Imagini ale paginilor

who are agreed will receive an answer, because Christ is with His disciples in their prayer; cf. Sayings of Our Lord, Log. v.: "Wherever there are (two) they are not without God, and wherever there is one alone I say I am with him"; Mal 316 "They that feared the Lord spake often the one to the other, and the Lord hearkened and heard"; Aboth 38 "Two that sit together and are occupied in the words of the Law have the Shechinah (i.e. the Divine Presence) among them." Cf. 39 and B. Berakhoth 6a quoted by Taylor, The Oxyrhynchus Logia, p. 34 f.

15. els σé] So D al latt S1 S2. The words are wrongly omitted by N BI 22 234, and if not expressed would have to be understood. They are not found in Lk 173, but occur in the next verse. Unaye is omitted by S1 S2.

20. D S1 have this verse in a negative form: "For there are not two or three gathered together in My name that I am not in the midst of them."

21. Then came Peter, and said to Him, Lord, how often shall my L brother sin against me, and I shall forgive him? unto seven times?] Lk 174 has: "And if seven times in the day he sin against thee, and seven times turn to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him." For the introduction of Peter, cf. 1428 1515; and see note on 1619, p. 180.

22. Jesus saith to him, Not, I say to thee, until seven times; but, L until seventy times seven.] The latter number is meant as an indefinitely great one. There is the same literary contrast between seven and seventy times seven in Gn 424 LXX. Cf. Moulton, p. 98: "A definite allusion to the Genesis story is highly probable. Jesus pointedly sets against the natural man's craving for seventysevenfold revenge, the spiritual man's ambition to exercise the privilege of seventy-sevenfold forgiveness." Dr. Moulton had previously said that the meaning "seventy seven times" is unmistakable in Genesis. It is very probable that Mt.’s ἑβδομηκοντάκις έπτα is modelled on the similar phrase in Genesis, but it seems doubtful whether in both passages we should not translate seventy times seven, rather than seventy-seven times. In Mt., D has ẞdoμnkovTáKIS ÉTTάKIS, an obvious emendation. Blass renders seventy times seven, p. 145. So Wellhausen and Zahn, in loc. Contrast the teaching in the Babylonian Talmud, Joma 86 “Rabbi Jose ben Jehuda said, If a man commits an offence once they forgive him, a second time they forgive him, a third time they forgive him, the fourth time they do not forgive him: for it is said (here follow Job 3329 and Am 26)"; 87a "Rabbi Isaac said, Every one who vexes his neighbour, if only in words, must appease him." "Rabbi Jose ben Hanina said, He who begs forgiveness from his neighbour must not do so more than three times, for it is said" (here follows Gn 217, in which are here three particles of entreaty).

23. The editor now inserts a parable to illustrate the necessity of forgiveness.


23. Therefore the kingdom of the heavens is like to a man, a king, who wished to take reckoning with his servants.]—μowon] See on 1116 —ἀνθρώπῳ βασιλεῖ] cf. 201 222 1352. Here and in 223 ἄνθρωπος Baride's probably means "an earthly king," a grecised form of the Jewish "king of flesh and blood" which is common in the parables of the Talmud and Midrashim.-ovvapai λóyov] occurs in BU 775, 2nd cent. A.D.; the middle voice in Fayûm Towns, p. 261, ovvîpμai dóyov T Tатрí, 1st cent. A.D.; and in Ox. Pap. i. 113, 2nd cent. A.D.


24. And when he began to take account, there was brought to him a debtor to the amount of ten thousand talents.]—els opeiλérns] Cf. Blass, p. 144. And see on 918.—μvpiwv taλávτwv] The talent was equivalent to 6000 denarii, or £240. 10,000 talents is, therefore, an enormous sum. We must either suppose that the sum is heightened in order to form a literary contrast to the 100 denarii, or suppose that the servants here referred to are the higher officers of the king, th ngh whose hands would pass the imperial taxes.


25. And when he was unable to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.]

26. Therefore the servant fell down, and did homage to him, saying, Lord, have forbearance with me, and I will pay thee all.]


27. And the lord of that servant had compassion on him, and absolved him from the debt.]

L 28. And that servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, who owed him one hundred denarii.] The denarius was worth about eightpence halfpenny.

And he seized him, and held him by the throat, saying, Pay anything thou owest.]


29. Therefore his fellow-servant fell down, and besought him, saying, Have forbearance with me, and I will pay thee.]


30. And he would not; but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay what was owed.]


31. Therefore his fellow-servants, seeing what had happened, were grieved exceedingly, and came and recounted to their lord all that had happened.]—λvrý◊ŋσav σpódpa] see on 1723.


32. Then his lord called him, and saith to him, Thou evil servant, I forgave thee all that debt, since thou besoughtest me.]-TÓTE] See on 27.—opeiλý] occurs in 1 Co 73, Ro 137.1



38. Oughtest not thou to have had pity on thy fellow-servant, as I had pity on thee?]


34. And his lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was owed.]

1 For examples from the Papyri, see Deissmann, Bib. Stud. p. 221. And add Ox. Pap. ii. 286. 18 (a.d. 82), 272. 16 (A.D. 66), iv. 719. 24 (A.D. 193), 736. 75 (A.D. 1); Fayûm Towns, 247. The word is not found in literature outside the New Testament.

35. So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if ye forgive not L each his brother from your hearts.]

The details of the parable do not seem altogether consistent. After v.23 we seem to have a story of a wealthy merchant and his slaves, rather than one of a king and his ministers. The story has quite probably been adapted by the editor to suit the context. But the main point, that an unmerciful disposition will meet with the divine wrath, is quite clear. The parable begins with the formula "the kingdom of heaven is like." This means nothing more than that a lesson may be drawn from what follows, which all who hope to enter the kingdom should lay to heart.


XIX. 1-12. From Mk 101-16.

1. And it came to pass, when Jesus finished these words.] For E the formula, cf. 728 111 1353 261.

He departed from Galilee, and came into the boundaries of M Judea beyond Jordan.] Mk 101 has: "And He arose thence, and cometh into the boundaries of Judæa, and beyond Jordan."-ev] for Mk.'s hist. present, as often. The addition of ảñò rîs Tadıλaías marks the editor's perception of a new stage in Mk.'s Gospel.

2. And there followed Him many multitudes; and He healed them M there.] Mk. has: "And there journey with Him (?) again multitudes; and as He was wont, He was teaching them."-kolov@noar] Mt., as often, avoids the hist. pres. ovvπорevоvтαι. He omits Mk's Semitic åvaσrás as in 1521 Mk 724 and 2660 Mk 1457, and omits also, as often, Mk.'s waλiv.—¿0epáπevσev] The editor substitutes healing for teaching in 1414 Mk 684, and in 2114 Mk 1118.-oxλot Toλλoí.] For the addition of wooí, cf. 425 81. 18 132 1530.




In Mk. most MSS. have συνπορεύονται πάλιν ὄχλοι. This is the only occurrence in Mk. of the plural oxλot. But D S1 a b c ff1 ikq have the singular. σvvπopeveolat occurs only here in Mk. D has συνέρχεται, cf. Mk 320. συνπορεύεσθαι πρός is awkward, and the reading of D al may be original.

3. And there came to Him Pharisees, tempting Him, and saying, M Is it lawful to put away a wife for every cause ?] Mk. has: "And Pharisees came and were questioning Him, if it is lawful for a man to put away a wife, tempting Him." At first sight Mt. seems more likely to be original than Mk. The Jews did not question the legality of divorce. That was legalised by Dt 241.2. But they debated about the scope and limits of reasons for divorce. Cf. Gittin 90, where the views of the schools of Hillel and of Shammai are given. The former allowed divorce for trivial offences, the latter only for some unchaste act. But it is clear that Mt. is editing Mk., and that in xarà mâσav airíav and (ei) μǹ ènì πopveía, v.o, he

has inserted into Mk.'s narrative matter which is really inconsistent with it. In Mk. the Pharisees first put their leading question, Is it lawful to divorce a wife? They themselves would have no doubt of the legality of this, but they test Christ (teipážovtes, Mk 2), knowing probably from previous utterances of His that He would reply in words which would seem directly to challenge the Mosaic law. Cf. His criticism of the distinction between clean and unclean meats, Mk 714-23. Christ answers with the expected reference to the law, What did Moses command? They state the Old Testament law. Moses sanctioned divorce. Christ at once makes His position clear. The law upon this point was an accommodation to a rude state of society. But a prior and higher law is to be found in the Creation narrative, "Male and female He created them," Gn 127 LXX, i.e. God created the two sexes that they might be united in the marriage bond, which is, therefore, ideally indissoluble. In answer to a further question of His disciples, the Lord enforces the lesson. A man who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. A woman who puts away her husband and marries another commits adultery. Upon this point Christ's teaching passes beyond the ordinary conditions of Jewish society. No woman could divorce her husband by Jewish law. But that is no reason why the Lord should not have expressed himself as Mk. records. There were exceptional cases of divorce by women in Palestine. Cf. Salome, Jos. Ant. xv. 259: "She sent him (Costobar) a bill of divorce, though this was against the Jewish law (and dissolved her marriage with him)." And there is no reason why He may not have been acquainted with the possibility of divorce by women in the West, or why, even if He had not this in view, He may not have emphasised His point by stating the wrongfulness of divorce on either side of the marriage tie. All this is logical and consistent. Compare with it Mt.'s account. The Pharisees are represented as inquiring, Is it lawful to put away a wife on any pretext? Christ answers as in Mk., that marriage from an ideal standpoint is indissoluble. The Pharisees appeal to the law against this judgement. In reply we should expect the Lord, as in Mk., to state the accommodating and secondary character of the legal sanction of divorce, and to reaffirm the sanctity of marriage. But instead, He is represented as affirming that Topveía constitutes an exception. Thus He tacitly takes sides with the severer school of Jewish interpretation of Dt 24, and acknowledges the permanent validity of that law thus interpreted in a strict sense, which immediately before He had criticised as an accommodation to a rude state of social life. This inconsistency shows that Mk. is here original, and that κarà ¬âσav aitíav and (ei) μn

ì Toрveía are insertions by the editor of Mt. into Mk.'s narrative. The motive of these insertions can only be conjectured. But in


view of other features of the Gospel, it is probable that the editor was a Jewish Christian who has here judaised, or rather rabbinised Christ's sayings.1 Just as he has so arranged vv. as to represent Christ's attitude to the law to be that of the Rabbinical Jews, who regarded every letter of the law as permanently valid, so here he has so shaped Christ's teaching about divorce as to make it consonant with the permanent validity of the Pentateuchal law, and harmonious with the stricter school of Jewish theologians. It is probably to the same strain in the editor's character, the same Jewish Christian jealousy for the honour of the law and for the privileges of the Jewish people, that the prominence given to Peter (see on 1619, p. 180), and the preservation of such sayings as 105-6. 23 is due. And to the same source may probably be attributed the judaising of Christ's language, in such expressions as "the kingdom of the heavens," ""The Father who is in the heavens."

3. εἰ ἔξεστιν] See note on 121 —κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν] cf. Jos. Ant. iv. 253: γυναικὸς δὲ τῆς συνοικούσης βουλόμενος διαζευχθῆναι καθ ̓ ἁσδηποτοῦν αἰτίας.

4. And He answered and said, Have ye not read, that the M Creator from the beginning made them male and female ?] Mk. has: "But from the beginning of the creation male and female He made them.” ὁ κτίσας ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς is an adaptation to suit the altered order of Mk.'s an' ȧpxns Kтíσews, for which cf. Pesikta R. K. 21 (Wünsche, p. 205): by bw in”a nbnno.2 äpσev kai θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτόυς is a quotation from the LXX of Gn 127 52.

5. And said, For this cause shall a man leave the father and the M mother, and shall be joined to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.] Mk. has no "and said," and omits the second clause of the quotation. The editor has inserted kaì einev to separate the two quotations, and inserts the clause omitted by Mk. The passage comes from the LXX (the Hebrew has no Gn 224, which has auтou after marépa and after unrépa. the second avтoù. So Mk. Mt. omits both.

"two") of Luc omits

The idea involved in the verses seems to be that God created a single pair, who were therefore destined for one another. It was also written that a man should forsake his parents and cleave to his wife, and that he and his wife should be one flesh. In other words, married couples were in respect of unity, as the first pair created by God, destined for one another. Divorce, therefore, should be out of the question. This conclusion is expressed in the next verse.

6. So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore M God joined together, let not man separate.] So Mk. Divorce, therefore, is from an ideal standpoint not to be thought of.

7. They say to Him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill M

1 See also p. 167, note I.

2 Cf. also Ass. Mos 117 124 ab initio creaturæ orbis terrarum.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »