The corrections of Mark adopted by Matthew and Luke

y^M

CORNELL

UNIVERSITY

LIBRARY

GIFT OF
Alfred C. Barnes

Date Due

amy « .,

'

I irt-l/» It •»

—

> 13/UTT-t

PRINTED IN

U. S. A.

(Of

NO. 23233

6^ ^i-'O^^

A X3u

Diafessarica

PART II

Cornell University Library
BS2555.A22 C8

Corrections of Mark adopted by Matthew a

olln

3 1924 029 334 657

THE CORRECTIONS OF MARK

3. M o\

TO

91ol)n l^igfjtfoot

AUTHOR OF THE HORAE HEBRAICAE

TOGETHER WITH TROMMIUS AND WETSTEIN

COMMENTATORS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT

NOTABLE FOR THEIR APPLICATION OF JEWISH LEARNING

TO THE INTERPRETATION OF CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES

THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED

BY THEIR DEBTOR

THE AUTHOR

The original of tiiis bool< is in
tine Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029334657

PREFACE

The object of this book is to demonstrate that Mark
contains a tradition from which Matthew and Luke
borrowed, and to discuss the corrections of Mark
jointly adopted by Matthew and Luke.

It is the Second Part of a projected series of works
on the Gospels, and it assumes the conclusions of the
First Part, which was entitled Clue.

The following pages will incidentally present a
mass of evidence for the translation-hypothesis main-
tained in Clue. But there has been no attempt to
select such Synoptic disagreements as would be best
fitted to put that theory effectively before the reader.
The object has been rather to furnish the student with
the means of studying for himself the relations between
the Gospels, and to enable him to confute the book,
if he can, with the materials that the book itself
supplies.

But, while neither denying nor regretting the ap-
pearance of weakness caused by this systematic non-
selection, the author desires to point out that in a
translation-hypothesis there is no room for the applica-

vii

THE CORRECTIONS OF MARK

tion of the familiar saying, "A chain is not stronger
than its weakest link." A moment's reflection will
shew that, on the contrary, this kind of demonstration
must be judged by its strongest instances. To repeat
the example quoted in Clue (p. viii.) : if two Greek
documents that are in general agreement suddenly
differ by mentioning, the one, " Idumaea," the other,
"Syria,"' we should be led to suspect that the diver-
gence arose from a Hebrew Original. " Idumaea " is
in Hebrew mw, and " Syria " is din : and their
similarity has caused the two to be repeatedly confused
by the Greek Translators of the Old Testament.
Three or four divergences capable of similar explana-
tion would convince any reasonable person that they
resulted from confusion of a Hebrew Original. And
this conclusion would not be affected by the fact that
many other divergences could be only doubtfully thus
explained, and some not at all.

Take the book of Job, and compare the Greek text
with the Hebrew. There are probably a hundred
blunders where we can point to the exact confusion of
the extant Hebrew words or letters that has led the
translator astray. There are some hundreds more
that can be only doubtfully thus explained, or that
cannot be explained at all. There are a few passages
where there is no Hebrew extant, and where Greek
interpolation may be suspected. But no reasonable
person doubts that the great majority of errors in Job

viii

PREFACE

proceeds from a mkunderstandii^ <tf our H^mcw
text, dKM^ we cannot at present in eadi case say
what the misundefsxanding was. Precisdy the same
aigumoit holds good in the case of the Syntqitic
Goulds, as against die olijecdcxi that ''A few cases
of divog^ure ai^nrmtly, or even manife^Jy. arisii^
£nMn mtstranslatkm, do not prove anythii^ in die face
of the laiger numbo- <rf dirogences that cannot be
thus exfJained." It would be truer to aigue thus:
" Sis CM- se\~en cases of diveigoice ex^aiiKd by mis-
translation 9i£Bce to shew diat possil^ error finom
mistran^atioa must always be con^dered first in every
attsDopt to explain divergent passages^ And if, in the
book of Job, evoi with die Hdwew in our haiid*;^ we
cannot always d^ect the precbe error that led the
Greek tran^ator wroi^ i: is unreasonabfe to expect
that we ^Kwld d^ect it in the Sym^ptic Gospds, wiiere
the Hebrew is not extanc By .^ cardiil classification
of the certain causes oi errors in Job, we find ouisdves
able to exjdain, fitxn oonfixaon of Hdsrew, a good
^al that at first seemed inexplicable fixm thb cause.
The same result, it is hoped, may be attained, in the
case of the Sync^itisxs. by ckissifyii^ dieir agreonaits
and dts^rreements in difieroit portions of the Ootids,
by oomparii]^ them with the remarkable variations
found in the Codbx Bezae. the Sinaidc Syrian, die
AralMC Diatcssaran, and other ancient authorities, and
by leviewii^ die total result in the %ht of a collection

THE CORRECTIONS OF MARK

of similar agreements and disagreements in the Greek
renderings of the Hebrew old Testament."

To the friends that revised Clue, the author must
again express his thanks for similar aid. In particular,
he is indebted to Mr. W. S. Aldis for a close and
searching criticism that resulted in many modifications
and amplifications of the first draft of the work : and
Professor W. H. Bennett was kind enough to inspect
most of these additions, as well as the first proof, and
to add several valuable suggestions.

Wellside, Hampstead,
i6 March 1901.

CONTENTS

References and Abbreviations ..... Page xvii

BOOK I

DOCUMENTARY PRIORITY
Introduction (273-B) ....... Page 3

CHAPTER I

ABRIDGMENTS IN THE BOOK OF JOSHUA

§ I. The nature of the abridgments (276-7). § 2. The encompassing of Jericho
(278). § 3. Parallel in Layamon's Bnit (279) . . . Page J

CHAPTER II

'*" SAMUEL AND CHRONICLES

§ I. Hebrew modification (280). § 2. David's reduction of the Philistines (280).
§ 3. Signs of posteriority in Chronicles (281). § 4. David's numbering of
Israel (282). § S- The tendency of the Chronicler's changes (283-4). § 6.
The story of Araunah, or Oman (285-6). § 7. The answer "by fire"
(287-9) .... ... Page 10

xi

THE CORRECTIONS OF MARK

CHAPTER III

DANIEL IN TWO VERSIONS

I. The LXX both abridges and amplifies (290). § 2. The deciphering of the
inscription by Daniel (291). § 3. The bearing of these extracts on Luke
(292-3) . . . ... Page 20

CHAPTER IV

CHRONICLES, EZRA, AND ESDRAS

King Josiah (294-5). § 2. The explanation of the Greek additions (296).
§ 3. The proclamation of Cyrus (297-9). § 4. The preface to a letter to the
king of Persia (300-3). § 5. Fasting and praying (304-6) . Page 28

CHAPTER V

JUDGES IN TWO MANUSCRIPTS

I. The Song of Deborah, in the Codex Vaticanus (B), and in the Codex Alex-
andrinus (A) (306-7). § 2. The difficulty of supposing that the author of A
had B before him (308-9). § 3. The vengeance of Samson (310-1). § 4.
Codex A less accurate again than B (312-3). § 5. Codex A, later on, more
accurate than B (313) ...... Page 36

CHAPTER VI

PROOF OF mark's PRIORITY TO MATTHEW AND LUKE

I. Unsafeness of argument from mere antecedent probability (314). § 2.
Analogy between the versions and editions of parts of the Old Testament and
parts of the New (315-7). § 3. The Triple Tradition and the Double
Tradition in the Synoptic Gospels (318 (i)-(ii)). § 4. Conclusion from the
phenomena of the Triple Tradition (319-21). § S- Illustration of the relation
between the Synoptists (322). § 6. The Corrections of Mark adopted by
Matthew and Luke (328). § 7. Appeal to facts (324-6). § 8. The use of a
complete table of the corrections of Mark adopted by Matthew and Luke
(327-30) ........ Page 44

xii

CONTENTS

BOOK II
THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS OF MARK '

§ I. Arrangement (3S1-S). § 2. (Mk.) "the country of Judaea," (Mt.-Lk.) " the
country round about Jordan" (334-6). § 3. (Mk.) " with the Holy Spirit,"
(Mt.-Lk.) "in(or, with) the Holy Spirit and with fire" (336-42). §4. (Mk.)
"rent," (Mt.-Lk.) "opened" (343). § S- (Mk.) "casteth out," (Mt.-Lk.)
"led" (844). § 6. (Mk.) "wild beasts," (Mt.-Lk.) "hungered" (346-6).
§ 7. (Mk.) "his brother," (Mt.) "two brothers," [(Lk.) "two boats"]
(347-9). § 8. Mk.'s use of the word "proclaim" (360). § 9. (Mt.-Lk.)
"Sir,"om. by Mk. (361). § 10. (Mk.) "cometh" etc., (Mt.-Lk.) "behold"
(362-3). § II. (Mk.) "by four," (Mt.-Lk.) "on a bed " (364). § 12. (Mk.)
"before them," (Mt.-I.k.) " to his house " (366-6). § 13. The Exclamatory
Interrogative (367). § 14. (Mk.) " seweth on," (Mt.-Lk.) " putteth on " (368).
§ 15. The "wine-skins" (369-60). § 15 (a). (Mt.-Lk.) "eatii^," Mk.
omits (860 (i)). § l6. (Mk.) "except," (Mt.-Lk.) "except alone" (361).
§ 17. (Mk.) "plagues," (Mt.-Lk.) "diseases" (362). § 18. The naming of
the Apostles (863). § 19. (Mk.) "parables," (Mt.-Lk.) "thoughts" or
" purposes " (364-6). § 20. The blasphemy j^nst the Holy Spirit (367-9).
§20 (a). (Mk.) "the (men) about him with the Twelve,'' (Mt.-Lk.) "the
disciples " (870). § 21. (Mk.) "into them," (Mt.) " in his heart," (Lk.) " firom
their heart " (870-1). § 22. Interrbgatives (372). § 23. (Mk.) "come," (Mt.)
" light," (Lk.) " kindle " (373). § 24. (Mk.) " save that it may be," (Mt.-Lk.)
"that shall not be" (873 (i)-(ii)). § 25. The mustard-seed (374^80). § 26.
(Mk.) " they receive him," (Mt.-Lk.) " he went " (381). § 27. Jesus sleep-
ing on "the cushion"; Mt.-Lk. differ (382-6). § 28. (Mk.) "feared,"
(Mt.-Lk.) "marvelled" (887). § 29. (Mk.) "his garment," (Mt.-Lk.) "the
border of his garment" (388). § 30. (Mk.) "villages," (Mt.-Lk.) "cities
and villages" (389-90). § 30 (i). The positive instructions to the Twelve
(390 (i) (a)-(E)). § 30 (ii). The negative instructions to the Twelve (390 (ii)
(o)-(€)). §31. (Mt-Lk.) Herod "the tetrarch,"Mk. differs (391-3). §32.
(Mt.-Lk.) "withdrawing" or "drawing back," Mk. differs (394-9). § 33.
(Mk.) "on foot," (Mt.) "followed on foot," (Lk.) "followed" (400). § 34.
(Mk.) "teach," (Mt.) " cured," (Lk.) "healed" (401-3). § 34 (<«)• (Mk.)
"five," (Mt.-Lk.) "not . . . save (or, more than) five" (403 (i)). §35.
(Mt.-Lk.) "that which superabounded," Mk. omits (404-6). § 36. (Mt.-Lk.)
the "evil generation," Mk. omits "evil" (406-7). § 37. (Mt.-Lk.) "the

• This table gives merely the section headings. The subsections will often be
found to contain discussions on very important points, either in the context, or iu
other parts of the Gospels illustrative of the context.

xiii

THE CORRECTIONS OF MARK

sign of Jonah," Mk. omits (408-12). §38. (Mk.) "look," (Mt.-Lk.) "give
heed" (413). § 39. The confession of Peter (414-7). § 40. (Mk.) "after
three days," (Mt.-Lk.) "on the third day" (418). § 41. The Transfiguration
(419-21). § 42. (Mk.) "he knew not what to answer," (Mt.-Lk.) "while
he was still speaking (or, saying these things)" (422-4). § 43. (Mk.) "faith-
less," (Mt.-Lk.) "faithless and perverse" (425). § 43 (a). (Mk.) "unto
me," (Mt.) " to me . . . hither," (Lk.) "hither " (425 (i)). § 44. (Mk.) "is,"
(Mt.-Lk.) "is destined to be" (426-8). § 45. (Mk.) "first" and "last,"
Mt.-Lk. different (429-31 (ii)). § 46. "Salt" (432-7 (i)). § 46 (a). (Mt.-
Lk.) "it came to pass . . . Galilee" (438 (i)-(v)). § 47. (Mk.) "with-
lowring-countenance," (Mt.-Lk.) "heard" (439-42). § 48. (Mk.) "as-
tonished," (Mt.-Lk.) "heard" (443). § 49. (Mk.) "cleft," (Mt.-Lk.)
"hole'- (444 (i)-(ii)). § 50. (Mk.) " a hundred-fold," (Mt.-Lk.) "manifold"
(445-7 (iv)). § SO (a). (Mk.) "after three days," (Mt.-Lk.) "on the third
day" (447 (iv), see 418). § 51. (Mk.) "it was Jesus," (Mt.-Lk.) "Jesus was
going, or passing, by" (448). § 52. (Mk.) "bring," (Mt.-Lk.) "lead" (449).
§ 53. (Mk.) "went forth," (Mt.-Lk.) "passed the night" (450-3). § 54.
(Mk.) Interrogative, (Mt.-Lk.) Conditional (454). § 55. "Behold" and
"behold!" (456-6). § 55 (a). (Mk.) "I will put a question," (Mt.-Lk.)
"I, too, will question" (456 (i)-(iv)). § 56. (Mk.) "those," (Mt.-Lk.)
"having seen" (457-8). § 57. (Mk.) "he will come," (Mt.-Lk.) "they say"
(469-61). § 58. The Commandment-discussion (462-9). §59. (Mk.)"in
his teaching," (Mt.-Lk.) "disciples" (470). § 60. Walking "in robes"
(471-2). § 61. The reply of Jesus to Judas (473-7). § 62. The wounding of
the High priest's servant (478-82). § 63. (Mk.) " the Son of the Blessed,"
(Mt.-Lk.) " the Son of God " (483). § 64. (Mt.) " from this moment," (Lk.)
"from the present time," Mk. omits (484-5). §65. (Mt.-Lk.) "Who is it
that struck thee?" Mk. omits (486-93). § 66. (Mk.) "was," (Mt.-Lk.)
"sat" (493). § 67. Peter's three denials (494r-8). § 68. (Mk.) (R.V.) "when
he thought thereon," (Mt.-Lk.) "having gone out" (499-501). § 69. The
Jews prefer Barabbas to Jesus (502-3 (iv)). § 69 (a). Possibilities of Greek
corruption in the context (604). § 70. (Mk.) "bring," (Mt.-Lk.) "come"
(505). § 71. (Mt.) " watched him (Lk. crucified him) there " (506). § 71 (o).
(Mk.-Mt.) "his accusation," omitted by Lk. and Jn. (606 (i)-(iii)). § 72.
The titles of Christ (507-8). § 73. The description of Christ's death (609-14).
§ 74. (Mk.) "he expired," (Mt.-Lk.) "coming to pass," or "came to pass"
(614). § 7S. (Mk.) "in Galilee," (Mt.-Lk.) "from Galilee" (515-6). § 76.
Joseph of Arimathea (617-9). § 77. The burial of Jesus (520-1). § 78.
(Mk.) "in a white robe," (Mt.-Lk.) "... lightning" (622-7). § 79. The
end of Mark's Gospel — "for they feared" (628-33). § 80. Minor agree-
ments of Matthew and Luke (634-41) .... Page 6i

XIV

CONTENTS

APPENDIX I
A Complete Table of the Corrections in Greek . . Page 307

APPENDIX II
Oral Tradition ....... Page 325

Index of New Testament Passages . Page 331

XV

REFERENCES

(i) Black Arabic numbers, e.g. (275), refer to subsections indicated
in this volume or in the preceding one entitled Clue : subsec-
tions 1-272 belong to Clue : (275a) means a footnote on sub-
section 275.

(ii) The Books of Scripture are referred to by the ordinary ab-
breviations, except where specified below.. But when it is
said that Samuel, Isaiah, Matthew, or any other writer, wrote
this or that, it is to be understood as meaning l^e writer,
whoever he may be, of the words in question, and not as
meaning that the actual writer was Samuel, Isaiah, or Matthew.

(iii) The MSS. known severally as the Alexandrian, the Sinaitic,
the Vatican, and the Codex Bezae, are called by their usual
abbreviations A, N, B, and D. The Syriac version of the
Gospels discovered by Mrs. Gibson on Mount Sinai is called
in the text the "Syro-Sinaitic" or "Sinaitic Syrian," and in
the notes is referred to as SS.

(iv) The text of the Greek Old Testament adopted Is that of
Professor Swete ; ^ of the New, that of Westcott and Hort.

ABBREVIATIONS

A and M, see (iii) above.

B, see (iii) above.

Buhl = Buhl's edition of Gesenius, Leipzic, 1899.

Chr. = Chronicles.

^ This differs greatly from that of most earlier editions, which are usually based
on Codex A (33).

xvii

THE CORRECTIONS OF MARK

D, see (iii) above.

Diatess. = The Arabic Diatessaron, sometimes called Tatian's,
translated by Rev. H. W. Hogg, B.D., in the Ante-Nicene
Christian Library.

Ency. = Black's Encyclopaedia Biblica.

Esdras, the First Book of, is frequently called, in the text,
Esdras.

Gesen. Oxf. = the edition of Gesenius now being published by
the Clarendon Press.

Hawkins = Hawkins's Horae Synoptical, Oxford 1899.

Heb. LXX = that part of the LXX of which there is an extant
Hebrew Original.

Hor. Y{.^.= Horae Hebraicae, by John Lightfoot, 1658-74, ed.
Gandell, Oxf. 1859.

K. = Kings.

leg. = (as in Tromm.) "legerunt," i.e. the LXX "read" so-and-
so instead of the present Hebrew text.

Levy = Levy's Neuhebraisches und Chaldaisches Worterbuch,
Leipzic, 1889.

L.S. =Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon.

Oxf Cone. = The Oxford Concordance to the Septuagint.

S. = Samuel.

Schottg. = Schottgen's Horae Hebraicae, Dresden and Leipsic,

1733-

Sir. = the work of Ben Sira, i.e. the son of Sirach. It is

commonly called Ecclesiasticus (see 20a). The original Hebrew

has been edited, in part, by Cowley and Neubauer, Oxf 1897 ; in

part, by Schechter and Taylor, Camb. 1899.

SS, see (iii) above.

Tisch. = Tischendorf 's New Testament.

Tromm. = Trommius' Concordance to the Septuagint.

Wetst. = Wetstein's Commentary on the New Testament, Amster-
dam, 1751. ^

W. H. = Westcott and Hort's New Testament.

XVlll

EXPLANATIONS

(a) A bracketed Arabic number, following the sign =, and
connecting a Hebrew and a Greek word, indicates the number of
instances in which that Hebrew word is represented by that Greek
word in the LXX — e.g. mn = dm^e/taTtfoi (13), i^o'ko6pivus (23),
dirdA,A.v/ti (2).

{b) In cases where the verses of the Hebrew, the Greek, and
the Revised Version, are numbered differently, the numbering of
the Revised Version is, for the most part, given alone.

XIX

BOOK I
DOCUMENTARY PRIORITY

INTRODUCTION

[273] ^ In a previous volume, entitled Clue, specimens
were given, first of errors known to have been caused in
the Greek Old Testament by translation from the Hebrew,
and then of discrepancies and variations, in parallel passages
from the Greek New Testament, capable of being explained
in precisely the same way in which the discrepancies and
variations in different versions and manuscripts of the Greek
Old Testament had been explained. And the conclusion
was reached that parts of the Synoptic Gospels are based
on translations from a Hebrew document. Starting from
this conclusion we have now to consider two distinct
questions : Which of the three Synoptic Gospels is the
earliest ? Which is the closest to the Hebrew Original ?

[274] Incidentally these questions have been touched
on in Clue, and it has been shewn that the later translation
of Daniel by Theodotion is closer to the Hebrew than the
earlier one ascribed to the Seventy ; that the free Hellenic ^
translation of Ezra, commonly called the First Book of
Esdras, is probably, (32) from internal evidence, earlier, and
certainly less accurate, than the closer Hebraic translation
of Ezra printed in the Septuagint as the Second Book of
Esflras ; and that the Codex Alexandrinus, though later
by a century or more than the purest text of the

' The number 273 starts from the last subsection of Clue, which was 272.

''■ "Hellenic" will be sometimes used to characterize the style of a LXX
translation written in Greek of less Hebraic character than is customary in those
books of the LXX which are known to be translations.

3

[275] INTRODUCTION

Septuagint (represented by the Codex Vaticanus), is often
closer to the Hebrew than the latter. But only brief
extracts were given from these versions : and the discussion
of their differences was mostly restricted to the considera-
tion of confusions of words and conflations.

[275] Now other questions will arise. For example,
is brevity a proof of earliness or of lateness ? And may a
version that is in a considerable number of instances closer
to the Hebrew be relied on as being always closer? Is a
free Hellenic style always a sign of inaccuracy, and a
Hebraic style of accuracy, in translation ? The following
extracts are intended not so much to answer these and
other similar questions, as to prepare the reader not to
answer them prematurely. A complete answer cannot be
given until a very full Table has been constructed of the
Septuagint phenomena. But a great deal will have been
gained if readers are led to disabuse themselves of two or
three superficial but very common fallacies, and to keep an
open mind.

CHAPTER I

ABRIDGMENTS IN THE BOOK OF JOSHUA

§ I. The nature of the abridgments

[276] The following extracts from the book of Joshua,
about the capture of Jericho, exhibit many omissions in the
Septuagint. Some of the passages omitted may be described
as Semitic repetitions. But the Greek also omits the
command — which is not a repetition — to spend six days in
encompassing Jericho, and a great deal about the " seven
priests," and every mention of the " rams' horns."

[277] Professor Bennett, in the Polychrome Bible, prints
this narrative as one of a very composite nature ; and,
although the omissions of the Septuagint do not exactly
coincide with any particular colour, they belong mostly to the
passages coloured as being of late origin. Some traditions
about the mixed Hebrew origins of the story may possibly
in part account for the freedom with which the Septuagint
has condensed it.-*

1 Polychrome Series, Joshua, ed. Rev. W. H. Bennett. In a note on this
passage, Professor Bennett says, " In J they compass the city once a day for
7 days (vi. 3, 10, 11); they shout at the command of Joshua. In E they
compass the city 7 times on one day (vi. 4, 12, 13), rising early (vi. 12) in order
to have plenty of time ; the Ark and the priests are prominent, and the signal
for shouting is given by the horn (vi. 5). There are also traces of a third story,
used by E, according to which the signal, as in Ex. xix. 16, was given by a long
(supernatural ?) blast of a single horn. Accordingly vi. 5 and parts of vi. 7 and
vi. 20 are ascribed to E^.

" RJ^ and R'^ have done their best to combine the two accounts into a
continuous narrative ; and some one with musical enthusiasm, after the manner

s

[278]

ABRIDGMENTS

S 2. The encompassing of Jericfio
Joshua V. 13-vi. 12 (R. V.).^

[278] "(13) And it came
to pass, when Joshua was by
Jericho, that he lifted up his
eyes and looked, \and behold^
there stood a man over
against him with his sword
drawn in his hand : and
Joshua went unto him, and
said unto him, Art thou for
us, or for our adversaries ?
(14) And he said, \Nay ;
bui\ as captain of the host
of the Lord am I now come.
And Joshua fell on his face
to the ea.rth,[and did worship^
and said unto him, What
saith my lord unto his
servant? (15) And the
captain of the Lord's host
said unto Joshua, Put off thy
shoe from off thy foot ; for
the place whereon thou
standest is holy. {And
Joshua did so^

(vi. i) (Now Jericho was
straitly shut up \because of
the children of Israel'\ : none

Joshua v. 1 3-vi. 1 2 (LXX
literally translated).
[278] "(13) And it came
to pass, when Joshua was in
Jericho, and {i.e. then) having
looked up with his eyes he
saw a man standing over
against him, and the sword
drawn in his hand : and
having come to him Joshua
said to him, ' Ours art thou,
or of the adversaries ? ' (14)
But he said to him ' I as
captain of the host of the
Lord am now present.' And
Joshua fell on his face to
the earth, and said to him,
' Master, what dost thou
command thy servant ? '
(15) And the captain of the
Lord saith to Joshua, ' Loose
the shoe from off thy feet,
for the place whereon thou
now standest is holy.'

(vi. i) And Jericho was
shut up and fenced in, and
no one was going out from

of Chronicles, has thrown in a perpetual blowing of horns, which would have
rendered the horns useless as a signal, and is excluded by vi. 6 and vi. 16."

1 The bracketed italics in R.V. indicate roughly, the translation from the
LXX more exactly, what the LXX omits.

6

IN THE BOOK OF JOSHUA

[278]

went out and none came in.)
(2) And the Lord said unto
Joshua, See, I [have] give[«]
into thine hand Jericho, and
the king thereof and the
mighty men of valour. (3)
And ye shall compass [tAe
city], [all] the men of war,
going about [tAe city once].
[Thus shalt thou do six days.
(4) And seven priests shall
bear seven trumpets of rams'
horns before the ark: and
the seventh day ye shall
compass the city seven times,
and tJie priests shall blow
with the trumpets^ (5) And
it shall be, that when they
make a [long] blast with the
[ram's horn, and when ye
hear the sound of the]
trumpet, all the people shall
shout with a great shout ; and
the wall of the city shall fall
down flat, and the people
shall go up every man straight
before him. (6) And Joshua
the son of Nun called the
priests, and said unto them,
[Take up the ark of the
covenant, and] let seven priests

it nor in to it. (2) And the
Lord said to Joshua, ' See, I
give Jericho into thy hand,
and the king thereof that is
in it, being mighty - men in
strength. (3) But do thou
set round it the fighting men
in a circle. (4) And it shall
come to pass, when ye trumpet
with the trumpet, let all the
people together shout, (5)
and at their shouting, the
walls of the city shall fall of
themselves and all the people
shall enter in with a rush,
each man straight before his
face into the city.' (6) And
Joshua the son of Nav6 went
in to the priests, (7) and
spake to them, saying 'Charge
the people ^ to go round and
compass the city, and let
the fighting men pass along,
armed, before the Lord : (8)
and let seven priests having
seven sacred trumpets pass
along in like manner before
the Lord and let them give
the signal with all their
might : and let the ark of
the covenant of the Lord

1 It is difficult to say whether verses 8 and 9 in LXX are parallel to 6, 7, or
8, in R.V. Note that, in R.V. 7 (txt., not marg.) the priests speak to the
people, but in LXX 7 Joshua tells the priests to speak to the people. Moreover,
the statements of fact in R.V. 8, 9 appear as commands, not facts, in LXX
8, 9 (240-3).

7

[278]

ABRIDGMENTS

bear seven trumpets \of rams'
horns\ before \the ark of] the
Lord. (7) And they (or, he)
said unto the people, Pass on,
and compass the city, and
let the armed men pass on
before \tke ark of\ the Lord.
(8) And [it was so, that
when Joshua had spoken
unto the people, the] seven
priests bearing the seven
trumpets [0/ rams' horns] be-
fore the Lord passed on,, and
blew with the trumpets : and
the ark of the covenant of
the Lord followed them. (9)
And the armed men went
before the priests [that blew
the trumpets] and the rear-
ward went after the ark, the
priests blowing with the
trumpets as they went. (10)
And Joshua commanded the
people, saying, Ye shall not
shout, nor let your voice be
heard, [neither shall any
word proceed out of your
mouth], until the day I bid
you shout ; then shall ye
shout. (11) So [he caused]
the ark of the Lord to com-
pass [the city, going about it

1 "HE (oi)r6s)." The LXX perhaps took "to you (dd^Vn)" as "God (d'.i^n)"
and reverentially substituted " HE."

2 lit. "slept" iKot.ii.i]Si\, i.e. spent the night. The LXX may mean "(Joshua)
slept," or " the ark . . . lodged."

8

follow. (9) But let the
fighting men pass along
before, and the priests, the
rearward, behind the ark of
the covenant of the Lord,
blowing the trumpets.' (10)
But Joshua commanded the
people, saying 'Shout not,
nor let any man so much as
hear your voice, until HE
declare the day to shout
aloud : ^ and then shall ye
shout aloud.' (11) And
having gone round, the ark of
the covenant of God straight-
way went back into the
camp,and (?he) lodged^ there.
(12) And on the second day,
Joshua rose early, and the
priests took up the ark of
the covenant of the Lord."

IN THE BOOK OF JOSHUA [279]

once: and they\ came into
the camp and lodged \in the
camp]. (12) And Joshua
rose early in the morning,
and the priests took up the
ark of the Lord."

§ 3. Parallel in Layamon's "Brut"

[279] Similar omissions characterize large portions of
the Septuagint version of Joshua. Many of them bear a
close resemblance to the omissions in the later version of
Layamon's Brut, which cuts out epic superfluities and
repetitions, and occasionally spoils the metre in so doing.
In Josh. viii. i, 2 "I have given into thy hand the king
of Ai [and his people, and his city] and his land ; and thou
shalt do to Ai [and her king] as thou didst to Jericho and
her king ; only (LXX and) the spoil [there]o{ [and] the
cattle shall ye take,'' and in several other cases, it may be
doubtful whether the omitted portions may not have been
additions to the Hebrew text rightly rejected by the
Septuagint. But in the following instance there can be
hardly any doubt that the Greek translator is wrong. Joshua
is addressing the sinner Achan, who has brought defeat on
Israel (Josh. vii. 19): " [My son] give [/ pray thee] glory to
the Lord . . . and tell me [now] what thou hast done."
The bracketed words are omitted by the Septuagint. Their
omission is natural, for they sound, even to modern ears,
strangely lenient: their insertion, if they were not in the
original narrative, would be most unnatural. In this last
case, the Septuagint may be omitting, not for mere brevity,
but for seemliness as well.

CHAPTER II

SAMUEL AND CHRONICLES

§ I. Hebrew modification

The last chapter (277) touched on the possibilities of
different strata of Hebrew documents, some of which might
conceivably affect the Septuagint. To illustrate such possi-
bilities it will be useful to compare one or two passages in
Chronicles (R.V.) with their parallels in Samuel (R.V.). It
is known that Chronicles is later than Samuel. The first
extract describes David's conquest of Moab :

2. David's reduction of the Philistines

2 S. viii. 1-5.

[280] "(i) And after
this it came to pass, that
David smote the Philistines,
and subdued them : and
David took the bridle of the
mother city ^ out of the hand
of the Philistines. (2) And
he smote Moab, and measured
them with the line, making
them to lie down on the
ground ; and he measured two
lines to put to death, and one

I Chr. xviii. 1-5.

[280] "(i) And after
this it came to pass, that
David smote the Philistines,
and subdued them, and took
Gath and her towns out of
the hand of the Philistines.
(2) And he smote Moab, and

1 Or, "Methegammah."
10

SAMUEL AND CHRONICLES [282]

full line to keep alive. And

the Moabites became servants the Moabites became servants

toDavid.andbroughtpresents. to David, and brought pre-

(3) David smote also Hada- sents. (3) And David smote

dezer the son of Rehob king Hadarezer king of Zobah

of Zobah, as he went to re- unto ^ Hamath, as he went to

cover his dominion at the stablish his dominion by the

River.^ (4) And David took river Euphrates. (4) And

from him a thousand and David took from him a

seven hundred horsemen, and thousand chariots and seven

twenty thousand footmen : thousand horsemen, and

and David houghed all the twenty thousand footmen :

chariot horses, but reserved and David houghed all the

of them for an hundred chariot horses, but reserved of

chariots." them for an hundred chariots."

§ 3. Signs of posteriority in Chronicles

[281] Here Chronicles, even if we had not known it to
be later than Samuel, would have been stamped as such
by its explaining the difficult expression "the Bridle of the
Mother City," indicating the territory of the king of Zobah
(or the place of his defeat), and inserting " Euphrates " to
define " the River." The Chronicler omits the details of
the slaughter of Moab, perhaps as being out of harmony
with the ecclesiastical tone of his work.

S 4. David's numbering of Israel

2 S. xxiv. i-io. I Chr. xxi. 1-7.

[282] "(i) And again [282] «(i) And Satan '

the anger of the Lord was stood up against Israel, and

kindled against Israel, and moved David to number

he moved David against them, Israel.

1 Another reading is, "The river Euphrates." ^ Or, "by."

' Or, " an adversary."

I I

[282]

SAMUEL

saying, Go, number Israel
and Judah. (2) And the
king said to Joab the captain
of the host, which was with
him. Go now to and fro
through all the tribes 'of
Israel, from Dan even to
Beersheba, and number ye
the people, that I may know
the sum of the people. (3)
And Joab said unto the king,
Now the Lord thy God add
unto the people, how many
soever they be, an hundred
fold, and may the eyes of my
lord the king see it : but why
doth my lord the king delight
in this thing ? (4) Notwith-
standing the king's word pre-
vailed against Joab and against
the captains of the host.
And Joab and the captains
of the host went out from the
presence of the king, to
number the people of Israel.
(S) And they passed over
Jordan, and pitched in Aroer.

(2) And David said to Joab
and to the princes' of the
people. Go,

number Israel from Beersheba
even to Dan ; and bring me
word, that I may know the
sum of them. (3) And Joab
said. The Lord make his
people an hundred times so
many more as they be : but,
my lord the king, are they
not all my lord's servants ?
why doth my lord require
this thing? why will he be
a cause of guilt unto Israel ?
(4) Nevertheless the king's
word prevailed against Joab.
Wherefore Joab departed,
and

. . (8) So when they
had gone to and fro through
all the land, they came to
Jerusalem at the end of nine
months and twenty days.
(9) And Joab gave up the

went throughout all Israel

and came to Jerusalem.

(S) And Joab gave up the

12

AND CHRONICLES [283]

I

sum of the numbering of the sum of the numbering of the
people unto the king : and people unto David. And all
there were in Israel eight they of Israel were a thousand
hundred thousand valiant men thousand and an hundred
that drew the sword ; and thousand men that drew
the men of Judah were five sword : and Judah was four
hundred thousand men. hundred threescore and ten

thousand men that drew

sword. (6) But Levi and

Benjamin counted he not

among them : for the king!s

word was abominable to Joab-

(lo) And David's heart (7) And God was displeased

smote him after that he had with this thing ; therefore he

numbered the people." smote Israel."

§ 5. TAe tendency of the Chroniclet's changes

[283] Here the Chronicler condenses David's commands,
and omits all the geographical details of the numbering of
Israel and the time spent in the process. Joab's expostu-
lation in Samuel is much more courtly than in Chronicles,
which represents him as asking the king " why will he be a
cause of guilt unto Israel ? " More important than any of
these differences is the substitution of " Satan stood up " for
" the anger of the Lord was kindled." But they all reveal
in the Chronicler a later writer, dealing freely with an earlier
document, which he improves for the purpose of edification.

At the same time the Chronicler omits as superfluous

" go to and fro throughout all the tribes of Israel." Instead

of " Joab the captain (or, prince) of the host," he has " Joab

and the princes of the people" — a less military and more

constitutional expression.^

1 "Joab [even] the prince of the host" (2 S. xxiv. 2) may have been confused
(237) with " Joab and the princes of the host " (2 S. xxiv. 4). In the parallel to
the latter, Chr. has simply "Joab," in the parallel to the former, "Joab and the
princes of the people.''

[284] SAMUEL

[284] On the other hand Chronicles inserts in the
statistics one or two additional statements — which, if true,
would be of great importance — entirely altering the account
of the military forces of Israel, and adding that Levi and
Benjamin were not counted. Instead of the merely personal
statement that " David's heart smote him," the Chronicler
says that God " smote " the people.

§ 6. The story of Araunah, or Oman

[285] In the following extract, that part which deals
with Oman seeing the angel, and Oman's four sons
hiding themselves, has been discussed in Clue (106) where it
was shewn that the variation probably originated in a mis-
take of the Chronicler who read " king " as being the similar
word " angel." But a more important difference is that the
Chronicler inserts a statement, of which there is no vestige in
Samuel, that the Lord answered David from heaven by fire.

2 S. xxiv. 18-26. I Chr. xxL 18-28.

[286] "(18) And Gad [286] "(18) Then the

came that day to David, and angel of the Lord com-

said unto him, Go up, rear an manded Gad to say to

altar unto the Lord in the David, that David should

threshing-floor of Araunah the go up and rear an altar

Jebusite. (19) And David unto the Lord in the

went up according to the threshing-floor of Oman the

saying of Gad, as the Lord Jebusite. (19) And David

commanded. (20) And went up at the saying of Gad,

Araunah looked forth, and which he spake in the name

saw the king and his servants of the Lord. (20) And

coming on ^ toward him : and Oman turned back, and saw

the angel ; and his four sons

that were with him hid them-

Araunah went out, and bowed selves. Now Oman was

' Or, ' ' passing over. "
14

AND CHRONICLES

[286]

himself before the king with
his face to the ground. (21)
And Araunah said, Wherefore
is my lord the king come to
his servant?

And David said,
To buy the threshing-floor of
thee, to build an altar unto
the Lord, that the plague
may be stayed from the
people. (22) And Araunah
said unto David, Let my lord
the king take and offer up
what seemeth good unto him :
behold, the oxen for the
burnt-offering, and the thresh-
ing instruments and the
furniture of the oxen for the
wood : (23) all this, O king,
doth Araunah give ^ unto the
king. And Araunah said
unto the king. The Lord
thy God accept thee. (24)
And the king said unto
Araunah, Nay, but I will
verily buy it of thee at a
price : neither will I ofler
burnt-offerings unto the Lord
my God which cost me
nothing. So David bought
the threshing-floor and the
oxen for fifty shekels of silver.
(25) And David built there

threshing wheat. (21) And
as David came to Oman,
Oman looked and saw David,
and went out of the thresh-
ing-floor, and bowed himself
to David with his face to the
ground. (22) Then David
said to Oman, Give me
the place of this threshing-
floor, that I may build thereon
an altar unto the Lord : for
the full price shalt thou give
it me : that the plague may
be stayed from the people.

(23) And Oman said unto
David, Take it to thee, and
let my lord the king do that
which is good in his eyes : lo,
I give [thee] the oxen for
burnt-offerings, and the thresh-
ing instruments for wood, and
the wheat for the meal offer-
ing : I give it all.

(24) And king David said
to Oman, Nay ; but I will
verily buy it for the full
price ; for I will not take that
which is thine for the Lord,
nor offer a burnt - offering
without cost. (25) So David
gave to Oman for the place
six hundred shekels of gold
by weight. (26) And David

1 Or, "All this did Araunah the king give," etc.

IS

[287] SAMUEL

an altar unto the Lord, and built there an altar unto
offered burnt-offerings and the Lord, and offered burnt -
peace-offerings. offerings and peace-offerings,

and called upon the Lord ;

and he answered him from

heaven by fire upon the altar

of burnt -offering. And the

So the Lord was intreated for Lord commanded the angel ;

the land, and the plague was and he put up his sword again

stayed from Israel." into the sheath thereof."

§ 7. The answer by fire

[287] The alterations made by the Chronicler all tend
in the direction of seemliness, or magnify the supernatural
element. " Gad came and said " is altered into " the angel
of the Lord commanded Gad to say." The space given in
Samuel (xxiv. 21—23) to Araunah's utterances is partly
devoted by the Chronicler to matters of fact. The price
paid by the king for the altar is vastly increased (" fifty
shekels of silver " changed to " six hundred shekels of gold ").
" Calling on the Lord " is added to " burnt-offerings and
peace-offerings." Lastly, instead of " the Lord was intreated
and the plague was stayed," the Chronicler says that " the
Lord answered him from heaven by fire" and "commanded
the angel and he put up his sword."

[288] It may occur to many readers, who find it impos-
sible to accept the " answer by fire " as a historical event, that
their rejection of the narrative forces them to reject the narrator
as absolutely dishonest: " How," they may ask, "'could an event
unique in David's life and extremely rare in Biblical History
have been omitted by the earlier book of Samuel if there
had been a vestige of tradition to support it ? The Chronicler
must in this case have invented without regard to tradition.
It is not a textual corruption, but a deliberate fabrication."

16

AND CHRONICLES [289]

But such reasoning ignores two important considerations,
(i) the extent to which marginal notes and traditional
comments, intended at first to be mere paraphrases or
suggestions, creep into the text, where they become his-
torical exaggerations ; (ii) the general rule that miraculous
stories in the Bible spring from poetry or metaphor
misunderstood. For example, in the narrative of Araunah,
where Samuel has " I will buy it at a price," editors or
commentators might naturally say, " The king did not mean
' at a price,' which might mean a nominal price : he meant
' the full price.' " Then coming to the " fifty shekels of
silver," and remembering that Abraham gave four hundred
shekels for a burial-place, they might suggest that silver here
must mean " money," as it often does. Subsequent editors,
approving " money," would find it indefinite and would suggest
{a) " gold," adding, perhaps, that " shekel," which has the
meaning of " weight," here means (6) " by weight." Again,
later tradition might suggest that one of these shekels was
equal to several, perhaps twelve, ordinary shekels of silver,
thus obtaining (c) " six hundred shekels." And this, being
conflated with the above, might result in " (c) six hundred
shekels (a) of gold (6) by weight." This may be called
" growth," or " accretion," or whatever other synonym critics
may select : but it is not " fabrication."

[289] As regards the "' answer by fire," we must bear in
mind that " fire " from the Lord is connected with the first
sacrifice offered by Aaron as High-priest on the altar of
burnt-oflering, with the sacrifice of Gideon, with that of
Elijah, and (in Chronicles, but not in Kings) with the first
sacrifice offered in Solomon's temple.^ Now it was a general
belief among offerers of sacrifice that lAe gods " ate " the
victims consumed on their altars, a belief preserved in
Deuteronomy : " Where are their gods . . . which did eat
the fat of their sacrifices ? " ^ Against applying this belief
1 Lev. jx. 24, Judg. vi. 21, i K. xviii. 38, 2 Chr. vii. 1-3. 2 Uguj xxxii. 38.
2 17

[289] SAMUEL

to Jehovah the prophets of Israel protested : and the
Pentateuch never describes Him as " eating the fat," but
only as " smelling a sw^eet savour " from it. However, the
ancient belief appears to have left its mark on the Old
Testament in the use of " bread " or " food " in such phrases
as "the food of their God," and "of thy God," " my food','
etc., meaning the sacrifices consumed by Jehovah.^ The
Septuagint, disliking this anthropomorphism, substitutes for
" food," in many passages, " gifts." In Lev. iii. 1 1 , " the
_/o^^-<?/"the-ofiFering-made-by-fire unto the Lord," the LXX
gives a paraphrase " a savour of a sweet-smell, a fruit-offering
to the Lord," and again (Numb, xxviii. 24) " iht food of i}a&
offering-made-by-fire," it has " a gift, a fruit-offering." Now
a burnt-offering when consumed by fire may be said in Hebrew
to be " eaten " by the fire? Hence, some Hebrew traditions
might distinguish special sacrifices such as those of Gideon,
Elijah, and Solomon, by saying, not indeed that God " ate ''
them, but that fire from the Lord " ate " them, or that He
sent the fire to '' eat " them. By this the originator may have
meant what modern writers might express by " accepted,"
or " accepted with a special acceptance " : but it might be
interpreted as meaning that fire came down visibly from
heaven and consumed them. The story, being thus inter-
preted, would be amplified with explanatory details.

In later Jewish traditions, "fire" is frequently mentioned
in quaint stories intended to enforce the belief that God is
specially present at any sacred action such as the study of
the Law. It is recorded of Jonathan ben Uzziel that his
fire in the study of Thorah burned up the birds that flew
over him ; and Rabban Johanan and his disciples " read and
expounded till the fire shone round about them as when

> Corap. Lev. xxi. 6, 8, 17, etc. Gesenius, Oxf., compares also Numb,
xxviii. 2, Ezek. xvi. 19, xliv. 7, Mai. i. 12.

2 Lev. vi. 10 "the ashes whereto the fire hath consumed (but lit. eaten) the
burnt-offering," Deut. v. 25 "this great fire will consume us."' The same word
is used of "fire" in Is. v. 24, Nah. iii. 13 (R.V.) "devour."

18

AND CHRONICLES [289]

the law was given at Mount Sinai." ^ In the Chronicler's
account of Solomon's dedication of the Temple the descent
of fire — omitted in the parallel Kings — may be nothing
but a conflation of the statement in Kings that " the glory of
the Lord " or " the cloud," i.e. the Shechinah, filled the house
of the Lord.^

To return to the story of Araunah. Possibly a scribe,
or editor, dissatisfied with the sober termination of Samuel,
desired to emphasize the efficacy of the first prayer offered
on the site of the new Temple ; and, in suggesting, in the
margin, " answered by fire," he may have meant little more
than we should mean by saying that " God answered him
with His glorious presence," or "vouchsafed His presence,
and answered him in power." The insertion of such a
tradition in the text may have been facilitated by a con-
fusion between " fire " and " sacrifice by fire," which are very
similar words.'

1 Taylor's Jewish Fathers, i. 13 (2nd ed. p. 21) ; Hor. Hebr. on Acts i. 13 ;
see also Schbttg. (on Acts ii. 3).

2 I K. viii. 10, II ; 2 Chr. vii. 1-3.

3 [289al "Fire (»«) " and "fire-sacrifice (myn)" are easily confused : comp.
I S. ii. 28, ^^ offerings," toS irvp6s, conversely Numb, xviii. 9 "from the fire,"
rSiv KapTia/jtiTiDV.

Hastings' Diet. B. ("Elijah" p. 688) speaks of "the lightning" as con-
suming Elijah's sacrifice, but says that the other story of the descent of fire on the
captains of fifties (ib. 690) "can hardly be regarded as history.''

See 2 Mac. i. 19-22 for Nehemiah's discovery of the sacred fire after the
exile. In 2 Mac. x. 3, when Judas Maccabaeus purifies the Temple, it is said
that the Jews built another altar wvp^aavTes \Wovs, Kal irvp ix roiruv XojSiKTes, a
detail not found in the fiiUer account in I Mac. iv. 43-7.

19

CHAPTER III

DANIEL IN TWO VERSIONS

§ I . The LXX both abridges and amplifies

[290] The following extracts from the Septuagint and
from Theodotion's version of Daniel are selected as shewing
that a version may abbreviate in one passage and amplify-
in another. Theodotion, throughout, practically adheres to
our present Aramaic text : his translation is known to be
later than that of the Septuagint. .

§ 2. The deciphering of the inscription by Daniel
Dan. V. 1 3-vi. 1 8 (LXX) (lit). Dan. v. 1 3-vi. 1 8 (Theod.) (lit.).

[291] "(13). Then Daniel
was brought in unto the king,

[291] "(1 3) Then Daniel
was brought in before the
king, and. the king said to
Daniel, Thou art Daniel, the
[man] from the children of
the captivity of Judaea whom
the king my father brought
[hither] ? (14)! have heard
concerning thee that the
spirit of God [is] in thee, and
watchfulness and excellent
wisdom hath been found in
thee. (15) And now there
have come in before me the

20

DANIEL IN TWO VERSIONS

[291]

and the king answered and
said to him, (i6) O Daniel,
canst thou show me the
interpretation of the writing ?
And {i.e. then) I will array
thee in a purple robe, and I
will put a golden chain about
thee, and thou shalt have
authority over the third part

of my kingdom. (17) Then
Daniel stood over against the
writing, and read, and thus
he answered the king.

This is the
writing, It is numbered, it
is reckoned, it is taken away ;
and the hand that wrote
stood [still], and this is
the interpretation of them.
(23) O king,

wise men, enchanters, gaza-
renes, that they may' read
this writing and make known
to me the interpretation
thereof: and they could not
declare [it] to me. (16) And
I have heard concerning thee
that thou canst interpret
judgments : now therefore if
thou canst read the writing,
and makest known to me the
interpretation thereof, thou
shalt wear a purple robe, and
the chain of gold shall be
upon thy neck, and thou
shalt rule in my kingdom
[being] third. (17) And
Daniel spake in the king's
presence, Let thy gifts be to
thyself: and the gift of thy
house give thou to another :
but I will read the writing,
and will make known to thee
the interpretation thereof.
(18) O king, God the Most
High gave to Nebuchadnezzar
thy father the kingdom, and
greatness, and honour and
glory; (19) and because of
the greatness that he gave
him all the peoples, tribes,
languages, trembled and were
afraid before him : whom he
would, he destroyed, and
whom he would, he smote,

21

[291]

DANIEL

(23) ... thou madest a
feast for thy friends, and
wast drinking wine, and the
vessels of the house of the
living God were brought to
thee, and ye drank therein,
thou and thy nobles, and ye

and whom he would, he doth
raise up (vyjroi, v.r. -ov), and
whom he would he humbled.
(20) And when his heart was
lifted up and his spirit was
hardened to deal proudly, he
was brought down from his
kingly throne, and his honour
was taken from him, (21) and
he was driven away from
men, and his heart was given
with the beasts (i.e. made like
them), and with wild asses
[was] his habitation, and they
fed him with grass like an
ox, and with the dew of
heaven his body was wet,
until he should know that
God the Most High is lord
of the kingdom of men, and
will give it (i.e. the kingdom)
to whosoever seemeth him
good. (22) And thou there-
fore his son, Belshazzar, hast
not humbled thine heart in the
sight of God : thou knewest
not all these things : (23) and
thou hast been lifted up
against the Lord God of
heaven, and the vessels of
his house thou didst bring
before thee, and thou and
thy nobles and thy concu-
bines and thy wives drank
wine therein, and thou didst

22

IN TWO VERSIONS

[291]

praised all the idols of men,
made with hands, and to
the Living God ye offered
no blessing, and thy breath
is in his hand, and [it is] he
[that] gave thee thy kingdom,
and thou didst not bless him,
neither didst offer him praise.

(26) This is the interpre-
tation of the writing. The
time of thy kingdom hath
been numbered, thy kingdom
ceaseth.

(27) It hath been cut short
and accomplished.^

(28) Thy kingdom is given
to the Medes and to the
Persians. (29) Then Bel-
shazzar the king clothed
Daniel in purple and put a
chain of gold about him and

praise the gods of gold and
silver and brass and iron and
wood and stone, which see
not, nor hear nor know ; and
the God in whose hand thy
breath is, and whose are
all thy ways, him thou hast
not glorified : (24) for this
cause was the bone of the
hand sent from before him
and it set therein this writing.
(25) And this is the writing
that was set therein, Man6,
Thekel, Phares. (26) This
. is the interpretation of the
saying, Man6, God hath
measured thy kingdom and
brought it to fulfilment :
(27) Thekel, it hath been
weighed in the balance and
found lacking: (28) Phares,
thy kingdom is divided and
given to the Medes and
Persians. (29) And Bel-
shazzar spake, and they
clothed Daniel with purple
and put the chain of gold
about his neck, and he made
proclamation concerning him.

' [291o] Neither here, nor in v. 17, does the LXX mention the words " Mene,
Tekel, etc.," but it gives them in a summary that precedes the story (coming
before v. i) thus : "In that same night there came forth fingers as it were of a
man, and wrote upon the wall of his house, upon the plaster over against the
lamp, Man^, Phares, Thekel : and the interpretation of them is — Man^, it hath
been numbered. Phares, it hath been taken away. Thekel, it hath been
weighed."

23

[291]

DANIEL

gave him authority over the
third part of his kingdom.
(30) And the judgment
came upon Belshazzar the
king, and the sovereignty
was taken away from the
Chaldaeans and given to the
Medes and to the Persians.
And Artaxerxes, he of the
Medes, received the kingdom,
vi. (i) And Darius [was]
full of days ^ and honoured
in his old age, and he set a
hundred and twenty-seven {sic)
satraps over all his kingdom,
(2) and over them three men
that had leadership of them,
and Daniel was one of the
threemen,(3) havingauthority
beyond all in the kingdom.
And Daniel was clothed in
purple, and great and honour-
ed before Darius the king,
according as he was honoured
and a man of understanding
and wisdom, and a holy spirit
was in him, and he prospered
in the business of the king
which he dealt with. Then
the king was purposed to set
Daniel over all his kingdom,
and the two men whom he
set with him, and a hundred
and twenty - seven satraps.

' Aram, "son of sixty-two years" (125).
24

that he should be the third
ruler in the kingdom. (30)
In that very night Belshazzar
the king of the Chaldaeans
was slain, and Darius the
Mede received the kingdom,
being sixty-two years [old].^

vi. (i) And [it] was pleas-
ing in the sight of Darius,
and he set over the kingdom
a hundred and twenty satraps,
that they should be in the
whole of his kingdom, (2)
and above them three presi-
dents, of whom Daniel was
one, that the satraps should
render account to them, in
order that the king might
not be troubled. (3) And
Daniel was beyond them, for
an excellent spirit was in
him, and the king set him
over the whole of his king-
dom.

IN TWO VERSIONS

[291]

(4) But when the king was
purposed to set Daniel over
all his kingdom, then the
two young men counselled
a counsel and purpose with
themselves, saying to one an-
other, since they found no sin
nor fault-of-ignorance against
Daniel concerning which
they might accuse him to the
king, (5) and they said. Come
let us make a decree against
ourselves (? Koff kavrSsv) that
no man shall ask a petition
or pray a prayer till thirty
days from any God save only
from Darius the king : else,
he shall die : that they might
get the better of Daniel
before the king, and that he
might be thrown into the
den of lions. For they knew
that Daniel prayed and be-
sought the Lord his God
thrice a day. (6) Then
those men came and spake
in the presence of the king,
(7) We have established a
decree and a statute that
every man, whosoever shall
pray a prayer or make a
petition of any God until
thirty days save of Darius
the king, shall be thrown
into the den of lions.

(4) And the presidents
and satraps sought to find
an occasion against Daniel.
And they found no occasion
nor transgression nor offence
against him, because he was
faithful. (S) And the pre-
sidents said, We shall not
find any occasion against
Daniel, except in the observ-
ances of his God.

(6) Then the presidents and
the satraps stood by the
king and said to him. King
Darius, live for ever. (7)
All those who are over thy
kingdom, ministers and sa-
traps, governors and magis-
trates, have consulted to-
gether to establish by royal
statute and confirm a decree
that whosoever shall ask a

25

[292] DANIEL

petition of any god or man
until thirty days, save of
thee, O king, shall be cast
into the den of lions. (8)
Now therefore, O king,
establish the decree and
publish a writing, that the
ordinance of the Persians
and Medes be not changed.

(9) And thus did king (9) Then king Darius com-
Darius establish and ratify, manded that the ordinance

(10) But Daniel . . . should be put in writing.

(10) And Daniel . . .

§ 3. The bearing of these extracts on Luke

[292] It will be seen that the Septuagint omits a good
deal of discourse about Nebuchadnezzar that might seem not
to the point, and some more discourse that might seem tedious.
It omits Daniel's verbal rejection of the king's gifts — pre-
sumably because the narrative goes on to say that Daniel
actually received them. It mentions the actual words of
the mysterious writing in a short preface to the narrative,
but not in the narrative itself^ On the other hand it is
fuller on the jealousy and plotting of Daniel's colleagues,
who are described as saying " Come, let us make a decree " ;
and are said to " have established " it, whereas Theodotion
has " have consulted together to establish " it.

[293] On one point of some importance Theodotion
is wrong and the Septuagint right. According to the
former, the king ''set" Daniel over the whole of his
kingdom : ^ but according to the Aramaic — which the

1 See 291a.

2 Dan. vi. 3 Ko.Tiar-i\(!iv , but Aram, "thought (n'sj-y) to set." Theod. dropping
!? (which follows a preceding k ) and taking the word as from Heb. nir, "put,"
may have considered it superfluous, since "set" follows. Dan. vi. 2 "three

26

IN TWO VERSIONS [293]

Septuagint follows in this respect — the king only "purposed"
to set Daniel in this position.

This instance is of value in its bearing on the Synoptists.
Luke — the latest of the three Evangelists, and a pains-taking
historian — may have done his best, as Theodotion did, to
return to his original ; but he may not always have been
successful, and sometimes he may have altered Mark for
the worse, while endeavouring to conform to the Hebrew.

presidents of whom Daniel was one (in) " = in A.V. " three . . . first,"
and LXX perhaps conflates, " {a-^ Daniel was one of the three, (a^ having
authority beyond all in the kingdom, . . . honoured before Darius," i.e. "first."

27

CHAPTER IV

CHRONICLES, EZRA, AND ESDRAS

§ I. King Josiah

[294] The First Book of Esdras is parallel at first to
Chronicles and afterwards to Ezra. After describing
Josiah's Passover, Chronicles continues as follows : —

2 Chr. XXXV. 19, 20 "In the eighteenth year of the
reign of Josiah was this passover kept. After all this, when
Josiah had prepared the Temple, Neco king of Egypt
went up to fight against Carchemish by Euphrates."

Before " the coming up of Neco " the Septuagint of
Chronicles, and i Esdras, have the insertions italicized
below : —

The end of Josiah's reign.

I Esdr. i. 20-23. 2 Chr. xxxv. 18-20 (LXX).

[295] "(20) In the (18) "And there was no

eighteenth year of the reign Passover like this in Israel

of Josiah was this Passover . . . (19) in the eighteenth

celebrated. (21) And the year of the reign of Josiah.

deeds of Josiah were right (i9«) And tfie soothsayers,

before the face of his Lord and the sorcerers and the

(lit.) in a heart full of piety. Tharaphein did king

(22) And further what re- Josiah bum . . .
lates to him has been written
out in the former times
concerning those who have

28

CHRONICLES, EZRA, AND ESDRAS

[296]

sinned and done impiously
against the Lord beyond
every nation and kingdom,
and the things wherein they
grieved him are [ ? J. And
the words of the Lord rose up
against Israel. (23) And after
all these deeds of Josiah it
happened ^ that Pharaoh
king of Egypt came and
stirred up war in Charcamus
on the Euphrates."

(19c) Howbeit the Lord
turned not from the anger of
his great fury, wherewith the
Lord was angry with fudah
concerning all the ordinances
wherein Manasseh provoked
him. iigd) And the Lord
said. Even Judah will I re-
move from before my face as
I rem.oved Israel, and I have
rejected the city that I chose,
namely Jerusalem, and the
house concerning which I
said. My name shall be there.
(20) And there came up
Pharaoh Nechao, king of
Egypt, against the king of
the Assyrians to the river
Euphrates."

8 2. The explanation of the Greek additions

[296] The explanation of these insertions is as follows.
The translator of Esdras is dissatisfied with the termination
of the history of Josiah as it stands in Chronicles, because
the Chronicler omits the allusion — contained in the parallel

Kings to the pathetic inability of this pious king ^ to cancel

God's prediction of retribution for the evil wrought by
Manasseh, who is previously declared (in Kings and
Chronicles) to have "seduced them to do that which is

1 "Happened (irw^^i?)," (?) Greek corruption for i-vi^n "came up" (in
K. and Chr.). In the preceding verse, "they grieved him zx^' = mTr-r,aav
airiv Im-iv. There appears to be some corruption or omission.

2 2 K. xxiii. 24-6.

29

[297] CHRONICLES, EZRA, AND ESDRAS

evil more than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed
before the children of Israel." ^

Esdras therefore inserts a very brief reference to Man-
asseh. But it is almost lost in the plural (" those who have
sinned ") and obscured by the substitution of " sin " for
"cause to sin," so that the allusion would hardly have been
detected but for the phrase "beyond every nation and
kingdom." The Greek translator of Chronicles — apparently
influenced by the same feeling as the author of Esdras —
inserted in Chronicles a full translation of the remarks in
Kings concerning Josiah.^ The inference from this is,
that when one of two parallel documents makes an inser-
tion to supply a real or supposed defect, the other may
supply it also but in a different way. And, if the Greek
translation of Chronicles was later than Esdras, or this
portion of Esdras, then this is an instance where the later of
two documents (LXX Chronicles) supplies a defect better —
historically speaking — than the earlier (Esdras) by inter-
polating a passage out of a third document, the earliest of the
three.

§ 3. The proclamation of Cyrus

[297] The last words of Chronicles recur as the first
words of Ezra. They are also repeated in i Esdras. The
Hebrew in Chronicles and Ezra is almost exactly the same,
but the Septuagint is different. The subject is the pro-
clamation of Cyrus for the rebuilding of the Temple.

The Hebrew is (2 Chr. xxxvi. 23, Ezr. i. 2, 3) " Thus

said Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth

hath the Lord, the God of heaven, given me : and he hath

charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem which is in

Judah. Who [is there] among you from all his people?

The Lord ^ his God [is, or, be] with him (so Chr., but Ezr.,

' 2 K. xxi. 9, 2 Chr. xxxiii. 9. 2 2 K. xxiii. 24-27.

* "The Lord" = nW', " be " = <n' in Ezra (sometimes ,t,t ). The two were
probably confused.

30

CHRONICLES, EZRA, AND ESDRAS

[299]

omitting « the Lord," has " His God be with him ") and let
him go up." Here Chronicles ends. But Ezra continues,
" to Jerusalem which is in Judah, and build the house of
the Lord, the God of Israel (he is God) which is in Jeru-
salem" (R.V. marg. "he is the God which is in Jerusalem").

2 Chr. xxxvi. 23 (LXX). Ezr. i. 2, 3 (LXX).
[298] "(2) Thus

[298] " (23) These
things saith Cyrus
king of the Persians
toi all the kingdoms
of the earth. There
hath given unto me
[?] the Lord the God
of heaven, and he
commanded me to
build him a house in
Jerusalem in Judaea.
Who out of you [is
there] out of all his
people ? There shall
be his God with him
and let him go up."

I Esdr. ii. 3-5.

[298] "(3) These
things saith the king
of the Persians, Cyrus:
Me hath the Lord of
Israel the Lord Most
High appointed king
of the world. (4)
And he charged me
to build him a house
in Jerusalem that is
in Judaea. (5) If
therefore there is any
one of you out of his
nation, let his Lord
be with him ; and
going up to Jerusalem
that is in Judaea let
him build the house
of the Lord of Israel
— he is the Lord
that tabernacled in
Jerusalem.''

[299] It is instructive to note that the Septuagint version
of Ezra, which is generally very faithful to the Hebrew — or
at least attempts to be — stops almost where the sentence in
Chronicles ends : it merely adds " to Jerusalem." This raises

1 jrdcrais Tols pa<ri\elats (A ird(ras Ti,s ^curcKeias)-

2 iireaKixj/arb lie iir' i/U. The original is "hath made visitation, i.e. injunction,
upon me." The translator appears to conflate two constructions.

3 " Both . . . and " is perhaps meant by (cai ^o-rai — xal d,va§ii<reTai.. Prob-
ably the LXX read 1 before 'n'. It might easily be repeated after the final 1 in
the preceding word (iDB). Codex A adds t) ev ti) louffaia • km oiKodo/xritraTa tov
oiKov 6v lo-X • ouTos 6s ei> Ikriii.

31

said Cyrus king of the
Persians, All the king-
doms hath the God of
heaven given unto me
and he hath visited me
upon me {sic),^ to build
him a house in Jeru-
salem that is in Judah.
(3) Who [is there]
among you from all
his people ? Both (?)
his God shall be with
him and he shall go
up to Jerusalem." ^
[Heb. adds, but LXX
omits, " which is in
Judah

in Jerusalem."]

[300] CHRONICLES, EZRA, AND ESDRAS

a doubt whether the translator of Ezra accepted as genuine
the Hebrew addition, and whether it may not be of the
nature of an Appendix, added under the impression that
the extreme abruptness of the termination in Chronicles
implied that some words had dropped out.. The translator
of Chronicles has fallen into a serious error in making
Cyrus address all the kingdoms of the earth.^ Esdras
is accurate though very free. Ezra (LXX) is closest to
the original except that the translator (after " kingdoms ")
casually omits " of the earth " (which Codex A restores). As
a fact, the Greek of Ezra is habitually closer to the Hebrew
than is the Greek of Esdras — in which the habit of free
translation often leads to error (apart from its frequent
confusion of some Hebrew words).

§ 4. The preface to a letter to the king of Persia

[300] The next extracts exhibit the above-noted charac-
teristics of Ezra (LXX) and Esdras in a still clearer light.
The Hebrew, which passes speedily into Aramaic, is to the
following effect: Ezr. iv. 6-1 1 (R.V.)"And in the reign
of Ahasuerus in the beginning of his reign wrote they an
accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem.
And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath,
Tabeel, and the rest of his companions, unto Artaxerxes,
king of Persia : and the writing of the letter was written in
the Syrian [character] and set forth in the Syrian [tongue^].
(8) Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote
a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this
sort : (9) then [wrote] Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai
the scribe, and the rest of their companions : the Dinaites

' It can hardly be a mere case of Greek corruption since it involves the
alteration of three terminations, which are corrected by Codex A : but the
meaning intended by the translator is doubtful.

2 "Syrian." R.V. marg. "Or, Aramaic," and adds, "Chapter iv. 8-vi. i8
is in Aramaic.

32

CHRONICLES, EZRA, AND ESDRAS

and the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites,
the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Shushanchites, the
Dehaites, the Elamites, (lo) and the rest of the nations
whom the great and noble Osnappar brought over, and
set in the city of Samaria, and in the rest [of the country]
beyond the river, and so forth. ( 1 1 ) This is the copy of
the letter, that they sent unto Artaxerxes the king (lit.
unto him, [even] unto Artaxerxes the king)."

[301] This passage is full of repetitions which indicate
original obscurity and subsequent conflation. In particular,
the names suggest that Apharsites, if not a corruption of
" scribes," is a repetition of Apharsathchites. Also Archevites
is said to be an error for " who are Cuthaeans."^ Esdras
omits the list. He also substitutes " Coelesyria " for " beyond
the river" (which might mean either east or west of the
river), and condenses generally, while Ezra (LXX) clings to
the corrupt Hebrew.

I Esdr. ii. 15-16. Ezr. iv. 6-g (LXX).

[302] [makes no mention [302] " (6) And in the

of letters to Ahasuerus.] reign of Astherus in the

"(15) But in the times beginning of his reign he

during the reign of Artaxerxes (sic) vf rote against^ them that

king of Persia, there wrote- inhabited Judah and Jerusa-

against them^ (sic) against the lem. (7) And in the days of

inhabitants in Judaea and Asardatha he (^sic) wrote in

Jerusalem, Belemus ^ and peace^ to Mithradates, Tabeel

Mithradates and Tabellius and the rest of the fellow-

and Rathumus and Beelteth- servants. To the king of the

mus and Samellius the scribe Persians wrote the Phorologos

and the rest that were in ofifice (lit. " carrier of words," but

1 Black's Encycl. Bibl. i. 191, 293.

2 " Wrote-^ainst them (Kariypa^ev airrwy)," perhaps an error caused by
reading avru "to him" (the reading of A) as avrw {i.e. airrwi/) : "against" in
Ezr. =^7rf.

3 " Belemus " (Esdr.)= " in peace '' (Ezr.) = " Bishlam " (R.V.) (see 303).

3 33

[303]

CHRONICLES, EZRA, AND ESDRAS

with these, but dwelling in
Samaria and the other places,
the hereafter-written letter.
( 1 6) To king Artaxerxes the
lord thy ^ servants Rathumus
the [writer of] the things that
befall, and Samelliusthescribe
and the rest of their council,

and they that are in Coele-
syria and Phoenicia."

also " one levying tribute ") a
letter in the Syrian language
and interpreted. (8) Raoul
Badatamen and Samasa the
scribe wrote one (i.e. a) letter
against Jerusalem to Arsartha
the king. (9) These things
judged Raoum - Baal and
Samae the scribe and the
rest of our^ fellow-servants,
Deinaeans, Pharesthachaeans,
Taraphallaeans, Aphrasaeans,
Archouans, Babylonians,

Sousunachaeans who are
Elamaeans, (10) and the rest
of the nations whom Asen-
naphar the great and honour-
able removed from their dwell-
ings and he caused them to
dwell in cities of the [land of]
Somoron (sic) and the rest
beyond the river. This is
the setting forth of the letter
that they sent to him [to
Arsartha the king]." ^

[303] It should be noted here that the translator of Ezra
has failed to recognize " Bishlam " as a name. But even in
his error he has adhered to the Hebrew, taking " b " as " in,"
and " shim " as " peace " (which it actually means). He'
perhaps connected " in peace " with the phrase of greeting
(" Peace be unto you ").

1 "Thy," "our." These readings regard the letter as having commenced,
and " thy " and "our" as words in the letter.

2 The bracketed words are printed by Swete with a capital {lipis) as though
they began the letter.

34

CHRONICLES, EZRA, AND ESDRAS

[305]

§ 5. Fasting and praying

[304] In the following extracts, Esdras mistakes " river "
for " young man," omits the statement that God is against
them that forsake Him, and converts " so we fasted and
besought " into " and we, besought again." Ezra (LXX) is so
faithful to the Hebrew that the latter need not be printed
separately.

I Esdr. viii. 49—54. Ezr.viii. 21— 24(LXX andHeb.)

[305] " (49) And I vowed [305] "(21) And I pro-

there a fast for the young claimed there a fast at the

river Thoue (Hebr. Ahava) to
humble ourselves before the
face of our God, to seek from
him a straight way for our-
selves and our children and
all our chattels. (22) Because
I was ashamed to ask from
the king a force and horse-
men to deliver us from the
enemy in the way. Be-
cause we [had] said to the
king saying, The hand of our
God [is] on all that seek him,
for good : and his might and
his anger on all that forsake
him, (23) And we fasted and
sought from our God concern-
ing this, and he gave ear unto
us (R.V.was entreated by us)."

The italicized words may have been omitted by Esdras
as not being to the point, or they may be a late Hebrew
interpolation.

1 " Unto all prospering,'' eis irarav iwardpOunv.

35

men before our Lord, (50) to
seek from him a prosperous
journey both for us and for
our children and cattle. (51)
For I was abashed [to ask
(added by A)] horsemen and
foot-soldiers as escort for
safety against our enemies.
(52) For we [had] said to the
king [saying] that the power
of our Lord will be with them
that seek after him, unto all
prospering." ^ (53) And again
we besought of our Lord all
these things and found him
propitious."

CHAPTER V

JUDGES IN TWO MANUSCRIPTS

§ I . The Song of Deborah, in the Codex Vaticanus {B), and
in the Codex Alexandrinus {A)

[306] Large portions of the Book of Judges are trans-
lated so differently by the Codex Vaticanus (B) and the
Codex Alexandrinus (A) that their texts are practically
different versions. The first specimen given below is from
the Song of Deborah where the poetic language naturally
causes difficulty, as may be seen from the marginal alternatives
given by the Revised Version and added in foot-notes below.
Codex A, in many books of the Bible, is often more faithful
than Codex B is to the Hebrew text. But that is not the
case here.

[307] Judg. V. 11-16 (R.V.) i"Far from the noise of
archers, in the places of drawing water, there shall they
rehearse the righteous acts of the Lord, [even] the righteous
acts ^of his rule in Israel. Then the people of the Lord
went down to the gates. (12) Awake, awake, Deborah,
awake, awake, utter a song : Arise, Barak, and lead thy
captivity captive thou son of Abinoam. (13)^ Then came
down a remnant of the nobles *[and] the people ; the Lord

1 Or, " Because of the voice of the archers . . . there let them rehearse."

2 Or, "toward his villages."

' Or, " Then made he a remnant to have dominion over the nobles [and] the
people ; the Lord made me have dominion over the mighty."

* Or, as v.r., " the people of the Lord came dovi'n for me against (or, among)
the mighty."

36

JUDGES IN TWO MANUSCRIPTS

[307]

came down for me ^against the mighty. (14) Out of
Ephraim [came down] they whose root is in Amalek ; after
thee, Benjamin, among thy peoples ; out of Machir came down
^ governors, and out of Zebulon they that handle ^the marshal's
staff. (15) And *the princes of Issachar were with Deborah.
As was Issachar so was Barak. Into the valley they rushed
forth at his feet. By the water-courses of Reuben there were
great resolves of heart. ( 1 6) Why satest thou among the
sheep-folds, to hear the pipings for the flocks? At the
water-courses of Reuben there were great searchings of heart."

Judg. V. 11-16 (B) (lit).

"(11) Relate from the
voice of them that play [on
the harp] in the midst of them
that draw water. There
shall they give righteous-
nesses. Lord, increase right-
eousnesses in Israel. Then
went down to the cities the
people of the Lord. (12)
Awake, awake, Debbora !
Awake, awake, utter a song !
Arise, Barak, and take captive
thy captivity, son of Abei-
neem. (13) Then (rore) went
down a remnant to (or, for)
the mighty. The people of
the Lord went down to
(or, for) him in the strong
places from me. (14)
Ephraim rooted them out in
Amalek. After thee, Ben-

1 Or, "among."

3 Or, "thestaffof the scribe."

Judg. v. I I -I 6 (A) (lit).

"(11) . . . to sound -forth
the voice of them that play
[on the harp] in the midst of
them that rejoice. There
shall they give righteous-
nesses to the Lord. Right-
eousnesses have theystrength-
ened in Israel. Then went
down to his cities the people
of the Lord. (12) Awake,
awake, Debbora ! Awake
thou myriads with the people.
Awake, awake, speak with a
song. Strengthening rise-up,
Barak, and strengthen thou,
Debbora, Barak. Take captive
thy captivity, son of Abineem.
(13) When, (or, at one time,
irore) his strength was-great,
O Lord, humble for me them
»that are stronger than I.

2 Or, "law-givers."

* Or, "my princes in Issachar.''

37

[307]

JUDGES IN TWO MANUSCRIPTS

(14) The people of Ephraim
avenged itself on them in the
valley of thy brother Ben-
jamin among thy peoples.
From me Machir they went
down searching out ; and
from Zabulon the Lord was-
making-war for me among
the mighty thence with the
sceptre of-one-that-strength-
eneth of leading. (15) In
Issachar with Debbora he
sent forth his foot-soldiers
into the valley. In order that
for thee ^ thou shouldst dwell
in the midst of borders (lit.
lips) he stretched out with
his feet divisions of Reuben
great ascertainments* of heart
(16) Wherefore prithee (lit.
for me) sittest thou in the
midst of the Mosphaitham?
to give ear to the pipings of
them that awake [thee] to
pass through into the [regions]
of Reuben ; great trackings-
out of heart."

' Gk. corruption, i^iKPoA/ievoi for i^ixvoi/jievot.

2 Atyofila, not recognized in L. & S. Did the writer mean Sivo/ila, not in
L. & S., but capable of meaning " a double sheep-fold or cattle-stall" (which is
the meaning of the Hebrew) ?

3 iva aoi ? Gk. corr. for lvo. ti i.e. " wherefore ? " as in v. i6.

* " Ascertainments " = dKpi^O(rAtof, "trackings ou\" = iii.x''^a<Tiu>l (comp. B
i^iKvoinivoi for ^|ix'"«'/"e''<"). " searchings " (B) = ;|eTo<r/*of.

jamin, among thy peoples.

In me Machir they went

down searching out ; and

from Zabulon drawing with

the staff of the setting forth

of a scribe. (15) And

leaders in Issachar with

Debbora and Barak. Thus

Barak in the valleys sent on

[lit. in] his {sic) feet. Into

the portions of Reuben great

[men] arriving^ heart. (16)

To what [end] sat they in

the midst of the digomia ^ to

hear the piping of messengers?

Into the divisions of Reuben

great searchings of heart."

38

JUDGES IN TWO MANUSCRIPTS [309]

§ 2. The difficulty of supposing that the author of A
had B before him

[308] A difficult passage like this does not give the best
criteria as to the dates of the several translations. The
writer of Codex A, believed to be about a century later
than Codex B, might antecedently be supposed to be
acquainted with the readings of the earlier MS. From
other passages, we might anticipate that here, as well as
elsewhere, the writer of A probably had the text of B before
him and wrongly thought he was correcting B, even when
he was going still further wrong. But there is little if any-
thing to support this view here. Both, in a great measure,
go altogether wrong. The principal conclusion from a com-
parison of the two passages is this, that there are hardly
any limits to the extent to which Hebrew poetry may be
corrupted in Greek translation — even when the Hebrew is
preserved,^ so that editors and scribes had the opportunity
of correcting the faults of the original translation.

[309] There is great difficulty in supposing that the
writer of A had B before him in translating the Song of
Deborah. Compare the following : («) (verse 2 1 ) " that
ancient river," (B) " of ancient [times]," (A) " Cadeseim " ;
((5) (22) "the pransings, the pransings of their strong ones,"
(B) "with haste there hastened his strong [ones]," (A)
" Ammadaroth of his powerful [ones] " ; {c) (6) " Shamgar
the son oi Anath',' (B) "Anath," (A) "Kenath"; {d) (14)
"Amalek after thee," (B) " Amalek after thee," (A) ''the
valley of thy brother " ; (e) (19) " Taanach," (B) " Thanaach,"

1 In some cases (4*), the LXX may have followed a Hebrew text more correct,
or earlier, than our present one : and it may be urged that here the translations
of A and B may be based on different Hebrew texts. But in the vast majority of
cases elsewhere, and for the most part here also, the differences between the Greek
MSS. can be explained by misreadings, or misinterpretations, of the present
Hebrew. For example, in the first instance (o) mentioned in paragraph 309,
"ancient" and "Cadeseim" differ by httle more than the difference between
D and D, letters very easily confused.

39

[310] JUDGES IN TWO MANUSCRIPTS

(A) Thennach"; (/) (23) " Meroz," (B) "Meroz," (A)
"Mazor"; (?) (24) "Jael," (B) "Jael," (A) "Jel"; (A) (24)
« Heber," (B) " Chaber," (A) " Chaleb."

We can hardly believe that the writer of A could mis-
render so many Hebrew names if he had the correct Greek
rendering before him. Is it possible that, in this particular
passage, the writer of A, being dissatisfied with the version
adopted by B and doubtful about his own power to correct
it, took another old version and adopted it en bloc, without
altering a word of it ? In that case we have here, in effect,
not A, but an old erroneous version adopted by the writer
of A, contrary to his usual custom.

§ 3. The vengeance of Samson

[310] The following is the reply of Samson, when his
Philistine father-in-law offers him his wife's sister as a sub-
stitute for his wife :

Judg. XV. 3-7 (R.V.) "(3) And Samson said unto
them, This time shall I be blameless in regard of the
Philistines, when I do them a mischief.^ (4) And Samson
went and caught three hundred foxes, and took firebrands,
and turned tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst
between every two tails.^ (5) And when he had set the
brands on fire, he let them go into the standing corn of the
Philistines, and burnt up both the shocks and the standing
corn, and also the olive -yards.* (6) Then the Philistines
said. Who hath done this ? And they said, Samson, the
son-in-law of the Timnite, because he hath taken* his wife

1 A.V. renders xv. 3, "And Samson said concerning them, Now shall I be
more blameless than (A.V. marg. "be blameless from," the R.V. marg. gives
"be quits with") the Philistines, though I do them a displeasure."

2 A.V. "between two tails."

5 A.V. "both the shocks, and also the standing corn, with the vineyards
[and] olives."

* A.V. "And they answered, S., the son-in-law of the T., because he had
taken . . ."

40

JUDGES IN TWO MANUSCRIPTS

[311]

and given her to his companion. And the Philistines came
up, and burnt her and her father with fire. (7) And Sam-
son said unto them, If ye do after this manner, surely I will
be avenged of you,^ and after that I will cease.

Judg. XV. 3-7 (B) (lit.).

[311] "(3) And Sampson
said unto them, I am made-
blameless, yea once for all
from the Philistines, in that
I do with them a mischief
(4) And Sampson went and
caught three hundred foxes
and took torches and turned
tail to tail and placed one
torch betwixt the two tails
and bound [it]. (5) And he
kindled a fire in the torches
and sent them forth in the
wheat-ears (a-Tay^va-ip) of the
Philistines, and there were
burned [the crops, yea] from
the threshing-floor (aXcovosi)
even to the wheat -ears up-
right, and to the vineyard
and olive. (6) And the
Philistines said, Who did
these things ? And they
said, Sampson the bridegroom
of the Thamnei, because he

Judg. XV. 3-7 (A) (lit.).

[311] « (3) And Sampson
said unto him, I am blame-
less once for all from the
Philistines in that I do with
you ill [deeds]. (4) And
Sampson went and caught
three hundred foxes and took
torches and bound together
tail to tail, and placed one
torch betwixt the two tails
in the midst, (s) And he
lighted a fire in the torches
and sent them forth into the
sheaves (Spdyfiara) ^ of the
Philistines, and he consumed-
with-fire the wheat-ears and
what-had- been-before-reaped,
from the corn - ready - for-
treading (o-tu/S^?)^ even to
the standing [corn] and to
the vineyard and olive. (6)
And the Philistines said.
Who did these things ? And
they said, Sampson the son-

' A.V. " Though ye have done this, yet will I be avenged of you.''

^ " sheaves "=Spdyfw,Ta, properly "handfuls [clutched by the reaper]" but

also used, in later Greek, of uncut corn.

' 5Jru;8'5! (=<rTM;8^s) must mean this, though no instance of it is given in

L. & S. The Gk. root means "tread." Codex A conflates, combining a free

rendering and a closer one.

41

[312] ■ JUDGES IN TWO MANUSCRIPTS

took his wife and gave her in-law of the Thamnathaean,
to him that was of his because he took his wife and
friends. And the Philistines gave her to his companion,
went up and burned her and And the Philistines went in
her father with fire. (7) And and consumed -with -fire the
Sampson said to them, If house of her father and her-
(or, even if) ye do thus [to] self and her father with fire,
this [woman], that verily^ I (7) And Sampson said to
will be avenged on you, and them, If (or, even if) ye do
at the last I will cease." thus, I will not be satisfied,

but my vengeance from one
and each^ of you will I ac-
complish."

§ 4. Codex A less accurate again than B

[312] Here, again, it is difficult to believe that the
writer of A could have had B before him. For why should
the former (with B before his face, giving the correct trans-
lation) make the mistakes of person in xv. 3, and exhibit
a conflate in xv. S, and insert wrongly (xv. 6) "the house
of her father," and make the blunder about " one and each "
to which attention is called below ?

[313] The very few points in which, simultaneously, B
is wrong and A is right, are consistent with B's faithful
adherence (in intention at all events) to the Hebrew text :
B (xv. 6) has " bridegroom," instead of " son-in-law." The
former makes no sense, but it is the usual meaning of the
Hebrew word, which means relation by marriage, and here

^ "If . . . verily," 'B4i' TronJiri^Te oi)TtDSTai57T;» Sviei yn^ji' .... "Thus "and
" this [woman] " are conflations of "thus (n'n)" «.«. "like this (fem.)." "That"
= '3, and ' ' verily " = dn : but here the two particles combined = " but "or " never-
theless."

' "One and each." Codex A has read "at the last" (inn) as nnK"one,''
and dropped the final letter in ( ^)nnN " I will cease," so as to make that also mean
"one," which it has rendered "(each) one" (unless kxAaTov is Gk. corr. for
^ffXOTo;- "at thelast").

42

JUDGES IN TWO MANUSCRIPTS [313]

"son-in-law." B (xv. 6) has "of his friends" instead of
" companion." But this is because B has taken vt- as
having its prepositional instead of its participial force. Our
conclusion is that A has again followed a loose, free, and
early translation, while B has adopted a later one, closer to
the Hebrew.

S S. Codex A, later on, more accurate than B

Yet, if we were to suppose that throughout the whole of
the book of Judges, or even throughout the story of Samson,
B was always more faithful than A to the extant Hebrew,
we should be speedily undeceived by the account of Samson's
death, where the Hebrew and A agree that the hero '' called "
to the Lord (but B has " wept "), and that there were " three
thousand " spectators (but B has " seven hundred ")}

On the whole, it appears safe to adopt the rule — subject
to exceptions arising from special circumstances — that a
later translation is likely to be more accurate than an
earlier one.

1 [313a] Judg. xvi. 27, 28. "Weep," KXaiciv = nil about a hundred times.
No other Hebrew word represents KKahiv in historical narrative, with three excef-
tims, allin Judges (ix. 7, xv. 18, xvi. 28), where the Hebrew is nip, "call" — a
fact that points to a hypothesis that Judges may have been translated by a special
(and inaccurate) translator. In Judg. ix. 7, where Jotham " cries " to the men of
Shechem and utters the Parable of the Trees, even A has "weep." But in the
Samson story (xv. 18, xvi. 28) A has "shout," /SoSv.

Mr. W. S. Aldis suggests that lK\av<re may be a Greek corruption for iKd'Keae.
It would be more natural that the comparatively rare K\ateiv should be corrupted
into the comparatively common KoXeif, comp. -^ K. viii. 12 "weepeth"' K\aUt
(A KoKel) : but the suggestion affords a very reasonable explanation of the error.

43

CHAPTER VI

PROOF OF mark's PRIORITY TO MATTHEW AND LUKE

S I . Unsafeness of argument from mere antecedent probability

[314] One important, though inconvenient, conclusion
from the facts alleged in the preceding chapters is this, that
it is unsafe to infer that the general characteristics of two
parallel narratives will be found in any special passage. As
a rule, Theodotion is closer to the Hebrew than the Septua-
gint is ; Ezra (LXX) is closer than Esdras, Codex A
than Codex B : but it is not always so. It is safer to draw
conclusions from Hebraic idiom, which generally represents
an attempt to return to a Hebrew text ; but the attempt,
as we have seen, is not always successful : sometimes
an early, free, paraphrastic translation is closer to the
substance of the original Hebrew than a later and more
literal rendering. Again, we have found indications that
Codex A, though in most books more faithful to the Hebrew
than Codex B, is less faithful in parts of Judges, and that
parts of Judges, in B, may have been rendered into Greek
by a special translator, who differed in his views of Hebrew
from the translators of the rest of the Bible. Later on
(538) we shall find grounds for believing that the Septuagint
has been either revised, or translated by other hands, from
that point in the Pentateuch where the Law is introduced.
All these facts greatly complicate the problem of returning
from a Greek translation to the Hebrew original, except in
those cases where the sense, or the comparison of two or

44

PROOF OF MARK'S PRIORITY [316]

more parallel versions, points to a distinct error, made ante-
cedently probable by such evidence as was set forth in Clue.

§ 2. Analogy between the versions and editions of parts of the
Old Testament and parts of the New

[315] The general facts about versions and editions of
the Greek Old Testament resemble what Luke says concern-
ing the " many '' who took in hand to draw up a narrative
about the historical facts that constitute the basis of the
New Testament. The early Greek translation of the Old
Testament appears to have been free and full of errors.
Yet it was venerated by Philo, and probably by other Jews
who were, like Philo, ignorant of Hebrew : and we hear
little or nothing of complaints about inaccuracy or attempts
to remedy it, till the second century of the Christian era.
By that time controversies had sprung up between Christians
and Jews. The former would naturally appeal to the Greek
Old Testament, and we know that Justin, while making this
appeal, accused the Jews of corrupting the Hebrew when it
differed from his own erroneous Greek. Then arose the
improved versions of (i) Aquila, (ii) Theodotion, (iii) Sym-
machus. Subsequently came the great work of Origen,
combining their three versions with that of the (iv) Septua-
gint, and placing them parallel to the Hebrew, written in
(v) Hebrew, and in (vi) Greek characters.^

[316] Here then we have just what Luke described —
" many " people trying to translate the ancient fundamental
scriptures, and with very different success. And these facts
go far to explain the variations in Codices such as A and B,
above described. Some may have preferred the bald but
close translation of Aquila, others the better Greek of
Symmachus. And the preference may not have been

'^ From its containing these six parts, Origen's work was called the Hexapla, or
Six-fold. Other anonymous translations were appended to some editions of the
Hexapla (see Smith's Diet, of Chr. Biogr. " Hexapla").

45

[317] PROOF OF MARK'S PRIORITY

consistently extended to the whole of the Bible. For
example, the Vulgate is based upon Theodotion, so far
as Daniel is concerned, but on the Septuagint elsewhere.
Similarly, the scribe, or editor, who was responsible for the
text of Codex A may have preferred some translation,
differing from the Septuagint, as a guide for one book, or
passage in a book, but not for others. Consequently, it is
unsafe to assume that the writers of A and B were using
their own judgment, when they differ from one another, or
from the Hebrew, or from both. They may have been
following one of the " many " translators, their predecessors,
without using their own judgment, except as to the choice
of a guide.

[317] The same conclusions must apply to the writers
of the Synoptic Gospels. When we say that Mark, Matthew,
or Luke, rendered or misrendered the original Hebrew in this
or that way, we do not mean that the writers of the words
under discussion quoted from our Synoptic Gospels, severally
resorted to the Hebrew and used their private judgment,
or even that they knew anything about Hebrew.^ They
may have followed some of the " many '' translations already

' [317o] As regards the authorship of the Gospels, see note (ii) in the
" References " above, which warns the reader that the use of the name " Matthew"
in these pages does not imply "that the actual writer was Matthew." A friend
asks : "If Matthew was the alleged, not the real, author, how can you explain
the fact that he, a comparatively unimportant Apostle, received this distinction,
instead of Peter, or John, or James the brother of John ? " The answer is, that
Peter and John are expressly declared in the Acts of the Apostles to have been
(Acts iv. 13) "unlettered and ignorant men." In that passage, dvpci/x/iOToi
("unlettered") is interpreted, by some, as meaning "ignorant of Jewish tradi-
tions"; but the more natural meaning is (as in Epict. ii. 14, Plat. Tim. 23 B)
" unable to read or write " — especially as mere ignorance of tradition would
appear to be expressed sufficiently by the word " ignorant." If Peter and John
were "unlettered," their brothers Andrew and James would probably be in the
same condition. Thus, the leading Apostles might naturally be thought incapable
of writing Gospels. Now the only one of the Twelve who must necessarily have
been able to write was Matthew. Being a Publican, he was bound to be a ready
writer. It was therefore extremely natural that the first written Gospel should be
ascribed to him.

46

PROOF OF MARK'S PRIORITY [318]

in existence, and sometimes one, sometimes another — with
variations naturally far greater than in the Old Testament,
because there was still at work among preachers and writers
of the Gospel the influence of current oral tradition.

§ 3. The Triple Tradition and the Double Tradition in
the Synoptic Gospels

The facts and considerations above mentioned may
seem to make it almost, if not quite, impossible to decide
between the claims of the Synoptists to documentary priority.
Luke, for ejcample, is the third of the Synoptists chronologi-
cally : " But," it may be asked, " may he not have followed —
in some passage where he partly disagrees and partly agrees
with Mark- — a document earlier than Mark, from which Mark
and Luke both borrowed, and Luke the more accurately of
the two?"

[318 (i)] The answer is this : "There probably was such
a document, a Hebrew one, earlier than Mark, and Luke
probably borrowed from it sometimes more accurately than
Mark. But there is evidence to shew that our present Mark
contains that document, only in a Greek form, and with a good
many errors, conflations, and additions."

If it be asked what kind of testimony can prove this, we
reply that, besides evidence of translation from Hebrew, there
is other evidence of quite a different kind derived from the
text of Matthew. A close study of what may be called the
Triple Tradition — that is to say, the account of Christ's acts
and shorter sayings attested by the triple testimony of Mark,
Matthew, and Luke — shews that Matthew and Luke, in these
portions of their Gospels, contain nothing of importance in
common that is not also found in our present text of Mark.

[318 (ii)] The reader must carefully distinguish the
Triple Tradition from those portions of the Synoptic Gospels
where Mark is wanting, and where the attestation depends

47

[318] PROOF OF MARK'S PRIORITY

on two Evangelists, or on one alone. A comparison of the
Synoptists will show that Matthew and Luke, where Mark is
altogether wanting, often agree very closely indeed, as, for
example, in this passage of the Sermon on the Mount : " No
one (Lk. servant) can be bond-servant to two lords ; for
either he will hate the one and love the other or hold fast
to one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and
Mammon." ^ In the whole of the Triple Tradition there is
perhaps no instance of such close agreement as in this and in
other passages common to Matthew and Luke and wanting in
Mark. But these passages are best considered by them-
selves. Almost all of them contain sayings, not doings, of
Christ, and they have (many of them) peculiarities of style
and subject-matter which render it desirable to consider
them separately, as constituting a distinct document from
the Triple Tradition. Theoretically, it may be urged that
this has no more right to be treated as a distinct document
than any other doubly-attested tradition, e.g. the similarities
common to Mark and Matthew alone, or to Mark and Luke
alone. But in practice this collection of Matthew -Luke
passages is so much more important than any other " double
traditions " in the Synoptists that we shall find it convenient,
for brevity, to call it the Double Tradition, and to discuss it
in a separate volume, without, of course, allowing this con-
venient title to commit us to any conclusions about the
authorship of this or that passage in the collection.

1 Mt. vi. 24, Lk. xvi. 13. The Triple Tradition, in English, is distinguished
by black letters in The Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels (Abbott and
Rushbrooke, Macmillan, 1884). Mr. Rushbrooke's Synopticon (Macmillan, 1880)
gives the Triple Tradition in Greek, distinguishing the portions attested by three
and by two Evangelists, severally ; and it also prints separately the Double
Tradition of Matthew and Luke, and the single Traditions of Matthew and of
Luke. For the critical study of the Greek Synoptic Gospels the latter work is
indispensable.

48

PROOF OF MARK'S PRIORITY [319]

§ 4. Conclusion from the phenomena of the Triple Tradition

[319]j In order to explain the agreements between the
Synoptists in the Triple Tradition, what hypotheses are open
(if we dismiss that of accidental coincidence as absurd) ?

(i) Did Mark borrow from Matthew and Luke ?

If he did, he must have adapted his narrative so as to
interweave in it (with the comparatively few and unim-
portant exceptions that will be mentioned) every phrase and
word common to Matthew and Luke — a hard task even for a
literary forger of consummate skill, and an impossible one
for such a writer as Mark (to say nothing of the absurdity
that one of the earliest Evangelists should have constructed
a gospel on such complex lines).

(ii) Did (a) Mark borrow from a larger written Gospel than
his own, or from a larger Oral Tradition, and did {V) Matthew
and Luke borrow from either or both of these sources, and
not from our Mark ?

If {b) had been the case, we should have found Matthew
and Luke occasionally agreeing in borrowing, from that
larger written Gospel or Oral Tradition, something that is
not in our Mark. But they practically never do this. In
the Triple Tradition they limit their agreements (with the
unimportant exceptions that will be mentioned) to passages
that are also in our Mark. It is impossible that this
limitation should be merely accidental.

Whether Mark borrowed from («) "a larger document
or larger Oral Tradition," we do not know. But, if he did,
we conclude that at all events (^) Matthew and Luke did
not borrow from it in the Triple Tradition.

(iii) Did Matthew borrow from Luke or Luke from
Matthew ? If they did, Matthew and Luke would occasion-
ally contain important similarities not found in Mark. But
this, in the Triple Tradition, is practically never the case,
(iv) Did Matthew and Luke borrow from a Gospel alto-
4 49

[320] PROOF OF MARK'S PRIORITY

gather different from Mark ? They did so in the Double
Tradition. But in the Triple Tradition they cannot have
done so for the reason mentioned in (iii) : they would then
contain important similarities not found in Mark. But they
do not. Both Matthew and Luke often differ from Mark in
details of great importance ; but, where that is the case, they
rarely or never agree together against Mark. Their agree-
ments against Mark, so far as the Triple Tradition is
concerned, are almost always unimportant

[320] (v) Did Matthew and Luke borrow from our Mark ?
This hypothesis will satisfy almost all the facts, on the
assumption that the first two used a great deal of freedom
in omitting many details in Mark. But that assumption
will not be necessary if we modify the hypothesis thus : —

[321] (vi) Matthew and Luke, in the Triple Tradition,
borrowed independently from a tradition contained in Mark.

This leaves us free to believe that Mark, as was natural
in a very early Gospel, may have contained conflations,
mistranslations, paraphrases, and paraphrastic additions.
Some of these Matthew and Luke might reject as non-
authoritative. Others they do not insert — but can hardly
be said to reject if they were not in their edition of Mark.

The conclusion will then be, that Matthew and Luke
had before them either our Mark,^ or some shorter form of
it, as the basis of their account of Christ's acts and shorter
sayings. The two may have used different editions of
Mark. But if they did, those editions did not agree in
including anything of importance that is not found in
our Mark.

§ 5. Illustration of the relation between the Synop lists

[322] It is so important to realize the scientific certainty
of conclusions deducible from three closely agreeing parallel
1 With corrections (323).
SO

PROOF OF MARK'S PRIORITY [322]

documents that a homely illustration must not be de-
spised. If an examiner is looking over school translation-
papers and finds three of them agreeing for several words
together, he is bound to suspect copying. Even though
the boys have heard their master translating the passage
for them, the examiner knows very well that no boys would
retain many consecutive words of the master's version so as
to reproduce them with exact agreement : so he will put
aside the three papers, which we will call those of Primus,
Secundus, and Tertius, for further examination.

The fact that Primus, Secundus, and Tertius, are some-
times all in agreement proves, of course, nothing as to
priority. But, on closely analysing the papers, he finds,
we will suppose, that — although Primus often agrees with
Secundus where Tertius differs, and Tertius often agrees
with Secundus where Primus differs — Primus and Tertius
hardly ever agree except in those parts where they both
agree with Secundus. He will then infer that Primus,
Secundus, and Tertius, were sitting together in the exami-
nation, and that Secundus was the boy in the middle from
whom the two outside boys copied. Primus and Tertius
could not copy from one another because Secundus in-
tervened ; and whenever Primus and Tertius agreed, it was
because they copied from the boy in the middle.

But let us further suppose that Primus and Tertius,
when taxed with their offence, endeavour to throw blame on
Secundus as well, by saying that they had all three brought
printed translations into the class-room and were copying
from these. The answer would be immediate : " If you.
Primus and Tertius, were copying from a book, and not
from Secundus, how did it happen that you never copied
from that book anything but what Secundus, as you say,
copied ? "

This concrete instance illustrates a general rule : When-
ever two documents agree with one another in passages common

51

[323] PROOF OF MARK'S PRIORITY

to a third document and in no others, the presumption is that
the two have borrowed from the third}

§ 6. The corrections of Mark adopted by Matthew and Luke

[323] Roughly speaking, the case put in the last section
applies to the three Synoptists. Matthew and Luke may
be described as " the outside boys," Mark as " the boy in the
middle " ; and Matthew and Luke copied independently from
Mark.

But this, though of very great value as a brief and clear
approximation to a very important truth, nevertheless does
not represent the exact truth, which will now be more
completely stated.

Our present Mark, being the earliest extant attempt to
represent the Acts of the Lord in Greek, contains, as might
be expected, many roughnesses, obscurities, and vernacular
expressions — some of them specially condemned by Greek
grammarians — likely to be removed bythe earliest Evangelists
using this Gospel. We know from the preface to Luke's
Gospel that many Christian narratives, prior to Luke's, have
perished. It is therefore not in the least surprising that
there should have been many other editions of Mark besides
ours, and that traces of one of these should be found in
Matthew and Luke.

To complete, therefore, the analogy sketched in the last
section, we must suppose that " the outside boys " copied
from a corrected copy of the translation of " the middle boy."
It would follow that, whenever " the outside boys " agreed
against " the middle boy," it was because his translation con-

' It is of course easy to find superficial exceptions to this rule. When two
novelists " agree in passages common to Pope," it by no means follows that they
have "borrowed from Pope." One may have borrowed from some author who
has quoted Pope ; another from a Dictionary of Familiar Quotations. Many other
such exceptions might be imagined. But they would not interfere with the sound-
ness of the rule, taken as a "general" one and applied to the Synoptic Gospels.

52

PROOF OF MARK'S PRIORITY [325]

tained something faulty in style, or obscure, or positively
erroneous, or at all events something that a Corrector might
naturally deem faulty in one of these three points.

§ 7. Appeal to facts

Now, if this last statement holds good for the Synoptists,
that is to say if Matthew and Luke, when covering the
ground occupied by Mark, never agree against Mark except
where Mark requires — or may have seemed to early editors
to require — some amendment of style or accuracy, the fact
is not only of great importance in its bearing on the
hypothesis of a Hebrew basis for the Synoptic Gospels, but
also one capable, in part, of verification without much
difificulty.

[324] It is mostly very easy to distinguish amendments
of style from amendments of fact. The former would
include corrections of the impersonal subject " they "
(meaning " one," or " people "), substitutions of the gram-
matically expressed interrogative for the interrogative that
is expressed merely by tone, changes of the historic present
into the past tense, insertion of pronouns or substitution of
nouns for pronouns, the correction of a vernacular word into
a polite one meaning the same thing (534-41), and other
slight changes requiring little discussion.

[325] But when Mark speaks — as we have found (192-5)
— about " wild beasts, while Matthew and Luke speak about
"fasting," or when Mark has (196) "by four," but Matthew
and Luke "on a bed," then the agreements of Matthew
and Luke against Mark, which we may call corrections of
Mark, assume a different character. And if a few of these
corrections are shewn to be in all probability due to a
Hebrew original, which Mark appeared to the Corrector to
have mistranslated, then we are led to infer that other
corrections of this class — that is to say, not obviously ex-

53

[326] PROOF OF MARK'S PRIORITY

plicable as improvements of style — probably proceeded from
the same cause.

If once this inference is established, it will lead us to
recognize the existence of Mark-corrections that may with-
out exaggeration be described as amounting to an edition, or
editions, of Mark, later than our Mark (at all events in parts *)
but earlier than Matthew and Luke, edited at a time when
the Hebrew original of the Gospel still exercised influence.

[326] In order to perceive the importance of this
conclusion, let us refer to a corresponding fact in the Old
Testament. There we find that in several passages the
text of the oldest manuscript of the Septuagint, the Codex
Vaticanus, appears to have been corrected by the later Codex
Alexandrinus, so as to conform the meaning to the Hebrew.
In such passages the Vaticanus represents the earliest Greek,
but the Alexandrinus mostly represents the historical fact,
that is to say the Hebrew, misrepresented by the earliest
Greek? So it may be sometimes here. Mark may be the
earliest, but not always the most accurate of the Evangelists.
He may have mistranslated the Hebrew of the Logia as
the Codex Vaticanus has mistranslated the Old Testament,
and the error may be rectified in the corrections adopted by
the later Evangelists.

' [325a] "In parts." It is of course possible that some of the lengthy details
in our Mark, e.g. about Herod, about the lunatic, etc. , may have been added to
Mark subsequently to the publication of the edition of Mark used by Matthew
and Luke. In other words, our Mark may combine late interpolations — not known
to Matthew (and perhaps not to Luke) — with a text earlier than that which was
used by Matthew and Luke. This would be in analogy with the LXX which is
an earlier text than that of Aquila and Theodotion but shews occasional signs of
Christian interpolation.

It does not follow that Matthew and Luke used the same edition of Mark.
Suppose Matthew to have used the sixteenth, and Luke the seventeenth, edition.
We should then find in Matthew and Luke all the corrections common to these
two editions.

= "Mostly." There may be exceptional cases where B has translated a
Hebrew version older than our present Hebrew text. And we have seen that, in
Judges (309), B is often closer to the Hebrew than A is. But the general rule is
as stated above.

54

PROOF OF MARK'S PRIORITY [328]

§ 8. The use of a complete table of the corrections of Mark
adopted by Matthew and Luke

[327] The analogy between the codices of the Old Testa-
ment, and the three Synoptic accounts of Christ's life in the
New Testament, is of course only partial. Though the
Synoptic Gospels may be shewn to be based on a Hebrew
Gospel, yet the Hebrew text did not remain, like that of the
Old Testament, influencing editors of Greek translations for
many centuries after the first Greek translation appeared.
And, on the other side, it is reasonable to suppose that
floating oral tradition would combine with the " many "
treatises about Christ's life that existed before Luke's Gospel
to modify the earliest traditions in ways to which no parallel
can be found in the Septuagint. Nevertheless it must be of
use to all students of the Synoptic Gospels to have before
them a table of the corrections of Mark adopted by Matthew
and Luke.

[328] But if there is to be such a table, it ought to be
complete, in spite of the risk of conveying an impression of
tedious, unnecessary, and pedantical minuteness. A few
telling instances of these " corrections " might possibly prove
that the Corrector or Editor ^ had access to Mark's Hebrew
original ; but only a large collection will enable readers to
look as it were over his shoulder and to enter into his mind,
so that we may put ourselves in his position and realize his

1 "The Corrector " will sometimes be used to denote the origin of any reading
in which Matthew and Luke agree (in the Triple Tradition) against Mark. But
the term is not to commit us to any definite view as to one Corrector or Editor.
There may have been a score of editions of Mark, all trying to make the Gospel
less obscure and ungrammatical, and some of them trying to make it more edifying.
About such details we can know nothing : and it is most important to keep our-
selves from all but the simplest and most verifiable hypotheses about original
documents and editions. Complex hypotheses on such subjects, besides wasting
time, prejudice the mind against dispassionate . investigation of minute verbal
differences — a task laborious but absolutely necessary if we are to reach a scientific
conclusion.

55

[329] PROOF OF MARK'S PRIORITY

motives in making the corrections, and, to some extent,
Matthew's and Luke's motives in adopting them. An
Appendix to this work presents, in parallel columns, all the
Greek passages in Mark that have been thus corrected, and
the corresponding Greek corrections in Matthew and Luke.

[329] The Appendix appeals to none but students
familiar with Greek. But an attempt has been made in the
following pages to explain as many of the Corrections as do
not refer to style and to Greek construction, in such a way
as to be intelligible to readers knowing nothing but English.
The explanations, however, must of necessity be somewhat
more difficult to follow than those contained in the First
Part of this series. There, the object being to prove trans-
lation from Hebrew, it was permissible to select, and collect
in any order, instances that could be made briefly intelligible.
In Clue it was pointed out (1) that a very few cases of
manifest error in one of two parallel documents — such as
"am" parallel to "follow," "found for himself" parallel to
"happened," "carried" parallel to " was in good health" —
would suffice to prove translation from French, and the
same was shewn to apply to Hebrew. The course adopted
therefore was to select such errors as might be expected
to arise from confusion of Hebrew letters e.g. ~\ and n, and
we began with " Edom (DIn) " and " Aram (mN) " in
accordance with that plan. But now a different method
must be adopted.

[330] Following Mark's order, we must take each one
of the corrections above described (except those which fall
under the general heading of corrections for Greek style or
clearness). If we can explain each from Hebrew translation
we shall be glad to do so : but if we are forced to explain
some (as we are forced to explain many of the deviations
of Chronicles from Kings) as dictated by motive of a non-
grammatical kind — e.g. the desire to remove a stumbling-block,
or to improve what is edifying but might be more edifying,

56

PROOF OF MARK'S PRIORITY [330]

or to exaggerate what is wonderful but might be more
wonderful — then we must adopt, however unwillingly, the
latter explanation. Nor" must conjectures be despised, pro-
vided that they are based on allegations of fact that may
help others to advance to something better than conjecture.
If we cannot in any way explain an instance, we must say
so : for a negative, as well as a conjecture, may be " more
pregnant of direction than an indefinite."^

' Bacon's Essays, 25.

57

BOOK II

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS
OF MARK

59

BOOK II

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS OF MARK

§ I. Arrangement

[331] Mark's order is followed. Opposite to each
corrigendum of Mark is placed the correction adopted by
Matthew and Luke. If an instance is not found here, it
must be assumed to be one of the comparatively unimportant
class referring to Greek style or grammatical improvement,
and must be looked for in the Greek Appendix.

[332] Corrections must not be confused with additions,
that is to say, with the passages that Matthew and Luke
agree in adding to Mark. To transcribe these would be to
transcribe the greater part of the Sermon on the Mount and
other long discourses of our Lord that find a place in
(318 (ii)) the Double Tradition of Matthew and Luke. All
this Mark omits, confining himself to Christ's acts and
shorter sayings — commonly called the Triple Tradition, as
being the subject-matter of the three Synoptists — with
which alone we have to do in the present treatise.

[333] Occasionally there may be doubt whether an
expression should be treated as a correction of the Triple
Tradition, or an addition belonging to the Double Tradition.
For example, after the words " He shall baptize you with the
Holy Spirit," Matthew and Luke add " and with fire." Now
it might appear probable, upon investigation (340«), that
Mark has paraphrased a Hebrew original that might seem
to the Corrector to imply " fire " ; and in that case " the

6i

[334] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Spirit and fire " would be a correction of Mark's " Spirit."
On the other hand, Matthew and Luke continue as follows
— agreeing almost verbatim — in a passage omitted by
Mark : " . . . with fire. Whose fan is in his hand . . .
thoroughly purge his threshing-floor . . ,, but the chaff he
shall burn with fire unquenchable^ The words " Whose . . .
unquenchable," in accordance with what was stated above
(318 (ii)), must be discussed as belonging, not to the Triple,
but to the Double Tradition. And it may be contended
with some shew of reason that the words " with fire " are not
exactly a correction of the Triple Tradition, but part of a
preface to a passage in the Double. In this and other
doubtful cases, the instance will generally be found included
in the following list.

§ 2. {Mk^ " the country of Judaea" {Mt.-Lk.) " the country
round about Jordan "

Mk. i. 5 (lit.).i Mt. iii. s (lit.). Lk. iii. 3.

[334] "And there "Then there was "And he came

was going out unto going out unto him to all the surround-

him all the Judaean Jerusalem and all the ing- country of Jor-

country and the Jeru- [land of] Judaea and dan. . . ."

salemites all [of all the surrounding-

them]. . . ." country of Jordan."

" The Judaean country " was intended to have the same
meaning as a similar phrase in John where it is said that
Jesus, after the interview with Nicodemus in Jerusalem,
" came into the Judaean land" i.e. out of the capital into the
surrounding-country?

1 [334ffl] In this and many other instances where the object is to indicate the
verbal agreement or disagreement between parallel passages, English idiom has
been entirely sacrificed to this object. The rendering, above and elsewhere, is
intended, not as a translation, but as a representation of certain points of the
Greek, in English words, adapted for those who do not know Greek.

^ [334^] Jn. iii. 22 R.V. "into the land (7^^) of Judaea" might mislead some
to suppose that "the land of" was simply an orientalism, as in Mt. ii. 20, etc

62

OF MARK [335]

[335] The Corrector felt^ that as "the surrounding-
country " was meant, that word should be substituted ; and
Matthew and Luke followed him. But unfortunately this
Greek term is repeatedly applied in the beginning of the
Pentateuch to the " surrounding - country," " Circle," or
" Plain," of the Jordan, sometimes with, but sometimes without,
mention of " the Jordan." ^ It is therefore an ambiguous
term : Matthew and Luke, in adopting it, have applied it to
the Jordan instead of to Jerusalem, and both of them have
added " of Jordan " for clearness.^ But Matthew has conflated
this with " the Judaea(n)," which he takes as the noun

" the land of Israel " ; and it is very doubtful whether many English readers would
understand the R.V. here (Mk. i. 5) "the country (x'^P") of Judaea" to mean (as
it does) " the country" as distinct from "thecity."

It is noteworthy that the adjective " Judaean " applied to " land " or " country "
occurs only in these two passages of Mk. and Jn., and that Mk. and Jn. (vii. 25)
alone use the word translated, above, " Jerusalemite." The use of the fem.'adj.
"Judaean,"' without a noun, to mean "Judaea," is so common that the noun,
" country," could not be inserted without a special meaning, as here.

Xiipa is used for " the country round Jerusalem," or " the country of the Jews,"
as distinct from Jerusalem itself, in Jn. xi. 55, Acts x. 39, and also in a LXX
insertion in i Esdr. v. 45. In Ezr. ii. i, "the children of Me/rozij'we (mnbn),"
LXX has tA viol T^s x<ip<»s parallel to I Esdr. v. 7 oi iK t^s 'lovSalas.

^ " Felt," i.e. probably felt. Where the omission of the word cannot mislead
the reader — as, for example, in describing the motives of the hypothetical
Corrector (or, Correctors), and the reasons for the adoptions of his (or their)
corrections by Matthew and Luke — " probably " may sometimes be omitted, for
brevity.

" [335a] Gen. xiii. 10, 11, R.V., "the Plain (133) (marg. Circle) of Jordan,"
T7)» Teplxapov ToO 'lopS.; in Gen. xiii. 12, "cities oftAe Plain," the word is used
absolutely to mean "the Circle [of the Jordan]," and so, too, in Gen. xix. ij, 28.
(In Gen. xix. 25, 29, it is called ^ Trcpfoims.) In Deut. xxxiv. 3, "the Plain," i.e.
Circle, is called " the Plain of the valley of Jericho," LXX (om. ' ' valley ") ko! ret
Tre/jfxwpa 'lepeix'^- On one occasion, the Jordanic term {132) is applied to Jeru-
salem, Neh. xii. 28 (R.V.) "the plain (marg. Circuit) round about Jerusalem,"
T^s 7repiXt*>pov KVKKbdev els 'lepoVaaX'^fi.

The same Greek word, Trepix<^po!, is used in Neh. iii. 9, 12 (R.V.) "half the
district of Jerusalem " (but others render " environs ") ; the Hebrew for this
is i^JB (comp. Neh. iii. 14, 16, etc. ). Comp. pseudo- Peter § 9 ^\dey 6x\os dirb
'lepovaoMifi Kal rrjs ireptx'^po"-

' The words " of Jordan " may have been added by Mt. and Lk. independently,
as being implied in the term "surrounding country"; or they may have been
added before, in the editions of Mk. severally used by them.

63

[336] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

" Judaea." Luke accepts " the surrounding - country of
Jordan " as a substitute for Mark's " Judaean country . . .
Jerusalemites." But he perceived that, if the Baptist baptized
in Jordan, it was a very small matter to say that the people
near Jordan came to him. Now there is very little difference
in Hebrew between saying that a man comes to a city and
the city comes to a man : so, taking the latter view, Luke
says that the Baptist " came to all the surrounding-country
of the Jordan." ^

§ 3. {Mk>j •' With the Holy Spirit" {Mt.-Lk.) " in (or, with)
the Holy Spirit and with fire "

The Synoptists give the last words of John the Baptist
as follows : —

Mk. i. 8. Mt. iii. 11, 12, Lk. iii. 16, 17.

"... but he shall "... he shall "... he shall
baptize you with the baptize you in (or, baptize you in (or,
Holy Spirit." with) the Holy Spirit with) the Holy Spirit
and with fire. Whose andwithfire. Whose
fan is in his hand . . . fan is in his hand
with fire unquench- . . . with fire un-
able.'' quenchable."

[336] These passages suggest questions of the greatest
importance : («) Did Mark omit the words " with fire "
because he considered them almost unintelligible without
giving a fuller account of the Baptist's preaching than suited
a Gospel that confined itself mainly to the acts and shorter
sayings of the Lord ? (b) Did some later edition of Mark,

^ [335i5] The preposition "to " is frequently omitted in Hebrew before names
of places after verbs of motion. And subject and object are frequently reversible,
e.g. z Chr. xxxiv. 10 "The workmen gave it" (marg. "they gave it to the work-
men"); Dan. xi. 2 "He shall stir up all" (marg. "all this shall stir up");
Dan. xi. 5 "The king shall be strong," LXX "he shall be strong, i.e. have
power, over the kingdom," Amos ix. 12 "may possess the remnant," LXX " the
remnant may seek."

64

OF MARK [338]

copied by Matthew and Luke independently, insert the words
" with fire " because they seemed to be predicted by passages
in the prophets and to harmonize with the account, given in
the Acts, of the descent of the Spirit " as tongues of fire "?
(c) Did some controversial motive, e.g. the desire to discourage
novel and heretical forms of baptism,^ induce Mark to omit
the words ? If question (c) were answered affirmatively, the
authority of Mark would be shaken, because he would be
shewn to have altered the original, not through an error of
misunderstanding, but to remove a " scandal "; and, though
in a less degree, the same consequence would follow from an
affirmative to (a). An affirmative to (b) would impair the
authority of Matthew and Luke.

[337] But if it can be shewn that the words " with fire "
may have been added by a verbal corruption, then, although
the authority of Matthew and Luke, as against Mark, will
be somewhat impugned, the consequences will be less serious.
A scribal error in a chronicler can very often be detected by
scientific classification and comparison of texts. It is far
more difficult to detect a writer who alters the text because
he aims at seemliness, edification, clearness, etc. Does the
context, then, indicate any possibilities of corruption ?

[338] In attempting to answer this question, we naturally
compare Luke's words here with an apparent reproduction
of them in Acts i. 5, "John indeed baptized with water:
but ye shall be baptized in (or, with) the Holy Spirit."
There, the words are represented as being uttered by Jesus,
and they are repeated by Peter verbatim in Acts xi. i6 as
uttered by the Lord. Here, then, we have Luke as a
historian, and Luke as a recorder of the words of Peter, twice
omitting "with fire" when the saying of the Baptist is
apparently quoted by Jesus. Now we can hardly suppose
that Luke desires to suggest that the Baptist made a pre-
diction about Jesus which Jesus Himself discarded. It

' Iren. i. 2i.

5 6s

[339] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

seems more probable — and the probability is confirmed by
John ^ — that Luke inserted these words here owing to some
corruption special to this passage, and that in other passages
quoting the Baptist's words, the corruption being absent, the
insertion was absent too.

[339] The peculiarity that distinguishes the context of
Matthew and Luke from that of Mark (and from the two
quotations in the Acts) is that the first two append a tradi-
tion that begins with the word " whose." But the first two
letters of the Hebrew " whose " mean " fire " : and the two
words are actually confused not only by the Septuagint but
by other " ancient authorities " — so says the margin of our
Revised Version — in Numb. xxi. 30 "which [reacheth] unto
Medeba," where the Septuagint has "fire unto Moab." ^

[340] Now the casual repetition of a syllable, or casual
omission of one of two consecutive identical syllables, is
a frequent cause of documentary corruption. This Synoptic
difference, then, might result from a merely scribal error.
On the one hand, Mark — who excludes the longer sayings
of Jesus and might a fortiori exclude the longer sayings of
John the Baptist — might (if he had this utterance of the
Baptist before him) stop short too soon by two or three
letters and so omit " fire." On the other, Matthew and Luke
might follow a tradition that reduplicated the first syllable of
" whose " so as to produce the word " fire " before it.^

' Jn. i. 33 "The same is he that baptizeth in (or, with) the Holy Spirit."
2 "Which," or " whose " = ib^n : "fire" = ti'N. See Dr. Ginsburg's Intro-
duction, pp. 326-7, as to the curious comments on this passage. Perhaps the
LXX is right.

' [340o] It is probable (160) that the original Hebrew GoBpel of Mark,
though not quoting the prophets, was based upon prophecy, and contained allu-
sions — some of which are obscured or lost in the Greek — to prophetic expressions.
The mention of the " (winnowing)-fan " here (Mt. iii. 12, Lk. iii. 17) suggests that
the Baptist may have borrowed the word from the only passage (Is. xxx. 24)
where it (nm) is found in the Old Testament, where Isaiah goes on to describe the
purification of the nations by God, whose "tongue is as o. devouring fire and his
breath" [or, "spirit," for the Hebrew (nil) is the same] "is as an overflowing
stream." If the original Hebrew Gospel had, "He shall baptize' you, or, purify

66

OF MARK [341]

To discuss which of these two possibilities is the more
probable would be out of place here. But two points may
be noticed :

[341] The Double Tradition represents the Baptist as
subsequently sending two of his disciples to Jesus to say,
" Art thou he that is to come ? " And in His answer Jesus
apparently implies that John was not "in the kingdom of
God," in other words, that John desired a recourse to arms,
the kingdom of " this world." If this was so, the Baptist
may have contemplated in his prediction something entirely
different from the event that fulfilled it The " Spirit " of
which John spoke is assumed without discussion by most
modem Christians to be the gentle dove-like Spirit of
Christ, and the " fire " to be an influence of beneficent
purification. But both the language of Isaiah above-
mentioned, and the words of the Double Tradition here,
would rather suggest an influence that, although ultimately
purifying, is of an immediately destructive and retributive
character, such as Origen speaks of when commenting
upon the " axe " and the " fire " here mentioned : " Who-
ever has allowed wickedness to establish itself so deeply
in his soul as to be a ground full of thorns, he must
be cut down by the quick and powerful word of God. . . .
To such a soul t/tat fire must be sent which finds out thorns
and by its divine virtue stands where they are and does not
also burn up tJte tliresldng-fioor or tfu standing com" and he
goes on to speak of " afflictions and evil spirits and dangerous
diseases and grievous sicknesses," as being made instruments
by which God chastens men for their good.

It is at least certain that the words of the Baptist are
capable of meaning, " I indeed baptize you %vith the milder

yon, with the winnowing-fan," it is quite in accordance with Mark's free method
of paraphrase that he should express this technical and metaphorical word by its
recognized equivalent in the Christian church, viz. "the Spirit." This would be
all the more natiiral as the Hebrew " winnowing-fcn " is derived from "breath,"
or " spirit," and the two words (nrr and m-i) are somewhat similar.

67

[342] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

purification of water and repentance ; but if ye do not works
worthy of repentance there cometh One mightier than I who
will baptize you with the breath of God's wrath and the fire
of His fury." ^

[342] The next point is, that we cannot be certain
that the words following " Spirit " down to " unquenchable
fire '' were originally intended to be regarded as an utter-
ance of the Baptist's. There are passages in John where
the Evangelist inserts, in his own person, comment hardly
to be distinguished from the words of the Baptist, or of
Jesus : and the Revised version now prints as a comment of
Mark what the Authorised printed as words of Jesus.^ The
addition may very well have been a part of the Preaching
of Peter — who is said to have been once a disciple of the
Baptist — commenting on a passage in the earliest Gospel.

§ 4. {Mk:) ''rent;' (Mt.-Lk.) "opened"

Mk. i. 10 (lit.). Mt. iii. 16. Lk. iii. 21, 22.

"He beheld the " And behold the " It came to pass

heavens in the act-of- htayexis were opened." . . . that the heaven
being-rent." was opened."

[343] Probably the Hebrew Gospel contained an allusion
to Isaiah " O that thou wouldst rend the heavens." This
Mark has retained. But the Septuagint gives "' open " in
Isaiah. And an " open door " — sometimes " in heaven " is
added — was an early Christian phrase to describe the

1 It may seem that "the Holy Spirit" cannot imply "wrath" and "fury" :
but that would not be the view of a Hebrew or Jewish prophet — nor indeed of a
Christian Evangelist, though we should avoid such a word as "fiiry " — believing
in a God whose eyes are "too pure to behold iniquity," and who is described as
"a consuming fire." For an instance of Greek paraphrase applied to similar
Hebrew metaphor, comp. Is. xxx. 27 "his (God's) tongue is as a devouring fire,"
LXX "the anger of his wrath shall devour as fire,"

2 Jn. iii. i6-2i, 31-36; Mk. vii. 19 (A.V.) "... 'and goeth out into the
draught, purging all meats,'" (R.V.) "... 'and goeth out into the draught.'
[This he said] making all meats clean. "

68

OF MARK

[344]

preparation for the Gospel. It was, therefore, natural for
the Corrector to change " rent " into " opened," and for
John, like Matthew and Luke, to adopt the latter.^

§ 5. (Af/&.) ''casteth out;' {Mt.-Lk.) "led"

Mk. i. 12 (lit.).

"And straightway
the Spirit casteth
him out into the
wilderness."

Mt. iv. I.
"Then was Jesus
led up into the wilder-
ness by the Spirit"

Lk. iv. I.

"But Jesus, (aj)
full of the Holy
Spirit, turned back
. . . (flij) and was being
led in (or, by) the
Spirit in the wilder-
ness."

[344] The Hebrew priginal was " cause-to-go-forth,"
rendered (LXX) five times by " cast out," once by " lead to,"
and more than a hundred and fifty times by " lead forth." ^
It is characteristic of Mark that, in the desire to express the
force of the divine impulse, he does not shrink from applying
to Jesus here the word habitually employed to describe the
" casting out " of unclean spirits. The wonder is, not that
the Corrector altered it, but that it has been allowed by the
scribes to survive in any Gospel.

Luke appears to have conflated a paraphrase of his own
and the alteration of the Corrector.

' I Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Cor. ii. iz, Col. iv. 3, Rev. iii. 8, Rev. iv. i "a door
opened in heaven," Jn. i. 51 "the heavens opened." The word (yip) in Is.
Ixiv. I is there rendered iyoi^-gs, which doubtless facilitated the adoption of
" open " instead of " rend " by Christian Evangelists. But dj/ollj/s is not accurate ;
Slip means "tear," "cut up," "rend," but not "open." It = (rxif«>' (Mark's
word) (l), Siaffx'i'eii' (l), Si.appi^<T<reu> (44).

^ See Trommius' Index, us' (hiph.)=&/3iiXXei>' (5), el<rAyav (i), i^iyeiv (frequ.).
Comp. Judg. xiii. 2$ "The Spirit of the Lord began to move him (loya^)," which
means, literally, " to strike like a bell, or an anvil." But this is quite lost in the
Greek, ffweifjropeiifirffai," to go with him" (leg. oys as "pace," "Xa pace with
him").

69

[345] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

§ 6. {Mk.) "wild beasts;' (Mt.-Lk.) "hungered"

Mk. i. 13. Mt. iv. I, 2. Lk. iv. 2.

"... being "... to be "... being

tempted by Satan, tempted by the devil tempted by the devil

and he was with the ... he hungered." . . . he hungered."
wild beasts."

[345] " Satan " the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew
word signifying " adversary," is preferred in St. Paul's earlier
epistles, " devil " in the later ones. The Corrector followed
the later usage.

[346] "With the [wild beasts" was shewn (192) to
indicate a Hebrew original in which " wild beasts (d"'"'2) " was
likely to be confused with " fast (mSi)."

§ 7. {Mk.) " his brother" (Mt.) " two brothers" [(Lk.)
" two boats "]

Mk. i. 16. Mt. iv. 18. [Lk. v. 2.']

(a) "... Simon "... /to(7 brothers, "... two boats."

and Andrew the Simon who is called
brother of Simon." Peter, and Andrew

his brother."

Compare : —

Mk. L 19. Mt. iv. 21. [Lk. v. 10.]

{p) "... James "... two other "... James and

the [son] of Zebedee brothers James the John, sons of Zebe-

andjohnhisbrother." [son] of Zebedee and dee, who -viexe part-

John his brother." ners with Simon."

[347] D and SS have preserved the key to these
confusions. They read, in Mk. i. 16, "Simon and Andrew

^ Lk. is bracketed, because some take the narrative as referring to a different
event from that recorded by Mk.-Mt. But there are sufficient grounds for
beUeving that at all events these parts of the narrative may be parallel.

70

OF MARK [349]

his brotfier." Now the Hebrew consonants meaning "his
brother " mean also, and not less frequently, " his brothers."
But " his brothers," in the sentence, " He {i.e. Jesus) saw
Simon and Andrew his brothers" ^ would mean " the brothers
of Jesus." This possibility had to be removed, and was
removed, in three different ways, as follows :

(i) Our present Meurk, in («), followed a Hebrew
marginal correction which substituted Simon's for "his,"
but was content to leave {b) because " the [son] of Zebedee "
here prevented any ambiguity.

The Corrector wrote in Mark's margin, in Hebrew —
both in (a) and in {b) — "two brothers," without the pro-
nominal suffix " his."

[348] (ii) Matthew adopted "two brothers" in (a).
But, when he came to repeat the phrase in (b), he naturally
added " other," ^ so as to give " two other brothers." Then
he conflated this with the parallel Mark, "his brother,"
although the latter was now superfluous.

[349] (iii) Luke, in (a), mistook the marginal correction
" two brothers " for " two vessels^' the consonants for
" brothers " and " shipping," or " boat," being somewhat
similar.* In (b), he read "James and John his brothers^' i.e.
Simon's brothers, since Simon had been last mentioned.
Then, he remembered that "brother" is often used in
Hebrew to mean " neighbour," " companion," " partner," and
consequently rendered it " partners with Simon."

• "His brother "=vn(< = also "his brothers." So •nN=either "my brother"
or "my brothers," Hence i S. xx. 29 "my brother," LXX "my brothers."

^ [348a] After saying "he met two brothers," a writer might naturally feel
obliged to add "more," or "other," or "again," in repeating the phrase about
a second pair. If this explanation were not sufficient, we might be tempted to
suppose that — the Hebrew "other" (nnx) being similar to "brother" — conflation
had taken place. "Other" and "after," in Hebrew, are identical. Comp.
Judg. V. 14 "o/?<r thee (TinK)," LXX (A) "thy brother" (1^. thn) : conversely,
in I S. XXX. 23 "my brethren (-nn)," LXX "after" (\e%. ihk).

' [349<«] " Brother (mj) " is confused, in 2 S. xv. 34, with " I (on)," and •:!<=
' ' shipping. " ' ' Ship " = n'ju.

71

[350] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS •

On both these points Luke is probably in error.^ But
these, and other errors in Luke's narrative, arise not from a
desire to exaggerate, or to alter on account of prejudice, but
(at all events in part) from a misunderstanding of the
Hebrew original.

§ 8. Mk's use of the word "proclaim "

(i) Mk. i. 38 (lit.). Mt. iv. 23. Lk. iv. 43.

[350] "that I may " proclaiming tAe " I must bring-the-

proclaim also there." gospel of the kingdom.'' gospel-of the kingdom

of God."

This is translated above, as printed in Synopticon. But
more probably Matthew should be left blank above, and Mt.
iv. 23 should be differently arranged, as follows : —

(ii) Mk. i. 39 (lit.). Mt. iv. 23. Lk. iv. 44 (lit.).

" And he came "... teaching in " And he was pro-
proclaiming into their their synagogues and claiming into the
synagogues." proclaiming the gos- synagogues."
pel of the kingdom."

The fact is, that Matthew and Luke do not agree against
Mark. On the contrary, Matthew deviates from Mark, and
Luke follows Mark in using " proclaim " absolutely (for " pro-
claim the Gospel ") — a rare construction in the Gospels.^

§ 9. {Mt.-Lk) " Sir," om. by Mk.

Mk. i. 40 (lit.). Mt. viii. 2. Lk. v. 12.

"... saying to "... saying, ^ Sir, "... saying, '■Sir,

him that, ' If thou if thou wilt . . . ' " if thou wilt . . . ' "
wilt . . . '"

^ The word " shipping " could perhaps hardly be used here to mean " vessels " ;
and "brother" could not mean "companion," in narrative, except in a few
special phrases, such as, "they said, each man to his brother" meaning, "they
said to one another. "

' It is confined to Mk. i. 39 (Lk. iv. 44), iii. 14, and Mt. xi. I "to teach and
proclaim in their cities. "

72

OF MARK [352]

[351] The Hebraic "that," used before speech, might
be omitted by the Corrector because it is superfluous.
" Sir " might be inserted for seemliness. But more probably
" to him that " resembled " Sir," in Hebrew, sufficiently to
justify the correction.^

§ lo. {Mk) " Cometh" etc., {Mt.-Lk?) " behold"

Mk. i. 40. Mt. viii. 2. Lk. v. 12.

[352] (i) "And "And behold a "And behold a

there cometh unto leper approaching." man full of leprosy,
him a leper." and, seeing Jesus . . ."

Compare : —

Mk. ii. 3. Mt. ix. 2. Lk. v. 18.

(ii) "And they " And behold ihty " KnA. behold mtn

come bringing unto brought-to him . . ." bringing ..."
him . . ."

Mk. V. 22. Mt. ix. 18. Lk. viii. 41.

(iii) "And there "... behold . . . " a.nd. behold t\\er&

cometh . . . and see- having come - to- came a man."
ing him . . ." [him]."

Mk. ix. 4. Mt. xvii. 3. Lk. ix. 30.

(iv) "And there "AnA behold \htr& "and behold two

appeared to them appeared to them men . . . who were
Elias with Moses." Moses and Elias." Moses and Elias."

' [351a] "Tohim" = i^>: "that" = '3: ^ is frequently interchanged with n, as

. in 2 S. ix. 4 "Ammiel," 'A/iai}p (A, A/i«;X), Neh. xi. 31 "Bethel," «'==' BijSt,/),

Prov. xxxi. I "Lemuel," (Theod.) 'Pe/SouT^X : comp. Ezek. xxvii. 16 Heb. niDNi,

Ao/iiifl. Authorities are not agreed as to the origin of "Bella;-" as a form of

" Belial " (see Black's Ency. " Belial ").

[351i5] Moreover, 3 is frequently interchanged with 3, so that <3 l'? could
become first >yn and then <3T i.e. "Rabbi." And in Mk. (x. 51) "Rabbouni"
is parallel to Mt.-Lk. "Sir" (xipie).

73

[352] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Mk. xiv. 43. Mt. xxvi. 47. Lk. xxii. 47.

(v) "And straight- "And . . . behold ''■behold . . . and

way . . . there com- there came.'' he went before them."

eth up."

[352] " Behold " was probably in the Hebrew original,
but Mark never uses this exclamation in narrative. Wherever
" behold " occurs in a parallel passage of one, or both, of the
Synoptists, introducing an arrival — as in the first three
instances above — Mark will be found to use either {a) "comes,"
or — if " comes " is in the original already — [b) " straightway."
In the Transfiguration — instance (iv) above — where there is
no suggestion of arrival, and where " beholding " may be said
to be implied in " appeared " — Mark omits " behold " and
substitutes nothing for it.^

Matthew and Luke agree in adopting corrections that
assimilate the Greek Gospel in this respect to the Hebrew.

[353] In the instance marked (v) above, Mark has
rendered " behold " by " straightway." This rendering occurs
thrice in Genesis, and appears to have been a kind of ex-
periment in free translation, which the Septuagint did not
continue. This form of " straightway " occurs only four times
in the whole of the Septuagint. Mark repeatedly employs it.^

§ II. {Mk:) "by four;' {Mt.-Lk.) "on a bed"
Mk. ii. 3. Mt. ix. 2. Lk. v. 18.

"... a paralytic "... a paralytic " . . . on a bed a

carried by four." prostrate on a bed." man that was para-

lysed."

' [352a] Note that in (i) and (iii), Luke and Mark severally add clauses
about "seeing." These may be conflations arising from Greek corruption. A
marginal lSov is easily confused with iS<3 {i.e. ISdv) and transferred to the text.

^ [353a] Gen. xv. 4, xxiv. 45, xxxviii. ,29, €iBijs=nin. The only other
instance is Job iii. 11, where there is no Hebrew equivalent. Mark has much in
common with the style of translation adopted in Genesis. For another possible
instance of idiosyncracy in translation, confined to a single book of the LXX, see
313a.

74

OF MARK [356]

[354] See Clue (196-205), where it was shewn that a
Hebrew original " at a trap-door-in-the-roof " may have been
mistaken for "by four," and also for ''on a bed." The
latter was adopted by Matthew and Luke.

§ 1 2. {Mk:) " before them" {Mt.-Lk.) " to his house "

Mk. ii. 12. Mt. ix. 7, 8. Lk. v. 25, 26.

" He went out be- " He went away " . . . before

fore [them] all . . ., to his house . . . they their faces ... he
they were amazed." feared." yueniayidiy to his house

. . . and amazement
seized all and they
were filled mthfear."

(i) " before them "

[355] The original may have been, "He went out
between them all," that is to say, between the crowded
congregation, which made way so as to allow him to pass.
The word meaning " between " is easily confused, and has
actually been confused in the Septuagint, with the much
more common word "house," as, for example, in Proverbs
" Among the righteous," LXX " the houses of the righteous."^
Mark gives a free but correct translation, taking " between "
to mean " in the midst of," " in the full view of." Matthew
adopts the corrupt reading " house." Luke conflates " house "
with a slightly different form (" before their faces ") of Mark's
" before them all."

(ii) " they were amazed"

[356] Mark has perhaps paraphrased the original Hebrew
" fear," thinking that " amazement " would better express

1 [355a] Prov. xiv. 9 "among, (j'3)" oULat: Sir. xlii. 12 "in the house-of
(n'3) (^ Itiaif)" where Editors say (p. xxxi.) " perh. 'among' contr. for ru'n:
so Er. xli. 9 ifi) and perh. Prov. viii. 2, Job viii, 17." In these three passages
LXX has h fiiatf, or hik jiiaov.

75

[357] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

the feeling consequent on a beneficent act. Matthew has

restored "fear." Luke has conflated "fear" and "amazement."

In Mark iv. 41 "they feared a great fear," Matthew has

"wondered," while Luke conflates "fear" and "wonder " (1 38).

§ 13. The Exclamatory Interrogative

Mk. ii. 16. Mt. ix. 11. Lk. v. 30.

"that he eateth " Why eateth " Why eat ye

your teacher. . .?" . . .?"

[357] When a question is not asked for information
but is of the nature of an exclamation, the Septuagint
often expresses the Hebrew interrogative particle by " that "
(perhaps sometimes meaning "how is it that"). In such
cases, the Codex Alexandrinus, which is inferior in antiquity
to the Codex Vaticanus, very frequently corrects the text
so as to conform it more exactly to the Hebrew. This
phenomenon of the Old Testament reproduces itself here in
the New. Mark has rendered the Hebrew interrogative in
the old inaccurate fashion, whereas Matthew and Luke have
adopted a later but more accurate translation. In two other
passages (where Luke has no parallel) Mark expresses a
question by " that," and the parallel Matthew has " why ? " ^

§ 14. {ML) " sewetk on," {Mi.-Lk.) " putteth on"

Mk. ii. 21. Mt. ix. 16. Lk. v. 36.

"no man . . . " no man puttefh- " no man putteth-

seweth-on." on.'' on.''

' [357a] Mk. (a) ix. n, {i) ix. 28 Sn, Mt. (a) H, (b) Sii, tI. Comp. 2 S. xii. 9
"Wherefore? (ym) " «ri (A rl), Job xxvii. 12 "Why then? (m to'?)" (where A
has Sib, tI, but the older MSS. read Sn and connect it with what precedes) :
Ex. iii. 3 " why (yno)," 4" (A. F. t( Sti) : Judg. ii. 2 " But ye have not hearkened
unto my voice : wky (no) have ye done this?" LXX "ye have not hearkened
because {Sn) (but A "when," Sre) ye did this" : Judg. iv. 14 "Is not (nhn) the
Lord gone out . . .1" Sti (but A oix iSoi) i^eXeitrerai . . . There are many
more such instances.

76

OF MARK

[359]

[358] This correction probably originated in Greek cor-
ruption. The original Hebrew had " seweth." But the Greek
of this (pd-TTTei) is convertible, by the alteration of a single
letter, into " throweth (piTrrei)" ; and the two Greek words are
thus confused in Job.^ Moreover, Mark's compound, " seweth-
on," is not found in the whole of Greek literature. It was
therefore probably altered to " throweth-on." But this, since
it implied violence, was not so appropriate as " putteth on,"
which was therefore generally adopted by later Evangelists.

Mk. ii. 2 2.

[359] " Else,^
the wine will tear the
wine-skins, and the
wine is destroyed
and the wine -skins
[too]. [[But [people
must put] new wine
into new wine-
skins]]." «

§ 15." T/ie wine- skins "

Mt. ix. 17.

"Or- else, the
wine-skins are torn
and the wine is spilt
and the wine-skins
destroyed. But
[people^ put new wine
into new wine-skins."

Lk. V. 37, 38.

" Or-else, the new
wine will tear the
wine-skins, and will
itself be spilt, and the
wine-skins will be
destroyed. But one-
should-put new wine
into new wine-skins."

' "Sew(isn)" occurs (4) in O.T. =(3) paTrru, (i) avvf/aTU. In Job xvi. 15
(LXX 16) "I have sewed" (nsn) Ipafar, there are v.r. eppaij/av, €pi\jiav, eppi^j/av.
In the present passage, D reads enawpaiTTei. This was caused by some scribe
who — aware that (rue- was allowable and ewi- was not — wrote <rw in the margin,
which D conflated.

" Putteth-on (^irijSiiXXei) " might mean " throweth, or, casteth on,'' so that it is
closely synonymous with ivipplirTei " throweth on.''

If the above explanation is correct, iirtpivTa was altered to iviplirrei which was
replaced by the synonymous iinpdWei : and the intermediate phase of tradition,
inplimi., is no longer extant.

2 [359a] " Else," Mk. el Si p.^!, Mt.-Lk. d Si p,ri ye, see below on Mk. ii. 26.
Mk. never uses ye. It occurs only thrice in the whole of the Pentateuch. The
omission of ye leaves the reader free to translate thus : " But, if the wine should
not tear." The insertion therefore conduces to clearness.

' These words, omitted by Tisch. and bracketed by W. H., are retained
by SS, which however adds "put." The sentence may have been omitted by
some scribes owing to its ungrammatical structure. If it was an interpolation, why
did the interpolator omit " put " ?

77

[360] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

[360] In this case, Greek corruption will best explain the
divergences from Mark. The original Greek was probably,
" Else, the wine will tear the wine-skins and {Kav) is destroyed
{airoXKvraC) also (or, and) («:at) itself {avTO'i)." But "is
destroyed " and " are destroyed " in Greek MSS. are often
distinguished by nothing but a horizontal line of abbreviation
over one letter (a-rroXKvTai and wrroWvTaC)} Again, the
Greek " also " may mean " and also " ; and the Greek " itself "
by the change of a letter may mean " they." Hence arose
the following variations.

(i) Mark took the words as meaning " and it is destroyed
and also they [are destroyed]," and inserted or substituted
nouns for pronouns to make this clear : " and the wine is
destroyed and also the wine-skins!'

(2) Matthew and Luke followed the interpretation " are
destroyed." This left the sentence incomplete, thus : '' Else
the wine will tear the wine -skins and they are destroyed,
and itself ..." To make this clear, " the wine is spilt," or " the
wine itself will be spilt," was inserted in the margin, and
afterwards transferred to the text.

If the words enclosed in double brackets in Mark are
genuine, it is easy to see why Evangelists added a missing
verb, variously supplied by Matthew (" put ") and Luke
(" should-put ").

§ I 5 (a). (Mt.-Lk.) " eating" Mk. omits

Mk. ii. 23. Mt. xii. 1. Lk. vi. i.

[360] (i) " . . . "... buthisdis- "... andhisdis-

and his disciples be- ciples were hungry ciples were plucking

gan to make a way, and began to pluck the ears and eating^

plucking the ears.'' ears and eat." rubbing [them] with

their hands."

1 [360«] This is a very frequent cause of Greek corruption. The abbreviation
is confined, in the oldest uncial MSS., to letters at, or near, the end of the line.
But the lines are so short that, in spite of this limitation, the contraction occurs,
for example, in n, (Lk. vii. 21) twice in seven words, (Lk. vii. 22) thrice in eight,
(Lk. vii. 4) twice in four.

78

OF MARK [362]

See Clue, 211-218, where the passage and the context
are discussed. Matthew and Luke omit Mark's difficult
phrase {i.e. " making a way ") : and, by adding that the
disciples "ate," they meet, by anticipation, the charge of
wanton trespass necessarily implied in any exact interpreta-
tion of Mark's words.

§ 1 6. {Mk:) ''except" {Mt.-Lk.) " except alone"

Mk. ii. 26. Mt. xii. 4. Lk. vi. 4.

"... except (lit. "... except (lit. "... except (lit.

if not) the priests." if not) to the priests if not) alone the
alone" priests."

[361] As in Mk. ii. 22, so here, the Corrector disliked
the use of " if not," to mean " except," without some addition
to signify that "if" is not used as a conditional conjunction.
There, he added a Greek particle (" at least "), here he adds
" alone." Similarly in the parallel to Mk. xiii. 32" except
the Father," Mt. xxiv. 36 adds "alone." '

§ 17. {Mk.) "plagues" {Mt.-Lk.) "diseases"

Mk. iii. 10. Mt. iv. 24. Lk. vi. 17.

"plagues (lit. "diseases." "diseases."

strokes)."

[362] The difference shews Mark adhering to the custom
of the Septuagint, which seldom uses the regular Greek word
for " disease." Mark thrice uses " stroke (jida-ri^) " and only
once "disease [yodoi)" \ Matthew "disease" five times,
" stroke " never ; Luke " disease " four times, " stroke " once.
In classical Greek, Mark's word might mean " a plague "
or " a scourge." It would naturally be corrected by later
Evangelists.'

1 [362a] Mark may have had in view the Hebrew of Is. liii. 4 R.V. "carried
cur sorrows (iranao)," LXX "sorroweth for us.'' This word = (i) iiAaTi.%, (2)
jiaXada, but never vdaos. The root is said to mean "pierce" (comp. Ezek.

79

[363]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

1 8. The naming of the Apostles

Mt. X. 2.

"But of the Twelve
Apostles the names
are these, first Simon
who is called Peter
and Andrew his bro-
ther and James the
[son] of Zebedee and
John his brother,
Philip . . ."

Lk. vi. 13—14-
". . . Twelvewhom
also he named Apos-
tles, Simon whom also
he named Peter and
Andrew his brother,
and James and John
and Philip . . ."

Mk. iii. 14 foil.

"and he appointed
Twelve, whom also
he named Apostles,
. . . and he appointed
the Twelve and set a
name on Simon
[? namely] Peter, and
James the [son] of
Zebedee and John
the brother of James
(and he set names on
them [namely] Boan-
erges, which is Sons
of Thunder) and An-
drew and Philip . . ."

[363] Mark shews signs of confusion. Possibly he had
before him tw^o accounts, one {a) of the " appointing," the
other {V) of the " naming," of the Apostles : and he may
have combined the two by means of parentheses. If so, the
former {a) may have originally had " Simon and Andrews his
brother," and Mark may have omitted " his brother " when
he altered the order \iy placing first those apostles who received
new names}

xxviii. 24 " a grieving (:iic2a) thorn"), hence "soreness," "pain"- comp. 2 Cor.
xii. 7 "thorn in the flesh" (marg. "stake"). But more probably the original
was nil "stroke,"' d^i} (69), /tdcmf (3), wKijyii (2), applied to the Messiah in
Is. liii. 4 "we did esteem him stricken of God," (liii. 8) "for the transgression
of my people was he stricken," where the LXX paraphrases, or errs.

' [363rt] Near this point, parallel to Mk. iii. 19-21, Mr. Rushbrooke's
Synopticon places the cure of a dumb (Mt. adds "and blind") demoniac (Mt. xii.
22, 23, Lk. xi. 14). Another cure of a dumb demoniac (more similar to that in
Lk. xi. 14) is found in Mt. ix. 32, 33. In neither is the similarity between
Mt. and Lk. very close. They are not discussed here as they are not in Mk.

[363*] There follows a passage about "Satan casting out Satan," which
belongs, at least in part, to the Double Tradition. Mk. (iii. 21-26) is so confused

80

OF MARK [364]

§ 19. (Mk.) "parables" {Mi.-Lk) "thoughts" or
"purposes"

Mk. iii. 23. Mt. xii. 25. Lk. xi. 17.

"And having called "Bntknowingtheir " But he, knowing

them unto [himself] inward-thoughts he their purposes, said to

in parables he began- said to them." them."
to-say to them."

[364] These words, in Matthew, immediately follow the
slander of the Pharisees that Jesus cast out devils " in
Beelzebub the prince of the devils."

In Mark, they follow a similar slander proceeding from
scribes. But Mark's expression " And having called them
to [himself]," a phrase elsewhere used when Jesus calls the
disciples or the people round Him, is quite inappropriate as
introducing a rebuke to enemies. Luke, on the other hand,
interposes, between the Beelzebub - slander and xi. 1 7,
" But others, tempting, began-to-seek from him a sign out
of heaven." This seems to explain the meaning of Luke's
word " purposes." He is not referring to mere " inward-
thoughts " of hostility, but to " purposes," or " intrigues," on
the part of the Pharisees, to discredit Jesus with the people,
by taking advantage of a refusal, or a failure, to work a sign
from heaven.

The phenomena indicate two opposite interpretations of

that, though it differs greatly from Mt. and Lk., the author of the Arabic
Diatessaron does not attempt (as he generally does) to add it to the two others.
The steps of investigation cannot be given here, but the results may be stated
thus. The original was to this effect : " If Satan stand (Dip=stand up) against
Satan, shall he be able (leg. Sv "to be able") to stand (nip = stand fast)? He
shall not be able, but shall come -to -an -end (leg. n^a, which, in some forms, is
identical with '?30." Confusion was caused by (i) the use of " stand " in the two
senses of "rebel" and "prosper"; (ii) the identity of the words signifying
"able" and "come-to-an-end" or " b'e-destroyed " ; (iii) the similarity of the
words in (ii) to the word "all (^d)" (which is inserted in Mt.-Lk. but not in
Mk.); and (iv) the identity between "if" and the interrogative {"If Satan
, . . ," " Can Satan . . . ?").

6 81

[365] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

a Hebrew original latent under Mark's " having called them
unto [himself] " and " parables."

(i) {Mk.) " having called them unto {himself X' {Mt.-Lk.)
" knowing "

[365] Since Mark's " having called them unto [himself] "
is probably erroneous, it is reasonable to prefer hypothetically
the version of Matthew and Luke, " knowing," as a basis for
an attempt to return to the Hebrew. The usual Hebrew
word for " know " could hardly give rise to Mark's diverg-
ence, but a Hebrew word meaning " know," " have under-
standing," etc., is easily confused with another meaning
" cause to come," which might be freely paraphrased " call to
oneself," and the two are once actually confused by the LXX.^

Mark may have been led into this error, partly by the
muth greater frequency of the word " come," but partly by
the Hebrew idiom " know in" used like " have knowledge,
or understanding in." ^ The preposition " in," being connected
by him with the following word rendered by him " parables,"
led him to detach the word now under consideration from
" began to speak in parables," and to find some other
meaning for it.

(ii) Parables

[366] If the Hebrew original of "parables" had been the
usual word, Maskal, so familiar a term could hardly have
created difficulty. But there was another Hebrew word
meaning " dark sayings," and capable of meaning " intrigues,"
and translated by Matthew "secret things" when he quotes —
as a prediction of Christ's teaching in parables — " I will open

1 Comp. Dan. ix. 22 "and he instructed me" hiph. of j'a, LXX vpoariKBe,
leg. NU.

2 [365a] Comp. Ezr. viii. 15 "I &z«rocrf the people " ; lit. " had-understand-
ing in the people," and translated thus (o-w^/ca iv) by the LXX ; but the parall.
I Esd. viii. 41 has " I reviewed (KarinaOov) them." ,

82,

OF MARK [366]

my mouth in a parable, I will utter dark-sayings of old."
It is generally rendered by the Septuagint " problem," but
Mark, in his free paraphrastic style, might naturally render
it " parable " : and Matthew, since he rendered it " secret
things " elsewhere, might very well render it " inward
thoughts" here.^ In Daniel (viii. 23) it is rendered by the
Revised Version " dark sentences," but the Oxford edition of
Gesenius renders it " double-dealing," which is very similar
to Luke's meaning here. On the whole, it is probable that
Mark is wrong, and Matthew and Luke right, here as well
as in the preceding paragraph. No doubt, theoretically, the
original — differing from the present text of all the Gospels
— might have been " While teaching them in dark sayings."
But, if this was the original, why should it be altered ?
Indeed, there would be a strong inducement to retain it, for
it might be regarded as a fulfilment of the words of the
Psalmist, " I will utter dark sayings." The agreement of
Matthew and Luke is also an argument for the correctness
of their version — in cases where, as here, no " scandal " is
removed by the correction.^

S 20. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

Mk. iii. 28, 29. Mt. xii. 31, 32. Lk. xii. 10.

(fl^) "all things (a^) "every sin (a^ "and every

shall be forgiven to and blasphemy shall one that shall say a

the sons of men be forgiven to men ; word against (lit. to)

' [366a] Ps. Ixxviii. 2 " dark sayings (nn'n)," irpopy/jiuiTa, quoted in Mt. xiii.
3S KcKpvupAva : Dan. viii. 23 "understanding dark sentences" (Lexic. Gesen.
Oxf., "double-dealing"). In LXX, n-r'r\=aXvi.-iiw. (4), 5i^7i;/ia (-ijo-is) (2), TrpA-
p\T]im (10).

^ [366*] Another explanation is, that Mk. read the familiar haa ("parable")
instead of hyo ("treachery "). The letters v and n are often interchanged in LXX,
as may be seen from the Oxford Concordance of Names ; see 2aj3o5(ii', SaSii/c (A),
^aiXi/i, Sa\aifi.de, etc., in all of which the initial letter is y, read by the LXX as
v. For an instance of Wd read as hvD, see 2 K. vi. 11 "of us (lihm)," LXX
"betrays {irpoSldojnv).''

83

[367]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

— their sins and
their blasphemies, as
many blasphemies as
they utter — but who-
so shall blaspheme
against (lit. to) the
Holy Spirit, hath not
forgiveness . . ."

but the blasphemy
against (lit. of) the
Spirit shall not be
forgiven. (^2) And
whoso shall say a
word against the Son
of man it shall be
forgiven to him ; but
whoso shall say [a
word] against the
Holy Spirit it shall
not be forgiven to
him."

the Son of man, it
shall be forgiven
him ; but to him that
blasphemeth against
the Holy Spirit it
shall not be for-
given.''

[367] Compare a passage in the Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles, warning Christians not to judge a prophet speaking
in the Spirit, "for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin
shall not be forgiven." ^

[368] In the original Hebrew Gospel, "sons of man
(Adam) " probably occurred in all cases where " men " stands
in passages of warning or reproof, such as that in Matthew,
" Every idle word that men shall speak," where the modern
Hebrew of Delitzsch has " the sons of man (Adam)." But
when "son of man," in Christian documents, came to.
mean exclusively Jesus, Evangelists must have found the
term " sons of man " incongruous in the old application.
The natural course was to substitute the idiomatic Greek
equivalent, ''men." But in a few cases the old phrase
might be retained with the singular changed to the plural,
"sons of men." The survival of the latter here alone in
Mark is a proof of its extreme antiquity, and the parallel
passages must be regarded as early corrections of it.

[369] (i) The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles took the
obvious course of omitting " to the sons of man," and of

^ Didach. xi. 7 irpo<p^riv XaXovvTo, iv vveiimn oii ireipijreTe oiSi SiaKpivtirf
— yap ifiaprla d0eSi)<rcTOi, oBtt; 5^ ^ afiaprla oix itpeS'^a-erat.

84

iraa-a

OF MARK

condensing " all things . , . their sins and their blasphemies "
into " every sin." ^

(ii) The Corrector of Mark took " to the sons of man "
as " against ^ the Son of man," so that the meaning became,
" All things shall be forgiven — that is to say, against the Son
of man, whether sins of word or deed."

(iii) Matthew, in the second {a^ of his versions, and Luke
in his single version, adopted the Corrector's view, but took
" things " as meaning " words " — a constant confusion in
Hebrew. Hence the meaning became " All words shall be
forgiven uttered against the Son of man " ; and, as the mean-
ing was now confined to '' words," they dropped the addition
(" sins and blasphemies ") intended to include deed as well
as word.

(iv) Matthew conflated with this a version of Mark (flj),
substituting " men " for " sons of men," and making the
order somewhat more regular.

§ 20 (a). {Mk^ "the {men) about him with the Twelve"
(Mt.-Lk.) "the disciples"

Mk. iv. 10. Mt. xiii. 10. Lk. viii. 9.

"And when he "And having "But there-began-

was alone there-be- come to him the to-question him his

^ [369a] In Hebrew "thing" and "word" are identical. Comp. Dan. ii.
10, LXX irpayfia, Theod. ^fia; Ezr. ji. 4 /5^/io=I Esdr. viii. 91 irpayim;
Ezr. X. 16 firiiw, = i Esdr. ix. 16 vpayiui. Hence a Hebrew writer, after saying
"Every thing," might feel it needful to add "yes, whether deed or word," to
shtw that ''thing" was not intended here to mean "■word" alone, Comp. 2 Chr.
xiii. 22 (lit.) "the rest of the words (lai) of A., and [or, both] his ways (xn) and
his words (nm)," LXX "the rest of the words (X67(ii) of A., and [or, both] his acts
(ir/>(i(e(s) and his words (XAyoi)."

This explains Mark's diffuse language "all things . . . their sins \i.e. of acti
and blasphemies {i.e, of word]" — which was quite needless in Greek, and was
consequently dropped by later Evangelists.

2 [369(5] For the interchange of ''to" and "against," comp. Mk. vi. ii eh
liofrripiov airoK = Lk. ix. 5 eh /mpripiov lir' airois. Eis and iirl are frequently
interchanged in LXX, and h» and hv in Hebrew.

85

[370] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

gan-to-ask him (flj) disciples said to him, disciples What this

those [that were] Why in parables parable was (e'lrj)."

about him {a^ with speakest - thou to

the Twelve the [mean- them ? "
ingof the] parables."

[370] Mark's phrase " the {men) about," meaning " the
{men) attending, or, accompanying (a person)" is a sign of
free Greek translation or paraphrase. In the LXX, it is
extremely rare, and never used except in a paraphrase,
interpolation, or conflation.^ Here, as in the only passage
where it occurs in the historical books of 0. T., it is probably
part of a conflation. An original («i) "those who [were]
with-him " — a very frequent expression in Hebrew to mean
" his followers " — might be interpreted in two quite distinct
senses, either as the smaller circle of {a^ "the Twelve," or
as the larger circle of Christ's " disciples." Mark has conflated
(^i) and (^a). The Corrector adopted " disciples." "

' [370a] In Heb. LXX it occurs six times with a person (once with o-fi/to), of
which four are in Ezek. xxxviii. 6, 9 and xxxix. 4, to represent a word peculiar to
Ezekiel, n'lUN, wings, or flanks of an army. In I Chr. xxviii. I oi irepi ri awiux.
is a paraphrase for mi? "attend on," "minister to.'' In Sir. xlv. 18 c AvSpes oi
irepl AaBiv represents " The-men-of Dathan." In 2 S. xv. 18 oi wepl occurs as
part of a triple conflate (75) rendering " onaj; (servants) " and is probably intended
to distinguish David's personal attendants from his warriors. In Dan iii. 23
(LXX), iii. 49 (LXX and Theod.), it occurs in Greek additions.

° [370i5] Possibly Mark's "when he was alone" may be a third member
of this conflation, springing from an original "those -who [were] about
him." For "when" and "who" are easily interchangeable in Hebrew, e.g.
I K. viii. 30, 2 Chr. vi. 21 "when," fi ; i K. viii. 9, 2 Chr. v. 10 (R.V. txt.)
"when," (marg.) "where," 8., i.e. "in the things which. " Consequently — taking
"tkose-wko iwere] about him" to mean "when [they ■were'] about him," i.e.
"when they were with him by themselves, apart from the multitude" — a free
translator might render this "when he was alone " (or perhaps "when they-were
(ereNSTo) alone," corrupted to " when he-was (ereNeTO)."). But the discussion
of this question must be reserved for a commentary on the Triple Tradition. See
Mk. iv. 34, " But privately to his own disciples he used-to-explain all things " —
a passage omitted by Matthew and Luke.

OF MARK [371]

§ 2 1. {Mk:) ''into theml' {Mi.) " m his heart;' (Lk.)
"from their heart "

Mk. iv. IS (lit.). Mt. xiii. 19. Lk. viii. 12.

"taketh away the "snatcheth that "taketh away the

word that hath been which hath been word from their

sown into them." sown in his heart." heart.'"

{{)" Heart"

[370 (i)] The original may have been " taketh away the
word [that was] in their heart." Hebrew, like English,
frequently omits the relative, where either that, or a parti-
ciple {e.g: " sown ") must be expressed in Greek. " In-the-
heart-of," " from-the-heart-of," are frequently rendered in
the Septuagint by the preppsitions " in " and " from." ^ Mark
perhaps wrote " into them " in order to avoid " in them,"
since the latter might mean " among them " (an ambiguity
sometimes found in the Pauline " in you "). Matthew and
Luke return to the literal Hebrew, " heart."

(ii) {Mk.-Mt.) " in{to)," (Lk.) "from "

[371] This is a frequent variation (158a:). Compare
Lam. i. 15" he hath set at naught . . . in the midst of me"
LXX "he hath taken away . . . from the midst of me,"
Gen. XXXV. 2 " Put away the strange gods that [are]
among you," LXX " take away the strange gods from the
midst of your Reading " from," Luke would of course not
require a relative or a participle.

§ 22. Interrogatives
Mk. iv. 21. Mt. V. 15. Lk. viii. 16.

(i) "Doth the "Nor do men "But no one,

lamp come ? " light a lamp." having kindled a

lamp."
' See Tromm. index under nip and a^.
87

[372]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Mk. vi. 37.

(ii) " Are we to go
away and buy . . . ? "

Mk. viii. 12.

(iii) "Why seek-
eth this generation a
sign? Verily I say,
(lit.) if^ a sign shall
be given to this
generation."

Mk. xi. 22.

(iv) R.V. "Have
faith in God" (but
? better, " Have ye
faith in God?")

Mk. xi. 32.

(v) "But are we
to say From men ? "

Mk. xiv. 61.

(vi) " Thou [then]
art the Christ ? "

Mt. xiv. 15. Lk. ix. 13.

" that they may " unless we are to

go away . . . and go and buy . . ."
buy . . ."

Mt. xvi. 4.

" An evil and
adulterous generation
seeketh after a sign,
and a sign shall not
be given to it except
the sign of Jonah."

Mt. xxi. 21.
" If ye have faith

Mt. xxi. 26.

"But if we say
From men ..."

Mt xxvi. 63.

"... that thou
wouldst tell us i/'thou
art the Christ."

Lk. xi. 29.

"This generation
is an evil generation.
It seeketh a sign, and
a sign shall not be
given to it except
the sign of Jonah."

[Lk. xvii. 6."]
" If ye have faith

Lk. XX. 6.
"But if we say

From men

Lk. xxii. 67.

" If thou art the
Christ tell us."

[372] These variations could not occur in Greek, where
interrogation is almost always clearly distinguished from
assertion ; but they could easily occur in Hebrew, where
sometimes the interrogative is expressed {a) by mere tone,
ib) by a prefix identical with the article (often, as in (i) above,

' [3713] Mk. viii. 12 lit. "if." "If," when thus used in Hebrew, maybe
explained by "The Lord do so unto me" implied before it. R.V. here has the
negative without a marginal explanation ; but in Hebr. iii. 11, iv. 3 "They shall
not enter," it has marg. "Gr. j/they shall enter."

' Luke is bracketed, as the context is very different from that of Matthew, so
that the parallelism is doubtful.

88

OF MARK [373]

equivalent to a negation), (c) by " if" (in which case it
may amount, as in (iii) above, to a strong negation). As a
result of (c), the Greek " if" is frequently used interrogatively
in the Septuagint, and this may explain the variations in
(iv), (v), (vi).

In (ii), a Hebrew original of Mark's " Are we to go away ? "
might be rendered in Greek either literally by " If (el) we are
to go away," or, more classically, by a negative interrogative :
" Surely we are not (jmi]) to go away ? " Luke seems to have
combined " if" and " not," reading " «/ we are not," i.e. " unless
we are [to go away]." Some confusion appears to have
caused Matthew to apply the phrase, not to the disciples,
but to the multitude (" that they may go away ")}

In (iv), Mark himself probably means " have " to be taken
imperatively (as R.V.) ; but the parallelism of Matthew and
Luke suggests that the writer of the original Hebrew meant
the sentence either interrogatively (" Have ye faith in God ?
Then shall ye obtain your petitions ") or else conditionally
(" If ye have faith ").

§ 23. (Mk.) " come," (Mt.) " lightl' (Lk.) " kindle "

Mk. iv. 21. Mt. V. 15. Lk. viii. 16.

" Doth the lamp . " Nor do [men] " But no one hav-

come ? " light a lamp . . ." ing kindled a lamp."

[373] See Clue (186) where it was shewn that this
divergence might be explained by a confusion of the
Hebrew words " come " and " kindle." ^

' [372a] This might arise from throwing Direct Speech ("should we go away?")
into Indirect Speech. "The disciples said Should they go away?" The latter,
might easily become, "the disciples said {hey [the multitude] s\ion\i go away."
Moreover, the Hebrew ist pers. pi. fiit. active is easily and frequently confused
with the 3rd pers. pi. past passive.

' [373a] Comp. Ex. xiv. 20 "yet it gave light (iK'l)," tot SirjKeev (? leg. Kn-i,
but see 186a). In 2 S. xxii. 29 " thou [art] my lamp," the parall. Ps. xviii. 28

89

[373]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

§ 24. (Mk.) "save that it may be" {Mt.-Lk.) " that shall

not be "

Mk. iv. 22.

"For (aj) there is
not [anything] hid-
den save tkat it may
be manifested, (a^)
nor-yet did [anything]
become hidden away
but that it may come
into manifest[ation]."

Mt. X. 26.

" For (flj) there is
nothing covered thai
shall not be uncover-
ed, (flg) and hidden
fMt shall not Se-
known ..."

Lk. viii. 17.

" For (aj) there is
not [anything] hidden
that shall not become
manifest, (a^ nor-yet
hidden away that
shall not surely ipv
m) (^1) be-known and
(b^ come into mani-
fest[ation]."

(i) {Mk:) ''that" {ConJ.) ; {Mt.-Lk.) " that" {Rel.)

[373 (i)] The Hebrew^ relative is often translated by the
Greek " in-order-that " used here by Mark : Gen. xxii. 14 "as

inserts " wilt kindle (Tun)," perh. dropped in 2 S. owing to the proximity of the
similar nnn preceding, and the similar n'3 following.

[373i5] The confusion might also be otherwise explained. The regular word
to express the "lighting" of the lamps of the tabernacle means literally "cause
to go up," hiph. of rhy. It is interpr. (Gesen. Oxf.) " msks Jla?ne go up," but
"Thes. al. of raising lamp upon the lamp-stand," Ex. xxv. 37, xxvii. 20, etc.
The It. V. gives both renderings ; so does the LXX, in one instance having Numb,
viii. 2, 3 "put (iirmB^s)" and "lighted (^{^^ei")" in consecutive verses. Now
rhv is rendered by many Greek verbs of motion, and, among others, by eltriropeio/uu
(l), ivifyxpiiai (3), ^pxoiiai. (l), tJku (i), irapipxo/iai (l). It is therefore easy to
suppose that the Hebrew original ' ' Doth [one] cause the lamp to go up " was
rendered by Mark wrongly "Doth the lamp come [into the room]" and altered
rightly by the Corrector to " No man lighteth the lamp."

[373f] This view is somewhat confirmed by a conflation in k of Tobit viii. 13.
Codex B has "And the maid-servant entered"; but k "(oi) And they j««^ the
maid-servant (oj) and lighted the lamp." The Heb. is not extant: but probably
M has conflated nSy "caused to go up" with " lighted," and also mp "maid-
servant" (dropping 5)) with ni or tj " lamp."

[373^^] Another verb of motion confused with "light" is ns' "go forth,"
apparently confused with ns" "light" in Jerem. xxi. 12 "go forth,'' LXX
" kindled (di/a^ffg)," and Sir. xxxii. 16 " shall bring forth," LXX " shall kindle
as light," i^i\l/ov(rir uis tpas (unless this is a Greek error for i^ola-ovaiv). To explain
Mk. iv, 21, however, kx' meaning "%o forth " is not so appropriate as rh') or nn :
for a word is needed that may mean " come in."

90

OF MARK [373]

it (lit. zvhicfi) is said " LXX " tfiat they may say," Sir. xlv. 24
" which should be," LXX " tftat it may be," Sir. xlvii. 1 3c
" who established," LXX " tliat he may establish." Probably,
therefore, Mark is giving a free translation of the Hebrew
relative. He perhaps took the meaning to be "There is
nothing hidden that is not destined to be, ie. intended by Provi-
dence to be, manifested." This might imply purpose : " It is
only hidden for a time in order tJtat it may be manifested
later with better effect." If this is a correct explanation of
the divergence, Matthew and Luke are returning to the
Hebrew original. But see 373 (ii) b.

(ii) Mk. " come into manifestation "; Mt. substitutes, Lk. adds,

" be known " ^

[373 (ii)] In Mark's version, " save that it may be mani-
fested . . . but that it may come into manifes^atioii\" the
last clause is so uncouth and tautological that its alteration
by a Corrector is not surprising. But the very uncouthness
makes it probable that it is a literal translation from Hebrew.

Luke's rendering appears to conflate the harsh "come
into manifest[ation] " with the smooth paraphrase "be known,"
and, so far, to be inaccurate ; but his " nor [anything] that
shall not surely '' may guide us to the Hebrew if it repre-
sents, as it may very well do, an attempt to render the
emphasis implied in the Hebrew reduplicated verb : " there
is nothing hidden, but it shall manifest be manifested" i.e.
' but it shall surely be manifested." *

Now a Hebrew word for " manifest " (literally " unveil,"

' Lk. xii. 2, in the Double Tradition, gives a doublet, s^eeing exactly with
the last words of Mt. "... that shall not be uncovered, and hidden that shall
not ie-inoam."

^ [373 (ii) a] The LXX frequently drops the Heb. Reduplicated verb, or varies
it, or detaches the two forms, or confuses one of them with a similar word so as
to avoid reduplication, Gen. xlvi. 4, Josh. vii. 7, 1 S. xx. 3, Ju^. v. 23 (B),
(A, as frequently, gives the Heb.), Judg. xv. 2, etc

91

[374] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

" reveal ") means also " remove," " depart," and is frequently
rendered by the LXX " am led," " remove," and once " come
into." ^ Hence " manifest be manifested " might be wrongly
rendered " come into manifestation." ^ But, for various
reasons, this particular confusion — especially as it is supported
by only one instance from the LXX — is not highly
probable. It is probable, however, that some error of this
kind, some harsh and inaccurate attempt at a faithful
rendering of Hebrew, has given rise to a correction " be
known," conflated by Luke in the Triple Tradition, and
substituted by him in the Double, as also by Matthew here.'

§ 25-

The mustard-seed

Mk. iv. 30—32. Mt. xiii. 31, 32. Lk. xiii. 18.

[374] (a) " How " '^Like is the king- " * To what is the

are we to liken * the dom of the heaven to kingdom of God like

^ I S. xiv. n "Both of them discovered-themselves (rt^'j)," LXX "both went
in (dayiKBov)." This may be intended for a paraphrase. And' so may "come"
in Mk.

" [373 (ii) *] The word SS\, preceded by 3, means "on account of," "for the
sake of." Hence, " manifest be manifested " might be taken as "for the sake of
its being manifested." That would suggest another way of explaining the diverg-
ence discussed in 373 (i).

' [373 (ii) c\ (l) In favour of the view that an original n^j underlies the Synoptic
divergence, it may be urged that this verb — which is twice reduplicated in O.T. —
appears to have caused divergence elsewhere in N.T. (498'^. Also, it is the word
used in the (548) passage of Deut. xxix. 29, which contrasts things " secret " and
things " revealed." (z) But Delitzsch gives, for Mk.'s " come into manifestation,''
'i'?jS US', a combination of nSj and N13. The latter might easily be confused with
niK3 " in the light." Possibly the original was " shall be enlightened (in<) and
revealed," and Mk. took the rare in' for the familiar jta', "shall come to be
revealed." (3) The verb n'?p (suggested in 373^) is used of that which is not
hidden from God but " comes up " to Him : but it is perhaps only once (Jer. xiv. 2)
employed absolutely in this sense.

* [374a] Mk. iv. 30 "Are we to liken?" " We are to Vikfin (fut.)" would be
identical with the passive "is Hke(ened)," the form in Lk. Mt. omits the question,
having merely, "Another parable he set forth unto them." The reason may be
as follows. The word " liken " is often (and is probably here) the same as " to-
speak-in-parables " (Sre), or (if we may use such a word) " to-parable." "To
parable a parable " occurs more than once in Ezekiel ; and Codex D has here, in

92

OF MARK

[375]

. . . ? It M like to a
grain of mustard seed
which a man took
and put in[to] his
garden, and it grew
and came to [be]
{eyevero ets) a tree,
and the birds of
heaven lodged in its
branches.''

kingdom of God . . . ?
as to a grain of
mustard seed which
when it is sown on
the land — ^being less
than all the seeds
that are on the land
— and [i.«. then, or
yet, or nevertheless]
when it is sown,shoot-
eth - up (Ut goeth-
up), and becometh
greater than all the
herbs, and maketh
great branches" (see
379) " so that there
are able to lodge
under its shadow the
birds of heaven."

(i) " as to ••

In answer to the question " How are we to liken ? "
Mark might have written " To a grain," or " [It is] as a
grain." He has blended the two together in "as to a. grain."
Later Evangelists corrected this by inserting " like."

a grain of mustard
seed which a man
took and sowed in
his field : which at
first {jih>) is less than
all the seeds, but
afterwards (Se) when
it groTvetAit is greater
than the herbs and
becometh a tree, so
that there come the
birds of heaven and
lodge in its branches."

(ii) Mark has both paraphrased and literalized

[375] Mark's use of " go up " for " grow " shews literal-
ism, and so probably does " and " used for " yet" But the
passive (" when it is sown ") is much rarer in Hebrew than
the active (" a man sowed "), in which point Matthew and
Luke probably recur to the original

Mk., " In what parabk shall ■we parable itf" The or^iinal may have been
" And he was (paiticip.) parabling a paiable and he said." Now the participial
prefix (-d) in "parabling" is easily confused with the intenog. "what" (no) or
"who" ('o), as in Zeph. iu. l8, "burden," lit " tAat-wiicA-ts-bame (jwro),"
LXX " wJu) took {tIs RajSc) ? " Hence " he was parabling" might be taken as
" what parabkl" (or vice-veisa). Further details must be reserved for a com-
mentary on the Triple Tradition. ;

93

[376] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

[376] The words " which a man sowed " would be, in
Hebrew, "which a man sowed it!' This superfluous pro-
noun, in the sentence " which a man sowed it on land," only
needed a single Greek letter (the change of ayto to aytoy)
to become " on his land," which might be interpreted as
(Mt.) " his field " or (Lk.) "his garden."

[377] The locus classicus about "sowing" in O.T. is a
passage in Isaiah (xxviii. 25), where " cast abroad," " scatter,"
and " put in," are rendered by LXX " sow " (repeated twice).
Now " put " is a more appropriate word here than " sow " to
describe the depositing of a single mustard -seed (since
the Greek " sow " often implies " scattering apart," as in the
word " sporadic "). Mark, however, who shows many signs
of a free translation, may have rendered the original Hebrew
" put " by " sow." The Corrector substituted " put (e'/SaXe)."
This was conflated with "sowed." But it happens that
" put " is frequently interchanged (by Greek corruption) with
" took (eXa/Se) " : and " took and sowed " makes better sense
than "put and sowed." Hence Matthew adopts "took and
sowed." Luke found the correction "put" associated with
a variation " took," and conflated them into " took and put." ^

(iii) {Mk) "goeth tip"

[378] Compare a passage in Ezekiel where " their leaf "
is rendered by the Septuagint " their going-up." " Here
Mark's "goetk-up " — which would be as harsh to a Greek ear
as " went up " for " came up," when applied to plants, to an
English ear — was probably altered by a Greek corrector of
Mark into "groweth up."

' [377a] Comp. Is. Ivii. 11 "laid (niii') it," IXa;8^s fie (prob. Gk. corruption of
?/3aXcs) ; diis'=/3(£X\(ii (3), im^dWu (6), ^/tjSAXXu (i8) : |8oXeiv and Xo/Seii', in
various forms, are confused in i Sam. xiv. 42, 2 Sam. xx. 22, 2 K. xxiii. 4.

" [378«] Ezek xlvii. 12 " leaf {rhv)," ivdpaffis aiTwv. Comp. Mk. iv. S, 6
i^aviT€i\ev . . . Kal Ike i.virei'Kev h fjUos (Mt. xiii, 5, 6 sim.), Lk. viii. 6 ipvh,
(133) where it was shewn that the application of " rise up " to " seed " probably
caused a marginal suggestion, " on the rising of the sun."

94

OF MARK

[379]

The correction was adopted both by Matthew and Luke ;
but it does not quite represent the original sense. The
meaning of Mark is : " It skoots up [from the ground] and
[afierwards] becomes greater than all the herbs." Matthew
says, '' when it has grown up, it is greater than the herbs." ^

(iv) "Less ttian . . . on the land"

Why does Luke omit these words ? And why does
Matthew omit " on the land "? If recognized as words of our
Lord, they would hardly have been omitted on the mere
ground of superfluity.

[379] Not improbably the original of " less " was an
Aramaic word used in Daniel, which means literally " land,"
and then " landward " in the sense of " lower" " inferior"
and is rendered " less " and " smaller " by the Greek translators.
If so, Matthew has preserved the original " less than all the
seeds " ; Mark has conflated " less than " with " on the land " ;
Luke has omitted " less than " and its context, as being a
corrupt repetition of " on the land " or " in his garden." ^

Mk. iv. 32.

(/3) "and it be-
cometh greater than
all the herbs and
maketh great
branches, so that
there are able to lodge
under its shadow the
birds of heaven."

Mt. xiii. 32.

" it is greater than
the herbs, and be-
cometh a tree, so that
there come the birds
of heaven and lodge
in its branches."

Lk. xiii. 19.

"and it came to
[be] (iyevero ei^) a
tree and the birds of
heaven lodged in its
branches."

1 "Becomes (Yfeerai)," " is (eorfx). "

^ Dan. ii. 39 "inferior (NjnK)," Theod. frrriov, LXX eXdrrwi/. Evangelists
translating the Parable of the Mustard Seed, as representing the Kingdom of
Christ, might natursJly use a word employed in Daniel ii. 39 ("another kingdom
inferior to thee ") to describe the kingdoms that were to prepare the way for the
Messianic Stone. Luke may have omitted " being less ... on the land " from
homoioteleuton. But there are probably few cases of this error in Luke.

95

[380] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

[380] First, as to Mark's and Matthew's words, " greater
than [all] ^ the herbs," are we to suppose that Luke omitted
them simply because they could be left out without detriment
to the sense ? More probably there was some corruption, or
suspicion of corruption. The Hebrew words "herb" and
" green-bough " are similar enough to be easily confused.^
And " become greater than " resembles " make great " or
" multiply." ' Hence " it becomes greater than the herbs " is
easily confused with "it maketh great, or multiplieth, its
boughs." But this, or nearly this, follows in Mark's next
clause. Hence Luke might omit the " herb-clause," or some
form of it, as part of a conflation.

Again, the Septuagint affords instances where "shady-
branches " (R.V. " lotus trees ") and " boughs " are rendered
" trees " or " trunks." * On this analogy, the Corrector might
say that the meaning was not " maketh great branches," but
" maketh a great stem or trunk, like a tree " : and this he
might express by " becometh a tree " — a rendering adopted
by Matthew and Luke.

The parallelism between (Mark) " under its shadow " and
(Matthew and Luke) " in its branches " may be illustrated
by an instance of the Greek rendering of "shadow" by
" branches " in Job.*

1 [380a] Scores of instances might be given where the LXX inserts or omits
" all " contrary to the Hebrew. Probably it was not in the original Hebrew here,
and was inserted for conformity to Greek idiom.

^ " Herb (pv)," "green-bough, or sucker {py)."

' " Greater than " = Hebr. " great from. " " From " often = d, a letter easily
dropped or confused.

* Job xl. 21, 22 " lotus-trees (Q<bNs)." {"■) vavroSairb. SivSpa, (i) divSpa
/ieydXa: Ezek. xxxi. 12, 13 "his boughs (vjiKls)," areKixn (bis).

5 Jobxl. 22 "with their shadow Cji-s)," LXX "with branches (or, shoots),"
ffbv liaddfivoLS.

96

OF MARK [382]

§ 26. (Mk) "they receive him',' {Mt.-Lk.) " ke went"

Mk. iv. 36. Mt. viii. 23. Lk. viii. 22.

"and . . . they "and when he "and he himself

receive him ... in went into a boat there went into [Codex D
the boat . . ., and followed him his "went up into," SS
other boats were with disciples.^' "wentupandsatin"'\

him." a boat, and his dis-

ciples."

[381] See Clue (244-5), where it is shewn that (a) the
Corrector may have taken as non-causative (" went ") a verb
that our Mark took causatively (" cause to come," " bring,"
i.e. " receive ") ; {b) the same Hebrew original (a form of
^^^^) might be variously interpreted as " others " {i.e. other
boats), or as " follow," or as " followers," i.e. disciples.

§ 27. Jesus sleeping on "the cushion" : Mt.—Lk. differ

Mk. iv. 38. Mt. viii. 25. Lk. viii. 23, 24.

"And he was in "And he was "But as they

the stern on the sleeping and they were sailing he fell

cushion sleeping, and came-to [him] and asleep . . . but they

they wake him." woke him." came-to [him] and

woke him up."

[382] No one has satisfactorily explained what Mark
means by " the cushion." The natural meaning (which the
Greek word often has) is " rowing-cushion " ; but that would
surely be called " a cushion."-' " According to the later
Greek interpreters," says Dr. Swete, on this passage, " it was
merely a wooden head-rest (Thpht. ^vXivov Se Trdvrca^ fjv
rovTo), possibly a stage, or platform ; cf. Rob Roy on the
Jordan,^. 321)." But no instance of the word thus used
has hitherto been alleged. The quotation from Theophylact
might indicate a wooden cabin, or shelter.

^ "Cushion." npoo-Kc^iiXoioi', though etymologically a cushion for the head,
is also (L. & S.) a "rowing-cushion."'

7 97

[383] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

(i) The parallel in Jonah

[383] An analysis of the context, if there were space for
it, would shew that some of its expressions are probably de-
rived from, or influenced by, the story of Jonah, who might
naturally be regarded as a contrast to Jesus in this descrip-
tion. The prophetic account, when describing Jonah sleeping,
uses a word unique in the Bible (R.V. " the ship " ^), which
literally means " decked," " covered " : " He was gone down
into the innermost parts (A.V. sides^ of the -decked -{ship')
[? covered place, or cabin] ; and he lay and was fast asleep :
and there-drew-nigh-unto him the ship-master and said unto
him, ' What meanest thou, O sleeper ?' "

(ii) " The stem "

[384] The Hebrew word rendered "innermost parts"
(lit. "thighs") in the passage just quoted from Jonah, is
rendered by the Septuagint six times the " rear " or " hinder
part," and might therefore naturally be rendered "stern,"
which Mark has here.^

(iii) " The cushion "

[385] If Mark interpreted Jonah's " covered (place) " as
a cabin for sleeping, he might naturally connect it with the
phrase (used by Matthew and Luke) " a place to rest his
head":* and this was exactly expressed by the Greek word
translated " cushion " above, but etymologically meaning
" for-the-head," or "head-rest." This use of the Greek
word would be quite novel, and sure to be censured by
cultivated readers. But it was natural in a primitive Gospel.

'Jon. i. s "the ship (nrson)," TrXolav. (sd= KoiXo<rTo9^S (i), |yX6(i) (i),
(paTi/dio (2),

^ Jon. i. S " Innermost-parts-of ('nDT)," KolXriv : the word = 6rlt7$ios (4),
dirlffO) (2).

' Mt. viii. 20, Lk. ix. 58, "the son of man hath not where to lay (/cXii-j;) his
head."

98

OF MARK [387]

(iv) {Mi.-Lk.) " cafne-to-[kim\ "

[386] This may possibly have been added by the
Corrector to soften the abruptness of the appeal of the
disciples. But the addition may come from Jonah (" there
drew nigh unto him ")}

§ 28. {Mk.) "feared," (Mi.-Lk.) "marvelled"

Mk. iv. 41. Mt. viii. 27. Lk. viii. 25.

[387] "And they "Butthemen»/«r- "But they feared

feared a great fear." veiled." and marvelled."

It has been shewn {Clue, 138) that "marvel" might be
substituted for " fear," because the latter, in Greek, does not
imply reverence, as it does in Hebrew. Matthew accepted
this as a substitute for the reduplicated "fear," Luke as a
substitute for half of the reduplication.

Mark's use of Hebraic reduplication, here and elsewhere,
indicates adherence to a Hebrew original.^

' [386a] Jon. i. 6" and there drew nigh (aip'i) to him." (i) This, if 3 were
dropped, might easily be taken as " and they called (innp'l) to him." (ii) The next
word in Jonah is Rab, " Master." This would make, " And they called to him.
Master." (iii) The next word is lit; "the rope-man" (Snnn) — i.e. (collectively) the
men that manage the ropes, the sailors. But a far more common meaning of the
root is "agony," "destruction" (Xv/xa(vo/«u (2), dxiiXeia (l), Kara^iBetpa (2), 6\iKu
(l), SicupSelpa (6), StatpBopd (2) ), so that it might easily be interpreted as meaning
"ruin is upon us," or "we are perishing." (iv) The next words are "And he
said to him. What is it to thee?" These — when following, ," And they said unto
him. Master, we perish" — might be taken to mean, "And one {i.e. they) said
unto him. What carest thou ? " i.e. "Thou carest not," which Mark has here.

The Hebrew "draw nigh (aip)" — which is 38 times rendered by Mt.'s and
Luke's word "came-to [him]" — may have been translated by Mt.-Lk. correctly,
but may have been confused by Mark with trip " call." Comp. Ps. Ixxv. i
" thy name is near {ynp)," LXX " we will call on (iirmaKeabiieBa) thy name "
(1^. tnp). Jonah's words about "the thighs of the decked [place]" may have
been omitted by Mt. and Lk. as being unintelligible in Hebrew and erroneously
rendered in Mark.

'^ [387a] For other instances of Mark alone adhering to Hebrew reduplica-
tion comp. Mk. iv. 12 (where Mt. and Lk. have it only in appearance), i. 26,
iii. 28, V. 42.

99

[388] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

§ 29. (Mk.) " his garment" (Mt-Lk.) "the border of his
garment "

Mk. V. 27. Mt. ix. 20. Lk. viii. 44.
"... touched his "... touched the "... touched the
garment." border - of his gar- border of his gar-
ment.'' ment."

[388] The correction may have been made simply for
reverence : but it is also possible that the original may have
been a word capable of meaning either " garment '' or
" border [of a garment]," and taken by the Corrector in the
latter sense.^

§ 30. {Mk:) "villages^' {Mt.-Lk.) "cities and villages"

Mk. vi. 6. Mt. ix. 35. Lk. xiii. 22.

" And he travelled " And Jesus tra- " And he went

round the villages veiled round all the through [the country]

round about (lit. in cities and the villages." by cities [i.e. city by

a circle)." city] and villages."

[389] In the Old Testament a distinction is generally
drawn between " city " and " village " ; but sometimes, eg,
when a "city" is mentioned along with its surrounding
" cities," the latter are called by the Septuagint " villages,"
e.g. Josh. X. 39, "all the cities thereof," LXX "villages"
(LXX om. but A ins. "all") In Jer. xix. 15, "on this
city, and on all her cities" the LXX conflates the latter part
thus : " on all her cities and on all her villages." This doubt
between " cities " and " villages " may, at least in part, ex-
plain why Mark (i. 3 8) speaks of " the adjacent village-cities "
(D and SS, " villages and cities "), where the parallel Luke
(iv. 43) has "the other cities."

' The word ;]jd literally means "wing," and hence, "extremity," "border."
It is translated by the LXX " covering," avyKoXvuim, in Deut. xxii. 30, xxvii. 20 :
"garment," i,va^o\-l), in Ezek. v. 3 : "skirt," Kpairiridov in Zech. viii. 23. R.V.
has "skirt" in all these instances.

100

OF MARK [390]

[390] This double meaning of the word "city" might
easily cause ambiguity when the Hebrew Evangelist wrote
that Jesus " went-round city and city " — that is to say, " city
by city," or " all the cities in turn "^ — " round about." Mark
condensed " city and city " into " the cities," and then
paraphrased it as " the villages," because he understood
them to be the small cities " round about " the central city.^

^ [390ol Comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 15 "the porters were a/ ewry^fo," but LXX,
literally, " gate a«rf gate," where the parall. i Esdr. i. ishas "ateacAgate": Ezr. x.
14 (LXX) " the elders of city a«rf city "= i Esdr. ix. 13 " the elders of «a<:/4 place."

^ [390*] Strictly speaking, rds should have been inserted in Mk. before iiiKKif.
But this is not necessary : comp. I Chr. vi. 55 koL t4 TrepurirSpui airijs KikKif aiiTTJs
(rep. in Josh. xxi. 11 where A has t4 KiK\(fi), 2 Chr. xiv. 14 ris Kiiims airwv
KixXifi TeSdp, 2 Chr. xxxiv. 6 rois rhirois airuD KiKKtf. In Josh; xix. 8 "all the
villages that were round about these cities,'' 2 Chr. xvii. 10 " all the kingdoms
of the lands that were round about Judah," the Heb. has the relative, and A ins.
the article before xixKif, but the LXX omits it.

[390^] There are various readings of some importance in the text of Mk. :
L and some cursives have rhs KikKif K<ifms : SS and a omit xixXif : d has, " et
circuibat castella et circumibat docens " : Diatess. Arab. " and he went about in
the villages which [were] around Nazareth. "

The regular Heb. for "to travel round" is 330. In rendering this "went
through [the country]," Lk. may have had in his mind one of the very few
descriptions of missionary circuits in O.T., 2 Chr. xvii. 9 "And they taught in
Judah having the book of the Law of the Lord with them : and they went about
(l3D'l)" [more usually "compassed," "went round," etc. LXX here alone Si.ri\6ov
"went through [the country]"] "in (-3) all the cities of Judah." But the mission-
aries there described appear to have gone from, and returned to, Jerusalem, so
that they might well be said to have gone a "circuit." That is not the case in
Lk., for he adds at the end of xiii. 22 "teaching sxA journeying on \.o Jerusalem"
and there is every reason to suppose that Lk. does not regard Jesus as having
started from Jerusalem.

[390^^ These passages have an important bearing on Rom. xv. 19 " from
Jerusalem and round about (koX KiiCsif) even to Illyricum." Some interpret this
" circuitously," i.e. not journeying in a straight line, but deviating to many places
on the way : and in favour of this view it is urged (Rom. ed. Sanday and Headlam
ad loc.) that " KiKKif in the instances quoted of it in this sense (Gen. xxxv. 5,
xli. 48) seems invariably to have the article.'' This, however, has been shewn
above (390*) not to be the case. The Editors also quote, as favouring their view,
Xen. Anab. vii. i. 14 "and whether they must go through (5ia) the holy mountain
or circuitouslv (KiiCKif) through the midst of Thrace." But there KiiCKif means
"making a circuit round" the mountain previously mentioned, so that, by
analogy, KixKtf in Rom. should mean "making a circuit round Jerusalem."
Moreover the Editors fail to explain why St. Paul inserts the needless "and"
(" and xQKcadi about").

lOI

[390]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Matthew and Luke agreed in taking " city and city " as
" city and village," i.e. " cities and villages in turn." Matthew
dropped "round about," because he applied it to the journey,
not to the "cities" regarding it. as implied in "travelled
round." Luke — who also applied " round about " to the
journey — expressed it in the verb " went [right] through
(BieTTopevero)," and he retained a touch (" by ") of the dis-
tributive idiom in the Hebrew original.

§ 30 (i). The positive instructions to the Twelve

Mk. vi. 7—13.

[390 (i)] ". . . he-
began {^p^aro) to
send them . . . he-
began -to -give them
authority - over the
unclean spirits . . .
going - forth (e«7ro-
pevofievoi) thence
shake-out the dust
{xpvv) that is under-
neath your feet'' . . .

Mt. X. I— 14.

". . . he gave
(535a) them author-
ity over unclean
spirits so as to cast
them out and to-
cure all (?) disease ^
and all (?) weakness.
These twelve Jesus
sent (535a). . . .
Proclaim saying that
There - hath - drawn -

Lk. ix. 1—6.

". . . he gave
(535a) them power
and authority over
(eVt) all (?) the devils
and to-cure diseases}
And he sent (535a)
them to proclaim the
kingdom of God and
to heal . . ., coming-
forth (e^ep'xp/ievoi)
from that city, shake-

'- It was indicated in Clue (243) that Mk.'s extraordinary omission of any
precept about "preaching" or "proclaiming" might be explained by the frequent
confusion between the Hebrew indicative, e.^. ' ' they proclaimed, " and imperative
' ' proclaim ye " — the former of which is contained in Mk. vi. 12. The same might
apply to "curing." If Mt.-Lk.'s "to cure" is parallel to Mk. vi. 13 "they-
began-to-cure," this is not an agreement against Mk. in respect of the verb, but
only in respect of the form of the verb.

"AH" is queried as to the italicizing because, though Mt.-Lk. agree in
attributing universality to the curing, they do not attach the adjective to the same
noun. " All " is repeatedly inserted and omitted by the LXX, contrary to the
Hebrew.

^ [390 (i) a] Comp. Lk. x. 11 "The dirt that has cleaved to-us from your
city to (eU) our feet we wipe off (i.iroiu>.aab\xs6a.) against-you (lit. "for-you ")," and
Acts xiii. 51 "having shaken -out the dirt of their feet against them (^tt' oi)toi)s)."
Greek corruption might convert " we shake off," ATTOTliSiCCOMeeA to " we wipe
off," AnOMACCOMee&. Comp. Judg. xvi. 20 iKTLvaxSMoiMU (A, dTroT-iKiiJo/tot),
Keh. iv. 16 iKTeraiayiiivuv (A, k, iKTeraynhwv), ib. v. 15 iKTenvayiiAvoi (n*
iKTerayiUvoi). In 2 S. xxii. 33, Neh. v. 13 iKrdvui is a v.r. for iKnvi.<r<ria.

102

OF MARK

[390]

they-proclaimed that
[they, i.e. people]
should-repent, and
they -began - to - cast-
out many devils and
they-began - to -anoint
with -oil many (lit.)
invalids ^ and they
began to cure
[them]."

nigh the kingdom of
the heavens . . . cast
out devils . . . coming-
forth (i^ep)(p/j,evoi)
outside that house
or fhaf city shake-out
the dirt {icovtoprov)
of your feet."

off even the dirt
(Kovioprov) from
(aTTo) your feet . . .
they - came - through
[the land] . . . curing
everywhere."

We shall here depart from Mark's order a little, in order
to consider under one head the positive precepts to the
Twelve. The next section will consider the negative
precepts.

(a) " unclean spirits" or " devils "

[390 (i) (a)] Jewish tradition distinguished/' evil spirits,"
which caused melancholy and disease, from " unclean spirits,"
which were supposed to have a special connection with
necromancy and witchcraft.^ Perhaps it is for this reason
that Matthew very rarely uses the latter phrase — only here
and in the words of Jesus, recorded also by Luke, but not
by Mark, " When the unclean spirit goeth out of the man." ^
On the other hand, Mark uses it very frequently indeed.
Luke — apart from the passage just quoted from the Double
Tradition — uses it only in those parts of the Gospel where
he follows Mark, and in those parts of the Acts where he is
describing the works of Peter, or Philip (but not of Paul).
Here Luke deviates widely from Mark and avoids this term
altogether.

' " Invalids " = dppiitrrous, "disease," in Mt.-Lk., = i'6(roi'. See below (390
(i) ;8).

'•^ Hor. Hebr., on Lk. xiii. 1 1.

' [390 (i) (a) a] Mt. xii. 43 (Lk. xi. 24), referring to the spirit of idolatry
that possessed Israel in ancient times. Hor. Hebr., on Mt. x. 2, connects "un-
clean spirits'' with false prophets, referring to Rev. xvi. 13, 14, and Zech. xiii, 2
("I will cut off the names of the idols . . ., and I will cause the prophets and
the unclean spirit to pass out of the land ").

103

[390] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Hence arises an apparent agreement of Matthew and
Luke so far as this, that Matthew attributes to Jesus the
words "cast out devils',' while Luke has "gave authority
over devils'.' But it is perhaps a mere coincidence. This
is all the more probable because, as has been indicated
above (243), Mark's " they-began-to-cast-out . . . devils " may-
be a mistranslation of an imperative (or vice versa).

(yS) (Ml.-Lk.) " disease{s) "

[390 (i) (;8)] The Greek word here rendered "disease,"
though very common in classical Greek, never occurs in
LXX except to mean disease inflicted by God as punishment.
" Invalid," in LXX, when referring to sickness, implies sickness
not thus inflicted.^ The latter was connected by the Stoics
in the first century with moral infirmity.^ Both Greek words
occur in LXX as renderings of the same Hebrew word. It
is quite intelligible that a Corrector, finding in Mark a
word that might mean " infirm of mind," or " infirm of
body," substituted the word used in regular Greek, " disease,"
as a better rendering of the Hebrew.

(7) (Mt.—Lk.) "proclaim the kingdom, "

[390 (i) (7)] Mark contains no precept to proclaim the
Gospel. But [242—3] the words " and they proclaimed "
may be a misinterpretation of an original " proclaim [ye] "
or " that they should proclaim." If that is the fact, Matthew's
and Luke's agreement against Mark is limited to the object
of the verb " proclaim." Here a correction was highly
natural. For, since the Apostles were sent to preach the
Gospel, or "good-news',' it might seem to some a paradoxical
way of expressing this to say that they were sent to preach
" that men should repent''

^ See LXX Concord. Nitros and Appucrros {-la, -rifm) both = forms of n^in.
"Invalid" represents only one side of Apputrros ; it sometimes means "disabled
by accident." ' See L. and S.

104

OF MARK [390]

Possibly, there was, originally, no object of " proclaim "
(350), and it was variously added.^ Or the original may have
been obscure, e.g. "proclaimed that they \i.e. men] should
draw near to God, or, to the kingdom of heaven" This was
paraphrased by Mark as " proclaimed that men should repent!'
Matthew took it as meaning " Proclaim tliat there hath drawn
near the kingdom of God."^ Luke, in the Mission of the
Twelve, has "to proclaim the kingdom of God": but in the
Mission of the Seventy, he adopts the same version as
Matthevifs, only in quite a different context, representing the
Seventy as saying to the unbelieving city from which they
are departing, " Notwithstanding, know this, that there hath
drawn near the kingdom of God!' *

(S) {Mk!) "going-forth thence" {Mt.-Lk.) " coming-
forth . . . city"*

[390 (i) (S)] Mark uses " go forth " again (" and when
it was evening they used to go -forth outside the city
(Jerusalem)") where Matthew and Luke have "come-forth"
— a more appropriate word to describe the mere act of
" coming out " from a city as distinct from " going forth " on
a journey.' Here perhaps Mark meant " go forth on a new
journey," in which case the word would be very suitable :
but the Corrector, taking it to mean merely " coming out,"
might substitute the latter word here as he did later on in
connection with Jerusalem.

The addition of " outside (or, from) that city " (Matthew
adds also " that house ") is one of a very large class of correc-
tions (534 (i)) intended to add definiteness to Mark.

' In that case, the correction here would resemble one in an earlier passage of
Mk. (i. 38, see 350).

* The complete discussion of this passage would require a preliminary discussion
of the variations, in words and order, between Mk. i. 14, 15 and Mt. iv. 17
(Lk. diff.). 5 Lk. X. II.

* ' ' Go-forth " = iKiropeieffOai : ' ' come-forth " = i^ipxccdai,
' Mk. xi. 19, Mt. xxi. 17, Lk. xxi. 37.

105

[390] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

-{t)-{Mk) "dust;' {Mt.-Lk.) "dirt"

[390 (i) (e)] " The dust of thy feet " occurs in Isaiah and
in Nahum, meaning, in the former possibly, and in the
latter certainly, the ground on which a person walks. In the
former passage the LXX has " dust " ; in the latter (lit),
" dirt." ^ The dust of a foreign land was held by Jewish
tradition to defile things to which it adhered : but Wetstein,
Horae Hebraicae, and Schottgen say nothing that justifies
Alford (without alleging authority) in asserting : " It was
a custom of the Pharisees, when they entered Judaea from a
Gentile land, to do this act." ^ Moreover the curious varia-
tions — "shake-o«^," "shake-o^" (and, in the Mission of the
Seventy, " wipe off "), together with " dust that is underneath"
" dirt of" " dirt from " (and, in the Mission of the Seventy,
" dirt that has cleaved to us from your city to our feet ")
— indicate some original Hebrew obscurity resulting in
Greek divergence and requiring investigation.

Chrysostom's comment on Matthew's statement is, " [The
object was] either to show that they {i.e. the apostles) had
received nothing from them [i.e. from the unbelievers), or to
testify against them concerning the long journey they had
taken [to come] to them." This proves that he was in doubt
about its meaning. Wetstein quotes a Jewish tradition that
a certain Rabbi " when he had gone down to Babylon, took
dust from [the place] in a napkin and shook it forth abroad
to confirm what is said in Exodus, ' and the Lord shock-out

1 Is. xlix. 23 "shall lick the dust (xoCi") of thy feet." We could not use
" dirt " in English in Nah. i. 3 " the clouds are the dust {Koviopris) of his feet,"
i.e. of the feet of God, apparently meaning that He walks upon the clouds as men
walk on the dust of the earth.

In classical Greek xoCs means "earth (piled up)," but in LXX, it frequently
means "dust," "fine powder,'' etc. Also, in classical Greek, Kovioprbi mostly
means ' ' a cloud of dust, " but it also = metaph. (L. and S. ) " a dirty fellow. " It
seems to be used of " mire " that " sticks " to the shoes and has to be " wiped off"
in Lk. X. II.

^ Alford on Mt. x. 14.

106

OF MARK [390]

the Egyptians in the Red Sea.' " ^ This is illustrated by the
action of Nehemiah invoking God's judgment as follows,
(R.V.) " I shook-out my lap, and said. So God shake-out
every man from his house and from his labour that per-
formeth not this promise." ^ From the former passage, as
illustrated by the latter, it would appear that " taking up the
dust " of a place and " shaking it out " was a Jewish symbol
of denunciation, threatening the inhabitants of the place
with destruction from heaven. This suits very well with
the subsequent words in Matthew (and in Luke's Mission
of the Seventy) " It shall be more tolerable for the land of
Sodom . . than for that city." Whether this was the
original meaning or not, must be discussed in a later
treatise. The present object is merely to show that the
original may have been reasonably supposed to have this
meaning of a&nunciation as well as the meaning, usually
assumed, of renunciation, .and that this divergence of
interpretation caused Matthew and Luke to deviate from
Mark.

§ 30 (ii). Tke negative instructions to the Twelve

Mk. vi. 8. Mt. X. 9, 10. Lk. ix. 3.

"... that they "Do not obtain "Take nothing

should take for [their] gold, nor-yet (/i^jSe) for the journey,

' Wetst. on Mt. x. 14. Ex. xiv. 27 R.V. " overthrew (ip) " (marg. " tieb.
shook-fl^") i^eriva^ev, i.e. "shook-»»A"

^ Neh. V. 13 ivj, i/cnrd^ai. Comp. Job xxxviii. 12, 13 "Hast thou . . ■.
caused the day-spring to know its place, that it might take hold of the ends of
the earth and the wicked he sAaien-out oi it?" That this is the regular word
for "rejection and destruction" appears also in Ps. cxxxvi. 15 "But shook-out
Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea" (R.V. txt. "overthrew," marg. " Heb.
shook-o^"), evidently alluding to Ex. xiv. 27. In the Acts, the only city thus
denounced is Antioch in Pisidia (Acts xiii. 51). Did any calamity befall this city ?
The Sibylline oracles mention "miserable Antioch" twice in connection with
earthquake. But that Antioch is not in Pisidia, and the date is A.D. 115 {Orac.
Sibyll. iv. 140, xi. (xiii.) 125).

107

[390] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

journey nothing ex- silver,^ nor-yet brass neither {firjTe) staff. . .
cept a staff alone, not for your girdles . . . nor (jirjTe) bread, nor
bread . . . (lit.) not for nor-yet a staff" silver-money." ^

the girdle (?'.«. pocket)
brass-money."

(a) [Mk:) " except a staff alone" (Mt.-Lk) " nor-yet {Lk.
neither) a staff"

[390 (ii) (a)] See Clue (264-7). The original precept
seems to have bidden the disciples take "nothing except
(IMH) the staff of bread" — probably meant in a spiritual
sense, the " daily bread " that comes from the Father —
altered by Greek corruption into " nothing, not (MH) staff,
bread " and then into " nothing, not staff, not bread."

(/S) {Mk^ " brass-money," {Mt.—Lk.) "silver " or " silver-money"

[390 (ii) (/3)] An ancient Greek grammarian says that
ignorant and common people used the word " brass " of
money in general.^ So it is used with us in some parts of
England. But we should not like to have the word thus
used in our English Bible, and it is reasonable to suppose
that correctors and editors of Mark, if they took the word
in that sense, would alter it. But Matthew and Luke have
adopted quite different corrections.

Matthew, retaining brass, inserts " gold " and " silver," so
as to indicate that the word is not used in the vulgar
meaning, but as a climax in the literal sense, " no gold, no,
nor yet silver, no, nor even brass." Luke substitutes the

1 " Silver "=fip7u/)os. " Silver-money " = dp7i;pioi' (lit. "a silverling," hence
"..silver money " and then " money " in general). 'Afyyvpos is more appropriate to
metal than to money, and wrould not often be used of money except to distin-
guish silver money from gold.

^ Wetst. on Mk. vi. 8 quotes Pollux ix. 92 ^ rfiv iroWuv Kal Idiuirwv xp^ffM
rbv xaX/cAc ipyipiov 'K^yei (i.e. uses the word brass to mean silver-money). Pollux
quotes " He has no brass " and " I ovfe brass.'' Hesychius says that the word is
used to mean gold and silver money.

108

OF MARK [390]

ordinary Greek word " silver- money." These corrections
may be independent of any one corrector of Mark, and
Matthew's and Luke's agreement in this single word is
probably a mere coincidence, arising from the fact that both
are speaking of money.

(7) Th£ Hebrew original of (ML) " brass-money "

[390 (ii) (7)] The ordinary Hebrew word for " money ''
means " silver " : but if this was in the original^ Mark would
hardly have rendered it by anything but " silver," since that
was consistent with ordinary Greek as well as Hebrew
usage. It seems likely, then, that Jesus used some special
word, and probably a metaphorical one, speaking con-
temptuously of money, and perhaps with a play on the
term. " Dross " would answer the purpose. But " brass "
— since it might actually be applied to money, and since it
had Hebrew associations with worthlessness — would be
much better." ^

There is no evidence that Jewish traditions used " brass "
for money as it was used in Greek slang, or Greek dialect.^
But it is quite conceivable that Jesus, when protesting
against covetousness, and playing on the Biblical associations
of the word " brass," Nachash, or " serpent," may have
frequently used this term metaphorically to signify "the
deceitfulness of wealth." ^ Some explanation of this kind
may account for the following divergence :

^ "Brass (liim) " = " fetters " frequently; it=(metaph.) worthless people in
Jer. vi. 28, Ezek. xxii. 18. In Ezek. xvi. 36 it is prob. (see Gesen. Oxf. cm,
where read Ez. for Ex.) "filthiness," but LXX "brass."

" Hor. Hebr. on Mk. xii. 41 quotes " The School ofHillel saith, into a shekel
of silver and a shekel of brass" and again, " He that changeth a selaa and receives
for it brass money, that is, prutahs." In these instances the word is used literally
as we should speak of "copper money," or "change in copper." Hor. Hebr.
quotes no instance of Hebrew usage corresponding to the Greek vernacular
" brass" employed for money in general.

s Comp. Ezek. xvi. 36 "filthiness (nii'm)" LXX "brass," with Mk. iv. 19
"the deceitfulness of riches and the lusts about the rest" Lk. viii. 14 "riches and

109

[390] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Mk. xii. 41. Lk. xxi. i.

" He was observing how the " He saw those casting into

multitude (lit.) casts brass into the treasury their gifts — the

the treasury and many rich men rich."
were casting many [things]."

[390 (ii) (S)] Here the sense and the context indicate that
the money could not have been literally " brass." For Jesus
goes on to contrast the poor widow who casts in two mites
with all the others ; " for they were all casting out 0/ their
superabundance!' This, though not perhaps incompatible,
is certainly incongruous, with the notion that there was a
" multitude," presumably consisting in large measure of poor
people, giving what we should call " money in coppers."
But if the original term was " brass " — sometimes used,
even in narrative, by the earliest Evangelists, in accordance
with Christ's own words, to characterize the base gifts of
the rich, who gave to God what cost them practically
nothing — then the divergence can be explained. For in
that case the original was, nearly as Luke, "men -casting
into the treasury brass [for so the Lord called it] — rich-
folk." Luke simply altered " brass " into " their gifts " (as
he altered it into " money " in the Mission of the Twelve).

But editors of Mark xii. 4 1 , taking " brass " to mean,
literally, "small change," and considering that this must
describe the gifts of " the many," inserted in the margin
" many," meaning " multitude," instead of " men." But
" many " might also mean " many (things)," or might be
applied to " the rich (folk)." Hence might spring the
following conflated result: — "{Many i.e.] the multitude
cast[ing] into the treasury brass, and many rich folk were
casting many-things"

[390 (ii) (e)] It may be observed in conclusion that if

the pleasures of life" Mt. xiii. 22 simply "the deceitfulness of riches," where Mk.
may have, in effect, conflated "deceitfulness" and "filthiness," or may have
paraphrased more fully.

no

OF MARK [390]

Christ's precept to the Apostles was " no brass [be] in your
girdles, or purses," and if it meant, metaphorically, " deal in
nothing but sterling gold," this would harmonize very well
with other early Christian doctrine. For Christ taught His
disciples to provide treasure that would not " rust " : ^ and the
Apocalypse represents Him as saying " Buy of me gold refined
by fire " * — it being the peculiarity of gold not to rust? Now
the son of Sirach likens the wickedness of a false foe to the
" rust " of brass.* James, too, warns the covetous that their
gold is " rusted " (that is to say, that it is proved to be false
metal, mere brass), and that the " rust " or " venom " — for
the same Greek word means both — will "eat their flesh"
(perhaps a play on the " venom " of the " serpent " and the
" rust " of " brass ")? All these passages are in favour of
giving Mark's precept a metaphorical meaning, and in favour
of taking " brass '' to mean " dross " or " false coin," or
" treasure that rusts." ®

This view will be confirmed if it can be shown hereafter
that the other precepts in Mark's Mission of the Twelve
are metaphorical.^

^ Mt. vi. 19, 20. ^ Rev. iii. 18. ^ Philo i. 503.

* Sir. xii. 10. ^ Jas. v. 3, 4.

* Hence, to have brass for one's girdle wquld Suggest being " girt with false-
hood." On the other side, gold is the symbol of truth, and Jesus is (Rev. i. 13),
"girt . . . with a golden girdle." Comp. Ephes. vi. 14 "having girded your
loins with truth" There is some doubt about the precise meaning of the extra-
canonical saying, assigned to Jesus by many good authorities, " Be sterling (56«K/toi)
exchangers " : but it at all events harmonizes with the tendency of the passages
above quoted. It is possible that having "brass" In one's girdle may have
also included the notion of being encumbered with " the sin that doth so easily
beset us."

' [390 (ii) (0 a] This must be reserved for a Synoptic commentary. But the
interpretation can be suggested here.

(i) " Sandals'' Mk. says " But shod with sandals" Mt. " do not obtain . . .
shoes" Lk. om. (but Lk. x. 4, Mission of the Seventy, " not shoes").

In Greek literature, "sandal" (Hesych., and see Index to Lucian) means a
woman's shoe (or, very rarely indeed, a man's bedroom slipper, Theocr. xxiv. 36
' ' rise up [from bed], Amphitryon . . . not even putting on your slippers "). In
New Hebrew the Greek word was transliterated (Vi:d) to represent something
quite different from SffJO (Bibl. Hebr. mostly i^pj) "shoe," or "boot." The

III

[390] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

§ 31. {Mt.-Lk.) Herod "the tetrarch" Mk. differs

Mk. vi. 14, 20. Mt. xiv. i. Lk. ix. 7.

" And King Herod "HexoAthe tetrarch "But Herod the

heard [it], for his heard the report of tetrarch heard all that
name had - become Jesus." was coming to pass

known . . . and he and was sore per-

kept him safe,^ and plexed."

having heard him he
was much perplexed ^
and he heard him
gladly."

Hebrew "sandal" was of harder leather than the "shoe" (Hor. Hebr. on Mt.
X. 10) ; its sole was sometimes of wood, and it was " open both ways so that one
might put in his foot either before or behind. " Wetstein (on Mt. x. 10) quotes
Bava Bathra, f. 58. I "Sandals in summer, (d'^vjd) shoes in winter"; but R.
Sam. ben Meir (Levy, Neuhebraisch - Worterbuch, \r\ya\ explained this as meaning
that the " sandal " was to be under the bed and out of the way in summer, when
not used, and the shoe in winter. Apparently the Jewish " sandal " might be
either a clog or a light shoe. In any case the Jews drew a marked distinction
between the "boot or shoe (iiriSijyita, ^yjo)" and the "sandal Cjnjo) " ? "The.
pulling off of the shoe [of the husband's brother," Deut. xxv. 9] is right : and of
the sandal, if it hath a heel, is right ; but if not, it is not right " (Hor. Hebr. on
Mt. X. 10).

The LXX gives practically no assistance as to the meaning of <i-o;'SciXtoj'. It
renders 'jy: (Tromm.) (21) inrbit\iw, (l) o-oxSdXioc, the latter occurring in Is. xx. 2,
where possibly the LXX meant that the prophet was to wear nothing on his feet,
not even "sandals." In Josh. ix. S, it occurs in a conflation with iToS'^puiTa to
represent hvi. In Judith x. 4, xvi. 9 mention is made of a woman's " sandals,"
according to Greek usage.

One suggested explanation of Mk.'s use of ffavdd\ia is that he "disliked the
repetition of iTodeSe/iivovs itTod-^/MTa.'' This is particularly futile in face of the
fact that Mk. is that one of the Synoptists who least objects to such reduplications,
and who is least affected by considerations of style. The best explanation is based
on Eph. vi. 15 "Having shod your feet vrith the preparation of the gospel of
peace," and recognizing " sandals " as used in the Jewish sense to denote the
shoes of pilgrims.

Wetstein (on Mk. vi. 9) quotes a Targum, "How beautiful are the feet of

^ "Kept him safe'' o-wer^pei, A.V. "observed him." The word is used of
obeying, or " observing," laws, commandments etc., but not of obeying persons.

" "He was much perplexed" iroKKh, ■^iropa. D iirolei. "did many things,"
and so SS (393^).

I 12

OF MARK [391]

(i) " The tetrarch "

[391] Herod — though technically only a "tetrarch"
(Hebr. " prince the fourth ") — might, and probably would,
be called " king " both by his subjects and by the Galilaean
Church, which would regard Herod as fulfilling the Psalmist's
(Ps. ii. 2) prophecy that "the ^in^s of the earth set them-
selves . . . against the Lord and against his Anointed (i.e.
Christ) " ; so that " king " would probably be the title used
in the earliest Gospels. But the substitution of " tetrarch "
would be very natural in later Gospels, partly to distinguish
Herod the tetrarch from his father Herod the king, and
partly to meet the objections of controversialists ; who might
justly say that the tetrarch not only was never king but
also brought ruin on himself in the attempt to induce the
Roman Emperor to make him king.^

Israelites going up to appear before God thrice in the year with sandals of yew I "
This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah ("How beautiful are the feet . . .")
about those who were to "preach the Gospel of peace." The meaning is that
the Evangelists were to be, metaphorically, shod lightly, or literally, free from
encumbrance.

The word aavSiXia occurs in N.T., elsewhere, only in Acts xii. 8, one among
several of Mk.'s words (like Kp&^aTTos) rejected by Lk. in the Gospel but retained
by him in the Petrine portions of the Acts. The narrative of Peter's release
describes a probably historical fact in symbolical language, and the use of <ravSd'\ia
there is one of many symbolical features.

(z) " Two tunics." Mk. says, " Do not put on two tunics." Mt. omits " put-
on," Lk. substitutes "have." The richer classes wore (Lk. iii 11) "two
tunics.'' Perhaps Jesus meant, "Do not affect the manners of the rich." But
comp. Joseph. Ant. xvii. 5. 7, describing the detection of a letter in a man's inner
tunic, "for he hsAput on" says Josephus, "two tunics." Hor. Hebr. on Mt. x.
9 says, " that which in the Mishna is his purse (i^"onn), in the Gemara is imiiflu,
which was an inner garment, with pockets to hold money and necessaries." Lk.,
in the Mission of the Seventy, omits "two tunics" but inserts (Lk. x. 4) "purse,"
perhaps as being implied in the inner of the "two tunics." This, then, is a
precept that might be taken literally. But probably the disciples of Jesus never
wore "two tunics," and had no need to be cautioned against the habit; and the
caution was intended to warn them against encumbrances of all kinds.

' Possibly, but not probably, there may have been confusion -of Hebrew. In
Josh. XV. 7, the word " fourth "—required here to make up " tetrarch '—is sub-
stituted by the Septuagint for the name " Debir," the letters of which regularly
8 113

[392] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

(ii) ^'■perplexed" etc.

[392] The omission of almost all these details by
Matthew and Luke is probably to be explained by their
being conflations — arising from the similarity between the
Hebrew words " hear," " observe " (or, " keep "), and " am
perplexed " — based upon one of two originals, either " Herod
heard his hearing {i.e. his report, or fame)," or " Herod was
perplexed with perplexity" i.e. was sore perplexed/

Luke, who omits the whole account of the dancing of
the daughter of Herodias, nevertheless adopts this one
tradition — " the sore perplexity " of Herod. But he refers
it, not to the period during the Baptist's life, but after his
death. He, too, like Mark, connects it with " Herod heard "
— but in a different way. Mark connects the " perplexity "
with Herod "hearing" the preaching of the Baptist, Luke
with Herod " hearing " rumours that the Baptist had risen
from the dead?

[393] As for Mark's statement that Herod " heard John
gladly," it may be either a free rendering of the Hebrew
" hearing he heard [about] him " (which Mark may have
wrongly interpreted " he heard with all his heart ") ; or
" hear " may be confused with " rejoice," as it is on one

mean "word," "speech,"' "utterance,"' "report." Now the phrase "for the
word of" is regularly used for "because of."' Hence the original of Mark might
be : " And there heard [it] Herod the prince for the word of [i.e. because of] his
fame. " If this was the original, Mark has freely paraphrased it in " for his fame
had become known": Matthew and Luke have taken "the prince for the word
of" as "the prince of the fourth fart" i.e. the Tetrarch : and there was
certainly more inducement for them to do this than for the Septuagint in Joshua.
6elitzsch renders^">tetrarch " by ^i-\n-w. Josh. xv. ^ " Debir (mm) "=Th riraprrov
(leg. ,T!;3i). The phrase " for the word of (myhv) " (Chald.) = ?peKe;' (l) ; -\i-h\l =
'4veKev (6), Sn (2), trepl (3).

1 [392a] "iHear'' = (a) jjde'; "keep" = (*) -aa; "am perplexed "' = (f) cdb' ;
(a) and (fi) are prob. confused in Is. lix. 16, xliii. 12 (comp. Mk. a. 22
(7TU7J'(i(ras=Mt. xix. 22, Lk. xviii. 23 d/coiio-as) : (b) and (f) are confused in Exod.
xxi. 29, 36, Mic, vi. 16.

' Lk, ix. 7 ■IJKova-ei' S^ . . /col Siiyirhpei,, where Mk. vi. 14 has simply /cai

114

OF MARK

[395]

occasion in two parallel Hebrew passages.^ Even the various
reading in Mark ;D and SS\ " he did many things " (instead
of " he was much perplexed "], may perha^ be explained by
Hebrew cormption. It is true that tiie wmds are ver\-
^milar in Greek : bat we also find " hear " translated once
by •• do " in the S^tnaginL'

§ 32. {Mt-Lk:)'^'anthdraseuig'' or'^draBoiagback" ; Mk. differs

Mt xiv. la— 13.

[A/far tie Bt^ttsfs
deaiK\

"And his [John's]
disciples came to
[him] and took up
the corpse and buried
hiin_ and came and
broogfat word to Jesus,
bat when Jesus heard
it he wisibdrtsp thence
in a boat to a desert
place apart-"

Lk. ix. ro.

[After Lui^s account
of Herod's perplex-
ity concerning JesMs\

"And the Aposdes
returned and rdated
to him all that they
had done. And he
took them with him
and drsttf^ias3e. apart
to a city called Betb-
saida.'

Mk. vL 29—32.

\Afier the Baptist's
deatK\

" And when his
[John's] disciples
heard [of his death]
they came and took
Dp his corpse and pot
it in a tomb. And
the Aposdes gathered
tag^fao' imto Jesus
and brought him ward
erf" aQ diat they had
done and all that tl^y
had tang^rL And he
saith onto tlw^iij
CcMue ve (onph.)
yoursdves apart to a
desert place and rest
awhile . . . and diey
went airay inthe boat
toa desert {dace apart. "

* [393*1 2K.X1. 13 ■"lieait£iiedv3:x-'-''LXX -'i^aic£d*^=Is. xxxix. 2"ir^
^ad ,T3r ." and so Eiod. rr. 31 "beirf," IXX " r^oioed.' Tlie Gk. "g^adlj
(jS'iii)" rrmr' ^esbae in X.T. onty in 2 Ok. xL iq. and Mk. xn. 57 "the
comrooQ people heaidlum^iB^'' (a dasBere'eciei faf ML-Lk.) vbeie "gfadly""
is pmbablf a ooDfialioa of " liear. ^

' f3S3il r K. ■sS. 30 "■When ihaa iearsii {j:^*").'' "oJweis (? leg. 7ic7\
The paialkl 2 Ob. vi. 21 E i^itfy tasnsiated b^ LXX. In Hk. tL ao^ D leads
cxwjcs far ^n^s ; SS "And manj' thii^ that be heaid from faim is ^iS,"

II-

[394] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

The verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke,
though it consists in no more than a portion of a word
(" -draw "), is not the result of accident, and it affords an
insight into the obscurities of the original Hebrew Gospel.

(i) W/io " brought word" ? And what " word" ?

[394] Mark and Luke say that " the Apostles" Matthew
that the Baptists disciples, " bring word " to Jesus. Accord-
ing to Matthew, the " word " was about the Baptist's death ;
according to Mark and Luke, about the " doings and
teachings " of " the Apostles " — or rather (according to
Luke) not teachings, but " doings " only.

This indicates obscurity in the early text. There can
have been no subject, in the original Hebrew, except " they."
Who " they " were had to be determined from the context.
But if the sentence came at the beginning of a detached
tradition — the story of the Feeding of the Five Thousand —
" they " could not be defined with certainty, and Evangelists
would vary in defining it. There is no obscurity now in
Mark ; for he now mentions, definitely, " apostles." But it
is a remarkable fact that he uses the term " apostles "
(probably) nowhere else.^ " Apostles " therefore is, very
probably, a late insertion, not' recognized by Matthew,
though adopted by Luke.

[395 (i)] Also as regards the nature of the news, there is
no obscurity now in Mark : " all that they had done and all
that they had taught." But why does Luke reject " all that
they had taught " ? Probably because the original Hebrew
contained either (like Matthew) no object of the verb, or, if
there was an object, merely " all that had been done." This
(whether a part of the Original, or a Hebrew addition) might
be interpreted " all that they, the messengers, had done."

}} [3943] "Apostles" is doubtful in Mk. iii. 14. Mk. mostly has "the
disciples" or "the Twelve."

116

OF MARK [396]

Mark and Luke interpreted it thus, because they believed
the messengers to be " the Apostles " — Mark adding " all that
they had taught" for definiteness, to explain that something
more was meant than mere " doing," i.e. casting out devils,
etc.^ But Matthew thought the messengers were the disciples
of John the Baptist, returning from the burial of their Master.
He might therefore naturally infer that " all that had been
done " (if it was in the Hebrew Original) referred to the
circumstances of the Baptist's death ; and from that point of
view he might decide to omit the words because they raised
a question as to the meaning, which would (he thought) be
clearer without them.

(ii) " Come ye, etc.," why omitted by Matthew and Luke

[395 (ii)] It is impossible to believe that Matthew and
Luke recognized these beautiful words as Christ's, uttered at
this point, and yet omitted them for the sake of brevity.
The most probable explanation of their omission is that they
regarded them as an evangelistic paraphrase intended to
explain some obscure expression latent in the " withdraw-
ing " or " drawing-back."

[396] Luke's word (" drew back ") is almost non-occurrent
in the Septuagint,^ but it is used by Symmachus in the
Psalmist's description of " the young lions " seeking their
prey : " the sun ariseth, thty get-them-away" where the Hebrew
means " gather," — a word used in many senses.* A man may
be " gathered " to his fathers, i.e. die ; or " gathered " into the
congregation, after separation, i.e. be restored ; or " gathered "

' [395 (i) «] See Clue (174-5) for an instance of variation arising from the
Hebrew "that which had been done." For a similar amplification, or conflation
see Mk. v. 19, Lk. viii. 39. There Lk. ("how great things God hath done for
thee ") has preserved the original ; but Mk. conflates this with " and hath pitied
thee."

' It occurs thrice, but does not represent a Hebrew word except in Sir. xiii. 9
" distant (pim) " iiroxupSx.

' Ps. civ. 22 " they get them away (pEON")," <rvvfix6riffav.

117

[397] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

to a refuge, i.e. flee ; or " gathered " into a house, i.e. be
hospitably entertained. The possibilities of mistranslation
of the word are illustrated by the Psalm above quoted where
the Revised Version has " get-them-away," but the Author-
ized and the Septuagint " gather themselves together."
Again, where the Revised has " I will smite you . . . and
ye shall be gathered together within your cities and I will
send the pestilence among you," the sense would obviously
be satisfied by " ye shall be destroyed within your cities for
I will send . . . " ; and the Septuagint has " ye shall flee
into your cities." ^

[397] From all this it follows that a Hebrew original,
meaning that the Messiah " received," or " gathered," the
depressed disciples, at the critical time when they were cast
down by the death of the Baptist, might be mistranslated
so as to mean that He " withdrew" to the desert. And, for
Matthew at all events, there might be a prejudice in favour
of the latter interpretation because he regarded it as the
fulfilment of a special prophecy.^ But on the other hand
there were predictions that the Lord would "gather the
outcasts of Israel " ; and such an act was most appropriate
at this point when the Evangelist is preparing the reader
for the story of the feeding of the flock : for the feeding
must be preceded by " gathering." ' On the whole, Mark's

^ Lev. xxvi. 25, A.V. inserts "when" so as to give "when ye are gathered
... I will send."

^ [397a] Mt. xii. 15-21 "And Jesus, perceiving it, withdrew {dvex'^Pn"")
. . . that it might be fulfilled . . . ' He shall not strive, nor cry aloud, neither shall
any one hear his voice in the streets . . . ' " ' Avaxupetv is never used by Luke,
who here prefers iirox<apeiv. Mk. iii. 7 uses it once, Jn. vi. 15 once (of Jesus
"withdrawing," but Tisch. "fleeth (^ci^yei) " from the attempt to make Him a
king). Mt. uses it four times of Jesus. Aquila uses the word to mean rapid
"flight {-m)." If frequently used, it might expose Christians to the objection
that their Master was a constant fugitive — a charge brought by Celsus. Jn. 's
special context avoids that danger.

' Is. xi. 12 (R.V.) "shall assemble the outcasts of Israel," o-uvofei Toiis
iv6\oii^ov! 'lo-poiiX, comp. Mic. iv. 6 (R.V.) "I will assemble her that halteth,"
where the word means rather "hospitably entertain," as in Judg. xix. 18 (R.V.)

118

OF MARK [399]

interpretation, regarded as a paraphrase, appears closer to
the original than that of Matthew and Luke, though the
latter were verbally correct in rejecting the words "come
ye . . ."

(iii) The Original

[398] This was probably extremely brief, and verbally
far more like Luke than like Mark : " And they gathered
to him and told him all that had been done. And he
gathered them in a dry and desert place." ^ Luke interpreted
this " took them with him and drew back" But, if Mark is
true to the spirit of the tradition, it meant, " He gathered
them " as a shepherd " gathers " stray sheep into the flock, or
" gathers " the whole flock to give them water — thus implying
the gift of safety, rest, and refreshment. In order to make
it clear that the meaning was causative, "he made them rest,"
or " caused them to rest," an early editor of the Hebrew Gospel
may have inserted the command in the margin and also the
reason for it ; adding, in effect : " He commanded them saying
' Come and rest, and take refreshment.' " Then, when " take
refreshment " came to be interpreted as " eat," it became
necessary to add why they had had no food.

[399] Matthew and Luke are right in rejecting all this
as not a part of the original Gospel, and also as giving (if
interpreted literally) a too materialistic preparation for the
Feeding of the Five Thousand. But if we understand
" Rest awhile " to mean spiritual rest, Mark's interpolation
leads us to a true view of Christ's action at the critical

" no man taketh me into his house," where R.V. does not venture to give
"assembles." So too in Ps. xxvii. lo (R.V.) "the Lord will take me up (lit.
gather me)," irpoaeKipero,

^ For the repetition of the verb, first applied to the flock and then to the
shepherd, comp. Deut. xxx. 2, 3 "(when thou) shalt return unto the Lord thy
God . . . then the Lord thy God will . . . return and gather thee ..."
For mention of "gathering" a flock for watering, or "gathering" stray sheep or
oxen, see Gen. xxix. 3, Deut. xxii. 2.

For the parallelism between "the boat," "Bethesda," etc., see Cltie (167-71).

119

[400]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

moment of the Baptist's death. He came forward as the
Shepherd of Israel " to gather the flock in a dry and desert
place." His " withdrawal " was a mere detail. The essential
fact was His " gathering."

§ 33. {Mk:) "on foot;' (Mt.) " followed on footl'
{Lk.) "followed"

Mk. vi. 33. Mt xiv. 13. Lk. ix. 11.

".. .many, and on "the multitudes " Ihs multitudes . . .

foot from all the cities followed h'm on foot." followed him}'
they ran together
there."

[400] See Clue (166), where it has been shewn that "on
foot " is an error for " followed." Luke has preserved the
right tradition. Mark has a wrong one. Matthew has
conflated the two. " Multitudes " is another translation of
the Hebrew " many."

§ 34. {Mk:) " teach;' {Mt.) "cured;' {Lk.) "healed"^

Mk. vi. 34.

" And he came
forth and saw a great
multitude, and he
had compassion upon
them because they
were as sheep not
having a -shepherd,
and he began to
teach them many
things."

Mt. xiv. 14 (a), ix. 36,
xiv. 14 {b).
" And he came
forth and saw a great
multitude, and he
had compassion upon
them : (ix. 36) be-
cause they were dis-
tressed and scattered,
as sheep not having
a shepherd : (xiv. 14
(d), and Ae mred their
sick."

Lk. ix. II.

" And he received
them and spake to
them concerning the
kingdom of God ;
and them that had

need of
healed."

cure

he

1 Mt.-Lk.'s agreement here is one ol fact rather than of word. " Cured " =
i6epdirev(ra> : " healed " = laro. The former sometimes means " (at)tend " without
healing : here, though " heal " would be a better rendering, " cured " is used to
distinguish it from Lk.'s verb, "healed," and to assimilate it to Lk.'s noun,
"cure, Bepairelat."

120

OF MARK [4«E]

(0 {Mk,-Mt) " had compassioH oH" = {Li.) " rearkvd"

[401] The Septuagint uses of the Greek word " receive
[into one's house, etc] "* shew that it is almost restricted to
the redemption, or deliverance, of Israel The Hebrew occurs
in Isaiah's description of the Messianic Shepherd : " Like a
shepherd his flock shall he shepherd ; in his arm shall he
receive (R.V. gather) the lambs." * In this sense, the Septua-
gint once translates it "take pity on."* Mark is quite justi-
fied in rendering it " have compassion on," but Luke is, from
the Septuagint point of view, more justified in rendering it
"received."

(ii) " Sheep not f laving a shep/urd""

[402] Why does Luke (at all events apparently) omit
this? Probably because it was not a part of the original
Gospel, but a quotation from Zechariah, inserted in the
margin of the earliest Hebrew Gospel here to illustrate the
obscure and disputed words that follow. Zechariah's words
— which are of importance as they may have given rise to the
tradition about " curing " — are these : " They go their way
like sheep ; they are afflicted because there is na sliepherd"
translated by the Septuagint, "They were dried up (or,
pulled up) like sheep, and were afilicted because there was
no htaHmg."*

* [401a] Ldte uses ianScxfrSai, a componnd that did not commend itsdf to
theLXX, which piefos G2<riex<V«i'? ^^ " receive into (one's onbface, bouse, ete.).'°
This occuis 14 times in Heb. LXX (alwsjs = fsp), geneially (11) denotii^ the
"recepdoo," "welciHDe," or "gatberii^ from the GentD^," (rf' Isiad bj tbor
SaTiooT. ' Is. xL II.

* [401<5] Is. liv. 7 (R.V.), " with great mocies wiU I joOer thee." The LXX
is pobaps doser to the sfmit : "With great fitj will I lait fitf it thee {31m'

* [402<i] Zech. X. 2 "gD their way (ijio)," Sx^^^nr, v.r. ef^fptf^nv.
" Healing''= faou. Tlie verb means Kteially, "phick np tent-pe^ to resume
a joamey." Matthew seems to interpret it as "pfccked," "pnlkd aboat,"
" wonied," enxkfkm. Luke may have takoi " because there was no hea]ii^°
as equivalent to " they were in i>eed of cme and could not obtain it."

121

[403] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

If this explanation is correct, the Hebrew insertion proved
even more obscure than the words it was intended to explain.
Mark omits most of the difficult words mistranslated by
the Septuagint. Matthew (ix. 36) mistranslates them in a
different way, and assigns them to a different period. Luke
perhaps retained a vestige of the Septuagint mistranslation
(" no healing ") in his mention of " those who had need of
cure."

(iii) " Teach . . . many things"

[403] This may have been an erroneous translation of
" Like a shepherd he shepherded them," which was written
in the Hebrew Gospel as a fulfilment of Isaiah's prediction
" Like a shepherd shall he shepherd." ^ Mark, or some
authority followed by him, took this for the reduplicated
Hebrew verb, and by reading T for T he converted "shepherd"
to "know" — as the Septuaginthas {ClueT) been shewn to do —
and this, taken causatively as " cause to know," was rendered
" teach." Then he paraphrased " teaching he taught them "
as " he taught them many things."

Matthew and Luke, perhaps influenced by the Septuagint
translation of the above-quoted prophecy of Zechariah,
regarded " healing " as the meaning of " shepherding." Luke
conflated " healing " with Mark's tradition about " teaching,"
only in a different shape : " spake to them concerning the
kingdom of God." ^

' Is. xl. II, quoted above (401)-

^ [403a] Other confusions that may have a bearing on this passage are 2 Chr.
xxxvi. 16 "remedy (nsid)," ia.jM=i Esdr. i. 49 irpotTTiiai. (leg, idkd) : Job. xxiii.
5 "words (d''7o)," Idfiara (? leg. n'^D as in 2 Chr. vi. 30) n '» A ji^/mTa : 2 Chr.
vi. 30 "forgive (nSo)," ldff'g = i K. viii. 39 'IXeus foj;. In 2 Chr. xxx. 20 "the
Lord hearkened to Hezekiah and healed (l&aaro) the people," the meaning is
" forgave them," or " did nqt punish them."

122

OF MARK [403]

§ 34 (a). (Mk.) "five" (Mt.-Lk.) " not . . . save {or, more

than) five "

Mk. vi. 38. Mt. xiv. 17. Lk. ix. 13.

"They say (\e70M- "But they say to "But they said

a-vv) (D and SS add him, We have not {elirav), (lit.) There
"to him") Five." here save five." are not to us more

than five."

[403 (i)] This difference may be explained by the
confusion between "not {vh)" and "to him (l^)," which
is recognized by the Masora as occurring fifteen times in
the Hebrew text, and which has very frequently influenced
the LXX.1

The original was probably, "And they said, Not {ih)
[are there] to us save (□« '^3) five," in which emphasis was
laid upon " us," meaning, " If you want us to feed this
people, we have only five loaves." This construction being
unusual, " not " was regarded by Mark as " to him," so that
the meaning became, "And they said to him. To us [there
are] only five." This, as usual, Mark rendered (534 (iii))
by the historic present, and dropped what was superfluous,
the result being " They say, five."

Matthew expressed " there are not to us " by " we have
not" inserting "here" (425 (i)) for emphasis (unless xhn,
" hither," has been confused with Dn^, " bread "),

Luke translated literally, except that he gave an im-
proved rendering of the Hebrew " save " (which also means
" except," " only," " but ") in the shape of " more than."

8 35. (Mt.-Lk.) "that which superabounded" Mk. omits

Mk. vi. 43. Mt. xiv. 20. Lk. ix. 17.

"And they took "And they took "And there was

up broken pieces up that which super- taken up that which

' See Gesenius, ed. Oxf., nV ; the more usual word would be pn, but k^ is used
for emphasis as in Ps. ex v. i "not unto us."

123

[404] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

filling [lit. the fillings abounded of the superabounded to
of] twelve baskets." broken pieces, twelve them of the broken
baskets full." pieces, twelve bas-

kets."

[404] A complete explanation of the departure from
Mark's " filling " to the later " superabound " is afforded by
the hypothesis of an original Hebrevir word, literally meaning
" filling " or " fullness," but hence used to mean that " over-
fullness," or " superabundance," which is to be given to God's
ministers as " tithes " or " first-fruits." In Ex. xxii. 29 it is
rendered (R.V.) " abundance " (A.V. " first "), but marg. " Heb.
thy fullness',' in Num. xviii. 27 (R.V. and A.V.) "fullness."
In Deut. xxii, 9, it means " the whole [of the farmer's labour],"
explained in the context as including " seed " and " crop,"
but the Septuagint translates " whole " by " crop." ^

[405] Mark has here translated it literally, " the fillings."
But this does not give the spirit of the original, which means
"the over-filling," possibly suggesting that there "super-
abounded " as it were tithes to the Apostles. Accordingly
Mark himself in the Miracle of the Four Thousand adopts
the word " superabundances." And John has " super-
abound " in the Miracle of the Five Thousand.* Thus there
is a general consent against Mark's text here. But his
error is probably nothing more than literal translation.

§ 36. {Mt.-Lk.) the " evil" generation : Mk. omits "evil"

Mk. viii. 12. Mt. xvi. 4. Lk. xi. 29.

"Why doth this "A generation «to7 "This generation

generation seek a and adulterous seek- is an evil generation,
sign ? " eth after a sign." It seeketh a sign."

' [404a] (hnVd) Ex. xxii. 29 awapx&t. Num. xviii. 27 i^alpe/na, Deut. xxii.
9 yivriiia. In Deut. xxii. 9 R.V. has " lest tlie-whole-fruit (marg. fulness, nitSDn)
be forfeited — the seed which thou hast sown and the increase of the vineyard,"
A.V. " lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown and the fruit of the vine-
yard be defiled," missing the meaning, as the LXX also does.

''■ Mk. viii. 8 Trepumi/iaTa, Jn. vi. 13 iireplirirevtrav.

124

OF MARK [408]

[406] This adds one more to the numerous instances
(7) of confusion arising from the similarity of i and n. The
original was " evil," and this was read as " why," which is
often expressed in Hebrew by " knowing what ?" It has been
shewn (7) that " know " and " evil " are frequently confused
in the Septuagint.^

[407] That Mark is wrong and Matthew and Luke right,
is probable, because Mark's word is comparatively commoUi
and it is a recognised law of documentary evidence that the
unfamiliar is generally corrupted to the familiar.^

§ 37. {Mt.-Lk) " The sign of Jonah" ; Mk. omits

Mk. viii. 12. Mt. xvi. 4. Lk. xi. 29.

" Verily I say (lit.) " A sign shall not " A sign shall not

if there shall be given be given to it except be given to \t except

a sign to this genera- the sign of JonahSje.-^. the sign of Jonah."
tion." in Mt. xii. 39, "a

sign . . . Jonah the

prophet "].

(i) " If there shall be given "

[408] " If" sometimes occurs in a Hebrew idiom con-
taining a suppressed adjuration : " [The Lord do thus and
thus unto me] if there shall be given." In the Septuagint it
is frequently translated by a negative, which is found here in
the parallel Matthew and Luke. But in the whole of the
New Testament there is no other instance of this adjurative
idiom except in the Epistle to the Hebrews quoting the

1 [406a] "Evil" = j;nD, "why" = j;no- Comp. Prov. xiii. 19, xix. 23
"evil (vn) " = ixwff's (bis), Prov. xix. 27 " knowledge "=KOK(is, Sir. iii. 24,
"thoughts," lit. "knowings (myl)," Trovripd. In 2 S. xix. 7, and Eccles. vii. 23,
"know" and "worse {jn)" are severally mistranslated and conflated with the
correct renderings.

2 [407o] Why Mk. omits, or Mt. inserts, "adulterous,"' is a question not
strictly within our scope. But " adulterous "=™)< and "this" = ni, and the
former is a rarer word than the latter. Mt. is probably right.

I2S

[409] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Psalms — and there the verb " swear " precedes — " I sware
in my wrath, If they shall enter into my rest." ^

(ii) " Verily I say "

[409] This is t^ only instance where " Verily I say"
(without "unto you " etc.) occurs in Mark, and perhaps in the
whole of the New Testament. This fact, and its omission by
Matthew^ and Luke, indicate that the phrase is corrupt.
It can be explained as a conflation of " if there shall be
given," the Hebrew letters of which differ little from " I have
said" and also from "verily."' In the face of Christ's
words " Swear not at all," it is not surprising if these and
other substitutes were suggested in the place of what may
naturally have been regarded as an adjuration. The wonder
is that the original "if" has been allowed to remain.

Possibly, however, the Hebrew Original contained, not
an adjuration, but what may be called the negative inter-
rogative, that is, the interrogative that assumes a negative
reply. This may be expressed in Hebrew in two forms,
(i) -n and (2) Ds. Both of these the LXX occasionally
renders by "if (ei)," and both might be rendered by a
Greek negative interrogative " can-it-be-that (yu,??) ? " or by

' Hebr. iii. 11, iv. 3, 5, quoting Ps. xcv. 11.

^ [409a] Mk. has " verily I say," always (except here) with " unto you " (13).
Mt.-Lk. follow Mk. (3). Mt. follows Mk., where Lk. omits or alters the phrase
or omits the whole context, (6) : Mt.-Lk. omit or alter the phrase (3). Lk. has
''truly I say," where Mk. has "verily I say" (i) in the Poor Widow (Mk. xii.
43) (omitted by Mt.); The two passages (beside the present) where Mt.-Lk.
omit or alter the phrase, refer to (i) the Unpardonable Sin (Mk. iii. 28), (2) the
drinking of the juice of the vine after Christ's Resurrection (Mk. xiv. 25). These
remarks refer only to the Triple Tradition.

^ [409i5] "If there shall be given " = (hoph. ) jn' dn. This, written as one
word ([n-DN), resembles (a) 'moM, "I have said." Or, by dropping n, a scribe
might convert jn'DM to {b) pnn, "verily." These, conflated, would produce
"Verily I have said" which (in the form " I say ") would be added to the text.
The hophal, or passive, of this verb, being rare, and liable to mistranslation (as
in 2 S. xviii. 9 (A), 2 S. xxi. 6, Job xxviii. 15), would dispose scribes to accept
corrections.

126

OF MARK [409]

a Greek negative statement " [it is] not (ov)." But the
former (-rr) is often used in a simple question for information
where the answer expected is uncertain ; and the latter (dn)
generally means " if " and is very rarely used to introduce a
direct interrogative. Hence arise ambiguities, which have
caused confusion in the LXX, and which may afford an
explanation of the addition here made by Matthew and
Luke.^ This addition will now be discussed.

(iii) " Except the sign of Jonah "

Did Mark omit these words because they served as an
introduction to a discourse about Jonah which he intended
to omit ?

' [409i^] (l) In the LXX, the interrogative -n, when introducing a question
for information, if not left untranslated, is frequently rendered by el, as in Judg.
iv. 20, xiii. II, 1 S. XXX. 8, 15, etc. (2) When introducing a negative inter-
rogative it is rendered n^ in most of the instances alleged in Gesen. Oxf. (e.g.
Gen. iv. 9), but it = ei in Jer. xv. 12, xvi. 20. The Heb. interrogative -r\ in 2 S.
vii. 5 is parall. to Heb. "not (x'?)" in 1 Chr. xvii. 4, and the LXX of S (as well
as that of Chr.) has "not' (01))." In 2 K. vi. 22 " Art (-n) thou for smiting?" is
rendered " Except {el nfj thou art for smiting " — a conflation of " if (el)" and the
negative interrogative " can-it-be-that [fi-Zi) ? " This has a bearing on the discussion
in 410-12.

In Deut. iv. 33, -n interrog. = ei, but as a verb of question precedes at some
distance, the instance may have been regarded by the LXX as one of indirect
interrogative.

[409^^ In Heb., dn Wfhenused interrogatively, mostly introduces an alternative,
Josh. V. 13 "art thou for us or (dx) for our enemies?" When it introduces a
single direct interrog. it usually assumes a negative reply. In the instances of
this use alleged in Gesen. Oxf. DN = Gen. xxxviii. 17, Judg. v. 8 idv, i K. i. 27 el,
Is. xxix. 16 oix. The particle is repeated twice in the following : Amos iii. 6
ei (bis) (here it comes as a climax after five negative interrogatives introduced by
-n, all seven being=ci in LXX), Jer. xlviii. 27 "was he not (ni'? dm) el M (A om.
«) . . . was he (/ca(, but nAQ el)," Job. vi. 12 fi,ii ... tl .. .. Though the direct
interrogative use of this particle is rare, yet its comparatively frequent occurrence
in prophecy, and especially in the well-known passage Is. xxix. 16 " Skalt (nn)
the potter be counted as clay ? " makes it probable that an evangelist writing in
Biblical Hebrew would prefer it here (Mk. viii. 12) to -n. And the LXX render-
ing of the Isaiah-passage, " S&ait ye not be reckoned as the clay of the potter ? "
(oix ii% iriiXis toO Kepa/i^as Xoyia-O'/ia-eaee ;) shews how easily the particle might
be misconstrued.

127

[410] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

[410] It seems highly improbable — from what we know
of Mark's scrupulousness in inserting words of Jesus fully,
even to the extent of frequent conflations — that he would,
on such insufficient grounds, omit an integral portion of a short
saying uttered by the Saviour, according to Mark's own
account (" Verily I say "), with special solemnity. Moreover,
we find Matthew inserting the words " the sign of Jonah "
here, although the discourse about Jonah does not follow
(being placed at an earlier stage).

[411] Rejecting, therefore, the view that Mark know-
ingly omitted the words, we have to ask whether they may
have sprung from a corruption of the text, and, in particular,
from that Hebraic interrogative "if" which — especially as
it may have been regarded as an adjurative — may well have
caused great difficulty to evangelists and scribes. We saw
above (372) that the Hebraic interrogative "if," implying a
negative, was in one passage probably conflated by Luke
into " if not," so that " Are we (lit. if we are) to go away .' "
became "if we are not to go away." More recently (409f)
we found an instance of this very conflation in the LXX.
If such a conflation took place here, it would account for
the first part of the phrase to be explained, viz. " except " or
" if not." Moreover, the context affords additional materials
for the construction of an erroneous " except." For it
happens that the Hebrew " that (-"a) if (dn)" also means
" except." Now the Hebrew " that " is often used super-
fluously to introduce speech. Hence, " he said that ' If there
shall be given,' " might be interpreted as " he said ' Except
there shall be given.' "

[412] Now let us put ourselves in the position of a very
early Evangelist who found written and oral tradition varying
between " there shall not be given " and " except there shall
be given," applied to " a sign from heaven." According to
the analogy of the LXX, we should expect him to conflate
the two, and to attempt to find some meaning for the

128

OF MARK [412]

more difficult (the latter) that would make sense of the
conflation. The word "except'' might suggest to many-
Christians the exceptional sign from heaven given at Christ's
baptism in the descent of a dove. Hence " dove " might be
written in the margin so as to give the meaning "except
\i.e. only] the sign of the dove shall be given " ; and, as
"dove" {j[T\\ genit. n3r) is similar to "shall be given"
(in"*), the latter might be dropped as a repetition of the
former, the result being " except the sign of the dove."

So far, the statement would be at all events logical : —
" there shall no sign be given [from heaven] except the sign
of the dove." But objections might arise that that sign was
not given to " this generation " but only to John the Baptist.
Hence, the stress of controversy might drive some who had
committed themselves to this new tradition to look about
for a new interpretation of it. Now it happens that the
word '^ dove" is also identical in Hebrew with " Jonah", -^
and the reading " except the sign of Jonah " would commend
itself to many because of the typical relation supposed to
exist between Jonah and Christ.

Yet the new reading was not without grave difficulties.
For could the Resurrection be called " a sign from heaven "
(except so far as all divine acts are from heaven) ? ^ The
perplexity apparent in the attempts of Chrysostom and
Syrus Ephraemus to make sense of Matthew affords con-
firmation of the theory that, as on the one hand Jesus did
not use these words, so neither did any Evangelist invent
them, but that they arose partly from a corrupt text of
Mark, partly from the motive of those who caught at the

' [412a] "Jonah " = " Dove" =,131'. " Shall be given "=in' (hoph.) a very
rare form. "Dove" occurs once as a. rendering for a form of nr, in Zeph.
iii. I " the oppressing (njvrr) " ^ Trepurrepd.

^ [412*] It may be urged that "except" in N.T. does not always imply an
exception. It may mean " but only," e.g. " no sign from heaven 6ut only the sign
[in earth, or, from the depth] of Jonah." But how could this be said if Jesus, both
before and after the utterance of these words, worked many "signs " on earth for
that "generation" ?

9 139

[413] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

corruption as a basis for justifying a tradition that Jonah
was a type of Christ, and who committed themselves to the
new version before it was perceived to be illogical.^

§ 38. (Mk:) "look',' {Mt.-Lk) "give heed"

Mk. viii. 15. Mt. xvi. 6. Lk. xii. i.

" See, look be- " See and give- " Give - heed to

cause -of (lit. from) lued because -of (lit. yourselves because-of
the leaven . . ." from) the leaven . . ." (lit. from) the leaven

[413] The phrase "look because of," i.e. "beware of," is
not supported by instances from any book in the Bible or
in Greek literature. But it occurs again in Mark xii. 38,
where the parallel Luke has again "give -heed because-of
(lit. from)." The Septuagint gives many instances of give-
heed because-of," but none of " look because-of." Mark's
language, therefore, requires explanation.

The original was "give heed to youts&Xv&s from-tke-face-
of" {i.e. "because of"), a Hebrew idiom that occurs in the
Bible corresponding to the Greek " give-heed because-of (lit.
from)." But the compound preposition " from-the-face-of "
is liable to be confused with the verb " face," or " look," used
frequently in such phrases as " a door /acing the south," "a
gate looking northward," etc. but not applied to human beings.
Mark, then, supposing that the compound preposition " from-
the-face-of" could mean "look," has erroneously conflated

^ [412f] We have hitherto found no important instance in which Matthew and
Luke have concordantly deviated from Mark owing to Greeli corruption. Other-
wise, something might be said for the view that "Jonah" arose from that source.
Suppose the sentence to have been corrupted (in the first instance by conflative
translation) into "No sign shall be given . . . except the sign (imhchmion)-"
Many ancient MSS. use o for o), so that iona might = "Jonah." It would be
very tempting to scribes, familiar with the Christian view of Jonah as a type of
Christ, to suppose that the letters had been confused, and that the true reading
was IMHIONA, "except [that of] Jonah."

130

OF MARK [415]

(ai) "look" and (a^ "because of."^ Matthew and Luke
have rightly followed the Corrector.

§ 39. The confession of Peter

Mk. viii. 29. Mt. xvi. 16. Lk. ix. 20.

[414] (i) "Thou "Thou art the "The Christ of

art the Christ." Christ, the Son <7/the God.

living God J''

The only confession of Peter mentioned by John is this,
" Thou hast the words of eternal life, and we have believed
and know that thou art the Holy One of God" ^

Compare the variations in another passage : —

Mk. xiv. 61. Mt. xxvi. 63. Lk. xxii. 66—70.

(ii) " Thou [then] " I adjure thee by " saying ' If thou

art the Christ the Son the living God that art the Christ, tell

of the Blessed ? " thou tell us if thou us.' . . . But they

art the Christ the Son all said, " Thou art

of God." then the Son of Godi "

In (ii), Mark is most probably in error, because —
although it is very common to repeat " blessed is He " after
the name of God — no instance is alleged where " the Blessed "
(like " the Highest ") is substituted for God."

[415] As regards (i), we have to bear in mind that the
title " Son of God," by itself, would hardly suffice, in Hebrew,
to express the meaning, because Hebrew makes no distinction
between " a son of God " and " the son of God." Hence the
same expression might be translated by one Evangelist as " a

1 [413«] "Look"=j3\^7reTc. The verb ms "turn the face [to, or from]" =
/SX^Tru (14) : but, when rendered /SWiru, it always refers to gates, hills, etc.,
"facing" in a certain direction. The preposition " from-the-face-of ('jSD)" = (a)
"away from," (i) "because of." Mk. probably has in mind two meanings) {a)
" look heedfuUy because of," (b) "keep on your guard away from."

2 Jn. vi. 68, 69.

131

[416] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

(or, the) son of God," but by another as ''a righteous
person " ; and this actually occurs in the Synoptic Gospels/

[416] There is a considerable resemblance between "God "
(as frequently represented in Aramaic and sometimes in
Hebrew) and the Hebrew phrase "living God" used by
Hosea (" sons-of the living God") and perhaps here translated
by Matthew." '

[417] There is also a resemblance, in Hebrew, between
"blessed" and "first-born." The two are actually inter-
changed by the LXX in Chronicles ; and, in the original
Hebrew of Ben Sira, the margin of the MS. once reads " first-
bornship " where the text reads " blessing." ^ Now, though
the precise phrase " first-born of God " does not occur in
O.T., God is represented as calling the Chosen People His
" first-born," and- hence the conception appears to have been
transferred to the Messiah.* Philo frequently speaks of the

' [415a] Comp. Mk. xv. 39, Mt. xxvii. 54 "Truly this man was a (or, the)
Son of God," Lk. xxiii. 47 " Indeed this man was righteous." Comp. the saying
of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. iii. 25 (R.V.) " The aspect of the fourth is like a son
of the gods," but A.V. "like the Son of God," Theod. l>iJ.ola vlQ Bead, LXX
6fialii>/m a.yy4\ov OeoO. Probably Theod., and certainly LXX, rendered this "a
son of God." " The son of God," where brevity is not required, is sometimes
expressed in N.T. by 6 vlds toC ScoO.

^ "Living God," in Hos. i. 10 "sons of the living God," = 'rr'jK ; "God"
= (Aram.) nhtt (v. freq.) (Heb.) nthtt (22), a^nhx (v. fireq.).

' I Chr. V. I, 2 mentions the " firstbornship (maa)," or "birth-right," of
Reuben the " first-bom.'' The LXX tvrice has " blessing," which would be nDi3.
In Sir. xliv. 23* txt. nana is rightly rendered by LXX " blessings." But the marg.
reads maa, "firstbornship" or "birth-right."

* See especially Schottg. (vol. i. p. 121) which, when translated with the
quotations somewhat more fully given, is as follows : " Midrash Tehillim on
Ps. ii. 7, fol. 3, 4 / itiili tell-of the decree : {The Lord said unto me. Thou art my
son) : Long ago were the words told-ofrn the decree of the Law, the Prophets and
■the Hagiographa. In the Law, Exod. iv. 22 Israel is my son, my first-born. In
the Prophets, Is. Iii. 13 Behold my servant shall deal wisely. Similar to this is
Is. xlii. I [Behold my servanf] whom I uphold. In the Hagiographa, Ps. ex. i
The Lord said unto my Lord, and Ps. ii. 7, The Lord said unto me, Thou art my
son. And in another place, Dan. vii. 13 And behold there came with the clouds of
heaven [one like unto a son of many This shows how Jewish tradition identified
the nation with the Messiah, or took the former as the type of the latter, and hence
attached to the Messiah the firstbornship originally connected with the nation.

132

OF MARK [417]

Logos as first-begotten.^ Such expressions as " the first-
born of death," " the first-born of the poor '' in the Bible, and
"the first-born of Satan," said to have been applied to a
heretic by the Apostle John, show that the term might
naturally be applied by common people to the Messiah.^
That it was so applied to Christ by Christians there is
abundant proof.' But, if the Hebrew Original of the present
passage (Mk. viii. 29) contained the words " First-born of the
living God," the term, though intelligible to Jews, would be
likely to perplex Gentiles in the earliest days of the Church
until they became familiar with the conception. It is more
likely that the rare term " living God " was (or was supposed
by Matthew to be) in the original than that it was inserted
by Matthew. On the other hand "the Christ," i.e. "the
Anointed," was intelligible to Gentiles — as signifying an
anointed King and Priest. Hence Mark, the earliest
Evangelist that wrote for Western Churches, might sub-
stitute " the Anointed " for the whole phrase : Matthew
might conflate this with the original, altering " First-born "
to Son. Luke might accept Mark's word " Christ " but
conflate this with " the living God," which however he read
as being simply " God."*

There is very great uncertainty as to the Hebrew
Original of Peter's confession, and a complete discussion of
it would require a comparison of Peter's confession as given

Wetstein (on Rom. viii. 29) quotes R. Nathan : "God said to Moses, As I
made Jacob first-born (Ex. iv. 22), so will I make King Messiah first-born
(Ps. Ixxxix. 27)."

' Philo (i. 308, 414, 653, etc.) prefers vpuriyovos, the LXX Tpur&roKos, except
in Sir. xxxvi. 17 (14), and Mic. vii. i (neut. pi.).

' Job. xviii. 13, Is. xiv. 30, Iren. iii. 3. 3 : see also Wetst. on Rom. viii. 29.

' Rom. viii. 29, Col. i. 15, 18, Heb. i. 6, Rev. i. 5.

* [417a] "First-born "=1133. In Deut. xxv. 6 it=5roi5(oi<. In Jn. i. 34
" son of God," SS has "the c&osen (ninn) of God." In the Transfiguration,
where Mk. ix. 7, Mt. xviii 5 have "my beloved Son," Lk. ix. 35 has " my chosen
Son." The Aramaic for " son " is -a. It is found (instead of p) only in the late
Heb. of Prov. xxxi. 2 (bis) and also in the text (disputed, see Gesen. Oxf.) of
Ps. ii. 12. " Blessed "=ina.

133

[418] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

by John : but it may be taken as probable that Mark has
paraphrased and that Matthew is closest to the Hebrew.^

§ 40. (Mk.) " after three days',' {Mt.-Lk.) " on the third day "

Mk. viii. 31. Mt. xvi. 21 and Lk. ix. 22.

"... and after three days "... and on the third day be

arise (lit. stand up, avacrTTJvai)." raised (lit. roused, ijepOrivai,)."

(i) (Mk.) " three," (Mt.-Lk.) " third"

[418] As to "days" or "day" it has been shewn
above (227) that two traditions might naturally spring up
from the prophecy of Hosea. " After three days " might
seem to some to conform with the history of Jonah. But
" on the third day " was the correct translation of Hosea,
and this accorded best with the prevalent accounts of the
Resurrection. The latter tradition was generally adopted.

(ii) (Mk.) " arise," (Mt.-Lk.) " be raised"

As regards the words " arise " and " be raised " — which
are quite different in Greek — we are told by Mark that when
Jesus " raised up " Jairus" daughter, He said to her, " Cumi."
This represents a Hebrew word that is occasionally rendered
" be raised," but much more frequently " arise.'' Yet Mark
himself translates it by the former word in the story of

^ [4171^] Jn. represents Peter as making a confession of which the first part
isjn. vi. 68 "Thou hast the words of eternal life." Now (a) "thou hast" might
well be expressed in Hebrew by "with thee [are], inx," and this might be
confused with "thou (tok)" (compare nnn read as 'nn in i K. xx. 40, and as inn
"thy signs" in Sir. xlviii. 4): (*) "Word (nm)" (parall. in 2 S. vii. 21 to i^v
"servant "in i Chr. xvii. 19) might be substituted for the Aramaic 13 "son"
(which might be retained, as being the very word used by Peter, even in a Gospel
written mostly in Biblical Hebrew) if the latter were regarded as a Hebrew
word, (c) " Eternal life " is rendered by Delitzsch D'D^y "n, i.e. " living for the
ages"; but this closely resembles (Dan. xii. 7) " him who liveth for ever (D'?ii;n 'n)."
Hence there is a considerable resemblance between "Thou hast the word(s) of
eternal life " and "thou art the Son of Him that liveth for ever," which might be
paraphrased as " thou art the Son of the living God."

OF MARK [420]

Jairus. There seemed perhaps this advantage in "raised,"
or " roused," that it better indicated a miraculous act on the
part of God. At all events, St. Paul almost always uses
"roused" concerning the Resurrection of Jesus. The
synonymousness of the words is indicated by the fact that
Ezra and i Esdras, and the two versions of the Acts of
Pilate, interchange them in parallel passages.-' Matthew and
I-uke have adopted the Pauline word.

§ 41. The Transfiguration

Mk. ix. 2. Mt. xvii. i, 2. Lk. ix. 29.

"He was meta- "He was meta- "And it came to

morphosed before morphosed before pass, as he prayed,

them." them, and his face the aspect of his face

shone as the sun." became different."

[419] In Daniel, "his countenance was changed" ex-
presses change to anger or sorrow ; and Ecclesiasticus,
though once speaking of such change as " for good or evil,"
mostly has the bad sense, e.g. " With much whispering he
will change his countenance" ^ Hence it is unlikely that the
Hebrew original used the word "change." More probably
it would borrow the language used in describing the trans-
mutation of the face of Moses : " the skin of his face shone." ^

[420] In the passage just quoted about Moses, the

^ [418a] Comp. Ezr. ix. 5 'nop, dviar-iiv = I Esdr. viii. 70 i^eyep$eis : Acta Pil.
'3 (A) ■liy^pSrii (B) iviffTTi. Comp. also, for the active, Ezr. ix. 9 avtxaTriaai,= l
Esd. viii. 78 iyetptu (loy).

It is a remarkable fact that Luke, while frequently using dva<TTrjvai in the Acts,
and in those portions of his Gospel which are peculiar to himself, seldom follows
Mark in the use of it. The exceptions are three : Mk. ii. 14 (the call of Levi),
where it simply means rising from one's seat ; Mk. v. 42 (Lk. viii. 55), where it
means "rise from one's bed," but might be interpreted in Mk. " was restored to
life" ; Mk. a. 34 (Lk. xviii. 33) "shall rise again.''

^ Sir. xii. 18 " change his countenance " {i.e. desert an old friend), dXXoii6o-ei ri
Trpbamrov airroO. Comp. Dan. iii. 19, v. 6, 9, 10, vii. 28.

' Ex. xxxiv. 29 (lit.) "there -became -horned (\-\p) the-skin-of (iij;) his -face
{v«)."

[421] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

word translated " shone " means " became - horned [with
rays]," and caused differences of translation in very early
times. The Septuagint was content to paraphrase it
" was glorified," and St. Paul perhaps adopted this. But
in Habakkuk (iii. 2) ("he had rays [coming forth] from
his hand ") the Septuagint, followed by our Authorized
Version, has "he had horns." ^ And Aquila — probably
early in the second century — followed by the Vulgate,
described the face of Moses as " full of horns." Hence it is
not in the least surprising if Mark, who pays very little
regard to proprieties of language, provided that it is clear
and forcible — paraphrasing the passage for the Western
Church, and having regard to the familiar use of the word
" metamorphosis '' in popular stories about miraculous trans-
mutations — rendered it " he was metamorphosed." " His
face," by a confusion paralleled in LXX, could be taken to
mean " before their face," which might be rendered " before
them." This results in " His skin was metamorphbsed
before them." It only remained to change " his skin " into
"he."'

Matthew conflated Mark's version with a second one :
" (flj) And he was metamorphosed before them, (a^) and his
countenance shone like the sun" where a^ freely, but substan-
tially, expresses the original, except that it omits " skin."

[421] Luke apparently attempted to represent "skin,"
but was misled by the Septuagint, which confused the Hebrew
word with a similar one meaning "colour," "complexion,"
and frequently rendered " aspect (oi/rt?)." Accordingly Luke
has " the aspect of his face." He also avoids the heathen

' 2 Cor. iii. 7, 10 ; Hab. iii. 4.

" [4203] In Hab. iii. 4, Aquila is said in Smith's Diet, of Bible ("Horns")
to have transl. y\p KepariiSris, but the word is not given in Tromm. or Oxf;
Concordance. " Before the face of " = KaT4 irpdirwirov in I K. viii. 22, but KaTivavn
in 2 Qir. vi. 12. In Greek, n. tt. avrov "in his countenance," might easily be
confused with k. t. avrci "before them.'' But comp. also Ezr. ix. 6 "lift up
my face to thee " with parall. i Esdr. viii. 71 " before thy face," i.e. in thy
presence : Is. i. 12 " to appear before me" marg. " to see my face."

136

OF MARK

[422]

associations of the word " metamorphose " by a paraphrase,
" became diiferent." ^

It appears probable then, that, so far as regards the
insertion of the word " face," Matthew and Luke returned to
the Hebrew original, which was mistranslated by Mark.^

§ 42. (Mk.) " He knew not what to answer" {Mt.-Lk.)" While
he was still speaking {or, saying these things') "

Mk. ix. 6.

" For he knew not
what to answer " (D,
"what to say," SS
"what he was say-
ing ").

Mt. xvii. 5.

" While he was
still speaking."

Lk. ix. 33, 34.

"... (rtj) not
knowing that which
he saith. But (a^)
while he was say-
ing these things."

Lk. ix. 32.
" having kept awake."

(i) " While . . . speaking"

[422] "While he was still speaking" would naturally
correspond to a Hebrew original like that which prefaces
the metamorphosis of King Nebuchadnezzar, literally,
"Yet [was the] word in the mouth of the king." There

^ [421o] "Skin (my) " = («]) 4 SiZ-is (a^) toC xfx^tmTos in Ex. xxxiv. 29, 30
(leg. ).y=e(/)o«s in Ezek. i. 4, Dan. a. 6 (Theod.)). In this conflation, the LXX
perhaps confused xp<^lia with x/«is- Tromm. gives pj;=eISos {4), ipaaii (3), «i/'is
(6). Dr. C. Taylor informs me that a Midrash on Gen. iii. 21 "coats of skin
(iiy) " substitutes " coats of light (nm) " alluding to Ps. civ. 2.

" [421*] Probably so extraordinary a vi^ord as \-yp "become horned," gave rise
to many marginal (a) alterations or {b) paraphrases. Among (a) the former may
have been -np "bow down," which Lk. may have interpreted as "pray" ; among
[b) the latter, may have been n^ix ( = (i) dvaMfiTreiv) which might be rendered by
Mt. e\diJ.ypev. And n^>x may have originated kIjx ( = " prayer " twice in late Hebrew),
which may have originated Luke's "pray." Professor Marshall (in the Expositor)
suggests that k^s, "pray,"' may have been confused with nK^y, "high," in
Mk. ix. 2.

[423] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

the Septuagint, in a conflation, corrupts "yet (lli')" to
" upon (^»)." But " yet " is far more easily corrupted
into " know (rT*)." ^

[423] Even without this corruption, if the original was
" Yet [was the] word to him in the mouth," i.e. in his mouth,
it is very easy to explain the parallelism. For " to him " is
repeatedly confused with " not." ^ Hence Mark might take
the meaning to be " No longer was there a word in his
mouth " (compare " in whose mouth are no reproofs ",^), i.e.
" he had not a word to reply."

Luke seems to have conflated {a-^ a form of Mark's
version with (aj) a corrected form similar in substance to
that adopted by Matthew.

(ii) " Having kept awake "

[424] By changing T into i " yet " becomes " keep awake"
This may explain the extraordinary tradition which Luke
inserts in his narrative : " But Peter and those who were
with him had been weighed down with sleep : but having

1 [422a] Dan. iv. 31 (lit.) "Yet (iiy) [was] the word (((ni>D) in the king's
mouth," Theod. (aj) ?ti toO Xiyou iv o-Tijuari toD ParCKius 6vtos. The LXX con-
flates this with " (oj) and upon (leg. hit) the termination of his word (xal irl awreXelas
Tov \6yov oiJtoC)," taking Nn^Das from k^d "fulfils" (and hence "terminate"),
and niy, "yet," as ^a, "upon," and "mouth" as =" word."

^ [423a] Comp. 2 K. viii. 10 "Say unto him (Q'ri iS) thou shall surely
recover," marg. "thou shalt not (Kth. n^>) recover," Hos. xi. 5 "not (k'?),"
ain-Q (leg. 1^). In Dan. xi.'l7, LXX omits airQ (^ after n^>. 2 S. xvi. 18
Hebr. Kth. "not," Q'ri " to him," i.e. " his," and so R.V. Such instances are
numerous. Comp. Ezr. iv. 2 R.V. txt. and marg. In two passages, i S. ii. 16,
XX. 2, the neg. is (Gesen. Oxf.), "according to Mass., written 1^."

' [423^] Ps. xxxviii. 14. It is doubtful whether Mk. is wrong. His version
is less commonplace than that of Mt.-Lk. But on the other hand there would be
a tendency to favour a reading that explained how the Apostle could even for a
moment place Jesus on the same level as Elias ("he knew not what to say," or,
"to answer," or, "what he said"). The question is therefore complicated by
possibilities of motive. Moreover the termination of the preceding sentence
("Elijah," i.tSn, or n'^n) leaves possibilities for textual interpolation of n'?
"not," or 1^. "to him."

138

OF MARK [425]

kept awake they saw his glory." It may be an amplified
conflation, springing from early variations of Mark's tradi-
tion about Peter's " not knowing^' " But," it may be urged,
" keep awake is less commonplace than know : do not the
rules of evidence then indicate that the former was corrupted
into the latter ? " They would, as a rule ; but, in this case,
motive may have intervened. Mark's tradition may have
seemed to derogate from Peter. It was natural to favour a
reading that seemed to re-establish the Apostle's reputation.^

§ 43. (Mk.) "faithless" {Mt.-Lk.) "faithless and perverse"

Mk. ix. 19. Mt. xvii. 17 and Lk. ix. 41.

" O faithless generation.'' " O faithless and perverse gen-

eration."

[425] The words " perverse generation " occur elsewhere
in the New Testament only in the Epistle to the Philippians,
where St. Paul inculcates purity and sincerity in the midst
of a "crooked and perverse generation." The Apostle is
quoting a contrast, in Deuteronomy (xxxii. 4, 5), between
God, " a God of faithfulness," and the spurious and rebellious
Israel, " a crooked and perverse generation." These " two
qualities, so far as they express deviation from the God
" of faithfulness," may be summed up in the one word " faith-
less." But the Greek " faithless " may mean " unbeliever," or
" incredible," or " untrustworthy." In the Epistles to the
Corinthians it repeatedly means " unbelievers," that is, those
who are outside the Christian Church, and sometimes
without any notion of fault. Hence the Corrector, while not
rejecting the ambiguous Greek word, may have added the
latter of the two epithets in Deuteronomy so as to shew

^ Lk. ix. 32. The question of originality is too complicated to be discussed
here. There is something to be said — even on the ground of " motive " — for the
originality of Luke's tradition. Would there not be a tendency against any tradi-
tion that connected the Transfiguration with "sleep" so as to suggest "vision"?

[425] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

that the unbelief meant here was not that of ignorance, but
that of perversion.

§ 43 («). {Mk>) ''unto me," (Mt.) "to me . . . hither,"
{Lk) "hither"

Mk. ix. 19. Mt. xvii. 17. Lk. ix. 41.

" Bring - ye him " Bring-ye him to "Lead-thou hither

unto (TT/ao?) me." me (or, for me) (^ot) thy son."

hither."

[425 (i)] In 403 (i), an instance was given where
Matthew seemed to have added " here " for emphasis. And
it may be stated that insertions occur in the LXX, both of
" here " and " hither," apparently for emphasis or clearness,
where it does not occur in the Hebrew.^

On the other hand, where "hither" does occur in the
Hebrew, it is sometimes omitted by one or other of the two
great MSS., the Vaticanus and the Alexandrinus.^

Consequently, without asserting that "hither" was, or
was not, in the original, we are able to say that the
phenomena harmonize with the hypothesis of translation.

§ 44. {Mk.) " is," (Mt.-Lk) " is destined to be "

Mk. ix. 31. Mt. xvii. 22 and Lk. ix. 44.

"The Son of man is [to be] "The Son of man is destined^

betrayed." to be betrayed."

[426] The same Hebrew tense represents both the
Greek present and the Greek future. Mark prefers the

1 [425 (i) a] Gen. xv. 14 "they shall come out," LXX adds "hither (ffiSc),"
Gen. xlii. 33 " Leave one of your brethren with me," LXX adds "here (cSSe)" :
so, too, Deut. xxxi. 21, Josh. ii. 4 (A), Judg. xiii. 15 (but not A).

^ [425i(i) i] Judg. xix. 12, 2 S. xviii. 30 (B ins. USe, A om.), 2 K x. 23 (A
ins. <BSe, B om.). In 2 S. i. lo " I have brought them to my lord Ai/Aer (n:n)
(ffiSe)," A curiously has " unto me " — the expression employed by Mk. here (,irp6s
fie) — ^instead of " hither," the word used by Mt.-Lk. here (iSSe).

' " Is destined (or, sure)," /i4\\et.

140

OF MARK [428]

Greek present, used in what is commonly called the prophetic
sense. Elsewhere, Matthew prefers the Greek future,
compare Mark (ix. 12) "he restoreth [or, is to restore] all
things" with Matthew (xvii. 11) " j,^a// restore."

[427] When the Hebrew future is treated by the
Septuagint as specially emphatic, the Greek sometimes
inserts " is sure,'' " destined," " shall assuredly," as in Isaiah :
" Let now the astrologers . . . save thee from the things
that shall come upon thee," LXX " are destined to come
to pass." ^ This is what has been done by the Corrector.
Compare Mark (x. 38) "the cup that I \am to] drink" with
Matthew (xx. 22) "that I am destined to drink''

[428] Bearing in mind that the same Hebrew word (''3)
may mean " but," or " when," or " for (indeed)," or " assuredly,"
we shall also recognize an ambiguous Hebrew original
under —

•Mk. viii. 38, Lk. ix. 26. Mt. xvi. 27.

" Wlien the son of man shall " For the son of man is

come." destined to come."

Mk. xiii. 7, Lk. xxi. 9. Mt. xxiv. 6.

" But when ^ ye shall hear." " But ye will be sure to hear."

§ 45. {Mk) "first" and "last',' Mt.-Lk. different

Mk. ix. 35. [Mt. xxiii. 8-ii]. [Lk. ix. 48.]

[429] (i)" If any " Be not ye called "... for he that

man desireth to be Rabbi ... but he is ^ least [lit. less]

^ [4271 IS' '''™- '3- Comp. Is. xxviii. 24 "Doth the ploughman (lit.
ploughing) plough continually ? " Here there is no emphasis on the future, nor
indeed any specially future sense at all. The oldest MS. of the LXX (B) renders
the Hebrew future by the simple Greek future. But later scribes (Att) —
erroneously supposing that the reduplicated "ploughing plough" must mean
" will assuredly "—insert /ieXXet.

'' "But when" perhaps conflates "but" and "when," while "but . . . sure"
conflates " but " and " assuredly."

3 Lk. ix. 48 "he that is," 6 . . . 6irdpxo)i'.

141

[429]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

first he shall [or,
will] be last of all
and minister of all."

that is greatest [lit.
greater] of you shall
[or, will] be your
minister."

among all [of] you,
this [man] is great"

Mk. X. 43, 44.
(ii) "Not so is it

The bracketed passages are parallel to Mark in meaning,
to some extent, but Matthew's is not parallel in order, and
Luke's context differs a good deal from Mark's.

Compare :

Mt. XX. 26, 27.

"Not so is it
among you : but who-
so desireth among
you to become great
shall [or, will] be your
minister, and who-
so desireth among
you to be first shall
[or, will] be your
servant.''

among you : but
whoso desireth to
become great among
you shall [or, will]
be ^ your minister,
and whoso desireth
among you to be
first shall [or, will] be
servant of all."

Lk. xxii. 26.

" But ye [are] not
so. But the greatest
[lit. greater] among
you, let him become
as the youngest [lit.
the younger] and he
that is chief as he
that doth minister."

The points to be explained are that Matthew and Luke,
in (i), (amid many differences) substitute " great(est) " for
Mark's " first," and reject Mark's " desireth."

(a) (Mk.) "first"

[429 (i)] Jesus was probably alluding to the prediction
about Jacob and Esau (Gen. xxv. 23), applied by St. Paul
to the law of divine election, " Rab shall serve Zoer," which
is generally translated, " the elder shall serve the younger."

There is an ambiguity in the Hebrew of this famous
saying.^ The word Rab here rendered " elder " is the root
of " Rabbi," and means " great," " master," " ruler," etc. It

^ W. and H. marg. iaTw.

''■ Apart from other ambiguities — as there is no article and no sign of the
accusative, and the object in Hebrew poetry may precede the verb — the meaning
might be, apart from the context, "Zoer shall serve Rab."

142

OF MARK [429]

is nowhere else translated " elder." ^ Also, the word rendered
"younger (Ti;^)," ^ means literally "contracted," "small,"
and hence, sometimes, "brought low," "despised," "insigni-
iicant." It might therefore be used of " inferiors " or
"servants." Hence, from the Hebrew point of view, the
saying in Genesis might be taken to mean — apart from the
context about Jacob and Esau — "The great, or high, shall
serve the little, or low."

Again, in the Greek rendering of the words from
Genesis, " the greater (o fiei^av) " may mean either the
greater in power, or the greater in age^ Moreover the
Greek word {eKdatrcov) rendered " younger," is not alleged to
mean ^^ younger'' {when used absolutely) in any passage of
Greek literature except here and in the Epistle to the Romans
where the prediction is quoted.^ Consequently a Greek
reader would naturally interpret the Septuagint of Gen.
XXV. 2 3 as meaning " The greater shall serve the less!'

' [429 (i) oi] In Job xxxii. 9, however, where R.V. renders D"m (parall. to
D'Jpl "aged") "great," LXX has ToXvxpinoi., "abundant in days." Buhl gives
an as "major natu" in Gen. xxv. 23 and the pi. as "grandaevi" in Job xxxii. 9.

In New Heb. nan and nn="elder" as well as "great" (see Levy sub voc,
who quotes, "Who is greater (nn), the teacher of the Borajtha or the teacher of
the Gemara.?").

^ [429 (i) b\ The verb nys is rendered in Job xiv. 21 (R.V.) " brought-low," but
LXX "become little (or, few)," SKl-^oi yiywyrai.. In Jer. xxx. 19 (R.V.) "I will
multiply them and they shall not be few, I will also glorify them and they shall
not be small" (LXX iXaTTOiBainv) the context indicates that "small" means the
opposite of "glorious." In Jer. xiv. 3, the adj. Tyx is rendered by R.V. txt.
" little-ones," but marg. " inferiors," LXX " their young-men {roifs veuripovs airdv)."

' [429 (i) <^] "Greater (jielj^up)" (Tromm.) occurs less than twenty times, in
any sense, in LXX. It = "older" (8). When meaning "older," it never=an,
except in the above-quoted Gen. xxv. 23. The ambiguity of "great {n^yas)"
may be illustrated by Gen. xxxviii. 11, 14, Exod. ii. II, where "become great
{/i4yas yeviaBoj.)" means "grow up,'' compared with Exod. xi. 3 where the same
Greek means "become powerfiil, or eminent."

Another Greek word to express "older" would be irpeffpirepos. But as this
means also ' ' elder " (comp. ' ' Presbyter ") it might introduce ambiguity of another
kind : Trpeff/Siirepos in LXX mostly means an Elder or Ruler.

* Rom. ix. 12, where Wetstein quotes several instances of the Latin use of
"minor" to mean "younger," but none of iX&aawv. L.S. make no mention of
such a use, and do not quote Gen. or Rom.

143

[429] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

[429 (ii)] The word " serve " in the context affords an
additional possibility of ambiguity. Besides being liable to be
confused (as other Hebrew verbs are) with its causative form
(" make to serve "), this particular verb is sometimes used, in
the active form, with the preposition " with," to mean " serve-
oneself -with" i.e. "employ for service," i.e. cause to serve. The
prediction in Genesis that the Israelites should " serve " the
Egyptians is mistranslated by the LXX " cause to serve "
(the Egyptians being taken as the causers) and the mistake
is reproduced in Stephen's speech in the Acts.^

[429 (iii)] Philo, in his comment (extant in Latin), on
the Esau-Jacob prediction,^ takes it as indicating that, in
every human being, vice exists before virtue, but is ulti-
mately dominated by the latter. Josephus gives a different
explanation. His account of the prediction is, that, of the
two nations, " that which seemed to be the less would take
precedence of the greater," meaning that Israel, though at
first seeming to be less powerful than Edom, would
ultimately predominate.^ There could be no question of
" seeming " as to precedence in time. It may be there-
fore assumed that he takes Zoer to mean " less," and
it is a reasonable inference that he takes Rab not to
mean " elder " but " greater." Immediately afterwards he
calls Esau " the elder {irpea-^vrepov)," and Jacob " the younger
(yewTepov)."

[429 (iv)] The difficulty of interpreting the prediction

^ Gen. XV. 13 "shall serve them," LXX "enslave them,'' SovXdirovinv aiiroit
(Acts vii. 6 S. airrb). The idiom " serve-oneself with " is paraphrased in Lev, xxv.
39 (lit.) "thou shalt not serve-thyself in him (with) the -service -of a servant,"
LXX "he shall not serve thee with the service of a house-servant." In Jer. xxv.
14 (R.V.) "shall serve themselves of," marg. '■'have served themselves, or, made
bondmen,^'' LXX om., but Q marg. has iSaiXivsav iv airois. In all these cases,
"serve " = i2y.

^ Quaest. Gen. iv. § 157 (P. A. 366), "Bonum . . . serotinum et adventicium,
pravitas ab infantia pene consistit, sed tamen regitur a iuveniore " (see 430<z). In
i. 105 he quotes the LXX without indicating his interpretation of the words
"greater" and "less."

' Joseph. Anf. i. 18. I tov Si tielt^ovos irporreprlt(Tea/ rb SokoOv (Xaffffov elvai.

144

OF MARK [429]

" [the] great[er] {Rab) shall serve [the] little " is increased by
the preceding words, " \^The one] people shall be stronger than
{the other] people." Is " [the one] people " Edom ? But
Edom did not become "stronger." To make sense, one
may say " at first stronger " ; but then fairness may seem
to demand that we should also say "shall at first serve."

There is a Talmudic tradition that Rab was Jacob, not
Esau, and that Edom signified Rome : " Two nations. This
means two lords ; out of Jacob will descend Rabbi, who will
be a prince, a lord over the Jews : and out of Esau will
descend Antoninus, who will be a king over (the children of)
Esau." ^ Startling as this interpretation is, it has reason
on its side so far as this, that it takes Rab as "great"
which it does mean, and not as "elder," which it never
means (except conjecturally here). Taking " great " to
mean "really great," the Talmudist regards the words as
predicting that Israel, though really great, shall be subjected
to Rome, which, in spite of its material greatness, might be
called by a Jew really "little."^

[429 (v)] Coming to Christian interpretation, we find
St. Paul in one passage evidently taking " the greater " as
having once meant Esau : but he goes on to apply the
prediction so as to suggest that now it means Israel after
the flesh, i.e. the Church of the Pharisees, great in its own
estimation, but made inferior to " Israel after the spirit," i.e.
to the despised Church of Christ.^ Similarly Luke's Gospel,

" Rabbinical Commentary on Genesis, P. A. Hershon, Hodder and Stoughton,
1885 (p. 153). The same author in The Pentateuch according to the Talmud,
Bagster and Sons, 1883 (p. 359) says " Read not d'u nations, but q"j men. (The
Massorah gives the latter reading.) These are Rabbi (compiler of the Mishnah)
and Antoninus (the emperor of Rome, which the Rabbis identify with
Edom . . .)."

2 Comp. the saying of the Egyptian priest in Plato (Timaeus § 3 p. 22 b) to
the Greek visitor, "You Greeks are always children." If Rab was interpreted as
Israel some might regard the prediction as fulfilled in the bowing down of Jacob
and his children to Esau (Gen. xxxiii. 8) : but in that case the words (Gen. xxvii.
40) "thou shalt shake his yoke from off thy neck," would seem to suit Jacob
better than Esau. " Rom. ix. 12-31.

10 14s

[429] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

in the parable of the Prodigal Son, appears to find in "the
elder brother" a type of Israel after the flesh, i.e. the Church
of the Pharisees.^

[429 (vi)] That Jesus had in view here this ancient
prediction of Genesis is made probable by the following
considerations : ( i ) the rarity of the word " greater," and
especially of this contrast between " the greater " and " the
less " in the Bible ; (2) the important part necessarily played
by this remarkable prophecy in all Jewish discussions about
" the greater " and " the less," which may reasonably be
supposed to have been frequent ; ^ (3) the variations of
the synoptists (" first/' " greatest," " chief," " last," " minister,"
" youngest "), which point to the ambiguous words in Genesis.
To these may be added the fact that (4), in Matthew's
version, there appears to be a preparation for an allusion
to the prediction about Rab, in a preceding mention of
Rabbi : " Be not ye called Rabbi . . . but he that is Rab
among you . . ."

[429 (vii)] We are now in a position to understand why
Mark, in both his versions of Christ's doctrine on the greater
and the less, used the word " first " to denote " the greater."
As Josephus, in his paraphrase of the prediction, used the
verb " to be tke first {TrpoTepelv)" so Mark, in his paraphrase,
used the adjective " first " to express a difficult and disputed
term connected by many with the word "elder," which
implied " first-born." An accidental coincidence in the
Greek context of the passage in Genesis might help to
induce Mark to employ this word. It happens that, in
Genesis, immediately after being called " (the) great (one),"
Esau is called " the first," rendered by the Septuagint " first-
born." Mark may have similarly rendered " Rab " here

' Lk. XV. 25-32.

' Beside the two synoptic passages quoted above, comp. Mt. xi. 11 (Lk. vii.
28) about John the Baptist than whom none is "greater" among those "born
of women," but "the less (or, least) in the kingdom of heaven is greater
than he."

146

OF MARK [431]

freely " first," while Matthew and Luke have preferred the
Septuagint rendering " greater " or " elder." ^

(/3) {Mk.) "desiretk" omitted {in {{)) by Mt. and Lk.

[430] It was shown in Clue (164) that Matthew's
" desirest to be perfect " was probably in accordance with
the Hebrew (lit.) " is it in thy mind to become," which was
misunderstood by Mark. So here the original seems to
have been, " a man in-whose-mind-it-is to be great." This
might easily be confused with " a man in whose mind is
greatness,'' i.e. who is by nature great.^

(7) Ambiguity of " shall be "

[431 (i)] Mark, as it stands ("he shall, or will, be
last "), is liable to be completely misunderstood as
though the words conveyed a warning that any one
aiming at being first shall be punished by being
degraded to be last. This arises from the fact that, in
Hebrew, " he shall be " may be either (i) a prediction " he
will be," or (ii) a warning " he shall be," or (iii) an exhorta-
tion "he must be, should be." Moreover "be" may mean
" become." Matthew and Luke, who regard the words not
as the statement of a spiritual law but as a precept, agree in
substituting the second person, " you," for the third, " any
man." Luke also introduces the hortative " let him become."

^ [429 (vii) a\ Gen. xxv. 25 "and ihR first (puiKin) came forth red," i)(!)K9ai
di 6 vlbs 6 TrpurrdTOKos irvppaKris. This is the only instance where the Hebrew
"first" (owing to special context) is rendered "first-born son."

^ [430«] " Desire (iiik)," when preceded by -3, is confiised in Hosea a. 10
(AQ) with wa, in l S. xxiii. 20 with nn, in Mic. vii. i with .tin. It might easily
be confiised with Aram. n'H (Heb. i!»)=iirdpx"'') ^ word used in Lk. ix. 48.

Philo (Quaest. Gen. iv. § 157 (P.A. 366)) says, somewhat obscurely, "pravitas
, . . regitur a iuveniore, non temporis lege, sed naturae." Does this mean that
vice is dominated by virtue, the younger, not by the law of this world (temporis =
aiucos) but by the law of [divine] nature, i.e. virtue is by nature the " first -bom,"
or " greater," and entitled to rule?

147

[431] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

All the variations indicate two translations from a Hebrew
original, of which Mark alone has twice (Matthew once)
recorded one detail (the " desiring ") ; but Luke (in his
second version) has most clearly brought out the hortatory-
purpose.

(8) Christ's meaning

[431 (ii)] John's narrative of the washing of the feet
of the disciples by Jesus had perhaps, beside other and
far higher objects, that of clearing up misunderstandings
concerning Christ's answer to the question " Who [is] the
greatest ? " ^

This resembles the question " Who is the strongest ? "
discussed in Esdras,^ and may well have been an old and
familiar one in Hebrew literature. In Christ's time, the
Rabbi — that is, the " great '' or " strong " one — was perhaps
the most powerful influence in Judaea. " Rab ". was more
powerful among the Jews than Rome, and the rule of the
former seemed to some of Christ's countrymen the type of
God's rule. To Jesus it did not seem so. Going back to
the very first passage in which the epithet Rab is applied to
man, He takes an old and obscure tradition, capable of being
narrowed to immoral conclusions, and spiritualises it, or
creates it anew, as He created anew the rule of " an eye for
an eye." He says, in effect, " Be not ye called Rab among
men ; but if ye would be Rab in the sight of God, make
yourselves servants of Zoer. The way to become great is
to make yourselves little."

^ Mk. ix. 34 rii /lell^uv. But D has " Who if io becovie {yivriTai) the greatest of
them," SS. "Who sAould be greatest?" Mk. omits "is." Mt. xviii. i (ris &pa.
Ii^l^ijiv iarUi i) inserts "is," as though the meaning were, "Who is really
greatest ? " and that this is his view is confirmed by the fact that he adds' " in the
kingdom of heaven.''

Lk. ix. 46 has tIs hv etri ii-d^uv, "as to who might be the greatest."
^ I Esdr. iii. J-iv. 40, introduced by the words, " Let us each utter a discourse
[as to] who might be strongest" (6s iTepia-xiaei).

148

OF MARK

[433]

Mk. ix. 50.

"(%) Salt is good;
but, if the salt be-
come saltless, where-
with will ye flavour it?
ia^ Have in your-
selves salt and (a^) be
at peace with one
another."

§ 46. "Salt"

Mt. v. 13.

"Ye are the salt
of the earth; but, if
the salt become m-
sipid [lit. foolish],
wherewith shall it be
salted ? "

Lk. xiv. 34.

"Salt therefore is
good; but, if even
{koX) the salt become
insipid [lit. foolish],
wherewith shall it be
flavoured ? "

(i) {Mk.-Lk.) " good" : Lk. adds " therefore " : {Mt)"ye are"

[432] The use of the second person in Matthew (" ye "),
and its omission in Luke, who inserts " therefore," may be
explained from the fact that a Hebrew word meaning
" therefore " not only resembles, but is actually confused
with, a form of " to you," which may mean " [belonging] to
you." In one passage of Zechariah the Authorised Version
has " you," where the Revised Version has " Verily " (the
same Hebrew word as " therefore "). In the recovered
Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus, where the text has " to you "
(omitted by the Septuagint), the Editors suggest " therefore."
In Isaiah, " therefore have I called " is rendered by the
Septuagint " announce to them" and " to them " is
frequently confused with " to you." ^

[433] The next point to be considered is Mark's " good,"
adopted also by Luke. As a working hypothesis, suppose the
Original to have been " Ye have the salt," literally, " To-you
[is] salt." If "to you" (DiS) gave rise to a variant "there-

1 [432a] Zech. xi. 7, Sir. xlvi. 8, Is. xxx. 7 (LXX leg. mS) : dd^) = " to you,"
p^ = "therefore," besides meaning fem. "to you": p="well," or "good
(433)," KoKws, which in many MSS. would be written koXos. This might be
corrected to xaXa, i.e. KoXbv. In Ruth i. 13 "therefore (|nt>) " is twice rendered
"them" by LXX; and comp. Mk. iv. 24 "And he began to say to them.
Beware what ye hear," with Lk. viii. 18 " Beware therefore how ye hear."

149

[434] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

fore" (pb), a word frequently mistranslated in LXX, a
third variant may have been p. This word could not mean
" good " in the ordinary predicative sense ; but it means
" right," and is frequently used in the phrase " rightly said,"
" well said." Once it is used in O.T. absolutely, without
" said," to mean " Right ! " " True." In Greek, as in English,
this might be expressed by " Good ! " (/taXw?).^ Among
various interpretations of this difficult passage, one may have
erroneously substituted " good " (p) for " to you," so as to
convert " To you is salt " into " Good is salt." But, as will
be seen below, the process may have been reversed. " Good "
may have been corrupted into " to you.'' Or " good " and
" to you " may both be additions intended to complete what
seemed to be incomplete sense.

(ii) Probable corruption in Mark's context

[434] Luke omits the whole of the preceding discourse
in Mark about " cutting off " any member that causes a man
" to stumble." Matthew condenses the discourse, omitting a
passage (immediately preceding the passage under discussion),
part of which is apparently quoted from the last verse of
Isaiah, (Mk. ix. 48-9) " Where their worm dieth not, and
the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted
with fire."

There is an antecedent presumption that any passages
of Mark omitted by one or both of the later Synoptists
appeared to the latter corrupt, obscure, or erroneous. And
certainly these words are extremely obscure, and abrupt,
apparently bringing together two kinds of fire, that of
Gehenna, and that of " salt," without clearly distinguishing
between them. Moreover, Codex D reads " Every sacrifice

' [433a] Josh. ii. 4 R.V. "Yea (p),'\Gesen. Oxf. "Right!" A.V. "thus,"
LXX oiTois X^7oi«ro. Comp. Rom. xi. 20 " Thou wilt say then, 'Branches . . .
that I might be grafted in.' Well (/caXiSs)," for which Delitzsch has mn p.
Wetst. ad loc. indicates that koXws was adopted as a Jewish word.

ISO

OF MARK [434]

shall be salted with salt," and the Arabic Diatessaron
conflates this with Mark's text, which itself, as will be seen
below, appears to contain conflations. It has also been
-shewn (289«) that tON, "fire," may be easily confused with
ntON, " sacrifice " ; and both are easily confused with m"'M, or
©13M, " man," ^ which may be latent under Mark's " Every one."
The classical passage about the salting of sacrifices
prescribed that Israel should always salt them. This was
expressed literally in the words " Thou shalt not cease, lit.
cause to-resi, or, keep-Sabbath, to salt." Schottgen quotes a
Jewish tradition that replied to the question, what kind of
salt must be used for the salting of sacrifice, by quoting the
Levitical precept and by concluding that it must be " salt
that did not rest on the Sabbath," that is, salt from the
Dead Sea.^ Ezekiel also speaks of " salting " as following
washing, in the case of a newly -born child.^ The meta-
phorical use of " salt " appears to have existed in New
Hebrew proverbs as well as in Greek and Latin : a youth
was called " salted " when he was " quick-witted " ; bene-
ficence was said to be the " salt " of wealth : and in the
proverb, " Discard salt and throw the flesh to the dog," the
" salt " is said to have meant the soul.* It is therefore
antecedently probable that Christ's doctrine might include
some reference to the positive and ever-present purification
with the salt of the Spirit as distinct from the negative
purification of " cutting off." But if Mark's Original ex-
pressed this, it has been so corrupted and obscured in the
earliest Greek Gospel that the later Synoptists have partly,
or wholly, omitted it.^

' Comp. Sir. vii. 17 "the hope of man (ijii:n) [is the] worm," LXX, "the
vengeance on the impious \is\firt {Affepovs irOp) and worm " (leg. vs pn).

* Lev. ii. 13, Schottg. (i. 19-20, on Mt. v. 13).

' Ezek. xvi. 4. ' Levy, s.v. n'^D, vol. iii. pp. 126-7.

° [434a] Mk.'s words " their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched" are
from Is. Ixvi. 24. The reason why Mt. omits them may be that they were an
early gloss added to explain or emphasize the meaning of " Gehenna."

[434i5] As regards the original of Mk.'s "salted," it may be noted that,

[435] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

(iii) The Original

[435] There are difficulties in the way of accepting the
present text of Matthew as representing the Original. In
the first place, is it likely that if Jesus called the disciples
the salt of the world, Mark and Luke would omit such words
while giving their context? Then, too, if "salt" means
"the Spirit," would it not be much more likely that the
disciples should be said to have the Spirit than to be the
Spirit ? It may be objected that Matthew's version proceeds
to call the disciples " the light of the world," and, if light,
why not " salt " ? But the former may be as erroneous as
the latter. According to John, Christ is " the light of the
world " : and the Christian doctrine is that we have Him as
our light, or, at most, that we are " lights (c^wcrT^pe?) "
(Phil. ii. 15), but never that we are " the light (jo ^w?)."
Antecedently, then, we should rather expect the Gospel to
say something to this effect, " Have ye (or, Ye have^ the salt ?
Then beware lest it lose its savour. Have ye (or. Ye have^
the light ? Then let your light shine before men." Yet, if
this was in the Original, why should it have been corrupted,
the thought, the words, and the construction, being all per-
fectly clear and simple ? We have therefore to consider the
possibility of another Original.

In Proverbs, the Hebrew " is (tt)"') " is often used to express
the existence of something good as far as it goes but leaving
room for something better, e.g. (Prov. xx. 15)" There is gold
and the abundance of rubies ; but the lips of knowledge are
a precious jewel." The word is also used to emphasize

although in the words peculiar to himself (" Every one shall be salted") he uses
the verb-form of "salt," yet in the next verse, where Mt. has "salted" he has
"flavoured." The word pj is frequently used of " preparing " or "setting" the
heart, for the service of God (2 Chr. xii. 14, xix. 3, xxx. 19) and also Zeph. i. 7
of " preparing " a sacrifice. If this was the Hebrew original of " salted " in Mk.
ix. 49, coming as it does just before the word "good" in Mk. ix. 50, it suggests
that [13 and p may have been confused together.

152

OF MARK [436]

existence. In three instances where the Hebrew has simply
" there is " {e.g. Prov. xxiii. 1 8 " there is a reward," and see
Prov. xxiv. 1 4 and Job xi. 1 8), the LXX inserts " for thee"
or " of thee!' May not the Editors of the Hebrew Gospel or
the Greek translators have similarly made additions here?
Taking " salt is " as an incomplete sentence, some may have
added " good," meaning " good as far as it goes " ; others
" ye," meaning " ye are the salt " ; others " to you," meaning
" ye have," or " have ye " ; and out of some of these marginal
suggestions might spring the reading " therefore."

The details of the Original must be left matters of con-
jecture ; but, in addition to the possibilities of confusion
above-mentioned between p, ph, and D3^, the mention of »•>
suggests another possibility of error, namely, that a\ "is,"
may have been read by some as nw, " right," once rendered
by the LXX " good («a\o?)," Mark's word here. The final
impression left by all these considerations is that the three
Evangelists are dealing with one Hebrew Original, variously
interpreted.^

(iv) " 0/ the earth "

[436] Was this a part of the Original or inserted by
Matthew? Probably it is an insertion, as also "of the
world" is in what follows ("ye are the light of the world"')
— the addition being made for definiteness, in each case.^

^ It should be added that in Greek, as well as in Hebrew, "ye \are\ the salt "
could easily spring from a corruption of "ye have" lit. " to you [there is]." In
Greek, "ye [are]" might be YAMC (i.e. i/iels), and "ye have" might be yMl (i.e.
A/uv), In Heb. "ye are" might be q3is'', and "ye have" (written as one word)
D3^>e". Neither of these corruptions is improbable, but the probability of either is
diminished if it must be supposed to be repeated in Mt. v. 14 "ye are the light."
Hence it becomes more easy to suppose that Mt. added "ye are" from inference
as the LXX added "to thee" or "of thee" in Prov. xxiii. l8 quoted above and
in Prov. xxiv. 14, Job. xi. 18.

2 [436a] Mt. V. 14 "of the world (koV/hw)." The words should probably
run, "Ye have the light of the world. A beacon (ni) set on a hill cannot be
hid" : Ty, "city," has been substituted for -a, "beacon," as it has been for (Is.
xxxii. l8, xxxiii. 20) n«, for (Nahum ii. 6) in:, for (Josh. xv. 10, 2 K. xxiii. 16, 2
Chr. xxi. II, Is. Ixvi. 20) in, and for (2 S. viii. 11) •« (Tromm.).

[437] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Similarly, although the Psalmist uses the phrase " from
the beginning" absolutely, Matthew (according to R.V. and
some of the best MSS.) has "from the beginning (or,
foundation) of the world" when actually quoting from the
Psalm. In another passage, all the MSS. of Matthew have
" from the beginning of the world!' ^

(v) Signs of conflation in Mark

[437] In whatever way Matthew's tradition " ye are the
salt " came into existence — whether as an integral part of,
or as a corruption from, the Original Gospel — it has been
shewn to be easily interchangeable, either through Greek or
through Hebrew corruption, with " ye have salt," or " have
ye salt." ^ But it has also been shewn that " ye have salt "
might be confused with '' salt is good." It follows that " ye
are the salt," "have ye salt," and "salt is good," may be
three versions of one Original : and the last two (both of
which occur in Mark at a slight interval) may be conflations.

Instead, however, of simply saying " Have salt," Marie
says " Have salt in yourselves" meaning that the source of
purification is not to be external but internal, the Spirit
dwelling in the heart. This also implies a " salting " not at
stated intervals but constantly going on, one that — according
to the Jewish tradition above (434) quoted — " does not rest
on the Sabbath."

But this is a metaphor. What is the prose precept

' Mt. xiii. 35 airh Kwra-^oVrp Kocrfiov : a quotation from Ps. Ixxviii. 2 (LXX
&r' dpxvs), where the Heb. and LXX omit "of the world." Most MSS. of Mt.
omit Kb<riJ.ov, but DL insert it. Mt. xxv. 34 has i-irb /taTO;8oXijs K&(r/U)V. Mt.
xxiv. 21 has Kbaiiov where the parall. Mk. has Krlaeus.

^ " Have ye salt " might be taken interrogatively as meaning " if ye have salt,"
or imperatively. If b" was in the Original, it could not rightly be translated so as
to have an imperative meaning. But the LXX occasionally renders it by the
future, and the future might be taken by a Greek Evangelist as having an
imperative force. Instances of »< rendered by LXX iarax occur in Numb. ix.
20, 21, Prov. xix. 18, xxiii. 18, xxiv. 14 (in Numb. ix. 20, 21, Prov. xxiv. 14, the
Heb. is preceded by i)-

IS4

OF MARK [437]

implied in " Have salt in yourselves (eV eavrol^) " ? If " salt "
means the Spirit that Christ bequeathed to His disciples,
does not this imply " peace " (" Peace I leave with you, my
peace I give unto you ") ? Hence Mark's words seem to
lead directly to the words in the Colossian Epistle (iii. 15),
" Let the peace of Christ arbitrate {fipa^evera) in your hearts."
But is this '' peace " mere internal calm, so that the " arbitra-
tion " is merely between one desire and another in a single
heart ? The Colossian letter suggests that " the peace of
Christ " means more than this, and has a collective aspect,
for it continues, " to which [peace] also ye were called in one
body,'' and this is implied in the Ephesian letter, bidding us
(iv. 3) " keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

A direct prose version of Mark's " Have salt in your-
selves" would be " Have peace in yourselves." But this
would be ambiguous. It might mean " Have peace, each
man in his own heart, independently of external things or
persons." But it might also mean, and, as a fact, it does
mean in the first epistle to the Thessalonians (v. 13
eiprfveveTe iv eavTol<i) " Have peace with one another." The
ambiguity of the words in that epistle has caused some to
read " them (awroi?) " for " yourselves (eavrot?)." The
prospect of ambiguity here has probably caused Mark to
substitute for " in yourselves " the unambiguous " along with
one another (Jl€t aKKrjKav) " : but it appears to have been
originally " have peace in yourselves," and to have been a
marginal explanation of the words " have salt in yourselves."
If that is the case, the precept about peace (as well as the
precept about salt) is part of a conflation, and its omission
by Matthew and Luke becomes intelligible.

(vi) {Mk.) " saltless," (Mt.-Lk.) " insipid" {lit. •' made foolish ")

[437 (i)] This divergence is exactly illustrated by a
passage in Ezekiel, where Aquila has Mark's word " saltless,"

155

[438]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

but two other MSS. severally '^ folly" and "unprepared."
The Hebrew word is rare, and means "something to be spit
out (because it has lost its virtue or essence)." ^

46 (a). {Mt.—Lk.) "it came to pass''

Mk. X. I.

" And thence hav-
ing arisen he-cometh
into the boundaries
of Judaea and be-
yond the Jordan."

. . Galilee "

Lk. xvii. II.

" And it-came-to-
pass ^ in [his] going to
Jerusalem, (lit.) and
he was going through
the midst of Samaria
TixiAoi Galilee."^

Mt. xix. I.

"And it-came-to-
pass ^ when Jesus had
finished all these
words, he removed
from Galilee and
came into the bound-
aries of Judaea be-
yond the Jordan."

[438 (i)] The threefold parallelism here is so obscure
that it may very reasonably be disputed. The words in
Mark follow the doctrine about "salt." But those in
Matthew do not. Moreover, the words in Luke are not
parallel in arrangement to those in Mark or in Matthew,
and differ in substance from both. The following remarks,
therefore, do not aim at demonstrating the similarity between
Matthew and Luke to be of the nature of an "agreement"
with a Corrector : but they may be of use in considering
other passages where " Galilee " occurs in the Synoptists.

[438 (ii)] The identity of so many consecutive words
in Mark and Matthew — " the boundaries of Judaea [and]
beyond the Jordan," an expression that occurs here alone
in the New Testament — makes it almost certain that these
two writers, at all events, are referring to the same event.
And one probable cause of their difference from one another

' [437 (i) o] Ezek. xiii. 10, 14, 15 " untemfered" Cyan), LXX (leg. as from Ssi
' ' fall ") (thrice) Treo-cirai. Aqu. 6,vaKov, Q. i<l>po(rir>ii, Q. marg. duapTirij). Comp.
2 S. xxii. 27 (^>Bn) with parall. Ps. xviii. 26 Crns).

° " It came to pass." For these words, see 438 (v) e,

* R.V. Marg. "between Samaria and Galilee." The MSS. vary between
Sid, iU(rov, Sih lUaov, and /iiffov.

156

OF MARK [438]

can be readily indicated. "Galilee" means "region," or
"surrounding country." It has been shown to have been
probably (128-9) conflated by Mark as " («i) tlu surrounding
country of (oj) GaUUe" and by Luke in a passc^e in which he
speaks, first, of Jesus going " into Galilee" and then of His
fame going forth '' in the whole of the surrounding country."
It was also shown (128) that, in Joshua, "tlte region about
Jordan " {A.Y. " borders of Jordan ") was rendered by the
LXX " Galaad of Jordan," and by Codex Alexandrinus
" GaUloth of Jordan.^ Moreover, as regards Isaiah's prophecy
about " Galilee of the nations," it was pointed out that R.V.
has, in the margin, " district," instead of " Galilee." Now
Mark's Greek word " boundaries " may be used here, or at
all events might be naturally supposed to be used here, for
"parts," "district,"' or " territorj." - And it happens that
the Hebrew for "boundary" is very similar to the Hebrew
for " circle " or " Galilee," and that the two are actually
confused once by the LXX.* Hence Matthew may have
taken Mark's "boundaries" to mean "r^on," which he
interpreted as " Galilee." Then, since " into Galilee " seemed
to make no sense, he might take " in^^to) " as " from " — a
most frequent (371, 444 ^i. 516) error — thus obtaining
"Jroni Galilee." This he may have conflated with Mark's
own tradition " into the boundaries of Judaea."

[438 (iii)] In considering what may have been an
original Hebrew version we have to give weight to the

' Josh. xxiL II. It m^^ht have been added that in Josh. xxiL lo, the same
Hebrew is rendered by LXX " Galgaia of Jordan" (A " Galiloth").

' [438 (ii) «] See Swete's note on Mk. x. I : "ThSpia t. 'I., not the fiontieT
only (as Oi^en in Mt. oftc ^»i t4 lUaa, dXX' oioret tA ixpa) but the re^on as a
whole : cC vii. 24." This is perhaps not quite certain. The meaning alSpta. in
Mk. viL z^ is doubtiiil. But in view of the doable meaning of Spia in LXX
(=Vai) it is fairly probable hoe that it means not '' ontskiits," bnt "territory."

' [438 (ii) *] Jost- 5=™- - "regions (rS"-:'," ipta. (leg. nVoj). The early
Christian use of "Galilee" may haTe been inflaenced by the feet that (Ency.
BETHSAIDA) "by 84 a.d. the east coast vras definitely attached to the pro-
vince." The east coast may have been popularly called Galilee before that date.

[438] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS i

^

influence of prophecy in shaping the narrative of the earliest
Christian Evangelists. It was shown above (159) that
Mark's inclusion of " Idumaea " in the names of districts
that sent disciples to Christ, was probably caused by a
prophecy of Amos. Now the present passage in Mark is
the only one in which he describes Jesus as visiting the
region " beyond Jordan" But this phrase occurs in a well-
known prophecy of Isaiah (expressly quoted by Matthew)
predicting that the light of the Gospel is to reach " by the
way of the sea, beyond Jordan, the region (or, Galilee) of the
nations." Antecedently, it is probable that Mark had that
prophecy in his mind. But, if he had, he may have been
influenced by the remarkable fact that the best MSS. of
the LXX (after the word " nations ") make the following
addition, possibly intended as a conflation : " the parts of
Judaea." ^

[438 (iv)] Whether this is a conflation or not, this
Isaiah -passage affords an explanation of the variations
between Mark and Matthew, on the supposition that the
original contained the words of Isaiah, "beyond Jordan the
region of the nations." Mark may have taken this as
meaning " the parts beyond Jordan and the region of the
people [of God]," i.e. of Judaea. Matthew, conflating, may
have taken " region of the nations " to mean, in one clause,
"Galilee," in the other, "region of Judaea."

[438 (v)] As for Luke — if we are to discuss his possible
parallelism — we have to bear in mind (117) that, like the
author of Esdras, he never uses the ambiguous phrase
" beyond Jordan." In Isaiah's prophecy, he may have
interpreted the phrase as referring to the western side of

1 Is. ix. I, BPnAQ add rb. /iiprj rijs 'lovdalas. The sing, "nation" is not
often applied to Israel, and the pi. never, so that it is difficult to suppose that
"the district of t&e nations" was taken to mean "the region of the people [of
Israel]," i.e. Judaea, and conflated. But it is also difficult to suppose that so many
good MSS. added the clause for the mere purpose of amplifying the prophecy,
without any justification, or appearance of justification, in the text.

158

OF MARK [438]

Jordan, so that the words meant " by the way of the
\^Mediterraneaii\ sea, to the west of Jordan, Galilee of the
nations " ^ — in effect, simply, the whole of Galilee up to
Tyre and Sidon. The conflicting versions of Mark's obscure
tradition might be taken by Luke as signifying that Jesus,
in His final journey, ministered to " Galilee of the nations
and to the people that walked in darkness." But whom
could he regard as designated by the latter title more
suitably than the Samaritans ? Matthew's version of the
Mission of the Twelve forbade the disciples to go "into
the way of the nations " or enter " into any city of tke
Samaritans'' Luke, who mentions the latter more fre-
quently and more favourably than Matthew, might be ready
to adopt a version of Isaiah's prophecy that described Jesus
as journeying, towards the end of His course, among
Galilaeans and Samaritans.^ This, however, is conjectural.

^ Luke never follows Mk. in calling the sea of Galilee "sea." In Lk. it is
always "lake." Mt. says that Jesus (iv. 13-15) "came and dwelt in Capernaum
which-is-by-the-sea (ttjv vapa6a\acr<rLav) . . . that it might be fulfilled . . . ' iAe.
way of the sea beyond Jordan.'" Lk., without quoting the prophecy, implies it
when he includes among the people that came to Jesus the inhabitants of (Lk.
vi. 17) "the sea coast (t^s TrapaXiou) of Tyre and Sidon." Apparently, Luke
would not have admitted that " Capernaum " fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy ; but Tyre
and Sidon did. The former was merely "the way of the lake " ; the latter, " the
way oithe sea."

"^ [438 (v) a] SS has "passed between the Samaritans and the Galilaeans."
Could an original "between ()>3)" be confused with "sons of ('ja)" so as to
produce " between the sons of Samaria" («'.«. between the Samaritans) as a confla-
tion ? Luke's words have caused scribes and commentators great difficulty, and
it seems strange that he should have used the ambiguous 5i& lUaov (or lUaov) when
/nfTttJi) was open to him (Mt. xxiii. 35, Lk. xi. 51). Possibly Luke may have
conflated "boundaries" as "(aj) boundaries of (a^) Galilee," and then may have
inferred that it meant the southern boundary of Galilee, i.e. the borders of Galilee
and Samaria. In any case the mention of Samaria suited his purpose, which
was to introduce a story about ten lepers, nine of them Jews, one a Samaritan.

[438 (v) b'\ If Lk. xvii. 11 is parallel to Mk. x. i, then the "going to Jeru-
salem" may be an inferential paraphrase of Mk.'s "arising (dcao-Tcis)," which
(in O.T.) often implies a journey of some length. Mk.'s word might indeed
possibly represent "went up {yhv) [to Jerusalem]," but dvaffi^Kot does not repre-
sent n'jj; more than four times in LXX.

[438 (v) c'\ "It came to pass . . . when he had finished . . . " is a form five

159

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

But it is something more than conjecture that the same
Hebrew is latent under Mark's " boundaries " and Matthew's
" Galilee."

§ 47. (Mk.) " with-lowring-countenancel' {Mt.-Lk?) "heard"

Mk. X. 22. Mt. xix. 22. Lk. xviii. 23.

" But he with- " But the young " But he, having

lowring- countenance v[\2x\ having heard 'Cos. heard these things,

at the saying went- [or, this] saying went- became full-of-sor-

away sorrowing." away sorrowing." row."

(i) Rarity of Mark's word

[439] Mark's word may mean " became-^&owy," or
" became-/<?z£/r2«§-." It is rendered by the latter word on
the only other occasion where it (possibly) occurs in the
New Testament, where the context Q' red and lowring")
hardly allows the former rendering. In the Septuagint it
occurs twice or thrice in Ezekiel to describe the " dismay "
of the nations over the fall of Tyre and Egypt. The

times repeated by Mt. in order to introduce, or close, an epoch in Christ's work
(Mt. vii. 28, xi. I, xiii. 53, xix. I, xxvi. I). Lk. probably retains the Hebrew "it
came to pass " for the same reason— namely, to mark a new departure. Mk. might
naturally omit it (as it is frequently omitted by the LXX in free translation) just
as he omits the Hebraic "behold" in narrative where Mt. and Lk. retain it. If
Lk. is here parallel to Mk. and Mt., this is the only passage where Mt.-Lk. may
be said to "agree" in retaining ^ivero against Mk.

[438 (v) d'\ "It came to pass when /esus had Jinished these words, the multi-
tudes were astonished," in Mt. vii. 28, may be regarded as either closing the
Sermon on the Mount, the epoch of words, or as introducing the epoch of heal-
ing, an instance of which follows immediately. The words are omitted by
Mk.-Lk. before their parallel statement about the " astonishment " of the people
(Mk. i. 22, Lk. iv. 32). Compare the close of the first book of Samuel " And
they took their bones and buried them . . . and fasted seven days."' Here the
LXX inserts (but A omits) "And it came to pass after Saul had died . . . two
days" — the sentence that opens the second book. So in 1 K. viii, 1, the LXX
(but not A) inserts "and it came to pass when he had-whoUy-finished {avveriKeaev)"
— an interpolation from i K. ix. 10. It is reasonable to infer that this Matthaean
connecting formula, or refrain, was not a part of the original Gospel in every
passage, and perhaps not in any passage, where it occurs.

160

OF MARK [440]

adjectival form of the word — besides occurring once in
Wisdom to denote the "horrible night" of the Egyptian
darkness, where it has no Hebrew equivalent — occurs once
in Daniel, where it means " angry," and once in Isaiah.^

(ii) Its use in Isaiah

[440] The last instance is important enough to be
quoted at full length : — " For the iniquity of his covetousness
was I wroth and smote him : I hid me and was wroth, and
he went [on] frowardly [lit. turning away] in the ways of
his heart." ^ But the LXX, instead of (the 2nd) " I was wroth,"
gives ^^ he was annoyed" the word used here by the three
Synoptists.^ Also, instead , of " frowardly," it has the
adjective " lowring" the word used here by Mark. Again,
by omitting " of his heart," it gives the reader the option
of supposing that the covetous man went his way literally,
as Mark says here, whereas Luke makes no mention of a
literal departure.

Isaiah's mention of " covetousness," and the assumption
throughout the context that God loved the offender, make

' Mt. xvi. 3 " lowring," Tru/jpdfei yhp <rTvyvAl^oii> 6 oipavbs : W. and H. bracket
the whole passage. "Dismay," SLc.=aae in Ezek. xxvii. 35, xxviii. 19 (A) but
B (TTevi^ovcriy, xxxii. 10. Sruv^/is is in Wisd. xvii. 5 ; Dan. ii. 12 "angry" (dji)
= LXX <rTvyv6s, Theod. iv 6vy.if.

'' Corap. Is. Ivii. 17 Si' a/iapriav Ppax6 n iXiiriiaa airbv [i.e. "I annoyed
him"— in the old sense of "annoy" — instead of "I was annoyed" ('nssp)] (cai
iirira^a airbv Kal &iri(STpe\j/a ri Trpbaunrbv /wv dx' aiiroO- Kal i\vT'fi0r] (i.e. "and
Ae was annoyed," instead of "/ was annoyed"], Kal iropeiSri a-Tvyris {i.e.
"lowring" or "gloomy," aaw, i.e. "turning away," "rebellious"], iv ra^s
oSois airov [i.e. "in Ais ways," instead of "in the ways of Ais heart" possibly
because "my, his, your, heart" often means "myself, himself, yourself," so that
the LXX took the meaning to be "his own ways"]. In LXX, Xi/7re«' means
mostly "annoy," in N.T. "grieve." The passage appears to describe the tem-
porary chastisements of Israel with allusion to the chastenings of " covetous "
Jacob. It might well apply to the typical case of a Jewish convert, at first " re-
bellious '' or " froward " (afterwards, possibly, repentant and a follower of Christ).

3 The Heb. F)sp= " wrath," the Gk. \-meiv means in LXX "annoy," in N.T.
"grieve" (see last note). The LXX might be misunderstood by Christian
evangelists.

11 161

[441] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

the passage appropriate for an early Evangelist describing
a man whom Jesus "loved," but who, for a time at all
events, " went his way with-lowring-countenance " because
" he had great possessions."

(iii) TAe original " frowardly" caused Synoptic divergences

[441] The Hebrew word (inm) above rendered "fro-
ward " occurs only six times in the Bible, and is five times
mistranslated by the LXX : {a) "returning" {b) "rejected"
(R.V. {a) and {b) " backsliding "), {c) " so as to turn away "
(R.V.) " to the rebellious he divideth," {d) " reckless audacity "
{^Y." backsliding"), {e) (the Isaiah passage) " lowring, or,
with lowring countenance."^ On the supposition that the
Original Gospel was influenced by the passage above
quoted from Isaiah, marginal alterations would be suggested
for so rare and obscure a word. Among these, the
word "hear," though not very similar, may have been
adopted by the Corrector, whom Matthew and Luke
followed.^ Or else, when the difficult word was dropped,
the participle " hearing " may have been inserted for
smoothness of connection.^

1 (a) Jer. iii. 22 imiTTpiipovTes, (b) Jer. xxxi. 22 -nTi/uji/iivri, {c) Mic. ii. 4
ToC &iro(rTpi\jiai, {d) Jer. xlix. 4 hafila. The word is obscure because it means
"turning," so that — apart from context and vowel-points — it might just as well
mean "convert" as "pervert." The same letters nniE' are regarded as Pil. and
Pul. of niE', and as meaning "convert" in Is. xlix. 5, but "pervert" in Is. xlvii.
10. But the five instances given above are placed by Mandelkern under the
heading "aversus," "rebellis," "desertor."

2 "Froward" {arvyuSs) = 22W, " hea.r " = sdb ; but d and 3 are constantly
interchanged. In Ezek. xxvii. 35, xxviii. 19, xxxii. 10, aTvyvdl^av = aoe/. Is.
lix. 16 "he wondered" {cDer) was probably taken by LXX as "heard," i.e.
perceived, KaTecrfijirec : Is. xliii. 12, "caused them io hear" was probably taken
ty LXX as "caused them to be astonied " (leg. dde'), "put them to shame,"

' [441a] Comp. 2 IC. xix. 9 (lit.) " And he heard say . . . 'He is come out to
fight against thee.' And he sent messengers . . .," with the parall. Is. xxxvii. 9
"And he heard say . . . ' He is come out to fight against thee.' And when he
heard it, he sent messengers ..." The insertion of this participle is so natural

162

OF MARK [442]

(iv) " went away" why omitted by Luke ?

[442] On this point it has been shewn that the Hebrew
of Isaiah "went ... in the ways of his heart" might justify
Luke in taking " went " metaphorically, while the Septuagint,
omitting " of his heart," might mislead Mark into supposing
that there was a literal departure. But apart from these
facts, special to the Isaiah-passage, the Greek " go," in trans-
lations from Hebrew, may always conceal the meaning of
^^ go on" i.e. " increase." Compare : —

Jonah i. 1 1 , 1 3 " The sea grew more and more tempestu-
ous," LXX " the sea went {eiropevero), and raised up waves
more."

Prov. iv. 1 8 " Shineth more and more," LXX " they go-
forward (prpoiropevovrai') and shine."

It is therefore by no means improbable that the Original
Gospel terminated the story of the Rich Ruler by saying
that "he went on and rebelled (i.e. increased in rebellion)
more and more," without mentioning his departure from the
presence of Jesus. If so, Luke (in his "full of") has
preserved a trace of the original meaning of "going on,"
or " increasing," while Mark suggests a trace of the original
" rebelling," or " frowardness."

§ 48. (Mk:) ''astonished'; {Mt.-Lk.) "heard"

The view taken in the last section (441) that Mark
interpreted as meaning "with lowring countenance" some
word that Matthew and Luke interpreted as "heard" is
confirmed by a passage that may come conveniently here, a
little out of order :

that it would require little comment but for the omission of Mk.'s rare word. It
is this omission that makes substitution more probable than insertion. Perhaps
the substitution passed through two stages ; first, naw was altered to bdu', and
then DDi? to rjaa.

163

[443] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Mk. X. 26. Mt. xix. 25. Lk. xviii. 26.

"But they were "But having >%««r(/ "But they that

above measure aston- it the disciples were heard it said."
ished, saying." exceedingly aston-

ished, saying."

[443] The Original vi^as probably (aj " they were aston-
ished with astonishment," liable to be confused with {a^
"hearing they heard." Mark took it as a^, Luke as a^:
but Luke rejected the Hebrew reduplication, as the Septua-
gint often does.

Matthew conflated a^ with half of a^. Perhaps the
other half of a^ is latent in " the disciples," i.e. " his hearers."

§ 49. (Mk) "cleft'; {Mt.-Lk) "hole"

Mk. x. 25. Mt. xix. 24. Lk. xviii. 25.

"(lit.) go-through "go-w through the "go-«Vzthroughthe

through the cleft of a /%o/i? of a needle." /%i?/i? of a needle."

needle."

[444 (i)] SS has, both in Mark and Matthew, " enter
into the hole of a needle." ^ A reasonable explanation of
this, as well as of Matthew's and Luke's agreement against
Mark, is to be found in the ambiguous Hebrew preposition
" into," or " in," which is regularly used to mean " through "
after verbs of motion.^ Hence it is sometimes impossible to

' [444 (i) a] It is possible that, in this and other cases, SS may have been
influenced by Syriac or Aramaic translations. In this or that particular instance,
Syriac may present the same ambiguity as Hebrew. In every such case the
evidence of SS in favour of a Hebrevir original is diminished. The present treatise
merely indicates such explanations as may be based on the hypothesis of a Hebrew
original, leaving it to others to determine whether in occasional instances an
Aramaic original may better explain the phenomena. '

^ [444 (i)*] Thus the preposition -3 is used Gen. xii. 6 with "pass (-Qv),"
xiii. 17 with " walk {-^n)," 2 8. xxiv. 2 with " go-to-and-fro (ti\a)," Mic. ii. 13 with
"go-out (ns')." Numb. xxxi. 23 (R.V.) "everything that may abide the fire" is
lit. " go (nu) in (-?) the fire," LXX " everything that shall go-through (SiEXeiio-erai)
in {h) the fire."

164

OF MARK [444]

tell whether a Hebrew phrase means " walk in " (i.e. up and
down in) or " walk through" or " walk into'' Hence arise
confusions in the LXX. The Hebrew " put it not in water "
is rendered " it shall not pass-through in water " ; " nor shall
the Arabian pitch tent there " is rendered " nor shall Arabians
go-through it," but by the Codex Sinaiticus ''go-in into it." ^
And in a Maccabean allusion to the words of Isaiah (xliii. 2)
about " walking in fire " (R.V. " walking through ") the same
Codex has "go-in through fire," where the others have ''go-
through through fire "—an exact parallelism to the present
Synoptic difference.^ It is quite possible that the original
was (as in SS) " go into the hole." Mark, influenced by the
thought of passing through .the " strait gate " into the King-
dom, may have adopted the rendering " go-through." The
Corrector may have partially, SS wholly, returned to the
original.

[444 (ii)] Mark's word is rendered " cleft " ^ above, be-
cause it is always connected by the Septuagint with " rocks."
It was probably avoided by some as a vulgar word. The
Codex Alexandrinus thrice corrects it in the Septuagint,
and Matthew and Luke adopt a correction of it here.^

§ so. {Mk) "a hundred-fold',' {Mt.-Lk.) "manifold"

Mk. X. 30. Mt. xix. 29. Lk. xviii. 30.

" receive a hun- " receive (W. & " receive manifold

dredfold now in this H.) manifold," (D, (D, "sevenfold") in
time (xaipm) ... "a hundredfold "), this time (KaipS),

' Jer. xiii. I " put it not in water," iv SSari oii dieXeitrerai ; Is. xiii. 20 " pitch
tent there,'' dU\8ia<riv {k elaiXBusiv els) aMiv (LXX leg. ^'?,^ by error for Snu).

" 4 Mac. xviii. 14 5ii Trupis Sii\8ris (k* elaiXB-Qs), referring to Is. xliii. 2 ihv
SiiXdigi SA (Heb. iDa) irxipbs.

' Mk. X. 25 Tpv/mKias : Mt. xix. 24, Lk. xviii. 25 Tfy/maros. TpvfwXid occurs
six times in LXX. Codex A alters it thrice (Judg. vi. 2, xv. 8, xv. 11). If the
original was from ap: or ppi, the former =(Tromm.) (4) nrpda, (2) rpviriiii,' the
latter (p'pj) = (2) rpu/iaXid. Tpijim does not occur in LXX. " Needle '= (Mk. -
Mt. ) pafpis, a word condemned by Phrynichus, (Lk. ) PeKivq.

* See Albertus' note on Hesych. rpv/iaKid, " Mox inde Venus Tpv/wXiTls dicta."

165

[445] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

with persecutions, and shall inherit and, in the age to
and, in the age to eternal life.'' come, eternal life.''

come, eternal life."

(i) {Mk:) "a hundredfold;' {Mt.-Lk:) "manifold"

[445] " A hundredfold " may have been altered to
" manifold," partly owing to various readings (since the word
is liable to corruption and is very frequently mistranslated
by the LXX in proportion to the instances of its occur-
rence) ^ ; partly to give what appeared to be the real mean-
ing, as distinct from the literal meaning which some might
press (as very ancient Christian tradition is known to have
pressed the literal meaning of a hundred, sixty, and thirty,
in the Parable of the Sower).^

(ii) Signs of mistranslation in the context

Mk. X. 29. Mt. xix. 29. Lk. xviii. 29.

"For the sake of "For the sake of "For the sake of

me and for the sake my name." the kingdom of

of the Gospel." God."

[446] The Original appears to have mentioned "giving
up for the sake of the Name (cm) " (272). The italicized

' [445a] "A hundred "= also "a hundred times "= r\m or nuD: "much,"
"exceedingly," = inc. "A hundred" occurs only twice in Ecclesiastes and is
once mistranslated; only once in Proverbs, and is there mistranslated. "A
hundredth part" occurs only once in the Bible, and is mistranslated. Compare
Eccles. viii. 12 "a hundred times (nun)" i.ich rdre (leg. ikd) : Prov. xvii. 10,
"a hundred (nun)," oix al<Te6.vcTai, probably blending the word with the following
•\h: Nehem. v. 11 "also the-hundredth-[part]-of (nno) the money, rai dirJ tow
dpyvplov, i.e. "some of the money."

In the only passages where " a hundred-fold " is correctly translated in the
Bible, the Hebrew adds the noun "times," 2 S. xxiv. 3, parallel to i Chr. xxi.
3, D'DVB ."TND (S) kKaTavTHtrKaalova,, (Chr.) iKaTOVTairXaHus.

The Greek " oftentimes (voWdxis) " does not occur in the Hebrew LXX except
(2) in Job as a corruption. JTKeov&KLi occurs in that sense thrice : but in two of
these instances, Ps. cxxix. i, 2 (bis) "many a time (nan)," R.V. marg. has
"much."

" Iren. v, 36. 2, See also Iren. v. 33. 2.

166

OF MARK [447]

words were taken by Matthew as " my name (•>Dt») "; by Luke
as " heaven (D"'D»)," which he paraphrased as " the kingdom of
God." Mark, instead of " hea^^n (q'^d©)," read a compound
of the causative of iJOtt) " proclaim (the Gospel) " and con-
flated this with the tradition adopted by Matthew (only
rendering " my name " as " me " in accordance with Greek
idiom) : " (a^) For the sake of me, and {a^ for the sake of
the Gospel" In New Hebrew, "name" is sometimes repre-
sented by MOm, and " heaven " in Daniel is frequently VCOXD,
so that the two could easily be confused.^

(i) " in \due\ time" confused with " now "

[447 (i)] Mark has " a hundredfold (a^) now, (a^ in this
time {jcatpS), houses, and brethren, . . . {a^ with persecutions,
and {(z^ in the age that is to come, life eternal." Luke
omits a^, a^, and also the explanatory list ("houses, etc.").
Matthew omits these, and also a^ and a^.

The Original probably had, not " in this time," but either
" in time," meaning " in [due] time," n»2, or, still more
probably, " in its time," which would be "in»3. This would
accord with expressions in the Epistles, which say that " we
shall reap in its (IStip) time," or " be exalted in [due] time." ^

But the noun "time (ni>)," in a longer adverbial form
(jnns), means " now." In two passages of O.T. the written
text uses the shorter form instead of the longer to mean
"now," and in other passages the LXX has confused the
two, substituting " now " for " time." The particular phrase
" in its time," being somewhat rare in the Bible, is especially
liable to corruption, so that scribes might take it as meaning

1 Schottg. i. 410 quotes d'db' di!'^ as meaning "to the glory of God." This
phrase is not so probable here as the simple nsr, Name : but it suggests possi-
bilities of confusion by dropping one of the two consecutive syllables, nit>.

^ Gal. vi. 9 " in its time (xatp^ lSt<f)," i Pet. v. 6 " in [due] time (A* Kcup^),"
where A adds " of visitation," so as to define what seemed to the scribe to be
undefined.

167

[447] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

(Uj) " now," or (a^) " in this time," or (as occurs sometimes in
O.T., and apparently here in Matthew) they might omit it
as being, if not corrupt, almost superfluous.^

(ii) " in [due] time" or, " in its time" other confusions arising

from

[447 (ii)] The Original appears to have said simply,
" He shall receive a hundredfold in its time (or, in time) even
(-"I, i.e. and) eternal life," no mention being made of " the age
to come " — the omission of which by Matthew (if it had
been a part of the Original Gospel) would have been ex-
tremely difficult to explain.

It would be a very natural error (237) to mistake the
Hebrew vaw meaning " even " for vaw meaning " and " :
thus making the sentence " He shall receive a hundredfold
. in [its] time and eternal life." Matthew, who departs least
from this, has " He shall receive a hundredfold, and eternal
life he shall inherit" perhaps implying "in [its] time" in
" inherit." Mark, having above taken " in [its] time " to
mean " in this time," now takes " and " to imply '' and in
future time," as opposed to " in this time " ; and accordingly
he inserts " in the age to come," and Luke follows him.

(iii) " with persecutions "

[447 (iii)] Mark's " with persecutions " makes excellent
sense, and no motive can be assigned for the omission of it

' [447 (i) o] In Ezek. xxiii. 43, Ps. Ixxiv. 6 the written Hebrew text has ny,
"time," for ,nny, "now" (LXX confused in both cases). In Eccles. x. 17 "in
[due] time (nya) " is rendered irp6s KaipSv, " for a time," erroneously. On the
other hand, in Sir. vi. 8 " there is one that loves/or a time (ny 'Bd) " where the
LXX should have jrp6s KupSv, it has ii> xaipQ airoS, "in his time." 2 K. v. 26
"Is it a time (nyn)" is rendered "now" (leg. nny). "In its time (inyn)" is
omitted by the LXX in Ezek. xxxiv. 26 and connected with what follows (instead
of, as the sense demands, with what precedes) in Jerem. v. 24.

Possibly (447 (ii)) Mt. does not wholly omit " in its time," but implies it in
" inherit," i.e. " receive in succession, or, in due time."

168

OF MARK [447]

except the belief that it was corrupt. In Ben Sira, xxxv.
20, " like time (nw) " is rendered by the LXX " like clouds,"
and is regarded by the Cambridge Editors as a corruption
for 33i>3, or li;3, or nnw. Conversely, here, it would be
easy to suppose that the difficulty of '\r\sl had originated,
among other glosses, i^i^l or n3S3, meaning "in, or with,
affliction," which might be paraphrased by Mark as "per-
secutions." ^

(iv) {Mk.-Mt.) " all-things" {Lk.) " our own "

Mk. X. 28. Mt. xix. 27. Lk. xviiL 28.

" Behold, we have " Behold, we have " Behold, we, hav-

left all-things.'' left all-things." ing left our-own (tA

[447 (iv)] The Original was probably, "We have left
our-home',' i.e., in Hebrew, '^ our house" The Hebrew
" house " is twice expressed in Esther by Luke's equivalent
(" his own "), and once by " all things!' In one of these

' [447 (iii) a] The only other passage where "persecution (Sh<)7/*6s)" occurs
in the Synoptists is : —

Mk. iv. 17. Mt. xiii. 21. Lk. viii. 13.

"And they have no "But he hath no root "But these have no

root in themselves, but in himself, but (dXXd) he root, who, for (jrp6s) a

(dXXd) they are for-a-time is for-a-time (7r/50irKot/j6s) : time (jaufibv), [believe and

(irpodKoifial) : [Then, [but (Se) when there be- in time of temptation

when there befalls tribu- falls tribulation or perse- they fall away]."

lation or persecution for cution for the word he

the word, they straight- straightway stumbleth]."
way stumble]."

The sudden and complete deviation of Lk. from Mk.-Mt. suggests that the
Original Hebrew ended at "for a time," being to this effect, "But there is no
root in these, but [they are] for a time." The incompleteness of this sentence
caused early Editors to supply variously what seemed to be needed for completion,
namely, in some form or other, " then they perish." Two of these supplements
have been preserved, severally, by Mk.-Mt. and by Lk.

Lk.'s supplement repeats the word "time" ("in time of temptation"), and
suggests that, among a multitude of variants, one took " for a time " to mean
"in [course of] time."

169

[447] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

three instances, where one version of Esther has " to his
house" another has " to his own." ^

This explains why, in recording Christ's reply, the
Evangelists so seriously differ, Luke mentioning " wife " — as
one of the household to be abandoned — but omitting
"fields," while the earlier Evangelists make no mention of
"wife." The fact probably was that Jesus mentioned
nothing but "house" {i.e. "home," or "household"), and the
Evangelists gave variously what seemed to them the mean-
ing of " house." ^

§ SO {a). {Mk.) "after three days" {Mt.-Lk.) "on the
third day "

ML X. 34. Mt. XX. 19. Lk. xviii. 33.

" after three days " on the third day " on the third day

arise." be raised" (W. H. arise."

marg. " arise ").

See 41 8 and 227, where the same agreement of Matthew
and Luke against Mark is discussed.

§ 51. {Mk') "it was Jesus" (Mt.—Lk.) "Jesus was going,
or passing, by"

Mk. X. 46, 47. Mt. XX. 30. Lk. xviii. 35-37.

"the son of "and behold two "a certain blind

Timaeus, Bartimaeus, blind [men] sitting man sat by the way
a blind beggar, sat by the way, hearing begging, and having

' Esth. viii. 2 "Over tke house of (n'3) H.," iirl ir&vTwv r&v 'A. In Esth. v.
10 and vi. 12, "to his house," els rd tSia is the rendering in Swete and in
Lagarde's version (j3) : but els rbv oXkov airov in Lagarde's version (a) of v. 10.

* [447 (iv) o] Bearing on Lk.'s mention of "wife" (placed by him immediately-
after "house") may be quoted Lev. xvi. 17 "for himself and for his household,
lit. his /louse," concerning which Levy quotes Jom. 2» "That means his wife,"
adding several instances in which " house " was thus used, e.g. " the high priest
is to have one house not two houses."

170

OF MARK [448]

by the way, and hear- that Jesus was pass- heard a crowd pass-
ing that it was Jesus ing-dy (irapar/ei)." ing along he in-
of Nazareth." quired what it was.

But they told him
that Jesus of Nazareth
was coming-(5y (Trap-
ipxerai)."

[448] Mark's words, strictly speaking, require a preced- '
ing question : " He asked who it was, and heard that ii was
Jesus'.' Otherwise, they need to be corrected thus : " that
Jesus was passing by'' This is a very obvious correction,
and may have been adopted by Matthew and Luke, inde-
pendently of the Corrector.

At the same time, the Original may have afforded some
justification for the altering of " it was " into " passing by,"
or vice versa.

^ [448a] The Hebrew for " it " in " who [is] it," would be m,T : and this might
be confused with nu, "come." Compare Dan. xi. lo, LXX {AaeKeiaera.1) Kar'
aiTflv, Theod. (iXeiaerai) ipxi/i^vos (ma). This confusion is more probable
than that Mark should mistranslate -[bn by elvai, though that mistranslation occurs
(5) in LXX (see Tromm. ). But Mark may have paraphrased as LXX seems to
have done in Jer. ix. lo "so that none passeth through (naj;)," LXX vaph. t& luij
elyai d.v$p(l}irovs, rendered in Jer. ix. 12 irapd. rd /a-Jj diodedeffdai, air'/jv.

[448^] It may be worth mentioning that Luke's insertion about "inquiring"
is probably not without supposed basis in the Hebrew text. The word that Luke
uses for "beg"' occurs only once in the LXX (Ps. cix. lo) where it represents Sttc.
But ^iNc, though meaning " beg " two or three times, means "ask" much more
often.

Employing this ambiguous word, the Hebrew Original would lead translators
from the first to query the meaning thus in the margin : " A blind man sat by the
way, and he begged \7and he asked'\ and he heard that it was Jesus." It was
very natural first to conflate this into "he begged and he asked," and then to
insext what he "asked." Luke's peculiar word "inquired" {-n-vvBiveirBai.) is found
in the LXX, thrice =Eim, once (i Esdr. vi. ii) = ^ikb;, but elsewhere (lo or ii)
in non-Heb. LXX, or in LXX insertions, or various readings.

[448<;] Matthew — perhaps perplexed by the variety of traditions — omits both
"asking" and "begging.'' He also perhaps (68) took an original "Bartimaeus,
even the son of" to be "Bartimaeus and the son of," thus making "two" blind
men. But " two ('ji?) " may have arisen from a conflate of "sitting (aB")."

[448^ It was said in Clue (68) that the original gloss might be " Timaeus the
son of Timaeus." But this was not intended to imply that a son was called after

171

[449] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

§ 52. {Mk) "bring;' {Mt.-Lk.) "lead"

Mk. xi. 2, 7. Mt. xxi. 2, 7, Lk. xix. 30, 35.

"Loose him [the "Having loosed "Having loosed

colt] and bring [him] lead [them] to me . . . lead him [the colt] . . .

. . . they bring the they led the ass and they led him ..."

colt ..." the colt ..."

[449] The Greek vford here rendered "bring'' means
also " carry," and would not often be applied to persons,
unless helpless as in the case of the paralytic (Mk. ii. 3).

his father's name except in very rare and special circumstances, e.g. the case of a
Levirate marriage (see Hor. Hehr. on Lk. i. 59). Conybeare and Howson (St.
Paul, vol. i. p. 4S) say " It was not unusual, on the one hand, to call a Jewish child
after the name of the father." If so, as there are several hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of Biblical names of fathers and sons, it ought to be easy to adduce a
score or two of sons thus named. But Dr. Edersheim (^Life and Times of Jesus the
Messiah, vol. i. p. 157, n. 3) — while referring to, but not quoting, Delitzsch — alleges
no instance from the Bible, and only two from Josephus. The allegations from
Josephus ignore the fact that a son, when apparently called by a father's name,
may really be called after an ancestor. Thus, in the pedigree of Josephus (/.;/Ȥ i ),
whose father was called Matthias, the historian's brother Matthias was probably
named after an earlier Matthias" (or two of that name) mentioned in the pedigree.
[It may be worth noting that Josephus, immediately after mentioning his brother
Matthias, adds (^Life § 2) "he was my true (7^^17105) brother by both parents."]
The historian himself was probably named after his grandfather Joseph. The
same argument might apply to the high-priest the son of Ananus (Joseph. Ant.
XX. 9. i) "who also was himself called Ananus" Ananias and kindred names
are frequent in post-exilic lists. The only Biblical similarity to which Hor. Hebr.
calls attention is (I Chr. xxiii. 21-23) Mahli the son of Mushi called after the
name of his uncle Mahli. So Onias (Joseph. Ant. xii. J. I, xii. 9. 7), the son
of Onias, may have been called after his uncle, who was also Onias. See
Gray's Hebrew Proper Names (pp. 3 f. ) where the Greek custom (also a Phoenician
one) of naming the (? eldest) son from the grandfather is shewn to have prevailed
in the pedigrees of Hillel, Onias, Jesus the son of Sirach, and the Asmonean
family ; but scarcely any instances are given of naming from the father. The
isolated phenomenon, Abba bar Abba, a common name, requires investigation :
but it is quite exceptional. The facts support the second of two conjectures of
Hor. Hebr. on Lk. i. 78 " . . . It cannot be denied but that sometimes this "
[i.e. naming the son after the father] "was done; but so very rarely that we
may easily believe the reason why the friends of Zacharias would haye given the
child his own name was merely, either because they could by no means learn
what he himself designed to call him, or, else, in honour to him, however he lay
under that divine stroke at present, as to be both deaf and dumb."

172

OF MARK [450]

Even in the case of the demoniac boy, where Mark and
Matthew have "bring," Luke has "lead."^ But Mark uses
the word, as the Septuagint does, to express " cause to come,"
whether of persons or things, e.g., "bring me a denarius,"
where Matthew and Luke have different forms of " shew." ^
A very good parallel to this divergence is found in a passage
of Ezra, describing the " causing to come '' of certain ministers.
The translator of Ezra uses Mark's word " bring " ; but the
translator of Esdras, whose Greek is mostly less Hebraic
than that of Ezra, has " send." ^

This correction may be one of Greek style.

§ 53. (Jfi.) "went forth" {Mt.-Lk) "passed the night"

Mk. xi. 19. Mt. xxi. 17. Lk. xxi. 37.

"And (lit.) when "And he . . . " But [during] the

it became late they came forth outside of nights, going forth, he

(D and SS, he) went- the city to Bethany, J>assed-the-nightonth&

forth outside of the and passed-ihe-mght^ mountain called [the

city." there." mount] of Olives."

[450] " Lodged," the word used by the Revised Version,
does not express the meaning in modern English, unless we
imply " during the night." The Greek word occurs nowhere
else in the New Testament : but in the Septuagint it is

' Mk. ix. 19 (Mt. xvii. 17) i^^pe7-e=Lk. ix. 41 Tpoa-dyaye: Mk. xv. I dTTi^cey-
Kav — Mt. xxvii. 2 air'/jyayov, Lk. xxiii. i i^yayov. -This use of (pipia and its com-
pounds was perhaps vernacular Greek. In Oxyr. Pap. cxix. (a boy's letter) oix
&whr]X^s {sic) fie fier^ (sic) ffov els irbXiv. (rep. ov $i\i.s aireviKKeiv (sic) fieri <rov
els 'AXe^apSplav) it meanSg"take me with you for a trip.'' In Fayum Pap.
cxxxvi. irpb toS tis ifias iviyKri, it means "carry you off." In N.T., apart from
Mk. XV. I, i,vo^ipa applied to persons means "carrying" (Lk. xvi. Z2, Rev.
xvii. 3, xxi. 10).

2 Mk. xii. IS ipipere, Mt. xxii. 19 iiriSel^are, Lk. xx. 24 Sel^are.

' Ezr. viii. 17 " tkat-they-should-bring(v:^^rh) mim^teis" tov iviyKai.= l'E%A.
viii. 45 airofTTeiKaL.

* "Passed the night," TiSXlaBy). Throughout this section " pass-the-night "
implies avMieffBai in Greek or p^" in Hebrew.

[451] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

fairly frequent, and generally corresponds to a Hebrew word
meaning " pass the night," which, however, the Greek
translators sometimes render ''sleep." In Daniel, an Aramaic
word used to describe the king "passing the night" and
connected with " fasting," is rendered by Theodotion " slept,"
but the Septuagint employs the word here used by Matthew
and Luke.^ Owing to the non - existence of this word
elsewhere in the New Testament a superficial view might
lead some to suppose that Luke must have borrowed it
from Matthew : but, if so, why did he not borrow " Bethany,"
and " outside of the city"?

[451] The explanation of Matthew's and Luke's agree-
ment against Mark, is that the Hebrew " and he passed the
night (j^''l) " resembles the Hebrew " and-he-went (l'?"'l),"
and the two have been confused. So in Ezra (x. 6), " and
[when] he came" the Revised margin gives " and he lodged"
and the parallel Esdras (ix. 2) has the very word used here
by Matthew and Luke. The same confusion occurs in at
least two other passages of the Septuagint.^

[452] Probably, then, there was very early variation in
the Hebrew Gospel between " he went outside the city " and
" he passed the night outside the city." Matthew and Luke
adopted the latter tradition : but their remarkable differences

^ [450a] Dan. vi. i8 " and-passed-the-night fasting" (n3i, from nu, lit. "and
housed "), LXX -rfiXlaBi) vyjam, Theod. iKoifi'^STj dSeiirvos (perhaps meaning " went
to bed without having supped"). Comp. 2 S. xii. i6 " passed-the-night (p^?),
and lay (zja) " (of David fasting), LXX Ti^XlffSri, where A prefixes iKoiniBfi KaX
without implying "sleep."

Instead of aiXif eo-Sai, A substitutes (Judg. xviii. 3) Karitravaav , (xix. 4) ifTn'oxrai',
(xix. 20) KaraKia-rji. Apparently the scribe of A sometimes felt that aiiXifeo-Sai,
like the English ' ' lodge, " was an ambiguous word.

" [451a;] Job xxiv. 10 "they go-about (wiin)," ISKX iKolix-iaav, Jer. xxxi. 9 "I-
will-cause-them-to-walk (□^''^in)" aiiXl^tav. In i Chron. xvii. II "thou must go
(n'zW)" = KO{.iJ.-iiB-fi<T-Q, but the translation is probably influenced not by corruption
of the Hebrew word but by the feeling that the sense demands "sleep with thy
fathers." In Josh. viii. 13, i'?'i (in the present Hebr. txt. ) is probably an error
for ]Vi: R.V. txt. has "went," but marg. "Some MSS. read lodged" ; LXX
om. the sentence.

174

OF MARK [454]

from one another shew that here, as elsewhere, they adopted
it independently.*

[453] Why does Luke omit all mention of Bethany, not
only here, where Mark omits it, but above, (Mk. xi. 1 1) "the
hour being now late, he went out to Bethany " ? We have seen
above that, in Daniel, the LXX uses aiXi^ea-Oai to express
an Aramaic word meaning " pass the night." This word
may be transliterated as Btk. Did Luke regard " Bethany "
as a corruption of " Bt/i," so that Mk. xi. 1 1 and Mk. xi. 1 9
seemed to him duplicates, stating, in different words
(Aramaic and Hebrew), that in the evening Jesus came
out of Jerusalem to " pass-the-night " elsewhere ?

854. (Mk.) Interrogative, {Mt.-Lk.) Conditional

[454] The following instances of agreement between
Matthew and Luke are slight in themselves, but for that
very reason important as shewing that Luke did not borrow
them from Matthew. If he had he would have assuredly
borrowed more. In each case there is some obscurity or
harshness in Mark, which would naturally lead an early
Editor to correct Mark's text.

Mk. xi. 22, 23. Mt. xxi. 21. Lk. xvii. 6.

" Have ye faith in "Verily I say unto "If ye have faith

God, verily I say you, if ye have faith as a grain of mustard

unto you ..." . • •" seed."

Mk. xi. 32. Mt. xxi. 26. Lk. xx. 6.

" Yet shoHld we " But if-Ht should " But i/'we should

say . . . ? " say . . ." say . . ."

1 r452a] The Hebrew for " outside the city " would be '' outside to the city."
Now "city (Ty) " is at least seven times confused in LXX with " mountain (in)."
Hence may have arisen a tradition that Jesus "went out to the mountain."
Adopting this, Luke would naturally add "of olives." This view suggested that
He spent the night in the open air, as on the night of the betrayal. Matthew —
perhaps conflating (a^ " outside 0/ the city " with {a^ " outside to a city," i.e.

village may have adopted a tradition that supplied "Bethany" (perhaps from

Mk. xi. 1 1 ki,T^Bev cis Brieavlav).

[455]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

In both cases Mark reflects the obscurity of Hebrew
conditional or interrogative sentences, and has been accord-
ingly corrected. See 372.

§ 55. " Behold " and " behold I "

At this point it will be convenient to group together
four passages where Matthew has the exclamatory " behold,"
while Mark has " seeing," " saw," etc.^

Mk. i. 10.

(i) " he beheld the
heavens rent."

' Mk. V. 6.

(ii) "and behold-
ing Jesus . . . and
crying out."

Mk. V. 14.

(iii) " and they
came out to behold."

Mt. iii. 16. Lk. iii. 21.

"and behold, the "and it came to

heavens were op- pass that . . . the

ened." heaven was opened."

Mk.

V. 22.

(iv) " and behold-
ing him."

Mt. viii. 29.

"and behold, they
cried out."

Mt. viii. 34.

" and behold, all
the 'city came out."

Mt. ix. 18.
"behold"

Lk. viii. 28.

" and beholding
Jesus, crying aloud."

Lk. viii. 35.

"and they came
out to behold."

Lk. viii. 41.
" and behold^'

[455] As regards (i), some might be disposed to think
that antecedent probability favoured Mark, who records the
" rending " of the heaven as what Jesus " saw," and not as
an actual fact. The latter view may seem a development
naturally to be expected in the later evangelists. But
against Mark we have to bear in mind that he never uses
" behold I " in narrative, though the parallel Matthew and Luke

^ As the Greek " see " is from the same root as the Greek " behold," it will
be useful in this section to depart from the Revised Version by substituting
"beholding " for " seeing.''

176

OF MARK [456]

often use it. Now it is extremely probable that the Hebrew
Gospel did use " behold ! " in narrative, as the Hebrew Bible
does, and that Matthew and Luke would not systematically
insert it, if it was not, at all events frequently, in the original.
So far, therefore, the probability is against Mark.-'

[456] It happens that the Greek exclamatory " behold "
is very like the Greek verb " behold." And the Hebrew
exclamatory " behold '' is like " it came to pass." Hence
the divergences in (i) could easily arise, as may be seen
from a passage in Isaiah, where a Hebrew word resembling
" behold ! " has been conflated in Greek as {a^ " I beheld,"
(^2) " there became," which are exactly the three divergences
above (i), in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.^ In (i), on the
whole, it is probable that Matthew represents the original,
and Luke's support is in favour of adopting " behold ! " also
in (iv). But in (ii) and (iii), Luke's support turns the scale

' [455a] Several features of Mark's style indicate (456 (ii) a) that he would
follow Genesis in a detail of this kind. Now the translators of the Septuagint seem,
in the earlier books of the Pentateuch, to have tried as it were experiments of free
rendering which were discarded by them, or by others, as the work of translation
proceeded. Among these experiments is the rendering of the monotonous
" and behold ! " mostly used in narrative. It is capable of very different para-
phrases. Gen. vi. 12 "And behold (lit.) it [i.e. the earth] corrupt," Gen. viii. 11
"And bekoldaa olive leaf in its mouth," are severally rendered "and it was (fiv)
corrupt," "it had (eXxev) (perh. = there was to it) an olive-leaf" (possibly
confiising run "behold !" with n'n "was," comp. Gen. xviii. 10 "and behold to
Sarah a son," LXX "and Sarah shall have (?f«) a son.'' But in Gen. xv. 4,
xxiv. 45, xxxviii. 29 "behold!" is rendered "straightway (eiSis)." It is never
again rendered " straightway " in the whole of the Bible. But Mark, perhaps,
borrowed his "straightway" from Genesis, as a rendering of "behold!" and
persevered with it through the greater part of his Gospel. For another instance
of experimental translation see 538.

' [456a] Is. xlii. 22, where one scribe has taken Nin "this" for {a{) nn, or
™rt, " behold ! " ( = i5ou), and another for {a^ ,t.i ( = i-ihero). Then iSou has been
altered to tSov, resulting in (aj) koX elSov (AT iSov) (a^) koI iyivero. For another
instance of a confusion between lioi (run) and ylrcffSat (n'n) see i K. v. 6 "shall
be," ISoi (A ins. laraaav).

[456*] The practice of spelling " they saw (eISok) " as iSov, and of writing it
as iJSo, might easily lead scribes to suppose it was an unfinished iSo(v). And " he
saw (elSe)," when spelt with i for ei (a frequent usage in the best MSS.), is
identical with the imperative "see (?5e) " = niii.

12 177

[456]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

in favour of Mark, especially as the Greek " they saw '
very easily confused with the Greek " behold ! "

IS

55 (a). {ML) " I will put a question" {Mt.-Lk.) "I, too,
will question" etc.

Mk. xi. 29.

"But Jesus said
to them, I will put-a-
question-to you (lit.)
one word, and answer
me and I will say
(ejow) to you by what
authority I do these
things."

Mt. xxi. 24.

"[But, bracketed
by W. H.] Jesus
answering said to
them, / too {Kor^d))
will {pm.pui) question
you (lit.) one word
which if ye say
(e'i'KTjre) to me I too
will say to you by
what authority I do
these things."

Lk. XX. 3.

" But answering
he said unto them, /
too (Kayci)) wiU (om.
put) question you
(lit.) a-word and (Ut.)
say {e'lirare) to me."

(i) Mt.—Lk. insert ^^ answering"

[456 (i)] It is very rare indeed for the LXX to insert
" answering " where the Hebrew has merely " said." ^ But
it is also rare for the LXX to omit " answering " (or
" answered and ") as superfluous.^ In view of other evidence
that Mark translates freely, it is probable that Matthew and
Luke are here retaining an original Hebraic "' answering."

(ii) {Mk:) " put-a-question" {Mt.-Lk.) " question "

[456 (ii)] Mark's word, in the LXX, almost always
means (except in Genesis) " consult " an oracle, a prophet,

' Perhaps the only two instances are Gen. xviii. 9, Dan. (LXX) vii. 16. In
both, the object may be to imply that the "saying" is a "saying in answer.''

'^ It is omitted in Numb, xxiii. 12, i Chr. xii. 17, Job iii. 2, xxxviii. I, Dan.
\\\ 8 (LXX), ii. 20 (Theod.). Job, Esdras, and Daniel (LXX) sometimes express
it by {iTToka^ijiv or ^K<p(avEiv.

178

OF MARK [4S6]

or God ^ ; and it often means " consult " an oracle in classical
Greek. It might therefore naturally be altered here by a
Corrector, or by the later Evangelists independently. The
short Gospel of Mark uses the word nearly as many times
as the other three Gospels put together. In the LXX, " put-
a-question " and " question " are frequently interchanged in
\'arious readings.

(in) {Mf.-Lk.)" I too"

[456 (iii)] This emphatic form of " I " is used by Matthew
and Luke in those portions of their Gospels which are
peculiar to themselves.^ It is very appropriate here in the
sense " I, as well as you," or " I in turn," and might possibly
be an alteration of the Corrector, for style. But more
probably it is based on the Hebrew original, which might
express the antithesis between " I " and " you " by inserting
the Hebrew " I " as the subject of the verb. This is done
sometimes for emphasis, and the LXX does not always
reproduce the pronoun, as where Zedekiah says to Jeremiah
" / [/.f. I, the king] will ask thee a word." * Combining this
with the Hebraic " answering " above mentioned, we are led

' [456 (ii) a] 'Ewepurrar, in Gen., aAnof J=(S) " questum" (veri) in the crdiuary
iCHse. In the rest of the historical books (where it occurs aboat forty times) it=
" consnlt " (God, a man of God, soothsayers, the Others, etc.) : Jd. viiL 14, 2 S.
XL 7, jdT. 18, 2 K. viiL 6, I S. xviL 56 (A) are probably the only exceptions.
This is one of the many instances in which Mark follows (455a) Goiesis.
" Put-a-question " is chosen as the rendering above, not because it expresses the
Greek well, but because it brings out the similarity, and the difference, between
Mk. and ML-Lk. 'Ev^fomr occurs in Mk. (25), Lk. (17), Mt (8), Jn. (2).
In Mt xii. 10, and parall. Lk. vi. % the question "Is it lawful ?" is introduced
by both writeis with ereparSr : but Mt. represents Jesus as questioned, Lk. as
questioning.

In Oxyr. Pap. vol. L, Ixxxiv. 18 and 25, cxxxiii. 5, etc., the word means
** formally qa^tion " in a legal sense.

» Mt. ii 8, Lk. i. 3.

* Jer. xxxviiL 14. So in Lev. xx. 3, 5, where the express intervention of God
is implied by the emphatic pronoun " / will set my fece," the LXX inserts ey<i in
XX. 3, but not in xx. v

179

[456] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

to think that this correction probably was due to a Hebrew
Original.

(iv) Lk!s omission of^^T will say ..."

[456 (iv)] This, not being an agreement of Matthew and
Luke against Mark, does not fall, strictly speaking, within
the scope of this treatise. But, having a bearing on the
three last paragraphs, it will be conveniently discussed
here.

If Luke knew of the words in Mark, he must have rejected
them, either as doubtful or erroneous, or else because they
seemed to commit Jesus to an unconditional promise to tell
His questioners what they asked, no matter what kind of
answer was given by them. The former is by far the more
reasonable, as well as the more charitable, explanation ; and
it is confirmed by the remarkable variations of Mark in D,
SS, and the Arabic Diatessaron. These, instead of "And
answer me," have respectively, " answer me," " which ye shall
answer me," "and if ye tell me" — none of which agrees
exactly with Matthew, " which if ye say to me." Moreover,
why does Luke omit " one " (before " word "), which is
inserted by Matthew as well as Mark ?

Probably the Original was as in Luke and the first part
of Mark, only emphasising the pronoun by inserting the
Hebrew " ye " thus : " I will ask you a word : ye (ddn), answer-
ye (imper.) me." Now this superfluous " ye " would naturally
cause difficulty. By dropping n, it becomes dn "if" ; and
this has actually taken place in one instance in the LXX.^
So here, " if" appears to have been written in the margin for
"ye," and to have been adopted as one alternative by
Matthew. But now let us suppose a literal Greek rendering
adopting "if (gan)," sometimes written eS. It happens
that this is very similar to the Greek for " one (eN*) '' some-

■^ Josh. xxii. 1 8.

i8o

OF MARK [457]

times written e*. Hence Mark might take the words as,
" I will ask you one word : answer me." ^

On the other hand the conditional form of the tradition
(" if ye answer me ") would naturally lead Evangelists to
supply " I also will tell you," to make the sense complete :
and this more complete form might be conflated both by
Mark and by Matthew with the erroneous " one." But Mark
retained the old imperative (" answer ") ; Matthew adopted
the conditional ("if ye say"); Luke went back to the
brief Original.^

§ 56. {Mk:) "those" {Mt.-Lk) " having seen"

Mk. xii. 7. Mt. xxi. 38, Lk. xx. 14.

" But those husbandmen." " But the husbandmen having

seen."

Having ascertained (456) that the verb " behold," or
" see," may be confused, by Greek corruption, with the
exclamatory "behold," we have to ask whether the latter
can also be confused with " those " or " these." If so, the
discrepancy here is explained.

[457] The following instances will suffice : — 2 Chr. viii.
9 "they (emphatic, i.e. those)," LXX "behold" ; Josh. vii.
22" and behold it was hid," LXX " and these were hidden " ;
Josh. ix. 13" and behold they be rent," LXX " and these
are rent"; 2 Chr. xxxv. 25, "and ^^^<?/i^ they are written,"
is correctly translated by the Septuagint, but the parallel
I Esdr. i. 3 1 has " but these-things are written " ; i S. xxvii.
8 "those [nations]," LXX "behold" ; i K. iii. 21 "and
behold it was dead," LXX '' and that-one was dead " ; 2 K

1 Hebrew Confiision might less probably convert onu, "ye," to inn, "one."

2 It is conceivable that the Original contained a conditional "if" with the
apodosis suppressed as in Lk. xiii. 9 " If it bear fruit," and perhaps in Mk. vii. ii
" If a man say to his father, Korban. '' And " if (on) " might be confused with, or
dropped before, tdk, "say" (comp. Jer. v. 2 where DN=X^et). But a combination
of Greek and Hebrew corruption, as above, best explains all the facts.

181

[458]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

iv. 40 " then they (lit. those) cried out," LXX " and behold
they cried out." ^

[458] The frequency of this corruption makes it ex-
tremely probable that, in the present passage, the original
was either "and those-men, the husbandmen," as Mark has
it, or " and behold, the husbandmen." The former, being an
unusual phrase, was probably converted into the latter ; and
the latter, by Greek corruption, was changed from " behold ! "
into "beheld." This was adopted by Matthew and
Luke." ^

§ S 7. {Mk:) " he will come',' {Mt.-Lk.) " they say "

Mk. xii. 9, 10.

" (a) What will the
lord of the vineyard
do? (d) He will
come and destroy
the husbandmen and
give the vineyard to
others, (c) Have ye
not even read this
Scripture . . . ? "

Mt. xxi. 40—42.

" When therefore
the lord of the vine-
yard Cometh, what
will he do to those
husbandmen ? They
say unto him, He
will miserably de-
stroy those miserable
men,^ and give forth
the vineyard to other
husbandmen, who
will render him the
fruits in their season.
JesusxazV/% unto them,
Have ye not even
ever read in the
Scriptures . . . ? "

■^ In most of these cases the error is caused by the identity (apart from vowel
points) between "behold! " and " those " (fem.) (both = njn), e.g. in i S. xxvii. 8.
But in 2 Chr. viii. 9, and 2 K. iv. 40, i5oi5=non read as f[V\ (Chr. A. aiSroi).

'' Greek corruption is here a necessary part of the hypothesis. " They saw "
= iNn : " those " = nen, and these two could not be interchanged by Hebrew cor-
ruption.

' Mt. xxi. 41 KaKois KaKws aTroX^o-ei means exactly " he will wretchedly destroy
those wretches!''

182

Lk. XX. 15— I?-
" What therefore
will the lord of the
vineyard do to them ?
He will come and
destroy these hus-
bandmen and give
the vineyard to others.
But when they heard
it they said, God
forbid. But he hav-
ing looked upon
them said, What
therefore is this that
is written . . . ? "

OF MARK [459]

[459 (i)] Matthew here assigns to the chief priests an
amplified version of words assigned by Mark and Luke to
Jesus. Luke so far agrees with Matthew as to insert
some kind of reply from the chief priests, while Mark gives
none at all.

That such a divergence might arise from Hebrew may
be seen from a couple of passages in Kings : " And he [i.e.
Benhadad] said unto him, ' The cities which my father took
from thy father I will restore ... as my father made in
Samaria.' ' And I ' [said AAad], ' will let thee go with this
covenant,' " where the italicized words could not be omitted
in English ; ^ " And he [Jehu] saluted him [Jehonadab], and
said to him, ' Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy
heart?' And Jehonadab answered 'It is.' [And Jehu
said\, ' If it be, give me thine hand.' " In the former case,
the R.V. inserts the italicized words, but the LXX does not.
In the latter, the LXX inserts them, but the R.V. does not.
These and other similar passages indicate possible diverg-
ence from a Hebrew Original omitting a verb of speech.^

[459 (ii)] But divergence might also arise from Hebrew
superfluous insertion of a verb of speech, for example, " And
Micaiah said, If thou return at all in peace, the Lord hath
not spoken by me. And he said. Hear, ye peoples, all of
you." The LXX omits the words, " And he said . . . you,"
possibly thinking that "he" must be Ahab (not Micaiah),
and that this would not make sense.^ (In the parallel
passage in Chronicles, LXX (2 Chr. xviii. 27) inserts the
utterance, but omits " and he said.") So again, where

1 I K. XX. 34, 2 K. X. 15.

"^ Comp. Josh. xxiv. 22, 23 "And Joshua said unto the people, 'Ye [are]
witnesses . . . that ye have chosen you the Lord to serve him.' And they said,
'We are vntnesses.' ' Now therefore put away, \_said he\ the strange gods . .' "
Here the LXX omits the reply of the people so as to make Joshua's speech
continuous, thus not needing to insert the words "said he," which are omitted in
the Hebrew.

' I K. xxii. z8, A inserts the words.

183

[459] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Hezekiah, after speaking to Isaiah, is perhaps represented
as speaking to himself: "Then said Hezekiah unto Isaiah,
Good is the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken. He
said moreover. Is it not so, if peace and truth shall be in
my days ? " Here the LXX omits the whole of this second
utterance. In the parallel passage in Isaiah, the LXX
inserts a similar utterance about " peace and truth," but
omits the words " he said moreover." ^

[459 (iii)] These phenomena in the LXX would lead
us to expect in the Synoptic Gospels, if translated from
Hebrew, cases where one Gospel inserts the superfluous
" and he said," while others reject it. Accordingly, we find
no less than eight instances where Mark has this superfluous
insertion (eXeyev) while Matthew and Luke, one or both,
reject it. One of these is particularly noteworthy because it
happens to resemble the utterance of the prophet Micaiah
quoted above (459 (ii)). It is at the end of the Parable of
the Sower where Mark has " And he said {jtdX eXer/ev), He
that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew omits " and
he said." Luke inserts it in a form well adapted to bring
out the sense of an abrupt appeal : " Saying these things he
cried aloud (ravra Xeymv i^covei,), ' He that hath . . .' "

[459 (iv)] The facts above stated show that the Synoptic

^ 2 K. XX. 19 (A inserts the words in a somewhat corrupt form), parallel to
Is. xxxix. 8. In Josh. iii. 9, 10 " And Joshua said unto the children of Israel,
Come hither and hear the words of the Lord your God. And Joshua said.
Hereby . . .," LXX om. the second "and Joshua said." In Dan. x. 14, the
LXX inserts the words "and he said unto me," in the midst of the speech of an
angel, against the Hebrew, which Theodotion follows.

^ [459 (iii) o] Mk. iv. 9, Mt. xiii. 9, Lk. viii. 8. Other instances are Mk. ii.
27, iv. 21, 24, 26, 30, vi. 10, vii. 20, viii. 21, ix. i. In all these cases (except vii. 20
l\eyep d^) Mk. has xal AcyeK. After Mk. ix. I, this form occurs only five times
in Mark's record of Christ's sayings, and in the five parall. passages Mt. -Lk. insert
verbs of speech (Mk. ix. 31, xi. 17, xii. 35, 38, xiv. 36).

These remarks deal simply with Mk.'s use of ^Xeyec (not eljro' etc.).

[459 (iii) *] Oxyr. Pap. vol. i., xxxiii. contains a report of judicial proceedings,
written late in the second century, in which verbs of speech are frequently omitted,
the name of the speaker being alone inserted. If such omissions were sometimes
made in early notes of Christian traditions, it would tend to confusion.

184

OF MARK

divergence under discussion may easily have arisen from a
Hebrew Original. The following facts show that Mark is
probably closest to the Original : —

(i) Matthew and Luke, though they both insert " said,"
do not insert it in the same place. Now this is a frequent
sign of interpolation. A word placed in the margin may
naturally be transferred by one editor to one position in the
text, by another to another a little earlier or later. And
this appears to have happened here.

(2) The words, in Mark, " He will come," following " What
will the lord of the vineyard do ? " might be naturally taken
as an answer made by the chief priests (although self-question
followed by self-answer is characteristic of Christ's teaching).
After the fall of Jerusalem, too, there would seem to the
later Evangelists an appropriateness in making the Jews thus
pronounce sentence on themselves.^

(v) {Mt.-Lk.) " therefore . . . to those {Lk. them) " ; (Mt.)
" zvhen ... cometh," (Mk.—Lk.) " he will come " |

[459 (v)] "Therefore" is inserted by Matthew and
Luke against Mark on two other occasions where Mark is

^ Another argument may perhaps be derived from an allusion, in Mk. and
Mt, to Isaiah's prophecy about the vineyard of the Lord. The LXX version
of that prophecy contains the words (Is. v. 2), " I set a hedge about it {tppay/iiv
irepiiBrjKa) . . . and built a tower in the midst of it, and digged a wine-press
[irpoMiviov) in it.'' All the italicised words are exactly reproduced in Mk. xii. I
(followed by Mt. xxi. 33), with the slight variation of inro>i.iivi.ov (Mt. XijkAi') for
*' wine-press." Lk.'s omission of them suggests that they were not parts of the
Original but a very early oral addition, or marginal gloss transferred to the text
(like the Isaiah-passage about " the worm and the fire " (434a) ). But there can
be no doubt that the earliest Hebrew Evangelist, in writing this parable, would
have in view the Song, similar in subject and similarly addressed. In the sequel
of the Song, the prophet says (Is. v. 3) " And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem
and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. ..." But,
without waiting for their answer, he continues (Is. v. 5), " And now, go to, I will
tell you what I will do to my vineyard." Mk. and.Lk. are therefore following
on the lines of the prophecy in representing the Lord Himself as "telling" what
the Lord of the vineyard "will do.'" And there is no reason here to suspect
a gloss.

185

[459] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

extremely abrupt.^ It may be regarded as a correction for
smoothness (534 (ii)) ; and " to those," and " to them," as
insertions of the object of the verb for definiteness (534 (i)).
But Matthew's " when " cannot be explained as a cor-
rection for style. This points to an original Hebrew particle
(13) of an extremely ambiguous character (Gesen. Oxf)
capable of meaning " when," or " that," or " verily," while
sometimes it simply introduces a speech like inverted
commas and might be left untranslated. It is therefore
something more than a mere conjecture that an Original
" verily he will come " or " that he will come " was taken by
Matthew as " when he shall come," and transposed to the
beginning of his sentence.^

(vi) {Lk^ " looked upon them "

[459 (vi)] It is antecedently most improbable that a
serious historian like Luke would interpolate a statement
of this ^kind for merely graphic purposes. There must
have been something in the text that induced him to insert
this rare word, rare in N.T. as a whole, and only twice
used by Luke.^ The facts previously alleged point to the
conclusion that it must be a conflate of a marginal " and he
said." That this is so, is rendered highly probable by the
similarity in Hebrew between " and he said (lON"'l) " and
" and he looked-on-them (dnT'I)." And the probability is
greatly increased by the occurrence of this very conflation
in Job where the Hebrew has simply " But he said to her,"

^ Mk. xii. 23, Mt. xxii. 28, Lk. xx. 33 ; Mk. xii. 37, Mt. xxii. 45, Lk. xx. 44.

^ Possibly " therefore " was a part of the Original and dropped by Mk. who
scarcely ever uses this particle {ovv) (in W. H. only thrice, and once bracketed).
The words in the vineyard-prophecy above quoted (Is. v. 5 "and now (nnyi)
. . . what I will do") rather suggest (since nnl;i often=i'Ci' oBc (e.g. Gen. xxi. 23,
xxvii. 3, 8, 43) or o8k (e.g. Gen. xxiv. 49, Exod. iii. 18, ». 17)) that the original
here may have been " what therefore."

» 'Efi,p\4-iru occurs Mk. (4), Mt. (2), Lk. (2), Jn. (2), Acts (i). The other
instance in Lk. is xxii. 61, where, as here, Lk. probably used the word to indicate
divine or prophetic insight (so Jn. i. 36, 42).

186

OF MARK [460]

but the LXX " But he, having looked upon [her], said to
her."^ ,

[459 (vii)] The most probable conclusion from the facts
above alleged is that the Original, like Mark, contained no
verb of speech before {b) and {c). Subsequently, Hebrew
verbs (" and they said," " and he said ") were inserted in the
margin to indicate that the passage was (as the correctors
thought) a dialogue and not a speech. Hence Matthew
and Luke differed in the places assigned by them to the
verbs of speech. Luke conflated the second verb of speech
with another verb.

(i) {Mt?) " miserably . . . miserable men "

[460 (i)] Matthew's phrase, as is abundantly shown by
Wetstein, is one frequent in maledictions (" wretch, may you
wretchedly perish ! " " may the gods, wretch, destroy you
wretchedly," etc.), and it suggests a use of the Hebrew
word ckrm (Din) translated in the LXX mostly by
" utterly destroy (evoked pevay)," but frequently by " anathe-
matize," i.e. "devote to destruction." '^ But if this word was
in the original, why was it softened down by Mark, with
Luke's acquiescence, to " destroy " (airoKKvfii), which is only
twice used by LXX as a rendering of mn ?

We have to consider this insertion of Matthew's in the
light of two fajcts. (i) Mark's version is deficient in anti-

^ Job ii. lo 6 Sk ^^jSX^^os eXirev airf: "and he said " = idk'i, "and he looked-
on-them " = dntIj a form used only in 2 K. ii. 24 of Elisha looking on the children
whom he curses (R.V. "saw," LXX eXSep). 'E/i^XiTetv occurs in the hist, books
of O.T. only thrice (always = ntfi). The confusion between "see"' {i.e. "per-
ceive") and "say" explains a confusion between the following parallel passages,
(a) Mk. xii. 28 "one of the scribes . . . knowing {elSds, D aSwv) that he
answered well," Lk. xx. 39 " some of the scribes . . . said. Teacher thou hast
answered well" ; {b) Mk. xii. 34 "And Jesus having seen that he answered dis-
creetly," Lk. X. 28 "But he {i.e. Jesus) said to him, Thou hast answered rightly."
The consequent confusion appears to have produced {c) Mk. xii. 32 "Well,
teacher, in truth didst thou say."

^ mn = lii'oSejitaTiftii (13), i^oXoSpeia {23), irdWvfu (2).

187

[460] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

thesis between the two classes of husbandmen, one, wicked,
which is to be " destroyed," and another, which is to succeed
the first. Luke inserts " these " before the former class.
Matthew, with the same object, may have inserted some
term signifying " accursed." (2) Later on, in describing the
second class, Matthew is not content (like Mark) with
" others," but adds, " husbandmen who shall give him their
fruits in their seasons." Matthew's two additions, taken
together, indicate an amplifying tendency in his narrative,
so that we must not expect to find his additions correspond-
ing exactly to the Hebrew Original.

But, though both Matthew's additions may have been
dictated by a desire to define the meaning, their form may
have been suggested by something — perhaps a play on
words, perhaps a corruption — in the Hebrew text. For
example — the Hebrew for " vine-dressers " being the plural
of crm (m3), and for " devoting-to-destruction " chrm (mn)
— an editor, in order to define the first class of "vine-
dressers (crm)," may have inserted in the margin " men
devoted-to-destruction," literally " men of chrm." ^ And
again, the word " others," Q-'iriN, might suggest to the editor
a1^^M, which is the most frequent original of the Greek
"husbandmen (yeapyoC)," and is occasionally connected with
" vine-dressers." ^ These details are quite uncertain : but it
is almost certain that Matthew's additions are glosses.

' Comp. I K. XX. 42 "the man of (lit.) my-devoting-to-destruction ('mn),"
&vSpa 6\i8pioii, Is. xxxiv. 5 "the people of my-devoting-to-destruction ("Din),"
rbv "Kabv rifs dTruXsIas (R.V. (K.) "whom I had devoted to destruction," (Is.)
" of my curse "). .

^ •at(=i.porfip (I), yeiapybt (5). Vewpybi occurs in Heb. LXX only (9).
' k/jLtreKovpiyol occurs (4), always plur., always = D'm3, which is never used apart
from "husbandmen" (or "ploughmen") in the context. Even with this aid to
define the meaning, d'di3, "vine-dressers," is translated /CTiJ/iara, "possessions,"
in Joel i. 11, being identical, without vowel points, with the pi. of "vineyard '

188

OF MARK [460]

(ii) (Lk.) " God forbid" {Mt.) " render him the fruits . . ."

[460 (ii)] There is only one word in the Hebrew
scriptures that asserts a paramount claim to represent the
original of " God forbid," or (to give the Greek) of " Not [so]
be it ! " This therefore must be made the basis of investi-
gation into a possible Hebrew original, or gloss, that may
explain the Synoptic divergences. It occurs, sometimes
reiterated, in nineteen passages, and literally means " profana-
tion (^rhhxi)" Hence " profanation to me," " profanation
from the Lord," " profanation from this," or sometimes
simply " profanation," means " far be it that I should do
this, or, that this should happen ! "

But this root " profane," or " make common," when
applied to a vineyard, meant to begin to use its fruits. For
three years the fruits of a newly-planted vineyard were to
remain uneaten ; the fruits of the fourth year were to be
consecrated to Jehovah ; in the fourth year, said the Levitical
Law, " all the fruit shall be holy for giving praise unto the
Lord."^ In ^t. fifth year the owner might eat the fruit, and,
to describe this, Jeremiah uses the word " make common,"
i.e. " free for all to enjoy," thus (R.V.) : " The planters shall
plant and shall enjoy \the fruit thereof^' where A.V. has
"eat \them\ as common things""^ Here the LXX has
" plant and praise" confusing " enjoy " with the very similar
word mentioned in the Levitical passage just quoted about
" ^vv'vag-praise " with the fruits of the fourth year. " Enjoy "
is from ^f?n, " praise " from f?^n.

(iii) Both were probably glosses

[460 (iii)] Hitherto, we have arrived no further than
this, that Matthew's and Luke's divergent insertions may

1 Lev. xix. 24 " for-giving-praise (n'^l'^n) unto (-^) the Lord."

' Jer. xxxi. 5 "enjoy [the fruit thereof] {-hSri)" alviaare (leg. ^^in). In this

sense, " enjoy," Vm occurs elsewhere (Gesen. Oxf.) only in Deut. xx. 6 (bis)

ci^patvofuu, xxviii. 30 rpvyw.

189 ,

[460] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

have arisen from some Hebrew word that might be variously
interpreted (i) "profanation," (2) "enjoy the first-fruits of a
vineyard " (with a possibility of a third variant " giving
praise," connected by Levitical tradition with the consecra-
tion of the fourth year's fruits). And the question arises
whether " profanation from the Lord, or to the Lord," ^ being
the original, was taken wrongly to mean " for giving praise
unto the Lord " — which was paraphrased by Matthew into a
materialistic statement about " rendering fruits unto the Lord
of the Vineyard " — or whether some statement about " giving
praise," or " enjoying first-fruits," was the original, wrongly
interpreted by Luke.

Both suppositions are attended with great difficulties.
If Luke's was the original, then, referring to the LXX and
finding that " profanation " is never mistranslated there, we
have to ask why it is apparently mistranslated here by
Matthew and certainly omitted by Mark. That various
editors should corrupt "profanation," first, into some word
or words meaning " enjoy first-fruits " or " praise," and then
that this should be loosely paraphrased by Matthew into a
sentence about " rendering first-fruits in due season," seems
very improbable — and all the more because Matthew himself
— alone of the Evangelists — has the phrase " God forbid "
elsewhere.^

It seems more probable that some editor of the Hebrew
Gospel, reflecting on the circumstances of the vineyard,

^ The latter construction is found in Job xxxiv. lo.

^ [460 (iii) a] Mt. xvi. 22 "Be it far from thee" (marg. "God have mercy
on thee") Dvecis croi, Kipie. "IXeois is used thus by LXX in three passages to repre-
sent n'j'Sn {2 S. XX. 20 twice, xxiii. 17, i Chr. xi. 19). In i S. xiv. 45 "shall
Jonathan die . . . God-forbid {th-hn), as the Lord liveth (nirr m)," LXX om. Uews,
but A inserts it. Abraham (Gen. xviii. 25) uses a similar expression twice towards
God, " Profanation (n'?'?n) to thee (-^) from doing . . ., profanation (rhSn) to-thee
(l'?)," laiSa/j-ds <ri Troiiueis . . . uriSafi&s. In LXX, rh'hn = M yivoa-o (S), ijA\
etri (2), tXeois (5), /ii/Sa/iffls (9). In I Chr. xi. 19 "profanation to me from God
('.i^nd)," ZXfii! /"oi, 6 ee6s = 2 S. xxiii. 17 "profanation to me, Lord (nW'),"
ITieiis \xo\., Kripie (where Gesen. Oxf. leg. nin'D) : both passages add "from doing
this," the sentence meaning "God forbid that I should do this ! "

190

OF MARK [461]

namely, that it had been newly planted by the owner, and
that the owner represented the Lord, and that the first-fruits
were due by Law to Him, jotted down in the margin some of
the words of the Levitical Law. This obscure allusion may
have been misunderstood by Luke as being the familiar term
" profanation." On this hypothesis, the glosses result from
mere interpolation. But, as in the case of (106) the sons
of Araunah, a gloss is often based on something in the
text. The next paragraph will consider whether this may
be the case here.

(iv) Origin of the glosses ^l,

[461] In the following words Luke deviates from Mark
and Matthew, who agree in having (Mk.) "Have ye not
even read this scripture ? " (Mt.) " Have ye not even ever read
in the Scriptures?" while Luke has "What therefore is
written ? "

Now this reproachful question — implying that the chief
priests ought to have read, but have not — might naturally
be represented by a phrase presenting a considerable simi-
larity to " profanation." And this — especially coming in an
ambiguous position, at the head of a sentence, before which
some supplied, and some did not supply, a verb of speech —
might give rise to the two glosses described above.'

Against the probability of the originality of Luke's " God
forbid," it must be added that (i) the Arabic Diatessaron
omits it (though it might easily have been combined with
Matthew), (ii) the Syro-Sinaitic substitutes a part of Lk.
XX. 19, "they knew that he spake this parable against

' [461a] " Have ye not even (ever) read" might represent an original " Ought
ye not to have read," lit. " [Was it] not to you (dj^ nSn) to read." If k were read
as 1, or dropped, the first letters would become S'^n, closely resembling the root
of the word " profanation " (^iVn), and identical with the root of the word "praise "
in the above-quoted Levitical text. For "ought ye not," see 2 Chr. xiii. 5 bd^j vhn
(also Nehem. v. 9, where LXX has oix oiirus).

191

[461] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

them.'' (iii) Moreover, the Hebrew phrase about " profana-
tion " might be erroneously derived from the Hebrew of
Luke's following words about " this that is written." ^

^ [461(5] "That which is written'' is not always represented by the Hebrew
" write." See Hor. Hebr. (on Lk. a. 25) about ' ' those various treatises amongst the
Rabbins ; the Micro, Mis{A)na, Midras{li) . . . -. Nipn, Micra is the text of the
Bible itself, its reading and literal explanation, Mis{A)na the doctrine of traditions
and their explication." Consequently " What is this that is written ? " might be in
Hebrew, "What [is] Micra this ?" But "what (no)" might be taken as "from
(-»)," followed by the article (-n), and Micra (since mp and unp are very frequently
interchanged) is capable of meaning "mischance," "misadventure." Hence the
words "What is this that is written ?" following after "profanation" might be
taken as " Profanation y»-o»« this mischance I" i.e. "God forbid this evil." This
has been described above as "erroneously derived," because "mischance" would
not be a suitable word to use (l S. vi. 9) for a divine visitation. Still, it is possible
that a glossei:, endeavouring to make sense out of one among several obscure
variations, might misinterpret the word thus, and that the whole might be
wrongly paraphrased by Lk. in a conflation as " God forbid."

[461f] On the other side — and in favour of the hypothesis that Lk.'s "God
forbid " represents the Original, from which Mk.-Mt. have deviated — it may be
fairly urged that elsewhere the parall. Mk. omits the words of ;Peter (Mt. xvi. 22,
Lk. om. the whole) " Be it far from thee. Lord." Does it not seem probable that
Mk. erroneously omitted these words in Peter's reply ? And, if he was wrong
there, may he not be wrong here in making the same omission ? Again, if Mk.
had inserted the words here, the insertion would have been fatal to his (peculiar)
view that the context contained not a dialogue but a continuous discourse. For
how could Christ utter such an expression ? Might not Mk. , therefore, natur-
ally — but erroneously — infer, under these circumstances, that the words were
corrupt ?

This argument certainly deserves consideration. But one last point must not
be forgotten. It is possible that, even in Peter's reply, the words " Be it far from
thee " may be a gloss. Some evangelistic scribe, wishing to indicate the reverent
nature of Peter's " rebuke " to Jesus, may have inserted in the margin a quotation
of the famous remonstrance, not " rebuke,'' addressed by Abraham to Jehovah
(460 (iii) d). And this may have been inserted by Mt. in his text.

[461i/] As regards Lk.'s addition " when they heard it {aKoiaavTa^ they said,"
^^. is natural to assume that it is added for mere connection. But consideration will
shew that Lk. must have taken " hear " to mean (as it often does in N.T.) " under-
stand." He intends to say, " when they understood the meaning [of the parable],
they said, God forbid." Compare below Mk. xii. 28 " knowing (Ti seeing) (SS
hearing) that he answered well." We have seen above that Lk.'s "he looked
upon them, and said" may have been a conflation of "he said." So here, "they
said " may have been conflated by Lk.'s original as " (aj) they saw [the meaning!
and («2) said." Lk. may have expressed (aj) by "they heard.",

192

OF MARK

[462]

[462] § 58. The Commandment-discussion

ML xii. 28 (lit).

(a) "And having
come to him, one of
the scribes, (b) having
heard them \i.e. Jesus
and the Sadducees]
disputing, (c^ know-
ing that he [had]
answered them well,
(^) asked him, Which
commandment is first
(fem.) of all [things]
(neut.)?"

Mk. xii. 32.

{c^ " the scribe
said to him, Teacher
well saidst thou in
truth."

Mk. xii. 34 (lit).
((Tg) "Jesus seeing
him that he answered
discreetly.''

Mt. xxii. 34-36.

"But the Phari-
sees, having heard
that he [had] muzzled
the Sadducees, were
gathered together ;
and there questioned
him one of them, a
lawyer, tempting him.
Teacher, which com-
mandment is great in
the law ? "

Lk. XX. 39.

" But some of the
scribes said, (c^
Teacher, thou saidst
well."

Lk. X. 25-28.

" And behold a
certain lawyer stood
up greatly - tempting
him, saying, Teacher,
what shall I do to
inherit eternal life ?
But he said to him,
In the law what is
written? Howreadest
thou ? . . . But he said
to him, (c^ Thou
answeredst aright."

(i) {Mt:) "he had muzzled"

[462] That some confusion existed in the earliest editions
of Mark is shewn by the fact that Luke, at this point, gives
nothing but the reply {c^ " thou saidst well," which he attri-
butes to " some " of the scribes. Much earlier — in a narrative
about a " lawyer," who appears to correspond to Mark's
" scribe " — ^Luke assigns the words " thou answeredst aright "
to Jesus. Mark gives these words in three different forms,
{c^, c^, c^. Matthew, on the other hand, nowhere uses this
phrase, but has here — apparently instead of it — a statement
13 193

[463] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

that Jesus had " muzzled " the Sadducees. To " muzzle " an
adversary, in this sense, might (even without any error of
confusion) be naturally softened down to " answer effectively,"
"answer well," "answer discreetly.'' But it also happens
that the Hebrew " muzzle (ddh) " closely resembles the
Hebrew " wise (D3n)," which, when used as a verb, means
" deal discreetly," and sometimes " overcome [an enemy] by
discretion." As a working hypothesis, we may suppose
that Matthew is here closest to the Original which was,
" perceiving that he had muzzled them " (meaning by
" them " the Sadducees previously mentioned). Alternatives
were placed in the margin, and conflated and variously
applied by Mark and Luke." ^

(ii) " one " or " some " ?

[463] In Luke, " some " of the scribes say " Teacher, thou
saidst well," after Jesus has silenced the Sadducees. In
Mark, " one " of the scribes says this, after Jesus has replied
to the question about the First or Greatest Commandment.
The Hebrew "one of" might easily be confused with the
plural of " one," a rare form, which means " a few " but is
not Used partitively.^

[464] The Hebrew " knowing " is twice rendered in
Isaiah (LXX) by " saying." Hence Mark's " knowing that
he had answered well " — a rather curious substitute for
" seeing (or, perceiving) that he had answered well " — might

^ [462a] The Heb. verb "muzzle" occurs only twice in the Bible, and the
derived noun once. In one case the Septuagint translates the verb "build round
(so as to impede)," and whereas the Psalmist speaks of putting a "muzzle" on his
mouth, the Greek has "a guard." This indicates that there would be a tendency
in the present passage to soften down the word. " Muzzle " = non, "vrise" = n3n;
DDn in Ezek. xxxix. ii "stop" (but A.V. "stopi[the noses of] ") = Te/3ioiKoSo(ne(i',
in Ps. xxxix. I, "bridle" (but marg. "muzzle ") = (^uXo/o). In Ex. i. lo, "let-us-
deal wisely (noDnru, from D3n, "wise") with (-'?) them," KaTaffotpiadfieBa airois,
means, practically, "let us suppress them.''

2 ' ' One of," taken as one word, =mnN, which, if written mm, differs little from
anm "a few."

194

OF MARK [465]

be confused with a tradition that the scribe said that Jesus
had answered well (Luke, " Teacher, thou saidst well ").'

Some confusion between " one " and " some," combined
with other corruptions, may have led Luke to separate a
part of Mark's tradition from the rest and to take it as a
separate narrative.

(iii) {Mk?) ''disputing" (Mt.-Lk.) ''lawyer"

[465] The Greek noun " Disputant," corresponding to
Mark's participle "disputing,'' is used in St. Paul's First
Epistle to the Corinthians (i. 20) : " Where is the wise ?
Where is the Scribe? Where is the Disputant of this
world ? " It represents a common Hebrew term meaning
" investigator," but especially applied to investigation
(Midrash), or discussion, of the Law, and hence to the
teacher of the Law.^

If therefore Mark erroneously rendered "one of the
Disputants " by a participle " disputing," it would be natural
for a Corrector to place in the margin the correct meaning,
viz. " one learned in the law, or, lawyer"

The Corrector may have added " tempting him " in order
to shew that the question was not one for information.
But the addition may have been suggested from the margin,
thus. The word " dispute " also means " inquire into," and
hence it might be interpreted as meaning " test," or " try."

' [464a] Is. xix. 12, xlviii. 6, forms of jn', duav in both cases. Greek confusion
is also easy between (Mk. xii. 28) "knowing (eiAcoc (D. eiiWN))" and (Mk.
xii. 34), "seeing lAtON (D. giAoon)," especially as the latter would often be
written lASJ or eiAco- We have also seen above (459 (vi.)) that (as in Job ii. 10)
"see (nNi)" may be confused with "say (idn)." In Mk. xii. 28, SS has ''heard
that he answered well." Comp. Esth. iii. 5, "and he saw (nti)," LXX imynois,
Lagarde (a) iJKOv<rev.

'^ Schiirer, The Jewish People, Eng. Trans. 11. ii. 82, translates mm "sermon,"
and [ en "preacher." He explains eno (ib. i. 330) as "investigation, explana-
tion. " The Heb. vm does not mean " test " or " tempt " in O. T. But it might
be inferred to have that meaning from the context here and from such a passage
as I Chr. xxviii. 9 "the Lord trieth {iirr!) all hearts,'' iri^u.

[466] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Hence, a marginal rendering might be " testing^ These
two, being combined, might possibly result in the conflation
— " (flj) a lawyer {a^ trying (or, tempting) him." But on
that point see what follows, and especially 466 (97).

(iv) " Tempting^' in LXX, an error

[466 (a)] As regards the " tempting " of Jesus by men,
Luke differs widely from Mark, and generally from Matthew
(though here he agrees with the latter). And, if we are
to discuss the present passage, it is necessary to examine
others. The only mention of " tempting " by men, in the
LXX, that could be supposed to predict Messianic sufferings,
is in the Psalms (LXX version) " They tempted me, they
sorely-mocked me [with] mocking."^ This, however, is an
entirely erroneous rendering of the obscure Hebrew, which is,
" Like " [so R.V. text ; but "l mostly means " among," as
R.V. marg.J " the profane (or, hypocrites) mockers in feasts."
The LXX has taken the letter l — the preposition here
rendered "like" (or "among") — as the first letter of the
verb " tempt," finding the rest of the verb in the first two
letters of the Hebrew for " profane " (or " hypocrites ").^

^ Ps. XXXV. 16 iTreipcurdv fie i^efivKT^piffdv fie fiVKTTfpiiTfibv.

2 [466 (a) a\ Ps. XXXV. i6 (lit.) " Among (-a) profane [men] ('a:n) mockers-
for ('jj;'?) cake (jijd)," i.e. table-jesters. If the Hebrew is not corrupt, the LXX
took 3 followed by m as :na "test," "try," "tempt." This is generally used of
God " trying" men ; but in Ps. xcv. 9, Mai. iii. lo and iii. 15, it is used of men
"proving" or "tempting" God. Also the LXX took jij;d ("cake") as a repeti-
tion of jy!? (" mock ").

[466 ("■) S\ As regards the word ()]n, rendered by R.V. "profane,"' Gesen.
Oxf. gives the radical meaning as "profane,"' but adds "N, H. Hiph. Aram.
Aph. act falsely toward; nsun. hypocrisy." It=fuatva (3), ipovoKTOvw {2), Avofios
(2), 6,(re^i\s (5), SUKos (i), wapdvofios (2), viroKpirifs (2). The LXX renderings
of it as iiroKpnifS, "hypocrite," are in Job xxxiv. 30 (R.V.), "that the godless
man reign not,"" xxxvi. 13 " But they that are godless in heart lay up anger.""
The reader will perceive that the word might cause difficulty to translators of 1
Hebrew Gospel. Taking it in its Biblical sense, some might regard it as meaning
"defiled,"" "godless," "breakers of the law,'" a term that would well apply to
Herod and the Herodians. Josephus testifies {Ant. xviii. 5, 2) to the popular

196

OF MARK [466]

(v) Similar errors apparently in the Synoptists

[466 (jS)] Compare the following passages :

Mk. xii. 15. Mt. xxii. 18. Lk. xx. 23.

" But he knowing " But Jesus per- " But having seen-

their hypocrisy said ceiving their wicked- into their villainy he

to them, Why tempt ness said, Why tempt said to them. Shew

ye me? Bring (449) ye me, hypocrites? (449) me a dena-

me a denarius." Shew-forth to me the rius.''
coin of the tribute."

As above (365), the Hebrew for Mark's "know"
might be " see in " {i.e. " have knowledge in, understanding
in"). Also the word used here by Delitzsch to represent
" hypocrisy " is the same as that used in the Psalm above
quoted about "profane mockers." ^ But this would give in
Mark precisely the same letters (-1 followed by -an) which in
the Psalm have induced the LXX to adopt the combination
of ini (i.e. jn3) as meaning " tempt." Again, we have seen
above (459 (vi.)) that " see," in this sense, has been confused
with the familiar word " say." The two corruptions of " see "
into " say," and " hypocrisy " into " tempt," would result in a
new rendering, "he said . . ye tempt." This, taken inter-
rogatively, and conflated, would produce something very like
Mark's version, " knowing their hypocrisy he said Tempt ye
me ? " Matthew's differs little from this. Luke's shorter

belief that Herod lay under God's special displeasure for the murder of John the
Baptist. Levy (see tjin) quotes some passages that use the word of "flattering"
great people {e.g: Agrippa), but others that apply it to a "godless" king («.^.
Ahasuenis), and others that apply it to " heresy "e.^. "In every place where in
Scripture the word >]:n occurs, heresy (worship of false gods) is to be understood."
Such a word might be applied by the common people to Herod as "godless" and
to the Herodians as also "godless" (or as Herod's "flatterers"), by the Pharisees
to Sadducees as "heretics," and by Jesus to the Pharisees as being the true
" heretics."

^ Mk. xii. 15 "their hypocrisy," Delitzsch onsin. The Temptation by Satan
is excluded from this discussion as not being a temptation hy men.

197

[466] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

version may then be explained by the supposition that he
omitted the question assigned to Jesus as being based on
the same error as that in the LXX. Toward the close of
the first century, when the LXX was being studied by Jews
and Christians under stress of controversy, it was inevitable
that attention should be called to so conspicuous an error as
that of the unique passage in the LXX describing the
" tempting " of the Messiah by men.^

[466 (y)] Take another passage, a long dialogue about
divorce, where Mark and Matthew represent Christ as being
" tempted " by Pharisees. It occurs immediately before
Christ's prohibition of divorce. Mark has just said (x. i)
" And multitudes come together unto him again ; and, as he
was wont, he taught them again." Luke omits the whole

^ [466 (j3) a] Antecedently it is probable that an Evangelist, finding himself
compelled — as we suppose Luke to have been — to give up one part of an alleged
Messianic prediction, would fall back upon another part of the context. Ps.
XXXV. l6, the same verse that mentions "profane" (LXX "tempt"), mentions
also "mocking {i^eij.vKrripi<Tav)." This Greek word is rare in the Hebrew LXX,
occurring only thrice. Once it is used of the Lord ' ' mocking " evil - doers :
once in the Messianic Psalm (xxii. 7) "All they that see me laugh me to scorn
{eie/iVKT-fipuTdp fie) : they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, [saying], Commit
thyself unto the Lord ; let him deliver him ..." Everyone admits that the
Synoptists had this passage in view when describing the mocking of Jesus on the
Cross : and there Luke alone (Lk. xxiii. 35) tises this rare word (Mk.-Mt. having
"blaspheme"). It occurs only once again^in N. T. This is in the course of a
number of parables and sayings apparently uttered after Jesus (Lk. xiv. i) " went
into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a sabbath to eat bread" so
that any "mocking" recorded in that connection might be supposed to take
place at the table (comp. Ps. xxxv. 16 "mockers for cake," i.e. "table-jesters"
(466 (a) a)). If the Psalmist's expression, "mockers for cake," implied greedi-
ness, it would be unsuitable for Luke, since he could not accuse the Pharisees of
being "greedy" of food. But he might take this as a figurative expression
denoting covetousness, and accordingly he says (Lk. xvi. 14) "The Pharisees,
who were lovers of money, heard all these things," and they "mocked {i^e/ivK-
Tijpifoi') " at Christ. V\fe find then that iK/ivKrnpl^eiv occurs in the LXX practically
only twice (setting aside the "mocking" of men by God), and in N.T. only
twice ; that in LXX it refers on both occasions to the mocking of the Messiah ;
that on one of these occasions Luke (xxiii. 35) has certainly borrowed it in that
sense. The conclusion must be regarded as highly probable that on the other
occasion (xvi. 14) Luke is also borrowing the word as containing " Messianic
allusion.

198

OF MARK

[466]

dialogue, but has (four verses before the prohibition) a
mention of Pharisees " mocking " —

Mk. X. 2.

" And [[having
come - to [him]

[some] Pharisees]] ^
began to question
him, if it is [or, Is
it, et] lawful for a
husband (dvBpt,) to
put away a wife
(yvvaiKo), tempting
him."

Mt. xix. 3.

" And there came-
to him [some] Phari-
sees tempting him and
saying. Is it(et) lawful
[for a husband] to
put away his wife for
every cause ? "

[Lk. xvi. 14.]

" But there were
hearing all these
things the Pharisees
being lovers of
money and they
mocked him."

If the doubly bracketed words are omitted in Mark, we
must suppose either that the subject is impersonal {"people
began to question "), or that the subject is " they " referring
to the "multitudes" just mentioned by him (Mk. x. i). A
little later on, Mark has (Mk. x. i o) " And in the house
again the disciples began to question him about this," which
favours the view that the disciples, along with others, had
asked the question before, and now asked it "again" But,
if so, " tempting "" seeins inapplicable to what was apparently
an honest inquiry for information, and Luke might naturally
think the word erroneous. The position of the phrase
" tempting him " in Mark (differing as it does from that in
Matthew) suggests that the original had simply " And they
began to question him. Is it lawful . . wife." Some later
Evangelists took " question," or " discuss '' (tt>"n), as meaning
" test," " tempt," and inserted the latter at first in the
margin, and afterwards in the text, but in different positions.
Mark inserted it at the end as a supplementary explanation
of the nature of the " questioning." Matthew placed it

' W. H. bracket "having come-to [him] [some] Pharisees" as possibly an
interpolation. The words are omitted by SS.

199

[466]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

earlier and substituted it for "question." Luke rejected it
as an error.

[466 (S)] Another mention of " tempting " occurs in
Mark in connection with a demand for a sign from heaven-
This, Hke the last, occurs in a passage wholly omitted by
Luke. But Luke inserts a similar demand just after the
charge of " casting out devils by Beelzebub," where it seems
to be out of place.

Mk. viii.

II.

"And there went-
forth the Pharisees
and began to discuss-
with (crvv^rjreiv, lit.
seek-with) him, seek-
ing (X'qrovvre'i) from
him a sign from
heaven, tempting
him."

Lk. xi. 1 6.

" But others, tempt-
ing, began to seek
from him a sign out
of heaven."

Mt. xvi. I.

" And having-
come-to [him] the
[W.H.brackef'the"]
Pharisees and Sad-
ducees (lit.) ques-
tioned {eTTTjpioTr)-
crav) him [about] a
sign out of heaven to
shew them." ^

Comp. Mt. xii. 38.

" Then answered
him some of the
scribes and Pharisees
saying. Teacher, we
desire to see a sign
from thee."

This indicates that Luke accepted a tradition that a
" sign " was asked from Jesus by some who " tempted "
Him, but that he did not feel sure who the askers were.
Whence this doubt? And why does Matthew insert

' [466 (5) a] There is no instance of iirepuiTdv with inf. meaning "ask a
person to do" either in LXX or N.T., and L.S. alleges none from Greek
literature. In Ps. cxxxvii. 3 "asked us songs," LXX has ^piinjo-av ij/iSs Xi-youi
tfiSwv (n':'' art iirnpiiriiiTav). 'Eirepwroy, besides meaning " consult an oracle,"
means legal questioning (^.^. "Do you acknowledge this debt?") (456 (ii) o).
The English rendering of Mt. xvi. i above aims at shewing the diiBculty of the
construction.

200

OF MARK

[466]

" Sadducee " and leave out " tempt " ? These questions we
shall try to answer in what follows.

(vi) " Temptl' " Herodl' " Sadduceesl' "hypocrisy"

[466 (e)] It is intelligible that difference of opinion may
have arisen if conflated traditions connected the " tempting "
of Jesus with the term Chdnapk, applied by some (466 (a) b)
to the Pharisees, as being "hypocrites," but by others to
Sadducees as being " breakers of the Law," and by others
still more appropriately to the Herodians as being " profane ''
and " godless." As an illustration of this, compare : —

Mk. viii. 15.

" See, beware of
the leaven of the
Pharisees and the
leaven oi Herod."

Mt. xvi. 6.

" See and take
heed of the leaven
of the Pharisees and
Sadducees.''

Lk. xii. I.

" Take heed to
yourselves of the
leaven, which is
hypocrisy, of the
Pharisees." ^

^ [466 (e) a] SS agrees with D and with Tisch. (against W. H.) in reading
"of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.''

If" Herod " was called by the Galilaean Church "the C/^<4»a^^,''andifthis was
rendered by some "hypocrite" or "act hypocritically,'' then we might expect
"Herodians" in one Gospel to be parallel to the verb " act hypocritically " or
" pretend (iiiroKplveaBcu.) " in another. Compare : —

Mk. xii. 13. Mt. xxii. 16.

" They send unto him " They [i.e. the Phari-

some of the Pharisees sees] send to him their
and the Herodians." disciples with the Herodi-

ans."

[466 («) i] The only other passage mentioning " the

Mk. iii. 6. Mt. xii. 14.

"And having gone "But having

forth the Pharisees
straightway with the
Herodians began to ap-
point (^5(Sow) a joint-
council ((TW/i/SoiiXioy)
against him in order that
they might destroy him.''

Here an original "men of profanity (or, hypocrisy)'

201

gone

forth the Pharisees took
( Aa/Sov) joint - counsel
{(rvii,poi\i.ov) against him
in order that they might
destroy him. "

Lk. XX. 20.
" They sent [spies]
(iyKaBirovs) pretending
{{iTopi.votiii'ovs) them-
selves to be righteous. "

Herodians " is : —
Lk. vi. II.
"But they {airol Sk)
were filled with madness
{iTrX-^ffBriffan dvolas) and
began to talk to one
another what they should
do to Jesus. "

may have been taken by

[466] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

[466 (f)] We infer from the last paragraph that in the
tradition about the demand for a sign from heaven (466) (S),
the text varied between " tempting " and " with profane
persons." Matthew took it as the latter, and considered
it to mean "with the Sadducees," whom he supposes to
have accompanied the Pharisees. He therefore inserted
" Sadducees " and omitted " tempt." Luke adopted " tempt,"
but, finding the personality of the tempters obscure, left it
an open question under the term " others."

Mk. as meaning " Herodians. '' Mt. may have regarded it as a mere epithet of
Pharisees ("the Pharisees, and, i.e. even, the hypocrites") and may consequently
have omitted it. Lk. may have rendered it "profanity." The Biblical Hebrew
(Job xvi. lo) "filled themselves against" i.e. "gathered themselves in a council
against " may have been taken by Lk. as the New Hebrew (Esth. v. 5, 9 ; Dan.
iii. 19) "were filled with." ThusMk.'s " there gathered together the Herodians "
would become Lk.'s "they were filled with profanity,'' which is often described as
"folly" or "madness.'' Or "profanity" may have been originally dvoiiia!,
changed by Greek corruption (comp. i K. viii. 32, Dan. xii. 10, Job xxxiii. 23)
into Avoids. But the latter is used in 2 Tim. iii. 9 concerning men " corrupted in
mind."

[466 (e) c] The question is important, because it bears on Christ's use of the
word "hypocrite." Mark uses it only once (Mk. vii. 6) " Well prophesied Isaiah
concerning you, tAe hypocrites,"' Now Isaiah does not expressly say of the
prophets and priests as Jeremiah does (xxiii. 11), that they are "profane
( ChdnapK) " ; but against the Pharisees, who did not claim to be prophets or
priests, Isaiah's prophecy might be quoted (Is. ix. 16, 17) "They that lead this
people cause them to err , . every one is profane,'' so that the Assyrian, as the
instrument of God's wrath, is to be sent against this {ii. x. 6) "profane nation."
The meaning is, that the teachers of Israel are " profane " in the sense of " un-
godly," "practically atheistic," "defiled, or corrupted, to the very soul." What
is commonly meant by " hypocrite " is one who has a sense of, and simulates,
virtue. But Jesus may have meant one who had no sense of real virtue, being
blind to it. Similarly Bacon says that the real atheists, or, as he calls it, " the
great atheists" are hypocrites, who are "ever handling holy things, dut without
feeling, so as they must needs be cauterized in the end " (Essays, xvi. 60).

It is noteworthy that Lk. never uses the word "hypocrite" in the Triple
Tradition. In the Double Tradition he has it twice, Lk. vi. 42 (where Mt. has it)
and Lk. xii. 56 (where the parall. Mt. xvi. 3 is bracketed as doubtful by W. H.).
He has it once in his Single Tradition (Lk. xiii. 15). In the parall. to Mt. xxiv.
51 "he shall appoint his portion with the hypocrites," Lk. xii. 46 has "with the
unbelievers {itrlaruiv)." The Fourth Gospel never mentions either "hypocrite"
or "hypocrisy."

202

OF MARK

(vii) "Lawyer"

[466 (iy)] Now going back to (462) the description of
the " tempting " of Jesus, we have to note that here alone
does Matthew use the word "lawyer (vo/iitKo?)." It is
generally supposed to be a term that lays stress on the
teaching of the Law, whereas " scribe " means, literally, " a
lettered person," and might be taken to mean (especially by
Greeks) a mere " writer " of the Law. But no commentator
has alleged a Hebrew word exactly corresponding to the
Greek one.^

A comment on the Pauline mention of " the wise," " the
scribe," and "the disputer," gives a Jewish tradition saying
that God shewed to Adam every generation with its " dis-
puters," its " wise," its " scribes," and its " rulers." ^ In the
Mishna, the word " scribes " is only used of the teachers of
antiquity : contemporary scribes are called " wise." ^ These
various titles of teachers may explain how divergences might
arise among Evangelists in speaking of them. Different
Hebrew words might be chosen, beside the . possibility of
rendering the same Hebrew word by different Greek words.

One title for " teacher," found in the Chronicles and
Ezra, and likely to be used by an Evangelist writing in

^ [466 (i?) a] Matthew, grouping together Christ's condemnations of the
"Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," begins with a charge that (Mt. xxiii. 4)
" they bind heavy burdens " on men, which they will not move with their finger.
Luke, after mentioning some of Christ's charges against the Pharisees, adds (Lk.
xi. 4S-6) "But one of the lawyers answering said, Teacher, saying these things,
thou dost insult us also [koX t\iiSs). But he said. To you, also (/cal ifiv), the lawyers,
woe, for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne . . ." This seems to
imply a different class ; and Hor. Hebr. (iii. p. 125) says, " It is not easy to
give the reason why he is termed a lawyer and not a scribe." In many respects
"priests" would be more suitable than "lawyers" here. For the priests —
apart from the aristocratic families of high-priests who were mostly Sadducees
— ^were held in reverence by the Pharisees, and were allowed predecence by them ;
and there was (Schiirer, Eng. Tr. II. ii. p. 30) " a large number of priests who
themselves belonged to the Rabbinical class." See 466 (17) c.

^ Hor. Hebr. on i Cor. i. 20. ' Schiirer, II. i. p. 314.

203

[466] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Biblical Hebrew, is derived from the root " understand " and
means literally "one that makes [others] intelligent." But
it is capable of an emphatic instead of a causative meaning,
so that it may signify " intelligent," and it is sometimes so
taken by LXX, and by R.V., where other authorities take
it to mean "teacher."^ The root (p3) is confused in Job
with the Hebrew (]TT2) for the word "tempt," used here by
Matthew and Luke alone, and in Daniel with the Hebrew
(Mil) for the word "approach," used here by Mark alone.^
This word (]"'n), meaning "discreet," might also account for
Mark's tradition that the man answered "discreetly," and
generally for Mark's favourable view of him. But, on the
other hand, " discreetly " may represent an original " wisely " ;
and it has been shewn that there may have been a con-
fusion (462) between " muzzle " and " wise " (Don and Q3n).
Amid great uncertainty of detail, it is highly probable
that some very early doubt as to the status of this inter-
locutor with Jesus concerning the Great Commandment
caused Evangelists to resort to different terms such as (a)
" disputant," ^ (d) " teacher " (lit. " making-intelligent "),* and

' The root is j'3. Ezr. viii. i6 R.V. txt. " teachers," but marg. and A.V.
" (men of) understanding,'' and so LXX (Ezr. viii. l6 <ru>/i6i/Tos, 1 Esdr. viii. 43
iviffT^/iopas), I Chr. xxv. 8 " teachers," LXX " perfect (reXefui')."

In I Chr. XV. 22, xxv. 7, xxvii. 32, R.V. has "skilful" or "man of under-
standing," but Gesen. Oxf. "teacher."

' Job xxxiv. 35 " were tried {i.e. tested) " ([nn), M^e (leg. pn), Dan. ix. 22
"and he instructed me," Theod. avvhiae {yi), LXX vpoaT\KBt (leg. Ku).

' [466 (17) i5] The Arabic Diatessaron, instead of " one of the scribes, having
heard them disputing" has " one of the scribes of those that knew the Law." This
represents Mt.-Lk.'s " lawyer." But the fact that the Diatessaron omits " having
heard them disputing " — though it would have been quite easy to incorporate the
words in the Harmony — suggests that the Harmonizer believed the omitted words
to mean "a Disputant," or "Lawyer."

* [466 (1) e] In 2 K. xi. 9 " the priest ((n^n)," LXX has awerk, suggesting
that it read paDn = " teacher " or "man of understanding," and in 1 Esdr. ix. 40,
" priests (iep«s) " represents the parall. Nehem. viii. 2 " had understanding." In
Lk. X. 25 f. the parable about the Good Samaritan, who surpassed in righteous-
ness both the Levite and the Priest, is addressed to a " lawyer," but it would
come with much more appropriateness if addressed to a " priest." See 466 (i>) «•

204

OF MARK [466]

perhaps also (c) " wise." These various readings, being
corrupted, have produced serious divergences.

The independent departure of Matthew and Luke from
Mark combines with many indications of conflation in the
latter to indicate that Mark's narrative must be regarded
as corrupt.^

^ [466 iv) <^}- It may be urged that "tempting" is out of the question
because, according to Mk. xii. 34, Jesus says to the man, "Thou art not far from
the kingdom of God." But is not this a strange reply for Jesus to make to a man
who merely repeats the quotation from Deuteronomy, with an added allusion to
the passages of Scripture (i S. xv. 22, Prov. xxi. 3, Ps, 1. 23, li. 16, 17, Ixix. 31,
Hos. vi. 6, Is. i. II, Amos v. 22) that describe the superiority of goodness, or of
piety, or of obedience, to sacrifice — an answer that might have been made by any
hypocritical Jew professing to be religious ? According to Lk. x. 28 Jesus says
something quite different: — "Do this and thou shalt live." And Mk. exhibits
so many signs of corruption and error in the context that he may be wrong here
also. Probably Mk. has preserved the original words "far from," but in a.
wrong construction, as follows.

Jesus has been quoting, and the " lawyer " has been repeating, the command-
ment that includes the theory of the Law. Now in a. well-known and often-
quoted passage, a final mention of the theory is closely followed by a mention
of the practice, and introduced with the words "far off" (Deut. xxx. 10, 11)
"... if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy
soul. For this commandment ... it is not too hard for thee (^DD), neither is it
far off" lit. " far off [is] it (din npm)," where the LXX has "it is not burdensome,
neither: [is it] far from thee." These words are intended to enjoin doing instead
of talking ; and the passage continues (Deut. xxx. 14) " the word is very nigA
unto thee in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou mayest do it."

If Mk.'s original, condensing the Deuteronomic passage, had "not far from
thee [is] it," i.e. mn -pa npm »'?, it only needed a slight change in the last two
words to obtain " not far-off [is the] kingdom (rr^ao, written as nafea)." Comp.
1 K. ix. 26 "the king (•\hw)" = 2 Chr. viii. 17 "went (i^n)." "From thee"
would be readily supplied, and this might be paraphrased and amplified into,
" Thou art not far from the kingdom of God."

Now in answer to a verbose inquirer as to the Great Commandment it is very
natural that Jesus should reply briefly — with allusion to Deut. xxx. 11^" Not far
from thee [is] it," meaning, " This is a matter of everyday practice, not of talk,"
or, " Go, then, and do this, for you need not go far." But, if so, Mk. has com-
pletely misrepresented Christ's words. On the other hand Lk. — especially if we
bear in mind that the Deuteronomic words are followed by a promise of " life "
(Deut. xxx. 16 "that thou mayest live") — substantially expresses the meaning
both here ("Do this and thou shalt live") and also in the words that he appends
to the illustrative parable that follows (Lk. x. 37) " Go, and do thou likewise."

The obscurity of the original might explain why Mt. gives no version of it.
But it is possible that Mt. may have dropped a letter from nm npn(l) the two last

205

[467] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

(viii) (Mk) "first . . . of all" {Mt.) "great . . . in the law"
(Lk.) " in the law what is written ? "

[467] It was shewn above (429) that — in describing
the discussion of the question " Who is the greater ? " —
Mark used the word "first" as a free translation of the
Hebrew "great" applied to "first-born." So here, the
Original was " great in the Law," but Mark uses " first '' to
denote the Hebraic " great," i.e. " greatest," that which comes
first in honour,^ or, as the Arabic Diatessaron says, in the
English translation, "the great and pre-eminent command-
ment." He also paraphrases " in the Law " by the phrase
" of all," meaning of all the enactments of the Law. But
he has expressed it ungrammatically. He might have said
" (aj) first (fem.) of all the commandments (fem.)," or " (a^)
coming-first-before all things (neut.)." But he has fused the
two.

(ix) " Rad " meaning "great" confused with " Rab " meaning

"Rabbi"

[468] On account of Mark's inaccuracy, later Evangelists
followed a correction that returned to the original Hebrew
" in the Law " ; and, so far, Matthew and Luke agreed.
But they differed in the following details. The word R&b
means " great," but it also means " Rabbi." Matthew con-
flated it in his version : " Rabbi, what commandment [is]
great in the law ? " But Luke found a tradition that took
Rdb as meaning " Rabbi " and nothing else, so that it left a
gap, " Rabbi, what commandment [ ] in the Law ? "
This might be interpreted " what is commanded in the Law

words of the Deuteronomic quotation, thus obtaining " The Law [consists in]
this,'' which he paraphrased as "On these two comhiandments the whole Law
hangs, and the prophets. "

^ The Jews were also in the habit of distinguishing the ' ' light " precepts from
the " heavy" precepts : but this was not the scribe's question.

206

OF MARK [469]

[z.e. for the inheritance of eternal life] ? " or else, " what is
prescribed, or written, in the Law?" and Luke combines
these interpretations.^

(x) Did Jesus, or tfie lawyer, quote the words " Thou shalt
love the Lord " ?

[469] Luke alone, against Mark and Matthew, repre-
sents the lawyer, and not Jesus, as quoting these words
(Lk. X. 26, 27) : " But he (Jesus) said unto him, ' In the law
what is written ? How readest thou ? ' But he answering
said, ' Thou shalt love the Lord. . . ' "

The explanation is as follows. The question " How
readest thou ? " was commonly used by a Rabbi to introduce
a Scriptural quotation that he himself was about to use. This
was in the original Hebrew and was omitted by Mark as
being a mere sign of quotation. Luke, who alone preserves
the question, very naturally supposes that it expected an
answer from the person addressed, that is, from the lawyer,
and consequently that the lawyer uttered the words "Thou
shalt love the Lord " in answer to the question, " How
readest thou ? " ^

On this hypothesis, we can also explain why Mark
represents the scribe as repeating the quotation, while

^ It is also possible that the Original had simply, " what in the law [is] great
(ai)?" Mark (followed by Mt.) may have supplied "commandment." This
short form — especially if it was taken to mean " what [is] in the Law, Rabbi?"
— would very well explain Luke's conflation, " (aj) In the Law what is written ?
(flg) How readest thou ? " Schottg. on Mt. xxii. 36 (vol. i. p. 183) gives an instance
of the application of " great " to precepts, though " heavy " is more common.

" [469a] See Hor. Hebr. (on Lk. x. 26), which gives several instances of " Hmu
readest thou?" "an expression very common in the Schools when any person
brought a text of Scripture for the proof of anything." Hor. Heb. assumes that
Lk. is historically correct, but admits a " departure " from common usage : " He
Qesus) departs from their common use of speech, in that he calls to another to
allege some text of Scripture ; whereas it was usual in the Schools that he that
spoke that {i.e. this formula) would allege some place {i.e. text) himself." It
seems more probable that there was no " departure," but that Lk. fell into a very
natural error.

207

[470] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS.

Matthew does not. Mark probably conflated the correct
tradition, that Jesus uttered the quotation, with an incorrect
one, that it was uttered by the scribe, making the scribe's
utterance a repetition of Christ's, and adding to the text
some marginal comment (about " burnt-offerings ") without
which the repetition would have been meaningless. In
the Original, it is probable that Jesus alone quoted the
Deuteronomic precept, adding two or three words — wholly
misrepresented by Mark and almost as much by Matthew
(466 (t}) d) — to the effect that the precept must be fulfilled
in daily practice.

§ 59. {Mk.) "in his teaching" {Mt.-Lk.) "disciples"

Mk. xii. 37, 38. Mt. xxiii. i. Lk. xx. 45.

"Andthecommon "Then Jesus spake " And in the hear-

people heard him to the multitudes and ing of all the people

gladly, and in his to his disciples say- he said to the dis-

teaching he said." ing." ciples.''

(i) {Mk:) "teaching" {Lk?} "hearing"

[470] To express a prophetic " message," Hebrew may
use the noun " hearing,'' as in Isaiah, " Who hath believed
our message ? " which St. Paul, following the Septuagint,
quotes as " Who hath believed our hearing ? " ■* In the
present passage, if the original was "in his hearing" i.e.
preaching, and if it was interpreted " hearing," it would
seem necessary, for Greeks, to alter " his " to " their."
" Disciples," " multitudes," or " people," would then need to
be added to express who were " hearing." The correction,
adopted in different forms by Matthew and Luke, may have
taken place either in a Hebrew or in a Greek original.^

^ Rom. ji. 16 (also Jn. xii. 38) quoting Is. liii. 1 (unvDB'S from pDc "hear")
tI% iirlcmvirc t'q dKoi) 7)ixQ>v ;

^ If the original was ei' tij aKor) atrrov, it would be very natural to regard SiYTOy
as an error for Ayr 55 •

208

OF MARK [470]

(ii) [Mk^ " the common people "

Both in Hebrew and in Greek " the people the many "
might be easily taken as " the people [with Jesus] and the
many," so as to mean two classes ; and this view — in
different ways — may have been taken by Matthew and
Luke. But it is also possible that the Corrector may have
taken " his teaching " to be " his taught ones," i.e. " his
disciples," an easy confusion in Hebrew, but not in Greek.

(iii) (Mk.) " heard him gladly "

The later Evangelists would certainly not have omitted
an authoritative statement that the people " heard Jesus
gladly'.' The original was, " the common people heard him
and rejoiced (^^^■'^)." But this word closely resembles the
word v^^■' "together'' : and the words are at least twice
confused by the Septuagint.^ Matthew and Luke, adopting
the latter rendering, describe Jesus as, in effect, addressing
two classes of hearers " together " — which Codex Bezae
reads?

8 60. Walking " in robes "

Mk. xii. 38. Mt. xxiii. 5-7. Lk. xx. 46.

"... who like ". . and they "... wholiketo

to walk about in enlarge their borders, walk about in robes
robes and salutations But they love . . . and love salutations."
. . . and chief seats." and the chief seats
. . . and the saluta-
tions."

1 Job iii. 6 " rejoice (in' from mn) " (marg. " be joined with " leg. as from in'),
Ps. Ixxxvi. II "unite (iw)" eitppaveiru (leg. as from mn).

2 [470a] In Mk. xii. 38, Dreads 5c SiSacKoiv a/io (lit. "teaching together").
In classical Greek, this should mean " at the moment of teaching." But, if thus
rendered, it would be quite superfluous. On the other hand S/tta=nn' 35 times.
It is probable that D is here following a tradition that substituted y-w for nn'i.

14 209

[471] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

(i) 'Hove"

[471] The coupling of "to walk" with "salutations," as
objects of " like," is as harsh in Greek as in English, and is
naturally corrected in the edition followed by Luke : " like
to walk, and love salutations." Matthew prefers to retain
one verb and to drop the infinitive here (though he has an
infinitive in the following verse). This is one of many
passages where the harshness of Mark's style makes it
probable that his Gospel was the earliest and was corrected
by later Evangelists.

(ii) " robes "

[472] It has been shewn above (388) that "border"
might be taken as " garment,'' and that Mark rendered it so,
where Matthew and Luke rendered it " border of the garment."
According to Mark's rendering here, the fault of the Pharisees ■
consisted in wearing " (long) robes" a fault frequently censured
by Roman writers. Wetstein illustrates this passage by one
from Marcus Aurelius, using this very phrase, " do not walk
about in a [long] robe at home." The phrase "walk in,"
meaning " shew off," is used by Epictetus when he reproves
the practice of " walking about in purple " : and Horace
satirizes the upstart who " struts about in a toga six ells
long." ^ To " walk in robes," then, would be an expression
very familiar to the Roman readers of St. Mark's Gospel ;
but it is not what the Original meant — viz. the enlarging of
the " borders " or rather " fringes " ordained by the Law.^
There are grounds for thinking that in othei- details of the
context, as well as in this, Mark is less faithful than Matthew
to the Original.^

' Epictet. iii. 32. 10, Hor. Epod. iv. 8.

^ Numb. XV. 38, Deut. xxii. 12. Dr, J. B. Mayor calls to my attention Euseb.
Praep. Evang. viii. 9. 16, where vepipoXaliai' — which would generally mean,
and perhaps may there mean, "clothing" — "seems to be used for phylacteries."

^ [472a] In the context, Mark's (Mk. xii. 40 sim. Lk. xx. 47) " making long
prayers " is a not unlikely mistranslation of a Heb. original correctly rendered by

210

OF MARK

[473]

§ 6 1 . The reply of Jesus to Judas

Mk. xiv. 44, 45.

" Now he that
(lit.) betrayeth him
. . . And having
come straightway
having come-to him
he saith, ' Rabbi,'
and kissed him."

Lk. xxii. 47, 48.

" And he drew-
nigh to Jesus to kiss
him. But Jesus said
to him. With a kiss
betrayest thou the
Son of man ? "

Mt. xxvi. 48—50.

" Now he that
(lit.) betrayeth him
. . . And straight-
way having come-to
Jesus, he said, ' Hail,
Rabbi ' and kissed
him. But Jesus said
to him, ' Companion,
to [that to] which
thou art come,
[hasten].'"

[473] The silence of Mark and John, and the great

Matthew "making-broad Tephillin (or, phylacteries)" since the word also means
" prayers."

[472^] As regards Matthew's last detail, namely, "and to be called . . ■
Rabbi," it must be noted that Codex D and SS repeat " Rabbi," and probably
the Original was "... and that there shall be called to them Rabbi, Rabbi."
But (i) "there shall be called" may easily be read as "there shall befall" and (ii)
"Rabbi" as "judgment" ox "condemnation.'' And the twofold repetition might
be taken to mean "double condemnation." This might be paraphrased by Mark
" they shall receive more abundant condemnation."

[472^] There is a frequent precedent for (i) the former error in the LXX,
which often confuses Nip, "call," and mp, " befall." Indeed in Prov., whenever
(ix. 18, xii. 23, xxiv. 8) travavTq.v ("befall") occurs, it = Heb. "call." See also
Prov. XX. 6 (R.V. txt.) "proclaim," (marg.) "meet," xxvii. 16 (R.V. txt.) "en-
countereth," (marg.) "bewrayeth itself." Again, (ii) Rb meaning "great,"
"multitude," "mighty," etc., is confused with Rb meaning "cause," or "con-
tend" in Ex. xxiii. 2, "in a cause (ttXiJ^ous)," Is. xix. 20, Ixiii. I. In Deut.
xxxiii. 7, R.V. offers " sufficient " as a marg. alternative for "contended." In
Is. xlv. 9, "him that striveth " = /SeXrioi', i.e. "strong[er] [than]." "Judging
judging" — since duplication often implies emphasis in the prophets (e.g. Is. xlviii.
II)— Mark might regard as meaning "two-fold, i.e. abundant, ]yiigmg."

If this explanation is correct, Mark is wrong, even on the supposition that he
read yi for m. For m does not mean "judge," but "plead, or contend [for, or,
against]." But Mark may have erred in company with the LXX, as in Job x. 2
"thou contendest-with (i.e. against) me," LXX " ^>a.a\i. judgest {iKpivaa) me,"
Is. Ii. 22 " pleadetA-tke-cause-of his people," LXX " judging {xplvoiv) his ipeoTpXe."
In Jerem. Ii. 36 (lit.) "I will contend thy contention," i.e. "plead thy cause,"
LXX has " I ynWjttdge (xpivSi) thine adversary."

2IT

[474] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

difference between Matthew and Luke as to the reply alleged
to have been made by our Lord to Judas, suggest that the
original Gospel contained no reply. But, if so, whence arose
the tradition of one ? And why does Luke make no
mention of words uttered by Judas ?

(i) Lukis omission of Judas' words

[474] The Original may have had, literally, " And he
[Judas] came, and straightway he called - out to him to
peace " — that is, he proclaimed " All is well," " There is no
danger." These words are mistranslated in Deuteronomy ;
and such an idiom might naturally be paraphrased by some
Evangelists, and misunderstood by others.

Mark has paraphrased it as a mere salutation (" Rabbi ")
followed by an embrace ; and so has Matthew, with the
addition of the Greek " hail."

But Luke misunderstood "call out," taking it either as
" meet " (with which it is practically (472t) identical), or
else as "draw near," np, which is similar to "call out," Nip,
and is once confused with the latter.^ This made a differ-
ence in what followed. In Mark and Matthew "and kissed
him " could only be taken as " and " ; but when preceded
by " drew near," a verb implying purpose, " and " might
mean "that." Accordingly Luke has "drew near that he
might kiss him." ^

^ [474a] Deut. XX. lo "then proclaim peace unto it," LXX, "and call them
forth in peace," koX ^KKd\eiT<u avrois fier' dp^vti^. "Call out," "proclaim"
= Nip : " meet " (used of fortuitous meeting) = rrlp. The two are often inter-
changed (472i^). "Draw near"= np, which appears confused with tf\p "call"
in Ps. Ixxv. I " for thy name is near," iiriKaKeirbiieBa.

" [474*] For vaw indicating purpose yet rendered by the Greek past indica-
tive, see I K. xiii. 33. For vaiv indicating a past fact, and rendered by tva with
subjunctive, see Dan. ii. 49 LXX (but Theod. with R.V. Kal). There are many
such instances (240)'

212

OF MARK [476]

(ii) The origin of the reply assigned to Jesus

[475] If the above explanation is correct, the " he-called
out," which was in the original Hebrew, has disappeared
from our extant Gospels. The dispute about its meaning,
and its similarity to "draw near," might induce some to
write in the margin [a-^ "he said," others {a^ "he came," or
" approached," or " drew near." ^

Mark appears to have conflated these. At least the
hypothesis of a conflation explains the curious combination
of two verbs of coming: "having come straight -way («i)
having come - to him {a^ he saith." He rightly connects
" saith " with Judas.

But other Evangelists might take " he said " to mean
that Jesus " said " something in reply to the traitorous act of
Judas, and might endeavour to supply from the context, or
from other tradition, what Jesus said.^

[476] Luke seems to have been misled by the rare
combination of the article with the participle "the [one]
betraying," which occurs here in the other three evangelists.^
Luke has the verb interrogatively " Art thou betraying ? "
The discrepancy is readily explained by the fact that the
Hebrew letter signifying the article may also be used inter-
rogatively.* Consequently, if the original was, " Now there
[had] said Judas, the [one] betraying, The man whom I

^ Comp. 2 K. xi. 14 "Athaliah . . . cried (unp) Treason, treason" = 2 Chr.
xxiii. 13 " A. . . . said^Txi) Treason, treason," LXX, in both, pa%v.

^ See another instance (459 i-iv) of a possible marginal gloss " said," causing
Matthew and Luke to make a dialogue where the original Gospel seems not
to have contained one.

' Mk. xiv. 44, Mt. xxvi. 48, Jn. xviii. 2, 5 o rrapaStSoAs aijiv,

* [476a] Thus, in Job xxv. 2 (lit.) "The dominion (Won)," the LXX
taking Mashal in its familiar sense of "parable" {irpooliii.ov, as in Job xxvii. i,
xxix. i) has " Wial paxahle" ? and in Amos vi. 2 "[Be they] better (o'aiBn)?"
the LXX has " iAehest." For confusion between the vocative prefix and the article
comp. 2 S. xxiv. 23 "All this, O (-n) king,'" marg. "/Ae king" ; Ps. ix. 6 " tAe
enemy," marg. and A.V. "0 thou enemy," LXX "Me enemy."

213

[477]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

kiss, he [is the man]," it would be easy to take the words as
"And he said to Judas, Art thou betraying the man whom
thou kissest ? " Either by Hebrew or by Greek corruption
" man '' might easily become " son of man."^ Thus the
words fall into the shape now extant in Luke.

[477] Matthew, as has been pointed out (188), assigns
to Jesus a reply impossible, in its Greek shape — because
" companion " implies a jesting or ironical mood that is
quite out of place here — but possibly derived from a tradition
found in John, bidding Judas do his evil deed with despatch.^

n *

g 62. The wounding of the High pries fs servant

Mk. xiv. 47.

" But [a certain]
one of them - that -
stood - by having
drawn - for - himself
{(TTraadfievoi;) (?) the
\i.e. his] sword struck
the servant of the
high priest."

Mt. xxvi. 51.

" And behold one
of those with Jesus
having stretched out
his hand wrested
away {arrrea'-jraaev)
his (avTov) sword,
and having smitten
the servant of the
high priest."

Lk. xxii. 49, 50.

" But seeing what
would follow, those
around him said,
' Lord, Shall we
smite with the
sword ? ' And a
certain one of them
smote the servant of
the high priest."

(i) " strike " and " smite "

[478] " Smite," the word used by Matthew and Luke,
occurs in the Septuagint about 420 times, Mark's " strike "

' [476*] In "the man whom," the relative might easily drop out after
" man " {-lerH after »'k) as it does in 2 S. xxi. 5. Or the original of Mk. might
contain <z " when," or " if" (" If I kiss a man, he [is the person]) " : and 'd might
be read as p " son.'" Also, by Gk. corruption, "the man (accus.) whom," arBpaToov
might easily be taken as at/6puirovvi> i.e. ivSpiiirov vl6v, the latter word being
misplaced.

" [477a] If Judas said to his Master " Peace (shim)," a tradition may have
arisen, right or wrong, that Jesus replied to him in some similar word. Now (a)
" man -of- my -peace" means "intimate friend," (b) the verb (shim) means
" accomplish," " complete " (once = o-TrouSiif u). (b) The latter might be the basis
of John's tradition (Jn. xiii. 27) "Do quickly what thou art doing." Matthew
may have conflated the two.

214

OF MARK [480]

about 25. Both words might describe an accidental blow;
but, considering the proportion of usage, we may say that
" strike " is more often thus used, while " smite " expresses
military slaughter, the visitations of God, etc.^ Did Mark's
Corrector substitute " smite " because he considered it a
word of higher tone ? Or did he wish to avoid the notion
that the blow was a casual one? This question will be
considered below.

(ii) " they that stood by "

[479] Mark's " they-that-stood-by " occurs repeatedly in
the Septuagint meaning " attendants " ; and whenever in the
New Testament the participle is preceded by the article, it
ought probably to be rendered by some phrase implying
attendance, e.g. (Lk. xix. 24) where a nobleman bids his
" attendants " take away the pound from the idle servant,
(Acts xxiii. 2) where the high priest commands one of the
"attendants" to smite Paul, (Jn. xviii. 22) where "one of
the officers in attendance" struck Jesus, (Lk. i. 19) "I am
Gabriel the [angel] that is [ever] in attendance before God,"
(Mk. XV. 3 S ) " Some of the men on guard, when they heard
it said, Behold he calleth Elijah," (Mk. xv. 39) "the
centurion that was on guard over against him." So, too,
when the word is used twice by Mark (xiv. 69, 70) in Peter's
denial, it is best translated, " those in attendance," i.e. the
soldiers and servants who were on duty, or in waiting, in
the courtyard. Hence the most natural meaning of Mark's
words here is, " One of the attendants drawing his sword
[accidentally] struck the servant of the high priest'.'

[480] Thus, too, and thus only, can we explain Mark's
mentioning " the sword " here without any previous mention.

1 For jToIeic (" strike "), see Josh. xx. 9, 2 S. xiv. 6. In Dan. viii. 7, Theod.
gives TTofcti', LXX irwriijaeiv " smite," for the butting of a goat. In Numb. xxii.
28 (m), the ass says tI . . . Sri wiiratKas ; in Numb. xxii. 32 (naj). the angel
says tI ivdra^as ;

215

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Peter could not be expected to carry a sword about with
him.^ If, therefore, Peter had been meant, the writer would
hardly have used " the." But any-one of the temple-guard, or
armed attendants, or Roman soldiers on duty, would natur-
ally have a sword ; and, in speaking of such a one, a writer
would naturally use the article, to mean " his " (as it is used
in Greek or French, when applied to limbs, clothing, etc.).^

If however it is the fact that Mark understood the
blow to have been accidentally struck by one of the
guards, it does not necessarily follow that he is correct,
or even that he represents the original Gospel. The
Hebrew word meaning " attendants " may possibly have
been applied in early times to some or all of the Apostles
who had " stood fast " by Jesus in His " temptations." '
However, the question is not at present whether Mark is
right, but what were the motives and processes involved in
Matthew's and Luke's departures from Mark, including
their adoption of the word " smite " instead of " strike " ;
and enough has been said to shew that one motive may
have been the desire to shew that the wounding of the high
priest's servant was not accidental, but the deliberate act of
a disciple. From this motive, we may also explain the
substitution of Matthew's " those with Jesus " and Luke's
"those around him" for Mark's "those in attendance."

^ Some of the Galilaean pilgrims may have occasionally carried swords. But
that the practice was not habitual appears from Lk. xxii. 36-38, which says that
there were only "two swords" among the whole of the disciples. Jn. xviii. 10
(" Simon Peter having a sword ") implies that the " having " was casual.

* [480a] That /idxaipa here means "sword" and not "(cooking) knife," is
demonstrated by a consensus of Biblical use in the former meaning, so frequent as
to make it certain that it could not be used for knife, unless something in the
context necessitated the latter meaning. Mdxatpa occurs in some Biblical books
{e.g. Jeremiah) far more often than ^o/i^ala, in the sense ' ' sword " ; and it is used
in N.T. even of the official sword (Acts xii. 2, Rom. xiii. 4).

^ [480i5] Luke xxii. 28 Sia/ieftevTiKSTes. The word lov "stand" may mean
"stand-fast." One form of it also means "pillar." And we know from St.
Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (ii. 9) that Peter was one of those who were
" reputed to he pillars."

216

OF MARK [481]

(iii) " wrested away "

[481] But why does Matthew use "wrested away"
instead of " drew " ? ^ Perhaps for this reason. Some Editor
of Mark, believing that the wound was inflicted by a disciple,
and seeking to explain how a disciple of Jesus could possess
a sword, wished to read Mark's account thus : " A certain
man, from (or, of) those standing by, wresting away a sword,"
i.e. "wresting away a sword from those standing by {}£. the
soldiers)." This interpretation might be justified by the
Hebrew Original, because the Hebrew " from " might mean
either " from [the hands of] " or " [one] from [the number
of]." But Mark's use of the Middle Voice — mostly implying
" drawing " onis own sword — was incompatible with the
Editor's view. He therefore changed the voice from Middle
to Active. Matthew accepted the Editor's " wrested away " ;
but at the same time he rendered the preposition as "of"

^ [481a] 'Airoa-ir^v, "wrest away," occurs in LXX ten times, but never in the
sense of drawing a sword. In non- Hebraic Greek^ — except in the sense of
"drawing off" soldiers, or "journeying" — it almost always implies violence, or
involuntary motion. See Hemsterhuys's note on Lucian Dear. Dial. xx. 5, the
substance of which is not adequately given by L. and S.

In the LXX, (ririi/jsvos (the middle) is very frequently used for "[one] drawing
sword," i.e. a swordsman, and (less frequently) for " drawing one's sword." The
active means drawing some one else's sword, when Abimelech says to his servant
(Judg. ix. 54) " draw my sword."

On the other hand, an insertion of the LXX, Ps. cli. 7, uses the middle,
aira<T&ii.evm, for David drawing Goliath's sword, and Sir. xxii. 21 has the active
{aw&crris) for drawing one's sword against a friend. The active is also used for one's
own sword in Judg. viii. 20 (unless eawoiraTOTo has been corrupted to efftraacTo).
The active is used of God drawing a sword in Ezek. xxvi. 15 » t^ airdrai
/idxatpav, "in the [time of] drawing the sword "=R.V. "when the slaughter
is made. " 'EKair^v (active) is used of drawing a sword with difficulty out of a
wound (Judg. iii. 22), of David drawing Goliath's heavy sword out of its sheath,
I S. xvii. 51 (B cm., A e|eiro(ro' (sic)), and of God drawing His sword of ven-
geanqe once for all, Ezek. xxi. 3, S ("it shall not return again"). It is not used,
as airii/ievos is, to denote the regular drawing of the sword.

If, therefore, a writer wished to express "drawing a sword," he had <nr^v and
iKOTqn, active and middle, at his disposal ; but, so far as Hemsterhuys and the
LXX enable us to judge, he could not rightly use the active of dTroo-irpc.

217

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

(not " from ") and interpreted " those standing by " as " those
with Jesus." He also inserted " stretching out his hand " —
probably in order to emphasize his view, namely, that the
act was not a casual one. But the result makes no sense,
unless we can suppose "his" to have a prospective reference:
'' wrested away his sword and smote the high priest's servant
[with the servant's own sword]."

[482] Luke's narrative cannot at present be satisfactorily
explained on the hypothesis of borrowing from Mark's
tradition : but there are some indications of a possible
Greek corruption.^

§ 63. {Mk.) " the Son of the Blessed',' {Mt.-Lk.) " the Son

of God"

Mk. xiv. 61 (lit). Mt. xxvi. 63. Lk. xxii. 67, 70.

" Thou art the "... that thou tell " ' If thou art the

Christ the Son of the ics if thou art the Christ /«// «j,'. .. But

Blessed?" Christ the Son of they all said, Thou

God." art therefore the Son

oiGodV

[483] It has been shewn (371-2) that (i) this- is one
of many passages where Mark, having followed the Hebrew

^ [482a] Luke omits o-jrao-ii/tei'os, but has (xxii. 49) tA 4<r6ft,evov, a participle
that does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., and occurs only thrice in the whole of
the O.T. historical books. In one of these cases it is a corrupt repetition (only in
E) from (Gen. xli. 30) TrXijir/ioi/^s. In Sir. xlii. 19, B has iireffd/ieva. In Eccles.
K. 14 "what shall come to pass (,Tn'»-nD) " is rendered tI tA yerSfntvov. (In
Lk. xxii. 49 D has yevbuevov instead oi iabiiaiov.)

[482i5] Parallel to Matthew's l&oi Luke has iSdvres, perhaps having read i5ou
as cSov {i.e. dSov "they saw") (see 352iz). But iSov is twice (Job xxiii. 4, Esth.
V. 2 (Oxf. Cone.)) confused by scribes of k with iirov, i.e. etwop. Luke may have
had before him two traditions, (i) one that the disciples " saw" (iSoi'), (ii) another
that they "said" (ittoi"). Corresponding to (i), atra<ra/ievos might become roeTreiro-
ixevov, or roeffo/teeo : corresponding to (ii) it might become eiTreo-o/iex, i.e. el wahoii^
"shall we strike" (altered into d Tari^ofiev). [D has eire<rep for eiraurev in Mk.,
and eweffev is in Judg. xiv. 19 (A), Jer. v. 6 (nAB), 2 K. xxv. 21 (A).]

[482i:] But see below (Mk. xiv. 65) (486) where Mt. and Lk. insert " who
struck thee ? " — possibly parallel to Mk.'s " officers."

2X8

OF MARK [484]

closely, has not expressed the interrogative so clearly as to
satisfy later Evangelists, (2) " the Blessed " is probably a
mistake (414). Matthew and Luke — though in very differ-
ent ways, and with obvious independence of each other —
have adopted corrections of Mark on these points.

§ 64. (Mt.) "from this moment" {Lk.) "from the present
time" Mk. omits

Mk. xiv. 62. Mt. xxvi. 64. Lk. xxii. 67-70.

"But Jesus said, "Jesus saith to "But he said to

I am, and ye shall him, Thou hast said ; them. If I say (eiTrco)

see the Son of man however (■jrXijv) I say to you . . . but (Se)

seated . . ." (Xeym) to you, from from the present time

this moment {air {airh rod vvv) the

apri) ye shall see Son of man shall be

the Son of man seated . . . But he

seated ..." said unto them. Ye

say that I am."

(i) {Mt^-Lk) " T say "

[484 (i)] Confusion appears to have arisen here from the
Hebrew " I [am] " represented in Mark's original by a long
and emphatic form of the first personal pronoun. As a rule,
in reply to the question " Art thou ? " a shorter form of the
pronoun is thus used.^ The LXX so very frequently errs by
rendering this long form " I am " instead of " I " that there is
a strong antecedent probability that Mark has made a similar
error and that Matthew and Luke have independently
adopted corrections of it.

In a passage of Isaiah, the long form of " I " is corrupted

' [484 (i) o] The long form (tjh) is often used antithetically to other pro-
nouns. It is always emphatic. But it is never used in reply to the question
" Art thou . . . ? " except in 2 S. ii. 20 : elsewhere <jm is used, Gen. xxvii. 24,
Judg. xiii. II, 2 S. XX. 17, i K. xiii. 14, xviii. 8. Yet, although '3]K=only once
4yd) elfu "I am [he]" in reply, it is in other contexts translated erroneously "/
am'" about fifteen times by the LXX, e.g. 2 S. xxiv. 12 " / offer thee," LXX " /
am I lay upon thee," ib. 17 " /have sinned," LXX " I am I have sinned," etc.

219

[484] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

to " say," to which it is somewhat similar/ " Say " may
have been dropped here by Mark owing to a confusion with
" I," and may have been replaced by Matthew and Luke, but
in different contexts : " However I say to you," " If I tell
you." It is extremely improbable that a direct avowal of
Messiahship from Jesus to the high priest should have existed
in the earliest gospel and be omitted by later gospels unless
it was thought that the tradition was erroneous.

(ii) {Mt.) "However," {Lk) "If"

[484 (ii)] Not only is the longer form of " I " capable of
being confused with " say," but further, the last two letters of
this form of " I," taken with the first two of " say," produce the
Hebrew " but if," which may also be rendered " only," or " how-
ever." This may explain Matthew and Luke's divergence.^

' [484 (i) t] Is. xxi. 8 "O Lord, / ('ajjt) stand," LXX "the Lord said
(leg. noN), I stood." Comp. the LXX (Luc.) of 2 S. xx. 17, where Joab, in
answer to a woman's request " Hear," says " / ('3:n) hear " (perhaps meaning " /
hear [speak thouY') the pronoun being emphatic. The literal rendering is, "And
he said, Hearing (yoi?) I-for-my-part ('jjs) \a.ni\. And she said (TDNni) saying
(iDN^j) ..." The LXX has, "And Joab said, I hear I am. And she said
saying ('AkoiJw iydi el/u. Kal elirev \4yova-a)." But Luc. has "And he said /
hear, saji [onj. And she said (icai elireK 'AKoiu cyii, \4ye. Kal etTe). " Probably
Luc. does not conflate "I" with "say," but conflates "and she said" as "thou
shalt say," ».e. "say on": but in any case the passage well illustrates the con-
fusions that might arise from an original containing repetitions of "say."

Suppose the original to have been "/('d:n) say (tdk particip. ) that {':i) ye
(emph.) (onu) shall see." In that case, Mk., rendering "I" as "I am," and
dropping 'didn as a corrupt repetition of 'd:n, would give nearly what is now extant
in Mk. " I am [and] ye shall see."

[484 (i) c] The facts connected with Christ's use of " I am (^li el/u)" during
the Passion are these. Mk. alone gives it as uttered to the high priest in answer
to the question, " Art thou the Christ ? " Lk. (xxii. 70) has " ye say that I am "
(in answer to "Art thou the Son of God?" But in answer to "Art thou the
Christ?" Lk. has "If I say to you . . . "). Mt. has, parallel to Mk., merely
"Thou hast said but I say." In Jn., when the Jews say "[We seek] Jesus of
Nazareth," Jesus replies (Jn. xviii. 5) " I am [he] {iyd el/it)," and (Jn. xviii. 8) " I
said to you that /am [he]."

' [484 (ii) a] irXiJj' (Mt.'s word) = DN '3 (3), but dn 'd also means " But if." If
the original had ojn ("I"), followed by -idn ("say"), the letters 'a followed by
DK might be rendered by Mt. irMiv and by Lk. 4dv.

220

OF MARK [484]

(iii) {Mk.~Mt) "ye shall see" {Lk.) " shall be"

[484 (iii)] The extreme difficulty of Matthew's version
(" ye shall see," combined with " from this moment ") indicates
that it must have been forced on him by adherence to a
supposed original (but see 485). Luke's text points to a
Hebrew variation between " be " and " see " ; and such varia-
tions, either through confusion or through paraphrase, occur
in Kings, Isaiah, and Job.'^ Or, the Original may have been,
as Luke has it, " there shall be," accompanied by some
words that might be taken to mean [a) " in your sight,"
"before your face," or else {V) "from this time"; and Mark
may have rendered " there shall be before your face '' freely,
" ye shall see." ^

(iv) {Mt^ " From this moment" {Lk.) "from the present time "

[484 (iv)] The Hebrew " now," like our English " now,"
is sometimes used as an enclitic throwing emphasis on the
preceding word, " come now," i.e. " therefore come" but some-
times emphatically, " come now " i.e. at the present time. In
the former sense, the Hebrew is sometimes rendered in Greek
by " and (/eat)." Mark may here have taken it in that sense.

But the Hebrew " now " is also liable to be confused
with " thou," and (though less probably) with " ye." Strictly

1 "Be" = n'n, "see," in the sense of "behold," sometimes=mn. Comp. Is.
ii. I "saw(rrm)," yevS/ievo! (leg. rrr?), Job. viii. 17 "beholdeth (nm)," iijo-erat
(leg. n'n "live," which is confused with n'n in i K. xvii. 22). Or Luke may
have rendered the passive of hnt "see" by "be" as the LXX has done in 2 K.
xxiii. 24 " were spied (ikij)," yeyovdTa. The passage is ins. by LXX in 2 Chr.
XXXV. 193 with ^v instead of 7670^6x0. In Is. xxxiii. 11 "ye shall conceive (nnn) "
LXX has &\j/e(r8e (leg. nuT for jr\T[).

" In Is. XXX. 8 "before them," i.e. "in their presence "' (nnn), is rendered
ravra, and in Gen. xx. l6 (R.V. txt. "in respect of all," marg. ^'before all "), nn
is regarded by LXX as sign of accus., ir&vTa: in Mic. vi. i "before (nx) the
mountains," LXX has irpb^. But this idiom (instead of the usual "before the
face of") is very rare, nor could DDriK (even if used to mean " before you ") be easily
confused with nnyo "from this time."

221

[485] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

speaking, as the high priest alone questioned Jesus, " thou "
and not " ye '' should be used in the reply. In Luke there
is no difference of singular and plural because he makes the
" priests," and not the high priest, question Jesus. Some
insertion of " thou " or " ye " in the margin, being confused
with " now," might possibly account for the introduction of
the latter,^ which, when preceded by a single Hebrew letter
(-d), would become " from this moment," or " from the
present time." Hence may have arisen, in Hebrew, a
correction of Mark, adopted (in substance though in different
shapes) by Matthew and Luke : but there is not evidence
enough to justify a confident conclusion.

[485] Compare a similar variation — but in a negative
sentence — in the account of the Last Supper :

Mk. xiv. 25. Mt. xxvi. 29. Lk. xxii. 18.

"Verily I say to "But I say to "For I say to you,

you that no longer you, Assuredly I will Assuredly I will not

assuredly (ovKen ov not (ou /u.jy) drink (ov firj) drink from

^ri) will I drink." from this moment." the present time."

When Isaiah (xlviii. 6) writes " I have shewed thee
new things from this time" the adverb seems to have an
emphatic rather than a temporal signification, " absolutely
new." Regard being had to the use of Matthew's phrase
in Greek literature, it seems quite possible that Matthew's
" from this moment " meant " absolutely " and was intended
by the writer to be taken, both here and in the passage
quoted above, with " I say to you." Luke has here com-
mitted himself to a temporal meaning. Mark, translating
freely, may have omitted the particle as merely denoting

' [484 (iv) a] " Now" = nn!;, " thou" = nnK : N and v are freq. (4 (o) iii) inter-
changed. In 2 S. xviii. 3, Heb. has " now," but LXX and R.V. ("with ancient
authorities ") " thou " ; i Chr. xxviii. 9 " thou," LXX "now." In Gen. xiii. 14,
"thou " is confl. by LXX, " now thou."

222

OF MARK [485]

emphasis, or may have expressed it by " verily," which he
connects with " I say." ^

But another hypothesis is suggested by the negative
character of this passage, which differentiates it from the
one discussed in 484. In five passages of O.T., where the
Hebrew has " not," applied to an action, or state, that is
discontinued (" I will not [any longer] give," " the rain was not
poured [any longer] on the earth," " I am not [any more
living]," etc.), the LXX has "no longer {ovk6ti,)" — as the
Greek idiom, and we may almost say the English, demands.
By analogy, we may suppose that in the Hebrew original
of the present passage there was no adverb of time, but
that Mark inserted " no longer," which later Correctors
independently changed to more emphatic forms.^

' [485a] In the parallel to Mt. xxiii. 39 "For I say to you, Ve shall
assuredly not see me henceforth (dTr' fipri) until ye say,'' Lk. xiii, 35 has "[but
brack, by W. H.] I say to you, Ye shall assuredly not see me until ye say," omitting
"henceforth," though the context agrees with Mt. almost verbatim. SS, in Lk.,
has "until it come that ye say." Diatessaron has, " Verily I say unto you ye
shall not see me henceforth," where " verily " cannot be explained from the Greek
of Mt. or of Lk.; but it may be the result of a conflation of the Greek or Hebrew
meanings of a Heb. word translated "henceforth."

[485^] 'Att' fipri does not occur in LXX. 'Apri occurs only in Judith (l),
Mace. (9), and twice in the LXX version of Daniel where Theodotion has vvv. In
Dan. X. 17 (lit.) " But as for me ('jki) from-now (nnvo) there remaineth not (or, will
not remain) (loy nM in me strength," Theod. translates literally so as to give the
meaning, " I shall have no more strength all my life," (R.V. " straightway there
remained no strength ") : but " absolutely no strength " would also make sense.

[485f] In Herodotus, ott' ftpri (perh. to be written airapTl) means "exactly."
In comic authors (but perhaps mostly or always with /itaXXo;', fiiv oSv, dXXd etc.)
it may mean "quite the contrary." On Aristoph./VM^. 388 Brunck (Lobeck's Phryn.
p. 21) quotes airh toS vOv as a gloss on air' dpri. Comp. 2 S. xv. 34 dprias xal
vvv a conflate for " now (nny)-" In Aristoph. Plut. 388 d\X4 toi>s xfiV'^ois /t,6vovs
'Airaprl irXour^crai Troiiiiru, I would suggest MSNOY for mONOYC In Rev. xiv.
13 " Blessed are the dead that die in the 'Lord from-henceforth [Air' &(m) Yea [val)
saith the Spirit," the rendering should perhaps be "Absolutely yea," i.e. "Yes
indeed."

" For insertions of \oiK]in in negative sentences in LXX, see Ex. v. 10, ix. 33,
Ps. xxxix. 13, Job vii. 8, 21.

223

[486]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

§ 65. {Mt.-Lk.) " Who is it that struck thee?" Mk. omits

Mk. xiv. 65.

[486] "And some
began to spit on him
and to cover his face
and to buifet him and
to say unto him,
Prophesy, and the
officers (?) took ■^ him
with blows- of- their-
hands {lit. blows with
the flat of the hand)."

Mt. xxvi. 67, 68.

"Then they spat
on his face and
buffeted him ; but
others (pi Be) gave-
him-blows-with- their-
hands (lit. with the
flat of the hand), say-
ing, Prophesy unto
us, Christ, Wko is it
that struck thee ? "

Lk. xxii. 63—65.

" And the men
that were guarding
(o-we^oj/Te?) him
mocked (imperf)
him, beating him,
and having covered
him, they asked (im-
perf.) him saying.
Prophesy, who is it
that struck theei And
many other things,
reviling, they said
against him."

(i) (a) Who mocked Jesus ?

[487 (i) (a)] Before investigating the origin of Matthew's
and Luke's " who is it that struck thee ? " the context must
be carefully examined. And the first question that presents
itself is, Who mocked Jesus before the sentence of death
pronounced by Pilate ?

Here, Mark replies " some," and " the officers.'' Matthew
— who has recently mentioned the Sanhedrim — now
describes the mockers as " they " (expressed, not by a pro-
noun, but by a verb in the third person plural), and then
as (?) " others " {pi Se). Luke says here " the men that were
guarding (avvexovre^) him." Later on, Luke, and he alone,

' [486a] (R.V. txt.) "Received him with blows of their hands," poirfir/noiriv
airbv IXa^ov, is satisfactory as a popular rendering ; but it does not express the
fact that the Greek is as harsh as it woijld be in Shakespeare to say "I took him
with a box on the ear " instead of " I took him a box on the ear." Many MSS.
of course alter IXa^ov into ^jSaXov (a common variation in the LXX) : but the
genuineness of fta/Soc is confirmed by many considerations and especially by Acts
of John, ch. iv. tI el ^airlfffjiafflv /ae JXa/Ses; Dr. J. B. Mayor suggests to me,
as a parallel, Plaut. Aulul. iv. 4. 3 " miseris accipiam modis."

224

OF MARK [487]

(xxiii. 1 1 ) describes a " setting at nought " by " Herod with
his soldiers."

John describes Jesus as receiving a " blow " from " one of
the officers " while being examined by the high priest, and as
being scourged, and arrayed in a purple robe and crown
of thorns by Pilate, and as receiving "blows" from "the
soldiers." ^

(i) (;S) and (7) The Evangelic use of " some" " others " etc.

[487 (i) (/3)] The differences suggest that in the Original
there was some obscurity about the personality of the
perpetrators of these insults. Compare the answer of the
disciples when Jesus asked them " who do men say that
I am ? " ^

Mk. viii. 28. Mt. xvi. 14. Lk. ix. 19.

" But they (ot 8e) " But they (ot hk) "But they (pi Be)

(lit.) said to him say- said, ' Some (ol (juev) answering said, 'John

ing that {art) 'John John the Baptist, but the Baptist, but

the Baptist, and others Elijah, but others Elijah, but

others Elijah, but others-again (eVe/jot)^ others that (ort) 6i?OTe

others that {prC) One Jeremiah or one of prophet of the ancients

of the prophets . . .' " the prophets' " hath risen up! " *

^ Jn., in both cases (xviii. 22, xix. 3), has "gave a blow (or, blows) with the
flat of the hand," using the same noun (fi&vusfu)., lit. "slap" (492-3)) as that in
Mk. But R.V. (txt. ) has, in Jn., "struck him with his hand (or, their hands)"
but in Mk., "received him with blows of their hands," thereby concealing the
identity of the noun. The blows and other insults, in Jn., precede the sentence
of death pronounced by Pilate in Jn. xix. 16.

^ In what follows, the words of "men," as reported by the disciples, are
italicized, in order to save a third set of inverted commas. It is important to
notice that the disciples are not reporting their own opinion, as Winer (487 (i) (|8) b)
appears to assume.

^ [487 (i) (?) ''] " Others-again (Srepoi) " : this word, when contrasted with
ttXXoi (" others "), implies " others of a different sort.''

* [487 (i) (/3) *] Oil the use of oi U in Lk. {"but they (ol Si) answering")
Winer (§ iii. 18, p. 131) says, " In Lk. ix. 19 0! hi would regularly refer to the
fiaBriral mentioned in the preceding verse, and would indicate that all [the
15 225

[487] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Matthew's " some " is here required by the sense. The
repetition, "said saying^' is very unusual in Mark.^ The
Hebrew given by Delitzsch in Matthew for " some say " is
" some (lit. there-are-some) (ffi"') saying." The facts suggest
that this, preceded by "they said," was also the Hebrew
original of Mark, and that " some " was dropped, or replaced
by " to him," so as to result in " they said to him saying
that . . ."'

[487 (i) (7)] Compare also the remarks in John (ix. 8, 9)
uttered by the neighbours of the man born blind : " The
neighbours, therefore, and those-who-[used-to]-behold (01
dempovvref) him before . . . began to say, ' Is not this he
that used to sit and beg ? ' (R.V.) Others (dXKot) began-to-
say that (on) 'This is he.' (R.V.) Oi/ters (dXXoi) began-
to-say ' No, but it is like him.' " Here the sense seems
to require that the two classes called by R.V. '' others "
should be included in the class previously mentioned, who
"used -to -behold." For, if they had not thus "beheld"
him, how could they say "it is he," or "it is like him"?

disciples] returned the answer which follows ; but from &\\oi Si . . . dXXoi Si, it
is clear that it was given by a part only."

The context shews that oi Si does mean all the disciples, in Lk., as in Mk.-Mt.
They all " answered " Jesus, stating the several opinions of the people. Lk.'s
meaning — as an answer to the question, "Who do the multitudes say that I
am?"— might be paraphrased thus: "[The multitudes say, mostly,] John, but
others [of the multitudes say] Elijah ..." Lk. simply follows Mk. in omitting
"Some say," or "Most say," before "John the Baptist." The Gospel perhaps
tacitly contrasts the readiness of all the disciples to report what the multitudes
said about Jesus with their silence (broken by Peter alone) when Jesus added,
" But who say ye that I am ? "

' [487 (i) (/3) c] The only other instance of "said saying" in Mk. is Mk.
xii. 26 irws eXnv airi} 6 deSs "Kiytav, before a quotation from Scripture.

2 [487 (i) (;3) dl The phrases "some said," "others said," are very rare in
O.T. But in Neh. v. 2-4 they occur with a combination of the relative and the
participle, thus : " [There-were] some who [were] saying (onDM la's v)" ^aav,
or elalv, ripes XiyovTes, thrice repeated. "Jeremiah" (.n>DT)i ™ Mt. xvi. 14,
might be a corruption arising from (Delitzsch) moN onnN : but more probably it
springs from some gloss (Deut. xviii. 1 5, Acts iii. 22) containing Dip, with on and
other variants, resulting in Lk. (Oj) &pxal<av (Dip) (oj) dvirrr) (nip). Dan. ix. 2
(LXX) iyetpai probably conflates "Jeremiah" as Dn.

226

OF MARK [487]

Probably therefore "others . . . others" should be con-
nected with the preceding class and rendered, as often
in Greek and Latin, " some " and " others," the meaning
being, in effect, " Those who knew the man well began in
amazement to ask one another whether this was not the
blind man ; and some \of tkem\ said positively that it was,
others \oftheni\ that it was like him." ^

(i) (S) " but they (ol Be)," when used for " but others "

[487 (i) (8)] The Greek article (ol), with Be (Bi meaning
" but " or " in the second place "), can be used without a noun,
in two senses : — (i) antithetically, after the article with /iiv
(jiev meaning " in the first place "). Thus used, in opposition
to " some in the first place," it means " others in the second
place," i.e. " but others."

(ii) Without this antithesis, ol Be must, as a rule, refer to
a class just mentioned, and must mean " but they," i.e. the
people last mentioned.

Sometimes, however — even where there is no antithesis,
and where ol Be ought strictly to mean " but they " — it is used
to mean " but others," loosely, as follows : " The captives
. . . had gone to Decelea [, or rather, I should have said,
some and indeed most of them] but others {pi Be) to Megara." ^
This construction, which is extremely rare, appears to be
limited to instances where an exception is added as an after-
thought. There are only two instances of it alleged by
Winer from N.T. Both are in Matthew. One of these
(xxvi. dj) is now under consideration. The other will be
mentioned in the next paragraph.

1 SS and the Arabic Diatessaron also render it thus, and so does the English
Authorized Version.

^ See Jelf s Gk. Gr. § 767. 2, quoting Xen. Hell. i. 2. 14 given above, and
Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 46 hpare tTnrous &<roi. ^ju.v irdpeiatv [i.e. ol /iiv TrXeiirToi ■^Sij wdpovres^
ol Si irpoirdyovTai.

227

[487] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

(i) (e) " but some doubted"

[487 (i) (e)] These words occur in Matthew's account of
the Resurrection, " But the eleven disciples went to Galilee
to the mountain where Jesus [had] made appointment for
them. And having seen him they-worshipped, but some (?)
(oi Se) doubted." ^ Concerning this remarkable and import-
ant statement Winer says, " We have first the general
statement . . . : that this, however, refers only to the
greater part is clear from the words which follow \i.e. but
some doubted]." But (i) in dealing with so small a number
as " eleven," is it likely that Matthew would make a " general
statement " that was not true, omitting the fact that at least
two out of eleven " doubted " and then adding it as an after-
thought without telling us whether the doubters were two,
or more than two ? There are circumstances, in the context
and elsewhere, that suggest that the text may be corrupt,
and that " some " does not mean " some of the eleven." ^

(i) (^) Mt. " but others {pi Si)," as used here

[487 (i) (f)] Returning to the account of the Passion,
and to Matthew's peculiar phrase (" but others ") we note

^ Mt. xxviii. l6, 17 ol di IvdeKo, fjiaSriral eiropei8ri<rav els t^v TaMtaiav eis rh
6pos oS ird^aro airrots 6 'Irijovs, Kai Iddi/res airiv irpo<reKivr)<rav, oi 8i iSiaraaav. SS
is lost. Arab. Diatess. has "but there were of them who doubted."

^ [487 (i) (e) a\ (1) "The eleven" is never used with "disciples" except
here (it occurs absolutely in Mk.-App. xvi. 14, Lk. xxiv. 9, 33, Acts ii. 14, and
with " apostles " in Acts i. 26). (2) " And," either in Heb. (-1), or in Gk. (icoi),
could easily be dropped (especially in Gk. here, Kal coming after -ko.) : so that
the original might have been "The eleven and [ ] disciples," the blank con-
taining some number. (3) In Gk., fiaav may have originally existed in the text,
and may easily have been dropped after --qaav. If so, the ori<rinal Greek might
be ^laav Sk oi, i.e. " but there were some [present, not the eleven] who doubted."
(4) The passage, regard being had to the context, reminds one of i Cor. xv. 6
" but some are fallen asleep (Delitzsch i:b/)." The verb r\w, " sleep," means also
to be "changeable," "fickle" (e.^. Prov. xxiv. 21), and it is possible that the
tradition rightly taken by St. Paul (I Cor. xv. 6) as " but some slept " may have
been misunderstood by the originator of Mt.'s tradition as meaning "but some
oscillated, or doubted."

228

OF MARK [487]

that he connects it with (lit.) " smiting with the flat of the
hand," a vernacular phrase that can only be expressed
exactly by the English word "slapping." Mark assigns
this act to officers, but connects the noun " slap," in a very
extraordinary way, with the verb " take " (" took him with
slaps"). John assigns the act to ''one" of "the officers"
who gave Jesus a " slap " while He was being examined
by the high priest. Luke omits the word " slap." But we
shall find hereafter that it meant a blow inflicted in mockery,
and Luke here assigns the act of " beating with mockery "
(lit. " they kept mocking him, beating ") to " the men that
were guarding him!'

We cannot feel sure of the exactness of the parallelism
between Luke and Mark, because the former, who omits
" spitting " here, may be paraphrasing that word in his word
" mocking " : ^ but a comparison of the four Gospels makes
it reasonable to take as a working hypothesis the view that
there may be a confusion between Mark's " some (rtz/e?) "
(which he may have conflated in the word " take "),
Matthew's "others {pi Be)," John's "one," and Luke's
"guarding." If therefore Biblical Hebrew presents some
word meaning (i) "guard," but also meaning (2) "take,"
and capable of being easily confused with (3) "some," and
with (4) " others " (in the phrase " but others "), there will
be a considerable probability that such a word represents
the common Hebrew original of all these traditions.

Delitzsch gives, as the Hebrew of Luke's " guard;" the
word triM, ie. " grasp," " take hold of." Now this word

' [487 (i) ({■) a] There may be also Greek confusion. Comp. Job xvi. 10
"they have smitten (lan) my cheek ("nV) lirauriv /te els rh ybvara," "he has
smitten me on the knees,'' where "on the cheek (eicciAroNA)" must have
been corrupted to eiCTArONA, and then yova, (a form once found in A, i K.
viii. 54) was completed as Yicora. Possibly (but not probably, because of the
rarity of ^on-ffu) errai<rei> is a corruption of epawurav. In Judg. xvi. 2$ " he made
sport," LXX conflates (ai) lirai^ev with {a^ ipim^ov, where A omits ai, and
substitutes Miraii^ov for Oj.

229

[487] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

(Gesen. Oxf.) is, in Aramaic, nnw, i.e. " one," and it is con-
fused with the latter (according to R.V.) in the Hebrew text
of a passage in Chronicles, besides being confused with
this and similar words in the Greek text of this and other
passages of O.T.^

Let us suppose, then, that the original Hebrew stated,
in connection with the examination of Christ by the high
priest, that " tfiose who were holding Jesus in custody began
to mock him." Luke, translating the verb (irtN) correctly,
placed the act before the examination. Mark took the
word to be the rare plural of 7nN " one," and to mean
" certain persons," or " some few," Q1^^N ; and he placed the
insults after the examination, but not so as to commit him-
self to the statement that the examiners themselves insulted
Jesus.

But, in a conflation, Mark returned to the correct
Hebrew (irrN), understanding it however not as " grasp "
but as " take," and hence — giving a literal translation that
may have coincided with some rare vernacular Greek idiom
now lost — he presents us with the extraordinary expression
" took him with blows." ^

Matthew's opening words (" then they spat ") indicate
that the insulters were the persons mentioned in the
previous verse, i.e. the members of the council (" They
answered and said. He is worthy of death "). His " then " (ts)

> [487 (i) (f) b1 I Chr. xxiv. 6. The Heb. has "one father's house being
taken for Eleazar and (lit.) taken taken for Ithamar," R.V. has "tf«e taken,"
LXX '■'one one (efs els)," in both cases. Comp. Gen. xxiy. 56 "Hinder (inN)"
xarix^^, where LXX probably reads mn (which = (ll) Karix<^> whereas inn is
nowhere else thus rendered), Zech. xi. 14 "brotherhood (nin.s)," KaT&axeaai
(leg. nm(t). Esdr. viii. 79 has ^ovres (leg. mN) = Ezr. ix. 10 "after (nnn)."

" [487 (i) (f) c] The word thn when rendered (5) Xa/i/Sdceo', is mostly applied
to panic "taking" people. But it is used in Job xvi. 12 to signify "taking by
the neck," where LXX has "taking by the hair.'' It will be found that the
only Hebrew word rendered "slap" by the LXX really meant "pulling out the
hair." As regards the possibility of a Greek phrase "take with slaps," see the
quotation from Suidas below (492«).

230

OF MARK [487]

may be a corruption of the original inN, " take," or " guard." ^
But when (perhaps conflating it), he connects mn with the
verb " slap," instead of repeating Mark's extraordinary phrase
" took him with blows," he regards " taking," mnw, as an error
for a■'^^N, " some." Having, however, previously described
one outrage, the " spitting," he now writes as though " some "
perpetrated that and " some " this. Hence, he allows him-
self to use 01 Bi,^ forgetful of the fact that ol fiev does not
precede, or, perhaps, transposing the clause bodily in Greek,
without alteration, from a tradition like those in the Acta
Pilati and Pseudo-Peter, where oi Se actually occurs.^

Later Evangelists, finding a tradition that "certain
persons (Dnnn)," or " (men) guarding (O'^'inM)," mocked or
smote Jesus, might be influenced by the fact that the former
plural (lit. " ones ") is of very rare occurrence in O.T., and is
never used partitively.* If the two were conflated, it would
be natural to take the final -n of " ones " as meaning " from,"
or " of," so as to make the meaning " one of the men

^ [487 (i) (f) d] This would be more probable if rbre, "then," were often
found in the LXX as an error for other words. But it seems to be rare. Comp. ,
however, an apparent Heb. error in i K. ix. 26 "a navy of ships (':«)" = 2 Chr.
viii. 17 " then (in)," and Cant. viii. 10 " then (in)," iyii (leg. 'jn). Tire only once
(Lev. xxii. 7) = inK (which (487 (i) ({) b) is liable to be confused with inN).

'^ [487 (i) (f) «] This is more probable than that oi iiiv should have dropped
out by Gk. corruption between rire and iyiirrvcav. For why should it drop out
here any more than in Mt. xvi. 14 (487 (i) (;8))? D has fiXXoi 5^ for Mt.'s oi
S4, SS " and others smote him on the cheeks."

' [487 (i) (f) /] Later traditions of the insults after Pilate's condemnation
subdivide the insulters, Acta P. (B) x. i "The Jews began to beat {jiirTav)
Jesus, some (oi iiAv) with staves, some (oi Si) with hands, some (oi 5^) with feet ;
but some even (oi J^ koI) kept-spitting on his face,'' Gosp. Pet. § 3 "But they
(oi 5^) " [referring to oirots mentioned in § i] " having taken the Lord . . . And
a-ctrtain-one (t«) of them having brought a crown of thorns . . . and others-
again (frcpoi) . . . kept-spitting on his eyes, and others (dXXoi) smote-with-the-
palms-of-their-hands (ifinnaav) his cheeks : others-again (irepoi) kept-pricking
him with a reed, and certain-persons (rices) began-to-scourge him. "

* [487 (i) (f) gl The pi. of nnM occurs only 5 times in O.T. LXX omits it
(l) (probably dropping iv in Ezek, xxxvii. 17 iaovTai \iv] iv rrj xeipl crov), and
renders it vnrongly in Dan. xi. 20 "few days (onnM)," LXX ia-xdrais (leg. onnn).
Theod. ixelKus. Whatever may have induced so accurate a translator as Theod.
to render it " those," the fact shews that the word presented difficulties.

231

[487] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

guarding." This tradition — in the form " one of the officers,
who was in attendance " — has been adopted by John.

(i) (77) Conclusion

[487 (i) (97)] In conclusion, the facts about Matthew's
use of oi Se indicate that it is not an idiomatic Greek usage
such as has been quoted from Xenophon, but that it arises
from a general confusion of the context in the Original,
and, not improbably, from the insertion, in Matthew's text,
of a clause that presupposes a previous mention of " some"

Also, it is probable, both for linguistic and for historical
considerations, that Luke has preserved the truth as to
the perpetrators of the outrages. Historically, it is more
likely that the " guards," than that the chief priests, or any
of the Sanhedrim, should have smitten Jesus with their
hands immediately after, or before, the trial. Linguistically,
it is more probable that the comparatively rare word
•' guard," " take," or " hold fast (mN)," should be corrupted
to " one (nnN)," or " some," than the contrary.^

(ii) (^Mk:) " to spit upon him" (Mt.) "spat on his face"
{Lk^ " mocked him "

[488] Comparing this with Christ's final prediction
about the Passion we find that there Mark and Luke insert
"spitting," while Matthew (xx. 19) omits it. But all three
there insert " mocking," which Luke alone inserts here.*

^ [487 (i) (1;) a] SS, in Mt. xxvi. 67, has " then they took him and spat in his
face." This could be explained if the writer was restoring, and conflating, an
original inn, "take," which Mt. had rendered " then" (in).

° [488a] There are two previous predictions.' But the final one contains the
following divergences : Mk. x. 34 iiivai^ovtru/ aiT<f ko! 4nTTi(rou<nv (DL cvittu-
loutrtj') . . . fuurnyia-ovffiv . . . &iroKTevov(Ti.i>, Mt. xx. 19 elsri ifivral^ai Kal luumyuttai
KoX aravpCoaai, Lk. xviii. 32, 33 Kal i/iTraix^'/icreTai Kal i^piaBifiaerai xal ^liirTmB^acrai,
Kol fMmyiia-ayres AiroKTevodaiv airrbv. Here Lk.'s "shall be outraged and spit
upon" suggests a conflate of the Hebrew word for "spit."

In Mk. X. 34, SS has "scourge . . . spit in his face . . kill," D omits

232

OF MARK [488]

Since Luke represents Jesus Himself as predicting the
" spitting," he can hardly have omitted it here owing to a
feeling that the detail was revolting. But the Hebrew word
is rare, and therefore liable to be corrupted. Some corruption
may have caused Matthew's omission of it above (xx. 19)
and Luke's omission of it here. The verb occurs in only
three passages of O.T.^ In one of these it is rendered by
Codex A " draw neiir." In another passage where the noun
occurs, the R.V. gives " spit at the sight of me " as a
marginal alternative to " spit in my face." ^ A similar
doubt here between the two meanings might induce a
translator of a Hebrew Gospel to give a general translation
such as " mock." But the passage in O.T. most likely to
influence Evangelists is the prediction of Isaiah that the
Servant of Jehovah would not hide His face " from s/iames "
(a word mostly meaning " reproaches ") " and spitting."
This the LXX renders "the shame 0/ spittings," which
exaggerates the stress laid on "spitting."* But others,
considering that the expression meant "shames as of
spitting," that is to say, not words, but revolting acts, might

"scourge and kill" (an omission that cannot be explained by homoiotel.),
Diatess. has "treat shamefiiUy, scourge, spit in his &ce, humble, crucify, and
slay" (where Editor notes "humble" as "an obscure expression," perhaps a
"repetition of the preceding clause"). D makes no sense, unless we suppose
enrrviowru) to be an irr^ular future of inrria, or to represent an original
"crucify" (? emjioiwii'). Aqu. renders yp', one of the Hebr. words that might
be used to express crucifixion, var^lcu.

It should be noted that Mt. alone represents Christ as predicting His death by
criKifixion. Had Lk. accepted such a tradition he could hardly have failed to
insert it. The &cts suggest that Mt. has here read some Hebrew word that
me-ont "spit" as meaning " pierce," " nail," or something implyii^ "crucifixion.''

* Numb. xii. 14, Dent. xxv. 9. In Lev. xv. 8 "spit (prr) upon him," iiai Si
TfmriTKKUrn, A has rfxxreyylari (? 1^. 3ip', or Gk. corr.). In the present passage
(Mk. xiv. 65, and paiall.), no Gospel has "draw near," but Diatess. has "some
of them lA-ew near and spai on his face," which suggests a conflation.

^ Job XXX. 10 "spit (lit. noun " spitting," p-\) in my face ('Md)," marg. " at the
sight of me," which agrees better with -o, and with context But 13 is (371 and
158<') repeatedly confused with -3, which would certainly mean "in."

' Is. 1. 6 frn nicSaD, alax^' inwrvaiuin». The verb oSa in hiph. =dTi|idiiu
(1), KaroXaXw (l), in/ila (l), etc.

[489] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

consider the two Hebrew words best rendered by one Greek
one, kyjirai'^iiaTa, which means " mockings " in the sense of
" practical jokes." ^

(iii) {Mk^ " and to cover his face and to buffet him" (Mt.)
" (on his face) and buffeted him" {Lk.) " beating him,
and having covered him . . . reviling "

[489] The word " buffet " implies striking with the " fist,"
as distinct from " blows with the [flat] hand " mentioned
afterwards. The two words for " fist " are similar (i) to
" cover," (ii) to " revilings," and in one case the Septuagint
renders " revilings " by " blows with the fist." Codex
Bezae is now supported by SS as well as by the Arabic
Diatessaron in omitting the " covering of the face " in Mark.
It may have sprung from a mistranslation of the word
meaning " fist."^ But the question is complicated by other
possibilities of misunderstanding detailed below.'

' [488^] It is possible, however, that some early Hebrew variation may have
confused traditions about the "spitting" (pi, pT, or pp-i^ with the Johannine
tradition about " piercing." Barnabas, writing about the scapegoat, says (Bam.
vii. 7) " Mark ye how the type of Jesus is made visible : ' And spit ye all on it,
axii pierce it.'" This combines the "spitting" vnth Zech. xii. lo "they shall
look on him whom ilaey pierced (•\pn, Lexic. 'fig. farae, contemn')," KarmpxilcavTo,
i.e. "danced over, triumphed over, insulted" (leg. -\p-i). The same word (ipn)
is translated in Zech. xiii. 3 av/joroSlj^eiv, "bind," and in Is. xiii. 15 "shall be
conquered. "

The total of kindred confusions is considerable : — Lev. xv. 8 (quoted above)
"spit (pT)" (A Trpo(reyyl<Tri ? leg. nnp) : Is. xl. 15 "dust (pi)" alcXos (leg. pi) : Ps.
xxix. 6 ' ' maketh them to skip " (hiph. of ipn) Xeirrwei (leg. as from ppi) : 2 S. vi.
20 "vain fellows (D'pn)" dpxovnivuv (leg. as from npn).

^ [489a] "Fist" = (i) |Bn, which resembles nsn "cover." "Strike with the
fist," KoXa^Ifw, does not occur in LXX, but is found in I Pet. ii. 20 as well as
I Cor. iv. 1 1, 2 Cor. xii. 7. KAXa0os is said by Hesychius to be synonymous
with kAkSuXos ; and KovSv\ll;'eu> occurs in LXX paraphrases or additions in Amos
ii. 7, Mai. iii. 5.

"Fist" = (ii) f\t-att. In Zeph. ii. 8, "revilings," or " blasphemings " ('sna) is
rendered by LXX kovS\Autii,oI (prob. leg. •sno(ii) ). Gesen. Oxf. (p. 175*) says
that Targums render tjijN " staff."

' [489^] The tradition of "covering the face'' in the sense of "blindfold-
ing " may be a misunderstanding caused by blending the above-quoted words of

234

OF MARK [490]

(iv) Why does Mark omit " Who is it that struck thee " ?

[490] The Hebrew interrogative (■'D) of " who struck ? "
might easily be confused with the participial -D (i.e. m-) of
" striking," " a striker." Instead of " officers " in Mark, SS
reads " lictors," and the Arabic Diatessaron " soldiers." Now
part of the duty of " the lictors " was to scourge. The
Original may have had " scourgers " or " smiters," para-
phrased by Mark as " officers," by the Diatessaron as
" soldiers," and translated by SS as " lictors."

The Original may have alluded, not to Isaiah's prediction
" I gave my back to. the smiters" (D"'3D)^^for the smiting of
the backi i.e. the scourging, is described later on (Mk. xv. 15)
— but to the Psalm describing how " the abjects (D"'33) " (a
unique form of the verb in the Hebrew) " gathered together,
and I knew it not." In the Psalm, most modern authorities
agree with R.V. in taking " abjects " passively, as " smitten
(by God)," i.e. reprobates ; but the LXX gives the same word
both for " smiters " in Isaiah and for " abjects " in the Psalm,
viz. " scourges," probably meaning " people scourging." ^

Isaiah (1. 6), "shames (mnSa) and spitting," with those of the Messianic Psalm
(Ps. Ixix. 7) "For thy sake I have borne reproach, shame (hd^d) hath covered
my face." Perhaps an early form of the narrative was to this effect, ambiguous
without punctuation : " They began to Spit on him with shame his face was
covered." Mk., taking "with shame" to mean (as in the LXX) "the shame of
spitting,'' wrote " some began to spit on him and to ewer his face [therewith, i.e.
with the shame of spitting]," never supposing that his words could be interpreted
to mean "blindfolding." Mt., interpreting the words as Mk. did, omitted
" covering " as ambiguous. Lk. , taking the " covering " to mean " blindfolding,''
avoided the notion that the words could mean "covered with spitting" by
expressing " spitting " in a general word " (practical) mocking " that could cause
no ambiguity.

If Lk. is in error, it would seem highly probable that the tradition " Who is it
that struck thee?" — which seems involved in the tradition of "blindfolding" — is
also an error. But this must be considered below (490-1).

^ Is. 1. 6 "I gave my back to (-V) sihiters" (o'dd), cis /idanyas, Ps. xxxv. 15
"abjects" (marg. "smiters"), (d'dj), iiAanyes. No instance is alleged of iiAan^
used (like /icumylas) to mean " one worthy to be smitten.'' As to the Psalmist's
unique word, Gesen. Oxf. (p. 646*) says "rd. prob. onDJ aliens.''

235

[491] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

The Psalmist's word is without the participial -D, which the
Prophet's word contains. Some marginal or (more probably)
interlinear correction, suggesting the form with -Q as more
correct, may have led to the confusion of "D with ""D, and to
the conclusion that the word was to be taken interrogatively.^
[491] For instances of similar confusion there may be
alleged a passage in Isaiah, where the Revised text has
" who ? " but the margin takes -D as a prepositional prefix ;
and in Zephaniah '^ that -which- is" is rendered by the
Septuagint " who ? " ^ On the whole it seems probable that
Mark — though abrupt, obscure, and paraphrastic — is right.
If so, the original would seem to have been to this effect :
" They said unto him that he should prophesy unto them
and the lictors, or smiters, or abjects . . ." But the inter-
rogative interpretation of the unique word " abjects " as
" Who [are] smiting ? " would have the advantage of har-
monizing with the views of those who took the " covering "
above mentioned to be a blindfolding. Besides, " that he
should prophesy " (i.e. " Prophesy ! ") and " Who smote thee ? "
seemed to make an appropriate two-fold object to "they
said." Indeed, Luke's sense is so complete that we cannot
feel sure that he may not be right and Mark wrong. But,
in any case, having regard to the very large number of other
Synoptic passages where divergences can be explained by
mistranslation, and to the instances of LXX mistranslations
of participles, interrogatives, and other words special to

■ The Original may have had the Psalmist's word d'dj. Then the usual form,
and the one used by Isaiah, might be written, in part or whole, above the line,
with the article, as usual, prefixed (d'ddh). If this was preceded by a word ending
with final -m, taken by a hasty reader as the interrogative, the result would be
"who [are] the [men] smiting?"

According to Mt.-Lk. the preceding phrase is " Prophesy io us." In Reported
Speech this would be "that he should prophesy to them (anV)." This would give
a final -m preceding " smite."

" [491o] Is. xliv, 24-5 (txt.) "Who [is] with me ('nft'a)?" but marg. "by
myself ('nND)"; Zeph. iii. 18 "burden," lit. "that which is lifted," LXX t(s

236

OF MARK [492]

this context, it is probable that Matthew's and Luke's agree-
ment here against Mark is to be explained, not by the
hypothesis of additional information, but by mistranslation
in one or other of the Synoptists.^

(v) (^Mk.) " and the officers took him with blows-with-the-flat-
of-the-hand" (Mt.) om., but has above " gave-him-blows-
tvith-the-flat-of-the-hand" {Lk.) " and many other things,
reviling, they said against him ''

[492] As has been said above, the nearest English
equivalent to Mark's word (paTna-fia), as used by Greeks and
not by Jews, is "slap." 'Vd-n-ia-fia is condemned by the
grammarian Phrynichus as " not in use " : and it seems to
have been a vernacular word to express a blow given to shew
contempt rather than to pain or disable.^ It is very easy to
understand why the later Evangelists altered a word of this
kind. A ^yord like " slap " might pass current in a very
early Gospel written in the language of the common people ;
but when the educated became numerous in the Church,
some writers or editors of Gospels would naturally correct it.

^ [491i5] Comp. Mk. xiv. 47 " But a certain one of (479-80) the attendants'''
with the parall. Lk. xxii. 49 "shall we smite with the sword?" Here Delitzsch
gives, for " shall we smite," ni-n^jn, i.e. " shall we smite them ? " This might
easily be confused with the Psalmist's word when preceded hy the article, " the
smiters," ti'Din. It is certainly improbable antecedently that a Hebrew Gospel
should be so far influenced by a single Biblical phrase as to use a unique word
like D'33 twice in order to describe the "gathering of the smiters '' against the
Messiah. But the possibility should be kept before the mind in view of further
evidence as to a poetic basis latent beneath the text of Mk.

^ [492a] Lobeck, besides quoting Phrynichus, Td l)diruriia ofe iv xp^o'ct,
adds, from Suidas, iirl K6fi/n)s, iirl /ce^oX^s, fj yvdSov, ^ Kpord^ov • K6fi/niv yi.p
SSv tV Ke0a\j)i' aiv tQ a^x^"' "Kiyovai. tivh Sk xal pdirur/jiaXiyovn ri ivl rrjs
yviSov Xa/i/SdKeic rmTbiievov Kal toO Kpordtpov, which indicates his doubt about the
precise meaning. Suidas apparently does not use 'Kan^dvav as Mk. does here,
but means "to receive a blow on one's cheek." Harpocration says, 'BjrJ Kkfi^%
rh iid T^s yvddov 6 >Jyofiev iv tQ piip (? " in [common] life ") fidirurfm. Hesychius.
says jiavlaai, fid^Sifi vXrj^ai, fj AXo^o-ai, apparently identifying it with ^apSltrat,
which means " thresh" (dXo^o-oi) in Judg. vi. 11, Ruth ii. 17.

[493] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

[493] But then arises the question, How comes it that
this word, altered by Matthew and Luke, is restored, though
in a different context, by John, the latest of the Evangelists ?

The answer is to be found in the LXX, which uses it
once and once alone. The passage in which it occurs is
Messianic, and the Hebrew, as rendered by R.V., is, " I gave
my back to the scourgers and my cheek to them-that-
plucked-off-the-hair" LXX " blows-with-the-flat-of-the-hand."^
But the Greek word, besides not being pure Greek, cer-
tainly does not express the Hebrew " plucking off the
hair." Luke may have avoided it for either or both of
these reasons. Similarly, where Nehemiah, according to
the Hebrew, says (Neh. xiii. 25), "I smote some (lit. men)
of them and I plucked-off-their-hairl' the LXX has simply
" I smote men among them."

But it must also be noted that Luke omits mention of
the " whipping " or " scourging " — also a prophetic term —
inflicted by Pilate. Such an omission could not be
justified by the mere consideration that the physical aspect
of the Passion was in danger of having too much stress
laid upon it. More probably Luke confused the two words
" scourge " and " admonish '' (or " reprove "), which are almost
identical in some forms.^ But see 502 (v)— (vi).

^ [493a] Is. 1. 6 "to them that plucked off the hair,'' ei's ^rlafmra. A
paTitr/m was a mark of extreme contempt. But that it might be painful, too, is
shewn by Acts of John (§ 4) " If thy plucking of my beard in jest caused me such
pain, what if thou hadst taken me with blows-witk-the-flcU-of-the-hand" where
pi.ina\M is almost certainly copied from Mk. and used in the Jewish sense.

The verb ^awli^w, here employed by Mt., occurs (3) in LXX, Judg. xvi. 25 (B)
•conflated with iroifw, Hos. xi. 4 (LXX mistransl.), i Esdr. iv. 31 (LXX ins.,
describing a queen as "slapping"' the king's face in playfiil contempt). Field
Ot. Norvic. (on Jn. xviii. 22) shews that the use of paTrifu to mean "strike with a
rod" is (a) ancient or (b) artificially archaic. Josephus (Ant. viii. 15. 4) uses it
(parallel to i K. xxii. 24 iirdra^ev iirl ttiv trm76i'a) eiBis fiavitrSeU iir' ifioD
jSXa^drco fiov ttjv x^'^P°"

" [493*] Mark xv. 15 (Mt. xxvii. 26) ippayeXKdffas, (Jn. xix. i) 4/iaiTTlyuaev.
Luke (xxiii. 22) has merely ' ' having therefore chastised (iraiSeiaai) him I will let
him go," and Luke does not say that the " chastising " took place. ' ' Chastise "

238

OF MARK [493]

On the other hand, John uses both the prophetic terms,
"scourging," and "blow -with -the -flat- of- the -hand." But
he avoids putting the latter word into the mouth of Jesus.
The attendant, he says, gave Jesus a paTriafia (or " slap "),
but Jesus replied " Why dost thou deat (Sepei?) me ? "

" Who " and one form of " why " differ little in Hebrew
or Greek : and there would be very little difference between
a Greek or Hebrew original "who [is] the striker?" and
" why [this] striking ? " or " why didst thou strike ? " John
may possibly have inserted "why dost thou beat me?"
as a version of the tradition that the soldiers said " Who
strikes thee?"^

§ 66. iMk) "was," (Mt.-Lk) "sat"

ML xiv. 66. Mt. xxvi. 69. Lk. xxii. 56.

" And while Peter " But Peter sai." " But seeing him

was." sitting."

It has been suggested (Clue, 178-84) that the original
was a word that usually meant, " sit " ; but that it also
meant " remain," " abide," and here probably signified

might be expressed by n3'=(l) iraiSeiiw, Prov. iii. 12 (An), but LXX i\4yxu.
There is a possibility of confusion between the 3rd pers. fut. of "scourge" {ny,
from m:) and na' " admonish." It is possible that Luke used iraiSeiaas to mean
" having admonished hira." Comp. above (486), virhere Lk. alone — as a possible
conflation of "smiting" — says (xxii. 65), "many other things in their reviling
(j3\ao-0))/ioS(T6s) they said against him." 'SKaa^^rnXv occurs in 2 K. xix. 4 as
a rendering of na" (hiph. ) : and Lk.'s p\a<r<prineti> may be a conHate of " smiting "
(na:) mentioned both by him and by Mk.-Mt. in different forms.

^ [493^] Jn. xviii. 23 H fie Sipeis ; This is the word used here by Lk. (xxii. 63)
to describe the blows inflicted on Jesus ; and it is a word assigned to Jesus by the
Synoptists in the Parable of the Vineyard. "Who" = -d: "why" (rarely) =
no. " Who (<d)," coming before the article (-n) in " the [one] striking" (6 iroiiros)
virould be easily confused with " why (no)." But still more easily would TICO-
TTAICAC (" who was the striker ? ") be confused with TierrAiCAC (" why didst thou
strike ? "). The letters C, o, and 6 are frequently interchanged, and, when they
come together, one of them is frequently dropped.

239

[494] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

" waiting," i.e. for the day-light, when it would be lawful
to pronounce the sentence.^

67. Peter's three denials

Mk. xiv. 70.

Mt. xxvi. 72.

Lk. xxii. 58.

" But he again

" And he again

"But Peter said.

denied."

denied with an oath,
(lit.) that I know not
the man."

Man, I am not."

[494] The agreement between Matthew and Luke, as
against Mark, is very slight — especially as Mark himself
has " I know not this man" in the third denial — but it raises
important questions : — Why do the Evangelists never agree
in the words of Peter's three denials and the three preceding
charges ? ^ Why does John make no mention of " knowing,"

' [493^^ In 180a attention was called to Lk. xxii. 55, " having kindled around
(irepia^acTes) " as having been "never explained." Possibly there is an allusion
to a passage where Isaiah describes those who neglect the Light of Israel in order
to walk in their own light (Is. 1. II) "Behold all ye that kindle a fire, that-
gird-yourselves-about [with] (niKo) firebrands,'' where the Oxf. Gesen. suggests
-m for nm so as to substitute "kindle" for "gird round." Luke's ircptiimtv is
exactly what one might expect from a conscientious attempt to render literally
"gird-round firebrands."

" [4943] R.V. renders them as follows : —

Charges.
(i) Mk. xiv. 67. (i) Mt. xxvi. 69. (i) Lk. xxii. 56.

"Thou also wast with "Thou also wast with "This man also was

the Nazarene, [even] Jesus the Galilaean." with him."

Jesus."

(ii) Mk. xiv. 69. (ii) Mt. xxvi. 71. (ii) Lk. xxii. 58.

"This is [one] of "This man also was "Tljou also art [one]

them." with Jesus the Nazarene.'' of them.''

(iii) Mk. xiv. 70. (iii) Mt. xxvi. 73. (iii) Lk. xxii. 59.

" Of a truth thou art " Of a truth thou also " Of a truth this man

[one] of them; for thou art [one] of them ; for thy also was with him: for

art a Galilaean." speech bewrayeth thee." he is a Galilaean."

240

OF MARK [495]

and Matthew and Mark no use of John's simple negative,
" I am not " ? Why do those who use " not know," disagree
as to who, or what, is " not known " ? Why do those who
use '' man," differ as to whether it is vocative or accusative ?
Also, as regards Peter's questioners, why does Matthew omit
the words " Thou art a Galilaean " ?

(i) The original of the first question, perhaps, "Art thou also
\one\ of the friends of this man ? "

[495] Many of the above-mentioned divergences can be
explained by supposing the Hebrew original of the first of
the three questions to have been, very nearly as in John,
" [Art] thou also [one] of the friends of this man ? " ^ John
has " disciples " instead of " friends." The former would
seem more suitable to many readers of the Gospels, familiar
with the term : but the latter would be more natural in the

Denials.
(i) Mk. xiv. 68. Mt. xxvi. 70. Lk. xxii. 57.

"I neither know, nor "I know not what " Woman, I know him

understand what thou thou sayest." not.''

sayest": (marg." I neither
know nor understand :
thou, what sayest thou?")

(ii) Mk. xiv. 70. Mt. xxvi. 72. Lk. xxii. 58.

" But he again denied " I know not the man." " Man, I am not."

it."

(iii) Mk. xiv. 71. Mt. xxvi. 74. Lk. xxii. 60.

" I know not this man " I know not the man. " "Man, I know not

of whom ye speak." what thou sayest."

Jn. xviii. 17, 25 has twice "I am not," in answer to the repeated question
" Art thou also [one] of this man's (or, his) disciples ? " Jn. xviii. 27, in answer
to the question "Did not I see thee in the garden with him?", has "Peter
therefore denied again."

^ [495a] Jn. xviii. 17 M^ koX aii ^k rdi/ fw,$7jTwv el rov dv6p(xjTou to&tov ;
"Also" would be represented by m. This is very rarely preceded by the
interrogative (ojn), and, when thus preceded, it is sometimes mistranslated (as in
Gen. xvi. 13). But even without the interrogative prefix it may, in suitable
context, introduce a question, as in Zech. viii. 6 " Also (dj) in my eyes should-it-
be-raarvellous (uSs*) ? " /wr; Kal iviiirtov i/ioS . . . ;
16 241

[496] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

mouth of the questioner, who would probably regard Jesus
not as a teacher but as a ring-leader of turbulent Galilaeans.
Now, in order to express " his men," " his followers,"
"his friends," "his bands," etc., the LXX often uses the
prepositional phrase " those (ol) with (jieTo) him " : but
sometimes, by omitting "those," it represents the Hebrew
ambiguously or inaccurately.^ So, here, we may take as a
working hypothesis that there was an original " [one]-of-the-
friends-of this man," latent under the Synoptic variations
(" along-with (fieTci) him," " with (o-w) him," " [one] of them ").
As for the additions, "Jesus," "the Nazarene," "the Gali-
laean," they look like attempts to define the original " him,"
or " this man " : and it would seem that Mark conflates the
first and second ; Matthew, the first and third ; while Luke
adheres to the original. But, as we shall have to recur
hereafter to "the Galilaean," we may here remark that
when Mark and Luke, later on, represent Peter as being
called " Galilaean," Matthew omits the word, and this (Mt.
xxvi. 69) is the only place where the term is applied to
Jesus.

(ii) " r know not the man "

[496] John gives twice as Peter's reply, and Luke once,
" I am not," and John is rendered literally in Delitzsch's
Hebrew translation, i33''M. But an Evangelist, writing a
Gospel in Biblical Hebrew would probably not use this
phrase. For in three of the very rare instances in which it

' [495i] Oi [t& etc.) /ieTii = Gen. xxiv. £9 "his men," Deut. xi. 6 "that
[was] at-their-feet " (i.e. "that followed them"), Josh. viii. 5 "the people that are
with me" (A inserts "people"), Judg. viii. 5 " the people that are at my feet"
(A " the people that are with me," but LXX as Heb.), Amos iv. 2 "your residue "
(A.V. "posterity"), Erek. xxxviii. 22 "his hordes," Dan. ii. 13 (also ii. 18) "his
companions" (where Theod. has "friends," but LXX "those with him").

The Oxford Concordance shews where 6 is used before utri, but not (unless
there are variations in the Gk.) where 6 is omitted contrary to the Heb. Such
omissions occur in Judg. iv. 13 (A), Judg. vii. i (LXX om., A ins. 6), vii. 18
(LXX om., A ins. oi), vii. 19 (A om.), viii. 4 (A om.) etc.

242

OF MARK [496]

occurs, it means " I am no more." ^ More probably, there-
fore, the author of the Hebrew Logia would prefer to repeat
the predicate, " I am not a friend" or " I am not a friend of
the man!'

Now one Hebrew word to express " a friend " or
" familiar companion " — likely to commend itself to the
writer of the Logia as being frequently used in the Psalms
about the " familiar friends " of the Messiah, and also as
being used historically to denote the courtiers of a king — is
the passive participle of the verb " know." But the passive
participle is easily confused with the active participle (which
is indeed once used (Job xix. 13) for "an acquaintance" or
" familiar friend "). Hence ". I am not a friend [of] " might
be interpreted (according as the object "man" was (i)
omitted or (2) inserted) (i) "I am not one-knowing^' or
(2) "I am not one-knowing the man" ^

' [496a] Delitrsch (for oi)k_ etid) gives simply 'j:'k in Jn. xviii. 17 and 25,
but «in 'JN sh in Lk. xxii. 58. There is perhaps no passage in the Bible that
would give an exact Biblical precedent for the present passage. " I am not
('JI'h) " occurs oiJy thrice in O.T. without predicate, and then (Ps. xxxix. 13, Job
vii. 8, 21) it means " I am no more," or, " I (shall) have vanished," and this is
also a frequent meaning in the third person (Gen. xxxvii. 30, i K. xx. 40, etc.).
On the supposition, therefore, that the Gospels were written (like the Hebrew of
Ben Sira) in imitation of Biblical language, it is improbable that Jn. — who omits
a predicate after " I am not" — represents the Hebrew driginal.

" [496*] The participle (Pu.) "known" occurs, as a participle, only in Is.
xii. 5 "known (njn'D) [be, marg. is] this in the whole earth," LXX "make it
known (6,vayyel\aTe)." Elsewhere it occurs as a noun=:" acquaintance," e.g.
Ahab's (2 K. x. 11) "familiar friends," also Ps. xxxi. 11, Iv. 13, Ixxxviii. 8, Job
xix. 14, Ruth ii. I (where Qr. and R.V. jnio "kinsman"). In Is. liii. 3 the
pass, participle (lit. "known to" and hence "acquainted with") is rendered
"knowing how to bear (elSds ipipav)." In Job xix. 13 "mine acquaintance
(•yi') " is rendered " they knew {(yvuaav)," and conflated with " my friends
(<l>l\oi. iwv)." In Job xix. 14, " my familiar-friends ('j;td) have forgotten me
(^mzw)" is rendered "knowing my name (leg. 3B' as 'ce") have forgotten me."

The form of the verb pnn (lit. "knowing what?" and hence "what for?"
"why?") is very similar to i;to "acquaintance" and may possibly help to
account for the marginal reading given by W. H. in Mk. (see 497).

243

[497] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

(iii) Luke's vocatives

[497] In Peter's first reply, taking (i) "I do not know "
as the original, Mark appears to have conflated this with a
completed form of it : [a^ " I do not know," and (^j) " 1 do
not know, i.e. understand, what thou sayest." But the
insertion of the emphatic pronoun " thou," and the order of
the words, make it possible that «2 should be read as two
sentences (punctuated as such by W. H. in their margin) :
(^a) " I do not understand," (a^) " What dost tAou (emph.)
say?" On the other hand, in Peter's third reply, Mark
appears to have taken (2) " I do not know the man " as
the original, but to have defined the noun by additions,
" this man, whom ye speak of" ^

Matthew has, first, " I do not know what thou sayest,"
and in the two subsequent denials " I do not know the man."

Luke appears to have found traditions based upon (2)
" I do not know tke man (©''Nrr)," but interpreting " the
man " vocatively (since -rr may mean " O " as well as " the ").
Hence he, and he alone, has a vocative in each denial. But,

^ [497«] ''ETla-Tafi.ai, "understand" — the word used by Mk. in "I neither
know nor understand" — occurs nowhere else in the Gospels. In the LXX
(where it almost always =vn>) it is much rarer than oXSa, not occurring at all
in Judg., S., K., I Chr., Ezr., and Neh. It is used rather frequently with a
negative, as here, to mean emphatically "have not a notion of," "do not in
the least understand." It is the kind of word that might be expected in a
confused conflation (as in Prov. xiv. 22). In i Esdr. viii. 23 it occurs twice
parallel to elShai in Ezr. vii. 25. Codex D has, in Mk. xiv. 68, oure ijirio-ira^ai (sic)
Tt \eye<,s : codex d has " neque novi quid dicis," codex a " nee novi quem dicas."

In Mt. xxvi. 70, D has ouk oiSa n Xeyeis ovSe eirnrra/noi (codex d is lost),
codex a has " nescio quid dicas," codex b, " nescio quid dicis neque intellego."
There the position of "quid dicis'' shews that it is to be rendered as if it were
' ' quid dicas " ; and the same may be the meaning in Mt. as rendered by Corb.
and Brix. "nescio quid dicis" : but, grammatically, it ought to mean " I know
nothing. What sayest thou ? "

In Luke, all the Latin MSS. make Peter's third denial, "nescio quid dicis,
or, dicas," and D has ouk oiSa n Xe-yeis. Also, instead of the second charge (Lk.
xxii. 58 " thou also art [one] of them "), D has " the same."

These facts suffice to shew that the details of the Petrine denial were confused
at a very early period.^

244

OF MARK [498]

in the first denial, as the person addressed is a woman, he
has " O woman (ntDNn)," which closely resembles " man." ^
This he seems to have conflated with " him " (" I do not
know him, O woman "). His version of the third denial,
" that which thou speakest," may be the result of Greek or
Hebrew confusion (ay^N " man " being conflated as itDN " that
which," or the Greek "whom" being read as the Greek
" that which ")? But the triple vocative has probably a
Hebrew source.

(iv) Another sign of translation

[498] Where Mark and Luke have "for thou art a
Galilaean" Matthew has " for thy speech bewrayeth thee."
Now the Biblical word exactly suited to express the action
of self- exposing, or "bewraying" — and the word actually
used by Delitzsch to express it here — is nSi, "make
naked," " uncover." But this word may easily be confused
with •>f?-'f?l " Galilaean " : and the two verbs rhl and f?bl
are actually confused in two passages of O.T.'

^ [497*] The Vocative, with or without prefix, is frequently confused with
other cases by the LXX. Sometimes the R.V. itself acknowledges ambiguity, as
in 2 S. xxiv. 23 "All this, O (-n) king, doth Araunah give,'' marg. " All this did
A. the king give," Ps. lii. 4 "O thou . . . tongue," marg. "[and] the tongue" ;
comp. Ps. cxx. 3 "thou . . . tongue," (LXX) irphs ykdaaav. For instances of
confusion between the vocative and the accusative, see Prov. xxiv. 15 " Lay not
wait, O wicked [one]" /iij irpoiraydy^s direjS^, Is. xxvii. 12 " Ye shall be gathered,
O sons of Israel," (n;>'07ii7eTe rois vlois 'JffpaTJX.

The vocative " man " is very rare and the vocative " woman " non-existent,
in Biblical Hebrew, so that, if the Gospel was written in that style, Lk. is almost
certainly wrong here, as in the Healing of the Paralytic where Lk. alone has (v.
20) "Man," but Mk.-Mt. have "Son" (259). For "man" in Heb., rendered
"woman" in Gk., see i K. x. 8 "thy men," LXX "thy women."

' [4S7c] "Whom," in Gk., i.e. ON, when written o, would easily be con-
fused with o, "that which." For an instance of confusion of b"n "man" and
the relative, nrN, in LXX, comp. Is. xlvi. 11 " iAe man 0/ {vk) my counsel,"
Trepi cBk /Se/SoiiXewjuoi.

' [498a] Comp. Ps. xxxvii. 5 " Commit (lit. roll) {bhi) thy way unto the
Lord," where the LXX has "uncover (iwoKiXv^pov) thy way" (leg. nh:). An
opposite confusion is found in i S. xiv. 8 "we will discover ourselves," LXX
" »v// ourselves."

24s

[498] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Probably the original was " for thou art a Galilaean " —
the speaker assuming that any Galilaean present must be
on the side of Jesus. But many readers of the Gospel
might be ignorant of the fact that a Galilaean was known
to a southern Jew by his dialect, and some might think
that the mere fact of being a Galilaean could not be taken,
even by a servant of the high priest, to prove complicity
with Jesus. Hence might arise a Hebrew substitution of a
form of nhy for 'h'h^, so as to produce " thou hast bewrayed
thyself," that is, by remarks dropped in conversation with
the servants.^ This seems to have been adopted by
Matthew in an amplified form : but it is not certain
whether " thy speech " means " thy dialect " or " the sub-
stance of what thou sayest." In any case the divergence
points to a Hebrew original.^ There is also some evidence
indicating a fair probability that traditions from a Hebrew
source may have influenced John's version of the third
question (Jn. xviii. 26), " Did not I see thee in the garden?"^

' [498iJ] The original may have contained a play on the words " Galilaean "
and "bewray": "Thou hast bewrayed thyself, O Galilaean," which Matthew
may have taken as the reduplicated verb (which occurs in I S. ii. 27, 2 S. vi. 20)
"uncovering thou hast uncovered thyself." Indeed it is just possible, but not
probable, that such a reduplication (a frequent source of error in the LXX) was
the original and that ' ' Galilaean " was an error.

^ [498;:] Whenever Hebrew corruption or obscurity produces divergent
traditions, the opportunities of Greek corruption are increased. So here, Mt.
may have attempted to combine with his version ("bewrayeth") a modification
of Mk.'s "Galilaean" by introducing rApr^AlAiMOC ("for Galilaean") in the
form of a gloss, (HJr^pAAAli^COY ("for thy speech"). Comp. Is. xvi. 3, where
"bewray" is rendered dx^fs "led into captivity," a rendering that has caused
various readings. Two of these, dTroKaXii^gs and d7roSi(i|j)S, are from the Hebrew :
but one, a.-Ko.pxn^t is probably from Greek corruption.

Perhaps, also, some sense that a tradition about "Galilaean" came in ioff«-
where in the story of Peter's denials, induced Mt. to insert the word above (Mt.
xxvi. 69), unprecedentedly applying it to Jesus.

^ [498rf] The reduplication of the verb meaning "bewray," presupposed as a
possible basis for Mt. 's version of the third question to Peter, occurs in i S. ii. 27
(lit. ) " Have I uncovering uncovered myself? " and in 2 S. vi. 20 : and if this tra-
dition, as a rival to that about "the Galilaean," came before Jn., it would be
antecedently not improbable that he might prefer some compromise that made

246

OF MARK

[498]

68. {Mk>) (R. V.) " When he thought thereon',' {Mt.-Lk)
" having gone out "

Mk. xiv. 72.

R.V. "when he
thought thereon," —
i.e. (lit.) "having-set
[-his-mind] on [-it] "
— "he wept (so R.V.
but Mk. eickaiep (i.e.
" began - to - weep "),
Mt.— Lk. eKXavcrev).

Mt. XX vi. 75.

" And, having gone
out outside, he wept
bitterly."

Lk. xxii. 61, 62.

" And, having
turned, the Lord
looked on Peter . . .
(62) [And having gone
out outside he wept
bitterly]." ^

good sense. Now the word rhu "uncovering" is easily confused with ,-i3J3 "in
the garden." Indeed the LXX actually substitutes (: "garden" (a shorter form of
the word) for hi meaning "spring" in Cant. iv. iz. Again, in Sir. xhi. 16 "the
sun rising over all things is revealed (nrhii)," the LXX has " over all surveyed, or,
looked (iri^Xeil/ev)." The two errors — in the course of a long period of conflict
and blending of various Hebrew traditions — might possibly result in converting
"uncovering thou hast uncovered ihyssW into " z« the garden did I behold
thee."

[498«] As a minor point, it may be mentioned that the Synoptists all lay stress
on the fact that one or more of the servants "see," or "look at," or "gaze
earnestly on" Peter. Jn. may have omitted this in his narrative because he
regarded the "seeing" as having taken place in the garden and not in the court-
yard, and as being mentioned in the dialogue, not in the narrative. For a LXX
instance of the transference of "seeing" from narrative to speech comp. 2 S.
xiii. 34 "and he looked and behold . . .," where LXX adds, in a conflation,
" and he said ' I have seen . . .' "

[498/1 Other instances, of the interpolation of "garden" are Neh. iii. 16 (lit.) •
"He repaired ... as far as (ly) against (nj:) the sepulchres of David," LXX "as
far as the garden (k^ttou) of the sepulchre of David," ib. 26 " as far as against the
gate," LXX "as far as the garden of the gate." Mt. xxvii. 61 (Mk.-Lk. differ)
says that after Christ's death the women were " sitting over-against {flvivavri.) the
sepulchre." Now "sitting" (9) is a very common LXX error for "returning" ;
also "over-against" {airfvavTi, Karivavn, etc.) very often represents njj; and we
have seen that in a single passage of Nehemiah -rjj, meaning " over-against," is
twice mistranslated "garden." Hence it appears that it would be easy to take a
Heb. original of Mt. xxvii. 61 as meaning " they returned to the garden of the
sepulchre." Jn. alone mentions the sepulchre as being in "a garden," and Mary
as taking Christ to be the "gardener."

[498^] The context of the passage in Nehemiah above quoted suggests an origin

' W. and H. bracket the italicized words in Lk.
best Latin MSS., but SS has them.

247

They are omitted by the

[499] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

[499] No one has satisfactorily explained Mark's extra-
ordinary word " having-set-his-mind-on-it." It has been
variously interpreted ( i ) " having placed [a covering] on [his
head]," (2) "thought," or "set his mind," besides other
interpretations ; but instances are wanting to justify any of
them.^

[500] " He thought thereon," in Hebrew, would probably
be a word used in Job xxxiv. 14 "if he set his heart upon
him," marg. " if he cause his heart to return unto himself"
This word is frequently used of " setting the mind, or heart,"

for the name Mt. xv. 39 " Magadan " (C " Magdalan," L " Magdala," SS " Mag-
dan"), (parall. to Mk. viii. 10 " Dalmanutha," B "Dalmanuntha," D "Mele-
gada," with other variations, "Magaida," "Magdala," "Magdal," etc.)-

Neh. iii. 19 " (wer against (nJiD) the going up " is rendered by LXX " tower of
ascent," reading " Migdal " 'jniD, which is rendered " Magada " by LXX in Josh.
XV. 37 (Luc. "Magdal"). The passage in Mt. describes a crossing of the Lake
of Gennesaret, and the original was probably " he came to the opposite coast," lit.
*' he came to the coast opposite (ij:d), or, opposite him (njiD)." Mt. has transliter-
ated the adverb as the name of a place, except that he has transposed «, making
" Magadan" instead of " Mangad." But the word might naturally be confused
by some with " Migdal " ("tower "), which is frequently a part of the name of a
place : and the Codices C and L may have introduced / owing to some confusion
with the reading " Migdal " (" tower "), perceptible also in the parall. Mk. where
the /appears in "Dalmanutha" and variants.

[498/5] As regards Mk.'s "Dalmanutha," if the Hebrew "Mangad" was
treated as the name of a town, it would be natural to place "to,"' i.e. "el (^k),"
before it. But " el," or " 1- "—as in 2 S. xxiv. 5 (" unto C?!*) Jazer," " iE/iezer/'),
I Chr. xxiv. 12 ("to ('?) Jakim," A "£/iakeim") — might be treated as part of
the name by a Greek translator. Now in I Chr. xi. 47 " Eliel (^jk'Sn) " becomes
(perhaps by Greek corruption) "Daleiel"; Numb. iii. 24 " Lael (SxS) " becomes
"Dael" ; Judg. i. 31 " Ahlab (n'jnK)" becomes "Dalaph" ; Ezr. viii. 17 "Iddo
(nn) " becomes in i Esdr. viii. 44, 45 (A) " Doldaios " (LXX Laadaios or Lodaios).
These instances of the introduction of the Greek A in the transliteration of
syllables containing M, and the influence of confused readings of "Migdal"
("tower") or the pi. "Migdalouth" might explain the rise of "Dalmanutha"
from an original "Mangad" without farther glosses. At the same time it is
quite possible that, in the desperate state of Mk. 's text, Aramaic glosses (such as
the emphatic form of the Talmudic word for " harbour " (Herz, Black, Enc.
"Dalmanutha," Nirjo^'^n) or a transliteration of the preceding word "parts" («'.«.
" the parts of Magdala," iiApt)) (Nestle, ib. xnUD)) may have contributed to the
formation of the name.

1 'Eirij3aXc6>', without an object, is used to mean " continuing (a discourse)," but
not in sense (i) or (2) ; Field and other able scholars support (i), but without
alleging an instance of the verb used thus without an object.

248

OF MARK [502]

and, on one occasion, without an object (Job iv. 20) " with-
out any regarding it," lit. " without one-setting {his mind-on
it\"^ In the first of these two passages (xxxiv. 14) the
Hebrew itself (text and margin) varies between " set " and
" (cause to) return." ^ So here, " He [the Lord] caused him
[Peter] to return " might be confused with " he [Peter] set
\his mind on it']" i.e. on his fault (or " on Him," i.e. his Master).
On the other hand, the word might be interpreted " he \i.e.
Peter] returned," in a literal sense, i.e. went away from the
courtyard, which might give rise to the Matthew- Luke
tradition, " went out outside."

[501] Luke, in the tradition peculiar to his Gospel, has
probably preserved the original of Mark's obscure term, viz.
that " the Lord caused Peter to return" or " converted "
Peter ; which might easily be interpreted as " turned and
looked to^yards Peter."^ Luke adopts the latter interpretation.

[502] § 69. The Jews prefer Barabbas to Jesus

ML XV. 9, II, 12. Mt. xxvii. 17, 20—22. Lk. xxiii. 16, 18, 20.

" Will ye [that] I " Whom will ye " Having chastised

release for you the [that] I release for (or, admonished) him

Kingof the Jews?. . . you, Barabbas or therefore I will release

(11) But the chief Jesus that is called [him]*... (18) But

priests stirred up the Christ ? . . . (20) But they cried-aloud with-

^ In both cases the LXX is confused. Job xxxiv. 14 ci lap ^oiXoiro avvixety
Koi rb TTveu/ia Trap' airou KaTnaxetv, Job iv. 20 iraph rh /i?) SivaaSai airoii Eavroit
por]S^(rai. Comp. Dan. vi. 14 (Aram.) "he set his heart ('^■i Dir) on Daniel to
deliver him," Theod. iiyiavlaaTO irepl tou A., LXX ^/3oi)ffei.

' " Set (dib')," " return (ails')." Hebrew confusion between " m " and " b " is
very frequent (516a).

' [501a] Comp. Judg. vi. 14 (naa) "looked upon," marg. "turned towards,"
Kai iiriffTpetf/ev (A iiripKe^ev) irpis airhv S.yyt'Koi. The word iiriirrpi(pav is
used of Peter spiritually in Lk. xxii. 32 iri Trore iirurTpi-^ai arlipuTov toM dScX^oiit
ffou. There is also much to be said for giving the word a spiritual signification in
Jn. xxi. 20 4m<rTpa4>els 6 nirpos (comp. i Pet. ii. 25).

* Lk. xxiii. 16 is rep. in Lk. xxiii. 22 {i) " having chastised him therefore I
will release (him)."

249

[502]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

multitude in order
that rather he should
release for them Bar-
abbas. ( 1 2)... What '^
therefore shall I do
[to him] whom ye
call the King of the
Jews ? "

all - their - multitude
saying, Away with
this man, but release
for us Barabbas . . .
(20) But again Pilate
called -to [them] will-
ing to release Jesus.''

the chief priests and
the elders persuaded
the multitudes in
order that they should
ask for Barabbas, but
destroy Jesus. (21)
. . . Whom will ye of
the two [that] I re-
lease for you ? But
they said Barabbas.
(22) . . . What there-
fore shall I do to
Jesus who is called
Christ ? "

With these must be compared Jn. xviii. 39-40 " Desire
ye therefore [that] I release for you the King of the Jews ?
(40) They therefore shouted again saying, Not this [man],
but Barabbas."

(a) The difficulties of the passage

[502 (i)] The positive agreement of Matthew and Luke
against Mark consists of little more than the substitutiori of
an antithesis between Jesus (or " this man ") and Barabbas
in place of Mark's " rather " : and this agreement is not
verbally exact. But there is also a negative agreement in
their omission of all mention of a " king " in Pilate's question
to the multitude. Why did Matthew and Luke omit this?
Is it an interpolation in Mark, favoured by John but not
known to Matthew and Luke ? Or did they omit it because
they considered it unseemly jesting, and did John insert it
because he regarded Pilate's jesting as subordinated to the
divine purpose of testifying to Christ's sovereignty ?

Again, why does Matthew alone represent Pilate as
asking which " of the two " he is to release, whereas in Mark

^ Codex D and SS insert " will ye {6i\iTk)" supporting Tischendorf.

250

OF MARK [502]

and John the question is, shall he release their " king," and
in Luke, no question at all, but simply " I will release " ?
Matthew's version implies that one of the two must be
released : and Matthew and John refer to a " customary "
release : ^ but no trace of such a custom has been alleged,
and Luke makes no mention of it. The most reasonable
supposition is that no such custom ever existed ; but if it
had no existence, whence did the mention of it find its way
into two at least of the four Gospels? And why does
Luke (besides being silent about the " custom ") omit the
questions of Pilate (" Will ye . . . ? " " Whom will ye . . . ? "
" What therefore shall I do . . . ? " etc.) ? Lastly, why does
Luke twice insert, in connection with the " release," a
mention of " chastising " (or " admonition ") ?

(;8) " Will ye ? " " What therefore ? " or " What {or,
Whom) will ye ? "

[502 (ii)] In the only instance where the phrase " what
wilt thou ? (rt OeXeK ;) " occurs in LXX, the literal Hebrew
is " What [is] to thee, or, for thee (-jf?) ? " ^ If, therefore, Pilate
said to the multitude, " What will ye ? Shall I release . . . ? "
the Biblical Hebrew for this would be " Whaty^^ you shall
I release ? " This would suggest to a Greek a broken

■• Mt. xxvii. IS "the governor was accustomed," Jn. xviii. 39 "it is a custom
among you that I release." Mk. xv. 6, 8 /cora hi [D ins. Tfji), Diatess. " at euery
feast "] kofrr)\v d,-ire\vev . . . Ka$i>5 iirotei, might mean, even in the Greek, and
still more easily in a Hebrew original, that Pilate was on the point 0/" releasing, or
intending to release, during the feast, a certain prisoner for whom the people had
petitioned, and that the Jews now asked him to do as he was intending to do.
But eirola, thus used, would be rather harsh.

^ [502 (ii)a] The single instance is Esth. v. 3 (R.V.) "What wilt thou?" ht.
"What to thee (ih no)?" rl 6i\£is ; Elsewhere, the Hebrew being the same,
R.V. varies, "what wouldest thou?" "what aileth thee?" "what meanest
thou?" LXX renders itrl i(rTiv aot ; " what is to thee ? " in Josh. xv. 18, Jud.
i. 14, 2 S. xiv. 5, I K. i. 16, etc. Jon. i. 6 (R.V.) "What meanest thou (lit.
What to thee?), O sleeper?" is rendered H iri pSyxeis} "Why dost thou
slumber ?" So at least it is punctuated by",Swete. But ? rlav ; ^e'7/ceis ; " What
meanest thou ? dost thou slumber ? "

251

[502] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

sentence, " What for you ? Shall I release ? " And it
might originate — or favour the adoption of — various para-
phrases, marginal alternatives, and corrupt renderings, e.g.
" What shall I do for you ? Shall I release ? " or " What do
you want? Shall I release?" "What then ri oZv) (lit.
What therefore ?) ? Shall I release ? " or " Do you want me
to release ? "

Again, in Greek, " Wkai for you shall I release ? " might
easily be taken for " Whom for you shall I release ? " ti,
" what," being supposed to be an error for tT representing an
elided tin(&).^ This might give rise to amplifications " Whom
shall I release, this person or that ? " or " Which of the two
shall I release ? "

Again, we have found above (432) that " for {or, to) you "
and " for {or, to) them " are interchanged with " therefore " in
LXX and probably in the Synoptists. Hence, if translation
has been at work here, we may expect to find " for you "
conflated with, or parallel to, " therefore '' ; and this, as a
fact, is found to be the case in Mark's and Matthew's versions
of Pilate's second question, Matthew apparently conflating
" Whom of the two shall I release for you ? " with " What
therefore shall I do ? " so as to make two questions, a second
and a third, out of Mark's second. " Therefore " also occurs
in Luke's parallel, " I will therefore release him."

(7) " Your king"

[502 (iii)] But, further, "what will ye ? "—especially if
written (as in Is. iii. 15) Difpo — differs little from "your

^ [502 (ii)^] In Heb., the "what (no)" might easily be confused with the
nom. 'D "who," but not so easily with the accus. which is preceded by ns. How-
ever, on one occasion "what (.no) didst thou see?" is rendered by the LXX
"whom (rica) " (i S. xxviii. 13). Tii-o in N.T. occurs perhaps only once before
a vowel (Jn. vi. 68 xpis rlva. iir€\evir6fteea ;). Elision is rare in N.T. MSS., but,
under the circumstances, might easily be supposed by scribes to exist. Or, if ti
was immediately followed by (mtoXi/o-w, it would be easy to suppose that TIA was
an error for TT&a..

252

OF MARK [502]

king (D33S0)," a phrase used in John (" shall I crucify your
king?"'). If, therefore, the original was,' "What will ye?
Shall I release your king ? " it was very natural that " your
king" should be cancelled, or corrected, by some authorities,
as being a corrupt repetition of "what will ye?" The belief
that it was erroneous might be favoured perhaps by the rarity
of this particular form of the word "king" in the Bible,
and certainly by the antecedent improbability that an
ordinary Roman governor would thus jest with a Jewish
multitude about their " king." ^

Another way of meeting the difficulty would be to
suppose that " your king," when used by Pilate to a large
crowd of pilgrims including many Galilaeans, might be
an inaccurate but complimentary way of denoting Herod
Antipas — who was only a tetrarch, but wished to be a king,
and is habitually called a king by Mark — and that Pilate
spoke, not about " remitting Jesus, their king," but about
" remitting Jesus to their king \i.e. for trial] " (56). This view
appears to have been taken by Luke (56, 503 (iii)).

(S) The origin of the tradition about the " custom "

[502 (iv)] Mark rather favours the view that Barabbas
had not been convicted of crime. He had been " imprisoned,"
he says, " along with (fieTo) the rebels (t&v a-racnacrT&v) who
in the rebellion had committed murder'' This might easily
be taken to mean, as Luke says, that he had been '' cast
into prison on account of rebellion and murder " ; but Mark's
words appear to state the charge as one of complicity, or
companionship, and not overt action. If this is the meaning,
Pilate, in proposing to release Barabbas on the feast-day, was
merely reserving the release of a prisoner, arrested under
suspicion, for a time when it was particularly desirable to put

1 In I K. ix. 26 " the king " is parall. to 2 Chr. viii. 17 •{jn "went," and in
Sir. xlviii. 12 ijaD "before any"=i7r6 Spxw'Tos (leg. -^.

[502] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

the populace in good humour. The notion that this was a
custom (a view taken by John as well as Matthew) might
spring from several causes. The verb "to be in the habit
of [doing] " used by Matthew might possibly (but not
probably) be represented in Biblical Hebrew by a word
that in the non-causative mood means " cherish," " profit/'
" serve." Moreover, in Greek, the imperfect might mean
" he was intending to do " or " in the habit of doing."
And in Biblical Greek, as well as in Hebrew, " one "
may mean either " one [and no more] " or " a certain
[prisoner then under arrest, namely, Barabbas]." Hence,
"he was intending to humour the people by liberating
a \certain\ prisoner during the feast" might be interpreted
as meaning " he was in the habit of liberating for the people
one prisoner during the feast." This interpretation would
be confirmed by the mistranslation above mentioned, " Which
[of them] shall I release ? " which might be taken to imply
that one of the two must be released ; and this involved a
" custom." When the belief in the " custom " was established,
some Evangelists might naturally insert an explicit statement
about it for clearness.-'

' [502 (iv) a] Concerning the " custom '' see Swete on Mk. xv. 6 " there
seems to be no other evidence than that which the Gospels furnish," and similarly
Westc. on Jn. xviii. 39. There is no justification (Black, Ency., Barabbas) for
the hypothesis of such a custom in Livy's (v. 13. 8) account of the first celebration
of the Roman Lectisternia, or in Dion. Halicar. xii. 9 ( = 10).

[502 (iv) b'\ The Heb. pD (Gesen. Oxf.) means "be of use, or service,"
"benefit." In i K. i. 2, 5 it = " cherish," but in Numb. xxii. 30 the hiph. means
" I am in the habit." It is most frequ. in Job, where it is transl. Sei in Job xv. 3
"profit."' In Phoenician it means (Gesen. Oxf.) "prefect," and it is similar to
the Biblical po "governor,"' with which it might be confused. It is more
probable, however, that the easy word "governor" should be substituted for the
difficult "benefit"" than mce-versa.

But the word po in New Heb. means mostly " endanger,'' and is not likely
to have been used by an Evangelist in the sense of "humour.*" More probably,
therefore, the erroneous notion of a " custom " originated from » misinterpreta-
tion of a participial or imperfect form.

2S4

OF MARK [502]

(e) (Z^.) " having chastised {or, admonished^ him "

[502 (v)] The Greek word here rendered "chastise"
means, in classical Greek and in the Acts of the Apostles,
"educate" or "train." It occurs in the Epistle to the
Hebrews (xii. 6) (R.V.) " whom the Lord loveth he chas-
teneth " (lit. " traineih," iraiBevei). There the writer is
quoting from Proverbs iii. 1 2 (R.V.) " Whom the Lord
loveth he reproveth " (JT'DT' from X\T), and is deviating from
the LXX, which has " whom the Lord loveth he reproveth
(iXeyxei)," but two of the best MSS. have "traineth
(TratSevei,)." Having regard to the almost invariably mild
sense in which iraiSevco is used in N.T., it is possible that
Luke may mean " I will release him with a reproof, or,
reprimand" But he may mean " after punishment!' Later
on, where Mark and Matthew say " Pilate delivered over
Jesus having- flogged -him (<jipaye\Xa)cra<s, not iiaaTt'^axra';,
" scourged ") that he might be crucified" Luke has " delivered
over Jesus to their will." Yet John, too, mentions a
" scourging {efiaari'^waev) " of Jesus : only he places it
before the sentence of death.^ The question arises, why
does Luke alone twice insert a mention of " chastisement "
or " reproof," and alone omit all mention of " flogging " or
" scourging " ?

(f) Luke's insertions and omissions

[502 (vi)] If Luke's insertions and omissions proceeded
simply from a desire to minimise Pilate's severity, his credit
as a historian would suffer. But there is some ground
for supposing that he found a basis for his view in the
original Hebrew. The Hebrew nT, translated "reprove" in
the above-quoted passage from Proverbs, is fairly similar, in
some forms, to the Hebrew " king " : and Luke's "having

1 Mk. XV. IS, Mt. xxvii. 26, Lk. xxiii. 25, Jn. xix. i.
2SS

[502] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

chastised" is parallel to, and may be a substitute for,
Mark's " king." ^ But a more probable explanation is
that Luke found a Hebrew tradition inserting the word
" governor " — freely used by Matthew, but not by Luke, in
the account of the Passion — "And the governor said, I
will release him." This, in Hebrew order, would be "and
said the governor" Now one word for " governor " (written
TD, instead of no) is easily confused with the regular Hebrew
for " chastise " (iD"'). The result of such a confusion might
be " And he said, ' Having-chastised . . ."^

' " King " = ■]';d ; " reprove " = nr, particip. n'3iD ; " scourging "=n3D.

^ [502 ( vi) a] Gesen. Oxf. on Jer. vi. 28 says that no may = ni? " princes. ''
In New Heb. no is the regular word for " prince." And comp. I S. xxii. 14
(R.V.) "taken into C^N no)," but LXX dprxfiiv (leg. -m), and see Intemat. Crit.
Comm. (H. P. Smith) ad loc, " no is only another spelling for -w as is indicated
by Spxw, LXX." In Hos. vii. 14 "they rebelled (niD') " is rendered " they were
chastised" iiratSeii8iii<rav (leg. as from lo')-

[502 (vi) 6] A third alternative is presented by Lev. xix. 20 "scourging (mpn),"
lit. "investigation," but traditionally rendered "punishment" (Gesen. Oxf.
"punishment after examination (investigation))." The Heb. LXX renders it
iiruTKOTT'^ "visitation,'' reading tps for npn. But I'ps means "chief oflScer,''
"magistrate" or "general," and might represent "governor" here.

[502 (vi) c] But perhaps the most probable explanation of all would start from
the fact that the painstaking historian Lk. makes Pilate say "Having chastised,
I will release " ; that this is, in effect, ' ' I will release and I will [merely]
chastise" ; that " I will chastise," in Biblical Hebrew, is almost necessarily ^D'K ;
and that there is very little difference (merely the transposition of a yod) between
"I will chastise," nD'K, and "prisoner," ton. Let us therefore assume, hypo-
thetically, that Pilate's first question to the multitude was : " What [is to be done]
for you ? Shall I release the prisoner (tdn) for you ? "

( i) Mk., being under the impression (502 (iii) and (ii)) that " What for you ? "
meant "your king," may have read id, "prince," for td, dropping k — a letter
frequently dropped by scribes — and thereby producing the sentence, "Your king
shall I release, the prince for you ?" i.e. " the king your prince." This he para-
phrased as "the king of the Jews." Similarly, in I Chr. xv. 22, "instructed
(no-)" — the word regularly rendered "chastise" — appears to be rendered by the
LXXS.pxuy, "ruler" (leg. no).

(2) Other interpreters, accepting the true reading "prisoner,'' were divided
among themselves as to who was meant. Barabbas (Mk. xv. 7, Mt. xxvii. 16)
had just been described as "prisoner." Hence "Barabbas" might naturally be
substituted for " prisoner " in the text by some. But others understood Pilate to
mean Jesus. Hence "Jesus" would be inserted in the margin. Thence would
spring many conflations : (l) "Jesus Barabbas," a reading supported by several

256

OF MARK [502]

As regards Luke's apparent substitution of " their will "
for " having flogged . . . that he might be crucified," it
must be remembered that, according to Roman custom,
" flogging " preceded crucifixion. Luke, aware that all his
readers knew what those condemned to crucifixion had
to expect, and feeling that enough had been said about it
by the earlier Evangelists, implies the flogging in the words
" delivered him over " to the " will " of those who had cried
"crucify him."

[502 (vii)] But there is some possibility, here too, of
mistranslation. Delitzsch gives, as the Hebrew for "to
their will" D31Sn, from ]im, " good will," " satisfaction." But
he gives the same word in Mark (xv. 15), "wishing to do
■what-was-satisfying to the people." Now the root of this
word is nsi, "seek the good will of," said by some (see
Buhl) to be confused with ^%\ " crush," " oppress," in Job
XX. I o (R. V. txt.) " seek the favour of" (marg.) " oppress"
But it is more easily confused with ^S^, "break," "crush,"
" pierce," " stab," " murder." The noun form of the latter is
used in Ps. xlii. 10 (lit.) "[As] with a crushing (n^l) in my
bones mine adversaries reproach me," and the participle
(Pi.) means "murderers." It is possible that in some
tradition declaring that Pilate delivered Jesus up to the
murderers Luke may have rendered the italicized words

extant authorities (see W. H. vol. ii. on Mt. xxvii. 16). Others would add, " who
is called," meaning "the Jesus who is called Barabbas." But "who is called"
might be applied to the Lord Jesus, and then it would demand the addition of
"Christ" — "Jesus who is called Christ." Out of all these confusions there
might spring "Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ" — the tradition adopted
by Mt.

(3) A third class, while adhering most faithfully to the letters of the Hebrew
Original, would seem to have departed furthest from its meaning. The Hebrew
" bind," or " imprison " (nDi«), is, even in ordinary circumstances, easily confused
with the Hebrew "chastise (iD')" ; and the confusion actually takes place in two
passages of the LXX (Ps. cv. 22, Hos. x. 10). But the insertion of n (the sign of
the 1st pers. sing, fut.) in the form here used by Lk. makes it particularly easy to
mistake tdn, "prisoner," for id'N, "I will chastise." This error Lk. appears to
have committed.

17 257

[503] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

" to their will." Others may have conflated them as («i) " to
satisfy them " {a^ " to murder." The latter {a^, when
expressed in detail, would be " to flog and crucify " : and
there is no great difference between this and " delivered
over . . . having flogged, to be crucified." Mark may
have adopted this conflation. Or, if " to their will " was the
original, Mark's conflation may have resulted from an
attempt to correct a vague and inaccurate translation ("to
satisfy ") by adding to it a definite paraphrase.

(7;) Traces of disconnection in Mk.'s account

[503 (i)] Mark (xv. 2) gives, as Pilate's first words to
Jesus, " Art thou the king of the Jews ? " But this comes
very abruptly from a judge who, as far as Mark's narrative
goes, has never been informed that the prisoner had called
himself king. Mark himself later on implies that this
accusation had been brought ; for he makes Pilate say
" What then shall I do to him whom ye call the king of the
Jews ? " But no such " calling," in Pilate's presence, has
been anywhere mentioned by Mark (or by Matthew).

Luke supplies the defect by saying that, when the chief
priests brought Jesus to Pilate, they accused Him thus :
" We have found this man perverting {^laarpk^ovTo) our
nation . . . and saying that he himself is Messiah, king."
This makes everything clear. But if it was so clear in the
original, why did Mark omit what made it clear ?. And why
does John make no mention of it when he, at the same point
as Luke, introduces the chief priests as making no charge
except, indirectly, the vague one of " doing evil " ? ^

' [503 (i) a\ Jn. xviii. 30 " If this man were not an evil-doer (xaKbv iroiCc) we
should not have brought him to thee. " " Evil-doing " may be, as in Deut^ xix. 16,
" rebellion (mo) " : and it is quite possible that Jn.'s " evil-doer " condenses some
Hebrew original (amplified in Lk. xxiii. 2, 5) implying a charge of treason and of
claiming to be king. This would explain Jn. xviii. 33 "Art thou the king of the
Jews > "

258

OF MARK [503]

Here it must be added that Luke, in a second version of
the charges brought by the chief priests, says, " He stirreth
up (avaa-eiet) the people." Now the Greek '' stir up " occurs
in the whole of the Bible only here and in Mark's context
"stirred up the multitude [against Jesus]." Thus, Mark
applies it to what the chief priests did concerning Jesus,
while Luke applies it to what the chief priests said concern-
ing the doings of Jesus. Surely this is almost irresistible
evidence that Mark and Luke are giving different applica-
tions of the same original.

Again, Delitzsch gives as the Hebrew of Luke's " pervert "
(in "perverting our nation ") the same word as that by which
he renders Mark's " stir up " (in " stirred up the multitude ") ;
and this suggests that Luke's two versions are simply two
Greek translations or paraphrases of one Hebrew original,
misplaced and misapplied, as well as obscured, in Mark.

{6) Luke may have rearranged and amplified Mark

[503 (ii)] One very frequent cause of error in the LXX
is the Hebrew practice of inserting, out of chronological
order, appended or parenthetical remarks (24 la), which are
taken by the LXX as statements that so and so happened
in the ordinary sequence.

Now, after the words " will ye that I release for you the
king of the Jews," Mark has (xv. lo— ii) "For he under-
stood -all -the -while {I'^ivaxyaev) that for envy there had
delivered him over (or, reported, or, informed against him)
(■7rapaSeSa>Keia-av) [the chief priests], but the chief priests
stirred up the multitude." " The chief priests " appears to
be corruptly repeated, and is bracketed in the first instance
by W. H. Having regard to this, and to the frequent con-
fusion of singular and plural in LXX, and the frequent
omission in Hebrew of a verb of speech (459 (i)), it is quite
possible that the Original meant "He understood-all-the-

259

[503] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

while that for envy there had delivered him over the chief
priests [saying, ' He\ stirred up the multitude [to make him
king']."

If so, it was natural for an orderly historian like Luke
to place this charge of "stirring up the multitude" at the
time when it was uttered, that is, when Jesus was first
brought before Pilate. But he may have found some
difificulty in deciding whether the " stirring up," or (503
(i) a) " rebellion," was against Rome or agaihst Moses. At
all events he mentions two charges, first, a political one
(Lk. xxiii. 2 " perverting our nation and forbidding to give
tribute to Caesar . . ."), and then a charge against Jesus as
a " teacher " (Lk. xxiii. 5 " He stirreth up the people,
teaching . . ."). These have the appearance of a conflation.^

(t) Luke's mention of " no fault" and his two-fold mention

of Herod

[503 (iii)] It has been pointed out (56) that Luke may
have interpreted a tradition, " Pilate said that he would
release (Jit. send) Jesus, the king of the Jews," as meaning
" Pilate said that he would send Jesus to the king of the
Jews " — an inaccurate way of saying " to Herod." Now the
Greek " release " may mean " acquit " ; and this indeed is

^ [503 (ii) a] As bearing upon the various applications of "stirring up the
people," it may be worth mentioning that the three forms of the Acta Pilati all
concur (§ 9) in assigning to Pilate — beside the question "What then am I to do
with Jesus [A and Lat. add "who is called Christ]?" — another question, not
addressed to the multitude but to the few honest Jews who take the side of Jesus
(A and Lat. ), " What shall I do, because there is insurrection (ffrdiris) among the
people," (B) "What do you say that I should do because the people is-in-commotion
{Tapia-aeTai)}" "Because" in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, is easily confused
with "who." Hence these words might easily represent an original, "What
shall I do to him who is [as you say] stirring up (n'oo) the people ? " Is it
possible that the d in this word may be a corruption of v, and n of n, so that the
original was n'E'D, " anointed, or, Christ " ? If so, this saying of the Acta may be
a version of Matthew's ' ' What therefore shall I do to Jesus who is called Christ ? "
(parall. Mk. " to him v/'hom ye call iing of tAefews"). Comp. Levy, nnao.

260

OF MARK [503]

its regular meaning in connection with a legal trial. It was
very natural, then, that later Evangelists should give the word
this meaning, as it was more favourable both to Jesus and
to Pilate that the latter should be represented as wishing,
not to " let off," but to " acquit," the prisoner. But, if so,
the verb could not be used interrogatively. Pilate might
say "Shall I release, or let off?" but no judge, even the
most corrupt, could say to a crowd "Shall I acquit the
accused ? " Luke and John appear to conflate {a^ " I will
release" (Jn. "Do ye desire that I release") with (012) " I
acquit," in different paraphrases, " I find no fault, nothing
faulty, nothing worthy of death, etc." But Luke seems
also to have adopted a version of " releasing the king of
the Jews," which not only converted the object of the verb
to the subject but also " release " to " acquit " (" the king of
the Jews acquits him ") ; and this would justify him (on the
supposition that Herod was intended by this inaccurate
designation) in writing, as a paraphrase, that Pilate said
(Lk. xxiii. 14-15), "I found no fault in this man . . . no,
nor yet \did'\ Herod" ^

' [503 (iii) a] But how are we to explain Lk. xxiii. 12 "And Herod and Pilate
became friends with each other that very day : for before, they were at enmity
between themselves"? Is this to be regarded as Lk.'s editorial and inferential
addition, based perhaps on some historical fact of an estrangement and a recon-
ciliation between Pilate and Herod, but having no real historical connection with
the trial of Christ and no basis in the Original tradition ?

Possibly, it had some basis in the Hebrew. The words in question come at
the end of the section (peculiar to Luke) describing the examination by Herod
(Lk. xxiii. 6-12). Now at the end of Luke's next section, describing Pilate's
final examination, come the words commented on above (502 (vii)) (Luke
xxiii. 25) "to their will," which appear to have been differently interpreted by
Mark as " desiring to satisfy." Now if Luke was possessed with the notion that
Herod played a leading part in this history, he may have accepted a marginal
explanation, or oral tradition, stating that the person " satisfied" was the Tetrarch.
And it happens that the verb in question nsi, there supposed to be a latent cause
of the Synoptic variations, means, in i S. xxix. 4, "reconcile oneself to." Taking
this view that the Gospel contained the words "So Pilate reconciled himself,"
and that the person \a whom he reconciled himself was Herod, Luke might feel
justified in adding editorially " for, before, they were at enmity among themselves."

261

[503] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

(k) " Not this man but Barabbas "

[503 (iv)] Mark's version of the reply of the multitude,
to Pilate's question " Shall I release your king? " is con-
veyed in indirect speech thus, " The chief priests stirred up
the multitude in order that rather (fiaXXov) he should release
Barabbas!' Now " rather," when it occurs in those parts
of the LXX which are translated from Hebrew, always
means " in a greater degree," e.g. " Jacob loved Rachel rather
than Leah." ^

Mark's version is therefore stamped as being no literal
translation from Hebrew, because it uses the word " rather "
in the Greek sense meaning " instead of." But Delitzsch
gives the Hebrew of Mark as (lit.) " not-to (Ti^l^) release
but (dn "is) Barabbas." These words Luke and John separate
from the " stirring up," and take as the direct utterance of
the people. And these Evangelists simplify the awkward
sentence by omitting or transposing " release," and intro-
ducing an antithesis : " Not this man (or, Away with this
man), but Barabbas (or, release Barabbas)." Matthew follows
Mark, but feels that " stirred up the multitude that " requires
the sentence to proceed, " that the multitude " — not Pilate —
" should do something." So he writes " that they should
ask." He also substitutes for " stirred up " the more
familiar " persuaded." The result is " persuaded the
. multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas." Then the
negative particle (" not to "), paraphrased by Luke as " away
with," is rendered by Matthew "destroy" — "and destroy
Jesus." ^

' [503 (iv) a\ Gen. xxix. 30. MaXXox, when it occurs in LXX in the Greek
sense, is in non-Hebrew books, or in LXX insertions or paraphrases, e.g. Job
XXX. 26 "when I looked for good then came evil," LXX paraphrases, "Behold
there befell me rather days of evils " : Prov. xviii. 2 " he hath no delight in . . .
but only (dk 'd) that his heart may reveal itself," LXX " for rather is he led
captive by folly.''

"^ The form <'?3 is frequently used with nouns, e.g. " no water," " no help,'' and
might conceivably be used, by one attempting to write in Biblical Hebrew, to

262

OF MARK [504]

§ 69 (a). Possibilities of Greek corruption in the context

[504] It has been suggested above (502 (ii)) that
" what " and " whom " may have been interchanged owing
to confusion between the Greek ti and tT. Possibly also
Greek corruption had something to do with Matthew's
choice of the particular word used by him to mean " destroy "
{airoXea-rj), which closely resembles •' release " {airoXvari).
The two words are confused in at least one passage of
the LXX.i

Again, Matthew's " persuaded " {eireia-av) may be, not a
mere arbitrary correction of a rare word, but based on a
various reading of Mark's '' stirred up " (avea-eia-av, perhaps
written decreicrav).

Moreover, Origen recognizes the existence of a read-
ing in Matthew (xxvii. 17) "Jesus Barabbas," and this is
found in the Sinaitic Syrian. Now the word " Jesus," in the
accusative, is generally represented by the abbreviation rsi.
Also, in this particular passage, it would immediately follow
another in.^ Whether "Jesus" was in the Hebrew original,
or in a marginal Hebrew addition (502 (vi) c (2)), or in
neither, Greek corruption may well have been at work in
the insertion or in the omission, in extant MSS.

Lastly, the Greek " What then ? " often stands by itself,
meaning " What is to be said, or done ? " " What next ? "
Codex Bezae and SS insert "will ye {OeKere)," so as to
make the meaning clear. But, with this insertion, the Greek

mean " None of this man ! " But no instance of it with imperative force seems to
occur in O.T.

' Job ix. 22 " He destroyeth," iroXKiei (A &T6\iei). A very natural first cor-
rection of Mk. would be (lit.) "that rather Barabbas than (f/) Jesus he should
release (dTroXiiirr;). " Then, when Mt. corrected "rather" into "they should ask,"
it would be a slight alteration to drop ^, and to substitute aTroXeo-jj (in the pi.) for
atroKvat) : " that they should ask Barabbas, destroy Jesus."

" [504«] Mt. xxvii. 17 ". . . to-you Jesus" would be YMInFn. The two last
letters might be inserted by corrupt repetition, or, if genuine, might be rejected
as a corrupt repetition (W. H. vol. ii. on Mt. xxvii. 16).

263

[505] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

letters of " will ye that I do ? " might closely resemble those
of " will ye that I release ? " Matthew conflates the two." -^

§ 70. {Mk:) " bringl' {Mt.-Lk.) " come "

Mk. XV. 22. Mt xxvii. 33. Lk. xxiii. 33.

" And they bring " and having come " and when they

(lit. carry) him to . . ." to . . ." came to , . ."

[505] It has been shewn (449) that Matthew and Luke
prefer the word " lead " to Mark's " carry," when applied to
persons, animals, etc. They also avoid the historic present,
and substitute here the past.^ But, besides this, they prob-
ably interpreted non-causatively the Hebrew " come " which
Mark interpreted causatively. This error is very frequent
in the Septuagint.*

§ 71. (Mt.) " watched him {{Lk.) crucified him) there"

Mk. XV. 24, 25. Mt. xxvii. 35, 36. Lk. xxiii. 33.

"and they crucify "but having cru- "there they cruci-

him . . . and they cified him . . . and fied him."
crucified him." sitting - down they

watched him there."

[506] Luke's context differs so much from that of
Matthew that this must perhaps not be regarded as an
instance of agreement ; for Matthew does not insert " there "
in connection with the act of crucifying. Moreover the

^ [504*] Mk. XV. 12 Ti oiv iroi-^a-a ; D (writing -e as -ai) has n ovv SeXer-
aiiroiT|(rai, of which the last letters might be corrupted into (or from) airoXma.

We have seen above that airoKvcu and airoXeo-u may have been interchanged.
If eeKeraiairoXcirui were written for ffeXeranronia-u in Mk. xv. 12 the meaning would
become " what then ? Da you wish me to destroy the king of the Jews ?" This
resembles John xix. 15 " Shall I crucify your king?"

^ Comp. Mk. XV. 20 i^ayovai.11, "they leadhim out" = Mt. xxvii. 31 (Lk. xxiii.
26) dirfrayov, "led him away." There Mk. lays stress on the leading out from
the city. Mt.-Lk. use the common term for leading to execution.

^ [505a] Josh, xviii. 9 "they came {ijvpyKav)" ; i Chr. xi. 18 "brought it"
(LXX om. but B amg. An ^\9oj') = 2 S. xxiii. 16 "brought it," irapeyhoi/ro ; Hag.
ii. 16 "came," ive^dWere.

264

OF MARK [506]

Greek " and " resembles the Greek " there " both in writing
and in pronunciation, and the two words are interchanged
elsewhere in the account of the Passion,^ so that the agree-
ment, such as it is, may be merely casual.

But there are grounds for thinking that " there " proceeds
from a Hebrew source, and that some Hebrew confusion is
latent under Matthew's " sitting down they watched him there.
And they put above his head his accusation . . ." Instead
of " and they put (i-n-id'nKav)," Mark and Luke state that
there " was (^v) " an inscription. John, however, has " Pilate
put (eOrjKev)." These facts point to the Hebrew idiom "and
[one'\ put," capable of meaning "people put," as Mark and
Luke seem to have understood it,^ or (Matthew) " they {i.e.
soldiers) put," or (John) "he (i.e. Pilate) put." Now the
Hebrew for " he put '' is Dto and for " there " is nm, and,
without vowel points, they are identical (ott)). Hence in a
passage of Habbakuk the two are confused. Also, in the
very first instance in which " he put " occurs in the Bible,
the LXX has "he («i) put {a^ there," conflating the two
meanings. It is possible that Matthew has done so here,
preserving an original '' put " but introducing a non-original
" there." «

But, again, where an error of this kind occurs, the

' [506^] Mk. XV. 40 ^crav di Kal yvvaTKes=Mt. xxvii. 55 ^<rav Bi ixet (D
substitutes koI) yvvaiKes ; Mk. xv. 47 ij di Mapfa = Mt. xxvii. 5l ^c 5^ ixel Mapidti,
In Mk. XV. 40, the first Map/o is preceded by Kal " both," and Mt. xxvii. 61
may have corrupted 57 Se Ke {i.e. Kal) Mapia/i into ^ dcKei M., which he read as ^k
S' ixet M.

In the LXX, the Greek "and {Kal)" often introduces the apodosis. If an
early Gospel had "when they came to Golgotha . . . and (ks 01 koi) (meaning
" then ") they crucified him," it would be natural to substitute £/n, or exei.

It should be noted that Mk. xv. 25 iaraipuaav air&v is followed by Kal fjv i)
(D rii> Se), Lk. xxiii. 38 ^v di Kal (D + »;). This exhibits a confusion arising from
an oscillation between dk and xal, which was very likely to result in a blending of
the two as Sexoi, corrected to iKei.

^ In three instances l S. xxx. 25, (?) Job xxxviii. 33, Jer. xii. 11 (A iyeviiBui
but LXX irieri), "put," a\a,=ylvecrBai.

' [506i] Jn. xix. 19 IBtiko' dwl toO (rravpoD. Hab. iii. 4 " there," (8cto : Gen.
xxviii. 18 " that he hod-put, ". LXX " that he had /a/ t&ere."

265

[506] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

passage often shews other errors of the same nature. Now,
in the two versions of David's final Psalm, Samuel has
" keep " or " watch (note) " where the Psalm has " put (Dim)."
And there are two other passages at least where the LXX
confuses the words. This suggests that Matthew's " they
watched him " may be another marginal rendering of " put." ^

Lastly, why should Matthew tell us that the soldiers
" sat down " ? Was this usual for Romans on guard ? And
even if it were, would it be worth inserting? It has been
repeatedly stated that a (or d) which is (516«) almost
identical with l in Hebrew inscriptions of Christ's time, is
frequently confused with the latter, so that D"!© might be
confused with na>. But the latter is frequently, by error
(9), rendered " sit." Hence " sit " may here be part of a
conflation of " put."

If this explanation is correct, Matthew's and Luke's use
of " there " in the present passage does not arise from Greek
corruption but from Hebrew.^

§ 71 (a). {Mk.—Mt.) "his accusation" omitted by Lk. and Jn.

[506 (i)] The following, though not verbally, exhibits
practically an agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark,
and one that appears to be somewhat more than a correction
for definiteness.

Mk. XV. 26 (lit.). Mt. xxvii. 37 (lit.). Lk. xxiii. 38 (lit).

"And there was "And they put "But there was

the inscription of above {eirdvo)) his also an inscription

^ [506c] 2 S. xxii. 44 "thou hast kept me ("jidet) " ^uXdfcis, Luc. lflou=Ps.
xviii. 43 "thou hast made me ('jd'bti) " KaraiTTiJo-eis ; I S. ix. 24 " iept (iDp),"
reOeiTM, Ps. xxxix. I " I will keep" idiii.y]ii.

^ [506if| For confusion of gw and i-w, see Job xxxiv. 14, Is. xxviii. 25, and
probably Gen. xxx. 36. It happens that Matthew's "sitting" is preceded by
" casting lots." The Hebrew for the latter, \-sn (lit. " cause to fall," hence " make
to lie down "), is rendered KaBli^eiv in Deut. xxv. 2, so that part of Matthew's
conflation might be thus explained. And it must be admitted that a fourfold
conflation ("sit," "guard," "there," "put") is very rare.

266

OF MARK

[506]

his cause [of punish-
ment] (ama?)^ in-
scribed {iirtyejpafi-

Compare : —

Jn. xix. 19.

" And Pilate wrote
a title also and put
it upon the cross
(eTTt Tov a-ravpov)."

head his cause [of
punishment] (alriav)
written {yeypafi/ii-
vvv)."

Evang. Pet. § 4.

"And when they
li/ied up {aip0o)erav)
the cross they in-
scribed ..."

over (so
? upon)
avToa).

R.V.
him

but

(» »
e-rr

Diatess. U. 31.

" And Pilate wrote
on a tablet the cause
of his death and put
it on the wood of
the cross aiove his
head."

^ [506 (i) a] AMa, when meaning " cause [of punishment]," might be rendered
"crime," as in Jn. xix. 6, " I find no crime in him." It is rendered "cause of
his death" in Diatess., and "crime" in SS (Mt.). When Lk. uses it thus, he
gives the phrase in full. Acts xiii. 28, xxviii. 18 "cause of death (ahlav Bavdrov)."

In LXX, as the correct rendering of Heb., ahla occurs only in Gen. iv. 13
" say punishment (maxg. iniquity) (py)," Prov. xxviii. 17 (R.V.) "laden with the
blood of (ma pirs;) . . . " ^ aW^i ^Ai/ov, prob. meaning " guilt. "

" '^Ewtyeypafiiievr] is rendered by R.V. here "written over," and iinypaiprli
"superscription." Whatever the intention of R.V. may be — whether to harmonize
Mk. with the other Evangelists or not — the translation is not justified by L. S. ,
which does not recognize the term "superscription" for iwiypa^, and which
renders iinypd(pii> "write uJ>on," "inscribe," "put » name or title on" (the
only instance of "over" being Vlato PAasdr. p. 264c iirlypa/M/jia 8 M£5f ^airlc
iTnyeYpi(p$M, (L. S.) "over, or on, the tomb of Midas"). R.V. renders
Rev. xxi. 12, "and at the gates twelve angels and names written- thereon
{imyeypa/j./ihia)," and Acts xvii. 23, pw/ibv 4i> v iveyiypwirra, "an altar with
this inscription." So far as the Greek imypiipa is concerned, the writing
may have been on any part of the cross, at the foot, or at the top : the word
merely means "inscribe." In LXX iinypi,<pii> occurs six or seven times, and
always in the sense of "inscribing," e.g. on a staff, a tablet, heart, hand, etc.
(R.V. once (Is. xliv. 5) renders in text "subscribe with his hand," marg. "write
on his hand"). It never means "writing over" in the sense of " writing high up,"
and when it = a Heb. word, the Heb. is (5) ana, which simply means "vmte."

' [506 (i) l>\ 'E7r' oi)t(? is rendered (Thayer) "over his head," but with no
instance alleged from Gk. literature to shew that iirl with the dative of the person
could have this meaning. "Put upon" in LXX seems mostly to have 4tI with
accus. of person, Exod. iii. i2, Lev. viii. 7 (A air^ without ivl as in Gen. xxii. 6),
2 K. v. 23, xi. 12, Is. xlii. 1, Ezek. xvi. 14. Acts xi. 19 (t^s yevojxivrp iirl
Sre^di/v (R.V.) "about Stephen"), and Acts v. 35 (irpoo-^ere iavroU iirl Tois
dvepiiirois Toirois H ^AXere irpdaaav, (R.V.) "as touching these men") have not
" put " in the context.

267

[506]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

SS is wanting for John, but renders the Synoptists
thus : —

ML (SS).

"And his accusa-
tion was written."

Mt. (SS).

"And while they
were sitting they
wrote the crime.
They set it over his
head."

Lk. (SS).

"And an inscrip-
tion was written and
placed over him."

The agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark
consists in the statement that the inscription was " up-above
{iiravat) " or " upon (iiri) " something. John also adopts this
correction. But the three correctors differ as to the object
of the preposition : (Mt.) " his head," (Lk.) " him," (Jn.) " the
cross." The Gospel of Peter has no preposition, but seems
to imply " up " in " lifted up." These agreements point to
a reading— whether of the Hebrew original or of a very
early Hebrew gloss — that might mean "above him," or
"above it," or "lift up." Lastly, the difficulty of Luke's
apparently unexampled use of eiri with the dative to mean
" over " would be removed if we could suppose that, as in
two passages of the Acts, the preposition does not mean
" over " but " about " : and if the Hebrew original or gloss
could include this meaning, it would have so much the more
probability. Now all these conditions would be satisfied by
the Hebrew hs, " above " (or Si^D, literally, " from above,"
but practically indistinguishable from " above "). This pre-
position may mean " above," " about," or " against." More-
over " about him (or, it)," or " above him (or, it)," fhs, might
easily be confused with the verb nbs, "go up." Thus in
Numb. xxi. 17, "spring-up ("hs)," is read by LXX as hs
followed by the article n, i.e. nhs, and is rendered " upon the
(eVt Tov) " : and in i S. ii. i o, " against them (A.V. upon
them), •^^■3, is spelt 'h's in the Hebrew text, and is rendered
by the LXX " went up." Such an original then might be

268

OF MARK [506]

interpreted by Matthew as " above him," i.e. " over his head,"
by Luke as " concerning him," by John as " upon it," i.e.
"upon the cross," which is amplified by Diatessaron as
meaning strictly, not on the cross, but on a tablet placed at
the top of the cross over Christ's . head. Lastly, the Gospel
of Peter appears to have taken "shii as a form of the verb
Th'3, so that the meaning was not "■upon the cross," but "on
lifting up the cross."

[506 (ii)j But is it likely — it may be asked — that Mark,
the earliest Evangelist, misunderstood and corrupted so
familiar and intelligible a word as "upon," and corrupted
it into so unfamiliar and difficult a word as " cause of
punishment " ? It is in the highest degree unlikely. If
therefore we can point to a Biblical word for "cause of
punishment " that resembles the Hebrew for " above him
(or, it)," it may be regarded as extremely probable that this
was the original word, conflated by Matthew with the corrupt
" above him," and dropped altogether (in favour of the
corruption) by later authorities. Now Gesenius (ed. Buhl)
expressly refers to the Greek word " cause of punishment "
used in this passage (and Jn. xviii. 38) as corresponding to
a word used thrice in Dan. vi. 4, 5 "The satraps sought to
find occasion (i.e. cause of punishment) against Daniel." But
the Aramaic word there used is TOS, which in Hebrew is a
verb meaning " go up," the very word mentioned above as
being easily confused with v'^i', " upon him {or, it)." ^

[506 (iii)] It is easy to understand that the author of
the original Hebrew — writing (like Ben Sira) in a dead
language, and occasionally inserting in his Biblical Hebrew
an expression of New Hebrew or Aramaic origin — might
select from Daniel the word in question, because it was the
only word in the Bible that exactly suited his purpose. He
wished to express that it was an accusation, but a false one ;

^ "Upon it," referring to a feminine noun, would be n'^p. This would be
perhaps still more easily confused with nhy, "cause of punishment."

269

[506] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

a "pretext" not an actual "offence!' But unfortunately the
word rh's — especially in the participial form when it is
written rh^s — is very easily confused with another, rhys,
meaning "iniquity." Thus, in Job xxxvi. 33, xhys, in the
sense "cometh up," is rendered by the LXX "iniquity
(aBiKia)," and in Is. Ixi. 8, where nh'tS probably means
" iniquity," the R.V. gives the alternative of rendering it (in
the sense of " lifting up ") as " burnt offering." Also, in the
very passage of Daniel above- quoted, whereas Theodotion
thrice renders the word exactly, " pretext (7rp6(paa-ts!)," the
LXX, in its loose paraphrase, either drops the word alto-
gether, or implies it in the words " could not find sin or
ignorance against Daniel about which they might accuse him
to the king." ^ Many Christian readers may experience a
slight feeling of shock at the above-quoted words from SS,
" While they were sitting they wrote the crime" But this
was a natural sense in which to take the Aramaic word,
and perhaps Mark took it so himself, though of course he
meant " the \alleged'\ crime'.' Whatever Mark may have
meant, the motives for altering his language must have been
very strong ; and, on the hypothesis of an original Aramaic
rh's, the justification for a slight alteration that made
excellent sense might well seem overwhelming.^

^ This is parallel to Dan. vi. 4 (Theod. ) koX iratsav Tp6(j>aai.p Kal irapiirTUiia Kai
dfi^dKTjfjLa oix eSpov /car* aiiToO.

^ [506 (iii) a] It has been shewn (Black, Snc. Bibl. ii. p. 1768 foil.) that Jn. as
a rule supports and explains Mk. where Lk. deviates from Mk. All the more
remarkable is it to find Jn. thrice expressly using this rare word of Mk.'s with a
negative, Jn. xviii. 38 "I find no crifne {ahlav) in him " (comp. Jn. xix. 4, 6).
Lk. avoids the noun, but thrice uses the adjective, Lk. xxiii. 4 " I find nothing
criminal (ofTiOK) in this man " (comp. Lk. xxiii. 14, 22). Considering the extreme
rarity of these words, is it reasonable to suppose that all these uses of oXrla and
dfnos in the same context are a mere coincidence, instead of being attempts of the
later Evangelists to correct what seemed to be a slip of the earliest one ? ■ Mk.
seemed to speak of Christ's " crime " as written on the cross : " Not so,'' say Lk.
and Jn., " Pilate thrice said, ' I find no crime (or, nothing criminal) in him.' "

[506 (iii) *] As the rendering of Mk. xv. 26 " And there was the inscription of
his cause [of punishment]," Delitzsch gives " And there was a writing of the word

270

OF MARK [508]

§ 72. The titles of Christ

Mk. XV. 32. Mt. xxvii. 40, 42, 43. Lk. xxiii. 35, 37.

" the Christ the " if thou art the " if this is the

king of Israel." Son of God ... he is Christ of God the

king of Israel ... for Elect " (or, as SS,

he said, I am the Son " the Christ, the Elect

of God." of God," but D, "if

thou art the Son of

God, if Christ, if the

Elect ") . . . (37) If

thou art the king of

the Jews."

[507] This can hardly be called an instance of agree-
ment against Mark. Above (483) where Mark had "the
Son of the Blessed," Matthew and Luke had, in different
contexts, " the Son of God " ; and it is therefore natural
that the latter term should be repeated by those who there
employed it. But the context is so different that there is
not the least reason for supposing that Luke borrowed it
from Matthew.

[508] It is however possible that Luke, who omits " king
of Israel," ^ may have rendered " Israel " by resolving it into
its component parts, " the righteous one of God." Above,
Luke assigned the phrase " Christ [that is] king," to the
chief priests when speaking to Pilate. Here he may have

oi\a% guilt (inDB'K)." Reasons have been given (506 (ii)) for preferring the word
suggested by Gesenius, nSy. But it is not improbable that, in the conflict of
opinion that arose on the meaning of the ambiguous word rh^, some — who took
the word as meaning "imputed offence,'' and not as meaning "above" or "upon"
— may have written this word in the margin. If it was thus written, those who
rejected every allusion to "crime" or "offence," might be disposed to take nOB'K,
"guilt" as an error for rravK, "a (military) watch," or "guard." This might
have some bearing on Mt. xxvii. 36 "watched," although it may be adequately
explained (506) as a conflation of diis> read as laef.

^ Lk. xxiii. 37 assigns " king of the Jews" to the soldiers, but nowhere makes
mention of " king of Israel," which Mark and Matthew assign to the chief priests.

271

[509] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

considered that " Christ," since it might mean " anointed
[king]," made " king " superfluous in the mouths of Jews
speaking among themselves. Hence, Luke may have
preferred to read Mark's " Christ, the king of Israel " as
being " the Christ, the King, the Righteous one of God,"
which he paraphrased into " the Christ of God, the Elect." •*

§ 73. The description of Christ's death

Mk. XV. 37^ (lit.). Mt. xxvii. 50 (lit). Lk. xxiii. 46 (lit).

[509] "But Jesus "But Jesus having "Andhavingcried

having sent forth a again exclaimed with with a loud cry Jesus

loud cry expired." a loud cry sent forth said, Father, into thy

his (lit the) spirit." hand I commend my

spirit. But having

said this he expired."^

[510] Confusion may have arisen, ist, from the Hebrew
idiom " he gave with a cry, or voice," occasionally used to
mean "he gave a cry," 2nd, from the similarity of "his soul

^ [508ol The word nai' " right " = sometimes "right (in the sight of)," hence
eiBoKetv (l), ApiffKeiv (2). It=(l) Sffios applied to God, but never IkXcktos.
Possibly motive, as well as variations in the text, may have induced Luke to avoid
applying the term "king" to Christ. It was calculated to excite the suspicion
and hostility of Roman magistrates. Jn. makes it clear, in a dialogue between
Christ and Pilate, that "king" is meant in a spiritual sense.

^ In order to shew the parallelism, the Greek words ( I ) ^w»i}, {2) Kp&^ew, are
here rendered (i) "cry," (2) "exclaim," though (puirfi should rather be "voice"
and Kptifeiy "cry." Also &<pi,ivai ("utter") is rendered "send forth," in order
that the same English verb may be used both with " cry" and with "spirit."

In Mk. XV. 37, SS has " cried with a loud voice," L has tptavri luyaKriv (sic).

^ [509a] In Lk. (not in Mk.) the translation of SS gives " ended " as a marg.
altern. for "expired." The word "go forth," when used causatively as "send
forth " = (in Aram.) "bring to an end," "finish." Comp. Ezr. vi. IJ "this
house was ^BjV^iSif (n>s'b'), ^T^\eirai' = i Esdr. vii. J aw^TeKiaBti. Comp. Jn. xix. 30
TcrdXea-Tai, " It \^ finished." Gesen. (Mitchell) derives n's'e' irom NSi', Buhl does
not. Levy (iv. p. 548 (a)) follows Gesen. and says that it is frequent in Targums,
in the sense of " completing," quoting a comment on Gen. xxxii. 27 (" I will not
let thee go till thou hast blessed me ") as follows, " That is as though one were to
say to the labourer, ' Hast thou completed-the- labour (nvti>) then take thy wage
(n3"D).'"

272

OF MARK [513]

went-forth " and " he caused-to-go-forth his soul." If so, the
original was, " And Jesus gave with a loud cry " ; and prob-
ably it continued in the words used to describe the death of
Rachel, " and his soul went forth."

[511] Mark (since "give a cry" is not Greek) trans-
lated this idiomatically thus, "sent forth a loud cry and
expired." ^

[512] Matthew, erroneously retaining ''with," and prob-
ably taking " went " causatively, interpreted it thus : " sent
forth, with a loud cry, and caused to go forth, his soul,"
taking " sent forth and caused to go forth " as an emphatic
statement of the fact that Jesus dismissed His own soul.
Only, instead of " soul," he prefers " spirit " or " breath,"
which indeed is etymological ly contained in Mark's " ex-
{s)pire:' ^

[513] Luke takes the words as indicating that Jesus
" sent forth a loud cry [saying] (459 (i)) that he caused-to-go-
forth his soul." This harmonized with the words of the

^ [511a] Comp. Ps. Ixviii. 33 " He uttereth his voice," lit. "will give in (or
wilk) his voice," Siiaei iv tJ ipavxi airov (kR* om. ex, R*" tpuviiv). The Heb.
idiom recurs in Jer. xii. 8 and Ps. xlvi. 6, but the LXX om. "in." Elsewhere
the Heb. has, "gave his voice," as in Gen. xlv. 2 "he gave his voice in weep-
ing," LXX &(tn)Kev (jjwviiv yuerd K\av9iiod {R.V. "he wept aloud"). The Greek
i,(piii'aL is also used in Gen. xxxv. 18 (lit.) "in the going forth of her soul,"
LXX " when she was sending forth her soul," ii> rif &<piivai airiiv ttjv \l/vx,-qr
(R.V. " as her soul was in departing" nasi nuar).

[511*] There is Biblical precedent for an active form of "sending forth," lit.
"blowing" one's soul, in (Gesen. Oxf.) Jer. xv. 9, Job xi. 20, xxxi. 39. But
that word ns: ("blow," or "puff," often used of "blowing" a fire) is connected
in Job xi. 20 (nsD " breathing out ") with " the hope of the wicked," and its use
in Jer. xv. 8-9 ("I have caused anguish ... to fall upon her suddenly . . . she
hath given up the ghost ") does not seem likely to commend the word to an
Evangelist describing the death of Christ. Moreover, none of its renderings in
LXX (Jer. xv. 9 iLtreK&K-qaai, Job xi. 20 om. or paraphr.. Job xxxi. 39 ixKapiiv
i\iiriiaa) resemble the Synoptic Greek, which, on the other hand, in Mk. and Mt.
(d^eis, 6.<l>fiK€v), somewhat resembles the LXX Greek describing the " going forth "
of Rachel's soul.

' Mt. also adds "again." Possibly he wished to prevent any readers from
taking the words as referring to the previous cry (om. by Luke), and to guard
against such an interpretation as, "Now Jesus had [as I have said] cried aloud."
18 273

[514]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Psalmist " Into thine hand I commend my spirit." ^ Luke
therefore quotes these words as representing what Jesus said.
[514] John does not mention the quotation from the
Psalmist, but gives, as the last utterance, " It is finished"
The Hebrew "went forth" has the meaning of "it is
finished" in Aramaic ; and it (509«) is so translated in
Ezra and in the parallel Esdras.

§ 74. {Mk^ " he expired" (Mt.-Lk.) " coming to pass " or
" came to pass "

Mt. xxvii. 54. Lk. xxiii. 47.

"... the earth- "... that which

quake and the had come to pass.^'
[things'] - that - were-
coming-to-pass. ''

Mk. XV. 39.

"... that he thus
expired."

It has been shewn {Clue, 172—6) that the original was
probably " the-things-that-had-come-to-pass," and that this
was paraphrased by Mark, and conflated by Matthew with
" earthquake."

§ 75. {Mk?) "in Galilee!' {Mt.-Lk.) "from Galilee"

Mt. xxvii. 55.

" those - who fol-
lowed {past tense)
Jesus from Galilee,
ministering to him."

Lk. xxiii. 49.

" and women,
those who-had-been-
together following
{particip. pres.) him
from Gahlee." ^

Mk. XV. 41.

[515] "who, when
he was in Galilee,
used -to -follow {tm-
perf.) him and used-
to-minister to him"
(D reads " followed,"
SS " those who came
with him from Gali-
lee ").

' Ps. xxxi. 5. The Jewish Prayer-Book (ed. Singer, p. 317) prescribes these-
words among the final utterances on the death-bed.

^ [5153] Lk. xxiii. 49 o-woKoXoufloCiroi oir^) intit t^s V., R.V. "following witk
him from Galilee," which is the most natural meaning of the words. But whom,

274

OF MARK [516]

[616] Owing to the similarity of the Hebrew letters
meaning " in " and " from " — which is the cause of multitudes
of errors in the LXX — " who in Galilee used to follow him "
might be confused with " who from Galilee followed him."
Compare the two following parallel passages, where the same
Hebrew is quite differently translated by LXX : (i) " and they
made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem and he fled to
Lachish," (ii) " they made an assault upon him, and from
Jerusalem he fled to Lachish." ^

§ 76. Joseph of Arimathaea

ML XV. 42, 43 (lit.). Mt. xxvii. 57, 58. Lk. xxiii. 50—52.

"And now . . . "But . . . there "And behold a

having come Joseph came a man of-wealth man by name Joseph,

from Arimathaea (a from Arimathaea (his -a councillor by-posi-

councillor of-honour- name [was] Joseph) tion (yirap'yav), a

able-estate ^ who also who also had himself man good and just —

himself was awaiting become a disciple to this (?) (man) had not

the kingdom of God) Jesus. This (man) consented to the

or what, had they been "following, with Jesus"? Could "follow" mean
' ' making [the Passover] pilgrimage " ? Mk. v. 37 /ler' aCroB awa.KoKovB'qaai.
certainly means "following [Jairus] with Jesus"; but there the insertion of
/ter" aiiTOv prevents ambiguity. Mk. xiv. 51 a\ivr\KaKoi9a airif may mean "a
certain young man had been following him [i.e. Jesus] with [the rest of the
disciples]," or ' ' continued to follow Jesus with [the guards who led him away],"
or (as R.V.) "followed [the guards along] with him," i.e. along with Jesus.

Possibly — according to the analogy of irapaKoKovBeiv, ' ' follow by the side of" —
avvaKoXovSeiv, "follow along with," is used for "be in close attendance on.''
In LXX it occurs only in 2 Mace. ii. 4 and 6. In ii. 6 certainly, and ii. 4 prob-
ably, it = "following [Jeremiah] together," not " along with" Jeremiah.

' [516a] 2 K. xiv. 19=2 Chr. xxv. 27. Comp. 2 K. xiv. 13 "in (iv) the
waU" = 2 Chr. xxv. 23 "from (ii7r6) the wall" : Dan. i. 19 "among them all,"
LXX iv, Theod. (as Heb. -d) ^/c ; Ezek. xvi. 6 "in thy blood," ix toD aifw,T6s <rov:
Jer. vi. I "in Tekoa," LXX iv, but A ^k : 2 K. xix. 35 "in the camp," iv, but
in the parallel Is. xxxvii. 36 iK. In Sir. xl. 28, Heb. has 'jd, " from me," for
'J3, " my son," which the Editors adept. The confusion of the Heb. m (" from ")
and i ("in") is apparent in Is. xxxix. i "Merodach" = 2 K. xx. 12 " Berodach."
I am informed by Professor W. H. Bennett that B and M, in Hebrew inscriptions
of Christ's time, are almost identical.

^ " Of-honourable-estate," eiaxiiiiuv.

275

[617] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

having taken-courage having come to council and their
came in to Pilate." Pilate." action — from Ari-

mathaea, a city of the
Jews, who awaited
the kingdom of God :
— this (man) having
come to Pilate.'

(i) Mt.—Lk.'s agreements ; " this {man)," " name "

[517] In early Greek editions of Mark, the harshness
caused by the distance of " Joseph " from " came " might be
felt to require a remedy, which was supplied in the margin
by the pronoun " this (man) " (used once by Matthew and
twice by Luke). But the later Evangelists might also be
returning to the Hebrew in this insertion. Compare the
introduction of Deborah : " Now Deborah, a prophetess, the
wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time."^ Here
Tischendorf gives the Greek rendering as "this [woman],"
while Swete gives it as "(she) herself." Possibly Mark
rendered it in the words " himself was awaiting . . . [and]
having taken courage . . ." The addition of " name " —
to introduce the first mention of Joseph — is so natural as
to require no comment.

(ii) {Mk:) " of honourable estate" (Mt.) "of wealth," (Lk.)
"good and just "

[518] The word used by Delitzsch to render (Mark)
" of honourable estate " is 7133, the passive of a verb nno, of
which the radical meaning is " weight." It is often used
with reference to what St. Paul calls the " weight of glory"
so that the participle (niph.) (7333) means " glorious " or
"honourable." Only on one occasion does the adjective,
733, refer to " weight of wealth " where Abraham is de-
scribed as (Gen. xiii. 2) " rich (733) exceedingly in cattle."

' Judg. iv. 4 K>n, Tisch. oBttj, Swete oi!t^.
276

OF MARK [519

But the noun is about eight times used of " wealth." ^ There
would therefore be some slight justification for rendering
the participle " wealthy," and this rendering would commend
itself to an Evangelist that saw in this epithet a fulfilment
of the prophecy of Isaiah (liii. 9) that the Messiah should
be " with the rich in his death." It is true that the LXX
gives a different rendering of Isaiah's words, and that
Justin Martyr understood them to mean that the rich would
be slain in vengeance for the Messiah's death. But Matthew's
applications of prophecy elsewhere, e.g. to the return of the
child Jesus from Egypt and to the purchase of " the potter's
field," shew that he might discern fulfilments of prophecy
where later writers failed to follow him.^

Luke, if he had before him Mark's Hebrew reading
(1333), and if he knew, and disliked, the tradition inter-
preting it as " wealthy," may have paraphrased the Hebrew
as meaning " respected [because of his moral qualities]," i.e.
" good and just."

[519] It ought, however, to be added that other causes
beside translation from Hebrew may account for Luke's
correction of Mark. The Greek word used by Mark to
mean " of honourable estate (ewtr^^jJ/teBi') " was used ambigu-
ously by writers of the time. Plutarch and Josephus (as
Wetstein's commentary on Mark attests) used it to mean
" of good position " implying noble birth and wealth. But
the same commentator shews that the Greek grammarians
with one consent condemned this use of the word as a
mark of ignorance and bad breeding. Perhaps Mark did

' Gesen. Oxf. gives Gen. xxxi. i. Is. x. 3, Ixi. 6, Ixvi. 11, 12, Nah. ii. 10,
Ps. xlix. 17, 18. R.V. sometimes follows Gesen. Oxf. in margin.

2 Justin Mart. Tryph. § 32 dir6 twp ypatpwf &v irpoaytffTdpTjira . . . &i/tI tqv
8av6.Tov airov ToJr ir\ov(rlovi davaTu6i)aeiiBai, referring to § 13 (p. 230 B) Siiau
. . . Toii wXovcrlovs Avrl tov 0av6,rov airov. Comp. Tertull. Marc. iii. 23 "dati
sunt . . . locupletes pro morte eius, qui scilicet et a Juda traditionem redemerant
et a militibus falsum testimonium cadaveris subrepti," i.e. the "rich," the rulers
of the Jews, were punished [? in the fall of Jerusalem] for purchasing the treachery
of Judas and the mendacity of the guards of Christ's tomb.

277

[519] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

not use it thus. But Matthew's parallel, and the con-
demnations of the grammarians, justify the belief that in
the first century multitudes of illiterate Christians would
interpret the word in the popular and degraded sense, very
nearly as " respectable " is used by some people in England,
and as the Latin " honesta " is used by Petronius (Wetstein)
to describe a matron " of good position " who acts in a very
discreditable way.^

Nor should it be omitted that Jewish literature itself
affords one or two instances of the connection between
" councillors " and " rich men." For example, a tradition
mentioning Nicodemus Ben Gorion as one of three " rich
men " supporting the population of Jerusalem when besieged
by Titus, appears in another form mentioning Ben Nico-
demus and Ben Gorion as two of four " councillors " sup-
porting the people ^ : and Levy quotes a tradition " This
man is rich (T^nr), we will make him councillor (d1£3'T'7")1, i.e.
^ovKevTrif in Hebrew letters)." ^

The restoration of the Original is complicated by the
fact that John introduces Nicodemus as co-operating with
Joseph. If it could be shewn that p {k) is often inter-
changed with 3 (hard c), it would be easy to allege grounds
for believing that ^n^3, " honourable," was a corruption of
Tpa, part of the name " Nicodemus." Hostile Jewish
tradition derisively mentions a certain ""pa, " the innocent,"
as one of five disciples of Jesus, and it is not improbable

' Wetst. quotes Phryn. p. 146, Suidas, and Etymol. as condemning the
popular use, Plut. Parall. Gr. et Rom. 15, and Joseph. Vit. 9, as instances of
the popular use, and Petron. 140 " Matrona, inter primas hotiesta, . . . quae
multas saepe haereditates officio aetatis extorserat . . ." Prov. xi. 23 (the only
instance of the word in LXX) certainly uses it in a moral signification, and so
probably does Luke in Acts xiii. 50, xvii. 12.

^ Levy, i. p. 200 (a) and Hor. Hebr. on Jn. iii. 1.

' Levy, i. p. 199 {i) and see (ib.) the mistake that caused a Jewish writer to
take the first part of the New Hebrew word for " councillor " ('Sn) as meaning
"rich." In Biblical Hebrew, "councillor" would be ys', or rendered by a
paraphrase. /

278

OF MARK [521]

that he was identical with Nicodemus. But the discussion
of these points must be reserved for a commentary. ■

^77. The burial of Jesus

Mk. XV. 46. Mt. xxvii. 59. Lk. xxiii. 53.

" bound [him] " wrapped it in " wrapped it in

round in the linen." clean linen." linen."

[520] Mark's rather rare wprd is used in Polycarp's
letter to the Philippians concerning those who are " bound-
round in the chains " of martyrdom ; and there (as also in
two passages of the Septuagint) it is altered by MSS. or
Editors.^ Mark's preceding words, " having taken him
down," oblige us to repeat " him " as the object of " bound
round." This was naturally repulsive to many believers —
that Christ's friends should be described as " binding," or
rather, perhaps, as " fettering " Him. Consequently the
Corrector substituted " wrapped it" and Matthew and Luke
adopted the alteration.

[521] Not so John. He perhaps felt that the "binding"
must be insisted on for two reasons. First, it was of use as
an answer to any who might assert that Jesus was not dead,
and that He awoke from a swoon and left the grave in a
natural way. Secondly, he might see a mystical meaning in
the act ; for " the binding of Isaac," a type of Christ, was
a favourite topic with the Jews. At all events, distin-
guishing between " binding " and " wrapping " (for he uses
both words), he says that Christ's friends "took the body of
Jesus and bound it with linen cloths," and subsequently that
the two disciples saw the napkin that had covered the head
" wrapped up (or, rolled up) in a place by itself" ^

' Polyc. PhiKpp. § l (Lightf.), I S. xxi. 9 iiitCK-i\)i.ivi) (A et\rinii,cr>i) and
so in Is. xi. 5 eiXiiiiivos (nA eiXijw/tei'Os).

" Mk. XV. 46 ^veiXijo-ei', Mt. xxvii. 59, Lk. xxiii. 53 iveriXi^ev. Jn. xix. 40
"bound," ISijo-OK, Jn. xx. 7 hrervKiyiUvov. R.V. transl. irnAUraav "wrapped"
in Mt.-Lk., but "rolled up" in Jn.

279

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

§ 78. (Mk.) "in a white robel' (Mt.-Lk.) "
Mk. xvi. 5.

lightning''

" a young - man
clothed in a white
robe."

Mt. xxviii. 2, 3.

"an angel ... his
appearance as light-
ning and his garment
white as snow " (SS
omits "white").

Lk. xxiv. 4.

" two men ... in
raiment [bright-as-]
lightning {cunpair-
Tovari)" (SS "dazz-
ling").

Compare the parallel passages in the account of the
Transfiguration : —

Mk. ix. 3.

" And his gar-
ments became flash-
ing, white exceedingly
[so] as fuller on earth
cannot thus make
white '' (SS " became
white like snow," D
" white exceedingly
as snow [so] as no
man can whiten on
earth ").

Mt. xvii. 2.

" But his garments
became white as the
light (SS omits
"white," D "white
as snow").

Lk. ix. 29.

"and his garments
white [flashing - as -]
lightning(e^ao-T/3a7r-
T(ov):'

(a) (i) Variations in the account of the Transfiguration

[522 (i)] A I<ey to some of these variations is sug-
gested by a passage of the recently-discovered Hebrew of
Ecclesiasticus, " His might marketh out the lightning"
Here the Hebrew is pnn, i.e. " lightning," but the scribe has
placed in the margin the transposed letters npl, i.e. " the
morning -light," while the Septuagint has "snow," which
implies the reading nin (properly " hail "). Similarly, in
2 S. xxii. 15," lightning (pia)," the version of Lucianus has
conflated " lightning " by adding " hail (nn3)." ' This shews

^ [522 (i) a] Sir. xliii. 13. Comp. the account of the Transfiguration in the
.^cis of John § 3 "At another time He taketh me and James and John into the

280

OF MARK

how " snow," " lightning," and " light," might be interchanged
in translating from Hebrew.

(a) (ii) "Lightning" connected with the Messiah

[522 (ii)] In the Apocalypse of Baruch, a document,
incorporated in that work and dated by the Editor 50-70
A.D., begins and ends with a mention of " lightning " : and
the Editor says, "The lightning on the cloud symbolises
the Messiah." It is of a beneficent nature, as may be seen
from the following : " And I saw after these things that
lightning which I had seen on the summit of the cloud, that
it held it fast and made it descend to the earth. Now that
lightning shone exceedingly, so as to illuminate the whole earth
and it healed those regions where the last waters had descended
and wrought devastation," ^ Compare : —

Mt. xxiv. 27. Lk. xvii. 24.

" For as the lightning " For as the lightning

Cometh forth from the east (noun) lightening (verb) from

and appeareth as far as the this quarter of heaven to this

west, so shall be the presence quarter of heaven shineth, so

of the Son of man." shall be the Son of man."

Why should the lightning proceed — as Matthew says —
from " the east " ? What the sense requires (viz. the
universality of the illumination) seems better expressed by

mountain where His custom was to pray : and we beheld [in] Him {etSo/iev
If+iv] airif) such a light as it is not possible for man using corruptible word to
set forth of what kind it was (dyBpiSmif xpi^l'^ov (sic) \b'tif ^aprif ixipepcir
olov tiv)."

' [522 (ii) a] Apoc. Baruch, ed. Charles §§ 53-74- On the date, see p. 87. On
the "lightning on the cloud" see p. 88, n. 8, which refers to Levy iii. 271, 422,
as shewing that the Messiah was called in Jewish tradition " the cloud-man" (from
Dan. vii. 13), and " the son of the cloud." It will be remembered that a " cloud "
is mentioned in the account of the Transfiguration, which is preceded by the words
(Mt. xvi. 28) "There are some of those standing here who shall not taste of
death till they have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

281

[522] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

Baruch and Luke. Matthew's text may with considerable
probability be explained by reference to the fact that in
two passages of O.T. (Gesen. Oxf. pni) a slight confusion
has been caused in the Hebrew text by the phrase " lighten
lightnings." This, and the frequent errors in LXX arising
from reduplications of Hebrew verbs (or verb and verbal
noun), indicate that the original was as Luke has it.
Matthew probably took the second pni as npl "dawn,"
which he erroneously interpreted as " the sunrise," or " east,"
modifying the sentence to suit his interpretation.^

(a) (iii) " Lightning " inisunderstood in the account of the
Transfiguration

[522 (iii)] In addition to the above-mentioned possi-
bilities of error there is the fact that, whereas pn3 in Biblical
Hebrew means only " lightning," it includes, in New Hebrew,
the meanings " bright," " shining," etc. It can be applied
even to the colour of a wine or of a horse, but, in particular,
the New Hebrew '^pnil, " the shining one," means the morn-
ing star.^ Hence Christ's saying that the Son of man
would be " like lightning " might be taken by some to mean
"like the morning-star" and by others "like light." The
former tradition is found in the second Epistle of Peter —
a spurious and late production, but still one that may
contain early traditions, especially concerning the Trans-

^ [522 (ii) b'\ In O.T. "lightning," when used literally, is mostly pi. In Ps.
cxliv. 6, 2 S. xxii. 15, the Heb. has sing., but Gesen. Oxf. (p. 140 b) would read
the pi., pi3 Q'pnn. If a translator had this phrase with the pi. before him, and
was not aware of the plural use, he might take the final d as the preposition " from."
But " lightens from the lightning (pin) " would make no sense. "Lightens from
the dawn (npa) " might well seem to make very good sense to a translator who
thought that the phrase could mean "from the east." The same kind of mistake
was made by the author of Eothen, which means, in Greek, " from the dawn"
but not " from the east."

' Levy, i. p. 270 (b).

282

OF MARK [522]

figuration, which the author professes to have seen.^ The
latter tradition, or at least one that lays stress on " light," is
found in Matthew's account of the Transfiguration and also
in that quoted (522 (i) a) from the Acts of John. Thus the
usage of New Hebrew would facilitate a substitution of
"light," "brilliancy," or other synonyms — either as Greek
interpretations, or as New Hebrew' glosses — for an original
" lightning."

(a) (iv) {Mk.) " So as no fuller on earth can whiten them "

[522 (iv)] The question is, whether this tradition of
Mark is entirely distinct from the parallels in Matthew and
Luke, or based on a different interpretation of the same
original. It was shewn (522 (ii) b) that Matthew — in a
passage in which he and Luke record a saying of Christ
about the Son of man — may have interpreted "lighten
(p^l)," when preceded by m, the sign of the plural in the
preceding " lightnings," as "from the east," mistaking final
m, which has a plural force, for initial m, which has a pre-
positional force, meaning " from," " after," " more than," etc.
Now Luke's strong word i^aa-rpdirroov, " sending-forth-light-
nings," suggests that the Hebrew Original may have here, too,
contained the same reduplication (" lightnings it lightened ").
But if it did, it was open to interpreters to take the plural m
as meaning " more than," beside taking " lightning " as " light,
or brilliant." Thus, the first half of the reduplication being
rendered " light, or brilliant, more than," it would remain to
extract from the last half, pil, some appropriate sense.

By dropping the last letter of pnn, Mark would obtain
13 (connected with nna " purify "), a word that means " lye,"
or " soap " : or by reading nni he would obtain " purify."
Then the sentence would mean " brilliant beyond [cleansing

' [522 (iii) a] 2 Pet. i. 19 (/jua-ipSpos. In LXX this word does not occur, but
iaaipbpm occurs (7), once = (Job. xi. 17) npa, but mostly (4) = -mtiic).

283

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

with] soap, or beyond purifying." This he might interpret
as meaning " beyond all cleansing [of garments] that can be
obtained on earth." The cleansing of garments implied
cleansing by a " fuller." Hence " fuller '' would be inserted
to particularise the kind of cleansing.

On the other hand, by reading ^a^D " more than word"
instead of niD " more than soap " or yyyQ " more than purify-
ing" ^ another Evangelist might extract the meaning " too
bright to express in words upon earth," i.e. " too bright for
any one to set forth using mortal and corruptible words,"
and such a tradition appears to have been adopted in the
passage quoted above from the apocryphal Acts of John.*

(a) (v) "Lightning" in Daniel

[522 (v)] Lest we should be disposed to assume, from the
antecedent considerations, that " lightning (pll)," and nothing
else, must have been the basis of the Synoptic variations,
it will be well to be reminded of other possible hypotheses.

In the following passage, " lightning " is connected with

' For the conrerse of this corruption, see Cant. viii. 5 "from the wildemtss
(i3Td)" LXX "coloured white, \e\evKa6uriiirri" (for -KavBianhiri, as kA), (leg. -n
instead of -an).

^ [522 (iv) fl] The wording in the Acts of John is worth considering in relation
to a hypothetical Hebrew original, "soap." In Is. i. 25, 133 i.e. "as [with] lye,
potash, or alkali," is rendered eis xaBapbv. But in Mai. iii. 2 " fuller's soap (nnn),"
LXX has, for " soap," irofa, a word not recognized by L. S. and altered by m into
irKoM. The Gk. irolo, for " soap," occurs elsewhere only in Jer. ii. 22 (An Trooii).
Suppose, then, that an early Evangelist had before him a Greek tradition about
" a brilliancy such as it is not possible for corruptible man to produce by [fuller's]
soap," oiroiox ovk e<rTiv Svyarov av8punru ipdaprra exipepeiv (cf. Is. liv. 16 where
iKipipav is used of the production of a sword by a smith) tow.. This might be
corrected in the margin by adding "by word," intended as a substitute for "by
soap" (i.e. nma for 133). The Gk. for this would be xp'^f^'o Xo7(i), the accus.
Xpii/ievor (instead of -ivif) being very natural in a gloss of this kind. If this was
included in the text by conflation, the result would be " such as it is not possible
for a man using corruptible speech " — a very remarkable expression — " to produce
(or, set forth) (ixtpipeiv) by soap (Troia) " : and then it would be almost inevitable
that TToio should be treated as part of the familiar oios, "of what sort,". and altered
to dov ^i>, which is now in the text (522 (i) a).

284

OF MARK

[522]

a figure seen in a vision by Daniel. The Apocalypse quotes
the passage freely, applying it to Christ, but substitutes
other words for the clause about " lightning " and for the
preceding clause. It will be instructive to compare the
passage of Daniel in the versions of LXX and Theodotion,
with the version in the Apocalypse, and to endeavour to
explain the Apocalyptic deviation. The R.V. of Daniel
need not be given separately, as it is adequately represented
by Theodotion. The lightning-passage in Daniel, and the
corresponding passage in the Apocalypse, are italicized.

Dan. X. s-6 (Theod.).

"And I lifted my
eyes and saw and
behold a (lit. one)
man clothed in bad-
dein^ (R.V. linen)
and his loins [were]
girt about with gold
of Ophaz ^ : [and his
body like tharseis
(R.V. the beryl), and

Dan. X. s-6 (LXX). ,

"And I lifted my
eyes and saw and
behold a (lit. one)
man clothed in linen ^
and (flj) [as to] his
loins [he was] girt
about with linen and
(a ) from his middle
[there was] light ^ :
\and his mouth like

Rev. i. 12-15.

" And having

turned I saw . . .
one like the Son of
man, clothed in a
long robe^ and girt
about at the breasts
with a girdle of
gold^ \but his head
and his hair \were\
white like white wool

^ [522 (v) a] "Baddein,"' a transliteration of ma, rendered in parall. LXX
piaaiva, "linen," and in Rev. iroS'^/Jij, "long-robe." Ezek. ix, 2 describes a
man " clothed in linen (ona) {ivheSvKiK iroS'QpTi) with a writer's ink-horn by his
side," and W. H. refer to Ezek. ix. 2 as quoted in Rev. here. But the following
reasons make it more probable that Rev. is quoting a transl. of Daniel and not
Ezek.: (I) The "man" spoken of in Ezek. appears to be a subordinate minister,
far below the Son of man ; (2) Rev. uses ivdeSviiivos with Dan., and not ivSeSvKiis
vcith Ezek.; (j) Rev.'s rendering of "linen" by voS'^pifis, "long robe," is a very
natural one, and may easily have been adopted independently by a translator of
Ezek. and a translator of Daniel.

2 [522 (v) b'\ "And his loins girt about with gold-of (nna) Uphaz (isin)," has
been variously translated, partly from corruption, partly from motives of seemliness.
f; j " Loins" is transl. correctly by LXX (whjch conflates) in Oj, but paraphrased
in iZj as "from his middle." It is rendered by Rev. "his breasts" for seemliness.

" Gold (djid) " is transl. incorrectly by LXX in a^ as " linen (? leg. nna)."
Perhaps, in Oi, LXX read ibin, " Uphaz," as iibn, " ephod," and loosely rendered
the two nouns together as "linen," owing to the frequency of the "linen ephod."
In aj, LXX read ibim as iix, " light." Rev. took ibik, " Uphaz," as nitK, " girdle."

285

[522]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

his countenance like
the appearance of
lightning^l : and his
eyes like torches of
fire and his arms and
his legs (R.V. feet)
like the appearance
of brass flashing

»2

of the sea, and his
countenance like the
appearance of light-
ning ^] : and his eyes
like torches of fire and
his arms and his feet
like brass that-sends-
forth-lightning." ^

like snow ^] : and his
eyes like a flame of
fire and his feet like
(lit.) chalcolibanon
{•)(aKKoKi^dv(p, R. V.
burnished brass) as if
it had been refined in
a furnace."^

(a) (vi) " Chalcolibanon "

[522 (vi)] The variations in the last sentences of
the three above-quoted passages, and, in particular, the
Apocalyptic word " chalcolibanon (or -os) " are of great
value as illustrations of the need of special investigation
before accepting the existence of any rare word in a

' [522 (v) c] The bracketed words in Dan. were om. by Rev., partly, perhaps,
because of obscurity in the Greek and the Hebrew texts of Daniel. "Beryl,"
t/'e/in, is transliterated by Theod. as "Tharseis." It is uncertain whether LXX
meant to transliterate it as "Thalasses," or to render it "of the sea" owing to a
loose recollection of "ships of Tarshish." The LXX "mouth" is a Gk. corrup-
tion of "body" ccoMA (written coma) into CTOMA. paralleled in the LXX of
Judg. xiv. 8.

[522 (v) dl But the last part of the bracketed passage in Daniel seems so free
from obscurity as to suggest that it may have been omitted by Rev. from a doubt
as to the applicability of " lightning " to the face of the Son of man. In any case.
Rev. substitutes for the omitted clause one of about the same length from another
passage of Daniel describing the " raiment " of the " ancient of days," (Dan. vii. 9)
"His raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool."
Only, by dropping "raiment," Rev. applies to the "head and hair" the epithet
" white," which was not meant for them in the Original.

[522 (v) e] Instead of " as the appearance of lightning," Swete quotes from
Syr.^K a', i.e. Aquila, ws XP""'"^'^"' [touteoti /lapyapiTTis o^otos xP'"'''^]i "^
chrysolith [that is to say, a pearl like gold]." Now "chrysolith" represents the
Heb. e/'U/in "beryl" in the LXX of Exod. xxviii. 20, xxxix. 13 and Ezek. xxviii.
13 (see Oxf. Concordance) : and Aquila uses it for the same Heb. in Ezek.
i. 16 (LXX 8ap<rds), a. 9 (LXX AvBpaKos). It would seem, therefore, that Aquila
must have given " like chiysolith " as the substitute for the LXX " like of the sea,"
and not for the lightning-clause. But it is possible that Aquila may have rejected
the lightning-clause as a corruption (perhaps as conflating the beryl-clause) : if so,
there were additional reasons why Rev. should omit the words.

2 " Brass." See 522 (vi).

286

OF MARK [522]

document that bears signs of being, in parts, translated
from Hebrew.

The word " chalcolibanon " is not alleged to exist in
Greek literature anywhere except here and a little later on,
where the phrase is repeated.^ The grammarian Suidas
negatively testifies to his ignorance of the word in the
following note, " Chalcolibanon, a kind of electrum more
precious than gold. Now electrum is . . . " ; and he
proceeds to tell us about electrum several details (among
others, that it is of the same material as " the holy table of
the great church "),^ but about " chalcolibanon " nothing.
Yet this is the only external evidence — worth calling
evidence — to the existence of the word.

We pass to evidence of its being a corruption. The
Hebrew for (Theod.) "flashing" and (LXX) "sends forth
lightning " — which are severally parallel to the chalcolibanon-
clause — is hhp. But this word means " to be light," and
hence '' make light of," " disparage," " curse." It occurs, how-
ever, once in connection with "brass," where Ezekiel says of
the feet of the " living creatures " that (Ezek. i. 7) " they
sparkled like the colour of brass burnished (^^p)." Not
unnaturally, the LXX there, while rendering it " sending-
forth-lightning ' (e^aa-TpdirTcov)," also conflates it as " agile,"
and connects it with the " wings " mentioned in the following
verse. But it is explained as " glittering " in a Targum.
Probably no one would dispute that this unique application
of hhp to " brass '' is borrowed from Ezekiel by Daniel.
And, as it caused difficulty to the LXX in Ezekiel and to

^ Rev. ii. 18 "These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like a
flame of fire, and his feet are like chakolibarum"

2 [522 (vi) o] Suidas, quoted by Wetst. on Rev. i. 15. It is hardly worth
mentioning that Salmasius (Thayer) quotes "an ancient Greek [Ansonius]" (sic)
as saying that " Frankincense (6 Xipavos) has three kinds of trees, and the male is
called chalcolibanos, in appearance like the sun," except as an instance of the
kind of testimony that is thought worth alleging in dealing with N.T.

3 See Black, Enc., "Brass."

287

[522] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

the Targumist who thought an explanation needful, so may
it have done to the author of the Apocalypse (or to the
authorities whom he followed).

We must therefore be prepared to find in the
Apocalyptic text confusion, and, of course, what almost
always accompanies confusion of the worst kind — conflation.
Now " chalcolibanon " is followed by (Rev. i. 15) "refined in
a furnace {jca^Livw)" and the Hebrew word mostly rendered
by R.V. '• oven," but rendered " furnace " in Is. xxxi. 9 (" his
(the Lord's) furnace ") is regularly rendered by LXX
" clibanos {jchi^avo<i)" Now " brass from (or, of) the furnace
{clibanos) " might easily be corrupted, in Greek, into " brass
from (or, of) libanos" ; and an instance of a similar corruption
occurs in Lev. ii. 4, " baked [in the] ovenl' rendered by the
LXX " cooked from libanos" which LXX perhaps inter-
preted as " cooked with the aid of frankincense." ^ So
here, the original was probably " Brass in the furnace"
which has been conflated as " {a^ Cha.\coli6anon, (a^ as if
refined in a furnace," ^

' LXX 4k XijSdvou, but F (in accordance with the Hebrew) iv KKi^&vif.

^ [522 (vi) S] In Rev. i. 15, 8/ioioi xa^fo^')3iii"C <is iv Ka/dvip ircirvpufi^iirp
(marg. -^yot), the extraordinary feminine genitive can be explained on the above
hypothesis, as follows. The Original had S/ioioi xdXx^) ii> K\ipivifi, i.e. "brass
[refined] in the furnace (or, oven)." This was amended in the margin by inserting
"refined," and by substituting the word "furnace" [i.e. Ki/uvos) for the word that
means more usually "oven" {i.e. /cXf/Saxos). But ip kXi/SAkv being written
cKXt/SaKo was, as in Lev. ii. 4, corrupted into « XijSayou. Then Xi/Swou, being
regarded possibly as "frankincense" (in which case it is feminine in classical
Greek) was treated as a fem. noun with which TrcTri/pw/x^i'ij! must agree. Yet
subsequently the original X'^^'"f (written x"^™) ^s vid=vli^ in Rev. i. 13) iv
kKipivif prevailed in the first part of the conflation in the form xoXifOg/tXi^aKu,
corrupted first into xi^f oeXi/SoKw, and then into xoX'coXt/Sai'U (by dropping e after
o, a firequent error). Thus the conflation became inconsistent.

[522 (vi) c] Another explanation (mentioned by Thayer with disapproval, but
preferable to the recognition of chalcolibanon as a Greek word) regards Xi^dvov as
a transliteration of ph, "whiten," which is the root of " Lebanon," the " white"
mountain, as also of Libanos meaning " frankincense." In New Hebrew, this
word (Levy, ii. 468 {a)) is used of purifying metal utensils with glowing heat.
It is therefore quite intelligible that such a word should be employed in a New
Hebrew paraphrase of the almost unique 'j^jj, "flashing," and should be trans-

288

OF MARK

(a) (vii) Inferences from the fore-going facts

[522 (vii)] The immediately preceding paragraphs do
not warrant the inference that this extremely rare use of the
word S'jp — peculiar to one passage in Ezekiel and to an
imitation of it in Daniel — rendered above (522 (v)), severally,
" flashing," " send forth lightning," and " Chalcolibanon," is
as likely as the familiar " lightning," pnn, to be at the basis
of the Transfiguration-narrative. It will be remembered
also that the *' metamorphosing " in the Transfiguration was
shewn (420) to have a probable basis in the " putting-forth-
horns " of glory mentioned in the transfiguration of Moses.
Now " horn," \\\), if preceded by the preposition l (in such
a phrase as " with rays," " when emitting rays " etc.), would
give, in its first three letters, npn "dawn," which we have
shewn above to have been confused with " lightning " : and
this rather confirms the view taken above as to the class
of words accountable for the differences in the Synoptic
narratives of the Transfiguration.

But the discussion of the passages in Daniel and the
Apocalypse leads to the two following conclusions, which
will be found of great value.

(i) A Christian Evangelist, describing such an event as
the Transfiguration, would naturally adopt the language of
O.T. describing similar events. This we infer from the fact
that the author of the Apocalypse describes a vision of his
own in language used by Daniel. A fortiori, an Evangelist
who had not seen the Transfiguration would prefer to use
Biblical language, where suitable, to describe it.

(2) Where the language of O.T. presented difficulties
either in the Hebrew or in the Greek, or in both, an
Evangelist — instead of adopting any version of it, or attempt-

literated by a Greek translator of Daniel. But, regard being had to the facts
above alleged about the actual interchange of clibanos and libanos in the LXX,
the explanation based on Greek corruption seems on the whole more probable.
19 289

[523] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

ing a new version of his own — might break away from it
altogether, substituting another passage, if possible, from the
same source. This we infer from the Apocalyptic sub-
stitution of the clause about " hair like wool " in place of
the clause about tharseis or thalassis.

The second of these conclusions suggests caution as to
the inference drawn above that Mark's curious tradition
(" so as no fuller on earth ") was simply a corruption of
the same Hebrew that produced " light " and (D) " snow "
in Matthew. Possibly, since "a fuller" in the Rabbinical
language may mean a cleanser from sin, and since the
Rabbis played on the similarity of the words for " fuller "
and the sacrificial " lamb " ^ — both being cleansers of sin —
Mark may have adopted some old tradition about the
garments of the Lord in the Transfiguration, as being pure •
beyond any purification that could be obtained by any
" fuller on earth." The Apocalypse describes the " garments
of the saints " as washed in " the blood of the Lamb." It
is easy to imagine that highly metaphorical language —
intelligible in the schools of Galilee but not to us — may
have been used about the garments of the Lamb Himself.
On the whole, however, the comparison (522 (iv) a) of the
Mark -tradition with that of the Acts of John, makes it
probable that Hebrew corruption has been at work in both.

(;8) (i) Variations in the account of the Resurrection ;
" lightning" why omitted by Mark ?

[523] We return to the passage describing the appari-
tion at Christ's tomb. The first point to be explained is
the agreement of Matthew and Luke in the word "light-
ning," omitted by Mark. That Luke did not borrow it

1 Levy, ii. 288 {b). A rabbi quoting Numb, xxviii. 3 says, "Although the
word sounds d'e/dd (Iambs), yet we read it d'B33 (fullers)." A story about "a
fuller " was said to mean a story about Rabbi Akiba. <

290

OF MARK [524]

from Matthew is indicated by the fact that Matthew
applies the word to the angel's " appearance " and not to
his garment, which Matthew describes as " like snow"
Using the key afforded above (522 (i)), we conclude that
the Original may have contained, if not pni " lightning,"
some word similar to it, and likely to be confused with it,
as also with ^^l " hail " or " snow." " Lightning " is applied
by Luke to the angel's " garment " : both " lightning " and
" snow " are adopted by Matthew ; and, as he could not
very well say that the " garment " was like " snow and
lightning," he introduces a distinction : — " the angel's
appearance was like lightning and his garment was like
snow"

(yS) (ii) Other variations

[524] But why does Luke omit the word '' white " and
mention " two " where Mark has " one " ? And why does
Mark speak of a " young-man," and Luke of " men," where
Matthew has (the apparently more appropriate) " angel " ?

The first step towards answering these questions is
to shew that the Hebrew for " young-man " is liable to
be confused with the class of words above - mentioned
("lightning," "snow," "(morning) light"). "Young -man"
is mm (rendered by Mark's word veavi,<TKQ<;, no less than
thirty-seven times in the LXX) ; " morning light '' is ip3 ;
and the letters n {cfi) and p {k), though not similar to read,
are interchanged fairly often in transliterating names.^ Now,
owing to the confusion of these two letters, in Samuel's
address to Israel about the evils of monarchy, "your . . .
young-men '' is rendered by the Septuagint " your oxen" ^
But the same Hebrew consonants mean both " morning-
light " and " oxen." It follows that " young - man " and

1 Comp. Oxf. Cone., KAef and 'S.iiiBi.v, where K = n; KeSoupdi', Eeipd^s,
where K—n; Kafnelv, Kara'aS, where K=n transposed.

^ I S. viii. i6 "your young-men (onina)," ri, povKdXta ifi&v (leg. ipa for iina).

2gi

[525] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

'' morning-light " might be similarly confused ; and we are
led to the conclusion that the Hebrew original contained a
word belonging to the class mentioned above, that is to
say, capable of being read as " lightning," " snow," " morning-
light," " young-man." ^

[525] Possibly confusion may have arisen from the use
of a technical term to describe the clothing of the "young
man " who proclaims the resurrection. Ezekiel and Daniel
speak of men seen by them in visions, and doing the
work of angels, as clothed in what R.V. calls " linen " but
Gesenius more exactly calls " white linen " (l^), a white stuff
used for priestly vestments.^ But ^l is easily confused with
nn. The latter means " pure," but might be interpreted as
" bright," and is indeed once rendered " far-shining." The
former (ni) is also once confused with the word Tini meaning
" chosen," or " young man." ^ Aquila — not however through
confusion but for etymological reasons — repeatedly renders
the plural of TH, " chosen out {e^aipero's)." Others trans-
literate it as (in the plural) Baddein, or render it " linen,"
or "long robe," or "raiment" (o-toXi?, the word used here
by Mark).* A word so similar to the class of words
mentioned in the last paragraph would obviously add to
the possibilities of confusion there mentioned. Again, the
transposition of one letter converts p^l " lightning " into nip
"sepulchre" — a word inserted here by Mark but not in the
parallel Matthew and Luke. And a final possible cause of
confusion must not be omitted. The root of " young man "

' There is another word for "young man," ny: ; but that means "stripling,"
" lad," and sometimes "servant." It would be out of place here.

" Ezek. ix. 2, 3, 11, Dan. x. 5, xii. 6, 7 (see Gesen. Oxf., 13).

' [525a] Ps. xix. 8 "pure (mn (fem.))," riiXavy^s, "far-shining," possibly
reading Tna, which = TTjXouy^s in Job xxxvii. 21 ; Ezek. xix. 14 m3, LXX
Tuv iKheKTuiv aiTTJs (leg. nina, an error facilitated by the feminine termination.
The word here means not " linen," but " branches ").

* [525i5] Aquila renders " linen (nni) " i^alperos in i S. ii. 18, xxii. 18, 2 S.
vi. 14, Ezek. ix. 2, etc., and Dan. x. 5. In Dan. x. 5, xii. 6, 7, Theod. has
PaSSelv, LXX piirffipa.

292

OF MARK

nna is very like nni, " bright-shining," a word that, though
not common in the Bible except in derivative nouns, is used
in New Hebrew as a verb.^

[526] In the passages just [525] referred to, Ezekiel
and Daniel do not use the term " angel," but speak of " a man
clothed in [white] linen." But the Apocalypse of St John
and the Book of Enoch associate white garments, or white-
ness, with the angelic hosts, and with saints, and the Hebrew
'' man " often stands for " one," in a sense impermissible in
Greek.^ Hence it was natural that Matthew and John
should substitute "angel(s)." Indeed, what is remarkable
is that Luke retains " man." Possibly, Luke, finding some
reading that allowed him to take the meaning as dual, and
having regard to the proverb current in the Christian Church,
" the testimony of two men is true," preferred to use " men "
both here and in his account of the Ascension. If the
original contained the word " young man," or " chosen,"
Matthew and others, rendering it by its frequent meaning

' [525'^] Another word for "white (stuff)" is nin, applied to the garments of
the Ancient of days in Dan. vii. g (lit. ) " wearing, like snow, white (nin) " Theod.
\fvKbv, LXX prob. ^uy (leg. ,Tn). If we could suppose that "in white" was
tm^ we should have letters identical with those for " young man." But " in (-3) "
is hardly ever used with verbs of clothing, the accusative being preferred. And
nin occurs only in Dan. vii. 9, Esth. i. 6, viii. 15, Is, xix. 9, " those weaving
■white-stuff." In Gen. xl. 16 it is applied to "bread."

The regular Heb. for "white "is p^: but this is not applied to garments
except in Eccles. ix. 8, " Let thy garments be always white and let not thy head
lack ointment," preceded by "drink thy wine with a merry heart." The festive
context makes the word less likely to be used by an Evangelist concerning an
angel. But it should be added that the verb " whiten " is used in Dan. xi. 35,
xii. 10 meaning "purify."'

^ [526(2] Book of Enoch (ed. Charles, p. 230) § 87 "Beings who were like
white men," i.e. unfallen angels (comp. Dan. xi. 35, xii. 10) : Rev. iii. 4, iv. 4,
vii. 9, xix. 14. It must be admitted, however, that great difficulty attends the
supposition of an original nina intended to mean " angel." The form Tna is used
of " the elect " of Jehovah in Is. xlii. i, xliii. 20, etc. : and the same Greek word,
lK\eKTos, frequently renders both nini "young man," and Tna, " elect "? but
neither form in O.T. appears to be applied to angels. The complete discussion
of this point, as also of the origin of Mk. xvi. 5 " on the right," and the reason
why Lk. omits the description of the angel(s) as (Mk. Mt.) " sitting," must be
reserved for a commentary on the Triple Tradition.

293

[527] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

" elect," might take it as indicating one of the " elect (angels)."
The word also sometimes means " mighty one."

[527] Our conclusidn is that the Synoptic variations
may be at all events partly explained as being conflations,
or mistranslations, of some word, or, words, capable of
meaning, with very slight changes, " morning - light,"
" sepulchre," " young-man," " lightning," " snow," " [white]
linen." Which one of these words — or possibly which
pair — constituted the Original, is a question too complex
for discussion here.^

' [527a] It may, however, be pointed out that the context of Mk. contains
indications of a tradition, conflated and inaccurate and hence not followed by Mt.
or Lk., but shewing traces of extreme antiquity. For example, whereas Mt. and
Lk. mention the rolling away of the stone only once (Mt. xxviii. 2, Lk. xxiv. 2),
Mk. mentions it thrice, thus (Mk. xvi. 3, 4) " (sj) Who will roll away the
stone . . . ? And having looked-up " [dKOjSW^oiroi, which in N.T. mostly means
"having Seen clearly," or "regained sight"] "they behold that {a^) the stone
has been rolled upward (dxa/ce/ciiXicrTOi) : for (ffj) it was very great."

[527i] Why should the later Evangelists omit "for it was very great"?
Turning to Ezra v. 8, we find "great stones" rendered by LXX in Ezra "elect
stones," but in l Esdr. vi. 9 " polished, costly {^vffrwv iroXureXfii') stones." But
the Hebrew is literally " stones of rolling (V7i)" It follows that in Mk. " it was
very great " may be an erroneous repetition of " it was rolled away," or vice-versa.
Or both may be erroneous attempts to translate an original that still awaits
restoration. As for the question "Who will roll away?" instances have been
given (490-1) to shew that the interrogative may be conflation, arising from a
confusion of 'd "who" with -d indicating a participle or preposition. In New
Heb., V?i "roll" (Levy), even without "stone," means "a heavy stone," and
SbiJ, lit. " rolled," means the larger grave-stone placed perpendicularly in the wall
of a tomb, and kept in its place by a smaller stone. There are, therefore,
manifest possibilities of confusion between "roll" and "grave-stone."

[527<^] "Rolled upward (i.vaKtxi'Ki.irTat.)" used in Mk.'s statement of fact,
presents a difficulty that has induced Mt.-Lk. to substitute the easier word "roll
away (diro/cuXfta)," assigned by Mk. to the women : and D and SS substitute
" roll away " in Mk. Swete renders dpaicuXfw "rolled back." But (l) the word
(non-occurrent in LXX) means "roll upward" in Lucian (vol. ii. 925, De Luct.
8), Dion. Hal. (Z'« Comp. Verb. Reiske, vol. v. p. 139) and apparently Plut. ii.
304 rds d/nd|as d,vaKv\liiavTe! (unless we should read Kara- for dvo-) : (2) a
perpendicular stone placed against a hole in a wall cannot well be " rolled daci,"
l)ut must either be " rolled forward " (after removing the smaller stone (Levy,
pan) which prevented this), or "rolled away (ivoKvKlia)," or "lifted (or, taken)
out of its place (atpa)" (comp. Jn. xx. i). These two facts, combined with the
rejection of the word by all later accounts (including Jn. xx. i, Pseudopet. 9 and

, 294

OF MARK [527]

§ 79. The end of Marias Gospel — "for they feared"

Mk. xvi. 8. Mt. xxviii. 8, 9. Lk. xxiv. 9-1 1.

"And having come "And having come "And having

out they fled from the out quickly from the turned back [from the

tomb : for trembling tomb with fear and tomb] they carried-

and amazement pos- great joy they ran to word of all these

Acta P. ) indicate the difficulty of the word ; but, far from disproving, they rather
suggest, its originality. It may be a remnant of a Hebrew Gospel which regarded
the stone as being "rolled upward" by a supernatural power, or else in a vision,
so as to vanish from sight. Pseudopet. § 9 describes the stone as " rolled of itself,"
01^' ^auToC KvXi(r0efs.

[5271^ The word "roll," SSii, TDS.y be easily confused with rhy, "reveal,"
and also with various forms of the root "round," which is latent in Gilgal,
Golgotha, etc. In New Hebrew, Levy gives (i. 334 (b)) \<h\ as meaning " turban,"
"head band," also spelt (i. 330 {b)) pS'jVj. Any of these words can easily be
confused with S'ju "grave-stone." And the similarity suggests that Jn. xx. 7
mentioning the "napkin about the head" as "rolled up in a place by itself,"
may be a variant of "the grave-stone rolled away."

[527«] A trace of mistranslation in the context appears in Mark's statement
that Joseph " bought (i.yop&aa.i') " linen (Mk. xv. 46), where Lk. xxiii. 53 omits
"bought," and Mt. xxvii. 59 substitutes "pure." "Fine linen" is in New
Hebrew (Levy i. 191 (b)) 133 nnniD, i.e. " chosen among linen.'' But by very little
more than transposition of the frequently confused (SlS^z) m and b, "chosen"
becomes "with a price," thdi Now to "take wii& a price" = " hay," and is
rendered dyopdj^a in 2 Chr. i. 16.

[527/] That the effect of mistranslation extends to Jn. is suggested by many
details. One may be mentioned, because it bears on the passives quoted above
(498<^ and g) shewing that "garden " in Jn. might be an error (Jn. xx. 15) " She,
supposing that he was the gardener, says to him, Sir, if thou hast conveyed'"
[^/Sdo-rao-tts i.e. "stolen away,'' though perhaps as a friendly act, as in (R.V.)
2 K. xi. 2, 2 Chr. xxii. 11, where Joash is "stolen"to preserve his life, and see
Field's note on Jn. xii. 6 ^/Sdo-Tafo/, probably "stole"] "him [hence], tell me
where thou hast laid him." The word for "gardener" given by Delitzsch, and
recognized by Levy, is pj, but this when written lu closely resembles " convey '
3:3 : and the latter makes excellent sense ; ' ' supposing that he was the conveyer,
says to him, Sir if thou hast conveyed him. "

[527j] But the most important indication of mistranslation is in the account of
the women buying, or bringing (Mk. xvi. I, Lk. xxiv. i) "spices (dpii/toTa) "
(Lk. xxiii. 56 adds "myrrh"), an act assigned by Jn. xix. 38-40 to Joseph and
Nicodemus, but altogether omitted by Mt. Jn. describes "a roll (8X17/^0)"
(v.r. lilyiM, "mixture") of myrrh and aloes "about a hundred pounds weight,"
intended (Westc.) "to cover the body completely with the mass of aromatics.''
Looking for an illustration in O.T., we find Is. xxv. 7 " And he will destroy in this

29s

[527]

THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

sessed them : and
they said nothing to
any (lit. no) one, for
they feared (imperf.)."

carry-word to his dis-
ciples. And behold
Jesus met them . . ."

things to the eleven
and all the rest. Now
it was Mary Magda-
lene and . . . And (lit.)
there appeared before
them as idle-dreams
(X'^/so?) these words,
and they disbelieved
(imperf.) them (J.e.
the women)."

mountain the face of the covering oiSn (lit.) thai is covered (oi^n) over all the
peoples, and the veil (nzOD-n) (lit.) that is veiled (nDiDjn) over all the nations."
Here the LXX, which utterly confuses the passage, has " They will anoint them-
selves with myrrh (jiipov) in this mountain . . .," apparently taking ui^ "cover-
ing" as b'7, which means "myrrh" in Gen. xxxvii. 25, xliii. 11 (ffraicTi}).

[527-4] St. Paul says of the Jews (2 Cor. iii. 15) " Unto this day, whensoever
Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart, but whensoever it shall turn to the
Lord the veil is taken away " ; Lk. says of the disciples to whom Christ predicted
His Resurrection, (Lk. ix. 45) "it was veiled {irapaKeKaXv/i/iivov) from them'' ; and
Jn. implies a "veiling" of the Scriptures from the disciples, when he says con-
cerning Peter and John, immediately after the ResMrrection, (Jn. xx. 9) " For as
yet they knew not the Scripture that he must rise from the dead." It is therefore
not antecedently improbable that a very early Jewish Evangelist, wishing to
describe the condition of the disciples immediately after Christ's death, might use
the language of Isaiah "A covering (mS) was covered over them and a veil (nDDo)
was veiled."

[527»] But, if "covering" was rendered by Greek translators "myrrh," it
would naturally lead to a misinterpretation of "veil (n3DD)." For "veil" is from
the root -pi, which means "pour out," "melt," "fuse," far more often than it
means " weave " ■- and in one of the three instances in which hddd occurs, R.V.
has (Is. XXX. I) (txt.) "cover with a covering," but marg. "weave a web" or
"pour out a drink-offering" or, "make a league." Assuming therefore that
"covering covering " meant " myrrh myrrh," Greeks might infer that "covering"
meant "liquid perfume" or ointment of some kind. This would lead to marginal
suggestions, such as we find in Jn. who combines "roll" (or "covering") with
"myrrh," and "aloes."

[572/] This hypothesis would explain some curious variations. For example,
D, in Lk. xxiv. I, omits "spices": SS substitutes "other women came with
them." Pseudopeter has " Mary Magdalene . . . having taken with herself her
friends,^' no mention being made of spices in any part of the narrative. This
could be explained either by Hebrew or by Greek corruption as a variant of
"aloes," ni'ynti. So rare a word (twice out of four times mistranslated by the
LXX owing to its identity with '?nN, "tent") might easily be confused with
nnnn, the fem. of "others," and translated "other women." This is more prob-

296

OF MARK [529]

[528] The explanation of these extraordinary variations
is based on two common phenomena in the Septuagint :
(i) the omission of the Hebrew negative, (ii) the confusion
of the Hebrew verb " fear " with the Hebrew verb meaning
in the active " see," in the passive, " appear."

(i) (Mk.) " they said nothing" (Mt.) " to carry word"
{Lk.) "carried word"

[529] The Hebrew negative in its most common form
is very frequently confused with (a) "to him," with {b)
" God," with (c) " to," and with (d) " or." Also, (e) when it
precedes words beginning with n, the final n of "not" is
apt to be dropped. The remaining letter is the regular
sign of the infinitive.^

,Tn the present passage of Mark, "they did not say"
might be an instance falling under (e), and there would be

able than that aXud, "aloes," should be confused with oXXS, "others" (though
4\Xos is confused with (Mai. ii. 15) koWs, and with (i Esdr. viii. 20 (A), parall.
to Ezr. vii. 22) &\as.

[527^] As regards Jn.'s amplification "a hundred pounds," it cannot be
considered improbable that, out of the reduplicated " Iflt," a)'?, there should
spring a variant "litra," >ni3>V (used in New Heb.) i.e. "pound." i^ain, Mk.
had said that Joseph had " bought " the linen and that the women had " bought "
the spices. Now the opposite of "buying" would be "taking out of one's own
store" or, as the Hebrew idiom goes, " from himself" (as opposed to " taking at
a price"). Hence, if an editor wished to contradict Mk,, he might write in the
margin "from himself," innD. But this is easily confused with nno "a hundred."

[527^ These suggestions are put forth, in the belief, not that all of them are
probable, but that, taken cumulatively, they constitute a considerable probability
that the variations between the Evangelists arise, not from " editorial freedom " —
a euphemism for "exaggeration" — nor yet from the use of later authentic
information by the Evangelists, but from mistranslation. The facts appear to
point to a vision seen by the women when the "veil" and the "covering" were
taken from off them, and they "looked up" (or, "regained their sight") and the
stone was " rolled up" to heaven.

' "Not"=K^;, sometimes written 1^: (a) "to him" = i'?: (*) "God" = '7N:
(c) "to" = ^N: (d) "or"=iK: (e) n^ "not," preceding idm "speak," would be in
danger of being written -^asS, i.e. " to speak " or "speaking."

297

[530] THE PRINCIPAL CORRECTIONS

a danger of its being corrupted into " for the purpose of
saying," or " saying." ^

(ii) Consequences of the Omission of the Negative

[530] Hebrew frequently expresses " not . . . any " by
" not every." Thus, in Jeremiah, " let us not give heed to
any of his words " is, literally, " let us not (fjN) give heed to
all his words." But this happens to be one of the numerous
passages where the Septuagint omits the negative. Conse-
quently the Greek has " and we will give heed to (lit. listen
to) all his words." ^

Now let us suppose that a similar mistranslation took
place in the case of Mark's Original, " And they said nothing
to any one," Heb. " And they said not to every one a
word." The omission of the negative would reduce this to
"they said to every one a word." Then it would become
necessary for such Evangelists as accepted the omission to
explain, severally, "every one" as meaning — not, of course,
all the world, but — (a) " his disciples," or {V) " the eleven," or
{c) " all the rest.'' Others might read (d) " every word "
instead of " every one a word." Matthew has adopted (a).
Luke has conflated (d), (c), and {d).

[531] When the negative was dropped from the phrase

^ [529a] Instances of the omission of the negative are far too frequent for
complete enumeration. The following bear specially on the interchange of
"not" and "to": Prov. xii. 28 "no death" eh Bdvarov, Is. v. 7 "/or (-S)
righteousness" oi SiKaimiiniv, Prov. xxvii. 19 "face to (-S) face . . . man to (-S)
man" o6x • • o^Si . . ., Ezek. xiii. 5 "to (-V) stand," oAk iviarriirav, I K. xi.
10 "and he kept not (n^>)" koI ipvKd^affBai.

[529^] Instances of confusion owing to the contiguity of n or t>, are Judg. i.
18 "and he took (n3^;>i)" "ai ovk iKKiipovl>iai<rcv (leg. -\:h N^Oi 2 S. xiv. 32 "let
me see (nuiN)" ovk etdov (leg. 'nm N^), Zech. xiii. 4 "neither shall they wear
iwsh' Khi)" Kul ivSiaovTai (leg. ie'3'7'1), Dan. a. 9 "yet heard I (you'Ni)," LXX
KoX OVK -fJKova-a.

There are cases, but comparatively few, of oi ins. or om. after -ou, or confused
with <Tv by Gk. corruption.

^ Jerem. xviii. 18, "and let us not give heed to anji of his words" (cai [Q.
marg. ins. o'uk'] &,Kovff6fie6a irdi'Tas toi)s Xdyovs aiirov.

298

OF MARK [533]

"they said not a word," it would be necessary to adopt a
stronger word than "say," in order to denote the bringing of
the glad tidings. The Mark-Appendix twice uses the word
" report," " carry-word," of Mary Magdalene and others,
carrying the tidings of the Resurrection ; and the parallel
Matthew assigns it to Jesus.^ Matthew and Luke here,
deviating from Mark, adopted "carry -word" as being in
general use in Greek traditions to describe the iirst
announcement of the Resurrection.

[532] (iii) {Mk>) "for^ they feared," {Mt.) "and behold Jesus I'
(Lk^ " and there appeared before them . . . disbelieved

[533] The instances of the confusion between " fear "
and " see," " behold," or " appear," are too numerous to quote
in full, but some are given below.^ In some forms the two
are identical, e.g. v(V means either " he feared " or " he will
see." It is obvious that when Mark's preceding words
" they said nothing " had been altered into " they told
everything" there would be a strong inducement to convert
the now unintelligible phrase about " fearing " into one
about " beholding " or " appearing." And the abrupt
termination of Mark's Gospel at this point would leave

^ Mk. xvi. 10, 13, Mt. xxviii. 10 dxaTyAXeiv, Jn. xx. 18 has i.'y-^&Ch.av. For
an instance of the apparent substitution of this word for an original "say,'' comp.
Mli. iii. 32 KoX 'Kiyovffi.v, [Mt. xii. 47 elirev Si tis], Lk. viii. 20 £1^1)77^17 Si.

^ [532a] Mk.'s "for (ydp)" may represent an original Hebrew "and (-1)."
Comp. Judg. xxi. 18 "Howbeit (-1)," LXX &rt, i.e. "because" or "for"
(A KaL), I K. xxii. 37 "so (lit. and) (-1) the king died," Hn.

' [533a] "Fear" = NT, "see" = nNn. Comp. Job xxxvii. 24 "he regardetk
them not," LXX "they shall ^ar him"; Mic. vi. 9 "will see (some ancient
versions have yior) thy name," LXX "fearing his name"; Jer. xvii. 8 "he
shall not y^a;- (v.r. see)" LXX "fear" ; Jud. xiv. 11 "when they jaw him," so
LXX, but A reads "when tlaey feared him"; Eccles. xii. 5 "shall be afraid
of," LXX "shall see." For other instances see 2 S. xiv. 15, 2 Chr. xxvi. 5,
Prov. xxix. 16, Is. xvi. 12, Ezek. i. 18, xviii. 14, etc. In Hab. iii. 2, "fear" is
conflated as "see"; in 2 S. xxii. 16, Heb. and LXX "appeared" (ib(j>Bricrav),
Luc. has "they feared."

299

[534] MINOR AGREEMENTS

subsequent Evangelists free to accept any additions ex-
plaining the nature of the " beholding " or " appearing," so
as to prepare the way for the supplementary traditions that
they severally desired to append.^

§ 80. Minor agreements of Matthew and Luke

If these are to be fully examined they must be studied
in detail with the aid of the Appendix. Only their general
nature, and the inferences derivable from them, can be stated
here. They are, almost entirely, just such modifications of
Mark's text as might be expected from a Corrector desirous
of improving style and removing obscurities.

[534] (i) In about twelve instances Matthew and Luke
adopt corrections defining subject or object. For example,
where Mark omits the subject (leaving it to be understood
as " they," " people," etc.) Matthew and Luke supply " the
disciples," etc. Again, where Mark omits an object, they
insert it, aiming at greater definiteness in this and other
ways, e.g. altering " coming " into " approaching," " the say-
ing " into " this saying," " thence '' into " from that city," etc.

(ii) In about fifteen instances they correct in Mark the
abrupt construction caused by the absence of a connecting
word. Where speech is introduced by a verb other than
" say," the connecting word may be a participle : e.g. " ques-
tioned him, ' Art thou . . . ? ' " is altered to " questioned
him, saying ' Art thou . . . ? ' " or " cried " to " said," or to
" called aloud saying." This may fall under viii (541).

(iii) In about thirteen instances they correct Mark's

^ As regards Mt. xxviii. 9 Kal ISoi, it has been pointed out (456) that i5ow
"behold!" appears often interchangeable, through Greek corruption, with iSoy
"they saw." Some process of this kind would be necessary to explain the deriva-
tion of Mt.'s "and behold" from Mk.'s "for they feared." For the Heb.
"behold (mrr) !" is quite different from the Heb. "fear (kt)."

300

OF MATTHEW AND LUKE [536]

historic present. This number does not include the correc-
tions of Mark's use of " says " applied to Jesus (see (v)).

(iv) In about twelve instances they substitute the
participle {e.g. " saying ") for the indicative with " and " {e.g.
" and he says "), or for the relative and the subjunctive, e.g.
" whosoever has," which is changed to " those having," etc.

[535] (v) In about twenty-three instances they substitute
for Mark's " says (\eyei) " the word " said (elirev)," or correct
Mark's imperfect " used to say " or " began to say " (eXeyev,
more rarely ijp^aro Xiyetv).^

In the Septuagint this last form is almost confined to
" singing " and " repeating." Both eXeyev and \eyei would
do very well in a little book of Short Sayings, such as the
Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, or the recently-discovered
Oxyrhynchian Logia of Jesus. Indeed, in the latter, " saith
Jesus " is the regular termination (or introduction) to each
Logion. For its use there, it might be urged that the
present tense represented Jesus as one who, though dead
" still speaketh " in abiding precepts. But in a connected
history of Jesus — including dialogue and controversy as well
as precept — the present tense would probably be considered
— at least when men of education began to enter the
Christian Church — somewhat below the level of Evangelic
style (like our vernacular " says he "). The regular form in
the Septuagint is the past tense, and that would probably
weigh with such Evangelists as aspired to write as historians
— -though not with John.

[536] (vi) In at least thirty instances Matthew and

^ [SSSt:] The correction of the imperfect extends to other verbs ; e.g. Mlc. has,
about fifteen times, " he (or, they) began-to-questicm {iTijpiira, or, -an) " •- the
parallel Mt.-Lk. mostly have the aorist, or present, of some other verb of speech
/ (456 (ii)), but, in any case, they never jointly agree in the imperf. of iirepuTav.
Akin to this, is Mk.'s (very frequent) superfluous use of the Greek verb "begin
(Spx*"'^'"))" ^s in Mk. vi. 7 "He degan to send them out two by two." In the
course of some five and twenty instances in Mk., this verb is never retained by
Mt.-Lk., jointly, except in Mk. xiv. 19.

301

[537] MINOR AGREEMENTS

Luke agree in adopting the idiomatic Greek connecting
particle (Si) — commonly and necessarily (though most in-
adequately) rendered by the English " but " — instead of the
literal translation of the Hebrew " and," i.e. Kai.

It is a mistake — though a very natural one — to infer
that the prevalence of Se, in the Gospels, indicates a Greek
original, and that the prevalence of «at indicates a Hebrew
one. A more probable inference would be that in some
cases Si indicates free translation, and Kai literal translation,
from Hebrew. But this may not always be the case. A
Corrector, while altering the Hebraic " and " to the Hellenic
" but," may in other respects be more faithful to the sense of
the original Hebrew.

[537] There are some very remarkable facts bearing on
the Septuagint use of the Greek particles, '' and " and " but."
The Hebraic particle, " and {icaV)]' is preferred in the graver or
more ecclesiastical books, and the Greek particle, " but (Si)," in
more secular ones. For example, in the short book of Ruth,
" but (Se) " occurs twenty-nine times, but not once in the second
book of Chronicles. Theodotion's version of Daniel, which is
certainly later than that of the Septuagint, frequently
changes the Hellenic Se into the Hebraic Kai. So, too, the
Septuagint version of E?ra — which is probably later, and
is certainly closer to the Hebrew, than the Hellenic version
called the First Book of Esdras — discards the Greek "but"
and returns to the Hebraic " and."

[538] So far, the facts are interesting but not unex-
pected : but it is surprising to find a sudden and complete
change in the use of these particles at a definite point in the
Pentateuch. A reference to the uses of the extremely
common phrases " and (or, but^ he said," " and (or, but) it
came to pass " in the Oxford Concordance, reveals that —
whereas in Genesis and the greater part of Exodus the
translators use both the Greek particle and the Hebraic
with considerable frequency, and sometimes the former

302

OF MATTHEW AND LUKE [540

almost as often as the latter — " but it came to pass " is dis-
continued from Exod. xix. 1 6 and " but he said " from Exod.
XX. 22, to the end of tlte historical books} Now, of these
two passages, the first describes the thunders of the Law,
and the second introduces the Law itself. Considering
that, in a small portion of the Pentateuch, these phrases
occur some hundreds of times, up to the point where they
absolutely cease, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that,
from the point where the Law was introduced, the Trans-
lators (or possibly Revisers) felt that a different style of
translation, more literal and faithful to each "jot and tittle"
of the sacred text, became incumbent on them.

[539] In any case, the phenomena of the Septuagint
make it highly improbable that the agreement of Matthew
and Luke on this point (the correction of " and " to " but ")
is accidental. And it is still more improbable that Luke
repeatedly borrowed from Matthew, or Matthew from Luke,
a detail of so minute a character, without borrowing at the
same time something more important from the context.
The facts point to the conclusion that Matthew and Luke
— whether they originated the correction or borrowed it
— substituted the Hellenic for the Hebraic particle inde-
pendently of each other.

[540] (vii) Another class of corrections includes im-
provement of Greek construction or style, by softening
abruptness, of a different kind from that mentioned above
(534 (ii) ), changing interrogatives into statements, intro-
ducing fikv . . . Be, aX\d, or other particles, and altering
Hebraic or vernacular words or phrases. In a few instances
the correction may be made in the interests of seemliness,
rather than of style, e.£'. in Mk. ix. 6, where " frightened-out
[of themselves] " is variously altered by Matthew and Luke.^

' These remarks relate to ctrev Si, and /cai dwcv, not to the use of o Si, " but
he," with elwei>.
-^ See note on Mk. ix. 6 in Appendix.

[541] MINOR AGREEMENTS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE

[541] (viii) In some cases, and notabjy in the use of
the exclamatory " behold," Matthew and Luke appear to
agree in returning to a Hebrew Original. Important
instances of this are given in the preceding pages. A few
unimportant instances are marked as belonging to class viii
in the Appendix.

304

APPENDICES

20

30s

APPENDIX I

A COMPLETE TABLE OF THE CORRECTIONS IN GREEK

[542] The following pages exhibit, in Mark's order, the Greek textual
agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, in the Triple Tradition.

Of these, the most important are explained, in Mark's order, in the
preceding pages. These are marked (j).

Of the rest, a few are explained by footnotes ; but most belong to the
eight classes mentioned in 534-41, and the class is indicated by a
Roman number. The number 455 reminds the reader that Mark
never uses ldo6 in narrative.

[543] Some passages printed in Mr. Rushbrooke's Synopticon as
agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark are not included below,
e.g^. the precepts about "saluting,'' "shoes," "the labourer," etc., in the
Sending of the Twelve. Luke, though he has these, does not place
them in the Sending of the Twelve, but in the Sending of the Seventy.
These and other similar passages — printed in the Synopticon along
with the Triple Tradition, not as being part of it but as throwing light
on it — will be discussed in a subsequent treatise under the head of the
Double Tradition.

[544] In a very few cases the text of Westcott and Hort deviates
from that of Mr. Rushbrooke — especially in the earlier chapters printed
before that text was placed at his disposal by the kindness of the
Editors. For example, in Mk. ii. 9 they read ■n-epiTrdrei (not viraye)
agreeing with Mt.-Lk. In such cases, the text of Westcott and Hort
is followed. And as a rule (unless the contrary is expressed), the later
text of Westcott and Hort is adopted instead of the earlier, where the
two differ.

Mk. Mt. . Lk.

i. 57ra(ra4'IovSa{a;((6/>a iii. 5 iriura ij 'lovSala iii. 3 ek iraffav ri]v

(t) Koi irSo-a 4 ireptxitJpos Tov irEplxi<>po;> ToS'IopSdvov]
'lopSdvov

307

[544]

A COMPLETE TABLE OF THE

Mk.

Mt.

Lk.

i- 7. 8 Ipx^Tiu . . .

iii. II iyii |iiv u/ias

iii. 16 iyii («v . . .

6iri(Tw [p.ov] . . . iyCi

^airrl^a . . . 6 8c dwiffto

jSaTTTiJai vfias, ipxerat

ip&irnaa ifias . . . airbs

fwv ipxil^vos

U . . .

Si /SaTTT/o-ei (vii)

i. 8 . , . Tve^/Mart ayiip

iii. 1 1 ev TTvediiaTi aylif

iii. 16 Iv TViiiimTi ayU/j

(t)

Kal irupC

Kal irupt

i. 9, lo . . . Kal i^av-

iii. 13-16 . . . ToO

iii. 21 ... iv Tif jSoir-

rlfrdu] . . . eldev (TXifo/^-

PaTTTurBijvM (?) inr' aiiTov

Tiffff^vai (?) dTTiii'TO riv

yous rois oipavois^ (t)

. . . ^aiTTiadeU Si 'IijffoCs

\aSv Kal 'iTjffOv ^aimffB^j/-

i. 10 tS Tvevfia Ois
ireptaTepkv Kara^aXvov ek
aiirbv (vii)

i. 12 Kid evBds rS wveOfia
airbv iKpiWet (t) (also
iii)

i. 13 . , . •jreLpa^bfievos
virb ToO Sarava (f)

i. 13 Kal ^v fj.er&, tu>v
$7jpluv (t)

i. 16 Kal Trapdyiov irapa.
(vi)

i. 16 etSev S. Kal 'A. rbv
&Sc\<t>by S. (t)

i. 38, 39 els TcLs ix"!'-^^"-^
KoifiOToKeis, 'iva /cd/cet kt}-
pi5^w elsTOVToykpi^rjkQov,
Kal fjKBev Kripiaawv els ras
(ri'i'a7W7ds . . . (f)

i. 40 Kal ^pxerai irpbs
airbv \e7rp6s (iii and 455) ^

i. 40 X^yiav airi^ Stl
'Eai/ eikris (+)

i. 41 ijfaro Kal \4yeL
(iv)

ii. 3 Kal ^pxovrai (pipop-
res irpbs ai)Tbv . . . alpb-
fj,epou ijirb reffadpiov (f)
(also iii and 456)

ii. 5 tai ldd)v . . . Xiyei

(V)

. . . i\vti^\9T\(rav ol oCpavoi

iii. iSwyeu/jLa deov Kara-
^aXvov\ tiffci irepKTTCpd.v
ipXbp'Cvov fir avrbv

iv. I T&re b *lT](rovs
avr(%^7} . . . virb rod
Trve6 fiaros

iv. I ireipaadTjuac ijTrb
Tov StapdXov

iv. 2 iiffrepov ciretvacrcv

iS

TrepiiraTuv

Sk

IV.

■jrapa , . .

iv. 1 8 etSev SiJo dSeX^oiis
S. . . . Kal 'A.

iv. 23 diddffKOjp iv rais
avvaytayaXs aifrCjv Kal
K7}p{/ffa(i}y rb tvayyiXiov
T^s Paa-iXc£as, , . .

viii. 2 Kal ISou Xe7rp6s
TrpoaeXdciiv . .

viii. 2 X^7wi' Kvpie, ^av
eiXris

viii. 3'fJi/'aTo . . . X^76)v,

ix. 2/fai I80V irpoff4<pepQv
atiT$ , . . iirX kXCvtis
^epXrjfji^vov

IX.

2 /cat ^5dj>'

Tos . . . 6,V6f^x9i[vai rbv
otfpavbv

iii. 22 Kara^TJvai rb
TTuevfia rb S/yiOP ciafmriKi^
etdec Cjs Trepi(jT€pkv hr
airbv

iv. I 'Iijcroiis 5^ . . .
viriffrpe^eVf Kal ^yero 4v
rQ 'jrveifj.aTL

iv. 2 7r€ipa^6fjL€vos imb
rod SiapdXov

iv. 2 (FwreXeaBeiauv
a^Qv circCvacrcv

V. I ^yivero 8c . . . Kal
avrbt i)p i<rru)S irapd, . .

V. 2 . . . Kal etdev Svo
TrXoidpia . . .

iv. 43, 44 Kal rah eripats
irbXeatv e{iayyfKi(ra<r6aL
/j.€ 8et r^v paa-LX€{a;' rov
Geou firt i-rrl roOro aTreard-
Xrjv. Kal Tiv K-qpi^cawv els
rds ffwayuyds . . .

V. 12 Kal I80V dv7}p
irX-^pris Xhrpas.

V. 12 X^wi' ICvpi€, eai/

V. 13 "fj^aro . . . X^7wv

V. i8 iftti ISoii &v5p€i
ip4poyr€s lirl kX£vt|s . . .

V. 20 /cai /3(i)»' . . . etirev

1 Mk. i. 9, 10. In the parall. Mt.-Lk., Synopticon prints the first "baptize" (with a ? in
Lk.) as an agreement of Mt.-Lk. But this arrangement is not adopted here as the verb refers ia
Mt. to Je.sus, but in Lk. to the multitude.

2 Mk. i. 40. Mk. (455) never uses iSou in narrative.

308

CORRECTIONS IN GREEK

[544]

Mk.
ii. 6 S^ . . . Kal 1
ii. 8 X^7et [ai5rots] (v)

ii. II r6v Kpd^a.Tr6v
<Tov (vii) "

ii. 12 i^\8ev IfiirpoffBev
irivTUii (t)

ii. 12 fiffre i^idTaaBai
TrivTas (t)

ii. l6 ol ypafifidTeTi Tujv
^api<ratiiiv ^

ii. l6«Tt; (t)

ii. 17 X^7ei (v)

ii. 1 8 KoX ipxovTai koi
"Kiyovaiv airQ *

ii. 21 iTipAirra (+)

ii. 22 el di ii.ii (t)

ii. 22 Kal olvos dir6\-
Xurat icai oi dc/cof. [dXXa
olvov viov eis iiTKoiis Koi-
foii] (t)

ii. 23 i^p^avro o8bv iroieiv

TtXXoPTCff (t)

ii. 24 Koi oi $. fKeyov
(v and vi)

ii. 25 X^ei (v)

ii. 26 d nil Tois lepels (t)

iii. I eis (rwaTuyfiK (vii)

iii. 4 rai X^ei (v and vi)
iii. 10 iroXXois . . . i9e-
pi,vev<rev . . .

Mt.
ix. 3 Kal ISoii
ix. 4 etirev,

ix. 6 (Tou T^K kKIvtiv

Lk.
V. 21 Kal

V. 22 &T0Kpi8eis ilirtv
irpbs oi)toi)s

V. 24 rb KKivlSibf ffoul

ix. 7 (and Lk. v. 26) dir^Xflei' «ls tJ>v oIkov airov

(N.B.—ln Lk. v. 25, there occurs di-ao-Tcts kvilinov airSiv)

ix.SoIixXou+oPijer/ffw v. 26 . . . IxaTaais

IXapev ftTracTos . . . Kal

iTrMiaSriaav (juSpou

v. 30 ol #a/3i(ratot Kal

ol ypafifiarets aiTwv
V. 30 810 tI ,-
V. 31 etirev
v. 33 ot 5^ etirav irpbs

airbp

V. 36 ^n^iiXXei
V. 37 el Sk liipie
V. 37 Kal aiThi eKyy^i-

fferat Kal ol dtr/foi dTro-

XoOprat

V. 38 dXXi olvov viov els

otTKoiis Kaivoiis pXijT^oc
vi. I friXXoc . . . Kal

^a-Qiov

vi. 2 TIK^S 8J TiSl/ *.

ctirav

vi. 3 etirev

vi. 4 el IXT) jJiovovs Tois

lepeis

vi. 6 eis T^v ffvvay<oyTiv

ix. II ol ^apicraroi

ix. 1 1 Sid tI ;

ix. 1 2, etirev

ix. 14 T&re irpoiripxov-
rai airip . . . \4yovres

ix. 16 ^npdWei

ix. 17 ei Si'fiLTiyt

ix. 17 Kal 6 olvoi eKxei-
rai Kal ol dffKol dirbWuv-
TOi. dXXA pdXXouo-u' oli'oi'
j'^oi' eis d{r/coi)s Kaivo^s

xii. I ijp^avTO riWetv
. . . Kal eo'OCeti'

xii. 2 ol 8J $. ISbvres
etirav

xii. 3 etirev

xii. 4 ei M')) Tois lepeOaiv
|j<<5voi.s

xii. 9 eis TTiv ffvvayoiyTiv
aOrwv

xii. 1 1 6 8i etirev
r xii. IS TiKoXoidrjffav
I aiiry iroXXoi /cal idepA-
] irevaev aiirobs irdvras ^

Siroi elxoi' /id(rTiyai
(t)"

vi. 9 etirev 8fe 6 'Ir^ff.

(vi. 19 ttSs 6 Ax^"^ ^f'i"
row . . . 6tl . . . iaro
irdvras °
vi. 17 Kal ladTJvai dirb
Twv vdo-wv avTuv

1 Mk. ii. 6. It is doubtful whether Mt.-Lk. are here agreeing against Mk. (see context).

2 Mk. ii. II. Phrynichus condemns Mk.'s word : o-kijuttovs Aeye, oAAa i^ij KpajSjSaros (sic).

8 Mk. ii. i6- Mt. does not agree here with Lk. except that by omitting 01 ypafijiaTels he
is forced to take "tap. as nominative.

i Mk. ii. 18. KaC is corrected to (Mt.) r6ir, (Lk.) Se : the historic present to (Lk.) the past :
the indicative to (Mt.) the participle. Mt.-Lk. do not agree in any of these collections, but
merely in the casual use of irpds.

S Mk. iii. 10. ' As Mt. contains two distinct passages, the parallelism is uncertain. lias
is so very frequently inserted or omitted by the LXX where the Heb. severally omits or
inserts it that this agreement of Matthew and Luke does not require detailed comment, especi-

[544]

A COMPLETE TABLE OF THE

Mk.
iii. l8 Koi 'AvSpiav (t)

iii. 19-21 Koi Ipx"'"' ^''
oIkov koX (rvv^px^Tcu. TriiXiv
dx'^os, &(rTc Iii) divojxBai
airois /irjBi &frrov ipayeiv.
KoX iKoiravTes 0! Trap'
avToO i^^XBof KpaT^aai
avrbv ^Xeyov y&.p 6ti
e^iirrri (see 3633)

Mt.

X. 2 (coi 'ArSpcas 6
aSE\<f>i>s airov

xii. 22, 23 t6tc irpoa-
ilveyKav airip Saijiovi^A-
Hevov, TV(t>\bv Kal k<o^6v
Kal idepAwevtrev airrbv,
iiiTTC rhv Ka>(|>bv XaXei;'
Kal flXiireiv. Kal cfi-
(TTavTO irdvTes ol [^fixXoi,
xal S\eyov . . .

Compare also : —

^- 32| 33 airwv Si
^^epxcfJi^vuVf tSoi/ irpoff-
•qveyKav aiirip Kuifjbv Soi-
^ovv^bnevov. Kal iK^Xtj-
BivTos ToC 8ai|ioyCov £Xd-
Xi]<rcv 6 K<o()><Ss' Kal(9ai-
[lacav 01 SxXot Xiyovres

Lk.

vi. 14 Kal 'AvSpiav t!>v
dScX(j>bv a^ToO

xi. 14 Kal fiv iK^iXKuv
8at|*6viov KoMJidv - iyivero
5k ToG Sai/ioviov ^^e\86pTos
^XdXijirev 6 K(ii(^i5s' Kal
idai/Mnrav ol 6\Xoi*

iii. 22 Kal ol ypafifiaTels
ol aTd 'lejo. Kara^Avres
IXcyov (v and vi)

iii. 23-26 Kal rtrpoa-
KoKeffdfievos airois iv
irapa^oKais ^eyev aurots,
ITws SivaTOi Sarapas . . .;
Kal ikv ^aaCKcla iij>
eavTTfV fieptffffy, oi Sivarai
o'TaBTJvaiii panXela iKelvrf
Kal i&v olKla i^ iavripi
lupiaB^, oi Svv'^(reTai i)
oUla iKelvT) o'TrjvaL- Kal el
6 ^aravas . . . (t) (also v
and vi) (see 363^)

iii. 27 . . . rifv oUlav
aiiTOv diaprdaeL ^

iii. 28, 29 i/iiiv \4y(ji
vfuv 8n irivTa dipeB'^fferai
roTi vlots Twv d.v6pd)7rtaVj

xi. 15 nvh 8J ^J aitrQii
ctirav

xi. 17, 18 airrbs Sk clSiiis
OLvrav rd dLavo^fiara ctircv
aiTOiSfJlau-a paaCKda itji
eavT^jv SiafiepLO'Biia'a. €pr\-
liovrai. el Si Kal b Sara-

xii. 24 oi Si iapiaalot.
&KoiaavTes etirov

xli. 25, 26 clSc^s h\ rds
ivdvp.'fiaeii avrfflv etirtv
airolSj Ildo-a ^atriXe/a
ixepurdiitra, Ka6' ^aur^s
lpT]p.ovTai, Kal iraaa irbXis
ij olKia fiepLO-Belffa Ka6'
iavrjjs oi ffTadiifferai. Kal
el SaraJ'as . .

xii. 29 . . . T^» oUlai' xi. 22 ... to <rKv\a ai-

airoD SiapTdffei toO ScaSlScatrty

xii. 30 (also Lk. xi. 23) 6 f,i\ flv |i.tT Ijiov . . . o-Kop-

xii. 31, 32 Sii, toCto xii. 10 koV iras 8s ipei

\4ya i/ilv, Ilfiffa i-naprla Xir^ov els rbv vlhv Toii dx-
. . . d^edijffeTaf. rots dv- BpiiyiroVf d^eSiiaerai. aur^'

ally as "all" or "the multitude" may have heen meant by the original of Mark's "many," which
perhaps was " the many." Synopticon does not print ttoj as an agreement.

In the contexts, Mt.-Lk. have o^Aoi or oxAos where Mk. has merely itot toi* o^fAoi^. But this
can hardly be called agreement against Mk., see contexts.

1 Mk. iii. 27 Aiapn-a(ret. After this word Mt.-Lk. insert " He that is not with me . . . scat-
tereth." This may be from the Double Tradition, extracts from which are inserted in the preced-
ing context (Mt. xii. 27, 28, Lk. xi. 19, 20). Or it may have bepn omitted in Mk. by Hebrew
Homoioteleuton, since the same word i,e.g. th) might mean dtapira^vti' or crjcopn-i^eii'.

310

CORRECTIONS IN GREEK

[5M]

Mk.
. . , Ss S' &v p\atr<j>'i]H'fi<Txi
els rd irvevjia rh Sryiov, oix
^et fi0effti' (t)

iii. 32 . . . KoX 'Kiyovaw

iii. 33 KOI . . . \iyH (v
and vi)

iv. I i'xKos irXewToj (vii)
iv. 3 ffxapou (vii)

iv. 4 iyivero iv t^j
trirelpeiv (i)

iv. 9 8s ^« ffiro (iv)

iv. 10 oZ irepl airbv aiv
Tois SiliSeKo, (■]•)

iv. 1 1 Kal IXeyev airots,
"C/uv rb iivar^piov SiSorrai
■ri\i pan\etas toO Geofl (v,
vi, vii)

iv. 15 atpei rbv X6yov
rbv iairapfiivov els a^rods

(t)

iv. 16 Kal oSroi o/wlus
elirlv qI irl t& irerpiiSij (vi)

iv. 18 Kal fiXXot elHv oi
els T&s &Kd.v6as (vi)

iv. 20 Koi iKetvol elaw
ol M. rijv yrji> ttiv Ka\^v
airaphiTes (vi)

iv. 21 intyri Ipxfrai
X&Xyos iva iiri rbv i)J>Siov
Te$^ ^ 6iri rijv KKivfpi, oix
Iva ivi (MSS. iT6) Ti,v
\xr}(yiav TeB^ (t) (vii)

Mt.
Bpiixois, . . . Kal Ss ihv
etirji Xdyov koto toC vioO
ToS iySpiiirau &<pe6'^(xeTai
a^^- OS S' Sk etrri Kara
roO TTveiiiuTos toB A/ylov,
oix d^eO^iTETai airQ

xii. 47 W.H. only in
marg. [elircv Se tis airQ
. . . I|ci) l(rr^Kairiv fip-oOi'-
T^s ffoi XaX^trot]

xii. 48 (and Lk. viii. zi) o 81

Lk.

tQ di els rb dyiov irveSfw.
p\a<riprip,iiffavn o6k &^e-
ei\<rerai

viii. 20 aTriYY^^V 8i
air^ . . . l<rT<JKtt<riv (^a
ISetv OiXovTh ere

. etirev .

xiii. 2 6y\oi woXXoC viii. 4 6xKov ttoXXou '

xiii. 3 ToB ffvelpeiv viii. S Tov airetpai, rbv

cirbpov airoO
xiii. 4 (and Lk. viii. 5) iv tv airelpeiv avriSv

xiii. 9 (and Lk. viii. 8) 6 Ix"" <!"■«

xiii. 10 ol (io6T)TttV viii. 9 oJ |j.a6iiiTal avroO

52

viii. 10 6 8J elirev, 'T/tiv
pio Tijs ^anXetas tov GeoO

viii, 12 atp6t rbv \670p
d7r6 riis KapSlas airSiv

viii. 13 of 8^ ^i TTjs
irirpas . . . Kal oBtoi

viii. 14 t6 Si els ras
ixivBas . . .

viii. IS Td 8i ^K TTj KaX^
75, oStoC ^ eiiru' . . .

viii. 16 ovSels 5^ \6xvov
&\jias KaXiijTTei avT&v
(TKeiei ij iTroK&Tiu KXfyijs
T(6i7(rti', dW iTl "Kxrxylas

TlSTJffLVf

Compare —

xi. 33 oASeis \6xvov
ll\fias els Kp\mTT]v riBrjiriv
oi)5^ {nrb rbv fibSiov^ dXX'
iTrl T^v \vxvlav

1 Mk. iii. 32. W. and H. bracket the passage, bracketed above in Mt. SS omits it. Mk.
31 has efa> oT^KOvres, and Mt. xii. 46 ItrTqKeitrav e^io.

2 Mk. iv. 20. For the insertion of (Mt.-Lk.) oStoi, comp. Mk. xv. 43, Mt. xxvii. 58, Lk. xxiii.
: it emphasizes the subject.

xiii. II o 8i iiroKpiBels
etirev Sn 'T/ifl/ Sidorai
TVtivai TO. luiaHipia Trjs
/SanXefas r&v oipavHv

xiii. igeLpTrd^eiTbitnrap-
fievov iv rg KapSf^ aiiroO

xiii. 20 6 hi iirl Tcl Tre-

TpiiSl) . , , oStAs iffTlV . . .

xiii. 22 6 SJ els tos
dKdvdas

xiii. 23 6 8J iirl t^v
KaXijv yiiv irirapels, oStcSs ^
^OTO' ... •

V. 15 ovSi Kalovnv
\irxyov Kal riSiaaiv oArhv
iirb rbv /ibdwv aXK' iirl
T^v \vxviav,

[544]

A COMPLETE TABLE OF THE

Mk.
iv. 22 oi yip (ariv
[marg. ins. ti] Kpmrbv
ihv fii) iva ^avcpuB^, ovSi
iyheTO 6,TrbKpv<f>ov dXX'
tva l\6ri eis (pavepiv ^ (t)

iv. 23 e!" Tis ?x" (iv)
iv. 30-32 Kal IXeyev,
nSj oiwidKra/iev ■rijv /Soiri-
\eiav TQV Qeovj ri iv tIvi
air^v 7rapa/3o\5 BSfui'; is
k6kkc{J <nv6.Treo3s, &s Srav
ffirapQ iirl ttjs yijs, fjLiKp&re-
pov 6v irdvruv Tujv (nrepfid-

TUiV TWV iirl TTJS 7^s — Kal

Srav (Twapy, dva^aivet., Kal
yiveraL fiei^ov ir&vritiv Tiav
"KaxdvwVf KoX iroce? K\dSovi
fiey&KovSj ibare Siyoffdai
VTrb TTjv (TKidv aiiTOv rd
■jreTeiva tov oipavov Kara-
(rKT)voiv (t) (also vii)

iv. 36 dtp^j/Tes rbv 6x^ov
Trapa'Kap.pdvovtTai airbv «s
'^v iv Tip irKoUp Kal fiXXa
TrXoia fjv fj.eT^ a^roO (f)
(also iii)

iv. 38 Kal eyelpovnv
a&rbv Kal X^70U(rt»' aOrip
(t) (also iii and iv)

iv. 41 Kal iipo^'lfiitaav
ipb^ov fiiyaVj Kal ^eyov
Trpbs dXXiJXous, . . . Kal
6 Avefios Kal ij OdXaffcra
airip iiraKoiei (t) (also iv,
vi, and vii)

v. 2-13 d,v$poiiros iv
TTve^fiaTi dxaddprtp . . .
Kal irapcKdXei airrbv . . .
Kal wapeKdXeffav ainbv . . .

Mt.
X. 26 oiSiv ydp ianv
KeKokvfifiivov 8 O^K dTTO-
Ka\v(p$'fiiTeTai Kal Kpvirrbv
8 o4 •yviocrB^o'CTai

xi. 156 ^x""

xiii. 31, 32 dWijv irapa-
^oMjv TrapidrjKev ai/Tots
\iyuv, '0|i.aCa iirrXv i;
^aiTtXeia twv oiipaviav
KbKKif invdreiiis iv Xa^c^v
&v6p(i>iros iaireipev iv
Tip dyptp a^ov' 8 fUK-
pbTepov fiiv iffTLv irdvTOJv
TWV ffwep/jLdTOJVf &Tav Si
ai^nOi^, p^i^ov TWV \axd-
vwv iffTlv Kal yiverai
S^vSpov, fiirre i\8eTv ra
Treretpa tou oipavov Kal
KaTaffKTjvoiv €V Tots kXo.-
801s (?) avTov

viii. 23 . . . fji^civTi
aiiTtp els irKoiov, ijKoKoi-
Bijffav aiT^ ot |ia6i)Tal

viii. 25 Kal irpocreXOdv-
TES ^■^eipav airbv X^70VT«S

viii. 27 oi Si dvBpairot
E6ati|xa(rav X^yovres, . . .
Kal ol dvefioi Kal tj 6d\aaffa
airip iiraKoiovmv

viii. 28-32 Sio 8ai-
fU>vi%6iicvoi . . . ol Si
SaCfiovcs TapeKd\auv (?)
airrbv . . . ol 81 i^eXdiivTes

Lk.
viii. 17 oi ydp eanv
Kpvwrbv 8 o4 (pavepbv
yevfiaerai,, oiSi dirbKpv^ov
8 o4 AiTj yviotrB^ koI els
pavepbv ^6-(i

Compare —

xii. 2 oiSh/ Si (TvyKeKa-
Xv/i/iivov iffTlv 8 oiiK airo-
KaXii<j>6'f)<rcrai Kal Kpw-
Tov 8 oi 7Viuer6^ireTai

xiv. 35 6 i\tav

xii. 18, 19 fKeyev oiv,
Tiivi bfioia iffTlv ij ^affiKela
TOV Geou, Kal tIvl bfiotiiffu
airiiv ; 6|AoCa cirrlv k6kkip
ffivdirews Sv XaPtliv ttv-
Opcoiros ^^akev els ktjttov
eavTov, KoX ift^o-ev Kal
iyivcTO els S^vSpov Kal rd
ireTeivd toO oipavov KaTe-
ffK^vwffev Iv Tois kXoSois
(?) a^ov

viii. 22 . . . airbs
evi^r] As irXolov Kal ol
|ia9i)TaV ainov

viii. 24 irpoir«X6dvT€s
5^ di^yeipav airbv \i-
yovres

viii. 25 (jio^TiBivres 8^
I6a{|i.a(rav, "Kiyovrts irpbs
AXX-iJXous, . . . Kal rois
dvifwis iiriTdffaei Kal tQ
VSan Kal vTraKoiova-iv
aiT$

viii. 27-33 ''■"'^P "S . . ■
€X(^v 8aip.dvia . . . Kal
vapeKd\ovv (?) airbv . . ,
Kal wapexdXeffav airbv

1 Mk iv, 22 fl)avep6v. The Double Tradition has yvdjo-ff^o-eTai. Luke, in the Triple Tradition,
has conflated the two. Comp. Dan. iii. 18 " Be it krutwn {yn*)»" LXX ^avep6vt Theod. yvina-Tov,
If the original was j;t, Mark (like LXX in Dan.) was less literal than the later Evangelists.

312

CORRECTIONS IN GREEK

[544]

Mk.

Kal i^eKBbvTO, ri irvei/xara
TCI, &K&6apTa (vi, vii, and
see footnote on Mk. vi. 7)

V, 14 Kai ol p6(TK0i>Tes
(vi)

V. 14 ^XBov . . . Kal
ipxovrai. (iii and vii)

V. 22 Kal ipxerai efs tQv
ipxi'iyvvaydyuv . . . ISiip
ainbv . . . (iii and 455)

V. 23 Svydrpioi' (vii)
V. 27 ^X^oOtra iv t^

Sx^V • • • fl^aro rod Ijia-

tIov airod (t and i)

V. 38 Kal Ipxovrai els

Tbv oXkov (iii and vii)'
v. 39 oiK iiriSarcv (ii)
v. 41 Kpan}(ras W/s

Xetpbs ToO vaidiov (vii) "
vi. 2 ijp^aTo SiSiaKCiv

iv tJ avvayuyg, Kal ol

ToWoi dKoiovres d^eirM/ir-

aovTo \iyovTcs ^

Mt.

viii. 33 ol 8J pbffKovres
i^XBev els

Lk.
e^e\96vTa Zl ret.

Sai|J.(Svia

IdbvTes Si ol

viu. 34
pdffKovres

viii. 35 IJiSXAoK . . . Kal
^\0av

viii. 41 Kol ISov ^\9ei'
<iy^;p . . . dpxtiV TTjs aw-
ayuyris

vni. 34
ijir6,VTrifftv

ix. 18 ISoi ipxiav [els]
7rpo(re\0i!iv (marg. curcX-
6ci)v (? =els i\8iiv), cm.
TrpotreXflibx')

ix. 18 Bvyit^p viii. 42 9i;7<iTijp

ix. 20 (and Lk. viii. 44) irpoo-eXfiouo-a . . . ^\j/aTO
Toif Kpcunr^Sov roD Ifiartov airov

ix. 23 Koi IXSuv 6 'I. viii. 51 eXSuv Si els t^v

eis "riiv o^KCav oUCav

ix. 24 (and Lk. viii. 52) oi ^op avidavev

ix. 25 ixp&TriiTev t^s
xiii. 54 • • ■ iSlSa<TKev

ai5rwy, djirre iKirXiiatyeiTdai
atiTois KoV \iyeu>, . . .

vi. 4 Kol l\eye>i (v) (? vi) xiii. 57 o Si 'I. £tir«v

vi. 6 tAs Kiiims k6kX(p
(t)

vi. 7-13 ""^ TrpoffKaXei-
rai . . . ■fjp^aro airois
airoaTiWew , . . Kal
iSiSov ainois i^ovaiav tuv
irvevii&TUV tuv &Ka$dpTOiv
. . . iKiropevbixevoi iKetBev
iKTLvd^are rbv xovv . . .
Kai i^eXBbvres iKiipv^av tva
fieravouffiVj Kal Saifibvia
. . . i^i^aWov . . . Kal
idep&irevov. (t) (iii) (vii)*

Since

ix. 35 Tks irdXcis irdo-as
Kal rds Kthfias

X. 1-14 Kai xpoaKaXe-
o-a|j,cvos . ■ . ISiOKtv airois
i^ovfflav Tvev/idray aKO-
Bdprmi, SiuTe iK^dWeiv
airk Kal itfoimiav (?)
Traffoc vdcrov Kai (?) naa-av
imKaKlav . . . a7r^0T€LXEV
. . . KTjpi/O'creTe \4yovTes
6t(. ''RyyiKev tj Pao-iXeCa
Tuyv oipavwv . . . 8ai|JL<SvLa

viii. 54 Kpar-^iras t^s
Xeipbs avrfis

iv. 16-22 . . . els t1\v
ffwayosy^p . . . ^p^aro 5^
Xiyeiv irpbs a-irois . . . Kai
trdvTes ifiapripow , . . Kal
iBaiim^ov . , . Kol ^eyov

iv. 23 Koi elirei' . . .
tXirtv Si. . . (?)

xiii. 22 Kard ircSXcis Kal

KdjpUlS

ix. 1-6 (Tui'KaXeo-iip.evos
di . , . ^SaKev aiirots S{iva-
pxv Kal ^^ovtrlav itrl (?)
irdvra rh Sai|j.6vi.a Kal
v6<rov% iepanrtiav. Kal
oTrloTtiXtv aCrois Kt]p4<r-
o-ei.J' Tr;>' Pad-iXcCav toC
Qeov Kal laaBai . . . i^fp-
X<S|i€voi . . . TTjs irdXcus
IkeCvi)! . . . rbv Kovioprbv
. . . dTroTtvd(riTeTe . . ,

iK^dWere . . . i^ep\6fLevoi,

house," rather than "home," isjhere intended, oixCa is more suitable

1 Mk. V. 38.
than oIkos.

2 Mk. V. 41. The repetition of " child " immediately after the use of the word in the preceding
verse is not necessary for clearness, and the noun might be corrected to the pronoun as an im-
provement of style.

3 Mk. vi. 2. The styles are here curiously reversed. Mk. has a participle, Mt.-Lk. /cat. But
considering the length of the Lk. extract the similarities in Mt.-Lk. are very slight.

* Mk. vi. 7. As in Mk. v. 2, 13, Lk. avoids wceCjixa aKoBaprav. Mk. avoids i/do-os (362), the
regular Gk. for "disease."

[544]

A COMPLETE TABLE OF THE

Mk.

vi. 8 et /i^ pa^Bov /idvoVj
/j,^ ApToy, /47; wfipav, /iii els
T^K fiii/ijy x"'^"^"! (t) (vii) '

vi. 14 6 (SatnXeiJs 'HpiS-
Svi (t)

vi. 16 IXeyev (v)

vi. 31-34 Koi X^et
aiSrots, Aeyre ^/Aets auToi
HOT-' IStav els (pnniov tAitok
Ka£ avairaiffoffde 6\lyov,
Tiffav yd,p ol ipxip^yoi Kai
oi iTrdYOKTES TToXXoi Koi
oud^ tpayelv eifKalpovv, koX
aTrriKSov hi rip irKolip els
eprjfiop T6irov Kar' Idiav.
Kdl etSav avTois inriyov-
ras KoX eyvdJtrav TroXXoi,
Kal Trefg dirb iraawi' ruiv
irSKeav ffwiSpa/ioii ixetxal
TrporjKBov ainois. . , . Kai
ijp^aTO SiddiTKeLV airods
TToXXii (t)

vi. 35 Kai ijSr} Upas
TToWijs yevo/iivrjs (vi)

vi. 36 airSKmov airois,
tva . . . dyopiityutnv ^awois
tI <l>&yacnv (i and vii) ^

vi. 37 Kai X^ouirtv a^r^
(or vi. 38 Koi yvSvTes
\^yov(nv) (t) (vi)

vi. 41 . . . idlSov Tois
fiadTjTais tva, -KapaTidiJoaiv
airois, Kal Tois Bio lx6ias
ilUpiuen vaaiv (i)

vi. 43 KKAdjuiTa BibdsKa
Ko^tvuv TXriptiimra (+)

Mt.

. , . Tiis it^Xeus ^kcCvtjs
iieroiiiare rbv KoviopTiSv

X. 9, 10 . . . XP""'^"
IMiSi ftpTvpov, uriSi ^aX-
kAk els rds fi6yos i/JMv,
pAl Trijpav . . . |ii]Si fi&pSov

Lk.

SnJpX'""'o . . . Koi Sepa-
ireiovTes vavTaxov

ix. 3 . . . p.^JTe p&pSov
H^Te iriipav iiirre Aprrov
li.i]Te ofrfipiov, . . .

xiv. I (Lk. ix. 7) 'SpdjSTjs 6 TCTpadpxi)$

xiv. 2 etirev

xiv. 13, 14 aKoiaas Si 6
'I. d»«x<ipri<r«v iKeWep iv
irKolip els Ipri/iov rbwov
Kwr* Ibiav Kol aKoiaavres
oL 6)^X01 'f|KoXov6t|<rav
air^ ire^XI '^'"'^ ™'' "■AXeuK
. . . Kai i9tpi,invffev tovs
appCiffTovs aiiTwu

xiv. 15 i^las Si 76i'o-
/aA*!;! . , .

xiv. 15 . . . diriXvo-oK
Tois SxXous, Hvo . . .
d7op(iiru(ru< ^avrois pptS-
p.ara''

xiv. 17 Ot Si X^ouo-o'
o6t(J . . . OiiK ^xo/^f"

xiv. 19 . . , ^SuKev TOLs
fui8i)Tius Tois Aprovs, ol Si
IM$riTa.l TOij Sx^°'''

xiv. 20 ri irepi<rcrevoi>
rwi' KXacTjudriav SthSeKa
KO(plvovs TrXiipeis

ix. 9 cIlTEV

ix. 10, II Kal wapaXa-
P&v airois i■!^e)^<!)plt\lrev
Kar' ISlav els ttSXiv koXou-
/i4ri]i> B. ol 5i 8xXot
yvbvres ^KoXov6T|<rav
avT^j Kai . . . To^ XP^^^^
(xovras Bepairttos ISro

ix. 12 1^ Si ii/iipa ijp^aTO
KXlveiv

ix. 12 . . ., dirSKvfrov
tJiv 6y^ov, tva . , . koto-
XdawffLv Kal eUpoiffiv eirL'
(nnfffiiv

ix. 13 ol Si etwav, OiK
elalv . , . el fv/pri ,
dyoptiffoifiev . . . Pp(6-

HOTO'

ix. 16 iSidov TOIS /jLadtj-
Tois vapaBeXvai rip SxXif)

ix. 17 fh irepurirevarav
airois KXatr/iiTiiiv K6<pivoi
SiiSexa

1 Mk. vi. 8. The precepts about " saluting," " shoes " (but see 390 (ii) («) a), " the labourer,"
etc., are omitted because, though Mt. and Lk. both have them, Lk. does not place them here,
but in the Sending of the Seventy. They form part of the Double Tradition.

2 Mk. vi. 36 Ti (fiayoKni', " what to eat," corrected into " food " here by Mt., later on by Lk.
ix. 13, probably independently. The correction is a very natural one.

CORRECTIONS IN GREEK

[544]

Mk.
vi. 44 (om. ibffd) (vii)
viii. 1 1 aTfiistov diri toC
oipavov (vii)

viii, 12 Hi] yevei aihri

et dod'^fferai rg yeveq,
Tairg aifneiov (t)

viii. 14 iireXidovTo
Xa^eiv &fyrous , , , Kai
SieariWeTo airots X^oij'
Opare, pXivere dirb . . .
(t) (and i)

viii. 28 Sri 'IwivvTiv
. . ., KoX B,Woi . . . (vi)

viii. 29 iiroKpiBiU 6 II.
\4yei a^y, Si> elo Xptfrris *
(t) (also ii and v)

viii. 31 TToXXi TraBctv
Kal &TrodoKtfiaffd7Jvai. virh ^

viii. 31 /i«-4 TpeTsiifUpas
i,vaaTTJvai, (t)

viii. 36 tI yip <i0eX«
(mg. ii0eX^<r6i rbv) &i>6puj-
Tov KepSTJtrat . . . Kal
(vi and vii)

ix. 2 . . . ficre/iopipibBri
ffivpoffBev airCiv (t)

ix. 4 Kat &(pBTj aiiTOLs 'H.
ffi)!/ M., ffai ^trav trvvXa-
XoOvTfS (4B5, vii)

ix. 5 \iyei (v)

ix. 6 oi5 7&P ^5et t£
iiroKpiB^ (t)

ix. 6 (Kipo^oi y&p iy4-
vovTO^ (vii)

Mt.
xiv. 21 (io-eC
xvi. I (TTjfieiov 4k tov

xvi. 4 ^exeii irovi]pcl ical
/lOiXttXls tnjfieiov iTTLJ^Ttret, '
Kal tnrj^iov ov doB-^ffercu
air^ A ^i\ rh <rr|)ictov
'loiva (Mt. xii. 39 adds
ToG wpotp^Tov)

xvi. 5, 6 i\B6vTcs oi
)ia6i|TaV . . . iireXaBovTo
&PTOVS \apeiv . . . elirev
ai5T0ts 'Opare Kal irpotr-
^Xere iirb . . .

xvi. 14 oi /i^v 'loiii'i'i;!'
. . ., dXXoi Si

xvi. 16 iiroKpiBfU Sk S.
n. ctTTCv, Si> el 6 Xpiffris,
6 vtds Toi) 0eov toO fffli/Tos

xvi. 21 TTOXXA TTOffei!'

dTrb . . .

Lk.
ix. 14 ioo-«£
xi. 16 ffyjfjieTov k^ oiipavoO

xi. 29 . . . -^ Veveo aCn/
7ej'ed irovifpd ^(Ttii' '
crrifieiov fTjTei, Kol trri/ieiov
ov SoS^fferai air^ «l (i^
TO <rT||j.Etov 'luvd

xii. 1 . . . ijp^aTO
X^yeLv irpbs Toi/s |iaOT]Td.s
a^oD irpuToVf TI.potri\eTi
^avToh ctTri . .

ix. ig 'ludvvTiv , . .,
aXXoi Se . , .

ix. 20 n. 8{ dwOKpiSels
(Ivrfv, Tbv XpuTT&v ToS
OeoS

ix. 22 iroXXct iraBetv Kal
airoSoKtfiaffBTjvat wvrh . . .

xvi. 21 (Lk. ix 22) T^ '''plTTji TifUpf iyfpSrpiat

xvi. 26 Ti 7ap ihijieKf}-
B'fifferat dvBpoxrros ^d.v . . .

KepSTICTI, T^ 8J . . .

xvii. 2 . . . /lereiiop-
(pdiBij ^fiirpotrBev adr&v,
Kal V^afi-ij/ev tJ» Trprfo-wirov
aJToO u; 6 ^Xtos . . .

xvii. 3 Kal ISov (S^^t;
arSrois M. Kal 'H. ffUKXa-

xvii. 4 ctircv

xvii. 5 en avroS XoXoOk-

TOS,

xvii, 6 /cat e'0o/3^6T]o-av
ffipbSpa

ix. 25 Tt 7otp ti^eXetrat
(mg. uj0eXet) avBpunros
KepdT](ras . . . ^aurii' S^ , . .

ix. 29 eyivero iv T(p
TpoiTSTJX'^a&ai aitrbv rb
eTSos ToO irpoo-<5irOD auToB
^Tepov

ix. 30 Kol l8oti dvdpe^
56o (TvveXdXovv avrtp ■
oZni/es ^o-aK M. Kal 'H.
. . . oJ i<j)6ivTes . . .

ix. 33 elirev

ix. 34 Tavra Sk avTOV
\4yovTos

ix. 34 ^0o|8^flt)<rav Si . ..

1 Mk. vi. 44. Mt. xiv. 21, Lk. ix. 14 uo-ei is a correction for style : the writers do not bind
themselves to the exact number of " five thousand."

2 Mk. viii. 31. Comp. i K. ix. ao (A) v7rd=z Chr. viii. 8 dtn-d, Lev. xxvi. 43 vir (B ab F an)
aUTaiv.

3 Mk. ix. 6. *£k0o^O5 occurs in N.X. only here, and Hebr. xii. 21 "Moses said, / exceed-
ingly /ear and qvake^* eK(^oJ3d9 et/it leal evrpoiioi, where the writer is referring to the words of
Moses in Deut. ix. 19 "/ was afraid of^Tr\y\ eK^oP6s et/it," where the object is "the anger
and hot displeasure " of the Lord. As Iki^o^os occurs here alone in Heb. LXX (and only once in

[544]

A COMPLETE TABLE OF THE

Mk.

ix. 7 ipiavi] • . . OBtos
(vii)'

ix. 17 . . . cLTreKplBTj
. . . AiddffKd\e {vu)^

ix. 18 o^K ttrxvo'av'

ix. 19 6 8k diroKpidels

aTTtcroy, . . . tpipere a^rbv
wpds fie. (t) (v)

ix.2y djfi<rT7}{oTn. oirais)
(i)
ix. 29 . . . ^

ix. 30 KOLKeidev ^|e\-
56pTes (vi)

ix. 31 ^Xeyev (v)

ix. 31 irapaSldorat (f)

ix. 35 et Tts 0Aet Trpw-
Tos elvaLf ^(TTai wdvTOJV
^(TxctTos /:al irdvriijv did-
Kovos (t) (see 429 for
fuller context)

Mt.

\i-

xvii. 5 ^wvt;
'Yovo'a, ODros

xvii. 14, 15 TrpoaijKBev
. . . YocUTreTwi' Kai X^'ywv,
KiJpie . . . 8x1

xvii. i6oLiK'fi8w'^0iio'ov

xvii. 17 dwoKpLdels 5e 6
' I. etTrev, ^fi YO^ei aTricrros
KoX %u(rTpa^\i,hfr\ . . .
<f)4peTi fj.Qi aiirbv (&8e

xvii. 18 idepaTreOdrj 6
irais

xvii. 20 . .

xvii. 22 (rvffTpetpOfiiyujv
8€ aifTuiv

xvii. 22 etirev

xvii. 22 )j.^XXei . . .
TrapadidoarQai

xxiii. 1 1 6 d^ |ieC^<i>v
v\i.u>v iarai vfjiQv didKovos

Lk.

ix. 35 tfnavT] , , . X^-
70vo-a, OCtos

ix. 38 4^67]<r€P \4ybiv,
Ai8d<rKa\€f . . . iSri

ix. 40 Kal oi>K ^Buv^flt]-
crav

ix. 41 dTTOKpidelf d^ 6
'Itjit. etirev, ''fi yeveb. dina--
ros Kal SicoTTpa^iUvt], . . .
TTpoffdyaye £Sc rdi' wUi' aov

ix. 42 Idaaro rhv iraiSa

xvii. 6 . . .

ix. 43 irdvTbJv Si ^ai'-

ix. 43 etircv
ix. 44 ^UXXci irapadi-
docrOai

xxii. 26 ... 6 |i€C£wv
iv it^lv yiviadoj tlis 6
uedyrepoSf Kal 6 ijyodfieyos
Ljs 6 dtaKOvuJv

non-Heb., i Mace. xUi. z), it may be taken as .ilniost certain that Mk., in using this word, is
drawing a parallel (probably drawn by the author of the Hebrew Gospel) between the disciples
on " the Holy Mount " and Moses on Mount Sinai. But the Epistle to the Hebrews (xii. 18-24)
deprecates such a parallel. And the verb ck^o/Scii/ i.s almost always used in LXX (as on the
single occasion (2 Cor. x. 9) where it is used in N.T.) of "scaring" or "frightening away."
Hence it is a bad word to describe holy or reverential fear : and hence in Hebr. xii. 23 some
authorities (Alford gives, among others, Chr-mss^ and Thdrt.), and one or two inferior authorities
here, have efufto^ot or »^d/5os eKpdrrjtrev aurouy (Swete here gives "eie^. (vel eu.^.)" as a v.r. of
several MSS.). The difference of phrase and order in Mt. and Lk. shows that, in this case, they
were not following the same Corrector of Mk. but obeying a general tendency. The verb transl.
in Deut. ix. 19 eK^oj8o5, = in Jer. xxii. 25 euXapeZa-Oat, Jer. xxxix. 17 (^o^eto-flai, also fi«'6eti'(i),
treUiv (i), and StevAajSetctfai (i).

This early dislike of eit^o^os may have caused here not only an alteration of the ivoni itself^
but also of the connection. Mk. represents the fear as consequent on the apparition of Moses and
Elias, Mt. as following the voice from heaven, Lk. says expressly, "they feared when ihey
entered into t}ie cloud."

1 Mk. ix, 7 and ix, 17. Ae'yovtra, or Xeywi/, softens abruptness, but in Mt. xvii. 14 the con-
struction is changed so that Keyiav becomes necessary. Comp. Mk. i. 11 ^mvr} . . ., :Sv eT . . ., Mt.
iii. 17 ifnavri . . . Keyovtra, OSroy . . ., Lk. iii. 22 ijxavriv . . . yevetrOat, Sv el . . .

The agreement of ort in Mt. xvii. 15, Lk. ix. 38 is probably a coincidence, the context being
different. The former has " Because he is lunatic" ; the latter "Because he is my only son."

2 Mk. ix. 18 : comp. Ezr. x. 13 " we are not able (riD j'N)," ou/c eartv 8vvafiii~i Esdr. ix.
II ovK Icrxva-oixev.

^ Mk. ix. 29. The parallel Mt. xvii. 20, in answer to the question " Why could not we cast
him out?" gives an answer (entirely different from Mk.'s) mentioning "faith as a grain of
mustard-seed" and a ''mountain." Lk. does not give the question about "casting out" : but, in
a different part of the Gospel, Lk. xvii. 6 mentions "faith as a grain of mustard-seed" in con-
nection with a " sycamine tree " and "forgiving." This is not an "agreement against Mk."

316

CORRECTIONS IN GREEK

[544]

ix, 50 Si'aXoi'7^i'7;7-ot (t)

A. I Kai iKeWev ivcurrdis

^pX^TaL els tA 6pta rijs

'lovScUas Kol •K^pa.v roO

XopSAvov (t)

X. II, 12 6s Sk dTToXiStrj
, . . fioixS.Tat . . . Kdl
€av ain-Tj dTroXi/O'aa'a , . .
yafi'/iirr) &\Kor, /lOixSrai '

X. 14 &<t>eT€ t4 raiSla
(pX^irOai. irp6s fie, /ii)
KtaXierc avrd (ii)

X. 21 iv oipav^ (^i")

X. 22 OTlryi/dffOS fTri Tl(!

XiYCj. {+)

X. 23 Kai 7rcpij3Xe^d/ie-
»oi 6 'I. X^« (v and vi)

X. 25 5t4 Tpvim\iS,i
pa<pi5os dte\6eiv ij TXoOtrioi'
. . dffe\eeLV (t)

X. 26 ot 5^ 7repto"ffws
efeTrXijirffOi'TO (t)

X. 27 i/ipXi^a! airois
6 'I. X^et, (ii and v)

X. 28 ijp^aTO 'Kiyeiv . . .
■fiKoXovS-fiKa/j-a' (v and vii)

X. 29 lifn] o'l. (ii and i) ^

Mt.

V. 13 luapavSTJ

xix. I Koi iyivero Sre
erAcffCK . . . /ierijpeii
awb r^s FoXiXatas Kai
flXfiei' els t4 Spta ttjs 'Iou-
dafas TT^pav toO 'lopddvov

xix. 9 8s Sk djroXiJtrj

. . . flOixS.T(U

4'. 32 iras o a,ro\iuv
. . . /ioix«i'Sfl>'ai . . .
dTToXeXi'/A^VY^v

xix. 14 d^ere ret TraiSia
Kai fiii KuXilere ai>ni
f X^etc 7rp6s /Ae

xix. 21 CI' oupavois

xix. 22 ciKoviras . . .
t6v X6701' [toDtoi']

xix. 23 6 S^ 'I. ctircv . . .

xix. 24 Sia TpT))iaTos
patpiSos Aire\6Ety ^ ttXoiJ-
(Tiov . . . (marg. 5id rpv-
rfifiaTOS pa^LSos Sie\$cii> fi
irKo6ffiov eltreKBeiv)

xix. 25 aKovo-avTcs Si 01
^$7p-aX ^f e7rX?J(r(roi'TO , . .

xix. 26 iiip\4\lias St 6
'I. elircv aiJTOts

xix. 27 (Llv. xviii. 28) etirev

Lk.

xiv. 34 (uopavEhg

xvii. II Kai lyiviTo iv
Tip iropeiieffflai . . . JiTJp-
XETo 5id /i^o'ai' SaftapCas
Kai FaXiXaCas

xvi. 18 was o dTToX^uv
. . . fioixiiei. . . . diro-
XeXiiyuivnv

xviii. 16 S^ere ra, iraiSla
ipXeiBai. Trpis yii£ Kol pJt)
KwXiicTC airrd

xviii. 22 iv [tois] oi)pa-

xviii. 23 ttKOiio-aSTauTa

xviii. 24 iSCiv 8i airbv
[6] 'I. etirev . . .

xviii. 25 . . . 5td Tp^j-
(laros §ekbv7ii elireXSeo'
^ irXoiJo'ioi' . . . el(TeK6eiv

29

X. 30 eicaToi'TaTrXao'/oi'a

(+)

X. 32 iJpfoTO . . . Xiyuv XX. 17 thttv

rd /[i^Xoi'To (v)

X. 34 /terd rpcis ii/iipas
avacTTT^aerai (see Mk. viii.

31)

X. 42 Kai ... 6 'I.
X^ei (v and vi)^

xix. 28 6 Si 'I. (lirev xviii,

avToCs aJiTois

xix. 29 (Lk. xviii. 30) iroXXaTrXao'/oi'a

xviii. 26 elTav Si ol
aKoviravTes

xviii. 27 6 Si ihrev,

■^(coXo>;9i)cra|*ev

8J etircv

XX. 19 TJ TpCrg ijftipf
eyepB'^erai (marg, ava-
(rrfifferai)

XX. 25 6 81 'I. . . .
etir€v

xviii. 31 etirev

xviii. 33 tJ ■^/x^pj rg
TpCrji dvaffTTjffeTat

xxii. 25 6 Si ttirev . . .

" 1 Mk. X. II, 12. As compared with Mt. <;. 32, the difference between Mk. and Mt.-Lk.
belong to class iv : bat Mt. v. 32 is part of the Double Tradition. Mk. x. 12 altogether differs
from anything in Mt.-Lk. If we read Mk. thus :— icat eai- avi^ aTroKmnuri toi> avSpa avnj!
•).a/n)<ni oMo! (for aWlo) jioixaiui, the active yafielK will then be rightly used ("take to wife")
and Mk. will agree with ML-Lk. With regard to Mt.-Lk. mi!, see above, note on Mk. iii. 10.
2 Mk. A. 29. Comp. also Mk. xii. 24, where Mt.-Lk. eIir6v=Mk. efij.

[544]

A COMPLETE TABLE OF THE

Mk.

X. 47 ilTTlII (t)

X. SI 'PojSjSowel (vii)
xi. I dre iY^l^oviTiii (iii)

xi. I awojTiWei, (iii)
xi. 2 Kal \iyei (iv)
xi. 2 Xi5(raTC aiirdv /cai
tpipere (t) (and iv)
xi. 3 etirare (vii) '

xi. 6 icoffibs elirev (? i,
but context different)

xi. 7 (pfpovaiv (t) (and
iii)

xi. 7i 8 ^TTt/SdXXoi/ffi;'

iKdBurev iv' airdv. Kal
ToXKol t4 IfiiTM airuv
((TTpoitrav els rijv 6S6v (vi
and vii)

xi. 9 Kal (vi)

xi. 9 (xpa^ov '

xi. i8 (cai (vi)

xi. 19 Kal Srav d^/i iyi-
vero, i^eropeiovro (marg.
i^evopeiero) Ifio TJjs ttA-
Xeus (t)

xi. 22 'Exere Trianv

e»o (t)

xi. 28 fKeyov (iv or v)

xi. 29 6 £^ ■ . . elTTci'
. . . "EirepuT^troi i/ias ha
\byov, Kal iTOKplSitri fioi
<t)

xi. 31 Kal (vi)

xi. 32 iWi, elwunev . . ,
(t) (vii)

xii. I ijp(aTO oiirois iy
Tapapo\aU XaXeii' (vii) '

Lk.
xviii. 37 vapipxerai
xviii. 41 K^pic
xix. 29 iyivero uit <J7-

^KTeK . . .

xix. 29 dTrforeiW . . .
xix. 30 "Kiyuv, . . ,
xix. 30 Kal XiJiravTis

airiv i,yi,yerf

xix. 31 . . . oOtui

JpctTc in , . .

xix. 32 Ka8i)S elrrev

airots

xix. 35 '(JYaYOV

"'"• 35i 36 implfaiiTes
airdv t4 Ijudria iirl riv
vS\ov hrf^t^aaay tJx
'I. TTOpevofiivov 8^ at^ToO
iireiTTpiivvvov t4 I/idria

xix. 37 ik

xix. 37, 38 ^i/jfoi/TO . . ,
aiVetv . . . X^-yovTcs
xix. 47 Si

xxi. 37 (in different
context) ^v 5i t4s ij/iipai
in T<f leptf SiSderKiaii, T4t
Si viKTai iitpxhiitvoi

Ka\oiiJ,aiov 'EXaiw;>
xvii. 6 El ^x""* vlaTiv

XX. 2 elffoc X^70VTe«
XX. 3 diroKpiSAs 5^ etrev

. . . ipun-^ffu i/ias K&ydi
\iyov, Kal itirar^ /loi

XX. 5 ot 8i . . .

XX. 6 , . . id,v Si ttiru-
ixev

XX. 9 fipiaro Si irpit
tSv \abv \iyeiv rijv vapa-
/3oX<|v rairiiv

I Mk. xi. 3. Mt.-Lk. prefer the future (to the imperative), perhaps as being less abrupt, and
more suitable here, following a conditional clause. ^ Mk. xi. g. See note on Mk. xiii. 3.

3 Mk. xii. 1. " In parables " suggests that Jesus was on the point of uttering more parables
than one, and is therefore corrected by Mt.-Lk. to the singular.

Mt.
XX. 30 ■irap47ei
XX. 33 Kipit
xxi. I Sre f[yyurav , . .

xxi. I iviffTfiXev . . .

xxi. 2 X^ciiv . . .

xxi. 2 XiiiravTts d.Yd'yjTi

xxi. 3 ipitre iiri

xxi. 6 KoSil)! (Twira^cv
a^ois

xxi. 7 l)7O70v

xxi. 7, 8 iiciBriKav Iv
air&v t4 i^drta, Kal 4ire-
KdOtaev iwdva airCiv. i
Si TrXeiffTos ix^os iarpuaav
lauruc t4 ijudria Iv T§
iS^

xxi. 9 Si

xxi. 9 e/cpofoK X^yovTes

xxi. 15 Si

xxi. 17 Kal KaTaXiiriiv
ai5T0i>s ^^ijXSe;' *|w t?s
7r6Xcus eJs Bijdavlav, Kal
•i\i\lir6ri iKci

xxi. 21 'Eav ^xi''^

TrlffTtV

xxi. 23 . . . X^70VT«s

xxi. 24 diroKpiScls Si
. . . eXirev . . . epwrijtrw
iiuas K&7(i X15701' ?;'0, Sv
idv ctirT|T^ jioi,

xxi. 25 ol Si

xxi. 26 . . . {4v Si
flVwyuec

xxi. 33 SWrfv vapa-
^oM\v iKoiirare

CORRECTIONS IN GREEK

[544]

) )

Mk.

xii. 2, 3 . . . iva vapi,
tQv yeupyCir Xd/Sj dird
Twe KafurHv toO d|U7reXffl-
Kos • xal \ap6iiTes airbv (i)

xii. 6 (omits) (ii)

xii. 7 iKeivoi di o!
yewpyol TTpis iavrois etTav
(t)

xii. 9 tI 7roii}(rei . . . ;
AeiJo-eroi (t) (ii)

xii. II, 12 (omits)

xii. 12 (simply 3rd pers.
pi. "they")(i)

xii. 15 (pipere (vii) (see
449)

xii. 17 elire;' (i)

xii. 18 (pxavTou. . . .,
o'invei "Kkyovaw . . ., xal
iirripiiTav (iii, iv)

xii. 19 . . . Kol /cara-
\lirt) ywaiKa koI jtij) i,<f>v
riicvov (iv)

xii. 22 ^crxoTOK irivrav
rai^vii)

xii. 23 iv ii ivauTTdffei,
rlvoi airuv (arai yvvf/ ;
(u)

xii. 24 (ijni (? vii) '

xii. 28 eU Tuv 7po/i-
imriiav . . . iirripiirriireii
aMv, Tlola. iarlv hiro'K^
irpiSmi irdvTuv ; (t)

xii. 29 dTTcKpWij (ii) ■■

Mt.
xxi. 34, 35 . . . \aSeiv
Tois KapTois aiirou. Kal
\ap6vTes ol 7CupYol . . .

xxi. 37 Si

xxi, 38 0! Si yeupyoi
IScSvTCS r6v vl6v eXitov iv
iavTots,

xxi. 40 Jrai' oiv l\8ii
, . .,tI iroti)7« T0« yeup-
701s iKetvois ; \iyovcriv
airif , . . •

xxi. 44 Ixal o ir«ruv
«irl Tiv XC9ov . . . W. H.
bracket.']

xxi. 45 ol &pxicpcts Kal
ol iapuratoi

xxii. 19 ^TTiScC^aTc

xxii. 21 . . . \iyei
airots

xxii. 23 . . . wpo<rfi\dov
. , . \iytnnts . . ., Kal
iirriptSynfrav

xxii. 24 pi)) t\av riKva

xxii. 27 ficrrepov Si wiv-

TUV

xxii. 28 iv T% dvaariaei
olv, tIvos . . . ;

xxii. 29 fXirev

xxii. 35, 36 imipilniriiTev
eU i^ airwv vo|jiiK&s 'ireipd-
^(ov ai}r6K, AiSdo-KoXc,
TTofa ^I'ToX'i) yiteydXif 4v T<p
v<Sp(!> ;

xxii. 37 i Si f^

Lk.

XX. 10 Xva i,vb toO Kop-
TToO rou d/iTreXiScos fitiffou-
<rii> airif. ol Si 7«i>p7oC

XX. 13 Si

XX. l4llS<SvTCs Si airbv
ol yeupr/ol SieKoiyliovTo
irpAs dXXi)Xous X^o»«t

XX. I5i 16 . . . ri oCv
7roti)(ret ai)rots . . .; 'BXtii-
fferoi . . . &Koi<ravTei Si
etvav . . .

XX. 18 was 6 ireo-dv
etc.

XX. 19 o£ ypapipAiTeh
Kal ot dpxicpcts
XX. 24 ScClan

XX. 25 . . . elTrei/ trpbs
a{iT0i)s

XX. 27 irpo<rtX6Ai'T6s Si

, . . ol X^OVTtS . . ., ^TTI)-

piinjcrav

XX. 28 , . . 2x<ov 7i<-
vaiKa, Kci oSros Atekvos
V, ■ ■ ■

XX. 32 lirrcpoy Ka2 . . .

XX. 33 ^ yvvii oSv ^K
tJ dKocrrdiret, Hvos . . , ;

XX. 34 clircv

X. 25, 26 2ioi) vofjiiK^s
ns iviarri ^/(irEipdfax'
oiiriy, X^ui', AiSdoTKaXc,
tI rroiiferos . . . xKripovo-
/*i)(r(i) ; 6 Si etrev wpbs
airbVf'Ev T<p v^iufi H ,. .;

X. 27 Si iiroKpiOels
etirev

1 Mk. xii. II. The words in Mt. are omitted by SS.

2 Mk. xii. 22 uses iaxarov as a preposition, a use not recognized in L. & S. but found in
Deut. xxxL 27, 29. That the scribes disliked it is shewn by the largely-supported iaxavt] (comp.
2 Mace. vii. 41 ivxirrt Si twv viStv tj fi^rrip iTeKevTTjtre). Mt.-Lk. adopt the more legitimate

VtTTffiOV.

8 Mk. xii. 24. Comp. Mk. x. 29.

* Mk. xii. 29. In Mk. and Mt. the answer is'made by Jesus, in Lk. by the lawyer.

[544]

A COMPLETE TABLE OF THE

Mk.

xii. 30 i^ SXijs Trjs Kap-
Sla! (^1 rep. 4 times) (? vii)

xii. 35 Kal &TOKpi$eU 6
'I. i\eyev diSda-Kiov iv rip
iepip (i and vi)

xii. 36, 37 airbs A.
etTTCv . . . \4yH , . ., Kal
vbBev . . . ; (ii and vii) '

xii. 38 Kal iv rrj Stdaxv
airoO IXtyev (f)

xii. 38 8e\6vTO>y , . .
•KspnraTeiv Kal ^viraiTfiois
(t)

xiii. 2 6j oi ixT] (COTO-
\u95 (? vii)

xiii. 3 Kal KaBijiUvov
avrov . . . iirfjpijyra ainbv
(vi)(?ii)2

xiii. S (^pf aro) X^7ei;' (v)

xiii. 6 iroWol ^Xeiiffoc-
Toi (ii)

xiii. 7 5a yeviaBai, (ii)

xiii. 8 Iffovrai. ireifffwl
Karci. rdTOVSf eaovrai 'Kip.ol
(ii)

xiii. 9 Kal iirl Tryepivav
Kal ^affikiiav ffrad-^treo'de
(?viii)3

xiii. II . . . dW 6
^4;' doBy i/uv . . . (viii) *

xiii. 12 Kal irapaSiliaa
(vi)

xiii. 16 6 els rhv aypbv
(vii)

xiii. 18 iaovrai y&p al
■fipy^pai. iKeivai BXItpis (vii)

Mt.

Lk.

xxii. 37 ii/, rep. 3 times

X. 27 ^f, once, ^^z rep.

3 times

xxii. 41 avvriyiiiviav Z\

XX. 41 eXvev ii irpin

tS>v 4>. 4irripil>Tr]ff{v a^TOvs
6 'I.

ovTois,

xxii. 43-45 Ka\ei . . .

XX. 42-44 X^yet . . .

\iyuv . . . ei oiv A. KaX(t

A. oiiv . . KaXct, Kal

. . ., irus . . .;

irSs . . . ;

xxiii. I rdre 'I. i\&-

XX. 45 dKOI/O^'TOS Si

"Ktjffev TOts 6x^01$ Kal rots

Travrbs rod \aov ehrep Tois

|Ui6T]Tats a^oC X^7aiv

|ia8T]TaLS,

xxiii. 6 . . . ()>i<X'Owi £^

XX. 46, 47 . . . 9eX6i'-

Trin irpuTOKKiaiav . . . Kal

Tiov irepLTareiv . . Kal

Tois davaff/iois

<|>lXoi/;'TWI' dffTTOffpO^S

xxiv. 2 . . .d; 0^ /cara-

xxi. 6 ... 8s oi5 Kara-

Xufl^o-erai

XuSiJo-erot

xxiv. 3 KaB-qp.il/ov S«

xxi. 7 iwripiiniaav Si

aiiroC . . . vpoff9j\8ov . . .

oiTjl/ X^70VTES

\fyovT«s

xxiv. 4 etirev

xxi. 8 Aitev

xxiv. 5 TToXXoi 7dp iXei-

xxi. 8 TToXXoi 70P i\e6-

ffovTai,

ffovrai

xxiv. 6 Sef yop yeviadai

xxi. 9 Set 7ap raOra

xxiv. 7 ""' (aovTai.
\{,pol Kal (reiirputl Karii,
tAttous

A. 18 Ktti ^jri ijyepSva^
Si Kal paffi\tts ax9i\<re<r8e

X. 19 doB'^aeraL ^dp

X. 21 irapaSibau Se

xxiv. 18 6 iv TCp aypa

xxiv. 21 ^araiyb.p t6t€
BXi^is

yeviaBai

xxi. 1 1 (reurpoi re pi^yd-
\oL Kal Kard rinrovs Xoipol
Kal Xt/H)i liTOvrai

xxi. 12 . . . d7ra70-
pLdnovs iwl ^affiXets (coi

xxi. 15 ^7(J) ^dp 5i6iTu
U/Ai^ . . .

xxi. 16 irapa5oB'/iai(r8e
U . .

xvii. 31 6 Iv d7p^

xxi. 23 . . . effTUi 7dp

dvdyKTj

1 Mk. xii. 36-37 treats David's words first as a ^asf fact and then as an extant and present
saying. Mt.-Lk. prefer the present in both cases.

2 Mk. xiii. 3. Mt.-Lk. add X^yovres here as in Mk. xi. 9, xv. 2. It tends to soften abrupt-
ness. Mt. omits "ask" as being implied in the following interrogative sentence, but adds his
favourite Trpoo^Xdov, a word that occurs in Mt. more frequently than in the whole of the rest
of N.T.

8 Mk. xiii. 9 ewt with genit. is good Greek. Perhaps Mt.-Lk. are returning to the Hebrew.
Mk. xiii. II has koX ti7o.v aytairLV vfia^ irapaSiSovr^s, which may be a conflate.
* Mk. xiii. n. The same Hebrew ('3) means both " but " and " for."

320

CORRECTIONS IN GREEK

[544]

Mk.
xiii. 21 'Ide iSe . . .
' ISe imt (vii)

xiii. 21 (omits) '

xiii. 25 ol dvvifji£is al
iv Tois oipavois (viii)

xiii. 30 fi^xp^' "' (v")
xiii. 31 01/ irapeXetfiroi'-
Tai (vii)

xiii. 35 yi.p (viii) "

xiv. lo'IoiiSas'IiTKapiiid,
(vii)

xiv. 1 1 iru! oi)t6v eil/caf-
piiis irapaSoi (? viii)

xiv. 12 Kal (vi)

xiv. 13 Kal X^7ei (v and
vi)

xiv. 19 "^p^avTo Auiret-
<r0ai (ii)

xiv. 25 Sti ofiK^T-t (t)
(484-6)

xiv. 29 ?07) '

xiv. 36 Kal Aeyei',
'Appd 6 waT'^p . , . dXX'
(iv and vii)

xiv. 37 ^pxerai (i)

xiv. 38 ^XStjtc cis
vcipaaiibv (vii)

xiv. 43 Kol tii^is . . .
TTapayiverax (iii and 455)

xiv. 46 (omits) (t)

xiv. 47 tfs 5^ [tis] twv
irapearrjKiTuv (riratrdiiei'os
rT)v p.6,X0'ipav ^aiffev (f)

xiv. 53 Kal i,w/iyayov
(vi)

Mt.
xxiv. 23 'ISoi aSe . . .

xxiv. 26 ni) ^I^BnTC-

xxiv. 29 al dwi/ieis
Tuv oipavav

xxiv. 34 '^cos [Slv\

xxiv. 35 0^ |if| TapiX-

xxiv. 42 8ti

xxvi. 14 6 Xe7i/«i'os

'lotfSoS 'I(r(fOplliTT|S

xxvi. 16 eiKaiplav iya
aiiT-Ji/ TcapaSQ
xxvi. 17 8J
xxvi. 18 6 Si ctircv

Lk.
xvii. 23 'ISoiP IKU f\
'ISoi SiSe (marg. om. fi)

xvii. 23 /iTj [dTT^XBriTe
/ii)5i] SiiifjjTe

xxi. 26 al Swifias t&v
ovpav&v

xxi. 32 £ci>s [&v]

xxi. 33 oi |i'f| 7ro/)eXei5-

(TOfTat

xii. 40 8ti

xxii. 3'Ioi(Sai'T6>'KaXoiJ-
^lefOK 'IffKapulmfv

xxii. 6 ei^KaipCav rov
irapaSovvai airbv

xxii. 7 Si

xxii. 10 o Si ctircv

xxvi. 22 Kol Xviroip-evoi xxii. 23 Kal . . . ijp^avTo

xxvi. 29 oiJ . . . dir'

xxvi. 33 etircv
xxvi. 39 Kal Xiyav,
Jldrcp p,ov . . . ' irX'fjv

xxvi. 40 Ipx^ai irpbs
Toiis |ia6T|Tds

xxvi. 41 tiir4\8riTe els
ircipaaiUv

xxvi. 47 Kal . , . ISoi
. . . IjXeev

xxvi. 5o6 8i'Ii)<r. clircv
avT(p, 'Braipe , . .

xxvi. 5 1 Kal ISoi eU . . .
iw^O'Tracrev t^v fidxaipav
airoS, Kal wwrafy.s

xxvi. 57 "' 8^ KpaH)-
aavT€s . . . dir^iyayov

xxii. 18 oS . . . dirb
roD vuv

xxii. 33 «tir€V ■

xxii. 42 X^oiv, ndrtp
. . . -irX^v

xxii. 45 i\Bi>v irp^s

TOVIS )Ul6l]Tds

xxii. 46 €l(rAfli)Te eh
Trapa<rp,bv

xxii. 47 ISov . . . Kal
Trpo^pXeTo aiSroiis

xxii. 48 'I. Si eIitcv
aira, 'loiiSa . . .

xxii. 49-51 ■ . . ei irari,-
^op-ev iv fiaxaiprj ; Kal
lirdToJcv efs tis^I oiirffi;' . . .

xxii. 54 cuXXa/Sii/Tes
Si . . . ^70701' KoX (.lai\-
yayov . . .

1 Mk. xiii. 21. The words in Lk. xvii. 23, if genuine, may be a conflate of 8tu£i)Te. Both
are very natural additions. Possibly Mk. xiii. 21 (Mt. xxiv. 23) "do not believe it "(which Lk.
omits) was in the Original " Do not 6e moved by it " ; and some interpreted this of literal motion.
Comp. Ezr. ix. 4 " trembled 2X (^^^) the words," hiaKtav \6yov=i. Esdr. viii. 69 iireKivovvro ry

2 Mk. xiii. 35. Tap is the Hellenic, ort the Hebraic rendering, of *3.

3 Mk. xiv. 29. Comp. Mk. xii. 24, x. 29.

21 321

[544]

A COMPLETE TABLE OF THE

Mk.
xiv. 54 Kal 6 n. . . .

els TTjy ai\^y . . ., xal
^v awKaB^iiievoi (t) (vi) '

xiv. 6i ai el 6 XpuTris
6 vlis ToO ei\oyrfToS ; (t)

xiv. 62 (omits) (t)
xiv. 65 . . . Kal \4yeiv
airifi Tlpoifyiyrevaov (f) (iv)

xiv. 66 SxTOj .

K&TUi

(t)

xiv. 68-70 oSre otSa
oilre iirlara/JLai. <ri tI \iyus
. . . 03tos ^f a^iDj' itrHv •
'0 6^ ^dXtv T/pvetTO' . . .
'AX9;9u)s i^ airuv el (t) "^

xiv. 72 dve/ivfiadi] rh
prlna (? vii)

xiv. 72 iiripaXiiv Ifc-
Xaiei- (t)

XV. I ol ApxLGpeis /xer&
Twi/ Trpeff^vripuv Kal

Mt.
xxvi. 58 6 S\ n. ^/coXoi)-
9eL . . . ^ftis TTJs a^rls
. . . Kol . . . iKiSriTO

xxvi. 63 , . . Ira iff.lv
eiir^s A ai el 6 Xpiffris
vl6s TOU 0€OV.
xxvi. 64 dir' Apri
xxvi. 68 X^70VT«s, 11/90-

^^TeUO-OC ^yl4U/, XpUTT^, tCs

liTTiv xaCiras <re ;
xxvi. 69 iKaStiTo Ifu

xxvi. 70-73 ovK oUa ri
X^76(s . . . OBtos ^c lierA
'l7)<r. ToO Naf. Kal ir&Kiv
•^pvfjffaro fiera SpKov &n
OvK oT5a rbv &v6p<i>irov
. . . 'AXijSffls Kal cru ^|
aiSrwj' el

xxvi. 75 ifivfiaBri tov

xxvi. 75 IIeXOuv ^u
iK\avirev iriKpfis

xxvii. I, 2 irdvTes oi

dpxtepeis Kal olTrpeffpirepoi

Lk.

xxii. 54-56 6 Si n.
^(coXoi)9ei . , . Trepia^iv-
Tuv Si irOp iv iiAaif Tijs
ai)Xi)s Kal ffuvKaBiffdvTdJVf
iKASifTO . . . idoGaa di
. . . Ka0i]ii,evov

xxii. 67-70 el ai el b
XpiarSs, fiirbv Vjiitv . . .
ai oBc el 6 vlis tov 0eov ;

xxii. 69 dir& tov vvv

xxii. 64 iirripiliTuv \4-
70VT€s lipo^i^evaov, t£s
loTiv 6 iraCiras cc ;

xxii. 56 Ka9i\ii^vov irpis
Ttt ipws

xxii. 57-60 OVK olda
aiTdVj yivai . . . Kal o-v
i^ airSm el. 6 Si II. lifni,
"AvSponre, o^k el/d . . .
'Eir' &\ri8elas Kal offros
|i€T afrrou ^v

xxii. 61 irreiivfiaBri ToO

xxii. 62 [e|eX6mv ii/o
lK\av<riv TTiKpus]

xxiii. I &irav t6 jrX^Sor
aiTuv 1\-^afov airhv

1 Mk. xiv. 54 : Mt.-Lk.'s agreement in the genit. avA^s is only casual. Their meaning is
different. The divergence of the four Evangelists here arises from a confusion (i) between av\if
meaning " gate (lyj!') " ahd " court (nsn)," (ii) between ':S^' (" before ") and nO'lkt") ("inner"),
and possibly (iii) between eW and ecru.

(i) Comp. Est. ii. 19, iii. 2 " the king's ^a^c (nVEi) " ovAij, but Est. ii. 11 "before (•js'j) the
court Osn) " Kara tyji' avA^i/, Est. vi. 10 " in the kings gate" LXX ev r^ avAp, but Lag. (a)
iv t4» JTuAwvt, Est. iv. 2 " He came even \~\]l) before ('JS?) the king's gate" ^K6ev eus t^s mJAij?
(A avAi]?), Est. iv. 2 " For none might enter within the king's gate" a.v\-qv (N c a marg. jnJAijv).

(ii) Comp. I K. vi. 17 "be/ore [it]" (A) 6 eff-tiraTOs (LXX om.), Est. v. i (lit.) "the court of
the house of the king tke inner (n'D'JSn) " eto-eAdoija-a irda-a^ Tas Bijpa^ Kareonj iviairLOv (leg. 'JEJ?)
TOV /SacriAew?, Lev. x. 18 " . . . into the sanctuary within (nD^JQ) ; ye should certainly have eaten,"
ets TO ayiov Kara irpotriiyirov etrto ^ayeirBe (confl. with *3S).

(iii) Comp. Lev. x. 18 "within," eo-u (A ew?), 2 Chr. xxix. 16 "came unio-the-inner-part-qf
(nD*3£3?) the house of the Lord," eXtni^Bov oi lepels eias els toi* oIkov (no v.r.)

In Est. iv. 2 " He came even before the king's gate, for none might enter within," the LXX
inserts "and stood [/asf\" after "gate." In the same way probably, in the Gospels, John,
taking the meaning to be "Peter came as far as the gate after him (innK) i.e. following Jesus
[and there stopped]," has expanded the narrative, inserting a mention of " standing," substituting
"door" for,"gate,"andconflating Vinn, "after him," as nnNl, "and a?iotker (disciple) " : "And
Simon Peter followed Jesus and [so did] another disciple . . . but Peter was standing ai the
door without "

2 Mk. xiv. 68-70. The similarities are complex, see 494-8, Lk.'s ical <ri might be regarded
as parallel to Mk.-Mt.'s /cat orv in the^rf^ denial. Also jncTa is used by Mk.-Mt. in the^rj^
denial.

322

CORRECTIONS IN GREEK

[544]

Mk.

ypaiiiuvriuv koX SKov rb

avviSpiov, Siiaavres rbv 'I.

i,iri)veyKav (vii) (see 449)

XV. 2 iirripiirriirev (ii)^

XV. 2 X^7ei (v, but ?0J7
for eXirev)

XV. 5 (om. airQ after
direKplffii) (i)

XV. 8, 9 fcal ivap&i o
(ixXos ^plaro alTetaBai.

6 5^ n. &TreKpi$7j a^ots
X^wK (? viii)

XV. II... iva naWor
rbv B. dTToXiJo"]; aOroTs (f)

XV. 12 Mk. om. here,
but see xv. g fl^Xere iiro-
Xtfffu (t)

XV. 13 oi 5^ jniXix
iKpa^av (ii) ^

XV. 14 oi 5^ wepuTtxm
ixpa^av Zraipuaov airbv ^

XV. 14 dTrAvffei' airoh
rbv B. /cai Trap^StaKev rbv
'Xriaovv (vi)

XV. 20 /cat ^Id-youirij' (iii)
(see also 505) ■

XV. 22 Koi ipipovnv
airiv (f)

XV. 24 CTavpovaiv airrbv
(t)

XV. 26 ^v Tj imypa^
rijs alrias airoS ... 6
/3afftXei)s (t. and i or vii) *

Mt.
ToO \aoO , . . Kal d^cravres
ainhv iirif^ayov . . .

xxvii. II {iir)ripiiTr]<rfv
. . . \t^av,
xxvii. II !<))i]

xxvii. 14 iTreKplBij aira

xxvii. 17 ^mrriyftiiyoiv
oiv aifuv ttirev

xxvii. 20 tva ahijUiavTai.
rbv B., Tbv tik 'I. d'TToX^ffii)-

ffiV

xxvii. 21 (1)tlvaii\iT(
. . . OTToXwu i/ilv ;

xxvii. 22 yjk'^oxiaiv ttAv-

xxvii. 23 ol 3^ TrepLfftru)s
Ixpa^of \iyovTcs ^avput-

6<)TW

xxvii. 26 i,Tri\v<rcv
airois rbv B., rbv Si
'Iijffovv . . . TrapidaKev

xxvii. 31 Kal atrfffayov

xxvii. 33 Kal 4XBi5vTes
xxvii. 36 ir'/ipovv airbv

iKCt (?)

xxvii. 37 iiriBTiKav
lirdj/u TTjS KetpoKriz a^oO
tV ahtav . . . OStos Sittiv
'I. 6 ^airiXeds

Lk.

xxiii. 3 iipdrrri<rei> . . .
xxiii. 3 2<f>i)

xxiii. 9 iireKplvaro
airio

xxiii. 13 n. Si o-vv-
KaXeirdjUevos . . . €tirev

xxiii. 18 ATpe tovtov,
dirbXvffov 8i iifuv rbv B.

xxiii. 20 (?) B^wi' 0x0-
Xvcai

xxiii. 21 ot d^ iiretpfivovy
Xfyoi'Tes

xxiii. 23 ahoiftevoi
airbv irTavpw6ff/ai (marg.
(TTavpCjaai)

xxiii. 25 dTT^Xwirei' S^
rii/ 5£a ardaiv . . . rbv Sk
'IriffoOv irapiSinKev.

xxiii. 26 Kal m airVJY-
a70v . . .

xxiii. 33 Kal Sre ^XSav

xxiii. 33 . . . (?) ixii
iirraipiaaav

xxiii. 38 ^K J^ . . .
iinypa<fr>\ ht airrif, '0
/3o(riXei>s . . .{oiros

1 Mk. XV. ■^. Mt.-Lk. add K4yu>v as in Mk. xl g, xiii. 3.

2 Mk. XV. 13. As Mk. has not mentioned any *" shouting " hefore, it might seem slightly
inaccurate to describe the Jews as "shouting again." The original may have been "They said
again and again," and Lk. may have expressed this by the repeated verb " crucify, cr«c^^him"
—which he alone has here.

3 Mk. XV. 14. In the doubtful state of Lk.'s text, this can hardly be called an agreement of
Lk. with Mt. Even if Mt.~Lk. agree in the passive, Lk.'s passive arises probably from interpret-
ing something in the Hebrew original of Mk. as meaning " ask." The original of Mk. may have
been "They cried aloud and lifted up OKB''l) [the voice] to crucify him," and Lk. may have
read l'?NE''l " and they asked." Or the original might have been " and they roared (UNCI)."

4 Mk. XV. 26. Comp. Mk. xv. 43 where Mt.-Lk. add oSto;.

[544] A TABLE OF THE CORRECTIONS IN GREEK

Mk.
XV. 30-32 a&aov ireav-
Tby /carajS&s d7r6 rod
(TTavpoO ... 6 "Kpiffrbs 6
pairOieis 'Itrpa^X (t) ^

XV. 32 Kai oi avveffTav-
ptafi^oL (vi)

XV. 37 d^eis <pu)viiv
/iey&Xriv i(iiryevirev (t)

XV. 39 ISiiv Si 6 xeii-
Tvpltav . . . 6ti oVtus
i(irrev<rev, etrrev (t) (also
vii)

XV. 41 ire %v iv t%
TaXiXatg. (t)

XV. 43 i\$Ciip 'I. dirJ'A.,
eiax^f''^^ )3ouXeuT7;s (t)

XV. 43 ToX/tiJira! ei<r^X-
^e;* TrpAs t6» II. Kai Tirij-
<raTO (t) (also iv and vii)

XV. 46 . . . Ka8e\iiv
airriv iyel\ii(rev (t)

xvi. I Kcd (vi)

xvi. I, 2 ifihpaiyav dpiii-
liara tva iXSoScrai . . . xal
. . . ipxovTai (vii) ''

xvi. 5 • • • Te/)i;8e/3XT;-
JU^VOI' (TToXrjv XcuKiiK (t)

xvi. 6 . . . X^7ei • • ■>
Mr) iKSa/ipeurBe ■ (v and
vii)^

xvi. 7 ei^rraTe . , . /cai
Tijj II^/)(() Srt Trpodyci *

XVI. » .
rfiroi' (t)

oidevi oitdiy

Mt.
xxvii. 40 (Tuiirov ireav-
rbv A vlbi el ToS ©£o8,
Kard^riBi dirA toB aravpoO

xxvii. 44 t6 8' oi5t6 koJ
oi Xi/oTai

xxvii. 50 K/)d|as ^ui"^
/tf^dXii i<pijicev t6 TrceCjUa

xxvii. 54 6 5^ «KOT(5v-
Tap)^os Kai ol , , ., ISdvres
rbv aeiaiibv Kal TOl ■^ivi-
f,eva,, itpo^iiBiicrav . . .
"KiyovTei

xxvii. 55 dirb T<is TaKi-
XaCas

xxvii. 57 ^XfleK S.v0pu-
iros TrXoiJctos d7r6 'A., t'
o{!vo|ia 'I(i»r7)(/> . . . ,

xxvii. 58 oStos TrpoafK-
8iav T^ n. jT^ffaro

Lk.

xxiii. 35-37 (Twai.TU
iavrbv, A oBris iariv &
Xpurrbs tov 0cov 6 ^(cXex-
ris • . . . elirieto jSairiXeis
Twi' 'I., (Twa-ov ffeavrby

xxiii. 39 efs 8J twi'
KpefjuiffBiyruv

xxiii. 46 tptov^a-as tpcov^l
fieyiXr^ . , . rfrrfi' , . .

xxiii. 47 ISiiv Si 6 Iko-
Tovrdpxijs t4 YCK^jievov,
^Silafec . . . X^wk

xxiii. 49 airh ttjs FaXi-
XaCas

xxiii. 50 ivijp dviS|taTi
'\wai)<t>, povKevTTis iwip-

xxiii. 52 oiros TpoaiK-
Butv Tcp II. T/TT^ffaro

xxvii. 59 Xa^Siix t6
o-ffi/oa . . . ^veruXilev
airh . . .

xxiii 53 Kai
^i/ETvXilcv airh .

xxviii. I Sk

xxiv. I Si

xxviii. I f[\dtv

xxiv. I fjK9av

xxviii. 3 71 elSia airoO
lis oo-TpaTrfl Kai rb h-

xxiv. 4 . . . 1
Ao-rpairroiio-^

Ka6e\0)v

8ufj.a ai/TOv \evKbv us x^^
xxviii. 5 . . . etircv . . .

xxviii. 7 eiVare . . . 6ti
•fiy4p$7} dirb (?) twv V€-
Kpuv, Kal l8oi/ irpo&yeL . . .

xxviii. 8 . . . ^SpafLov
dira'YYClXai rots fiaOrjTaU

^1' iffdijTt

xxiv. 5 ^/M)i6pb»' 5^
yevofiivav . . . ctira^, . .
r6i' fui'Ta ^ercL (?) t»v
vcKpuv ; . . .

xxiv. 9 . . . airiiyyeiXai'
. . Tois ^ScKa . . .

1 Mk. XV. 30. The speakers differ. See context.

2 Mk. xvi. r, 2. The aorist i^yopatrav is perhaps to be rendered pluperf., and to be taken
parenthetically. Mk.'s text raises many difficulties. Mt. omits ail mention of the spices. Lk.
removes Mk.'s difficulties. The agreement of Lk. with Mt. is merely casual.

S Mk. xvi. 6. ©a/i.^e^o■9at is in Mk. (3), eKflajLtjSeto-flat (4). Neither word occurs elsewhere in N.T.
4 Mk. xvi. 7. The words riov vexpiav occur in such different contexts that they cannot be said
to constitute an agreement of Mt.-Lk. against Mk.

324

APPENDIX II

ORAL TRADITION

[545] Against the pages that precede Appendix I., a friend, who
kindly inspected them, raised the objection that they presuppose in the
Synoptic Gospels a frequency of translational error unparalleled in the
LXX and unwarrantable even on the hypothesis of translation. He
forgot that the Synoptic text as a whole is not presented above, but
only those parts of it (with their contexts) in which Matthew and Luke
agree in deviating from Mark. Where two historians agree in deviating
from a third with whom they generally agree, it ought to be obvious
that a selection of the passages exhibiting the deviations cannot be
fairly taken as indications of the average adequacy of any of the three
writers.

And if, in some of these deviations, Matthew and Luke have been
independently following a Corrector of Mark who endeavoured —
sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfijUy, sometimes altering
Mark for the better, sometimes for the worse — to return to an original
Hebrew version, then it is reasonable to suppose that in those particular
passages errors would be rather numerous. That, at least, is our
experience in the more difficult portions of the Old Testament, where
mistakes of the LXX occur not singly but in groups, one lapse leading
to a second, and that again, sometimes, to a third. Hence, on the
hypothesis of translation, there is no reason to be surprised at the
large proportion of errors apparent above in the Greek Synoptic text.
If this work had been a commentary covering the whole, and not a
selection dealing with such parts as are specially likely to have been
obscure in the original, the proportion of error to accuracy would have
been much smaller. Even as it is, it would be easy to point to
passages in several books of the LXX where the errors are very much
more numerous and serious — being indeed sometimes one mass of
mistakes with hardly a vestige of the original — than in any passage
alleged above from the Synoptists.

32s

[546] ORAL TRADITION

[546] There is also one cause of divergence, Oral Tradition, likely
to be much more potent in the New Testament than in the Old. No
doubt, the most ancient books of the Old Testament are composite
documents in which, at the time of their composition, oral tradition
played its part. But when a book was once received as having a unity
of its own, and as being a part of " Scripture," it would be handed
down comparatively unaflfected by tradition. Paraphrases and comments
and explanations might be accepted as such, but not as part of the
text. Only the more recent and popular and non-authoritative books
— such as the stories of Daniel and Esther, and the narrative of the
rebuilding of the Temple — would be liable to sferious modification. A
solid work treating of ancient historical facts and statistics, like the
books of Chronicles, might be let alone, though recent and non-
authoritative ; but the attractive story of the Three Children would
invite amplifications ; and a collection of detached sayings, such as the
book of Proverbs — where arrangement might vary from the first, and
where the sense might be obscured by brevity and by the absence of
illustrative context — would be peculiarly liable to divergences.

[547] The probable influence of oral tradition on the Gospels is
well illustrated by the glosses and quotations of the sayings of Ben
Sira. Being written in Biblical Hebrew when that language was no
longer spoken, many passages are re-written in New Hebrew by the
glossers or quoters. Where a sentence is not re-written a single word
is sometimes substituted in the margin, more modern perhaps, or (as it
seemed to the scribe) more suitable than the corresponding word in
the text. Or, in quoting from memory, later authors, from lapse of
memory, may substitute one synonym for another without any intention
of altering the original. Thus if the original precept was, " Inquire
not into things too deep for thee," the quoters may ring the changes
on " inquire," " question," " ask," " ascertain," or else on " deep,"
"secret," "hard," "difficult."

Another class of divergences is produced by diflficulty in the original,
arising either from obscurity of language or from apparent unseemliness
in the thought, or from mere confusion of letters, or from any of these
causes combined.

A whole treatise might be profitably devoted to the glosses and
quotations of Ecclesiasticus. No more than two specimens of variation
can be given below.

[548] The first instance deals with the warning above-mentioned
against inquiring into "hard" or "hidden" things. It may have been
suggested by the words of Deuteronomy " The secret things belong unto
the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong unto us and

326

ORAL TRADITION [548]

our children." i It must be premised that the Hebrew for " too difficult,
hard, etc., for thee " is literally " difficult, hard, from, or than, thee."
Hence " [too] secret for thee [to discover] " might be interpreted as
" secret /!«-«;« thee." The passage is Sir. iii. 21 : the three quotations
given below are from the Oxford edition p. xix ; after the LXX version,
comes the original Hebrew discovered subsequently to the Oxford
edition and printed on p. 3 of the text of the Cambridge edition.

(1) " Into that which is too difficult for thee do not inquire,

Into that which is concealed from thee do not search."

(2) The next is a conflated version. It prefers the poetic form (S3)
of prohibition :

(ai) " Into that which is too great for thee inquire not

Into that which is too hard for thee search not
(flj) In(to) that which is too difficult for thee seek not knowledge (lit.
know not)

In(to) that which is concealed from thee ask not. "

(3) The next version adopts the rhetorical "why ?" frequently used
in the Bible instead of the prohibitive "not." It also substitutes
" deeper than Sheol " for " too hard for thee " or " concealed from
thee " : 2

"That which is too difficult for thee why shouldst thou seek to know
(lit. why shouldst thou know) ?
That which is deeper than Sheol why shouldst thou search ? "

(4) (LXX) :

" Things too difficult for thee seek not
And things too mighty for thee search not. "

(5) (The orig. Heb.) :

" That which is too difficult for thee do not inquire
And that which is concealed from thee do not search. " '

1 Deut. xxix. 29 " the secret things (niriDJn)," ra kputtto. All the writers quoted helow use
this Hebrew word (and the LXX uses KpvTrTo) not in the couplet quoted, but in that which
follows the quotation (548^).

2 Dr. C. Taylor (^/oumal of Tlieol. Studies^ igoo, p. 573) says, and, no doubt, correctly, that
this comes from Job xi. S, with perhaps a reminiscence of Fs. cxxxix. 6. But the question remains
whether the scribe may not have been influenced by a variant " ask," in the margin, the letters
being identical with those of "Sheol." If so, there is a play on the words, and they mean
'' deeper than Skcol" or " too deep to inquire into'*

af[648«] (i) B.inn hs. ICD k'jbioi

npnn Su -pa aoisDa

(2) Eimn Sk -pa ^>n:3 (^i)
nipnn Sn -pa pma

ynn Sn tdd nSsid3 (^2)
V.xis'n Va -pa nDi3D3

(3) jjnn .ID pD HK'^'s
iipnn HD '?iNB'0 npiDV

327

[549] ORAL TRADITION

[549] For students of the Gospels these variations have a peculiar
interest because they suggest a possibility of throwing light on John's
reasons for omitting or altering the utterance of the Baptist about
Christ — recorded by all the Synoptists — "one mightier than I," and
also on the question virhether John may have intended to express the
same Hebrew original in the curious Greek phrase rendered by the
Revised Version " He was before me.'' It is possible that the Hebrew
original (429 vi-vii) of the Synoptic Greek was capable of meaning
either " He was my chief, or, elder,'' or else, " He was mightier than I."

[550] The next instance is a passage in which the meaning of the
Hebrew of Ben Sira (vii. i) is completely metamorphosed in the Greek,
and both versions differ entirely from a version in New Hebrew

(i) (New Hebrew) :

" Good to the evil thou shall not work and evil will not reach unto thee."

(2) (LXX) :

" Do not evil and surely no evil shall befall thee.''

(3) (Orig. Heb.) :

"Do not evil to thyself and evil shall not (?) overtake thee."^

(4) ')^'kiTtiiyTipa. (tov ^tj fijTet

(5) lymn Sn iDD niN^s
iipnn Sn idd hdiddi

[5483] The quotation continues thus (Sir. iii. 22) : —
(Orig. Heb.) punn H'E'linB' nD3

■ nnnD33 pay i'? j'ni

(Transl. Camb. Ed.) " What thou art permitted, think thereupon ;

But thou hast no business with the secret things."

(LXX) a TrpotreTayi) erot, rauTo hiavoov '

ov -yap ifTTtv trot XP^^"^ ™*' KpytrrSiV.

[548f] Why did the LXX (B4Sa) prefer " too mighty for (la-xypoT^pa) thee " to concealed from
thee "? Did the Greek translators prefer a version that kept the parallelism, instead of rendering
1DD first "for thee " and then " from thee " ? Perhaps also they were influenced by the rarity of
the construction " conceal from " (Gesen. Oxf. HDD) and by the fairly frequent occurrence of the
Biblical " too hard for." It is also possible that HDIDD may have been read as (Dan. xi. 6) mD3
" into that which is strength," taken as an irregular way of saying *' into that which is strong,"
and then corrected into the regular pin used in (2) ai.

1 The quotation, preceded by the words " Ben Sifa said the proverb," is in the Oxf. ed. p. xx,
the original Heb. in the Camb. ed. p. 6 :

(i) (New Heb.) -[t, ,^q, ^t, ^,^^ ^^yn k^ tl/'2^ 30

(2) (LXX) fiv] TToi'et KOLKa (cal ov ju.^ ere KaraKipy kokov.

(3) (Orig. Heb.) nyn -[iw •?«! nvi i? wvn hn

[550a] Comp. Sir. xii. 3, which in the LXX is " There is, no good to him that coniinuetk in
evil," ovK evTiv ayada. r<a evSeAext'fo*'''' «'? KftKo. (leg. as participle of 1113), but the Camb. Heb.
"There is no good in giving-to (HUD) the evil." This— taken as in the Hebrew— may have
influenced the quoter of (i).

In (3), the Camb. Editors render irE'^ with a query, "overtake thee." The hiph. of JIB* (for
J1D) in Job xxiv. 2 is used of "?«oz/m^ back boundaries." Here, it would seem that the word
might mean "cause thee to withdraw^ or, give ground"

338

ORAL TRADITION [552]

[551] The saying of Ben Sira, as expressed in the original Hebrew
" Do not evil to thyself and no evil shall overtake thee," if interpreted,
as Epictetus would interpret it, of moral evil, is unexceptionable : but
otherwise it might well cause difficulty and provoke alterations, i
Perhaps some corruptions may have arisen from blending these words
with others of Ben Sira, quoted above (550a), warning the reader not
to do good to .the evil : but (apart from such blending) the Hebrew
text of the present passage might easily be corrupted so as to give the
meaning adopted by the LXX, and (though less easily) that of the
quotation in New Hebrew.

The LXX, by simply transposing the two letters of the Hebrew
pronoun " to thyself" — a word often confused by the LXX, and once
at least in this very way^ — would produce the Hebrew for "all." But
"thou shalt not do all evil" is the regular Hebrew idiom for "thou
shalt not do any evil." This gives a sentiment unexceptionable in
point of morality : and this the LXX has adopted.

The author of the New Hebrew version, by dropping the last letter
of the pronoun "to-thee," that is, in effect, dropping "thee," might

read the original Hebrew as meaning " Thou shalt not do to the

evil." It might then seem an obvious necessity to insert " good " in
the blank thus created in the sense : — obvious, at least to those who
knew that Ben Sira had elsewhere taught his readers not to give to
the evil.^ This course the writer appears to have followed.

[552] These instances may help us to realise some of the less
obvious influences at work in the first century to produce and modify
those evangelic "narratives" written — as Luke's preface tells us — ^by
" many " authors, whose works have all perished except two.

The important point is to disabuse ourselves of the notion that
the earliest Evangelists would use much " editorial freedom," a phrase
sometimes used to mean a licence to insert details not because they
are true but because they are picturesque or edifying ; to omit or
modify other details because they seem to have an opposite tendency ;
and to alter for the mere purpose of embellishing. No doubt, the
writers may have been unconsciously biassed to a very large extent by

1 Comp. Ps. xlix. i8 "Men praise thee when thou doest well unto thyself," where the
Psalmist appears to condemn the action implied.

2 Comp. Zeph. iii. 19 "with all ('73 nn)," LXX, "in thee (ei- o-oi) " (leg. in"), i S. ii. 16 "for
thyself (n'?)," LXX "(ai) for thyself (ai) from all," aeianii eic TtixTmi, conflating ^7 and 73.

3 It is possible that none of these versions represents what Ben Sira said. For by substituting
Pl for T we should obtain "do not to a neighbour (S^) evil (rrSn) " : and this play on the double
meaning of J!n(" evil" or " neighbour ") would resemble Sir. x. 6 " For every wrong requite not
evil (yi) to a neighbour (yn'? (sic))." Of two consecutive identical syllables, one is frequently
dropped ; and, apart from this, translators might regard " neighbour " as a superfluous repeti-
tion of " evil." To the instances given above (188 (ii)) of the frequent confusion of "evil " and
" neighbour " add Sir. xiii. 21 " from eznl to evil" (so Camb. Ed. and Syriac), LXX " hy friends,"
itirh ^iXutv.

[552] ORAL TRADITION

a desire that the records of Christ's acts and words should represent
Him adequately as the FulfiUer of prophecy, the Messiah, and the Son
of God : and this bias has shaped their narratives. But, so far as the
preceding investigations have enabled us to form a judgment, we do
not often find very early apocryphal evangelists, and never the canonical
ones, deliberately inventing new traditions. It is generally possible
to detect, even now, some basis of fact or ancient tradition for what
appears at first sight to be a mere fiction : and it is a reasonable
inference that if we had before us all the " narratives " of the " many "
authors mentioned by Luke, and all the written interpretations of
Matthew's Logia handed down by those who, as Papias says, " inter-
preted them each to the best of his ability," we should find the paucity
of invention almost equal to the magnitude of accretion.

330

INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES

MATTHEW

MATTHEW 1

MATTHEW

I'AR.

PAR.

.

PAH.

2.

8

456 (Hi)

10.

26

373 (i), (ii)

17.

2

522 {i)-(iv) and

2.

20

334^

11.

I

350, 438 (v) c

(vii) ; 527

3.

S

334-5

11.

II

429 (vi)

17.

3

352

3.

II

336-42 (comp.

12.

I

360 (i)

17.

5

417a, 422-4

333)

12.

4

361

17.

II

426

3.

12

336-42 (comp.

12.

10

456 (ii) a

17.

17

426, 426 (i), 449

333)

12.

14

466 (e) («)

17.

22

426-8

3.

i6

343, 465-6

12.

15-

21

397a

18.

I

431 (ii)

i.

I

344-6

12.

22-

23

363a

19.

I

438 (i)-(v)

i.

1. '

345-6

12.

2S

364-6

19.

3

466 (7)

4.

13-

IS

438 (v)

12.

31.

3=

367-9

19.

22

392a, 439-42

4.

i8

S47-9

12.

38

466 (S)-(f)

19.

24

414(i)-(ii)

4.

21

347-9

12.

39

408-12

19.

25

443

4.

23

360

12.

43

390 (i) (0) a

19.

27

447 (iv)

4.

24

362

12.

47

631

19.

29

445-7 (iv)

5.

13

432-7 (i)

13.

s-

6

378a

20.

19

p. 170, comp.

5.

14

435-6

13.

9

469 (iii) a

418 and 488

5.

IS

372-3

13.

10

370

20.

22

427

6.

19-

20

390 (ii) (e)

13.

19

370 (i)-371

20.

26,

27 429-31 (ii)

6.

24

318 (ii)

13.

21

447 (iii) a

20.

30

448

7.

28

438 (v) c, d

IS.

22

390 (ii) (7)

21.

2

449

8.

2

351-2

13.

31-

32

374-80

21.

7

449

8.

20

386

13.

3S

366a, 436

21.

17

390 (i) (5),

8.

23

381

13.

S3

438 (v) c

460-3

8.

25

382-6

14.

I

391-3

21.

21

372, 464

8.

27

387

14.

12,

13 394-9

21.

24

456 (i)-(iv)

8.

29

455-6

14.

13

400

21.

26

372, 454

8.

34

466-6

14.

14

401-3

21.

33

459 (iv)

9.

2

352, 354

14.

IS

372

21.

38

457-8

9.

7-

s

356-6

14.

17

403 (i)

21.

40-42 459 (i)-61

9.

IT

357

14.

20

404-5

22.

16

466 (e).o

9.

16

358

15.

39

498^

22.

iB

466 ()3)

9.

17

359-60

16.

I

466 (S)-(f)

22.

19

449

9.

18

362, 466-6

16.

3

439, 466 (e) c

22.

28

469 (v)

9.

20

388

16.

4

372, 406-12

22.

34-

36 462-9

9.

32.

aa

363<z

16.

6

413, 466 (e)

22.

45

459 (v)

9.

3S

389-90

16.

14

487 (i) (/3)-(7),

23.

I

470

9.

36

401-3

487 (i) (f) e

23.

4

466 (i;) a

10.

I-

14

390 (i) (a)-(e),

16.

16

414^7

23.

5-

7 471-2

390 (ii) (e)

16.

21

418

23.

8-

II 429-431 (ii)

10.

2-

3

363

16.

22

460 (iii) a, c

23.

35

438 (v) a

10.

9-

10

390(ii)(a)-(7),

16.

27

428

23.

39

486a

390 (ii) (e)

16.

28

522 (ii) a

24.

6

428

10.

10

390 (ii) (e) a

17.

*>

:■£

419-21

24.

21

436

331

INDEX OF

MATTHEW

MARK

MARK

PAR.

PAR.

FAR.

24.

27

622 (ii)-(iv)

1.

39

360

6.

29-3S

394-9

24.

36

361

1.

40

351-2

6.

33

400

24.

51

466 (e) c

2.

3

362, 364, 449

6.

34

401-3

25.

34

436

2.

12

355-6

6.

37

372

26.

I

438 (v) c

2.

14

418a

6.

38

403 (i)

26.

29

486

2.

16

367

6.

43

404-B

26.

47

362-3

2.

21

368

7.

6

466 (c) c

26.

48-50

473-7

2.

22

369-61

7.

II

456 (iv)

26.

SI

478-82

2.

23

360 (i)

7.

19

342

26.

63

372,414-7,483

2.

26

359a, 361

7.

20

469 (iii) a

26.

64

484 (i)-6

2.

27

469 (iii) a

7.

24

438 (ii) a

26.

67-8

486-93

3.

6

466 (e) b

8.

8

406

26.

69

493, 4940-8

3.

7

397a

8.

10

498^

26.

70

494r-8

3.

10

362

8.

II

466 («)-(f)

26.

71

494^8

3.

14

360, 394a

8.

12

371a, 372,406-

26.

72

494r-8

S.

14-18

363

12

26.

73

494-8

3.

ig-2i

363a

8.

IS

413, 466 (e)

26.

74

494-8

3.

21-26

363*

8.

21

459 (iii) a

26.

75

499-501

3.

23

364-6

8.

28

487 (i) (|8) and

27.

2

449

3.

28

387a, 409a

(7)

27.

IS

602 (i)

3.

28-9

367-9

8.

29

414^7

27.

16

502 (vi) c

3.

32

631

8.

31

418

27.

17

602-4

4.

5.6

378a

8.

38

428

27.

20-22

502-4

4.

9

459 (iii) a

9.

I

469 (iii) a

27.

26

493*, 502 (v)

4.

10

370

9.

2

419-21

27.

31

505

4.

12

387a

9.

3

522(i)-(iv),and

27.

33

505

4.

IS

370 (i)-371

(vii); 627

27.

35-6

606

4.

17

447 (iii) a

9.

4

362-3

27.

36

606, 506 (iii) b

4.

19

390 (ii) (7)

9.

6

422-4, 540

27.

37

606 (iH'ii)

4.

21

372-3, 469

9.

7

417a

27.

40

607-8

(iii) a

9.

II

367a

27.

42-3

607-8

4.

22

373 (i)-(ii)

9.

12

426

27.

50

509-14

4.

24

432a, 469 (iii) a

9.

19

425, 426 (i)-

27.

54

415a, 514

4.

26

469 (iii) a

449

27.

55

506a, 615-6

30

469 (iii) a

9.

28

357a

27.

57-8

617-9

4.

30-32

374-80

9.

31

426-8,459 (iii)a

27.

59

620-1, 527«

34

370^

9.

34

431 (ii)

27.

61

498/, 606a

36

381

9.

35

429-31 (ii)

28.

2

^%1a-d

38

382-6

9.

48-9

434

28.

■■i. 3

522 (i)-(iv),

41

366, 387

9.

50

432-7 (i)

523-7

5!

6

466-6

10.

I

438 (i)-(v), 466

28.

8,9

628-33

5.

14

466-6

(7)

28.

10

631

5.

19

395 (i) a

10.

2

466 (7)

28.

16, I

1 487 (i) (e)

5.

22

352, 465-6

10.

10

466 (7)

5.

27

388

10.

22

392a, 439-42

MARK

5.

37

616a

10.

25

444 (i)-(ii)

1.

S

33^5

5.

42

387a, 418a

10.

26

443

1.

8

336-42, comp.

6.

6

389-90

10.

28

447 (iv)

333

6.

7

635a

10.

29

446

1.

10

343, 466-6

6.

7-13

390 (i) (a)-(e),

10.

30

446-7 (iv)

1.

12

344

390 (ii) (e)

10.

34

p. 170, comp.

1.

13

345-6

6.

8

390(ii)(a)-(7),

418, 488a

1.

16

347-9

390 (ii) (c)

10.

38

427

1.

19

347-9

6.

9

390 (ii) (e) a

10.

43-4

429-31|(ii) \

1.

22

438 (v) d

6.

10

459 (iii) a

10.

46-7

448

1.

26

387a

6.

II

369^

10.

51

361^

1.

38

389, 360, 390

6.

14

391-3

11.

2

449

(i) (7)

6.

20

391-3

11.

7

449

332

NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES

MARK 1

MARK

LUKE

PAR.

PAR.

PAK.

11.

IX

i62a, 463

15.

24-;

; 606

8.

13

447 (iii) a

11.

17

459 (iii) a

15.

26

606 (i)-(iii)

8.

14

390 (ii) (7)

11.

19

390 (i) (8),

15.

32

507-8

8.

16

372-3

450-3

15.

3S

479

8.

17

373 (i)-(ii)

11.

22

372

15.

37

609-14

8.

18

432a

11.

22-3

464

15.

39

415a, 479, 514

8.

20

631

11.

29

466 (i)-(iv)

15.

40

606a

8.

22

381

11.

32

372, 464

15.

41

615-6

8.

23-24 382-6

12.

I

469 (iv)

15.

42-3 517-9 1

8.

2S

387

12.

7

467-8

15.

46

520-1, 527e, i

8.

28

456-6

12.

g-io

459 (i)-61

15.

47

506a

8.

35

465-6

12.

13

466 (e) a

16.

1

527^--*

8.

39

396 (i) a

12.

IS

449, 466 (|3)

16.

3. 4

527a-rf

8.

41

352, 465-6

12.

23

459 (v)

16.

S

522 (i)-(iv),

8.

44

388

12.

26

487 (i) (/3) c

623-7

8.

55

418a

12.

28

459 (vi), 161flf,

16.

8

628-33

9.

1-6

390 (i) (a)-(e),

462-9

16.

10,

13531

390 (ii) (c)

12.

32

459 (vi), 462-7

16.

14

487 (i) (e) a

9.

3

390(ii)(a)-(7),

12.

34

459 (vi), 462-7

390 (ii) (f)

12.

35

469 (iii) a

LUKE

9.

5

3693

12.

37

393a, 469 (v)

9.

7

391-3

12.

37. 38 470

1.

3

466 (iii)

9.

10

394-9

12.

38

413, 469 (iii) a,

1.

19

479

9.

11

400-3

471-2

3.

3

334r-5

9.

13

372, 403 (i)

12.

40

472a

3.

II

390 (ii) («) a

9.

17

404^5

12.

41

390 (ii) (a)

3.

16-

17 336-42, comp.

9.

19

487 (i) (j3) and

12.

43

409a

333

(7)

13.

7

428

3.

21

466-6

9.

20

414-7

13.

32

361

3.

21,

22 343

9.

22

418

14.

19

635a

4.

I

344

9.

26

428

14.

25

409a, 486

4.

2

345-6

9.

29

419-21,622(1)-

14.

36

459 (iii) a

4.

32

438 (v) d

(iv),522(vii);

14.

43

362-3

4.

43

350, 389

627

14.

44-S

473-7

4.

44

360

9.

30

352

14.

47

478-82, 491*

5.

2

347-9

9.

32

422-4

14.

SI

616a

5.

10

347-9

9.

33-

4 422-4

14.

61

372,414^7,483

5.

12

351, 352

9.

35

417a

14.

62

484 (i)-486

5.

18

362, 364

9.

41

425, 426 (i).

14.

6S

482c, 486-93

5.

20

497*

449

14.

66

493

5.

2S-

6 366-6

9.

44

426-8

14.

67

494-8

5.

3°

367

9.

45

627/t

14.

68

494-8

5.

36

358

9.

46

431 (ii)

14.

69

479, 494-8

5.

37-

8 359-60

9.

48

429-31 (ii)

14.

70

479, 494-8

6.

I

360 (i)

9.

58

386

14.

71

494^8

6.

4

361

10.

4

390 (ii) (c) a

14.

72

499-501

6.

9

466 (ii) a

10.

II

390 (i) a, 390

15.

I

449

6.

II

466 (e) *

(■) (7), 390

15.

2

603 (i)

6.

13-

14 363

(i) (e)

15.

6, 8

602 (i), (iv)

6.

17

362, 438 (v)

10.

25-

23 462-9

15.

7

502 (vi) c

6.

42

466 (e) c

10.

25 foil. 466 (ij) c

15.

9

602-4

7.

4

360a

10.

28

469 (vi)

15.

lo-ii 503 (ii)

7.

21

360a

10.

37

466 (1;) d

15.

II

602-4

7.

22

360a

11.

14

363a

15.

12

602-4

7.

28

429 (vi)

11.

16

466 (S)-(f)

15.

IS

490, 493*, 502

8.

6

378a

11.

17

364^6

(v)-(vii)

8.

8

469 (iii) a

11

24

390 (i) (a) a

15.

20

506

8.

9

370

11

29

372, 406-12

15.

22

605

8.

12

370 (i)-71

11

45-

-6 466 (v) a

333

INDEX OF

LUKE

LUKE

JOHN

PAR.

PAR.

PAR.

11.

SI

438 (v) a

22.

49

491*

6.

13

406

12.

I

413, 466 (e)

22.

55

493rf

6.

IS

3970

12.

z

373 (ii)

22.

56

493, 494^8

6.

68-

9 414, 417*

12.

lO

367-9

22.

57

494^8

7.

25

334*

12.

46

466 (e) c

22.

58

494^8

9.

8-

9 487(1) (7)

12.

S6

466 (e) c

22.

S9

494-8

11.

55

334*

13.

9

466 (iv)

22.

60

494^8

12.

6

627/

13.

IS

466 (c) c

22.

61

459 (vi)

12.

38

470

13.

18, i<

J 374-80

22.

61,

62 499-501

13.

27

477a

13.

22

389-90

22.

63-

5 486-93

is:

2

476

13.

3S

486a

22.

67-

70 483-5

18.

5

476, 484 (i) c

14.

I

466 ({8) a

23.

I

449

18.

8

484 (i) c

14.

34

432-7 (i)

23.

2

603 (i)-(ii)

18.

lO

480

15.

25-3=

429 (v)

23.

4

506 (iii) a

18.

17

494-8

16.

13

318 (ii)

23.

5

603 (i)-(ii)

18.

22

479,487(i)(o),

16.

14

466 (/3) u, 466

23.

6-

12 603 (iii) a

493a

(7)

23.

II

487 (i) (a)

18.

23

493c

16.

22

449

23.

12

603 (iii) a

18.

25

494-8

17.

6

372, 464

23.

14

506 (iii) a

18.

26

498

17.

II

438 (i)-(v)

23.

14-

IS 603 (iii)

18.

27

494^8

17.

24

522 (ii)-(iv)

23.

16

602-4

18.

30

603 (i) a

18.

23

392<z, 439-42

23.

18

602-4

18.

33

503 (i) a

18.

25

444 (i)-(ii)

23.

20

602-4

18.

38

506 (ii)

18.

z6

443

23.

22

493^,see 602-4,

18.

39.

40 502-4

18.

28

447 (iv)

506 (iii) a

19.

I

493*, 602 (v)

18.

29

446

23.

25

502 (v)-(vii),

19.

3

487 (i) (a)

18.

30

446-7 (iv)

603 (iii) a

19.

4

506 (iii) a

18.

32-3

4882

23.

26

505

19.

6

506 (i) a, 606

18.

33

p. 170, cp. 418a

23.

33

506-6

(iii) a

18.

3S-7

448

23.

3S

466(/3)a,607-8

19.

15

604*

19.

24

479

23.

37

607-8

19.

16

487 (i) (a)

19.

30

449

23.

38

606a, 506 (i)-

19.

19

606*, 506 (i)-

19.

3S

449

(iii)

(iii)

20.

3

456 (i)-(iv)

23.

46

509-14

19.

30

509a, 614

20.

6

372, 454

23.

47

415a, 514

19.

38-40 527^^/

20.

14

467-8

23.

49

615-6

19.

40

521

20.

IS-17

459 (i)-61

23.

So-2 617-9

20.

I

527<:

20.

19

461

23.

53

520-1, 527?

20.

7

621, 527rf

20.

20

466 (e) a

23.

S6

627g-i

20.

9

527A

20.

23

466 (/3)

24.

I

B27g-i

20.

IS

627/

20.

24

449

24.

2

B21a-ii

20.

18

631

20.

33

459 (v)

24.

4

622 (i)-(iv),

21.

20

501a

20.

39

459 (vi), 462-7

523-7

20.

44

469 (v)

24.

9

487 (i) (e) a

.

ACTS

20.

45

470

24.

9-

II 528-33

20.

46

471-2

24.

33

487 (i) (e) a

1.

5

338

20.

47

472a

1.

26

487 (i) (e) a

21.

r

390 (ii) (S)

2.

14

487 (i) (e) a

21.

9

428

JOHN

3.

22

487 (i) (|3) d

21.

37

390 (i) S, 460-3

4.

13

ana

22.

18

485

33

383

5.

35

506 (i) *

22.

26

429-431 (ii)

34

417a

7.

6

429 (ii)

22.

28

4803

36

469 (vi)

10.

39

334*

22.

32

501a

42

459 (vi)

11.

16

338

22.

36-38

480

51

343

11.

19

506 (i)- *

22.

47

352-3

S.

1 6-:

21 342

12.

2

480a

22.

47-8

473-7

3.

22

334^

12.

8

390 (ii) (e) a

22.

49-5°

478-82

3.

31-6 342

13.

28

606 (i) a

334

NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES

13. so

13. SI

17. 12

17. 23

23. 2

28. i8

ACTS

PAR.

619

390 (i) a, 390

(i) (<^)
619
606 (i)
479
606 (i) a

ROMANS

8. 29 417

9. 12 429 (i)-(v)
9. 12-31 429 (v)

10. 16 470

11. 20 433a
13. 4 480a
\n. 19 Z90d

I CORINTHIANS

1. 20

4. II

15. 6

16. 9

465

489a

487 (i) (e) a

343

2 CORINTHIANS

2. 12

3. 7
3. 10

3. IS.

11. 19

12. 7

343

420

420

627A

393a

362a, 489u

GALATIANS

FAR.

2. 9 480^
6. 9 446

EPHESIANS

4. 3 437

6. 14 390 (ii) (e)

6. IS 390 (ii) (e) a

PHILIPPIANS

2. IS 436

COLOSSIANS

1. IS 417
1. 18 417

3. IS 437

4. 3 343

I THESSALONIAXS

5. 13 437

2 TIMOTHY
3. 9 466 (e) b

HEBREWS

1. 6 417

3. II 371a, 408

4. 3 371a, 408

HEBREWS

PAR.

4.

, S 408

12.

6 602 (v)

JAMES

5.

3, 4 390 (ii) (6)

I PETER

2.

20 489a

2.

2S 601a

5.

6 446

2 PETER

1.

19 622 (iii) a

REVELATION

1.

S 417

1.

12-1S 522 (v)-(vii)

1.

13 390 (ii) (e)

2.

18 622 (vi)

3.

4 626a

3.

8 343

3.

18 390 (ii) (e)

4.

I 343

4.

4 526a

7.

9 626a

14.

13 486c

16.

13, 14 390 (i) (0) a

17.

3 449

19.

14 626a

21.

10 449

21.

12 606 (i)

THE END

Printed by R. & R. Clark, Limited, Edinhurgh.

BOOKS BY CONTRIBUTORS
TO THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA,

AND OTHERS
PUBLISHED BY A. & C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON.

ABBOTT, EDWIN A., M.A., D.D.

ST. THOMAS OF CANTERBURY: His Death and Miracles.

In two volumes, demy 8vo, cloth. With a Photogravure Frontispiece. Price

24s.

' It is clear that I cannot say much of these six hundred and sixty large pages in the
same number of lines. But I would commend them to students of the New Testament,
to critics and theologians, as furnishing, with admirable candour, no small addition to
their means of following out certain long-debated problems, until they arrive at a solu-
tion which shall be true to the evidence.' — Bookman.

CLUE : A Guide through Greek to Hebrew Scripture. In one
volume, demy 8vo, cloth. Price 7s. 6d. net.

This work aims at demonstrating that parts of the Synoptic Gospels are based upon
a common original Hebrew document, not Aramaic, but Hebrew in the strict sense —
' Biblical Hebrew. ' The details of the demonstration are supported by quotations from
the Hebrew and from the Greek translations of it, and are given in notes for ' the learned. '
But the text contains neither Greek nor Hebrew, and appeals to the general reader. The
author maintains that internal evidence ' can as absolutely and scientifically demonstrate
translation from a Biblical Hebrew document as fossils in a rock can demonstrate the
action of water ' ; and specimens are given of the manner in which it is proposed to
ascend from the Greek Gospels to their Hebrew original, thus approximating to the
Galilean Aramaic actually uttered by our Lord.

CHARLES, Rev. Professor R. H., D.D.

THE APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH. Translated from the Syriac. In
one volume, crown 8vo, cloth. Price 7s. 6d. net.

' Mr. Charles's work will have a hearty welcome from students of Syriac whose in-
terest is linguistic, and from theological students who have learned the value of Jewish
and Christian pseudepigraphy ; and the educated general reader will find much of high
interest in it, regard being had to its date and its theological standpoint. ' — Record.

THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES. Translated from the Latin Sixth
Century MS., the unemended Text of which is published herewith, together with
the Text in its restored and critically emended form.- Edited, with Introduction,
Notes, and Indices. In one volume, crown 8vo, cloth. Price 7s. fid.
' In this admirable little book the Rev. R. H. Charles has added another to the ex-
cellent series of editions by which he has earned the gratitude of all students of early
Christian literature.' — Times.

A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE
LIFE IN ISRAEL, IN JUDAISM, AND IN CHRISTIANITY; or,
Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian Eschatology from Pre-Prophetic
Times till the Close of the New Testament Canon (the Jowe'it
Lectures for 1898-99). In one volume, demy 8vo, cloth. Price 153.

' If the Jowett Lectures rise always to this height, we shall receive a series of volumes
which will rival in value any lectureship in existence. For this is a thoroughly capable
treatment of perhaps the most difficult subject in theology. — Expository Times.

CHARLES, Rev. Professor R. H., Vt-Vi.— Continued.

THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH : Texts, Translations, and Com-
mentary. In one volume, crown 8vo, cloth. Price ys. 6d. net.
In the above work all the existing textual materials have been critically edited — Greek,
Ethiopic, Latin and Slavonic. Of these the Slavonic has hitherto been inaccessible to
Western scholars, and the Greek has only been discovered within the past year. As
regards the higher criticism of the book, the editor agrees with Ewald and DoUmann in
recognising three independent writings underlying the 'Ascension.' In the more exact
study of these sources he has discovered the hitherto missing ' Testament of Hezekiah,'
which, dating from the close of the first century, is at once the oldest non-canonical
Christian writing, and the earUest to attest the death of St. Peter at Rome. This source,
and the third — the Vision of Isaiah (90-100 a.d. ) — supply invaluable materials for the
history of the early Christian expectation of the Antichrist, the second Advent, and other
matters of belief and conduct.

CHEYNE, Rev. Professor T. K., D.D.

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. WITH AN Ap-
pendix CONTAINING THE UNDOUBTED PORTIONS OF THE TwO CHIEF

Prophetic Writers in a Translation. In one volume, demy 8vo, cloth.
Price 24s.

' This elaborate and scholarly work. . . . We must leave to professed scholars the
detailed appreciation of Professor Cheyne's work. His own learning and reputation
suffice to attest its importance.' — Times.

' This truly great and monumental work.' — Critical Review.

' This monument of patient scholarship, wide reading, and indefatigable research.' —
Speaker.

CONE, ORELLO, D.D.

PAUL : The Man, The Missionary, and the Teacher. In one

volume, post 8vo, cloth. Price los. fid.

' One of the excellencies of Dr. Cone's work is that it is mainly exegetical. He denies
himself the luxury of expanding Paul's positions either speculatively or experimentally.
It may be presumed that no interpreter escapes from the influence of certain presupposi-
tions, but in Dr. Cone there is, at any rate, an obvious attempt to be fair and unbiassed.
His exposition of the teaching of St. Paul will stand comparison with any hitherto
pubUshed, and will be found most instructive.' — Marcus Dods in the British Weekly.

GARDNER, PERCY, Litt.D.
EXPLORATIO EVANGELICA: A Brief Examination of the

Basis and Origin of Christian Belief. In one volume, demy 8vo,

cloth. Price 153.

' Professor Gardner sets forth clearly, almost coldly — though the glow of an intense
spiritual emotion is not wholly concealed — the things which belong to all religious experi-
ence, and which give religion a place in human nature which is incomplete without it.
This is the constructive side of the book. . . . The importance of Professor Gardner's
work is that it insists upon free historical criticism being carried out fully, or else wholly
and avowedly rejected.' — Guardian.

GRAY, G. BUCHANAN, M.A.
STUDIES IN HEBREW PROPER NAMES. In one volume, crown

8vo, cloth. Price 7s. fid. net.

'These "Studies" may be warmly commended as a step in the right direction.
They bring out into clear relief progress of religious ideas in Israel, and make an import-
ant contribution to the criticisms of Old Testament documents. ' — C. H. Toy, Harvard
University.
THE DIVINE DISCIPLINE OF ISRAEL : An ADDRESS AND

Three Lectures on the Growth of Ideas in the Old Testament.

In one volume, crown 8vo, cloth. Price 2S. fid. net.

' The address and lectures are alike scholarly and thoughtful, and furnish a good
specimen of the constructive criticism of the Old Testament, which is steadily being
developed by the Higher Critics.' — Guardian.

HAECKEL, ERNST.

MONISM, AS Connecting Religion and Science: the Confession
OF Faith of a Man of Science. Translated from the German by J. D. F.
Gilchrist. In one volume, crown 8vo, cloth. Price IS. 6d. net.
' We may readily admit that Professor Haeckel has stated his case with the clearness
and courage which we should expect of him, and that his lecture may be regarded as a
fair and authoritative statement of the views now held by => large number of scienti-
fically educated people. ' — Times.

HARNACK, Professor ADOLF.

CHRISTIANITY AND HISTORY. Translated, with the Author's
sanction, by Thomas Bailey Saunders, with an Introductory Note. Second
Edition. In one volume, crown 8vo, cloth. Price is. 6d. net.
' It is highly interesting and full of thought. The short introductory note with

which Mr. Saunders prefaces it is valuable for its information and excellent in its

tone. ' — Atheneeum,

THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT POSITION OF PROTES-
TANTISM. Translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders. In one volume,
crown 8vo, cloth. Price is. 6d. net.

This is a version of a recent utterance on the question at issue between the Catholic
and the Protestant by the most distinguished German theologian now living. Professor
Harnack treats of this question in a brief compass, and with a breadth of view an4 vigour
of expression which must make \yhat he says interesting to readers of every shade of
opinion.

SOURCES OF THE APOSTOLIC CANONS. With a Treatise
ON THE Origin of the Readership and other Lower Orders. Trans-
lated by Leonard A. Wheatley. With an Introductory Essay on the Or-
ganisation of the Early Church and the Evolution of the Reader by the Rev.
John Owen, Author of "Evenings with the Skeptics." In one volume, demy
8vo, cloth. Price 7s. 6d. net.

' The wide circulation of this volume would be of the happiest augiury, for a more
scientific and worthy conception of the organization of the primitive Church.' — Dr.
Marcus Dods in The Bookman.

THE APOSTLES' CREED. Translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders.
In one volume, crown 8vo, cloth. Price is. 6d. net.

PFLEIDERER, OTTO, D.D.
EVOLUTION AND THEOLOGY. Edited by Dr. Orello Cone,
Lombard University. In one volume, crown 8vo, cloth. Price Ss. net.

In collecting and puWishing these essays, with the permission of the distinguished
author, the editor has been actuated by a desire to place before English readers, in a
convenient form, some of the occasional writings of one of the foremost theologians and
scholars of this century.

Some of Dr. Pfleiderer's larger works have already appeared in English translations,
and of the essays composing this volume, several have been published in Quarterly
Reviews issued in the United States. The rest now appear in English for the first time.

SABATIER, A., D.D.

(Dean of the Faculty of Protestant Theology, Paris.)

THE VITALITY OF CHRISTIAN DOGMAS, AND THEIR POWER
OF EVOLUTION : A Study in Religious Philosophy. Translated by
Mrs. Emmanuel Christen. With a Preface by the Very Rev. the Hon. W. H.
Fremantle, D.D., Dean of Ripon. In one volume, crown 8vo, cloth.
Price IS. 6d. net.
' Dr. Sabatier has rendered a good and timely service, alike to theology and religion,

by discussing, as he does here, the relation in which dogma stands to the reality of

religious feeling and experience.' — Glasgow Herald.

SCHECHTER, S., M.A.

STUDIES IN JUDAISM. In one volume, demy 8vo, cloth. Price
7s. 6d.

' He lifts the veil, and we get a glimpse of Jewish teachers and revivalists, of Jewish
philosophy and mysticism, and above all of Jewish devotion to the Torah. Read the
article on the Chassidim, and you will find a community the like of which we have never
been taught to expect in Israel, The contrast of the fine spirit of Israel Baalshem and
the extraordinary perversion of his teaching by his followers, is at once enlightening and
pathetic. , . . The book is written throughout in a vigorous clear style with constant
flashes of sly humour, and it will, we have no doubt, find multitudes of readers who will
endorse our verdict in thanking Mr. Schechter for a most interesting and delightful piece
of work. ' — Cambridge Review.

SMITH, the late W. ROBERTSON, M.A., LL.D.

LECTURES ON THE RELIGION OF THE SEMITES, the Fun-
damental Institutions. New Edition, revised throughout by the Author.
In one volume, demy 8vo, cloth. Price iSs. net.

THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE JEWISH CHURCH : A Course
OF Lectures on Biblical Criticism. Second Edition, revised and much
enlarged. In one volume, demy 8vo, cloth. Price lOs. 6d.

THE PROPHETS OF ISRAEL, AND THEIR Place in History to
THE Close of the Eighth Century b.c. With Introduction and addi-
tional Notes , by the Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D., Oriel Professor of the
Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford, Canon of Rochester. Second
Edition. In one volume, large crown 8vo, cloth. Price los. 6d.

WARD, JAMES, Sc.D., Hon. LL.D. Edin.

NATURALISM AND AGNOSTICISM: THE Giffford LECTURES
of 1896-98. In two volumes, demy 8vo, cloth. Price i8s. net.

' It cannot be doubted that it will have a wide influence on the higher thought of the
country, and may even do something to restore to Philosophy the pre-eminent place it
once occupied in English thought.' — Athenteum.

WELLHAUSEN, Professor J.

SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH. Third
Edition. In one volume, crown 8vo, cloth. Price Ss.

' A sketch which has created such widespread and profound interest as this could not
be kept in the pages of a voluminous encyclopaedia. Wellhausen's words necessarily have
exceptional importance, even in the esteem of those who differ from him Mo cash.' —
Baptist Magazine.

WRIGHT, the late WILLIAM, LL.D.

A SHORT HISTORY OF SYRIAC LITERATURE. In one volume,
crown 8vo, cloth. Price 6s.

' A masterly account of the literature written in that language. It may safely be said
that there is no one in England — or even in Europe — at the present time capable of
speaking with anything like his authority in matters appertaining to Syriac literature. ' —
Record.

A. & C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON.

\