Skip to main content

Full text of "The corrections of Mark adopted by Matthew and Luke"

See other formats





Alfred C. Barnes 

Date Due 

amy « ., 


I irt-l/» It •» 


> 13/UTT-t 


U. S. A. 


NO. 23233 

6^ ^i-'O^^ 

A X3u 



Cornell University Library 
BS2555.A22 C8 

Corrections of Mark adopted by Matthew a 


3 1924 029 334 657 


3. M o\ 


91ol)n l^igfjtfoot 









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. 


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 

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- 



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 



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 


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. 


References and Abbreviations ..... Page xvii 


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



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



§ 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 





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 



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 



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 



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 




§ 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. 



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 



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

Oral Tradition ....... Page 325 

Index of New Testament Passages . Page 331 



(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. 


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). 



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, 

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, 


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. 



(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. 




[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. 



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. 



§ 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 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. 




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). 




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." 


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." 


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. 



§ 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." 


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 



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, 

. . (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 




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. " 



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. 


[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." 



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." 



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. 




§ 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 




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, 




(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 




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 

(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 




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). 

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- 



(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 


[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 



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." 




§ 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 




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 

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. 



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 

§ 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. 




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 

[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. 


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 

in Jerusalem."] 


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. 



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 



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. 




§ 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 

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 

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


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 



§ 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." 




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.'' 




(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." 



§ 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. 



(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 . . ." 




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. 



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- 

§ 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- 

' "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"). 



"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. 




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 



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"). 



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. 



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 



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 



§ 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 


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). 


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 



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 

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. 



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 

[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- 



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. 



§ 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 



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, 



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. 







§ 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 



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 

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 


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 

" [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. 



" 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." 


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 


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 


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. 



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. " 




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 

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- 

[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 



§ 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. 


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. 



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. " 


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). 



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- 


' [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 


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. 



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. 




[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 " ? 



[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. 


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." 


[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 

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. 




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 


OF MARK [364] 

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

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 


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." , 


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\, 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).'' 




— 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 

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

[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. 




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. 



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 

' See Tromm. index under nip and a^. 



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 

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. 


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 




§ 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- 

(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." 


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 



" 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 




. . . ? 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 

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. ; 



[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." 




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 

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. 



[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. 


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- 


[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 


(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 


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. 



§ 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. 


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"). 




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 

^ [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. 




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 

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 

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 

(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 

' " 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 "). 



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. 


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. 



-{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. 


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 

§ 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). 



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) 

(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. 


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 



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. 


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 



§ 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 

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 

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 


(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 




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 

"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- 

Mk. vL 29—32. 

\Afier the Baptist's 

" 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," 



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." 


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 

' 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. 



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.) 


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). 




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 

[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 

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 

Lk. ix. II. 

" And he received 
them and spake to 
them concerning the 
kingdom of God ; 
and them that had 

need of 



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." 


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 

(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." 



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 

(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." 


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." 



filling [lit. the fillings abounded of the superabounded to 
of] twelve baskets." broken pieces, twelve them of the broken 
baskets full." pieces, twelve bas- 


[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. 


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. 



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 


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 

[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. 



[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 


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 


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." 


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. 



(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. 


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. 



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 


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 

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." 




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. 


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." 


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- 


[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"? 


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." 


[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. 


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'. 




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 

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 

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." 


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. 



[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 

[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. 


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 


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." 


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? 



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- 

(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). 




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 

§ 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." 



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. 


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, 


(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. 


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 

(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.). 


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)- 


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," 




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. 


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. 



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. 


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 



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. 


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 

11 161 


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 


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 

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. 



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." 


[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." 


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 

[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." 



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 

" Iren. v, 36. 2, See also Iren. v. 33. 2. 


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 



(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 


[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." 


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." 



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." 


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- 

[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 

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 



§ 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." 


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. 


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. 


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). 



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." 


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. 

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.'' 


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 



in favour of Mark, especially as the Greek " they saw ' 
very easily confused with the Greek " behold ! " 


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 

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. 


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 

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 



to think that this correction probably was due to a Hebrew 

(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 

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. 


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 


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. 




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- 

' Mt. xxi. 41 KaKois KaKws aTroX^o-ei means exactly " he will wretchedly destroy 
those wretches!'' 


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. 



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. 



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. 



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). 


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). 



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 ' 


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 , 


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 " 

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 ! " 


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). 



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.", 




[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] 

Mk. xii. 32. 

{c^ " the scribe 
said to him, Teacher 
well saidst thou in 

Mk. xii. 34 (lit). 
((Tg) "Jesus seeing 
him that he answered 

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 

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 


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." 


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. 


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 


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. 



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 




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 

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. 




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. 


"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 

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 
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 




" 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 

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- 


[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)' 



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 (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 

[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." 



(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. 



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>) «• 


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 



(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 

(ix) " Rad " meaning "great" confused with " Rab " meaning 


[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. 


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. 



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 • 


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 

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- 

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 


(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 




§ 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, 

[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." 



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)' 


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." 




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 

" [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. 


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 ; 



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." 


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. 



(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 


[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." 


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. 



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) \\. 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. 


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." 



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." 


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 

" For insertions of \oiK]in in negative sentences in LXX, see Ex. v. 10, ix. 33, 
Ps. xxxix. 13, Job vii. 8, 21. 




§ 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." 


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 


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. 


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. 



(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." 


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. 



(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 

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«). 


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. 



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 


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. 


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 


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.'' 



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 


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] 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 " 


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. 



" 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 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 : — 

(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." 


(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." 


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 

(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." 


(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 


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 

(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. 


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). 



(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«] '', "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.^ 


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." 



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 




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 

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 

[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. 


They are omitted by the 


[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 

[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. 


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)." 




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. 


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 ? " 



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.. 


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. -^. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 


" 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 > " 


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- 



while that for envy there had delivered him over the chief 
priests [saying, ' He\ stirred up the multitude [to make him 

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. 


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." 



(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 


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). 



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. 


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." 



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. 




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- 

Evang. Pet. § 4. 

"And when they 
li/ied up {aip0o)erav) 
the cross they in- 
scribed ..." 

over (so 
? upon) 



(» » 

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 

^ [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. 




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 

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 


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." 



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 


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. 



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 


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 



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 

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, 


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. 



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^. 

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. 



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. / 


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. 



§ 78. (Mk.) "in a white robel' (Mt.-Lk.) " 
Mk. xvi. 5. 


" a young - man 
clothed in a white 

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- 

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 -] 

(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 



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." 



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 

[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). 


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). 



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). 




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." 




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 


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). 


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." 



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- 



(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 


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. < 


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 

(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). 



'' 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. 



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. 



" 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 




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- 


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." 



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. 


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." 



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)." 



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. 



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 



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] (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. 







[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] 







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 


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 

i. 13 . , . •jreLpa^bfievos 
virb ToO Sarava (f) 

i. 13 Kal ^v, tu>v 
$7jpluv (t) 

i. 16 Kal Trapdyiov irapa. 

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 

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 


. . . 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 





■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 

viii. 3'fJi/'aTo . . . X^76)v, 

ix. 2/fai I80V irpoff4<pepQv 
atiT$ , . . iirX kXCvtis 


2 /cat ^5dj>' 

Tos . . . 6,V6f^x9i[vai rbv 

iii. 22 Kara^TJvai rb 
TTuevfia rb S/yiOP ciafmriKi^ 
etdec Cjs Trepi(jT€pkv hr 

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. 




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 . . . 

ix. 3 Kal ISoii 
ix. 4 etirev, 

ix. 6 (Tou T^K kKIvtiv 

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 


V. 36 ^n^iiXXei 
V. 37 el Sk liipie 
V. 37 Kal aiThi eKyy^i- 

fferat Kal ol dtr/foi dTro- 


V. 38 dXXi olvov viov els 

otTKoiis Kaivoiis pXijT^oc 
vi. I friXXoc . . . Kal 


vi. 2 TIK^S 8J TiSl/ *. 


vi. 3 etirev 

vi. 4 el IXT) jJiovovs Tois 


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 

xii. 3 etirev 

xii. 4 ei M')) Tois lepeOaiv 

xii. 9 eis TTiv ffvvayoiyTiv 

xii. 1 1 6 8i etirev 
r xii. IS TiKoXoidrjffav 
I aiiry iroXXoi /cal idepA- 
] irevaev aiirobs irdvras ^ 

Siroi elxoi' /id(rTiyai 

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- 



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) 


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 


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 

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'. 




. . , 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 


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) 

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 


tQ di els rb dyiov irveSfw. 
p\a<riprip,iiffavn o6k &^e- 

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 


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 


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 

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, 



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 . . . 

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 

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- 

viii. 25 (jio^TiBivres 8^ 
I6a{|i.a(rav, "Kiyovrts irpbs 
AXX-iJXous, . . . Kal rois 
dvifwis iiriTdffaei Kal tQ 
VSan Kal vTraKoiova-iv 

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. 





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 

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 ^ 


viii. 33 ol 8J pbffKovres 
i^XBev els 

e^e\96vTa Zl ret. 


IdbvTes Si ol 

viu. 34 

viii. 35 IJiSXAoK . . . Kal 

viii. 41 Kol ISov ^\9ei' 
<iy^;p . . . dpxtiV TTjs aw- 

vni. 34 

ix. 18 ISoi ipxiav [els] 
7rpo(re\0i!iv (marg. curcX- 
6ci)v (? =els i\8iiv), cm. 

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 

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)* 


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 


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." 




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 (+) 


. , . 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 


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- 

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 

ix. 12 . . ., dirSKvfrov 
tJiv 6y^ov, tva . , . koto- 
XdawffLv Kal eUpoiffiv eirL' 

ix. 13 ol Si etwav, OiK 
elalv . , . el fv/pri , 
dyoptiffoifiev . . . Pp(6- 


ix. 16 iSidov TOIS /jLadtj- 
Tois vapaBeXvai rip SxXif) 

ix. 17 fh irepurirevarav 
airois KXatr/iiTiiiv K6<pivoi 

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. 



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) 

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 . . . 

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 

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- 


xvii, 6 /cat e'0o/3^6T]o-av 

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 

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 

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) 

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 




ix. 7 ipiavi] • . . OBtos 

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) 
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) 



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 

xvii. 20 . . 

xvii. 22 (rvffTpetpOfiiyujv 
8€ aifTuiv 

xvii. 22 etirev 

xvii. 22 )j.^XXei . . . 

xxiii. 1 1 6 d^ |ieC^<i>v 
v\i.u>v iarai vfjiQv didKovos 


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]- 

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- 

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." 




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) ^ 


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 . . . 

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 


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- 

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 


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. 


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 

xviii. 27 6 Si ihrev, 


8J etircv 

XX. 19 TJ TpCrg ijftipf 
eyepB'^erai (marg, ava- 

XX. 25 6 81 'I. . . . 

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. 




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 

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 

xi. 31 Kal (vi) 

xi. 32 iWi, elwunev . . , 
(t) (vii) 

xii. I ijp(aTO oiirois iy 
Tapapo\aU XaXeii' (vii) ' 

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 


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- 

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. 

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 

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§ 

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''^ 


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 

xxi. 33 SWrfv vapa- 
^oM\v iKoiirare 



) ) 


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 

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 

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 

xii. 23 iv ii ivauTTdffei, 
rlvoi airuv (arai yvvf/ ; 

xii. 24 (ijni (? vii) ' 

xii. 28 eU Tuv 7po/i- 
imriiav . . . iirripiirriireii 
aMv, Tlola. iarlv hiro'K^ 
irpiSmi irdvTuv ; (t) 

xii. 29 dTTcKpWij (ii) ■■ 

xxi. 34, 35 . . . \aSeiv 
Tois KapTois aiirou. Kal 
\ap6vTes ol 7CupYol . . . 

xxi. 37 Si 

xxi, 38 0! Si yeupyoi 
IScSvTCS r6v vl6v eXitov iv 

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. 

xxi. 45 ol &pxicpcts Kal 
ol iapuratoi 

xxii. 19 ^TTiScC^aTc 

xxii. 21 . . . \iyei 

xxii. 23 . . . wpo<rfi\dov 
. , . \iytnnts . . ., Kal 

xxii. 24 pi)) t\av riKva 

xxii. 27 ficrrepov Si wiv- 


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^ 


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 

XX. 19 o£ ypapipAiTeh 
Kal ot dpxicpcts 
XX. 24 ScClan 

XX. 25 . . . elTrei/ trpbs 

XX. 27 irpo<rtX6Ai'T6s Si 

, . . ol X^OVTtS . . ., ^TTI)- 


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 

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 


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. 




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 

xiii. 2 6j oi ixT] (COTO- 
\u95 (? vii) 

xiii. 3 Kal KaBijiUvov 
avrov . . . iirfjpijyra ainbv 

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 

xiii. 9 Kal iirl Tryepivav 
Kal ^affikiiav ffrad-^treo'de 

xiii. II . . . dW 6 
^4;' doBy i/uv . . . (viii) * 

xiii. 12 Kal irapaSiliaa 

xiii. 16 6 els rhv aypbv 

xiii. 18 iaovrai y&p al 
■fipy^pai. iKeivai BXItpis (vii) 



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. 


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 


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- 



xxiv. 3 S« 

xxi. 7 iwripiiniaav Si 

aiiroC . . . vpoff9j\8ov . . . 

oiTjl/ X^70VTES 


xxiv. 4 etirev 

xxi. 8 Aitev 

xxiv. 5 TToXXoi 7dp iXei- 

xxi. 8 TToXXoi 70P i\e6- 



xxiv. 6 Sef yop yeviadai 

xxi. 9 Set 7ap raOra 

xxiv. 7 ""' (aovTai. 
\{,pol Kal (reiirputl Karii, 

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€ 


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 


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." 




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, 

xiv. 1 1 iru! oi)t6v eil/caf- 
piiis irapaSoi (? viii) 

xiv. 12 Kal (vi) 

xiv. 13 Kal X^7ei (v and 

xiv. 19 "^p^avTo Auiret- 
<r0ai (ii) 

xiv. 25 Sti ofiK^T-t (t) 

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 

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 

xvii. 23 'ISoiP IKU f\ 
'ISoi SiSe (marg. om. fi) 

xvii. 23 /iTj [dTT^XBriTe 
/ii)5i] SiiifjjTe 

xxi. 26 al Swifias t&v 

xxi. 32 £ci>s [&v] 

xxi. 33 oi |i'f| 7ro/)eXei5- 


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 

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 

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 



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 . 



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 

xxvi. 58 6 S\ n. ^/coXoi)- 
9eL . . . ^ftis TTJs a^rls 
. . . Kol . . . iKiSriTO 

xxvi. 63 , . . Ira 
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 


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^ 





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 

XV. 26 ^v Tj imypa^ 
rijs alrias airoS ... 6 
/3afftXei)s (t. and i or vii) * 

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)- 


xxvii. 21 (1)tlvaii\iT( 
. . . OTToXwu i/ilv ; 

xxvii. 22 yjk'^oxiaiv ttAv- 

xxvii. 23 ol 3^ TrepLfftru)s 
Ixpa^of \iyovTcs ^avput- 


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 


xxiii. 3 iipdrrri<rei> . . . 
xxiii. 3 2<f>i) 

xxiii. 9 iireKplvaro 

xxiii. 13 n. Si o-vv- 
KaXeirdjUevos . . . €tirev 

xxiii. 18 ATpe tovtov, 
dirbXvffov 8i iifuv rbv B. 

xxiii. 20 (?) B^wi' 0x0- 

xxiii. 21 ot d^ iiretpfivovy 

xxiii. 23 ahoiftevoi 
airbv irTavpw6ff/ai (marg. 

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 

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;. 


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 

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 

xvi. 7 ei^rraTe . , . /cai 
Tijj II^/)(() Srt Trpodyci * 

XVI. » . 
rfiroi' (t) 

oidevi oitdiy 

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 . . . 

xxvii. 55 dirb T<is TaKi- 

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 


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' 

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- 

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 


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. 




[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 

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. 



[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 



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 



[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" 



[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. 


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. 












456 (Hi) 



373 (i), (ii) 



522 {i)-(iv) and 






350, 438 (v) c 

(vii) ; 527 






429 (vi) 






336-42 (comp. 



360 (i) 



417a, 422-4 










336-42 (comp. 



456 (ii) a 



426, 426 (i), 449 




466 (e) («) 






343, 465-6 







431 (ii) 










438 (i)-(v) 


1. ' 







466 (7) 




438 (v) 







392a, 439-42 






466 (S)-(f) 


















390 (i) (0) a 



447 (iv) 









445-7 (iv) 



432-7 (i) 







p. 170, comp. 






469 (iii) a 

418 and 488 













390 (ii) (e) 



370 (i)-371 



27 429-31 (ii) 



318 (ii) 



447 (iii) a 






438 (v) c, d 



390 (ii) (7) 



















366a, 436 



390 (i) (5), 






438 (v) c 










372, 464 






13 394-9 



456 (i)-(iv) 









372, 454 









459 (iv) 



352, 354 













403 (i) 


40-42 459 (i)-61 









466 (e).o 









466 ()3) 






466 (S)-(f) 






362, 466-6 



439, 466 (e) c 



469 (v) 






372, 406-12 



36 462-9 







413, 466 (e) 



459 (v) 






487 (i) (/3)-(7), 







487 (i) (f) e 



466 (i;) a 




390 (i) (a)-(e), 






7 471-2 

390 (ii) (e) 






II 429-431 (ii) 







460 (iii) a, c 



438 (v) a 











390 (ii) (e) 



522 (ii) a 






390 (ii) (e) a 


















622 (ii)-(iv) 


















466 (e) c 



362, 364, 449 















438 (v) c 






403 (i) 


















466 (c) c 









456 (iv) 






360 (i) 









359a, 361 



469 (iii) a 



484 (i)-6 



469 (iii) a 



438 (ii) a 






466 (e) b 






493, 4940-8 















466 («)-(f) 






360, 394a 



371a, 372,406- 
















413, 466 (e) 









459 (iii) a 









487 (i) (|8) and 






387a, 409a 




602 (i) 









502 (vi) c 





















459 (iii) a 



469 (iii) a 



493*, 502 (v) 





















370 (i)-371 

(vii); 627 






447 (iii) a 






606, 506 (iii) b 



390 (ii) (7) 



422-4, 540 



606 (iH'ii) 



372-3, 469 







(iii) a 









373 (i)-(ii) 









432a, 469 (iii) a 



425, 426 (i)- 



415a, 514 



469 (iii) a 




506a, 615-6 


469 (iii) a 












426-8,459 (iii)a 



620-1, 527« 





431 (ii) 



498/, 606a 





429-31 (ii) 










■■i. 3 

522 (i)-(iv), 


366, 387 



432-7 (i) 







438 (i)-(v), 466 













395 (i) a 



466 (7) 


16, I 

1 487 (i) (e) 



352, 465-6 



466 (7) 






392a, 439-42 







444 (i)-(ii) 






387a, 418a 






336-42, comp. 






447 (iv) 










343, 466-6 



390 (i) (a)-(e), 



446-7 (iv) 




390 (ii) (e) 



p. 170, comp. 







418, 488a 




390 (ii) (c) 









390 (ii) (e) a 



429-31|(ii) \ 



438 (v) d 



459 (iii) a 















389, 360, 390 







(i) (7) 

















i62a, 463 



; 606 



447 (iii) a 



459 (iii) a 



606 (i)-(iii) 



390 (ii) (7) 



390 (i) (8), 













373 (i)-(ii) 















415a, 479, 514 






466 (i)-(iv) 









372, 464 





23-24 382-6 



469 (iv) 


42-3 517-9 1 









520-1, 527e, i 






459 (i)-61 









466 (e) a 






396 (i) a 



449, 466 (|3) 


3. 4 




352, 465-6 



459 (v) 



522 (i)-(iv), 






487 (i) (/3) c 







459 (vi), 161flf, 






390 (i) (a)-(e), 





390 (ii) (c) 



459 (vi), 462-7 



487 (i) (e) a 






459 (vi), 462-7 

390 (ii) (f) 



469 (iii) a 







393a, 469 (v) 





37. 38 470 



466 (iii) 






413, 469 (iii) a, 













372, 403 (i) 






390 (ii) («) a 






390 (ii) (a) 



17 336-42, comp. 



487 (i) (j3) and 




















22 343 















409a, 486 









459 (iii) a 



438 (v) d 







350, 389 













478-82, 491* 















4 422-4 






351, 352 






484 (i)-486 



362, 364 



425, 426 (i). 



482c, 486-93 










6 366-6 





















431 (ii) 



479, 494-8 



8 359-60 



429-31 (ii) 



479, 494-8 



360 (i) 












390 (ii) (c) a 






466 (ii) a 



390 (i) a, 390 






466 (e) * 

(■) (7), 390 



603 (i) 



14 363 

(i) (e) 


6, 8 

602 (i), (iv) 



362, 438 (v) 



23 462-9 



502 (vi) c 



466 (e) c 


25 foil. 466 (ij) c 









469 (vi) 


lo-ii 503 (ii) 






466 (1;) d 















429 (vi) 



466 (S)-(f) 



490, 493*, 502 










469 (iii) a 



390 (i) (a) a 









372, 406-12 






370 (i)-71 



-6 466 (v) a 











438 (v) a 









413, 466 (e) 









373 (ii) 



493, 494^8 



9 414, 417* 












466 (e) c 






9 487(1) (7) 



466 (e) c 









466 (iv) 









466 (c) c 



459 (vi) 





18, i< 

J 374-80 



62 499-501 









5 486-93 









70 483-5 



476, 484 (i) c 



466 ({8) a 






484 (i) c 



432-7 (i) 



603 (i)-(ii) 






429 (v) 



506 (iii) a 






318 (ii) 



603 (i)-(ii) 






466 (/3) u, 466 



12 603 (iii) a 





487 (i) (a) 









603 (iii) a 






372, 464 



506 (iii) a 






438 (i)-(v) 



IS 603 (iii) 






522 (ii)-(iv) 






603 (i) a 



392<z, 439-42 






503 (i) a 



444 (i)-(ii) 






506 (ii) 






493^,see 602-4, 



40 502-4 



447 (iv) 

506 (iii) a 



493*, 602 (v) 






502 (v)-(vii), 



487 (i) (a) 



446-7 (iv) 

603 (iii) a 



506 (iii) a 









506 (i) a, 606 



p. 170, cp. 418a 




(iii) a 


















487 (i) (a) 






606a, 506 (i)- 



606*, 506 (i)- 








456 (i)-(iv) 






509a, 614 



372, 454 



415a, 514 


38-40 527^^/ 












459 (i)-61 


So-2 617-9 









520-1, 527? 



621, 527rf 



466 (e) a 









466 (/3) 


















459 (v) 



622 (i)-(iv), 






459 (vi), 462-7 




469 (v) 



487 (i) (e) a 








II 528-33 






487 (i) (e) a 









487 (i) (e) a 



390 (ii) (S) 



487 (i) (e) a 







487 (i) (|3) d 



390 (i) S, 460-3 











506 (i) * 



429-431 (ii) 





429 (ii) 





469 (vi) 








459 (vi) 











506 (i)- * 





1 6-: 

21 342 












390 (ii) (e) a 





31-6 342 



606 (i) a 



13. so 

13. SI 

17. 12 

17. 23 

23. 2 

28. i8 




390 (i) a, 390 

(i) (<^) 
606 (i) 
606 (i) a 


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 


1. 20 

4. II 

15. 6 

16. 9 



487 (i) (e) a 



2. 12 

3. 7 
3. 10 

3. IS. 

11. 19 

12. 7 






362a, 489u 



2. 9 480^ 
6. 9 446 


4. 3 437 

6. 14 390 (ii) (e) 

6. IS 390 (ii) (e) a 


2. IS 436 


1. IS 417 
1. 18 417 

3. IS 437 

4. 3 343 


5. 13 437 

3. 9 466 (e) b 


1. 6 417 

3. II 371a, 408 

4. 3 371a, 408 




, S 408 


6 602 (v) 



3, 4 390 (ii) (6) 



20 489a 


2S 601a 


6 446 



19 622 (iii) a 



S 417 


12-1S 522 (v)-(vii) 


13 390 (ii) (e) 


18 622 (vi) 


4 626a 


8 343 


18 390 (ii) (e) 


I 343 


4 526a 


9 626a 


13 486c 


13, 14 390 (i) (0) a 


3 449 


14 626a 


10 449 


12 606 (i) 


Printed by R. & R. Clark, Limited, Edinhurgh. 




ST. THOMAS OF CANTERBURY: His Death and Miracles. 

In two volumes, demy 8vo, cloth. With a Photogravure Frontispiece. Price 


' 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. 

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. 


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.' — 


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. 

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. 


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 

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. 


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, 

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 

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. 

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. 


(Dean of the Faculty of Protestant Theology, Paris.) 

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. 


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. 

damental Institutions. New Edition, revised throughout by the Author. 
In one volume, demy 8vo, cloth. Price iSs. net. 

OF Lectures on Biblical Criticism. Second Edition, revised and much 
enlarged. In one volume, demy 8vo, cloth. Price lOs. 6d. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. ' —