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)