjiaprvpS) irept tlvos, but also in 3-26 and 5-33 fiaprvpS) tlvu
t6 iri'eufjia rfis d\r]9ias. The Holy Ghost ; see my note on 14-17.
16-2. diroo'ui'aYt^Y''''^ iroii^croutrii' ujaSs, dXX cpxETai (3pa Tea irds 6
diroKTeii'as u(j.ds You shall be excommuni-
So^t] XaTpeiai' Trpoo-4)epeii'.

cated ; come to hate you so intensely that,

indeed, the world shall
were you even murdered, your murder would be applauded as though
a sacrifice on the altar were performed. Such ought to be the sense
of this passage but from the use of akXa an anticlimax ensues, and
;

the murder is made to appear as a milder instead of a stronger sort

of persecution. 'AXXa. therefore is a corruption of a word denoting
indeed, in fact, nay ;
perhaps of a.p.rjv, which may have been mis-
understood as OLV fi-Tj = aXXa, see my note on 5-19.
34 ST JOHN XTi

pxTai. 3pa Iva S6|r). The same as epxerai S>pa tov Sofat. We haye
here, as often, a resolved infinitive. As Alford places no comma
before ha, I presume that such was also his opinion, though his note
is not clear. Similarly v. 32 tpx^rai wpa iva crKopincrO^TC. The sentence
could be equally well expressed by tp^irai a>pa ore So'^et ; cf. v. 25
epX^Tai wpa ot ovKeri iv Trapoipiaii XaXrjo-m. See alsO my note on 15-8.

8<5Jt|. Will appear; in this sense Acts 17-18 ^ivwv SaipLovLtov Soxet
KarayyeXev^ eXvai. 2 Cor. 10-9 iva /xr] Sofa) is av iK<j}0^eLv v/ias, etc.

16-8. eXGwi' eKcii/os (the Paraclete) eXey^ei toi' Kocfioi' Trepi d)ji,apTias

Kal irepl SiKaioaufi]; KaiTrcpl KpicrEcos' Trcpl dp,apTias |Ji>' on ou Trioreuou-

o'li' tis fie, TTcpl SiKatoaukTis 8e on irpos Toi' irarcpa virdyoi Kai ouke'ti Bvit-

peiTE fie, irepl 8e Kpio-eus on 6 apxui' tou koo-^jiou K^KpiTui. The words in
which explain that Jesus will goto heaven as a consequence of
v. 10,

show that this word signifies departure from this world

SiKaiocrvvrj,

combined with beatification see my note on 17-19. The import of

;

the whole passage is that when the Paraclete descends as a messenger

from above, he will instruct all men respecting three things ; first, in
respect of sin that it consists in unbelief; secondly, in respect of
beatification that Jesus has been beatified by joining his father in his
abode, where sinners are not destined (I read Oitopova-t /^e for OempcLTi
/xe) meet him thirdly, in respect of condemnation that Satan, the
to ;

prince of this world and continuator of evil, has been definitely con-
demned and his power for ever broken by Jesus' advent. Thus on is
declarative and not causal.
eXe'y^ei. The same as p.apTvpTq<ru, Si8d^ei with a shade of reproof as
from a master to pupils of slow intelligence.
16-12. en iroXXcl \(a Xeyeii' ujuv, dXX' ou Sufao-Se jSaord^eiv apn.
/ have much else to tell you, but you cannot at present comprehend. The
disciples were not yet enlightened enough to grasp all the true facts ;

they would grasp them when the Holy Ghost came and revealed them.
This inability of the disciples to understand is also referred to in
Mk 9-32 ot Se riyvoovv ro prip.a and in Lk 18-34 koI avTol ov^lv tovtu>v
(TuvriKav ; also in Mk9-10, if we read, as I think we should Kal tov
Xoyov ovK iKpaTrjaav.
PacTTttJeii'. In my notes on St Mark and St Matthew I have com-
mented as follows : ' Mk 9-10 /cat tov \6yov iKpaT-qaav. Kpariiv in the
XVI XTii ST JOHN 35

sense of to understand is a Latinism reproducing tenere, a similar

Latinism occurring in connection with ^aa-rd^eiv, a synonym of Kpa-
TCLV [compare Acts 9-15 Paaraa-ai TO ovofid iJiov with Apoc.2-13 xpaTets
TO ovofjA iiov] in Jn 16-12. Compare also y^wpuv in Mt 19-1 1 (where see
Weiss's note) as a translation of capere.' In MGk Kparu and ySao-ru
{= padTatfo) are synonymous throughout all their meanings.
16-22. ouSeIs aipEi. A present as an emphatic and vivid form of the
future. So exactly in MGk /cavcls 8e (= ilv, not) aa^ Trjv TraCpvei.
16-24. \i^>(/eor9e ^a x^^P"^ vfiCiv g TreiTXi)p4)|x^i'if]. You will receive
iq

complete joy. No comma should be marked after Xrjif/ecrOe, for Lva ktX.
is its object. Cf. 9-22 (rwerideiVTO lva aarocrvvo.yaiyo's yivrjTai, and often.
17-1.8(5|ao-occrou toi' uloi' IVa 6 uios So^dcrr) ere. Glorify thy son, and thus
the son will glorify thee. This idiom illustrated in my note on 10-17.
17-8. Tcl p^^fiara & eSuKdis Hoi S^SuKa auTois, Kai auTol E'Xa^oi/. I have
explained in my note on Rom.6-1 7 that eSwKas here is employed in the
sense of ira/DeSwKas, thou hast taught ; such is the case also of 8iSu>Ka
in V. 14. In that same note I have dealt with eka/Sov as equivalent
to n-apiXa/3ov, they have learnt.
17-12. trf]pou\' auTous El' T(o ofOfiaTi iTou (d SeSciiKcis fjioi, Kal l(f>uXa^a Kal
ouSeIs e^ auTui/ diruXETo. The sentence u ScSioKas /xoi evidently refers to
the Apostles ; cf. v. 6 i<j)avepiaa'd crov to ovofxa toIs avdpunroi's ovs SeSoiKas
fiou 18-9 oSs SeScokcis //tot ovk (XTrooXEO-a sf avTuiv ov&eva. JeSUS pleaded
for his disciples in v. 9 e/do and the fact that he
Trepl S>v SeSuiKdi /tot,

did so a second time in this passage was perceived by that student

who substituted the variant ovi for <S. But a second variant 8 in the
form oTi is the one probably which represents the true reading, it
being the undeclinable relative particle explained in my note on 1-16.
This remark applies equally to v. 11, where we iind the same varia-
tions, and to V. 24, where the reading varies between o and ovs.

17-15. ouK EpuTu tea apTjs auTous ek toO Koo'p.ou. When I said that
my disciples are not of the world, I did not mean to go so far as to
pray that they should be taken from the world or die. This probably
has reference to John, and I surmise that it is a hint that our
Lord never prayed for this disciple's death, a modest way of saying
that he prayed for his immortality; see my note on 21-20. In his
unusually advanced years John must have come to persuade himself
 36 ST JOHN XVII xviii

that he was not destined to die before the reappearance of Christ.

I can fancy a crowd of interested sycophants about his person com-
forting him, when he was infirm and tottering, by constantly dinging
in his ears a gradually cTolved promise of immortality.
17-19. &yidl,u> i}i.auT6v. I saint myself, I die. So rjyida-dr] in Hebr.
10-29. How dyid^ea-dai came to denote to die I have sketched in my
note on Rom.6-7, as follows : 'Among the Greeks a dead man is re-
ferred to as 6 (rvxtapifx.ivo's [or/iaKaptTr;s], the forgiven one, and this idea
dates from old times, as proved by the customary proclamation at
As a development a dead man
funeral rites 6 dTro6a.vwv SeSixaiWai.
so forgiven became in the popular imagination a Stratos, a sinless
man, a saint.' Thus by saying that a man rjyida-drj people often would
only mean that he died.
17-21. ira Kal auTol iv rfji.lv Zmv. Probably tVa Koi avToi ev Sxriv, an
exhortation to concord, for at the time was writtea when this Gospel
discords had already infected the Church see my note on Rom.10-14 ;

and 15. So here Jesus prays that all believers speak and act with
one mind if they did so, the world would be impressed and believe
;

them to be Apostles of a Messiah.

18-5. Ae'yci auTOis o 'itjcrous Eyu i|jit. EioTiiKei 8e Kal 'louSas 6 irapa-
SiSous auToi' iJieT auToli'. 'Q.S ouk eTirci' auTOis Eyu) elfu, diriiX6oi' eis Tci
oTn'o-u Kal ciro-oi' xofJi"'- What was the object of adding that Judas
stood there with the guard ? After leading the guard to the spot he
takes no part in the proceedings, and the addition is otiose. But it is
intelligible if we read
d-!rqk6iv and tVecrcj', variants which stand as
corrections in G they prepare us for what afterwards happens to
;

Judas. He did not leave the guard after leading them to the garden,
but was still by them when Jesus addressed them and hearing the ;

voice of the master whom

during a long association he had learnt to
revere and obey, he was suddenly awestruck, and retreating a few
paces he fell on his face (s^ee following note) to the ground.' The narra-
tive in this way gains enormously in logic as well as vividness. On
' A similar story by Clement of Alexandria (Div. Serv. 42) respect-
ia told
ing a youth who had been befriended by John, but who
during John's
absence turned a brigand. When the Apostle returned and
hastened to find
him, he, tliough by now a hardened criminal, was abashed
when he siehted
his benefactor, and forthwith iied.
 7

XTiii ST JOHN 37

the other hand, there was no occasion for the soldiers to be at all im-
pressed, let alone to prostrate themselves before Jesus, who in their
eyes was a mere outlaw what they did was simply to seize him after
;

a momentary pause, caused probably by Judas' strange action, and

bind him. Meantime the readings a.Tr^X6ev and lina-af have been
treated with contempt by Baljon, v. Soden, and Souter; on the other
hand, both Baljon and v. Soden record faithfully the variants a.i!-rjX6av
and iit(.<Ta.v, which make no difference whatever to the sense. So much
for profound theories.
18-6. en(rv xa^l. He fell down on Ms face, as the effect of awe or
fear. Cf. Mt 1 7-6 tma-ov eiri irpocrw-Kov avrSiv Koi i(f>oj3TQ6rj(Tav. Acts 9-3
e^ai(j>vrii TrcpLrja-Tpaij/ev avTOV <^Ss Ik tov ovpavov, koi Treo-uiv im, t^v yrjv
T]Kov(Te <j)Oivi^v. Apoc. 1-17 ore elSov avrov, CTretra Trpos Tov'i TroSas avTov

ws vexpos. Tob.12-16 tweaov IttI irpoaiinrov, OTi l<^ol3ri6r](Tav. Dan. 8-1

7)XQi {Ta^pirjX) Kol ecTTT] e^^o'/xEvos rrjs crTacreais /jlov, koL iv t<S iXOiiv av-
rov e^ajujS^^r/r Koi TTLTTTOi iiri irpotronrov fiov. 18 i/ tu XaAciv avrov [xer

ejiiov TTLTTTia IttX Trp6(ra>ir6v fiov. It is perhaps by these passages from

Daniel that John's episode was inspired.
18-8. AireKpi6i] 6 'Irjo-ous Eiiroi' ufj.ii' on eyi) eifii" ei oSc epie Ji^TEiTe,

a(t>ETE ToijTous uirdysiv. Ii/a TrXijpuSrj 6 Xdyos of elirei', on ous SeSuKas (ioi

ouK &.Ttii\e<Ta ej auTui' ouS^ca. We have here to understand that the

disciples scattered. This must have been thought pusillanimous, and
probably some feeling still lingered in Christian circles against them
for having fled, instead of making some effort to rescue the beloved
master. So probably with a view to calming that feeling the matter
is here represented as though the disciples did not abandon Jesus of
their own accord but were sent away and as though
at his request,
this happened of necessity so that his promise that he would suffer
no disciple to perish might be fulfilled. If my surmise be well
founded, this representation of the matter shows acquaintance with
actual historical events.
18-10. nTpos GUI' i-)(otv fidxaipav iXku<7i' outtji' Kal eiraiae toi' tou
dp^icpEu; SouXoi' Kal dircKO<|/Ei' auroC to unipioi' to Se^iok' r\v Se ofojxa t^
SouXu MdXxos. This is another episode which I believe shows know-
ledge of an historical fact. This fact is a wrangle which was still

proceeding at the time of the composition of this Gospel. It must

38 ST JOHN xviiT

have been common ground among all Christians that a sympathizer

of Jesus did wound the servant of the high priest, thereby aggrava-
ting the position of the master,who thus appeared in the eyes of the
Eoman authorities as the leader of a lawless gang. But the disputants
disagreed as to who that sympathizer was. The one party, whose
position is represented by our Gospel, maintained that Peter was the

aggressor, asserting in support of their claim that they were the sole

possessors of all the facts down to minute details ; and it is in sup-

port of this claim that such particulars as the name of the servant
and the side of the which would otherwise be mere verbiage,
ear,
were inserted in our The opposite or Synoptical party, de-
narrative.
siring to exculpate Peter from the grave consequences of his impetuous
action, imputed it to a different sympathizer but left his name
unspecified.
On another point. Which of the two versions is the more plausible ?
The answer must be that the Synoptical party are out of court. The
aggressor could be no other than one of the disciples, and if the
Synoptics were at all familiar with the facts, they would needs have
known and recorded his name.
18-16. qKoXoudci 8e Tiu 'Itio-oG jiixotv H^Tpos Kai aXXos (a variant Kai 6

aWos) (AaSrjTrjs. 'O 8e (i.a0ii]TT)S IkeIi/os tJi' yyiaarbs tw dpxtepei Kai <ruceicr-

TJX6 T(tf 'iTiaou eU Ti\v auX^i/ toO dpxiEpEUS) 6 8e fltrpos etaTi^Kei irpfig Tr|

flu'pa e|<i). 'E^TJXdct' GUI' 6 (ia9T)TT)S 6 aXXos os rji' yvuarb^ Tco dp^iepei, "ai

eiire tt} duptapa Kai eio-rJYaYei' tow n^Tpoi/. Who was this other disciple
that is associated with Peter and so vaguely alluded to ? It is generally
supposed that he was John himself; but this is inadmissible. For, in
the first place, what was the object of specially suppressing this Apos-
tle's name? And, secondly, John was a humble fisherman who could
notpossibly haveany influence with an arrogant Sadducee,as he is here
represented to have had, much less approach him at a time when as
a high priest he was engaged in important judicial business; a Sad-
ducee would not even so much as be conscious of John's existence.
There was, however, another disciple, a recent recruit, who was
wealthy enough to enjoy some degree of influence, and that was Mark.
His wealth is proved by the fact that, according to Acts 12-12, his
house had the means of gathering and extending hospitality to
XVIII ST JOHN 39

numerous adherents. It was probably also in his house that accord-

ing to the Synoptical legend Jesus and the disciples foregathered for
the Last Supper (Mk 14-17, etc.). Two further allusions in the New
Testament to a person unnamed show that this person was a well-
to-do man. One is in Mk 14-51, where a young man is robbed of
a valuable coat made of Egyptian or fine linen (I correct im yv/jLvov

by dir AlyvTiTov, see my notes on St Mark and St Matthew) ; the other

is in Mk 1 1-3, where it is said that Jesus sent to an unspecified friend
for an ass when he stood in need of a special one upon which no one
had sat before. Assuming then that the unnamed disciple was really
Mark, why has his name been withheld ? The explanation probably
is that at one time a good deal of animus was developed against

Mark either because he became estranged from Paul or because on

some point or points he did not see eye to eye with the other Apos-
tles ; and so it was sought to misrepresent him as having never risen

to the dignity of an authoritative disciple like the eleven (see also note
on 19-26). This sentiment first discloses itself in the disparaging re-
mark EH. 3-39) that Mark oiVe ^kodo-c tov Kvpiov
of Papias (see Euseb.
ovT trapriKokovdrjcriv avrZ, vcrrepov 8e UeTpu). Jn 20-8 also appears to
be an insinuation that the unnamed disciple, namely Mark (see my
note on 20-2), at one time perversely hesitated to accede to the story
propagated by the disciples or other believers as to Jesus having left

the grave. Finally, I would point out the fact that the association of

the mysterious disciple with Peter tallies with that of Mark with
Peter in Papias, an association which reappears in 1 Pet. 5- 13 aa-Trd-

^erai i/j.S.'S rj iv ^a^vXwvi ctvvckA.ckt'^ koI Ma/DKos 6 vtos fJiov.

Nor do I think that aWos is sound. The original reading must

have been eh ve'os, i. e. ANEOS, which being palaeographically not
much dissimilar, became AAA03 under the influence of aAXosof v. 16,

the corruption further extending to 20-2 and 8. The reading veos has
been preserved in Nonnus (see Tischendorf), who says koL veos aAXos
iTOLpoi, one of his copies probably giving and another a.XXo's. ve'os

18-16. iir Tjj flupupuKal elcrViyaYe toi' neTpoc. He told the maid, the
door-keeper, and she admitted Peter. Erasmus was right in taking the
6vp(opbs as the subject of eto-i^yaye. It is an idiomatic syntax fully
illustrated by Jannaris in 1712, whence I borrow the following
 40 ST JOHN xvni

clear instances : Nehem.l 3-9 ctTra koI iKaOapurav. 19 ctTra koX tKXturav.
Chron. 74-2 iKeXevae kol iKavO-q. Such instances, according to Jannaris,
are in reality condensed sentences, i. e. etTra li/a KkiLcrwcn koX l/cXewrai/.
So in our passage, tlire rfi dvpuipiS Iva iltrayayrj tqv THrpov, Kal tj Bvpmpo'i
etcrr/yayev airov. The idiom is still current ; VUkhos t. xai ' rov o.tj>r]a-av

Kol airedave, on I'a laisse mourir.' I. e. rov oL^ijcrav va, TnOavrj koX Tridave.

18-16 to 27. We have probably here the original story of Peter's

denials, from which the Synoptics drew. But it is somewhat confused,
having been tampered with from a desire to adapt it to the three
denials recorded in the Synoptics, for the Church had finally adopted
the story in that form see also my note on 13-38. The repetitions in
;

V. 25 in almost identically the same terms of vv. 17 and 19 pij koX crii e/c

Twv fjLaOrjTtiiV i Tov avQpwTTOv rovTov and iqv Se /cat 6 IIcV/sos u-er' a^rwi' ecr-
TMs Kol depfjiCLivo/jLevoi point, as is often the case, to an accretion see ;

my note on 1 1-5. Then il-n-ov ovv avT<S of v. 25 must have as its subject
ol SoCAoi Kol ot virtjpiTai of v. 18, and this subject would not have been
left out had not eiTrov originally followed ot 8oBAot /cat ot vTrqpirai.

Then it is strange that the maid asks Peter whether he was a disci-
ple and nothing further happens in fact, it is exceedingly strange
;

that she presumed at all to put to Peter such an insulting question as

whether he was a disciple of a public malefactor, when Peter was be-
friended by a gentleman who must have been highly important in her
eyes as an acquaintance of the high priest. The maid and her ques-
tion, it seems to me, were merely intruded from Mk 14-66 with the
design of completing the three denials. The suspicion of a manipula-
tion is strengthened by the fact that in the Syr. Sinaiticus the exami-
nation by the highpriest precedes instead of following the introduction
of Peter, and that the denial to the maid is not detached from the
other denials. Lastly, both traditions are faulty, considering that
they separate the examination from its result, i. e. from the carrying
off of Jesus to the Roman authorities.
What has happened seems to me to be this. When it was decided to
effect the three denials by the inclusion of the episode of the maid
vv. 25 and 26 were removed to where they now stand with the
addition of the introductory words ^v Se IleT/jos eo-rws /cat 6ipixaiv6-
lxivo<; and their place was filled in by that episode.

XVIII ST JOHN 41

1 8-24. &iricrreCKev oijc airov 6 "Afi/as 8e8e^|'oi> irpAs Katd<(>ai' tov

ApXiepea.Meyer In order :
'
to assign the hearing of vv. 19 to 21 to
Caiaphas, some have taken critical liberties and placed v. 24 after

V. 14. So Cyril.' There can be no question of a liberty at all in this

transference. It possesses evidence of the highest value in its favour,
that of the Syr. Sinaiticus, vhich
however more plausibly still
places the transference after v. 13. By such a transference "ne are
saved all sorts of far-fetched explanations.
18-28. ayouo-ii' oSv. When this verse is connected with v. 23, it is

easily seen that the conjunction required is one of continuation and

not a syllogistic one. The variant Se therefore is preferable to ovv.

Herford, Christianity in Talmud, p. 88 :

'
It is stated there [in

Gemara] that Jesus was put to death on the eve of the Passover ; the
Florence codex adds that it was also the eve of the Sabbath. This is

probably dependent on the Gospel story, and it is interesting to note

that it agrees more with the Gospel of John than with the Synoptics.'
18-38. Ti ecrni' dXTJGeia; What is the meaning of truth? For this
force of icTTLv as equivalent to the meaning of cf. 7-36 rts eortv ovto's 6

Xo'yos ov are, what did he mean hy what he said ? 16-1 7 ri eo-rt tovto o
\iyu ; artm ia-TLv aWrj-yopov/x^va, tJie meaning of which is
Gal. 4-24
allegorical. Eph.4-9 to Sk avip-rj tl iarLv ; and what is the meaning of

avijSr] ? ClemA. Protr.8-80 17 aocftia, rj Icttlv Ao-yos avrov, the wisdom

which means his word. Mk 9-10 cru^-iyTovi/Tcs tl Io-ti to Ik veKpSiv ava-

Mtl-23. 9-13. 12-7. 27-33. 27-62. Lk2-ll. 12-1. Gal. 1-7.
(TTijvaL.

3-16. Pilate did not follow what Jesus meant by aXn^deia and answers
petulantly What is this nonsense of yours about truth ? and then he
breaks off further examination as hopeless and goes out. In MGk, in
answering impatiently, one would use exactly the same expression
Tl 6a. TT-g (= tl idTi) dX^^eia ; So Vlakhos V. \eyiii '
ti 6a. elirrj aird ;

qu'est-ce que cela veut dire ? que signifie cela ?' See also note on 20-16.
Expositors, by taking la-TLv as equivalent to is, make the conversation
incomplete. The ancient readers were equally led astray, and think-
ing that something was missing, sought to complete the passage by
adding what has been preserved in lAct.Pilat.ch.3 Ae'yet airw 6
'Irjaovs 'AXrjdiux. i^ ovpavov. Ac'yei o ntXaros 'EttI y^s akri6eLa. ovk ta-Tiv;

Ae'yei 6 'irjaovs tZ UtXaTco'Opas 01 t^i' dA^^ciav Xeyovres irois KpivovTai otto

Tuiv ixovTU)V Trjv i^ovfTLav ctti y^s.

G
 42 ST JOHN XIX

19-6. i8e 6 oc9puiros. Pernot, Revue des Etudes grecques, no. 172,

p. 366 :
'
La phrase celfebre ne me semble pas avoir ete bien entendue.
Elle signifie simplement Void I'homme en question-. Linguistiquement
elle a pour equivalent moderne courant vd 6 avOpuyiroi comp.
le grec ;

19-4 "iSe aybi v/xlv avTov tiui. C'est un cas od I'article a garde quelque
chose du demonstratif, ce qui se presente assez frequemment en grec,
comme en franjais et ailleurs.'
19-15. Spoi'. Execute, destroy. So in Acts 21-36. Josep. Ant. 16-1-1,
both examples quoted by Bloomfield at Lk 23-18. Add Mart.Andr.l3
atpe Kav 77/xas Tovs ttoXXo. d.fx.aprqcravTa';. Act. Paul. Thec.32, and often.
Originally the expression perhaps was aipw i-qv Ke<f>aX-i^v ; so Act.
Andr. Matth.25 iav apm/xcv avrov rqv Ki<f>aXr)v, if we behead him.
19-17. PaoTd^uc eauTu toi' o-raupoi' e^YJXSei'. This sounds as though
the initiative in the carrying of the cross rested with Jesus. Nor is i^-

^\Oev appropriate to a criminal who was led out to execution; it should

be o.irrjxd'q- But there is a variant /iaa-rd^tov avrov, from which I con-
jecture jiaa-ra.t,ovro'i avTov tov (rravpov iirjX.dov, they went out, he (Jesus)
carrying the cross.
19-21. 01 &pxi-^pils rSiv'louZaiiav. Such a combination is not instanced
elsewhere ; nor could it be, since the ap)^upui were but those of the
Jews. Some documents, both Greek and versions, very properly omit
tS>v 'lovSaiwv. Only a few lines higher up the chief priests are called
simply app^tepets, and there is no special reason why at this place they
should need any qualification.
19-23. appa4>os, avadev u<|>ai'To$ 8i' oKou. To the instances quoted by
previous commentators regarding the meaning of 8t' oXov add Pans.

3-17-6 Si' oXov ovK tcTTiv elpyaa-p-ivov. 8-14-5 to, aydX/jLara Sia TravTos
f/TricTTavTO ipyd^icrdm KaOdirep icrOfJTa tfuc^atvovTes. Orig. Cels.2-69ei'
fj-Lix Kol Si liXtDv (read Si' oXov) rivtiip.ivri Trerpa.. Oxyr.Pap.1277 orpoj/ua-
Twv Xlvwv ttolkiXtwv Si' oXov. Narr.Joseph.5 rjv SictrravTos (o 'Irjo-ovi) ^oJs.
19-24. (i^ a-)(ia'oiii,ev airbv dWA \dx<o(i,i' Trepl auTou. The Synoptics
did not understand that the reason why no lots were cast for the
XiTujv was was a garment woven in one piece, which it would
that it

have been a pity to cut up so they made the casting of the lots to
;

apply to all the garments, although it would not matter if these were
divided. In this particular also John's account represents the original
XIX ST JOHN 43

legend. Meyer :
' The account of John is more exact and complete
than that of the Synoptics.'
19-26. 'IrjaoGs GUI', iZiiy ttjc )jiT)T^pa Kal rhv /ia9ii]Tr|i' irapeoTUTa oi*

^ydira, X^yei tj} (A^Tpl fucoi, ISoO 6 utds crou" elraXiyti T(ona6t)TTJ 'iSoi'q

(ii^Ttlp <rou. Kal dir' ^Keicir]S Tr]s i3pas EXa^Ei' outtji' 6 fJia9T|TT|$ els tA tSio. In
my note on 18-8 (see also Mk 14-49 and Mt 26-56) I explain that the
disciples deserted their master in the garden and scattered ; and after
the crucifixion they were so apprehensive that, as related in 20-19,
they kept their door fastened during their gatherings for fear of
molestation on the part of the mob. Peter too, when asked in the
yard of the chief priest -whether he was a disciple, had not the pluck
to own it. How then could any disciple have dared to stand devoutly
before the cross ? Therefore I distrust the genuineness of these verses.
But if they are genuine, the disciple meant cannot be John ; nothing
being said to the contrary, the Gospels must mean that he left the
garden along with his fellows. Perhaps Mark was meant, the reason
why his name has been suppressed being that explained in my note
on 18-15.
19-31. iVa |x{) ixeifT) eirl tou oraupou tA ciifiara iv t(o cajSj^dTU. This
very skilfully by unforced steps leads to the lance thrust, which by
the outflow of blood proved the continued vitality of the body. But
the skill stops at this outflow, for when the vitality was ascertained
one would have thought that the soldiers would have proceeded to the
breaking of the legs.
19-34. ej'i'^fl"' eu9usat(jia Kal u'Sup. Modern critics, with the excep-
tion of Hoffmann,Baumgarten, andGodet (see Meyer, p. 357, footnote),
have failed to grasp the significance of the outflow of blood; hence
countless physiological and other more or less fanciful explanations.
But Origen saw it, for in Cels.2-69 he says '
tov /xij rots Xonroii vcKpois
dAAa ^uiTiKo. crij/ieta koL iv rfj veKpoTtjTi Setfavra, to vScop koX to
o/xoiov,

at/ia.'The persistency of the blood was to show that no dissolution or

corruption had been suffered by the body, in accordance with the
prophecy of Ps. 15-10 ouSe Siucrets tov oaiov a-ov ISeiv hia<l>6opa.v. This in-
corruptibility of Christ's body became a frequent argument in early
Christianity. In his speech reported in Acts 1 3-35 Paul dwells upon it,
concluding that ov Sc o Ge.o's Tjycipcv ouk elSe Siatjidopdv. Peter also in
44 ST JOHN XIX

one of his speeches repeats that ovre r/ crapi avrov dSe Siarfidopaiv ; see
Acts 2-31.
The following are the points of the belief held by early Apologists.
(1) That Christ's body did not suffer corruption, as explained above.
(2) That the body was never polluted it was shrouded iv o-lvSovi.
;

Kadapa with an enormous quantity of the aromatic spices prescribed

by Jewish custom, and then deposited in a rock excavation newly
made, in which no corpse had previously been interred. No hand of
living man even touched the interior of this grave ; cf. Orig. Cels.2-69
eSct iv Kaiva! koX KadapZ yeve'cr^ai jjLvyjfjLeiw, iva r/ Ta(j>rj i)Q rrjv KaOapoTTjTa,

Slo, tov crvij.f3oX.iKOV 8r]X.ov/Ji.ivrjv iv tZ aTTOTiOeicrOai avrov to cruifxa iv

/xv7//At(i) Katvio v<^eo'TajTt, ovK CK AoyaSwv XiOtav OiKOoop.7)6ivTi Ka\ ttjv ei/ojcrtv

ov <^v(TiK-r)v ep^ovrt, aXX iv fi.ia. Koi Si oAtuv (read Si o\ov) rjvwp.4vr] TreVpa,
This anxiety to prove Christ's perfect freedom
XarofjirjTy koi Xa^ivrfj.

from physical pollution out of deference to Jewish susceptibilities goes

back to his entry into Jerusalem, when, we are told, the ass upon
which he sat had not been ridden before. (3) That Christ did not
linger in the grave but left it at once, the interval between interment
and his reappearance being occupied by his descensus ad inferos for
the purpose of conquering death and hell and preaching to the dead;
cf. 1 Pet. 3-19 Tois TTvev/xaai iKrjpv^^v. 4-6 viKpoli ^vrjyyeXia'drj. Accord-
ing to Peter's Gospel the preaching Avas completed before the dawn of
the sabbath.
uSup. Showing that the body had not dried up.
19-35. Kai 6 <i)paKi)9 fiefiapTupTjKe Kal d\r]6ii'^ i<rTW auTou fj piapju-
pia, KdKeifos oTSei/ on dXiiflTJ Xeyei i^a koI ujxeis iri<rreuai!)T. If what I
argue in my note on 19-26 is convincing, this verse cannot be genuine.
Were it genuine, it would here refer to John, but in that case we should
have had not the perfect, but the present /xapTvpei, as in 21-24 oStos
have no doubt that it is an
icTTiv 6 fj.a67jTr]'s 6 /xaprvpuiv irepl tovtwv. I

interpolation framed on the lines of 21-24 oSto's ianv 6 p.ad-qTy]'; b

[jiapTvpSiv Trepi tovtuiv koi ypai/'as ravra, koi oiSafjiev on dAi^6?js icrriv rj

jxaprvpia avrov. The interpolator probably replies to an antagonist who

had argued that the outflow of blood from a dead body was impossible.
KdKeifos otSei' on dXr)9T] Xe'yei. A pointless remark. Read o Ku'ptosfor
KOLKuvo^. And (he Lord knows that what the eye-witness says is true.
XIX XX ST JOHN 45

ii'a Kat ufAEis Tri(rru'ar)Te. This depends from /le/ta/Drvpr/Ke, the inter-
Tsning words being a parenthesis.
19-39. r\\Qe Kal NiKoSrjfios ^ip<i)v }t.iy)ia o-fiupcTis Kai dXoTjs (is

XiTpag iKarov. Bloomfield Immense quantities of spices were burnt

:
'

[at funerals], especially when great respect was meant to be shown to

the dead. So Jos. Ant. 15-3-4 notices the great quantity of ^v/ita/iara
at the funeral of Aristobulus. And so, speaking of Herod's funeral
(Ant.17-10), he says that there were fifty dpwfjiaTocfiopoL.' Add Plut.
Sull.38 Aeyerat 8e ToaovTOV Tr\rj6o's dpui/xaTtov elcreveyKetv avrS, wore,
aviv Tu)V iv <f>opi^/j.acn SeVa kol Staxoo'tois 8iaKo/jLL^o/j.ivuiv, irXaaOrivai u,iv
iSw\ov eu/iye^S avTOV ^vXXa, Tr\a<r6^vai, Se koL pa/SSovyov ck re A.i-

PavuiTOv TToX.VTeXov'; Koi Kivap-iofiov. 2 Mac. 4-49 to, Trpos ttjv KtjSuav
avTiiiv pLeyaXoTrpevZi ly^oprfy-qcrav. 2 Paral. 16-14 i6aij/av avrbv /cat e/cot-

/iicrav avTOV ctti tijs KXCvrj'S, kol iirKrja-av dpio/iariov koI yivq p.vpcuv /xv-

p(ij/u>v Koi liroirjcrav avrZ iK<j>opav p.eyoX'qv 0)S crcjioSpa. As is the case
to-day with the quantity of flowers offered, so in those times the
greater the weight of spices the more important the dead friend
would appear in the eyes of the public that is why such an enormous
;

weight as 100 litres is mentioned.

20-2. I'pxeTai irpos J-ifiava Flexpoi' koI irpos toi' aWo;' fiaGrjTTjK ov
(()i\ei Here also I suspect that the original reading was
6 'lr]aous.

irpos Tov viov p.a6rjTr]v (see my note on 18-15), and that by the sub-

stitution of Tov SXkov for Tov veov and the addition of ov l<jiiKei 6 'Irjcrovs,
taken from 21-7, the passage was altered so that it might fit John.
The remark in t. 8 that eventually the disciples in question saw
and believed presupposes a previous disbelief ; and such a disbelief
cannot possibly be attributed to John. In v. 5 it is related that
the disciple looked into the grave and saw the shroud but did not
enter, and one does not understand why this detail ; but the reason
for its addition is clear if the disciple was Mark and if at some time
his versionwas that he did see the body in the grave, a statement
which the other disciples sought to refute by maintaining that Mark,
distinguishing but imperfectly from outside, was deceived and took
the shroud for the body. The difficulty attached to disbelief on the
part of John must have been felt by others, for at v. 8 three minus-
cules and twice Eusebius (see Tischendorf) give elSov koI iTrurTevcrav
 5

46 ST JOHN XX xxi

instead of T8 koL iTrio-Teva-e. At v. 9 we hfiYB ouSe ttio yap ySetcrav ttjv

ypa<f>rjv ; who were the persons represented by the plural ? They

could not be the eleven. But H and old Latins read the singular,
most probably meaning Mark.
ouK oi8a/jii'. Throughout this chapter it is Magdalen alone who
speaks and acts. So oi'Sa/Acv must stand for oTSa. In my note on
Rom. 1-5 I have commenfed '
iXa/So/xev = iXa/iov. So Gal. 1-8 evrjyye-

\Tja-dfjLe6a. 2Pet.l-l rifuv {= i/jioi) etc. In post-classical times the

employment of the plural in the lirst person instead of the singular
spread extensively, so that it occurs in demotic private letters. Cf.

Oxyr.Pap.1479 $tXojU,oi;cra) ei'pijKa/iei/. 14SI rjfuv. 1491 Ty/xiui'. For the

plural, though a singular precedes, and vice versa, cf. Lk 23-14 and 1

evpovTj/jiai etc. Probably also Eph.3-13 rats BX-tij/icri /lov virip rjp.S>v

(Mss VjU.uii').' AddGal.4-14T0i'Tri/Da(r/i6v rjixSiv (Mss vijlC>v)Iv rrj crapKi/jiov.

20-7. diiiipil TCI oflocia Kei)i.va, Kal to crouSdpLOi', o ?\v em Trjs Ke<|>oXTis

auTou, ou (XEToi Tuv oOoviiav Ki^voi' dWci X"P^5 efTCTuXiyjjiei'oi' eis ti"!

T0T70I'. There must have been some reason for giving this detail of the
napkin of the head not lying together with the shroud, but apart in
a place by itself and rolled up but not knowing all the objections
;

raised at the time, we shall probably never guess that reason.

20-9. ou8^ TTii) ycip rjSeio'ai' TTjc Ypa(j)iii'. Well translated by /or as j/et

they knew not the Scripture, for ovSeirui = a simple ov ttw, as ovShv often
= oi ; cf. Lk 23-40. Acts 4-21, etc. Jaunaris 1798 and 1799 :
'
We
very often find ovSiv as mere equivalent of oil. OiSkv was reduced by
aphaeresis to Siv, a form ever since universally current in MGk.'
This evolution of ov into ovSkv or /x^ into p.rjSlv goes back to classical
times ; cf.Plat. Soph. 254c \6yov cVSecis p.rjSiv yiyvwpLeda. For ouSe iria or
p.rjSe TTU) = ov TTM or p,-^ ttco cf. Luc.lVH.8 ocrov oiSi ttoi Kapirofftop-^areiv

Cju.eA.A.ov. Aelian.VH. 12-57 Trpoo-ij/iatVovresTas ocrov oiScTTCi) Tu;^as. Oxyr.

Pap. Nos. 1424 and 1527, etc.

20-16. KupiE. Qu. KfjTrovpi.

The same as TraiScs, lads, boys, mates. Sophocles

21-5. TraiSia.
registers one example in this sense from the tenth century. So in
MGk iratSia and in French enfants. The diminutive addition very
early after the classical period became a mere suffix without any
diminutive force ; Coraes has treated of this phenomenon in his Plu-
XXI ST JOHN 47

tarch. See my note on 21-8 and cf. Acts 5-6. The English translation
children is incorrect,

(11^ Ti irpocrcjxxytoi'
ex^^e Here also the A.V. rendering have ye any
;

meat is and the R.V. have ye aught to eat has made things
incorrect,
worse. IIpo(r<j>a.yLov is a synonym of oi/^ov, anything eaten with bread
to give it flavour and relish, as Liddell and Scott interpret Sfov.
Hesychius Sfov, Trpoa-cfxiyiov.' That is why Clemens Alex, reproduces
'

this sentence as fxrj ti 6\j/ov ^x^Te. And here, Trpocrcj>dyiov means oi/foi/ in

its signification of fish, of which Sophocles cites several instances.

Liddell and Scott quote from Plut.2-667 f ttoXXSiv ovtwv 6ij/tov iKVivi-
KTjKev 6 Infill? fiovoi T] jxaXuTTa ye o\^ov KaXiidOu. And oi/'oi' eventually
became [6]i/'(pt[ov] (see Sophocles), which now is the only term tor fish
in use. That Trpocrcjxiymv here means/sA is clear from Jesus telling the
disciples that by casting the net again they would find Trpo<j-<j>d.yiov.

21-7. rierpos, aKouaas on 6 Kupios eori, ej3a\ei' eauTOf eis tt\v fldtXao--

aav, Ol Se aXXoi |xa9i]Tal tcu irXoiapiu ^Xdof (ou yap T\<ra,v ^aKpdi' diro rrjs

yfis dXX' (lis dirS Tn\yi>v SiaKocTLO))') o-upocTEs to Siktuoi' tSiv iy^iav. The
reason given for the other disciples returning in the boat, namely
that was lying but at a short distance from the shore, is surely
it

meaningless. In what other way could they have returned whether

the distance was short or long ? But the reason is rational if it was
meant to explain how Peter was able to swim to the shore he could ;

do so because of the short distance. The parenthesis therefore should

be removed to after sySaXev eavrov eis Trjv 6dKacrcrav, and that is its
place in the Syr. Sinaiticus. Baljon, however, v. Sodeu and Souter have
ignored this variation.
rie'Tpos Toi' iirevZuTqi' SiE^cuaaro (rji' y^p Y''F''s) "ai e^uXei' EauToi/ eEs

TTH' OdXao'o'ai'. Overcoats are not put on when people are about to
swim ; they are taken off. Instead therefore of the words Su^uicraro {^v
yap yvfivb's) was merely d7rc^c6o-aTo, took off. When
the genuine reading
this was misread comment on the margin explaining
as Sie^uxraro, a
the reason why Peter put on his coat was tranferred by another
commentator into the text.

E^aXEf EttUToi' Eis TT|i' BoKaaaav. Peter, in his impatience to join

Jesus, would not wait a minute until the boat was made ready
to return, but preferred to swim out at once.
48 ST JOHN XXI

21-8. Tw irXompiw. The same as t<3 ttAoiw. For the diminutive

suffix see my note on 21-5.
21-9. pXe'lroucrii' di'SpaKidi' Kei.|JieVii]i' Kal qil/apioc iiTiKeiy.evov Kal apTOf.
The old Latin versions found KaiofjLevrjv, carbones incensos, and not
Kei/xivTjv, and so did the Syr. Sinaiticus and there ought to be no ;

question that this reading, when considered on its own merits and
apart from any preconceived notions as to the relative value of
documents, is much preferable. Baljon, however, and Souter neglect
KaLOfji.ivr]v. Further, it seems to me that koL oij/dpLov eTTLKei/jLevov must be
an intrusion, for, in accordance with v. 10 ivlyKare airo rmv o^apimv
wv cTTHxcraTe vvv, the fish was yet to come from the catch in the net
dragged out by Peter. The intrusion was probably made with an ob-
ject, that of reconciling this text with ofdpLov of v. 13 (see my note on

that verse), which was misunderstood to mean one fish. But in placing
his words where he did, the interpolator did not perceive that he made
the text read as though the bread also was lying upon the fire.
Lastly, Syr. Sinaiticus adds KcCfievov to aprov, the addition makes the
meaning clearer, but is not indispensable.
21-11. 'Ai/ejSr] oiji' Fijian flcTpos Kal eiXKUcre to Siktuoi' els ttji' ytji'. A
variant iviftr] is preferable to ave/Srj, if we supply ek Trjv OdXaa-crav. It

would state that Peter waded

and dragged the net out, as fisher-
in
men do. On the other hand,means either he landed or he went
dvijir)

aboard. The former interpretation would make Peter reach the shore
after the arrival of the boat, and not before as was his intention the ;

latter would make him take unnecessary extra trouble by dragging

the net out into the boat and thence upon the shore. The same
variation in 6-17. 6-24. Mt 14-32. 15-39.
21-12. ouSels 8e EToXfia tS>v (ji.a0if)Ti>)i' i^iT^aai auToi' ah Tt9 i, elSores

oTi 6 Kupios eoTii'. Words devoid of all sense where they stand ; the
explanations so far given are purely imaginative. But they would fit

if the text was ovk tiSdrts instead of ctSdres (for the loss of the nega-
tive see my note on 5-46) and they followed v. 6 in that form. Thus,
when the disciples saw so much fish caught where there was none be-
fore, they would wonder as to who it was that could perform such
a miracle, in the same way as when Jesus calmed the waters (Mt
8-27) ; but, being awed by the miracle, they were loath to put a dis-
XXI ST JOHN 49

respectful question ; for rts cl <tv, as is evident from MGk, is another

way of saying thou art nobody. It was John only who recognized the
Lord.
21-13. t6 6'^dpiov. Not one fish, but fish collectively, as in MGk and
I presume in all languages. Cf. Nehem.13-16 <l)epovT's IxOvv (similarly
<TTa<f>v\rjv in V. 15) Kal Tracrav irpacriv TTtoXovvre^. Ezech.47-9 ea-rai exet

IxOvi iroXvs. Num. 11-22 irav to oi/fos (= oij/dpiov, see my note on 21-
9) T^s daKda-trrj'i.

21-19. iroi'u 6av&r<a hoidirei rbv Oeof. An old Latin variant eum
(meant probably for iavrov) instead of tov 6eov may represent the
original reading. If so, So^acrtt eavrbv would be the same as So^aa-Orj-
a-cTai, he will die ; see my notes on 12-16 ore iSoiaa-Or) 6 'iTyo-oiJs and 1 7-

19 ayid^ta iixavrov. But lPet.4-16 Boia^ero) tov 6eov iv T<a di/o/iart Tovno,

to which commentators refer as a parallel, is different it means let ;

him render thanks God for being a Christian. Phil.1-20 /j-eyaXwOi^-

to

(rerai XpioToi iv tw awpaTi p-ov would be an imitation of our passage

after cavrov became tov Oeov.
21-20. irioTpa<j)eis 6 R^rpos pX^irei toi' p,a6r)Tr|i' w TJyciTro 6 'Irjaous
dKo\ou6ouin-a. When Jesus bade Peter follow him, he meant that Peter
was to die as he himself had died. If now John was also following,
it would mean that he was also to die. But thus the point of this

episode is ruined, for, as the context shows, an idea prevailed, born

of his old age, that John would live on until the revelation. There-
fore aKo\ov6ovvTa is not right. It is another case of the loss of the
negative (see my note on 5-46), ovk having dropped out before dK[oXoi;-
floJrra].^ must have felt the unsuitability
After this loss some students
X and an old Latin Ms do not record it of this
of oKoAoufloijvTa, for ;

variation Baljon takes no notice.

' I now see in v. Manen's Conjecturaal Kritiek that in this conjecture

I have been anticipated by Venema.
 THE APOCALYPSE
1-5. irpuTOTOKos Tui' fCKpuf. This should be TrpuToroKOS Ik tZv vKpS)V,

as it stands in Col. 1-18, for Jesus was not the firstborn of the dead,
but the first to emerge from the dead at the rebirth. Cf. also Acts 26-
23 irpiuTos ef dvacTTao-eajs viKpZv.

1-9. iv TT 6\i<|>Ei Kttl Pao-iXeia Kal unonocfj. The reading ^ao-iXeta,

placed as it is between the words 6\iij/u and vTrofwvfj, should express,

as they do, some kind of suffering, whereas it expresses the contrary.
The right reading is supplied in 2-9 Trjv OXl^iv kol Trjv KTiox^Cav koI
T17;' /3\aa-<j>-rjf/.iav, in accordance with which we should rend ^\acr<f>rj/jLia..
Cf. also Eph.4-31 TriKpla koL ^tj/aos kol opyrj Kal Kpavyrj Koi pXacr(j>rj /xia.

It means a curse in the sense of woe.

iv '1t](7ou. By the help of Jesus.
1-15. KajiiVw irirupu(i.^i'T)s. A genitival solecism. Cf. Rom. 4-17 6ea>

Tov ^(ooTTOiovvTOi. 2MaC.l-2 Trpos 'A^paoLfj, Kal Icraa/c Kal laKtofi twv
SowXo)!'. 1 Act.Pil. 16-5 Ka6e^6p.evov SiSacKOVTOs. Mart.Petr. oh. 3 KaTaireaov-
TOS avTov ckXv^cIs CTvcTTfj. Act.Phil. 139 KaTecj>vyov yiviacrKOVTo?. Act.
loan.lO TOV /j.dyov <us p-rj crKcvdcravTO';. Gen.24-30 avOpoyirov 1(JT7)k6to^.
Just. 34 Ic <f>6tyy6p.fvov avTous <i)S yi.vop.ivwv.

2-3. ^pdoraaas. The version thou didst hear is not accurate ; the
exact rendering is thou didst keep firm, thou didst not give in ; so in
MGk, cf.VlAkhosv.ySao-Tcu'ySaoTa! l<f>p.'],
courage ! ^aara KaXdl tenez
'
ferme ! tenez bon !

Kal ofi KSKOTTtaKas. The English version and hast not grown weary
and Arethas's Kal ovk dimjyopcvcras are both due to a happy surmise as
to what the context requires. But the text means a?id thou hast not
laboured. In order to render the correct sense in accordance with the
English version we must correct Kal ovk eKKCKOTrtaKas. I have not met
with cKKOTTta^eiv elsewhere, but lKKa.p.vuv {to grow weary), of which it
is a synonym, is pretty frequent. Besides Sophocles registers djro-
K07roo)(= cKKOTToo)) from Dionysios of Alexandria. A similar error in
 ,

II in THE APOCALYPSE 51

Hebr.12-3 tva yu.-^ Kafi-qTe Tais ij/vx"-^^ i/i.S>v cKXuoju.ci'ot, wbere we must
read iKKa.ij.riTe, the sense being that you may not grow weary of your
souls becoming exhausted (by suffering). Cf. Nicol.Damas. (Coraes's
edition, p. 232) /xaa-Tivwr napa-mvSrjv iieKafji.,he grew weary of searching
for Parsondes. In Lk 18-1 also the right word probably is iKKaKuv
and not iyKaKcLv. Cf. also diroKiifjiveiv.
2-22. |3ci\X(d aurfji' els KKivr^y koI tous jAoixEuocTas fier' auTrjs eis B\l<^iv.
It is clear from the context that KXivrjv conceals a kind of punishment,
and from the Armenian yersion Ka/xLvov, recorded by Tischendorf
combined with KXivrjv, I had guessed that the original reading was
KXi/Savov, and I have since seen in Souter that this is the word that

the Armenians give, both the Old and the Vulgate. Jezebel was to be
cast into an oven as worthless sticks unfit for any other purpose than
for fuel to heat an oven with, Cf. Mt 6-30 tov xopTovTov aypov a-rjixepov

ovTtt KoX avptov ell KXifiavov ^aWo/xevov.

2-24. Tct Pa6ia tou Zarai/a, us X^youo-ii'. A sneer at the Gnostics who
claimed that iyvmaav to. fiaOea. The author retorts to them that their
recondite (as they call it) wisdom is that derived by them from Satan.
2-27. TToi.fji.ai'ei auTOUS if pdjSSbi aiSirjpa, is ra o-keuit) tcI KEpapiKci crui'Tpi-

Pexat. The passage is not sound, nor is it remedied by adopting the

variant crvvrpLPrjcrerai, as Wordsworth and other scholars have done.
The future would fit if it were in the plural in accordance with awTovs.
I think originally the text ran koI a-vvrptij/u auTovs ws to. crKevrj ra Kepa-
p-iKo. a-vi'Tpi/SeTai, and {the victor) shall shatter them as earthen pots are
shattered. My addition harmonizes the sentence with its prototype in
Ps.2-9 iroip.avei's aurovs ev pdj3S<a cnSr/pa, (is crxeCos Kepafifois (rvvTpL\j/ei'S

avTOVi. Cf. also Jer. 19-11 ovT<a<s crvvrpti/'O) tov Xaov tovtov Ka^ujs crvvrpi,-

/Jerai ayyos 6(rrpa,KLVov. Judg.14-6 a-wirpa^ev airov (ucret awTpuj/eL

joi<^ov alywv,
3-9. i8ou, StSu sK Tijs ffui-aYUYfls. No sense. In the preceding verse
there an allusion to a persecution of the Philadelphian Church,
is

and by the above words the Son of Man promises to humble the perse-
cuting Jews before that Church, avenging her on their synagogue.
Thus I think the above sentence originally read 'iSov, exStKa ere k
T^s crvvayoyyrji, Behold, I avenge thee on the synagogue. For the syntax,
which apparently is a Latinism vindico te ah synagoga, cf. 6-10 exSi-
 1

52 THE APOCALYPSE iii-vi

Kts TO at/j^a Tj/jLiov e/c twv KaroLKOWTiov. 1 9-2 efeSi/oyo-e to aijua ck x"P*
aUT^S. Lkl8-3 iKSUrjO-OV fUe OLTTO TOV SlVTlSCkOV flOV. Deut.18-19 lK?ILKT](J<li

eg avTou.
3-17. ou8i'(= ov, see my note on Jn 20-9) xpeiii' Ix"- Exactlywhat
is preserved in MGk in the phrase Sev Ix*" ""^ycT?, which in a feeling
of independence or contempt is quite currently employed, meaning
1 care not, I am indifferent whatever people may do to, or say or think
of, me. This phrase recurs in 1 Cor.7-37 /x,^ cxmi/ di/dy/o;i/, caring no-
thing, fearing nothing. 1 Thes.4-12 "va/ir/Sevos XP"'"' 'X'7"- Sir.11-23
fir] eLTrys tl<; tcrTi /xov XP^'aJ -A- similar phrase is Mt 22-16 ov fjiiXei uoi
n-epi ovStrds. lPet.3-6 fxJi] (j)oPovjxvai [jL-qSi/jLLav TTTorjcriv. Lucian. Paras.
52 ovSiv auTM /jLiXov S>v ol avOpdiiroi oiovrai irept avroC. Jn 2-25 ov )(peLav
iiXe Lva Tts ixapTVfyri<rQ.
3-19. ^riXcue oiji' Kal /xeTardrjo-oi'. Evidently ^T^Xeue is unsound, for it

means he jealous, which is quite unsuitable, and not he zealous which

might perhaps do the variant t,riXw(rov would give this meaning, but
;

it looks like a correction of ^i^Xeue by some scribe who felt its unfit-

ness. A better reading is recorded by Primasius (6th century), i. e.

crede, irLo-Teve. But I think that the right word is vija-Teve, for some
sort of self-infliction as a sign of repentance for past sins, as is en-
joined by the Spirit, seems best to fit Repentance would
the context.
of course be accompanied by fervent prayers, and it was customary to
fast whilst such prayers lasted. For instance, 2 Kings 12-16 i^rjrrja-e
(= prayed) AawtS tov 6e6v Trepl tov iratSapibv Koi ivqo-Tcva-e. 2 Esdr.8-2
/caA.e(ra vrjCTeiav tov TaTrei,v<j>6rjvai ivdnriov tov deov rjfjLUiV ^rjT^craL ( ^pray)
Trap avTOv oSov ivd^iav. Cf. also Nehem, 1-4 iTrivdrjo-a -q/^epas Kal rjfiyjv

vrja-Tivtav Kal !Tpo(Tf.V)(6p.evo^. Joel 2 - 1 2 iTria-Tpd<j>r]Te (

= /xeTavoj/craTc) Trpds
fjie )/ vijo-Teta. 1 Kings 7-(j ivyo'Teva-av Kal tLTrav fjp.apTrjKafi.a'. Sir.31-31
vquTivuiV iiTLTZv d.fjLapTiU)V, Just.lApol.61 (V)(ecr6ai te /cat airelv vrjo'Tev-

ovTas Trapa tov Oeov tZv ^fj.apTr]iJ.iv<j)v a.<f>a-LV. So Esther, when she wishes
her people to pray for success in her venture, bids them fast.
5-4. ouSels a^ios Paspati points out that
eupe'Sr) droi^ai rh pi^Xioy.

aftos here does not signify worthy, as the English version translates,
but tKavds, ahle, capable. It is so currently employed in MGk. Vlakhos
V. a^ios '
capable ; propre a ; bon a.'

6-6. X^''^i 'iTou STji/apiou KOI Tpeis x^'"'''^S KpiGui/ STjcapiou, Kal to
 ;

VI VII THE APOCALYPSE 53

KOI t6v olvov fjifj d8iKi^aT]s. Bloomiield ' the price subjoined (which
IXaioi'

has been proved to be enormous, nearly twenty times the usual one)
is meant to intimate the excessive scarcity and dearness of the arti-
cles.'Some such allusion ought also to be expressed to the oil and wine,
which dSt(o;o7/s does not express. The original reading, it seems to me,
was ov f^rj SoKi/iaereis, thou wilt not taste, thou wilt not so much as get
a taste of, so expensive will oil and wine become. I have not traced
any passages where SoKi/xdluv is equivalent to to taste, but in MGk
SoKi/na^u) is a specific term for this sense. VMkhos '
8oKi/ia^<o, gouter
SoKifma-are a-n-' avTo to yAvKucr/ta, goutez de ce pdte'.' But even if we
took SoKt/ia^Eti/ in its more usual significatioQ of to sample, ii will suit
the context quite well. A similar allusion to dearness in a time of
scarcity we have in 4 Kings 6-26 iyevrjOr/ /cee^aXij ovov TnvrrJKovTa dp-
yvpiov Koi rirapTOV rov Ka/Sov Konrpov ireprT/Daiv Trcvre dpyvpiov.
6-17. 1^ i^|J^^pa 'q fitydXi] Tfjg ipyris aurSiv. The version the great day
of their wrath is too literal and obscure ; in fact, I am not sure that it

is not due to a misunderstanding of the sense. The meaning is the

great day of their curse (passively) or woe, the day when the curse (of
God) will fall upon them. Cf. Lk 21-23 {crrai yap opyrj t<3 Aau tovtw.

In MGk it is a current curse to say va o-e Trdpri r; opyr], the original

form of which must have been va o-e Trdpy fj opyr] rovOtov. V14khos v.

opyrj 'vol tov irdpr] fj opyi^l que le didble Vernporte ! ' The sentence
therefore is the same as f/ rjp.ipa. 17 //.cydXi; toC 6pyia-6rjvai avrovi, the
verb being passive ; see my note on 11-18.
7-10. (jJOiciKcs eV Tttis x^po'i'' auTui' Kai Kpdjouai (JxiJi/fi p.eydXr] Xcyoi'Tes
"H (TUTTipia to! deu. A reminiscence of Jn 12-13 tXa/Sov to, /Sdi'a tZv <j>ol-

vUmv i^\6ov ets viravTrjo-LV airoi Kal expavya^ov 'Qcravva.. The words
/cat

cruiTTjpLa T<u 6t(o means the blessing to God, or God be blessed. For (T<iyrqpl.a.

represents salaam, the usual Oriental salutation or blessing, which I

was told literally signifies salvation, o-wTrjpia. Cf.Ps. 68-30 ^ utoT-qpCa.
TOV Trpoa-wTTOv (TOV avTeXd^eTO fiLov, thy blessing has succoured me. IParal.
16-23 a(TaTTut Kvpt<o, dvayyeikan aunrjpia.v avTov, voice blessings to him.
2 Kings 19-2 cyeVtro 17 cruiTTjpia is tteV^os, the blessing or happiness
turned to mourning. This blessing or salaam is more frequently ex-
pressed by tlprfvy]. Cf. Hebr.7-3 /Baa-iXev^ SaX^/i { SaXaa/x), ecrri

/Jao-tXttis flprjvri<i, etc.

54 THE APOCALYPSE x-xiv

10-7. xP'Ji'OS ouK^Tt (7Tai, AXXa iv rais ^jui^pai9 Trjs <^uvr]s Tou c|38ofiOU
&yyi\ou oral' )i^X\r| o-aXiriJeii' Kal to fiuaTi^pioi'.
irekicrBii) The variants
lo-Tt for to-rat and TeXecrOrj for heXia-d-q are perfectly in keeping -with
the context. The angel swore that it is not yet time (for the end of the
world), but (that it will be brought about) in the days when the
seventh angel will sound his trumpet and the divine mystery will be
accomplished. The readings co-rai and ireXia-Orj have nothing to re-
commend them except the preconceived notions as to the absolute
authority of certain Mss. Such notions have been disastrous to the
establishment of a rational text.
11-18. raeBy-i] ij)pylaQi]iTav=:Ta eOv-r] KaT\T^<j>6rja-av vtto rrj'S opyrj'S (toC
6eov), the nations were overtaken hij (^God's) curse, were punished. The
version tJie nations were wroth misses the sense altogether and is due
to not realizing the passive force of (Lpytcrdrjcrav. So Ijxvria-O-q passively
in 16-19. At Hyper.Epit.35 Kenyon observes Birjyrja-dai fortasse pas- '

siveusurpatum ut apud Platonem n-epn^yrjcrOai.' In my note upon

Rom. 3-9 I liave produced several examples of passives formed from
deponents. For the sense of 6pyy) see my note on 6-17.
12-11. 8icl TO The same as 8ia tov olfx.a.TO's- Cf.13-14 8ia to.
at(ji.a.

a~t)p.ila = 8ia ruii/ crrjiiuuiv, Kom. 15-15 iirava/ju/ji,VTQ(TKwv 8ta ttjv X-P'-^'
whereas 12-3 Xcyw Starts x^P'tos- Jannaris 1534 When with the :
'

opening of the transitional period [a. d. 300-600] the construction of

all prepositions became uniform by substituting the accusative for the

other oblique cases, the various meanings of 8m with genitive were

naturally transferred to its accusatival construction.' The Revisers
have spoilt the meaning by substituting because of the Mood for the
A. V. by the blood, being too much influenced by Attic usage. A nota-
ble example of the adverse influence of Attic upon the understanding
of a N.T. text is Lk 6-35 yu.ijSti' aTrcA-jrt^ovTcs, which the A.V. correctly
renders hoping for nothing again (better in return) in accordance with
the context, but which the Revisers ruined by substituting never de-
spairing in spite of v. 34 iav Bavec^rjre Trap' Ssv iX.Tri^iTe XaySeii/.

14-2. eV Tais Ki6(ipais. The same as a simple dative ; see my note on

Jn 11-10.
14-6. euaYY^Xioc cdtoviov.The English versions translate an ever-
lasting or eternal gospel. The real sense is a gospel fixed from times
xrv-xvii THE APOCALYPSE 55

immemorial. So according toEph.3-11 the Church was formed Kara.

Trpoaecriv tZv alwviai' =
kuto. aiiaviov Trpodea-iv, according to a purpose
fixed from times immemorial.
14-8. oivou Tou 6u|uiou. The same as OvfiwSov^ otvov, hot-tempered

wine, a well-known periphrasis; of. Col. 1-1 3 vlov rrjs dyaffij? = dya-
TrrjTOV vlov. Hebr.1-3 pn^jxari rrj^ Sumynco)? ^ pT^/j.aTi Svvaroi, etc. For
dvfjLo? as applied to wine cf. Deut.32-33 6v/ios Spa/coVrtoi' 6 oTvos uvtZv
Koi OvfjiOi acnrittov dv/jXTOS. Hos.Z-S^pfai/TO ol apy^ovre^ 6v/j,ov(r6aL i^ otvov.
Ik tou oii/ou TOU 9u(Jiou ttjs TTopcEias auTrjs. From the hot-tempered or
passionate wine of her fornication, from her passionate lewdness.
14-13. fal, \iy6i to Trccujjia, Iva di'airai^o'oi'Tai k tui' Kiiroii' auTUf.
Yea, says the spirit, let them The subjunctive
rest from their labours.

with Iva as equivalent to an imperative is a well-known idiom, of

which I have cited several instances at Rom. 16-2, tracing it back to
classical times by referring to Plato, Gorg.454b iva fir) Oav/id^rii dW
= aXXa p.r] OavfjLa^e. The voice had said that those dying now are
fiaKOiptoi, and the spirit answers Yea, they are /xaKapioi, let them now

rest and enjoy their /iaKaptoVijs.

dKoXouOel p.T auTfcii'. The same as a.KoX.ovOel avrols. For in Hellen-
istic times /iTa with the genitive often replaced the dative. Cf. Mk 6-
50 i\aXri<Te (ler avTuiv. Lk 10-36 Trotiycras to A.oS/U.T auToC. Acts 9-39

ocra ETToiet fJLer avriov. Tob.12-6 i7roir]cre ix^O' v/jLtav. 2Esdr.6-8 /x-ij Trori

Tt irojo-i;T /tTa ruiv TrpecrfivTipuiv (= Tots irpia'^vripoi'S, Kara tu>v irpe-

(TJSvTepav), etc. See also Jannaris 1607, 3. 'AKo\ov6eiv fiera is used in

a different sense, see Cobet, Var. Lee. page 22. The A.V. correctly
follow them,, spoilt by the Revisers into follow with them.
17-5. ocoiia YYpafii(i.^i'oi' \ui<ni\piov BaPuXui' i^ fiey^^'H- ^^ satisfactory
explanation of p.va-Trjpiov has so far been forthcoming. As suggested
in my note on Rom.2-29, it may be a play upon /iuo-os or [wa-apo^.

Cf. Euseb. EH. 4-7 /Auo-Taywyias fiaWov /Aucrapoxoiias. Or perhaps

7j Kol

it is a corruption o{ p-va-apov, due to

the proximity of /xi^o-t^/dioi/ in v. 7.

17-16. TipTiu.uu.ei'ni' TToirjo-ouaii' auTiQc. 'They will work havoc upon her,
as indicated by the MGk prjp.d^w, I work havoc upon. VUkhos ' prip.d^(o,
b too-ovto's ttXoCtos, so much opu-
devaster'. Similarly 18-16 rjpr]fi.<!>9ri

lence has suffered havoc. In an analogous sense p^/xo)o-is in Dan.(LXX)

11-31 and Lk 21-20.
56 THE APOCALYPSE xviii-xxi

18-5. eKoXXiiBrjo-ai' aujrjs ai dfiapriai axpi Tou oupai'ou. Probably

a reminiscence of 2 Esdr.9-6 ai irXrj/A/i^Aeiat yfiZv if/.yaXvv6r]<Tav lios eis
Tov ovpavov. If so, is iKoXXrjdyja-av sound, Or has it taken the place of
another verb denoting e/xeyaXw^i^o-ai/? If sound, it must have been used
as an equivalent of ^yyia-av. Cf. Jer.28-9 ^yytKcv cis ovpavov to Kpi/xa
avTrji. Dan (LXX) 4-5 rj KOpvcj^rj avTov ^yyiaev eus tov ovpavov. But I
have not encountered another example of such a usage except perhaps
Zach.14-5 lyKoW-qOrjo-erai. (j>apoyi opetav ews 'latroS.

21-17. ijiiTpi]<Te to Teixos auTTJs eKaToi' Teao-apciKOi'Ta Teo'o-dpui' irt)x<<ii'.

As the dimensions and height were already given

of length, vs^idth,
in the foregoing, the measurement of 144 cubits must refer to another
particular, and there is none left unspecified except that of thickness,
a particular no less essential than those of length, width, and height.
Substitute therefore iraxp^ for TeTxo^.
(i^Tpor dfOpii-TTou, CTTti' dyy^Xou. The scribc, who found Tei^os in his
text and applied it must have felt be-
to the perimeter of the wall,
wildered by the excessively meagre measurement of 144 cubits as
compared with the other dimensions. He got out of his difficulty by
assuming that the measure of a man really meant the measure of an
angel, and as such an immense measure.
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR
A FEW NOTES ON THE GOSPELS ACCORD-
ING TO ST. MARK AND ST. MATTHEW.
Based chiefly on Modern Greek. 5s. net,

TO THE ROMANS. A Commentary. ids. 6d.

THE TWENTY- SECOND BOOK OF THE

ILIAD. With critical notes. 5s.net.

AEKA APBANITH MAAAIAPOT KOT^IA

KAPTAIA. Versions in Modern Greek (Euripides,
Cyclops; Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice; Thuoy-
dides, Book I ;
passages from Kant, Brugmftnn,
Hans Andersen, &c.). 10s. 6d. net.

THE ILIAD TRANSLATED INTO MODERN

GREEK. 10s. 6d.

THE GOSPELS TRANSLATED INTO MODERN

GREEK. 5s.