ye shall receive.] Mk. has: "Therefore I say to you, All things whatsoever ye pray and ask, believe that ye received, and it shall be to you."—airýonte] Mt. omits one of Mk.'s two synonymous verbs; see on 83.-TLOTEVOVTES] i.e. with trust in the power and love of God to grant the request. Mk. adds here: "And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any one; that your Father who is in the heavens may forgive you your trespasses." The verse seems out of place in Mk., and appears to have been added as an afterthought. It is very possibly an early gloss. The phrase "Father who is in the heavens occurs nowhere else in Mk.1 If the verse was in the copy of Mk. used by Mt., the latter has omitted it, because he has recorded similar sayings in 614 528. A further addition is made in Mk. by the majority of MSS., namely, ei dè ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀφίετε οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν (τοῖς) οὐρανοῖς ἀφήσει (ὑμῖν) τὰ ларажтúμата iμov. The clause is omitted by &N BLSAS1k. 23-27. From Mk 1127-33. 23. And when He came into the temple, there came to Him, as M He was teaching, the chief priests and elders of the people, saying, By what authority doest Thou these things, and who gave Thee this authority?] Mk. has: "And they come to Jerusalem: and as He was walking in the temple, there come to Him the chief priests, and scribes, and elders, and were saying to Him, By what authority doest Thou these things? or who gave Thee this authority that Thou shouldest do these things ?” Mk's καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα is unnecessary after v.18.-pooλav] aor., as often, for Mk.'s hist. present. For poσéрxeσbai, see on 43. For the aor. in a, see Blass, P. 45.-didáσKOVτi] This is to be a day of teaching, as yesterday was of action ; see on v. 14. —προσῆλθαν—λέγοντες] for Mk.'s ἔρχονται.—καὶ λeyov, as often. Mt. omits Mk.'s redundant iva Taura Tоins at the end. 24. And Jesus answered and said to them, I also will ask you one M thing, which if ye tell Me, I, too, will tell you by what authority I do these things.] Mk. has: "And Jesus said to them, I will ask you one thing, and answer Me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.” Mt's ἂν ἐὰν εἴπητέ μοι κἀγὼ ἐρῶ is a grammatical correction of Mk.'s καὶ ἀποκρίθητε μοι καὶ ἐρῶ. 25. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or from M men? And they disputed among themselves, saying, If we say, From heaven; He will say to us, Why then did you not believe him?] So Mk. without πόθεν ἦν and with ἀποκρίθητέ μοι, which Mt. omits as redundant, after ἀνθρώπων.—οἱ δὲ διελογίζοντο] for Mk.'s καὶ διελογίζοντο, as often.—ἐν ἑαυτοῖς] for Mk.'s πρὸς ἑαυτούς. For a similar change, cf. Mt 167, Mk 816. The point seems to be that John had borne witness to Christ as the Messiah. If the 1 But the antithesis "the Father-the Son" occurs also only once in Mk., viz. 1332, yet is certainly genuine. In the same way Mk 115 may be a genuine survival in Mk. of a Palestinian form of expression which finds fuller expression in Mt. M M L authorities had given credence to John, they would have had no need to ask by what authority Jesus acted—ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ] TLOTEVEL in 813 928 186 2122 meant to have "trust,” “assurance” in the power and goodness of God or of Christ. But here and in v.32 2423. 26 it has the weaker sense to "give credence to." 26. But if we should say, From men; we fear the multitude, for all hold John as a prophet.] Mk. has: "But should we say from men -they feared the multitude. For all held John that he was truly a prophet."-av dé] is a grammatical correction of Mk.'s harsh ảλλá. φοβούμεθα] avoids Mk.'s_aposiopesis.—ἔχουσιν ὡς προφήτην] is a correction of Mk.'s εἶχον ὄντως ὅτι προφήτης ἦν. 27. And they answered Jesus, and said, We do not know. He also said to them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.] So Mk. with λέγουσιν for εἶπαν and καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς for ἔφη αὐτοῖς καὶ αὐτός. 23-27. Mt. and Lk. agree in the following: αὐτῷ διδάσκοντί, Μι 23; διδάσκοντος αὐτοῦ, Lk 1; περιπατοῦντος αὐτοῦ, Mk 27. Aéyovтes, Mt 23, Lk 2. ἀποκριθεὶς δέ, Mt 24, Lk 6. Mk. has no ἀποκριθείς. εἴπητε, Mt 24; εἴπατε, Lk 8; ἀποκρίθητε, Μk 29. Both Mk. and Lk. omit iva ravτа Toys from Mk 28 and ἀποκρίθητέ μοι from Mk 30 oi Sé, Mt 25, Lk 5; κaí, Mk 81. éàv Sé, Mt 26, Lk 6; åλλá, Mk 82. Mk. has here: "And He began to speak to them in parables," followed by the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. Mt. inserts first the parable of the Two Sons, then borrows from Mk. that of the Husbandmen, and then adds the parable of the Marriage Feast; thus forming a group of three prophetic parables (cf. Introduction, p. lxv), foretelling the divine judgement impending over the Jewish nation. See Gould on Mk 121. 28-32. Parable of the Two Sons. 28. But what think ye? A man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go to day work in the vineyard.]—τí de vμîv Soke] See on 1725.—πрoσελ0άv] See on 43. L 29. And he answered and said, I am not willing; but afterwards he repented, and went.] L L 30. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I (go), sir; and went not.] 81. Which of the two did the will of the father? They say, The first. Jesus saith to them, Verily I say to you, That the tollgatherers and the harlots go before you into the kingdom of God.] —προάγουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ] We might have expected the editor to use εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, so that #poάyovσw would have been a timeless statement of fact, meaning "go" into the kingdom whenever it shall appear, and so practically equivalent to a future; cf. napadidorai, Mk 931. It very probably represents an Aramaic participle. The fact that we have TOU θεοῦ instead of τῶν οὐρανῶν makes it clear that the phrase is not editorial, but that it is derived from the source used. The reason why the editor did not alter it into tôv ovpavŵv is not clear. But (1) he has perhaps once out of fourteen times left roû coû in a Marcan passage (Mt 1924). (2) He elsewhere once has a phrase, which he generally alters, e.g. ueтà трeîs μépas, 2763. Contrast 1621 1723 2019. (3) He may have felt that here, as in 1228, the "kingdom of God" of his source was not quite the same as the "kingdom of the heavens" which he elsewhere describes. See also on 2131. In "go before you into the kingdom" the meaning is not so much, "will go before you into the kingdom when it is inaugurated," as "obey God by fulfilling John's command to repent, submit to the divine will, take upon themselves the yoke of the kingdom, and become heirs of its promises." In other words, the "kingdom" here means rather the condition of preparedness for the coming kingdom than that future kingdom itself. Had the Evangelist written, "will go before you into the kingdom of the heavens," he would have represented the Lord as foretelling the future admission of the people to whom he was speaking into the kingdom. This was just what the editor wished to avoid. They were to be cast out of the kingdom, 812. "Go before you into the kingdom," on the other hand, emphasises the fact that the tollgatherers and harlots "go," and leaves it quite ambiguous whether the persons addressed "go" or not. Like 1228, this parable probably came from the Logia; and if that is so, the Logia contained not only parables of the kingdom of the heavens, but other sayings and parables in which the phrase "kingdom of God" was used in a sense not always identical with "the kingdom of the heavens." 32. For John came to you with the way of righteousness, and you L did not believe him: but the toll-gatherers and the harlots believed him and you saw (it), and did not afterwards repent, so as to believe him.]-év od dikaioσúvηs] ódós here, like the Heb. 7 and the Aramaic is, means not so much the path trodden as the manner, custom, method. To come with the way of righteousness is to come as a representative and teacher of righteousness and of her methods. "John came with the way of righteousness," means "John came, and what he taught was good," he represented and stood for the manner of life which righteousness demands. See Wellhausen, in loc., and cf. ¿dòv coû, 2216. The Lord applies the answer of the authorities to their own conduct by way of contrast. They had said that that son was to be approved who, though he was unwilling at first, yet afterwards went into the vineyard. But the Baptist came preaching righteousness, calling men to go into God's vineyard through the gate of repentance, and they had given no ear to his preaching. In this respect they were like the first son of the parable, who said I am unwilling. But, unlike him, they had not afterwards repented and obeyed the Baptist's call. On the other hand, the toll-gatherers and the harlots had also been like the first son, but they had changed their mind when John preached, and had obeyed the call. This only hardened the Jewish authorities the more. A vineyard in which outcasts worked was no vineyard for them. A kingdom into which the toll-gatherers could enter was no kingdom for them. Thus tollgatherers and harlots went before them into the kingdom of God. —тOÛ TIσTEÛσαι] "gives rather the content than the purpose of μETEμEληONTE," Moulton, p. 216. But unless où be omitted or another negative be inserted before Trevσal, it is difficult to make any sense of the clause which will suit this context, except by translating "to believe," i.e. "and believed him." See below. 28-31. CD Lal S1 S2 latt have the obedient son first, the disobedient son second. B reverses the order. In v.81 C Lal c f q S2 have poros. This seems to be required by the context. The Pharisees could hardly give any other answer, and the Lord's reply seems to presuppose it. The Pharisees were in part like the first son, i.e. they refused to give heed to John's preaching. But they were also unlike him, since he came to a better state of mind, whilst they hardened themselves the more. B has vσrepos, D latt oxaros, S1 "the last." In the case of B, which has reversed the order of vv.29. 80, the Pharisees still approve the conduct of the son who first refused and afterwards went. But D S1latt make the Pharisees approve the conduct of the son who promised to go and failed to fulfil his promise. Wellhausen believes this to be the original text, and supposes that the Pharisees intentionally gave a perverse answer in order to make pointless the moral which Christ was going to draw from the natural rejoinder. They ought to have answered that the first son did his father's will, and He would then have contrasted their conduct with that of the son approved by them, and compared them to the son whose conduct they reprehended. But they purposely give the wrong answer, and Christ's rejoinder, v.31, is an expression of indignation at their perversity, rather than an explanation of the parable. Merx, too, upholds this reading, and finds in it the original text which has given rise to the other readings. But it seems probable that the order of & CD Lal and pŵros are the original. There would be a natural tendency to transpose this order: (1) It might be argued that if the first son went, there was no occasion to summon the second; (2) the fulfilment of the command forms an unexpected climax to the story; (3) it was natural to identify the disobedient son with the Jew, the obedient son with the Gentile. Along this line of interpretation the latter should come last in chronological order; (4) the vσrepov of v.29 may have had some influence in causing this verse to be placed after v.80; (5) further, v.32 may have suggested the change of order. "John came, and you did not believe" ouk åπîλße; = "the toll-gatherers and harlots believed"=μeraμeλn Deis ἀπῆλθε. On these grounds the order of B might be explained as due to emendation for literary and exegetical reasons, and the substitution of "the last" for "the first" might be supposed to be later than the transposition of order. But the MS. evidence suggests that the substitution is earlier than the transposition of order, and is the probable cause of it. The earliest emendation seems to have been the substitution of "the last" (D latt S1) for "the first." This may be due to antipharisaic motives. The Lord had said of them that "they say and do not." They must, therefore, be represented as approving of one who said "I go," and went not. The variations. ὕστερος, ἔσχατος are against the originality of this reading. The transposition of order seems to have originated in a text in which "the last " had already been adopted, and to have been made by some one who misunderstood the motive which had led to the substitution of "the last" for "the first," in order to make the Pharisees return the obvious answer. 32. où μeteμeλý0ŋte] B 1 13 22 33 latt have ovde. D omits the nega tive. ce alter its position quod non credidistis. S1 also omits. Burkitt translates "but ye, when ye saw it-at the last have ye changed your mind that ye should believe in Him?" But the clause is not necessarily interrogative in the Syriac. The omission is probably accidental. The clause is very difficult. Mt. has Toû with the infinitive seven times. In 213 and 313 with an aorist, of a definite action, in 111 and 133 with a present, of a continuous action. In 68 it occurs after pb. Here "did not repent so as to believe " should be τοῦ πιστεύειν rather than τοῦ πιστεῦσαι. But to translate "did not repent of having believed" seems to destroy the sense. The Pharisees had not believed, v.32. D's omission of the negative gives a possible rendering "repented so as to believe"; but this seems an unlikely conclusion to the saying. The transposition of the negative by c e also gives a weak finish to the saying, and is probably a translator's emendation. A omits the whole of the last clause. This may be due to homœoteleuton. It is difficult to think that the clause as it stands is original, but if any part is genuine οὐ or οὐδὲ μετεμελήθητε must have belonged to it; possibly τοῦ πιστεῦσαι αὐτῷ is a later gloss. |