Page images


[ocr errors]

the duty of renouncing it under certain circumstances.- xmpelv] "to contain,” then of the mind “to contain,” “receive," "hold,” the saying is too sweeping to be universally received and practised.tòv dóyov toūrov] (see above) either the dictum that it is better not to marry, or less probably the exposition of Christ that marriage is a permanent bond, and should be unbroken by divorce, vv.4-8. — οις δέδοται] See on 1311. υμίν δέδοται are those who have received spiritual insight, which enables them to receive and practise the

high standard involved in “this saying.” L 12. For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother's

womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of the heavens. He who can receive it, let him receive it.] The verse explains what is meant by ois dédotal. Some there are to whom the spiritual capacity to recognise the truth of "this saying and to practise it has been given. For just as there are physical eunuchs, i.e. men for whom natural infirmity or the cruelty of men has made marriage impossible, so that for them the saying “better not to marry” is a necessary truism ; so there are

1 some who have made themselves spiritual eunuchs, i.e. have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom, i.e. because the calls of religious duty have made marriage inexpedient. To such as these spiritual insight has been given which enables them to realise that it is better not to marry.

For renunciation of earthly blessings for the sake of the kingdom, cf. vv.28. 29. The Lord may have had in mind such instances of the renunciation of marriage as the Essenes, or John the Baptist, or some among His disciples.

3. mposeXObytes Þaploaîo] The words are omitted from Mk. by D S'abk. If they are not genuine there, Mt. has inserted them. For his partiality for TT poodpxeolai, see on 43 ; and for the insertion of the Pharisees, cf. 224. 4, and Introduction, p. Ixxviii.

4. ó ktioas] So B i 22 33 124. koloas is probably a reminiscence of Mk 10®, and is probably genuine.- Toñoas] of XCD Zal S1 S2 latt, though strongly attested, is probably an assimilation to the following éolnoev, and to the LXX of Gn 197. SShave: “Have ye not read that He that made the male from the beginning, the female also made ?” This is not the original text (Merx), but a clumsy translation which necessitates the omission of autoús at the end of the clause. -άρσεν και θήλυ εποίησεν αυτούς] is taken by the editor from Mk. If he had wished to suggest the complete equality of the sexes by omitting aútoús, he would also have changed the order of the words to make this clear. kai elnev is added by Mt. to separate the two quotations. It is omitted by S', but after the change of Mki's krioews into Ó ktioas it suitably introduces the following quotation as a direct command of the Creator expressed in the words of Scripture. S'ff omit €Ę åpxîs.

7. dollvai) S'S’introduce a subject “ that he that would dismiss his wife should give,” etc.

9. The passage in Mk. runs : 8s åv årolúon thv yuvaika aŭtoû kal yauñon άλλην μοιχάται επ' αυτήν και εάν αυτή απολύσασα τον άνδρα αυτής γαμήση dilov Moixaram. This has given trouble to the Syriac and Latin translators, who substitute desertion for divorce in the second clause. So S', who also

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]


transposes the clauses: “That woman which leaveth her husband and becometh the wife of another doth indeed commit adultery, and that man which leaveth his wife and taketh another doth indeed commit adultery (Burkitt). D has και εάν γυνή εξέλθη από του ανδρός, and so in substance dabcft? Wellh. Mt. inserts (el) unéti Topvela after yuvaika aútoŮ, and omits the harsh ét' aúthv. He also omits the whole of the second clause.

BD S 133 latt assimilate to 582 by substituting Tapektos Nóyou tropvelas for (el) un étri tropveią. BC* N further assimilate to 502 by substituting rolei avrhu μοιχευθήναι for μοιχάται.' BN also omit και γαμήση άλλης for the same reason. S’ adds against her,” to assimilate to Mk.

και ο απολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχάται] is omitted by Ν C D LS S' S’ab eff?g' h. It seems to be a further assimilation to 582.

13-22. From Mk 1013-22.

13. Then were there brought children to Him, in order that He M might place His hands upon them, and pray; and the disciples rebuked them.) Mk. has: “And they were bringing children to Him, in order that He might touch them; and the disciples were rebuking them.”—TÓTe) see on 27-Apoonvéxonoar] Mk. has A poc épepov. Mt. substitutes aor. for imperf., as often. For Mt.'s preference for passive verbs, see on 4'; and cf. nvéxon, 14", for ήνεγκεν Μk. 628 – τας χείρας επιθη αυτοίς και προσεύξηται) Mk. has simply aútûv åyntai. Mt.'s words are an editorial explanation. —énetíunoav) aor. for Mk.’s imperf. (A D al latt (so also Lk. & Bal), but x B énetiumoav), as often.

14. And Jesus said, Allow the children, and forbid them not, to M come to Me: for of such is the kingdom of the heavens.] Mk. has :

And Jesus saw and was vexed, and said to them, Allow the children to come to Me; do not forbid them: for of such is the kingdom of God.” It is usual with Mt. to omit verbs like vyaváktyoev as applied to Christ; see on 88 and 1529, and Introduction, p. xxxi. -Kai un kwlvete] Mk. rather frequently in the latter part of his Gospel has no connecting link between sayings. Mt. generally supplies a particle. Lk. also has kal here.- Tūv

. TOLOÚTWY dotiv ń Baoulela tûv oúpavov) i.e. many qualities characteristic of childhood are necessary to admit people into the kingdom. See on 188-5.

15. Mt. here omits Mk v.15. He has anticipated it in 1834: M And having laid His hands upon them, He departea thence.) Mk. has: “And having taken them in His arms, He was blessing them, having laid His hands upon them. And as He was going forth to travel” (eis odóv). Mt. omits Mk.'s évaykaligráuevos, as in 182.

16. The connection of sections in Mk. 10 is probably purely topical.

The relation of Christianity to the marriage question (1-12) suggested the incident of the children (13-16), and the

1 It would be natural to suppose that παρεκτός λόγου πορνείας is original here, if it were not that we should then have to explain why (ει) μή επί πορνεία has been substituted here only, and not in 582. The two phrases may be alternative renderings by the editor of the my 737 of the school of Shammai. See on 552.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

relation of Christianity to wealth (17-27) followed naturally enough.

Mt. simply follows Mk.'s guidance. M And, behold, one came to Him, and said, Teacher, what good thing

shall I do, that I may have eternal life?] Mk. has: “And as He was going forth into the way, there ran one, and, kneeling down before Him, was asking Him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” –επορεύθη εκείθεν και ιδού] for Mk.’s και εκπορευομένου εις οδόν. For και ιδού, see on 120.-είς προσελθών αυτώ είπεν] abbreviates Mk.’s προσδραμών εις και γονυπετήσας αυτόν επηρώτα αυτόν. For προσελθών, see on 43.-διδάσκαλε] Mt., in view of his modification of the next verse of Mk., transposes “good” from “ Teacher” to “what.”—0xô (wvv aibviov] For "eternal life,” see Dalm. Words, p. 156; Volz, Jüd. Eschat. p. 368. Mk. has

. kinpovounow. "Inheritance” is a common Jewish metaphor, to express participation in the blessings of the future; cf. Dalm.

Iords, 125 ff. ; Volz, Jüd. Eschat. p. 306. M 17. And He said to him, Why askest thou Me about the good ?

One is the good. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.] Mk. has: "And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou Me good? No one is good save one, God. Thou knowest the commandments." Mt.'s changes are probably intentional, to avoid the rejection by Christ of the title "good," and the apparent distinction made between Himself and God. In Mk. the meaning seems to be, “Why go out of your way to call one whom you regard as a human Teacher 'good'? Goodness is a quality of character, and belongs in any full sense to God alone. But God's goodness is revealed in His commandments, and inheritance of eternal life depends upon keeping them.” Thus the words begin as a rebuke for the thoughtless use of the epithet "good,” and end as an answer to the question, “What shall I do," etc. Mt., by placing “good” in the main question, is obliged to treat all that follows as a direct answer to the question. The sequence of thought seems to be, “Why askest thou Me about the good? One is good,” ie. "the good" is not an independent and limited quantity in life which can be ascertained and “done." It is an attribute of character, and that the divine character. But the goodness of the divine nature is revealed in His commandments. In order to make clear this last thought, which is already implied in Mk., the editor substitutes “But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,” for Mk.'s “thou knowest the commandments."

For tnpeiv, cf. 233 “keep,” i.e. a continual process, not a single act which can be begun and ended (rí toiňow ảyabóv), as a

n cessary preliminary to entry into life. M 18. He saith to Him, Of what sort? And Jesus said, Thou shalt

not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour father and mother; and, Thou


shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:] Mk, has: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud.” Mt. takes a severer view of the character of the questioner than Mk. By representing him as asking, “What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life ?” he makes the question more unintelligent than it is in Mk. Here, by inserting Néyel—Tó, he emphasises the man's obtuseness. In v.20, by putting into his mouth, “What lack I yet ?” he attributes to him selfsufficiency. And he omits altogether Mk v.21a Compare the treatment in Mt 2234-40 of the questioner described in Mk 1228-34. Tolas may mean, “What sort of commandment?” cf. 2236. Or Tolos may be hardly distinguishable from rís, “Which commandments ? ” cf. Blass, p. 176; Win.-Schm. p. 241. See on 2412.ου φονεύσεις, κ.τ.λ.] Mk. has μη φονεύσης, κ.τ.λ. After μη ψευδοMaptupňons, Mk. has un atootepons (so x A B2C D latt). This may be a reminiscence of Ex 2110, or Dt 2424 (LXX A F), or Ecclus 41. Mt. omits it (if it was in his text of Mk., but B Si omit there), and substitutes after “honour father and mother," "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” This comes from Lv 1918, and occurs again in 2289 = Mk 1281 = Lk 1027, whence it is here taken. The first four clauses come from Ex 2018-16 or Dt 517-20. In Mk. the order μη μοιχ. μη φον. is attested by AN Xal latt, but μη φον. μη μοιχ. in ja B C al S. Mt. has this latter order, which is that of the Massoretic Text of Ex. and Dt., and of the LXX A F. In. Ex. B has oυ μοιχ. ου κλεψ. ου φον., and in Dt. ου μοιχ. ου φον. ου κλεψ. Thus Mk. (pa B C al S?) and Mt. agree in order with the Heb. (M.T.) and the LXX (A F Luc). The other order, noix. oủ pov. oủ kdey., represented by Mk. (A N X al latt), Lk 1820

, Îxx (B in Dt.), Philo, is now supported by the Hebrew Papyrus published in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, xxv. pt. i. pp. 34-56. Mk. has the indicative for the conjunctive of the LXX. Mt. assimilates to the LXX.

19. τίμα τον πατέρα και την μητέρα] Mk. has σου after πατέρα, Μ and in Ex. LXX B omits the second gov. Mt. (x B C* D al) omits the pronoun altogether as in 154. It is twice inserted by S1 S2 and some old latt, but can hardly be genuine. This is surprising, since the tendency in Mt. is to assimilate Mk.'s quotations to LXX, not to deviate from it.

20. The young man saith to Him, All these things I observed : M what lack I yet?] Mk. has : “And he said, Teacher, all these things I observed from my youth."-o veavio kos] Mt. has formed a nominative for the verb out of Mk.'s ék veóntós mov, which he omits. He also omits Mk.’s διδάσκαλε, and has εφύλαξα for édulatáuny. The former is the New Testament form elsewhere;

· Weiss renders this in Mk. “From all these I guarded myself.” See Meyer's Comm. 6th ed. in loc., and cf. Ac 21%, 2 Ti 41.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


cf. Lk 1128 1821, Jn 1247, Ac 768 164 2124, Ro 226, Gal 615, 1 Ti 521 620, 2 Ti 112. 14-τί έτι υστερώ] is formed out of Mk.’s έν σε υστερεί

in t'ie next verse. See on v.16. M 21. Jesus said to him, If thou wishest to be perfect, go sell thy

possessions, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow Me.] Mk. has : “And Jesus looking on him loved him, and said to him, One thing is lacking to thee: go sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow Me.” Mt. omits the first clause, in accordance with his tendency to drop out clauses which attribute emotion to the Lord; cf. on 83, and Introduction, p. xxxi. Moreover, the questioner, as described by Mt., with his obtuse self-complacency, was not lovable. Mt. substitutes : “But if thou wilt be perfect.” What could be said to a man of this sort, one who conceived of eternal life as something to be acquired by merit, as a day labourer earns a wage; one who regarded goodness” as a definite and ascertainable quantity which could be worked off; one who so misunderstood the commandments, and so deceived himself as to suppose that he had kept them; one who could ask the question, What do I yet lack? “If thou wilt be perfect,” says the Lord. The words are, of course, a descent to the level of the questioner. He thought of perfection as attainable by works, and the Lord took him at his own estimation, and proposed to him a task which would not lead him to perfection, but which would do one of two things. If he obeyed, he might learn in the service of Christ something of the spirit of the gospel, which sets before men the ideal of the divine perfection, 548, and which can never conceive of perfection as a goal reached ; cf. Lk 1710. If he found the task too hard for him, he would have learned to be less confident of his own capacity to do the one thing needful for inheritance of eternal life. For τέλειος, cf. 548. –σου τα υπάρχοντα] for Mk.’s όσα έχεις. , .

] . Tà ÚTúp xorta occurs in 2447 2514, never in Mk., but often in Lk. M 22. And the young man when he heard this saying went away

grieved: for he had great possessions.] Mk. has: “But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful : for he had great possessions." Mt. omits Mk.'s strong word otvyváoas, with its implication of unwillingness to obey Christ's command, just as he omits Mk 145 with its direct disobedience of Christ's word.

16-22. The section with its striking deviations from Mk. is most easily explained as being derived from the second Gospel. The alteration in v.17 seems clearly secondary as compared with Mk. On the other hand, the insertions in vv.17. 19. 21, and the double historic present vv.18. 20, might seem to point to another source, but are insufficient as a proof of such a source.

Lk. has some points of agreement with Mt. against Mk.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »