M E living, and that their resurrection was a natural and probable corollary. Cf. the similar inference from Nu 1828 with reference to Aaron, quoted above from Sanh 90b. Mk. has: "But con cerning the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, at the Bush how God spake to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob? He is not God of dead persons, but of living: ye greatly err." The quotation is from Ex 3o. 33. And when the multitudes heard, they were astonished at His teaching.] The editor inserts here words which he has omitted from Mk 1118 "For all the multitude was astonished at His teaching." 23-33. Lk. agrees with Mt. against Mk. in the following: ὕστερον, Mt 27, Lk 2; ἔσχατον, Mk 22. EiTev, Mt 29, Lk 34; eon, Mk 24. Both Mt 28 and Lk 33 insert ovv, and both omit λaßev avτýV, καὶ ἀπέθανεν μὴ καταλιπὼν σπέρμα from Mk 21 23. NYOVTES] So NBD al S1 S2 (" and they say "). The meaning seems to be that certain Sadducees came and denied that there was a resurrection. Ne EF al have ol Aéyovres; but with this reading we should expect also of Σαδδουκαίοι. 30. ayyeλo] Add coû, & L. Omit BD 1 209 latt S1 S2. 34-40. Cf. Mk 1228-34. 34. And the Pharisees, having heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, were gathered together.] E 35. And one of them asked Him, testing Him.] Mk. here records the story of a scribe who, approving of Christ's answers, himself asked a question, and expressed great approval of the answer which he received. The story ends with a statement of Christ's appreciation of the character of His questioner. In Mt. the incident takes a different turn. The Pharisees gather together, and one of them puts a question to Christ, testing Him. The whole of Mk.'s continuation of the narrative after Christ's answer is omitted. It is difficult to see in the continual mention of the Pharisees in Mt. any other purpose than a desire to prepare the way for the chapter of denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees which is to follow in ch. 23. Cf. 2145 "the chief priests and the Pharisees," 2215 "the Pharisees," 34 "the Pharisees," 1 "the Pharisees." This may account for the unfavourable view taken here of Mk.'s scribe. He was a Pharisee, and came to Christ with hostile intent. Consequently the approval expressed of him by Christ must be dropped, and with it goes what may have seemed to the editor the somewhat patronising words of the scribe in Mk 1232. 33. Cf. the omission = of the reproachful où μéλe σo from Mk 438 Mt 825, and of the somewhat sarcastic question from Mk 637 Mt 1417. = In this way Mt 2234-40 might be explained as due to editorial revision of Mk 1228-34. But another factor has to be taken into account. Lk. in the parallel to Mk. abbreviates the whole section into one sentence: "And certain of the scribes answered and said, Teacher, Thou hast well said. For no one dared to ask Him anything." Two reasons for this shortening may be conjectured-(a) Lk. found Mk.'s narrative to be not free from objection; (b) he had already inserted a similar story free from the objectionable element in 1025-27. Now, Lk 1025-27 agrees in some points with Mt 2234-40 against Mk 12. In both, according to the usual text, the questioner is described as voμkós. In both he comes to test Christ-weiрálwv, Mt 55; ékπeipáčwv, Lk 25. Both stories have a definite reference to the law, év T vóμo; and both omit the quotation from Dt 64, and partially assimilate Mk.'s quotation of Dt 65 to the Hebrew by substituting ev for Mk.'s ek (=LXX). Lk., however, has both prepositions. These facts are rather difficult to explain. We might suppose that Mt. and Lk. were both acquainted with a narrative of a lawyer who came to tempt Christ. Lk. inserted it in ch. 10, and afterwards omitted the somewhat similar narrative of Mk 12, whilst Mt. substituted it for the story of Mk 12. Or Mt.'s text may be regarded as a revision of Mk.'s, and Lk 1025-27 may be entirely independent, or affected by reminiscence of Mt. and Mk. on the part of Lk. 36. Teacher, what kind of commandment is great in the law?] M? Mk. has: "What kind of commandment is first of all?"-TOLOS] cf. 1918. Or it is equivalent to rís; cf. 2123ff., Win.-Schm. p. 241. 37. And He said to him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God M? with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.] Mk. has: "Jesus answered that the first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God from all thy heart, and from all thy soul, and from all thy mind, and from all thy strength." The quotation is from Dt 65. The LXX has "from all thy mind (Stavoías), and from all thy soul, and from all thy power (duváμews)." But A F Luc have καρδίας for διανοίας. Mk. seems to have conflated the two renderings, and to have substituted loxúos for dvváμews. Mt., remembering the fact that there were only three clauses in the original, retains only the first three from Mk., and assimilates to the Hebrew by substituting év for ek. 38. This is the great and first commandment.] M? 39. A second similar one is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour M? as thyself.] The quotation is from Lv 1918, and has already been quoted in 1918. This saying in a negative form is ascribed to Hillel MP M M M M M in B. Shabb 31 "What is hateful to thee, do not do to thy neighbour. That is the whole law. All else is commentary upon it." 1 40. On these two commandments hangeth the whole law, and the prophets.] Mk. has: "Greater than these is no other command ment." Mt. here postpones Mk 34b to the end of the next section, where it suitably closes the whole series of questions. 34. ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό] D latt Si S3 have ἐπ' αὐτόν cf. 2727 συνήγαγον ἐπ' αὐτόν. er has here a hostile significance, as in Ac 427. This reading gives an admirable sense, and would be easily corrupted into ènì rò aúró: cf. Ac 426. 35. voμkós] Om. I e S1 Arm Orig. The word occurs seven times in Lk., not in Mk., nor elsewhere in Mt. 37. diavola] c S1 S2 have "power" (c. virtute)=loxiï from Mk. S1 S2 also have "from" for ev throughout, assimilating to Mk. (and the Pesh. VS. of Dt.). 41-45. From Mk 1235-37a 41. And when the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying.] Mk. has: "And Jesus answered and said, as He taught in the temple." For the emphasis on the Pharisees, cf. on v.35. The collocation of συνήχθησαν, ν.3, with περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, v.42, suggests that very possibly the Evangelist had in mind Ps 22. 42. What think ye about the Messiah? Whose Son is He? They say to Him, David's.] Mk. has: "How say the scribes that the Messiah is David's Son?"-rí vμîv doкeî] cf. on 1725. For Aéyovou aur@, cf. 197 2181 2221. 43. He saith to them, How then does David in the Spirit call Him Lord, saying?] Mk. has: "David himself in the Holy Spirit said.”—ev πνεúμari] i.e. by divine inspiration. Cf. "David said in the Holy Spirit," Schir ha-Schirim 21 (Wünsche, p. 54), and see Bacher, Exeget. Termin. ii. 202. 44. The Lord said to My Lord, Sit at My right hand until I place Thy enemies underneath Thy feet.] So Mk. That is to say, "there is a Psalm of David in which the writer speaks of the Messiah as Lord." It is assumed that the Psalm is Davidic, and that it deals with the Messiah. The reference is to Ps 1101. Both Mt. and Mk. differ from the LXX in omitting the article before κύριος, and in substituting ὑποκάτω for ὑποπόδιον. 45. If, therefore, David calls Him Lord, how is He His Son? Mk. has: "David himself calls Him Lord, and whence is He His Son?" Christ here raises a difficulty which He does not solve. If the Messiah is David's Son, how is it that David, speaking by divine inspiration, ascribes to Him a divine title and divine prerogatives? The solution suggested, though not expressed, is that the Messiah is not only Son of David, but Son of God. See Dalm. Words, pp. 285 f. 1 Cf. also Siphra on Lv 1918 (Ugol. 853) “Rabbi Akiba said, This is the greatest commandment in the law," and Bereshith R. (Wünsche, p. 112). 46. And no one could answer Him a word, nor did any one M dare from that day to question Him any further.] Mk. has: "And no one any further dared to question Him." Mt. and Lk. agree in the following: avroús, Mt 41, Lk 41. καλεί πως, Μι 45, Lk 44 ; λέγει—πόθεν, ΜΚ 37. Both insert ovv, Mt 45, Lk 44. Lk. has 44. ὑπόκατω] NBDalbehq S' S"; ὑποπόδιον, Ε F al latt. In Mk. course. It will be seen that Lk 1189-52 contains sayings spoken to a Pharisee, 38, or Pharisees, 42, or lawyers, 46, all of which are incorporated in Mt 23, but without distinction of audience, in a different order, and in different language. The last difference makes it very unlikely that Mt. and Lk. had a common written source. Mt vv.3 37-39 recur in Lk 1334-35 in a different context, and with variations of language. A common written source is improbable. 1. Then Jesus spake to the multitudes, and to His disciples, say- E ing.] Mk. has: "And in His teaching, He was saying." Lk. also has rois palŋraîs in this connection. 2. The scribes and the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses.] Cf. L B. Rosh ha Shanah 25a "Every council of three in Israel is like the council of Moses"; Aboth 11 "Moses received . . . and delivered to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the men of the great synagogue.”— 77 Kábioav] The aor. is difficult. It may be due to the fact that the editor writes from his own standpoint, and looks back upon the period when the scribes and Pharisees were in power. But Wellhausen speaks of it as a Semiticism. L 8. All things therefore whatsoever they say to you, do and observe.] The words are difficult in view of the criticism of the regulations of the traditional law in 151-20; cf. esp. 156. We must suppose that a limitation is to be inferred from "sit in Moses' Do all things that they teach, in so far as this is in harmony with the spirit of the Mosaic law. The comprehensiveness of the saying reminds us of 518-But do not according to their works: for they say, and do not.] This can hardly mean that the Pharisees did not themselves endeavour to conform to the regulations of the traditional law. The Aéyovou implies that the whole Pharisaic system was professedly an endeavour to fulfil the commands of God expressed in the Old Testament, and to live up to the moral standard there revealed. By où Totovo is meant that in practice their system tended to miss the real righteousness of the Old Testament, and to overlook its true principles, love, mercy, truth, etc. Cf. 127. They professed regard for the Old Testament, but neglected the mercy which it taught; 154.5 they so explained away the divine command of filial duty as to sanction the direct contrary; 2328 they paid great attention to minuter regulations of the law, but neglected the great underlying moral principles. L 4. And they bind heavy burdens, and lay them upon the shoulders of men; and they themselves with their finger are unwilling to move them away.] Lk 1146 has: "Ye burden men with intolerable burdens, and yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers." The verse gives an example of the failure to "do" referred to in v.8. The law was given not as a burden, but as a privilege. But the Pharisaic interpretation of it made it a burden upon life. And the Pharisees refused to lighten this everaccumulating burden of legal restrictions in the slightest degree. Traditionalism is always unwilling to relinquish what has become effete and antiquated. The burdens referred to are those of the traditional law with its ever-increasing complexity. 66 For Kivnoα="to remove," cf. Rev 25 614. L 5. And all their works they do to be seen of men: for they make wide their phylacteries, and enlarge their tassels.] The verse emphasises a special vice which was eating into the heart of the whole Pharisaic system. For puλaктýρia, see DB, "Phylacteries." For κрáσmeda, cf. on 920. ML 6, 7. And love the chief seat at feasts and the first places in the synagogues, and salutations in the market-places, and to be called by men, Rabbi.] Lk. has (1148): "You love the first place in the |