828 δαιμονιζόμενοι

920 αἱμοῤῥοοῦσα

=

144 αὐτῷ.
14 2 μετά.

52 ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ. 525 οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος.

In 316 the change of ri for eis is probably intentional. See note. In 418 εis is perhaps more natural than er after βάλλοντας. In 137.8 ἐπί is also more natural after the verb πίπτειν than εἰς. In 918 and 2650 Mt. substitutes éí with accusative for the dative after ἐπιτίθεσθαι τὴν χεῖρα ; but he has the dative in 1915 where Mk. has the accusative with emí, so that the change is without significance. In 1588 ἐν is perhaps easier than ἐπί. In 1o Mt. has εἰς ὄνομα for ἐν ὀνόματι ; but the succeeding words are different, and the passages are not really parallel. For εἰς ὄνομα, cf. Mt 1041 (2) 1820 2819. In 218 év is easier than eis, and this is the case with ἐπί, 24, and ev, 1o17 2418. The substitution of ἐπί for ev, 2430, and for μετά, 264, is due to desire to assimilate to Dn 718 (LXX). And the participles in 828 920 avoid Mk.'s curious use of ἐν.

ἐπί with different cases:

Mt 916 ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ
133 ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλόν
1414 ἐπ' αὐτοῖς
1410 ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου

1425 ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν
1585 ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν
1018 ἐπὶ ἡγεμόνας
Cf. 217 ἐπ' αὐτῶν

217 ἐπάνω αὐτῶν
918 ἐπ' αὐτήν

1915 αὐτοῖς

2650 ἐπὶ τὸν ̓Ιησοῦν

In 916 the dative is perhaps more natural after the weakened sense of ἐπιβάλλειν, which Mt. substitutes for Mk.'s ἐπιράπτειν, than the accusative,

In 133 cf. for the accusative after ἵστημι, Rev 1218 14' 153; but the genitive is found in Lk 617, Ac 2140, Rev 105. 8.

ἐπί with the dative after σπλαγχνίζεσθαι is found in Mt 1414 and Lk 718. Mk (634 82 and 922) has the accusative, and so Mt 1532. In 1419 the verb is ἀνακλιθῆναι. After the similar verbs καθῆσθαι and καθίζειν, ἐπί frequently takes genitive or accusative. The dative only occurs in Rev 710 194 215. Mt.'s substitution of genitive for dative is, therefore, not unnatural. Cf. his substitution Οἱ καθημένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ Όρους, 243, for Mk.'s καὶ καθημένου αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ Ὄρος, 13. For the latter, cf. 2 Th 24 ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι.

In 1425 Mt. substitutes the accusative for Mk.'s genitive and has the accusative in v.29, but in v.26 he retains Mk.'s genitive.1 Jn 619 has the genitive. The change of accusative for genitive in Iols is conditioned by the change of verb, ἀχθήσεσθε for σταθήσεσθε.

In 217 Mt. has en' air@v for Mk.'s simple dative, but he has changed the verb from ἐπιβάλλειν to ἐπιτίθεσθαι. After this verb the usual constructions are the simple dative or éní with accusative, but Mt. has the genitive again in 2729. In the same verse Mt. has ἐπάνω αὐτῶν for ἐπ' αὐτῶν. ἐπάνω occurs 8 times in Mt., only once, 145="more than,” in Mk.

In 816 and 92 Mt. substitutes Tрoopéрew for Mk.'s pépe. Tрoopéрe is a favourite word with him, and he always uses the simple dative of a person after it. In 1717 the verb is pépew in Mt. and Mk. Mt. has the dative again in 1418. Mk. uses the dative 782 822, or πpós 132 23 919.20 117. In 2123 2223 and 2758. Mt. substitutes his favourite word προσέρχεσθαι for ἔρχεσθαι, Mk 1127 1218, and eloépxeobai, 1543. The substitution of the dative for πρós is a natural consequence.

dadeîv μerá occurs only here in the Synoptic Gospels, 4 times in Jn., 6 in Rev. But cf. Mt 178 ovvdaλoûvtes

See Abbott (Johannine Grammar, 2342), who urges that Mk.'s TEPITATŵV ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης is ambiguous, and might mean walking about on the edge of the sea.

2738 ἐλθόντες εἰς
2740 περί

2700 dative

1480 dative.

1522 φέρουσιν ἐπί.
1584 dative.

154 ἐπί with accusative. Many of these changes are without significance, but those in 316 2480 2664 are probably intentional, whilst those in 241 137. 8. 19 1583 218 24 10 2418 828 920 916 1419 ease the construction. Those in 816 93 1717 2123 2223 and 2758 are to conform to Mt.'s usage elsewhere.

(g) Conjunctions.

Mk. three times has orav with the indicative, viz. 311 1119. 25. Mt. avoids this construction. Cf. Mk 656 ὅπου ἂν εἰσπορεύετο, which Mt. omits. Cf. Rev 144 ὅπου ἂν ὑπάγει (A C).

el in a statement meaning "that not," Mk 812, Mt. substitutes où. (h) Changes made in Mk.'s language are sometimes due to the fact that the editor has inserted similar sayings from another source in another part of his Gospel, and assimilates Mk.'s language to these similar passages.

E.g. Mk 42 = Μt 13l; but Mt adds καὶ περισσευθήσεται, to assimilate to 2529.

Mk 812 has τί ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ζητεῖ σημεῖον ; ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν εἰ δοθήσεται τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ σημεῖον ; but

Mt 164 has γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλὶς σημεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ, to assimilate to 1289.

Mk 835 has σώσει ; but Mt 1624 has ευρήσει, to assimilate to 1089.

Μk 943 has ἐὰν σκανδαλίσῃ—ἀπόκοψον—σετὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον ; but Mt 188 has εἰ σκανδαλίζει—έκκοψον—σοί, and adds καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ, to assimilate to 50, and has τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον, to assimilate to 2541.

Με 94 has καλόν ἐστιν εἰ; but Mt 18 has συμφέρειἵνα, to assimilate to 530.

Mk 947 has ἐὰν—σκανδαλίζῃ—ἔκβαλεσέ; but Mt 189 has

εἰσκανδαλίζει έξελεσοί, and adds καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ, to assimilate to 52, and του πυρός, to assimilate to 522. Mk roll = Mt 19. Mt. adds (εἰ) μὴ ἐπὶ πορνεία, to assimilate to Mt_582 παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας.

Mk 1123 = Mt 2121. Mt. adds ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν, to assimilate to 1720.

In 1533-39 Mt. assimilates the language to 1419-21

(1) A few changes seem to be due to the desire to emphasise

an antithesis, e.g.:

Με 152 διὰ τί οἱ μαθηταί σου παραβαίνουσιν.

153] διὰ τί καὶ ὑμεῖς παραβαί ετε

154) ὁ γὰρ θεὸς εἶπεν τίμα.

155] ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε οὐ μὴ τιμήσει.
198 Μωυσῆς ἐπέτρεψεν.
19] λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν.

6. More important, however, than changes in language, are alterations which seem due to an increasing feeling of reverence for the person of Christ. The second Evangelist had not scrupled to attribute to Him human emotion, and to describe Him as asking questions. Such statements are almost uniformly omitted by the editor of this Gospel.

E.g. he omits the following :

ΜΕ 35 περιβλεψάμενος αὐτοὺς μετ ̓ ὀργῆς συνλυπούμενος.

Cf.

the way in which Mt 124 avoids περιβλεψάμενος οι ΜΚ 33.

141 σπλαγχνισθείς ; but Daffs have ὀργισθείς.

148 ἐμβριμησάμενος.

321 ἐξέστη.

6ο ἐθαύμασεν.

812 ἀναστενάξας τῷ πνεύματι.

S1 has: "He was excited in

spirit"; Arm. "He was angry in His spirit." Cf. Mt's omission of τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ from Mk 28.

1014 ἠγανάκτησεν.

101 ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν.

1488 Mt has λυπεῖσθαι for ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι.

He omits also clauses which seem to ascribe inability to

Christ, or desire which was not fulfilled.

Ε.§. 145 ώστε μηκέτι αὐτὸν δύνασθαιεἰσελθεῖν.

65 οὐκ ἐδύνατο ἐκεῖ ποιῆσαι οὐδεμίαν δύναμιν.
substitutes οὐκ ἐποίησεν ἐκεῖ δυνάμεις πολλάς.

648 ἤθελεν παρελθεῖν αὐτούς. Μt. omits.

Mt 1358

724 οὐδένα ἤθελεν γνῶναι καὶ οὐκ ἠδυνάσθη λαθεῖν. Mt.

omits.

980 καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τις γνοῖ. Mt. omits.

1458 καταλύσω. Mt 266 δύναμαι καταλῦσαι.

In Iris Mk. describes the Lord as coming to a fig tree [εἰ ἄρα τι εὑρήσει ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ ἐλθὼν] ἐπ' αὐτὴν οὐδὲν εὗρεν εἰ μὴ φύλλα [ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς οὐκ ἦν σύκων]. Mt. omits the bracketed clauses, which might give rise to the question why Christ expected to find figs which did not exist, and that out of season.

1 See note on 88. Mt. uses σπλαγχνίζεσθαι of Christ four times (980 1416 158 203), and probably read ὀργισθείς in Mk 141.

The same feeling of reverence may have caused the following changes: ΜΚ 63 ὁ τέκτων.

Με 1355 ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός.

1018 τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; Mt. 1917 τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; 1382 ovde ó viós. Mt 2436 omits.

He omits also the following questions which Mk. places in the mouth of the Lord :

Με 50 τί ὄνομα σοί;

580 τίς μου ήψατο τῶν ἱματίων ;
638 πόσους ἔχετε ἄρτους ;

818 τί ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ζητεῖ σημεῖον ;

823 εἴ τι βλέπεις ;

913 πῶς γέγραπται ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου;

916 τί συζητεῖτε πρὸς αὐτούς;

921 πόσος χρόνος ἐστὶν ὡς τοῦτο γέγονεν αὐτῷ ;

983 τί ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ διελογίζεσθε ;

108 τί ὑμῖν ἐνετείλατο Μωυσῆς;

1414 ποῦ ἐστὶν τὸ κατάλυμά μου;

Due to the same causes are, no doubt, changes made in regard to the miracles.

There is a tendency to emphasise the immediacy of a miracle; cf. the insertion of årò rs pas ékeivηs, Mt 922 1528 1718. A more striking case of this occurs in the parable of the Fig Tree. In Mk. an interval of a day is placed between the denunciation of it by the Lord and the observation of the disciples that it had withered in the meantime. But Mt. draws together the two sections of the narrative, states that the tree withered immediately upon Christ's word, and that the disciples were astonished at this immediate fulfilment of the Lord's word (2121). There is a similar heightening in the universal scope of Christ's healings. Mk 182.88 records that "all" who were sick were brought to Christ, and that He healed "many." Mt. reverses the adjectives-" many" were brought, and "all" were healed (816). There is a similar alteration in Mt 1215 as compared with Mk 37.10. Here, too, may be noticed the heightening in number in the two miracles of feeding by the insertion of the phrase χωρίς γυναικῶν καὶ παιδίων, 1421 1588.

Noticeable also is the omission of the two miracles, Mk 731ff. 822ff, in which the cure is effected by physical means: "He put His fingers into his ears, and spat, and touched his tongue," 733; "He spat on his eyes," 823. Moreover, in the latter incident the cure is a gradual one, necessitating a twofold laying on of hands. Contrast the emphasis laid by Mt. in two cases on Christ as healing "with a word," 88. 16 Another noticeable change of this sort is found in Mt 1717-18. Mk 920-26 describes how the

spirit tare the sufferer as he was brought to Christ, so that he fell on the ground and wallowed foaming. The Lord presently bade