LIBRARY
OF THE
University of California.
Class
uc'.iERKl
A FEW NOTES ON THE
GOSPELS ACCORDING .
TO ST. MARK AND. . .
ST. MATTHEW
BASED CHIEFLY ON
MODERN GREEK . .
BY
ALEX. PALLIS
W
LIVERPOOL
THE LIVERPOOL BOOKSELLERS' CO. LTD.
1903
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/fewnotesongospelOOpallrich
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
LIVERPOOL
THE LIVERPOOL BOOKSELLERS' CO. LTD;
1903
All Jiights Reserved
GENgAL
'll'-=
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, tia^ ttotc rrjv ^xqv t^fi^av
* H NEA AIA9HEH /car A rb BariKavb x^P^po-fpo /xeTa(/>pa<rfUv7j aTcb rbv
*A.\i^. JldWri (Liverpool : The Liverpool Booksellers' Co. Ltd.).
197982
VI PREFACE
at/)€ts, a phrase which survives in the modern ws ttotc 6a fjJas
)8ya^€is TTiv if/vxTji how long will you plague us ? (See Vlachos, v.
iPyd^io, " fiov tPyaXi tyjv ij/vxriv [</>p.]j il iTi'a martyris^ ; assommd ;
harcel^.") 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 in
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
*'Ea66>i' dxpiSas Kal }UKi aypiOK.
Many, probably, will agree with the view expressed in the
Encyclopadia 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 Bavow,
an ascetic closely resembling the Baptist, is described by
Josephus (F/V. 2) as Tpo<f>r]v T7]v avTo/xaros tfivofxivr^v Trpo(r<f>€-
p6fjL€vos. Again, Judas Maccabaeus, having retired into the
desert, iv rots opea-i SU^rj crvv tois fier avTOv kol ttjv xoprwSrj
rpo<f>riv a-iTovfievoL SiereXow (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 fields 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 fields and had my meat of the herbs. Also
Dan. iv. 22, 30, koX yoprov ws )Soi;s ^o-^tc The writer in the
EncycL BibL suggests that by d^ptScs carob pods are meant.
If this interpretation were possible, it would no doubt remove
4 ST. MARK [I. 6
one difficulty; but there is no authority for oKpU as meaning
anything except a locust^ and for a carob pod the Biblical word
is KcpaTLov. Nor are the words ficAt 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, cts y^v dya^^v — €ts
yrjv piovaav yaXa koX fxcXi; Ezek. xvi. 19, o-c/xtSaXtv kol cAatov
KOL fiiXt iipiofJLLcrd o"€ j Cant. iv. 11, Krjptov d-jroo'Td^ovo't X^^^V
<rovy vvp.f^-q, etc. We cannot suppose that by /xcAt aypi,ov 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 wpocrc^dyio.
In my opinion, both aKpiha^ and /xcXt are corrupt. With
regard to dKptSas, I suspect that two words have coalesced into
it, the first of which is obscure,^ but the second of which,
most probably, was ptfas (PIZA:S — PIAA5). 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 antiquoruniy and these afford very tolerable
nourishment. Cp. Job xxx. 4, 7r€<^avA.t(r/iei/oi, evSccis Travros
dya^ov, ot Koi pltjas ^vA(ov i/xacrariavro.
Coming now to the consideration of /xc\t, 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, dScXc^ovs — <^tA.ovs; 47, idvLKol —
TcXcuvat; vii. 4, ck — diro; viii. 34, ottws — «/a; ix. 14, TroAAa —
\ See, however, the Note on p. 46.
I. 6] ST. MARK S
irvKvd] 36, co-KvX/AcVoi — c/cAcXvyaeVot ; X. 23, kripav — oXXiyv; xiii.
29, <f>r}(Tlv — \€y€L'f 30, l<i)S — y^^XP^'i ^^' ^i ^oyov — vofiov — iVToXiqv',
2 2, €Kpa$€y — €Kpavya(r€v; xvi. 27, -n/i/ npa^LV — ra €pya; xviii. I,
wpa — "^jjitpa; xix. 28, v/x€t? — avrot; xx. 34, o/A/xarcav — 6<t>6aXfiwv ;
xxi. 31, varepos — Scvrcpos — co-^aTos; xxii. 10, wfi<f>u)v — ya/^os;
xxiv. 45, otKCTCtas — OepaTTCLas; Mark i. 26, <f>(x)vrj(rav — Kpd^av ;
iii. 30, dfiapTca^ — KpL(r€0)<si iv. 19, aioivos — /3tov; xiv. 44, crva-
<rqp.ov — <Trjp.€Lov ; 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
Tischendorfs eighth edition of the N.T.), pafia a-rjfiaLV€L tottov
vxjrrjXov, oOev tv tlctl to)V dvTLypdcfxov tov Trpoffii/jTov yiypairraL <f>o)vrj
€v Ty viJ/rjXfj rjKovaOrj. Now fieXt and K-qptov are synonyms in
the Sacred Books (cp. Prov. xxiv. 13, <^ay€ /icXt, vuj dyaOov
yap Krjpiov'j Cant. iv. 11, K-qpiov d7rocrrdt,ov(rL X^^^V ^®^> ^f^i^Vt
etc.), and I suspect that Krfpiov stood once in the text; but,
being a comparatively rare word in the sense of honey, it was
replaced by its synonym /xcAt on grounds similar to that ad-
duced by Origen in the case of 'Pafid. Further, I suggest that
KrjpCov was a misreading of Kapirov (KAPnON — 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 ta-Otov d/cptSas
^ ST. MARK [n. 7, 19
Kot fiOu aypLoVf the archetype read io-Omv . . . ptfas kol Kaptrov
oiypLoy, that is, eating roots and wild fruit. With this sentence
compare Strabo, 513, oX pXv ovv Iv rots v^crots ovk €xovt€s
(TTTopLfxa 'PlZO^^yovo-t Kal ArPIOIlS XP^^^^' KAPHOIS.
Mark 11. 7
OoTw XaXci.
The force of this phrase has been missed. The meaning
is, /le speaks at random^ outw being equivalent to the classical
avTws (or sometimes ovtcds). The idiom has been preserved in
modern Greek. See Vlachos, Ac^ikov 'EXXiyvoyaXXtKov, v. ero-i,
"to ctTTtt cTo-i [<^p.], je I'ai dit sans consequence; j'ai parle en
I'air."
Mark ii. 19
Mt] Sui^aKTai 01 ulol toG vM^^lavo^ Iv ^ o v\}\i.^io% |X€t* auTwi' ^ori
fijoreucii' ;
I think that the meaning of the word wfi<f>C)vo<s is misunder-
stood when it is taken to indicate a bride-chatnber. It is clear
from Matt. xxii. 10 that banquets were given in the wfi<l>ioVf which
cannot have been possible in a bride-chamber. The word, I
believe, signifies a banquetifig-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 invitfed ; 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
m. 14] ST. MARK f
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 vv/x<^ojv is borne
out by the passage quoted at the head of this paragraph, which
states that the sons of the wfi<t><^v, namely, those who are in the
wfi<f>o)Vi 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 tov wfufnovo^
must simply be interpreted, tke guests at a wedding.
But, though the context seems to require the interpretation
which I have submitted, there is no denying that vi;ft<^o>v,
according to its formation, should mean a bride's 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 vvfji<l>o)v has not displaced yctftos everywhere
in the New Testament, as it has done apparently in Matt. xxii. lo,
where Codex B gives on the margin the variant ya/x,os, written by
the original scribe himself.
Mark hi. 14
Kal iirolriaev 8(u8cKa 089 Kai dirooroXous ut^ojxaaei' ii^a Q<riv p,CT*
auTOu Kal d-n-ooT^Xr) aurous K't]pua<T€iv xal exeiv c^ouaia^' ^KpdXXcii'
tA SaifJioVia. Kal €iroiT)acK too? SuScKa Kal iTriQii\K€v oi'oixa t§
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, cirooyo-cv SwScKa, without
a complement of the predicate, such as we find in phrases like
Acts ii. 36, Kvpiov avTov kol Xpiarbv iTroi-qa-ev 6 0€O5, cannot mean
9 ST. MARK [m. 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 iTroCrjcrcv Iva wo-tv, because we should then be
forced to construe €7roLrj(r€v ha d-TrocrTcWrj, and such a construc-
tion is impossible. In the second place, tva dirocrrikXr} ex^iv
iiovcrcav 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 kox iTrotyjirtv
instead of i-jroCrjcrev 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,
'AvSpcas is an interpolation, because he is there given a special
importance which he is not shown elsewhere to have possessed.
With regard to cTronyo-cv, I venture to suggest that it is a
corruption of crot/tao-cv (without augment; see Dr. Jannaris,
Hist. Gr. Gr., § 717). Compared palseographically, the two
words, ET01MA2EN— EnOTHSEN, are similar enough ; so much
so, that in Ps. cxviii. 73 the reading varies between erolfxaa-av and
iTToi-qa-av. With this alteration the syntax becomes grammatical (cp.
Acts xxiii. 23, cToi/xcuraTC o-rpaTtwTas StaKotriovs ottcos TropevOCiXrLv)
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 koX
€X€Lv — Tovs SwScKo, I suspcct that there once stood these words,
TrpSiTov 2t/xo)va (this on manuscript authority) tov tov *Iaxva koX
IV. 21, 27] ST. MARK p
'AvSpcW Tov a8€\(t>ov rov Si/awvos, in accordance with the parallel
sentence which follows, ^laKinpov rov rov Ze/SeSaCov kol 'Icoavryv rov
a8€\<l>6v Tov *IaKw/?ov. These words were most likely rubbed off
for the purpose of making room for the sentence, koI t\€iv —
BaLfwvia. 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 icat liroC-qatv tous
SuiScica were interpolated, this addition bringing up the spurious
letters to fifty-six.
Mark iv. 91
Mi^Tt €p)(€Tat 6 Xux»'os.
The word tpx^rai is impossible, and has been condemned by
several critics. D gives aTrrcTat, and it is such a sense that
we require. I suspect that St. Mark used a Latin root and
wrote apSerat (from ardeo). In St. Matthew we find the equiva-.
lent of the Latin word, i.e. Katovcrt (v. 1 5).
Mark iv. 27
Kal 6 aTTopos pXaora Kal }i.i\Kuv^Ta.i &% ouk otSei^ auTos.
The words ws ov/c oTScv 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, ws cKa^evScv
(EKA0EYAEN— OYKOIAEN) avros, whilst he himself was sleep-
ing. For the use of ws instead of cws, cp. John ii. 23, xii. 35,
TTcptTraTCiTC a)S to ^a>s ct^ctc; xii. 36.
^) ST. MARK [VI. 20
Mark vi. 20
*0 Y^P 'HpwSrjs e<|>op€iTO t^i^ *\(advr\v ciSws auToi' ai'Spa SixaiOK
Kal ayiOK, Kal auveTqpci. auTOF, Kal dKOuaas auTOu iroXXd i\ir6p€i,
Kal T]S^(i)$ aUTOU tJKOUCI'.
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 /cat before
(rvv€rrjp€i. Again, some MSS. give cTrotct instead of ^opet. 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
?nulta 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 *Itoar»7v, there was once a lacuna which was errone-
ously filled in by that word instead of by ©xXov 09, and that
the text originally ran thus, o yap 'HpwST/s I^o^^to tov oykov o^
€i8<o$ avTov avSpa hiKaiov koI ayiov crvv€Ti^p€L avrov : J*br Herod
feared the people^ whOy knowing that he was a righteous man
and a holy, watched over him. The absence of Kal before
(Tvv€TrjpiL in Codex B points to the relative pronoun having
dropt out before ctSws. 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.
VI. SI] ST. MARK ft
that rj8€(ji)s avTov rJKovev 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)1 Kol 6 TToAvs 6)(\o^ T^Kovev avrov i78ca>s. Lastly, with
regard to the words koX d/covo-as avroO TroAAa i^Tropet, if what I
have already urged is well founded, they cannot possibly stand
in their present form, as the subject of rproptt would necessarily
be 6 0^X09 ; nor can they stand even if we assume 'HpwSiys 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 (etSwg) 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.
Mark vi. 21
Kal y€voii.i\n)^ fifiipas cuKaipov.
The usual interpretation, and ivhen a convenient [it should be,
an opportune\ day was covie^ 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 evxatpos sometimes meant
empty (see Sophocles' Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine
Periods)^ and in modern Greek c7/xat evKaipos means both
12 ST. MARK [VI. 56
/ am empty and, by an extension of meaning, / am at leisure
(see Vlachos, v. cvKatpos ... § 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 cv/catpa> meant then to be at leisure (see Sophocles, v.
€vKaipui)f a meaning which it still retains (see Vlachos, v. cvKaipw).
Hence cvKaipos i^/jicpa is an empty day, a day without work, a day
of leisure, and is a synonym of crxoA.^ { = a holiday, see Sopho-
cles). Compare also Liddell and Scott, v. cvKaipia = a-xoXri. 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.
Mark vi. 5Q
Kai OTTou t.v cio-cTropeucTO, els K(ufj.a$ ^ els iroXcis >) ds dypous,
€K Tais dyopais ^xiOcaaK tous dcrOci'ouKTas.
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
aypoi or open country ? I have no doubt that instead of kv rats
ayopais we must read cV rats dyviats (ArYIAlS— ArOPAI^), 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 dyvtats
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 rats TrAaTciats. Compare also Acts v. 15, wore Kat
Vn. 8] ST. MARK fj
€ts Ttts TrXttTcias iK<t>€p€(,v Tous aa-Otvei^ koX riOivai — almost a
repetition of the passage under consideration.
Mark vii. 3
The word Trvyfifj can only mean fy or a;/V>4 fke Jisf; 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 'Twyfjirj be a corruption of either irqy^ — with fresh
water from the well (cp. the classical x^pvv^i lai^aloi), or of
the word injyaM
With regard to the latter suggestion, I would refer to
Hesychius, who states, "Tnyyatov to ocrrpaKov 6 koL dpSdviov
bfjLOLU)^ Xcycrai." Now, ocrrpaKov means an earthen vessel^
and apSavtov a water- pot \ Tnjyaiov 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 m/y^ is
much preferable.
14 ST. MARK [Vn. 11, 19
Mark vii. 11
Koppdv (o ioTi, hCtpov) o 6.v c| ^fiou w4>cXT)6t]s.
The usual interpretation of this passage, Tkaf 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 6<j>€LXriTaL croi instead
of w<li€\rj$rj^.^ This, I am persuaded, is the genuine reading.
*0<^ctAa), in the sense of / owe as a duty, is frequent. Cp.
6<j>€Lk€L in Matt, xxiii. i6.
Mark vii. 19
Kadapi^OK irdvTa rh. Ppupara.
The meaning of /Sptofiara has been misunderstood in this
passage. No doubt the usual signification of fipuifia is meat;
but it also signifies rottenness^ being another form of )8po>/Aos
or (less correctly) ppofios, which means stench. See Sophocles'
Lexicon, in which the verb ppiofiio is also cited in the sense
of to stink. These words are, of course, derived from PippuiaK^-
a-Qai, to be eaten by worms. "^ And inasmuch as what is infested
by worms is putrid and noisome, ySt^/xu/Acvos has come to
mean rotten (Josh. ix. 5, /cat 6 apros avroiy — f>y/3os kcCL cvpoiTitiv
Kol peppiofievos), offensive, and the nouns from the same root
to mean rottenness, and then stench. In modern Greek the
verb pp(siiL^ exists unaltered in the sense of to stink (Vlachos,
"PpitifjiSi- sentir mauvais; puer"), whilst the noun, in the
1 iM»EAHeHS— 0*EIAHTAI20I.
^ Cp. Isa. li. 8, ws ipia Ppud-^ffovrai vwb arjrds.
Vn. 26, Vni. 84-IX. 1] ST. MARK 'IS
feminine form ppoifj^^ is a specific term for both sfencA and
^UA (Vlachos, "^pw/xa* mauvaise odeur, § salet^; ordure").
Thus KaOapi^ov iravra ra ppiofiara means w/iick thing (or
circumstance) clears away all impurities. The syntax is clearly
explained by Dr. Bloom field in accordance with Fritzsche's
view.
Mark vii. 26
'H Sc y^^ ^^ 'EXXtii'Is lupo^oiKiKicraok
The only correct formation of the compound word both in
classical and modem Greek, in so far as the copulative vowel
is concerned, is '%vpo^owiKia<Ta, 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 Svpa</)otvtKio-(ra 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, 17 8c yvK^ r^v "EXXiyvts x^pa, ^otvi/cto-o-o,
And the woman was a Greek widmv from Phoenicia, The
reading ^pa. 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.<^oivLKi<j€ra into Svpa ^oLvUia-a-a ; but
this expedient only creates another difficulty, since it makes
2vpa precede instead of following ^oivLKia-ara, as it should do in
conformity with the order ^oiviKLo-a-a c/c Svptas.
Mark 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
1 6 ST. MARK [IX. 10
Stucrct is impossible in Matt. xvi. 26, and is a corruption of
SclcTttt. Here, however, the word 8<p or Sot equally militates
against common sense ; and, as it is impossible for palaeographical
reasons to regard it as a corruption of Sc^ai, we must conclude
that its presence is due to the word Swa-ei 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 TOK XoyoK iKpdrqvay.
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 ot Sc ^6ow
TO prjfia. I think, therefore, that originally we had here Kal rov
Xoyov ovK c/cpariyo-av (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 6 vlos toC avOpiairov €K v€Kp<i)V dvao'T^' kol tov
Xoyov OVK iKparrjo-av, SO St. Luke writes, TcAco-^crcTat Trdvra tw
vtw TOV dv9p(a'irov' TrapaBoO-qa-eraL yap — Kal dvcLCTTrja-eraL' Koi avrol
ovSkv TovTiov (rvvrJKav.
KpaT€Lv in the sense of to understand is a Latinism
reproducing the verb tenere, a similar Latinism occurring
in connection with the verb paa-rdiuv, a synonym of K/aaTctv,
in John xvi. 12. Compare also x*^P*^^ i^ Matt. xix. 11,
(where see Weiss's note), as a translation of the Latin verb
capere.
IX. 39] ST. MARK 1 7
The particle ov 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-tis ovv Paa-rat^n
instead of oo-rts ovv ov ^aora^ei. Similarly in Matt. viii. 30 we
find ^v 8k fjxLKpav instead of rjv 8' ov fMKpav, a reading proposed
by de Beze and preserved in Latin versions. Dr. Hort in his
Introduction, p. 124, 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 rov); 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, €1 Se rots CKCtVov ypdfxfiaa-Lv TrttrrcucTc
(MSS. ov TTtO-TCVCTc), TTWS TOtS C/XOtS fH^fiaCTLV OV (MSS. withoUt the
negative) -ttio-tcvctc, and in the other, €t Bk rov koyov fjiov ovk
iTT^pr](TaVj KOL rov vfierepov ov rrjpi^o-ova-L (MSS. without the nega-
tives in both members of the sentence).
Mark ix. 39
The word raxv is wrongly rendered quickly. It is a synonym
of avpioK, and in this passage means on some future day, which
is often the meaning of avpiov also. Compare Josh. iv. 6, orav
ipftiTa (T€ 6 vios o-ov avpLov ; xxii. 27, OVK Ipovai ra rcKva v/jlu>v —
avpLov, etc. Ta^v in the sense of avpiov or irpiiA (cp. the German
Morgen) occurs likewise in Isa. Iviii. 8, totc payrja-eTai 7rpa>t/>tov
(? 7rp<i)tVov) TO ^ois cov KOL Toi la/AttTa (rov ra^v dvarcXct ; and is
Still so used in modern Greek, either in the form of raxv or
of raxta. A popular rhyme says :
Kt &\\a Kdvovu rb rax^ ',
that is, one thing they say in the evening and another they do in
2
I8 ST. MARK [IX. 49
the morning. Byzantios, in his Modern Greek Lexicon^ gives
"ra;(€ta — rayy. *E7r., tSc Avpiov kol JIovpvov." See also Janna-
rakis's Deiitsch-Neugriechisches Handworterbuch^ v. Morgen,
Mark ix. 49
rids Y^P "^(^P^ dXia6i]0'€Ta(.
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 dXto-^^JcrcTat we ought to write dyvLa-OrjcrcTai^
— 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 Trpayjixa o StcXevo-crat iv irvpl
KOI KaOapL(rOi^(T€TaL olXX -^ toJ vSart tov dyvurjxov dyvLa-OycrtTai).
Such a metaphor we also find in Isa. i. 25, iirdiia t^v x*W /^°^
€7rt (rk KOL TTvpuidia cis KaOapov ; Zech. xiii. 9, Trv/aojoroj avrovs U)S
TTvpovraL TO dpyvpiov kol hoKifjiia avTOVs ws SoKt/na^crat to )(pv<Tiov.
Similarly Matt. iii. 11 says, avros vfias /SaTrrtVct ( = dyvto-ct
fiaiTTL^oiv) Iv TTViVfJiaTL dytw Koi TTVpL. For dyvL^€LV instead of
Ka6apit,uv as applied to fire, cf. Num. xix. 17, t^s o-^roStSs t^s
KaTaK€Kavix€V7]<s rov dyvia-piov.
The sentence ttSs yap irvpX dXia-OijarcTai. is very loosely
connected with what precedes it, and seems a later addition
suggested by the mention of 7ri5p in ver. 48. Similarly, when
dyi/to-^o-cTttt became aAwr^Tjo-cTat, then the words koXov to dXas —
dfyrv(r€T€, 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
X. 23, 40] ST. MARK 1 9
occasioned a further addition, namely, that of the exhortation
€X€T€ — dXA.i;A.ots.
Mark x. 23
Aiy€i — TTWS SuaKoXws — cio-cXcuaorrai.
In this passage ttoJs is wrongly translated kotv ; it is used with
a declarative force, being an equivalent to ort, fkaf. It is thus
that Matthew (xix. 23) understood it, for he says, Xcyw vfxlv "OTI
TrXovcrtos Svo-koAws cio-cAcvo-tTai. In modern Greek ttws (more
correctly Trias) is really the only declarative particle used collo-
quially, and Dr. Jannaris {Hist. 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 ttws, 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 Xcyct avrots, rcKva,
7r<i3s SvcTKoXov €o-Tt to prcvcnt us from regarding ttws as declarative
(cp. Mark i. 40, Acytov auTw, Kvpic, ort, lav O^kys, hvvrj fxe KaOapCaaL ;
Luke xiii. 23, cTttc 8c rts avrw, Kvptc, ct oXtyot ot crw^o/xcvoi ; xxii.
49, cts-av, Kvptc, et Traraf o/xcv), 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 ttoJs in the Gospels was originally much
more extended than would now appear, and that when their
language was gradually revised towards classicism ttws was often
changed into ort.
Mark x. 40
Tb 8c KaOiaai ^k Bc^iwi' pou ^ i^ cuuKUfiUK ouk cotik ^fioi'
Boui^ai, dXX* ots i^Toifxaorai.
As the text stands at present there is only one construc-
tion possible, which is to connect ca-rlv both with c/otov and
ip ST. MARK [XI. 3, XH. 1, 9
with oU TjTOifxacrTai, and only one rendering is possible,
Buf 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 7wt give to other than
those for whom it has been prepared. Therefore it seems to
me that we must read, ovk txrriv ifiov Sovvat aAAots 17 Troi/iao-Tat
(or oXXois ^ ois rjTOLfiao'Tai).
Respecting ifxbvf it seems to be due to the attraction of
TO Se Ka6C(Tai. Strictly speaking, we should have expected c/iol
in its place.
Mark xi. 3
Kal cuOds dircxrrcXXci irdXii' aorfti' 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 TraXiv avrov there once stood tov ttwXov (IlflAON —
HAAIN.)
Mark xii. 1
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
Kat 8cSa€i Toi' dfJi-ireXuKa aXXois.
There is no suggestion of the vineyard being given away,
but of its being let out; /caKSwo-ct should, therefore, be read
,, ' ' OF THE
I UNIVERSITY
Xn. 24, 38] ""' ST. MARK Jtl
instead of koX Swo-ci. The word is correctly transmitted in
ver. i; Matt. xxi. 33, 41, koI tov afxTreXdva cKSwo-crat oAAoi? ;
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. 24
Ou 8ta TOUTO irXamo-Oc jjly] €18<5t€s tos yp***^^? >
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 ov Sia tovto are
corrupt, and should be changed into ovScvos tovtwv. Our
Lord was asked whose wife the woman w^ould be, and he
answers, S/ie 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 ir/atoro?,
€1? (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 0YAEN02 T0YT12N.
Mark xii. 38
*Ei' o-ToXai? ircpnTaTeii',
The great Reioke conjectured o-roats; 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
I need not stop to prove the impossibility of rendering
Tricmicrji 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 Trtco-riK^?.
The word ttico-t^ or TrtcoriK^ is not recorded in dictionaries,
nor have I been able to trace it in other books ; but we have
(i) the verb Trtefw in the sense of to press (for the purpose of
extracting), cp. Micah vi. 15, o-v tticVcis iXaiav kol ov fxrj dXci^
eXaioVj and (2) the noun TrtW/xa, respecting which ^phocles
says, "7rt€cr/xa . . . extract in pharmacy {Diosco. i. 106)." In
Geoponicon (xx. 28) we also find fjLvpo/3o\dvov TriW/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
irUa-fia or vapSos TrtccTT^ (compare (rraKTYJ) ; and vap8o9 TrtcorriKq
would mean exactly the same thing, though the adjective is
formed as if it meant of an extracted kind. Cp. Ex. xxxvii. 21, ra
vcjiavTCL KOL Ttt pa^iScvfa koX ra irotKtXTtKa (instead of TrotKiXra) ;
cp. also Ex. XXX. 25, fivpov fivpeipLKOv ; 35, Ovfiiafia fxvp€\f/LK6v.
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 a-Kcvaa-Ca
iXaiov -^Sva-fiaTos (Eccles. X. i).
Mark xiv. 41
'Air^X^^y ^XOcv "i] &pa.
It is enough^ the favourite rendering of d7rcx«, is derived
from the Vulgate. But though the whole range of Greek
literature has been ransacked in search of passages where
ttTTcxct might signify sufficity only two examples have been
XIV. 4lJ ST. MARK 2$
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, Stephanus
was most likely right in conjecturing aTrc^e; and in Cyril the
context seems to require airix!^- Then again the attempt to
explain how airix^i 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 wpa, thus mis-
understanding the whole passage as meaning the hour is distant
(this being the usual sense of d7r€;)(ct), it has come. Why,
moreover, should not the Evangelist have said apKci, so as not
to occasion such a misunderstanding? Further, even if airix^L
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, 7r€7rA>;pa)Tat 6 KaLp6<s koI i^yy lk€v
rj Paa-iKua, Cp. also Ezek. vii. 1 2, ^Kct o KaLpo% tSov fj rjfiipa ;
xxi. 25, ^Kct rj t]fi€pa iv Kaipia d8iKia?, ircpas ; XXX. 3, cyyvs yfxepa
Tov Kvpiov — TTcpas iOviav corot ; vii. 3, ^k« to iripa^ ctti ore — ^kcl
o Ktttpo?, rjyyLK€v 17 ^/ticpa. What we, therefore, require is a word
of a similar import to that of ^\0€v ; and the want is, I believe,
met by cttcoti;. Cp. 2 Tim. iv. 6, 6 Kaipos r^s avaXva-ew^s fwv
c<^ oTjyKcv; Luke xxi. 34, irpoa-ex^Te ftijirorc — cTrtorJ — 17 rip.ipct
24 ST. MARK [XIV. 41
€K€Lvrj; I Thess. v. 3, If^ia-TaTai avrols oXeOpos. This word was
first misread into airia-rrjj and from direo-rq it finally became
d7r€x«. Exactly the same fluctuation between direx^L and d^cVn;
is found in Mark vii. 6. My conjecture is amply supported by
MSS. authority. One old Latin version gives adesf finis^ venit
hora-y a Syriac version gives appropinquavit finis et venit 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 dirix'^i ro reXoq
KOL 71 &pa, and on the strength of the passages from Ezekiel
quoted above, one might further infer that the text originally
ran thus, liriirTq ro tcAos, rjXGev rj u>pa.
But how has the Latin version sufficit arisen? We 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 cVcoriy is <f}6dv€i, which the Latin translator prob-
ably found in the text as a varia lectio, and which he rendered
by sufficit. For in modern Greek <fi6dv€L (really ^rdvu) means
not only advenit but also sufficit (Vlachos, " <fi6dvu), 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 <f>6dv€L 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, KaOevSere
ToXoLTTov KOL dvaTrav€(rO€, is badly translated by Sleep on now
and take your rest. ToAoittoi/ is equivalent to ovv (just as in
modern Greek), and the passage is well explained by Sophocles,
V. XoLTTov, as implying a rebuke. It should be rendered, J^o 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.
XrV. 61] ST. MARK 2$
Mark xiv. 51
NcaKUTKOS Tis <xuyr\Ko\ouQei auT^ 7rcpi^€^Xi]|j,e»'0S aii'Boi'a ^irl
YU|XKOu* Kttt KpaTOuaii' aoroK, 6 8c KaTaXiirwi' j^v aiv%6va yu/xkos
e<|>uYci'.
The usual interpretation of the words iirl yvfivovy over his
naked body^ presupposes an ellipsis, the words understood being
rov (TO)fjLaTo^; but no example has been adduced illustrative of
this ellipsis, nor apparently does the phrase iirl yvfivov tov
o-utfjLaTos occur elsewhere. In Greek, in order to convey the
notion c/ose upon the skin^ the words h xp*e ^^ ^'^'' XP*^^^, or
some similar combination, would have to be used, and such a
phrase is in fact found in Lev. xvi. 4, 7r€ptcr/ccXc9 \lvovv eorai eirl
TOV X/3WT09 avTov. Not Only is the expression iirl yvjxvov 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 in 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 iirl
yvfjLvov are corrupt, and have assumed this form under the
influence of yvfivos in ver. 52, which was wrongly taken in its
literary sense as meaning nahed, whereas here it means without
his cloak, t,e, yvfivos t^s ctlvSovo^. Liddell and Scott, v. yv/xvos,
state : " In common language yvfivos meant lightly clad^ i.e.
in the undergarment only (xtTojv), without the IfxaTLov." The
correct reading, I have no doubt, is o-tvSova oltt Alyvn-Tov, i.e. a
cloak of Egyptian linen. Cp. Ezek. xxvii. 7, Pvao-o^ fiera TrotKtXtas
€^ AlyvTTTov. As is well known (see EncycL Biblica, v. " Linen "),
the finer qualities of linen cloth (o-tv8a>i/ or ^va-a-os:) were the
products of Egypt. What the Evangelist wished to convey
26 ST. MARK [XrV. 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 palseographical resemblance be-
tween AHAirYnTOY (or AnErYHTOY) 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 yvfivbs close by.
Mark xiv. 72
Kai l7riPaXCl)K IxXaic.
The usual interpretation of imPaXfov, and when he thought
thereon^ cannot possibly stand. Though cTrtjSaAAco (or iTn^dWo}
TTjv Bidvoiav) 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 tTrtjSaXwv means cVtySaXwi/
TO IfiaTLov or iTTipXrjfjLa, 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, iiriPaXofieyo^, But see Gen. xxxviii.
14, trepU^aXf. to OepicTTpov kol c/caXXoTrwraTo. Similarly we find
Deut. xxiii. 13, kol cTrayaywv KoXvj/^cts Tr]V da-xrjfioo-vvrjv (rov (a
passage which has likewise been misunderstood).
ST. MATTHEW
ST. MATTHEW
Matt. ii. 6
BT|OXc€fA, yrj 'louSa, ooSafAws eXaxtcm] ct iv rots •f\y€yL6<Tiy
*louSa.
If Bethlehem is to be regarded as one of the princes of Judah,
as is commonly supposed, it is strange that instead of kXaxCo-n]
the text does not give us IXaxia-Tos. 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 riot the least of the
chief cities of Judaea, since it was to give a king to Israel. He
should, therefore, have written yyefxovLo-iv (supply TroAco-tv). An
rjycfjLovU TToXts is a princely city, a capital] cp. Strabo, 371, ra?
-^cfioviSas ova-as Svo ttoXcis. Whether, however, he actually did
write that form or not is doubtful, for he may have used
■qy€ixj6<nv as a feminine, in the same way as we find MS. A
giving, in Mark vii. 26, not 'EAAi^ns, but "EXXiyv, a form which
is evidently a grammatical slip, and not a reminiscence of
poetic classical Greek.
Mait. III. 11
When a man came for baptism, he wished to be purified
of sin, and he must, therefore, have already acknowledged his
29
30 ST. MATTHEW [V. 14, 28
sins and repented of them. But the words cts ficravotav, mean-
ing as they do for 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.
Matt. v. 14
Ou Sdi'ttTai TToXis KpupTJi'ai erraKOu opous K6i|i^n].
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^ olv t^v
iKKXrja-Cav a>s iroXiv iv vif/CL wKoBofjLTjfjLevrjv <f>LX6d€ov €)^(lv to^lv
KOL hioUrjaLv KoXrjv, 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.
MA-rr. v. 28
nds 6 pX^iro)!' Y"*'^^'^^ irpos to ^iriOuixTJaai auT^i' rfin] i^oi\€u<r€V
avrf\y.
The words Trpos to iTnOvfirja-aL avrrjv are capable of meaning
either (i) wit/i intent to desire her (cp. vi. i), or (2) in proportion
VI. 6] " ST. MATTHEW 31
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 pkiTnav ywaiKa is the exact equivalent
of the modern Greek phrase ottoios Koirafct yvvaxKa (ywaiKa
being used in a collective sense instead of tis ywatKcs), which
does not signify merely he who looks at women, but also he who
pays attention, who is not indifferent, to women. BXcVciv in this
case means i^i(na.vai ro o/Xfia (cp. PrOV. ix. 18, firjhe iTna-r^a-rjs
TO (Tov ofJLfia Trpos avrijv). Further, instead of Trpb^ to iTnOvfxrja-at
the correct reading is, I think, irpo rov iindvfjirja-ai. 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 <f>6dv€L rovs iinOv-
fiovvras '7rpoyv(i)(r6yvaL = TrpoytvwcrKCTat Trpo rov riva lin6vpJri€rai
avT^s. Cp. also Matt. vi. 8, oTSci/ yap 6 Trarrjp vfiwv tov ;(p«av
€)(€r€ TTpb Tov dvol^at TO a-TOfia (so Codex D).
MA'rr. VI. 5
^iXoGaiK iy rais avvaytoyals Kal ^i^ Tais yuviais twi' TrXaTciui^
— irpoa€ux€<yOat, OTTUS <|>ai'wai>' rots dKOpcutrois.
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 oT;vaya>yars we
should perhaps read dyvtats, 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, cts Tas
uXaTCias Kttl pvfias ', Isa. XV. 3, iv Tats TrXaTCtas atr^s kol iv Tais
pvfxai^ avT^s. But for palaeographic reasons avvoxol^ 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 iv rats (rvvaywyats koX pv/xat?
which he had just copied in ver. 2, where, however, crwaywyats
is in its proper place.
Mait. VI. 11
Tof apTO»' X\^^V TOK CTTIOUO'IOI'.
Scaliger has already derived cTrtovVtov from cTrtcVai, and I
hold it to be another form of the participle Irnovra, just as
rreptova-Lov, €Kov(nov are alternative forms of ireptovTo, cKovra. It
means which falls to our share, and has the same force as
hti^oXKov and cTrtySoAXoi/ra in Luke XV. 12, to €7npdWov /xepo'S
rrjs ovctas, and l Mace. X. 30, tov rifjiLcrovs tov Kapirov — tov
cTTi^aAXovTo? ftot. In their intransitive sense iiTLpdWeLv and
cTTteVat are often synonymous. Thus in respect of time they
both mean to follow, to come on (cp. 2 Mace. xii. 38, t^s k^ho-
fjLdSo<s ttJs €7rt^aA.A.ovo-7/?, and 1 Chron. xx. i, iv tw iiriovTi Irct) ;
and they also coincide in the significations of to attack, and
to occur to one's mind {orav iTn/SaXXy — 17 a-K€i}/Ls), 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 apTov i7ft<ov tov cttiovo-iov 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
'AttXcus.
This word simply means dyaOos, good, as is shown both by
the antithesis to the following irovrjpo^, and by the use of SittXo-
Tcpov in xxiii. 15, where it plainly signifies x^tpova.
Vn. 6] ST. MATTHEW 33
Matt. vii. 6
Mtj 8wt€ to ttYtoi' Tois KoaiK fiT|S6 pdXtjTC Tous fxapyaptxas
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, wo-Trcp cvwrtov tv
pLvl vos, ovrcDs yvvaiKL KaKotfipovL KoXXos, as is a jewel in a swine's
snout, so is beauty in a silly woman. From Ezek. xvi. 12, koI
ISwKa cvwrtov Trcpt rov fjLVKTrjpd crovj 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. 16
it must be observed — (i) that pdWeiv means not only to cast,
but also top lace f to put (in which sense only it is used in modern
Greek) ; cp. Mark vii. 33, tpaX€ tovs Sa/crvAovs ct? to. wra, etc. ;
and (2) that, in our MSS. of the New Testament, we find several
instances where the reading fluctuates between efiTrpoa-Oev and
ivia-mov (cp. Mark ii. 12; Luke xii. 9 ; Acts x. 4), as well as
between ivavTwv koL ivioinov (cp. Mark ii. 12; Luke i. 6),
showing that cvwTrtoi', not being classical enough, was often
altered. If, then, in the passage under consideration we take
firj pd\r)T€ in the sense of do not put^ and replace tiiirpoa-Oiv
by the correction ENQIIION, and again consider this as a corrup-
tion of ENOTION (see the passages quoted above from Proverbs
and Ezekiel), we at once obtain a rational meaning, Put not your
pearls as ornaments in a swine's snout. This emendation would
further necessitate the change of xotpwi/ to x^vo'^. Owing to
this genitive I had long considered whether, instead of cvwrtoi/,
we should not read Iv rats pio-ti/ or Iv tois pwOoio-iv (cp. Ezek.
xvi. 12, KOL eScDKa ivtaTLOv tripl rov fJLVKT^pd orov) ; but, on palseo-
graphic grounds, ivianov and x^ipots 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 /x^ Swtc to
ayiov Tots Kva-Lv, It is possible that to dyiov is a corruption of
TpLxa-n-Tov; but I shall refrain from further discussing this sug-
gestion until I feel more confident of its correctness than I do
at present.
Matt. vii. 15
"Epxonrai — iv ^I'Sujxaat irpopdTwi', lawOcK 8c eto-iK Xukoi ap-iraycs.
As neither do sheep clothe themselves nor was it the dress
which gave the prophets their pious appearance, the reading
VHL 9] ST. MATTHEW J|
ivSvfxao-L cannot stand. The meaning, of course, is that the
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 ctSco-t vpofiaTiav, Cp. Luke iii. 22,
KaTofirjvaL to irvcvfjia to ayiov (rm/JMriKto ctSct a>s irepiaTepav
{? TrepuTTCpas) ; Ezek. i. 26, 6/iot(o/xa ws ctSos avOpfairov; Prov,
vii. 10, 17 Bk yvvrf (rvvavra avTuJ €?8os €)(OV(Ta TropvLKov ', Judg.
viii. 18, a)s cT^os p^p^rj vlC)v jSaa-tXtiDv ', Num. xi. 7, to cTSos avTov
ctSos Kpva-TaXXov.
Matt. viii. 9
"Ai'Opwiros clpt uiro i^ovcriav — €\(t)v uir' c^auxof orpariuTas.
I see from M. Biljon's edition that Dr. Holwerda has con-
jectured iir iiova-tas. The alteration of vrro into iirl 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 vtro ri]v Av^vtW was at first
written instead of cVl r^ Xv-^Cav ; and in Matt, xxviii. 14, where
our MSS. vary between lin and vtto. But the alteration into the
genitive, though the construction with that case is the one which
is mostly used (Dan. iii. 3, rvpawoi ficydXoL ot iir iiov<TL(av, etc.),
is not necessary. Compare Apoc. vi. 8, koI iSoOrj airoU l^ovaCoL
iirl TO T€TapTov T^s yV'^i Sir. XXX. 28, <f)L\<a jxri 8<3s iiova-iav ctti cre^
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 Malt. xiv. 19, we have the readings iirl tov xoprov and
€7rt TOV xopTov ; in ver. 26, lin Tr]v OdXaa-aav and ivl ttjs
OaXda-crri^ ; (in xxviii. 5, cts tov vaov and cv tw va£) ; and there are
several other similar instances.
36 ST. MATTHEW [IX. 18, 36
MA-rr. IX. 18
Kal ^-qo-eTai.
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 avat^rfv. Hence I think that we should here
read Kdm^TJo-cTai. In four other passages (Luke xx. 24, 32;
Rom. xiv. 9 ; and perhaps Apoc. xx. 5) where the idea is that
of " coming back to life," our MSS. give both /cat e^-qa-cv and kol
dvi^rjcrev ; and in all these cases the first reading seems to have
been induced by the fact that Kal avi^rja-ev was originally written
Kav€^r](T€v (cp. Matt. xxvi. 15, where we find both Kayw and
Koi ly6 ; xxviii. 10, KaKct and kol ckci, etc.), which could easily
be misread into Kal e^rjirev (KANEZH^EN— KAIEZH:SEN).
Similarly Kava^rja-cTaL became koI ^rja-erai. It is also a question
whether in John xi. 25 we should not read Kav airodavri
ava^T^a-erai, the loss of the preposition being due to the simi-
larity of the preceding letters.
Ma'it. IX. 36
*EaKuX|Ji^i^i Kal ippiiUvoi wad irpo^ara y.^ cxorra iroifi^^a.
The rendering of ippificuoi 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 (TKopiril<i>
and not ptTrro) ; 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, pipXryraL iv ttj
oIklo, irapaXvTLKbs), 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, TraTa^w rbv iroLfieva koI
X. 10] ST. MATTHEW 37
hiacTKopTna-Orja'OVTaL to, -nrpo^ara ; 3 Kings xxii. 1 7, tov *l(rpar}\
8L€<r7rapfX€vov iv rots opcaiv ws TroLfivLov u) ovk €<rTL 7roLfjLrjv)j and
often become a prey to man or beast. So far as I know, this
is the uniform description of shepherdless sheep in the
Scriptures. Cp. Judith xi. 19, a^cts avrovs ws wpo/Jara oU
OVK €cm TTOL/xT^v; Ezelc. xxxiv. 5, hu(nraprj to. Trpo/Sard fwv Slcl
TO firj €Lvai iroLjxeya^ Kal iyevyOrj cis KaTa^piafxa Tracri rots OrjpLOi^ ;
Zech. xiii. 7, Trara^arc tovs TrotfteVas Kat CKO-Trao-arc to, Trpo/Jara.
As ippLfjLcvoLf therefore, does not suit the context, I had long
ago conjectured ipprjyfievoif mauled (cp. Matt. vii. 6, fi-q-n-oTc —
a-Tpa<j>ivTt<: pi^^oxrLv v/xas) ; and I find in Tischendorfs 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 ipp-qyjxevoi
was regarded as a participle, not of pT^vfiij but of the form
prjarao), which occasionally meant to throw down (cp. Mark ix.
18; Luke ix. 42; and the Romaic pri)(y<i)\ and so it was
altered into its classical equivalent eppt/xcVot.
Nor do I see any necessity for taking la-KvXp.ivoi 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.
Mati'. X. 10
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
■^^1' si ST. MATTHEW [XI. 23
articles of luxury, and involve no expense. Hence I think
that, instead of firjSe paphov, the correct reading is dXA' i) pd/BSov
(aXX* rj = €l firj ; cp. Dan. iii. 28, ixrjSk Trpoo-Kwqa-tao-L Travrl $€w
aXX' 17 T<p ®€io)y in accordance with the correction in Mark
vi. 8. M and AA being interchangeable in old manuscripts,
YHOAHMATAAAHPABAON (i.e. vTroSrjfxar dXV rj) was read
as YnOAHMATAMHPABAON under the influence of /x^
TnjpaVf and fiy was afterwards changed into /ai/Sc in accordance
with the proximate /xrySc. 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 vi. 8,
where we find dX)C vttoScSc/xcVovs instead of firjh* vttoScSc/xcj'ov?.
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 koI fxy ivSvaaa-Ocu 8vo ;(iTa>i/as. Compare also Isa. xx. 2,
where yvfivos koI dvvTroSvros are parallels.
Mait. XI. 23
Kal au, Ka<^api'aou|ji, jxt] ecus oupai'ou utjrwO'qo-t], Iws "AiSou
Karapi^aT).
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 rj vi/^w^ctcra and ^ v\l/wOrj<;, 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,
ooTts ovv ySooTttJct instead of oo-rts ovv ov fiao-Toi^iLf and Matt,
xix. 1 7, co-Ttv instead of ets eariv. If, then, our text was origin-
ally KA<l>APNAOYM0YMHEfi2, it would be liable to be copied
as KA<E>APNA0YMHE02, 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, Ka<f>apvaovfjL, ov firf
c<i>s ovpavov vij/oyOrjonrjj 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 : lav €o>s tov ovpavov vxl/ayOfj^i oAV €(us "AiSov
KaraPrjarj. In this citation kav is a classical literal paraphrase
of €1, which is so often met with in the Septuagint as an
alternative of ov fiy^ and of which traces are also found in the
New Testament (cp. Mark viii. 1 2 ; Heb. iv. 3). Thus the
reading in the old MSS. evidently varied between ov (jltj and
et, 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
ct and ov exists in Mark viii. 12.
It will be observed in the passage from Athanasius that the
second member of the sentence is introduced by aXkd. 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
oAA* rj, that the second member of a sentence generally com-
mences if the first begins with ct having a negative force, or with
ov fLiq. Cp. Ezek. xiv. l6, ct viol ^ Ovyarepc's o-ioOi^a'ovTaL dW*
7] avTOL /wvoL (TuiBrjiTovraL ; 1 8, ov {irj pvirovrai viovs oiSk Ovyaripa^
aXX r} avTOL fxovoL (TtaOT^ovTai,
Thus the passage under consideration, according to all
4Q ST. MATTHEW [XII. 43, 44
probability, had at first this form : Kat a-v Ka</>apvaoi>/>t, ov firi
(OTet) ecDS ovpavov vif/wdrjcrr] oAA,' 7/ cws "AiBov Kara^-qcrrj.
Matt. xii. 43
Aiepxcrai 8i* dcuSpoii/ tottwi' ^tjtoCi' dvdTrauo'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 8ia /xvptW tottwv, through numberless places.
The palaeographic difference between AIAMYPION and AIA-
NYAPI2N is inconsiderable. The present reading is repeated
in St. Luke, and the corruption must have occurred early.
Mati'. XII. 44
Kal cXdoj' cupiaK€i \rov oIkoi'] axoXd^ojTa, acaapcajxeVoi/ Kat
K€KOa|JlT)|X^VOI'.
The word o-xoXa^ovra 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 o-xoAafw is a
XVI. 2] ST. MATTHEW 41.
synonym of dpyw, o-a^/Sarifw, being derived from crxoA.^, which
means a holiday. See Sophocles's Lexicon, v. o-xoX-q] and
compare the Romaic word a-KoX-q^ which is a specific term
for a holiday (Vlachos, "o-xoA-i; [read a-Kok-ql^ 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
'0<)rias Y€KOjx^inf)S XeycTC " EuSia, iruppd^ei yAp 6 oupai^^s • **
Kat irpwt "Ii^p.cpoi' x^''H'^*'> "^^^^oXfi^ Y^P CTTuy^'^i"*' ° oupai'os."
If, when the sky is fiery (which is the meaning of Tryppd^cL^
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
TTvppd^ei to be an error, the more so as the sky cannot be
simultaneously fiery (Truppa^wv) and gloomy (o-rvyvos); and in
its place I would read xap^t^ct, i.e. 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 x^P^^^h i-^* ^l dawns ^ as an impersonal verb has
been preserved in modern Greek, which also uses yXvKoxapa^ct
(? from XvK-q + xpLpd^€L)j xapdfxaTaf yXuKOxapaftara (besides the
nearly obsolete but delightful x«P<*v77 ^^^ x^P'^/^^'P' ^)- ^^^
Vlachos, **x"P<*^"j 1^ i^^^ commence h poindre; le jour perce."
And Sophocles in his Lexicon quotes an instance of this
verb in the form xapda-a^ia from as early a date as Agathias
(a.D, 582): "tov opOpov xapaa-a-ofiivovy dawning."
^ Popularly felt as xapA + aiJyJ; and xapA + V^po.
42 ST. MATTHEW [XVI. 26, XX. 15
Mait. XVI. 26
'"H Tt Swaci ai/0p(i)7ros dn-dWayfta ttjs <|>0X'i5 ciuroC ;
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, tC <u<^€Xiy^(r€Tat
avOpoiTTos; to which the answer is ovScV. The parallel question,
TL Stoorct; which is put in exactly the same form, necessitates
the same answer, ovSev. The reply required, however, is irai/ ;
and to bring this response the question should have been put
in a negative form, i.e. rt ov Swcrct;
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 accej>f nothing in exchange for his
life. This sense we obtain by altering Sioo-tL into Scleral. The
change thus modifies the question into one which, like the
preceding clause, requires ovBkv as an answer.
Matt. xx. 15
""H 6 64>6aX|Ji6s o^ou iroviiipos i<mv on iyu dyaO^s cljxi;
Dr. Bloomfield was no doubt quite correct in explaining that
6<f>6aXfjL6s TTovrjpos 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 : Is your eye envious because I am
generous ? or Are you envious because I am generous ? 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
XXITT. 37, XXV. 31] ST. MATTHEW 4^
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 yiVcrai, and not cori, and (2) one envies the
recipient of a gift, not the giver.
I suspect that the text originally read /imt^os, and not 6<l)0a\fw^,
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 fiurOos a-ov) wrong.
Matt, xxiii. 37
*lcpouaaXT))x y] — Xi6o|3oXou<ra tous dirooraXjJi^i'ous irpos aun^i'.
The last two words are rendered in all the versions by
to /ter, 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 aurr/v and write avrrjvy
we shall obtain what we should have expected, i.e. fo thee. For
instead of the personal pronoun, the reflective seems sometimes
to have been used. So in John xiv. 11, irto-rcvcrc /tot ort cyw
cv Tw Trarpl kol 6 Trarrjp iv c/aot, €t 8c firj, Sia to. Ipya avrov
( = ilXOv) TTtCTTCVCTC flOt ', XX. 1 8, CWpaKtt TO I' KVpLOV Kol TttUTa CtTTfl/
avrrj ( = c/tot, as some Latin versions translate). We should prob-
ably find this usage more often in our texts if it were not for
classical influence.
Mait. XXV. 31
*Em OpoKOu So$T)s auToC.
Though the usual rendering, i.e. on the throne of his glory,
is, of course, possible, the more likely interpretation is, I think>
44 ST. MATTHEW [XXVI. 50
on his throne of glory ^ the pronoun being taken with the word
Opovovy and the genitive S6$r]<s being regarded as equivalent to an
adjective such as evSo^os or Xafnrpbsf in accordance with the well-
known periphrasis which is explained in Blass's Gram.^ § 35, 5.
Cp. I Kings ii. 8, Opovov 86$r)s ; Sir. xlv. 7, o-toA^v B6$rjs ; Isa. ii.
16, 'TrXoLtav KoAXovs, etc.
Matt. xxvi. 50
*ETaip€, i^* t irdpci.
To treat c<^' o Trapct as an interrogation is inadmissible in
Greek, which would require tl or tl 6tl or ctti ti. The explana-
tion given by Euthymius, 8t* o irapayiyovas ijyovv to Kara o-kottov
TTparrc rov TrpocrxqiJ^Tos d<^i€/Acyp5, is extremely ingenious and
grammatically possible; but, unless such a phrase was usual
and idiomatic — for which there is no evidence — it could not
have been understood without the addition of Trotrja-ov. Besides,
it breathes a harshness which is incompatible with our Lord's
kindly nature and courteous mode of address.
I incline to think that E$ 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 o almost mechanically in order to complete the sentence.
The text might thus originally have read 'Eratpc, ev Trdpet ( = €v
rj\6€?. Cp. John xi. 28, 6 StSacr/caXos TrapccrTt, etc.), of which
the meaning would be : Welcomey friend. Compare Soph. Aj,
92, ws cu Trapea-Trjs. The expression has been preserved in
modern Greek in a formula which is an exact paraphrase of my
conjecture, KoAws ypOe^ ! See Vlachos, v. epxofjiaL, " KoAws ^A^c?
[read 5p^cs], soyez le bienvenu." If at the present time in Greece
XXVn. 28] ST. MATTHEW 45
a friend were greeted, as Jesus was greeted by Judas, with the
words Tlo. a-oVf ScutkoXc ( = Xatp€, *Pa^^t), he would answer,
in exact accordance with my restoration of the text, KaXws ^p6€s,
pXdfjLr]^ or KaXo ctto pXdfi-q ( = *ETatp€, cu Trapct). And if this
greeting occurred when the friends were meeting after a more
or less prolonged separation, they would probably also kiss one
another.
Mati\ XXVII. 28
Kal cKSuaarres auToi' x^^H**^^^ KOKKiinr]!^ -n^pUQtiKav adrw
This is the reading of the best MSS. 'EkSvWvtc?, 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^F^^^ kokklvyjv have been placed after ucpt-
edrjKav, in order, as Alford points out, to avoid the construction
€KBv(ravT€? avTov x^a/Av8a. Had cKSvo-avTcs once stood ' in the
text, it is hard to understand by what process it could have
become cvSvo-avrc?, a word which cannot yield good sense if
irtpUdrjKav is allowed to stand.
My view is that ivSva-avres is correct, but that TrepUOrjKav
uvrw has been transmitted to us by error, the original reading
being TrcpUa-njcrav avrovj i.e. fkey stood round him. For Trcpi-
crrrjvaL rtvo, cp. Acts xxv. 7> 'TrcpUcrrrja'av avrov ot — ^*Iov8arot ttoAAo,
Kttt Papia aLTKjjfiara <^cpovTcs. My suggestion is seemingly sup-
ported by the Munich Latin version (q), which gives et induerunt
eum chlamidem coccineam. circumdederunt e u m \et purpureni\. If
circumdederunt in this passage was meant in the sense of Trcpt-
eOrjKavy and not in that of TrepUa-rrja-aVy 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 dKptSas is a misreading of ck pt^as. There can be no
doubt that, at J:he time when the Gospels were written, ck
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 a-Tro, which is used as an
alternative for ck, 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 Ik 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 AKPIAA2. 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;
^ fAf, in the form of o'x, is so construed in Romaic.
2 Dr. Jannaris, however, queries the quotation.
46
ADDITIONAL NOTE 4/
for in our existing MSS. there has not survived a single direct
instance of the construction of €< or diro 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 Kapirov and ck rov Kapirov
(ovK 1(t6Ui\ most probably represent two different expedients for
avoiding the unclassical U rov Kapirov. In fact, one of the old
Latin translators, in giving de fructum as his rendering, seems
to have been translating Ik Kapirov literally.
For €(rO(i)v €K pii^a? Kal Kapirov ( = ck pi^iav icai Kapirov), cp.
Mark vii. 28, to, Kvvdpia — IcrOCovariv diro ruiv \f/L\L(Dv ; Luke xx.
16, ')(0pTa(T6y}vai. e/c tcov Kepartoyv ; i Cor. ix. 7, c/c rov Kapirov —
OVK €<tOUl; xi. 28, €K Tov dprov ia-dUro) ( = to»/ dprov ; cf. ver. 27) ;
Num. XV. 1 9, oTov ea-dryre vfjL€L<s diro t<ov dprmv rrj^ yrj?, etc.
UNIVERSITY
OF
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITKD, EDINBURGH
^^ «e ASSESSED FO^^£ ^.UE. ^^^/poURtH
OVERDUE. ^^^^-^^-^
^,39C402s)