Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TO
NOVUM TESTAMENTUM
EDITORIAL BOARD
President: W.
P. BRATSIOTIS
A.
K. W. CLARK
H. CLAVIER
J. W. DOEVE
W.
J. DORESSE
Bo REICKE
C.
W.
DOM
GROSSOUW
A. F. J KLIJN
H. MENOUD
PH.
K. H.
DUGMORE
J.
GEYSER
DUPONT O.S.B.
E.
STAUFFER
VOLUME XVIII
LEIDEN
E.
RENGSTORF
P. SCHUBERT
J.
BRILL
19 67
THE USE
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE
TO THE MESSIANIC HOPE
BY
LEIDEN
E.
J. BRILL
I967
TO LOIS,
MY WIFE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements.
ix
Abstract . . . . .
xi
List of Abbreviations.
xv
Introduction . . . .
9
9
28
66
69
89
I27
I47
ISI
ISI
IS2
IS3
ISS
IS9
I63
I66
I72
I74
I78
VIn
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE MATTHAEAN ARGUMENT FROM THE FULFILMENT
OF MESSIANIC PROPHECY
l89
l89
205
205
215
Bibliography .
235
Author Index.
24l
248
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book is a Ph.D. dissertation presented to and accepted by
the University of Manchester in the spring of I96I and brought up
to date in the summer of I964. I express my gratitude to Professor
F. F. Bruce, who supervised my research, to Mr. P. R. Weis, who
graciously allowed me to peruse photographs of the as yet unpublished Codex Neofiti I of the Old Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch in the Vatican Library, to Dr. W. H. Chaloner, who counselled me in my course of study at the University of Manchester,
to my former mentor Dr. Marchant King, and most of all to my
wife, who first encouraged me to undertake this work and who typed
the rough draft of the thesis. The time devoted to this study was
made financially possible through the Laymen's Scholarship Fund,
administered by the Los Angeles Baptist College and Seminary,
and through the generosity of others. To them I give my thanks. I
also express my appreciation for the assistance given me by the
librarians and their assistants at the University of Manchester,
The John Rylands Library, the University of Edinburgh, the
National Library of Scotland, the University of Basel, the University of Tiibingen, Westmont College, and Fuller Theological Seminary.
Finally, I am indebted to E. J. Brill Publishers for their undertaking the publication of this volume, and to the editor of the
Journal of Biblical Literature for permission to use material from my
article which appeared in vol. 83 (I963), pp. 404ff., of that journal.
Robert H. Gundry
Westmont College
Santa Barbara, California
ABSTRACT
A re-examination of the OT quotations in Mt is needed because of
the neglect in past examinations of the allusive quotations, because
of our present knowledge from the Dead Sea Scrolls that allusive
quotation of the OT was a conscious literary practice, and because
of the bewildering variety of hypotheses advanced to account for
the Matthaean quotations.
Formal quotations which Mt shares with Mk are almost purely
Septuagintal. In all other strata of synoptic quotation materialformal and allusive, Marcan, Lucan, and peculiarly Matthaeanthe text-form is very mixed, showing contacts with the Hebrew,
the Targums, the LXX, the OT Peshitta, Theodotion (in Dan),
rabbinic tradition, and apocryphal literature. This mixture stands
in contrast to the prevailingly Septuagintal form of OT quotations
throughout the rest of the NT. Thus, the inclusion of allusive
quotations leads to two new and important discoveries: first,
contrary to former opinion, the Matthaean formula-citations do
not stand out from the other synoptic quotations in their mixed
text-form; second, the formal quotations in the Marcan tradition
stand out in their adherence to the LXX.
Redactional theories about the origin of Mt mistakenly treat the
formula-citations as a textually distinctive group. The view of
C. C. Torrey that the quotations in Aramaic Mt stood in metrical
Hebrew stumbles against the non-Marcan Septuagintal quotations
and parts of quotations. The liturgical-homiletical hypothesis of
G. D. Kilpatrick does not explain the text-form of the Matthaean
quotations, for if Septuagintal and non-Septuagintal quotations
can derive from the homiletical tradition, they can equally well
derive from the first evangelist himself and no need for the liturgicalhomiletical hypothesis then exists. K. Stendahl's argument for a
Matthaean school similar to the Qumran community again mistakenly regards the formula-citations as a textually distinctive
group, largely through neglect of the allusive quotations. Lindars'
treatment shares this neglect. The Testimony Book hypothesis
has been partially confirmed by the discovery of Qumran testimonia,
but offers no help in explaining the text-form of the quotations
in Mt. The abundance of non-Septuagintal Greek Targums ad-
XII
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
XIII
tions. This fact and the naturalness with which the Matthaean
quotations fall under easily recognizable principles of interpretation
demonstrate that Matthaean hermeneutics were not atomizingin contrast to Qumran and rabbinical literature. That every principle of interpretation is exhibited in quotations occurring on the
lips of Jesus suggests he himself was the author of this new and
coherent method of OT exegesis.
An examination of the Messianic hope from the side of OT
scholarship shows that that hope arose in pre-exilic times. The OT
passages interpreted in Mt as directly Messianic are found to be so.
Thus, specific fulfilments of individual Messianic prophecies provide a basis for the broader Christian view of the divine purpose
guiding OT history toward Jesus Christ.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Anger
A &G
BA
BASOR
BDB
BibSac
BJRL
BI-D
BZ
CBQ
DLZ
DSS
esp.
ET
HDB
HDCG
HTR
HUCA
ICC
IDB
IF
JAOS
JBL
JSS
JTS
Karnetzki
Lindars
L &S
LXX
MPG
MPL
XVI
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
MS(S)
MT
n.
NovTest
NT
NTS
OT
par
PEQ
RB
RGG
RHR
SJT
Stendahl
Theo!. Stud.
u. Krit.
TLZ
TWNT
VT
ZAW
ZDMG
ZNW
ZTK
ZWT
=
=
manuscript(s).
Massoretic Text.
note
Novum Testamentum.
New Testament.
New Testament Studies.
Old Testament.
parallel (s )
Palestine Exploration Quarterly.
Revue Biblique.
Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 2. Auf!. Tiibingen,
1927-31. 3. Auf!. Tiibingen, 1957.-.
Revue de I' histoire des religions.
Scottish Journal of Theology.
Stendahl, K. The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the
Old Testament. (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis,
XX.) Uppsala, 1954.
N.B.: Commentaries are cited by the author and the abbreviation of the
book of the Bible on which the commentary is based. Biblical references
follow the book-titles of the English Bible and OT references follow the
chapter and verse divisions in Kittel-Kahle, Biblia Hebraica, except where
otherwise indicated. The generally accepted abbreviations for the books
of the Bible are self-evident.
INTRODUCTION 1
Within the last decade the quotations of the OT in Mt, particularly the "formula-quotations" (Reflexionscitate) , have received
such varied treatment as to be made the basis of a Matthaean
"school" which practiced pesher-type exegesis similar to that displayed in the Qumran documents, II and minimized to the point of
denial that Mt is a Jewish-Christian gospel. 3 Between these extremeR, they have been regarded as one layer in multi-stage redactional theories concerning the composition of Mt,' translations into
Greek of originally metrical Hebrew,5 oral homiletical tradition,6
traces of a Testimony Book, either incorporated into the first
gospel 7 or constituting in large measure the format of the first
gospel,B and remnants of Jewish Greek targums which were in use
1 For a more detailed survey of ~studies in Mt outside the province of
OT quotations, see P. Nepper-Christensen, Das Matthausevangelium, ein
judenchristliches Evangelium? (Aarhus, 1958), 13-36.
2 K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew (Uppsala, 1954).
3 Nepper-Christensen, op. cU., esp. 136-162. For a critical review, see
P. Benoit, RB, 66 (1959), 438-440. Since N.-Chr. simply ignores much of
the OT and Jewish substratum of Mt, his thesis does not demand detailed
refutation. His argument that Mt's use of the OT is exceeded in the Gospel
of John (where N.-Chr. numbers fifteen fulfilment-citations) takes into
account neither the penetration of OT language into the first gospel much
deeper than the formula-citations nor the possibility that the fulfilmentcitations in Jn reflect, if not a Jewish destination, at least a Jewish background (cf. the new light thrown upon the fourth gospel from the Dead Sea
Scrolls).
, A. Resch, A ussercanonische Parattettexte zu den Evangelien (Leipzig,
1897), II, 20-28; W. Soltau, ZNW, I (1900), 219-248, esp. 224; idem, Unsere
Evangelien (Leipzig, 1901), 55 f.; B. W. Bacon, Studies in Mt (London, 1930),
156-164,47, 475f.; W. L. Knox, Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge,
1957), II, 12Iff.; P. Parker, The Gospel before Mark (Chicago, 1953), 90ff.
5 C. C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church (New York, 1941), 41-90.
a G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Mt (Oxford,
1946), 56
7 W. C. Allen, ET, 12 (1900/01), 284f.; F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel History
and Its Transmission (Edinburgh, 1906), 124-128; V. H. Stanton, The Gospels
as Historical Documents (Cambridge, 1909), II, 342ff.; A. H. McNeile, Mt
(London, 1915), p. xi; J. R. Harris, Testimonies (Cambridge, 1916), I,
124ff.; T. W. Manson, BJRL, 34 (1951/52), 323; R. M. Grant, The Letter
and the Spirit (London, 1957), 46; F. C. Grant, The Gospels: Their Origin and
Growth (London, 1957), 65.
8 J. B. Gregory, The Oracles ascribed to Mt by Papias (London, 1894);
E. C. Selwyn, The Oracles in the NT (London, 1912), pp. vii, 396-427;
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
PART ONE
CHAPTER ONE
The formal quotations 1 in Mk are almost purely Septuagintaloften slavishly so, and even against the Hebrew text. Mt, however,
tends to depart from Mk and the LXX.
Mt 3: 3; Mk 1: 3; Lk 3: 4-6 : CPCJ)v~ ~OiiiVTOI; ev Tn epijll<jl hOLfL&aCXTE: T~V bBbv
xuptou, e:66e:tcxl; 1tOLe:!Te: Tal; TPt~oUI; CX6TOU.
Mt e:66e:tcxl; ... cx6Tou] om syrSiD Z
CX6TOU] TOU Be:ou l)fLiiiv b syrcur Ir (= assimilation to LXX;
strictly, syrcur = CXUTOU + TOU Be:ou l)fLiiiv,3 a conflate reading)
Lk extends the quotation through Is 40: 5 in abbreviated form.
In 1: 23: ~yw CPCJ)v~ ~OiiiVTOI; ev Tn epijfL<jl e:66UVCXTe: T~V bBbv XUPLOU, xcxBwl;
clTt&v 'Hacxtcxl; /) TtPOCPijT71I;.
Is 40: 3 LXX = Mt, except TOU Be:ou l)fLiiiv (= MT), instead of CXUTOU.
MT: 'l~M'N' M'O~ M~'l1~ "IV~ mM~ 1" '11) ,~,~~ N"i' "1'
IO
',p.
Mt II: 10
80u eydl
a,XOcrr&AAOO
Tbv lJ.yyeMv (.LOU
xpb xpoac!l7tou
aou,
at; XIXTotaXeucXael
T~V
o86v aou
i!(.Lxpoa6&v aou
Ex 23: 20 LXX
80u eydl
a,XOcrr&AAOO
Tbv lJ.yyeMv (.Lou
xpb xpoacll7tou
aou,
tVot lpuMl:;n ae
ev Tn 08iji
MT
'~3N
MlM
"'Ill
1N'~
1'3D'
1'~1lI'
1"~
Mal 3: I LXX
80u eydl
el:;otXOaTtAAOO
Tbv lJ.yyeMv (.Lou
Xott em~Atl\leTotl
08bv
xpb xpoacll7tou
(.Lou
II
MT
'33M
"'Ill
'~N'~
MlD'
1"
'3D'
12
Ex 21: 17 LXX
6 )(CC)(OAOYWII
MT
"v~'
nccTEpcc
nccTEpcc cclhou
'~!lN
i) (L'I)TtPCC
i) (L'I)TEPCC cclhou
'~N'
6ccvch<jl TeA&UTcX.Tw
"eAeu..qO'el 6CCllcX.T<jl
n~'~ m~
Ex 21: 17 LXX nccTEpcc CCUTOU] om CCUTOU Luc (75) I (L'I)TEpCC CCUTOU] om cclhou bw
(symbols of BrOOke-McLean) I TEAeuT~O'el 6CCllcX.T<jl] 6CCllcX.T<jl TEAeuTcX.Tw AFLuc
(75) (= NT)
14
Mt 15: 8, 9
Is 29: 13 LXXNAQ
MT
ILOL
lOll
/) Aa.Oe; OUTO!;
Mm C17M
TOre; xeLAea1v
TOre; xeLAealv a.?)T(7lV
"nDIV~' "D~
ILe: TLIL~
TLILwaLv ILe
'l'i~~
~ 8& xa.p8La. a.lhwv
~ 8 xa.p8La. a.UTWV
,~"
1t6ppoo ci7tExeL ci1t' ~Ilou' 1t6ppoo ci1tExeL ci1t' ~Ilou'
'l~~ pM'
Il&~v 8 aE~oVTa.L Ile
IL&~V 8 ae~ovTa.L Ile:
'nN CnN" 'MT-I1
8L8&axoVTee; 8L8a.axa.Ata.c;
8L8&axOVTee; ~VT&AILa.Ta.
Mi~'~ C'lVlN n'~;;
~VT&AILa.Ta. civ6pw1toov
av6pw1toov xa.1 818a.axa.ALa.c;
Mt 15: 8, 9 a1tExeL] ~aTLv D lat similiter syr Clpt
Is 29: 13 LXX OUTOe;] + (.~.) ~v (om Luc) Tiil aT6ILa.TI a.UTOU xa.1 ~v BLuc
MT POi] PO, Tug it (= "be far away");
IQIs& (= OT Pesh
'tlJ;I)] ~l'rnl LXX it (IL&~v)
CnN,']nN" IQIs&
n'~~] n'~~~ IQIsa Tug
Mi~'~] C'i~'~ Targ LXX
Mk 7: 6, 7 = Mt, except Mk has OUTOC; /) Aa.6c;] /) Aa.Oe; OUTOe; BDl071bcfilq
r 2 vg syrSin,pesh Geo Bas
'rIIL~] aya.1t~ DWitCITert
a1texeL] i!Xe:L W; ci!pea~xev D; a1tea~ 6.; OC1teaTLV 0 565pc
Pap. Egerton 2: /) Aa.Oe; OU'roe; TOre; xeLAeaLV a.U'rWv 'rLllwaLv Ile ILa.T~V ILe ae~OVTa.L
~VT&AIla.Ta. [ocv6pW1toov IM&aKOVTeC;] 1
iyyL~el
P'"'
P'"')
~Mh~
'N"
15
16
unusual plural 8L8ocaXw,LOCt;, 1 and the double use of the root 8L8ocaxfor one Hebrew word-all, except the first, against the MT.
Mt 19: 4; Mk 10: 6; Gen I: 27 LXX: &pae:v )Ccd 6'qAU ~7to["lja&v CXUTOU<;
Mk CXUTOU<;] om DWit
Gen I: 27 MT: Cl'IN N':1 i1:1pl' '~T 2
Mt 19: 5: EVE)cCX TOUTOU )cCXTCXAe:IjIEL &v6pc.mo<; TOV 7tCXTepCX )Ccx! T~V (J."ljTepcx )Ccx!
)cOAA"lj6ljaETcxL Tn YUVCXLX.! CXUTOU, )Ccxl EaOVTCXL ot 860 e:!<; aap)Ccx (J.[CXV.
EVEX.CX NBLZ892] EVEX.EV Uncs rell, Minusc pIer, Or (= assimilation to Mk)
)coAA"lj6lja&TCXL] 7tpoa)coAA'lj6ljaETcxL NC fI 33 al pIer (= assimilation to Mk)
Mk 10: 7: EVEX.&V TOUTOU )cCXTCXAe:tjI&L 0(1I6pw7t0<; TOil 7tCXTEPCX CXUTOU X.cxL T7)1I (J."ljTepCX
CXUTOU, x.cxL 7tPOO')coAA"lj6ljaETcxL 7tpb<; T~V YUVCXLX.CX CXUTOU, )Ccxl EaollTcxL ot 860 d<;
O'apx.cx (J.Lcxv
CXUTOU 1] om D al
(J."ljTepCX CXUTOU NBD (&CXUTOU) al it syr] om CXUTOU Uncs pIer, Minusc pIer, klqrl,2
to Mt?)
MT: ,nN '1l1:1~ ,'j11 'l'I1l1N:1 P:1" '~N l'IN' ":1N l'IN 1l1'N :lT~'l~ ~~
Eph 5: 31: ant TOlhou )cCXTCXAe:IjIEL &1I6pw7t0<; Tbv 7tCXTepCX )ccxL T7)1I (J."ljTEpCX )Ccxl
7tpoa)coAA"lj6lja&TCXL 7tpb<; T~V YUIICXL)cCX CXUTOU, )ccxL EO'OVTCXL ot 860 e:!<; aap)Ccx (J.LcxII
)ccxL 7tPOO')cOAA. 7tpb<; T. YUII. CXUTOU Bpm<;J )c. 7tp. Tn YUIICXL)C! CXUTOU (om CXUT. N)
P46NADGpc; om Tert Or
17
Pesh, Vg, and Philo. Etc; aocpx~ (L(~v contains an overliteral rendering
of 7, but the construction meets us in the papyrP The insertion of
xed e:l1tev between the quotations in verses 4 and 5 is a further,
targumic-like deviation of Mt from Mk. 2
Mt 19: 18, 19
ou cpove:uaE:LC;
ou ILOLl(e:uae:LC;
(om N*)
ou xMI\le:LC;
(om N*)
ou l\Ie:u80IL~PTUp~-
Mk 10: 19
Lk 18: 20
ILl) cpove:uanc;
ILl) ILOLl(e:uanc;
(om DfI [pc]kIr)
ILl) 1L0Ll(e:uanc;
(om N*;
ILl)
TtOpve:uanc; D[ pc]
kIr) (ILOLl( ....
cpov. Awe f13 28
latClc;; text N
BpcsyrSincop)
ILl) xMl\lnc;
ou ILoLl(e:uae:LC;
ou XAI\Ie:IC;
00 cpove:uae:LC;
(cpov ... xAI\I. Luc
[75]) (cpov ... ILOIl(.
. .. XAe:I\I. AFM arm
boh eth syh)
ou l\Ie:u80IL~PTUp~-
Ex 20: 13-16 MT: ,ptu'37 137':::1 ill37n N' ::::111n N' :~N1n N' :n:ll,n N'
Dt 5: 17-20 LXXB: ou ILoIl(e:uae:IC;' 00 cpove:uae:IC;' ou xMI\le:lc; ou l\Ie:u80IL~P
Tup~ae:IC;
18
7 8 9 10
7 8 9
9
8 9
7 8 9
7 8 9
1929). 87 f .
8 This table is a complete revision and an expansion of that by A. H.
McNeile. The Book of Exodus (London. 1908). II9. I have left out of account
the fifth commandment. which the gospels reserve till last, possibly to
emphasize its importance as a practical abrogation of the oral law (see H. B.
Swete. Mk[London, 1898], 2II).
I9
b) Ex (LXXB)
c) Ex and Dt (some Hebrew MSS), Ex (LXXLnc[?6]), Dt
(LXXB), Nash Pap., Philo (De Decal. xxiv, xxxii), Tert
(De Pud. v), Theophilus (Ad Autol. ii. 35; iii. 9), CI (Strom.
vi. 146f.)
Mk 10: 19,20 (AWe fI3 28 lat CI .;); Lk 18: 20
Ro 13: 9
Jas 2:11
7 S 6 9 10
7 6 8 9 10
7 6 8 9
7 6 8
10
76
[+
Mk, LXX]
o o{x6.;
ILOU
o{xo.; :n:poae:ux'ij.;
ea't'otL] post :n:poaeux'ij.; ACD it syr
Is 56: 7 MT
~1'1~:1 ~:
i'I,rl1'l 1'1~:1
C~~S7i1
,:,
N'j:'~
20
Mk 12: 26
tyw
~w
Lk 20: 37
EIILL
o 6EOC;
o 6EOC;
'A. xctl
6 6EOC;
'10'. xctl
o 6EOC; 'I.
'A. xctl
6EOC;
'10'. xctL
6EOC; 'I.
't'OV 6EOV
'A. xctl
6EOV
'10'. )(otl
6EOV 'I.
Acts 7: 32
tyw 66EOC;
't'(;iv nct't'Epwv
O'ou
o 6EOC;
'A. xcxl
'10'. xctL
'I.
EX3: 6 LXXB
tyw EIILL
6 6EOC; 't'ou
nct't'p6c; O'ou
6e:0c;
'A. xctL
6EOC;
'10'. xctL
6EOC; 'I.
because the context does not suggest that the statement is prophetic in
import. In view of Lk's omission, we can hardly suppose that Mt here
reveals an anti-Gentile bias.
1 See an excellent note by F. Field on the propriety of the comparison to a
"den of robbers" (Notes on the Translation of the NT [Cambridge, IB99], 15).
a In Jer the people were committing flagrant sins and then coming to the
Temple to insure themselves against the consequences, as if the Temple were
a "den of robbers" to which they could flee for safety after engaging in
banditry. Worse was the situation in the NT, for the banditry took place
right within the precincts of the Temple.
S On this expression as meaning a capstone, see J. Jeremias, TWNT, I,
793; IV, 27B; idem. ZNW, 29 (1930), 264-2Bo; 36 (1937). 154-157; and
specifically as a ;pyramidion, see E. E. LeBas, PEQ (1946). 103-115.
, Ail't'l) (= nNT) = 't'oU't'o is a Hebraism. Cf. I Sam 4: 7; I Kings II: 39.
See BI-D 13B: 2. Against H. A. W. Meyer, Mt' (Edinburgh. 1877-79), II,
72, and Gould, op. cit . 222, who take Xe:cpctA~V as the antecedent of ctil't'l).
623] om N
6] om DW579
6.. 6.; 23 BD
WOrSemel] pr
6 NACL9fI
21
6e6.; 20] pr
XIx! 12]+
6..6.; D; +6
6 ALuc (75)
6.. 6.; E33 pm.; 6..6.; 34]
om Luc (75)
fI3 543 33
565579 107 1
al pIer
Orsemel
Ex 3: 6 MT: ~i'17' 'l'I?N' i'n~' 'l'I';1N Cl'l'~N 'l'I';1N "~N 'l'I';1N ':llN
22
Kp3
8ldvol
q,l)x1)
q,l)x1)
Kp3
II K Kp8
xp8
Mt xp3
xp8
q,1))(1)
q,l)xlj
taxut;
q,l)x1)
to'XUt;
xp8
q,l)x1)
xp8
q,l)xlj
xp3
xp8
xp8
xp80(
KlXp8
q,l)x1)
q,l)x1)
8ldvol<X
Mk
12 :
30
12 :
33
XlXp8<x
xp8(<x
Lk
xlXp81X
xlXp3(1X
auve:al~
auve:O'I~
8OvlX(.Llt;
8uv<X(.LIt;
taxut;
taxUt;
taxu~
I\Il)x1)
81dvoIIX
81dvoIIX
AFM
BrPap. 963
&),),Ot; (Hexapla)
8Ov<X(.LIt; Luc (75)
A
B
33 (,Iaxut;, a doublet for 8ldvOIIX, has
displaced tVl)xlj.)
C syrSin, cur (,Iaxut; displaces the un-Semitic
and difficult 3IdvollX.)
8ldvol 0 fI3 alsyr peSh (= assimilation to
Mk, the gloss taxut; Inserted wrongly)
taxut;
taxut; Dpcit
taxut; A
to'xut; A fI3 700 al t; (The unique O'uve:alt;
has been provided with a doublet, tVl)xlj.)
o 565 it (The unique O'uve:alt; has been suppressed by a synonym for ta)(ut;, the LXX's
8OvlX(.LIt;. )
taxut; D (The two preceding phenomena concerning auvsalt; are combined.)
81dvoIIX
DI241 pc it Mcion
23
the sake of the three tones. Again, Mt's dependence on the Hebrew
presents a stumbling-block to this view.
d) Mt's 8L&'VOL(X is meant to convey the intensifying force of 'Nbnote that 8L&'VOL(X stands last in Lk-to"Xuc; (and MV(X!LLC;) rejected as
having an improper connotation of physical might or material
wealth. AL&'VOL(X would then mean "mental might." 1 The rendering
of 'Nb by 8L&'VOL(X would be unique.
e) 'IO"xuc;, a doublet with 8L&'VQL(X for 'Nb, was a marginal gloss
which made its way into the texts of Mk and Lk. All three synoptists originally had x(Xp8((X-IjJI.)X~-8L&.VOL(x. 2
f) Mk's 8L&'VOL(X may be rejected. See above a).
g) Mk's 8L&'VOL(X is a doublet with X(Xp8L(x for ::1::1';1.3 AL&'VOL(X usually
stands for ::1::1, in the LXX. But why is it inserted after IjJI.)X~?
h) Mk's 8L&'VOL(X is a doublet alongside IjJI.)X~ for WEll. Then, with
O"UVEO"LC;, Mk gives three alternative renderings for WEll! Also, 8L&'VOL(X
never renders WEll in the LXX.
i-k) The same possibilities as in Mk, f)-h), exist for Lk's 8L&'VOL(X.'
The striking combination of EX and EV in Lk reveals knowledge of
more than one text-tradition. 6
The confusion, arising out of the fact none of the synoptists or
copyists used the Greek shema' in their youth,6 defies disentangling.
Three general conclusions are certain: Mk stands close to the LXX;
Mt goes directly to the Hebrew text; Lk conflates his sources.
Mt 22: 39 (= 19: 19b); Mk 12: 31 (cf. v. 33); Lev 19: 18 LXX: liyom~ae:l<;
't"ov 7tAljaLov aou 00<; ae:otu't"6v
Lk 10: 27b: (Kocl) 't"ov 7tAljaLov aol.) 00<; ae:ocu't"6v
Some unimport~t variation between ae:ocu't"6v and Eocu't"6v exists in both
the OT and the NT texts. Cf. BI-D 64: I.
Lev 19: 18 MT: "b~ ,~" n::lilN'
NT = LXX
OT text may be pre-Christian, inasmuch as it occurs in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Issachar v. 2; vii. 6; Dan v. 3).1
Mt 22: 44; Mk 12: 36; Lk 20: 42, 43; Acts 2: 34; Heb I: 13; Ps IIO (lOg) : I
LXX: ElltE:V XUPLOC; T<7> XupCf) !LOU' xcX60u ex 8e/;Lwv !LOU ~WC; &v 6w TOUC; ex6pouc;
aou U'ltOXcXTW TWV 'lto8wv aou.
Mt
XUPLOC; NBDZ] b XUPLOC; 'Yell C;
Mk XUPLOC; BD] b XUPLOC; NAB pi C;
Lk
U'ltoxcX't'w D it syr (= assimilation to Mt and Mk)] u'lto'lt61hov 'Yell
(= the usually adopted text)
XUPLOC; BD 579] b XUPLOC; 'Yell
Acts XUPLOC; B*N*D] b XUPLOC; 'Yell
U'ltOX&'TW] Acts = u'lto'lt68LOV
Heb om d'ltEV. . . !LOU
U'ltOXcXTW] Heb = u'lto'lt68LOV Cf. Heb 2: 8-U'ltOXcXTW; 10: 13-U'ltO'lt68LOV; I Cor 15: 25. 26-U'ltE't'ot/;e:V U'ltO 't'OUC; 'lt68otc; otuTOU
Ps
XUpLOC;] Ps = b XUPLOC;
U'ltOXcX't'W] Ps = U'ltO'lt68LOV
Ps 110: I MT: 1'?l'? C,;, 1'!1~N n'WN '117 'l'~'? !1W ~l'N? m;,~ CNl
Ps 8: 7. LXX: 'ltcXv't'ot U1tE't'ot/;otC; U'ltOXcXTW TWV 1to8wv otu't'ou.
MT: "?l' nnn ;,nw ?:l
Mk 14: 27
'ltot't'cX/;w
TOV 'ltOL!LEVot
x. Ta
ma6~aoVTotL 'ltp6~otTot
ma6~aov't'otL
Ta 1tp6~otTot 8LotaXopma- 't'a 'ltp6~ot't'ot
Tlic; 'lto!Lv7)c; 6~aOVTotL
-r'ijc; 1tO!LV7)C;
exa1tcXaot't'e:
't'a 'ltp6~ot't'ot
l'~'Dm
lN~l'I
26
-0 VTotL p68 NAB
fI3 700 all
-e:'t'otL pn,4&
Dwe fI 28 565
P'mt;
3LotaKOp'lL'. ]
pr 't'eX 'lL'p. A
h al pier
it (exc. dik
q) vg syrSln,
pesh, hk
mhot~ov
ANcb
Q
't'ov 7tOLf.L&vot
ANca CbQr
-OV't'otL]
-a6lj't'w Nca
7tot't'cX~ot't'e: WBN]
'lL'ot't'cX~w V Arab
Arm
LucC;
-a6ljTWaotv
Ncbr
28
Is63: 19 LXX
&cXV
aVOL~ne;
TOV
oupexv6v
MT
l'lS"p
I:I~~!V
8Lexaxopma6~ae:TexL,
29
'm,
30
feel that ul6e; goes back to an ambiguous miLe; for '~17 and that
ocya.1t1J't'6e; stands for "1'n~, both derived from Is 42: 1.1 However, the
close connection with the Temptation narratives in Mt and Lk,
where et uloe; et 't'ou 6eou is twice repeated, presumes a reference to
sonship in the baptismal voice. 1I It is argued that the variant
reading, EXAeX't'6e;, in Jn I: 34 (P5vidKe ffll* syrBin, cur) is original
and that it shows recognition of a reference to Is 42: 1. But this
variant looks like assimilation to the LXX of Is 42: I (and perhaps
to ExAeAeYILsvoe; in Lk 9:35). for one would not expect John to have
written anything but ul6e;.3 Although Greek-speaking Christians
may have thought 1ta.'i:e; too humble a term and so changed to ut6e;,
'~l7 may equally have been too humble for the baptismal occasion,
so that the original reference was to Ps 2:7 with 'l~.4 'AYIX7t1J't'6c; is
a poor rendering for "1'n:1, never occurring in the LXX.6 Mt's
ocYIX7t1J't'6e; in 12: 18 is readily explained as an echo of the present
passage. Finally, the demonstration by M.-A. Chevallier of the
very close link between Ps 2 and Is II and the Servant-songs
throughout the Messianic tradition of Judaism 6 makes practically
certain the conflation of Ps 2 and Is 42 here.
'0 ocYIX7t1J't'6c; stems from the Targum of Ps 2: 7 (:1':1n), 7 perhaps
1 J. Jeremias. The Servant of God (London. 1957). 80ff. (same in TWNT. V.
699); O. Cullmann. Baptism in the NT (London. 1950). 17f.; idem. Christology
of the NT (London. 1959). 66; C. Maurer. ZTK. 50 (1953). 3d.; F. Gils.
op. cit . 56ff. Lindars asks for other examples of uL6c; replacing 1taic; for ,:1l7
(pp. 139f.).
2 See Cranfield. SJT. 8 (1955). 60; idem. Mk. 54f . although Cranfield
rejects a reference to Ps 2: 7 because of the difference in word order between
the LXX and the gospels. This poses no real difficulty. however. since it
represents only a slight shift of emphasis. from that of sonship in the psalm
(uL6c; first) to one of assurance or identification in the gospels (au or o~"t'oc;
first).
3 Cf. N. Clark. An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments (London.
1956 ). 15
, See L. Reinke. Diemessianischen Weissagungen (Giessen. 1859-62). II. 9.
n. I. who notes that in the Transfiguration. "Son" stands in opposition to
the mere servants. Moses and Elijah.
6 See Morna D. Hooker. Jesus and the Servant (London. 1959). 70ff.
6 L'esprit et Ie messie dans Ie bas-judaisme et Ie NT (Paris. 1958).1-67.
7 So ]. Hanel. op. cit . 139; Plooij. in Amicitiae Corolla (]. R. Harris
Volume; London. 1933). 248f. It has also been held that o~"t'oc; ... 0 ayam)'r6c;
stems from Gen 22 : 2 (LXX: TOV u!6v aou TOV ayam)T6v [MT: 1,'n'] 8v ijYOC1tTJaac;) (so H. B. Swete. Mk. 9; C. H. Turner. JTS. 27 [1926]. II3-129; F. C.
Fenton. in Studies in the Gospels [R. H. Lightfoot Volume; Oxford. 1955].
106). However. the much closer verbal similarity to Ps 2: 7 outweighs the
admitted fact that aya1tTJT61; in the LXX came to be an incorrect rendering
31
for '~n\ alongside lLovoy&v1)c; (see A. Souter, JTS, 28 [1927], 59f.; Hooker,
op. cit., 7If.). Even further afield is J. A. E. van Dodewaard's view that
the reference is to Ex 4: 22f., based on the Son of God = Israel = Christ
typology (Biblica, 36 [1955], 487f.), though the Ex passage may provide
a broad base for the Messianic use of Ps 2: 7 (see T. W. Manson, BJRL, 34
[1951/52], 323f., who notes the Midrash on the psalm connects v. 7 with
EX4: 22).
1 See J. A. Robinson, HDB, II, 501; idem, Eph (London, 1903), 230f.;
B. W. Bacon, JBL, 20 (1901), 28-30.
2 Cf. F. Leenhardt, Le baptdme chretien (Paris, 1946), 27, n. 2.
3 SO J. Schniewind, Mt (Gottingen, 1937), 25; W. E. Bundy, Jesus and
the First Three Gospels (Harvard, 1955), 55. Cf. E. Norden, Agnostos Theos
(Stuttgart, 1956), 188, on the frequency of oiYt6c; E<mv.
4 Against Zahn, Mt2 (Leipzig, 1905), 142; E. Klostermann, Mt2 (Tiibingen,
1927), 25.
6 See Bundy, loc. cit.; against Plooij, op. cit., 245.
8 Loc. cit.
? II Sam 22: 20; Is 62: 4; Mal 2: 17; Ps 44 (43): 4. See A. Schlatter, Mt Z
(Stuttgart, 1948), 94.
32
MT: ilP' lil? l'N 'IDN lN~:l C"ilil ?P C'~'!)l ?N'ID' ?:l nN WN'
Ezek 34: 5 LXX: )(otl Bte:O'miplj Td 'ltp6~otTIi (.I.OU Btd TO (.1.1] elliott 'ltOt(.l.EVott;
eye:v4]6lj dt; )(otTIi~pw(.l.ot 'ltOCO't Toit; 6ljptott;
MT: il'lDil n'n 7:l? il?:lN? m"ilm ilP' '?:l7;) i1l'~'!)n'
)(otl
33
en;!
T~V
Il'l)TEpa. a.\h~e;
The two clauses in Mic are compressed into one with the use of
to include "son" and "daughter" and yove'L<; to include
"father" and "mother." The verb and the preposition are chosen
from the second clause and agree with the LXX. Notably, when in
IO: 3S Mt quotes Mic 7: 6 independently from Mk, he departs from
the LXX in the use of XIXTcX and at other points.
T&XVIX
Mk 4: 12
Is 6: 9 LXX
MT
(hL (3Al:n;oVTe:c;
ou (3).En;oUO"IV
tva. (3Mn;ovTe:c;
(3Mn;ooO"lv xa.l
Il~ t800O"LV
xa.! c!:XOUOVTe:C;
c!:XOUOOO"W xa.l
c!:)C0'ii c!:)couO"e:'re:
)Ca.l ou Il~
'~W '~W
)Ca.l c!:)COUOVTe:e;
oux c!:)CououO"w
ou8e O"UVLOUO"W
Il~ O"UVI(~)o"W
(1l7)n;0Te:
emO"TPEIjlOOO"IV
xa.l c!:cpe:6ij
a.lhotc;)
U':Jl1
,N'
O"UVljTe:
)Ca.l (3).En;OVTe:e;
(3).eljle:Te:
xa.l ou Il~
t8l)Te:
Mt 13: 13 tva. (3).. Il~ (3Mn;ooO"lv x. ex. Il~ c!:XOUO"OOO"IV )Ca.l Il~ O"UVWO"IV D (8) 1 at it
syrSin , curIr; + 1l7)n;0Te: emO"TpEljlooO"IV D(8)h3 1 pc itsyrSin , cur (= assimilation to Mk)
Lk 8: 10: tvex (3Mn;ovTe:C; Il~ (3Al:n;ooow )Ca.l c!:XOUOVTe:C; Il~ O"UVIWO"IV
(3).en;ooO"lv] t8ooO"w DWpc (= assimilation to Mk)
Cf. Jn 9: 39; 12: 40.
34
the allusion to Is into a further direct quotation in which the hardness of the people's hearts fulfils the divine decree hardly softens
the thought. According to Mt, God's decree and human guilt are a
unity! 1 Furthermore, Mt retains the thought of purpose in verse
lIb: &XE~VOLC; 8& ou 8e80't'otL.2 And iSO''t'LC; 8& oUx. XEL, XotL 0 XEL cXpe'~O'ETotL
cX7t' otUTOU. 8LOt TOU't'O &V 7totpot~OAot~C; otu't'o~c; AotAW, . (vv. Izb, 13a) is
fully as strong as Mk's (Vot, for in this statement the judicial hardening is deepened and made irrevocable. 3 The Matthaean form
brings into clearer relief the guilt of the people, but in no such way
as to mitigate the divine activity of judgment on the whole and
salvation for the remnant. Rather, in the Matthaean form the
judicial sentence of blindness is seen as already beginning to work
itself out.' Mt has correctly perceived that the parables veiled the
truth to give room for the exercise of faith and to make final the
obduracy of the unbelieving. 5
im AT [Berlin, 1955], 64f.). Especially with (J.h,7t'O't"E:, tvcx must keep much of its
telic force. Conversely, with tvcx, (J.7)7t'O't"E: cannot be weakened into a cautious
assertion ("if perhaps" -see J. H. Moulton, op. cit., I, 188) or into an exceptive clause, which would result in a "Satz ... zum wildesten Ja-Nein" (A.
Jiilicher, Die Gleichnisreden jesu 2 [Tiibingen, 1910], 131). The same must be
said concerning J. Jeremias' attempt on the basis of rabbinic interpretation
to soften K~71 in the Targum into the meaning "unless" (The Parables of
jesus [London, 1954], 15). Only if this latter view is adopted can JIrIk's
agreement with the Targum (and OT Pesh) be utilized to soften the Marcan
statement.
T. W. Manson's view that Mk has misinterpreted an Aramaic relative 1
as a final 1 (The Teaching of jesus 2 [Cambridge, 1951], 76ff.) would have
Jesus describing those who did not understand the parables, rather than
answering the question why he spoke in parables (see T. A. Burkill, NovTest,
1[1956], 260f.). A mistranslation of 1 is not likely (see D. K. Andrews, jBL,
66 [1947], 26, 33, 39, 41; E. Ullendorff, NTS, 2 [1955/56], 50f.), nor is a
deliberate misinterpretation, unless one is prepared to deny the authenticity
of the many passages in the gospels where Jesus appears as the divider of men.
With a dependent K~71 ((J.~7t'O't"E:), 1 is quite unambiguous (Black, op. cit.,
154). All such softening interpretations also run up against the Biblical
connotation of 7t'CXpCX~OA~ as an "enigma" (see E. Hoskyns and N. Davey,
The Riddle of the NT [London, 1958], 133) and J. A. Baird's analysis of the
explained und unexplained parables, in which he shows that Jesus did use
parables to conceal the truth from outsiders and regularly explained the
parables to his disciples (JBL, 76[1957], 201-207). Much of the difficulty is
removed if we recognize that the parables had a double function because
of two classes of hearers. They were designed to puzzle and blind the unbelieving and, with explanatory help, to illuminate the disciples.
1 Schniewind, Mt, 162.
2 H. Windisch, ZNW, 26 (1927), 208f.
3 Michaelis, op. cit., II, 193f.
4 Swete, Mk, 73.
& E. Stauffer, TWNT, III, 328f.; T. F. Torrance, SjT, 3 (1950), 303ff.
35
Lk13:19
Mk 4: 32
{me 't'~v
u7te 't'~v
aKLtXV ocu't'ou (JKLtXV ocu't'ou
LXX
Dan 4: 9,18
't'tX m:'t'eLVtX
't'OU ouptt'lOU
't'tX 7te't'eLVtX
't'ou OUptt'lOU
't'tX 7tE't'E:L'ItX
't'ou OUpOC'lOU
Koc't'ttaK1)'10U'I
KIX't'E:aK'~'1W-
Ktt't'ttaK1)'10UV
ev6aaE:uov
&'1 't'ore;;
&'1 't'ore;;
K).<i8oLe;;
ocu't'ou
Ta. 7teTLv&'
't'ou OUptt'lOU
Ktt1
aE:'1
"J'11'?'
Theod
't'tX ISpvE:oc
't'OU oupocvou
(v. 9)
t~"'~
Koc't'eaK~'10UV
(v. 18)
KM8oLe;;
IXU't'OU
~ &'1
't'OLe;;
K~<i8~Le;;
IXU't'OU
1,.,i'
'rn!:)l!7~
Only v. 13 is parallel to Mk. For vv. 14f., see below, pp. II6ff.
See Lohmeyer, op. cit., 88, on Mk's combining of Ezek and Dan.
a I am assuming an Ur-Theodotionic translation of Daniel antedating
the Christian era. See A. Bludau, Die alexandrische ()bersetzung des Buches
Daniel (Freiburg LB., 1897), 22f.; F. G. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical
Papyri (London, 1933), 15, and Fasc. VII, Ezekiel, Daniel, Esther (London,
1937), p. x; H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the OT in Greek (Cambridge,
1914), 423; Karnetzki, 272ff.
4 To explain Mt's agreement with Mk (KIX't'ttaK1)Vouv) against Lk (KIX't'E:aKljvwaev), S. E. Johnson says Mt conflated Mk with the pure Q form of Lk
(op. cit., 148).
1
II Kings 4: 42 LXX
MT
otUTO'tC;
Tcjl Aotcjl
u!Le'Cc;
xotl
<potye'CII
~a6tET(j)aotll
Lk u!Le'Cc; <potyeLII] trsp B; text rell
Mk 9:7
00T6c; ,aTLv
o u16c; !LOU
o ciyotnljT6c;
Lk 9: 35
00T6C; iaTLII
/) u16c; !LOU
6 iXAeMY!LEIIOC;
cixoueTE:
otuToU
cixoueTE
otuTOU
otUTOU
cixoueTe
~xAeMY!Ltlloc;
II Pet I: 17
/) u!6c; !Lou
/) ciyot7nJT6C; !LOU
00T6c; iaTw
dc; ell iy~
eu86xljaot
LXX Dt 18: 15 MT
otUTOU
"'?N
cixouaea6e
. f117~1Vn
37
...
M~?K
a.7tOXCXTCXO'T~O'e:L
Mk 10: 4
Dt 24:
80UVCXL
~L~),(OV
~L~),(OV
a:7tOO'TCXO'(OU
ypciljlcxL
ypciljle:L CXOT1i
~L~),(O"
a.7tOO'TCXO'(OU
xcxt SWO'e:L
e:tl; Tal;
Xe:Tpcxl; CXOTIjI;
xcxt ~~CX7tOO'Te:),e:L
CXO-r7)V
cbtOO'TCXO'Lou
xcxt a:7tO),UO'CXL
CXOT~V
CXO~V BCpm 1;]
om KD8al
xcxt a.7tO),UO'CXL
LXX
MT
M?~n:;,
'DO
nn',:;,
1m,
n"~
nn?ID'
'n'~~
MT
[L'~ &Buvcx't'e:L
N7!:l'i1
Lk 18: 27
't'a. (&80vcx't'cx
'!tcxpa.
&vf)p OOT>O~c;)
Buvcx't'el
T>cxpa
't'ii> f)e:ii>
T>cxpa
't'ii> f)e:ii>
~O''t'w
P~[LCX;
i11i1'~
,:1,
n. Buv.
trsp Npe
39
,:1,
Is 53: 10 MT
!:I~llm
!:IN
'IDDl
!:lION
(vv. IIf.)
!:I~:I"
LXX
8w't'e:
III ~ ljIux'~ 6f!.wII (illjle:'t'oct
O"1tepf!.oc f!.ocxp6~toll)
II 1te:pl afLocp't'Loc.;
1tOAAWV (v. 12)
13
~iXv
41
!\1t 2I: 9
Mk II: 9. IO Lk I9:38
wacxvva
Tiji u!iji /lcxu(8
wacxvvlX
e:UAOy7)fJ.tVO~
e:UAoy7)(LtVO~
e:UAOY7) fJ.tvo~
o tPJ(ofJ.e:vo~
o ~cxaLAe:u~
o ~PJ(ofJ.e:vo~
o ~PJ(ofJ.e:vo~
tv 6VO(LCXTL
xupou
~v
ev 6VO(LCXTL
xup(ou
EV 6VO(LCXTL
xup(ou
~v
o ~PJ(ofJ.e:vo~
o ~PJ(0fJ.e:vo~
6VOfJ.CXTL
xup(ou
Mt 23: 39;
Lk I3: 35
Jn I2: I3
wacxvvlX
e:oAoY7)(LeVo~
e:OAOy7)fJ.&VO~
bVOfJ.CXTL
xup(ou
xcxt 0 ~cxaLAe:U~ TOU
'Iapcx-qA
e:OAOY7) fJ.&v1)
epJ( 0 fJ.tV7)
~cxaLAdcx TOU
7tcxTp6~ ~fJ.wv
d)(Ja;~'Ja
tV
TOr~ utJi(aToL~
/lcxu(8
wO'OC\lvx EV
TOr~ utJiaToL~
tv oopcxviji
dp-qv7) xcxt 86~cx
ev uo/(aToL~
epJ(6fJ.e:vo~
tv bVO(LCXTl
43
Nl ~lV'i1, 1 and the use of the word to designate the seventh day of the
Feast of Tabernacles 2 deprived it ofthe original supplicatory intent
and facilitated its festive use. That the Hallel had come not to be
restricted to the Feast of Tabernacles 3 confirms that this is exactly
what happened. The Targum II to Esther 3: 8 puts in Haman's
mouth the observation that at the Feast of Tabernacles the Jews
"rejoice and go around with the Hosannas [lulabs] and jump and
spring like kids." I Macc I3: 50 ff. tells of a joyful feast celebrated
under Simon with ritual borrowed from the Feast of Tabernacles:
,
"
, (.t
.r.
xex~
(J. ',\
\',
~"\
No reason exists,
then, to deny that the change from a cry for help to a cry of praise
took place before the Christian era. 6
Lk's assimilation to the Song of the Nativity favors the view
that ~\I 't'OLC; U~(cr't'OLC; has reference to the praise of heavenly beings.
The idea that angels echo the praise of human beings is not unfamiliar in Judaism. 6
E:ucppocrU\I'YjC;. 4
Mt 21: 33
Mk 12: 1
Lk 20: 9
Is 5: 2 LXX
E(.Lljlu-re:ua&')
&(.L 7tEAWVa K.
cppay(.Lov aUTii>
7tEpLe6'1jxe;v
x. wpu;e:v
tV a{mj'l A1)VOV
x. <j>Koo6WlJae;v
7tUPYOV?
&(.L7tEAwva ..
l:cpu-re:uaEv K.
7tEpLe61)Ke:v
Ijlpay(.Lov
x. wpu;e:\I
Ecpu-re:uaEv
&(.L7tEAWVa
K. l:cpu-re:uaa
&(.L7tEAOV ...
K. cppay(.Lov
7te:pLe61)Ka .
K. 7tpoAijvLov
wpu~a EV O:UTii>
K. <j>Koo6fL'YJa<x
7tUPYOV ...
U7tOA'~VLOV
K. <j>Ko06(.L1)ae:v
7tUPYOV
MT
II
I
IV
III
m:u~"
P'lV
,i1"i'0"
:li" tm
,:1
:I~n
1:1"
"'l~
44
).:Y)v6v 4
(winepress)
MIt
U7tOA1)VLoV 6
(vat below the
winepress-so Aq,
Sym)
LXX
MT
7tPOA1)VLOV
:::Ii"
(ambiguous)
(vat; secondarily,
the winepress)
IIpo)..~vLOV
45
Mt 22: 24
Mk 12: 19
Lk 20: 28
Dt 25: 5 LXX
Mv nc;
Mil '<LVOC;
a8e:Atpoc;
aTC06&1I1l XOtl
XOt'l"OtALTC1)
YUIIOtLXOt )(Ot!
Mv,twoc;
a8e:Atpoc;
aTC06&v1l
~XWII YUVOtLXOt XOt! 00'l"0C;
IL7) atp'ii
'I"&)(VOV
iX'l"e:)(VOe;
aTCo6<X1I1l
IL7) txwV
'I"&XIIOt
tliOt M~1l
6 a8e:AtpOe;
Otu't'ou 'l"i)v
Otu't'ou 't'i)v
YUVOtLKOt Otu't'ou YUIIOtL)(Ot KOt!
XOt! avOto"'I"~O"e:L t~OtVOtO"'t'~0"1l
O'TC&PILOt
O'TC&PILOt
'l"1j> a8e:Atplj>
'l"1j> a8e:Atplj>
OtU'I"OU
OtU'I"OU
~TCLYOtIL~Pe:OO"e:L
6 a8e:AtpOe;
1i
tvOt M~1l
A~IL<jIe:'t'OtL
6 a8e:Alpoc;
OtU'I"i)v EOtU't'1j>
OtU'I"OU 't'~v
yuvOtLKOt
yuVOtLKOt KOtl
~~OtIlOtO''I"~O"1)
O"TC&pILOt
'l"1j> a8e:Atplj>
OtU'I"OU
MT
Gen38:8LXX MT
':IID~ ~::>
"n~ l:I~nx
1:I11~
... "
11~'
,nx
l~x 1:l'
...
l"I~:l~
l1np',
yOtIL~pe:OO"OtL
...
1:I:l~'
l"IlDX'"
Otu't'i)v
x.av&O''I"7)O'ov O'TC&PILOt
'l"1j> a8e:Atplj>
O'ou
yOtIL~p.
A]
emyOtIL~p,
Luc (75)
1:1pm
l1'T
,~nx'
Mt 24: 6a: lLeA,..ljaeu 3 &'KoueLv n;oMlLouc; Kex! &'KoeXC; 7tOAElLwv op&u !L"~ 6poe:ia6e
Mk 13: 7: lI..otv 3t &'KOUa"IJU 7tOAElLOUC; Kott &'KOeXC; 7tOAElLWV, !L"~ 6poda(le:.
LIt 2 I : 9: lI..otv 3t &'Koua"lj..e 7tOAE(J.OUC; Kott &'Kot..ota..ota(otc;, lL~ 7t,,0lj6ij..e
7t"o"lj6iju] cpo~"lj6ij..e Ddq
Dan II: 44 Theod: Kott &'KOotL Kott a7tou3ott ..otpci~ouaLV ot6..6v
LXX: Kott &'KOl) ..otpci~eL ot6.. 6v
MT: 'l'1'm:J~ n'17/:)!D'
Mt 24: 6bj MIt 13: 7j Rev I: Ij 4: Ij 22: 6: eX [am Mt, Mk] 3d YeXp [am Mk,
Rev] yevEa60tL
Lk 2 I : 9: 3ei YeXp ..otU"l"ot ye:vEa6otL 7tp W..OV
Dan 2: 28 Theod, LXX: eX 3ei ye:V&O"OotL (7t' ax:x..wv "l"WV ~(J.EPWV)
MT: (K~/:)" n~""InK:l) K'l'1' ~"T l'1/:)
Kott
YeXp
7te:ye:p6~aoVTotL ..
Kott 7tOAe:!L"~ae:L ..
~6voc;
n;6ALC;
7tt 7t6ALV
Kott
vO(J.OC;
ht
VO(J.6V
-OV..otL] -e:"totL N
7t6ALC;] pr tr.e:YEp6~aE ..otL ABc (-OV ..otL)
~6voc;
7tt
Kott
~otaLAdot
E7tt
~otaLAdotv
...
II Chron 15: 6
LXX
MT
~n~o~o,
... ,/:)n'l'
Kott 7tOAe:!L"~ae:L
""I'17 ~6voc;
"'17 :l 7tpOC; ~6voc;
l'1~'/:)/:)
l'1~'/:)/:):l
Kott
7tOALC;
7tpOC;
7t6ALV
(II.. L 0 6e:0c;
t~Ea"'laEV
ot6..ouc; V 7tcian
6A(~eL)
'nn~'
"1
"1::1
,,'17,
,,'17:l
O~l'1'K '~)
O/:)/:)l'1
'~:J
(l'1""1~
'Eye:p8~cre:'t"cxt
19:2),
47
ILCXXcX.P ~O~
6 {..1\"0ILeVWV
XIX! cpecX.crlX~. . .
e:l~ crUVTtAe: ~IXV
(ljILe:pwv)
{..1\"OILdvlX~
e:L<; TAO~
OUTO<; crwe~cre:TCX~
Lk 21: 1g:
LXX
ILCXXcX.P~o<;;
6 ~ILILevwv
xcxl cruvcX.Ijie:~ .
eL<; cruvTeAe:~lXv
MT
~W}N
i1:ln~i1
...
37~l"
l'P'
(1'~~;')
(ljILe:pwV)
Mk 13:14
TO ~8EAUYILIX
TO ~8EAUYILIX
TO ~8EAUYILIX
T'ij~ tP'IJILwcre:w~
T'ij~ ~(7)ILwcre:W~
T'ij~ t(7)ILWcrEW~
. ecrTo~ tV
T6mr &.yL<r
ecrT7jX6TCX
01\"OU ou 8e:r
t1\"l TO te:p6v
MT
'f'~ii'~
COW
pm
<;
m;,~ ':l~;'::1
(Attic formofnt.ptcp.)
I MS Ken
Dan 12: II Theod: ~8EAUYILCX e(7)ILwcre:w~ (Cod. A assimilates to the LXX.)
Dan g: 27 LXX Theod: ~8EAUYILIX TWV e(7)ILwcre:wV
MT: C~~?? C~~~ii'~
Dan II: 31 LXX: ~8).uYILIX t(7)ILwcre:w<;
MT: C~;!l}?? l'~ii'!vjJ
Theod: ~8E).UYILIX 7JlfllXv~crILevov
See Ottley, op. cit., II, 19B.
The bringing in of II Chron IS: 6 was facilitated by the reference in that
verse to e).LIjJe:~, a major theme in the Olivet Discourse. But note also that
the passages are combined in IV Esdras 13: 31.
8 N0IL6<; (LXX) reflects the administrative districts in Ptolemaic Egypt.
See A. Deissmann. Bible Studies (Edinburgh. Ig01). 145.
4 Glasson pits ;,:In ("to wait") against {..1\"0ILEVeav ("to endure") (op. cit.,
1
In -ro ~aEAUYILO( -rijc; ep1JILwO'&WC; Mt and Mk agree only with the LXX
of Dan 12: II, and this against the masculine participle(s) of
1:I~1D.1 Dan 12:II alone is grammatically correct in the MT.2 Despite
the primary importance of Dan 9: 27 for the meaning of the expression, 12: II is contextually the more suitable reference so far as
the gospels are concerned, because allusions to Dan II: 40-12: 13
surround this reference to the abomination of desolation.
Although Mk adopts ep1JILwO'&WC; from the LXX, the masculine
participle eO'-r1Jxo-rO( shows that his interpretation stems from the
Hebrew text, specifically, from the masculine participles of I:I~ID
and possibly from the definite article in Dan II: 3I. 3
Mt brings the vague 87tou OU ad of Mk into closer conformity
with the text of Dan 9: 27. His ev -romp a;y(cp (= Temple) 4 is verbally
dissimilar from the LXX and Theodotion, but reveals the same
understanding of J'jl:l as an elliptical expression referring to a part
215}. However, only the context gives U1t"O(J.EVEIV the special connotation of
endurance (missing, e.g., in Lk 2: 43; Acts 17: 14), and the Danielic context
gives l1:ln just this connotation of patient, trusting endurance.
1 The agreement with the LXX and disagreement with the MT may be
greater yet, if the original sense was "the appalling abomination." On this
expression as a contemptuous equivalent of I:I~ID 737:1 (= Zeus Ouranios).
see E. Nestle, ZA W, 4 (1884), 248; G. R. Beasley-Murray, A Commentary
on Mark Thirteen (London, 1957), 54f.
z In 9:27 a plural noun is construed with a singular participle. But the
singular noun of the LXX and Theod casts doubt on the MT. In 11 : 31 the
article in Y'plDl1 is very odd. See D. Daube, The NT and Rabbinic Judaism
(London, 1956), 419; B. Rigaux, Biblica, 40 (1959), 675ff.
3 Ibid.; Daube, loco cit. So also the OT Pesh: N?:ln, "destroyer." Cf. II
Thess 2: 4 and the concept of a personal Antichrist.
4 T61t"or; &YIOr; = Temple in the papyri and Josephus. Cf. Is 60: 13; II Macc
1:29; 2 :18; 8: 17; Acts 6:13; 21 :28. See A & G, S.V. 't'61t"or;, lb. B. H. Streeter
accepts the omission of ~a't'or; EV 't'6mt> &.yLCfl in syrsin fam 1424, arguing that
syrsin best represents Mt, the Antiochean gospel (The Four Gospels [London,
1951], 51 9f.). However, syrSin is defective in Mt, not even having an equivalent
for EplJ(J.cflaewr;. Nor does Streeter reckon with the Tatianic influence in syrsin
(see above, p. 9, n. 2). Streeter's further argument that the lack of a definite
article with -r61t"Cfl indicates a careless marginal note has come into the text
precariously rests on the delicate question of the use of the article in Greek.
Especially in expressions which have almost gained the force of proper
nouns, as here, the article is easily omitted (see above, p. 25). In view
of the verbal differences between Mt and Dan (LXX, Theod) and Mk,
Streeter's suggestion of parallel influence does not seem probable. S. G. F.
Brandon defends the genuineness of the phrase by arguing that Mt is not an
Antiochean, but an Egyptian gospel, and that the omission of the article
may indicate Mt, like Josephus, knew the Roman standards were not placed
in the sanctuary, but in the Temple area (The Fall of Jerusalem B [London,
1957], 173f., 245f.).
49
~O"'o(~
Mk 13:19
y<xp
ex! 1)f.Lepex~
DanI2:ILXX Theod
XO(! ~o"Tex~
ixdv'lj 1)
xO(~po~
1)(.Lepex
OALljJewc;
8ALljJewc;
OL OU)(
otex 00 yeyovev
~O"OVTo(~
iXeLvO(~
OArljJ~c;
(.LeycXA'Ij
otex ou yeyovev
8ALIjJ~c;
otex 00 yeyovev
iyev~8'1j
TO~exUT'Ij
alt'
apx'~C;
X60"(.LOU
alt'
,
aq> 00
eyev'1j8'1j0"0(v
apx1i~
xTO"ewc;
'~v
aq>' 00
iln~;n
nl7
iI'~
N"IIJN
iln'ill
n"iI~
yeyev'ljTo(~
~8vo~
~U
~xT~O"ev
ew~
.ou vuv
008' 00
(.L"~
ew~
0 8eo~
TOU vuv
MT
xo(! 00
(.L~
yev'IjTex~
yeV'ljTo(~
00 yeyovev]
oox eyeveTo
ND0Ir
am D0alit
~,.
.a.6<]
xo(L 00 ]008e
ew~ ..~~
ew~
1)(.LepO(~
xO(~pou
exdV'lj~
heLvou
TOU
,l7
nl7i1
N'iIiI
(= assimilation
to Mt)
D(0al)
1 On ~l~ as referring to the Temple, see E. Haupt, Die alttestamentlichen
Citate in den vier Evangelien (Colberg, 1871), 138f.
2 CDC 13:7; Mamtal a/Discipline 3:13; 9:18; Hadayath (Meg. Gen.) 2:50,
3. See Bruce, ap. cit., 55f.
3 Ever since T. Colani (]es~ts Christ et les crayances messianiques de son
temps [Strasbourg, 1864]) this statement has been taken as proof that a
document, not a speech, lies behind the Olivet Discourse.
4 Cf. Marxsen, ap. cit., IIO; Schlatter, ap. cit., 704.
50
l:y~V&TO eALIjI~t; (ltyaA'IJ tV Tij> 'lapot"I)A, ijT~t; oox Eyivt't"o d.cp' '1)10
oux ~cpe'IJ 7tpoCP~T'ljt; otUTOLt;
Ex 9: 18 LXX: ijT~t; TO~otUT'IJ ou Y&YOVtV l:v Atyu7tT~, &cp' lit; l)(lepotc; E!xna't"ot~
E!wt; T~t; l)(l&pott; TotUT'ljt;
MT: :m17 ,17, i'l'0'i'l I:n'i'll~' C"~~::I 'l'1~~ i'l'i'l K' 'IZIK
I I : 6 LXX: ijT~t; TO~otUT'IJ OU y~YOVtV xot1 TO~otUT'Ij OUX i!T~ 7tpoane~ae:TotL
MT: l'Jon K' 'i'l~~' i'ln'i'1l K':i 'l'1~~ 'IZIK
Cf. 9:24; 10:6, 14.
Joel 2: 2 LXX: lI(lo~ot; otUTij> OU y~yOVtV &11'0 TOU octiiivot; xot1 (ltT' otUTOV ou 7tpoane~a&Tot~ ~Wt; tTiiiv dt; ytVtcX, ytvtiiiv
MT: "" ", 'llZl ,17 I'J0" K? "'"K' C"17i'll~ l'1'i'1l K' 'i'l~~
Mt's P.e:yOCA'Y) after 6A'i:IjiLt; shows contact with I Macc 9: 27 (cf. Rev
7: 14) Mk's ~O'OV't'<XL y~p <XL ~p.ep<XL Xe:'LV<XL 6A'LIjiLt; recalls the LXX,
xe:v'Y) ~ ~p.ep<x 6AIjie:CUt;, against Theodotion and the MT, l while
Mt comes closer to the Hebrew i'l'~ n17 i'ln'm with ~a't'<XL y~p 't'6't'e:
6A'LIjiLt; (P.e:yOCA'Y)), yet not in agreement with Theodotion. Qt<x ou
yeyove:v (Mt, Mk) agrees with Theodotion(Dan 12: 1) against the LXX.
In the circumlocutory cbt' eXpi~t; wdae:cut; '~v ~x't'Lae:v 0 6e;6t; in Mk,
the use of X't'~e:LV reveals an influx from the parallel passage Ex
9:182 in its Septuagintal form (against '0\ "to found"). Mt's
shortened form, eX7t' eXPX~t; x6ap.ou, may be an idiomatic rendering of
the Hebrew text in another parallel passage, Joel 2: 2 (C,,17l'1 l~), 3
or may show contact with the aT Peshitta of Dan 12: 1 (n~" l~
K~'17). "Ecut; 't'ou vuv (Mt, Mk) again recalls Ex 9:18, but this time
is an exact rendering of the Hebrew text against the LXX. OU8'
(Mk: x<xt) au p.~ yev'Y)'t'<XL (Mt, Mk) recalls the similar expressions in
Ex 10: 14; II: 6; Joel 2: 2 in their Hebrew forms.
l)(l~pott;
Mt 24:24; Mk 13:22
Dt 13:1-3 LXX
l:ye:p61JaovTCIt~
IjItUa6XpLaTo~
l:cXv at d.vClta-rjj
l:v a01
1I'pocplJT'lJt;
xot1
i)
IjItUa07tpOcp'ijTCIt~
l:vu7tv~CIt~6(ltvot;
l:VU7tV~OV
xClt1 aij> ao~
Xott a&laoua~v
GlJ(ldot
(ltyaACit (Mk: om)
xClt1 T~potTot
Mk IjItUa6Xp~aTo~ Xot!]
om D 124 1573 d i k
a&laouaw] 7t0~lJaoua~v Depc;a
MT
C'p' ,~
1::1'P::l
N'::Il
'K
C,"
C,,"
,"K lnl'
n'K
But Mk's Semitic idiom may reflect a pointing n~t'. See McNeile, Mt, 349.
The assertions concerning the severity of the Egyptian plagues are the
pattern for Dan 12: I. See Beasley-Murray, op. cit., 78.
3 ('A7t') d.pxiit;standsforC"17(~)inJosh 24: 2; Prov8: 23; 1s63: I 6, 19LXX.
1
I
5I
Is 13:10 LXX
o -jAIOe;
aKoTla61jaETotl
TOU ~AtOU
&'VotT&AAOVTOe;
KotL lj aEA1jvl}
00 8waEI
TO cpwe;
otOT'ije;
aKona6~aETotl
Kotl ~ aEA1jvl}
00 8waEI
TO cpeyyoe;
otOT'ije;
MT
TD~TDJ'I
'nN:lt~
n,',
i1'l' N"
"'N
MT
Is 34:4 LXX
Ked ot
Kotl 'lfcX.VTot
Ta. &aTpot
'lfEae;iTotl
&'aTepEe;
'lfEaOUVTotl &.'lf0
[Mk:
~aOVTotl
,,~,
II
CN:1:lt
",:1'
Kotl t!aoVTotl
al}(J.ELot tV
ljAtct> Kotl
aEA1jvlI Kotl
liaTpOle; Kotl
t'lft T'ije; y'ije;
auvox~ t6vwv
tv 'lfOp(q;
iixoue; 6otMaal}e;
Kotl acX.Aou
tK]
TOU OOpotVOU
'lft'lfTOV"t'Ee;]
Kotl ott 8UVcX.(J.ELe;
TWV OOpotvwV
[Mk: ott tv TOre;
OOpotVOLe;, exc.
[Mk:
Lk 21:25,26
1TDn
'p~l'
N:1:lt
":::l
C'~TDi1
Dal it syr]
aotAEu61jaoVTotl
52
In 19: 37
Mt 24: 30 MkI3:z6;
Lk 21: 27
Rev I: 7
~ x. x6tj10\l't'O(L
t~' O(u't'b\l
x. 't'6't'e
x6tj10\l't'O(L
~iicrOCL O(L
cpuAocl
III
~iicrOCL ocL
~ cpuAocl
't''ije; y'ije;
xocl <ltjlO\l't'OCL x. 't'6n <ltjlO\l't'OCL
MT
Zech 12: 10
LXX
x.eit'x',,~,
IXU't'OV ...
lj y'ij xO('t'dt
cpuMe;
ocL CPUAOCt
't''ije; y'ije;
IStjlO\l't'O(L
x. ~m~Atj.O\l- ,
~ xocl <ltj.e't'o(L
, ILe, .. ~
ete; 8\1 II
ocu't'b\l ~iie;
't'OCL ~poe;
Ocp60(AIL6e;. . .
~
II
':l . .
~1\'l
't'W\I
pr
86~'lje;]
1"NM
) mn!)l,/1~ mn!)w~
~ nm!)I,/1~M
d\l6pt:J~ou
t\l
\lecpe- \lecpAOCLe;
AW\I
[Lk: -n]
't'OU OUPOC\lOU
(Joe't'dt 8uvci(Joe't'dt 8u\lcilLeCllC;
ILeClle;
1\'oll'ije; [Lk: post
xocl86~'ljC;
1\'oll'ijc;
xO(l 86~'ljc;
,,!)O,
... '~'!J
~ '''~:lT11
j ... ~'N
53
Merx and Torrey reject xoct 't"6't"E x6IjJov't"oc~ ... yje; as an interpolation from Zech and Rev by a scribe whose eye was caught by
the close resemblance between xoct lSljJov't"oc~ and xoct x6IjJoV't"OC~.1 However, the 1\1SS overwhelmingly support the insertion, and there is
no reason why ~7t' ocu't"6v should have been omitted from the interpolation. That 't"6't"E has been shifted from lSljJov't"oc~ (Mk, Lk) to
x6IjJov't"oc~ (1\1t) speaks for the genuineness of the latter, for it is
unlikely an interpolator would have taken such pains.
rrciO"oc~ oct qlUAoct 't"~e; y'lje; 2 presents a conflation of mnDIO~l'I ,::> and
Y'Nl'I. If the text represented in Zech r2:ro by BNLucC is hexaplaric, 7tciO"oc~ in the NT shows direct recourse to the Hebrew.
"OljJov't"oc~ shows independence from the LXX (~7tL~AeljJov't"oc~).
Throughout the NT lSljJov't"oc~ takes a third personal object, as also
in many Hebrew MSS of Zech r2:ro, the Didache (r6:7), Justin
(r Apol. Iii) and other early church fathers, the Talmud (Sukka
v. 52), and early editions of the commentaries of Aben Ezra,
Rashi, and Kimchi.3 The MT, which reads the first person, is
inherently difficult and probably corrupt. The remainder of the
verse in Zech indicates a third personal object. The thought of
God himself being pierced is strange, foreign to the context, and
beyond the limits of legitimate anthropomorphism.'
might be
favored as the more difficult reading. However, because of the
scribal similarity between yodh and waw an original waw (~-'N)
could easily have dropped out by haplography.
While J n and Rev continue to quote Zech, the synoptists transfer
to Dan 7: r3. The individualizing use of the article with "Son of
man" is facilitated by the dropping of we; (:: in the synoptics.
'EpX6!J.Evov agrees with Theodotion against the LXX. Mt's ~7tL
agrees with the LXX and OT Peshitta (,17) against Theodotion
and Rev r:7 (!J.E't"c), and the MT (C17}.5 Mt could have used ~v
-'N
347f.; Torrey,
op. cit.,
2 Mt =
Rev. Cf. Atkinson, op. cit., 53, concerning the apocalyptist's
dependence on the Olivet Discourse.
S For the textual evidence, see T. Jansma, in Oudtestamentische Studien
(Leiden, 1950), VII, II7f.; Mitchell, op. cit., 334.
4 Ibid.; T. W. Manson, BJRL, 34 (1951/52), 330.
6 Dalman suggests that since it belongs to God alone to ride upon the
clouds, C17 was substituted for an original?17 (op. cit., 242). But this appears
to be an overrefinement of the distinction between the prepositions.
54
(Mk, Lk); but his rejection of f.LE:'t'eX. may be due to a stylistic consideration, viz., that f.LE:'t'eX. comes in his very next phrase. 'Ev is a
free rendering,1 consonant with the premature breaking off of the
quotation in Mk and Lk; whereas Mt continues with the genitive
't'ou oupcxvou (=LXX, Theod, MT). The singular vE:cpe).,:n (Lk) may be
influenced by VE:CP&t..'Yj in the Lucan account of the ascension (Acts
I: 9), in which a parallel is drawn between the ascension and the
return of Christ. The final phrase in the synoptics is another targumic embellishment designed to paint the general picture given
in Dan 7 of the power and glory of the Son of man.
Mt 24: 31
Mk 13: 27
Is 27: 13 LXX
(L'rd:
O'cXAmyyo~
(LEYcXAl)~
'D'ID:l
~nID'D
xl lm-
xl lm-
ouvcX~w
ouvcX~ouO'w
'rou~
~XAEX'rOU~
OUVcX~e:1
'rou~
~XAEX'rOU~
u(Lii~
u'rou
~x 'rOOV
-reoocXpwv
avt(Lwv
u'rou
~x 'rOOV
'rEOO'cXpWV
avt(Lwv
C~nN
Zech 2: 10 LXX
MT
Cf. Ezek 37: 9; Dan 8: 8; II: 4
~x 'rwv
noocXpwv
avt(Lwv.
I
0
an' &xpou
an' &xpou
-rlj~ y7j~
i!w~ &xpou
'r'ij~
oupvoov
i!w~ bpwv
u'roov
i!w~ &xpou
oupvou
"'1
II
y7j~
an' &xpwv
MT
Y'iic;
an' &xpou
'rou oupvou
i!w~ 6[xpou
'rou oupvou
'ro oUp. 2 0 ] U'rou 8
Dt
13: 8
= Jer
12: 12
Dt
3:
4
17:l'N~
o . mm,
n~pD
Y'Nn
n~p i17,
Y'Nn
n~p:l
c~~IDn
Mt alone contains a reference to the "great trumpet," an expression occurring only in Is 27: 13. 2 His f.LE:'t'eX. with the genitive
diverges from the LXX and shows a desire to produce an equivalent
for :l, similar to that displayed in the literal rendering of LXXALuc
(ev). Mt has also omitted the definite articles in conformity with
the Hebrew.
1 But ~v may be justified by the interchange of C17 and :l in Dan 2: 43 ;
5 :3 0 (cf. 7:2) and by Yahweh's coming in (:l) the cloud (Ex 19:9; 34:5;
Num I I :25). See R. B. Y. Scott, NTS, 5 (1959), 128.
B See further T. F. Glasson, The Second AdventS (London, 1947), 189ff.
55
Mk 13:3 0
a,,,
IJ.EXPIt; OU
Totihot
ncXVTot
YEV7jTotl
E!w<;
ncXVTot
TotUTot [Lk om]
YEV7jTotL
EV Tiii auvTEAE<18'ijvotL
8Lot(1)(Opm<1IJ.ov
YVOO<10VTotL
ncXVTot
TotUTot
MT
;U":ln
,::1
il'N
56
Mk 14:1
Lk 22:2
't'6't'E:
auv~X(7)acxv
MT
c,om:l
a\)vCXXe~VCXL
..
l(cxl
l(cxl
auve:~0\)Ae6acxv't'0
~vcx
t~~'t'ouv
't'ov 'I7)aouv
Ps 31 (30):14LXX
tV 't'ii)
'M'
CX1JTOUe;
l(cxl
&!lCX tlt' t!ll:
... E~lj't'OUV ... 't'ou ACX~&!V
't'o ltooe;
-r-ljv Iji\)y'~v !l0\)
eXvEACJ)aLV
e~0\)AE:6acxv't'0
ltooe;
cxu't'ov
tXu't'6v
',:17
11Mi"
'!ll!)l
'~m
Ex 21:14 LXX
MT
'T' ':l,
urN
Mv 8t 't'Le;
86A'I>
tV 86A'I>
&7tLe~'t'CXL
l(pcx't'~aCJ)aLV
l(pcx't"~aCXV't'E:e;
't'0 ltA7)a(ov
l(. cXltol('t'dvCJ)aLV
cXltol('t'E:tvCJ)aLv
cXltOl('t'E:~VCXL
l(. cXltOl('t'.]
tV 86A'I>]
cxu't'ov 86A'I>
Ps 31 a\)VCXxe,
om B*pc
om Dair
,;':17, ,:17
'1';"
;'~'17:1
"M'
N'
~XE:'t'E:
y~e;
!lee'
~CX\)'t'oov
57
Mt 26:28
Mk 14:24
Ex 24:8 LXX
Toi:iTo YcXP
eaTIV
TO ott(.LcX (.LOU
T'ijC; 8to(61)l('I)C;
Toi:iTo
EaTlv
TO ott(.LcX (.LOU
T'ijC; 8tot6ljx'I)C;
t80u
TO
tXXUVVO(.LEVOV
TO m;pl
7tOAMiV
{mep
7tOAAWV
~XXUVVo(.LeVOV
TO ott(.Lot
-riic; 8tot6ljx'I)C;
Is 53:12 LXX
7totpe866'1)
dc; 6cXVotTOV
~ ~ux.~ ot,iTou
. . . xotl ot\iToc;
cX(.LotPT(otC;
7tOAAWV
&vljVE:YXE:V
8Iot6'~)('I)C;
The:WC; ~ao(.Lott
Toti:C; &8IxotlC;
ot,iTwv xotl
TWV cX(.LotPTtWV
otUTWV
MT
illil
O"T
l"l~':Il'
MT
il'37il
l"l'~'
'WD1
N,m ...
Ntm
C~:J'
NW1
MT
"'ON
01'37'
Ol"lN~""
to Mt)
Lk 22: 20: TOUTO TO
EX;(UVVO[Le:VO'l
I Cor 11:25 = Lk, exc. 8tot61}y.'I)] + EaTw; ott(.LotTt !Lou] pr ~[L<ii, om [Lou (P46ACal
= Lk); TO U7tEP U[LWV ~XXUV. Ont
Reb 9: 20: TOUTO TO ott!Lot T'ijC; 8tot6'~x'l)C; f)c; eve:TeCAotTO 7tpOC; U(.L&c; b 6eoc; (= a
quotation of Ex 24:8)
J er 31 (38): 3 I LXX: 8to(61)x'l)v Xottv'~v MT: ilW'" l"l~':J
Cf. Zech 9:11.
58
confonning Toiho crw(.L1X. to t800 ... crw(.LlX.. This feeling is confinned with the discovery that the OT Peshitta, Targum Jonathan,
and Targum Onkelos to Ex 24:8 have the demonstrative pronoun
(Nll'1-Pesh, 1" Nl'1-Targums) in agreement with the NT. Further
confirmation comes from Heb 9: 20, where Ex 24: 8 is quoted with
,",OUTO. 1 Perhaps this textual variant resulted from the close similarity
between the Hebrew 1'1l1'1 ("behold") and the Syriac Nll'1 ("this"),
abetted by the fact that in Aramaic NM is both an interjection
("behold") and the feminine demonstrative pronoun. 2 Thus, it is
very possible that the allusion shows contact with the OT Peshitta
and the Targums. 3
The insertion of XIX.Lv~t; is better supported in Mt than in Mk and
in view of the later allusion to Jer 31 (omitted in Mk) may be
genuine. If so, Mt conforms more closely to the ~T. Elt; &cpEcrW
&:(.LIX.PTLWV (Mt) is an allusion to Jer 31: 34, &cpe:ow exactly corresponding to the meaning of n'?c ("to forgive") against the free tAEwt;
e!crO(.LIX.L of the LXX.
1 Most commentators regard "aUTO in Heb 9: 20 as assimilation to the
words of institution. See Thomas, op. cit., I03ff.; F. H. Woods, HDB, IV, 187.
However, the omission of ~aTLV and the lack of any distinct reference to the
Eucharist in Heb reduces this possibility.
B Although
is masculine, the double meaning of Nl'1 might have suggested the insertion of 1" ("this"-masc.) after NM ("behold").
3 At least since W. Wrede the difficulty of retranslating ,,0 a.I!J.cX !J.OU -r'ijt;
a~a.6i)l(ljt; into Aramaic or Hebrew has led to the conclusion that T'ijt; a~a.6i)l(ljc;
is an unauthentic addition to the original words (Wrede, ZNW, 1[1900],
70f.; J. Jeremias, The E~charistic Words of Jesus [Oxford, 1955], I33ff.;
idem, JTS, 50 [1949],7; E. Schweizer, RGG3, I, 13). Recent studies, however,
have increasingly called in question the impossibility of a corresponding
Semitic construction (G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua [London, 1929], I60f.;
J. A. Emerton, JTS, 6 [1955], 238ff.; H. Gottlieb, Shdia Theologica, 14
(1960), II5-II8; Fuller, op. cit., 69f.; cf. R. Deichgraber, Revue de Qumran,
Tome 2, Num. 6 (I9?0), 279f.; Hooker, op. cit., 81.). Cf. the several expressions in which W'Ji' has a pronominal suffix which logically belongs to the
preceding noun in the construct state (Lev20:3; 22:2; PS2 :6; 51:13; 89:21;
Is II: 9; 63: II). A pertinent example is the Targum to Is 42: I, where
'1l1,'i' m, stands for 'm,. A contact with the Targums to Ex 24: 8 would
favor the authenticity of the quotation and the possibility of the construction
in Aramaic, as well as obviate the objection that "the blood of the covenant"
could only mean, as in late Judaism, "the blood of circumcision" (Jeremias,
Eucharistic Words, loc. cit.; against which see Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 167f.).
See further the A useinandersetzung between Jeremias in the third edition of
his book (G5ttingen, 1960, pp. 186, 133ff.) and Emerton in JTS, 13 (1962),
III-II7; IS (1964). 58f. Emerton favors the more rare Aramaic construction
in which the pronominal suffix is attached to the noun in the construct
state, thinking Jesus wished to avoid being misunderstood to mean "the
blood of my covenant." Postscript: Jeremias has now changed his mind.
C,
59
The singing of the Hallel toward the close of the Last Supper
would have put the context of Jesus' thoughts in the Psalms. The
rarity of 7tep(AU7tO~ strengthens the case for an allusive quotation
here. 3 Dependence on the LXX in 7tep(AU7tO~ is close, since the
Hebrew verb means "to be bowed (or cast) down." If ljJux,~ be the
original reading in the LXX, as Rahlfs thinks, Mt and Mk may have
assimilated to the Hebrew text by adding fLOU. But such assimilation
might have taken place in pre-NT times.'
The root AU7t- provides the link between Ps 42-43 and Jon 4: 9, and
in both passages is an incorrect rendering (in Jon for il,n, "be
angry"). "ECJ)~ 6cxv<X..ou = LXX = MT.
Mt 26:41; Mk 14:38
Ps 51 (50): 14 LXX
TO (.I.EV
7tveu(.l.<X
7tp66u(.l.ov
7tVeU(.I.<XTL
7)ye(.l.OVLxcjl
aTiJpLa6v (.I.e
MT
m"
il~"'l
"l~~Ol'l
60
Mk 14:62
Xott
00/&a6&
TOV utav
TOV utav
TOU cXII6pwn:ou TOU cXII6pwn:ou
tX 8&~II';')II
xot6~fL&IIOll
tx 8&1;I(;ill
xot6~ [.1.&11011
,'ijt; 8uV<XfL&!slt; -r'ijt; 8uII<XfL&!slt;
)(ott tPXOfL&VOV )(otl tpXOfL&IIOll
tn:l
fL&T&'
TWV II&<PtAWII
TOU OUpotVOU
Lk 22:69
cXn:a TOU VUV
8e: taTotl
MT
tm~A~<jJoVTotl
'~'::lin
b utat;
TOU cXv6pwn:ou Ps IIO (109): I
x<x60u
xotfl'qfL&VOt;
tx 8&1;I(;ill
tx 8&1;IWII fLoU
::ll/)
'l'~'"
TWV V&<PtAWII
TOU OUpotvou
T(;iV IIE<PEAWII
TOU oUpotlloU
O. ~
'll17
II
I
N'~I/)
)(. tPX'] am D
fLET<X] tn:L G fr 33 al
"O~ecree is
6r
't'ljo"LV 't'WV YLWV (Ps. no: 3 LXX) would also suggest the picture of
myriad angels in Dan 7. 1
Mt 26 :67
,,6Te
tv&~"uaot\l
Mk 14:65
Kotl ot &v8pe~
ot aU\lixo\lTe~
IXU"t'OV EVe1tCXL~OV
otU"1jl 8ipo\l"e~
'ijp~otv,,6
"Lve~ t(Llt-rueLv
ottaxuv'fJ~
t(L~ua(Lcx...wv
Kotl
~epLKotM~-
otVTe~
otuTO\l
aUTov
tXUTO"
ot 8e
tppcXmaot\l
tlt'fJPOOTW\l
MyovTe~
~pocp1)Teuaov
~(LrV, XPLaTE,
Tt~ taTLV
ltot(aot~
Is 50:6 LXX
Kott
Lk 22:63f.
ae;
A&yOVTe~
ltpocp~Teuao\l
MT
C'~,~,
(C"~~' :IQIsa)
'1'1,l'lt)i1
'lb
N'
p" l'1'~'~~
Kotl ot urr1)peTotL
pot~(a(LotaL\I
otUTOV !!AotfjO\l
T(~ taTLV
6 ltotLaot~ ae;;
otUTIjlJ TIjl ltpoaoo1t<!l otuTOU DE>565 700 adf syr peSh geo arm
Kott m:pLKotA .... ~poaw~ovJ om DafsyrSin
62
Mt 27:35; Mk 15:24
Lk 23:34
Ps 22 (21):19 LXX
8IE!Lp(actVTo
8Ict!Lpl~6!Lvol
8IE!LP [actVTO
[Mk:
8Ict-~ovTctl]
TOC t!LcXT1ct
ctOToii
~cXAAOVTE:~
XA'ijpOV
[Mk:
+ i:n-'
ctOTcX]
8
TOC t!LcXT1ct
ctOToii
TOC t!LcXT1cX
!LOU EctUTO L~
~~ctAOV
Xct! En-t TOV
XA-IjPOut;
t!LctTla!L6v !LOU
XATjpOUt; 0 h 33al ~~ctAOV XA'ijpOV
lat] XA'ijpOV 'fell
"1:l
Cil"
'1D':l" ,,~,
'""1
' D'
Mt ~cXAOVTt; NAD0h
pm; + In 19:24 (= LXX)
(0) h (h3) alit vgc1t;
Mk ~cXAOVTE:t; 0pc
Lk 23:35
ctOTOV
XIVOUVTE:t; ..oc~
xE<pctMt; ctOTiiiv
Mk ot n-ctpctnop.] om
syrS1D; ot nctpcXyovTE:t; D
MT
"::J~
PS22 (21):8LXX
MT
Xct! e:laTTjxEI
o Actbt; Iloopiiiv
i:~E!LUXTTjPI~OV
E~E!LUxTTjplacXv
!LE, .
tx(v7jactv
'P'ID
'~'l"
CIDN'
":l
'N'
...'1~'"",
'~'l'
X<pctATjV
Cf. Lam
,."":l
I:
12.
IDN'
an allusion to Lam 2: 15. 1 'E~A(XO'<P~fLOUV may then be a loose rendering of'i"10 ("to hiss" in mockery; the LXX correctly, EO'UPLO'cx.V).2
The reference to shaking the head was an obvious point of contact
between Lam and Ps 22: 8.
Lk inserts an allusion to the first part of Ps 22: 8 in agreement
with the LXX, omitting the allusion by Mt and Mk to the second
part. Mt and Mk, omitting the Lucan allusion, agree with the LXX
in XLvouv-rec;, where they could have used O'cx.AeueLv. s But their plural
form with the possessive pronoun, xe<pcx.Aocc; cx.u-rwv, agrees with the
OT Pesh, 1';"10,.,:1. The Targum has the plural possessive suffix
but not the plural form of the noun, 1mlO":I. Perhaps an original
plural noun in the Targum has been partially conformed to the MT.
Mt 27: 46: ~At ~At Ae!LcX O"ot~otX6&VL
BN ~Awet (eAwt N) tAwet (tAwl N) Ae!LcX
~At (~Aet 0 h) ~At (~Aet
D ~Aet ijAet AotfLcX ~CXcpO&VEL
AW
O"ot~otx't'&veL (O"ot~otx6&veL N)
O"ot~otx6&veL
~Awt
Dalman, Words, 54; idem, Jes~ts-Jeshu't, 205; J. Jeremias, TWNT, II, 937,
n. 62; V. Taylor, op. cit., 593.
3 BZ, 2 (1958). 275-278.
4 BZ, 3 (1959), 296.
5 See Dalman, Words, 53.
8 See below, pp. 174ff.
7 A. B. Bruce would cut the Gordian knot by supposing the misunderstanding was only affected (Expositor's Greek Testament [Grand Rapids,
1951], I, 332). Other conjectures are ingenious, but unconvincing: (I) Jesus
was thought to have said ~~ ~~7~ ("Elia, come!"), but he really said '7~
T1~~ ("My God you [are]" i d. Ps 22: II). Mk originally having 1)AL &6&, I:)
EO''rLV (Le6ep(L'I)veu6(Levov' 6e6t; (LOU d au. So H. Sahlin, Biblica, 33 (1952),53-66;
T. Boman, Studia Theologica, 17(1963). 103-119. (2) The original cry was ,,~
'~i~ pillf'tt ~~~ '1p~1 '117, 'EA'Jj3ex Aii(Lcx [&va] &O'~wx &30vcxl = "Into thy hands
I commend my people. a my Lord." So F. W. Buckler, America1z Journal
of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 55 (1938). 378-391. (3) Mt's 'lnp:lW
was originally 'lnn~W of Ps 42: 10, a scribe having confused ~ with:l and
the Greek rendering having been conformed to Ps 22: 2. So D. Sidersky,
Journal Asiatique, 3 (1914), 232f. (4) The primitive reading in Mt was
~cx~CXX6&VL, a transliteration of '~~I;I;T. So D. Sidersky, RHR, 103 (1931), 154.
Sidersky's conjectures are motivated by a desire to explain the transliteration
by X (usually for ~) instead of by x (usually for P) (see Swete, A n Introduction
to the OT in Greek, 67). But the irregular X for p is due to the immediately
following 6. See Dalman, Words, 54, n.2.
8 Mt 5: II i Lk 6: 22 i I Pet 4: 14 i Acts 5: 41 i Ro 15: 3 i and esp. Reb II: 26 i
13: 13.
66
In the use of <S~OC; and 7tO'd~eLV Mt and Mk agree with the LXX,
but the Hebrew could hardly be translated otherwise.
FORMAL QUOTATIONS IN COMMON WITH LUKE
+
+
?t.AA'
?t.AA'
Thphyl
Dt 8: 3 MT:
~v
~nl
N~'~ ,~
~nl
68
+
+
'lI'
IIpoO")(.uv~o"&LC; emphasizes the antithesis with the Satanic temptation, EcX.V 7t&O"6:lV 7tpoO")(.uv~O"llC; fLOL, Ii and therefore does not seem to be
drawn from LXXA.6 Rather, LXXA has been assimilated to the
69
m,
m,
70
The use of 7t't'wx.6t;; agrees with the LXX. C"l37 properly means
"the meek," but between '137 ("poor") and '137 there exists no strict
line of demarcation, the Massoretes having even pointed both words
with the vowels of the other. 1 It may be that Mt adds T(j> 7tVe:OP.<XTL
to bring out the thought of meekness. If so, he works from the
Hebrew text.
It has recently been suggested that "poor in spirit" shows
contact with Qumran literature, particularly m'1 "137 in the War
Scroll xiv. 7 (cf. 1QpHab xii. 3, 6, 10). K. Schubert interprets the
expression to mean "thevoluntarilypoor,"2 citing EX3S: 21; Ps SI :12
as passages where m'1= "will." But in neither passage is "spirit" to
be equated with "will." Rather, the "spirit" is "willing" or "makes
willing," the thought of "willing" being expressed by another word,
~'1. M. Burrows adds that "poor of will" could only signify weakness
of will. 3 It is better to take the addition of m'-T(j> 7tVe:OP.<XTL as not
altering the meaning, but only making patent the religious sense
already latent in the word.' What the occurrence of m'1 "137 in 1QM
xiv. 7 does show is that the Matthaean form of the beatitude is
not necessarily secondary, or if secondary to Lk is not an illegitimate spiritualizing interpretation.
C. Rabin has given the discussion a new turn by bringing into
passages where "only" occurs with reference to serving and worshipping God
(loc. cit.).
1 Mitchell, op. cit., 276. Cf. G. A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the OT
(London, I959). 26I.
BOp. cit., 87, I 37ff. j idem. in The Scrolls and the NT, I22. Cf. LohmeyerSchmauch, op. cit., 82, n. I. where Mt's expression is taken in the sense of
willingness to endure poverty as Jesus' disciples.
8 op. cit., 95f.
, See Tabachovitz. op. cit., 65f. Tcxm;Lvb~ Titl 1tVe;u!J.cxTL in Ps 33: I9 is
equivalent to TCX1te;LV6~ in. e.g., Ps I7: 28. The dative T'ij l(cxp8tqt is often added
to adjectives like 't'cx1te;Lv6~. 1tpcxO~. and 1S00Lo~ without affecting the sense.
Cf. Mt U:29j Dt 20:8j II Chron I3:7j Ex 35:IOj Prov Io:8j Job 37:24j
Ps 3I:IIj 36:14j 63:IIj 72:Ij 93:I5j 96:IIj 23:4; Mt 5:8. Also. Bammel.
TWNT. VI. 903ff. The connotation of 1tT61X6~. a beggar conscious of his
need, as opposed to 1t~V'lj~, a poor man who works for a modest living. is
suited to the religious idea. See V. Macchioro. Journal of Religion. I2 (I932).
40-49. Although the Lucan form has been viewed as sociologically orientated
(J. Rezevskis, Studia Theologica, I [I935], I57-I69. sees Ebionite influence;
less radically. W. M. Macgregor. ET. 39 [I927/28]. 294j C. H. Dodd. in
Melanges bibliques rediges en l'honneur de Andre Robert [Paris, n.d.]. 407f.),
probably in Lk as well as in Mt primary emphasis lies on the ethical side.
For a balanced discussion, see E. Percy, Die Botschaft Jesu (Lund. I953).
40-I08. E. Best takes "poor in spirit" as "faint-hearted" (NTS, 7 [I96I].
255- 2 58 ).
71
focus Is 66:2, m, n~l' ~llJ, and relating the two readings m, '~llJ
(IQM xiv. 7) and m, ~K~l (1 QM xi. 10). In addition D. Flusser
parallels a passage from lQH xviii. 14, IS, where the phrases
m, 'K~l, C"llJ 'lV:I', and C":lK' occur.1 Rabin suggests the MT may
present a conflate reading and that Mt 5: 3 derives from a reading
m, 'llJ in Is 66: 2. 2 Because of the allusive quotation of Is 61: 2 in
the immediately following beatitude in Mt and because we know
Is 61: 1,2 constituted a leading OT text in Jesus' preaching (see
Mt I I :5; Lk 4:18, 19; 7 :22; Acts 10 :38), Is 66:2 is probably not
the primary reference in the first beatitude. But it does seem very
possible that we have in the Matthaean 'rill 7tveu(.Lot't"L parallel influence from Is 66: 2-based on the Hebrew text, for the LXX does
not even render m,.
Mt 5:II
Lk 6:22
Is 51:7 LXX
(LotxcipLo!
eaT!: <STotll
(LotxciplO!
aT!: Ihotll
(L~ <pO~!:!0"6E
(LLa~aOOaw ~(L&e:;
ot
bllEL3!aooO"w ~(L&e:;
Xott 3LW~OOO"W
Xott ElnooO"w
niill nOVljpOII
xot6' ~(L(;)II
tjlEu36(LEIIOL
&II6poonoL
Xott ISTotll
cX<pop!aooaw ~(L&C:;
Xott bll!:L3O"OOO"LII
Xott X~cXAOOo"LII
TO ISIIO(Lot ~(L(;)II
we:; nOll7JP6v
bllEL3LO"(LOII
cXv6pwnoov
xotl Tijl
<potUALO"(Lijl otUT(;)II
(L~ ~TIii0"6e:
l'ID'"
lV'lN
Cl'1D'l~'
'l'1nl'1'N
3~w~ooO"L\I]
-OUO"III
KDW0
tjlEu3.] om D it syrstn Tert
72
Is 50:6 LXX
AA' 8aTLe;
ae: pOl:7t[~e:L
Ie; T~V 8e:~LeXV
aLOI:YovOI: aou
aTpeljlov OI:UTi;>
xOI:l T~V i!!AAljV
8e800xOI:
TeXt; aLOI:YOVOI:t; (.LOU
Ie; pOl:7t[a(J.OI:TOI:
. OUX 7teaTpe:IjIOI: 7tO
OI:iaXuVlje;
MT
... 'nnl
~'n'
C'~'7:l'
N' 'lD
'n,nOl't
... n17:l,::l7:l
'n,nOl'1]
~n"'Ol'1 lQIsa
Lk 6:29
-ri;> T{mTovT[ ae:
~7tl T~V aLOI:YoVOI:
ml:pe:xe: xOI:l
T~V i!!AAljV
73
W. Manson seems to be the first to have noticed this allusive quotation.l The further allusion to Is 50 : 6 in Mt 26: 67 and parallels fortifies
the case for an allusion here.Wemay also suppose that Jesus patterned
his own conduct during his trial after this verse. The use of pex7t(~eLv.
(1Lexywv. and O"t'pEcpeLv by Mt are the points of contact with Is 50:6.
In pex7t(~eLv Mt goes with the LXX against the MT. but possibly
with IQIsa. (c~?,,~?}.2 ~'t'pEcpeLv also agrees with the LXX and
IQlsa. (~m,,~oil. from
"to turn aside") against the MT. Lk
has drifted away from the OT phraseology.
.,'0.
Mt 5:48
Lk 6:36
~ae:a6e: oi5v
u!Le:tc;
TtAe:IOI
wc;
/) nc(T~p
u!Lwv /)
oupcivloc;
TAe:16c;
aTlv
yLve:a6e:
o!xTLp!Love:c;
XClt6wc;
/) nc(T~p
U!LWV
o!xTLp!L(Jlv
ClTLv
Lev 19:2
MT
LXX
C~ID'P
'~iln
aYlol
t!ae:a6e:
IiTI
~"'P yw
iI1i1' 'IN aYloc;
C~'n?N XUPIOC;
/) 6e:bc; u!Lwv
~~
Dt 18:13
MT
LXX
c'~n
TtAe:IOC;
iI'iln
C!7
~an
\lCltvTLov
iI1i1' xupLou
1'n?N TOU 6eou
aou
74
75
Lk 13:27
noJ(Cilpe:he:
tfLou
n60'T'1)T&
tfLou
ot
navTE:~
~pyaTcxl
&3LKLCX~
n'
~pycx~6fL&VOI
T1JV VOfLLCXV
n'
Ps 6:9 MT LXX
"'0
'l~~
?~
'?37D
l1N
n60'T'1)T&
tfLou
n'
naVT&~
ot tpycx~6fL&VOL
T1JV &VOfLLCXV
Ps 107 (I06): 3
LXX
MT
EX't'WV
m~'N~
)(IllPWV
~~ouaL\l
auv~ya.ye;v
C~:lp
Is 49: 12
LXX
tBou OU't'OL
n;6ppIll6e;v
t!p)(OV't'a.L
MT
il?N illil
p'n'~
'N:l'
n;oAAol
a.u't'ouc;;
cin;o civa:t'oAwv cin;o civa.'t'oAwv cin;o civa.'t'oAWv
xod 8ua/Lwv
xa.l 8ua!J.wv xa.l 8ua!J.wv
~~ouaL\l
xa.l cin;o
xa.l
~opp&
~opp&
xa.l
xa.l
v6't'ou
6a.Aciaa~c;;
dn;6 2 0 Balit]
.
om ND0pmC;;
Cf. Is 45 :6; 59: 19; Mal I: II.
OU't'OL cin;o
il?N illm
xa.l
1')~~
C'~' oihoL ci7to
C'~'
6a.Aciaa'llC;;
i!p)(.] ~~ouaLV
BNVLuc ot A'
Cf. Is 60:6, 7
~oppii
The verb ~~oua~v (Mt, Lk) comes from Is 49: 12, probably as an
independent rendering of the Hebrew since the group represented
oy BV is hexaplaric and the reading ~~oua~v looks like a hexaplaric
assimilation to the Hebrew. 3 The context in Is concerns the gathering of Israel for the eschatological kingdom and thus suits the verse
for Jesus' use.'
The geographical expressions are drawn from the parallel passage
1 Stendahl seeks to lessen the non-Septuagintal element by noting that
dcpLa't'cive;L, though common in Lk, is lacking in Mt (p. 90). However, this
fact means nothing, since ci7tO)(lllpe;LV is hapax in Mt, but occurs several times
inLk(Lk9:39;ActsI3:13;d7t0)(lllp(~e;a6a.L-Acts 15:39). That is, Mt shows
no liking for ci7tO)(Upe;LV elsewhere, and Lk does-so that Mt's divergence from
the LXX and Lk in ci7tO)(lllpe;L't'e; is clear-cut.
z ?~ was often inserted into or deleted from the Hebrew text. See Wiirthwein, op. cit., 74. Opening Kennicott and De-Rossi at random, I noticed this
happening in I Kings 16:27. At least one OT commentator thinks ?~ is a
gloss in the MT of Ps 6:9 (C. A. Briggs, Ps [ICC; Edinburgh, 1907], I, 51).
3 See]. Ziegler (ed.), Isaias, adloc., 7,23,36-73; idem, ZAW, 61 (1945/48),
76 -94; J. B. Payne, JBL, 68 (1949), 251-265; J. W. Wevers, Theologische
Rundschau, 22 (1954), 97; Wiirthwein, op. cit., 77.
, See J. Jeremias, Jesus' Promise to the Nations (London, 1958), 15ff.
77
Lk12:8, 9
7tii~ 8~ &V
6(LOAOY~0"7J
6(LOAOY~O"W
6(LOAOY~0"&t
iv
1:I00Tt~
6 81:
cipv"IJ 0"~(L&v6~ (LE:
. . . ci7totpv"lJ6~0"E:Tott
8' &v
taking
au'Tct>
Kotyw otUT6v ..
017~
in the sense of
I Sam 2:30
MT
LXX
":I::>~
iv E(LOt ...
6 u!o~ T. civ6p.
KotyW EV otUTij>
ciPV~<nJTott (L&
.. cipv~O"o(Lott
In
TOU~ 80~~~OVT~~
(L&
':I::>N
'T:I'
"i"
8o~~O"w
Kott
6 E~ou6E:\lWV (LE:
ciTt(Lw6~0"E:Tott
uses evw7tLov in the last two). 'APVE~0"6ot~ ("to disdain, reject, deny" 1)
stands for l'1T~ and "p, both of which mean "to disdain, despise"
and consequently "to reject." See especially Is 53 :3, "despised
(l'1T~l) and rejected (',m)." There is, obviously, no trace of Septuagintal terminology.
Mt 10:35, 36
81xaactl
&v6proTtov
xctd: "ou
Ttct..po~ ctu..ou
xct1 6uyot..epct
Lk 12:53
8tct/LEpla6f}aov..otl
Ttot..~p ETt1 u!cj>
xot1 uto~
ETt1 Ttot..p1
/Lf}"7jP ETt1
6uyot..epot
)(ot1 6uya"7jp
Xot..&: ..'ij~
/L1j"po~ ctu..'ij~
eTt1 ~v
/L1j ..epot
TtEv6EP&: ETt1
,,~v VU/Ltp1jV
xct1 VO/Ltp7jV
Xot..&: nj~
TtEv6Epii~ ctu..'ij~
xot1 ex6pol
..oU tlv6pc;mou
ot otxlot)(ol
ctu..ou
&v6proTtov) u!6v D
it syr sin, cur
(= assimilation
to Lk and Mic)
xot1 vU/Ltp1j
ETt1 ..~v
TtEv6EPcX.V
MT
uto~ tl"L/LcX.~Et
Ttct..epot
6uya"'"'1lP
ETtotVcta-.f}aE..otl
ETt1 ,,~v
/L 7j..epot otunj~
otunj~
VO/Ltp1j
ETtl ,,~v
Tte:v6e:piXv
EX6po1
tlv8po~
o! &v8pe:~
otunj~
o! EV
79
m:p~7tttTOuaLV
Ae:7tpol xtt6ttp(~ov't'tt~
xttl xcucpol ocxououaLV
a.vo~)(6~aoVTtt~
bcp6ttA(J.ol TUCPAWV
T6Te: &Ae:1:'t'tt~ 00<;
~AttCPOt; /) )( w),6t;
xttl oo't'tt xCUCPWV
a.xouaov't'tt~
~
~
1
~
I
III
II
)
~
mnpEln
tI"'!07 'l'!07
l"." lK
nOEl "'K~
tI'lV,n 'lTK'
mnnEln
Is 61:1 LXX
MT
e:Uttyye:A(atta6tt~
e:Uttyye:A(~OV't'tt~
7tTCU)(O!t; .. xttl
't'UCPAO 1:t; a.VOC(jAe:IjJLV
'lVl"
... tI"]!07
tI"'OK'"
mp npEl
80
to regard the omission as a Tatianic shortening of the text, occasioned by the supposed difficulty that "preaching to the poor" is
an ticlimactic after "raising the dead." The transposition of the
clauses in 0 f13 syrcur shows that this really was felt to be a difficulty.l In 't'UCPAot cXVcx.~A'ltOUO'LV dependence on the LXX is close,
since the Hebrew probably means liberation of those who are bound
in prison.
In the remaining clauses corresponding to Is 35 the highly figurative speech is made more prosaic, though dependence on the LXX
is again seen in cXKOUELV for nl1). Jesus adds references to his cleansing the lepers and raising the dead to show that his ministry
surpasses the prophetic expectation. In Mt 8 and 9 the giving of
sight to the blind (9: 27ff.) follows the healing of the paralytics
(8:5 ff.; 9:2 ff.). Yet in summarizing his ministry Jesus inverts the
order and modifies 'ltcx.pcx.AU't'LKOC; to mean X,WAOC; and the sense of
KWCPOC; as "dUJr.b" into the sense "deaf" to conform to the OT text. 2
This NT passage is paralleled in Mandaean literature. s R.
Reitzenstein attempted to make the gospels, or rather Q, dependent
on the Mandaean texts.' The Mandaean passages seem to be later,
however, and dependent on NT tradition. s The OT lies much closer
at hand.
Mt II: 19; Lk 7: 34: tllou &v6pwTtoC; cpciyoC; xld otVOTt6T'l')C;
Dt 21: 20 LXX: aU(l.~oAOXOTt&V OtVOCPAUye:i: ("reveller in drunkenness")
"'T
MT: N:lO'
("spendthrift and drunkard")
Old Pal Targ: '~n:l "1111" il'W:l:l '~N ("an eater in flesh [= glutton] and
drinker in wine [= drunkard]")
Targ Jon: N'~n:l "Nl1W' N'W:l:ll'l'l ("glutton in flesh and drinker in wine")
Targ Onk: '~n ":10' 'O:l '"'T ("spendthrift in flesh [= glutton; cf. Prov
23: 20] and drinker of wine")
See Friedrich, TWNT, II, 715; Percy, op. cit., 189; Schniewind, op. cit.,
136.
B
170.
II, I, 136, p. 48, 1. 7ff.; idem. Das Johannesbuch der Mandlier (Giessen, 1915).
II, p. 243. 1. IOff., 25ff.
4 ZNW, 26 (1927), 55ff.; R. Reitzenstein and H. H. Schaeder, Studien
zum Antiken Synkretismus (Leipzig. 1926), 333ff.
6 H. Schlier, Theologische Rundschau, 5 (1933). 32f.; W. Brandt, in Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh, 1915), VIII, 380;
C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), 126f.
8I
Is 14:13,15 LXX
e:tlO 't"ov oupa.vov
cX.va.~~O'o(J.a.t, .
&10 ~/lou
)(IX't"IX~~O'n
)(a.'t"a.~~0'71
MT
C'~lI1il
.. il'PN
"NII1 ,n
"'il
The NT readings adopted above have the best support from the
MSS, answer to a Semitic background, and correspond to the OT
text. The sense is not that Capernaum has been exalted to heaven
(whether in pride or by virtue of Jesus' ministry), but that lest she
be exalted to heaven she will "go down to Hades." 1 So also in Is I4
Babylon is plunged to Sheol to thwart her prideful intentions. In
eCilC; with the genitive Mt and Lk do not follow the LXX's etc; with
the accusative and genitive. Similarly u~Cil6~crll' which may reflect
c''1~ ("exalt") in another clause and for which the LXX has a
colorless 6'~crCil, is foreign to the LXX. On the other hand, Xot't'ot~~crn
agrees with the LXX against the MT (hophal: "be brought down").
The variant reading Xot't'ot~L~otcr6~crll must be considered an assimilation to U~Cil6~crll' 2
Mt 12: 42; Lk II: 3 I: 't"l)V O'orpLa.v :EoAO(J.OOVO~
I Kings 10:4 LXX: 'ltiiO'IXV ('t"l)v) rpp6V'1jO'tv :Ea.A(s)(J.WV
6 LXX: 'lte:pl 't"'ij~ rppov~O'e:w~ O'ou
8 LXX: 'ltiiO'a.v 't"ljv rpp6v'I)0'v O'ou
4 MT: i1~'111 n~~n .,~
6 MT: ,n~~n'lI
8 MT: ,n~~n nN
Josephus, A nt. VIII. vi. 4: 't"l)V O'otpLa.v 't"ou :EoM(J.(s)volO
1 On the Semitic negative parataxis, see Wellhausen, Mt, 57; followed by
E. Klostermann, j'VIt, 101; Percy, op. cit., II2f.
B McNeile, Mt, 161.
Lk 9:29
Ex 34:29LXX
8e:86~cx(J","cx~
~ iltjl~~
","0 np6(Joonov
cxu","ou
WI; b
~A~OI;
","0 e:!80~
","ou np0(J6Jnou
(.(u","ou
&npov
","ou Xp6J!-,-cx","o~
","ou np0(J6Jnou
cxu..ou
MT
1'1'
Sifre Num.
140
,,~
"lD
1'1111~
'lD
l'1~n 'lD~
returns of Moses and the Holy Family, the Red Sea and Jesus'
baptism, the wilderness and the temptation, the law-givers on the
mount, the ten plagues and the ten miracles, the twelve tribes and
the choice of twelve disciples, the manna and the feeding of the
multitudes, the dying Moses on Mt. Nebo and the risen Christ on a
mountain in Galilee. l
Mt's phraseology stands closer to the OT text than Lk's. The
Hebrew l'P ("to send forth horns, [Le.] beams of light") cannot be
literally rendered into Greek. However, the active voice and the
meaning of ~AotfLl\Jev in Mt are much nearer the Hebrew than 8e861;,otO''rotL in the LXX. Mt's added comparison to the brightness of the
sun shows contact with rabbinic tradition ("the face of Moses as
the face of the sun"). 2
Mt 17: 17; Lk 9: 41: iJi YEVErt maTOt; xa.l 8IEa..pa.!J.!J.tv'rJ
Mt, Lk] trps maToe; and 81EaTp. syrS1n, cur
Lk x. 81EaTp.] om a e Mcion Tat (venetus)
Mk 9: 19 omits x. 81EaTp., except p46 W h3 pc.
Dt 32: 5 LXX: YEvd al(OAlrt xa.l 8IEaTpa.!J.!J.tV'rJ (= Phil 2: 15)
MT: 1;I1'I1;I1'ID' WP17 .",
Dt 32: 20 LXX: 15'\'1 YEvd e~EaTpa.!J.!J.tV'rJ eaTLv, uLol OLe; OUI( &aTlV n;LaTIe; EV a.u..orc;
MT: O:ll~N N? O'l:l i1~i1 n::lEli1n .", '::1
85
Lk 14:lIj 18:14
lia'n~
7tii~
8i:
utjl6Jae;L ~otUTbv
Tot7te;Lvoo6ljae;...otL
xotl /SaTL~
Tot7te:LV6Jae:L
~otUTI>V
utjloo6ljae:TotL
6 utjlwv totUTOV
MT
l'I'!:IlIJl'I
1"1:lln
Tot7te:Lvoo6~ae;TotL
xotl
... 1>
utjlooaot~
Tot7te:LV6v
~
l'I:lll'l1
'~ElIIJ1"1
86
Lk 11:50,51
7tiiv cxtfLcx
3Lxcxtov
l:xxuvv6fLevov
l:7tt TIj~ y'ij~
1:0 cxtfLcx
7tliv1:ooV 1:Clv
7tpocpl)1:Clv
1:0 l:xxexufLtvov
MT
C'::>ElWi1
i1:1'P:1
C,
C'P":S:
i!oo~
1:0U cxtfLCX1:0~
ZcxxcxpLou
u!ou BcxpcxXLou
~oo~ cxtfLCX1:0~
ZcxxcxpLou
~7tOAOfLeVOU
TOV 'A~cxpLcxv
i1":JT
1:0V 1:0U 'I003cx ...
37"'i1' 1:1
l:AtBo~6Al)acxv[v. 21] l:JN ,i1?Jl,'
[l:BcxvcX1:ooaev, v. 22]
l'i1']
,:s:n:1
... l:v CXUAn
otxou xupLou
l'I1i1' l'I':J
8v l:cpoveuacxn
fLe1:CX~O 1:0U vcxou
xcxt 1:0U
BuatcxaTIlpLou
1:0U
Bcxp.] Ioiadae
Gospel of the
Nazarenes
fLe1:CX~O 1:0U
Buatcxa1:l)pLou
xcxl 1:0U otxou
I: 1
LXX
(Textkf'itische Bemef'kungen zu Mt (Giitersloh, 1900], 43). The utmost confusion exists in Jewish and early Christian literature between the Zechariahs,
both those in the OT and those outside the OT. In the Targum to Lam 2: 20
we read of "Zechariah, son of Iddo, the high priest." In Is 8: 2 there is
"Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah." But the LXX reads BcxpcxXLou, which
is based on a misunderstanding of C',17 as "martyr(s)" instead of "witness(es)" and so connected with II Chron (see Stendahl, 92). Since the LXX
reads 'A~cxpLcxv in II Chron, a double confusion already exists in the Septuagintal tradition, within the text of II Chron and between that text and
Is 8: 2. In Zech 1 : 1 the prophet is "the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo,"
but in Ezra 6: 14 he is merely "the son of Iddo" (this has led to the conjecture
that the Zechariah in II Chron had J ehoiada as a grandfather-note J ehoiada
died not until the age of 130 years, yet Zechariah's ministry followed Jehoia-
(fL't'<X~O
... ) conforms
88
Lk 17:37
57;OU Mv
'r
~o 7;'riiifLlX
87;OU
MT
'lDN!l'
waL
~K&i:
auvIXXe~aov'rIXL
'ro aiiifLlX
~K&L KlXl
ot tX&'rol
'r&ev&iii'r&e;
7;IXPIXXPijfLlX
ot tX&'roL
~~LauvIXXe~aov'rIXL
&UpLaKov'rIXL
c'??n
ClD
N':"I
89
T~V
T~V
xl(3(O)T6v
xl(3(O)T6v
T'~V
Tp. otUTiiiv
'Ev XotLpij)
xotlp6~,
2.
go
See M. Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York, 1955). 312; cf. Torrey.
Mic 5:1 MT
tin? n~:I MnN'
nmDN
n'~M? '~SI~
M"l'I~ ~D?N:I
,~~
N~~ ~?
~~e:Ae:Uae:"L
?ID'~ n'~M?
ljYOUfLE:VOr,;
IIa-rLc; 7tOlfLIXVe:i:
..bv AIX6v fLoU
.. bv 'Iaplj).
~x
LXX
XlXt au B'lj6).ee:fL
otxoc; ..ou 'Ecppa.61X
bALyoa..bc; d ..ou dVL
~v XIALa.aLv 'Iou81X
~x aou
fLOL ~~e:Ae:UaE:'<<<L
..ou dVL dc; &pXOV..1X
II:2
au 7tOLfLIXVe:i:C;
.. bv A6v fLOU
..bv 'IaplXljA
bAlyoa.. 6c;] pr fLlj LucC
La c boh syp Arab
~x aou] ~~ ou B*C
~~e:Ae:Uae:"IXL] + ljyoufLe:voC; A boh syp Eus
CyprP (ex Mt)
92
N'
N'
93
94
MT
i17:l,:I "i'
377:lWl
~~:I ~i1l
C~"'7:ln
1 Cf. Hos II: 5: "They shall not return into the land of Egypt"; see E.
Sellin, Das ZwOlfp1'ophetenbuch 3 (Leipzig, 1930), II2.
2 Cf. Ex 4: 22, 23; Acts 13: 17, 18.
S So, e.g. Marti, loco cit.; Sellin, loco cit.
, It is possible the assimilation had already taken place in the LXXV01'lage. '~l:l' (= LXX) could have arisen by a mere dittography of the
yodh written for a waw. Ziegler notes many agreements in number between
IQlsa and the LXX (jBL, 78 [1959],46-50). A further possibility is influence
from the parallel passages in Num, where wide disagreements exist: 23: 22,
singular-LXXAF, plural-MT, LXXB, OT Pesh, Targums (Old Pal, Jon,
J erus, Onk); 24: 8, singular-MT, LXX, plural-OT Pesh, Targums (Old
Pal, Jon, J erus, Onk). Mt 2: 15 was referred to N um 24: 8 by Theodore of
Herac1ea and Photius of Constantinople (see J. Reuss [ed.], MatthausKommenta1'e aus de1' g1'iechischen Ki1'che [= Texte u. Unte1'suchungen, 5. Reihe,
Bd. 6; Berlin, 1957], 6o, 272); and a scribe actually adds a note in Codex
Sinaiticus that refers the reader to Num (see McNeile, Mt, 18). Therefore, the
possibility of a traditional association of the OT passages and resultant
parallel influence is heightened. On the attempt to relate Mt to Num, esp.
by the old defenders of the LXX, see Hody, op. cit., 246. Lindars suggests
that IXu-r6" in Num 24: 8 (LXX) refers not to Jacob, but to &\lflPC1lTtOC; (=
Messiah) in verse 7, and that Mt in terpreted Hos 11 : I with this understanding
and association in mind (Lindars, 217).
x)'otLouaot
9S
illN~
Cnlil?
il'l:l ?17
'll'N ,~
x).otu6(J.6~
96
'!7
'!7
97
'll
second l'I~l:l
to prevent loss of l'I~l:l in the face of 'll~N. That is,
lest the singular "he is not" suppress the plural "her sons," the
plural was repeated to insure its preservation.1
The differences between LXXA and LXXB (U~1)A7i-'POC(l.cX.;
cX.7tOXAoc~o(l.eV1)e;-&.7toxA.oc~o(l.ev1); t7tt -rWV ULWV ocu-r~e;-t7tt -rOLe; uLoLe;
ocu-r~e; [post 7tocuO'.]; xoc(-... ; 7tocpocXA1)6ljvoc~-7totuO'ot0'6otL} and the vacillation of Cod. N between A and B suggest we are dealing with
distinct Greek textual traditions somewhat based on variants in
the Hebrew, since neither A nor B nor N agrees with the MT. Yet
it is difficult not to feel that A, B, and N stem from the same translation, because their common 6p~vou xoct xAotu6(l.ou xoct b3up(l.oU
would hardly have been arrived at by independent translators.
One is therefore compelled by the lack of pattern in the Septuagintal
variants to see pre-hexaplaric assimilation of the LXX to Hebrew
MSS which differed among themselves.
Mt is far closer to A than to B. 2 Nevertheless, he still is far distant
from A: 'Pot(l.cX. (Mt}-U~1)A7i (A); the expressions of grief; XAOCLOUO'OC
(Mt}-&.7tOXAotLO(l.eV1)e; (A); -ra -rexvot (Mt}--&7tt -rWV ULWV (A). Mt and
LXXA, therefore, represent independent renderings of the same
Hebrew text. 3
Mt 2: 23: ISmllt; n:A7)pw61j 'l"b p7)6~v SLOt 'l"OOV n:pOCP7)'I"OOIi IS'I"L
Is I I : I LXX: xcxl &vBot; ~x 'I"'ijt; p~7)t; cXvcx~ijcre'l"cxL
MT: l'I'D~ '~IU'IU~ ':lm
J dg 13: 5 LXX: IS'I"L vcx~lp Beou llcr'l"cxL
MT: 1'I~1'I~ C~l'I'N '~Tl ~~
vcx~p B) ~YLcxcr(.L~VOV VCX~LpCXOV A; VCX~LPCXOV Luc
See also Jdg 13:7; 16:17.
NCX~(i)p(i:ot;
xA7)Bijcre'l"CXL
98
'u
1 Cf. H. A. W. Meyer, op. cit., I, 98, who cites Riggenbach, Stud. u. Krit.
(1885), 606f.; P. Benoit, RB, 66 (1959), 440f.; G. H. Box, The Virgin Birth
of Jesus (London, 1916), 31; Lindars, 195
a Doubtful is the syntax which would yield, "It is too light a thing that
thou shouldst be my Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and (shouldst be)
the N azarean to restore Israel."
a Also against N. Walker, NTS, 9 (1963), 392f.
, ZNW, 49 (1958), 135f.
& Adv. Marc. iv. 8.
8 MPG XXII, 548f.
7 H. Smith, JTS, 28 (1927), 60.
8 See, e.g., Loisy, op. cit., I, 376; C. Guignebert, Jesus (Paris, 1947), 88f.;
S. Lyonnet, Biblica, 25 (1944), 196-206, who traces jerome's shift to this
view; J. S. Kennard, Jr., JBL, 65 (1946), 132f. Cf. the calling of Samuel
a Nazirite in 4QSam (F. M. Cross, Jr., BASOR, 132 [1953], 18).
99
100
'''3
101
102
103
I05
Mt 4:15,16
1,?:n n:!t'N
'':il'lDl n:S:'N'
":1::m 1"nNTI1
c'n 1"
1,,'n ,:1:17
C',lTI ?'?l
y'ij ZIX~OUAOOV
l(lXl y'ij N f;cp6IXA(L
b8bv 61XAGG"Il~
~&PIXV TOU 'Iop8~vou
AlXb~
XIX6~(Lf;VO~
tV GXOTL<l'
cpw~ d8e:v (LeylX
xlXl TO;:~ l(1X6"1l(Levo~ tV
XWP<l' x. Gl(I~ 6IXV~TOU
cpw~ civ&Tf;IAe:v IXUTO;:~
TOr~ xIX6"1l(Levol~]
ot
C'::I?nn c:I7n
11Un:1
?"l "N 'N'
'f"N:1 ':1IU'
m~?:!t
-01
D it syr sah
XlXt] om D (= assimilation
to LXXBN*)
XWPIX ZIX(30UAWV
y'ij Ne:cp6IXAt(L
b8bv 61XAGG"Il~
)(!Xl ot Aomol ot T~V
~IXPIXAtCXV XCXTOIXOUV't"F;~
Acxb~
~ope:u6(.LF;vo~
tV Gx6't"F;1
t8f;'t"F; cpw~ (Leycx
01 XCXTOLXOi3VTf;~ tV XWP<l'
xlXl Gl(I~ 6CXV~TOU
cpw~ A(LIjlf;L ecp' 6(LCi~
rCXALAcxtcx~
Luc
Where the LXX prefers the synonyms x.wp~ and y~ for the same
Hebrew word (n:!t'N), Mt more literally renders twice with y~. Yet
contact with the LXX is seen in the final mu of Necp6~A((J.. The LXX
has vaguely understood 1"nNn ("at the last") as from "InN ("to be
after, stay behind") and so renders by ot AOL7tOL, perhaps reading
c',nN. Thereby the LXX-translator is left in the embarrassing
position of being unable to render ":1::1n, which he omits. Mt leaves
out this whole phrase as irrelevant to his purpose. He wishes to
string together all the geographical terms in unbroken succession to
emphasize the specifically geographical fulfilment, as further shown
by the complete lack of grammatical relationship between the list
and the rest of the quotation. In the MT the geographical terms are
in accusative relationship to the preceding part of the verse, unquoted by Mt. In the LXX they are vocatives; Mt makes out of
them an absolute construction.
Though accepted by Rahlfs and Ziegler, 1 o~ov 6McX.0'0' Y)t; in
LXX AQNca appears to be an awkward insertion from the NT1
r06
107
m,
"'T.
!O8
'37), where Mt has the dative. Mt, however, is closer to the Hebrew
than is the LXX in the third person u't'oi:<; for tlTI- (LXX: ulJ.oc<;)
and in the aorist tense for the Hebrew perfect. This quotation, we
conclude, shows some contact with the LXX, but is primarily an
independent rendering of the Hebrew.
Mt 5:21; Ex 20:13; Dt 5:17 LXX: ou cpov~Uaf:l~
Ex 20:13; Dt 5:17MT: n:lt,nN'
Mt = LXX = MT.
Mt 5:27; Ex 20:14; Dt 5:18 LXX: ou (.Lolx~oa~l~
Ex 20:14; Dt 5:18 MT: ~Nln N'
Mt = LXX = MT.
Mt 5: 31: (ae; li.v d~oMan -r7)v YUVOtLXOt Otu-rou) 86-rw Otu-r7j d~oad.alov
Dt 24: 1 (3) LXX: YPtXljI~1 Otu-r7j (31(3ALov d~oa-rOtaLou XOt1 800al:I ~!e; -rOte;
X~LPOt~
Otu-rijc;
Mt 5:33
oux
~mopxiJa~lC;
Ps 50 (49): 14 LXX
ci~0800aEIe;
8e
XOt1 d~680e;
-rij) uljlLa-r1j>
-rOte; ~UxtX~ aou
-rij) xupLIj>
-roue; ISpxoue; aou
Cf. Num 30:3; Dt 23:22-24.
MT
'37~Wn N"
~~w~
'j:'W'
MT
tI,W,
"~'37'
'~"l
A & G,
S.v.
ISpxoe;.
Is 53:4 MT
'l~"n l::lN
N'i1
NIDl
LXX
oi'hoe;
'rcXe; OtIJ.CXpT(CXC; ijlJ.wv
rp~PE:L
Mt's one contact with the LXX is the omission of l::lN. A?J'r6e; is
closer to N'i1 than oU'roe; (LXX). Toce; oca6evelXe; ~(J.C>v literally renders
'l~"n against the spiritualizing interpretations of the LXX and the
Targum. Needless difficulty has been caused by the supposition
that the Matthaean context requires ~A.IX~ev and i~cXa'rlXaev to be
taken in the sense of removal, which "!l0, it is said, cannot bear.2
See Anger, I, 14; H. Alford, The Greek TestamentO (London, 1868), I, 52.
Deissmann thinks Mt transposes the verbs, since f3cxaTci~ELv renders NIDl
in II Kings 18: 14; Job 21:3 (A) LXX; and in the four extant passages where
Aquila uses the word, Is 40: II; 53:II; 66:12; Jer 10:5 (Bible Studies, 102f.).
But Acx!-'-f3civELV is frequent for NIDl in the LXX, especially in Is; and in Is 53: I I
Aq's f3cxa'rci~ELV stands for "!lO, not NID11 As Deissmann admits, he still has
not gotten over the difficulty that "!lb does not mean "to take away."
In similar fashion E. Massebieau thinks Mt transposes 'l~"n and 'l~!lN::l~
(Examen des citations de Z'Ancien Testament dans t'cvangile seton saint Matthieu
[Paris, 1885], 19). This also is unnecessary, especially since the connotation
of weakness in both cia6Evdcx and ~"n suits the words to each other.
1
IIO
Mt 12:18-21
tSou 0 mx'Lt;; !Lou
Bv llpE:'nacx
oycx1t7JT6t;; !Lou
Is 42:1-4 LXX
'Icxxw(3 0 71:cx'Lt;; !Lou
VTIAlj!LIji0!LCXI cx1hou
'Iapcx~A
0 XAEXT6t;;
MT
Targ
'"r:l17 1il
,:1 1~nN
',,'n:l
Hag 2:23
Theod
',,'n:l Is 41:8
o XAEXT6t;;
!Lou
!Lou
71:pOCSESE:~CXTO
Ilv EuS6xlJCSEV
Ij ljiuxlj !Lou
6ljcsCil
TO 71:V&:U!LcX !LOU
71:' CXUT6v
!SCilXCX
TO 71:ve:U!L !LOU
71:' CXUT6v
xcx1 Xp(CSIV
xp(alv
TO'Lt;; !6v&:cslv
d71:cxyye:ML
oux I;p(ae:1
ouS~ xpcxuYcXae:1
ouS~ cixooa&:~ TIt;;
l:v TCX'Lt;; 71:Acxn(cxlt;;
Toit;; e6v&:alV
CXUTOV
~o(a&:1
ou xe:XpcX~e:TCXI
ouS~ vlja&:1
ouS~ cixoucs6ljae:Tcxl
!~Cil
~Cilt;;
ou CS(3E:CS&:1
&v I;x(3cXAn
e:tt;; VLXOt;;
ou cs(3E:a&:~
eCilt;; &v 6li
71:1 T'ij~ yij~
T-IjV xp (CSIV
xcx1 Tijl bv6!LCXTI
CXUTOU
!6vlJ
A1tI0UCSIV
Xp(CSIV
x0:1 71:1 Tijl
'
CXUTOU
!6v7)
A1tI0UCSIV
l'1n:l&.,
'WDl
'nm
'm.,
",17
Aq
l'nK Is 44:2
'!l1"r'P m., /) -I)YCX71:lJ!LE:VOt;; tSou 0 SOUAOt;; !LOU
'm'17
l'''W' VTIAljIjiO!LCXI V
"DIlI~
'l'"r
C"l'
K':l&"
P17:l&' N'
Kill' K"
17'~IlI' K"
ym:l
l'~~l7'
,';I,p
y'!" l'1lP
":lIlI' N'
l'1l'1::ll'1nlDD'
... l'1l:l::l' N';I
C'lD' "r17
y'K:I
"DIlI~
bv6!LCXT~
,.,~,~
,n"n"
C"K
,';In"
~DlD~] ~DIlI~'
lQIs" boh
,n"n';l,]
,'n"n';l lQIsa
CXUTijl. . .e:U86XlJcs&:v
Sym
tSou /) SOUAOt;; !LOU
civ6E~0!Lcxl CXUTOU
/) XAe:XT6t;; !LOU
Bv e:US6xlJa&:v
-Ij ljiuxlj !LOU
"1'
m:l&' N'
',::l' N"
C,." N"
N.,:I:I
l'1'';Ip
K'lml17
17'17, 'lp::l"r
Theod
xcx1 aTI71:71:00V d!LCXUp6v ou cs(3e:a&:1
'::In'K'
K'::l'llIm
'~17 l':l&':I::l"r
Aq
xcx1 A(VOV !LCXUpov
ou a(3E:ae:1
~'n::l'
Sym
ouS~
AVOV ci!LcxupoV
cs(3E:CS&:1
III
Although it is true that ,~c does not express the thought of taking
away, nevertheless its connotation of burden-bearing is not opposed
to the thought of removal. Even more to the point, the Matthaean
context requires removal only from the sick to Jesus, but not a subsequent taking away. With this thought of transference the Hebrew
words are perfectly in accord. Mt, then, presents a rendering of the
Hebrew almost wholly independent from the LXX.1
Mt 9 :13; 12:7; Hos 6:6 LXXAQOr Ziegler Rahlfs: lAE:Ot; 6eAw xcxt ou 6uatcxv
Hos 6:6 LXXBQcLuc Law boh eth arm Th Tert Cypr Ir1at Or1at Aug: k'AE:ot;
6EAW 'Jl) 6uatcxv
MT: n:1T N" 'n:!l:Dn ,cn
Targ: n~"~ '~'P N"17' N'C'n ":l17~
"H should be preferred as the original reading of the LXX, because it disagrees with the MT and because it agrees with the Targ'um. 2 Although it is possible Xott ou in LXXAQOr is a pre-Christian
assimilation to the MT, the probability is that the reading is hexaplaric (for if Xott ou were original and better attested, it is difficult
to see why Or1at should support ~ while Or supports Xott ou) and is
influenced by the NT. If so, Mt independently renders the Hebrew.
Mt 12 :18-21, etc.
Mt follows the LXX in having 1tot'Lc; rather than 80UAOC;,3 but he
rejects 'Iotxw~ and 'IO'pot~A, for which the Hebrew has no equivalent
and which one may even conjecture were not in the original text of
the LXX, but were inserted by advocates of the collective inter1 K. F. Euler argues that Mt has utilized an older Septuagintal text which
contained the interpretation that the Servant relieves mankind of physical
sufferings, this interpretation ousted by the Christian view that Jesus'
passion fulfils Is 53. Euler notes that iXp.cxpdcx no where else in the LXX renders
',n, and TtE:pl -Ijp.i1iv b8uvcX't'CXL for C.,~C 'Il':lN~~' is curious (Die Verkundigung
vom leidenden Gottesknecht aus J es 53 in der griechischen Bibel [Stuttgart,
1934], 59-63; Stendahl [pp. 106f.] cites H. S. Nyberg as following this view
[Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok, 7 (1942), 13]). But the LXX Is-translatorfrequently
indulges in exceptional renderings; and here he may have been influenced
by verses 5 and 6, where sins are explicitly mentioned (Seeligmann, op. cit.,
29). As Stendahl points out, the spiritualizing interpretation in the Targum
makes quite unnecessary the conjecture that the spiritualizing interpretation
in the LXX is a product of later, Christian correction (loc. cit.).
I The following prefer ij: W. Staerk, ZWT, 40 (1897). 257; Zahn, Einl.,
II, 316; Hanel, op. cit., II7. T. W. Manson speaks favorably of it (BJRL, 34
[1951/52], 321). Whether original or not, ij is due to parallelism with the next
clause (l~-ij).
8 On the waning use of TtCXLt; and the increasing employment of 80UAOt;,
see P. Katz, TZ, 5 (1949), 17
II2
lI3
"'p
,:1
lI5
Hab I: 4, where the use of N:!t' and "DIU~, both words twice, made
easy the connection with Is 42.1 Since n:!tl in Aramaic means
"victory," the rendering by VLXO<; may be an Aramaism. However,
n:!tl may mean "victory" already in the Hebrew text of Hab, since
the context speaks of justice unaccomplished. Although in Hab I: 4
the LXX has e<; "t'E:AO<;, the common rendering of mu~ is d<; VLXO<;;
and this occurs as the rendering elsewhere in the LXX 2 and regularly in Aquila. 3 Thus, Mt's translation is not unique. It should
be noted, moreover, that Mt substitutes his rendering of n:!tl~ as a
kind of compensation for n~N~ in the omitted portion of Is 42 : 3
and in place of Y'N:l in Is 42: 4. 4
Mt's bv6!-,-cx"t'L agrees with the LXX 5 against 'n"n~' (MT). But
the simple dative (with EA7t(~eLv = a classical Greek construction) 6
demonstrates independence from the LXX (E7tL with the dative).
This fact lends support to the possibility that since all the early
recensions of the LXX and the early Latin versions agree in 't'i;l
bv6!-,-cx"t'L cxu't'ou ~6v'lj EA7tLOUaLV, we are dealing with lost variants in the
Hebrew text; for it is strange we do not meet assimilation to the
MT earlier than Aq, Sym, and Theod. 7 Furthermore, it is almost
inconceivable that a reference to the Torah would have been displaced; but it seems very possible that the dominant Jewish concept
of Messiah's expounding the Torah in his kingdom 8 would provide
impetus for the reading of the MT. The plural form "n"n~ in IQIsS.
may also hint at the variant nature of the word. Similarly, ~6v'Y)
in Mt and the LXX presupposes C'N'l (or C"'l or C"l) instead of
Note that the connection cannot rest on the LXX, which has in Hab
and )(PlJ.cx, and that it is even easier with the variant
N:!t,n, in DST iv. 25 (= M.G. ii. 46), to which Rabin calls attention (]TS, 6
[I955], 178f.).
2 II Sam 2:26; Amos I:rr; 8:7; Jer 3:5; Lam 5:20.
3 See A. Rahlfs, ZNW, 20 (1921), 186-189.
, This fact renders improbable the hypothesis of homoioteulon in Mt's
Hebrew text ("DIU~ .. "DIU7.)-so Bacon, Studies in Mt, 131) or Greek OT
text ()(pLlJ.cx ... )(paLV-So Hatch, loco cit., who conjectures another )(palv
in place of )(pLlJ.cx). Mt may have realized that the play on y:!t, and iliI~ in
the omitted portion would be difficult to reproduce in Greek.
S The scribal error 6v6IJ.CXTI for VOIJ.IJ> assumed by Ziegler ([ed.], Is, ad loc.)
and J. Jeremias (TWNT, V, 698) neither explains the total lack of evidence
for the supposedly primitive reading nor takes into account the further
divergence from the MT in ~eV'IJ.
8 McNeile, Mt, 173.
7 See Hatch, loco cit.; Woods, HDB, IV, 187.
8 Cf. Targum Onkelos to Gen 49: 10; Teeple, op. cit., 14ff.; W. D. Davies,
Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come (Philadelphia, 1952).
1
8u;~cXytlV, ~~EpXtaeCXI,
II6
C~~K (also in Is 41: 5 the LXX has ~aV'1) for C~~K). A softly gutteral
pronunciation of the initial K could easily lead to confusion of the
two words. 1 In the Habakkuk Commentary from Qumran there is a
deliberate play on tI~~K (the Hab text) and tI~K'l (the commentary)
(col. 3:2). It is possible, therefore, that Mt and the LXX agree
together not against, but with their Hebrew Vorlagen. Even otherwise, the mixed text-character of other quotations makes unjustifiable the view that the Septuagintal stamp of verse 21 shows it to be
from a later hand. 2
Mt 13:14, IS; Acts 28:26,27; Is 6:9,10 LXX: 1topeu8'1}'>1 x(d et1tOV '>ijl Aoc.ijl
'rou'r<jl cX.xoii cX.xouae're xoc.t ou !J.y! auv'ijn xoc.t ~M1tov'ree; ~Atl\le're xoc.t ou !J.y! t8'1}'re'
~1toc.)(uv8'1} yap ~ xoc.p8Loc. 'rou Aoc.oil 'rou'>ou xoc.t 'rore; watv oc.lhoov ~oc.peooc; jxouaoc.v xoc.l
'>ooe; bcp8oc.A!J.OOe; oc.u'roov ~xxci!J.!J.uaoc.v !J.1}no're t800alv 'rore; bcp6oc.A!J.Ore; xoc.l 'rore;
walv cX.xouaooalv xoc.t 'rii xoc.p8Lqc auvwalv xoc.l ~1tla'rpel\looalV xoc.l lciaolJ-oc.l oc.lhoue;
LXX oc.u'roov 1]om K*. oc.U'roov 2] om B 393
Acts 1tOp. x. et1tOV 'rijl Aoc.ijl'rOU'r<jl] 1tOp. 1tpOe; 'rov Aoc.OV 'rOU'rov xoc.l eLn6v
oc.U'roov 1] om
Mt IF: xoc.t cX.Voc.1tA'I}POU'roc.l oc.o'rorc; ~ 1tpocp'l}nLoc. 'Haoc.tou ~ Myouaoc.
cX.Voc.1tA'I}POU'roc.l] 'run 1tA'I}poil'roc.l fI; 'r6n 1tA'I}poo8-1jae1'oc.l ~1t' Dpcit
Mt omits 1topeu8'1}'r1 ... 'rou'r<jl, except in D it (et1tt).
oc.O'roov 1 KC4l> 33 pc it syrsin , cur, peshsah boh eth ann] om rell
Is 6:9,10 MT: :nJ,n "K' 'K' 'K" 'l~:ln "K' :!m~lU ':!J~lU ilm C:!J" m~K' 1"
,:1:1'" :!J~IV~ '~l1K:I' '~l~:!J:I ilK'~ lD :!JlVil '~l~:!J' ,:I:lil '~lTK' ilm C:!Jil :I" l~lVil
,,, KD" :l1V1 l':l~
:!J~~] ':!J~IV~ IQIsa
,:1:1"'] ,:1:1":1 lQIsa
II7
P~(lct't'ot;
uB
Ps 78 (77):2 LXX
cX'IO[~61
cXvo[~61
EV 7tO(po(~OAO(rC;
TO aT6!l0( !lOU
EV 7tO(po(~OAO(rC;
TO aT6!l0( !lOU
EPEU~O!lo(l
cpeeY~!lo(l
XEXPU!l!lEVO(
cx7to Xo(To(~OAiic;
7tpO~)..1)!lo(To(
Xo(To(~OAiic;
7tO(po(~OAO(rC;]
BNblpcek
(syrSln, cur) Or] +
x6a!lOU N*DW0 fI3 28
pIlat c;
l"In1'lDN
'lD~:l
'D
l"I:I7':lN
m,'n
c'p 'l~
cX7t' cXpxiic;
7tO(pO(~o)..'ii
MT
N* Aq
Mt follows the LXX in the first clause, even in the plural 7totpotfor the collective singular 'lD~ {as do also the OT Pesh and the
Vg) .1 The plural rendering arose through the parallelism with 1'I1,'n.
~OAotr:C;
1 Cf. Ps 49:5, where the MT, LXX, Vg, and Targ have the singular ('lD~),
but the OT Pesh the plural.
II9
'EpEo~o(J.<XL ("belch forth, utter") is an exact etymological rendering of ln7~:lN ("bubble or belch forth, utter"), though the LXX
would have been suitable. 1 rrpO~A~(J.CX't'CX ("tasks, problems"-LXX)
is not a very close rendering of n"~n ("enigmas"), for which Mt has
a loose, but closer XEXpU(J.(J.EV<X ("hidden or unknown things"). The
phrase <X.7tO X<X't'<X~OA~C; is usually completed with x60'(J.ou (Mt 25: 34
and throughout the NT, also with 7tp6), for which reason some MSS
in Mt contain x6G(J.ou. Either Mt leaves x6G(J.ou to be implied, or he
drops x6G(J.ou and uses )(<X't'CX~OA~C; of an indefinite beginning to conform with the indefinite c'p ~l~ ("from of old"-in Prov 8:23
parallel to IUN'~, "from the beginning"). The stereotyped character
of the Greek expression with x6G(J.ou favors that the omission is
intentional conformity to the Hebrew. 2
~pe:oye:OeCCL
for S7:13.
I al, According to Jerome, "In
Asaph propheta ... invenitur in omnibus veteribus codicibus" (Brev. in
Ps 77 [MPL XXVI, 1108]). Jerome thought a scribe, knowing nothing of a
prophet "Asaph," inserted "Isaiah" as a better known name. The reading
'Hocctou was also known to Eusebius (in Ps 77 [MPG XXIII, 90lff.]), who
says the "accurate" MSS omit. Porphyry used the reading 'Hocctou to ridicule
Mt's ignorance. The offensiveness of the reading, more keenly felt because
of Porphyry, is in its favor. It is also said that an "erroneous correction" is
not probable. See Zahn, Einl., II, 596; idem, Mt, 477ff. F. J. A. Hort defends
the genuineness of 'Hocc'/ou by arguing that out of five other places where the
true text simply has TOU 'It'pOCP~TOU, in two no name is inserted (Mt 2: 15;
Acts 7: 48); in two a name is inserted on trivial evidence (Mt 2: 5-"Mic"
correctly, 4 copbOh[lllIS], "Is" wrongly, a; Mt 21 :4-"Is" correctly for the
first phrase only, r a vg[3 MSS], "Zech" correctly, Mmg 42 ach COpbOh[l MS]
Hil); in Mt I: 22 "Is" is correctly inserted in Dpc it syr sin, cur; and "Is"
erroneously replaces "Jer" in Mt 27:9 211. See Westcott & Hort, The NT
in the Original Greek (Cambridge, 1881), II, 13. Since Hort wrote, we have
discovered that syrSin erroneously inserts "Is" in Mt 2: 15. It should also
be noted that Justin refers Num 24: 17 to Is (I Apol. xxxii. 12 [MPG VI,
380]-against his correct ascription in Dial. cvi. 4) and J er 9: 26 to Is (I A pol.
liii. 3, 10, I I [MPG VI, 408]). Thus, scribal misascription seems as possible
as misascription by Mt, and more probable in view of Mt's usually not
naming the prophet except when quoting Is, a custom which renders it unlikely he would make a mistake concerning a book very familiar to him and
likely that a scribe used to seeing 'Hocctou in (I :22); 3:3; 4:14; 8: 17; 12: 17;
13: 14 would insert the name here. See Blass, op. cit., 33f.; Lagrange, Mt, 271.
A. L. Williams (Adversus Judaeos [Cambridge, 1935], 9) and Hunt (op. cit.,
162f.) accept the misascription and explain by the Testimony Book hypothesis. Strack-Billerbeck cite rabbinical passages in which the words of one
prophet are given as through another prophet as well (op. cit., I, 670f.).
Mt may use 'It'pOCP~TOU because of the prophetic nature of the word itself or
because Asaph is called a prophet in II Chron 29: 30 (TOU 'It'pOCP~TOU LXXmnl'l MT) and I Chron 25: 2 (note the variant reading in some Hebrew MSS,
on which see Stendahl, 119, n. I).
1
e fI3
120
Mt 21:5
Is 62:11 LXX
EYnOl:TE Tn
6uyOl:Tp1 ~LWV
dnOl:TE T'ij
6uyOl:Tp1 ~LWV
180u
/) I'OI:O'LAEo<; O'ou
l!PXETOI:L O'OL
180u
() I'OI:O'LA&:o<; O'ou
EPXETOI:L O'OL
8LxOI:LO<; x0I:1
O'c1>~(J)v OI:oTb<;
npOI:O<;
x0I:1 &ml'EI''ljxw<;
&n1 uno~oYLoV
x0I:1 nooAov
vl:ov
npaO<;
x0I:1 &ml'EI''ljXw<;
&n1 8vov
x0I:1 &n1 nooAov
u!bv uno~uyLou
MT
]n 12: 15
"~N
fI.~ rpol'ou
MT
mil
~LWV
[80u
,';1 N':J~
EPXETOI:L
i'~'~
N'illlW'l'
~lll
:J:::l" X0I:6~fl.EVO<;
"~n ';Ill
'~ll ';Ill' &n1 nooAov
n1lnN 1:J Ilvou
121.
I2I
phrase fully, in agreement with the singular 11'lN of the Targum and
the OT Peshitta (presupposed also in Sym and Theod). 'Y7tO~uy(ou
("pack-animal," a donkey only by context) 1 is not exact for 1'I'l1'lN,
but is as good as any unused synonym at hand.
Mt 21: 16; Ps 8: 3 LXX: ~l( a't"6(J.cx't"o~ Vl)7tLwv l(cxt
Ps 8: 3 MT: T:!7 1'1'0' O'Pl" 0''''',l7 '17:)
e7)Acx~6v't"wv
l(cx't"7)p't"Law cxlvov
122
MT
Zech I I : 13 LXX
XlXt iVE~IX)"Oll IXUTOUC;
dc; TOV 0 IKOV xup [ou
e:lc; TO J(61Ve:UT'~PLOV
xoc6e:c; IXUTOUC;
dc; TO J(61VeuTijpLov
XlXt ~)"IX~Oll
~
TOUC; TPLOCXOVTIX &:pyupouC; ,
XlXt aKE~IXL
d 86XL(L6v ~(J'nv
&v Tp6nov ~8oXL(Loca67Jv
unep IXUTWV
XlXt eInev
xup LOC; np6c; (Le:
T~
mN ,"WN'
ini1' n'::l
,:It,'i1 'N
II
,:It,'i1 'N
'i1~"Wi1
IV
III
i1npN'
I'JO~i1 C'W'W
"iN
'P'i1
'n,p' "WN
Ci1"~~
'~N"
"N ini1'
123
the money into the ':lC'N, so let us give it to the ,:lC,\" But whether
or not Mt himself knew of another reading, he cannot have intended
Et<; 't'OIi )(op~Otlliill to have fulfilled a reading ':lC'N in Zech; for his
narrative expressly states that it was not permissible to put the
money Et<; 't'ov )(op~Otviiv, and Judas had merely thrown the money d<;
't'ov vOtov. 1 Similarly, the attempt by Torrey and Eissfeldt to establish ,:It,, both in Zech and in II Kings 12:5-17; 22:3-6 as an official
"founder" to melt down and cast metals offered in the Temple
falls short. 2 In II Kings there is no thought of melting and casting
offerings. The offerings in coins are merely counted and paid to the
repairmen. In Zech the LXX's XWVEU't"~pLOv ("furnace") does not, as
Torrey thinks, rest on an understanding of ,:It,, as "founder," but
upon an interpretation in which the money is tested to determine
whether it is genu,ine. Aquila's 7tAIX(j't"'Y)<; is a literal rendering which
may mean "potter," (cf. Ro 9: 20,21) 8 as well as "founder." N':l'~N
in the Targum is a: general term for "official," and thus supports
neither "founder" nor "treasury." For "treasury" the Hebrew and
the Targum regularly have ':It'N, and for "treasurer" ,:lTl.
':It'N in the Peshitta of Zech II: 13 and I MS Ken may be a mere
mistake due to the similarity of the words in sight and sound, or an
interpretative attempt, as in the LXX and the Targum. If ':lC'N be
original, the change to ':It,, is difficult to explain.' Neither "founder"
nor "treasury" fits the symbolic action required by the context in
Zech. The paltry sum must be repudiated, not brought as an
offering. And since the prophet impersonates Yahweh, bringing the
money as an offering is tantamount to Yahweh's giving it to himself- but he does not want it! 5
1 The argument stands whether the latter phrase means Judas entered
the sanctuary in reckless abandon, or threw the money into the sanctuary
from just outside, or threw it down 1:11 -r4> t&p4>. Whatever the precise signification of 1I0(6~, the implication is that Judas had not put the money d~ -rOil
)(op~o(lIiill. There is a faint possibility, but too faint for serious consideration in
view of prevalent usage, that 1I0(6~ means "treasury," as at Delphi. See L.
Dyer, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 25 (1905), 3I1f.; E. Power, Biblica, 9
(1928), 263.
2 C. C. Torrey, JBL, 55 (1936), 247-260; O. Eissfeldt, Ras Sckamra u.
Sanchunjaton (Halle, 1939), 42-46; F. F. Bruce, BJRL, 43 (1961 ), 341.
a So sometimes in classical Greek. See L & S, S.v.
4 Allen suggests ,:lC,' was substituted because the paltry sum was considered not good enough for the sacred treasury (Mt, 288). One wonders whether
the irony of the passage would have been missed so entirely.
6 Cf. J. Chr. K. Hofmann, Weissagung u. ErfuUung (Nordlingen, 1841-44),
I, 325f.; Lange, op. cit., 506.
124
I25
prophesies that because Judah and Jerusalem have shed "the blood
of innocents (C'pl c'1-ocl(J.&''t"wv &O<i>wv)" Topheth will become a
burial place for their inhabitants from thenceforth called "The
Valley of Slaughter," Mt sees parallels between the guilt of Judah
and Jerusalem in shedding innocent blood and that of Judas
(~(J.ocp't"ov 1tocpoc8ouc; oct(J.oc &O<jlov, Mt 27 : 4), between the two occurrences
of ,~" in Jer I9:I, I I (probably the symbolism of a potter's vessel
was chosen because the Valley of Hinnom, "which is by the entry
of the Gate of Potsherds" [v. 2], was a source of clay for potters)
and the circumstance that the chief priests bought the field of a
potter, between the prominence of "the elders" and "the (chief)
priests" in both passages, between the burial of the Judaeans in the
Valley of Hinnom and the burial of Judas in the potter's field
(which Mt may have known was located in the Valley of Hinnom,
if the field was an exhausted source of clay for the former ownerthe traditional site is in Hinnom), and between the names "The
Valley of Slaughter" and "The Field of Blood" (note the similarity
of expression: "wherefore this place shall be called... " [Jer I9: 6J ;
"wherefore that field was called... " [Mt 27: 8J). Thereby the end
of Judas becomes repetitive of the judgment on Judah and prophetically typifies the end of the Jewish nation in their rejection of
Jesus Christ.
Mt, then, sees two separate prophecies, one typical and one explicit, fulfilled in one event, and makes the ascription to J er because
the manifestness of the quotation from Zech and the lack of verbal
resemblance to Jer would cause the Jer-side of the prophecies to be
lost. The naming of one author in a composite allusion is not unknown elsewhere. For example, the allusive quotation in II Chron
36:21 is verbally drawn from Lev 26:34 f., yet ascribed to "Jer"
(25: 12; 29: 10), from which the number of years, "seventy," is
drawn. 1 Also, it was a rabbinical practice to quote various persons
under one name if a similarity existed between the characters or
actions of the persons. 2 , 3
C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (Chicago, 1910), 120.
See Z. H. Chajes, The Student's Guide through the Talmud (London, 1952),
172ff.
8 Other views on the ascription to J er are as follows: (I) It is a mistake
by Mt (Stendahl, 123). (2) The textual evidence for omission is to be accepted
(A. S. Lewis, Light on the Four Gospels from the Sinai Palimpsest [London,
1913], 6Iff.). (3) "Jer" is a general reference to the prophetic section of the
OT canon, in which in ancient times Jer stood first (thus in Baba Bathra 14b,
1
"N
127
Tit 2: 14
~\hOt;
KOGl ~6'1'Ot;
awae:,
TOV A~OV ~6TOU
CX~O TWV
tvOG
AU'I'pWa'l)'I'OG'
'ijfLiit;
cX~o mxa'l')t;
&:\L~PT'WV ~U'I'(o)V
cXvofL(~t;
ycl:p
AU'I'pwae:'I'~'
TOV 'Iap~1jA
~K ~~awv TWV
eXvoIUWV ~6'1'ou
MT
N,m
l"J'El~
'N'IU~Z'lN
,;,~
1'1ml7
128
The Magi, like Balaam, come cX1tO cXVCXTOAWV. 2 The peculiar expression EV -rn cXVCXTOA7j (also v. 9) must mean "at its rising," because it
is unlikely Mt would change to the singular after using the plural
for "east" in verse 1.3 This is the only place the LXX translates
1" by cXvcxTeAAe:~v.' "Star" in the singular occurs elsewhere in the
OT only in Amos 5: 26. 6 N urn 24: 17 is Messianically interpreted in
1 Kilpatrick supposes the IF to I: 23 originally "belonged to I: 21, since
the latter is non-Septuagintal and the former Septuagintal (Origins, 57, 93).
This is unjustifiable because of the heterogeneous textual chaIacter of the
formula-citations as a group, because of the non-Septuagintal character of
many allusive quotations, because yp in I: 21 makes superfluous an IF,
and because I: 23 is then left hanging in the air. See also Lindars, 214.
a The reading "from the east" in v. 2 Spin may derive from Num 23: 7.
3 See A & G,
s.v. VCX't'OA~, and the literature cited. The objection that
"at its rising" would require an cxlhou (Alford, op. cit., I, 12) does not reckon
with the possibility the definite article weakly fulfils the same function.
Au't'ou may have fallen out through frequent use of the expression. A. S.
Lewis would construe the phrase with "we" (-OIL!v), but this is unnatural
(ET, 19 [1907/08], 138).
4 A fact noted by Stendahl, 136. On the Messianic coloring &'VCX't'AAELV
gained, see H. Schlier, TWNT, I, 354f.
6 See E. A. Abbott, The Expositor, 22, 8th Series (1916), 404f.
12 9
the LXX (&v6pcu1to<; for ~:I!U, "sceptre"!), the Targums (Jon and
Onk), the Testament of Judah 24, Qumran literature,l and patristic
literature. s The aT and NT passages both deal with the king of
Israel (cf. Num 24:7). We must therefore say that Mt's play on
<XVClt't'o).,~ is a conscious allusion to Num 23 and 24, based on the
LXX.s
Mt
2:II
XlXl nea6v-rel;
npoaexQv"IalXv IXUTiil
Ps 72 (71):IO,
Is 60:6 LXX
. npoa~ve'YxlXv
IXUTiil 3iiipIX
xpuaov
XIX! AL(3IXVOV
II
LXX
(3lXaIAe'i:l; . 3iiipIX
npoaoLaoualv, (3IXO'IAeLl;
. . 3iiipIX npoO'tX;ouO'w
xlXl
npoO'xuv~aouO'w IXlhiil
ntXvt'el; 01 (3IXO'IAe'i:1;
MT
ilMl~ ... '::l'~
'P~pov-rel;
XpuO'Lov
xlXl AL(3IXVOV
otO'OUO'LII
XIX! alLopvlXv
I3 0
Ex 2:15 LXX
cI>IXPIXW
XIX1 ~~l)nL
Tb nlXLBtov
TOU cinoMolXL IXUT6
XlXl a.vE:xwP"llaE:v
a.VE:AE:LV MCJ)ua~v .
'AvE:)(wP"IlOE: Be ..
MT
.. il:s7'D
V1j:':l"
illD~ nN l'il?
n':l"
Ex 4:19,20 MT
XlXl nopE:uou
1?
:lID
C"~~
'n~
':I
C'1D1Nil ?:I
!:I"VIP:lDil
1IDD1nN
illD~
np"
,nIDN nN
... "1:l nN'
:lID"
!:I"~~ il~'N
LXX
~eiBL~E:
&nE:A6E:
It; A!yunTov
TE:6vl)xlXaLv yeip
neivTE:t;
ol ~"IlTOUVT&t;
GOU T~V ojIuXl)V
&.vIXM~CJ)V Be MCJ)ua'iit;
~v YUVIXLXIX xIX1
Tei nIXLBIX ...
xIX1 ~neaTpE:ojIE:V
It; A!yunTov
131
ljJux~v
must reflect Ex.l So also does the fact that "land of Israel"
occurs only here in the NT, answering to C"~~ i1~nt. The LXX is
reflected in the omission of C'lDlNi1. But in the choice of 7topeoecr6<XL,
7t<xp<x:A<X(L~&.veLV, and etcrepxecr6<XL Mt translates independently from
the LXX, which would have been suitable. "A7te:A6e and E7tecr't'peljJev
would have provided even better shades of meaning than the words
Mt chooses. However, Mt is closer to the Hebrew in rendering "P"
by a finite verb rather than by a participle and in retaining i1~'N,
omitted by the LXX.
Mt 3:4
Mk 1:6
II Kings 1 : 8 LXX
ct6't"b~ 3E:
/) 'IwcXvv7J~ etx,ev
't"b !v3UfLct ct6't"ou
a.7tb 't"PLX,(;iv
xctfL7))..oU
xctl ~WV7JV
8epfLa't"tv7Jv
7tepl 't"1)V
ba~uv a6't"ou
xctl ijv
() 'IwcXvv7J~
a.v-IJp
Ev8e8ufLEvo~
't"ptX,ct~
3ctau~
XctfL7))"OU
xal ~WV7Jv
3epfLa't"tV7Jv
7tepl 't"-I]v
bacpuv ct6't"ou
xctl ~wv7JV
8ePfLa't"tv7JV
7tepLe~WafLevo~
ba~uv ct6't"ou
't"-I]v
MT
ID'N
'~::I
'~ID
"TN'
,,~
"TN
"ln~::I
't"ptx,a<;] 8eppIV Da
xal ~wV7JV ct'hou] om D it
~eppLV is usually explained as a corruption from Zech 13: 4,
where deceivers are said to pose as prophets by donning 8eppLv
't'PLX(VllV. 2 However, the obscurity of the passage in Zech and the
impropriety and the unlikelihood of a comparison between the
practice of lying prophets and the dress of John the Baptist render
this explanation doubtful. Nor is the omission in the Western text
then accounted for. The inter-synoptic harmonistic element rife
elsewhere in Cod. D 3 and the usually greater fulness of the Western
text' make more valuable the shorter reading here, which disagrees with Mt. Therefore, prefer as a Western non-interpolation 6
1 The plural has otherwise been explained as a plural of category, a plural
of majesty, a generalizing plural to conceal the identity of Herod [!] or to
show respect for the dead [I] or to include Herod's accomplices. Besides the
commentaries, see BI-D I41; Robertson, Grammar, 392. There are notable
differences between the stories, particularly in geographical direction, as
Nepper-Christensen has pointed out (op. cit., 165f.); but this in no way
destroys the obvious borrowing of phraseology from Ex.
I So Swete, Mk, 5; Moulton & Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek
Testament (London, 1928), 142; Cranfield, Mk, 47.
S See above, p. 29, n. 4.
, Westcott & Hort, op. cit., II, 122; A. Souter, Text and Canon, II2.
6 On preferring Western omissions, see Westcott & Hort, op. cit., II,
I32
133
~Ae:'I)6~ao"'I'al
a~ae:'I'al
Except for the definite article with x<x6<xpo( and the plural, both
through conformity with the other beatitudes, Mt agrees with the
LXX and the MT in the expression "the pure of heart." "They shall
see God" adapts the thought in the psalm of going up to the hill of
Yahweh and standing in His holy place.
1 Wellhausen, Mt, 14f.; A. Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus (London, 1908),
48; M. Goguel, Introduction au NT (Paris, 1923), I, 415; Streeter, op. cit., 252;
Bultmann, Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition- (Gottingen, 1931), II5;
Benoit, Mt, 52.
- See Michaelis, Mt, I, 202f.
8 This is exactly what R. H. Charles does (ET, 28 [1916/17], 537f.).
Others adopt the order of Tat 33 etc. (e.g., Lagrange, Mt, 83). But Schniewind argues that because of their similarity, verses 4 and 5 would probably
not have been separated had they been together originally; verses 3 and 4
do belong together because both are reminiscent of Is 61:1,2 (op. cit., 41).
M. Black, on the other hand, argues that verses 3 and 5 together make a
four-line stanza, which stems from a play on Q~~l17 (7t'l'CllxoL) and Q~'l17
(npqce:i<;) (ET, 64 [1952/53], 125). Cf. the Qumran pesher to Ps 37: II, in which
Q~'l17 in the text of the psalm is interpreted by Q'l'~::IK (edited by J. M.
Allegro, PEQ [1954], 69ff.). Yet others regard verse 5 as a redactional addition
by the evangelist (Pfleiderer, op. cit., II, 319; J. Dupont, Les beatitudes
[Louvain, 1954], 89f.).
4 Against most others, I must agree with Holtzmann that 'I'~" Y'ii" retains
the limited meaning, the Promised Land, original to the psalm (op. cit., 203).
6 I owe the notice of this allusion to Toy, op. cit., 26f.
134
Mt puts eeoc; with the article for i11il'-XUPLOC; and uses the genitive.
If the genitive in LXXBQ is hexaplaric, as would seem to be so in
MT
Ps 48 (47): 3 LXX
Tj n6ALt;
't'ou ~a:aLA'Wt; 't'ou ILe:YeXAOU
MT
n',p
:1, 1'~
is 26:20 LXX
dae:A6e: e:!t;
't'eX 't'a:ILLe:LeX aou
a,n6XAe:Laov
't'~v 6upa:v aou
np6ae:u~a:L
MT
N:l
1"'":1
'lO'
1'n"
MT
N:1"
'lO"
.. n"il
"Dn',
i11il' 'N
"D.
op. cit.,
9f.
I35
The texts agree with one another. The Targum to Jer 50:6 provides the link with the closely related allusion in Mt 9: 36 through
its reference to scattering: '~37 "l'1 N":I~ lN37. It would therefore
seem that both allusions took shape in a Semitic milieu.
Mt 10: 29: Kott l.v
~~
~7t't 'r~v
u(.LOOV
~7t't 'r~v y'ijv] elt; 7t'otyL8ot Or
Am 3: 5 LXX: e:l 7t'eaer'rotL I5pveov bt ~v y'ijv &veu
~v y'ijv] 'r'ijt; y'ijt; A
MT: l'1' l'N WP'~' f'Nl'1 MEl '37 "D~ 'Elnl'1
l~eu'rou
II
:28
KcXYoo cXvot7t'otOaOO
U(.L,xt;
l'1El'37 WDl
WDl ,;"
l'1:1N'
'nN'~
Ex 33:14 LXX
MT
Kott Kot'rot7t'otoaoo
aE
MT
'n'"l'1 ';'
'nmm
"
MT:
'Iw\lii~ ~\I
\lUXTot~
Mt, the LXX, and the MT agree, if we regard xlj't'o<; ("seamonster") as a legitimate rendering in this context of
("fish").
This verse has been widely regarded as an interpolation, because
l'
1 The Gospel of Thomas, logion 90, rejects the Semitic use of ljiux1) as a
reflexive in this saying.
S See A. Fridrichsen, in Synoptische Studien, 83-85. The parallels most
frequently drawn are Sir. 51:23ff.; 24: 19ff. and the Hermetic tractate
Poimandres. Fridrichsen adds Epictetus, Diss. iv. 8. 28. It may be that Jesus
impersonates the Divine Wisdom. See further E. Norden, op. cit., 277-308;
D. Volter, Die Grund/rage des Lebens J esu (Stuttgart, 1936), 167ff.; T.
Arvedson, Das Mysterium Christi (Uppsala, 1937).
8 Schniewind, op. cit., 144f.; L. Cerfaux, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses,31 (1955), 331-342; Percy, op. cit., 109.
4 A. Meyer, op. cit., 83f.: IJ';!J (a.\lotTt'otU&L\I )-n~~ (Tt'p&u~)-NIj~3 (a.\I&.Tt'otUaLt;).
137
139
M t 18: 16: tVct ~7tl a't'6ILct't'0~ 860 ILctP't'upoov of) 't'p~(;iv a-rct6'ii 7ta.v ~'ijILct
ILctP't'upoov] om Dd; trps with 860 LI24pc; post 't'p~(;iv Ne I 700 pc
Dt 19: 15 LXXB: ~7tl a't'6ILct't'0~ 860 ILctPTUPOOV Kctl ~7tl aT6ILct't'0~ Tp~(;iV ILctPTUPOOV
a't'~act~ 7ta.v P'ijILct
ILctpTUPOOV 1] om Luc (75) arm CyrH
Kctl ~7tl a't'6ILctTo~] f) Luc (75bw)
ILctP't'upoov 2] om bw
a~a&'t'ct~] aTct6~a&'t'ct~ AFMNe Luc
MT: '!l' C'p' C"37 illU?w'D '37'N C"37 'llU 'D '37
'D '37 2] om 3 MSS Ken, 3 MSS De-R, vg, both arabic texts of Saadia,
Targ Jon
II Cor 13: I: ~7tl a't'6ILa:'t'0~ 860 ILctPTUpOOV Ka:l 't'p~(;iv a't'ct6~a&Tctl 7ta.v P'ijILa:
Kctt] 'Il N (it)
I Tim 5: 19: ~l(TO~ &! IL~ ~7tl 860 f) 't'p~(;iv ILctP't'upoov
When allowance is made for ~VIX with the subjunctive, Mt's text 1
agrees wholly with Lagarde's discredited Lucianic text (bw). It is
doubtful that Mt utilized the Lucianic text represented by 75 in ~
and the omission of ~7tt (J't'6jJ.IX't'oc; (2), because in 75 these are necessitated by the omission of the first ILIXP't'OpWV, an omission Mt does
not share. 2 The passive form of the verb is well-attested in the
LXX. nav may represent a lost ,~ in the Hebrew. s Or insertion of
7taV may be a natural way of overcoming the awkwardness in Greek
of the Semitic idiom."
Mt has either utilized an Ur-Lucianic text of the type represented
by b w, or translated directly from a Semitic text which omitted
the second 'D '37. Mt's omission of the second "witnesses" against
all Semitic texts and the over-all agreement with II Cor 13: I
(except, possibly, for xlXq favor the former possibility. The passive
c"pn' in the Targums corresponds to Mt's (J't'1X67j; but this must not
be pressed, because (J't'1X6~(Je:'t'IXL in the Septuagintal tradition is also
passive.
Eoo~ ~~80IL'rJl(ovd.KL~ ~7tT&
~7tT&] ~7t't'&K~~ D
Gen 4: 24 LXX: ~~80IL'rJl(ov't'&l(L~ ~7tT&
Mt 18: 22:
Tp~(;iV.
B I Tim 5: 19 agrees with 75, but perhaps only because both are stylistically motivated. Cf. Ne I 700 pc in Mt.
8 See above, p. 76, n. 3, on addition and omission of ,~.
4 Torrey, Documents, 73. Cf. 7ta.v before P'ijILa: for the indefinite '!l' in Gen
18: I4 LXXLuc (15).
N'
The aT text is probably a gloss inserted to explain the exclusion of mendicants from the Temple. 3 Mt follows the LXX in taking
n~:ln as a reference to the Temple.' The allusion displays a kind of
antithetic typology. David hated the blind and the lame,6 who came
to be excluded from the Temple. The greater Son of David receives
the blind and the lame within the Temple and heals them, thus
making them fit to be there.
Mt 21: 41: OrTLVEe; dTt08<ilaouaLv I'J.UTij> TOUe; Xl'J.pTtOUe; ~\I TOLe; xcxLpoLe; I'J.UTOOV
Ps I: 3 LXX: aTbv XI'I.pTtbVI'J.UTOU 8 <ilaEL tV XI'J.LP ij> CXUTOU
MT: 'n:lln~ '~'D 'IZIN
1 See W. Vischer, Die evangelische Gemeindeoydnung Mt 16, 13-20, 28
(Zollikon-Zurich, 1946), 74.
Z Problems of NT Translation (Chicago, 1945), 29-31. See also MoultonHoward, Grammar, I, 98, II, 175; Moulton & Milligan, op. cit.,'s.v. E~80!L1J
XOVTcXXLc;; BI-D 248:2.
3 See S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the
Books of SamuelS (Oxford, 1913), 260f.; B. D. Eerdmans, The Hebrew Book
of Ps (Oudtestamentische Studien, IV; Leiden, 1947), 504. Dalman denies the
blind and the lame were thus excluded (Sacred Sites and Ways [London, 1935],
288ff.), but see Acts 3:2,8.
, For n~:I alone as a temple, see I Kings 6: 5; Is 44: 13; 66: I. In the
proverbial context n~:ln (note the article) was naturally understood as the
house of Yahweh. The Targum retains the unexpanded expression, but
spiritualizes the preceding with reference to sinners (N~~:I~~", N~~NUn).
6 In II Sam, the Jebusites are so sure of their position that they contemptuously tell David that even their blind and lame can keep David and his
men outside the walls. The point of David's answer is that even the Je-
~7\"l ~O lXu~6
D it sYI s1n , our
E7t' lXu~6v
lXu~6
The above-adopted reading in Mt has been suspected of assimilation to the OT text, especially in view of Acts 4: 26. 2 But comparison
of Mt and the Marcan parallel (12:28 ff.) shows Mt has rearranged
the wording to gain an allusion to Ps 2: 2. In Mk one of the scribes
comes, hears the discussion with the Sadducees, and asks his
question. In Mt, the Pharisees, having heard of Jesus' discussion
with the Sadducees, gather together first, and only then does one of them
ask his question. Therefore, we must regard the Western reading
as a characteristic harmonization to auv~ylXYov &7t' lXu't'6v in Mt 27: 27,
or an error due to the similarity of the phrases and the naturalness
with which &7t' lXu't'6v blends into the flow of thought.
Mt is in strict agreement with the LXX in the use of auv&ye:LV
for 'O~ (niphal: "to hold council") and &7t~ 't'o lXu't'6 ("to the same
place") for 'n~ ("together"). 3
Mt 23: 19: ~O 6UOLIXO~PLOV ~O ciYL&.~OV ~O lloopov
Ex 29: 37 LXX: mic; 6 ci7\"~6!Le:voc; ~oij 6UOLIXOTIjp(ou
MT: IZ"r~ n::n~!1 17111'1 ?:;:)
ciYLIX06l)oe:~IXL
who touches the altar.l Mt, then, is dependent upon the Hebrew
and may show contact with the Old Palestinian Targum.
Mt 24: 10: Kelt -r6-re: aXIX1I31X).La6~aOIl-rIXL 7tO).).OL
Dan I I :41 LXX om]
.:. xIX1 7t0).).1X1 aKIX1I31X).La6~aoll-rIXL 88-syh
Theod: xIX1 7t0).).01 aa6e:II~aOl)aLIi
MT: "!Z)~' n':1"
Is 58:7 LXX
~7te:lIlXalX y.xp
~3&>xlX-r ILOL
~3LIjI'1)alX xIX1
~7to-rLalX-r 1Le:
3Lei6pl)7tn 7tE:LIlOOIl-rL
-rov clp-rOIi aOI)
xI11
cplXye:ill
MT
C'D
K";'
17:ln, :1l7,'
tI"l37,
n':1 K':1n
tI,l7 ;'K,n ,~
O""~
'n'c~,
1'!z):1~'
O'17nn K'
143
cxllblltoll
ot 8 8xcxtot
de; ~w~v
cxllblltoll
Theod
xcxl
OUTOI
de; olle:t8tof/.l!1I
xcxt
elc;
CX!OJ(UII"lj1l
cx!lbvtov
OUTOI
de; ~w~v
cx!lbvtOIl
MT
II
1'Ko,,37
'"
I
l'I'K
~~"'
0"37
The use of ta'rcivOtL for 'PID in the meaning "to weigh out (money)"
1 The oft-noted parallel to Mt 25:35,36, Test. Joseph i. 5-7, is due to
influence from the NT. since the present form of the Testaments probably
post-dates the NT (J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discover)! in the Wilderness of
Judaea [London, 1959], 34f.; idem RB, 62 [1955], 398-406; M. de Jonge, in
Studia Evangelica, 546-556; M. Burrows. More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
179f.; Kahle, The Cairo Genizah 2 , 27; P. W. Skehan, CBQ. 21 [1959]. 73). OT
influence in Mt is more likely than influence from the Testaments.
a K6Acxote; cxllbvtoe; occurs in Test. Reub. v. 5; Asher vii. 5. But see the
preceding note.
S See above, p. 138.
144
fI
E~e:x<xua<x"t'e:
.. EV AU";1l xOI!J.'rj6Mea6e
MT: ,,:1:::lVln rI:1~~D' ... Cn'~:1 mp'T:1C,) ... ,:::l, mp'T "TND ... C:::l'~ lr1
Targ: l'~n'pn' ... 1,n)'pm :1,":1C,) ... "') "'T'N :1,".. ')pnD ... 1'~"~ Nri
l':1,nn
A<X~WV
!.I8wp &..,;e;vLIji<XTO
TcX~ Xe:;:p<x~
... AEYWV'
&.6ijl6~
TOU'l'OU
'l'OUTOU BD0 it syrSiD ] pr (= APe) 'l'OU 8Ix<x(ou NW fI fI3 565 700 pilat ~
Dt 21 :6,9 LXX: vLljlov'I'<X1 'l'cX~ Xe:rp<x~ ... 0'0 at EC;<xpe:i~ TO <xt!J.<X TO &'V<x!TIOV
VLIjIOVT<XI] &'' ;OVLIjiOVT<X1 b w
T<XUT'rj~
~V
aLIji<xv
MT:
yD"
'm':1:1
'In',
145
7tt7tOL6e:II] pr et Def!
pc it cop
TOil 6e611] Tij) 6e:ij) B 213
abhlq{rl)vg{pZer)
IIUII] om A565albohj
otlhOIi De pz ~
cxoT611] om NBL 33 pc
Ps 22(21):9 LXX
~).7tLaE:\l
i;7tl )(OPLOII
cxlh611
a(ija~T(ij cxlh611
IlTL 6e).e:L cxlh611
IhL 6e).e:L] e6eML Uj e:!
6e).e:L 1221 boh sab Lucpau
pua~a6(ij
MT
,1
mil' 'N
'il~'El'
'il"3'
,:1 yEln
,~
With the LXX, the OT Peshitta, and Jerome, Mt reads the perfect
indicative ,~ instead of the imperative of the MT. IIe7toL6e:v with
7t't and the accusative is similar to the OT Peshitta ('lI '~nnN, "he
put confidence upon") and somewhat more exact for
than
~A7tLae:v (LXX). IIe:7t'oL6evocL never occurs in the LXX for ??l. E>e:6v for
mil' also diverges from the LXX. 'Puaoca6w agrees with the LXX.
Nuv is a natural insertion in view of the context and may have been
intended to compensate partially for the omission of the next clause.
The variant omission of vuv and the addition of oc?n:6v represent
attempts at assimilation to the LXX.
It has been suggested that LXXu really reads e:t 6eA,e:L, since in
that MS e: stands for e:L in verses I, 7, 9, 16 of Ps 22, and that Mt's e:L
depends on this form of the Septuagintal text. But Mt's divergence
from the LXX elsewhere in the quotation favors NT influence on
LXxu1221 Luc boh sah 2 or another explanation, viz., that e6eAe:L
was meant to be the classical form of that verb, but was misunderstood for e:t 6eA,e:L because of e: for e:L elsewhere in Cod. U or because
of the reading in Mt. Mt's e:t is not based on a Greek OT text or upon
a distantly possible conditional sense of '~.3 In the psalm the state-
"l
1 The word properly means a poisonous plant (cf. Hos 10:4), hence,
poison itself. But since bitterness and poison are correlative notions, tuN'
comes to mean gall as the most bitter of the bitter (in Dt 29: 17 j Lam 3: 19
alongside wormwood and in Ps 69: 22 alongside vinegar).
Z So A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien (Gottingen, 1904-II), II, 149, 154, n. 6,
against P. L. Hedley, HTR, 26 (1933), 70.
3 Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley, Hebrew Grammar (Oxford, 1910), 159aa,bb.
10
LXX
cXo"TpaTt~
LXX
x. TO ~v8u(J.a
aUTou
AUXOV
we; )(LWV
x. TO ~v8u(J.a
aUTou
wO"l
)( tWV Aux6v
~)(WV TtPL~OA1)V
MT 28:3
ijv ae
7) d8ta aUTou
WI;
xal TO
'
,
TtpoO"WTtOV
aUTOU
wO"l opaO"te;
cXO"TpaTtije;
P.,:l
MT
l"IW,:l,
l,n::l
wO"d
)( L6va
'~ltl'
l"IN"~::l
A~UX~V
."n
If7
~v
oupcxvijl
xcx1
~7t1
-rljt; yljt;
Theod
cxu-rijl i366'1)
~!;oua(cx
~ cipx~
Theod
tvcx yvwalV
ot ~wv-re:t;
8-r1 xupl6t;
ia-r1V 6 ISIjIla-rot;
TIjt; !3cxaIAe:(CXt;
-rwv civ6pw7tc..lv
MT
:1'il' il'
1"'1lI
MT
1'37'1' "
K"n
""Ill
"
K"37
m:l'~:1
K~lK
Mt retains his set formula. O"uv't'eAeLoc 't'OU oc&vo<; (also in 13: 39.
40 49; 24: 3). but prefixes JtcXO"oc<; 't'c1<; 1JlJ.epoc<; to gain the allusion
to Dan 12: 13.
THE TEXT-FoRM OF THE MATTHAEAN QUOTATIONS:
I48
149
one or more of the Targums. 1 Five display possible contact with the
aT Peshitta. 2 One may reflect an apocryphal passage 3 and one
rabbinical tradition.'
Of the four formal quotations common to Mt and Lk, all in the
Temptation narrative, two are Septuaginta1. 5 The textual situation
in the remaining two is uncertain; but probably they show divergence from the LXX. 6
Of the twenty-six allusive quotations common to Mt and Lk, six
are Septuagintal,7 Thirteen are non-Septuagintal,8 Four display a
mixture of agreement and disagreement with the LXX.9 In one Mt
differs from and Lk agrees with the LXX.I0 In one allusion to Dan
there is agreement with Theodotion against the LXX and disagreement with both.ll Six show possible contact with one or more
ofthe Targums,12 two with the aT Peshitta,18 one with the Qumran
War ScrolI,l'two with rabbinical tradition, 1& and one with J osephus. 16
Of the twenty formal quotations peculiar to Mt, seven are Septuagintal,17 Seven are non-Septuagintal,18 In six there is a mixture of
Septuagintal and non-Septuagintal,19 Possible contacts with the
Targum are seen in two,20 with the aT Peshitta in two,21 and with
Qumran literature in one. 22
Of the forty-two allusive quotations peculiar to Mt, fifteen are
Mt 3: 17; 17:5; 24:24, 31; 26:28 and parallels, and Mk4: 12.
Mt 19:26; 24:31; 26:28; 27:39 and parallels, and Mk 4: 12.
8 Mt 24: 21 .
, Mt 14: 16 and parallel.
6 Mt 4: 6, 7 and parallels.
Mt 4:4,10.
7 Mt 5: 3, 39; II: 5; 18: 15; 23: 38 (?); 24: 38 and parallels.
8 Mt 5:11,12,48; 6:11; 8:11, 12; 10:32.; 11:19; 12:42; 17:2,17;
23: 12; 24: 28 and parallels.
Mt 7: 23; II: 23; 23: 35.; 24: 45 and parallels.
10 Mt 10: 35. and parallel.
11 Mt 21 :44 and parallel.
18 Mt 5:12, 48; 6:11; 8:11; 10:32.; 11:19 and parallels.
13 Mt 10:35. and 24:28 and parallel.
u Mt 5:3.
1& Mt 17:2; 23:35. and parallels.
16 Mt 12: 42 and parallel.
17 1:23; 5:21,27,38,43; 13:14.; 21:16.
18 2:6,15,18,23; 5:31; 9:13 = 12:7; 27:9.
18 4: 15.; 5:33; 8:17 (possibly should be put in the preceding group);
12:18-21; 13:35; 21:5.
20 2:6; 12:18-21.
B1 2:6; 4: 15.
I I 2: 23-in the '~l-concept.
1
Septuagintal,l Seventeen are non-Septuagintal,2 Three display mixture of the Septuagintal and the non-Septuaginta1. 3 In allusions to
Dan, two show agreement yvith Theodotion against the LXX,' one
with the LXX against Theodotion, 6 one a mixture of agreement with
Theodotion and disagreement with both Theodotion and the LXX, 8
and one disagreement with both Theodotion and the LXX. 7 One
depends wholly on the Targum. 8 Two show possible contact with
the Targums,ll one with the OT Peshitta,lO and one with apocryphal
literature.l1 Two display targumic-style paraphrase;12
Although there is room for disagreement with the writer on individual points in appraisal of the text-form and on inclusion and exclusion of some allusive quotations,13 two facts are so outstanding
and indisputable that they are not affected by such differences of
opinion here and there. First, the formal quotations in the Marcan
tradition are almost purely Septuagintal. Second, a mixed textual
tradition is displayedAJ elsewher~~in all strata) of the synoptic
material and in all forms (narrative, didactic, apocalyptic, etc.).
1 2:If., II; 5:4, 5, 8; 7:22; 10:6,29; 12:40; 18:22; 21:14; 22:34; 27:34;
and 18:16; 27:24 agree with Lagarde's Lucianic text.
s 1:21; 2:13; 5:~ 34, 35; 6:6; 11:28; 13:41; 16:27; 21:41; 23:19;
25:3 1 ; 26:15,52 ; 27:43.57; 28:10.
3 2: 20f.; 3: 4 ; II: 29.
, 13: 43; 24: 10.
I 28: 18.
28:3
7 25:4 6.
8 26:52.
, 5: 5; 23: 19
10 27:43.
11 27: 2 4.
18 25: 35f.; 28: 10.
18 E.g., I myself have some doubt about the allusions in Mt 10: 32f.; 14: 16.
CHAPTER TWO
153
Where Mt-Greek differs from the LXX, Torrey reconstructs MtHebrew according to Mt-Greek and exultingly proclaims that the
Greek translator of Mt translated exactly. Of course, when Torrey
has made Greek-Mt the basis of his reconstructed Hebrew! When
the reconstructed Hebrew differs from the MT, Torrey says MtAramaic quoted the MT freely. Can we take such ci1'culum in probando seriously? Torrey has neither proved his case nor explained
anything which could not be otherwise explained by less arbitrary
procedure. Positively against Torrey's hypothesis is the sizeable
number of non-Marcan formal and allusive quotations and parts of
quotations which agree with the LXX against the MT.l Many of
these are not even considered by Torrey, but from his discussion
of a few such instances one may guess his answer; the LXX has been
assimilated to the NT. Needless to say, wholesale revision of the
LXX toward the NT is very improbable, especially in allusive
quotations, which would hardly come to the mind of LXX-copyists.
THE LITURGICAL-HOMILETICAL HYPOTHESIS
I54
ISS
charismata. 1 Kilpatrick is able to give astonishingly few and inconclusive indications of liturgical-homiletical usage in Mt. 2 The
evangelistic, apologetic, and historical elements far outweigh any
liturgical-homiletical element in Mt.
THE SCHOOL OF ST. MATTHEW
157
P. 201.
IS8
as allusive, l some as apocalyptic 2 (though it is not clear whyapocalyptic quotations diverging from the LXX should not imply a
"school," if the formula-citations do), and some he does not mention. The overwhelmingly mixed text-form in all groups of synoptic
quotations, except Marcan formal quotations, demolishes the very
foundation of the school-hypothesis, viz., the distinctiveness of the
formula-citations. The statement that "there is scarcely any
tradition of translation or interpretation which does not emerge in
Matthew's manner of understanding his [formula-] quotations" 8
might also have been written concerning the mass of allusive
quotations throughout the synoptics.
Stendahl does admit a few Semitic features in quotations other
than the formula-citations, but regards them as "a survival of that
Aramaic form in which the words and deeds of Jesus were originally
recounted." 4 That is, these few quotations happened to escape
assimilation to the LXX. But if a non-Septuagintal form stands at
the beginning of the process, it cannot be proved that the nonSeptuagintal form of the formula-citations makes them stand at
the end of the process. The implication might rather be that they
also belong to the most primitive milieu of the evangelic tradition.
The parallel between the formula-citations and the Habakkuk
Commentary 6 is no more convincing. H. F. D. Sparks notes that
the lemmata in the Habakkuk Commentary are not nearly so aberrant
in text-form as the formula-citations in Mt. 6 In the very nature of
the case, all that is proved and all that can be proved from the
mixed texts at Qumran and in the synoptics is that in NT times
there existed a vulgar text of the OT containing readings some of
which appear later in separate streams of textual tradition.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that the streams of
textual tradition had not entirely divided by NT times,? so that
E.g., pp. 146f. See above, pp. 2-5, for the relevance of allusive quotations.
E.g., pp. 79f., 146f., 158f.
8 Stendahl, 127.
, P. 146.
6 Stendahl, 183-202.
6 JTS, 7 (1956), 104.
7 See W. F. Albright, BASOR, 140 (1955), 27-33; M. Burrows, More
Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 158ff.; F. M. Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library
of Qumran (London, 1958), 126-14, 163f.; idem, BASOR, 132 (1953), 15-26;
idem, RB, 63 (1956), 56-58; R. Gordis, VT, 7 (1957), 193; H. M. Orlinsky,
JBL, 78 (1959), 32.; Rabin, JTS, 6 (1955), 180ff.; B. J. Roberts, BJRL,
42 (1959), 134; J. A. Sanders, Journal of Religion, 39 (1959), 238; P. W.
1
159
NT Apologetic
r60
P. 251.
161
II
162
decisive for early Christian thought, not everything began with it.
Frequently Lindars assumes a somewhat radical scepticism toward
the reliability of the gospel records and a high estimation of the
distortive and creative powers of the Christian community. Unless
one grants this negative approach, the further part of his discussions
will not seem cogent,1 At this point, however, Lindars' method
suffers from erraticism. He maintains, for example, that Ps IIO: 1
was read back into the mouth of Jesus, but refuses to say that Jesus'
predictions about his death and resurrection were similarly put
into his mouth. 2 The sceptical viewpoint seems to be regarded as
valid where it works to the advantage of the proposed apologetic
development, but not elsewhere. Lindars' work may illustrate that
devaluation of historicity and source-criticism tends toward fanciful overinterpretation of the theological motives of the evangelists.
Since much of the highly developed apologetic in Lindars' scheme
appears already in early books of the NT, 3 it may be doubted that
apologetic development could have been so neatly progressive as
Lindars leaves the impression it was. It might also be easier to
account for the early date of such variegated development by holding
that Jesus himself instituted apologetic uses of OT texts as Jewish
rejection of him became plainer and more imminent-instead of
postponing apologetic use of the OT till after the resurrection and
leaving the disciples without guidelines. Alongside advanced
apologetic in early NT books Lindars frequently detects primitive
apologetic in late NT books. Such a topsy-turvy situation is not
impossible, but it does cast doubt on the chronological validity of
Lindars' reconstruction.
As in the case of Stendahl, however, the really big fault in Lindars'
work is a disregard of the mixed text-forms in the untendentious
material of many allusive quotations throughout the synoptics.
back to show divine authentication at the inauguration of the ministry (so
the quotation in verse 33 of Ps 2: 7, reminiscent of the baptismal pronouncement) and at the climax (so the quotation in verses 34f. of Is 55: 3 and Ps
16: 10, referring to the resurrection). The occurrences of Ps 2: 7 in Reb I: 5;
5: 5; 7: 28 leave the question open by mentioning neither the baptism nor
the resurrection. The juxtaposition with Ps 110: I in Reb may again point to
initial and final authentications of Jesus' ministry, as in Acts 13. Cf. Acts
4: 24-30 ; IO: 38, which Lindars must consider as results of later application
of Ps 2: 7 to Jesus' baptism, in order not to spoil his reconstruction.
1 Against sceptical form-criticism see below, pp. r8gff.
B pp. 46f., 60ff., 25If.
3 E.g., Davidic sonship in Ro I :3-see Lindars, 18g.
Mt. J. A. Findlay, at first a strong advocate of such. a view, abandoned it because his further research showed "subsequent collections
of testimonies do not follow his [Mt's] model either in order or
language. "1
Second, it is impossible to determine which quotations might
have belonged to testimony traditions. Misascription, compositeness, recurrence, etc., are not reliable clues.
Third, the heavy Semitic element throughout synoptic quotations, outside Marc8:n formal quotations, means that a Semitic textform does not imply testimony origin. Many of these Semitic quotations are not of the testimony kind. And the Septuagintal imprint
on some of the formula-citations forbids our saying this group as a
whole comes from a Testimony Book because of the group's Semitic
imprint. 2 The hypothesis simply does not help explain the textform of Mt's quotations.
Fourth, the Testimony Book is not to be equated with 't'<X A6y~ot 3
which Papias said Mt wrote in the Hebrew dialect.' In the LXX
A6y~ot does not explicitly indicate the "writtenness" of the divine
revelation; but that the words of God were in fact written down as
scripture lent that connotation to the term. 5 Papias must have
meant the Gospel of Mt, for in his reference to the Gospel of Mk,
't'<X U7tO 't'ou xup(ou ~ Aex6iv't'ot ~ 7tpotX6iv't'ot are immediately described
as 't'<X XUp~otx<X My~ot, 6 and the Matthaean My~ot are contrasted with
Mk's gospel. So Irenaeus understood Papias' statement.' As for
Papias' commentary, it is hardly credible that he wrote
five books of commentary on a half dozen formula-citations
166
1 In a book by Aristobulus of Alexandria dedicated to Ptolemy Philometor (184-141 B.C.), fragments of which are preserved by Clement of
Alexandria (Stromata i.ISO.I~4) and Eusebius (Praeparatio Evangelica ix.6;
xiiLl2) (texts in Swete, An Introduction to the OT in Greek, If.); and in the
Letter of Aristeas 30, 314-316.
B Outstanding examples are the Greek texts of J dg, the Lucianic text of
Esther, the Ur-Theodotionic text of Dan, the texts of Tobit in Band K, the
three additional translations in the Hexapla to the Psalms.
8 It is difficult to understand why Kahle regards the agreement between
Josephus' quotations from the historical books and the Lucianic text as due
to alteration by Christian copyists (Geniza B, 233.), when the opposite view
would fit his thesis. As it is, Kahle leaves himself no basis from which to
argue for the genuineness of the aberrant text in some Philonic quotations,
which Katz says were omitted as lemmata and subsequently reinserted from
later recensions and translations (Philo's Bible [Cambridge, 1950J). The same
is true about Kahle's agreement with W. Bousset that Justin's quotations
were later revised according to the Lucianic text (Geniza B, 229; Bousset,
Die Evangeliencitate ]ustins des Miirtyrers [G5ttingen, 1891J, 18-32). (Po
Katz cautions that the only evidence for Justin's text is a carelessly copied
fourteenth century MS [Studia Patristica, I, 343J; see W. Schmid, ZNW,
40 [1941J, 87-138). Kahle would have to show that the revisions of Josephus
and Justin were not only pre-Lucianic (based on an Ur-Lucianic text), but
also that the Ur-Lucianic text was based on a pre-Christian Greek translation alongside other translations. This he cannot do from Josephus and
Justin if he admits the possibility of later tampering with their texts, a
possibility increased by the known assimilation of the NT text to the LXX in
many passages and in many MSS (against Kahle, Geniza B, 249) {e.g., in Mt
1:23 (D pc d C); 3: 3 (b syr CUr Ir); 4:4 (D a b d gl Cl Tert Aug), ISf. (D);
27: 34 (AW 565 700 pm it boh[3J); Lk 3 :22 (D it Ju [ClJ Or).
168
169
170
17 1
that "the [Greek] texts were used exactly as they stood by Christians" 1 cannot be taken for granted. In favor of that premise A.
Baumstark argues that one who undertakes,like Mt, to prove from
OT prophecies that Jesus is the Messiah could not have treated his
OT citations carelessly or over-boldly without losing the point of
his argument. 2 However, it is common knowledge that the ancients
did not scruple against quoting interpretatively. Neither the historian in the Graeco-Latin classical tradition 3 nor the Jewish targumist 4 had the modern concept of the sacrosanctity of direct
quotation. Rather, a certain freedom of interpretation and adaptation was expected in order to show one's grasp of the material, to
bring out its inner meaning and significance, and to apply it to the
subject at hand. The Targums themselves are concrete evidence
against the premise of Kahle and Baumstark.
Nor can it be taken for granted that the NT authors responsible
for non-Septuagintal quotations were limited to Greek. The numerous contacts with Semitic textual tradition argue otherwise. In
reality, the higher the number of Greek OT texts differing more or
less from later MSS of the LXX and the greater the vicissitudes of
the LXX through repeated assimilation to the Hebrew text, the
less need there is to assume the NT authors used written Greek
targums. For if direct recourse to the Semitic texts was widely
practiced by Greek targumists and Greek copyists, how much more
likely it was practiced in compositional work, where hermeneutical,
evangelistic, didactic, and hortatory motives came into play. Until
pre-Christian Greek OT MSS are found which exhibit the same
aberrant texts as NT quotations, the supposition must be that the
NT authors made their own ad hoc renderings. 6
1
I72
173
The argument is confirmed by the fact that not only in oral targumizing, but also in the copying of the sacred text itself, a certain
freedom in harmonization, expansion, etc., was exercised. This
we have learned from the Biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 3
Further confirmation comes from the Christian practice, alluded
to by Melito, of reading the scripture-lesson in Hebrew and then
targumizing it into Greek (probably with the aid of the LXX) 4 and
by the Christian targumizing of the canonical Greek gospels into
Aramaic as late as the fourth century.6 These practices stemmed
from the adoption of targumism by the early church.
In an article confined to Mt's non-Septuagintal citations from
the Minor Prophets, A. Baumstark has shown that every phenomenon of textual variation and adaptation finds a parallel in the
Targums. 6 This and the fact Mt's deviations from the LXX and
1
quotations.
, G. Zuntz, HTR, 36 (1943), 299-315.
6 For full discussions, see T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons
(Erlangen, 1888-90), II, 2, App. ix, 3, pp. 665ff.; Bacon, Studies in Mt,
13-17, 20f., who draws heavily on Zahn.
Biblica, 37 (1956), 305ff. Baumstark's own view is that the texts in Mt
are based on a lost Aramaic Targum, which in turn was based on a vulgar
Hebrew text similar to the Samaritan Pentateuch.
174
even from the MT do not in the majority of instances betray hermeneutical motivation combine to reduce the significance of the
parallel, often drawn nowadays, to Qumran midrash-pesher. What
is midrash-pesher but the targumic method applied to prophecy believed to be fulfilled or on the verge of fulfilment in an eschatological
situation? It is ~he fulfilment-motif which gives NT interpretation
of the OT affinity to Qumran pesher. But in the mechanics of texthandling, both rest on the targumic method. l
THE LANGUAGE SITUATION PRESUPPOSED
By
175
I77
agrees with the physical evidence for a trilingual situation in firstcentury Palestine suggests first-century Palestine as the origin of
the gospel tradition. For where else were these three languages used
alongside one another? 1
Here then is the milieu of the bulk of synoptic quotation material.
Our analysis of the quotation material confirms the archaeological
data; the archaeological data confirms our analysis, and also the
contention that the strands of textual tradition cannot and need
not be disentangled. It is perfectly possible that the first evangelist
was his own targumist, ranging with easy familiarity from one
textual tradition to another.2
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
AND THE ORIGIN OF MATTHEW
179
early date for the first gospel, for access to Hebrew scrolls must have
been difficult after complete break with the synagogue. 1 Material
which includes allusive quotations-and this comprehends practically the whole of the synoptic tradition-must be dated very early,
because the mixed text shows the material emerged from the Palestinian language milieu and escaped wholesale Hellenization (in
contrast with Marcan formal quotations). Had the material arisen
or undergone revision in a later, extra-Palestinian milieu, the Septuagintal element almost surely would have been dominant. Not
only so, it becomes unnecessary and even disadvantageous to regard
the Matthaean formula-citations with their strong Semitic coloring
as belonging to a late stage. They are obviously inserted in the final
stage of composition, but the final stage is not late.:!
That the Matthaean parallels to Marcan formal quotations are almost as purely Septuagintal as Mk confirms that Greek-Mt utilized
Mk. 3 But how is it that Marcan formal quotations stand out from all
A. G. Hebert, The Authority of the OT (London, n.d.), 204.
Not even Mt 22: 7 necessarily points to a date after A.D. 70, since recent
studies conclude Jesus did predict the calamities to befall Jerusalem. See
C. J. Cadoux, The Historic Mission of Jesus (London, 1941), 266ff.; C. H.
Dodd, Journal of Roman Studies, 37 (1947), 47-54; V. Taylor, The Life and
Ministry of Jesus (London, 1955). 172; and earlier, T. H. Robinson, Mt
(London, 192B), 19B. Wikenhauser's argument for a post-70 date from a
comparison between Mt 22:2-14 and Lk 14:16-24 rests on the doubtful
assumption that these two passages are parallel (op. cit., 197f.). Qumran
parallels have dramatically crushed the arguments from Mt 16: IB ("I will
build my church") and IB: 15-17 (disciplinary regulations) that Mt is the
late ecclesiastical gospel (see W. H. Brownlee, NTS, 3 [1956/57], 16f.). On
the other hand, with Marcan priority over Mt we are forced to a date near 70
for Mt if ~~o8oc; in Iren., Haer. III.i.l means "decease" and not "departure"
and if Irenaeus' testimony is to be taken at face-value. The latter is not
certain, since Irenaeus may be limited to information from Papias and
interpreting it (cf. R. Heard, NTS, I [1954/55], 122if.). Irenaeus' testimony
does not harmonize with Lk-Acts if our Lk depends on Mk and antedates
Acts and if Acts records events about as far as they had progressed. It is
further suspect because the statement that Peter and Paul founded the
church in Rome conflicts with the Epistle to the Romans.
8 I write "Greek-Mt," because Lagrange's suggestion that the Greek
translator of Aramaic-Mt conformed to Mk's Septuagintal form in parallel
passages remains possible (Mt, pp. cxxiiff.). Note that in the two Matthaean
quotations from Mic 7: 6, the one peculiar to Mt is non-Septuagintal (10: 35f.)
and the one paralleled in Mk is Septuagintal (10: 21; Mk 13: 12). We cannot
argue for Marcan priority from assimilation of Mk by Mt toward the LXX
(like Allen, ET, 12 [1900/01], 2Blff.; Bacon, Studies in Mt, 470; Stendahl,
147f.), because the assimilation is usually stylistic and because the opposite,
Mt straying from Mk and the LXX, is seen in 15:4a; 19:5, IB, 19; 22:32,37;
26:3 1 .
1
180
other quotation material in the synoptics as almost purely Septuagintal? The general answer is that these formal quotations were easily recognizable and so were conformed to the LXX in a Hellenistic
milieu. Allusive quotations escaped the process because they were,
so to speak, incognito. The specific answer may be that the Hellenization took place in Rome, where Mk wrote for Gentiles, just as the
tradition says.l
Passing from the formal quotations in the Marcan tradition, we
can appreciate the significance of the mixed text in the other synoptic quotations only against the background of the predominantly
Septuagintal form of quotations throughout the rest of the NT.2
That this mixed text character pervades all three gospels-not just
Q material or Matthaean material Lk might have copied from Mt,
for Marcan allusive quotations are included-suggests a common
body of tradition behind all three synoptic gospels.
The Q hypothesis as usually held has been plagued by certain unresolved difficulties. General agreement on the extent of Qhas never
existed. 3 B. H. Streeter's attempts at explaining the "minor"
agreements of Mt and Lk against Mk seem strained at numerous
points.' Therefore, we have the old Ur-Markus theory, Bacon's "S"
(a complete gospel inclusive of Q and containing a passion narrative), Schniewind's "G" (for Geschichtenuberlieferung, a source
similar to Mk on which Mt and Lk draw when agreeing against
1 For a survey and discussion of this tradition, see Streeter, op. cit.,
488-491. Cf. Atkinson, op. cit., 56, who, however, sees Matthaean priority
and Mk (or Peter) drawing from Mt only those quotations he could reconcile
with the LXX.
2 We may adopt in general the figures of Atkinson, ibid., 39, concerning
agreement with the LXX: Acts-19/20; Pauline epistles-9/IO; pastorals100%; Hebrews-n!I2; catholic epistles-4/5; Rev-6/7.
a See S. Petrie, NovTest, 3 (1959), 28-33.
, Op. cit., 295-331. Streeter escapes many instances of Mt and Lk agreeing
against Mk by including in Q John the Baptist's preaching, Jesus' baptism
and temptation, the Beelzebub controversy, the mission charge, and the
parable of the mustard seed. What kind of document would contain only
these bits of narrative? And if this much narrative material is allowable in
Q, what prevents an even greater extension to account for the mixed text in
all three synoptics, so that Q becomes an Ur-Matthaean gospel, or a body of
note-material as suggested below. In other words, if one does not include a
sizeable amount of narrative material in Q, the agreements of Mt and Lk
against Mk become an insuperable problem. But if one does include a sizeable amount of narrative material in Q, the very nature of the document
becomes a problem-and the door is opened for further hypotheses concerning its nature.
181
J.
182
meet the requirements of the data which has been discovered in this
study. It is the hypothesis that the Apostle Matthew was a notetaker during the earthly ministry of Jesus and that his notes provided the basis for the bulk of the apostolic gospel tradition. 1 The
use of notebooks which were carried on one's person was very common in the Graeco-Roman world. 2 In ancient schools outline notes
(ypcX(.L(.LCJC.-rCJC. lI7tO(.L'J"Ij(.LCJC.-rLXcX) were often taken by pupils as the teacher
lectured. The notes became the common possession of the schools
and circulated without the name of the lecturer. Sometimes an
author would take this material as the basis for a book to be published (ypcX(.L(.LCJC.-rCJC. aU'J-rCJC.Y(.LCJC.-rLXa.).a Shorthand was used possibly as
early as the fourth century B.C. and certainly by Jesus' time.'
The Oxyrhynchus papyri show that scribes and clerks were often
trained in shorthand. 5 Rabbinic tradition was transmitted by the
employment of catchwords and phrases which were written down in
shorthand notes. 6 Thus, from both the Hellenistic side and the
1 This hypothesis has been revived by E. J. Goodspeed, Mt, Apostle and
Evangelist (Philadelphia, 1959). See also B. F. C. Atkinson, in The New Bible
Commentary (Grand Rapids, 1954), 771; A. T. Robertson, Studies in Mark's
Gospel (New York, 1919),28; idem, The Expositor, 23, 8th Series (1922), 108f.
D F. G. Kenyon, Books and Readers in Greece and Rome l (Oxford, 1951), 91f.
B On the above-outlined practice, see W. Bousset, Judisch-Christlicher
Schultrieb (Gottingen, 1915), 2-5; and for further references and discussion,
B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (Uppsala, 1961), 157-163, cf.
200-202.
4 See G. Milligan, The NT Documents (London, 1913), 241-247; further
references in Gerhardsson, op. cit., p. 156, n. 3.
6 Goodspeed is at his best when drawing on his knowledge of the papyri to
show the practice of note-taking, the use of shorthand, and the qualifications
of a tax-collector such as Mt. His attempted parallel between Jesus and
Isaiah is less than convincing (in the above-mentioned book on Mt).
e See L. Finkelstein, HUCA, 16 (1941), II5ff. The above remarks, written
before the appearance of Gerhardsson's book, do not imply whole-hearted
acceptance of the Riesenfeld-Gerhardsson thesis. In particular, the notorious
paucity of rabbinic sayings from before A.D. 70, the informality and freshness
of Jesus' teaching style, and the synoptic agreement in narrative material
(whereas rabbinic tradition is primarily expository) reduce the value of the
thesis. The Scandinavian scholars have, however, correctly re-emphasized
the general importance of memory and note-taking in the NT milieu. Granted
that the early Christian methodology of preserving tradition must have been
less formally structured than rabbinic methodology at a somewhat later date,
preservation of Jesus' teaching must nevertheless have been effected by some
such methods; for otherwise we would not have the broad agreement which
has led to the Q-hypothesis. For reactions to Gerhardsson's book, see A. N.
Wilder and W. D. Davies, in Neotestamentica et Patristica (Freundesgabe O.
Cullmann; Leiden, 1962), 3-34; M. Smith, JBL, 82 (1963), 169-176; H. K.
185
Whether or not the Apostle be regarded as the allthor of GreekMt, under the note-taking hypothesis two possibilities are open
concerning the tradition of a Semitic Ur-Mt. The first is that this
tradition is simply irrelevant. Greek-Mt may bear no special
relationship to the Semitic book, although both may work largely
upon the same traditions. The second possibility is that Papias'
notice 1 does not mean Mt wrote a Hebrew (or Aramaic) gospel.
J. Kiirzinger has put forward the interpretation that since Papias'
main concern is to apologize for the lack of literary (j6V't'CX~LC; in Mk,
in contrast with Mt, CE~pcxtaL aLCXAEX't'CP (note the anarthrous form)
is to be understood in the connotation of literary style, and ~P(L~ve:u(je:v
(not !Le:6'IJP!L~ve:u(je:v) refers to exposition, not to translation. 2 Despite
its novelty, this view merits serious consideration; Kiirzinger's
presentation should be studied in full.
interest shown in money (1O:9f.; 18 :23ff.; 20: Iff.; 28: 12ff.), the juggling of
figures in the genealogy.
1 Preserved in Eusebius, H.E. iii. 39.
2 BZ, 4 (1960), 19-38.
PART TWO
CHAPTER THREE
I90
of Christ. Even Paul, who had not known Jesus, could quote no
higher authority.1
Radical form-criticism does not sufficiently take into account
the restraint which the mere presence of the apostles and other
eyewitnesses, hostile as well as friendly, must have exercised against
free invention of tradition to meet the needs of the community.
Numerous references throughout the NT indicate the Church was
very interested in eyewitness testimony.2 Not only would eyewitnesses have provided a restraining influence, but also their recollection of the deeds, the example, and the teaching of Jesus would have
been called upon for solutions to ecclesiastical problems, for answers
to inquiring questions from prospective converts, and for apology
in the face of false and malicious charges. The shortness of the time
between the events and the gospel records combines with the
eyewitness factor to rule out serious modification of the historical
tradition and the analogy of folk-literature.
Radical form-criticism does not judge fairly the written records.
The chief interest of the gospels is historical, as expressly stated in
Lk I: I-4. Matter-of-fact restraint is shown in description of the
spectacular. 3 Even the artificial literary forms may be a mark of
veracity, since more flexible modes of narration would give more
room for alteration. The original poetic form discernible in many of
Jesus' reported sayings 4 points to authenticity. So also do the lack
of romantic and psychological interest in the workings of Jesus'
inner consciousness, the preservation of enigmatic sayings and
incidents discreditable to the apostles and Jesus' brethren, and the
vivid geographical and biographical details-in contrast with the
tendency toward simplification, not elaboration, seen in Mt and
Lk (over against Mk) and in modern studies of human memory.5
1 See J. Weiss, The History of Primitive Christianity (London, 1937),
I, 77ff.
a Lk 1:1-4; In 19:35; 21:24; Acts 1:8, 2If.; 10:39,41; I Cor I5:rff.;
I Pet 5: I; II Pet I: 16; I In I: 1 -3; Papias in Eusebius, H.E. iii. 39.
3 W. Manson singles out Mk 9: 26, where "like one dead" would surely
have turned the story into a tale of raising the dead, in an uncontrolled
tradition (op. cit., 46).
, C. F. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord (Oxford, 1925).
& See W. S. Taylor, Theology Today, 15 (1959), 470-479, with dependence
on F. C. Bartlett, Remembering (Cambridge, 1932), and Taylor's own article
in The British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 38, Part 1 (1947), 7-19. When lack
of detail is taken as evidence of stereotyping and generalizing for community
needs and presence of detail is taken as attempt at verisimilitude, a predisposition against the gospels is evident.
19 1
192
I93
194
195
Ig6
Jer 3I: IS are so obscure that no one would have thought of them
as bases for invention of the stories to which Mt relates them. The
account of Moses' flight from Egypt has influenced the form of
statement in Mt, but the differences between the narrativesMoses' fleeing as an adult from Egypt at his own will and returning
to Egypt, Jesus' taken as an infant to Egypt at divine behest and
returning to Palestine-rule out the story's having been built upon
the OT passage or upon Jewish folklore concerning Moses' experiences. l Is II: I, the primary reference in Mt 2: 23, is a prominent
1 Against P. Winter, The Hibbert Journal, 53 (1954/55), 34-42. For the
parallels with rabbinic sources and Josephus, see R. Bloch, in Mo'ise, l'homme
de l'alliance (Paris, 1955), 164-166. S. M. Iglesias sees the same parallel
between Mt I and 2 and midrashic stories concerning Moses, but does not
regard the haggadic genre of Mt I and 2 as a legitimate criterion for judging
historicity (Estudios Biblicos, 17 [1958], 272.). D. Daube believes this
section in Mt builds upon the haggadic story connected with the Passover
recitation, in which Laban attempts to destroy all Jacob's children, male
and female, in order to prevent the Star coming out of Jacobi but Jacob
and his family escape to Egypt, having been warned in a dream (Midrash
on Dt 26: 5-8) (The NT and Rabbinic Judaism, 190f. i NTS, 5 [1959], 184f. i
followed by C. H. Cave, NTS, 9 [1963],382-390). Although one must admit
Daube draws attention to some striking parallels with the story of Laban
and Jacob, they are incidental in comparison with the larger Moses-Jesus
typology throughout Mt (see above, pp. 82,83) and with the clear verbal
reminiscences of Ex 2: IS; 4: 19,20 in Mt 2: 13,20,21. It is therefore preferable to regard the parallel between Jesus' and Jacob's flights to Egypt as
due to the relationship of both stories to the account of Moses. Daube's
strongest argument, that Mt's ~otraot~ in v. 16 and TtXVot in place of u!or~ for
n~l:l'37 in the quotation of Jer 31:15 reflect Laban's attempt to kill all
Jacob's children (whereas Pharaoh killed only male infants), is not entirely
convincing. Both of Mt's words may refer to male children only (cf. Mt
21:28i 22:24i the LXX of Hos II:I [MT: ~l:l"], just quoted in Mt 2:15)
(see M. M. Bourke, CBQ, 22 [1960], 170); and if Herod did have infants of
both sexes slaughtered, it would accord with what we know from extraBiblical sources of his cruelty-and therefore need not derive from the
story of Laban and Jacob. In the Midrash, only the first short paragraph
deals with Laban. Immediately after the reference to Laban, Jacob's going
down to Egypt is attributed to the famine, as in Gen 47:4. L. Finkelstein
regards the reference to Laban as an effort to placate the Egyptian government, when Palestine was under Egyptian suzerainty (3rd century B.C.),
by denouncing Egypt's rival, Syria (HTR, 31 [1938], 299f'). Since, then, the
reference to Laban appears to be an extraneous insertion, the political
reason for which had dropped out by NT times, it may be questioned whether
this part of the Passover recitation was used. That striking parallels can
also be drawn to heathen stories suggests the comparative method does
not here help us determine historical origins. For heathen parallels, see E.
Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes (Leipzig, 1924) i C. Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklarung des NP (Giessen, 1924), 192ff.; E. Brunner-Traut,
Zeitsckr. fur Religions- u. Geistesgeschickte, 12 (1960), 97-III.
197
":\1
I9 8
199
200
20I
In the passion narrative we meet another concentration of quotation material. H. Conzelmann writes, "Ganze Motive, ja Szenen ..
sind aus dem AT herausgesponnen." 1 Bundy declares that the
crucifixion story could very well be a dramatization of Psalms 22
and 69. 2 Against this extreme position, we may quote Alan
Richardson:
If anyone feels inclined to believe that practically the whole of the
Passion story (in the form in which it has reached us in our Gospels)
is unhistorical, on the ground that it is built up from a priori attempts
to fulfil Old Testament prophecy, let him reread Is liii., Ps xii. [sic],
and lxix., and see for himself how many details are to be found in these
passages which there have been no attempts to fulfil. 8
202
20 3
tion. In Mk, the man offering the vinegar says to the others, "Let
us see 1 if Elijah comes to take him down." In Mt, the others echo
in agreement, "Let us see if Elijah comes to save him." Both
gospels picture the action as designed to sustain Jesus a little while
longer-so that they might watch in mocking unexpectancy whether
Elijah would come to deliver him.
In 27: 57, Mt's description of Joseph of Arimathaea as "a rich
man," in conformity to Is 53 :9, changes the phraseology of the
Marcan tradition, but not the essential meaning.
Something always prevents our seeing evolvement of the gospel
tradition from OT prophecy. Some of the OT texts were not Messianically interpreted in Judaism. Others are only fleetingly alluded
to. Mt sometimes receives independent support from one or both
of the other synoptics, where no fulfilment-motif is present. Some
of the OT passages are so obscure that no one could have thought of
them as Messianic prophecies unless given the gospel tradition first.
Fairly wide differences between OT and NT cannot be accounted
for on the theory that the former was the source for the latter. The
gospel tradition has an inner fitness and inherent likelihood. Sometimes the quotation is introduced by a formula peculiarly characteristic of Jesus. Verisimilar details which cannot come from the
prophecy are often present, as are also essential relationships to the
NT context which cannot derive from the prophecy. Repugnance to
Christian piety and susceptibility to interpretation contrary to
primitive Christian doctrine make Christian invention from OT
prophecy improbable. Had the tradition been erected upon the OT
text, we would not have had the absence of elements in the OT
text which were extremely suitable. In two or three instances, it
cannot be shown one way or the other whether or not an incidental
detail derived from the prophecy. What is certain is a conforming
of descriptive phraseology to OT Janguage to make patent the latent
correspondence between prophecy and event. 2
1 Thus a.CP('Ij(L~ with another verb should be translated. Cf. Mt 7 :4. 'A<p('Ij(L~
is not to be understood in the sense of restraint or of leaving Jesus alone.
See Cranfield, Mk, 459.
B See O'Rourke, loco cit.
CHAPTER FOUR
206
207
?) ; 20:9.
re di VIVUS.
Mt II: 5 (= Lk 7: 22) alludes to Is 35: 5, 6. Another allusion to
these same verses occurs in Acts 26: 18. Reb 12: 12 quotes verse 3 of
Is 35, and Rev 21:4 quotes verse 10.
The quotation of Jon 2:1 in Mt 12:40 stands alone.
Dodd does not include Ps 78, quoted in Mt 13: 35, among the textplots. But different verses throughout the psalm are quoted in Jn
6:31; Acts 8:21; Rev 2:17; 16:4.
Mt 17:2 alludes to Ex 34:29. Paul makes very extensive use of
Ex 34: 29-35 in his comparison between the old covenant and the
new, and, just as Mt, between the shining face of Moses and the
glory of Christ (II Cor 3:7-16). Rev 15:3 alludes to Ex 34:10,
again with a juxtaposition of Moses and Jesus ("the Lamb").
The quotation of Mal 3: 23 in Mt 17: II (= Mk 9: 12) stands very
near to and has close thought-connection with the text-plot Mal
3: I -6 and should therefore be attached to it. Confirmation of this
comes from the quotation of the next verse in Mal in Lk I: 17, again
concerning John's fulfilling the ministry of Elijah.
The allusion to II Sam 5: 8 in Mt 21: 14 rests on the David-Jesus
typology, which appears in several text-plots. More interesting is
the fact that Mt's quotation of Mic 5:1 (Mt 2:6) concludes with a
clause from II Sam 5: 2, a verse regarding the throne-right of David.
The apocalyptic text-plot, Dan 12, should reach back to include
the last part of Dan II so that allusions to Dan II: 44, 41 in Mt
24:6,10 (and to Dan II:36 in II Thess 2:4; Rev 13:5) may be
accommodated. Similarly Dan 2 should be accorded a place, since
quotations from that chapter occur in Mt 21 :44; 24:6 (and parallels)
and in no fewer than eleven allusions in the Rev.
Mt 24:7 and I Cor 1:20 allude to different verses in Is 19. Mt
24:24 and 24:31 allude to verses close to each other in Dt 13. The
latter allusion in Mt (24:31) comes in a composite quotation of Is
27: 13; Zech 2: 6; Dt 13: 7; 30: 4. We may surmise the background
of a catena of parallel passages, testimonia, concerning Israel's
208
20g
14
210
2II
2I2
21 3
214
215
216
cannot accept, was the starting point." 1 On the one hand, a generalizing view of H eilsgeschichte lacks the solid foundation of detailed
fulfilments which would justify in addition the broader typological
approach. On the other hand, the detailed fulfilments claimed in
the NT are thought to rest on OT interpretation which offends
modem OT scholarship. Although a really adequate treatment of
this aspect of the study would call for a full discussion of OT
prophecy and the Messianic hope, the attempt here will be to
indicate avenues of thought which lead to the conclusion that
Jesus' and Mt's use of the OT should not offend the best in modem
OT scholarship.
Much of the difficulty lies in the question, when did the Messianic
hope arise in Israel and under what impulses? Any discussion of the
origins of the Messianic hope 2 must proceed with the realization that
historical and theological questions are intertwined. If-regardless of
what the OT writers had in mind-a remarkable correspondence
exists between the OT and the ministry of Jesus and if this correspondence implies divine design, 3 we must reckon with the possibilities of direct revelation and of divine intention beyond that of
the OT authors.' It is not enough to ask for the Sitz im Leben along
1 King and Messiah (London, 1955), lIof. See further H. Braun, ZTK, 59
(1962), 16-31.
a For the progressively more technical and personal use of "Messiah," see
the standard Bible dictionaries. Mowinckel would restrict the application
of "Messianic" to the eschatological figure (He That Cometh [Oxford. 1956].
3f.) ; but it is legitimate to apply the term to the eschatological time-period,
which may be described without specific reference to the Messiah himself
(e.g . Is 2;25-27; 30:18-26; 35; Mic 4; Jer 31:27-40).
3 H. H. Rowley: "If the anticipations rested on the activity of the Spirit
of God in men. and the fulfilment represented the activity of God in history
and experience. we have a sufficient explanation of all. But if we wish to
reject this explanation, we are hard put to it to find another which is more
scientific and more satisfying. If the anticipations had no basis but the false
claim that men were the mouthpiece of God. their fulfilment becomes a
problem. There could have been no power in such self-deception to influence
future events. On the other hand... the anticipations were quite certainly
written down before the fulfilment took place" (The Unity of the Bible
[London. 1953]. 12). Cf. idem. The Servant of the Lord (London. 1952), 52;
idem, The Re-Discovery of the OT (London. 1946). 292ff. The Scandinavian
school likewise sees fulfilment in Christ. For a representative statement.
see Mowinckel. op. cit., 247. On true prescience in aT prophecy, see E.
Konig. in Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh, 1918),
X. 390ff.
4 Cf. A. B. Davidson, The Expositor, 8, First Series (1878). 24 Iff. ; idem.
OT Prophecy (Edinburgh, 1912). 326ff.
21 7
218
21 9
I
220
22I
222
223
224
even though the condition for blessing is not met-all these factors
would further the expectation of an Anointed One in whom the
old ideal, Yahweh alone is King, and the seemingly contradictory
promise to David find a meeting-point. David himself in his last
words and in prophetic ecstasy seizes on the hope for a perfect
ruler (II Sam 23 :2-4; cf. 7: 18). If4QFlor. can interpret the Nathanic oracle of the Davidic Messiah, there is no reason why the same
interpretation could not have arisen soon after the oracle was
given. 1 "The pre-exilic tension round the king consisted of the
vision of one who should perfectly represent Yahweh, even as the
heathen around Israel declared their 'divine kings' represented
their gods, and the stark reality of one who, however great his
office, fell far short of the vision." 2
With the above view, which combines the old YHWH MLK ideal
with disappointment in the Davidic line, what Mowinckel writes
of the prophet-poet who authored the Servant-songs can be applied
to pre-exilic prophets and poets who elsewhere paint pictures far
brighter than were actually realized in Israel: "The poet has, of
course, idealized the portrait. Every prophetic interpretation and
transformation of historical reality is an idealization." 3 We are
therefore not denying the Sitz im Leben, but merely affirming that
factors within Israel's religion provide a better life-setting than does
the Oriental Umwelt. Furthermore, the Sitz im Leben is not a kind
of ceiling above which the thought of the pertinent OT passages
cannot rise, but is a springboard from which the thought leaps
beyond the immediate occasion.
All this is directly relevant to the question whether Jesus' and
Mt's use of the OT is legitimate. For if the Messianic hope is to be
seen in pre-exilic OT passages, there is no a priori objection to NT
interpretation of pre-exilic passages as directly Messianic. And if the
concept of Yahweh's sale sovereignty played the part suggested in
the rise of the Messianic hope, the quotations in which Jesus fills the
eschatological role of Yahweh stem from a correct understanding of
OT Messianism. For the tension between Yahweh as the sale king
1 On the importance of the Nathanic oracle and on the development of the
hope for an eschatological HeilskOnig answering Yahweh's requirements from
the manifest unworthiness of the Davidic line, see Kraus, Die Konigsherrschaft Gottes im A. T., 90ff., 95f.; idem, Gottesdienst in Israel, 78; Y.
Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel (Chicago, 1960), 272f.
Ellison, op. cit., II.
8 He That Cometh, pp. 250f.
225
15
226
considered Messianic, the view which was earliest and most widespread in Judaism. l Not only the world-wide dominion of the
Anointed (against the historical reality of the kings of Israel), but
also the expectation that the faith of Israel will become the faith
of the kings and the nations of the world is typically Messianic
(cf. Is II:9, 1O}.2 Is 8:23-9:1 (Mt 4:15 f.) occurs in a prominent
individually Messianic passage (see Is 9: 5 f.). 3 The prophet proclaims the Lord's favor upon the northern Israelitish provinces,
which had suffered the greatest affliction and degradation.' Mt
applies the prophecy to Jesus' Galilean ministry. The Messianic
character of Is II: I (Mt 2: 23) is generally recognized. Mt's use of
Is II: I to describe the lowliness and obscurity out of which
Jesus came exactly corresponds to the Isaianic thought. Mic 5: I
(Mt 2:6) and Zech 9:9 (Mt 21:5) are generally accepted as
Messianic.
Considerations of space forbid a full discussion of Is 7: 14 (Mt
I: 23). But it may briefly be pointed out that all views which do not
see the prediction of a miraculous birth of the Messiah in Is 7: 14
neglect to establish one of two things which must be established for
those views to stand. First, if the 'almah is virgin, she will lose her
virginity, conceive, and bear. But we should have expected 'iskak
if marriage were contemplated before conceiving and giving birth. 5
The adjective emphasizes the state of the 'almak's pregnancy, as
if it had already begun; 6 so that we must understand she conceives
1
Ps 2 was indeed Messianic, but should be applied to David "to refute the
heretics [Christians)" and the expunging of the quoted phrase in some later
editions, see C. Taylor, op. cit., p. xvii.
I W. E. Barnes, in Cambridge Biblical Essays (ed. H. B. Swete; London,
1909), 147ff.
3 See Reinke, op. cit., I, lI8ff., that this passage cannot refer to Hezekiah.
Mowinckel recognizes Is 9: 1 -6 as Messianic (He That Cometh, 16).
4 With O. Procksch (Jesaia I [Leipzig, 1930], 143), therefore, I reject the
interpretation which sees mention of the three Assyrian provinces, Dor
(C'il 1"-from Mt. Carmel to Aphek in the south), Gilead 11"'il ,::U7),
and Megiddo (C''Uil
(E. Forrer, Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen
Reiches [Leipzig, 1920], 59ff., 69; A. Alt, in Festschrift fur Alfred Bertholet
[Tiibingen, 1950], 32ff. [= A. Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes
Israel (Miinchen, 1953), 209ff.]; Simons, op. cit., 34, 433). Unless the Isaianic
expressions refer to the Galilean area, the stated contrast between "the
former time" and "the latter time" is lost.
6 Procksch, op. cit., 121.
8 So also if il'il is pointed as a participle. Cf. S. R. Driver. A Treatise on
the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew 3 (Oxford, 1892). 165, 168.
"'1)
227
228
229
23 0
232
of the little horn (v. 21), consequently before the Son of man, and
therefore are not to be equated with the Son of man. l There seems
to be no intention to contrast the human and the bestial, for the
lion of verse 4 stands upright as a man and is given human intelligence, and the little horn has the eyes of a man and a speaking
mouth (v. 8).2 If the Eastern concept of an urmenschlicher saviour
of mankind does not provide the primary source for the Danielic
Son of man, it does provide the best commentary on the kind of
figure Dan must have wished to portray and the impression his
first readers must have received. 3 This is confirmed by the heavenly
eschatological man in apocalyptic literature (1 Enoch, II Esdras)
and by the purely Messianic interpretation of Dan 7: 13 in the old
synagogue.' The strikingly identical pattern of thought which
Dan 7: 13, 14 shares with Isaianic Servant passages and prophecies
of the royal Messiah-universal and everlasting dominion, authority
deriving from God, homage of the nations, close association with
the restored and exalted nation of Israel 5-gives final confirmation
to the individually Messianic implication of Dan 7: 13.
Jesus alludes to Dan 7:13 in Mt 24:30, where he describes his
return as a descent. Consequently, we must understand Mt 26:64
as descent-also because the allusion to Dan 7: 13 follows that to
Ps lIO, concerning the session at God's right hand. l Does Dan
233
234
xix. 5-9). Rabin suggests the shepherd was thought to be the Teacher of
Righteousness (The Zadokite Documents, 30). F. F. Bruce thinks the application was to a ruler considered wicked by the Zadokites (Biblical Exegesis,
34). It appears to me the citation puts no emphasis on the identity of the
shepherd, but is introduced only because of the smiting-motif.
S See Moore, Judaism, II, 370.
, "0 Jerusalem, .... Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say,
Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."
6 I''ij is, of course, used regularly in the LXX for Palestine.
M. Barth, Theology Today, I I (1954), 342-353; Stonehouse, op. cit., 194.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1
Books on Quotations of the aT in the NT
Amsler, S. L'Ancien Testament dans l'eglise. Neuchatel, 1960.
Anger, R. Ratio, qua loci Veteris Testamenti in evangelio Matthaei laudantur,
quid valeat ad illustrandam lIuius evangelii originem, quaeritur. (Leipziger
Programme I-III.) Leipzig, 1861-62.
Bohl, I E. Die alttestamentlichen Citate im NT. Wien, 1878.
Bonsirven, J. Exegese rabbinique et exegese paulinienne. Paris, 1939.
Carpzov, J. G. Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti. Leipzig, 1728.
- - . A Defence of the Hebrew Bible. Translated byM. Marcus. London, 1729.
Chasles, R. L'Ancien Testament dans Ie NT. Paris, 1937.
Clapton, E. Our Lord's Quotations from tile ~T. London, 1922.
Clemen, A. Der Gebrauch des Alten Testamentes in den neutestamentlichen
Schriften. Giitersloh, 1895.
Credner, K. A. Beitrage zur Einleitung in die biblischen ScMiften. Bd. II:
Das alttestamentliche Urevangelium. Halle, 1838.
Davidson, S. Sacred Hermeneutics. Edinburgh, 1843. [See Chap. XI, "Quotations from the aT in the New," pp. 334-515.]
Dittmar, W. Vetus Testamentum in Novo. Gottingen, 1903.
Dodd, C. H. According to the Scriptures. London, 1952.
- - . The OT in the New. London, 1952.
Dopke, J. C. C. Hermeneutik der neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller. Leipzig,
1829.*
Doeve, J. W. Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Te Assen
Bij, 1954.
Drusius, J. Parallela Sacra: hoc est, Locorum Veteris Testamenti cum iis quae
in Novo citantur conjuncta Commemoratio, Ebraice et Graece, cum Notis.
Franeck, 1588. [Republished 1616 and in Critica Sacra, Vol. VIII, pp.
1262-1326. London, 1660.]*
Ellis, E. E. Paul's Use of the ~T. Edinburgh, 1957.
Feigel, F. K. Der Einfluss des Weissagungsbeweises und anderer Motive auf die
Leidensgeschichte. Tiibingen, 1910.
Gibson, E. C. S. Tile OT in the New. (The Warburtonian Lectures for 19031907.) London, 1907.
Gough, H. The NT Quotations. London, 1855.
[Gregory, J. B.J The Oracles Ascribed to Mt by Papias. London, 1894. *
Grelot, P. Sens Chretien de L'Ancien Testament. Tournai, 1962.*
Hanel, J. Der Schriftbegriff J esu. (Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher
Theologie. 24. Bd., 5./6. Heft.) Giitersloh, 1919.
Harris, J. R. Testimonies. With the assistance of V. Burch. 2 vols. Cambridge,
1916-20.
Haupt, E. Die alttestamentlichen Citate in den vier Evangelien. Colberg, 1871.
Hody, H. De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus. Oxford, 1705.
Hoffmann,!. Demonstratio Evangelica. Tiibingen, 1773.
Hofmann, J. Chr. K. Weissagung und Erfullung im alten und im neuen
Testamente. 2 vols. Nordlingen, 1841-44.
1 An asterisk following the entry indicates that the work cited has been
unavailable to me.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
237
Whiston. W. An Essay towards Restoring the True Text of the OT. London.
1722 .*
Articles and Periodical Literature on Quotations
Of the OT in the NT
Allen. W. C. "Matthew xii. Ig-Isaiah xlii.2 .... ET. 20 (lg08/09). 14of.
- - . "The OT Quotations in St. Matthew and St. Mark." ET. 12 (1900/01)'
187-189. 281-285.
Alting. J. "Parallelismus Testimoniorum Veteris Testamenti Quae in
Euangelio suo citat S. Matthaeus." OPerum. Vol. II. Amsterdam. 1685.
Argyle. A. W. "Scriptural Quotations in Q Material." ET. 65 (1953/54). 285f.
Atkinson. B. F. C. "The Textual Background of the Use of the OT by the
New." journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute. 79 (1947). 39-60.
Ayles. H. H. B. "Our Lord's Refutation of the Sadducees." The Expositor.
II. 6th Series (1905). 440-446.
Bacon. B. W. "Jesus' Voice from Heaven." American journal of Theology.
9 (1905). 45 1-473.
- - . "Supplementary Note on the Aorist e686Kljacx. Mk i.II." jBL. 20
(1901). 28-30.
Barret. C. K. "The OT in the Fourth Gospel." JTS. 48 (1947). 155-169.
Bates. W. H. "Quotations in the NT from the OT." BibSac. 77 (1920).
42 4-4 28 .
Baumstark. A. "Die Zitate des Mt.-Ev. aus dem Zw6lfprophetenbuch."
Biblica. 37 (1956). 296-3 13.
Black. M. "The Problem of the OT Quotations in the Gospels." j o~lYnal
of tile Manchester University Egyptian and Oriental Society. 23 (1942).4.
Boman. T. "Das letzte Wort Jesu." StJldia Theologica. 17 (1963). 103-II9.
Braun. H. "Das Alte Testament im Neuen Testament." ZTK. 59 (1962).
16-31.
Bruce. F. F. "The Book of Zech and the Passion Narrative." BjRL. 43
(19 61 ). 336-353.
Buckler. F. W. "'Eli. Eli. Lama Sabachthani? ... American journal of
Semitic Languages and Literatures. 55 (1938). 378-391.
Burkitt. F. C. "On St. Mk xv 34 in Cod. Bobiensis." JTS. 1 (1900). 278f.
Buse. I. "The Markan Account of the Baptism of Jesus and Is LXIII."
JTS. 7 (195 6). 74 f .
Cappellus. L. "Quaestu de Locis Parallelis Veteris et Novi Testamenti."
Critica Sacra. 444-557. Paris. 1650.
Cerfaux. L. "L'exegese de l' Ancien Testament par Ie NT." Recueil L~lcien
Cerfaux. II. 205-217. Gembloux. Ig54.
- - . "Les sources scripturaires de Mt. XI. 25-30." Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses. 31 (1955). 331-342.
Chapman. J. " Zacharias. Slain Between the Temple and the Altar." JTS.
13 (1912). 398-410.
Coggan. F. D. "Note on the Word wacxvvoc... ET. 52 (1940/41). 76f.
Davidson. S. "Quotations from the OT in the New." Chapters XXVIIIXXXII in An Introd14ction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the
Holy Scriptures by T. H. Home. II. 113-201. loth ed. London. 1856.
Dibelius. M. "Die alttestamentlichen Motive in der Leidensgeschichte des
Petrus- und des Johannes-Evangeliums." Beihefte zur ZAW. 33 (1918).
125-150. (Abhandlungen zur Semitischen Religionskunde und Sprachwissenschaft; Wolf Wilhelm Grafen von Baudissin Festschrift.) Giessen.
1918.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
239
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AUTHOR INDEX
Aalen, S. 57
Abbott, E. A. 128
Abbott, T. K. 175
Albright, W. F. 17, 40, 102, 146,
158, 189, 193, 220, 228, 232
Alexander, J. A. 10, 69, 90, 132
Alford 128
Allegro, J.~. 104, 133, 164
Allen, W. C. I, 10, 23, 32, 93, 1I2,
1I4, 123, 164, 175, 178, 179
Allgeier, A. 169
Alt, A. 219, 226
Althaus, P. 192
Amsler, S. 21I
Andrews, D. K. 34
Anger 68, 91, 106, 109, II3, 127,
181
Argyle, A. W. 73
Arvedson, T. 136
Atkinson, B. F. C. 23,53,147,180,
182
Audet, J .-P. 42, 126
Avigad, N. 176
Avi-Yonah,~.
103
Ayles, H. H. B. 21
Bacher, W. II7
Bacon, B. W. I, 31, 32, 68, 82, 104,
II5, 1I6, 151, 152, 164, 166, 173,
178, 179, 180, 198
Bagatti, B. 176
Baird, J. A. 34
Balogh, J. 2
Bammel, 70
Barnes, W. E. 226
Barr, A. 189
Barrett, C. K. 19, 40, 198
Barth, G. II3, 120
Barth, ~. 234
Barthelemy 170
Bartlett, F. C. 190
Bauer, J. 137
Bauer, W. 120
Baumgartel, F. 215
Baumstark, A. 2, 26, 27,44, 90, 91,
92, 126, 127, 171, 173
Beasley-~urray, G. R. 48, 50, 53, 233
Bengel 10, 93
Suppl. to Novum Test., XVIII
INDEXES
Danby. H. 141
Danielou. J. 83. 129. 209. 217
Danker. F. W. 127
Daube. D. 16. 48. 73. 74. 196
Dausch. P. 64
Davey. N. 34
Davidson. A. B. 216
Davidson. S. 24. 92. 172
Davies. P. E. 189
Davies. W. D. 73. II5. 154. i82
Dearing. V. A. 181
Debrunner. A. 74
Deichgraber. R. 58
Deissmann. A. 47. 74. 109. 120. 151
Delekat. L. 95
Delitzsch. Franz 10. 40. 45. 82. 134.
209. 227. 229
Delitzsch. Friedrich 92. 95
Denis. A.-M. 82
De-Rossi 76. 90. 91. 92. 122. 134.
139
Dibelius. M. 171. 201
Diestel. L. 166
Dobschiitz. E. von 132. 155
Dodd. C. H. 14. 70. 80. 102. 107.
164. 179. 194. 205-208
Dodewaard. J. A. E. van 31. 83
Doeve. J. W. 60. 124. 213
Doller. J. 202
Donovan. J. 165
Dopke. J. C. C. 213
Draper. H. M. 73
Dreyfus. F. 21
Driver. S. R. 45. 140. 169. 226
Drower. E. S. 101
Dugmore 2. 154
Duhm. B. 96. 121
Du Plessis. P. J. 73
Dupont. J. 83. 133
Dupont-Sommer. A. 159
Dyer. L. 123
Easton. B. S. 189. 200
Ebeling 192
Ebrard. J. H. A. 199
Edersheim. A. 10. 43. 75. 83. 88.
92. 130. 171. 172. 175. 202. 20 3.
209. 217. 225. 230
Edgar. S. L. 10. 212. 214
Edghill. E. A. 194. 200. 234
Eerdmans. B. D. 140
Eichrodt. W. 220
Eissfeldt. O. 123. 126
AUTHOR INDEX
Elbogen. 1. 156. 172
Elliger. K. 159. 205
Ellis. E. E. 23. 83. 87. 159. 163. 172
Ellison. H. L. 221. 224. 231
Elsner. J. 144
Emerton. J. A. 58. 231
Enslin. M. S. 130
Euler. K. F. III. 218
Farrer. A. M. 82
Feigel. F. K. 201
Fenton. F. C. 30
Feuillet. A. 29. 82. 222. 232
Fiebig. P. 200
Field. F. 14. 18. 20. 39
Findlay. J. A. 2. 83. 126. 137. 164.
165
Finkenstein. L. 182. 196
Fisher. L. R. 66
Fishwick. D. 176
Fitzmyer. J. A. 10. 17. 97
Flusser. D. 71. 132
Foerster 25. 75
Forrer. E. 226
Frankel. Z. 166
Frankfort. H. 218
Fridrichsen. A. 38. 39. 136
Friedrich 80. 83. 212. 213
Frost. S. B. 221
Fuchs. E. 73. 192
Fuller. R. H. 39. 58
Furrer. K. 99
Gartner. B. 101. 104. II3. 159. 172.
173. 20 5
Gaster. T. 217
Geiger. A. II
Gerhardsson. B. 182. 183
Gesenius 145
Gibson. E. C. S. 3. 52. 1-37
Gils. F. 29. 30. 83
Ginsberg. H. L. 219
Ginsburg. C. D. 122. 126
Glasson. T. F. 46. 47. 54. 55. 193.
233
Gloag. P. J. 126. 178 184
Gnilka. J. 64
Godet. F. 82
Goguel. M. 133
Gooding. D. W. 170
Goodspeed. E. J. 140. 182
GoppeIt. L. 59
Gordis. R. 158. 203
243
244
INDEXES
196
Jackson 214
James. M. R. 87
Jansma. T. 53
Jastrow II4
Jefferson. H. G. 228
Jenni 232
Jeremias. J. II. 20. 23. 24. 30 34.
4 1 4 2, 43. 58. 64. 75. 76 87. II5.
116, 122. 174. 189. 230
Johnson. A. R. 221. 222
Johnson. F. 2. 97. 171. 205. 212.
21 3
Johnson. S. E. 19.35.69. 116. 152.
17 2
J onge, M. de 143
Jotion 42
J iilicher, A. 34
Kahle. P. 2. 13. 27. 55, 90. 91. 143.
159. 166-171
Kaiser. O. 219
Karnetzki 2. 15. 35. 40 59. 172.
181
Kasemann 192
Kattenbusch. F. 194
Katz. P. 66. III. 166. 167. 169. 170
Kaufmann. Y. 224
Kautzch. A. F. 145. 166
Keil. C. F. 45
Kennard. J. S. 42 43. 75. 87. 98.
100
Kennedy. A. R. S. 44
Kennedy. J. 12. 15. 65. 92. II 6.
134
Kennicott 49. 76. 122. 123. 134.
139
Kenyon. F. G. 35. 69. 132. 182
Kidder 92
245
AUTHOR INDEX
Loisy, A. 10, 98, 193
Low, 1. 129
Lyonnet, S. 98
McArthur, H. K. 183, 233
McCasland, S. V. 51
McNeile 12, 18, 36, 50, 68, 81, 94,
II3, II5, 164, 212
Macchioro, V. 70
Macgregor, W. M. 70
Machen, J. G. 151, 192
Mackinnon, D. M. 193
MacRae, G. 25
Macuch, R. 101
Mahaffy, J. P. 175
Manek, J. 82
Mann, J. II, 154
Manson, T. W. I, 15, 24, 31, 34, 51,
53, 65, 87, III, n6, 164, 165, 169,
173, 174
Manson, W.
3, 73, 189, 190, 214,
232
Margolis, M. L. 169
Marti, K. 27, 93, 94
Marxsen, W. 10, 49
Massaux, E. 163
Massebieau, E. 109, II2
Maurer, C. 30
Mays, H. G. 220
Mead, R. T. 214
Mendelsohn, 1. 223
Merx, A. 9, 17, 18, 42, 53, 63, 141
Metzger, B. M. 74, II7, 137
Meyer, A. 75, 136, 174
Meyer, H. A. W. 20, 42, 98, 201,
20 3
Michaelis, W. 10, 34, 133
Michel, O. 77, 101, 120, 166, 197
Milik, J. T. 143, 175, 176, 205, 214
Miller, A. 222
Milligan, G. 131, 140, 182
Milton, H. 2II
Mingana 9
Mitchell, H. G. 27, 53, 55, 70
Moffatt, J. 165
Moore, G. F. 25, 99, 101, 102, 103,
234
Moule, C. F. D. 33, 191
Moulton, J. H. 17, 34, 45, 68, 72,
77, 131, 132, 140
Mowinckel 216, 217, 218, 219, 220,
221, 222, 224, 226, 227, 230
Moyter, J. A. 217
Muncey, R. W .. 66
Neil, J. 9 0
Nepper-Christensen, P. I, 131
Nestle, E. 14, 16, 48, 65, 88, 91,
II4, 132, 166
Nicklin, T. 17S
Norden, E. 31, 136, 196
North, C. R. 219, 220, 229
Notscher, F. 74
Nowack 27
Nyberg, H. S. 2, III
Oepke 230
Oesterley, W. O. E. 2, 40, 154, 232
O'Keefe, V. T. 189
Orlinsky, H. M. 158
O'Rourke, J. J. 96, 194, 204
Ottley, R. R. 14, 15, 47, 51
Owen, H. P. 27, 92, 233
Palfrey, J. G. 212
Pallis, A. 33, 43, 102
Pap, L. J. 221
Parker, P. I, 151, 152, 184
Paulus, G. E. 121
Payne, J. B. 76
Pedersen, J. 22
Percy, E. 70, 80, 81, 136
Perowne, J. J. S. 202
Petrie, F. 74
Petrie, S. 180
Pfleiderer, O. 87, 133
Pidoux, G. 219
Piper, O. 154, 191
Plooij 30, 31, II2, 164
Plummer, A. 75, 200, 202
Pocock 92
Porteous, N. W. 220
Power, E. 123
Preisigke, Fit'. 74
Press, R. 220
Rretzl, O. 168
Procksch, O. 226
Quispel, G.
79
INDEXES
AUTHOR INDEX
Swete, H. B. 18, 23, 30, 35, 40, 42,
64, 131, 167, 172, 226
Szikszai, S. 218, 219
Tabachovitz, D. 39, 70 , 84
Taylor, C. 3, 93, II7, 2II, 226
Taylor, R. O. P. 156, 175
Taylor, V. II, 15, 18, 51, 55, 63,
64, 83, 179, 189, 201
Taylor, W. S. 190
Teeple, H. M. 82, 83
Thieme, K. 83
Tholuck 3, 213
Thomas, K. J. 3, 58, 147, 166
Thompson, G. H. 178
Torrance, T. F. 34
Torrey, C. C. 1,9,27,39,41,53,68,
73, 87, 90, 96, 97, 107, II2, II4,
II 6, 123, 124, 125, 126, 139, 141,
152, 153, 157, 170, 174
Toy, C. H. 15, 66, 106, 126, 133
Traub, M. 29
Turner, C. H. 18, 30, 65, 132
Turner, H. E. W. 194
Turpie, D. M. 24, 68, 92
Tyson, J. B. 61
Ullendorff, E. 34
Ungern-Sternberg 163
Ussher, J. 166
Vaccari, A. 170
Vaganay, L. 9, 65, 181
Vandervorst, J. 93
Van Hoonacker, A. 93
Vaux, R. de 176
Vawter, B. 3
Vischer, W. 140
Vogels, H. J. 9, 29
Vogtle, A. 137
Volter, D. 136
Volz, P. 96
Voobus, A. 9
Walker, N. 98
Wallenstein, M. 4, 104, 177
Weber, F. 205, 230
Weidel, K. 201
247
Weiser, A. 40 .
Weiss, B. 18, 50, 75, 80, 84, 85, I13
Weiss, J. 19, 74, 87, 129, 132, 190
Wellhausen, J. 27, 38, 67, 81, 87,
106, 122, 133
Wendland 127
Wendling, E. 82
Wensinck, A. J. 174
Wernberg-MlIlller, P. 4
Werner, E. 42 , 43
Wernle, P. 174
Westcott, B. F. II9, 131, 172
Weyers, J. W. 76, 170
Whitlock, G. E. 23
Wikenhauser, A. 9, 165, 178, 179,
181
Wikgren 107
Wilder, A. N. 182
Williams, A. L. 107, II9, 138, 164
Williams, C. S. C. 9, 65
Wilson, R. D. 12, 227
Wilson, R. M. 73
Windisch, H. 34
Winter, P. 16, 39, 103, 196
Wolff, H. W. 39, 40, 230
Wood, C. T. 41
Wood, H. G. 189
Woods, F. H. 58, II5
Woods, L. 212
Woollcombe, K. J. 129, 209
Wordsworth, C. I16
Wrede, W. 58
Wright, A. 166
Wright, G. E. 220
Wiirthwein 2, 76, 95
Yadin, Y. 176, 177
Young, E. J. 126, 227, 229, 230,
23 1
Zahn, T. 9, 10, 12, 19, 21, 27, 31,
63, 64, 88, 90, 99, 104, III, II9,
121,173,195,201, 21 3,227
Ziegler, J. 10, II, 12, 13, 27, 44, 68,
76,94, 105, 106, III, II5, 137, 173
Zimmerman, F. 65
Zimmern, H. 101
Zolli, E. 98
Zuntz, G. 154, 156, 168, 169, 173
16f.
16f.
139f.
89
72
38f .
30f.
45
20 9
130
20ff.
130f.
31
50
50
12f.
17ff.
108
108
18
56
12f.
109
IIf.
57ff . 208
14If.
135f.
98
82f . 207
32
73f .
108f.
18
24f . 109
98
109
12 5
128.
21 7
128f. 195
32.
108
Deuteronomy
5: 16
5: 17-20
5: 17
5:18
6:4.5
6:13
6:16
8:3
13:1-3
13:7
13:8
15: 11
18:13
18:15-19
18:15
19:15
19:21
21:6.9
21:20
24: 1
24: 1(3)
24: 14
25:5
30 :4
32:5
32:20
Judges
13:5
13:7
16:17
I Samuel
2:30
8:4-22
21:6
12f.
17ff.
108
108
22ff.
68f.
68
66f.
50f.
207f.
54f .
56
73f .
21 7
36f.
139
109
144
80f.
37f .
108
18
45
54 f . 207f.
83f.
83f.
97ff.. 12 7
97 ff .
97ff .
77f .
223
33
II Samuel
9 Iff.
5:2
140 200. 207
5: 8
7:5-16
223
23: 2-4
224
228
23: 2ff.
I Kings
2:1-4
10:4.68
228
8d.
I Kings
II:4
22:17
II Kings
1:8
4:33
4:4 2
12:5-17
22:3-6
23:25
5
32f .
13 If . 20 7
134
36
12 3
12 3
22ff.
I Chronicles
II:2
9 Iff.
I I Chronicles
15:6
18:16
24:20-22
36:21
4 6f.
32f.
86ff.
12 5
Ezra
6:14
86ff.
Job
39:3 0
88f.
Psalms
1:3
14of .
2
225f . 229
2:2
141
2:7 29ff . 36f . 112. 16If.
6:9
75f .
12If. 200
8:3
8:7
25
16:10
162. 229
18(17):26
133
22(21):2
63ff . 20 3
22(21):8
62f . 20 3
22(21):9
145. 20 3
22(21):19
62. 20 3
22(21):23
14 6
24(23):3.4
133
31(30):14
56
98
3 1:24
37(36):1
138
132.
37(36):II
42(41):6.12; 43(42):5 59
Psalms
4 2: 10
64
4 8 (47):3
134
108
50(49):14
51(50):14
59f .
62(61):13
138
69(68):22
66, 144f.
202f., 203f., 229
69:22
129f.
72(71):IO,II
206, 2II
72:10
II8f., 2II
78(77):2
91(90):II,12
67f.
104(103):27
89
107(106):3
76f.
107(106):10
106
228f.
IIO(109)
IIO(109):1
25, 60f.,
162, 200f., 222, 233
60f.
IIO(109):3
II2(III):10
77
II8(II7):22,23
20
II8(II7):22
173
II8(II7):25,26
40ff.
130(129):8
127f.
148:1
42
Proverbs
24: 12
30:8
138
74f.
Isaiah
5:2
43 f .
6:9,10
II6ff., 213
6:9
33f f.
7: 14 89., 195, 217, 226f.
7: 15.
227
8:2
86ff.
8:23; 9:1 105ff., 197, 226
II:!
97ff., 196f., 226
13:10
5d., 208
14:13,15
81
19:2
46f.
26:20
134
27: 13
54f., 27f.
29:13
14ff.
51., 208
34:4
35
225
35:5,6
79f., 20 7
225
40
40 :3
9f.
120
40 :9
4 1:5
II6
41:8,9
IIoff.
Isaiah
IIoff.
42 :1-4
42:1 29ff., 36f., 16If.,
229f.
4 2:6
98
II off.
44: 2
98
49:6
49: 12
76f.
61, 72f., 201
50:6
50:II
144
7 If.
5 1:7
229f.
52:14
109, III, 230f.
53:4
146, 204, 23 1
53:9
39f .
53: 10- 12
53: 12
57ff .
162
55:3
19
56 :7
142f.
58 :7
60:6 129f., 195, 206, 2II
61:1
69ff., 79f., 209
61:2
132
62:II
120f.
28f.
63: 19
66:1
134
66:2
69ff.
Jeremiah
6:16
136
19f.
7: II
88
12:7
12:12
54f .
14:14
135
18: Iff.
124f.
19:df.
124f., 202
88
22:5
25: 12
12 5
27(34):15(12)
135
29:10
12 5
98
31:6,7
31(38):15 94ff. 196, 2IIf.
31(38):25
135f.
31(38):34
57
124f.
32:6ff.
50(27):6
135
Lamentations
2:15
4:7
4: 13
Ezekiel
1:1
62f., 203
98
86ff.
28f.
Ezekiel
17:23
34:5
34:3 1
249
35
32f.
27
Daniel
2:28
46
4:9,18
35
147
4:14
7:9
146
52ff., 60f., 23 Iff.
7: 13
147
7: 14
9:27
47'
10:6
146
II:3 1
47ff .
142, 207
II:41
46, 207
II:44
12:1
49f .
12:2
143
12:3
138
12:7
55f .
12:II
47ff .
12:12,13
47
12:13
147
Hosea
III
6:6
II:I 4, 93f., 195f., 213
Joel
2:2
50f.
Amos
3:5
135
Jonah
2:1
4:9
I 36f., 20 7
59
Micah
9df., 206, 226
5: 1
33, 78f., 179, 206
7: 6
Habakkuk
1:4
1 I off.
Zephaniah
1:13
137f.
Haggai
2:23
Zechariah
1:1
llOff.
86ff.
25 0
INDEXES
Zechariah
2:6
2:10
9:9 120f.,
II:12
II:13
Matthew
197ff.,
122ff., 202,
12:10
13:7
14:5
52ff., 60f.,
25ff.,
207f.
54f.
226,
233f .
143f.
211,
225
233f .
233f.
142
Malachi
3: 1
3:23,24
3: 2 3
IIf., 225
37
20 7
I Maccabees
9: 2 7
50
Susanna
46
144
Matthew
1:21 127f., 150, 153, 209
1:23 89ff., 118, 128, 149,
153, 157, 208, 226f.
2:1,2 128f. 150, 206, 210
2:6 4, 9 Iff., 149, 157,
206, 208, 226
2:II 129f., 150, 206, 210
2:13-15
5
2:13 130, 150, 206f., 209
2:15 93f., 149, 157, 163,
210, 211
2:18 94f f., 149. 157, 163.
210, 2IIf . 213
2:20,21 130f. 150. 206f.,
20 9
2:23 97ff., 149. 157, 208,
226
209
3:3,4
9f ., 148 157. 225
3:3
3:4 13 If., 150, 207. 2II
3:16
28f. 148
3: 1 7 29ff., 148. 149, 208,
209, 2II, 225f. 229
66f. 149, 210, 214
4:4
4:6,7
149
4:6
67f.
68, 210, 214
4:7
4: 10 68f., 149, 210, 21 4
197
4: 12 1 3
4: 15,16
Matthew
105ff., 149,
208,
69ff.,
132,
132f.,
133,
133,
7 If.,
7 2,
108,
108,
108,
108.,
157,
226
5:3
149
150
5:4
150
5:5
150
5:7
5: 8
150
5: II
149
5: 12
149
5:21
149
149
5: 2 7
5:3 1
149
5:33
149
150
5:34
134, 150
5:35
109, 149
5:3 8
72f., 149
5:39
109, 134, 149
5:43
73f ., 149
5:4 8
6:6
134, 150
6; II
74 f ., 149
135, 150
7: 22
75f., 149
7: 2 3
8:4
3 2 , 148
8:II
76f., 149
8:12
149
8:17 109, III, 149, 157,
209, 229, 230f.
III, 149
9: 13
32., 148
9:3 6
10:6
135, 150
10:21 33, 148, 179, 206
10:22
47
10:29
135, 150
10:3 2 .33 77 f ., 149. 150
209, 214
10:35,36 7 8f . 149. 179.
206
10:35
33
II:5 79f . 149. 20 7. 209.
214,' 225
II:IO IIf . 147f . 209.
214, 225
II:19
80f . 149
II:23
81. 149
II:28 135f ., 150, 209,
214
II:29 136, 150. 209, 214
12:4
148
12:7
III. 149
12:14
33
12:18-21 30f. IIof.. 149.
229
207,
214
210,
214
197, 210
13: 13-15
13: 13
33ff., 148, 214
13: 14,15 II6ff., 149, 157
13: 14
21 3
13:32
35, 148
13:35 II8f., 149, 157,
207, 210, 211
13:41 137f., 150,209,214
13:42
77
138, 150
13:43
13:50
77
14: 16 36, 148, 149, 150 ,
210, 214
12f., 148
15:4
14ff., 148
15:8,9
15:24
135
16:18
179
16:27 138, 150, 209, 214
82f., 149, 207, 209
17: 2
36f., 148, 149, 210
17:5
17: 11 37, 148, 207, 209,
2II, 214,225
83f., 149
17: 17
18:15-17
179
18:15
149
18:16
139, 150
18:22
139f., 150
16f., 148
19:4
148
19:5
19:7
37f . 148
17f f.
19: 1819
19: 18
148
12f., 24f.. 148
19: 19
19:26
38f., 148. 149
20:28 39f., 148, 209. 214.
229
120., 149, 157,
21:5
197f., 208, 226
21:7
199
21:9
40f.. 148, 210
19f., 148
21:13
21:14 140. 150, 200. 207,
210
21:16
121., 149, 200
21:33
43f . 148
140f., 15 0
21:41
21:42 20,148.200,210.214
25 1
Matthew
Matthew
Mar~
21:44
10:19
12f. 17ff.. 148
10:27
38f.
10:45
39f .
11:9.10
40ff
II:17
19f.
12:1
43f .
12:10.11
20. 200
12:19
45
12:26
20ff.
12:28ff.
141
12:29,30
22ff.. 148
12:31
24f.
22ff.
12:33
12:36
25
13:7'
46
13:8
46f.
13:12
33. 179
13:1 3
47
13:14
47ff.
13:19
49f .
13:22
50f.
13:24
5d .
13:26
52ff.
13:27
54f .
13:30
55f .
14:1
56
14:7
56
14:24
57ff .
25ff
14:27
14:34
59
14:38
59f .
60f.
14:62
61
14: 6 5
202f.
15:23
62
15:24
62f.
15:29
63ff.
15:34
62f.
15:35
66. 203f.
15:36
15:43
146
16:5
146
149.207.209.214
233
22:7
179
22:13
77
22:24
45. 148
20ff. 148
22:32
22:34
141 150. 208f .
2II. 225f.
22ff.. 41. 148
22:37
22:39
24f. 148
22:44 25. 148. 200f. 209.
21 4. 228
23:8
156
23: 12
149
23: 19
14 If. 150
86ff . 149
23:35.36
88. 149
23:38
23:39
40ff . 210
24:6
46 148. 20 7
46f. 148. 207f.
24:7
24: 10
142. 150. 207
24: 13
47. 148
24: 15
47ff . 148
24:21
49f . 148 149
24:24
50f. 148 149.
207f.
24:28
88f . 149
24:29
5d. 148. 208
24:30
52ff. 137. 148
209. 214. 231ff . 233f.
24:3 1
54f . 148 149.
207f. 209. 214
24:34
55f . 148
24:3 8
89. 149
24:45
89. 149
24:5 1
77
25:3 0
77
25:3 1 142. 150 209. 214
142f.. 150
25:35.3 6
25:46
143. 15 0
26:3.4
56. 148
26: II
56. 148
26:15
143f.. 150. 202.
209. 2II. 225
26:28
57ff.. 148 149.
208. 209. 214
26:3 1
25ff . 148. 209.
214. 233f.
26:3 8 59. 148. 210. 21 4
26:4 1
59f . 148
26:52
144. 150
Mark
1:2
1:3
1:6
1:10
I:II
1:24
1:44
2:26
4: 12
4:32
6:34
6:37
7: 6 .7
7: 10
7: 21
9:7
9:12
9: 19
10:4
10:6.7
IIf . 147f.
9f. 148
13 If.
28f.
29ff.
99f .
32
33
33ff.. 149
35
32f.
36
14ff. 148
12f.
18
36f.
37
83f.
37f .
16f.
Luke
1:1-4
1:2
1:37
3:4-6
3:21 22
3:22
4:4
4:8
190
156
38f.
9f.
28f.
29ff.
,67
68f.
INDEXES
252
Luke
4: 1O,II
4: 12
5:14
6:4
6:20
6:21
6:22
6:23
6:29
6:36
7: 22
7: 27
7:34
8:10
9: 13
9:29
9:35
9:4 1
10:15
10:27
II:3
II:30
II:31
II:50,51
12:8,9
12:42
12:53
13:19
13:27
13:28
13:29
13:35
17:27
17:37
18:20
18:27
19:38
19:46
20:9
20:17
67f.
68
32
33
69ff.
132
7d .
72
72f.
73f .
791.
IIf.
801.
33ff.
36
82f.
30, 36f.
83f.
81
22f1., 241.
741.
136f.
8d.
86ff.
77f.
89
781.
35
751.
77
76f.
40ff., 88
89
88f.
12f., 17ff.
38f.
40ff.
191.
43 f .
20. 200
Luke
20:28
20:37
20:42,43
21:9
21:10
21:19
21:25,26
21:27
21:32
22:2
22:20
22:27,28
22:63f.
22:69
23:34
23:35
24:4
24:27
John
1:23
1:34
II:5 1
12:13
12:15
19:37
Acts
1:18,19
2:34
4: 8- II
4:24-3 0
4:26
7:3 2
7:49
10:38
13:33
13:34.35
28:26,27
45
20ff.
25
46
4 6f .
47
5 If.
52ff.
55f.
56
57ff.
74
61
60f.
62
62f.
146
21 4
9f.
30
21 3
40ff.
120f.
52ff.
202
25
173
162
141
20ff.
134
162
16d.
162
II6ff.
Romans
1:3
162
I Corinthians
II:25
57ff .
II Corinthians
3: 18
5: 16
13:1
82
192f.
139
Ephesians
5:3 1
16f.
Philippians
2:15
83f.
I Thessalonians
3: 13
14 2
I Timothy
5: 19
139
Titus
2:14
127f.
Hebrews
1:5
1:13
2:12
5:5
7:28
9:20
162
25
146
162
162
57 ff.
II Peter
1:17
36f.
Revelation
1:1
1:7
4: 1
22:6
46
52f f.
46
46