A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew 9781617197413, 1617197416

Citation preview

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew

Gorgias Occasional Historical Commentaries

13

Gorgias Occasional Historical Commentaries is a series that seeks to reprint historically important biblical commentaries. Rather than seeking to cover each book of the Bible as a standard commentary series would do, this series strives to bring back to the community of biblical scholars works that have had impact on subsequent biblical studies but which have been difficult to locate for decades or more because they have gone out of print.

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew

Willoughby C. Allen

1 gorgias press 2010

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2010 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1907 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2010

1

ISBN 978-1-61719-741-3

ISSN 1935-4398

Reprinted from the 1907 New York edition.

Printed in the United States of America

The International Critical Commentary On the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments

T

EDITORS'

TREFACE

H E R E are now before the public many Commentaries, written by British and American divines, of a popular or homiletical character. The Cambridge Bible for Schools, the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The Speaker's Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff), The Expositor's Bible, arid other similar series, have their special place and importance. But they do not enter into the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum A. T.; De Wette's Knrzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T.; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar; Keil and Delitzsch's Biblischer Commentar über das A. T.; Lange's Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack's Handkommentar zum A. T. ; Holtzmann's Handkommentar zum N. T. Several of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English-speaking public ; others are in process of translation. But no corresponding series by British or American divines has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, when it is practicable to combine British and American scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholarship, and in a measure lead its van.

THE

INTERNATIONAL

CRITICAL

COMMENTARY

Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of New York, and Messrs. T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, under the editorship of Prof. C. A. BRIGGS, D.D., in America, and of Prof. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., for the Old Testament, and the Rev.

ALFRED PLUMMER, D . D . ,

for t h e

New

Testament,

in

Great Britain. The Commentaries will be international and inter-confessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from matter of a more general character; and in the Old Testament the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, with critical notices of the most important literature of the subject. Historical and Archaeological questions, as well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. The Volumes will constitute a uniform series.

CONTENTS PAGE

CONTENTS

.

III-IV

PKBFACE

i-xii

INTRODUCTION

xiii-lxxxviii

T H E SOURCES OF T H E G O S P E L A.

xiii

S. M a r k

xiii

1. O m i s s i o n s

.

.

2. C h a n g e s i n o r d e r 3. A b b r e v i a t i o n

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

xiii-xvii .

xvii

.

.

xvii

.

.

( i ) o m i s s i o n of d e t a i l s

.

.

.

(c) o m i s s i o n of s a y i n g s

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

4. E x p a n s i o n of d i s c o u r s e s S- L i n g u i s t i c c h a n g e s (a) p a r t i c l e s

.

.

.

.

xvii-xviii xviii xviii-xix

.

.

.

.

.

xix

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

xix

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

xix-xx

.

.

.

.

.

xx-xxiv

.

xxiv-xxvi

(¿) t e n s e a n d v o i c e

.

.

.

(a) c o n d e n s a i ion o f p h r a s e .

(d) a b b r e v i a t i o n o f n a r r a t i v e s

.

xiii

.

(c) a v o i d a n c e o f r e p e t i t i o n .

.

.

.

(1) in tautologous phrases. (2) in n e g a t i v e s . (3) in c o m p o u n d v e r b s w i t h a p r e p o s i t i o n . (d) i n v o c a b u l a r y (e) in s y n t a x

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(/') in p r e p o s i t i o n s a n d a d v e r b s in c o n j u n c t i o n s

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

xxvi-xxvii .

xxvii

.

.

xxvii-xxx

.

.

xxx

(A) to a s s i m i l a t e to a n o t h e r p a s s a g e of the G o s p e l (») to h e i g h t e n a n a n t i t h e s i s 6. C h a n g e s C

h

with r

i

respect s

t

to .

the .

.

.

.

Person .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

10. C h a n g e s for t h e s a k e o f a c c u r a c y 11.

S o m e a l t e r a t i o n s in fact

.

.

.

xxxi

.

of xxxi-xxxiii

.

.

. .

.

xxx

. xxxiii-xxxiv

, .

.

.

. .

.

.

Miracles

8. C h a n g e s to e m p h a s i s e f u l f i l m e n t of p r o p h e c y 9. Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a n d e x p l a n a t i o n s

.

and

7 . C h a n g e s w i t h r e f e r e n c e to t h e A p o s l les

.

xxxiv

xxxiv-xxxv .

.

S i m i l a r t r e a t m e n t of t h e S e c o n d G o s p e l by S . L u k e

.

xxxv

.

xxxv

xxxv-xxxviii

T h e s e a g r e e m e n t s d u e in p a r t to i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i s i o n of M k . b y M t . and L k . Mt.

and

Lk.

had

no

.

.

second

p a r a l l e l to t h e w h o l e o f M k .

.

.

source .

.

xxxviii-xxxix

containing .

.

.

matter .

xxxix

CONTENTS

IV

¡•AC.N

Probable explanations of the agreement of Mt. and Lk. against Mk. . . . . . . . xxxix-xl Lk. may have seen Mt. . . . . . . xl B. Matter common to Mt. and Lk. xli-xliii The common sayings . . . . . . . . xliv Theories to account for agreement of Mt. and Lk. in these sayings xlv-xlix . xlv-xlvi 1. Theory of a common written source . . 2. Oral tradition xlvi-xlvii 3. Independent written sources xlvii 4. Lk. had read Mt xlvii-xlix The common narratives xlix-1 C. Matter found only in Mt 1-liv (a) Editorial passages . . . . . . . . liii (i) Sayings inserted into Mk.'s natratives . . . . lir (c) Sayings grouped in long discourses . . . . . liv (¿0 other sayings liv (e) Incidents . . . . . . . . . liv ( / ) Quotations from the Old Testament . . . . liv Characteristics of the sayings . . . . . Ivi-lvii Their probable source is the Matthoean Logia . . . lvii-lx Consideration of the narratives . . . . . lx-lxi The quotations lxi-lxii P L A N AND C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF T H B G O S P E I lxiii-lxv T H E THEOLOGY OF T H E GOSPEL lxvi-lxxix A. Christology lxvi-lxvii B. The Kingdom of the Heavens Ixvii-lxxi C. The Son of Man Ixxi-lxxv D. The Church lxxv-lxxvi E. Jewish-Christian Character of the Logia and of the Gospel lxxvi-lxxix T H E AUTHOR lxxix-lxxxi The Gospel according to the Hebrews lxxxi-lxxxiii THE DATE

.

lxxxiv-lxxxv

lxxxv-lxxxvii lxxxvii-Ixxxviii lxxxix-xciv xev-xevi

T H E S T Y L E AND L A N G U A G B THE TEXT

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

L I S T OF A U T H O R I T I E S ABBREVIATIONS

COMMENTARY Note on the historical value of the Gospel

1-308 .

.

.

.

309-320

INDICES I. G e n e r a l

321-322

II. Modern Authors 323-324 III. References to the Bible and to Jewish and other Ancient literature 324-332 IV. Greek Words 332-337 V. Hebrew and Aramaic Words . . . . . . 337~338

PREFACE

PERHAPS no one, especially during the last thirty years, has undertaken to write: a Commentary on one of the Canonical Gospels, without experiencing again and again, during the process of production, that he had undertaken a task which was beyond both his strength and his equipment. That has certainly been my own experience in writing this Commentary on the First Gospel. For a commentator upon this book, who is to do his work efficiently, should have many qualifications. He should be a competent Greek scholar, versed in the Hellenistic Greek literature, and acquainted with the bearing of modern archaeological discovery upon the history of the language. He should be acquainted also with the Hebrew of the Old Testament, with the various Aramaic dialects, and with the later dialects of the Talmuds and Midrashim. If the writings of Deissmann on the one hand, and of Wellhausen and Dalman on the other, have shown what new light can be thrown upon the New Testament by experts in their own department, they have also illustrated the defective character of a one-sided knowledge, and have given indications of the sort of work that may be done by a scholar of the future, who shall be at the same time a Grecian and an Orientalist. The commentator should further be a master of the material for the textual criticism of the Gospel, which is in itself the study of a lifetime. He should have a thorough knowledge of the literature di aling with the so-called Synoptic Problem, and should have formed a

ii

PREFACE

judgement based upon independent investigation as to the literary relationship between the Canonical Gospels and the sources which lie behind them. H e should have studied the growth of theological conceptions as illustrated in the Old Testament, and in the apocryphal and apocalyptic literature up to and during the period in which our Gospels were written. And he should have mastered the Talmudic and Midrashic theology at least sufficiently to be able to form an independent judgement as to the possibility of using it for the purpose of illustrating theological conceptions and religious institutions in the first century A.D. I can lay claim to no such qualifications as these. Nevertheless, within the limits to be mentioned presently, I venture to hope that the present volume will give some help to those who desire to find out what this Gospel meant to the Evangelist as he wrote it. How much may here be done Dalman has shown us, but much still remains to be d o n e ; and it is probably the case that, in some measure, the secret of the Gospels will never altogether disclose itself to those who cannot approach them from the Jewish-Oriental view of life, as well as from other aspects. In view of what has been said, it will be understood that the following Commentary has been, of necessity and intentionally, made one-sided in its method and aim, and it will be desirable to try and explain the principles upon which it has been written. There are, I think, roughly speaking, two methods of commenting upon one of the Synoptic Gospels. One, and that the traditional and familiar one, is based upon the two assumptions,^?'^, that all three Gospels are sources for the life of Christ of equal value; and, second, that the commentator is in direct contact with the words of Christ as H e uttered them (due allowance being made for translation from Aramaic into Greek). From this point of view the commentator will always be mindful that it is his duty to elucidate and explain the words of the Gospel upon which he is at work, in such a way as to enable the

PREFACE

iii

reader to reconstruct for himself as nearly as possible the life of Christ; to see before him the scenes being once again enacted; to hear, and to understand as he hears, the words flowing from Christ's lips. From this standpoint that which is common to all the Gospels will be allimportant. The special features of each, in so far as they cannot be easily harmonised with the other Gospels, will be treated as a difficulty to be explained away. Where two Gospels differ in detail, the commentator upon one of them will feel it to be his duty to account for the difference, and to try and ascertain what the actual historical fact was which underlies, and accounts for, the two divergent records. The atmosphere in which the commentator works will be one of effort to harmonise apparent discrepancies, and, so far as possible, to represent the Gospels as in essential agreement. The very important element in the Gospels which such a treatment of them overlooks, or minimises, is the individuality of the respective Evangelists. It leaves no room for the obvious fact that, as they penned their Gospels, these writers selected, arranged, compiled, redacted, with the intention of trying to set before their readers the conception of the Christ as they themselves conceived Him. In its haste to arrive at the actual facts of Christ's life, it: tends to obliterate individual characteristics of each separate Gospel, and to lose sight of the contribution to a complete impression of the Christ which is made by each individual Evangelist. Further, the assumptions by which this method seeks to justify itself are thoroughly artificial and mechanical. The Gospels, of course, are not all, and, in their every component part, of exactly equal historical weight and value. For practical purposes, the ordinary Christian may safely regard them as such, and he will not be far wrong. But it is impossible for the student of life to allow such rough generalisations to keep him from studying the Gospels in the best and latest method that the science of

iv

PREFACE

history can suggest to him ; and historical method is always improving year by year. Precious stones, e.g., have a value for their beauty and brilliance to the ordinary public. But such wide generalisations as that " diamonds are beautiful " cannot deter the student of life from endeavouring to investigate the life-history of diamonds, and to discover the cause of their radiance by scientific analysis. And the results of his investigation, that a diamond consists of such and such chemical elements, does nothing whatsoever to destroy the value which diamonds have for the unscientific purchaser; nay, rather would a thousand times enhance their value and interest, if he understood but a thousandth part of the extraordinary process which has gone to produce the stone which he buys. The method of dealing with the Gospels upon the basis of these artificial assumptions seems to the modern student of life to cast an atmosphere of unreality round them, and to lead to results which are of the nature of theories without foundation in actual fact. Of course, it may ultimately prove to be the truth that these assumptions are in reality intuitions of facts of first-rate importance. And that is, indeed, my own belief. The Synoptic Gospels are, I think, historical sources for Christ's life of nearly equal value, and the reader is, I believe, in large measure in immediate touch with the acts and words of the historical Christ. The impression which he obtains of the Person of the Lord from one Gospel is, with very slight reservation, the same as that which is given him by another. In all of them it is the same Christ who acts and speaks. But these impressions or intuitions become vicious when they are used as grounds for treating the Gospels in a quite artificial and mechanical way. So far from being, from the point of view of the student of history, axioms with which he starts, they themselves need to be proved and justified by historical investigation. The fact that the study of the Gospels is in such a chaotic condition, is partly due to this radically false

PREFACE

V

method of studying them. On the one hand, traditional commentators have used these assumptions as a ground for treating the Gospels in a wholly artificial manner. By force of reaction the modern critic has often not only (and quite rightly) insisted on studying the Gospels on historical methods, but has also too often, and with fatal effect, refused to see that these assumptions are of the nature of brilliant intuition of elements in the Gospel, which are in part outside the range and scope of his scientific analysis, but which in some measure his analysis should have discovered, if he had not been wilfully blind to them. When, if ever, the irritating and provocative influence of false and artificial methods of dealing with the Gospels ceases to create an equally false opposition method of studying them, it will, I believe, be found that the scientific investigation of the Gospels, upon the best historical methods that the future can ever give us, will lead to results which will in large part coincide with the old conservative and traditional intuitions. On the one hand, it will be found that the sources of our Gospels are early in date, and that, with some slight reservations, they describe for us the historical life of the Saviour of Mankind. It will be seen that the personality of the Evangelists plays a relatively very small part in their records, whilst these agree in an astonishing degree in giving to us an harmonious and consistent account of a unique Personality. No real student of life will ask, " Why then all this critical investigation of the Gospels, if it is simply to give us the old results ? " and if the simple-minded should ask this, it is to be feared that no answers which could be given would satisfy him. But two obvious reasons are these. First, that false and antiquated methods of exegesis do incalculable harm to the young and simple, and to the coming generation of men. The science of history has within the last century undergone a revolution. It has adopted new methods of research, which are every day being improved and perfected. Nothing is more calculated

vi

PREFACE

to shake the faith of the men of the new age in the historical character of the Gospels, than to find that the Christian commentator still interprets the Gospels on the basis of purely a priori assumptions which should themselves be first proved, and by methods which are outworn and unlike the methods used by students in every other department of history. On the other hand, nothing will so reassure the faith of the younger generation of thoughtful men as the discovery that the Gospels, when studied and interpreted along the lines of ordinary historical research, still present to our love and adoration the figure of the Divine Saviour, and that the efforts to prove the Gospels to be late and legendary growths are in large measure a failure, because they start from unscientific presuppositions, and employ unscientific methods of historical inquiry. And, secondly, the consideration of value must, of course, always be kept out of sight by the student. A very large part of historical and scientific research will always seem to the practical man to be of little immediate value. But the student will care nothing for that. He investigates because he must. A n d the Gospels cannot, any more than any other element in life, be hidden away from the curious search and restless probing of the human intellect. It will hardly be necessary to add now that I have deliberately set aside the methods which I have just tried to describe. I have not employed the other Gospels in order to weaken impressions left by the words of the First Gospel, nor have I allowed myself to approach it as an exact representation of Christ's sayings and words. It remains, therefore, to describe the method which I have adopted. In accordance with this method, the work of a commentator upon a Gospel should form only one stage in a complicated process of historical investigation and inquiry. T h e first stages of this process should belong to the textual critic, and to the scholar whom, in default of a better name, we may term the literary critic. The former should

rREI'ACK

VI1

give us a Greek text of the Gospel upon which to work ; the latter should have decided for us such questions as the relationship of the Gospels one to another, and to any source or sources which have been embodied in them. Properly speaking, this first stage of textual and literary criticism should have been completed before the commentator begins his work. But, unfortunately, the day is not yet when we can believe that we have a final Greek text of the Gospels, and the work of literary analysis is probably much nearer its beginning than its end. I have, however, reduced to as small an amount as possible the textual critical element in this Commentary. Handbooks to textual criticism, and editions of the text with full critical apparatus, are now easily accessible. On the other hand, whilst assuming what I believe to be the one solid result of literary criticism, viz. the priority of the Second to the other two Synoptic Gospels, I have thought it desirable to try and prove, by a detailed and full comparison of the first two Gospels, that, so far as they are concerned, this assumption everywhere justifies itself as an explanation of the relationship between them. This will explain the large part which S. Mark's Gospel plays in the following pages. S. Luke's narrative, in so far as it is parallel with the Second Gospel, lies, of course, on this assumption, outside the range of a commentator on the First Gospel. The second stage in the process should be the work of the commentator on the text of each separate Gospel. Starting with the results given to him by the literary critic, and equipped with the Greek text supplied by the textual critic, the commentator will approach each separate Gospel with the purpose of ascertaining what were the conceptions of the life and Person of Christ which governed and directed the Evangelist in his work. From this point of view the main interest of the commentator will lie rather in what is characteristic of, and peculiar to, each Gospel, than in what is common to them all. H e will

vili

PREFACE

refuse to try and harmonise discrepant details or divergent conceptions. Rather he will emphasise these as important, because they enable him to reconstruct the life of Christ as it presented itself to the minds of the Evangelist and of his readers. He will always be mindful of the fact that he is immediately concerned, not with the actual facts of the life of Christ or with His doctrine, but rather with these as mirrored in the mind of the particular Evangelist with whom he is dealing. The third stage in the process belongs to the historian. Just as the commentator is obliged to rely very largely upon the work already done by the literary critic, so the historian must depend for his material to a great extent upon the work of the commentator and of the critic alike. He will have as his material the Gospels as analysed into their sources by the critic, and the mass of not always harmonious impressions of the life of Christ, as given to him by the commentators upon the separate Gospels. With this material at his disposal, it will be his duty to attempt to recover the historical facts of Christ's life, to ascertain as far as possible the exact words which He spoke, and to determine the meaning which these words originally carried with them. In accordance with what has been said, I have felt it to be my duty to begin my work equipped with some acquaintance with the results of the literary criticism of the Gospels. If I have found it necessary partly to assume the results of such labour, and partly to work out a view of my own as to the sources of the Gospel, that is only because the work of the critic and of the commentator cannot in the present conditions of knowledge be quite kept apart. On the other hand, I have done my best not to encroach upon the sphere of the historian. Here and there I may have been tempted to express some view as to the historical character of some incident or saying, as apart from the general credibility of the source of which it forms a part, but generally speaking it has

PREFACE

ix

been my aim to consider the contents of the Gospel always in the first place from the standpoint of their meaning for the editor of the Gospel, and only secondarily from the point of view of their relation to the historical Christ. This explains, of course, in large measure, the limitations of the Commentary which follows. Considerations as to the historical character of the incidents which the Gospel records, have for the most part been carefully avoided; and no attempt has been made to discuss the question whether the teaching here put into the mouth of Christ was as a matter of fact taught by Him. These are questions which should be left to the historian who is dealing with all the sources which are available for the reconstruction of the life of Christ, and should not be approached by the commentator who is dealing with only one Gospel. This limitation carries with it the omission of reference to much literature, ancient and modern. If the commentator is engaged in explaining the meaning of a single Gospel from the standpoint of the Evangelist, he clearly need not discuss those ancient and modern conceptions of the historical Christ with which an historian of Christ's life must grapple. Consequently purely controversial discussion of modern critical views has been purposely avoided in the following pages. Of course, I am aware that in practice the several stages in the process which I have described cannot be kept rigidly apart. The commentator must to some extent exercise his independent judgement in revising the work of the literary critic, and the historian will always find it necessary to test the work of both critic and commentator. But the range of subjects and activities connected with the work of using the Gospels as historical sources is so vast, that it is probable that in the future as, and in so far as, scientific method is improved, the commentator on the Gospels will not be expected to cover more than a part of the ground. He will, e.g., to

X

PREFACE

a greater extent than is at present possible, be able to accept a Greek text from the hands of the textual critics, and so relieve his Commentary of any textual critical apparatus. He will be able also, with more justification than he can at present, to adopt the results of the labours of the literary critics, and so omit from his Commentary a good deal of critical analysis that is at present indispensable. This will leave him free for the more important work of endeavouring to ascertain the meaning of the contents of the Gospel to its writer and first readers, by the methods of investigation into the philological meaning of the words of the Gospel, and of illustration of its ideas from contemporary sources. But within narrower limits the absence from these pages of continual reference to the vast literature dealing with the Gospel requires some apology. It would have been easy to double the size of this book if constant reference had been made to the interpretation of single passages by previous commentators. The limitation that I have imposed upon myself of stating simply the meaning that, as it seemed to me, a particular passage had to the mind of the Evangelist as he wrote it, without giving also the several or many other interpretations which have been given of such a passage by ancient and modern writers, requires some defence, and is, I feel, open to criticism. I have adopted this course on the following grounds: ( i ) the purpose of this Commentary, to attempt to make clear the conception of the Evangelist, made it desirable to omit the interpretations of many writers who have commented on the book, with the quite different object of ascertaining the meaning of the sayings here recorded as they were spoken by Christ Himself. If, e.g., in dealing with 16 17 ' 19 I had given in detail, and with some discussion, all the views that have ever been taken of these much debated verses, I should have required many pages ; but the reader's attention would only have been distracted from the end which I had in view, viz., to set before him

PREFACE

xi

as clearly as possible the meaning which these words had in the mind of the Evangelist when he placed them in their present position in his Gospel. (2) In writing the following pages, I have always had chiefly in view the needs, not of the preacher nor of the general reading public, but of the student who desires to have some understanding of the growth and development of the Gospel literature in the first century A.D., and of the meaning which this particular Gospel had for the Evangelist and his first readers. Now a Commentary which is also a catalogue of all possible interpretations which have ever been read into the Gospel, and at the same time an Encyclopaedia of information upon all subjects directly or indirectly connected with the subject-matter, is no doubt a very useful book, but Commentaries of this nature already exist, and they are very tedious to read. The student who wishes for information of this kind knows that on the one hand he can turn to the Commentaries of Meyer or Alford, and on the other to such indispensable works of reference as Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, and Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, or the Encyclopedia Biblica. I have myself often felt the need of a Commentary on this Gospel which would tell me, not all that can be known about every subject mentioned in it, nor every view that has ever been held about its sayings; but, what the words of the Gospel meant to the Evangelist, that I might form my own conclusion as to the value of that meaning; and I have purposely avoided filling these pages with, what seemed to me to be, needless iteration of information, which is easily accessible to every student. Anyone who turns over the following pages will realise how impossible it is for me to express adequately my obligations to others. I have added to the Introduction a list of the writers to whom I have referred by name in the Commentary, but I owe an equal and in some cases a much greater debt to many others whose names will not be found there. I am particularly indebted to the

xii

PREFACE

editions of Meyer's Commentary edited by Dr. B. Weiss, to Zahn's admirable Commentary on St. Matthew, to Wellhausen's brilliant notes on the first three Gospels, to the English Commentaries of Dr. Plummer on S. Luke, Dr. Swete on S. Mark, and Dr. Gould on S. Mark, and to Dr. A. Wright for his excellent Synopsis. To the members of the class which has met at Dr. Sanday's house for some years to study the Synoptic Problem I owe much, and especially to Mr. C. Badcock, the Rev. V. Bartlet, the Rev. B. W. Streeter, and the Rev. Sir John Hawkins, whose Horee Synopticce is the invaluable companion of every student of the Gospels. Sir John Hawkins was so kind as to read the proofs of the Introduction of this book, and it owes much to his correction and addition. Lastly, Dr. Plummer, as supervising editor, has very kindly made many most valuable suggestions and corrections. Of my obligations to Dr. Sanday I cannot write adequately. He is in no sense directly responsible for anything that these pages contain, but if there be any sound element in method or in tone in what I have written, it is probably ultimately traceable to his influence and to that of his writings. Finally: I think that no scholar will mistake the character and purpose of my translation of the texts of the First and Second Gospels. It aims neither at elegance of diction nor at correctness of English idiom. On the contrary, I have not hesitated to sacrifice idiom and correctness alike, in order to give a literal and bald rendering which should, so far as is possible, represent in English the differences in tense, in syntax, and in vocabulary between the Greek of the Second and that of the First Gospel.

INTRODUCTION. THE

SOURCES OF T H E

GOSPEL.

A. S. MARK. 1. A L M O S T the entire substance of the second Gospel has been transferred to the first T h e only omissions of any length are the following: (a) M k i 33 " 28 Healing of a demoniac. (b) j35-39 Preaching in the synagogues of Galilee. (c) 4.26-29 Parable of the seed growing secretly. (d) 7 32 ' 37 Healing of a deaf man. (-21.

[27-28. 30. 32-46]

(l>) 13 1 " 52

[16-17. 24-30.

35-52]

[omits Mk 4 21 " 24 ' 20-29] 53-58-

I3r " T h e alteration of order here shown is not arbitrary nor without reason, but is dae to the scheme upon which the editor is building up this first part of his Gospel In 3 1 - 4 1 7 he has matter parallel to Mk i 1 " 1 5 with considerable additions. It may be doubted whether he is here borrowing from another source, or whether he is borrowing from Mk. and expanding his narrative by additions, either from oral tradition, or from a second written source. 18-22 comes from Mk i l G W . 4

T I I E SOURCES OF T H E

GOSPEL

xv

T h e editor then comes to Mk i 2 1 . 1 3 H e has already (4 ) anticipated the mention of Capharnaum, 1 and can therefore omit Mk i 2 1 a . Mk i 2 1 b speaks of teaching in the synagogue. Here, therefore, is an opportunity of inserting an illustration of Christ's teaching, which is to be followed by an illustrative group of His miracles. As an introduction to these two sections of illustration, the editor substitutes for Mk i 2 1 a general sketch of Christ's activity (4 2 3 - 2 5 ), using for this purpose phraseology borrowed from various parts of the second Gospel. The reason why he places his illustration of Christ's teaching before that of His miracles is no doubt to be found in Mk i 2 2 , which describes the effect produced by that teaching on the people. T h e editor therefore inserts the Sermon on the Mount between Mk i 2 1 and 2'2, and closes it with this latter verse. Thus : 4 2 3 - 2 5 are substituted for Mk 1 21 . 5~ 7 27 are inserted. 7 28-29 _ j22_ T h e editor now proposes to give illustrations of Christ's miracles. T h e next five sections in Mk. are: j 23-28 T h e demoniac, j 29-31 Peter's wife's mother, j32-34 Healing the sick, j35-39 Retirement and tour, j40-^5 Healing of a leper. We therefore expect the editor to begin his series of illustrations with the narrative of the demoniac, but he omits this altogether, and, passing over Mk i 82 " :iy , continues with Mk i 4 t M 5 the healing of the leper: gl-4 = M k x 40-45. It is not easy to account for the omission of Mk i 2 8 - 2 8 , and for the transposition of 40 " 15 . T h e following reasons may have cooperated to produce them: (a) Mt. has omitted the reference to Capharnaum (Mk i 2 ' j , and has adapted Mk i 2 2 to an entirely different situation. But still he might have inserted a statement of an entry into Capharnaum to form a link between the Sermon and the healing of the demoniac. (b) The incident of the leper is recorded by Mk. without any detail of time or place, after a verse which states that Christ " c a m e preaching in their synagogues throughout the whole of Galilee." It is therefore not unnatural to place the healing of the leper after the Sermon, which may be taken as illustrative of this synagogue preaching. (c) Leprosy was perhaps the most dreaded of all bodily 1 The KarifKTicrev of 4 1 S implies that Capharnaum will henceforth be the headquarters of Christ's ministry.

xvi

T H E GOSI'EL ACCORDING TO S. MATTIIEW

ailments in Palestine, and its cure forms a fitting introduction to a series of three healings of disease. (d) T h e reason why, after inserting the healing of the leper, the editor did not continue with that of the demoniac, may have been that he wished to form a series of three healings of disease, and that in the Church tradition the healing of the centurion's servant was closely connected with the Sermon. L k . has the same connection. (e) Moreover, there were features in the story of the demoniac which did not recommend it to the editor, features which L k . found it desirable to modify. See below, p. xxxiii. After inserting M k i 40 " 45 and omitting 23 ' 28 , the editor inserts the healing of the centurion's servant, 85"13, and can then continue with M k i 29 " 31 , thus forming a series of three healings of d i s e a s e — leprosy, paralysis, fever. H e closes the series with words borrowed from the succeeding verses of M k 32"84, adding a quotation from Isaiah. Thus: gi-4 = M k i 4 0 '«. 85"13 are inserted. g!4-15 _ I29-Sli gl6 _ j 82-84 8 1 7 is inserted. T h e next section in M k . is i35-39. T h i s would be out of place in a series of miracles, and is therefore omitted. M k 140-45 has been already inserted. T h e editor, therefore, comes to M k 2 1 ' 22 . This he postpones, perhaps because it occurred on a visit to Capharnaum different to that just described. B y recording it here the editor would confuse the two visits. M k 2 28 ~3 6 he reserves for a controversial section. 37"35 contain no miracle. 4 1 " 34 he reserves for his chapter of parables. H e therefore comes to 4 s 5 . H e r e Christ is surrounded by a crowd. T h e editor adapts this to his c o n t e x t : 8 18 = M k 4 35 , inserts 819"22, and then takes over M k 4 s 6 -5 2 0 with considerable omissions : M k 4 s6 ~5 20 . 823-34 = 2 1 In M k 5 Christ returns to the western side of the lake. Mt. adds to this, that " H e came to H i s own city " : M t 91 = M k 5 21a , and can then go back and borrow M k 2 1 " 12 with its s e q u e l 1 3 - 2 3 : M t 9 2 " 17 = ' M k 21"22, thus completing a second series of three miracles which illustrate Christ's power over natural forces (823"27), over the hostility of demons (28"34), and in the spiritual sphere (the forgiveness of sins, 91"8). T h e editor now postpones M k 2 2 s -4 3 4 for the same reasons as before. H e comes therefore to 5 22 ' 43 . T h i s he abbreviates, and

T H E SOURCES OK T H E (iOSPEL

xvii

adds two other miracles, thus forming a third series of three miracles illustrating Christ's power to restore life, sight, and s p e e c h : = Mk 522-« 918-26 ^ 27 31 9 " inserted, y >» Having thus given illustrations of Christ's teaching and miracles, the editor now proposes to show how this ministry found extension in the work of the disciples. H e therefore postpones M k 6 1_6a , and expands 6 b into an introduction to this mission modelled on the similar introduction 4 2 3 - 2 5 : 935 = M k 66b. 9 36 " 38 inserted. Chapter i o 1 continues with Mk 6 7 ; but the editor here inserts M k 3 1 6 ' 1 9 , which he had passed over. T h e rest of i o - i i 1 is an amplification of M k 6 8 " 1 1 : io1 = M k 67. io2-I i1 = 6 8 " 11 . i i 2 ' 8 0 inserted. T h e r e now follows a series of incidents illustrating the growth of hostility to Christ on the part of the Pharisees. F o r these the editor now goes back to M k 2 23 " 28ff> : = M k 2 23 " 28 . 1 2 l-8 J 2 9-14 _ 31-6. summarises 37'12. I 2 i5-i6 I 2 ir-2i inserted. Having already borrowed M k 313"19,'i he now comes to 19b " 21 and z2 - 80 . F o r this he substitutes a similar but longer discourse introduced by another miracle : enlarged from Mk 3 10b - so , I222-« and continues with the next section in M k . ! 246-50 = T h i s brings him to M k 4, which is a chapter of parables. editor borrows this and adds other parables : = M k 4 1 - 34 . I 3 i-52 As he has already inserted M k 4s5-513 I3 53-58 =

The

he now comes to M k 6 1 " 63, : M k 6 l-6a

F r o m this point the editor follows the order of Mk.'s sections. 3 . T h e editor not infrequently abbreviates Mk.'s record. (a) S o m e examples of abbreviation in expression are given below on p. xxiv. (b) I n other cases details are dropped from the narrative. E.g. M k i l s " H e was with the wild beasts." i 2 0 " with the hired servants." i 2 9 " with J a m e s and J o h n . " 2 26 « ; n the days of Abiathar the high priest."

xviii

TIIE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

Mk 227 " T h e Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." 3 17c Boanerges. 438 " upon the cushion." 5 13 "about two thousand." 6 12 the mission of the Twelve. 6:i7 " two hundred pennyworth." (>39-40 " by companies—green—in ranks, by hundreds and by fifties." 73"4 the explanation of "unwashen hands." 93 " s o as no fuller on earth can whiten them." 14 5 " three hundred pence." 14 51 the young man who fled naked. 15 21 " t h e father of Alexander and Rufus." 15 44 Pilate's inquiry about the death of Christ. Especially statements of the thronging of the multitudes and the inconvenience caused by it. E.g. Mk i 3 3 " a n d the whole city was gathered together at the door." i 4 5 " s o that H e would no longer enter into a city." 2% 4 " ,\ n ( j m a n y were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, no, not even about the door. . . . And when they could not come nigh unto Him for the crowd." 3 9 " And He spake to His disciples, that a little boat should wait upon Him because of the crowd, lest they should throng Him." 3 10 "pressed upon Him." 320 " s o that they could not so much as eat bread." 681 " t h e y had no leisure to eat." (c) Not infrequently sayings are omitted from a discourse. But, for the most part, such sayings have already been inserted in an earlier part of the Gospel. The left-hand column shows where the saying has been omitted, the right-hand column where it has been inserted. 21 Mt 5 15 . Mt 1323-24 Mk: 4 422 IO20. T 323.24 424a 72j 323-24 421b i312I32S-24 937b IO40. 18 5 IO42. 41 9 185 950 51S18 9 ,,25 614. j 39b. 11-12 IO17"20. 2 40 (d) In other cases a whole narrative or section is given in a much abbreviated form. E.g. Mk 37"12 is compressed into two verses in 1215-16. T h e

T H E SOURCES OF TI1K GOSPEL

xix

reason is obvious. T h e editor is collecting illustrations of the controversies between Christ and the Pharisees. H a v i n g just borrowed M k 2 23 -3 1 " 6 , which is suited to his purpose, he comes to 3 7 - 1 2 , which has nothing bearing upon the subject H e might well have omitted it, just as he omitted i 3 5 89. But the thought of Christ's ministry of healing, M k 310, suggested to him a contrast between the Lord's quiet work of love with its shrinking from publicity, M k 312, and the hostile clamour of the Pharisees. He therefore shortened M k 37"12 and added a quotation from Isaiah to emphasise this contrast. M k 5 1 - 4 3 is much shortened in M t 828"31 9 1 8 2 6 . See notes on g28

g18.

M k 614"29 is abbreviated in M t 14 142 . M k q11"29 appears in a shorter form in M t 1714-"20. 1718.

See note on

4. Contrasted with this shortening of narrative sections is the amplification of discourses. E.g. M k i 7 " 8 , the preaching of the Baptist is expanded into M t

Mk

37"12.

the refutation of the charge of diabolical agency is expanded into M t 1224-45. M k 4, the chapter of parables is considerably lengthened in Mt 13. M k 68"11, the charge to the T w e l v e is expanded into M t io 5 ' 4 2 . M k 935-50, teaching about greatness is expanded into M t 182"85. M k i2 87b " 40 , denunciation of the Pharisees forms the nucleus of a whole chapter in M t 23. M k 13, the discourse on the last things is expanded in M t 24-25 into double the length. Four of these bodies of discourse, formed by interweaving some other source or sources with the shorter discourses found in Mk., viz. chs. 1 0 . 1 3 . 1 8 . 2 4 - 2 5 , are closed by a formula: koI ¿yevero ore ¿riXerrey o 'lyo-ovs Siaraatriov rots SwSe/ca ¡x.(x6rjTolto assimilate to i f 0 . In 15 33 - 39 Mt. assimilates the language to 14 19 " 21 .

TIIE

SOURCES

OF

THF,

GOSPEL

XXX!

(i) A few c h a n g e s s e e m to b e d u e to t h e desire t o e m p h a s i s e a n antithesis, e.g.: M t I 5 2 \ Sia TC ol ¡xaOrjTai crov rrapafiaivovtnv. 153J Sia rt Kal ifieti irapafiai tre. I54\ o yap Otbs ehrtv ri/xa. 155J v/Meis Se Xtytre—ov fir] Tiprjau. 1 9 S \ MwvotJs—¿irerpeij/€v. X 9 9 / Xeyu> Se vplv. 6 . M o r e important, h o w e v e r , than c h a n g e s in l a n g u a g e , are alterations w h i c h s e e m d u e t o a n increasing feeling o f r e v e r e n c e for the person of Christ. T h e second Evangelist had not scrupled t o attribute to H i m h u m a n emotion, a n d to describe H i m as a s k i n g questions. S u c h s t a t e m e n t s are a l m o s t uniformly o m i t t e d b y t h e editor of this G o s p e l . E.g. he o m i t s the f o l l o w i n g : M k i 5 TrepifjXetpap.aoi avrovs FAIR' opyrjs O'vyXvirovp.cvos. Cf. the w a y in w h i c h M t 12 4 9 a v o i d s -RREPIFIKTIPAPWOS of M k 3 34 . I41 a-TrXayxyia-du'; ; b u t D a f f 2 h a v e opyitrdek.1 I43 ip/3pip.T](r&p.€V0S. 3

2 1

¿¡¿ I2 ,, io34-38 I251-53 „ I426.2T io3T.38 IO89 „ 1733. # Not from a common written source, but from oral tradition or from different written sources. Or Lk. has been influenced by Mt. See the commentary. 11 2 - 3 The Baptist. 718"21„4-11

„

j j 12. 13 »»

II 24

7 2 2 -2S. J6M.

-31-35

»

IO'21. 22 Not from a common written source, but from independent written sources. See the commentary. 1211 Lost sheep. 14sNot from a common written source. Beelzeboul. nu. I222.2s The similarity here may be accidental. See note on. Beelzeboul. „19.20. I2 27.28 1230 „ 1123. I2 32 „ 121043. 45 J 2 33-35 6 " . )( I2 38 Sign!' II16. „ 29.30. 1239. 40 12 42

11 24-26

xliii

T U E SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL From independent written sources. Mt i 3 l i 5 - " Blessed are your eyes. From independent sources. 13 33 Leaven. From a common written source. influenced by Matthew. 15 1 4 Blind leading blind. Independent fragments. j 52-3!

See note on Mt 12 22 . L k io 23 - 24 . 13 s0 - 21 . Or Luke has been 6 s9 . j

2

64-56

17 2 0 ' Grain of mustard seed. 17 6 '. 18 12 ' 14 Lost sheep. is 4 ' 7 . Independent versions of the parable. See the commentary. 18 7 Offences. 17 1 . 18 15 Forgiveness. 17 3 . j$21.22 jf I?4 Independent written sources. Or Luke may have been influenced by Matthew. See note on Mt 18 15 . ^29. so. 2i32« Independent. 2I4i! 20 18 '. But the verse is probably spurious in Mt. See note. T h e Great Commandment. io 25 " 27 . 2 2 35-40i 234 Denunciation of Pharisees. n46b. 23 12 „ 14 1 1 18 14 . 23 14 „ xx 52 . 2328 „ II 4 2 . II»»-«. 2 j25.26 (j „4*. 2 327. 28 >f 2 329-31 j j47. 48. 5> „49-51. 2334-36 j( J 334.35. 2^3T-S9 Not from a common written source. See note on Mt 23 1 . 2 423.26-28 End of world. 1723- 24 - 87 . 2487-39

^

j y 2 6 . 27. 30.

40.41

"

I ?

2 4

3 4 . 35.

From independent sources. 2443"51 End of world. 12 s9 -«. Perhaps from a common written source. 2S14-so Talents. 19 11 - 28 . Independent versions of the parable. It will be seen that the material tabulated above falls into two groups. A. A few narrative sections : M t 85-is = L k 7 i-io T h e Centurion. 819"22 = 967-00 T h e two aspirants. 22-2 . 32-33 „ u T h e dumb devil. = 1 Cf. Mk i a28"34. 12

3)

c f

9

xliv

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

M t 12 s8 = Lk x i 1 6 Request for a sign. 2235-4o I025-2r T h e great commandment. T o which may be a d d e d — M t 3 7 ' 12 = L k 3 7 ' 17 John's preaching. T h e temptation. 4 2-u = 42-is B. Sayings of Christ. Some of these are isolated sayings or small groups of sayings which occur in different contexts in the two Gospels; e.g.: * Mt 5 18 = L k 1434. * 515 = 11 33 . * 518 = 16 17 . * j 25-26 _ I257"59. *

S82

* * | f j f * * * * * * * * * f f *

68 69"18 619-21 g22-23 62* 525-34 J 7 "" jl3-U ^22-23 8 11 " 12 1 O^4'25 I026-33 io34-33 I03T-38 IO39 12» I310-17 15H 2 j 32»

f t f f *

2I 4 4 ' 23 12 2 337"39 1 24 114- 530 25 "

_ cf. = —

— = = _ _ _ = = _ = —

l6 1 8 . 1230. 11K I2 38 ' 34 . j j 34-35. l6 1 3 . I222"31. II 9 ' 1 3 . ^Si, ^26-27. 1 ^s-so. 640. j 22-9. I2 51 ' 53 . I426-2T. 17 88 . I45io23"24. 639. 7 29. 301.

= = = = =

20 lsr . 14 11 l 8 U . j331-35. I2391"4®. I^ " 28 .

=

= = =

In the passages marked * there is, besides the difference of setting, considerable verbal variation. Note, however, in Mt 6 9 ' 13 = L k 11 1 - 4 the remarkable agreement in cVioiio-tos. In the passages marked t there is very close verbal agreement, with occasional variation. So far as these passages go, the divergence in setting, combined with the differences of language, are adverse to the theory of a common Greek source, unless that were a collection of detached sayings or groups of sayings. T h e few passages marked f might

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL

xlv

be explained by the view that Luke was acquainted with Matthew, and was sometimes influenced by his language, or by the view that the different sources used by the two Evangelists contained these sections, the agreement in language being due to derivation from a document lying behind the sources of our two Gospels. Other passages, however, present more difficulty, since the agreement is greater in extent • e.g.: (1) T h e Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5-7 = L k 6. (2) T h e charge to the Twelve, 10 = 9. xo. (3) T h e discourse about the Baptist, 11 = 7.10. (4) T h e discourse about Beelzeboul, 12 = 11. (5) T h e denunciation of the Pharisees, 23 = 11. (6) T h e discourse about the last things, 24 = 17. In the Serrpon 011 the Mount there is very substantial agreement combined with, as, e.g., in the Beatitudes, remarkable divergence. T h e charge to the Twelve is remarkable, because Mt. has expanded and enlarged Mk.'s short charge. Lk. in the parallel to Mt. borrows Mk., but has one or two agreements with Mt. against Mk. But in the next chapter he gives a charge to the Seventy which agrees in many respects with Mt.'s expansion of Mk. In the discourse about the Baptist there is great verbal agreement. In the sayings of denunciation of the Pharisees the context is different, but there is great verbal agreement. T h e discourse about Beelzeboul has remarkable features. If Lk. were nonexistent, it might be supposed that Mt. had expanded Mk., adding a further section dealing with the request for a sign. But Lk., who omits Mk.'s discourse from its proper place in his Gospel, inserts later a discourse similar to that of Mt.'s, but places at the beginning of it both the charge of casting out devils by the aid of Beelzeboul and the request for a sign, thus weaving Mt.'s two consecutive discourses into one. T h e discourse about the last things in M t 24 contains several sayings which Lk. has in a different context but in similar language in ch. 17. We may now take into consideration the whole of the sayings common to the two Gospels. T h e following theories have been put forward to account for their agreement: _{i) " B o t h Evangelists drew from a common written source." This is a natural way of explaining the fact that the two Gospels have so many sayings in c o m m o n ; and if they contained these sayings and no others, the conclusion that they drew from a common written source would be almost irresistible. But the fact that in both Gospels there are found many sayings not preserved elsewhere, considerably weakens the argument. For the fact that they both record many similar or identical sayings may be

xlvi

THE

G O S P E L A C C O R D I N G T O S.

MATTHEW

equally well explained by the probability that these were the best known and most widely current sayings of Christ in the early Church. Against this theory of a common written source may be urged the following objections: (a) It is almost impossible to reconstruct any sort of written document out of the common material unless indeed it were a series of isolated and detached sayings, or short groups of sayings. If the two Evangelists had before them a common written source containing discourses and parables connected with incidents, how is it that they differ so widely in the general order in which they record these sayings, and very often in the context or occasion to which they assign them ? In following S. Mark the editor of the first Gospel rarely transfers sayings from one context to another. (b) If, however, it be supposed that the alleged source was a collection of detached sayings, the variation in language is still to be accounted for. However, it is true that in following S. Mark the editor of the first Gospel not infrequently alters the words of Christ's sayings. Cf. e.g.: M t 84 94

TÒ SSipov. èvÔi¡¡jLtitrOe.

9° KXivTjv. irtvOtiv.

9 1 8 £7Tl/?aAAfl. Iy

l

lv TOÎÇ /cXaSoiç a ù r o î .

M k I44 Trepl roxi Ka6apL1x010)67), 25 Tor« ¿ifj-oiojOrjaeTai. In all except the last the subject is rj /jacriAei'a twv ovpavun/. (¿>) Anti-Pharisaic: 520

" e x c e p t your 'righteousness' surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees." 51-8.16-18 g y (he « hypocrites " of this section the Pharisees are no doubt intended. 913a " m e r c y and not sacrifice," cf. v. 1 1 . io 2 5 b It was the Pharisees (12 2 4 ) who called the master of the house Beelzeboul. 12 5 - 7 occur in an anti-Pharisaic context, cf. 12 2 .

THE 1 2 n-isa

SOURCES

OF T H E

GOSI'EL

lv

] s o j n a n anti-Pharisaic context, the Pharisees are blind guides. " t h e k i n g d o m shall b e taken f r o m y o u . " " the chief priests a n d the P h a r i s e e s . " 2 3 i-s. 5. 7M1.15-22.24.28. 32-33 a r e directly anti-Pharisaic. a

i5 12 " 1:s 21 43

(I/??9. T(v ovpavwv o c c u r s 17 times in passages w h i c h are peculiar to this Gospel, a n d w h i c h probably c o m e from the Logia, viz. 510.19(2). 20 1324.44.45.47.52 ^ i » i8 3 - 4- 23 1 9 1 2 20 1 22 2 25 1 . I t occurs, besides, 8 times in sayings w h i c h are paralleled in L k . , but w h i c h m a y also c o m e f r o m the L o g i a , viz. 5 s 7 2 1 10 7 n 1 1 , 1 2 13 3 3 18 3 23 1 3 . I n passages o f the first class we find also 8 1 2 13 3 8 ot viol rrjq /¡acriXeias, 13 4 1 -riys /JacriAeias avrov, 13 4 3 "rijs fSaariXtia's tov Trarpos avrSiv, 2 1 3 1 Trjv fiatriXtiav tov Otov, 2 1 4 3 rj ¡3utriXtta

t o v Oeov, 2 5 s 4 rryv

T/roi/xao-/xeVr;i/ vplv fiaaiXeiav; a n d in passages of the s e c o n d class, 533 fiamXtiav avrov. I t seems not improbable, therefore, that this Jewish phrase was characteristic of the Matthsean Logia, a n d that the editor of the G o s p e l was strongly i n f l u e n c e d by it. H e has inserted it into matter parallel to M k . in 3 2 18 1 , a n d has substituted it in 4 1 7 i 3 n - 3 1 i 9 1 4 - 2 3 for M k . ' s r/ (ianXtia tov 6zov. C. T H E SON OF MAN.

M k . h a s this phrase 1 4 times. M t . retains it in all these cases. 8 31 is not an e x c e p t i o n ; for t h o u g h M t . in the parallel to that verse, 1 6 2 1 , h a s avrov

f o r tov

vlov tov

di'Ofx'iTTtiv, l i e

the latter p h r a s e b y anticipation in 16 1 3 .

has already

inserted

M t . h a s the phrase L11

lxxii

T H E GOSi'EL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

addition 19 times. T h e editor seems to have seen in the phrase two lines of signification. On the one hand, the phrase had previously been used in Messianic connections. T h e writer of Daniel had foretold the coming of " one like a Man or Son of Man," 7 1 3 . And whatever may have been the precise meaning of the original writer, his phrase was soon taken up and used with Messianic significance. T h e Messiah regarded as " S o n of Man " or " M a n " was of mysterious origin. Already in the Book of Daniel the " o n e like to a Man or Son of M a n " comes " w i t h (Heb.) or upon ( L X X ) the clouds of heaven" (cf. Sib. Or 349-50 quoted on p. lxix and 052f -: Kal TOT' dir r/eXioio Btos 7REFJIIF/ti fiaaiXrja os Trvurav yaiav TRAVATI 7roXe/xoto KUKIHI)), and the phrase " S o n of Man " i s adopted by the writer of one section of the Book of Enoch to designate the supernatural Messiah ; cf. 46 3-4 4S 2 62. In the same way the writer of 2 Es 1 3 describes the Messiah as coming from the midst of the sea " i n the likeness of a man," v . 3 ; cf. v. 1 2 " t h e same man," v. 25 " a man coming up from the midst of the sea," v. 5 1 " the man coming up from the midst of the sea." T h e motive power that gave rise to these conceptions was probably the desire to represent the coming Messiah as of divine origin. And yet, to fulfil His functions, H e must be also man, or at least in the guise of man. The editor of our Gospel clearly saw in the phrase thus put into the mouth of Christ in the sources which he was using, a proof that Christ would fulfil this anticipation of a supernatural Messiah. H e was to come as Son of Man (10 2 3 ) in the glory of His Father (16 2 7 ) upon the clouds of heaven (24^). H e would then send forth His angels and gather the elect (24 3 1 : cf. 13 4 1 ), and sit upon the throne of His glory (19 2 8 25 81 ). Then He would render to every man according to his deed (16-' 7 ), and all nations would be gathered before Him (25 s 1 ). For " u p o n the clouds of heaven," cf. Dn 7 1 3 ; for " render to every man according to his deed," cf. Enoch 45 s " On that day Mine Elect One will sit on the throne of glory, and make choice among their d e e d s " ; 61 8 " H e will weigh their deeds in the b a l a n c e " ; for the gathering the elect, cf. Enoch 5 1 2 " H e will choose the righteous and holy from amongst them " ; for the gathering of all nations before the throne of glory, cf. Enoch 62 s " T h e r e will stand up in that day all the kings, and the mighty, and the exalttd, and those who hold the earth, and they will see and recognise Him, how H e sits on the throne of His glory." But, secondly, if Christ had used the phrase " S o n of Himself with reference to His future coming, He had the phrase in non-eschatol gical contexts. He was to Son of Man, but H e also was the Son of Man during

M a n " of also used come as His life.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL

lxxiii

This Sonship was not a prerogative to be bestowed upon Him in the future. It was a present possession. Of course, we might suppose that the editor thought that Christ had often used the phrase of Himself in an anticipatory sense. But there are features in the Gospel which make it rather probable that he believed Christ to be by nature " the Son of Man," and regarded the phrase as illustrative of the mysteriousness of His person. Christ was born of a virgin (i 18-25 ). H e was in an unique sense Son of God ( n 2 7 2241-46). H e had been chosen by God (317). What better phrase could be found to express the mysterious nature of such a personality than the " Son of Man," which was already in use to designate the supernatural Messiah ? It emphasised His real humanity, it hinted at the mysterious nature of His birth, it drew attention to His Messianic office and functions, and it heralded His future glory. It does not lie within the scope of this Introduction to raise the question whether Christ did or did not use this phrase of Himself, or in the latter case why the Evangelists have attributed it to Him. Only two facts need here be noticed. First: the editor found the phrase so applied in both his main sources, Mk. and the Logia. It has therefore as much attestation as any phrase attributed to Christ. Second-, the argument that the phrase " Son of M a n " as a title is linguistically impossible in Aramaic, is unwarranted. " S o n of M a n " having already been used by the author of Daniel and converted into a semi-technical term by the writer of Enoch, it must have been as possible in Aramaic as in any other language to refer to it, and to say " the Son of Man," or "•the ' m a n , ' " or "the whatever else may be the right equivalent of BON 13 in Daniel." T In order to make the matter clearer, it may be well to add a few words on the origin of the phrase and its meaning. That " Son of Man " is a semi-technical description of the supernatural Messiah in Enoch and in 2 Esdras is clear. But whence did they derive it? Almost certainly from the tMN of Dn 713. Dalman is inclined to the view that BON was not in common use in early Palestinian Aramaic. EON was employed to denote " a man," NEON ^ 3 to denote " m e n . " EON 13, on the other hand, was a literary phrase formed by imitation of the rare and poetic DIN ¡3, and means " o n e of the human species," " o n e who had in himself the nature of a human being." But in the later Jewish Galilean dialects it came to be used in the sense of " a human being," "anyone." If it were desired to express in Aramaic the EON 13, this phrase would become NEON "13. This was the original of o uios TOV AVOPIMTROV, and was the phrase used by Christ. T h e Greek expression is an intentionally over-literal translation, because the more idiomatic rendering b avBpu>iros would have introduced

lxxiv

T H E GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. M A T T H E W

inexplicable confusion into the Gospel narrative. From this point of view Christ borrowed the title from the Book of Daniel, and its use by H i m was quite distinctive, since l a was not at that time in use to denote " a n y o n e . " On the other hand, it is urged by Wellhausen that Ni^X 1 3 and C3N "13 can mean nothing but " m a n " ; not an individual man, but man in general. Already in Daniel tWN ~Q means a man, a member of the human race. H e n c e it is impossible to express in Aramaic the Son of Man, because " s o n of M a n " in that idiom means simply " m a n " collectively. Christ, therefore, could not have used the phrase " the Son of M a n . " A n d o vios TOV avBpunrov For a discussion of the linguistic was created by the Evangelists. point, see Driver, DB iv. 579 ff. So far as I can judge, the following points seem to be clear. (1) It has not yet been shown that NtMK 1 3 was in use in Aramaic of the first century to mean " m a n . " It is still, therefore, possible that Dalman is right in supposing that this phrase was used by Christ in the sense of the " Son of M a n " of Daniel. (2) "in in Daniel means " a man," i.e. " a member of the human race." T h e subsequent use of " Son of M a n " in Enoch, of " man " in 2 Esdras, and of the phrase underlying o v\h% TOV «i'OPOITROV in the New Testament, is due to reminiscence of Daniel. T h e later writers would have been linguistically more correct if they had spoken of the " man " of D a n i e l ; but their exact translation " S o n of M a n " seemed more appropriate, as retaining the outward form of the phrase to which they were referring, and as less likely to introduce confusion than the more accurate translation the " m a n . " (3) Christ adopted the semi-technical term already in use to designate the supernatural Messiah, and spoke of Himself as the " Son of M a n , " i.e. the " Son of M a n " of whom Daniel and Enoch had spoken. T h a t there was some way of giving expression to such a designation in the Aramaic which H e spoke, cannot be doubted in the face of the evidence of the Gospels. But this, of course, only carries us back to the B o o k of Daniel. It is often supposed that tWN "i23 = like a man, simply describes the Jewish nation as humane in comparison with the four empires which had preceded it in the sovereignty of the world. B u t it is doubtful whether such an interpretation really satisfies the terms of the vision. Rather those writers are moving in the right direction who see in the phrase as used in Daniel the adaptation to the Jewish Messiah of a term " m a n , " borrowed from an earlier eschatological tradition of " the man " who should form the meeting point between heaven and earth when the final act in the drama of the world's history was being played. T h e primitive unfallen Man of God's original creation should once again appear. (See Gressmann, hraeUtisck-judischen Eschatologie, 334 if.; Volz,

TIIE THEOLOGY OF T H E GOSPEL

lxxv

Jiid. Eschat. p. 2 1 5 ; Gunkel, ZIVT, 1899, 582-590.) If this be the case, then the conception of the " i d e a l " man had been for long a part of the pre-Christian Jewish Messianic theology. W h e n the Lord used the term " t h e Son of M a n " — the " M a n , " as a title for Himself, H e thereby claimed for His own person such qualities as pre-existence (cf. Enoch 48 s ), uniqueness as contrasted with other men, yet real humanity, and such prerogatives as election by G o d to fulfil Messianic functions and to receive Messianic glory. Parallel to this conception of the Messiah as " t h e M a n , " runs the more fragmentarily illustrated conception of the Messiah as mysteriously born of the woman (cf. Is 7 14 , and Gressmann, pp. 270 fif.). T h e fact that we get the two side by side in the first Gospel throws light upon the Evangelist's conception of the Person of Christ. H e was born of a virgin (i 18 ~ 25 ). H e was therefore God's Son (3 1T ). H e had been elected to Messianic functions (3 17 ), and was the K i n g Messiah, the Beloved (3 17 ). H e was also " t h e M a n , " the meeting-point between the divine and the human, who should come, as Daniel had said, on the clouds of heaven to inaugurate the kingdom of heaven. Cf. Driver, DB iv. 579 if.; Dalman, Words, pp. 2340".; Wellhausen, Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten, vi. 200 f., Einleitung, pp. 39 f . ; Drummond, JThS, April, July 190:1 ; Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn, Leipzig, 1 8 9 6 ; Gunkel, ZIVT vii. ; Volz, Jiid. Eschat. pp. 214 f . ; Fiebig, Der Menschetisohn, 1 9 0 1 ; Gressmann, Isr. Jiid, Eschat. pp. 334 i f . ; and the references in Driver's article. D. T H E CHURCH. T h e Messiah had come. H e had preached the coming of the kingdom. H e had been put to death. H e would come at the end of the age on the clouds of heaven. In the meantime His disciples were to preach the doctrine of the kingdom, and make disciples by baptism into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the H o l y Ghost (28 19 ). T h e disciples constituted an ecclesia (16 1 8 18 17 ). T h e y were to cultivate such qualities as humility (5 s i83~4), mercy (s 7 ), forgiveness (6 14 " 15 i8 15 - 2L_35 ), love ( s u ) ; and to practise almsgiving (6 s ), prayer (6 5-13 7 7 " 11 ), and obedience to Christ's commands (y 24 ' 27 ). T h e y were to be prepared to give up all things for Christ's sake, e.g. marriage (19 12 ), property (19 29 ), earthly relationships (19 2 9 10 s7 ), even life itself ( i o 3 9 i6'25~2ti). T h e y were to rely upon God's providence, and to avoid the accumulation of riches (619~34). Wealth was a hindrance to admission into the kingdom (20 23 ). Marriage was an ordinance of G o d ( i 9 4 - u ) ; but divorce, except for ttopveia (5 s 2 19 9 ), was an accommodation to human weakness (19 8 ).

lxxvi

T H E GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. M A T T H E W

T h e righteousness to be aimed at by them was to be based on right motive rather than observance of rules, upon the spirit rather than the letter of the law (5 2 1 - 4 8 15 1 - 2 0 ). All the disciples were brethren, having one Father, G o d , and one Master and teacher, Christ (23 8 " 1 0 ). A s such they constituted the ecclesia ( 1 8 1 7 ) , and possessed common authority to legislate for the Church's needs ( 1 8 1 8 ) . Wherever two or three met for prayer, Christ would be with them ( 1 8 1 9 ) . (Cf. 28 2 0 .) A s in the Jewish Church so in the Christian, there would be prophets ( i o 4 1 23 s 4 ), wise men ( 2 3 M ) , and scribes ( 1 3 5 2 23 s4 )B u t from among the disciples twelve in particular were commissioned to preach and to baptize ( i o 5 28 1 9 ). A m o n g s t these Peter was pre-eminent (cf. i o 2 7rpSros) It was he to whom first was revealed the true nature of the Christ which was to be the foundation rock of the Church ( 1 6 1 7 ) . H e was to have administrative and legislative power within the kingdom (16 1 8 - 1 9 ). B u t in that kingdom all twelve would sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (i9 2 8 )E. J E W I S H CHRISTIAN C H A R A C T E R OF T H E LOGIA. T h e probability that these sayings were collected and preserved by the early Church in Palestine is suggested by the following considerations : (a) T h e title and conception of the kingdom of the heavens as found in these sayings is J e w i s h in character. See above. (b) T h e interest shown in S. Peter, and the prominent position attributed to him, points in the same direction. (c) T h e mission of the Messiah and of H i s Apostles is limited to the Jewish nation. Cf. 1 5 2 4 " I was not sent save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." i o 6 " G o rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." i o 2 3 " Y e shall not exhaust the cities of Israel till the Son of M a n c o m e . " I9 2 8 " Y e shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." 7 6 S e e note. ( 8 1 1 ' 1 2 , though in its present position it seems to express a forecast of the admission of Gentiles into the kingdom, would not necessarily convey this meaning to a Jewish Christian society. N o r need the parables 2 i 2 S - 3 2 - 83"4(3 22 1 - 1 4 have seemed to such a community to bear this meaning.) T h e editor of the Gospel has preserved these sayings in spite of the fact that he himself clearly believed that the good news of

T U B THEOLOGY OK T H E < iOSI'EL

lxxvii

the kingdom was intended for Gentiles. F o r he inserts 8 5 " 1S , adding to it from the Logia vv. 1 1 the result being that the admission of Gentiles is clearly alluded to. A n d the three parables 2 i 2 8 - 2 2 u in their present position in the Gospel seem to suggest the same lesson. C o m p a r e also his insertion of 25 : n " i C , possibly a Christian homily, of 2 4 " from M k . ; and of 2 8 UV20 , especially v.1;>, which is probably also derived from Mk.'s lost ending. T h e r e is, however, nothing in these passages as recorded by Mt. which takes us outside the Jewish Christian point of view of the early Church at Jerusalem as described in A c 1 - 1 5 . In that Church reluctance to the admission of the Gentiles into the Church was at length so far worn down, that it was admitted that the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles. B u t the standpoint adopted was somewhat similar to that of the canonical prophets, who advocated the view that the Jewish religion was destined to attract to itself all nations, but who never seem to have doubted that the result would be the submission of the Gentiles to the privileges of J u d a i s m rather than the complete supersession of J u d a i s m by a new religion. I n the same way there is nothing in the first Gospel which is not consistent with a conception of Christianity as a purified Judaism which was destined to absorb within itself disciples (proselytes) from all nations. Of course, Christ's sayings contain within themselves a wider and freer spirit than this, but the Jewish Christian Church of Palestine may well have failed to see the ultimate goal of universalism towards which this teaching inevitably tended. (d) T h e insistence on the permanent validity of the M o s a i c law. C f . 5^-20 l 8 i o 2 3 3 . 2 3 T a y T a S i *$€L ,rai. C f . 7ub a n d e s p e c i . ally the law of divorce for unchastity, 5 3 2 . T h i s has so far influenced the editor, that he inserts a similar saying into Mk.'s narrative i o 2 ' 1 2 = Mt 19 3 - 1 0 , where it is certainly out of place. See notes on M t 19. Cf. also the insertion of the words 1X7/Se cra/3/3aro) in 24 20 , the omission of M k 2 2 7 a , and the emphasis on the fulfilment of prophecy. (e) T h e J e w i s h phraseology of the sayings. Cf. especially: f) jiacrikua t w ovpavZv. o Trarrjp o iv (rots) o'tpavoli. o Trarrjp o ovpavios. TTaTTjp V/JLWV, ^.Qiv, trov, (XVTUV, on which see above. And 518 iwra er T) ¡ua Kepaia. 522 paKa. 6 2 s Trovfjpo'i. See note.

lxxviii

T H E GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTIIEW 13 2 5 £i£ai>ia. 13"' s o i viol

Trjs

13 4 0 (rvvTe\aa I 352

ftaai.Xa'as.

rov auoros.

ypap.p.aTtvs.

161'

(rapt

1618

TTVXLU

AR u18 T

" b i n d " and " l o o s e . " i) >> >>

IQ23

TraXiyyevKrta—Opovov

i6w

Kal

ai/j.a.

aSov.

Soji??.

Cf. also the word-play in Na£wpaios, 2 23 , a n d in BeeA.£e/?oijA, 24 12 . ( / ) Anti-Pharisaic p o l e m i c : 39-

520.

62. 65. 6 18 . 15 2-H. 23-

Cf. 8 1 1 i 3 »8. Of course, this anti-Pharisaic attitude is observable also in a less degree in the editor's other source, viz. t h e second Gospel, where the Pharisees are represented as finding fault with Christ's teaching, 26, or conduct, 2 16 3 2 - 2 2 , or with the c o n d u c t of H i s disciples, 2 18 - 24 7 5 . T h e y c o m b i n e against H i m with t h e Herodians, 3® 12 13 . T h e y ask H i m for a sign, 8 U , and question H i m about divorce, i o 2 (but see note on 19 3 ). T h e y question H i m about H i s right to teach, u 2 7 . Christ bids H i s disciples beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, 8 15 , a n d beware of t h e scribes, 12 s8 . T h e y plot to kill H i m , 14 1 . T h e Pharisees are mentioned by n a m e in nine of the above cases, viz. 2 1 6 - l s - 24 3® y 5 gn. 15 I 0 a I 2 i 3 j n t i i e others, viz. 2 6 3 2 2 14!, it is the scribes who are m e n t i o n e d , a n d it is scribes who with other m e m b e r s of the Sanhedrin effect the arrest of Christ, 1443, a n d H i s condemnation, 14 53 i s 1 . But the editor of the first Gospel extends t h e anti-Pharisaism of his sources. H e not only borrows t h e polemical sayings from the Logia and the polemical incidents from S. Mark, but so arranges a n d a d d s to t h e m as to give a very dark picture of t h e Pharisees. T o them a n d to t h e Sadducees the Baptist spoke his words of denunciation a n d warning, 37"12. Against their teaching was directed a considerable section of the Sermon on the Mount, 5 20 6 [ - 18 . H i s teaching was, says S. Mark, " n o t as the scribes," not, adds S. Matthew, as the scribes a n d Pharisees. T h e editor also alters Mk.'s ot •YPO.FIJXO.TTI'S TUJV &apuraiwv (2 10 ) into ot aptcratoi, and Mk.'s ol ypafi/jLaTit'S (3—) into ol $>api(rcuoi (12 24 , cf. 9 s4 ). T h e

THE

AUTHOR

lxxix

s a m e c h a n g e o c c u r s in M k i 2 3 5 = M t 22 1 1 , a n d in M k i 2 28 = M t 22 s 4 . S e e also critical note o n 19 3 . M k . ' s short d e n u n c i a t i o n of the teaching of the scribes, 12 87b " 40 , is l e n g t h e n e d into a l o n g a n d severe d e n u n c i a t i o n of the scribes a n d Pharisees, ch. 23. T h e parable, M k T2 1 " 12 , is there, as in M t 2 i 2 3 " 4 4 , addressed to the c h i e f priests a n d elders ; b u t in M t 21 4 5 it is t h e chief priests a n d the P h a r i s e e s w h o recognise that it was a i m e d against t h e m . I n d e e d , t h e w h o l e section, 2i 2 3 - 2 2 46 , s e e m s t o b e d i r e c t e d against t h e P h a r i s e e s ; cf. 21 4 5 :2 2 15 - 3 4 - 4 1 . This p o l e m i c a l m o t i v e p r o b a b l y explains the fact that in 2 i 3 1 ' 4 1 22 2 0 the o p p o n e n t s are m a d e t o utter their o w n c o n d e m n a t i o n {Xéyovmv). T h e w h o l e s e c t i o n s e e m s to d e v e l o p towards the terrific c o n d e m n a t i o n o f ch. 23. L a s t l y , in 2 7 s 2 it is the c h i e f priests a n d the P h a r i s e e s w h o effect the sealing of the t o m b a n d the p l a c i n g of the g u a r d b e f o r e it. I t is perhaps d u e to the s a m e anti-Jewish m o t i v e that w e o w e t h e insertion of the i n c i d e n t of Pilate's handw a s h i n g (2 7 24 " 25 ) THE

AUTHOR.

1. P a p i a s a p u d E u s e b i u s , H . E . iii. 39 : M a r c a t o ? p.f.v o w 'E/JpaiSi (ÌWXÌKTÌÙ TÌX Xóyia irvveypdipuTO4 'lìpfxyvevae ò avrò. ¿9 rjv S w a r ò s 2 e«ao"ro9. 2. Irenieus, iii. x. x a p u d E u s e b i u s , H . E . v. 8. 2 : ó filv Srj M a r & u o s èv rols 'Efipaiois -rq ìSta avrwv OiaXe/cro) /cai ypaìjv ¿¿rjì fyKtv EvayyeXt'ov, TOV Uérpov Kaì TOV I l a v X o u èv 'Po'yivy evayyeXi^opévwv

Kaì

DEJIEXIOVVTWV

TYJV (LKK\~(]• n 32« 96.29.37 i2

13

28

1512.

20. 24 j y 13. 19 j ^27

27 s - 13 • lfl - 26- 3 8 - 5 8 28 1 0 .

y5. 23 ^15 j 2 2 9 . 44. 45 ^ 2 6 . 43 ^ 2 7 2

2

i* 2 221 268'

s8- 45i 50- 5 2 ' 5 6 ' 65" 6 7 , 7 4

Frequently also in sayings and parables, 5 s 4 1g32

2 2

8.13

2

^9. 10. 14. 16. 21. 23. 30 (2). 40

j l . 7. 31. 34. 37. 41. 44. 45_

iSov.2 T h i s occurs in narrative, either alone, i 2 0 2 1 - 1 3 - 1 9 9 1 8 - S 2 - 4 6 or with K ai prefixed, 4 1 6 - 1 7 8 2 - 24 • 32- 34 92.3.10.20 I 2 i o I S 22 jy3. b jgi6 2O 30 2551 2 y5i 28®; in sayings and parables, either alone,

26

47,

„8.10.19

74

28

I2

2.47

j 33

1 927

2q18

2 2

4

2 423.

25.26

z646

2g7>

o r

w

,th

Ka(,

7-20.

cm-cos, 17 times, ava^a>pea>, 10 times.

TrpocrepxeaOai, 52 times. TrpovKvveiv, 13 times. vpo] So L X X . —Safyuic] In I Ch 2 1 1 Heb. has KD'pv, LXX B Luc. 2d\p.c¿v, A 'SdXp.dv. 5 . BoéR¡v yevovs. Since his birth tiprjvevovcr1 PLV yap yrj Kal Oakarra. If the hope of finding the world's Saviour drew Tiridates and his Magi to Naples, it is quite probable that other Magi may have come to the metropolis of Palestine on a like errand. They came probably from Babylon. Astrologers there had at a very early period busied themselves with astrological observations which portended good or evil for the " Westland," i.e. Canaan. Cf. Jeremias, op. cit. 5 o f . ; von Oefele, Die Angaben der Berliner Planatentafel, P. 8279, p. 9 ; Campbell Thompson, Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon, vol. ii. No. 234 : "When a star stands at its (Virgo) left horn, there will be an eclipse of the ring of Aharru" ( = Phoenicia and Palestine). 2 2 2 . " W h e n Leo is dark, the traffic of Aharru will be hindered." 2 1 1 : "When Venus appears in Virgo, the crops of Aharru will prosper." 192: " W h e n Jupiter enters the midst of the moon, there will be want in Aharru." 167: " W h e n Saturn the star of Aharru grows dim, it is evil for Aharru; there will be a hostile attack on Aharru." Now that the whole world was expecting the Saviour King (cf. Bousset, Mel. Jud. p. 212), the attention of these

12

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

[II. 1-6.

heaven-searchers directed itself towards portents of the coming peacemaker. TrapayívecrOai occurs only here and in 3 1 - 1 3 in M t . ; in Mk. once, 1443. 'lepoo-ókvfia occurs 10 times in Mt. as a neuter plural; once, z 3 , as a feminine singular. It is used by Mark 10 times, by Luke 4, by John 12, frequently in the Acts, and by S. Paul 3 times in Galatians. Mt. once (23 s7 ) has 'lepov is connecting link. ¿¿eXevo~eTai = So L X X . omitted, ocrns TTQIFUIVIL TOV Xaov pov TOV 'IcrpayX represents B&W ^NtC'S, the Greek words being assimilated to 2 S 5 2 . ytypairTai means " i t stands written," the inspired text runs. It corresponds to 2irD or 2\rD of the Jewish literature. Cf. Bâcher, ii„ 90. 7. Then Herod, having secretly called the Magi, made accurate P inquiry of them as to the time of the appearing star.] rare is a favourite word in this Gospel. Mt. 90 times, Mk. 6, Lk. 15. tov xpovov TOV (jio.wop,ivov ¿tTTepos, i.e. the period since the star first appeared to them at (its) rising. 8. And having sent them to Bethlehem, said, Go, accurately P inquire concerning the child. And when you find, report to me, that I may come and worship Him.] 9. And they, having heard the king, went ; and, lo, the star, P which they saw at {its) rising, went before them, until it came and stood still above (the place) where the child was. 1 — « a i tSot'l see on I 20 . 10. And when they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with P great joy.]—cr68pa] Mt. 7 times, Mk. 1, Lk. x. 11. And when they had come into the house, they saw the child P with Mary His mother, and having fallen down, they worshipped Him : and having opened their treasures, they brought to Him gifts ; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.] For gold and frankincense as costly offerings, cf. Is 606 -¡'¡¡ovaiv ^épovreç xpuow KCà Xi/3avov oîtrowiV] Ps 7210- n - 1 5 . For frankincense and myrrh, cf. C a 36. 12. And having been divinely warned in a dream not to return P to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way.]— XpyparurffevTes] T h e verb in the passive means to be instructed, admonished ; cf. L k 2 a ; , H e 8 5 ; Fayiim Towns (Grenfell and

14

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

[II. 12.

H u n t ) , 1 3 7 . 2; D i t t . Syll. 7 3 8 . 8, 807. I, 7, 1 1 , 1 5 . — K a r ovap] cf. o n i 2 0 . — 8 1 a W r j s ¿Sou] T h e s a m e f e a t u r e o c c u r s in t h e story of T i r i d a t e s ' visit t o N e r o , D i o C a s s i u s , lxiii. 7. avaxwpeiv o c c u r s in M t . 10 times, M k . 1, L k . o. T h e m a i n o u t l i n e of t h e story of t h e M a g i is in m a n y r e s p e c t s n o t e w o r t h y for its h i s t o r i c a l p r o b a b i l i t y . T h e expectation of a w o r l d ' s R e d e e m e r , or in P a l e s t i n e o f a J e w i s h M e s s i a h ; t h e i n t e r e s t o f E a s t e r n M a g i in t h e s e q u e s t i o n s ; t h e i r p r e s e n c e in t h e w e s t t o d o h o m a g e to the supposed S a v i o u r ; the inference from M i c 51 that B e t h l e h e m was to b e H i s b i r t h p l a c e : all this v i o l a t e s n o c a n o n o f historical p r o b a b i l i t y . T h e only detail that has a legendary a t m o s p h e r e a b o u t it is t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e star m o v e d b e f o r e t h e M a g i as t h e y w e n t to B e t h l e h e m , until it s t a y e d o v e r t h e h o u s e w h e r e t h e c h i l d lay. T h i s m a y b e d u e t o t h e J e w i s h narrator poetically a c c o u n t i n g for the fact that the M a g i were successful in their s e a r c h for t h e child. I t is e x t r e m e l y u n l i k e l y that h e int e n d e d it t o b e t a k e n as a b a l d s t a t e m e n t of fact, literally d e s c r i b i n g h o w t h e star in s o m e s t r a n g e m a n n e r e n a b l e d t h e s e a r c h e r s w i t h o u t o t h e r a i d t o i d e n t i f y t h e p a r t i c u l a r h o u s e in B e t h l e h e m in w h i c h t h e h o l y f a m i l y were d w e l l i n g . I n v i e w of t h e editor's interest in t h e f u l f i l m e n t of p r o p h e c y , it is v e r y s t r a n g e t h a t h e d o e s n o t cite N u 2 4 1 7 for t h e star, or I s 6o°, P s 7 2 1 0 ' 1 1 - 1 5 , for t h e b r i n g i n g o f gifts. B u t it is difficult t o t h i n k t h a t t h e t w o last p a s s a g e s w e r e n o t in his m i n d , a n d t h a t t h e y m a y a c c o u n t for t h e specification of t w o o f t h e gifts as g o l d a n d f r a n k i n c e n s e . O n the other h a n d , s u c h gifts w o u l d b e n a t u r a l e n o u g h as t h e o f f e r i n g s of M a g i w h o c a m e t o s e a r c h for a world's R e d e e m e r . The m o d e r n t h e o r y , that t h e story is a literary fiction, b a s e d o n l y u p o n legendary motives and folklore analogies, violates every probability. I n v i e w o f t h e m a t t e r of f a c t c h a r a c t e r o f t h e e d i t o r o f this G o s p e l , it is a l m o s t c e r t a i n t h a t h e b e l i e v e d that h e w a s t r a n s m i t t i n g m a t t e r s of a c t u a l f a c t . A n d it is in e v e r y r e s p e c t p r o b a b l e that h e w a s n o t a l t o g e t h e r m i s t a k e n . I f we suppose that a s t r o l o g e r s in B a b y l o n w e r e a c q u a i n t e d with c u r r e n t e x p e c t a tion of t h e birth of a u n i v e r s a l K i n g , t h a t t h e y inferred f r o m s o m e u n i q u e astral p h e n o m e n o n that H e h a d b e e n b o r n in t h e west, i.e. in P a l e s t i n e ; t h a t s o m e of t h e m c a m e t o J e r u s a l e m in s e a r c h of H i m ; t h a t their e r r a n d c a m e t o t h e ears of H e r o d , a n d t h a t t h e J e w i s h a u t h o r i t i e s s u g g e s t e d B e t h l e h e m as t h e right p l a c e in w h i c h t o e x p e c t t h e birth of t h e M e s s i a h ; that the M a g i w e n t t h e r e a n d f o u n d the newborn babe, whether by popular r u m o u r that M a r y , wife of J o s e p h b e n D a v i d , h a d g i v e n birth t o a c h i l d u n d e r s t r a n g e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , or b y i n f e r e n c e f r o m t h e position of t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s ; that t h e y did h o m a g e t o t h e c h i l d , a n d , t h i n k i n g it best n o t t o trust H e r o d , left secretly o n t h e i r j o u r n e y h o m e w a r d s : w e n e e d not press e v e r y detail of t h e narrative. De-

11.12-16.]

BIRTH A N D INFANCY OF T H E MESSIAH

15

scriptive detail may in some small measure have crept into it from the O l d Testament or from analogous literary or folklore stories, just as they have certainly been used to embellish the story in its later history in the Church (cf. Zahn, in loc.). But these, if they exist at all in Mt.'s account, are mere literary embellishments of a story which in outline is intrinsically probable in view of the atmosphere of thought of the period described. 1. 'IovSafas] ff1 g2 S2 have Judah.

S1 is ambiguous.

The translator

renders 'iouSas and 'IovSala alike by ^>00!-» in the early part of Mt.

In

191 he began to render 'louScua by JOCJT-i, and continues this throughout the Gospels, retaining "}jOO"L» for 'I01idas.

So Lk 333.

S2 has JOCL» for

'IovSala, and "jjoou for 'IouSas. 5. 'IouScticJ] ff1 g l k* S2 have Judah. 6. yq] Oid. S1 S2.—'louSa] D a c f g1 q have r^s 'Iovdalas. 13. And when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord P appeareth in a dream to Joseph, saying, Arise, take the child and His mother, and flee into Egypt, and be there until I tell thee. For Herod is about to seek the child to destroy Him. ] avaXiopr/oravTa/v Se airSw—iSoii] For the construction, see on v. 1 . O n iSov and xar' ovap, see note on i 20 . For the redundant ¿ytpOus, see on i' 24 .—¡jJXXti—¿V/rtti'] For the pres. inf., see Blass, p. 197.—tov ¿TToXto-ai] F o r the construction, cf. Blass, p. 235. It occurs 6 times in Mt., never in M k . T h e aorist signifies a single definite action. So in 3 13 . Contrast 13 8 . 14. And he arose, and took the child and His mother by night, P and departed into Egypt. ] 15. And was there until the death of Herod: that it might belt 0 fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt L called My Son.] H e r o d died shortly before Passover B.C. 4. See Schiirer, i. 464 ff.—Iva •n-X-rjpmQfj] O n the formula, see on i 1 8 . T h e quotation is from H o s u 1 . The L X X rendering here is i£ AiyuVrov /itrfKaXto-a ra rtKia uvtov, which is not suitable for the editor's purpose. H e therefore makes an independent translation of the Hebrew, or more probably cites from a current Greek translation. Cf. Introduction, p. lxii. 16. Then Herod, seeing that he was mocked by the Magi, was p very wroth, and sent, and slew all the male children in Bethlehem, and in all its borders, from two years old and under, according to the period which he inquired from the Magi.]—airo Sitrovs] If the star or constellation when first seen " a t (its) rising" signified the conception of the child, it would have been sufficient to kill children in their first year. But Herod may have thought it best to reckon on the possibility that the phenomenon denoted the

16

T H E GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

[11.16-23.

actual birth, in which case the child would now be in His second year. See Von Oefele, p. 14. O 1 7 , 1 8 . Then was fulfilled that which :was spoken through Jei-emiah the prophet, saying, A voice was heard in Rama, weeping, and much lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.] rore e7r\ypa>tfy] For the formula, see on i 1 8 . T h e quotation comes from J e r 31 ( L X X 3 8 ) 1 5 . I t appears to be a citation from memory of the L X X t e x t : tfioivy lv TV/ui r/Kova-drj = L X X . KkavO/Ms Kal oSvpfios TTOXVS represents the L X X Bprjvov km KkavO/xov Kal ¿SvpfjLov. ' P a ) ( i j \ KXaiovcra paraphrases the L X X ' P a ^ X ¿7roKXaiofiivT} (-rjs, X A Q). r a rexva airi}? inserts from the H e b . a clause which the L X X omitted, but A Q have eVl tu>v viS>y airrj^. —Kal OVK rjOiXfv •¡rapaKXij&yi'ac] So L X X . Kal (X A Q) OVK yOtXtv irapaKX-qOrjvai ( B a l u n « A , but B 7ravaaaOai). H e r e " f o r her c h i l d r e n " of M . T . a n d L X X B is omitted, with L X X A Q . — o n OVK ctcrtv] So L X X . P 19. And when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying. ] F o r the construction see on 2 1 .—Kar ovap] see on i 2 0 . P 2 0 . Arise, take the child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for " they are dead who seek the life " of the child.] For the r e d u n d a n t eyepOefe, see on i'24. TtOvyKacriv yap 01 ¡yrovvres rr/v iftvxvf is a reminiscence of Ex 4 19 . T h r o u g h o u t this section the editor seems to have had the story of Moses in mind, a n d to have borrowed phrases from it. Cf. v. 13 ju.eXA.ti—'CrjTe.lv—roC o.-troXtcjw., a n d 15 (U'eiAc, with Ex 2 15 e^yre 1 aveXeiv I V.14 dve^wpycrtv, with E x 2 16 av£\pr)v. For the same change, cf. M k 6 14 = M t 14 2 .—ef T7) e>7A«i>] the editor adds the explanatory 'IouSaias. M 3. Saying, Repent : for the kingdom of the heavens is at hand.'] M k h a s : " preaching a baptism of repentance unto remission of sins." T h e editor omits the last clause in view of the fact that Christ

I I I . 2-6.]

PREPARATION POR IIIS MINISTRY

23

came to be bapti/.ed.—p^ravoelri] On repentance as necessary for the coming of the Messianic period, see Voiz, Jiid. Eschat. 112 f. ; and for /xerávoia in Alexandrine Jewish Philosophy, see Philo, De P(Enit. ii. 4 0 5 ; De Pram, et Peen. ii. 410. For sayings about repentance in the Talmud, see Joma 86\ It brings healing to the world, reaches to the throne of glory, cancels a prohibition in the Torah, brings salvation, and lengthens the life of men. ßaaikela rSv ovpavuv] See Introduction, p. lxvii. T h e conception here involved is obviously one of warning and j u d g e m e n t : " R e p e n t : for the kingdom is n e a r " ; that is to say, the coming of the kingdom will involve judgement upon the unrepentant. 3. For this is he that was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, jy[ saying, A voice of a crier in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight His paths.] M k vv.i* h a s : " A s it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send M y messenger before T h y face, who shall prepare T h y way. A voice of a crier in the wilderness," etc. Mt. omits the citation from Malachi as irrelevant after the express reference to Isaiah, but he has inserted it later at i i 1 0 . — o í r o s yáp « n w ] T h e sanction of the Baptist's message lay in his personality. H e was the " voice " spoken of by Isaiah. T h e quotation is from Is 408. It was clearly taken by Mk. from the L X X , in which év rf¡ ipr¡p.(o is connected with ßowvros, whereas the Hebrew connects it with the following imperative. Mk.'s context demanded the L X X order.—Sia 'Ho-aiou] Mk. has ¿V TI3 'Herat'«. Mt. 13 times uses Siá in this sense; cf. i 2 2 . 4 . Now he, John, had his raiment {made) of camel's hair, and a M leathern girdle about his loins. And his food was locusts and wild honey.] Mk. has : " A n d John was clothed with camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins, and (was) eating locusts and wild h o n e y . " — a ¿ros 8wvq\ Mk. has Kal ^wvy ¿ylvero. For Kal ISov, see on i 20 . In Mk. it would seem that the voice was heard by Jesus alone. Mt. alters crii D into oSro's ¿